This essay could just as easily be termed ‘Does Consciousness Pre-Exist Birth?’ Of course, a consciousness of this definition is really a modern interpretation of the Judeo-Christian soul theory. Why should a theoretical science of alleged pan-psychism be limited to just one (historical) religious point of view? As I possess a mind of my own, I keep an open mind on the matter of something existing beyond the obvious, material world, but I do not allow modern (material) science to be sullied by unproven idealistic thought – just because it feels ‘nice’ or ‘comforting’. Material science is one of the greatest edifices of modern human thought and it would probably be a good idea with spiritualists stopped treating the assessment and understanding of material processes of the world as being ‘wrong’ or a ‘hindrance’ to their establishment of what many refer to as ‘religious ignorance’. Again, many religions were developed thousands of years ago in an early attempt by human beings to understand their inner feelings and experiences together with the often cold, harsh reality of the physical world. Theistic religion was ‘correct’ within its own context at the time of its own origination, but as the human mind (and human activity) evolved, many (if not all) of the assumptions within old religions simply became redundant and out of date. This did not prevent politicized religions from gaining temporal power and artificially enforcing their dogma upon an ever more bemused segment of humanity! If consciousness is ever proven to pre-exist birth, or post-exist death, then it must be alleviated to the level of material science, fully investigated and confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt. As established religions are generally intolerant of all viewpoints but their own, it may be that a scientific theory of meta-consciousness might not be accepted even if scientifically proven, as it does not need (or accept) the theology or dogma of the old theistic belief systems. We, as an evolving species, must safe-guard the beautiful science that we have created. We must not let it degenerate into an idealistic mess dominated by charlatans and frauds. Modern science is very new and has only recently emerged from the morass of theological domination. This means that some people embrace religion and reject science, others engage science and reject religion, whilst others interface with both methods of interpreting reality (a position which is useful for many). Quite often those who have benefitted from science still look back upon the old comforts of religion and try subconsciously to usurp the current dominance of material science, and re-establish the old religious paradigm. In the interesting documentary above, the host mentions Pope Pius XII as supporting after-death communication, whilst not informing the audience that Pope Pius XII (like his predecessor Pope Pius XI) aligned the Roman Catholic Church with the ideology of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany both before and during WWII, and supported the Holocaust which murdered millions! This demonstrates how careful we must be in the assessment of reality. This is a subject that needs interactive and constructive debate. It could be that mainstream science ‘rejects’ any notion of meta-consciousness because of its assumed association with theistic religion. This could be a very real problem of methodology if a meta-consciousness turns-out to be true. If a meta-consciousness exists, this should be scientifically established through experimentation and varification. In and of itself, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the theology or dogma of religion, but those who prefer a religious path in their lives would gain a tremendous boost from a scientific proving that somethings exists beyond what is normally be referred to as ‘matter’. Such a discovery should not be taken as the ‘proving’ of religion (even if the religiously minded take it as such), as I suspect that any such meta-consciousness would be defined as sometype of rarefied matter possibly linked to the brain-mind nexus. Now, I would like to say that I am not opposed to religious beliefs per se, nor am I believer in theism, but for the sake of transparency I must state that I am experienced in the philosophy and practice of Chinese Buddhism and Daoism, etc. Religion, if purged of its political corruption, could well be re-designed to assist science and not oppose it. On the other hand, material science should be purged of its intolerance and embracing of political rightwingism.