The Cost of Not Diversifying Your Afterlife Investigation
How to avoid missing crucial connections and profound insights when examining afterlife evidence.
Bob Olson is the host of Afterlife TV, author of Answers About The Afterlife and The Magic Mala, and founder of BestPsychicDirectory.com (for top psychics & mediums).
After my first 15 years investigating life after death, I wrote a book of my findings and subsequent conclusions. It felt like writing a final report following a lengthy investigation. In that book, Answers About the Afterlife: A Private Investigator’s 15-Year Research Unlocks the Mysteries of Life after Death, I discovered that no single category of afterlife evidence was nearly as persuasive as viewing all the evidence as a whole.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: No single category of afterlife evidence was nearly as persuasive as viewing all the evidence as a whole.
Early in the writing of that book, while answering questions and using specific evidence to back up my claims, I wondered if I would write about different forms of evidence later in the book that contradicts what the early-book evidence suggested. There was no contradiction. Instead, there was agreement, even between very different forms of evidence like past-life regressions and spirit communication with mediums, OR out-of-body experiences and between-life regressions.
The Web of Parallels
I refer to this revelation as the “Web of Parallels,” which came to me when I completed the writing of that book and discovered that all the evidence discussed in my 70,000-word manuscript was in complete agreement with one another.