I believe it is important to not equate channeling in a Jane Roberts kind of way as being equivalent to mediumship.

If one doesn't make this connection, then it might become possible to see that it might not be easy for a medium to receive answers for the list of questions Berserk listed (as seen below). Having a spirit use your body to communicate and receiving messages isn't the same thing.

I have received a lot of spirit messages and there is somewhat of a communication gap. The messages I received most clearly are symbolic visual images.  Interpretive skill is key when communication is received in this way. If you receive a number of messages in this way one after the other, it is hard to remember all of the details when you write down what you were shown.

Sometimes I'll receive words either by hearing them or seeing them in written form. When this method of communication is used not more than a sentence at a time can be received. Therefore, I can't receive sentence after sentence as happens with channeling.

There have been occasions when I've had an extended conversation with a spirit being, but for whatever reason (s), afterwards, I can hardly remember what was communicated during such a conversation.

One thing extensive communication with spirits has shown me is that there are beings who are well aware of what is going on in this World. They have evolved to a point where they don't need to be completely isolated from this World in order to maintain their advanced state of being.

This being the case, it is possible that deceased loved ones can communicate with people who are still on this Earth as long as such a deceased loved has a state of consciousness that makes this possible.

Imagination this situation. A person is really grieving after having lost a loved one. This person visits a medium who is capable of communicating with spirits. The deceased loved one isn't able to communicate at the time. So what happens? A friendly spirit being communicates in place of the deceased loved one so the grieving person can be helped.

Such as occurence isn't a matter of a friendly spirit being dishonest. It is a matter of a love-based being doing what is needed, rather than being limited by the viewpoints advocated by people such as Robert Bruce and Emanuel Swedenborg.

Before a person becomes opposed to what mediums do with a zeal that is equivalent to religious fanaticism, perhaps a person should consider the possibility that there are some occasions when a grieving person is aided by a genuine medium who is able to communicate with love-based spirits.

When it comes to number 8 below, communicating with a spirit and out of body exploration aren't the same thing and different parameters exist.


Beserk's list:
(1) What have you been doing since I last communicated with you?
(2) What were the last 5 experiences you had in your new world?
(3) Are there schools over there to help new arrivals to adjust to their new world?  If so, what insights have they taught you that we on earth would never guess?
(4) Are there Halls of Knowledge or special libraries there that contain the answer to scientific and spiritual questions that now elude us?  Can we use mediums to contact those who have made such important discoveries there? 

(5) How often are you allowed to visit loved ones back on earth?  Are you even capable of making your presence known to them? 

(6) What methods have you been taught to make contact with them?  Most importantly, what are the best methods for us to use to contact our deceased loved ones?

(7) In his NDE, George Ritchie visited a world "below" heaven, in which complex machines were being used and studied in what looked like research universities.  What kind of research is being done in such worlds and what are some of the most important new discoveries that have been made there?

(8) Emmanuel Swedenborg made several fascinating discoveries about the nature of the afterlie and the principles that govern them. Is it possible for modern astral explorers to achieve even more astral inisghts than ES?  If so, how?

Heisenberg69:

Thank you for saying "Nice points."

heisenberg69 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

I've watched videos and read the accounts of mediums doing their thing, and they clearly receive information from spirits.  Information that gets verified by the person they do a reading for. In circumstances where it  wasn't possible for them to receive the information beforehand.

Regarding it being nothing more than a matter of mind reading, even though in some cases this might be the case, I don't believe this is alway so, because some mediums receive information in a way that shows that spirit communication takes place. They do so in ways that reminds me of how I receive information from spirits. It is quite clear to me that when I receive information it isn't a matter of my experiencing hallucinations or reading a person's mind.

To me it is very reasonable to conclude that there are mediums who have become certain that they receive information from spirits. If I can become certain, then why can't other people do the same?

When trying to determine whether something is true, it is important to not overly focus on the perspective one is attached to.

As I said on an earlier post, there might be occasions when a medium receives information from an able spirit on the behalf of a deceased person that isn't currently available. The key factor is for a grieving person to be helped.

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:


What if a medium isn't in contact with a discarnate human or other being at all?  But instead is accessing stored memory within the consciousness system and the entity they think they're receiving information from is actually a metaphor either they or the consciousness system created?  I'm not saying other beings don't communicate with us.  Just that this scenario also exists and I wonder how this may play a part?

I doubt that a genuine medium is interested in such verification. Regarding doing so for others, I figure that if a person is genuinely interested in finding out what's true, he'll find a way. Chances are that answers will come to him in unexpected ways.

Here's an analogy. Say there is a person who makes up war stories and a person who shares actuall war stories. A person who has experienced war would be able to tell the difference.

The same is true when trying to determine what a medium is about. If one has experience with spirit communication, one has a good idea of what to look for. Factors that a skeptic wouldn't consider. A skeptic also wouldn't understand the value of such factors.

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 4:45pm:

Berserk2 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:


I have just finished reading Chris Carter's book called ' Science and the Afterlife Experience' and it has direct bearing on the Gordon Davis case. This case is a central plank in the argument that apparent examples of mediumship are in fact better explained as ' super-ESP'. However, Carter devotes pages 156-161 of his book in explaining, that at best, this case is highly dubious. Rather than copy out the whole text I will just add some of the relevent points.

In 1978 statistician Betty Markwick demonstrated that Soal had fraudulently manipulated results of his famous card-guessing experiments and thereby discredited his research into ESP. She said ' It is clear from the literature, and from the comments of those who knew Soal personally, that his was indeed a strange personality: obsessive, absorbed, and subject to bouts of dissociation'.
In 1982 Alan Gauld reviewed the case and noted that ' certain features of it raise doubts- for example, Soal's claim that he was able to record the medium's statements in detail in the dark using only his left hand, and the fact that his brother signed a statement that he had read the communications, which allegedly took place in January 1922, in the Christmas vacation of 1921'.
In 1986 BBC writer Melvin Harris found suspicious behaviour in that even though that Soal knew Davis was alive in Feb 1925 Soal made sure that no one saw his records until after he had had a chance to visit Davis six  weeks later ( even though he had previously challenged another researcher for doing a similar thing previously ! ) Harris concluded that living only one mile away from Davis, Soal had plenty of opportunity to fake the house forecasts in that time. In fact fraud was found.
Soal claimed that a brief message about 'black dickie-think it's on the piano' had been communicated on behalf of Gordon Davis in the middle of the sitting on January 30 1922.In his article, Soal even included a sample of the transcript that contains the message. However, Harris writes ' This is pure fiction. His knowledge of the bird came from his observation of Davis's kingfisher ornament-not from any séance. When he spontaneously invented this morsel, he'd forgotten one vital factor.He'd forgotten that a complete record of the essential sitting had been in private hands for the past three years'.

Chris Carter concludes ' the six-week delay in contacting Davis, combined with Soal's untruthful remarks about the difficulty in contacting Davis; the ease with which all the major details of the case could have been gathered by fraudulent means during the six-week period; the ease by which the records could have been doctored; Soal's history of fraud; the evidence of fraud in this case; and Saul's strange personality - all these factors combine to render the Gordon David completely worthless as evidence.'