NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
![]()
Dr. Michael Newton - Michael Newton Institute
Dr. Michael Newton was a highly acclaimed international spiritual regressionist, who discovered how to enable people to access the wisdom of the spirit world and their higher guidance whilst living their lives.Known as a pioneer of afterlife exploration, his dedicated research over 30 years...www.newtoninstitute.org
EXCERPT:
Dr. Michael Newton held a doctorate in Counselling Psychology, was a certified Master Hypnotherapist, and a member of the American Counselling Association. He was also a practicing Psychologist who held positions in the faculty of higher educational institutions as a teacher in Los Angeles. In his lifetime he also spent time as a corporate consultant, and worked as a behavioral counsellor and group therapy director for community mental health centers and spiritual renewal organisations in cooperation with hospital and social service agencies.
Thanks, but I had already read that page and do not consider that credentials. It's practically hearsay.
Credentials would be a verifiable biography, i.e., "Michael Newton studied at Penn State University, taking his doctorate in Clinical Psychology in 1990. He has won the XYZ award for Blah, blah, blah, and was named a Senior Fellow at the OPQ Consortium for Hypnotherapy in Los Angeles, CA in 1998.
His career began in the Orange County Mental Health Clinic and progressed to Head of Psychology at the Perkins Institute.
While heading the institute, Dr. Newton taught as adjunct at the SoCal Leingruber School of Advanced Psychology.
Searching the internet provided ZERO independent references to Dr. Newton's biography or his credentials. Everything is from his own institute. The blurb provided is little more than an anecdotal reference of self-promotion, and vague beyond words.
I am completely open to believing in the power of hypnosis as a therapy, but if a doctor is a published author with such a grandiose claim as to posit that he can provide evidence of pre-birth memories, then there should be all sorts of peer acclaim, objective source references to his work, and researchable abstracts, etc. I can't find any of that.
If I were to accept the late doctor's writing based on nothing more than his own subjective self-description and claims, how is that different than listening to a religious leader or guru making similar claims?

