KAJAMA.COM NEWSLETTER

November 17 through November 23, 2025

We’ll celebrate the Sun’s entry into Sagittarius on Friday, as well as a Scorpio new Moon on Thursday, marking a definite change of energy before the week is out. Monday’s Libra Moon continues to call on us to restore balance to our worlds, especially in regard to our personal relationships. Tuesday and Wednesday are all about spiritual pursuits as the Moon wades through Scorpio, so don’t worry if you can’t seem to get any traction regarding physical or work tasks. The Scorpio new Moon occurs early Wednesday morning, just before the Moon travels into Sagittarius, making Thursday a perfect day to make a wish, and then spend the next two weeks bringing it into reality. The Sun will enter Sagittarius on Friday, heralding in a four-week cycle that brings justice, restores our optimism, and encourages us to embrace the light-hearted season ahead. The mood will continue as the Moon spends the weekend in Sagittarius, adding to the fun!

Can We Prove There Is Life After Death? by Chris Carter

(Article originally published in The Llewellyn Journal.)

The evidence for survival after death is vast, varied, and ancient. Belief in survival dates back at least to the Neanderthals, who buried their dead with flowers and utensils, presumably for use in the next world. And reports that suggest survival have come to us from virtually all nations and cultures of which we have record. Could the nearly universal nature of belief in the survival of bodily death be based upon experiences humans have reported for thousands of years?

The British and American Societies for Psychical Research were both founded in the 1880s, and their founding members included some of the most elite scientists, philosophers, physicians, lawyers, and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Determined to take on the materialists at their own game, these men and women investigated several forms of evidence, and their carefully-documented works survive to this day as monuments of rigor and sophistication. Despite the often-repeated lie that "they found nothing," the truth of the matter is that by the early years of the twentieth century they had found and documented an enormous volume of evidence, enough to convince almost all leading SPR members of the reality of personal survival of bodily death.

Research into this matter has continued on to the present day, and the modern evidence for survival comes from five independent lines of evidence: near-death experiences, deathbed visions, apparitions, children who claim to recall a previous life, and messages seemingly received from the departed via human mediums. These lines of evidence, all very different from each other, all point in the same direction.

And so today some have asked the question: do these impressive lines of evidence prove the reality of life after death? As I argue in my recent book The Case for the Afterlife, the answer is "yes," but we have to be careful of what we mean by "proof." There are two main categories or types of proof: proof beyond reasonable doubt, and proof beyond conceivable doubt. Only the first type is relevant in any dispute over any factual matter, such as over the guilt of a defendant in a criminal legal trial. The second type is relevant only in matters of pure logic and mathematics, and it is confusion over the difference between the two types of proof that has allowed "skeptics" to argue that the case for survival has not been proven, despite the enormous volume of evidence in its favor.

Consider the simple logical argument: if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A must be greater than C. It is simply inconceivable that A < C. This is what is meant by proof beyond all conceivable doubt, but the only reason we can attain such mathematical certainty is that A, B, and C are purely abstract entities in a purely abstract argument. Only in pure logic and mathematics can we attain proof beyond all conceivable doubt.

In courts of criminal law, and when dealing with a dispute over any factual matter, only proof beyond reasonable doubt can be attained. What do we mean by this standard of proof? It must mean simply that a statement is proved beyond all reasonable doubt when we have good reasons to believe it is true, and no good reason to believe it may be false. And when dealing with factual matters, good reasons must always be reasons based upon evidence, not speculation.

The legal rules of evidence prohibit the use of speculation during criminal trials, on the grounds that no one should be convicted or acquitted based upon speculation. Only evidence-based arguments are allowed in court. If during the cross examination of a hostile witness a defense attorney asks, "It is possible that the police framed my client?" and if the prosecuting attorney does not object on the grounds that the question calls for speculation, then if the defense has not presented any evidence that the police actually framed his client, the correct answer should be "Yes, in the same sense that it is possible that unicorns exist. But until we have some supporting evidence, we have no reason to believe in unicorns or that the police framed your client."

We should perhaps occasionally expect such sophistry from defense lawyers, as their earnings depend on their success at winning cases. But we should recognize it as what it is: an attempt to create the illusion of reasonable doubt by raising conceivable doubt.

This is the same as the distinction between real possibilities and imaginary possibilities. The philosopher Rene Descartes argued centuries ago that is possible—in a purely logical or imaginary way—that the world was created complete with memories and other signs of the past just five minutes ago. (A modern take on this idea was found in the science fiction film The Matrix.) But until we have positive evidence that either of these imaginary possibilities are in fact true, then they are just two among a virtually infinite variety of fantasies we can dream up, and no one should take any of them seriously.

The so-called skeptics of survival, who frequently happen to be militant atheists, have come up with a wide variety of hypothetical scenarios in their various attempts to explain away the evidence for survival. From the very start of the SPR research, these have typically involved fraud, mistaken eyewitness testimony, or extra-sensory perception between medium and sitter.

In fact, the early researchers exposed several fraudulent physical mediums, and so instead switched to only examining mental mediums: that is, mediums who only convey written or spoken messages that seem to come from the departed. Fraud was also conclusively ruled out in some cases by having mediums trailed by private detectives, and by taking at least one medium to another country, where she could have no accomplices. In the best cases, no evidence of fraud was ever uncovered. It is also important to remember that, with very few exceptions, most of the mediums studied were not professional mediums, but rather women of impressive education and standing, and who were not paid for their services.

Mistaken eyewitness testimony also cannot explain the evidence from mental mediums, as it was standard SPR policy to record everything the entranced medium said or wrote. These written records are therefore permanent and objective, and cannot be explained away in terms of mistaken perception.

It is reports of apparitions that are most frequently criticized on grounds that eye witness testimony is unreliable. Skeptics will often refer to experiments involving staged events in psychology classrooms. However, it is important to remember that although witnesses to an event, actual or staged, may disagree on incidental details, they may all agree that such an event occurred. That is, they may disagree on whether the assailant had red or brown hair, a green or blue shirt, fired two shots or three; and yet all may agree that a shooting occurred.

And just how reliable is eye-witness testimony in real life? Because of the unrealistic nature of staged events, the response of the judicial system to such experiments has been lukewarm. Staged events cannot replicate the seriousness of actual events, and so psychologists Yuille and Cutshall examined an actual shooting that occurred in broad daylight, in full view of multiple bystanders. Five months later, Yuille and Cutshall interviewed 13 of the 15 principal witnesses, and compared their statements with the police reconstruction of the incident (this reconstruction was done by combining the eyewitness reports with photographs of the scene, location of blood stains, reports from ambulance attendants, and forensic evidence), and with the statements the witnesses had given five months earlier. Yuille and Cutshall concluded: "We take issue with the essentially negative view of the eyewitness that has been consistently presented by most eyewitness researchers. In the present research a different picture emerges. Most of the witnesses in this case were highly accurate in their accounts, and this continued to be true 5 months after the event."

To state it simply: the rejection of a specific case of eyewitness testimony on the grounds that some eyewitness testimony is flawed, and without presenting any evidence that in this specific case we have reason to doubt the testimony, is simply another example of attempting to create the illusion of reasonable doubt by raising conceivable doubt. Each case must be considered separately, and on its own merits.

Finally, what about the possibility that extra-sensory perception between medium and sitter can explain cases in which accurate information is provided by a medium regarding a deceased person? This hypothesis was put to the test with proxy sittings—in which a sitter with no connection to the deceased visits the medium on behalf of a third person. The best known of these proxy sittings are the numerous ones in which the Reverend Drayton Thomas acted as proxy, usually on behalf of bereaved parents and spouses. One such sitting was arranged by Professor E.R. Dodds, a well-known critic of the evidence for survival. The sitting was not on behalf of Dodds, but rather for a Mrs Lewis who wished to contact her deceased father, and so the sitting was not even secondhand, but thirdhand. Thomas was told only the man's name, home town, and date of death. Regardless, at a sitting the medium seemed to get in touch with him right away, and the results were considered by all to be very impressive. Dodds, the skeptical investigator, was forced to conclude:

It appears to me that the hypothesis of fraud, rational influence from disclosed facts, telepathy from the actual sitter, and coincidence cannot either singly or in combination account for the results obtained. Only the barest information was supplied to sitter and medium, and that through an indirect channel.

Not only is there no experimental evidence for such an indirect form of telepathy, but the both experimental and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest that telepathy usually operates between people who are emotionally linked, or at least associated in some way. But what link or association was there between Reverend Thomas and Mrs Lewis? In a word, none.

Super-ESP to the Rescue
The hypothesis that ESP between sitter and medium could explain the results was thereby proven false. But the hypothesis of living-agent ESP was not abandoned; the "skeptics" merely stretched and extended it into what became known as Super-ESP: the idea that the medium unconsciously employs vast, virtually omniscient powers of telepathy and clairvoyance, allowing her to read the mind of anyone anywhere, including complete strangers, regardless of what they may happen to be thinking at the time, and also allowing her to scan books and other records, regardless of where they are located or even known to exist by the medium. Then, all of this information is instantly collated and presented as the departed person would have presented it, in the form of an elaborate deception by the medium's unconscious mind.

It should be obvious that this is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to salvage living-agent ESP as an explanation. It is not so much a theory as an anti-theory, as it was proposed for the sole purpose of opposing the obvious inference of survival. It is a mere logical or imaginary possibility, without a shred of supporting evidence; indeed, instead of offering such evidence, proponents merely challenge others to prove that such super-powerful ESP cannot explain the data.

However, several well-documented cases I describe in The Case for the Afterlife do indeed have features that simply cannot be explained in terms of any form of perception, normal, extra-sensory, super or otherwise. No magnitude of mere perception can explain the life-like impersonation of people the medium has never met; nor can any magnitude of mere perception explain how the medium was able to instantly and temporarily acquire the skills of the departed, skills that required years of dedicated practice to acquire.

The most that Super-ESP can explain, at least in principle, is the rapid production of accurate information about the deceased, or of some other relevant information that exists in memory or print. And yet even on these grounds Super-ESP ultimately fails as an explanation.

Space allows only a brief description of two such cases. The first case involved a lawyer named George Pellew who died after an accident at age 32. The case was investigated by SPR researcher, friend of Pellew, and arch-skeptic Richard Hodgson. Pellew gave every indication of communicating via the entranced medium Leonora Piper, sometimes directly using her voice, other times by writing with her hand.

As a test, Hodgson had 150 different sitters introduced to Mrs. Piper while in trance, of who the living George Pellew knew only 30. Piper correctly recognized by name 29 of the 30 that George Pellew had known in life (the sole exception was a young woman whom we will soon meet). Conversations were in a manner appropriate for the living Pellew's relationship with the individual sitter, and always showed an intimate knowledge of Pellew's past relationships with them. As Hodgson wrote, in each case, "the recognition was clear and full, and accompanied by an appreciation of the relations which subsisted between GP living and the sitters."¹ And there was not a single case of false recognition: that is, GP never once greeted anyone of the 120 that the living Pellew had not known.

It was the continual manifestation of this personality that finally drove Hodgson to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Piper was genuine. Hodgson was convinced that Piper had no knowledge of the living Pellew; yet how could she have succeeded in dramatically impersonating someone she had barely met over four years earlier in a manner that convinced thirty people that they were indeed conversing with their old friend?

As mentioned, Pellew failed to recognize only one of the thirty sitters whom had known the living Pellew, a young woman named Miss Warner who had been a child when the living Pellew knew her mother. Since Miss Warner had changed a great deal in the eight years since the living Pellew had last seen her, the non-recognition by George Pellew would have been perfectly natural.

However, on the hypothesis of telepathy, there is no explanation for the failure to recognize Miss Warner. Since both Miss Warner and Hodgson were aware that the living Pellew knew her when she was a child, sources for telepathy were readily at hand, and here the ESP hypothesis would predict "recognition." On the other hand, the non-recognition of Miss Warner is precisely what would be expected if Pellew were in fact directly communicating.

The second case that will be briefly discussed here involves a chess game played between living and deceased grandmasters.

This remarkable story began in 1985, when chess enthusiast Dr. Wolfgang Eisenbeiss contacted amateur medium Robert Rollans, who did not know how to play chess. Eisenbeiss was able to persuade the world-famous chess champion Victor Korchnoi, then ranked third in the world, to participate. On June 15, 1985, a communicator claiming to be deceased Hungarian grandmaster Geza Maroczy (ranked third in the world in 1900) agreed to play.

To make a long story short, Maroczy gave Korchnoi a very challenging game, taking him to 52 moves. At one point Korchnoi remarked, "I'm not sure I will win." But there was much more than the display of grandmaster-level chess skills. Maroczy, through Rollans, was asked eighty-one questions about the obscure life of Geza Maroczy; he answered seventy-nine (97.5%) correctly (two remained unsolved). Many of his answers to the questions were so difficult to verify that a historian needed to be hired.

The August 4, 1988 edition of the Swiss chess magazine Schachwoche held a readers' competition, asking them: Who was the Austrian founder of the Vera Menchik Club? Eisenbeiss asked Maroczy the same question on August 8, 1988. Maroczy confessed that he was uncertain and speculated on various names. He also described the club as, "a silly joke to which he paid no attention." Note that the Super-ESP hypothesis would predict that the medium, posing as Maroczy, would give the correct name, because by August 4 the entire editing team at Schachwoche knew the correct name.

The solution was published in the same magazine on August 18, 1988: Albert Becker. On August 21, 1988, Maroczy was again asked for the founder's name. However, as Dr. Eisenbeiss noted:

He still does not name Becker as the founder of the club, as might be expected under the Super-ESP hypothesis; once the solution was published it should be possible for the medium to access the information, either clairvoyantly, or telepathically from the minds of the magazine's readers. But instead of correcting his wrong answer, Maroczy quite unprompted comes up with a different story, which evidently demanded his attention much more than the "silly joke"… for Rollans the medium it is difficult to understand [if using Super-ESP] why he should be unable to retrieve the name requested, given his ability to convey detailed precise information on other occasions, even less why he should digress to an umprompted narrative thread.²

In short, we have seen that Super-ESP utterly fails to explain several features of both of these remarkable cases. By contrast, the participation of the living minds of Pellew and Maroczy can explain all of the features of these cases.

And yet, still to this day, the so-called skeptics continue to invent elaborate fraud and Super-ESP scenarios, all without a shred of supporting evidence. Their main tactic is to demand proof beyond all conceivable doubt. But as I stress in The Case for the Afterlife, such fantasies are simply incapable of providing any rational challenge to the evidence-based conclusion that the survival of our minds after the death of our bodies has been proven true beyond all reasonable doubt.

¹Hodgson, 1897-8, p. 328.

²Eisenbeiss & Hassler, 2006, p. 76.

Article originally published in The Llewellyn Journal. Copyright Llewellyn Worldwide, 2025. All rights reserved.

I have been dating this guy for a year and a half now. He won't get into a serious committed relationship because 11 years ago, his girlfriend died suddenly in his arms. He has never overcome the loss. He has dated here and there, but I am the first woman he has dated for a long period of time. Since I have been seeing him, I have had bizarre incidents happening to me. When I get frustrated with the relationship and decide I'm going to move on, my cell phone acts up such that when I try calling my friends, my phone ends up calling him even though I can see my friend's name in the phone as the contact. This has happened numerous times. I got a new phone and the problem continues: every time I start planning to move on, my phone keeps dialing him. I also have had problems with meeting new guys; I keeping hitting road blocks. Every time I meet someone new and we set up a date to meet for the first time, they disappear. That has happened several times. (This never happened to me before I met him.) One last thing: this summer, he gave me a small music box that just sits on my dresser. I never touch it. Several weeks ago, I was going through a box on my floor next to my dresser when all of a sudden, this music box let out four little notes. It hasn't been touched since the summer. I'm a little confused as to what may be going on. I mentioned all of this to him. In my heart I feel it's his girlfriend trying to push me to him, yet he keeps pushing me away from anything too serious. He tells me he loves me but is afraid of loss. He tells me she was a very sweet, kind and warm person. I don't know if this is all coincidence or what to make of it. I don't know what to do. I feel she wants him to move on and be happy, but it's not me with the problem. Could this really be happening?

Sherri

Susyn:

Is your boyfriend working on his own to heal and resolve this trauma? It's easy for someone to cite all sorts of reasons they are not ready to make a commitment; it's another to use their fears as a wall to keep people at bay. If he is actively working on this issue through therapy or treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD), there there is hope for your future together.

I would not be at all surprised if his girlfriend's spirit is trying to push you two together, though as you say, you are not the one who is hesitating. I've had similar experiences with dialing one number and having it call someone else, which can seem quite maddening. However, each time it happened, I too felt that spirit was directing me to connect with the person that my phone ended up dialing.

I have a clock that once belonged to my ex-husband. Years after his death, I was remodeling and started to move the clock to a safe place when it began to chime. I felt strongly that this was his way of communicating that he approved of what I was doing. I also had a music box that belonged to my grandmother, and after years of silence, it began to play one day very briefly. I later realized that this had occurred on her birthday. For these reasons, I agree that these are signs from his last girlfriend, and that she is trying to get the two of you together.

Though it may be hard to pull away when his girlfriend's spirit keeps pushing you toward him, given your particular situation, I do recommend continuing to distance yourself from him. When you pull back your energy, if he truly loves you, he will break through his fears and find a way to move things to the next level. Often, fear of losing what we have can motivate us to overcome issues from the past.

My suggestion is that you continue to stand back from the relationship. If things happen that lead the two of you to discuss getting back together, let him know that you won't see him again until he seeks help for his issues and is ready to make a commitment.

Despite the constant signs that his girlfriend wants the two of you together, she will have to work her influence on him, not you. The next time an incident like this occurs, stop, call her name, and say, You need to send these signs to him. He is the one you need to convince. If these same unexplained incidents were to start happening to him, he might finally realize that it is time to move on and that even his late girlfriend agrees.

*****

Oceania:

Having a girlfriend die unexpectedly in his arms took an emotional toll on your boyfriend, and he has not yet fully healed from that traumatic experience. He now associates love with literal heart break and death. That being said, his past is not your fault, and you should not have to pay for it.

Your frustration is understandable, as is your wanting to move on to someone whole and healthy who is capable of commitment. One way or another, we eventually lose everyone we love, but when people have truly grieved, they have renewed faith in their ability to cope with the next loss to come. Ironically, by trying to avoid loss, your boyfriend is ensuring that he will lose you sooner rather than later.

Whenever you pull away, he tries to hang on and maintain the status quo. He is comfortable with the way things are because you're the one doing all the accommodating. His self-centered attitude is interfering with you phoning your friends, but I have news for you: He couldn't do that unless a part of you is colluding with him!

All of us feel victimized in relationships at one time or another, but the fact is that no one has any power over us unless a teensie part of us aligns with our oppressor's viewpoint. A small part of you is willing to stay under any circumstances, which is why you don't fully seize your freedom. Once you make peace with the fact that this relationship is too little and unacceptable to you, your phone will start working again, and your dates will stop disappearing. The notes from the music box were a manifestation of your boyfriend tugging on you, trying to entice you to stay, but four notes are not enough! You deserve an entire symphony.

You have been excusing your choice to linger in this dead-end relationship by attributing roadblocks to leaving it to your boyfriend's ex. As I don't see her in this picture, I beg to differ when you say, It's not me with the problem. You have your own fears of commitment and loss or you'd be long gone by now. You and your boyfriend share more than a birthday; you're both also willing to settle for a half-baked relationship in order to feel safe.

There may also be an element of you hoping to be his hero, his angel, the special one he has kept around longer than those who came before you, but that's just an ego trip and waste of your time. Only he can heal himself. You might tell him to look you up when he has done so. I invite you to affirm the following: I release all blocks between myself and complete love.

Astrea:

Many times in life we hear, "You will always have what you NEED, but not necessarily what you WANT." Your spirit must have needed to experience the feeling of leaving your human body, and the suggestion in the next chapter of Sylvia Brown's book was all it took to get you there.

Even though you hadn't read it yet, your SOUL recognized the title of that chapter as something it had been seeking, and your soul, knowing that you had that reference to read after your experience, got with it and out you went!

While I don't usually recommend her books, Sylvia Brown has a wide reaching and powerful effect on lots of people. A Gemini like you would be able to relate easily to her writing and put it to good use. Synchronicity - you gotta love it!

I like your description of "getting caught." That's exactly what it feels like, isn't it? One minute you're free and hovering above the room, and the next minute, ZAP! back down into your corporeal form you go!

As a little kid, I loved that "feeling of return." With practice, most of the time we can control that event, but sometimes, when our physical ears hear a distracting noise or something else occurs to knock us back into reality, back we go. With practice you will be able to control your return better.

I find it interesting that you were visiting your mother-in-law and not someone in your own genetic family. Evidently, you and your husband got married for reasons that are even deeper than love. His family's interest in "psychic stuff" will nurture your children in such matters and help them to grow into their own abilities.

You'll never have to be concerned that when your daughter visits them, she'll be discouraged from exploring her own psychic life and power. My parents encouraged me to develop my psychic senses in a time when it wasn't nice to even discuss such things in public. Heck, it's STILL not considered a great topic at the dinner table in some families!

Your kids will get to talk about it ALL and ask questions and read and study. This is going to give them such an edge in life! Talk with your husband about how you want to present this to your kiddos, so that you are united in your approach and ready to tell them their experiences are all natural and okay.

A word or two of warning: Geminis often have difficulty staying grounded in REAL LIFE. Don't get so strung out on your ASTRAL life that you neglect what you're doing here on Earth.

You are at the beginning of a long journey to learn where your power really lies. Try to be patient with this process and take your time.