17. Skeptics, Mediums & “Talking To The Dead”

Without a doubt, every so often, I run into the argument from a skeptic referring to “talking to the dead” as, quite frankly, talking to the dead, but usually followed up by something to the effect of “taking advantage of people grieving”. You would think that, as someone who has heard every type of comment or argument, it wouldn’t affect me, but this one always does. I can’t entirely figure out why, because logically it would make sense. From an outsider’s perspective, it may appear that someone is “taking advantage of people grieving”. And don’t get me wrong- there are certainly people out there who do take advantage of clients, but I feel this is from such an extreme perspective that it’s likely the person expressing this has never actually gotten a mediumship reading.

Let’s talk about the phrase “talking to the dead”. Now, although this is technically correct, and potentially a way I would refer to what I do, I feel the sentence as a phrase is deliberately pushed to be such an extreme that it’s intended to be unbelievable. It paints the picture that a zombie is rising from the dead, walking into someone’s home, and chatting with a medium. To be honest, most mediums do not even see dead people; they sense their presence or receive impressions that are subtle enough to reveal the person without physically revealing them. We use this phrase in order to create such an extreme dissonance between our reality and a medium’s reality. But in reality, it’s quite the opposite. The only concept that you need to wrap your head around is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed (which we already align to), and that energy is intelligent (which we partially already align to). Once we align with these concepts, “talking to the dead” is not so strange after all. When you have a thought, feeling, or emotion, this energy exists and is not destroyed. This energy exists as itself unless it’s proactively transmuted. Therefore, it still… exists. And therefore it can be read.

One of the weirdest perceptions is that mediums are constantly being bombarded by grieving people. Although this may be the case, the primary source of my clients is people who are looking to get in touch with relatives who have passed years ago, and even some whom they have never met before. Although we may never leave a grieving stage for those we were/are extremely close with, to say that clients are “grieving people” is a bit of a presumptuous stance. Typically, my clients are very well-informed, rational, and emotionally healthy people. I personally would not recommend a reading to someone who was not in a high enough vibrational state to have a reading. And although rare, there are clients whom I refuse to read due to an energetic misalignment. Ethically, I feel all media should operate similarly. In a way, I get a little bit offended for clients when I hear this phrase. Do people believe that they are not capable of making their own decisions, even months after their loved one has died? I have never heard of funeral homes taking advantage of loved ones by up-selling merchandise or unnecessary services. However, I’m sure they do. In fact, I hardly ever hear such grandiose terminology even for industries which are known for taking advantage of clients without their rights or permission, which is not the case in mediumship readings. Although it’s not perfect, I personally have a list of disclaimers and only claim to know my own abilities. I would recommend this to anyone for their own protection.

Another interesting topic is legitimacy. Because there is no fact or fiction related to mediumship in general, as everyone operates out of their own perception value, there’s no way of knowing whether a medium is actually talking to the dead or not, with the exception of their work, reputation, and reviews. Not to mention personal client resonance. I can tell you that I’ve had very good readings and simultaneously very bad readings. It is quite obvious to know who is not operating from the source. Legitimacy is based on client experience. And some readers have incredible recommendations and, therefore, incredible client experiences. I’m shocked that this does not speak for itself. The argument is typically made that these people are impressionable or gullible, but innately, as human beings, we have feelings of resonance which indicate to us that this information is correct/accurate. I don’t see how it’s possible to sit across from someone in an hour reading and thinking it’s 100% correct when it’s 100% BS. It doesn’t make sense.

There is a misconception that a mediumship reading is 100% a reader validating the presence of a loved one. Although that can be a small or even large part of it, it’s so much more. There are several reasons why someone would want a mediumship or psychic reading. Everyone wants validation, attention, expression, and, to be honest, a therapeutic conversation. If I recall my past in phone readings, some clients just wanted to talk to me. The intention is healing in any form, and I go with the flow of the reading and the client.