Experiencers Are Important with Fawn Miller | A Coffee & UFOs Chat

A safe space for experiencers, mind and the divided brain theory, the distraction of disclosure, and the ontological unfolding in a high-strangeness reality.  I absolutely enjoyed this conversation with my guest, Fawn Miller, where we covered a wide range of topics related to UAP and the human condition.

Fawn Miller is a Master Coach, facilitator, educator, researcher, community cultivator, and exuberant creative partner with a decade of experience in helping ambitious, accomplished, high-spirited humans to elevate their evolution, while supporting personal, professional, and spiritual transformation.

For over twenty years, she has passionately studied human consciousness, the human experience, and the nature of reality - from research labs at UC Berkeley to week-long symposiums at the renowned Pari Center in Pari, Italy, and dozens of classes with renowned teachers and thousands of hours of self-study along the way.

In 2003, Fawn found herself obsessed with UFOs/UAP and the greater “Phenomenon”, privately dedicating herself to the rigorous exploration and research of these topics with a particular calling toward abduction experiences, the work of John Mack MD, and the personal impacts of anomalous Encounters. http://www.fawnmiller.com/fawn-universal

After decades of carefully navigating the stigma surrounding these topics, Fawn has recently emerged in response to a deep calling to be of support to Experiencers as well as to those who are awakening / waking up to the realization that "reality" is not what they were led to believe.

Through her new platform,“Fawn.Universal”, she is offering a safe space for exploring the mysterious via 1:1 Transformational Coaching and support, a suite of upcoming classes, resources, and groups, as well as a podcast and YT channel, “Ontological Grok: Exploring the Nature of Reality and the Reality of Nature” later in 2025.

☕️Subscribe to help the Mystic Lounge channel grow. Like, comment, and click the Notification Bell so you don’t miss a show. Thank you! https://www.youtube.com/mysticlounge

https://www.instagram.com/coffeeandufospodcast/

HALF LIGHT documentary: https://tubitv.com/movies/678744/half-light

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I started to recognize that if I went any farther
down the rabbit hole, that I wouldn't be able to
come back out of like this obsession with disclosure and
like you know, this focus on the government and disclosure
is it would be and probably is a big red herring,
Like if the attention is being drawn that way, I
tend to Yeah, okay, check that. But also what about abductees?

(00:24):
What about experiences? The honest answers, I have no idea,
what's going on? I don't I don't know, un I know.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Hey, guys, welcome back to coffee and UFOs. I have
a great guest on tonight, von Miller, and she is
here to talk about well, you know, we're going to
talk about the gamut of UFO's spirituality and wherever the
conversation takes us. Very briefly, Von Miller is a master coach, facilator, educator, researcher,

(01:01):
community cultivator, and exuberant creative partner with a decade of
experience and helping ambitious, accomplished, high spirited humans to elevate
their evolution while supporting personal, professional, and spiritual transfer nation.
She also digs UFOs fun. How are you.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I'm fabulous. Thank you so much for having me on.
I'm really excited to be here.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Oh, thank you, thanks for coming on coffee and UFOs.
So before we talk about UFOs in particular, it's a
little bit tell us a little bit about your background,
you know, where how you ended up even considering because
I know you're launching a podcast at some point.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the kind of notorious
Pandora's box of questions, right, tell me sure your background.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Or we can just bypass that if you want.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
No, I love it. I love it. It's always interesting
to me to notice like what drops in when that
question is asked, especially in this kind of a space.
So no, I appreciate that question. I think it's really important.
I've always been passionate about the human experience. I'm pretty

(02:14):
sure I came out of the womb fascinated with life
and pretty obsessed with this whole, this world, this experience
of being a human being, a human being in the world,
and for good or for bad. I was one of
the kids with an insatiable curiosity, and that insatiable curiosity

(02:38):
throughout the years and throughout the decades led me to
ask some big questions, and some big questions really young.
So I was the kid at like seven years old
or eight years old, like reading the encyclopedia for fun
or going to the library to check out books about
philosophy and psychology when I was in eighth grade, and some.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
People are stacking the encyclopedia to get cookies.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
Not exactly, not to say that I wasn't doing that too,
I mean I wasn't good, but so so yeah. I
for whatever reason, I've just I've been super curious my
entire life, and that curiosity led me to find out
that a lot of what I was taught in school

(03:25):
was in fact a partial truth or entirely inaccurate, or
information espoused as being fact that in fact was hypothetical
at best. And so when I started to catch wise

(03:47):
to that, I started to kind of doubt the entire
infrastructure around me, politically, religiously, academically, et cetera. In the
sense of, well, if if this isn't entirely true or accurate,
then what is and does that mean that this other

(04:07):
thing isn't entirely true or accurate? So it kind of
became this The curiosity led to even greater curiosities around
what do we actually know and how do we actually
know what we know? So, you know, lighthearted questions as
a teenager that I was orbiting, and one of the

(04:31):
things that was really like a burning curiosity for me
was around nature and human beings. And I noticed that
nature seemed to do a really great job at thriving.
Like I grew up in the mountains, I grew up
in the woods, playing in the marshes, frolicking in the trees,
and noticed that nature seems to have it kind of

(04:53):
figured out. And then looking at the human world around me,
it seemed that a lot of people struggled and some
people seem to do just fine. So those kinds of
wonderings and curiosities led me to psychology and studying psychology

(05:15):
and specifically the psychology of purpose and consciousness at UC
Berkeley in my undergrad getting to kind of cut my
teeth on some of the research that was happening around
what we do actually know about human nature and some
kind of dismantling some of the assumptions that we had

(05:35):
grown that I had grown up with in terms of
the standard psychological model of human beings are kind of
flawed and we need some fixing or a lot of fixing.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
What is that? What's what are we misunderstanding?

Speaker 1 (05:50):
Yeah, well, I think partially innocently, partially perhaps manufactured. Throughout
the twentieth century, especially psychology was really driven by a
focus on what's wrong with people to put it, just
kind of bluntly right in terms of disorder or dysfunction

(06:13):
or abnormality. And so the Freudian model, you know, that
then became some of the more behaviorist models, which were
extremely i mean not fantastic for humans and for science.
It kind of snowballed into this like clinical approach to

(06:34):
treating human beings and treating human beings as their diagnoses
or treating human beings as their behaviors instead of a
more holistic view of the human being. And there really
wasn't a study of what's right with people until the
late nineties when the head of the head of psychology

(06:55):
at you Penn, Martin Seligman, started to wonder, why we're
studying this is like obviously cliffs notes, but why aren't
we studying what's right with people? This is a little odd. Historically,
there was a vein of psychology called the humanist psychology,
which was actually Maslow and a couple of other really
important thinkers, but they were kind of quashed by this

(07:16):
larger diagnostic orientation and model. So Seligman, after having done
twenty years of analyzing people, realized, I wonder what would
happen if we start to get curious about what's right
with people and study people who are really healthily adapted
to the world and come to find out two or

(07:39):
three decade I mean, this is really recent research, really
in the course of human history, but come to find
out we are actually oriented and wired to thrive, and
we're oriented and wired to be very resilient and to
be altruistic and to be communal, and to be to

(08:01):
be vibrating, if you will. It's kind of a you know,
WU term, but to be vibrating at a frequency that
would be conducive to us enjoying life, Like, that's our
natural default. And that's just not what was really discussed
or taught or maybe even known about for you know,

(08:22):
for a very very long time at least not like
in the mainstream.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
That's that's our Okay. So if that's our natural default,
is it because you do have individuals that are you know, psychopaths, right,
So there is a miswiring in the brain. I almost
wonder like if that's like corrupted, that corrupts the system,

(08:47):
and then then humans react to these, you know, like
kind of agent smiths you know in a sense, and
and then that caused this chain reaction of the top
behavior and then it just gets passed down, passed down,
passed down, you know, because I don't know enough, but
I in some of my readings of Native American history

(09:12):
and such, uh, there seemed to be and this could
just be perception, like much more you know, you know,
equilibrium and balance and you know, like a holistic sociologic
you know, a society without these kind of strange aberrations

(09:34):
that we have now. I look like with the shooters
that we have these days, I and it's it's unbelievable.
You know, how how did we get to this point?
You know where there's just so much I know we're
not talking UFOs right now, but you know, like that
that'll actually connect into this. But you know, if if

(09:55):
that's if that's who we are by default, we're supposed
to be good natured, what have?

Speaker 1 (10:01):
It's a really that's the question that I came into
this world with, and that I've been on a sort
of insatiable, relentless pursuit to understand better. Are you familiar
with the work of Ian McGilchrist. Doctor, Oh, my gosh,
I'm so excited to share some life changing stuff with you, gilchrist.

(10:24):
Ian McGilchrist, Yeah, he's a neuroscientist or a psychiatrist, I
should say neuroscientist. He was an Oxford scholar philosopher, but
he came out with this book called The Master and
his Emissary in two thousand and eight, and it's a
massive tome and what in a nutshell and I have.

(10:45):
I am happy to share some links to some information
for your audience, if they're interested. His work has revolutionized
my entire world and helped me not only better understand
these deeper questions, but also so much of the UFO
and experience are phenomenon to So what he discovered, to
put it very hopefully succinctly, is that everything we thought

(11:09):
we knew about the hemispheres the brain hemispheres is actually not,
for the most part, not accurate. And in fact, what
is accurate is that it's not what the hemispheres do.
Both hemispheres pretty much kind of play a part in
doing everything, but it's how the hemispheres engage with the

(11:32):
world and create reality, and the right hemisphere and the
left hemisphere create very different experiences of the world. And
throughout his research over the course of forty years with
patients who had you know, lesions in either side of
the brain or I know, Diane Hennessy, Powell actually talks

(11:55):
about the Safair amount and some other people kind of
in the sphere of the phenomenon, but looking.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
At these patients that had damage on one or the
other side, and then kind of watching how they orient
with the world and the kinds of the.

Speaker 1 (12:13):
Kind of world that is created given that damage. And
then in addition to doing different kinds of studies on
patients or just people, and noticing that those who are
more right hemisphere dominant, let's say, and I like to
use the word harmony because the right hemisphere wouldn't use

(12:33):
the language of dominant, but harmony. When the right hemisphere
is in charge, which is actually the way we are
designed to be in our neurochemistry, the right hemisphere takes
in the world as a full picture. It has a
capacity to understand implicitness, It has a capacity for empathy,

(12:57):
it has an understanding of togetheriness, of reciprocity, of relationship,
of movement, of flow, of nuance, and so many other things.
Whereas the left hemisphere, the reality that it creates is
one that is very, for lack of a better term,

(13:17):
very mechanical and mechanistic. So the left hemisphere, when it's dominant,
experiences a world that is very static, very objective. It's
very righteous. It thinks that it's right about the assessments
that it makes, although it makes very partial assessments because
it can't understand the data from the right hemisphere. It's

(13:42):
very oh, go ahead, No.

Speaker 2 (13:44):
No, I thought it was interesting, but yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
Yeah, it's yeah, it's super interesting. Yeah. So the information
comes into the right hemisphere, gives it to the left
hemisphere essentially to kind of organize it, and then it's
meant to be passed back to complete the picture. But
the left hemisphere, if it's too dominant for myriad reasons
that that could occur either biochemically or culturally, the left hemisphere,

(14:10):
when it's in charge, that's when we start to see
behaviors that are more indicative of a really mechanistic, mechanical
emotionless lacking empathy power, hungry partially perspective. So he writes
this book called The Master and is Emissary, and it's

(14:32):
this chronicle of the past two thousand years of human
history and the cycles of civilization, and what he notices
in the patterns of these civilizations that flourish, right, these
indigenous cultures come back to your question, indigenous cultures and
other cultures that were balanced, that seem to have a

(14:55):
more harmonious way of living, in a healthier psychological dis
position as we would call it today. And then these
other cultures that were warmongering or that had a really
staunch hierarchy or a uh you know, and we see it.
So he kind of maps this out over the over history,

(15:16):
and his hypothesis, supported by all of this, is that
the left hemisphere is it's kind of brute, very very brute,
and so when it gets into a position where it's dominant,
it doesn't understand that that is what will be its downfall.
It can't it can't see the bigger picture. And so

(15:38):
these civilizations rise due to this what he calls immoderacy
of greatness. This nobody can topple me, you know, kind
of what we see in the world. So much today,
which then creates a culture that shapes and conditions it's
people to be left him spired dominant, right, and that

(16:02):
left hemisphere dominance is where we see psychosis or violence
or trump you know, like, yeah, so grandiosity, yes exactly, Yeah, okay, so.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
We're speaking the same language. But yeah, so there were
you know, certain Native American groups that that were kind
of warm, you know, more war like right in their behaviors.
But you know, the I think a good clue to

(16:41):
a healthy society is you know, because we my wife
and I had done a documentary years ago on this,
but in like in some Native American cultures, they have
what is called the two spirit person and this is
someone who is again this is these are societies that

(17:04):
have you know, male and female archetypes that that they
grow up in with. You know, they have the grandma grandfather.
But on occasion, you know, someone is born who's different
and they're okay with that. They were okay with that.
And in fact, there are certain you know, rituals that

(17:24):
were were given out. This might sound too crazy, but
like one of the planes tribes, there is a ritual
where they and this is what they did with with
all all children. They would put them in this in
a ring, and in the in the middle of the
ring there would be an arrow or you know, the
weaving baskets and all these different things that were typically

(17:46):
male or female roles, and then they would light the
circle on fire and the child would have would have
to grab something and then run out of the circle.
So the idea was like the first thing that they're
drawn to grab and run out, you know, it resonated
with him and sometimes a child might a woman might
grab a bow, or a male might grab a you know,

(18:08):
a woven basket or whatever it is, and they embrace
the idea that sometimes people are just born a little
bit different, you know, and it's like, okay, so you're
born different, let's incorporate you into the you know, our
societal structure, you know, and and then we'll move on
with our lives and that's okay, you know. And a
lot of Shamans were often like, we're transgender as well.

(18:32):
And I think that today I see this this strange
animosity against transgenderism that I find profoundly disturbing. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
I'm sorry. I kind of went a little.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
Diet, keep going, keep going, but yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:53):
That's that's just what I see. I see, I see,
I see that we are remember that documentary Quoya Quoit Sucky, Yes,
can't remember the actual name now, Philip Glass, right, Philip
Glass did the music for it, Yeah, music, but it
was the Life out of Balance. And I think that's
kind of what you were you were talking about. Yeah,

(19:13):
now how does that tie into UFOSS curious about?

Speaker 1 (19:18):
That's what I'm curious about too.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
Right, Yeah, So I think there's a I'll propose this
and then get your thought on it. So I think
that because I do see people who I would consider
bigoted interested in the topic of UFOs, right, But I
still think that all of us, on a subconscious level,

(19:41):
we were reaching for something. And I think that, and
I believe UFOs are like actual physical you know, things
that are coming here intelligently control. But I still think
the UFO is a symbol. It's an it's an archetype
that that people are striving for something. There's some kind
of meaning, something's missing, and that's that's part of why

(20:02):
people are drawn to it, even if someone is not
a good person per se.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
Mm hmmm. Can I ask you more about where where
that sense comes from?

Speaker 2 (20:15):
For you, well, I think it just comes from my
own place, right, I did a UFO citing myself, and
then that like clicked clicked, that was it. After that
it was eternally because you know, it is it represents
the sky and historically in mythology and the sky beings

(20:37):
were like gods, and yeah, they were there to answer
the big questions. So I think that on a subconscious level,
I think that and then this is very young in
but I think that that's what's going on in that
in that intense curiosity. And I also think that it's
a savior complex too. I think that we all to

(20:59):
some degree kind of that maybe you know, if they
came down that it would kind of like rant Ronald
Reagan said, you know, kind of like force us all
to get along. And but again, like I said, like
I see people who have a certain like a certain
cruelty in them towards other humans, not all humans, but

(21:19):
just some other humans and who are interested in this
this you know, big topic, a topic that is innately
a topic of the grand diversity of nature and reality
and what's capable. So it seems it seems like a contradiction,

(21:40):
and I guess it is. But you know, I see
these these things living in the same space.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah, thank you for sharing more about that. Yeah, it's
it is interesting to track along with the various interpret
lenses there are about about the UAP topic and and

(22:08):
also for guessing your audience is well aware of this.
But the farther down the rabbit hole you go, the
bigger the rabbit hole gets, and the more the more
we find our at least I I can speak for
myself and a lot of other enthusiasts that you think
you think, all of a sudden you're you know, interested

(22:28):
in UFOs, whether you've had a direct contact or like myself,
just kind of spontaneously like hmhm, and and then you know,
a few weeks later, a few months later, you're studying
like gnosticism and the esoteric origins of you know, religious
history et cetera, et cetera, and arcons and the demi origin.
So so the UFO topic, you know, has this tendency

(22:50):
to just like you know, almost like micro or macrodoce
us into these other realms that have been occult hidden
for so long. And so the noticing around the ways
in which people interpret the phenomenon I think could be

(23:11):
indicative of so many different things. It could be indicative
of what you're speaking to in terms of it, maybe
an archetypical predisposition that we have, or an archetypical conversation
that we're having with the platonic space, or and I
think though too, that there is likely a lot of

(23:33):
different manifestations of the phenomenon. There's a lot of different
things or non things, energies, possibilities in the possibility space
of UAP that those with let's say more malicious or
left hemisphere driven dispositions, of course, would be drawn to.

(23:55):
Because whatever they're seeing, I would imagine whatever they are
identifying within that or maybe perhaps what they're literally encountering
if it is a superior technology, or if it is
uh you know, maybe like a darker energetic realm or
enter entity, that could very well be happening too. There

(24:19):
could very well. And I mean I hear myself talking
about this right now, and I'm like, I am definitely
down the rabbit hole.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
Okay, yes, yes, but yeah, I will say, because this
goes back to what you were saying earlier. But when
you first got interested in this thing, you started questioning
what you were told, what the narrativetive was wasn't exactly
what it was. And the problem with that is that
once you have that realization, it's like pulling the trap

(24:47):
door and either either you can go down slowly hold on,
hold on to the rope and go down slowly, or
you just fall and.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
You can try to go down slowly.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
Yeah. But but but there's and I think that's that's
where QAnon, you know, really thrived, because people don't trust
the government, people don't trust narratives, people don't trust anything,
and they start just and since you know you were
allied to, you just start filling in the gaps of
you're on your own. You just start believing whatever makes
more sense to you because it doesn't matter what they

(25:18):
say anyway, because it's not real. So I might as
well just you know, go in here. And I think
that's why we get people who are like obsessed with
like the Blue Avians and the Secret Space Program, you know,
David Wilcox and all that. Like yeah, and and but
again I get like I think all I think all

(25:38):
these all these people are striving for something bigger. They're
seeking something bigger than them themselves in one way or another.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
It could be I mean it could be. I mean,
certainly I would agree with that. The degree to which
that is the case universally, I you know, I don't know.
And you know there's that quote when you shout into
the abyss, the abys shouts back. There's also this question
of like are people seeking that or are they being
compelled to seek something greater than themselves? You know, there's

(26:13):
there's kind of common I think in the conversation right now,
is the consciousness element of all of this, and that
Jacques Jacques Valis Valet for example, and others have to
some degree spoken to the possibility that this is it's

(26:33):
in some way like nudging our awakening or nudging our
the evolution, our evolution. Now in what direction, into what degree?
Who knows. But I think that there's to go back
to what I circle back to what you were saying
about the you know, the very slippery slope that this

(26:54):
can create. I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact, full transparency,
I had to shut the door on this in two
thousand seven, two thousand and eight, so about after about
six six years or so of so two thousand and
three was when I woke up, woke up, just woke

(27:14):
up one morning literally out of nowhere, obsessed, like having
never really thought about it really before or had, you know,
was like, oh, UFOs are in sci fi shows and stuff,
but woke up obsessed and went on this bent go ahead,
go ahead, Oh no, no, go just went on this

(27:34):
crusade of curiosity to find anything I could that could
be you know, I was just like, oh, yeah, UFOs,
people say that those are real and a thing. I
really started from the like bewilderment of like, oh yeah,
this is a topic. And this was pretty much pre
not pre Internet, but it was pre YouTube. It was

(27:55):
pre you know, there wasn't a lot of resourcing happening
on the Internet except for some really forum and so
I would go to you know, bike my way to
Blockbuster and get the documentaries and you know, the KGB
and UFOs and stuff like that, and and did my
darnedest to really dig through everything I could find to

(28:18):
learn more about this phenomenon, and it just again it
went it really, it really unveiled so many tendrils of
human history and political I mean I was also reading
howards In and kind of privy to like political stuff

(28:39):
at the time too. But I got to a point
alan where it was like I started to recognize that
if I went any farther down the rabbit hole, that
I wouldn't be able to come back out and operate
and functional like in the functionally in the world, like
in the system in society. I just knew that, in

(29:01):
combination with realizing that it just wasn't doing me any
darn good at that juncture of my life to really be,
you know, exploring that stuff. So so I know, I
know that experience on a very personal level of like
I need to like shut this door, like turn all
the locks, you know, get the vault, shut the vault,
and walk away for what I thought, I didn't an

(29:23):
indetermined amount of time.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
A lot of people, even if I'm not consciously thinking that, like,
oh my god, I need to, some people just do.
They don't know why. They just like I gotta, I
need a break from this for a little while, and
they step away, and then eventually they come back. But
hopefully I'm assuming you came back with a little bit
different perspective.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
Certainly, Yeah, thankfully during the decade or so, I don't
decade or so that I was for the for several years,
I was kind of out of the you know, I
stopped research it in the way that I had been.
I started focusing more on like my you know, starting
a business and working on a professional career, helping people

(30:07):
in the realms of purpose and consciousness. And I still
listened to Coast to coast, you know, I would still
listen to my art Bell or my George Nori or
my George Knap, and you know, like that was fun.
But that was kind of the extent to which I
was like in it. And throughout that time I am
really grateful I was able to find teachers and study

(30:32):
in some directions that we're helping me to understand onto
logical footing and helping me to understand how to swim
in the unknown without needing to or feeling compelled to,
uh grab onto whatever passing lifeboat thematically topically, like you

(30:58):
know that was passing by, whether that be psychedelics or
whether that be you know, any particular direction. And so
there's something really valuable that I thus far discovered about
being able to be in the like's it feels almost

(31:19):
like a flotation, like a flotation tank of like, I
don't have a clue what's going on. I don't know
if anybody knows what's going on, especially in the uIP realm.
But that doesn't mean we can't have knowledge. That doesn't
mean we don't have an experiential, phenomenological experience of life
right of what it is to be a human being.

(31:42):
So there's this interesting paradox that I've that I have
I guess that's found me, or that I have found
And then I've studied very devotedly the work of John Ervaki,
who's a seminal philosopher who does a lot of incredible
work around meaning and essentially like being able to maintain

(32:09):
a sense of reality and experience but without being committed
necessarily in a particular direction. So now I'm able to
explore this from this really it feels just like a
really expansive place of tangible curiosity and discovery, and the

(32:35):
rabbit hole still go down. I mean, so I kind
of resurfaced into this world. Sometimes I feel like I like,
you know, just kind of checked out for a while.
And then in twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two,
I mean, when I was into this stuff, there were
no YouTube channels about it, there were no like nobody
was talking about it. I was like a like by myself.
And then twenty one or twenty two I was on

(32:57):
the UFO subreddit and and people were and I was like, wait,
there's subreddit, you know, like, whoa, there's a whole thing.
So post twenty seventeen, you know, there had been this explosion,
and I was kind of like late to the party
all of a sudden, like wait a second, this is
like we can talk about this now. We can you know,
have conversations and so so, you know, popping back up

(33:20):
on this side of it, having thankfully had that kind
of interim sandwich time to get a sense of, I
don't know, some really important things I think in that
in that middle ground, and then recognizing that, oh my gosh,
this is like there's this tidal wave that's been happening,

(33:41):
you know ever since.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah, I mean, it definitely has been a tedal wave,
and it hasn't stopped, like right, you know, it ebbs
and flows, but it's it's not going away, that's for sure.
I think that this idea that that disclosure is coming

(34:04):
sometime soon and through the government, I think it's questionable.
What do you think do you think that there's something
really there?

Speaker 1 (34:16):
Okay? Those are kind of three three questions.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
Is it inevitable disclosure, particularly by the government.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
You know, I follow, I follow this all the things
so closely now, and this this word disclosure, Like what
do people even think that means? Like like when people say, oh,
the disclosure from the government, are they like, oh, the
government's going to come out and President or whomever is
going to say, Okay, the aliens are here, here they are,
here's the beings. We've been involved since you know, nineteen

(34:47):
forty nineteen, you know, seven and Roswell and before you know,
if that's disclosure, I mean maybe and probably like probably
the events at play that would lead to that would
be some kind of a forcing function for it to
her because there has been so much, so much foul

(35:07):
play and so much secrecy and god knows what involved
with the whole situation as far as most I don't
know most arrows point too or paths point two. So maybe,
if forced to the government would But the thing is,
even if they do, do we would we trust as

(35:28):
anybody believe it, you know, is it would that right?

Speaker 4 (35:33):
Well?

Speaker 2 (35:33):
I think that you can't just say aliens are here
and Roswell was real and then and then peace out.
You know, you have to present something. So yes, we
actually have a craft and invite some scientists from ex
universities and you know, have an international you know symposium

(35:54):
of some sort to bring people from all around the
world so we can share some of this information discussed
about the scientists, but what we know and what we
have that that's the way you would do it. And
then there's no denying, and you know, you can have
independent labs and things testing this material or that material,
or you know, perhaps they have you know, photographs. Of course,

(36:15):
there's all kinds of people are gonna say it's Project Bluebeam,
that's all. It's all fake, it's a hologram. It's like,
no matter what you say, like, they're not going to
believe it anyway. So there's always going to be that
small percentage of people, that's for sure. But I think
that you present the evidence to get other non governmental
officials involved and that's it. Yeah, I would like to

(36:38):
think that we're going to do that. I'm just not
sure that that's really going to happen anymore. I do
believe that there are people trying to make that happen,
and I think that's what you're saying is like a
forced you know, they're going to force the hand of
the government someone or the thing it. You know, the
extra threscials and non human intelligences do something. Maybe it'll

(37:05):
be three eye atlas, you know, maybe who knows.

Speaker 1 (37:09):
She's looking weirder every day?

Speaker 2 (37:12):
What's that going on?

Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yeah? Right, anomally is abound. Yeah, you know, it's it's
interesting because Carl Nell. I don't know if you've heard,
but Carl Nell just recently essentially like put the kaibash
on the disclosure, you know, saying that disclosure is not
it's not going to happen like we we've kind of
you know, pasted the bell curve. Now, Carl Nell, I've

(37:36):
taken classes with him. He's a phenomenal human being, and
I've learned a lot. But you know, it's there's such
a top there's such a top down narrative around that
that I think it's a red herring. I I on
the one thing that I feel very passionate about is
the whistleblowers. The individuals who are coming forth, to the

(37:59):
best of my knowledge and sense, are are you know,
absolutely sharing what they experienced and what they believe they
experienced in so that I feel very passionate about. And
to me, that is, if we're looking for disclosure, you know,
the human beings that have been going through this and

(38:20):
who have actually suffered and experienced these things are are
far more important to me personally than any governmental body
saying this that or the other, because there's just again,
like the believability and the burden of proof in terms
of like a largely governmental organization is like a little

(38:41):
bit iffy. But there have been so I mean, in
addition to experiencers that are not of military you know,
rank or origin or affiliation, but really the whistleblowers and
the people who have been so brave to like stand
in front of our Congress and stand in front of
you know, or going to skifts and talk about these
things that that I feel, you know, extremely passionate about.

(39:07):
But and I also feel like this obsession with disclosure
and like, you know, this focus on the government and
disclosure is it could be and probably is a big
red herring as to as to ay the fact that
they're already here, it's already been going on this, you know,

(39:28):
like we don't need disclosure from the government and whatever
else that we're being distracted. The attention is being drawn
away from toward disclosure in terms of the world of
the phenomenon. That's that's where like, if the attention is
being drawn that way, I tend to yeah, okay, check that.
But also what about abductees, what about experiences, what about

(39:54):
right like, what about encounters with et cetera, et cetera.
And I think that we might be siphoning our personal
resources towards disclosure that could be if devoted in different
in other directions related to this, and people are by

(40:15):
all means there's some amazing research and work going on,
you know. But anyway, I don't want to say disclosure
is overrated because I as much as anybody would like to,
you know, I guess see that.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
But this kind of goes back to what you're saying,
is not grabbing onto every conspiracy theory around down the
rabbit hole, Like you can't just people. I think, once
they're free of the narrative by you know, the power
structures that have existed, they need something else to hold

(40:49):
on to, like, so they do grab something along the way,
And I excuse me. At the end of the podcast,
m H, I always end with live in the mystery,
because for me, it's like having to embrace and just

(41:12):
like accept that you don't know is I think it's
it's a scary place for a lot of people, but
if you do it, it's actually quite freeing, you know it.
Actually it feels good. You can kind of enjoy that,
you can enjoy the process, you can enjoy the mystery.
What makes the X files so great, Well, they never

(41:35):
solve that. They never really solve it, right, It's like
and they keep changing whatever the answer might be, and
there's there's kind of a joy in that. And I
think that it's just like science, you're not they're not
going to solve everything in the next you know, four
hundred years. I'm sure there's going to be more to discover.
But but you learn a little bit this, you discover

(41:56):
a little bit of that along the way, and it's
exciting and it's satisfying, but you also have to accept
that you're just not gonna have all the answers at
the same time. And I think that in the worlds
of upology, there are people they get burnt out because
they get they get so they get into this, they
get excited, they get passionate. They're all in and then
after so many years they just either flip and become

(42:20):
the bunker with a big D, you know, because they
because they just can't accept that that how come we
don't know already? You know, then it must not be true,
you know, or they just get you know, bitter and angry.
And it's a shame.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Because have you run into a lot of that?

Speaker 2 (42:36):
Oh yeah, yeah really, which is why I don't spend
a lot of time on x.

Speaker 1 (42:41):
Oh yeah, yeah, okay.

Speaker 2 (42:43):
Yeah, it's not there's a lot of that out there
on X okay Twitter, So yeah, And I think the
difference is between like people who are more inclined this
is just generalization, aren't inclined to be interested in the
mysteries ontological mysteries and you know, spiritual mysteries. They're less,

(43:11):
i think, inclined to to get angry because because there's
something innate about like the mystery school, you know, and
and whereas in the US, the UFO side, they're still
striving for something that is transcendent. But the path or

(43:34):
you know, the orientation towards that thing isn't supported with
anything else other than the endpoint. There's no there's no
there's no like psychologically speaking, there's nothing in between to
nurture that that path.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
You know.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
It's kind of like somebody who wants to be get
rich quick kind of a thing, you know, And there's
their satisfaction in the challenge, their satisfaction in in they
there that doesn't make sense to you.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
Totally, oh, one thousand percent. Yeah, And and going back
to your question around what is what did the brain
hemispheres have to deal with you on those Yeah, what
you just described is such a beautiful description of how
the left hemisphere would would interface with this and orient
toward it, the dominant left hemisphere wanting certainty, certainty and

(44:28):
control and to be able to therefore be able to
manipulate it or to compartmentalize it and feel superior and
feel you know, which is what so much of modern
day scientism is. And whereas the right hemisphere has this
capacity for wonder and awe and again the holistic bigger

(44:49):
picture for not needing, not needing to focus on one
particular objective item, but to be able to seed in
the context of the ecology or the scene that it's
in and the environment that it's in.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
And so with.

Speaker 1 (45:10):
Kind of loosely tying this together, and I think there
are many threads to be woven actually between insofar as
the implications of this realization around the roles of the
hemispheres and the phenomenon. The way that we engage with this,
the way that we explore it, the way that we
approach it is vastly different. If we're coming anything really,

(45:34):
not just the phenomenon, but like making a meal or
talking to a friend is going to be very different.
Right hemis right, right hemisphere dominant or left hemisphere dominant,
But with the phenomenon in particular, it's the left hemisphere
that becomes very very kind of turns in on whatever

(45:54):
it's not understanding and starts to make false draw false conclusions.
Does it all the time? False conclusions or or case closed,
moving on? You know, these kinds of like very finite
and almost like aggressive aggressions toward whatever it's it's orienting with.

(46:17):
So so yeah, the mystery, those who stay in the mystery,
I would agree, And it does seem that at least
for those like the folks that I follow insteady like Diana,
you know Walsh Pisulca that I've studied with a lot
and taking a lot of her classes, and Jeffrey Kreipel

(46:41):
and some of the some of the movers and shakers
and thinkers that are exploring this in a really open
way tend to be really reluctant to land on this
is what it is or this is what we're dealing with,
or you know, the like, oh well, we haven't figured it.
I mean, Jack Believe, for goodness sakes, I mean he's

(47:03):
been in violating he's been doing this in this for
seventy years, I don't know, sixty years, and he's like,
I don't know, you know, still no idea. Probably a trickster, right, but.

Speaker 2 (47:13):
He wasn't kind of ahead of the curve about the consciousness.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
Thing in the Western world for sure.

Speaker 2 (47:20):
Yeah, yeah, there isn't. I was just talking to Dean Reton,
just did a recording with him last night, and you know,
we kind of just touched on a little bit like
the resurgence of the popular popularization of hand psychism or idealism.
And I've always loved that as a as a potential

(47:44):
solution to reconcile the I what I think is something
that's unreconciled, reconcilable, that a word God, a thinking creator

(48:07):
creating a reality with inherent suffering and just horrific, like
the horrific human behavior that we see manifest For me,
it's unreconcilable. Yeah, Whereas if panpsychism comes into the picture,

(48:28):
then you have a consciousness that's actually kind of unfolding,
right as I have like vish new you know, vish
news dreaming, right that that sort of thing, and then
the suffering that's going along the way. It's not intentional,

(48:49):
it's not planned, it just is happening. And then I think, okay,
so how how do we then, how do we reconcile
that with the fact that, like all these religions and
whatnot say, okay, it's all about love, this higher thing
of love. And in my own psychedelic experiences and other
people in their experiences, out of body experiences, near death experiences, sages, mystics,

(49:14):
saints like all have this projection Buddhism of this oneness
of love right like or source, so whatever that is.
And I kind of feel like that's like that love
is like the tailos that But my guess, and this
is pure speculation obviously, but that somewhere along the growth

(49:39):
and evolution of this consciousness force that we have yet undetected.
It evolved to the point where it's end goal, it's
telos became love, like the end of time. That's that's
what we're moving towards. It didn't start that way, It
just evolved that way, and then that way I can

(50:01):
kind of make sense of like these mystical experiences and
the horrible things and suffering that exists in the world.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
Thank you for sharing that. Yeah, I really appreciate that
description of your experience and working through those questions and
grappling with those like irreconcilable, unreconcilable, Yeah, issues of existence.

Speaker 2 (50:36):
I was raised Catholic, so okay, it's one way.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
Or the other, you know, yeah, right right, yeah, yeah, Yeah.
I love too that you just spoke with Dean Dean
Ryd and he's just wow, we're so lucky to have him.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
Oh yeah, the work that Ions is doing, it is fantastic.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Yeah. Yeah. And finally getting to have a place to
see the table of conversation that it was not, you know,
really welcome at for a long time. Scientifically. Yeah. I
I've studied with Bernardo Castrop for the past four and
a half years, and he's kind of our modern day

(51:20):
proponent of analytic idealism, metaphysical idealism, analytic idealism, and when
I came across his descriptions and articulations of the ontic
nature of the universe, reality and everything in it. I mean,

(51:42):
I think Douglas Adams did a fine job, but Bernardo
Bernardo Castrop does a it just it was so so helpful, and.

Speaker 2 (51:59):
Because oh, go ahead, So what was helpful? The So.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
I've had a very strong sense, having studied this stuff
for so long, that materialism, physicalism, scientism as we know
it in the Western world is insufficient. It's it's just
it's insufficient, and and it's really turned into I think
a more harm which is incredibly harmful for the progression

(52:28):
of humanity. And so in knowing that and then having
studied uh other other metaphysics, other, you know, religious, spiritual,
just really being curious about everything, uh I and psychedelics,
the the sense of what is that I had kind

(52:54):
of arrived at, not necessarily tangible ways, but like in
the more grocky kind of ways, like who am I?
What am I? What is the universe? What is reality?
How does this all work? The sense of that that
I had when I heard Bernardo talk about like to
like kind of lay force analytic idealism. It clicked immediately

(53:17):
that that was the that not only did that describe
it very articulately, but also made a hell of a
lot more sense than physicalism. And I'm so glad you
brought this up because what I've what I've realized in
like now surfing back into the UAP phenomenon world and

(53:39):
having studied with Bernardo and all these other things, is that, oh,
like this this term that John Mack used around ontological shock. Yes,
ontological shock is an experience that that people have. That's
a label or a term that's given to a certain
kind of experience that people have. But but and my

(54:02):
sense is that, and I think Jeffrey Kripel I think
talks about this too, that the shock only comes from
the fact that we have been steeped and conditioned in
an ontology that is absolutely inaccurate materialism, some religious some
aspects of religiosities or religions, and so the shock can

(54:25):
come from this isn't supposed to be happening, This isn't possible, this,
this experience can't be real or this there's no there's
no place in our worldview. There's no especially in Western culture,
there's no shamanic guidance around these kinds of things. There's
no there's just no except for maybe sci fi, you know,

(54:46):
like good good sci fi, but so so analytic idealism
has I I've just come to see on this really
exciting kind of macro level that oh, like a lot
of the the the I guess dissonance within individual and
collectively within the UAP world is because it's planted in materialism,

(55:11):
Like how can you know, how can aliens travel from
you know, like Alpha Centaurre to planet Earth. That's impossible? Well, yeah,
in materialism, you know, if you're a staunchly physicalist materialist.
But however, you know, in even in the realms of
quantum physics, but an analytic idealism or even like nondual

(55:32):
monism or dual aspic monism, there's room for this is
totally all happening. This is totally all right here, right now.
This is all manifestations of mind at large, which maybe
is kind of what you know you were talking about
are pointing to with panpsychism. So there's like no issue
like it's it's our perceptual world is limited and created

(55:58):
by our perceptions and there's a whole teeming everything happening
around us all the time. And so I think the
ontological footing of materialism physicalism breaking apart and shaking apart
right now is and thankfully analytic idealism being kind of
brought to the table by Bernardo and you know, Dave

(56:20):
or yeah, David Hoffman from a mathematical perspective, is really
giving us something that makes way more sense and can
allow for these experiences to be real or to be possible,
and can be really validating in knowing that. So my

(56:40):
podcast is going to be called Ontological Grock The Nature
of Reality and the Reality of Nature, exploring these kinds
of things from like different perspectives and what would have
to be true or what would be true such that
you know, people are having abduction experiences, such that the

(57:00):
ptelepathy tapes are you know, real, and well.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
I'm just waiting for the video. I want to see
the video, you know, you know, I like, I love
the selepathy tapes and I know they're making a documentary.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
Oh, the documentary.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
Yeah, because it's like it's not that I think anyone's lying,
you know, but again, it's like that's that's still that's
part of like the part of me that's still skeptical, right,
Like I like, I know what you're saying. I believe
that it's possible, but I need to see you with
the board in front, you know, I need I need
to see that, you know, because and that gets back
to like the idea, what's disclosure? What's proof? Hey, we

(57:34):
got a guest. I love it. Anyone listening. That's her
her cat Friendly podcast Here.

Speaker 1 (57:49):
We are cat Friendly. Are you familiar with Ingo Swan? Yes? Yeah, yeah, okay,
So I named my cats Ingo and Delphi because before
they could see, their little eyes were closed, but they
could see it still maneuver, and I was like, you
two right.

Speaker 2 (58:08):
They had sixth sense whiskers exactly. But to your point,
So what Neil de grass Tyson would say, or other
scientists would would say to a lot of that is that.
But that's how science works, Like you have to do
the actual work, you have to go through the methodology.
You can say anything you want, but it doesn't matter

(58:30):
unless you have something to test and something to show
for it to substantiate your claim. Today I was just
reading and NASA's like, oh, you know it looks like
we have a way of possibly discovering bacteria or you know,

(58:53):
DNA in ice on the frozen caps of Mars. And
here's why. They go on to explain it, And in
my mind, I'm thinking I already thought about that, Like
not that I'm smart, it's just like it's easy for
us who are not scientists to just go like, that's
probably possible. You know, that's probably Like why why wouldn't

(59:15):
that be possible? The scientists like, it's not an it's
not enough to just have the idea and make up
the possibility. And yet without the idea, without without someone
thought to think of that, someone thought to start that
test to say, wait, can we can we find a
way to just to detect bacteria in the ice and

(59:36):
caps on Mars. So I think throughout history we have
example after example of speculation turning out to be truth.
And it's funny, like we were talking about I read
it earlier, like I've gone on Reddit about the you know,
split screen experiment, did the two two yes, the double

(01:00:01):
slip th double slip experiment, And people are trying to
explain it away, and one of the excuses was the
observation doesn't affect the subatomic particles. It's the fact that
they have an instrument and the instrument that's measuring it
is interacting with it. And I'm like, yeah, but the

(01:00:21):
instrument's not a it's not a baseball bat hitting a ball.
It's just the instrument doing the observation on behalf of
the human Like, it's not it's not actually interacting. And
they bend over backwards to try to explain, explain the
most bizarre discovery and physics. Yeah, that's it. That's all

(01:00:44):
I got on that one.

Speaker 1 (01:00:45):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, No, I'm with you, like I am.
I am all for scientific rigor. In fact, the one
of the scientists that I'm I'm obsessed with and have
kind of pulled into Bernardo Castrip's world is Mike eleven,
the developmental biologist Mike eleven, who is simultaneously running like

(01:01:06):
actual experiments that are resulting in these groundbreaking results that
are changing everything we thought we knew about evolution, about
about biology, about like everything. And he's doing it in
the lab, he's doing it experimentally, and he's doing that
experimentally inspired by philosophical questions and imagination and good sci fi.

(01:01:35):
And then he's bringing it into the lab, and these
these groundbreaking discoveries are happening because he's willing to think
outside the box when his colleagues are telling, you know, like, oh,
don't don't go over there, don't look that way, We've
already figured that out over there. And and so thank
goodness for the rigor of science, right, thank goodness for

(01:01:55):
the replicability of really great experimentation and studies. But what
we all also know is that it's there, there's a whole,
a whole litany of phenomena that don't fit into the replicability,

(01:02:15):
just don't conform to the scientific method essentially. In fact,
observational astronomy is one of those fields of science where
it's it's observational. We can't replicate a super dove, but
we can't replicate you know, there are many fields of science. However,
the measurement becomes, you know, so accurate that we can
then reliably do other things based on what we find.

(01:02:37):
But what's fascinating is that we so we need the rigor,
and we need to also be open to the reality
that there are there are phenomena happening that cannot be
measured or or cannot be replicated and not and that

(01:02:59):
does not mean that they're not happening just because they
can't be measured. So the telepathy tapes, thank goodness, Kai
and crew have the rigor to you know, to do
this documentary and set things up in Faraday cages and
really run the experiments and and do this because they know,
like they know the pressure they're under.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
They know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
If anybody right that I brought up INGOs Swan because
my cat after him, but also Ingo Swan is you know,
not only prolific and genius and very important, was a
very important figure, but he has protocol for learning sigh abilities,
practicing them and then finding out for yourself and you

(01:03:39):
know that kind of first person experiential you know, to
to really follow through on that experiential level and bring
it from conceptual to to phenomenological.

Speaker 2 (01:03:53):
Remote viewing. I do speak to people who start to
practice and and seem to according to them, yeah, make
improvements and actually for them, uh you know self corroborate
there the accuracy of of what they can do. And

(01:04:15):
I think that's very cool. I would like to see
more more studies of this, But that's that's where I
was talking to again. Dane Raydon, and he's talking about
the subtleties, like the idea that you're gonna, you know,
move a chair across the room like you're Luke Skywalker
and like that's not that's not how it Like he's

(01:04:35):
saying that the effects of consciousness on reality, it's there,
but it's subtle. It's very very subtle. So which then
again back to you, like like some things you can
only observe. Some things are so subtle, Like how do
how do you even measure it? What's your accuracy rate?

(01:04:57):
If you're studying if you're a ghost hunter, right, and
you're studying in a spirit world and you're trying to
detect spirits, you don't have any control over that entity
is consciousness. Let's assume it it's real, so it can

(01:05:18):
decide when it wants to come and show itself and
when not to, right, So how do you study something
like that? Same thing with the UFOs. And this is
what I've always felt about UFOs is that despite the
fact that we have to how billions of phones with cameras, Like,
how come we're not seeing you know? That's amazing video

(01:05:38):
on UFOs? Everyone. Okay, So that's I've heard no degress
dice and say that like a million times. Well, considering
they've been observing us, if we, you know, assume that
they're real, they would have been observing us for a
very long time. They probably noticed we have cameras in

(01:05:58):
our heads, like just throwing that out there, and if
they just wanted to keep a little bit of a distance,
like why why couldn't they?

Speaker 4 (01:06:06):
You know?

Speaker 2 (01:06:08):
And I think that that's the difference between like you're saying,
science is good, but there's a difference betwetween good science
and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a mindset, and people really get
stuck stuck there, and you're you're trying to, I guess
in your podcast, help people, Yeah, get get out of that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
Yeah, yeah, I want. I want to cultivate conversations and
experiences that allow for an expansion of of what the
left hemisphere thinks is possible and what we're allowed to

(01:06:55):
think about in mainstream society or consensus society, consensus reality.
I cultivating the space, cultivating dialogue, cultivating a willingness to
explore the mystery is is really like it's this, it's
the space that wants to I guess happen through me,

(01:07:16):
And so do I want to help people get out
of that or you know, likely I guess that would
be an intention, But it's it's more so this sense of, like,
you know, if this, if one can create the space
for that kind of exploration, and there are so many

(01:07:37):
people doing that, thank goodness, you know, increasingly so communities
and experiencer groups and you know, exo academia. I don't
know if you know Darren, but he has these amazing
programs that are just inclusive of these kinds of explorations
and so so yeah, ontological Grock is really exploring this

(01:07:58):
possibility that actually it's it's our nature two to thrive
in the sense of it's our nature to be adaptive,
available and open to exploring the amorphos or to exploring
the enigma, or to exploring and and not needing necessarily

(01:08:21):
to definite, to definitively put a box around something and say, oh,
figured it out, but to really navigate the possibility space
of life and experience and and see what arises in that,
in the imaginal right or in the possibility space of that,

(01:08:42):
but in a really grounded and practical way, you know,
like that we don't want to I don't want to
float off into nowhere land. But we and I think
they're not mutually exclusive, and I think that's really what
but my you know, the I guess desire is yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
That's that's great, and that's responsible. When I first started podcast,
I was very much in the infotainment sector O gaus
you could say me just meaning that I was way
more open and willing to have guests and conversations that

(01:09:17):
uh I am not. Now do you know that that
are little that were so you know, borderline or were
incredulous And I think and again like it's kind of
and I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the conversation. But yeah,
there was someone actually not about a year or so ago,

(01:09:38):
I'm gonna say who, but some I had someone on
on the podcast, and I just felt, I can't do
this again, Like I can't have someone who I feel
like is twisting a yarn, you know, or is just
or is just making things up just just just to
sound interesting. I was like, I'm done with that, you know,
like and and for a while though I kind of

(01:09:59):
enjoyed it. I enjoyed, like you said to cost Am,
I enjoyed like some of the like the fantastical stories,
like I don't care if they're real or not, Like
I'm enjoying, you know, this person's story. But then for myself,
I just I couldn't engage with those people in the
same way that I that I used to have changed
in that regard. So I've kind of you're doing the

(01:10:19):
smart thing, like you're saying, you're setting up some parameters
for yourself, you know, at the start, and I think
that's that's a great, great thing for you to be doing.

Speaker 1 (01:10:29):
Mmmmmm, how do you do? I know, how are we
on time?

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
We're definitely over, So it's up to you if you
want to keep going, we can. We can go a
little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:10:38):
I'm good, I'm good. Yeah. I would be really curious
to know how you like how you navigate that like
kind of sensing if somebody is coming from a genuine
this is what I experienced, or of someone might have
more of a fanfare or intention around attention.

Speaker 2 (01:10:59):
It's it's all. The easiest way to recognize it for
me is in the phrasing. If the phrasing sounds more
how I imagine a sales pitch would be, if meaning
meaning it doesn't have it, I can like a totally
natural cadence m you know, like there's a there's an

(01:11:23):
effectuation there that I don't know how to describe what
that is, but it could be like super subtle, you know,
but but it's there. And and if I get the
if I get the inclination that they're trying to convince
me that that's also a flag too, red flag. Sometimes
someone's passionate about something and they want to impart this

(01:11:45):
knowledge to you. That's different, you know, that's different than
I feel like someone like really is trying to get
me on their side, you know, because because that serves
them in some way. So I look for those kind
of signals. And again, like there's a big difference between that,
like we all have ambitions, we all have goals, we
all want to share information and our ideas and that

(01:12:05):
sort of thing. But yeah, yeah, and I won't say
and it wouldn't it wouldn't be like some people plug
their books like a million times in a conversation and
that's okay, Like it's that doesn't necessarily mean that they're disingenuous,
you know. Yeah, yeah, cool, thank you for that for sure.

Speaker 1 (01:12:30):
Yeah yeah, yeah, As they say, there's always a book, right,
which I don't think there's anything. Well, it depends on
the agreement of the container, right, or the agreement of
whatever's going on. And yeah, it's it's unfortunate that these
we didn't even get to talk about stigma necessarily in
all of this, but there's stigma just so rampant in

(01:12:53):
all in all of this, and even the stigma of
being a grifter, right, or the stigma of being a charlatan,
or the stigma of being a liar. And I think
has in a way like it's an important call. I
don't know, like it's it's an important maybe intention of

(01:13:13):
beckoning forward truth in people or honesty in people, but
it's become perhaps so policy or doxy and it just
I think it dissuades a lot of people from wanting
to come out who have had experiences or you know,
there's just it's just so entrenched in shame and judgment.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
And yeah, well, and like you said, there's support for that,
and you're hoping to do some of that. And I
volunteer for Moufan the Experience and Resource team, and we're there.
We're there for that as well. So there are there
are many more resources and yeah, you know, there seems
to be a lot of people are having these experiences,

(01:13:55):
So the more options people have, you know, because it
doesn't have to be just one place, you know, mm hmm.
It's like somebody can go to a group therapy but
also have a private therapist right or go into you know,
an addiction support group but also you know, talk to
their priest or whatever. Like it's it's okay to have
different ways of dealing with that experience and having multiple atlets.

(01:14:16):
I love that. Yeah, I would love to keep talking,
but we can't. You gotta call it at some point.
If you could leave us with one thought, whatever you want,
what would it be?

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
Hm hmm. Follow the light? How about you?

Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
I'm wondering what the light is?

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
Right, it's a great curiosity.

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
So is it one and the same is the light
of the curiosity? Are you have you explored Terrence McKenna
a little bit? Yeah? What do you think about his
prediction about twenty twelve and not coming true? And he
passed away before he you know, I'm sure he probably

(01:15:15):
would have shifted his thinking on this. Are we headed
towards something? Is there a light at the end that
we're headed towards?

Speaker 1 (01:15:26):
I really appreciated what you shared about Tilos and love
and that there might be a teleological inclination that is
drawing or orienting into the future. And the honest answer is,

(01:15:53):
I have no fucking idea what's going on.

Speaker 2 (01:15:56):
Don't I don't know what come on?

Speaker 1 (01:16:01):
I in the infinite possibility space, the light seems to
be more life giving and helpful and evolutionary than than

(01:16:26):
orienting towards the dark, and so I think naturally that's
that seems more viable.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
All right, Thanks Faun. I really really appreciate your your insights,
your perspective. Thank you and being so open. It's fantastic,
such a pleasure. Yeah, thank you. And for those who
are listening, go to Faun's website, which is vaun Miller
is it for Miller.

Speaker 1 (01:16:57):
Dot com yep, vun miller dot com. Or for my
more UAP oriented happenings, you can go to fonnmiller dot com,
Forward slash, faun dash Universal.

Speaker 2 (01:17:08):
Okay, and when's your PODCASTNA gonna launch?

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
Let's say December January?

Speaker 2 (01:17:14):
All goes well, it's crossed like it?

Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
Yeah, okay, thank you so much, Alan, Thank you to
Alan's audience, and yeah, I look forward to following along.

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
More okay, thanks Vaughan, and thank you all for joining us.
I appreciate it. As always, this podcast will be rebroadcast
on the ONEX Network Thursday nights eleven pm specific time
to am Eastern Fridays. And if you want to follow
this podcast on social media, the best place to go
is at Coffee and UFO's podcast on Instagram. Until next time,
be some love, everyone, and live in the mystery.

Speaker 4 (01:17:50):
It's good to be in personally, and I wish more
of us would think of our so that way.

Speaker 2 (01:18:00):
I don't have a problem with skeptics.

Speaker 1 (01:18:01):
It's the bunkers that are on some other level that
I don't understand.

Speaker 4 (01:18:24):
Especially an inference of a change in local gravity. Saucer
shaped craft and they're hovering over the water.

Speaker 2 (01:18:44):
A little book Special Report fourteen. The better the quality
of the seting, the more likely to be unexplainable.