Bibliography of Remote Viewing (PDF)

Compiled by Stephan A. Schwartz

EXCERPT:

In the darkened silence the endless  line of cars moves slowly forward, and no one honks. No one breaks the line. Spread out in the night across the Maryland fields are thousands upon thousands of little points of light –  small brown bags, each with a flickering candle.  One for every dead or wounded soldier both North and South.  On the first Saturday in December since 1988, volunteers have risen early to take part in this one night citizen ceremony.  Elderly widows, generals, and entry level clerks have made sure the bags are lighted and in place by dusk.  Now the tiny lights float in the dark, a twinkling pattern undulating across the gentle hills; a haunting image, profoundly moving.
Most Americans think of D-Day as our nation’s benchmark for carnage. Images from Saving Private Ryan newly fixed it in our collective mind. Yet the most massive amphibious assault in history, the product of months of planning by the greatest ground armies ever assembled, does not begin to rise to a moment-of-opportunity battle fought in a few small farm fields with single-shot muzzle-loaded long guns, and mostly smooth-bore horse drawn cannon.

Do you sense the schism occurring in the United States? Not the red and blue of politics, although that comes into it. Something deeper, a shift that is producing two very different reactions. Can you feel the ground moving? The zeitgeist of one population is grounded in fear, resentment, anger, and a sense of loss. It is theologically conservative, politically rigid, and exclusionist. The other population holds a sober realization that great change is coming, but also the sense that it offers at least the putative opportunity to create a more stable life-affirming culture. It is theologically and politically accommodating, and inclusionist.

We all have a vested interest in this schism and the struggle it has produced, not only because through our choices we are its source, but because we will live with the consequences of the decisions made over the next few years. What is particularly concerning is the obsession amongst the population driven by fear with willful ignorance. Yet it cannot be denied that this is an essential attribute of its world view. Only by denying a fact-based world can this perspective be maintained. Most of human history can be seen as a striving for deeper understanding. Science is the highest manifestation of this impulse, perhaps because it is the most objective manifestation. Yet now in the 21st century, we see its antipode emerge—a deep denial of science and the fact-based view of the world. Science, from this perspective, is just another political position, competing in the marketplace of ideas as a political theory.

EXCERPT

For most of human history we knew very little, and what we did know was known by very few. Thomas Young (1773-1829), an English scientist, researcher, physician, and polymath is usually cited as “the last person to know everything,” by which is usually meant the then-contemporary academy of Western scholarship.1 He was popularly known as “Phenomenon Young,” spoke a daunting number of languages, and made contributions to many fields of science, including translating the Rosetta stone and coining the term “energy.” Einstein praised him for his work on Newton and his physics in his 1931 foreword to an edition of Newton’s Optics. For most of modern history, people took pride in being knowledgeable, and the deep drive of Western cultures, particularly in America, was to expand knowledge and make it more widely known.

Benjamin Franklin, who more than any other founder set in motion the processes that have become the American culture, had a very particular kind of culture in mind, and open-minded education was a major part of it. His America was solidly middle class. It encouraged upward mobility and did not permit hereditary privilege. It absolutely separated church and state, yet was tolerant of individual religious beliefs, or with equal equanimity, the complete absence thereof.

Publication History: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
July 2008 (Vol. 4, Issue 4, Pages 232-234)

EXCERPT:

Last November, I was sitting in the Grand Ballroom of the Grand Hyatt Hotel next to Grand Central Station. Self-consciously, the reiterated adjective defines the space. Six hundred people, in black tie, grouped at little tables, guests of a philanthropic society, The Bravewell Collaborative. Our role in this public event was as witnesses to the honoring of our esteemed executive editor, Larry Dossey, as well as Jim Gordon, MD, Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, Dean Ornish, MD, Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, and Andrew Weil, MD, for the contributions they had each made as pioneers of integrative medicine (IM)—“integrative” being the latest modifier replacing “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), which itself replaced “holistic.”

The awards were certainly well deserved. The only person missing in my personal constellation of heroes being Gladys McGarey, MD, who introduced me, son of an anesthesiologist and a nurse, to this view of healthcare in 1965. And, as we ate well-prepared healthy food, and people talked in twos and threes, there came a moment when the conversation at my table died, and in that zone of silence within the room’s noise, I looked out across the ballroom and realized a moment of significant transition was taking place. It took me a moment to work it out what it was.

Publication History: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
May 2008 (Vol. 4, Issue 3, Pages 168-169)

EXCERPT:

If I told you that I could make you smarter, improve the structure of your brain, reduce your stress level, make you sleep better, concentrate better, be more creative, have a better functioning immune system, and become a better lover, would it catch your attention? If I said you could achieve this essentially cost free and it would only take a few minutes of your time each day, would you be interested? Or would you just assume I was some kind of scam artist trying to pick your pocket with outrageous claims?

If you chose the second option, it wouldn’t surprise me. But the truth is, each of the above claims is backed by peer-reviewed, published, research papers, and they number into the thousands. I am speaking here of meditation. Its power to change our lives from the vitality of our cells—to an enhancement of our capacity for creativity—is extraordinarily well documented. This is the path that allows us to open to nonlocal awareness, the part of ourselves outside the domain of space time. The part of us Brahms described this way:

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
September 2009 (Vol. 5, Issue 5, Pages 263-264)

EXCERPT:

It is generally thought that, for immediate personal needs, each person on the planet requires at least five gallons of clean water per day. Not surprisingly, that’s not how it works out. Many poor people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America survive on just over one gallon of water per day—most of it contaminated—whereas those of us in the United States and much of Europe send 13 gallons down the drain daily flushing toilets.

Imagine, then, you turned on the tap. .. and nothing came out. It really is unthinkable, isn’t it? We take it as a given that when we turn on a faucet, clean drinkable water will come out—as much as you like. Will your children think that way? Maybe. Maybe not. Will your grandchildren? Definitely not.

Can this be true?

Water stress is defined as a nation providing for each individual, for all purposes, access to less than 449,150 gallons (1,700 cubic meters) per year.1 Water scarcity is less than 264,200 gallons (1,000 cubic meters) per person per year.1 It takes a lot of water to be an even marginally vital human.

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
March 2007 (Vol. 3, Issue 2, Pages 95-97)

Today, standing next to my car, loading in gas at $2.95 a gallon, I thought about a friend who lives in Austin, Texas. She had just written to tell me she is now spending $40 a week to fuel her Honda, so she can drive to church and sing in her choir. (When you read this, these prices may evoke a fond memory. In Beverly Hills, it is already over $4 a gallon.) Even President Bush has gone on record as saying it is going to be a “tough summer.”1 Like junkies in need of a fix, the United States remains dependent on oil and subject to all the vicissitude’s of doing business in regions with unstable and violent governments or in the midst of a civilization-changing reformation whose outcome is highly problematic.

But in Iceland and Brazil, things look a little different. Brazil expects to become free of petroleum dependency and become energy self-sufficient this year. Iceland plans to do the same in six years. The two nations will do this not by cutting back on consumption but by meeting growing demand for fuel through innovative technologies, coupled with a national will and consistent governmental intentions.

Publication History: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
July 2006 (Vol. 2, Issue 4, Pages 302-303)

Americans reach into their pockets twice as much as the next most charitable country according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation, and in that year, 2006, Americans donated an estimated $295.02 billion (emphasis added)—up from $283.05 billion in 2005.1 “It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country,” says Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU’s Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism.2, 3

And the generosity of spirit that is such an American hallmark can be found at every level of the culture. Even the poor give, and of that nearly $300 billion, individuals and families gave a combined 75.6% of the total, with bequests that rose to 83.4%.4 As a percentage of gross domestic product, the Americans were first at 1.7%, with the British in second place with 0.73%.1 Think about that number for a moment—$295 billion. That tells us that as individuals and families, we spent over $24.5 billion a month serving that which is good and life affirming as we understand it. That is twice what our government spends each month on the Iraq War. Is it any wonder we are a nation in conflict?

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
November 2008 (Vol. 4, Issue 6, Pages 357-358)