I have tremendous respect for Victor and what he's done by way of championing parapsychological research and the clear evidence for life after death. However, I don't see the inherent antagonism between science and religion that he seems to have recently started portraying--to me it's more that materialistic science and fundamentalist religion are both irrational, and opposed to each other. But enlightened science and mature religion are neither irrational nor opposed to each other.

I also don't see the superiority of objective over subjective authority that Victor suggests. For one thing there's plenty of subjectivity in science, even in the best science, because forming an initial hypothesis and the direction the research takes depends largely on assumptions (read, beliefs). The best science will be the science which proceeds from the best assumptions, thus generating the best hypotheses.

I believe there's a place for both subjective and objective authority, and as one moves into the spiritual realm, subjective authority actually begins to take precedence. For example, you can prove whether a psychic or a yogi has genuine telekinetic abilities with scientific tests, but beyond a certain level of spiritual attainment, even miracles aren't proof. A good track record over several years of transforming people's lives and not exploiting followers is a good objective indication, but the ability to transfer the state of attainment to a disciple, bringing them to the same level--a subjective experience--is the real "kicker."

Even in ordinary relationships, how do you know your wife or husband loves you, in the final analysis--objective proof, or subjective proof? Subjective, of course--you feel it, and this is the final authority on the matter--not any objective signs. The same, "with bells on," is true of the spiritual realm--and Victor, here, is leaving the psychic realm and venturing into evaluating the spiritual realm.

The trick is not to denounce the validity of subjective authority itself, but to find the best subjective authorities. (Sorry, the pope and Billy Graham, despite their social standing and popular appeal, simply aren't the best subjective authorities. Neither was Paul. Jesus, however, to the extent you can reconstruct His teachings from 2,000 years of malicious and well-meaning editing, was.) Similarly, as regards the article about Eastern gurus on Victor's website, the writer certainly makes a strong case for staying away from the false ones (which she seems to have repeatedly gravitated to), but says nothing about the genuine ones. (And before Christians dismiss Eastern teachers out-of-hand, they should consider that the first three people to recognize, seek out and worship Jesus as the Christ were the wise men from the East, who obviously were not Christians, since there were no Christians yet, and who so far as we know never became Christians.)

See also the short list of spiritual teachers in my comments above regarding the Theosophical articles.