Transcript
[0:00] Hey, it's Kai here. For every episode
[0:02] this season, I'll be personally logging
[0:04] into YouTube on Wednesday around 10:00
[0:06] a.m. Pacific time to personally reply to
[0:08] as many comments and questions as I can.
[0:09] So, can't wait to hear from you guys and
[0:11] to engage. Thanks. Hey everyone, this is
[0:13] Kai Dickens and you're listening to the
[0:15] Reincarnation Records from TTT Media.
[0:26] Welcome to episode 4. If you have not
[0:28] listened to our first three episodes, I
[0:30] highly encourage you to do so as
[0:31] everything in this season builds on what
[0:33] came before it. Last week we visited the
[0:36] University of Virginia's Division of
[0:38] Perceptual Studies, commonly referred to
[0:40] as DOPS, to see what 60 years of
[0:42] reincarnation research actually looks
[0:43] like. And historically, the goal of
[0:45] research there has been pretty
[0:46] straightforward. Document what a young
[0:48] child says they remember about a past
[0:50] life and then see whether those details
[0:52] can be matched to a real person who's
[0:53] died. And that match is made possible
[0:56] because the families that reach out to
[0:57] the department don't just have kids
[0:59] stating vague memories. They're often
[1:01] giving their alleged past name, the town
[1:03] where they say they lived, names of
[1:05] family members, their previous
[1:06] profession, and in a majority of the
[1:08] cases in the university's archive, they
[1:11] also describe how they died. And that's
[1:13] where this episode begins. Because in
[1:15] over a third of those cases, the
[1:17] children aren't just describing a death.
[1:19] They're born with a birthmark or birth
[1:20] defect that appears in the same place on
[1:23] their body where the person that they
[1:24] remember being was injured or killed.
[1:27] But before we go any further, I think
[1:29] there's an important distinction to
[1:30] make. Because when Stevenson
[1:32] reincarnation researchers talk about
[1:33] birthmarks, they're not the type that
[1:35] you're probably visualizing. Here's
[1:36] anthropologist Dr. Jim Matlock who spent
[1:39] years studying Stevenson's work and
[1:41] investigating his own cases as well.
[1:43] >> First of all, we appreciate not all
[1:45] birthmarks are linked to reincarnation.
[1:46] Reincarnation-linked birthmarks tend to
[1:49] be not the usual kinds, not the kinds
[1:52] that come about through bumps in the
[1:54] birthing process or genetic. They're
[1:56] odd-looking things in odd places and
[2:00] they tend to be in the same place as the
[2:03] wound and very often it's a mortal
[2:04] wound.
[2:05] >> And just to reiterate again, something
[2:07] important we learned last week.
[2:08] Researchers are not starting with a
[2:10] strange birthmark and then looking for
[2:11] someone who had a matching wound. The
[2:13] child's specific memories lead
[2:15] investigators to a deceased person
[2:17] first. Only after that identification is
[2:19] made do they compare any birthmarks or
[2:21] birth defects with documented verified
[2:23] injuries on that deceased person.
[2:25] >> It can be any sort of thing. An earring
[2:27] hole can produce a birthmark. Tattoo can
[2:29] produce a birthmark, right? Surgical
[2:31] scar can produce a birthmark and the
[2:33] thing is these birthmarks look identical
[2:36] to those scars. And Stevenson had a case
[2:39] with a surgical scar on a guy's back.
[2:41] You could actually see the holes, the
[2:43] stitch mark holes in the surgical thing.
[2:46] >> Wow. Dr. Philip Cosolino now co-leads
[2:48] the Past Life Memory Research Program at
[2:50] Dops and I quickly wanted to remind you
[2:52] of something he said last week.
[2:54] >> 61% of our children can tell you how
[2:57] they think they died in this past life
[2:59] and of those 75% claim an unnatural
[3:02] often violent death. The raw numbers of
[3:04] those that have birthmarks is 44% of
[3:07] them and birth defects is 11% of them.
[3:10] >> So, the birthmark phenomenon is no small
[3:12] thing. It's a phenomenon unto itself and
[3:14] of everything that Ian Stevenson
[3:15] encountered during his decades studying
[3:17] these children, this was the part of the
[3:19] research that eventually consumed him.
[3:21] Here's Dr. Cosolino again.
[3:23] >> These are the two volumes of
[3:24] Reincarnation and Biology, volume one,
[3:26] volume two. They're massive books that
[3:28] Ian wrote and published all about
[3:31] birthmarks and birth defects.
[3:32] >> And they it's over 2,000 pages.
[3:34] >> Yeah, they're both huge. This was I
[3:36] think the most compelling in his mind.
[3:38] Everything else probably could have
[3:40] multiple explanations, but it becomes
[3:42] harder to make sense of how someone's
[3:44] fatal wound in another country years ago
[3:47] somehow shows up in a child and I think
[3:50] that to him was probably why you'd spend
[3:52] this much effort to write books of this
[3:54] size is that there's something here that
[3:56] he couldn't wrap his head around and
[3:57] neither can we.
[3:58] >> In last week's episode, I briefly walked
[4:00] past some wooden display cases sitting
[4:03] right next to these massive books. At
[4:04] the time, I only glanced at what was
[4:06] inside, but at the end of our visit to
[4:08] Dops, we went back for a much closer
[4:10] look.
[4:10] >> So, the display cases are from the Ian
[4:13] era of investigations around the world.
[4:16] There are some gruesome photos of
[4:18] children and even young and this is an
[4:20] infant with missing limbs, missing
[4:23] digits and fingers, wounds, birthmarks
[4:26] and defects, and weapons.
[4:28] >> There's something obviously a little
[4:29] unsettling about these display cases,
[4:31] but standing next to them, I found
[4:33] myself drawn into the first photograph
[4:35] and trying to connect the dots of the
[4:36] various pictures in the case and the
[4:38] weapons on the wall.
[4:39] >> So, that case right there, that's a boy
[4:41] from Thailand and you can see the
[4:43] picture that Ian took there. There's a
[4:45] birthmark in the back left of his head.
[4:48] >> And though he says birthmark, what I see
[4:50] in this picture looks like a scar on the
[4:52] back of this person's head, almost like
[4:54] a gash that has healed.
[4:55] >> He claimed to have died from a machete
[4:59] hit to the back of his head and that was
[5:01] the birthmark that he was born with and
[5:03] Ian identified someone who matched this
[5:05] boy's story
[5:07] and sure enough that person had been
[5:09] killed with a machete hit to the back of
[5:11] his head and he found the autopsy's
[5:14] postmortem report and sure enough the
[5:16] scar matched what was on the autopsy
[5:18] report. That machete right above the
[5:20] photo is indicative of the kind that
[5:23] that was used allegedly.
[5:25] >> After our trip to the University of
[5:26] Virginia, I set up a call with Philip
[5:28] and Dr. Mary Etta Pelvinova, the other
[5:31] person who co-leads the past life
[5:32] research program at Dops. We spent a lot
[5:34] of time with her last week as well and I
[5:36] wanted them to walk me through in depth
[5:37] some of the birthmark cases that
[5:39] Stevenson studied and for the rest of
[5:40] this episode, we'll kind of be bouncing
[5:42] between that phone call and also some of
[5:44] the tape from when I was at Dops in
[5:45] person. And first, I asked if they could
[5:47] pull up more details about the boy in
[5:49] the picture that I saw in the display
[5:51] case, the one with the scar on the back
[5:52] of his head.
[5:53] >> Okay, so Ting was born in 1924 in
[5:57] Thailand with a scar on the back left of
[6:00] his head. Both of his parents had what
[6:02] we call announcing dreams. So, the
[6:05] mother and the father reported dreams
[6:08] well before Ting was born of a deceased
[6:12] person coming to them in their dream
[6:14] saying, "Hey, I'm going to be coming to
[6:17] you in a new life."
[6:19] >> We went through announcing dreams in
[6:20] detail last week, so I don't want to
[6:22] spend too much time on them, but just as
[6:24] a quick recap, in many of these cases,
[6:26] people, usually parents, report either
[6:28] having an announcing dream or a
[6:30] departing dream. As wild as it sounds,
[6:33] an announcing dream would be when the
[6:34] consciousness or soul of someone who's
[6:37] recently passed alerts parents that
[6:39] they've chosen them and they're coming
[6:40] to be their baby before they arrive. And
[6:43] a departing dream usually features
[6:45] someone who's recently died comforting
[6:47] the person grieving saying, "I'm going
[6:49] to be reborn and you can find me in XYZ
[6:52] location." It's just so fascinating and
[6:55] it's common.
[6:56] >> This is a within the same family case.
[6:58] The father's older brother was named
[7:00] Pho. Pho is the person who the mother
[7:04] and father both apparently were visited
[7:06] by in their dreams. Now, I want to be
[7:08] very clear. When Ian got involved with
[7:10] this case, the parents, the mother and
[7:12] father here, were already dead. So, this
[7:14] is what he was told from multiple
[7:16] sources that they had said occurred
[7:19] before Ting, their son, was born. Now,
[7:22] after Ting was born to these parents,
[7:25] they noticed distinct birthmarks and
[7:27] defects on his body. The most sort of
[7:30] obvious one was this back left head scar
[7:33] that was prominent and it looked like
[7:36] the remnant of having been hit with
[7:37] something sharp in the back of his head.
[7:39] And he also had had interesting right
[7:41] big toe malformation. I don't know what
[7:43] to call it really. It wasn't quite a
[7:45] defect, but it was a birthmark that
[7:47] wasn't quite right on his right big toe.
[7:50] And that will come into play in a
[7:51] second. Now, the thing that's really
[7:52] interesting is Foe, the father's older
[7:55] brother, who had apparently come to them
[7:57] in their dreams. That's the story. Had
[7:59] been killed by a machete/knife
[8:02] wound to the [snorts] back left of his
[8:04] head. Foe was killed about a year before
[8:06] Ting was born, and Ting, he was born 25
[8:10] km from where Foe died. And what we know
[8:13] now is that Foe was a cattle rustler. He
[8:16] was a cattle thief. And in 1923, he went
[8:19] into a village presumably to go steal a
[8:22] bull. The villagers in that village knew
[8:26] of Foe's crimes. And there was a posse
[8:29] of 30 people who came out to basically
[8:32] confront him. And in the course of that
[8:35] posse, he was hit in the back of the
[8:37] head with this large machete. And
[8:39] apparently, from where Ian could
[8:41] determine, died instantly. This is all
[8:43] basically confirmed by witnesses how
[8:46] this occurred.
[8:47] >> So, after the murder of Foe in a house
[8:49] about 25 km away, Foe's younger brother
[8:51] had a baby boy. And that boy is born
[8:53] with a birthmark that looks like a scar
[8:55] on the back of his head.
[8:57] >> As a child, Ting started saying, "I am
[9:00] Foe." He would say He would get very
[9:01] upset when people referred to him in the
[9:04] the Thai word for baby or boy or child.
[9:07] And he would get, "No, I'm Foe. That's
[9:09] my name."
[9:10] >> He pointed at the birthmark, and he
[9:11] would say, "This is from how I was
[9:14] killed." And he was very angry.
[9:16] >> Now, a little boy saying, "I'm Foe," and
[9:17] pointing to his head doesn't necessarily
[9:19] prove anything. What makes the case
[9:21] interesting is what came with that
[9:23] claim. Ting wasn't just pointing to the
[9:25] mark on his head and saying how he got
[9:26] it. He would also describe people and
[9:29] events from Foe's life that
[9:30] investigators could actually check
[9:32] against fact by talking to witnesses and
[9:34] looking at police reports.
[9:35] >> So, this little boy claimed that on the
[9:38] day this posse killed him, he hadn't
[9:40] done anything wrong and he was just in
[9:42] the village. So, this posse knew of his
[9:44] past [music] and killed him in cold
[9:47] blood on that day and that's why he
[9:49] apparently had this anger. Over time as
[9:53] an adult, he told Ian that revenge
[9:56] motivation waned, but he was still very
[9:58] upset about it even as an adult.
[10:00] >> And this idea of coming back angry or
[10:02] even wanting revenge is something that
[10:04] was brought up last week, too. And I
[10:06] have to admit that I'm having such a
[10:08] hard time making sense of it. For almost
[10:10] 2 years now, across different seasons of
[10:12] the Telepathy Tapes, we've heard so many
[10:13] accounts of what people describe as the
[10:15] other side. And the themes that come up
[10:17] again and again are the ego falling
[10:19] away, a sense of interconnectedness, and
[10:21] more than anything, complete acceptance
[10:24] and love. So, the idea that someone
[10:25] could die, come back, and still be
[10:28] furious at the people who killed them
[10:29] feels almost like the opposite of that.
[10:31] We've spent some time looking at
[10:33] near-death experiences and people often
[10:34] come back from those totally changed and
[10:36] more at peace and more loving. So, in
[10:39] these cases, I'm just wondering what on
[10:41] earth it all means. Does reincarnating
[10:43] and remembering what happened actually
[10:45] force someone to confront a lesson that
[10:46] they still need to learn? Or maybe
[10:48] remind them so they're kind of more set
[10:50] up to win regarding the spiritual growth
[10:52] they need to have? Or is there a more
[10:54] complete permanent afterlife that's more
[10:56] in line with what people describe in
[10:58] near-death experiences or that religions
[11:00] describe? And maybe that place is
[11:02] somehow different or a little higher up
[11:04] than whatever happens in between lives?
[11:06] Or maybe the answer's even more
[11:07] unsettling. Like, could holding onto
[11:09] anger itself or having unfinished
[11:11] business be part of what pulls us back
[11:13] so quickly? And then there's part of me
[11:15] that's like, well, maybe I'm trying to
[11:16] fit all of this into a spiritual
[11:17] framework when there's just so much
[11:19] ordinary explanation, which outside of
[11:20] coincidence, I can't figure out what
[11:22] that might be. So, I don't know. But I
[11:24] do want to assure you that before the
[11:26] end of the season, we're going to come
[11:28] back to this question and we'll hear
[11:29] from non-speaking individuals about what
[11:31] they understand about death and
[11:32] reincarnation. We'll hear from religious
[11:34] scholars from different traditions and
[11:36] speak with Laurel and Jackson, a medium
[11:38] whose work and claims about talking to
[11:39] the other side have been extensively
[11:41] double-blind tested and studied and
[11:44] researched as we looked at in season 2.
[11:46] So, we'll see if any of these people can
[11:48] help us understand something that right
[11:50] now feels like a total contradiction to
[11:52] me because if consciousness ultimately
[11:53] moves towards love and unity, why would
[11:55] someone come back angry and wanting
[11:57] revenge? But, I digress because we are
[12:00] at the University of Virginia and the
[12:01] team at DOPS is not trying to answer
[12:03] these spiritual questions. They are
[12:05] interested in investigation,
[12:06] documentation, and research. And so,
[12:08] what Philip brings up next is called
[12:10] private knowledge.
[12:11] >> He was 4 to 5 years old and he met this
[12:13] investigator
[12:15] and Tang immediately recognized him and
[12:17] said, "Oh, that's the person who's
[12:19] investigating me for my crimes." Called
[12:21] him by his name. Also correctly named
[12:24] many of the people that people in that
[12:26] village knew had killed Fo. So, he was
[12:28] able to actually say, "These are the
[12:30] people who were in that posse."
[12:32] >> So, the little boy was able to name the
[12:33] people that killed him.
[12:34] >> Yes, some of them. I'm not saying he
[12:35] knew all 30 of them.
[12:36] >> Right.
[12:37] >> The investigation knew who these people
[12:39] were and he apparently named a number of
[12:41] them accurately.
[12:43] >> And as he got older, he started sharing
[12:45] details and recognizing things and
[12:47] people that there's absolutely no
[12:48] explanation for.
[12:49] >> He recognized at the age of 5 the house
[12:52] that Fo lived in, objects that Fo
[12:54] possessed, even specific cattle based on
[12:58] their markings which ones had been Fo's
[13:00] and cuz again, he was born about a year
[13:02] after Fo died. When Tang was 7 years
[13:05] old, he was just on the side of a road
[13:07] walking around the village and he
[13:09] spotted a woman and he recognized her as
[13:12] Fo's daughter and he actually ended up
[13:15] convincing the daughter of this dead
[13:17] person that he claimed to be, told Ian
[13:20] that she was convinced based on their
[13:22] conversations that this was her father,
[13:24] Fo.
[13:26] Now again, remember this is all the same
[13:27] family. Ian is very clear in his writing
[13:30] about this case that there's always,
[13:32] whenever you're talking about a 25-mi km
[13:34] of a same family situation, there's
[13:36] always the opportunity for some of these
[13:40] kinds of things, recognizing cousins,
[13:42] recognizing objects or homes.
[13:45] >> So, Philip, how did like Foe's, you
[13:46] know, widow, his wife, react to news
[13:48] that her husband was back in the body of
[13:50] a toddler? I mean, did she believe it?
[13:53] >> Foe's surviving wife brought to Tang a
[13:56] bunch of objects, some of which belonged
[13:58] to Foe and some didn't. And Tang was
[14:01] accurately able to pick out the objects
[14:03] and was able to say, "That was mine.
[14:05] That was mine." And the surviving wife
[14:07] of Foe said, "Yeah, he got them all
[14:08] right. He knew which ones were Foe's and
[14:10] which ones weren't." He also,
[14:12] apparently, was able to talk with her
[14:14] about moments from their life that she
[14:16] told Ian were accurate, that he knew
[14:19] things that he shouldn't be able to
[14:20] know.
[14:21] >> Wow.
[14:21] >> And Ian did his best to verify and
[14:23] corroborate with others.
[14:25] >> Okay, then. So, Philip, why was the
[14:26] birthmark on Tang's toe in the file?
[14:28] >> Well, it turns out that Foe had injured
[14:31] his right foot on that toe some period
[14:35] before his death. Now, Tang claimed it
[14:37] was 10 years. Ian wasn't able to verify
[14:40] when that was, but apparently, multiple
[14:42] people who knew Foe said, "Oh, yeah, he
[14:45] had a real bad issue with that toe. It
[14:47] was infected and it was bad. It made his
[14:50] life difficult and we have a photo of
[14:52] that, too, where you can see on Tang his
[14:55] right foot the big toe has this mark on
[14:58] it where, apparently, people said, "Oh,
[14:59] yeah, Foe's right toe looked like that."
[15:02] >> I find this detail interesting because
[15:03] an infected toe is not some dramatic
[15:05] death wound. It's a nuisance. And this
[15:07] man, Foe, limped around with it for
[15:09] years and even died with it. And that's
[15:11] interesting to me because whatever this
[15:12] process is that we're investigating this
[15:14] season with these birthmarks and birth
[15:16] defects, it's clearly not just copying
[15:18] the moment someone died. It seems to be
[15:19] copying the significant injuries or
[15:21] moments the last body had been through.
[15:23] So, Philip, any other final notes on
[15:25] this case before we, you know, move on
[15:26] to another one?
[15:27] >> One thing that I thought was really
[15:28] interesting was that Ian spoke to the
[15:30] captain in the Royal Thai Army. Ting
[15:33] ended up being a sergeant for
[15:35] >> So, quickly Philip is fast-forwarding to
[15:37] when Ting, who claims to be the
[15:38] reincarnation of Fo, is a grown man.
[15:40] >> His captain said that Ting would claim
[15:42] that some property around their base
[15:45] really belonged to him. He came into
[15:47] that base basically saying all that land
[15:49] there is mine. And what he meant was it
[15:51] was Fo's. And the captain said that's
[15:53] actually true, and I'm not sure how he
[15:55] knows that.
[15:56] >> That's so wild. Last week we talked at
[15:58] length about how cases get investigated,
[16:00] and we're not going to rehash all of
[16:01] that, but I just want to reiterate how a
[16:03] strong case typically unfolds. So, it
[16:05] starts with a very young child talking
[16:07] about another life, often saying,
[16:09] "You're not my real parents," or "When I
[16:10] used to be big," or "I want to go see my
[16:12] real mom." And investigators only tend
[16:14] to get involved if they start giving
[16:15] specifics about names, places, how they
[16:18] died. And sometimes they carry over
[16:20] things as unexplainable as talents or
[16:22] preferences or even a language from that
[16:24] past life. When investigators have
[16:26] specific details, they then try to
[16:28] identify a deceased person whose life
[16:30] matches those memories. Only after that
[16:32] match is made do they compare the
[16:34] birthmark or birth defect, which are
[16:36] present in over a third of the cases,
[16:38] with either an autopsy report, police
[16:40] report, medical or family reports that
[16:42] detail the injuries, marks, or death
[16:44] wounds on that deceased person's body.
[16:46] And here's Dr. Ian Stevenson himself
[16:48] from a talk he did at UVA in 2004.
[16:50] >> The last 15 years, we've given more
[16:53] attention to the cases with birthmarks
[16:55] and birth defects because we've sought
[16:57] autopsy reports and been successful in
[16:59] 65 or 70 cases. And that consumes an
[17:03] immense amount of time in obtaining
[17:04] those. One has to drink cups of coffee
[17:07] with the bureaucrats who have access to
[17:10] the records, and then perhaps in
[17:12] addition give an American-made shirt to
[17:14] the clerk who will actually find the
[17:16] record, but it's all very worthwhile
[17:18] because an autopsy report in black and
[17:20] white made before the child in question
[17:23] was born and in many cases we find a
[17:25] close correspondence between the
[17:27] postmortem report and the birthmarks and
[17:30] birth defects.
[17:31] >> And as we discussed last week, it's
[17:33] often a multi-year investigation to
[17:35] verify a match because the majority of
[17:37] children remembering past lives do not
[17:40] come back to the same family. It
[17:41] happens, but it's not as common. Here's
[17:43] Dr. Coslino again.
[17:45] >> Only 20-some percent of our cases are
[17:47] within the same family and many of these
[17:50] cases are far removed in distance
[17:52] geographically from where this past
[17:55] person seems to have lived. And you have
[17:56] to remember these are cases from the
[17:58] '60s, '70s, '80s. There was no internet
[18:01] and these are in communities, very poor
[18:02] communities. So there was no travel.
[18:05] Their lives were in their village and
[18:07] that's what they knew.
[18:08] >> Right. Right. And that's important
[18:10] because it makes it harder to say it was
[18:11] just coincidence or something the kid
[18:12] heard.
[18:13] >> When you can determine that the child
[18:15] and the family didn't know who that
[18:16] person was and they lived in another
[18:17] country, then I don't know anymore if
[18:19] it's just coincidence. I also don't like
[18:21] that word as much. People like to say
[18:23] this is all coincidence, but coincidence
[18:24] isn't really
[18:26] It's describing. It's not explaining.
[18:28] >> I actually love that and I've been
[18:29] repeating my own version of it ever
[18:30] since, which is that, you know, calling
[18:32] something a coincidence is not a
[18:34] finding. It's a decision to stop
[18:36] counting. We're going to stop and take a
[18:38] quick break here, but when we come back,
[18:40] we'll look at birthmark cases involving
[18:41] people from entirely different families
[18:43] where explanations like insider info or
[18:45] shared knowledge become harder to apply.
[18:52] Welcome back. We're going to pick up
[18:53] with the phone call I had with Marietta
[18:55] and Philip after leaving Tops where they
[18:57] walked me through a few birthmark cases
[18:59] in detail. So I'd love for you to walk
[19:00] through a few cases that are not same
[19:02] family cases, you know, and actually
[19:04] also where Dr. Ian Stevenson was you
[19:06] kind of first at to the scene.
[19:08] >> Okay, so I'll start with this case from
[19:09] Thailand and the child's name was
[19:11] Chennai. Chennai was born in 1967
[19:15] and he had two birthmarks on his head. I
[19:18] will show you this picture from the
[19:19] files. As you can see, there's a small
[19:22] birthmark in the back of his head and
[19:24] then a larger birthmark in the front of
[19:27] his head just above his left eye.
[19:29] >> So, Philip, what were some of the early
[19:30] statements he was saying?
[19:31] >> When he was 3 years old, he would
[19:33] declare himself regularly as "I am the
[19:36] teacher. I am the teacher. Let me teach
[19:38] you all." And would start then telling
[19:41] his grandmother, who actually raised
[19:43] him, that I was a teacher, not just that
[19:45] I am a teacher, but that when I once was
[19:48] an adult, I was a teacher. At 3 and 1/2,
[19:51] he started begging his grandmother to
[19:53] take him to see his previous family. He
[19:56] would say "My parents, my wife, my
[19:58] children." And he actually said a name.
[20:01] He said "I was once a person named
[20:02] Buakai."
[20:04] And that he had been a teacher, but he
[20:06] had been shot and killed in the head.
[20:08] >> Okay, those are a lot of specifics for a
[20:10] 3-year-old, and specifics are the only
[20:12] reason any of these cases can be checked
[20:14] at all. Because if a child says I live
[20:15] somewhere, that gets you nowhere. But
[20:17] when they give you a village and a name
[20:18] and an occupation, as an investigator,
[20:20] you are off to the races.
[20:22] >> Before he turned four, the grandmother
[20:24] capitulated and said "Okay, we're going
[20:26] to go to this village. You're asking too
[20:28] much, so we're going to go." What's
[20:30] interesting in the notes is they arrived
[20:32] near the village off the the bus,
[20:34] however they got there. It wasn't
[20:36] actually the proper village. And
[20:38] Chennai, as not even a 4-year-old,
[20:41] basically started leading his
[20:43] grandmother as if he knew where he was
[20:44] going, and he walked up to a house, and
[20:47] he said "This is where I used to live."
[20:50] And it turns out that
[20:52] Buakai was a real person who lived in
[20:55] that house, and the mother and father of
[20:58] Buakai still lived there. They were
[21:00] deceased person's parents, and they told
[21:03] Ian and other investigators that Buakai
[21:06] had been a school teacher, who was shot
[21:08] and killed in 1962. So, that was 5 years
[21:11] before Chinai was born.
[21:13] >> And then, Buakai's parents looked at the
[21:15] boy's head.
[21:16] >> The parents of Buakai saw the birthmarks
[21:18] on Chinai's head, and they were blown
[21:21] away, because they thought, "Well,
[21:22] that's what we saw in terms of our son
[21:25] when he was murdered." And they were so
[21:27] impressed that they invited him back.
[21:29] And on a second visit, Chinai was able
[21:32] to recognize other family members who
[21:34] they had invited to come, because
[21:36] obviously at this point they're like,
[21:37] "Oh, this is a story. Maybe this is
[21:39] Buakai coming back." And Chinai
[21:41] recognized family members and objects.
[21:43] Again, people would show, "Did this
[21:45] belong to you or not?" And he did very
[21:47] well, apparently, according to the
[21:48] informants.
[21:49] >> Okay, so just pausing for a second.
[21:51] Like, who was Buakai? Because it's hard
[21:52] for me to believe that he was like the
[21:53] beloved town science teacher, if he was
[21:55] shot in the head.
[21:56] >> He was a teacher. He was also someone
[21:59] who was notorious for having many
[22:01] affairs with married women.
[22:03] And apparently, I'm going to use the
[22:05] modern term of a side gig,
[22:08] uh side hustle, as a local gangster. So,
[22:11] the wild west of Thailand in the '60s.
[22:14] Because of this notorious criminal side
[22:18] gig, he had been shot once before at a
[22:21] fair, and survived, and realized, "Okay,
[22:24] like this other part of my life is
[22:25] starting to infringe on my well-being."
[22:28] So, he tried his best to avoid it again.
[22:30] He literally relocated where he did his
[22:32] teaching. He thought, "Well, maybe I
[22:34] need to move to a different village,
[22:35] teach somewhere else where they don't
[22:36] know who I am." And he did that. But
[22:39] then, in January of 1962, Buakai was
[22:42] riding his bicycle to work, to go teach,
[22:44] and someone came up from behind him and
[22:47] shot him from behind in the head, and he
[22:50] died instantly at the scene.
[22:52] >> [music]
[22:53] >> He was examined by a doctor, as
[22:55] relatives of Buakai also were there and
[22:58] saw this. And these were the
[22:59] documentations of how the sort of wounds
[23:02] occurred in Buas death.
[23:04] >> And these wounds appear to correspond
[23:05] with Chenai's birthmarks, [music]
[23:07] and not just where they were located,
[23:08] but the forensic characteristics of the
[23:10] injuries themselves.
[23:11] >> On the back you have the entrance wound,
[23:14] [music] which is almost always, if not
[23:16] always, smaller than the exit wound. And
[23:18] then it [music] releases with a larger
[23:20] exit wound. And they were perfectly in
[23:22] line with each other, and according to
[23:24] all the informants, were exactly in the
[23:26] places that Buakai had been shot. He
[23:29] also made, again, recognitions of
[23:31] objects. He made statements about where
[23:33] he lived, about realities narratives of
[23:35] his life. All told, about 19 of those
[23:38] that Ian was able to say seem to be
[23:40] accurate to this deceased person's life.
[23:43] >> After hearing Chenai's story, especially
[23:45] right on the heels of Tings, my
[23:46] questions were honestly becoming more
[23:48] metaphysical. Because if any of this is
[23:50] real, what does it mean that the
[23:51] remembered lives in both of these cases
[23:53] belong to people who'd done some pretty
[23:55] harmful and dishonest things. And I just
[23:57] can't help but wondering if then maybe
[24:00] remembering is part of the point. Like,
[24:03] did the consciousness of these unsavory
[24:05] guys come back remembering what happened
[24:07] because it gives them a better chance to
[24:09] correct something or grow beyond whoever
[24:11] they were before? And then that thought
[24:13] leads me even further down a rabbit hole
[24:14] where I start to wonder if Earth, this
[24:16] place we keep coming back to to work
[24:18] things out, is almost like a kind of
[24:20] purgatory. And if the state people
[24:22] describe in near death experiences, that
[24:24] beautiful place with an overwhelming
[24:26] sense of love and unity, God, source,
[24:28] whatever you want to call it, is a more
[24:30] permanent place and the place that's
[24:32] more real than here.
[24:34] But I digress because Stevenson was
[24:36] admittedly not interested in the healing
[24:38] aspect of these cases. He was interested
[24:40] in something much more evidential, the
[24:42] gunshot wounds. Because within the
[24:44] already strange world of birthmarks, the
[24:46] bullet hole cases almost form a category
[24:48] of their own. And Stevenson became
[24:50] fascinated by these cases precisely
[24:52] because those two holes gave him
[24:54] something very unusually specific to
[24:56] compare. Here's Dr. Stevenson from a
[24:58] talk he gave in 2004.
[24:59] >> We have about 15 cases where there are
[25:02] two birthmarks corresponding to bullet
[25:04] wounds of entry and exit.
[25:06] >> It wasn't just, you know, whether a mark
[25:07] appeared in roughly the right place, but
[25:09] whether two marks appeared in the right
[25:11] places in the right alignment.
[25:13] >> Forensic pathologists know that nearly
[25:14] always you shoot somebody, the bullet
[25:17] wound of entry is small and round, and
[25:19] the bullet wound of exit is large and
[25:22] irregular in shape. And that's the way
[25:23] our birthmarks and about half of these
[25:26] cases they correspond exactly that way.
[25:29] >> And Stevenson would see this bullet hole
[25:30] birthmark pattern enough that if he met
[25:32] a kid who talked about being shot and
[25:34] there's only one birthmark, he'd look
[25:36] for a second one. Here's Dr. Jim Matlock
[25:38] again.
[25:38] >> And in a couple of cases Stevenson
[25:40] actually predicted that. He'd learned
[25:42] that we often see them in pairs, and so
[25:44] when people showed him one and told them
[25:46] that it was a result of that, he said,
[25:47] "Well, do they have a birthmark in the
[25:49] corresponding place on the back side of
[25:50] the body?" And sure enough, they did.
[25:51] >> And here's Dr. Philip Coslino again.
[25:54] >> There was one case where Ian found from
[25:57] the autopsy report of this past person
[25:59] that there would potentially be another
[26:01] wound on the back of a head. The boy had
[26:03] a thick head of hair, and the mother
[26:05] claimed that the boy was born with a
[26:07] full head of hair. And Ian literally
[26:09] said, "Can we shave the boy's head?" And
[26:11] they shaved the boy's head, and then
[26:12] sure enough, where the postmortem report
[26:14] said there would be, there was another
[26:15] birthmark there. So, they didn't even
[26:17] know that it was there.
[26:19] >> It is hard for me to explain that away.
[26:21] And even still, my brain does something
[26:23] that is like, ah, I just can't believe
[26:24] it because there's no way to explain it.
[26:27] And it's like, what's funny to me is
[26:28] that Stevenson was also really skeptical
[26:30] about all of this at first. In fact, for
[26:33] the first part of his career when he
[26:34] encountered reports of birthmarks in the
[26:36] field, he largely dismissed them. Here's
[26:38] anthropologist Dr. Jim Matlock again.
[26:40] >> He had read about birthmarks in the
[26:42] older literature and he sort of
[26:43] [clears throat] dismissed them. So, when
[26:45] Stevenson first went to India, he was
[26:47] not prepared for the birthmarks. It was
[26:49] only when he got to studying the Klinkit
[26:51] Indians in Alaska, from birth marks are
[26:53] very important. They check newborns for
[26:55] birth marks as clues to their
[26:57] identities. And they taught him then on
[26:59] some of this and he started looking at
[27:02] birth marks with the same rigor as he
[27:05] brought to the other cases.
[27:07] >> So if you're having a hard time out
[27:08] there, just know the father of
[27:09] reincarnation research had looked at
[27:11] these cases at first and also set them
[27:13] aside. But what changed his mind was
[27:15] time with natives in Alaska because
[27:17] they've been paying close attention to
[27:19] birth marks for hundreds if not
[27:20] thousands of years. And decades later
[27:22] Jim Matlock, who's in this episode, says
[27:24] he also dismissed birth marks at first.
[27:26] >> I was willing to keep an open mind about
[27:29] maybe there could be reincarnation
[27:30] consciousness or something like that.
[27:32] But the birth marks, that was a bridge
[27:35] too far for me. I was reading so many of
[27:38] these and it actually took me some
[27:40] years, six years, before it finally sunk
[27:43] in and I realized I need to take them
[27:46] seriously and had to start figuring out
[27:48] how they could come about.
[27:49] >> So by this point in the episode, we've
[27:51] time talking about marks on the skin
[27:53] itself. But in the docs archive,
[27:55] Stevenson documented another genre of
[27:58] cases and these are children born with
[28:00] parts of their bodies malformed,
[28:02] underdeveloped, or in some cases
[28:04] entirely missing. So I asked Dr. Marieta
[28:06] Pevelinova who co-leads the past life
[28:08] memory research program to walk us
[28:10] through one of those.
[28:11] >> We'll talk about the case of Lekh Pal
[28:13] who is an Indian boy who was born with
[28:17] his fingers on his right hand missing.
[28:21] So Lekh Pal was a boy who was born in
[28:24] December of 1971
[28:27] in Indian village called Nagla Devi. He
[28:30] was born in a very simple family. His
[28:33] parents were illiterate of very modest
[28:36] economic means. As soon as he was born,
[28:39] his family noticed that the fingers on
[28:41] his right hand were missing. So it
[28:44] seemed to be a birth defect. So
[28:46] jokingly, they decided to call him Lekh
[28:50] Pal because the phrase Lekh Pal means in
[28:53] Hindi a tax collector whose hand had
[28:56] been cut off by a taxpayer.
[28:58] >> Did he start saying anything kind of
[29:00] evidential or interesting early on?
[29:03] >> About the age of 1, he started saying to
[29:06] his mom this phrase of Tal Tal and how
[29:09] he wanted to go to Tal Tal. So, one of
[29:12] the very first things he said about
[29:14] presumably this past life was, "I will
[29:16] not stay here and this is not my home."
[29:19] Again, very typical of these children.
[29:21] And then the sister started inquiring
[29:23] about his missing fingers and he started
[29:26] talking about this past life where he
[29:28] had had his fingers cut off in a fodder
[29:31] chopping machine.
[29:32] >> Here's a quick clip from the BBC.
[29:34] >> In a village in northern India in the
[29:36] 1970s, a small boy lost the fingers of
[29:38] his right hand in a fodder chopping
[29:40] machine. Later, the child died. But in a
[29:43] neighboring village, a boy was born who
[29:45] claimed memories of the dead child's
[29:47] life.
[29:47] >> So, here's the story of the other boy,
[29:49] the boy who has died.
[29:50] >> His name was Hukum Singh. When he was
[29:53] about 3 and 1/2, his dad was working
[29:56] this fodder chopping machine that was
[29:58] used to basically cut up different crops
[30:02] to feed cattle. And normally the machine
[30:05] uses two people to operate, but the dad
[30:07] was trying to do that all by himself and
[30:10] he didn't see his son Hukum kind of
[30:13] sneak up and he thought he was helping,
[30:16] but he basically put his right hand
[30:18] through the machine and his fingers were
[30:21] immediately chopped off.
[30:24] His hand was stitched up and
[30:26] he recovered from that injury, but
[30:30] unfortunately, what happened is about 10
[30:32] months after this accident, Hukum got
[30:36] sick overnight almost very unexpectedly
[30:40] and Hukum Singh essentially died in his
[30:43] father's arms. So, very very tragic end.
[30:47] So, only 10 months after the accident
[30:50] with his fingers.
[30:51] >> Oh, so awful.
[30:53] >> So, after this happened, Hukum's mom was
[30:56] just grief-stricken and just
[30:59] inconsolable. In her grief, she actually
[31:02] reported having two dreams in which
[31:05] Hukum purportedly showed up to her in
[31:09] what we would call an announcing dream.
[31:11] And he tried to console her, comfort her
[31:14] in the dreams. And he told her that he
[31:17] would be back to her. Can you imagine
[31:20] that as a parent?
[31:21] >> No, I can't. And I actually wonder, do
[31:23] you know if she dismissed it at the time
[31:25] or was kind of on like high alert
[31:26] looking for him?
[31:27] >> So, at age five, Lekh Paul was allowed
[31:31] to go to Nagla Tal, the village of Hukum
[31:35] Singh. And while he was visiting, he
[31:39] recognized Hukum Singh's mom as she was
[31:42] sitting with some other women in the
[31:44] village in front of a house. And he
[31:47] said, "This is my mother."
[31:48] >> And it's hard not to think about what
[31:50] this poor mother was living through. She
[31:52] dreamed twice that her dead son was
[31:53] coming back to her. And then she's
[31:55] sitting outside of her house with her
[31:56] neighbors and a five-year-old boy with
[31:58] no fingers on his right hand walks past
[32:01] this group of women and picks her out of
[32:02] the group and says, "That's my mother."
[32:04] And it actually didn't stop with
[32:05] recognizing her because Lekh Paul, this
[32:07] new boy, seemed to know stuff about
[32:09] Hukum's father, too. Not just who he
[32:11] was, but what Hukum called him.
[32:13] >> When Lekh Paul talked about this
[32:15] accident with the fodder chopping
[32:17] machine, he talked about how he was with
[32:20] Chacha. And Chacha was the person who
[32:23] was running the machine. So, apparently,
[32:25] Chacha is a word that means uncle. And
[32:29] this is how the family overall would
[32:32] refer to Hukum Singh's dad as Chacha
[32:35] because he was a Chacha to other family
[32:38] members. So, Ian mentions in his notes
[32:40] that for that culture, it was customary
[32:43] for people to refer to someone by the
[32:46] name that most of their family members
[32:48] refer to them as. So, even though it
[32:51] means uncle, it's very interesting and
[32:53] striking that Lekh Paul would pull up
[32:56] this word for his father, who was
[32:58] present in the accident. In addition to
[33:00] recognizing his two brothers and his
[33:03] mother from this purported past life, he
[33:06] also recognized the place where the
[33:08] accident happened, even though at that
[33:11] point the fodder chopping machine had
[33:13] been moved. He also recognized the place
[33:17] outside of the village where Hukum Singh
[33:20] had died.
[33:21] >> But, the most compelling part of this
[33:22] case are obviously the missing fingers.
[33:24] And what I love about the rigor of Dr.
[33:27] Stevenson as he tried to count them out,
[33:29] not count them in. He went into the
[33:31] medical literature, as he did on all
[33:33] birthmark cases, to try to find a
[33:35] standard, kind of boring medical
[33:36] explanation for a missing fingers birth
[33:38] defect. And he couldn't really find one.
[33:41] >> So, the closest thing he found is this
[33:45] birth defect called brachydactyly,
[33:48] which means that some of your fingers
[33:51] are shorter than other fingers.
[33:53] And what's interesting is that typically
[33:56] it's most commonly bilateral, so both
[33:59] hands have shorter fingers or missing
[34:03] fingers. So, it is already unusual to
[34:06] have a case where only one hand is
[34:08] affected. And it wasn't that his fingers
[34:11] were short, his fingers were just
[34:13] missing and he had these short little
[34:15] stubs.
[34:16] >> And this type of birth defect shows up
[34:18] in one out of 40,000 children. But, what
[34:20] Lekh Paul had didn't seem to be
[34:22] brachydactyly, the only normal
[34:23] explanation, because not both hands were
[34:25] affected, only one. And it wasn't just
[34:27] shorter fingers, there is like a clean
[34:30] line, it looks like a slice where all
[34:31] the fingers are cut off on one hand. And
[34:33] the investigator who worked this case
[34:35] alongside Ian Stevenson was an Indian
[34:37] psychologist named Dr. Satwant Pasricha,
[34:40] and the BBC actually put this question
[34:41] to her as well.
[34:43] >> Being born with missing fingers is very
[34:45] rare. And the corresponding feature in
[34:48] the previous personality adds to its
[34:51] importance.
[34:52] The same fingers were chopped off. Also,
[34:55] there was no family history of missing
[34:57] fingers.
[34:59] And uh there was no such case in the
[35:00] whole of village.
[35:01] >> Here's tape of Dr. Ian Stevenson from an
[35:03] interview he did in 1992.
[35:05] >> Birth defects of the kinds that we have
[35:07] in these cases are uncommon, and they're
[35:09] not the sort that you find in the
[35:11] textbooks of birth defects. Few of them
[35:14] are, but most of them are not.
[35:15] >> So, I know none of this is easy to
[35:16] digest, and this episode for me was the
[35:18] most difficult emotionally to create.
[35:21] And to be honest, we're not even at the
[35:23] most confounding and wildest part yet.
[35:25] So, we're going to take a quick break,
[35:26] get some coffee or a drink, and when we
[35:29] come back, we'll talk about whether or
[35:30] not you can purposefully mark a body to
[35:32] try to find a loved one when and if they
[35:35] are reborn.
[35:41] So, welcome back. And by now, you've
[35:42] heard me say that this episode has
[35:44] really thrown me through a loop. And
[35:45] when I start to feel really destabilized
[35:47] about something, one of my favorite
[35:48] things to do is to look backwards. What
[35:51] did people know and understand to be
[35:52] true when they were depending on
[35:54] observations? And what I mean by this is
[35:56] is that long before modern science and
[35:58] technology, people learned about the
[35:59] world by watching it. They tracked the
[36:01] stars and the moon. They watched animals
[36:03] and seasons and weather. And cultures
[36:05] passed down knowledge and formed beliefs
[36:07] about the patterns that they noticed.
[36:09] So, you'd think that if this birthmark
[36:10] birth defect phenomenon is a real thing,
[36:13] it would have been documented throughout
[36:14] history long before Ian Stevenson
[36:16] started looking at it. And it turns out
[36:18] it was. Across cultures separated by
[36:20] enormous distances from Asia to West
[36:22] Africa to indigenous communities in
[36:24] North America and Alaska, people had
[36:26] traditions of examining babies for marks
[36:28] that resembled wounds, scars, or other
[36:31] identifying features on people who had
[36:33] died. Here's Dr. Jim Matlock again.
[36:36] >> The very same signs that Stevenson was
[36:39] looking at as evidence of reincarnation,
[36:42] these indigenous societies were noticed
[36:44] in relation to reincarnation. And we've
[36:46] got reincarnation beliefs recorded in
[36:49] upwards of 50% of indigenous societies.
[36:52] And so it's sort of clear that through
[36:54] them reincarnation was an empirical
[36:57] conclusion. It wasn't a belief, it
[37:00] wasn't just something where somebody
[37:01] thought up. It was something they
[37:03] concluded on the basis of having seen
[37:06] children who had a birthmark matching a
[37:09] wound of somebody
[37:11] in their in their family or somebody
[37:12] they knew who had died, you know, or who
[37:14] had the personality of somebody that
[37:16] they could piece pieces together.
[37:19] >> And then in some places people took that
[37:20] observation one step further. Because if
[37:23] a mark on one body could somehow appear
[37:24] in the next one, why wait for nature or
[37:27] luck provide that mark? Why not put one
[37:29] there yourself and see what happens? So
[37:31] people in cultures throughout the world
[37:33] began deliberately marking the bodies of
[37:35] people who've died, and then they
[37:37] watched.
[37:38] >> So experimental birthmarks or the
[37:40] cadaver marking is primarily a South
[37:43] Asian phenomenon, and it seems to be
[37:45] very very old because it's been reported
[37:48] from India all the way to Japan, and
[37:52] then from Thailand and Burma all the way
[37:55] up to China to Mongolia. So a huge huge
[37:58] huge cultural area there, as well as a
[38:01] geographical area. And one of the axioms
[38:04] of anthropology is that the more
[38:06] widespread a phenomenon is, the older
[38:08] it's likely to be, right? And so this
[38:10] suggests that it's really very very old.
[38:12] >> Stevenson called these experimental
[38:14] birthmarks, but Dr. Matlock prefers a
[38:16] much more literal name.
[38:17] >> I prefer the term cadaver mark because
[38:20] that's what it is. Bodies are marked
[38:23] after death with the intention of
[38:26] tracking the person into the next life,
[38:29] and that's why students in Colima
[38:30] experimental birthmarks. They're
[38:31] experimental on the part of the deceased
[38:35] family to try to track the person. They
[38:38] then look for somebody who has a
[38:40] birthmark corresponding in the
[38:41] corresponding place.
[38:43] >> This is not a ritual for grief. It's
[38:45] more like a tracking device. You mark a
[38:47] body so you can find the soul or the
[38:49] consciousness of the person who's died
[38:51] in the next body in which they come
[38:53] back.
[38:53] >> The marks are usually made in
[38:56] inconspicuous parts of the body like
[38:59] soles of the feet, parts of the body
[39:02] that are normally covered up by
[39:03] clothing, less often in the back of the
[39:06] neck and the hands and forearms and
[39:09] things. And then they're usually larger
[39:12] than most birthmarks are.
[39:14] >> Okay, so I get they do this, but does it
[39:17] work?
[39:17] >> Yes, this is why it's continued because
[39:20] it seems to work.
[39:21] >> Something that is this old and practiced
[39:23] in many separate cultures does not
[39:25] survive centuries of failing. So I'm
[39:27] still a little unclear on like what they
[39:29] use for marking the bodies.
[39:30] >> It is an interesting question because it
[39:33] depends on the culture. In a lot of
[39:36] areas, particularly in South Asia, in
[39:39] Burma and Thailand, they use soot from a
[39:42] cooking pot from the bottom of a cooking
[39:44] pot. And so the birthmarks that show up
[39:46] on the children tend to be black, you
[39:49] know,
[39:50] in the same color as the mark was made.
[39:53] And it's quite striking. If they use
[39:54] butter, something light like that, then
[39:57] you have a light birthmark. If they use
[39:59] something dark, you have a dark
[40:00] birthmark. If they use red lipstick, you
[40:02] got a red birthmark.
[40:03] >> It all just seems so, I mean, it's like
[40:06] I'm in this conversation and I'm hedging
[40:09] the belief, but I just cannot understand
[40:10] how putting lipstick on a dead person
[40:13] could create a birthmark on another
[40:15] body.
[40:15] >> There's actually a modern Thai case of a
[40:18] mark that was done in red lipstick
[40:21] on the back of the neck. And the
[40:23] birthmark that resulted from this was
[40:25] red, just as the mark was with the red
[40:28] lipstick.
[40:28] >> Man, it's wild.
[40:29] >> It's incredible.
[40:30] >> And I just want to note here that in
[40:32] this episode, we're talking about cases
[40:34] that have been researched and published.
[40:35] There's thousands of cases, and we can't
[40:37] go deep into all of them, but we'll put
[40:39] links in the show notes of books to get
[40:40] you started. Okay, have you found this
[40:42] practice anywhere else in the world?
[40:44] >> There is in West Africa the same idea
[40:47] that children and adults will
[40:49] reincarnate, right? And that they can be
[40:52] recognized through birth marks or birth
[40:54] defects. But in West Africa, it's
[40:57] something that again is a very
[40:58] long-standing because you find it
[41:00] throughout West Africa, really from
[41:03] Central Africa all the way to Senegal on
[41:05] the coast, a very broad area. And the
[41:07] idea here is that children who die very
[41:11] young are being called back up by their
[41:14] discarnates.
[41:15] >> They want them back.
[41:16] >> Okay, okay. So like selfish spirits on
[41:18] the other side want to keep souls of
[41:20] children who died specifically for
[41:22] themselves, like wherever they are.
[41:23] >> Yeah, they're doing this to torment the
[41:25] parents is the idea, right? But this is
[41:28] imagined to be a very vain bunch of
[41:31] discarnates. And if you disfigure a
[41:34] child who dies young like this, then
[41:36] they won't want the child back, and they
[41:39] will allow it then to reincarnate and
[41:41] live. Like the Igbo of Nigeria, they'll
[41:44] cut off the tip of a finger. The
[41:46] Senegal, they'll clip the lobe of an
[41:48] ear, for instance. In Ghana, they will
[41:50] mark it in other ways. It's always
[41:52] defacing the body, though. It's not
[41:54] simply marking it.
[41:55] >> So then the same question, like in
[41:57] Africa, does this work? Are kids born
[41:58] without fingertips?
[42:00] >> What Stevenson found is that children
[42:02] are born among the Igbo without the tips
[42:04] of their fingers. There are either
[42:06] children born among the Senegal with the
[42:09] lobes of their ears cut off. It's so
[42:12] it's in a way it's the same sort of
[42:13] thing as the cadaver marking you have in
[42:16] Asia. The cadaver is marked in some way
[42:20] and this shows up in this case as a
[42:22] birth defect as opposed to a birthmark,
[42:24] but you can see how they're sort of
[42:25] similar phenomena.
[42:26] >> It's like everything you talk about
[42:28] brings up 100 more questions. And so
[42:30] what I'm thinking about right now is
[42:31] that like in the UVA archive, right? The
[42:34] little kids who have usually died
[42:36] traumatically, remember a tragic death,
[42:38] and talk about it. Only in 20% of those
[42:41] cases do they go back to the same
[42:42] family. It seems like maybe in these
[42:44] tribes
[42:46] they're going back repeatedly and I
[42:47] don't know maybe that means that like
[42:48] there's a cultural expectation or a duty
[42:52] to do something that our consciousness
[42:53] also carries with us, right? To the
[42:55] beyond. However, um
[42:58] I'm sure some people will be like, ah,
[43:00] I'm not going to go back to that tribe,
[43:01] that country, that family. So, I mean,
[43:04] have there been kids born in France or
[43:06] Ecuador with
[43:08] their earlobe missing or a tip of a
[43:10] finger missing?
[43:11] >> I mean, I have heard of occasional
[43:13] Westerners born with one of these
[43:16] defects, but there's nothing in our
[43:19] culture that would lead one to suggest
[43:22] that. And so one has to wonder whether
[43:26] in these children had a previous life in
[43:29] those cultures and were marked in these
[43:31] ways and that's why they're showing up.
[43:34] >> It's not hard to understand why Dr.
[43:35] Stevenson dedicated so much of his
[43:37] career to trying to make sense of these
[43:39] cases in particular. At one point when
[43:41] he started looking into the birthmark
[43:42] cases, he told colleagues he was going
[43:44] to publish the books on birthmarks the
[43:45] following year. And it came out 20 years
[43:48] later. And I think the reason this is so
[43:49] much for me is because
[43:51] there's a huge distance between
[43:53] documenting something and explaining it.
[43:55] And Stevenson actually wrestled with how
[43:57] it could happen. How could a mark left
[43:59] on one body suddenly show up on another?
[44:02] And Stevenson put forth a hypothesis. A
[44:04] possible answer was that something
[44:06] unknown yet might carry information
[44:08] between lives. Not just the memory and
[44:10] aspects of personality, but like an
[44:12] imprint of the physical body itself. So,
[44:14] here's Dr. Ian Stevenson from a talk he
[44:16] did at UVA in 2004.
[44:18] >> I think there is some kind of vehicle,
[44:20] which I call a psychophore. That's just
[44:22] an English adaptation of a Greek word
[44:24] meaning mind carrying.
[44:26] >> A psychophore is basically his term for
[44:30] an astral body. That in addition to a
[44:33] physical form that we have a sort of a
[44:35] spirit body, right? And the spirit body
[44:38] survives the physical body in death. And
[44:40] so, what Stevenson suggested is that the
[44:43] mark gets made on the astral body, the
[44:46] spirit body. And then through that
[44:48] spirit body then it's conveyed to the
[44:50] new body.
[44:52] >> And Dr. Stevenson was about as far from
[44:54] woo as you could get. He was measured,
[44:56] cautious, rigorous, almost painfully
[44:58] conservative in the way he wrote about
[44:59] his work. And just a reminder that when
[45:01] Carol Bowman, who was featured in our
[45:02] first two episodes, finally met Dr.
[45:05] Stevenson, he basically said, "I'm not
[45:07] interested in the healing stuff." He was
[45:09] solely focused on researching,
[45:10] documenting, and evidence, not healing,
[45:12] which left her disappointed and led to
[45:14] her pioneering her own research around
[45:16] the healing effects of revisiting past
[45:18] lives. So, to me it's pretty remarkable
[45:20] that where Stevenson landed was pushing
[45:22] against the boundaries of materialist
[45:24] science. Because whatever the
[45:26] explanation was or could be, it had to
[45:28] allow information about one body to
[45:30] somehow reach another. And when data
[45:32] seems to be telling you something and
[45:34] you don't have a mechanism or framework
[45:36] to explain it, you do what scientists
[45:38] have always done. You propose one. And
[45:40] what's interesting is Dr. Jim Matlock,
[45:42] the anthropologist who's been with us
[45:43] over the past few episodes, he disagrees
[45:45] with Stevenson's hypothesis and has a
[45:47] different one.
[45:48] >> A psychophore, I see some difficulties
[45:50] with that. For one thing, the idea of a
[45:52] spirit body, we don't really have much
[45:54] good scientific backing for it. You can
[45:57] say, "Oh, people who see auras, maybe
[45:59] that's evidence of it. Maybe apparitions
[46:01] are evidence of it." But that's kind of
[46:02] controversial, right? My idea is
[46:05] different and I think it's more
[46:07] straightforward. I think that it's
[46:09] psychogenic. I think it was simply the
[46:11] reincarnating consciousness which is
[46:14] making the mark on its new body.
[46:16] >> So Matlock's hypothesis doesn't require
[46:19] a psychospore or an astral body. He's
[46:21] suggesting that information comes with
[46:22] the consciousness itself. It's like
[46:24] encoded into consciousness and somehow
[46:26] that consciousness influences the body
[46:28] it's entering. And the keyword here is
[46:30] somehow because we don't know. I don't
[46:32] think anyone knows. But the team at
[46:33] UVA's Division of Perceptual Studies is
[46:36] thinking up some incredible ideas to
[46:37] start investigating this. Here's Dr.
[46:39] Philip Cosolino again.
[46:41] >> We're thinking about going in directions
[46:42] of like epigenetic and genomic studies
[46:45] to try to understand because if you can
[46:47] carry over a birthmark, then maybe you
[46:49] can carry over some sequence of genetic
[46:51] code. Let's start digging into what's
[46:53] actually happening here and be open to
[46:55] any answer. Maybe it's complete fraud,
[46:57] maybe it's complete chance, maybe it's
[46:59] purely natural, and maybe [music] it's
[47:01] something completely unexplainable at
[47:03] this point, but we could eventually help
[47:04] explain it.
[47:05] >> So you want to do a study where you'll
[47:06] take maybe a child who's remembering a
[47:08] past life, do like a DNA test on that
[47:10] child, and a DNA test or something on
[47:11] that past life [music] that that they're
[47:13] remembering to see if there's any
[47:15] genetic link?
[47:15] >> There's two ways that I want to go about
[47:17] it. The first one is that we want to
[47:19] swab past life memory child and find the
[47:22] past personality descendants. We could
[47:24] be doing any number of comparisons in
[47:27] that way, but there's also more exciting
[47:28] one, which is the epigenetic one, which
[47:30] is Recently, there have been papers
[47:31] published. The case that I read about
[47:33] was a Holocaust survivor whose
[47:35] grandchildren had epigenetic markers of
[47:38] trauma. Child has never experienced
[47:39] trauma, but somehow that got encoded and
[47:42] passed on. The bulk of our children talk
[47:44] about trauma and wouldn't it be
[47:46] interesting if somehow there are trauma
[47:47] markers in that child that don't exist
[47:49] in their siblings and yet they're
[47:51] claiming they had trauma. You're not
[47:52] going to imagine yourself into genetic
[47:54] change.
[47:55] >> No. And this is why I keep coming back
[47:57] to the value of open-minded skeptics in
[47:59] science. Not people who believe
[48:01] everything or dismiss everything, but
[48:03] people willing to say, "Okay, if this is
[48:05] the claim, how do we actually test it?"
[48:07] Stevenson spent decades doing the hard
[48:09] part first. He documented these cases
[48:11] obsessively, carefully, and in enormous
[48:14] numbers, but he didn't have the tools we
[48:16] have now to start looking underneath
[48:18] them. And that's what feels really
[48:19] exciting to me, because now you can
[48:21] bring in genetics and epigenetics and
[48:23] neuroscience, psychology, all of the
[48:25] fields that have advanced so much since
[48:27] Stevenson started this work. Even Carol
[48:29] Bowman's ideas about healing don't have
[48:30] to remain anecdotal. We could actually
[48:32] study what happens psychologically when
[48:34] children are encouraged to talk about
[48:35] these memories versus when they're
[48:37] discouraged from talking about them.
[48:39] There are so many places this could go,
[48:40] but we're never going to know if the
[48:42] questions themselves are considered too
[48:44] strange to fund, too strange to publish,
[48:46] or too strange to seriously investigate.
[48:48] >> It will cost a lot of money and it will
[48:50] take a lot of time, but I think there's
[48:51] a really exciting way of looking at it
[48:53] from that perspective.
[48:54] >> And what's funny for me is that the
[48:55] longer I've worked on this season, I
[48:57] find myself asking less proof-oriented
[48:59] questions and more questions about the
[49:01] parameters of how all this works. Like,
[49:04] if consciousness survives, how much
[49:05] agency does it have? Do we choose when
[49:08] we come back, or where, or to whom? And
[49:10] what happens in the time between lives?
[49:13] And my biggest question now is whether
[49:14] or not people who are still living have
[49:16] any role in the rebirth process. I just
[49:18] think about the millions of people
[49:20] who've grieved around the world praying
[49:21] to see their loved ones again or for
[49:23] assurance that they aren't gone forever,
[49:25] or even praying to bring them back. And
[49:28] could that longing matter? Could love
[49:30] itself somehow be part of this equation?
[49:32] So, I wanted to find a modern case where
[49:34] we could look at all of these questions
[49:36] at once. A case where I could talk to
[49:38] the person who says they actually
[49:39] remember their past life, but I also
[49:41] wanted to find someone who remembers
[49:43] dying, and who remembers something about
[49:45] the intermission period between lives,
[49:47] and who might be able to tell us what,
[49:49] if anything, they believe brought them
[49:50] back.
[49:51] >> He started to remember his past life. He
[49:54] started talking about his drowning.
[49:57] >> So next week we travel to Sri Lanka for
[49:59] a case that shook me to my core.
[50:01] >> He was a very good swimmer. So people
[50:02] couldn't understand that he could not
[50:04] have drowned.
[50:05] >> And the Harvard neuroscientist who
[50:06] brought us this case began investigating
[50:08] reincarnation because he entered an
[50:10] essay contest [music] asking whether or
[50:12] not consciousness could survive death,
[50:14] just like Dr. Ian Stevenson did nearly
[50:16] 70 years ago.
[50:17] >> Hundreds of people from around the world
[50:19] have been competing in a contest to show
[50:21] there is life after death.
[50:23] >> Maybe the biggest essay contest of all
[50:26] time to solve the biggest question of
[50:28] all time.
[50:29] >> It feels strangely full circle. So join
[50:31] us next week as we follow a case that
[50:33] brings nearly every question we've been
[50:34] asking this season together into one
[50:37] extraordinary story. Because if
[50:38] consciousness [music] survives death,
[50:40] maybe the biggest mystery isn't where we
[50:42] go, but what brings us back.
[50:49] Thank you to the small team who made
[50:50] this season possible. Our amazing
[50:52] producer, Cooper Mall. Our audio mix and
[50:54] sound design was by Jeremy Cole. Music
[50:56] was by Mike Curbino. My right hand was
[50:58] Selena Kennedy. And I'm Ken Dickens,
[51:00] your executive producer, writer, editor,
[51:03] and host. And if you haven't listened to
[51:04] our last season of the podcast, The
[51:06] Consciousness Cassettes, I highly
[51:07] recommend you do so as it will give even
[51:09] more context [music] to this season. And
[51:11] if you want to go in deeper, subscribe
[51:13] to our backstage pass by visiting our
[51:15] website. With it, you'll unlock access
[51:17] to bonus [music] content, ask me
[51:18] anything interviews with myself and
[51:20] guests. You'll be able to connect with
[51:21] other members on our Discord. You'll be
[51:23] able to enjoy the podcast ad-free, and
[51:26] hear [music] and see exclusive content
[51:28] from the Telepathy Tapes Vault. Visit
[51:30] our website at the telepathytapes.com
[51:32] for more info on how to subscribe to our
[51:34] backstage pass.
[51:36] This is the Reincarnation Records from
[51:38] TTT Media.