1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

Past life regression

Discussion in 'Afterlife Evidence' started by Convolution, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Hello everyone, just joined the forums. :)
    My fiancee did a past life regression session recently. She felt as if she was constantly pressures to imagine something, and says that imagine she did, seeing scenes, etc. She felt as if she was making it all up. On the other hand, the therapist was very insistent and convinced that she had experienced a real past life, since he said her descriptions were very detailed, consistent and very relevant to her current life. In the end, she says she felt quite uncomfortable with the pressure and expectation.

    I am pondering doing a session myself, but I don't know what to make of her experience. Do we make up past lives? Sometimes, at the very least, it seems to be the case. How could we tell the difference? Why is it that I notice that in most sessions, therapists don't seem to try and get the patient to come up with new information, and thing that can overall be objectively validated? Are they concerned at the lack of veracity themselves?

    Thank you for reading :)
  2. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Perhaps you need to find - if past-life-regression is important to you for some reason - a different therapist. Plainly your fiance wasn't comfortable with what she experienced which seems to me a very good reason not to re-visit that practitioner.

    Maybe but maybe not.... What are you expecting from a regression session?

    How many therapists have you visited, how many have you felt dissatisfied with? For me to decide what would be authentic past-life regression I would need evidence I could relate to. What would work for you?

    I can't speak for practitioners or how they operate what is very likely their business, how they support themselves. Do you feel you've had value-for-money with what you've experienced? If not what will you do next?
  3. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Hi Mac, thank you for your reply.
    We are looking into another one, though there aren't many options in our area. We'd also like to do an LBL session.
    Personally I am trying to validate whether such a thing as past lives exist. Seeing things, some of which I'd hope to also validate, could do that for me. If it happens to help me with growth and healing as well- great!
    I have gone to a few therapists in my life, and have found a couple of good ones. Never for hypnotherapy.
    I don't think my fiancee would think she got value for money, for sure. There were no breakthroughs whether towards her personal growth or our goal of discovering whether there is more to this life than its visible physical aspects.

    The kind of evidence I'd look for are two fold:
    1- The circunstancial kind- seeing images that I felt came from a source other than my brain, feelings and details hard to invent on a whim. This one would be secondary, imo.
    2- The objectively verifiable kind- data, names and happenings that can only be verified with thorough research on my part that I am certain could not have come from daily or prior exposure to common knowledge, etc. This one is primary to my desire to validate whether or not there is more.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2018
  4. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    OK, thanks :) I wish you well in your search.
  5. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    Thank you!
    Is it common for people to feel like they are making up a story in their minds, as they go through PL Hypnotherapy?
  6. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    It's not something I've ever studied, not anything that interests me, so I really haven't a clue. I don't know who of our members have tried a past-life regression session so I'm hoping someone who has will respond to your questions.
    Convolution likes this.
  7. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    My past-life regression felt pretty real! Weird - I was a Cro-Magnon man wearing skins and with very dirty feet - but real. The best regression therapist I know says that regressions often feel like something you are imagining.
  8. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    That sounds pretty cool, Roberta. I guess if you go back that far, it gets pretty hard to verify.

    Why does that therapist say that? If it feels like you are imagining, then... aren't you possibly imagining? Did he have an explanation or insight as to why it would feel that way and possibly still be objectively real?
    bluebird likes this.
  9. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Our minds are part of the Mind that continuously manifests this universe. And aspects of our minds - like emotions and like imagination - are in fact not just peripheral and private, but they are part of Mind and immensely powerful! And when you ask your mind something, the very first thing you "imagine" is in fact an answer from your powerful and eternal mind.
  10. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I do love the idea that all is consciousness and the world is a result of consciousness/thought. All is imagined, in a sense. I've read it in a few places, and there are a couple of researchers that are trying to create some interesting testable theories on that.
    It could make a lot of sense.

    However, I'm not sure about getting reliable answers from imagination. Do you get reliable hits about reality that way?

    I know that the answers I get, at least, are not always on par with the reality I discover. So, in that view, either that mind is lying to me or it isn't the best way for me to access it.
  11. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Convolution, your problem lies in the fact that you are still stuck in two entirely bogus notions:

    (1) The scientific dogma of materialism. Although you "love the idea" that it might be wrong, and you applaud the idea of researchers employing "some interesting testable theories" because "the idea that all is consciousness" does "make a lot of sense," to you this physical world and its physical corollaries are what is real and everything else is a maybe. But in fact thinking this way is as wrong as it can possibly be! (Not your fault. You are a victim of scientism, not a perpetrator of it.) In fact, once you study the evidence all together without a bias toward either religionism or scientism, you come to understand and be at peace with the fact that NOTHING is material. EVERYTHING is consciousness. You just can never get there if you reason backward from error. Starting at this altogether bogus world - which is no more real than a video-game world - and removing all the lifelong bogus materialist assumptions one by one simply is too long and hard a lift.

    (2) The belief that everything your "imagination" produces is "imaginary" by definition. And "real" and "imaginary" are literal opposites! This false assumption is of course a corollary of materialism, and if you had even a modest understanding of how reality actually works it would not be such a reflexive response. In fact, your mind and what it can do is the only "real" thing about you, Convolution!

    When I was first deep in doing afterlife research - we are going back now almost fifty years! - I began to find that in fact there is something real and complex beyond this material world for which we can find evidence, and I decided right then that in order to study it at all I was going to have to try to jettison any certainty I might be feeling about everything I thought that I knew. Doing that in your twenties is no big deal! But as we get older and more sure of ourselves, it gets harder. Please try, though. Your culture is at its core a false battle between scientific beliefs and religious beliefs, and that battle means nothing; it is just a distraction, because not a single participant in that battle turns out to know the very least thing about anything. That is a demonstrable fact! But there are indeed objective truths. As the great Max Planck said, "We cannot get behind consciousness." Dear Convolution, if you really want to find the objective truth you do have the power to free your mind and search out that objective truth for yourself!
  12. kim marine

    kim marine Active Member

    During the NDE I experienced I remember viewing many past lives and being asked if I'd like to have a similar experience in my life, to come, in order to grow and mature spiritually. It was an exhausting experience, but there were also times when I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am able to decipher many of those scenes as they manifest in my life currently. During my life here on the "real" earth, I couldn't understand what was happening at first, so a few years ago I asked Craig Hogan on a forum and he said I viewed past lives. (The bold print is only because I have double vision and makes my proofing the message much easier.)
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    innerperson likes this.
  13. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

  14. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    I think it is probably very useful and rather self-serving for a regression therapist to assert that past-life regressions often feel like one's imagination.

    Which is not to say that reincarnation doesn't exist -- I truly don't know if it does or not -- just that I would be wary of a therapist who makes such a statement. In my opinion (and I make no greater claim for it than that), a real past-life regression, if it does exist, would likely feel more like a memory.
  15. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I imagine the same as well, though I would not know for sure.
  16. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    I feel a bit disappointed that you think of science that way, but it's your prerogative.

    Personally, I think it's just as counter-productive to be against the scientific method as it is to be immovable from the discoveries it does make.

    It is the best tool we have for approximating ourselves to the truth in a democratizing way.
    Science isn't the discoveries it makes, nor the people who uphold it. It is just a method of searching and validating.
    At its best, you get unbiased warriors for truth, ever seeking knowledge and verifying it with peers. At worst you get people who either misunderstand it, and build false, biased, pseudo-knowledge, or people who refuse to change the paradigm. But those are the flaws of humans, flaws we exhibit everywhere and with everything, including in regards to science, religion or spirituality. Humans are flawed.

    If you think there is a better method of inquiry that allows us to verify discoveries with one another in a way that can be shared with people in general, reliably, I'd be interested in knowing.
    Just remember when you put on your clothes, drive your car, use your phone or post in this forum. When the lights turn green and you go, when your coffee gets ready or the tea water boils in the stove, when you hair gets done, or you put make up on; when you tie your shoe laces or eat your food. When a doctor saves a life or improves it's quality. When you sleep in bed, between four urban walls. They all contain contributions made by scientific inquiry that would render them impossible to be made available for people, especially in scales required, were it not for those discoveries.
    That doesn't make science religion, because once you are told that hot water burns you do not need belief to know it. Try it yourself. Therein lies the distinction.

    I think science can make many contributions to the field of spirituality. I think you are confusing science with the scientific discoveries and the people involved in them. To compare science with spirituality is truly missing the point.

    Spirituality is a state of being and mind, as well as perhaps a certain set of beliefs, for some.
    Science is just what could help bring more legitimacy to those beliefs, and thus ultimately help with spreading them to more folks, in a reliable way. They aren't comparable, because they are distinct concepts.
    Science isn't materialistic. It's just that what we have had the means and the ideas to study thus far has involved, in its majority, materialism. Science is a set of rules by which you can help take an idea and test it.
    One of its tenets is that there is one truth. Finding another falsifies the former. But even that could possibly be tested to be falsified. It is a way of searching. It is not what you find.
    And so, it isn't a culture, though a culture can be created around it just as well as around anything else.

    Like yourself, I am also disappointed at Scientism and those who oppose approaching testing new problems and investigating new areas of inquiry in a serious and unbiased manner for fear of what they may find, or for disdain for others.

    I am searching for objective truth. Personally I am finding it so far elusive, but it trust it will be found. The awesomenthubg about objective truth is that it is valid for all (hence the term objective, as opposed to subjective) and so it can be tested and validated. That is all I ask for- objective truth.
    Do you have those objective facts?
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018 at 5:28 AM
    bluebird likes this.
  17. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Convolution, do you even pause to read before you respond? Or is your world-view so set and established that you already know what others think so you already have your pat answers to them?

    I am not "against the scientific method." I am against closed-mindedness. I am against the scientific certainty that consciousness must be produced by the brain, and all the other materialist nonsense that is at the center of modern science and makes it impossible for anything further to be discovered. A response to my post - to which you thought you were responding - would have addressed what I actually said, at least in passing. You didn't do that, perhaps because you don't know enough about the issues even to formulate a response. So why did you feel competent to respond at all?

    The truth is not "democratizing," whatever that means. We don't vote on it, and thereby figure out what is true! I know of no living "unbiased warriors for truth" in the entire field of scientific inquiry whose work is accepted by the scientific gatekeepers. Rupert Sheldrake, Gary Schwartz, Charles Tart, Larry Dossey, Dean Radin: there are indeed scientists who are open-mindedly searching for the truth. And finding it. But every last one of the world's living objective scientists - not tied to any dogma at all - has been ostrasized by the mainstream scientific community.

    And your assumption that modern conveniences validate modern science is the kind of thing a six-year-old would believe and would say, for heaven's sake! (And yes, I feel free now to talk down to you, when your entire answer talks down to me.) As I have pointed out repeatedly but you have either not read or not understood, mainstream science was going gangbusters into the early twentieth century, when the gatekeepers were confronted with both quantum physics and a lot of communications received through deep-trance mediums from people that we used to think were dead. Many of these communications were researched and published. Scientists were asked to join in these investigations, but they wanted nothing to do with them - especially when they were trying to cope with quantum physics and its implications! So that was when the gatekeepers established "the scientific dogma of materialism." And yes, back then you could find those words in print, but they are more sophisticated at this point. They seldom say it now, but they simply continue to enforce it. And their enforcing it has effectively killed modern scientific inquiry.

    Physics is the core science. Every other scientific field builds on what physicists discover. And because of that materialist scientific dogma, physicists have made no significant discoveries in the past century, beyond the nuclear bomb - and that came from Einstein, an old-style scientist who did not feel bound by the materialist dogma. Every one of the modern inventions of which you are so proud is based in scientific discoveries that predate the closing of the scientific mind.

    And what the heck does "spirituality" have to do with anything that I ever have said in the entire history of this forum's existence?
    Good grief, are you so ignorant that you don't understand that "spirituality" is as much a belief-system as is mainstream science, Catholicism, Mormonism, and what-else-have-you? Why on earth would you even bring it up?

    I will tell you why.
    I have been fighting for the objective truth for my entire life, and especially in the last ten years, so I know that there is a type of arrogant and entirely closed-minded person who speaks just as you do. This type really isn't interested in seeking and learning, but rather all they want to do is prove themselves to be intellectually superior and prove all the genuine seekers to be wrong. What they typically do is exactly what you have done here: they ignore whatever I have said, and they attack their own straw men instead. I recall that one, for example, answered a blog post about the details of the afterlife with his own attack on near-death experiences and why they have to be mind-created. When I pointed out that his answer was unresponsive to my post, he said he assumed I must have gotten everything I thought I knew from NDEs.

    THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT. I have a whole body of work that is extensively supported by many different sources of information, but he was ignorant and closed-minded enough to assume that his entire world-view encompassed all that anyone could possibly know. And that, sadly, seems to be you, too, Convolution. YOU LITERALLY ADMIT HERE THAT NOT ONLY DO YOU NOT KNOW ANYTHING MUCH, BUT YOU REALLY DON'T CARE TO KNOW ANYTHING MUCH. Your level of knowledge in the scientific field is that of an eight-grader, at best. You assume that "the scientific method" is actually adhered to by modern scientists, and that the oopsie that they cannot discover anything non-material is not the product of design and enforcement by university departments and peer-reviewed journals. You assume that "spirituality" is a word that covers the objective study of the greater reality. Clearly you have read nothing I have written beyond the edges of this forum, and nor have you even read thoughtfully the post to which you thought you were responding.

    I will give you another chance to prove that I am wrong about you. If you make another try and you actually respond to my post this time without bringing into it your own puerile view of the way modern science must be practiced, I will be happy to resume a relationship with you that is based on mutual respect. Otherwise I ask that you cease all advocacy on this forum for what you think of as "science." If what you imagine science to be actually existed, I would be delighted! But sadly, it does not exist. And what is more, by advocating for it you present yourself to be not a seeker of "objective truth," but instead the enemy of it. Yes indeed, there are "objective facts" being established in the broad field of modern scientific inquiry that is not being policed by the scientific gatekeepers, but they violate your scientism bias and therefore it is impossible for you ever to find them.

    Stop advocating for your belief in science as a theory until you can prove to me that modern mainstream science in fact adheres to your lovely theory. Or if that is impossible for you, then kindly go and advocate for it elsewhere.
  18. poeticblue

    poeticblue Moderator

    No.. no.. no.. no.. and no. Metaphysics cannot be 100% proven utilizing science. The afterlife is of a metaphysical nature therefore you and the rest of the hardcore folks seeking scientific proof will never be satisfied with anyone’s opinion nor answers regarding this subject matter.

    Furthermore, I think your response was slightly condescending and rude towards Roberta.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018 at 12:26 PM
  19. Convolution

    Convolution Active Member

    1- Seems a SoulPhone could be used to prove. If a device can be created to reach the afterlofe- piece of tech pgy- how can further inquiry not yield evidence? This seems like a very inconsistent notion.

    2- Studies on NDEs, if proven to be objectively measurable and objective real phenomenon can yield evidence.

    3- Communications with mediums, if accurate, can yield evidence that can be studied.

    Seems there are many ways to study somethung of a metaphysical nature. If the metaphysical can interact with the physical, then those boundaries can always be studied. And that means science can yield results, if they are objectively real phenomena. If they cannot interact, then everyone who claims such interactions is wrong and either deluded or lying. Which of these do you believe in?

    I hope they can interact.

    I simply tried to reply to what Roberta wrote prior to my response, addressing her points.
  20. Monika

    Monika Active Member

    I don't know or understand much about what this discussion is but Roberta, your last response is so full of anger. At least thats how it feels for me while reading it. I really feel not comfortable to read it. I trully like your devotion and huge efforts you are puting in the afterlife topic. But you are putting another human being who is in his/her own path to explore this field down with almost every word you wrote. How can it be so? I mean why? I do understand that sometimes one or another question from us might sound completely silly for you as probably non of us spent so much time to research this field and not all of us even want to reseach so wide and to such level (at least personally not me) and of course it can be that sometimes we repeat ourselves but only because every single of us is trying to find answers to our own questions in our own ways. And i do understand that you do a lot of work plus run this forrum and all this can make you tired sometimes but please understand that many of us are also tired due to work and mostly trying to survive with pain we carry after loss of loved ones. And thats heavy duty i must say. We are all tired from time to time but that doesnt give any reason to be mean to another person :(
    Bill Z, mac and bluebird like this.

Share This Page