Q. I found your book very consistent with the Catholic teachings I been exposed since I was a child. You use the word "veil" and our priest used the phrase "the veil will be removed and you will see God" when he refers as to what happens on death. I wonder if you made an effort to be consistent with Catholicism as you compiled your notes into the book.
A. I'm not sure. I tried my best to repeat his words, not impose my thoughts. Could be I did, though. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for me to be certain,
Q. I have read other books such as Keepers of the Garden by Dolores Cannon and The Forgotten Promise by Sherry Wilde. Though in your book and each of these books the information comes from a different source. I feel it is the same information. It is very uncanny. I wander if you have read either of these books and what your thoughts might be about their information in correlation with your own. I find these things intriguing, because like yourself I have experienced some, what some may call super natural, situations. I do not think it has been by chance that I have read each of these books. Though the first one shocked me to the core with my own religious beliefs. I felt that it was a sinful thing for me to even read the book yet I could not stop myself. I hope to hear back.
A. I haven't read these books, but I'll certainly give them a looksee given what you have noticed. I think that there are many paths to the same destination.
Q. Whitley, did I miss something or was there information removed in your new book as well? The Key Master said that before the end of the conversation you would know how to communicate with the dead. He said it was important to hear what they had to say - not in those words but in what you wrote in the book. I read all of it and it was an excellent book but how to communicate with the dead was never addressed in my book. Can you tell me how The Key Master said to do this? Thank for an enlightening book, Vickie Acklin
A. This is the closest he came:
How does a person evolve this radiant body?
The imprinting of essence with experience requires effort and attention. It is the object of all ‘paths’ and ‘ways’ to higher consciousness. It is the object of real prayer. To begin, you must meditate. Who does not meditate, disintegrates.
Any specific recommendations?
Paying attention to physical sensation is paying attention to energetic sensation. Being awake to oneself and one’s surroundings increases the intensity of the impressions so that they affect the spin of the electrons that are present in the nervous system. In this context, being awake means being aware of one’s own self while at the same time absorbing impressions from the outside. The increase in spin and enrichment of the complexity of the pattern of being that results brings more and more form to the radiant body. You will remember yourself after your death—who and what you were, why you existed, and what you intend for your future. You will, in short, acquire a true aim, and join the companions of God in their journey toward ecstatic and conscious union with one another and all that is. It is the difference between being a plant and being Rembrandt. The plant has a certain fragment of self-awareness, but Rembrandt is vastly complex, a being rich with fully realized talents and self awareness that makes him a worthy companion in higher form.
Rembrandt was a saint?
Rembrandt was conscious. As far as his being a saint is concerned, though—forget it. Radiant being and sainthood are not the same thing, believe me.
So he persisted as a radiant being? Where is he now?
That’s his business.
What about those who don’t acquire this ethereal independence?
After death you cannot be blind and therefore you cannot change. There, you wait.
Wait for what?
To understand that, you must first understand that the living and the dead share the same world. Your dead are not off somewhere in space. Their lives and beings are intertwined with yours. They see all that passes here, but can only affect it indirectly, if they can make themselves heard in the minds of the living. However, you the living are changing now. As this change proceeds, you are better and better able to feel the presence of your dead. You will find your dead in the immediate surroundings of their lives, for the most part, clinging to what they can of their memories, attempting to preserve their selves despite the magnetic attraction of what would envelop them.
Q. Thanks so much for TMOTK. I read it thru twice and still go back to various bookmarks every now and then. When Superstorm Sandy was converging, I mistakenly thought the scenario laid out by TMOTK was imminent. Would you have a timeframe for climate change to be occurring? It seems the signs laid out are commencing i.e. melting Arctic, changes in air and ocean currents, release of methane and carbon dioxide from oceans and melting permafrost, and more intense storms. Would truly appreciate a response. Thanks Whitley -- I am truly looking forward to future books.
A. I think that a better word than 'imminent' is 'inevitable.' The way things look now, with methane outgassing in the arctic and the possibility that the ice cap will soon be melting in summer, I would think that things will deteriorate over the next thirty to fifty years to the point that the change he describes will start to unfold. Unusually structured storms like Sandy are harbingers, it seems to me.
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. Whitley, the MOK seems to suggests that God is internal and external, that we are God but at the same time that God is a separate being. That seems to me to be the central theme of "The Key". Can you expand on this idea?
A. The concept is holographic, meaning that even the smallest fragment repeats the entire content of the whole.
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?