Posted on 26 February 2024, 8:50

When an aging friend appeared to be suffering from “existential angst” as he recovered from serious health challenges, I gave him one of my books, No One Really Dies, in the hope that he might see a larger and brighter picture of what’s ahead if he didn’t survive much longer in this realm.  As my friend was a borderline “militant nihilist,” I doubted that he would read the book, and so I highlighted 30 quotes in the book and asked him to simply read the highlighted quotes before any attempt to read from cover to cover.  I suggested we then meet again and discuss what the various people quoted had to say. I suspected that he would have the usual debunker’s response for each one – an explanation based on fraud, religious bias, wishful thinking, wild imagination, unconscious coloring, whatever – but I figured it was worth a try.  Unfortunately, my friend didn’t make it to the point we could further discuss the matter and I don’t know if he read the quotes or the book.  If he had and had we met, we would have discussed the following:

Importance: “Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interest upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance…A man should be able to say he has done his best to form a conception of life after death, or to create some image of it – even if he must confess his failure. Not to have done so is a vital loss.”
– Carl Gustav Jung, M.D., pioneer in psychology and psychiatry.

Resistance: “My atheistic friends resist even the slightest whiff of an argument for an afterlife. I have not seen more closed minds. Why is this? Why would anyone resist such good news – the kind of news strongly supported by serious, in-depth research on the [near-death experience], for example? I think I know. It is not so much that my hard-bitten friends hate the thought of living beyond death: what they hate is religion. And they associate religion with the afterlife. It doesn’t matter how hard you try to convince them that the contemporary case for an afterlife is not based on sacred texts, but on empirical studies conducted by well-credentialed social scientists or doctors. It doesn’t matter. Their minds are set.”
– Stafford Betty, Ph.D., retired professor of religious studies and author of Heaven & Hell Unveiled

Humanism: “The moralist must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense; and so long as this athletic attitude is possible all goes well – morality suffices. But the athletic attitude tends ever to break down and it inevitably does break down even in the most stalwart when the organism begins to decay, or when morbid fears invade the mind.”
– William James, M.D., pioneer in psychology and psychiatry

Scientific Foundation: “The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness (excluding any sectarian, theological interpretation of that evidence) continues to pile up…Meanwhile, quantum physics has opened up new lines of evidence supporting the theory that consciousness is fundamental, not matter.  Established science is facing its own Galileo Galilei moment of reckoning.”
– Michael Schmicker, from the book’s Foreword, author of Best Evidence

Beyond Science: “I was allowed to go up to the [floating] table and saw clearly no one was touching it, a clear space separating the sitters from the table. I tried to press the table down, and though I exerted all my strength could not do so; then I climbed up on the table and sat on it, my feet off the floor, when I was swayed to and fro and finally tipped off. The table of its own accord now turned upside down, no one touching it, and I tried to lift it off the ground, but it could not be stirred, it appeared screwed down to the floor…I could see that no one was touching the table [and] it righted itself on its own accord, no one helping it. Numerous sounds displaying an amused intelligence then came.”
– Sir William Barrett, British physicist and early psychical researcher, while investigating Irish medium Kathleen Goligher with Dr. William J. Crawford

Complex Communication: “We communicate an impression through the inner mind of the medium. It receives the impression in a curious way. It has to contribute to the body of the message; we furnish the spirit of it. In other words, we send the thoughts and the words usually in which they must be framed, but the actual letters or spelling of the words is drawn from the medium’s memory. Sometimes we only send the thoughts and the medium’s unconscious mind clothes them in words.”
– Frederic W. H. Myers, after-death communication to physicist Sir Oliver Lodge via medium Geraldine Cummins

Beyond Human Comprehension: “Lodge, it’s a puzzle. It’s a puzzle to us here in a way, though we understand it better than you. I work at it hard, I do. I’d give anything I possess to find out. I don’t care for material things now, our interest is much greater. I am studying hard how to communicate. It’s not easy.”
– Edmund Gurney, after-death communication to physicist Sir Oliver Lodge

Obstacles to Reception: “[Well-meaning spirits] are often frustrated in their attempts to communicate because they are choked on all sides by gross skepticism, boorish tests, Sadducean sneers, superstitious panic, sanctimonious anathemas, and all kinds of unreasonable opposition.”
– Adin Ballou, Unitarian minister and early psychical researcher

Multi-Faceted Afterlife: “[The communicating spirits] emphatically declare that the fact of death does not in the least degree alter a man’s character.  He is exactly the same five minutes after the passing as five minutes before it. So that the next state of existence contains all kinds and conditions of humanity, just as the earth does. They say that malevolence, envy, hate, and all the lower attributes inherent in earth humanity exist also in their world. There are not two classes only – good and bad – as theology would have us believe.”
—William J. Crawford, D.Sc., mechanical engineer who carried out 87 separate experiments with Irish medium Kathleen Goligher

Awakening After Death:  “I live, think, see, hear, know, and feel just as clearly as when I was in the material life, but it is not easy to explain it to you as you would naturally suppose, especially when the thoughts have to be expressed through substance materially…Nevertheless, I am bound to do just all I can for you to prove to you that I do absolutely exist independent of the material body which I inhabited.”                                                                                                          – George Pellew (lower left photo), after-death communication through the mediumship of Leonora Piper as recorded by Dr. Richard Hodgson, who studied Piper for 18 years.

Voices in Many Languages: “Altogether, fourteen foreign languages were used in the course of twelve sittings I attended. They included Chinese, Hindi, Persian, Basque, Sanskrit, Arabic, Portuguese, Italian, Yiddish, German and modern Greek.”
– Neville Whymant, Ph.D., Litt.D. (upper right photo), professor of linguistics at Oxford, London, Peking, and Tokyo Universities, on his sittings with American direct-voice medium George Valiantine.

Most Wonderful Experience: “Then, to my own and my Croatian friend’s astonishment, a loud voice began to talk to him in the Croatian language.  It was an old friend, a physician by profession, who died suddenly from heart disease. They continued for some time the conversation in their native tongue, of which I heard and understood every word.  Mrs. Wriedt, for the first time in her life, heard how the Croatian language sounds. I and my Croatian friend were deeply impressed by what we witnessed that day, May 16th. I spoke of it to my friends as the most wonderful experience of my life.”
– Count Chedo Miyatovich, Serbian diplomat on his sitting with American direct-voice medium Etta Wriedt, who spoke only “Yankee,” but through whom spirits spoke French, German, Italian, Spanish, Norwegian, Dutch, Arabic, Serbian, and other languages.

Speaking Greek: “Even supposing that our minds could have transmitted to him the idea that his son was dead, how could our thoughts have made Laura understand and speak Greek, a language which she had never heard?”
– Judge John Edmonds, Chief Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, on observing his teenaged daughter, Laura, a medium, speak Greek and tell a Greek-speaking man that his son in Greece had recently died, something he was unaware of but which was later confirmed at fact

English Unknown:  “For myself, I do not speak [English] and I never have. I activate these words that are in Thomas’s memory and are known to him. Occasionally there is a little ‘magic,’ when I join together sounds and symbols that are in Thomas’s mind so that words may be spoken that are not known to Thomas.”
– Stephen, a spirit entity speaking through New Zealand medium Thomas Ashman, as explained to Michael Cocks, an Anglican minister who questioned him on how he learned English

Veridical Evidence: “During the course of this wonderful experience a voice announced itself as Frank Woodward and enquired for my wife, and spoke to her. This astounded her, for Frank Woodward was her former music master, of whom she had not heard for seventeen years, and who lived in the extreme north of England. Enquiry afterwards revealed the fact that he had died a year previously.”
– Charles Tweedale, Vicar of Weston for the Church of England, about his sitting with American direct-voice medium Etta Wriedt

Spiritual Network: “She renders the most abstruse points perfectly understandable to the most common auditor. In close analysis of words she is not surpassed, and her knowledge of natural law seems to be an intuition amounting to almost certainty. Her high-toned moral character has at all times defied the tongue of calumny. In metaphysics she shows a degree of erudition hitherto among the greatest scholars of the world.”
– James Mapes, Ph.D., analytical chemist and renowned inventor, after testing 14-year-old Cora Scott (lower right photo), who was said to be a medium for a group soul of 12 advanced spirits. With one man, she relayed a message in Indian sign language

Conviction: “I tell you with all my strength of the conviction which I can muster that we do persist….I say it because I know that certain friends of mine still exist, because I have talked with them.”
– Sir Oliver Lodge, physicist and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

Marvelous: “As you know, I have been a Laodicean toward her heretofore. But that she is no fraud, and that she is the greatest marvel I have ever met, I am now convinced.”
– Herbert Nichols, Ph.D., Harvard psychology professor in a letter to Professor William James of Harvard about his testing of medium Leonora Piper.

Overwhelming Evidence: “In this case, the evidence for extended survival after bodily death is cogent and extraordinarily overwhelming, to the extent that I regard extended survival as proven.”
– Vernon Neppe, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute in Seattle, referring to a chess game between a living chess champion and a deceased chess champion communicating his moves through a medium

Materialism Defeated: “The evidence for an afterlife is sufficiently strong and compelling that an unbiased person ought to conclude that materialism is a false theory.”
– Neal Grossman, Ph.D., professor of philosophy University of Chicago

Dumbfounded: “For two mortal hours this invisible kept us wondering at his power and laughing at his ‘wise-cracking.’ He was philosophic as well as humorous. At intervals, he played jokes upon us. At my request he touched my face on the side away from the psychic and six feet from her. As a still stronger test I asked that the small end of the cone touch me on my right nostril. This was done with such gentle precision that it seemed a caress.’
– Hamlin Garland, a Pulitzer Prize winning author on his sitting with direct-voice medium Mary Curryer Smith, along with Professor Amos Dolbear, renowned physicist, who Garland observed sitting “dumbfounded and bewildered” as a spirit named Wilbur conversed with them

Ectoplasm is Real: “It is a whitish substance that creeps as if alive, with damp, cold, protoplasmic extensions that are transformed under the eyes of the experimenters into a hand, fingers, a head, or even into entire figures.”
– Charles Richet, M.D., Ph.D., 1912 Nobel laureate in medicine, on observing materializations

Materializations:  “The most remarkable materializations which I have observed are those produced by Eva in my laboratory during three consecutive months of the winter of 1917-18…I do not say merely, ‘There was no trickery.’ I say, ‘there was no possibility of trickery.’ Nearly all the materializations took place under my own eyes, and I have observed the whole of their genesis and development.”
– Gustave Geley, M.D., French physician and psychical researcher, who carried out hundreds of experiment with mediums in his laboratory, many with Professor Charles Richet

Creation of Consciousness: “The more we learn about the structure and biology of the brain, the clearer it becomes that the brain does not create consciousness, nor serve as the repository for memory.  The brain doesn’t produce consciousness any more than it produces sound waves when you hear music. In fact, the situation is just the opposite: We are conscious in spite of our brain.’
– Eben Alexander, M.D., academic neurosurgeon, author of Proof of Heaven; A Neurosurgeon’s Journey in the Afterlife

Scientism Overcome:  “Before [my near-death experience] on Everest, I was a rationalist, reductive materialist and skeptic. I believed matter was the basis of life and by reducing matter to its smallest components we could understand the universe according to predetermined laws of physics.”
–Roger Hart, Oregon State University research professor before his NDE convinced him that there is life after death, author of The Phaselock Code

Major Transformation: “Before the accident I was an atheist and a materialist. I had no belief or interest in anything to do with life after death, the paranormal, or religion. During the next couple of years I felt very different about life. I can’t say prior to the accident I had a fear of death; like most people at that age I never really thought about it in depth. But now I had no fear of death. I’ll go further; I embraced it, not in any morbid way but because I now understood, or at least came to believe that death is nothing more than a transition from one state to another.”
– Jon Beecher, publisher, owner of White Crow Books

Expanding Consciousness  “Besides the obvious purpose of informing us that life does not finish with physical death, one of the main goals of the most comprehensive ITC communication appears to be an attempt to contribute to the expansion of human consciousness by conveying to us information of high ethical content which breaks with conventional human values.”
– Anabela Cardoso, Ph.D., retired diplomat on her research in Instrumental Transcommunication, author of Electronic Voices: Contact with Another Dimension?

Threats to Materialism: “When new ideas do not fit the generally accepted (materialist) paradigm, many scientists perceive them as a threat. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that when empirical studies reveal new phenomena or facts that are inconsistent with the prevailing scientific paradigm, they are usually denied, suppressed, or even ridiculed.”
– Pim van Lommel, M.D.,, Dutch cardiologist and author of Consciousness Beyond life

Decline of Materialism:  “Despite all the achievement of science and technology, materialism is now facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the twentieth century.”
– Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D., British biochemist and author of Science Set Free

Wake Up, Skeptic! “To suggest that these trained observers were all deceived by fraudulent operations, those stupid and very tiresome performances which mislead no one but the uninformed and gullible, is to offer an explanation which offends reason and shows willful indifference to truth.”
– T. Glen Hamilton, M.D., Canadian physician and researcher, referring to Lodge, Hodgson, Barrett, Richet, Geley, Crawford, and others

Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I.
His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.

Posted on 12 February 2024, 8:42

During his final years at Harvard and immediately thereafter, William James, is said to have suffered from fits of depression, what he called “soul sickness,” and even considered suicide.  Apparently, the “death of God” and the increasingly materialistic world view of the times brought on by the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment and then Darwinism, seriously impacted him. However, he overcame his depression to some extent in 1872 when he accepted a position to teach physiology and anatomy at Harvard.

In 1876, James founded the first laboratory for experimental psychology in the United States, and along with Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Wundt, and John Dewey, is considered one of the pioneers of modern psychology. However, he gradually moved from psychology to philosophy as he felt that psychology was too limited. He is also one of the pioneers of psychical research, and one of the founders of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), an offshoot of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in England. His interest in the field was prompted by a dozen sittings in 1885 with trance medium Leonora Piper, whom he came to refer to as his “White Crow,” the one that upset the law that all crows are black.

Recently published by White Crow Books, Mind Dust and White Crows, edited by Gregory Shushan and with an introduction by Andreas Sommer, provides many interesting lectures and writings by Professor James and an explanation as to his views and reservations about the survival hypothesis, especially in the chapter on “Human Immortality.”  I “interviewed” Professor James on the 100th anniversary of his transition to the spirit world in 2010 for a magazine and a journal. The “interview” was conducted by extracting James’s words from various reference, all now in the public domain, and putting questions to them. I had many of the references in Shushan’s book available to me, so I’ll stick with my original interview rather than attempt a new one.  But a future blog will discuss more that Shushan’s book brings to light. Words in brackets are inferred to create a smooth transition from question to answer.

Professor James, in spite of having called Mrs. Piper your “white crow” and having received some very evidential messages, you continue to sit on the fence relative to the survival hypothesis.  Is it really that difficult to accept?

“Tactically, it is far better to believe much too little than a little too much; and the exceptional credit attaching to the row of volumes of the SPR’s Proceedings is due to the fixed intention of the editors to proceed very slowly. Better a little belief tied fast, better a small investment salted down, than a mass of comparative insecurity.”

I know you have been reluctant to accept Dr. Phinuit (Mrs. Piper’s early “control”) as a spirit and concluded that he might be some kind of secondary personality.  Would you mind telling the readers of this interview a little about Dr. Phinuit?

“The most remarkable thing about the Phinuit personality seems to me the extraordinary tenacity and minuteness of his memory. The medium has been visited by many hundreds of sitters, half of them, perhaps, being strangers who have come but once.  To each Phinuit gives an hour full of disconnected fragments of talk about persons living, dead, or imaginary, and events past, future, or unreal.  What normal waking memory could keep this chaotic mass of stuff together? Yet Phinuit does so…So far as I can discover, Mrs. Piper’s waking memory is not remarkable, and the whole constitution of her trance-memory is something which I am at a loss to understand.” 

It often seems that you are playing the devil’s advocate.

“[True], I have myself been wilfully taking the point of view of the so-called ‘rigorously scientific’ disbeliever, and making an ad hominem plea.” 

And yet you seemingly change hats very easily by rebuking the scientific point of view relative to God and immortality.

“I can, of course, put myself into the sectarian scientist’s attitude, and imagine vividly that the world of sensations and scientific laws and objects may be all.  But whenever I do this, I hear that inward monitor which W. K. Clifford once wrote, whispering the word ‘bosh!’ Humbug is humbug, even though it bears the scientific name, and the total expression of human experience, as I view it objectively, invincibly urges me beyond the narrow ‘scientific’ bounds.”

Herbert Spenser’s philosophy seems to have been pretty popular with scientific men and scholars of your era.

“Agnostic substantialism like that of Mr. Spenser, whose ‘Unknowable’ is not merely the unfathomable but the absolute–irrational, on which, if consistently represented in thought, it is of course impossible to count, performs the same function of rebuking a certain stagnancy and smugness in the manner in which the ordinary philistine feels his security.  But considered as anything else than as reactions against an opposite excess, these philosophies of uncertainty cannot be acceptable; the general mind will fail to come to rest in their presence, and will seek for solutions of a more reassuring kind.”

There are those who claim that such reassurance is not necessary, that we can live moral and happy lives in the present without any regard for God or life after death.

“A philosophy whose principle is so incommensurate with our most intimate powers as to deny them all relevancy in universal affairs, as to annihilate their motives at one blow, will be even more unpopular than pessimism.  Better face the enemy than the eternal Void!  This is why materialism will always fail of universal adoption, however well it may fuse things into an atomistic unity, however clearly it may prophesy the future eternity. For materialism denies reality to the objects of almost all the impulses which we most cherish.  The real meaning of the impulses, it says, is something which has no emotional interest for us whatever…Any philosophy which annihilates the validity of the reference by explaining away its objects or translating them into terms of no emotional pertinency, leaves the mind with little to care or act for…A nameless Unheimlichkeit comes over us at the thought of there being nothing eternal in our final purpose, in the objects of those loves and aspirations which are our deepest energies.” 

Living in the moment or in the present as the materialists advocate is not as simple as they make it out to be.

“[Exactly.] The luster of the present hour is always borrowed from the background of possibilities it goes with.  Let our common experiences be enveloped in an eternal moral order; let our suffering have an immortal significance; let Heaven smile upon the earth, and deities pay their visits; let faith and hope be the atmosphere which man breathes in; and his days pass by with zest; they stir with prospects, they thrill with remoter values.  Place around them on the contrary the curdling cold and gloom and absence of all permanent meaning which for pure naturalism and the popular-science evolutionism of our time are all that is visible ultimately, and the thrill stops short, or turns rather to an anxious trembling.”

Yet, I have friends who claim they have no fears of extinction and have no problem enjoying themselves in the present.

“It all depends on how sensitive the soul may become to discords….A little cooling down of animal excitability and instinct, a little loss of animal toughness, a little irritable weakness and descent of the pain threshold, will bring the worm at the core of all our usual springs of delight into full view, and turn us into melancholy metaphysicians.  The pride of life and glory of the world will shrivel.  It is after all but the standing quarrel of hot youth and hoary eld.  Old age has the last word: the purely naturalistic look at life, however enthusiastically it may begin, is sure to end in sadness.  This sadness lies at the heart of every merely positivistic, agnostic, or naturalistic scheme of philosophy.  Let sanguine healthy-mindedness do its best with its strange power of living in the moment and ignoring and forgetting, still the evil background is really there to be thought of, and the skull will grin in at the banquet…The old man, sick with insidious internal disease, may laugh and quaff his wine at first as well as ever, but he knows his fate now, for the doctors have revealed it; and this knowledge knocks the satisfaction out of all these functions.  They are partners of death and the worm is their brother, and then they turn to a mere flatness.” 

So, you must certainly take issue with the humanistic philosophy?

“[Most certainly.]  I propose this as the first practical requisite which a philosophic conception must satisfy: It must, in a general way at least, banish uncertainty from the future. The permanent presence of the sense of futurity in the mind has been strangely ignored by most writers, but the fact is that our consciousness at a given moment is never free from the ingredient of expectancy.  Everyone knows how when a painful thing has to be undergone in the near future, the vague feeling that it is impending penetrates all our thought with uneasiness and subtly vitiates our mood even when it does not control our attention; it keeps us from being at rest, at home in the given present.  The same is true when a great happiness awaits us.  But when the future is neutral and perfectly certain, ‘we do not mind it,’ as we say, but give an undisturbed attention to the actual.  Let now this haunting sense of futurity be thrown off its bearings or left without an object, and immediately uneasiness takes possession of the mind.”

It is obviously easier to adopt the moralist or humanistic philosophy when one is young and does not have death on his mind.  Do you agree?

“[Of course.] The moralist must hold his breath and keep his muscles tense; and so long as this athletic attitude is possible all goes well – morality suffices.  But the athletic attitude tends ever to break down and it inevitably does break down even in the most stalwart when the organism begins to decay, or when morbid fears invade the mind.” 

Would you mind summarizing your primary belief?

“The whole drift of my education goes to persuade me that the world of our present consciousness is only one out of many worlds of consciousness that exist, and that those other worlds must contain experiences which have a meaning for our life also; and that although in the main their experiences and those of this world keep discrete, yet the two become continuous as certain points, and higher energies filter in.  By being faithful in my poor measure of this over-belief, I seem to myself to keep more sane and true.” 

So, you see faith as a necessity in your belief system?

“Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is still theoretically possible; and as the test of belief is willingness to act, one may say that faith is the readiness to act in a cause the prosperous issue of which is not certified to us in advance…The only escape from faith is mental nullity…We cannot live or think at all without some degree of faith.  Faith is synonymous with working hypothesis. The only difference is that while some hypotheses can be refuted in five minutes, others may defy ages.” 

Where does religion fit into all of this?

“It does not follow, because our ancestors made so many errors of fact and mixed them with their religion, that we should therefore leave off being religious at all. By being religious we establish ourselves in possession of ultimate reality at the only points at which reality is given us to guard.  Our responsible concern is with our private destiny, after all.”

Mainstream science has been reluctant to accept the findings of credible scientists who have risked sanctions in exploring the psychic world. What is the problem here?

“I think that the sort of loathing – no milder word will do – which the very words ‘psychical research’ and ‘psychical researcher’ awaken in so many honest scientific breasts is not only natural, but in a sense praiseworthy.  A man who is unable himself to conceive of any orbit for these mental meteors can only suppose that [the founders of the SPR] mood in dealing with them must be that of silly marvelling at so many detached prodigies.  And such prodigies!  So, science simply falls back on her general non-possumus; and most of the would-be critics of the Proceedings (SPR reports) have been contended to oppose to the phenomena recorded the simple presumption that in some way or other the reports must be fallacious – for so far as the order of nature has been subjected to really scientific scrutiny, it always has been proved to run the other way.” 

In spite of your outward reluctance to fully accept the spirit hypothesis, it often seems that you want to but are held back by academic and professional considerations. Am I misinterpreting your position?

“[Let me just say this:] One who takes part in a good sitting has usually a far livelier sense, both of the reality and of the importance of the communication, than one who merely reads the records. I am able, while still holding to all the lower principles of interpretation, to imagine the process as more complex, and to share the feelings with which [Richard] Hodgson came at last to regard it after his many years of familiarity, the feeling which Professor [James] Hyslop shares, and which most of those who have good sittings are promptly inspired with [i.e., the spirit hypothesis].”

Thank you, Professor James, any parting comments?

“[The work of the SPR has], it seems to me, conclusively proved one thing to the candid reader; and that is that the verdict of pure insanity, or gratuitous preference for error, of superstition without an excuse, which the scientists of our day are led by their intellectual training to pronounce upon the entire thought of the past, is a most shallow verdict….The tide seems steadily to be rising, in spite of all the expedients of scientific orthodoxy.  It is hard not to suspect that here may be something different from a mere chapter in human gullibility.  It may be a genuine realm of natural phenomena…My deeper belief is that we psychical researchers have been too precipitate with our hopes, and that we must expect to progress not by quarter-centuries, but by half centuries or whole centuries.” 

Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I.
His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.