A Neuroscientist Describes Scientists’ Personal Struggle in Dealing with Psychic and Afterlife Evidence

Share this article on social media:

Mona Sobhami

Mona Sobhani is a cognitive neuroscientist. She recently opened up to spirituality and launched a personal investigation into some of the things that science can’t explain. She says she was never interested in spirituality or religion. She was very hardcore scientific materialist and a traditionally trained scientist, and the worlds don’t usually collide. But there was a period in her life where she encountered a series of unexplainable events. Her culture is Persian. In her culture, they have traditions that are more mystical that Western science cannot explain, doesn’t bother to, like divination. Her grandmother had used these practices, and her mother did, too.

In this video, Mona explains more the problems scientists have with exploring psychic and afterlife phenomana. Her explanation is the clearest I have read. A transcript of her presentation follows the controls.

Support this effort to give people the truth about the reality of the afterlife by contributing $6 for a membership.

The Afterlife Research and Education Institute, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Donate $100 or more and we will send you a receipt so you can deduct it from your taxes as a nonprofit donation.

Transcript of the Recording

I’m Mona Sobhani. I’m a cognitive neuroscientist. I recently opened up to spirituality and launched a personal investigation into some of the things that science can’t explain. I was never interested in spirituality or religion. I was very hardcore scientific materialist and a traditionally trained scientist, and the worlds don’t usually collide. But there was a period in my life where I encountered a series of events, and my culture is I’m Persian. That’s my cultural heritage. In our culture, we have traditions that are more mystical that Western science cannot explain, doesn’t bother to, like divination. My grandmother had used these practices, and my mother did, too.

One in particular, they would use coffee grinds, not American coffee. It’s like a different, thicker coffee. They would leave it in the cup. It would form pictures, and they use it for intuiting things about someone’s past, present, or future. My mom did this. That time in my life when I had these series of events happen, they were all upsetting. My mom foresaw some of them with eerie accuracy and details. And that was my opening because my world got turned upside down. I couldn’t understand how she could know these things, where this information was coming from.

It didn’t vibe with the model of the universe that I was taught in my training, so none of it made sense. I lived in cognitive dissonance for a long time, ignoring it until it got to a point where enough things happened that I was just tipped over into being curious for the first time, whereas before I resisted curiosity because I knew it would append my worldview, which would be chaotic, which is what happened. I didn’t think any research had been done on divination or psychic phenomena, so I started with personal experience. It started with my mom, and then I started interviewing and exploring, getting readings from people who are intuitive or mystics. Then the experience just compounded to the point where I’m like, Okay, well, experientially, this is weird and real, and I can’t explain it.

Then at some point, while I was interviewing them, I was interviewing my scientist colleagues, too, to be like, Am I nuts? But then eventually, people started recommending to me books and papers, and they’re like, this has actually been studied, not only psychic phenomena, but maybe consciousness survives death. There’s all this literature on near-death experiences, on reincarnation. I started digging into the literature, and then that just launched. I mean, there was so much to read that took me into a rabbit hole after rabbit hole after rabbit hole of mind-blowing literature and research and information. All the research was fascinating and compelling.

Then I think if that hadn’t been the case, I would have not continued down that road, but because it was speaking my language, which was science, it kept me engaged. There was all this research on psychic phenomena that had spanned over 100 years and spanned, I don’t know how many continents, but a lot of them, maybe six continents, multiple different countries, different labs. It was really good research. When I read it, I was familiar with the protocols and the statistics, and it was all very compelling.

Then when I had the near-death experiences, I thought that was interesting because, of course, as a neuroscientist, when you’re reading some of those more scientific cases, there’s no brain activity, but then there’s all this reported phenomenological experience from the person, which is a great area because you don’t know what’s happening and when their consciousness starts or ends or what’s going on. But what I thought was interesting about this case is when they would report something that they saw or heard in some other space-time either out in the hall or the waiting room or somewhere else, and then those things turned out to be true. I thought that was interesting.

Then I thought the reincarnation research from the University of Virginia was really, really weird and very compelling. So really, most of it was pretty compelling. I’m not doing any research in this area currently, but what I am doing is… My focus is really on the journey of what I call, or actually Jeff Kripal, who’s the chair of philosophy and religious studies at Rice University, he calls this worldview thing “the flip.” People who go from one world, do you have an experience? Suddenly, you’re like, whoa, what I understood to be reality, and my way of understanding reality doesn’t make sense. Then they flip into either exploring or fully adopting another worldview. That flip is really, really difficult, as I alluded to earlier because your whole identity and all your values and beliefs, and your emotions are tied into your worldview.

The reason, now that I’ve been in the science and spirituality space for a while, spiritual people constantly say, “Why can’t scientists be more open-minded?” “Why don’t they look at the evidence?” It’s rational, it’s emotional because it might be subconscious, but they know that encountering this thing would cause them upheaval in their lives and their work. In everything. The flip is difficult. Sometimes it happens to people like me who didn’t want it, and then it’s mentally really difficult. It’s like anguish. It’s just like mental anguish because you can’t reconcile it, and then parts of yourself start dying, and you don’t know who you are anymore.

I’ve been really focused on this area of how to make scientists feel more comfortable sharing these experiences. If we talk about it more, it’s not as weird and taboo. Then once that starts happening, though, and some more of them start flipping, they’re going to need support. One of my collaborators and I do this. We create spaces at the neuroscience conference where they can come share their stories. We can all talk what if we’re wrong? What if our model of the universe is wrong, what other models are there?

Then the research part is like, what do they need to feel supported and feel safe enough to flip or to come into this new worldview? What does it take to make it as easy as possible for them? And they need a community of similar people, I think, because one thing that I encountered is it’s hard to find. We’re like unicorns, scientists who have flipped. So there are communities, but a lot of us don’t know about those communities. And so it’s very lonely. And if you feel alone, that threatens your core stability and makes it harder for you to let go some of the old beliefs or some of the things that are holding you back from opening your mind. So one of the most important things is a community.

Obviously, for scientific evidence is really important. That’s why it’s super important for all this research to actually be done in all of these fields that we mentioned, because without the studies, they can’t even seriously. It will stay out of the science realm and it will stay in their personal lives. But if you bring the research, then they can start to engage with it. You really need the actual science, you need a community, and then we also need, as I mentioned, the stories, just sharing stories, but also personal experience. Helping them feel safe to have more personal experiences.

I’m sure you know, the more you have, the more you have. The more open you are, the more they come. It’s just opening it to it without the fear holding you back, because then you can more accurately engage with it and not keep it at arm’s length. It’s not just scientific findings, then it’s like, they’re science, but I’ve also experienced it. I have multiple types of data and evidence. They need multiple things, but definitely a community of like-minded and just similar characteristics. People with similar characteristics, that’s really important because, and I often joke about it. You can’t have scientists come in and then into a room with spiritual people who’ve always been spiritual and they’re sageing them. That just won’t work for them. That’s not going to make them feel safe. So it has to be people who’ve had similar journeys to them.

This is more and more true for our whole society, right? Because Western society emphasizes rational thought and scientism, which is different from science, which is scientism is more like the religion of science. Even though science is just a tool, we’ve turned it into a religion or a cult. More and more people, besides just scientists, need all of that. Everything that I just mentioned, that’s a good question. Where can they go? Well, I’m building a community. I’m building it for scientists, but anyone’s welcome. We’ve had lawyers who flip doctors, people in a lot of different kinds, Wall Street, bankers, all different kinds of fields, people who are considered themselves atheist or agnostic, complete rationalists, and suddenly find themselves in this very a sub stack that is called Cosmos, Coffee, and Consciousness, and we’re building out that community. I’m in the process of putting together a lot of this evidence that we talked about, like an easy read formats to have the data at your fingertips.

Because that’s another problem is nobody has time to read or the training to read all the scientific studies or even books. So, distilling down the findings into really easy-to-read, short summary so that they can have it, whether it’s for themselves or to share with other people. The problem with a lot of these phenomena or why people have issues with it is because it doesn’t fit into the mainstream model of the mind and the brain, which in modern-day science, it’s thought that the mind emerges from the brain or consciousness emerges from the actual physical brain, and that when someone dies and the brain stops working, then the mind and the consciousness are gone, too. But a lot of these experiences that people have are what we call non-local, and basically means they’re not tied down to one space-time, and you could receive information from the past or the future, like my mom did. It’s non-local, which doesn’t make sense in Newtonian physics, but does make sense with quantum physics. But even though we have quantum physics, we have incorporated that fully into more normal mainstream hard-core science, like neuroscience.

Neuroscience focuses mostly on Newtonian physics, and so therefore, it’s impossible that you could have information from another location or from another time. The belief is that once your brain dies, your consciousness dies, too. But a lot of these experiences put that into question. The hardest part for me was when I reached that, when they started suggesting, and I remember at the moment when I first read maybe consciousness isn’t tied to the brain, and I just rolled my eyes like, Okay, these people are crazy. But the more that I read, and the reason for that is because in science, they don’t train you in philosophy. They train us physics, but Newtonian physics. They don’t train you in any of these other fields, so you don’t know that there’s any other possible worldview. You also don’t know that the issue of the worldview of philosophy, which one is correct, is not settled. Nobody has decided. Physicalism is it, that the universe has definitely only made a physical matter. Science has just decided that and moves forward on that assumption. But in actuality, that debate is not settled.

Because we don’t know that when we encounter this information, it’s just a wall to us of like. We can’t go past what we know. This is what we were trained in. We don’t know that there’s a possibility outside of it. So you just hit a wall. Then it’s not until you hit philosophy and quantum physics where you’re like, Oh, it’s wow. It actually is possible. There’s these other worldviews where these experiences are better accommodated than the one we use now. For this journey, I actually did not like thinking about consciousness because the field of neuroscience, like you said, doesn’t really define it that well. Or the main way that they study it is when you’re awake versus when you’re under anesthesia or when you’re asleep. But there’s a lot of other in between altered states of consciousness that we don’t study. But now that I’ve done a lot of the personal experiences, it’s hard to put into I think of it as just awareness.

I think that it can be difficult if you have not had an altered state of consciousness, a really powerful one, on a psychedelic or on breathwork or a deep one during meditation. I think the word awareness doesn’t quite work for those people. It didn’t work for me before. I had these because I was like, What does that mean? Or, Yeah, okay, guess, awareness. But it’s only when you start to experiment for yourself because consciousness is just subjective. That’s all you have. We can’t even compare each other’s subjective experiences. I can’t show you mine, you can’t show me yours. So it’s really subjective. It could even be different for each person. We don’t actually know. So I think when you start to personally experiment, you start to see the nuances in the states of consciousness, and then it’s hard to put into words what it is.

But if you ask me what it is, I have an experience of what it is, but I don’t know I don’t know how to put it into words. But the easiest… I always just say awareness. In neuroscience, too, the shortcut is you say, what is it like to be me? What is it like to be you? That’s your conscious experience in my conscious experience. I think sometimes people can be like, Oh, why would I waste time thinking about this? Or if the mainstream model is the mainstream one. But what I found is that there’s a lot you’re missing. It’s like if you’re a mansion and then you only stay in one room, why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you go out and explore the gardens and see all the other rooms, the living room, the kitchen, whatever?

And I think it has real implications for how we view death. And I think death is a very avoided topic in Western culture. It’s scary. We think it’s just the end, and people are frightened of it. But if you understand, if we can show that consciousness doesn’t end with death, in fact, it might be nicer than life, depending on your point of view. I mean, that changes a lot of things for our culture and our society. I think that’s one of the more important implications because there’s just so much fear and anxiety around death for everyone. So yeah, that’s important. Also, for the people they leave behind those. So hopefully, I won’t cry, but I just lost somebody.

I think sometimes a lot of the sorrow, if I step back into a Eastern worldview, the sorrow there is that this person is gone, and it’s just a void. And that brings a lot of pain and heartbreak at that thought. And also you feel sadness for them. What did they encounter or whatnot. For me, it’s been very comforting to have all this other information to be like, not necessarily is this person gone, maybe the form that I knew, but it’s possible they’re continuing on. Also, if you read your death experience accounts and stuff, hopefully it was nice. Hopefully it sounds like or was one of the nicer experiences for them. It’s more like, yeah, I think for the people who are left behind to lose someone, I think that loss and sense of finality, that can be alleviated.

 

Summary
A Neuroscientist Describes the Difficulty Scientists Have with the Psychic and Afterlife Literature
Article Name
A Neuroscientist Describes the Difficulty Scientists Have with the Psychic and Afterlife Literature
Description
Neuroscientist Mona Sobhani describes the difficulty scientists have with exploring psychic and afterlife phenomena. Hers is the clearest explanation of the struggles scientists have with the literature that inhibit them from exploring it freely and investigating the consequences of the findings.
Publisher Name
Seek Reality Online
Publisher Logo
Mona Sobhami

Mona Sobhani is a cognitive neuroscientist. She recently opened up to spirituality and launched a personal investigation into some of the things that science can’t explain. She says she was never interested in spirituality or religion. She was very hardcore scientific materialist and a traditionally trained scientist, and the worlds don’t usually collide. But there was a period in her life where she encountered a series of unexplainable events. Her culture is Persian. In her culture, they have traditions that are more mystical that Western science cannot explain, doesn’t bother to, like divination. Her grandmother had used these practices, and her mother did, too.

In this video, Mona explains more the problems scientists have with exploring psychic and afterlife phenomana. Her explanation is the clearest I have read. A transcript of her presentation follows the controls.

Support this effort to give people the truth about the reality of the afterlife by contributing $6 for a membership.

The Afterlife Research and Education Institute, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Donate $100 or more and we will send you a receipt so you can deduct it from your taxes as a nonprofit donation.

Transcript of the Recording

I’m Mona Sobhani. I’m a cognitive neuroscientist. I recently opened up to spirituality and launched a personal investigation into some of the things that science can’t explain. I was never interested in spirituality or religion. I was very hardcore scientific materialist and a traditionally trained scientist, and the worlds don’t usually collide. But there was a period in my life where I encountered a series of events, and my culture is I’m Persian. That’s my cultural heritage. In our culture, we have traditions that are more mystical that Western science cannot explain, doesn’t bother to, like divination. My grandmother had used these practices, and my mother did, too.

One in particular, they would use coffee grinds, not American coffee. It’s like a different, thicker coffee. They would leave it in the cup. It would form pictures, and they use it for intuiting things about someone’s past, present, or future. My mom did this. That time in my life when I had these series of events happen, they were all upsetting. My mom foresaw some of them with eerie accuracy and details. And that was my opening because my world got turned upside down. I couldn’t understand how she could know these things, where this information was coming from.

It didn’t vibe with the model of the universe that I was taught in my training, so none of it made sense. I lived in cognitive dissonance for a long time, ignoring it until it got to a point where enough things happened that I was just tipped over into being curious for the first time, whereas before I resisted curiosity because I knew it would append my worldview, which would be chaotic, which is what happened. I didn’t think any research had been done on divination or psychic phenomena, so I started with personal experience. It started with my mom, and then I started interviewing and exploring, getting readings from people who are intuitive or mystics. Then the experience just compounded to the point where I’m like, Okay, well, experientially, this is weird and real, and I can’t explain it.

Then at some point, while I was interviewing them, I was interviewing my scientist colleagues, too, to be like, Am I nuts? But then eventually, people started recommending to me books and papers, and they’re like, this has actually been studied, not only psychic phenomena, but maybe consciousness survives death. There’s all this literature on near-death experiences, on reincarnation. I started digging into the literature, and then that just launched. I mean, there was so much to read that took me into a rabbit hole after rabbit hole after rabbit hole of mind-blowing literature and research and information. All the research was fascinating and compelling.

Then I think if that hadn’t been the case, I would have not continued down that road, but because it was speaking my language, which was science, it kept me engaged. There was all this research on psychic phenomena that had spanned over 100 years and spanned, I don’t know how many continents, but a lot of them, maybe six continents, multiple different countries, different labs. It was really good research. When I read it, I was familiar with the protocols and the statistics, and it was all very compelling.

Then when I had the near-death experiences, I thought that was interesting because, of course, as a neuroscientist, when you’re reading some of those more scientific cases, there’s no brain activity, but then there’s all this reported phenomenological experience from the person, which is a great area because you don’t know what’s happening and when their consciousness starts or ends or what’s going on. But what I thought was interesting about this case is when they would report something that they saw or heard in some other space-time either out in the hall or the waiting room or somewhere else, and then those things turned out to be true. I thought that was interesting.

Then I thought the reincarnation research from the University of Virginia was really, really weird and very compelling. So really, most of it was pretty compelling. I’m not doing any research in this area currently, but what I am doing is… My focus is really on the journey of what I call, or actually Jeff Kripal, who’s the chair of philosophy and religious studies at Rice University, he calls this worldview thing “the flip.” People who go from one world, do you have an experience? Suddenly, you’re like, whoa, what I understood to be reality, and my way of understanding reality doesn’t make sense. Then they flip into either exploring or fully adopting another worldview. That flip is really, really difficult, as I alluded to earlier because your whole identity and all your values and beliefs, and your emotions are tied into your worldview.

The reason, now that I’ve been in the science and spirituality space for a while, spiritual people constantly say, “Why can’t scientists be more open-minded?” “Why don’t they look at the evidence?” It’s rational, it’s emotional because it might be subconscious, but they know that encountering this thing would cause them upheaval in their lives and their work. In everything. The flip is difficult. Sometimes it happens to people like me who didn’t want it, and then it’s mentally really difficult. It’s like anguish. It’s just like mental anguish because you can’t reconcile it, and then parts of yourself start dying, and you don’t know who you are anymore.

I’ve been really focused on this area of how to make scientists feel more comfortable sharing these experiences. If we talk about it more, it’s not as weird and taboo. Then once that starts happening, though, and some more of them start flipping, they’re going to need support. One of my collaborators and I do this. We create spaces at the neuroscience conference where they can come share their stories. We can all talk what if we’re wrong? What if our model of the universe is wrong, what other models are there?

Then the research part is like, what do they need to feel supported and feel safe enough to flip or to come into this new worldview? What does it take to make it as easy as possible for them? And they need a community of similar people, I think, because one thing that I encountered is it’s hard to find. We’re like unicorns, scientists who have flipped. So there are communities, but a lot of us don’t know about those communities. And so it’s very lonely. And if you feel alone, that threatens your core stability and makes it harder for you to let go some of the old beliefs or some of the things that are holding you back from opening your mind. So one of the most important things is a community.

Obviously, for scientific evidence is really important. That’s why it’s super important for all this research to actually be done in all of these fields that we mentioned, because without the studies, they can’t even seriously. It will stay out of the science realm and it will stay in their personal lives. But if you bring the research, then they can start to engage with it. You really need the actual science, you need a community, and then we also need, as I mentioned, the stories, just sharing stories, but also personal experience. Helping them feel safe to have more personal experiences.

I’m sure you know, the more you have, the more you have. The more open you are, the more they come. It’s just opening it to it without the fear holding you back, because then you can more accurately engage with it and not keep it at arm’s length. It’s not just scientific findings, then it’s like, they’re science, but I’ve also experienced it. I have multiple types of data and evidence. They need multiple things, but definitely a community of like-minded and just similar characteristics. People with similar characteristics, that’s really important because, and I often joke about it. You can’t have scientists come in and then into a room with spiritual people who’ve always been spiritual and they’re sageing them. That just won’t work for them. That’s not going to make them feel safe. So it has to be people who’ve had similar journeys to them.

This is more and more true for our whole society, right? Because Western society emphasizes rational thought and scientism, which is different from science, which is scientism is more like the religion of science. Even though science is just a tool, we’ve turned it into a religion or a cult. More and more people, besides just scientists, need all of that. Everything that I just mentioned, that’s a good question. Where can they go? Well, I’m building a community. I’m building it for scientists, but anyone’s welcome. We’ve had lawyers who flip doctors, people in a lot of different kinds, Wall Street, bankers, all different kinds of fields, people who are considered themselves atheist or agnostic, complete rationalists, and suddenly find themselves in this very a sub stack that is called Cosmos, Coffee, and Consciousness, and we’re building out that community. I’m in the process of putting together a lot of this evidence that we talked about, like an easy read formats to have the data at your fingertips.

Because that’s another problem is nobody has time to read or the training to read all the scientific studies or even books. So, distilling down the findings into really easy-to-read, short summary so that they can have it, whether it’s for themselves or to share with other people. The problem with a lot of these phenomena or why people have issues with it is because it doesn’t fit into the mainstream model of the mind and the brain, which in modern-day science, it’s thought that the mind emerges from the brain or consciousness emerges from the actual physical brain, and that when someone dies and the brain stops working, then the mind and the consciousness are gone, too. But a lot of these experiences that people have are what we call non-local, and basically means they’re not tied down to one space-time, and you could receive information from the past or the future, like my mom did. It’s non-local, which doesn’t make sense in Newtonian physics, but does make sense with quantum physics. But even though we have quantum physics, we have incorporated that fully into more normal mainstream hard-core science, like neuroscience.

Neuroscience focuses mostly on Newtonian physics, and so therefore, it’s impossible that you could have information from another location or from another time. The belief is that once your brain dies, your consciousness dies, too. But a lot of these experiences put that into question. The hardest part for me was when I reached that, when they started suggesting, and I remember at the moment when I first read maybe consciousness isn’t tied to the brain, and I just rolled my eyes like, Okay, these people are crazy. But the more that I read, and the reason for that is because in science, they don’t train you in philosophy. They train us physics, but Newtonian physics. They don’t train you in any of these other fields, so you don’t know that there’s any other possible worldview. You also don’t know that the issue of the worldview of philosophy, which one is correct, is not settled. Nobody has decided. Physicalism is it, that the universe has definitely only made a physical matter. Science has just decided that and moves forward on that assumption. But in actuality, that debate is not settled.

Because we don’t know that when we encounter this information, it’s just a wall to us of like. We can’t go past what we know. This is what we were trained in. We don’t know that there’s a possibility outside of it. So you just hit a wall. Then it’s not until you hit philosophy and quantum physics where you’re like, Oh, it’s wow. It actually is possible. There’s these other worldviews where these experiences are better accommodated than the one we use now. For this journey, I actually did not like thinking about consciousness because the field of neuroscience, like you said, doesn’t really define it that well. Or the main way that they study it is when you’re awake versus when you’re under anesthesia or when you’re asleep. But there’s a lot of other in between altered states of consciousness that we don’t study. But now that I’ve done a lot of the personal experiences, it’s hard to put into I think of it as just awareness.

I think that it can be difficult if you have not had an altered state of consciousness, a really powerful one, on a psychedelic or on breathwork or a deep one during meditation. I think the word awareness doesn’t quite work for those people. It didn’t work for me before. I had these because I was like, What does that mean? Or, Yeah, okay, guess, awareness. But it’s only when you start to experiment for yourself because consciousness is just subjective. That’s all you have. We can’t even compare each other’s subjective experiences. I can’t show you mine, you can’t show me yours. So it’s really subjective. It could even be different for each person. We don’t actually know. So I think when you start to personally experiment, you start to see the nuances in the states of consciousness, and then it’s hard to put into words what it is.

But if you ask me what it is, I have an experience of what it is, but I don’t know I don’t know how to put it into words. But the easiest… I always just say awareness. In neuroscience, too, the shortcut is you say, what is it like to be me? What is it like to be you? That’s your conscious experience in my conscious experience. I think sometimes people can be like, Oh, why would I waste time thinking about this? Or if the mainstream model is the mainstream one. But what I found is that there’s a lot you’re missing. It’s like if you’re a mansion and then you only stay in one room, why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you go out and explore the gardens and see all the other rooms, the living room, the kitchen, whatever?

And I think it has real implications for how we view death. And I think death is a very avoided topic in Western culture. It’s scary. We think it’s just the end, and people are frightened of it. But if you understand, if we can show that consciousness doesn’t end with death, in fact, it might be nicer than life, depending on your point of view. I mean, that changes a lot of things for our culture and our society. I think that’s one of the more important implications because there’s just so much fear and anxiety around death for everyone. So yeah, that’s important. Also, for the people they leave behind those. So hopefully, I won’t cry, but I just lost somebody.

I think sometimes a lot of the sorrow, if I step back into a Eastern worldview, the sorrow there is that this person is gone, and it’s just a void. And that brings a lot of pain and heartbreak at that thought. And also you feel sadness for them. What did they encounter or whatnot. For me, it’s been very comforting to have all this other information to be like, not necessarily is this person gone, maybe the form that I knew, but it’s possible they’re continuing on. Also, if you read your death experience accounts and stuff, hopefully it was nice. Hopefully it sounds like or was one of the nicer experiences for them. It’s more like, yeah, I think for the people who are left behind to lose someone, I think that loss and sense of finality, that can be alleviated.

 

Summary
A Neuroscientist Describes the Difficulty Scientists Have with the Psychic and Afterlife Literature
Article Name
A Neuroscientist Describes the Difficulty Scientists Have with the Psychic and Afterlife Literature
Description
Neuroscientist Mona Sobhani describes the difficulty scientists have with exploring psychic and afterlife phenomena. Hers is the clearest explanation of the struggles scientists have with the literature that inhibit them from exploring it freely and investigating the consequences of the findings.
Publisher Name
Seek Reality Online
Publisher Logo

Join now

Become a member

Join Seek Reality Online and You will get access to our premium content