Sökaren
(“The Seeker”,
Addendum and extension to the English
translation: below
Regression test critically examined
In Sökaren 1/2005 two psychologists in an
article [1] criticize parapsychologically oriented programs and presentations in
TV and other media. Among other things, they criticize the [Swedish] TV series
Tidigare Liv [“Past Lives”] and claim that Reima Kampman [a
Finnish psychiatrist] would have proven that regression experiences could be
traced back to reexperiencing the source in this life, from which such
memories would derive. This “test” has flaws which must be dealt with! Like on
one side everything possible is done to question regression experiences, we who
believe in reincarnation are just as justified in questioning the arguments and
methods of those who oppose it, which at many points involve critical
weaknesses. I will here take up one such point (cf. [2]) (and I may come back
with more later).
The “revealing method” referred to was
introduced by Edwin S. Zolik [3,4]. The person is hypnotized anew and asked,
where in this life he or she had read, heard or seen the story
experienced in the regression, or something similar to it. Zolik describes one
case in which a man experienced himself as being the Irishman Brian O’Malley in
the 19th century. In a new
hypnosis session, the man couldn’t tell a movie or a book as a source and reacts
a little confused to Zolik’s questions. At the end one »agreed« that the
grandfather had told about a Timothy O’Malley, who he had hated. Zolik’s
explanation was that the man, whom the grandfather also didn’t like very much,
for this reason unconsciously wanted to identify himself with O’Malley – quite
far fetched. The first names are different and one hardly found any substantial
information about Timothy O’Malley, which clearly fitted the experience. [More
information about the case is added below.]
Kampman adopted this procedure and describes a
case [5], in which a young woman experienced herself as being Dorothy in
medieval
I have checked this information. In the book [6]
only about a third of the song is printed, which I found out since I discovered
the whole text in another book [7]. Because Reima Kampman died in 1992, I
contacted his wife and sent her an audiocassette with the question, if I might
have a copy of the tape recording with Dorothy. The answer was that Reima
Kampman by accident had erased the tape through recording something else on it.
I then asked if one had had the impression that Dorothy had sung a whole song,
or only a part of it. To this I was given no reply. If she had sung more than
the little part printed in the book [6], the question would arise, from where
she had the rest...
In any case it has to be stated that the
question was quite suggestive. Kampman assumed from the beginning that the first
contact with the song must have occurred in this life and formulated the
question accordingly in a rather guiding manner. A more objective procedure
would have been to leave fully open, where and when she the very first time
heard or sung that song – if in this life or before (in any case
carefully leaving out any formulation which refers only to this life to day).
But then Dorothy might have come up again, and it almost looks as if one didn’t
want to this happen… Directing it all to only this life makes the “test” to a
kind of circular proof.
So why did the girl, passing through the book,
notice that song in it and not another? The reincarnistic explanation would be
that she unconsciously recognized it.
As concerns a broadcast in the Danish TV2 (also
shown on the German channel VoX) of the same kind as Tidigare Liv, but
with
a Danish regression therapist, an interesting documentation has been
published as a book [8].
Literature
Jan Erik Sigdell
[Added in July 2006 – not included in the
Swedish article]
See
NOTE below
Further discussion of the case Brian O’Malley
Brian O’Malley was according to the experience
an officer in “Her Majesty’s Irish Guard” and died in 1892, falling off a horse
while jumping hurdles. The man then was asked if he had the story from a book or
a movie. The question seems to confuse him a bit. He is then asked if has heard
about from his parents, and then remembers his grandfather. The latter had had a
fight with Timothy O’Malley, an Irish soldier in the British army, and hated
him, since he because of him had to leave
The grandfather wasn’t really his grandfather,
but the father of his foster-father. The mother had died and the father had
given the boy in someone else’s care. That is why the man he called grandfather
didn’t like him. The boy once without permission took out a horse from the
stable and later returned it unharmed. The grandfather was furious when he found
it out. After that, the boy did everything he could so that the grandfather
might like him, apparently without much success.
Zolik wants to explain it such that the man
would have unconsciously identified himself with O’Malley, so that the
grandfather would like him better. That really appears far fetched! Why, of all
people, would he then identify himself with someone the grandfather hated? And
why didn’t the first names fit? This Zolik cannot explain.
From the reincarnistic aspect one might rather
suggest that O’Malley and the grandfather came to be together again for karmic
reasons, since a reconciliation on the soul level was due. Therefore, Timothy
O’Malley could have reincarnated as the boy. This would agree with the concept
of karma (cf. “What
is karma?”). It wouldn’t, however, explain the different first names. Could
it be that O’Malley (like so many others) had two first names? This idea of
reincarnating as the boy could in any case explain why the grandfather rejected
him, since he would then unconsciously (on the soul level) recognize the
reincarnated O’Malley in him.
One remark by the man is mentioned by Zolik
without a comment. In the hypnosis he said: “He killed … horse … horse” and
became very agitated. That sounds as if someone had killed the horse (and thus
might have caused the accident)! Who? The grandfather? Did he because of that
have to leave
Or was the boy actually another O’Malley (the
name will not be very rare in
In any case there is no clear contradiction to
reincarnation here. The questioning by Zolik is rather guiding and there were
data in the experience, which apparently the grandfather hadn’t told the boy.
O’Malley seems to have had several mistresses. Asked in the hypnosis if the
grandfather had told him that, the question wasn’t confirmed. The grandfather
had only spoken about a “blackguard”. The two only things that clearly agree are
the family name and the death in a horse accident.
To value this as a “proof” of cryptomnesia and
against reincarnation looks a little much like wishful thinking, since other
possibilities are neglected, which, though, would follow from the hypothesis of
reincarnation. If this should be a “proof” that there is no reincarnation, then,
of course, such other possibilities are given no place in the discussion.
But if reincarnation is recognized as a possible
(alternative) hypothesis, things look a bit different. Other possible
explanations open up, which follow logically from that hypothesis. Leaving such
aspects out makes the evaluation to what rather becomes a circular proof
(because there is no reincarnation, there are no alternative explanations – and
because there are no alternative explanations, there is no reincarnation...)
Some websites [9] and books (a.o. [10] below)
also refer to another case of Zolik, which, however, is weaker. The case is
described in [4] above, but not in [3].
This concerns a person (it is not stated if a
man or a woman) who experienced himself as Dick Wonchalk in the year 1875. He
was born 1850 and now lived alone at a river, rather like a “clochard”, and fed
himself from fishing and what the nature gave. When it became too cold he went
down along the river to a town, where he sat around in taverns. He died in 1876
from a disease.
It is claimed in the quotations that the case
would have been “carefully researched” by Zolik, but according to the article
[4] the investigation appears rather superficial. It was “found” that the
“fantasy” would come from a movie the person had seen just a few years earlier,
with a story, which in a “major portion … was similar to the fantasy” (my
enhancement). The person couldn’t tell the name of the movie. Nothing more is
mentioned about it. There is also no mentioning that the name of the man at the
river and other facts or details in that experience would agree with the movie.
This cannot be called a “careful research”, but
it rather looks like Zolik saw a preconceived idea confirmed and, therefore,
took no interest in a further investigation, because he had what he wanted…
(maybe a further investigation could even have endangered the desired result…).
The movie is only diffusely mentioned and no effort to identify it is described.
This is actually astonishing, since it shouldn't have been too difficult to
identify the movie if the man saw it some three years earlier, and then Zolik
would most probably have mentioned this...
Seen from the reincarnistic aspect, one may
rather expect that the movie became a bit of a “déjà-vu” experience, since the
person had an unconscious memory of a similar experience. It is in such
cases, however, possible that in a regression experience an own real experience
mixes with details from (in this case) the movie. This points at another
difficulty in the evaluation of such experiences. An agreement with a “source”
in to-day’s life in many cases cannot exclude the possibility that behind all
that could be an own experience, too, and the agreement cannot be definitely
valued as a counterproof.
Important question left out!
An important question would in the latter case
have been: “Why did that movie make an impression on you?” – and correspondingly
in the case of Dorothy (see above): “Why did that song catch your attention, and
not another?” Did the investigators not think about this, or did they not want
too have an answer that could possibly endanger the desired result?
It is quite obvious that opponents to
reincarnation without criticism accept reports like this, which fit their
preconceived idea. The reproach is also made to those who represent the
reincarnation belief (concerning positive reports), and not unjustifiably, but
the same will be at least equally valid for reincarnation opponents!
The “rule” – rather on both sides –
often seems to be: “Go only as far as to have your preconceived idea confirmed
and then stop there, because if you continue to investigate, you may find your
opinion at stake...”. (This is, of course, a temptation for me, too, but then
may constitute a needed counter-pole to the too common occurrences of the same
phenomenon among the opponents.)
More about Kampman’s case Dorothy
In April 2007 I had the opportunity to see a
video recording about this case. In this video the woman actually does sing only
as much as is printed in the Finnish book. However, the video is obviously a
remake, a later set-up, and not an original recording! It is said that the
woman at that time (when she was a young woman, almost a girl) knew no English,
but that she has learned the language later. She is seen sitting hypnotized in
front of a window with a winterly landscape outside. Then she sits awake in
front of the same window with the same landscape outside and comments in
fluent English that this would only be a case of cryptomnesia, and that she
would not believe in reincarnation. Obviously in the same adult age as when she
is sitting there hypnotized.
This proves nothing! The only proof would be the
original recording of the actual first session with the – at that time – young
woman. And that very recording is said to have been accidentally erased by
Kampman through overwriting it... One rather has a feeling as if one wanted to
avoid the sensitive question about how much she sang (others may have asked it
or one may simply have recognized that this could be a problem) through a later
setup with an adjusted version. Whatever – questions remain unanswered: How
could she at that time (without knowledge of English) sing the song with a
correct pronunciation of the ancient English, and not pronounce the
allegedly only seen words in quite a Finnish way (a point that may easily be
missed by persons who don’t have some acquaintance with the Finnish language).
Kampman writes in his book that this has been confirmed by a language
specialist. And how could she after only a glance at the song in the book also
absorb the musical notes such that she sang the correct melody? Could she read
notes at that time? Would this not be better explained though acoustic
cryptomnesia, i.e., that she has also heard the song? There is no
indication that she did hear the song in to-day’s life – but she may well have
heard and even sung it – in a past life, and then it isn’t a case of
cryptomnesia...
In his book [11] Kampman leaves the question
about reincarnation open. In his thesis [12] he only briefly touches the subject
in the review of the literature. Information from a Finnish friend indicates
that Kampman came under criticism from colleagues, who regarded him as too
indulgent towards the reincarnation question, and that he came under pressure to
more clearly speak out against reincarnation. Could the video be seen in this
context?
Further references
9.
For example
www.psi-infos.de/reinkarnation_-_scheinheil_und.html,
www.binder-mara.de/reinkarnation.htm and
10.
Harald Wiesendanger: Zurück in frühere
Leben, Kösel, München (Munich), 1991, p.134.
11.
Reima Kampman: Et ole yksin, K.J.
Gummerus, Jyväskylä, 1974.
Swedish translation: Du är inte ensam, Askild & Kärnekull, 1975.
12.
Reima Kampman: Hypnotically Induced
Multiple Personality,
NOTE:
In e-mail correspondence with Dr. Zolik he has
promised to send me more data and to comment to the my remarks.
I never got any data, comments or other
information...
Reader’s Forum
ADDENDUM AND EXTENSION
A further case of Zolik
www.freewebs.com/professor_enigma/newage.htm