Thank you Susoni and Lymerick for your feedback and comments. I have also got that far to find that the most probable original source of the Bradley Loves articles is the blog of Jean Haines, but was uncertain, thinking that I may be missing the obvious. Now that you have confirmed my suspicion, there is really no need to pursue the matter any further, since the information contained in Bradley’s articles posted here are not original in any way.

I was just wondering why you are posting somebody’s articles when they are a collection of scavenged material, and she has got no website of her own either. I don’t mind people spreading the good stuff as long as proper credits are given to the original source of the information, and as long as that information makes sense. But there are many other much older websites where you can already find these bits of ideas. Why not refer to them instead?

Actually you people who are interested in spirituality could do a great service to everybody if you could single out specific spiritually related claims or ideas and find their origin: who, where, and when published it first. It does not matter whether that idea is true or false, we can discuss that in separate articles. The sole purpose of such collection would be the concise reconstruction of idea’s origins and history. This is a spiritual private investigators job, like that of Sherlock Holmes.

If you post such research in CGI forum (or elsewhere) that could help us all to make order out of chaos and refer to the deserving original source when talking about those ideas. This way we can also easily assess the value and credibility of those ideas and get closer to the truth. The great confusion of the new age spirituality is mainly attributed to the blind (often distorted) retelling of claims and ides without naming the source of the information. I plan to publish some more articles later, but since I want to write only things that make sense and are backed by decent research, it takes time to put them together.

Morpheus