First of all, I have to say something: I consider myself a scientist, I have no doubt reincarnation can and must be studied scientifically, and sooner or later science will explain the mechanism of reincarnation. But on the other hand, I am extremely critical with current science, or rather with certain scientists too attached to a recalcitrant materialism that today is useless to explain many phenomena whose existence is undeniable. Therefore, I defend and attack science equally, because I have been raised with it, but I am no part of the scientific community. This allows me to speak much more freely, without fear of my colleagues’ critiques or fear of losing my reputation. The downside is no one is going to pay me any heed, not only because I maintain my anonymity, but also because I remember past lives, and as a consequence my credibility as a scientist for many of them is lost. It doesn’t matter, I have already accepted it. As I often say, my hopes lie in the upcoming generations, in those reincarnationists with scientific training that will be able to design and conduct the required experiments to prove reincarnation. If some of my ideas are inspiring for them, I will have achieved part of my purpose.
But let’s go back to the main question in this article:
Can reincarnation be scientifically proven?
“Consciousness could occur at the fundamental level of space-time geometry when the brain stops being perfused. It doesn’t dissipate but remains together by entanglement. So an individual’s personality, consciousness, memory, soul if you will, could be entangled in a quantum sense and persist as fluctuations in the time scale of the universe.”
http://www.skeptiko.com/stuart-hameroff-on-quantum-consciousness-and-singularity.
“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page
I translate: after all the investment in money, time and effort, scientifically we are at the same point we were 50 years ago, when Dr. Raymond Moody published his first book on this matter.
Therefore, it is obvious that we are still very far from being able to prove scientifically not only that consciousness survives death, but also that said consciousness can go back to earthly life “wrapped” in a different body. In fact, if Dr. Ian Stevenson couldn’t prove the existence of reincarnation after forty years or more of research on children who remember past lives, I don’t think anyone will be able to prove it in the near future, unless the prevailing materialism loses ground, methods of analysis change, good experiments are designed, and a consensus is reached about what the soul is. This latter point is the most difficult, at least that is what I thought a few days ago after reading in a journal on neurobiology that the concept of soul has no sense anymore for scientists. Something that will never cease to surprise me, as that proves to me that scientists —at least the most orthodox of them— have decided to ignore the great number of paranormal phenomena that remain unexplained by science. Phenomena that one way or the other seem to be related to the existence of a “soul”, this is to say, something that remains after death whose nature is still unknown to us, and doesn’t seem to be equivalent to the “mind”, no matter how much some of these scientists want to equate both terms. Among other things, because scientists believe the mind can’t exist without the brain, so, by definition, soul and mind can’t be the same.
Others equate consciousness with the soul, I guess this happens because you sound more scientific this way. However, if we have to be “really” scientific, consciousness is also a function of the mind or the brain and its definition is highly complicated. This is to say, if we want to prove the existence of reincarnation, it is not enough to be scientific, we have to go further, much further, something that very few dare to really do.
Can reincarnation be scientifically studied?
In many points, the study of reincarnation reminds me of the study of other paranormal phenomena, as in essence reincarnation keeps being that: a paranormal phenomenon. So, those of us we are “direct witnesses”, that is, those of us who remember past lives, keep being treated as witnesses of any other paranormal phenomenon, whether it is a U.F.O. sighting, a ghost apparition or someone who lives a poltergeist at home. If you have lived it in your own skin or you believe in it, you will have no problem believing the witness. If you are a skeptic, scientist or not, you will search for any explanation, no matter how illogical or unlikely it is, as long as you refuse to accept the reality you fail to understand or goes against your own beliefs. If besides you are an ignorant, you may even have the audacity to mock those witnesses. And if you are an open-minded, good-intentioned scientist, but with no experience of your own, I don’t know if this could be counterproductive, as someone who only knows the theory will never, ever, be able to understand what remembering past lives means, and his lucubrations will be very far from reality. Though, of course, as he is a scientist, for many people his credibility will be beyond the witnesses’. In any case, the perspectives are not too good-looking. Then we wonder why the advance of science is so slow...