Two days ago I announced I had a new project, that of creating a compilation of Mathew Franklin Whittier's poetry, along with that of his wife, Abby. It's done. All that's left is the proofreading, and perhaps a little judicious editing of the brief commentary following each poem.
Of course, all the work was done, in the sense that I already had all the poems digitized (some had to be reformatted), and the commentary was right at the tip of my fingers, after having immersed myself in this study for eight years. Specifically, I knew the precise back-story and context for each poem.
What exactly I'll do with this book--which now comes to 65 pages--is another matter. The work itself is excellent--but how many people appreciate poetry these days, or even know what it is? The stuff I hear on the PBS Newshour, by poet laureates and other rising stars, doesn't even strike me as being poetry, per se. It has its own place and its own value, but it isn't art, if art is an expression of the insight of the higher spheres, as I believe it to be. Poetry, real poetry, is an expression of a higher state of consciousness--not just, say, worldly wisdom, or intellectual reflection. Indeed, Mathew and Abby's poetry at times protested societal ignorance--but the question is, from what perspective? from what state of consciousness?
Yesterday was what I call "Bean Day" here at the house, which means that on Friday I leave the History Channel, with the Ancient Aliens series, running all day. I think they have amassed some compelling evidence for the existence of technologically advanced societies in pre-history. But all the aliens they posit could simply have come from human colonies on Mars or the moon. If an advanced society fell through genetic experimentation and nuclear destruction, say, there could have been a few who escaped. They might have attempted to re-seed the earth, and to guide humanity forward after that cataclysm. They may still be around. But none of this requires worm holes or aliens from other star systems. It is predicted in the Hindu scriptures, where we find four "yugas" or ages cycling up and down. That means our current age, the Kali Yuga, would have been preceded by the next-lowest age on the downward cycle. Those people would have had technology from the previous, higher age, but would not necessarily have the maturity to use it wisely. So these people are not to be worshipped by any means, or certainly, not all of them. At all times, there are much higher beings supervising mankind's affairs. So far from reaching too high, these theorists are reaching too low.
Bottom line, these folks read the Mahabarata and all they get out of it is that there were technologically advanced civilizations in the era it depicts. That's the least significant thing to glean from those writings. It's like going to a play, and the following day a friend asks you how you liked it. "Oh, the sets were magnificent!" "But how was the performance? " Performance? What performance?"
So sometimes I take umbrage at being ignored--50 guys with tin hats have been invited on Coast-to-Coast, while I have not, for example. But sometimes I sit back and feel grateful that I fly entirely under these peoples' radar. It's just as well. Not to be condescending, but really, I'm in college and they're in grade school.
My very first radio interview was with Shirley Maclaine. I kid you not. It's preserved on my archive page, which can be accessed from the home page of this website (search down for the radio tower icon). I can't remember how it came about--I think I contacted her people for some permission or other, and that person asked if I'd like to be on her internet radio program. I didn't completely agree with Shirley on one or two fine points of reincarnation theory (there are some mistaken notions popular in the New Age culture)--and in hindsight, I'm guessing she didn't appreciate it. She wasn't accustomed to anyone disagreeing with her on her own show.
Neither are any of these other people. If they did invite me on, they'd probably regret it.
This is what I mean by saying that I don't belong to the Mutual Admiration Society. Disagree substantially--and effectively--with any prominent person, and they will not give you a leg up. I am very tempted to give examples, with names and circumstances. It has happened quite a number of times since 1997, when I first entered (in my small way) the public reincarnation education arena. Victor Zammit, Prof. Chris Bache, and most recently, Dr. Jim Tucker, to name a few. They were in a position to promote my work, and to introduce me to the right people, but I disagreed with them, or my work offended them in some way, and they desisted. It is easy to write me off as another "tin hat"--but some of these people associate with and promote tin hats. Just not mine. (Tucker is another bird--he pretends to reject presentations because they are not scientifically rigorous, but he is really defending his turf the way every mainstream scientist defends his turf--in other words, he turns the same unfair skepticism with which his research is rejected, by mainstream scientists, against people like me who use other methods and come to other conclusions.)
I think it's a long-shot, but I will be curious to see whether this poetry book gets any kind of reception from publishers. I think I'll test the waters, anyway. Meanwhile, my online article about the possibility of continuing a soul-mate relationship across the Great Divide, after the death of one partner, got over 600 views just last month, alone. Grief is the great motivator--it was grief which drove mediums like John Edward to fame (i.e., that, and his abilities and talents as a medium). People are reading that article, but not buying my little e-book which describes my own cross-dimensional relationship with Abby. A few people avail themselves of the first two chapters, which I give away for free. But they are being exposed to the ideas. This is Abby's work--I am just the "man on the ground," for that.
I wrote Google regarding why this website has dropped off the map, on their search engine, for keyword "reincarnation," in the last few years. It used to be at the top of the second page, consistently, for a very long time. Then, I suppose, social media took over, they incorporated it into their algorithm, and also a great deal more competition arose online. Still, something seems fishy about it, to me. All of that should have pushed me back to page five or page ten--but it shouldn't have taken me off, altogether. I don't expect a response.
You may have noticed that Wikipedia is pushing hard for donations. But Wikipedia is notorious, among the advocates of paranormal studies, for skewing their pages in a skeptical direction. I won't donate a dime to them.
I wish there was an audience for this book of poetry. It is really, really good--and moreover, when you see the poems back-to-back like this, you get a very clear sense of Mathew's style, and of Abby's--despite the poems having been claimed by, and for, so many other writers. If you saw Mathew's poems together, you would understand just how plausible it is that he was the original author of "The Raven" (though I have not included it in the compilation); and if you read Abby's poetry, you would see just how plausible it is that she was the original co-author, with Mathew, of "A Christmas Carol."
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page from "Mr Magoo's Christmas Carol"