Has anybody done REGRESSIVE-hypnosis by which the subject is hypnotically regressed back to a previous REINCARNATION? The only time I've seen it done was on the Oprah Winfrey Show. In that case, the subjects were hypnotized before their appearance on stage. Apparently, there has to be a preparation if it is a regression done on stage. So have any of you ever done Reincarnation on stage?

Yes. Many times.

Reincarnation as in ... subject thinks he used to be Napoleon or something like that?

My stage character is a previous incarnation. Nevermind...

You might want to read Morey Bernstein's 1956 book The Search for Bridey Murphy.

Good thoughts,

Bob Cassidy

Irish hypnotist Barry Sinclair used to do it all the time. A very dramatic moment in his show. And all done, I believe, through very clever cueing of the subject.

Reincarnation? What the hell... ya only live once why not give it a try?

Contrary to the debunker myth, Chris, after having regressed well over 1,000 people, I have never had even one claim to have been any famous personality in a past life. Plus, in the pre-talk, I make it clear that even though we have experiences of a past life, that does not in and of itself make reincarnation an objective reality. It's just an experience in the mind which can be valuable in the present life. When it comes to famous past lives I like the comment of mystic Dion Fortune who wrote that a famous past life does not add glamour to the current life so much as make one wonder what you did to achieve your current lowly status.

Bob, I've read about the Bridey Murphy case, including Bernstein's original book as well as the debunkings. The debunkers make good arguments for what COULD have been the sources, although they only prove correspondence, not causation. I would say there are other instances that are far more interesting, such as the history of Omm Sety.

I'm with DMCRAIG. I worked as a past life regressionist for a couple years and only a couple times did anyone claim to be anything remotely special showing that those claims of "Why are they always ex VIP's?" to be utter rubbish.
Respect to Bob but, as fantastic (truly) as The Bridey Murphy story was at that time, there are now, admittedly thousands just like it. We KNOW how that works now.
However, I find it fascinating just how stupid some human beings can be, when they totally dismiss the very strong evidence ( I try NEVER to use the word PROOF)that reincarnation looks like being factual. There are literally thousands of cases, albeit I personally have only performed a couple dozen or so (not merely performed but ran checks on the information given)that actually shook me.
I should say in closing that it's not the non-believers of reincarnation, per se, that sadden me, but rather the non believers of ANYTHING. Those who spend their lives desperately trying to be the first in the history of MAN to prove a negative.
Fascinating weird little people who simply cling on to the river bed (Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah), collectively of course. Never is it for them to go forth alone.

Bobser, Occam's Razor applies to reincarnation. If we don't need to posit it, when we don't. The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. There is nothing sad about a lack of belief. I find it rather liberating.

If you are doing regression on stage, as opposed to in therapy, you should strive to make it dramatic and entertaining. That is why a performer would encourage someone to regress back to Napoleon rather than a washerwoman, and why you regress people back to the trenches in 1915 rather than a nursing home in the sixties!

And I agree with Bobser and the philosopher Herbert Spencer who wrote, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Tony, the thing about Occam's Razor isn't merely that if we don't need to posit a possibility, then we shouldn't do it because the evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Rather, it is a philosophical principle of economy: the explanation that is simplest AND FULLY EXPLAINS THE SITUATION is the one we should accept. Coming up with a list of complicated "maybe they did this" reasons when a simpler solution resolves a question does not follow Occam's Razor.

Of course, the problem with reincarnation is determining the depth of the situation. As pointed out, few people who are regressed ever claim to be someone famous, and thus it is rare to be able to find records of the past when a person claims something happened to them in a past life. If someone has a regression indicating they were a farm hand in a previous life, there is likely to be little contemporary information on that life. Therefore, without having full knowledge of the situation, it is virtually impossible to claim Occam's Razor either for reincarnation or against it.

That is why I stress to actors and clients that the objective reality of a past life is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you get something out of the regression experience and can apply it to your life today.

Kraig, if someone in therapy gets something out of a regression of course it is a positive experience for them, and a valid form of therapy. Free association and dream analysis fall into the same category. But that doesn't mean that what they are recounting is a real experience. I am not dismissing reincarnation without research. Greater minds than mine have done the research, and have concluded that reincarnation is not a reality.

Life is too short to repeat that research; I merely accept the findings and move on with my life. Regression is a useful therapy, a nice bit in a show, and an illusion.

Well, Tony, I could pull out the names of minds that are far greater than mine and who have concluded that reincarnation is a reality. So on that level, neither of us "win."

I wrote, "I make it clear that even though we have experiences of a past life, that does not in and of itself make reincarnation an objective reality." You wrote, "...that doesn't mean that what they are recounting is a real experience."

So why are you trying to disagree when we're saying the same thing?

I do find it interesting, however, that you move from reincarnation possibly not being real (your above quoted statement) to claiming that it is not real ("an illusion") without any documentation to support that claim. Perhaps that's just a preconception that you choose to believe and that filters what you write. I say I don't know if reincarnation is factually true, but that its objective reality is irrelevant save that it can be used to understand one's life today.

Hi Kraig. I am not disagreeing with you; you phrased your post in a reasonable and rational way. Its just that when we write brief posts like these they can occasionally appear argumentative.

My belief (and yes, it is a belief; I cannot categorically prove it) that reincarnation is not a reality is based on the fact that millennia of human experience has not produced any evidence even suggestive of anything surviving death. So I chose to believe nothing survives death, and I am reasonably confident I will be proved right when the time comes - though I will not know that, being dead!

Meanwhile it makes a great bit of business in a hypnosis show.

C'mon guys, a great joke here and ya wanna argue?

Tony, I honor and respect your decision not to believe in reincarnation.

However, I would respectfully disagree with your claim that there is not "any evidence suggestive of anything surviving death." I've already given just one phenomenal instance of a woman whose life indicates the POSSIBILITY of reincarnation. The Bridey Murphy case has been debunked, but not really disproven. That is, merely because something might explain something that superficially could be associated with reincarnation, that does not prove that reincarnation was not the source of her experience. There are many books that give evidence suggestive of the survival of death, but because most people don't have famous lives, it's impossible to prove one way or another.

I would suggest that reincarnation is an unproven hypothesis explaining the unexplainable. Therefore, it is as reasonable as some of the very convoluted and, IMO, unsatisfactory debunkings attempting disprove reincarnation as a reasonable solution to the data.

Kraig, the problem with any evidence you quote is that it all tends to be anecdotal. There is nothing measurable or repeatable, and so scientists look for rational explanations, however convoluted.

At one point Konstantin Raudive claimed to be able to tape the voices of the dead, and if he was correct that would have been the first evidence of anything surviving. However his work proved to be unrepeatable, ambiguous, and open to far more rational explanations. I am not aware of any non-anecdotal evidence suggesting survival. It just seems to me to be an irrational belief that is not needed to explain anything we encounter. Its chief purpose is to help people cope with grief.

However if I am wrong and anyone here has been reincarnated, welcome back.

Tony, as a hypnotist, I appreciate your mastery of suggestive language. I like the way you get in little digs such as anything that agrees with you is "rational" implying that anything else is not rational. Very well done, sir!

I would point out that earlier you wrote it's a "fact that millennia of human experience has not produced any evidence even suggestive of anything surviving death." I noted that this is not true and mentioned just two examples of many. Your response was a radical movement of the goalposts.You ignored your claim of thousands of years without "suggestive" evidence for reincarnation—tacitly admitting that there has been such anecdotal evidence to support it—and now demand evidence that is measurable and repeatable. Another great job of cleverly ignoring what you had previously stated to demand something else. Again. well done, sir!

And unfortunately an individual lifetime is neither measurable nor repeatable. Each person is unique. [I could point out that the last group of people who tried to thus quantify humans was the doctors of the Nazis, but that would invoke Godwin's Law, and I wouldn't want to do that!]

Indeed, there are virtually innumerable anecdotal cases that are suggestive of reincarnation that cannot be explained away with "rational" (i.e., things that fit into your personal belief system) explanations. As a true skeptic, rather than looking for cute explanations that simply satisfy my belief system, I'm content to look at all the evidence and, like Mr. Spock, just call it "fascinating," as it all neither proves nor disproves reincarnation.

Thank you. I work at it. This strain of awkwardness and cussedness is in the Celtic blood - just look at Mindpunisher and Mark Cannot Be Mentioned L.....

I have a tendency to completely disregard anecdotal evidence, because it is too easily corrupted by human factors. For instance the catholic church thoroughly investigated a supposed miracle attributed to late Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Supposedly someone had a miraculous recovery from an inoperable tumour after praying to the tea-towelled one. The church, who in fairness are pretty tough on miraculous claims, were happy that the miracle had happened, so she was beautified, the first step towards canonisation. However the woman, her husband, and her doctor, all said that the tumour was not inoperable, and her recovery was entirely down to conventional medical intervention.

History will record it as a miracle, whereas the truth is it was a far more commonplace occurrence. I have read extensively (including many detailed studies of reincarnation) and have encountered nothing to shake my atheistic certainty. I don't have a closed mind, but I do have a highly picky mind. And measurable and repeatable are its mantras.

Thanks all for the previously recommended reading. If anyone has any further suggestions on books or training that might help in this area, I would be grateful. Mike Booth, aka joe yang