Talk:Esther Hicks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Proven or Unproven

Well, if you look at the definition of Pseudoscience I think you can see why Esther's vibration talk easily falls into it. This isn't POV, but fact.

  1. by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
  2. by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);

etc. Any theory should be validatable experimentally, or else it falls into Pseudoscience. Where does my bias(POV) come into this? MaxMangel 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

you neglected to add this part of the [wikipedia] definition.
The term has negative connotations in so far as it attributes an "erroneous regard" to the holders of the system of concepts and practices in question. Consequently, its use is likely to be contentious, with claims of ideological bias being made by one or more parties to the contention.
The experiment here is life, and Esther's "vibration talk" gets verified many times every day. Carptrash 01:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The experiment is when Esther clearly states a testable cause and effect that can be proved or disproved experimentally in a controlled setting. I would have thought her talk about vibration, and how we control our states by our thoughts, would be easily countered by comparing someone who is a criminal and malicious, but lives a long, rich, comfortable satisfied life, where someone who is, shall we say, 'nicer,' who dies of lung cancer at forty. But anyway, obviously I'm not going to change your mind on this issue in a few sentences. I think we can reach some healthy compromises. It's good to have multiple views on the article to help with balance. I'll just go tweak that phrasing just a little. MaxMangel 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for hanging in there. Your "tweaking" works fine for me. We could discuss your examples - I'd be interested in hearing more about this malicious person who lives a satisfied life - but probably this is probably neither the time nor place. Carptrash 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i just moved

this whole Criticism section over here because it really [opinion] is discussion. Carptrash 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Jane Roberts, despite being the initial advocate for the rule that one 'creates one's own reality,' had her life cut short by a painful and protracted death due to illness, which would seem an unusual thing for her to 'choose' to do. [1]

---

Jane Roberts and Esther Hicks are different physical people, and each of us make our choices throughout all life as individuals. In the Abraham-Hicks Teachings In Brief it states: "You may appropriately depart your body without illness or pain. You need not attract illness or pain as an excuse to leave. Your natural state coming, remaining or leaving is that of health and of Well-being. (You are free to choose otherwise.)" [2]

As far as Roberts' death being, "an unusual thing for her to 'choose' to do," goes, - well people have done unusual things for a long time. Jesus' decision to die a horrible death on the cross is one. Various monks deciding that whipping themselves is a good thing or a guru who feels that sitting in a cave for 40 years all in the name of spiritual advancement or improvement or what ever are a couple of more examples. In any case the main article is not [opinion] the place for going back and forth about how things "seem." It's . . . unseemly. [snicker, snicker] Carptrash 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, that criticism is not purely my opinion. The criticism is in two parts, the facts of what happened, and then an interpretation of those fact - like ALL criticism. The fact that you disagree with my interpretation of those facts does not invalidate the criticism, like you appear to claim. Criticism inevitably does require an interpretation of the facts that appear to be disputing a position.
  1. The position: A person creates their own reality
  2. The facts: This theory was presented originally by Jane Roberts. Robert's life was cut short by a horrible painful illness.
  3. The facts simplified: Person claiming to be able to do anything they want suffers horrible undesirable fate.
  4. Interpretation 1: The person's claim was wrong.
  5. Interpretation 2: The person chose to suffer that horrible undesirable fate.
So there you have it. You are saying that because the second interpretations is a possibility then this invalidates the whole criticism. Wrong. There is ALWAYS an alternative interpretation to the facts. Yes, some people do sometimes choose to suffer, like the monks you mentioned. That doesn't change the fact that 99% percent of people don't go around whipping themselves, etc. Hence, my describing of the act as unusual. What is so biased/opinionated about that?
For your information, I would contend you have utilised the logical falacy of the Unrepresentative Sample (Because someone does it, then it cannot be unusual. WRONG)
(You have decided, I would argue biasly, that interpretation 2 must be right, because otherwise the theory would be wrong, and in your mind the theory cannot be wrong. I would further contend that ANY criticism I put here, you would lable as opinionated slander of some sort, because you are a firm believer that Ether Hicks is right. ) IF, it is necessary, you could add to the criticism that Jane Roberts may have chosen to die the horrible death, but I think that possible counter-criticism goes without saying personally. MaxMangel 00:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a comment on Jane Roberts that appears to belong, if anywhere, in the Jane Roberts article.

The cited reference [1] is a forum where anyone can post anything, basically a Bulletin Board, which violates the Wikipedia Guideline that states: :“Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.”

The comment also appears to violate Neutral Point of View. It seems to be an opinion not backed up by fact nor does it adequately represent the opposing viewpoint. It’s not sufficiently part of Esther Hicks to be included, much less have its own heading in the article. - Dreadlocke 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!, Dreadlocke and Carptrash for your valued input on this matter of the Criticism opinion posted about Jane Roberts belonging on the front page of Esther Hicks, especially with it's own heading as it is. I want to express appreciation for the Wikipedia support team and administration as well as anyone who is in the process or has made the guidelines as they are.

That said, the sentence of text I added to the "Teachings" heading about what Abraham has said of what their "Teachings In Brief" actually and officially are, was deleted. I believe that a reference to this, their actual statements about their teachings, belongs there. I can appreciate elimination of URL's, but a statement that the Teachings In Brief are available would be a purposeful statement to make in that section. I would like to know why that was not seen as useful or appropriate and was deleted.

With much appreciation, always. Abehicks 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maxmangel is correct, the sentence as worded was an advertisement of the website. "Advertising" doesn't have to be a link to something for sale, just the fact that it advertises a certain website is the problem. Max's suggestion that you add information about the teachings to the article is a good one, then you can cite your sources with a Reference link. For instance, writing a summary of the items you believe to be of critical value, then citing your source should satisfy both sides. - Dreadlocke 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
To your point one, it is relevant to the Ether Hicks article because Ether's espoused belief that one creates one's own reality is widely regarded to have been originally sourced from the seth material, to which Jane Roberts was the channel. So, I was criticising the central belief of Ether's. I hardly see how that is irrelevant.
To your point two, fair enough, but if this were your only complaint, I can just cite a new source.
To your point three, the opinion is backed up by fact. How is it not? What is it you dispute? Merely the citation? Just because the citation is not the best doesn't mean it is factually incorrect. As for the opposing opinion, you don't always have to say the opposing opinion. Just because you don't say it doesn't mean you've violated NPOV, especially when the opposing opinion isn't one where new facts are presented(and so is simply a different interpretation of the facts, which people are quite capable of doing for themselves).
So, I believe I have addressed all three points. Please re-address these points. Can we agree that a criticism of Ether Hick's central belief is worth having in the article? Can we agree, that with an acceptable citation, then it has the factual basis to stay? And as for the third point, which I have addressed above, hopefully a fair concensus can be reached.
As for you Abehicks, where's my thankyou? Oh, don't worry, my feelings aren't too badly hurt. FYI most people who are as controversial as Ether have criticism sections, so (IMHO) the fact that this article currently doesn't is not a good thing. For your question, an external link to the site at the bottom of the page is enough of a clue for people to find the teachings in brief, if they are keen to do so. MaxMangel 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I recognize your argument, and I do see some validity to it - but it was a criticism of Jane Roberts, not on Esther Hicks or the belief system described. I don’t see that Jane and Esther had the exactly the same beliefs, nor do I see where Jane “chose” a horrible way to die or why - and I honestly don’t know what that has to do with Esther or her belief system - that’s why I asked for a citation. If you want to add criticism on Esther’s central beliefs, then I would suggest that it could be done without having to use a polarizing comment about another person who may have had similar beliefs. The “criticism” of Jane Roberts has nothing to do with Esther Hicks. There is already a link to the article on Jane Roberts, where someone can read for themselves what happened to her.
The conclusion that states: “which would seem an unusual thing for her to 'choose' to do” looks to violate NPOV, but that’s hard to tell without a proper citation – not that it matters for the Esther Hicks article - because it doesn't belong there - but it would matter for the Jane Roberts article. As written and cited, it just looks like your own POV.
How is it a criticism of the belief system? I too think it unusual for someone to choose a horrible way to die, but I don’t think that’s at the core of the belief nor something that can just be casually inserted into the article– it just smacks of ridicule – and I think Wikipedia can do better than that.
I make the same suggestion to you that I did to Abehicks, write up a quality critique of Esther Hicks and/or her belief system, cite your references, and post it here on this talk page to see if everyone can come to a consensus. - Dreadlocke 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well. This will require a more expansive criticism. MaxMangel 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, boy! Why do I feel that I should have left this alone!  :) - Dreadlocke 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and when that section has already been deleted once for a different primary reason and has been discussed and reverted, I think it was entirely inappropriate to simply re-delete it for new reasons without first discussing it here. I for one don't want to get into an edit war. MaxMangel 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So far, consensus is that the comment should be removed from the article; that is why I removed it. I didn’t see where an agreement was made that the comment be put back, so my apologies if I acted precipitously. - Dreadlocke 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be too late to chime in on this conversation. But I have to put my two cents in here. To say that Jane Roberts was the first person to assert that we create our own reality is ridiculous. Philosopher have been saying this for thousands of years Broadwaygal 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new user

Friends, I am an new user and tried to add text to the teachings section of Esther Hicks. The text was to mention the "Teachings in Brief" that Esther Hicks/Abraham wrote specifically to address what the teachings actually are exactly as Abraham explains them. This was deleted, and was factual and correct. I am hoping that can be allowed, or if not, a resonable explanation offered as to why it was unacceptable. I understand that outside links are a problem, but was informed that text that is correct and useful would be accepted. I can understand my entry of a reply to the criticism information being deleted, but not the teaching info.

Thank you for explaining the reason this addition was not suitable to inform others.

Hello, I moved your text here so that the discussion page remains organised. Please end your comments on discussion pages with four tildas, which will leave a signature so people can immediately identify you. With regards to why your text was removed, even though it was factual, please see What wikipedia is not. Your text was essentially links to further material(and was akin to advertising). If you want to add information about teachings, then add them, rather than simply advertising other sites. Also, make sure you do not promote wares, such as suggesting where people can go to buy things. I hope that clears it up. MaxMangel 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The one sentence I put there that you removed was stating simply that the actual Teachings in Brief were available on their website. It is very important because the information I entered, one text sentence, was in the "teachings" section of the page on Esther Hicks. It had no links at all and does not sell anything. It's free and critically important information for any interested visitor to the page that is the teachings from them directly. No wares are sold by it, just a mention that the Teaching in Brief are available, and it was deleted. Why? Thanks again for your information and input. Abehicks 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas citations

I was looking for citations on the below comments in the "Ideas" section of the article. Abehicks are you directly involved with Esther Hicks? Perhaps you can write up something to clarify the below:

  • "In the development of the Abraham material, Esther and Jerry Hicks appear to have been deeply influenced by the Seth books by Jane Roberts, their teachings being very similar to Seth's "you create your own reality""
How similar are they? Are the teachings the same? How deeply is the Abraham material influenced by the Seth books?
  • "..the name Seth features very prominently on the Abraham-Hicks site, being the name of a character in a book series developed by Esther and Jerry.
The relevance of this is unclear, the article could use a bit more information on the connection between Seth and the character by that same name. Is there a connection? Is it the same Seth?
  • The Abraham material bears a similar philosophical message to Seth's on some topics, though with a distinctly more upbeat and motivational tone.
How similar are they, and how does the differences in tone manifest itself? Which topics sre not similar?
- Dreadlocke 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AbeHicks is a handle I use for many online IDs because it is uncommon and unique, and I can usually get that ID. I should have used another handle here, though! I am not associate with Esther Hicks professionally, but have been a passionate student of Abraham for 10 years, and we are definately very dear friends with each other. I have been on all the cruise workshops, (6 of them counting next month), and have been to countless seminars over 10 years. I wanted to clear up who I am, first.

I have contacted an official representative who works for and is in charge of media for Esther Hicks and Abraham-Hicks Publications about these important questions you have asked and will address them shortly with citations to support the questions, as much as I can find on them. I can clearly report that Seth from Jane Roberts is not related to the Seth mentioned in the Sara books whatsoever. I can tell you from a personal and private POV that Jane Roberts and Esther Hicks have being an American channel in common, but indeed, there are many and notably important differences otherwise.

Thank you SO much for putting the Teachings in Brief on the page as I tried to do but had it deleted, and also linking it as well as having it be it's own heading. I would suggest that it be above the "Teachings" section, but hey... I am not complaining!  :) Abehicks 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can thank MaxMangel for putting the teachings in brief there! Nice start to expanding the article, Max! - Dreadlocke 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i left this a short story

and came back and find it a novel. Abehicks if you register as a registered wikipedian your name will appear in blue instead of red and you will gain bonus points with many of us.

MadMax, i am moving my home right now, i figure that it will take me a thousand carfulls to do it - at three a day that's a year [carpmath] and I've got a month so I won't make time to respond to all your nicely delineated points, but I will try a couple of them off the top of my head.

As to why/how Jane Roberts ended up dying of a terrible illness - well it's like if Christian reality turns out to be correct Hell is still likely to be filled with folks who considered themselves good Christians. I'm guessing that anyone who burned anyone else at the stake, for example, ain't gonna make it. Keep in mind that both Roberts and Hicks [actually, can we agree to NOT talk about Roberts anymore?] are channels. What you hear out of their mouths is coming from somewhere else. You might not agree that this is what is occurring, but now [in my opinion] the burden of proof is on you.

About those flagellating monks. I see forms of self-flagellation all the time. I walked into the food co-op a couple of days ago and ran into a bunch of people who all seemed just fine. Then one began to talk about her bad back, and then someone else got going on her knees, and pretty soon a group of people who had walked in just fine and seemed to feel okay left the building limping and slumped over and feeling like doo-doo. They created that reality for themselves then and there by focusing their attention on their various ailments. Something like that. Once you know what to look for you can see it all the time. it is like learning how to read. Before you know how to do it letters and words are just unintelligible glyphs, but after learning how to understand what is being seen then words and sentences and MEANING emerge.

Time's up. Life is good. Carptrash 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points were weak and vague, but because I gain some terrible thrill in debating I shall respond. The burden of proof isn't on me, due to simple application of occams razor. There is no way that I can prove that these invisible formless things don't exist, BUT it is possible to prove that they do exist, hence the burden of proof is on the channeller. People often make this mistake, and that's lucky for all these different faiths that rely on people believing in all these invisible angels, gods, entities,devils,heavens,etc. Because people seem to think that skeptics like me should somehow be able to prove that something that can never be seen or touched doesn't exist, people can then blissfully carry on believing in something for which there is no evidence.
As for your user testimony, how about setting up a double blind experiment and going for the million dollar prize that James Randi has on offer, or any of the other skeptics prizes. The money is as good as yours long as you can prove this easily verifiable effect. It would be so easy to test, so the money is as good as yours...right? Of course, when presented with challenges like this, people make up any number of excuses as to why they won't or can't go for the money, so I look forward to hearing yours. MaxMangel 07:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"but because I gain some terrible thrill in debating I shall respond" - My worst nightmare come true. Which to me is further proof [to me] that i am right. Thanks for pointing me to that Randi fellow, when I'm ready for the big time I'll drop him a line. As far as my excuse for not doing it [the double blind thing] goes, how about, i'm not interested in proving anything to any one - though with a $ million i could hire someone else to move my books and Stuff. I will just repeat [usually NOT a strong argument for skeptics] that I see people creating their own realities all the time. The reason that scientific type experiments don't work -and this is not a well thought out point, and i, for one, am NOT a philosophy major, is that the end result, at least as i practice Abrahamism, is not that defined. So i set out with some end result in mind and allow the universe [or Source as Abraham calls it] to figure out how to do it. I was on a rainy day in a rather bad part of a large American city and I locked my keys in my car. I though "How can I open it up? I need a coat hanger." and i down in the gutter and there was a coat hanger there, with which I opened my car. This could not be set up as an experiment in a laboratory, but in the Lab of Life it is how things work for me. Let me just add that all this is PURE Carptrash 14:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC) and should not be held against either Esther or Abraham.
Yes, the "I don't need to prove anything to anyone" is a very common excuse for not going for the million. Yes, yes, lots of heresay proof, but forming the scientific experiment is oh so tricky when these ironclad rules actually need to be defined...alas. MaxMangel 04:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings in Brief

I thought you might want a citation, but I don't have one. Instead, the statement could be replaced if/when someone finds Esther attempting to prove some of what she says. What I mean is, Esther makes a lot of claims, but in all my research I've never seen an attempt to prove any of it. I'd like to have a mention of her proofs in the article, if possible, but currently I haven't found anything. Some good things to have:

  1. How she proves that she is really channelling someone.
  2. How she proves the "you create your own reality" thing.
  3. How she proves the nonphysical parts of us actually exist.
  4. And then proofs for whatever other claims.

If people could uncover some of this that would be really great. MaxMangel 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew that you knew that I would want a citation on that.. :) At this point, the comment really falls under No original research, so it should probably be removed. It seems to be basicially your opinion, and comes across as criticism that doesn't really seem warranted without citation. BTW, did you actually purchase the "Law of Attraction" recording on the September 11th quote comment? I think that probably needs to be fleshed out a little more to give it some perspective - it's an emotional and highly charged reference - but maybe that's because I worked in the WTC for ten years... - Dreadlocke
I've been trying to understand and find the best way to incorporate the skeptical perspective on paranormal issues. Sometimes it's a fine line on how far to go on either side, and sometimes I even find myself defending things I don't really believe in, but feel the information from both sides needs to be presented. I found this proposal which has some interesting ideas on the subject of criticism. Check it out, if you have time. - Dreadlocke 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is close to an opinion, but really it only takes one finding of her evidencing her positioning to get rid of it. If the simple fact is that she doesn't present evidence of the truth of her teachings, then the sentence is simply a stating of fact. I am trying to present the most accurate picture of Esther Hicks, so if the sentence is wrong, I would definately want it to be changed. Feel free to prove it wrong, if you can. Perhaps it could be rephrased to something like "A thorough examining of her website reveals no attempt to evidence her teachings." or something, if that would make it less POV.
As for the 9/11 reference, I don't like beating around the bush with this issue. The bottom line is that Esther/Abraham preaches, if bad things happen to you then it is your fault. Murder, rape, genocide, these were all asked for for by the victims - at least, that is what Esther preaches. MaxMangel 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It’s an unsourced edit, plain and simple. The sentence may be a fact, but it needs to be verifiable from a reliable source, so you’re going to have to find a better way to include your statement, the burden of evidence is on you according to the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability:
“The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.”
This statement is clearly an opinion not backed up by fact:
“..people are meant to just accept statements as true.”
How do you know this? Where is this stated?
A statement such as the one you propose "A thorough examining of her website reveals no attempt to evidence her teachings." Violates the Wikipedia policy No Original Research. That statement appears to be your own research.
Since it violates Wikipedia policies and you admit that you cannot provide a reference, I am going to remove the statement from the article.
- Dreadlocke 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
I think you misinterpret the rules on what is allowable in the wiki. Not every word needs to be an approximate quote of someone else. If I write a statement "the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" that is very acceptable. The way you are argueing, it seems like you are creating unnecessary barriers for statements that are provably true. This statement: "A thorough examining of her website reveals no attempt to evidence her teachings." falls into that category. There is no new primary source(ie, the site is the primary source). There is no analysis, merely a factual statement, like saying the site has a blue border or something. At least that is how I see it. Am I wrong? MaxMangel 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
But you are proposing an argument in your statement, actually two arguments.
“Esther/Abraham do not make a point out of proving what they say - people are meant to just accept statements as true."
These are the two arguments:
  1. They do not make a point of proving what they say.
  2. People are meant to “just accept statements as true”
  • Argument number one is an unsourced edit. The sentence may be a fact, but it needs to be verifiable from a reliable source.
  • Argument number two is obviously an opinion, unless there is a citable reference for it.
Heck both statements may even be right and they do expect people to just accept their statements as being true and don't try to prove anything, but I didn’t see that kind of statement anywhere - it needs to be cited.
To me, the edit is just your POV taken from what you don't see on the website. And, by your logic, anything not stated on the website or by a reliable source can be put in into the article. That’s not the way Wikipedia works. Also, neither argument is "easily verifiable," just because you don't see it on the website doesn't make it true.
Reading the definition of original research, I still believe it covers your statements:
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
This also seems to apply to the statement: "A thorough examining of her website reveals no attempt to evidence her teachings." While this appears to be just a comment on the website itself, with the pejorative impact of the statement, I think it's something that needs to have a cited reference rather than just put in as an observation of what an individual may not see on a website. It's just not the same as saying that the site has a blue border, it's making a much stronger statement than that.
Surely there's a good reference somewhere that will show whether or not they attempt to provide evidence of their teachings. Perhaps there's something along those lines in the documents Abehicks mentions in his post.
So, I still disagree with you and do not believe the edit I deleted meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion in the article. Even if you are correct and it’s not considered original research, then you still run afoul of verifiability and reliable sources.
- Dreadlocke 06:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


The proof you are asking for exists as experience from those that do the work and have expressed what has occurred as a result. There is a document of testimonials that have come directly from the people that have read the books, listened to the tapes, or have actually gone to the seminars. If you would like to see the proof of deliberate reality creation as experienced by some that actually study the work, just Google abraham-hicks and testimonials. (not sure if I can link anything here outside Wikipedia here).

I am as much a skeptic as anyone could possibly be and I am very proud of being that way. I am a scientist to the very core of my being. I am a technician by trade and by way of life and thinking. When I listened to Abraham through Esther, (Abraham, by the way, is not someone, but a group of non-physical beings appearing as blocks of thought to Esther), there was no doubt at ALL that this was inspiration of a different kind and very different than anything that I had ever experienced in my life.

Some would agree that to learn anything first hand you need to listen to the tapes, read the books, or especially attend workshops. You can directly ask a question to them in person at one of those. Going to a workshop or hearing it is to realize there really IS something to this teaching that is unlike anything else, and it may be considered proof of why it is has become so popular and growing so fast.

To your questions of channeling, this is something to be experienced first hand. There could be no other way to prove it in writing. You just have to experience it. Consider this: Have ever had inspired thought in your life, something that comes on like a light bulb, you would ask where did that come from? That is kind of what channeling is, and it comes from nonphysical.

To your question of proof of nonphysical parts of us actually existing, I would suggest you look at thoughts and emotions. You know you have them, but yet, you cannot touch them or prove them. That is my only reference, my mind and Heart, and I experience it knowing of something I will never be able to prove touch, yet know exists. AbeHicks is only a handle, my real name is David. I have no ties to Abraham-Hicks. Abehicks 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, the type of proof we're talking about is not "personal proof", but citable references that meet the Wikipedia standards for citing sources. You can definitely link to external sites on a Talk: page if it provides relevant information to the discussion; here is information on how to do that: Create links to external pages
Discussion (or Talk:) pages are not meant for discussing the subject of an article, but the article itself. Read the section on Wikipedia-specific information for more details, such as:
“The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette”
So if you can help find references that meet Wikipedia’s reqirements for citing sources, which include the following three content policies, that would great.
Those three policies are:
Thanks! - Dreadlocke 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice comment Dreadlocke, but I also think Abehicks was doing a legitimate attempt to respond to my challenge for evidence, although I think he misunderstands what evidence actually is. Personally, I find it laughable that 'proof' is apparently something that 'feels' right(to learn why you experience these 'invisible' thoughts and emotions David, I would recommend you research biology). A Channeller should be able to easily prove that they have a higher entity present by doing any number of things that are beyond the order of human intelligence, like factorising a hundred digit number, speaking in many languages, predicting the outcome of the lottery, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. Has Abehicks done this - a specific example of her proving that she is channelling someone? If so, please direct me/us to there. Also, when I talk about proving the theory of reality creation, has she specified an exact way to prove this theory true? I mean, a verifiable laboratory experiment that can show the statistical relevance of her beliefs, not just a vague 'wait until your life gets better and attribute that to the theory' type thing. FYI: What proof is not, is user testomonials. This is the easiest way to make something seem true that isn't, so it is not at all surprising that you and Carptrash always only cite that(see Kevin Trudeau for a classic example of a con artist). Okay, so, again, if anyone can find somewhere where Esther says something like "and to prove what I'm saying..." etc, that would be fantastic. MaxMangel 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yah, that would be fantastic, wouldn’t it? It would truly be nice if there were actual scientific proof beyond all doubt in the case of Esther Hicks, but let’s stop beating around the bush here - the lack of scientific proof that you seem to be aiming to show is pretty much a given when dealing with the paranormal or the supernatural. In Esther's article, there is a link to channeller that provides the skeptic's view that mediums are self-deluded or charlatans engaging in cold or hot readings - what more do you need to provide the skeptic's view? Are you looking for things that are specific to Esther and not necessarily just general criticisms of mediums, spiritualists or the paranormal? - Dreadlocke 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Esther makes bold claims. It is almost incomprehensible to me that she wouldn't devote a little time and effort into actually providing some proof of her claims. But, okay, I took your statements about verifiability on board, and threw the question out to the [Village Pump]. The reply was, I can say that certain pertinent information on Esther's website isn't present if I include a footnote of when I accessed the site and, if possible, a description of how I ascertained the material wasn't present. How does that sound? If you want to, you can do the edit yourself.
But to clarify, I'm not trying to just write a skeptics article about Channellers. I'm trying to help right an accurate article about Esther. So yeah, I'm looking for specific things to say about Esther. MaxMangel 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As the editor on Village Pump stated, it’s a “fuzzy line,” and one that I’m hesitant to cross unless there’s good reason.
Perhaps you can help me understand what “bold” claims about her teachings you think should have evidence posted on the website (besides the standard criticisms of mediums in general). Exactly what material isn’t present that you think should be there? - Dreadlocke 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the four dot points adequately summarise the claims she would/could feel like evidencing. I mean, logically, any claim that bold you'd naturally insist on strong evidence before accepting. There are plenty of other specifics claims, but one doesn't need to harp on about everything someone says. Hence, I think it is worth including that it doesn't appear that she provides evidence for any of her claims on her site. I don't really see why you need me to spell out the bredth of material that Esther doesn't evidence. All of the stuff in the teachings sections of this article, for example, could use some solid evidence to support, but I was thinking a more general statement about lack of an attempt to evidence her teachings was in order. This would be a statement that was fully verifiable and fully factual. Or is it that you aren't sure how she would provide evidence for her teachings? Is that the problem? I'm not quite sure what the problem is for not including this relevent factual piece of information, regardless of whatever motives you believe I have. MaxMangel 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What proof is needed and how?

My apologies if I’m not picking up on this as quickly as I should, but I’m not sure what proof is needed or how it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I don’t think a general statement is appropriate. Let me explain.

Besides being a channeller, Esther is also a motivational speaker, and from what I see, her teachings are meant to inspire and motivate. The proof for a motivational speaker is in the pudding, success of the speaker, success of the clients, and the satisfaction and happiness of the clients. The proof of success and satisfied clientele is through things like client feedback or testimonials or perhaps some kind of survey. How does Tony Robbins prove the effects of his motivational speaking? I just don’t think you can go in with a broad spectrum statement that she doesn’t prove her teachings when you take into consideration the motivational speaking aspect of her work.

How is Esther a channeller? What is meant by this? Why is there no link or source? Bearian 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Apparently, most of what Esther teaches is common spirituality and psychology. Asking for proof of contentious issues from this one individual seems to be a bit of overkill when the viewpoint that all the paranormal or supernatural core beliefs have been subjected to the skeptical view.

Here are the four points you mentioned earlier:

  1. How she proves that she is really channelling someone.
  2. How she proves the "you create your own reality" thing.
  3. How she proves the nonphysical parts of us actually exist.
  4. And then proofs for whatever other claims.

If we take out the already addressed medium issue, what are we left with? Create your own reality? Isn’t this concept similar to the proven power of positive thinking with links to commentary on scientific efforts such as “Power of a super attitude"? How do you prove that non-physical parts of us actually exist, isn’t that commonly referred to as a soul? The theory that one “chooses to be here” is covered in things like the doctrine of preexistence and is a core belief of the mormons.

Let’s just take a quick look at all the listed “teachings”:

  • The basis of your life is Freedom; the purpose of your life is Joy.
Sounds like the concepts put forth in The Declaration of Independence. What kind of proof is needed for this statement or concept?
  • You are a creator; you create with your every thought.
Check out Creative thinking for more on this concept.
  • Anything that you can imagine is yours to be or do or have.
This is a fairly common concept utilizing Imagination and Belief in one’s self, much as Donald Trump advocates.
  • You are choosing your creations as you are choosing your thoughts.
Indeed. Does the concept of choice need to be further proven?
  • The Universe adores you; for it knows your broadest intentions.
Common theme in spirituality and religion
  • Relax into your natural Well-being. All is well. (Really it is!)
Positive thinking!
  • You are a creator of thoughtways on your unique path of joy.
Positive thinking, again?
  • Actions to be taken and money to be exchanged are by-products of your focus on joy.
business and life
  • You may appropriately depart your body without illness or pain.
Legal euthanasia?
  • You can not die; you are Everlasting Life.
See soul and Jesus Christ

As I look into the seminars and classes a little more, I see the signs of them attempting to prove what they teach. The have exercises which show improvement when you follow their techniques: Lessons. How does one prove success of these teachings?

A lot of the information seems to be derivative of other concepts, they’ve been at this for over 20 years and apparently haven’t been exposed as frauds yet. They have a very large and loyal following. They teach other people how to be successful, and a measure of that is how successful they are in their own lives, and these people do appear to be doing well

Perhaps I’m simplifying this too much, but your statement that “lack of proof” is easily verifiable isn’t exactly true either. That’s why I’ve been asking for more a targeted, verifiable criticism that follows Wikipedia:Criticism.

Believe me, I’ve been trying to figure out how to incorporate what you would like to see included, but everything I write boils down to “I don’t see any sign of proof on her website”, which seems like a very vague and un-encyclopedic thing to say. Maybe it's just me.

- Dreadlocke 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of issues here that you've touched on, so I expect my response will be similarly as long as yours.
Firstly, you appear to be making the case of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' or 'two wrongs make a right,' in the sense of, you seem to think that because Esther is pronouncing principles that other people and organisations have endorsed, there is now little requirement for evidencing her beliefs, particularly her channelling ability. Now, there is some truth to this in the sense of if something is widely believed it will likely have been widely examined. However, let's keep things in perspective, the majority of people do not believe in channelling, or at least it is a phenomenon that is heavily challenged, so to sweep aside the necessity for her to evidence the fact that she is channelling someone I find bizarre. No, the fact that others claim to channel an angel or a ghost or Dr Fitz (Dr. Fritz - the chap in Brazil? Carptrash)or whatever does not give Esther a free pass to make the bold claim that she is receiving information from a group of all wise entities. No, the fact that other articles criticise paranormal claims in general is not 'enough' criticism to go around.
For example, I can theorise the possibility that all other channellers are frauds, but Esther Hicks is the only one that isn't - and this is because she alone proved beyond doubt all her claims. Alternatively, all other channellers might be legitimate and Esther is just a scam artist going along for the ride, and that would be verifiable too. So, it does become necessary to examine Esthers claims in the specific sense, exclusive of other people's claims. Fair enough?
Secondly, I'm not pushing for a criticism section here, I'm pushing for a part of the article that discusses how she proves her claims. This need not be criticism.
So, you mentioned that she is a motivational speaker and evidence for success would be in the satisfaction of her clients - of that I have no doubt and that's not what I've been referring to. The claim that she 'motivates' people is not one I'm disputing and would more go in a section discussing how successful she has been. It is the spiritual and paranormal claims that are more controversial and hence (in theory) require a burden of evidence.
So, you said "Apparently, most of what Esther teaches is common spirituality and psychology. Asking for proof of contentious issues from this one individual seems to be a bit of overkill when the viewpoint that all the paranormal or supernatural core beliefs have been subjected to the skeptical view." which is a statement I read with horror.
Asking for proof of contentious issues from the individual claiming them is not overkill - it is just common sense. I mean, if you accepted Esther's claims without proof, then what if I claimed I was channelling someone right now. You'd say, well, the difference between you and Esther is Esther has successfully...etc etc, which would be you attempting to use evidence to show one person is channelling and another isn't, which is exactly what I'm talking about.
Thirdly, let me state clearly that I don't think it would be hard at all to prove that you were channelling a higher plane entity, as I've stated in previous posts, so I would also reject the idea that it would be difficult to evidence her claims, or that they could only be evidenced in a generalised way.
Okay, so, you mentioned that the create your own reality belief is similar to the benifits of positive thinking. I'm familiar with the power of positive thinking. In fact I created a psychology article pretty much on that topic. But the beliefs, although share similarities, also have some contentious differences. Where positive thinking endorses the idea that you will become a better person because you will act in your own best interests, Esther's system has your 'vibration' align with other 'vibrations' and magically the vibrations combine and wonderous random things happen to help you,like mysterious checks in the mail, or you get hurt, if you had the wrong vibration. Are you seriously trying to say that these are the same thing?
Naturally all the other beliefs, as you showed, are at least vaguely comparable to someone else's belief, but I don't think they need to be individually addressed. If she can prove that she is channelling all knowing wise souls, then we can take the rest on faith. I mean, if Jesus can prove he's the son of god, then we should probably take on faith all that stuff about heaven and hell.
You mentioned that they haven't been exposed as frauds yet, which I don't find surprising. I don't think they are likely to be exposed as frauds because most of the time they relate the same feel good message, so it is not like people are going to get too upset about someone preaching 'be positive.' It is not a statement you are likely to get caught out on. And the fact that the base concept of being positive is not detrimental according to the established theories of positive thinking, so yeah, right for the wrong reasons and all that. Besides, people like this don't get exposed as frauds. There are always loyal followers no matter how badly the stuff up. Check out Sylvia Browne. She made a complete idiot of herself on national television, ridiculously obviously showing that she was just making stuff up, but will that stop her from charging $700 a session? Not likely.
Anyhow, let me summarise your concerns:
  1. Esther's preachings don't need proof
    1. Because they aren't too fantastical
    2. Because other people make the same claims
    3. Because they are similar to many mainstream beliefs
    4. Because other articles already cover the issues
  2. Esther's preachings are already proved
    1. By her success and her clients happiness
    2. She's been established for a long time and hasn't yet be exposed as a liar
  3. It is too hard to satisfy encyclopedic integrity when discussing this issue
    1. Because the statements would be too general and POV
Is that a fair summary? I addressed section one above. Section two is not so much an argument against whether or not to discuss her evidencing, but the sort of stuff that might go into the article itself on the issue of whether or not she has evidenced her beliefs. Issue three we've discussed before, and I threw it out to the village pump, and the response was that it is at least possible to do it, as long as it was done right. Now, you've indicated that it would be tricky to do properly. Perhaps, but I'm willing to give it a go, and if you can successfully show the statements to be invalid, then they could be removed or discussed.
So, to be clear, I'm saying:
  1. It is valid to expect Esther to provide proof of her teachings
    1. Because they are fantastical
    2. Despite that some others make similar claims
    3. Despite some elements of some of the teachings being comparible with more mainstream beliefs
    4. Because Esther's teachings are ultimately unique and deserve specific representation
  2. It is valid to discuss the level of evidence she has provided
    1. Be that examples of evidence
    2. Or be it lack of evidence(as long as this isn't original research, etc).
  3. The presentation of this information can be done in a way that satisfies all requirements of the wiki
    1. The statements would be factual and verifiable.
    2. The fact that they might be contentious and may make some people uncomfortable does not make them less relevant or make them POV
Finally, let me add that the above statements aren't hand in hand, as in, you've made a variety of attacks against the idea of discussing her evidencing, which speaks to me of an agenda - see item 3.2 on my list.
Anyhow, what do you say? MaxMangel 06:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting aside for the moment the misinterpretations and misrepresentations of my comments and points in your post, I think I may finally understand the target of your criticism. I’ve attempted to craft a statement that I believe addresses your concerns:
“Although testimonial evidence is provided that shows the success of Esther’s motivational speaking and her ability to inspire others, there is no apparent evidence on the website that the higher spiritual entities Esther allegedly channels provide a means of proving some of the tenets of her teachings, such as the existence of the soul or the concept of preexistence; leaving many of the supernatural or paranormal aspects of her teachings up to one’s faith, belief system and personal experience.
My main concern - even with my own above comment that is presumably about what "any reader could verify" isn't on the website - is that it treads too closely and possibly crosses that "fuzzy line" of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. That is my only "agenda," making sure Wikipedia policy is followed and that we have a good, solid, and well-written article. - Dreadlocke 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried to factually address each of your points, so I think it is poor form to gloss over my points by vaguely declaring "misinterpretations and misrepresentations." If you are referring to my little comment about an agenda, that was an insinuation - and not an assumption or anything else. Now, I'm not a fan of your example, so let me try a revise so that has less fluff and is much more verifiable - so that we are less likely to cross that fuzzy line.
“No part of the site is specifically devoted to the topic of providing proof that Esther is channelling anyone - although many testomonials of her clients are available.
How is that, for a start? MaxMangel 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know it was an insinuation, which is a “sly, subtle, and usually derogatory utterance.” Not the best way to get me to engage you in a discussion. There were other equally questionable remarks in your post, but I’m trying to assume good faith and follow Wikiquette. Rarely have I seen someone “factually address” something using inflammatory comments such as “bizarre” and “I read with horror,” then turn around and accuse the other of “poor form.”
The editor on the village pump wrote: “if a website doesn't include some specific info,” that’s what I’ve been asking you to do all along - provide a comment on the specific information not included, but your comments have been broadly about her “teachings,” which is not specific. Now at least you’ve focused on “channeling,” which is quite different than a broad comment about ‘teachings’. It’s a very borderline comment according to WP:NOR and the keepers of that policy are very literal about it, so my stance is not unwarranted.
I must have not gotten my points across very well because I've already conceded the issue around channelling and the paranormal, yet you keep hitting on that subject as if I'm arguing against including the standard criticisms against those who claim they channel or have psychic powers – I’m not – please include it. Yes, you’re right, she doesn’t prove she channels a higher entity – put that in there if you want to. All I’ve asked about that subject is to see if we can follow the Wikipedia:Criticism proposed guideline, which I believe states that topical criticism goes in the article about the topic, which in this case would be Medium, but feel free to put that comment directly in the Esther article. That is not disputed at all, just modified due to what I read in the proposed policy on including criticism – and yet you’ve used the word “bizarre” to describe my presumed resistance to including the standard criticisms. Nice.
The comment you read in "horror" about an individual proving contentious issues is directed at things like the concept of a Soul, I don't how or why this particular person should have to prove the existence of a soul. As part of her 'teachings', she’s claiming you have a soul, why and how should she have to prove that? Does everyone who mentions or believes in the existence of the human soul have to prove it, or else be subject to the criticism that they didn’t prove the existence of a soul? That is what seems like overkill to me.
You said "So, it does become necessary to examine Esthers claims in the specific sense, exclusive of other people's claims. Fair enough?" Not exactly, what I'm referring to is whether or not the comment is at all notable. A comment that essentially says "oh, and here's another one who talks about the existence of a soul but provides no proof" just doesn't seem very notable or to add much value to the article. On the other hand, it would be notable if she did provide proof. My comment about criticism in an article isn't about "other articles" but about the specific topic - Mediums.
Anyway, your last comment appears to be ok for inclusion, so post away!
Dreadlocke 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be a good start if it improves the quality of the article about her and if you wanted to point out what is NOT on the website.

Experience with what Abraham-Hicks students have is available on the web, and that IS important information to include in the article itself to enrich the article with references. Would that document be allowed as an external link in the article?

Since this talk page is dedicated to the quality of the article and information about the topic of Esther Hicks and what Abraham-Hicks is all about, I can submit to you as someone that has had extensive experience with her and Abraham for 10 years, that channeling is not what Abraham-Hicks or Esther Hicks is all about at all. She inspires and helps thousands of people, and is an important and signifcant leader and teacher in the world.

Where does inspired thought and wisdom come from anyway? You can call it channeling, or you can call it just plain common sense and wisdom based on a lot of experience. Either way, the quality of the article right now is a fair start as an accurate overview of Abraham-Hicks and Esther Hicks, though a lot depth about what Abraham teaches could be added. More information about her or, of course, what she teaches, would improve the article about her for me.

AbeHicks is just a handle, my name is David and I have no ties to Abraham-Hicks Publications. Abehicks 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, this has been hard work. Anyway, I've put the sentence in. I think that's all I can handle for the time being. MaxMangel 11:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law of Attraction (New Age)

This is often referred to on New Age sites with reference to Hicks. There are 79,900 Google hits. Can anyone contribute to the article on this subject? There is currently a discussion about Law of Attraction on AfD. Tyrenius 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings

I removed the paragraph on parenting because it contained factual errors and didn't accurately reflect the spirit of Abraham's teachings, which are not prescriptive (i.e., they rarely say "you should..." but rather "we would...") In my opinion, the whole Teachings section needs to be re-written with the focus on the "big three" subjects around which the Abraham-Hicks teachings are most often centered: prosperity, health, and relationships. Esther/Abraham opens most every workshop with a lecture that gives an overview of the basic teachings (the Law of Attraction, the Emotional Guidance System, etc.) and often they exemplify each concept by explaining how it applies to each of those three aspects of life. They use a similar approach in their book of basic teachings, Ask and It Is Given. Parenting is a subtopic of relationships and, in my opinion, it shouldn't be included here unless a dozen or so additional subtopics are also included in the section. User:KnowWell 05:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/t/Talk%7EEsther_Hicks_9334.html"