I must say that I continue to be mystified by the Key. It's so ironic that so much paranormal experience would come to me, a person easily convinced by the paranormal. Before my 1985 close encounter, I was pretty skeptical about such things. Knowing of my tendency to dismiss even the most vividly physical of my unusual experiences, I called my wife the morning after my 1999 encounter with the Master of the Key and asked her to be sure not to let me decide that it was all just some dream.
The fact that she remained faithful to her promise not to let me do that is the reason that the Key was even written. The exchange happened in Toronto in 1999. It was not until 2001 that I actually sat down and wrote the book. What was so odd about this process was that I had nothing but a page of cryptic, seemingly irrelevant notes that I had taken during the meeting, and yet I was able to remember, just by looking them over from time to time, all the details of what was said.
Unless, of course, I was making the whole thing up. Frankly, from that day to this, the possibility has always troubled me.
There are strong reasons to believe that the event was real, though, the first one of which is that the man's words are so sublime and brilliant and, above all, so darned original, that I don't, in all honesty, think I could have created them myself.
And then there's the global warming stuff in the book, and the way it has expressed itself into the world. As I transcribed it, I realized that this man had explained one of the great mysteries of science to me, which is--or was--the cycle of ice ages.
Over the years, I watched as science confirmed one of his assertions after another. I came to understand the large-scale thought he put forward about mankind having evolved during a vast extinction event, and how it is that our intelligence is a response to an adverse, harsh and radically unstable climate.
But still in all, somewhere in the back of my mind, I held out the possibility that I, and I alone, might be the author of the Key.
Until last week.
I was in a bookstore the other day when I chanced to see the latest issue of Astronomy magazine. I assumed that the heading, "Why you live in multiple universes," referred to a familiar theory that there are many universes in one--in effect, that we live in a large number of universes that are all in the same place.
But then I noticed, in smaller type, the sentence, "Multiple universes, separated like bubbles, may populate the cosmos, our universe being only one among many."
This stopped me, left me staring at the magazine in amazement. I opened it to discover that astrophysicists and astronomers, including the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, whom I admire greatly and who I have interviewed for Dreamland, are coming to believe that there are universes out there beyond our own. Not interdimensional universes, but real, physical universes.
I bought the magazine immediately and took it home, because I very well remembered sitting for a long time and staring at this very computer screen, while I was writing the Key, and wondering if I should include the master's comment that there are "many universes."
I remembered the statement distinctly, but, at the time, I was aware of no scientific grounding for it at all. We had one universe, which had been formed in the extreme moment of the big bang. There were no other universes beyond its borders.
This was dogma. And yet I remembered what the MOTK had told me: that there are other physical universes out there.
I thought to myself that I shouldn't put this in the book. It would make it even less creditable, and the ethical parts of his statement were, it seemed to me, of immense value. But there was the issue of honesty. For a man who is generally considered to be a liar, I am actually pathologically honest. So I included the statement.
Of course, the book went entirely unreviewed and unremarked. Why should it be any different, just another piece of drivel coming from the liar Whitley Strieber?
Still, I believe that there will come a time, maybe in my life and maybe after, when it will be discovered that I never lied about anything, and, in fact, that the work I have left behind, as well as the records, are of significant value.
It is toward that time that I am "banking" things like my conversation with the Master of the Key. And it is with that time in mind that I was hesitant to include what I saw as an obvious shibboleth about there being more than one universe.
To be specific, he said, "There are more galaxies in your universe than there are stars in your galaxy, and more universes in the firmament than there are galaxies in your universe. There will come a day when mankind will learn how to detect universes beyond. But most are so far away that their light has not yet reached your universe, since the day of its inception."
Now, in the October Astronomy, there appears an article to the effect that reality appears to be a sort of foam, with potentially an endless number of physical universes, each contained in its own ?bubble.?
I did not know this when I wrote the Key. In fact, the master?s comment seemed so absurd to me that my inclination was to leave it out. (I once thought to publish a revised version that contained everything I left out, only to discover that I had omitted just a few repeated sentences and so forth. The existing book contains virtually everything I remember him saying.) I do not believe that I could have come up with this statement about there being multiple universes on my own. I did not believe any such thing at the time I wrote the Key. In fact, I staunchly believed the opposite.
So I have new respect for this mysterious man and his words, many of which, to me, are transcendent. His definition of sin, for example?that it is ?denial of the right to thrive??is the most ethically pure definition of evildoing that I have ever heard. It is, quite simply, the best definition of sin in the world. Additionally, it is incredibly useful, especially in this complex modern world, with all of its ambiguities and gray areas. All you need to do if you wish to understand the ethical content of your actions is to view them in the light of his definition.
This gets me to two things. First, I am going to return to my commentaries on the Key in the subscriber section of this website. These commentaries are valuable, because they consist, in my opinion, of a description of what it was like during one of the great ?contact? experiences of all time. I do not believe that the Master of the Key was any ordinary person. I don?t know what he was, but I think that my meeting with him was the peak experience of my life, and that his words are intended to be spread far and wide.
Ironic, that every publisher I have shown the book has looked down their nose at it, which is why it is published on my website only, and why only a few thousand people have read it. I cannot get it into stores, it seems.
But there will come a day when its value is realized, and then perhaps his message will enter the world in a new way, and have the impact that it deserves to have.
I look forward to that day with all my heart and soul.
NOTE: This Journal entry, previously published on our old site, will have any links removed.