I read this book because I saw the movie starring Teresa Wright, and it completely blew my mind. I wasn't sure how much to buy into the story, but this book is very convincing and whether you remain slightly skeptical like I have, it is a fascinating read that brings up amazing possiblilities about the soul and the human brain. At a party, the author witness a hypnotist and finds himself questioning the whole process. But his interest is piqued and he starts studying the art, practicing on his wife and anyone else who will let him. At his own house party, he hypnotizes a guest, Ruth Simmons, who proves to be a most interesting subject. Ruth regresses back to a previous lifetime when she was Bridey Murphy, an Irish girl who lived during the 1800s. She talks about her life and her death. She talks about the afterlife when her spirit drifted around the country, visiting her husband and her family but never being able to interact with them. It is all here, the backstory, notes on hypnotism, and the transcripts from the sessions with Ruth Simmons.
Unfortunately, there's no star indicator for "laughed helplessly at the woo-woo" of this book. It reminded me of Von Daniken's books "Chariots of the Gods" in its desperate stretching for proof of reincarnation, and the usefulness of hypnosis in medical treatment. I can understand how there would be many people who would like this, for those very same reasons--in fairness, hypnosis may have some efficacy as a more formalized inducer of the placebo effect, but no more than that--but the central plot device is pretty firmly in the "fiction" category, though the book is still considered fact. Virginia Tighe, here called Ruth Simmons, created all those memories of "Bridey Murphy" out of whole cloth from her memories of an Irish woman living across the street from Tighe's childhood home.
Do You like book The Search For Bridey Murphy (1989)?
All I could think of was Peter Venkman. 'I dunno, a couple of wavy lines.' I'm interested in this stuff (hypnosis, age regression, weird crap etc) and I didn't object to the age of the text (1956); indeed the discussion of outdated medical treatments including the usefulness of sodium amytal was almost whimisical. But the lack of questions asked of the subject and the lack of investigation into the claims made under hypnosis was frustrating, and, of course, goes about refuting the validity of the text.
—Emma
