What About Channeling? - Letters From Readers

 I've been reading through some mail - I always enjoy hearing from readers about their experiences, and some of you have shared quite a bit with me. I don't take it for granted; your stories are important, and I appreciate every one of them, even if I cannot respond to them all. 

I wanted to share today a question a reader sent to me about channeling.    The reader, who has asked that I not share their name, asked me what my personal view on channeling is, and if I'd be willing to share.  

Most of you are aware that I'm trying to keep personal beliefs away from my posts - though I've shared some of my views at least on one occasion here.    I don't want to make these posts about anything related to what I personally believe - because my beliefs are subject to change over time, and because what I believe is based on the lens with which I view the world, and it can be skewed.  However - as before - I do want to share here some thoughts I have on this mysterious enigma known as channeling, and maybe offer what I hope can be some clarity to it. 

Pragmatically speaking, channeling has to do with the receiving of information and/or data or sets of data through a means other than through biomechanical sensory input.  That's a really broad definition, and what most people think of here in the US when they hear of channeling is the work what is known as spirit mediums- or those who channel (or serve as a conduit of sorts) for the spirits of the departed to contact those of us who remain here in our biologies.  While this particular type of channeling does fall under the broad heading fo channeling as a phenomenon, it isn't the sole standalone element of channeling, and because of some deceptive practices (and people) involved in serving as spirit mediums or channelers, a significant portion of the population here in the West views this with great skepticism.   These channelers or spirit mediums tend to make a great name for themselves, and it is generally done through the exploitation of the grief of those who have lost loved ones (or who want to hear from some great enlightened being on "the other side" who can guide them through the mysteries of life, as in the case HERE). 

I will go on record and say that I am generally skeptic of such individuals or groups. 

Phenoma such as channeling or the intervention of spirit mediums will eventually become irrelevant,
as our understanding of biomechanical death renders them obselete. 

I believe that while there may be a few such occurrences in history that may provide us with the opportunity to question what we know about the fabric between what we see and what we don't see (Edgar Cayce may be a good example of this), I believe that presently our understanding of what happens at biological death is too poorly developed for any of us - even the most enlightened at present - to be able to firmly and specifically guarantee that we know what is going on.  Further, even if we had a more developed understand of biomechanical death and the nature of life and consciousness, I believe that our understanding would render the need for contact (such as it done through channels and mediums) entirely moot.    There is no need to establish contact with dead relatives if they are not, in fact, dead. 

I recognize that grief sometimes has a fierce grip.  It was my own grief, in fact, that started my journey down this road of discovery.  I don't want to discount grief and its ability to change us.  But I do believe that sometimes in our need to maintain the tight grip we have on people and things we hold dear- to our way of life, even - we may reach for something (or anything) that will serve to validate its expression.  I believe that channeling and spirit mediums serve this role.   Their conciliatory benefits outweigh any real advantage to their abilities - so that whether or not they even possess the real ability to obtain knowledge/make contact with the departed eventually becomes irrelevant.  

Let's move toward a world where such services (or abilities) are not necessary. Or rather, where they are ubiquitous and not anomalies.