Dead Annoying

I read an interesting book this week. That’s something of an obvious statement really, since if it wasn’t interesting, I wouldn’t have read it. No matter.

The book is called ‘People who don’t know they’re dead’, by Gary Leon Hill. It raised an interesting possibility.

I see frequent studies in the Journal of Scientific Exploration concerning reincarnation. Every other issue, in fact. Children recall events they could not have known, describe places they or their families have never visited, speak about ‘relatives’ from their past lives who have no connection with their current family. It does indeed sound convincing, and many of these studies come down firmly in favour of reincarnation. There is, however, another explanation.

Gary Leon Hill’s book explores the dead who don’t know they’re dead. Sound ridiculous? Well, consider how Hill himself explains it. If you think there’s no life after death, if you believe death is like turning off a light and there’s just nothing, how do you react if you die and that’s not true?

You can see. You can move. You have feelings – so according to your own logic, you can’t be dead. Everyone ignores you, and you can’t pick anything up, but you just can’t understand why.

These discarnate entities hang out in the places they favoured when they were alive. Boozers in bars, gamblers at the race track, shopaholics at the mall, sex maniacs at brothels, druggies in drug dens. They want what they’ve always wanted. They want a fix.

So they attach themselves to like-minded living people, eventually becoming enmeshed with that person. The living druggie experiences his own cravings as well as those of the dead druggie. Soon he’ll be a dead druggie too. Same for the alcoholic, the gambler, the smoker. The entities that attach increase the addict’s needs and accelerate his or her demise. Then they move on – often as a group – to the next living addict who can fulfil their desires. It’s the damaging effect of the drug (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, whatever) that lets the ghosts gain access in the first place. Once they’re in, it’s difficult to get them out. The host doesn’t even realise they’re there.

Now, consider this in relation to reincarnation. In many reincarnation studies, often using hypnotic regression, there’s been a problem. Mr. X was once Joe Bloggs, 1812-1872. After that he was Joe Smith, 1864-1919. What’s wrong with this picture?

How can he have been Joe Smith, when Joe Bloggs died after Joe Smith was born? The answer is simple. He was neither.

Joe Bloggs and Joe Smith are people who don’t know they’re dead. Mr. X has not reincarnated. He’s been possessed by the ghosts of Joe Bloggs and Joe Smith, but they only come out when Mr. X is in a trance. The rest of the time they control his life by more subtle means.

That’s not to say there is no reincarnation. That has yet to be proved or disproved, despite what’s written on the blinkers of mainstream science, or on the rigid stone pages of the zealous. That question remains open.

As does the question of ghosts. Well, not for me. I’ve seen them. Unfortunately I can’t show them to you so I have no absolute proof. Let’s just call it a subject under study. I think, in at least some cases, hypnotic regression is revealing possession, not past lives. You give your hypnotised subject a time period, and the relevant entity answers. That entity thinks it still lives in that time period.

In those cases we are not dealing with a subject of academic interest. We are dealing with a patient who needs help. Several patients in fact: the living person who needs to have these parasites removed, and the dead ones who need to come to terms with their new existence.

And get the hell out of everyone’s way.