Mindfreak Criss Angel. Has anyone heard about this guy? He is a "mentalist" and does all kinds of stuff on his show on A&E, including communicating with the dead.

Yet - he goes on Larry King and tells a national audience that anyone who talks about the afterlife or claims to be a psychic/medium is bunk. Apparently, he is close to the world's most annoying man - the midget called Amazing Randi who goes around debunking psychics esp. Sylvia Brown / Jon Edwards, etc.

Criss Angel is certainly tapping into some kind of energy. His show with a seance on it, would be affirmation for everyone that there is an afterlife. Yet, he claims that all that can be manufactured, as he does it so masterfully on his show. There is a classic sequence on YouTube where he gets into a shouting match with a guy who demonstrated Automatic Writing on the NBC show "Phenomenon".

He can't rock my belief system about the afterlife, but I am sure millions look at that and think death is just fade to black and we cease to exist. Any thoughts on this character and what seems like an organized attempt at some level to discredit the afterlife??

Criss Angel is a breath of fresh air--a gift to the quest for knowledge of the afterlife.  He rightly debunks channeling by simulating the ESP gleaned by the best of channelers about the dead.  Thus, he draws attention to an uncomfortable truth: so-called verifications secured through channeling should generally be construed as psychically discerned information that, if anything, counts AGAINST the validity of channeling as evidence for ADCs.  Of course, I believe in the afterlife, but for other reasons.

Criss Angel merely confirms what older parapsychologists have discovered about channeling.  Psychologist E. Stanley Hall conjured a fake persona, Bessie Beals, and meditated on "her" en route to a famous British medium.  The medium promptly conjured up Bessie and allowed her to speak as if she were a deceased loved one.  When Hall sprung his trap, the medium nervously rationalized her failure by disengenuously claiming that she had contacted a Jessie Beals and that her error was an honest case of mistaken identity.  In fact, Hall decisively exposed the bogus nature of the medium's channeled contacts.  Sam Soal, a parapsychologist, then replicated this sort of refutation with another famous medium who channeled a fictional character invented by Soal as if she were one of Soal's recently deceased loved ones.  

In the devastating Gordon Davis case, Davis interrupts the medium and "comes through" with spectacular details allegedly confirming his identity and relationship with the sitter.  The sitter later discovers that Davis was alive at the time and knows nothing about the sitting.  Why isn't channeling discredited in this way more often?  Well, the sitter had been wrongly told that his friend Gordon Davis had died and the medium somehow exploited his misconception and recreated Davis's personality via ESP. How often are we misinformed about t he death of a friend?  Attempts to rationalize such failures with other explanations generally merely expose intellectually dishonest seekers who value comfort above truth.  If we sincerely want to identify good evidence for an afterlife, it is essential that we first identify blind allies and bogus sources of information.

Don

I had never heard of Criss Angel until the show Phenomenon.  A contestant was claiming that a person from the afterlife was helping him do his stunt.  Angel then challenged him to have his dead friend identify what he (Criss) had written on a piece of paper.  The contestant hemmed and hawed and obviously was shown to be a fraud.

Other than the used car market, the afterlife is probably the most fertile environment for fraud of all kinds.  Sylvia Browne has already been shown to be a fake and chances are most of other celebrities who claim they can contact the afterlife are also fakes.

Yes, we should have an open mind about the reality of the afterlife, but that doesn't mean we should suspend good judgment and common sense in the process.

Remember the old adage- "extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification."

Don,

Your fancy wording in what you just posted doesn't mean didly.  Bottom line is, just because some people fake ESP and spirit communication doesn't mean everyone fakes it.  You take one piece of evidence and apply it to everything, how is that a breath of fresh air?  Entertainers like Criss Angel know they are faking it, and so does the audience.  Comparing that to real ESP and afterlife communication is simply comparing apples to oranges.    


Raj, are you saying that Criss Angel doesn't believe in real ESP and spirit communication?  What I know of him is that he is a performer.  All of his tricks are merely tricks and I think you can find stuff on You Tube showing how some of his tricks are done.  Some of his stuff is impressive as entertainment but it is only that, entertainment.  I have no idea what his own personal beliefs in the afterlife and such are.

I wonder why chakras and such exist, if it isn't intended for us mere humans to communicate with spirits. For anybody who has experienced chakras and such, they aren't just mere concepts.

Can people make contact with spirits that aren't well meaning? Sure, but this doesn't mean that well meaning spirits aren't "ever" around.  Can't light beings make contact with us, without somebody declaring it is against the law?

Don:

I don't need others to prove to me that their experiences with the afterlife are valid, because I have more than enough of my own.  A person won't truly know, until he or she gives it a go. It is possible for experiences to manifest in a manner so one becomes certain.

Don:

I'll agree with you that there are sources that aren't trustworthy. For example, Sylvia Browne. Otherwise, I don't know much about the famous mediums.  It is just that I figure if I can communicate with spirits in a way that is certain, then so can others.

I like this statement: "advance the case for afterlife survival."

Over the years, I've read many books written by spiritualist mediums of the early part of the century. Some, like John Sloan, are reputed wonderfully accurate by serious minded investigators like Arthur Findlay. Findlay, among many, was truly interested in advancing the case for afterlife survival. He started his own institute, much as Robert Monroe would do decades later. That was 100 years ago.

The afterlife and all of us who believe in it and try to penetrate its secrets are still heavily labeled kooks. This stuff was not taken seriously 100 years ago and it's made no headway, in my opinion. I don't like considering myself a kook, yet the label fits me if I can't offer up even a shred of solid proof of something. Sadly, I can't. I can only offer my personal opinions, which advance nothing, and help no one else to be uplifted. Wish I could do better.

Someone once suggested a board be created on this site devoted exclusively to proven facts. In Monroe-speak "unknowns converted into solid knowns." That, I think, was his premise when beginning his institute. He wasn't interested in just accumulating beliefs.

What do we now know that we didn't know last year? Has anyone found the Park? Monroe was told "the park is here, whether you believe in it or not." So.....why can't a half dozen of us meet at the corner of Elm and Chestnut in the Park? That might be a real good beginning to providing fact, and facts advance the case for afterlife survival.

I'd like to see more facts blooming on this board, and far fewer personal beliefs.
-Chuck-