How Technology Proves Mediumship Is Real- With Mark Boccuzzi- EP 335

You know you need something, you're just not sure what. You've been listening, you're doing the work, but there's still this feeling that you're circling the same place, like you're waiting for the thing that finally moves you. Now maybe you've thought about working with me one-on-one. Maybe something's held you back, the timing, the money, or you're just not sure you're ready yet. I get that. And I want you to know there's still a place for you. I built a resource for exactly this moment, guided meditations for when the waves hit and you just need to breathe. Workbooks to help you get out of your head and onto the page, ebooks on what near-death experiences tell us about the people we've lost, and whether they're really gone, a full course for widows and widowers who are ready to find their way back to living, and a full course for the evidence of the afterlife. And all of it is available for pay what you want. Nobody gets turned away because of money. I think these resources are valuable, but I don't want to hold them back because you don't have the money to pay for them. You don't have to wait until you're ready for coaching. The next step might be a lot smaller than you think. To find out, go to grief2growth.com/store. That's grief, the numeral 2, growth.com/store. And check out the resources I've made for you. Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode of Grief 2 Growth. I'm your host, Brian D Smith, of course. And today we're going to have an enlightening journey with our guest, Mark Bacuzzi. Mark's not only a visionary in the field, in the field of parapsychology, but he's also a pioneer in bridging the gap between the psychic realm and cutting-edge technology. Mark works together with his partner in life and research, Dr. Julie Beischel, and Mark co-founded the Windbridge Research Center along with Julie and is her research assistant there. It stands at the forefront of exploring consciousness, mediumship, and the survival of the human spirit beyond physical existence, which is all the stuff we talk about here on Grief 2 Growth. Mark's work is deeply rooted in both compassion and empirical evidence. And I think it offers a unique perspective that aligns closely with our ongoing discussion about the continuity of relationships beyond death. So Mark has scholarly, scholarly contributions that are both vast and profound. He has published peer-reviewed journals for a diverse range of topics, including instrumental transcommunication, or ITC, mental and physical mediumship, He's also presented his groundbreaking research at national conferences and scientific meetings covering fields like, um, field investigations of haunted locations, photographic anomalies, non-human animal psi, etc. And his current work is particularly fascinating. I'm going to talk about that with Mark as well. We're going to probably focus on mediumship today and the Windbridge Institute, but he's also integrated, uh, VR, virtual reality, augmented reality or AR, deep machine learning and artificial intelligence into ITC, instrumental transcommunication, and psi research. So with that, I want to welcome Mark Bacuzzi to Grief 2 Growth.

Hey, Brian, thanks for having me.

I'm really excited to talk to you today, Mark. My, my background with knowing about you is the Windbridge Institute and mediumship. I also really fascinated to talk to you about some of this cutting-edge stuff that you're working on. But if you could, let me, uh, let the listeners know about the Windbridge Institute.

Sure. So, um, uh, Julie and I co-founded the Windbridge Institute in 2008, and it was originally sort of an umbrella organization for us to do all the different kinds of research we were doing. Julie was primarily focusing on, uh, mediums and mediumship and afterlife research, and I was doing basic research in parapsychology— telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis— and We ran that until 2017, when we realized that our audience had gotten very big and we weren't making anyone happy. When we would send out an email about something, it would have mediumship information and people would say, no, tell us more about psychic information. And then you said a thing about psychic information, be like, no, tell us more about mediumship. So in 2017, we actually split up those two programs and we formed the Windbridge Research Center. Which is a 501 nonprofit based in Arizona. And I'm the executive director and Julie's the director of research. And our mission there is to alleviate suffering around dying, death, and what comes next. And we do that by conducting peer-reviewed scientific research and then creating educational materials based on that research that we provide free to the public as open source, open access. Materials and content.

So, um, I know— I'm pretty sure Julie's story, how she got involved in mediumship, was because of the passing of her mother at a young age. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's true. She, uh, her mother, um, passed from suicide, and, uh, she eventually became interested in what science had to say about the afterlife, and that led her on this 20-plus year journey of scientifically studying mediums, mediumship, afterlife science, and, uh, and other topics. And, uh, yeah, she's, uh, considered by many to be, uh, one of the leaders in the field.

No, yeah, and I'm very proud of her. Yes. Yeah, I would definitely say she's one of the leaders in the field because one of the things about the field of mediumship is, you know, scientists— and you guys could talk, I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do— funding is, is nearly impossible to get, and then also your peers don't take you seriously.

That is true. Uh, funding in this field is incredibly difficult. You know, when Julie started out, her hope was to work within a university setting to study, uh, the, these topics, but the grants are too small, uh, for universities. So once you bring a grant into a university setting, especially a large university here in the US, there's a lot of overhead costs and things like that, and doesn't leave any money for the research, which is one of the reasons why we we went out on our own and started our own research, uh, company organization. Uh, and, uh, and yes, it's, um, uh, even so, and, and this, the skeptical community is— can be very harsh. And even people within our own field can be very harsh when it comes to ideas relating to, uh, the afterlife and mediumship and those kinds of things. There's a um, there's— it's— it tends to be a lot of not just scientific pushback, but there's a lot of things tied up in culture and personal belief and, and family belief and all those kinds of things that always tend to influence this conversation, uh, whenever we present our data. And, um, it's a— it's not an easy road. It has not been an easy road, honestly. Uh, uh, between the, the lack of funding and the skepticism and difficulty publishing in mainstream journals and all the rest of the stuff. It's, uh, it's rough.

Yeah, I would think it is. And I, and I applaud both of you for being brave enough to go and do this, you know, because it's really interesting to me. Um, we have a field that people think of as subjective, as woo-woo, and you're, you're bringing objective standards to it, or at least trying to as much as possible.

Yeah, that's true. Um, you know, both Julie and I consider ourselves empiricists, but we realize that at some point the hard data isn't going to answer all the questions, right? We have to look at the human experience, right? Otherwise, what's the point of having human experiences if you're just going to like leave all that data on the table and never take it seriously? But there are ways to look at the human experience that are cautious and methodical and, um, and can, can give us really interesting insights to a wide variety of things. And, um, and so that's been our approach. We've been, we've been trying to be as respectful as possible to the populations that we work with, both the mediumship population and the Grieber sitting population. And, um, and we're trying to do— but, but on top of that, you know, we have to, we have to make sure we're doing rigorous science. And it's a tough, it's a tough, uh, it's a tough line to hold.

Yeah.

And, uh, you know, because a lot of times, you know, it's funny because researchers will say, oh, why don't you just get the mediums and lie to them about X or have them do something about Y? And we're like, we've asked mediums about that and they don't want to do it, and I'm not going to be the one to fool them or trick them or whatever, right? Like, we're gonna be respectful of their process. And we're going to study mediumship the way it exists. We're going to study mediums the way they exist. And, but we're going to apply maximum experimental controls and, and statistics as we can. Yeah.

So tell me how you strike that balance. I've listened to Julie on a few other podcasts, I think is really fascinating the way you guys have struck the balance between the ways mediums work and then also trying to test them.

Right. Uh, the, the big thing that we try to look at is what we refer to and is referred to as ecological validity. So when we design an experiment, it's based on how mediums and mediumship— how mediums work and what— how mediumship expresses itself, right? We don't try to force the mediums to do things that are outside of the way they do their, they do their, their readings or things like that too much. I mean, we have to do a little bit, but, but we try to be as respectful as possible. So for example, if a medium says to us, if someone, if we, if we go to a medium and we say, listen, we have these photographs of dead people, can you tell us which one is dead and which one is alive? And the majority of the mediums that we work with would say, no, I don't, that's not what my job is. My job is to connect with deceased people and give messages of love and healing to living people. So what are you doing? What are we doing with photographs? So we won't ever do a study with photographs, for example. So we try really hard to make sure that our experimental designs are ecologically valid, that they properly respect the mediumship process and respect the process of the sitters as well. And, and so it's a lot of just asking questions, and talking to mediums and talking to sitters about the things they're comfortable doing and they're not comfortable doing. And, you know, I know the skeptics right now, they're— all their bells are going off and they're, they're saying, well, that means they can get away with X and Y and Z. And we're pretty good, um, at, uh, uh, figuring out, um, how to keep things, uh, on the up and up, right? How to keep, uh, how to keep the the data secure, how to keep the, the process as foolproof as possible, right? Nothing is 100% foolproof. And, you know, I'm sure there are people out there that could come up with some kind of wacky scenario that may account for something, but there's no evidence that that thing actually ever took place. Anyway, I go off a little bit of a tangent.

But so can you give me an example of what your protocol will be like? Because skeptics will say, okay, well, mediums, they're doing cold readings, or they're doing hot readings, they're looking at their information beforehand, or they're looking at the sitter and they're getting micro, you know, expressions or whatever. So how do you control for those types of things?

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

You know, one of the hardest things about grief, most of the people in your life just don't get it. They want you to be further along than you are. They get uncomfortable when you bring it up. So you stop bringing it up. And that's why I started writing. My Substack is where I go deeper. Thoughts I don't always get to on the podcast, essays on consciousness, on continuing bonds, on what it actually means to carry loss and still build a life. The stuff that used to keep me up at night written out in a way that I hope meets you in the morning. But here's what I didn't expect when I started it: the community that showed up. People who are doing exactly what you're doing— listening, learning, trying to find their footing. Readers who comment, who share their own stories, who remind each other that none of us are as alone in this as we feel. And that's what the Substack has become— a place to go deeper with me and to find your people. It's free to subscribe. Find me at grief2growth.com/substack. That's grief, the numeral 2, growth.com/substack. Or just go to Substack and search for Grief to Growth. I hope to see you there.

So there's different controls based on the different experiments that we do, but the, uh, the sort of the main big experiment that we did was, uh, something called AIR, or anomalous information reception. And this is a series of experiments that try to determine whether or not mediums under blinded laboratory conditions could in fact report accurate and specific information about deceased people. And to do that, that's, you know, some people are like, well, that sounds pretty easy, right? You give them some questions. And now it's ridiculously hard. Um, and so it takes, uh, our current protocol takes 3 different experimenters, uh, 2 sitters, and a medium to do, to get data for a single reading. Okay. And, um, and I, the protocol is very complicated, and I, I'm not gonna I'll hit some of the highlights, but we have a lot of this information is on our website. If you go to winbridge.org and go to the education tab, there's fact sheets and explanation videos and all kinds of stuff that walk you through this really long— that can walk people through this really long protocol. But so, for example, um, one of the first things we do is we never let the medium know anything about the sitter. So, uh, all the readings are done over the phone. And the, uh, we use what's called a proxy sitter. So for example, an experimenter, usually Julie, will sit down with the medium, and the only information that Julie has is the first name of the discarnate, the, the dead person that we want the reading for, the, the deceased loved one or DLO. Um, and so Julie will say to the medium, Please describe how John, this particular DLO we're reading for today, what did he look like? What were his hobbies? Uh, what was his cause of death? Um, uh, and then some other, you know, specific questions. So that takes care of that right there. Takes care of a couple of things. Since Julie doesn't know anything about the, the sitter or the DLO, there's no way she can leak information. The medium never sees or knows who the sitter is in any way, shape, or form. And again, the only information that the medium gets is the first name, and they get it at the time when the reading starts. So people are like, "Oh, what about a hot reading?" Well, okay, please give me a hot reading for a guy named John.

Yeah, right.

Right? So it's going to be pretty difficult. Um, and so that takes care of many layers of fraud. And, and the fact that we ask specific questions takes care of these things called Barnum statements, and, you know, uh, things that could be applied to anyone or overly generalized statements. Um, and, uh, and then there's a, there's a whole bunch of compartmentalization or what we call blinding. So different mediums don't know different parts, and different experimenters don't know different parts of the information until after all the data are collected. And then we take all these disparate parts and we put them all together, so now we can actually analyze and score the readings. Uh, one of the things too that we have sitters do is we give them two readings. One reading is for them, and the other is what we call a decoy reading. And both readings are de-identified, so the medium— the sitter, sorry— doesn't know, uh, which reading is for them. And so they go through and they score every item for accuracy, and then they pick which reading they think belongs to them. And what the data show is that in more cases than not, the sitter will accurately pick the medium— the, sorry, the reading that was meant for them. And so because of all this, we have now evidence for the existence of anomalous information reception.. And the really cool thing about this protocol now is, you know, we've been running it in various versions since 2007. Uh, we did a, a fairly large replication in 2018, and, uh, it's now been replicated by other labs, uh, in other places around the world. So this seems to be, um, a solid phenomenon. Now, people will always argue you know, the stats or the thing or this or that. But, you know, it's science. And that's just the way science works, right? People, people like to argue.

So, yeah, well, people like to argue, particularly if they're coming from a materialist paradigm that says it's not possible. Yeah. So, you know, again, so we look for— people look for, okay, well, the medium is doing this, or the medium is doing that. And I know a little bit about your protocols. And, you know, so people that are, that are skeptics. Okay, so the medium never has contact with any of the sitters. Either of the sitters are getting the reading. The experimenter doesn't know who the sitters are when they're doing the connection with the medium. So that eliminates, to me, any reasonable explanation for how they're getting the information, any, any physical explanation, in other words.

Yeah, absolutely. That, and that, uh, that those levels of blinding, um, are really essential. Uh, what we've seen over the years too is that people will sort of look at our protocol and go, well, that's really, really complicated. Can we knock this piece out, or could we knock that piece out? And we're like, nope, because you just broke the blinding, or you just, you just had information leakage, or— right? So, um, it's a really good solid protocol, and, uh, people— more, more people seem to be adopting it.

So yeah, and this, you know, this is kind of an aside, but I think about when, when it comes to mediumship, I hear a lot of times a lot of people say things like, well, they're not really reading the deceased person, they're just reading the mind of the sitter, which is, again, that even that in itself is a pretty phenomenal thing.

Yeah, absolutely. So that is a fundamental argument in survival research, uh, which is, it's often called the, um, super psi hypothesis, psi being a, a, uh, an umbrella term for things like telepathy, clairvoyance, cognition. And right, so it's exactly what you said, right? So let's say I'm a medium and you come to me and you want to know about one of your deceased people. In the mediumship model, right, you would ask a question, your deceased person would hear it, the deceased person would tell me the answer as the medium, and then I would tell you the answer as interpreted from my exchange, right? Uh, but in the living agent psi or super psi hypothesis, there's no need for a deceased person. So you would say, I have a question for my deceased person, but it would be something you would know, like, you know, the person's name. And so you would ask me, what's my DLO's name? And I would read your mind, right? Use telepathy. And then I would say the person's name. And, and you'd be like, great. That's so, so this has been a fundamental roadblock in, uh, um, survival research forever, which is why a lot of, um, researchers just stopped doing it. Like, back in the '30s and '40s, they were like, we can't get past this. And, um, what we ended up doing, uh, was crazy. And we started asking the mediums how they felt during readings. And so many— there's an old saying, uh, uh, all mediums are psychics, but not all psychics are mediums. And so what we found when talking to our mediums is that they could tell the difference between a psychic reading, receiving information about a living person, or receiving communication from a deceased person. That felt internally different to them. So we followed up with a number of studies, and we published a paper, uh, like in 2019, 2020, uh, in the Journal of Near-Death Studies that looked at the— and then when you look at people's experience, it's called phenomenology. Um, and, uh, so we study— we, we published a paper on the phenomenology of mediumship readings, and we asked mediums to— under blinded conditions, they didn't know, uh, who they were reading or what they were reading, and they were given a name using our standard AIR protocol. And some of those people were alive and some of those people were deceased. And, um, then we asked the mediums to fill out a series of surveys about their experience. And what we found was that there was in fact differences between the psychic reading and the mediumship reading. And the most significant difference was in feelings of love.

Hmm.

So when a medium in our study— and what the way we did it— when a medium got information, when the medium was in communication with a, with a departed person, they had a greater sense of love than they did just retrieving dead information or you know, information about a living person.

That's fast.

So, so that has become sort of our cornerstone, that the afterlife is based on love.

Yeah, that's, that's fascinating. And to me, there are two really important points we're talking about here. One is, I think, again, I just, I have to laugh when people say it's not really mediumship, they're just reading someone's mind, because these are materialists who believe that it's impossible to read someone's mind. So they're using an impossible thing to describe something. And the other thing I think is really important is that you ask the mediums how they feel. And I happen to know a lot of mediums, and they will tell me that they can tell the difference, like you're saying. And I've seen even mediums watching another medium work and say, she's reading psychically, she's not, she's not making a real connection. And I can't tell. But other mediums say that they can tell that.

Yeah, that's really interesting. We haven't studied that specifically, but I don't find that surprising. Um, but yeah, it's— and even within the parapsychology community and survival researchers, they, um, they still hold out on the, um, uh, to the super psi hypothesis, or this— it's also called living agent psi hypothesis. And Julie did a great presentation which is on YouTube called Living Agent Psi is Dead.. And if people are interested, they can find that on YouTube. And she talks about like, why the living agent psi theory doesn't hold up and all that kind of stuff. And of course, like, even to our protocol that we just published, that we published kind of recently, this, you know, this love finding. Well, people are saying, "Oh, well, the mediums are just deluding themselves. They're just using psychic information. And since they make a living as a medium, they're tricking themselves into believing that it's communication. I'm like, really? How many hoops do you people need us to jump through? Because I'm like, okay, so our position has been, that's a great theory, that's a great hypothesis, test it, let me see your data, and then we can have this conversation.

Yeah, it is interesting how far people will go to find any alternate explanation. And, and that's why I think the field of after-death survival is so fascinating, because there's not just one body of evidence. There's also near-death experiences, there's ITCs, You know, and mediumship is just another layer on top of that. And you guys have done a fantastic job of showing that they can, they can retrieve this information, um, and, and, and eliminating a lot of the things that the skeptics are coming up with.

Well, we try. I mean, skeptics will always, you know, they always move the goalpost, right? Oh, your protocol is weak. Okay, here's why it's not weak. Your statistics are a problem. This isn't why. This is why they're not a problem. Well, you must have cheated. You're a bad person. You're a believer. You can't be trusted. Yeah. Then it turns into personal attacks. And, you know, where do you go? How do you, you know, like, what do you do? It's funny, I read a study about 2 years ago. It's called the WAVE study. And I was very interested in why people believe in the afterlife. There's tons of data around how many people believe in the afterlife and all that kind of stuff. But I was really interested in like, Why do you believe in an afterlife? Or why don't you believe in an afterlife? And what would it take for you to change your mind? Like, what kind of evidence would you have to be presented with to change your mind? And a lot of the pro, pro-afterlife people— that's not the right terminology— whatever, were like, oh, I had a personal experience. And, um, or it's part of my— it's a cultural belief, blah blah blah. And, uh, so that was really interesting. And I said, well, what would it take for you to change your mind? And a lot of them said, well, uh, some kind of scientific breakthrough or some other kind of personal experience. Uh, but the majority of them said, you know, I probably wouldn't change my mind, I wouldn't know. And then on the other side, uh, what was really interesting was that people didn't believe in an afterlife, again, for cultural reasons, or for— that didn't make sense to them, or they hated the idea of religion. So it's very difficult to separate this idea of like consciousness is just a thing, and one of the things that it does is it continues after the death of the body, and keep that concept separate from all the religious views that incorporate that philosophy. And as scientists, we tend to be a little bit more clinical, right? And, um, uh, so, so the, the— and again, the interesting thing on why people— what would take people to change their minds from non-believers to believers was direct personal experience.

Interesting.

Yeah, yeah. So that was really cool. And some said scientific some kind of scientific breakthrough, but it's actually a very small percentage. The vast majority of them said a direct personal experience.

Yeah, that's, that's really interesting because again, a lot of times the, the so-called scientific people, you know, dismiss direct personal experience. That doesn't mean anything if we can't prove it in the lab, it doesn't matter. But we all take direct personal experience for granted every day. If someone reports that they stepped outside and they saw a yellow car, we don't say prove that you saw a yellow car. We'd say, yeah, you probably saw a yellow car. If a scientist is doing research in his lab and he says, I did this experiment and I observed this, we don't typically question their, their motives. We say, yeah, I believe your observations, and they report it. So, but when you guys study this phenomenon and report the data, people accuse you of being believers.

Yeah, it's, it's awful. You know, I'm always like, well, wait, I'm pretty sure most chemists believe in chemistry, right? Like, it's, it's not Like, I can't imagine why would I spend my time studying something that I didn't even think was in the realm of possibility.

Right? Yeah, that's why my background's in engineering. So, and so I'm an evidence person. I'm a rational person as well. And I believe that philosophy and science can help us get at least part of the way this afterlife survival thing. And it bugs me, as I can tell it kind of bugs you, that it's associated with religion. Or it's associated with faith, or it's being woo-woo. And it's like, it's like we can't even really study it, or present the evidence without, without being accused of trying to convert somebody.

Yeah, yeah, there is, there is definitely that. It's, it's very intertwined. And I, and I, and I get it, right? It's, it's, it's difficult for people to take these deeply what are, in fact, spiritually transformative experiences. Yeah, of going to a medium or having some sort of after-death communication experience. And and not— because we don't have a framework for that, right? We don't. It's the, the framework we have in our culture is a religious framework, right? When you have this sort of an epiphany or experience, it becomes a spiritual experience, right? And then that is tied up with all these things, right? You know, and that's because we've, uh, the materialist paradigm doesn't even allow for those things to even exist.

Right, right.

So it's really difficult to even have the conversation about the existence of these things without it automatically becoming like, oh, it's angels or whatever. Right. And again, like, I'm not against that stuff and I don't know that it's not true, but I'm, I'm not there yet. I'm like, we have consciousness. Consciousness seems to exist outside the mind or the, the mind, the outside the brain.

Right.

And consciousness seems to exist after the death of the body. Let's, let's go from there, right? And so, you know, what is the afterlife like? And what can we learn? And how can we use this to help people? And, you know, how can we alleviate suffering and grief and alleviate fear of death, right? How do we apply that knowledge? Yeah, that's kind of where we are.

And that's why I always differentiate, and I, and I'll say materialist paradigm as opposed to scientific, because we can study things scientifically without having a materialist paradigm. But we've, we've been brainwashed into believing that science equals materialism, uh, which precludes even the study of consciousness. And science, you know, they, they can't even tell us what, what consciousness is because it's not— we can't measure it, we can't put it in a test tube.

Yeah, it's exactly true. Uh, a couple of years ago, a few years ago— everything in this field moves like geologic time— um, the, uh, Uh, a researcher by the name of Etzel Cardena wrote this amazing article, and it was published in the APA, uh, journal. It was an editorial, and it talks about the scientific evidence for parapsychology. And he goes through 100 different experiments, meta-analysis, which is a way you can look at different kinds of experiments and pull the data together to get deeper understanding of the phenomena. And, um,. And he comes to the conclusion like this: the evidence for psi is just as strong as any other social science, and it can't just be written off as fraud or, um, uh, poor design, or, you know, those— any of these sorts of typical skeptic tricks that they pull out of their bag, right? Like, you know, oh, it's this, it's that, right? So he publishes that thing, and People are like, wow, this is really amazing. And then the journal, as journals do, get an opposing opinion. And the opposing opinion is— I'm going to paraphrase it here— but it basically says none of your scientific data matter because under this, under the materialist paradigm, psi cannot exist. Therefore, by definition, your data is worthless.

Right.

Any data that shows the existence of psi is by definition flawed, right?

Which is a very scientific way to look at things, right?

Yeah, like, where do you go from there? Where do you do with that? I remember I was in a conversation— I got sucked into a conversation with a skeptic and this other guy, and so they were looking at one of our papers and they kind of started CCing me on this email trail. And one of the researchers says, hey, to the other researcher, would you read this paper and tell me what you think if it's, you know, valid and scientific? And the other researcher says, this paper is 27 pages long. Can you just give me 2 or 3 sentences?

Okay.

And I'm like, really? You're going to critique our shit and you're not even— pardon my language, I swear like a truck driver— the— you're going to critique our stuff and you're not even going to bother to read the paper. You just want like a two-sentence summary. And now you're going to draw your conclusion on whether or not our, you know, 20 years of research is valid.

Yeah. Well, you know, it was funny, I was talking to— and I, with language, I'm very specific. So I would, I would call you a skeptic, I would call that person a cynic or a materialist. And I was talking to this atheist materialist, and he was telling me there's no evidence for any of this stuff. There's no evidence for any survival of consciousness after death or consciousness or anything like that. So I said, well, there's Dr. Julie Beischel's work, there's Dr. Gary Schwartz's work. And I sent him a link to some of Dr. Beischel's work. And the guy comes back, like, this was on Facebook, like 15 minutes later, said, this is about mediumship. I'm not reading this, mediumship is impossible. And I'm like, okay, again, very scientific point of view. I'm not even gonna, I'm not even gonna look at the data. I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna declare it impossible. So that's what people, that's what you are up against with, with your research, I'm sure.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff we encounter all the time, and it's a— it's an ongoing debate. And the other, um, sort of the weird— the other weird thing that we encounter— I don't know if it's weird, but, um, uh, the other question we get asked is, well, why do you study this stuff? Because everyone knows it's true, right? There's a whole section of the population that's like, of course we believe in mediums, and of course we believe in the afterlife, and of course, like Why are you spending time and resources and money, um, studying that?

Yeah, right.

And I'm like, interesting, because not everyone believes it, and there's things we should know. And there's like, mediumship will work for some people but doesn't always work for other people. And like, people are spending money on mediumship readings, so we should understand what that phenomena is. And like, from a health perspective and a mental health perspective and, um, from a treatment perspective and And then to say like, oh, and by the way, the government doesn't fund any of our research, so could we have $10 to help offset, uh, you know, some study costs or whatever? And you're like, what, we have to donate to get you to have to do your own research? And like, yeah, because, you know, the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the normal places where researchers, scientists go, to do, to get funding for research, um, they are not interested in these topics for the most part. I used to, I used to work on NSF projects, and, you know, my budget was a million dollars a year, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. And now I— the biggest grant we can get in parapsychology is really about €50,000 to €60,000 spread across 2 years. Wow. And we're expected to maintain the same level of rigor as a project with a million-dollar budget, right? And it's really difficult.

Well, there's a couple things I want to address here. One is, why do you even study this? Because either side could ask that question. You know, we've got the spectrum. We've got people on the materialist side that say, why would you study this? Because it's a waste of time. It's impossible. It can't exist. You have people, other people say, well, we don't need to study everything scientifically because we know it's true. And, and we do. We do know from direct experience, which we have, and I hate people always discounting direct experience because it's important. But also study— but when we study it from a scientific perspective, we give other people that are in the middle the permission to at least explore it, you know, to say that it's not just the materials, because materials paradigm carries the day in our world most of the time. And so we need— unfortunately, we need to have this Western protocol, the studying, these published papers, for some people to take it seriously.

Yeah, absolutely. And it's, uh, it's sort of— it's, it's a narrow margin, but it does address this very specific segment of the population, at least in Western culture, um, right? So people that have had these experiences but aren't necessarily religious but, um, are more science-minded but want to make sense of what happened to them or what's happened to their loved ones. And, and that's where our stuff sort of lands, is sort of this middle ground. And the other thing too is, uh, Julie's really big on this, and I am as well. We want to protect mediums, right? We think that mediums perform a vital service. Like, a legitimate medium can perform a vital service.

Absolutely.

To our communities and our, our society. And unless we have the data to back that up, it's very easy for people to write them off as frauds, to call them cheaters, whatever, marginalize them, persecute them, right? There are still places in the country where, you know, people find out you're a psychic or a medium, and that's not going to go well for you.

Yeah.

And, you know, there's verses in the Bible that I, I gave an interview a few months ago, and I was talking about mediumship and psychic ability, and the comments section on YouTube was like, this guy isn't talking to mediums, or the mediums aren't talking to, to Debbie, they're talking to demons, right? Because Deuteronomy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Like, you can't, right? So, um, so, uh, we both, both Julie and I, uh, and I probably learned it more from her, but she has a— Julie has a really strong sense of justice. And she wants things to be fair and she wants people to be treated well, and so do I. Um, and, uh, she's really— I think part of what she does is really try to be an advocate for mediums and mediumship, um, and, uh, to not have people just dismiss them, both in the public sector, both in the mental health sector, in the health sector, and in the scientific community.

So, speaking of the mental health sector, and we talked about, and we both agree that mediums perform a service. Have you guys done any research into how mediums help people heal? How they help people with grief?

We have done some preliminary research, and this is an area we really want to get into. But again, it's difficult. Because it's the these aren't easy studies to run and they take time and they take money. Right. And, and staff and all kinds of stuff. And because, you know, people got to eat and pay their mortgages.

Yeah.

Feed their dogs and, you know, all that kind of stuff. And so we have done some preliminary work in this area and are— we published a paper on this a few years ago in a journal called Omega, and it's the model we're working with is something called continuing bonds. And what we found with the continuing bonds model, with continuing bonds, like, so sorry, I'm like, back up 3 steps here. In a lot of the current grief treatment thinking, it's, you know, yeah, your person has died, you should grieve them and then move on and, you know, get over it and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's There are nicer ways to say that, but that's kind of the trajectory, right? Continuing bonds, on the other hand, looks at it slightly differently. It's like, yes, you had a person in your life, that person is now deceased, but the relationship is still there. The relationship is just different. So how do you work with that different relationship to maintain this bond so that you are happy and healthy and connected to your deceased loved one. And so we've been doing some work in that area. And we've seen that that's been pretty positive. We've collected a bunch of anecdotal data about people who have gone to see mediums and then gone to see mental health providers. And, you know, some people have reported the, you know, the medium talked to my soul, the mental health provider talked to my head, right? Like, like, and so So, um, the nice thing is that there is now a movement in the mental health community to include things like spirituality, uh, in the mental health process, but they're still really cautious about afterlife topics. So we've actually developed a tool and a series, a series of tools and assessments that we published in our journal, uh, Threshold. It's available on our website. To help therapists integrate afterlife topics into their therapeutic sessions.

Oh, wow. So that's in Threshold. That's available.

Yeah, yeah, that's on our, that's on our site.

Yeah, I definitely want to, I want to call that out. Because I was just thinking that might be one way if, if we could prove that it's beneficial to mental health, that may, maybe we could slip it in to getting some funding from the mental, from the health community.

Yeah. And again, like you you can cut this stuff up in a bunch of different ways, right? Like, like, yeah, we're interested in whether or not it's real. Like, are mediums really talking to deceased people? Sure. Is there an afterlife? But from a mental health perspective, it almost doesn't matter, right? It comes back to the person's experience. Right? So like, my mom passed away at the beginning of the COVID lockdowns, and she was already elderly and kind of not not in great health. And, um, so she passed away. And, uh, several months— months, maybe like 2 months after she passed, I had this incredibly vivid dream about her. And I, um, I don't— I'm one of those weird people that don't really remember their dreams, or, you know, I just kind of like, yeah, that was a dream, whatever. But this was so incredibly real to me, and it was this like I was walking through a forest and I found my mom. I found this little house and my mom was in there. And she was— my mom used to be an artist, uh, before she had kids. And, uh, and then she never got to pursue it again as she got older. And then my dad got sick and he passed away and blah blah blah, all those, you know, all the family stuff that happens. And I went into this little house and it was just filled with her art. And she was there being this amazing artist and doing this thing. And we had this like just amazing interaction. And she didn't speak to me at all, And eventually, like, we went for this walk, we came back, and I was going to go into her house with her. And she was like, no, it's time for us to go. She opened the door and this house was just— I'm getting goosebumps again.

I just got goosebumps.

Their house was just filled with just love and light and people that were waiting for her. And she closed the door. And I woke up and I was sobbing. And I was like, holy crap. Like, wow, that was an amazing experience. And I perceive that as a communication from my mother. And I don't care what anybody else says. Yeah, yeah. And I'm happy to talk to a mental health provider about that. I'm happy to have someone help me integrate that process, that, that experience. But you're not gonna— no one's gonna tell me that that profound experience wasn't an after-death communication. They don't have the— and they don't have the right to tell me that.

Yeah, well, I just got goosebumps as you were telling it, you know, full disclosure. But, you know, the thing is, again, I'm trained in Western science. And I think Western science is great. I think we've given too much to it, though. I think we've discounted, you know, again, direct experience, something like that, that people in my community would call that a dream visit. And it has a lot of aspects of a dream visit, you know, the fact that a lot of times they don't speak in a dream visit, there's usually some sort of barrier that we can't, that we can't cross. It seems real, we remember it, you know, years later, all those, all those things, you know, and we, and people have studied it, it's similar to an NDE. And we do, we do have those things. And I add that to the body of evidence. And in addition to all the stuff that you and Julie are doing, to say that this, this is real. So I think both things are important. You know, that direct experience is important. Also, again, giving people— letting people know, yeah, this happens. You know, this is not a one-off. This is not someone's crazy. This is not just wishful thinking. I forgot the percentage of people who lose a spouse that report an afterlife communication. It's like 75 or 80% report some sort of afterlife communication. And we shouldn't discount all that.

Yeah, absolutely. And again, right, we shouldn't make people— the normalization of these phenomena is incredibly important.

Exactly.

People shouldn't feel shame, and people shouldn't be ridiculed for having these experiences. They're part of the human condition. We have these experiences for a reason.

Yeah.

And if you feel that that was a sincere— if a person feels that that was a sincere, honest communication experience, then Good for them. That's wonderful. Um, you know, the interesting thing though that I— that we find in our research is that there's a— there are groups of people that never have those experiences and they're really pissed off about it. Like, they're really mad and they get mad at other people for having those experiences. And so one of the things we've been trying to think about is how do we get people into the mindset or into the state that would allow them to have those experiences.

Interesting.

And so Julie wrote a book called, uh, Love in the Afterlife, and it summarizes a lot of her research, um, and gives her own spin on things. But she talks about various aspects of mediumship personality and psyche and how people could, uh, foster those things in themselves. Not so they become like full-blown mediums and hang out a shingle, but that they create an internal environment and an external environment that is attractive and is suitable for after-death communication experience.

Yeah.

Conducive to after-death communication.

Yeah, I think that's— and that's a very interesting observation, because I get people that not really necessarily pissed off about not having the experience, but let's say disappointed, right? Other people have these experiences. Other people have dream visits, other people get signs and synchronicities. You know, might hear from their loved ones, and even on a mediumistic kind of way, why don't I, you know? And so then sometimes those people will dismiss the whole thing because I haven't had that, that direct experience.

Yeah. And, and there's a lot of, you know, there's— I was talking before about, you know, the triad of communication in a mediumship reading, right? And so there's a lot of things that are outside of our control, right? When a mediumship reading tends to go bad, people automatically blame the medium, but maybe the sitter isn't ready, or they haven't prepared properly, or the discarnate isn't in a position to have that conversation yet. Or, you know, so there's a lot of things going on behind the scenes. People, you know, there's a lot of— I don't want to say, uh, you know, there's a lot of like traditional wisdom around like what the afterlife is like and what discarnates are doing, but we don't really know.

Right, right.

So a lot of that is, you know, informed speculation, but, you know, and it's all individual. We're all individuals. We're all on our own path and on our own scale. And so there may be reasons that have nothing to do with the individual why they're not receiving those communications, and it may not be anything bad. Or, you know, it's— so it's, it's, it's, um, this is why we want to focus on education with our work, is that we want people to know these things. We want people to understand these things, um, that it's not always them, or it's not always just a fraudulent medium, or, you know, Uh, that, that there's a lot of things going on. And, uh, like, I, I know, um, uh, so one of the things that, that often will happen is someone will be grieving and they'll be like, I saw a medium on TV, I'm gonna go get a mediumship reading. And they don't do any research about what a mediumship reading is. They don't know how to pick a medium. They haven't thought it through. They don't know that this is potentially going to be a profound spiritual experience, a spiritually transformative experience, or it might be a complete bust, right? And, um, that's kind of what we want to do is educate the public about what real mediumship looks like, what real mediumship is, what you can expect, how, how mediumship can be integrated— your mediumship experience could be integrated with a mental health professional, um, you know, those kinds of things. And It's a tough challenge. I remember I was on an interview, I heard an interview and there's a researcher, his name's Bernardo Kastrup, and he was talking about doing psychedelics and he's in a place where that's legal to do. But he was preparing, he was like, I'm going to do a large dose of psychedelics. And so I went to my doctor and I had my chart checked and my liver checked and I took small microdoses to make sure I understood the phenomenon. I talked to the person that was going to facilitate my thing. And like, he did all this research for weeks and weeks and weeks. And I was like, that's what people have to think about when they do a mediumship reading, right? Right. Or, uh, any sort of real, uh, after-death communication, uh, experience, right?

Yeah.

Like when they're, when they're requesting some sort of after-death communication connection. And, um, and we tend not to do that, right? People tend not to think about it because there's this media sort of perception that you can walk into a grocery store and some medium will run up to you and start giving you a reading, right?

Yeah.

And it's going to be mind-blowing or whatever. So, um, I think for me that's one of the biggest takeaways I want people to just hear in general is, um, it's a process. It's, it's, it's a therapeutic intervention, right? And you need to respect it, and you need to respect yourself, and you need to be gentle with yourself, and you need to be educated. About what all that means. So you wouldn't just like walk into a pharmacy and start popping whatever pills you see. Oh, blue, that seems nice, right?

Right.

Like, yeah, you would talk to your doctor, you would talk to whatever. So I'm belaboring this point.

But no, it's an excellent point. Because, again, some people, they do, they think of medium reading, you know, they see it on TV, or they walk down the street and they see a psychic and they go in. And, you know, I always say there, there are bad mediums, there are medium mediums, there are good mediums, there are great mediums, and there are frauds. And we should admit that there are frauds. And sometimes a good medium can have a bad reading. Because as we said, there's this triad of things going on there. There's the discarnate, the loved one in spirit that we're trying to communicate with. There's the sitter, and there's the medium. And if those three are on the same wavelength, then it's not going to come off.

Yep, absolutely right. It's communication with people. People.

Yeah.

And that's always tricky, right? Uh, talking to people can be, can be rough, and getting people together can be rough. So yeah, especially when one of them's a stranger and one of them's dead, right? Julie has a, a saying that I love. It's, um, we study human communication, just one of the people happens to be dead.

Yeah. So I do want to, um, kind of understand how you— because I you know, Julie got in the mediumship thing because of her mother. And I think she saw mediums. And I'm guessing she was trying to maybe even validate her own experiences by like, I'm going to, I'm going to study this. And you're, you're helping her out and help her, you know, you co-founded the Windbridge Institute. But you, you do other things with consciousness. And then I guess you're also doing some things with AI. So the first question I want to ask you is, what, what do you perceive consciousness as being? Um, what is, what is human consciousness to you?

Sorry, I don't mean to laugh. It's just one of the most profound questions ever to be faced by human beings. Exactly.

So what is— I understand that.

I have no idea what consciousness is. What I, what I tend to believe based on the data is that it is, um, at least some component of consciousness exists separate from the human body, and that our brain tends to be some sort of receiver of consciousness. And, uh, when our bodies die, some aspect of that consciousness continues in some way, shape, or form, uh, somewhere, somehow. And I know that is a completely not satisfying answer, but there is no good answer.

There is a good answer, but the reason why I said that— you mentioned Dr. Kastrup, and I'm a huge fan of Bernardo Kastrup. I, I think I've read almost everything he's written. I've had him on the program. I watch everything I can find with him.

It's a interesting guy.

Uh, and he's the one that introduced me to this idea of idealism, which is the exact opposite of materialism. You know, it's like you take material and flip it on its head. So that's what I believe. So I believe that everything is consciousness. But then when it comes to AI, there's a debate. Can a computer be conscious? Can, can AI develop consciousness, or does it have consciousness? And so I'm—

I—

you're, you're kind of looking at AI inside. So I was going to ask you— can AI have consciousness, or does it have consciousness?

Well, that's one thing that, uh, psi researchers are really interested in. And, uh, we've sort of— and again, this is not a universe, this is, this is fringe stuff now. We are, we are way down the rabbit hole.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Okay, so I just, um, the, uh, there's, there's, um, a group of people in our field, myself included, who think that, uh, psi is a fundamental function of consciousness, right? So telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis. So if we can see if an AI can perform psi tasks, that may be an indication that it is in fact conscious.

Interesting.

So, um, there are researchers out there right now, and myself included, that have been tasking the AIs to do different types of side problems. So can you remote view? Can you precog? Can you, uh, um, can you use, uh, your abilities to change the output of different kinds of systems in different places? And, and those kinds of things. And some of the results have been, well, really interesting, actually. And this is still very early phase work. Um, one of the projects I did really early on— so I'm interested in instrumental transcommunication, or ITC, which is this idea that you can use technology, uh, to interact, uh, with, um, uh, either discarnates or other non-corporeal entities.. And, um, so one of the systems I ended up working on really early on was this combination of AI and what I call a consciousness interface. So if you look at the history of, uh, psychic research, especially in the areas of psychokinesis, which is the ability of the brain to affect the, um, the physical world, there's a specific area of research known as micro-psychokinesis, and it studies the effects of intention on devices known as random number generators. And these are quantum devices that can output, uh, all kinds of like strings and strings of zeros and ones very, very quickly, like an electronic coin flipper. And these devices statistically over time will work out to be 50/50, right? So 50, um, 50 of the coin flips will be heads or ones, and 50% will be zeros or tails, right? And, um, but this research at Princeton, at the, um, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab, or PERL Lab, which is now closed, said if you get people and you have them focus their intention to change the ratio of zeros and ones with a random number generator, it does in fact change. So these devices, random number generators, regs or RNGs, random number generators, um, have kind of become synonymous with this idea of a consciousness interface. It's a way to capture consciousness, uh, interactions. And so I hooked up a big pile of regs like 7 of them, uh, uh, 8 of them, and, um, to a chatbot and, uh, uh, uh, a custom language corpus and a predictive text algorithm. And I'm not going to go into a lot of detail what that is, but, um, but anyway, what you can do is you sit down at the chatbot and you can ask the thing questions and then it runs out to its corpus and it starts picking words and then it uses predictive text, which is like that thing on your phone when you're like typing a message and you're like, "Hi," and then it brings up the next possible words you wanna, but unlike other AI systems that don't rely on randomness, they rely on algorithms, this thing runs out to this bank of random number generators and then uses those to select the next word in the sentence. Hmm. So it has this consciousness interface built into it. And when I launched that project, it started producing outputs. And I said, what is your name? And the thing said, Throne of the Sphinx.

Hmm.

Wow. And you can go to ThroneoftheSphinx.com and you can see all the different outputs that this thing has generated. And I've used it for everything from like experimental designs to how do we deal with climate change to— and it's very— I wrote it in such a way where the corpus is very poetic and, um, um, it's, it's not an engineering concept, it's more like, um, a song or poetry or art. And, uh, because I'm interested in those things and And so that was one of the first attempts I made with coupling a consciousness-capable, a consciousness-sensitive device to an AI, and then let those two things sort of fight it out and see what kind of outputs they produce.

Interesting.

Yeah, it's been really cool. I love it. It's been really fun to talk about. And work with. The other thing I do, which is just sort of fun, is I take the output of random number generators while people focus on specific intentions like love or gratitude, and I take those data and I visualize them. And so instead of just looking at them from a statistics perspective, I turn them into 3D, uh, uh, images. And, uh, and sometimes I even turn them into 3D objects and shoot them out to a printer, and, uh, like a 3D printer. And, um, so this stuff is very speculative, but the idea here is that it's, uh, and then when people look back at the artwork for the intention that they set, uh, they often will find meaning in the images that they find. Again, this could all be very Rorschach-y and all that kind of stuff, but it's, it's really meant to be this way to engage people with the idea of non-locality, with the idea of bigger connection, with the idea that what they think and feel has an impact on other people and things in the world.

So yeah, and you just touched on some things. I heard about the random number generators, like whenever there's a world event, you know, like 9/11, you know, they all go crazy, or tsunami, you know, they, they go crazy. I know Limbic Tackers has done a lot of work with with, you know, the power of intention. So I— to me, the idea of non-locality has been proven. It's been kind of beaten to death, you know. I don't know how anybody could deny it. Um, but, you know, and I asked you about the AI, and I realized we went down a big rabbit hole there. But yeah, it is a, um, it is a question we're gonna have to answer really, really soon. And, you know, I, I, I'm kind of more on the side of Dr. Kastrup. I don't think computers can have consciousness because to me consciousness is about experience. So they, you and we can never tell if they're having an experience. Um, yeah, go ahead.

I'll push back on that for one thing. Um, so when I talk about— so we've, you know, the, the joke is there's a fine line between AI and ITC, right? So if consciousness is non-local, right, and it's able to possess our brains, right, and if an AI is complex enough why couldn't consciousness possess or infect or affect?

Yeah. And that's, that's a thought that I've actually had, because I don't believe consciousness is generated by the brain. I believe that there's some sort of interface between consciousness that preexists the body, and it does somehow connect. And then there's this thing like, when does it connect? And, you know, in evolution, you know, when did the soul become connected to the body? And when a fetus is being developed, when it's conscious? So if you take that model, which I do agree with, right, right, then some people can say the next logical step would be if we developed an AI complex enough, maybe consciousness could possess that. And I know, right, I think Tom Campbell kind of goes with, with that theory. It's like he talks about AI guy.

Yeah, yeah, we call those non-biological consciousness hosting platforms.

Yeah, yeah. That's— well, so we went, we went deep, but I did want to discuss something because it's something I've been thinking a lot about, you know, AI AI is, it's becoming all over a big part of our lives. And people, some people are scared of AI. And I'm like, but AI doesn't have an ego. AI doesn't have a will. So I'm not scared of it.

But, you know, yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, I, you know, I, I've leaned all in on AI. I think I've studied AI, you know, I'm, my background is computer science. You know, I was, I was studying AI when we called them, you know, neural nets or whatever. And yeah, it's fun. I recently published a book called The Ethical Considerations of Applied Psychic Science and Afterlife Science, and I co-wrote this with an AI.

CB: Oh, okay. Yeah.

RW: And so that was really fun. So I sat down and I asked the AI a bunch of different questions, and we came up with this book together. And so I wrote a preface, the AI wrote a preface. It's fun. It's weird. It's a weird book, but I, I love that I wrote it.

Well, I used ChatGPT yesterday because I said, you know, tell me the difference between intelligence and consciousness, you know, and, and it gave me some answers I kind of agreed with, is, you know, because there's no doubt that AI, that they can do work, that they can solve problems. Um, yeah, are they conscious? That's, that's, it's beyond my pay grade to figure out how do you even test that. Yeah, I don't know if another human's conscious. I assume that they are.

Exactly. So that's why we've And that's why as psi researchers, we've been sort of going down this, like, can they do psi tasks, right? And that's been really interesting. We've had it— I, I've had some interesting success with remote viewing tasks. You know, you, you have the thing do a remote viewing, and then you have it generate a prompt for an image generator, and then it generates the image, and then you compare the generated image to the targets, and you use independent judging. And yeah, it's really, it's been really cool. Um, again, this is just at the very early stages of this stuff, and, um, it's, uh, it's been pretty interesting. Um, I did a project too recently, uh, you know, the other big area in edge science and parapsychology is UFOs and UAPs, right? And I won't drag you down that rabbit hole too much, but I ended up using an AI, ChatGPT and some other ones, to say, hey, listen, you are an outsider. You look at the human experience, but you're not human. And as an alien intelligence, what might you— with a— without a complete— you don't have a complete understanding of what it means to be human. And a lot of times you misrepresent your knowledge base, right? These machines hallucinate and they do like that. Yeah. So how could we use that to model other types of non-human alien intelligences. So I did this whole presentation, uh, at the Society of Scientific Exploration earlier this year that went through that and talked about, like, if you— if, you know, what does an AI think about the human condition, and how does that— how might that relate to our interactions with UAPs and UFOs and other spiritual entities. Anyway, yeah, uh, so again, that's way down the rabbit hole. And I—

yeah, well, you know, I get it. I think those are, those are things that, you know, help us to understand ourselves, you know, who, who we are as human beings and, and consciousness and non-locality, which again, like I said, for me at this point is a given, but for a lot of people it isn't. So maybe this research will help with that. Mark, we're coming to the end of our time. I want to thank you, uh, very much for, for doing this today. I've really enjoyed our conversation. Any last thoughts you want to leave with the audience today?

Yeah, you know, I just, um, I, I, I, I just want to plug the center if I can.

Absolutely.

So, you know, Julie and I co-founded the Windbridge Research Center. You can learn more about it at windbridge.org. You can sign up for our email list. All of our free educational materials are online. All of our— as many of our research papers that we have access to, the original research papers are online. You can go to the education tab on our homepage. Um, there's just a lot of information there. Please sign up for our email list. If you find what we do helpful, please consider making a donation because we can only do this stuff with, uh, the support of the public.

So yeah, yeah, absolutely. And I, I tell people about all the time and about, you about the work that you guys are doing. I think it's extremely important. Um, I, I— you mentioned continuing bonds earlier. That's, that's all I talk about when I'm working with people in grief. I think that's— to me, it's the only way to move forward, you know, uh, in a productive way.

Thank you. Yeah, I agree. I think it's an amazing model, and it's— I think it's really going to help people. So, Brian, thank you so much for having me on. I really appreciate it.

All right, enjoy the rest of your evening.

Thank you.

Hi there, I'm really excited to tell you about my latest ebook. It's 4 lessons that you can learn from the near-death experience without going through all the trouble of dying to learn them. I've been studying NDEs for several years now. I am completely convinced that not only are they 100% real, but that there's some very universal wisdom that we can get from the near-death experience. And I've distilled that down in this book into 4 short lessons. And I've also given you all the reasons why I believe the NDEs are absolutely real. So go to www.grieftogrowth.com/NDElessons to pick it up for free. www.grief-the-number-2-growth.com/NDElessons. I hope you enjoy it.