Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 2

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.

Ra and the Law of One

There should be an article on Wikipedia about Ra and the Law of One. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.131.66 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Edgard Cayce article

ccpearson wrote on my talk page:

Regarding my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce:

"Skeptics challenge that Cayce demonstrated psychic abilities and >>conservative Christians<< also question his unorthodox answers on religious matters ..."

The reason I removed the mention of "conservative Christians" is because it implies that they are the only ones that question Cayce's statements on religion. I don't believe that's true, do you? Unfortunately, I'm pretty certain that most Christians, conservative or not, question Cayce's religious revelations.

Also, since in this context "conservative Christians" are also "skeptics", it isn't really necessary to mention them.

I'd like to revert that edit, if it's OK with you?

-- ccpearson

My reply

The term skeptic has come to be associated with those who are skeptical of all supernatural religion. To call Christians who mistrust Cayce’s claims skeptics is to mislead the reader since they are believers in one form of the supernatural. The two groups who criticise Cayce the most are the skeptics and the conventionally religious. I think both need to be mentioned. Lumos3 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Cayce invent the card game called Pit?

A claim is made on boardgamegeek.com that Edgar Cayce invented the card game Pit (game) around 1904. It is repeated in the Wikipedia article using this as a source. Does anyone know if this is true? Lumos3 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

--yes he did. As the story goes, cayce got very bored playing card games as he would always use his "psychic" abilities to see the other people's cards. He invented a fast game in which he could not keep up with other players' hands. Also, apparently, he pitched it to a card company. If what I have heard is true, they took the idea and sent a relatively small check to Cayce. He apparently was not happy with this, thinking they took advantage of him. Sources... NO. Sorry. But I know it to be true from books and an interview at the A.R.E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightt (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Christians

Well it seems quite clear that conservative christians would have objections against Cayce. I wouldn't give it too many words because then you could add a similar section to every new age guru. And what about other religions' objections against... etc.? To me the informative content of such a statement approaches zero, unless there really are some remarkable facts. Lawsuits or some such.--130.89.166.237 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Implications of opening sentences

The opening sentences of this article imply that Edgar Cayce claimed a lot of things. In my readings on the man, it is apparent that he had an attitude of humbleness in relation to his supposed gift - information came through him in a trance state - he was not aware of this information in a conscious state and made no claims regarding its accuracy. It was only after the information was shown to have helped others that he began to trust its accuracy - in matters of material or personal gain it was quite frankly invariably incorrect. Currently I am concerned that parts of this article misrepresent this man in an attempt to portray a balanced point of view.

Crunch McGee 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair

After reading this article. And noticing that it was in a possible standing for edit because it was claimed to be leaning towards one point or the other.
I myself practice arts of magick and dabble in divination. If it were to lead in some direction it would be more disclaiming him however
I do not see it that way either. I find it to be very neutral. And as for a camp started by followers after death,
Yes that is still information that goes along with him being the camp was basically started in HIS honor. As for if he would want credit for inspiring
some one to start a camp because of him I don't know, I do know in a way I would but at the same time I feel it kinda should be left out and placed
in a biography of those who started it, keep some mention of it but not alot basically say


"Some people were inspired by him and his works that they started a camp"


I don't know exactly what it should say but if the camp is in his honor (this I do not know either)
then it should have a very very small print in his biography!

--Warriorofisis (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Remote Viewing

Cayce's trace-like abilty to "see" past and future events have a strong similarity to those reported by Targ in connection with remote viewing. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Cayce article? 192.91.147.35 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC) William Steigelmann

Controversy and criticism

First off, this section appears twice in the article. These need merging.

Cayce allegedly predicted that the US would find a "death ray" in 1958. The laser is introduced to the public in the 1960s. This doesn't exactly seem like a criticism of his predictions, as, in fact, the laser may very well have been kept secret for several years. Lexor1969 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling a laser a "death ray" is pushing it a little.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Fundraising events or groups
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. There are a lot of links at the end of this article, and it would be appropriate for the regular editors to "audit" them and reduce them to a small list of the most encyclopedic links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

To whomever is removing my critique of this section, the facts can be reviewed on any good article on Edgar Cayce. My rebuttal stands against the inaccurate statements allowed in this this section.(209.244.43.178 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Great. Please provide neutral, 3rd-party reliable sources (i.e., not self-published materials) that list these facts and please try to add content written in a more encyclopedic manner. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Law of One section

This section, concerning Cayce's mention by some entity called "Ra", is an attempt at self-promotion, and is furthermore not significant to Cayce's main life story or philosophy. It's "extra-canonical." Cayce is probably one of the most famous American clairvoyants, and has high credibility among people who believe in such things. As a result, every dime-a-dozen psychic claiming to channel some Atlantean entity will throw in some references to Cayce to establish their own credibility. There is no reason, however, to help self-promoting hucksters by allowing them to adulterate the Cayce entry with links to their own Wikipedia entries (which should probably be deleted at any rate!). StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Cayce's page separate from the areas he studied

Many of Cayce's "readings" or "interpretations" were very troubling for mainstream orthodox beliefs. Talk of reincarnation and statements which refer to God as a colloquial term such as in this statement from a reading "Hence, as it has been oft called, the record is God's book of remembrance;" will certainly rub some people the wrong way.

It remains important that we recognize and resist the need to contradict these facts, Cayce did say this, and we must all avoid trying to contradict and debate his claims as stated on the page, which are intended to simply iterate the facts and history of the man and his claims and beliefs. We would likewise no more go to a famous Christians page and attempt to debate the merits of Christianity and it's claims and beliefs, because it diverts us from the facts and puts challenges and debate where they need not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.222.165 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth Changes?

I was completely astonished to find that there was no mention whatsoever of Earth Changes anywhere in the article. How on earth (no pun intended!) could that have been overlooked? (Ironically, Cayce is mentioned in that article.) I added a short intro paragraph, but it really ought to be expanded by an editor who is familiar with the subject. Cgingold (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gratified to see some skepticism

Gratified to see some skepticism recently placed in this article — It has been an extremely biased love-fest for New Agers for long enough. Let's see more. Still no evidence such a thing as psychic phenomena exists — and Cayce was as big a fraud as Uri Geller.

dino (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Texas Period

"One convenient way to divide Cayce's life is according to geography:" There is a section titled "Texas Period", yet the article makes no mention that he lived in Texas. What's the deal? Also there are way too many unsigned comments on the talk page. Adam in MO Talk 09:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Really long reply

Please go ahead an put your views, I will not touch it then.

>But we still have to find some way to give it as much perspective as possible.
- - - -
>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

I believe in perspective.
I am not advocating or deleting any major skeptical material.
The truth is, it would be good to give both sides. Many new agers tend to become cultish and detached from reality. I resent this very much and wish very much that they never knew about Cayce other new age stuff. There are just too many new agers who are not down to earth.

Could I ask which deleted portion you are referring to that you (dino)are peeved?

Well my own edit was that he really never claimed to be a medical authority. That's exaggerating his claim. He really focused on spiritual stuff. And for some, his advice is enlightening, eg. --You go to heaven on the wings of people you've helped. You are your brother's keeper etc.. --- I will try hard not touch the skeptic stuff though. It would be good for people to see both the bad and good side of things. Please do insert your (skeptic)views to give a balanced perspective. At least I am telling you guys out in the open.

About the Lindenberg case, as with others, psychics are at times affected by the mental state of the participants. Thinking and believing it won't work affects the psychic. But I am not touching the Lindberg paragraph.

THE GREAT PYRAMID COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN 20 YEARS BY ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. NEW AGERS ARE DETACHED FROM REALITY? HAVE YOU SEEN THE BULLSHIT THAT PASSES AS FACT BY SKEPTICS? IT WOULD TAKE US, WITH OUR MODERN TECHNOLOGY, 20 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT THE GREAT PYRAMID. THERE'S NO WAY IT WAS COMPLETED IN 20 YEARS. I THINK INSTEAD OF NASA PISSING AWAY OUR MONEY ON SENDING A GOD DAMN PROBE INTO SPACE TO DO DIDDLY SHIT, WE SHOULD SPEND HALF OF NASA'S YEARLY BUDGET TO CONSTRUCT A DUPLICATE OF THE GREAT PYRAMID WITH OUR MODERN TECHNOLOGY, BUILT TO SCALE, AND OUT OF THE EXACT SAME SIZE OF BLOCKS. 20 YEARS MY ASS. MORE LIKE 200.

Unless you have some solid references to say that it would take 200 years to build something similar to the great pyramid, this is a personal point of view and isnt really relevant here. Modern folks tend to underestimate the ingenuity of ancient people and easily beleive that those 'primitives' could never achieve what we can: its really a form of racism. Lastly, and i'll admit that this is personal opinion, using all capitals doesnt make your point more valid, it only makes you sound like an hysteric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.93.191.231 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch

I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Wikipedia:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems for a precedent.

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. --Kateshortforbob 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediocre and Unverified Article

This article contains many unverified,unsourced and biased statements of "New Age" mysticism as if they are fact."God" is a faith based idea, unprovable in scientific terms.Beliefs in the article are not qualified by quotation marks.Quackery,humbug,and self delusion is evident in self-serving statements by believers in mumbo-jumbo,who fail to appreciate the subtleties and complexity of reality without an overlay of religious bias.Neutral point of view is a basis for entries in wikipedia, and this article fails this in many instances.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Archangels

I remember reading a strange excerpt from one of Edgar Cayce's readings in which he talks to an archangel called Halaliel. This angel was apparently an assistant to the archangel Michael. There should perhaps be addtional information about Cayce's alleged dialogue with angels. ADM (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Claimed", "Proposed", etc.

I hate the fact these words have to be included in this article. The proof is just as adequate as any proof science has for any idea explaining things beyond the big bang, which is still just a theory. The theory of evolution is regarded as fact on this encyclopedia, why can't God and spirituality?

You don't understand the difference between theory and fact. Wikipedia does not state that the theory of evolution is a fact, indeed we have an article explaining the difference between the theory of evolution and the facts of evolution - Evolution as theory and fact. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Prophets in Protestantism Category?

I don't think this is appropriate unless reincarnation (and Karma)is accepted in Protestantism/Christianity.--Jondel (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Quackery"

"They are also critical of Cayce's support for various forms of alternative medicine, which is regarded by many as quackery." This one seems a bit harsh, seeing as natural medicine is a form of alternative medicine, and has been shown to not only to equally treat illness as well as conventional medicine, but surpass it as well. I don't think that the idea (fact really) that there are naturally occurring substances on Earth which treat illness, is anything remotely close to quackery as to claim so would be.

Please note that the quotation marks are mine and are not present in the actual paragraph.

It also seems harsh under the modern scientific research of the placebo effect having real healing powers of the mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainchannels (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Origin

Is Cayce a distortion of the Irish surname Casey? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.47.1 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Themes

"Cayce's work teaches the reality of reincarnation and karma" This should immediately show that there is an issue with NPOV here. This whole section is riddled with such pseudoscientific BS and should be scrutinized in detail. 72.175.176.33 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

The radiocarbon dating of the Great Pyramid has not changed the conventional dating of it, even though one of the radiocarbon dates is 1200 years before the conventional dating. The explanation given by Egyptologists that "old wood" must have been used in the construction of the Great Pyramid seems unrealistic to me. Rodneysmall (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But you aren't a reliable source by our criteria nor, so far as I know, an expert in the relevant fields of archaeology, Egyptology or carbon dating. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but let me ask this: Has the "old wood" argument been used with respect to other structures or artifacts to justify radiocarbon dates that are much as 1200 years different than the conventional timeline?Rodneysmall (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You've missed my point. This isn't a forum to discuss topics, we base our articles on what reliable sources say about a subject. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. That's why I'm not replying to your question, it's inappropriate. Sorry, but that's the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but does not the current edited version of the article lack context? Why not add back in something like: "In 1984, the Cayce Foundation supported an effort to carbon date the pyramids of Giza. The average radiocarbon dates were 374 years earlier (the extreme date was 1200 years earlier) than had been expected by the Egyptologists on the basis of historical research alone, but nowhere near the 10,500 B.C. date claimed by Cayce as the construction date of the Great Pyramid." Rodneysmall (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1958 and the Atlantis death ray

If you read the Wikipedia article on lasers, 1958 was the year one was first patented at Bell Labs and the year work in earnest began independently in the USSR. Since Cayce died in 1945, this seems a rather remarkable prediction. If Cayce was correct, Atlantis can be presumed to have had some laser technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.77.205 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a remarkable prediction if you ignore that there is actually no evidence for Atlantis or "ancient death rays" what so ever, to begin with, and perhaps more importantly that he gave thousands of readings. Who knows how many were not so "remarkable". I bet you could wrote a program that made completely random generated predictions and if there were enough of them, some would turn out similarly "remarkable", with a little liberal "interpretation". Like Nostrodamus. Vespine (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Biography incomplete

From 1912-1920 Cayce lived in Selma, Alabama. He worked as a photographer for the first year, after which he purchased the studio in which he worked. There is much more info at EdgarCayce.org, if anyone wants to update this article.

Iztwoz (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller, Franklin Roosevelt, George Meany, and Marilyn Monroe

Edgar Cayce had President Roosevelt II, Nelson Rockefeller, Marilyn Monroe, George Meany, and others as patients. William Birnes and Joel Martin point this out in The Haunting of Twentieth Century America, on page 159 of the Forge 2011 edition. May I add this to the article? --ECayce187 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Founder of New Age?

This statement,"Though Cayce himself was a member of the Disciples of Christ and lived before the emergence of the New Age Movement, some consider him the true founder and a principal source of its most characteristic beliefs." is not supported by its citation". That page states, "He warns that these beings are not necessarily wiser despite their good intentions. On the other hand, some might in fact be masters who come from 'higher, more conscious' realms to impart instructions during a critical period in the individual's life. His advice is to be open but judge personally the relevancy of such an encounter. If the feeling is right, work wit the entity until it is time to proceed alone. The discarnate realm, however, appears to be the prime concern of the occult within the New Age movement, one associated with such names as Edgar Cayce...". That page does not go any further than saying that he influenced the New Age movement, it does not say he founded it, so I took that statement out of the article. --ECayce187 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypnotized?

I'm no Cayce expert, but the lede includes the word 'hypnotized,' which in my understanding implys another actor, a person who acts upon Casey to 'hypnotize' him. Every Cayce disciple I've ever spoken to used the term 'in trance,' more like dropping off into a nap, rather than 'hypnotized.' He's often styled 'the sleeping prophet.' Maybe a distinction without a difference, but unless someone objects, I intend to change the wording. Rags (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more editing

I’m going to fill in quite a bit of detail about Cayce’s early life, particularly the events that shed some light on how his apparent clairvoyant abilities started, or were first apprehended. Arnold0508 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ah...well, my questions likely go here, then. i was just reading the article, and doing some minor edits (mostly punctuation) as i did (it's a habit). however, there were a few word usages early in the article that seemed odd. i didn't change any of them because there was a citation/reference there, and i didn't know if that was how it appeared in the original. (although, there aren't quotation marks to indicate verbatim quotes.) specifically:

Eventually, Edgar used all his school books that way. -ref here-

the word "used" is a very strange way to discuss books. other possibilities: Edgar read ... Edgar learned from ... Edgar absorbed ... Edgar slept on

On being questioned, Edgar told the teacher that he saw pictures of the pages in the books. His father became proud of this accomplishment and spread it around, resulting in Edgar becoming “different” from his peers. -ref here-

there are a few words here — "became proud", "spread it around", "becoming" (his father speaking about it certainly didn't CAUSE Edgar to be "different," which is how the current text can easily be interpreted)

alternates: His father was proud of ... His father took pride in ... His father, being proud of this accomplishment, mentioned it to many (or "several"?) people.

Proud of Edgar's accomplishment at now being regarded as the teacher's best student, his father mentioned it to others. This had the unfortunate effect of Edgar being seen as "different," by both his peers and adults. ...or:

This had the effect of marking Edgar, to the community, as "different." (alternately here, leave out "to the community"):Colbey84 (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cat intelligence?

Why does this have a "see also" link to "Cat intelligence"? No connection is made between Cayce and cat intelligence in the article.

111.253.22.205 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

this is hilarious! i missed this! but i did go to the Cat Intelligence article. using the search-on-page feature, i couldn't find "Cayce," "Edgar," "psychic," "trance," or "Atlantis." so i can't imagine why this link is here either. (having been around cats, i thought "trance" might come up.)Colbey84 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

books

why is there no list of the books he wrote?Colbey84 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"On Atlantis" by Edgar Cayce is very revealing Kazuba (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Numbers and other content inside square brackets

Can anyone explain all the numbers and content inside square brackets? This seems to be non-standard content presentation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, in general, the article needs some serious copyediting and cleanup. I also suspect there may be undue and POV coverage of some aspects. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

=thisaROMAN??

smh62.235.179.141 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

npov and sceptics

such a biased article! If someone doesnt believe the CLAIMS this man made, that doesnt make them a sceptic, it makes them someone with a different opinion

Also, there are no links proving he was in a trance, he just said he was. Please dont revert back all these npovs with prove and citations please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.28.154 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So many dubious claims are made in this article with no challenges that i can see - this is completely against Wikipedia rules, why is it going unchallenged?!Richwil (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I find this passage to be un-encyclopedic, and practically useless: "Edgar Cayce, and especially Gertrude, still did not give therapeutic priority to the readings and lost their second child due to this reticence." I don't think encyclopedia entries should be written in cryptic hints. This might be what you would read in a biography with some colorful prose, but it helps us to understand nothing in an encyclopedia article. Even worse, the dates of the birth and death of second child Milton Porter are given, but no cause of death. How can you say "lost their second child due to this reticence" without giving the cause of death of the child? It is begging for more explanation, but doesn't give it. giggle (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Christian? Mystic?

Among other unsupported and barely believable claims, this article categorises Cayce as a Christian and, even more extraordinary, a Christian mystic. While these labels are elastic, on the dubious evidence given I do not think they should apply to Cayce. Unless somebody produces references from reputable sources that back up the two claims, I intend to delete both. Clifford Mill (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Dayton, Ohio section

Hi, and adding the Dayton section is actually interesting to me, as I plan to be in Dayton at some point and I never knew Cayce lived there. I came upon his office and home in Selma by accident in 2005, and the shop owner took me on a tour "upstairs" to Cayce's former living quarters. Was interested in his work and the A.R.E. awhile back. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The Ever-Growing Knowledge Pool Requires The Dedication of Contributors

Schopenhauer said that it is the irresistible drive of every thinking man to "figure out" the world so as to make a functional appraisal of its workings. He goes on to say that this task is rarely finished and many elderly thinkers are still hard at it... With this in mind, it is surprising to me how few self-appointed defenders of science are even willing to take more than a glance at Edgar Cayce's material before making some knee-jerk appraisal of it. Now, I am certainly not attempting to parry away scientific scrutiny of the new age movement, but what I am attempting to say is that so few sceptical researchers actually say anything new or genuinely insightful about the Cayce readings that few Cayce supporters even bother to actively defend him anymore because all the usual sceptical remarks regarding his readings were successfully refuted long ago. Take for instance the above remark about "This man's CLAIMS". Cayce supporters know that Cayce never made claims of any sort because the readings were done while he was in an unconscious state and he had no memory of them. Indeed, what was produced in the readings flew in the face of his staunch Christian upbringing and upset him greatly according to the Cayce biographical narrative. This type of amateurish all-to common approach does not provide us with a defensible scientific appraisal of the "enigma of Edgar Cayce" and this is exactly my point; we sceptics need to take in a much deeper more thorough overview of the Cayce material by deeply exploring the body of the Cayce readings themselves and not just making a snap appraisal of Cayce's character as if he is some hillbilly who just spotted a UFO. The Cayce narrative is actually quite unique in forteana, "the realm of the unexplained", for any number of reasons and as such there is a somewhat embarrassing need for science-minded people to better familiarize themselves with the actual meat of the enigma before angrily sallying forth simply with the need to defend their worldview in mind. This approach produces nothing helpful. I believe that a really plausible scientific explanation that will "stick" can only be arrived at through a real working knowledge of the actual material Cayce produced, not a mind full of forgone assumptions based on the common sceptical POV married with the accidental act of blundering across a few superficial web pages about Edgar Cayce. This approach simply produces poor science and makes the proponent appear uneducated on the subject. This whole Cayce thing reminds me of the ongoing Rupert Sheldrake affair which has resulted in his wiki page being the among most hotly debated on the site. We simply need to see some improvement in the practice of the scientific method on both pages. Nyanentity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:9128:2D5D:54F0:19E8 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a very good analysis. Cayce's work is probably the best documented of alleged "psychics" (and I put that word in quotes not because I deny that the descriptor is real for some people, but it is used by too many charlatans and profit-motive driven pretenders that it has lost much of its meaning). The thousands of documented readings, none of them for profit, were carefully recorded by Gladys Davis Turner (and I had the pleasure of going into Cayce's vault with her to see the actual readings). If even one of those readings were proven to be true (and many were), just one out of thousands, it calls into question the average person's conception of what the human mind is capable of doing. That is one of the values in Cayce's work during the decades that he was active (active while asleep): if even one instance was real then it opens the mind to possibilities outside of generally accepted limits. I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone, yet when exposed to the large amount of evidence that Cayce's adherents present, evidence backed up with documentation, it at least gives a new perspective to the possibility of things outside our four walls (both literally and figuratively). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)