22 September, 2009
Of Psychics and Business, a Sometimes Pernicious Sort of Commerce
When you are a businessman, or businesswoman, or businessperson— You start to appreciate things differently. I mean, this is something I never expected to feel: My objective was never to be in business and it is purely accidental that I am. I am only even calling myself a businessperson because I work for myself and that takes some knowledge of the rudiments of business. I was not even comfortable, initially, thinking about myself as a businessman. Nor did I feel that the work I did was congruous with the ideology of “business.” But that changed as I adjusted to seeing what I did in a new perspective. The realization that no matter how essentially spiritual or metaphysical my service was; it was, indeed, a service

This was a profound realization. The realization came with the profundity which I assume generally accompanies an epiphany. Why? Because, at root, this is exactly what it was. I had an epiphany and realized that I was selling a service and the exchange of money for this service wasn’t something “wrong” unless it was a condition which was placed in any equation involving a case where I was approached by a law enforcement agency (in which case, I don’t believe they would offer compensation of a financial nature, anyhow…I have yet to see that assumption proven untrue) or by the family of a missing person, etc. Realizing that what I did would not be somehow rendered invalid because it reeked of “business” changed me—and it transfigured me for the better.
It also changed my identity. It was a necessary change precipitated by the acceptance of the term “businessman” and all of the cultural and societal meanings the word carries. Aside from the money-hungry implication that word has, additionally and undeniably– it further connotes negative and positive images and these are completely valid and set to be determined on an individual basis by each person who encounters any “businessperson.” Yes, it is absolutely true that people who work in this particular business will always be judged far more harshly because we’re not going to be evaluated by customers and by society as psychics or businesspeople, but as psychic businesspeople. Therefore, certain people will never even allow us a platform upon which to stand and prove ourselves as being any good, or even valid, as one or the other. On the flip side of the same coin, however, it must be remembered that there exist another sort of group, and this is one composed of people with a tendency to believe that anything any psychic says or does is, by nature, wonderful. That is not a mixed blessing, it is a curse.
Inherent troubles lie within each group. Clearly, the first group is problematic by nature because the personalities therein are given to the production of nastiness and derision. This may remain unspoken yet stubborn and ingrained and hence impossible to dissuade or mitigate through attempts at education or other civil attempts; worse than the silent scorn just referenced is the vocalized disapproval of the naysayer. My estimation is that nonverbal contempt for the psychic engaged actively in his or her pursuit of business is far less common than is the type which is spoken. The spoken dislike for a psychic who has chosen to fashion a profession from his ability is often relegated to a casual, cushioned “brush-off” meant to express a simple lack of trust. This is certainly something universally experienced by both psychics and non-psychics. Whether or not this happens frequently is not the question and certainly it is not my concern. My concern is held for the plunge in depth of feeling associated with the shift from broad, nonspecific verbal judgment to the sort which is intentionally caustic. Where this toxic anger comes from is anybody’s guess; though I will not fail to include that in certain instances it may stem from personal experience with a psychic whose attributes or talents are wanting or who fail to impress a customer who has laid down his hard-earned money in order to have a psychic reading.
Factors which may exert a causal impetus in the formation of a negative opinion of a psychic– the kind which gets voiced– are sometimes, from what I have witnessed: a combination of scanty talent, formidable price-range out of proportion to level of perceived or actual ability, lack of general manners– alone or in conjunction with a paucity of the charm which sometimes (and should not) compensate or excuses this.
Naturally, the most distressing method employed to illustrate angry disapprobation is the sort which ceases to find its expression through spoken or written channels. Violence directed at psychics is not unheard of; though this sort of incidence is quite rare. There are no statistics available which address the issue; and there seems to be no particular place— in real or in cyberspace— which exists in order to quantify such criminal behavior with hard numbers. In my own online search (which, admittedly, was not completely exhaustive) I failed to locate any repository of numbers for such acts on the worldwide web.
In all fairness, and to avoid having myself branded a crackpot, I will readily go on-record here, letting any reader know that I do not endorse or even come near to accepting physical violence as an occupational hazard of psychics, mediums, spiritual advisers, etc. At the same time, I want to also go on-record and let it be clearly understood that I do understand the importance of semantics, here. It may behoove an individual whose work as a psychic makes up the greatest portion of his household income to refrain from calling himself a “psychic reader” and instead use a term such as “spiritual adviser,” should he live and work in a certain geographical principality, such as the Bible belt. Conversely, whether recognized on a clearly intellectual and business-savvy level or through a dim, tacit understanding, this same individual also must sometimes actively avoid certain descriptive terms used for the purpose of identifying and selling his commodity.
Since the commodity in question is he and more than the mere service he renders, the individual will naturally seek to preserve himself and therefore his livelihood, or vice versa. So well-knit and ingrained into our thinking is the notion of personal identity as being inexorably entwined with occupation that it is no marvel to witness a person thinking of himself as being a tailor, a soldier or a psychic, and solely as any of these things at given times. When examined from this point-of-view, there is little to cloud the comprehension of the reasons which motivate an individual to rail against any negative aspersions cast upon another who also makes his living through a design which approximates his own.
Furthermore, I do acknowledge racial and cultural prejudices which do exist against certain minorities who are far more likely to rely upon the monies generated by the practice of exchange-for-profit of divination. Traditionally, we make the easy association between this method of generating an income with Gypsy or Romany peoples. In specific regions of the United States, one may notice that members of other ethnic or racial groups appear quick to assume the role of arbiters of information which may seemingly be best garnered in secret, via some clandestine technique veiled in the cloak of tradition and steeped in the mystique of a person already deemed “other” by the greater society which appears poised to devour the smaller ethnic faction to which he belongs.
I am not attempting to start an argument about race and the association of race and the occult. It is for this reason that I am choosing to use restraint and not make mention of any further ethnic groups to back up my point.
Realistically speaking, the vocational psychics, whose professional identity is caught up in the requisite weaving of the spiritual and occupational selves, are done far more harm by outright slander or cleverly spoken pejorative innuendo than by acts of physical aggression. Truthfully, those at greatest risk for suffering wanton, violent assaults are those whose public decision to follow a spiritual path which deviates from that of the status quo and which espouses the existence and use psychic ability in order to prosper or to become self-actualized.
There are absolutely instances where the two sets of circumstance overlap. In such cases, the danger is significantly heightened since the first conditions create a need for self-promotion and sometimes this business necessity becomes the foundation for a public profile and persona. When further augmented by members of the press who agree that such a personality deserves attention, the creation of a genuine figure of regional or national interest is birthed. If the second set of conditions remains unaddressed or not professed by this individual, then the assumption that such a person will encounter less controversy from members of the “religious right” may be comfortably made. However, if a person generates a substantial amount of interest to warrant the interest of the media and is also a spiritual leader or self-styled guru, the assumption that he or she will be likely to chafe against the sensibilities of outspoken members of the aforementioned “religious right” is probably safe to make.
There is no use in denying the fact and there is no argument being posited by this writer; I speak not for, nor against any member of clergy— no matter the sort of clergy. By introducing extremely high-profile examples of psychics (the sort who are vocational and whose names are so familiar that they have become household words) and by examining the spiritual and even religious ideas promulgated or withheld by such psychics I am able to buttress and state my contention simultaneously and without creating any burden for myself.
When the question of controversy in regards to a high-profile psychic is raised, the name which comes to mind most quickly is that of Sylvia Browne. To be perfectly fair, Ms. Browne has made herself enormously successful over the duration of greater than thirty years. To be equally fair, I will state that I have watched television programs featuring Sylvia Browne and I have, more than once, found myself transfixed by her accuracy.
Nevertheless, she has come into the spotlight most recently for her perceived and definite mistakes, shortcomings and foibles. Most notably, her errors involving the Hornbeck case caused more than a small stir when the details she had formerly given were made public. These details were, unfortunately, quite wide of the mark. Her failure to provide accurate details in the Hornbeck case is certainly the most fortunate facet of her involvement with the case, it should be stated. Details which were not difficult to learn of as they were delivered by Browne in a television studio and which were subsequently broadcast.
For those whose memory for lurid crimes involving the abduction of young children is short, I will provide some background: The case revolved around a young boy who was kidnapped and who, miraculously, was not murdered. Our memories for such stories are generally short, most likely because for every little girl like Elizabeth Smart or small boy like Steven Stayner (two atypically lucky victims of childhood abduction who managed to survive while cared for by the very hands responsible for their theft) there are innumerable children whose fate after being kidnapped is far closer to that of Adam Walsh (the tragic, brutally murdered son of John Walsh, who has admirably hosted the television program America’s Most Wanted).
More often than not, these children do not return home. Many times, the parents of such children, who fall prey to the most frightening sort of predatory adults, never have whatever solace accompanies the retrieval of their child’s remains. As jaded and as knowing as we are, tact should not be carelessly abandoned when speaking with the parent of a child who has gone missing—not even in those cases where the child disappeared so long ago that logic alone would dictate that yes, the child has been murdered and probably suffered in some detestable way prior to the disgraceful end.
Sylvia Browne did what tactful people do not normally do when she addressed the parents of missing child Sean Hornbeck.
She addressed them personally during a taping of the Montel Williams Show. As they stood up in the audience, pale and worn from years of hoping in the face of hopelessness, they paid her every word respectful attention. There they stood obviously beleaguered and braced for bad news, yet the mother exhibited an almost invisible flash of hope when she momentarily allowed a transient glint to animate, and then abandon her eye. If it had been her intention to remain optimistic she would not have been able to sustain that emotion, or even mime its appearance for very long. Sylvia Browne, in her deadpanned, distanced and heavy voice, told them without flinching that their boy was dead.

The problem was not Ms. Browne’s. For Sylvia, the problems began later, when the Hornbeck boy was discovered alive and delivered home.
The supposition that Browne informed them that their son was deceased in order to grant them the closure which she may have guessed would never come has lit up the inside of my head and then been extinguished, more than once. How many cases like this has she worked on? I wondered. How many times has this woman seen the sad truth about the often horrific fate met by such children? I wondered this as well. I did not think she was a bad person. I did not think she was a bad psychic, either. I knew she had made a mistake; and I knew that psychics make mistakes. I knew that she had never claimed that everything she said was guaranteed to be free of flaw. The fact that she proved herself to be human and fallible was sadly something she had to do while television cameras were rolling. Still, the cameras caught her most egregious error: Her callous demeanor— which she retained throughout the exchange with Mr. and Mrs. Hornbeck.
America was outraged at her failure to confirm that the boy was, indeed, alive. She met with immediate criticism, and her manager appeared on-air with Anderson Cooper who mediated a remarkably sad verbal tug-of-war between the manager and James Randi—a man whose career was initially forged as a stage magician but who has become far better-known as a man who made the act of debunking psychics his life’s work. Randi, like the rest of those who were outraged, was set-off by her lack of precision. Unlike many people, I was most irked by her callous, glib and even emotionless demeanor as she spoke. Certainly she could have tried to sound more sympathetic. Especially as she went about detailing the boy’s demise—she had stated that the authorities would discover the boy’s lifeless body with its head between rocks. This painted a grisly visual in my own mind. Lord knows what the parents envisioned.
This is not an indictment of Sylvia Browne. What I would like most to mention is that during the confrontation between her rabidly loyal manager, James Randi and—to a definite degree—Anderson Cooper, it was mentioned by all parties that Browne was a religious figure. It is true that she has established a church. This fact was used as a means of bombarding her character by making a not vague insinuation that it existed, at least in part, as the mechanism behind what one may label an elaborate money-laundering scheme in which tax-exempt status was legally obtained and to which the 750 dollar per half hour fee Cooper contended was collected for Browne’s services was immediately directed.
I must reiterate that my own intention here is not to bludgeon the character of Browne. I am paraphrasing the substance of the exchange, while keeping what I am sure the intended meaning of grossly intact. It is not difficult to find a video of this online and I encourage people to do so with the hope that they form opinions of their own and which may absolutely disagree with what my own opinion of the exchange was—simply go online and navigate to youtube and enter the keywords, which would be the names of the persons mentioned above.
Mixing her status as a well-known, well-paid psychic and her identity as a religious figure who had established a church suddenly appeared unsavory and awful. When, in fact, Browne may be nothing more than a good psychic who had a bad day, she was quickly made to look as if she were engaged in the worst kind of trickery. My ideas regarding the sort of public mockery to which one is liable to be made a subject of when mixing a high-profile career as a psychic with another identity—as a spiritual leader— is thus brought to life.
There are famous psychics who choose, as has Browne, to write books which are crafted as a means to illuminate the working of the arcane. This is of little consequence and certainly seems not to offend and rarely, if ever, incites controversy. The list of mediums and psychics who have written and published books is too lengthy to make here. However, contemporary mediums and psychics will assuredly continue to write. There is an enormous market for such literature and it does not appear to be in any danger of dwindling. People have questions. If others claim to have answers, I am voicing a wish that they continue to set them to press and assist in the edification, the pacification and/or the entertainment of the restless and anxious masses.
There are obvious and valid reasons to negate the validity of any psychic which do apply to any sole individual operating any business of any stripe. Yet, when it comes to judging a psychic as a businessman lines become easily blurred. The introduction of religion and spirituality may further blur these lines.
Yet, it may also be accurately stated that there is an intrinsic component of the spiritual in what many psychics do. It is not as simple to state that this inherent spiritual component involved in the work a psychic does is of a “religious” nature. Though it certainly may be stated and I have no real argument with the concept; especially when remembering how much of religion is predicated upon faith, a willing suspension of disbelief and a necessary belief in the “supernatural.”
It is possible to be an atheist and believe in psychic phenomena. It is not possible to believe in God and to disbelieve in what is ordinarily labeled the “supernatural.” The miraculous events described in major sacred texts of dominant World Religions are rife with recounted stories involving unearthly occurrences which did—if you are among the faithful—happen on terra firma.
Personally, I believe in the existence of spirits and in many other ideas which do not sit perfectly well with the ideas we commonly appreciate to have been proven within the parameters of an environment which is marked by perfect scientific conditions. Life is short and does not occur in a vacuum; I have my beliefs and am grateful that I have my work which certainly emanates from my beliefs in an extraordinarily spiritual and metaphysical background which I chose to label reality. Once again, I have no personal grudge against psychics who are also spiritual leaders, who have started churches or founded other religious organizations. In fact, there are individuals who have done just this for whom I do hold great respect.
All I can truly say is that it is often difficult enough to be wading through the waters of life believing as I do and taking it one step further by working within the structures of my own beliefs; which are, of course, metaphysical by nature and definition. Beyond this, I can say one thing more, and this is that I am quite grateful that I do not feel any tug—presently—towards the formation of a spiritual body or church. I am not born to lead the life of a religious authority and am just beginning to appreciate the many gifts of those who were so born. I have some of the gifts one would associate with a person whose destiny is aligned with that of the leader of persons in spirituality. Certainly I believe that I have the psychic abilities which many assume are of an origin which is associated with things divine. Sometimes I have the patience of a saint… sometimes.
Other times I do not! Blessings regardless, be well and take it easy.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Justice