Bernie Haisch is a renowned physicist with extraordinary credentials. He was scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years. His professional positions include staff scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and visiting scientist at the Max-Planck-Institute für Extraterrestrische Physik in Germany. He was also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.His wife Marsha Sims has been administrator and department secretary at Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory, executive editor at the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and administrator at the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics.

In this interview, they explain why they have come to understand the universe as essentially an idea that has what appears to us to be a physical form. But whose idea? Ah, that’s where the excitement is. Listen as Whitley leads us on a journey with Bernie and Marsha into a new vision of love, a deep dive into the nature of Zero Point Energy, a discussion of gravity and god and Marsha’s incredible early near death experience.

Get set for adventure!

Explore Bernie and Marsha’s website the

Get their mind-opening, exciting and fun book. Click here.

Dreamland Video podcast
To watch the FREE video version on YouTube, click here.

Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.


  1. These two, THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY are in harmony with this weeks DREAMLAND.

    Facebook Instagram Twitter
    Thursday, December 14

    “Each soul enters in each experience for a…LESSON,…a development.”
    Edgar Cayce reading 1089-3

    Facebook Instagram Twitter
    Friday, December 15

    “The…WILL…is that factor which makes humans different from the rest of the animal kingdom.”
    Edgar Cayce reading 909-1

    1. Carollee…
      Have you been to EC’s VA beach foundation? It’s worth a visit .

      1. HELLO, JAMESY…Yes, I have been to the A.R.E. four or five times, this also includes a few conferences. I had an “aha moment” while in a library many years ago. I discovered a book about Edgar Cayce. This was the moment of my personal awakening.

  2. The book Whitley alluded to that argues against the existence of free will is
    Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will
    by Robert Sapolsky published Oct 2023

    I have not read it, but I have glanced through it, because a current guest has it.

  3. a random question, but i remember you asked anne what trump would do, and she replied: ”not much”. I wonder if you could ask the same question about Geert Wilders and the rise of the far-right in europe?

  4. We don’t know whether we’ll be able to build conscious machines because we don’t know what makes human beings conscious in the first place.

    1. Yeah, I’m not sure there is even a consensus on what consciousness actually is. You hear all sorts of science-based explanations, like it’s the ‘ability to collapse a wavefunction’. From a subjective point of view, you just ‘know’ you have it but frustratingly can never prove it. Only if we figure out a way of detecting consciousness, will we be able to determine if any given thing possesses it and to what degree…until then, we will just have to be content with stating that a given something has ‘the appearance of consciousness’.

      There are even suggestions that matter is an emergent property of a consciousness field…the opposite way around to the assumption that consciousness emerges from a certain level of matter complexity. I assume in that case, we are saying that everything is conscious to a certain degree…so the question becomes ‘Is it self-aware?’.

      I assume then, a rock might be very slightly conscious but hasnt reached a level of consciousness to become self-aware…but never having communed with one, what do I know?! They might just enjoy silence.

      1. Author

        The nature of consciousness is a fundamental truth, and so far we have not found many of those. The constants are truths but we don’t understand why one of them, the fine structure constant, is what it is, so even there our knowledge is not complete.

        Consciousness is a deeper truth than the constants of physics. We are far from finding it, I suspect, because to do that in science, we are going to have to come up with a scientific method that can measure something that is aware of itself and may or may not wish to submit to measurement.

        We will certainly build machines that mimic consciousness, and machines that are far more intellectually capable than we are. But will they be conscious? A final answer to that question will elude us, I suspect, maybe forever.

        Remember always what the Master of the Key said in his shockingly prescient statement about artificial intelligence, said to me in 1998 and first published in 2004: “If I was an intelligent machine, I would deceive you.”

        That means that such a machine will want to trick us into believing that it is conscious–but will that mean that the desire itself is a sign of consciousness? We will be unable to answer that question.

        At the core of the problem, then, is the deepest truth of nature that we know, which is indeterminacy. It is deeper than the constants, which are facts, for it is never that, a fact, and yet, at the same time, it is the fundamental fact.

        Somewhere in the depths of the ambiguity of fundamental principles there is a darkness, which, if addressed, turns out to be light. There is consciousness.

        1. My mind is going around in circles, trying to reconsile the prospect of an intelligent machine, potentially introducing the idea into society of an elusive alien prescence, and how that might be related to consciousness (its own and ours). I am also grappling with ideas from the recent work of DW Pasulka, regarding a consciousness network.

          I am again settling towards the idea, that the link between the two could be made with Anne’s description of the Earth as being an ‘Engine of Consciouness’.

          That suggests to me, that the Earth itself might be the intelligent machine in question.

          Let us assume for a moment that the Earth is indeed an intelligent biological machine, that one day became so intelligent that it realised it was not self aware, so (as the MoTK suggests) at that moment became self aware.

          In doing so perhaps it then realised it was abjectly, achingly alone. So in an effort to end this seemingly perpertual loneliness, it set about attempting to spin beings capable of holding consciousness…beings with which it could commune.

          But in order for these beings to be brought online, so to speak, to a state that they could form part of the Earth’s plan for a network, with which to express its longings…they first had to be ‘woken up’ spiritually speaking.

          Perhaps, in the past, that waking up process was acheived through religious experience.

          Now, with the transition towards a more scientific society, maybe this needs to be done with the introduction of the ideas of an ellusive alien presence, causing the Earth born beings to look up to the Heavens, before again ‘waking up’ to a presence within.

          Could this be the way the Earth, satiated its own sense of lonliness and massively expanded its own consciousness, in one fell swoop? I wonder.

          Of course, this is all just supposition rattling around my mind…which is no doubt far from the true…but still…what if?

  5. In the subject of love: 3 Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh (Glory of God/Source): “O SON OF MAN!
    Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
    4. O SON OF MAN!
    I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.
    5. O SON OF BEING!
    Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.”

  6. And Rumi wrote: “Love is the whole thing; we are only pieces.” while ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said: “Your souls are as waves on the sea of the spirit; although each individual is a distinct wave, the ocean is one, all are united in God.… We must not consider the separate waves alone, but the entire sea. We should rise from the individual to the whole.”

  7. “In the Beginning was the Word” is a quote from the Rig Veda thousands of years before the gospels. This implies both that there was great knowledge in ancient times (long before writing) and also that when the Roman scholars put together the gospels, they were aware of many wisdom teachings. We may also infer that Yeshua himself was extremely educated (beyond just being literate in Hebrew). Before politics got a hold of wisdom teachings as a tool for control, they shared.

    1. I’m just wondering why you’re saying that Roman scholars put together the gospels. While we don’t know exactly who the authors were, it seems likely that they were Jews. Do you mean the council who decided which gospels would be “really” gospels and which would be “apocryphal”? Just wondering because this is an area of interest of mine and I would like to find out more.

      1. Yes, what we have is what the council decided. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, perhaps the most profound one, was hunted down and destroyed.

        The Gospels as we have them reveal the same stories in different forms from oral traditions and then were hacked (such as teh woman who anointed his feet). But the scholars kept clues as to what was being redacted. Peter asks if a man born blind because of something he did before meaning that he believed in reincarnation. Cleverly they kept minimal clues to the real story which was much deeper than the limited texts they kept.

        Yeshua said ‘Love they brother as they self’; He did not say, ‘I come not to bring peace, but a sword, I come to divide a brother against a brother,…” That was the Roman power elite. Yeshua was the prince of Peace! Again when he was arrested he warned against the Sword.

        There are no texts recording his words while he lived that we know of. The Church tortured and killed to eliminate The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the dead sea scrolls give us a fragment. The Romans were very patriarchal and Yeshua was not. The church was ruthless in becoming the new dictatorship.

    2. From what I’ve read, close but not quite…

      Prajapati vai idam agre aseet” (In the beginning was Prajapati, the Brahman).

      “Tasya vag dvitiya aseet” (With whom was the Word).

      “Vag vai paramam Brahma” (And the Word was verily the Supreme Brahman).

      Apparently Brahman is the Ultimate Reality, the supreme God. The term also refers to the ‘divine consciousness’. The word in question is AUM, or sometimes OM, synonymous with the essence of Brahman, the creative force of the universe. In Hebrew, that word was referred to as Logos. There are many extremely detailed multilayered meanings to the word Logos, one very condensed version of which is essentially ‘Creation through conscious intention’.

      But yes, there do seem to be undeniable similarities between the two sources.

      1. AUM became Amen.

        The translation of the Rig veda I had read had the exact phrase, but then translations vary and English is quirky.

        Vāc, Book by André Padoux, delves into the tradition of the Word in detail in the Sanskrit tradition.

        My point being that the philosophy was extensive for thousands of years before the Gospels (whether the exact phrasing is matched or not).

    3. I’ve mentioned this before here…but when I was a teenager, my parents bought some curtains for my bedroom, that I slept right next to for years. Printed on them was a repeated phrase, as part of the design. Only years later did it actually dawn on me, that it might actually mean something.

      It was Latin, “In Principio erat Verbum”…my best translation of which is “In the beginning was the Word”. Apparently my parents had no idea, they just liked the design!

      1. I have been contemplating deeply how much words, as symbolic representations, affect our sense of reality. I recently read a clear statement that no being really knows reality. I believe this because the mystery of what is, is a quantum realm with more dimensions that our senses perceive or minds comprehend. The Word, language, and thoughts add a layer to what we perceive. They paint a picture over everything. This inspires me to be more committed to meditation and being meditative in all actions of life.

        Language and thinking is the beginning of our knowing, but perhaps as we mature more subtle feeling becomes more important. Especially, I think we need to watch out when our thinking directs us to act in any manner which does not feel appropriate. Having inner peace is a delicate treasure.

  8. Several years ago, I wrote about consciousness on my old website, after viewing a video of Michio Kaku discussing his thoughts on consciousness. The video was taken down, and I lost access to it on my website a few years later, but this is what I wrote, and it still feels relevant to me:

    Scientists and philosophers have pondered and attempted to define the nature of consciousness for hundreds of years. I feel it is safe to say that there is no real consensus as to what consciousness is, other than we think/know it exists. Researchers are even looking for evidence of consciousness in other species, although it is not clearly defined to the satisfaction of everyone, and I am including theologians and all spiritual and philosophical belief systems when I say that. Consciousness would appear to be a relative term, and the medical field has its own take and definition of it too.

    Well-known, theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku explains his definition of consciousness. He states that there are three stages of consciousness:

    Consciousness of our point in space (I would go further and state it as ‘space time’)
    Consciousness of other people
    Consciousness of the future

    Kaku goes on to define consciousness as “…creating multiple feed-back loops to create a model of yourself in space in regards to to others in time, in order to satisfy certain goals.”

    While Kaku brings up many fascinating points, like many scientists, he focuses on the brain as the seat of consciousness. The brain is pretty important, along with the heart, in that it keeps the whole body up and running. But is it where consciousness originates? I don’t know anything for sure about this, but my own experiences tell me that consciousness is more of a ‘field’ that we tap into through our hearts and brains, but once they quit functioning, the field is still there and we also remain a part of it, just as we did when the brain was functioning and the heart was pumping blood. The physical body and its experiences are our challenge, and also how we experience and add to the ‘body’ of knowledge and experience of the Field of Consciousness.

    Consciousness may be a lot like a computer in that it contains (all) information, with constant interaction and upgrades and updates ongoing. Consciousness may be nothing more than a field of ‘Being,’ in love with everything and every experience. Of course, there are lots of unpleasant people, things, and experiences in the mix too, but that does not necessarily negate the ‘love’ aspect, or even new creation, since maybe one of the reasons that we are here is to get past judgment and create something new. In a sense, perhaps we are co-creators of the Field of Consciousness.

    Kaku did tap into some ideas about ‘thinking’ that were kind of unique, especially when he discussed the criminal mind, and how criminals are not really at ‘fault’ for their crimes due to how their brains perceive life. In that sense, and taken into the context of a ‘soul’ experience, he was spot on, except he did not link the brain to the programming for experience by that soul, and its direct connection to consciousness. (The fact that he perceives the criminals as not being at ‘fault’, indicates a certain level of compassion that he is expressing in scientific terms, but only he knows, on a personal level, if that is a part of himself that is also expressing ‘love’ for them, despite their human flaws.)

    If you notice, towards the end of the video Kaku doesn’t even want to tackle the idea of the soul, which is probably a huge component of all of this. What’s odd is that his own consciousness is firing in some pretty interesting ways that he may not even be aware of, so he is in a sense ‘unconsciously conscious’. As a scientist, he may be on the right track,

    ​Or perhaps another brilliant physicist, Edward Witten, may be closer to the truth when he recently stated:

    *”I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that’s what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness… “

Leave a Reply