Recently I discovered, via the latest Wikipedia edit on Whitley Strieber, an interesting exegesis on Strieber’s “The Key” by “Heinrich Moltke.” It is as scholarly work as anyone could hope to generate. I won’t recapitulate it; the text is available for free to anyone interested. Moltke reminded me of a number of contradictions that I remember from the time—I was then a devoted listener to Art Bell’s incarnation of “Coast To Coast” as well as a student of Strieber’s journals (and also a subscriber to his site). Careful students of Strieber (as well as maybe some casual ones) are well-acquainted with a number of glaring contradictions running through his work. I’ve noticed them for years, first encountering them in the early ‘90s, pre-internet. Many I’ve ignored; others have been more glaring and consequential, causing me to unsubscribe from his site on two occasions. Still, because I’m merely a casual reader of Strieber, they do not bother me as much as they might if I were an acolyte.

My core conviction is that, in the paranormal field, integrity is everything. Paranormal and / or pseudoscientific texts are going to be scrupulously examined and vigorously debunked, if possible. Even if your essential hypothesis is “right,” you invite discredit by failing to argue it correctly. This Moltke manages to do quite effectively with Strieber’s “The Key.”

Still, I always return to Strieber’s work. Flawed as much of it is, Strieber has had some startling insights here and there, as well as some transcendent experiences of some nature. My suspicion is that many of them have been essentially non-physical—they happened “somewhere,” but not in this physical consensus reality. If you do not believe that it is possible to have a valid experience of a non-physical nature, then case closed—Strieber is full of it. However, I believe that it is quite possible to have a numinous, tangible, physically-seeming experience that doesn’t register in our space and time. Certain people, in fact, seem quite susceptible to these experiences, and some have been significant enough to change history.

In the back of my mind, this is what I’ve always suspected of Strieber and why I’ve always cut his writings a large amount of slack. It has been worth wading through the contradictions and seeming illogic in order to find the kernel of insight that is usually there. But there are dangers involved in this sort of intellectual equivocation, and I don’t recommend it as a general practice—particularly with the paranormal.

Certainly, I don’t expect anyone to be persuaded by the argument that because Strieber’s experience wasn’t necessarily physical, his recounting of it should be casually believed. But I accept, in principle, the possibility that he encountered *something* in that hotel room in 1998, and his account of what he claims to remember of it is personally fascinating. I don’t think he confabulated it.

Which brings me to what I originally intended to write about: Strieber’s apparent communication with his late wife, Anne Strieber. Channeling the dead is a subject that I do have a nodding acquaintance with, and the two journal entries that “she” has written so far (filed under “Afterlife Journal”) are interesting. Indeed, in the areas that Strieber has explored that I have some knowledge of or experience with, I have found his accounts to be reliable. So I’m looking forward to more communications from “Anne.”

Update: As I read further in the text of “Problems,” it’s dawning on me that “The Key” may have been confabulated or manufactured.... which raises a couple of questions.

Primarily, if “The Key” was confabulated, might well have “Communion” been? Or “The Secret School”? Both books purport to document literal, physical events. Though it’s been years since I’ve read it, I remember being impressed with “The Secret School” at the time. The difference between these two books and “The Key” is that there’s somewhat of a documentation trail involving “The Key,” and the contradictions in “The Key” invite skeptical analysis.

Secondarily, if confabulated, how? Despite his early equivocations, I tend to think that Strieber is firmly convinced that his hotel encounter with the “Master” was a “real” event. When confronted with the textual contradictions, as documented by Moltke, Strieber overreacts with confused defensiveness, as if he’s lost his footing and can’t completely recover the memory of the event. If he had simply made the story up, I tend to think that he would have reacted evasively.

Moltke argues that “at this stage, given the problems reconciling all of Strieber’s accounts of the scenario, the most charitable reading that can be given is that Strieber had a true encounter that was ‘hyperdimensional’”, which seems to be a polite way of saying that it was hallucinated—albeit a hallucination that is lengthy, three-dimensional, and interactive.

This all may explain Strieber’s obsessive, lifelong quest to obtain validation and proof of his core “Communion” experience. Considering that hallucinations are, by their nature, not objectively observable by others, we simply have to accept the experiencer’s testimony of the hallucination as “true”—unless the experiencer proves to be an unreliable narrator (which, Moltke seems to suggest, Strieber is).

My gut instinct is that a “valid” supernatural experience will have a certain consistency... it may be strange and unverifiable, but the accounting of it will remain consistent over time. And while we should hope that it has a positive impact on the experiencer’s life, at the very least, we should be concerned if the experience seems disruptive and destabilizing and interferes with the experiencer’s daily life. We should certainly question the experience’s nature—and origin—if it seems malignant. We understand relatively little about the nature of consciousness, or the nature of the human personality. A malignant experience may contain an element of truth and may impart valid and useful information. But if it destabilizes the experiencer, we should be concerned.

I think that the contradictions of Strieber’s experience—and the incoherent narrative that results from it—have a simple explanation. He may have had a valid experience, but it may not have been a “true” one.

A while back, I blogged quite a bit about the dangerously negative effects surrounding the whole “human abduction” narrative, both from the standpoint of the experiencer, the investigator—as well as the student. Basically, as useful as it might be to know if abductions are happening—more-so, if the “government” is behind it all—uncovering these experiences seems to have a damaging effect upon all associated with them, damage that has been extensively documented. I increasingly view “The Key” as the product of an interaction with an intelligence that cannot be trusted to be of any benefit.

My semi-regular ufology check-in

I confess that while I am still interested in UFOs, I’m not interested in ufology, however... Unfortunately, web searches for UFO information invariably returns results relating to *ufology*. So my search this week inevitably led to articles on ufology.  There was no escape. Deciding that it was time for my ufological checkup, I decided to just go with it.

The ufologists that I respected years ago are either dead or inactive. So I was left to check in with those that remain, or at least those that I know about.

My first check-in concerned a well-known paranormal podcaster who is notorious for begging his audience for money. I always return to him because I was duped once into actually giving him some, and this still bothers me. His compulsive begging is probably due to an illness or personality disorder, which bothers everyone except himself. It’s regrettable, because when I listened to his podcast a few years back, I thought that it was actually good. He exposed a couple of ufological frauds. The respect for and interest in ufology is currently so low, however, that any good work that he might be doing is apparently not enough to meet his basic financial needs.

This search led me to two podcasters who once had an excellent podcast that I supported for a while. They have gone their separate ways but currently have UFO-centric (but not ufological) blogs, and they are still attempting to wrangle meaning from the phenomenon. I was glad to see that they are still blogging.

From them, I learned that there was a recent controversy involving a noted author in the field, and his attendance at a forum involving a time-traveler and other attendees of questionable discernment. There was some back-and-forth about whether it was kosher to be on the same stage with apparent lunatics.

The writer in question surprised me last year by seeming to support the election of Donald Trump, arguing that it would result in the demise of both neoliberalism and neo-conservatism. It actually might, if one is willing to accept authoritarianism as the replacement.

I haven’t checked in with Coast To Coast very much, except recently to see if Alex Jones is still a regular guest. (He is.) A while back, I argued that giving guests like Alex Jones a platform on a paranormal show was probably dangerous. I am not the least bit happy to see that my fear was correct. In fact, the proto-fascist overtones of some of the Coast guests did more to sour me on the paranormal than anything else.

It’s all well and good to entertain the hypothesis that there is a “breakaway” civilization still tinkering with Roswell debris and taking ET back home. It’s quite another thing to actually *believe* this, without proof... It undermines basic civic trust.

My cursory searches left me pessimistic about the future of ufology. It is now seemingly impossible to rescue the belief in UFOs from thought movements that are corrosive, authoritarian, unscientific, and nihilistic. This is why science, the general public—and I—have rejected it.

An ADC of note

Finally, I've managed to scribble some long-promised thoughts on a notable ADC. I've had trouble find the right context to the experience, something that bedevils most writers of this topic: How do you contextualize an experience that transcends physical reality?  And then, the answer came to me today.

The ADC in question happened, like most after-death communications, in the middle of a dream. But also like many dream ADCs, it transcended the dream. The dream was obviously used as a launching pad to a projection of consciousness, in response to a prayer to God. Bobbie prayed for one last visit to her sole caretaker, a beloved grandfather.  The account is short and is worth quoting in full:

The man who raised me most of my life was my grandfather and he passed away in May of 2014. He was everything to me. Friend, grandpa, grandma, my mom and dad. He would always joke about death since he had no faith what so ever. Told me " once you're dead, you're dead. Nothing but darkness." He would always joke about if there is anything on the other side he would come back and tell me. In July of 2015 I missed him so much. I got up in the middle of the night to go the bathroom then I returned to bed. I was crying and I prayed to God. I asked God if I could see my grandfather one last time. I instantly fell to sleep. Next thing I know I am in front of my childhood home. I walk up the long driveway and notice some things are not the same as they use to be. My grandfathers truck had this metal trim the was flat but shined like diamonds. Never seen anything like it ever. The sky was this bright white light that came from everywhere it seemed. It was so bright I could hardly stand it. I moved on to the front door and walked right in. At this point my mind is clear and I have no thoughts in my head.

The inside of his house was not the 70's mobile home I saw on the outside...rather a brand new house on the inside. Pictures on the walls of people I have never seen before. Then there he was. reading his news paper in his wooden chair. I say " hey!!" feeling so happy ! he shot up and gave me the biggest smile....then his face was not happy. he had the look of horror on his face. like he saw a ghost or I died. I said "I'm still on earth alive. don't worry!" he gave me a big hug. I could still smell his old spice on his neck. He was very confused on how I came to be there. he wanted to know how I snuck up on him without him knowing. I told him what I just told you and he laughed and smiled. we sat and watched some TV (history channel) and then he showed me his truck. we sat inside it for a while. I told him a problems I was having on earth with a friend and he told me " don't worry kiddo, things will work out. don't stress over such things." After my visit I left the driveway and started walking down the road. The streets  seemed to end in a fog or mist about two country blocks both ways. I kept walking towards the fog/mist and I woke up with the best feeling in the world. It felt like the biggest high/rush ever. For two days straight I had so much love and warmth inside my body. It was the most amazing experience. Oh, he was right about my problem. I didn't worry and it worked it out two months later.

Despite its brevity, there are several notable qualities of this experience that stand out from other ADC accounts. Foremost is the emphasis on the physicality of the experience. Although most ADC accounts are described as being "real" (and occasionally "realer than real"), it's difficult to top the description of physically walking into her childhood mobile home, observing pictures on the wall of people she had never seen before, smelling her grandfather's Old Spice, and noting that the television was tuned to The History Channel.  Her grandfather, at first happy to see her (he perceives her as physical, too), suddenly realizes: if Bobbie is here, she must be dead also. He is horrified... a very different reaction than found in most ADCs, where the experiencer is politely but firmly told, "Go back; it's not your time yet."

So what accounts for the difference?  It's apparent that the grandfather died with the firm belief that death is the end, or, as Bobbie puts it, "No faith what so ever."  The general consensus of ADC accounts is that those who pass on with a firm belief that consciousness will be extinguished, encounter a different after-death environment than "most" (loosely applied, since such experiences can't be quantified).  The grandfather has been placed in a reassuringly physical environment, surrounded by tokens of his physical existence. He is, essentially, still physical--apparently to teach him that the existence that he is primarily focused in--the physical one--still continues.

Many ADC (and many NDE) accounts describe an entirely physical existence on "the other side"; this contrasts with other descriptions of ethereal realms, angels, crystal cities of more heavenly areas.  (I've always believed that the 1939 film "The Wizard Of Oz," with its Emerald City and good versus bad witches--not to mention the tunneling tornado--is an allegory of an NDE.)  My non-scientific reason for these differing accounts is that these are literally different places. The NDE is the gateway; the ADC is a glimpse of the destination. We enter the "afterlife" through different gates and ultimately end up in different destinations.

The Twilight Zonish mirror earth location, with houses, roads, and (alas) television, is simply a destination for many who would probably be disoriented anywhere else.

Coming in Part 2--other accounts of earth-like physical realms, and a theory

A general note regarding after-death communications

I regularly read a number of books that purport to describe communications from the "dead" to the living. The bulk of these books are written by mediums and others who claim a special communication channel with the "other side."  It is impossible to know if these communications are valid. Some probably are, but I suspect that most are not. And it's impossible to know who is legit, and who isn't, based on a simple reading. I usually "crowdsource" this judgement task by reading the reviews of readers on Amazon.com. If a sharp reader or two is able to deflate a book with some well-chosen objections, then I don't bother it.

What I do, instead, is focus on individual accounts of communication from normal experiencers. Back in the old days, Fate magazine published many impressive "survival" communication accounts in their "My Proof Of Survival" column. Today, the best (and as far as I know, the only) source for these accounts is Dr. Jeff Long's ADCR.org site, where readers can anonymously upload their experiences. Taken collectively, these accounts suggest several broad themes:

Communication with survival personalities is strictly controlled by some force, order, rule, or government. Those who have "passed over" can communicate with the living only if it's allowed. There seems to be a hierarchy of sorts that processes and facilitates these requests;

Earth-bound personalities can annoy the living, but can't communicate with them;

The living can always communicate with those passed over, but the the specific recipient may not be able to, or allowed to, respond;

Those who have passed over may be at different "levels" during any given communication attempt and sometimes may be "busy" and not able to communicate at all;

Those who have passed over may be very proficient at communicating with the living, or very inept; the inept communicators usually have a facilitator or guide;

Communication is almost always made when the experiencer least expects it--during sleep, or during a dream or daydream. The conscious ego apparently needs to be "turned off" for the communication to occur.

I personally believe that there is a sort of consciousness hierarchy that is always attempting to communicate with the living. This hierarchy consists not just of the "dead" but of "guides" and other interested parties. Many of us who pass on become part of this hierarchy and assume a role in the continued guidance of the living. My next post will examine an evidential ADC with a number of veridical details.

Is my cookie notice working?

So I let my blog lie dormant for a few weeks, only to return and discover that I, owner of said blog (well, not actually the "owner"), must now my advise my European readers that Blogger uses cookies. It would seem that with Russia in the east and Iran in the southeast, Europeans would have bigger fish to fry.  (Apologies to the European Russians. I would also apologize to the Iranians, but Blogger is probably blocked to them.)  Since I personally do not actually derive any benefit from these cookies, monetary or otherwise, I think that Google adding this warning to my blog(s) on my behalf is the very least that they can do, in exchange for the excellent content that I provide, which in turn drives their Adsense and facilitates in the collection of information from various "end users." And collect, they do. Not that there's anything wrong with that. That's why you click on the "I agree" button. Google collects *everything*. Which is okay. I guess. I like Google. I'm also fully aware that I'm being collected.

HOWEVER.... Google also advises me (in this case, as end user of Blogger services) that it is my responsibility to confirm, to wit:

[that] this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays.

This I cannot do, since, to paraphrase Nowhere Man, it's my policy never to read what I write. This notice, therefore, serves as my waiver of responsibility to verify the functionality of aforementioned Cookie Monster to Europeans (and possibly Iranians).

Regular post to follow.

The death of Michael Newton and the rehabilitation of Melvin Morse

Michael Newton passed away in September; something motivated me to check, which led me to his Wikipedia entry, which led me to the obituary. He wrote several seminal books about the afterlife, compiled from his own method of regressive hypnosis. The use of hypnosis as a diagnostic tool for recovering hidden memories is controversial. I am not informed enough, medically, to have a firm opinion on it, except to argue that if hypnosis is used, it should be used by a licensed medical professional, for obvious legal and ethical reasons. This is where Newton fell into a gray area. Several online critics questioned Newton's credentials. I did a cursory search and couldn't find any proof that he had a "real" PhD, as he claimed, but this is not unusual. I don't know how to find out if anyone has any degree, without contacting the candidate's school--and in Newton's case, I never could find out. The online obits did not identify the schools, except to say that he "graduated from the University of Arizona (1953) and later earned advanced degrees from California colleges."

So, unless someone embarks on a Michael Newton biography, we may never know.

Today I was surprised to receive an email from Dr. Raymond Moody's email list updating everyone on a new collaboration between Dr. Moody and Dr. Melvin Morse, who has recently been released from prison on a "misdemeanor" (though if he has been in prison for more than 364 days, it's likely a felony charge). This of course led me to Wikipedia (my one-stop shop for the current conventional wisdom), which is updated with new info on his recent child endangerment conviction. The current Wikipedia edit seems to suggest that Morse's actions were overblown and not as heinous as early reports suggested (specifically, that he had waterboarded his stepdaughter to induce an NDE).  Again, I'm really not sure that I have an informed opinion on this case. Despite claims that it was all overblown, however, I'm not sure that Americans are being routinely sentenced to prison on trumped-up charges just yet. (This may soon change, however.) For now, anyway, a felony is a felony.

My basic opinion still stands, however... if we are presuming to instruct people on what to believe on spiritual or metaphysical matters, we (and our research) should be beyond approach, even in our current post-fact reality.

Delving into the NDE skeptical perspective

Lately my reading has taken a turn toward NDE research primarily. After circling the subject for several years, I've finally decided that research into near-death experiences provides the "best" hope of bridging the gap between our material consensus reality, and the "paranormal"--those experiences that fall outside the consensus.

So I was surprised to discover that there is a growing body of "skeptical" studies that examine NDEs from a medical/scientific perspective.  These skeptical studies tend to focus on a few well-documented NDE cases and attempt to find psychological or medical analogues that explain the paranormal experiences. The intent seems to be to dispel, disprove, or invalidate "supernatural" explanations.

This approach has some merit. A well-know (and possibly apocryphal) superstition held that sailing past the horizon caused one to fall off the planet. This belief was subjected to rigorous experimentation by a number of mariners, and ultimately was disproved (or so the story goes).  And thus died a popular superstition.

To dispel superstition and unreasoned belief is a noble endeavor and one of the greatest achievements of science. Any budding paranormalist ought not gainsay it. To argue, "Yes, the scientific method is good at determining the laws of genetic inheritance with pea plants, but it won't quite work with Aunt Sally's NDE," will neither invalidate the scientific method, nor "prove" Aunt Sally's NDE.

At the same time, arguing that the numinous effects of an NDE are "probably" the result of brain chemicals may be just as wrong.  The effects may be caused by something that, at our present level, we don't have the tools, or intellect, to comprehend.  Just because something *seems* to be something, does not mean that it really is.

The thinking paranormalist, then, defaults to the argument that, lacking a medical explanation for the NDE, it seems logical to assume that the NDE is what it purports to be: a "supernatural" experience of unknown origin or cause.

Not everything needs to be explained to be understood.  It doesn't bother me that I can't explain, or trace the origin, of an NDE. This fact does not make the NDE not-real for me. Unfortunately, science is not wired that way. Science seeks to deconstruct a phenomenon until it is understood or explained.  As it stands now, I don't think that science has succeeded in achieving this with the NDE. And I'd be more comfortable with the scientific approach if science were simply to admit, "What causes NDEs?  We don't know."