I think my previous entry was an especially good one; but there is no particular point in leaving it current. They are there in the Archives (link at the bottom of the page) for anyone interesting. I know that people do poke around in the archives, because it occasionally reflects in my stats, especially at the beginning of a month when it shows up within the top 30.
I find myself truly and completely caught up with this project, pending one more research expedition to a historical library, and I'm very much at loose ends. Eight years of daily investigation into this past-life match has become a way of life, and really-speaking, a major part of my identity. Giving it up, without any apparent success, is very much the same experience as giving up my erstwhile video production business. But that former endeavor yielded my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America," which perchance may be appreciated (despite its extremely low budget), by people of the future; and so may this effort.
Yesterday, during my lunch break, I was watching segments of the British show, "Have I Been Here Before"? Many of them appear to be posted on YouTube, now. The formula, if you aren't familiar with it, is that a celebrity is given a hypnotic past-life regression, and then a researcher investigates the facts which emerged for their historical plausbility. A skeptic always has his opportunity to pronounce it all imagination, because in England, they are require to be there, by law. Unfortunately, the skeptics are...how shall I put this...their objections are baseless, and therefore they hardly bring the balance via "equal time" that the law intends. It would be like airing a show about the development of aircraft, and requiring by law a skeptic who insists that manned flight is impossible. Reincarnation is a done deal--it is Society's backwardness which refuses to admit that it is proven, by this time, to be an actual phenomenon.
In most of the episodes of this show that I've watched, perhaps four or five points that came up in the regression are verified to a certain degree of plausibility. One or two went beyond that, but no particular notice was taken of it. The entire presentation is "It's up to you whether you choose to believe, or not." But that's nonsense. To continue with our former analogy, suppose you show someone a piece of a propeller and a piece of the fuselage of an early airplane, plus a photograph of it in the air. Given this evidence, it is up to the person to decide whether or not they believe in manned flight. The propeller could have been carved by someone; the fuselage could be part of an old refrigerator; the photograph could have been doctored.
But if you looked at all the evidence for manned flight, you couldn't logically call it a matter of personal belief. It's a done deal. We already know there is such a thing as manned flight, and we know when it was first developed. Therefore, the rational question becomes, not whether manned flight actually developed, but only whether these particular artifacts are genuine.
The same thing holds true for these cases. Just because they don't give you enough evidence to be sure that they are real past-life memories, of an actual past incarnation, does not bring reincarnation itself into question. In other words, the entire premise of the show is a slight-of-hand trick.
My study is different. I didn't just have one hypnotic regression session--I had two, and then a third later on for the purpose of garnering more clues. I also had two psychic readings, with two different genuine psychic mediums. Then, I carefully documented my own past-life impressions, which came up when I was exposed to new information about my past life as Mathew Franklin Whittier. I didn't just delve into the historical record for a week or two, as in this TV show; I delived into it for a full eight years, using the internet, Ebay, and historical libraries. I don't just have three, or four, or five key memories to verify--I have well over a hundred. These range from strong to weak, in terms of their potential to be proven. But my strongest are, perhaps, even stronger than the best which came up in this TV show. When I say "best," I mean that they are unique, specific, and immune from the skeptical objection of "cryptomnesia" (false memories). That means I could not have ever seen the information before by normal means (like in a film or a book) and forgotten it. The historical facts are not available to the general public, being tucked away in obscure 19th-century periodicals; and they were not associated with Mathew Franklin Whittier, because he wrote using pseudonyms.
In other words, where this show scratches the surface, and tantalizes the viewer, my study clinches it with eight years of hard work.
It sounds like a tedious read, at over 2,000 pages. It isn't, if you're open-minded--in fact, personally I think it's immensely entertaining. I was reading the comments posted below some of these YouTube videos. They range from skeptical to open-minded, of course. The skeptics are manifestly ignorant; the open-minded sound better-educated. This should tell you something. If reincarnation were nonsense, it should be the other way-round. The educated people should be dismissing it, while the ignorant people should be embracing it.
Let me find a few of these comments...
I tried to watch this seriously but the therapists voice made me laugh.
Why does the therapist sounds so smashed?
Despite the fact that the authors of these comments evidently can't write proper English, there is some basis for these two comments. The producers chose a therapist who is a sort of a "good witch of the North" type--beautiful, New-Ageish, and who speaks in a sing-song voice. But she knows her stuff for all that.
Look at that little clown at 1:00... Looks like he has a boner and is giving the camera a thumbs up ha ha
I didn't actually go back and check at 1:00. This is John Barrowman, who I'm not familiar with, but apparently he is famous in Great Britain. What I did notice is his sincerity in reporting his experience of remembering being a clown in a family circus act. I have been under hypnosis, and I know from first-hand experience how a detail about the past life suddenly comes to you. Here, he is laughing (and it is very difficult, even for an actor, to fake a belly-laugh), when he suddenly realizes the context and reason for his being a clown in this family trapeze act--he is supposed to distract the audience if there is an accident, as his parents are working without a net. In my estimation, this is genuine past-life memory experienced under hypnosis.
I really wasn't looking for a boner. This illustrates the principle that you see what you are prepared to see, according to what is important to you.
Maybe one more...I'm not going to cherry-pick, I'll take the next one in line...
I whatched the video a few times before and the name Nostrovich made me thing of vampires. I just realize why
It is understandable to make a typo or two when typing into a comments field, but here we have two in one sentence, and no period after the second sentence. We also have someone whose mind tends--not to boners, this time, but to vampires, which gives us some idea of what kind of TV he ususally watches. I don't know about the last name. Names are particularly difficult to get under hypnosis, because you are "seeing" through the subconscious mind, which primarily works through emotional impressions. This is why I have reported dozens and dozens of past-life emotional impressions in my own study, and only a relative handful of cognitive memories. I could explain this to the person commenting, but I think I would be "wasting my sweetness on the desert air," as Mathew was fond of quoting.
In short, it would seem that it takes lifetimes of experience to even get to the point that one is open-minded about the subject of reincarnation. One can have the evidence pushed directly in front of one's nose, and what does one's mind think of? Boners and vampires.
I rest my case.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Audio opening this page: Excerpt from the "Bridey Murphy" regressions