Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alexander1304

Reincarnation,Michael Newton vs Carl Wickland

5 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Hello All,

I've read about Stevenson's and others research ,and a lot of people of paranormal circles regard them as good evidence for reincarnation.Let me post just few quotation about reincarantion:

Dr Arthur Guirdham, English psychiatrist, maintains that he has been a skeptic ever since he was nicknamed 'Doubting Thomas' as a boy. But after his experience of 44 years doing hypnotic regressions he claims:"If I didn't believe in reincarnation on the evidence I'd received I'd be mentally defective' (cited Fisher 1986: 65)."

Dr Helen Wambach was a skeptic who in 1975 undertook a major study of past life regressions in order to find out once and for all if there was any truth to reincarnation. By doing a scientific analysis on the past lives reported by her 10,000 plus volunteers she came up with some startling evidence in favor of reincarnation:

50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were femalethis is exactly in accordance with biological fact

the number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians of the class distribution of the period

the recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She found over and over again that her subjects knew better than most historianswhen she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably correct.

Her conclusion was: I don't believe in reincarnationI know it!(Wambach 1978).

Eric Weiss ,for example,cites Stevenson's research as "powerful evidence for reincarnation",also books of Michael Newton and Brian Weiss...

But,there is the book of Carl Wickland "30 years amond the dead",book that rejects reincarnation.Moreover,ironically,in this book evenv Madame Blavatsky appears personally as spirit communicator and says that she was wrong in life(she was very great supporter of reincarnation).

So,I'm confused here,and don't know whose side has better arguments.

Tnoughts,anyone?

Edited by Alexander1304

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

I've read about Stevenson's and others research ,and a lot of people of paranormal circles regard them as good evidence for reincarnation.Let me post just few quotation about reincarantion:

Dr Arthur Guirdham, English psychiatrist, maintains that he has been a skeptic ever since he was nicknamed 'Doubting Thomas' as a boy. But after his experience of 44 years doing hypnotic regressions he claims:"If I didn't believe in reincarnation on the evidence I'd received I'd be mentally defective' (cited Fisher 1986: 65)."

Dr Helen Wambach was a skeptic who in 1975 undertook a major study of past life regressions in order to find out once and for all if there was any truth to reincarnation. By doing a scientific analysis on the past lives reported by her 10,000 plus volunteers she came up with some startling evidence in favor of reincarnation:

• 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were female—this is exactly in accordance with biological fact

• the number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians of the class distribution of the period

• the recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She found over and over again that her subjects knew better than most historians—when she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably correct.

Her conclusion was: 'I don't believe in reincarnation—I know it!'(Wambach 1978).

Eric Weiss ,for example,cites Stevenson's research as "powerful evidence for reincarnation",also books of Michael Newton and Brian Weiss...

But,in Your bibliography list I found the book of Carl Wickland "30 years amond the dead",book that rejects reincarnation.Moreover,ironically,in this book evenv Madame Blavatsky appears personally as spirit communicator and says that she was wrong in life(she was very great supporter of reincarnation).

So,I'm confused here,and don't know whose side has better arguments.

Tnoughts,anyone?

Okay then. I am convinced. I knew it. I was an African Dung Beetle. Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

• 50.6 % of the past lives reported were male and 49.4 % were female—this is exactly in accordance with biological fact

• the number of people reporting upper class or comfortable lives was in exactly the same proportion to the estimates of historians of the class distribution of the period

• the recall by subjects of clothing, footwear, type of food and utensils used was better than that in popular history books. She found over and over again that her subjects knew better than most historians—when she went to obscure experts her subjects were invariably correct.

While I do believe in reincarnation, these facts seem a little... off. I guess I'd have to read it within the context of the rest of the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the historical facts speak for themselves... it would have to be either reading a historian's mind or reading the past, if it wasn't reincarnation, and it might be that humanity's past or parts of it are imprinted in our memories. That means reincarnation doesn't have to exist just because those things were found by hypnotism therapy or by dreams.

I'm not an expert but I'd put more value on Edgar Cayce and other capable "readers" of all sorts. Still, I wouldn't debunk the possibility of reincarnation even if dead spirits say so, because they might have not yet passed to the angel of forgetfulness. Knowing that spirits we dont usually sense with 5 senses habit our plane is one thing, but knowing can they go to the angel and be born again in materia and forget everything is another. I think they themselves cannot tell it for sure either, because they haven't yet gone to that angel of don't remember anything of their last visit with the angel. But, it's very possible that the angel doesn't exist... I can't deny that. I think that if you want to be clear about this, you should research after Cayce's work... its funny that I accept the possibility of... yes, I accept the possibility. Lets leave it at that.

The uncertainty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.