Why Scientists Don't Want to Believe in Shifting & OBEs
(And why that doesn't mean you're crazy)
A man named Minero once said something that stuck with me:
"Some scientists find the concept goes against all the conditioning and training that they have ever had regarding the nature of consciousness."
"There is a risk or a fear... that the work that they are doing all of a sudden is less meaningful."
"When a scientist has spent 20 to 30 years building a theory, and a new discovery threatens to make that work obsolete... they fight it to the death."
He wasn't talking about shifting or OBEs specifically.
But he might as well have been.
But First: Some Scientists Do Believe
To be fair, not all scientists resist.
Some of the greatest minds in history were open to consciousness leaving the body.
Dr. Sam Parnia director of critical care research at NYU Langone Health has spent decades studying near-death experiences and out-of-body phenomena. His AWARE studies have documented verified perceptions from patients clinically dead with no brain activity.
Dr. Bruce Greyson former professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia began as a skeptic. He thought NDEs were hallucinations. After decades of research, he changed his mind. His book After documents thousands of cases where patients reported verifiable information they could not have known without being outside their bodies.
Dr. Raymond Moody coined the term "near-death experience" in 1975. His work launched the serious academic study of OBEs.
Dr. Charles Tart a leading parapsychologist conducted controlled experiments on out-of-body experiences in the 1960s and 1970s, finding evidence that some OBErs could correctly perceive targets placed outside their physical range of sight.
Dr. Robert Monroe founder of the Monroe Institute spent decades researching and inducing OBEs through Hemi-Sync technology. His work directly influenced the CIA's Gateway Report.
The University of Virginia has an entire Division of Perceptual Studies studying consciousness, OBEs, and phenomena that suggest awareness is not confined to the brain.
These scientists exist. They publish in peer-reviewed journals. They just get less funding and less media attention than the skeptics.
So no, science itself isn't closed to this.
But the establishment? The mainstream? The grant committees and tenure boards?
That's a different story.
Every major paradigm shift in science faced vicious resistance. The pattern is always the same:
Galileo (1633) proved the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. The Roman Inquisition declared heliocentrism "formally heretical," forced him to renounce his discoveries under threat of torture, and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Ignaz Semmelweis (1840s) discovered that doctors washing their hands with chlorine solution reduced childbed fever mortality from 98 to 12 deaths per 1,000 births. Other doctors mocked him, destroyed his career, and had him committed to an asylum where he was beaten and died from an infection in his right hand at 47 years old.
Alfred Wegener (1912) proposed continental drift. Geologists called it "delirious ravings" and pseudoscience. They rejected his theory for 50 years not because the evidence was weak, but because he was an "outsider" to their field and his ideas clashed with what they already believed. The theory only gained acceptance in the 1950s after new evidence emerged and the older generation retired.
This pattern is so consistent that physicist Max Planck famously observed:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Colloquially? "Science advances one funeral at a time."
A 2019 MIT study confirmed Planck was right: when prominent life scientists die, their subfields see an 8.6% increase in highly cited research by newcomers who had previously been excluded.
Science doesn't advance through open-mindedness. It advances through generational replacement.
What This Means for Shifting & OBEs
If shifting and OBEs are real — truly real — it doesn't just add to what scientists know. It destroys entire fields:
Neuroscience as currently taught: consciousness is produced by the brain. Shifting and OBEs say awareness exists independent of the brain.
Physics as currently taught: you are here, in one location. Shifting says you can be aware of a completely different reality, with a completely different body.
Psychology as currently taught: dissociation and hallucination explain unusual experiences. Shifting says those experiences are more real than this one.
If shifting and OBEs are real, thousands of scientists have spent decades building careers on incomplete or wrong models.
Not because they're evil. Because they're human. Because their reputations, grant money, and life's work depend on the old paradigm being true.
Minero is right about the fear:
"If shifting is real, my life's work just became less meaningful."
"If consciousness can leave the brain, my grant money might dry up."
"If my colleagues find out I'm studying this, I'll lose my reputation."
These are legitimate fears. They're also not your problem.
You're not asking permission from a scientist to shift or have an OBE. You're asking your own awareness.
This doesn't mean all science is wrong. It doesn't mean evidence doesn't matter.
It means: science is a human institution. And human institutions resist change.
The truth doesn't need a committee to approve it. The truth just is.
And if shifting and OBEs are true, the science will eventually catch up.
It might just take 50 years and a few funerals.
What You Can Take From This
When a skeptic demands "peer-reviewed evidence" for shifting or OBEs, you can smile and say:
"I understand why you need that. But the people who discovered hand-washing died in asylums. Galileo died under house arrest. Paradigms don't shift because of evidence. They shift when the people holding the old ones retire.
"And by the way there are already scientists studying this. Sam Parnia. Bruce Greyson. Charles Tart. Robert Monroe. The University of Virginia. They just don't get the funding or attention.
"I'm not here to convince your institution. I'm just here to live my experience.
"You can wait for the science to catch up.
Resistance to shifting and OBEs isn't proof that they're fake.
It's proof that shifting and OBEs — if real — are paradigm-shattering.
And the people who've built their lives on the old paradigm? They're not going to clap for you.
Not because you're wrong.
Parnia, S. – AWARE studies, NYU Langone Health – PubMed
Greyson, B. – After (book) – University of Virginia Press
Moody, R. – Life After Life (1975)
Tart, C. – Controlled OBE experiments (1960s-70s) – Journal of Parapsychology
Monroe, R. – Journeys Out of the Body (1971), Monroe Institute, CIA Gateway Report
University of Virginia – Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS)
Galileo affair (1633) – Roman Inquisition, house arrest – Wikipedia
Semmelweis, I. – Handwashing discovery, career destruction – BBC
Wegener, A. – Continental drift rejection (1912) – UCSB Science Line, Slavov Lab
Planck, M. – "Science advances one funeral at a time"
MIT Study (2019) – 8.6% increase after prominent scientists die – EurekAlert!
Kuhn, T. – Paradigm shifts, resistance from established scientists – Cambridge University Press
izzy806
stormborns
pixelskylines
gummygunk
germansingergirl
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
