Evidence of an afterlife

fairplay

It's surprising how much evidence there is to support the widespread belief in an afterlife.

Take the case of British medium Leslie Flint. He was subjected to just about every conceivable test to eliminate the remotest possibility of fraud or trickery. He was what's known as a "direct voice medium"...meaning that the actual voices of departed people could be heard clearly in the hall or room where the "sittings" took place.

Hundreds of the voices were recorded and can be listened to by anyone interested in hearing these.

Naturally, this evidence for survivial prompted howls of indignation from sceptics and materialists...so Flint agreed to being tested under strict conditions. For example, he was bound and gagged, and had his mouth filled with water in experiments to ensure that he wasn't somehow "throwing his voice"...and steps were taken to ensure that he didn't have accomplices who somehow produced the voices.

Despite all the restrictions, the voices still came, and indeed relatives of the departed people who spoke held conversations with them.

Direct Voice mediumship, I believe, provides some of the strongest evidence for an afterlife because the medium doesn't speak at all...he or she merely acts as a "trigger" for what happens, somehow creating the conditions in which the spirits can communicate in this very clear and unmistakable way.

I recommend that you look up some of the websites that highlight this man's extraordinary life and work, or read his autobiography.

Scientists have yet to understand HOW such spirit communication can occur, but in the meantime its failure to explain the "mechanics" of the process need not deter consideration of this most valuable line of communication with the world beyond this one.

cooperguy

There is also some interesting stuff out there on Near Death Expierences. Some of it has attempted explanations and some of it is very very hard to explain without a supernatural element

fairplay

cooperguy wrote: »

There is also some interesting stuff out there on Near Death Expierences. Some of it has attempted explanations and some of it is very very hard to explain without a supernatural element

I totally agree Cooperguy. NDEs, the evidence provided by mediums (the genuine ones), and other paranormal phenomena when taken together add up to a very convincing case for the afterlife. It's when you examine all of the different pieces of the afterlife "evidential jigsaw" that the case becomes so clear.

I'm not an advocate for any particular religious belief, but I believe the evidence for an afterlife is quite overwhelming.

Oryx

Hi fairplay. Ive read your posts here and in paranormal on this subject. Its a difficult subject to discuss, let alone prove, in an environment like this. You keep coming coming back to the old adage that 'for those who believe no proof is needed, and for those who wont believe no amount of proof is ever enough'.

I agree with you that there is a very convincing argument to be made in favour of an afterlife. (I should do, Im a 'trainee' medium) But in my experience the only way you can truly convince people is on a one-to-one basis. And even then its sometimes difficult. Ive done readings where Ive given age, description, hobbies, cause of death, relationship to sitter. And still the sitter will say, 'Ah well, if you could only give me a name, Id believe you'.

Its a tough one.

binxeo

Hi, Im currently reading two books called "mind power" and Hidden Forces", in both they concentrate on a variety of pyschic abilities, the interesting slant on these books is that they are looked at from the scientific point of view. How scientists have tried to explain what manytimes appears to be the unxplainable!!!

The abilties look at range from reacurring nightmares to esp to pyschic warfare apparently used by the soviets and hilter during the world wars and the cold war. However none of the experiements done to prove any of these abilities were ever accredited nor were the abilities recognoised by the general public or scientfic community. Even though it is a well know fact that on many occasions meduims have been used by major government bodies and police forces through out the world.

This would lead me to believe that these abilties and gifts held my many people in todays society will never be accepted by science but will be accept to those who experience there effect first hand. I think you can be a sceptic until the moment that you recieve a reading from a medium or pyschic, or experience a paranormal event, only then will you let yourself be open to the possibilty that there is more to life after death and the indept and different ways in which the human mind can function and to what extent do lay-men indeed use their brain, and can we all tune in to pyschic abilities.

fairplay

KtK wrote: »

Hi fairplay. Ive read your posts here and in paranormal on this subject. Its a difficult subject to discuss, let alone prove, in an environment like this. You keep coming coming back to the old adage that 'for those who believe no proof is needed, and for those who wont believe no amount of proof is ever enough'.

I agree with you that there is a very convincing argument to be made in favour of an afterlife. (I should do, Im a 'trainee' medium) But in my experience the only way you can truly convince people is on a one-to-one basis. And even then its sometimes difficult. Ive done readings where Ive given age, description, hobbies, cause of death, relationship to sitter. And still the sitter will say, 'Ah well, if you could only give me a name, Id believe you'.

Its a tough one.

Yes. it's tough...but what you are doing is well worth the work and the effort. You are helping, in a sense, to bring two worlds closer together!

I believe the best mediums are the ones who freely and openly admit when they're having an "off day", since the ability cannot always simply be switched on at will.

Unfortunately no matter what evidence you provide, you will get that type of negative reaction.

By the way, I am not a medium myself and I don't seem to have psychic ability.

I have, however, visited a number of recommended mediums for the express purpose of satisfying myself as to their authenticity.

I found all of them quite impressive. I made a point of telling them absolutely NOTHING about myself or my family, yet they rovided me information which, I believe, could only have come from people in the spirit world. I mean this quite sincerely, though I am deeply conscious of how scathing youir average scientist would find any statement of this kind.

I wonder...would you consider attempting "direct voice" mediumship? I am of the view that this provides the best evidence of survival to people.

Incidentally, one of the best direct voice mediums, Scottish man John Sloan (worth looking up, anyone reading this!!) didn't accept payment for his mediumship.

A serious point in his favour, I would think, from an evidential point of view...though everyone has to make a living!!

But the best of luck with your own good work.

fairplay

binxeo wrote: »

Hi, Im currently reading two books called "mind power" and Hidden Forces", in both they concentrate on a variety of pyschic abilities, the interesting slant on these books is that they are looked at from the scientific point of view. How scientists have tried to explain what manytimes appears to be the unxplainable!!!

The abilties look at range from reacurring nightmares to esp to pyschic warfare apparently used by the soviets and hilter during the world wars and the cold war. However none of the experiements done to prove any of these abilities were ever accredited nor were the abilities recognoised by the general public or scientfic community. Even though it is a well know fact that on many occasions meduims have been used by major government bodies and police forces through out the world.

This would lead me to believe that these abilties and gifts held my many people in todays society will never be accepted by science but will be accept to those who experience there effect first hand. I think you can be a sceptic until the moment that you recieve a reading from a medium or pyschic, or experience a paranormal event, only then will you let yourself be open to the possibilty that there is more to life after death and the indept and different ways in which the human mind can function and to what extent do lay-men indeed use their brain, and can we all tune in to pyschic abilities.

Yes Binexo...the scientific establishment has its own agenda. People who have got years of training and have their minds packed with pre-conceived notions of what makes the universe tick don't want their little tidy world view overturned by evidence that we survive death. It spoils the whole party for them!

I suggest that as many people as possible work towards spirit communication and satisfy themselves as to the strength of the evidence of an afterlife.

Science will eventually accept this reality, but its pig headed attitude at present doesn't alter that reality.

You're right about governments conducting research into psychic phenomena...I have a book on my shelf that I bought in the 1970s..."Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain"...detailing such research back then.

You can bet that many, many people in the scientific establishment know a great deal more than they're telling the rest of us!!!

Oryx

fairplay wrote: »

I believe the best mediums are the ones who freely and openly admit when they're having an "off day", since the ability cannot always simply be switched on at will.

You do good readings and mediocre ones, in the same way as you have good days at work and bad.

I found all of them quite impressive. I made a point of telling them absolutely NOTHING about myself or my family, yet they rovided me information which, I believe, could only have come from people in the spirit world. I mean this quite sincerely, though I am deeply conscious of how scathing youir average scientist would find any statement of this kind.

As a medium, you can be conversational, but if anyone Im working with tries to volunteer information, I have to stop them! It hinders, rather than helps the process.

I wonder...would you consider attempting "direct voice" mediumship? I am of the view that this provides the best evidence of survival to people.

Its not something that interests me. I know people who have tried trance mediumship, but at this point, its not for me. Im not really concerned with providing evidence to x amount of people, just with working in a way Im comfortable with.

Incidentally, one of the best direct voice mediums, Scottish man John Sloan (worth looking up, anyone reading this!!) didn't accept payment for his mediumship.

A serious point in his favour, I would think, from an evidential point of view...though everyone has to make a living!!

The money argument is a separate thing. Charging lumps you in with every rip off charlatan out there, not charging makes what you do a hobby which people dont often take seriously. If you are genuine about what you are doing and do not set out to exploit people then charging or not is a personal decision. All I would say, is if you dont do the job right and your sitter is not happy you should not charge money. You havent earned it.

To get back to the topic... I really have no interest in convincing those who dont wish to be convinced of an afterlife. Theyll know if there is one as and when the time comes.
But, fairplay, good luck with your good work, too.

SubjectSean

Flint was a huge fraud. Compare the voices of his recordings with recordings of the actual people he claimed to channel. They don't sound at all alike do they?