Having a Near Life Experience, Classrooms and an Interview

I answered this question on Quora today...

How would you define a "near life" experience?

That’s the term I prefer to use rather than “near death” experience.

Near death experiences occur when a person feels their consciousness leave their body and moves to another plane.  There are thousands of cases, many have been studied and cataloged by Dr. Greyson at UVA.  

There are many that can be examined at iands.org.  

People describe a variety of experiences, but by and large they are positive and give people a euphoric feeling and alter any fears of death.

However if we compare those near death experiences with the research done by Dr. Helen Wambach (“Life before Life’) or Michael Newton (“Journey of Souls”) two psychologists who studied what their clients said under deep hypnosis about their journey, we find similiar stories about what it’s like “back home” - that place that’s not here, but is where people consistently claim we “return to” after our departure from this plane.

So let’s examine what that might mean.  These people (I’ve filmed 45 so far) consistently refer to this arena, what Michael Newton called the “life between lives” realm - but what I’m hearing people call “home” - is reported to be a place of “unconditional love.”  

It’s the place that we exist prior to coming here - and further, people claim we only bring a certain amount of our conscious energy to our lifetime, and roughly two thirds of that energy is always “back home” while we are here.

So if the place that we come from is “home” and the majority of our conscious energy is always “back there” then that’s a reframe of what it means to be here on the planet, what it means to be “alive.”  When we are here, sleeping for a third of our lives, living and breathing and navigating the human animal that we are, we are as far away from our natural state as we can imagine.  

Like waking up and finding ourselves on Mars - trying to navigate that atmosphere, trying to stay alive in that environment, and then when that lifetime is over, returning “home” to earth (for example.) 
Mars. Look familiar? It should.

If that’s accurate, that the lifetime we lead here on the planet is one that is “not like being home”that our journey to this place is “unlike our natural state” - then having a near death experience is like getting a glimpse of what “real life”is like.  It’s getting a glimpse of what our natural state is - in a space of unconditional love surrounded by our loved ones and soul mates, and having a feeling of interconnectivity to everyone and all things.  That’s essential what our existence is,according to these reports, essential what “being alive” entails.

And our journey here to the planet seems more like “being in a fishtank” or “existing in a dream”or “finding oneself onstage in the middle of a play.”  In other words, this world, this place where we currently inhabit, is the false front, the imaginary world that we navigate on a daily basis.  

And when we have a near death event, or some other altered consciousness event, we get a glimpse of what LIFE really is - hence why I call them “near life events” rather than the former."

Near Life on Earth.

Then I answer this Quora question:

What do you think souls are doing in heaven?

Ask them.

There’s an odd construct while we are here on the planet. We assume that when people die, their consciousness does as well. But that’s just not in the data. 

What is in the data is the reports of thousands of people who’ve had near death experiences (iands.org) where they report not only that we don’t die, but that we “return” somewhere we’ve been before.

What the people under deep hypnosis consistently say (I’ve filmed 45 sessions and examined thousands of cases from psychologists Dr. Helen Wambach and Michael Newton) is that we existed prior to coming here, that we don’t bring all of our consciousness to our incarnation (reportedly about a third) and when we leave this plane, we return to merge with the consciousness left behind.

In this question there are two brain freeze parts; the word “soul” and the word “heaven.” In this research, people don’t use the word “heaven” but claim that people are “going home.” 

In other words, the construct of the word “heaven” is reflective of the person saying it. They claim that during their between life experience they have feelings of “unconditional love” and experience “joy” - but they don’t refer to this place as anywhere but “home.” As in the place we return to after we are here.

No two descriptions of this place match - other than the hallmarks of seeing “soul mates” or people we normally incarnate with, of seeing “spirit guides” or the people who have guided us through “all of our lifetimes.”

Occassionally they encounter some being they ascribe to being “god” or “godlike.” No two descriptions match either - other than describing an “intense bright light.” People refer to “creator” or “creators” but none of the reports follow any of the religions that are on the planet that I’m aware of. 

The closest belief system that I’ve come across is that of either aboriginals of Australia (who believe that being awake is being in a “dream” and that while we are asleep (or that our consciousness can roam free) is “reality” (which is what people under deep hypnosis also claim) or those beliefs of native Americans that “every object is imbued with energy” or “the great spirit.” These accounts are remarkably similar to what people under deep hypnosis claim about the process.

So I’m happy to say there is no “soul that goes to heaven” in the research. But I’m equally happy to report that “our consciousness returns home after life.”

Now that I’ve opened that door (and it’s not a door everyone should open, nor am I suggesting people should open it - it’s just what I’ve been doing the past decade) - I can tell you what people report they are doing “back home.”

Going to class.

I’m sorry if that’s stressful to some - I know it was to me when I heard it, as in “I went to school for 18 odd years, you’re telling me I have to go back to class on the flipside?” But in all the cases I’ve filmed - the 45 at least, and the thousands I’ve read that Michael Newton has gathered - people claim that while we are “back home” we also “attend class.”
Mom and I started our own class in 1959

I’ve also done 5 of these between life sessions and each time I’ve “visited” one of these classrooms. All I can say is that my conscious mind is saying “woah! a classroom!) ((while “under hypnosis” your conscious mind is always aware, you’re just allowing the subconscious to speak)) - and in each of the classrooms I’ve visited I’ve been able to ask questions to the people who are teaching the class. (I reported this in “Flipside” as well as “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife.”)

What are the classes about?

They’re mostly about the transference of energy from one medium to the next. I’ve seen classes of students learning about how to help channel “the healing light of the universe into doctors, healers and others who are trying to help people on the planet” I’ve seen a class where students work on “geometric shapes, fractals that retain all of the memories of previous lifetimes yet travel with us during our lives so we have access to them.” 

I’ve attended a class where the teacher showed me on a “chalkboard” the formula for “creating crystals.” (I’m not a scientist so I wish I understood them - but it was something to do with “time” “intense pressure” “intent” - and in my mind’s eye I was shown examples of pink crystals that the class was working on.

In Newton’s books he has clients report about these classes. And in the book “My Life After Life” by Galen Stoller, (who wrote the foreword to “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife” volume two from the flipside) he reports attending these classes, and what it’s like to find yourself in one, to look around at the other students in attendance, and what a particular teacher looks like.

But aside from classes, what else are people doing? Playing complex elaborate games. In one case, (“Its a Wonderful Afterlife”) this film producer I know, a skeptic, who didn’t think “she would get anywhere” under hypnosis, but agreed to let me film her doing a sessions - said that her “soul group” was playing an elaborate game of tag. 

The hypnotherapist (scott de tamble of lightbetweenlives.com) asked “What kind of tag?” She said all six members of her soul group could “hide anywhere” and that in order to win, you had to “tag all six of them.”

with Jennifer Shaffer and Scott De Tamble

Scott asked “What do you mean hide?” She said “They’re invisible and they can hide anywhere in the universe.” Then she said “Oh, and they’re showing me the advanced version where you can hide in other realms as well. And you have to find all six of them before you win.”

Again - this kind of inquiry isn’t for everyone. I’m not trying to stir the pot, or trying to make any claims about anything. I’m just reporting (as a journalist and a filmmaker) what people are saying under deep hypnosis about the afterlife. It’s not my opinion,belief or theory about what they’re saying - I’m reporting verbatim what they are saying. And it’s been consistent over the past ten years and 45 sessions (I’ve done 5 myself.)

What I’m working on at the moment is “conversing” with folks on the flipside, via different mediums. (including JenniferShaffer.com) I ask the same questions to different mediums who don’t know each other,don’t know the individual I’m asking the questions to, and seeing what answers I get. 

I can only say that the answers have been consistent whether I ask them, where someone else asks them, or they’re written in advance. And while working on that ability to “talk to the flipside” I’ve found that they are much easier to access than we think they are.

The “proof” that they are communicating with me is in “new information.” Details that only they could know, that I later find out to be accurate through forensic research. In other words, could not be cryptomnesia, hypoxia, or synesthesia - they’re telling me something I could not know, something the medium could not know, but upon later research discover to be accurate.

Finally, here's a link to a "book talk" I did on air with Ana Velasquez:

Hacking the Afterlife with Rich Martini

“Hacking the Afterlife” offers that it’s possible to obtain “new information” from people no longer on the planet. 

These “afterlife interviews” offer practical advice (“afterlife hacks”) on how to navigate our lives and improve our planet. 

Martini’s inspiration and curiosity comes from the technique used by Dr. Michael Newton that allows people to access the between lives realm, or LBLs
Listen in as Rich takes a friend with a near death experience through this “Hacking the Afterlife” process.

Writer/Director/Author Richard Martini is an award winning filmmaker, who has written and/or directed 8 theatrical features, and a number of documentaries. 

His first book, “Flipside: A Tourist’s Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife” went to #1 twice at Amazon in all its genres. The book is based on transcripts of a documentary he made which is available at Amazon (Flipside: A Journey Into the Afterlife) and Gaiam TV. 

His books “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife” volumes one and two expands the research into the afterlife from Michael Newton’s work, to include interviews with a number of scientists in the field of consciousness, including Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Mario Beauregard, and Gary Schwartz Phd. 

He also examines near death experiences and compares their accounts to similar ones during between life sessions (the technique used by Michael Newton that allows people to access the between lives realm, or LBLs) and other examples (OBEs) where people may have lost their ability to think normally, but are having the same experiences. In “Hacking the Afterlife” he interviews mediums and explores “interviewing people no longer on the planet.” As Gary Schwartz put it after reading “Flipside” “Inspiring, well written and entertaining. The kind of book where once you have read it, you will no longer be able to see the world in the same way again.”


Listen to my interview with Rich Martini


Thinking Without a Box

Thinking Without a Box

Photo by Russ Titelman
Ran across this article today about consciousness:


Thinking Outside the Quantum Box
How the mind can make sense of quantum physics in more ways than one 

Thinking Outside the Quantum Box
Credit: PM Images Getty Images

By Bernardo Kastrup on February 16, 2018
Thinking Outside the Quantum Box

"The counterintuitive predictions of quantum theory have now been experimentally confirmed with unprecedented rigor. Yet, the question of how to interpret the meaning of these predictions remains controversial. A Wikipedia table summarizing different interpretations of quantum mechanics included no less than fourteen entries at the time of this writing. New interpretations regularly appear.

The problem is that quantum theory contradicts our intuitive understanding of what “real” means. According to the theory, if two real particles A and B are prepared in a special way, what Alice sees when she observes particle A depends on how Bob concurrently observes particle B, even if the particles—as well as Alice and Bob—are separated by an arbitrary distance. This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of observation. As it turns out, certain statistical properties of the observations, which have been experimentally confirmed, indicate the latter: that the particles do not exist independently of observation. And since observation ultimately consists of what is apprehended on the mental screen of perception, the implication may be that “the Universe is entirely mental,” as put by Richard Conn Henry in his 2005 Nature essay.

The problem, of course, is that the hypothesis of a universe whose very existence depends on our minds contradicts mainstream scientific intuitions. So physicists scramble to interpret quantum theory in a way that makes room for a mind-independent reality. A popular way to do this entails postulating imagined, empirically unverifiable, theoretical entities defined as observer-independent. Naturally, this goes beyond mere interpretation; it adds redundant baggage to quantum theory, in the sense that the theory needs none of this stuff to successfully predict what it predicts.

Some cringe at such attempts to modify quantum mechanics to make it fit one’s worldview, as opposed to adapting one’s worldview to make it consistent with quantum mechanics. So the question that naturally arises is: If we stick to plain quantum theory, what does it tell us about reality? Physicist Carlo Rovelli tried to answer this question rigorously and the result is now known as relational quantum mechanics (RQM).

According to RQM, there are no absolute—that is, observer-independent—physical quantities. Instead, all physical quantities—the entire physical world—are relative to the observer, in a way analogous to motion. This is motivated by the fact that, according to quantum theory, different observers can account differently for the same sequence of events. Consequently, each observer is inferred to “inhabit” its own physical world, as defined by the context of its own observations.

The price of this uncompromising honesty in acknowledging the implications of quantum mechanics is a number of philosophical qualms. First, the idea that the physical world one inhabits is a product of one’s private observations seems to imply solipsism, an anathema in philosophy. Second, RQM entails that “a complete description of the world is exhausted by the relevant [Shannon] information that systems have about each other.” However, according to Shannon, information isn’t a thing unto itself. Instead, it is constituted by the discernible configurations of a substrate.

Yet, if there is no absolute physical substrate, what then constitutes information? Third—and perhaps most problematic of all—the RQM tenet that all physical quantities are relative raises an obvious question: relative to what? We only see meaning in a relative quantity such as motion because we assume there to be absolute physical bodies that move with respect to one another. But RQM denies all physical absolutes that could ground the meaning of relative quantities.

Notice that the root of all these philosophical qualms is the assumption that only physical quantities exist. If physical quantities arise from personal observation and they are all there is, then solipsism is indeed implied. If physical quantities are grounded in information and they are all there is, then information indeed lacks a substrate. If physical quantities are relative and they are all there is, then there are indeed no absolutes to ground their meaning. I shall return to this insight shortly.

For now, however, it would seem that biting the bullet of plain quantum theory, without decorating it with imagined bells and whistles, forces us into unresolvable philosophical qualms. Yet, this conclusion is false. To see how we can get out of this quagmire we need only to be rigorous about the epistemic scope of physics.

Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, of cosmic inflation fame, provided an important clue when he observed thatour knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions.... Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perceptions.... This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the description of matter.” Hence, in the absence of an absolute, observer-independent substrate, the physical world of RQM can only be the contents of perception. There is nothing else for it to be.

Now recall that the philosophical qualms of RQM rest on the assumption that only physical quantities—that is, contents of perception—exist. However—and here is the key point—next to the contents of perception there are, of course, also non-perceptual mental categories such as thoughts. Many physicists posit that thoughts should be explainable in terms of physical quantities and, as such, become part of the physical world by reduction. But this is a philosophical assumption that does not change the scientific fact that quantum mechanics does not predict thoughts; it only predicts the unfolding of perception, even when what is predicted—and later perceived—is the output of instrumentation.

So the possibility that presents itself to us is that thoughts are the absolutes that ground the meaning of the relative physical quantities of RQM. In other words, all physical quantities on the screen of perception may arise as relationships between thoughts. Moreover, since both thoughts and perceptions are mental in essence, this line of reasoning points to mind as the primary substrate of nature, the discernible states of which constitute information.

The hypothesis here, which I have elaborated upon in detail elsewhere, is that thought—whose characteristic ambiguities may in fact be what quantum superposition states ultimately represent—underlies all nature and isn’t restricted to living organisms. The physical world of an observing organism may arise from an interaction—an interference pattern—between the organism’s thoughts and the thoughts underlying the inanimate universe that surrounds it. Although each organism—in accordance with RQM—may indeed inhabit its own private world of perceptions, all organisms may be surrounded by a common environment of thoughts, which avoids solipsism at least in spirit.

Conn Henry’s courageous assertion that “the Universe is entirely mental” isn’t only a seeming implication of recent experimental observations, it may also point the way to an elegant philosophical underpinning for what is perhaps the most rigorous and parsimonious interpretation of quantum mechanics. Mind, it seems, may offer a path out of the quantum quagmire in more ways than one.

Note: This essay is based on the paper “Making Sense of the Mental Universe,” published in Philosophy and Cosmology, Vol. 19, pages 33-49.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Bernardo Kastrup

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering from Eindhoven University of Technology and specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world's foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories. He has authored many science and philosophy papers, as well as several philosophy books. His three most recent books are: "More Than Allegory," "Brief Peeks Beyond" and "Why Materialism Is Baloney."

Image result for bernardo kastrup
Bernardo Kastrup

If I may weigh in; substitute the word consciousness for "observation" in this article. 

I.e, "This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of CONSCIOUSNESS."

Our consciousness alters the outcome. 

Once we can define consciousness - which appears to be like light, both particle and wave, we have a clearer picture of its function. 

It functions like water; can shift or move to another place (us) but still remain part of the pond. We have our own pond which is composed of the same elements of the ocean, but is still "our pond." 

We reportedly only bring about a third to any lifetime; two thirds of our conscious energy remains "back home." 

All connected all the time.
(Note: This is based on the thousands of cases reported by both Dr. Helen Wambach ("Life Before Life") and Michael Newton ("Journey of Souls.") I've examined these as well as numerous NDE cases,filmed 45 of my own "deep hypnosis sessions" where people say relatively THE SAME THINGS about the afterlife, no matter what their background, gender or religious affiliation.  
     I chose the 45 subjects based on their skepticism, lack of religious beliefs, or in some cases because of them.  It did not matter who asked the questions, or who was answering them - their answers are all relatively the same about the process,and that fact that we bring "about a third" of our conscious energy to a lifetime, and the remaining "two thirds" is "back home" - "where we came from initially prior to incarnating here.)

Once we view consciousness as both particle and wave we can see how it can be in two places at once, can alter events, can change outcomes can apparently shift in "time." 

Being outside of time, or the physical elements of our known universe, our consciousness is not bound by them either. 

Multiple lifetimes in one head?
(On set in Mumbai making "My Bollywood Bride")
You'd take this guys word on consciousness? Oy.
I am not a scientist, I'm a journalist and filmmaker.  I based the above observation on the cases I've been researching over the past decade. It's not a theory, belief or philosophical construct - I'm reporting what people consistently say under deep hypnosis, or whom have had near death events (NDE) and have done hypnosis sessions to revisit them. 

My point is; once we start to understand the function of consciousness, we stop thinking about it as an object to be created or invented, and observe it as both "particle and wave" or something that is both a mechanism and a medium. My two cents.

Both wave and particle.


Einstein's Brain

Einstein's Brain.

There was a recent issue of National Geographic about genius.  What is it?  What creates the environment for it? (May 2017) "Genius" by Claudia Kalb, "Some minds are so exceptional that they change the world. We don't know what exactly makes these extraordinary people soar above the rest of us, but science offers us clues."

Michelangelo's David. Photo by Paolo Woods (NG) May 17

The article talks about the creation of the IQ test, and how it was conceived as a way of understanding genius.  People who had high IQs were followed for years, and it turned out - they had the same outcomes as most people.  Out of their control group, 2 had gone on to some fame in their field, but the rest struggled like... well, the rest of us. So high IQ doesn't mean that a person will achieve great success, but it arguably "sets the table" for someone to achieve that label.

The article talked about Michelangelo's genius, and compared how some famous geniuses had a "circle of genius friends" who were also very talented, and they had charts and maps of how by charting "social networks" of genius, there might be clues as to how and why they accomplished so much.  

They repeated the myth that Michelangelo took a "discarded piece of marble" and crafted the David from it. Actually, as I learned while researching "the Demedicis" for HBO, Mick won the marble in a contest.  His father had notified him in Rome this monster piece was being offered in a contest, and convinced the 25 year old to enter. Mick found a flaw in the marble, which would have made it worthless - but he followed the fault with his chisel to start the knee of this statue.  

For those familiar with his technique, he "let the person emerge" from the marble - honing small details first, knowing precisely how they would work in the overall piece. In other words he "saw the statue inside the marble" before he began.

Most sculptors work "outside in" - shaping as they go along, chipping away what wasn't necessary, but in Mick's case, he did the opposite.  Revealed the statue within. 

They also miss out on the point that Lorenzo De Medici, 20 at the time, met Michelangelo when he was 11 and a student of the Academy.  Lorenzo saw his genius, brought him into his home, and allowed him to flourish amid their "Platonic Academy" where they would read Plato (many for the first time) in Italian (Lorenzo's father Piero had them transcribed from Latin to the local language so anyone could read Plato and Socrates) - and not just those books okay'd by the Vatican. This is why the Pope sent an assassin to kill Lorenzo and his brother Giuliano (the model in Botticelli's "Primavera") but that's another story...)

Mick's patron, a poet turned ruler Lorenzo

The article points to this ability in geniuses.  

Seeing things from a different perspective.  Being able to "see a building" in 3 dimensions - or as Nick Tesla revealed that he "saw his inventions as fully functioning objects in his mind" before he went to a prototype. 

Beethoven credited his genius not with the other artists he knew, or his circle of friends, or his "social network."  He firmly credited it with coming from "the outer spheres" - E. T. A. Hoffmann, the author and music critic: "Beethoven is the "sublimest" of composers: his music "opens the realm of the colossal and immeasurable," and "leads the listener away into the wonderful spiritual realm of the infinite."

Beethoven said as much about his inspiration.  It came from the outer realms - he was not a religious man in the Age of Reason, but claimed that the source of his inspiration came from "beyond our realm." 

He was accessing the Flipside in order to download his music.

But the point of this Martini Shot essay is to open up a new avenue to understanding "genius."

If what thousands have said in this research is accurate: that we use consciousness the way a computer uses hard drives, that a portion of our consciousness is "always back home" while we are here - if it's true that we "only bring about a third of our conscious energy to a lifetime" and that "roughly two thirds is always "back home" while we are on the planet" - then we have to redefine what genius actually is.

Because science is married to the concept that consciousness is dependent upon genetics and sociological factors, and the brain is like a computer that is filled with information, and then "for some inexplicable reason" uses that information to make us believe we are conscious. (In a Martini nutshell)

That's an unfortunate way to view life on earth - but it's pretty much what science thinks is the case.

That "the brain is the sole creator of thought."  That If we slice up the brain we'll find out how the brain works.

There's a photograph in the article of the slices of Einstein's brain that they carved up, put on slides, and is on display at the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Maryland

Slices of Einstein's Brain 
So what the heck are slices of Einstein's brain doing in a museum?

It's like taking apart a stereo receiver to figure out why Beethoven's Ninth is playing inside of it.  Or taking apart a speaker to examine why music is coming from inside.  Or looking for the tiny man in the operator suit who is hiding inside the machine.

Oh look. A slice of Einstein's actual brain.

Post materialist scientists (like Dr. Greyson at UVA) claim the brain functions like a stereo or television receiver. That is uses limiters and filters to parse information into where it is needed or can be used.

They claim the brain functions like a receiver of consciousness, that it is not the only source of consciousness, since people have yet to wrap their brain around this research - And until we do, we will forever be slicing up brains thinking that's the source of consciousness.  Or that's the only place to find it.

As the research shows, the brain is not the only source of consciousness. By "research" I'm citing clinical psychologist Dr. Helen Wambach's 2000 cases of people under hypnosis claiming that we "plan our lifetime" that we are consciously aware of what or who we are going to be prior to coming to the planet, or a decade later psychologist Michael Newton's 7000 cases (a decade later) where people consistently claim that we come to the planet "around the 4th month of inception" and that we exist prior to coming here, that the majority of our conscious energy ("soul") remains behind or "back home" while we are here, and is accessible in "outside consciousness events" (NDEs, OBEs, LBLs, etc)....

Or by citing Dr. Bruce Greyson's youtube talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?" which I reproduce in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife."  He argues with medical cases that consciousness is "not only produced by the brain." (Go ahead, click the link, it's only 90 minutes; I'll wait.)

I'm also including the 45 hypnosis sessions I've filmed (4-6 hours each) and the 5 that I've done myself.

"Consciousness is NOT confined to the brain."  

It's funny. This sentence upsets some people.  They argue "the reason people "believe in the afterlife" is because they "fear death, they fear annihilation." I would argue the opposite. The "belief" that life ends is the issue. That the word "believe" is the culprit. If you've experienced something (NDE, OBE, LBL) "belief" becomes "experience." Either one experiences it or does not.  

In terms of NDEs, thousands claim they "know" that life goes on, in LBL (between life hypnosis) sessions, people "experience" "returning home" after this lifetime. ("Home" is their word).  
By "home" they don't mean here.

The point is; eyewitness reports should not engender fear or disbelief, but rather a desire to understand where they come from and if evidence shows they could not have made it up or learned it elsewhere to examine the consistency in those reports. 

If we can prove there is "new information" during the event, (as I do in my books) then it can't be coming from the brain.  New information can't be cryptomnesia, synesthesia or hypoxia.  If the information turns out to be accurate, then the experience therefore cannot be created by the brain.

The brain functions like a stereo receiver, with limiters, filters and ways of parsing that information where it should go.

Oh look, here's  how I parse information I get from the Flipside.

We can access our "higher consciousness" through hypnosis, meditation, out of body experiences, near death events. When we do so we get a glimpse of the amount of information that we have access to.

People claim that we have "portable hard drives" that follow us around in the shape of geometric fractals that "contain all the information from our previous lifetimes."  ("Flipside") 

It's not my theory that occurs, or my belief that's the case, but is what people consistently report.  Not all the time - but enough times that I can argue what these geometric shapes supposedly contain.

"Access codes."

The Beethoven's Ninth is hiding an Access Code. Listen to it in its entirety and you'll see what I mean. (I'm kidding but kind of not kidding.)

Not literally, figuratively. 

Access to our "higher consciousness" which does not float around the universe like a Carl Jungian pool of consciousness - it would be cool if that was the case, but that's in none of the reports.  What is in the reports is the consistent claim that we are unique - we have our own consciousness that is ours, but by the nature of how consciousness works - we can shift our perspective, experience other people's experiences, or tap into the vast feelings of love that connect us all.

So genius - isn't confined to the brain.

It does have a "social network" in the sense that we seek out, in a quantum entanglement fashion, the people and loved ones that we normally incarnate with.  That we've already made a plan with to reconnect with again in this lifetime. That we find ourselves running into and feeling "as if we've known them forever."

Because, in a sense, we have.  We've known them "before" and continue work and hang out with them again.

Another fellow who seemed to have access to multiple lives
When we come here we choose a lifetime that we think we can handle.  When we are here, there are environmental aspects that are conducive to helping us achieve our goals. (In the article they cite how rappers and other musicians are able to "supress pathways" or "open pathways" that allow them to access spatial information we aren't normally aware of.)

So - it is possible for a person to "open up those pathways" to access more information?

Meditation allows the brain to "work out" like an athlete would to get certain muscles to function better.  

Meditation can open the mind up to other possibilities.

Reading about anothers journey or path can open our mind up to these possibilities.  I know when I first began reading Michael Newton's work, I avoided his conclusions about what was happening and focused just on the first hand reports.  Later, after I confirmed beyond my ability to deny what they were saying was accurate, I went back and read his comments about what people were telling him.

Hmm. Space. The first frontier.

Finding a Newton Institute trained therapist and doing a between life session will grant access to that "higher information." (I recommend them because they are familiar with the architecture of the flipside, and know what questions to ask. They have a searchable database on their site.)

Indeed, doing a between life session led me to the other research, to interviewing people who've had near death events, or people who've had contact with loved ones either through dreams or a medium or some other fashion - to see if the portrait or the architecture of the "afterlife" was the same.

Indeed, to my chagrin, it was.

Flipside. It's a Wonderful Afterlife. Hacking the Afterlife.

The architecture of the afterlife is a knowable entity.  Reportedly we don't bring "all of our consciousness" to a lifetime because it would "blow the circuits of the brain" with "too much energy."  (And we do see people walking around the planet with blown circuits as it is.)

But we can access this information in such a way as to not harm our path and journey, and in such a way that we can gain insight into why and how we came to the planet, and what happens to us when we depart it.  (In a spiritual sense.)

But in the future, we won't be slicing up people's brains to understand why they worked. It's like taking apart a tennis shoe  to understand why a runner is so fast. Or taking apart a car to understand how it can win so many races. Certainly the construction of the tool is important, and the ability to use it with ease is important.  

But equally important is the pilot, the person running the race or driving the car, who brings their skill and ability to that particular task, and further, they're bringing the ability to access "all their other lifetimes" or to think in a spatial way that is "open to the answer no matter where it comes from."

E equals what again?

Hence why Einstein used to play his violin in order to think.

It wasn't because it was a casual thing to do. It's because he was using music as a way of linking up with the flipside and downloading the answers.

You're welcome.


Walking Dr. Drew into the Flipside

A clip from the Susan Pinsky show where I got the chance to interview Dr. Drew about a dream he had as a small child.  It's a form of "Hacking the Afterlife."

Appeared on Susan Pinsky's "Calling Out" with your truly

I used the dream as a "gateway" to access his "consciousness" - (not subconscious, as it could not have been in his memory banks - what he describes during this interview was not part of his awareness, could not be cryptomnesia or some other event.)  

He describes the same "council" and afterlife guides that everyone else does while under hypnosis or while being asked the same questions that they get asked under hypnosis.  This is a 15 minute real time "flipside hack" - because I'm familiar with the architecture of what he was saying, it was just a matter of directing him to these events. 

In it, he was able to see three of his 12 guides, and get "new information" from them. For further info RichMartini.com, or search my books on Amazon. Enjoy!


The Flipside of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge

I'm about to dig into the story of Adam and Eve as told in Genesis.  I add a warning or caveat to folks who this might offend.  But what else is new?

Eve ate the apple from the "Tree of Knowledge."  Something she has been chastized for doing for, oh, a long time.  But what if that's not what happened?  What if we've been telling this story all wrong all along? 

What is this story about Eve and the tree of knowledge? As it was explained to me (in Catholic school of all places) this story in Genesis of Eve and Adam "eating from the tree of knowledge" is a metaphor.
not a nun, but a picture of one.
I had been raising my hand for sometime in Sister Daniel's class at St. Norberts Parish in Northbrook, and perhaps when she answered this question, she was just trying to get me to stop asking questions.  

What Sister Daniel explained that day, was that this story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge was a "metaphor for human consciousness or sentience." 
Goddess of Whatchamacallit

Meaning, once a human being went from being an animal (or ape) living in tress, and become aware, or sentient - he or she realized they were “naked” etc, and started civilization (and wars, crime, violence, and all those things that don't exist in the Garden of Eden). 

Further, that the knowledge that we "were naked" and "had to be clothed" outside the Garden of Eden was the end result of eating from that tree.  ("Damn! If only we hadn't taken a bit of the apple, we wouldn't have had to suffer here - birth and death and all of that - we would continue to be blissfully aware in the Garden!  What a bummer!")

But alas, that danged snake talked her into it.  (And lawyers, politicians followed soon after.)

Funny enough, when I heard this explanation in 8th grade from my nun the science teacher, I realized the entire bible was a metaphor, was not to be believed word for word per se --- and informed my parents I wouldn’t be “attending mass” anymore. Because I didn't believe that those folks who wrote the book were accurate.

To my surprise; they agreed.

But now, based on my decade of research into the flipside, I see another interesting metaphor in this story. 

One day I was filming an interview with Jennifer Shaffer, and during that interview "Michael Newton" (whom she took to calling "Morton" as she could not remember his name) appeared during one of our conversations and said that he was on the flipside doing "noetic science."  

I had read about it in Dan Brown's book - but I had to look that word up to understand that he was saying that from his perspective now, in the afterlife, he was helping people with understanding how to communicate with people "on the other side."  

I asked him to clarify - "You mean you're helping people over here on the planet to speak with their loved ones over there?"
Michael Newton

He said "No.  The opposite."  He was advising people no longer on the planet as to how they can communicate directly with their loved ones still on the planet.  Not what I expected to hear - but there it was.

And when I got to my car, the word "Mnemonic" was on my cellphone. I had not typed it - it showed up as if I had.  I allowed it might have been my pocket just creating that text - but I did look it up. 

I knew it was a word related to "memory." (A mnemonic is a phrase to help with memory, like using "every good boy deserves fudge" to remember the notes on a treble scale of sheet music.)

But looking up that word, I learned that it was related to one of the most famous goddesses humanity has known but somehow has forgotten.

She was as equally important as Venus or Eros, or Mars.  Her name used to be invoked before every play ever performed. She was the Goddess of Memory; Mnemosyne.

Before every greek play, the group would lead the audience into a prayer to her so they would remember their lines. (Some plays went on for days.) 

But the story of her - the goddess of memory includes this detail"

"In Greek mythology, there was also a need of mind erasure, all mortals had to do this between their two lives, forget everything before being rebirth-ed...
Jennifer Shaffer

Lethe was one of the five rivers in Hades, the underworld in Greek mythology. It was also known as the river of unmindfulness. The river was told to flow through the cave of Hypnos, the god of sleep, who would murmur his drowsiness into the water... 

One would experience complete forgetfulness of the past after drinking water from it. (Lethe came into modern English as the word lethargy. Lethargy characterizes a condition of extreme drowsiness, fatigue, laziness or torpor, and usually a lack of emotion or interest. Lethargic means unnaturally drowsy, dull or torpid.)

Interestingly enough, there was another river which had just the opposite magic of Lethe, that was river Mnemosyne. It had the ability to make those who drink water from it remember all things and acquire omniscience." (From the net)

So; two rivers to drink from: one included the erasure of the memory of the previous lifetime, the other allowed you to remember "all of your lifetimes." 

Based on the the thousands of between life hypnotherapy cases (2000 from Dr. Helen Wambach and 7000 from Michael Newton, the 45 I’ve filmed) that’s pretty accurate. 

When we come here to the planet we forget all of our previous lifetimes so we can live this one fully (imagine how stressful it would be to constantly recognize people around you from the previous lifetimes/plays) and when we get “back home” we reconnect with the conscious energy we left behind so that we remember all of our previous lifetimes. (That is how we eventually recognize all those people as players we’ve “known forever.”  Because we remember all the lifetimes we've had with them.)

(One can do this on their own with relative ease by finding a therapist trained by the Newton Institute - that’s their specialty. I’ve done 5 of these sessions, and have filmed 45 of other people doing the same.)

But it just occurred to me that this same myth applies to the story of the Garden of Eden.
The Garden of Eating

The Garden of Eden is the place of total happiness, no judgment, a place of unconditional love.  When we come to the planet we take a "bite of the apple" and suddenly we are "thrown out" of the Garden of Eden, and we experience life, birth, death, hunger, famine etc... but all the while holding onto our memory of this eden like place - where we all "come from."

In the 45 between life sessions I've filmed, people consistently refer to this place that we "come from" as "back home."  When I first heard it I was puzzled - where's home? Do they mean the home of the previous lifetime they just remembered? Or do they mean the home of this lifetime where they are doing the remembering?

It turned out neither.

They mean "back home" as in "not here."
Back home... in the twilight zone.

I just now realize that the myth of the tree of knowledge may actually be the opposite of what it depicts. 

Not that Adam and Eve lived without knowledge - and then ate the apple and had knowledge… BUT THE OPPOSITE.

Eating the apple was the way of “forgetting where we come from.” Like taking a drink from the river of Lethe - forgetting that we come from a place of unconditional love, and while here we are “human form” which includes being naked, having to eat, give birth - but also to experience “unconditional love” - while we are here on the planet, but experiencing this realm from the perspective of our existing as "human beings/animals." 

Something we generally “forget” when we get here (some do remember, often children up to the age of 8, but for the most part, we forget).

But when we "return home" we don't have to take a drink from the river Mnemosyne, because when we "get back home" we merge with the energy we left behind (people claim it's about two thirds of our overall energy), we "remember all of our previous lifetimes."

They don't report omniscience (we become "very smart," we are aware of all of their lifetimes, but not aware of how everything works, including who or what god is). But they do report this same information consistently.

The book of Genesis is... a cook book! (Sorry, just kidding, I couldn't resist the Twilight Zone reference).

The book of Genesis in this scenario is not a myth - but a metaphor for how we show up on the planet in the first place, and the tree of knowledge that we take the bite of the apple from - that apple bite represents a metaphor of the experience of what it's like to be human.  

We forget that we are all spiritual beings in human form, but we will remember this when we return "home."
Garden of Eden....


Follow by Email