Posted by Roberta Grimes • January 15, 2022 • 14 Comments
Afterlife Research, Death, Understanding Reality

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

– Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) from “Ozymandias” (1817)


New Scientist is a British popular science magazine. It’s charming and plucky and delightful in the way that a blind and deaf friend of yours might be: not entirely functioning, true, but always determined despite its limitations to do its utmost best. I read New Scientist always knowing that if only those earnest but blind-and-deaf scientists could see and hear what I can see and hear, they would be running rings around me!

This sense I often have that my beloved little mag that tries so hard could do wonders if only it could properly function was triggered in force by its November 20th edition.  The title was simply, “Why?” And on its cover it asked thirteen questions that ranged from Why do we exist? And Why is there something and not nothing? Down to Why are we conscious? Why does time only move forward? and Why is the universe just right? If I had been an editor, I also would have wanted to ask Why is there all this dark matter and dark energy? But perhaps that question is still beyond the pale, when there isn’t yet a reasonable matter-based approach to answering it.

Of course, the scientists who write for New Scientist are neither blind nor deaf. They are just self-handicapped by their decision to work as part of the deliberately blind-and-deaf scientific research community. For them to fill that role requires, even to this day, that they obey the fundamental dogma of materialism; and that means that every popular-science publication is still a humor magazine. To read serious scientific articles and repeatedly come across problem after problem that even I can solve is laughable! But still, those of us who are free to do open-minded research have been able to do a great deal of building on what little the dogma-hobbled mainstream research scientists have been allowed to learn. And also, of course, this past century has been a heyday of matter-based technological research, which has had a fabulous hundred-year run. Only look at the fact that billionaires can now confidently talk about colonizing Mars, and you know that matter-based technology is indeed the science of the future!

But those who have chosen to chase Nobel Prizes as research physicists and astronomers have had a pretty dismal century. The materialist dogma that was imposed on them just over a hundred years ago has reduced them to doing the equivalent of trying to study just the walls and floor of a room, having had the ceiling declared off-limits because it is composed of a material which arbitrarily they are not allowed to see. And then, if they hope to make a living, they must stolidly spend their entire careers in attempting to discover some non-ceiling source for all that water on the floor. Therefore, we get scientists who are repeatedly forced to scratch their heads over inexplicable findings, like a universe that keeps behaving nonsensically.

Just over a hundred years ago, the university departments and the peer-reviewed journals chose to codify into a dogma what had been an informal separation between material and non-material fields of inquiry going back as far as Plato and Aristotle. They instituted “the scientific dogma of materialism.” And yes, at the time you could find those words in print. Adopting a dogma made sense, of course, back twenty-five hundred years ago, when people were first trying to separate out their earliest attempts to understand the material world without reference to the prehistoric religions that humans had invented as a bulwark against their superstitious fears. Back then, nothing was understandable and everything was magical, and placating the gods that we ourselves had created was our one slender hope against the howling dark. But then in the 1600s came the dawning of the Age of Enlightenment, which was an intellectual and philosophical movement that gave birth to a flowering of good ideas as varied as modern scientific inquiry and our American Declaration of Independence.

The answers that New Scientist‘s contributors offered to its thirteen questions in that November edition are as pathetic as you might expect them to be. In fact, you or I could largely answer most of those cover questions with one word: 


If the editors had allowed the scientists trying to answer those thirteen questions to consider consciousness as the base creative force, then most of their questions would have been well answered. In perfect fact, it’s all extraordinary! Discovering the primary role of consciousness feels like turning on every light. You free scientists to study consciousness, and suddenly even a lot of seemingly unrelated phenomena begin to fit together and make sense. But when you insist that what is obviously primary and pre-existing must be just an artifact of the human brain, you create nonsense on a massive scale. Our dear New Scientist has so completely confused itself that it cannot even define consciousness. It calls it “something it is like to be,” which somehow arises in the brain. New Scientist has trouble defining reality, too, which ought to be more of a red-flag to the magazine itself than it seems to be.

How is it possible that there still is no working scientist in the Western world who is able to grasp how deadly stupid it is for them to handicap their work this way?

In point of fact, that century-old materialist dogma has already done humankind incalculable harm. It’s one thing for scientists to have to keep fudging their supposed cosmological “constants”. But to this day, their dogma requires that our minds must die when our bodies die, so scientists impose a ghoulish fatalism on all of humankind that turns out to be an outright lie. It even can be seen to be the likely cause of most of what is wrong with the modern world. Do you think that’s a stretch? We’ll talk about it next week.

And still, the scientific community continues to actively fight the possibility that human life might continue after our bodies die! As recently as 2016, New Scientist could do a whole special issue on death without considering the possibility that anything might follow it. And in 2020, it did an article suggesting that the only kind of immortality that ever might be possible would require artificially preserving some aspects of a dead person’s personality. Bill Nye, the reputed Science Guy, has just weighed in heavily against the possibility of an afterlife, even despite the fact that any actual scientist could tell him that it is impossible to prove a negative.

It’s time to call out and humiliate all this scientific nonsense. Researchers working for the past fifty years with a trove of abundant and consistent evidence have discovered with abject certainty not just that human minds are eternal, but also in complete detail not only what happens at death, but also where it happens, why it happens, and how it happens. We know a thousand times more about life after death than mainstream scientists know about black holes, non-terrestrial planets, and all the suns in the universe combined; and the only reason why the scientific community is ignorant of all this good evidence is its flat refusal to look at it. They were wrong to start this game a hundred years ago. At this point, they are worse than wrong: they are purveyors of evil as they continue to fight for the lie in the face of so much evidence that a bald-faced lie is what it is. The fact that after a hundred years there is no graceful way to end the scientific love affair with materialism doesn’t change the fact that it must end now.

But it didn’t have to turn out this way. That dogma was a bad idea, right from the start! Some of the greatest scientific thinkers of the twentieth century knew or strongly suspected that quantum mechanics had revealed that there was a great deal more to reality than what a study of matter alone could tell us. And they said so! If only the wisdom of our greatest scientists had been given even passing consideration!

In 1931 Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” 

And Nikola Tesla wisely said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

   What the scientific gatekeepers should have done was to skip all their faculty-lounge fantasies and firmly keep their fingers off the scale! Why were they so afraid to allow an open debate in the arena of ideas? Let all the various ideas about consciousness, death and the afterlife, whether there might be some sort of creator, and whatever humanity truly is gradually sort themselves out with the help of the greatest scientific minds, now immersed in research and free of all constraints. Had they just let that happen, we could as a whole have enjoyed a very productive and not a largely wasted century. Every idea in the end must rise or fall on its actual merits alone! This hundred-year detour into the scientific weeds didn’t have to happen. Eventually the truth was always going to win. And the longer they still wait to start to open their own minds and clear their consciences, the worse their reckoning will be. 

Just as a side note, I have never before disputed Thomas’s frame-verse choices, but I was shocked by this one. Humiliating the pretentious is not our style! But he said that Shelley wrote his poem for precisely this situation, as a mirror for fools who think they can impose their self-important ignorance on the world. I suppose that to people who are still alive but are being summarily dismissed as dead, this fight with modern scientific lying about death might feel like a personal grievance.

I blurted to him, “What? Do you know Shelley personally?” After all, they were earthly contemporaries! He just smiled.

And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) from “Ozymandias” (1817)

Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

14 thoughts on “Why?

  1. So called dark energy and matter are inferences based on gravitational effects from unseen “stuff.” I’m inclined to suspect that the unseen stuff is the Heavenly realm.

    After I had myself concluded over the past decade that consciousness is what is fundamental, not the matter our eyes and instruments register, I then began to wonder why humanity persists in honoring its myth that only visible matter exists, and the bizarre inference that our minds are merely a curious artifact of the material brain. And then it eventually struck me that what is, simply is, just as God intends for our Earth life experience. Consider that we come here with an imposed memory block to the fact that we are eternal consciousness with home in Heaven, except when we make educational trips to Earth or other “material” places. So, this mistake belief in materiality as the foundation of existence is actually functional to the design of our Earth-time adventures.

    1. This makes a lot of sense. People mistakenly think that this is all there is, but it is necessary in order to survive here during our temporary lives here on earth. That is why we see things from a different perspective once we finally leave here and return there.

    2. Oh my dear Jack, that is rather a romantic thought, that the Godhead prefers to keep us ignorant and mainstream scientific research willfully in the weeds. But we are seeing so much evidence now- and hearing directly from non-material beings – that the scientific block is a problem, that I think what you are saying is a nice idea but probably it isn’t right.

      The core reason for the original materialist dogma seems to have been a temporary block on certain kinds of research, a kind of pause while they caught their breath over the flood of good communications through physical mediums they were being asked to review, and right on top of the clout to the head that quantum mechanics originally was. There seems to have been a real fear that Christian leaders would take back the marketplace of ideas and bring on a thousand years of darkness. Or something. I don’t think they really intended to create a permanent block to independent scientific research! But, so it is.

  2. Roberta
    The many questions ask are appropriate. But why not ask:what is the reason to circumvent the truth about their finding? Could it be because the Controllers of this physical World has made our known history of the world a complete Lie? Perhaps there have been countless civilizations who have arrived and pasted. Perhaps the Controllers of this World are EVIL and further, perhaps they don’t worship our GOD but rather Satan?

    Once an individual picks up the mantel and starts down this rabbit hole the journey become interesting and further more the journey starts to make sense… Like Why have the Controllers started their determined effort too Genocide the Earths population??
    Now, personally I believe the Controllers are close to being stopped, But this could be an answer to the Question of Why…

    The view from 100,000 ft looks different then 40,000 ft.. Right?


    1. Oh my dear Skip, you should be writing horror novels!!

      We can imagine all kinds of things going on, and weird power-struggles happening far above our pay-grade, but I have been doing this research for half a century. And for most of that time I was still a Christian, and still – stupidly – hoping to find some shreds of evidence here and there that the religion is right. Can you imagine hoping to find some evidence that Satan was real? Yup. That was me. But instead, the more I came to understand about the primary role of consciousness, the more I could see that what dead communicators – and my own primary guide – were telling me was apparently true: there is no powerful evil entity in opposition to the Godhead. It’s impossible, by the laws of consciousness physics. And as for the “Controllers”? Again, the more negatively they might vibrate, the weaker they would be. So, no, I wouldn’t worry about them either. It’s true that there are some potentially negative things happening on this planet that we should be coming together to arrest… but they are all, apparently, the product of our own increasing flirtation with negativity. Silly us!!

  3. All,

    The answer to the question “Why?” may be found, at least in part, in R. Craig Hogans book “There is nothing but Mind and Experiences”. Even if you never get past chapter two you will be way ahead of the Materialist Scientists. Sorry for the shameless plug.



    1. Cookie, I second this. I just reread the first 2 chapters and if your having trouble understanding that we are just mind and experiences, I would recommend this book by Craig Hogan

      1. Thank you, my dear David! I’m sure the way his book is resonating with our tribe here will make our friend Craig smile!

    2. Oh my dear Cookie, I’m sure Craig will be delighted to hear that his book is resonating with you! Craig’s ability to understand and to explain all of this in detail but still sensibly really is amazing to me. I’m so excited to be doing the Seek Reality Online project with him!

  4. Dearest Roberta,
    I find Thomas’ choice of Percy B. Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias” an interesting choice for the frame-poem of this week’s blog.

    This sonnet presents quite a drastic image of a shattered statue of a long dead tyrant (Pharoah Ramses 2 of Egypt, circa 1,200BC) in a sand-blown, desolate setting. Here Thomas links this fallen symbol of ancient tyranny with the rule of material, atheist science in our contemporary world. That linkage sheds light on how Thomas views modern science from his elevated position in the Afterlife.

    You see, I’ve always looked at this poem as a comment on the futility of grand and proud human endeavor; the titanic folly of empire and emperors is simply swept away by the forces of time. The emperor Ozymandias claims himself King of Kings and asserts his empire’s grandeur and endurance, only to be consumed and overthrown by the greater forces of nature, changing fortunes, death and the inevitable corrosion of time.

    Percy Bysshe Shelley was quite anti-imperial in his own life and he wrote “Ozymandias” (1817) shortly after the fall of Emperor Napoléon of France, and on the verge of renewed British imperial power. In short, Shelley detested the hubris of emperors and all they did. This poem could be said to emphasize the stupidity of an emperor by use of irony. After all, the statue of Ozymandias was overthrown and his empire had long been laid waste, even as his boastful words of grandeur are read on the remaining pedestal by a passing traveller. Clearly, the contrast is made between such lofty words and the stark reality of desolation.

    And now Thomas reveals that Shelly wrote this poem “as a mirror for fools who think they can impose their self-important ignorance upon the world.” He says that Shelley wrote this poem “for precisely this situation,” ie: foolish modern scientists who perpetuate the ignorance of death without the survival of consciousness.

    I’ve never thought of this poem in this way before. Never in terms of scientific dogma. Hence I find this an interesting viewpoint, Roberta.

    So from Thomas’ point of view it seems that material, atheist science oppresses us by demanding slavish adherence to blind dogma; by using ridicule and certain excommunication of any who dare to question things. (Else the establishment just vanishes such heretics by ignoring them.) Roberta, this is a particularly strong statement by Thomas. The modern science institution is compared to the very worst examples of humanity. By such a comparison, can we assume that those espousing such dogma are perpetrators of crimes against humanity, so common among dictators?!

    Methinks that from the realms of light, human dogma and ignorance must look like shadows of the darkest black.

    1. Efrem, I appreciated your thoughtful expansion on Roberta’s intro from the writer Shelly. I’m reminded of an incident as an undergraduate friend of mine and I were heading off to graduate school circa 1968.

      We both had attended Carnegie Tech, me as a Physics major and Bill in Math. As a junior, I saw that physics had so enamored itself with math modeling of phenomena that it has become prone to disregarding actual observations which made the math models suspicious, and so I switched to Psychology–which eventually proved to be even worse. Bill surprised me by going off to Indiana U for his degree in literature. I lamented to him that he chose a path that would waste his talent by embracing pure literary fiction, instead of scientific knowledge. Recently, some fifty year later I told Bill that he was right, and I was wrong. Materialistic science is deadwood and blind. By contrast, great writers have been ale to see and tell us about truths that pseudo sophisticated SCIENCE cannot even contemplate for study.

      In the particular case of seemingly magical quantum mechanics, with its dogmatic belief in entanglement (i.e., instantaneous communication between particles even light years apart), in 2020 I published a paper demonstrating that entanglement was a fiction based on a faulty Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In private, two Nobel laureates even agreed with me, but chose not to go public. There is just too much career and monetary investment in the supposed magic of quantum mechanics.

      If ever you read about the development of quantum computers, you would see that there is always a grumble about reliability of computation, because the particles that are supposed to be in “superposition states” (meaning the particles are not real until energetically observed per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) keep interacting prematurely with the equipment and becoming real before the calculations are processed. The problem is that, as Einstein had intuited, the particles are real all along, as my paper argued from laboratory observations (I cited four different experiments finding that particles were real all along before energetically observed, and, by the way, the researchers I cited failed to recognize the depth of their own achievement).

  5. Hey 👋 Jack,

    Dr Hillier your own deep scientific understanding, your research and your work, has shown me much that I didn’t know. It has the effect of giving us lay folk a veritable peep behind the curtain of the science establishment. This is very important I think, because we moderns look at science, and the beliefs of scientists, rather like earlier generations looked at priests. IE: They are the keepers of sacred knowledge; we must hang on every word.

    I enjoyed your comment about quantum computers and the grumbling about reliability of computation. When particles that are in ‘superposition states’ keep popping up and interacting with the equipment before being electronically observed, calculated and processed, it sounds almost comical. ( I’m getting cartoon images here.) Why can’t scientists see that Einstein intuited correctly and these particles were real all along? Are they so loth to admit they were wrong, even on one issue? Are scientists holding onto fixed ideas so stubbornly that they can’t see what is before them?

    What is in the human mind that make us refuse to accept change to deeply held ideas? Is it the brain’s laziness, or is the human ego so very threatened by being wrong?

    One thing is certain, we humans are creatures of dogma; religious, political and scientific. That’s actually very dangerous on a mass scale. If there is ever a sizable continental war, it will be fundamentally due to human dogma, I think.

    And Jack, this week I keep coming back to Roberta’s words about the incalculable harm that material science has done by maintaining its dogma. Roberta talks of science studying the floor and walls of the ‘house’ but not allowing anyone to look up at the roof and study it. (Else squashing or vanishing those individuals who do.) I mean, how do we know if a roof exists at all? Open sky could arise forever. The only way to know is to look up and study what is right above us. It is right there, topside of the walls, we may as well look!

    And the ubiquitous fatalism that has spread in this last science-materialism-based century has caused much confusion, depression and despair. A bleak nihilism and a reactionary selfism seems to have seeped into people’s souls. I’m left wondering if enlightened future generations will look at our science establishment as committing crimes against humanity – rather as we now view colonial empires of the past. 🙏🏼🕊🌅

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *