0:05

Welcome to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast

0:07

AM paranormal podcast network.

0:09

This is the place to be if you're ready

0:11

for the best podcasts of the paranormal,

0:14

curious, and sometimes unexplained.

0:17

Now listen to this.

0:25

Welcome to our podcast. Please

0:27

be aware the thoughts and opinions expressed

0:30

by the host are their thoughts and opinions

0:32

only and do not reflect those

0:35

of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio,

0:37

Coast to Coast AM, employees

0:39

of Premiere Networks, or their sponsors

0:42

and associates. We would like to encourage

0:44

you to do your own research and discover

0:47

the subject matter for yourself.

0:55

Hi.

0:55

I'm Sandra Champlain. For over

0:58

twenty five years, I've been on journey

1:00

to prove the existence of life after

1:03

death. On each episode,

1:05

we'll discuss the reasons we now

1:07

know that our loved ones have survived

1:10

physical debt, and so will

1:12

we. Welcome to Shades

1:14

of the Afterlife. Have you ever had

1:17

to deal with a nasty skeptic,

1:20

you know the ones I'm talking about. You

1:22

share your belief or your thoughts about

1:24

the afterlife and they shut

1:26

you right down. There's nothing

1:28

you can do or say that

1:30

can convince them. The International

1:33

Association for Near Death Studies

1:36

also called ians dot org,

1:38

is our partner in changing the conversation

1:41

about the reality of the afterlife.

1:44

Each year, they host a conference that

1:46

all are welcome to attend, coming

1:48

up in August of twenty twenty four. You

1:51

can join the conference live in Phoenix,

1:53

Arizona. Details at

1:55

conference dot ions dot

1:57

org. Today you'll meet four highly

2:00

respected panelists, including

2:02

doctors, professors, and scientists

2:05

Eben Alexander, Neil Grossman,

2:08

Marjorie Woollacott, and Stephen

2:10

Schwartz. You'll hear their

2:12

views on skepticism, these

2:15

nasty skeptics, how we deal

2:18

with them, and ultimately how

2:21

we can transform the world. So

2:23

let's start off with doctor Eben

2:25

Alexander, neurosurgeon and

2:27

author of the book Proof of Heaven.

2:30

I had spent the first fifty four years

2:32

of my life honing a very

2:35

kind of conventional scientific worldview.

2:38

I had the advantage as

2:40

a youth of my father being very

2:42

scientific. He was chairman of a neurosurgical

2:44

training program. But he also had a very strong

2:47

faith in.

2:47

God and power of prayer.

2:49

He was deeply spiritual, but also deeply

2:51

scientific. I wanted to believe all that

2:53

I had learned in my Methodist church. But in that

2:56

career building up towards being a neurosurgeon

2:59

and trying to make sense of consciousness,

3:01

mind and brain, I just couldn't understand how

3:03

consciousness could survive independently

3:06

of the brain. I bought into the materialist position

3:08

of brain creating consciousness, physical world being

3:10

all there is, and I now realized that

3:13

I just had it one hundred and eighty degrees wrong.

3:15

My point is I often make these days,

3:18

is to the true open minded

3:20

skeptic, I mean a truly educated,

3:23

open minded doubter of all skeptic,

3:25

the first position they reject, from

3:28

materialism to idealism and all the various

3:30

dualisms relating mind and brain, the one

3:32

that's the most ridiculous is materialism.

3:35

It's the one that is the absolutely most

3:37

hopeless. And so it's really just a complete

3:39

flip from what I believe before. But it's the

3:41

one that makes far more sense.

3:43

He was asked what recommendation he'd

3:45

have to a skeptic.

3:47

I would recommend a strong personal experience.

3:52

Good news is that doesn't mean being

3:54

smoked down by a truck, or meningitis

3:56

or anything else like that. We're all

3:59

conscious so we have the ability

4:01

to go within. And that's one

4:03

thing I must say I loved about Marjorie's

4:05

book, you know, as a neuroscientist

4:08

with similar training that I had had, I

4:10

loved the way that Marjorie

4:12

was able to have such profound kind

4:15

of insights, awakenings, and revelation

4:17

through process of meditation. I

4:20

think any conscious sentient being

4:22

can come to a much deeper understanding by

4:24

exploring consciousness once you realize

4:27

that it's not created by the brain at all,

4:29

but is basically fundamental in

4:31

the universe and is allowed in through a filtering

4:34

mechanism of the brain. Going within

4:37

is actually a way of going out into the universe

4:39

and gaining tremendous information, guidance,

4:42

kind of sense of insight, connection, meaning

4:44

purpose. All of that lives in

4:46

those realms, all of real creativity.

4:49

Some of the best, most extraordinary inventions

4:52

and concepts from people

4:54

like Albert Einstein, Thomas

4:56

Edison, Robert Lewis, Stevenson, Salvador

4:59

Dali, Beethoven, and others.

5:01

They would all talk about how

5:04

the universe basically gifted

5:06

them with these insights, these creations.

5:08

They weren't thinking their way to it, and

5:10

of course in our materialist world,

5:13

and in the modern conventional scientific world,

5:16

we're used to this notion of thinking our way

5:18

to it. We establish a certain body

5:20

of facts and empirical evidence and rational

5:23

thought, and then we follow that towards

5:25

what we think is the answer. And

5:28

yet that slow kind of methodical

5:30

plotting is not necessarily

5:32

the way to some of the deepest truths and insights.

5:34

I know certainly Einstein was a beautiful example

5:37

of that, just drifting off in a sailboat

5:39

being hauled in by the harbor police late at

5:41

night because he just got lost in thought.

5:44

But that's where so much of this comes from,

5:46

and not just following the breadcrumbs

5:48

of our logical linguistic mind,

5:51

but actually opening our

5:53

minds to the possibility

5:55

and trusting that the universe can show

5:58

us so much more so, for me,

6:00

personal experience is absolutely

6:03

crucial. I loved the quote from Jessica

6:05

Utz, who was a statistician who did so

6:08

much work with remote viewing, with

6:10

precognition, things like that. She was the

6:12

head of the American Statistical Association

6:15

in twenty fifteen, and at her presidential

6:17

address to six

6:20

thousand plus statisticians

6:22

from sixty two countries around the world. She

6:24

made it very clear that the evidence

6:27

is there for anyone who studies it,

6:29

and there certainly are people here. I think Stefan

6:32

Schwartz is well known for having

6:34

a tremendous amount of that evidence lined

6:36

up supporting remote viewing, various protocols

6:39

showing the reality of this not in doubt.

6:42

And yet the American I got

6:45

exactly the organization that supposedly

6:47

summarized the report to Congress

6:51

AIAR. I knew their acronym, but it was

6:53

something about American Institute of Research

6:55

or what have you. But anyway, their report

6:57

said that remote viewing

6:59

could not be used for operational

7:02

intelligence, that the data wasn't

7:04

quite that good. But she said that

7:06

in terms of proving the reality of

7:09

remote viewing of a precognition,

7:11

that we can know the future in

7:13

many different experimental settings that are

7:16

mind bending. When you realize what's going on

7:18

there, it's very real. But

7:20

her point, and what she said in the address

7:23

is when she talks to all those experts

7:25

out there, all the statisticians, the people who manipulate

7:28

this data and come to an understanding of

7:30

it, it's very real. She would

7:32

ask them, well, have you read the data?

7:34

Are you familiar. What are you familiar with? And they'd

7:36

say, well, I don't spend the time studying

7:38

that because I don't believe it can exist. So

7:41

these are scientists, and these are the ones

7:43

who get the bully pulpit with NPR

7:46

and New York Times Science section, who

7:48

say, oh, NDEs or they're hallucinations,

7:50

they're not real because those

7:53

people have not had them. And not only that,

7:55

they haven't even talked to people who have had them.

7:57

I notice how Sean Carroll, it seems to be on circuit

8:00

these days, is kind of the atheist scientist.

8:02

He was on CBS Sunday Morning a week

8:04

ago, and he was there basically

8:06

to debunk Dean Rayden's very

8:09

high quality work supporting

8:11

the reality these kind of phenomena. And

8:13

I know in Sean Carroll's book The Big

8:16

Picture, he very proudly

8:18

says that all he needs

8:20

to know about near death experiences

8:22

has to do with the fact that one author, Alex

8:25

Malarkey, reported a near death

8:27

experience but then said he made it all up.

8:30

And so Sean says, that's all I need

8:32

to know. In fact, he says in his book

8:34

The Big Picture, which is supposed to be a very erudite

8:36

look at modern science and understanding

8:39

of the nature reality. He says

8:41

that no respectable people pay

8:43

any attention to things like NDEs

8:46

and it just shows this kind of extraordinary

8:49

sense of closed mindedness. It's

8:52

important to point out when we talk about skeptics.

8:55

I truly believe that the open minded

8:57

skeptic, who is very knowledgeable

8:59

about all this data concerning

9:01

the mind brain relationship, the

9:03

one position you have to reject is

9:06

ridiculous and impossible as materialism,

9:09

that somehow consciousness

9:11

is arising from physical matter and that that's

9:13

all there is to it. And that's why

9:15

I believe that indies in many ways

9:17

are the tip of the spear. But there's no way

9:19

from my point of view, and I realized this early on

9:21

after my de that you

9:24

can approach this just by hm, well,

9:26

let's study indies and learn everything we

9:28

can about them, because at the end of the day,

9:30

people are still going to come up and say, well, they didn't really

9:32

die, they just almost died. We

9:35

want to know what happens when you really die, and

9:37

to do that, I think you need a much

9:39

broader view at the nature of consciousness

9:42

and the relationship between mind and brain. That's

9:44

where it starts getting absolutely

9:47

fascinating. In that theater of operations,

9:50

one of the first things you realize is

9:52

that the old notion that we can only know

9:54

things through the kin of our physical senses, what

9:57

I can see with the eyes and hear with the ears, is

9:59

false. And that's what remote viewing

10:01

precognition, all the work on out

10:03

of body experiences and of course near

10:05

death experiences with veritical perception,

10:08

shared death experiences, and then especially

10:10

that absolute gold mine thanks

10:13

to Ian Stevenson and the brilliant

10:15

workers at Division and Perceptual Studies Jim

10:18

Tucker, of more than twenty seven

10:20

hundred cases now of past life memories

10:22

and children, where the best answer

10:25

in many of those cases is a true reincarnation.

10:28

Anybody who's sitting there trying to find memory located

10:31

in the brain, or trying to find consciousness

10:33

located in the brain, had better start realizing

10:36

that they need to greatly enlarge their

10:38

theater of operations if they want to get to

10:40

any answers at all. So it's really all

10:42

about consciousness, and that's why I

10:44

love this convergence. Over

10:46

many decades of work both

10:48

in quantum physics, where it's now

10:51

basically painted into a corner

10:53

where idealism is the best answer.

10:56

You know that this is a mental universe, and

10:58

that mind is at the origin of all

11:00

that exists, and that all this beautiful

11:03

physical universe seems to be a projection

11:05

from mind. And I think the best way to look at that

11:07

as an individual is just to realize

11:10

that the causal principles involved

11:12

in our lives cannot be

11:14

reduced to the simplistic little meanderings

11:17

of electrons, quarks and protons in the

11:19

sub atomic world with some bottom up causation.

11:22

But that's really where all this is headed and

11:24

taking a much bigger view, and the

11:26

reason I think it's been so challenging for

11:28

the scientific community. The conventional

11:31

material of scientific community is

11:34

really almost like it's burned into the DNA

11:36

over four hundred years of thinking, well, we

11:38

look at the material world and understand it,

11:41

if we get too close to the mental

11:43

or the mind, we might get burned at the state. That

11:45

was the risk back in those early days, and

11:47

it's no longer the risk. But there's this incredible

11:50

intense avoidance really, and

11:53

I think Neil has in my mind one

11:55

of the best answers of that, and I'll let him get into

11:57

it, but it has to do with the emotions involved.

12:00

Now here's doctor Marjorie Woollacott,

12:02

her most recent book titled Infinite

12:05

Awareness, The Awakening of a

12:07

Scientific Mind. When I

12:09

was in high.

12:09

School, I actually was hoping I could go to

12:11

college and find out where the spirit

12:14

or the soul resided in the human body.

12:16

But then I went to college and started

12:18

taking courses in biology, and they said, please,

12:20

that's impossible. I was convinced

12:23

by my neuroscientist professors

12:25

that was a silly question to ask, and so I

12:27

became a materialist. Then, through

12:29

a spiritual awakening when I was at about

12:31

thirty, I knew

12:34

at the deepest level of my being that

12:36

there was consciousness beyond my body.

12:39

But it was very hard to talk to any

12:41

other scientist about that, and so I kept that really

12:43

hidden in a certain sense from my colleagues

12:45

until probably about ten years ago,

12:48

when I was getting ready to retire, and I felt

12:50

then I could come out of the closet and be open.

12:52

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We

12:55

need to go into our first break and we'll

12:57

be back with this amazing Hammel

12:59

discussion about skepticism

13:02

about the reality of life after death

13:04

and about what can happen for

13:06

the tipping point to occur that all

13:09

people believe in the afterlife.

13:11

You're listening to Shades of the Afterlife

13:14

on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast

13:16

AM Paranormal Podcast

13:18

Network.

13:23

Keep it here on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast

13:25

AM Paranormal Podcast Network.

13:27

Sanders Champlain will be right back.

13:37

We are happy to announce that our Coast to Coast

13:40

AM official YouTube

13:42

channel has now reached over

13:44

three hundred thousand subscribers.

13:47

You can listen to the first hour of recent

13:50

and past shows for free,

13:52

so head on over to the Coast to COASTAM

13:55

dot com website and hit

13:57

the YouTube icon at the top of the

14:00

page. This is free show

14:02

audio, so don't wait. Coast

14:04

to COASTAM dot com is

14:07

where you want to be. Hi,

14:19

it's doctor Sky.

14:21

Keep it right here on the iHeartRadio

14:23

and Coast to Coast AM Pyronormal

14:26

Podcast Network.

14:42

Welcome back to Shades of the Afterlife.

14:44

I'm Sandra Champlain and this

14:46

episode is dedicated

14:48

to dealing with skeptics.

14:51

We'll continue hearing from doctor Marjorie

14:54

Woollcott, neuroscientist

14:56

and her latest book is called Infinite

14:58

Awareness, The Awakening of

15:00

a Scientific Mind, in which

15:03

she explores scientific studies

15:05

supporting the premise that consciousness

15:08

functions beyond the mind.

15:11

I think that if I were talking to a skeptic,

15:13

the first thing I would find out is if

15:15

they're curious at all about the data, which

15:17

I think you were saying too, because a lot of skeptics aren't

15:19

curious. They do think they know the answer and

15:21

then we should just change the subject. But if

15:24

they have a little bit of curiosity, then I go

15:26

and I start talking to them about what

15:28

data I have been convinced by out there.

15:31

First of all, looking at the near death

15:33

experience carefully controlled

15:36

and designed studies by Kim

15:38

van Lommel that is here, Bruce Grayson is here,

15:40

Samparnia who is not here. A number

15:43

of these research studies, their prospective

15:45

studies where you bring in everybody to

15:47

a network of hospitals that has cardiac arrest

15:49

and then you interview everybody

15:51

who survived. You ask them what their experience

15:54

was, and you find out if they had these vertical experiences

15:56

where their heart has stopped, there's

15:59

no EEG, and they're watching everything

16:01

that happened and that can be verified. And I say

16:03

to my curious colleague, well,

16:05

how could you possibly explain that EEG

16:09

and the ability to actually perceive

16:11

what was going on in the room outside

16:13

of your body. And what I like most

16:15

recently is that there are now new studies

16:18

on psilocybins. This is worked

16:20

by Robin Carhart Harris

16:22

in London who has shown that

16:25

when subjects are given psilocybin,

16:27

the brain activity and functional

16:29

magnetic resonance imaging actually drops

16:32

down to very low levels, significantly

16:34

lower levels than normal in key hub areas

16:36

of the brain, saying that once again it's

16:39

directly correlated with the intensity

16:41

of their mystical experience. So

16:43

once again it's the lowering of brain activity

16:46

that is actually responsible for these beautiful

16:48

experiences. And now with meditation, Pinterberger

16:51

and his colleagues in Germany are showing the same

16:53

thing that when you have thought free meditation

16:56

in master meditators, your EEG

16:59

and all almost all areas of the brain at all

17:01

frequencies goes way down.

17:04

So this tells me it's not my brain

17:07

pausing those things. They aren't hallucinations because

17:09

my brain is going inactive. To

17:11

me, those are really great evidence that will

17:14

help with the curious scientists who we

17:16

hope will become a mystic. The issue, though,

17:18

is that if somebody isn't interested, I

17:21

think that I have to have compassion on them because

17:23

I used to be that way myself,

17:26

and I didn't want to hear about somebody

17:29

that I thought was spiritual because I

17:31

was the scientist, somewhat an arrogant

17:33

scientist, and I thought I knew

17:35

the answers, and it took an

17:38

experience to actually

17:40

change me to really become open. So

17:43

that's the very interesting paradox about

17:45

the two sides of this issue.

17:47

Next, let's hear from doctor Neil Grossman.

17:51

My parents are very strict atheist

17:53

materialists, but their conditioning

17:56

didn't take with me, and

17:59

the earliest ext experiences I can

18:01

remember, the memory just came to me. As a

18:03

teenager. My first teacher was

18:05

really Beethoven. His music

18:08

sent chills up and down my spine. I

18:10

could not explain under materialist

18:13

metaphysics why I was so deeply

18:15

moved by his music. I then

18:18

went to MITS to study physics. When

18:20

I learned the quantum theory, the Stroding

18:22

equation, Einstein, I wanted to know

18:25

what those guys thought about what it all meant.

18:28

Eighty to ninety percent of them were

18:30

open to a spiritual or holistic

18:33

worldview, so that gave me permission

18:35

to go in that direction. I think what really

18:38

cemented it for me in those early years

18:41

was my experiences with my teacher

18:43

and then mentor Houston Smith. I

18:45

took Eastern philosophy course, and

18:48

when I was reading the Hindu and Buddhist text,

18:50

it just rang true to me. But

18:52

then what really drove that home

18:54

is he was with the Harvard Divinity School

18:57

working with antheogens or hallucinogens

18:59

or whatever were called back then. I

19:01

nagged him so much to

19:04

try it that he relented and

19:06

my first had some psilocybin at

19:08

his home and it was a very very

19:10

deep experience, and from then on there wasn't

19:12

really any doubt, even though I

19:15

somehow had to spend forty years in

19:17

an academic philosophy department surrounded

19:20

by materialist atheists, feeling

19:23

isolated and alone. What of

19:25

the empirical data do I find

19:27

most compelling or most convincing. I

19:30

think if one is rational,

19:33

then what Evan and Marjorie said is

19:35

absolutely true. I think

19:37

you going back to the time of William James.

19:40

He became convinced that there's a something more

19:42

based on his studies of mediumship, telepathy

19:45

and other things that was available to him. But

19:47

I think at that time, from just a perspective

19:49

of rationality, the evidence

19:52

was it met the civil standards

19:54

for ponderance of evidence, but not the criminal

19:57

standards beyond a reasonable doubt.

20:00

Now, I think, with the publication of Irreducible

20:02

Mind, the evidence again

20:04

from a perspective of rationality, where we

20:06

form our beliefs based on evidence alone,

20:09

not biased, right, the evidence

20:11

has met the beyond the reasonable doubt standard.

20:13

What that means is that if

20:15

somebody looks at the evidence and doesn't believe

20:18

that consciousness is independent of the mind, they're

20:21

being irrational. Okay, So when

20:23

I hold that, and then I want to go back to again

20:25

in a personal experience late

20:27

seventies early eighties, stuff about

20:29

the near death experiences was just coming out.

20:31

Got moodies books Life After

20:34

Life and ken Ring's work stuff, and I got

20:36

very excited. And so for me, when

20:38

I first read Moody's book, I had no doubt whatsoever

20:40

because it was consistent with

20:42

what I'd read from the mystics, my studies

20:45

of world mysticism and from my own psychedelic

20:47

experience. So excitedly I went

20:50

to colleagues and what do you think of this? What do you think that is all

20:53

last gasp of a dying brain? And

20:55

they go through all the possibilities that have now

20:57

been completely refuted. But I

20:59

asked, I remember this very clearly,

21:02

what short of having an experience yourself

21:05

might convince you that it's real?

21:08

And this guy said, well, even if I were to have

21:10

such an experience, I would believe myself

21:13

to have been hallucinated. Well,

21:15

this is a statement of someone who's saying

21:18

I will not believe it no matter what. Right,

21:21

So this is not rational. And

21:24

so if your question

21:26

was, well, what can you say to somebody who very

21:28

irrationally has society. He's not going to believe

21:30

it no matter what, the answer is nothing. I

21:33

like to use the term coined a fundamentialist

21:37

to invite an explicit comparison with the fundamentalist

21:39

Christian of any religion who believes

21:42

that the earth is less than six thousand years old.

21:44

You can bring the Guide to the edge of the Grand Canyon

21:46

and look down. He sees those layers, a

21:49

scratter of frocks the positive. That's

21:51

not going to shake his faith at all. And

21:53

he said, well, God just created the world that way,

21:56

right, And you can find there's

21:58

a part of the philosoph well known that

22:01

whatever you believe can be held onto

22:03

no matter what if you're willing to make

22:05

adjustments everywhere. Oh they're faking

22:08

it, they're lying, or this or that. People

22:11

experience what they want to experience, whatever

22:13

they have all the answers. I

22:15

think their biggest response to it

22:17

is a refusal to look at the data.

22:20

That's part of being irrational. When

22:22

you have a situation where

22:25

I don't know of a single person who

22:28

has responsibly examined what

22:30

we call the evidence of the data who

22:33

has not come away convinced of it. So

22:35

when you know that and you still refuse to

22:37

look at the data, there's something

22:39

else going on at rational activity,

22:42

and I think I have a hunch as to

22:44

what it is. When I was reviewing

22:46

the book The Self Does Not Die, which

22:49

I strongly recommend, is over one hundred cases

22:52

of documented ritical perception occurring

22:54

under conditions where it is known that

22:57

nothing is going on in the brain. All

22:59

these people are or monitor

23:01

or whatever. See part of that book

23:03

the author's dialogue with critics and

23:06

skeptics, and you can see the

23:08

irrationality just piled on and

23:10

on and on. One of the cases he

23:12

talks about is the case of doctor Rudy.

23:15

So doctor Rudy's being interviewed and he's talking

23:17

about one or two cases which

23:20

involved a near death experience as somebody

23:22

who just well dead and he had been

23:24

declared dead. He had seen everything,

23:26

heard everything, and reported it. At

23:29

the end, doctor Rudy, he tears

23:31

up and he says, well, I always

23:33

get emotional when I talk about these cases.

23:36

And I almost said outloud, yes, so do I.

23:39

And what are these emotions? And

23:41

I think that's what is

23:44

behind the so called skeptic.

23:46

They're afraid of their own feelings.

23:48

They're all bottled up and here dead

23:51

from the neck down, as we say, the academic

23:54

intellectual. They are afraid of these

23:56

emotions that you got

23:58

to feel if you're caring for see people,

24:00

if you're doing this research right, it

24:03

rubs off on you and you feel these

24:05

emotions. And I think the deep down fear

24:08

is I'll say that four letter word,

24:10

is of the fear of love. They

24:14

tend to be very much into

24:16

status, and reputation and

24:19

material acquisition and wanting to

24:21

be thought right, all these ego games

24:23

that academics, you know, love to play.

24:26

Just just afraid that their emotions

24:28

are just bottled up. And I think there's something like a

24:31

fear of emotion, and that's not something

24:33

that rational argument or empirical

24:35

evidence can address. So

24:38

I myself am skeptical about

24:41

whether there's anything you can say to the

24:43

committed skeptical. Actually, we shouldn't

24:45

be using the word skeptic. The Charlie

24:47

Tart in his book The End of Materialism

24:50

suggests that we don't use the word

24:52

skeptic because that's a good word. We should

24:54

all be skeptical of stuff. They

24:56

are believers, their believes in an alternative

24:59

ideology, namely materialism. Right,

25:02

and just like a fundamentals

25:04

Christian, we could bring him to the edge of the

25:06

Grand Canyon and he would say

25:08

to the geologists, well, I'm skeptical of

25:10

your theory, right, that these

25:13

rocks strata layers prove

25:15

that the earth is older than what it says in the Bible.

25:18

Right, I have my own views, my

25:20

own faith, And so the fundament mentalist

25:23

Christian can claim to be skeptical in

25:25

the same way that them self identified materialists

25:27

are today. And what sustains

25:29

them their skepticism is simply they won't look

25:31

at the data, won't.

25:32

Look the evidence.

25:33

And here's Stefan Schwartz.

25:35

Wellhen I was twenty three, I woke up. I

25:38

had a series of what today

25:40

we would call very meaningful synchronicities.

25:43

But it woke me up and I went from

25:46

being very much a person of

25:48

my background in training

25:50

to something completely different. Changed my entire

25:53

life. And for the last

25:55

fifty years I have been an experimentalist

25:58

because I care a great deal about data,

26:01

and I created a technique

26:03

called remote viewing along with some other friends,

26:05

and I've studied healing, meditation,

26:08

creativity and came

26:11

to see that materialism

26:13

is a cultural affectation, not a

26:16

scientific one. I can expand

26:18

on that if you like, but it is inconsistent

26:20

with the data. I remain

26:23

a data person as experimentalist.

26:25

I have found through my

26:28

interactions with a number of

26:30

people as well as my

26:32

own experiments, that clearly we

26:34

need to think of consciousness as something

26:37

that is causal and fundamental.

26:39

Let's squeeze in a quick break and we'll

26:41

pick up right where we left off. You're

26:43

listening to Shades of the Afterlife

26:45

on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast

26:48

AM Paranormal Podcast

26:50

Network.

26:58

Don't go anywhere.

26:59

There's more Shades of the Afterlife

27:02

coming right up.

27:07

The best afterlife information you can

27:09

get well. Shades

27:11

of the Afterlife with Sandra Champlain.

27:18

Hi, this is your followist Kevin Randall,

27:20

and you're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast

27:22

to Coast AM Paranormal Podcast

27:25

Network.

27:40

Welcome back to Shades of the Afterlife.

27:42

I'm Sandra Champlain. We're listening

27:45

to a very sharp team of

27:47

experts about why closed

27:50

minded skeptics don't want to

27:52

believe when there's a lot

27:54

of evidence that our consciousness

27:56

survives death. Now we're

27:59

listening to Stefan Schwartz,

28:01

who spent many years working with the

28:03

Stanford Research Institute and

28:05

the government in the field of remote

28:07

viewing.

28:08

I remain a data person as

28:11

experimentalist, and I have

28:13

found through my interactions

28:16

with a number of people as

28:18

well as my own experiments, that clearly

28:21

we need to think of consciousness, as Plank

28:24

told us, as something that is causal

28:26

and fundamental. When I

28:28

was twelve, I witnessed a near death experience

28:31

not mine, but I witnessed a young

28:33

woman have a near death experience and

28:35

nobody could explain it to me, and

28:38

so I continued to be interested

28:40

in that without really understanding anything.

28:43

And then I met George Ritchie in the early

28:45

sixties, who was like a

28:47

sort of precursor to Eben, wrote

28:50

a very famous book at the time. And

28:52

I have come to see

28:55

the quest to understand the nature

28:57

of consciousness as one of

28:59

the primary challenges

29:02

facing not only science but our

29:04

culture, because I don't think

29:07

that until we fully appreciate the

29:09

causal and fundamental nature of consciousness

29:12

that we will be prepared to face

29:14

the challenges of climate change and

29:17

everything else that is coming upon us.

29:19

Because we must understand that we live

29:21

in a matrix of consciousness, and

29:23

that consciousness has continuity

29:26

between lives, understand

29:29

that materialism is a cultural affect,

29:31

not a scientific one. It arises

29:34

from the Council of Trent. Between

29:36

fifteen forty five and fifteen sixty

29:38

three, the Roman Catholic senior

29:41

hierarchy met in Toronto and

29:43

Bologna. They were concerned about

29:45

reformation, but the outcome

29:48

of the fifteen meetings was

29:51

that they issued an edict in which they said,

29:53

anything that has to do with consciousness,

29:56

they call it spirit, but read consciousness.

29:59

That is our world. And you

30:01

all in science you can have

30:04

everything that's in space and time,

30:06

materiality. We wish

30:08

you well with that. And it was very exciting

30:10

because science was really just getting started

30:13

in its modern context. And

30:15

then they said, but there's one thing we need to

30:17

tell you. If you get into our

30:20

realm of consciousness, will kill you. Well,

30:22

not only kill you, will torture you and

30:25

will burn you alive. Now nobody

30:27

talks very much about this anymore. It

30:30

seems like ancient history. But the fact

30:32

is that for three hundred years, as

30:34

science was developing into the modern

30:37

disciplines that we think of today, you

30:39

literally not only could lose

30:41

your position, but you could be killed as

30:44

a result of dabbling in anything

30:46

that involved consciousness. The last

30:48

person killed by the Inquisition, which

30:51

that Trento meetings produced,

30:53

that church legitimized torture

30:56

as an activity, officially

30:58

condoned torture chambers, and

31:00

the last person killed by the

31:03

Inquisition was in eighteen twenty six

31:06

was a man who was a teacher, a professor

31:08

who was teaching his students about the nature

31:10

of deism. As a result

31:13

of that, scientists who didn't

31:15

want to be humiliated by being told

31:17

what they could or couldn't study, made

31:20

consciousness a taboo,

31:22

and therefore they stopped studying

31:25

it because you could literally

31:27

get killed. And so basically

31:29

they took the position just like children,

31:31

well, if you won't let me play

31:33

that game, I don't care about that game anyway,

31:36

and didn't study it. So this is a really

31:38

important point because what

31:40

happens, and what is happening now, is

31:43

that we are experiencing what Thomas

31:45

Kohn, who probably wrote the

31:47

most important book on the history and philosophy

31:50

of science written in the twentieth

31:52

century, The Structure of Scientific

31:54

Revolutions, he coined the term

31:57

paradigm, and we are

31:59

in what Kun would call a

32:01

paradigm crisis. A

32:03

paradigm, from his perspective, was

32:06

an generally agreed cultural

32:08

worldview of how

32:10

the universe work, how things work,

32:13

and that when everybody kind of agreed to that,

32:15

they didn't have to discuss it anymore and

32:17

they could go on and solve the problems

32:19

that he called normal science. But

32:22

what happens is anomalies begin to

32:24

accumulate. You all out

32:26

there are living anomalies, and

32:29

in fact there are according to PIM, about

32:31

four point two percent of the American population,

32:35

that's about thirteen million people,

32:37

plus the tens of thousands, if

32:40

not hundreds of thousands of physicians

32:42

who treated people who had near death

32:45

experiences, who have had a direct,

32:47

impactful contact with the

32:49

idea that as Max Planck

32:52

said when they asked him, what have you

32:54

learned? And he said, in response to

32:56

the question, and it's in the Observer of

32:58

twenty five January nineteen

33:01

thirty one, he said, what I've

33:03

learned is that consciousness is causal and

33:05

fundamental. You cannot get

33:07

behind consciousness. Space

33:09

time arose from consciousness. Consciousness

33:12

did not arise from space time.

33:15

It is the fundamental. The

33:17

interesting thing about the founders of

33:19

modern physics is that they all

33:21

came to the conclusion that Plank

33:24

was right, and so we inherited

33:26

their equations, but we did not

33:28

inherit the wisdom and conclusions

33:31

that they drew from doing those equations.

33:34

The central thing you learn about dealing

33:36

with skepticism is its mediocrity.

33:39

Some years ago, I was asked

33:41

by ABC News to

33:44

take part in a debate with a

33:46

neurophysicist named

33:48

Jerry Levy and a skeptic named

33:51

Dan Dennett and ed may

33:53

at Sri and myself, And

33:55

when it came my time to speak, I'd

33:57

looked at Dennett and said, since

34:00

you have such very strong feelings

34:02

about this subject, I can only

34:04

assume that you have taken the time to actually

34:07

deeply reach into the literature

34:10

and critique it, and that's where your

34:12

feelings are arising. Is that

34:14

correct? And he looked at me in such a

34:16

condescending tone, said,

34:19

you don't think I actually read this

34:21

stuff, do you? There was absolute

34:23

dead silence in the hall. This was all filmed

34:26

by ABC. There are about six hundred reporters

34:28

and news directors. There was first

34:31

of all absolute silence at that comment.

34:33

Then there were snickers, then there were giggles.

34:36

When I see people critique

34:38

near death experiences, I'm mindful,

34:40

for instance, recently of Bruce Grayson's

34:43

exchange with Carolyn Watts

34:45

and mobs. You see

34:47

the quality of mediocrity. If

34:49

you look recently at Daryl Bem's

34:52

very interesting experiments about

34:54

precognitive awareness, in which he

34:56

has been replicated now

34:58

to a point where there are is better than

35:00

one in a billion chance that this

35:02

could be possibly happening by chance,

35:05

he was attacked by a skeptic named

35:07

Wagamaker, and he used

35:10

as his basis for his

35:12

skepticism the work of a mathematician

35:14

named Wesley Johnson, and Wesley

35:17

Johnson and Jessica Utz joined with Daryl

35:19

Bem in writing a refutation

35:22

of the Wagamaker critique, in

35:24

which Wesley Johnson, who was the basis

35:26

upon which the critique was base, said, you

35:29

didn't understand a word that I wrote. I

35:31

could give you examples of this over and over

35:33

again. I think what we are experiencing

35:36

is a change in consciousness, and

35:39

this is not the first time this has happened.

35:42

Between the eighth and second centuries,

35:44

there was something that historians know as

35:46

the Axial Age, and during

35:49

this period of time, as almost every

35:51

major religion that we see today

35:54

began, all the pre Abrahamic

35:56

religions began. Literally,

35:59

consciousness of humanity change.

36:02

And I think that is the process and why

36:04

this meeting has as many people attending

36:06

it as it does. We are witnessing

36:09

a change in the consciousness of

36:11

the culture, and I think that that is

36:14

very significant because what

36:16

it is doing is helping us prepare

36:19

to see ourselves as part of the matrix

36:22

of life, not as something independent

36:24

of it, and that only by understanding

36:27

the matrix and its relationship

36:29

to the planet will we be able to

36:31

prepare for change. So I applaud

36:33

you all for being here, because you are

36:36

early birds, you are the early

36:38

swallows. Going back to Capistrano.

36:40

Let's go back to Eban Alexander.

36:43

I was talking to my opening statement

36:45

of Jessica Utz and those statisticians,

36:47

where she is basically saying, if you look

36:49

at the evidence, these are real effects.

36:52

The statistics, the empirical data point

36:54

that out, and then of course to and on

36:57

basically the doubters out there, and again

36:59

skeptic is not really a very good word for them,

37:01

because Neil says, they pretty much made up their

37:03

mind. They don't even want to review the data

37:05

because they know, based on their theoretical

37:08

model of the world that it's false. But

37:10

to end that little story, though, Jessica

37:13

Hutzan said, well, what's the

37:15

best answer, more data or

37:17

would you like to have a strong personal

37:19

experience. Almost universally

37:22

what they wanted was the strong

37:24

personal experience. So the data is there,

37:27

but I think what really can help

37:29

people to get to the next level is

37:31

the strong personal experience, and this is

37:33

why again we're such fans of

37:35

meditation. A lot of the work we do involve

37:38

some tools differential frequency sound

37:40

that intersects with the brain in

37:42

the lower brain stem, as opposed to most

37:45

sounds that have their influence in the

37:47

recently evolved near cortex. And I believe

37:49

it's by going for the lower brain

37:51

stem, by getting its circuits that evolved

37:53

three hundred million years ago that were actually

37:55

intercepting consciousness at a very primitive

37:58

level. So I believe that people can actually

38:00

cultivate experiences. I

38:02

think the real shame in what we're facing now,

38:04

even as much as I feel that the

38:06

world is waking up to this, and I

38:09

personally know a lot of scientists who

38:11

I think are helping to lead the charge

38:13

in this kind of understanding. And

38:15

from my point of view, it's inevitable

38:18

that over the next decade or so, the scientific

38:21

community and hopefully by extension, the world

38:23

at large, will wake up to the reality

38:26

of these experiences telling us something

38:28

very deep and profound about the nature of human

38:30

existence and why we're here. But I

38:33

must say that in spite of the progress and optimism

38:35

that I sense in certain members

38:37

of the scientific community. I

38:39

find myself somewhat distressed that the

38:42

major media, for example, New

38:44

York Times, Scientific American, a

38:46

lot of the places that might be fascinated

38:48

by this and want to share this

38:50

incredibly good news with

38:52

humanity about the scientific investigation

38:55

of consciousness to date have really

38:57

not been very open to it at ally.

39:00

Please, and I know the people in this panel

39:02

are aware of some of the work that's happened

39:04

recently. For example, in

39:06

our book Living in a Mindful Universe, Karen Nowell

39:09

and I push the position of idealism, which

39:11

I believe is the ultimate answer

39:13

in terms of any kind of framework of understanding.

39:16

This is a mental universe, and that all the physical

39:19

emerges from that.

39:20

This is a mental universe, and

39:23

all of the physical emerges from

39:26

that. Wow, powerful

39:28

words. When we get back,

39:31

you'll be extremely interested

39:33

in the closing words from this panel.

39:37

Let's go to the break. You're listening

39:39

to Shades of the after Life on

39:42

the iHeart Radio and Coast to Coast

39:44

AM Paranormal podcast

39:46

Network.

39:55

Stay there, Sandra will be right back.

40:02

Hey, it's the Wizard of Weird Joshua

40:04

P. Warren. Don't forget to check out my

40:07

show strange things each

40:09

week as I.

40:10

Bring you the world of the truly amazing

40:12

and bizarre right here on

40:15

the iHeartRadio and Coast to

40:17

Coast AM Paranormal Podcast

40:19

Network.

40:24

This is Afterlife Expert Daniel

40:26

Bradley, and you're listening to the iHeartRadio

40:30

and Coast to Coast AM Paronormal

40:32

Podcast Network. Welcome

40:48

back to Shades of the Afterlife. I'm Sandra

40:50

Champlain. I welcome you to do

40:52

some research on these great folks,

40:55

Neil Grossman, Marjorie Woollcott,

40:58

Stefan Schwartz, and our friends

41:00

at the International Association

41:03

for Near Death Studies i AMS

41:05

dot org. Let's continue

41:08

with doctor Eben Alexander.

41:10

The recent experiments in quantum physics

41:12

keep pointing us ever more strongly in

41:14

that direction that entanglements reel, that

41:16

spooky action at a distance, as

41:18

Einstein put is real. But what that really

41:20

means is that consciousness is fundamental

41:23

and it returns tremendous power

41:25

to human beings when we

41:27

come to realize the implications

41:29

of that in terms of manifesting the

41:31

world of our dreams. The other kind

41:34

of bastion, in my mind, that kind

41:36

of materialist thinking really belongs in

41:38

the eighteen hundreds but doesn't

41:40

really belong in the late twentieth century, and how

41:42

it has survived is beyond me. But

41:45

the other kind of bastion, as

41:47

Neil will tell you from working for all

41:49

those years in an academic philosophical

41:51

department, is our institutes of

41:53

higher education. The colleges

41:56

are hardcore pushers.

41:58

So this kind of material mindset on

42:00

our youth. I'm hoping that we can reverse

42:03

that trend very rapidly with this awakening,

42:06

because obviously to change the future,

42:08

we begin and have the most effect by changing

42:10

our youth. And that's why I love when we

42:12

give talks and we have a lot of young people there,

42:15

but they're not the average you

42:17

know, the average age of my audiences,

42:19

or people in their fifties and sixties and what

42:22

have you. But to wake up the youth, to

42:25

bring this kind of knowledge and awakening,

42:27

I think to college campuses is

42:29

an absolutely crucial move. And then of course

42:31

the other move is to awaken our

42:33

mass media. I was in touch with one of

42:35

my editors for Proof of Heaven just

42:38

a few weeks ago, trying to put this out there,

42:40

with the whole new series of proposed articles

42:42

to go out to the press, and she

42:44

said none of her journalistic

42:46

colleagues who would write about this kind of stuff believe

42:49

that indieas are real. So we obviously

42:51

have our work cut out for us.

42:53

And here's Marjorie will accut.

42:55

I just want to add one thing that related

42:57

to the academic community. If you do look

42:59

at panel and many of the people

43:01

out here in the audience, we are talking

43:04

because we are toward the end of our professions

43:06

and we don't have to worry about credibility

43:08

amongst our colleagues in terms of getting

43:10

tenure, getting promotion, and getting

43:13

our grants funded and getting papers published.

43:15

When I publish a regular paper

43:17

in neuro rehabilitation, there's

43:19

no question about it's being accepted by a major

43:22

journal. When I put the word meditation

43:24

on it, suddenly it's like, oh, this isn't

43:26

real research, and we don't publish that kind of

43:28

research. It's just observational. It's not real

43:30

science. I think with Pim Van Loomo said

43:32

in one of his interviews something about the

43:34

idea that our National Academy of Sciences

43:37

has most people there who are atheists

43:39

and materialists, and until we

43:41

change that, we're not going

43:44

to change. Really all of the young

43:46

people at universities having the ability

43:48

to get tenure and get promotion who have ideas

43:51

about consciousness being fundamental. So, as

43:53

Evan was saying, we need to start with the young people.

43:55

We've just started a new Academy for the Advancement

43:58

of Post Materialist Sciences and Stefan

44:00

is on the board, and we're trying to encourage

44:03

young professors to do research in

44:05

this area and help them with the gaining

44:07

of promotion and tenure and things like that so

44:09

that we can begin to change the

44:12

academic communities culture.

44:13

Here's Stefan Schwartz.

44:16

I want to leave you with this thought. There

44:18

is a lot of research that has been done, particularly

44:21

at Van Rensler Politech, about how many

44:23

people it takes to change the culture. This

44:26

idea that the few change the

44:28

many. Very few people understand that

44:30

the American Revolution that only

44:33

about three percent of the population supported

44:35

it and only about thirteen percent of it were actually

44:38

involved in it. So this is small

44:40

groups of people who begin

44:43

to give you examples of how this process

44:46

works. And I'm up here doing this panel

44:48

because I'm into social transformation.

44:51

I believe in data, and I think the data

44:53

is absolutely clear there are

44:56

now at least nine protocols

44:58

that are carried out at uniities all

45:00

over the world. That is, it's a billion

45:03

to one that they're not correct. I

45:05

don't think the question is data anymore.

45:07

I think the question is culture, and

45:10

the question about how to do this is

45:12

by changing people's state

45:15

of consciousness in your immediate

45:17

community in which you live.

45:20

Look at smoking. I can look

45:22

out at this audience and a lot of people younger

45:24

than me, but nonetheless old enough

45:26

to remember that when you went to somebody's

45:28

house there was on the coffee table, there was a

45:30

pack of cigarettes, and an ashtray and

45:33

one of those ronson lighters your mother told

45:35

you not to fool with. Today,

45:37

you never see hardly anybody smoking.

45:40

This is about changing consciousness.

45:43

And if we change consciousness

45:45

by our beingness, that

45:48

is the nature of who we are

45:51

and what we stand for. Just

45:53

before Gandhi was assassinated in nineteen

45:55

forty eight, he was interviewed by the

45:57

Times of India. They porter

46:00

that was set up to interview him up

46:02

in his ashram came to him

46:04

and said, Goh Gandhaji, my editor

46:07

says, I only should ask you one question,

46:10

and Gandhi said, well, what's the question, And

46:12

he said, my question is how did

46:14

you force the British to leave India?

46:17

They were one of the most powerful nations

46:19

on earth. India was the crown

46:22

jewel of their colonial empire.

46:25

You are a man who had no official position,

46:27

you had no money, you had no army. How

46:30

did you force them to leave? And

46:32

Gandhi's answer is the point that I want

46:34

to make. He said, it isn't what

46:36

we did that mattered, although that mattered.

46:39

It isn't what we said that mattered,

46:42

although that mattered too. It

46:44

was the nature of our character

46:47

who we are, that

46:50

led the British to choose

46:53

to leave India. The difference

46:55

between force and choose, those two verbs

46:58

is the key to this thing. You all

47:00

are the beginning group. There are thirteen

47:03

million of you. We have three hundred

47:05

and eighteen million people in the United

47:07

States. When we get

47:09

to thirty one million thereabouts,

47:12

we're going to see a fundamental change

47:14

in the culture. And this change

47:17

is absolutely essential because,

47:19

as I said earlier, it is the

47:21

only way we are going to create

47:24

a culture focused on well

47:26

being that will allow us to move

47:29

into the future. And I invite

47:31

you to join me in doing.

47:32

That, And here is Neil Grossman.

47:35

I certainly do agree with Stefan

47:37

that we are on the cusp of a cultural change.

47:40

I think our present leadership is the one step

47:42

backwards or a giant spring

47:45

forward in the coming years. But

47:47

I'm an optimist and I've been wrong before. Nevertheless,

47:51

I want to get back to ask

47:53

Evan a question about arriving

47:56

at a belief based on evidence,

47:58

rationality thing and coming

48:01

to a belief based on direct experience.

48:03

I think Evan is right that it's direct

48:06

experience that wins every time.

48:08

But yet, having been a philosopher

48:10

and taught critical thinking, I do believe

48:13

that rational argumentation examining

48:15

the evidence is important or

48:17

not unimportant. So I want to ask you,

48:20

Evan, because you were not looking at the evidence

48:22

when you were at Harvard Brain Surgeon, because

48:24

you believed, like Dennett, that it was a

48:26

lot of crap. Right, And Dennett, incidentally

48:29

is a hero to academic philosophers, And that tells

48:31

you something about the environment I've been in the last

48:33

forty years. So suppose someone

48:36

took a gun to your head, Evan and said, Evan,

48:38

for the next nine months,

48:41

you have to immerse yourself in what

48:44

irreducible mind and that kind of thing. You read

48:46

the papers and the books and all of that, would

48:48

anything there have convinced you.

48:50

Absolutely. I think the evidence

48:52

is overwhelming. The problem

48:55

was that was not in my field of purview.

48:57

But I believe anyone who takes a look at the evidence.

48:59

I know how much trouble we've had

49:01

finding debate opponents who

49:03

support the materialist position because they're

49:06

a dwindling breed, because once

49:08

they start actually looking at the evidence,

49:10

they jump ship because there really

49:12

is nothing to support that materialist

49:14

position. That is what is so astonishing.

49:17

So yes, the evidence is all around

49:19

us. All we have to do is look at, certainly for the

49:21

scientific crowd, irreducible mind beyond

49:23

physicalism. Those are absolutely landmark

49:25

books from division and perceptual studies. But

49:28

there are other books that I think

49:30

for kind of the lay press. The Self

49:32

Does Not Die is a very important work,

49:35

and I think that book is crucial in getting

49:37

out there. I love Science of Near Death Experiences

49:39

by John C. Hagen. Third, I think is a very

49:41

concise kind of medical, peer reviewed

49:44

work that properly reflects on this. The evidence

49:47

is out there, and there are many other books

49:49

that have come to the four recently that

49:52

I think are hitting on the same kind

49:54

of target, like our book Living in a Mindful Universe,

49:56

Minos Cavatos and deep Ac Chopers

49:59

book The Universe of a bunch

50:01

of different works, and there's some that are to

50:04

come out in the next year or so that I think are

50:06

also crucial and take it to the next level,

50:08

like Bernardo Castrip's coming book

50:10

in April of next year of the

50:12

Idea of the World. And

50:14

there are others. So I think the evidence is there.

50:17

Let's go back to Stefan Schwartz.

50:19

I would recommend that you look at the structure

50:21

of scientific revolutions and read it not

50:24

in terms of science, but in terms of how culture

50:26

changes, because it's very important. I

50:29

would suggest One Mind by Larry

50:31

Dassi is a very good book. I

50:33

recommend very strongly Pim Van Lommel's

50:35

book Consciousness Beyond Life

50:38

and Dean Raiden's Entangled

50:40

Mind, I think is an excellent

50:43

book. I encourage

50:46

people to look at

50:48

the journal Explore. If you're

50:50

in the professional community, these

50:53

are academic papers, but Explore

50:55

is a journal for those of you who are

50:57

in that medical world that is folkocused

51:00

on what science looks

51:02

like when it incorporates consciousness

51:05

within its rubric.

51:07

And back to Neil Grossman, I think

51:09

that Stephen is very right, and he talks about this as

51:11

a cultural thing. What's emerging

51:13

from the data. It's not just a belief

51:16

that consciousness is not created by the brain. But

51:18

the consequence of this is that unconditional

51:20

love is the most important thing in

51:22

the universe, and that's what we must aspire

51:25

to. And that's what happened to me in

51:27

the forty years in the desert is in

51:29

some way I came to love my colleagues and

51:32

accept them. But this unconditional

51:35

love business is completely inconsistent

51:38

with the social order we have today. Capitalism

51:40

is a greed based social order, and

51:43

the people who are the neediest and greediest

51:45

are the ones who went to the top and are

51:47

running things now. And

51:50

how we change from that to a

51:52

world order governed by the

51:54

principles of unconditional love. I

51:56

don't know how it's going to happen, but it

51:58

has to happen or we're

52:00

not going to make it.

52:01

I believe we are going to make it. Why

52:04

because I was once one of those closed

52:06

minded skeptics. What changed

52:08

me was the fear of dying. What

52:11

may change you a loved one passes

52:14

an illness. My advice for

52:16

all of us keep our integrity,

52:18

share, be a kind and

52:20

loving person, and you know how it

52:23

feels good to be around. Good people

52:25

will have a ripple effect on others.

52:28

As a reminder, my home base is

52:31

we Don't Die dot com. You

52:33

can get a free copy of my book if

52:35

you enter your name an email address on

52:37

the bottom of that front page. I'm

52:40

so grateful you've been with us

52:42

today. It only takes a small

52:44

percentage to make a giant difference.

52:48

I'm Sander Champlain. Thank you for

52:50

listening to Shades of the Afterlife

52:53

on the iHeartRadio and Cost to cost

52:55

am Hairinormal Podcast

52:58

Network.

53:07

And if you like this episode of Shades of the

53:09

Afterlife, wait until you hear the next one.

53:11

Thank you for listening to the iHeartRadio

53:13

and Coast to Coast am Paranormal Podcast

53:16

Network.