Michael Prescott's Blog

Book review: The Afterlife Therapist

I just submitted this review to Amazon, and since it's relevant to our interests, I thought I'd also post it here. 

____

Retired college professor Stafford Betty has written more than one book on visions of the afterlife. In these books, such as The Afterlife Unveiled, he has compiled excerpts from channeled literature — material purportedly conveyed from departed souls via automatic writing.

His latest book, The Afterlife Therapist, is a departure from these previous books in that it is a work of fiction. Now I can already hear skeptics guffawing that the channeled material is equally fictional, and I suspect some of it is. But the new book is avowedly fictional — the story of psychological counselor Aiden Lovejoy, who continues his occupation in the first sphere of the “afterworld.”



I came to the novel not knowing what to expect, and was pleasantly surprised by what I found. The Afterlife Therapist is as deeply researched as Richard Matheson’s What Dreams May Come, and offers greater psychological depth. The characters may be angels, but they are not saints. They are, after all, still at a comparatively low level of spiritual evolution, still subject to ego-driven conflicts and doubts. Dr. Lovejoy is by no means too good to be true; his character faults prove frustrating to his colleagues and mentors in the next world, just as they did when he was on earth. His arc of development, which is by no means completed at the story’s end, is entirely believable. This focus on the imperfections of all-too-human souls sets The Afterlife Therapist apart from similar books.

Another key difference with other books is the novel’s variety of characters and incidents. Just when you think you know where the story is going, it jogs off in a new direction. Some of these moves are quite bold; at one point, a historical character is introduced, reigning over a petty kingdom in a shadowy netherworld. When his name came up, I thought, “This is probably going to be over the top,” but it plays out very well.

Speaking of shadowy netherworlds, I have to say that, for me, the chapters set in the lowest levels of the afterworld were especially compelling. Perhaps it reveals something not-so-great about my own level of personal development, but I found Betty’s depiction of these fogbound, grim, rat-infested hells viscerally real.

Having read many books on postmortem survival, I’m inclined to believe in it. My expectations with regard to the next life are not always in line with Stafford Betty’s — his afterworld is essentially physical; it exists in physical space not far from the planet Earth, though it is undetectable by Earth’s instruments. While this is consistent with some channeled literature, I feel that asking for the physical location of the afterworld is like asking for the physical location of a dreamscape. We’re dealing, I suspect, with a spectrum of frequencies of consciousness, rather than of matter. But nobody is going to agree on all details of such an esoteric subject, and the truth, as J.B.S. Haldane once said of the universe, is probably not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine. In any event, the physicality of the afterworld in Betty’s novel allows for an interesting excursion to several alien planets, another bold move that works out better than you might think.

I highly recommend The Afterlife Therapist as an ambitious, imaginative, serious, and self-reflective work that reaches far beyond the usual limits of afterlife exploration.

James Randi dies

Multiple news outlets have confirmed that James ("The Amazing") Randi, famed magician, escape artist, and skeptic of the paranormal, has died at the age of 92. Gabe Yuen, one of our faithful commentariat, informed me of this last night. 

Naturally, given the subject matter of this blog, I was frequently in disagreement with Randi's opinions. But now is not the time for criticism. Looking for something positive to say, I remembered a post from 2008 that relied heavily on a chapter in Randi's book Film-Flam! (The exclamation point is part of the title.) I've reproduced it below, with updated links. 

Comments are open but will be moderated with a heavier hand than usual. I'm not a fan of badmouthing the recently deceased, and I'm especially unimpressed with people who try to predict the afterlife experience of someone who's just passed. When it comes to assessing someone's essential spiritual value, I think the best advice is, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." 

 

James Randi as a young man

 

The conning of the fairies

Since I've written two recent posts on Arthur Conan Doyle, I thought I should take up the most notorious incident in his career as a paranormal investigator - the case of the Cottingley Fairies. The story is pretty well known and needs no retelling here; those who are interested can read the essentials in Doyle's own book on the subject, The Coming of the Fairies. The complete text is available online, along with all the photos that featured in the controversy. A much shorter version of the story, with some photos, is found at Wikipedia; unlike some Wiki articles on the paranormal, this one seems to be accurate, at least at the present time.

Probably the most famous criticism of the Cottingley case was presented by James Randi. In his well-known book Flim-Flam!, Randi devotes all of Chapter 2 to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, which includes original research making use of the then-new technique of computer scanning.

I must admit that when I read Doyle's book, I was hoping to find his presentation of the facts more convincing - and hence less damaging to his reputation - than I'd been led to expect. Not that I harbored any doubts about the photos; they are obvious fakes, and their artificiality is immediately apparent to any modern viewer, though people in Doyle's era were considerably less sophisticated in regard to trick photography. What strikes us as clear fakery apparently looked pretty convincing to some people - even presumed photographic "experts" - of that day.

So yes, the photos are undoubtedly fakes; nothing can alter that fact. But if Doyle had presented his case with appropriate qualifying remarks, he might have escaped much of the opprobrium he later suffered. Sadly, he did not. Though he sounds a few notes of caution, the overall attitude of his book is that of a true believer, doggedly certain that these five photos are the beginning of a new era for humanity, a time when the mystical creatures previously seen only by clairvoyants would become visible to us all. No wonder he described the Cottingley photos as "epoch-making."

In his book, elaborate and highly doubtful claims are made on behalf of the photos. It is claimed that the fairies are clearly in motion in the stills, when actually there is little if any blur on the figures - understandably, since they were cutouts. It is claimed that only a photographic genius with the full resources of a studio at his disposal could have attempted such fakes; in reality, the shots were easily done by placing the cutouts in front of a human subject. It is claimed that innocent little girls never lie; well, not all girls are so innocent. 

Though I'm not normally a fan of Randi, I must admit that in Flim-Flam! he makes mincemeat of the fairies - and, with his typically unsparing sarcasm, of Doyle as well. According to Randi, Doyle was "convinced of many irrationalities ... a man who needed such evidence desperately to bolster his own delusions... [and who] spent some L250,000 in pursuit of this nonsense [i.e., spiritualism]."

Doyle himself begins his book with the earnest hope that his arguments for the validity of the photos, even if rejected by the reader, will not prejudice anyone against the idea of life after death, which is to him a separate issue. In this he was surely naive. His exposure as disappointingly gullible in one area of paranormal investigation inevitably colored all subsequent perception of his efforts in other areas. If he could be taken in by two girls playing a childish prank, how can we trust his judgment regarding séances conducted by professional mediums?

Although the photos have been thoroughly debunked, interest in the fairies continues. This Web page, part of a site devoted to the Cottingley area, offers some useful information and links. The Museum of Hoaxes covers the topic and includes all five photos.  Joe Cooper, who wrote a book on the subject, presents the essentials of the case here. An essay rather sympathetic to Doyle was put out by the Arthur Conan Doyle Society*; it makes the point that the original prints were not as clear as the more modern ones (see the comparison at the very bottom of the page).

I have not found anyone who still believes the fairies were real.

---

*2020 update: This website no longer exists. - MP 

Since I've written two recent posts on Arthur Conan Doyle, I thought I should take up the most notorious incident in his career as a paranormal investigator - the case of the Cottingley Fairies. The story is pretty well known and needs no retelling here; those who are interested can read the essentials in Doyle's own book on the subject, The Coming of the Fairies. The complete text is available online, along with all the photos that featured in the controversy. A much shorter version of the story, with some photos, is found at Wikipedia; unlike some Wiki articles on the paranormal, this one seems to be accurate, at least at the present time.

Probably the most famous criticism of the Cottingley case was presented by James Randi. In his well-known book Flim-Flam!, Randi devotes all of Chapter 2 to an in-depth analysis of the controversy, which includes original research making use of the then-new technique of computer scanning.

I must admit that when I read Doyle's book, I was hoping to find his presentation of the facts more convincing - and hence less damaging to his reputation - than I'd been led to expect. Not that I harbored any doubts about the photos; they are obvious fakes, and their artificiality is immediately apparent to any modern viewer, though people in Doyle's era were considerably less sophisticated in regard to trick photography. What strikes us as clear fakery apparently looked pretty convincing to some people - even presumed photographic "experts" - of that day.

So yes, the photos are undoubtedly fakes; nothing can alter that fact. But if Doyle had presented his case with appropriate qualifying remarks, he might have escaped much of the opprobrium he later suffered. Sadly, he did not. Though he sounds a few notes of caution, the overall attitude of his book is that of a true believer, doggedly certain that these five photos are the beginning of a new era for humanity, a time when the mystical creatures previously seen only by clairvoyants would become visible to us all. No wonder he described the Cottingley photos as "epoch-making."

In his book, elaborate and highly doubtful claims are made on behalf of the photos. It is claimed that the fairies are clearly in motion in the stills, when actually there is little if any blur on the figures - understandably, since they were cutouts. It is claimed that only a photographic genius with the full resources of a studio at his disposal could have attempted such fakes; in reality, the shots were easily done by placing the cutouts in front of a human subject. It is claimed that innocent little girls never lie; well, not all girls are so innocent. 

Though I'm not normally a fan of Randi, I must admit that in Flim-Flam! he makes mincemeat of the fairies - and, with his typically unsparing sarcasm, of Doyle as well. According to Randi, Doyle was "convinced of many irrationalities ... a man who needed such evidence desperately to bolster his own delusions... [and who] spent some L250,000 in pursuit of this nonsense [i.e., spiritualism]."

Doyle himself begins his book with the earnest hope that his arguments for the validity of the photos, even if rejected by the reader, will not prejudice anyone against the idea of life after death, which is to him a separate issue. In this he was surely naive. His exposure as disappointingly gullible in one area of paranormal investigation inevitably colored all subsequent perception of his efforts in other areas. If he could be taken in by two girls playing a childish prank, how can we trust his judgment regarding séances conducted by professional mediums?

Although the photos have been thoroughly debunked, interest in the fairies continues. This Web page, part of a site devoted to the Cottingley area, offers some useful information and links. The Museum of Hoaxes covers the topic and includes all five photos.  Joe Cooper, who wrote a book on the subject, presents the essentials of the case here. An essay rather sympathetic to Doyle was put out by the Arthur Conan Doyle Society*; it makes the point that the original prints were not as clear as the more modern ones (see the comparison at the very bottom of the page).

I have not found anyone who still believes the fairies were real.

---

Sad news

I'm sorry to say that our longtime commenter Bruce Siegel passed away this week. 

As I understand it, Bruce, who was in his seventies, had suffered from serious cardiovascular problems since at least 2016. 

Though I never met Bruce, I got to know him online through his many comments here and through occasional emails. After his book on precognitive dreams came out, we sometimes exchanged stories of possibly precognitive dreams we'd had. Most of mine, for some reason, involved animals — scary ones, like sharks.

I reviewed Bruce's book here. Bruce also maintained a blog of his own.

One of his last emails to me touched on the work of Stanislav Grof, who had influenced Bruce profoundly. He quoted Grof in The Cosmic Game: "The divine does not create something outside of itself, but rather by subdivisions and transformations within the field of its own being ... The various manifestations of evil are expressions of the energy that makes the split-off units of consciousness feel separate from each other. Since the divine play is unimaginable without individual protagonists, the existence of evil is absolutely essential.”

Then he added:

I love that last insight! It’s really all we need to know about suffering: without the dark side, there is no separation, no individual actors. You and I go back to Oneness. Ecstatic, but after a while, boring (evidently).

Good luck, Bruce, in the next phase of your adventure. I'm sorry we won't have you with us anymore.