When does Life Begin?

 

THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE

 

When does life begin?

Does is begin with conception?

Does it begin when the sperm is accepted by the egg?

Does it begin when people are born?

 

The answer has always been a complex opinion.

 

However, in terms of the data, there is no mistake about the date of when human life begins.

It begins in the first trimester.

No sooner.

Not until the fourth month.  Until then the fetus is a mass of genetic material that is a possibility.

Conscious energy does not enter the fetus until after the fourth month.

 

How do we know this?

Because we can ask people, “When did your conscious energy (soul) enter your mother’s womb?”

The question has been asked in thousands of cases, in thousands of clinical case studies by Dr. Helen Wambach, a clinical psychologist from JFK University in her 2750 cases.  In her research, she never had a person who said they entered the womb until after the sixth month. In her book “Life Before Life” Dr. Wambach refers to her thousands of case studies.

According to Michael Newton, a hypnotherapist who did thousands of cases before publishing “Journey of Souls” in 1994.  In his research, he said that he never had a case where a person claimed to enter the fetus until the fourth month. In his interview for “Flipside: A Tourist’s Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife” he reported he’d never heard or seen an example prior to that fourth month.

"The first “trimester.”

Now, is it possible that someone somewhere has entered previously?  Some hypnotherapists have reported that people are “there for the inception” – at the beginning, during the sex act. Some people claim that they “encouraged” or helped facilitate their meeting.

This is not opinion, theory or belief. It’s not an argument about “when life begins” – it’s profoundly clear that humanity doesn’t yet realize that life exists prior to life. That people report being “fully conscious” prior to incarnation, that they can examine, talk about, plan their future lifetime with the help of teachers, guides, classmates and council members.

I’ve been filming people accessing this information for over ten years. I’ve filmed over 100 people who have reported “when their conscious energy” entered the fetus.  Even when I did my first of six hypnotherapy sessions, I had no idea that I could answer the question – when asked I said “the fourth month.”  Others give a date or a month, but it’s always, without exception after the fourth month of inception.

When asked “why” – people report, “There’s nothing to do.” “It’s like hanging out with a fish.”

 They wait until the human embryo becomes large enough, complex enough to meld that conscious energy with the physical fetus. 

That’s the process. 

Consciousness exists outside the brain. 

See the work out of UVA Medical school that demonstrates that to be the case. Dr. Greyson’s book AFTER has thousands of NDE studies that show consciousness is not confined to the brain. Dr. Tucker’s book BEFORE is based on 1500 historically accurate reincarnation reports from people who recall previous lifetimes which demonstrate consciousness is not confined to the brain.

In the work of Ed and Emily Kelly, IRREDUCIBLE MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS UNBOUND included 100’s of peer reviewed studies that show consciousness is not confined to the brain. Dr. Mario Beauregard’s EXPANDING REALITY is the work of a post materialist neuroscientist who covers the research that shows consciousness is not confined to the brain.

It’s not opinion. It’s not a belief system. It’s not a theory – it’s data and footage of people saying the exact same things consistently.  In order to become data, research must be consistent and reproducible.

I challenge any psychiatrist, hypnotherapist, psychologist to ask their clients while accessing their journey “what month they chose to enter the fetus.” 

Even if the doctor is not aware of how the answer could be answered – they do answer it.

So before we watch the Supreme Court ruin the lives of people who are suffering from rape, incest or some other form of pressure in how they should or shouldn’t live their life – let’s be clear.  Life does not begin at conception. Life does not begin at birth either. 

Consciousness exists prior to birth, we bring a portion of our conscious energy to a lifetime and the rest stays “home” (the word everyone in the research uses instead of “the afterlife.”)

Based on the research, data and footage: 

Life begins – or the conscious energy of humans becomes part of the process - AFTER THE FOURTH MONTH OF GESTATION.

I’m a filmmaker. 

I’ve been filming people accessing this information for over ten years. 100s of examples. 

I’ve examined thousands of case studies. 

They all say the same thing.

It’s time for us to enter the 21^st century about how consciousness functions and incarnation works.

My two cents.

Perfect pitch, driverless cars and a cure for Parkinsons

Was listening to Harry Shearer's Sunday show this morning interviewing Gary Marcus.  ("Interview with NYU Professor of Psychology and Neural Science, Gary Marcus on artificial intelligence." March 4th, 2018)

From Richard Davidson's work on Meditation
how it can "cure or alleviate depression."

Harry was talking to NYU professor Gary Marcus about brain functions, about "preprogrammed" information that occurs in certain animals (the author used the octopus as an example of a creature that is born with a vast amount of apriori knowledge) and how artificial intelligence advocates and creators debate whether or not artificial intelligence machines (driverless cars) should be built with a certain amount of "baggage" or prior knowledge, and if they should be a clean slate to learn "new information."  He referred to his article in the New Yorker "Moral Machines."

He spoke of how the simple worm was dissected decades ago, and yet science has not been able to duplicate its functions in a machine. (Gary's article on "Deep Learning" is here)

Further, there was an article in nature.com about how light waves (and sound waves) may be a cure for a variety of brain disorders, including Alzheimer's and Parkinsons. A recent study showed promising long term benefits for people who spent an hour a day looking at pulsating lights or listening to sounds.

But let's start with perfect pitch, shall we?

Gary Marcus Ph.D said "There are more cases of perfect pitch in China which may be a genetic or a cultural phenomenon."  Harry pointed out that he was "born with perfect pitch" and it wasn't a skill he acquired.  They discussed where "talent comes from" - and the author pointed out that some bands can play for "a thousand hours" and never attain the musical abilities of the Beatles for example. But Harry wanted to know "How is it that I was born with perfect pitch?"

(I've met Harry a couple of times over the years. We did a Laverne and Shirley with Harry Dean Stanton (! I was the pizza delivery guy) and we met in New Orleans during the Jazz fest, and I reviewed his wife's music when I wrote for Variety)

I can tell you Harry.

With Jennifer Shaffer Medium and George Noory
Coast to Coast radio

But you have to get a cup of coffee, sit back in your chair, and go down this rabbit hole with me.  I can show you how to cure Parkinsons, help people with Alzheimers, define where perfect pitch comes from, and explain how driverless cars will never become morality machines.  I can explain all of that to you, but first you have to set something aside.

Ego. Vanity.  (Not yours, just the concepts.) They are two words that come to mind when we judge what we are about to hear or contemplate.  "Consider the source."  If one was to look at my background, look for my Ph.D for example, or check where my sources are, there going to resist coming into the hole with me. 

A life well lived! Or remembered well.
or well... remembered.

For the past ten years I have been filming people under deep hypnosis talking about the afterlife.  If there was a Ph.D in "Filming what people say about the afterlife while under deep hypnosis" I'd have that moniker.  I did graduate magna cum laude, I have written or directed 8 theatrical feature films, and written four best selling tomes on the topic (kindle best sellers) but none of that really matters.

Some scientists will (and have) argued that "hypnosis is not a valid tool of science" but they're wrong. Inaccurate. Mistaken. 

If we look at medical cases, for example, drugs are given in a test environment, and then answers are asked and those results become data.  The results must be consistent and reproducible.  That's a hallmark of science.  

Hallmark.  My grandfather Edward A Hayes French Legion of Honor
medal.  It exists somewhere, as it was stolen from my folks home.
But it's still a hallmark.

So what I'm about to tell you is both consistent and reproducible.  It doesn't matter who is telling this information to you, it matters what these people consistently say.  If they say the same things consistently, then one has to rule out how that could possibly be.  If they say the same things no matter who is asking the questions, or who is offering the answers; again, we'd have to rule out how that could possibly be. 

How could thousands of humans say the same things under hypnosis no matter who asks the questions or what the protocol is?

With medium Jennifer Shaffer and Newton trained
hypnotherapist Scott de Tamble (Lightbetweenlives.com)

I've examined the thousands of cases of Dr. Helen Wambach (Life Before Lives) and Michael Newton (Journey of Souls.)  I've filmed 45 people that I chose for their skepticism to do a "between life session" which lasts up to 6 hours.  I've done five of them myself. And the results are the essentially the same.  I expanded this research into near death experiencers.  I have transcribed sessions of people who've had a near death event and then used hypnosis to reaccess that information.  Further, I've interviewed these people while fully conscious and had them revisit the same information and gotten the same results as people who've never heard of "hypnotherapy."

How could that be?

It's because consciousness is both a medium and a mechanism.  Like light is both particle and wave, consciousness functions in the same manner.  It doesn't "spontaneously generate" the way that people used to think "water in the desert created fish."  Consciousness functions the same way that water does - in the sense that one can't kill a drop of water - they can change it, it can travel somewhere else, but every single drop of water that has ever been on the planet is still here. No drop of water has ever been destroyed, killed, or even harmed. It functions, is changed, then travels back "home" and then "reincarnates" again in our coffee.


Just like humans.

What the research shows is this: we come to the planet with about a third of our "conscious energy" (soul for lack of a better term) and two thirds of that energy is always "back home" where we "came from." (I use quotes because that's what people consistently say.  When asked "where do you want to go?" after remembering a previous lifetime, they inevitably say "home."  Not heaven, or hell, or planet Xenu, or Kolab or any of the other "places" that we associate with some "other place." They use the same word CONSISTENTLY.  We can argue what home is -no two people have the same idea of home - but the words they associate with home are consistent; "A place of non judgment" a "place of unconditional love" a place of "safety" "comfort" or "where our loved ones are."

Harry Dean Stanton
Whom I interviewed on the Flipside in
a previous post here.

Say hello to my little friends.

Unconditional love is the key.  They use that term consistently - but it's not a term we use on the planet consistently. It's not in beer ads, in literature, in entertainment, in stories... but we instantly know what it means.  It's a love that is not conditional.  We live in state of "conditional love" while we are here on the planet (for the most part) and only experience is between parents and children (sometimes) or between humans and animals (sometimes.)  But it's an experience we all know - and yet, everyone claims that's what we return to "after our life" or "before our life."

Further, when we talk about a third of our consciousness being here, that works out to two thirds of our consciousness being "back home" all the time.

What has this to do with perfect pitch?

If you've have a lot of lifetimes that are related to music, if your sense of frequency translation is honed over many lifetimes, or if you're consciousness just has an easier time of understanding frequency,  you're going to have "perfect pitch" (or be able to see, sense or hear other frequencies.  Perfect pitch can relate to a medium seeing or hearing things that aren't here, the same way a bee can see the ultraviolet light we can't see.  They have different frequency tuning built in.)

So Harry's brain has the ability to "hear" the frequency from notes (sound waves) that when they reach his ear and are translated into information in his brain, he knows what note is being played.  Not something he learned, but something he was "born with."

What Harry doesn't know is that he chose this lifetime.  Prior to even "coming to the planet" or incarnating, Harry got together with his pals (likely member of Spinal Tap) and discussed what kind of a lifetime he wanted to experience.  I've filmed a number of these "life planning sessions" (including my own) and reported them in "Flipside" "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" and "Hacking the Afterlife.")

His ability to understand frequency without having to learn it is related to his consciousness.  He chose a body and brain that could work with frequencies on a different level than other folks.

A musician or scientist?  Both it appears.

Now, what about artificial intelligence?  

It's not enough for me to say "there will never be a sentient machine until someone on the flipside decides that they want to have an existence on the planet as a sentient machine."  In other words, someone would have to "choose" a lifetime as a machine, and would be stuck doing all the boring things that machines do.  Since there's a myriad of experience we have here as humans, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do that.

But that's not to say that artificial intelligence is amoral - it's just to say that the "race to sentience" is a waste of time.  Can't exist. Sorry.  But again, it's not enough to say it - what people are looking for is how to make machines, or AI more "moral" - meaning being able to make the choice of "running into a tree" or "running into a bus full of children."  Humans make that choice - but what is it based on?  Is that choice based on the amount of engrams in a brain? Or social engineering?  Neither. (Again, sorry, it's just not in the data.)

What is in the data (and again, eyewitness reports that are consistent and reproducible are data) is that we choose to incarnate as animals that are called human.  That the human animal itself has a limited capacity for higher thinking, and its a tacit agreement between ourselves a conscious entities and the human animal.  We don't incarnate as other animals, because they have their own forms of the process - they too have realms and levels with regard to their incarnations, whether its as a flying animal, swimming animal, or one walking the earth.  It's technically possible for us to incarnate in such a manner - it's just relatively really really rare for us to do so, and we would have a compelling reason to do so that all our loved ones and guides would have to agree to.

I'm not arguing this point here; I'm reporting it.  This is not my theory, belief or philosophy - I'm just reporting what people consistently say about the process either while under deep hypnosis, or consciously about these events.

So how to make artificial intelligence more human?  Ask someone who is no longer on the planet for how to do that.  (It's what I've been doing the past two years, interviewing people (different people, different mediums) and comparing the answers to complex questions about the nature of reality. Sounds odd, and it is, but it's what I've focusing on.  Ask people no longer on the planet about how to make your machine function better.  I'm not kidding.  I can help you do that.

Finally; what's the cure for Parkinsons and Alzheimers?  Well, it's in this research as well. In Nature magazine they have an article showing how pulsing light (or sound) allows brain waves to function better, helps focus and memory, and in some cases, stops the shaking of Parkinsons.  




I've shown the same results in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" where a person with severe Parkinsons did a between life hypnosis session and stopped shaking for the entire six hour session. (And I filmed it.  She's a private person, so she doesn't want the footage out there, but the transcription of the session, anonymous, is in the book).

Why did her Parkinsons stop during the session?  Because deep hypnosis (not the surface kind, or the quack like a duck kind) works with Theta waves.  It's the same waves that are being affected by the light or the low sounds used in this study.



"Nevertheless, there is clearly a growing excitement around treating neurological diseases using neuromodulation, rather than pharma-ceuticals. “There’s pretty good evidence that by changing neural-circuit activity we can get improvements in Parkinson’s, chronic pain, obsessive–compulsive disorder and depression,” says Insel. This is important, he says, because so far, pharmaceutical treatments for neurological disease have suffered from a lack of specificity. Koroshetz adds that funding institutes are eager for treatments that are innovative, non-invasive and quickly translatable to people.

Since publishing their mouse paper, Boyden says, he has had a deluge of requests from researchers wanting to use the same technique to treat other conditions. But there are a lot of details to work out. “We need to figure out what is the most effective, non-invasive way of manipulating oscillations in different parts of the brain,” he says. “Perhaps it is using light, but maybe it’s a smart pillow or a headband that could target these oscillations using electricity or sound.” One of the simplest methods that scientists have found is neurofeedback, which has shown some success in treating a range of conditions, including anxiety, depression and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. People who use this technique are taught to control their brainwaves by measuring them with an EEG and getting feedback in the form of visual or audio cues."

Helen Thompson, Nature Magazine

Did you get that?

Non pharma therapy for Alzheimers and Parkinsons.  Using lights and sounds to help the brain to focus better, to get rid of plaque, to show that the brain functions like a receiver...

The brain is a receiver of information, and it sends it to the right pathways.  It receives sensations, but also receives information from the "other two thirds of our conscious energy that is always back home."

For a science cite that the brain is not the sole creator of consciousness, please view Dr. Greyson's talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?".  It's 90 minutes and cites numerous medical cases where non functioning brains were still conscious, or that after an autopsy showed they should not have been functioning but did function.  Greyson is interviewed in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" but the video can be seen here.

This is just my way of saying, "Hey, you brain scientists out there.  You're looking in the wrong direction."

Why is it important for me to stand on the stage, turn on the lights and shout "IT'S ONLY A PLAY!!"  Because these scientists are directing policy, influencing medical care, and they have not yet understood or begun to explore how it can be that our consciousness exists prior to coming here, it exists after we are here, and it exists WHILE WE ARE HERE.  In other words, if you "want to be in touch with the other two thirds of your consciousness" you can.



My two cents.

Not mine. Curtis Hanson's

Thinking Without a Box

Thinking Without a Box

Photo by Russ Titelman

Ran across this article today about consciousness:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/thinking-outside-the-quantum-box/

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


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 that “our 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.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
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."

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.

Carrie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds, George Michael and the Flipside

Sorry to see Carrie, Debbie and George all depart hours apart. 

Someone posted something darkly humorous today. "David Bowie succeeded in finding an alternate universe and he's populating it with the best musicians." George Michael is certainly in that group.

Then someone posted a comment reminiscent of "Postcards from the Edge." Carrie Fisher arrived on the other side, then turned to see her mother following her.  "Really, mother?  You can't even let me get off stage by myself?"  

When Debbie Reynolds suddenly followed her daughter off stage, my wife had just watched Carrie and Debbie's appearance on Oprah. Debbie had said on the show; "I'm staying alive so that I can keep an eye on Carrie.  If I leave, who's going to take care of her?"  

Apparently her job was done.


The point being that we don't know when our departure date is set - we may know on some other level when that is - but it's important to note that we can't judge someone by the method in which they get off stage. 

I noted a person judging Carrie and George for their experiences with drug use. To which I replied: "Judge not lest ye be judged. Criticizing people for how they exit the stage lessens us all. Some people are beacons, some are drawn to their flame. We all come from the same place and return home. 

What's stronger, more powerful - the myth we live, or the myths we create? I bow to their lights, all of them. The good they've done musically, on stage, off stage has healed more than most of us will ever reach in many lifetimes. Honor their journey, not their exit. That's mere scenario."


Caustic, funny, witty - a modern day Dorothy Parker.

Carrie was bigger than life, and a terrific writer.  She was the go-to rewrite person for Steven Spielberg and others -- I know because an old friend said Carrie was always finding her into meetings my writing friend was invited to.  Carrie was part of their inside group; she was their talisman. They ran everything by her, and often hired her to "ghost write" for them. 

Courtesy her pal
Carrie as he first knew her. Photo
owned by S. Fazekas

She was with Paul Simon for over a dozen years, married to him for a couple. I've met and known Paul over the years, met Carrie at one of her infamous birthday parties, and then again up at the deli in Beverly Glen. I was meeting with a friend of hers, she generously pretended as if she knew me. She had many, many dear friends, and they're all in shock. She was known as Princess Leia to legions of film fans, but was just as famous as a Dorothy Parker like caustic wit to her pals.

It's interesting to note how people deal with death.  They speak of this year we are in as if it's stealing or robbing the best artists.  Well, that's true if you believe people die.  I'm not saying people should or shouldn't believe anything - but it is in the data that we don't die.  So it's a belief that we die - and people's reactions to it are personal and tragic. They feel the loss, they feel the pain.  

But I'm here to tell anyone listening that's not how they feel. That's not their experience. The loved one doesn't feel pain or trauma. They aren't lost or confused (although initially they may be, eventually that fades away and they get on with their next adventure.)

So they aren't lost. Or do they feel that they're a loss. Or that they're missing everyone. Because they literally shape shift into another form. As Erik Medhus describes in his book "My Life after Death" he was standing next to his body when his family came in to find him.  As Galen Stoller describes in "My Life After Life" he was standing beside his body when his spirit guide came to collect him.  It was at that point he even realized he was "no longer on the planet."

They can still see all of us. They can walk around and watch us suffering. It's a bit like the old movie cliche, the twilight zone episode, where the guy walks around talking to people but they don't react to him. They can reach out their energy to try to comfort us, but most of us can't be open enough to experience that.  

Which is normal, natural. I'm not saying people should not be sad or upset. Or furious. Or grieve. What's the point of being human if we can't grieve? But they should spend an ounce of energy thinking about how their loved one feels.  Just open up their perspective a bit to imagine what it might be like for their loved one.

How are they feeling?

Fine. Thanks for asking.

Are they in any pain?

No.  Not anymore anyways.

What's their experience like?

"I get to move around faster" one close friend told me (via a medium Jennifer Shaffer).  "I'm feeling unconditional love" said another. "I can control butterflies and hummingbirds" said another. 

Thousands of accounts of people talking from the flipside, saying mundane, every day magical things about what it's like to float around without all this weight.

So Carrie's journey - she made it to 60.  We could argue "that's too short."  Of course it is. But then one must ask - "well, what's the optimal amount of time on the planet? 65? 85?" It used to be the average age was around 35. Now it's 85. Debbie made it to 84. Was that enough? Too much? Too little? We all know people who don't make it that far.

Luana with actor Michael Gough

(Like my pal Luana Anders.) She checked out way to soon. 

But I have had the experience of being able to find her on the flipside, and hang out with her (as recounted in "Flipside" and the other books.)  That detail won't make anyone else believe in the afterlife, but for me it's instrumental in my becoming aware that she still exists, is still having fun, is still enjoying the ride. Because only I know what it's like to sit and laugh with her. And she continues to give me "new information" - things that could not come from me, or cryptomnesia, hypoxia or synesthesia.  New information about my life and journey. 

I know people who only made it to 23. (My pal Melinda Germann mentioned below.)  I know people who only made it to one day on the planet.  Do we mourn them any less? Do we add up the days they had and subtract them from an overall number? What's the precise number of days that constitute how we should or shouldn't feel?

We love them all equally.  Here or there.

And they love us back.  Carrie and her mom are experiencing this new kind of reality in their own time and from their own perspective.  It is really odd that they both left a day apart... like old couples who can't let go of each other.

But wait a second - maybe they planned it that way.  

We can't know unless we ask them.

In "Hacking the Afterlife" I interview a number of folks who under hypnosis recall their "life planning sessions."  They recall why they came to the planet in the first place, and what they meant to do or accomplish.  

So who's to say they don't know when that's finished? It would certainly "ruin the play" for us to know. But maybe some part of our higher self "always knows." Or always knew. But never told you because... well that would spoil the movie.

Debbie chose a lifetime that would bring her Carrie, and vice versa.  And Debbie chose a life in the limelight as well. Lest we forget: Debbie was a "bigger" star that equaled the fame of her daughter Carrie - She not only starred in "Singing In the Rain" she had a run as "Tammy" - movie after movie where everyone looked at her and said "Oh, there's Tammy!" (like "There's Leia!") - and she didn't have to wear a metal bikini.

Here she is in "Singing"



My point is; honor them all. Whether they're here for a day, a week, a decade, ten decades. It takes courage to choose to come here. Give them the honor they deserve for even getting here in the first place.  Give them their due for that alone.  We can always say "no" when others ask us to join them here. At least that's what the research consistently says.

George Michael was interviewed just a few days before his passing. He talked about his recent bout with pneumonia, and how the doctors in Austria had brought him back to life.  He said "I'm back, but I'm definitely more spiritual than I was before." He spoke as if he had a transcendent experience that allowed him to prepare himself for his departure.




Here's George singing one of my favorite tunes, one that he didn't write, but one that he interpreted beautifully: "The Long And Winding Road."  And in this case, the long and winding road does bring him back... "home."

The long and winding road does always take us back home.

It's rare that we get a glimpse of people finding their way off the planet. We spend a great deal of time discussing how someone left, what age they were, what drugs they took or didn't take in their life - as if talking about them will make it so we will avoid the same fate.  

Charles, good friend to Carrie.

As Charles Grodin once said (and I think he credited someone else for the sentence) "Just tell me where it is that I'm going to die, and then I won't go there." Chuck was good friends with Carrie. He's not a believer in an afterlife, despite writing the foreword to "It's a Wonderful Afterlife." (How's that for friendship?) He's feeling her loss as is his long time friend Paul, who wrote that "Yesterday was a horrible day...Carrie was a special, wonderful girl. It's too soon."

But again, it's rare to get a chance to "anticipate"our stage exit. Here's George a few days prior to his passing; note how he talks about his experience being so close to death, and how it changed him, made him "more spiritual": 




Recently, I responded to a post where someone wrote about how all the "drug abuse" of these people (meaning George and Carrie) was "coming home to roost."  As if living a life that was safer - no drugs, no danger, no over indulging - would somehow keep us alive.  Or keep us from the fires of hell.

That's what makes some people sleep better at night. They think they've been good, they think they've indulged less than others, and when they get to that last day on earth, they're going to look around and say "See? I outlived you all! I'm going straight to heaven!!!"

I have some bad news.

There's no punishment on the flipside.  Sorry.  It's just not in the  data.  The data is consistent. The data is based on a number of sources, including Michael Newton's extensive work, Dr. Helen Wambach's decades of research, and every session I've come across or studied.  

That evil thing - It's just not there with regard to those who have experienced the "between lives" realm.

According to what these folks say, when we get offstage, when we're done with the play, we put our props down, take off our costumes, and join our fellow actors backstage for the party to end all parties. Then we might begin to plan to come back here (or somewhere else) for another play, and we may or may not convince our loved ones to join us again for another run. 

"Hey Larry, do you mind playing my alcoholic uncle again?"  "No way, we did that back in the Viking era. Enough of this drunken uncle part!"  "But you're soooo good at it. And I'll never learn the lessons if someone else plays it... pleeeease?"

A bit like a video game.  A bit like a regular game.  Like a TV series. Like a movie and a sequel or two. A bit like a sporting match. A bit like every dramatic twist and turn we've seen on our favorite drama, whether it's "Days of Our Lives" or "Game of Thrones."  It is a Game - there are thrones, and there are days and there are lives.  But when they're done, when the game is over; we simply "go home."

Recently, while lunching with Jennifer Shaffer, I had a message from a famous film director who passed away. I knew him, and asked if he had any messages for his loved ones that I could pass along. (Why name the director? It won't help anyone to believe or disbelieve - all I know is that I met this fellow once, and he said some pretty specific things about a mutual friend, which made me "believe" it was him.)

He had a specific message for his widow, and for another close friend. (Both the friend and his wife could not believe that he was speaking through Jennifer to me - perhaps because it's just too "out there" - perhaps because they just don't believe he would show up in Manhattan Beach at a diner - but I digress....)

He said "No one comes to the this side wishing they held back more during their lives."

Funny concept. Not one that I would have, or even could have thought up, nor Jennifer (who helped me with "Hacking the Afterlife.")  But it's a telling quote. No one comes to the afterlife wishing they'd "held back" more while they were here.  (So much for Father O'Reilly's admonitions on the altar.)

Remember; the quote is from someone no longer on the planet. 

It's not about how others react to you over here (which can be annoyed, stressful, panic) - It's about how we view our journey on the planet, during our life. 

Did we try to do what we set out to do? If we worry about reactions from others, we'll never jump off the cliff. 

3 Musketeers. Jennifer Shaffer and Scott De Tamble
Jennifer is a medium, Scott is a hypnotherapist,
Both helped immensely with "Hacking the Afterlife."

It's about following what makes your heart leap. Having no fear. Or worrying about it later, at least. Focus on the jump. "Just let go." But not so you can leap out of a plane without a parachute - what's the point of that? That would result in a long conference with your spirit guides; "Um... no parachute. Again? What's that about?"  "Well, I just like to be spontaneous."  "How about being logical?"

But the idea is worth examining. "No one comes here wishing they "held back" more during their lifetime."  What does that mean, really?

Think of your journey like a performance. "Did I leave everything on the stage? Did I give it my all?" 

That's what I think the quote refers to. To remember that while we're here, give it every drop you've got. Anything less is time wasted. 

So... a long way of saying, thank you George, thank you Debbie and thank you Carrie for leaving it all onstage. For leaving us with a pretty clear vision of who you were and what you were doing here spiritually.  

Healers, helpers, singers, dancers, writers... each one of them had different gifts. Each one of them healed and helped people in their own way. 

Carrie helped people with mental issues - bipolar issues - but it required her to become famous in order for people to hear her.  She never could have written "Postcards" if she hadn't worn the metal bikini.  Five of her books are now in the top ten books sold on line.  No way that happens (and heals people with laughter and openness about her mental battles) without her journey.

Debbie was the most sought after woman on the planet at one point "losing her man" to Liz Taylor - but of course Mike Todd was never lost, he's with her again as we speak. She lived to 84 because "she had to keep an eye on her daughter."  And she did that! Beautifully.  Hilariously.

George came to heal people concerned with their sexuality - an issue that is meaningless on the Flipside, but can cause an ocean of pain and hurt over here - George had to go through his own epic journey - coming out, being forced out, being arrested - to ignore all that nonsense about sex to find his own journey - and his fame made him able to secretly help people - every day stories appear about his unparalleled generosity... that could only have happened by becoming famous and wealthy... And to show others that it doesn't matter who you love - or why you love - it only matters...

That you are loved.  
That you give love. 
That you love love.

I mentioned my pal Melinda above - it was her birthday the other day - she died at the age of 23 after a freak plane accident while flying with her brother back in 1978.  But some years later, Melinda's pal Patrice W sent me this dream she had about Melinda. 

(Note: She used to love hugging trees. Patrice told me she said in her "dream" some version of "there are trees over here, but they're different.. so try to appreciate trees more.")

When telling me about the dream, she said she spoke to Melinda "but it sounded like a foreign language." She wrote down what she heard Melinda say:

"HI PATRICE. I'M HERE. I'VE BEEN WAITING TO SEE YOU AGAIN. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THIS JOB STUFF. IT'S JUST A TRICK, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER HOW SMART YOU ARE, SO DON'T LET THESE GUYS TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YOU. 

YOU ARE SMARTER AND THEY ARE FRIGHTENED OF YOU.... OR JUST PLAIN STUPID. I AM SO HAPPY, BUT I MISS MY FRIENDS, AND FLOWERS, AND TREES. ENJOY THEM NOW. 

NOT BECAUSE THEY WILL BE GONE, BUT YOU WILL BE DIFFERENT. DON'T WORRY. IT IS JUST A GAME AND I WILL HELP PROTECT YOU. YOU NEED TO LISTEN WHEN YOUR EARS RING. I AM TALKING TO YOU TO TELL YOU SOMETHING INSIDE YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND. 

YOUR SMARTNESS ISN'T EVERYWHERE SO I NEED TO USE THE RINGING TO GET TO YOUR HEART FAST. DON'T BE SCARED. THERE ARE MANY ON YOUR SIDE WHO ARE ALSO WATCHING OUT FOR YOU. PRAY FOR OTHERS TOO. 

SOME NEED IT MUCH MORE THAN YOU. I AM FINE. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT. I GET CONFUSED AND WANT TO TALK TO YOU AND ... LOTS OF OTHERS WHO REMEMBER ME. WHO LOVED ME. I HAVE SENT THEM TO YOU, AND IT WAS HARD. 

DON'T WORRY. WE ARE WATCHING. YOU ARE LOVED. YOU GIVE LOVE. IT WILL ALL BE REWARDED BUT NOT IN THE WAY YOU THINK. KEEP LOVING. 

KEEP LAUGHING. IT IS WHAT I LOVED ABOUT YOU. NO, I CAN'T STAY NOW. I KNOW IT HURTS TO SAY GOOD BYE AGAIN. DON'T CRY. I AM HERE. I AM HERE. I AM HERE."

Important to know.  They are not gone. They are just not here.  And in Melinda's case she makes a pretty strong point by saying it three times: "I am here.  I am still here.  I am really still really here right next to you."  A friend from back then asked me "How did you remember Melinda's birthday?"  A logical question - after all it's been nearly 40 years since she left this plane on a plane.  And I replied

"How could I forget?"

My two cents.