posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 02:47 PM
Thanks for bringing this to us Zazz.
Little conflicted on the information dropped on us by the Bishop. He can only speak on what he's experienced which doesn't rule out what others have
experienced. I would have preferred he gave us some examples of cases he's worked on, but understand there are privacy issues.
I think what bothered me the most was the four categories he outlined. I get that he is doing the best he can, but I disagree in that it's too
simplistic altho I can see those are what he's familiar with. It's a point to consider as we all express our views, that the good Bishop isn't any
more immune to "the Archetypal imagery" than any of us are so while I found his descriptives of the four types of Entities interesting I personally
would have to also take into account his biases.
None of this is meant as a criticism, just me thinking out loud.
In my experience he was very correct in saying things will appear to you in a way you can comprehend, he very gently glossed over the fact that these
Entities, for lack of a better descriptor, use what's already in your head to find a form you can accept. The less you are attached to any one thing,
the easier it is for them to be more of what they actually are.
So it doesn't surprise me a Bishop is dealing with what he would think are Fallen Angels.
Or a UFOlogist is seeing UFO's.
Or a Squatcher is seeing Bigfoot.
It just makes it easier for these Entities whatever they are to communicate with us. Common ground, if you will?
The other thing he mentioned which I've found to be absolutely true is some places are off limits to humans. They should be. It's just we didn't get
the memo. I'm loath to say either negative energy OR positive as I've found it just to be very different than what we're comfortable with. Neither
good or bad, just different.
It'd be great if you'd consider getting more interviews with people who are doing "fieldwork" cause I think the spectrum of the paranormal is so huge
we'd all learn something!