Michael Prescott's Blog

Book review: The Afterlife Revealed

I really enjoyed Michael Tymn's last book about life after death, The Articulate Dead, and have been very much looking forward to his newest effort, The Afterlife Revealed. It did not disappoint.

Tymn sets the stage in the preface, when he notes that at age 75, with some health worries, he is aware of his own mortality. But, he writes, "I think I can honestly say I do not significantly fear the idea of death itself. In fact, I find it somewhat exciting." While happy to live in the present, he sees knowledge of the afterlife as a way of simultaneously "living in eternity." He quotes philosopher Alice Bailey:

We can live in the consciousness of immortality, and it will give an added coloring and beauty to life. We can foster the awareness of our future transition, and live with the expectation of its wonder. Death thus faced, and regarded as a prelude to further living experience, takes on a different meaning.

Meanwhile, Tymn observes, "today's hedonistic materialism is a result of a loss of spiritual values, especially a lack of belief in the survival of consciousness after death." I think there's a lot of truth in this, although the sheer abundance of material goods available in our world is another large factor. It's perhaps inevitable that people with access to unprecedented luxuries would become somewhat hedonistic, even if they happened to retain a belief in a spiritual dimension.

Of course, the big question is whether there is good evidence for an afterlife. As Tymn observes in a brief overview of conventional religious beliefs, acceptance of an afterlife on faith isn't very comforting to the modern mind, especially when the afterlife is envisioned as either "a humdrum Heaven or a horrific Hell." And why are revelations in ancient books considered sacrosanct, while more recent revelations of a similar character are dismissed as fraudulent, delusional, or demonic?

This, by the way, is my main objection to Christian writers like Dinesh D'Sousa and Roy AbrahamVarghese, who defend the afterlife on the basis of Judeo-Christian scripture and a highly selective reading of contemporary evidence, limited mainly to near-death experiences. Why are mediumship, reincarnation memories, hauntings, etc. disregarded by these authors? Whatever their rationalizations, the real reason seems to be that such phenomena contradict Biblical teachings or are prohibited by Biblical injunctions. But an open-minded investigator would look at all the evidence, and not be bound by ancient taboos.

Tymn begins the main part of The Afterlife Revealed with a brief history of Spiritualism, which includes famous cases like the Fox sisters and Emanuel Swedenborg, as well as such less familiar names as George T. Dexter, Grace Rosher, and John Scott. Part of the book's appeal is the presentation of cases that even many aficionados may not have read about. Tymn's encyclopedic knowledge of afterlife research allows him to draw on material that more casual researchers have never heard of.

The book proceeds to examine the dying process and its aftermath in step-by-step, chronological fashion -- from deathbed visions (including the remarkably detailed report of Sir Auckland Geddes in 1937), the moment of separation from the physical body, the early stages of postmortem existence, the life review, and the soul's gravitation to the appropriate sphere or plane.

Summing up in a chapter titled "Making Sense of the Afterlife," Tymn considers how best to understand this larger world. "Another perspective on this," he writes,

is to view the earth life like a movie, an illusory life, being viewed by the real self -- the soul. During a movie, we occasionally remind ourselves that we are separated from the movie action, but we then again become absorbed by the action and feel much of the emotion being experienced by the actors. After a very emotionally-charged movie ends, it sometimes affects us for the rest of the day or evening. And so it seems to be with the soul that has a hard time shaking off the earth experiences.

The lingering effects of earthly life account for some of the difficulties in making the transition to the next life, and for the diverse levels of consciousness among the deceased, as revealed by mediumship. 

The book offers four appendices covering premonitions of death, the possibility of reincarnation, the issue of suicide, and capsule biographies of noted researchers and mediums. There is an extensive bibliography which runs the gamut from modern books like James E. Beichler's To Die For to older, obscure titles like Stanley De Brath's 1925 Psychical Research, Science and Religion. The breadth of Tymn's sources is truly impressive, and I was left thinking I should make a list of the interesting titles in his bibliography that I haven't yet read. There are quite a few.

The Afterlife Revealed clocks in at a speedy 192 pages, densely packed with information and insights. It's a fine book, a labor of love aimed at lightening the burden of all those who seek a larger meaning in our predominantly materialistic age, and I hope it finds the intelligent, discriminating readership it deserves.

The Afterlife Revealed

I've been meaning to review Michael Tymn's terrific new book, The Afterlife Revealed, but personal things have gotten in the way. I did read an advance copy and liked it very much, and I will have a review up ASAP; but in the meantime I wanted to let readers know that the book is now out in both print and ebook editions, and is sure to be of interest to anyone who follows this blog. 

For more info, you can go to the print edition's Web page, or the ebook edition's page. Both pages contain links to the Amazon and Amazon UK sales pages. The ebook can also be purchased through iTunes. 

While you're at it, check out Robert McLuhan's excellent review of the book on Paranormalia. 

Goin' home

Recently I came across an American spiritual written by W.A. Fisher in 1922, which seems to have been inspired by traditional African-American hymns. Though an alternate version exists which contains conventional Christian imagery, the authentic version strikes me as having much in common with NDEs and the teachings of Spiritualism. Possibly Fisher was influenced by Spiritualism, which remained quite popular at the time.  

Goin' Home

William Arms Fisher

Goin' home, goin' home, I'm a goin' home;
Quiet-like, some still day, I'm jes' goin' home.
It's not far, jes' close by,
Through an open door;
Work all done, care laid by,
Goin' to fear no more.
Mother's there 'spectin' me,
Father's waitin' too;
Lots o' folk gather'd there,
All the friends I knew,
All the friends I knew.
Home, I'm goin' home!

Nothin lost, all's gain,
No more fret nor pain,
No more stumblin' on the way,
No more longin' for the day,
Goin' to roam no more!
Mornin' star lights the way,
Res'less dream all done;
Shadows gone, break o' day,
Real life jes' begun.
There's no break, there's no end,
Jes' a livin' on;
Wide awake, with a smile
Goin' on and on.

Goin' home, goin' home, I'm jes' goin' home,
goin' home, goin' home, goin' home!

(Lyrics via Wikisource.)

Splinter, meet log

Having been a little mean to the skeptics in my last post, I have something to confess in the sequel: Sometimes I'm one of them. On certain issues I'm as closed-minded as any skeptic, displaying exactly the same psychology and the same set of responses.

This became clear to me recently when, by coincidence, two different people happened to be in touch with me via e-mail, both trying to convince me that Barack Obama's 1961 birth certificate is, or could be, a fake. In both cases I dismissed the idea out of hand, and even when one correspondent sent me numerous links to videos and blog posts and begged me to look at the evidence with an open mind, I complied in only the most halfhearted way.

I did look at about half the videos, but I was more interested in the rebuttal videos displayed on the YouTube sidebar. I found that any seemingly plausible explanation of the alleged anomalies in the birth certificate was acceptable to me, even if the explanation did not address all the issues.

After an hour or so, I felt I'd given the issue more than a fair shake. In fact, I felt rather proud of myself for being so "open-minded."

Or at least I did, until the same correspondent pointed out that it would take far longer than an hour to properly analyze, or even understand, these complicated technical claims and counterclaims. He added, "I get the feeling you're not really too interested in this," which was true. I just don't think claims of a conspiracy involving Obama's birth certificate are credible, so I'm not interested in spending more than a token amount of time and energy learning about them, and I'm perfectly content to accept the first more-or-less satisfactory evidence that makes the whole issue go away.

And I can't even blame myself for feeling this way, because life is short, I have higher priorities, and I really do believe it's a waste of time and effort to look into every fringe conspiracy scenario.

But ... isn't this exactly what skeptics of the paranormal say to justify their own lack of interest in the details of paranormal cases?

Skeptics find the idea of the paranormal so unlikely that they don't want to waste much time on it. In fact, not only does it strike them as unlikely, but it's also personally distasteful to them, just as conspiracy theories are to me.

Like me, skeptics are not interested in delving deeply into the evidence because they've already concluded that nothing valuable will be obtained.

Like me, they seize on the first apparently acceptable "conventional" explanation for any anomalous findings, even if the explanation doesn't cover all the facts or has been questioned by knowledgeable people.

Like me, they regard the whole controversy as silly, childish, and irrational.

I'm not trying to beat myself up about this. I still think Obama's birth certificate is genuine, and I still think conspiracy theories are mostly stupid. (The main reason I find them stupid is that they are not disprovable; any evidence that casts doubt on the conspiracy is reinterpreted by the conspiracy theorists as part of the cover-up.) But I can't say, in all honesty, that there is some unbridgeable gulf between me and the paranormal skeptics, since I've already demonstrated that I'm perfectly capable of committing all the same errors and relying on all the same psychological defense mechanisms that I've ascribed (I think correctly) to them.

The only real difference between us lies in what we choose to take seriously, and what we choose to shrug off. Everybody has a different "boggle threshold," and what is plausible or at least possible to one person may seem absurd and unthinkable to someone else.

In fact, one of my correspondents unwittingly highlighted this very point. In an effort to show me how sensible and reasonable he is, he wrote: "You know me. I don't believe in mind reading ... I don't believe in ghosts ..."

Possibly not the ideal tack for him to take!

:-)

Too uncool for school

Via Facebook, Patrick Casanova directs my attention to this brief but excellent article by The Daily Grail's Greg Taylor, in which he summarizes the many factual errors in Martin Gardner's well-known article about Leonora Piper.

It's clear that Gardner knew little about the case and, either through ignorance or design, misreported many key details. Yet he continues to be cited as an expert whose debunking of Piper is definitive. 

Sometimes I think a major part of skepticism's appeal is that it enables the skeptic to take the opinions of so-called experts like Gardner at face value, without having to do any original research or original thinking, which would entail the risk of possibly having to differ with these same experts.

In other words, I think in many cases skepticism appeals to people who are reluctant to think for themselves, and who ground their self-image in the borrowed authority of relatively high-status figures like Gardner, Carl Sagan, and James Randi. By simply latching on to the stated opinions of these people and parroting them, the skeptic can cultivate the illusion that he is one of them, or at least is in their orbit.  

For a long time I wondered why so many skeptics would uncritically accept dubious theories like anthropogenic global warming. Eventually I came to realize that they accept these theories, even when the evidence is equivocal at best, because the theories are promulgated by experts -- and that the real motivation behind much of skepticism is to be accepted as one of the "in" crowd.  If one cannot be an expert oneself, the next best thing is to be a cheerleader for the experts and gain some measure of credibility, authority, and status via osmosis.     

This may account for the peculiar fan-boy quality that many skeptics exhibit toward figures like Randi, Sagan, and Gardner. As Greg Taylor notes, a contingent of these skeptics patrols the pages of Wikipedia to edit out any information that might cast their idols in a less than favorable light. They also descend on any pro-paranormal book listed on Amazon.com to inundate it with one-star reviews, repeating the standard skeptical talking points, even when it's obvious they have never looked at the book in question. And they gather at conventions, like Randi's "Amaz!ng Meetings," apparently for the sole purpose of congratulating each other on how smart they are. 

It also accounts, I think, for the blustery condescension and snarkiness that characterize too much skeptical output. Often it seems that the principal objective of the skeptic is to establish that he is cleverer than his adversaries, and his principal tactic is to assume an air of bored, wryly amused detachment, as if to say, "People as smart and knowledgeable as I can scarcely be bothered with all this nonsense." It's a pose, and not an especially convincing one. 

To me, the whole thing smells a little too much of high school. You know how in high school, there's the "in" crowd, and then there are the insecure poseurs who aren't cool enough for that crowd but who desperately attempt to score points as hangers-on? 

True skepticism requires the opposite approach -- a willingness to think for oneself and to disregard the experts if their expertise is found lacking. There are some skeptics who fit this description. Milbourne Christopher and Marcello Truzzi (both deceased) are two examples. There are others, naturally. 

But they do appear to be in the minority.

They know where the bodies are buried. Or maybe not ...

In the news today - a tip from a professed psychic that led police in Liberty, Texas, to dig up someone's property in search of a mass grave. The Drudge Report and many major media outlets, jumping the gun just a bit, breathlessly announced that the skeletal remains of as many as thirty children had been found.

Actual number of bodies found: zero.

Oops. 

Naturally this embarrassing incident will lead to a good deal of guffawing about the idiocy of believing in psychics. It probably should also lead to some guffaws about the idiocy of trusting the media to accurately report a breaking story, but somehow I doubt this is the angle the Fourth Estate will play up.

An ABC News post indulges in a fair amount of chortling of the first kind, but on page 2 it includes some interesting details about other cases:

Despite some public failings of psychics, [former Assistant Us. Attorney General Stuart] Grabois said he was personally astounded by one back in the 1980s when he was investigating the disappearance of New York 6-year-old Etan Patz; not because the psychic was able to find the boy who had been missing since 1979, but because most of the other leads she described panned out. The woman, a schoolteacher referred to Grabois by a state official, knew things about locations she could not have seen before and even predicted children's clothes would be found in certain locations, Grabois said. She also gave an accurate description of the prime suspect in Patz's disappearance, a man currently in prison on other charges, he said.

Though the boy was not where the psychic said, she was so specific with other facts that Grabois "took a second look" at her as a possible accomplice in the case before clearing her of any involvement.

"To this day I still shake my head," he said. "I have no explanation for the accuracy of this woman."

Despite his experience, Grabois said he does not believe psychics generally help solve cases. Garrett said other investigators may disagree.

"There are detectives that state that psychics have helped them find people, they've helped them find bodies," Garrett said.

Sometimes, like in the case of an Australian psychic, it's just not the right body.

Last year an Aboriginal elder claimed she had a vision of a missing 6-year-old in a wooded area outside Syndey, according to a report by The Associated Press. But when she went to investigate, she instead found the dismembered torso of an adult woman.

Also last year, a psychic appeared to have predicted the location of the victims of what police believed to a serial killer on Long Island, the New York Post said. The psychic said that a body would be found buried in a place looking over the water and there would be a "G" on a sign nearby. In December 2010 investigators uncovered the remains of several victims on Long Island's Giglo Beach -- but none were buried.

A few more stories on this topic can be found in my "Psychics and Crime" archive. I've also got a long and rather combative* post on "psychic detectives" here, which points out that Vernon Geberth, who wrote the standard textbook on homicide investigation, believes psychics can be and have been useful to the police.  "Investigatively speaking, there has been sufficient documentation of successes to merit consideration of this technique on a case-by-case basis," Geberth writes in his book. 

Sadly, spectacular failures like the Texas debacle and Sylvia Browne's many public screw-ups (scroll down the linked page) are more likely to be remembered than the successes. 

---

*"Combative" ... or, frankly, sort of obnoxious. I wouldn't write it like that today. 

Trivial pursuits

A miscellany of minutiae ...

======

Here's an interesting news story about identical twins who both passed away, at age 92, within a few hours of each other. 

======

I've been playing around with the idea that some of the ambiguities of paranormal phenomena might be best understood as occupying borderlands between states of consciousness. Not sure if there's anything to this, but for purposes of discussion, here's a chart I worked up. (Click to enlarge.) Note that I'm not claiming there's anything scientific about this hierarchy, nor am I claiming to know exactly what level of consciousness should be assigned to particular life forms. 

 

 

As I say, I'm not sure there's any value to this, but possibly it may be a way of understanding how gradations in consciousness allow for "anomalous phenomena" on the margins (or at the transition points). The idea, such as it is, is not really worked out. 

=====

Speaking of charts, this chart-topping new single immortalizes the Weinergate scandal with wit, style, and aplomb. Yes, it's the whole package! Content warning, not suitable for work, may offend those who are easily offended, etc. 

Weinergate

The largest news of the past week is, of course, Weinergate. 

In all honesty, the number of column inches devoted to this story seems disproportionate to its subject. The story may be big, and it may continue to grow, but I doubt it has the potential to be huge. Even so, there is no doubt that the scandal will be hard on the congressman and his staff.

There is no need to magnify the story or extend it. The facts, laid bare, are straightforward enough. It appears that the congressman pulled a boner and was caught with his pants down. He issued a brief statement, which may have been premature and seems to have been a stretch. It appears he got overly excited and wasn't using his head. As a result, his story is encountering stiff opposition and has prompted penetrating questions from the hardened press corps, who see him as fair game for whacking. 

Though the media continue to pump the congressman, his answers have come up short. Even as reporters flog him, he has remained rigid in sticking to his story. Apparently he has decided to run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, while trying to beat off all inquiries. In all of this, I can't escape the feeling that we are being jerked around by Congressman Weiner. It's almost as if he is trying to screw us.

If the congressman persists in dicking around, the situation may come to a head. He risks looking like a tool, even like a bit of a prick, as he tries to make us swallow a story that would choke a chicken. 

He needs to master the situation and not be baited into losing self-control. It doesn't help him when he goes off half-cocked. He must stand tall, straighten his spine, and do the hard work of servicing his constituents. The story may be large, but it's nothing he can't handle. He just has to grab hold of it with both hands. 

To be frank, Weiner needs to show some balls.