There are sometimes as many as five different roles attributed by different channels—competent, experienced ones—to a well-known person. The Michael teachings have not achieved wide-scale popularity, but they are so revelatory that they deserve a much wider audience. However, when people become aware of how much disagreement there is about celebrity overleaves, it is easy for them to dismiss it all. It’s the same with people who “channel shop” and get different
overleaves from each one. This essay goes into why I think this is happening and two major ways it can be prevented: One is to become more sophisticated in how we approach multiple channelings. The other is to gain a deeper knowledge of what the Michael teachings traits look and feel like in the real world so that we can better recognize what is accurate.
(Note: I use the newly accepted singular “they” rather than “he” or alternating “he” and “she” to denote a person without suggesting gender.)
In my book
Journey of Your Soul, there’s a chapter,
“Channeling Michael Information More Than Once” that goes into the problems of Michael getting specific information that was already given. Although many channels agree that there can be problems with this, few have engaged with the full ramifications. There are some simple steps we can take to
avoid them. Following this essay is a short piece, “How I Handle Chart Channeling,” that goes into some nuts and bolts of what I do, for anyone who is interested.
My thesis is that the first information given is usually the most accurate if it comes through a clear, careful channel who goes deep and is skilled in that kind of material. (This applies to information like overleaves for which there is only one correct answer, not to open-ended questions.) Asking for information forms a sort of electrical circuit between the asker and the information, with the channel and channeled source as go-betweens. That circuit is strongest the first time the
information is requested because there is an intrinsic need for the information—it hasn’t been given before. The circuit is weaker subsequently if there is no organic need for the information to be given again. Because of that, other influences can impinge more strongly than they otherwise would. That is not to say that the information will definitely be incorrect, but the chances grow.
This is not unique to the Michael teachings. It is often said that one’s first
intuition is the most accurate, even in mundane situations such as taking a multiple-choice test. When working with tarot cards about a particular problem, the first card drawn is usually the most apropos; if you keep drawing cards about the same problem, the waters become muddied.
One channel disputes this, saying that it is merely an excuse for bad channeling. I understand how it could appear that way. However, if this premise is tested, it can be proven. A friend who also channels Michael told me about someone who had ordered overleaves from the first channel. When they did not receive them, they went to my friend, who did their chart. Afterward, the first channel also did their overleaves. The client told my friend that his chart was accurate, and the one from the
first channel was way off. However, the client didn’t offer any feedback to the first channel, allowing them to think that all was well.
I had a similar experience in reverse. Someone had ordered a chart from my friend but then came to me when they didn’t receive it from him, without telling me that they had already placed an order. (If they had, I would have contacted him and avoided the resulting problem.) I did the chart and sent it to them. Later, they got their chart from my friend. However, this time, they told me that my chart was wrong and the later-received chart was right. I was quite puzzled by that, but then
it occurred to me to ask my friend whether he had done their chart earlier than I had but had forgotten to send it until after I had sent mine. Sure enough, it had been done first.
My friend tends to be skeptical and fact-based, hard to convince about anything, but he has validated the problems of multiple channelings and has become careful about avoiding the pitfalls, resulting in higher accuracy.
Testing this premise well requires a lot of information-gathering and work with validation, plus humility and an open mind. Channels with an obstacle of arrogance might not examine themselves as carefully as they might and are more prone to an “I’m right, they’re wrong” attitude. It’s easy for accomplished channels who get a lot of positive feedback to be convinced that their channeling is almost always right. They may in fact be highly accurate when they’re the first to access specific
information such as overleaves, but even the best channels are less accurate with subsequent accesses if steps aren’t taken to avoid problems.
To improve accuracy, I propose that Michael channels commit to respecting previously channeled material and working thoughtfully with it. That means not casually rechanneling clients’ information, but first requesting the previous information and asking their validation of it; if they disagree with something, why? Their subsequent channeling may differ, but providing Michael with the earlier access(es) can avoid problems.
In addition, I propose that channels keep records of all the overleaves they channel. Those who give them orally rather than in writing can simultaneously type them into their computer. If the client doesn’t have a recording or loses it, and the channel doesn’t keep a record, that information is gone forever. Channels who don’t understand the problems of multiple channelings may figure that they can just do it again—I used to think that—but if they carefully examine their results, they’ll find
that, in fact, they can’t necessarily: later channelings won’t always be identical, and may even be far different, even with channels who are generally excellent. (Clients sometimes complain about receiving contradictory material in different sessions with the same channel.) There are even some contradictions within the transcripts of the original Michael group from the 1970s. That’s why it’s so important to preserve all information we channel for which there is only one correct answer, like
overleaves.
I also propose a greater sharing of information, with channels listing the celebrity overleaves they get on their site in a timely manner, including the date of the channeling. This is especially valuable for people whose overleaves may not have already been channeled, although of course there’s no way to know that for certain. An example is someone who has recently come to the public eye. It’s always a good idea to check available celebrity lists for previously channeled information before
attempting a celebrity chart. Sometimes I channel someone’s chart that I know was already channeled, just to see what I get; if I don’t have confidence in it, I don’t share it.
It can also be found on my Michael Teachings tab under Resources:
Entities are listed separately:
Barbara Taylor has an old list here:
It’s been stated that “On a good day, a good channel is eighty-percent accurate.” That implies that at least twenty percent of all channeling is likely to be inaccurate. I don’t agree. It depends on the kind of material, the skill of the channel, and more. Since no one can really predict the future, given the instability of the physical plane, predictive material may average less than fifty percent accuracy. On the other hand, there’s no reason that a particular
chart can’t be completely accurate. That said, one can never assume accuracy since one never knows where mistakes will crop up. That keeps us on our toes.
Many students assume that a first channeling of overleaves is approximate. With some channels, that is the case. Students then tweak them, even those that were correct in the first place, as part of their self-validation process, sometimes going way off-base due to misunderstanding or wishful thinking. I propose that channels not squander the opportunity of first channelings, going deeply and carefully rather than approximating, requesting photos if there’s any
uncertainty. (I ask clients to email photos of people they wish to ask about before sessions and require photos with all chart orders.) I then suggest that students work with what they’ve been given thoroughly. If they think that something was incorrect, it is better to go back to that channel and ask it to be checked, saying why, rather than immediately going to another channel.
If a channel hears a couple of negative stories about another channel’s work, they may assume that it isn’t very accurate on the whole, and therefore feel fine about ignoring it (never a good idea) and doing a second channeling. However, a large sampling of data is necessary in order to see what percentage of someone’s work not validated. Even Sarah Chambers, the first Michael channel, occasionally had unhappy clients, but no one disputes her excellence—she gave
us the foundation of the Michael teachings. There is no one hundred percent accurate source in the universe, and all channels occasionally get incorrect material. Both the channel and Michael themselves can be responsible for errors—Michael is still evolving, too, and can make mistakes, although generally less often than humans do, since there are many more hazards on the physical plane.
In addition, just because people disagree with channeling they received doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily incorrect. When it comes to overleaves, many people misunderstand them and/or don’t know how to interpret charts as a whole—characteristics they assume come from one chart trait may, in fact, come from another, or from influences not accounted for on the chart. What superficially looks like a king characteristic, for example, could also be a goal of dominance or aggression mode—these are
king-position overleaves. Fully validating overleaves requires a great deal of knowledge, not just “book learning” but a strong feel for what the traits look and feel like in the real world. The majority of Michael students don’t have that, even those with decades of study who have a great intellectual command of the basics. That’s an excellent foundation, but it isn’t the same as applying them. A real-world feel is not easy to come by without interacting deeply with a lot of people who have
accurate charts. That’s why workshops can be so useful.
According to Council of One channel Susannah Redelfs, there are three levels of access in channeling: contact, connection, and communion. Contact may be used for quick, light channeling—to get a piece of information, for example—but is more prone to error. It can be accurate, but it is skating on the surface. Connection is deeper, and communion is the deepest level, necessary for energy work. Susannah uses all three levels of access, depending on the need. One isn’t better than
another, but channels with a lot of accuracy problems may not be going deep enough. They may be making contact with the entity, but if the contact is too light, they may not get good information (although they may get good feelings). Going deeper requires more of the channel physically and energetically. Full trance isn’t necessary, though, in order to reach the communion stage; a fully conscious channel can reach it through concentration and opening.
I have heard many channels say of another channel, “They’re not really channeling Michael.” Some who have said that about others have also had it said about them! Again, making contact with an entity and being accurate are two different matters. It’s fine to disagree, but dissing other channels as not really channeling Michael is arrogant: How does one know that for sure? Maybe one’s own channeling said that, but that could be biased.
Bias was an issue that greatly concerned Sarah. It can be invisible to the channel, although possibly evident to others. Rigorous self-examination and honesty are an antidote to this, which includes receiving feedback without defensiveness. Defensiveness is poison to finding truth. If serious work hasn’t been done on the chief obstacle, bias can interfere with even the most gifted channels’ work when it is activated. For example, one channel I observe seems to be excellent with overleaves for
people they don’t know or have no opinions about, but bias often skews their work when that’s not the case.
Channels have different strengths and weaknesses. Receiving precise, detailed-oriented information such as overleaves perhaps benefits from a mind that is well suited for distinctions, whereas some minds are more wired for seeing commonalities. Also, some channels go quickly and are good at getting a strong flow that can let difficult information through. However, the channels who seem to be especially good at overleaves often go slowly and carefully, making a deep, perhaps plodding connection
with Michael, especially in the earlier stages while they are developing their skill and the pathways through their mind for Michael to use.
Most of the time when I do charts, I am the first channel. When I am not and I’m checking some previously channeled overleaves from established channels, what I get usually agrees or just varies in one or two points. (Clients may be happy with the previous overleaves but want the additional information on my charts.) However, with a couple and especially with some amateur channels, what I get can vary a great deal, although some amateur and new channels are quite accurate. The most problematic
ones are often people using a pendulum. They may be accessing their guides who mean well but really don’t understand the Michael system, and are just guessing rather than accessing the akashic records. To get correct overleaves, it’s probably necessary to access Michael or related causal entities.
The other major aspect of improving accuracy is for us to get better at recognizing what the traits look and feel like in the real world, so that when channeling is incorrect, we can more easily spot it. This applies especially to the roles, the most basic part of the teachings. Obviously, it is impossible for a person to be both a sage and a scholar. If two people have strong but conflicting opinions about that person’s role, at least one of them is wrong. They would be wise to look deeper. The
point isn’t to get everyone to agree, but for many more of us to be able to perceive it ourselves, particularly when it’s clear-cut. The indicators are often right there under our noses when we have eyes to see and are willing to observe and think. With celebrities, since we can never be certain about previous channeling, it is especially important to have the checks and balances provided by the ability to perceive how roles tend to manifest. Clues are available particularly in the eyes,
facial expressions, demeanor, body language, voice, and overall energy. This is an invaluable supplement to what we know about their behaviors, which are an uncertain guide on their own. So if one channel says that, for example, Steve Jobs was an artisan and another says that he was a king (you can’t get more different than those two roles), you can use your sense of how the roles manifest to know which one couldn’t be right.
Granted, roles aren’t always clear-cut. Someone in heavy false personality due to imprinting and/or trauma can be hard to read. If someone is mentally ill, you are likely to see the illness before anything else. In addition, if a chart contains opposites—let’s say, someone is a warrior with a discarnate priest essence twin and priest primary casting—it can be hard to discern which energy is dominant (the role) and which is the secondaries, especially in someone we don’t know well or haven’t
studied in depth. The role is what we are as souls. Essence twin bleedthrough adds a secondary energy. (If discarnate, bleedthrough is strong; if incarnate, it’s weak.) Casting flavors and directs our role energies. (Some students think that casting is more important than role, but I do not find that to be the case.)
There is no one guaranteed way to know anything for sure. However, learning to pick up on how the roles manifest can be a fail-safe, counteracting the tendency of many Michael students to jump to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence or to take someone’s word for it because they like the channel. Not questioning channeling contradicts Michael’s teachings about self-validation and prevents us from making the teachings our own. We need to see things for ourselves.
Some claim that there are no clues to role energies in people’s appearance. It stands to reason, though, that if roles are real—if they each have a distinct structure—and are not just symbolic, they would show up tangibly and not only in vague behavioral ways. Would the teachings have any meaning if they didn’t? I think you’ll become a believer if you study the Roles Photo Database at:
It’s the best resource in the community for learning how to validate roles through facial clues.
Photos don’t give a great deal of information, but they’re useful for practice. People can look quite different from photo to photo, so it’s good to have several. If you pick out the energies correctly, even if you aren’t certain which is the role and which are the secondaries, you’re doing well. Videos give more information. Of course, knowing a person gives the most information if one can step back and be objective.
It takes a lot of practice to learn to read roles. It’s said that the eyes are the windows of the soul, so they’re a good place to start. However, other traits can also show up in the eyes. On the Michael chart, the goal of discrimination can show up as a sort of squint, for example. Emotional centering imparts a watery quality. Health issues, such as fatigue or illness, can also show up, dulling a priest’s normally penetrating hot eyes, a sage’s mirthful eyes, or an artisan’s radiant childlike
eyes. Negative poles and chief obstacles constrict our energy, and those can show up in the eyes, too. We may not see a priest’s usual warmth in their eyes if they’re in zeal rather than compassion.
Here is an excerpt from Journey of Your Soul, chapter 10, “Roles,” subchapter “How Roles Appear Physically and Energetically”:
Priests’ eyes are one of the most clear-cut physical indications of role I’ve found: they are intense and warm, either compassionate or severe, depending on whether the priest is in the positive or negative pole. Priests often receive comments from other people about their eyes. Warriors’ eyes are also intense but cool, earthy, and metallic. Servers’ eyes are warm but not intense. Servers look sweet, earnest, and comforting or, in the negative pole, dull or
down-trodden.
Kings can have narrow, wedge-shaped faces with long, regal noses and a contained, regal expression, sometimes as if to say, “We are not amused.” Both warriors and kings have a clean, no-frills, “let’s get to the point or down to business” air about them. Warriors’ faces can be flat and smooth, exuding solidity and raw power. It is as if kings’ faces are designed for focus, and warriors’ faces for pushing through (like a blunt battering ram).
Scholars’ neutrality can be harder to spot than the particular colors of the other roles, but it does manifest in the way they look. Their eyes have a neutral, Van Gogh-ish quality—I can almost see swirling circles in front of them that perhaps allow scholars to observe without being seen too much. In general, scholars seem washed with an almost milky energy. Although scholars can be beautiful or handsome, like any other role, in my experience they are generally not striking in the way priests
often are, since they usually don’t want to call too much attention to themselves. Sometimes I can guess someone to be a scholar only through a process of elimination—I figure they can’t be any of the other roles. In the negative pole, scholars can seem colorless.
Artisans, servers, and scholars all tend to have a gentle, low-key demeanor. Artisans frequently have a cloud-like air and soft, rounded faces; they often seem adorable. “Pretty-boy” (as opposed to more rough-hewn) men such as Brad Pitt and beautiful Marilyn Monroe-like women are many times artisans. Many models are artisans. They often like to express themselves through their clothes and adornments, hairstyles, and their body itself to create beauty and/or originality. (Tattoos and piercings
are popular with artisans today.) This is also true of sages to a lesser extent.
Priests’ smiles tend to be angelic, whereas sages’ smiles often seem to have a little devilish mischief in them. Sages’ faces are highly expressive and are often good-looking or interesting so as to capture the attention they need in order to fulfill their role. Jim Carrey, with his rubber-faced antics, is an obvious example.
In general, the solid roles—warriors, kings, and scholars—look harder, and the fluid roles—servers, priests, artisans, and sages—look softer, although I find that sages, particularly, can look either way. Depending on other influences, such as male/female energy ratio and essence twin role, I have sometimes mistaken a sage (especially in a male body) for a king, whereas I would be much less likely to mistake a server or an artisan for a king. So sage is the fluid role that can most easily look
solid. George Clooney is an example.
I asked some other Michael channels how the roles look to them. José Stevens pointed out the mirth in sages’ eyes, and that sage males can have craggy, movie-star looks. Warriors’ eyes tend to be narrow or close-set, while kings’ eyes tend to be far apart. Scholars can have a high forehead and a lot of facial wrinkles at a young age. They have a kindly look as opposed to the compassion of priests. He also noted that artisans can look cute wearing anything, even a mop!
JP Van Hulle finds that priests tend to be the most striking and best-looking of the roles, with a strain who are tall and willowy. Kings and warriors are often short, and warriors can be thick, perhaps muscular or fat, with a thick neck. There is a strain of scholars who are stereotypically nerdy: skinny and weedy with ropey muscles. JP observes a halo of soft hair around servers’ faces. Artisans can look dreamy-eyed or vague, with somewhat childlike faces; older artisans tend to have fewer
wrinkles than other roles.
There are abundant exceptions to these generalizations, and discerning the role solely from the way someone looks is unreliable. Nevertheless, when combined with other perceptions, observing how a person looks can help us distinguish his or her role. When I have a photograph of a person for whom I am going to channel a Michael chart, I try to guess his role. If what I guess turns out not to be his role, it is usually at least the role of his essence twin or primary casting (position within his
cadence).
A variation on this is psychically discerning the role (and overleaves, too) as it manifests in the aura. For example, artisans’ auras tend to be soft and diffuse, whereas warriors’ tend to be hard and compact. (Kings and scholars also tend to have auras that are dense and close to the body.) A king tends to send his energy down, while a priest tends to send hers up.
We Michael students often make snap judgments about people’s roles and overleaves. Even with as much experience as I’ve had, I find that I need to pause, study, and think carefully. Often our first impression is that of a secondary trait, especially if the secondaries are of strong roles such as king, warrior, or sage, against a backdrop of a quieter role such as scholar, server, or artisan.
Sometimes we can validate people’s role from our reaction to them. As a sage with many other sage traits, I’m strongly attracted to artisans and can usually spot them quickly by the feeling I have with them. Some warriors can spot kings from the feeling of wanting to “kneel” before them. (We might also have these reactions if people have those roles as secondary influences.) Kings feel galvanizing to everyone, which is another clue. Being the most cardinal role and on the action axis, they have
a distinctive compressed energy that one can learn to spot by tuning in to that quality in validated kings. Once you know what to look for, it’s hard to miss.
A simple but often overlooked way to validate one’s own role is to explore which axis feels the most like “home.” If one couldn’t inspire, express, act, or assimilate, which would be the greatest loss? Then, the question is whether one is ordinal (down-to-earth), cardinal (big picture), or neutral. These are not always easy to determine when a chart is full of opposites, but it’s worth exploring.
Some people think that they’re a particular role because of the results of a brief online quiz. Although these summarize the roles well, they are often inaccurate for revealing people’s role because we are so complex. People only fit the stereotypes for their role maybe sixty percent of the time (and about forty percent for scholars). The same with the stereotypes of the overleaves. All of a chart’s traits interact with and modify one another, not to mention our imprinting, astrology, history,
etc. For example, there are sages who are not talkative or outgoing, and who do not want to be center stage. Maybe they have reserve mode and/or an obstacle of arrogance. In addition, there are talkative, outgoing people of all roles. Most of us realize that not every artist is an artisan or even has an artisan secondary, and not every leader who starts a war is a warrior. Yet one often hears these kinds of explications for why someone is a particular role. We must look deeper and more subtly to
discern Michael teachings traits. Everything on a chart is about energies that can manifest in a variety of ways.
Sometimes people fervently believe that they are a particular role when they are not. They may cling to the idea because they think that it’s better than another role, but that isn’t the case. All the roles are equally wonderful in their positive poles (and not so much in their negative). Each comes with a different set of strengths and challenges. Maybe a channel or another student told them that they’re that role. Everyone concerned could benefit from paying more attention to the vibrational
and tangible qualities of the roles.
Confusing matters is that one may have secondary influences from that role. (A person might also have a guide of that role in their energy field, but they register quite subtly.) To check whether it is one’s role or a secondary, look for how concentrated its energy is. Is it watered down by being filtered through the actual role, or is it coming at you with both barrels?
It’s important to respect people’s self-validation process. If someone says they’re a particular role and we disagree, it’s wise to tread lightly. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Still, that doesn’t make it so. If they’re open, maybe we can gently point out some things, but if they have an obstacle of stubbornness or arrogance, feedback may not get through.
Sometimes people use the negative pole of their actual role to defend the role they think they are. For example, a sage may orate about why they are a priest, or a scholar may go into great detail about why they are a king (ironic, because kings tend to be brief and to the point).
Every time someone has their role wrong, they’re diluting the value of the teachings for others, in that they’re saying, “This is what this role looks like” when it’s not. Sarah confided in me that she felt that many she met in the community in the late 1990s had their role wrong, including a channel. If the role is wrong, it’s possible that other chart items are as well.
No one, including me, is the final authority on someone’s role or anything else. Human nature is such that most of us think that we’re right most of the time; if that were not the case, we’d have a harder time coping with life. We need some certainty to function. However, if the Michael community is going to have greater accuracy, we need to be willing to entertain conversations that challenge our assumptions, such as these:
Person A: So-and-so is a warrior because they’re tough and productive.
Person B: Why then are they so lacking in persuasiveness (the positive pole of warrior)? Where is their instinctive drive, the feeling of an engine vrooming under the hood? Any role can be productive or act tough—you’re seeing imprinting from their father. Please look at all their highly expressive, rubber-faced photos that suggest the expression axis. One rarely sees photos like that of the action-axis roles.
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a warrior because they’re fearful and insecure, and/or highly sensitive.
Person B: We can all be traumatized. Are they sixth- or third-level mature? Maybe they’ve been through the karmic wringer, and that has opened their vulnerabilities.
Person A: So-and-so is a king due to their leadership abilities.
Person B: They seem pretty gentle. Where is the compressed, galvanizing, masculine energy? Look at their eyes when they’re displeased: do you see knife-like sharpness?
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a king because their behavior is erratic and chaotic.
Person B: I think that mental illness is the cause rather than their role. It’s true that the action roles tend to bring order in their positive poles, but anyone can be chaotic. (And, as with all the roles, some kings and warriors are very messy.) I see a good deal of tyranny, the negative pole of king.
Person A: So-and-so is a server because she waits on her husband hand and foot.
Person B: Does she have doe-like eyes—or was she just conditioned to act like a server, as so many women have been?
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a server because they don’t take care of other people’s basic needs.
Person B: Maybe they burned out on that in past lives. Maybe their service is less through doing and more through being a good listener.
Person A: So-and-so is a priest because they’re so inspirational!
Person B: People of all roles are sometimes described that way. Are their eyes hot and penetrating? They look more like an artisan, the other high-frequency role, to me. Could they have priest or server casting or essence twin bleedthrough?
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a priest because they are not inspirational!
Person B: Maybe they’re in their negative poles. If you don’t see compassion, do you at least see zeal? Maybe they haven’t yet completed their fourth internal monad in the positive pole or healed from childhood abuse. A person’s role is their soul; false personality blocks the soul.
Person A: So-and-so is a sage because they’re very wordy.
Person B: Are they trying to entertain or inform you? The latter might be a scholar.
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a sage because they are serious.
Person B: Maybe they’re in a lot of pain. It would do them good if they could laugh. When they do smile or laugh, can you see sage impishness?
Person A: So-and-so is an artisan because they’re creative.
Person B: We can all be creative—it’s part of being human, although artisans do specialize in that. Do you observe them processing with multiple inputs? Are they adorable and spacey at times? Are they ordinal?
Person A: So-and-so cannot be artisan because they’re not creative.
Person B: Artisan is the most common role in the Western world and the second most common in the world as a whole. Do you see more than a quarter of the people around you being obviously creative? Maybe their creativity is repressed. Maybe they’re focused on earning a living—not many jobs are creative.
Person A: So-and-so is a scholar because they like to read so much.
Person B: There’s too much going on in their eyes for them to be a scholar. Could that be a secondary influence? Intellectual centering and passive body types?
Person A: So-and-so cannot be a scholar because they were bad in school.
Person B: Are they dyslexic? Moving centered? Do they have ADHD? Were they disinterested in what was being taught?
These sorts of clues aren’t foolproof—none are—but they can ground our perceptions, taking them out of theory into the real world. There are many more clues about roles and overleaves that are more subtle than the stereotypes. I go into several in Journey of Your Soul and on my site.
In this piece, we’ve been focusing on the roles. Of course, accuracy is a core issue in all channeling, and certainly for the whole Michael chart. In Journey of Your Soul, I go into the issue of accuracy in great detail, exploring many things that can go wrong. Soul age is a particularly thorny issue because almost everyone wants to be an old soul. As with roles, this stems from misunderstanding; there is no “better” or “worse” when it comes to any chart trait. Because of
bias, some channels routinely skew older or younger in their channeling. I’ve written about soul age extensively, including here:
As with roles, behavioral clues are unreliable in determining soul age. A materialistic person, for example, may be a stereotypical young soul, an old soul manifesting young, or even an old soul manifesting old (in most ways, at least). The latter could be a Taurus astrologically who likes nice things, someone born poor who vowed never to be poor again, or just someone with a lot of energy who enjoys making things happen in business. Most of us like money,
although we differ in how hard we’re willing to work and how much we’re willing to give up for it. Youngs souls more often are willing to sacrifice for it because their lessons are about learning to handle and impact the outer world, but there are non-materialistic young souls. Still, they are characterized by the lessons of their soul age.
Unlike roles, soul age is difficult to read from the outside. There are subtle energetic clues, but the most successful validation comes from a deep dive into a person’s motivations and foci. The foci of the five physical plane soul ages are survival, structure, achievement, relationship, and context. Soul age isn’t our intellectual perspective, but our innate way of looking at life. A young soul can be very interested in spirituality and be quite accomplished in
meditation, for example, but their primary lessons could still be about learning to handle and impact the outer world.
There will always be disagreements. We can disagree respectfully; respect, after all, is part of unconditional love, which is the raison d’être of the Michael teachings. But before we express disagreement, we might examine its basis. Are we drawing from deep-enough understanding and careful-enough observation? Are we exploring the other point of view to consider seeing in a new way, or are we just batting the ball back and forth? We can always find plausible intellectual arguments for
why people are a particular role, for example, whether they are or aren’t. That’s theory. But what is showing up in their energy and appearance? What was the first channeling, and the circumstances of it? With multiple ideas about someone’s role or overleaves, only one can be correct, and it won’t always be ours.
HOW I HANDLE CHART CHANNELING
Some Ideas on Avoiding Duplication
I am very organized. This doesn’t come easily to everyone, but it is useful in avoiding problems with duplicate channelings. Most of the 11,000+ charts I’ve done since 1986 are in a Filemaker Pro database. In a database, one can display parts of the same record of information in a variety of ways. In mine, one view of a person’s record is their Michael chart. It has drop-down menus, bullet lists, and blank fields for comments and the date of the channeling, along
with fixed information such as the four axes. This saves a lot of time when channeling charts.
Not every channel gives charts—sometimes, the overleaves are just listed in text. As long as those are all saved in a computer, they can be searched, but a database is especially convenient. The channel can instantly find records that include not only people’s chart but also their contact information, photos, correspondence, etc. A database also makes it easy to generate statistics, such as how many charts channeled have a particular trait.
I occasionally send a copy of mine to a Michael channel friend so that if I die suddenly, someone else in the Michael community will have this information.
I have done a great deal of work to create the chart form and the database as a whole. I would be happy to give a clone of it to channels who would like to modify it for their use. I use it countless times a day for making notes of various kinds—practically my whole life is in it, not just my Michael charts.
I request full names (middle and maiden) and birth information so that if another person with the same first and last names orders a chart, I know whether they are the same person. The birth information is also for future research into the correlation of Michael and astrological charts. I know little about astrology and Michael through me doesn’t use the birth information to access people’s Michael charts; it is simply an additional aid in verifying which soul it is, which is usually unnecessary
since I already have the name and photo. Charts can often be channeled from just the name, as long as Michael can identify which soul it is through the energetic connections, but I prefer to be on the safe side.
When a chart order arrives, I check the database to see whether I already have a record for that person. If not, I create one, and enter all their information and photo(s). I code a field indicating that I need to channel this chart. When I’m ready to channel, I simply search for that code and I’m good to go, not wasting time with organization when Michael is in.
I also keep mp3s of all my sessions in perpetuity. I sometimes hear from clients that they had a computer mishap, and could I send them their recording again? They are relieved and grateful to hear that I have them, or that I can send them another PDF of their chart.
If someone orders a chart on a well-known person, I check lists of celebrity overleaves for previously channeled information. If there is any, I add it to the notes.
On my site’s order form, when people wish to order a Michael Reading chart, the form includes this field: “Chart Information Already Channeled, or Write ‘None.’” Their order won’t go through if they leave that blank. Below it, it reads: “Please relate any Michael chart or Matrix [from German channel Varda Hasselmann] information already given by any channel or psychic (including yourself). Include the name of the channel or psychic and the date of the channeling. If you question an item, briefly
say why.”
Despite this, some people still lie, believing that if they provide previously channeled information, it will bias me. However, that is not the case. What I get can differ from the previous information. I’ve repeatedly found that this system helps ensure accurate results; clients almost always validate this.
