SCEPCOP Forum

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,there is the book of Carl Wickland "30 years amond the dead",book that rejects reincarnation.Moreover,ironically,in this book even 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?

Hey Alex! Nice to see you over here, though when I saw your name I thought you were going to ask about shadow people!

Hi Arouet,
The latest talk of shadow matter is here,in this article by physicistg Stephen Phillips,when he combines particle physics,theosophy and "tree of life" of kaballa,you are wlcome to read.Not sure,how convincing/scientific,though:

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/article-2.html

This is interesting article,even if one don't agree with the ideas

Nice to meet You here as well

sorry, right: shadow matter, not just shadow people.

BTW,I'd like to get Your opinion on the article,though attempt to link physics to theosophical ideas through kaballah seems somewhat doubtfull.

yes,linking physics with kaballa and theosophy is indeed hard to understand,let's back to reincarnation

It's very interesting to be sure. You should read "Life before Life" by Jim B. Tucker. It's the best and most scientific book on the matter as far as I know. It involves cases of people remembering details about past lives that were later verified to be true exactly, and also, people having birthmarks that match with a scar on the deceased person they claim to be where a weapon killed them. A slash-mark across the back of the head in one case, for example. I admittedly need to get the book and read it (can't right now or I would have already done so), but so far, based on what I've seen, I personally do believe in reincarnation.

-Suncross74

Spirit possession? That sounds like a load of hooey.

And please don't say "paranormal." There is no such thing as "paranormal." If it happens, it's perfectly normal. If reincarnation exists, it's because the universe/multiverse is designed to work that way. This whole field is a scientific investigation; let's not make it sound like tea-room spookyness.

-Suncross74

Yes,"spirit posession" seems like nonsense.But it was how Carl Wicland explained what seemed like evidence for reincarnation.I agree,the word "paranormal" doesn't fit here.And to my opinion,Stevenson's research trumps it all..

Can you come up with a sentence where you'd substitute the word "reincarnation" for "paranormal"?

Reincarnation is the particular thing we're discussing. We're asking whether reincarnation has a paranormal explanation. You can't just replace paranormal with reincarnation, right?

I do get your point. But we use labels like this to help us understand what we're talking about. I think paranormal works in conveying the ideas we want to get through: ie: the explanation is not consistent with the current known laws of physics but still considered real. All of that is a mouthful, so we shorten it to: paranormal! Again, I'm happy to use a different word!