Questions the Spiritualists/Survivalists need to ask

What the Survivalists and Spiritualists should be able to answer, but can’t

There are a number of major inconsistencies with modern survival research, and in particular with the Spiritualist message of survival of death. This does not negate the possibility, but it does bring into question the authenticity of a good deal of information which is supposedly from ‘spirit’ origin.
These issues require careful consideration and responses for the Spiritualists and others who are claiming contact with individuals who have survived death; perhaps it is best to pose these as individual questions. I pose these questions’ after being involved in survival research for some 40 years. I have experienced almost every type of mediumship from mental to physical. I have sat with many mediums as an observer and participant in physical séances on numerous occasions. I am not an armchair researcher; I have had the practical experience and lectured on Spiritualist topics to Spiritualists on many occasions. Many of them know me well.

I have come to the conclusion over the last year or so that not all is what it seems. In particular the standards of so called mediumship leave a lot to be desired. Like it or not, Spiritualism has failed to evolve, and failed to leave a lasting legacy to this world and indeed prove its point. In the 21st century.
If we had the will, tenacity and support the issue of survival of consciousness after death could be explored much more fully; and a good deal of progress made to answer this age old question. We should have made much more progress, but Spiritualism in particular is willing to put up with mediocrity and the same old methods and practices. This does nothing for its reputation.

Question 1: Communication

In all ‘Spiritualist’ meetings medium communication takes place between the medium and spirit person in an act of communication to relay a message from a loved one or friend. This is demonstrated daily in Spiritualist meetings around the world.
Imagine for a moment you had survived death, and were able to communicate your survival through a medium to a loved one of yours who has attended a meeting. What would you do to establish your identity ?. We are told time and again by the spirits and the mediums how difficult communication is, so you would try your best in all probability to let them know it was ‘you’. So, the medium gets a name. In fact mediums get lots of names, they litter Spiritualist meetings and are given freely as ‘evidence’...But how evidential is the ‘name’. This represents a major fault in mediumistic communication as in the vast majority of communications a Christian name is give, i.e., I’ve got Mary here, or who is Peter ?? etc.
Now let us suppose that (as indicated) the medium is in contract with this spirit, and the spirit is able to give their name...Is it not just as easy for that spirit to communicate their surname as it is their Christian name ?. After all this is an alleged contact, and the mediums is in communication with the spirit. If you were in spirit and you wished to communicate your identity would you net give sufficient information to establish WITHOUT DOUBT who you are??.

We are told we take with us into spirit all our thoughts, feelings and aspects of our self (or do we suddenly forget our surnames, or what we did or where we worked and lived) why then is it so difficult to establish identity. I am sure most people would be only too willing to say who they are (their full name, occupation etc). What do we find however...the odd name? It is rare indeed to be given a full name. Why is it any more difficult for a spirit it give their surname when they have already given their Christian name...Well, I doubt it is, but I do doubt the veracity of the link these mediums have, or indeed if the communication is nothing but a delusion..Note, I am not saying deliberate fraud (although in some cases it may be) but delusion. They think they have contact but do not. Unfortunately in most cases I think it is just that, if not then can the Spiritualists tell me why there is such lack of solid identity and very few surnames or full names. Similarly in physical mediumship this is even more important when identity should not be in question, but often it is..WHY ???

One other issue is the communicators. Why is that communicators rarely manifest from the distant past ?. Considering all the individuals who have passed very few are ever identified from more than about 100 years ago. There are exceptions but this is not common. Would they not have important lessons to teach us about their history ?.



Question 2: Guides
Who are these people ?. Again, do we need them, and why do they often fail to establish their identity and previous existence?. Why are they frequently from Native American or Chinese cultures. It does not make sense. It also does not make sense for a ‘child’ guide to manifest as a child when we are often told they have now ‘grown up in spirit’, but just come back as a child!!!. Very strange. I once encountered a ‘German’ guide of a medium whom told us he had been in the Kaisers army (incorrect). When I spoke to him in German out of respect he could not understand me!!. Guides may be nothing more than figments of the mediums imagination that manifest at a séance or meeting. They may be much more, but the subject is mired in controversy, and they singularly fail to establish identity.


Question 3: Near Death Experiences
There is much of interest going on in NDE research, but whatever is occurring presents some dilemmas. If the NDE is possible indicative of human survival why does some recent research indicate such events may take place when NOT near death, as in deep meditation or in times of depression or severe stress?. Could this not be just another manifestation of brain function ?.
What is more concerning is why so few of the population who experience near death do NOT have any experience such as this. Many survivors of cardiac arrest report nothing; and it may be logical that if this was a universal phenomena exhibited in human who are near death, then it should be universally reported. It is not. As few as 20% of people report such experiences. Even allowing for unreported cases the percentage is still small. How do NDE researchers account for this, and how could this be possible evidence for survival ?

The above are only some, but fundamental questions. In all my years of experience and working with Spiritualists and mediums they have not been answered with any satisfaction. Can anyone oblige or tell me these are not relevant questions ?

Hello The Wanderer.
Regarding your 1st and 2nd questions; I actually agree with you - but then I am not a medium and so not really the one to answer you.

Your 3rd question:

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

There is much of interest going on in NDE research, but whatever is occurring presents some dilemmas. If the NDE is possible indicative of human survival why does some recent research indicate such events may take place when NOT near death, as in deep meditation or in times of depression or severe stress?. Could this not be just another manifestation of brain function ?.

Maybe it could - or maybe the spirit can 'leave' the body during times of deep relaxation or great trauma (emotional or physical).

What is more concerning is why so few of the population who experience near death do NOT have any experience such as this. Many survivors of cardiac arrest report nothing; and it may be logical that if this was a universal phenomena exhibited in human who are near death, then it should be universally reported. It is not. As few as 20% of people report such experiences. Even allowing for unreported cases the percentage is still small. How do NDE researchers account for this, and how could this be possible evidence for survival ?

20%, or one fifth, is quite a large proportion don't you think?
There is also the possibility that 100% of people who 'die' experience this but only 20% can remember it.
Just my thoughts.

Here are some thoughts to consider. A ghost wants to communicate with a human being, perhaps a surviving loved one. The ghost has to interact with the memory centers of the surviving loved one. So the ghost does this and ends up triggering various memories. Any communication that doesn't make sense is dampened out, like, "honey, I'm still here, I'm right here." The surviving loved one might have those thoughts, but they are quickly dismissed as not making sense. Or, if the surving loved one is a spiritualist, then they might feel it, and might mention it to a psychic medium.

[sarek]

Lets assume for a moment that such a thing as an immortal soul is possible.

This raises the next question. Are we granted such a soul from the get go, are we "top down" are we souls having a human experience?

Or:

Maybe we are bottom-up. Maybe we have to, through intense work on ourselves, develop our own souls first. Perhaps we have to become, in order to be. This is the view Gurdjieff holds. He gives us the parable of the magicians to illustrate this:

Originally Posted by gurdjieff

“There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and their skins, and this they did not like.

“At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place, he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians.

“After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.

“This tale is a very good illustration of man’s position.”

What if we are deliberately kept asleep.

This leads us to my next question, one which i first started pondering when I was fifteen years old.

If a "spirit" claims to be John Doe, what tells us that he is in fact that individual? What stops an entity with questionable intent to quite simply play back the information belonging to another persons life? If an old man can go on to the internet and pretend to be a teenage girl, what would stop a highly advanced entity from pretending to be anything he wanted to pretend?

Thank you so much for the contributions so far. Problem is, no one has been able to answer the points I have raised !!.

The Wanderer

[Jenny Crow]

Originally Posted by sarek

If a "spirit" claims to be John Doe, what tells us that he is in fact that individual? What stops an entity with questionable intent to quite simply play back the information belonging to another persons life? If an old man can go on to the internet and pretend to be a teenage girl, what would stop a highly advanced entity from pretending to be anything he wanted to pretend?

My question would be why would a spirit want to do that? But I do think that happens at times, especially when a Ouija board is used. An entity can come through claiming to be anyone.

Wanderer: I just wanted to post on what happens when I've encountered a spirit who wishes me to give a message. Please keep in mind this is just MY experience, I am not saying it's like this for every medium.

I have been a professional Tarot reader for many years; I never advertised that I'm a medium because I can't turn it on and off at will - it comes in when it wants to, so to speak; and during readings, but definitely not all readings, a spirit will sometimes come in who wishes me to give a message to my client. You questioned why does the spirit not give a last name as well as a first name. As I read your post I got a rather funny picture in my head of a spirit trotting up to the table and saying something like "Hello, my name's John Doe and I want you to tell my wife that I'm just fine over here".

For me (I don't know about other mediums) the telepathic communication can be sharp and clear or kind of murky and dim, depending, I suppose, on the strength of the communication coming from said spirit and also on how good my telepathic receiving apparatus is working that day. Sometimes the name will come through clearly and other times I get the 'sound' of the name. Sometimes I can describe them quite well, as to colour of hair, height etc. Other times it's their personality and how they smile or laugh. Sometimes, it's a saying they often used. Often, what helps to clarify who the spirit is, is feeling the symptoms they suffered during the illness they had that led to their death; or if they passed from an accident, say from trauma to the head then I'll feel the pain in my head. My friend, who is also a professional Tarot reader and has mediumistic talents has described the suit or dress that the person was dressed in to be buried and that clarifies to the client who has come in for them.

It could quite possibly be different for professional mediums who work in spiritualist churches, I don't know.

You asked why is it that communicators rarely manifest from the distant past - well speaking from a personal point of view, what would be the point - unless there was some buried treasure somewhere that belonged to the family way back when, or some-such thing. Whatever happened 500 years ago probably cannot be changed now, and if someone of my family came through who died in the distant past, say more than 200 years ago, I wouldn't have a clue as to what they really looked like, how could I positively identify them and know who was coming through?

I also believe that they would have "gone on" on their own journey and more than likely would have reincarnated. (IMHO)

As far as guides are concerned, it's my opinion that they do not fail to establish their identity. Some people are very aware of their guide's identity and can actually see them and describe what they look like and other people are totally unaware of them, perhaps they don't even believe in them, so it would be difficult for their guides to identify themselves to someone who's not aware of them. When you're speaking of a medium's spirit guide I believe you're referring to the spirit whom the medium channels through and to be honest I do think in some cases it's wishful thinking that their guide is a Native American, but who's to say

Your questions are valid ones, and as I said the above are just my experiences.

Jenny Crow

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

What the Survivalists and Spiritualists should be able to answer, but can’t

There are a number of major inconsistencies with modern survival research, and in particular with the Spiritualist message of survival of death. This does not negate the possibility, but it does bring into question the authenticity of a good deal of information which is supposedly from ‘spirit’ origin.
These issues require careful consideration and responses for the Spiritualists and others who are claiming contact with individuals who have survived death; perhaps it is best to pose these as individual questions. I pose these questions’ after being involved in survival research for some 40 years. I have experienced almost every type of mediumship from mental to physical. I have sat with many mediums as an observer and participant in physical séances on numerous occasions. I am not an armchair researcher; I have had the practical experience and lectured on Spiritualist topics to Spiritualists on many occasions. Many of them know me well.

I have come to the conclusion over the last year or so that not all is what it seems. In particular the standards of so called mediumship leave a lot to be desired. Like it or not, Spiritualism has failed to evolve, and failed to leave a lasting legacy to this world and indeed prove its point. In the 21st century.
If we had the will, tenacity and support the issue of survival of consciousness after death could be explored much more fully; and a good deal of progress made to answer this age old question. We should have made much more progress, but Spiritualism in particular is willing to put up with mediocrity and the same old methods and practices. This does nothing for its reputation.

Question 1: Communication

In all ‘Spiritualist’ meetings medium communication takes place between the medium and spirit person in an act of communication to relay a message from a loved one or friend. This is demonstrated daily in Spiritualist meetings around the world.
Imagine for a moment you had survived death, and were able to communicate your survival through a medium to a loved one of yours who has attended a meeting. What would you do to establish your identity ?. We are told time and again by the spirits and the mediums how difficult communication is, so you would try your best in all probability to let them know it was ‘you’. So, the medium gets a name. In fact mediums get lots of names, they litter Spiritualist meetings and are given freely as ‘evidence’...But how evidential is the ‘name’. This represents a major fault in mediumistic communication as in the vast majority of communications a Christian name is give, i.e., I’ve got Mary here, or who is Peter ?? etc.
Now let us suppose that (as indicated) the medium is in contract with this spirit, and the spirit is able to give their name...Is it not just as easy for that spirit to communicate their surname as it is their Christian name ?. After all this is an alleged contact, and the mediums is in communication with the spirit. If you were in spirit and you wished to communicate your identity would you net give sufficient information to establish WITHOUT DOUBT who you are??.

We are told we take with us into spirit all our thoughts, feelings and aspects of our self (or do we suddenly forget our surnames, or what we did or where we worked and lived) why then is it so difficult to establish identity. I am sure most people would be only too willing to say who they are (their full name, occupation etc). What do we find however...the odd name? It is rare indeed to be given a full name. Why is it any more difficult for a spirit it give their surname when they have already given their Christian name...Well, I doubt it is, but I do doubt the veracity of the link these mediums have, or indeed if the communication is nothing but a delusion..Note, I am not saying deliberate fraud (although in some cases it may be) but delusion. They think they have contact but do not. Unfortunately in most cases I think it is just that, if not then can the Spiritualists tell me why there is such lack of solid identity and very few surnames or full names. Similarly in physical mediumship this is even more important when identity should not be in question, but often it is..WHY ???

One other issue is the communicators. Why is that communicators rarely manifest from the distant past ?. Considering all the individuals who have passed very few are ever identified from more than about 100 years ago. There are exceptions but this is not common. Would they not have important lessons to teach us about their history ?.



Question 2: Guides
Who are these people ?. Again, do we need them, and why do they often fail to establish their identity and previous existence?. Why are they frequently from Native American or Chinese cultures. It does not make sense. It also does not make sense for a ‘child’ guide to manifest as a child when we are often told they have now ‘grown up in spirit’, but just come back as a child!!!. Very strange. I once encountered a ‘German’ guide of a medium whom told us he had been in the Kaisers army (incorrect). When I spoke to him in German out of respect he could not understand me!!. Guides may be nothing more than figments of the mediums imagination that manifest at a séance or meeting. They may be much more, but the subject is mired in controversy, and they singularly fail to establish identity.


Question 3: Near Death Experiences
There is much of interest going on in NDE research, but whatever is occurring presents some dilemmas. If the NDE is possible indicative of human survival why does some recent research indicate such events may take place when NOT near death, as in deep meditation or in times of depression or severe stress?. Could this not be just another manifestation of brain function ?.
What is more concerning is why so few of the population who experience near death do NOT have any experience such as this. Many survivors of cardiac arrest report nothing; and it may be logical that if this was a universal phenomena exhibited in human who are near death, then it should be universally reported. It is not. As few as 20% of people report such experiences. Even allowing for unreported cases the percentage is still small. How do NDE researchers account for this, and how could this be possible evidence for survival ?

The above are only some, but fundamental questions. In all my years of experience and working with Spiritualists and mediums they have not been answered with any satisfaction. Can anyone oblige or tell me these are not relevant questions ?

H Wanderer,

Common questions, asked for many years, by many frustrated by a seeming lacking in clarity. And while individual Spiritual mediums, may have their weaknesses others may flow with their sensitivities, the resulting `Spirit` reflections frustrate the logical and rational demands of human expectation.

So I would reflect, from my own experiential awareness of the Spirit/medium link, and its reasoning in end result. In the hope it may create a consideration or two to ponder on.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Why is it any more difficult for a spirit it give their surname when they have already given their Christian name...

most people would be only too willing to say who they are (their full name, occupation

Is a Spirit a `person`, are Spirit `people`? Does Spirit `say` anything?
This is the most important element to begin with, the `human` person`s body, is no longer who the Spirit are. How a human being `says` something, is `not` how Spirit reflect in communication or awareness.

So to understand what may be shared between a Spirit and a Spiritual medium, requires a consideration of `how` they connect. Though there are many forms of channelling, divination or Spiritual mediumship, `where` they reflect from, is the point from which a `connection` is made.

This is relevant because most focus on the end result, I saw, heard, felt sensations, which all result in `words`. But no matter the process of connectivity, it is `within` `feelings` that intuitive sensitivities `link` with Spirit.

This is relevant because it means, from a human perspective, every eventual `word` expressed as a reflection from Spirit, comes from `feeling`. So if Spirit do not `say` it’s Bob, rather than `it’s Bob Smith, from Tooting, `the fireman`. But rather express in `feeling` who they `used to be`, then how did `Bob` feel when he was Bob the human being? And how relevant is who he is expressing to?

Is it his wife, Son, brother, friend. For who Bob was, will be associated with who is receiving his expression. His wife, may have had a nickname for him, let`s say, `cuddles`. What difference would it have on Bobs wife, if he was given as `cuddles`, rather than Bob, to the wife? The same consideration with a brother/sister, friend, a personal trait, may be `more` effective as `solid` identification, than his full name, especially if even that, was common.

Then there is a consideration, that the words are `feelings` expressed and received, to be transitioned into thoughtful words, by the Spiritual medium.
Try it, imagine siting opposite another person, trying to `feel` who you are, so they could `feel` it, and translate it into words. Or reversed, you try and `feel` and translate, who they are `feeling` they are.

This is why depending on the demands of `human` means of communicating, becomes the cause of so much confusion, regarding Spirit reflections. And why understanding the `feeling` connection, is so much more important, to being `aware` beyond the words as names alone.

An example; I wore a symbol around my neck for many, many years, and asked a terminally ill loved one to wear it, during their final days. So it may link us if the need arose for them. They passed away wearing it, and the `need arose` for me, to link with them, in mourning. Four months later, a clairvoyant I was seeing for the first time, walked up to me, put their finger on the symbol hidden under my top, and said, `you know who is here, don`t you`. That was solid identity to me, and had more in feeling, than `any` word could convey.

There are common traits unique to a mother/father/son/daughter/friend, which when reflected by a Spiritual medium, may instantly touch the heart in recognition, within the receiver of the communication. And instantly produce a more `solid` confirmation, than any name or address. Personal can often reflect more from our personality traits, than our name. As `solid identity` may be found to be more personal in a feeling, than the reflected name/words which create it.

So when considering the content of a Spirit reflection, do not ask, why is it not clearer, but consider, how `open` is my feeling of the impact, its effect has caused, in the one receiving that reflection. For your feeling may clarify more than the logical rationality of mindful criticism.

Guides
Who are these people ?. Again, do we need them, and why do they often fail to establish their identity and previous existence?. Why are they frequently from Native American or Chinese cultures. It does not make sense.

There are Spirit guides who have `never` had a human persona, so the `people question drops away. Do human beings require guidance through life`s development? Would we be any less in need, when considering discovering/remembering Spirit in awareness, while we are still human beings?

Spirit have no failings, for if there are failings, then we must look to our own restrictions in openness, sensitivity and fluency when associating to reflecting their connectivity. For as identity is a human need, which requires such to be established, the Spirit guide seeks only to be a reflection, of the Spirit nature of those they support in guidance. Not to be identified to be recognized.

It makes me smile, when considering that the most commonly `established` Spirit guide identities, be they Native Americans/Chinese/Nuns, are then criticized for being `too` established in recognition.

What makes sense, is clarified within the sensitivity of connectivity between a Spirit guide and those who are open to their guidance. Beyond that is mindfulness and its logical rationalization. We are immersed in guides, the nature of the universe, the Earth and its life, yet we remain self-opinionated as to why they or we exist. Nature is the most natural guide, connecting with the nature of `feeling` is the most Spiritual guide a human Spiritual medium possesses.

. It also does not make sense for a ‘child’ guide to manifest as a child when we are often told they have now ‘grown up in spirit’, but just come back as a child!

Most all who reflect from a Spirit presence, reflect from their `prime` of human persona, when connecting with our nature of human understanding, as Spirit may reflect most any image of persona, required by human natures limited understanding of the nature of Spiritual existence.

Guides may be nothing more than figments of the mediums imagination that manifest at a séance or meeting. They may be much more, but the subject is mired in controversy, and they singularly fail to establish identity.

This feels like a personal self-reflective frustration. As any controversy lies with those who have no experience of a, recognizable established link with a Spirit guide.

. As few as 20% of people report such experiences. Even allowing for unreported cases the percentage is still small. How do NDE researchers account for this, and how could this be possible evidence for survival ?

What percentage of human beings become Spiritual mediums, while such a sensitivity exists in the nature of every human being? Many cups are too full, to allow anything new to enter, while those whose cups are empty, will naturally discover the new experience, it is simple nature. We can only take in what we are open to receive.

The above are only some, but fundamental questions. In all my years of experience and working with Spiritualists and mediums they have not been answered with any satisfaction. Can anyone oblige or tell me these are not relevant questions ?

There is never an irrelevant question, as any question may manifest an informative answer. And while it saddens me that in so many years you have not found the answers to these questions for yourself. I offer my own reflections from my own experiential awareness when a Spiritual medium, in the hope they may at least soften your obvious frustrations, and give some considerations to ponder.

[Jenny Crow]

What a great post Papa Bear, so well said.

[Papa Bear]

Hi Jenny Crow,

Originally Posted by Jenny Crow

What a great post Papa Bear, so well said.

That is kind of you to say so, we can but reflect from our experiential awareness. There has always been a routine problem, when it comes to human interpretations of Spirit communication. As the instinct to associate in human terms, to define or understand a Spirit reflection, often gives little or no consideration to the means by which such a connectivity may have been created.
Highlighting such may at least, create some thoughts to ponder, when considering `how` such Spirit links, result in the inevitable words of translation.

[Jenny Crow]

Yes, I understand what you're saying.