5 Elemental Challenges — Fire
SBNRs need to be careful what they “believe”, if they are going to write on factual levels, or indeed visionary levels. For a start they must learn, urgently in some cases, not to mistake the latter for the former. The discipline of being cautious when claiming physical truth ought to be ingrained after the 20th century!
Empirically we know Edgar Cayce was mostly wrong on specific predicted world events. Some people still bandy his name about as if he were infallible. He was good at specific personal and medical readings but he wasn’t infallible by a long shot.
This is yet another way to “just believe”, and sometimes justifies very simplistic emotional attachment — not to Cayce, but to whatever he is taken to represent. Sincere investigation of what is really there — personally, artistically, scientifically, culturally, and transpersonally — is plenty amazing enough without plumping for more kitsch. Believe me. :)
It’s most troubling when it happens to those who should know better. Claude Swanson, for all the exaltedness of his Princeton Ph.D. in physics, believes at least one obvious, provable marketing hoax in his Life Force: The Scientific Basis (2009). I haven’t seen anyone else spot it, but the science wing of SBNR has to do better than that! This is very close to scientific kitsch. Vigilance, for goodness’ sake. I had supposed some fairly big names were involved in peer-reviewing that book.
Speaking carefully and responsibly about truth is the only alternative to forfeiting credibility, never mind integrity. I for one am doing this so I don’t get fooled again.