Book review and excerpt: Guided By Spirit

Lately I've been reading a very interesting book, Guided By Spirit: A Journey into the Mind of the Medium, which was self-published by two authors: Charles F. Emmons, a professor of sociology and anthropology at Gettysburg College, and his wife Penelope Emmons, a psychotherapist with a master's degree in social work who also works as a medium and has had a variety of paranormal experiences.

What's fascinating about the book is the way it intertwines the dual perspectives of its authors. Charles Emmons takes a somewhat more analytical approach, often viewing mediumship as a social phenomenon with important psychological benefits, while his wife has a more overtly "spiritual" perspective. I'm oversimplifying a great deal, since Charles Emmons clearly has an excellent grasp of the spiritual issues involved, and Penelope Emmons keenly appreciates the social and scientific aspects. But each author offers his or her own particular emphasis. The two approaches complement each other very nicely and show that there need not be any irreconcilable differences between a properly "scientific" study of this subject and a more personal experience of it.

Both authors are well-educated, sophisticated, and highly intelligent, and strike me as impeccably honest and straightforward.

Although I enjoyed both perspectives, I identified somewhat more with the viewpoint of Charles Emmons, who came at mediumship, at least initially, as something of an outsider. Later, to deepen his understanding of the phenomenon, he took classes in mediumship and did some informal demonstrations in which he scored his share of "hits" as well as "misses." He also investigated mediumship in Hong Kong, where it is a thriving part of the culture, and wrote a book about it called Chinese Ghosts and ESP: A Study of Paranormal Beliefs and Experiences, which sounds very worthwhile in its own right.

Near the end of Guided By Spirit, the two authors sum up their particular viewpoints. I found Charles Emmons's summary especially congenial to my own way of thinking, so I am reproducing a large part of it below.

The chapter is titled "Charlie's View."

--------

Let me begin by saying that I find some "truth" or usefulness in all of these perspectives: social/behavioral scientific, debunking, parapsychological, and spiritual. I do not think that this represents a "relativization of knowledge," in which anything can be true if you believe in it. I just mean that taken literally each perspective offers interesting possible explanations, some of which may be valid at certain times.

Taken at a deeper level, each of these perspectives tends to become a dogmatic, competitive belief system conducive neither to science nor spirituality. Practitioners of them tend to lose sight of the alleged purposes of systems: to explain reality and to enrich our lives. Every organized belief system is really a social construct created in part to serve the political ends of the group, or at least of the elite members of the group.

What I would like to do is to extract some wisdom from each perspective (giving it a sympathetic reading), and leave the competitive interests and dogmatic structures behind. This (ideally) approaches a multifaceted or pluralistic (and not merely relativized) approach.

I feel good about having played the role of practitioner in each of these systems, so that I can use each without being overly committed to any. The one I have least experience with is debunking, because I cannot accept the narrow view of debunking and its attempt to demolish "ignorance" rather than to engage in open-ended inquiry. If members of CSICOP should hasten to claim that I have an incorrect view of their purpose, which is actually to be skeptical, providing a counterbalance to uncritical belief, then I would happily concur that I have been a "skeptic" in this sense too. And in fact some pieces in Skeptical Inquirer and by members of CSICOP published elsewhere have been fair. Susan Blackmore is my favorite example of such fairness.

I anticipate that some of my colleagues in sociology and anthropology will say that I have taken participant observation too far and have "gone native" by actually learning to do a spirit mediumship. I was supposed to study spirit mediums, not become one. This is a valid criticism that must be considered, but I see what I have done as "participatory science," becoming involved fully in the phenomenon itself, which has made it more understandable to me on a personal level. Of course this becomes more controversial when the phenomenon is considered deviant or dubious by the scientific community.

I say that I have become fully involved, but actually I have not become a registered medium or done mediumship for personal financial gain. I have joined a Spiritualist Church and done "student" mediumship.

Having said all of that, let me now reflect on each of these perspectives and share what I think about spirit mediumship as a phenomenon.

First, there cannot be much doubt about spirit mediumship having social and psychological functions.... Traditional Chinese ancestor worship culture requires mediums to facilitate the communication between ancestors and descendents who are supposed to help each other. Going deeper, ancestor worship has held together large kinship groups who worship common ancestors going back several generations....

As for psychological functions (and dysfunctions), mediumship certainly has a psychological base in terms of altered states of consciousness (which I have also experienced myself), even for mediums today who tend to go into only a light trance. There is no strong general correlation between mediumship and mental illness, although this has been an issue in the literature. Some mediums quite apparently have multiple personality or experience other dissociative states. I think that labeling all of these as pathological is problematic and prematurely judgmental....

I think that scientists who see the connection between brain patterns and anomalous experience as an obvious refutation of the "reality" of the paranormal, and the psychospiritual folks who are upset with this research are both mistaken.

Just because such experiences have a brain component doesn't mean that they don't have "evidential" (containing evidence of paranormal knowledge or experience) aspects as well. If people do have a spiritual or surviving-consciousness component, they also need a physical component in order to experience life on the physical plane and to make connections between the two. Although it seems plausible to claim that a spirit medium, for example, is merely dissociating when he/she experiences a spirit message, it could also be that the brain needs to disconnect from normal patterns in order to get the information more clearly....

Now I am ready for my most difficult task: finding useful elements in the debunking perspective to help understand spirit mediumship. I recall when I was doing my book on UFO researchers how some of them pointed out that UFO debunkers were good for keeping serious ufologists on their toes. Even if some debunkers often were scornful and disrespectful of UFO experiencer claims and often refused to look at the evidence, there were also times when some of them came up with good alternative theories for sightings, such as radar malfunctioning and earthquake lights. Most UFO researchers recognize that the bulk of UFO reports in fact can be "explained away" through mundane explanations. Therefore their own scientific skepticism about any particular report actually coincides with the perspective assumed by debunkers.

Moving to the issue of spirit mediumship, the same sort of overlap exists between debunkers and parapsychologists and even spirit mediums. As pointed out earlier in this book, many of the mediums we interviewed, and even many of the famous mediums in history have had considerable skepticism even about their own personal work. Although many late nineteenth-century Spiritualists became impatient with the scientists who studied mediumship, they did share a desire to root out and expose fraudulent mediums.

CSICOP proclaims the worthy objective of promoting scientific literacy and reducing gullibility in the general population. When it comes to mediumship, this would involve pointing out various tricks used by fraudulent mediums. Even mediums who are not intentionally fraudulent can engage in guesswork through observing body language at other cues....

Now I must show some distance from this perspective. First, it is difficult to judge that believing in the reading is a bad thing, even if it is not really from "spirit". Going to a spirit medium or psychic may be very therapeutic....

Next, I think it is very difficult to pass judgment on particular mediums. Partly this is because it is so difficult to establish a probability frame for scoring a medium's accuracy. Even when a medium is rather general, she or he may be very good at identifying the person's personal issues and do a good service....

One thing that I definitely oppose is the unscrupulous gouging of clients. There are stories of mediums or psychics who tell people that they will remove a curse for a $3,000 fee (although I do not have any first-hand evidence of this). There are also a very few mediums to charge very high fees; but this would be a problem if we were talking about doctors or attorneys as well.

At any rate, debunkers help sound a note of caution for those who are ready to believe in anything allegedly miraculous. In my experience I do not think that many of the people who frequent Lily Dale or who attend the Spiritualist churches I have observed are seriously absent of judgment. They are not participating in some cult that is taking away all their worldly goods. Good mediums also remind people that they have free will and should use their common sense.

Moving to parapsychology, which shares a scientific skepticism with the debunkers, especially when it comes to mediumship as noted above, I think that it requires a great deal of reading to sort out the evidence on mediumship. From reading the sources referred to above and many more, I think that the evidence for mediumship is very supportive of a core of truly remarkable phenomenon that cannot be dismissed.

It was often the case that famous mediums mixed legitimate phenomena with cheating (perhaps unconsciously). These tended to be prematurely dismissed by some even though there was good evidence for the nonhoaxed portion. Also, complex cases like that of the Fox Sisters, who at one point admitted cheating but then recanted, should not be dealt with stereotypically and simplistically as they often are popular publications or debunking literature.

From the beginning I realized that this study could not hope to set the validity issues in mediumship straight when a century and a half of research had failed to do so. No one should accept the last two paragraphs above without doing some research. It is not a very efficient way to do things, but in a field that has not been legitimated by mainstream science, one almost has to do one's own study to decide the issue for oneself. I believe that I have done enough research of my own to appreciate the fact that some phenomena in mediumship are genuine (which is not to say that I can explain it). This is apart from my own experiences as a medium. What I'm referring to here is my study of mediums that was part of a larger study Chinese Ghosts and ESP. It was clear to me that some sessions were so accurate that they were markedly beyond what could be reasonably attributed to chance.

What parapsychology contributes is a relatively open-minded exploration of the truth claims of spirit mediumship, something that social scientists and debunkers do not do (if they are performing their expected roles)....

Last I need to comment on a spiritual perspective on spirit mediumship. In part this is where my own "participatory science" belongs, insofar as my attempted to do mediumship represents a direct experience of an allegedly spiritual phenomenon.

Most of my experience is not directly a test of whether spirit mediumship is really a communication with the spirit world. Most of it is learning to understand the role of spirit medium, how one becomes recruited and socialized to it, and how one performs it and feels about it. Previously in this book we have discussed all of that, including the persistent problem of doing something intuitive in a rational culture.

In a larger sense I feel the mediumship in this society is just one piece of a larger spiritual attempt to find meaning in an increasingly meaningless, technologically dominated mass society....

However, I do not want to just get lost in a spiritual subculture to feel good about my place in modern society and to be at peace with my dead relatives. I also have a curiosity addiction fed by the scientific side of me, which is continually laughing at the "spiritual" side of me. On the other hand, my skeptical side is also fair enough to consider the subject of evidence provided through my own experience. The price my spiritual side pays for this tolerance is that it needs to come up with some pretty good evidence to my skeptical side that I'm not just being deluded by wishful thinking....

The parapsychologist in me is very sure that I have received intuitive messages that are correct way beyond any reasonable chance expectations. This satisfies the skeptical side of me, to a point. However, I cannot prove that there isn't some explanation other than spiritual communication. It could be super-ESP, or the one mind, or whenever.

My spiritual side is convinced (sort of) that I really am communicating with my parents and other people, and that my mother is my spirit guide when I do mediumship. How do I know? I just know. But that's not good enough for my skeptical side. I really don't know of a critical experiment that could settle the matter. Right now I'm content to go on marveling at seeking, and acting as if it's true. I think I've already discovered more than I ever expected to.

But there's more. From my observations I think that spirit mediumship is a great mystery, of which we know only a little. I find it both amusing and annoying when people think they have it all figured out. "It's nonsense." "It's real, but you have to do it this way." From interviewing many mediums and from doing it myself, I think that it happens in a great many ways, not just one way. And of course lots of people try to do it without very good results....

In my own mediumship I have learned to be less analytical (difficult for a college professor) and to bring things forth with less editing. I have learned to set a good intention and to worry about it less. I continue to marvel when I get things right, more right than would seem possible by chance. Any more than that I shall probably have to tell you after I die.

[pp. 285-291]

----------

If you want to read more, you can find Guided By Spirit previewed in Google Books, or you can order it from Amazon.com and other online retailers.

Comments

[Zetetic_chick]

If members of CSICOP should hasten to claim that I have an incorrect view of their purpose, which is actually to be skeptical, providing a counterbalance to uncritical belief, then I would happily concur that I have been a "skeptic" in this sense too. And in fact some pieces in Skeptical Inquirer and by members of CSICOP published elsewhere have been fair. Susan Blackmore is my favorite example of such fairness

I don't know if the author has realized that the debunking movement is an ideological movement, not a movement to find the truth about controversial topics.

Believing that the purpose of organized skepticism consists in giving a counterbalance to uncritical belief, assume that believers in paranormal phenomena are uncritical, but skeptics are "critical".

Implicitly, it puts the skeptics as intellectually superior persons in comparison with "believers".

Accepting that implicit assumption is falling victimg of the rhetorical trap of pseudo-skeptics and their smart misdirection. And falling to that trap is evidence of uncritical thinking (in this case, uncritical of the motivation, tactics and methods of pseudo-skeptics)

Maybe the author wants to give only the positive aspects of each perspective, but whoever is familiar with the pseudo-skeptical literature, including Susan Blackmore's works, will realize that honesty is not one of the main virtues of these people. Hence, a purely sympathetic reading of skeptics, including Blackmore, is not warranted.

When the author asserts "The one I have least experience with is debunking, because I cannot accept the narrow view of debunking and its attempt to demolish "ignorance" rather than to engage in open-ended inquiry" he's falling victim again of the pseudo-skeptical propaganda.

The purpose of pseudo-skeptics is not demolish ignorance, but protect materialism. Debunking the paranormal is a corollary of that purpose.

Falling to understand that is being naive in regard to the agenda of pseudo-skepticism, and that naiveté is strategically wrong, because it gives pseudo-skeptics the benefit of doubt when that doubt is not reasonable.

Pseudo-skeptics' purpose to inquiry the paranormal is to attain conclusions consistent with materialism, i.e. that genuine paranormal phenomena don't exist and are explainable in terms of normal, materialism-consistent phenomena.

The author is right that some of the articles by skeptics are fair. So what? It doesn't make pseudo-skepticsm a correct or valid perspective.

If you assume that all the mediums are frauds (an assumption entailed by materialism), eventually you'll find a real fraud and it will give plausibility to your assumption. But it doesn't validate your materialist position that all the mediums are frauds.

This is the reason why some criticisms of pseudo-skeptics are right. They assume that all the paranormal/afterlife stuff is wrong and fraudulent and, eventually, they´ll be right in particular cases, giving credibility of their position. Randi's tests are a good example.

If no evidence of fraud is found, they'll claim the absence of evidence of fraud is not evidence for psi or afterlife. If they find positive evidence, they'll claim that the evidence is insufficient. If the evidence is sufficient, they'll claim it has not been replicated... so ad nausseam.

Critical thinking is a very useful tool; but we wouldn't confound critical thinking with pseudo-skepticism.

Materialism-based pseudo-skepticism and psi/afterlife research are like water and oil.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael, thanks for passing this along. I just read part of the book online—looks interesting, so I ordered it from Amazon.

The excerpt I just read is about the famous Pearl Curran/Patience Worth saga. It's fun to be reminded of this remarkable story of apparent channeling. I studied it in depth almost twenty years ago when I was first grappling with whether there was any truth to this psychic stuff. It's a case that's hard to dismiss!

[chs4o8pt]

"I say that I have become fully involved, but actually I have not become a registered medium or done mediumship for personal financial gain. I have joined a Spiritualist Church and done "student" mediumship."

Me too. I've described my experiences learning mediumship at a spiritualist church here:

Adventures of a Student Medium
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/psi_experience

[william]

Charlie's View: “I think that it requires a great deal of reading to sort out the evidence on mediumship.”

I agree.

“I don't know if the author has realized that the debunking movement is an ideological movement, not a movement to find the truth about controversial topics.”

Amen well stated.

“Hence, a purely sympathetic reading of skeptics, including Blackmore, is not warranted.”

I challenged Susan on a Buddhist term she was misusing to support her atheist beliefs. She admitted her mistake and did not become defensive about her mistake.

Charlie's View: “because I cannot accept the narrow view of debunking and its attempt to demolish "ignorance" rather than to engage in open-ended inquiry”

“The purpose of pseudo-skeptics is not demolish ignorance, but protect materialism.”

Well stated. Materialism is a system of beliefs much like religion. I.e. protect materialism at all cost.

[Barbara]

“The purpose of pseudo-skeptics is not demolish ignorance, but protect materialism.”
“Materialism-based pseudo-skepticism and psi/afterlife research are like water and oil.” ZC

That’s fighting talk, ZC!
Protect the right to die forever!
Protect the right to be a meaningless accident!
Protect the right to argue a philosophy that can never be vindicated (because when you’re dead, you can never say “I told you so”).

Perhaps we should respect their freedom of thought and give them their fifteen minutes of smug self-satisfaction.

They've got a big shock coming.

[Kevin]

I really enjoyed the article, Michael. The book looks great, too.

Thanks!

[sonic]

Thank-you for bringing this book to my attention.
You make some incredible finds--

[william]

“Protect the right to be a meaningless accident!”

I find the atheist system of beliefs often taught as absolutes interesting. Also I find the materialistic belief that the entire universe was reduced to the size of a pinhead before the big implosion an interesting belief.

When I look up at the night sky and see pics made by the Hubble telescope it appears to be a lot of matter in the universe to fit inside of a pinhead of a needle. And they only say that because their math stops there.

They can’t believe in the paranormal but all that matter in the size of a pinhead. Makes one wonder about this pin head thing as to who or whom is the …………

[Zetetic_chick]

My above comment was, maybe, a little bit rude or (to use Barbara's expression) a sort of "fighting talk".

I want to say that I haven't read that book, and I don't want to judge the authors based on a couple of citations alone.

I assume that that book is good, because it has been reviewed positively by a thoughful and serious person like Michael. So I look foward to read it soon (I try to follow Michael's reading suggestions).

In other matter, and just as a curious note, I was searching in Amazon for recent books on survival, and I found some recent titles by well-known writers (some of them with best selling books) on the afterlife:

-Christian writer Danish D'Souza's book "Life After Death: The Evidence"

-Deepak Chopra's lastest book "Life After Death: The Burden of Proof"

-Roy Varguesse and Raymond Moody's book "There Is Life After Death: Compelling Reports from Those Who Have Glimpsed the Afterlife"

Varguese was the co-author (with Antony Flew) of the book "There is a God", about Flew's conversion from atheism to deism. A good and recommended philosophy book on the topic of God.

And Chopra is well known in popular media and to the general public. Most of his books are translated into many languages, including Spanish.

D'Souza is well-known in religion circes, mostly in USA. So, possibly most informed Christians (and D'Souza's critics) will read it.

It's interesting that these writers, especially Chopra, will bring the topic of an afterlife to a large popular audience, because they have many followers in many countries.

Maybe Varguesse/Moody's book will be the one with less influence to the general public; possibly, only scholars or afterlife research students will read it.

Are these recent books on afterlife written by popular writers the next best sellers of the coming years?

If so, it's positive because the topic of afterlife research will be known by most people, not only by paranormal enthusiasts.

Ps.
I haven't read any of the above mentioned books. But I'm intrigued, I'd like to know how they address the evidence for an afterlife.

[william]

I found the first couple of chapters of Chopra’s book pretty good but he soon resorts to his Hindu heritage for “proof of life after death”. It appears he has not done much research into spiritualism. He has a couple of good stories and fills some of the book in each chapter with a Hindu or Buddhist myth story of some kind.

It appeared to me he used a lot of filler in this book.

I did send it to someone for their birthday and they enjoyed reading it at least they stated that to me. They also noticed that Chopra relied a lot on the Hindu religion for his belief that life after death exists.

[Zetetic_chick]

Thanks William for your comment.

I suspected that Chopra could argue from the Hindu point of view. It is not necessarily a shortcoming of his book, because in one sense is a different perspective about the field.

I'm familiar with the empirical evidence for the afterlife, not with the different philosophical-religious perspectives about it (I'm not a big fan of religions).

Some of these philosophical-religious ideas could give important insights about the theoretical problems related to survival, so I'm not hostile to that approach-- although I prefer the empirical, scientific approach.

Moreover, Chopra is a good writer, even if we disagree with some his ideas or arguments or speculations. So I'm sure his book is a nice read.

Does he mention something about the empirical evidence for afterlife, like Stevenson's research, mediumship, NDEs, etc.?

Thanks.

[william]

“Does he mention something about the empirical evidence for afterlife, like Stevenson's research, mediumship, NDEs, etc.?”

I don’t remember about mediumship but I think he mentions Stevenson’s research and NDE’s.

This was not meant to be a putdown of his work. I used to watch all of his specials on our public TV channel and always admired his ability to be a very good speaker. He knows how to bring Buddhism and Hinduism into the mainstream in America without upsetting the Christian apple cart so to speak.

He is one of those rare individuals that can write well and speak well. A rare combination from my point of view. As far as Hinduism I find what the enlightened Hindus teach about as close as any religion teaches about life on the other side, at least from my point of view at this time. The exception to this may be the Spiritist religion.

I did some research into Yogananda’s self-realization fellowship and spent some time with the self-realization monks in California on their herb farm and also spent time at their temple on the pacific coast over looking the ocean called swami beach. They have some beautiful gardens there.

If anyone is ever driving from Los Angels to San Diego it is only about two miles off the freeway at Encinitas, CA and worth the stop and free. Absolutely beautiful well cared for flowers and gardens and a meditation area that is on a cliff and it overlooks the ocean. Priceless to do meditation there with the ocean waves breaking with a constant stream of smoothing waves.

[sw]

William,
I like the sound of that place and would like to have that experience. Susan Blackmore's name was mentioned, so I thought I'd create a mind model, (based on the descriptive information you have provided) to convince myself that I have truly been there, so that I could faithfully recount the experience to my grandchildren.

Here goes........

[sw]

Nah, it didn't work. I guess it's not really surprising, we shouldn't expect the brain to create convincing life changing mind models when it's functioning normally...... (relatively) :)

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, ZC, for the book list. I was surprised to learn that Dinesh D'Souza has a book on this subject. I've read a couple of his earlier books (on religion and politics) and found them thought-provoking and memorable. He always inspires a lot of controversy - a definite free-thinker!

Like William, I read Chopra's book and wasn't impressed.

I don't quite agree with your characterization of Charles Emmons' remarks. As I read it, he's saying that he's skeptical of organized skepticism. When he speaks of "its attempt to demolish 'ignorance' rather than to engage in open-ended inquiry," I believe he is criticizing the tendency of some skeptics to dismiss all anomalous experiences as the product of ignorance (wishful thinking, delusion, etc.) rather than taking the reports more seriously.

[Zetetic_chick]

You're correct, Michael; a more charitable interpretation of Emmons' comments support your reading of him.

I think I was uncharitable or superficial when interpretating Emmons' words.

Adding to the books list, I've just learned that IANDS has published the book "The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation"

The authors are Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James.

I've just ordered that book, together with Emmons' book and Amit Goswami's "The Quantum Doctor"

The other books will have to wait... I'm not a rich person :-)

[felipe]

ZC -

There is an interesting exchange ( I believe someone on here posted the link a while back) between D. Chopra and Michael Shermer (sp) where they debate the finer points of evidence that conciousness survives physical death.

Chopra points to many of the examples we've covered here ad infinitum, including medium readings, reincarnation, crisis apparitions, NDE's, etc....and seems to believe firmly in the idea of a personal "I" surviving. (although he has that sort of merge into some sort of Avidanta Hindu context - which I do believe is the tradition he tends to speak about most)

I've seen him speak a few times - and he is definitely a smart and engaging guy - but I believe his books are intentionally sort of dumbed down a bit for mass consumption - which I've also heard him admit (more graciously) on more than one occasion.

I find Moody's stuff a bit sort of infuriating - because he seems to contradict his positions pretty frequently - even in the title of the book you just referenced - I've heard him "rail" about the term "life after death" , etc. Plus he's been pretty critical of using mediums for more than entertainment, etc - then does media with mediums, etc - I'm not 100% sure I trust his instincts..:-)

[Michael Prescott]

I found Moody's book "The Last Laugh" very strange. In it he says he never, ever meant to suggest that NDEs were evidence of life after death. Really? His earlier books certainly imply that NDEs should be taken as evidence of personal survival. He seems to want to have it both ways.

[jack]

"...However, I cannot prove that there isn't some explanation other than spiritual ..."

Nor can any scientist of any discipline prove there there is no other explanation possible for any phenomenon

His statement does not inspire confidence .

[Zetetic_chick]

His earlier books certainly imply that NDEs should be taken as evidence of personal survival.

As a matter of fact, Moody's first book is entitled "Life after life", which clearly implies that the content of the book (i.e. NDEs and OBEs reports) is evidence for at least the possibility of an afterlife (life after life).

He wrote the book "Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon--Survival of Bodily Death" which explicitly refers to the research of afterlife phenomena.

About this book, Elizabeth Kubler Ross wrote "It is research like Dr. Moody presents in his book that will enlighten many and will confirm what we have been taught for two thousand years -- that there is life after death"

Another of his books is "Reflections On Life After Life: More Important Discoveries In The Ongoing Investigation Of Survival Of Life After Bodily Death"

Moody could reply that these titles are not evidence that he actually believes that NDEs are evidence for afterlife.

But a reply like that would very hard to believe.

Maybe his actual opinion is that NDEs are not sufficient evidence for an afterlife, but his books clearly imply that NDE are evidence for it and for this reason phenomena like that are worth researching, otherwise "investigating" the phenomena and presenting such research with titles like "life after life" or "survival" wouldn't make sense at all and would be seriously misleading.

[Zetetic_chick]

Another possible reply by Moody is that the titles of his books are not chosen by the him, but by the publisher.

But the contents of his books clearly show that the reports are presented as prima facie evidence for survival, or the possibility of it.

[Michael Tymn]

I was also very confused by Raymond Moody's "The Last Laugh," as well as by his Preface or Introduction to "Induced After Death Communication." I was just trying to find that book to quote him, but can't locate it.

I have never met Moody, but I have been told by those who know him that he is very much a believer in survival; however, he got burned too many times after his first few books and therefore found it necessary to retreat and sit safely on the fence. It is the "intelligent" approach in the eyes of academia.

It is the same with several other well-known NDE researchers. They'll beat around the bush when it comes to stating whether they believe in survival.

Part of the problem is one of semantics, especially the tendency to assume that evidence and proof are synonymous, as well as the failure to distinguish between levels of proof, i.e., proof with absolute certainty; proof meeting the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal law; or proof meeting the preponderance of evidence standard of civil law. Of course, the latter two are standards in law only and not in exact science. Therein is another conflict -- exact science vs inexact science.

Rather than attempt to explain all that, although I am not sure all of them grasp it, they find it easier to sit on that perch on the fence or to muddy up the waters, as Moody has learned to do, so that one doesn't really know where they stand.

As Professor Neal Grossman has said, all they have to do it state that the "evidence strongly suggests survival," or words to that effect. But most of them are afraid to do that.

Those who are employed by universities doing research might lose their funding if they come out strongly for survival. As long as it remains undecided, they are assured of future funding and employment. On the other hand, they are not really interested in the survival issue. It is all about how NDEs help people in this life, they will tell you.

[felipe]

"I found Moody's book "The Last Laugh" very strange. In it he says he never, ever meant to suggest that NDEs were evidence of life after death. Really? His earlier books certainly imply that NDEs should be taken as evidence of personal survival. He seems to want to have it both ways. "

M.P. -

This is my gripe as well - he has made NUMEROUS comments that are head scratchers.....from the standpoint of what the totality of his work would seem to imply he believes, versus the (sometimes) scoffing attitude he presents to those who arrive at said (logical) conclusions about what he believes.

He's made comments about mediums being silly....and a bad "direction" for serious research, and then later, I've seen him interviewing (or even forwarding) publications written by mediums.

ZC - Moody has made numerous disparaging remarks about the term "life after death" - as a silly, specious and shallow understanding of the nature of "life". To then have his publisher CHOOSE that title and not be able to overturn that in light of his stated distaste, is just silly to me.

More likely - in my view - he just says stuff that if often quirky, inconsistent, and simply a bit odd, relative to his life's work as we know it.

Listen to the interview Alex Tskaris did with him on Skeptiko.com for a little "taste" of this as well.

[felipe]

Michael T -

I agree with you, in theory.

But I'm *not* sure that's the case with Moody. He's actually gone on record as saying he's never been discouraged to do this research, never been "laughed at", and never felt pressured to state anything OTHER than what he believes is true.

Yet - to hear him speak, and express such confusion at why people would believe he is HIMSELF a believer, or at least thinks it likely that we "survive"....just strikes me as super odd.

(it makes no difference to me of course, what he believes.....but I still think he's probably a bit of an odd bird overall..:-)

[The Major]

Raymond Moody stated in an interview that he didn't think NDE testimony constituted 'scientific' evidence of the afterlife, but rather it should be viewed as a form of entertainment or art.

It is worth noting that Moody says that art and entertainment also hold truths even if they aren't scientific. For example, the works of Shakespeare and Tolstoy.

Just because it isn't scientific, doesn't mean it can't hold truths.

[sw]

I've heard Moody interviewed numerous times over thirty odd years and at the beginning, through the first ten, he always expressed his belief in life after death as a certainty for himself with the qualifier that of course it cannot be proved. Then as Michael Tymn said, he retreated from this position because he didn't want to be regarded by academia as a credulous fool.
Later on, while he was experimenting with his
psychomanteum, I think he had some kind of a breakdown and was checked into a type of psychiatric hospital by his family(not sure what the problem was).

You have to remember that there was and still is a great deal of hostility towards the notion of life after death, even more so over here. My oldest friend who is high up in academia and believes in L after D would rather walk naked down the high street than express such an idea to his colleagues.
When Sam Parnia was interviewed by the BBC about his aware study, the interviewer was perplexed by Parnia's open mind and the methodology of the experiment- shelves high up on the wall. He could barely repress his contempt for such a ludicrous idea. After all, it's already been proved by Susan Blackmore(her view still holds the floor)that the OBE is a just a mental construct..."you don't literally believe that 'something' leaves the body do you...you silly bugger ? ( he didn't say the last bit but he wanted to )

I half expected him(the interviewer) to break out into a full belly laugh and start rolling around the floor. The position of the BBC is almost indentical to that of academia. No God and definitely no life after death.

And now for something completely different....

[Bruce Siegel]

"I found Moody's book "The Last Laugh" very strange."

Definitely. I think he comes off as sarcastic and even a bit mean in places. It actually lowered my opinion of him a bit. (I think it was the only one of his books whose content wasn't edited by someone else.)

Having said that, I still have tremendous admiration for the man. A few centuries ago, the heroic figures were explorers in the physical sense. Today, my own heroes are exploring consciousness. And Moody's been one of the leaders.

[Bruce Siegel]

I was just looking back at my notes on the inside cover of The Last Laugh, and I see this quote from the book, which I find intriguing:

"New equipment and techniques enable physicians routinely to bring patients back from a condition that only a few decades ago would have been known as death. . . . By the criteria of 1890, even those of 1930, life after death has indeed been proven."

[william]

“After all, it's already been proved by Susan Blackmore(her view still holds the floor)that the OBE is a just a mental construct..."

I not even sure Susan Blackmore had a valid NDE wasn’t her professed NDE due to an overdose of drugs. Could her NDE be labeled a hallucination?

I do not believe that NDE’s are enough evidence to prove life after death but it is some evidence that life after death exists. When we look at all the evidence for a life beyond this life there is an extremely high probability that life after death exists. Most people I find have not done the proper research and base their beliefs on opinion not research.

Or they have not had a personal experience that led them to believe in a life beyond this life. I have had several personal experiences that I have no explanation for other than there is more to this life than meets the eye or our materialistic beliefs.

For all of this life after death evidence to be fraud or lies or misinformation or coincidence or whatever stretches ones imagination more than believing we are all here in this universe on this planet due to chance and our lives are meaningless. There are too many universal laws with consequences that we could be here due to chance and our lives are meaningless.

But hey lets keep looking for that God gene or the part of the brain that contains faith beliefs to prove our materialistic beliefs. Kind of like looking for that lost ark that held every species on earth.

The materialists have no problem believing that all the matter in the universe was contained in the size of a pinhead before the kaboom took place. We humans are an interesting species with our beliefs.

[felipe]

I just find it fascinating how many people seem to conclude that Moody has "retreated" from a position of belief, do to some external pressure, or insecurity, or fear of academic condemnation.

It makes it easy.....of course, to sort of run with that position, because that's what we WANT to believe.

Maybe the guy simply believes it's all just "art and entertainment" as pointed out above.

I'd say, that's probably a bit more likely the case in his view - but of course, is far less comforting to those who wrap themselves in the warm blanket of "belief", when a well known pioneering researcher seems to intimate other explanations are possible (or even likely).

It only matters, I suppose....insofar that many of us don't have the time, or the access, to the breadth of materials some of these "experts" have - therefore, I guess....we give their opinion a level of validation (or not) as to the real underlying truth.

(which is a trap I often find myself falling into....even though I've had some exceptional experiences myself - you sort of *want* someone whose looked at it longer and stronger than you, to put the whole thing in a neat little box of fact)

Personally - I believe the really, really good medium materials are much better, from an evidential standpoint, than the NDE.

And ironically - Moody for one, has sort of denigrated this whole area....which I find super perplexing. (if it was good enough for William James and F. Myers, you would think it warranted a wee bit of respect as a method of inquiry, rather than a childish handwave away)

[william]

“Personally - I believe the really, really good medium materials are much better, from an evidential standpoint, than the NDE.”

I agree and the evidence from spirits that come through mediums often give to us some insights into the meaning of life and life in these other dimensions.

[sw]

Interesting standpoints, but the near death experience is, I believe, an authentic pre-run of the actual process of death, so I don't see what could be better than going through the experience(of course I'm not recommending it like a ride at the funfare) to provide evidence of life after death.

Mediumship of course, is very evidential.

[Zetetic_chick]

Interesting standpoints, but the near death experience is, I believe, an authentic pre-run of the actual process of death, so I don't see what could be better than going through the experience(of course I'm not recommending it like a ride at the funfare) to provide evidence of life after death

We would have to differentiate scientific evidence from personal evidence.

From a personal point of view, NDEs are compelling evidence for the afterlife for the people who had them.

From a scientific point of view, it's debatable. My opinion is that NDEs are evidence for afterlife, but its evidential force depends on each case and on metaphysical and theoretical frameworks, because each worldview assigns different degrees of probabilities for the ocurrence of certain phenomena or for the existence of certain entities (like souls).

For example, the probability of the soul existing if materialism is true is close to zero. Hence, materialists assign an extraordinarily low probability to NDEs being actual glimpses into an afterlife.

Also, if you examine NDEs as individual evidence, maybe you won't be convinced of the afterlife.

But if you examine NDEs as part of a cumulative case for survival, then their evidential value would be stronger.

I do believe some cases of NDEs provide evidence for survival, even if the evidence is not so strong like in some cases of mediumship.

[william]

“We would have to differentiate scientific evidence from personal evidence.”

I have tried over the years during my research to investigate as many as possible examples of life after death evidence. When we consider the evidence for NDE’s, OBE’s and the different types of mediumship such as trance, direct voice, and even physical manifestations and what those that experience these phenomena and sitters are telling us the theme appears to me at least there is a personal, global, and maybe universal evolution of consciousness occurring.

The higher level of awareness within that consciousness then the higher dimension that soul resides at in the afterlife as like attracts like. There appears to be a vibration level associated with our level of consciousness. So I guess one could state have some good high-level vibes?

[sw]

'From a personal point of view, NDE's are compelling evidence for the afterlife for the people who had them'

Are we not all basically the same? Would we not also be convinced, unless we were deliberately being dishonest ? And proof ? I think Sabom's study was very good. Van Lommels was better scientifically.. and good enough to convince me.

[Andrew Davidson]

in some cases of NDE's I think people are stretching the truth with their own personal experience in their NDE to make it sound much better than it really is.

Take Dannion Brinkley and his NDE's for example, he says he was dead for 28 minutes in one of them but then in a news article he says he was only without a pulse for a couple of minutes and his wife revived him, If he was dead for 28 minutes he would of had some brain damage.

Then there are the claims that he was a sniper in the Army and further investigation into that claim suggested that he wasn't, Might of been the Army or CIA I can't quite remember what he stated but to me this guy sounds like he is good at stretching the truth.

This is obvious proof you can't always believe what you read or hear when it comes to NDE's, and as for his predictions on natural disasters and so forth, Well don't get me started there.

[Michael Prescott]

"as for his predictions on natural disasters and so forth, Well don't get me started there."

I wrote a post about Brinkley's predictions:

http://snipurl.com/tcb0n

I wasn't impressed. In general, "celebrity" NDErs like Brinkley and Betty Eadie seem less reliable to me than those who keep a low profile.

[Michael Tymn]

The word "science" keeps being tossed around as if it has a "pure" and "exact" meaning, when, in fact, it is a subjective word. There is laboratory science, not all of which is pure and exact, and there is courtroom science, which clearly is not pure and exact. People who continually say that the evidence for survival is not "scientific" are alluding to the most pure and most exact type of science. Yet, those same people have no problem saying that the evidence for biological evolution is scientific, when it also falls well short of being pure and exact, as does most everything else on which "science" has been applied and a "scientific" judgment rendered.

[dmduncan]

New Shroud of Turin controversy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin

[william]

“The word "science" keeps being tossed around as if it has a "pure" and "exact" meaning, when, in fact, it is a subjective word”

The word science might be better described as scientism. There are exceptions of course but they are rare. Materialism has science by the throat and is not about to let up.

“People who continually say that the evidence for survival is not "scientific" are alluding to the most pure and most exact type of science. Yet, those same people have no problem saying that the evidence for biological evolution is scientific, when it also falls well short of being pure and exact,”

Well stated. I have heard or read somewhere that the two examples given during the scopes monkey trial that proved that evolution was a fact but later it was discovered they both were invalid examples to “prove” evolution.

For what it is worth I remember reading Betty Eadie’s book while I was deep into research into NDE’s and I read some pages at a bookstore and put it down and did not purchase it. And this was before all the controversy about her came up. Every one I talked to was raving about it. Something came over me in the bookstore and I just put it down. Can’t explain it wish I could.

This was before I had the Internet and I was extremely interested in books on NDE’s.

[sw]

I think we can be pretty sure that Brinkley was electrocuted and died...for how long we don't know for sure. I think he has claimed to have experienced no less than three NDE's. Like M P, I wasn't impressed with his predictiions, none of which came true although there are some which can be made to fit loosely.
He did tell Moody that he saw the future president's podium with the letters R R engraved on it(he thought it indicated that Robert Redford was going to be president)but we only have their word for it.
As I understand it, Betty Eadie has been unwilling or unable to provide any evidence that she actually 'died.'

I have both books but I wouldn't recommend either. Brinkley's is far out and Eadie's is sugary sweet with homely images of Light beings spinning 'thread' for the gowns of the newly departed. Of course it may be so, heaven may be whatever you want it to be in the initial stages,(Neale Walsh style). Who Knows.

Michael Tymn's point is well made and I agree.
The criteria have been met. The evidence is in but the die hards will not give up their position.

[sw]

Actually, re-reading my last paragraph, I haven't necessarily (or correctly) represented what Michael Tymn said. Apologies. But I still agree with his comments.

[Art]

“Personally - I believe the really, really good medium materials are much better, from an evidential standpoint, than the NDE.” - felipe
--------------------------------------------
I agree and the evidence from spirits that come through mediums often give to us some insights into the meaning of life and life in these other dimensions. - william
--------------------------------------------

Excuse me, I think my head is going to explode! I guess it just goes to show that duality and separation are alive and well and still exist in the physical universe.

[sw]

Hi, Art. how are you doing ?

Just another point about Moody, I think he deserves a lot of credit for sticking his kneck out all those years ago.
Without Life after Life, there wouldn't be all the research and kerfuffle currently going on. Correct me if I'm wrong but materialism was not under threat by any of the other major paranormal evidence the way it is now. I'm not saying that the other branches weren't important, just that they were largely ignored...simply because they(the scientific establishment) didn't have to address them. They could smear reputations and dismiss phenomena without even having to look at it.

"It can't occur, therefore it doesn't occur, and that's an end to it"

But they couldn't keep ignoring a phenomenom that was obviously happening to so many ordinary, unremarkable people, in everday situations.

[sw]

sticking his Neck out I meant.

[Art]

I absolutely agree that some information brought through by some Mediums is evidential and meaningful. I am actually rather fond of George Anderson and have seen him give readings on TV and was quite impressed. I also think that John Edward is talented, and I'm sure there are other Mediums out there that also able to produce evidential information. I remember John Edward once saying on his show Crossing Over that communicating with the other side is sort of like trying to have a conversation with someone at the bottom of a swimming pool. It doesn't come easy.

But, quite a bit of the "preaching" that I've read coming from Mediums I believe comes straight out the mind of the Medium and is highly influenced by pre-existing beliefs of the Medium.

There is a connection between NDE's and the holographic universe theory and quantum physics that I find very impressive and evidential. The Life Review is a "holographic" experience extraordinaire.

[Michael Tymn]

Coincidentally, I just came upon a book titled "There is Life After Death," by Ray (or Roy?) Abraham Varghese in which Raymond Moody writes the Foreword. I think it was just released yesterday and is now available at Amazon.com

"I am confident that breakthroughs will soon bring genuine advances toward rational comprehension of humankind's deepest mystery. There Is Life After Death is conceptual in that Mr. Varghese respects a fundamental limitation which is ignored by many scholars who address the subject. Namely, the question of an afterlife is not an easy one."
--Raymond A. Moody, from the Foreword

[Michael Prescott]

I looked at the Varghese book, using Amazon's "search inside" feature. It looks interesting, but seems to focus almost exclusively on NDEs and maybe some reincarnation reports. In his opening paragraph, the author seems to assume there is no communication between the afterlife world and our physical world, which would rule out mediumship. (The term "medium" isn't listed in the index.)

It's always interesting to see another book on this topic. I wish I had time to read them all! :)

[william]

“I absolutely agree that some information brought through by some Mediums is evidential and meaningful.”

The same applies to NDE experiences as some are more evidential and meaningful than others. Life is about variation in all perceived appearances and this includes NDE’s and mediums. Some mediums bring forth higher level “spirits” than other mediums, which we have little if any understanding why this difference exists.

I did much more research into life after death than NDE’s or the holographic universe teachings and writings as I consider NDE’s a snapshot of life after death and the holographic universe wonderful teachings to express that all is one and oneness is in the all.

From my point of view we are expressions of this absolute infinite Oneness that exists even beyond this universe of thought or thoughts. As far as separation how else could Oneness express its infinite potential without entities having a perceived separate persona we call souls.

As far as dualism that is a misnomer as there is variation that appears to us as dualism. Dualism is a perception where variation explains for me at least the infinite variations of expressions of consciousness. There are not just old souls and new souls there is almost an infinite variation of soul development. There is not just hot or cold water but infinite variations of temperature.

We have been taught well to thing in terms or concepts of good and evil, hot and cold, love and hate, smart and dumb, etc. Consciousness evolves at a variable rate, as there is all levels or degrees of consciousness that exist on this earth and in these other astral dimensions. Like attracts like but even in that scenario there is variation with those within the same soul group or band or cluster.

“Excuse me, I think my head is going to explode! I guess it just goes to show that duality and separation are alive and well and still exist in the physical universe.”

Remember Art the more we want to explode the more our doubts are causing that explosion. Doubts are truly a gift, as they will keep annoying us until we seek deeper into the meaning of what appears to be.

Would a soul ever advance in love and divine intelligence without doubts? Certainty without a realization is only a mask of our doubts.

[Pearl]

On the subject of mediums you might like to read this article-

"Can psychics help solve crime"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8369369.stm

There is a programme investigating this subject on the Donal MacIntyre Show BBC Radio Five Live today at 17.30 GMT
It seems all the police forces who were asked if they used mediums were vague or ambiguous in their replies. One was shown to be lying outright .

[william]

“It seems all the police forces who were asked if they used mediums were vague or ambiguous in their replies. One was shown to be lying outright .”

It appears that materialism and a fear of being known for associating with mediums that most refer to as psychics have a hold on much of the world. I think people are profoundly interested in the subject of life after death. On this blog when the subject of mediums and life after death are discussed those posts appear to receive the most comments.

Here in America mediums have been used to help solve crimes some more successful than others. One medium knew so much a bout the crime scene that the local law enforcement interviewed her as a possible suspect for the crime. She was later released but not without a lesson in her life I am sure.

[Pearl]

I have just tried to access the page I quoted above but for some strange reason I got an "Error", also the listen live facility on the website doesn't seem to be working.
If you want to see the article try typing Donal MacIntyre + psychics into the search engine. That seems to work.

William I have heard about that lady and also several others who have successfully helped the police both here and abroad . There is a particularly well made New Zealand TV programme called Sensing Murder which uses psychics to uncover information about unsolved crimes.
I believe they are using the same format in other countries as well.

[Andrew Davidson]

has anyone seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQVAx5svtk

Not exactly a big fan of Penn & Teller cause it's pretty one sided with skepticism but this is exactly the reason I remain agnostic in my beliefs.

What if all Mediums are just doing what Altea is doing?

[Andrew Davidson]

Pearl I live in New Zealand and I've watched Sensing Murder, Kelvin Cruikshank who is a well known Medium in New Zealand and well known Australian Medium Deb Webber is on the show who I must say is much more accurate than Cruikshank they are using Mediums not Psychics though both are different from each other.

Anyway if you went to one of Cruikshank's shows you be less than impressed almost seems like he is cold reading often.

Makes you have to ask yourself the question, Why do these Mediums seem to do much better on TV than in 1 to 1 readings?

[sbu]

Makes you have to ask yourself the question, Why do these Mediums seem to do much better on TV than in 1 to 1 readings?

Well, that's because the tv production company cut & paste various sequences together so everything looks like the medium is spot on all the time. Clear misses are removed completely in what you see on tv.

If it wasn't sensational those commerical tv stations couldn't make anyone watch their show. who cares about the truth?

[Andrew Davidson]

Good point that you make sbu about truth, for some time I was starting to believe that something more really is happening with Mediumship than just cold reading.

If Mediums are all frauds and all we have left is the AWARE study to go by, then I think the skeptics are very close to checkmate.

[-Marty]

---If Mediums are all frauds and all we have left is the AWARE study to go by, then I think the skeptics are very close to checkmate.---

Nonesense.
What about Radin's work?
or Sheldrake's?
or the many others..?

It is the Skeptic system thats about to get flushed...IMHO :)

[Michael Prescott]

"for some time I was starting to believe that something more really is happening with Mediumship than just cold reading."

I gather you haven't studied the history of mediumship. Rather than focus on TV performers, try reading up on Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborne Leonard, Eileen Garrett, etc. They were tested in situations that preclude cold reading (e.g., proxy sittings). Look into the cross correspondences, the R-101 case, the Bobby Newlove case, the book and newspaper tests, and similar examples.

Here's a useful site for such info:

http://www.survivaltop40.com/

I don't know why so much emphasis is being put on the AWARE study. It's just one study of one (limited) area. Even if some AWARE patients do report veridical memories, it will not prove life after death, since near-death patients are not dead.

It seems as if some people are always focused on the "latest thing," as if mere novelty is what matters. Much of the best evidence was collected decades ago. Unlike milk, it doesn't come with an expiration date.

Here's an old post I wrote about the better evidence for life after death:

http://snipurl.com/teibw

[sbu]

I don't know why so much emphasis is being put on the AWARE study. It's just one study of one (limited) area. Even if some AWARE patients do report veridical memories, it will not prove life after death, since near-death patients are not dead.

The AWARE study is just so much larger, and more formalized than any previous study into ESP. While I would be happy to stamp the Tart's Miss Z as fraud no such thing would be possible with positive results in the AWARE study. The implications are far-reaching.

[sw]

"Even if some AWARE patients do report veridical memories, it will not prove life after death,since near death patients are not dead"

I think Parnia has coined a replacement phrase, Temporary Death Experience( TDI )to get around the 'by definition not dead' skeptic's get out of the near death experience.

Whilst I agree, positive identification of targets on the shelves does not prove beyond all doubt, life after death for ever, it certainly proves temporary life after death and mind brain duality(assuming there is no possibility of fraud and super psi is not proposed)which should be enough, once and for all.
I believe they will eventually get some hits, but then again I can't understand what is wrong with the thousands of correct hits(albeit not on a specific target) we've already had( Sabom's night watchman account for instance) Only those that resort to the mind model or extraordinary fraud are not already impressed with the evidence so far.

[sw]

(TD..E) of course.

[Michael Prescott]

"The AWARE study is just so much larger, and more formalized than any previous study into ESP."

Larger and more formal than the ganzfeld tests?

The term "ESP" in your statement indicates the real problem with expecting AWARE to prove life after death. Conceivably the study will provide evidence of paranormal perception. But we already have thousands of studies offering such evidence. One more, while no doubt interesting and important in its way, will not decide the question.

People seem to be pinning their hopes on AWARE to resolve the debate over life after death once and for all. I'm not fond of absolute statements, but in this case I'll make one: I absolutely guarantee that no matter what kind of results AWARE comes up with, the debate will continue.

Let's say AWARE produces no hits at all; no patient can describe the hidden pictures. Does this nullify the veridical memories reported by other NDErs? Does it nullify research into mediumship, crisis apparitions, hauntings, poltergeists, EVP, after-death communications (spontaneous and induced), memories of past lives, etc., etc., all of which can be viewed as providing evidence for life after death?

Or let's say some AWARE patients do describe the pictures. Does this prove life after death? How can it, when the patients were not dead? Couldn't it be evidence for clairvoyance or even precognition (knowing the correct answer in advance)? Or super-psi, which is so vague a term it can cover anything?

And what constitutes a correct description anyway? If someone says he saw a picture that reminded him of John Wayne, and the actual picture was of a generic cowboy, is that a hit or a miss? Suppose the patient says it was a cowboy, but gets some details wrong - the wrong kind of hat or boots. Hit or miss? Suppose the patient gives the picture an interpretive gloss - for instance, he says it reminded him of playing "cowboys and Indians" as a child. Hit or miss?

Most of us don't remember pictures with photographic accuracy, especially if we only glimpsed them, so why would we expect NDErs to give detailed, point-by-point descriptions that would be accurate beyond any possible dispute?

There is a photo in my dentist's waiting room. I have seen it several times. If asked to describe it, I'd say it's a photo of the woods in winter, with (I think) snow on the ground. There are bare trees, and the whole thing has a bluish cast. That's all I could say. I couldn't tell you what kind of trees they are, whether there is ice on the branches, or even whether it's day or night. I'm not absolutely sure about the snow on the ground, either. And I've stared at that picture for a long time while waiting for an appointment. If an attorney had me on the witness stand, he could probably "prove" I'd never seen the photo, because my recollection would be vague and possibly inaccurate in some details.

I think people who believe AWARE will definitively settle things are underestimating how subjective this stuff really is. Ultimately the evidence can point you in a certain direction, but at some point you have to make the leap to a certain worldview in which the evidence makes sense. And nothing can compel you to make that leap. You can simply choose not to. And if that's your choice (which may be perfectly valid for you), then no single study is ever going to change your mind.

[Ronnie Lee]

I share the same sentiments. I think a lot of people are really overhyping AWARE. We already have plenty of compelling verifiable OBE cases from many credible witnesses. I think AWARE is a step into the right direction, but it's certainly not going to settle the debate. There's a lot more to the NDE beyond verifiable OBEs.

[william]

“What if all Mediums are just doing what Altea is doing?”

Save your money with this medium. A friend took me to see Altea many years ago and to say she was qualified as a medium would be an overstatement. She was as bad of a medium as I have seen. What a disappointment she was to watch fumble around with person after person. It was embarrassing to watch her from my point of view to do so poorly. I felt embarrassed for her at the time.

Another time Dr. Swartz from Tucson brought a medium with him to a local bookstore and his readings were really bad. Cold reading beyond belief. When I asked a person after it was over if the guy was any good this person stated he was wonderful.

Also if my memory serves me correct my friend thought that Altea was great. People in grief are not in a position to evaluate the effectiveness of a medium. If you judge all mediums even those in the past on this one you tube video that is not research that is beliefs based on opinion. People like Altea are the reason spiritualism failed as a religion. Spiritualism had no central control to stop these mediums that might be out and out frauds or mediums with low abilities.

I have been studying the mysteries of life for almost two decades and spiritualism for 9 years and still learning. Once I talked to an atheist that said he watched John Edwards for ten minutes and knew it was cold reading and switch channels. And you can bet this atheist believes he fully understands science and the scientific method. And so it goes.

Also Penn and Teller I would not put all of my eggs in their basket but they are needed to seek out mediums that resort to fraud or have very low abilities. People are desperate to believe in mediums and it gives them hope and meaning to their lives. This is not a bad thing to want to have hope for those loved ones we miss, but for a medium to prey on those in grief well that must have a ton of karma associated with it.

To say that all mediums are frauds would be like saying all politicians are frauds. Sorry unfortunate analogy. My point give yourself five years of intensive research into mediums past and present and then you might be able to make an effective statement about mediums.

[john c]

Some mediums bring forth higher level “spirits” than other mediums, which we have little if any understanding why this difference exists.

William:

Unfortunately, not all mediums are created equal. I think that if more mediums were less egotistic and more spiritually compassionate, the higher level "spirits" would be more than willing to come forward
to work with them.

[shadow warrior]

Mr Davidson, don't just look to Mediums and the Aware study for evidence of Life after Death look at some cases of Reincarnation evidence. Look at James Leininger's story for example his Father was able to verify all the details that his son brought forward about his Past Life he thought he found a hole in the story when there was confusion over Corsair's but that was later cleared up.

He even remembers being in the in between stage after his death as the pilot James Houston and remembers choosing his parents and he knew that they were in a Pink Hotel in Hawaii when he chose them, Ofcourse skeptics of Reincarnation will just tell you he probably seen pictures his parents took of themselves when they were in Hawaii but doesn't that sound like clutching at straws, others will say it's spirit possession.

It's probably the best evidence for Reincarnation and life after death there is well at least in the Western World anyway, Just some food for thought.

[william]

“Unfortunately, not all mediums are created equal. I think that if more mediums were less egotistic and more spiritually compassionate, the higher level "spirits" would be more than willing to come forward
to work with them.”

I agree. One of my favorite mediums was a medium named George Wright that did not take his mediumship out to the public. He had many mediumship abilities but his interest was gaining knowledge into the mysteries of life. A very advanced spirit came through George in the form of teachings using automatic writing while George was in a trance.

Those teachings I have been reading and studying for about 12 years and still I have much to learn from them.

“others will say it's (reincarnation) spirit possession.”

We cannot rule out spirit possession but the amount of evidence I believe is that reincarnation exists. This evidence comes from many sources and teachings even from teachings from spirits coming through mediums. Especially spirits that appear to be very advanced in their understanding of reality.

I think the thought of reincarnation causes many to prefer spirit possession rather than the thought of coming back to this physical world for another go around.