Madeleine's Return

Madeleine McCann is back in the news, after the Portuguese police released their files of the case to the parents. They include pictures of the Algarve holiday apartment from which the four-year old was snatched, and detailed sightings that for some reason were never publicized at the time.

Most of the time I have filtered out this heart wrenching story, and probably would have managed to ignore it again, were it not for the book I just happen to have been reading in the past few days. This is Carol Bowman's Return from Heaven, which Tony M mentioned in comments on an earlier posting (Moksha, June 3), and which I wanted to check out.

These silly titles often aptly match the contents, but as Tony points out, this is a credible book by a serious researcher. Not on the level of Ian Stevenson, Erlendur Haraldsson and others: her cases are more anecdotal, and she doesn't really question the reincarnation hypothesis - her interest is more in the spiritual and therapeutic aspects for the individuals and families concerned. But there's plenty of detail, and her accounts match those in the more detailed research, so I take them to be part of the same phenomenon.

What makes Bowman's work so interesting is that it provides examples from our own culture. The Asian accounts are strongly coloured by unfamiliar names, environments and social customs which make them a bit hard to get to grips with, and for critics, easier to dismiss. These American cases by contrast could have happened to ourselves, or to anyone we know. Bowman came to hear about them having written about her personal experiences in an earlier book; her correspondence led to her creating a lively website, where people discuss their children's statements seeming to refer to a past life. (There's an interesting one here of a four-year old girl who appeared to remember a life as a pilot in the first world war.)

Obviously these are more common than one might ever have suspected. The phenomenon is clearly not just limited to countries and cultures that believe in reincarnation, and one might conclude that the reason we don't hear about these things is because our society has no framework to make sense of them, as was once the case with near-death experiences.

Another interesting thing about Bowman's cases is that they are mostly within the family. One of the earliest documented cases I heard about of this kind is the British case of the Polluck twins some years ago, who died (in a road accident, I think) and whose parents subsequently had two more twins, who had relevant birthmarks and made statements referring to their dead siblings (Stevenson describes it in Children Who Remember Previous Lives). At the time I agreed with sceptics that it was all a bit too neat - the father seemed a strong believer in reincarnation, and could have prompted the second pair of twins' 'memories'. But that's not an obvious explanation for Bowman's cases, where the statements mostly come as a complete surprise.

She describes children being born to a mother at the second attempt, the mother having previously had an abortion, or children dying early or as young adults, and returning to the same mother or to another family member. The sense is of interrupted relationships being picked up, bringing fulfilment to the child and a sense of closure to grieving parents or grandparents.

Seeing pictures of Maddie again this week suddenly made all this alarmingly real. From the experiences that Bowman describes, the McCanns would be prime candidates for this kind of repeat birth. If they decided to have another child, or Kate got pregnant by accident, they might find themselves reunited with Madeleine after all. They would then hear from her own mouth what happened to her, and it might bring them a sense of closure to the whole nightmare.

On the other hand these sorts of reflections make me uneasy. I've no doubt that amid all the spurious 'sightings' or 'spirit communications' by psychics that their daily postbag brings the McCanns there may also be a few well-meaning attempts to console them by suggesting that Maddie may one day be reborn to them. If so, it must strike them as mail from the madhouse. The idea that reincarnation spontaneously happens is one thing. That a couple might look forward to it, or actively try to make it happen, is something else. 

As it is, I doubt that the idea will get much of an airing. British tabloids love heart-warming stories about angels and near-death visions, but reincarnation is still taboo, as we know from its violent reaction to celebrity statements about karma. But it seems likely to me that this won't always be the case.

Thinking along these lines, I often wonder what would happen if parapsychologists got their wish, and psi was accepted as genuine by the scientific community. And perhaps as a follow-on from this, research into such things as reincarnation was universally accepted as valid, and confirming the likelihood of survival of death. 

What sort of news stories would there be if there was the absolute expectation that little Maddie was having a break in 'heaven', and was already booking a return trip, that the McCann's were doing less grieving and more love-making to facilitate the reunion? The idea of the media midwifing the event, anxiously looking out for signs of pregnancy and then for news of the child's first words, is an appalling thought, and personally I'm in no hurry to see it happen.

Comments

[Ben]

“one might conclude that the reason we don't hear about these things is because our society has no framework to make sense of them”

This statement strikes me as very wise, Robert, and I think it applies across the board of all paranormal experience. Unless and until there is a philosophical underpinning of the paranormal, it will all probably continue to be dismissed with the shake of the head as 'inexplicable oddity'. The philosopher Antony Flew not long ago reneged on his atheism. I am heartened that (from what I have recently read), the philosopher A N Whitehead despaired of materialist naturalism and formulated panpsychism. This kind of cognitive shift suggests that change is in the air. A few more philosophers, and we’ll have a quorum, hopefully leading to a new consensus, which will infect the scientific meme.

So far as Madeleine is concerned, let’s hope she’s still alive and well.

[Tony M]

Good month for me: I got you to read the Bowman book and Michael Prescott to read Jonathan Margolis’s book on Uri Geller. I continue to quietly influence a generation of psi philosophers!

You summed up Bowman’s book well, although I would like to stress what most struck me and why I think it is important to consider. The post of yours that I was responding too (if I recall correctly) characterized reincarnation as an impersonal (and perhaps disturbing) process. Bowman’s work with ‘same family’ reincarnation suggests that choice plays a role. The implication is – if we are persuaded by the stories – is that whatever is at work in the universe is either less impersonal than we typically believe or fear, or at the very least can be shaped or influenced by our will.

Through Stevenson’s work I came to be persuaded (reluctantly) about the possibility of reincarnation, although I never felt comfortable with the religious and philosophical explanations offered. Having read Bowman’s book, I think a simpler explanation may apply: we come back because we want to.

That may be unscientific. But it makes the universe more interesting.

[Tony M]

> ”she doesn't really question the reincarnation hypothesis - her interest is more in the spiritual and therapeutic aspects for the individuals and families concerned”

One further comment: this remark is accurate about this book, but remember it is her second. The previous book (forget the title and I’m too lazy to look) more conventionally fits with works by Stevenson and Tucker. Her acceptance of the hypothesis and her particular interest were shaped by the earlier research. She is more critical in the earlier work. (Although I found it interesting but far less startling than her second.)

[Robert McLuhan]

'...we come back because we want to.'

Yes, there's obviously a pull back, especially if there are interrupted relationships, unfinished business, etc.

There might be a great variety of attitudes to coming back for more. Some people get pushed reluctantly, some realise there's no real option, and get on with it. Perhaps some are enthusiastic about the opportunity for spiritual growth.

What seems to emerge from the research is an individual's need to finish what they started, become reunited with people they have ties to, and so on. It's interesting that Bowen's cases, like Stevenson's, are mainly of that kind. One might surmise that these are the exceptions, and that the norm is for much longer intervals, by which time memories of the previous existence have faded, which is why you don't hear about them.

There's also the question about why reincarnation differs among cultures - some only reincarnate into the original family, some rarely do this, some change gender sometimes, others never, and so on. This lack of uniformity is a clear sign to the sceptic that it's a cultural artefact. But if we survive with our thoughts, then presumably human culture survives as well. So we reincarnate according to the norms that we understand and respect.

Still can't get used to the idea though!

[Mark]

I can't say I find it appalling, Robert. I mean, I can understand how people could think of it as being appalling, but if our bodies really are just vehicles that we use to navigate this universe then there is not nearly as much sorrow in the vehicle getting destroyed - just buy a new one! I don't mean to sound flippant, but if it really is the case that our bodies are not the seat of our consciousness, then it shouldn't be appalling, though it may take many people a long time to get used to it.

[Michael H]

These ideas are also consistent with Seth's explanations of reincarnation, to a degree. As he's discussing the question of when the personality essence enters the new life, he comments that the time frame can vary from conception to the moment of birth. He then says, "Various methods of entry are adopted. If there is a strong relationship between the parents and the child-to-be, then the personality may enter at the point of conception if he is extremely anxious to rejoin them." (Seth Speaks, pp 194)

A comment later in the same discussion might serve to explain why some children do seem to recall past lives, while others do not: Following birth, "The new personality, as a consciousness, flickers, in that there is a while before stabilization takes place. When the child, particularly the young child, is sleeping, for example, the personality often simply vacates the body. [Returning to the between-life state and identifying with that state]. Gradually, the identification with the between-life situation dwindles until nearly full focus resides in the physical body."(pp 196)

Yogananda also suggests that the parent's state of consciousness will influence which individual 'new' soul is attracted to them. He mentions this specifically in "Conversations with Yogananda", conversations 175 & 177, pages 204-206.

[Robert McLuhan]

Mark, when I said 'appalling' I was really thinking more about how the media behave if reincarnation was widely accepted. But I'm not too thrilled about the thing itself - I'm sure that in a discarnate state one might have a longterm perspective, but from where we are right now, the thought of endless lives, possibly in much tougher circumstances than we presently enjoy, is pretty sobering. At least it is to me.

[Mark]

Well, yeah, I guess I can see how you might be bothered by the idea of endless lives. Maybe we can eventually work our way out of this universe...

[Paul]

I am probably being a little dumb here but I don't see the value in reincarnation again and again if we don't have memory of it whilst we are here (although I would concede that we may have full recall between incarnations and that's where we learn any lessons). As far as the body simply being a vehicle and of little importance in the scheme of things - that's great if it's true. Unfortunately it is the only one I have ever had (as far as I know) and I live in it so "jam tomorrow" isn't very reassuring.

My own interpretation of the limited information I have on reincarnation is that it is at least as likely to be interference from discarnate spirits as to be the spirit re-entering this world. This is probably partly because of the "losing memory of who I am for a while" element of reincarnation but also because it seems to me to explain a lot of the observed phenomena (but not all of it) pretty well.

I am not so sure as I was that if there was a general acceptance of life after this that it would necessarily cause much of a change to the way people live now. Governments seem impervious to public opinion and most people are so consumed with getting through the day they don't think too much about tomorrow let alone what might happen when this life is over. We have a remarkable ability to ignore the things we don't want to think about (or maybe that's just me:))

On the Madeleine point (and the same point applies to countless children everyday). It is to be hoped that wherever she is, she is no longer suffering though those who care for her are. If there is a life after this one the fate of those who hurt such innocents must surely be one to be dreaded as they face up to what they have done directly and to the repercussions for her friends and family.

[Mark]

I can't say I agree with that. I think that there would be a major change in how a lot of people would live. Some would not change at all, of course, but many would, depending on what the afterlife is like.

[Paul]

Mark you're entitled to your opinion :)I'd love to be proved wrong by seeing a massive and undeniable proof of life after death followed by general acceptance of it,