Bruce Lipton’s ‘Biology of Belief’ – Annotated With Facts: Part 75 (Lipton’s analogy demolishes his own case yet again)

October 27, 2019

Only three more posts to go in this series. I know I said that about 6 posts ago, but I mean it this time! All that’s left is some loose ends to tie up about how to get yourself reincarnated as a TV set; to be followed next time by trashing the last of Lipton’s many copy-and-paste lecture-notes-rants; and then finally dealing with some product-placement and cross-promotion he tacks on at the end of the book. on. And then we’re done!

But for now, Lipton is still hypothetically dead and trying to get himself reincarnated.

One of the repetitive themes of this book is how horrible it was of Rene Descartes in 1650 to say the body is a machine, and his accusation that modern biology is simply a continuation of that idea.

But then Lipton himself suddenly tells people to conceive of their own body as a television set!

For Descartes the soul had the qualities of being rational and immortal. For Lipton the soul is analogous to the single anonymous wavelength of a TV broadcast.

For Descartes the soul communicated with the brain by connecting with the pineal gland by means of a highly complicated anatomy, which turned out to be pure fantasy — which instantly sunk his entire theory. Had he studied the available anatomy books more closely, he would have instantly seen his error.

For Lipton the soul communicates with the body via “identity receptors” embedded in the cell membrane, which work like a TV antenna, and “download” the self into each of our 37.2 trillion cells. These are likewise pure fantasy, and likewise has immediately sunk his entire theory. But unlike Descartes, Lipton has a Ph.D. in cell biology, access to electron microscopes and all of modern technology, and also 450 more years of biological research than Descartes had. And yet he has made exactly the same kind of mistake.

And he hasn’t realised it.

Surprisingly though, Lipton does realise in the next page or two that his analogy of the body as a TV set is problematic. He introduced the idea that organs transplanted from one body to another continue to “download” memories and habitual behaviours from the soul(/TV broadcast) of the donor, and transmit these to the recipient.

The reported cases are of course entirely spurious — so recipients of pig heart valves need not worry about unusual behavioural changes. But the claim raises a problem for Lipton’s TV set = body analogy, because TV sets don’t “upload” the TV’s personal experiences and send them back to the TV station for storage.

To be fair, Lipton admits it:

While the TV analogy is useful, it is not a complete one because a television is only a playback device.

We haven’t quite gotten to the part where he says the above quote yet, but we can note it in advance. And we can ignore the routine factual error (of course it’s not a ‘playback device’) and note that this is an important problem for Lipton to solve. There’s a lot riding on this analogy. He’s using it to explain the (non-existent) transference of memories from a transplanted organ to the recipient, which he in turn uses as a “model” for immortality and reincarnation…. Which in turn seems to be an important aspect of his cancer quackery– you don’t really die; and you get a new body.

Even though the body of the person who donated the organs is dead, their broadcast is still on. They are, as I realized in my flash of insight while mulling over the mechanics of the cellular membrane— immortal, as I believe we all are. Cells and organ transplants offer a model not only for immortality but also for reincarnation.

He returns to his idea that the thing that makes a recipient’s body accept or reject a transplanted organ also “download” the soul of a person and all their memories and behaviours in the cell.

….Yes — Lipton thinks your soul is downloaded into each of the 37.2 trillion cells in your body. And each cell not only receives all of your memories and behaviours, but it can also transmit these back up to your brain. Remember that he thinks the brain connects directly to each of the 37.2 trillion cells in the body.

Ok, let’s grant him that the “identity receptors” do exist, and they do download (and upload) his soul and all its contents.

This means that if someone kindly donates a kidney to someone else, then part of the donor’s self will now be squished inside the recipient’s body, and will sit there, transmitting the contents of the donor’s soul to the recipient, and also uploading new information from the recipient to the donor’s soul(TV station).

And that proves reincarnation.


Consider the possibility that an embryo in the future displays the same set of identity receptors that I now possess. That embryo will be tuned into my “self.”

……….Ummm…………… Ok. We’ve granted that the non-existent “identity receptors” do exist, and the soul is an entity that is simple enough to be picked up by them, if they are correctly tuned, and that this is such a simple process that organ donors also donate access to their soul as well the use of their heart kidney or pig’s heart and soul.

And now we are banking on the possibility that if an identical set of these (non-existent) “identity receptors” arise by pure chance, then…..

My identity is back but playing through a different body.

There are currently nearly 8 billion human bodies alive on earth today. The chance of one of them being capable of downloading the soul of Bruce Lipton is at the very least one in 8 billion.

If it was lower, then there would be cases of the same soul inhabiting two bodies, which thankfully doesn’t happen.

So Lipton has just demonstrated your *best possible* chance of getting reincarnated is one in 8 billion.

And that’s ignoring the fact that the mechanism that has to spontaneously generate for it doesn’t exist. …As I mentioned last time, Lipton’s analogies have not been kind to him so far in this book.

Sexism and racism become ridiculous as well as immoral when you realize that your receptors could wind up on a white person, a black person, an Asian, or a male or female.

Great, but what if they wind up on a sea slug?

Because the environment represents “All That Is” (God) and our self-receptor antennas download only a narrow band of the whole spectrum, we all represent a small part of the whole… a small part of God.

Christ almighty. He even fails at theology. “God” isn’t eternal and infinite, but so limited that He has to broadcast re-runs.

Another new Subheading appears out of nowhere.

Earth Landers

This is where he deals with the problem that TV sets don’t upload the TV’s thoughts and behaviours. He suggests another analogy:

So a more complete way of understanding our relationship to Spirit is to compare a human to the Martian rovers “Spirit” and “Opportunity” or the other NASA landers we have sent to the Moon and Mars.

This is just pure laziness from Lipton. Why the heck didn’t he just go with this analogy from the start? Anyway, he blithers on about the Mars rover for a while, explaining how it too has “senses”, but can also upload information and send it back to earth(/the soul). Thus:

You and I are like “Earth landers” who receive information from an environmental controller/Spirit. As we live our lives, the experiences of our world are sent back to that controller, our Spirit.

An “environmental controller/Spirit”.

So this is what Lipton means when he’s been saying “the environment” controls genes. Isn’t it?

But then the whole thing is dependent on your “identity receptors” getting replicated and attached to something in the first place. Then your genes — which according to Lipton must only carry the very basic outline of the body — don’t influence your character at all.

But in his excitement about epigenetics, he’s been constantly saying that the *thoughts of our parents* are also “the environment”, and they do affect our genes!

Then he adds Karma to the growing list of things that “identity receptors” receive and transmit:

So the character of how you live your life influences the character of your “self.” This interaction corresponds to the concept of karma.

…And this must also change the “identity receptors” themselves too, if it “changes the character of your “self”“. This is not going well for Lipton, but he blabbers on obliviously.

In the end, these cellular insights serve to emphasize the wisdom of spiritual teachers throughout the ages.

“Cellular insights”? What is he talking about? And whatever they are, they have nothing whatsoever in common with any spiritual tradition whatsoever. Then he suddenly blurts this out:

Each of us is a spirit in material form.

Hang on. What???? We’re a fucking Mars rover or a TV set. The only thing that makes us our “self” is some little non-existent antennas on our cells. On that model we are very clearly not “spirit in material form”.

Anyway, he’s done with TV sets and Mars rovers now. He’s going to try yet another analogy and see where it gets him.

A powerful image for this spiritual truth is the way light interacts with a prism.

No, that isn’t a powerful image for that “spiritual truth”. It’s not even in the same ball park. A prism is not light in material form. It’s fundamentally different from it. But there’s no stopping him now.

When a beam of white light goes through a prism, the prism’s crystalline structure diffracts the exiting light so that it appears as a rainbow spectrum.

Factual error. It refracts, not diffracts. (I spotted that all by myself! Yay!)

Lipton gives a garbled and totally inaccurate version of this phenomenon:

Each color, though a component of the white light, is seen separately because of its unique frequency. If you reverse this process by projecting a rainbow spectrum through the crystal, the individual frequencies will recombine, forming a beam of white light.

And then tries to relate it back to God and “identity receptors”:

Think of each human being’s identity as an individual color frequency within the rainbow spectrum.

So now the body is a prism and it separates out your unique wavelength/identity.

If we arbitrarily eliminate a specific frequency, a color, because we don’t “like it,” and then try to put the remaining frequencies back through the prism, the exiting beam will no longer be white light. By definition, white light is composed of all of the frequencies.

What on earth is this man talking about?

Many spiritual people anticipate the return of White Light to the planet. They imagine that it will come in the form of a unique individual like Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad.

Um, dude, in none of the multitude of versions of Islam is Mohammad coming back.

However, from my newly acquired spirituality, I see that White Light will only return to the planet when every human being recognizes every other human being as an individual frequency of the White Light.

Somehow he’s gotten from organ transplants to this. I don’t know how, and neither does he.

He keeps on babbling until he gets to the end of the section. The next sub-heading starts in the next post. We are on page 193.


  1. Oh no, not again. Every time I think it can’t get any funnier, it does. It’s like he’s vaguely aware he hasn’t done anything like what he set out to do in the whole book, and this is a last ditch attempt to blast the problem with a scatter-gun of metaphors hoping something sticks. And fundamentally he hasn’t gained anything by replacing the pineal gland with cell mem-brains.

    It’s like he’s stoned. He grabs the new metaphor of a prism splitting white light, but that seems to just remind his disordered brain of yet another bit of happy woo he wants to be true – that Jesus is white light and coming back! Then he has to put that (to a Lipton) sophisticated spin on it – not like the dumb people think – it’ll happen when we all realise we’re the different colours of the rainbow…”from my newly acquired spirituality”! Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Hahahahaha.

    What next – does mention of a prism not remind him of crystals? Surely? They do healing…they must “diffract” soul broadcasts, changing your personality colour. Now, in Yoga tradition, the chakras all have different colours of the rainbow associated with them…

  2. I wrote 4 or 5 drafts of this, and discarded it each time because I kept seeing new dimensions of stupidity in it.

    Is the association of Chakras with rainbows really in the Yogic tradition? I don’t know much about it, but always thought it might have been a side effect of Theosophy. It was they who preferred the 7 chakra system over all the other possibilities, and then there was Ken Wilber’s Spectrum of Consciousness, which I imagine you probably know of.

    But anyway, yeh, he missed a trick by not exploring the interface between crystals and the spectrum of the chakras.

  3. “Is the association of Chakras with rainbows really in the Yogic tradition?”

    I’ve no idea! It was something I came across at some time when I was gorging on all that stuff, and I was never too concerned about who said what…a bit like Lipton, in fact! I never got hung up on the sources and details when I was into it, and I’m even less bothered now I’m out! I don’t think I ever read anything specifically on Theosophy.

    I read one book by Ken Wilber, No Boundary, which had a profound effect on me. It was like reading the book I’d wanted to write. It said what I’d been thinking for years. And now you mention it, I remember the spectrum of consciousness was part of that philosophy. That was probably 25 or 30 years ago I read it. All pretty much woo to me now.

  4. I had an ok impression of Wilber. I’ve heard he has a recent book about about his wife dying, in which he condemns cancer quackery, but I don’t know any details.

    I am actually a fan of exploring these ideas and trying to figure out how to cope with all the difficult parts of life. Most of the atheist authors I’d recommend here are quite useless in that area, and so they should be, too. Spiritual people should see science as setting parameters — helping save people from wasting their time on nonsense and, obviously, from getting killed by quackery. But they want to have their quantum cake and eat it.

    I can understand what people are trying to do — build their personal mythology by stealing concepts of modern science in the same way as they steal concepts from Hindu or Native American mythology. I’d say good luck to them, but a) it’s boring, and b) it quickly turns dangerous because they don’t know when to stop.

    Plus — and I’ll write a post on this soon — it means that the teachers who promote it have to keep attacking proper science because they have to hide the fact that they can’t do science themselves.

  5. Yikes, I just had a little rummage around to see what Ken had to say for himself and it’s worse than I thought…I mean, I’d not really thought about his ideas in 20-odd years and didn’t know anything else about him beyond that book. He’s just another guru peddling all the Eastern mystical woo, but on the steroids of his own apophenic bar-stool philosophy of “Integral Theory”. Worse still, I’m currently watching a video in which he’s bigging up JP and reiterating (through his colourful, spiral soul-stage-evolutionary model) the idea that the post-modernists – green stage, IIRC, IAGAS (If Anyone Gives A Shit) – have wrongly characterized all hierarchies as “power hierarchies”, which are bad and oppressive, where in fact there are two types, the other being “growth hierarchies”, which we need for “growth” (duh), and those deluded lefties have taken over the education system (here he just basically buys whatever JP says), so when they tried to “compel speech” in the gender pronouns thing, that was “enough to send anyone over the wall”.

    The really funny thing is that Wilber does have the clarity that JP lacks, so in half an hour I got the picture of the world that JP works with, which took me probably 20 hours listening to the whiny horse’s mouth flitting from one thought to a completely disconnected one and never calling a spade a spade. And that’s helped by the fact that the video I’m watching is interpreting KW’s jargon in an interview with nice graphics of the coloured spiral and how it relates to – yer know – actual reality in the world.

    That’s amazing – I’m so much clearer on what the hypothesis is now! The downside is seeing how problematic it is to counter it (assuming it has serious issues, which may be my cultural-Marxist brainwashing, of course), because I only just found that label of the Intellectual Dark Web the other day, as you know, and thought it was mainly a political stance, but now it’s clear it has this awful faux-spiritual mumbo-jumbo side as well. I mean, that was clear from JP, but it’s easier to discount as one of those outliers clinging to his Xian background. Now I see with KW that it dovetails with the New-Age BS. And while KW likes to “be precise in your speech” a lot more than JP, he’s away with the freaking fairies. All we need is for the IDW to mobilize the hideous power of the Hay House fantasists.

    Another short video (clearly a talk to the congregation of believers and answering a question about “conscious reincarnation”) shows him saying he has to be agnostic on it, but then paying far too much lip-service to the rumours from the Buddists, and then making the utterly ridiculous claim that in order to make progress on this in a proper scientific way, it’s important that they do more of the thing they have done a bit of already, leaving a note. LEAVING A NOTE! If a “teacher” leaves a note saying where and when they’ll “consciously reincarnate”, we can go there and be there – at this point he eagerly pretends to be filming, like in charades, and says something like, “Come on, woman,” like he’s filming a birth. How fucking clueless can anyone be about cognitive biases? Yes, Ken, because the kid is going to take its first breath and announce it’s the teacher come back, I suppose. It’s going to reach round and pull the very same note out of its ass. The villagers or the monks aren’t going to interpret every preference the kid has as it grows up, or indoctrinate it subtly with all the cues it needs to start taking on the habits of the so-called “teacher”. This is how the spiritual wing of the IDW does science! The teacher left a note, we went there and, quite nearby and almost to the week, a kid was born that looked a bit like him.

    If only Jesus was coming back to mow the fucking moronic lot of us down with a machine gun (or just them, please).

  6. I kind of knew it was a mistake to say a kind word about Wilber, but didn’t want to ruin it by looking it up!

    I actually find the whole thing horrifying. This is the future — the New Science is just mythology but taken even more literally than religion, and now the the authority of proper science, only without all the qualifiers, checks, and rejection of bad ideas. Technology will goon as before, but divorced from mytho-science, which doesn’t need to explain anything or progress in any way at all.

    For some reason I suddenly got an image of JP getting access to nuclear weapons, but then realised that would actually be far less horrifying than Trump having them right now. I guess there’s always that perspective to kind of cheer everyone up.

Comments welcome, but please try to address the issues raised in the article!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: