LIGHT BODY HUMAN UNIVERSAL

A former academic describes his concept of the “Light Body,” an energy framework with seemingly supernatural properties.

Gain, who was trained in biology and psychology research and has degrees from Princeton University and the University of California, Santa Barbara, combines elements from various scientific disciplines, pseudoscience, and cultural practices to define the Light Body. The author asserts that humans only evolved with the capacity to perceive a limited spectrum of natural occurrences. The Light Body, he asserts, represents a component of every human being that’s difficult to perceive and co-evolved with the material body, operating primarily in the realm of quantum mechanics. The author proposes that all humans have this Light Body and that most are aware of it to some degree, via experiences such as precognition or remote viewing. Gain invokes anthropologist Donald E. Brown’s concept of “human universals” and proposes that most cultures display features consistent with the Light Body concept, especially in culture-making and complex social organization. The bulk of the text describes the characteristics of the Light Body, human behaviors that involve the concept, and how it may contribute to culture formation and transmission using “Thought Forms” in a shared, nonphysical “shamanic space.” The final section voices concerns about how ignorance or misuse of the Light Body in the modern era may have negative social effects involving cult activity, new media, and even national security. Gain expresses his hope to inspire scientists to investigate these phenomena and his belief that the Light Body theory may be practically applicable to fields as diverse as energy healing and classroom management. The author offers an earnest and spirited argument over the course of the book, and his ideas will be of interest to some readers. His case, however, lacks the rigor required to animate scientific interest. His self-run, self-reported experiments and appeals to personal self-perception fail to acknowledge the effects of human subjectivity. The text also cites sources such as “channeled” literature as evidence, despite acknowledging that such sources are untrustworthy, and also uncritically cites data sources such as CIA memoranda.

An enthusiastic but ultimately unconvincing discussion of a wide-ranging idea.