|Photo by Russ Titelman|
Dr. Tucker and Carol Bowman have been working diligently on reincarnation topics since they were students of Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia.
I posted a link to this report, and some wag on the book of faces suggested that any discussion of reincarnation was "Magical thinking."
To which I replied:
"Ian Stevenson spent 30 years at UVA doing peer reviewed studies in reincarnation. Dr. Jim Tucker has continued his work at UVA, along with Carol Bowman have presented dozens of verifiable cases of reincarnation. Dr. Greyson (UVA)'s talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?" (YouTube) cites the medical evidence showing that it's not.
Ed Kelly PhD's "Irreducible Mind" shows that what we believe to be logic regarding consciousness is inaccurate. Magical thinking appears to be a prerequisite to addressing the nature of existence.
I've filmed 50 cases of people recalling previous lifetimes, examined thousands from Dr. Helen Wambach and Michael Newton. People consistently say the same things about the process of incarnation. It's not a theory, belief or opinion we've all had previous journeys here: just reporting what is consistently claimed.
The belief that life ends with the chrysalis stage is the part that is magical. The point being; if we choose to return, doesn't it make sense to have fresh air, earth and water for our return?
The magical thinking is believing that life ends when it can be demonstrated that it does not.
To which the wag replied:
"Are these verifiable cases?"
Indeed they are verifiable cases. I recommend doing a little research on the topic. Ian Stevenson. Dr. Jim Tucker. UVA. Iands.org
The question is why did you choose to come back? Who are you here to teach? What are you here to learn? If this concept is beyond one's scope at the moment, it will eventually be addressed.
Or not. It's your/our choice. Not everyone signs up to learn how the play ends. That's fine. Just enjoy the show. I respect your opinion that life ends. It's just not in the research."
Another face of the book wrote:
Sorry. Dead is dead.
My reply: "Indeed. I've heard the same argument from caterpillars looking at a chysalis.
First we have to define dead. If we look it up, we find that "lack of oxygen to the brain" is considered medically dead. If you look at the cases - and I do mean LOOK at the cases, you'll find in Dr. Sam Parnia's work that there are many cases of people who died (no oxygen to the brain) and returned to talk about it.
If you examine Mario Beauregard's "Brain Wars" you'll find clinical cases of death and consciousness continuing to exist - or examine the thousands of cases at the International Association for Near Death Studies (iands.org) where people were dead dead dead but yet - not dead.
David Bennett's experience; a navy scientist drowned for 12 minutes - twelve minutes under water, no oxygen - he saw and experienced many things that he reports in his book "Voyage of Purpose" - I've interviewed him and others who've had near death events. Dead... but not dead.
And the truth is, you'll continue to consider this to be fact until you meet someone who has had the experience or experience it yourself. Dead, but not dead.
I'm sorry if that's what you think happens - that's what you believe happens - but all I can tell you is that's not what the research shows happens. And by research I'm talking about thousands of cases where people claim that's "not what happens." "I was startled because I could see my body, and everyone saw that I was dead... but I was not dead."
I've been filming people under deep hypnosis for ten years talking about these events - skeptics, scientists, atheists, agents, producers, attorneys - it doesn't matter. Once they witness a death of their own (from a previous lifetime in these cases, not NDEs) they say the same things the NDE people say. "I realized I WAS NOT DEAD."
When asked "Where do you got after that?" they consistently say "I went home." Not heaven. Not purgatory. Not hell. "Home." It's what people consistently say. If we took the time to look at what they say, we'd see they don't claim any religion is accurate. None. Zero. Not a single solitary one.
They do say "all roads lead to home" and that "it doesn't matter what one believes while they're here, they all experience the same things when they are not." I'm sorry if this upsets the paradigm of the simple sentence: "Sorry, but when you're dead you're dead." It's just... not... in... the... research. Sorry."
What's the magical thinking we're talking about here?
Are we looking at data that is in front of us and choosing to ignore it? That's fine, that's allowed - but that is belief, that is opinion, or that is following what isn't in the research.
What is magical thinking?
Magical thinking is how Einstein discovered that he was able to see "the speed of light" in his mind, prior to putting it on the page, it allowed Nikola Tesla to construct complete mechanical objects in his mind without putting them on paper and "seeing them work" - it's the same magical thinking that Beethoven described when he "went into the ethers" to find the source of his inspiration. "Beyond the spheres."
I understand the complaint is that magic is not real, that there is logic to every "trick of the mind" - but that does not negate the fact that thousands of people have said the same things under deep hypnosis about the journey, that what they say is consistent and reproducible. In the 45 sessions I've filmed, and the 5 I've filmed myself experience, I can tell you that when you "see something" that is in your mind's eye and learn "new information from people no longer on the planet" - you do feel as if you're experiencing something "magical."
What's wrong with magical thinking? It is the source of every poem ever written, every movie ever scripted, every novel, play or story that has been ever crafted. Because we are hard-wired to create stories - even if we are creating stories that are echoes of our previous lifetimes, or our between lifetime experiences.
What people claim about reincarnation under deep hypnosis dovetails with what people who remember their previous incarnations have to say on the topic. We tend to think we can't ask people questions about their journey, that somehow our asking the questions interferes with their memory of it - but when you have thousands of people say the exact same things about a journey, and it's CONTRARY to every known religious definition of reincarnation, then it begs the question; "How could all these people be saying the contrary thing to what people claim reincarnation is, or how could they all be understanding something that science does not understand?"
Then we have proof of concept to point to.
This past weekend I was invited by my pal Jennifer Shaffer (jennifershaffer.com) to participate in a "proof of concept" event in Manhattan Beach. She had gathered together about 25 people who expressed an interest in mediumship.
Jennifer has an extensive background in helping people in missing person cases. She's helped with some high and low profile cases. She reports what she sees, experiences, hears, senses as part of her pro bono work for families who have suffered these kinds of traumas, but one day she thought "wouldn't it be great if I could get together a group of like minded people and see what kind of details we can all come up with?"
For those familiar with the history of this kind of research with the government, ("Men Who Stare At Goats") there was some formal training in the 70's with regard to "remote viewing." Using mediums or psychics to try to pry into Soviet secrets. Like any government project, the military was trying to use science to further the ability to "see" into what the Soviets were up to (as the Soviets had their own programs in the same field.)
The remote viewing program was abandoned, some papers were written; most point to the results being "slightly better" than flipping a coin, but still - a better percentage of "guessing" or seeing people objects and things that they were asked to look for. Unfortunately what they were tasked to find were coordinates where Soviet agents would be vacationing in their dacha - and like many projects aimed at using people to assist in govt secrets, didn't exactly pay off.
But in this case, Jennifer has already been tasked with helping to solve crimes, or find people - and she brought together a group of like minded folks, to see what the results would be.
Jennifer presented three case studies - in one instance, a criminal already in prison for what he'd done, in the second case, a person who is currently missing, and in the third, a child who had died under mysterious circumstances.
In each case, the four groups came up with the exact same information - age range, looks, what the person liked to do, what their background was. In the case of the missing person, they had detailed maps, detailed sounds or visuals that were in line with what law enforcement had already discovered (yet had not been revealed) in the case of the person who had died, one of their parents stood in front of the group and detailed the many details of what these people had already know. Names, dates, places... all right on the money.
The program is called "Impartial Witness" and as outlined, some people from silicon valley have assisted in coming up with how to use AI to help in these cases, there are former government officials involved from a variety of law enforcement backgrounds, and then, there's these anonymous people who will be assisting in helping to find, discover, learn or solve any number of issues.
Almost like having a live think tank on the flipside.
I can imagine all of the possible applications - from corporations looking to solve a mystery (an airliner that has disappeared for example) to discovering why their corporate secrets are being stolen, and how, to parents who are in need of their help, or siblings trying to find their long lost parent. But at the moment, this group is assisting law enforcement on "cold cases" as well as missing person cases.
Of course it can't or doesn't always work. My research into this arena points out that "not everyone wants to be cured" (i.e., they signed up to learn from this lifetime and it's not up to anyone to solve the problem before they experience it) "some people learn more from a tragedy than it being solved" (i.e., "You can learn more from one day of tragedy on planet Earth than you can from 500 years on some boring planet" (that's a direct quote in "Flipside") - so there may be any number of reasons why something isn't solved or understood, even on a group level.
But for those who are looking for an edge, a leg up, a way to help solve real time problems, this is an excellent tool in the algorithmic bag. If you have endless amounts of money to throw at an issue, and will leave no stone unturned to find the solution, it's certainly an excellent way to help law enforcement that is open to working with them (and in those applications yet to be discovered.)
Yes, it could be reminiscent of Phillip K. Dick's crime solving fantasy "Minority Report" which shows the problems occur when someone in a position of authority abuses the system - however, the people involved have thought out how to make sure there's no security issues that can't be addressed. The people who report are anonymized, vetted by Jennifer so that people with the right intent are involved, as well as ensuring that the law enforcement is not being asked questions, but are observing what the results are through multiple filters.
But I saw that this kind of think tank could also be tasked to help save the planet.
There's no reason this kind of application can't be tasked to helping the environment "What are the best ways to explore how we can change salt water to fresh water for pennies?" or "How can we solve the problem of fossil fuel energy issues?"
Whatever answers that come forth - it won't matter whether it comes from someone's subconscious, from a scientist no longer on the planet, or a group of people exploring the answers from the flipside - the solution will have the same result; helping humanity. There is no question that cannot be asked to the flipside, it's just a matter of understanding and translating what those answers might be.
Photo by Russ Titelman