Talk:Past life regression

message: "Many skeptics claim that past lives are just selective thinking. Some studies conducted in Europe have shown that implausible claims of reincarnation can be caused by memory errors. This also can account for a few plausible claims. Though even the researchers say that you can not completely disprove a claim."
While noting an able copy-edit by BlueJ774 on 14 June 2007, the presumably well-meaning addition of this paragraph by 66.222.30.24 on 5 May 2007 has nevertheless survived longer than it should. 
The phrases "Many skeptics ... claim," "Some studies ... have shown," and "the researchers say" are vague and unsupported. Tolerable, perhaps, in limited instances of a larger insertion by an author seeking assistance in finding authoritative citation to a reference the author knows exists, but has perhaps misplaced. Their isolated use here, unverified, impairs the article's NPOV, so the paragraph should be removed. 
See, also, emerging discussion of "weasel words" in connection with the Manual of Style, at WP:WEASEL. dkbrklyn 20:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Okay, do we REALLY need the Criticism section?  It just repeats 'The reality of lives recalled under PLR.'  I realize the de facto rule is every page must have a criticisms section (just like real encyclopedias) but the article pretty much criticizes PLR from the beginning.
Also, I'm removing the final two words of 'Skeptical sources such as Ian Wilson’s Mind out of Time and The After Death Experience (1981 and 1987), Paul Edwards’ Reincarnation (2002) and Melvin Harris’ Investigating the Unexplained (2003) have argued apparently convincingly...'  Trying way too hard to be NPOV/POV at the same time.  'Have argued' means the same without sounding so wimpy. --Marco Passarani (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your changes. In general, a criticism section is actually discouraged. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant 

message: The article has been rewritten to improve the introduction, incorporate previous criticisms, add a new section of the therapeutic use of past lives, improve the balance between sceptics and supporters views and improve the number of references used. 
I would like the comments by the Wikipedia editors to be removed regarding the neutrality and the quality standards of this article.
Andy 
Andy Tomlinson (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - July 2008 

message: Note that skeptic is the US spelling, sceptic is the UK spelling. Jayen466 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: for UK read British/Commonwealth/International spelling :) Verbal chat 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptic/sceptic

message: I was alerted to this article and was appalled by it flagrant violations of most of Wikipedia's policies. The major ones are listed at the top of the article. This article will be overhauled in a painful and large way very soon. I'm also posting a notice to WP:FTN about this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I helped to clean up this article some time ago and have been watching it, and I think that what you wrote above is a gross overstatement.  Before you merged in the "Life before lives" stuff, the article was pretty restrained and avoided making any dramatic claims.  I would have preferred to tone down the claims even more, but before you got involved I was the only one watching this article and didn't want to turn a reasonable compromise into a one-on-one edit war. looie496 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, you shouldn't have compromised. It read like a promotional puff piece one might find in a newspaper advertisement with one of those disclaimers about "medical advice" and "opinions not being that of this publication". ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article will be overhauled in a painful and large way very soon." Of course; you have a deep, intimate knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the subject, as well as many similar subjects, plus declared qualifications and experience, and being completely open with who you are. RichardKingCEng (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible article

message: My understanding is that whilst many practitioners and patients believe in actual past lives, many consider the whole process to be purely metaphorical. There should be some references on this issue somewhere. Fainites barley 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Metaphor

message: * Past life regression - article predominantly discussing hypnotic study of episodic memory alleged to have originated from somewhere outside a person's current life.
* Xenoglossy - article predominantly discussing hypnotic study of linguistic memory alleged to have originated from somewhere outside a person's current life.
In what way are these two concepts unrelated exactly? K2709 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only two cases, individuals, where it is mentioned.  I also agree it's not a good choice as it's a generally not accepted concept.  Also, I agree with this revert, as the source itself specifically compares it to repressed memory therapy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of See Also: Xenoglossy

message: The very long section added recently by User:Siddharthananda (talk) appears to have been taken from Chalice hypnotherapy web site. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation from another web site 

message: == The recent articles and TV shows has once again brought limelight on regression therapy. However following questions are now being asked by the common public to the practitioners of regression therapy:-
    (a) can regression therapy be utilized by police to nail suspects of a crime?
    (b) does a person during regression hypnosis also deludes and if yes is there a technique/drill to differentiate between delusion                
        and past life experience?
    (C) Is regression therapy requires medical fitness?
 ==
::My answers: (a): No, I don't think so. Perhaps therapy can give ideas on historic cases, but not by far reliable enough to rewrite history books without corrobating evidence ;-)
(b) Yes, unfortunately. The amount of fantasy/symbolic material compared to "real" memories varies, so there's no telling what's real until supporting traditional evidence is found.
(c) Fitness isn't required, except perhaps being free from breathing issues to be able to relax deep enough. Medical fitness has been reported to improve dramatically in a few cases after successful therapy. Hepcat65 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Can Regresion  therapy be used outside the realms of medical therapy? 

message: I added a link to a serious organisation, *The International Board for Regression Therapy (IBRT) Inc, "an independent examining and certifying board for past life therapists, researchers, and training programs. Its mission is to set professional standards for practice, evaluate the preparation and qualifications of practitioners and the quality of training programs, and to issue certificates to those who pass the rigorous evaluation process."
User:WLU removed the link with a degratory comment "useless pseudoscience". As the article on Transcendental Meditation can have a link to an organisation who promotes that kind of spiritual practice, so why shouldn't this article have a link to an organisation who promotes serious research & sets professional standards for practitioners? Hepcat65 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on whether it is a "serious" organisation, as you claim, or a "promotor of pseudoscience" as User:WLU claims. I propose that each side presents evidence for either case. Whether the link preliminarily should be added again pending the discussion I am not sure, but if that would entice User:WLU to join the discussion rather than ignoring it the past 18 days then perhaps so. I will glance at the website and add the link myself depending on my own impression. Others are of course invited to join the discussion. Fedor (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I have been checking out some of the studies reference to on the site and they seem to check out OK on google and google scholar, but I need to underline that these studies barely lend support for providing evidence for the reality of past live regression. Rather, most of them focus on benefical aspects of the therapy and providing softening circumstances for some of the criticisms. Also, many studies are old, like from the 80s or late 70s. The rest of the website does not help much either, so I am still unsure about the link. I will add it anyway to spark the discussion and because it provides information that a person may be interested in when exploring the topic. Fedor (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Promotor of pseudoscience* -  Also not a notable organization selling certification,  I don't think we need the spam link.  Also note that their 'upcoming events' are dated 2006.  Probably defunct. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First look at the front side, there's news from february this year. The organisation is notable, since they are for example recommended by both "Complementary Medicine For Dummies" published by For Dummies (2007)  and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Past Life Regression" published by Alpha (2003)  (see Google Books here and here.) Hepcat65 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't seem to be a notable organisation, or add to the article. Seems to be a fringe source and a spam link. Verbal chat 16:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any arguments other than your general impression? We cannot use this for anything. Please come with some facts! Fedor (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  And please do not remove the external link while the discussion is in progress. Especially since you have not supplied us any evidence other than your general impression! Fedor (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  So far Hepcat65 has been supplying most facts for the "Serious organisation"-side. Opponents please evaluate the evidence and supply counter-evidence. Fedor (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could simply drop me a note on my talk page if you really wanted my opinion.  This is a fringe topic.  Trancendental meditation is a disciplined meditation process and spiritual practice; it does not present it self as a science, and does not clearly violate many precepts of actual science.  What facts are needed?  PLR is pseudoscience, that is easily explained and experimentally demonstrated as something other than memories from before birth.  Being mentioned in books that don't present mainstream science as the primary opinion (as wikipedia is required to do) doesn't mean it should be linked here.  Further, the organization may be notable, but that doesn't mean it should be linked.  Please justify it's inclusion per WP:EL.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I am not the opponent here or choosing sides; I am just interested in a resolution of the issue. I am aware that PLG is not exactly mainstream science and probably even pseudo-science. However, I don't read in WP:EL that all external links should be scientific in nature. Rather, links should be to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject...". So the question is whether the website provides relevant "neutral and accurate material". So far, my impression is that it is. As a neutral reader, this is a kind of site I would like to check out to learn more about the subject. BTW I deplore that you again just removed the link without awaiting the outcome of the discussion. Fedor (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudoscience can't be neutral, and no information could be accurate.  It'd need to be a third-party link about the site, since there's nothing to be neutral and accurate about.  We wouldn't link to an astrology chart on astrology, except perhaps as an example.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why, I wonder, are there links to creationist websites under the article on Creationism? It seems to me to be quite normal. Fedor (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: i made some additions and changes to this very one-sided and skeptic/negative article (see history). they were deleted very fast (3 minutes) and without any comment. 
i dont know what exactly i did wrong, or if it just was the opinion of the users (wlu and atarimike) that it should be deleted. i dont think that that is fair behaviour.
so i would like to hear the reasons for the deletion, so i have a chance to adjust the article in a correct/ agreeable way. Merlihn (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's pretty much no changes that can be made to portray it as anything but false memories; experiments have essentially demonstrated this is the case.  To do anything otherwise places undue weight on a fringe theory and promoting a particular point of view.  Pages must be neutral.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions/ Changes deleted without comment 

message: One of the leading medical doctors working in a Singapore hospital has published his finding of how the past live therapy he used transformed the life of one of his patients unresponsive to traditional medication..."Healing Deep Hurt Within" - Dr Peter Mack. Together with empirical research of professionals using past lives for healing....the article has been updated to balance these important aspects. Note that these practitioners are not trying to prove that past lives are real...just the stories that emerge that appear to be past lives are powerful in the healing process. Further balancing has been done in the description of famous past lives investigated. Anyone thinking of changing this area are urged first to read "The big Book of the Soul" - Ian Lawton pages 72-128 which provides one of the most through research and investigation of all the published information into this complex area.
Kumarasingham  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarasingham (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Name ONE peer-reviewed article describing the research that you mention. Fedor (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical use of "past lives"

message: Slipping criticism into the intro which should simply explain what a thing is (not alleged, etc) is dodgy practice. I've put the material under Opposing views. The article needs to be neutral not undermined by a wall of skeptical content. It is what it is - claims or otherwise, it's part of the ground of accepted info & is result of the West's way of taking on yet another cultural practice. It makes sense to have a skeptical response but must be identified as such. An ongoing issue in this article. Manytexts (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  under the radar 

message: Hi guys,
In The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal by Lynne Kelly there is a chapter which describes the research of the psychologist Dr. Robert A. Baker. Kelly writes;
"In his detailed and lengthy book Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within, Dr Robert A. Baker explains many past-life experiences in terms of known psychological functioning of a ‘normal’ brain. A professor of psychology, who taught at MIT, Stanford University and the University of Kentucky, Baker explains the recalling of past lives as a mixture of cryptomnesia and confabulation (the creation of facts to fill the gaps in memory). By combining these two functions of a normal, healthy mind you can create past lives with vivid complexity. Baker argues that the brain doesn’t store memories as a completed image, such as a film. It stores bits and pieces which are reconstructed when required. Memories are notoriously unreliable. The more often they are recalled, the more the brain has reconstructed, embellished, filled in gaps and created what is a very real, if at times inaccurate, recollection. Anyone who compares memories with others present at the same event will soon discover the variability in the details of the same incident when different brains reconstruct it."
"Highly imaginative and fantasy-prone individuals will produce more detailed past and future lives.
Past-life recollections are consistent with the current social structure of the person creating them. People from cultures which believe in immediate reincarnation will return to life locally and fairly rapidly, as in Stevenson’s stories collected in India. Those from backgrounds with beliefs in multiple gods and demons, magical creatures and mystical beasts will incorporate these in their narrative."
Any suggestions where I can add some of this material in would be useful. Baker's book Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within would also be a good reference. Dan skeptic (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Baker

message: In my view, this topic post is out of balance. It does not live up to the reality of the topic in today's society.
My concrete suggestion would be to refer, in a separate section, to Dr. Morris Netherton and Dr. Roger Woolger who both have done groundbreaking work and spawned off a whole wave of many hundreds of therapists through the many decades of their work. 
A second comment is that it is shameful and we are not doing our jobs providing information to the world as wikipedia, if we cannot provide clarity on the changes in consciousness that are taking place through the ages, not just the millenia but also the centuries and now (20-)21 and into 22-23th century in particular. I want to reference Rudolf Steiner here, who predicted and described in extenso how in the future, from mid of past century onwards .. more and more people would start to have reminiscences and impressions, recollections pointing to and from previous lives. He describes this in the lectures labelled, in anthroposophical language, 'the appearance of christ in the etheric'. Those who have not studied anthroposophy cannot make sense of what is meant with these keywords or title, but it would lead to far to try and start explaining that here. But the essence is that over the next centuries, more and more people worldwide will start to get ever stronger impressions of previous lives. Steiner also warned that if humanity ignores 'spiritual science', then if one grows up in a solely materialistic worldview and cannot make sense of what one is experiencing, these things can and will lead to psychological disorders. 
The reason for writing this comment is because I write all this not just from a personalbelief (anyone can believes what he or she wants), but from a personal experience in my life and that of other people I have met. I did experience these reminiscences and images of previous lives, and the fact that regression therapy exists and was put in the world by the likes of Weiss, Netherton, Woolger, and others .. helps to acknowledge this and gives people a voice with some form of credibility, without being laughed at. I can witness from personal experience that it helped once I found my way and had contact with Woolger and a pupil of Netherton and was finally able to be helped in just a few sessions to re-experience events that put all the pieces of the puzzle together.
Now any reader may put my witness report in the thrash, and ignore the fact that there are probably many thousands of people have similar experiences.
However, I hope that everyone has the openness of mind to realize that the current wikipedia post does not accomodate people who end up on this post for reasons described above. There is more in the world than just the skeptics on a mission to counter everything which is not in their personal life experience.
So my call is .. it would be nice if wikipedia contributors could do an effort and try to 'balance' topic posts in general. All voices should be heard, as every voice is always a bit right.
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.18.49 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that "every voice is a bit right" seems simply wrong.  Someone saying "2+2=16" is simply wrong, for instance.  WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE suggest that we shouldn't give equal weight to all views, we should give more weight to mainstream views, and all the way down to "none" for extreme views - like those who believe that past life regression actually gives you access to memories of past lives.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed - constructive suggestion to improve this wiki topic 

message: Actually when posting my previous comments I had not read all the other posts on this Talk page .. seems more people are upset about the Wikipedia policy here.
Now just my five pence. Let us not be naieve or mistaken, as what is happening in the world is a reflection of and a living of spiritual influences through human beings. 
There is a war going on, and again to sample from anthroposophy .. what is going on here is nothing else then what Rudolf Steiner calls Ahrimanic influences or forces. This keyword is just another label to denote the powers who want to drive people further into materialism, and ignore the existence of anything spiritual. Reincarnation and previous lives are the focal point of where this fight or war is at its maximum. 
So it is not a surprise to find here also the forces who want to shut up anyone who wants to bring this out in the open. Or to be objective about the reality of past life regression. Like what is happening here on this page. In this case the Ahrimanic influences make use of the skeptics, the scientists, or whatever means .. to make sure reincarnation is ridiculized, and anything spiritual is laughed at and the one who takes it seriously is made ready to be locked up in an asylum of be given a decent treatment with electroshocks or chemical drugs .. or at least scared enough to not dare talk about it anymore.
For a nice historical reference on the above 'fight', one may study what happened when Rudolf Steiner when he tried to cover reincarnation and karma for years and decades in his lectures. Only after 1923 was he able to let to quiet the opposing forces, and give his 80+ lectures on karma (in the last months of his life in 1924 - see Karmic Relationship cycles). Note that in these cycles he described the how and why of multiple incarnations of dozens of individuals, mostly historically well known figures. 
Sharing a consideration: one has to look at this statistically. The world population may consist of millions and billions of people of one kind and belief, but it doesn't mean that there are not millions others who are say 'spiritually more mature', who are further down the line. This does not mean they are any better than any other being, it's just that - evolutionary speaking - they come first, they come before the others in the process. It's like apples hanging on tree, they don't become ripe and fall at the same time. 
Hence to conclude I just offer the image of a gauss curve for a normal distribution, for your contemplation. 
The opposing influences are there to enable progress .. without friction for your tires, your car would not move forward. So also we have to face opposing influences also called sometimes 'evil' in olden times, though that word is not so fashionable any more these days. It does not mean we are not faced with it any less, it's just a matter of perspective and which glasses one wears.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.18.49 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short extra comments - can we see through what is happening and recognize opposing influences  

message: Reference to ‘past life regression not taught on medical internships’ is misleading and has been removed. The technique is in a separate chapter in a textbook (U. James, isbn = 978 1 910272 45 9, Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention, Radcliffe Publishing, 2015, Ch 21} used for 10 UK medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”. The author of the book is professor Ursula James of Robert Gordon University and the text book used as a reference book widely. It is mandatory reading for medical doctors on the MSC course. 
Added comments from Mario Simoes in an article published in a peer reviewed reliable source and Julio Peres from a medical article. They give a deeper understanding why past life regression as a technique is helpful.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques section changes 

message: ‘Scientific consensus’ replaced by ‘skeptics’, as this is just the views of various people with no scientific research to support it. 
Explanation of the source of the recordings made clearer by explaining the background of the Bloxhan Tapes. More information added that suggest that Cryptomnesia is not always the complete explanation.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Memories Update 

message: Comment to the note posted above
> The idea that "every voice is a bit right" seems simply wrong. Someone saying "2+2=16" is simply wrong, for instance. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE suggest that we shouldn't give equal weight to all views, 
> we should give more weight to mainstream views, and all the way down to "none" for extreme views - like those who believe that past life regression actually gives you access to memories of past lives. 
> WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When past lives are as well-accepted as the shape of the earth, then we can include it.  If you want to revise the policy to support a specific edit, you must convince the community to change the policy first.  Wikipedia is not a medium to promote fringe points of view, which PLR is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental policy related comment - pleading 

message: Historically, the use of hypnosis in a clinical setting has inspired criticism.   It is my impression that this is often based on concerns that the hypnotist's bias will somehow influence the subject's responses.   Unfortunately, in the hands of a less than stellar clinician, this is possible. The way in which a subjected is guided is critical to the validity or usefulness of the outcome.  My practice depends on questioning or suggesting rather than directing. For instance "as I count to 10 you MAY (NOT YOU WILL) feel more relaxed."  As questions or topics become more complex the scrupulous avoidance of any unqualified  directive is imperative.  For example "you might see a path ahead of you, if you like, follow and see where it goes. Would you like to tell me what, if anything,  you see?" This approach can leave the subject feeling free to see or say nothing without feeling he/she has somehow failed or disappointed the clinician.   My experience has taught me that by following these guidelines I may get nothing of use from the subject and that's okay. On the other hand, many client's have retrieved memories (of current lives) that opened the door to resolution of conflict and healing.   Were a client to express interest in past life regression I would follow these guidelines very carefully.Tod beregman (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hypnosis controversy 

message: Since no one is claiming this as science can we not respect the views of millions of people who do believe in this LordFluffington454 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Though it can certainly be noted that belief in past life regression is popular (need a reliable source), that doesn't mean it should be used to presented as truth.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect for different views 

message: In the section 'Technique', there was the sentence "Luis Cordón states that this can be problematic as it creates delusions under the guise of therapy. The memories are experienced as vivid as those based on events experienced in one's life, impossible to differentiate from true memories of actual events, and accordingly any damage can be difficult to undo. ." To me, it seems rather bias to start addressing the problems associated with past life regression without presenting any evidence from past studies. I moved this sentence to the section titled 'studies' as it fits better there. The techniques section should contain information only relevant to the ways in which people are able to recall memories from a past life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr Sabetodo (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: would probably be WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of potential bias 

message: I propose merging Past life regression into Past life regression therapy. Both articles are very related and can be consider as duplicated articles. Cloud29371 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest doing this in the other direction. That is, to the older, better-developed article with the broader topic: Past life regression. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - merge as suggested by @Klbrain. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal