Gonna try to put this as uncontroversially as possible, lol. In all the things I've read about CORT's/PLM's, one of the main things I've seen come up as supporting evidence is the presence of birthmarks or defects that correspond to injuries sustained in the previous life, especially mortal wounds. This seems slightly more common in Eastern than Western cases, but don't quote me on that, I'm really not sure. Regardless, however, it does seem to be legitimately frequent, often including developmental defects that seem impossible or "moles where you never find moles", to paraphrase Stevenson. I've read the case data and the correlation is very hard to dispute, yet I cannot seem to wrap my mind around how this could work in the first place. Note that while I've read almost all of Stevenson's books, I haven't gotten to Reincarnation and Biology, because my library didn't have it last I checked, so if Ian gives a really good answer there, please quote it for me. I think that if we had evidence indicating that psychological factors have an impact on fetal development, then this would be very easy to account for, as the PLM's are likely present very early in development. However, we have no such evidence, and all indications seem to be that the only factors are genetic and environmental (e.g. maternal drug use). So how can having PLM's possibly result in developmental oddities aligning with past-life injuries? Where do reincarnation and biology truly intersect? Please point me toward any data that provides an opening for this to be scientifically possible.
Explain like I'm 5: the whole birthmark correlation
- Thread starter Jack E
- Start date
Jaimie
Senior Member
hi, well the theory or belief is that the spirit creates/mold the body that it is in. But I don't know how to prove that with fancy words to make it more believable, besides a 5 year old would not understand that ; ) . I wish you all the luck with your research, I really do, I hope that science can prove reincarnation one day, for sure, but I don't how it would go about doing that, when will there be proof enough ? There will always be skeptics and non believers. Of course anyone is entitled to their own belief. We are all on our own journey. I always thought it would be impossible for me to prove that I have been who I think I have been in a past life considering anyone can say that I first found the evidence and then made up my story after it. Even if her loved ones would say they were true and I was reminding them of her it is still not evidence enough to say I was ever her, right? I mean, one can just go on and on about this. For me, it is that I can only prove it to myself and that is important in itself because I started out as a non believer and was totally unfamiliar with the concept.
/Jaimie
Last edited:
That would be the proper scientific way to proceed. First make some observations, then construct a hypothesis. (observations- evidence, hypothesis - story). The last stage is to try to find some data or experiment to disprove the hypothesis. Science is not about proof, but about making progressively better hypotheses to explain the evidence.
Last edited:
Speedwell's right. Here's my answer to the "there will always be skeptics" line of argument: the burden of proof on science with respect to reincarnation is no more than for, say, evolution. The goal of science is never to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt; rather, it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or in some cases where the primary sources are just too far gone, evolution being one of them, the only objective is simply "to craft the theory that explains the observed phenomena in the most comprehensive way and provides the most consistency with what we already know". Given that we can't use machines to directly observe the afterlife, just as we can't use them to directly observe organisms evolving, these two scenarios both fit the latter bill. There are still people who are skeptical about evolution, lots of them, but that doesn't mean it hasn't become an established scientific theory. The same will end up being the case for reincarnation in the long run; haters gonna hate, but they won't be taken seriously anymore because reincarnation provides the only coherent and consistent explanation for the existence of children born with PLM's. And it's their loss, knowledge is power.
As for the topic question, I'm aware that no one really has a clean guess as to the biological cause of PLM birthmarks at this stage in the research, so I'm pretty much looking to be pointed in the direction of findings that open up a window for a possible explanation. Also, for those who don't know, "explain like I'm 5" is a turn of phrase originating from Reddit, basically meaning "explain it as simply and unconfusingly as possible". Something which has often been tough to elicit here...
As for the topic question, I'm aware that no one really has a clean guess as to the biological cause of PLM birthmarks at this stage in the research, so I'm pretty much looking to be pointed in the direction of findings that open up a window for a possible explanation. Also, for those who don't know, "explain like I'm 5" is a turn of phrase originating from Reddit, basically meaning "explain it as simply and unconfusingly as possible". Something which has often been tough to elicit here...
John Tat
Senior Registered
I have always been a skeptic of this theory about moles and birth marks
There is no reason I can see why it would happen My experiences tell me if there are no reasons for something about all of these things then it's not true
Reincarnation is a different thing If you think about it we are surrounded by forms of reincarnation I
for example we have a beautiful flower in our garden as it grows it produces a flower a beautiful flower It blooms and is radiant as it matures As time goes by the flower begins to get old it looses some of its beauty In the end it withers and dies We take the dead flower and put it in the trash Then we go back and dig up the bulb it left behind We take the bulb inside and a year or two later we take the bulb and plant it in the ground That bulb grows a flower the same species and many times the same color as the dead flower The flower has for all intent and purpose reincarnated The same can be said for many things We are surrounded by many forms of reincarnation
There is no reason I can see why it would happen My experiences tell me if there are no reasons for something about all of these things then it's not true
Reincarnation is a different thing If you think about it we are surrounded by forms of reincarnation I
for example we have a beautiful flower in our garden as it grows it produces a flower a beautiful flower It blooms and is radiant as it matures As time goes by the flower begins to get old it looses some of its beauty In the end it withers and dies We take the dead flower and put it in the trash Then we go back and dig up the bulb it left behind We take the bulb inside and a year or two later we take the bulb and plant it in the ground That bulb grows a flower the same species and many times the same color as the dead flower The flower has for all intent and purpose reincarnated The same can be said for many things We are surrounded by many forms of reincarnation
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
Nice analogy John! I like this thread, could we join it with or other posts Jack?
I'm going to use this thread to start moving our posts to because I want to address something already.
I'm going to use this thread to start moving our posts to because I want to address something already.
John Tat
Senior Registered
Thanks Ken I have posted this analogy a couple of times over the years... If my memory serves me right it was part of the first post I made on the forum.. Deep down inside me it feels this is very significant..something like... our connections to nature are strong and meaningful and reincarnation is a part of that connections..inside me it makes complete sense... if the flowers and trees go through a form of reincarnation then we also do.. People of science may well say that is ridiculous there are no connections at all.. two very different process's ...which leads me to the following..I believe the thing with Jack E is... it appears to me he does not have the essential abilities needed to understand what is going on There is his science which appears he is very well equipped in many ways to undertake scientific research..but in my opinion he lacks the abilities to have the proper understandings to begin to understand ... That is my opinion but I could be very wrong
All The Best
All The Best
Last edited:
landsend
Senior Registered
I'll point you in the direction of my thread: http://reincarnationforum.com/threads/gender-identity-theory-reincarnation.8395/
This explores gender identity and reincarnation which I believe is somewhat interrelated to the same argument of the soul influencing the genetic makeup/framework.
This explores gender identity and reincarnation which I believe is somewhat interrelated to the same argument of the soul influencing the genetic makeup/framework.
Spirit Sword
Senior Member
The best explanation I have seen, both for physical defects and unexplained ailments that correlate to past life injuries, is not exactly scientific, though it is all that I have.
Basically, it is similar to karma and emotional trauma sustained in past lives: the soul holds onto the energy of an event even after the lifetime has ended. Then event's energy is stored in a similar location on the new body and it influences bodily processes to manifest the energy in different ways, depending on the event type. A bullet wound might become a birthmark while a drowning incident might make the body more likely to activate a gene that causes bad asthma. Similarly, odd ailments that cannot be explained by the medical community, such as pains that have no real cause or effect, are often manifestations of past life events. Sometimes defects and ailments caused by past life events can decrease in severity or disappear entirely if the cause is acknowledged and processed by the individual in question.
I was incredibly skeptical about this whole business as well, and while I doubt every small mark and defect traces back to a past life, I have been forced to believe that some do. For many years, I would occasionally get strange ghost pains in my lower torso. No one could explain why, but there would be a sudden, intense pain focused in a point on the left, then working over to the right in a line. After a few minutes, it would disappear. Then I did a past life regression session and relived a memory where I was a samurai who had to slit his own belly in a lost battle. The pain never came back after that. Eventually, I came across a book which explained this concept, and it seemed to make sense. I was holding onto energy in that area and by reliving the memory I was able to let go of the event and the energy it carried, ending its strange effects.
I understand this sounds unscientific and almost mystical. Unfortunately, this comes with the territory. I hope that this was helpful and I wish you luck in your scientific endeavors!
Basically, it is similar to karma and emotional trauma sustained in past lives: the soul holds onto the energy of an event even after the lifetime has ended. Then event's energy is stored in a similar location on the new body and it influences bodily processes to manifest the energy in different ways, depending on the event type. A bullet wound might become a birthmark while a drowning incident might make the body more likely to activate a gene that causes bad asthma. Similarly, odd ailments that cannot be explained by the medical community, such as pains that have no real cause or effect, are often manifestations of past life events. Sometimes defects and ailments caused by past life events can decrease in severity or disappear entirely if the cause is acknowledged and processed by the individual in question.
I was incredibly skeptical about this whole business as well, and while I doubt every small mark and defect traces back to a past life, I have been forced to believe that some do. For many years, I would occasionally get strange ghost pains in my lower torso. No one could explain why, but there would be a sudden, intense pain focused in a point on the left, then working over to the right in a line. After a few minutes, it would disappear. Then I did a past life regression session and relived a memory where I was a samurai who had to slit his own belly in a lost battle. The pain never came back after that. Eventually, I came across a book which explained this concept, and it seemed to make sense. I was holding onto energy in that area and by reliving the memory I was able to let go of the event and the energy it carried, ending its strange effects.
I understand this sounds unscientific and almost mystical. Unfortunately, this comes with the territory. I hope that this was helpful and I wish you luck in your scientific endeavors!
As I hinted at in the OP, I can almost picture something psychosomatic like this being the cause. Basically, if we could get to the point where we know that an unborn child's thoughts and mental states can affect its physical development, the PLM connection would immediately follow from that. Given that PLM kids often tend to view the past and present lives as an unbroken continuity, it's possible that the newly reincarnated soul could simply still think it is injured, and that would cause the same injury to reemerge on the body. We currently have no evidence that this effect is possible. However - and this is crucial - we also have utterly zero information on what the mental life of an unborn child even consists of, full stop. And even with our current neuroimaging tech, I don't have a clue how we would be able to investigate that, which is probably why science has never really asked the question at all. So this is a possible solution, but any validation of it is decades up the road, probably after reincarnation itself has already taken hold in science. Given that there isn't a lot to think about before birth in a normal circumstance, it's even possible that psychosomatic influences can affect fetal development if and only if PLM's are present, since they're likely the strongest thoughts anyone's capable of having at that time. Standard Mendelian genetics would apply in all other instances.
My take on landsend's point regarding gender identity follows a similar course. The newly reincarnated soul is very used to being the gender it was in its first life, so if it reincarnates into a body of the opposite gender the second time, it very well may lead to hormonal development that more follows the pattern of the original gender, leading to more opposite-gender tendencies and characteristics, despite having the biology of the other gender. The tendency for the child and previous personality to be the same gender (about ~90-95%) may be based on direct personal choice in the afterlife, or it could also be due to an even stronger application of the above. Our theory is that mental states may affect gene expression in fetal development, so if the soul incarnates early enough in the gestation period, and still thinks it is the original gender, it may actually make itself that gender entirely, rather than just taking on some of its traits while remaining biologically the other. If this is true, then the latter case (gender dysphoria) would actually be the result of the desired process of biologically becoming the original gender failing to fully take hold. Now we just need to explain all the gender confusion out there that doesn't have anything to do with PLM's...
My take on landsend's point regarding gender identity follows a similar course. The newly reincarnated soul is very used to being the gender it was in its first life, so if it reincarnates into a body of the opposite gender the second time, it very well may lead to hormonal development that more follows the pattern of the original gender, leading to more opposite-gender tendencies and characteristics, despite having the biology of the other gender. The tendency for the child and previous personality to be the same gender (about ~90-95%) may be based on direct personal choice in the afterlife, or it could also be due to an even stronger application of the above. Our theory is that mental states may affect gene expression in fetal development, so if the soul incarnates early enough in the gestation period, and still thinks it is the original gender, it may actually make itself that gender entirely, rather than just taking on some of its traits while remaining biologically the other. If this is true, then the latter case (gender dysphoria) would actually be the result of the desired process of biologically becoming the original gender failing to fully take hold. Now we just need to explain all the gender confusion out there that doesn't have anything to do with PLM's...
John Tat
Senior Registered
I'm tired of all of this talk Our spiritual selves or souls whichever you call it was not shot was not injured is not scared in any way the spiritual suffers no physical injury yet there is endless talk about how these physical scares tattoos and all the rest of the BS is passed on to the next physical entity by the spiritual IT MAKES NO SENSE
Spirit Sword
Senior Member
@John Tat I do not believe that the soul or the higher self or whatever you wish to call it is the recipient of these injuries in such theories, merely that it takes the energy with it and the injury reappears when we are in a less perfect human state. The soul is not scarred, but it has a likelihood of scarring when incarnated? That being said, most of this is above my pay grade.
My personal theory is that it's encoded in our "energy patterns" somehow.. we exist as energy and that energy contains information about us, our body and so on. To me, it's like how a cassette tape, when new, sounds great, but over time the tape gets stretched out, some of the magnetic coating loses it's magnetism and this all ends up as pops, hiss and other sounds that we can hear.
My hypotheses are grounded in the assumption that human psychology works the same in death as in life, and also abetted by the observation that a lot of PLM kids seem to have some confusion between events from the past and current lives, almost as if they not only perceive the two as continuous, but are barely able to tell the difference. So when they're just newly reincarnated, before birth, many of them could very well be aware of the injury but still think they are alive in the first life, causing them to believe they didn't die of their injuries and thus are still injured. Just a guess, but it aligns exactly with how a confused person who has no idea they're dead would think irl.
I'm not claiming that souls themselves can be damaged; my hypothesis on that matter is that a soul is a fundamental particle, equal in status to a quark or electron, and thus is not made of parts that can be damaged. Just as fundamental particles of matter have their own properties and forces, thought, perception, and subjectivity are inherent properties of souls, and the brain is the machinery a soul uses to allow its natural abilities to exist in physical dimensions.
I'm not claiming that souls themselves can be damaged; my hypothesis on that matter is that a soul is a fundamental particle, equal in status to a quark or electron, and thus is not made of parts that can be damaged. Just as fundamental particles of matter have their own properties and forces, thought, perception, and subjectivity are inherent properties of souls, and the brain is the machinery a soul uses to allow its natural abilities to exist in physical dimensions.
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
I'm hesitant to post more here even though the sub-forum is about science and studies/experiments and design until I get admin approval or have an open PM conversation. I'm on a roll right now and have more energy and intent to "help" Jack than he probably wants. I feel that he is worth my interest for some reason.
tanker
Senior Registered
Go for it, Ken! It all makes interesting reading, even if I don't really understand what you're saying.
KenJ
Moderator Emeritus
Thanks tanker, a quick view of my long-ago research and statistical knowledge lose may make what I've said easier to understand may be in order.
A null hypothesis is the reverse form of the problem test, it is an attempt to prove to "prove" that the assumption is NOT true, in other words, to prove that eye-movement was NOT associated with sensory words spoken in the subjects utterances in the current sentence.
The p-scores (p.<00001) is simple short-hand for ["the probability" is less than 1 in 100,000 chance of it Not being associated]. Pretty straight-forward, just unfamiliar to most folk.
A null hypothesis is the reverse form of the problem test, it is an attempt to prove to "prove" that the assumption is NOT true, in other words, to prove that eye-movement was NOT associated with sensory words spoken in the subjects utterances in the current sentence.
The p-scores (p.<00001) is simple short-hand for ["the probability" is less than 1 in 100,000 chance of it Not being associated]. Pretty straight-forward, just unfamiliar to most folk.
landsend
Senior Registered
Jack, thanks for posting this. Essentially you've mirrored a lot of my personal thoughts on the subject without being derogatory in any way or form. I do feel this warrants further research, too.
RE: gender and the incoming soul shaping its own gender, now that's a thought, and one that I have to say rises disturbing thoughts within myself as a transgender person. My mother told me that she actually felt I was a boy, but wished for me to be a girl. She got the biological makeup she wanted, I didn't. A conflict of mother/incoming soul here, perhaps? Am still very resentful about it all and it's a very raw subject. Even when I was first born she thought there was something 'wrong' with me and the doctors had it wrong when they stated my biological makeup as 'female'. 29 years later I'm sat here thinking things went very wrong indeed.
What you say also about carrying the traits of the biological opposite also makes sense to me, as that is essentially what gender dysphoria is. It is at a biological level where the mind gender feels it does not correlate to what the body and the outside world tells you you are. It can be very distressing to experience, and that is why some form of transition is important (some would argue essential) for people experiencing dysphoria. For those interested, the WHO has just recognised that being transgender is no longer a 'disorder'. For me, that's an important milestone and perhaps people like me can gradually become more accepted (not tolerated, accepted) within society.
Am curious why something could get mixed up in the womb to cause this phenomena. As I mentioned above, could the mother's own wishes and desires influence the biological makeup of the growing fetus? Is there a global plan/lesson made by the incoming soul to experience dysphoria and a lifetime of being transgender for whatever reason that might be?
Thanks again.
Last edited:
I'd say that's... not impossible, but vanishingly unlikely, landsend. While we have zero evidence that the new/newly reincarnated soul's thoughts can affect its bodily development, the fact is we couldn't have any at this stage in history even if it's true, because we have zero knowledge of what sort of thought exists in the prenatal mind. However, we obviously have a very large amount of knowledge about what expecting mothers are thinking. Yet we still have zero evidence that their desires or mental states affect fetal development in any way; even heavily depressed mothers can give birth to healthy babies, and no one wants their baby to be born with defects, but if some monster did, it still wouldn't happen. Trust me, if it was possible to affect your baby's gender by wishing for one, we'd all know about it by now for sure. Moreover, I can sorta fathom how a person's own will could alter their physical development, but I see no feasible reason how someone else's could. So on second thought, maybe it can be ruled out.
landsend
Senior Registered
Interesting, and sort of reassuring, too. It's become more and more obvious my mother didn't want a boy as I've grown older. I was depressed through all three of my pregnancies, and in my last pregnancy had vivid memories of the Vietnam war. I've always wondered how this might affect my kids. I'm still not convinced that it doesn't leave some mental blueprint on the developing baby. Very little is still known about mental health, and its underlying causes.
I have some memories of the pre-birth time for this life prior to being born, and there is a certain detachment to the fetal body -- but I do recall that I could share/hear the thoughts of my mother, or at least her general mood and feeling. I was an unplanned baby and didn't arrive at a convenient time, and I remember feeling the stress and burden of that fact which if I'm honest still affects my life today -- a running theme of my relationship with my mother is that I am a stress and burden to her, which she has explicitly let me know.
I still wonder why one would choose a transgender existence. Maybe in my case I was trying to run away from my previous existence due to the sheer level of trauma.
Back to the theme of birthmarks -- I do have a birthmark on the right side of my abdomen. It does correlate to the wound that I have seen my previous self sustain at his death. I was always fascinated by this birthmark growing up, so when I dreamt of being shot in the abdomen in the exact same place it was a sensation of recognition rather than shock. In my case, this was probably common knowledge as a child and I chose to block it out as I became an adult.
Have you come across some of the reports by Ian Stevenson of instances where there has been marks left on a deceased body, which have then reappeared on the body of the reincarnated child as either a birthmark or deformity? I found that interesting considering it seems to be pointing to the fact that it isn't trauma that causes the birthmark, but rather something else, perhaps intent? Maybe birthmarks serve as the ultimate reminder for something that needs to be remembered by the returning soul?
Yeah I've heard of those. I have even less of an idea what to make of those than in the injury cases. It doesn't seem to be especially frequent compared to the injury birthmarks, though, so a lot of me wants to chalk it up to reading too much into coincidence. We've hypothesized that the birthmarks are due to the soul being confused and not knowing it's dead, leading it to think that marks and injuries from the previous life are still present, but I can't see why a mark placed on the body after death would make the soul think it actually has a mark in that area. Under this theory, it makes no sense; we would need to surmise that the exact opposite of confusion is the cause, that the soul wills the mark onto its new body. However, this proposal is highly incongruous with the obvious fact that no one would wish a severe birth defect, as are sometimes found in PLM cases, on themselves. It also clashes with the tendencies of PLM kids' views on the treatment of bodies; this suggests that they placed some importance on the postmortem mark, but from what I've seen, of those who even mention it at all, PLM kids tend to be very cavalier about how their dead body was treated. They view it as nothing more than an empty shell; I recall this being featured prominently in one case from this forum, where the child said something to the effect of "they could've used it as a coat rack for all I care". Most of them aren't this brazen, but they care just about as much, and I've never seen one that took the opposite view. So there's really no identifiable proximate cause for a postmortem mark to transfer to a new body. Does Stevenson have any hypotheses? If not, I'm inclined to consider it coincidental.
Regarding gender identity, being transgender (in the context of PLM's) wouldn't be a choice under our hypothesis, it'd be the defective manifestation of one. The initial choice is to either be male or female, and transgenderism can result when the soul accidentally ends up with the gender it did not intend. The child knows which gender they wanted to be and is frustrated that they got the wrong one. It's the most deep-seated and sincere variety of gender dysphoria bar none, and I wish it was all that way. It saddens me how the transgender community has been co-opted into a vehicle of attention-seeking 21st-century social rebellion, because it makes the truly genuine members look bad. Just like how the invasion of tons of poseurs pretending to be Jesus or Cleopatra or the king of Atlantis has made the reincarnation scene look bad, which has extended to branding children who've truly experienced it and scientists like Stevenson as crazy. None of it's fair.
Regarding gender identity, being transgender (in the context of PLM's) wouldn't be a choice under our hypothesis, it'd be the defective manifestation of one. The initial choice is to either be male or female, and transgenderism can result when the soul accidentally ends up with the gender it did not intend. The child knows which gender they wanted to be and is frustrated that they got the wrong one. It's the most deep-seated and sincere variety of gender dysphoria bar none, and I wish it was all that way. It saddens me how the transgender community has been co-opted into a vehicle of attention-seeking 21st-century social rebellion, because it makes the truly genuine members look bad. Just like how the invasion of tons of poseurs pretending to be Jesus or Cleopatra or the king of Atlantis has made the reincarnation scene look bad, which has extended to branding children who've truly experienced it and scientists like Stevenson as crazy. None of it's fair.
Today I finally was able to check out Reincarnation and Biology, and already I think I've cracked this discussion. In chapter 2, Stevenson brings up the phenomenon of stigmata, in which usually devout Christian worshippers and saints in times of old were known to spontaneously develop wounds on the hands and feet corresponding to those of Jesus on the cross. Stevenson analyzes these incidents, which he rules out being caused by self-injury or other easy explanations, and determines that, while they do not result from the paranormal causes classically attributed to them, the subject's intense concentration on the Passion, and their deep desire to be like Jesus, is what produces the stigmata, a level of concentration that an ordinary person never activates. Here we have clear and well-documented evidence that purely psychosomatic influences can spontaneously produce a directly observable external bodily effect, and in adulthood at that, after development is finished. He also mentions cases where suggestion by hypnosis has achieved similar effects, as well as others such as blisters and even localized anesthesia. This again reiterates the strong Stevensonian conclusion that hypnosis has many powerful functions - but regression is not one of them! The clear theme is that our minds are powerful enough to produce abnormalities on our bodies even in adulthood; our running hypothesis appears to be correct. Imagine how much easier it must be for this effect to take hold during gestation, when development is occurring rapidly and tissue is extremely adaptable. I think we have our answer then, and I'm surprised no fellow Stevenson readers called out these passages to me, especially since I specified in the OP to educate me if this book contained any pertinent information to our query.
landsend
Senior Registered
Jack E, that’s interesting. I’ve not been able to read that book of Stevenson so didn’t honestly know about the chapter you refer to.
So you are saying it is intent that caused the bodily changes, subconscious or otherwise. That makes sense to me. Will cogitate and write back later.
So you are saying it is intent that caused the bodily changes, subconscious or otherwise. That makes sense to me. Will cogitate and write back later.
Is the book quite good? I’ve been wanting to get my hands on it for a while but I thought a lot of the stuff in it was mentioned in UVA dops videos and on their website.
If I’d have made my account earlier I could have mentioned it to you xE sorry. (As I’m sure I either read it or they spoke about it before)
It's funny how "A Course In Miracles" has achieved some sort of popularity, but it's worth mentioning it has also been subject to critique. I think we all need to use our own judgement in such matters, rather than depend on reputation alone. That's not to say I am for or against it, myself.