In the last several posts, I've discussed Dr. Michael Newton's book, Destiny of Souls, and how his findings have been contrary to the notion of Twin Souls. While I freely admit that I have a hard time letting go of the concept of Twin Souls and that I could be completely wrong about it, I'd like to address my thoughts on his argument.
First, I want to reaffirm my admiration for Dr. Newton's fascinating research. He has brought the world of hypnotherapy and exploration of life between lives to a whole new level. That said, I'd like to state that one problem with his research, which bedevils all research of this type, is that his clientele is entirely self-chosen, and therefore exclusive in many ways. He couldn't research all people of all types because all people of all types weren't able or open to seeing him.
Second, his questions may have reflected an unconscious bias. I'll admit here that my belief in Twin Souls is colored by my own experiences, and my research into Twin Souls has been driven by my desire to make sense of these unusual experiences. To give some meat to my argument, one of his clients while in trance said that "Frances and I have been with each other from the beginning. We are so close because we have struggled together, helping each other . . ."
My final take? We may be two different people trying to explain what an elephant looks like from having touched it in a dark room. Perhaps Twin Souls didn't turn up in his research because those people didn't elect to be included in his clientele. Perhaps bias has crept into both of our research conclusions. Perhaps Twin Souls and soul mates are just different terms for the same concept. Perhaps we are, in the most basic way, both right and wrong at the same time.
I guess the afterlife will explain all.