Talk:Spirit rescue

Factual Dispute tag

I added the factual dispute tag, since it seemed that the article, as written, endorsed the existence of spirits, the validity of clairvoyance, and the utility of Spirit Release. I don't believe there is evidence to support those conclusions. Anyone have thoughts on how this article might be cleaned up? --Hansnesse 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from, however the submission might therefore only state that Spirit Rescue is typically a Spiritualist practice and no more.

There is a variety of written material on the subject, some of which I've now provided references for, together with numerous case histories and studies, however until such time as the subject gains more widespread understanding and acceptance, it's destined to remain contentious and largely unsubstantiated.

Ianbradley 11:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I went ahead, in light of your outstanding edits, and removed the dispute tag from the top. What do you think of the following wording (both for clarity and accuracy) for another section?:

Skeptical views The practice of spiritual release requires the belief in spirits, and thus is not accepted within the mainstream of psychological thought. Some practitioners diagnose and treat conditions such as "spirit possession syndrome," which are not believed to exist outside of the spiritualist community. Practitioners may also attempt treat scientifically recognized illnesses, however many in the scientific community view such "treatments" as primarily a religious ceremony rather than medical.

Is that reasonably accurate and neutral? I put it here (rather than consistent with WP:BOLD editing) since I'm a bit worried it sounds too negative (that is WP:NPOV). --Hansnesse 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate that I jumped in and that the style was innapropriate for an encyclopedic entry, so the changes were certainly needed, thanks for your input on this and for tidying up the references.

I agree with your first statement under Skeptical views and would welcome the addition of it, but I would add after "spirit possession syndrome," that 'Spirit Attatchment' is a more commonly used term, as spirit possession is considered to be a rarer and more extreme condition, I guess it's a label thing.
I'm not sure where you came by the information that SPS cases aren't believed to exist outside of the Spiritualist community, as the majority of Spirit Release clients aren't Spiritualists.
I would also say that the mainstream view on Spirit Releasment therapy, is that it is a therapeutic modality, albeit a disputed one, which doesn't have any particular religious connotations, and has no connection to the Spiritualist movement.
In fact I feel the distinction between Spirit rescue work as practiced by Spiritualists, is in danger of being blurred within the article by Spirit Releasement practices, which usually have little connection between each other. Therefore you might wish to add something to address this, perhaps along the lines of the Spiritualist belief in spirits being under question?

Ianbradley 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jumping in is excellent... I was a bit worried about my own contribution, so I stuck it here to see what other people thought. And it looks like my concerns were well based, since I had not considered that spiritualism would be considered medical, but rather saw it as part of the ongoing debate in psychology about the incorporation of religious ideas in counseling (see Stanton Jones, American Psychologist, 49(3):184-99 and responses for example). I was also unaware of the distinction made between spirit releasement therapy and spirit rescue by spiritualists. Perhaps wording it as

Skeptical views The use of spirit rescue and spiritual releasement therapy remain controversial within the medical community. Considered by many to be a complementary or alternative practice, practitioners sometimes use diagnoses which are not recognized within the mainline of psychiatric practice. The evidence for past lives, on which spirit rescue is based, has also been called into question.

How does that sound, at least for a start? In the statment about lack of acceptance, I am thinking about lack of inclusion in the DSM-IV. As you have probably noticed, this is not my area of research or study (though an area of tangential interest from a few years back), so I want to make sure the statement is accurate. Thanks, --Hansnesse 06:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your statement is absolutely fine and I recommend you add it, apart from the latter part about spirit rescue being based on the theory of past lives. Spirit rescue as practiced by Spiritualists, doesn't suggest or claim that the spirit in question has had any life other than the one they have just departed.
  Reincarnation or past lives isn't recognised by Spiritualism (at least in the UK) due to the lack of evidence to support it.
  Ianbradley 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fabulous, many thanks for all your work! --Hansnesse 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)