The material in this bibliography
consists essentially of a list of books and other sources together with some
description and a linking commentary; it does not describe in any detail the
evidence contained in these sources. Nevertheless, for anyone who is prepared
to open-mindedly read and assess the available evidence, it should become clear
that the case for survival is a strong one. A large proportion of the evidence
in favour of this concept has been obtained through the activities of mediums
or sensitives, gifted individuals who appear to have the ability to cross the
‘barrier’ between the material and spiritual worlds and, in a number of ways,
to act as channels for information passing between these two worlds. Even so,
in spite of the fact that many of the best mediums have been investigated and
validated by psychic researchers, there remain those who - often suspicious of
anything to do with the paranormal - hesitate to accept such evidence. However,
there is also much evidence coming from other, equally-sound, sources not
associated with mediums (e.g. NDEs, reincarnation research, ITCs) which
supports the integrity and reliability of the main mass of material. Thus the
various sources of evidence come together to produce a realistic and consistent
body of material which strongly supports survival.
This conclusion has also been
arrived at by many individuals, often scientifically-qualified and experienced,
who have gone to the trouble to undertake research themselves - or to
investigate the evidence thoroughly. Examples of these individuals who have
been prepared to speak out - often in the printed word - concerning the
reliability of the evidence are: Sir William Crookes, Prof. Charles Richet, Dr.
Glen Hamilton, Dr. Raynor Johnson and Prof. Arthur Ellison. One of the most
recent and most outspoken supporters of the evidence-based reality of survival
is Dr. Victor Zammit who has drawn attention to the fact that much of the
available evidence would be accepted by legal jurisdictions around the world as
being proven beyond reasonable doubt (see p. 15).
Although a great deal of the
evidence has been criticised, and even ‘deconstructed’, by sceptically-minded
individuals there remain a number of cases, or bodies of research, which have
withstood all but the most unreasonable criticisms of their validity. Examples
of these, and of individual mediums whose professional integrity has never been
successfully criticised, are:
Carlos Mirabelli (1899-1951), a Brazilian who was probably the most remarkable physical medium in recent history. He produced a range of physical phenomena even greater than those of D. D. Home; in particular he was able to produce full materialisations of recently-deceased people under test conditions - often in full daylight. His abilities were well-attested by numerous critical witnesses, from a former President of Brazil downwards, but he was never fully investigated by researchers from the Society of Psychical Research or its American counterpart and thus his abilities have often been rejected by critics¹.
Examples of indirect evidence
supporting the case for survival which are not easily criticised because of
their scientific integrity are the reincarnation research work of Prof. Ian
Stevenson (Section 3A) and much of the research into near-death experiences
(Section 3B).
It is possible to explain some
apparently paranormal phenomena on the basis of normal, physical (or
fraudulent) mechanisms and it is also possible to explain some apparent
evidence for survival as the result of simple paranormal interactions between
individuals which have nothing to do with discarnate spirits. As Arthur Ellison
warns, the basic paranormal phenomena of telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance
and precognition are now widely accepted as real aspects of human experience
and it may be that some of the evidence for survival can be explained by direct
telepathic contact between the medium and the sitter; information about a
deceased relative picked up subconsciously by the medium from the mind of the
sitter being accepted as evidence of survival by the latter. This principal has
been widened by some critics to include what has been termed
"super-psi" or "super-ESP", the ability of the medium’s
mind to seek and find information from almost any source in the world, even
when the medium has no conscious awareness of such information or sources, to
explain away a wider range of survival evidence. However, there seems to be
little, if any, real evidence to support such a theory².
In seeking to refute the concept of
survival, sceptics resort to a considerable variety of ‘normal’ mechanisms with
which to explain the observations that have been recorded from sources of both
direct and indirect evidence. Such explanatory hypotheses vary widely from
psychological, physiological and biochemical mechanisms to straightforward
hallucinations, delusions or fraud. They do not appear to have any single
explanation which adequately covers all the observations associated with the
survival hypothesis which have been described here. However, there is an
important principle of both philosophy and science which needs to be applied on
all occasions when an explanation is being sought for newly-acquired material.
It is called Occam’s Razor. William of Occam (c. 1280-1349) put forward the
principle that, in seeking to solve a problem or to explain new data, it is
necessary to find the simplest and most economic solution. Any new hypothesis
should cover all the facts in the simplest manner. When this principle is
applied to explaining the material described in this bibliography, it is clear
that the survival hypothesis provides by far the simplest and most economical
solution, whilst covering all the details. The survival hypothesis can be
stated very simply as:
The primary reality in any human individual is spiritual and consists of an eternal soul, which manifests in the world in a physical body. The soul survives the death of the body, continuing to exist in the spiritual world, but may return many times to undertake further lives in other bodies. Contact between incarnate and discarnate entities, though difficult, has been well demonstrated.
This simple hypothesis not only
provides an explanation for, but also brings together and unifies, all the
often disparate phenomena associated with psychical/survival research. There
does not appear to be any similar simple, unifying explanation for all this
material available to the critics of survival. Indeed, as already mentioned,
there appear to be many different theories to explain the wide range of
phenomena. And, as Colin Wilson has said, "... the explanations are
becoming absurdly complicated, and they violate the principle ... [of] ...
Occam’s razor"³.
The concept of our survival of
death remains for many people, even after 150 years of often successful
investigation, a subject which is ignored if not ridiculed. The possible
reasons for this are many, but one of the main reasons must directly relate to
the response of the scientific and intellectual communities in Europe and
America to the renewal of interest in psychic matters that began in the middle
of the 19th. century. ‘Establishment’ attitudes and responses to this renewal
were almost entirely negative and often of an unscientific nature, and such
attitudes have remained at the forefront of mainstream psychical research ever
since. Because of the importance of these attitudes and reactions in
influencing the way the media and the public have responded and continue to
respond to the concept of survival, I will consider this subject at some length
in what follows.
See Notes or go on to Attitudes Towards Survival