Titu Singh (one of the best cases)

[ParagD]

The Titu Singh case is probably one of the best cases in support of reincarnation. If you are not up to speed on it then I would suggest reading the full scholarly article on it rather than the abridged website versions :laugh: (the paper can be found here: http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page...life-physical-resemblance-birthmarks&hl=en_US

It's about 30 pages long but worth it. Once you have read the case go back to See Page 171 - has a very important discrepancy mentioned by the author herself:

One of Titu's father's friends was in the millitary and so they registered Titu's mother under his name in order to use the hospital's facilities for the delivery. The only record available for that friend's name is for December 11 1982. As an Army person I know that our hospitals are very accurate in maintaining this information. So, if the friend would have had another baby there would be a second entry. The only reasonable thing to assume is that the one entry is indeed for Titu's mother because it is not possible that if Titu's mother delivered the baby the records would be missing. Thus all evidence points to the fact that Titu WAS born on December 11 1982.


At one point the author mentions that the Titu's father told her that Titu was born in December 10 1983. This seems unlikely for 3 reasons:
1) The evidence I mentioned above which the author herself cites
2) The author also mentions that in 1987 the parents felt that Titu was closer being 4 and a half years old as compared to three and a half years old (Page 157).
3) On Page 157 while talking about Titu's siblings the author mentions that there were no exact birthdates so it would seem implausinble, especially when combined with the two reasons above that Titu's father would have an exact date for one of his sons.


If he was indeed born in December 1982 that will be 8 months BEFORE the previous personality's (Suresh) DEATH. In my opinion this represents a massive problem because it makes it really hard to explain the birthmarks or his memory. I am culturally inclined to believe in reincarnation. However, while one case by itself does not mean anything, the fact is that if I set aside the bias I have in favor of reincarnation, then this particular discrepancy indicates that despite the most honest research conducted by investigators, the chance (birthmarks) + unintentional fraud (memory) theory can come into play. This would go a long way in undermining the tremndous amount of work that was started by the Late Dr. Stevenson and I was hoping if you someone could shed some light on this or any other possibilities that might explain this situation.


Best Regards,
Parag

 

[IrisG.]

Parag, you are adressing an issue that I have also thought about I lot. I have read a lot of cases researched by Dr. Stevenson. Many of the cases among the Druzes of Lebanon involve situations in which the child was born just after the previous personality had died. Those cases are just as thouroughly researched and rich in detail as those who "fit into" my personal idea of reincarnation (a soul becomes connected to an embryo around the time of conception or shortly afterwards). I have problems with the idea that an embry/fetus is a creature without a soul. This leaves room, howeverm for the idea that somehow the sould of the newly deceased kicks the original soul out of the fetus`body. I have problems with this as well because I couldn`t accept the possibility that my daughter, for example, bears a different soul than the tiny embryo I saw on the ultrasound when just eight weeks pregnant (and whom I already loved more than I can say)...Anyway, this scenario doesn`t seem impossible. I have also studied the case you are referring to and I share your concerns. What seems most troubling to me is the fact that it is a birthmark case. If the birthmarks weren`t involved one could follow my idea that the original soul was "kicked out" (though I hate the idea). But this doesn`t make sense here. I am as clueless as you are. I`d also reject the argument that time wasn

 

[Titus Rivas]

Just a minor error


Hi Parag,


As I just told you via e-mail, I think it is likely that 1982 should simply read 1983 here. The error is a very minor one (the 2 simply being replaced by a 3) and a lot easier to understand than a complex hypothetical process of fraud or self-deception in a mostly classical CORT.


Near the end or beginning of a year I've noticed more than once that I personally got confused about the right year. Again, this seems the simplest explanation that would cover all the facts.


Regarding the other point, namely "The author also mentions that in 1987 the parents felt that Titu was closer being 4 and a half years old as compared to three and a half years old", I would say that the remembered duration of a certain period is typically very subjective. Also, Titu might simply have been rather precocious, which is not uncommon for these cases by the way.

 

[Titus Rivas]

Postnatal reincarnation


By the way, the birthmarks and slight deformity might have appeared only after the boy was born. There is no report of their being present at birth, is there?


If so, the case could be explained by postnatal reincarnation after all (as in the cases of Sumitra and Jasbir). The spirit that took over the boy's body would have influenced the body after it had been born.


Let's not forget that paranormal birthmarks and birth defects have their parallels in intrasomatic psychokinesis during one and the same life time or incarnation. A well-known example consists of the so-called stigmata.


Titus

 

[IrisG.]

I do not think that it is right to read a document differently from what it obviously says. Parapsychological research has to apply strict standards in order to be taken seriously as a branch of science. Supposing that a written source has to be read differently in order to match the assumption is not scientific and makes the case - and, sadly, the whole area of research - vulnerable to criticism. I would rather dismiss one case, regardless how some strong some of the features might be, than evoke the impression that parapsycological research doesn`t obey the rules of scientific research!

 

[Titus Rivas]

Well, Iris, what does the article about Titu Singh obviously say? As far as I know, that is far from clear.

 

[IrisG.]

This is what the article says:


Titu's mother was ill the last trimester of her pregnancy with Titu and was


admitted to the Military Hospital in Agra about a week before his birth


under the name of a friend of the family's who was a member of the military


personnel and therefore eligible to use this hospital. The only registration of


a birth corresponding to the name of this friend and Titu's mother gives


December 11, 1982, as the date of birth. It is possible that Titu's birth was


not registered, and/or that the December 1 1, 1982 date corresponds to the


birth of the friend's child. Titu's parents thought he was 4 and a half rather


than 3 and a half in 1987, although Titu's father gave his birthdate as


December 10, 1983, the first time we met before the hospital search.


For my personal taste, the assumtion that the family`s friend gave birth nearly exactly one year before Titu was born would be most unlikely, especially if the family didn`t know about that (after all, it seemed to be a somewhat close friend). Please, I do not want to destroy the case, I just want to caution against too many assumtions when such a vulnerable area of research is concerned!

 

[Titus Rivas]

Room for interpretation


Iris, as I read the article, it is not clear how to explain the discrepancy. So in my view that does leave some room to explain it in a way that does not threaten the reincarnation hypothesis for this case. If there were no room to do so, then we would be dealing with an unfalsifiable dogma, I agree. But now, as the evidence against the reincarnation hypothesis for this case is not conclusive, there is nothing wrong with seeking alternative interpretations for these data. That is science also.


Do not forget that we're dealing with naturalistic field studies and cannot do without interpretations and assumptions. Even in a laboratory one deals with a theoretical framework by the way. It really is unscientific to suppose that researchers would always have to accept any possible counterevidence as a decisive blow to their theory, just because that theory is not very popular within the scientific community as a whole!


By the way, do you realise that we do not know exactly when the assumed birthmark occurred? That it may not be a (literal) birthmark after all? This too is a matter of assumption rather than indubitable fact.