Spiritualism and reincarnation: Bad bed fellows?

Studying the afterlife literature, specially the evidence from spiritualism, one gets the impression that there is a kind of tension between the portrait of an afterlife given by spiritualism and reincarnation. More specifically, the tension is between the spiritualistic information according to which reincarnation doesn't occur and the evidence for reincarnation.

For example, in my interview with one of the world's leading experts in the scientific evidence for an afterlife, Michael Roll, when I asked him about reincarnation, he answered: "Never come across reincarnation in my studies. Never heard a medium say, "Sorry, you can't make contact with him/her as they have gone back to Earth." See the book The Case Against Reincarnation by James Webster on my website. The aim is to let people all over the world know that we all survive the death of our physical bodies and that we are responsible and liable for what we do on Earth. We must not go off on any tangents, keep out of the psychic jungle at all costs."

Michael suggested James Webster's book against reincarnation, a whom I interviewed too. James' view is strong "No amount of research will prove reincarnation as the theory is false to begin with"

One afterlife spirit who communicated through John Sloan (who was in my opinion, a true medium), the famous direct voice medium who was researched by Arthur Findlay, when asked about if we reincarnate, replied "Now it is a question that I find difficult in answering. I have known no one who has. I passed over many years ago, and I have round about me those who lived thousands of years ago on Earth. That's all I can say because my knowledge does not permit me to say more." (On the edge of the etheric, p. 61)

Note that we have here 3 pieces of evidence, coming from different spiritualistic sources (including an afterlife sources) which suggests that reincarnation doesn't happen:

1-A world leading expert in afterlife studies, Michael Roll, who has never found evidence for reincarnation in his studies.

2-An spirit in the afterlife who claims not knowing anybody who has reincarnated (but without denying explicitly the possibility of reincarnation)

3-Another spiritualist researcher, James Webster, who claims the hypothesis of reincarnation is false.

This seems to support the thesis that reincarnation doesn't exist, or at least that solid evidence for it is weak or non-existent.

Evidence for reincarnation

However, it is hard to dismiss the evidence for reincarnation gathered by researchers like Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Titus Rivas and others.

But this evidence doesn't come from spiritualism (or from afterlife sources), but mainly from empirical cases of children who have had putative past-life experiences, which in principle leave open the possibility that past-life experiences are gotten through paranormal means not related to reincarnation as such (a hypothesis defended by some researchers).

In any case, the point is that the evidence from spiritualism seems to be more or less in tension with the evidence from reincarnation.

I mentioned spiritualistic researchers who are skeptical of reincarnation. However, not all of them are. For example, Michael Tynn, when I asked about reincarnation, replied "I have come to the conclusion that reincarnation exists, but it doesn’t play out the way most people who believe in it think it does. I believe that the non-local aspects of time put it beyond human comprehension. I accept Silver Birch’s communication about reincarnation that “… there are what you call ‘group souls,’ a single unity with facets which have spiritual relationships that incarnate at different times, at different places, for the purpose of equipping the larger soul for its work.” I don’t really understand that, but I accept that there are celestial matters that are beyond human understanding and language."

Note that Tynn accepts reincarnation, but in a very qualified way (the inclusion of "group souls" which is a single unity with many facets), a position that many survivalists will reject or find unpersuasive.

Guy Lyon Playfair, another afterlife research, is skeptical of reincarnation. When I asked him about the matter, he replied "The word reincarnation implies the permanent return of a whole personality, and I don't think the evidence generally supports that, although there are cases where it does seem possible, when there are birthmarks and behaviour patterns as well as memories. I'm thinking of people like Jenny Cockell, Om Sety and most recently James Leininger in which identifiable people do seem to have returned to earth, but such cases are very rare. On the whole, though, I think that what people call reincarnation is more like temporary transfer of fragments of memory, etc."

Neal Grossman, on the other hand, strongly supports the idea of reincarnation "All mediumship communications of which I am aware and that discuss the concept of reincarnation, are strongly supportive of that concept. (e.g. The Seth Material). The evidence collected by Stevenson, Tucker, and others, is impeccable and conclusive. Some mediums can even get information about past lives. (I don’t know the type of mediums you have experienced, but I am aware that a few are Christian based, and they interpret everything in such a way as to be consistent with their prior religious beliefs)."

However, the mediums that I had in mind when I asked the question to professor Grossman have nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, they're mediums like John Sloan and others mediums investigated by atheists like Michael Roll, who precisely support a skeptical position regarding reincarnation. For example, in his recent interview in Skeptiko, medium August Goforth comments "I have a huge library of books written by mediums and spiritualists that go back almost a couple hundred years. I noticed not a single one mentioned reincarnation."

On the other hand, if we have to question the source of the information on the grounds of religious beliefs, we could argue against the source of the evidence for reincarnation in the way that James Webster has argued: "Also many of the children Stevenson researched were from Eastern countries who practiced religions and belief systems (e.g. Hinduism and Buddhism) soaked with reincarnation, past lives and karma."

We could say the same of mediums who have read or are sympathetic to belief systems and religions which support the idea of reincarnation, and hence such a beliefs colours the putative afterlife communications from mediums which support reincarnation.

So, the bias cuts both ways.

But this is besides the point. My point is that we find here the tension that I mentioned before. On one side we found long time afterlife researchers who have found no evidence at all from the spiritualistic communications regarding reincarnation. On the other hand, we find scholars like professor Grossman who consider that the evidence for it is "conclusive" and that some mediums get informations about past lives.

Or researchers are reading different spiritualistic literature, or they're leaving their own biases to strongly influence their conclusions.

My own opinion is that the evidence for reincarnation from people like Stevenson is good but not conclusive. More research and theoretical analysis need to be done.

However, I don't have clear how the evidence from spiritualism, overall, tend to support or refute the idea of reincarnation. I suspect that, overall, spiritualism tends to support a skeptical position regarding reincarnation, even thought some spiritualistic communications support the idea too.