The Structure of Infinity

Evidence That the Conscious Self Can Function

Independently of the Physical Body

In this essay we explore the evidence that each one of us is transcorporal (inherently different from his or her physical body and able to function independently of it).

Detailed, obscure, and verifiable past-life memories

unobtainable by ordinary means of communication

"I won't pick it up. I am a Sharma."

With these words, young Gopal Gupta angrily broke the dinner glasses his parents had asked him to remove from the table. Gopal was outraged that he, as a member of the wealthy, upper-class Sharma family, should be engaged in the menial task of clearing off a dining table. Of course, Gopal's parents had no idea that they were engaging a Sharma in clearing the table; they simply thought of Gopal as their two-and-a-half-year-old son.

Thus unfolded one of the numerous cases reported by Professor Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia. Stevenson has published a series of books (Stevenson, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1997) in which he describes his extensive research work during the last thirty years. Stevenson reports cases in which a child gives specific details about a person he claims to have been in his previous life and Stevenson has done careful research in an attempt to verify these details. The information in these cases is not obtained by hypnosis; the children spontaneously describe their experiences.

The case of Gopal Gupta is typical. He was born in Delhi, India on 26 August 1956, the son of S.P. Gupta and his wife Omvati Gupta. The incident mentioned above occurred when Gopal was approximately two and a half years old. Gopal startled everyone by this outburst of anger and his unprecedented claim to be a member of a strange family. During the next few years, Gopal provided various details of what he claimed was his previous life as a man named Shaktipal Sharma who had lived in another city called Mathura, which is 160 kilometers away from Delhi where Gopal and his parents were living at the time (Shaktipal Sharma died in 1948). These details included the following information (Stevenson, 1975, p.82-95): He and his two brothers had owned a company called Sukh Shancharak that sold medicines. The company maintained a showroom. He owned a large house and had many servants to take away dishes and eating utensils. The Sharmas owned a number of large houses including one with a garden outside the town. He owned a car (it was very unusual to own a car in India in the 1930s). He went to college in a car. His employees were happy because he gave them wine. His younger brother married a woman from Assam. One day there had been shooting between the brothers.

According to Stevenson (1975, p.74-75), during the time Gopal was revealing this knowledge (from 1959 to 1964), neither Gopal nor his parents had ever been in Mathura. S.P. Gupta did not set foot in Mathura until 1964, and Gopal and his mother did not go there until March 1965. In his interview with Stevenson, Gopal's father said that his family had no contact with the Sharma family prior to the development of the case. Similarly, the Sharmas told Stevenson that there had been no contact between their family and the Gupta family before the case.

As a general operating rule in his investigation of these cases, Stevenson interviews a number of knowledgeable persons in an attempt to establish that the information reported by the child was not acquired through normal means of communication. He is especially alert for any evidence of contact between the two families before the development of the case.

In the case of Gopal Gupta, Stevenson interviewed the following persons in Delhi:

1. Gopal Gupta

2. Gopal's father (S. P. Gupta)

3. Gopal's mother (Omvati Gupta)

4. Jwala Prasad (a building contractor who was a friend of S. P. Gupta)

5. B. B. Das (a friend of S. P. Gupta)

6. Chandra Kumari Devi Shastri (one of Shaktipal Sharma's older sisters)

7. M. D. Shastri (Chandra Kumari Devi's husband)

8. Chandra Kanta Devi Sharma (another of Shaktipal Sharma's older sisters)

9. R. S. Sharma (Chandra Kanta Devi's husband)

10. Chaman Lal Kapoor (a friend of K. B. Pathak)

11. R. C. Chaturvedi (a friend of Chaman Lal Kapoor)

12. Prabha Chaturvedi (R. C. Chaturvedi's wife)

In Mathura, Stevenson interviewed:

1. Vishwapal Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's older brother)

2. Satyawati Sharma (Vishwapal Sharma's wife)

3. Kirtipal Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's oldest son)

4. Subhadra Devi Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's widow)

5. Asha Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's niece by marriage)

6. K. B. Pathak (sales manager of the Sukh Shancharak Company)

7. R. A. Haryana (a friend of Shaktipal Sharma)

In 1964, Gopal's father drove from Delhi (where he was living) to Mathura to attend a religious festival. While in Mathura, he decided to try to verify some of the things his son had been saying. He found that there was in fact a company called Sukh Shancharak that sold medicines and that it was owned by three Sharma brothers, the youngest of whom, named Brijendrapal, had shot and killed his older brother named Shaktipal Sharma in 1948. S.P. Gupta told the company's sales manager (K. B. Pathak) about some of the things Gopal had said. Mr. Pathak was impressed with the accuracy of Gopal's statements; he wrote down S.P. Gupta's name and address and gave them to Subhadra Devi Sharma, Shaktipal Sharma's widow. The Sharmas were curious about what Gopal was saying, so they asked one of their friends in Delhi (Chaman Lal Kapoor) to inquire further into the matter. In November 1964, Kapoor wrote to Pathak confirming what Gopal had been saying.

Thereafter, Subhadra Devi Sharma and Chandra Kanta Devi Sharma (one of Shaktipal Sharma's older sisters) visited the Gupta family at their home in the Krishna Nagar section of Delhi. S.P. Gupta told Stevenson that Gopal correctly stated Chandra Kanta Devi Sharma's relationship to Shaktipal Sharma when she asked Gopal to say who she was, but Stevenson (1975, p.88) also mentioned that Chandra Kanta Devi did not remember this event. Stevenson (1975, p.88-89) said that Gopal recognized Subhadra Devi, but he also mentioned that there was a possibility that Gopal could have overheard Chandra Kanta Devi's son telling S.P. Gupta who Subhadra Devi was. Thus there is some doubt regarding the value of these two recognitions.

During this visit, Gopal was friendly towards Chandra Kanta Devi Sharma but cold and impolite to Subhadra Devi Sharma. For example, when the two women were leaving the Gupta residence, Gopal said good-bye to Chandra Kanta Devi but he did not say good-bye to Subhadra Devi. Gopal's father asked Gopal why he was so cold towards Subhadra Devi, and Gopal replied that he was angry at Subhadra Devi because she had refused to lend him money when he requested it. Shaktipal Sharma had requested money from his wife to try to pacify his younger brother Brijendrapal, but Subhadra Devi had refused. Gopal remembered this event in the life of Shaktipal Sharma. Later, when Gopal's father was visiting Subhadra Devi in Mathura, he told her about Gopal's memories of Shaktipal Sharma's attempt to borrow money from her before he was murdered. Upon hearing this, Subhadra Devi fainted. She was astonished that Gopal knew about such an intimate affair. Stevenson noted: "The details of this had certainly never appeared in any newspaper or been otherwise spread around publicly" (Stevenson, 1975, p.102). Gopal's revelation of this event in the life of Shaktipal Sharma took place before Gopal's first visit to Mathura in March 1965.

In January 1965, Vishwapal Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's older brother) and his wife Satyawati came to the Gupta residence in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. While they were sitting in their car in front of the house, Gopal came out of the house and correctly stated their relationship to Shaktipal Sharma. Later, when Stevenson interviewed Vishwapal Sharma and his wife, they directly confirmed Gopal's recognition of them.

Sometime thereafter, but before Gopal's first visit to Mathura in March 1965, Chandra Kumari Devi Shastri (another one of Shaktipal Sharma's sisters) invited Gopal and his parents to the wedding of her son in Delhi. Gopal and his father attended the wedding. S. P. Gupta told Stevenson that on this occasion Gopal spontaneously recognized Brijendrapal Sharma, Shaktipal Sharma's younger brother and murderer. Stevenson also said that Vishwapal Sharma told him that he (Vishwapal Sharma) and his wife had also attended this wedding and that his wife had overheard a conversation between Gopal and his father in which Gopal said: "That man who is disguised [referring to Brijendrapal's beard] shot at me" (Stevenson, 1975, p.91). It turns out that Brijendrapal Sharma did not grow a beard until after the death of Shaktipal Sharma.

As mentioned before, Gopal visited Mathura for the first time in March 1965. In Mathura, Gopal was able to find Shaktipal Sharma's house. Stevenson reported that he personally examined this terrain in 1969 when he visited Mathura and could find no obvious clues that would have helped Gopal to find Shaktipal Sharma's house. Stevenson (1975, p.81) also noted that Gopal could not have received subtle suggestions from his father or the other men accompanying him that would have helped in finding the house, since at that time none of these men knew where Shaktipal Sharma had lived.

In Mathura, Gopal was able to recognize photographs of Shaktipal Sharma and persons related to him. Kirtipal Sharma told Stevenson that someone showed Gopal a picture of R. A. Haryana and asked Gopal who it was. Gopal said "Haryana" (Stevenson, 1975, p. 92). Mr. Haryana was one of Shaktipal Sharma's friends from college days. S. P. Gupta told Stevenson that when Gopal entered Shaktipal Sharma's house he saw a photograph of Shaktipal Sharma and declared "This is my photograph" (Stevenson, 1975, p. 92). Kirtipal Sharma told Stevenson that Subhadra Devi Sharma pointed to a photograph of Shaktipal Sharma's father and asked Gopal who it was. Gopal said "This is my father's photograph" (Stevenson, 1975, p. 93). Stevenson remarked that Gopal's ability in this regard and other evidence had such a strong effect on some of the members of the Sharma family that they were moved to tears (Stevenson, 1975, p.102).

When Gopal was in Mathura, he said that Shaktipal Sharma had the unusual habit of keeping financial records in his personal diary. Stevenson said that a number of persons, including Mr. Haryana, heard Gopal make this remark. When Mr. Haryana told Vishwapal Sharma about it, Vishwapal immediately knew that it was correct since he had had a very close relationship with his younger brother, Shaktipal Sharma. Vishwapal Sharma told Stevenson that Shaktipal Sharma had in fact kept financial records in his personal diary. Stevenson considered the oddness of this habit and Gopal's knowledge of it to be an important item in this case.

Gopal's claim to be Shaktipal Sharma reborn was of interest to a number of persons in Mathura, since Shaktipal Sharma had been a prominent figure there. The case was covered by a number of newspapers, and thus Dr. Jamuna Prasad learned of it and told Dr. Stevenson about it. In 1969, Stevenson began his interviews of people involved in this case.

Gopal's strong identification with Shaktipal Sharma

According to Stevenson, when Gopal was between the ages of two and nine years old he often exhibited behavior indicating that he considered himself to be Shaktipal Sharma. It turns out that Shaktipal Sharma belonged to the Brahmana caste. In the Indian social system, the Brahmana caste is considered the highest caste. The Guptas, on the other hand, belong to an inferior caste known as Banias. Brahmanas generally refuse to use or even touch eating utensils that have been used by the members of lower castes. When he was young, Gopal repeatedly told his family members (the Guptas) that he is a Brahmana and "he refused to touch eating utensils used by anyone except his father. ... He would not drink milk from a cup anyone else had used, even, in this case, his father" (Stevenson, 1975, p.99).

Gopal sometimes complained about the poor living conditions in the Gupta residence and compared it unfavorably with the large house that he said he owned as Shaktipal Sharma. Gopal was reluctant to do menial housework: he claimed that he had many servants to do this type of work.

As mentioned earlier, when Subhadra Devi Sharma visited Gopal in Delhi, he treated her very coldly. This is appropriate behavior for Shaktipal Sharma since, as mentioned earlier, he was angry at his wife shortly before he was murdered.

When Gopal arrived at Shaktipal Sharma's house in Mathura, he said: "This is my house." When he was inside, he said: "This is my living room." At one point Gopal saw Shaktipal Sharma's piano and touched it, for which he was reproached. Gopal responded by saying: "Why should I not touch it? It belongs to me" (Stevenson, 1975, p.97).

The Sharmas were impressed

Stevenson mentioned that Gopal was unable to recognize several persons who were well known to Shaktipal Sharma, such as K. B. Pathak who was employed by the Sukh Shancharak Company for four years before Shaktipal Sharma was murdered. Nevertheless, the members of the Sharma family and other informants in Mathura were impressed by the accuracy of most of Gopal's memories and his ability to recognize certain photographs, especially those of Shaktipal Sharma in which his face is not visible. The Sharmas were particularly impressed by Gopal's knowledge of Shaktipal Sharma's attempt to borrow money from his wife before he was murdered (Stevenson, 1987, p.56). Stevenson noted: "Shaktipal Sharma's older sister, Chandra Kanta Devi Sharma, found herself calling Gopal 'Shakti', a strong indication that she regarded him as her brother reborn. Vishwapal Sharma, Shaktipal Sharma's older brother, was similarly convinced, from the evidence he had seen himself and what he had learned from others, that Gopal was his deceased brother reborn. And Shaktipal Sharma's old friend from college days, R. A. Haryana, expressed the opinion that Gopal was Shaktipal Sharma reborn. So did Shaktipal Sharma's niece by marriage, Asha Sharma, who witnessed in Mathura Gopal's ability to find his way from Shaktipal Sharma's house to the Sukh Shancharak company and then to point out the correct locations of the murderer and victim at the time Shaktipal Sharma's brother shot him" (Stevenson, 1975, p.102).

This last item has a special feature. When Gopal was in the process of pointing out the locations of the murderer and victim, several members of the Sharma family were present who knew the actual locations and, in order to test Gopal, deliberately tried to mislead him. Gopal passed the test, however, by remaining resolute in his identification of the correct locations. It is conceivable that an observant person could have received a clue as to the location of Shaktipal Sharma at the time he was shot due to the fact that there were new tiles there (the old ones had blood stains and had therefore been removed for inspection by the police). But this would not be sufficient to enable one to correctly point out the position of Brijendrapal when he fired the gun.

Interpretations for the case of Gopal Gupta

How are we to interpret this case? Did Gopal overhear adults discussing the life and murder of Shaktipal Sharma in sufficient detail? There are at least three reasons why this is highly unlikely:

(1) Although Shaktipal Sharma was an important man in Mathura, he was a person of no significance in Delhi.

(2) Gopal was living in Delhi when he first began to describe Shaktipal Sharma's life and murder. Delhi newspaper accounts would not have contained all the details revealed by Gopal, and thus the adults whom Gopal might have overheard could not have known these details.

(3) Eleven years elapsed between the death of Shaktipal Sharma in 1948 and Gopal's first outburst in 1959 at around age two-and-a-half. Thus even if people in Delhi were acquainted with the life and murder of Shaktipal Sharma in 1948, it is hard to believe that they would still be talking about them eleven years later.

A clever fraud by Gopal's parents?

Stevenson mentioned that he is alert for evidence of fraud in the cases he studies, and in the case of Gopal Gupta he found none. But let us consider the possibility that Gopal's parents faked the case. If Gopal's parents were strongly motivated and willing to do the needed research in Mathura, it is possible that they could have amassed a considerable amount of information about the life and murder of Shaktipal Sharma since he was a prominent person in Mathura.

But the question is, could Gopal's parents have discovered all the details reported by Gopal? Consider, for example, that Asha Sharma (Shaktipal Sharma's niece) told Stevenson that she was personally present when Gopal correctly identified the place where Brijendrapal Sharma stood when he fired the bullet that killed Shaktipal Sharma, although there were no clues that could have helped Gopal in finding the correct place and an attempt was made to deliberately mislead him by persons who knew this place. Moreover, Shaktipal Sharma's son, Kirtipal Sharma, told Stevenson that he was also present when Gopal did this. Did the Guptas somehow induce Asha Sharma and Kirtipal Sharma to lie to Dr. Stevenson? What could the Guptas have offered the Sharmas? It is important to remember that the Sharmas were very wealthy, and the Guptas were poor. Moreover, the Sharmas were from the Brahmana caste whereas the Guptas belonged to the inferior Banias caste. The huge socio-economic differences between the Sharmas and the Guptas make it very unlikely that a friendship could have ever developed between the two families. It thus seems extremely unlikely that the Guptas could have induced the Sharmas to take part in a fraud. What benefit could the Sharmas have derived by falsely establishing some ordinary boy (Gopal Gupta) as Shaktipal Sharma reborn? Stevenson mentioned that he was unable to detect any desire among Indians to convert Westerners to a belief in reincarnation. Thus, there appears to be absolutely no motive on the part of the Sharmas to engage in fraudulently establishing Gopal as Shaktipal Sharma reborn. How, then, can we explain Gopal's identification of the correct location where Brijendrapal stood when he fired the gun?

Perhaps the most impressive item in this case is that Shaktipal Sharma's widow Subhadra Devi fainted when she heard about Gopal's memories of her husband's efforts to borrow money from her before his murder. Since this was a private affair between Shaktipal Sharma and his wife and not the kind of thing that would have been reported by the newspapers, Gopal's parents could not have learned of it without becoming close friends of the Sharmas.

Thus, it is extremely unlikely that Gopal's parents could have faked the whole case. The same is true for the better among Stevenson's other cases (see Stevenson, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1997), since these cases are very similar to the case of Gopal Gupta. In these cases, the child has greatly impressed members of the previous personality's family by demonstrating knowledge of private affairs of the previous personality that would be very difficult to obtain by normal means of communication. Thus, fraud by the child's parents is highly unlikely. To explain these cases in terms of normal means of communication, we would have to imagine a fraud involving both the family of the child and the family of the person he claims to have been in his previous life. But when we examine these cases, we find no motive for such fraud. Most of Stevenson's cases are among villagers in places like West Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Alaska, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon. In these places, a person gains little or no fame by reporting that his child is a deceased person reborn, since cases in which a child claims to remember a previous life are very common (Stevenson, 1980, p.13; 1987, p.147). Also, according to Stevenson, these people have no desire to convert Westerners to a belief in reincarnation. In cases in which the child's family is poor and the previous personality's family is rich, a skeptic might argue that the whole case is a fraud by the child's parents with the motive to extract money from the rich family. But the problem is that there is no reason for the rich family to take part in the fraud, and hence we can not explain how the hoaxers could have obtained the knowledge the child exhibited of private affairs of the previous personality. Thus, it appears that we can eliminate fraud as an explanation for Stevenson's better cases, and we shall now move on to consider other explanations beginning with extrasensory perception.