This is the beginning of a series of posts about the afterlife, and the scientific evidence that exists to substantiate this. My pursuit to find the truth of the afterlife became a journey of self-discovery. I found the Scientists themselves were just as curious as I was. My questions emerged from an inner awareness that counseled me and delivered answers. What was I interacting with? Just intuition? An intelligence, other than mine, would deliver an answer to me. There should be no misunderstanding, my experiences were not a priori experiences; where something is known, therefore, it is a foregone conclusion.

Research and study

The subject of the afterlife is surrounded by superstition and prejudice. Another consideration is the source of information and its credibility. Too often, the spokesperson has a predisposed attitude. It is not possible to prove every case of contact with the afterlife with empirical satisfaction.

The afterlife is one of the oldest subjects known to us. There is not a culture in the world that does not have some sort of belief system that tells you what happens when you go from this world into the other world.

It is wrong to suppose that all contact with spirit is strange or problematical. Spirits, and especially evolved spirits, have been communicating with humanity for centuries. Why does the spirit return to prove its existence? The answer is surprising; it is to further your knowledge of life and its meaning. If we interact with the spirit world, when there is genuine, evidential contact, we are presented with a challenge. On the one hand, we do not want to admit the existence of the spirit, and on the other hand, we must consider the evidence, then realize the existence of the spirit.

In spite of all the evidence of spirit communication, there is still abject denial, vitriolic criticism and less than adequate evaluation.  There is an obvious intelligence during the communication from spirit, too many people have had moving experiences they cannot deny, neither should they be forced to deny their experience. At some time, someone we know passes into the afterlife. Where is the place they now exist in; is it in the ether, the atmosphere all around us?

Finding an originating thread through fragmented history is impossible. History is riddled with opposing translations and differing opinions. What then is the deciding factor of the afterlife? Another surprising answer; personal experience is the undeniable testimony. Sir Francis Bacon originated this concept when he wrote, “Your experience is your authority.” This promotes individuality and is a departure from a collective or subscribed belief. Naturally this made Bacon unpopular in his time (1561-1626).

In our time, in the advancement of the New Age, this idea is gaining new prominence.  Incidentally, Bacon’s idea was not at all popular in the early part of the twentieth century. Today we are less vulnerable with access to more information, the independent thinking individual is on the rise. We have long since departed from a religious institution as the only source of information in a village. At least in some parts of the world this is true.

The scientific aspect

Science cannot answer every question and neither can it capture the spirit in a test tube and analyze it to our satisfaction. There were experiments done in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century that clearly point to real evidence of spirit manifestation and contact. The mind of a scientist when confronted by something unknown does what we all do, examines the question thoroughly, and through the process of inductive reasoning, concludes.

In my research I came across four Scientists that I admire for their courage and tenacity in documenting their work. No matter how controversial the subject is, the fact is, I am my own authority upon my experiences. I cannot allow others to think for me and tell me what I experience is true or not true.

Can we deny the Scientists their experiences? They were also face to face with the spirit. Their experience is their authority for what they say. We respect their opinion because they  examine the question more objectively. Yet it is obvious from their writing they too grappled with the questions. We forget the Scientist is a human being, pursuing the question from their perspective. Not all Scientists agree with each other.

We should not place the Scientist in a position to think for us. We can only come to conclusions based on what we learn through the process of inductive reasoning when considering the hypothesis of, in this case, spirit return.