QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Recently, during a public forum to which I was invited to present my 34-year long reincarnation research, I was asked by participants many interesting questions.
I’ll share with you my dear friends some of the most important:
Q: Do you also treat as a doctor your research subjects?
A: No! I treat sometimes locals where I practice in the Los Angeles area, after a formal treatment/therapy written and signed informed consent to that effect is in place between them and me, prior to initiating past-life experimental treatment/therapy. Only then we have a doctor-patient relationship. But pure cases of reincarnation, including all those of celebrities, are not a doctor-patient relationship. A separate formal research written and signed informed consent is done prior to beginning our research work.
Q: How do you proceed with research subjects requiring therapy as well?
A: I routinely advice them to seek outside therapy by a qualified psychiatrist of their choice in their geographical area.
Q: How do you determine if your research subject is qualified to undergo past-life research?
A: By interviewing her/him using my skills as a trained and experienced board certified psychiatrist.
Q: Are the procedures you utilize that you have just mentioned, recent ones or have you been using them for a long time?
A: They have been routinely in place from the beginning of my practice as an M.D., psychiatrist and reincarnation/past-life researcher and apply to everyone who sought or is seeking respectively past-life treatment/therapy, or past-life research.
Q: Sometimes, it may be confusing what is therapy and what is research, especially when you are called by some of your research subjects, Doctor, Doc, as you are a physician. Can anyone undergoing past-life research benefit also therapeutically?
A: Yes, it could have a therapeutic benefit. And being called Doctor or Doc does not mean that I am the Doc and thus have a doctor-patient relationship with that person who may call me Doc. It doesn’t mean it was formal treatment /therapy, or a doctor-patient relationship, as it was done as initially agreed by both parties, only for the research purpose to explore and sometimes attempt to prove a past-life. Sometimes, the exploration alone, guided by me, but done exclusively by the subject, may bring to important self-discovery and free that person of certain blocks and thus have a self-healing effect, and it has nothing to do with me or my research intervention. Especially, this is applicable to probable reincarnations of celebrities, such as Marilyn Monroe, Carole Lombard, and others. Also, it is easier to prove such celebrity cases as there is an abundance of information on them in public record to compare to, while this is very rare when researching regular people.
Q: Some probable celebrity reincarnations may address you publicly as their doctor, when in reality you are only the researcher, and create confusion in this regard. Now, you clarified it very well. Thank you! However, can you clarify another confusing issue? Some of your subjects claim to be celebrities reincarnated rather in an absolute manner. And at times, you haven’t corrected them in the past and gave about yourself also the impression of such absolute conviction. Is it scientifically sound to make such absolute reincarnation claims?
A: Well, I take this opportunity to make it crystal clear, as I did in my other blogs, that any of my research reincarnation results are not absolute, but relative. In other words, most probable, based on past- and present-life personas comparisons constituting my research scientific protocol. They include FBI-like facial recognition, eyes and expression, voice, writing and writing style, hands, feet, body built, quantified personality traits, synchronicities, hypnotic past-life regression, and my comprehensive psychiatric assessment. Also, I’m currently in the beginning stage of attempting to prove reincarnation through iris recognition, fingerprint and DNA.
Q: Are you saying that all your reincarnation results over more than three decades you consider only probable, relative?
A: Yes. Whoever, presents it differently is not condoned by me. Yes, as humans, and not from a scientific point of view, celebrities and lay people alike that underwent reincarnation research with me, may after a while feel they absolutely are the respective reincarnation. That is natural, because it is an inner subjective feeling a person has that no outsider can objectively contest. But I still affirm, they are probable reincarnations. Let them, and the public decide.
Q: Is this a disclaimer? How about participant subjects in your reincarnation research, who claim to be such and such reincarnation and quote or for a better word, misquote you and your writings as an expert backup to their claims? What would you tell them?
A: I would advice them to refrain from this practice, as I’m a truth seeker and by no means that is the “truth” I want to convey privately or publicly to anyone.
Q: How about the political, religious and philosophical views of subject participants in your past-life/reincarnation research, do you adhere to them? Do you endorse them?
A: Again, thank you for asking me this very important question! No, I don’t adhere to these views, nor do I endorse them. As a scientist I adhere to my scientific neutrality, in order to remain objective in my reincarnation research.
Q: Can they relapse or worsen, any of your research subject participants who benefited also therapeutically for a while, even a few years, as you explained before, through their own freeing from emotional blocks through self-discovery?
A: Certainly, some could have relapsed or worsened, after a marked improvement lasting for several years, as my professional work with them was not based on a doctor-patient relationship in the first place, but solely on research. Also, it could be they did not heed my advice in seeking formal help from their local doctor.
And now, I conclude wishing all my best to all my research subjects.
LOVE AND LIGHT,