The role of a medium is to pass communications received from the spirit world to their rightful intended this side of life. In doing so, no personal interpretations, opinions or counselling should be added – just the message from the person in spirit. That said, the medium has a responsibility of care and should remain respectful and maintain the right to withhold something that could be deemed as upsetting or distressing. That does not mean the medium should filter everything, merely that they should remain with a sense of respect – no matter what the person in spirit demands they say.
In acting as the ‘medium’ between the two worlds, the medium should also be aware that proving the existence of life thereafter has more of a healing power than words alone. Therefore it is their duty to establish that truth above all others. Failure to, will only leave the recipient unsure or unconvinced. And that devalues any message, no matter how powerful.
But what exactly constitutes proof that, indeed, life does continue after earthly death? Does it have to be a full name and address type message? Does it have to contain incredible detail of evidence? Does it need to make the recipient sit back with amazement or an audience ‘wow’ in the excitement? The answer is both yes and no.
In a one on one situation where the medium is sat alone with their recipient, the evidence for proving the continuation of life could simply be something so small that it almost passes ‘as a matter of fact’.
” I have your father here with me, and he’s brought with him the book you placed in his coffin. He’s still reading it and wants to thank you for doing that.”
That is one superb piece of detailed information that represents proof. Why? Because it is not a common thing people do and is most likely unique to the recipient. That is what I term as a ‘gold nugget’.
“I have your father here with me, and he’s brought with him a red rose, like the one you placed on his coffin. He thanks you for doing that.”
Though that last comment may be entirely accurate, it does not offer proof, because so many people do that to their loved ones at their funerals. So common, that anyone could simply and rightly claim that to be a lucky guess.
So in a one to one situation, the quality of the proof may only be small, but it needs to be unique too.
“Your father is showing me his hand and talking about the Irish comedian, Dave Allen”.
The recipient could accept that as real proof, if their father had a missing finger on one hand. Not quite gold nugget level proof but pretty decent none the less. If the medium had noticed the missing finger, it would have been a gold nugget of proof.
So, the medium should always be asking their spirit team for real evidence and purpose. Vague information is of no value to the recipient and only leads to confusion and frustration.
The task of producing the conclusive evidence in a situation where many people are gathered, such as a theatre or church, is very much harder. This is because of other factors that need to be considered. An audience becomes bored very easily. So if the medium is spending all their time with a particular person elsewhere in the room their attention often wavers. This is made worse when the medium is guessing or just not showing any evidence. If the evidence being given is stronger and nearer ‘gold nugget’ standards then the audience attention is more likely to stay in the room, rather than ‘in the bar’.
In a one-to-one situation consider this message:
” Your Mother just told me how much she loved the cough sweets.”
Assuming the recipient understands that message, it might be concrete proof. If the mother had suffered a bad throat in her last days on earth and was eating Hall’s Menthol sweets by the packet, that evidence is again very powerful and truly a gold nugget. However, if we take that person and put them in an audience and offer that same information as proof, there are now many people that will suggest that this is not that uncommon an occurrence. The evidence is the same, but the acceptance of it as proof is now debatable by many more people – even if they haven’t any knowing of who the recipient is.
In the last example and two scenarios, the medium has done everything correct. But a bigger audience are now acting as judge and jury. Unfortunately this is something that is difficult to overcome. Mediums all know that a message only has power and proof to the person it is intended for and not an entire audience. So working as a medium in a multi-person environment needs more focus and attention to detail, plus a partial awareness of the state of the rest of the audience.
As a medium myself, I have both given and received many gold nuggets of evidence. I work constantly on raising my standards of evidence whenever possible and I nearly always seek a second piece of information to validate the first. That is the best I can expect and the best I expect from other mediums. Loose dates, months, random comments and unrelated information given by a medium do not impress me, and neither the recipient. The key to success for any medium, no matter who they are, is the quality of the information they pass on from the spirit world. After all, that is the bread and butter of their role (roll!!). ♥