The contents of the Past life regression therapy page were merged into Past life regression on 28 December 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Past life regression article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Snowball keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Indeed, the article only mentions Dianetics and Scientology as illustrative examples of past-lives regression. There are tons of other methods out there which ought to be mentioned. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § "Past-Life Regression, or Regression Therapy" is a technique, or method of sourcing the root causes of a problem, or issue, by regressing one's higher self, using hypnosis, to the origins of the target issues. The subject is then taken through the origins of the problems, which causes the emotion and energies to be released from the causal events, followed by reciprocal forgiveness of all parties involved. Whether or not the origns represent one's prior lives is irrelevant, and subject to alternate explanations, in light of it's efficacy. The process is capable of resolving maladies such as migrain headaches, phobias, allergies, colitis, pains, tinitus, panic attacks, fears, and interpersonal acrimonies.
The modality essentially uses principles of quantum physics in acquiring, resolving, and discharging the energetic origns and effects of the targeted problems. Numerous books by numerous psychiatrists and other health care practitioners may be found through affinity groups or professional associations such as The International Association for Regression Research & Therapies/IARRT, International Board of Regression Therapy/IBRT, International Association of Counselors & Therapists/IACT, where references and directories list pratitioners worldwide. Some of the more recognized books are by the Miami psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Weiss' books, "Many Lives, Many Masters." Also, "Remarkable Healing," by Dr. S. Modi, MD; Dr. Ian Stevenson, Ph.D., "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation," which also finds that the concept of reincarnation is present in all of the world's 5 major religions: Christian Gnostics, Jewish Kabalists, Islam's Sufis and Druze sects, as well as Hinduism and Budahism. The overall subject is covered extensively in "Reincarnation, A New Horizon in Science, Religion, and Society", by Cranston & Williams, which proffers a superbly referenced bibliography. 72.144.183.186 06:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
209.150.197.196 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Why is this info not added to the page it is very good information and should go under the sub heading of Regression Therapy. Please think about adding it into the article.
This whole page is in severe need of some unbiased neutral contributions that do not throw allegations on PLR as being a pseudoscience and confabulation, especially when a huge portion of how the human mind works is still under research and there are new learnings and findings every day. Please note that what we know about the theory of conscious and subconscious by Sigmund Freud would have once been discarded as confabulations in the late 17th century. While most of the contributors seem to be those from mental health fields, it is a shame that we cannot be objective while talking about a technique that takes its roots from scientific concepts already established (Collective unconscious and Psychoanalysis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renukagupta ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"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 citation needed."
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)
Herne Bay University? I highly doubt the authenticity of this crackpot Hirst. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.115.136.151 (
talk) 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Note that skeptic is the US spelling, sceptic is the UK spelling. Jayen 466 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
I too was extremely apalled at the one-sided and opinionated explanation of PLR in this article. I edited it a bit to make it a little less opinionated, but there's not much that can be done. Hopefully someone will come up with some information to post here before the article gets deleted for the immature and inaccurate view of the author... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Only Seeking Shade (
talk •
contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is severely lacking in reliable sources. Perhaps we could collect and summarise some below for inclusion. Verbal chat 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Undent - do you have any reliable sources that state they are likely to be memories of real past events? I have two sources that state the sources of the memories are most likely confabulation. What is your source to justify your belief that "not all cases can be explained"? It is certainly a violation of NPOV to state that a referenced assertion must be qualified in contravention of the contents of the actual sources. If you have actual "scientific research" that suggests not all memories are confabulation, please present it so the article can be adjusted and stop mis-representing the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Past life regression has been part of Eastern and Indian belief system, Yoga and Meditation practices, since 2 BC and before, this article only presented a western view (Till now), as it is only now discovering this ancient art. There too western skeptics take over most ancient wisdom articles on wiki!
In all fairness I suggest a section titled Skeptics of PLR, wherein all such view points can be placed, so that a balance view can be presented.
Plus a section of Further reading is badly needed, especially for people who are ready to work in this area further, just because PLR has skeptics in West doesn't mean that rest of world should be stopped from advancing in it! -- Ekabhishek ( talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way are these two concepts unrelated exactly? K2709 ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
== 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? ==
(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)
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)
Undent. Creationism is a major page with a history that stretches backwards centuries and has splintered into multiple coherent groups of advocates and viewpoints where it is easy to name both the main viewpoints and major international organizations that promote them ( Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research and Category:Creationist organisations and Category:Intelligent design organizations in general). Wikipedia has dozens of pages on specific organizations, as well as their individual viewpoints ( young earth creationism, intelligent design, old earth creationism, gap creationism, deism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism). From what I can tell in creationism, each link has its own wikipedia page as well (indicating it is notable, which isn't a requirement but is a suggestion - particularly on such a large page as that where you'd otherwise get crammed in all sorts of nonsense from tiny fringe sects and churches). These organizations also lavish attention on the subject and have hundreds of pages on their "research" (really their viewpoint since their "research" is shoddy and self-serving) meaning the ELs do add something encyclopedic to the page. IBRT has little information, a single page listing 19 research papers (many to the same vanity journal which does not appear to have an editorial board, others being simple papers that don't appear to have passed through even what passes for peer-review in PLR research, and 14 are written by the same person - Henry Bolduc, with Marjorie Reynolds being the second author on 11 of those - and another 4 by Hans TenDam who is a member of the Board of Directors), is not notable and essentially exists to sell courses, accreditation, and promote itself. There's a vast difference. And also, flaws in the EL section of Creationism or any other page means the same flaws should be perpetuated here - inclusion is based on the policies and guidelines. The site itself contains neither neutral, nor accurate information (it's hopelessly partisan towards PLR being a real thing, and it's not accurate since there's no research base) and does not contribute towards the encyclopedic understanding of the topic (which in PLR is another name for cryptmnesia).
And if the external link is replaced on the page, per the guide to layout it goes at the bottom, below the references section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the statement "religious traditions that incorporate reincarnation generally do not include the idea of repressed memories of past lives", I am not sure what exactly she means. Hinduism and Buddhism both address the ability to recall events from previous lives. They may have no concept of "repression", but that isn't what comes across in the sentence. It seems to be saying that they have no belief in remembering past lives. Here is the page: [1]. What do people think? Mitsube ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not revert the edits which add a citation needed template. Claims about the harmfulness of PLR require a citation, or must be removed. I think we all know that this technique can be harmful, and if users whish to improve the article, they should find sources to cite to back up this claim. There are also sources which suggest that some people feel they have been helped by the technique, and these are included in the article. Please do not remove this well sourced fact from the article. An NPOV is required here.
Also, please do not remove the edit concerning "likelyhood" vs "the belief of researchers". One cannot say how likely something is, but one can be sure what most mainstream researchers believe, and there are multiple citations to support this. The language is cleaner, and more factual. ( Didshe ( talk) 23:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
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)
I've reverted the changes to the page. Per WP:NPOV, criticisms should be integrated with the text, not hived off into separate sections. The sources used for the information on Chinese PLR do not appear to be reliable. In particular, the use of blogs is inappropriate. The rest of the sources are in Chinese and I can't read them but look a lot like random, rather than scholarly and thus reliable, websites. I'll see if I can find information on Meng Po when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 08:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Andy, you
restored your edit because "WP:MEDRS does not apply to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in and not about giving medical advise on medicine
".
WP:MEDRS is not about medical advice (the very first line says "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice"), but any medical information. Your edit states that "medical doctors" have used PLR to "resolve medical conditions".
WP:MEDRS clearly applies to that.
KateWishing (
talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Someone changed my update to this section without any explanation. As the original changes used reliable secondary source the change has been put back in. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
‘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)
Someone changed my update to this section without any explanation. As the original changes used reliable secondary source the change has been put back in. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Some repeating in this section particularly about the source of the past life memories has been tied up. As this is an introduction and more detail is in the body of the article its been made consistent with the body of the article. Confabulation was removed because this is a psychiatric condition and cryptomnesia covers false memories more accurately. Also cryptomnesia is the term constantly used in the body of the text. Added into this section that some practitioners using past life regression are well trained professionals who only ask open questions so the therapist leading is unlikely cause. This comes from Dr. Julio Peres in an article about using reincarnation in therapy published in a peer reviewed medical magazine. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
First let me address the term fringe theory. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey http://reincarnationafterdeath.com/how-many-people-believe-in-reincarnation, found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians. So how can reincarnation and past life regression be called fringe. Second let me address low quality sources. One of the references in the change was The journal of Nervous and Medical Disease which is a peer reviewed article. It replaces extracts from a skeptics dictionary which I don't think gives Wikipedia creditability. I'll not make any change to this section to give WLU time to respond to these comments. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Journal article appears to still be in article (maybe it was added back in), but it seems like the conclusions that can be drawn from that particular article are pretty limited: it just says that lot's of people believe in past lives and therapists should try to responsive to patient beliefs.
So how should Wikipedia consider a subject to be fringe? Is it the personal view of an individual editor or a quote from someones article? My view is that it that it is a value judgement based on a percentage of people believing that view. Of course an individual survey may be in inaccurate. So look at http://surveyinsights.org/?p=2016 which reviews a number of different surveys on the subject with percentage belief in western Europe of between 10 to 30%. So I maintain this does not constitute for Past Life Regression to be treated as a fringe subject. The quote from Jim Tucker and quantum mechanics comes from his Wikipedia article. However, finally I urge you to read Carroll RT (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley. pp. 276–7. ISBN 0-471-27242-6. Much of the introduction is extracted word for word from that. Surely Wikipedia can do better and that is what i've be trying to do. Any help will be appreciated Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 15:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Re 'mainstream views', may I appeal to the maturity and intelligence of our culture and civilization?
In the middle ages the majority believed the earth is flat. Galileo and many others were burned for what they believed, even though history proved them right afterwards. They were burned by representatives of the majority belief.
The start of burning is to not be open, intellectually open. It is fair to expect this from Wikipedia.
Else some un-scientific variant of fanaticism rules, similar as what we can see in eg religious fanaticism where we may more easily observe the implications of extremist actions. The official flag used here is so-called scientific, but in fact lacking openness to question any assumption is un-scientific.
It is not because a majority of 80% believes A, that for another 15% the experiential reality may not be B.
So the 2+2=16 is an oversimplification not worthy of this discussion, which exemplifies the sentence above.
Constructively .. would it not be a possibility that Wikipedia treats non-majority views with respect as such, in a category of its own? Would it not be possible to catalogue, accept, and let exist views from different segments of the population, without having to judge that only one mainstream view may dominate and exist as the only single right and true version .. on any topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.76.5 ( talk) 11:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I take umbrage to this being called fringe when so many people embrace it. I support the comment about treating non majority views with respect and decency. LordFluffington454 ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1] ." 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)
presenting any evidence from past studieswould probably be WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I have added some more information under the techniques and studies section. The techniques section now details more on the actual techniques of achieving past life regression. I have also added more information on another study done on past life regression that talks more about what makes the therapy successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr Sabetodo ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
The contents of the Past life regression therapy page were merged into Past life regression on 28 December 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Past life regression article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Snowball keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Indeed, the article only mentions Dianetics and Scientology as illustrative examples of past-lives regression. There are tons of other methods out there which ought to be mentioned. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § "Past-Life Regression, or Regression Therapy" is a technique, or method of sourcing the root causes of a problem, or issue, by regressing one's higher self, using hypnosis, to the origins of the target issues. The subject is then taken through the origins of the problems, which causes the emotion and energies to be released from the causal events, followed by reciprocal forgiveness of all parties involved. Whether or not the origns represent one's prior lives is irrelevant, and subject to alternate explanations, in light of it's efficacy. The process is capable of resolving maladies such as migrain headaches, phobias, allergies, colitis, pains, tinitus, panic attacks, fears, and interpersonal acrimonies.
The modality essentially uses principles of quantum physics in acquiring, resolving, and discharging the energetic origns and effects of the targeted problems. Numerous books by numerous psychiatrists and other health care practitioners may be found through affinity groups or professional associations such as The International Association for Regression Research & Therapies/IARRT, International Board of Regression Therapy/IBRT, International Association of Counselors & Therapists/IACT, where references and directories list pratitioners worldwide. Some of the more recognized books are by the Miami psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Weiss' books, "Many Lives, Many Masters." Also, "Remarkable Healing," by Dr. S. Modi, MD; Dr. Ian Stevenson, Ph.D., "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation," which also finds that the concept of reincarnation is present in all of the world's 5 major religions: Christian Gnostics, Jewish Kabalists, Islam's Sufis and Druze sects, as well as Hinduism and Budahism. The overall subject is covered extensively in "Reincarnation, A New Horizon in Science, Religion, and Society", by Cranston & Williams, which proffers a superbly referenced bibliography. 72.144.183.186 06:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
209.150.197.196 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Why is this info not added to the page it is very good information and should go under the sub heading of Regression Therapy. Please think about adding it into the article.
This whole page is in severe need of some unbiased neutral contributions that do not throw allegations on PLR as being a pseudoscience and confabulation, especially when a huge portion of how the human mind works is still under research and there are new learnings and findings every day. Please note that what we know about the theory of conscious and subconscious by Sigmund Freud would have once been discarded as confabulations in the late 17th century. While most of the contributors seem to be those from mental health fields, it is a shame that we cannot be objective while talking about a technique that takes its roots from scientific concepts already established (Collective unconscious and Psychoanalysis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renukagupta ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"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 citation needed."
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)
Herne Bay University? I highly doubt the authenticity of this crackpot Hirst. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.115.136.151 (
talk) 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Note that skeptic is the US spelling, sceptic is the UK spelling. Jayen 466 11:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
I too was extremely apalled at the one-sided and opinionated explanation of PLR in this article. I edited it a bit to make it a little less opinionated, but there's not much that can be done. Hopefully someone will come up with some information to post here before the article gets deleted for the immature and inaccurate view of the author... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Only Seeking Shade (
talk •
contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is severely lacking in reliable sources. Perhaps we could collect and summarise some below for inclusion. Verbal chat 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Undent - do you have any reliable sources that state they are likely to be memories of real past events? I have two sources that state the sources of the memories are most likely confabulation. What is your source to justify your belief that "not all cases can be explained"? It is certainly a violation of NPOV to state that a referenced assertion must be qualified in contravention of the contents of the actual sources. If you have actual "scientific research" that suggests not all memories are confabulation, please present it so the article can be adjusted and stop mis-representing the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Past life regression has been part of Eastern and Indian belief system, Yoga and Meditation practices, since 2 BC and before, this article only presented a western view (Till now), as it is only now discovering this ancient art. There too western skeptics take over most ancient wisdom articles on wiki!
In all fairness I suggest a section titled Skeptics of PLR, wherein all such view points can be placed, so that a balance view can be presented.
Plus a section of Further reading is badly needed, especially for people who are ready to work in this area further, just because PLR has skeptics in West doesn't mean that rest of world should be stopped from advancing in it! -- Ekabhishek ( talk) 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way are these two concepts unrelated exactly? K2709 ( talk) 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
== 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? ==
(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)
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)
Undent. Creationism is a major page with a history that stretches backwards centuries and has splintered into multiple coherent groups of advocates and viewpoints where it is easy to name both the main viewpoints and major international organizations that promote them ( Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research and Category:Creationist organisations and Category:Intelligent design organizations in general). Wikipedia has dozens of pages on specific organizations, as well as their individual viewpoints ( young earth creationism, intelligent design, old earth creationism, gap creationism, deism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism). From what I can tell in creationism, each link has its own wikipedia page as well (indicating it is notable, which isn't a requirement but is a suggestion - particularly on such a large page as that where you'd otherwise get crammed in all sorts of nonsense from tiny fringe sects and churches). These organizations also lavish attention on the subject and have hundreds of pages on their "research" (really their viewpoint since their "research" is shoddy and self-serving) meaning the ELs do add something encyclopedic to the page. IBRT has little information, a single page listing 19 research papers (many to the same vanity journal which does not appear to have an editorial board, others being simple papers that don't appear to have passed through even what passes for peer-review in PLR research, and 14 are written by the same person - Henry Bolduc, with Marjorie Reynolds being the second author on 11 of those - and another 4 by Hans TenDam who is a member of the Board of Directors), is not notable and essentially exists to sell courses, accreditation, and promote itself. There's a vast difference. And also, flaws in the EL section of Creationism or any other page means the same flaws should be perpetuated here - inclusion is based on the policies and guidelines. The site itself contains neither neutral, nor accurate information (it's hopelessly partisan towards PLR being a real thing, and it's not accurate since there's no research base) and does not contribute towards the encyclopedic understanding of the topic (which in PLR is another name for cryptmnesia).
And if the external link is replaced on the page, per the guide to layout it goes at the bottom, below the references section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the statement "religious traditions that incorporate reincarnation generally do not include the idea of repressed memories of past lives", I am not sure what exactly she means. Hinduism and Buddhism both address the ability to recall events from previous lives. They may have no concept of "repression", but that isn't what comes across in the sentence. It seems to be saying that they have no belief in remembering past lives. Here is the page: [1]. What do people think? Mitsube ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not revert the edits which add a citation needed template. Claims about the harmfulness of PLR require a citation, or must be removed. I think we all know that this technique can be harmful, and if users whish to improve the article, they should find sources to cite to back up this claim. There are also sources which suggest that some people feel they have been helped by the technique, and these are included in the article. Please do not remove this well sourced fact from the article. An NPOV is required here.
Also, please do not remove the edit concerning "likelyhood" vs "the belief of researchers". One cannot say how likely something is, but one can be sure what most mainstream researchers believe, and there are multiple citations to support this. The language is cleaner, and more factual. ( Didshe ( talk) 23:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
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)
I've reverted the changes to the page. Per WP:NPOV, criticisms should be integrated with the text, not hived off into separate sections. The sources used for the information on Chinese PLR do not appear to be reliable. In particular, the use of blogs is inappropriate. The rest of the sources are in Chinese and I can't read them but look a lot like random, rather than scholarly and thus reliable, websites. I'll see if I can find information on Meng Po when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 08:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Andy, you
restored your edit because "WP:MEDRS does not apply to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in and not about giving medical advise on medicine
".
WP:MEDRS is not about medical advice (the very first line says "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice"), but any medical information. Your edit states that "medical doctors" have used PLR to "resolve medical conditions".
WP:MEDRS clearly applies to that.
KateWishing (
talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Someone changed my update to this section without any explanation. As the original changes used reliable secondary source the change has been put back in. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
‘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)
Someone changed my update to this section without any explanation. As the original changes used reliable secondary source the change has been put back in. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Some repeating in this section particularly about the source of the past life memories has been tied up. As this is an introduction and more detail is in the body of the article its been made consistent with the body of the article. Confabulation was removed because this is a psychiatric condition and cryptomnesia covers false memories more accurately. Also cryptomnesia is the term constantly used in the body of the text. Added into this section that some practitioners using past life regression are well trained professionals who only ask open questions so the therapist leading is unlikely cause. This comes from Dr. Julio Peres in an article about using reincarnation in therapy published in a peer reviewed medical magazine. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
First let me address the term fringe theory. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey http://reincarnationafterdeath.com/how-many-people-believe-in-reincarnation, found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians. So how can reincarnation and past life regression be called fringe. Second let me address low quality sources. One of the references in the change was The journal of Nervous and Medical Disease which is a peer reviewed article. It replaces extracts from a skeptics dictionary which I don't think gives Wikipedia creditability. I'll not make any change to this section to give WLU time to respond to these comments. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Journal article appears to still be in article (maybe it was added back in), but it seems like the conclusions that can be drawn from that particular article are pretty limited: it just says that lot's of people believe in past lives and therapists should try to responsive to patient beliefs.
So how should Wikipedia consider a subject to be fringe? Is it the personal view of an individual editor or a quote from someones article? My view is that it that it is a value judgement based on a percentage of people believing that view. Of course an individual survey may be in inaccurate. So look at http://surveyinsights.org/?p=2016 which reviews a number of different surveys on the subject with percentage belief in western Europe of between 10 to 30%. So I maintain this does not constitute for Past Life Regression to be treated as a fringe subject. The quote from Jim Tucker and quantum mechanics comes from his Wikipedia article. However, finally I urge you to read Carroll RT (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: Wiley. pp. 276–7. ISBN 0-471-27242-6. Much of the introduction is extracted word for word from that. Surely Wikipedia can do better and that is what i've be trying to do. Any help will be appreciated Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 15:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Re 'mainstream views', may I appeal to the maturity and intelligence of our culture and civilization?
In the middle ages the majority believed the earth is flat. Galileo and many others were burned for what they believed, even though history proved them right afterwards. They were burned by representatives of the majority belief.
The start of burning is to not be open, intellectually open. It is fair to expect this from Wikipedia.
Else some un-scientific variant of fanaticism rules, similar as what we can see in eg religious fanaticism where we may more easily observe the implications of extremist actions. The official flag used here is so-called scientific, but in fact lacking openness to question any assumption is un-scientific.
It is not because a majority of 80% believes A, that for another 15% the experiential reality may not be B.
So the 2+2=16 is an oversimplification not worthy of this discussion, which exemplifies the sentence above.
Constructively .. would it not be a possibility that Wikipedia treats non-majority views with respect as such, in a category of its own? Would it not be possible to catalogue, accept, and let exist views from different segments of the population, without having to judge that only one mainstream view may dominate and exist as the only single right and true version .. on any topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.76.5 ( talk) 11:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I take umbrage to this being called fringe when so many people embrace it. I support the comment about treating non majority views with respect and decency. LordFluffington454 ( talk) 16:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1] ." 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)
presenting any evidence from past studieswould probably be WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I have added some more information under the techniques and studies section. The techniques section now details more on the actual techniques of achieving past life regression. I have also added more information on another study done on past life regression that talks more about what makes the therapy successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr Sabetodo ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
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)