This is when disaster struck. Shortly after the publication of his paper in 1994, Grinberg disappeared. He still has never been found—and there is even a Facebook page dedicated to tracking him down after all these years.10 His wife was seen a few times after his disappearance, the last time being in mid-1995, and her behavior indicated that she was extremely distressed about whatever had happened.11 Some people interpret this as a sign that she may have murdered her husband, but it is also possible that she was threatened that the same fate would happen to her if she didn’t disappear for good. We will probably never know what happened—but we can safely add Grinberg-Zylberbaum to the list of Source Field investigators who may have met with lethal threats as a result of their groundbreaking work. That certainly doesn’t stop us from putting all the pieces together in this investigation.
Rigorous Laboratory Proof of Consciousness Transfer
Thankfully, other scientists have performed similar experiments, further validating Backster’s initial results, without disappearing or being threatened. Dr. Charles Tart, from Berkeley, set up a bizarre experiment where he gave himself painful electrical shocks, automatically—and then attempted to “send” his pain to another person who was the “receiver.” This person was wired up to measure heart rate, blood volume and other physiological signals. Tart found that the receiver’s body did indeed respond to the shocks—through things such as an increase in heart rate and a decrease in blood volume—but the receiver had no conscious knowledge of when Dr. Tart was sending them.12
Probably the greatest modern pioneer in these sorts of experiments is Dr. William Braud. According to Lynne McTaggart in The Field, Dr. Braud began by performing an experiment in the late 1960s in which he attempted to transmit his thoughts to one of his students—while the student was under hypnosis. When Dr. Braud pricked his hand, the student felt pain. When he put his hand over a candle flame, the student felt heat. When he stared at a picture of a boat, the student made comments about a boat. When Braud stepped into the sun, the student mentioned sunlight. Distance did not seem to matter; even when Braud was many miles away, it worked just as well.13 This certainly suggests that the Backster Effect is just the beginning—we share much more information with one another than just the shocks from our nervous system. As the years went by, Dr. Braud sought ways to study this effect under controlled laboratory conditions—and he has now published more than 250 articles in professional psychology journals, and written numerous book chapters.14 -15
Braud’s first rigorous laboratory experiment involved knife fish, which emit electrical signals that change whenever they move from one position to another. These electrical signals can be used to precisely determine the fish’s position, and can be picked up by electrodes attached to the side of the tank. Braud’s participants were consistently able to change the position of the fish by their conscious intent alone. Similarly, Braud found that participants could increase the speed that Mongolian gerbils ran on their activity wheels, with all other factors being ruled out. Braud also designed an experiment in which he put human red blood cells in a test tube—along with a saline solution that had enough salt in it to kill the cells. His participants were able to focus their minds and protect these cells from bursting open. This was easily verified by measuring how much light could pass through the solution. The more the cells broke down, the more transparent the solution became—so less light was a sign of healthier cells.16
From there, Braud moved on to human beings. Have you ever felt someone staring at you, only to turn around and find out you were right? Braud wanted to see if he could study this effect in the lab, and confirm that it really works. He put one person in a private room with a small video camera, wired him up to the polygraph and told him to relax. In a neighboring room, he could see the participant’s face on his television monitor. A second participant was then told to stare intently at this person on the monitor and try to get his attention—but only when a computerized random-number generator told them to. Sure enough, when the first person was being stared at, his skin revealed significant electrical spikes. This occurred an average of 59 percent of the time he was being stared at—as opposed to the 50 percent that would be expected by random chance.17 This might not sound like much, but a 9-percent increase above chance is considered highly substantial.
Dr. Braud then changed the experiment. He had his participants meet each other first—and stare intently into each other’s eyes while they talked. He encouraged them to get comfortable with each other. Now, when the person was stared at by his new friend, he noticeably relaxed—on a measurable electrical level.18 This is solid proof that people can be staring at us, sending us their pain, transmitting thoughts—and even though our bodies may react to these signals on a physical level, we usually don’t have any conscious awareness of what’s going on. The same thing might be happening when the phone rings and we think we know who it is—only to find out we were right. When the caller visualizes our face, we feel something—and if our mind is quiet enough, we might get a mental image of who it is. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the most renowned Source Field investigators in modern times, also has proven “the sense of being stared at” is indeed genuine—in multiple, published experiments.19
The Outer Limits of Shared Consciousness
Minor anxiety disorders, like nervousness and the inability to concentrate, also were measurably improved in Dr. Braud’s studies. In an experiment from 1983, Dr. Braud and an anthropologist named Marilyn Schlitz studied a group of highly nervous people along with a group of calmer people. The nervousness of each group, in this case, could be directly measured by the amount of electrical activity on their skin. In some cases, the groups were given common relaxation techniques and instructed to calm themselves down. In other cases, Braud and Schlitz tried to calm them down by simply concentrating on them from another room. The originally calm group showed very little change by practicing the exercises or being “remote influenced,” but the nervous group became much calmer—in both cases. Surprisingly, Braud and Schlitz’s remote influencing effects upon the nervous group worked almost as well as any relaxation exercises they did for themselves.20 Similarly, when Braud and Schlitz remotely concentrated on someone in an attempt to help him focus his attention, the subject had an immediate improvement. The people whose minds were the most apt to wander gained the strongest benefits from this process.21
Thankfully, Braud also found out that we are not helpless against these remote influences—we can shield the ones we don’t want.22 If you visualize a protective shield, a safe, a barrier or a screen—whatever you feel comfortable with—you can indeed stop these influences from affecting you.23 The remote influencers did not know which participants were trying to block their thoughts, but the people who did try to shield themselves were successful.24 Other evidence suggests a positive attitude in life is your best protection, as we will see—the highest “coherence” wins.
Sperry Andrews put together a proposal for a series of ninety-second television spots that would demonstrate these “collective consciousness” experiments to the world—for an initial investment of $711,000 dollars.
The Human Connection Project contends that a significant number of people will share a greater sense of belonging together after watching extensive media announcements and presentations that illustrate this subject. Out of this heightened sense of connection to a larger whole, it is predicted that a new level of shared intelligence, compassion, and creativity will begin to emerge among people.25
In this proposal, Andrews mentions some startling facts. More than five hundred different scientific studies have proven that human consciousness can affect biological as well as electronic systems26—and we will learn more about the electronic experiments later on. Schlitz and Honorton explored thirty-nine different studies during which people successfully shared thoughts and experiences—while they were physically separated from one another. The overall probability that these effects were caused by chance alone was
less than one part in a trillion.27 In some studies, ordinary people detected events that had not even happened yet in linear time.28 -29 In an extremely comprehensive paper on the Source Field from 2004, Robert Kenny revealed that the Institute of HeartMath developed Grinberg’s original discoveries about brain-to-brain entrainment much further:Even when participants were in separate rooms, their heart and brain waves became synchronized or entrained, when they had close living or working relationships, or when they felt appreciation, care, empathy, or love toward each other. . . . When people were able to internally entrain their own personal heart and brain waves [through meditation and other related techniques], they caused the heart and brain waves of other individuals to entrain with theirs. Entrainment appears to increase attention, to produce feelings of calm and deep connection, and to facilitate tele-prehension of each other’s sensations, emotions, images, thoughts and intuitions. 30
There is no turning back. These discoveries are undeniable facts. Our mind-to-mind connection, sharing our thoughts and experiences, has now been proven—at odds of more than a trillion to one against chance. Skeptics continue to boldly proclaim that “there is no evidence,” but perhaps a better phrase to use is “there is no publicity.” No one has taken Sperry Andrews’s offer to produce these groundbreaking, civilization-defining TV spots. Hardly any of this information appears in newspapers, magazines, TV shows or movies. In 2006, Britain’s premier science forum featured research from Rupert Sheldrake suggesting that some people know who is calling them before they answer the telephone—and this prompted a furious reaction among participating scientists. Dr. Peter Fenwick also presented his conclusions that consciousness survives after clinical death, and Deborah Delanoy discussed research similar to William Braud’s—showing we can influence someone else’s body by thinking about him or her. Oxford Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins said, “Work in this field is a complete waste of time . . . there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan’s fantasy.”31
Just as this book was in its final edits in January 2011, great controversy again arose because The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a highly respected science journal, decided to publish the research of Dr. Daryl J. Bem—an emeritus professor at Cornell University. What makes this research so controversial is it contains some of the most stunning proof ever revealed that human consciousness has direct access to events in the future.
In one case, Dr. Bem wanted to see if people would “remember” words that they didn’t actually study until after they had already been tested on these words. This experiment began with the participants being given a test in which they had to memorize certain vocabulary words. After they took the test, Dr. Bem randomly chose some of the specified vocabulary words and had the participants study them closely: learn their definitions, practice with them and become comfortable with them. The words they studied in the future (after the test) became the words they memorized the most easily in the past (during the test). Another experiment proved that the emotional shock of seeing an erotic picture would actually travel backwards in time. In this case, a computer screen showed two “curtains.” The participant was told that one of the curtains would have a picture behind it, and he was asked to guess which curtain. The picture was chosen, at random, only after the participant made a guess—which the computer program had no access to. Dr. Bem found that when the computer selected an erotic picture, the participants were more likely to guess which curtain it would appear behind—an average of 53 percent of the time. Photographs that were neutral or negative did not have this effect.32
Naturally, this turns everything we think we know about science and physics on its end—so many scientists are obviously “mortified” about it, and believe it is “pure craziness.”33 Science should be about discovering the truth, and that requires an open mind. Dr. Bem’s research is very sound—it just reveals new things about ourselves, and about reality, that most people do not already know. The data is there—but up until very recently, the publicity has been lacking. Hopefully the publication of Dr. Bem’s paper will help start a new trend.
Obviously, some of the problem is that we are constantly being bombarded with new information, and it is increasingly difficult to sort through all of it. However, this research is obviously far more important than the latest news about which celebrity got drunk, angry, naked or arrested, or photographed in some embarrassing way. It does appear, however, that these same celebrities can get addicted to being stared at—as we now know there is a very real energy high they get from all the attention.
The Backster Effect occurs within each and every cell, as we saw in his studies with the white blood cells from a human mouth. However, many ancient traditions adamantly insisted there is a master gland in the human body that is responsible for pulling in thoughts and images from the Source Field, and sending our own thoughts back out. In the next chapter, we will pursue this intriguing investigation—and see if modern science can shed any new light on this ancient mystery.
CHAPTER THREE
The Pineal Gland and the Third Eye
Many different ancient traditions say there is a physical gland, nestled deep within the center of the brain, where telepathic thought transmissions and visual images are received. This tiny pinecone-shaped gland is known as the epiphysis or pineal gland, and is about the size of a pea. In fact, the word “pineal” comes from the Latin pinea, which means “pinecone.” Ancient cultures all over the world were fascinated by the pinecone and pineal-gland-shaped images, and consistently used them in their highest forms of spiritual artwork. Pythagoras, Plato, Iamblichus, Descartes and others wrote of this gland with great reverence. It has been called the seat of the soul. Obviously, if this “third eye” is receiving direct impressions from the Source Field, we have not yet identified how such a mechanism might work—but that doesn’t necessarily mean the ancients were wrong.
The pineal gland is not technically a part of the brain; it is not protected by the blood-brain barrier.1 It exists in the approximate geometric center of the brain’s mass, has a hollow interior filled with a watery fluid, and receives more blood flow than any other part of the body except the kidneys. Since it is not protected by the blood-brain barrier, the fluid inside the pineal gland gathers an increasing amount of mineral deposits, or “brain sand,” over time—which have optical and chemical properties similar to the enamel on your teeth.2 This calcification appears as a bonelike mass in the center of your brain on an X-ray or MRI. Doctors use this hard, white cluster to tell if you have a brain tumor. If the white dot appears to be pushed off to one side in your scan, they know a tumor has changed the shape of your brain.
The pineal gland, a pea-sized endocrine gland located in the geometric center of the brain that fascinated many ancient cultures. Notice the pinecone shape.
X-ray images showing tumor in left ventricle of the brain. Calcified pineal gland appears in the top-right image as a round white mass, slightly offset by the tumor.
As I detailed in my online documentary The 2012 Enigma,3 pinecones are prominently featured in sacred art and architecture from all over the world—in an apparent homage to the pineal gland. This is a truly astonishing phenomenon that has never been adequately explained. A Christian article entitled “Pagans Love Pine Cones and Use Them in Their Art” has many pictures that prove the point4:• A bronze sculpture of a hand from the mystery cult of Dionysus in the late Roman Empire has a pinecone on the thumb, amidst other strange symbols;
• A Mexican god holds pinecones and a fir tree in a sculpture;
• A staff of the Egyptian sun god Osiris from a museum in Turino, Italy, has two “kundalini serpents” that entwine together and face a pinecone on the top;
• The Assyrian/Babylonian winged god Tammuz is pictured holding a pinecone;
• The Greek god Dionysus carries a staff with a pinecone on top, symbolizing fertility;
• Bacchus, the Roman god of drunkenness and r
evelry, also carries a pinecone staff;
• The Catholic pope carries a staff with a pinecone directly above where his hand is positioned—and the staff then extends up into a stylized tree trunk;
• Many Roman Catholic candle holders, ornaments, sacred decorations and architectural samples feature the pinecone as a key design element;
• The largest pinecone sculpture in the world is prominently featured in Vatican Square—in the Court of the Pinecone.
We’ll come back to these startling Catholic examples in a minute. In The 2012 Enigma, I also pointed out that King Tut’s golden burial mask features a uraeus, or “kundalini serpent,” emerging from the general area of the pineal gland in his forehead. Statues of Buddha often feature a prominent third eye between his eyebrows as a raised, circular area. Buddha’s hair appears to be stylized in the shape of a pineal gland as well. Almost all Hindu gods and goddesses are pictured with a bindi, or third eye, between their eyebrows. Many Hindus still wear such a symbol to this day. The Hindu god Shiva’s hair also looks like a stylized pineal gland—and the “kundalini serpents” wrap around his neck.5
Pope Benedict XVI holding papal staff with carved pinecone—apparently symbolizing his ability to contact higher intelligence via the pineal gland.
The Source Field Investigations Page 5