Edgar Cayce Anyone?


For all the seemingly bombastic-claims of the “Second Nostradamus,” his story (at least how it appeared on the history channel) is quite convincing. Along with the many prophecies which are stereotypical of any “prophet” (exact dates of Great Depression, World War II, etc.), he also dedicated his life to ministering to the afflicted, prescribing thousands of medical cures for the seemingly incurable while in a deep trance, and afterwards never remembering anything he said. According to records presented on this History Channel program, he was never wrong…

With such credibility as a precedent, Edgar Cayce has also made detailed claims about ancient civilizations and relics that weren’t taken seriously until they were actually discovered long after his death (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls). Of course, I’m here more to discuss his claims about spirituality, reincarnation, the subconcious, his end of times predictions, and religion more than his subconcious curing abilities.

His claims cover a broad range, from the idea of all the same souls being reincarnated to ideas of Jesus is a spirit-brother who achieved his perfection through much reincarnation and learning.

Simply put: It’s one of those “Man, If he’s right then everything we think we know about Christianity today is totally wrong and misinterpreted.” Given that he has a pretty good resume, I’d appreciate THOROUGH help on this. :smiley:


Edgar Cayce remains one of those enigmas that just won’t fit into anyone’s model of philosophy or beliefs. He grew up as a Protestant in small town mid-America. He knew and understood the Bible from an early age and probably knew nothing of Eastern religions until he was old. At first he rejected the concept of reincarnation because it is not taught in the Bible. Later in life, however, he changed his thinking on this matter and decided that the Bible does teach reincarnation. Supposedly this change of belief came about by his conclusion that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. Matthew 17:12 and Mark 9:13. He found his powers of clairvoyance surprising and troubling. Unfortunately, his works have attracted a cult like following in an organization called the Association for Research and Enlightenment.


Okay, that’s all fine and dandy, but that doesn’t settle the fact that he was ***right ***in most everything he did, and with good, humble intentions. So given that he had this power, he goes beyond dismissing as a cult-like figure. He wasn’t trying to decieve anyone!

Ultimately, if he is right about his end-of-world/state-of-the-universe claims (in the same way he correctly guessed the medical treatments for thousands of people including at least three U.S. Presidents while in a subconcious trance during a time when medical science was still in its infancy), then his other, more maveric ideas will have every reason to be true.

Given his extensive resume, he could even be right about Jesus Christ being just another soul who happened to become extremely elightened through his many reincarnations, and likewise, a person whose story was badly misinterpreted and embellished by his disciples.

In light of such things and also smaller experiences of my own, I’m afraid my belief system is shifting in a new direction, partly because highly credible stories involving spirituality and the paranormal exist (much more recent and apparent than anything in the New Testament), and partly from never getting straight anwers on these forums about difficult topics.

Wanna save a soul? Tell me how Edgar Cayce *isn’t *right by *explaining *and not purely dismissing all he’s done!

(by the way, I don’t understand why this was moved from Apologetics, it is a highly relevant Apologetics issue)


Cayce, like many New Age gurus, makes a lot of claims. Some of these claims seem to be true but people don’t realise this is due to a statistical effect of chance. It is inevitable when one makes a ‘prediction’ about a future state of affairs, there is a certain probability or chance you will get it wrong or right. It is like rolling a die; there is a finite probability you will get a 1, a 2, and so on. The rules governing this were worked out interestingly enough by people like Blaise Pascal and others following him, and are fairly well understood.

Combined with the technique of ‘cold reading’, which is asking certain general questions to get a response, combined with the non-zero chance a prediction will be right, many ‘predictions’ seem to ‘hit’ their mark. The same is also the case with creative exegesis of vague books like those of Nostradamus, and also uncritical use of the Bible (and books such as Revelation) to get an exact ‘schemata’ of how the future is going to unfold. This is why the Church rightly rejects fortune telling and divination as superstitions to be avoided, and these were also rejected by great fathers (Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa for example) because of their rational incoherence as well as their lack of worth in growing faith.


Have you heard of familiar spirits? They are around us all and that is how psychics get the info that they do.

It’s a downward spiral when you get involved with this stuff. Back away. Don’t play in the devil’s backyard.


Edgar Cayce Anyone?

No thanks, I’ll stick with the truth instead.


You’re assuming that if Cayce is right about, say, reincarnation; that that means that people who reject reincarnation are wrong. That’s not necessarily the case.

Perhaps reincarnation is true from one perspective, and non-reincarnation is true from another perspective.

Reality might be a multi-faceted jewel, indeed.:slight_smile:

And with that, I bid the Catholic Answers Forums a good night, a shal-aum, and an adieu.:thumbsup:


Cayce was a popular cult figure in the 60s when interest in his life was revived by a few popular books and TV shows. Several books published at the time, and at least one TV show, claimed to prove that many of his so-called predictions in fact never came true, or could have been interpreted in so many ways as to be valueless. a google search would probably turn up such reference.

He seems to have been a good person who may have been manipulated by people close to him. Before accepted without critical review the claims that “all his predictions came true” it would be prudent to do more research if you are going to dismiss 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching on the basis of the claims of one gentlemen.

There are 4 possibilities. Cayce was sincere and sometimes by chance made correct predictions but sometimes was wrong. Cayce was a charlatan and ditto. Cayce was sincere and believed he was following the Bible but in fact misinterpreted the bible and was correct because he was under demonic influence. Cayce knew bible prohibitions against dabbling in the occult yet deliberately allowed himself to be put under demonic influence and his correct predictions were due to that influence.

The possibility that he was sincere, always correct, and adhered to God’s law while dabbling in things forbidden by the Bible is not in court.


I’m with Puzzle Annie here…
Really, there are so many claims about Cayce’s supposed accuracy, but the truth is, that most of his predictions have NOT come true. His track record is greatly inflated by his descendants, who have a profitable little enterprise going down in Virginia, publishing & republishing books based on his predictions; running overpriced seminars on various Eastern relgious topics, sponsoring a variety of supposed “cures” based on his predictions. In fact, none of them work for a living; they live off the profits from every word he ever spoke…
He became uberpopular in the “Age of Aquarius”, & a lot of us older folk remember those days…But 1967 was a long, long, time ago, and neither California nor New York City has sunken beneath the waves of the sea; Atalantis has not arisen in all its ancient glory off the coast of Florida; castor oil has not been declared the cure for cancer; and if you really believe that Judas Iscariot has been reborn here on earth,:rolleyes: and is a “very fine man”, well, I just:cool: happen to have a bridge in Brooklyn that just:cool: happens to be for sale…

PS: It’s been moved from apologetics to non-Catholic religions, because “Association for Research & Enlightenment” is, well…:shrug: it’s a non-Catholic religion.


One point I would like to mention is that Satan can say a lot of things that are true, so that he can bury in them a few very important things that are false, such as Jesus is not God. If he can convince everyone that every thing else he has said is true, how many people will be willing to swallow the one BIG lie?


while this may be true—it has nothing whatsoever to do with Cayce. He was not a guru, he did not do any of the parlor tricks described. He was not even comfortable with his so-called gifts and eventually they killed him–zapped all his strength, giving it away to others in healings. While these arguments might work for John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, Cayce was an entirely different animal…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.