When I was talking to a crowd at a book signing last week, I was trying to explain how channeling related to the Bible. Hearing their questions, I really felt that they wanted to understand that connection. When they spoke they had a lot of fear in their voices even when I assured them I felt safe with channeling. I used the burning bush story humorously, but wonder if there is a better way to connect biblical channeling to now?

You want to be careful in such a situation. Unlike some other religions, Christianity does not have a single doctrine; there are many, many sects of Christianity. The vital premise, the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and came to earth as a propitiation, a final sacrifice, for humanity’s sins, is probably as close as you can get to a common ground. Beyond that it starts getting dogmatized, and there is controversy within Christianity as to whether simply believing that is enough, or whether you also have to be water-baptized, or to have the signs of the Holy Spirit in your life allowing you to produce miracles, and do you have to accept the authority of a particular official of the Church as a representation of . . . and so forth. Throughout the history of this—oh, forgive this statement—fairly minor religion in the history of humankind, there have been internal battles, excommunications and deaths over who had the right version.

So when you’re talking to somebody and you’re trying to help them know that you’re all right because your beliefs parallel their own even if you don’t accept them completely, which belief are you going to be able to relate to? If you’re dealing with the Charismatics, those who believe in the miracles of Pentecost, then the idea of glossolalia—speaking in tongues, the Spirit overshadowing or indwelling—is channeling. But if you’re talking to a fundamentalist Baptist who does not believe in the signs and miracles of Pentecost being effective here today, then you’re not going to be able to use that one.

To try to relate through the Bible with those who are trying to use it to prove you wrong is likely to be a mistake. You’re not going to have the training to do that. Try instead to agree on the understanding that channeling is the natural flow of your Highest Self.

What is your Highest Self? Source. What is your higher self? Perhaps just your deep subconscious knowing.

Using that, you can say that what you’re doing is channeling the Highest Self. The opportunity to allow the creative force in the Universe to work through you, to write, to speak, has been tapped throughout time; it has been called angels and muses and intuition, and it’s not frightening. It’s very natural, and you have done it when you’ve thought about what would be the best thing to say or when you’ve cried out for an answer and you got it.

Always look for what can be agreed on, not for what you’re going to have to argue someone into.

There is a strong tendency we have to turn away from people with terminal illness. How can we best overcome this and be of service to acquaintances when we know their lives are threatened by disease?

Everybody has a terminal illness; it’s called life. You’re turning away not from the individual; you’re turning away from your fear of loss, from your resistance to not having what you want. Work on that.

This society seems to be obsessed with sex, yet at the same time the subject is so taboo that we almost seem ashamed of it. Would you comment on our present society’s views of sex and what needs changing?

This society is obsessed with sex and is even happy to talk about it—as a technology of reproduction. The taboo with sex is that it is a pleasurable, spirit-enhancing thing. It’s okay to have sex; you just can’t have fun. And if you’re having fun, that means that you’re bad. And that has to do with sex being used as a control device. Society has used instinctual behavior as a control device from Day One. Sexuality is an intrinsic desire, and therefore to control it is going to have a great effect on the actions of the individual. If I can make you feel that your worth depends on your ability to perform or refrain from performing a certain act—sex—I am able to determine the quality of your life. Or, if I am able to convince you your survival after this life is determined by your willingness to adhere or not to adhere to certain rules, that could give me a means of controlling you. With sexuality the leverage for control is either going to be how you feel about yourself or how you believe your sexual actions are going to affect your eternal position.

In every society in transition, but particularly in this one where recalibration has brought about a mass awareness of changing constructs and a certain amount of crisis-consciousness, individuals are looking for ways to control themselves and others, which means they are going to be looking at security-based taboo behavior as well as at higher means of expressing themselves. And sexuality is one of the few behaviors that covers both at the same time—a means to manipulate on a physical lower level—how people feel about themselves—as well as providing an opportunity to function at a higher level—higher meaning recalibrated, higher frequency working, desiring wholeness.

So sexuality is very much at a crisis point right now. There’s actually quite a connection between sexual issues and angels and UFOs. In all of those you’ve got the good ones and the bad ones, all used as a means of manipulating.

Men reach their sexual peaks at 17 to 18 years old, and women at 35 to 37. It seems a flaw in the basic design. Was it meant to be that way, and how does it affect our sexual lives?

Only in the last hundred years or so has this society reached a point where you could fairly well count on a large number of men lasting until they were 60 and 70. There are very many places in the world where it’s still necessary for the women to be productive and expanding the tribe much longer than the male, because the male is going to die very early. And so the idea of reproducing when you’re most virile and being able to continue your line right before going out into the world and fighting and dying makes sense.

On another level, a woman is going to produce healthy, workable eggs for a very long time, whereas a male’s sperm becomes less viable, and is therefore less able to reach those good eggs, when he is still relatively young. So some of that has to do with the male’s earlier inability to reproduce.

And on still another level: In very many societies, women as priestesses initiated males as a sacred act before they were to move out into the world. And the priestess, of course, would need to be capable of that for many years.

You have talked about the three stages of learning enhanced sexual awareness to create a certain sexual/mental state. If through this work one learns to experience sexual satisfaction through casual, non-sexual experiences—such as watching someone dancing—and uses that for sexual fulfillment without the other person being aware of it, is that sexual abuse? And secondly, if one had no partner and used it as part of the process of sexual satisfaction, could it become a part of a sacred sexual process?

To answer the first question, that kind of experience is not an abuse of the person you watched, but it is of you. In the context of the design for sacred sexuality, it is an abuse of the process, not of the individual. It cannot be part of the sacred sexual process if you are limited to an outside stimulation, because the process is to create internal stimulation. If what it takes is watching, rather than watching being a part of the greater process designed to sensitize your pleasure zones, that’s different. If it’s foreplay before you go home to be with your partner, then it’s abuse of the process, because your partner should be there. You should be sharing the energy.

To answer the second question, if you do not have a partner, then yes, it could be a part of the process.