Archived podcast for paid Subscribers only. Please login to access.

Subscribers, to find out how to join our contest for a free signed copy of the new Super Natural paperback, listen to Dreamland or the Experience for instructions.

Even experiencers of high strangeness have experiences that are so peculiar to them they rarely talk about them. This week, "Marie" returns with a list of them from her life, and host Jeremy Vaeni reveals some things he doesn’t like to admit. All in service to getting the unedited, unfiltered picture of the Super Natural. 

From Whitley: I just listened. Very provocative stuff!!

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. Fascinating episode. Thanks!
    Fascinating episode. Thanks!

  2. I LOVED this show!
    I LOVED this show!

  3. A great episode. I wonder
    A great episode. I wonder how many listeners find what Marie talks about very familiar to them.

    What was interesting to me was the description of getting a sensation prior to particular events.

  4. Jeremy:
    I have no conscious

    I have no conscious awareness of any such experiences happening to me in my present life. Yet everything Marie recounted makes complete sense to me, as if I have experienced them before. As a few have said, we may be simultaneously experiencing countless lives in different times, places, and dimensions, most of which are non-physical. Our bodies tether us here, but this state may be the exception rather than the rule. It may help to think of ourselves as “presently embodied” but always alive.

  5. Jeremy:
    You often get tangled

    You often get tangled up in your own speculations before your guest can complete her thought. Too often, the thread she was following is broken, forgotten, and goes unexpressed. Whitley does this too, though less so recently, especially since Anne has passed over and helps keep him on track. (Interviewing 101)

  6. Dissection is about
    Dissection is about separation, division, entropy, destruction. Scattering and splitting the pieces apart. Breaking something down into its component parts will not help supply the answers needed. What is needed is knowing how the pieces fit together in a unified fashion. Integration, as Marie stated. I believe the chakra system may be an example of how varying types of subtle energy fit together in a unified manner. Light and dark, interweaving and interconnecting.

    Is light speed the speed limit for entropy? Matter eventually breaks down into light, matter can be converted into energy. Entropy may have varying speeds of manifestation, but it may also have a top speed. Eventually, even higher frequency photons emitted by our Sun break down into smaller, less energetic red shifted photons via interaction with processes in the Earth biosphere. The Universe also moved from low entropy to higher entropy with intervening time, and with the acceleration of the Universe this propensity may be continuing.

    Some say that light speed is the speed of causality. Could it be that entropy is the root cause of causality? Is the act of a hammer striking a nail an example of entropic principles? Is entropy also responsible for our concept of time? If so, we are railing against it by creating unity. Entropy is pretty much ubiquitous, and is a force that is apparently almost everywhere. However, it may not abide for complementary photons that have conjoined through quantum entanglement. It is therefore possible to create an entropy free zone, at least for a while. Can we escape entropy by cultivating unity? Does time cease to exist when we do so? Is unity the opposite of entropy?

    When we peer down into the microscopic, do we really find nothing? Are the answers waiting in the bulk of reality, rather than the infinitesimal? Are phenomenon like quantum entanglement examples of unity, rather than indications of what lies inside the nitty gritty? Should we be asking “how do the puzzle pieces fit together in a unified fashion”, rather than “what lies beneath, at smaller and smaller scales”? Alchemy, instead of annihilation.

    1. Mace, just because there are
      Mace, just because there are opposites doesn’t mean there are opposites.

      1. Opposites are an illusion,
        Opposites are an illusion, right? But in the meantime, the persistence of the illusion endures. Separation may not exist, but it sure is a convincing illusion.

        1. More illusion than reality,
          More illusion than reality, yet more reality than illusion.

          1. I guess it comes down to what
            I guess it comes down to what you believe in: illusion, or truth. It is perfectly possible to believe in the illusion, nurture it, and act in accordance with its concepts.

          2. Yes, as long as you believe
            Yes, as long as you believe in belief.

  7. I agree with Marie regarding
    I agree with Marie regarding two things in particular, that is the agreement to participate and the loss of identity upon waking from her particular form of ‘sleep’, each of which indicates having come from an identity other and larger than her ‘normal’ identity, but as validly, or rather more validly her than her ‘normal’ identity.

    I don’t believe I have a similar ‘agreement’. I wish I did, if for no other reason than to pester them to hurry up…I have had ‘identity problems’ upon waking, though not to the same degree, and I don’t mean the latter as a nod to the LGBT community…

  8. Hey Jeremy, folks…

    Hey Jeremy, folks…
    maybe the reason its easier to make a connection in the country/nature/ yatta is that the country is not awash in WiFi.
    I laugh at the reality/illusion discussion. (in my opinion) simply put, your reality is what you decide. One can build any kind of “illusion”, that doesnt fit anyone else’s reality, and call it reality. This is where I live. Now mind you, stepping in front of a speeding 18 wheeler may “change” one’s reality instantly or it could also pass thru them. (usually that just ends badly)
    What about all these things being connected. What if they aren’t? Are things connected in Nature? The food chain says so(man-made stuff). Are the butterfly and a snowy mountaintop connected? Under the umbrella of Nature, sure. Is Nature also a man-made tag? Or is it an environment, a stage if you will? see, I think you guys touched on that where, well… the experience may happen TO you, but it may not be FOR you.
    we are all searching for answers, trying to organize and make sense of stuff. Gawd, gonna sound swami-esque. What if there aren’t any.
    That paper is white….no, its bone, no, its cotton, no, its milk. whatever label, the paper never changed. Only the “observer’s” perception of label changed.
    Personally, I really enjoy listening to everyone’s stories. They always make me think.
    Lastly, I did have a crazy thought… It was about those little blue guys Whitley called kobolds. I always envisioned kobolds as dogmen like…similar to gnolls. Anyway, that does tie with a native story about the old woman weaving a blanket. When she’s done, so is reality. Then, theres the “blue dog”, her companion. When she stops to take a break or looks away, the Blue dog unravels it and she has to begin weaving again. please correct me if I miss the mark on that tale. Like heating steel & folding it …making it more dense strong…. stronger souls. We arent done yet so lets unravel the blanket a bit. chaos you say?
    I just dont know. i guess at it alot. you guys are always good at thought provoking.
    Stop yur rambling, you!

    1. Hi Harley, maybe the time is
      Hi Harley, maybe the time is coming when we can stop seeing the subjective and the objective as just another dichotomy, another dualistic trap. This has been the case for too long. Maybe even the advanced esoteric cultures of the past went too far in rejecting the objective (material) world as too unreal, just as ‘we’ have went too far rejecting the subjective (non-material) world as too unreal. There should be, and probably is, a point of balance between the two on an individual and collective basis, that gives due importance to each, but no undue importance to either. Maybe ultimately everything is subjective, but if we embrace that, it comes close to declaring everything as objective. Ultimately we decide, but do we bind ourselves to our own decisions when we make that declaration? Who are we to decide, when we mistake Living Death for Life, and Ignorance for Knowledge?

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.