I dont know a lot how value added taxes work but I know many other developed countries use that a lot more than we do. Which affects even lower income people. I know I dont like the idea of an income tax on below average income but a property tax or value added tax or some sort of sales tax could work where they are only taxed for participating in the economy and not just for trying to survive
Fair enough id agree that below average incomes should ve taxed more
But disagreeing with the way its done by no means justifies borrowing and bankrupting the country to throw money at the rich. The fact still remains that we became prosperous as a country with higher taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class, but Republicans reversed that and are primarily responsible for bankrupting us
That's a fair point. But in a land of excess wealth it shouldn't be the poor and below average who foot the bill plus welfare shouldn't be attacked from poor people in a land of wealth. You might say poor people can earn more and might be true on an individual level but its pretty the case that no matter effort half the population will be poor or with next to nothing. Plus its still idiotic to bankrupt the country just cause you dont agree with taxes just so the rich can have more money
What prophecies are you referring?
We dont need ai to do my math. Just look at what we spend, subtract ten or fifteen percent. Look at income tax revenue, add fifteen or ten percent to it. Look at assets of the top one percent, add a percent or two on top. Its all basic math
Social security is limited to payroll revenue. If payroll revenue is inadequate, everyones social security check gets cut enough to compensate
From what im seeing, taxes could be ten percent of what they are now and you'd still get your panties in a wad about private property and such concerning tax increases. Your words say way more about your biases than anything objective about the state of our taxation.
Even without a wealth tax the deficit can be gotten taken care of by increasing taxes by 15 or 33 percent and doing a likewise decrease in spending by the same amounts. That'd take the average person's average tax rate from the current 20 percent to either 23 or 27 percent respectively. Basically a 3 percent tax or 7 percent tax. Because implementing a 7 percent effective tax is way less scary sounding than increasing taxes 33 percent.
No, the sky is not falling
My example is that all im advocating for is a ten percent increase in existing taxes and a ten percent decrease in spending and a two percent wealth tax above 10 million in assets. Ai is saying thats enough to balance the budget, though just doing 1 percent instead of two is enough to get the deficit under control.
You have a Lotta pie in the sky and the sky is falling rhetoric for something so modest. Maybe just maybe ya alls ideological beefs dont amount to much when dealing with practical reality.
Are there goon socialists and democrats? Yes. Are there goon libertarians and Republicans? Yes. But aside from getting your panties in a wad philosophically, there are plenty of pragmatic ways forward that are both sane and balanced.
All im advocating for is a ten percent increase in existing taxes and a ten percent decrease in spending and a two percent eealth tax above 10 million in assets. Ai is saying thats enough to balance the budget, though just doing 1 percent instead of two is enough to get the deficit under control.
You have a Lotta pie in the sky and the sky is falling rhetoric for something so modest. Maybe just maybe ya alls ideological beefs dont amount to much when dealing with practical reality.
Are there goon socialists and democrats? Yes. Are there goon libertarians and Republicans? Yes. But aside from getting your panties in a wad philosophically, there are plenty of pragmatic ways forward that are sane and balanced.
Ive done these analysis before. All the usa needs to do is a little bit of everything approach. Cut spending 10 percent increase current taxes 10 percent. Implement wealth taxes of a couple percent. There are countless options considering total income in the usa is over 50 trillion and total wealth is over 160 trillion.
Beyond that you do nothing to refute tje fact that taxes historically were higher on the wealthy and the put the tax burden more on middle class and that its idiotic to borrow agaisnt our kids to make an unmanageable debt
Yes. If you mean the Sullivan, Sartori, Paquette, and Cook–Greyson–Stevenson cases we were discussing, here are the primary or closest scholarly citations.
Cook, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1998).
“Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(3), 377–406.
This is particularly important because the Sullivan case is discussed in the paper itself. The authors describe the combination of enhanced mentation, OBE/autoscopy, and apparently paranormal perception that makes the case relevant to survival research.
There is also a later source specifically documenting the corroboration:
Rivas, T. (2009). “Uitspraken van Hiroyoshi Takata over de casus van Al Sullivan” [“Statements made by Hiroyoshi Takata about the Al Sullivan case”]. Terugkeer, 20(3), 22.
And:
Rivas, T., & Dirven, A. (2010). Van en naar het Licht [From and to the Light]. Leeuwarden, Netherlands: Uitgeverij Elikser.
Important qualification: Sullivan is a good case, but it is not a prospectively recorded case with physiological timestamps and contemporaneous documentation. The strongest part is the apparently unusual description of surgeon Hiroyoshi Takata's distinctive arm movements, subsequently confirmed by Takata.
Sartori, P., Badham, P., & Fenwick, P. (2006).
“A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing.” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 25(2), 69–84.
DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2006-25-2-p69-84.
This is probably the single citation you most want for the Sartori patient we discussed. It is explicitly described as a prospectively studied NDE with corroborated OBE perceptions, occurring in an intensive-therapy setting.
There was also a subsequent response to criticism:
Sartori, P. (2013).
“Response to ‘Critique of A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing.’” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 32(1), 15–36.
DOI: 10.17514/jnds-2013-32-1-p15-36.
That follow-up is worth reading because it shows that the original case has been actively criticized and defended, rather than simply accepted uncritically.
Paquette, A. (2012).
“NDE Implications from a Group of Spontaneous Long Distance Veridical OBEs.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26(4), 791–824.
This is the citation for the 92 cases I mentioned.
Paquette reported that his database contained thousands of dream/OBE records and identified 92 OBEs judged veridical, with the accounts generally having been written down immediately after the experience and then compared with witnesses or subsequent information.
But there's an important distinction from Sartori: these are spontaneous OBE reports, not controlled prospective NDE observations during medically documented cardiac arrest. So they're useful as a large body of corroborated cases, but they're methodologically different.
Cook, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1998).
“Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(3), 377–406.
This is an especially important paper for what you've been asking about because it doesn't merely present one famous anecdote. It identifies three potentially evidential features:
They then examine 14 cases containing combinations of these features. The authors themselves are quite cautious: they explicitly acknowledge deficiencies in the recording and investigation of most of the cases.
The full paper is available from the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and is also indexed in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Ring, K., & Lawrence, M. (1993).
“Further Evidence for Veridical Perception During Near-Death Experiences.” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11(4), 223–229.
This is another useful primary source. The authors specifically present three cases of OBE perception that they regarded as corroborated, while explicitly acknowledging that many alleged veridical NDE perceptions are poorly documented.
Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1999–2000).
“Can Experiences Near Death Furnish Evidence of Life after Death?” Omega, 40(4), 513–519.
DOI: 10.2190/KNTM-6R07-LTVT-MC6K.
This is particularly relevant to your criterion of independently verified perceptions. They discuss enhanced cognition during severe physiological impairment, OBEs, and perception of remote events inaccessible to ordinary senses, including cases in which other people subsequently verified what was perceived.
I'd put these at the top of your reading list:
Case/source Why it matters Sartori, Badham & Fenwick 2006Prospective clinical investigation + corroborated OBECook, Greyson & Stevenson 1998Major scholarly examination of multiple veridical NDE casesRing & Lawrence 1993Three specifically investigated/corroborated casesKelly, Greyson & Stevenson 1999/2000Remote perceptions independently verifiedPaquette 201292 veridical long-distance OBE casesSullivan / Cook et al. + RivasParticularly interesting anesthesia/medical-procedure case with surgeon corroborationAnd I'd distinguish these from Pam Reynolds, Maria's tennis-shoe case, etc., because those have substantially different evidential histories and degrees of controversy.
If your standard is specifically “the person was demonstrably physiologically incapable of ordinary perception at the relevant time + the perception was independently verified + the timing can be reasonably constrained,” then **Sartori and the best cases in Cook/Greyson/Stevenson are much more relevant to your argument than simply compiling famous NDE stories.**
Well after looking closer theres not as strong of smoking guns as I had assumed, so i have to fall back on the repeated nature of the anecdotes and on each case recognize the most the only way to discredit them is to assume things are not as they appear
If we rank cases by the criteria:
Independent corroboration by medical staff
Specific, unexpected details
Good physiological documentation
Prospective or near-contemporaneous investigation
Multiple verified perceptions rather than a single hit
then only a handful of cases consistently rise to the top.
1. Pam Reynolds (1991) — strongest physiological documentation
Why it is strong:
Underwent deep hypothermic cardiac arrest ("standstill")
Body cooled to ~60°F (15.5°C)
Heart stopped
Blood drained from head
EEG flat
Brainstem auditory responses absent
Eyes taped shut
Ear speakers emitting loud clicks
Reported perceptions:
Unusual bone saw resembling an electric toothbrush
Particular drill bit case
Conversation about her arteries
These details were confirmed by the surgical team. However, critics note that some perceptions may have occurred before complete standstill, when residual brain activity remained possible. Thus the case is extremely important but not completely immune to alternative explanations.
2. Penny Sartori's ICU Patient ("Pink Lollipop" Case)
This case is especially valuable because it was documented by the bedside nurse herself, Dr. Penny Sartori, during a prospective study.
Verified details:
Identification of an unfamiliar physician
Description of a long suction catheter and pink sponge as a "pink lollipop"
Accurate report of a physiotherapist nervously peeking around curtains
Approximate recall of physician remarks
Importantly, Sartori compared NDE patients with non-NDE patients:
NDE patients often gave strikingly accurate reports.
Controls who merely guessed resuscitation details were usually wrong.
That comparison makes this stronger than isolated anecdotes.
3. The Dentures Case (van Lommel Study)
This is one of the best-known prospective cases.
A Dutch patient underwent cardiac arrest and was deeply unconscious. During resuscitation:
A nurse removed his dentures and placed them in a drawer.
Days later, after recovery, the patient:
Recognized the nurse
Correctly identified him as the person who removed the dentures
Knew where they had been placed
This case is important because it was reported by the nurse himself in a prospective study rather than years later.
4. AWARE I Study (Parnia et al.)
This is the strongest modern prospective study.
2,060 cardiac arrests
Multiple hospitals
Hidden targets installed
Standardized interviews
One patient accurately described:
Defibrillation procedures
Staff actions
Sounds and events during approximately three minutes of cardiac arrest
The hidden targets were not seen, but the auditory details matched medical records. This is important because it occurred in a controlled scientific study rather than a retrospective collection of stories.
5. Al Sullivan
You already know this one:
Verified:
Unusual elbow-flapping gestures
Eyes taped
Drape blocking view
Independent confirmation from cardiologist and surgeon
Strong, but fewer verified details than Sartori or Reynolds.
6. Blind NDE Cases (e.g., Vicki Umipeg)
Some congenitally blind individuals report:
Visual descriptions
Colors
Spatial layouts
These are philosophically fascinating because such people have never had normal visual experience. However, many cases rely on interviews rather than extensive hospital documentation, so they are intriguing but generally weaker evidentially than Reynolds or Sartori.
My evidence ranking
Tier Cases Strength
A
Pam Reynolds, AWARE case, Sartori patient
Best combination of medical documentation and verification
B
Dentures case, Al Sullivan
Strong corroboration but fewer data points
C
Maria's shoe, blind NDEs
Interesting but less rigorous documentation
The central problem in this field is that the cases with the best physiology (Reynolds) are criticized on timing grounds, while the cases with the best veridical perceptions (Sartori, dentures, Sullivan) lack exact second-by-second brain monitoring.
That is why many researchers—both sympathetic and skeptical—say that no single case is decisive, but the cumulative pattern across many independently investigated cases is what keeps the question scientifically alive.
You guys keep making that point and it keeps being illogical. Just because obes can be induced or made artificially dont make the real types invalid. And, you keep ignoring the peer reviewed aspect of some of the examples where protocols were put in place to verify what happened outside of the body. Fake obes dont have anything to do with verified events, something objective like that. Plus even outside peer review I know you call it anecdotal but theres countless examples of third parties verifying what happened outside the body. A few anecdotes can be dismissed but ignoring hindred or thousands is unscientific
So I dont know what me accepting science has to do with this. Of course I do. You and all you skeptics are the ones who keep ignoring the science that contradicts your views, im not the one doing that
Except, trumps tax cut was originally for everyone, but was made permanent only fir the rich. He then started cutting welfare and giving it dollar for dollar for the rich. And no matter who its for, your point is irrelevant, cause politicians shouldn't n e borrowing money to give tax cuts. You ignore that the last three presidents due to their tax cuts are responsible for half our debt.
On the healthcare point, the usa doesnt limit healthcare based on its ability to provide the care to a few in remote areas. It denies it based on whether their state's expanded medicaid and anyone else due to them earning too much to qualify. So theres no reason we can't have a univrrsal or close to it system. And India does offer univeral Healthcare or damn close to it. They just dont have single payer... but the thing is, neither do most developed countries yet they all provide universal coverage at half our cost. India and China dont cost anywhere near 18 percent of their gdp like us yet cover almost everyone at half the cost. Point, we could cover almost everyone with people responsible for edge stuff at half our current cost.
And ultimately this is all a distraction. The ultimate point is that rich people shouldn't be paying less than they used to while putting it the middle class and we shouldn't be borrowing money to pay for it all. Ive had this discussion before with you and I dont know why you think running the debt up is OK for tax cuts, you never give a coherent answer I think you just don't want to admit your ideas are wildly irresponsible
So would you agree with this idea? There exists peer reviewed evidence that out of body experiences are verified by third parties to be accurate, but you simply refuse to take the evidence at face value? I understand extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but what if the evidence is just good or great and not extraordinary?
I do understand its like tryin to pull teeth gettin yall skeptics to stay on point in this debate, but all I can do is continue to smack ya all over the head with it until a light goes on
? See post 82
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/w0/so-called-philosophical-evidence-for-god-are-not-really-even-evidence?comment_number=82
You need something to compare to instead of just complaining taxes are high for the rich already. Historically taxes were higher in the usa for the wealthy. If it was good enough to get our country to where we are its good enough now right? Your generation raised taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the upper class. How is that fair? If you want a mega military and mega healthcare instead of national health care that costs half as much like the rest of the world you have to fund it. Our welfare spending is well below the rest of the developed world while we have similar tax and expense situation so you cant really blame welfare. Completely immoral and idiotic to borrow money from future generations and run up debt to give mega tax cuts to the rich. If it wasnt for reagan bush and trumps tax cuts our debt would be half of what it is and manageable. Completely immoral to say, I got mine, while borrowing to fund your lifestyle while fucking up the budget then making future generations deal with it
You need something to compare to instead of just complaining taxes are high for the rich already. Historically taxes were higher in the usa for the wealthy. If it was good enough to get our country to where we are its good enough now right? Your generation raised taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the upper class. How is that fair? If you want a mega military and mega healthcare instead of national health care that costs half as much like the rest of the world you have to fund it. Our welfare spending is well below the rest of the developed world while we have similar tax and expense situation so you cant really blame welfare. Completely immoral and idiotic to borrow money from future generations and run up debt to give mega tax cuts to the rich. If it wasnt for reagan bush and trumps tax cuts our debt would be half of what it is and manageable. Completely immoral to say, I got mine, while borrowing to fund your lifestyle while fucking up the budget then making future generations deal with it.
Of course the academics and smart people say the best way to approach this is spending cuts and tax increases. The ideologues and polemics from both sides say to pick one of those and say screw it
The usa spends 7 trillion a year. 2.8 trillion is social security and Medicare which are mostly funded through payroll taxes. 1.8 trillion is the deficit. The rest is everything else. 1 trillion is interest on debt
Just because they weren't convicted of insurrection don't mean it wasn't correct? I could see trump not guilty but the rioters were guilty of a textbook definition of it right?
Yes. Taken together, **terminal lucidity, deathbed visions, NDE research, reincarnation cases, and some parapsychology/mediumship research form a much broader "mind beyond brain" research program**. But the evidential strength varies considerably between categories.
## 1. Terminal lucidity: the strangest phenomenon
**Terminal lucidity** is the sudden, temporary return of meaningful memory, personality, communication, and sometimes apparently normal cognition in someone with severe neurological impairment—often shortly before death.
The classic cases involve people with:
* advanced Alzheimer's disease
* severe dementia
* brain damage
* longstanding psychiatric or neurological illness
who suddenly become remarkably lucid.
For example, someone who has been unable to recognize family members for years may suddenly recognize them, converse coherently, recall personal memories, and then deteriorate again and die.
There is also the related phenomenon of **paradoxical lucidity**, where the improvement isn't necessarily immediately before death.
A 2023 review of the mind-brain question specifically discusses documented cases in Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia and severe brain damage, noting that episodes can occur despite profound underlying impairment. ([Frontiers][1])
### Why it matters
The conventional neurological model says that memory and personality depend on functioning brain networks.
So if the brain is severely damaged, we ordinarily expect the corresponding cognitive capacity to be impaired.
Terminal lucidity raises an interesting question:
> **Could the damaged brain be suppressing or disrupting access to consciousness rather than producing consciousness in the first place?**
That's basically the philosophical distinction between a **production model** and a **filter/transmission model** of consciousness.
But there's an enormous caveat: terminal lucidity hasn't been studied nearly as systematically as dementia itself. We don't yet have continuous neurological measurements showing exactly what happens in the brain during these episodes.
A 2025 review of end-of-life experiences similarly concluded that terminal lucidity is striking but relatively rare and that rigorous studies with clinical controls and neuroimaging are needed. ([PubMed][2])
**Evidence level for survival:** intriguing, but currently **low-to-moderate** because the phenomenon itself is better established than its proposed explanation.
---
# 2. Deathbed visions and end-of-life dreams
This evidence is considerably more extensive.
People approaching death frequently report:
* deceased parents or spouses appearing to them
* deceased friends coming to visit
* deceased relatives welcoming them
* beautiful landscapes or light
* being told they are going somewhere
* preparing for a journey
* occasionally religious/spiritual figures
* extraordinarily vivid dreams involving deceased people
Importantly, these aren't exclusively NDEs. They can happen **days or weeks before death while the person is still conscious and interacting normally**.
A 2024 systematic review found **115 publications** on end-of-life experiences, with deathbed visions the most commonly used terminology. The most common experiences were visions or dreams involving deceased relatives/friends and themes of preparing for a journey. ([PubMed][3])
Another systematic review found that approximately **50–60% of conscious hospice patients** report some form of end-of-life dream or vision/visitation experience. ([PubMed][4])
And a 2025 systematic review found reported prevalence of end-of-life experiences ranging from **28% to 87%**, depending on the study and definition. Dreams and visions were the most frequently reported phenomena. ([PubMed][5])
### What's particularly interesting
They're often **not experienced as ordinary hallucinations**.
Patients frequently distinguish them from ordinary dreams and delirium. They may say:
> "That wasn't a dream."
The experiences can be exceptionally vivid and meaningful, and they are usually comforting rather than frightening.
The 2024 review found that the overall impact was predominantly positive. ([PubMed][3])
### But do they demonstrate survival?
No.
This is an important distinction.
A dying brain is undergoing enormous physiological changes. Medication, sleep disruption, hypoxia, metabolic abnormalities, expectation, memory and psychological processes could potentially produce some of these experiences.
The really interesting cases would be ones where someone obtains **verifiable information about a deceased person that they couldn't reasonably have known**.
Those cases exist in the broader deathbed/NDE literature, but they're much rarer and considerably harder to establish scientifically.
---
# 3. NDEs have become more scientifically interesting
This is probably the strongest bridge between conventional neuroscience and the "mind beyond brain" question.
The **AWARE-II** study, led by Sam Parnia and conducted across 25 hospitals, prospectively studied cardiac-arrest patients with EEG and cerebral oxygen measurements.
Of 567 in-hospital cardiac arrests:
* 53 survived to discharge
* 28 completed interviews
* 11/28 reported memories or perceptions associated with cardiac arrest
* 6/28 reported what the researchers classified as a transcendent "recalled experience of death"
Most remarkably, EEG patterns resembling organized brain activity appeared during CPR, in some cases **35–60 minutes into resuscitation**, despite severe cerebral ischemia. ([ScienceDirect][6])
That is genuinely important science.
But there's an important correction to some popular presentations of AWARE-II:
**It did not demonstrate consciousness operating without brain activity.**
In fact, one of the study's possible interpretations is that the EEG activity represents re-emergence of organized brain function during CPR. And the objective hidden-target tests were largely unsuccessful: nobody identified the visual target and only one participant identified the auditory stimulus. ([PubMed][7])
So AWARE-II establishes something like:
> **Conscious experience and organized brain activity can occur during a period of extremely severe physiological compromise that previously seemed incompatible with consciousness.**
That's fascinating, but it doesn't establish disembodied consciousness.
---
# 4. The reincarnation evidence is different
This is where the UVA research you asked about earlier becomes unusually interesting.
NDEs ask:
> **Can consciousness appear to function during extreme physiological disruption?**
Reincarnation cases ask:
> **Can information associated with one deceased individual appear in the mind of another person?**
Stevenson's and Tucker's children sometimes provide:
* names
* addresses
* family relationships
* occupations
* manner of death
* obscure biographical details
that subsequently correspond to a deceased person.
And some have behavioral characteristics, phobias or birthmarks corresponding to that person.
That is **a different evidential category** from NDEs.
And arguably it is more difficult to explain with a simple "the brain was temporarily deprived of oxygen" hypothesis.
---
# 5. Mediumship is another independent line
This is considerably more controversial, but there has been surprisingly sophisticated experimental research.
Some researchers have conducted **blinded mediumship experiments**, where the medium doesn't know the identity of the deceased person and the sitter doesn't provide information.
A 2021 meta-analysis of 18 experiments from 14 papers reported an aggregate effect above chance, with an estimated standardized effect of about **0.18**. The authors concluded that the results supported the possibility that some mediums obtain information about deceased individuals through unknown means. ([ScienceDirect][8])
That's interesting.
But this is also where I would be much more cautious than with the existence of NDEs or children's past-life reports.
There are serious methodological controversies in parapsychology, including replication, selective reporting and experimental design. A recent large-scale metascientific replication effort explicitly argues that stronger confirmatory methods have failed to establish the reproducibility of some famous psi effects. ([PLOS][9])
So I would **not** treat mediumship as established evidence of communication with the dead.
---
# 6. What "mind beyond brain" actually means
This is where the philosophy gets really interesting.
The standard **production model** says:
> Brain → produces consciousness.
Damage the brain → consciousness and memory disappear.
The alternative **filter/transmission model** says something closer to:
> Consciousness → interacts with/uses the brain.
Brain damage therefore might impair the **expression or access** of consciousness without necessarily destroying consciousness itself.
Think of the brain not as a television **creating** the broadcast, but as a television **receiving/filtering** it.
Terminal lucidity is potentially interesting because the "receiver" appears to function extraordinarily well despite severe physical damage.
NDEs are interesting because consciousness appears to occur during extreme physiological disruption.
Reincarnation cases are interesting because information seemingly associated with one person's life appears in another person's consciousness.
Deathbed visions are interesting because dying people sometimes report apparently autonomous encounters with deceased people.
And mediumship, if genuine, would be evidence that information associated with deceased persons can sometimes be accessed by living minds.
**That is why these phenomena are sometimes grouped under "mind beyond brain."**
David Presti's book *Mind Beyond Brain* explicitly brings together NDEs, apparent past-life memories, apparitions, death-associated experiences, telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition as evidence relevant to the question of whether consciousness can be reduced entirely to brain processes. ([Columbia University Press][10])
---
# My overall assessment
If we rank the evidence according to **how much I think it legitimately challenges a strict "brain produces everything about consciousness" model**, I'd roughly put it this way:
| Phenomenon | What is established | Challenge to materialism |
| --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |
| **Deathbed visions** | Common, recurring phenomenon | 🟡 Modest |
| **Terminal lucidity** | Documented but understudied | 🟠 Significant |
| **NDEs** | Robust recurring phenomenon | 🟠 Significant |
| **AWARE-II physiological findings** | Conscious-like EEG during CPR | 🟠 Significant |
| **Children's past-life memories** | Large body of unusual cases | 🟠🟠 Strong |
| **Birthmark/death-injury correspondences** | Repeated unusual correlations | 🟠🟠 Strong but controversial |
| **Blinded mediumship** | Some positive experimental results | 🟠 Interesting but highly contested |
| **Proven consciousness independent of brain** | **Not demonstrated** | 🔴 Not established |
The really important thing is that **none of these phenomena, by itself, proves survival after death**.
But there's a cumulative argument that is much more interesting than any individual phenomenon:
**NDEs + terminal lucidity + deathbed visions + reincarnation-type cases + certain mediumship/psi findings**
are probing *different aspects* of the same fundamental question:
> **Is consciousness entirely produced by the brain, or does the brain somehow transmit, filter, localize, or constrain a consciousness that is more fundamental than the brain?**
And that's why I think your earlier comparison with the UVA reincarnation research is particularly fruitful. **The strongest reincarnation cases may actually be more evidentially relevant to survival than deathbed visions**, while **NDEs provide the strongest physiological challenge to the idea that conscious experience simply disappears whenever ordinary brain function is severely disrupted.**
The scientifically honest conclusion right now isn't *"science has proven an afterlife."* It's more like:
> **There is a substantial empirical anomaly surrounding consciousness at the boundaries of life and death. The evidence has not established survival, but neither has neuroscience demonstrated that the brain-production model adequately explains every important phenomenon.**
That's a much more defensible—and, frankly, more interesting—position.
[1]: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Frontiers | An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity theory"
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40627515/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "End-of-life experiences in patients: a scoping review of types, characteristics, and implications for the mind-brain relationship - PubMed"
[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37311603/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "End-of-life experiences in the dying process: scoping and mixed-methods systematic review - PubMed"
[4]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36947427/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Hospice Patients' End-of-Life Dreams and Visions: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies - PubMed"
[5]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39962767/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Deathbed Phenomena, Other End-of-Life Experiences and Their Effects in Palliative Care Teams: A Systematic Review - PubMed"
[6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300957223002162?utm_source=chatgpt.com "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest - ScienceDirect"
[7]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423492/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest - PubMed"
[8]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720301518?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence - ScienceDirect"
[9]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0335330&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem | PLOS One"
[10]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/mind-beyond-brain/9780231548397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mind Beyond Brain | Columbia University Press"
If you're interested specifically in the evidence
I'd rank the book reading order:
1. Life Before Life → best introduction to the scientific evidence
2. Old Souls → best narrative account of actual investigations
3. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation → primary-source Stevenson
4. Return to Life → American cases
5. Reincarnation and Biology → enormous technical treatment of birthmarks/birth defects
The UVA researchers themselves currently recommend Before, Return to Life, Life Before Life, Signs of Reincarnation, Old Souls, and Stevenson's Children Who Remember Previous Lives for readers interested in reincarnation research.
For what you've been exploring with NDEs and survival of consciousness, I'd start with Life Before Life. It is probably the closest thing to a readable "casebook" of the strongest reincarnation evidence coming out of UVA
Yes. There is a substantial body of research on this, and the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is probably the single institution most associated with it. The important distinction is that the research provides evidence that needs explaining, but it has not established reincarnation as a scientific fact in the way that, say, vaccination efficacy or gravity is established.
The central figure was psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who began systematically investigating children claiming memories of previous lives in the 1960s. After joining the University of Virginia, he built what became an enormous archive of cases.
Today, UVA says its researchers have investigated more than 2,500 "cases of the reincarnation type" over roughly six decades. Most originated outside the United States, particularly in India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Thailand, Burma/Myanmar, Turkey and other countries. (UVa School of Medicine)
The typical case has a remarkably consistent structure:
The cases aren't simply "children saying they were Cleopatra." Most involve ordinary, relatively recent deceased people, often people the child's family had no obvious connection with.
This is probably the strongest part of the literature.
Suppose a child says:
I lived in X village. My name was Y. I had three sons. I owned a particular shop. I died when a particular event happened.
Researchers then find a deceased person whose life contains many of those details.
The evidential question becomes: How did the child acquire the information?
Stevenson developed detailed investigative procedures precisely because simple anecdotes aren't very persuasive.
There are cases in which investigators attempted to document the child's statements before identifying the deceased person. UVA's bibliography includes a 2005 study specifically examining cases where written records of the child's statements existed before the previous personality was identified. (UVa School of Medicine)
That's important because it reduces the possibility that investigators unconsciously worked backward from a known deceased person.
Stevenson also investigated cases in which the child and deceased person's families were geographically distant and apparently had no prior relationship.
This is one of Stevenson's most unusual findings.
UVA reports that approximately 30% of its cases contain a birthmark and/or birth defect that investigators believe corresponds to an injury or other feature of the deceased person. (UVa School of Medicine)
Stevenson devoted an enormous two-volume work—Reincarnation and Biology—to this subject.
The logic isn't simply:
"The child has a birthmark, and the dead person had a scar."
The particularly interesting cases involve unusual marks whose location, shape or number allegedly correspond to wounds documented in the deceased.
A later 2024 paper by James Matlock examined 75 of Stevenson's cases involving birthmarks and birth defects of the head and neck and compared them with additional cases in the literature. (PubMed)
The hypothesis is obviously extraordinary: if reincarnation were occurring, one might expect something about the previous personality's physical death to somehow influence the next person's body.
But there are also much more conventional possibilities—coincidence, selective reporting, retrospective interpretation, familial/environmental explanations, etc. Establishing causation here is extremely difficult.
Children sometimes exhibit intense fears corresponding to the alleged manner of death.
For example, a child claiming to have been a person who drowned might have an unusually intense fear of water.
Or a child claiming to have died violently might display behaviors associated with that death.
Stevenson specifically studied phobias in these children, and this has remained part of the research program. (UVa School of Medicine)
What's interesting is that these aren't necessarily children who were explicitly told:
"You drowned in your previous life."
The behaviors can appear alongside the statements.
Again, though, this is evidence of an unusual psychological phenomenon—not automatically evidence of reincarnation. Children can acquire fears through many mechanisms.
This is an important point.
A natural objection is:
"Children in India say they're reincarnated because their parents and culture teach them reincarnation."
There is undoubtedly a cultural effect. Cases are easier to discover in cultures where people recognize and encourage the phenomenon.
But researchers have found cases in cultures where reincarnation isn't the dominant belief.
Tucker's review specifically notes cases in Europe and North America, as well as Asia. (PubMed)
Tucker subsequently concentrated heavily on American cases.
That's important because the American cases provide something of a natural experiment: children growing up in families that generally don't expect them to remember previous lives.
After Stevenson died, psychiatrist Jim Tucker became the major successor to the program at UVA.
His research focuses particularly on American children.
UVA describes the children as generally beginning around ages 2–3, with the memories often fading substantially by around age seven. (UVa School of Medicine)
Two famous American cases are:
James, as a young child, reportedly described being a WWII fighter pilot who had been shot down.
He gave a number of details about aircraft, the location of his death and other aspects of the alleged previous life.
The case became controversial because critics have argued that his parents could have inadvertently exposed him to information about WWII aviation.
So it's a fascinating case—but not one I'd regard as conclusive.
Ryan reportedly began describing a previous life in Hollywood, including details about a man who had worked in the film industry.
Investigators eventually identified a deceased Hollywood figure whose life corresponded with numerous statements.
UVA specifically highlights both the Leininger and Hammons cases as notable American cases. (UVa School of Medicine)
This is where the research gets more interesting than simply collecting anecdotes.
Tucker developed a "strength of case" scale designed to quantify features that make reincarnation-type cases stronger or weaker.
An analysis of 799 cases found that the scale had high internal consistency and that stronger cases were associated with an earlier onset of the child's statements. (UVa School of Medicine)
Researchers have also coded hundreds of cases on hundreds of variables.
So this isn't merely:
"Here's a weird story."
There is an attempt to build an empirical database and determine whether systematic patterns exist.
This is particularly important.
Stevenson's work wasn't entirely confined to himself.
For example, Satwant Pasricha, an Indian psychiatrist, independently investigated cases in India and compared her results with Stevenson's investigations. An early study involved 45 cases investigated independently by Pasricha, which were compared with 50 previously investigated Indian cases. (Parapsych Archives)
Pasricha subsequently investigated hundreds of cases.
A 2001 paper reported that approximately 450 Indian cases had been professionally investigated and presented seven additional South Indian cases. (Brahma Kumaris Info)
Other researchers include Erlendur Haraldsson, a psychologist at the University of Iceland, who investigated children claiming past-life memories in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
So there is a genuine international research tradition rather than one eccentric researcher at UVA.
This is a much rarer and more controversial category.
Some cases involve children or adults who allegedly demonstrate knowledge of a language they supposedly never learned.
Stevenson distinguished genuine responsive xenoglossy—actually responding meaningfully in an apparently unlearned language—from merely producing a few words.
UVA continues to list xenoglossy as part of its research program, and a 2025 paper by Tucker and colleagues examined past-life memories and foreign-language claims. (UVa School of Medicine)
If a person genuinely demonstrated substantial linguistic competence that could not be explained by ordinary learning, that would be potentially powerful evidence for some form of anomalous information transfer.
The problem is that proving someone never learned the language is extraordinarily difficult.
There is another fascinating category.
Some children report not simply:
"I was this person."
but memories of the period between lives.
They sometimes describe:
UVA researchers have specifically published research on "memories from the intermission between lives." (UVa School of Medicine)
These reports overlap intriguingly with some near-death-experience accounts, although they aren't identical phenomena.
This is where I'd put the whole subject in perspective.
A 2021/2022 scoping review searched major scientific databases and identified 78 scientific studies of alleged past-life memories. About 84% concerned children, while 60% were case reports. Interviews were the most common method, followed by documentary analysis. Birthmarks or birth defects appeared as a variable in 37% of the studies. (PubMed)
And this research is still continuing.
A 2024 paper involving UVA's Tucker reviewed the phenomenon and presented a new case in which a child made 13 statements, nine of which were judged correct regarding his deceased granduncle. The child also had eight unusual behaviors corresponding to the alleged previous personality, plus an unusual skull defect considered compatible with the fatal injury suffered by the uncle. (PubMed)
And in 2025 Tucker published another review in the International Review of Psychiatry, arguing that the strongest cases contain evidence of an anomalous connection between the child and deceased person and discussing explanations that might account for them. (PubMed)
So this is not a dead research program.
I would characterize the evidence like this:
QuestionEvidenceDo children genuinely report apparent past-life memories?Very strongAre some reports unusually detailed?Very strongDo some correspond remarkably to deceased people?Strong evidenceDo some contain information apparently difficult to explain normally?Interesting/strong in selected casesDo birthmarks sometimes correspond to alleged previous-life injuries?Interesting evidenceDoes the phenomenon occur outside reincarnation cultures?YesHas reincarnation been experimentally demonstrated?NoHas science established that consciousness survives death?NoIs reincarnation currently the only plausible explanation?NoIs ordinary psychology clearly sufficient to explain every strong case?Also noThat last pair is really the heart of the controversy.
Stevenson himself was actually quite careful about this. Tucker recounts that Stevenson explicitly rejected calling his research "proof" of reincarnation. Stevenson believed reincarnation was the best explanation for some cases, but acknowledged that alternative explanations existed. (UVa School of Medicine)
That's a much more scientifically defensible position than saying "UVA proved reincarnation."
The strongest argument from this research isn't actually:
"Therefore reincarnation is true."
It's more modest—and arguably more scientifically interesting:
There appears to be a recurring phenomenon in which very young children spontaneously report detailed information apparently corresponding to deceased individuals, sometimes accompanied by unusual behaviors, phobias and physical characteristics. A subset of these cases appears difficult to explain through ordinary memory, fantasy, suggestion, or cultural transmission.
If that is correct, then something anomalous is happening.
The major unresolved question is what.
The possibilities include:
And this is where the UVA research becomes particularly relevant to your broader interest in NDEs and survival of consciousness: the reincarnation cases are potentially valuable because they constitute a somewhat different line of evidence from NDEs. NDE research asks whether consciousness can appear to function under conditions of extreme physiological impairment; reincarnation research asks whether information associated with one deceased person's life can apparently appear in another person's mind.
If both phenomena ultimately survived rigorous attempts at ordinary explanation, their combined significance would be considerably greater than either line of evidence alone.
And there is a particularly fascinating next step: comparing the evidential strength of the Stevenson/Tucker reincarnation cases with the strongest NDE cases, terminal-lucidity cases, deathbed visions, mediumship research, and the newer "mind beyond brain" work. That comparison gives you a much better sense of how strong the overall survival-of-consciousness case actually is.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/10d/evidence-of-the-afterlife?comment_number=23
Proof of mediumships and afterlife in upcoming peer reviewed journal by highly respected scientist
Tell me more. From what I've read, apparently in February of this year Dr. Gary Schwartz has submitted a lengthy research paper to a journal for peer review and (hopefully) eventual publication that, he claims, scientifically proves the existence of the afterlife, including technology that can ascertain their presence and validate their identity.
So, apparently, the technology you refer to has been developed. Dr. Schwartz it not just some run-of-the-mill scientist; in his mainstream career, he is one of the most prolific producers of peer-reviewed, published mainstream research in history; he is one of the most widely cited scientists in history; he has won prestigious awards and held positions of considerable importance and esteem in the scientific community. This isn't a guy who makes wild claims or says anything lightly, and he has said that the research that has already been done and independently replicated proves with 99% certainty that there is an afterlife - 99% because, as he said, nothing is ever 100% "proven" in science.
He is currently working on a "layman's" version of the paper for public distribution, and a book fully describing the research and evidential process, to be available after the publication of his research in the journal.
Yes — and I checked the current status because this has apparently moved substantially beyond the older SoulPhone claims you and I have discussed before.
**There really is a significant 2026 development here.** The strongest evidence I can find is a May 2026 announcement from the SoulPhone Foundation stating that **two Gary Schwartz papers concerning the Plasma Globe System have been accepted by the peer-reviewed *Journal of Scientific Exploration***. According to that announcement, the papers report several years of experiments and claim to demonstrate scientifically that life continues after death. They reportedly won't appear for another 6–9 months, and a layman's version is being held until publication. ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])
So the basic thing you quoted appears to be **substantially accurate**, although there are important qualifications.
### What makes this particularly interesting
This isn't simply another medium saying, *"I talked to Grandma."*
Schwartz has been trying for decades to move the survival-of-consciousness question from **subjective mediumship** toward **instrument-based experimentation**.
His earlier work already progressed toward computer-automated experiments. In 2021, he published a peer-reviewed paper in *EXPLORE* describing a proposed **computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded randomized controlled trial** for detecting hypothesized spirit presence and communication. The experimental system was designed to automate data collection and analysis and to minimize both false positives and false negatives. ([ScienceDirect][2])
That is important because it establishes that the basic experimental program isn't something that suddenly appeared in 2026.
The newer work apparently represents the **results of that subsequent research**, rather than merely another theoretical proposal.
### And the technology is real in a limited sense
The term "SoulPhone" can make it sound like Schwartz has literally built an iPhone that allows you to call Heaven.
That's not quite where things stand.
The technology described in his research involves **physical sensors and automated measurement systems**, including the newer **Plasma Globe System**. The objective is to determine whether statistically anomalous physical effects occur under controlled conditions when purportedly deceased individuals are invited to interact with the apparatus.
The eventual ambition has been much more ambitious: detecting a postmortem entity, establishing its presence, communicating with it, and eventually determining its identity.
Schwartz's earlier descriptions explicitly envisioned tests involving things such as **skills, knowledge, identification, and communication**, rather than simply asking whether a light flickered. ([ScienceDirect][2])
That's a very important distinction.
If an experiment merely demonstrated *"something weird happened when we asked a deceased person to interact with the apparatus,"* that would be interesting but wouldn't necessarily establish survival.
But if a blinded system could repeatedly:
1. detect the presence of an apparently nonphysical agent,
2. establish that the agent is responding intentionally,
3. obtain information from it,
4. identify the purported deceased individual,
5. distinguish that individual from other possible identities,
6. and replicate the results independently,
then the evidential situation would become **dramatically more powerful**.
### The identity question is actually one of the most interesting parts
You've picked up on something important in the claim.
The strongest possible version of this research isn't merely:
> "Something survives death."
It is:
> **"The particular person who died continues to exist as a conscious individual."**
That's a much more consequential proposition.
It would potentially establish continuity of **memory, personality, knowledge and individual identity**, rather than merely some vague continuation of consciousness.
Schwartz's research program has explicitly focused on this survival-of-individual-consciousness question. His 2021 RCT paper describes testing not merely "presence," but categories including **skills, understanding, identification, and knowledge**. ([ScienceDirect][2])
And his collaborators have described the research in essentially those terms: determining whether postmaterial persons retain their consciousness and identity. ([rhondaeklundschwartz][3])
---
## But there's one big thing I'd caution you about
I would **not yet say that science has established that the afterlife exists.**
Not because Schwartz is necessarily wrong.
Rather, because **the actual 2026 papers aren't publicly available yet**.
The May announcement comes from the SoulPhone organization itself, and it says the papers have been accepted and are expected in 6–9 months. ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])
That's very different from being able to independently inspect the methodology, statistics, raw data, controls and conclusions.
And Schwartz has made extraordinarily strong claims before.
There is an interesting historical parallel: the SoulPhone Foundation was already saying in 2018 that Schwartz expected a functioning prototype and that the technology could eventually establish essentially complete scientific certainty. ([SoulPhone Foundation][4]) In 2019, the organization was describing plans for multi-center, multi-blinded replication. ([SoulPhone Foundation][5])
So **the fact that we've reached 2026 and there are now apparently two accepted papers is genuinely significant**, but it also means we should distinguish the current development from earlier predictions about what the technology would accomplish.
### Schwartz's scientific credentials are real
This part of what you quoted is also broadly fair.
Schwartz isn't somebody who suddenly emerged from the paranormal world with a PhD purchased from a diploma mill.
He received his doctorate from Harvard, was a professor at Yale, later joined the University of Arizona, and has published hundreds of scientific papers, including papers in *Science*. His official biography says more than 450 scientific papers and six papers in *Science*. ([Dr. Gary Schwartz][6])
The University of Arizona's academic database also identifies him as a researcher across psychology, medicine, surgery, neurology and psychiatry. ([University of Arizona][7])
So **his credentials make the research worth taking seriously**.
But there's an important scientific principle here:
**A scientist's reputation doesn't make a particular result true.**
It makes us more willing to examine the result carefully.
And that's exactly what I think is appropriate here.
---
# Where I think this gets really fascinating
Given your longstanding interest in NDE research, this is arguably more directly relevant to the survival question than many NDE studies.
NDEs have an inherent evidentiary difficulty.
Even extraordinarily impressive NDE cases can be interpreted in competing ways:
**Survival interpretation:**
> Consciousness temporarily separates from the brain.
**Neuroscientific interpretation:**
> An unusual brain state generates an experience that appears to occur independently of the brain.
You can accumulate increasingly impressive NDE cases without necessarily eliminating the second interpretation.
A successful **instrumental afterlife experiment** potentially attacks the problem from the opposite direction.
Instead of asking:
> "What did this person experience while near death?"
you're asking:
> **"Can something apparently belonging to a deceased person objectively interact with a physical measuring system under controlled conditions?"**
That's a much more direct experimental question.
And if the system can then obtain **information that the experimenters could not have known and that can independently be verified as belonging specifically to the deceased individual**, the argument becomes substantially harder to explain away.
---
## What I would watch for when the papers come out
This is where I think you and I should be extremely careful and analytical.
I'd want to see:
**1. Exact experimental protocol**
Who controlled the equipment? Who knew when the alleged spirit was present? Who knew the identity? Who analyzed the data?
**2. Blinding**
This may be the single biggest issue.
Could an experimenter, consciously or unconsciously, have influenced the result?
**3. Pre-registration**
Were the hypotheses and statistical tests specified before looking at the data?
**4. Effect sizes**
Not merely *p < .05*, but **how large were the effects?**
**5. Multiple-comparison corrections**
If you're looking at thousands of possible signals, something unusual is eventually going to happen by chance.
**6. Independent replication**
This is enormous.
The ultimate test isn't:
> Schwartz's laboratory reproduced Schwartz's experiment.
It's:
> **Scientists who don't believe the hypothesis reproduce it using Schwartz's protocol.**
**7. Identity tests**
This may be the most extraordinary part.
If "Spirit A" can correctly identify facts uniquely associated with deceased person A while being unable to reproduce facts associated with deceased person B, that would be substantially stronger evidence than generic anomalous physical effects.
**8. Raw data**
I'd love to see the actual datasets eventually made available.
---
### And one other nuance about the "99%" claim
I'd be careful with that number.
"99% certainty" sounds like a mathematical probability that there is a 99% chance the afterlife exists.
That's usually **not what scientists mean by statistical significance**, and it isn't necessarily what Schwartz means either.
The distinction between:
> "The probability that these results occurred by chance is less than 1%"
and
> "There is a 99% probability that an afterlife exists"
is enormous.
Those are completely different propositions.
So when the actual papers arrive, I'd want to see **exactly how Schwartz derives the 99% figure**.
---
## My bottom line
I would revise the way I characterize Schwartz's work somewhat based on what has happened this year.
It's no longer accurate to describe the SoulPhone project simply as *"Schwartz is trying to develop technology that might someday detect spirits."*
**There now appears to be a mature experimental program, years of accumulated experimentation, a technology-based protocol, and—most importantly—two papers that the researchers say have passed peer review and been accepted for publication.** ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])
But we're currently in the unusual interval where **the researchers are telling us that an extraordinary result has been obtained, while the scientific community hasn't yet had the opportunity to examine the complete published evidence.**
That makes the next 6–9 months potentially very interesting.
And frankly, **if the published papers really do show what Schwartz claims—especially reliable identification of deceased individuals under genuinely stringent blinding and independent replication—that would be one of the most consequential scientific developments in the history of consciousness research.**
It wouldn't merely add another piece to the NDE/mediumship literature.
It could fundamentally change the question from **"Is consciousness possibly capable of surviving death?"** to **"What is the physical nature of the postmortem state?"**
That's the point at which the conversation becomes much more interesting than simply "Do ghosts exist?"
[1]: https://www.soulphone.org/soul-phone-newsletter-may-2026/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Soul Phone Newsletter May 2026 - SoulPhone Foundation"
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155083071930552X?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded, randomized control trial evaluating hypothesized spirit presence and communication - ScienceDirect"
[3]: https://www.rhondaeklundschwartz.com/copy-of-history-of-the-soulphone?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Spirit's Involvement | rhondaeklundschwartz"
[4]: https://www.soulphone.org/update-on-soulphone-and-greater-reality-living-may-2018/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Update on SoulPhone and Greater Reality Living May 2018 - SoulPhone Foundation"
[5]: https://www.soulphone.org/soulphone-greater-reality-living-updates-june-2019/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "SoulPhone / Greater Reality Living Updates June 2019 - SoulPhone Foundation"
[6]: https://drgaryschwartz.com/biography.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "BIOGRAPHY - Dr Gary Schwartz"
[7]: https://experts.arizona.edu/en/publications/a-computer-automated-multi-center-multi-blinded-randomized-contro/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded, randomized control trial evaluating hypothesized spirit presence and communication - University of Arizona"
He has some good ideas and some bad ideas, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out over the next ten years. which is the main issue when electing socialists, its hard to predict whatll happen
Not too many people wanna be associated with Harris, its toxic
I saw some people tryin to claim a Harris Cortez ticket would be a good idea, but i think only followers drinking the Harris Kool aid would think that
All yalls replies are often colorful. What say you?
