Talking about why it’s hard for people to accept the flipside exists
I moderate a forum on Quora called “Hacking the Afterlife.” There have been over 50 million views. Here was a post about why it’s so hard for people to accept there might be an afterlife we don’t comprehend.
Have you ever encountered someone who refused to believe the near death studies that showed consciousness is not confined to the brain and was convinced they were “hallucinations” and other illusions like that? My big question is why are some people so pressed and eager to deny without even looking at the data? It truly blows my mind.
Well, think about it.
If what the studies from UVA Medical school DOPS show — that consciousness is not confined to the brain, then the model of how we navigate the planet is flawed.
Start with something obvious. A crime is committed. Perhaps someone dies from the event. The person is put on trial. They were drunk, or unaware of what they were doing. But then, before they are sentenced, the person who was killed comes to them and says “You weren’t at fault. Don’t blame yourself. This was something I worked out in advance. I’m okay, I’m home. I know you’re suffering from what happened, but you don’t need to. I’m okay.”
This is the kind of thing that would upend law enforcement, how we function as a society. And it’s justifiable to say “That’s insane! That cannot be! That’s not how things work!” If someone stood up in court and claimed that their victim came to them and told them “I’m okay, I’m home” they’d be laughed out of court.
Well, as noted in the book ITS A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE, I was approached by an attorney in a Western state who told me the following. In her practice as a lawyer defending second degree murderers (drunk driving mostly, but other accidents, mayhem) her clients were frequently “visited by their victims and told that everything was okay.”
(From the chapter: I CAN HELP YOU in the book IT’S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE BOOK TWO)
I asked her how many clients she was referring to. She replied “Well, all of them. Over the past twenty years, either they had a dream, or a visitation — where they awoke and saw their victim standing in their room saying “I’m okay, I’m home, you don’t need to beat yourself up over my death.” I asked the attorney if the clients believed what they were seeing.
She said “No.” Because that’s not in the lexicon. It’s not reported. They all were completely freaked out by it, some took their own lives, some went into drug use or alcohol, some went into religious conversions. None of them could process it.
Clearly it’s not something one can argue in court. “Your honor, my client says that his victim came through to say he was okay.”
However, it did happen in Seattle. A killer — a murderer of a family was in court, and was convicted of the murder. The jury was deciding the death penalty. When it came time for his statement, he said “I know this will sound crazy. But I had a visitation from my victims. They came to see me in my cell, and told me to tell you that they want me to live out my days in prison, because then at the very least I can try to help other people, try to pay my debt to society. They told me that they were okay, and this was part of a life plan that I wasn’t aware of.”
One juror found the fellow believable, and that juror’s vote gave this fellow life in prison instead of the death penalty.
Which frankly, is a ticket back home. Sending someone home before their time is what we do in our society — we logically feel that justice must include them suffering for their actions — only what the data, research and footage indicate is that “no one dies.” So gassing them, shooting them, electrocuting them may cause temporary pain — but they return home. They have a life review where they experience all the trauma they caused first hand — and future lifetimes may be affected by those actions — but they aren’t suffering. They’re home.
So that’s one reason why people dismiss the data. They don’t want to hear it.
But there’s something more important involved — which is that people sign up for their lifetime to learn or teach lessons. And the lessons they’re going to learn or teach may depend upon the belief that their religion is sacrosanct, that their belief system is unique, or that their disbelief system is accurate. That’s how humans spend years trying to cure illness — after all if they considered that “life goes on” they wouldn’t be in such a rush to save the life of their patient. Because they would be aware that “they may have planned this illness to learn from it, so they could be a doctor in a future lifetime.”
I recommend not trying to convince anyone of anything.
One can say “I’ve read Dr. Greyson’s book AFTER on his decades of near death case studies;” he was a skeptic who realized his bias was blocking his ability to see the data clearly. He’s aware now that consciousness isn’t confined to the brain. Dr. Tucker’s book BEFORE based on fifteen hundred historically accurate reincarnation cases, as Tucker studied with Ian Stevenson who founded the DOPS lab with Xerox money — and Carol Bowman his fellow student who wrote CHILDREN’S PAST LIVES — both are scientists who use the scientific method and protocols to investigate these cases.
Both of them are now aware that consciousness is not confined to the brain.
So one can share these books — and shrug while saying “who knows?”
It’s really not up to anyone, myself included, to change someone’s chosen path.
The reason I created this forum HACKING THE AFTERLIFE is because some people are suffering immeasurably from the loss of loved ones, and I have seen people turn that around using hypnotherapy, mediumship or meditation. Seeing their loved one, or talking to them, or learning new information from them (as documented in DIVINE COUNCILS IN THE AFTERLIFE) is a life changing arena. It’s a place where we can share data, research or personal experiences with the flipside.
I could say “have them watch SURVIVING DEATH on Netflix where they visit the DOPS lab, or watch AFTER DEATH where they examine near death events with scientists, or look at FLIPSIDE, TALKING TO BILL PAXTON or HACKING THE AFTERLIFE on Amazon. All demonstrate methods for people to access loved ones on their own.
But God forbid people would be forced to consider something they don’t want to consider.
Not everyone buys a book and reads the ending first, not everyone buys a ticket for a play and standing in line wants to hear “how it’s going to end.” Part of the joy, the beauty, is in the living it, experiencing it, learning the lessons we’ve signed up for.
We all are walking each other home — whether one wants to believe that or preach that is an individual choice. My advice is; leave some breadcrumbs if needed, but otherwise, enjoy the show.
Of all your excellent answers, Richard, this is the best I’ve read.