groups

Good question, Lady T. I would speculate that the amount of free spiritual energy surrounding us is, not unlimited, but vast. It's in everything, rocks, trees, the air, stars, animals, people, and dimensions we do not suspect. We just channel a certain amount of it through our little carbon-based systems for a finite period, and then give it back.

Physics teaches us that every subatomic particle affects every other subatomic particle, right out to the limits of the universe. It is not a mass of infinitesmally tiny BBs, it is one seamless web of energy, physical and spiritual, which forms us and contains us, a perfect unity. We would reproduce and choke ourselves out of existence long before we would use up the tiniest fraction of it.

Then again, maybe our souls will just get smaller and smaller..

Read a scifi short story years ago that used the facile notion that the universe would run out of souls as the premise: All over the world babies were being born without souls.

1) Matter is converted to energy when 'destroyed'. There's a relationship between the two.
However:
2) Soul 'energy' is NOT energy in the physics sense of the word.

3) See Jane Roberts 'Seth' materials. There is a section where she talks about soul fragments and over souls (the notion that a bit of something can 'regenerate' into the whole--with something nonphysical this seems even more likely). Been a long time since i read, but remember it made some sense in light of experiences i'd had as well as things i'd read by other writers on the topic.

4) Wot's notion of souls as an evolutionary step could also point to a reason why we don't 'run out of souls'.

Tho i have to say when i become aware of stories like the 15 yr old girl who killed a 9 yr old neighbor to 'see what it felt like' i have to wonder. (Not neccessarily believe, just wonder...)

While I was trying to formulate my thoughts on this, ghostwalker answered. My thoughts run in the same vein.
The energy or soul is not divided up into units, it flows through all.

Yes indeed, very good answer GW. i particularly like:"It is not a mass of infinitesmally tiny BBs, it is one seamless web of energy"

And i really like that redhand: "The energy or soul is not divided up into units, it flows through all."

i find those two statements heartening. Thank you, gentlemen.

it cannot be destroyed but it changes form, like chemical energy can become thermal energy....like red said, I believe the soul flows through everything or to put it another way everything has a soul so to speak...like animism...which comes from the latin word anima which means breath or soul. Animism is a very old believe ...in this believe trees, rocks and even a grain of sand has a soul; thus, everything in the universe is one...as Red and GW said....and our energy is recycled......I have repeated much of what GW stated.....I think...I am not up to his standard in this area

A part of the great singularity we souls change form to and from and in the vastness of all we souls are but such a small part. We are not the center of all only a minute portion

feywon, I too read the seth material a long time ago and like you I have forgotten much of it but I really liked it a lot...her material is now kept in the archives of either yale or princeton I believe...i do not know what that means.....I do not know what it takes to have something put in an archive

Pam, i have 2 or 3 of her books and several pertaining to Cacye. When i first started exploring things about spirituality and the 'paranormal' (i've long felt it was all natural functions we just don't fully understand yet) Cayce, JB Rhine and Tart were about all the reliable (non-sensationalistic--there were tons of that stuff, usually in paperback)info providers out there. (We're talking late 50s early 60's). But i still make it a practice to check out new sources in the field.

I do not so much anymore but I enjoyed it when I did

Well, a lot of it is written just to make a buck these days. But there are some interesting and thought provoking things out there. i tend to read more Chopra and Dyer than 'psychics'.