Talk:Esther Hicks

	This New Age related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This is the talk page for Esther Hicks Out of respect for Esther, please discuss things only in the first person plural.

Feel good woo

For perspective, keep in mind that Esther Hicks' fan sites rank above CP in daily traffic, this isn't as obscure as one might initially think. And this feel good woo is much more of a cult than we realized. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:30, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

TMT - all you need is to realise that the Universe loves you. For example, if you simply want it, you will be able to have the most incredible intercom system for RW, and it will make you MILLIONS. All you have to do is want it. We're sitting here in our pajamas seriously wanting pancakes, and we're quite certain someone will arrive any moment to make them for me, because we know the Universe loves us and wants us to have pancakes. With Nutella. DogP 13:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

We just finished eating pancakes. So the universe loves you, but is incomopetent with regards to pancake delivery. No nutella though, perhaps the universe wants you to watch your diet...--Antifly 13:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Not it was a botched delivery all around. You got the pancakes, that guy over there got the Nutella and poor DP got shafted. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:51, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

We are mostly focused on getting our land lord to fix the damn bathroom. It got gutted several days ago for "renovations" and he hasn't been back. we have cut out little pictures of toilets from magazines and are focusing really hard...but so far all it is done is make us need to pee. Stupid universe. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Editors should remember that RW is not NPOV. We're allowed to be snarky if it suits.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

The universe made us overweight, cause it always provided nutella when we asked. Clearly, the universe is not in cohoots with the American Medical Association.--Waiting for Godot 13:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Credential bullying

Care to discuss? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes. By emphasizing, or even mentioning that she was a secretary and he a Amway salesperson you (or whom ever first used the words) are suggesting that somehow these do not qualify her for her chosen task. If we were to label your contributions as being by a "former grocery store bagger" or whatever you did in high school instead of by a Ph.D. candidate (or whatever) we would be engaging in the same behavior. Put another way, what do you see as being the value to the article in referring to what they did 25 (??) years ago. It is, as far as we can tell, only included in as an attempt to suggest that a former secretary could not possibly have mental contact with non-physical beings. But then, who could ? Carptrash 12:19, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Well actually a former secretary could not have mental contact with "non-physical beings", or at least the chances of such happening are so tiny we are more likely to win the lottery this week even though we didn't buy a ticket and there is no lottery where we live. As for mentioning it in the article, the secretary part gives her background, and sets up the joke about typing speed. The Amway part is actually important, and the more we read about Jerry Hicks and Amway the more we are realizing how important it really is to this whole thing. It probably deserves its own section. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 12:48, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Surely you do not deny that this sentence:

Esther's primary partner-in-crime is her husband Jerry Hicks

is loaded with a BIG weasel word? CRIME? Even blatant fleecing of those who are willingly "fleeced" is not a crime. Perhaps if you manage to take over from the Republicans it will become one, but not yet. Carptrash 12:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

we can't help but observe - we are now employing the scientific method and are making predictions of how you will react - and lo-and-behold, they are coming true. Despite your request for us to discuss our edits here, you continue to make edits and revert mine without discussing them. Just as i predicted. Carptrash 12:45, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

See it is not our fault it is your fault, you thought we would do something and the universe made us do it so as to manifest your reality.

Another point for Applied A/H. Carptrash 13:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Anyway, even if it is a weasel word...so what? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 12:49, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Carptrash: If we had clear-cut rules, that would make it so much easier to edit collaboratively, because everyone would have the same expectations. tmtoulouse: Yeah, but we're more like Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia. We have lulz even outside of Fun: space. The rules are squishy, sorry. --Toiretni 12:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The main principle of "consensus" still applies. If other editors come to this page and tell us that something needs to be phrased differently, or removed, we will bow to consensus. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 13:04, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

This is often referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." Don't give in to it, titmouse. Carptrash 13:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Re: crime... fraud is a crime. And we are accusing her of it. Her husband is her partner in the scheme. Where's the "weasel"? human 15:33, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You're right, it's not a weasel word—it's libel. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Truth is always a defense. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:47, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We are trying to figure out

what this sentence means.

"He has brought that certain icky Amway tough-sell feeling to most of the media in the Hicks' self-help dynasty."

we understand the "Ichy Amway" part, but the "most - dynasty" part has us stymied. Any ideas before we just remove it? Carptrash 12:40, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

drive by defining: That means that the videos or whatever that make up Hicks oeuvre all have the icky Amway feel to them.

Pretty much describes it. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 12:50, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Tmtoulouse - it does read quite akwardly. We kept thinking that you were saying he brought Amway to the "media" (think, mainstream media), rather than "each media article in the Hicks' library..."--Waiting for Godot 13:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

So what is better wording? "He has brought that certain icky Amway tough-sell feeling to most of the products in the Hicks' self-help dynasty."? Something else?

It reads fine to me, although "products" is fine too. We see no problem with using the word "media" correctly, as we are, though. human 15:35, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We are curious as to how familiar you are with " most of the products in the Hicks' self-help dynasty." ? Or are one of the many millions in 'merica who are happy making their mental (and other) choices based on a few sound bits, carefully chosen and edited to further someone else's agenda? Carptrash 14:02, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We are as familiar as we care to be, we have read summaries from people that have attended events, we have scanned her major written works till the nausea got to be too much, we have seen several videos of her stage performance, and we have read about the pricing structure for her cruises, seminars, and "private celebrity" meetings. That's as much as we care to partake of the kool aide. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:20, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Human - it wasn't the word "media" that was the problem, it was the way it was embeded in the preposition "brought to most of the media", which can suggest that Hicks took it to the Media. --Waiting for Godot 16:00, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We guess we never had trouble with it, we always parsed it as "He has brought / that certain icky Amway tough-sell feeling / to most of the / media in the Hicks' self-help dynasty." - we never saw the "preposition" you quoted as being the "guts" of the sentence. We read it as "he has brought (it) to (them)". But if we can write it more clearly, that's fine with me. human 16:13, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Now let us get back to this

Esther's "channeling of dead people, or aliens, or whatever the vogue term is." Are you suggesting that "dead people" and "aliens" are the same thing? That is what this phrase reads like to me. That Esther channels "dead people" is a concept entirely (as far as i can tell, but please feel free to prove us mistaken) manufactured by the media, and glommed onto as a sound bite by those with nothing better to base their understandings on and who are not really concerned with truth, reality, honesty and the like. Carptrash 14:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The "truth, reality, honesty and the like" is that it is a stage show that Esther puts on for $200 a pop. The background story for the character Abraham is not very clear. Esther doesn't seem to be one for "character development", but the speaking style she uses seems to be a half yoda-half ET mix with the metric of the Terminator. So with no background story to work from we are left to infer one. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

So . . . . . . .... you feel that publicly exposing your ignorance as to what Esther has revealed about Abraham gives you free license to make up what ever you will? Our great nation is filled with folks who, for $200 a pop (and frequently a lot more) will tell you what you can do to make your life better. It's one of the wonders of our Capitalistic System and that some one choses to do it should be (opinion) not used as either proof or disproof of their ideas. Our attorney (we don't want to talk about it) charged us $200 an hour. Esther gives you 4 or 5 hours for the same amount. And (opinion), better advise. Carptrash 14:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Esther has very meticulously labeled Abraham in terminology and jargon that epitomizes "obfuscation." Her description is so vague and handwavy that she doesn't have to bother to really define anything and what Abraham "is" can change from moment to moment. It is a "get out of jail free card" to avoid contradiction. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 14:38, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

One of the things that I've liked about A/H over the years is the lack of contradictions. But we see that you are busy doing this sort of thing over at wikipedia and we suspect that the folks over there are a better challenge than we could be, or at least a better use of your time and energy. But in the words of Douglas McCarthur, we shall return (we think Abraham says it too, but maybe not) Carptrash 14:50, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The goals of wikipedia and rationalwiki are very different, as such what we "do" at each site is different as well. A lack of contradiction is only powerful if the groundwork in which you operate is operationally defined in a succinct and meaningful way. It is the demarcation of science versus metaphysics that Karl Popper discusses. The theory of relativity versus Adler's psychoanalysis. Consistency, prediction, and falsifiability they all flow together and help in assessing the quality of an idea. We are not surprised that Hicks doesn't contradict, but do not think it adds weight to any of her statements. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

An opinion = Carptrash, it seems to us that this article is snarky. Intentinally so. that's what RW does with things it finds to be based on woo and voo-doo rather than logic and science and opinion. Your only contributions at this moment seem to be saying "we don't like the snark here", cause of course no one thinks aliens and dead people are the same. this kind of comment "aliens, dead people, or whatever" is a way of dismissing the whole thing as malarke. which it is, frankly.--Waiting for Godot 15:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

ps - our own snark. We do find it funny, carptrash, that you think someone who talks in generalities about "feeling better" "thinking of positive outcomes", and more of the same claptrap that has go on for eons, is "better advice" than something you get on a particular matter (whatever it be) specific to teh area of law. We assure you that if you need advice about the latest advances or setbacks in fighting the govt to get your 10 buck land rental on a reservation in Arizona, we're going to give you better advice than a guru. We suppose if you are mostly healthy, happy, and make enough that 200 bucks doesnt mean life or death, some horoscope-esque cold reading language filled ambiguity is probably somewhat helpful. But if you are really at a point in your life where you are clinically depressed, facing foreclosure, being laid off from work, raising 3 kids on your own with a husband who ran from teh state to avoid payments - odds are, this kind of love yoruself guru isn't going to really do squat for you. (though she will turn around and assert that it is BECAUSE you do not belive in the happy-is-as-happy-does mantra, that you are miserable, poor, overworked, over burdened and trapped in this reality. That's the great thign about gurus... they win either way. --Waiting for Godot 15:11, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

To further expand on this idea, Esther markets her stuff as a means to wealth, the "ready made audience" she is targeting are people who are having serious financial difficulties. Purposefully selling a product and marketing a product to the group of people that can probably least afford it while claiming it will solve all their problems is pretty insidious. Selling false hope works best on the people that most need that hope. It is a form of parasitism, read this quote from the Independent article:

"Millions," Jerry interrupts. "Millions." These days, he says, "we can't imagine money not just pouring in." or:

Some very large donations, the couple point out, have been returned. Where contributions are accepted, Esther explains, "we send a letter that says we are not a religion, so this is not tax deductible, and we put it in the bank and..." She pauses. "There is a lot of money in that bank account. We'll do something with it, some day."

Ick. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Esther Hicks on Esther Hicks

Our version was way funnier,but we won't punish you here and now for your mistake. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 16:12, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

How convenient—we won't punish you for being unfunny either! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:36, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but we didn't punish you first and we probably won't block you for this either. We're not fooled by liberals over reliance on mockery here! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 16:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We don't know about you, but we made our decision independently, from the bottom of our unfathomable heart. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:42, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Admittedly, we considered examples from the indifferent universe but we weren't swayed by them. not one iota! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 16:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't tell me, you both have tapeworms? ħuman 17:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

GROWL

we do not like this woman, at all, now. She just dismissed the very real, very serious *legal* impact of "that peice of paper" for a gay woman, and had the audicty to say that she (the gay woman) is in effect bringing this hatred on herself because she places value on what other people think. WTF? If we can stomach writing somethign after 10 minutes, I'll post a comment about this, here...[1]--Waiting for Godot 16:15, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, the blame-the-victim stuff across the board with the law of attraction is pretty terrible. We were talking on another talk page about cult watch message boards that are full of people who have had friends/spouses/siblings convert to Hicksianism and all the problems it caused. Several examples were a couple who blamed a car crash that killed a man's wife and daughter on him because he was probably worrying about it so caused it to happen, and an Esther Hicks forum that encouraged promiscuous sex without protection or birthcontrol because positive thinking was enough to keep STDs and pregnancy away. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 16:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

A/H has said many times (tho the NYTimes has not quoted it so I can't give you a reference) (and I paraphrase) that blame has no place anywhere. Perhaps in the trash can. Carptrash 11:09, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

A/H may have given you that "revelation", but it's crap. For this woman (or duo) to insist that gay people's "focus" on getting legalized recognition for their unions is what is causing the hardships of being gay - and that the focus of them wanting respect from coworkers, family, and society at large just brings more negativity, and that the way to solve all gay problems is to stop asking for real day-to-day life issues (like legal recognition for unions) is ludicrous. NOTHING HAS EVERY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY INACTION. And to blame *yes blame* the victim for being gay, saying that if they weren't so worried about the legal problems, they woudln't have an issue, is virtual abuse of the "priest/parishioner" trust. if not simple verbal abuse. I'd have smacked that woman had she said that to my gay friends. --Waiting for Godot 13:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

An interesting find

We saw on the wikipedia page this link, the owner of the site is busy trying to "clean up" the article but exploring the topics has provided us some interesting entertainment. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 17:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got back from registering there, thanks to your link. I have not gone exploring, choosing to hang out here instead, but please feel free to direct me to anything there that catches your eye. I suspect that you should view it somewhat like this site, it's designed for the True Believer ([[2]] ) (is Eric Hoffer in here?), outsiders are tolerated, to a point, but . . ......... not really respected. Carptrash 11:26, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

1st person plural

we suspect you mean to suggest that if we post on this page we should only talk in the 1st person plural, since all the 'eyes' have been changed to wes? --Waiting for Godot 18:00, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We suspect an epidemic of tapeworms. ħuman 19:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh? we thought that perhaps it was aliens. But tape worms makes much more sense, in context. ;-)--Waiting for Godot 09:46, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Is it a good idea

to use a lot of personal pronouns in articles?

"As you might guess, cool, affluent and gullible people like to believe stuff like this."

And by the way, I am neither cool nor affluent and . . ........ two outta three is pretty good, don't you think? However, were I to post some equivalent sentence the ^{[citation needed]} fairies would appear like magic. Okay, so that does prove the existence of magic, but still . ........... ^{— Unsigned, by: Carptrash / talk / contribs}

No, it's not a good writing style, but I thought I saw it remedied earlier. Perhaps in response to your comment, so, thanks. ħuman 20:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I cut this line that appears to make no real point: "Obviously, many uncool, impoverished but rational people do not. So, where is the cause-and-effect in all this? " - what is it actually trying to say? Oh, and in reply to your comment above, CT, it doesn't claim that all the believers fit those three descriptions. It just mocks those particular believers. ħuman 16:22, 17 December 2008 (EST)

reverted comment moved to talk page

"Whoever wrote this wiki is seriously stupid. I'm ver familiar with the message of Abraham and it the best thing you could ever find. The dude who wrote here about "creepiness" is just plain wrong." - 24.122.106.14

something dropped in the article by some BON that should prolly be in talk.

The above opinion is an excellent example of what Eshter and Jerry discuss. In short, they operate under one of the ideas of Albert Einstein. He's a fairly smart guy I think you'd agree. Einstein said, "We are the prisoners of our thoughts." This echoes what Hicks and many others who understand this concept talk about it. That is, you are what you think about. That's basically what they teach. If you think about sickness and poverty constantly, that's likely what is going on in your world. If you think about success, health or any other subject constantly and with great concentration, you're likely to attract such. That's all they're really saying. The above editor categorizes them as frauds and hucksters. Read all the words this person writes. They are all negative, critical and pessimistic. No doubt, this is what this person's life is all about. I've listened to many of the CDs put out by Hicks and find them very inspiring and insightful. It's very progressive thinking and contrary to most of the drivel we're taught in schools and through the media. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a person who's been taught to go to school, behave, don't think big, don't have any original ideas and just buy Nike and Burger King while watching American Idol would come to such negative, life-sucking conclusions.^{— Unsigned, by: 76.205.146.209 / talk / contribs}

Here is the quote from Einstein:

“”A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.

Regardless of my thought on Einstein's legitimacy as an expert on psychology or as a guide to how to live one's life, I find it ironic how this quote, which is all about escaping from selfishness and the mundane, gets twisted into an argument used to promote material gains like personal wealth, and a hot date. tmtoulouse 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We are only limited by our thoughts which form our worldview. I have discovered that much of which I thought was truth or facts are not just information that may be relevant or irrelevant as is the case with most of humanity! Everything we do as human being is colored by our viewpoint so the "facts" are hard to come by! What is the difference between science and philosophy,viewpoint as all information that is labeled as science is collected by us flawed human beings. Albert Einstein said"imagination is more powerful than knowledge". Do you know why? Simple because imagination is unlimited and knowledge is finite. You cannot grow as a person without imagination. All that we accept as knowledge starts as imagination or nothing new would ever be learned! I love it when people state their finite viewpoint in terms of absolute facts, facts that the person cannot prove but in their mind it is the "truth". Human laws are not facts or absolutes and are changeable according to who is in power at that time. On the other hand universal laws are absolutes and one can depend on them no matter what. I don't know if Esther hicks is "real" or not metaphysically speaking but I am always open to learning something new. This article has not given me any factual evidence one way or the other just a lot or personal opinion disguised as fact similar to what I get on Fox News with their "fair and Balanced" reporting.On the issue of gay rights I thought her answer was appropriate. The person who commented on smacking Esther because she did not not her response is ridiculous. When did anything that Esther teaches become a movement or advocacy for gay rights. I must have missed that one. In the end people accept and believe what they want so it does not matter what is written here. My only point is the criticism is over the top and not factually based just a opinion masquerading as enlightened truth! ^{— Unsigned, by: Topgun / talk / contribs}

Esther Hicks Response

We are only limited by our thoughts which form our worldview. I have discovered that much of which I thought was truth or facts are not just information that may be relevant or irrelevant as is the case with most of humanity! Everything we do as human being is colored by our viewpoint so the "facts" are hard to come by! What is the difference between science and philosophy,viewpoint as all information that is labeled as science is collected by us flawed human beings. Albert Einstein said"imagination is more powerful than knowledge". Do you know why? Simple, because imagination is unlimited and knowledge is finite. You cannot grow as a person without imagination. All that we accept as knowledge starts as imagination or nothing new would ever be learned! I love it when people state their finite viewpoint in terms of absolute facts, facts that the person cannot prove but in their mind it is the "truth". Human laws are not facts or absolutes and are changeable according to who is in power at that time. On the other hand universal laws are absolutes and one can depend on them no matter what. I don't know if Esther hicks is "real" or not metaphysically speaking but I am always open to learning something new. This article has not given me any factual evidence one way or the other just a lot or personal opinion disguised as fact similar to what I get on Fox News with their "fair and Balanced" reporting.On the issue of gay rights I thought her answer was appropriate. The person who commented on smacking Esther because she did not like her response is ridiculous. When did anything that Esther teaches become a movement or advocacy for gay rights. I must have missed that one. In the end people accept and believe what they want so it does not matter what is written here. My only point is the criticism is over the top and not factually based just a opinion masquerading as enlightened truth! The human mind is capable of much more than is accepted or generally understood. ^{— Unsigned, by: Topgun / talk / contribs}

You expect me to read that wall of tripe? ħuman 02:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We expect we to consider it put in small tags, its wall of tripeness hurts less then - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article feels disjointed to us, and the snark is overwhelming to the point of hampering readability. We feel it could do with one idea per paragraph and letting the horror of the material stand on its own two tentacles more, but our brains melted trying to fix it. We also have redlinked Oprah Winfrey, as one of America's most important and lucrative woo-nexuses - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reads fine to us. ħuman 09:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Esther Abraham Hicks Swindle

On the 31st March 2011 I downloaded some mp3 pod casts, Esther Hicks, Abraham? I listened to a few of them and understood one thing, nothing new here, I wish some of the people listening and asking questions,( the audience) asked some real questions. Here are some I would like to hear the Alien Abraham answer.

1, Abraham aka Esther . Relative to quantum physics please explain the measurement problem for mankind?

2,Abraham aka Ester, I know you have never mentioned this before but are you really the reincarnation of William Walker Atkinson (December 5, 1862 – November 22, 1932) ? He wrote about everything you talk about and did so in an example of the Law of Attraction, strangely enough he did so as Swami Bhakta Vishita.

Some of the writings of William walker Atkinson as Swami Bhakta Vishita .. • Can We Talk to Spirit Friends?

• Clairvoyance and Kindred Phenomena.

• Clairvoyance: Past, Present and Future.

• Crystal Seering by Seers of All Ages. (Pamphlet)

• The Development of Seership: The Science of Knowing the Future; Hindoo and Oriental Methods". Advanced Thought Publishing Co. Chicago. 1915)

• The Difference Between a Seer and a Medium. (Pamphlet)

• The Future Evolution of Humanity.

• Genuine Mediumship or The Invisible Powers. Advanced Thought Publishing Co. Chicago. 1910

• Ghosts of the Living, End of the Dead.

• The Great Universe Beyond and Immortality.

• The Higher Being Developed by Seership.

• Higher Spirit Manifestations.

• How Is It Possible to Foretell the Future? (Pamphlet)

• How Seership Develops a Constructive Life.

• How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds.

• How to Cross the Threshold of the Super World.

• How to Develop Mediumship.

• How to Develop Psychic Telepathy.

• How to Distinguish Real Seership from Unreal. (Pamphlet)

• How to Gain Personal Knowledge of the Higher Truths of Seership.

• How to Go Into the Silence: The Key of All Life. (Pamphlet)

• How to Interpret the Present and Future Exactly as They Are Designed to Be.

• Mediumship.

• Mental Vibrations and Transmission.

• The Mystic Sixth Sense.

• Nature's Finer Forces.

• Seership and the Spiritual Evolution of Man.

• Seership, a Practical Guide to Those Who Aspire to Develop the Higher Senses.

• Seership, the Science of Knowing the Future.

• The Spiritual Laws Governing Seership.

• Thought Transference.

• What Determines a Man's Birth in a Certain Environment? (Pamphlet)

• Your Life After Death.

•

3, Ester aka Abraham, is it possible that you are a suffering from delusional Schizophrenia?

People you really and truly are better then this, if this women could hear from an alien don’t you think the first bit of information would be to cure hunger poverty etc, instead it’s the usual cornucopia of drivel sold to the lost who have money to spend on anything that makes them a little more gullible. Why is she not in Africa helping to feed people? If you feel you can gain from listening to Abraham speaking through Esther then that’s good, run with it and enjoy, but remember you don’t need it , you just need some good nights out. Smolenskiii

Jerry Hicks undergoing Chemotherapy

Although this is probably old news to many reading it, as of May 2011 Jerry Hicks has been undergoing chemotherapy for what he (and the rest of the A-H team) are referring to as an "extremely exaggerated white blood cell count" (URL reference at the end of the post).

As someone who's well versed in the Abraham Hicks material, (I left their brainwashed cult just shy of a year ago) this completely flies in the face of their teachings. Currently Esther is performing solo for the first time, and in my own humble opinion it's only a matter of time before the **** hits the fan. This type of glaring contradiction should be front and center for anyone whose cognitive dissonance brings them to RW.

Link to an update from Jerry Hicks, which attempts to sugarcoat the fact that he's undergoing heavy chemotherapy calling it "The Big Guns" rather than the life saving cancer treatment that he and his wife lambast frequently at their seminar. Also note the use of "exaggerated white blood cell count" as opposed to "freakish mutant tumor.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=t6v5qybab&v=001tCA0n-fejtsnq7hKepO9fz8qbNq-h9dnty6_2CSYDD3Xm6VG0tVKfyQjdbBBZ1nkiUlF9yXKoqlrhFPvXWqeGfxx91SG37Rozvb7nW_Dqnh18YVdTWAI5bK1hfxfB8Z1eW6DldF5r5rwNnMxO9x1sRaneKIihxkjSj_9IdICoiw9D2_WvhLNnhYXmytZ-X-C_XSOR1NqhjAa6CK-Svb_Y5V9yWjAJ_HLF5xuhlacj745M-lk3pWUBOC_IjnHLldg

I thought this was a serious site

but it seems it is slanderous, and simply a vehicle to mud throw at someone these people have never met. If you don't believe this lady, and gentleman, how have they hurt you? I am disappointed in this flog, and I don't mean blog. Casting the first stone is a boulder.^{— Unsigned, by: Win / talk / contribs}