Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note: Comments in archives 1 - 3 may not be entirely in chronological sequence, with some comments in some later archives dating back to generally earlier archives, and visa-versa.

Facts

The following was posted by 68.35.53.80 at 04:04, 8 January 2006 Lumos3 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is poorly researched and written. Facts about Cayce's life and work are readily available in abundance. To be fair, opinions regarding his credibility as a psychic have no place here, any more than they have a place in articles about religion or weather phenomena, for example. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia == not a blog (like this :) There are researchers who have made a life's work of Cayce's work -- perhaps they could be consulted.

AAS

I must disagree. While I personally believe in a lot of what Edgar Cayce had to say, and believe that more of his prophecies will be proven in the future, I agree that a critique of his credibility is valid. All psychics, especially those who are high-profile (like Sylvia Browne, Alison Dubois, and John Edward) have at one time or another come under fire by those who don't believe what they cannot see. Like any neutral source of information, both sides must be covered, which means doing more than catering to us believers. After all, like any debate class will teach you, those who do not understand the beliefs of others do not completely understand their own. I agree that Wikipedia is a living encylopedia, so I can only imagine this article and many, many more will only get better with time.

JKM

Critiquing his credibility should be done only outside the Wikipedian sphere: Wikipedia deals in Facts, not Truth. The Facts will be what he verifiably said and did, and what others have said and done in response to him...not in whether we believe in any of it. --Chr.K. 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortcomings

This article needs work. -- Zoe

Quite. It's both credulous and poorly written: "sickness and other ailments"? Vicki Rosenzweig

Funny how people with very little knowledge on the subject post early and often. That is a major flaw.

As of June 2005, it's still poorly written. It's generally disorganized and repetitive, it uses catch phrases without explaining them (e.g., calling something "shotgunning" without explaining what it is or why that matters here), and contains a lot of one-sentence paragraphs without any apparent link to what comes before or after.

Much of the research is not finished. The article could be expanded. As far as "other ailments", evidently the author was not prepared to dive into the Akashic Files or the myriad of other documented Cayce readings. This could become another in-depth similar to New Age. "Poorly written" may be correct also since it appears the ongoing wiki problem with copyrights might prohibit even paraprhasing some of the 100,000+ readings which would validate or appease the finer authors here. BF

What part of these amazing abilities is the result of attempts to avoid copyright violations? -- Zoe

The readings may be viewed at the online Edgar Cayce Foundation. Permissions to quote ad lib haven't been granted. Perhaps "retelling the story" would be ok. If anyone wants to dive into the over 100,000 readings, that's what Wikipediahololics do. Apparently this author is not willing to spend a month doing so. Others may. BF

Sounds like self-justification to me. -- Zoe

I moved this comment from the article page to here for discussion:

...Dr. Hugo Münsterberg, a professor from Harvard University who investigated Cayce to determine if he was a fraud, or not-- the results were supportive.

This claim needs a citation and more detail: professor of what, investigation published where. Just tossing names like Harvard University into the article without proper citations would give credibility to a claim that otherwise is lacking. --Zippy 00:39, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dr. Hugo Münsterberg now has his own Wikipedia page, so that can answer who he was. According to page 171 of Sydney Kirkpatrick's Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet (2000): "Although the professor [Münsterberg] did not take the trouble to write a case study of Edgar Cayce for one of the medical journals or deliver a paper on the subject, he was not ashamed or embarrassed to describe his experiences in Hopkinsville to his colleagues and students at Harvard, among them, the distinguished Dr. William McDougal, who would later conduct a study of the readings himself." The Münsterberg investigation is covered on pages 170-172 of Kirkpatrick's book. So there is not published investigation by Münsterberg, if that is your criterion for inclusion of this reference. McDougal also has a page on Wikipedia. --derrida316

I changed the part of the article where it talked about the Essenes. The article claimed that the Essenes were ancient Christians, which any body versed in ancient history would know is not true, as they were a Jewish sect. --Allranger

Karma

I created a section about Karma based on Edgar Cayce's readings in the Wikipedia Karma article. The book, Many Mansions (about E.C.) was my first introduction into Reincarnation and Karma. I don't know if I should copy the Karma section here. Would that create a needless duplication? What appeals to me is E.C. 's Christian orientation towards Hindu concepts of Reincarnation and Karma.

I suggest the section should remain over there only. I am doing some similar articles on people and their doctrines, and a natural line seems to occur between the events in the life, which go in the person's article, and the content of the doctrine, which go in the doctrine's article. Otherwise, if the doctrines are comprehensive and someone does a good job including them all, the personal article just bloats up and diffuses. Some doctrine will naturally end up included in the personal article, but mostly just summaries or how the doctrine interacted with events in the life.--Gary D 19:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should also be a list of E.C. sayings: Karma is the meeting of one's self. You are your brother's keeper. etc..--Jondel 06:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article needs work.

Anyone with better info should contribute to (edit) the article. Whoever wrote the article didn't do a thorough research or reading on Edgar Cayce.--Say Yang

---

I am hardly "credulous" when it comes to Edgar Cayce. I'm the one who peppered the article with Cayce's massive mistakes and spectacular strikeouts. The man was a puppet in the hands of people with an agenda to promote. It took all I had not to insert a (polite) word or two on the concept beloved by the New Age religion that anything said while in a hypnotic or trance state is The TRVTH.

The problem with Cayce's "doctrine" is that it was an eclectic mix of whatever he'd picked up from assorted books on theosophy and Hindu philosophy, combined with the belief systems of whoever he'd allowed to hypnotize him. Cayce was a people-pleaser whose audience liked to hear a good story in which everything was explained (thus the Ra Ta business et al). A sampling of Cayce past life readings reveals the usual mixed bag; lonely, bored housewives told that they'd been queens who were suffering now because they'd been unjust to their people; a boy with polio and epilepsy told that his sufferings were the result of "severe sexual misconduct"; and so forth. Cayce also said that God arranged for innocents to suffer in order to raise their spiritual consciousness. What does that say about the people who cause the suffering of the innocents -- a man who rapes his daughter, for instance? Is he absolved of his crime because he contributes to her spiritual elevation?

Actualy A man that rapes his daughter will be subjected to being later raped by the Goverment he is under or in a future life be a daughter of a child raping father. No one excapes Karma I.E. you reap what you sow. Cheers!

'Course I can't say any of that in the article 'cause that isn't NPOV. Have to find another source that makes similar observances and cite it. Shouldn't be too hard. Also, police reports about his monumental failure in the Lindbergh case. --Bluejay Young 03:41, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to read a more informed person that does not assume truth is theirs to mold. Then again, this is wikipedia. The truth has no place here - only truthiness. And the answer is, no. If you read a bit more, you would know that. By the way, have you heard how the african elephant population has tripled in the last six months?

---

I too added a lot of the skepticism.In fairness, the New Agers have a perfect right to submit whatever they like--this is wikipedia--but the skeptics have a right to debunk every word. Cayce was a fraud. --

dino 16:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Skeptics

You are entitle to your own choices. 64.171.224.83 23:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, did you(the Skeptics) read the 'In fairness to' paragraph. Edgar Cayce didn't promote his Psychic abilites. He wanted people to grow in Spirituality and Christianity. He wasn't a crowd pleaser. In fact the seemingly Hindu concepts of Karma andReincarnation contradicts the prevailing Christian dogmas.His aid was sought only as a last resort, when medical help was futile. Focus on the spirituality not the psychic abilities. Cayce is NO fraud because he himself, never made active claims to his ability. His reputed abilities spread through word of mouth. This is what I say about people who cause the suffering of innocents. If you have no free will to do good you have no free will to do evil. Cayce doesn't say that the rapist is absolved of crime because he contributes to spiritual elevation. If reincarnation is true, it may be possible,however that the daughter was a man who did the raping(to her father) in a previous life. And if it 'Shouldn't be too hard' to find similar observance and cite it, please go ahead. Enlighten us. --Jondel 02:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So Cayce was a sincere fraud. As far as I can tell, he was still a fraud. He just didn't realise it himself. It's very common under hypnosis to disclose whatever you think your audience want to hear, even if that goes against your known views and belief system when non-hypnotised. The mind of a hypnotised person actually retains a certain amount of control, rendering it quite possible to tell lies, misremember things, make up stories, or retell a historical novel from first-person perspective. Source: Studies cited in All in the Mind? by Ian Wilson.

I was raised with Cayce. Rosicrucianism, the Gnostic Gospels and mystery religions were common, dinner-table talk. Reincarnation was taken as a complete given. I still think this: The argument that a child who is raped may have been a rapist in a previous life does nothing to justify the fact that someone in her present life chose to rape her. By this logic, parents should abuse children to help expiate their karma. But there's that ol'Veil of Maya again, blocking our past life memories. What good does it do to experience life-shattering trauma supposedly for a valuable lesson if one is unaware of what one is supposed to learn? Conveniently explaining believers' misfortunes by choices made in a past life -- a past life they may never be able to recall -- is not my idea of elevated spirituality.

But that really isn't and shouldn't be the issue when we are contributing to Wikipedia. When it comes to matters of spirituality, it's hard not to do "Believers think X" and "Nonbelievers think Y". But we still have to find some way to give it as much perspective as possible. --Bluejay Young 07:27, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

---

Can't we let the New Agers have their section, and us skeptics have ours? I got peeved when some New Ager removed the skeptical voice I added. I never removed the New Age perspective, even though I as a skeptic find everything about New Age extremely offensive.

dino 15:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

There is alot of information that appears to be a out of order on this gentlemen. For instance, 2 days ago the history channel ran a "Decoding The Past" show about Edgar Cayce. It openly stated that he was illiterate but here it says that he completed the 8th grade education? Someone is just stating opinions, this is how history gets all turned around and told the way certain people want it to be told.

Thanks for your responce and participation.

Refer to the book "Many Mansions" by gina cerminara , page 13. There it is mentioned : "He attended country school far as ninth grade" --vineeth 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Accidents, and free will

Getting raped or trauma doesn't help but Karma or 'our subconscious' mind needs to justify itself for past sins.

Rape or traumatic events can be totally accidental or karmic. If they are karmic they have an educative correctional purpose. i. e. the person will tend to think twice before he/she does the wrong thing. The girl who gets raped may need to learn not to take advantage of helpless victims. But again, this may not be karmic at all but all accidental.

Our subconscious minds are very powerful. We may be creating our very own misfortunes, diseases, unfortunate situations and sufferings. We need to study our subconscious.

I am not at all convinced that a subconscious mind exists. Freud came up with the subconscious originally as a way of explaining that clients who disagreed with him actually agreed with him "subconsciously". Even if it does exist, it gets used too often as a way of blaming ourselves for abuses inflicted upon us by others. I've also seen "subconscious" used in far too many mind games against children and psychiatric clients. (How long did people go around thinking children subconsciously want sex with their parents, and that their fantasies about said relationships were the source of molestation accusations?) I believe in individual responsibility, but there are limits to what we can ascribe to self-sabotage. Poverty is one of the main causes of misfortune, disease, unfortunate situations and suffering. I have never been able to make myself believe that poor people are poor because they subconsciously want to be, don't love themselves enough (Shakti Gawain), etc. --Bluejay Young 20:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

My conflict with dogma and How Cayce help resove them

I was a very devout 'Heaven and Hell ', Christian, even going around evangelizing.

For Catholics, reincarnation was blasphemous and I did loose sleep thinking I would be going to hell for contemplating reincarnation which Cayce introduced. I don't claim to be a yoga expert or practising one but my reply to all in the mind is you are right. But the mind (I read) is very powerful , whether you use yoga or hypnosis. I read of people who are successfully hypnotized to make their names appear in different colors on their skin! I feel attached to Cayce because he had fundamental Christian/Bible beliefs like I did(but no I don't have psychic powers nor do I get hypnotized for readings)l

Spirituality requires a heavy amount of introspection so it is not fruitful to discuss this but for each person to do their own spiritual 'homework'.

I am very glad that you (Bluejay )know about Maya. Isn't Maya a form of hypnosis? I feel that (common man )everyone is partially hypnotized. We believe what we want to believe and our beliefs do not accurately reflect reality. I believe that eventually, everyone will have to retrain or recondition themselves. It is hard to believe that Cayce was lying under hypnosis. Anyway, I don't focus too much on the psychic readings but the spiritual revelations and how Reincarnations,Karma, etc relate to Christianity, Jesus , etc.. It made quite an impact for me.

I will try to get a copy of 'All in the Mind. --Jondel 02:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this for months. Heh. Life intervened, as they say. Well, the definition of Maya when I looked it up in texts on Hindu mysticism is "The ability, as of a god, to create illusions." This is not about hypnosis. This is more about the illusion that this world is all there is. Various world religions have a doctrine that the physical world is a kind of reflection or shadow of another world which is more real. Plains Indians believe you contact that world when you dream, or go on a vision quest or other sacred action. Maya is a whole lot more than that, as you can see from this essay: The Magic of Maya, Illusion and Delusion

Even Sigmund Freud discovered that it was possible to tell lies or make up stories while under hypnosis. Your will is still under your control. If Freud's studies and the ones cited in 'All in the Mind' are on the level, a good deal of what we think of as hypnosis is actually an agreed-upon psychodrama between the subject and the hypnotist.

You might want to look at some of Cayce's sources for his "spiritual revelations" and how reincarnation relates to Jesus and so on; it's fairly easy to find writings by Helena_Blavatsky, Charles_Webster_Leadbeater, Alice Bailey and Annie Besant. Best of all, read up on Hindu mysticism and the Brahmanic origins of modern beliefs about reincarnation and karma, and find out what they really say for themselves. --Bluejay Young 20:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Revised Cayce Page

just made a big revision to the readings section, and even the intro. could someone look over it for grammar etc.

Knightt 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding content. I saw a few typos, misspellings, stutters[same word repeated consecutively], but overall OK. I think you could correct any of the aforementioned yourself, Knightt. The squabble in the Illiterate? heading needs to be moved to discussion. Now the skeptics, who tried to POV this article I began so long ago I forgot when, see more to argue about. BF 02:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is beginning to look like I intended, at the beginning, but drifted away from it. Cayce's portrait looks great! Whoever thinks it matters how you pronounce "Cayce", and that's the extent of their interest in this article, please find another playground? Lots of articles on Wikipedia to put "how should you speak this ________"! BF 17:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am the one who added the point about the pronunciation of the name and you are being very flippant and rude . Is does matter in an encyclopaedia that facts are recorded clearly and a common misconception needs to be corrected. In Gina Cerminaras book ‘’Many Mansions’’ (1950), written with a forward by Cayce’s son Hugh Lynn Cayce, she clearly states the correct pronunciation of the name at the start of chapter 2. The mispronunciation of the name of an historical figure is not the trivial matter you seem to think it is. Lumos3 22:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

1. The photo has no copyright info. I put a "unverified" note on it, but if it is PD or GFDL (whatever), please give a source & remove my note.
2. Would it make sense to move the the "Readings" section to a separate article? It's kinda long. Detracts. If no response in a week or so, I'll do it.

dino 04:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Readings are too long. The reader may loose interest. The article is about Cayce not his readings. I think the readings belong in a separate article or replace with a brief description. Jondel

---

Thanks for looking over my work Lumos3, i know i sometimes do that.

A note about the spelling of cayce, i see many people(including myself at one point) type the altered spelling into a computer and get no results. For search purposes, it would be good to work the wrong spelling into it somewhere if possible.

Above all today, when phonetic spelling is becoming the norm. --Bluejay Young 21:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The readings are why Cayce is known and worthy of making note of in the article. IT would make sense to talk about way he is important! There is still much that could be said with over 14,000 readings he covered a lot of ground. There has been almost nothing said about geology and many other topics.

Moving the content from the readings into other groups would be nice if done well. I tend to think that the reading information is more important than some of the other info on the page. I would vote for deleting some of the content in the other sections of the page before the information on the readings.

please explain: POV, PD, GFDL Knightt 15:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Flippant or not, at least I began working on the readings section. If it's too long anyone can crop it, but what is this article other than a short bio with mostly slams by skeptics? The man gave readings. This is why I decided to begin this article. And if you READ at the top of this discussion, Zoe and Vicki were more flippant. I'm glad someone is at least adding content, not talking about eliminating content. This is a recurrent problem here on Wiki. People don't like the way an article is developing, and act like someone else's work is not important, when those same people do nothing to collaborate. This is why I said "find another playground." I had many problems with New Age, in just the same way as this article here. At least that article stands today, despite even daily lashings by Larry Sanger.

sceptics respond

some of the info in skeptics respond is inaccurate. His wife died after cayce. The article says cayce "failed to heal them" cayce was dead! And he never healed anyone! It also implies that he is a healer. It sounds like the person who wrote this was very misinformed about Cayce basics.

Cayce was popularly referred to as a healer, it's an understandable error. --Bluejay Young 21:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

When cayce did not locate the missing person, it was published in books "new age" publications. i read about this in a cayce book. In the skeptics respond section it says it was not published.

The information about earthquakes and floods is also inaccurate. Cayce said they would gradually start, effects would start to be seen around the year 2000. Not "By the year 2000, Cayce predicted, the ocean would invade North America as far as Idaho and Kansas, leaving a trail of islands to the west." This is ridiculous.

My guess is that he made different statements at different times. As usual on these subjects, many of his statements were so vague as to mean practically anything. Cayce on Earth Changes I think we can all agree that none of these things have yet happened.

There is also a good deal of folklore that has grown up around Cayce that needs to be kept out of the article, or perhaps mentioned with the respect that it is an attempt at pre- or postmortem hagiography: Edgar Cayce (Scroll down to "Vision of a lady in white when he was a child" and the "Analysis and Assessment" section). --Bluejay Young 21:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The language is also written in a way that presupposes it being right. I don't have a problem with this. But, would like the page to be consistent. I vote for changing the top of the page to absolute, or changing the skeptics respond section to neutral view.

There is some good reason why people should not believe cacye, and the skeptics section does illustrate some of this. But it dosnt do a good job at it and often throws inaccurate information into the facts.

Any comments? I feel as though i am going to get grilled.

Knightt 14:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the inaccurate statement about his wife and child as well. I suggest removing these as non statements and like the sound of your proposals, go ahead and do them.

I'd also like to see a simple chronological NPOV para on his life history etc Lumos3 08:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just fixed the skeptics section. Could, again, someone check it over for spelling and grammar. I would also appreciate any comments on what has been said.

Want to fix some of the inaccuracies in the few sections left before i start thinking about new sections. I will keep the life history in mind.Knightt 18:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Restored some skepticism. I tried to be nice. Of note, I put out a note aways back about the photo. Is there copyright info on it?

dino 22:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears as though you put criticism into the article rather than scepticism. The comments put back into the article are not from a neutral point of view, but are rather from a hardcore extreme. Unclear and deceptive comments have been placed back into the article.

My intent in re-working the skeptics section was to create a section that a) gave cause to be sceptical b) gave a brief overview of why people are sceptical. While, at the same time, using words, parses and examples that are not controversial.

Criticism and deception has changed the article into a debating ground. The article now tries to prove that cayce was a fake, rather then giving ground for it and letting people make there own mind up. It tells a one sided story. Words, phrases and examples in the article are now very deceiving.

I would be up for one of the following:

1) If the section gives proofs for why cayce is a fake, i would like to see the other side. So in other words, change the heading to Real or Fiction? and one can play "faking out cayce your best shot", and i will comment below, showing in an non-deceptive way, why it is false.

2) The deceptive comments removed. aka. restore the article to being informative and neutral, rather than an "well get this fake" battle ground.

If people, do not agree with me that the article is single sided, and i am sure there is not many of you, but in any case, I am willing to comment on specific words and phrases and examples used and show why it is inappropriate.

Any comments?

Knightt 20:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Here we go again. This reminds me of political debates where anyone from the other side with with whom I disagree is the "hardcore extreme" (what I seem to be). I'll start one by one ...

It appears as though you put criticism into the article rather than scepticism....

How? It was skepticism. Did was anything ad hominem or critical of Cayce as a human being? I used language like

Skeptics do not believe Cayce had any paranormal powers whatsoever...,

Skeptics also cite the supposed vagueness in his language ...

That is not ad hominem. I think it fairly balanced.

Oh, what "Unclear and deceptive comments?" They seem pretty direct to me.

The article now tries to prove that cayce was a fake ...

Oh? The article is full of New-Agey worship of him. Much of it. Such as

The readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest, ...

Also,

:1) If the section gives proofs for why cayce is a fake, i would like to see the other side. ...

It's a section devoted to skepticism. Feel free to make a section dedicated to why Cayce had actual powers.

In conclusion, I was trying to be nice, and mask my feelings about the entire New Age movement, and all spiritual beliefs. I realize, the New Agers and the religionists wish us skeptics and freethinkers would just go away. But we're not.

Because of the edit wars I see going on, and the endless bickering, I put an NPOV notice at the top of the article.

Just my $0.02. I want to be nice & NPOV, not offend anyone, & give everyone their chance to speak their piece.

dino 00:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

wow. you are being much more open than i though you were going to be.

I would like to say that you have not offended me.

I don't want to make the section devoted to why "cayce had powers", quite frankly, who cares if he did. nor do i want to see the section about why cayce did not have powers. But currently see the section as the later.

sorry, i am not going to go away, but am willing to share why i think the comments are deceptive. I know you may not think they are deceptive but would be willing to show you why i think they are. I dont want to pin you personally.

I dont see endless bickering. I dont see any bickering. I have been very direct in my speech but didnt mean it to be bickering or rude. I feel confident that we can come to an agreement on every issue after i explain what i see. Is this agreeable?

As to your comments and quotes in the earlier half of the last post, I fully agree with many and see others as maybe misinformed. (please take no offence)

We are on a very similar page, despite you viewing me as a New Age worship person.lol(i thought that comment was kinda cute) Maybe after we talk, you will change your view of me a little.

I must also apologize, as i said the text was deceitful. I do believe the text is misleading, but didn't mean to say you were purposefully being misleading, only that i thought the comments were. I am sorry if this felt like a personal attack.

Knightt 03:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New-Agey Worship

dino, (and perhaps others) I would like to work with you to remove all of the "new age worship" out of the article. I don't take the word worship literally, but this idea does portray a good image. It has been discussed that one of the problems people see with the article is its heavy new age influence. I hope to come to an agreement that everyone likes.

The problem is that Cayce's statements on karma, reincarnation etc. contributed a great deal toward the origin of the New Age religion in America. He was deeply influenced by his handlers, who were apparently devotees of Alice Bailey, C.W. Leadbeater, etc. He also worked for a bookstore that carried a lot of titles on alternative medicine and metaphysical themes. Cayce's readings and other people's commentaries / explanations of them popularized these beliefs. He was considered the "first American mystic" (he wasn't, as far as I'm aware Mother Ann Lee was). It's very hard to take the New Age out of any report on Cayce. The best you can do is to say "Cayce reported accessing the Akashic Records" or "Cayce was acclaimed as a highly spiritual person." that way you don't say he was one. --Bluejay Young 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,

would it be agreeable to say:

Cayce said the readings would often describe incarnations where the individual was at its spiritual highest,

Or am i way off the mark? Please comment.

I don't think you need to go that far. Cayce dictated the readings, so we can assume everything in them was stated by him. I would say more like "Cayce's readings often described the subject as someone of a highly spiritual state", or "Cayce's readings often included descriptions of the subject's supposed past lives.." and so forth. --Bluejay Young 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Cayce dictated the readings, so we can assume everything in them was stated by him. "

Actually, I was just watching the History Channel last Night and Cayce's surviving family stated that no, Cayce did not feel that what he spoke during his self-induced trances were in fact his own statements. He often used the 3rd person 'we' when speaking in trance. For example, he would say "We see this" and "Wee see that". The statement was also made that he had no recall of what was said during the trances.

I came here to see what Wikipedia had to say about him and I must say - this discussion is both encouraging and discouraging. It's encouraging in that there is real dailog going on but the edit-wars that are clearly ongoing between a minority are disappointing.

I will spend some time on this article in the next few months and do my best to add some quotes from citable sources and from the History Channel Show which I will also reference. the show as called 'The Other Nostradamus'

Peace - Lisa Pollison

Be careful with the History Channel show; it has a fair amount of misinformation. It tends to generalize and exaggerate several elements, such as implying that Cayce regularly read books by sleeping on them. (As far as I've read, there was one incident he related where he heard a voice tell him to put a spelling book under his pillow, and he knew its contents the next day. I don't know of any other incidents that have been mentioned.) Double check with other sources. Gentaur 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out gentuar. However, when a show features a family member and they say something, a word for word quote is appropriate. BTW, I caught that bit about the books and sleeping on them as well. I believe that error comes from THE SLEEPING PROPHET. The problem with Cayce research or biographical info is trying to find primary sources that agree . So much has been written, rewritten, paraphrased and then those paraphrases quoted as fact. What this artcle could use are some direct quotes from Cayce taken from his waking life and not from his many sessions in trance. I'll work on that. Thanks again. (Lisa Pollison)

Skeptics Explanation

Here i want to (so long as i have a partner), go over the skeptics section.

Skeptics do not believe Cayce had any paranormal powers whatsoever..

To me, skeptic means unsure with a tendency toward the answer no. but it would appear as though scepticism is defined as no belief whatsoever in the article. Please explain.

The word skeptic formerly meant one who questions established or assumed beliefs. "How do you know?" and "Don't take anything for granted." However, colloquially it has come to mean a person who has no belief whatsoever in anything that cannot be conclusively proved by the scientific method. Instead of staying on the fence about questionable ideas, many modern skeptics tend to treat such concepts as "guilty until proved innocent". They also tend to make value judgements about the people who choose to believe in unproved or non-mainstream things (for example, herbal medicine or chiropractic). A tendency toward sneering sarcasm, cheap shots and nasty asides cannot be overlooked in the writings of famous skeptics such as Martin Gardner and in some places the movement has degenerated into trollish trash best exemplified by sites like "The Portal of Evil". (Example: old-time skeptics might say "There's no evidence as yet that fairies exist." Modern skeptics might say "Fairies do not exist and it is pathetic and immature to believe in them."] It is my personal belief that skeptics, like everyone else trying to make a case for something, are best served by a journalistic approach and sticking to the facts. You can say "Bernadette Soubirous reported visitations of the Virgin Mary 18 times" without believing in Mary or believing Bernadette saw her. --Bluejay Young 19:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

I am going to remove that statement. This is not about what Skeptics believe.I will be making edits, hopefully it will be NPOV and acceptable to all.--Jondel 10:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Life History

I have added a section on Cayce’s life which is lacking in the article and which can generally be told without offending supporters or sceptics since its a matter of record. My sources are the time line of his life at www.kyseeker.com/ christian/cayce.html and the biography in Many mansions by Gina Cerminara pub 1950. Lumos3 22:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?

What is it in this article which is disputed? It looks pretty NPOV to me, but maybe I'm just overlooking it. Titanium Dragon 01:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See skeptics explanation above. If that is so, great. Time to remove the NPOV. Skeptics want to remove statements agreeing to the opinion that he had genuine paranormal powers. Some (well, I) believe he had genuine paranormal powers . --Jondel 11:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the disagreement came about when the skeptics section was being scrutinized. Some of the facts and way the information was being portrayed was being questioned. the NPOV was added when the skeptics section could "not be resolved" see below for details, or read everything above!Knightt 13:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to use words like "reportedly" and "apparently" and so on when I write on subjects like this. The facts are what make an article NPOV. If I write that Cayce spoke about reincarnation, that does not mean I believe in reincarnation. Why use an article like this to make a case one way or another? Saying "Cayce was reported to have paranormal powers" is good journalistic practice and should not have to be defended. --Bluejay Young 19:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personally i see the NPOV added to the page for personal gain. Me and Dino were in the middle of working out all of the little bumps or the so called NPOV statements. we were making good progress and coming to agreements but I dont think dino wanted to do that any more. I think he added a NPOV when he found the edits were not going to reflect his POV. As a sceptic, a NPOV on this page would be a good thing. Please dont take this the wrong way, i like dino. This may not be what is going on, but it is the way i see it. I dont think the article is NPOV, but i do think we could, improve on the article some. On another note, there were many misunderstandings that were to complicated to clear up because of a lack of knowledge of Edgar Cayce, such as Edgar Cayce claiming he had "paranormal" powers. He would say he believed he went into a hypnotic state (everyone can go into a hypnotic state) he said he could see auras, most people can, to a degree, see auras (if they know it or not), and everyone can use machines to see them. But "paranormal powers" Cayce would not agree on. Saying that he claimed this is wrong! This is an example of some of the misunderstandings that could be cleared up. Most are not NPOV but simple facts, just as Bluejay Young eluded to. My 2 cents. Knightt 13:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say everybody can see auras, because I'm not even sure auras exist. *grins* But thank you. --Bluejay Young 06:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

As i said above, a picture can be taken of an aura, as it is only the electric magnetic field that sounds the body. The aura is a different colour(representing different wave lengths) and people can become familiar with anthers aura by the colour of cloths that a person wears on a regular basis(they know what there aura is, without attributing it to an "aura"). If you actually want to "see" an aura, get a friend to wear white, and stand against a white wall. Look for a fuzzy line coming from the shoulder. You will have to look for it. Try not to blink. I dont know anyone who cant see a little distorted line (without colour) when they do this. But everyone can read auras without knowing they can, and everyone does, without knowing they do. Like when they choose a preferred colour or decide that a colour looks good on a person or looks bad on a person. I dont expect you to believe me, try the excise yourself, it is really not very mystical at all.Knightt 14:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no "electric magnetic field" surrounding the body -- you may be talking about the small electrical field produced by the brain (that's how EEG's work). Is that what you meant? I can do color choice for my clients by looking at their hair, skin and eyes, no aura necessary. The problem with the exercise you suggest is that the same results can be obtained through retinal fatigue, which I am prone to anyway. Believe me, I was raised by a Rosicrucian who believed in Cayce and I've been through just about every exercise in the book, and nothing happened. I'm not saying there's no such thing as an aura, just that the things you've suggested don't prove it. --Bluejay Young 06:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about proving an aura exists? I dont care for that. As i said earlier auras are not very mystic. "color choice" could be defined as an aura, or even "retinal fatigue". What i mean by aura, is exactly this. Nothing mystic, nothing magical, just another term to explain something that can be explained in 1000 ways. the electric magnetic field is there, it is not only produced by the brain, but by every atom inside and outside of the body, you may know it by the term radiation. If you get a radiation detector you will note that everything it is pointed at will register, to one degree or another. "and nothing happened" good, you are understanding then. We are in agreement, our choice of terms dont seem to match though.

To get back to your original question, i see nothing in this article that is disputed worthy of NPOV. As stated above, there is some misunderstandings in the article, but this reflects more a lack of knowledge rather than a POV.Knightt 13:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we have those who understand why the NPOV dispute should stay up please stand up and be counted so we can address the concerns they have identified? Tom Haws 19:59, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that if no one speaks in favour by May 11th 2005 then its removed. Lumos3 17:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, this is not about auras. For me the Cayce material is about how to live life . There are also other aspects to Cayce like how to be a true Christian. There is of course, a lot of focus on the psychic powers which I'm sure even Cayce would resent. Sceptics also deny his powers. One of the readings even discourage Cayce materials, unless it makes one 'a better neighbor, a better artist, a better churchman, if so cleave to it, if not reject it.' . But that is a major point of his readings, becoming a ' a better husband, a better businessman, a better neighbor, a better artist, a better churchman'.I believe that a lot of people come to believe in Cayce after having exhausted all possible means to problems, sickness, etc. Only after going through such experiences (or at certain level of maturity, I believe ) does one appreciate Cayce.Going back to the POV/NPOV, at the center is that sceptics deny that he had psychic powers. For many ('mature') Cayce fans it is not an issue nor a focus. For some Cayce fans , they(we, I) believe he had psychic powers but will say, there is no need to believe that he had psychic powers.--Jondel 01:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, putting it very bluntly, who the hell cares if he did have "psychic powers"? I want to hear about why he is so important. Dont tell me it was because he was "psychic", thousands of people claim to have this ability and they will never be Edgar Cayce!

To some degree, I would rather have sceptics around to give a balanced view.--Jondel 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

me too, but what has been happening on this page is "skeptics" misrepresenting cayce to peruse an interest, at least to some degree. It has not made for a balance... its unfortunate.

Ok. I certainly don't want Cayce misrepresented. It's just that I've also met too many kooks, cultist and unbalanced people

Here is why I find him so important:

• Proof of Karma for Christians. Greater confidence/faith in 'Vengence is mine'.
• Powerful Christian orientation towards 'Hindu/Buddhist' concepts of Karma and Reincarnation.
• Proof of Reincarnation with Christian orientation.
• Proof or assurance of principle that an individual is in control or responsible for his own universe/life.
• Stronger assuruance to pursue altruistic humanistic activities, e.ge. voluntary social activities.
• Assurance that despair is a useless emotion, eg. Even if you are old and retired, you can study math, physics, languages, and perhaps this will be useful in a next life.
• The knowledge to use what opportunities are available at hand, instead of despairing when encounterring failure and dispppointment.
• The importance and necessity of following and developing inner guidance through prayer, meditation, etc.

Bonus but not crucial:

• Fascinating(entertaining?) accounts of Atlantis, Jesus's past life, past lives of people

(and how it integrates/affects current life.) Guidance to what to do in the future.--Jondel 05:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, to summarize, Cayce made statements about religion and spirituality that many people have found useful in explaining these doctrines to themselves and others. --Bluejay Young 19:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Jondel posted a message on my talk page, here is what he asked-

I'm bothered that Edgar Cayce may be misrepresented and may ask your help to analyze to phrasing of word well. --Jondel 02:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Jondel, here is what i see that may be misleading, not that all of it is wrong, perhaps misleading though. I have currently only currently done the skeptics section and i know there is a little more stuff in the rest of the article.

One example of a prediction that went terribly wrong is that 1933 would be a “good year”, when in fact it was one of the worst in the Great Depression. He predicted that China convert to Christianity by 1968. He and a dowser once went searching buried treasure on the seashore, finding nothing. Psychic believers defended him, saying treasure had been buried there before and dug up, or it would be buried there in the future.

The prediction for 1933 being a good year was in fact the worst of the depression, but is was also the last. Cayce got this one right, or at least DAM CLOSE! The year after the depression was over. He never said that China would convert to Christianity, he said that China had the potential of being the "cradle of Christianity". A reading indicated that there was treasure and if they kept good intentions, they may would be able to find it. They lost there good intentions and stopped searching for the treasure when the readings advised they should stop searching. The next line is complete fantasy in several ways. First off, someone who found the cayce material helpful, would not insist on such rubbish that COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS what the readings said about the treasure. Secondly, what does this have to do with "psychic believers" and what does this mean? Does it mean anyone who can see in colour, as cayce insisted that seeing in colour is a psychic act, or does it mean people who find the information that cayce gave helpful, they certainly would not agree with this? who and where is this group that is talked about?

Skeptics also cite the supposed vagueness in his language while using his psychic abilities. Martin Gardner cites an example of a Cayce reading from when Cayce's wife had tuberculosis:

... from the head, pains along through the body from the second, fifth and sixth dorsals, and from the first and second lumbar...tie-ups here, floating lesions, or lateral lesions, in the muscular and nerve fibers which supply the lower end of the lung and the diaphragm...in conjunction with the sympathetic nerve of the solar plexus, coming in conjunction with the solar plexus at the end of the stomach....

Cayce used the word lung, and this his followers take as a correct diagnosis; i.e., a psychic "hit." This technique is called shotgunning.

It might be nice to mention that they always had an MD on staff to decode the heavy medical lingo that Cayce used but had no waking knowledge of, it would also be prudent that in spite of the language in the reading, it helped her make a complete recovery. The latter part of the quote is obviously making fun of Cayce (NPOV).

Some would protest that the “remedies” have no value at all, for example Cayce once said to use fumes of apple brandy from a charred keg for tuberculosis. Some consider this outrageous and useless.

It was also found among people with TB, to be one of the most useful remedies.

No working “death ray” was found

It was never said or even implied that a "working death ray" was going to be found.

There you go. This is what I saw when reading the skeptics section. I tried changing it once and after that a "skeptic" placed the NPOV on the page. What do i plan on doing about it. Nothing right now, last time i did nothing constructive came out of it. anyone is welcome to "do" something about it if they please. I will try to post comments on the rest of the article soon.Knightt 02:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---

What am I to do? Change all I have been all my life to accomodate a false world view? Why are we arguing this in our "enlightened" 21st century?

Oh, I forgot. George Bush is president of the US, and we're still arguing evolution. And we're still arguing psychic phenomena, despite that lack of a single shred of solid evidence that such exists. I'm ready to give up.

And putting the word skeptic in quotes is an insult. Try to be more polite.

dino 02:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Dino, this is wikipedia, not skepdic.com. We are not here to make anyone believe anything; we are here to report what happened. Edgar Cayce existed and he said and did the things enumerated. It does not matter whether or not he was actually saying the sooth. IMO he was not, but that's not NPOV, it's my opinion.

The word skeptic has come to have a colloquial meaning of disbeliever or debunker rather than its original meaning of someone who hasn't made up his mind yet and is still on the fence until more evidence comes in. That's why I put "skeptic" in quotes. --Bluejay Young 06:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't skepdic.com. Right. The "report of what happened" is that Cayce existed and said lots of things. Sure. So what? There is no evidence he had "powers," or any other such. Statements to such effect are to what I object. dino 20:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But you can see the difference between, let's say, "Cayce was reported to have psychic ability" or "Many people believed Cayce had psychic ability" and "Cayce had psychic ability". --Bluejay Young 07:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would quit rather see any reference taken out that explicitly states he has physic ability. Rather than saying physic, the actual ability would be preferable. eg. Cayce gave information while in self-hypnosis. If Cayce was not so readily known as a physic, i believe it would be perforable to leave to entire topic out. This is however a part of Edgar Cayce and would not make for a well written article. Instead, we dont have to emphasize anything physic, as it really dosent matter anyway. Lets talk about the importance some people found him to be in there lives, even dino spends many hours on Edgar Cayce and gets dozens of laughs from him. Cayce says laughter is one of the best medicne! For those people that have not found Edgar Cayce helpful, lets hear what you have applied to your own life and how it has negatively effected you. Rather than disproving lets hear your experiences, people are smart enough to make up there own minds, even if they dont all come to the same conclusion.

Physic matters are not important, lets try not to fondle over them, even though it might be fun sometimes. Knightt 21:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Cayce A Pseudoscientist ?

To be a pseudoscientist one has to make the claim that one is using science to support claims being made. Cayce never claimed he used science to gain knowledge. He was a mystic. Either the pseudoscience category should be removed or all mystics are pseudoscientists which is nonsence. Lumos3 23:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Request

I would like to request a summarized version at the simple English wikipedia as a base for translations. Translators normally organize and simplify before translating --Jondel 00:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please help simply the version at the simple wikipedia. A lot of work is needed.--Jondel 06:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

David Wilcock - Cayce Reincarnated?

This entire section should be deleted - it is promotional. Most of the well-respected new age writers and lecturers do not consider David Wilcock to be Cayce reincarnated, but instead, consider him to be a relentless self-promoter and inauthentic. (Just take a look through his web site) He has also written a book "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce" which is full of inaccuracies. He provides nothing new in terms of information, and doesn't come close to the mastery of Cayce.

Why not separate into a David Wilcock article? (For myself, I don't know anything about him.) --Jondel 11:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the 2 links to Ascension2000.com in the Belief section of links. http://ascension2000.com/ is the website of David Wilcock, who claims to be Cayce reincarnated. These links constitute self-promotion, and furthermore, are far outside any "mainstream" discussion of Cayce. The links to an article should at least lead to generally accepted sources within the Cayce community (or, alternatively, within the community of Cayce skeptics). Additional note: I also deleted the link to the Law of One article (which I recommended for deletion). That article is an entirely transparent promotion of David Wilcock, and adds nothing at all to the discussion on Cayce in this article. --StrangeAttractor 06:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Precepts

• God is not mocked , what you sow, so shall you reap. - Often mentioned Bible quotation.
• What you condemn in others, you become. - Reading concerning a man who satired homosexuals.
• Take advantage of what is at hand and better opportunites will be opened. -Reading as an advice to people with very few opportunites.
• He inherited from himself. - Question on a child about whose genes he inherited the most from.
• Mind is the builder

I might add the above section.--Jondel 11:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Lumos and Jondel (and others). I've been making some changes--hope you like them, or we can figure something out. A "quote" section would be a great addition.

I'm a fan of alternative religions, and have been working on the New Age and Baha'i sites as well as Burkhanism, I-Kuan Tao, Ghulat, Sky Kingdom, Agni Yoga, CIIS, and some other stuff like that.

My biggest concern on seeing this page the first time was that it read like mud--i.e. it wasn't clear. So I've been going from section to section trying to fix things (and being a little radical). There's also a lot of duplication and/or "interweaving" (i.e. several subjects discussed at once).

Another big problem is that of historical errors, and also important omissions. I see that Lumos is fond of one particular narrative section--um, if you could let me know what you are particularly concerned to keep in, I can try to work around that.

Next I plan to add a section on people "Cayce-like" predecessors such as Andrew Jackson Davis; and maybe extend it to include Theosophy and Spiritualism, etc.

The skeptics would probably like to see a "criticisms" section in which obscure embarrassing stuff could go in.

Eventually there should also be a separate entry for the ARE, I think.

Thoughts?Dawud 11:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't use the word 'quote' too much. It might get transwikied. ARE should be expanded. Be bold and edit. Better you than someone else. Remove duplication. Organize the interweaving. About Lumos, narrative style, I may have deleted too much. I tend to cut out non -essentials (too much?) --Jondel 12:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Atlantis

I'm thingking of adding a section here from Cayce's readings. --Jondel 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mind is the builder

I don't remember exactly the situation in the reading or how it was used. Anybody? I think it is something like before something good is to happen , somenone has to pray and visualize it first. And work for basic good things like peace, love, etc not too much for selfish purposes.--Jondel 00:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hiya! The quote as i have read it goes as such... "Spirit is the Life. Mind the Builder. Physical is the Result." It comes from the first biography i read about Cayce that was very convincing and well researched Edgar Cayce:A Seer Out of Season by Harmon Hartzell Bro.Drakonicon 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with Many Mansions by Gina Cerminara. So, in practical terms that means pray, meditate and visualize it huh?--Jondel 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: pray, meditate, and visualize works, but in terms of the full Cayce reference... "Spirit is the Life. Mind is the Builder. Physical is the Result," I'm looking to verify by locating the source of the quote. Its from a Cayce reading... just want to know which one.

You can find details and more explanation of this quote in the book Many Mansions , Page 279 under the section The Mind of Man has formative power. I will add it to wikiquote sometime. --vineeth 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My version of Many Mansions, by Gina Cerminara, 1950 [1978], only has 240 pages in total... Is there another book entitled Many Mansions by a different author? or an updated version... Drakonicon 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have this version --vineeth 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is also the one that I have that introduced me to Cayce, and helped me to unite the 'blasphemous' concept of reincarnation, which I came to believe, and my Christian beliefs, which I was brought up with.--Jondel 06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "Cayce people."

"Cayce people" is used several times in the article to describe followers of Cayce and yet a Google search on this finds almost no use outside of the article. I suggest it is replaced by another term like followers Lumos3 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. I've just changed it to "Cayce's supporters", or "Cayce's followers", in several places. Ben Standeven 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparent Bias

This article repeatedly uses words like "claimed" instead of words like "stated" or "posited" or "taught" for Cayce's positions. This makes it palpably evident what the author(s) think of Cayce's work, and job of Wikipedia writers is to inform people; not to give weighted opinions intended to color the interpretations of others.

For example:

"He may have been the source for the idea that California would fall into the ocean (though he never said exactly this)." The second sentece of the article concerns a claim that we have no idea whether Cayce ever made?

Compare: "Jesus may have been the source for the idea that alcolhol should be used to celebrate weddings." As written, this may be true. But as nobody knows whether it's true or not, nor does it matter, why would anyone include it in the article? If others are attributing the "fall-into-the-ocean" theory to Cayce, it might be proper to mention that some people attribute this theory to him, though there is nothing in the Cayce readings to support it. Even then, it shouldn't be the second sentence of the article.

Compare: "Cayce became famous for answering questions while in what appeared to be a trance or 'sleeping' state." to "Cayce became famous for answering questions while in a trance or sleep-state."

The first sentence assumes the trance is a charade, or that its interpretation by others was a mistake.

A distinction should also be made betweeen Cayce's waking life and his trance-life. Several phrases begin, "Cayce believes..." or "Cayce teaches..." These should say, "The Cayce readings teach..." because the waking Cayce at times had difficulty accepting what his trance-self had posited. (Reincarnation, for example.)

There is no reason for the word "readings" to be in quotations. It makes them sound fake. Whether they are or not is for the reader of the article to decide. The proper rendering would be to capitalize it:

Readings.

Compare this to an article on Christianity which said, "The 'scriptures' claim that Jesus is God." vs "The Scriptures claim that Jesus is God." You don't have to believe them yourself to use fair language about them.

The first sentence makes it sound as if they are clearly, obviously not truly Scriptures. Agree or not, your bias should not be blatantly clear for an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason R. Peters (talk • contribs) .

These are some very fine points, and I've had to struggle with exact word choice in this regard in numerous articles of this type -- to make it clear I was trying to give an on-the-fence interpretation rather than detracting or debunking.

I do resist using the word "claim" because it has come to have a detracting connotation, as in "unsubstantiated claim". A quick google define lookup on the word 'claim' shows that this connotation is nowhere present in the actual definition. On the other hand, I stand by the "while in what appeared to be a trance state" type of thing, because that was a subjective thing experienced only by Cayce -- observers could report only what they saw. I agree with you about the word "readings" always being in quotes; it only needs to be in quotes when it first appears (e.g., Cayce's assistants called these sessions "readings").

California falling into the ocean: This is part of the "earth changes" statements and maybe we should write in exactly what Cayce did say or provide a link to what he actually said. --Bluejay Young 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well he did claim to receive this information via occult means. Since it's not proven, it is a claim. If he received letters from someone giving him information about a subject, it's not a claim, it's an observable fact. There's nothing wrong with claim. As far as his answering questions "in a trance state" of some sort, he claimed it, and there is no way we could prove that he was a) in a trance, and conversely that he was b) faking it. 66.93.100.253 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've cleaned the article up a bit. I came through Category:Pseudoscience and simply wanted to transcribe the pronunciation of "Cayce" in IPA, but then I saw a huge amount of other things... I haven't read the whole article, though I will. I've never been a New Age person and I'd never heard of Cayce, so maybe the article shouldn't make him look as universally known, even by New Agers. There's much POV checking to do here, but regarding format only, the "timeline" seems to me excessive and very unencyclopedic. For the time being, I've removed the links to solitary years, as per the Manual of Style, and correcting some of the other links (bypassing redirects and disambiguation pages, etc.). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Channeled answers to questions" is more accurate than "lectured". The sessions were more like "Ask Jeeves" than a classroom or forum setting. Gentaur 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pablo - Cayce is indeed very well known to communities interested in several topics -- 1) new age beliefs; 2) alternative health treatments; 3) reincarnation. A Google search will reveal that Cayce is probably one of the most written-about American psychics. I would have to say that within the communities I mention above, he is indeed "universally known." I agree with you, however, that this article needs a lot of work. I also agree that the timeline is probably unnecessary; this information would be better summarized within the article. --StrangeAttractor 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sleeping prophet?

I'm a skeptic and consider Cayce a self-deluded fraud. But I thought the nickname "The Sleeping Prophet" came from his trances, which were beyond any argument real -- even the skeptic Martin Gardner believed in them; see Gardner's Fads and Fallacaies in the Name of Science.

dino 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes i do think its easy to judge edgar cayce a fraud by reading the above mentioned book. I also suggest to read the book Many Mansions by Gina cerminara with an open mind, this should clear the misconceptions about cayce. --vineeth 10:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That his trances were real has little bearing on the purported occult/mystic nature of his statements. When speaking of revealed wisdom, the method doesn't matter so much as the purported source of the wisdom itself. I think it was his way of putting his thoughts forward with a) mystic's authority and b) without taking blame for the outcome. I'd just rather he studied philosophy instead of creating random cures for diseases. 66.93.100.253 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Although Cayce's followers may have turned him into an authority, he often criticized his organization, the "Association for Research and Enlightenment" for doing more "enlightenment" and not enough "research". Its important to note the the use of the word research doubtfully means scientific research, as Cayce often took the approach of "do whatever works" regardless of established scientific research. It is also important to note that although he criticized his own organization when he thought they were not doing enough research, independence from the views he expressed was not insisted upon, nor was free thought emphasized.

Brendan

Frank Seminario

The following was added to the "Other Cayce-like figures" section by Freddie LaFemina:

The Cayce Institute of North Massapequa has since early 2006 espoused many of the principles of Cayce's teachings. Headed by Frank Seminario, a college dropout who claims Cayce's predictions still hold much promise for the future of the world, the Institute promises to be a useful resource for Cayce followers worldwide. Seminario has predicted that Atlantis will soon be discovered in Indonesia, unearthing pre-history revelations of the lost civilization. Seminario has also, based on his reading of Cayce, predicted that a massive tsunami will strike the East Coast of the United States on May 16, 2007. Seminario has attracted a very small but devoted following on Long Island and is likely to expand in the near future, espousing all sorts of ideas from his Institute, including biblical literalism and global warming.

The questions I have are whether the guy is notable enough for inclusion, and if so, whether he should be in that section. He's not a Cayce-like figure with powers of his own, but someone who started a group to interpret Cayce's readings. Coyoty 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The first question of whether the guy is notable enough is a fair one - at this point he is not nearly as notable as anyone else mentioned in that section. While I don't think that just any page that mentions Edgar Cayce ought to appear in the External Links section, perhaps this guy's website, when it goes up, would be appropriate there instead. --Freddie LaFemina 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced new age info

I reverted a mess of unsourced New Age info. I debated this, as even the New Agers (with whom I, a skeptic with no spiritual belief whatsoever, vehemently disagree on almost all points), have the right to their say, but ...

many foreseen events are not immediate??? Meaningless

including the spiritual talents Jesus taught??? Source?

and because Roman influences destroyed the teachings for developing the spiritual tools they have not understood that Jesus taught the use of dreams and visions for healing and foresight??? Incomprehensible, unsourced

The Creator does not support killing or death (war, murder, executions etc), only life??? What creator?

The Source's communication to humanity via dreams, visions or remote viewing support this, however most church's are devoid of the spiritual tools Jesus taught so they lack the ability to confirm this in real time from their Living God??? Source?

Sorry, there is simply not the slightest, remotest evidence of a spirit world or of psychic phenomena, and superstition deserves to be treated as superstition.

dino 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism was Ridiculous

Obviously some new ager decided that Wikipedia was a forum for their religious evangelizing. Under the Criticism section there were numerous supporting arguments that involved the critics lack of spirtual talents as taugh by jesus, the nature of god, and Cayce's prophethood. I couldnt believe no one had gotten rid of it yet. Now its gone, but the article is full of repetition.

Well I time the people will realise Wikipedia is only for Secular Humanism evangelizing. dispite the findings of modern science the fat end of the bell curve tends to have the most agreement and a dominate point of view through out Wikipedia. Articals involving spiritual concepts need to be on gaurd for Humanist Vandalism.

The new age pages have to be monitored more closely. I agree with previous editors, this page doesnt even have a pretense of academic credibility. It should be reworked. And there should be neutrality flags as well as quality clean up. Not to mention restriction of repeat silly newage posters.

For the New Agers doing this

You are undermining the credibility of Wikipedia and the "philosophies" that you support. In the future before a post, please make sure the structure and content of your additions look like something that resembles an encyclopedic or academic article. Somone reading this with any experience in academics or religios studies will immediately observe its failings and will not be converted. Rather than the conversion or "enlightenment" you are vainly hoping to share, you cement the perception of New Agers as ideologically, academically and religiously inconsitent, and for the most part just plain silly and lacking credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerofarabia (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 July 2006 UTC

Well since people that academically study religions are emblued with a marxist mindset and that all religions are bogus This artical would be a faliure if anyone from academia thought it was a good artical.

Yeah! Cayce did not want anyone to change religions because of him. If you're a Muslim, be the best Muslim you can be. Judge a tree by the fruit it bears. I thought the fruit was delicious, but everyone has different tastes. A lot of people like ice cream, but it makes me sick because I'm lactose intolerant--24.239.186.68 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)The P Man

NPOV

This article was clearly either written or heavily revised by 'true believers.' Take for example this quote:

"was an American psychic who channeled answers to questions on subjects such as health, astrology, reincarnation, and Atlantis while in trance."

24.224.184.26 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the above sentnece to read:

"…who claimed to channel answers to…"

I've also edited the rest of the article in an attempt to make it less POV. In my view we can remove the {{POV}} tag. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There being no further debate on this for 2 weeks I have removed the tag. If anyone objects please give clear examples of the POV. Lumos3 23:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting small with this sentence

Cayce's business card described him as a "psychic diagnostician".

I'm quite new with Wikipedia, so I will be starting small, but I would like to help get this biography up to an "A." I looked up the credibility of this sentence, and it appears to be factually inaccurate, so I am going to delete it shortly. The phrase did not appear on a business card. Jess Stearn states in Edgar Cayce - The Sleeping Prophet (p. 6, Bantam Books 1981 edition) that the phrase appears to originate with Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum who "used Cayce as an adjunct to his practice for several years, styling him a Psychic Diagnostician..." Sidney Kirkpatrick in Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet (Page 150) indicates that the phrase appears on a sign "a few yards" behind the sign indicating the entrance to his photography studio. The photography studio was provided to Cayce in exchange for his agreeing to a business partnership with Ketchum, Leslie Cayce (Edgar Cayce's father), and Albert D. Noe. According to Kirkpatrick (pp. 147-148), Cayce, then in Montgomery, Alabama, accepted a five-year contractual partnership on the conditions that no one would be turned away based on an inability to pay and half of the income would go to Cayce and his father. Ketchum and Noe would receive the other half, out of which they would cover the operating expenses and finance the photography studio. The "psychic diagnostician" sign was down the hall from Cayce's photography studio and "written in smaller letters" (150).

Given the factual inaccuracy of the sentence and its dubious importance, I submit that the sentence should be deleted in its entirety. In my opinion, any importance that the sentence could have, even if it were factual, would be to imply a financial motive driving Cayce's career. I think most fair-minded skeptics would consider Cayce self-deluded but not acquisitive.

The sentence needs a citation, or it should be deleted, and this is basically the "last call" for a citation.--Derrida316 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make your change. Your justification looks way beyond the standard required. The Wikipedia maxim is Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages Lumos3 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Themes NPOV

The whole section reads like WP:OR, lacks sources, and states pseudohistory as fact. Some problem examples are "the Cayce readings affirm the existence of Atlantis," "the crucial element is that of opening up to divine influences," "Cayce readings allude to massive earth changes—perhaps in conjunction with a pole shift—in the 1930s, 1960s, or 1990s," and so on.

This section must be sourced and cleaned up to avoid WP:OR and WP:NPOV or else it will be removed. PatriotBible 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that this section, at a minimum, needs to be sourced, but I don't see its primary problems being WP:OR or WP:NPOV. POV would depend on if you read "the Cayce readings affirm the existence of Atlantis" as meaning "the Cayce readings confirm the existence of Atlantis," but that seems like a neutral use of affirm. Perhaps you could explain what you mean as "pseudohistory as fact" because I don't see anything there that corresponds with "pseudohistory"; the fact that some reading mentioned "earth changes," for instance, would qualify as an historical fact, not a pseudohistorical fact. It would be pseudohistory to try to affirm that the earth changes mentioned actually happened, by my understanding. Please clarify what needs to be sourced and what violates neutral point of view. Derrida316 08:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of this whole article reads like it was written by complete skeptics who wouldn't believe a thing Cayce said or did even if it happened right before them. It most certainly is NOT a neutral POV, but for the opposite reason. Compare this massive array of "claims" and "purported" abilities to the page on Jesus Christ, a figure who lived 2,000 ago without as regimented and meticulously documented work as people have for Cayce. Please note that the article on Jesus Christ does not contain the word "Claimed" except in the context of what Islam claims about Christianity, and others historic figures who claimed to be Jesus Christ. The word "purported" in the article about Jesus Christ is applied only to relics of Christ, not Christs' teachings, powers, authority, theology, philosophy, prophesy, or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal views of what Cayce, or anyone, said or did, but represent the facts and widely understood beliefs in a neutral fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lomerell (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Lomerell 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this article should be tagged for NPOV. The Jesus Christ article Lomerell made referance to carefully and consistantly attributes every claim as being from a particular source, never at any time simply asserting any action or belief as fact. The Jesus article introduces possible criticisms. Hence, about Jesus we have sections that say "according to sources X, Y and Z Jesus did A, B, C and D. However...." Here we are dealing with a very different situation. This article is essentially a biography and should be treated as such. (RookZERO 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Its been a full week since this discussion... so far as I can see, there is not an NPOV issue at this point and I am going to remove the NPOV tag on the article. If you feel it should be there, please replace it and comment in talk. (RookZERO 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I totally agree with the comment of "PatriotBible" - my rating for "Major themes" as to WP:NPOV is an F. A biographical article is not the place for wild allegations and pseudo-science of the type quoted by "PatriotBible". Also the entire article is poorly sourced for a biographical article. Chrisbak 17:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cayce's "Death Ray"

In the Controversy and Criticism section, this statement is made:

"...stating that US scientists would discover a "death ray" from Atlantis in 1958."

This doesn't seem like a very good example of a failed prophecy. In 1958 Bell Labs filed a patent application for their proposed optical maser. Also, in 1958, Aleksandr Prokhorov, of the Soviet Union, proposed using an open resonator in lasers, the first published appearance of this idea. The open resonator was an important advance in laser technology. The first working laser was made by Theodore H. Maiman in 1960.

If the Atlantean's actually had some sort of "death ray", odds are that it would be some kind of laser. This actually seems like a rather accurate prediction.Nortonew 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But what about 1959 or 1957? Or, for that matter, 1991, 1987, 2001 or any other random date of your choice? People have been working on laser technologies for years and I still see no 'death ray'. Perhaps a death ray will eventually use laser technology, but it will also be using electricity and photons, both equally relevant technologies which have no ties to 1958.

81.151.146.238 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is ...

Trouble is, it kind of assumes Atlantis existed, which it didn't. I try to be nice to the New Agers, but I must revert.

dino 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Entire article needs to have NPOV tag

I propose adding back the WP:NPOV tag for the entire article - it was was removed by "RookZERO" on March 28, 2007, with no discussion whatsoever. There are many problems throughout the article. Chrisbak 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the NPOV issues have not been resolved than retag it and bring up the specific passages you think are NPOV problems here in talk. I was under the impression that the NPOV issues had been resolved by editing and the tag was no longer necessary. (RookZERO 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC))