About me
About me
I am retired and this is my new hobby.
In the year 2000, I retired to look after my Mum [who had dementia] when my father died. Then after Mum died I looked around for something challenging to do. And I thought - what do I want to know about? And I decided I wanted to know what heaven was, if it really existed, what it looked like, how you got there [before you died], why we were here and whether there really were angels there.
But a personal project turned into a more serious project.
Before starting this project I knew nothing about hallucinogens, about hemi-sync or co-creation, about shamans, contemplation, the spiritual path or the other uses for mushrooms besides putting them on toast.
Thus all this started off being a project for my own interest, but I discovered so many interesting things that I realised other people might like to know what I’d found out, so the notes became books, then the books became this website. Then I realised that people were actually dying from doing the wrong things to find out about heaven and the project took on a far more serious intent.
So, I have been working on this since 2002 and have loved every minute of it.
On the site, you will now find thousands and thousands of what I have called ‘observations’, meaning quotes from people who have really been to 'heaven' and thus can give us their account. So although I have been through some fairly ‘interesting’ experiences myself, I have essentially based all my 'findings' - conclusions and classifications - on what others have found. By October 2016, we had over 24,000 observations on the site, and only a lack of manpower to enter them limited the number, otherwise there would be far more.
Why observations?
I have been asked why observations and not experimental data. I do have experimental data on the site, for example, the Rudi Schneider experiments, but there are reasons for using observations best summed up by the eminent astronomer professor Camille Flammarion
Unfortunately, psychic phenomena always come unsought; we wish for them in vain. It is a question of observation and. not of experiment, a difference which is almost always forgotten.
These phenomena are spontaneous; they are witnessed; they are not deliberately produced.
Several professors at the Sorbonne and at the College de France are declaring that an occurrence is authentic only if it can be reproduced in a laboratory.
Such reasoning is absolutely fallacious.
We cannot reproduce, experimentally, a shooting-star, an aerolite, a storm, an electrical disturbance, or a sun-spot.
I will go farther and add that the impossibility of authenticating a metaphysical occurrence does not justify us in denying that it actually took place.
Furthermore, it is also worth quoting the following:
Richard Whately: The Law of Evidence, 1865
When many coincide in their testimony ( where no previous concert can have taken place), the probability resulting from this concurrence does not rest upon the supposed veracity of each considered separately, but on the improbability of such an agreement taking place by chance.
For, though in such a case each of the witnesses should be unworthy of credit, still, the chances would be infinite against their all agreeing in the same falsehood.
I have already published 30 books – but not on this subject, this has been both a challenge and a real adventure.
So if you like I am no slouch in the scientific department, and a touch of the obsessive researcher may creep through occasionally. But bear with me, us retired folk take a while to calm down.
I want to remain anonymous.
This is my gift to you.
A number of the paintings used as illustrations on this site are mine.