It’s rare when a New Age/metaphysical believer turns into a skeptic. In fact, I use to think that such a thing was pretty much impossible. Why would someone take that step backwards, was my thinking. Well, it happened, giving me cause to reflect on my own convictions and basis for why I believe in what I believe.
I was doing some research for a post on emotions, and looked up on the net one of the first “New Agey” type books that I read in recent history - Emotional Genius : Discovering the Deepest Language of the Soul
So during my research I came across a comment at amazon.com that Karla converted to skepticism. Looking further, I found an article in the Skeptical Inquirer titled Bridging the Chasm Between Two Cultures where she describes her painful journey in 2004 from being a “a card-carrying, aura-wearing, chakra-toting leader of the New Age” to someone who is “able to understand and eventually embrace the skeptical culture”. She even states that her former beliefs were based on “candy-floss and dreams”. While she states that one of her goals is to help the two cultures find a common meeting ground, it’s clear that what she really feels is that the faith-based culture needs to be helped to snap out of it, so to speak.
Why the extreme change of heart?
What I see is a very sensitive person who was immersed for a long time in a culture that distances itself from the intellect and critical thinking. This is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and like any extreme, is very precarious and fragile. As she opened herself up via the internet to critically evaluate the New Age culture, she tried to use rigorous scientific examination as the measuring rod for determining the validity of a belief. Of course, faith-based concepts do not lend themselves to such tests, and so based on that world view, her once cherished New Age ideas started to crumble.
Having the rug pulled out like that is a difficult experience for anyone, let alone someone who is as sensitive and passionate as Karla. She describes it as a painful and harrowing journey, but I believe that the process is not over for her. Right now she has gone from one extreme to another, from an unbalanced position that avoids all critical thinking to the equally unbalanced position that rails not only against crystals and psychics, but also targets religions and general spirituality as ideas to be discarded. Hopefully, in time she’ll find some balance and then share her insights.
How can someone maintain a balanced perspective between matters of faith and the physical world? What might have helped Karla?
There are three approaches that I’ve found useful. I’ll go into them in more detail in a later post, but three key things that you can do to maintain a balanced world view are:
- View faith-based concepts as tools
- Be grounded
- Practice non-attachment
If we put these ideas into practice, as I’ll describe later, then we won’t feel personally threatened by ideas that challenge our beliefs. And if we do have a change of heart, we won’t have to go through the pain and distress that Karla experienced.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Entries (RSS)
This is something I can relate to all to well. It seems in our lives that we are all overly eager to believe and hope that the metaphysical world as the new age community, and religious communities perceive it is real. It takes a lot of observance, and understanding to realize that perhaps what we thought was true was actually just bullshit.
I used to be strict believer in the metaphysical, but now I understand that tricking my mind into seeing what is not there; is just tom foolery. Take ghost photography I’d say that about 99.9% of it can be explained or is a forgery. There is no ghost just our imagination. This whole idea really hit home when I started doing research on how the brain functions. Many of the claims of the new age genre, even the light at the end of the tunnel can be explained as reaction or action in our brains.
This does not mean I lost hope on the matter, it just makes it more difficult to find God. Believe me of all people who want to see God the most it is the skeptics.
I know what you mean - and thanks for your comment.
Yes, my wife has told me on numerous occasions that I’m very gullible, so I’ve been trying to be aware of that. There is something fascinating and even “fun” about metaphysical beliefs, but someone can fall into the trap of being closed-minded to more mundane explanations of perceived phenomenon. As a result, as convincing as second-hand accounts can be, I find myself relying more and more on personal experience. Even so, there is still so much about the mind and consciousness that science does not understand, but which mystics and gurus throughout history seem to have a handle on, that there is much room for valid “non-scientific” practices and beliefs to help us through life.
beautiful insight and sharing!
blessings from another mystic across the globe.
be in peace and bliss. Namaste.
Thank you. Peace be with you as well.
[...] Therefore, in this life they do not have the ability to use their gift and power or if they do they “out” themselves and yet they feel connected to the paranormal as if it should exist. This is why JackDirt’s comment “Believe me of all people who want to see God the most it is the skeptics.” on the Ordinary Mystic blog was cool to read and rang very true to me. [...]
I applaud Karla Mclaren’s ability to embrace rationalism and reject self-deluding belief systems.
My hat off to you!
When I read “Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures” tears came to my eyes. I am a skeptic and have been from from my earliest childhood memories. Only recently have I become involved in the skeptic community at large. To be sure skeptic has never meant the same thing to me that it seems to mean when someone on the news who says, “I was a skeptic till…”. What this person means by skeptic is totally alien to me. Slowly I am starting to understand this divide in the very definition of the situation. Peace to you and all people of the world.
Jennifer - Thanks. Belief systems (including rationalism) are only as good as they are useful.
John - Thank you, John. It’s great to get some validation for things we’ve experienced all along but never knew how to express. I’m not sure I understand what your views are exactly, but I wish you well in your discoveries.
This issue of the divide between skeptics and mystics has been a very troublesome one for me. I can read things like the “Law of Attraction” and agree with the core precepts. I can even suggest how it missed articulating some of its most powerful aspects. When I read Sumerian text from which the Bible is based it always seemed to me that this was the original definition of “faith”. However when I watch “The Secret” I don’t get it. I hope you can forgive me Chris when I say I’m not sure what I validated either.
I have written some provocative topics like “When is woo appropriate?” within the skeptic community to gain a better understanding of them in general. Now I am learning my own approach to debate with outsiders is more than useless. Some of our most respected members have backgrounds as psychics. Some members feel they have lost people they love because their beliefs prevented them from getting the care they needed in time. Many really do feel frustration and despair and are completely at a loss as to why mystics react the way they do. The ones who do understand don’t know how to fully explain their position to either side. Perhaps much intolerance is born of despair. It seems that our very definition of each other is a detriment. It seems the “Law of Attraction” maintains its power in dividing us. That saddens me greatly but I wish everyone all the happiness you can imagine.
John, thanks for clarifying your feelings. I did misunderstand your reaction to the Skeptical Inquirer’s article.
I think the dilemma between the two viewpoints is at the core of my own journey. I can’t completely relate to “believers” on an emotional level and so cannot immerse myself in any faith-based group. At the same time I can’t deny my own experiences and could not even imagine that things such as the law of attraction, spiritual bodies, and psychic energies don’t exist. To me that would be denying reality.
I would be interested in reading some of your writings.
It seems our difficulties are persistent for the moment. I have been contemplating this for hours and can’t even figure out what you may have misunderstood. I searched a few other places to try and gain insight to the perspective. To quote Abella on psychictarot;
“A lot of diskeptic behavior is unfair, exhausting, disrespectful, dishonest, disproving, untrustworthy, and unbalanced. Diskeptic actions can be frustrating and their illogical mental mind games, which they like to play, are designed to make you look stupid and discredit you at all costs.”
I began to think through these attributes 1 by 1. Unfair: Yes debates do degrade and loses fairness. It seems to be a result of an inability to even comprehend each others rules. Exhausting: yes. Disrespectful: Yes. Out of despair many don’t even try anymore. The remaining characteristics are more problematic. Dishonest: On this one I get the feeling that some non-skeptics will attempt to adopt the general form of a skeptics argument style and feel lost when it gets rejected. If it really is felt that distinctions are ad hoc then it makes a little more sense. The tools we use were designed over centuries because logic alone is not enough. Disproving: This one is very very confusing. I don’t even know how to imagine that was meant. Untrustworthy: Yes just as in any community of practicing psychics there are untrustworthy people they exist with skeptical communities also. This usually takes the form of debate rules being used in place of evidence. It is done more often to other members of the community than to outsiders. Unbalanced: I will go on Karla’s explanation here. It would have never occurred to me that this referred to the emotional balance of an individual rather than balanced logic or debate. I think perhaps it is equated with aggression? Within the sciences having a good skilled skeptic who will take their time to critique your ideas is a great honor. It don’t look that way when these debates boil out into the public domain. The arguments were not even designed by us and certainly weren’t designed to make anybody look silly. Unfortunately they get used that way too often. The mental mind games is not by intentional design but seem to be born from inconsistant definitions of the situation.
The funny thing is I can relate to “believers†on a purely emotional level even when I’m not sure what they believe about those emotions. I have even had intense experiences that people describe as religious experiences. My problem is that I don’t understand why people choose a singular belief system to validate those experiences. There are questions neither science nor mysticism can presently answer. Perhaps if I did not know the working of science a concept like spiritual bodies and psychic energies would be completely necessary for me to make sense out of my experiential information. In fact without our cumulative knowledge of cause and effect and years building our body of empirical data it would honestly seem necessary to make sense. Don’t begrudge that science neither has all the answers nor will accept spirits a priori. Science is a process that will grow but needs to take great care that ALL of it can be demonstrated, even if only in a statistical sense.
I would understand if you didn’t want to authorize such a long rant. It comes from my need to develop a deeper understanding of the world. We are not so far apart there. The best way to see what I’ve been up to is to search “my_wan”. Perhaps I will write something in more depth in the future.
I am totally confused because I find Karla’s book on emotions and especially her recording on protecting your boundaries totally useful and free from any weirdness. After all, the concept of the chakras and the aura come from very ancient traditions. Even if they are not “true” in a scientific sense, whatever that might mean, they are certainly useful even if one were to view them as a metaphor.
Her work certainly does not seem to be on the lunatic fringe of the “New Age.” I have been familiar with New Age type concepts for close to 40 years, starting out with Transcendental Meditation in the 60’s(which had it’s good and bad points) and I must admit there is a lot of weirdness out there now and a lot of stuff that is genuinely harmful, like psychic readings where people are searching for some sort of expert outside of themselves to tell then how to live their lives. I myself fell into this for a period some years ago, and it is addictive.
But I would say to Karla if I could, “Please don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” The writings on emotions and trauma are priceless. I don’t know what else Karla may have been doing in her work that led her to feel this way, but I am truly saddened, though I can understand her wanting to distance herself from the “New Age” movement. I
mean, why does she have to be part of any “movement”? Her books stand on their own as valuable resources.
I would also like to add something that might be of interest to skeptics. Can you be a skeptic and a poet at the same time? If so, I challenge you to re-read Karla’s books, especially the book on healing childhood sexual trauma, “Re-building the Garden”, and just take all the exercises involving the aura and chakras as poetry and try them!!! You might be pleasantly surprised. I personally do not really care whether or not some scientists can prove or disprove whether or not the aura or chakras exist. They may not “exist”, actually. It depends on the meaning of the word “exist”. I also can understand how some so-called “New Age” practices which are on the weirder end of the spectrum can turn people off to some of the practices that are grounded in age-old tradition (Hindu, maybe Buddhist, don’t quote me there, ’cause I’m not sure) but I have personally done meditations involving chakras and the aura and they work for me. I ask you NOT to believe, be skeptical, but with a bit of poetry in your heart. Our world is in great need of anything that can heal trauma, and I really feel bad that Karla’s work in this realm may be discounted because of some kind of lack of scientific proof. If you really delve into scientific thought you may find that “science” in itself really is a belief system and resembles a religion in many ways.
I applaud Karla’s open-mindedness and courage. I have always been a analytical skeptic of sorts, but try to always be a skeptic “on both sides” so as not to become just a “disbeliever”.
I have many acquaintances in the new age community and have fallen partially into the dream occasionally myself, but always remain at heart a scientist.
Of probable interest… I have found what appears to be Karla’s first “return statement”…
http://www.emovere.com/where.htm
Ron - Thanks for the link! Her website was down when I posted my article. And the tone of her “return statement” reflects a little of what I had hoped for - that she would find some balance and then express her thoughts. And yes, it does take courage to follow your own thoughts and conclusions and I applaud her as well for that.
John - You’ve provided much food for thought. The struggle that you experience is evidence that the issue really isn’t cut and dry. But people tend to need answers, which belief systems provide. Very few can navigate in a world without a foundation. If a particular belief system actually works for a person, then in my opinion that is what counts. What Karla laments are the undelivered promises.
Lahra - Thanks for your comments. I like your skeptic/poet approach and I hope other readers consider it. I still find value in Karla’s books and tapes (unfortunately she is making all her work go out of print).
What we conclude from external sources can be manipulated in so many ways, I have to agree with the mystical concept of finding truths within ourselves.
A few thoughts from a similarly recovering supernaturalist.
I read Karla’s article back in 2004 when it come out, and was greatly relieved to know someone else was making the same passage I was. I felt I had been on a kind of mystical journey four half a century ranging through fundamental Christianity, T.M., Kundalini Yoga, Hatha yoga, Buddhism, Vipassana meditation, A Course in Miracles, E.S.T. then the Forum, Living Love, fire walking, chakras, crystals, Avatar belief management - the list goes on. At the age of 50 I began a personal transformation where my beliefs started falling away like so many dried leaves. It was a powerfully disorienting experience to move from faith into reason. It changed every aspect of my life and I must say for the better. There were some benefits to a faith based world view but I can’t go back any more than you could decide to believe in Santa Clause again.
I don’t label myself an atheist, but by theist’s definition I am. Does it strike anyone else as odd that people are asked to adopt a label based on another group’s supernatural mythology? If your life was founded on an elaborate belief in the boogey man should I have to call myself an aboogyist? Though my early years involved a virtual worship of Santa Clause neither do I consider myself an aclausist - Hmmm? Oddly the hardest part of my life change was a realization that, metaphorically speaking, I’d spent half a century in dedicated service to Santa and his elves only to discover - ;-(
Once I began to see myself as part of a dominant primate species that has mastered technology, symbolic language, and imagination and all the arts, music and religious notions that gives birth - when all fell away what I found to still be real and lasting are the small miracle that we’ve evolved to have concern for more than our own genetic lineage, and in fact can genuinely have compassion for others and even other species. The notions and acts of justice and kindness are pretty amazing. Community itself is also worth celebrating. In the face of all that the more important work to do on this planet involves feeding the hungry and educating the illiterate and oppressed.
Anyway I thought I’d put my two cents worth in for the closet recovering super naturalists in the world. If you’re curious about Karla’s more recent thoughts on the issue here’s something she wrote the summer of 2007.
http://www.emovere.com/where.htm
Wishing everyone a gradual awakening!
David Beede
http://www.davidbeede.com
I am not a New Age practitioner, but when I discovered Karla McLaren’s book “Emotional Genius” a few years ago, it was the only book I’d ever found that approached emotions and boundary issues in ways that made sense to me. I didn’t find the parts about auras and chakras helpful, but I am quite used to reading books and finding parts that resonate with me and parts that just don’t work for me. One of my beliefs is that no one book is going to have all the answers for me; I glean what I can from each author I read.
So it disappointed me severely when Karla McLaren turned her back on all her work. As Lahra noted, I felt she’d “thrown the baby out with the bathwater.”
I’m glad to see (after following the link to her web site) that she is trying to find a balanced path. One of the things I noticed while reading her latest update is that she has observed the same phenomenon that I have in people: The desire for what I call a “get well quick” solution — like a “get rich quick” scheme, but for the mental/emotional pain instead of financial.
The truth is that there is no “get well quick” solution. Healing the wounds of the mind and soul takes time and hard work, and it is an ongoing process that will continue until the moment you draw your last breath. I have spent the last eight years working on what I call my “self-recovery,” and I am a much more balanced, grounded, sane, healthy person than I was eight years ago. But I still have faults, flaws, foibles, weaknesses, and imperfections — and I always will. I am a work in progress, and I will be for the rest of my life.
And I still think that Karla McLaren’s “Emotional Genius” is an excellent book on emotions and boundary issues.
I have a friend who was also heavily into meditation and New Age stuff and suddenly rejected it all after 12 years and became a born again Christian.
I could not understand it at first. However, in time I have understood that he did not have a balance between mind and heart. He was all heart and more sentimental than anything else. (the negative aspect of the heart)
Being truly spiritual requires having the heart and intellect balanced.
Perhaps Karla, too, did not have this balance in the beginning. I have no doubt that she will eventually feel uncomfortable being a ’skeptic’ because, let’s face it, it is extreme and demonstrates the weakness of an intellect that has no ethics or the ability to see the BIG PICTURE - just equally deluded as being totally sentimental.
Like Lahra I’m confused. Kind of. One of the great (and deeply impressive) strengths of EMOTIONAL GENIUS is Karla’s ability and willingness to take each realm (spirit, emotion, intellect, body) on its own terms and treat all of them with respect. At least that is how I read it. The book very clearly calls out as imbalanced “over reliance” on any one part of our selves, and talks in detail about what sorts of problems each imbalance leads to. All to the good, and I found it radical in its clarity on all this. I don’t know if I’ve come across anyone else with the intellect and emotion to hold all this in such a complete way. As Karla says (2008) “Writing dissent material from inside the new age (where dissent, judgment, and discernment are not welcome) was a linguistic challenge, but I did it well all those years, or as well as you can for people who were trained to ignore their own judgment.”
But, something in there must have turned up as “false” for Karla. False in a big way. I don’t know what, but I’d like to. I’d love to ask Karla which parts of Emotional Genius seem wrong to her now. I assume something in there seems way-wrong since (I’ve heard that) she is having it stay out-of-print on purpose. Or maybe it is somehow the association of the book’s ideas with other ideas — maybe it got to be too painful or too much of a challenge to be writing gentle dissent while living among those dissenting views. I can relate!
I’d like to ask her about what her thinking is now — some of the “I’m a skeptic” article comes across as pro-conventionality to me, but I don’t assume I know all there is to know. So, I’d like to ask her to tell me more. Conventionality makes no more sense that rebellion as criteria for what is best, or right, or useful (except in the limited contexts where we’re wanting to fit in or rebel.)
Take this statement (2008) “For instance, I’ve found in my research that the skills I and other psychics have ARE understandable from a scientific and rational standpoint. Intuition is real, and it doesn’t have to be paranormal in order to be fascinating and valid. ” Okay, this seems to say that someone (maybe new-agers or maybe a past Karla, or both?) finds psychic skills valid BECAUSE THEY ARE PARANORMAL. This leads to more good questions, which might lead to a useful deconstruction of what “new age” “paranormal” and “skeptic” mean — and possibly how these undefined concepts set us all us to see these as conflicting views.
She says (2008) “Many skeptics also understand that you can be skeptical and be a new ager or a religionist at the same time. For instance, I certainly was a skeptic in all of my books and tapes, and a dissenter from many new age tenets. Check out my work on judgment, which was heresy. But it made my work interesting and fresh, not to mention useful. I never walked the line with new age ideas, and I wasn’t anyone’s butt monkey. The cool skeptics I met did not look down on me for an instant, though some of them had to do some mental calisthenics to fit me into their worldviews. Bully for them that they did so. But I didn’t find a way to be comfortable in the straight-up skeptical world. I don’t feel comfortable with groups anyway. I am very skeptical, and I always have been, but I don’t need to be a skeptic. Do you know what I mean? ”
Yes, Karla, I do know what you mean, and I think I may even be able to help you pick out some the pieces of “skeptic” that make sense from some of those that don’t. I’ve found that people who talk about “science” often have some big (but simple) holes in their thinking, and I think I’d find it enjoyable to talk to someone with your background and thinking about it. All the argument you refer to (in skeptics circles) may be partly a result of some basic misunderstandings — but I’m not sure about that, and you are more familiar with that culture than I am.
Karla and I don’t agree on everything, but I am positive we share a similar underlying devotion and openness to truth, inquiry, critical thinking, experiment, observation, AND using information for good and balanced ends. In her current essay (2008) the part that challenges people to “do something to relieve pain” is a fine example of a thoughtful and whole-person response. Amen that we need more and better support of all kinds, and less of what-causes-pain.
I’d say the challenge is how to ask good (critical thinking) questions that contribute to finding useful answers. McLaren is an old pro at this, and I wish she were giving lessons, because I’m still trying to follow her lead, and I could make good use of help.
I am happy to read her latest essay and feel reasonably assured that she is continuing on her usual whole-self and deep way to sort things out, find meaning, and (I hope) find personal satisfaction. However, I don’t hear her calling out some of the problems that I see with “skepticism”. I hear her saying there are some problems — but I think she is missing some important ones, and I hope she doesn’t have to wrestle with it any longer than necessary. Well, I guess we all have to get there in our own ways. Still, I’d love to hear more from Karla, I’d love to get to talk to her about all this, I’m grateful for the writing she did do, and I wish her peace and happiness commensurate with the contribution she has made to the peace and happiness of others. This is one fierce big soul this Karla. I would vote for her, send her cookies, or give her aspirin.
Meanwhile, I’m keeping both my critical thinking and my magic slippers and I will continue to count Karla as a friend even though she doesn’t know me.
Truth is truth wherever it is found.
I hope Karla is able to realize this before we lose her invaluable insights.
I have only recently (two weeks ago) been introduced to Karla’s work. A walk past the audio books at a local library resulted in a copy of “Energetic Boundaries” all but jumping off the shelf at me. I listened to the first CD, and as with all serendipitous events leading to promising help, I attempted to find more of her work at the libraries I frequent. Only one other item was available. I also googled her, and found more of her books.
I also found the article reviewd here, and I was truly dismayed to find that she is trying to stop publication of her works, which explains why it’s hard to find any of them at reasonable prices (the least expensive copies I have found are in the mid $20 - most cost in the $90 - $100 range).
I read her most recent statement (2008) with relief that she has learned that there is scientific basis for much of what she has experienced.
However, I am today devastated at the thought of her previous works being gone. When I found out that Karla had written about child sexual abuse, I was heartened to think that I had finally found someone outside of the mental health profession who was addressing issues from the whole person perspective with an understanding of Chakras and Auras; someone who could address the issues from a real how-to without the horrific descriptions - just help me get through my own.
I just listened to the first side of the first tape of “Emotional Genius”. I don’t understand how someone with such incredible insight and compassion can think that this work wouldn’t help anyone, but then, I haven’t lived her life.
I’m going to attempt to contact her through one of her publishers (Sounds True is still selling her audio programs) and encourage her to allow us to continue to be helped by her unique genius.
I feel like I’ve lost a friend I never knew I had…
After reading Karla’s recent update and her ‘bridge’ article, several things come to mind:
First, Karla believes herself ‘responsible’ for healing the pain of others. This is incorrect, individuals heal themselves.
Second, our beliefs have tremendous power in our lives, perhaps more power than anything else. Recognizing what those beliefs are, requires conscious discernment, which gives us the gift of the ability to make conscious choices, which in turn empowers us.
Third, Karla’s personal ‘fall off a cliff’ shock that people were being opiated, not helped–is a projection of her own switch in gears. Her intense awareness of other’s pain without the ability to separate from it creates a belief that her experience is also the truth of others. This is not the case, it is a blurring of boundaries between herself and others, a serious concern for empaths.
Fourth, Karla now focuses on polarity, which is unnecessary. Great scientists rely on their intuition: intuition and intellect work together very well. And as Einstein expressed, the more one learns, the more one is in awe of all creation.
Finally, research and common sense agree with Karla that connection to culture & community both strengthen our immunity, and increase our emotional well being.
Karla has moved from one position to it’s implied opposite, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there are gullible people in this world. There are people practicing who have no business making the claims that they do. And there will always be people wanting a fix, needing hope, or desiring others to do their work for them.
The vast majority of so called ‘new age’ practitioners understand that what they offer has nothing to do with magic and does not involve pretense or dishonesty. They know that in truth, we are each doing our own work.
Karla’s beautiful words, “A best friend is someone who takes you by the hand and leads you back to yourself” are the very essence of healing. Although Karla may see her former work as fraudulent, her words have supported the the human community. Though she may choose to disown it, her work stands on it’s own.
I am sorry Karla passes judgment on the area from which she withdrew. Her current thinking implies an exclusivity of truth which is a disservice all around.