I have had an experience where a medium gave me two words that she could not possibly have guessed which means that information DID come from somewhere. The odds of this being just a lucky guess are really astronomical, at least to me.

That leaves a few possibilities. Not all of them pleasant.

1. Spiritual Mediums are special people that can SUCK thoughts and past memories out of the person they are talking to.

2. Spiritual Mediums are able to connect with the thoughts of the dead person. This does not mean the thoughts are "active" The thoughts that a person had through life may be always be available in existence and the right person can connect with those thoughts. The thoughts exist but are like a computer hard drive with no power. You can access them but they in fact are not capable of anything anymore.

3. Spiritual Mediums can connect with the consciousness of a dead person that has passed into another state of existence. (Hoping for this one of course.)

Well since I can connect to the dead...your third choice is the correct one...   or the men in the white coats should be on their way to get me.

Peace....Chantilly Chopper

Consider 2 ways skeptics discredit psychically gifted mediums.  (1) Channeling is discredited by cases in which the medium channels a loved one with accurate details that she would have no way of knowing when in fact this loved one is not dead at all and the channeling session is a charade. For example,
Dr. Sam Soal's brother died.  So Sam visited a famous medium, Blanche Cooper, in the hope of making contact. The seance was interrupted by "Gordon Davis," a former classmate of Sam's.  Sam had been told that Gordon was killed during World War I.  Gordon "proved" his identity with all sorts of accurate details about their life together in school.  Gordon even used jargon unique to his speaking style (e. g. "old chap," "confab)."  He lamented, "All I care about now is my wife and kiddie."  Sam later discovered that Gordon was alive after all and had been on a real estate business trip in London at the time of the seance.  The real Gordon knew nothing about this channeled communications!  You might ask, "Why isn't channeling discredited in this way more often?"  Answer: "How often are you told that a loved one is dead when in fact he [she] is alive?  Apparently, Blanche Cooper or her spirit control was able to exploit Sam's false belief in Gordon's death and then reconstruct his personality through clairvoyance! 

(2) Psychologists can invent a fictitious personality, meditate on it, and then go to a medium to contact it.  In two famous cases, the medium channeled the fictitious personality as if it were real and recently deceased!  The mediums even provided accurate details of this "personality's" life, but were humiliated when the bogus nature of their channeling was brutally exposed.  Cases like (1) and (2) place the burden of proof on the believer in channeling to show cause why alleged verifiable channeling should be construed as genuine contact with their deceased loved one.  Of course, one can claim that such cases are exceptions that do not apply to all cases.  But in my view, there is no credible reason to rationalize counter-cases in this way. 

Don

Berserk2 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 9:16pm:

Consider 2 ways skeptics discredit psychically gifted mediums.  (1) Channeling is discredited by cases in which the medium channels a loved one with accurate details that she would have no way of knowing when in fact this loved one is not dead at all and the channeling session is a charade. (2) Psychologists can invent a fictitious personality, meditate on it, and then go to a medium to contact it.  In two famous cases, the medium channeled the fictitious personality as if it were real and recently deceased!  The mediums even provided accurate details of this "personality's" life, but were humiliated when the bogus nature of their channeling was brutally exposed.  Cases like (1) and (2) place the burden of proof on the believer in channeling to show cause why alleged verifiable channeling should be construed as genuine contact with their deceased loved one.  Of course, one can claim that such cases are exceptions that do not apply to all cases.  But in my view, there is no credible reason to rationalize counter-cases in this way.  Don

Hi Don,

I mean no disrespect I just want to point to other possible explanations.

For #1 above:
I have run into this one myself.  I once attempted to retrieve an old high school buddy, thinking he was dead, after unexpectedly encountering him while I exploring some nonphysical area of consciousness.  It happens occassional but I don't understand how this fact "discredits" contact with the deceased.  All it does that I can see is to show that contact with the physically living is just as possible as contact with the deceased.  It may be that it is difficult to tell the dead ones from the live ones within a nonphysical perspective.  From my own experience it can be difficult to tell whether or not the person alive or deceased.

There are reports by those skilled in OBE describing observing physically alive people while the observer is in the OBE state.  Sometimes the observed activity of the alive person is later verified.  They also report observing deceased people while in the OBE state with details from the contact later verified.  So, does this "discredit" validated observation by OBE'ers, or suggest that perhaps both types of observation are possible?

Without looking at the "bigger picture" of one consciousness observing a second consciousness within a nonphysical perspective I can see how a skeptic could arrive at the conclusion you suggest.  But that may imply more about the skeptic's level of experience and understanding of nonphysical interaction between beings than about the "facts" of consciousness interaction.

For #2 above.
Several years ago a series of posts described something that, if it is true, may offer an alternate explanation for the "bogus" channelings.  A science fiction write posting on Rober Bruce's website explained that before writing his books he first, mentally created a very detailed science fiction "world" in which his story would take place.  An OBE'er posted back volunteering to try to find the writer's sci-fi world in an OBE state.  Several posts followed in which the writer was surprised at the level of detail the OBE'er gave to accurately describe the writer's bogus world.  It may be that "mentally creating" something actually creates it within a nonphysical area of consciousness.

A second example:
About 8 years ago my friend Rosalie and I created something call a "Meeting Place" for the purposes of teaching  my Partnered Exploration workshop.  We did this by actively imagining the place and tons of little details within and around it with the intention of creating a place workshop participants would later explore. 

To this day participants are able to imagine going to this Meeting Place and then accurately describe details Rosalie and I created.  Participants also routinely encounter each other while exploring this Meeting Place and accurrately describe their mutual activities.

My point is that it appears that when someone actively imagines a place, or a fictitious person, that person is creating the place or person within consciousness and these creations have a verifiable existence in the sense that these creations can be located and accurately described.

Again, I can understand how a skeptic could interpret contact with a bogus person as discrediting the medium, that is often the skeptic's goal.  But, again, this may say more about the skeptics level of understanding of the nature of consciousness than any discrediting of the medium. 

And I wonder, Don, how does the skeptic who created the fictitious person explain away the fact that "the mediums even provided accurate details of this "personality's" life."

Well, just some food for thought.  I wouldn't say that anything I have experienced or describe here is proof of anything to anyone but me.  And I feel that is as it should be.

Don, I really appreciate your clear-minded way and your presence here.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thanks for the case histories.  Let's consider the possibility that the medium contacted some level of Gordon's mind and did not gather information about Gordon via ESP from Sam's mind.  This possibility must be considered because occasionally the medium gains psychic information about a drop-in communicator unknown to both sittler and medium alike.  For example, an Icelandic medium channeled an unknown drop-in communicator who drowned in a drunken stupor and his bones later washed ashore.  A builder found these bones and hid them in the walls of a house he was building.  The dead man then came through the medium and demanded that his bones be retrieved from the walls and given a respectful burial. 

I can think of 3 alternative explanations here: (1) The medium actually was unexpectedly contacted by the deceased drowning victim.  (2) The medium psychically drew the information from the still living absent builder's mind.  (3) The medium psychically gleaned the information from the Akashic records or collective unconscious.  In cases (2) and (3), the medium would not be contacting the still living mind of the deceased.  But then how do we explain why information about this drowning victim intruded into the seance when no one present was thinking of him?  In this case, claims of spirit impersonation, though possible, seem like special pleading. 

In the Gordon Davis case, the medium might have made contact with Gordon's mind without the latter's awareness.  If so, then channeled contacts with the dead might glean information from the mind of the dead without their awareness, so that there is no genuine conversation back and forth.  But this interpretation strikes me as implausible for 3 reasons:  (1) No one present at the session was even thinking about Gordon at the time; rather, he was an unexpected drop-in communicator.  (2) I doubt this drop-in communication would have occurred unless Sam believed Davis was dead.  If so, then the medium surely derived her information psychically from Sam's mind, not Gordon's.  (3) Particularly problematic for the channeling theory is the fact that the accurate details channeled were presented with the clear implication that Gordon knew himself to be dead.  For these reasons, I think the medium was deriving her information from Sam's mind, not Gordon's.  The psychodynamics operating here should serve as a warning to those who construe verifiable details as evidence of genuine contact with a deceased loved one who is a knowing participant in that contact.

Similarly, in the case of duped mediums channeling a fictional personality, what is troubling is that this personality is likewise channeled as if it knows itself to be dead.  I don't agree with skeptics that this PROVES all channeling is bogus.  I just object to the glib assumption that verifiable details are most rationally contrued as genuine contact with a deceased spirit.

Don

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1248278090/0#0

Terethian, this post was only a couple of months ago.

What has changed? You were very sure. You sounded very happy about it. It makes me wonder, what has changed, and why do you view this experience differently, so much so that you question it here. Not that I criticize you at all, for taking a new approach. I just continue to wonder, what has changed?

Greetings,

If the collective consciousness is accessible and well organized, then it certainly answers all the situations that Don, Bruce, and Terethian have described. I believe it does so at some higher level, but that we can also contact individuals who are still in the astral.

In addition we may be personalizing (or anthropomorphizing?) the collective consciousness when we say that we are contacting a specific person, but perhaps that is just a needed interim step of understanding while we're in the mortal coil.  Don seems to think that disproves entire efforts, but to me it's just polite manners to speak of individuals to the family and friends who seek retrievals /visits with their loved ones.

Bets

Don-

There's another category of contacts with deceased persons that you didn't mention.

Namely, the medium might actually be in contact with a spirit, but not the spirit with whom the client desires. 

The spirit may instead be an impostor, passing himself off as the client's loved one and doing a pretty good job of it, fooling both the client and the medium.

This kind of situation was found by Swedenborg during his afterlife explorations.  Apparently, per ES, some mischievous and/or malicious spirits seem to derive great pleasure by misleading those of us who earnestly want to either learn about the afterlife or contact a deceased loved one.

Regarding Bruce's point about creating a nonphysical "place" in the afterlife, this probably explains the various hells ES describes.  They are places in the afterlife that conform to the desires (what ES would call our loves) of those who end up there.

Btw, the description Bruce gives about Max's hell is very consistent with Swedenborg's descriptions of the  hells he found during his explorations.

R

rondele wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 2:57pm:

Don- There's another category of contacts with deceased persons that you didn't mention. Namely, the medium might actually be in contact with a spirit, but not the spirit with whom the client desires.

That is completely irrelevant to me. If the medium is connecting with a spirit, any spirit, this proves in life after death. I don't care if it's some butt-hole spirit playing a joke, I care about the big picture. However I question even that a spirit is involved which is harder to prove.

Sometimes I think, though it's hard to articulate this thought, that the problem really lies in our complete misunderstanding of WHAT we actually are, ourselves. We think we are "physical" and we think this and that about our basic nature as creatures, but if we loosen up on that idea and definition, then we are actually spirit beings in a particular and temporary form and we move and breathe as part of that Out There spirit world we are all discussing...only think of ourselves as different from that world...when we are not, and when we are actually subject to all the meanderings and thought-creations and changefulness that That World Out There, spirit, is involved in. That's badly put...I don't know how to say this, I have thought about it a few times and can't articulate it right...if we stop thinking of ourselves as different, as "not-spirit", but as part and parcel of the spirit "afterlife" world, then possibilities open up and loosen up considerably. Honestly, I'm not drunk, it just sounds like it. Vee

I think a key point to ponder in this discussion is the concept of "mind" itself.  For western science can not really account for the causation of a coherent mind or thought.  Yes, electrochemical impulses can be mapped out in the brain.  Neurotransmitters can be followed, and levels assessed, but we can not, at this point in time explain the concept of "mind" and say it is just a reproducible physical phenomenon.

For years, many in neuroscience dismissed consciousness as some sort of feedback circuit seen in human beings but not in any other animals.  One prominent theory proposed that there really was no such thing as consciousness, it was simply an evolutionary oddity.  Rubbish.

Yet, in this thread, people talk about mediums reading minds, and seem to be saying that if this happens, it is not proof of the afterlife.  Huh?  Did I miss something?  What is actually being read in "mind reading?"  Since science does not support a coherent separate "mind" explained by physiological means, (other than psychiatry and psychology which do so not in explanatory form but for functional purposes), then if one person can read another's mind, we have a major breakthrough here. 

We have (dare I say it?), proof that we are more than our physical bodies.  If there is a realm of mind and thought, then that gives some of the strongest evidence to the notion of a realm independent of physical reality, including, yes, the afterlife.   

I have long rejected the "mind reading" argument as proof against an afterlife existence for these reasons.  Yes, one can argue that the metaphysical mind and thought in general, is somehow operant only in physical reality, but there is more and more proof that this premise is false.  So many verifications come through in one way or another that would need to be dismissed from NDEs to dream contacts, to visitations, visions, and miracles of all kind.

If we are more than our physical bodies, then what my friend Dave-MBS, on this board referred to as "the primacy of thought" must be considered - i.e. - that mind and thought are primary, and physical reality is secondary.

Once the primacy of thought is established, then Don's warnings still apply, namely that we may be contacting a still living person, or that mind reading may occur by a medium - yet we've just entered a realm where thought now exists on a separate plane from the physical world - which is, in my opinion more reason to believe in an afterlife then to doubt its existence.

Matthew

One situation that helps (but I'm not sure if it's under our control), is when someone like me can get basic, emotion or simple thought communication from their loved one, but not complex ideas or actual words.

So in my case, I *know* when I'm communicating with John (he's the other half of my soul, and my spouse for almost twenty years), and I can get "yes", "no", and feelings from him.

So I talk to a medium, they give me more complicated info, and I can ask him "That you?" and get an answer I know I can trust.

But as I said, that's not necessarily something we can just choose to have/use as a check on their input.

I know what I am, I just don't understand it completely.

While high on drugs, I had the epiphany that:

"I am a thought."

This does not mean I cannot be based on psychical cells combined which create thought. I do not know what the thought that is me comes from.... I cannot prove how it exists and where it comes from.

Then I thought, most likely, I am a thought. A passing thought, thinking for a short time, and then gone. Destroyed. Thoughtless.

Sure, it's also possible I am something more than a thought kept alive because of a body... but you cannot prove this to me.

My thoughts will live in agony and constant panic attacks due to the uncertainty. I so love life.

Actually I wish this was over. If I am this entity, this thing, possessing a psychical body, it stands to reason that I may choose to leave it at any time.

I choose to leave and never come back. This is horrible. I want to be what I am, not pretend to be something else. This entire existence is just a useless experience. My thought has traveled beyond this. What I feel, what others feel, the useless things I think I have to do. It's all pointless you know. And when I return to being a metaphysical being I will see it all as well. Even fun little fantasies and things I can concoct which may seem so real and fun are all nothing. Nothing and everything at the same time. No single word to describe it. Ultimately though I see the point is nothing. Don't you see? It only matters because we think it does. Nothing matters. If I would destroy the entire world, the entire existence, would it really make a difference? Things would be different or perhaps exactly the same since you cannot base anything on anything when nothing matters.

(The is no difference between a living body and a dead body, they are both made up of the same number of cells. - Dr Manhattan.)

I want to leave. I want to become the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end.
Something and nothing.

Oh yeah and before people hate on me I am not seriously addicted to drugs. I drink 1 to 3 glasses of wine a week or a few beers. I smoke sometimes yet I don't even enjoy it... Smoking the ganja is always followed by a return of my floating thoughts to death. My death, rotting, twitching, blood drained from the corpse death. Blackness. Nothingness. The End. These thoughts are guaranteed to come in fact. I am really really most likely not gonna smoke in the future. Drinking doesn't effect my mind.... I just wish it was safer to drink.

I need an absolute truth. I need an absolute complete PROVABLE fact that there is an afterlife, this is what happens. Here is the scientific test you can perform to prove it. This is it. The one thing that will put my mind to rest. Well, If I could see dead and or hear dead people that would work.

Satan devil, Jehova God, whatever powers that may be, I call forth upon you. Send me the powers to contact the dead. Do you not understand? I don't care if I have trouble sleeping from constant speaking. I don't care if "demons" come and tell me bad things and I go crazy from it.

At least I can go crazy AND have proof of an afterlife.
In the end this proof is everything to me. If I fail to obtain it..... then that means what happens is not guaranteed.

I have firmly established my fear of death, my phobia of death. It is rooted firmly in my soul. My fear is constant, continuous, it negatively effects my life. I am not living my life, I am slogging through it, only thinking of my death.

Come on. Dead spirits, come to me. I call you. I call all of you. Come all at once. Come into my dreams. Haunt me. Show me you are real. Scare the crap out of me. I call you with text, I call you verbally, I call you with my mind. ALL of you. Come to me. Prove yourself. Mess with me. Make me freak out from strange things. I challenge you. I seek you. I need you. Do your worst.

After all of this you know what happens? All of this begging for contact? What in the world is the end result?

....... nothing.


Then you reply to me, well of course, you expect nothing so you get nothing.

Ahh my friend, this is not completely true.
1. It's true that I do not expect a result whatsoever.
2. I do hope for a result, I want one.

If you ask me the wanting should be enough to make it through, especially when I want it this badly.

I am selfish. I tell you now I would do anything for the truth. I would pay anything. I would kill anyone. I would destroy the world. If I had a nuclear bomb and a button in front of me, I would hit it if that was what it took to prove an afterlife exists. I would suck the life and soul from every being in this world if it meant the continuation of my existence. My selfishness is complete, utter, terrible. I feel no remorse. I feel only what I consider a natural reaction.

Actually that would be pretty cool. I love sci-fi. I would be the bad guy. I accept this as a fact. I am at terms with it. I don't feel bad. I am inherently selfish, evil. Of course, since none of this is possible I am pretty nice on the outside.

Isn't there someone that can help me? I am begging for help. Please. What do you want? all of my money? Want me to be your slave? Whatever, I just need absolute scientific proof. The kind that is so complete that everyone can publish it in a text book and sell it and teach it in schools. Nothing short of this will suffice.

I am in torment.
Yes. torment. turmoil. I am lost. I am without hope.
I have no faith since faith is not logical.

I want to stupidly believe in an afterlife. I want to be content and smile when I look at grave stones, knowing they are safe and happy. Why can't I be stupid. Why must I question so. Why do I think like this. It is not okay. I am not okay. I am very very not okay.

HAHA!!! You could argue I am stupid. You could say I am ruining what I have by this panic and obsession. Yes I see that point as well. Funny when you think about it.

Before anyone says It's just me not being busy enough.... no... I work 12-16 hour days sometimes. I have many youtube videos I am working on, I have a zombie story I am working on. I keep myself pretty busy. It doesn't matter. Death is always there. Always follows me.

How about this, I call the metaphysical oneness or whatever, hear my call... let me live forever. Come on, think about it, maybe I will learn more. Let me be the forever man. No longer mortal. Come on, it could be fun. The world needs more excitement anyway. Oh yeah, I am the metaphysical oneness. I am the alpha omega. I can simply do anything because I am everything and nothing, connected with all things.

Yep, I choose a non mortal human body. I will live forever.

Problem solved.

Terethian, you said (among other things)
"I have firmly established my fear of death, my phobia of death. It is rooted firmly in my soul. My fear is constant, continuous, it negatively effects my life. I am not living my life, I am slogging through it, only thinking of my death."

Wow, I am listening intently to this statement. I can only imagine that it is true, that you are describing your actual state of mind much of the time. Who needs demons or tormentors when you can do this to yourself?

I cannot and never have been able to tolerate these kinds of thoughts, which I began having when I was in my teens and early twenties. This is precisely why I use guided meditation to change my thoughts. Because I believe that I am my thoughts, that I am my beliefs.

So, great, that you recognize that you are your thoughts.

But that is so small. You are also more than your thoughts. Much more. There is an interplay between your thoughts and those of others, living and dead. In this reality you are the medium. You are asking but not yet believing.

I honestly think we must come to these experiences just like little children. When it feels right, when it happens, when it is right, you will just know it.

Terethian, some lines of your thoughts are familiar to me. I ended up with the conclusion that finally, I will know- at the latest when my physical existence ends. That's a fact, isn't it? Until that, I have to find a way to live on as comfortable as possible. Maybe we'll get all the answers within our physical life, maybe not, we don't know. So we just move on, until we move on.

Spooky

Hi, all.
This is the old question about the "Super-PSI". In a nutshell, do Mediums contact Spirits, or do they "suck" memories from a Cosmic Library where each thought of billions of humans are stored like in a hard disk? I think that both explanations sound good. In a recent post, one of my readers wrote about her experiences with a talented italian Medium and with a bereaved mother who contacts the deceased by the means of her tape recorder (EVP's). The EVP was very clear: "Please greet Ivan's mother". Here deceased son Gaetano hadn't friends with this name, nor her relatives and friends, so she was very puzzled until, in the evening, she met another bereaved mother (they were at a congress). This lady, talking about our usual topics on the Afterlife, showed her a picture of her deceased son...guess his name?  IVAN!
Now, how can we think that this piece of info has been "sucked" from the Akashic Records? Could your HD store an info about a future occurence (in this case the casual meeting between the ladies?)
More. This same person, got a message from another Medium who told her many true details about her son, telling even the name of his best friend and even his job. The Medium frankly admitted that these news hadn't came from her son, but from her (medium's) Guide in spirit, because her son was still "sleeping". This second set of informations seems to be a good one taken from the Ak. Records, because it doesn't forecast anything.
What's your thoughts? ;)

Thanks Claudio,

The discomfort of data that don't fit our perspective generally robs our spirituality quest of honest openness.  For example, posters here seek out NDEs in which the Being of Light is construed as the Higher Self in keeping with New Age preconceptions.  So what we need is unique data that force us to confront the complexity of the mysteries of afterlife contact.  Examples like yours are antidotes to a naive New Age fundamentalism.  Thank you!

Don 

Bruce Moen wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 11:16pm:

Berserk2 wrote on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 9:16pm: Consider 2 ways skeptics discredit psychically gifted mediums.  (1) Channeling is discredited by cases in which the medium channels a loved one with accurate details that she would have no way of knowing when in fact this loved one is not dead at all and the channeling session is a charade. (2) Psychologists can invent a fictitious personality, meditate on it, and then go to a medium to contact it.  In two famous cases, the medium channeled the fictitious personality as if it were real and recently deceased!  The mediums even provided accurate details of this "personality's" life, but were humiliated when the bogus nature of their channeling was brutally exposed.  Cases like (1) and (2) place the burden of proof on the believer in channeling to show cause why alleged verifiable channeling should be construed as genuine contact with their deceased loved one.  Of course, one can claim that such cases are exceptions that do not apply to all cases.  But in my view, there is no credible reason to rationalize counter-cases in this way.  Don Hi Don, I mean no disrespect I just want to point to other possible explanations. For #1 above: I have run into this one myself.  I once attempted to retrieve an old high school buddy, thinking he was dead, after unexpectedly encountering him while I exploring some nonphysical area of consciousness.  It happens occassional but I don't understand how this fact "discredits" contact with the deceased.  All it does that I can see is to show that contact with the physically living is just as possible as contact with the deceased.  It may be that it is difficult to tell the dead ones from the live ones within a nonphysical perspective.  From my own experience it can be difficult to tell whether or not the person alive or deceased. There are reports by those skilled in OBE describing observing physically alive people while the observer is in the OBE state.  Sometimes the observed activity of the alive person is later verified.  They also report observing deceased people while in the OBE state with details from the contact later verified.  So, does this "discredit" validated observation by OBE'ers, or suggest that perhaps both types of observation are possible? Without looking at the "bigger picture" of one consciousness observing a second consciousness within a nonphysical perspective I can see how a skeptic could arrive at the conclusion you suggest.  But that may imply more about the skeptic's level of experience and understanding of nonphysical interaction between beings than about the "facts" of consciousness interaction. For #2 above. Several years ago a series of posts described something that, if it is true, may offer an alternate explanation for the "bogus" channelings.  A science fiction write posting on Rober Bruce's website explained that before writing his books he first, mentally created a very detailed science fiction "world" in which his story would take place.  An OBE'er posted back volunteering to try to find the writer's sci-fi world in an OBE state.  Several posts followed in which the writer was surprised at the level of detail the OBE'er gave to accurately describe the writer's bogus world.  It may be that "mentally creating" something actually creates it within a nonphysical area of consciousness. A second example: About 8 years ago my friend Rosalie and I created something call a "Meeting Place" for the purposes of teaching  my Partnered Exploration workshop.  We did this by actively imagining the place and tons of little details within and around it with the intention of creating a place workshop participants would later explore.  To this day participants are able to imagine going to this Meeting Place and then accurately describe details Rosalie and I created.  Participants also routinely encounter each other while exploring this Meeting Place and accurrately describe their mutual activities. My point is that it appears that when someone actively imagines a place, or a fictitious person, that person is creating the place or person within consciousness and these creations have a verifiable existence in the sense that these creations can be located and accurately described. Again, I can understand how a skeptic could interpret contact with a bogus person as discrediting the medium, that is often the skeptic's goal.  But, again, this may say more about the skeptics level of understanding of the nature of consciousness than any discrediting of the medium.  And I wonder, Don, how does the skeptic who created the fictitious person explain away the fact that "the mediums even provided accurate details of this "personality's" life." Well, just some food for thought.  I wouldn't say that anything I have experienced or describe here is proof of anything to anyone but me.  And I feel that is as it should be. Don, I really appreciate your clear-minded way and your presence here. Bruce

HI Bruce! How about giving me some other persons testimonies about what you have explained above, including members of your inner website circle? Instead of just writing about it without any written evidence or quotes from others!? If you can "imagine", as you say often, a new meeting place in the afterlife,  then visualizing it into an afterlife fact, then agreeing with others who describe it! How do we know you are not just making it up(agreeing with others in their descriptions of your imagined or make-believe place)for future eventual monetary gain? How about "imagining" a new place in the afterlife, and telling Don about it, whom I honestly trust, then asking your inner circle group to describe it on your website? Or are you going to put this into your "too hard basket?" And bar me and delete this post!? Sincerely. Carl & Family.          

Somewhat related, Carl,
is my husband's recent vivid dream.  He does not read Afterlife material and we've talked about very few posts here. So I was surprised the other morning when he described a dream scene where he met with another couple, with me off to the side abit, and they talked at an outdoor cafe in front of broad lawns. The building behind them was buff-colored stone  and stucco, a material rarely used around our area.

To me it seemed as though he had found the Reception Center in the AL.  If so, did we OB there together, was he reading my mind, or pulling the information from the cosmic cosnsciousness?

Bets

Berserk2 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2009 at 3:06pm:

The discomfort of data that don't fit our perspective generally robs our spirituality quest of honest openness.  For example, posters here seek out NDEs in which the Being of Light is construed as the Higher Self in keeping with New Age preconceptions.  So what we need is unique data that force us to confront the complexity of the mysteries of afterlife contact.  Don

Don, who do you thing the being of light is? I think it could be Christ or maybe it is a greater part of me. I would like to know what you think it is. Thanks.

smidee

The really funny thing about all this is technically I had a medium tell me some very dead on facts about the dead person and me, things that could have been guesses but the odds of making those guesses with NO WRONG answers is amazing.

Then she says that the deceased says "they are beautiful." This is definitely not coming from me because I really don't care about looks at all. Obviously the dead person cared how she looked because in life she was stuck in a wheel chair and was very big.

Still, my mind cannot accept this as proof. Cannot except this as absolute proof of an afterlife. It's great being an intelligent questioning / thinking / reasoning human being! Hooray! I think I'll go have another panic attack. My blood drained from my body. Corpse rotting away. Blackness. The end of everything... the end of me.

Don, who do you thing the being of light is? I think it could be Christ or maybe it is a greater part of me. I would like to know what you think it is. Thanks".
________________________________________
Good question, Smidee.  It is important to note that not everyone experiences the Being of Light as an overwhelmingly loving divine being.  Spirit beings routinely manifest as light beings, especially when they see no need to assume human shape.  The being of light can be artificially created through skilled electro-stimulation of the brain by medical researchers.  So at its most basic level, it may just be a human archetype.  But for some, the Being of Light is brighter than the sun, though it does not hurt the "spirit eyes."  In its brightest manifestations, it usually does not identify itself; rather, it entices a projected identity from the NDEr that often reflects that person's needs and preconceptions.  So the Being of Light can be different discarnate humans, an angelic presence, or God [Christ] Himself.  Who we attract depends on our level of spiritual growth and the bias of our belief system. 

Jesus often seems to be an exception.  He routinely makes His identity as Jesus clear, even to atheists-- amd sometimes, unexpectedly to Jews and Muslims.  Does He often appear to non-Christians and merely conceal His identity to avoid shocking their belief system?  I think so; but this possibility remains an open question.

I think posters often make the same mistake about the Being of Light that they do about astral park experiences.  One must not infer a location in Paradise or Focus 27 simply on the grounds that one experiences a pretty park.  Parks or gardens are archtypal and, as such, may well be a standard initial locale for many spirit planes, including hollow heavens.  One does not simply drop out of the astral sky and crash flat-butt into the "ground" of one's new astral home!   :D

Don 

Don 

Gogo, finally a few posts that make me want to check in from time to time on this site again - Don, Bruce, and now Terethian's great post all in one thread!

In response to Terethian's long post in the middle of this thread I'd say that Jesus makes the claim that if we seek after God hard enough we can find him.

[quote/] "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. [/quote]

This is a testable claim.  I'd say test it.  Ask that God make it clear to you from something or someone that the afterlife exists.  The trick for you though is that it sounds to me like there might not be evidence that could do it for you, or that you've already had great evidence and seem to be not accepting it for some reason.  If you really want to do this, have an open mind and be willing to accept the evidence as it comes in (if it does), and earnestly pray for evidence of the afterlife.  It also may not work out to ask for things that are impossible (God please make me a square circle) or ask for things that are very specific (please make an elephant invade my apartment and pick me up with its trunk).  Just earnestly ask & pray, and be open to what happens.  If God exists, and you are honestly asking, he will respond.  Also keep in mind your proof may work for you but not someone else; they may need their own evidence.

Edit; hmm - how do I change this in text to make that an actual quote?

Pratekya,

I like your style.  And I love these quotes from the New Testament (although I am not a Christian - they resonate truth in me).  They are taken by many spiritual people even some in the "New Age" movement, as sayings that prove that we can either be empowered through God and our own deep seated conviction/belief, or we can believe in nothing and feel that we are adrift in an ocean in the midst of a torrential storm, where we have no way to control our fate. 

I've often thought that to explore the "ask and ye shall receive" axiom, one can try experimenting at night in that twilight state just prior to sleep.  If, while completely relaxed, you give yourself a simple suggestion, be it a time to wake up the next morning, or the answer to a problem that has been vexing you - if whatever your issue is, you apply it with the intent and follow through (the "see it as being done" or solved already as some christian healing groups do),  you will often see results in manifest in the real world.  Often, giving thanks, and cultivating a feeling of grace, and asking that things be done in the best interest of all involved help one apply intent.  Admittedly, this technique can work during the daytime too, but only when relaxed and resolute.

This type of exercise, in my opinion shows several things.  First, that we have a connection to something greater than ourselves (i.e. God and the universal mind).  Second, that we are more than our physical bodies, for physiology alone does not explain how applying human intent could achieve anything.  Third, if we can create our own reality in the physical plane, might we be able to do it more easily in the afterlife or mental planes?

It is through such experiences that I've experienced the most stunning responses personally to date, apart from dreams, lucid dreams and a few paranormal experiences.

Good discussion,

Matthew

I think my primary issue with finding proof is I am quite familiar with human nature.....

Finding a pattern, an image in the blobs of ink. We see what we want to see. We expect the image to exist because then the picture makes sense.

But that is just us fooling ourselves...

Thank you for infos Don. I remeber when I was sleeping one time I saw a light that was way off a long ways but I could feel it sending out PUL and when I felt it I wanted to go to it, but then just felt me waking up. It was a very bright light and like you said and it didn't hurt to see it.  I don't know what it was but maybe Christ or an angel. It felt like it was somethin good because of it sending the PUL.
smidee

In regards to Terethian's latest post about human nature finding patterns where one is expected -
  I agree, people make meaning from their experiences, and that meaning can be positive or negative.  Two people can see the same event and one can call it a miracle and one can call it good fortune.  In fact Jesus addressed this on different levels as well.  In one passage he said

[/quote] "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! [\quote]

So perception does play a big role in our internal reality, or rather maybe our internal reality affects our perception of life a great deal.

  However, the bigger issue is whether there is not objective truth and reality outside of our own subjective observation / intuition / knowledge of that reality.  The surest way we can do this is through using principles of science and logic.  And using principles of science and logic lend a lot of rational people to believe in the afterlife and God.  Here are some objective reasons:
1.  The creation of the universe.  This event began all of matter, time, space and energy.  We know that:
A.  All things that begin to exist have a cause
B.  The universe began to exist
C.  Therefore the universe had a beginning and a cause.

So there was something that was beyond all matter, time, space and energy that actually caused all of these things.  This does not imply monotheism, or even Christianity necessarily, but does imply something that is beyond all matter, time, space and energy that caused creation.  Something that is greater than those attributes.

I need to go but will add more later.

Hi Carl,


carl wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

HI Bruce! How about giving me some other persons testimonies about what you have explained above, including members of your inner website circle? Instead of just writing about it without any written evidence or quotes from others!?

In my view no amount of any other person's testimonies or evidence, mine or anyone elses, can possibly prove that I, or they, have actually experienced anything that existes beyond physical reality.  No matter whether it is written, tape recorded, delivered in a face to face contact, delivered with a hand on a stack of Bibles, or in a court of law.  There will ALWAYS be room for doubt on the part of someone who has not directly experience these things.

To some that may seem to be a cop out, but after years and years of exploring beyond physical reality I find it to be true.  No amount of other people's evidence can be completely convincing.  Even after a person begins to have these experiences it is typically difficult to accept ones own experiences as anything other than some sort of self-deceptive hoax.  It took me years of having these kinds of experiences before I could begin to believe I wasn't just making them up.  I had to find ways to prove it to myself beyond my own doubts.  What I finally came up with was what I call the Basic Premise:

1.  Find a way to make contact and communicate and communicate with person who is known to be deceased.

2.  Gather information from this person you have absolutely no way of knowing except by this contact and communication.

3.  Seek to verify within physical reality that this informations is accurate and real.

4.  If you can verify the information you still  haven't "proven" anything, but you have gathered evidence that this deceased person still exists, somewhere beyond physical reality.

As you can see in posts by others in this thread there are possible alternate explanations to cause dismissal of evidence gathered using my approach.  In my case eventually the weight of all the evidence, and its internal consistency within a much larger perspective crushed my doubts.  But I tell everyone in every workshop I give to not believe a single word I say, rather, gather your own evidence through your own direct experience, and then come to your own conclusions.

Nothing anyone says can or should be cause for you to change your beliefs, only your own direct experience can or should be cause for you to consider changing your beliefs.


carl wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

If you can "imagine", as you say often, a new meeting place in the afterlife,  then visualizing it into an afterlife fact, then agreeing with others who describe it!

There are two ways this is done in the Partnered Exploring workshops.  First, the descriptions of the details Rosalie and I created have been written in the teaching outline I use for years.  Those who have attended the workshop more than once would tell you that the descriptions I give don't change from one workshop to the next.  Second, there are often real-time events, during the exercises in which we are exploring the Meeting Place, that are verified after the exercises.  There are two basic types of these events that often occur during the exercises: interactions between participants; interactions between myself and participants.

Participants routinely encounter each other, nonphysically, during the exercises and routinely verify whatever mutal experience they had together. 

Sometimes during an exercise I will attempt to interact with individuals or groups, nonphysically, in a way that might be remembered by them after the exercise and serve to verify their experience of the encounter.  Here's an example from a workshop in Tokyo.

There were about seven groups of participants with five to seven people in each group.  I was guiding an exercise to explore the Meeting Place (through a translator) when suddenly realized that I was nonphyically standing with one of the groups.  It was a group of five or six women.  I decided to try to interact with this group with the intent that they would be aware of my presence in their group and remember the interaction after the exercise.  They were standing together, talking (nonphysically) to each other.  I moved  (nonphysically) to the center of their group and began talking loudly to them (nonphysically) to try to get their attention.  That ploy worked and so I began saying and doing things that I hoped they might remember later.  As I was doing this I happened to look off to my left  (nonphysically) and saw another of the groups in the workshop, and saw that I was also standing  (nonphysically) in the middle of that group, talking to them at the same time.  This came as a bit of a surprise to me, but it isn't the first time I have found myself in two different places at the same time.  Thinking this was a perfect opportunity to give the ladies in the group I was standing in something to remember after the exercise, I made exggerated movements with my hands to get the ladies to focus on them.  Then with an exaggerated sweep of my hands I pointed at the other me standing with the other group, hoping they would look at what I was pointing to.  When I did this I was in for another surprise as I realized that the me in the other group had done the same thing and that me was pointing back at the me standing with the ladies.  And then as I looked around I was in for another surprise.  I saw all the other groups (remember, all of this is happening nonphysically) and saw that there was another me standing in each group point a finger at one of the other me's in another group.  I hope that description wasn't too confusing.

After the exercise, when I shared this experience with the whole group, one man, named Ken, suddenly looked very shocked.  He then shared with the entire workshop group that he had witnessed it all just as I had described, but, he had seen me in all the groups before I had seen myself in the second group.  Kn experienced a quite strong belief system crash as a result of his experience.  Coincidently (?).  Ken was in the second group.  Ken also supplied, in his debriefing, details of the Meeting Place that to me indicated that he had been there and observed the place.

BTW, Ken recently informed me that he has written a manuscript for a book, in Japanese of course, and is working toward getting it published.


carl wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

How do we know you are not just making it up(agreeing with others in their descriptions of your imagined or make-believe place) for future eventual monetary gain?

Carl, the Afterlife Knowledge Guidebook contains every concept, technique and exercise I have ever taught in the Exploring the Afterlife workshop.  everything you need to begin learning how to have these experiences is contained in that book.  There are written scripts for all twenty-six exercises so that readers can make their own exercise tapes or CDs instead of buying the set I recorded in my own voice.  When someone buys a copy of that book in a bookstore my "monetary gain?" is approximately 85 cents.  If I am doing this only for the money it is a really inefficient, stupid way on my part to try to swindle people out of their money for my own "monetary gain" don't you think" 


carl wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

How about "imagining" a new place in the afterlife, and telling Don about it, whom I honestly trust, then asking your inner circle group to describe it on your website? Or are you going to put this into your "too hard basket?"

Carl, I don't have any "inner circle group."  And if you expect that doing this would actually prove anything to you, in my opinion, it is not something for the "too hard basket" it goes into the "impossible to do basket."  If it is someone else's experience there wll ALWAYS be some room for you to doubt it, distrust it, and dismiss it.  In my opinion to prove it to yourself is only possible through your own direct experience.

Carl, are you going to put this task into "your too hard basket?" "


carl wrote on Sep 27^th, 2009 at 2:08am:

And bar me and delete this post!?

Carl, the only people (and there are very few of them) who are ever banned from this site are those who, after being warned via email, repeatedly, flaggantly violate the Posting Guidelines.  Disagreeing with me isn't listed there and quite frankly I expect  folks will disagree with me.  Proving the existence of anything that exists beyond physical reality to ones self (let alone to others) isn't an easy task.

Bruce

Pratekya,


pratekya wrote on Sep 28^th, 2009 at 6:14pm:

Edit; hmm - how do I change this in text to make that an actual quote?

To do this type the word  quote  within brackets like these  [ ]  and then your desire quotation, and then the word  /quote  inside those same kind of brackets.

Bruce

Related to what Bruce found, I agree that people have to have their own experience in order to get rid of their doubt. I've told people things for which I believed they would end up being convinced, then later on I'd be surprised to find that they weren't. It's puzzling, because if you knew me you wouldn't think I'm crazy or lying.

Even though verifications can be usefull, what really has an impact are experiences that don't include information that can be verified, but take place in a manner that is beyond what World based memories could lead to and in a manner that is certain while you have the experience.

I've also kept detailed notes and analyzed them very thoroughly, and after a while the dots connect quite well. Nevertheless, a portion of one's mind can be quite stubborn. It seems as if this portion of mind doesn't want to be convinced. When you finally get it to keep quiet, it is a relief.

For absolutely no reason whatsoever that I can figure out I feel better... for now.

I still worry a little but I feel almost... ALMOST at peace. Wierd huh? I mean I am not even convinced... I just feel calmer now.

Hi, Bruce.
I've made up a photo-shop to depict my own Meeting Place that you can see at this address:

http://www.webalice.it/cipidoc/cascan.jpg

I'm curious to know if it resembles your MP ! ;)

Have good spiritual mediums sometimes been unable to contact someone that has recently passed due to the person being unaware that they are dead and in an odd mental state or blackness etc.?

This would help confirm the statement that you may experience nothing or blackness / blackout for a time / long time when you die....

Terethian,

After reading sevral books on channeled evidence, I am skeptical of the legitimacy of all channeled communications.  But the cases that give me pause are those in which the contactee is unavailable for various reasons, such as Claudio's example. 

Astral explorers have independently reported an odd phenomenon of lower planes called soul statues.  Typically, these souls are oblivious to their surroundings and therefore seem very vulnerable to invasive intruders.  They are surrounded by gloomy swamp-like conditions which apparently reflect their somber inner state.  I suspect that soul statues are in fact experiencing a certain type of past life review discussed by ES.  If so, they would surely be unavailable for mediumistic contact.  In my view, those mediums who can always contact a loved one are clearly self-deluded.

Don

I really doubt that existence is set up so it isn't possible for people in this World to communicate with deceased loved ones, because to suggest such a thing is to suggest that for some reason an unbreakable barrier between the physical World and spirit World exists.

Outside of the fact of how it doesn't make sense to conclude that existence would be set up in such a way, much evidence, outside of what alleged mediums have to say, show that it is possible to communcicate with spirits that abide in a realm other than some sort of lower realm.

I believe that a number of well known mediums are frauds, but I don't believe this means all mediums are frauds.

Regarding mediums who come up with information that can be verified, and whether this information is the result of a medium unknowingly reading a person's mind, getting information from a misleading spirit who is pretending to be a deceased loved one, getting information from a deceased love one, or a light being who presents information on behalf of deceased loved one, for the most part, only a medium who has kept good track of the information he or she has received and analyzed it with good discernment can tell whether one of the first two possibilities or one of the later two possibilities provide an explanation as to where information received comes from.

I state that it is possible for a person to determine what is actually taking place, because after receiving many messages from spirits, I've found that it is possible to figure out what's taking place. Sure there might be occasions when confusion takes place, but this doesn't mean that confusion takes place all of the time.

I'm not certain, but I believe that Don believes that some sort of barrier is placed between people in this World and the World of spirit, because there is too much of a chance that a person will unwittingly be misled by a deceptive spirit.

As far as I'm concerned, to take such an approach is similar to making the choice to not leave your house, because you might run into unfriendly people. Some people might say its easier to discriminate people than it is to discriminate spirits, but considering how people do things such as follow fake gurus, have relationships with more than one abusive person, vote for politicians in an unwise way, "listen to fake mediums," etc., it's not that easy to discriminate people.

Whether a person deals with people or spirits, he needs to learn to discriminate in a discerning manner. Once he does so, he shouldn't let unfriendly people or spirits control him by limiting him. If he refrains from making contact with the spirit World because he allows deceptive spirits to deter him, he allows such spirits to gain a minor victory.

I say minor, because I believe that in the end deceptive spirits will fail. One of the reasons they will fail is because some people don't allow themselves to be intimidated by them, they go ahead and make contact with friendly spirits, and as a result can assist friendly spirits in the manner they need to be assisted.

If people find a way where they can make contact with friendly spirits, they'll find that they won't need to rely on somebody else to "possibly" communicate to a deceased loved one for them. In fact, they probably won't have such an inclination. They'll gain enough knowledge to realize that when a loved one moves on to the spirit World it is time to part ways until one rejoins the spirit World.

I say this with the thought that a person shouldn't weigh a deceased loved one down by being attached to this loved one or being concerned about this loved one. Say some prayers on a beloved one's behalf, and then allow he or she to get on with what he or she needs to take care of.

Outside of how making contact with my spirit guidance has enabled me to provide various types of spirit assistance, making contact has helped me grow spiritually in a very significant way. It would've been a big mistake for me to declare myself as unworthy and incapable of making contact in a meaningful way.

When we return to the World of spirit we'll be in contact with our guides, and there will be nothing wrong with being in contact, so how can it be a mistake to be in contact now? Is it wrong to be in contact with love now, because love is something that only belongs to the World of spirit? Of course not. If you make contact with a spirit who represents the light, then you make contact with love personified.

Some people don't want to make contact with spirit guidance because they want to be self dependent. I've found that being in contact with genuine guidance isn't opposed to self dependence.  If fact, genuince guidance can help you find what self dependence is all about...in truth we are never separated from the oneness we are all a part of.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the wide world of debate over The Afterlife
is that there is such a wide range of differing beliefs. We have so many religions, my parents are Jehovah's Witnesses, most people claim to be Christians, some people don't believe in God, some think we are God. Some believe in nothing. Some believe you are reincarnated right away. Some believe we are all part of a big collective consciousness and we return to it when we die. It's all so vast, differing, and frustrating. They can't all be right.

It's a fine line after all... there is either something, or nothing. Which is all that matters to me in the short term. I want to exist forever. I really fear this ceasing to exist very much. I am much calmer however. Somehow I calmed down a bit.

Terethian, you said below: "It's all so vast, differing, and frustrating. They can't all be right."

Why not, Terethian? Why can't they all be right? Is that really impossible?


wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2009 at 12:07am:

One of the biggest drawbacks to the wide world of debate over The Afterlife is that there is such a wide range of differing beliefs. We have so many religions, my parents are Jehovah's Witnesses, most people claim to be Christians, some people don't believe in God, some think we are God. Some believe in nothing. Some believe you are reincarnated right away. Some believe we are all part of a big collective consciousness and we return to it when we die. It's all so vast, differing, and frustrating. They can't all be right. It's a fine line after all... there is either something, or nothing. Which is all that matters to me in the short term. I want to exist forever. I really fear this ceasing to exist very much. I am much calmer however. Somehow I calmed down a bit.

wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2009 at 12:07am:

One of the biggest drawbacks to the wide world of debate over The Afterlife is that there is such a wide range of differing beliefs. We have so many religions, . . .  They can't all be right.

A long time ago, when I was in my late teens, I became completely dissolussioned with the religion I was raised in.  They required their members to believe that new born infants, who had the misfortune to take one breath and then die without being baptised, were sent straight to eternal damnation in hell.  That was the last straw.  I just couldn't stick with a religion that believed Adam and Eve's Original Sin could logically and rightly lead to such an outcome.

I found myself faced with the task of trying to find the 'one true religion' so I could join that religion and be certain I would avoid entering the hell my previous religion had described after my eventual, certain death.  So, I started studying the world's religions.  What I was using as my standard of judgment was a simple criteria.  There could be zero internally conflicting beliefs with a 'true religion.'

After studying lots of different religions, from Christian to Zen there wasn't a single religion I could find that met my simple criteria.  Most had some form of All Loving/Vengeful God at the basis of their beliefs.  In my way of thinking whatever God was It could be either one of those, but not both. 

Eventually I realized that there were common threads that ran through most all religions.  By that time I had given up any hope of finding the One True Religion and was willing to settle for The Truth about how one should live their lives to avoid eternal hell.  (The hell of my former religion still had me worried as it described a really uncomfortable place to spend eternity)

I decided that while none of the religions I studied held the Truth to could keep me out of hell, whatever was common to the largest number of religions was probably closer to that Truth than any single one of them could ever be.  With that I began to strive for adherence to those common threads.  That relieved the pressure and let me get on with my life with less fear about hell.

Eventually I came to believe what I believe, for now, today.  And I came to believe that nothing should be cause for anyone to change their beliefs about The Truth except their own, direct experience.

I hear you when you say . . .

Quote:

One of the biggest drawbacks to the wide world of debate over The Afterlife is that there is such a wide range of differing beliefs.

And I would reply by saying that for me, what is common to all those differing beliefs is probably closer to the Truth (if such a Truth exists) than any one of them.  But just listening to the debate wouldn't be very satisfying to me.  I am the kind of person who has to be finding what to believe based on what I myself experience.

Enough!  I will climb down off my soapbox now.

Bruce

Bruce Moen wrote on Oct 10^th, 2009 at 9:07am:

[quote author=58697E697864656D620C0 link=1253649466/35#35 date=1254542867] But just listening to the debate wouldn't be very satisfying to me.  I am the kind of person who has to be finding what to believe based on what I myself experience. Bruce

So true.

No matter what anybody says it is only through personal experience that you should turn it into 'belief' .

I also looked at different religions coming from a largely secular background ( more common I think in the UK than US). I thought maybe humanism might be more appropriate for me as it seemed more people friendly. However, I also found it too limiting because it tends to be sceptical of spirituality adopting the current scientific paradigm of materialism.

However, I agree with the previous posters - why have an 'off the peg' belief system when you can use your direct experience...

I really think most so called spiritual mediums are using telepathy and taping into the memory of their victims

Alan

I must admit I used to believe that by definition mediums were hucksters using a mixture of cold-reading and bereaved gullibility to gain their 'hits'.I remember laughing when I heard that my mother-in-law was consulting a medium and as a 'science-type' dismissed it out of hand.

I now believe that my scepticism is no longer tenable. I changed my mind partly due to personal experience and partly to the increasingly sophisticated experiments by people such as Gary Schwartz (The Afterlife Experiments) and latterly by Julie Beischel at the Windbridge Institute (http://www.windbridge.org) which control for cold reading, rater bias, fraud etc. As for the 'reading mind' argument that becomes more unlikely in the face of many reported cases of information which the subject does not know and  is later is revealed as correct. I also believe that ethical talented mediums can offer valuable help for the bereaved as long as the 'bad apples' are avoided.

So now when I hear sceptics start with 'so called mediums use a technique called cold-reading...'  - I think to myself how does that work when sitter and medium are on different continents and a proxy sitter is used !

Dave