Dangers of Spiritualism?

MU!! wrote:

hiorta wrote:Spiritualism is simply recognising that all Life cannot die and that change is the natural order. The implications of this Truth are endless, however.

Do you speak of spiritualism or Spiritualism?

I speak of a Natural Law. Would you distinguish 'gravity' from 'Gravity'?. Or 'Love' from 'love'?
Little finite pieces of a finite language cannot express anything approaching even a simple explanation of the great Spirit of which we are all an indestructible part.

It may seem there's no importance in whether one writes spiritualism or Spiritualism.

For some that's undoubtedly the case, evident when they post unrelated topics in forums intended for discussions about issues relevant to the religion and philosophy of Spiritualism.

Experience shows that for many people spiritualism simply means something like 'to do with spiritual matters' or 'spirituality'.

I'd hope that our Spiritualism means more than either of those. For me it certainly does.....

Looks like there is a disagreement over whether there is or is not a difference between spiritualism and Spiritualism, Jim, which was the initial point of my questioning "s" or "S". When one starts a sentence with "spiritualism" it must be capitalized however the author may not be indicating a discussion about the belief system of the religion of Spiritualism but rather mediumship and mediums.

These are very different paths of discourse.

"When one starts a sentence with "spiritualism" it must be capitalized however the author may not be indicating a discussion about the belief system of the religion of Spiritualism but rather mediumship and mediums."

Fair point but context can indicate the intent....

I have not posted on this thread in a long time, so here are some questions and thoughts.

(1) In response to Quiet in post #5, looking at Joe Fisher's book, it seems like he presents quite a bit of evidence that spiritualism has quite a few dangers to it (from other people's experiences and his own). I am not sure how much stock I would put in it though. For example, he quotes Helena Blatavsky as saying that many great mediums developed mental/physical problems, but I have never heard this and I am not necessarily going to take Blatavsky's word for it. So if anyone knows anything about his book (The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts), some comments would be well appreciated.

(2) In reply to obiwan, I am not approaching this from a religious background. However, I have so many disturbing reports from Robert Bruce, Joe Fisher, and others (including Christian sources, which are obviously biased, but nonetheless in light of more neutral reports cannot be dismissed completely) that I decided that I needed to ask for the opinions of more experienced spiritualists on these matters

(3) I was looking at a book by Roy Stemman (someone I am sure you are all familiar with) called Spirit Communication. In commenting on the Fisher case, he says that the channeler that he communicated with spirits through probably did not have a spirit control to keep out bad spirits. I believe this probably was the case (if I remember correctly she had no prior experience in mediumship/channeling). Can anyone comment on this? In addition, could this be the case for channelers in general (I suspect so)?

(4) Also In response to Quiet's question in post #5, I know quite a bit about spiritualism, having read about it quite a bit over the last 4 years. I was first introduced to it when I saw an interview with Michael Roll on survival after death (the one he did in 1994). However, it was only shortly before starting this thread that I started hearing about these problematic cases, so I figured it was best to get the advice of experienced spiritualists, just to be safe in this pursuit.

(5) In his book on psychic self-defense, Robert Bruce talks about something called overshadowing that happens in seance rooms. It is where a spirit comes over someone during a seance a "mild form of possession" to use his words. The closest thing that I can think of too this are (1) Maurice Barnabell's first encounter with Silver Birch, in which he "fell asleep" during a seance and then discovered afterwards that Silver Birch had been speaking through him and (2) Rosemary Altea's experience at a psychic meeting in which she started feeling bad and then saw a spirit on a ship. Does anyone know anything about this?

(6) Is there any way that one can tell good spirits from bad spirits with certainty. Joe Fisher talks about cases where spirits appeared good but were actually bad, such as the channeled spirit that visited a yoga center in 1977 pretending to be Sivananda Saraswati (the Reachout Trust article I linked to in the first post also mentions such a case, but I suspect it is embellished a bit, though it does seem somewhat similar to Fisher's more credible case). So if anyone knows how to tell the difference that would be good.

(7) Finally, I remember someone on here remarking in another thread that New Age channelers are irresponsible in calling in just any entity that happens to come along (I think it might have been the admin but I am not sure). Could anyone elaborate on that? Whoever said it did not give that much detail.

I would like to thank you all for your comments so far. More would be appreciated. Also, I just want to remind you all that I am not against spiritualism, but I do want to get answers to these questions as my own research has so far been limited (by, among other things, a lack of personal experience as I have never sat with a medium or been to a spiritualist church - there are not any in my area) and I am not sure who to trust on these matters.

P.S. I have not yet gotten a copy of either Borgia's book (though I have seen some of it online) or Barbanell's book, but I will when I find them at the right place at the right price .

Good questions Jack and they deserve answers but I need to wotrk through these carefully.

Jim

Replace the word 'spirit(s)/entity' with 'person/people' in this type of discussion and this perhaps casts a slightly different light. Wouldn't many of the experiences mentioned, particular Joe Fisher's, be equally as possible with 'incarnate spirits' as with 'discarnate'?

In short, why expect the 'dead' to be any better or less prone to deception than the 'living'?

As all matter is inert until acted upon by an energy, it is difficult to see where 'danger' exists, outside of the individual's consciousness.
Isn't the notion of 'danger' a deliberate controlling tactic? Religion abounds with such stuff and always the danger 'lurks' - another favourite term - with the sinister 'them', but never with the saintly 'us'
Such 'dangers' are always left vague and unquantified, leaving the exploited imagination to fill in the self-created blanks.

"(3) I was looking at a book by Roy Stemman (someone I am sure you are all familiar with) called Spirit Communication. In commenting on the Fisher case, he says that the channeler that he communicated with spirits through probably did not have a spirit control to keep out bad spirits. I believe this probably was the case (if I remember correctly she had no prior experience in mediumship/channeling). Can anyone comment on this? In addition, could this be the case for channelers in general (I suspect so)?"

Take Leslie Flint's recorded sessions as an example. Since 99.99% of the people who eventually will listen to those recordings were not in live attendance, the primary source for the credibility of those who spoke, that is there identities are the same as who they claimed to be, is Mickey Flint's spirit gatekeeper.

Without that control, Chopin could be Maurice Chevalier and Herbert Hoover could be Bimbo the Clowm.

Recently, a spirit medium I know was visited by an entity who proceeded to tell her it could be "anyone she wanted it to be"...it then spoke in the voices and manner of 3 of her deceased relatives - which completely toppled her tower of certainty.

"(6) Is there any way that one can tell good spirits from bad spirits with certainty. Joe Fisher talks about cases where spirits appeared good but were actually bad, such as the channeled spirit that visited a yoga center in 1977 pretending to be Sivananda Saraswati (the Reachout Trust article I linked to in the first post also mentions such a case, but I suspect it is embellished a bit, though it does seem somewhat similar to Fisher's more credible case). So if anyone knows how to tell the difference that would be good. "

Assuming you do not have a spirit control or gatekeeper to trust, then the only evidence I would take is that this spirit in question be able to produce in front of relatives evidence they can corroborate. Further, the better evidence than that is when the spirit provides evidence unknown to the sitter who can later verify upon inspection and examination. E.g. a lost will or other document.

If all you have is words or voice inflections or "hey it's me...really" you have nothing evidential.

P.S. I will hold for further study voice analysis i.e. the comparing of absolutely identified spirit or terrestrial voice with recordings from the spirit who claims that identity.

Jack wrote:Hello, this is my first post here, and despite the fact that the question I am about to ask may make some uncomfortable, I hope for a warm welcome. I will state now that I am not opposed to Spiritualism.
So, essentially what I want to know is:
(1) What to make of these reports
(2) How do spiritualists usually deal with bad spirits?
(3) Any other relevant information

Dear Jack,
I didn't bother looking at your links because just as there is always fighting somewhere, I know some of that fighting will be directed at Spiritualism. Nevertheless I thought you might find this information, which is related to your questions, useful.

(1.) What to make of these reports?
A. When anyone from the Commonwealth hears the word "Spiritualist," they automatically think "trained in the British Spiritualist Philosophy." But when Spiritualism was first introduced to the world, each country that accepted the Philosophy adapted it to suit their culture and religious practices. So today, some people automatically equate Spiritualism as being "Voodoo on steroids."
B. Fortunately for humanity, for a brief moment in time Britain had a culture that was perfect for an enlightened form of Spiritualism and enlightened Spiritualists to flourish. Unfortunately, British culture is not what it was 165 years ago.
C. As for the US where Spiritualism was born, Spiritualism died early because of sex scandals, competition for followers and cash, and too many frauds. But out of the ashes the New Age Movement was born... same phoenix but bearing a new name and wearing a British disguise. Actually the New Age Movement was created before the almost complete death of US Spiritualism, but all those Spiritualists (scandalous, fraudulent, or not) wanted to, or had to, go somewhere with a similar belief system.
So any negative claim about Spiritualism and/or Spiritualists will have plenty of evidence to back it up.
D. Also, as you pointed out, many Spiritualists and New Age practitioners are not properly trained nor properly protected. A long time ago, the Roman Catholic Church investigated Spiritualism. The investigators discovered that 5% of the real (not fraudulent) mediums were actually possessed by demonic spirits. They also discovered that another 90% of the mediums were getting incomplete, misleading, or completely false information. Finally they discovered that 5% of the mediums were in contact with Spirits which could be called Divine.
Since people are people, how much would you be willing to bet that those ratios have not changed very much? With a 95% likelihood of not getting the truth, wouldn't seeing a medium or becoming a medium be a little foolish or even dangerous?
So again any negative claim about Spiritualism and/or Spiritualists will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Plus anyone who automatically assumes a New Age medium must be a Spiritualist may not have nice things to say.


(2.) How do spiritualists usually deal with bad spirits?
A. Is it the young page, the informed squire, or the trained knight who puts on a shield and protective armor as he prepares to go into a dangerous situation? Likewise, aren't the peasants given a sword, a shield, and some basic training before being sent into battle? The New Age Philosophy teaches that with the basics (like shielding and protecting) anyone can contact their spirit guides.
B. Decades ago, in British Spiritualism, a Minister would take some time to assess each person who repeatedly came to church to evaluate what basic training that person might need. If that person decided to pursue personally contacting Spirit, then after that person had learnt the basics, the Minister would introduce him or her to (supervised) meditation. After that person had learnt some basic meditation techniques, the Minister might finally invite him or her to an open development circle where they would learn some basic techniques and perhaps meet their Spirit Guides for the first time (always under supervision). Eventually that person might be invited to learn how to "shield and protect" themselves so they could continue their training in more dangerous, but supervised, situations. This process could take anywhere from a few months to several years or decades depending upon the person, their abilities, and their intentions. It also might never take place if the person had the wrong intentions (back in 1975 a British trained Spiritualist Minister refused to teach me because I had the wrong intentions and was attracting the wrong kind of spirits).
D. As for how things are today, the author who claimed training and protection is rushed, inadequate, and that the dangers are being ignored is quite right. In an instant and disposable age, that is both what people expect and demand. But their choices still are:
I. Months, years, and even decades of training.
II. Basic training fit for peasants destined to be slaughtered. (don't forget to shield and protect)
{If only people knew what instant and disposable gets them.}
{Actually they do know, but ignoring unpleasant facts seems easier than dealing with the situation.}


(3.) Any other relevant information?
A. I mentioned that the New Age Philosophy was really just "sell it for a profit" with a veneer of British Spiritualism. But a table made out of particle board with a thin veneer is superior to no table at all.
You have approached this subject with a wisdom that few have in this age and that wisdom may help you to discern the difference between the information that is flaky and solid.
B. Several other things:
I. If it isn't true here, it isn't true in the Spirit Realm. So if someone tells you everyone is born with a scuba diving instructor (spirit guide), but you haven't learnt how to swim... (Guardian Spirits/Angels yes! Spirit Guides or spirit guides no!)
II. Not only does infinity have no end, but if you go the other direction you will find infinity has no beginning. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you measure from -10, or 0, or +100, each of those numbers has an equal amount of infinity on either side of them, so infinity has no middle and +100 is no closer or further away from infinity than -10.
Since you have an eternal soul whose life will never end (infinite lifespan), if you go back the other way you will find no beginning or middle. So if someone tries to flatter you by saying you are an "old soul" or tries to impress you by saying they are an "advanced soul," how can something infinite be more infinite, or older, or even more advanced (closer to the end of infinity)? {Now you know why I call myself equal-spirit.}
III. Scuba divers say never dive alone. Reading a drivers manual does not make you prepared for the real experience, and if you have been encouraged to drive by someone who has written you some information, just try texting for help when you are a split second away from crashing.
My primary point is that you must be both trained and supervised. My secondary point is that you need a great deal of training before you need to contact a scuba instructor or a Spirit Guide.
IV. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you don't want to be caught by all the sweet lies of how wonderful contacting your spirit guides is just remember there are Spirit Guides (5%) and spirit guides (95%). So for 95% of them you are definitely going to need to be trained how to "shield and protect" yourself and not the kind of training peasants get.
V. Although it is different form the New Age Law, Spiritualists have a Law of Attraction too. Basically it means that like attracts like (it can get more complicated, but this simple version will do for now). So if like attracts like and the Roman Catholic investigators discovered only 5% of mediums were in contact with the divine, what does that tell you about the kind of person you need to be?
You might be applying some logic here and wondering how can there be demonic and divine spirits if in the infinite scheme of things there is no difference between a negative and a positive? The answer is because your soul (everyone's) is trapped in this finite universe and within the finite almost everything is measurable. Being able to measure has shown us that while quantitatively there is no difference between a divine and a demonic spirit, qualitatively there is a huge difference. So almost every soul is on a quest to improve the qualitative aspect of their being. In British Spiritualism this is stated as "Eternal progress is open to every soul."
What this means is that it is the positive or negative intentions of a spirit and whether it is reasonably enlightened (say the top 20%?) which makes it a good medium to contact a good Spirit Guide (and vice versa). So while I have thrown out the scary figure that only 5% of Spirits are divine, it's pretty safe to be in contact with the spirits which are close to being divine.
VI. If most people in contact with spirits have the wrong kind of spirit guides, why aren't things and especially readings worse than they are?
Google:
a. buffalo jump
b. dogs biting the hands that feed them
c. trick
d. ponzi schemes and other cons
How many hundred other answers could you Google?
VII: Is a soul a human? Is a soul a fish? Is a soul an amoeba? Is a soul a mushroom? Is a soul a soul?
Personally, because of the past lives I remember and because it was impossible for my eternal soul to be a human before the creation of the universe, I'm inclined to believe a soul is a soul and that life is life. But there are others that claim only humans have souls, or only humans and the higher animals have souls but no other life does.
Since Eternal progress is open to every soul, accept whatever belief about souls your level of progress allows you to. This particular topic is not worth arguing about.

I hope this helps.

A final thought:
Ask anyone "why" they chose a particular friend and regardless of what they say the real answer will be "because the rewards are greater than the costs." If your spirit guides are in the top 70% the odds are that you have a friend. There will be rewards, and there will be costs from which you can learn lessons on that path to eternal progress. So despite all the recommendations for training, supervision, and all the dire warnings I or anyone else can give, in the long run almost all spirit contact is beneficial and I highly recommend it.

""Unfortunately, British culture is not what it was 165 years ago""

equal-spirit, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your central plank - there is no such beastie as stated above, either then or now.
Could you enlarge on what you term 'bad spirits'? Who is the arbiter of such cosmic matters and would those spirits designated as 'bad' agree with this assessment?
Does 'good' just mean 'those who agree with me/ us'?
You raise many fine considerations - perhaps a more analytical view of them singularly might help?

We are dealing with infinite ideas, with infinite possibilities here - a huge task requiring non-parochial, non-partisan, dispassionate assessment.

hiorta wrote:""Unfortunately, British culture is not what it was 165 years ago""

equal-spirit, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your central plank - there is no such beastie as stated above, either then or now.
Could you enlarge on what you term 'bad spirits'? Who is the arbiter of such cosmic matters and would those spirits designated as 'bad' agree with this assessment?
Does 'good' just mean 'those who agree with me/ us'?
You raise many fine considerations - perhaps a more analytical view of them singularly might help?

We are dealing with infinite ideas, with infinite possibilities here - a huge task requiring non-parochial, non-partisan, dispassionate assessment.

I'm not quite sure what it is you disagree with regarding British Culture, so I am going to restate what I already said about negative and positive spirits.

On a quantitative level there is no difference between a negative number and a positive number, or between a negative soul and a positive soul. Numbers are numbers and souls are souls. Therefore there is no arbiter or anything else that can make one soul more valuable than another.
But qualitatively there is a difference between a negative soul (a mass murderer searching for more victims for example) and a positive soul (the current Dalai Lama trying to enlighten humanity for example). So there are ways to measure whether or not a spirit is progressing toward enlightenment or regressing into darkness, and that soul's "relative" position when compared to other souls. Once again there is no arbiter, but just a recognition of a "relative" amount of enlightenment (Relative = a flashlight/torch in a dark closet compared to a flashlight/torch in broad daylight. Same flashlight/torch but a relative difference in brightness.)

Also, as you mentioned "we are dealing with infinite possibilities here." So while you may have been taught/told that it is "impossible" for negative or demonic spirits to interact with us, is the "impossible" really possible? Could all the cultures and religions which talk of demonic possession be mistaken?
These questions bring me back to #3-B-IV of my last reply. In a sweet universe where negative spirits cannot acquire "the power, the force, the people" (paraphrasing Silver Birch's explanation of why the negative cannot make contact) there would be no dangers and therefore no need to learn how to "shield and protect."
{In another thread, I've asked people to not dogmatically quote Silver Birch but to engage their guides in a search for answers about Silver Birch and the source of the information he brought.}

So is this the information you were seeking or did I misunderstand your questions?

""I'm not quite sure what it is you disagree with regarding British Culture""

Culture is generally centred around a language and 'Britain' is portrayed as multicultural with many indigenous and probably even more immigrant tongues. Many groups are of course bi-lingual and inter racial.

The 'bad' spirits are filtered by the Law of Attraction

So is this the information you were seeking or did I misunderstand your questions?

Once again an older thread, your words are too often very confusing equal-spirit as a result I tend to let them and your certainty that you are right just float past me. I think that you are on the beginning of a long journey of discovery.

The 'bad' spirits are filtered by the Law of Attraction

Completely Agree with the above point made by Hiorta, after x amount of public dems.. and x amount of 1 to 1 sittings, I have never come across bad spirits,, I have come across folk that may not have led the best earthly life,,, but they usually come to say sorry to the sitter.
In myths and misconceptions by Vi kipling she talks about these things equal,, you may find it a good book to start off with as it puts things into complete common sense.

Admin wrote:Once again an older thread, your words are too often very confusing equal-spirit as a result I tend to let them and your certainty that you are right just float past me. I think that you are on the beginning of a long journey of discovery.

Today Spirit sent me on a 50+ km journey to five different locations in order to learn a lesson. You are absolutely right that I am not ready to teach at this time and that anything I may want to say is confusing.
For a while at least, I'll stick to asking questions.

equal-spirit wrote:

Admin wrote:Once again an older thread, your words are too often very confusing equal-spirit as a result I tend to let them and your certainty that you are right just float past me. I think that you are on the beginning of a long journey of discovery.

Today Spirit sent me on a 50+ km journey to five different locations in order to learn a lesson. You are absolutely right that I am not ready to teach at this time and that anything I may want to say is confusing.
For a while at least, I'll stick to asking questions.

Sometimes questions are a great way to teach too

Equal-spirit, in more than one post you have said that you are following orders from spirit, in that you have been given tasks to do and that you "have" to do them. When you are given these tasks, do you first filter them through your own sense of discernment, logic and reason, and then decide whether or not to do them?

Wes wrote:Equal-spirit, in more than one post you have said that you are following orders from spirit, in that you have been given tasks to do and that you "have" to do them. When you are given these tasks, do you first filter them through your own sense of discernment, logic and reason, and then decide whether or not to do them?

Awesome question! If you have ever heard the phrase "the tail wagging the dog," that is not me. A long time ago I gave myself in service to Spirit and "the dog is wagging the tail." As a tail I may not always know the reason I do more than wag, but by the same token I am not stuck believing that wagging is the only possible use I could be put to either.
So while I may have used the words "orders" and "have" to describe my service, the service is both voluntary and to Spirits with the best intentions I can harmonize with (Law of Attraction). Also, although I have never asked for a reward, the lessons and the rewards I have been given have been beautiful.

Equal-spirit the whole position you take is of great concern to me we are not here to be driven by the voices in our head but to live our own lives. What we do we are responsible for and have to remain that way or else we exempt our personal duty to life. There are also concerns about how you are validating what it is that is guiding you and in a discerning way evaluating the "Spirit" that is telling you what to do.

Some of the things that you have mentioned in other threads do not seem to be the guidance that we may expect from a wise and benevolent Spirit.

Admin wrote:Equal-spirit the whole position you take is of great concern to me we are not here to be driven by the voices in our head but to live our own lives. What we do we are responsible for and have to remain that way or else we exempt our personal duty to life. There are also concerns about how you are validating what it is that is guiding you and in a discerning way evaluating the "Spirit" that is telling you what to do.

Some of the things that you have mentioned in other threads do not seem to be the guidance that we may expect from a wise and benevolent Spirit.

Actually, I just apologized for some of the stuff I wrote in other threads and even told you to delete it if you wished.
As for the message I got today, at the first location I was sent, and at the last location I was sent were the same two young (high school age?) boys. They were Jehova's Witnesses and they were telling everybody about God. My Spirit Guides said "When you are not in possession of all the facts, and/or are misinterpreting the facts, your good intentions are as offensive as theirs." (They had already been hinting to me to not teach [yet] but I needed this lesson before I realized I needed to stop what I was doing.)

equal-spirit wrote:

Wes wrote:Equal-spirit, in more than one post you have said that you are following orders from spirit, in that you have been given tasks to do and that you "have" to do them. When you are given these tasks, do you first filter them through your own sense of discernment, logic and reason, and then decide whether or not to do them?

Awesome question! If you have ever heard the phrase "the tail wagging the dog," that is not me. A long time ago I gave myself in service to Spirit and "the dog is wagging the tail." As a tail I may not always know the reason I do more than wag, but by the same token I am not stuck believing that wagging is the only possible use I could be put to either.
So while I may have used the words "orders" and "have" to describe my service, the service is both voluntary and to Spirits with the best intentions I can harmonize with (Law of Attraction). Also, although I have never asked for a reward, the lessons and the rewards I have been given have been beautiful.

We are more than tails, we are spirit wrapped in flesh, with free will and minds that need to be constantly questioning many things in order for us to learn and grow. To be accepting a subservient role to other forces in our spiritual development cannot possibly be in our own best interests, can it?

To me the easy way is to ask spirit to take the reins and guide my life, and the more challenging and rewarding path is to discern the way I can best be of service to myself and spirit, and ask for assistance in achieving those goals. In other words a mutual partnership with no tail and no dog

Wes wrote:We are more than tails, we are spirit wrapped in flesh, with free will and minds that need to be constantly questioning many things in order for us to learn and grow. To be accepting a subservient role to other forces in our spiritual development cannot possibly be in our own best interests, can it?

To me the easy way is to ask spirit to take the reins and guide my life, and the more challenging and rewarding path is to discern the way I can best be of service to myself and spirit, and ask for assistance in achieving those goals. In other words a mutual partnership with no tail and no dog

When I take a subservient role to provide a service like message or healing mediumship, it is not because it is in my best interest. Likewise, although sometimes a message may relate to a situation that I am in, usually it is intended for other peoples growth.
To me "service" isn't supposed to be about my needs but the needs of others (unless I am completely mistaken again). Likewise, since I do not have the wisdom of Solomon I allow the Spirits who do (or who at least are better informed) to direct me... this is a mutual partnership, but not an equal partnership. Finally, if my "goal" is to serve humanity to the best of my ability, I'm reasonably certain that the Spirits I am listening to are assisting me in that goal.

Hi Equal,
I have been reading your posts, And some of the Ideas and explanations that you have are just not making sense to me.
For just a second lets look at the mechanics of mediumship and relate them to the things you are saying,
The type of communication you are talking about with your guides is classed as Mental Mediumship, All Mental Mediumship comes through the Mind,,, so in turn all Mental mediumship is open to the interpretation of the medium,
So the thoughts that you are receiving, your mind is then interpretating them in the way that it has the abilty to at that point of your development.
From what I have read your development is at its very early stages.. and in these early stages... interp is usualy way off... its only through 100s or even 1000s of hours of development do we start to interp more clearly, But even then as mediums we are still learning,, still strengthening that link to the spirit... and still in fact getting things wrong.
What you are trying to explain is a clairaudient link to spirit,, But again mechanically what you are explaining doesnt make sense... I am developing clairaudience myself... and clairaudience in development comes in short sharp pieces of info... that kind of roll from one into the other... for instance if the power is high enough and im working clairaudiently I will hear "Michael"... and then I will hear "kent road" through experience and knowing how to interp this... i know I can say.. this gentlemans name is michael and he has connections to kent road. But there is still interp there... and I can still be wrong.. it could be the sitters name is michael and his mum lives at kent road..
Now obviously there are people that have more advanced clairauidence than I do,,, but I am happy with my understanding of it... even if you watch one of the great clairaudients such Doris Stokes,,, You will see exactly what I just mentioned... The Hearing of one word rolling into another.. and you will see that even some1 developed to her standard getting interp wrong.
You see mediumship isnt perfect... because of the mind of the medium.. It is why in the initial stages of development we learn to quieten the Mind,
And is often the case its our minds that make is get things wrong.
So knowing all of this I wonder why you find yourself trecking 50 km or so without question... and without reason.
So with what you are saying,, with my knowledge and my understanding of the spirit world what you are saying just simply doesnt make sense.
I do hope you understand what I am saying,, and there are people here whos understanding and knowledge exceeds mine, and I urge you to listen to what they have to say to you.