Episode 270: Post Mormon Spirituality

56 comments on “Episode 270: Post Mormon Spirituality”

  1. Bill Reply

    Loved this episode and I love the addition of Cat to the podcast; she’s an interesting personality and definitely brings a new perspective. Couple of comments:
    1. How is Cat’s argument in support of psychic ability any different than John’s father’s argument for the holy ghost (i.e. even if you did have a spiritual witness and/or psychic/ghostly/paranormal experience you wouldn’t recognize it because you are so closed off to that type of feeling? This seems like a position that cannot be dis-proved because the person making the claim can always have the “get out of jail free” card in saying that the skeptic will never have a witness because of their mindset. Seems like a case of special pleading. John, and other skeptics, simply treat all positive claims with the same standard or burden of proof. I love this video and the others in the series to better explain the skeptical position:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

    2. I’m only spit-balling here because I don’t have access to Cat’s psychic’s reading about John, but I’m guessing she didn’t tell you really specific things about him like his address or social security number. I’m guessing her readings were specifics tailored to her experience with Cat and also general enough that her descriptions could apply to a large number of people besides John. Also, Cat is likely remembering the hits and excluding the misses, we skeptics call this “cognitive bias” and it is a well understood technique of psychics and mediums to play this tendency up with their clients.. It’s also the reason people believe in horoscopes.
    This was a great episode, and I just want to say that live in So Utah and work in Vegas during the week. I head down to Vegas ever Monday morning very early and I listen to you guys on the way down. Thank you for what you do!

    • Lanie Reply

      The fact that ONLY those who believe in ghosts, psychics, and certain deities actually have experiences with them is a huge red flag for me. It’s proof that personal bias and motivation is enough to fulfill a prophesy–and only a prophesy related to a person’s personal belief system. That’s why you don’t see Muslims having random visions of Vishnu, or Catholics having random visions of Mohammed. The real test of whether or not something exists is if those who don’t believe have objective, repeatable experiences with it as well.

  2. James Strang Reply

    Great episode John!

    I’m sorry, I know Cat is your new GF but does she have to try soooooo hard at the dirty 1-900 number voice thing she has clearly crafted for the show? Just be yourself, don’t try so hard…

    “Did you just saying banging, he he he he banging.”

    ??????????

  3. Cat Palmer Reply

    James, I’ve done television and radio for many years. What you refer to as my “1-900” voice is what I call my “valley girl” voice. I was raised in California and unfortunately it is simply what I sound like. Thanks for the input, but I’m definitely not trying to sound like a valley girl. Oh and I have the humor of a 13 year old boy – lame, I know!

    • Jackie Reply

      People who say um a lot have been proven to be highly intelligent. They are quickly searching for the right words.

  4. Lee Reply

    Thanks for a great podcast. I love hearing different opinions and different views of how the world works. And psychic energy maybe a very real part of our existence. And everything may be true or not. There are endless possibilities to ponder. Thanks.

  5. Christopher Taylor Reply

    Listening to the episode, I just got to the part where Cat tries to convince John of the veracity of spirits and ghosts. I haven’t listened further yet, so maybe this comment will end up useless, but I wanted to say something in response to Cat’s comment about having experiences she could not dismiss. She says, “I have had very distinctive experiences with spirits, with ghosts, and I cannot deny what I have seen.” I don’t mean this to invalidate her experiences in any way. I don’t believe in ghosts, but I really really wish they were real. Her comment struck me in a sort of personal way though because I’ve also had very distinctive experiences with spirits and ghosts and devils. I don’t know if they were the same or even at all similar to hers, but when I was in my faith crisis, this was the one point I couldn’t get over. I’d had all these crazy experiences seeing and hearing and interacting with spirits, and without the context of Mormonism I didn’t know how to interpret these.

    It all came to a head when one night, in bed with my wife, I felt someone grab me on the ankle. I reacted about as well as you’d expect and forced my wife out of bed to help me search our apartment for anybody hiding. We searched everywhere and came up empty handed. All the doors were locked. We weren’t on the ground floor, and nobody could have come in through the windows. I spent the rest of the night sitting up in bed with all the lights on anyway. The next morning, I decided to look for professional help. Once I started to research and talk to people, I discovered that I and many people in my family fall on the schizophrenic spectrum. I discovered that every experience I’d had with ghosts and demons (I really, truly believed before that that’s what I was seeing/hearing/feeling.) can be perfectly explained as common symptoms of my particular brand of crazy.

    The part of Cat’s comment that struck me the most was when she said, “I cannot deny what I have seen.” This was exactly the sentiment I had that kept me torn on the issue of religion for so long. However, knowing now that sometimes what I see literally does not exist, I can absolutely deny what I have seen.

    I hope this doesn’t come across as an attack on Cat or her beliefs or comments. I really don’t mean it that way. I just want to share my personal experience because it may be similar to what she or other people have experienced, and I want to say that sometimes things that baffle us actually have a very good explanation. It is also possible that what Cat has experienced is completely different from my hallucinations and that she has truly, actually seen and interacted with ghosts and spirits. And part of me really hopes that’s true.

      • Noell Hyman Reply

        Some of my family members have a history of these types of experiences, and now we know that schizophrenia and delusional disorder are in our family. But not everyone with these experiences has the diagnosis. So I have also been wondering if these types of experiences (and interpretations of such experiences) have to do with the genetic tendency towards delusions, without actually being 100% delusional.

  6. Paul Rualer Reply

    John you say that you like it when your views are challenged. Okay.

    1. I understand that you have a credulous new girlfriend to appease but it is irresponsible for you to put out a podcast that grants tacit validity to psychics, ghosts, tarot card readings and some magical form of “spirituality”. When you give magical thinking a voice on your podcast what good do you think you are doing for those coming out of religion? Seriously, do you think it serves a purpose? Scroll up to Lee’s comment and see what he got out of it.

    2. Your disclaimer of atheism was nonsensical. Yes, the term abolitionist is no longer relevant. Are you seriously arguing that the term atheist is no longer relevant because… everyone is an atheist? You can’t be both alive and dead at the same time just as you can’t be both atheist and theist at the same time. So why disavow the term atheist?

    • John Larsen Reply

      Tacit validation? Lol

      I guess I have been tacitly endorsing Mormonism too. I state several times that I don’t believe in the paranormal. I think you are over playing your hand.

  7. Cat Palmer Reply

    Yeah, paul – heaven forbid that a different point of view is given. Let’s all talk about only thing we can agree upon and coddle those around us. Irresponsible? That is plain silly. And just because we believe in something different doesn’t mean I’m gullible. John doesn’t appease me and I certainly don’t appease him. We agree to disagree. I remember others that shut anyone down for having a different point of view….I left that religion a long time ago.

    (Thanks, crystal for your kind words.)

  8. John Larsen Reply

    In the past I too have been an insufferable know-it-all with my superior, elevated and high class logic that laughs in the face of all of those stupid enough to live their lives with out the graceful arc of logic and reason to justify my every move. I rejected and scoffed at those who were blind enough to not embrace the high tower of science and eschew all non-justifiable beliefs.

    And then a remembered I was a fat ass. I eat too much and I don’t exercise. Perfectly illogical positions. I know logically and reasonably how not to be a fat fucker. I just exercise and eat less, and eat more healthily. That is all there is to it. You could walk around and parade how superior you are for following nutritional science when others reject what is plainly before their eyes.

    You would be right. And you would be an asshole. I have always had many good friends who believe things that I don’t. So what?

    Do you know why I didn’t want Cat Palmer to read the “reading”? Because I knew self righteous pricks on the internet would laugh and something that was important to her.

    Do I believe in the supernatural? Not one bit. Does it impact my relationship with Cat? Not at all. Who the fuck cares? She is neither gullible or irrational in her life. She is a delightful compassionate woman. Very smart too. The fact that she likes to have tea and bullshit with her “psychic” doesn’t bother me at all.

  9. Carol Reply

    This podcast didn’t tell me what I expected, but I enjoy it anyway. I’m just writing to tell Cat I agree with her about psychics. Yes, there are charlatans out there, and I’ve seen them work, but there are people with real gifts.

  10. Michael_Shermer's Amygdala Reply

    “Does it impact my relationship with Cat? Not at all. Who the fuck cares?”
    You might care when this swammy of her’s tell her she just channeled “The Universe” and it told her to dump you lol. That’s kind of a joke and kind of not. It would be one thing if she did the psychic stuff as an amusement or some kind of lark, but it sounded like she gives incredible deference to this crystal ball gazing charlatan and uses the advice or readings to make decisions in her life. Does she have pay to have tea with this person? haha I’d head for the hills but that’s just me…. Also, yes, everyone acts in irrational ways, but I’d hardly equate overeating to magic thinking and outright frauds like psychic readings. The two are just not the same to me. Although maybe all this magic talk and palm reading is the universe’s way of telling Cat that she’s making the wrong decision; everything happens for a reason you know? This podcast was the universe telling you two to split up, i mean it must be true because I feel it. If only there were an objective way to reconcile these things…. Oh well lol What a fun topic 🙂

  11. Ashley Reply

    I’ll state right now that I do believe in ghosts and I do believe, as Cat does, that some people have psychic abilities. That being said, I approach stories of paranormal encounters with a skeptic’s eye and ear. I always look for the most rational explanation before I am willing to reach the conclusion that something supernatural has taken place. More often than not, there is a rational explanation but sometimes that explanation is not readily apparent. I don’t feel that a person’s belief in the paranormal automatically makes then naive, some of us feel that there is a lot in this universe that we don’t yet understand and until science is able to provide an indisputable explanation, we’ll continue to keep an open mind.

  12. Scott Stevenson Reply

    It’s hard to believe in spirituality and the paranormal when you’ve seen it faked by people like Derren Brown. If I did believe a psychic possessed real paranormal abilities I would definitely encourage them to take the James Randi challenge.

  13. Noell Hyman Reply

    A family member of mine who has been successful in his career (a CEO) believes he saw a demon hunched over the should of a friend of his. He’s had other similar experiences, and these all help support his testimony in the LDS church. If I ever allowed a discussion to go in that direction he would make Cat’s exact same argument to try to convince me that the church is true and that I need to come back. In fact, Cat’s argument regarding her interpretations of her experiences are no different from every other religious testimony I’ve ever heard — “I’ve had this witness/experiences that I know is true and cannot deny.” The only difference is the interpretation of what it is.

    Cat — after you challenged Jon to admit he could be wrong, which he did, I wanted/expected you to do the same. It sounded like you think it is only on Jon to admit that possibility – but maybe it just didn’t occur to you to say that you could be wrong, too?

    You said to him, “You probably are [wrong] but you’re so closed off from it that you would not even know.” Jon actually came off as the open-minded one, so I’m curious whether you’re as open-minded as you want him to be.

  14. Jay Reply

    Here’s a suggestion for Cat–Invent an experience of meeting a guy at a coffee shop who made you feel unsettled. Ask your psychic over email to give you a reading of the guy and see what she comes up with. My guess is that you will get a psychic reading about a man you never met.

  15. The Navidson Record Reply

    Cat Powers as in lead singer for the band “cat power”? Is cat’s real name chan marshall who started a band named Cat Power? Cool band. There can’t be that many people named Cat Powers out there. I think it’d actually be crazier if it was a different Cat Power and she changed her name not knowing there is another Cat Power out there. It’d be cool if it was the same person too I guess.

  16. Mike Reply

    I am trying to understand Cat’s (love the sound of your voice btw) definition of “close-minded” and the nature of her satisfaction over John admitting that he could be wrong. While there is a possibility that ghosts exist, the possibility of their existence is equal to that of dragons, pink unicorns that speak Japanese, a real-life, one inch tall, living, iron man, etc. At some point, many of us decide that there is a reasonable cut off for experiences that we can accept. Which is more likely: that the known laws of physics are being suspended in our favor, or that we are misreading reality?
    Who is more close-minded, the person who is not open the idea that actual transformers from another planet were used for the filming of that movie, or the person who believes that the former’s skepticism is a weakness. If only she were more open to the existence of said transformers, she would be visited by one and possibly save the universe in the process.
    I am not claiming that Cat is close minded for believing in ghosts, the opposite in fact. However, if you want to call John “close-minded,” you have rendered the term nearly meaningless.

    • Michael_Shermer's Amygdala Reply

      A thousand times YES to this comment… many times the person accusing someone of being “close minded” rally means they are close minded to their particular brand of magic, while at the same time being closed minded themselves to more rational or objective based approaches…

  17. Mike Reply

    And John, different points of view are wonderful, but in this case I think Cat’s personality and intellect are much more valuable than her dogmas. In other words, certain types of differences of opinion are more valuable than other types. People with thoughtful differences of opinion towards feminism, for example, are much more valuable than two people arguing over the color of troll hair. Regardless, I look forward to you inviting Cat back on the show as I am positive she has plenty of challenging things to say outside of ghost hunting 🙂

  18. Ryan Reply

    I wholeheartedly agree with John’s being fine with ghosts not contacting him because of his skepticism. I have no desire to see any ghosts, nor any handshaking evil spirits, nor any handshaking resurrected beings.

  19. Bengmancastro Reply

    I feel like ME has jumped the Shark. No offense to anyone, but I liked the Mormon podcasts. This seems full of woooo and off on weird tangents.

  20. John Jacob Reply

    I’ve gotta tell you, I found this podcast extremely entertaining. Kindof in the way Fonze water skiing over a shark tank was entertaining. It was beautifully tragic with some cringe worthy moments.

    Normally John is able to take unique perspectives and viewpoints and provide great insight and commentary. Here, there was just some sort of a disconnect – an apparent conflict of interest I suppose. The lesson: don’t pick your panel guests based on who you the host is dating. Take a lesson from another charismatic John and keep Yoko away from your craft!

    If I want to hear about the value of psychics, I’ll listen to the Infants on Thrones Christa the Psychic episodes. Christa is at least fun to listen to. In fact, how about you have Christa the Psychic do a reading for Cat? Now that might be a compelling episode!

  21. CanuckAussie Reply

    These comments illustrate something that frustrates me when dealing with ex-mormons. Too often they retain the black and white mormon thinking that leaves no room for anything other than one absolute belief. I think that is sad because it stops them from enjoying the concept of uncertainty. For me, leaving the absolutist mormon viewpoint left me able to embrace the possibility of almost anything. People slamming Cat’s view and experiences are simply continuing the Mormon attitude of close-mindedness and lack of imagination.

    • Cat Palmer Reply

      Amen, Aussie….you said it better than I could…..it’s often why when I left I instantly became an ex ex Mormon….

      • CanuckAussie Reply

        Of course I’m open to the existence of unicorns. They roam wild in Australia, and taste nice with a bit of rosemary

        • Michael_Shermer's Amygdala Reply

          I’m going to assume you are being sarcastic with that last one, but just like mike said below, it isn’t about black and white thinking, its about creating a working framework about what is real and what is not, and what kinds of things are worthy of consideration. If you are to believe in the existence of psychics and their abilities, then why not small devils, centaurs or other creature that “could” exist? Rather than a person having a psychic gift, why not assume that there devils whispering in said psychics ears? Why not an alien who only she can see? Sound unreasonable? Not by the standard of proof previously hinted at above. We should believe in things because we have good reasons to believe them, not because we can’t explain them.. Believing in things without good reasons isn’t a sign of open mindedness, its a sign of extreme credulity.

          • CanuckAussie

            Funny that you mention devils speaking into the ears of psychics. That was my view as a member. Likewise people with past life regression memories.

            I choose to believe in an afterlife, because there is utility for me in believing in that. For others there is utility in athiesm. but for me, agnosicism makes more sense because there is also no proof there is nothing after death.

            From my perspective, whilst there is no proof of an afterlife, there is evidence. Evidence can include the experiences of others, the infinite complexity of life and the universe, and the many writings on past life regressions, especially the massive amount record on children discussing past life details they could not know and that are then verified. Like Cat, I have a friend that is (an alleged) psychic – that has some incredible insights and frankly, I still don’t know what to think of. (I have a fascination with fake psychics and how they do it, but this one has me baffled) Is any of that proof? No, but it is evidence. On the contrary, where is the evidence that there is no life after death? There is none. No proof, no evidence. So from my perspective, an agnostic view is more fascinating, more interesting, brings me more comfort and is more logical. I respect the other point of view; but it just isnt mine and doesnt work for me.

    • Mike Reply

      Aussie, I don’t totally disagree with you here but I don’t want to confuse close-mindedness with embracing the basic tenants of reason. Again, believing in the possibility of being surrounding by a vast army of invisible Micky Mouse soldiers is more open minded than not believing that. This is not being close-minded however. (I don’t think you are saying the opposite of this, I just want to clarify)

    • Rude Dog Reply

      Unadulterated garbage.

      If there is an independent reality outside of our brain then we have to come to terms with the fact that there are measurable parameters (yes, even in quantum mechanics before you go off into pastures of yawn) of which we have are only starting to grasp. However, we do have a method of philosophy that helps us best down these roads of discovery, and has been the only method that has produced although imperfectly, somewhat reliable results. I’m open to other philosophies nd methods, but where are they? When do they provide useful results. How about a psychic contribution to help us with the Ebola virus? Finding lost kids? Having an assumption that reality behaves in certain ways (as mostly defined by physics, quantum physics included) is not the absolutist position you make it out to be. The reason you are worked up is because you seem to imply that there is a reality that is only specific to you, or Cat, or any other sincere believer in the paranormal. Charlatans at least realize they’re being ironic.

      It sounds like you and those like you who embrace the paranormal and pseudosciences are spending your thinking time playing with your thoughts deep in your own reality, defined by many as delusion. It’s not as if we know really much about the true reality that lies outside our psyche, in fact it takes great human effort to just realize how much is knowable, and how much we don’t know. We know less now than at anytime during our species’ history due to the fact that we’ve only just begun to discover it. But we do have to be in the ballpark to start, and ya’ll ghost and psychic/astrologers/ESP yahoos who play with your thoughts around corners and down alleys then come back to sell whittled pencils from cups aren’t even in the same ballpark. I believe it was J B S Haldane that when handed a paper from a graduate candidate bellowed in exasperation, “this paper isn’t even wrong”.

  22. jon Reply

    Some people do call themselves abolitionists today. They fight against the religion of statism.

    Like everyone else says. Interesting girlfriend. To each his own, if you find you fit with each other, good for you. It reminds me of the book Why People Believe Weird Things. The people that believe that they have been abducted believe it so strongly that they believe it is real even when evidence is shown that it is all in their minds. In fact, they don’t like it when they are shown that it is all in their minds because it doesn’t give them the cognitive bias they are seeking after being studied.

    • jon Reply

      BTW, I’m reading that book with a bunch of active Mormons. I won’t be bringing up religion in the book club though!

  23. cat palmer Reply

    to clarify: my psychic is not paid. she is a friend that gives me advice and i look at it as therapy sessions. she is very gifted and i stand by her gift.

    there are many things that people believe that they cannot scientifically or logically prove – they believe these things because they have been told to. how many of you can actually explain why long division works?

    most things we are taught that someone we respect told us. most of our beliefs are based informal fallacies. for example, the appeal to authority. the entire elementary school system is an informal fallacy….

    i know a lot of you “closed-minded-there-there-is-only-one-way-to-believe-and-lets-attack-anyone-that-does-not-believe-like-me” folks will bring in the argument that i am using rationality to explain an irrational theory, in your eyes.

    also, like john said – he could be wrong….i could be wrong….we really don’t give a shit and respect each other for our different belief system.

    with that said, i am bored of this conversation and this will be my last comment on the matter.

    (and my last name is palmer, not power)

    ((oh and fuck you, matt – i am not a frustrating person to be in a relationship with – i am actually pretty dang awesome 😉 ))

  24. Mike Reply

    So grateful that despite being bored with this conversation, Cat decided to take precious time out of her day to explain the scientific method to all of us close-minded fools.

    It is unfairly easy to corner a true believer and smugness is usually their escape.

  25. Robert(1) Reply

    Cat …do you have any hot single friends I could meet?
    Oh wait I can’t say the word hot according to John…

  26. Simon Driver Reply

    James Randi will pay a million dollars to any psychic who can demonstrate their abilities. Sounds like Cat has found the one person who can do it.

    Oh wait, it only works if you believe.

    Why in hell did you turn Mormon Expression into Coast to Coast AM? The most frustrating thing is that there was absolutely no real discussion of Post-Mormon Spirituality, at least nothing even remotely helpful, just aggressive rants by Wanda the Lotus Eater, a know-it-all that makes Oprah look grounded. I was really hoping to find some insights and ideas into spirituality, some real-world ways to engage and find meaning outside myself.

    I love the show, I look forward to the episodes, and I really think Cat is a very funny and well-spoken young lady, but her show etiquette was poor and her zealot’s lack of self-awareness in her harangues was painful. Please “align yourself” to the possibility that you needn’t be so defensively aggro in your positions. A little circumspection is a sign of wisdom. To act like you “know” the unknowable? Not so much.

    “John’s Dilemma” and this episode were more placeholders than real episodes. I would never have begun listening if they had been my first exposure to Mormon Expression. John, if you have lost your drive, can you at least assemble a panel that has a dog in the fight? All you’d have to do is moderate. There are plenty of people out there who are still engaged…

    • Kessee Reply

      This was the first Mormon Expression podcast episode I wasn’t able to finish, which really isn’t anything too tragic since he’s been on his game for a solid X amount of years. But yes, I feel your comment wholeheartedly.

  27. Simon Driver Reply

    BTW just read John Jacob’s post from September 9 and all I can say is GENIUS!! That is some seriously funny shit and some seriously incisive insight. Well done, whoever you are.

  28. Mason Blaylock Reply

    This is certainly a Mormon Expression podcast unlike any other.

    To try and keep it simple, and simultaneously not *too* simple, I have come to highly value the concept of falsifiability. This means that the argument stating that the only worthy test is for me to throw all the bias I can muster in the direction of believing in someone else’s preferred belief/psychic (the only worthy test being that of the presence of *my* sincere belief, and only my sincere belief–that only *this* can demonstrate whether or not a thing is true–that anything else is too insincere to be worthy of understanding a claim) seems dangerous, and I think it has been proven, historically, to be dangerous.

    Listening to this podcast was rough (frustrating), but vivifying. It threw me back to years ago when listening to Tal Bachman’s exmormon conference talk about how he was first motivated to challenge his beliefs. He mentioned that, when initially trying to reconcile his beliefs with incompatible ideas, he kept running into the same thought “The church is true. The church is true.” (the notion that no other evidence mattered or was necessary.. because the church is true). http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/media/2005Conference/Saturday-Bachman.mp3 — if you care to listen to his story. Fast forward to ~3 mins to skip the announcements

    • Mason Blaylock Reply

      I guess I’ll bring this up (as if no one else has). This podcast episode sends a message to folks who are trying their best to adapt, understand, evolve, cope, and learn to live in an open, pluralistic society, that if they don’t embrace the narcissistic behavior of a person who believes in psychics, then there is something wrong with *them*, and not the person exhibiting narcissistic behavior.

  29. Julie Case Reply

    Although I relate more to John’s ideas in this podcast, as a former believer it was interesting to listen to Cat as it took me back to how sure I used to be about things based on how events came together and how I felt about them. The lesson I’ve learned is the mind plays tricks on us all. We assign meaning to the meaningless and often see what we expect to see. That is not to say intuition is useless or that the scientific method is the only way of knowing something. Was it not Eistein who said that he “never made one of his discoveries through rational thinking”? The concept I got from John in this episode was to consider the possibility that as exmos we must continue to explore and examine being acutely aware we may not have all the answers.

    Now, did Cat’s perspective convince me of her reality? No. But, I appreciate the notion that John expressed which is we need to continue to rub up against differing view points and not just surround ourselves with like-minded thinkers. I’d love to hear more from Cat in the future about her artistry and how her intuition led her to no longer believe in the church. I’ve found in my own life that my intuition/emotions are deeply tangled with my thoughts, both rational and irrational. To get at truth or what’s best for me I continually have to ask myself “Am I seeing this clearly?” Chances are, I am not and that is a humbling realization. No one has the full puzzle to anything. What I love about science is there is an agreed upon way to check things. Come up with a hypothesis, gather evidence, doubt, know that at anytime you could be wrong and that that’s perfectly fine-expected even. It’s in the conglomerate that we stubble upon and build truths. Cat’s perspective is unique in the exmo world. It’s worth looking at. But how does she check her ideas? Do John’s ideas rub off on her as well? I’d like to know more about that and what that looks like.

  30. Amber Reply

    This was a frustrating episode to listen to. I understand the challenge of pinning down the concept of spirituality. But the whole episode felt rambling and misguided.
    The panel was unable to agree on a working definition, much less share anything substantial in terms of spiritual growth and development.
    Since leaving the church, I realize I was seeking to develop spirituality through religion. The complete failure of Mormonism to fulfill this need in me is what pushed me out the door.
    Am I the only one who was hoping for something more substantial than equating spirituality with emotions and seeing ghosts?

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *