To start, please excuse the pun, but I couldn’t help myself, as it just seemed to be appropriate here.
Back in the 1980’s, the term channeling was coined to promote the notion and belief that living people were able to have literal conversations with, and speak for the dead, and occasionally aliens (yeah right, and I can fly without a plane. That’s odd, I seem to have misplaced my cape and boots?).
The belief that certain individuals were able to speak with or the dead, the same way us living people speak with each other, has been around since ancient Greece. In fact, the dawn of psychical research in 1882 Great Britain, began with the investigation of such claims, which were and still are, unprovable. There is nothing new under the sun here, only the way it’s depicted in order to attract the attention of naive and gullible people willing to spend their hard-earned money on vaporware (again, please excuse the play on words here).
Let me make my position on this issue very clear. Over the course of forty-six years of parapsychological research, I have seen absolutely no scientific evidence or proof that we humans can directly speak with, or to, the dead. Although, if you watch enough cable television these days, you might doubt my conclusions, as one might believe they’re hearing from the dead on a regular basis, especially if they’re lawyers or politicians (oh, excuse me, they’re simply dead from the neck up and lacking a conscience).
There was a great line in an episode of The X-Files where Mulder said to Scully something along the lines of: “We can talk to God all day and we call that prayer, but when God talks back, you’re schizophrenic”.
I am in almost totally concur with that statement, but with one minor exception. If I were writing or making the statement, it would read: “You can talk to God all day and we call that prayer, but when God or the dead talk back, your schizophrenic”.
So at this point you understand that my skepticism regarding mediumship and/or channeling the dead is rather extreme to say the least, correct? Over the last four decades, I’ve encountered incredible amounts of evidence and data strongly indicating that most paranormal phenomena are real, objective and somewhat demonstrable, but that their true nature is far more complicated and intricate that we ever imagined.
Such phenomena have been displaying itself to us in many forms for several millennia, although our interpretation of such events is extremely biased due to our lack of scientific knowledge and religious orientation and dogma.
Simply put, it’s the concept of Ockham’s Razor, which states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is generally correct. Before we assume that an event is paranormal in nature, we must painstakingly demonstrate that it cannot be explained by any other means. Once we’ve reached that crucial threshold, Ockham’s Razor must be utilized again when evaluating the claims of mediums and channelers .
If we can more readily and easily explain paranormal events in terms of ESP (telepathy, precognition, retrocognition, clairvoyance or remote viewing), why must we reach for the most improbable and outlandish explanation, that such information is being generated by discarnate entities or disembodied personalities?
In essence, almost all of the data collected over the last 130 years indicates that some people can, unquestionably, access information at a distance, from the past and from the future, as well as from living minds in their own time but non-locally.
Depending on where we are in both space and time relative to where said paranormal information originates from, determines its classification, and thereby, its name.
If the information appears to originate from the future, we call that precognition. If it originates from the past, we call that retrocognition, and if said information is remote from your body in space independent of others’ perception, we call that clairvoyance.
The bottom line here, is that such data acquisition of nothing more than information, and it appears to all be the same other than where it appears to come from in space-time and where we are in space and time when we perceive it.
There are those researchers out there (whose names will not be mentioned here) who have made the claim that they can clinically distinguish between information accessed via an ESP mechanism as discussed here, as opposed to coming from a disembodied consciousness.
The problem with their assumptions and conclusions is that they are very subjective and not, as yet, clinically validated through contemporary neurophysiological methodologies and protocols and therefore not quantifiably demonstrable in any way.
When people converse, whether verbally or electronically, it is generally linear in its nature. That is, there is a normal progression from one item to the next. When psychically gifted people access information through ESP mechanisms, it is generally non-linear in nature, as if tapping into some form of non-local, random access memory source (Zero Point Power field?).
When individuals claim to be contacting or channeling spirits or aliens, the outcome is in the identical type non-linear formatting, not in the linear way we communicate amongst ourselves. This strongly suggests that such alleged mediumistic communication is the same as any psychic (not medium) giving you a reading in person?
In the mid-1990’s I was in the green room at KNBC-TV in Burbank waiting to go on a television show regarding the paranormal. I was approached by a man I did not recognize and he introduced himself as a well-known medium/channeler/psychic, whom I had never heard of.
When he asked me if I believe in what he does, I looked him square in the eye and said “No, as everything you claim to do we’ve done in a far more precise, controlled, scientific manner in our psi training groups UCLA’s former parapsychology lab, and there were no dead people floating around conveying the information to us.”
As this gentleman knew who I was, he was rather shocked to hear my skeptical reply. He then asked what he might do to convince me of his alleged gift. Thinking for a brief moment, I said that if and when he was doing his “reading”, an apparition of the departed person he was allegedly communicating with,would appear on at least two video cameras simultaneously demonstrating parallax. The medium looked at me and smiled, as he turned and walked away, not fully understanding what I said or why.
Around the mid-to-late 1980’s, I was interviewed by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times regarding channeling. When I discussed my skepticism and all the aforementioned points, the reporter agreed with me but then said “Yeah, but that’s not very interesting or sexy, it’s downright boring. No one’s going to pay you a huge sum of money for a reading if you’re just tapping into a holographically distributed space-time information system.”
Needless to say, this reporter never published his interview with me as it did not support the sensationalistic orientation of his pending article. Forget all the multi-dimensional, quantum physics talk, this reporter made the most relevant point of all, and I’ve made mine.
While I do believe in the possibility for survival of consciousness and personality at some level (my book addresses this in detail), I have yet to see any real, hard evidence that we can sit down and break bread with the dead, especially if one expects real conversations to occur. About the closest we ever really come to such an event is when we must consult and attorney over a legal matter (more on this in my book as well).
And before you ask, I do not believe that The Entity, the San Pedro or the Cielo Drive cases from my files are indicative of hauntings. The only two cases out of my than 4,000 that even vaguely suggested discarnate intelligence were the 1970 Inglewood case (Chapter one of my book), The Holly Mont Case (Chapter one of my book, as well as the blog entitled “The Holly Mont Haunting: As Good As It Gets”, elsewhere on this site).
End of story.