Edgar Cayce was a true humanitarian

If you really want the “straight dope” on Edgar Cayce, then please, please, please read his biography, “There Is A River”, by Thomas Sugrue. I’m sorry, but most of your information on him is just plain wrong. Flippantly dismissing him, based on ignorance, is such an injustice to him. He deserves so much more respect than that! Edgar Cayce dedicated his whole life to helping people. And he successfully helped thousands. Many people to this day are still being helped by his readings. Edgar Cayce was a true humaritarian, and one of the greatest men who ever lived.

What are you refering to. You said anything about Edgar Cayce.
Do you have a link to a thread or an article?

Now then that’s out of the way.

Welcome to the board. Enjoy.


Let me help you out. What’s the scoop on Edgar Cayce, the “Sleeping Prophet”?

I prefer to be a skeptic. I find skeptical sources do a lot better research and don’t have the tendency to omit data which doesn’t support their premise. I, too, have read books and articles praising Cayce, but none of them could call their research and conclusions scientific.

I doubt you will convince anyone here to read a book on your recommendation alone. Why don’t you start us off with a few particulars on how most of the information in the Staff Report is “just plain wrong.”

From the article:

Wasn’t it found in the 1920s? :smiley:

Only for 20 minutes.

SusanneV: You aren’t winning any converts with one post to our fine message boards. If you come back and debate the point, you will have a better chance.

(Aw, who am I kidding?)

I never had any doubt that Cayce was a nice guy, using his abilities to help people. His abilities just lacked objective validity, is all. Kinda like Mother Teresa who ended up creating far more misery in the process of sincerely trying to alleviate it.

Wow, want to expand on that statement? I don’t know much amount Mother Teresa but I am curious if you can backup that statement.


I’ll concede he was probably a well-meaning man, albeit self-deluding.

It’s been discussed at length in GD threads, but the gist of it is that while she was helping the poor, she was also stridently campaigning against birth-control, when reducing the overpopulation of the area would have helped more than pouring charitable donations into it.

The point of my comparison is that a person can be very sincere while accomplishing relatively little of objective value. I don’t demonize Teresa or Cayce, but the overall impact of their lives don’t mandate canonization, either.

Here’s a GD thread about Mother Teresa. Here’s another.

> TWEEEET! < ::: Moderator blows whistle :::

A debate about Mother Theresa belongs elsewhere, let’s keep this thread on Mr Cayce, OK?

There was also the fact that while she was a superb fundraiser, she preferred to simply put up dingy buildings for people to die in, rather than paying for medical care. She was a narcistic sadist who was obsessed with suffering. (Particularly other peoples’ suffering.)

Pssst. friedo. Ixnay on the Othermay Eresatay. Pass it along.

And, friedo, it’s “narcissistic”. Always check the spelling on your pejoratives.

So, does anybody know anything about Edgar Cayce?

My bad.

The OP was a drive by poster, shouldn’t this thread just be closed.
It was her only post to SDMB.


If Cayce was a humanitarian, does that mean he ate people?

:eek: I think you must be right.