• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

March 12, 2017 — Leslie Kean with co-host Erica Lukes


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
This was a fascinating journey about visions of a place to which we may go after life ends.

Or is there another explanation for what we consider to be evidence of survival?

This episode also fueled a brief discussion on this week's episode of After The Paracast, where Erica was the guest co-host.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
For such a murky paranormal topic, Leslie was sensible in her comments, IMHO.

One thing that Leslie repeated several times during the interview was that there is convincing evidence of human contact with sentient beings from a different, non-mundane realm. At the same time, she readily admitted that "interpreting" that evidence is open to debate. Leslie seemed limited to two ideas, a) either human survival of death (such as claimed by mediums during séances), or that b) the psychic ability of sensitives allows them to simply pull information from the great "out there" about a deceased person, which may have no relationship to human survival after death.

But once the door is opened to the possibility of some realm beyond the mundane, then the question of the origin of invisible sentient entities arises, IMHO. Are there only human death survivors (human "spirits") in that non-mundane realm? Or are there other non-human sentient entities who have never undergone human life and death? Could such a non-human entity become very familiar with a human subject during his/her life, and then impersonate that person after they are deceased? This is a crucial question, IMHO.

There are vast swaths of human culture that to this day accept ideas of sheddim, malachim, angels, demons, jinn and divine powers, who are understood to be non-human sentient entities that exist along side humans, and that sometimes interact with humans. Some of these entities do not have humanity's best interest in mind. That, at the very least, should be cause for pause on the questions that Leslie raises, IMHO.
 
I'd already heard Leslie on Open Minds with Alejandro on this topic but I was happy to listen as no 2 separate shows will ever cover the exact same lines of thought etc. I have often thought about searching out a 'real' medium, with conditions similar to Leslie (phone, no name, no background details) with the intent of finding out if the medium is capable of picking up on what should be blaring details they should not know.

Personally I would like the show to do a little more on this type of topic, I'm still mainly a UFO guy but crypto and ghost stuff I love also, so I always like when such a show comes around. As Leslie mentioned in regard to her 'entering' the UFO field, people applauded the interest of a credentialed journalist and I feel the same way with the afterlife/spirit contact stuff. Good show.
 
I commend Leslie's methodology in dealing with mediums. Aside from that, I tend to belive reincarnation is possible. Overall, a nice take on such a tricky topic.
 
A fascinating topic.

The emphasis on mediums disturbed me a bit because the feedback from the medium can be so open to interpretation. For example, Budd Hopkins supposedly said something like "You were right". Well, that could mean ANYTHING. That is not proof to me, and would not convince me of anything. If the medium had said "He is showing me a pile of books while saying that you were right", I would be impressed. But it seems such medium messages are so open to subjectivity. I think I recall Gene saying at one point that it seemed to be open to faith in terms of evaluation of mediumistic messages.

When I was younger, I went to several recommended mediums because a dear friend had died and I kept having dreams where he would talk to me. The information from the mediums could apply to just about anyone who had died and cared for the living. There was not a single "GOTCHA" message that could convince me it was real. And since I shared many intimate experiences with my deceased friend, it should have been easy to reference a situation that only he and I know about.

If people are interested in this topic from a scientific aspect, they might want to look at the books by Gary Schwartz, from University of Arizona - Tucson. He put many "famous" psychics to the test in blind studies with interesting results. See THE AFTER DEATH EXPERIMENTS. Warning: His books have sparked a lot of controversy over his possibly sloppy experiment protocols.

After the Paracast mentioned connections of NDE's and Abductions. I strongly recommend HEADING TOWARD OMEGA by Kenneth Ring, which compared the experiences of these 2 groups.

But ultimately, the problem I have with scientific research in this area is the unconscious motivation of the investigator's underlying beliefs. We all want to believe in life after death. I do since I lived in a haunted house. My roommate and I saw an apparition on many occasions. This "thing" would open/close doors as we watched, turn on all the gas stove plates, open and stop my pendulum grandfather clock, and turn lights on and off as we watched. This upset me so much that I moved out. This may not have been proof of life-after-death, but it certainly was evidence of something our current science does not understand or even admit exists.

Leslie's book is 416 pages long, which means it is not a quick pulp non-fiction book (which brings to mind Brad Stieger who put out tons of books that gloss very lightly over paranormal topics).
 
Last edited:
LOL. We are all responding on the title that mispells Leslie's last name. Seems the 2 threads should be merged with the properly spelled last name.
 
I commend Leslie's methodology in dealing with mediums. Aside from that, I tend to belive reincarnation is possible. Overall, a nice take on such a tricky topic.
What exactly is reincarnation to you? Is it like you can be reincarnated so you become an ant? And would you be down there thinking: "What the heck did I do wrong in my past life to deserve this?" Or does it go all the way to a continuity of personhood from one human to another, where you just don't remember much of anything really clearly? In the end I don't see how either option is possible, but I do see reasons why it's impossible.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the show: The first thing I'll give Leslie credit for is acknowledging that the phenomena may not be caused by dead people trying to communicate or reveal themselves in some way. I've been arguing this point for years with believers, and it seems it's finally been picked up psychically by the researchers where it percolated up into their consciousness and then migrated into Leslie's book, which she says she wrote "not to sell books". What? That must be why she mentioned "the book" over and over again, created a dedicated website for it, has a publicist, and gives all the money she makes from it away to non-profit organizations. She does that right? Of course she wants to sell books! The whole show was basically an infomercial for her book. Which is actually just fine. Sell a boatload. Just don't expect us believe she doesn't want to ...lol.
 
Last edited:
I found this show to be a bit frustrating. Ms. Kean's initial reluctance to discuss her personal experiences in detail, claiming that they needed to be put into context before they could be fully understood, was disappointing. You wrote a book that follows your investigation into "life after death" but you are reticent to share your profound, first-hand personal experiences? That makes no sense to me. It felt like pulling teeth to get her to fully share what her perception-changing experiences were. We get it, you want people to buy the book but in my opinion the best way to do that is to share the astonishing details of your personal experiences in order to whet the potential reader's appetite so that I would want to know more, resulting in a book purchase.

Gene's comments about this book "getting away from" Leslie were puzzling to me. Especially since he hasn't read it. I came away with the impression that in doing her research for her book she had some amazing, unexplainable experiences that fundamentally changed her previous outlook on the phenomena. Although it seems she intended to approach this subject in much the same way she approached her UFOs book, when faced with the opportunity to test the "life after death" theory first-hand, she dove in and made some life-altering discoveries. I don't think you can fully and effectively "research" this particular subject without engaging on a personal level. How else could one "verify" the validity of what a particular medium was saying? To listen to someone else's session doesn't prove anything but hearing your own personal details in a session is definitive proof (for the researcher, at the very least). I do agree that it will be interesting to see Ms. Kean's continuing journey through this fascinating subject.

Finally, Erica proved a worthy guest co-host. It was her first co-hosting gig and she acquitted herself well. I look forward to her continued involvement during those times when Chris is playing hooky.
 
Last edited:
This was a good interview agree less trying to flog the book more substance on the experience this what makes the Paracast No 1 (Darkmatters equal) great. Always wary of so called channellers no matter how good relying on this person (being ) honest and the intrepertation of the message. Mrs Kean came across well balanced and very imformative enjoyed the stories about the young children's knowledge of past lives. Late Ingo Swan discussed channellers and the reality of other realities . More scientific investigations and question about small group did the individual dominate this group like a cult figure? Although open to a plausible after life and maybe more science advances will open better understanding of the force which this type of strange awareness comes from.
 
I found this show to be a bit frustrating. Ms. Kean's initial reluctance to discuss her personal experiences in detail, claiming that they needed to be put into context before they could be fully understood, was disappointing. You wrote a book that follows your investigation into "life after death" but you are reticent to share your profound, first-hand personal experiences? That makes no sense to me. It felt like pulling teeth to get her to fully share what her perception-changing experiences were. We get it, you want people to buy the book but in my opinion the best way to do that is to share the astonishing details of your personal experiences in order to whet the potential reader's appetite so that I would want to know more, resulting in a book purchase.

Gene's comments about this book "getting away from" Leslie were puzzling to me. Especially since he hasn't read it. I came away with the impression that in doing her research for her book she had some amazing, unexplainable experiences that fundamentally changed her previous outlook on the phenomena. Although it seems she intended to approach this subject in much the same way she approached her UFOs book, when faced with the opportunity to test the "life after death" theory first-hand, she dove in and made some life-altering discoveries. I don't think you can fully and effectively "research" this particular subject without engaging on a personal level. How else could one "verify" the validity of what a particular medium was saying? To listen to someone else's session doesn't prove anything but hearing your own personal details in a session is definitive proof (for the researcher, at the very least). I do agree that it will be interesting to see Ms. Kean's continuing journey through this fascinating subject.

Finally, Erica proved a worthy guest co-host. It was her first co-hosting gig and she acquitted herself well. I look forward to her continued involvement during those times when Chris is playing hooky.
I didn't say I hadn't read the book. Erica did.

By allowing the book to get away from her, I meant what I said. Leslie wanted to be the journalist but had to consider those personal experiences.
 
I notice we didn't get past the first segment before dangling the "are you also being surpressed by men?" Bait in front of Leslie.

Leslie, like the true pro that she is, doesnt take the bait and of course says no.

Anything to do with the fact she is great at what she does and get's reward and recognition that reflect's this? Just a thought....
 
<rant>

I did not feel Leslie was "flogging" her book. If you just published a book on a topic, put your heart and soul and toil into it, and then got interviewed about it, would you not point people to the book as your central thesis? Do you expect George Miller not to talk about Mad Max in interviews? "Oh ... by the way I made a post apocalyptic masterpiece, but I won't talk about it in case people think I'm trying to sell movie tickets. I will just talk about colour grading." It's called art. People get interviewed when they create something substantial in the public space. That's how it works.

And I also have issue with the implication she was holding back details. She talked about physically touching a disembodied hand as one of the most striking moments of her research. What more do you want? A scratch & sniff DNA sample?
 
I didn't feel that either and at the end of the day, people have to make a living and if by coming on the show discussing a really interesting topic she shifts a few more copies then I'm down with that. People definitely do over-sell sometimes though but I didn't think Leslie really did on this occasion.
 
A fascinating topic.

The emphasis on mediums disturbed me a bit because the feedback from the medium can be so open to interpretation. For example, Budd Hopkins supposedly said something like "You were right". Well, that could mean ANYTHING. That is not proof to me, and would not convince me of anything. If the medium had said "He is showing me a pile of books while saying that you were right", I would be impressed. But it seems such medium messages are so open to subjectivity. I think I recall Gene saying at one point that it seemed to be open to faith in terms of evaluation of mediumistic messages.

The veridicality of information accessible to and expressed by mediums is the issue, and in order to be persuaded of the veridicality achieved by some mediums I think it is necessary to read extensively in the archivcs of the Society for Psychical Research founded in the UK in the late 19th century and continuing into our time. Contemporary experimentation with mediums by Gary Schwartz and Julie Beischel also yields examples of veridicality in communications from postmortem individuals or consciousnesses directed to living persons with whom they have been connected in life. The SPR archives are available online, and we also have available a range of books by psychical researchers recounting various cases. I recommend these sources for anyone interested in the best evidence of the veridicality of communications from 'the other side'.

When I was younger, I went to several recommended mediums because a dear friend had died and I kept having dreams where he would talk to me. The information from the mediums could apply to just about anyone who had died and cared for the living. There was not a single "GOTCHA" message that could convince me it was real. And since I shared many intimate experiences with my deceased friend, it should have been easy to reference a situation that only he and I know about.

I understand your frustration. Mediums demonstrate varying levels of receptivity, and it might also be the case that some would-be communicators are unable at the point at which communication is sought to 'get through' to a particular medium. This might be the case especially when the postmortem individual has recently passed over.

However, direct after-death communications to loved ones (about which much information has been published in the past and in our time) might be easier for the recently deceased to accomplish. I think you have received such communications during sleep, and so have I. I also received such communications while awake in the months after my daughter passed over nine years ago {and several of these involved physical, bodily, effects in me that persuaded me of her presence, or at least her ability to connect with me physically as well as mentally}. I have not yet listened to the interview with Leslie Kean but I intend to do so today, and I've ordered a copy of her book. Btw, my daughter's cat, still with me, has clearly experienced visual and audial manifestations of Annie's presence on numerous occasions over these last nine years; this is obvious in Sassy's [the cat's] responses to some manifestations that she can see and hear, follow with her eyes and ears moving about the room. On three occasions Sassy has followed what I assume to be a visual manifestation that I'm unable to see as it moves down to her front paws and touches them; in these cases Sassy responds by trying to catch or stop this manifestation as it moves about in front of her paws. I could say much more about my experiences and Sassy's apparent experiences, but this is enough for now.

If people are interested in this topic from a scientific aspect, they might want to look at the books by Gary Schwartz, from University of Arizona - Tucson. He put many "famous" psychics to the test in blind studies with interesting results. See THE AFTER DEATH EXPERIMENTS. Warning: His books have sparked a lot of controversy over his possibly sloppy experiment protocols.

I've read Schwartz's first book, The After-Death Experiments, and recommend it. As far as I can see, Schwartz has followed the methods of early experiments conducted by the SPR researchers [some of them hard scientists] and taken great pains with his own experimental protocols.

But ultimately, the problem I have with scientific research in this area is the unconscious motivation of the investigator's underlying beliefs.

I think that even if the investigator/experimenter is influenced by unconscious, subconscious, or even conscious beliefs in survival of personal consciousness after bodily death, the demonstration of veridical information received through skilled mediums over the last 130 years remains to be confronted. The only alternative explanation of these many cases of veridicality is the 'Super-Psi' hypothesis, which even Stephen Braude finds to be even more challenging in its daunting complexity than the hypothesis that consciousnesses survive bodily death and remain connected to and concerned with experiences shared with others who remain embodied in what we call life. See Braude's book Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death, which I can't seem to link here at amazon.

We all want to believe in life after death. I do since I lived in a haunted house. My roommate and I saw an apparition on many occasions. This "thing" would open/close doors as we watched, turn on all the gas stove plates, open and stop my pendulum grandfather clock, and turn lights on and off as we watched. This upset me so much that I moved out. This may not have been proof of life-after-death, but it certainly was evidence of something our current science does not understand or even admit exists.

You have had some very impressive experiences. I admire your open mind and critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Leslie Kean wasn't 'flogging' her book by any means. Turn on any talk show. The guests weren't just in the neighborhood and dropped in. Those show business types are there for one purpose. To promote their books, movies, tv programs etc.

These celebrities also make far more money than Leslie Kean promoting a book about the afterlife.
 
Finally, Erica proved a worthy guest co-host. It was her first co-hosting gig and she acquitted herself well. I look forward to her continued involvement during those times when Chris is playing hooky.
She will definitely be added to the roster. She's in my Facebook Messenger list, so I can get ahold of her whenever I need some help.

But we will also continue to use Goggs Mackay, Greg Bishop, Micah Hanks and possibly Paul Kimball, although he's busy doing real work these days.
 
She will definitely be added to the roster. She's in my Facebook Messenger list, so I can get ahold of her whenever I need some help.

But we will also continue to use Goggs Mackay, Greg Bishop, Micah Hanks and possibly Paul Kimball, although he's busy doing real work these days.
What's the matter Gene? Afraid I might ask too many tough questions? Maybe put your guests on the spot? Please take this as constructive criticism: Erica adds a lighter feminine air to the show, which is a nice change sometimes, and I love the sound of her voice, but her input also seems mostly like small talk to me. She doesn't make me feel immersed in the subject. At least you and Chris do a little digging. Kimball & Bishop both annoy me, probably as much as I annoy them ... lol. Micah's cool. Most people like him. It takes him a little longer than it could to get to the point sometimes, but at least he has a point. What can I say about Goggs? We all love Goggs :D.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top