I'm taking a break from digitizing my past-life work for the 1834/35 New York "Transcript." My researcher will be going in to the historical library later today to try to figure out when he first started working for that paper, and to copy his work from that earliest period. But there is no question, at this point, that it was he. I'm even seeing fictitious town names, and favorite obscure words, being used here, that he will re-use later on in his career. You probably think these are generic, and I'm indulging in "magical thinking." The town name is "Bungtown" (used twice in his later works), and "sublunary," used three times in one series, and nine times, I think it was, by his flagship character, "Ethan Spike."
Yesterday, I caught a channel which airs mediums; I'd seen Theresa Caputo, the Long Island Medium, there before; now they had one that was new to me, Tyler Henry, the Hollywood Medium. I'm sorry, folks, both of these are genuine. And this fascinates me--commercial TV has found a way to "glitz" mediumship (which, traditionally, took place in Spiritualist churches, and in their public demonstrations)--but they are still using genuine mediums. With all the power of production and editing at their command, in other words, these producers have found it easier to use genuine mediums, than to try to fake it. Isn't that interesting? Faking it convincingly would cost far more than just turning a real medium loose on a subject. So instead of doing that, they simply located those mediums who would catch the public's imagination--like Theresa--or included a whole bunch of obscure or fading Hollywood stars.
When I went to look Tyler up, I went first to YouTube, and I found a debunking video, there. It seems that someone always creates a debunking video for each medium. I don't know whether this is an organized effort, or not, but I suspect it is sponsored, because the videos are too uniformly slick to have been produced by various cynical individuals. They are convincing enough for the ignorant masses, who want to be confirmed in their cynicism. They are extremely weak, however, in their logic.
Now, the lay sociologist in me kicks into gear. I did take a few courses in sociology, as an unofficial minor, but really, I can't claim any professional expertise in it. But since childhood, I have had the "sociologist's eye" of the outsider. So what fascinates me here, is, that the general population is getting this education in mediumship, and an unknown (but probably fairly large) percentage understand and accept it as being real. And yet, the Official Keepers of What Is Real have not publicly signed off on it; therefore, in this society, mediumship is officially bogus.
That means what is supposed to be real, in this society, is getting increasingly divorced from what the populace understands is actually real. How long can that go on--and what insidious effects does it have?
Now, I go back to my academic training in psychology. You may know that I hold an unused master's degree in Counseling and Human Systems from Florida State University. I used to ace most of my courses, except those having to do with math or statistics. I also pulled 10 hours of C's in an anatomy and physiology course, which I took in the Nursing department, to avoid dissecting monkeys--but that's another story. I had no chemistry background, don't have an eidetic memory, and was lucky to pull C's. But when it came to personality theory and the like, I aced the stuff.
What happens, in the mental and emotional life of an individual, when his or her official reality becomes widely disparate with his real, inner reality? Neurosis, and eventually, psychosis.
Our Materialistic society has been increasingly neurotic for some time; and now, it is becoming actually psychotic.
I don't think I need to illustrate this. If you are astute in matters sociological, you see it as clearly as I do. For example, the Water Protectors at Standing Rock were actually terrorists, our Arbiters of Reality tell us. And the police (who were actual police, not hired guns) were quite professional. It's an unfounded rumor that they used water cannons on old men and women in sub-freezing temperatures; and they were considerate enough to use only rubber bullets, not real ones.
Do you think that's reality?
Now, let me tell you that Materialism is every bit as phony; and that when you watch NOVA on PBS, you are watching rank propaganda.
So, mediumship is being demonstrated before the public at large. Something similar has been attempted with reincarnation several times, but it never "took." I, myself, was approached by a producer in California making one of these attempts, to be a consultant for them. Another show made it to a few episodes, and for awhile, you could watch them on Youtube. But then they were removed from Youtube, no explanation given.
The format was always the same in these shows--use hypnotic regression techniques on a person, and then attempt to confirm their stated memories through an exploration of the historical record. Of course, the results were nearly always "suggestive" rather than conclusive. A few episodes pooched over that line, and stood as real evidence for the memories being real.
At least one of the shows appeared, to me, to contain some degree of fakery, probably for dramatic effect. In that show, none of the participants ever had any memory of what they experienced under hypnosis. But in real life, I think that's rare. It is reserved for those people who go into a very, very deep trance; and even then, it may not always happen. When I underwent hypnotic regression, I was not an especially "good subject." I was only able to achieve a relatively light trance, and I remembered everything (I still do). Even so, some of my memories were verified historically. One of them forms the "triad" of my most strongly-confirmed memories.
It would seem that even in the paranormal field, reincarnation is the most vigorously suppressed. I don't know why that would be. Aliens, mediumship, and a host of other paranormal subjects get coverage, and they present a greater or lesser amount of verifying evidence. But reincarnation is rarely permitted to rise to the public consciousness. Occasionally it breaks through, as with the James Leininger case--only to be forgotten, through lack of official acknowledgment.
I was thinking of all of these strong mediums, whom one can see on television, and on YouTube. John Edward, Lisa Williams, Gordon Smith, and more. Not only that, they have good scientific studies backing them up.
I used two different mediums, to try to contact Mathew's first wife, Abby Poyen Whittier. Both were successful. Neither knew anything about her, but made about as many historically verified "hits" as one sees with the best mediums. But in particular, my second medium got Mathew's first name, and then trailed off with what sounded like the name of a town. I knew nothing about that town at the time, but I think the reason the medium trailed off like that, was because he actually worked out of a Spiritualist church not far away. He thought for sure he must be making it up. As it turned out, I found evidence that Mathew and Abby lived there for a few months.
For the skeptic, I checked all the normal explanations. I don't feel like going through them, now. The medium was given no clues; he only gave four names during the reading; there is only one town in the world with that name. I did verify beyond a reasonable doubt that Mathew and Abby had lived there. I didn't know it at the time of the reading (and hence, he wasn't reading my mind). That information is not available anywhere, so he couldn't have looked it up. He could, technically, have looked up Mathew's first name on my website--but he insisted he didn't, and he comes with good credentials and had, at last look, a flawless online feedback record.* He is certified by the Lily Dale psychic community. I e-mailed one of his colleagues, who vouched for his integrity. He made a number of hits which were later verified from the historical record. For example, hke spoke of Abby's "class," and her father was, in fact, a marquis. And so-on. He also went into great detail about her personality, which was later verified by references to her in his creative work, as well as by her own short stories and poems. He four times mentioned her intelligence--there is an obscure reference in the historical record indicating that her mother was "brilliant," and her written work makes it clear how intelligent she was.
The first medium I used made similar hits, quite a number of them. And she said, flat-out, that I was the reincarnation of Mathew. (She was given his etching, sans name, and told that I thought I was his reincarnation.)
So if you accept that the mediums you see on TV and YouTube (i.e., the best ones) are genuine, is there any particular reason you would doubt that I am the reincarnation of Mathew Franklin Whittier, even just on the strength of mediumship? And if not--such that the automatic knee-jerk response that my case couldn't be true (or is too good to be true) is now set aside--wouldn't it, logically, at least merit further investigation?
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*His answer, being clearly somewhat annoyed at the suggestion he might have cheated, was that he "doesn't have time" to look people up. I tend to believe him, not only based on his credentials and perceived integrity, but because when I first spoke to him on the phone, he had forgotten who I was. He said, "Oh, you're the one with the unusual request." So if he didn't even remember me, it's unlikely he had gone to the trouble of looking me up.
Music opening this page: "Stand" by REM,
from the album "Green"