Speaker 1: But if it's true that the physical grows out of
Speaker 1: the mental essentially, then I don't see why an individual
Speaker 1: consciousness would be dependent on a physical brain, because in fact,
Speaker 1: the physical world is growing out our consciousness. Hello, and
Speaker 1: welcome to the Psychology Podcast. Today we welcome doctor Jim
Speaker 1: Tucker on the show. Doctor Jim Tucker is a child
Speaker 1: psychiatrist and the Bonner Lowry Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral
Speaker 1: Sciences at the University of Virginia. He is director of
Speaker 1: the UVA Division of Perceptual Studies, where he's continuing the
Speaker 1: work of doctor Ian Stephenson on reincarnation. He's been invited
Speaker 1: to speak about his research on Good Morning America, Larry Kinglive,
Speaker 1: and CBS Sunday Morning. And he recently published the book
Speaker 1: called Before Children's Memories of Previous Lives, a two to
Speaker 1: one edition of his previous books. This is a really
Speaker 1: fascinating episode, folks. In this episode, I talked to doctor
Speaker 1: Jim about the science of reincarnation. Yes, there's a science
Speaker 1: behind this. We dwelve into his research findings and methodology
Speaker 1: on children who clean to remember their prior lives. Doctor
Speaker 1: Tucker notes that these children don't just recall biological details
Speaker 1: of their past, but they also retain feelings and emotions.
Speaker 1: His finding have important implications for how we understand consciousness.
Speaker 1: We also touch on the topics of morality, trauma, quantum physics,
Speaker 1: and pan psychism. The implications of this really run deep,
Speaker 1: and while there's still a lot of questions that remain,
Speaker 1: I had a lot of fun chatting with doctor Tucker
Speaker 1: about what's possible. I hope you enjoy this episode just
Speaker 1: as much as I do. So now I bring you
Speaker 1: Doctor Jim Tucker. Really, nice to meet you. Nice to
Speaker 1: meet you you. I am utterly fascinated with your work
Speaker 1: and don't know why it's not more mainstream. Quite frankly,
Speaker 1: there's so many implications of it for so many areas
Speaker 1: of cognoive science that I study, and it runs deep
Speaker 1: to consciousness, issues of consciousness, issues of even free will.
Speaker 1: You know, so there's so much to discuss. Well, that's right,
Speaker 1: but yeah, it's not more mainstream because it challenges a
Speaker 1: lot of the mainstream assumptions, so it's easy for people
Speaker 1: to ignore it. Yeah. So, well, before we jump into
Speaker 1: the deep end, I wanted to get a sense of
Speaker 1: some of your biggest influences. I do get the sense
Speaker 1: of the doctor Ian Stevenson played a huge role in
Speaker 1: your work, and even to the extent that you're kind
Speaker 1: of carrying the baton like I like to think I'm
Speaker 1: carrying the baton from Abraham Maslow, You're carrying the baton
Speaker 1: from doctor Ian Stevenson. So I can you talk a
Speaker 1: little about his work and the work he initiated in
Speaker 1: like nineteen fifty eight, I believe, right. So, yeah, he
Speaker 1: came to Uva in the late fifties to be a
Speaker 1: chairman of the Department Psychiatry and had never done any
Speaker 1: had he had an interest in parapsychology, but he had
Speaker 1: never done any and he was still in his late
Speaker 1: thirties when he came here to be chair. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's feeling quite a successful mainstream career mostly or much
Speaker 1: of it, looking at Sarkis kinds of things. But then
Speaker 1: he got intrigued by this phenomenon of young children in
Speaker 1: different parts of the world who said that they had
Speaker 1: membories of a past life, and he started trying to
Speaker 1: investigate those cases and find out exactly what the child
Speaker 1: said and whether they in fact matched a life from
Speaker 1: the past. His work. Ian once said, on the obsessive
Speaker 1: compulsive scale went to ten, he was in eleven, and
Speaker 1: he liked to get all the details right, So he
Speaker 1: was he was very methodical in studying these cases and
Speaker 1: eventually stepped down his chairman of the department to focus
Speaker 1: full time on them, and then spent the bulk of
Speaker 1: the next few decades studying these cases. And we continue
Speaker 1: to do that, so doctor Ian Stevenson. Yeah, so that's
Speaker 1: that's interesting. I didn't know that he would score high
Speaker 1: on OCD, so he was really Do you get the
Speaker 1: sense from reading his writings that he really wasn't biased
Speaker 1: to a certain conclusion, that he really wanted to admass
Speaker 1: as much evidence as possible to before he made up
Speaker 1: his mind. You know, I don't even know if he
Speaker 1: ever made up his mind completely, but yeah, do you
Speaker 1: get that sense that he really wanted to get as
Speaker 1: much data as possible. Yeah, he, I mean, he was
Speaker 1: basically trying to determine for himself. So yeah, as we
Speaker 1: all are, I mean, were research questions are ones that
Speaker 1: were questioning In his case, he had become persuaded that
Speaker 1: the strongest cases that reincarnation was the best explanation for them,
Speaker 1: but not the only So he's certainly left that door
Speaker 1: open that he could be wrong about it, but he
Speaker 1: was persuaded that, you know, there was people no longer
Speaker 1: had to accept reincarnation on faith. They could accept it
Speaker 1: on evidence that they chose to. Well, he coined the
Speaker 1: term psycho for right ps y c h O p
Speaker 1: h O R soul bearing. What was his thought about that?
Speaker 1: Why did he find the need to coin such a term? Well, right,
Speaker 1: so he was His idea was that if he had
Speaker 1: these memories and emotions and behavioral characteristics in a life,
Speaker 1: that if they continued on into another life, as these
Speaker 1: cases appeared to suggest, then there would have to be
Speaker 1: some sort of vehicle to carry them. So, rather than
Speaker 1: use a term like soul or spirit, you know, some
Speaker 1: sort of religious term, he felt that he should coin
Speaker 1: a new term that didn't have connotations that were not
Speaker 1: necessarily consistent with the work, or certainly not consistent with
Speaker 1: the attempt to look at this in sort of a
Speaker 1: serious objective way as opposed to a religious way. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because even just people listening to this conversation, even they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: they're talking about recarnation, reincarnation, it might be hard for
Speaker 1: people to even have a model in their head that
Speaker 1: one can discuss this in a scientific way. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna let's change some people's minds here today in the
Speaker 1: sense that we can show them that we can have
Speaker 1: this discussion in a in a way that is evidence based.
Speaker 1: And so, Doc, what I find interest is Doctor Stevens,
Speaker 1: he gives this quote, reincarnation is the best, even though
Speaker 1: not the only, explanation for the stronger cases we have investigated.
Speaker 1: That was the quote that got to the closest when
Speaker 1: I wanted to know what his conclusion was. And you're
Speaker 1: not Ian Stevens's you're your own human. So as a
Speaker 1: jumping point from that, I want to, you know, continue
Speaker 1: the rest of this conversation day on what you've discovered
Speaker 1: and what you've concluded, maybe have similarly end differently from
Speaker 1: doctor Ian Stevenson, even though he was a huge mentor
Speaker 1: of yours. So you kind of popped on the scene
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety six on the reincarnation scene. You reincarnated
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety six. Let right, you left your private
Speaker 1: practice in psychiatry to go all in on this. So
Speaker 1: this this was this was a motivation, like there was
Speaker 1: a moment like a Hoard Gardner calls it a crystallizing
Speaker 1: experience right where you're like, this is it, this is
Speaker 1: what I want to do with my life moving forward.
Speaker 1: So how did that happen? Yeah, it was a real
Speaker 1: fork in the road for sure, and I think we
Speaker 1: took back up for a step. It basically the big
Speaker 1: fork in the road when my wife and I got together.
Speaker 1: It opened me up to, I mean to be frank,
Speaker 1: to experiencing life in sort of a different way, a
Speaker 1: more fuller way or a fuller way. And she was
Speaker 1: open to these kinds of things in a way that
Speaker 1: I had not been, so that got me intrigued. So
Speaker 1: I was reading about different things, and it was actually
Speaker 1: reading one of these seams and books I learned that
Speaker 1: his research division here at University of Virginia had gotten
Speaker 1: a grant to do a new study on near death experiences,
Speaker 1: not reincarnation, but new death experiences. So I just called
Speaker 1: them up to see if they needed help with that study,
Speaker 1: and sort of one thing led to another. But when
Speaker 1: I left my private practice to come on here, I
Speaker 1: have continued to be a child psychiatrist. So about half
Speaker 1: of my time roughly is spent doing clinical work, patient
Speaker 1: care work, helping to train the residence and the fellows.
Speaker 1: So it's not like I left it all behind, but
Speaker 1: I did decide that I was going to do the
Speaker 1: work that I wanted to do, and you know, if
Speaker 1: it didn't work out, I could always go back into
Speaker 1: private practice, but in the meantime, I was going to
Speaker 1: explore this area. Again. I mean, the question of life
Speaker 1: after death is something that you know, interests all of
Speaker 1: us at least to some extent. But what really appealed
Speaker 1: to me was the serious minded sort of scientific approach,
Speaker 1: evidence based approach that was going on at UVA and
Speaker 1: that I wanted to be a part of. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it must have also felt a little bit like
Speaker 1: a rebel, right, like there must be some bone in
Speaker 1: your body that like, you know, maybe like just a
Speaker 1: personality trait you maybe have had your whole life for
Speaker 1: you to like, you know, like I'm gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: take on the establishment a little bit. Yeah. Actually I'm
Speaker 1: quite the opposite. I've alway fascinating, fascinatingretty much a straight
Speaker 1: row rule follower kind of person. So yeah, it was
Speaker 1: a step out of my comfort zone. But but again,
Speaker 1: the approach is mainstream. I mean it's at it's looking
Speaker 1: at a topic that people don't usually apply these methods to,
Speaker 1: but that it's the same end goal. I've seen what
Speaker 1: we can see, what we can discover. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I bet you see all sorts of explanations for things
Speaker 1: that make you roll your eyes, you know, like that
Speaker 1: are just so outside of the evidence space and you're like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think that it's suggests that's true enough.
Speaker 1: But here's a fact, a fascinating fact. Some young children
Speaker 1: say they have been here before. Okay, that's the fact.
Speaker 1: Now what derives from that? Well, lots of things can
Speaker 1: be investigated to try to understand that, and you probably
Speaker 1: always get asked, well, what's the mechanism, what's the right
Speaker 1: And there's all sorts of explanations. I would like to
Speaker 1: go through in a systematic way and discuss first of
Speaker 1: all the mean characteristics that you see, and we'll go
Speaker 1: through to have the list, and then I also want
Speaker 1: to discuss the potential explanations for it, and then I
Speaker 1: want to end with your your thoughts on what's what's
Speaker 1: going on based on the totality of the evidence. So
Speaker 1: one thing you often see are just the most simplest,
Speaker 1: most conceptually associated with this idea, which are past life statements. Right. So,
Speaker 1: these kids, usually between the ages of two and five,
Speaker 1: talk about someone else's whole life, right, and they seem
Speaker 1: to have memories of it, right, So can you elucidate
Speaker 1: a little bit what exactly the nature of that? It
Speaker 1: looks like. Yeah, it's very much memory in the sense
Speaker 1: that is, from one person's point of view. They're not
Speaker 1: just spouting facts, but more of what to them feel
Speaker 1: like memories and often focused on the end of the life.
Speaker 1: So three quarters of the kids talk about how they
Speaker 1: died in the past life. They remember at death, and
Speaker 1: most of those are sort of violent death or unnatural
Speaker 1: death anyway, murder, suicide, accident, combat, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And with those sort of traumatic memories can come other
Speaker 1: memories to about family. They may express a lot of
Speaker 1: emotional attachment toward previous parents that they may tell their parents,
Speaker 1: you're not really my parents, my parents live in such
Speaker 1: and such place, and they at times will give enough
Speaker 1: specific details which pretty much have to include names of
Speaker 1: places or names of people, but give enough where people
Speaker 1: then verify that their apparent memories do in fact match
Speaker 1: a life from the past. A lot of them will
Speaker 1: also show a lot of emotions. I mentioned that the
Speaker 1: attachment to the previous family, many of them will show
Speaker 1: phobias toward the mode of death the previous person had.
Speaker 1: That the kids may act out various aspects of the
Speaker 1: past life and their play. But you know, again, it's
Speaker 1: not just information that they seem to be connecting to
Speaker 1: or that seems to have carried on, but the whole
Speaker 1: that feelings and emotions have carried on as well. It
Speaker 1: seems these kids do this spontaneously. It doesn't involve hypnotic
Speaker 1: regression or anything like that. And they come from all
Speaker 1: over the world that we've studied over twenty five hundred cases,
Speaker 1: and while they're easiest to find in cultures with the
Speaker 1: general belief in or reincarnation, they happen everywhere. So it's
Speaker 1: with the American cases, most of the parents did not
Speaker 1: believe in past lives before their kids started talking about one.
Speaker 1: So it's not like anyone created this or led them
Speaker 1: to believe these things. It's just something that arises from them.
Speaker 1: That they have these emotional memories that they describe great
Speaker 1: and few of them are famous people. It's not like
Speaker 1: they're really prominent cases. Would you say that the one
Speaker 1: hundreds of these cases can't be explained away by somehow
Speaker 1: the kid finding a news article you know somewhere or
Speaker 1: watching something on television about a really violent death of someone.
Speaker 1: Can you say that you have investigated that systematically and
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of the cases can't be explained away
Speaker 1: by that. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say one hundred percent
Speaker 1: for anything, but in the strongest cases, for instance, some
Speaker 1: of the kids will talk about either a deceased family
Speaker 1: member or a deceased person from the same town or village.
Speaker 1: So those you know, you always wondered did they learn
Speaker 1: about the previous person by natural means? But with the
Speaker 1: stranger cases, I mean they're or they remember being a stranger.
Speaker 1: There are plenty of those where it it's essentially inconceivable
Speaker 1: that they learned about this stuff through normal means. That
Speaker 1: there may be other explanations for the cases, but not
Speaker 1: that they somehow read a news article about this person
Speaker 1: who lived fifty years before and that you know, died
Speaker 1: in without anyone knowing that dog. I mean that that's
Speaker 1: just not a reasonable explanation for most fascinating and you know,
Speaker 1: children have wild imaginations, right, and you have enough people
Speaker 1: on the earth, you know, I could I bet I
Speaker 1: could imagine something right now, and then statistically it probably
Speaker 1: would match up to some you know, I could make
Speaker 1: up something right now, be like I'm Johnny. I'm Johnny
Speaker 1: who died of a bullet to the head in the war.
Speaker 1: I bet there's someone named Johnny who died with a
Speaker 1: bullethead of the war. So just it just statistically, Now,
Speaker 1: do you think that can fully explain as a rich,
Speaker 1: rich imagination that just happens to match a prior life. Well,
Speaker 1: it depends on the statement. So yeah, like you said,
Speaker 1: you know, if someone says I was Bob and I
Speaker 1: was killed in a car accident in California, all right,
Speaker 1: well they're going to be a lot, right, So you
Speaker 1: have to look at how this specificity of the statements
Speaker 1: so there where it can only fit one person. So
Speaker 1: you know, there's a well known American case of a
Speaker 1: kid who talked about being a World War Two pilot
Speaker 1: who was shot in the Pacific and gave the name
Speaker 1: of the aircraft carrier, first and last name of a
Speaker 1: friend of his, describe where he died, described how he died,
Speaker 1: and there was only one person in history whose life
Speaker 1: matched those details. So you know, you could say it's
Speaker 1: a coincidence, but that I don't think is plausible. I mean,
Speaker 1: that would be one heck of a coincidence. Yeah, one
Speaker 1: heck of a coincidence. And you tend to find that
Speaker 1: these individuals come from not necessarily the person's bloodline, but
Speaker 1: a certain vicinity to where they live. Right, You don't
Speaker 1: tend to have prior lives of someone on the other
Speaker 1: end of the world. That's true, although we do occasionally
Speaker 1: get those reports. And you know, if a child, if
Speaker 1: an American child says my last life was in Africa, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no way to verify that without a
Speaker 1: whole lot more details. But with the ones that do
Speaker 1: have verifiable details, even the ones who describe a past
Speaker 1: life as a member of another country, there was often
Speaker 1: a geographical connection. So for instance, Burmese children who said
Speaker 1: they were Japanese soldiers killed in burrowing during World War Two.
Speaker 1: So right, most of them are not related. They're not
Speaker 1: describing the life of an ancestor, so there's not a
Speaker 1: genetic connection, but there is it is for intact memories
Speaker 1: to come through. Typically the past life was one that
Speaker 1: was reasonably close by, usually in the same country. And
Speaker 1: then you also tend to see some past life behaviors,
Speaker 1: like unusual play among these children. Can you kind of
Speaker 1: celebrate what you see there? Yeah, the most common is
Speaker 1: actually acting now the previous occupation, So I mean not
Speaker 1: just playing war like all kids do, but specific things
Speaker 1: like a kid who played repeatedly hours on end at
Speaker 1: being a biscuit and soda a shopkeeper, which the person
Speaker 1: had done. Some of them will kind of reenact the
Speaker 1: death scene over and over. That's not as common as
Speaker 1: the occupation, but we do have some of those cases.
Speaker 1: But sometimes the occupation ones quite precise as well. So
Speaker 1: there's this kid to remember it being a nightclub owner
Speaker 1: and would even put out seats for his two wives,
Speaker 1: And it turned out the previous person was somebody who
Speaker 1: fit that kind of description. So just taken on its own,
Speaker 1: the play may not necessarily be that impressive, but when
Speaker 1: you put it in with the whole picture, then it
Speaker 1: looks like it is connected to the memories the child.
Speaker 1: That's a great point, and I should have stepped back
Speaker 1: and asked about your methodology, because it is true that
Speaker 1: when you collect these reports, you tend to further investigate
Speaker 1: ones that show two out of a list of behaviors
Speaker 1: that there are multiple these things that when I was
Speaker 1: reading inter methodology, is that correct, right, Yeah, there are
Speaker 1: a number of features that we look for. The most
Speaker 1: obvious is claiming to remember a past life. But then yeah,
Speaker 1: there are behaviors that are associated a peer associated with
Speaker 1: the memories there are These are not common, but are
Speaker 1: cases where the previous person made a prediction about where
Speaker 1: they would be born the next time around. They're also
Speaker 1: what we call announcing dreams, where usually the mom when
Speaker 1: she's pregnant, we'll have a dream about a previous person
Speaker 1: saying I'm coming to be born to you. And it
Speaker 1: seems like there are one or two other features that
Speaker 1: make the list for you. We have to have at
Speaker 1: least two of those to register it in our cases
Speaker 1: of birthmarks and birth defects. That Matt, I was going
Speaker 1: to bring that up on the previous person. So the
Speaker 1: most common are the statements and the behaviors, but we
Speaker 1: get the others as well. I thought it was interesting
Speaker 1: that like in Indiana, where reincarnation is a idea that's
Speaker 1: in the consciousness there of the culture a third of
Speaker 1: your cases from India include birthmarks or birth defects. They
Speaker 1: are thought to correspond to wounds on the previous personalities,
Speaker 1: with eighteen percent of those including medical records that confirm
Speaker 1: the match. My gosh, what are things going on with
Speaker 1: the birthmarks? Well, I will say, like the child intentionally
Speaker 1: branded themselves, right, Yeah, No, I think we've ruled that out.
Speaker 1: But I will say the percentage is a little bit
Speaker 1: misleading in the sense that Ian Steinson was really fascinated
Speaker 1: by those cases, so those that would affect which ones
Speaker 1: he would fully investigate. But yes, there are plenty of
Speaker 1: those cases out there, and yet it's once where the
Speaker 1: child is born with the birthmark er full birth defects
Speaker 1: that match wounds, usually the fatal wounds on the body
Speaker 1: of the previous person. And they include eighteen cases where
Speaker 1: they have both entrants and exit wounds of somebody who
Speaker 1: is a gunshot victim. Deformity is like there's a case
Speaker 1: of a little boy who the previous boy lost the
Speaker 1: fingers that his right hand in the foder chopping machine,
Speaker 1: and then the second board is then born with missing
Speaker 1: the fingers on the right hand. Uh. And there are
Speaker 1: lots of those picking out there. We get some American
Speaker 1: ones like that as well, that they're not as common here,
Speaker 1: but we've certainly had ones, including a one with heart defect,
Speaker 1: others with work marks, So yeah, they're there. It seems
Speaker 1: that if I mean, if we accept the cases there,
Speaker 1: if there is this sort of carryover of mind or
Speaker 1: consciousness that sometimes traumatic either memories or even traumatic wounds
Speaker 1: can affect the developing fetus in the way that they
Speaker 1: show up in Yeah, you talk about that in the
Speaker 1: in your in one of your books about the fascinating
Speaker 1: nature of how our mind can affect our bodies. You know,
Speaker 1: how these things are intertwined and maybe the consciousness creates
Speaker 1: the birthmarks. But it, you know, it makes one question,
Speaker 1: you know, where do birthmarks come from in any of us?
Speaker 1: Like I have birthmarks? Right? Like? Why do I have
Speaker 1: birth marks? What's what's the developmental explanation of that? What
Speaker 1: a would a biologist be able to explain that? To me?
Speaker 1: Confab I think most of them did. The cause is unnearned.
Speaker 1: I mean, not that I'm an expert on birth marks,
Speaker 1: but there you know, there are some birth defects, in
Speaker 1: particular where there's a syndrome that's been identified. But but
Speaker 1: for most of them it's unknown. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily a ton of research on birth marks because
Speaker 1: they're nine and and Ian never claimed that all birth
Speaker 1: marks were related to past lives, But is that in
Speaker 1: some of these notes? But but it makes me wonder, Yeah, doctor,
Speaker 1: doctor Tucker. I have a confession. When I was three
Speaker 1: years old or so, we were in Disneyland and we
Speaker 1: were I still remember this vividly. I remember this vividly.
Speaker 1: We're in Disneyland and we were at the hotel afterwards,
Speaker 1: and I went into the bathroom and I remember I
Speaker 1: was standing in front of the toilet and suddenly I
Speaker 1: saw I was like an old man in my head,
Speaker 1: and I saw my whole life, my whole life flashed
Speaker 1: before my eyes, like I saw, like like suddenly, like
Speaker 1: I wasn't three year old, Scott. I was literally like
Speaker 1: a mature old man with like and all the things
Speaker 1: that come along with that, Like I had lots of
Speaker 1: mature thoughts like the three year old you know, wouldn't
Speaker 1: tend to have. And it freaked me out and so
Speaker 1: much so that I remember this moment even even today.
Speaker 1: And I but it just disappeared. It just disappeared. When
Speaker 1: I like walked back into the room. It was just
Speaker 1: this like moment where I just I was, I was
Speaker 1: a I witterly felt like I was this old man
Speaker 1: now and it couldn't feel like an old man Scott
Speaker 1: or I mean couldn't tell hard to tell, but I
Speaker 1: still remember it vividly, like I remember that memory vividly.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's crazy, like I was three or four,
Speaker 1: but I uh uh, it felt like like I was
Speaker 1: that they're both both both were in me at the
Speaker 1: same time. I was the old Scott be like knowing
Speaker 1: everything like that an old man knows and being like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, but I have this three year old body
Speaker 1: that has to like live it, live, live it through,
Speaker 1: like I have to like go through the motions of
Speaker 1: living a life. But I see it at the end
Speaker 1: of the life. I see the whole life lived. It
Speaker 1: was the weirdest thing. Yeah. Yeah, it's the kind of
Speaker 1: thing that I mean, these experiences do happen people, And
Speaker 1: I mean with our cases, we do have some where
Speaker 1: the child will talk with grave emotion about it past
Speaker 1: like just one time and then they parents were asking
Speaker 1: them about a week later they don't even remember. But
Speaker 1: then there are others, you know, where people will have
Speaker 1: sort of transcendental experiences, which you know, as a three
Speaker 1: year old, sort of being able to seemingly stepping back
Speaker 1: from your day to day experience and seeing the big picture.
Speaker 1: It's something that happens to people. And you know, what
Speaker 1: do we make of that? It sounds like you sort
Speaker 1: of stepped out of time for yeah, yeah, yeah, just
Speaker 1: had a very like mature way of I mean, I
Speaker 1: wasn't a three year old at that moment, you know.
Speaker 1: Just so, it's so, it's so interesting. So these are
Speaker 1: some explanations to consider, and I wanted to go through this.
Speaker 1: There are normal explanations and then, of course there are
Speaker 1: paranormal explanations. Let's just let's let's start with the normal,
Speaker 1: normal ones. You say, quote, we approach the cases with
Speaker 1: an attitude of scientific curiosity. We were open to all possibilities.
Speaker 1: I mean, gosh, what a great scientific approach. I wish
Speaker 1: all scientists had that approach. Quite frankly, I can't say
Speaker 1: I'll do so. Normal explanations include things like, well, maybe
Speaker 1: these kids have fraud. Maybe it's fraud, wold fraud. It's
Speaker 1: not like the kids are creating the fraud, but they're
Speaker 1: broad conditions that make it look like those kids are
Speaker 1: saying those things, right, is that? Is that one of
Speaker 1: that potentially? Yeah? Actually, Ian Simpson published a case of
Speaker 1: I mean published a paper on I think of seven
Speaker 1: cases of either deception or self deception. Sometimes very rarely,
Speaker 1: where the child's family may be trying to get say
Speaker 1: money out of a wealthy family and say that their
Speaker 1: child was the previously family member. What's more common, I
Speaker 1: think is self deception, where the families may make sort
Speaker 1: of too much of what of the child's statements and
Speaker 1: then kind of build this story that the child was
Speaker 1: either a deceased family member in a past life or
Speaker 1: occasionally famous, a famous person. I mean, I've gotten ones
Speaker 1: for famous people like Babe Ruth and people like that,
Speaker 1: which I mean, the child wasn't Babe Ruth. I'm pretty skeptical. Well,
Speaker 1: what do you do. What if you get five kids
Speaker 1: and they all say that they were Babe Ruth, do
Speaker 1: you got to like they got to fight that out
Speaker 1: amongst themselves, like you know, which is the real one? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Well right, so, I mean that almost never happens with
Speaker 1: but we do get some reports from adults who feel
Speaker 1: like they were someone famous in the past, often not
Speaker 1: because they have specific memories, but because of other aspects
Speaker 1: or coincidence or similarities. So yeah, we've had a number
Speaker 1: of Thomas Jefferson's. I think that's the leading one, you know,
Speaker 1: the University of Virginia, and I mean the adult cases
Speaker 1: we tend to look at with a fairly skeptical eye anyway,
Speaker 1: because if you don't have specific memories, I think it's
Speaker 1: very hard to even speculate about who you were in
Speaker 1: a past life. But again, I mean that's a tiny
Speaker 1: minority of these cases. For the most part, there's no
Speaker 1: reason to think that the parents or the child that
Speaker 1: they're committing deception, and typically there's not even any grounds
Speaker 1: to think they would be committing self deception. You actually
Speaker 1: just made me think of a question that have you
Speaker 1: ever had two children claimed to have memories of this
Speaker 1: person not famous? You know, would that be interesting? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are cases. One of our colleagues, Antonia Mills, up
Speaker 1: in Northern British Columbia, study cases of with the tribal
Speaker 1: people's up there, and there were there are some communities
Speaker 1: where they will not a sign but recognize the child
Speaker 1: as being a past life person on very limited grounds.
Speaker 1: I mean, they say a dream and they may decide, okay,
Speaker 1: this child was that person. And it's usually like a
Speaker 1: village elder or somebody that was well respected in the community,
Speaker 1: so not a famous person, but somebody that people looked
Speaker 1: up to. So there may be three or four kids
Speaker 1: who are all identify as being that person in the
Speaker 1: past line. But again that that's a real exception to do, real, rare,
Speaker 1: real rare. Yeah. Another potential explanation is, well, we already
Speaker 1: discussed this one, which is fantasy. Yeah, but I think
Speaker 1: we already discussed on you kind of meet well yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I will say, if none of these memories
Speaker 1: could be verified, then I would have a great belief
Speaker 1: in the likelihood that this could be fantasy. And when
Speaker 1: kids certainly are capable of fantasy and say all kinds
Speaker 1: of things. Again, we don't pay that at face values,
Speaker 1: whether we can determine that these statements actually matched a
Speaker 1: past life, but before we would think that it's more
Speaker 1: than just fantasy. Yeah, and then faulty memory by informants,
Speaker 1: how much could that explain the findings? Right? So, the
Speaker 1: idea is that the child makes some perhaps general statements
Speaker 1: about a past life, that the family finds someone whose
Speaker 1: life more or less match those statements, and then after
Speaker 1: the families meet and exchange information, then the child gets
Speaker 1: credited with more information than they actually had, and currently
Speaker 1: cases for it that warrant serious consideration. But then there
Speaker 1: are all the cases where we've written documentation of what
Speaker 1: the child said before anyone knew if there was a
Speaker 1: previous person, so we can be sure that they're not
Speaker 1: faulty memory in those because we've got documentation. And then
Speaker 1: this one is very interesting for a number of reasons.
Speaker 1: Genetic memory. This one kind of gets to the heart
Speaker 1: of a lot of a lot of things that I
Speaker 1: personally study. Our worlds were going to are about to
Speaker 1: intersect in a second. You'll see why. But can you
Speaker 1: tell me a little bit about what that is? What
Speaker 1: is genetic memory? Yeah, that the thought is that the
Speaker 1: idea is that the memories would be transferred in the
Speaker 1: genes to the child, so it would not be some
Speaker 1: sort of paranormal kind of thing, but a physical transfer
Speaker 1: through the genes. But that does not explain could not
Speaker 1: explain most of our cases, partly because most of the
Speaker 1: time the child is not talking about a direct ancestor,
Speaker 1: which they would have to be for the genes to comfort.
Speaker 1: And also most of the children have memories of how
Speaker 1: they died, which, of course people die after they've already
Speaker 1: passed on their genetic material. So you know, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of very interesting facets to what can be
Speaker 1: transferred in genes or at least epigenetically, but what kinds
Speaker 1: of memories crafts can be transferred. But it doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be a factor in these cases. Well, hold up,
Speaker 1: hold up my own area of research. This is where
Speaker 1: our world's intersect. And I've long been thinking about this.
Speaker 1: I've studied prodigies, and I've studied savants, and I'm very
Speaker 1: dear friends with a man named Daryld Trufford who passed
Speaker 1: away pretty recently, and he was he was the scientific
Speaker 1: advisor to the movie rain Man. But he was also
Speaker 1: the most knowledgeable, well known scientists studying savants, and he
Speaker 1: had this idea of genetic memory. He thought that was
Speaker 1: the only explanation. He thought that was the best explanation
Speaker 1: for how a lot of these individuals with very low
Speaker 1: IQs even could sit down and paint something for photorealistic
Speaker 1: or sit down at the piano and play something amazing.
Speaker 1: And even in the Prodigies realm, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: trying to understand how children under the age of ten
Speaker 1: can just have a fully formed talent. You know, it
Speaker 1: takes a little bit of practice, but it doesn't take
Speaker 1: that much input for them to learn. It's not like
Speaker 1: the parents are pushing these kids. It's the kids are
Speaker 1: pushing the parents. And then I've studied at great length
Speaker 1: the idea of gifted children and the idea of prodigies,
Speaker 1: and my friend David Henry Feldman wrote a book about prodigies,
Speaker 1: and specifically, in there he noted that there seemed to
Speaker 1: be a higher than greater chance of these kids somewhere
Speaker 1: in their ancestry there was someone who had a talent
Speaker 1: that resembled it, and he didn't rule out the possibility
Speaker 1: that there was some sort of genetic memory. So genetic
Speaker 1: memory has been brought into the discussion of these other
Speaker 1: demeans like prodigies and savants. I didn't know. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you're familiar with any of these two individuals
Speaker 1: that I mentioned, or their work or writings about this,
Speaker 1: but I'd love to bring all these worlds together because
Speaker 1: I think there's something really really, there's something going on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's something going on. Yeah, And I mean I don't
Speaker 1: doubt that at all. And it may be it's conceivable
Speaker 1: that there's a genetic disposition for recalling past lives and
Speaker 1: that they do seem more common in some communities than others.
Speaker 1: But my point is for the memories of one specific life,
Speaker 1: I don't see how that could be happening through genetic
Speaker 1: transfer in these cases. But because they're recalling lives, that
Speaker 1: is not. But you know, if you consider these children
Speaker 1: to be svants or or whatever, they have this special ability.
Speaker 1: Now it may well be that that special ability may
Speaker 1: have a genetic Yeah. It gets, it gets really, you know,
Speaker 1: it gets it starts to get metaphysical, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to go out all Ancient Aliens out
Speaker 1: on this and be like, could it be that the
Speaker 1: Chaka record has all these things and that we're tapping
Speaker 1: into Now, I'm not going I'm not that guy. I
Speaker 1: actually was on an episode of Ancient Aliens, but I wasn't.
Speaker 1: I was the scientist and I made some very clear,
Speaker 1: factual statements about where genius comes from. The whole episode
Speaker 1: was where does genius come from and I and I
Speaker 1: made some statement like, well, we can't reduce genius entirely
Speaker 1: to the brain, and then the guy with the big
Speaker 1: hair said, what she means is could it be that
Speaker 1: it's from the Ashakk record. So I think that's not
Speaker 1: what you meant. That's not what I meant. But but
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, I think at this point
Speaker 1: in our conversation would be fun to play around in
Speaker 1: the space of what what's the what is possible? What
Speaker 1: is going on now? Of course there are I didn't
Speaker 1: mention the paranormal explanations. Extra sensory perception has been one
Speaker 1: that has been put forward, but as you note, that
Speaker 1: doesn't explain the birthmarks possession. I'm fascinated with that one
Speaker 1: as well. I you know, you look get. You know
Speaker 1: people who who who do GET feel like they're possessed
Speaker 1: by the devil for instance, you know, and then you
Speaker 1: start to look at those cases more scientifically, you see
Speaker 1: there's mental illness, schizophrenia, aspects that are that are more
Speaker 1: reasonable explanations than they were just possessed by the devil.
Speaker 1: It's not as cut and dry as that they were
Speaker 1: just possessed by the devil, and then of course the
Speaker 1: paranormal explanation of reincarnation, and you say that doesn't explain
Speaker 1: fully why the memory is so fleeting. For instance, let's
Speaker 1: you know, for remaining moments here. Lets let's really play
Speaker 1: in the space of what is going on, doctor Jim Tucker.
Speaker 1: Let's just get right down to it. You know, what
Speaker 1: could be going on in a way that science can
Speaker 1: explain someday. I mean, maybe we don't have the tools yet.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's that's part of the problem. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: there are anomalies that in order to explain them you
Speaker 1: don't start over with science, but you may have to
Speaker 1: sort of broaden some things, you know, just like quantum
Speaker 1: theory broad and classical physics. And not that I'm saying
Speaker 1: this is like quantum theory, but you can't just if
Speaker 1: you accept these cases, you can't just map them on
Speaker 1: to a materialist understanding of reality, because they involve some
Speaker 1: sort of transfer of mind, even if you don't accept
Speaker 1: it as reincarnation, but some sort of transfer separate from
Speaker 1: the physical and taking sort of a larger view. As
Speaker 1: time has gone on, I've become more of a scientific
Speaker 1: or philosophical idealist. The idea that ultimately consciousness is at
Speaker 1: the core of reality and the physical grows out of it.
Speaker 1: And there are people a lot smarterer than me, like
Speaker 1: next Plank, the founder of quantum theory, who said the
Speaker 1: same thing, that ultimately reality comes down to consciousness, and
Speaker 1: that can be sort of mind bending thing, can be
Speaker 1: hard to sometimes to kind of make sense of it.
Speaker 1: But if it's true that the physical grows out of
Speaker 1: the mental essentially, then I don't see why an individual
Speaker 1: consciousness would be dependent on a physical brain, because in fact,
Speaker 1: the physical world is growing out of consciousness. So it
Speaker 1: would make sense that this piece of consciousness or mind
Speaker 1: that each of us has can continue on regardless of
Speaker 1: what happens to the physical body weren't having And then
Speaker 1: in our cases at least I have never said as universal,
Speaker 1: but in our cases at least, it seems that this
Speaker 1: mind has been attached to a new physical body and
Speaker 1: then continued on with a new model. So are you
Speaker 1: are you atally literally saying that you think the only
Speaker 1: way to fully explain the totality evidence is one where
Speaker 1: we're going to have to disassociate the mind from or
Speaker 1: consciousness from the physical brain in some capacity in some way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you accept these cases, then yes, I
Speaker 1: think you're pretty much forced to conclude that. And you know,
Speaker 1: each person can decide for themselves whether they should accept
Speaker 1: the cases. But I think if you look at our
Speaker 1: strongest ones as a group, I mean, they do provide
Speaker 1: good evidence that something's going on here, that these children
Speaker 1: do actually have memories of a life from the past.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many deep implications of this if
Speaker 1: this is if this is true, But what I want
Speaker 1: to really understand is why they're so fleeting, Why the
Speaker 1: memories so fleeting. Why don't people when they get recarnated
Speaker 1: just get recarnated as the total person for the rest
Speaker 1: of their life. Could it there be mechanisms at play
Speaker 1: where that's just the way, Like when you have a
Speaker 1: human psychology of immediate memories, it just inhibits past life
Speaker 1: memories like that. There's a huge conflict there, and the
Speaker 1: way the biological system reconciles that conflict is by, you know,
Speaker 1: by prioritizing the current immediate experience. Yeah, I mean, typically
Speaker 1: these kids lose these memories or most of these memories
Speaker 1: at the same time that all kids lose memories of
Speaker 1: early childhood. So you know, infantile anagor early childhood amnesia
Speaker 1: where that's not sure. Now that their brain is undergoing
Speaker 1: tremendous changes during this period of a lot of pruning,
Speaker 1: and you know, memories and sometimes of skills or whatever,
Speaker 1: it's sort of get left behind because others get prioritized.
Speaker 1: It would make sense that for most of these kids
Speaker 1: they lose those memories at the same time they lose
Speaker 1: memories of real child. Now another related question is why
Speaker 1: there's such glimpses why you know, like you said, it's
Speaker 1: not like suddenly they remember everything from the past life.
Speaker 1: You know, the person hasn't just continued on. It's it's
Speaker 1: almost more like when you wake up and you've got
Speaker 1: glimpses of a dream and sometimes you remember a lot
Speaker 1: of details, and then other times you've got kind of images,
Speaker 1: but it's pretty hard to put them together, and you know,
Speaker 1: they can fade. That's how it is for some of
Speaker 1: these kids that they will come out with certain details
Speaker 1: at certain times, but it's not like they can suddenly
Speaker 1: spell out the whole past line. So it's I mean,
Speaker 1: it's amazing that any memories would come through, right, but
Speaker 1: it's it's usually not a full complete thing, but it
Speaker 1: really varies from child to child. So do you think
Speaker 1: it's Does your gut tell you that that we're all
Speaker 1: reincarnated from from some assemblage of prior things outside of
Speaker 1: our own genetic ancestry, or do you think there are
Speaker 1: only special cases like the ones you're discovering so not.
Speaker 1: There's so many questions to be asked about this. That's
Speaker 1: one I'll stop there. Yeah, Well, I feel like our
Speaker 1: cases again do provide evidence that there can be this continuation,
Speaker 1: and I think that coming out of speculating, but I
Speaker 1: think that would apply to all of us. But it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that all of us have lived here before,
Speaker 1: or that we would be reborn here in this reality.
Speaker 1: You know, consciousness that is the core of all. I
Speaker 1: don't know why we couldn't have very different kinds of
Speaker 1: experiences in very different kinds of realities. So my own
Speaker 1: personal guess is that reincarnation is not universal in the
Speaker 1: sense that we all come back here, but that that
Speaker 1: mind or consciousness there is a piece that does continue
Speaker 1: on for all of us. What do you think happens
Speaker 1: after we die? Well, I don't know that it's universal.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know that we all have the
Speaker 1: same experience. I think that there are probably a lot
Speaker 1: of factors that go into what we experience next. And
Speaker 1: for some that may be immediately coming back here, but
Speaker 1: for others and make you very different. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at near death experiences, people who where
Speaker 1: their hearts stop and then they have these experiences, there
Speaker 1: can be real variability. I mean, there are similarities, but
Speaker 1: there can also be real individual differences. And I suspect
Speaker 1: that that it's true for any of the afterlife kinds
Speaker 1: of experiences. Well, what if you want to increase the
Speaker 1: chances that you're going to live after you die, should
Speaker 1: you die of violent death? I mean, is that what
Speaker 1: your research suggests. I mean, that's what it suggests now
Speaker 1: that you should have some dramatic ending. Make sure you
Speaker 1: have a dramatic ending, folks, well to have the memories
Speaker 1: come through. That may well be true. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's just like traumatic memories in this life. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are memories when people have PTSD, memories that they
Speaker 1: wish they didn't have, but they couldn't get rid of them.
Speaker 1: There's a real strength, unfortunately to traumatic memories. That may
Speaker 1: well be the case across lifetimes. Wow. But as far
Speaker 1: as the kind of experience you have next, I mean
Speaker 1: I would guess that it relates to the kind of
Speaker 1: experiences you have here and also the kind of life
Speaker 1: that you lead. I mean not in a heaven and
Speaker 1: hell kind of sense, but just if you're focused on
Speaker 1: love and connecting with others and giving to others, you know,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that would affect your whatever it
Speaker 1: is that survives, and if we call it a soul,
Speaker 1: that would have an effect on your soul. And then
Speaker 1: what affect what comes next? Well, this is the right
Speaker 1: I'm a scientist, and I really am curious what patterns
Speaker 1: you found among the all the if you look at
Speaker 1: all the people, all the cases of the past lines,
Speaker 1: and you look at that like, I'm a personality psychologist.
Speaker 1: I want to like do the I want to crunch
Speaker 1: the numbers, like of the big five personality traits? Is
Speaker 1: there are there certain characteristics that they all have in common?
Speaker 1: Is there some like I feel like we can like
Speaker 1: get this mystery, like this would this would get us
Speaker 1: to the like this this is real deep stuff. If
Speaker 1: we can discover who what personality traits are more likely
Speaker 1: to make you move on? After you die, and mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's some pretty heavy stuff there. Well, we aren't
Speaker 1: doing a study now where we are interviewing adults, so
Speaker 1: we originally study as children because this work's been done
Speaker 1: on so long and we are administering Big Five questionnaires
Speaker 1: to them. Perfect we haven't gotten where we're done with
Speaker 1: the analysis yet, but we'll see if anything comes from that.
Speaker 1: I mean, my guess is, again there's a difference between
Speaker 1: having memories versus surviving at all. I would be disappointed
Speaker 1: if it turns out certain personality all these survive while
Speaker 1: others done, you know, for certain personality, people's personality characteristics.
Speaker 1: But who knows what. We'll have to see where the
Speaker 1: where the data leads us. I guess we wait. I
Speaker 1: think we might be talking about different things. I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about the Big five traits of the person who
Speaker 1: is alive right now, is now what I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: What are the common characteristics of all the past lives,
Speaker 1: like what's the personality? You can do that analysis, right of.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't physically administer the Big Five to them,
Speaker 1: but I'm saying you can do the qualitative sort of
Speaker 1: impressions like are they are these do youse tend to
Speaker 1: be good people? Do they live good lives? Like? Is
Speaker 1: there a pattern there or some of them? Do you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Well, I do. I mean with
Speaker 1: the Big five, yes, we don't have enough information for
Speaker 1: most of them to do any sort of reasonable assessment
Speaker 1: of that. As far as whether they were good people
Speaker 1: or not, there's quite a range. I mean, they're you know,
Speaker 1: if you're more likely to die violently if that life
Speaker 1: is remembered. There are plenty of people die violently through
Speaker 1: no far of their own, but there are others who
Speaker 1: you know, are involved in knife fights or you know whatever.
Speaker 1: So some of the people have been fairly nasty people.
Speaker 1: It did some fairly nasty things, But then there are
Speaker 1: other people who are you know, just kind of typical
Speaker 1: that people do in their best Well, that's it. That's
Speaker 1: really important information in itself. I mean you're basically you know,
Speaker 1: they're what if their like listeners who are saying like,
Speaker 1: I want to increase the chances that like some five
Speaker 1: year old remembers my life, you know, for two years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all we get. But there's another part of this
Speaker 1: that's a bit disappointing, right, Like with the reincarnation stuff
Speaker 1: is like, what what are you saying? Like, the best
Speaker 1: extension we get is some you know, annoying four year
Speaker 1: old like you know, being like, oh I'm Scarborough Kolfman,
Speaker 1: you know, and then it's like no one believes them,
Speaker 1: and then you know, two years later they don't remember
Speaker 1: me the rest of their life. Like you're saying, that's
Speaker 1: the best I got in terms of extending my consciousness, Well,
Speaker 1: it's sort of you know what I'm saying. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: do know what you're saying, but I I'd like to
Speaker 1: view this as there may be sort of a larger
Speaker 1: self as well as the personalities that we have in
Speaker 1: each life. So yeah, I mean, you know, if kid
Speaker 1: comes back and remembers your life and then by the
Speaker 1: time they're school age they've forgotten it. If there's a
Speaker 1: larger self that is part of your existence this time
Speaker 1: as well as the next time, then you hope that
Speaker 1: this larger self grows or learns or becomes more evolved
Speaker 1: however you want to put it. You hopes that each
Speaker 1: lifetime that there can be progress made, and you know
Speaker 1: that that is just part of our journey. My gosh,
Speaker 1: there's just so many implications even for theories of consciousness.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're aware of panpsychism. I think that's the
Speaker 1: most compatible with what your theory is. My prior guest.
Speaker 1: My current episode that's up right now you might want
Speaker 1: to listen to. It is with Antonio Dimasio on the
Speaker 1: nature of consciousness. So you're going to be a really
Speaker 1: interesting counter from a very different view. Yes, he's not
Speaker 1: a big fan of panpsychism, but some people are some
Speaker 1: people that I'm friends with, are you know. It's I
Speaker 1: don't have a card in this horse personally. I want
Speaker 1: to know the truth. There's so many just deep implications
Speaker 1: of this, you know, and it makes you just think
Speaker 1: about how does it all tie together? What does it
Speaker 1: all mean? Now? If we zoom out even further right,
Speaker 1: like to the universe, we zoom out, you know, is
Speaker 1: the universe finite? Is the universe not findite? You know?
Speaker 1: I have this kind of intuition that physicists would probably
Speaker 1: disagree with, is probably not possible. But I have this
Speaker 1: intuition that that time just keeps whooping back on itself,
Speaker 1: that like that we're going to like it'll get to
Speaker 1: some point of the universe, even if it's like thirty
Speaker 1: trillion years from now. They're kind of like, whoops, back again,
Speaker 1: because I don't, you know, like and that I'm going
Speaker 1: to live this life again, you know, like I I
Speaker 1: really kind of feel that's that's that's the way it works.
Speaker 1: There are businessists who talk about basically new universes bubbling
Speaker 1: out of current ones, where it's an infinite number of universes,
Speaker 1: and if it's truly infinite, it means that at some
Speaker 1: point there'd be this same existence we have now that
Speaker 1: would be redone. So yeah, it all gets rather mind modeling.
Speaker 1: It does get mind boggling, and you can kind of see, like,
Speaker 1: you know, the error error in the system, like maybe
Speaker 1: it's not a full proof system, and that's what you're
Speaker 1: seeing in your cases where like it starts to like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like whoops, we put that person's consciousness
Speaker 1: over in that person's body for a couple of years. Whoops.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe it's not even like a like a
Speaker 1: conscious entity that's doing it, but a process, a process.
Speaker 1: Well that's right, and yeah, the process may it sort
Speaker 1: of short circuited, sometimes particulated with sudden violent deaths where
Speaker 1: things don't go the way they typically do and then
Speaker 1: you have my friend David Chalmers a book Are we
Speaker 1: living in a simulation? And here he puts it as
Speaker 1: a greater than fifty probability that we are. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is we need to tie all this stuff together
Speaker 1: and come with a unitary theory of whatever with a
Speaker 1: scientific basis. And it's just funny even talk about Doctor Tucker.
Speaker 1: If there are people listening to this episode who have
Speaker 1: cases of their children or even the kids themselves, will
Speaker 1: if if I were listening to my podcast and they
Speaker 1: want to report this to you, what can they do? Well,
Speaker 1: they can contact us through our website which is www
Speaker 1: dot uva DOPS, which is Division of Personalities that is
Speaker 1: theops dot org, or they just google my name and
Speaker 1: find this that way. But yeah, what we'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from families if their children are talking about past
Speaker 1: on wonderful. Thank you so much for approaching a taboo
Speaker 1: topic with such a scientific rigor. It's really it's really
Speaker 1: refreshing to see that. And thanks for channeling me today
Speaker 1: on my podcast. It's been my pleasure. Beautiful. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to this episode of the Psychology Podcast. If you'd
Speaker 1: like to react in some way to something you heard.
Speaker 1: I encourage you to join in the discussion at thusycology
Speaker 1: podcast dot com or on our YouTube page thus Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: We also put up some videos of some episodes on
Speaker 1: our YouTube page as well, so you'll want to check
Speaker 1: that out. Thanks for being such a great supporter of
Speaker 1: the show, and tune in next time for more on
Speaker 1: the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.