Induced spiritual experiences

Look, we’ve all heard the chatter by now—there are endless studies out there showing that you can actually trigger these intense "spiritual" experiences just by poking at specific centers in the brain. It’s everywhere. You’ve got astronauts floating in the void having these profound moments, people tripping on psychedelics, near-death experiences... it's a whole spectrum of weirdness.
The typical scientific take? They argue that if you can just flip a switch in the brain to make these things happen, then it’s all just neurochemistry. To them, it’s proof there’s nothing "out there," just neurons firing in the dark. Naturally, religious folks look at those kinds of experiments with a massive amount of skepticism.
But honestly? I see it differently. To me, the fact that we can even induce these states suggests we’re sitting on a mountain of knowledge we aren't even aware of—stuff that's buried incredibly deep. If you look at it through the lens of biological evolution, there’s zero survival reason for us to carry around those kinds of heavy, ancient memories, no matter how deep they go.
People who get hit with these induced experiences usually end up totally lost, not knowing what to do with themselves. And let's be real, even when these things hit you out of nowhere, it’s a hell of a thing to process. It isn't easy to carry.
But seriously, since anyone can basically be triggered into this state, how does that prove it's somehow meaningless? How does being able to replicate it mean it doesn't matter?

Spiritual experiences can actually act as a roadblock to spiritual growth. They don't necessarily mean you're moving forward at all. In fact, they might even be holding you back.

Real progress—both subjective and objective—is measured by qualitative changes within yourself. These shifts are subtle, but you can track them through several lenses. Look for things like an expanded creative capacity, a sense of lasting inner peace, and the disappearance of irrational fears. You should also see a growing love for yourself and the entire universe (God, humanity, and creation), a genuine drive to help others, and a more grounded way of thinking and behaving that shows increased tolerance and a deeper understanding of how things work.

Spiritual experiences can actually be triggered by another being—completely hands-off and from a distance, without any tools involved at all.
(Think of the classic encounter between Vivekananda and Ramakrishna).
The only real use for a blunt, materialistic take on these phenomena is to help unmask the charlatans out there—the ones relying on cheap magic tricks or basic psychological manipulation.

casualtiger2 said:Spiritual experiences can actually be triggered by another being—completely hands-off and from a distance, without any tools involved at all.
(Think of the classic encounter between Vivekananda and Ramakrishna).
The only real use for a blunt, materialistic take on these phenomena is to help unmask the charlatans out there—the ones relying on cheap magic tricks or basic psychological manipulation.

casualtiger2, I am curious about your perspective on how virtual reality might evolve over the next twenty or thirty years. How difficult will it be to tell the difference between a digital simulation and the world we inhabit?

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that such advanced VR—an "artificial reality"—will eventually exist to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the physical reality we know.

How would you rank and evaluate these three distinct layers of existence? There is the material realm, your spiritual dimension, and now this third, virtual one; which of these holds true reality, and how should we weigh their importance?

Furthermore, is it possible for a virtual environment to trigger spiritual experiences so profound that an individual could not distinguish them from their "authentic" encounters?

urbanwalker72 said:casualtiger2, I am curious about your perspective on how virtual reality might evolve over the next twenty or thirty years. How difficult will it be to tell the difference between a digital simulation and the world we inhabit?

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that such advanced VR—an "artificial reality"—will eventually exist to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the physical reality we know.

How would you rank and evaluate these three distinct layers of existence? There is the material realm, your spiritual dimension, and now this third, virtual one; which of these holds true reality, and how should we weigh their importance?

Furthermore, is it possible for a virtual environment to trigger spiritual experiences so profound that an individual could not distinguish them from their "authentic" encounters?

There is only one reality. We all just have our own individual level of conscious existence within it. People get so caught up arguing over different names or labels for it, they end up losing sight of the big picture entirely.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:There is only one reality. We all just have our own individual level of conscious existence within it. People get so caught up arguing over different names or labels for it, they end up losing sight of the big picture entirely.

To put it another way, would you be unable to distinguish between an objective truth and an experience that was artificially induced?

They haven't actually proven anything with those results. The idea that spirit is deeply intertwined with matter—well, even a child knows that, and naturally, one influences the other. If they truly intend to prove something, I fear they’ll be forced to account for the full picture, which includes all those messy variables people seem so eager to ignore.

And then there are these experiments involving astronauts... what, are you suggesting that because they were subjected to high speeds and experienced light, it somehow validates the phenomenon? Well, guess what: that light and that experience weren't even remotely similar to what people report during an NDE. It’s like flying on a plane, landing, walking into a lab, having someone poke around in your brain until they induce hallucinations of floating in some void, and then having them claim your entire experience was just a hallucination caused by drinking too much coffee after you woke up. Or take the instances where they managed to make someone relive their entire life in an instant—that isn't EVEN REMOTELY akin to those holographic, three-dimensional experiences where one perceives everything happening and feels what others feel from every perspective simultaneously. No, I'm afraid things aren't nearly as simple as certain people would prefer them to be. I still need to see someone replicate EVERYTHING perfectly simply by stimulating specific parts of the brain. For now, we are still stuck at the level of my airplane analogy.

And urbanwalker72, don't bother responding to this. I really am not in the mood for a debate right now.

urbanwalker72 said:casualtiger2, I am curious about your perspective on how virtual reality might evolve over the next twenty or thirty years. How difficult will it be to tell the difference between a digital simulation and the world we inhabit?

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that such advanced VR—an "artificial reality"—will eventually exist to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the physical reality we know.

How would you rank and evaluate these three distinct layers of existence? There is the material realm, your spiritual dimension, and now this third, virtual one; which of these holds true reality, and how should we weigh their importance?

Furthermore, is it possible for a virtual environment to trigger spiritual experiences so profound that an individual could not distinguish them from their "authentic" encounters?

In principle, any reality—virtual or this "actual" one—can trigger all sorts of phenomena, but that isn't the core of spirituality. A true spiritual experience is characterized by a breakthrough of consciousness out of that matrix, whether it's a virtual one or our "real" one.
The heart of spirituality lies in the state of enlightenment—discovering pure consciousness, which is inherent to everyone, and living that truth within matter.
Why consciousness and matter collided (if they even did) is a mystery no one knows, myself included. People usually call it a divine game.
I see it more as an internal necessity of God—to create, and to continue evolving through that creation.

With that in mind, everything just depends on where you are on the ladder of development and what angle you're looking from.
For an enlightened person, it's possible that consciousness is the only reality, while everything else is just an illusion.
For someone else, matter is the only reality, and for those "in the middle," both hold weight.

I totally get why you're hunting for solid proof for these kinds of hypotheses (I am too, honestly), but right now I don't have any, and it's not my priority
(at least, not for the purpose of convincing anyone else).
Personally, I feel like God and the created world are equally real, though the divine side definitely has more to do with us.

@Itto
Regarding whether the Moon exists when nobody is looking at it, I lean toward a "naive-pseudo-philosophical" stance that it does exist. That whole tautology—"if there's no one to notice something, then neither the noticing nor the thing noticed exists"—just doesn't sit right with me. If some distant aliens were peering at that Moon through their telescopes back before humans even existed on Earth, I can't say it only popped into existence once we noticed it, or that it'll vanish just because we aren't around anymore.

Nancy Wilson2 said:They haven't actually proven anything with those results. The idea that spirit is deeply intertwined with matter—well, even a child knows that, and naturally, one influences the other. If they truly intend to prove something, I fear they’ll be forced to account for the full picture, which includes all those messy variables people seem so eager to ignore.

And then there are these experiments involving astronauts... what, are you suggesting that because they were subjected to high speeds and experienced light, it somehow validates the phenomenon? Well, guess what: that light and that experience weren't even remotely similar to what people report during an NDE. It’s like flying on a plane, landing, walking into a lab, having someone poke around in your brain until they induce hallucinations of floating in some void, and then having them claim your entire experience was just a hallucination caused by drinking too much coffee after you woke up. Or take the instances where they managed to make someone relive their entire life in an instant—that isn't EVEN REMOTELY akin to those holographic, three-dimensional experiences where one perceives everything happening and feels what others feel from every perspective simultaneously. No, I'm afraid things aren't nearly as simple as certain people would prefer them to be. I still need to see someone replicate EVERYTHING perfectly simply by stimulating specific parts of the brain. For now, we are still stuck at the level of my airplane analogy.

And urbanwalker72, don't bother responding to this. I really am not in the mood for a debate right now.

👍

"Quote:"

casualtiger2 said:In principle, any reality—virtual or this "actual" one—can trigger all sorts of phenomena, but that isn't the core of spirituality. A true spiritual experience is characterized by a breakthrough of consciousness out of that matrix, whether it's a virtual one or our "real" one.
The heart of spirituality lies in the state of enlightenment—discovering pure consciousness, which is inherent to everyone, and living that truth within matter.
Why consciousness and matter collided (if they even did) is a mystery no one knows, myself included. People usually call it a divine game.
I see it more as an internal necessity of God—to create, and to continue evolving through that creation.

With that in mind, everything just depends on where you are on the ladder of development and what angle you're looking from.
For an enlightened person, it's possible that consciousness is the only reality, while everything else is just an illusion.
For someone else, matter is the only reality, and for those "in the middle," both hold weight.

I totally get why you're hunting for solid proof for these kinds of hypotheses (I am too, honestly), but right now I don't have any, and it's not my priority
(at least, not for the purpose of convincing anyone else).
Personally, I feel like God and the created world are equally real, though the divine side definitely has more to do with us.

@Itto
Regarding whether the Moon exists when nobody is looking at it, I lean toward a "naive-pseudo-philosophical" stance that it does exist. That whole tautology—"if there's no one to notice something, then neither the noticing nor the thing noticed exists"—just doesn't sit right with me. If some distant aliens were peering at that Moon through their telescopes back before humans even existed on Earth, I can't say it only popped into existence once we noticed it, or that it'll vanish just because we aren't around anymore.

casualtiger2, please try to maintain a sense of focus. I am simply asking whether you believe you would be capable of distinguishing between them, or if such a distinction would elude you entirely. That is the only point of importance here.

If we lose our capacity to discern, what purpose does our perception even serve?

"Quote:"

I completely understand your perspective when it comes to demanding rigorous evidence for such hypotheses—truthfully, I seek that same level of proof myself. However, at this stage, I simply don't have those proofs readily available, nor is it my primary goal to go about convincing others. I personally believe that both God and the created world hold an equal degree of reality, though it is the divine essence that holds a much deeper relevance to our existence.

Let us set aside the pursuit of raw evidence for a moment and instead focus our attention on seeking a sense of logical structure, internal consistency, and fundamental coherence within these ideas.

My only question is this: Is it possible to deceive a man who considers himself spiritually enlightened, leading him to embrace a fraudulent experience that he would eventually swear is the absolute truth?

urbanwalker72 said:👍

"Quote:"

casualtiger2, please try to maintain a sense of focus. I am simply asking whether you believe you would be capable of distinguishing between them, or if such a distinction would elude you entirely. That is the only point of importance here.

If we lose our capacity to discern, what purpose does our perception even serve?

"Quote:"

I completely understand your perspective when it comes to demanding rigorous evidence for such hypotheses—truthfully, I seek that same level of proof myself. However, at this stage, I simply don't have those proofs readily available, nor is it my primary goal to go about convincing others. I personally believe that both God and the created world hold an equal degree of reality, though it is the divine essence that holds a much deeper relevance to our existence.

Let us set aside the pursuit of raw evidence for a moment and instead focus our attention on seeking a sense of logical structure, internal consistency, and fundamental coherence within these ideas.

My only question is this: Is it possible to deceive a man who considers himself spiritually enlightened, leading him to embrace a fraudulent experience that he would eventually swear is the absolute truth?

Absolutely. It’s just like knowing whether I'm awake or not.
Sure, you can dream that you're wide awake—but once you actually *are* awake, you notice the distinction. Bottom line: you have to experience being conscious first. If you're just dreaming, you won't know the difference. So, to answer your question—yeah, people can easily be fooled. They might experience some random brain activity—whether from meditation or some high-tech gadgetry—and immediately jump to the conclusion that they've seen God or hit enlightenment.
And people will swear on anything to make it true.

casualtiger2 said:Absolutely. It’s just like knowing whether I'm awake or not.
Sure, you can dream that you're wide awake—but once you actually *are* awake, you notice the distinction. Bottom line: you have to experience being conscious first. If you're just dreaming, you won't know the difference. So, to answer your question—yeah, people can easily be fooled. They might experience some random brain activity—whether from meditation or some high-tech gadgetry—and immediately jump to the conclusion that they've seen God or hit enlightenment.
And people will swear on anything to make it true.

Your perspective has been transparent from the start—you believe that, personally, you would be able to tell the difference.

However, looking at the broader human condition, how can certainty ever be established? The human brain is riddled with biological glitches. When you watch a street magician make an object vanish or seemingly teleport, you recognize it as a sleight-of-hand trick rather than reality. But if you present that same spectacle to someone who operates under the premise that their perceptions are absolute truth, they will inevitably conclude they have witnessed a miracle.

The situation here is quite similar; it serves as my own version of a spiritual Turing test—what happens if the subject cannot evaluate whether their experience was induced or truly authentic (occurring without intervention)?

Imagine subjects sitting in quiet rooms, attempting to reach a state of spiritual experience, and they are already seasoned practitioners. They are told these are meditation chambers where they will later report their experiences. They are never informed that there will be an attempt to induce a specific state.

Each participant would undergo at least one induced experience, while also being permitted to have one genuine, unassisted experience.

Once the participants provide their accounts, we could see whether they successfully distinguish between these two types of experiences, given that they were completely unaware of the induction process.

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Look, we’ve all heard the chatter by now—there are endless studies out there showing that you can actually trigger these intense "spiritual" experiences just by poking at specific centers in the brain. It’s everywhere. You’ve got astronauts floating in the void having these profound moments, people tripping on psychedelics, near-death experiences... it's a whole spectrum of weirdness.
The typical scientific take? They argue that if you can just flip a switch in the brain to make these things happen, then it’s all just neurochemistry. To them, it’s proof there’s nothing "out there," just neurons firing in the dark. Naturally, religious folks look at those kinds of experiments with a massive amount of skepticism.
But honestly? I see it differently. To me, the fact that we can even induce these states suggests we’re sitting on a mountain of knowledge we aren't even aware of—stuff that's buried incredibly deep. If you look at it through the lens of biological evolution, there’s zero survival reason for us to carry around those kinds of heavy, ancient memories, no matter how deep they go.
People who get hit with these induced experiences usually end up totally lost, not knowing what to do with themselves. And let's be real, even when these things hit you out of nowhere, it’s a hell of a thing to process. It isn't easy to carry.
But seriously, since anyone can basically be triggered into this state, how does that prove it's somehow meaningless? How does being able to replicate it mean it doesn't matter?

They aren't "scientists," they're "scientism" proponents. Even the guy who came up with the "God helmet" and those specific experiments qualifies his own work, claiming he didn't actually succeed in proving everything can be reduced to those kinds of theories.

Besides, the brain processes all information, including stuff from our immediate surroundings. Does that mean everything we see around us is an illusion? If we pull this "brain-centric" argument to its logical conclusion, we end up with total solipsistic-Matrix subjectivity rather than the naturalist reductionism the skeptics are pushing for.

There's also the issue that spiritual experiences might look identical on the surface while being fundamentally different in substance. For instance, you could dream about Jesus, you could have a weird, unpleasant hallucination caused by a fever, or you could have an incredibly intense vision accompanied by feelings of purity, ecstasy, and piercingly clear consciousness. If you were just describing the visual, you might describe seeing the same figure of Jesus in all three cases.

While some have assumed they are the same based on those superficial similarities, people who have had an NDE and those using hallucinogens say the experiences are nothing alike.

The brain isn't some fountainhead of consciousness; it’s more like a transceiver—just a radio receiver (and the rest of the body is basically just an extension... like a probe or an antenna).
I’d go as far as saying the brain and body are just this pile of highly organized matter "hanging" onto consciousness... an essence that, without it, wouldn't even be able to exist in the first place (regardless of whether that consciousness is "plugged in and active or just dormant").
Right now, the mainstream vibe is that consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain, but those conclusions aren't absolute truth—they're just the most popular opinion out there.
They try to prove that point through experiments where they induce sensations in a human brain by poking at specific centers in different ways.
So, sure, if you stimulate the visual center, a person will actually see light—stimulate the auditory center, and they hear sounds... experience certain states and whatever else.
Okay.
But what does that actually prove?
Does it mean the sun I'm looking at doesn't exist, and that the whole experience is just an illusion?
Or that the sounds of the world I hear (like the wind blowing or waves crashing) aren't real... just because sounds can be induced?
Does that mean spiritual experiences or perceptions are also just illusions?

Give me a break!

The only thing it proves is that you can manipulate the receiver that consciousness uses to "connect" with the physical plane—to manifest or express its potential within this reality.

It shows that this receiver (just like any other piece of tech) can glitch, create static in the signal (whether receiving or sending), or just be poorly tuned... more or less functional.

Nothing more, nothing less.

ps.
Anyway, experiences that go beyond the physical realm totally blow "consciousness" limited by physical constraints out of the water, and you can't induce those things just by poking at a brain.

urbanwalker72 said:To put it another way, would you be unable to distinguish between an objective truth and an experience that was artificially induced?

First off, you need to define what you mean by 'real.' Think about it: when you're dreaming, you don't question the "reality of the dream." You’re the creator, the lead actor, and the observer all at once. No one sits there doubting if the dream is legitimate; you just live it through impressions gathered from this "waking reality"—which we treat as real, but honestly, defining what reality even *is* is the core issue here. I'm talking about the distinction between an inherently existing "reality" and our individual perception of it. Our perception is just a messy collection of things we've learned—it's a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality transcends our ability to grasp it, and that goes for any field, whether you're looking through a scientific lens or a philosophical one. Regardless of what anyone believes, we all have a direct, undeniable experience of it. At the end of the day, we're just limited little beings with tiny mental capacities, no matter how much we puff out our chests and act like we know everything.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:First off, you need to define what you mean by 'real.' Think about it: when you're dreaming, you don't question the "reality of the dream." You’re the creator, the lead actor, and the observer all at once. No one sits there doubting if the dream is legitimate; you just live it through impressions gathered from this "waking reality"—which we treat as real, but honestly, defining what reality even *is* is the core issue here. I'm talking about the distinction between an inherently existing "reality" and our individual perception of it. Our perception is just a messy collection of things we've learned—it's a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality transcends our ability to grasp it, and that goes for any field, whether you're looking through a scientific lens or a philosophical one. Regardless of what anyone believes, we all have a direct, undeniable experience of it. At the end of the day, we're just limited little beings with tiny mental capacities, no matter how much we puff out our chests and act like we know everything.

In essence, truth is defined by whatever the subject perceives as reality. From my perspective, all these experiences carry the same weight, which leads me to believe there is no meaningful distinction between what is "true" and what is "false."

This serves as a litmus test for those who claim they can distinguish an authentic encounter from an induced experience.

If a person finds themselves unable to tell the difference between a genuine spiritual moment and an induced one, we run into a significant dilemma; it implies that such profound experiences could be easily mimicked through something as mundane as physical stimulation of the brain.

Should that be the case, the perceived necessity for a mystical origin behind these phenomena simply evaporates.

urbanwalker72 said:In essence, truth is defined by whatever the subject perceives as reality. From my perspective, all these experiences carry the same weight, which leads me to believe there is no meaningful distinction between what is "true" and what is "false."

This serves as a litmus test for those who claim they can distinguish an authentic encounter from an induced experience.

If a person finds themselves unable to tell the difference between a genuine spiritual moment and an induced one, we run into a significant dilemma; it implies that such profound experiences could be easily mimicked through something as mundane as physical stimulation of the brain.

Should that be the case, the perceived necessity for a mystical origin behind these phenomena simply evaporates.

Alright, so if they are fundamentally the same, you can't really categorize them as "real" or "fake." If we're talking about the quality of the experience—well, an experience is an experience. But here's my main point: if the quality doesn't match the kind of experience people claim it is, then we're really just looking at "real" or "false" interpretations of some event. Usually, this happens when someone overanalyzes things or lacks the depth to understand what actually happened. On the flip side, if an experience is interpreted correctly, the insight gained is as close to the truth as you can get. And if that experience is considered "mystical" (spiritual), then it carries the actual, tangible quality of that experience (the result).

I get that you might believe "mystical" experiences don't actually exist, and that they're just human interpretations that science could easily explain away. I don't agree with that view, though. I might be misreading you, but if that is your stance, I'm just offering my own perspective in response.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Alright, so if they are fundamentally the same, you can't really categorize them as "real" or "fake." If we're talking about the quality of the experience—well, an experience is an experience. But here's my main point: if the quality doesn't match the kind of experience people claim it is, then we're really just looking at "real" or "false" interpretations of some event. Usually, this happens when someone overanalyzes things or lacks the depth to understand what actually happened. On the flip side, if an experience is interpreted correctly, the insight gained is as close to the truth as you can get. And if that experience is considered "mystical" (spiritual), then it carries the actual, tangible quality of that experience (the result).

I get that you might believe "mystical" experiences don't actually exist, and that they're just human interpretations that science could easily explain away. I don't agree with that view, though. I might be misreading you, but if that is your stance, I'm just offering my own perspective in response.

I’m having a hard time following your logic. Are you suggesting that induced experiences don't exist at all?

If they do exist, what happens if they become indistinguishable from authentic ones?

This really couldn't be any more straightforward than it is.

urbanwalker72 said:I’m having a hard time following your logic. Are you suggesting that induced experiences don't exist at all?

If they do exist, what happens if they become indistinguishable from authentic ones?

This really couldn't be any more straightforward than it is.

Look, there are the experiences themselves, and then there are the subjective ways we interpret them. You can have an experience—and its interpretation might seem unreal—that actually becomes a real experience. But because it falls outside the scope of "rational" logic, people try to force a "rational" explanation onto it. That’s where they go wrong. To me, the only thing that truly matters is the outcome: does the experience provide actual insight or benefit to the individual? On the flip side, a bad interpretation leads straight to delusion. Think about how science once claimed the universe was just an empty vacuum with maybe a little radiation and some stray matter—to me, that's a textbook example of a massive misunderstanding.🙂

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Look, we’ve all heard the chatter by now—there are endless studies out there showing that you can actually trigger these intense "spiritual" experiences just by poking at specific centers in the brain. It’s everywhere. You’ve got astronauts floating in the void having these profound moments, people tripping on psychedelics, near-death experiences... it's a whole spectrum of weirdness.
The typical scientific take? They argue that if you can just flip a switch in the brain to make these things happen, then it’s all just neurochemistry. To them, it’s proof there’s nothing "out there," just neurons firing in the dark. Naturally, religious folks look at those kinds of experiments with a massive amount of skepticism.
But honestly? I see it differently. To me, the fact that we can even induce these states suggests we’re sitting on a mountain of knowledge we aren't even aware of—stuff that's buried incredibly deep. If you look at it through the lens of biological evolution, there’s zero survival reason for us to carry around those kinds of heavy, ancient memories, no matter how deep they go.
People who get hit with these induced experiences usually end up totally lost, not knowing what to do with themselves. And let's be real, even when these things hit you out of nowhere, it’s a hell of a thing to process. It isn't easy to carry.
But seriously, since anyone can basically be triggered into this state, how does that prove it's somehow meaningless? How does being able to replicate it mean it doesn't matter?

1. Look, that’s all fine and dandy, but what about the kids who claim to remember past lives? I mean, they're talking about specific languages, cities, jobs, and people they’ve supposedly never even met in this lifetime. How do you explain that?

2. And what about those NDE experiences where people born blind suddenly see everything clearly once they step out of their bodies, and then go on to describe visual details with pinpoint accuracy?

3. Where do you put those Eastern martial arts masters who can redirect chi to endure unexplainable things?

4. Why can't scientists wrap their heads around psychic surgery, even though they've witnessed it? We're talking about a body being opened and operated on using nothing but fingers, and then the wound just... closes up with just hands, leaving no visible scar or skin damage. All this happens while the patient is wide awake, and the results are incredibly effective.

5. How did Edgar Cayce manage to describe lasers and atomic energy in such detail years before we actually built them? Or how could he "read" books just by touching them? Or tell archaeologists the exact location and type of ancient structures buried underground for hundreds of years?

6. How did Bruno Groeining heal thousands of people just by speaking? And what about all the other people out there successfully using methods that defy logic?

7. What about the countless remote viewing tests that have confirmed the phenomenon is real? In fact, the US military has actually used this stuff for intelligence purposes.

8. Think about the woman with X-ray vision, or that guy from the Netherlands who reportedly pierced himself with a sword over 500 times only to heal instantly, or the American who could change his physical appearance like a lizard. And let's not forget the girl who cries crystals.

9. Then you've got those bizarre lightning strikes—like the one that hit a 13-year-old at exactly 13:13 on Friday the 13th.

10. Have you guys even heard of Devil's Footprints, or any of the other freak occurrences out there?

Honestly, how many miracles and examples do I have to list before people realize we're living in a spiritual world, and matter is really just one tiny layer of it?

And just like that, spirituality starts sliding right into the "alternative" lifestyle category. 😢