Posts by Larry Young192

It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around how little anyone seems to care about the work Michael Newton has put in. It’s almost as if people assume he was just spinning nonsense or something equally baseless...🙂

Paul Jones7 said:we're the evidence
boom-boom
don't go looking for proof
boom-boom

😂
but honestly... I really expected more from you than this 🤷🙂

I’ve finished reading the first two books by Michael Newton, and I have to say, they really struck a chord with me. They carry this positive energy and reveal things that many people—myself included, I'll admit—tend to believe right out of the gate. To me, everything he writes feels 100% logical; when you actually sit down and process his claims, there’s a massive probability that the experiences of the clients he worked with were entirely genuine. Newton suggests that a huge portion of this remains hidden because the souls who could actually explain the mechanics of the afterlife or the specific structure of the spiritual realm have evolved so far beyond our reach that they don't even bother reincarnating back to this world or even this planet anymore. Now, whether that’s just some trap set by a New Age movement or some other shady organization... well, I guess we'll just have to wait for the truth to come out in the future. Even if I was perhaps a bit naive to believe all of this initially, I’m fully prepared to be proven wrong and feel disillusioned, because one has to remain open to every possibility while staying skeptical of everything... as a direct countermeasure to blind faith in anything.
But enough about my personal take and what the rest of us here think. Works produced by people regarding the potential misuse of regression therapy by someone like Newton are, of course, more than welcome. I’m calling on anyone who has an interesting link that refutes Newton’s work to post it here, because frankly, we need it. I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as nobody presents me with hard, cold facts to convince me otherwise, I won't have any choice but to trust the lived experiences of Newton's clients. In reality, any evidence that contradicts Newton's research is a double-edged sword; it will either sow a seed of doubt in what I believe or simply reinforce my existing convictions. Honestly, so far, I haven't searched much online for counter-evidence, but I haven't found anything yet. So, gentlemen, if anyone actually has proof, please post a link so we can actually discuss the substance... because just trying to convince one another here using nothing but personal opinions and individual logic... I don't believe it's going to get us anywhere. Thanks.

Nancy Wilson2 said:One comment found online regarding this matter—not my own, mind you.

"I suspect this critique misses the mark slightly.
The denial of possession or demonization—which bothered me at first as well—is actually quite understandable once you realize that Newton draws his conclusions strictly from the specific cases he handled. He didn't encounter cases of possession and he states that explicitly. It isn't even logical to expect someone experiencing possession to seek him out, given that such an entity wouldn't want itself exposed.
His flaw lies in projecting his personal experience as a universal rule for everyone, but if one looks through the lens of the soul, no possession could ever be intense enough to overwrite the soul itself. From that perspective, possession can be viewed as a sort of dream. That isn't necessarily an incorrect assessment.
Other criticisms suggesting he uses suggestion or programs his clients miss the point entirely. It is simply impossible to avoid some level of suggestion during these sessions, particularly if the client is already inclined toward it. Despite certain suggestions, the primary objective—obtaining objective, unbiased information—remains uncompromised. Newton certainly wasn't perfect, and it's unreasonable to expect zero errors; therefore, it is unjustified to frame those mistakes as an abuse of regression therapy. Besides, he was a pioneer in this field; he had no predecessors to model himself after, making the influence of the unknown an inevitable factor in his work.
I believe he made a wise choice by avoiding the depiction and explanation of negativity and possession, as doing so would have dragged him into the murky waters of moralizing and religious programming. He would have lost sight of the goal: presenting life's outcome as a positive thing, because it truly is. This underlying positivity permeates the entire work, and that is its greatest value.
...
One might fault him for drawing universal conclusions based solely on what he knows: that possession does not exist. But if you understand the mechanics, as it seems this critic does not, the soul can never be possessed. Only the body and the mind—which is derived from the body—can be. The soul acts merely as the user and the witness. If the body is possessed by an entity, it has no impact on the soul other than acting as a peripheral disturbance, much like any other distraction. Humans are 'possessed' by various things and beliefs throughout their lives; entities are the smallest and rarest of these issues.
Since Newton was receiving information directly from the souls themselves, it stands to reason that he wouldn't pay much attention to or emphasize problems like possession, which aren't even that common.
Furthermore, dwelling too heavily on the issue of possession diverts energy away from far more significant matters: the transcendental nature of the soul, its original freedom, and its unconditional state.
...
As far as I am aware, Newton was the first to present this material so directly, offering the information he gathered in a remarkably objective and impartial manner. It is frankly absurd to accuse him of fundamentalism or programming. Minor errors are always possible in this kind of work, and they undoubtedly exist—he himself noted his efforts to avoid leading the client—but such errors are certainly not significant enough to overshadow his entire body of work. Which, as I mentioned, concerns the very life of the soul."

Whoever wrote this, I think they've said all that needs to be said.

This text appears in a PDF version of the book *Soul Plan* available online;

"Beyond this appropriate conclusion, it might be even more fitting to suggest a mandatory reading
of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (*Bardo Thodol*) following this book. Even for those who have
already read it, it will be useful to be reminded that it clearly explains that everything a deceased person experiences is a projection of their own mind within a higher astral and mental realm. All the cases described in the books of Dr. Michael Newton are precisely such descriptions. This doesn't mean they aren't true—they certainly are—it just means they demonstrate the full depth and power of a subconscious mind shaped by life's impressions (samskaras). Consequently, souls describe environments and events tailored to them, modeled after earthly concepts (libraries, study rooms, recreation areas, the appearance and clothing of other beings, etc.)."Everything we have discussed here regarding near-death experiences is essentially a collection of projections—mental constructs formed by a buildup of subconscious impressions and their subsequent reactions (what one might call *vasanas* and *samskaras*). Through Hypnosis, these accumulated memories are unlocked. One cannot achieve anything beyond this via Hypnosis; it serves merely as a tool for scrutinizing the subconscious mind, which acts as a reservoir for everything we have carried since our existence as souls began. Consequently, while the information presented here is accurate, it remains inherently colored and conditioned by the mind’s unique mechanics and its activity within the astral and higher mental realms once the body is vacated.

You wrote up there that the comment isn't yours. What do you mean it isn't yours?
Basically, I agree with the comment IN TOTAL. I would just add that Michael Newton himself thinks this way; he isn't making absolute claims, but rather sharing his thoughts and hypotheses, noting that he has only scratched the surface of something massive. In the end, he tells anyone who doubts him to just take what makes sense to them and discard the rest. He’s simply handed us the results of his work—his subjective conclusions and analyses. He isn't asking us to second-guess him, but rather to look at the experiences of his clients, of which there were many...