Prodicle innacurately downloads files

The emphasis is on a pervasive mood that is to characterize the believer, regardless of the specific circumstances. Some religions may emphasize moods as primary in Buddhism the focus is on mystical experience , while other religions stress motivations and a system of ethics the Unitarian Universalist society illustrates this latter focus.

Nonetheless, Geertz suggested that in all religions the symbol system produces moods that intensify commitment and motivations to act in specified ways. In another context, Geertz referred to the moods and motivations together as the ethos of the religion. Not only do the symbol systems enhance a particular disposition but they also act to formulate conceptions of a general order of existence. A distinguishing characteristic of religion is that it provides a worldview, a cognitive ordering of concepts of nature, of self, of society, of the supernatural.

Religion creates not only intense feelings but also establishes a cosmology that satisfies ones intellectual need for reasonable explanations. Geertz emphasized that not all intense feelings of awe are religious. One may be overwhelmed by powerful emotions moods in viewing the Grand Canyon, but such feelings may be either purely aesthetic or deeply religious. If no explanatory perspective or overview of the meaning of life is involved, the experience is not religious. Geertz properly pointed out that religion involves an intellectual ordering.

Some people claim that their religious experience comes from a walk in the woods rather than from going to a house of worship. Geertz suggested that a religious sense of awe must include a reaffirmation and commitment to a particular view of the world, a particular mode of interpreting the meaning of suffering, pain, death, and injustice.

A walk in the woods may be refreshing and may involve an intense aesthetic feeling, but in most instances it does not change the way one thinks about the world or conceives of. There are three major challenges that seem to belie the meaningfulness of life, and it is these that a religious worldview must resolve: 1 a sense of coherence and reasonableness of events of life; 2 a sense of meaning in suffering so that it becomes sufferable; and 3 a sense of moral order in which evil will be overcome and that virtue, goodness, and justice will somehow, someday prevail.

Symbol systems, then, attempt to account for, and even celebrate, the perceived ambiguities, puzzles, and paradoxes in human experience Geertz, , p. The worldview represents an intellectual process by which people can affirm that life makes sense, that suffering is bearable, and that justice is not a miragethat in the end, good will be rewarded. Geertz continued his definition by attempting to answer the question of how a particular worldview or set of concepts comes to be believed.

The symbols act to clothe those conceptions in such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic Geertz, , p. How is it, he asked, that despite common sense, everyday experience, and empirical evidence, people will come to believe irrational and unsupportable things?

What compels a Christian Scientist to deny the reality of illness, even though the person experiences the symptoms of influenza? Why does a Mormon believe that a new revelation was written to Joseph Smith on golden plates, even though no one could read them but Smith?

Why do members of the Unification Church assert that their leader, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, is the Christ, even though other observers see him as a rather unexceptional man? Why do Christians continue to affirm that Jesus is the son of God who ushered in Gods kingdom, even though he died in the manner of a criminal nearly 2, years ago?

Geertz pointed out that religious ritual often creates an aura in which a deeper reality is said to be reached. Truths are experienced or understood that are more profound than everyday experience provides. Religion is communal in character and often involves intense emotional experiences. The photo depicts a worship service among evangelical Christians. The intense emotional experience acts to clothe the religious concepts in a mystique that makes these concepts seem uniquely realistic.

As we will see, Geertz described a very important aspect of religion. He pointed out that religion is able to provide a foundation for social values that has its authority outside of empirical verification and therefore cannot be invalidated Geertz, Values and perspectives come to be enshrouded in sacredness and unquestioned certainty.

We will explore this issue further in our discussion of plausibility structures in Chapter 8. Many students have difficulty understanding Geertzs heavy emphasis on symbol systems which. Let it suffice here to say that meaning is commonly stored or encapsulated in symbols. They are powerful factors in the lives of people.

They are also more concrete and observable than an ultimate concern. Geertzs definition is long, abstract, and quite elaborate. His explanation of the definition runs 46 pages. This makes it difficult to translate it into concrete research procedures. However, his definition does offer a contribution to the debate over what it is that distinguishes religion from other cultural phenomena. His central contributions are that religion must have a macro symbol system that acts to reinforce both a worldview and an ethos and that has a built-in system of believability or plausibility.

Researchers who like to employ the participant observation method of research find Geertzs definition useful, for it identifies the general properties of religion and helps the observer know what to observe. Yet, it does so without specifying the content of religious beliefs. Those researchers who engage in quantitative studies, such as sample surveys, find Geertzs generalizations so broad and encompassing that his identification of religion is unhelpful.

How does one quantify turn into countable units a worldview or an ethos? The broadness and inclusiveness of Geertzs treatment is frustrating to those who seek unequivocal precision in categorizing types of behavior, but it is this same generality that attracts those who undertake cross-cultural investigations. Geertzs analysis is really more than a definition. It is an essay on how religion works to reinforce itself and on what religion does in the society. Because of this focus on what religion does, the symbolic definition may be considered as one type of functional definition Berger, Critical Thinking: How do you think symbols, moods, and motivations play a role in religious commitment?

What symbols elicit strong moods and motivations for you? Moreover, we are interested in how individuals create their own systems of meaning. Usually, meaning systems involve a synthesis of official religious doctrine with other cultural beliefs. Rather than dichotomizing religion from nonreligion, we seek to explore anything that provides meaning and purpose in the lives of people. We tend to ask how people are religious rather than whether they are religious. Hence, the perspective of this book will be most compatible with the functionalist definitions of Yinger and Geertz, each of whom was interested in religion as a cultural system.

While we incorporate the research and the insights of those who use a more narrow substantive definition of religion, we also address the broader issues of meaning in a changing culture. Let us synthesize the debate over definitions by simply highlighting our view of the distinguishing characteristics of religion.

First, religion is a social phenomenon that involves the grouping of people around a faith perspective. Faith is an individual phenomenon that involves trusting in some object, event, principle, or being as the center of worth and the source of meaning in life. We sympathize with. Yingers insistence that the nature of believing is probably more indicative of religion than the nature of belief itself.

Hence, a profound commitment to Marxism, intense nationalism, or faith in science and technology as the ultimate solution to our human predicament could be considered at least quasi-religious phenomena. Yet religion is also viewed here as a social phenomenoninvolving a group of people with a shared faith or a shared meaning system.

Beyond being just a social phenomenon, religion has to do with that assortment of phenomena that communicates, celebrates, internalizes, interprets, and extrapolates a faith. These phenomena include beliefs myths3 , rites worship , an ethos the moods and moral values of the group , a worldview the cognitive perspective by which the experiences of life are viewed as part of a larger and ultimately meaningful cosmology , and a system of symbols that serve to encapsulate the deepest feelings and emotionpacked beliefs.

The criteria identified here should be specific enough to distinguish religion from many other cultural phenomena. For example, we have suggested that a worldview and an ethical system are intrinsic aspects of religion.

A feeling of awe or sacredness is not considered religious in this text unless it includes a cognitive pattern that helps persons make sense out of life and helps explain the meaning of suffering, death, and injustice. On the other hand, we hope that the criteria for identifying religion are sufficiently broad so that we do not miss the religious significance of nontraditional groups.

We will be studying Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, and Moonies, but this approach also allows us to explore scientific humanism, Transcendental Meditation TM , and American nationalism as religious or quasi-religious movements. To summarize, we believe that religion is an interdependent system by which a community of people are bonded by a shared meaning system a faith or a worldview ; by a set of myths beliefs , rituals, and symbol systems that sacralize the meaning system for the members; by a sense of belonging to a reference group; by a system of ethics or values that is directive in the lives of the members; and by a set of routinized social expectations and patterns.

Those phenomena in society that have most, but perhaps not all, of these characteristics will be explored as possible invisible religions or quasi-religions that can impact traditional religion and that may well be emerging as new religions in the society. Critical Thinking: Think about how the authors have summarized the core elements of religion. Do you agree that the authors have identified the core of what makes something a religion?

Why or why not? The two are often found together, but because they serve rather different functions, students of religion should understand the distinction between them. Many criteria have been used to discriminate between religion and magic. In the listing that follows, some of the differences are juxtaposed. Various scholars have emphasized one or more of these factors Titiev, These seven distinguishing factors make a nice, neat picture of magic and religion, but in reality the distinction is not so precise.

There are many worship experiences in which the members may not find the ritual meaningful. Many members may attend worship only at critical times in their lives e. Yet the phenomenon hardly seems to be magic rather than religion. Furthermore, the factors listed do not show a high correlation with each other. The distinction between magic and religion remains somewhat foggy. Nonetheless, one factor seems worthy of our attention.

The primary difference between religion and magic has most commonly been defined in terms of the attitude toward the transcendent: Is it considered of intrinsic or utilitarian value?

The religious perspective views the object of worship as being of inherent, categorical worth. It is not worshiped primarily because of favors to be returned for performance of the ritual. God is worshiped in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditionsor at least is supposed to be worshipped in those traditions simply because God is God. In religion, the object of worship is the center of worth or the epitome of value. In the case of magic, the world is believed to be influenced by supernatural forces that control ones destiny.

The objective is to get those forces working for you and not against you. Magic involves manipulation of supernatural forces. In a discussion of magic in American culture, George Gmelch pointed out that many baseball players will often follow such patterns as rising in the morning at a specific time, eating only certain foods prior to a game, consistently taking the same route to the stadium, getting dressed according to a specific preset pattern e.

The players who followed these rituals seemed to feel that they would be jinxed if they broke them. Somehow, the unspoken forces of fate would betray them if the proper nonrational steps were not taken. While this may be an unusual example, the worldview of expecting supernatural and impersonal forces to control ones destiny is characteristic of what anthropologists have called magic. The supernatural forces are not personal beings to whom one prays or with whom one develops a relationship.

Rather, they have no will of their own. They simply represent laws of the universe that must not be violated and that might be used to ones own advantage.

Hence, magic in tribal societies is a supra-empirical means of controlling ones chances of success in any endeavor. Whenever the desire for success is high but the chances of failure are great, people may look for any means possible to ensure success. Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, Magic is to be expected and generally to be found whenever man comes to an unbridgeable gap, a hiatus in his knowledge or in his powers of practical control, and yet has to continue in his pursuit p.

Some of the functions of magic are the same as those of religion. In a study of water witching using a forked twig to locate a source of underground water , Evon Vogt found some important functions being served. In Homestead, New Mexico, the cost of drilling was high, the chance of failure great, and success in finding water critical. Hence, people turned to a dowser water witch. The persons investing money in drilling were satisfied that they were doing something to increase the likelihood of success.

Because the water witch had confidence, the anxiety of the people was reduced, and they were willing to invest more in any given drilling site. They agreed to drill deeper because they were assured that water was there.

Vogt insisted that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that dowsers can actually find water and that mere chance is actually a more reliable means of hitting water than employing a dowser. Nonetheless, farmers continue to use them because doing so lessens their anxiety. The worldview of those farmers is magical in that they assume some supernatural force is at work in helping the witch to locate water.

The behavior of people who forward chain letters out of fear of bad luck in the next week if they fail to do soor in expectation of some blessing in the next 4 days if they do pass it alongis another example of a magic worldview.

Magic provides a concrete action to control adverse events. In actuality, magic serves as a form of primitive technology or as a complement to empirical techniques.

If we want to control events, but we do not have at our disposal rational means to do so, then we may turn to supernatural methods. In the case of magic, one looks for ways to manipulate supernatural forces for ones own benefit. One does not have to confess sins or otherwise earn a right relationship with supernatural beings.

The twig will work regardless of the moral righteousness of the dowser. Magic has no ethos and no moral community. It is true that religion is often concerned with mundane adversities, but the method of resolving the problem calls for moral purification, confession, or some other transformation of the person involved.

Faith healing, for example, is usually expected to be effective only after the person is in right relationship with God. If a person is ill and resorts to magic for a cure, it is believed that healing will come if the words are said correctly and the ritual is performed properly. If healing is not forthcoming, the ritual was not performed correctly. However, if a person turns to a religious faith healer for help and the ailment is not cured, the explanation is frequently that the afflicted person or the healer is not in harmony with God.

When studying any one group, the question of whether one is encountering magic or religion may not be as clear and categorical as suggested here. Nevertheless, the primary appeal of magic is to manipulate the world. Science and technology are more rational means of controlling ones environment.

As science and technology allow persons to have increasing control over their lives, magic tends to decline. The amount of magic in a society tends to be inversely correlated to the. It seems reasonable to suggest that magic will be replaced in large part by science, technology, and the modern secular worldview.

The primary functions of religion, however, are not to manipulate ones environment. There are other functions that are central to religion; explaining the meaning of life and preserving central values and ethical codes in the culture are among those. Technology may help us control our environment and can make life more comfortable, but it can never explain why life is meaningful in the first place.

Max Weber quoted Tolstoy to this effect in his famous lecture on Science as a Vocation: Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: What shall we do and how shall we live?

This is not a defense of religion. Often the answers to these questions offered by a given religion may be bizarre. However, it is crucial to distinguish between empirical facts and moral values. Science can only answer the question of how something happens in terms of material causality; religion attempts to answer the question of why something happens in terms of values and ultimate meanings.

Critical Thinking: Do science and religion address different functions? Why do you think as you do? Another issue that emerges is whether private systems of belief are to be called religion. After all, many individuals have patterns of belief that solve the ultimate meaning issues for them but that are not necessarily shared with others.

Yinger insisted, as do most sociologists of religion, that religion is a social phenomenon: it is shared and takes on many of its most significant aspects only in the interaction of the group p.

Privately held patterns of meaning may have religious aspects, but they are not religion per se. It is increasingly common to hear people utter the phrase, I am spiritual, not religious.

Spirituality in this sense is seen as a quality of an individual whose inner life is oriented toward God, the supernatural, or the sacred.

Spirituality is considered primary, more pure, more directly related to the soul in its relation to the divine, while religion is secondary, dogmatic, and stifling, often distorted by oppressive sociopolitical and socioeconomic forces. However, the relationship between spirituality and religion is not quite as simple as that. Robert Wuthnow argued that, At its core, spirituality consists of all the beliefs and activities by which individuals attempt to relate their lives to God or to a divine being or some other conception of a transcendent reality p.

There is nothing in this definition of spirituality that. To the contrary, spirituality has long been historically connected to religion. Even though it is a social phenomenon, individual forms of piety such as prayer, meditation, or other devotions often with a mystical component have long been part and parcel of many major religious traditions.

Given the historical connection between traditional religion and spirituality, it may be better to use the term Eva Hamberg suggestedunchurched spiritualityto refer to religious beliefs and practices that exist outside of traditional religious institutions.

A second important point to consider is that unchurched does not mean not social. Wuthnow pointed out that spirituality is not just the creation of individuals; it is shaped by larger social circumstances and by the beliefs and values present in the wider culture p.

That is, we construct our spirituality out of the toolbox of cultural resources that is available to us at the time we are living. Many of the most significant cultural resources for spirituality, as we have already noted, come from the major historical religious traditions. In the end, although it is conceptually distinct, individual spirituality is never far removed from religion. This is borne out, at least in the U.

In a survey of baby boomers individuals born between and who are supposed to be on the leading edge of the revolution in spirituality in American society see Chapter 5 Wade Clark Roof , p. The pattern of responses to these two identity questions was as indicated in Figure 1.

More recently, Newsweek and the website Beliefnet polled a random sample of Americans and found a similar overall patternwith some important variations see Figure 1. Figures 1. The discussion in this chapter was designed to help the reader understand the differences in the ways religion has been defined by scholars. We hope that the discussion has stimulated you to think through your own criteria for identifying religion. A consensus among us would be convenient, but a lack of agreement need not cause problems Lechner, The purpose of this text is not to convert readers to the authors theoretical persuasion but to help them think more clearly about the relationship between religion, culture, and society.

Before going further, it would be helpful to consider 1 your own assumptions regarding the definition of religion, 2 the defining criteria used by the social scientists discussed in this chapter, and 3 the perspective of the authors.

As we noted at the outset of this chapter, and as Yinger had written, Definitions are tools; they are to some degree arbitrary. They are abstract, which is to say they are oversimplifications. We must relinquish the idea that there is any one definition that is correct and satisfactory for all.

The definition we each use tends to slice up life a little differently and causes us to focus on slightly different phenomena as most important. Hence, we have begun by making our assumptions about religion conscious and explicit. Although there is no consensus on the definition of religion, there is agreement among sociologists that any investigation of religion must be based on empirical methods of investigation.

In the next chapter, we explore what it means to take a social scientific approach to studying religion. SUMMARY Definitions of religion are usually one of two types: 1 substantive which focus on the substance or essence of religion and 2 functional which focus on what religion does. Substantive definitions usually emphasize a specific belief, such as in spiritual beings or in a supernatural realm, or they stress the distinction between sacred and profane realms of experience.

Substantive definitions tend to focus attention on the traditional forms of religiosity. Functional definitions identify religion as that which provides a sense of ultimate meaning, a system of macro symbols, and a set of core values for life. They invite an investigation of any profound loyalty or ultimate meaning system as a form of religiosity.

Social scientists who are interested in cultural change and the new forms of meaning that emerge in times of cultural transition tend to favor functional definitions. Because they are not overly focused on traditional forms of religiosity, they often view religion as changing rather than as declining. This text is based on the definition of religion as an interdependent system by which a community.

It also views religion as different from, though complexly related to, magic, science, and spirituality. Latent functions are unconscious and unintended Merton, Myth refers to any belief that helps people understand and interpret the events in their own lives see Chapter 4. It is a macro symbolic system of meaning. Anthropologists have shown that even the simplest society has some empirically validated knowledge Fabian, ; Malinowski, , and technical skill is never replaced by magic.

Malinowski wrote, Magic, therefore, far from being primitive science, is the outgrowth of clear recognition that science has its limits and that a human mind and skill are at times impotent p. Only when technology can ensure success in a task does magic cease. Such individualized faith systems are sometimes referred to as invisible religions Luckmann, These will be discussed in Chapter However, individual meaning systems will be referred to henceforth as personal religiosity or as faith; religion will be defined as a social phenomenon.

Here are some questions to ponder as you read this chapter: What perspective do sociologists take in analyzing religion? What is their major focus? If sociologists want to find out if something is true, how do they gather data? What is considered evidence in sociologythat is, what is considered sound enough to reach a conclusion? What kinds of observations are not considered dependable evidence? A highly respected sociologist once said of religion, There are few major subjects about which people know so little, yet feel so certain Yinger, , p.

This seems to be true of both those who are sympathetic to religion and those who are hostile toward it. In light of this, we suggest two characteristics or attitudes that will be particularly helpful in approaching our topic of investigation: a healthy dose of humility and a corresponding openness to new ideas. No one has all the answers on religious behavior, but by listening to one another and by paying close attention to the empirical evidence we have, we can each broaden our understandings.

In this text, we will be presenting a sociological perspective on religion and explaining some of that disciplines findings and theories. Sociology does not offer the whole truth any more than any other discipline or perspective, but it does offer insights that can be helpful to those interested in religionwhether they be believers or skeptics.

Our point is that we seek understanding here; a posture of defensivenesswith each person seeking only to preserve his or her own preconceived notionsis counterproductive. The 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinozas summary of the intellectual life applies equally to our work here: Not to laugh, not to lament, not to curse, but to understand I 4.

Among other things this means that we seek neither to dissuade believers from their faith nor to convince skeptics of the efficacy of religion. Our goal is to gain a new perspective on religious behavior and thereby expand our comprehension of religion. Sociology offers only one of many possible vantage points from which to view religion. Consider the following analogy: Many people may interact with the same child and yet have quite different perspectives and understandings of that child.

An artist may try to capture the childs charm by focusing on his or her unique physical properties such as facial features; body proportions; and shades of coloration in the eyes, skin, and hair. A physician is interested in the physiological needs of the child and the requirements for good healthconcentrating on such characteristics as height and weight, immunizations, and the familys history of congenital diseases.

A developmental psychologist may study the child not because of an interest in the characteristics of this child but as part of a broader investigation of childhood development. Parents, of course, are interested in the uniqueness and specialness of this particular child. Their concern is not one of detached analysis, for their emotional attachment to the child influences their perception. As the persons responsible for the childs social and emotional development, they try to be concerned about the childs overall welfare.

Because they are so close to the child, some important patterns of behavior may go unnoticed. The findings of each of the previous observers may be of interest to the parents as they come to a fuller appreciation of their child and a better understanding of their parental responsibilities. Finally, the child is a unique self-experiencing individual with his or her own self-understanding. The subjective experience is unique and important but also has its own biases and limitations. It would be foolish to ask which of these persons has the true understanding of the child.

No one perspective is total and complete. In fact, the insights of the psychologist may influence the socialization practices of the parent, or the prescription of the physician e. In each case, the objective view of an outsider may differ from that of the parent or of the child, and that perspective may lead to changes. In the long run, those changes may be beneficial to both the parent and the child.

Just as people from many fields have unique perspectives on a childnone of which contains the whole truth about that childso also can religion be understood from many angles. The psychologist analyzes religious experience as a mental and emotional experience of the individual. The concern is not with religion as ideas or beliefs that may hold eternal truth but with the effect of religion on the human psyche.

The philosopher of religion approaches the subject by comparing, contrasting, and analyzing beliefs of various faiths, focusing on the ideas of life, death, suffering, and injustice among the many religions of the world. The systematic theologian formulates doctrines about God and about Gods relationship to the universe and to humanity, placing what is believed about God in a particular tradition into a logically comprehensive and coherent framework. The religious ethicist attempts to define moral responsibility of religious persons, or at least to clarify moral discourse and identify moral dilemmas for members of a faith.

The faithful follower understands his or her religion through yet another lensthat of personal commitment. The persons faith is viewed as a source of ultimate truth and personal fulfillment. Members of the clergy also view religion from a vantage point as committed followers, but they are also leaders who seek understanding of religious processes so they can be more effective in guiding others.

Hence, they may use the insights of the social scientist, the philosopher, the theologian, and the ethicist in order to understand more fully both their faith and their leadership responsibilities.

The sociologist, as we will see, offers a unique perspective that differs from these others and that can contribute to a holistic understanding of this multidimensional phenomenon we call religion. Protestant, Christian vs. Muslim, mainline denomination vs. For the sociologist, beliefs are only one small part of religion.

In modern industrial society, religion is both a set of ideas values, beliefs and an institution structured social relationships. We will be looking at both in order to understand how they affect human behavior.

We will investigate differences in beliefs not because we expect to prove their truth or falsehood but because beliefsregardless of their ultimate veracitycan influence how people behave and how they understand the world. Religious institutions, however, can also affect behavior quite independently of beliefs.

In fact, religious institutions sometimes entice people to behave contrary to the official belief system of that religion. Later in this book, we will discuss the fact that religious organizations may contribute to racism and combat it at the same time. While the belief systems of most mainline Christian denominations proclaim prejudice to be wrong, the institutional structures of the church unwittingly permit itand sometimes even foster it.

Furthermore, religious beliefs themselves can have contradictory effects. While most religions teach that antipathy toward others is wrong, certain other beliefs have contributedoften unconsciously and unintentionallyto racial prejudice, sex bias, and antiSemitism. For example, some 1st-century Christians believed that women were incapable of being saved, unless they were first transformed into men. These people reinforced the accepted cultural view of that time that women are defective human beings.

In this case, beliefs shaped how people viewed the worth of themselves and others. For example, between AD and , the Christian churches both Protestant and Catholic were involved in burning between , and 1 million women as witches Ruether ; Nelson ; Trevor-Roper However, scholars have discovered that this massive gynocide1 was due much less to religious beliefs than to changing sex roles in the society. Secular conflicts over the proper role of men and women were expressed in religious activities burning witches as infidels.

Religious behavior can be either a cause or an effect of other social processes. There is no assumption in our analysis that religion is always the consequence of other forces, but we do not ignore that possibility either Stark, a. In short, there are many ways in which religious groups, religious values, and secular social processes can be interrelated. Beliefs are not always at the heart of religious behavior. Social scientists have found that persons sometimes become committed to new religious groups with little knowledge of the groups beliefs.

They become committed through group pressures and social processes discussed in Chapter 5. Unquestionably the gratest scientific genius of the age. I have invested a significant amout of time and effort in acquiring this collection. Consisting of each and every document, note and paper Nikola ever put thought in or pen to paper. Some of the work contained here is only available in German, however vast majority is in english.

Moreover Trump's then public discredidation of Tesla's work and lobbying for it to technically remain unclassified raises further and significant concern. Especially as Trump possessed the papers for over a decade while the FBI and Military Intelligence scientific research requests went unfullfilled. Fully reconstructing the timeline puts Trump in Tesla's apt at or very near the time of death and given the above makes him a primary suspect and person of interest in what appears to be foul play.

Considering that all reports of Tesla's health and deterioration of mental state are part of a larger coverup. The precibus of the split between secret military research and Tesla being that corporate interests in military research continued to oppose the release of free energy.

Tesla threatening to take his research to other nations then suddenly dies..? Toggle navigation. Your tags:. Send-to-Kindle or Email Please login to your account first Need help?

Please read our short guide how to send a book to Kindle. The file will be sent to your email address. It may take up to minutes before you receive it.