Q. Hello Whitley :) I found this book somewhat by accident when looking to replace my long-lost copy of Communion, and by God I don't think *any* book has quite grabbed me like this one. The moment I finished reading it, I started reading it again, and again, probably about seven or eight times in all. About the same time I came across Neal Donald Walsch's 'Conversations with God' and David Icke's work as well. Despite the huge differences in approach and direction, there is a lot of overlap: the concept that God is in us and we're an integral part of God for one. However the material in the MOTK was far more 'grounded' than Icke's or Walsch's work (Icke focuses on threats to humanity and the machinations of a shady alien elite pulling strings and 'keeping us down', whilst Walsch's material is a lot more woolly). To be perfectly honest I can take or leave Icke or Walsch, as they're both a bit 'out there', but for some reason I cannot ignore the MOTK: it's in a completely different league. My questions are: (1) are you familiar with the works of Icke or Walsch? (2) if so, you'll recall that the MOTK mentioned our 'enemy' - do you think it may be the same, or similar kind of enemy that Icke is referring to, but that he's interpreting things in a different way? (3) are you planning on following up the 'The Key' with your own further investigations on matters you discussed? ~ Best wishes :)
A. I don't know much about the work of Icke or Walsch. I believe that I might have interviewed Icke once years ago. Your idea of a follow up book is interesting. I might well do that.
Q. You have stated that it is possible that the Master of the Key was a product of your imagination. What percentage odds do you give to this possibility? One might argue that the more similar the views of TMOK were to your own views at the time, the more likely it is that this was all a product of your imagination. To what extent did the message of the Master of the Key disagree with your own personal views? How, without detailed notes, could you recall verbatim what the Master of the Key said to create an entire book of his statements? I've never heard you explain how such a lengthy and detailed conversation could have been transcribed afterwords from the short cryptic notes you took at the the time of the conversation? In the book, to what extent are you paraphrasing what the Master of the Key said as opposed to giving us verbatim quotes?
A. Initially, I was certain that he was real, so I called my wife the next morning and told her to never let me decide otherwise. I have decided otherwise many times. However, in recent years, a number of scientific discoveries have been made that he described with great clarity, not as prophecies, but simply as things he knew. These are pointed out in the introduction to the Tarcher/Penguin edition. One, in particular, about gas being a medium for high density computer memory struck me at the time as ludicrous. I included it, though, because I recalled him saying it. Now it turns out to be an emerging area of scientific research. Regarding my personal views, I thought he was rather relentless when he said things about the United States and its future. I am not so convinced that we're all that awful. As to how the conversation could have been transcribed. That was not difficult for me at all. I could have done it without notes--really, they were mnemonics, nothing more. Although it is not as acute as it once was, obviously, in those days I had a good memory. As matters stand, I can still easily remember conversations I had with people 20 or 30 years ago. Remembering this one, to which I was paying such close attention, was not difficult. The words are probably verbatim.
Q. Thank you for this book--it was a signal event in my growth. Now for the question: as a rabid fan of your work, I notice provocative similarities between (parts of) The Key and an interview between yourself and Ed Conroy that was published in his book "Report on Communion"... years before your encounter in 1998. Some of The Key's unusual ideas about extratemporality and companionship with God are conveyed in this old interview. As real as the Master of the Key (and, for that matter, other "visitors") have been, have you ever felt them to be aspects of yourself?
A. This is an excellent question and is, in fact, one of the central questions of my life. It cannot be entirely true that the whole of my experience is essentially self-generated, but to a greater or lesser degree, some of it must be. The morning after I had the Key experience, I was so sure that I would eventually decide that it was 'just' me talking to myself that I called my wife and asked her to never let me do this. Because she reminded me of this each time I decided to blow the whole thing off, the book was eventually written. I have a certain number of things in my experience that suggest that it isn't all coming out of me. For example, Raven Dana and Lorie Barnes, two friends, also had close encounters at our old cabin, as did ten or twelve other people, so it wasn't just me. And these were not 'shared hallucinations.' They unfolded just like real experience does. Additionally, the object that was implanted into my left ear, which is still there, was put in while I was awake but somehow rendered helpless, so there is no question about its physical reality. But who were they that they could do this without leaving a wound? I saw them. They were people, not aliens. So there is a definite element of the physical and the other in my experiences. But I cannot tell for certain, especially when it comes to the information I have obtained, where the line should be drawn between memory and imagination--if such a line can be drawn. Thanks for a great question!
Q. Do you think our pets go to an afterlife, where we can also eventually meet them again? And should such a place exist, would these pets continue to be as they were when we know them in life, or would they be more... communicative?
A. I've seen my childhood pet dog many times, the pet cats we had as adults, and other animals, so I would assume that they persist in some way, as we do.
Q. Dear mr. Strieber I have been a fan since a very young age, and just want to thank you so much for stimulating my mind, as well as inspiring my imagination regarding this complex, at times bleak, but always beautiful and mysterious reality we live in! I absolutely love the Key, although I have a hard time swallowing everything that he told you. One thing I found terribly disturbing regarding souls- even more so than them being exploited, was the notion that something like a man made atomic blast could destroy what I truly had always hoped was an indestructible and sacred part of us. To make matters worse, you also recalled him stating that "hell" was the death of a soul, so if this is true, innocent, maybe even radiant beings have been sent to hell in Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I really hope I miss interpreted this but perhaps I didn't... I have so many questions as I know you do, that I really don't know where to start! There is one question, regarding the sin of adultery, which I remembered reading was something the visitors you encountered did not at all take lightly. As a painter I found great comfort in reading that "Rembrandt was no saint" and that being radiant and sainthood were something different. Obviously this is because I'm an indulgent sinner, and even though I may appear jovial, pleasant and have never been a violent individual, the "Key" has forced me to revaluate were I stand. I guess what I've been wondering is how could "denial of the right to thrive" be applied to something like having an affair and wether this sort of thing could vary for everyone? What if let's say, someone felt rushed into a marriage, but nonetheless wanted to do everything for that person, but felt a terrible suffocating feeling, and gave in. What if the affair had an extremely healing affect? Of course there would still be the secrecy, but what if it was a secret that made a weak man feel stronger and happier whenever he remembered the experience, and put this newfound strength into the marriage? Forgive me for asking you this, I know how seriously opposed you are on this, and rightly so, but I just wondered if it could be a little different depending on the individual and their circumstance, and of course if I have any hope of ever being radiant! Thank you so much for your patience and empathy, I can't wait to read Solving the Communion Enigma!
A. I don't necessarily believe everything he told me, either. I published the discourse because it was so interesting, not because I believed every word. With regard to 'denial of the right to thrive,' I think that's a pretty powerful statement. In the example you cite, 'denial of the right to thrive' happened when the person was pushed into the marriage, and everything that flows from that is going to be in one way or another distorted, it would seem to me. So an affair might be very healing. Whomever forced the marriage is responsible for the negative effects of the affair, too. Then again, we all make mistakes in this life. That's what it's about, isn't it, in some significant part, making mistakes, facing them, fixing them as best we can, and then moving on?
Q. RE: SOS I am perplexed by the apparent contradiction from the motk when he speaks of a hidden, radiant-level agenda in play that is designed to keep certain revelations hidden from man which will make us stronger while the motk separately suggests that we have no plan for ourselves – that we need to initiate our vision of the future and formulate a program for ourselves. As paralyzing as this duality is for me personally, perhaps what is not evident or spoken of, is the reality that us the living have ultimate power in dictating what transpires. Are we in some sort of default mode now? Unfortunately I agree with you that a wide spectrum, negative reaction is likely. I'm not a fan of hidden programs but considering that we indeed seem to be within some sort of lock down it would seem obligatory. As well, I would not want to overlook the certainty that the powers that be have already anticipated a sos and have planned accordingly. Perhaps you would agree with me that a concerted sos put out by the visitor-aware component of humanity is not an answer or solution. At best it is a "plan B." What I fear is the possibility there exists a situation in which we -- only need to ask for help -- and that indeed they are anxious for us to initiate this on our own and one day might silently be waiting. For the longest time I didn't care much for Jackson Pollock paintings but was very interested in his life story. This all changed when I stood before one of his paintings at an exhibition and saw clearly, color and organic mood emerge from his seemingly random drippings. There was indeed something profound within the chaos. Not much later I came across a terrific quote from Pollock that when reflected upon in concert with one of his paintings - elevated me as an artist to a higher level of bliss "...with experience it seems to be possible to control the flow of paint, to a great extent, and I don’t use – I don’t use the accident – ‘cause I deny the accident." "I deny the accident" May I suggest that perhaps what we are crudely discussing here is the desire to enact a slow, damage control with as much grace and intelligence as possible from humanity. At the very least we make an effort to "deny the accident." Surely it is good to initiate this conversation as there is no price for speculating and imagining, at present.
A. How interesting that you've also gone on a journey with Pollock. So have I, and, I think for the same reason: he reconciles the contradiction not by ignoring it, but by denying it in such a way that embracing its inherent contradictions become the basis for reconciliation. For me, there is tremendous energy in this, and it is the reason that I consider Pollock one of the greatest of all artists, and among the most insightful people who has ever lived. That said, it must be remembered that the subtle but persistent contradictions that inquiring people find in the Key are apparently meant to be reconciled, as well, in this way. This is not to say that they ask to be restated in such a way that the contradictions disappear, but rather that the contradictions must be embraced in a new way.
Q. Whitley, I posted Sept 23 2011 regarding your need to pose a question first as the visitors won't just hand us information. This led me to wonder if we need to directly and consciously ask for help. Listening to the wonderful conversation between yourself and William Henry on Dreamland last week, you asked William if he believed this planet was run by evil and thus has created an impasse for those of us who are conscious and moral to break beyond through intellect and vision alone. I am increasingly of the opinion the one route we have not taken yet is to declare a planetary SOS. It would seem no one has done this. I fear we are within some type of corporate, military grip and good intentions alone are not going to cut us loose. Your years of relentless hard work and writing could be considered an SOS of sorts but I would like to know your thoughts on a decisive, poignant planetary SOS through a coordinated effort utilizing the best minds present. As the MOTK insinuated - the more voices - the louder we are heard. I believe it may be required that someone respond and perhaps we have just overlooked this to date or have been patiently waiting for positive change. Either we declare a planetary emergency or allow the visitors to do it for us.
A. I have really wondered if this could be done. I have two thoughts about it. First, how? And second, if a public effort is made, then it will also inspire prayers and meditative exercises against it. There would be many religious groups who would not want this to happen, not to mention the powers that be, who would offer them sub-rosa encouragement. So it could backfire, and turn out to be more negative than positive. Still, if it can somehow remain under the radar, it might be worth trying. An underground movement, as it were.
Q. After reading MOTK I have started meditating. After a rough start I have begun to experience a sense of expansiveness and ecstacy. It seems that I can take a normal observation like an itch or a sound and let it pass through me and radiate out in rising waves that feel good. It actually feels like an active process, but a few zen books that I have begun to browse through warn against this, stressing the importance of detachment and calmness. This seems at odds with some of the advice on meditation of the MOTK. Can you reconcile this with practical suggestions or experiences? Or have your found any texts or guides on meditation that fit nicely with the goal that the MOTK lays out, "to become a co-creative radiant being sharing ones observations of ecstacy with God" (paraphrase) ?
A. The important thing about meditation is to let it happen. Books cannot tell you the truth of your mediation, nobody can do that, not even you. Be your body.
Q. Whitley, thanks for an extremely important book. I was wondering, in light of this information you've received and been living with for years now, how has that influenced decisions you and your family make about your future? Have you passed any of this material on to your son, as in teaching him mediation, etc.? So I guess that's one question. Another is about catastrophic climate change. Once each of us has done what we can to pass this information on to others, is there anything we can for our own survival? Learn Spanish? Move to South America? Any tips?? It sounds funny, but I'm actually quite serious. Thanks again so much for all the information you're bringing to light. I know your path hasn't been easy, but bringing difficult news is never popular, is it? At least some of us are hearing you! Best to you and your family. Kathy C. Chicago
A. I don't think that there is anyplace on the planet that will ultimately be safer than other places. The west coast of the Americas will have stable weather longer than most areas because of the fact that combination of the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the fact that prevailing winds in the area flow onshore across that ocean will moderate the sorts of weather extremes that will be felt elsewhere. This is why I moved here from Texas five years ago. It was clear to me then that the midcontinental climate was going to become extremely unstable, and the east coast is exposed to flooding and extreme climate change if the Gulf Stream stops. Of course, there's always a trade-off. This area will have a liveable climate for some time, but it is also an earthquake zone and, as sea levels rise and put pressure on the continental shelves, the probability of substantial quakes increases worldwide. And thanks for listening to me. Few do, and it is always heartening to find somebody who does.
Q. The fantastic MOTK interview on Coast to Coast AM you discussed possible reasons for having this opportunity. The most obvious being that you, in particular, would actually write the book. What is your impression of the possibility that the Visitors take great care to impart information in fine balance, in which someone exposed could equally believe it or not? Obviously skeptics always take the position that you are a fiction writer and thus choose to dismiss the revelations. The impression one can take of the material could flip either way depending upon ones present disposition. It seems a clever way of releasing profound material in such a way that each individual absorbs it according to their potential, a duality. In this same line of reasoning could one have the impression the MOTK would not directly divulge information until you verbally asked it? It seemed necessary for a human to actually ask the question first.
A. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. They do take great efforts not to impose beliefs. For example, they chose a horror novelist, not a great scientist, to impart their information. Thus people are free to entertain it or not, as they wish. Nothing is ever imposed on anybody. And I have been left with so many questions myself, that nothing has been imposed on me, either. To my mind, this is the most fundamental reason to think that, whatever they may be, there is a powerful ethical base to what they are doing.