Do channeled messages inspire trust?

This question, like others (such as: who am I?), requires an individual answer. A rationalist will formulate it differently than a proponent of occult knowledge. The former, raised in the cult of science, will reject channeling because it defies any scientific methods of verification. He considers it a product of a diseased imagination. The latter, on the other hand, will echo Steiner: "Whoever considers knowledge to be what is revealed to the senses and the reason at their service, will regard occult knowledge as merely empty expression."

This doesn't mean, however, that I consider channeled messages to be part of the occult. I'm simply referring to a person's opening to the unknown, to their acceptance of other paths of knowledge not accepted by official science.

The position of many people with strong religious ties is interesting. They tend to accept mystical experiences approved by the Church as genuine, but reject similar trance experiences, such as channeling or regression, because they are not recognized by the clergy or are even condemned by them as manifestations of evil forces.

People rarely seek truth within themselves, in the voice of their intuition, in the language of their soul. They prefer to rely on the authority of the Church or Science, even though in both places there are people just like them, and therefore capable of making mistakes, deliberately concealing inconvenient facts, and being guided not by the Truth but by the so-called overarching interests of the institutions they represent.

Trust in the paradigm they proclaim should not, however, replace one's own thinking and evaluation, as it lulls the mind, pushes it into the position of a passive consumer, a comfort seeker, and hinders one's own internal development (by the way, I will give the meaning of "paradigm" according to Professor WW Harman: "A paradigm is a set of unquestioned beliefs about man, society and the universe, containing a certain system of values, which in turn determines the direction of the actions of the individual and society").It's time to address the question posed in the article's headline. Before doing so, however, it would be worthwhile to clarify the existence of immaterial beings like "Wojtek" and extraterrestrial civilizations.

A lengthy article recently published in these pages on transcommunication seems convincing enough to me to accept the existence of the Otherworld and the possibility of contact with it. There are also other sources confirming hyperspace (a region whose existence can, so far, only be proven mathematically or supersensually) inhabited by nonphysical entities. Among them is John White, the contemporary author of "The Dawn of the Aquarian Age: A Meeting of Spirit and Science." He recognizes the existence of "realms of existence distinct from the human, inhabited by much more evolved beings, concerned about us and empathizing with us. Their existence, according to many traditions, is inextricably linked to ours. (...) From their perspective, the future of the human race already exists to a certain, indeterminate degree—with their far-reaching vision, they perceive the possibilities before us and can imperceptibly guide us toward our desired goals."

Military teleobservers have also encountered immaterial entities in hyperspace. In this situation, dismissing the existence of these beings would be pointless. Therefore, their attempts to communicate with us must also be accepted.It seems easier to accept the existence of other extraterrestrial civilizations than to acknowledge hyperspace and its inhabitants. So, if we accept nonphysical beings in the Afterlife, why not do the same for visitors from the depths of the galaxy? Why not accept the fact of channeled communication with them as truth? And, accepting this, why reject their revelations, often contradictory to the position of official science, such as those regarding the duration of human existence on Earth? By accepting new paths of knowledge, we open ourselves up to sources of knowledge unimaginably older than our own. It's no wonder that many messages will arouse controversy and even opposition, dictated by the limited capabilities of the human brain.

Before deciding to publish the content of their messages, channeling groups discuss them among themselves and make certain selections, often choosing material based on its potential for assimilation by those seeking new interpretations and new paths of personal development. However, some publications are too shocking for the average reader, whose thinking is guided by religion or official science. Such individuals therefore reject the books in question, considering them nonsense, rehashes of mythical themes, or even a manifestation of satanic deceptions intended to lead them away from the sole source of Truth, which they consider their churches or established scientific views.

For this reason, we are witnessing a crackdown on parapsychological journals, their suppression by clergy and academics. Each side uses its own arguments, ridiculing the opponents' assumptions and attempting to demonstrate the irrefutability of its own position. What should we do in this situation? Whom should we believe? Ourselves—that is the only correct answer. The sages of the East have long taught that each of us carries the truth within, which is why they advocate practicing self-insight, self-discovery, and seeking answers within ourselves.Therefore, the person asking the question posed in the title of this article must rely on themselves. If they decide to embrace channeling as a new path of knowledge, they will undoubtedly question whether every publication of this type is authentic, especially since their content sometimes contradicts one another.

I agree that reservations arise when it comes to books full of generalities and moralizing. Perhaps we're dealing with a so-called "false prophet," someone "haunted." In such cases, with the best of intentions, they recycle various pieces of information from authentic or spurious sources, infusing it with their own imagination.

Others blend channeled knowledge with their intuition, adding things they haven't heard but believe should be. Such publications can be interesting as a glimpse into someone else's thinking, a source of inspiration, but they don't encourage taking everything for granted. These two groups of authors can be considered fashionable while simultaneously possessing a sense of mission.

The final group remains, the most credible, utilizing a wealth of facts relevant to Earth's past and with high probability. The authors of these publications are not uncritical of the messages they receive; they strive to verify their quality as closely as possible by posing modified questions that constantly revolve around the same topic. They direct these questions to various senders, then compare statements, draw conclusions, and possibly share their concerns with the senders.

I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss channeling simply because science cannot substantiate it. Science still cannot prove many metaphysical matters, such as the existence of the soul, yet we accept them as true. However, the development of quantum physics is opening up new possibilities for official science and bringing it closer to accepting certain solutions long established in the much-mocked esotericism.