Question on the Afterlife

I was recently asked this question: What are your thoughts on using the afterlife as a fix for problems occurring in the present life?

I decide to speak to this because it raises some interesting points from a unique perspective. Most spiritual questions I get come from clearly defined camps, each with their own tropes. This question doesn’t fit any of those tropes, and it requires some effort to come up with a thoughtful response, so I’m not surprised that only one trollish type threw out a dismissive answer. 

This question seemed very confusing to me at first, then I realized that it’s coming from a materialist point of view, that the whole concept of an afterlife was invented to make people more content with their lot in life, especially if it’s not a good one. There’s a ton of information on all of this on the web, so if you’re truly curious, you need to spend some serious time with Google. I’m just going to skim the surface, starting with the easy part first: Religion and politics.

Religion and politics have been joined at the hip, basically, forever, with religion being used and shaped for political purposes. You don’t have to squint too hard to see Christianity as instrument of white, European culture, actively used to justify eradication indigenous cultures, and teaching the people who survived to “turn the other cheek,” be humble, pious, be thankful for your lot, and get your reward in heaven. This led to the creation, in the nineteenth century, of a particularly heinous form of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. deep south that put whites on top and black people in chains, in a hierarchy ordained by God, and which survives to this day:

“Whereas an earlier generation of evangelical preachers had opposed slavery in the South during the early nineteenth century, Protestant clergymen began to defend the institution, invoking a Christian hierarchy in which slaves were bound to obey their masters. For many slaveholders, this outlook not only made evangelical Christianity more palatable, but also provided a strong argument for converting slaves and establishing biracial churches.” 

-The Slave Experience: Religion 

That said, there’s a deeper question: Was the very concept of an afterlife inventedat all, or has it always existed? In one sense, every concept was “invented” at some point: Food, water, birth, death, alone, together, language. Every human goes from not having any of these concepts to knowing them, as they grow, and somebody must have been the very first, among the whole species, to do so. But, of course, the afterlife is an abstract concept that doesn’t exist in the real world…or does it? Philosophers and theologians have been arguing this point for thousands of years, but now, through science, we’re beginning to see that the mind is not the brain, that the brain does not create the mind, and that information and/or personality somehow can exist outside of the physical/temporal framework we call physical reality.

What science? The five decades of research by the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine:

“Through their careful study, the DOPS researchers objectively document and analyze the empirical data collected regarding human experiences suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. Rigorous evaluation of considerable empirical evidence collected over fifty years of research, suggests that consciousness may indeed survive bodily death and that mind and brain appear to be distinct and separable.”

There’s the studies supported and collected by IANDS (International Association for Near Death Studies), which also  suggests there is much more going on in NDEs (Near Death Experiences) than just illusion, delusion, hallucination or fraud. I could go on, for there is much more scientifically validated information out there, but, if you are interested, there is Google, if you’re not, then nothing I say will matter.

Nothing known to date proves the existence of an afterlife, but it does make clear that there is a lot more going on in the world than a materialist viewpoint can explain. Neither does the evidence prove 

the existence of any god or gods or any particular religion. But it does suggest a basis for some of the foundational commonalities of all religions. In the end, it probably won’t make much difference in your life, so you pays your money, takes your choice, and believe what you want. 

One closing note: There are people on Wall street using paranormal techniques to make money. They have exactly zero interest in telling or convincing anyone that what they do, works. Why? Because less interest means less competition and less competition means more profit.

Take care.

Alex Malarkey

Today I’m finishing up “The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven.” I can say that I have mixed feelings about this book. The book is the true story of Alex Malarkey, a boy who had his spine severed at the base of his skull in a auto accident. Although that type of injury is presumed to be fatal, he survived. He remains a quadriplegic, but he has no brain damage and recovered his ability to speak. Way beyond what doctors expected. During the accident he left his body, witnessed many things that occurred where he was not physically present, and then spent a week in heaven while his body was in a coma. After he woke up he sees angles often, and many explicable things happened around him in the time after his accident.

My feelings are mixed because of the point of view of the book. Even though I was raised in this “christian” society, I have seen way too many hateful things done “in the name of Christ” and way too much hypocrisy to be comfortable with the language of this book. I’m sure it’s aimed squarely at Evangelical Christians, because it will turn off pretty much everyone else. Phrases like “our God is awesome” border on paganism, at least according to the theology that I’ve learned, that there is only one God. Are they claiming the one-and-only creator of the universe as their very own, and nobody else’s? Alex mentions the Devil frequently as well.

That said, there are many events in this book that are not explainable by medicine or science, and I’m sure that every non-religious public figure, and most conservative religious, will write write them all off as coincidence, selective memory, hallucinations or anything else that makes them comfortable. I’ve read Christian theologians arguing against any kind of “direct influence” of God in todays world. “Small” miracles are acceptable, but big, bold, blatantly supernatural things are just not how God works.

Near the end of the book, Alex Malarkey received what’s called the Christopher Reeve operation, that would allow him to breath on his own. This case received so much publicity that there were front page stories in the local newspapers. Kevin Malarkey noted that an editor had removed all references to God from the statements they’d made. I find that interesting, but probably not for the reason you might think.

We live in a secular society, enforced by the Constitution. But for most of our nation’s history, Christianity has gotten a free ride, in terms of getting it’s practices and views inshrined into the customs and laws of these United States. What other religion has all it’s major events made into national holidays? “In God we trust” printed on our money. Christian prayers at governmental events. During the Kennedy era, there were jokes about how silly it was that we could have a Catholic president, (as opposed to Protestant) These things have changed in may way over the past 50 years, but we still hear, way too often, that “We are a Christian nation.” And that, in practice, “Freedom of Religion” only applies to Christians, as they fight to get their “Christian” principles back in the law books.

In this climate, it’s understandable that editors might not want to appear to fan the flames by publishing too much “faith in God” stuff. That could make it appear that they are endorsing that point of view. I find that a little surprising, considering that this is rural Ohio, but, perhaps, they hoped that the story would be picked up by the national new services and they didn’t to come off as bible thumpin’ hicks. I thought the idea of object news is to report what happened and what people said, not to edit it to make readers more comfortable. Isn’t that censorship?

These editors appear to be treading a thin line. But I think what’s really going on is more subtle: Our society is so afraid of anything non-materialistic that even articles were religion plays a central role need to be “sanitized” to remove anything “supernatural.” I suppose there’s a certain amount of sense in that, since all of the three major world religions claim exclusive rights to God’s grace and any miracles that come from that. I find it endlessly amusing that the media of our culture are just as afraid of Jesus, as they are of UFOs, ghosts, spirit mediums, channeling, and paranormal events and research in general.

Now I’m going to throw my own interpretation on what Alex Malarkey reported. From my point of view, the boy Alex’s descriptions of heaven and other events are very childlike, and very much suit the Sunday schools lessons aimed a six-year-old, which he was at the time. I’m not saying that’s where he got his information, I’m saying that the message and information was expressly tailored for a six-year-old.

This is my interpretation of views outside of this reality: What you see is expressly aimed at you, personally. It’s adjusted for what you can accept and are comfortable with. While NDE experiences can seem very different, they do have commonalities that link strictly Christian experiences to completely new-age pagan ones. And there is the strong implication that there is some intelligence orchestrating how these experiences play out. In Alex’s case, it’s clear that the message was aimed squarely at the Evangelical Christian community that he is a part of, while Dr. Eban Alexander’s NDE, for example, was notably non-Christian and clearly for a different audience.

I have never be comfortable with the idea the “God is running everything.” I get this message from every corner of the faith spectrum, but I always have assumed that it’s all about my own intension and “natural laws” of the extended reality. I’m beginning to question my assumptions. One thing I do think is true, is that the realty beyond this one is unknowable, in the sense that it can’t be expressed in this one, and all attempts to do so are bound to express only a fraction of what’s there. Like trying to explain what life is really like to a subsistence farmer in Africa. You may think he understands, but you know that what may look like heaven to him is anything but. Every description of the afterlife will express only a small fraction of the whole picture, and it will be ripe for misinterpretation. It could very well be that there are “natural laws” in the extended reality that push us toward a peaceful and loving world society, or it could be an intelligence that is pushing for that goal, using every tool at its disposal. There’s probably no way to definitively know, short of crossing over. I don’t believe that the afterlife is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever, but it’s the essence from which the core of all these religions sprang.

As uncomfortable as the language of this book makes me feel, I believe there’s a message there for me. I think I need to be a little less judgmental of these views and really try on the idea that, while I’m responsible for my life, I’m not the only one who has input, and it’s Ok to ask for help. That’s difficult for me, especially when the helper is a nameless, faceless, being of unknown origin and providence. The quality of my meditation have changed markedly, in the past few months, and this might be where they are leading.

P.S. I have been reading the articles about Alex Malarkey recanting his story and saying the book had “substantial inaccuracies.” You never know what to make of these types of stories, they play so well into our cultural narrative that you can never be sure where they may have come from. It’s clear his story elicited considerable anger from certain conservative parties, sales of the book were lagging and the message was being “reinterpreted” in certain quarters to suit various agendas. It’s possible it’s all fiction. It’s also likely that the book interpreted parts of the story in ways the rest of the family was not comfortable with. It’s known that Alex and Beth Malarkey (his mother) had grow extremely uncomfortable with the types of attention they were receiving as a result of the book, so, perhaps, recanting looked like one way of getting out of the spotlight. It’s even possible the fractions within their church were putting pressure on them to recant. In any case, we will probably never know for sure. It’s been said that if Jesus showed up today, conservative Christians would label him a dirty, socialist liberal, undermining the Christian/American work ethic and family values by helping the poor and forgiving prostitutes and sinners, just as the authorities of Jesus’ own time did. As in all articles of faith, judge for yourself. The material world will be no help.

Supernatural?

Next in my series of educating myself in my new field, plus other thoughts.

I’m almost finished with “Supernatural, Writings on an Unknown History” by Richard Smoley. No, it’s not what you think, but s series of essays on the history of the paranormal as it impacts our culture. I find the book a little dry, but it has a lot of interesting information about significant, and often little known, historical figures and the origins if things like the New Age movement. Which actually goes back a lot further than I expected:

“For any reader, at any level of experience, who has ever been curious about an arcane subject—from psychical powers to secret societies—here is a collection that delivers a complete yet precise, critical yet serious, and always respectful account of topics from the unseen world. Supernatural is a brilliant primer to the occult and magical history of the West.” — from the back cover of Supernatural.

I am beginning to realize how philosophy is a big part of my studies. Philosophers have been asking the same questions for millennia and coming up with various answers, though, the ones that have endured seem to have converged on answers similar to those of Buddhist monks and eastern traditions. I keep being amazed at how much that is now considered really out-there, arcane thinking, was written about by the likes of Carl Jung, and many probably pre-date him. Not to take away from any of his accomplishments. He built on the work of those who came before, like all great people.

Smoley is not a wholehearted new-age type, though I suspect he leans that way. He has no problem poking holes in many of our cultural myths, like Atlantis, the ideas behind The Da Vinci Code, and the Masons, but he has no problem saying “I don’t know” when he reaches the end of what can be truly proved. He is a skeptic in the true sense of the word: “One who questions,” rather then the current view of the term that appears to imply that you must “debunk” and deny all evidence that doesn’t fit your pre-conceived ideas. It’s refreshing to have someone refuse to say that all prophecy must be wrong, fully acknowledging that that would be making their own prophecy about whether or not the predicted event will occur.

I find that studying books like this helps me to understand and interpret the events and ideas that I encounter. People ask me questions and I have to struggle to come up with words to express what I intuitively know. That often means revising and re-revising conceptions that I have already created when new data doesn’t fit. In doing so, I find, in the old masters, that there is truly nothing new under the sun.

Take the story of the warrior Er, related by Socrates and Plato, who dies and battle and then awakens at his own funeral, and recounts tails of the afterlife. Long regarded as a myth, some now say that his tail contains all the signs of a classic Near Death Experience. How much of what we now call metaphysics or paranormal, was well known to the ancients, and now we must turn to them for insights into these human conditions that we have ignored for so long.

Someone asked the question “What would you do if you realized that the end was near and you had not accomplished anything?” There were lots of answers to this, but most of them assumed that, somehow, “accomplishing something” would have value to you after you were dead. That made me notice that our culture spends a lot of time and energy on “planning for the future,” and no time considering how to know when “the future” has arrived, and what you do when it does, other than vague ideas about having fun. My first thought was “Yay! I no longer have to worry about the future! I can do whatever I want with no consequences!”

This has special meaning for me because I have recently transitioned out of the 8-5 career lifestyle. All my “obligations” are now gone, and I only have responsibility for myself. What do I do? Do I still plan for another 30 years, or just do what I want and let the chips fall where them may? The stone cold reality is that I could die at any time, so is it time to stop planning and time to start living? I put no stock in “leaving a legacy:” Your name may live on, but people will quickly forget who you were and what you really stood for, using your memory as a pawn in their own games.

As for accomplishing something, I feel that I should live my life satisfied with every day. Goals are fine, as long as I am not putting off living until I get there. I no longer have time for that. When the time comes, I am more than ready to walk through that door with no regrets. I want to help people, as much as I can, while I am here, but when the time comes, I’m outta here. The biggest problem now is getting past of the groundless fear that something really bad is going to happen. I can see the antidote to that, but it’s taking me time to get there. Meanwhile, I’m comfortable with the thought that once I’m gone, all that happened here will have no more significance than a Monopoly game: Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, then you roll the dice and start over.

What's the "Truth" about Ghosts?

Someone posted a question on a web site asking about the "Truth about Ghosts." I wrote this reply.

Ah, what is "truth?" First of all, "spirits" of all kinds seem to exist in the stories of every culture, as far back as we can tell. And in every culture they take on their own, unique, characteristics, which generally reflect those of their culture. People have been having Spiritual experiences, well, forever, as far as anyone can tell.

Today, in the U.S. alone, surveys show that millions of people admit to having spiritual, paranormal or unexplained experiences, many of them on a daily basis. Yet the culture as a whole insists that these are all just stories, that there is no evidence that any of these phenomena exist. Well, that is true, if you ignore the testimonies of millions of people, and all the research over the past 100 years.

Consider this: Scientists have been looking for Dark Matter for about 100 years. They say that it makes up 96% of the universe. That includes you and me. So far, they've found exactly nothing. Zero, nada, zippity-do-da, nothing. Yet it's perfectly acceptable in scientific circles to talk as though it exists and spend millions to dollars looking for it. Yet those same people will go out of their way to ignore and discredit anything that might show evidence of something psychic, on the basis that there is no evidence.

It's understandable, I suppose. On one side, you have the materialists who blindly insist "there aint no such thing," and on the other, you have a gazillion religious and spiritual groups who all put their own particular spin on spirituality and the paranormal. Often these groups are at odds with each other, each insisting that their interpretation is the only correct one. So, even though most of the people in the world pretty much agree that there is Something Going On Here, in regard to spirits and the paranormal, the is no concusses on even the basic characteristics of what that Something might be. The poor researchers in this field have to take fire from every quarter: Not only from the materialists, but also from the religious/spiritual types who are afraid that the researchers will find something that contradicts their beliefs or might take some of the "mystery" out of their faith.

To be purely objective, there is plenty of empirical evidence that "ghosts" (or paranormal phenomena) exist, but we all know that almost nobody is completely objective around this subject. Do your own research: There is plenty to read about Near Death Experiences and all the phenomena around them, which, together with the reincarnation research of Ian Stevenson, strongly suggest that there is more the afterlife than "Science" currently wants to admit. Remember, science, by it's own admission, can only explain 4% of the universe, what's going on in the other 96% is completely unknown.

--------
And now for something completely different: I am going through some extremely difficult times right now, emotionally and financially. I don't know where I will be six months from now, in a lot of different ways. If anyone would like to meet, talk, visit, share a cup of coffee, that would be really nice as I really need to get out of my head. Thanks.