The massive accessing of the archived article by past-life therapist Rick Brown, about the "Submarine Man" case, continues. Whoever is linking to it is most welcome--that article was published in IARRT's journal, but IARRT is defunct, now. Its death occurred not too long after Walter Semkiw ("Return of the Revolutionaries") began participating heavily in that organization; whether coincidence or more, I don't know. IARRT invited me to speak at one of their conventions, as I recall, years ago after I released my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America." But I couldn't afford to go to California on my own dime, and they couldn't afford to sponsor people. Instead, they played my film--twice, I think it was. But nothing further came of it. Just out of curiosity, let's see how many people have seen that article in the last few days...
It stands at a whopping 2,574 hits, roughly double the number who have accessed the home page so far this month. It is dropping somewhat, now, the last couple of days. But only one person has taken me up on my offer to send them a pdf of the entire book, on which the article was based--my own researcher. That means that whoever makes that link available, doesn't recommend my own case to them, nor do they read my blog, apparently--because even the person who created this direct, internal link, didn't see my offer.
That's okay. It has taken some decades for the James Johnston case to come to these people's attention (whoever they are); it may take decades more for them to become conscious of my case. I think the Johnston/Kelly case is a good precursor to appreciating mine. Not that that case isn't very strong--it is. But it is not researched in the depth that mine is.
A couple of entries back, I went into my own personal history (the excuse being that I was archiving files on my computer), and mentioned my erstwhile business, Gold Thread Video Productions. While archiving, I ran across something else. I had wanted to demonstrate to prospective customers that I could create chromakey backgrounds--you know, like the weatherman standing in front of the live map. It is used so ubiqitously, now, that we take it for granted. But this was the early days of streaming video, and even commercials didn't use animation and chromakey quite to the extent that it is used, today. This was also the early days of streaming video, and one had to make various compromises in quality to keep the file size down. So you will see, in this sample, that there is a lot of pixellation accompanying each soft dissolve (dissolves being particularly susceptible to low resolution). In hindsight, I would have been better off to use straight cuts, although dissolves are certainly more elegant. Streaming video was held to a lower standard, then--just the mere fact that it was streaming, at all, was cutting-edge! I remember looking online for other people's streaming video, to use as examples of how it was being used, and I think I could only come up with nine...
You can see, from this example, that even then, I refused to use hype. It's a straight-forward presentation. It's clever, primarily in the images used, which match what I'm saying. This file has a date stamp of December 11, 2005. That would be a few months after I had first run across an image of Mathew Franklin Whittier, and recognized him as my own past-life self. I had not done much research about him at this time. It's hard to believe that it was 12 years, almost to the day. It seems like yesterday, but I was actually a younger man. Amazing how time flies. I simply scrambled for 12 years to try to stay on my feet, circumstantially, and I happen to glance in the mirror, as it were, and I'm old.
It is the same way with having been Mathew Franklin Whittier. I can't explain this--nobody seems to care, anyway--but this study has shown me graphically what survives into the next incarnation, and what doesn't. What changes, and what remains the same. I have the visceral or subconscious sense of Mathew's personality--of myself, as him--directly from subconscious past-life memory, and also from getting a sense of it by having read over a thousand of his published pieces (both means are mutually-reinforcing). It was just yesterday that I was a young man writing for a New York newspaper, with a bright future ahead of me. There was a young lady in love with me back home--I was waiting for her to grow up a bit, before I dared to openly reciprocate her feelings, and besides, I was gunshy, having been rejected by the older town coquette, and had decided to remain a bachelor. I felt that my talents were being wasted on this little daily paper--I was capable of great things. But I was too liberal, and too outspoken, and too honest, while my satire cut too deep. I was also too naive, and kept getting fooled by the wrong people. I made fun of naive hayseeds in the big city, but I knew that I was one, myself. I was much too far ahead of my time.
All this has been revealed in Mathew's earliest work, beginning in December 1829. That's 188 years ago, this month. And subjectively, that, too feels like "just yesterday."
My friend/researcher is poised to go into the historical library tomorrow. Mathew praised the New-York "Galaxy" out of Boston, hinting that he had published in it. So I will be having her look through the volume for 1829. I anticipate finding two or three pieces. But we are now getting very close to the period when Mathew's famous brother, John Greenleaf Whittier, himself first began publishing. If I remember my Whittier legacy correctly, John Greenleaf attended the local academy in 1827/28. There is no mention, in that legacy, of Mathew doing anything at all except writing one silly poem. We are told that Mathew was "also a versifier," but no other examples are given; and that he wrote one humorous character, "Ethan Spike," beginning in January of 1846. Mathew was five years younger than his brother, and I am now delving into his published work, written at age 16-17.
It is fascinating what Society deems important to focus on, and what it chooses to throw into the scrap heap of history. It was pointed out to me by Swami Yogeshananda of the Ramakrishna Order, back when I was shooting for my documentary, that society had chosen to give credence to Charles Darwin's ideas, over those of Alfred Russel Wallace, regarding the theory of evolution. The swami said it was an economic decision--the publishers knew that Darwin's work would sell better. But Wallace took the spiritual interpretation, and factored in the Mind of God, rather than explaining the "engine" of evolution as simply a matter of survival of the fittest. Wallace was right. But my Guru, Meher Baba, has set the matter straight. Society will be in for a shock when Baba's work on this subject, "God Speaks," comes to the public consciousness and is taken seriously.
Talk about something being hid right out in the open. But then again, Baba remarked, "Unless you love Me, you won't be able to understand my book, 'God Speaks.'" "Me," in this case, refers to Baba as God, the universal or cosmic Christ--i.e., the Avatar. He means, I would say, that unless your mind and heart (the heart being the core of the mind) are aligned with the Source of all knowledge, through the power of love, then you aren't grounded enough to deeply and correctly "grok" that work.
He is, here, laying out a principle. Just as all of Jesus's parables lay out principles. Principles apply, as I see it, down through the layers and levels. So this principle applies to Meher Baba's book, "God Speaks"--but it also applies to the work I'm doing. Not that you should love me! But you won't understand what I'm doing unless you love God. Meaning, not the Christian God, or the Hebrew God, or the Hindu God. I don't mean subscribing to any particular belief system. I mean, unless you love God, Himself, you won't understand what I'm doing, here.
That makes it particularly difficult to get through to atheists and skeptics (some of whom actually do love God, but don't know it). Did you read Abby's treatist on Sceptisim, which I presented a few entries back? She says that scepticism, by which she means, cynicism, is a result of a diseased heart. It is not only a disorder of the mind.
And the heart is purified by one's conduct; and by what one chooses to immerse oneself in. If you are watching porno, or violent TV shows and films, and coveting all sorts of material products, and trying to push other people down to get ahead, in your personal life, your heart will become mired in sludge; and in that condition, you can't understand anything I'm doing, here. Not that I'm in the condition of sainthood, regarding my own heart, by any means. Over 40 years of discipleship to Meher Baba, and living a pretty clean lifestyle, and guarding my thoughts, has gotten at least some of the sludge off. There are layers and layers and layers of impressions from past lives, which no-doubt remain. But it is clean enough, by definition, to be able to do what I've accomplished, here.
That doesn't mean that you will be able to perceive it, though. Recently, the subject of abortion came up in Lee Camp's Facebook presentations. I admire Camp, but in this case, I disagreed with him, as he was accusing Pro-Lifers, carte blanche, with hypocrisy--that they cared about unborn children, but not the children being poisoned by lead-filled water in Flint, etc. I stated, not for the first time, that I had good reason to believe that the soul enters the body around 21 weeks. This, from yogi Baba Hari Dass--I overheard him say it (someone was reading out what he wrote on a slate) at a retreat in 1974. This paranormal information is what's missing from the abortion debate. But nobody will pay any serious attention. I got a few sarcastic detractors, and there was one person who said, "Oh, there are things in physics, like the Conservation of Energy, which might point in this direction, and you shouldn't be so hard on him." In other words, even the person defending me was a Materialist and had no idea what I was saying. No less the others. Let me go back and quote one or two of them, if I can find the series of posts...
One of the less sarcastic ones said (after some discussion, with me trying to clarify): "it being possible doesn't prove that there are souls. We should treat life with the current evidence and explore from there. Not start with a conclusion, and search for evidence. Ever hear of researchers bias?" While one of the more sarcastic ones concluded, after I patiently tried to explain, "Okay, Stephen. Thanks for confirming you're just an idiot."
But one must not limit "current evidence" to what one can perceive with the five senses, only. Any physicist worth his or her salt will tell you that. And as for limiting the perception of "current evidence" to the intellect, only, who says that is the highest form of perception? Remember, scientists make their progress on the "backs of giants." But should not we, who explore higher types of knowing, not also stand on the backs of our giants? So when Jesus, or Buddha, or Krishna, tell us something they have perceived with the higher Mind, should I not start with that?
And to the matter of "researcher bias." Yes, I have heard of it. My entire study is constructed in such a way as to take it into consideration, and eliminate it where possible. Let me give you an example, and then I have to go to my caretaking duties, here.
In year 2003, after I releasd my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America," I was sent a series of interview questions, which I answered via e-mail (after meeting with the webmaster). This was two years before I learned of Mathew Franklin Whittier. One of the questions was whether I remembered any of my past lives, or knew of them. I answered from my own impressions at that time, and included a past life where I was peripherally connected to the Romantic Poets of the 19th century. Not one of the famous ones, I said, but in that crowd.
This interview is preserved on Archive.org's "Wayback Machine," online. So I could not have tampered with it.
I first discovered Mathew in mid-2005, on the Sara Orne Jewett Text Project Website. There, I could only see an etching of Mathew in his mid-40's, the name, that he was John Greenleaf Whittier's brother, and that he was an author. Period. That page has also been preserved on the Wayback Machine. My downloaded images of Mathew, from that time, have a computer date-stamp. My blog, in which I announce the discovery--this same blog, from 2005--is also preserved on the Wayback Machine.
Therefore, I can document when I first publicly said I thought I was peripherally connected, or in the intimate circle, of the Romantic Poets; and I can document when I first discovered Mathew, as well as exactly what I saw at the time. The instant I saw the eyes in that portrait, I felt very strongly that it was me. I had not been looking for such a person.* I was looking for a more recent lifetime as a woman on the West Coast. I felt I recognized the name, "Sarah Orne Jewett," and it was my friend, Jeff Keene, who sent me the link to Mathew's page, buried in the site.
I have, thus, eliminated researcher bias as strongly as I know how. If one concedes that my study proves I was, actually, Mathew in that past life, then, I felt it two years before I found it.
This was one of the three "proofs" that I presented to Dr. Jim Tucker, by e-mail, earlier this year, two of which he blithely dismissed (including this one). Of course, in this case, in order to see its validity, one would have to read the entire study. I made that caveat clear at the time.
But what you can see, from these reactions, is that these people don't even begin to take me seriously--because, apparently, they are literally incapable of correctly perceiving what I'm doing. No matter how patiently and thoroughly I try to explain it to them.
And so, apparently, is every person who has read this blog but not purchased my book. Because if a reader ever took me seriously, for half-a-half-a-half-a second, they would naturally want to immerse themselves in it. Maybe in a few decades, the 2-3 thousand people who are reading the "Johnston" case, will be as interested in my own case.
In the meantime, they are welcome to the article, with my compliments. (Credit for having rekeyed it, and a link to the home page, would be courteous.)
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*The skeptic could hypothesize a normal explanation, that I was invested in having been among the Romantic poets, and when I ran across John Greenleaf Whittier's brother, I latched onto him, knowing he would have been among them. It didn't happen that way; but in any case, just because someone is related to a famous person, doesn't mean they have the same circle of friends. But Mathew did move in the same circles, which I can prove. He moved in them as a sort of poor red-headed step-child--much as I move in reincarnation research circles, today. I have personally met Dr. Jim Tucker, Carol Bowman, and Jeff Keene, for example. I corresponded briefly with Dr. Stevenson regarding my documentary, and kept up an e-mail correspondence for some time with Bruce Joel Rubin, writer of "Ghost." I've interviewed, via telephone, other prominent persons in the field, and have been interviewed by Shirley Maclaine. I can't say that I know all these people as friends or colleagues, but most of them would probably recognize my name and remember me in connection with my documentary, if not my book. Mathew was the same way with the Romantic poets and writers--just as I sensed, from past-life memory, in year 2003. He was personal friends with Oliver Wendell Holmes, traveled on one occasion, apparently, with Henry David Thoreau, and reported on speeches by just about all the famous literati of the period. He also met personally with Victor Hugo in Paris, and with William Makepeace Thackeray and Samuel Rogers, in London. But he was not held in the same esteem as his famous brother, nor did he move as an equal in these circles, for the most part--though he deserved to. Thus, my 2003 statement was proven to a far greater extent, and depth, than what one might expect simply from Mathew being related to John Greenleaf Whittier. Billy Carter, so far as I know, didn't move in the same circles as Jimmy Carter, for example.
Audio for this page:
the sound of a skeptical mind slowly opening