« Sheldrake Post-Ted | Main | Changing Trains »

July 01, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks Bruce, good stuff.

Interesting about Ian Wilson’s book, because that’s one of the first that I came across when I was starting to get interested in psychic research. Wilson wrote another book debunking Ian Stevenson’s research on children who remember a past life. It didn’t surprise me that he was so negative about mediums, but then towards the end, on the subject of near-death experiences, he seemed to change tack. As I recall, a friend had died and there was a bit of deathbed drama when, moments before he expired, this person suddenly became awestruck by the beauty of what he was seeing (apparently as Steve Jobs was).

I don’t recall if Wilson was present at the deathbed or whether he just heard about this from the widow, but there was some trust there. He could respond to something he was sure didn’t involve trickery. But the rest he just casually dismissed (he jeers at Stevenson having been ‘cruelly misled’ by a series of ‘tall stories and acting performances’, which is about as superficial a response as could be imagined) even though it points in the same direction. I found this quite curious.

thank you bruce for a story of courage.

i find it courageous to face ones assumptions, recognize and allow change to occur in ones thinking and then share that experience with others.

@ Robert

It doesn't surprise me that Wilson's eyes were first opened by the NDE, because that's what happened with me, too. And it then took me a while to begin to take other phenomena seriously as well.

But I agree. If after continuing to study these things he remains adamant that past lives are a crock, that's surprising. For one thing, it's the opposite of what NDErs themselves almost unanimously believe!

As I said in the post, his book may have been ideal for me 20 years ago (as it apparently was for you), but with so many better NDE books out now, I don't see much reason to recommend it to anyone.

@ Billy: Thanks!

Bruce, I appreciate your essay. It mirrors some of my own personal story.

In the mid-90's I emerged from a fundamentalist Christian box, a very narrow and constricted view of God and the universe. For a time this view served a purpose and helped me to order my then chaotic life a bit, but thankfully, by stumbling on the right book or two at the right time and some radical internal guidance, my eyes were opened and I gradually out-grew that limited viewpoint. I now greatly value others experiences as well as my own and try my best not to judge their value and veracity. The universe is grand and there is more there than meets the eye.
Thanks and Kind Regards.

Nice story Bruce, brilliantly told.

My own story is kind of opposite - I start off a credulous believer in angels and God, then gradually start seeing the darker side of things, how we may be pawns of higher powers or forces.

There is no one path.

"It mirrors some of my own personal story. In the mid-90's I emerged from a fundamentalist Christian box/"

You're right--there definitely is a similarity. Primal therapy is atheistic, so in the usual sense of the word, it's not a religion. But I came to realize that I was *relating* to it as if it were. Which is not true, by the way, of everyone who goes through the therapy. I'm sure it had to do with the depth of my need.

Lennon was able to put the therapy into more realistic perspective more quickly. I remained a primal fundamentalist for a long time!

Thanks, Barbara, for the kind words!

"My own story is kind of opposite - I start off a credulous believer in angels and God, then gradually start seeing the darker side of things, how we may be pawns of higher powers or forces."

Do you still feel that way--that we're at the mercy of malevolent beings?

I myself have never believed that. And I think it may have to do with my primal experience.

This may seem presumptuous, but maybe it works this way: if you're not integrating your emotional pain and taking it back to its true source (your parents, childhood, even your birth), then you create monsters outside of yourself. You come to feel that you're at the mercy of dark forces external to you, whereas what you're really responding to are dark energies (pain) stored up inside.

Do you think that's possible?

I'm sure my last comment oversimplifies matters. But I think there may be some truth to it.

Very illuminating story, Bruce. I never would have guessed that you had been a militant skeptic. Your story does exactly what Robert intended. Just as there are things about the credulous believer mindset that one can only own up to in hindsight, so there are things about the angry skeptic mindset that no one would admit to, or perhaps even be conscious of, while still committed to it.

Thanks for talking about this Bruce. I came from a very fundi bible belt background. I came to realize as I got older that I honestly believed very little of what I had once held on to. Still, the bleak (we are all just brain farts) never was something I aspired to. It might be true but it's not something I would fight to establish. :-) Still, I wasn't able (as so many of my peers were/are) to simply say "The bible says it, I believe it and that settles it." I do remember reading once a column in my youth in a newspaper. Can't really remember the details of the story but the title was "The Wild God." Somehow through the years that resonated with me. I never forgot it. My Goodness, if God were the "Wild God" and you couldn't put him in a box then anything was possible. You might not even be able to call "him" a "him" :-) Anyway, in my 56th year I am still learning and stumbling and hoping.
Steve S.

"You come to feel that you're at the mercy of dark forces external to you, whereas what you're really responding to are dark energies (pain) stored up inside." -Bruce

Bruce -your psychological explanation is by no means impossible.However (to continue Robert’s train analogy), if you’re happily and hopefully on the train from Slough to Penzance when there’s a crash and you have to return to Slough injured and in a state of shock, you kind of feel you’ve been let down by external rather than internal factors. You start to wonder why…

I think we can both agree that the physical world is maya -illusory, or at least designed that we can only see through a glass darkly rather than clearly. In your terms, we are really a much greater being than the puny little creatures we see in the mirror. In my terms, we’re just the avatar of some higher power.

So, for reasons benign or malign, we’re being fooled, n’est ce pas?

Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

@ Steve: "Still, I wasn't able (as so many of my peers were/are) to simply say "The bible says it, I believe it and that settles it."

Whenever I start feeling superior to bible-thumpers, I just remind myself how I felt about Janov's book The Primal Scream for so many years.

@ Barbara: "In my terms, we’re just the avatar of some higher power. So, for reasons benign or malign, we’re being fooled, n’est ce pas? "

I think there's a huge difference between saying that we're being fooled, and saying that we ourselves are the higher power, and have chosen to temporarily forget our true identity. In the first scenario we're victims, in the second, we're designers/participants in a pretty extraordinary game.

@ Robert P: "there are things about the angry skeptic mindset that no one would admit to, or perhaps even be conscious of, while still committed to it."

Thinking about that reminds me of something. We talk about the disadvantages of skepticism, but how about its undeniable upside (this goes along with what I was saying to Barbara)--when we finally awaken to the truth, what a wonderful surprise!

I still enjoy basking in that feeling of joyous discovery, which is part of the reason I wrote this piece.

Bruce, my experience about NDE's was similar to yours. They opened my heart to the research and I was astonished by the out of bodies experiences, when people can see and hear things they couldn't experience being physically dead-brain.
Love, Light & Serenity
Claudio from Italy

Hello Again! Very nice to see your post on Robert's site.

Your sharing of your inner journey establishes a consensus that our journey is inward and toward the central mind. We are all "dreamers" even while awake in "normal consensus reality" and the journey inward is experienced subjectively as an "apprehended sense of waking up"in life and discovering that we are not who we thought we were, we are the inner witnessing space where "we dreamed the story of our life".

As a psychologist myself, I remember the various cult therapies of the sixties and early seventies. Like any religious movement, any therapy movement can take on much more than it was originally intended to remedy. An over-determined group of "therapist followers" often arises over time "as a cult following" and even when the original therapist dies, the shadow side of any "beleif/healing system often arises, much like the World Religions left behind by Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and countless other "avatars". Gestalt Therapy tried to prolong the image of the late Fritz Perls, who was a therapist of unique, spontaneous genuis. Milton Erickson's extraordinary ability to use paradox and story telling techniques, often completely off topic when he intuitively sensed an unconscious group or family dynamic arising, as in Strategic Family SystemsTherapy requires a therapist as gifted as Erickson or Perls in order for it to remain efficacious after the "master" has died. Schools of psychotherapy, like religious movements centered around a spiritual master, often fall into "all encompassing dogma" over time commencing after the master's death.

It takes a gnosis to become a great Gestalt Therapist or Ericksonian Story Teller or neuro-lingusitic programming therapist, which both Perls and Erickson, were instrumental founders. Janov's Primal Therapy requires a therapist who is intuitive, who have themselves taken the inner journey into selflessness, to maintain the spirit and intuitive sponteneity of a Founding Master. The dangers of dogmatic fundamentalism and ego-inflated all encompassing claims for a particular therapy almost always arise when less imaginative therapists teach or try to implement a particular therapy. I know enough about Perls, Janov and Erickson to say that they may have been gifted as "shamans of psychotherapy" but were not without their own ego-inflated tendencies and traits that provided a sense of entitlement and of course self made "charisma" that attracts followers who tend to idealize them and their schools of therapy.

Bruce, your courageously open journal is shares a story that is applicable for all of us who have traveled through the years and decades of our lives spent cultivating Plato's Academy's dictum to "Know Thyself".

I find he quote below applicable;
The Universal Heretic, Embracing, Yet free of All
No sacred cows survive the realization of the nonconceptual, and one's realization becomes independent from any belief or teaching. He recognizes that who and what he is is ultimately beyond any category, including all the spiritual categories. He realizes that Reality is not a description, and that any description, any teaching or belief system regardless how useful and accurate, falls short of Reality as it is. He recognizes the uniqueness of his realization without having to compare it with others, and appreciates the differences between the various teachings without having to rate them. His realization has gone beyond conceptual categories and, hence beyond comparisons and ratings. He believes in nothing, and adheres to no teaching or religion as final and ultimate. He has become a universal heretic, embracing all, yet free of all.
- A. H. Almaas

Be Well Bruce ;>)

I eagerly await for you to write about the "next" chapter. This was moving and intelligent. I want more.

"my experience about NDE's was similar to yours. They opened my heart . . ."
@ Claudio: I agree--this is not just about opening minds, but hearts.

"He . . . adheres to no teaching or religion as final and ultimate."
@ Rick: Thanks for the kind words, for your insights, and for this great quote from Almaas.

"I want more."
@ Tony: Wow, that means a lot to me! Thanks so much. I'll see what I can do. :o)


Powerful stuff!

Thanks for an extremely interesting post. I presume that you’re still ‘sceptical’ about at least some aspects of the ‘believer’ oeuvre, though? Please say ‘yes’ ;)

I think, as Will Storr mentions in 'Heretics', that part of the problem lies in the fact that many (most, all?) of us crave emotional certainty in the personal validation we seek from our worldview. And the mechanism of confirmation bias can play havoc with the ‘truth’ if the emotional drive for that validation is powerful enough – for whatever reason. Indeed, it can cause discomfort even in those who don’t have a Gordian Knot of childhood issues to untangle.

So, I’ve come to see the skeptic’/’believer’ schism as being a bit of a red herring.

The sad truth is that, at least at the extremes, we just have a load of human beings thrashing around in the same psycho-emotional soup. And the Skeptical movement, at least in terms of its public face, does, IMO, show all of the hallmarks of an extremist cult that are no different from, say, those exhibited by Scientology.

The thing that I find fascinating about Skeptics, though, is that they are proof positive of the power of the mind (Skeptics feel free to use ‘brain’ there - or go out for a walk until the cognitive dissonance pangs wear off) ability to fool you – even if you think for some reason that you’re magically immune to the process.

Thanks, Steve!

"I presume that you’re still ‘sceptical’ about at least some aspects of the ‘believer’ oeuvre, though? Please say ‘yes’ ;)"

Yes, for sure. But that's true of just about everything: after being so certain for so long that psi was false, only to be proven wrong, I don't think I can never again be that dogmatic.

Thanks Bruce

You're proof positive that we're capable of enough self-awareness to see through the tangle of our prejudices at times.

There may be hope for us after all if protagonists involved in polarised debates everywhere can do the same.


my friend Adam Gollner has recently completed a new book on the topic of immortality
thought paranormalia & friends should know



Billy, your friend's book looks interesting, if he's able to send me a digital copy I'll review it here.

thanks robert, i'll pass on the word

I grew up in the 40s and 50s. At that time many people had not even finished high school, let alone graduated from college. My Dad got only as far as the tenth grade though my mother did become a registered nurse. So, when I showed a very early interest in weather and began getting copies of the Official US Weathermap in the mail every day at the age of 12, scored 99% in the American College Entrance test, and eventually got a degree in meteorology my family considered me some kind of prodigy (a big mistake, I can assure you). Anyway, I was very self satisfied with my SCIENCE degree and looked down upon anyone who took God, ghosts, mediums, or reincarnation seriously. It was an easy and very satisfying ego boost to put down other people who didn’t understand science like I did. I strongly feel that this is a primary reason why paranormal skeptics enjoy ridiculing those of us who have opened our minds to ways of thinking that simultaneously subsume and transcend logical thinking, as our culture understands it. They are all, to some degree, sadists.

My mother was Lutheran and my father was Catholic, but I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church. I hated every moment of Church and, especially, Vacation Bible School. As I grew up I can remember trying to figure out the world. Learning science gave me a (false) sense of power but nothing I "learned" in church made any sense at all and I stopped attending the moment my parents, in the normal course of my growing up, lost authority over what I did.

The great anomaly with respect to my negative relationship with religion is that sometime in high school I attended a Billy Graham revival. Either Graham was such an exceedingly inspi-rational speaker or I was still under the thrall of my parents' expectations - most likely both - that when Billy asked people to step forward and accept God, I actually did. This is not some-thing I like to admit or even think about today, some 55 years later. If this experience indicates I had an open mind – even toward religion after I had rejected it - at an early age, it is certainly the best thing I can say about it.

In the early 1950s UFOs were big news, taken seriously by the government, the press and the culture in general. I still vividly recall the 1952 press conference when Washington DC was visited by several UFOs, seen on 3 radars simultaneously as well as by pilots and re-sponsible ground observers. A high ranking Air Force officer gave a press conference that was watched on TV by the whole nation. Even at the age of 12 I knew that the "official" explanation - that what were seen by people and on radar were anomalous weather phenomena - was bunk. When the press didn't follow up on the biggest story of the millennium, I was extremely frustrated. Today, I am a Certified UFO investigator for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and recently presented a paper on UFOs to the Academy for Spiritual and Con-sciousness Studies - but I am getting ahead of my story. I relate my early interest in UFOs only because it was an indication that my mind was more open than most others to thinking outside the box. I can offer the standard psychological explanation: I was rebellious because my brother took every opportunity to humiliate me (he was two years older and two inches taller and twenty pounds heavier than me) and he was smarter than I was. But, some-how, not every picked upon younger sibling turns into a UFO freak. I can only say that I had an interest in everything and, somehow - I don't know the reason - it didn't matter to me so much as it did to others that some of my interests were contrary to cultural norms.

Up until 1988 I was like most educated, nonreligious people. Since I rarely encountered any evidence or even mention of any paranormal phenomena I hardly thought about them at all. I had absorbed from the culture that all mediums were fraudulent, that Houdini had promised to speak thru a medium after he died but never did, and that the Bridie Murphy reincarnation story was proved to be hokum by evidence that she had corresponded with her grandmother who had lived in Cork, Ireland. Anyone who believed any of this nonsense was either nuts or extremely gullible. Who wants to be accused of being either?

Paranormal phenomena so fundamentally contradicted the prevailing world view, I reasoned, that if any of them had any validity whatsoever I would have heard about it in college or, at the very least, read an article about it in Time Magazine or the New York Times. Clearly, our culture's smartest people couldn't possibly be so wrong about such a profound subject.

Then, sometime in the 1970s I read about Ted Serios's ability to project photographs onto photographic plates in a sealed envelope. I was impressed that several respectable people had signed their names to a statement that Serios was not a fraud. That sowed a doubt in my mind about our cultural norms but the seed could not thrive under the withering glare of the culture’s disapproval of all subjects paranormal.

I was well into my 40s when in 1988, while randomly browsing in the library, I just happened to come across "Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World" by Dr. Robert Jahn. Jahn taught aeronautical engineering at Princeton University. It seemed to me that he wrote more like a philosopher than a scientist. Of course, I could not know that, 25 years later, his work is considered a landmark in paranormal research. Here was a SCIENTIST who had written a thick book filled with equations and graphs supported by hard evidence and complex reasoning that humans could actually influence the output of a random number generator. I was AMAZED! I immediately showed the book to my friends and my brother, expecting them to be as excited as I was by experimental evidence showing that the world is unimaginably stranger than it seems. My friends politely ignored me but my brother was apoplectic, even though in our adulthood we have a generally good relationship and debate heatedly but without ill will all sorts of subjects. He literally screamed at me that I must be completely crazy, and he meant it. I was surprised but not insulted. Jahn's work spoke to me with greater authority than my dear brother.

I am a person who has always read widely on a variety of subjects but until I came across the book on Ted Serios and Jahn's book by pure luck I had not come across any publication that took exception to the cultural norm that dismissed all things paranormal as so much pseudoscience or worse, believable only by the hopelessly gullible.

How many people are out there who were not so fortunate as to have stumbled across a book or a respectable magazine citing sober and solid evidence for paranormal phenomena? How many are so unfamiliar with the scientific method that they don't appreciate the enormous significance of evidence that calls into question the very principles upon which science itself, as understood by our culture, is based? There must be an enormous number.

But I am, again, a little ahead of my story. When I calmed down after reading Jahn's book the rigid thought patterns our culture has imbued within all of us reasserted themselves. It took me perhaps three years and the reading of several books ranging from Bud Hopkins'
"Intruders," (a credible chronicle of alien abduction) to summaries of J.B. Rhine's pioneering parapsychological research, as well as detailed accounts of the Fox sisters' mind-blowing mediumship before I finally was able to cast off my cultural biases entirely and feel comfortable with the profound change in my thinking.

It is harder for those of us who have studied and put our "faith" in science to fundamentally change our thinking because we have to somehow accept that science as we know it does NOT explain the physical world entirely, let alone the spiritual one. Most people not versed in science, when they hear a credible ghost story, feel, if only vaguely, that the existence of ghosts at some basic level challenges their worldview or their religion. But the person trained in science realizes that many if not all of the scientific principles they have laboriously mastered may be rendered meaningless by a single unexplainable ghost. Obviously, they will resist with great force the reality of anything that contradicts the laws of science.

Being open to evidence for paranormal phenomena is essential for us to make the leap to having a truly open mind about the nature of reality but such a statement is tautological, explaining nothing. Perhaps we are older, wiser souls but such a statement is self serving, leaving an opening for skeptics to dismiss us.

My own experience leaves the explanation of why some of us come to accept the reality of paranormal phenomena and others don’t to sheer luck. If I had not come across Jahn’s book I would never have begun what has been by far the greatest intellectual adventure of my life.

Steve Hume, thanks for your kind words. Looks like I missed your comment earlier in the month.

Dean, great story! Many, many, good points there, beautifully expressed.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • ‘A brisk, bracing look at this continuing controversy, exhaustively researched .. a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in parapsychology and its critics.’
  • ‘‘Packed with accurate information while at the same time surprisingly engaging and fun to read.’
  • ‘‘This is one book that gives a completely objective review of skeptical debunking, and spells out in detail a clear pattern of chicanery which pervades a well-funded and organized campaign against all psi research.’

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • ‘These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in.’ Alan Turing, computer scientist.

  • ‘I have noticed that if a small group of intelligent people, not supposed to be impressed by psychic research, get together and such matters are mentioned, and all feel that they are in safe and sane company, usually from a third to a half of them begin to relate exceptions. That is to say, each opens a little residual closet and takes out some incident which happened to them or to some member of their family, or to some friend whom they trust and which they think odd and extremely puzzling.’ Walter Prince, psychic researcher.

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

  • ‘Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.’ Thomas Henry Huxley

  • We can always immunize a theory against refutation. There are many such immunizing tactics; and if nothing better occurs to us, we can always deny the objectivity – or even the existence – of the refuting observation. Those intellectuals who are more interested in being right than in learning something interesting but unexpected are by no means rare exceptions. Karl Popper, on the defenders of materialism.

  • If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. Arthur C. Clarke.

Become a Fan