Alberto Villoldo – New Age Fraud? Misinformer? Something else? (aka, an exercise in critical thinking – PART 1)

There is a personal story behind this post but that will be revealed at a later time.   Also, I frankly am much more concerned about the developments which have occurred over the past couple of days with respect to Isaac Kappy’s revelations (the banning of a certain A. Jones, for one, from YouTube, Facebook and Apple).  The information being dispensed all over the web, and the survivors coming out with stories of their own, is nothing less than staggering.  However, it is also horrifically soul crushing and nightmarish, and the average person with an ounce of a good soul can only take so much of this evil onslaught without having to stop, regroup and try to maintain a modicum of sanity.

Speaking of soul, I invite you to watch these two videos.  Then watch them again (or in conjunction) with the list of questions, posted below, and re-examine your original reception of Villoldo’s message.   This post, at least on the surface, represents a switching of topic gears.  However to my mind it is highly relevant, being an exercise in critical analysis – or more accurately – critical questioning.  Life can be rife with many forms of pain and suffering, so it is only reasonable for many to look for relief and a sense of control.  Villoldo offers this in spades, so it behooves one to challenge these claims by asking as many questions as possible. The ones posed below are really just scratching the surface and meant to prove a point.  Many more could be asked. (Note: The first video is in fact 1of 2, but is incorrectly labelled 2 of 2). 



1. Statement: “In sacred space one comes into alignment with the organizing principles of the universe”. Question: How exactly does this happen and why?  There is no supporting evidence given to back up this rather confidently submitted statement.

2. Statement: “When you call on the 4 Directions, you are calling on archetypes/luminous beings…protectors of the planet Earth”.  Questions: How can this be verified?  How does one actually know what one is calling on and whether or not they are archetypes and/or luminous beings/protectors, or something else?  (If the answer is simply a “feeling”, or “intuition”, how to verify that either of these are in fact accurate?)

3. Statement: “The archetypes are four organizing principles of the universe: Serpent, jaguar, hummingbird and eagle”. Questions: Where is this information coming from? How can it be verified? How does one know it is absolutely true?  Why not have the four archetypes be the bull, the bear, the spider and the deer, for instance?  How exactly is the “universe” defined in terms of what it encompasses?  What are the “organizing principles of the universe”?  How is this term defined and what exactly does it mean? Also, there are potentially countless other creatures in the universe (to assume the generally understood definition of the word), unknown to us.  Why aren’t any of these animals mentioned?

4. Statement: “Sacred space provides us with a vessel, within which healing and transformation can happen”.  Questions: How and why? How does the vessel work, scientifically/practically speaking? What are the precise dynamics at work and how can this be verified?  Who or what actually provides the sacred space?  How does one verify this provider?

5. Statement: “We are not working alone.  We have to enlist the power of nature, the power of the mother that wants us to be well.”  Questions: Who is the mother?  How do we know that either or both (mother and nature) wish for us to be well?   In nature, creatures kill other creatures in order to survive.  Is this wellness?  How is wellness defined in this instance?  Is the mother ever cruel or punishing?

  • Statement: “When one is disconnected from heaven and earth, we are simply feeding our ego.”  Question: What does this mean?  How precisely is ego defined?  Merriam -Webster defines “ego” as follows:
 the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2a egotism 2
b self-esteem 1
3the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality

Implication is that ego is negative.  However, per the definitions above, without a “self” to contrast with others or the world, we would have no sense of self-awareness at all.  How is one to function in a material world with no self awareness?  How is one to function without a “conscious mediator” between oneself and reality?  Are we meant to be relying on some “other” consciousness instead of the self’s consciousness?  If so, what or whose? And why would that alternative be preferable to operating from a level of self consciousness?  Is the implication that we are either better off functioning in a zombie-like state, or with some other “consciousness” behind the wheel, so to speak, instead?  So many statements.  So many questions.  So few answers.

6. Statement: “There are two types of sacred space that we work with.  The first one calls on the organizing principles of the physical world.  The second one calls on the ‘luminous beings’, here to help and guide us in our healing process.” Questions: Who are the ‘luminous beings’?  Do they have names or identities?  How is the knowledge of who they are and their true aim ultimately verified? How do we know they are really here to help us, as opposed to pretending to help us, and hoodwinking us into believing that they are helping us for some unknown reasons of their own.  Or maybe they are indeed helping us, but at the cost of something we would not wish to sacrifice if we had all of the information at hand and could view a greater picture.

7. Statement: “These spaces connect us to: ecosphere nature and the second space connects us to an ancient lineage of masters – both born before we were – and are of the time to come”. Questions: Where precisely, is this information coming from?  What is the source?  Who are the ancient masters?  How do we know they are really masters and not something else?  Or perhaps they are masters, but not of the sort one would want to follow.  How does one verify their history/lineage? What does “the time to come mean?”  What time period(s) specifically?  How is this information verified?

8. Statement: “Soul retrieval is an energetic and mystic practice that helps us recover parts of our essential self that has been lost as a result of pain or trauma.”  Questions: How does soul retrieval work, from a molecular point of view?  How, specifically does this happen from an “energetic” point of view?  What does “energetic” mean? How is this term defined.

9. Statement: “The soul is that part of ourselves that is infinite and eternal that contains a ‘quanta’ of energy of essential life force.  When soul loss occurs we lose part of our essence or essential self.”  Question: How does one know/verify this?  How does one know that the soul is infinite and eternal?  Are there conditions under which this might not be the case?  If one loses a soul part, where does it go?  How is its location verifiable?  Who, if anyone, is the steward of these soul parts and how is that verifiable?

10. Statement: “When we lose a soul part, our destiny is no longer available to us.  We fall into the grip of fate.  And fate is fatal”. Questions: Why is destiny no longer available to us when a soul part is lost? How is destiny being defined here? How is fate being defined here? Why is fate ‘fatal’? If fate is fatal, and one’s destiny becomes available, and one follows that destiny, it would follow by the logic of the case being made, that one can avoid death – i.e. – that one can live forever.  True?  Is this the claim Villoldo is making?  (Note: Villoldo in his earlier years, did in fact allude to this.  See attached interview from the 6:12-6:30 mark .  I also find it noteworthy that Villoldo marginalizes the “world of facts and information”, to quote him directly.   True, spirit is may be important – but why can’t the two concepts go hand in hand?  One need not be unduly elevated above the other.  Nor do they need to be mutually exclusive.

11. Statement: “During soul retrieval, this ‘quanta’ of energy that was lost is recoverable.” Questions: How? How can one verify for him or herself that it has indeed been recovered?  What does it take to recover this lost energy?  What are the precise mechanics of it? Are other souls or soul pieces or entities potentially harmed in the process?  If so, how is that corrected, assuming it is correctable?  Is one somehow beholden to the person performing the soul retrieval (assuming it is not oneself) in a manner unbeknownst or undisclosed to that person?  What are the pitfalls and/or implications of that, if any?

12.  Statement: “Trauma is not what happened to you, but rather the way you recall what happened to you.  The story…”  Question: This sounds akin to Werner Erhard’s teachings (founder of EST, back in the late 60’s, 70’s, as well as one of its later offshoots, “Landmark Forum”, marketed as a self-help program).  Why make this distinction at all though?  I doubt that a mass torturer would proclaim to any sane judge (and hope to get away with it), “But judge, I wasn’t the one who did anything wrong, these other people just recall it that way.  It’s just their story.”   If trauma is only what we recall, and we bought into this argument as a society, then it would follow that logically speaking, it would be legal to torture a child, for instance, as long as the memory of that torture could be removed from the child’s psyche.  This does not change the fact that a traumatic event took place for the child, regardless of the fact that it cannot be remembered.  This, to me, is one of the most alarming of all statements put forth by Villoldo.

13. Statement: At 5:05, Villoldo gives an example illustrating how trauma is not what happened, but rather the story we tell ourselves about what happened.  The example, in my opinion, is not a good one.  Questions: Isn’t there ever a time when the trauma in question, and one’s own recollection of it can actually be one and the same, in terms of accuracy?  In other words, the facts match the “story”.  Villoldo is silent in terms of addressing this possibility.  Why?

14. Statement: “During soul retrieval, we go back to the original source of trauma.  We are not interested in the way that it happened last.  We are interested in the way that it happened first.” Questions: Fair enough but why?  What difference does it make, if each instance of trauma is ultimately all a manifestation of the same issue? And the only way to know how it happened first (aka to go back to the original “source”), truly, is to have direct knowledge of how we were created, if we are speaking in terms of the belief in reincarnation (which Villoldo is).  Does he have this knowledge?

15. Statement: When soul loss occurs, we fall from grace.  We are no longer in the flow of life.”  Question: “How is the “flow of life” defined here? How can one verify that should one fall from grace that this is due to soul loss, versus something else – or in addition to something else? How can one truly verify such a thing?  And what is the source and trustworthiness of that verification?

16. Statement: The only way to heal soul loss is through soul recovery”.  Questions: Assuming soul recovery is a real phenomenon, and possible to do, what is the method(s) Villoldo uses? Is soul recovery the only way to heal soul loss?  Why can’t new soul parts be created to replace those lost?  Can this be done?  If not, then why?Who/what creates the soul itself?

17.  Statement: Whenever soul loss occurs, the world ceases to be a safe place.” Questions: For whom?`The person who experienced the soul loss?  Others in the world with whom that person interacts?  Both? Does this apply to animals as well?  For instance,  if everyone in the world had an intact soul, would animals be safe from being eaten by other animals, or people for that matter?  Would the “law of the jungle” no longer apply?  Do animals have souls? Do they experience soul loss? Are people somehow to blame for the soul loss of animals, assuming that they are in fact capable of soul loss? If all beings had intact souls, would it follow that all beings would be safe from harm at the hands of any other beings?  Does “soul loss” have something to do with the concept of “Original Sin”? (Note: Villoldo references in some of his work that being “kicked” out of the garden of Eden” is a ‘storyline’ that needs to be changed.  How does this tie into his concept of soul loss?)

18. Statement: After soul retrieval, the world again becomes a safe place.” Question: For whom? If a person in Scotland has a soul retrieval done, but an entire neighboring country is full of say, warmongering individuals with lost soul parts, is that person still truly safe?  Are the individuals in the neighboring country safe?  Is the world itself safe?Is it still safe for the dead animal on one’s plate, assuming one is not a vegetarian?  Exactly who is “safe” and what is the definition of “safe”? If it is oneself who becomes safe, could it be possibly that this sense of safety is merely an illusory bubble, albeit a convincingly real one?  How does we know the safety is “real”?  Or is this simply determined by the “story” we tell ourselves – aka our “perception” or “recollection”, as opposed to reality?

19. Statement: ” In order to recover parts of the lost soul, the shaman needs to journey into the unconscious realm.”  Questions: How exactly are shamans trained to enter into the unconscious realm?  How is this realm defined?  What are its borders?  How is information stored there?  Who stores it?  What is the mechanism for storage? How does this mechanism work?  How can one retrieve the lost soul part, precisely?  Can soul parts be edited or re-engineered?  If so, how can the shaman be certain that he or she is indeed recovering the original lost soul part and not something compromised or corrupted?

20. Statement: Shamanic work happens at the level of ‘energy’ not ‘story’.” Questions: What does this mean?  How is ‘energy’ defined?  What is the difference between ‘energy’ and ‘story’? This is left unclear to the viewer.

21. Statement: “Reality manifests at 4 different levels of expression: physical, mental, soul, spirit”. Question: What is the source of this information? Why only 4 levels?  Why not 400? Or 4,000?  How precisely is the mind different from the soul?  How is the soul different from the spirit?  Couldn’t there be something informing the spirit as well?  (Following the “mental informs the physical, soul informs the mental, spirit informs the soul line of thinking.”) . What informs the spirit?  And what informs the thing that informs the spirit?  (And so on and so forth).  Again, how is ‘energy’ defined?  How are ‘images’ defined?  Images of what?

22. Statement: “You can only change the script/story from the level of the soul.”  Question: Why?  What is the source of this information? Is this really the only way to change one’s “script”?  How can this be verified?






Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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