Death talk

Something needs to happen when the SoulPhone™ arrives—if not before. After a year or two of scientifically proven SoulPhone communication, thought leaders will likely realize that so much of our current, everyday language related to death and anything that survives death is dead wrong.

If consciousness continues after bodily death, then only the body dies. So many of our words and expressions are based on the premise that death is the end of everything, and that even the mind dies because it’s believed that the mind is housed inside the brain. Proof that the mind survives what we call death means that our everyday language peddles falsehoods, a situation that would eventually need to be fixed.

In Appendix A of his book Greater Reality Living, Dr. Mark Pitstick and co-author Dr. Gary E. Schwartz explore new verbiage to better reflect findings in afterlife research that shift old paradigms. Words and phrases that many of us habitually use may be contributing to serious misunderstandings about the greater reality.

For example, take that word afterlife. It implies that there is life, and that what happens later is not life. The way that many people use the term, the afterlife is often construed to be a place to hang out—like you go to the afterlife, a destination like the religious concept of heaven. It also sets up a linear model—before life, life, afterlife—that does not account for the possibility of bi-location or simultaneous existence in different dimensions.

As the term is commonly used, life refers to earth plane existence. What happens before or after is not called life, even if the entity is still conscious and has memories of a recent earth life. How confusing!

Terms like dead people or deceased loved ones are troubling because if those people are still conscious and living full lives beyond the reach of our sense perception, the terminology doesn’t fit. Schwartz and Pitstick prefer the term postmaterial persons (PMPs). This indicates that a person is still alive even though the material body is gone.


Trying to figure out new definitions to match the new information is quite a challenge.

For example, some people (myself included) like to use the term physical or bodily death to acknowledge that not everything perishes when the body dies. Yet some reports, particularly from out-of-body experiencers, describe environments not of this earth dimension but where travelers perceive themselves dwelling in a physical-like body.

This creates a semantic problem. If I use the term physical death, what happens if I find myself in another body that has physical properties within the confines of that other dimension? I may be in a physical body there but most people on earth could not perceive me.

Spirit is another term with a similar set of problems. In the greater reality, humans are spirits housed in physical bodies. Technically, earth would be ‘a spirit world’ as well. Yet commonly we refer to ‘the afterlife’ as ‘the spirit world’ and depict it as lacking physical form. Yet once in that state, we might not perceive us as being a spirit; our new place may be much like here. The word spirit may need refurbishing.

The term postmaterial persons is designed to reflect that humans are material and then postmaterial. This verbiage is more scientific or formal in nature, and I would expect new, informal terms to be born. For example, informal speech might coin the term posty or posties.


Despite how our physical sense perceptions view reality, we may exist in multiple locations or dimensions at once. In familiar (but not necessarily accurate) terms, we may exist in the physical world and in the so-called spirit world simultaneously.

This makes more sense if we think of consciousness as mobile, not perpetually stuck inside the flesh brain. It’s often said that the soul leaves the body when we sleep, for instance. People who take astral journeys leave their flesh bodies behind in bed or in a meditation position. They report inhabiting another body as they travel. Other sources, such as Michael Newton, Ph.D., report that when we incarnate, not all 100% of us does so. Part of us remains elsewhere.

This situation leads Pitstick and Schwartz to consider that terminology like “death to the physical body” is inadequate. If in the greater reality we have more than one body, which physical body dies?


The language that we use forms a mental picture of reality. Schwartz and Pitstick are dedicated to renovating the language we use to better visualize how things are. They say in their Greater Reality Living book that humans with their physical senses cannot perceive over 99% of what’s out there. They use as examples that humans can only see a certain range of visible light and hear a certain range of sound, whereas with various gadgets we can perceive a wider range of light and sound.

The perfected SoulPhone would be one of those gadgets that would expand our perceptual horizons. We can predict what it might be like from all the input gathered from afterlife research (another term needing an update) over the last several hundred years. The great potential and hope of the SoulPhone is that it may deliver a much higher grade of confirmation about the greater reality.

To receive Soul Phone Views free by email, click on the Menu icon at the top left corner of the page and fill out the brief form to follow.