Please enjoy another article that is very well written by David Almeida. Please check out his bio at the end of the post. Once again, Mr. Almeida has kindly given me permission to share this with you. Thanks, David!
_________________________________________
A person can easily say that mediumship is foolishness (I guess that sort of gives away my position on the matter). It is my policy to report on my personal experiences in the “It’s what you actually saw, not what you think you saw” manner. (Please note this remark is directed towards events that occur in the physical environment such as shadow people or hauntings). I’m not certain if I have always stuck to this policy in my past writings. With the supernatural, as with any topic whether it be politics, economics, or entertainment, people’s opinions naturally enter the discussion. This article clearly demonstrates that fact.
When an unbeliever is personally touched by the spirit world, their attitude often changes. It’s like the people that we see on the Long Island Medium television show who receive spirit messages through Theresa Caputo. We see the client exclaim in similar words “Wow. How could she know that about me?”
Being a spiritualist I can relate to this kind of wonderment. It startles the person receiving a reading when a medium says something of a personal nature that could not possibly be known to him or her. The first time I had a half hour session with the pastor of my former Spiritualist church, she made a statement that amazed me. The pastor said, “You are into concepts.” She barely knew me at the time. This was during the time that I was writing The First Truth: A Book of Metaphysical Theories.
While anyone can say that my pastor’s concept remark was coincidence, I find it interesting that she could have said just about anything concerning my character. I believe it was during this session that I inquired with her about my suspicions regarding the Arthur Waite. This question came from her mention of the name Arthur in a previous session and my realization of his connection to me. She positively confirmed his identity, by asking me if this Arthur person swayed back and forth between good and bad. This piece of information was among the few facts that I knew about him at the time. Many people may find this sufficient evidence for what might be considered a grandiose claim, but it is consistent with several other experiences I have had with Mr. Waite. I have discussed these experiences in other articles.
I am extremely careful in writing down my thoughts. When I reduce my thoughts to writing, I intend to stand by it. If I later find myself wrong about a particular statement I have written, or I discover a conflict with one of my theories, I am obliged to acknowledge my error. In such a situation, all I can say is those famous last words “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” While I am prepared to leave my ideas open to debate, I am duty-bound to defend my ideas. Otherwise, there would be no point in sharing my articles with curious readers on the Internet. Any theory can be refuted, no matter how well supported and officially endorsed they are.
I have seen the search results on Google that claim Theresa Caputo is a fake. I did not venture onto any of these websites. I have never met Mrs. Caputo, so I cannot personally attest to her mediumship ability. However, I’m not sure that the show would air if the producers thought her spirit messages were bogus. That revelation would reflect terribly on everyone involved in producing the show. I know people will do anything for money, but even so, it’s seems to me that no one would risk their reputation on a faker. Putting your career on the line for a hoax is risky. I would never knowingly associate myself with anything I recognized as a sham.
I want to state for the record that a certain amount of skepticism is healthy and necessary in evaluating supernatural phenomena. It goes without saying that one should not take everything he or she hears as the irrefutable truth. In that regard, I consider myself to be a true skeptic, despite my feelings towards spirit communication and metaphysics. My observations and conclusions are reliable when it comes to documenting what actually occurred in a particular situation.
I have to admit that the practice objectivity is challenging when dealing with the supernatural. Objectivity tends to be of little use in assessing spiritual or mystical experiences. These are the kind of experiences that are labeled hallucinations and dreams by the skeptics. If my statements in this article seem contradictory, then you are beginning to understand the deceptive and limited nature of objectivity.
I am not saying it’s impossible for Mrs. Caputo to be faking her talent. Having seen her show a number of times, I feel it is reasonable to believe her mediumship ability is genuine. Many people would agree with my opinion. Again a large number of people giving approval to a supernatural event, or to any situation, does not necessarily mean it is true. However, the people I am referring to have first-hand knowledge of Mrs. Caputo’s mediumship ability. If one chooses to disregard their personal testimony, then I do not know what to say.
Quite often the professed skeptics are nothing more than perpetuators of conspiracy theories. I am thinking of the misinformed groups who continue to link the legendary Illuminati to various world domination conspiracies. I fell for this nonsense in my early twenties. I have out grown them since that time. I like to be flexible in considering other people’s beliefs, but having followed many conspiracy theories in my younger days, I am of the opinion that the majority of these overblown rumors are unfounded. There may be some truth to a few of these theories, but it’s hard to determine which parts are factual.
I could come up with many plausible reasons for why Mrs. Caputo and many other mediums are frauds. By continuing in this manner, I would be doing a disservice to my readers. Humans are meant to reach out to the hidden universe in search of new ideas and information. I do not understand why some individuals feel the need to resist spiritual growth. If we protect the status quo, we are only hurting ourselves. The Truth will never be uncovered by thoughtlessly convincing people to maintain the notion of a closed universe.
Spiritualist mediums go through training. After this, they spend what I believe is a year or two as student mediums. They ply their skills once a month by giving readings to church attendees. At some point, the student’s mediumship skills are tested for accuracy by an independent certifying board. I have met some remarkable student mediums.
Am I of the opinion that all mediums are equal in their ability to communicate spirit messages? Of course not. Many mediums maintain an outstanding track record, while others have moderate success in their readings. The disparity in accuracy between mediums can be wide. It’s important to remember that the medium is reliant on unknown entities for their information. There is no known system for getting consistent results. Even the best mediums can have an off day through no fault of their own. I should also acknowledge the fact that there are excellent mediums who are not certified by any Spiritualist church.
Interestingly, I have noticed that few mediums in the Spiritualist tradition make future predictions. It confirms my suspicion that common spirits are no more capable of predicting the future than living beings. I liken future predictions to the principle of cause and effect. This universal law is responsible for the infinite possibilities that exist as our future realities. Some of these “alternate realities” become future probabilities. Both spirits and mediums are able to perceive the probable future. This does not mean that a particular probability will unfold in the present.
Based my personal experience with mediums, I am convinced that spirit communication is a reality. A close-minded person will never acknowledge the truth. No matter what a medium says to the skeptic, he or she is more than likely to deny the accuracy of the message given. I do not feel the statement of an absolute skeptic is a reliable measure of a medium’s competence. The assessment of reasonable and balanced person is much more useful in gaging a medium’s ability.
As a side discussion, I would like to make a brief comment on the paranormal investigator. These special investigators are helpful in substantiating or disproving a supernatural claim. By their nature, paranormal investigators are inclined to believe in the supernatural. Otherwise, they would not be interested in pursuing the unexplained. As I already stated, I feel that this open-mindedness is an excellent quality for an investigator to possess. Paranormal investigators minimize their natural curiosity with reasonableness and sensibility. They look for “proof” or “evidence” of supernatural manifestations by using modern technology.
I once requested the assistance of a paranormal investigation group to document the existence of supernatural activity in my former residence. This was more than ten years ago and took place before I became acutely aware of nonphysical reality. The investigators did not obtain the evidence I was seeking, but I was impressed with their professionalism.
Bio
David Almeida is a Spiritualist and researcher of Rosicrucian philosophy and esoteric knowledge. David is a past article contributor to the Sedona Journal of Emergence. He is also a Board Certified Hypnotist and Reiki healer. David is the author of The First Truth: A Book of Metaphysical Theories and Illusion of the Body: Introducing the Body Alive Principle. Both books can be purchased at Amazon.com. Visit http://www.findyourdivinelight.com
You Might Also Like:
How to Evaluate the Authenticity of an Observer’s Supernatural Encounter (Big Séance)
Sylvia Browne: In her own words (Big Séance)
Sylvia Browne: Are members of the “spiritual community” turning on her? (Big Séance)
How to Evaluate the Authenticity of an Observer’s Supernatural Encounter
Tonight I wanted to share an article written by David Almeida, a fascinating person who I’ve had the great opportunity to chat with online recently. You can catch his bio at the end of the post. After some discussion, he directed me to this article. He has kindly given me permission to share it with you. It just happens to fit in with discussion I’ve had with a few of you in the comments to some recent posts. Thanks, David!
_________________________________________
I wrote this article to address the use of objectivity in evaluating a witness’s account of a supernatural event. In a sense, almost all of our judgments are based on our experiences. They may also be grounded (in part) in what other people have told us about the world. For example, there are endless degradations of color and sound. If a person says “The apple is red.” What shade of red is it? For this reason, I believe that an objective statement can be construed as opinion.
This article is only addressing certain kinds of paranormal experiences such as hauntings and physical paranormal manifestations. It’s difficult to assess out of body experiences and other psychic or mental occurrences using this method.
Before asking the reporter (observer or witness) a slew of questions, I let the person tell his or her story with minimal interruption. Constantly breaking into the reporter’s story can lead the person losing his or her thoughts, which can result in the unintentional omission of important details. A witness will typically give the investigator all of the answers he or she requires during the interview process. In fact, I’ve found that most witnesses give more information than they need to.
If the investigator chooses to use this interview method, it’s essential to ask the reporter to start at the beginning of the story and guide him or her through it. You have to keep the reporter focused. A person will often become excited and jump all over the place while relating his or her story. This leads to confusion and pertinent details may be inadvertently skipped over.
It’s advisable that the investigator ask the reporter to use descriptive (objective) words to relate the experience. You don’t want the reporter making subjective statements like “The shadow person was big, bad and scary. That description doesn’t help anyone, although the investigator may want to get the observer’s impressions at the end of the interview.
A person may describe a flower as beautiful. Everybody has their own conception of a beautiful flower. It would be better for the person say “I saw a flower.” It is helpful if the person can identify the type of flower. “It was a rose.” If that is not possible, the person should describe the qualities of the flower.
Whether the investigator is interviewing a witness to a crime or conducting a paranormal investigation, the interviewer will find information that appears false or contradictory. These discrepancies need to be clarified before the interview is completed. An investigator might ask questions such as the ones that follow if the reporter has not provided this information in his or her statement:
How long did the incident last? “I saw it for about two seconds.
How far away were you? “I was ten feet away?”
What did it look like? “The thing was approximately six feet tall. It had a round head and a broad boxy build. It looked like a dark shadow. It made no sound, and it moved quickly” Etcetera.
“Where did you see it?” “I was in bed sleeping, and I saw it in the doorway”
“When did you see it?” “It was last Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at midnight.”
Some other questions you might ask would be:
Are you taking any medications or illegal substances?
Do you have a medical condition?
Have you been sick recently?
What is your opinion of the supernatural? The answer to this question is significant to the investigation. The reporter may say “I feel that the Exorcist was the best movie ever made!”
Have you ever had a paranormal experience? Here again, the answer is important. “I am visited by the shadow people at least twice a week.” “When the moon is full we have a party.” I’m just kidding.
I have learned through personal experience that when two or more witnesses to a crime describe a suspect, each witness will provide a different description. That’s why we have lawyers and jury trials in this country. Does anyone remember the movie, My Cousin Vinny? It’s essential to get to the bottom of things and determine what happened. It does little good to tell someone that you saw a ghost without elaborating on the event in a rational manner.
On the other hand, it’s difficult to describe something that a person has never seen. I saw something in an out of body experience once that I cannot describe at all. It’s hard enough to describe an out of body experience. It’s easy for a skeptic to say that I was just dreaming. When we listen to these stories we have to keep an open mind. I can tell a person that I observed my body from outside of myself while it lay sleeping. Once again that’s easy to refute. If five million people have had a similar experience, does that mean it is true? Maybe not. Most people also dream. Hundreds of thousands of people thought that the Earth was flat at one time (I realize this is a widely used example). Are there really shadow people, or is this phenomenon a mass hallucination? Maybe people want to believe in it, so they conveniently see it.
In my own mind, I can confidently state that the shadow people exist. I had no prior knowledge of shadow people when I observed it. Not to mention that two people saw it at the same time. Does that fact change things? I don’t know. It may make the event more credible. If I could have caught the thing in a net for scientists to examine, that would have made the encounter much more conclusive. Unfortunately, such events rarely have such an outcome.
Explaining a metaphysical theory is different from a scientific theory in that researchers are using known scientific principles. It’s difficult to positively answer a metaphysical and philosophical question such as: “What is consciousness?” We only know that consciousness exists by the fact we that we are animated beings, who have an awareness of our existence. Then again, I’m not a proponent of the big bang theory (I don’t mean the TV show). I feel that this theory has no more basis in fact than some of my own theories. I say this with the understanding that scientists claim that they have reasonable evidence to support their theory. I am more inclined to accept the unfashionable steady state theory of the universe, which states that the universe is continuously expanding.
I claim that Arthur Edward Waite contributed to my theories. Is that reasonable statement? It depends on who you ask. The six or seven mediums who evidently communicated with him might lend their support to my claim. If a person does not believe in mediumship, then what I say about A.E. Waite would be of little value to him or her. A metaphysical theory is one of those things that a person accepts because it strikes a chord in his or her inner being. Such theories typically have insufficient (if any) evidence to lean on. This does not mean that the theories are devoid of truth. It’s just that humans have not discovered the necessary tools to conduct a proper examination of these advanced theories. Metaphysical theories generally involve arcane mystical principles, unknown energies, and references to strange dimensional locales that we cannot verify using modern scientific protocol. That day will come.
Bio
Share this:
Like this:
8 Comments | tags: big seance, david almeida, ghost hunters, how to evaluate the authenticity of an observers supernatural encounter, limitations of objectivity, objective statements, objective witness statements, objectivity, objectivity in witness statements, objectivity in witness testimony, paranormal, paranormal evidence, paranormal experiences, paranormal investigations, paranormal investigative interviewing, paranormal investigators, paranormal research, paranormal researchers, paranormal witness, paranormal witnesses, physical phenomena, psychic investigation, psychic investigators, psychic phenomena, psychic research, science, seance, spirit communication, spiritual, spiritualism, spiritualist, supernatural encounters, supernatural investigations, supernatural investigators, supernatural research, supernatural researcher, supernatural witnesses, the limitations of objective statements | posted in Paranormal Evidence, Paranormal Investigation Topics, Skeptics, Spirit Communication, Topics Inspired by Blog Comments