Last month’s blog about the implications that arise when parts of a donor ‘body’ are transplanted into a recipient’s body began when I challenged my own thinking about energies.
My theme was that body energies are likely to be able to survive death because they have no need for our physical life support systems – but then if those energies do survive we face something of a dilemma when an organ is taken from a donor. When that happens either the recipient must receive an organ that has no energies, because they have had to remain intact as part of the body energy system of the donor; or alternatively it must be possible for body energies to be surgically separated along with the donated organ – whether or not the donor is a living one. If you have not read that blog you might prefer to do so before continuing with this one.
Neither of the above possibilities squares well with my views about the nature and role of body energies which meant I did not care for either option. However in my last blog I did set out a concept in which my views and the energies themselves both remain intact; a concept that reinforces other matters of interactive energies raised in my book ’It’s a Whole New World!’ Not only that, it also throws new light on a controversial aspect of organ transplants which fiercely divides sceptics from those who believe in ‘higher planes’.
That controversy concerns cases in which people receiving organ transplants find themselves behaving differently from before their surgery and in ways which appear to take on patterns that match the lives of those who donated the transplanted organs. I had never looked deeply into this before I wrote my January blog but reading through it afterwards I was prompted to learn more about it – the outcome was absolutely astonishing!
Serious studies show that a proportion of people who receive transplants do indeed experience changes that, amazingly, shift them towards aspects of the lives of the donors in quite specific ways. Insufficient research, as well as considerable confidentiality, makes it difficult for researchers to show what proportion of transplants might be affected in this way but the evidence is definitely there and needs more attention. For example:
Just before she died a young, staunch vegetarian gymnast who had been involved in a motor accident was able to communicate about how she could still feel the impact of the car ‘slamming into her chest and going through her body’. The donor recipient later told how he too was experiencing the accident in his chest and how he now hates meat; having been a devotee of burgers he found they made him sick and that just the smell now ‘makes his heart race’.
A 56 year-old university professor reported that after he had received a heart transplant he started to experience flashes of light ‘in his face’; his face would go hot and actually ‘burned’. The donor of the heart was a police officer who had been shot in the face whilst arresting a drug-dealer. The professor also said that just before he gets the flashes he ‘gets a glimpse of ‘Jesus’; official drawings of the man being arrested show him as looking like ‘some of the pictures of Jesus’.
An eight year-old girl, who was given the heart of a young girl who had been murdered, found herself suffering nightmares about the murder. A psychiatrist believed she was ‘seeing’ actual events and it was decided to pass to the police information including detailed descriptions of the killer. Facts about the time it had happened, the weapon and the location given by the 8 year-old patient led to the arrest and conviction of the donor’s murderer.
The UK Daily Mail carried a report of William Sheridan, a former catering manager with poor ability to draw who became a talented artist following his surgery for a heart transplant. His new heart had been donated by a keen artist.
You will not be surprised if I say that passing on such characteristics via the transfer of interactive energies is entirely compatible with everything I have been saying in my blogs, on my site and in my book ‘It’s a Whole New World!’. Nor will you be surprised to learn that the scientific view is a reluctance to accept there is any ‘real’ connection between the transplants and the subsequent events at all. Broadly any influence on donor recipients is claimed to be due to the shock of their own experiences leading up to and following the transplant; or of their re-evaluating their own lives; or are perhaps brought on by the effects of the medication involved.
Amongst those who do accept a link there is mention of cellular memory being passed on, possibly through receptors either in the brain or the heart. I can accept that to a certain extent but do have a problem with the notion that physical cellular memory can hold the sort of subtle emotional and other detail that show up in cases such as those above. It seems far more likely to me that the carrier of the ‘information’ is the donor’s interactive energy and that the physical receptors in the heart, or elsewhere, are ‘contact points’ in our bodies that are capable of receiving that information and generating the outcome effects.
Interesting stuff which is better explained by interactive energies than anything in the mainstream scientific model and in turn adds more credence to the significance for all of us of Intelligent Energies.
If you want to pick up more detail – and more cases – I recommend you to visit the site where I did most of my transplant reading www.paulpearsall.com
Jeff Jeffries
