Denmark Luna Marconi reincarnation case:

 

Independent researchers and English language media.

 

A verified international reincarnation case in Denmark. [The European girl who had detailed memories of a life in the Philippines, Southeast Asia.]

 

Denmark is a Scandinavian country comprising the Jutland Peninsula and numerous islands.

 

Luna Marconi was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, to Italian parents. Her life seemed ordinary until she turned three years old. At this young age, Luna began sharing unusual memories that did not belong to her current life. She spoke of a life she claimed to have lived before, in a distant country called the Philippines.

 

In her past life, Luna said her name was Maria Espina. She lived in a town where her father owned a restaurant. The restaurant was located on Highway 54, near a prominent landmark, the Church of Christ. Maria's life was simple and happy. She was particularly fond of a sweet treat called bocan, a Filipino delicacy made with coconut.

 

One day, Maria had an exciting experience. She was chosen to present flowers to the President of the Philippines, Diosdado Macapagal, during his visit to their town. This was a great honor for Maria and her family. Her past life’s parents, proud and excited, bought her a new pair of shoes for the special occasion. Maria presented the president with red flowers, creating a cherished memory for her and her family.

 

However, Maria's life was tragically cut short. She fell ill with a severe fever and passed away at the tender age of 12. Her loving family mourned her loss deeply.

 

Years later, in Denmark, little Luna Marconi began to remember details from Maria's life. She insisted that her real name was Maria Espina and that she wanted to go home to visit her father and his restaurant. She spoke of the meeting with President Macapagal and the red flowers she had presented to him. Luna also mentioned the special shoes her parents had bought for her and her love for bocan, the Filipino sweet.

 

Luna's parents were understandably puzzled by their daughter's statements. They had no connection to the Philippines, and the details Luna provided were not things she could have learned from her environment or the media. Her fondness for bocan was particularly unusual, as it was not a treat she could have discovered in Denmark.

 

As Luna's story gained attention, it caught the interest of the press. Reporters in the Philippines decided to investigate her claims. They were surprised to find that there was indeed a family named Espina who had owned a restaurant on Highway 54, near the Church of Christ. The reporters learned that the Espinas' daughter, Maria, had died of fever at the age of 12. Furthermore, they confirmed that Maria had been chosen to present flowers to President Diosdado Macapagal during his visit to their town, and that her parents had bought her new shoes for the occasion.

 

The information provided by Luna accurately matched the life of Maria. President Diosdado Macapagal had been in office from 1961 to 1965, which aligned with the timeline of Maria's life and Luna's birth. Luna's case was later included in Sybil Leek's book, ‘Reincarnation: The Second Chance,’ published in 1974. The book helped to bring further media attention to Luna's story and the potential evidence it provided for the phenomenon of reincarnation.

 

 

Thailand Thiang San Kla reincarnation case:

 

Researcher Francis Story, (Independent researcher and scholar, United Kingdom)

 

A verified reincarnation case in Thailand. [The man who carried birthmarks from a previous life.]

 

Francis Story, a British researcher and scholar, spent extensive time in various countries studying Buddhist teachings on reincarnation and cases of rebirth. One of his most intriguing investigations was the case of Thiang San Kla, a Siamese army sergeant who claimed to remember his previous life. Story met Thiang at the Military Camp in Surin, central Thailand, in 1963, while investigating another reincarnation case of a Buddhist monk who reportedly remembered a past life.

 

Thiang San Kla was a small, wiry man with a distinctive birthmark, a capillary naevus, spreading from above his left ear towards the base of his skull. This birthmark was particularly notable as it corresponded to an injury he claimed to have sustained in his previous life. Born in October 1924 in Ru Sai village, Surin Province, Thiang had additional birthmarks resembling tattooing on both hands and feet, and his right big toe was slightly deformed, with thickened skin and a puckered appearance similar to scar tissue.

 

At the age of about four, Thiang began to speak about his previous life, claiming to be his father's brother, Phoh, who had died three months before Thiang's birth. Thiang provided detailed accounts of Phoh's life and death, which were later verified by witnesses and family members. His statements were remarkably consistent and detailed, capturing the attention of those around him.

 

Details of the Previous Life:

Thiang described Phoh as having been wrongly suspected of cattle stealing. According to Thiang's account, Phoh was set upon by some villagers, one of whom threw a knife at close range, penetrating his skull and causing almost instantaneous death. The location of the birthmark on Thiang's head corresponded exactly to the spot where Phoh had been stabbed. The stabbing was at the exact spot where Thiang's capillary naevus is situated, and its position corresponded to the downward motion of the blade as it struck.

 

Additionally, Phoh had been suffering from a suppurating wound on his right big toe for several months before his death. He also had "protective" tattooings (protection symbols) on both hands and feet, in the same places as the congenital markings now appear on the hands and feet of Thiang. These physical marks were a crucial aspect of the case, providing tangible evidence to support Thiang's past life memories claims.

 

After-Death Experiences:

Thiang described seeing his own body lying on the ground after his death and wanting to return to it. However, it was surrounded by people, and he was afraid to approach. He thought that if he re-entered the body, he might be killed again by the villagers. He saw the blood oozing from the wound. He also realized that, in this new strange form, he could move anywhere just by thinking about it. His description of this part of his after-death experience is reminiscent of the accounts given by people who have had experiences of being ‘out of the body (OBE)’ while under anesthetics or at the critical point of an illness.

 

In his disembodied spirit form (or ghostly body), Thiang then visited all his family members, relatives, and friends but felt grieved that they could not see him. He felt extremely sad. He thought of his brother with affection and wanted to be with him. At once, he found himself in his brother's house. There, he felt in some unexplainable way drawn to his brother's wife, who was having her breakfast. She was pregnant, and in Thiang's own words, he felt himself irresistibly impelled to enter her body. During the remaining months of her pregnancy, he retained his consciousness, sometimes being aware of being outside (a rare NDE or OBE once again) her body. Later, when he told his mother this, she remembered that before his birth, she had a dream in which her husband's brother, Phoh, appeared to her saying that he wanted to be reborn as her child.

 

Statements, Birthmarks, and Physical Marks:

Thiang's statements about his previous life were consistent and detailed. The birthmarks on his body, including the distinctive capillary naevus and the marks resembling tattooing, corresponded to the injuries and tattooings of Phoh. These physical marks were a crucial aspect of the case, providing tangible evidence to support Thiang's claims.

 

Witnesses:

Two witnesses accompanied Thiang to meet Story. One was Sgt. Manoon Rungreung, who had known the story since childhood and was convinced of its truth. Physically, there was no resemblance between Phoh and Thiang, he said; Phoh had been "tall, fair, and handsome," whereas Thiang is the reverse.

 

The second witness was a man of 72, Nai Pramaun, of the Municipality Office, Surin. He had been formerly Assistant District Officer and was a young man at the time of Phoh's murder. He had known the late Phoh and had known Thiang from childhood. He told Story that Phoh actually was a cattle-thief and a notorious character in his lifetime. Nai Pramaun had investigated the case of the cattle theft and the murder in the course of his duties. On hearing the rumors concerning the rebirth of Phoh, he had gone to see the child who was then between four and five years old.

 

Thiang had recognized him and had addressed him by his name. He also had given correctly all the names of the people concerned in the affair. Nai Pramaun had examined the birthmarks and found they corresponded exactly with Phoh’s death wound and with the other marks he had had on his body. He found also that Thiang remembered the man who had killed him, a villager named Chang, and wanted to take revenge. Fortunately, Thiang never met Chang, who died while he was still a boy. Nai Pramaun confirmed all the other facts of the case as being precisely as Thiang had related them. He added that the story is well known throughout the district and nobody doubts it.

 

The interesting feature of the man’s evidence was that it completely demolished poor Thiang’s attempt to whitewash the character of his previous personality, who according to his version had been “wrongly suspected” of cattle stealing. Nai Pramaun, despite his age, appeared to be vigorous and alert, with a clear memory. He gave his evidence with assurance, replying promptly to all Story's questions. He was obviously a good type of old-time provincial government officer, a man thoroughly reliable and accustomed to responsibility.

 

Recognitions and Verifications:

Thiang recognized various people and objects from his previous life. He knew the names of all the members of both families and was able to recognize and identify the deceased Phoh's friends. When he was about five years old, Phoh's wife, Pai, came from her home in the village of Ar Vud, where Phoh had been living and where he had met his death, to find out whether the stories she had heard of Thiang being her husband reborn were true. Ar Vud is approximately 25 km from Thiang's birthplace, Ru Sai, and even today there is not much communication between the two places. She brought with her a number of articles that had belonged to her late husband, mixed up with other things. Thiang easily identified the objects that had belonged to him when he was Phoh; he also proved his identity to her by relating intimate matters of their family life. When Pai became convinced that her husband indeed was reborn, she became a Buddhist nun. She felt that as she was not a married woman, yet could not consider herself a widow, she had no alternative. Thiang showed Story a photograph of her in nun’s robes which he evidently cherished.

 

Thiang's parents and other witnesses confirmed the details of his story. His father, who died about two months after the child began to talk, had heard enough to convince him that the little boy was indeed his brother returned from the grave. Not only had he related events of Phoh’s life which were known to them but had related things they did not know but had been able to verify from others. He knew the names of all the members of both families and was able to recognize and identify the deceased Phoh’s friends.

 

Additional Information:

The day following Story's interview with Sgt. Thiang, he had a visit from Capt. Nit Vallasiri, Company Commander, C Company, Military Camp, Surin. He had come to volunteer further information and to learn Story's opinion of the case. He said that he had long been familiar with the story of Sgt. Thiang’s previous life and confirmed everything Story had already been told. He added that some years ago Sgt. Thiang had laid claim to some land adjacent to the army camp, on the grounds that it had belonged to him in his previous life as Phoh. He gave up the claim only on being assured that no court would uphold it. This incident had earned Thiang the army nickname of “The Landlord,” by which he is known to everyone. It appears that he had recognized the land as having belonged to him when he was Phoh, without being informed of this fact and, in making his claim to it, he had given correctly the circumstances in which Phoh had acquired it.

 

Asked about Thiang’s character and intelligence, Capt. Nit Vallasiri said he was emotionally stable, a good soldier, and had shown a high level of intelligence in army tests. His ambition and intent were to take his discharge from the Royal Thai Army and take up the post of headman of his village.

 

Story investigated this case on January 22–24, 1963, at Changwad Surin, and his interpreter was Dr. Thavil Soon Tharaksa, Provincial Health Officer of Surin District. Two American Peace Corps workers then stationed in the locality were present during the interviews by Story's invitation. This very pleasant young couple afterward confessed that Thailand had given them a new and utterly unexpected experience.

 

The case of Thiang San Kla is a fascinating example of a person who claimed to remember a previous life, with physical birthmarks that corresponded to injuries sustained in that life. The detailed accounts, witness testimonies, and verifications add credibility to the story, making it a valuable subject for study in the fields of rebirth and psychosomatic interactions. The transference of physical marks from one body to another in the process of rebirth—or rather their reproduction in a new body—is a recurring feature of many of these cases. The book ‘Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience’ by Francis Story contains comprehensive scientific research on this specific reincarnation case. This scientific evidence suggests that consciousness can survive death and be reborn, as taught by the Buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Sumitra Singh reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Researcher Parmeshwar Dayal, (Independent researcher and psychologist, India)

Dr. Satwant Pasricha, Professor, (University of Virginia, United States of America and National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, India)

Researcher Dr. Kuldip Kumar Dhiman, Philosopher, (Panjab University, Chandigarh, India)

Researcher Dr. James G. Matlock, PhD (Rhine Research Center, Durham, United States of America)

Dr. Antonia Mills, Professor, (University of Northern British Columbia, Canada)

 

A verified reincarnation case in India. [The girl who talked with a Yama being and came from a hell after 2 months, to the current human life.]

 

This rebirth case is important because the individual could remember 2 different past lives. One life as a creature in hell and another life as a woman who lived in India.

 

In 1985, a young married woman named Sumitra Singh from a village in northern India seemingly died and then came back to life. Initially confused, she eventually claimed to be Shiva, a woman who had been allegedly murdered by her in-laws in a different village two months prior. Sumitra accurately identified Shiva's family members and interacted with them appropriately, adhering to customary norms. Shiva's family accepted Sumitra as Shiva in a new body, and she maintained this identity for the rest of her life. This exceptional case has been examined by multiple researchers and interpreted as an instance of reincarnation, possession, or a combination of both.

 

Shiva Tripathi was born on October 24, 1962, in Sevpur, Etawah District, India, into the Brahmin caste. Shiva Tripathi was a well-educated woman. Her father, Ram Siya Tripathi, was a college lecturer. Shiva grew up in Etawah, completed her education, and graduated with a B.A. in Home Economics. At 18, she married Chhedi Lal from the village of Dibiyapur and had two children, nicknamed Tinku and Rinku, living with her in-laws.

 

Tensions arose between Shiva and her in-laws due to her education, manners, or perceived insufficiency of her dowry. A serious dispute occurred in May 1985 when Shiva was prevented from attending a family wedding. On the evening of May 18, Shiva's maternal uncle by marriage, Brijesh Pathak, visited and found her upset, claiming her mother-in-law and a sister-in-law had beaten her. The next morning, Shiva's body was discovered on the railway tracks at the nearby Phaphoond station. Her in-laws asserted she had committed suicide, but rumors suggested foul play.

 

Sumitra Singh was born around 1968 in Angad ka Nagla, Etawah District, into the Thakur caste. She received basic reading and writing instruction from a cousin but never attended school formally. At 13, she married Jagdish Singh from the village of Sharifpura and moved in with his family. After three years of marriage, she gave birth to a boy in December 1984.

 

In early 1985, Sumitra Singh began experiencing episodes of unconsciousness, lasting from a few minutes to a full day. During these episodes, her eyes would roll upward, and she would clench her teeth. She sometimes attributed these incidents to possession by the goddess Santoshi Mata. (an inhuman being. In general, gods and goddesses do not enter disgusting human bodies.) On two occasions, she briefly channeled different personalities: a woman who had drowned and a man from another region. Local healers were consulted but could not help.

 

On July 19, 1985, Sumitra predicted her death three days later. That same day, she lost consciousness and appeared to die. Witnesses reported that her breathing and pulse stopped, and her face paled for at least five minutes. As her family began mourning, she revived but claimed to be Shiva Tripathi.

 

Independent investigations were conducted by reincarnation researchers such as Ian Stevenson, Satwant Pasricha, and psychologist Parmeshwar Dayal after learning about the case in October 1985. They interviewed witnesses, family members, and studied newspaper reports. Dayal also administered psychological tests and analyzed handwriting samples.

 

Two later follow-up investigations were attempted, but Sumitra and her husband could not be reached. In 2009, Antonia Mills and Kuldip Dhiman discovered that Sumitra had died in 1998. They obtained previously unpublished letters and interviewed relatives and associates of both Shiva and Sumitra to reassess the case and compare it with other cases of possession and reincarnation.

 

Upon awakening as Shiva, Sumitra did not recognize her surroundings or her family. She initially spoke little but soon began sharing details about Shiva's life and her alleged murder by in-laws. She wanted to see Shiva's children and disassociated herself from Sumitra's husband and son. Sumitra's family thought she was insane or possessed and subjected her to prolonged, cruel exorcism attempts. Nevertheless, she persisted in identifying as Shiva.

 

Shiva Tripathi was allegedly murdered by her in-laws on May 18, 1985. Two months later, on July 19, Sumitra Singh seemingly died and revived with Shiva's personality. During the intervening period between her death and apparent rebirth, Shiva reported having a vivid experience in the afterlife.

 

She described finding herself in a hellish realm ruled by a Yama, a ruler of a hell. There, she witnessed sinners being punished by monstrous beings. However, due to some good karma, Yama offered her the chance to return to human life, leading to her presumed rebirth in Sumitra's body.

 

Upon awakening in Sumitra's body, Shiva claimed to have memories from the intervening period. She remembered being brought before Lord Yama and witnessing sinful people with their feet turned backward, suffering various cruel punishments according to their karmas. She said that the goddess Santoshi Mata helped her by hiding her under Yama's seat and providing sustenance. After several days, Sumitra pleaded with Yama for mercy, and he agreed to send her back to the human world for seven more years of human life.

 

Stevenson and his colleagues took careful measures to ensure that the two families had not been in contact prior to these events. Dibiyapur and Sharifpura are approximately 60 miles apart, and the families belonged to different castes, had differing educational backgrounds, and led distinct lifestyles—one urban and professional, the other rural and agricultural.

 

To verify the authenticity of Sumitra's claims, the researchers compared her statements with newspaper reports about Shiva's life and death. They identified 19 correct statements made by Sumitra that were not present in any newspaper reports. This indicated that Sumitra possessed apparent paranormal knowledge of Shiva's life and belongings that could not be attributed to publicly available information.

 

Sumitra's Recognitions of Shiva's Family Members and Friends:

There remain several circumstances in which recognitions may occur that deserve credit as showing paranormal knowledge on the part of the subject. These are: recognitions that the subject makes spontaneously without anyone's having asked him or her to identify another person; recognitions that occur when the subject is confronted with a person and asked a question like: "Do you know who this person is?" or "Tell me who I am"; and recognitions in which the subject immediately afterward adds a statement about some intimate detail, perhaps a nickname, not known outside a small circle of family and friends. We learned of 12 members of Shiva's family and circle of friends whom Sumitra recognized under conditions that we believe excluded cueing. We shall describe the circumstances of seven of Sumitra's recognitions, including one in which cueing might have played a part and six in which we think it did not.

 

1) ‘Ram Siya Tripathi’, Shiva's father: When he first went to Sharifpura, he introduced himself outside the house, and someone told Sumitra, who was then inside, that "her father" (that is, Shiva's) had come to the house. We therefore attach no significance to Sumitra's telling Ram Siya Tripathi what his name was. However, she called him "Papa" (as Shiva had) and wept. Also, when Ram Siya Tripathi asked her, Sumitra immediately stated two pet names by which Shiva was sometimes called in her family: Aruna and Shiv Shanker. The first of these names, Aruna, had been published in a newspaper report of Shiva's death, but the second had not.

2) ‘Baleshwar Prasad Chaturvedi’, Shiva's maternal uncle by marriage: Sumitra recognized him at the time he accompanied Ram Siya Tripathi to Sharifpura. Asked who he was, Sumitra at first said he was Arvind's father. (Arvind was one of Shiva's maternal uncles.) Asked to try again, Sumitra then said that Baleshwar Prasad Chaturvedi was the father of Arvind's wife. This was correct.

3) ‘Ram Rani’, Shiva's mother: This recognition occurred at the time of Sumitra's first visit to Etawah. Ram Siya tried to mislead Sumitra by telling her that her (Shiva's) mother was standing in a group of other women at the Tripathi house. In fact, Ram Rani had gone inside the house and was not in this group of women. Sumitra insisted that her (that is, Shiva's) mother was not among the group of other women; she then went into the house and searched for Shiva's mother, whom she found and embraced tearfully. (Attempts were also made in another instance to mislead Sumitra deliberately, but failed.) In connection with this recognition, we should note that Ram Siya Tripathi had already shown Sumitra a photograph of Ram Rani.

4) ‘Ram Naresh’, another of Shiva's maternal uncles: This recognition occurred at the time of Sumitra's first visit to Etawah. Ram Naresh presented himself to Sumitra and said: "Who am I?" Sumitra said: "You are my mother's brother." He said: "Which one?" She replied: "Ram Naresh of Kanpur." He had formerly lived in Kanpur and had moved to Etawah after Shiva's death.

5) ‘Ram Prakash Dixit’, another of Shiva's maternal uncles: He went to Sharifpura (at the end of October, less than 10 days after Ram Siya Tripathi had first met Sumitra). He had grown a beard, which Shiva had never seen. When Sumitra first saw him, he was sitting in front of her and remained silent. She recognized him as Shiva's mother's brother but was at first unable to give his name. He then spoke a few words, and she immediately recognized his voice and stated his name.

6) ‘Manish’, Shiva's nephew (the son of her sister Uma): This recognition occurred in Etawah on November 22, 1985. Sumitra was at the Tripathi house on an upstairs terrace. One of Shiva's brothers, noticing Uma and Manish approaching, drew Sumitra's attention to them. Sumitra looked down and said "Manish has come." Sumitra went down from the terrace, hugged Uma, and called her "sister." However, this cannot count as a flawless recognition because Ram Siya Tripathi had already shown Sumitra a photograph of Uma.

7) ‘Krishna Devi Dube’, a friend of Shiva's youth: This recognition occurred at Sikandarpur when Sumitra visited her mother-in-law's family in February 1986. More than eight years earlier, Krishna Devi and Shiva had known each other when Shiva used to visit one of her maternal uncles (Brijesh Pathak) in the village of Kainjari, Krishna Devi's native place. When Krishna Devi married, she moved to Sikandarpur and had not met Shiva for more than eight years prior to Shiva's death. When Sumitra saw Krishna Devi, she said: "Jiji! How come you are here? I died and have come into a Thakur's family and am helpless." Shiva would have known normally that Krishna Devi had married and moved to Sikandarpur; nevertheless, the Shiva personality of Sumitra—if we may use that expression here—seemed surprised to meet Krishna Devi in Sikandarpur. Shiva, when alive, had called Krishna Devi "Jiji." This word means "sister," and although Shiva and Krishna Devi were not real sisters, close female friends in India may use this form of address with each other.

 

In addition to the above-mentioned and other recognitions of living persons, Sumitra was able to recognize 15 members of Shiva's family in photographs. When Ram Siya Tripathi first met Sumitra in Sharifpura, he showed her eight photographs in an album that he had brought. One was of his wife and children, taken in 1967, that is, about 18 years earlier. Sumitra correctly identified all six persons in the photograph: Ram Siya Tripathi, his wife, his mother, his daughter Uma, his son Raman, and his daughter Shiva. Of the last, Sumitra said: "This is me."

 

Shown another photograph, this one of five of the Tripathi children, Sumitra correctly identified and named all the persons in the photograph. (Some of these persons figured in the previous photograph and in others shown to Sumitra.)

 

Another photograph showed three adult women, two of them holding infants. Sumitra identified Shiva's mother in it and said the child on her lap was Shiva's brother Raman. She then said that one of the other women was a maternal aunt. She said the third woman was possibly another aunt, but she was unsure of this and could not recognize the child on this woman's lap.

 

Upon seeing a photograph of Shiva's young son Tinku, Sumitra began to cry, said the photograph was of Tinku, and asked where Tinku and Rinku then were.

 

When a photograph of Shiva's sister-in-law Rama Kanti was shown to Sumitra, she said: "This is Rama Kanti who hit me with a brick." (Ram Siya Tripathi said Sumitra's recognition of this photograph dispelled his remaining doubts about whether his daughter Shiva was possessing her.)

 

In showing the photographs to Sumitra, Ram Siya Tripathi's attitude appears to have been one of keen interest mixed with skepticism. He said that as he showed Sumitra the photographs in the album, he asked her to identify the persons in them and gave her no cues. She gave the name of each person and usually the relationship of the person to Shiva. The villager, Lal Man Dube, who escorted Ram Siya Tripathi and his relative Baleshwar Prasad Chaturvedi to the house of Sumitra's in-laws in Sharifpura, witnessed Sumitra's recognitions of the photographs as Ram Siya Tripathi showed them to her. He confirmed that her recognizing statements about them were entirely spontaneous and not cued by any remarks the visitors made. We have described only a portion of the photographs she recognized, and we have examined the photographs ourselves. Excluding repetitions of the same person appearing in more than one of the photographs, Sumitra was asked to identify 17 persons in the photographs. She unhesitatingly identified 12 of them, identified another three after some hesitation, and failed to recognize two persons.

 

Ram Siya Tripathi showed the album of photographs to Sumitra when he first met her on October 20, 1985. Although he did not give her cues before she recognized each photograph, he did tell her after she had finished that she had recognized all the people in them correctly. We think it likely also that he communicated to her, if only nonverbally, that she was correct after her statements about each photograph, if not about each person in a photograph.

 

Under these circumstances, Sumitra had some advantage in recognizing persons she met later in Etawah whose faces she had already seen in the photographs. (We have referred to two of these persons above, Shiva's mother and sister.) However, Sumitra was credited with recognizing and identifying (usually by name) eight members of the family or their circle of friends, whose photographs she had not seen.

 

Some of the newspaper accounts of the death of Shiva and of the subsequent judicial inquiry included photographs of Shiva, but these were taken in 1979. The photographs of her as a child (which Sumitra recognized) and the photographs of other members of the Tripathi family had not been published.

 

In sum, Sumitra recognized 23 members of Shiva's family and acquaintances either in person or in photographs, some of them in both ways.

 

Ram Siya Tripathi, Shiva's father, heard a rumor that his late daughter had possessed a girl named Sumitra in Sharifpura. Upon visiting her on October 20, 1985, he showed her several photographs. Sumitra accurately identified:

 

- All six family members in an 18-year-old photograph.

- Five Tripathi children in another picture.

- Shiva's mother, brother, and maternal aunt in a third photograph.

 

Sumitra also recognized Shiva's son Tinku and reacted emotionally, inquiring about his and Rinku's whereabouts. Upon seeing Shiva's sister-in-law, she recalled a past incident, stating, "This is Rama Kanti, who hit me with a brick." This conviction led Tripathi to believe Sumitra was indeed his daughter returned. Out of 17 people in eight photographs, she identified 15, hesitating with three and failing to recognize only two.

 

In total, Sumitra recognized 23 of Shiva's relatives and friends in person or in photographs. Conversely, she no longer recognized her own family members, including her husband, son, in-laws, father, cousin, and cousin's husband. She also displayed confusion regarding places, merging details from both Shiva's and her own life.

 

After her transformation, Sumitra exhibited significant behavioral changes, adopting the mannerisms of a high-caste, educated woman:

-She wore her sari more elegantly and switched to wearing sandals.

-She became an early riser and insisted on being addressed as Shiva.

-Her interactions became more formal, even with her husband and in-laws.

-She exhibited a higher level of literacy, reading and writing Hindi with ease, and frequently composing letters to the Tripathi family.

 

Initially, Sumitra refused intimacy with her husband and did not acknowledge her son, claiming he was from her husband's previous marriage. However, she eventually accepted her roles as wife and mother while still asserting she was Shiva.

 

Her transformation also led to a striking improvement in her reading and writing abilities, which had previously been quite rudimentary. She began to write frequently, often corresponding with the Tripathi family, much like Shiva had done.

 

During their investigation, Mills and Dhiman acquired five letters, two of which were previously unpublished, penned by Shiva and Sumitra after the latter's transformation. In her correspondence with her parents post-marriage, Shiva often expressed homesickness and concern about insufficient time for visits, writing, or studying for her Bachelor of Arts degree. She also requested updates on her sister and friends and shared news. Her most recent letter, penned five months before her death, revealed distress: "Every night I get scared in my dreams and sometimes I wake up screaming."

 

Sumitra's letter, written to the Tripathi family roughly five months after she claimed to have reawakened as Shiva, exhibited hurried, less tidy handwriting with numerous cross-outs. The tone was desperate; Sumitra repeatedly expressed her dislike for her current situation, pleaded to be taken away, insisted she was Shiva, and even wrote, "God is bad as he has dumped me here." Dhiman estimated the writing ability demonstrated in this letter to be at least that of a Grade 10 student.

 

Mills and Dhiman noted similarities between Sumitra's letter sign-offs and expressed sentiments of missing family to Shiva's letter-writing habits and style.

 

Ian Stevenson assessed that while Sumitra's literacy had significantly improved, it still fell short of Shiva's level. He likened the situation to "a master pianist sitting down to play a broken-down piano."

 

Sumitra's family in Sharifpur reported that she maintained the persona of Shiva until her death, a period of 13 years. The Tripathi family concurred, stating that Sumitra had retained Shiva's persona as long as they remained in contact, up until 1988, and found the situation somewhat challenging. Shiva's siblings independently remarked, "You see the body, not the soul," with her sister Uma adding that Sumitra "loved me the same way... only the face was different."

 

The intermission period between Shiva Tripathi's death and Sumitra's return as Shiva was relatively short. Shiva Tripathi died on May 18, 1985, and Sumitra died and was revived with Shiva's personality just two months later, on July 19, 1985. The case of Sumitra raises intriguing questions about possession and reincarnation. Mills and Dhiman examined Sumitra's case within the contexts of both possession and reincarnation, noting that the duration of possessions can vary greatly, and that typical reincarnation cases often feature birthmarks or defects echoing past injuries, which was not the case for Sumitra because the body had already been fully developed. However, it is visible that this case is not one of possession, but rather that the previous person’s mind left the body and a new mind came into the body from some another world. This reincarnation case is one of the verified reincarnation cases in India. These types of reincarnation cases are categorized in the field of reincarnation as possession-type and replacement-type cases. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) produced a documentary film about children who remember past lives, and it includes the reincarnation case of Sumitra Singh, which is available on YouTube. This reincarnation case provides strong scientific evidence for the existence of rebirth phenomena which was taught by the Buddha.

 

 

Finland Samuel Helander reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Researcher Rita Castren, Parapsychologist, (Finland)

A verified reincarnation case in Finland. [The child who knew his own grave.]

 

Subject: Samuel Helander.

Born: April 15, 1976, in Helsinki, Finland.

Parents: Pentti Helander (father, construction worker) and Marja Helander (mother, Lutheran Church member).

Sibling: Sandra (older sister).

 

Remembered Previous Personality: Pertti Häikiö.

Born: June 3, 1957, in Helsinki, Finland.

Parents: Pentti Häikiö (father) and Anneli (mother, later remarried to Reiner Lagerqvist).

Siblings: Marja (older sister, Samuel's mother), Pirjo (older sister), and Anne (younger sister).

Died: June 10, 1975, unexpectedly at the age of 18.

 

Case Background:

About 10 months before Samuel's birth, Pertti Häikiö died unexpectedly. Marja, Pertti's stepsister, became pregnant soon afterward and contemplated having an abortion. She had a dream in which Pertti told her, "Keep that child." Marja decided to continue the pregnancy.

 

Statements and Recognitions Made by Samuel:

1. Self-identification: At around 1½ years old, when asked his name, Samuel replied, "Peltti" (his way of pronouncing Pertti). He also referred to himself as "Pera," which was Pertti's nickname. Samuel called his mother "Marja" and his maternal grandmother "Mother." He told Marja that she was not his mother.

2. Recognition of photographs: At around 2 years old, Samuel saw a photograph of Pertti in the hospital with broken legs and said, "That is me when my legs were ill." Between 3 and 4 years old, Samuel recognized another photograph of Pertti in a walker and said, "Mother, here I am in this picture." He also mentioned that his legs had both been in plaster and that he had been in the hospital. Samuel recognized photographs of Pertti up to the age of about 10, saying, "That's me." He did not recognize photographs of Pertti at older ages.

3. Recognition of people: Looking at a photograph of Pentti Häikiö (Pertti's father), Samuel said, "This is my father." On another occasion, he saw a photograph of Pentti Häikiö and Anneli and said, "There is Daddy and Grandma also."

4. Recognition of possessions: Samuel found Pertti's guitar, which had been kept in a box in a cupboard, and said that it was his. He claimed ownership of Pertti's corduroy jacket, shouting that it was his and should not be given away. Samuel found Pertti's broken, handless watch in a drawer and said it was his. He kept it under his pillow or in a drawer beneath his bed.

5. Statements about events: Samuel mentioned the dog bite incident: "I remember when the dog bit my leg." He remembered hurting his back and being taken to the hospital in an ambulance.
6. Samuel described an event from 1974: "A long time ago, I went to a 'kiska' [kiosk] with my father. We wore hats, his a blue one, my father's a pale one. We also brought a guitar. One man carried a gun. The house near the kiosk caught on fire, and we had to leave." Marja confirmed this event. Samuel mentioned Pertti's mother crying for him after his death. He described being taken to a place with many coffins, some open, which corresponded to Pertti's body being taken to a mortuary.
7. Statements about the grave: Samuel said, "That is my grave," when looking at Pertti's grave. On another occasion, he said, "Now we are going to my grave," when Marja was taking him to the cemetery.

 

Behavior Related to the Previous Life:

1. Phobia of water: Samuel had a marked phobia of being bathed and was even afraid of shower baths. This corresponded to Pertti's near-drowning experiences and his subsequent phobia of being immersed in water.

2. Attachments and attitudes: Samuel was particularly attached to his grandmother, Anneli. He once sat on her lap and tried to nurse at her breast, saying, "Mother, give me your breast."

3. Gait and posture: Samuel adopted Pertti's habit of standing with one foot forward and often with a hand on his hip. He also walked with his hands behind his back when nervous, as Pertti did.

4. Affectionate behavior: Samuel imitated Pertti's customary behavior at Christmas, going around the room and kissing each family member in turn. In general, Samuel was an unusually affectionate person, as Pertti had been.

 

Instances of Apparent Telepathy:

1. Samuel told Marja, "Little grandmother is weeping. Tell her not to cry," at the same time Anneli was looking at photographs of family tombs and weeping.

2. On several occasions, Samuel seemed to know when Marja decided to go shopping and would unexpectedly come into the house, apparently wishing to accompany her.

 

The Reincarnation Case of Samuel Helander:

In the city of Helsinki, Finland, a baby boy named Samuel Helander was born on April 15, 1976, to Pentti and Marja Helander. Marja, a member of the Lutheran Church, had an unusual experience during her pregnancy. About 10 months before Samuel's birth, her stepbrother, Pertti Häikiö, had died unexpectedly at the age of 18. Marja became pregnant soon afterward and contemplated having an abortion. One night, she had a dream in which Pertti appeared to her and said, "Keep that child." Marja then decided to continue the pregnancy, feeling that Pertti's spirit was somehow connected to her unborn child.

 

As Samuel grew, Marja began to notice peculiar behaviors and statements that seemed to connect her son to her deceased stepbrother, Pertti. The first striking incident occurred when Samuel was around 1½ years old. When asked his name, the toddler replied, "Peltti," his way of pronouncing Pertti. He also referred to himself as "Pera," which was Pertti's nickname. Samuel called his mother "Marja" and his maternal grandmother, Anneli, "Mother." He would tell Marja that she was not his mother, implying that he had a different mother in his previous life.

 

Samuel's memories of Pertti's life seemed to be triggered by photographs, people, or objects related to his previous personality. When he was around 2 years old, he saw a photograph of Pertti in the hospital with broken legs. Samuel pointed at the picture and said, "That is me when my legs were ill." On another occasion, between the ages of 3 and 4, Samuel was looking through a family photo album and came across a picture of Pertti in a walker after his leg casts had been removed. He showed the photograph to his grandmother, Anneli, and said, "Mother, here I am in this picture." He then mentioned that his legs had both been in plaster and that he had been in the hospital.

 

Samuel recognized photographs of Pertti up to the age of about 10, claiming, "That's me." However, he did not recognize photographs of Pertti at older ages. He also identified pictures of Pertti's father, Pentti Häikiö, as his own father. Once, when looking at a photograph of Pentti Häikiö and Anneli together, Samuel said, "There is Daddy and Grandma also." Marja tried to mislead Samuel by saying he was wrong, but the boy insisted on his identification. This recognition was significant because Samuel had never seen Pertti's father before.

 

The young boy also claimed ownership of Pertti's possessions. Pertti had owned and played a guitar, which was kept in a box in a cupboard after his death. No one had spoken to Samuel about the guitar, but he looked for it, found it, and said that it was his. Similarly, Samuel claimed a corduroy jacket that belonged to Pertti. When his mother and grandmother discussed giving the jacket away, Samuel shouted that it was his and should not be given away. Additionally, Samuel found Pertti's broken, handless watch in a drawer filled with various items. He pounced on it and said it was his, subsequently keeping it under his pillow or in a drawer beneath his bed. Samuel's overall body type and build resembled Pertti's. Also, Marja said that Samuel's smile resembled Pertti's.

 

Furthermore, Samuel made several statements about events from Pertti's life. He mentioned the dog bite incident, saying, "I remember when the dog bit my leg." He also recalled hurting his back and being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. Samuel described an event from 1974, a year before Pertti's death: "A long time ago, I went to a 'kiska' [kiosk] with my father. We wore hats, his a blue one, my father's a pale one. We also brought a guitar. One man carried a gun. The house near the kiosk caught on fire, and we had to leave." Marja confirmed that this event had indeed taken place.

 

The boy also made statements about events that occurred after Pertti's death and before his birth. He commented on how much Pertti's mother, Anneli, cried for him, reflecting Anneli's grief after her son's death. Samuel also said that he had been taken to a place with many coffins, some open, which corresponded to Pertti's body being taken to a mortuary after his sudden death.

 

Samuel exhibited several behaviors that seemed to be connected to Pertti's life. He had a marked phobia of being bathed and was even afraid of shower baths, reflecting Pertti's near-drowning experiences and his subsequent fear of being immersed in water. Samuel was particularly attached to his grandmother, Anneli. Once, when he was about 2 years old and had already been weaned, he sat on Anneli's lap and tried to nurse at her breast, saying, "Mother, give me your breast."

 

The boy also displayed peculiar habits that mirrored Pertti's mannerisms. He adopted Pertti's habit of standing with one foot forward and often with a hand on his hip. Samuel also walked with his hands behind his back when nervous, as Pertti did. Furthermore, Samuel imitated Pertti's endearing habit at Christmas. Pertti would go around the room and kiss each family member in turn. At the Christmas of 1978, when Samuel was 2½ years old, he did the same thing, taking each member by the arm and kissing them on the cheek. In general, Samuel was an unusually affectionate person, as Pertti had been.

 

Samuel was taken to the cemetery where Pertti had been buried. Looking at Pertti's grave, Samuel said, several times, "That is my grave." On another occasion, when Marja was taking Samuel to the cemetery, Samuel said, "Now we are going to my grave."

 

There were also instances of apparent telepathy involving Samuel. One day, Anneli was looking at photographs of family tombs and weeping. At the same time, Samuel told Marja, "Little grandmother is weeping. Tell her not to cry." On several other occasions, Samuel seemed to know when Marja decided to go shopping and would unexpectedly come into the house, apparently wishing to accompany her.

 

As Samuel grew older, his memories of the previous life began to fade. By the time he was 8 years old, Marja thought he still had some memories, but they were not as vivid as before. At the age of 23, Samuel had a phobia of water, feared dying young, and would look at Pertti's photograph when visiting his mother. However, he did not talk about the previous life. He attended school until the age of 16, worked for a moving company, and decided to live independently. His father, Pentti Helander, committed suicide in 1986.

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a professor and scientist from the University of Virginia, United States, investigated Samuel's rebirth case in 1978. He also obtained additional information from correspondence with Rita Castrén and an interview conducted by a Finnish journalist, Oskar Reponen.

 

 

 

 

 

American Midwestern Grant reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Jim B. Tucker, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in United States of America. [The small boy who was once a big tough soldier in the Vietnam war and died in a bomb explosion.]

 

Dr. Jim B. Tucker, a professor and scientist at the University of Virginia, explored the intriguing case of Grant, a boy from the American Midwest who, from an early age, would tell his mother that she was not his only mom and claimed to remember a past life. At the age of five, Grant asked his parents, "Do you remember when I was in the Vietnam War?" He shared specific details about serving in the U.S. Army, being on the beach and in the jungle, and dying in an explosion at the age of 21 in 1969. He also provided his former last name, Slaven, and mentioned his home state and attending Central High School.

 

Grant's mother decided to investigate his claims. She thoroughly searched the Vietnam Memorial database and discovered a 21-year-old soldier named Slaven from the same state, who had been killed in action in 1969 during the war. When shown photos from the site, Grant pointed to the soldier and said, "Oh, that's me." This discovery led Grant's mother to contact Dr. Tucker's office.

 

Investigation:

Before meeting Grant and his family, Dr. Tucker retrieved the soldier's obituary and collected photographs of people and places from his life. He then presented these photos to Grant alongside decoy photographs. Grant was uncertain about two sets but accurately identified the relevant photos in the six sets he felt confident about.

 

Past-life investigators further tested Grant's claims by presenting him with pairs of images, including Slaven's high school, childhood home, parents, teachers, and classmates. Remarkably, Grant correctly identified the relevant images in each pair.

 

Recognitions by Grant:

1) Soldier's Photo: Grant identified the photo of a 21-year-old soldier with his given last name and home state on the Vietnam Memorial website, claiming "Oh, that's me."

2) High School: When shown images of two different Central High Schools, Grant pointed to the correct one that the soldier had attended.

3) Childhood Home: Grant correctly identified the soldier's childhood home from a pair of images.

4) Parents: Grant accurately selected the soldier's parents from photo pairs.

5) Teachers: Grant correctly identified the soldier's teachers from photo pairs.

6) Classmates: Grant accurately selected the soldier's classmates from photo pairs.

 

Verifications:

1) Vietnam Memorial Database: Grant's mother verified the existence of a soldier with the same last name and home state who died in 1969 at the age of 21.

2) Obituary: Dr. Tucker retrieved the soldier's obituary, confirming details about his life, including his family's address.

3) Photo Tests: Dr. Tucker presented Grant with sets of photos, including decoy images. Grant correctly identified the relevant photos in six out of eight sets.

4) Consistency in Grant's Account: Grant's descriptions of serving in the army, being on the beach and in the jungle, and dying in an explosion matched the circumstances of the soldier's death.

5) Uncommon Last Name: The last name provided by Grant, Slaven, was uncommon, reducing the likelihood of a coincidental match.

6) Central High School: Grant's mention of attending Central High School was verified, as the soldier had indeed attended a school with that name.

 

Other information:

Grant's detailed descriptions of serving in the army, being on the beach and in the jungle, and dying in an explosion matched the circumstances of Slaven's death. Additionally, his mention of attending Central High School was verified, as Slaven had indeed attended a school with that name. The combination of Grant's specific memories, the verifications made by his mother and investigators, and the successful photo tests contribute to the evidence supporting Grant's claimed memories of a past life. However, it is important to mention that the intermission life memories of this Western reincarnation case were not uncovered for the general public.

 

[Special note: If you are interested in stopping reincarnation, please follow the instructions of PRACTICAL MEDITATION GUIDE BY A FOREST MONK book. That book is a meditation book written by a forest monk named Brahmadeva. It is a free book. It is free to download from the internet. This website also provide that book for free: https://practicalmeditationguide.mystrikingly.com Download now!]

 

Iceland Einar Jonsson reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Iceland)

A verified reincarnation case in Iceland. [The child who described a farm he had never visited.]

 

In the beautiful landscapes of Iceland, a peculiar story unfolded, one that would catch the attention of renowned reincarnation researchers Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson. The tale began with the birth of Einar Jonsson on July 25, 1969, in the capital city of Reykjavik, to parents Jon Nielsson and Helga Haraldsdottir. Einar was their only child, and his early years were marked by his parents' separation, with him staying with his mother and maternal grandparents in the city.

 

Einar's Early Life and Peculiar Statements:

Einar began speaking around the age of 18 months, but it was when he turned two that his mother and grandparents started noticing something unusual. The toddler began making references to events and people that were unfamiliar to them. Some of his statements included:

 

1. "A tractor turned over, and a man died." Einar would repeat this phrase often, sometimes even acting out the scene with his toys.

2. "I have another mother, and she is dead." This statement was particularly troubling for Helga, as Einar would often reject her and even refuse her touch.

3. Einar described a farm with cows, sheep, a boat, and a large farmhouse with an unusual mountain behind it. He mentioned a fire and an accident involving the boat.

4. The boy also spoke of a man who limped, but he never provided any names or specific locations.

 

Helga and her parents were baffled by Einar's statements. They had no knowledge of any events or people matching his descriptions within their family or acquaintances. However, a chilling realization dawned on them when they learned about a recent tragedy in their extended family.

 

The Life and Tragic Death of Harald Olafsson:

Harald Olafsson was born on May 22, 1955, in the northern town of Akureyri, to parents Olaf Petursson and Marta Sigurdsdottir. Marta was Jon Nielsson's mother, making Harald Jon's stepbrother—and Einar's step-uncle. Harald grew up on a farm in Laufas, near Akureyri, and his life was seemingly ordinary until a fateful day in July 1969.

 

On July 18, 1969, just a week before Einar's birth, Harald was helping a neighbor cut grass with a tractor. On his way home, the tractor somehow went off the road and overturned, killing Harald instantly. His body was found by a passerby, and the news of his tragic death sent shockwaves through the family.

 

As Einar continued to make his peculiar statements, Helga and her parents began to suspect that the boy was somehow recalling the life and death of Harald. They were aware that Jon had lived in Laufas until he was 16 or 17 and knew the area and Harald well. However, Jon had left Laufas when Harald was around 9 years old and had little contact with the family since. Moreover, Helga had never been to Laufas or known Harald personally.

 

Scientific investigation:

March 1973: The case came to the attention of Dr. Ian Stevenson through a correspondent in Reykjavik, Geir Vilhjálmasson. Intrigued, Dr. Stevenson asked his colleague, Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, to investigate the case.

 

November 1973: Dr. Haraldsson interviewed Helga Haraldsdottir, who recounted Einar's statements and behavior. By this time, Einar was 4 years old and had stopped speaking about the previous life.

 

August 16, 1980: Dr. Stevenson traveled to Iceland to interview Einar's parents personally. During the long interview, Jon and Helga shared their memories of Einar's statements and his unusual behavior.

 

April 11, 1985: Dr. Stevenson returned to Iceland to interview Marta Sigurdsdottir, Harald's mother and Einar's paternal grandmother. She traveled from her home in the countryside to Reykjavik for the meeting, with Einar and Helga also present. Marta provided valuable insights into Harald's life and confirmed many of Einar's statements.

 

October 23, 1999: Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Haraldsson visited Laufas to verify Einar's descriptions of the farm and its surroundings. They interviewed Marta Sigurdsdottir again and also spoke with Olaf Petursson, Harald's father. The researchers were able to confirm many of Einar's statements through these interviews and their own observations.

 

Einar's Statements and Verifications:

-Tractor accident: Jon Nielsson, Marta Sigurdsdottir, and a newspaper report in Morgunbladid (July 22, 1969) confirmed that Harald died in a tractor accident.

-Big brother: Marta Sigurdsdottir confirmed that Harald had an older brother, Eirikur Olafsson.

-Another mother who was dead: This statement was incorrect, as Marta Sigurdsdottir was still living. However, from Einar's perspective, she was absent, as he had never met her.

-Man who limped: Marta Sigurdsdottir confirmed that Harald's maternal grandfather, Sigurd Stefansson, had stayed with the family for about 6 months during the last year of his life and was limping at the time. He died in 1958 or 1959 when Harald was 3-4 years old.

-Large farmhouse: Helga Haraldsdottir and Dr. Stevenson's visit to Laufas in 1999 confirmed that the farmhouse was indeed large compared to others in the area.

-Mountain behind the house: Helga Haraldsdottir, Marta Sigurdsdottir, and Dr. Stevenson's visit to Laufas in 1999 confirmed the presence of a mountain directly behind the farmhouse.

-Unusual shape of the mountain: One side of the mountain was a steep cliff, not a slope. This matched Einar's description, although such formations are not uncommon in Iceland.

-Horses: Marta Sigurdsdottir confirmed they had one horse during Harald's lifetime, although Einar mentioned "horses" in the plural.

-Barn: Jon Nielsson confirmed there were farm buildings near the farmhouse, but they were likely built after Harald's death.

-Sheephouse and cowhouse: Jon Nielsson and Marta Sigurdsdottir confirmed the presence of a sheephouse and cowhouse on the farm.

-Fire in the cowhouse and sheephouse: This statement was incorrect. There was a fire in the farmhouse in 1969, after Harald's death, but no fire in the outbuildings.

-Skis: This statement was incorrect. No one in the family had skis.

-Bicycle: Marta Sigurdsdottir confirmed Harald had a bicycle, although Jon Nielsson did not remember it.

-Small boat on the farm: Marta Sigurdsdottir and Jon Nielsson confirmed the presence of a small boat on the farm, primarily used for fishing.

-Broken boat: Jon Nielsson and Olaf Petursson confirmed that a boat had been destroyed during Harald's lifetime. Olaf even showed the researchers a photograph of the broken boat.

 

Einar's Behavior and Later Development:

Einar never directly claimed to have lived a previous life but spoke as if he were observing someone else's experiences. His statements and behavior caused confusion and distress within the family, particularly for his mother, Helga. Einar would often reject her, asking to go to his "other mother" and claiming that she was dead. At other times, he would say that his maternal grandmother was his mother, although this confusion was not fixed, and he would sometimes contradict himself.

 

Einar's father, Jon, was also a source of confusion for the boy. Although Jon had little contact with Einar during his early years, Einar would sometimes mention having two fathers to his playmates. He was generally repetitious in his statements, often talking about his big brother and the mountain in the countryside.

 

Despite his early memories and peculiar statements, Einar had no phobia of tractors or other vehicles. When Dr. Stevenson met Einar in 1985, at the age of 15½, he remembered nothing of the previous life. He had no special inclination towards country or city life and expressed an interest in learning more about computers.

 

A Visit to Laufas:

When Einar was around 5 years old, Helga decided to take him to Laufas, hoping to find answers to the many questions raised by his statements. Upon arriving at the farm, Helga was struck by the accuracy of Einar's descriptions. The large farmhouse and the oddly shaped mountain behind it matched the boy's accounts perfectly.

 

Other information:

Harald Olafsson was born at Akureyri on May 22, 1955. Einar Jonsson was born on July 25, 1969, in Reykjavik, Iceland. Dr. Stevenson considered the case solved with a guarded affirmative, as the details provided by Einar were unlikely to be found together on other farms. The short interval (7 days) between Harald's death and Einar's birth, combined with Einar's recall of events from much earlier in the previous life, made the case unusual but not unique.

 

The Einar Jonsson reincarnation case remains a fascinating and well-documented example of the reincarnation phenomenon, offering intriguing insights into the possibility of life after death and the potential for memories to transcend the boundaries of a single lifetime. The book ‘Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects’ by Ian Stevenson (1997, Vol. 2, Praeger) contains comprehensive scientific research on this specific case, along with other related cases. Additionally, the book ‘European Cases of the Reincarnation Type’ by Ian Stevenson also provides detailed scientific research on this rebirth case, as well as other related cases.

 

 

 

 

 

Finland Teuvo Koivisto reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Researcher Rita Castren, Parapsychologist, (Finland)

A verified reincarnation case in Finland. [The Finnish small child who remembered a past life in a German concentration camp.]

 

In the city of Helsinki, Finland, on August 20, 1971, a boy named Teuvo Koivisto was born to Jan and Lusa Koivisto. Teuvo was the youngest of their four children, all boys. Jan was a successful businessman, and the family had a rich tapestry of ancestry, predominantly Finnish but with traces of German, Hungarian, Polish, and even Jewish heritage. The Koivistos were members of the Lutheran Church.

 

But Lusa Koivisto was no stranger to the idea of past lives and rebirth. She had experienced various memories that she believed were from her own past lives—one in France during the French Revolution and another, more vaguely, in Tibet, Asia. These experiences had prepared her to be an open-minded and attentive person when her youngest son began to speak of his own past life memories.

 

Dreams During Pregnancy:

During her pregnancy with Teuvo, Lusa had two unusual dreams that would later take on profound significance. In the first dream, she found herself in a line of prisoners in a Near Eastern setting. A strange ghostly voice advised her to take shelter under straw, and she escaped, finding herself with a man who had a copy of the Cabbala. Men were shooting, and one man said, "The baby you are expecting is a Jew, and I will save your life."

 

In the second dream, Lusa was in a tent lined with red velvet. A wise old man with a telescope pointed out a bright light, which was becoming larger due to the conjunction of three planets. He said, "That is your light." Lusa later learned that on the day of Teuvo’s birth, a conjunction of Mars and Venus had occurred.

 

Teuvo's Early Life:

Teuvo was a healthy baby, but he developed a phobia of the dark, requiring a light to be left on at night. He began speaking in sentences around the age of 2 and spoke fluently by the age of 3. It was around this time that Teuvo began to describe experiences that seemed to come from a past life—a life marked by the horrors of a concentration camp.

 

Statements by Teuvo Koivisto:

-"There was a big furnace where people were piled higgledy-piggledy in layers."

-"Some were lying on top of others."

-"I was taken to the 'bathroom' where personal objects like eyeglasses and golden teeth were removed."

-"Gas came pouring out of the walls, and I couldn't breathe."

-"I knew I was going to be put in the furnace, but I didn't say that I was actually put there."

-"Then I came to you. I was given here. Are you happy, Mummy, that I came to you?"

-"I was caught by the barbed wire. Come and get me off."

-"There was an oven with children in it."

 

Statements by Lusa Koivisto:

-"Teuvo told me that he had been alive before."

-"He referred to 'the big furnace' and gave some details about it."

-"He mentioned that the people were piled higgledy-piggledy in layers in the furnace."

-"Teuvo was extremely frightened and terrified as he described the experiences he seemed to remember."

-"He was so disturbed that I tried to distract him by telling him a fairy-tale."

-"Teuvo often repeated his first statements, always when he awoke in the morning."

-"He continued to speak about the memories for about half a year."

-"Teuvo remained afraid of being in the dark until he was 7 years old."

-"He often hid himself and sometimes knocked down walls separating rooms."

-"Teuvo developed difficulty in breathing at the time he first described his memories."

-"The breathing attacks lasted 10-15 minutes and occurred irregularly."

 

Teuvo's Statements About the Previous Life:

One morning, after awakening, Teuvo surprised his mother by describing in considerable detail what it was like to be in a concentration camp and put to death with gas. He mentioned a "big furnace" where people were piled higgledy-piggledy in layers. He described being taken to a "bathroom" where personal objects like eyeglasses and golden teeth were removed. Gas came pouring out of the walls, making it difficult to breathe.

 

Teuvo said he "knew" he was going to be put in the furnace but did not say he was actually put there. He said he came to his mother after seeing others being put there. He also described an "oven" with children in it. After making these statements, Teuvo asked his mother, "Then I came to you. I was given here. Are you happy, Mummy, that I came to you?"

 

Some time later, Teuvo said, "I was caught by the barbed wire. Come and get me off." He seemed depressed at this time.

 

Teuvo's Behavior Related to the Previous Life:

Teuvo's descriptions were accompanied by intense emotions. He was extremely frightened and terrified as he described the memories. He often repeated his first statements, always when he awoke in the morning, for about half a year. He remained afraid of being in the dark until he was 7 years old.

 

Teuvo exhibited unusual behaviors that seemed to be connected to his past life memories. He often hid himself and sometimes knocked down walls separating rooms. He sometimes played at being a soldier, imitating his older brother. Up to the age of 2, Teuvo did not wish to wear clothes, even in cold weather. Unlike some other reincarnation cases, Teuvo showed no behavior typically associated with Jewish culture.

 

Teuvo's Difficulty in Breathing:

At the time Teuvo first described his memories, he developed difficulty in breathing. The attacks lasted 10-15 minutes and occurred irregularly. A physician determined that Teuvo did not have asthma. This symptom was still present in 1978 when Dr. Ian Stevenson, a renowned researcher in the field of reincarnation, interviewed Lusa.

 

Behavioral Correlations:

Teuvo's phobia of the dark, his hiding behavior, and his difficulty in breathing align with the traumatic experiences he described. These behaviors can be seen as manifestations of his past life memories. His aversion to Nazi symbols and his feeling of anxiety when seeing Nazi uniforms or the Nazi flag further support the idea that he had a traumatic past life experience related to the Holocaust.

 

Verifications:

The details Teuvo provided about the concentration camps were verified to be historically accurate. The descriptions of furnaces, gas chambers, the removal of personal items, and the piling of bodies are well-documented aspects of the Holocaust. Historical accounts confirm that children were sometimes thrown into fire pits alive, and that the Germans removed gold teeth from the victims after gassing them.

 

Lusa Koivisto firmly stated that Teuvo could not have acquired the information about German concentration camps through normal means. Teuvo was rarely allowed to watch television and never any program showing violence. His parents and older brothers never discussed German concentration camps and gas chambers in his presence. The family lived in their own house and had no social relationships with neighbors. Teuvo was shy and never talked with the neighbors. No grandparents were living with the immediate family.

 

Finland's Experience with Germans During World War II:

Finland allied itself with Germany during World War II but limited its collaboration. Finland did not participate in the German siege of Leningrad and resisted German demands for the return of Jewish refugees. The number of Jewish refugees in Finland delivered to the Germans was not more than 50 and may have been as few as four. Finland had a small population of Jews who were Finnish citizens, not refugees from Central Europe.

 

Absence of Connections of the Koivistos with Jewish People:

The Koivistos had no social connections with Jewish people, reducing the likelihood that Teuvo's memories were influenced by exposure to Jewish culture or history. During the years of Finland's collaboration with Germany (1940-44), Lusa's family lived in an apartment building with some Jewish tenants, but Lusa did not know if any were removed by the Germans. This lack of direct exposure further supports the idea that Teuvo's memories were not influenced by external factors.

 

Correspondences Between Teuvo's Statements and Features of German Concentration Camps:

Teuvo's descriptions matched details of concentration camps: barbed wire, seizure of personal property, forced undressing, the pretense of "bathrooms," death from poison gas, and burning of victims' bodies in furnaces. The Germans removed the gold teeth of the killed prisoners after they were gassed and before they were burned. Children were sometimes thrown alive into fire pits at Treblinka and Auschwitz. Teuvo's mention of difficulty breathing corresponds to eyewitness accounts of the gassing procedure. Teuvo's "hiding behavior" may correspond with conditions in the Warsaw ghetto before the Jewish revolt of 1943.

 

Teuvo's Later Development:

Teuvo attended a business school and graduated. He chose music as a vocation and was working as a professional musician and teaching music in 1999. His difficulty in breathing ceased by the time he began school at around the age of 5.

 

Teuvo married in 1997 and had a 2-year-old son by 1999. He remembered his "hiding behavior" and always wanted to feel safe. He was dissatisfied with his present residence because it had no hiding place. Teuvo felt anxiety when he saw Nazi uniforms or the Nazi flag (swastika) but had no fear of the flags of Great Britain or France. He was interested in learning religions but had no special attraction to Judaism. He believed in reincarnation but found the idea of rebirth incompatible with Christianity.

 

Scientific Research:

Rita Castrén, a parapsychologist from Finland, learned of this case in early 1976, when Teuvo was about 4½ years old. She interviewed Lusa Koivisto on February 2, 1976, and sent notes of the interview to Dr. Stevenson. Dr. Stevenson interviewed Lusa on December 1, 1978, in Helsinki.

 

In the autumn of 1999, Dr. Stevenson visited Finland again. On this occasion, he was unable to meet Lusa Koivisto, but Rita Castrén talked with her twice on the telephone and obtained additional information about Teuvo’s childhood and later development. On September 25, 1999, Dr. Stevenson met Teuvo in Helsinki and had a long interview with him.

 

The statements of Teuvo Koivisto and those of David Llewelyn both described features of German concentration camps; but each remembered different details. They may have remembered lives and deaths at different camps. Alternatively, different features of the same camp may have impressed the minds of the two persons whose memories David and Teuvo later had.

 

Teuvo's account condensed some events in the procedure of killing prisoners, but the details were remarkably correct. It does not follow that the life Teuvo seemed to remember had ended in Auschwitz or Birkenau; similar methods of killing were used in other camps like Treblinka and Sobibor. The recognitions and verifications in Teuvo Koivisto's case provide a strong basis for considering his past life memories as authentic. The detailed and consistent nature of his descriptions, the emotional intensity of his recollections, the correspondence with historical records, and the lack of normal exposure to such information all contribute to the credibility of his reincarnation case. The thorough documentation and interviews conducted by researchers further substantiate the authenticity of Teuvo's experiences.

 

 

British Graham Le-Gros reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in United Kingdom. [The child who remembered the red letters on an airship.]

 

Early Life and Initial Statements:

London is the capital and largest city of both England and the United Kingdom. Its metropolitan area is the largest in Western Europe. The city is situated on the River Thames in southeast England and has been a significant settlement for nearly 2,000 years.

 

Graham Le-Gros was born on October 31, 1984, in London, England, to middle-class parents Alan and Denise Le-Gros. He was their fifth child, with his closest sibling being a brother four years his senior. Denise was a Roman Catholic, while Alan had been baptized in the Church of England.

 

When Graham was just a toddler, around 14 months old, he surprised his mother with an unexpected statement. As they were driving together in the car, Graham suddenly said, "You know, Mummy, I've lived before, and I died in a fire on an airship." This statement was unusual not only due to its content but also because Graham had not yet begun to speak in full sentences. His vocabulary up to that point had consisted of single words or brief phrases.

 

Over the next 8 to 9 years, Graham would occasionally repeat these statements. He mentioned that people were screaming and had flames coming from them. He also said that he fell down to the ground along with other people and then suddenly shot upwards. These statements were consistent, and Graham would not add or subtract details when asked about them by family members or neighbors.

 

Recognition of the Hindenburg Disaster:

When Graham was 9 years old, his mother was watching television and saw a film about the Hindenburg disaster. The Hindenburg was a German airship that caught fire and crashed in Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 6, 1937. Denise called Graham into the room without telling him why. Upon seeing the footage, Graham spontaneously exclaimed, "That's my dream, that's what I see; that's my dream." This incident suggested that Graham's memories of a past life were still present at the age of 9.

 

Further Details Emerge:

In March 1994, Denise recorded a conversation with Graham about his experiences. During this conversation, Graham provided additional details about his memories:

 

- He mentioned that the airship had large letters in red on it, but he couldn't remember the name.

- He recalled seeing paper on fire and people jumping out of a hole.

- Some people on the airship spoke a different language, but some were English.

- He believed he was around 16 years old in the previous life.

 

Later that year, when Graham and his mother met with Dr. Ian Stevenson, Graham mentioned two more details:

 

- He remembered "walking along outside" before seeing the fire on the airship.

- He said that the airship started shaking, and he fell off.

 

Investigation:

Denise Le-Gros learned about Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation cases and wrote to him on February 17, 1994, describing Graham's statements. Stevenson, a professor and scientist at the University of Virginia, took an interest in the case and requested additional information. After receiving the tape recording of Graham's conversation with his mother, Stevenson interviewed Graham and Denise in person at his hotel in London on August 28, 1994.

 

Stevenson considered using hypnosis to help Graham remember more details about his past life. However, despite his efforts, Stevenson was unable to find a suitable hypnotist in the London area with the necessary competence and interest in hypnosis.

 

Possible Past Lives:

Based on Graham's statements, two historical airship disasters seemed to be the most likely candidates for his past life: the R.101 and the Hindenburg.

 

1. The R.101: This British airship crashed on its maiden voyage from Cardington, England, to India on October 4, 1930. Among the crew was a steward named Eric A. Graham, who served as the cook. The R.101 crashed near Beauvais, France, and a fire consumed the airship, killing almost everyone on board. The detail of Graham's past-life name being "probably Graham" and the fact that everyone on the R.101 spoke English seemed to support this possibility.

 

2. The Hindenburg: This German airship caught fire and crashed in Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 6, 1937. The Hindenburg had the word "Hindenburg" printed in large red letters on its side. The crew and most passengers were German, but there were a few Americans and possibly other nationalities on board. The details of the red letters and people speaking a foreign language seemed to support this possibility.

 

Fading Memories and Behavior:

By the time Graham was nearly 10 years old, his memories of the past life were fading. He did not exhibit any phobias related to his past-life memories, such as a fear of fire, airplanes, or airships. Additionally, he did not have any unusual dietary preferences that might suggest a past life as a German.

 

Data Analysis:

Dr. Stevenson noted that while Graham's recognition of the Hindenburg footage was significant, it was still possible that he had seen the name "Hindenburg" in large letters on the airship during the film. However, the detail of the letters being red was not something that could have been known from black-and-white photographs of the time. Additionally, the mention of people speaking a foreign language seemed to fit better with the Hindenburg disaster.

 

On the other hand, the name "Eric Graham" and the consistency of everyone speaking English seemed to point towards the R.101 disaster. Ultimately, without further details or verification through hypnosis, the case remained inconclusive.

 

The Graham Le-Gros case is one of the shorter cases in Dr. Ian Stevenson's research, consisting mainly of a few statements and a recognition. Nevertheless, it provides intriguing evidence for the possibility of reincarnation and the spontaneous recall of past lives in young children.

 

 

American Susan Eastland reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in United States of America. [The girl who remembered being kissed by a boy at a bowling alley in her past life.]

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a renowned professor and scientist from the University of Virginia, documented a compelling reincarnation case in the United States involving a young girl named Susan Eastland. This case provides intriguing evidence of memories and behaviors that suggest Susan is the reincarnation of her older sister, Winnie, who died tragically in an automobile accident.

 

In 1968, Dr. Stevenson received a letter from Charlotte Eastland, Susan's mother, detailing Susan's unusual statements and behaviors. Charlotte had read about Dr. Stevenson's research and felt compelled to share her daughter's story. Over the next year, Dr. Stevenson exchanged letters with Charlotte and eventually visited the family in Idaho in the summer of 1969.

 

Winnie's Life and Death:

Winnie was a lovable six-year-old girl who was fatally injured in a car accident in 1961. Her sudden death left the family devastated, particularly her mother, Charlotte. The family had a vague notion about reincarnation but no concrete beliefs. Despite this, they held a hope that Winnie might return to them in some form.

 

Expectations and Dreams:

About six months after Winnie's death, her older sister, Sharon, dreamed that Winnie was coming back to the family. Two years later, when Charlotte became pregnant, she dreamed of Winnie being with the family again. When Susan was born in 1964, her first husband, the father of all her children, thought he heard Winnie's voice saying distinctly, "Daddy, I'm coming home."

 

Susan's Early Statements:

When Susan was about two years old, she made several statements that seemed to reference Winnie's life. When asked how old she was, Susan would answer that she was six, the age Winnie had been when she died. This sense of being older than her actual age persisted. At five, Susan insisted that she was older than her brother Richard, who was then eleven. Winnie had been more than three years older than Richard, making Susan's remark accurate for Winnie but incorrect for her own age.

 

Identifying Photographs:

Susan showed an unusual interest in two photographs of Winnie and claimed they were pictures of herself. She insisted on having them, keeping one by her bed and carrying the other around for weeks, repeating that it was a photograph of herself. Charlotte thought she might have told Susan that the photographs were of Winnie but had not mentioned her belief that Susan might be Winnie reborn.

 

School and Playground Memories:

Susan frequently used the phrase "When I went to school" and talked about playing on the swings at school. Susan had not yet gone to school and had only played on a swing in the family's backyard, not at a school. Winnie, however, had started school before her death and used to play on the swings there.

 

The Cookie Jar Game:

During Winnie's lifetime, Charlotte had a cookie jar with a cat on its lid. She played a game with her children where they would ask the cat how many cookies they could have, and Charlotte would reply in a squeaky voice, "Meow, you may have one." After Winnie's death, the cookie jar was packed away for several years. When Susan was about four, Charlotte brought it out and filled it with cookies. Susan asked for a cookie, and Charlotte, unthinkingly, asked, "Well, what does the kitty say?" Susan startled her by replying, "Meow, you may have one."

 

Memories of Specific Events:

Susan described an occasion when she and other family members had gone to a beach and caught a crab, naming the family members present. Charlotte recalled that the family had gone to a beach in Washington the year before Winnie's death but couldn't remember catching a crab. Susan correctly named three of the four persons who had been present but initially included her stepfather, who had not been there. Later, she corrected herself, saying that Winnie's (and her) father had been present.

 

Susan also referred to playing in a pasture with her sister, Sharon, and being unafraid of horses, even walking under one. All this was correct for Winnie, who had played in a pasture with Sharon, was unafraid of horses, and had once walked under one.

 

Remembering Neighbors:

Charlotte asked Susan if she remembered the little boy Gregory who lived across the street. Susan replied, "Yes, I remember Greggy. I used to play with him." "Greggy" had been Gregory's short name, and Charlotte had not mentioned it before Susan did.

 

Susan also remembered Uncle George, who lived up the street, and said they used to stop and see him before going to school and play awhile. This had been Winnie's custom; in fact, she had stopped to play at Uncle George's house on the day she was killed.

 

Stimulating Memories:

Charlotte sometimes tried to stimulate Susan's memories by asking questions about events from Winnie's life. For example, she told Susan that Winnie had lost some new shoes in a field. Susan laughed and said she hadn't cared about the loss, adding, "And you had to go up to town and buy me some more." Such an incident had happened to Winnie, who had lost her only pair of shoes in a field.

 

Additional Memories:

In 1977, when Dr. Stevenson was corresponding with Charlotte to recheck details, Susan recalled another incident from Winnie's life. She told her mother about a time when she (as Winnie) had accompanied her mother to a bowling alley. While her mother was bowling, Winnie was left in the area where food and candy were sold but kept running between this area and where her mother was. A boy who happened to be there was running around with Winnie and kissed her. Charlotte remembered this incident well, especially because the boy's kissing Winnie had greatly annoyed her husband when she told him about it.

 

Personality and Physical Traits:

Susan learned rapidly, and Charlotte wrote in one of her letters to Dr. Stevenson, "Sometimes I feel when she learns something new that she knew it all the time and only had to be reminded of it." Charlotte noticed two features of personality in which she thought Susan and Winnie resembled each other: both were rather aggressive girls and both were well-coordinated. She distinguished them from her other daughter, Sharon, who was inclined to be timid and poorly coordinated.

 

Physically, Susan and Winnie did not resemble each other. Winnie had red hair and extremely dark eyes, while Susan had blond hair and blue eyes. Both girls had a rather heavy growth of hair on their backs, a trait they shared with their father but not with their other siblings.

 

Birthmark Correspondence:

Susan had a small birthmark on her left hip, an area of increased pigmentation (nevus) about 1.3 cm by 1.0 cm. Its location corresponded fairly closely to the site of the most serious injury Winnie received when she was struck by the automobile and fatally injured. Dr. Stevenson obtained a copy of Winnie's medical records from the hospital to verify this. No other member of the family had a similar birthmark.

 

Other Information:

This case is notable because the family's religious background was not favorable to the belief in reincarnation. Charlotte belonged to a Christian church that sternly denies the possibility of reincarnation. When Dr. Stevenson visited her, she told him that she thought her congregation might expel her from the church if they suspected that she found the idea of reincarnation attractive.

 

Susan never explicitly stated that she was Winnie, but her memories and behaviors strongly suggested a connection to Winnie's life. Her memories were fragmentary and not organized into a coherent pattern, but they were consistent with Winnie's experiences. The case of Susan Eastland adds to the growing body of evidence that suggests the possibility of rebirth, even in western cultures where such beliefs are not widely accepted. Ian Stevenson's book 'Children Who Remember Previous Lives' offers a comprehensive and scientifically-documented account of this reincarnation case.

 

 

Finland Paavo Sorsa reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

A verified reincarnation case in Finland. [The boy whose cognitive and motor deficiencies were linked to his past life's fatal injuries.]

 

Investigator: Dr. Ian Stevenson, United States of America.

Location: Tampere, Finland.

Subject: Paavo Sorsa.

Remembered Previous Personality: Kalevi Paasio.

 

Case and Its Investigation:

Paavo Sorsa was born in Tampere, Finland, on June 24, 1991. His parents were Veikko Sorsa and his wife, Sylvi. Veikko was a mechanic and Sylvi was a part-time masseuse. Veikko and Sylvi later had a daughter, Leea; and Sylvi had had two other children by previous husbands. Of these, the important one for this case was Kalevi Paasio, whose father (Risto Paasio) killed him when he was about 2½ years old.

 

After Kalevi’s death, Sylvi wished for him to be reborn as her child, although she did not expect this. After she and Veikko became companions, but before they were actually married, she had a vivid dream about Kalevi.

 

When Paavo was born, he seemed to have an impressive physical resemblance to Kalevi. He had no birthmark. Paavo began to speak clearly at the age of about 2; when he was 3, he made several statements suggesting memories of the life of Kalevi, of whom he would have heard nothing before he made such statements. He showed unusual behavior that also suggested memories of Kalevi’s life and death.

 

Sylvi notified Rita Castrén about the case in late 1998, and Rita Castrén informed Dr. Ian Stevenson about it soon afterward. On March 8, 1999, Sylvi Sorsa wrote a long letter to Rita Castrén about Paavo’s statements and related behavior. Rita Castrén translated this into English and sent it to Dr. Stevenson.

 

In September 1999, Dr. Stevenson returned to Finland, partly to study this case and partly to learn about the further development of the other subjects of the Finnish cases in this volume. On September 22, Rita Castrén and Dr. Stevenson journeyed from Helsinki to Tampere (by train), and from there they went (by taxi) to the somewhat remote village of Mutala. They spent 4 hours with Sylvi before returning to Helsinki. They met and talked a little with Paavo and saw something of Sylvi’s two other children. They did not meet Veikko Sorsa, who was working; and Sylvi remains the sole informant for the case.

 

The Life and Death of Kalevi Paasio:

Kalevi Paasio was born in Tampere on December 11, 1987. His parents were Sylvi and her then-husband, Risto Paasio. Kalevi was their only child. They lived in the village of Ylöjärvi, which is about 25 kilometers from Tampere. Risto was given to shouting and also to violence. In quarrels with Sylvi, he sometimes beat her to the point where she complained about him to the police.

 

Kalevi witnessed his father’s abuse of his mother. He himself was afraid of his father. This seems to have delayed his speaking. He did not begin speaking until an occasion when Risto was absent for 2 weeks. Kalevi then began to speak, but became silent again when his father returned. He was more than 2 years old by then.

 

Eventually, Sylvi separated from Risto. Risto then obtained some custodial rights with Kalevi, who stayed with him on weekends. On one such weekend, Risto took Kalevi with him to his father’s home near Kurikka, a town which is about 130 kilometers northwest of Tampere. There he flew into a rage with Kalevi and killed him. There were no witnesses to this dreadful crime, but Risto after his arrest gave a fairly circumstantial account of how he had murdered his son. He first tried to asphyxiate the boy by exposing him to the fumes, laden with carbon monoxide, of the wood stove. Then he tried to prevent the child from breathing by stopping up his nose and mouth. He seems then to have relented for a time. The next day, however, he again tried to asphyxiate the boy and finally struck him on the head four times with a plank of wood. He broke Kalevi’s skull, and the boy died of the associated damage to his brain. This tragedy occurred on May 11, 1990.

 

Risto was arrested and sentenced to prison. He later committed suicide while in prison.

 

Sylvi’s Announcing Dream:

A few months after Kalevi’s death, but before she became pregnant with Paavo, Sylvi had a vivid dream about Risto and Kalevi. In the dream, she heard the doorbell ring. She went to the door, opened it, and found Risto and Kalevi there. Risto disappeared, but Kalevi came in and sat on a window sill. Sylvi tried to touch him and found that her hand went through him.

 

This dream was so vivid and realistic that Sylvi was unsure whether she was dreaming or seeing real discarnate ghost persons while awake. She had never had a similar experience before.

 

At this time, although she and Veikko were living together, she had not become pregnant. She wanted to have another child and became pregnant with Paavo soon after she and Veikko married. Paavo was born a little more than 13 months after Kalevi’s death.

 

Statements Made by Paavo:

1. Refusal to Enter the House:

- Statement: "This house is not my home. I want to go to my own home."

- Context: When Paavo was about 3 years old, he refused to enter his current house, insisting that it was not his home. This occurred during a winter when he and his mother were outside, and he was playing with his sled.

 

2. Reaction to Photograph of Sylvi:

- Statement: "Nobody will be allowed to beat you."

- Context: Paavo found a photograph of his mother, Sylvi, that showed injuries from a beating by Risto. Upon seeing the photograph, Paavo burst into tears and made this statement, despite never having been told about the photograph or the abuse.

 

3. Identification with Kalevi's Photographs:

- Statement: "These are photographs of myself."

- Context: When Paavo saw photographs of Kalevi, he insisted that they were photographs of himself.

 

4. Intervention When Veikko Raised His Voice:

- Statement: "Nobody shouts to Mom."

- Context: Although Veikko was a quiet person, if he ever raised his voice, Paavo would immediately intervene and make this statement. This behavior was likely influenced by memories of Risto's abusive behavior toward Sylvi.

 

Statements, along with Paavo's unusual behaviors and physical similarities to Kalevi, were the key elements.

 

Additional information:

As mentioned, Sylvi had lived with Risto in the village of Ylöjärvi. With Veikko, she lived in a different village, Mutala, although this was still in the region of Tampere. The houses were quite different.

 

When Paavo was about 3, during a winter, he and Sylvi were outside while Paavo played with his sled. When they went back to the house, Paavo refused to go inside. He said that this house was not his and he wanted to go to “his own home.” Sylvi tried to persuade him that this one was his home, but he insisted that it was not. The argument continued until Paavo finally became tired, and Sylvi was able to get him into the house, although he was still protesting that it was not his.

 

Paavo once found a photograph of Sylvi that showed some effects of a beating by Risto. The police had taken it as evidence after she had complained to them of being abused by Risto. When Paavo saw the photograph, he burst into tears and said to his mother: “Nobody will be allowed to beat you.” Although the photograph obviously showed injuries to Sylvi’s face, she had never spoken to Paavo about her life with Risto and had not mentioned the photograph to him. The facial injuries might have been accidental.

 

When Paavo saw photographs of Kalevi, he said they were photographs of himself.

 

Paavo’s Behavior Related to the Previous Life:

During his first few years, Paavo suffered from frequent nightmares. In his sleep, he would yell and seem to be struggling to push other people away from him. Sometimes while he was sleeping, the skin around his lips turned blue and white. He never described in words the contents of his nightmares. They had ceased by 1999, when he was sleeping peacefully.

 

Sylvi had a harmonious relationship with Veikko, who was a quiet person not given to shouting as Risto had been. If, however, he happened to raise his voice a little because of some transient excitement, Paavo would intervene immediately and say: “Nobody shouts to Mom.”

 

Other Relevant Behavior of Paavo:

Paavo was strongly attached to his mother and wished to be with her as much as he could. In this respect, he differed markedly from his stepsiblings. Rita Castrén and Dr. Stevenson observed this behavior when they spent 4 hours with Sylvi and Paavo in Mutala. Her other two children were present during part of this time.

 

Paavo had substantial motor and cognitive deficiencies. He was slow to learn at school and frequently forgot his assignments for homework. Sylvi helped him with this, and the school also arranged for him to have some additional instruction at the school. In September 1999, he was in the second grade of school. Although he was shy, he was not socially withdrawn and in no way troublesome at school. The administrators of the school nevertheless proposed to transfer him to another school, one for disruptive children, which Paavo was not. Sylvi was objecting to such a transfer.

 

Unlike Kalevi, Paavo had no difficulty in learning to speak. He did, however, show some lack of coordination in such physical activities as drawing, skating, skiing, and throwing a ball. Paavo’s psychological and motor limitations led to his being given some psychological tests by the school. Sylvi never received any formal report about these, but she was told that Paavo did not have dysphasia.

 

Dr. Stevenson's observations in other cases of correspondences between wounds on a previous personality and birthmarks or birth defects on the subject led him to conjecture in this case that perhaps Paavo had some cerebral defect corresponding to the fatal brain injuries from which Kalevi had died. (He had no obvious externally visible defect.) This led Dr. Stevenson to suggest to Sylvi that she ask the responsible medical authorities of the area to arrange for Paavo to have a thorough neurological examination, which might include an examination of his brain with Magnetic Resonance Imagining (MRI). Dr. Stevenson had not learned whether Sylvi adopted his recommendation.

 

Physical Similarities Between Kalevi and Paavo:

The physical similarities between Kalevi and Paavo stimulated some persons to mistakenly believe that they had the same father; they did not, but they did have the same mother.

 

Sylvi had brown hair and blue eyes. Both Kalevi and Paavo also had brown hair and blue eyes. Sylvi’s other children, whom Dr. Stevenson met, both had light blond hair.

 

Other information:

Paavo frequently mentioned wanting to go to "his own home," which was the house in Ylöjärvi where Kalevi had lived with Sylvi and Risto. This insistence was notable because Paavo had never been to Ylöjärvi and had no reason to know about the previous home.

 

The nightmares Paavo experienced, where he would yell and struggle, along with the blue and white discoloration around his lips, could be interpreted as a physical manifestation of the trauma Kalevi experienced during his murder.

 

Paavo's immediate intervention whenever Veikko raised his voice, even slightly, showed a heightened sensitivity and protective instinct towards his mother. This behavior could be linked to Kalevi's experiences witnessing Risto's abuse of Sylvi.

 

Paavo's difficulties with motor skills and cognitive tasks, such as drawing, skating, and remembering homework, were notable. These deficiencies could be related to the severe head injuries Kalevi sustained, potentially affecting Paavo's neurological development.

 

The school's decision to administer psychological tests to Paavo, and the subsequent findings that he did not have dysphasia, provided a medical context for his cognitive and motor difficulties.

 

Dr. Stevenson's visit to Finland, including the journey to Tampere and Mutala, provided firsthand observations and interactions with Sylvi and Paavo. This visit allowed for a more thorough understanding of the case and the context in which Paavo's statements and behavior occurred.

 

The case of Paavo Sorsa offers a fascinating glimpse into how past-life memories and behaviors might emerge in a young child. Paavo's statements, distinctive behavior, physical resemblances, and Sylvi's personal experiences weave together a compelling case that shows evidence for reincarnation. This case underscores the need for comprehensive investigation, taking into account both psychological and physical aspects, to better understand such phenomena.

 

 

Sri Lanka Ruvan Tharanga reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Iceland)

Researcher Godwin Samararatne, (Independent researcher and scholar, Sri Lanka)

 

A verified reincarnation case in Sri Lanka. [The boy who was a monk in his past life.]

 

Gamage Ruvan Tharanga Perera, born in August 1987, is a boy who claimed to have memories of a previous life as a Buddhist monk. From around the age of two, Ruvan began speaking about a past life, details of which were later verified. This case was thoroughly investigated over three years, involving interviews with numerous witnesses and recognition tests. This reincarnation case fulfills the requirement that the statements of the child are recorded before the case is 'solved'.

 

Some statements made by Ruvan include:

- I lived as a monk in the Pitumpe temple in Padukka.

- There was a statue of a monkey in the temple.

- There were six monks living in the temple.

- I led the flower offering ceremonies in the temple.

- I organized religious processions in the temple.

- I motivated many people towards meritorious living.

- My father and mother were very devoted to religion.

- There were frescoes and wall-paintings in my temple.

 

Ruvan mentioned a monastery named Pitumpe, unknown to his parents, and talked about a clay monkey statue there. This information led to the identification of a specific monastery in Padukka, approximately 20 miles south of their home. Ruvan's mother reported that he had been talking about the Pitumpe monastery almost since he started speaking and exhibited unusual behaviors consistent with those of a monk:

 

- He sat in the lotus meditation position without being taught.

- He wanted to wear and knew how to put on a Buddhist monk's robe.

- He knew how to hold a monk’s fan while chanting.

- He liked to worship Buddha.

- He avoided eating after noon and discouraged his family from doing so. He did not eat at night (as monks do not).

- He refused fish and meat (even though Buddhism does not prohibit eating meat).

- He recited the Buddha’s first sermon in Pali, an ancient Buddhist language.

- He did not like to be with women, not even his own sister.

- He did not ask for toys, only pictures of Buddha, which he collected lovingly.

- He wanted to become a monk.

- He sat in a lotus meditation position when he went with his parents to the temple.

- He liked to wear monk's robes when he was at home.

- He asked his family not to eat at night and only take refreshments as Buddhist monks do.

- He liked to read the ‘pirithpotha’ (a Buddhist book).

- He wanted his family to perform evening pujas and asked his mother to make offerings to Buddha in the evenings. He scolded her if she did not.

- He did not like to sleep with his mother, stating that monks do not sleep with women.

- He protested when his father brought liquor into the house.

- He chanted stanzas in Pali, a language used in ancient Buddhist scriptures known only to the monks.

 

A local reporter, Laksman Vithana, learned about the case and published a report in the newspaper Lankadeepa in November 1993, when Ruvan was six years old. This report was crucial as it preceded attempts to verify Ruvan’s statements about the Pitumpe monastery.

 

Initially, Ruvan's parents showed little interest in his past-life memories and wanted to keep them private. It was only through journalist Laksman Vithana, who learned of Ruvan through a neighbor, that the case gained the attention of researchers. However, by December 1995, when researchers visited, Ruvan's parents were cooperative.

 

Ruvan liked the robes of Buddhist monks, pictures of Buddha, and liked to go to Buddhist books and handle them. He liked to sketch pictures of the Buddha, and one day, he spoke of a monkey. When asked what monkey he was talking about, he replied, “the monkey in Pitumpe”. Ruvan stated that he had been a monk in Pitumpe, that there were 3-4 monks in his temple, and that he wanted to become a monk.

 

Neighbors and teachers corroborated Ruvan's unusual behaviors and statements. They noted his peaceful demeanor, his desire to dress like a monk, and his influence on his family, as he tried to make them vegetarians and free from using liquor. In school, his monk-like behavior became more evident. He did not play with other children. When he was asked to draw, he would always draw incidents in the life of the Buddha. He wanted to dress like a monk and expressed a wish to become a monk. He wanted to eat only vegetarian food. In May 1997, the researchers visited Ruvan's former primary school. Ruvan had already left school the year before to join a monastery and become a Buddhist monk. It was early morning, and a group of children were waiting for the school to open. Some of the children had been classmates with Ruvan, who had left school the year before to join a monastery. The researchers asked them about Ruvan, whom they remembered well. He had been a class leader all his three and a half years in primary school, appointed by the teacher. Would they have liked another pupil as a class leader? No, they said, they liked Ruvan as class leader.

 

On occasions, Ruvan got his fellow pupils to recite the Five Buddhist virtue Precepts, and he preached to his fellow pupils. He sat in an elevated position, but they sat on the floor (according to tradition). In his sermons, Ruvan had taught them the importance of behaving well.

 

Did Ruvan ever get angry? No, three of them replied, he did not get angry and was always calm with a concentrated mind. What did they think of his becoming a monk? It was a good thing, and they were evidently not surprised by it. At school, Ruvan exhibited monk-like behaviors and was respected by his peers as a leader of the classroom. He had great leadership qualities. The principal of Keselheneva Junior School, Milton Dharmasinghe, allowed the researchers to examine the grade books. According to the principal, Ruvan had been a very talented and wise pupil and was popular with the other children, a true class leader, although he did not socialize much with them. Normally, he ranked first in his school performance. He had a keen memory and even remembered what he heard only once. He was obedient to his teachers, quiet, and peaceful. He did not like to be with girls, not even his sister. Sometimes Ruvan would insist that the other children in his class stand as a mark of respect, as when a monk is brought in a procession to preach a sermon. He would get them to imitate beating drums, then he would walk into the classroom and sit cross-legged in the lotus meditation pose on a chair laid with white cloth. In place of a fan, he would take a large leaf and hold it as a fan, then preach for about 15 minutes, ending the session by ‘offering merit’ as monks do when they preach a sermon. There is a special chant for offering merits, and Ruvan would chant it in Pali, the ancient language of Buddhism. In his early years in primary school, Ruvan started to give frequent public pujas (Bodhi-pujas) at the request of various persons, and his fame started to spread, also through several articles in the newspapers. Researchers were told that he conducted these ceremonies, which consist mostly of chanting, with the dignity of a senior monk.

 

When Ruvan visited the Pitumpe monastery in 1995, he independently helped find the location and identified a statue of a monkey he had previously spoken about. He also recognized a photograph of Venerable Ganihigama Pannasekhara, the former abbot, without prompting. In the room of the present chief monk at the Pitumpe monastery, Ven. Mahagama Hematillaka, there were two large framed photographs, each of one monk. Without being asked, Ruvan pointed at one of them and said: “This was the chief monk.” That photograph was of Ven. Ganihigama Pannasekhara, the former abbot of Pitumpe monastery.

 

The statement that there were frescoes and wall-paintings in the Pitumpe temple is also correct and verified. However, such wall-paintings and frescoes are not uncommon in temples, but those in Pitumpe are of unusual beauty for a temple of such a small size. They were built and painted at the initiative of Ven. Pannasekhara.

 

Further investigations identified that it was Ven. Ganihigama Pannasekhara whom Ruvan talked about as his past-life memories. Therefore, this case was verified.

 

Ven. Ganihigama Pannasekhara, whom Ruvan remembered being, was a prominent monk of the Amarapura sect, born in 1902. He passed away in 1986, 17 months before Ruvan was born. Ruvan excelled in primary school and was once again ordained as a Buddhist monk in August 1996 at the Pushparamaya Pathawatta temple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Michael Wright reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in United States of America. [The son who was once his mother's boyfriend.]

 

The case of Michael Wright is a compelling example of a reincarnation case investigated by Dr. Ian Stevenson. This case began with a telephone call from Michael's mother, Catherine Wright, to the University of Virginia in September 1978. Catherine was distraught about statements her son had made, which suggested he remembered the life of her former boyfriend, Walter Miller, who had died in an automobile accident.

 

The Dream:

The sudden loss of her boyfriend, Walter Miller, in a car accident during the summer of 1967 deeply impacted Catherine Wright. Walter, a talented amateur artist and well-liked high school student, left a significant void in her life. Despite her grief, Catherine eventually married another boyfriend, Frederick Wright, in 1968. They went on to have two children: a daughter and a son named Michael, born in 1975.

 

Catherine held strong beliefs in reincarnation and various paranormal phenomena. About a year after Walter's death, she experienced a dream about him. In this dream, Walter communicated several statements to her:

 

-"I am not dead as people think."

-"I will come back."

-"I will draw pictures for you again."

 

These dream statements left a strong impression on Catherine. However, Catherine did not expect Walter to rebirth as her son.

 

Walter Miller's Life and Death:

Walter Miller was a promising amateur artist and a popular high school student. He and Catherine had known each other for about three years and were engaged, though not formally. One night, Walter attended a dance with his friend, Henry Sullivan. On the way back, Walter, who had likely consumed too much alcohol, fell asleep at the wheel. The car ran off the road and crashed, killing Walter almost instantly, though Henry survived unharmed.

 

Michael Wright's Early Life:

Michael was born in 1975, eight years after Walter's death. His birth and early development were normal, though he had some breathing difficulties as an infant, which he later outgrew. Around the age of three, Michael began to show signs of having unexpected knowledge of people and events.

 

Michael's Memories of Walter Miller:

One day, Michael startled his mother by uttering the name "Carole Miller." Catherine had maintained some contact with Carole, Walter's sister, but Michael had only met her twice and knew her by her married name, Carole Davis. This was the beginning of Michael's detailed narration of the accident in which Walter Miller had died.

 

Michael described the accident in detail: "A friend and I were in a car, and the car went off the side of the road, rolled over and over. The door came open, and I fell out and was killed." He also mentioned that the glass in the car had broken, that he had been carried over a bridge after the accident, and that he and his friend had stopped at a restroom before the accident. Michael even mentioned the name of the town where the dance had taken place.

 

Verification of Michael's Statements:

Catherine knew that most of these statements applied correctly to Walter's accident. A newspaper report with a photograph of the mangled car confirmed her account of the main events. The impact of the crash threw Walter from the car, and he died almost instantly of a broken neck. The ambulance transporting his body went over a bridge near the site of the accident.

 

Michael also provided details about Walter's home and that of Henry Sullivan. Eventually, after questioning by Catherine, Michael gave out the last name of Henry Sullivan and stated (with a slight error) Henry's nickname.

 

Catherine's mother, Margaret Carpenter, participated in Dr. Stevenson's interview with Catherine and corroborated her daughter's report of what Michael had said about the accident.

 

Other Information:

Catherine Wright and Dr. Kelly talked on the telephone in 1985. At that time, Michael, who was then ten years old, was doing well at school. He no longer talked about the previous life, but it was not clear how old he had been when he stopped talking about it.

 

Dr. Stevenson was far from satisfied with his understanding of this case but thought it worth presenting because it illustrated features found in many American cases of the reincarnation type and in some cases of other countries. The case's strengths included developing in a subculture unfriendly to the idea of reincarnation and the lack of any obvious motivation within the Wright family to contrive or encourage such a case. This scientific evidence suggests that consciousness can survive death and be reborn, as taught by the Buddha.

 

[Special note: If you are interested in stopping reincarnation, please follow the instructions of PRACTICAL MEDITATION GUIDE BY A FOREST MONK book. That book is a meditation book written by a forest monk named Brahmadeva. It is a free book. It is free to download from the internet. This website also provide that book for free: https://practicalmeditationguide.mystrikingly.com Download now!]

 

 

Indian Hanumant Saxena reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Dr. Satwant Pasricha, Professor, (University of Virginia, United States of America and National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, India)

 

A verified reincarnation case in India. [The boy who was killed by a shotgun attack in his past life.]

 

India is a country in South Asia. It is bordered by the Indian Ocean to the south, the Arabian Sea to the west, and the Bay of Bengal to the east. India is home to thousands of distinct cultures, languages, and ethnic groups. There are 22 officially recognized languages, with Hindi and English being the most widely spoken.

 

Hanumant Saxena was born in a small village in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India, in 1955. His parents, Faujdar and Gainda Wati Saxena, were poor, landless villagers who struggled to make ends meet.

 

Before Hanumant was born, his mother, Gainda Wati, had a vivid dream. In her dream, a man named Maha Ram Singh, who had been murdered roughly a year earlier, appeared to her and said, "I am coming to you." Gainda Wati was struck by this dream, as she was aware of Maha Ram's tragic death. Maha Ram was a neighbor and a farmer who owned some land. He was a gentle person with no known enemies, and his murder remained unsolved. He had been shot in the chest with a shotgun one evening, and the assailant escaped under the cover of darkness. Many villagers, including Gainda Wati, had seen Maha Ram's body after the murder.

 

The Birthmark:

When Hanumant was born, his parents noticed a striking birthmark on his chest. It was a large, irregularly shaped area of diminished pigmentation near the midline of his lower chest. This birthmark reminded them of the wound they had seen on Maha Ram's body.

 

Hanumant began to speak when he was about one year old, and around the age of three, he started making statements and acting as if he remembered the life of Maha Ram. Some of the statements he made included:

 

-"I am Maha Ram."

-Pointing to his birthmark, he said, "I was shot here."

-He recognized Maha Ram's wife, saying, "She is my wife."

-He identified Maha Ram's house, his bullocks, and other belongings.

-He showed affection for Maha Ram's mother, often visiting her and accompanying her to the fields.

 

Hanumant's behavior and statements convinced many villagers that he was indeed the reincarnation of Maha Ram. A former headman of the village was among those who believed the case to be genuine.

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a professor and scientist from the University of Virginia, USA, first learned about the case in 1964. However, due to the remote location of the village, he did not investigate the case until 1971-1972. By this time, Hanumant was sixteen years old and had completely forgotten the memories of Maha Ram's life that he had expressed as a young child. Dr. Stevenson obtained a postmortem report of Maha Ram's wounds, which confirmed that he had received a large wound from shotgun pellets in the midline of his lower chest, corresponding to Hanumant's birthmark.

 

Dr. Stevenson and his colleague, Dr. Satwant Pasricha, returned to the village for a follow-up visit in 1979. They interviewed witnesses, including Hanumant's parents, Maha Ram's family members, and other villagers. The case of Hanumant Saxena presents intriguing evidence suggestive of reincarnation, including a vivid dream by the subject's mother, a corresponding birthmark, and numerous statements and recognitions made by the subject.

 

 

 

 

Turkish Semih Tutusmus reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in Turkey. [The child who remembered his past life, shooting, and confronted his widow's suitor and accidental killer.]

 

The Life and Death of Selim Fesli:

Selim Fesli was a farmer living in the small village of Hatun Köy, in the Hatay province of Turkey. He was married to a woman named Kâtibe, and they had six children together. In 1958, after a long day of work in the fields, Selim lay down to rest. Tragically, a neighbor named İsa Dirbekli was out hunting rabbits and, mistaking Selim for a rabbit in the twilight, shot him at close range with a shotgun. The pellets entered the right side of Selim's head, and he died from cerebral hemorrhage a few days later. İsa Dirbekli insisted that the shooting was an accident, and he was sentenced to two years in prison for his crime.

 

Karanfil's Dream and Semih's Birth:

In the nearby village of Şarkonak, a woman named Karanfil Tutuşmuş was pregnant. Two days before giving birth, Karanfil had a strange dream. In it, a man with his face covered in blood appeared to her. He introduced himself as Selim Fesli and told her that he had been shot in the ear. He expressed his desire to stay with her. Karanfil was shaken by the dream, as she had heard about Selim Fesli's tragic death some months earlier, although she had never met him. Two days later, she gave birth to a baby boy and named him Semih.

 

On August 15, 1959, Semih Tutuşmuş was born with a severe birth defect. On the right side of his face, instead of a normal external ear, he had only a narrow linear stub of skin. The left side of his face was normal, but the right side was underdeveloped, a condition known as hemifacial hyoplasia. His parents, Ali and Karanfil, were struck by the correlation between their newborn son's birth defect and the dream Karanfil had two days prior. They couldn't help but wonder if their son was somehow connected to Selim Fesli.

 

Semih's Early Life and Memories:

As Semih grew, his parents' suspicions seemed to be confirmed. At around 18 months old, Semih began to speak, and his first words related to Selim Fesli's life were the name of the man who shot him: İsa Dirbekli. Over time, Semih shared more details about Selim's life and death. He accurately named Selim's wife, Kâtibe, and all six of their children. He also recalled the shooting incident, stating that İsa Dirbekli had shot him deliberately, contrary to İsa's claim that it was an accident.

 

Semih's identification with Selim Fesli was profound. When he was less than four years old, he walked alone to Hatun Köy, about two kilometers away from Şarkonak. He went straight to Selim Fesli's house and introduced himself as Selim. He recognized several members of the Fesli family, either by name or with other identifying statements. From that point on, Semih frequently visited the Fesli family, sometimes even going without his parents' permission.

 

Semih's Behavior and Emotions:

Semih exhibited strong emotions and behaviors that aligned with Selim Fesli's life. He considered himself a part of the Fesli family and expected to be consulted on important family matters. He was outraged when the Feslis failed to invite him to one of Selim's sons' weddings and even raised money from his father to give to another of Selim's sons for his engagement and wedding.

 

Semih was particularly hostile towards İsa Dirbekli. He often threatened to kill İsa and would throw stones at him when he saw him in the street. This hostility persisted for many years, although it eventually subsided.

 

Investigation by Dr. Ian Stevenson:

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a professor and scientist from the University of Virginia, learned about Semih's case in 1966 and began investigating it in 1967. Over the course of a decade, he conducted numerous interviews with Semih, his parents, and a dozen other informants. He also obtained and studied the postmortem report on Selim Fesli's body, which confirmed that Selim had died from shotgun wounds to the right side of the head.

 

Dr. Stevenson was impressed by Semih's intense identification with Selim Fesli and found some of Semih's recognitions to be compelling. However, he also acknowledged that Semih's statements about Selim's life could potentially have been acquired through normal means, as Semih's father, Ali, had known Selim well.

 

Semih's Later Life:

Between the ages of 16 and 18, Semih served his obligatory military service in the Turkish Army. During this time, a plastic surgeon operated on his ear, creating a remarkably normal-appearing right ear. This, combined with a change in hairstyle and increasing maturity, seemed to help Semih let go of his desire for revenge against İsa Dirbekli.

 

When Dr. Stevenson last met with Semih in 1977, Semih said that he still remembered the life of Selim Fesli, and his mother, Karanfil, reported that he still talked about it from time to time. However, the intense emotions and behaviors that had once driven Semih to threaten İsa and immerse himself in the Fesli family seemed to have subsided.

 

Additional Statements and Verifications:

Out of 15 statements Semih made about Selim Fesli's life, 11 were verified as correct, 2 were incorrect, and 2 remained unverified. Some of the correct statements included:

 

-The name of the man who shot Selim: İsa Dirbekli.

-The name of Selim's wife: Kâtibe.

-The names of Selim's six children.

-The fact that Selim was shot in the right ear.

-Details about the location of Selim's house and the layout of Hatun Köy.

 

Sometimes, difficulties occur in remembering past lives backward. The incorrect statements seemed to originate from Semih's perspective as a child trying to interpret adult experiences and emotions. Despite these two inaccuracies, the overall strength of Semih's identification with Selim Fesli, combined with the correspondence between his birth defect and Selim's fatal wound, made this case notable in the study of reincarnation. Consequently, it was documented as a verified reincarnation case.

 

[Special note: This book is for free distribution only. Not for sale.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indian Munesh reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Dr. H. N. Banerjee, Professor and Scientist, (University of Rajasthan, India)

 

A verified reincarnation case in India. [The boy who was silenced by his parents for speaking about his past life.]

 

In the small northern Indian village of Chandgari, with barely a thousand inhabitants, a boy named Munesh was born in 1951. When Munesh was around three years old, he began sharing vivid memories of a life he claimed to have lived before. He spoke of a place called Athanni, which his playmates and family had never heard of. One day, while his mother was bathing him and he was being particularly difficult, she smacked him. Munesh responded, "Mother, don't hit me or I will go away from here. I will go back to Athanni. That is my village. I live there. I don’t belong here."

 

His mother was taken aback and questioned him further. Munesh insisted that his name was Bhajan Singh and that he had a house, a well, a garden, a farm, a wife, a brother, a mother, and a daughter in Athanni. His mother dismissed his claims as nonsense and forbade him from talking about it at home. However, Munesh continued to share details of his past life with his classmates when he started school. He told them about events from his life as Bhajan Singh, but no one believed him. Only his grandfather was willing to listen and decided to investigate Munesh's claims to dispel what he thought were his grandchild's crazy ideas.

 

Munesh's grandfather knew a man who had once lived near a village called Itarni. He approached this man and asked if he knew of someone named Bhajan Singh who had died from a fever in 1951, leaving behind a wife and daughter. The man confirmed that he knew of such a person and that Bhajan Singh's widow and daughter still lived in Itarni. Munesh's grandfather then wrote a letter to Bhajan Singh's widow, hoping the postman would know whom it was intended for. In the letter, he described Munesh's claims and the details he had shared about his past life.

 

A few days later, Bhajan Singh's brother, Bhure Singh, and brother-in-law arrived in Chandgari to meet Munesh. When Munesh saw Bhure Singh, he immediately recognized him and said, "You are my brother, Bhure Singh." He did not recognize the other man. Bhure Singh was skeptical and asked Munesh several questions about his past life. Munesh answered them all correctly and even mentioned Bhagwati, his best friend from his past life. Bhure Singh and his brother-in-law were amazed by Munesh's knowledge. When they were about to leave, Munesh clung to Bhure Singh, begging him to stay. Bhure Singh promised to return and take Munesh to Itarni himself.

 

Days later, two veiled women arrived at Munesh's house—Bhajan Singh's widow, Ayodhya Devi, and her sister-in-law. They kept their names and faces hidden to test Munesh. A crowd gathered as rumors spread that these women were from Munesh's past life. When Munesh was taken to see them, he recognized Ayodhya Devi as his past-life wife and addressed her sister-in-law as "Bhabhi" (brother's wife). Ayodhya Devi took Munesh aside and asked him to share something about their marriage that only they would know. Munesh reminded her of an incident where he had beaten her with a large butter spoon after she had argued with his mother. Ayodhya Devi confirmed this incident and asked Munesh more questions about their marriage, which he answered correctly. She became convinced that Munesh was indeed her late husband reborn.

 

Munesh and his grandfather later traveled to Itarni, where a large crowd awaited them. Munesh recognized Bhagwati Prasad, his past-life friend, in the crowd. Bhagwati asked Munesh many questions and was amazed by his accurate answers. Munesh then led everyone to the house he claimed to have lived in during his past life. He recognized his past-life mother sitting in a chair and ran to her, sitting on her lap and sobbing uncontrollably. As he was led through the house, Munesh pointed out all the changes that had taken place since his past life and recognized his old coat, chair, and books. He even asked Ayodhya Devi about a specific Dhoti (sarong) he had brought back from Agra for her. By this point, everyone was convinced that Munesh was the reincarnation of Bhajan Singh.

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a professor and scientist from the University of Virginia, USA, and Dr. H. N. Banerjee, a professor and scientist from the University of Rajasthan, India, investigated and documented Munesh's case. This case is one of over 2500 reincarnation cases collected by Dr. Stevenson, highlighting the challenges children face when sharing memories of past lives. It underscores the importance of adults listening carefully to children when they discuss unusual topics, rather than dismissing their claims.

 

Munesh's case serves as an example of the potential evidence for reincarnation and the need for further investigation into this phenomenon. It raises the question of how many other children around the world may remember their past lives but are not taken seriously.

 

 

American Patrick Christenson reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Dr. Jim B. Tucker, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

Researcher Carol Bowman, Counselor and Therapist, (United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in United States of America. [The boy who was born with his half-brother's birthmarks and memories.]

 

Patrick Christenson was born by cesarean section in Michigan, USA, in 1991. His mother immediately felt a connection between him and her first son, Kevin, who had died of cancer 12 years earlier. As Patrick grew, his mother noticed striking similarities between him and Kevin, both in appearance and behavior. These similarities would eventually lead to an intriguing reincarnation case, investigated by multiple researchers.

 

Kevin's Life and Death (1977-1979):

Kevin, Patrick's half-brother, was born around 1977 in Michigan. At 18 months, he began to have trouble walking and fell, fracturing his left leg. Doctors discovered that Kevin had neuroblastoma, a form of cancer. A biopsy was performed on a nodule on his scalp above his right ear. Kevin's left eye became protruded and bruised due to a tumor, and he eventually went blind in that eye. Doctors placed an intravenous tube, known as a central line, in the right side of his neck for chemotherapy. Kevin died in 1979, just three weeks after his second birthday, due to complications from the cancer.

 

Patrick's Birth and Early Life:

After Kevin's death, his parents separated, and his mother later remarried. She gave birth to a daughter and another son before Patrick was born in 1991. At birth, Patrick had three notable defects that matched those of Kevin's when he died:

 

 

As Patrick began to walk, his mother noticed that he limped, favoring his left leg, just as Kevin had done after his leg fracture. There was no apparent medical reason for Patrick's limp.

 

Patrick's Notable Statements:

- "I want to go back to our previous home. You left me there."

- "The home is orange and brown." (This description was accurate for Kevin's former home)

- "Do you remember me having surgery?"

- "I had surgery here." (When his mother replied that he had not had any surgery, Patrick pointed to the area above his right ear and said)

- "I couldn't drink without vomiting."

- "That's a picture of me." (upon seeing a picture of Kevin)

 

Patrick's Memories and Behaviors:

When Patrick was around four and a half years old, he began talking about events from Kevin's life. He told his mother that he wanted to go back to their previous home, describing it as orange and brown, which was accurate. He asked his mother if she remembered him having surgery and pointed to the area above his right ear where Kevin had his nodule biopsied. Patrick also mentioned not being able to drink without vomiting, which was a detail from Kevin's life during his cancer treatment.

 

One day, Patrick saw a picture of Kevin, which was not normally displayed in the family's home. He said that the picture was of him. Patrick's mother and other family members noticed that Patrick had a personality similar to Kevin's. His mother contacted Carol Bowman, an author who had written about children remembering past lives, for guidance on how to deal with these memories.

 

Investigations:

Carol Bowman, Dr. Ian Stevenson, and Dr. Jim B. Tucker independently investigated Patrick's case. When Patrick was five years old, Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Tucker visited the family to verify the details of the case. They observed and documented Patrick's birthmarks, eye condition, and limp. They also examined Kevin's medical records, confirming the correspondences between his conditions and Patrick's birthmarks and defects.

 

The researchers took Patrick to the home that Kevin had shared with his mother. Although Patrick did not make any definitive statements recognizing the home during that visit, his memories and descriptions of it in previous conversations with his mother were accurate.

 

Recognitions and Verifications:

Throughout the investigations, the following correspondences and recognitions were verified:

 

Outcome

 

After Patrick's mother acknowledged the connection between him and Kevin, following Carol Bowman's advice, Patrick developed some sight in his left eye. As he grew older, his past-life memories became less frequent. By the age of six, he talked less about his memories of Kevin's life.

 

Patrick's case is notable for its multiple points of correspondence between his present life and Kevin's past life, both physical (birthmarks and defects) and mental (memories and behaviors). This case serves as an intriguing example in the field of reincarnation research, with thorough investigations and verifications by multiple researchers.

 

 

 

Turkish Nasir Toksoz reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in Turkey. [The farmer who died of tetanus and was reborn the same day after 2 hours.]

 

Nasir Alev lived in the village of Yukari Ekinci, approximately 10 miles from Antakya, Turkey. He was known as a very pious and religious man. Nasir was married to Esma, and together they had five children: four sons named Salih, Hasan, Zahir, and Necim, and a daughter named Elmas. Nasir was a farmer who owned olive orchards located a few kilometers outside of the village.

 

When Nasir was about 70 years old, he fell down stone steps at the front of his house, which were under a balcony. The fall resulted in injuries to his forehead and nose, with blood observed flowing from his nose. After a few days, his condition worsened, and he became unable to speak. Nasir was taken to the Government Hospital in Antakya, where it was found that he could not open his jaws, making him unable to eat. He died on August 21, 1960, at 10:30 in the morning. The cause of death was determined to be tetanus.

 

The Dream:

Mehmet Toksoz was also a farmer who lived in the village of Yukari Ekinci. On the night of August 20, 1960, he had a dream in which Nasir Alev came to him. Mehmet knew Nasir as an acquaintance, as they had adjoining olive groves located a few kilometers from the village. Their homes in Yukari Ekinci were about 300 meters apart. Though they knew of each other, they were not close friends.

 

In the dream, Nasir told Mehmet, “I am coming to stay with you.” Mehmet interpreted the dream to mean that Nasir would be reincarnated as his son. Medina, his wife, happened to be nine months pregnant at the time. In the dream, Mehmet swore that he would give the expected child the same first name, Nasir.

 

At the time that Mehmet had this dream, Nasir Alev was still alive in the Government Hospital in Antakya. He would die the following morning of August 21, 1960, at 10:30. Mehmet did not know that Nasir was ill or dying.

 

Birth of Nasir Toksoz:

In the morning of August 21, 1960, the morning after Mehmet had his dream, a son was born to Mehmet and Medina. As he promised, Mehmet named the boy Nasir. Intermission was Less than 2 hours between Nasir Alev's death and Nasir Toksoz's birth.

 

When Nasir Toksoz was between two and three years old, his mother went from their house to the village fountain to get water. When she returned, she observed Nasir sitting in their garden talking to himself. She stood quietly, in a way that Nasir could not see her, so she could listen to what he was saying.

 

Over and over again, Nasir said, “My son has gone to Belgium.” Medina then came up to Nasir and asked him, “Why are you speaking like that? Do you have sons?” Nasir said that he did and he named the four sons and one daughter that he remembered having in a past lifetime.

 

Nasir continued to give detailed information about his past lifetime to his parents. He said that in this prior incarnation, his name was also Nasir and that his wife was named Esma. Nasir said that his son’s names were Salih, Hasan, Zahir, and Necim, and that he had a daughter named Elmas. Nasir said that his son Hasan was in Belgium. All these statements were correct for the family of Nasir Alev.

 

Nasir reported that he died after he fell down and he hit his head on a stone, which was correct. He also said that he had fallen from a balcony, though he may have been trying to communicate that that he had fallen under a balcony, which would have been an accurate statement.

 

Later on, little Nasir was able to point out the steps at the Alev home where he remembered falling down and hitting his head. His identification of the steps was accurate.

 

Nasir said that after he died and before he reincarnated, he appeared before God and gave an account of his life and conduct to God.

 

Past Life Relationship & Geographic Past Life Memory:

When Nasir was between three and four years old, his mother took him to see his father, Mehmet, who was working a few kilometers away in their olive orchard. The adjacent olive orchard was owned by the Alev family. Once there, Nasir spontaneously recognized Elmas Alev, the daughter of Nasir Alev.

 

Little Nasir ran up to Elmas and said, “You are my daughter.” Elmas then asked Nasir, “Who are you?” Nasir replied, “I am your father.”

 

Elmas then said that if Nasir was her father, he should be able to find her home in the village. Nasir then did this, leading Elmas back to the village along the main road, then turning and walking up small, hidden lanes directly to the Alev home. On the way to the Alev house, little Nasir recognized people and places related to Nasir Alev.

 

Once at the Alev house, Nasir said, “This house is mine.” Near the Alev house, Esma, Nasir Alev’s widow, was standing with a group of other people. Without any assistance in making the recognition, little Nasir went up to Esma and said, “You are my wife.”

 

Nasir then went into the house and pointed out the location where he, as Nasir Alev, slept, which was an accurate identification.

 

Ian Stevenson retraced the path to the Alev home and noted that the house is not visible from the road and that Nasir’s ability to find it via the small lanes was an impressive feat.

 

This is reminiscent of the case of Anne Frank | Barbro Karlen, as Barbro, at ten years of age, was able to lead her parents from their hotel in Amsterdam directly to the Anne Frank House, even though Barbro had never been to Amsterdam before. The Anne Frank | Barbro Karlen case is very important as it shows that facial features and talents can remain consistent from one lifetime to another, though religion and nationality can change from one birth to another.

 

Nasir Alev’s son, Zahir, was not present when Nasir found the Alev home. Later on, when Nasir and his mother, Medina, were on a village street, Medina noticed Zahir. She pointed to Zahir and asked Nasir, “Do you know your son?” Nasir replied, “There is my son Zahir.”

 

Other Information:

Nasir Toksoz was left-handed, like Nasir Alev. Once Nasir found the Alev family home, he would visit frequently. His past life family members would give him gifts, demonstrating their affection for Nasir and their apparent belief that he was indeed the reincarnation of their father.

 

It was noted that little Nasir would often run away from the Toksoz home to go to the Alev house without telling anyone. His father said that at times, he would stay for days at his past life residence. Nasir continued to visit the Alev home until he was at least 12 years of age.

 

Medina Toksoz, Nasir’s mother, observed that Nasir had a fear of high places, apparently related to having died from a fall in his prior birth.

 

The case of Nasir Toksoz provides compelling evidence for reincarnation, including detailed memories of a past life, recognition of past life family members, emotional attachment to the past life, and a phobia related to the manner of death in the past life. The proximity of the past life family and the announcing dream add further depth to this intriguing case, making it a significant contribution to the study of reincarnation. This is a rebirth case where one mind developed the body and then left it due to no longer having any karmas to stay in that body, and another mind entered the already developed body. This reincarnation case provides strong scientific evidence for the existence of rebirth phenomena which was taught by the Buddha.

 

 

 

 

Indian Jasbir Lal Jat reincarnation case:

 

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor and Scientist, (University of Virginia, United States of America)

 

A verified reincarnation case in India. [The boy who was advised by a holy ascetic to "take cover" in his current body.]

 

In the small village of Rasulpur, in the Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh, India, a boy named Jasbir Lal Jat was born in late 1950 to a family of the Jat caste, known for their agricultural background. In the spring of 1954, at the age of three and a half, Jasbir contracted smallpox and died. His father, Sri Girdhari Lal Jat, prepared for his burial, but late at night, Jasbir's body stirred, and he gradually revived completely. Once Jasbir could speak again, his family and fellow villagers noticed remarkable changes in his behavior and claims. He said he is not Jasbir but a man named Sobha Ram.

 

Jasbir's Initial Statements and Behaviors:

 

1. Change in Caste Identity: Jasbir insisted he was a Brahmin, a higher caste, and not a Jat. He refused to eat with his family due to caste-based dietary restrictions. A kindly Brahmin neighbor, understanding the situation, cooked for him separately for about a year and a half.

2. Details of Previous Life: As Jasbir's speech improved, he began sharing specific details about his claimed previous life, including:

-His name was Sobha Ram, the son of Shankar Lal Tyagi from the village of Vehedi, about 20 miles away.

-He had a wife who belonged to the village of Molna and a son named Baleshwar.

-He had died after falling from a chariot while returning from a wedding in the nearby village of Nirmana. Jasbir alleged that he had been poisoned at the wedding party, with the poison given in some sweets he ate. He even named the alleged murderer, a man who had borrowed money from Sobha Ram.

-He described various features of Vehedi, such as a culvert carrying water under the railway track, a Peepal tree in front of his house, and a tamarind tree in front of the courtyard.

-He mentioned specific family members, including his mother Sona, sister Kela, mother-in-law Kirpi, aunt Ram Kali, grandfather Raja Ram (also known as Rai Sahib), and several uncles, brothers, and cousins.

-He recalled having a chariot with one white ox and one black ox, the white ox having long horns and the black ox having short horns.

-He remembered having ten rupees in a black coat in a box when he died.

3. Recognitions: Even at a young age, Jasbir recognized several people from his claimed previous life, both in Rasulpur and during visits to Vehedi:

-When he was only about four years old, Jasbir was with his mother near Muzaffarnagar and pointed in the direction of Vehedi, saying, "My village is on this side."

-He recognized Srimati Shyamo, a Brahmin native of Rasulpur married to a Vehedi resident, Sri Ravi Dutt Sukla. Jasbir used the familiar term "Tai" (father's brother's wife) instead of "Phoopi" (father's sister) to address her, which was appropriate for Sobha Ram's relationship with Srimati Shyamo. This recognition occurred in 1957, about three years after Jasbir's revival.

-He recognized Sri Shankar Lal Tyagi, his claimed father from the previous life, after seeing him at a distance. Jasbir met Inder Pal, a resident of Rasulpur, and told him, "My father has come. He is from Vehedi." Srimati Rajkali, Jasbir's mother, confirmed that Jasbir had come home after seeing Sri Tyagi and told her to have Brahmin meals prepared for his father who had come.

4. Emotional Attachment: Jasbir displayed strong emotional ties to Sobha Ram's family and village. He threatened to run away from Rasulpur to Vehedi on at least one occasion. He seemed to think of himself as an adult and talked freely about having a wife and children. Later, teasing and scolding led him to control his utterances, but he still thought of Vehedi and his possessions there as his own.

5. Phobias and Preferences: Jasbir exhibited phobias related to his claimed previous life's death, such as fear of chariots and sweets. He also showed preferences for Brahmin customs and dietary habits.

 

Investigation and Verification:

Dr. Ian Stevenson, a psychiatrist from the University of Virginia, first heard about the case in 1960 and investigated it in 1961 and 1964, with follow-ups in 1971. He interviewed multiple witnesses from both villages, including Jasbir, his family members, Sobha Ram's family members, and other villagers who had known Sobha Ram or witnessed Jasbir's recognitions and statements. Through his thorough investigation, Dr. Stevenson found that:

 

1. Jasbir's Statements Were Accurate: The details provided by Jasbir about Sobha Ram's life, family, and village were verified to be correct. His descriptions of Vehedi, the Tyagi family, and the circumstances of Sobha Ram's death matched the reality of Sobha Ram's life.

2. Recognitions Were Genuine: Jasbir's ability to recognize people and places from Sobha Ram's life was confirmed by numerous witnesses. His spontaneous recognitions of family members, neighbors, and specific locations in Vehedi were particularly striking.

3. Normal Explanations Were Unlikely: The isolation of the villages, caste differences, and lack of communication made it improbable that Jasbir acquired the information through normal means, such as overhearing conversations or being tutored by someone familiar with Sobha Ram's life. Dr. Stevenson considered and ruled out various normal explanations for Jasbir's knowledge and behavior.

 

Intermission Life Memory:

In 1961, Dr. Stevenson asked Jasbir whether he had any intermission memories from between his death as Sobha Ram and the moment he entered his current body. Jasbir answered that after dying, he met a sadhu (holy man, monk, ascetic, or saint) who advised him to ‘take cover’ in the body of Jasbir Lal Jat, who had died of smallpox. This is a rare example of intermission life memory, providing a glimpse into the subject's experiences between lives. In his later life, Jasbir mentioned that he sometimes still saw the Sadhu in his dreams. He said that the Sadhu gave him correct predictions of future events in his life. For example, the Sadhu said Jasbir that the bride in his forced engagement would not follow through with the arrangement, which proved to be true.

 

Visits to Vehedi and Later Developments:

 

1. First Visit to Vehedi (1957): A few weeks after recognizing Srimati Shyamo, Jasbir was taken to Vehedi by Sri Jaganath Prasad Sukla, a villager from Vehedi who worked as a manager at the local sugar mill. Jasbir was put down near the railway station and asked to lead the way to the Tyagi quadrangle, which he did without difficulty. He remained in Vehedi for some days, demonstrating a detailed knowledge of the Tyagi family and its affairs. He enjoyed himself greatly in Vehedi and returned to Rasulpur with great reluctance.

2. Subsequent Visits: After his initial visit, Jasbir continued to visit Vehedi from time to time, usually for several weeks or more in the summer. He still wanted to live in Vehedi and felt isolated and lonely in Rasulpur. The Tyagi family and other villagers accepted Jasbir as a full member of their family and community.

3. Behavior Towards Sobha Ram's Family: Jasbir showed affection for all the Tyagi family members, but his behavior was particularly noticeable in regard to Baleshwar, the son of Sobha Ram. When Jasbir visited Vehedi, he and Baleshwar slept together on the same cot, and Jasbir complained when Baleshwar went to school in the morning. If someone in Vehedi gave a gift to Jasbir, he passed it on to Baleshwar. Jasbir also showed appropriate behavior towards members of the village with whom the Tyagis were not on good terms, not speaking to them as Sobha Ram would not have.

4. Consultation on Family Matters: As Jasbir grew older, the Tyagi family consulted him about important family matters, such as the marriages of Sobha Ram's son and daughters. Jasbir attended these weddings and was considered a crucial member of the family.

 

Jasbir's Later Life and Adjustment:

 

1. Education and Work: Jasbir continued his education up to the tenth class but did not pass the work of that level. In 1969, he stopped school and began helping his father with cultivation. He was not content with his peasant's life and hoped to obtain a clerical job, but this was difficult without the leaving certificate from the secondary school.

2. Retention of Brahmin Habits: Jasbir retained some Brahmin habits and attitudes throughout his life. He still believed Brahmins to be a superior group of persons compared to members of other castes. He would not eat food cooked in earthen pots and wore the sacred thread around his neck, a distinctive habit of upper caste Hindus. He also acknowledged his Jat heritage by using his father's name, Girdhari Lal Jat, alongside his claimed Brahmin family name, Tyagi.

3. Marriage: Jasbir did not object to marrying a Jat girl and expected to marry in the near future. He had been forced into an engagement by his father once, but the bride did not follow through with the arrangement, and the plans dissolved.

4. Improved Relationship with Jat Family: Although Jasbir's initial claims and behavior led to a rift with his Jat family, their relationship improved over time. His older brother, who had been particularly hostile to his pretensions of superiority, fully accepted him in the family. Jasbir's parents did their best to adjust to the situation and helped him make adaptations to his life in Rasulpur.

5. Economic Circumstances: Jasbir's economic circumstances were difficult, perhaps precarious. His family was less prosperous than the Tyagis, and he regarded himself as having taken something of a "demotion" in socio-economic circumstances from one life to another. However, he tried his best to accept the circumstances in which he found himself and faced the future with cheerfulness.

 

Dr. Stevenson's Assessment and Comments:

Dr. Ian Stevenson, who investigated the case thoroughly, made several insightful comments on the evidence of paranormal knowledge on the part of Jasbir:

 

1. Detailed Knowledge: Dr. Stevenson noted that Jasbir had detailed knowledge of the life and death of Sobha Ram, which seemed entirely clear from the list of the statements he made and recognitions he achieved. His recognitions of people included the saying of some names spontaneously, which diminished the possibility of his having been guided by hints or leading questions.

2. Isolation of Villages: Although the two villages lie only twenty miles apart as the crow flies, they are quite remote when account is taken of their location in relation to main roads and of the conditions of transportation and caste which separate different groups in India. Dr. Stevenson found no reason to doubt that the witnesses he spoke with were telling the truth, and he found no way in which Jasbir could have learned normally the facts he knew about the life of Sobha Ram.

3. Strong Behavioral Features: Dr. Stevenson pointed to the strong behavioral features of the case, including the very strong identification of Jasbir with Sobha Ram. Jasbir's personation of Sobha Ram, expressed in the pleasure of being with the Tyagis at Vehedi and the lonely isolation he experienced and showed in Rasulpur, provided some of the more impressive and more important features of the case.

4. Reactions of the Families: The reactions of the two families concerned matched Jasbir's behavior. Both families, particularly the Jat family, had their lives disarranged by Jasbir's claims of memories of Sobha Ram. Dr. Stevenson could think of no motive for fraud even if such a grand display of assembled actors could have been arranged.

5. Lack of Normal Means of Communication: Careful inquiries in both villages failed to turn up anyone who could have acted as a normal means of communication of information from the family of Sobha Ram to Jasbir. Only one man seems actually to have known personally both Sobha Ram and the family of Girdhari Lal Jat, but this man did not seem to have had detailed information about Sobha Ram or his family or the opportunity of passing such information as he had on to Jasbir.

6. Profound Change of Personality: The case differed markedly from those of other children who seem to recall previous lives over a period of several years and in doing so more or less blend the previous personality with the presently developing one. In Jasbir's case, the complete change of personality took at most a few weeks and perhaps much less time. Moreover, the change involved a profound change of personality, including refusal to eat his family’s food because of their alleged lower caste.

7. Unlikely Telepathic Link: Dr. Stevenson considered the possibility that someone in Rasulpur who perhaps came in touch with the Tyagi family in Nirmana, if not Vehedi, could have acted as a telepathic link whereby Jasbir might, if he had the requisite powers, have tapped the minds of the Tyagi family who did possess the relevant information. However, such an hypothesis extends our concepts of telepathy almost beyond the limits of its occurrence in any instances for which we have independent evidence. Additionally, this hypothesis does not by itself adequately account for the strong personation of Sobha Ram by Jasbir.

 

Timeline:

-1950: Jasbir Lal Jat born in Rasulpur.

-1954: Jasbir's death and revival, followed by claims of a previous life as Sobha Ram.

-1957: Jasbir recognizes Srimati Shyamo, leading to the verification of his claims and his first visit to Vehedi.

-1960: Dr. Ian Stevenson first hears about the case.

-1961: Dr. Stevenson's first investigation of the case.

-1964: Dr. Stevenson's follow-up investigation.

-1968: Jasbir's family moves from Rasulpur to Ghola, and later to Kaval.

-1969: Jasbir stops school and begins helping his father with cultivation.

-1971: Dr. Stevenson's final follow-up, finding Jasbir well-adjusted to his life as a Jat but maintaining ties to Sobha Ram's family.

 

The Jasbir Lal Jat case is a remarkable and well-documented example of a reincarnation-type case, featuring cross-caste reincarnation, apparent possession, detailed memories, recognitions, behavioral changes, emotional attachment, and intermission life memory. The case was thoroughly investigated by Dr. Ian Stevenson, who found strong evidence supporting the paranormal aspects of Jasbir's claims. The story of Jasbir Lal Jat provides fascinating insights into the phenomenon of reincarnation and the complexities of human identity and memory.