Mack claims to have demonstrated just such a multiple independent ori-
gin for his patients’ stories. Yet critics point out that he uses unorthodox
therapeutic methods such as hypnotic regression and becomes highly
involved in evoking and even “cocreating” the memories.
One thing is for sure: John is not a fraud or a huckster. His decision
to go public with these beliefs must have been difficult, because he
surely knew that a lot of his old friends would think he’d gone com-
pletely off the deep end. Folks who don’t know him and don’t accept
the legitimacy of the abductions might assume that he is after money
and fame. In reality, he has made major sacrifices, I think because his
curiosity and conscience demand it.
Although he must have known what he was getting into, the wrath
of the skeptics has sometimes been intense and personal, as if John has
been a traitor to science. James Gleick, writing in The New Republic,
wondered if “the whole thing isn’t just a calculated scam.” He
described Mack as a “mark” and a “gull” and his behavior as “sleazy,”
“slippery,” and even “sickeningly corrupt.” Attacking the messenger
provides a convenient solution to the puzzling juxtaposition of impres-
sive scientific credentials and wacky beliefs.
Maybe Mack has lost his grip on our particular consensus reality.
Maybe he has adopted a worldview that doesn’t make any sense to you
and me (or at least to James Gleick and me). But he is not stupid or
sleazy. I know him to be a smart, competent, and genuinely compas-
sionate person. He is not out to make a quick buck. He really believes.
M I N D M A T T E R S
To explain the abduction phenomenon, John has synthesized a world-
view based on very different premises from those at the core of our sci-
entific worldview. I think the essential difference comes down to differ-
ent assumptions about the relationship between mind and matter.
For Enlightenment-guided science it was quite the revelation that our
mental states arise from processes described by physics, chemistry, and
cellular biology.
Thought is chemistry? Wow!
This has encouraged us to think of consciousness as something that
382
L o n e l y P l a n e t s
arises out of a preexisting physical universe. We believe that matter
exists with or without mind.
On the other side of the great divide lies a different assumption: that
mind is primary and that the entire realm of the physical is somehow
created by consciousness. This belief underlies a lot of New Age
thought. If you don’t like it, then try to prove it wrong. I dare you.
Mack’s interpretation of the abduction phenomenon is thick with
talk of invisible realms and other-dimensional realities. He refuses to be
pinned down on whether these domains are “real,” focusing instead on
the inadequacy of that term.
“What about the spaceships?” you ask. “If these aliens are just mate-
rializing from another dimension, why do they need to travel in ships?
Do you believe the ships are physically real, or are they just a
Image unavailable for
electronic edition
Believing Is Seeing
383
metaphor?” If you ask such questions, be prepared to be told that the
difference between “real” and “metaphorical” is not necessarily
absolute, since our mythical imaginations collectively help cocreate our
reality.
Science can do nothing to disprove the existence of subtle realms that
are defined as realms science can do nothing to disprove. Science can
only declare that it has no use for them. If you start with the assump-
tion that consciousness is primary, then the truths that science holds to
be self-evident are no longer so. So there is a choice here. Do we have
any data to assist us in choosing the correct worldview, or should we
flip a coin?
I am reminded of my experiences in the San Luis Valley that con-
vinced me that different people can live in the same place and somehow
see very different skies above them, depending on what they expect to
observe. Either these objects are “really there” and some people some-
how can’t see them, or they are not “really there” and some people are
able to enter mental states where they believe they see them, and where
desires can mold memories. Either possibility is unsettling.
Remember what I learned about the secret of contacting UFOs: “You
have to invite them.” They won’t show themselves for just anybody.
They know if you’ve been naughty or nice, or at least if you are radiat-
ing the right vibes. This is not very different from “the magic will only
work if you believe.” Scientists have a visceral negative reaction against
such participatory magic: It seems like cheating. We suspect fraud. It’s
not fair if the universe is somehow playing with our heads—it’s sup-
posed to just lie there, ignore us, and let us figure it out.
When you probe,* you find that many UFO believers are not both-
ered by physical arguments against the plausibility of sighting or
encounter reports, because we cocreate our reality, and those objections
are too narrow-minded and Western. They suspect that our thoughts
and feelings can have cosmic consequences and that certain humans are
of great interest to extraterrestrials.
The idea that mind is behind everything is not limited or original to
UFO groups. Personally, I have no problem with consciousness being a
major part of the architecture, the story, and perhaps even the point of
the universe. Much philosophy, religion, physics, and cosmology finds
an essential role for mind. In fact, Buddhism, the religion that makes
* Probe in this context meaning to simply ask questions and listen . . .
384
L o n e l y P l a n e t s
the most sense to me of all the majors, seems to hold the view that, fun-
damentally, it’s all in our heads.
Although I’ve never found a religion that seems like a perfect fit, I love
what I know of the teachings of Buddhism. Its most important principle
seems to be compassion. If there is a perfect spiritual principle, I would
vote for this. Then there is the “self is an illusion” part, the “death is an
illusion” part, and the “oneness with the entire universe” part. They’re
speaking my language. These all seem true and important, and entirely
consistent with the picture of the universe that science paints for me.*
Buddhist texts urge compassion, not just for all humans, but for “all
sentient beings.” The idea of nonhuman intelligent creatures is right
there in the language they use. For a while I’ve been trying to figure out
the Buddhist view of extraterrestrial life. The answer I most often get is
“Of course there are many other worlds with many other sentient
beings. We’ve always assumed that.” And sometimes they add, “But so
what?”
During one writing retreat in the San Luis Valley, I met a number of
people who were in Crestone for a large Buddhis
t meditation retreat
with Tsoknyi Rinpoche, a visiting Tibetan master.† One of the partici-
pants told me that the question of extraterrestrial life was entirely
meaningless and uninteresting. Everything, he said with complete confi-
dence, is the creation of mind, so the idea that stars are many light-
years away means nothing. Other beings are right here, intermingling
in our space. Life on other planets should be of no concern to us,
because there is no difference at all between out there and down here.
It was an interesting concept and it made me think. Later I wished I
had thought faster. I would have asked him for the keys to the new
BMW he had pulled up in, since he could have just materialized
another one for himself.
Is the Buddhist belief in the centrality of consciousness the same as
the New Age primacy of mind, or the idea that you could manifest real
lights in the sky by achieving the right mental state? It’s easy, in a place
like Crestone, to lump Buddhism in with all those other New Age
beliefs that are so popular. Except, of course, Buddhism is hardly new.
*Another thing Buddhism has going in its favor is that if you don’t believe and don’t follow all instructions, you still don’t go to hell or anything. At worst you just come back as a cockroach or a lawyer for the NRA, and you get another chance.
†Richard Gere was even there, I swear to God.
Believing Is Seeing
385
Another part of Buddhism that I love is the idea of ego death, or ego
denial: seeing your individual self as an ephemeral, illusory whirlpool
in a larger sea of consciousness. A lot of New Age belief seems to be
about heightening the importance of one’s own mind in the cosmic
scheme. I’m not sure this jibes well with ego death. There is a difference
between “consciousness helps create reality” and “the universe is all in
my head.” There is a difference between “it’s all mind” and “it’s all in
mine.” There is more ego serving than ego death in the notion that
UFOs are interested in me personally.
Obviously, we do not fully understand the role of consciousness in
the universe, nor the limits of its influence over “purely physical” phe-
nomena. But I don’t believe that the distances to the stars are immate-
rial because the stars are just in our eyes. I do think that there is a real,
solid world existing outside all of our heads. I believe in a universe to
be discovered, explored, and explained, that the stars really are light-
years away and that this distance could present an immigration barrier
for some kinds of beings, but not for others.
Yet, even though I believe in an external, material reality, that doesn’t
mean that our perceptions and conceptions will ever be more than
glimpses. Just think about the complexity of the simple act of observing
a light in the sky—the optics, the electromagnetics, the neurophysiol-
ogy, the cognitive processes. Even a “direct observation” is far from
direct. It is not so surprising that two people of different philosophies
would see different things in the same sky.
We are always filtering sensory input. We screen out most of the
information coming from our environment most of the time. Otherwise
our circuits would be on constant overload. We are always interpreting
and perceiving events through filters shaped by experience and belief.
Even if you “saw it with your own eyes,” it might not be the same thing
I would have seen with mine. This is equally true for things that you
feel with your own hands. It’s still electrons, nerve firings, neural net-
works, and pattern recognition all the way down. No observation or
perception is completely accurate or completely captures the essence of
any phenomenon. So, yes, to some unknown extent, for all of us,
believing is seeing.
This boils down to questions that are quite different from a simple
disagreement over whether saucers or lights are in the sky, or whether
memories of strange encounters are real. It’s about the relationship
between matter and consciousness, which I find much more interesting
386
L o n e l y P l a n e t s
than grade-B saucer-shaped UFOs powered with some kind of super-
duper quantum antigraviton engines.
Skeptics bristle angrily at the suggestion that our materialist, scientif-
ically sanctioned, “Western” view of reality is too rigid—that there
may be other realms and phenomena that are “real” but do not answer
to our objective standards of proof. If we cannot agree on a basic
framework of reality, then how can we hope to agree on a common
interpretation, or even common facts, of our history, or any moral and
ethical code? This, they say, is the dangerous path toward faith healing,
Holocaust denial, and Heaven’s Gate.
The idea that anyone’s version of reality is as valid as anyone else’s
can lead us to some scary territory. I don’t like the idea one bit.
However, in science we are taught not to reject ideas just because we
don’t like them.
John Mack is definitely not a Holocaust denier. And he’s not crazy. If
you spoke with him about anything other than the abduction phenom-
enon, you would think you were talking to a bright, articulate,
thoughtful, knowledgeable person, and you’d be right. I’ve had great
conversations with John about science, philosophy, and spirituality. I
find that we agree on many things. But we reach an impasse when we
get to the nature of the entities encountered by his patients. He believes
that someone, be they extraterrestrial or extradimensional, is actually
interacting and communicating with the experiencers.
I just cannot accept that these beings and experiences are real, so I
search for rational hooks on which to hang this conviction. I grasp at
Occam’s razor: “There are simpler explanations.” It is easier to believe
that many people have similar, vivid, and disturbing hallucinations than
that our entire conception of reality is flawed. But this doesn’t prove
anything, and as I discussed in chapter 7, you can always ask, “Who
elected Occam?” The doctrine of simplicity seems true to scientists but
nobody knows why.
Still, I don’t buy the reality of the abduction phenomenon. Why? In
short, because it feels all wrong. I reject it because it does not fit my
worldview. This is the best I can do.
I like to think it is, at least, an informed judgment—informed by the
fact that science, making the assumptions it does, has been so success-
ful. And I don’t mean making all these toys, conquering diseases, or
even touching the Moon, all of which are pretty cool. I mean that in
science, we’ve found a framework of ideas that works so well in
Believing Is Seeing
387
describing so much of the universe we see, in a coherent, self-consistent,
and profound way. To me that suggests that all of those things we don’t
admit we are assuming, or taking on faith, are really true. The success
of science is a confirmation of our faith in an objectively describable
material reality.
John doesn’t seem to care too much if these guys came from another
star or if they just materialized from another dimension that is some-
how interwoven with ours. This is somewhat infuriating to those of us
for whom “Where did you come from?” would be among the top few
questions we’d ask an alien. However, as I’ve already admitted, it’s
wrong to say that science can rule out anything when it comes to the
capabilities and motivations of other sentient creatures. So there is a
door of credulity, if you choose to open it or just to float right through,
that admits all kinds of creatures and experiences.
I don’t want to think about that too much, though, because what
would happen if I started to believe John Mack? How would I ever
explain it to my parents?
P R I N C E O F O U R D I S O R D E R
My father regrets not being closer to his old friend John and finds it
hard to understand the direction he’s taken. To the extent that Lester
feels he understands the UFO abduction phenomenon, he sees it in reli-
gious terms: here is a new world religion, possibly a major one, begin-
ning—as they all do—among a small, committed band of outcasts. In
fact, when John first told him of his interest in UFO abductions, Lester
thought John meant that he wanted to study it as a psychosocial phe-
nomenon and an emerging belief system. He told John that it sounded
like an interesting project.
Most believers would agree that theirs is a religious experience, but
they would obviously disagree with my father on its nature and impor-
tance. John’s Pulitzer Prize–winning psychohistory of Lawrence of
Arabia was entitled A Prince of Our Disorder. It occurs to me that this
title describes John himself as he is today. What we don’t all agree on is
whether the disorder is in our heads, in Western society, or in John’s
worldview. Am I allowed to check “all of the above”?
There is truth in the descriptions of humanity’s self-inflicted predica-
ment heard in the communiqués coming through the experiencers.
Whatever mind generates these stories is not entirely ignorant of the
388
L o n e l y P l a n e t s
human condition. These aliens, if they really existed, would be right to
warn us that we are acting in ways that threaten our future. Guilty as
Lonely Planets Page 56
