If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that I don’t shy away from the tough questions. I’ve talked about Religion, Jesus’ crucifixion, Cursing, and have argued in favor of Lust, Anger and Shamelessness. My only rule is that questions must be asked respectfully and in the spirit of actually wanting clarification (instead of by someone just looking for an argument).

A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Winston Wu, a fellow blogger, who had written a post entitled Debunking the Law of Attraction and “Thoughts Create Reality” Religion. In that post, he challenges LOA teachers such as Dr. Wayne Dyer to explain and address some fundamental questions about the Law of Attraction, which he claims no LOA teacher has given a direct answer to, so far. I found his questions valid and genuine. Unfortunately, a lot of bullshit has been spread about the Law of Attraction, and a lot of the claims that Winston takes issue with are actually the result of a fundamental lack of understanding of how LOA works.  If I was a fighting man, I’d take issue with these claims myself. πŸ™‚

At the end of his post, Winston poses 15 questions which he has not found an answer for. Well, Winston, Challenge Accepted! Booya! This post will be divided into 4 parts, with parts 2, 3 & 4 being dedicated to the questions themselves.

Setting the stage

In today’s post, I’d like to clarify some things and set the stage. I’d like to explain why I’m answering a skeptic’s questions and where I’m coming from. I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. I don’t believe that there is only one “truth”. Each person has their own truth, and each one is valid from that person’s perspective. I believe that trying to prove LOA to someone is a little bit like trying to prove that God exists. They’re either going to be open to it or not. Either view is ok by me, but that’s not, generally, the case for the “skeptics”. This is why I don’t normally get into discussions about LOA with people who aren’t at least a little bit open to the possibility of it actually being real – they can’t hear me and don’t want to. Again, I’m ok with that. I have no need for anyone to agree with me. I just don’t enjoy futile arguments that don’t lead to increased clarity on either side.

I can’t PROVE to EVERYONE beyond a doubt that LOA is real, and I would never try to. This series isn’t written for those who think the Law of Attraction is the brainchild of an LSD trip, but rather for those who feel a resonance with it, know there’s something there, and essentially would like to believe in it, but can’t make sense of some of the claims out there.

And although I’m not trying to prove anything here, I would like to address the question of lack of scientific proof, as Winston mentioned it in his post and many others have repeatedly used this argument (lack of scientific proof that thoughts create reality) to claim that the Law of Attraction doesn’t work.

If LOA really does work, how would science prove it?

Just for a moment, imagine that everything I teach is fact and that our vibrations create our reality (this is a little bit different from saying that our thoughts create our reality, as the latter can be taken very literally and will lead to a lot of the misunderstandings that Winston points out in his blog post. Our vibrations are made up of our thoughts and beliefs, those we are fully aware of and those we are not. To use different words, our vibration is made up of both our conscious and subconscious. The explanation of the process or manifestation is way beyond what’s possible in a blog post, which is why I packed it into a book. You can download it for free HERE).

Your vibration, in essence, creates a filter that allows only certain experiences into your reality and excludes others. This means that if you take two scientists – one who believes that the earth revolves around the sun and another who does not, and both of their vibrations fully line up with those experiences, then the first scientist will find a way to prove that the Earth actually does revolve around the sun. The second scientist is not a match to that experience and so his filter will not allow him to realize this point of view. He may not be present on the day that the first scientist presents his findings, or, he may simply be unable to believe them. He will find a way to debunk the findings and will simply refuse to see the other scientist’s “truth”. This happens all the time in the scientific community (conflicting studies that are both scientifically valid). And it happened to Galileo, whose discovery, I would argue, was just as much of a game changer then, as LOA is today.

LOA and the scientific process

Before any scientist can prove a theory, he must first HAVE the theory, which is not yet proven. He must have an unproven thought and believe it to be possible. So, the possible theories that a scientist can come up with are going to be directly related to his ability to believe them. If Edison had not been able to conceive of the light bulb, he would not have been able to invent it. So, in essence, scientists come up with theories based on what they have the ability to believe is possible, and then look for evidence that this theory is true. But until they find that proof, they are holding on to an idea that has not yet been proven.

Now, if the new theory is close to what the general populace has come to accept as fact, if the frequencies of the new thought and the general belief aren’t too far apart, then the scientist will most likely be left to find his proof. Others may need to see the proof in order to fully believe it, but they can conceive of the idea that this theory may at least be possible. But, if the new theory is far removed from what’s generally believed, if the frequencies of the new thought and the general belief are far apart, then the scientist will most likely be ridiculed for his outlandish ideas. The further the frequencies are apart, the harder it will be for others to conceive of the new, higher thought.

Basically, scientists must have something akin to faith – they must suspend their disbelief and allow their minds to venture into the impossible, then believe that the impossible could, in fact, be possible and then look for evidence to support it. And yet, this method flies in the face of what we have come to call science – the very idea of believing something that has not been proven and re-proven is unthinkable. Show me the evidence, and then I’ll believe it.

And yet, this is exactly what the Law of Attraction teaches. We must be willing to believe it first and then the evidence will present itself. People who have done this, have found their proof. Those who need to see the evidence first, will have to keep searching until eventually enough people in the world are ready to believe and shift into that energy. Just as eventually, the world was ready to believe that the earth is not flat and does, in fact, revolve around the sun.

Given the parameters that I’ve just laid out, how could one go about proving LOA to someone like the second scientist? Unless he was willing to at least consider the possibility that the theory is valid, he wouldn’t be able to accept that idea, no matter what.

Reaching new levels of understanding en masse takes time

I fully believe that Science and especially Math will prove everything we LOA teachers talk about one day. The way I see it, we are in that time between discovery and general acceptance, similar to the time after Galileo made his discoveries and when the scientific community finally accepted it. But right now, those who really want to understand it, have to be willing to shift into a way of thinking that most of the world doesn’t agree with. They have to be willing to believe the theory, so that the proof can present itself. And depending on where their current belief system is, they may not be able to accomplish this shift, even when presented with “proof”.

My goal in answering Winston’s questions is therefore not to convince anyone of anything, but to present a point of view, a theory or philosophy, if you will, to those who are willing to see the world and everything they’ve ever been taught about how it functions, in a completely different way. If you’re not, I’m totally ok with that.

In the next post, I’m going to answer the first 5 questions from Winston’s post. I have to say, I had so much fun writing this series (I love me some awesome questions!) and I want to extend a huge thank you hug to Winston Wu for mailing me and giving me the opportunity to play like this. Of course, I attracted him and his questions, and y’all probably did, too (this blog is becoming more and more of a co-creation every day), so I guess I’ve got a whole lot of hugging to do. I shall now do the happy dance. It’s going to be a fun ride.

Please share your thoughts in the comments!

Other Posts You Might Like...

Access our LOA Vault!

Get instant access to all our FREE resources, including courses, workbooks and a bonus chapter for my book!

  • Hi KA,

    Welcome to Deliberate Receiving. You know, you’re basically saying the same thing that I am, you just use vastly different words. The main difference is that you see God as having all the power and I see us as being God (and having all the power). But it sounds to me that the outcome of these two perspectives would be roughly the same. You advise people to live honestly and trust that God will provide what they need. I advise people to live authentically and trust that the Universe (or God, I don’t mind) will provide the HOW. The way I see it, the rest is just semantics. πŸ™‚

    Huge hugs!

  • Hi Sonia,

    I’m sorry, I probably didn’t do a very good job of explaining my comments, unless you’ve read extensively on this site. Sometimes it’s really hard to fully explain something in a mere comment. This is a complex issue and any explanation I give is going to have holes in it. I will write more posts (multiple) about the subjects you touched upon. Firs off is another one about death. The erroneous premise is that death is a bad thing, that it’s a failure, or that something has gone wrong. But we are all going to die. The fact that the monk died is a part of life. He was going to die. It was his time, and we can’t judge why that might have been. There’s no way we could know that.
    What I gave is one possible explanation. When someone dies is a way that makes that death part of the experience of many others (publicly) then it was a co-creation. An event was created that was able to mirror many different vibrations. So, let’s say that the monk was going to transition, no matter what. But he had also set an intention to bring clarity to others and was willing to co-create an event that mirrored the community’s fears back to them. Bad things don’t happen in order to punish us (ever). They happen as a result of our vibrations – what we focus on and what we believe. And they are not “bad”, they are simply indicators that we are focusing predominantly on something that doesn’t serve us (in terms of what we, specifically, want). Don’t worry, I will explain this point fully in a dedicated blog post.

    Why did that girl have to get raped? She didn’t have to. And the Universe did not assert itself upon her. But I can tell you from very personal experience that when you have beliefs that men are dangerous and hurtful and that you don’t deserve to be treated well, you will manifest some pretty ugly scenarios to mirror that. We can’t know from the outside what thoughts and beliefs this girl had that brought this on, but I promise you this: She felt like a victim long before the rape.

    You can change the flow of energy and your manifestations by changing your thoughts, but you’re right, sometimes you have to let things take their toll. Once you’re in the middle of a manifestation, you may no longer be able to stop it. But you can stop things from repeating themselves by releasing the vibration that caused it. And you can set yourself up for a better tomorrow by focusing on feeling good today.

    My advice to you would be to keep searching and reading and asking and studying. You will find a perspective that will allow you to feel better about this. You’re dealing with one of the biggest hurdles most people face. It’s easy to make peace with the idea that we manifest parking spots and numbers. It’s harder to apply it to painful and horrific situations. It took me a long time to find good feeling perspectives on these subjects as well as some of the painful and horrific events in my own life. But I did. And that’s how I know that you will, too. Don’t give up.

    Sending you huge hugs!

  • Hi Melanie

    Came across your website..I believe alot in LOA..however how do u explain a poor old 12 yr african girl who gets raped in the middle of a field when she’s out searching for food..or a monk who gets shot suddenly..real life stories..? surely they did not attract that ,….unless through a Karmic manner….but how else can you explain this? i’d be interested to know…

    • Hi Sonia,

      Welcome to Deliberate Receiving!

      I actually wrote about this in the following post:

      Personally, I don’t believe in Karma. The idea that things you did in a past life could cause you to have to suffer in this one, doesn’t resonate with me.
      One of the problems is that many of us have not yet made our peace with death. We assume that when someone dies that something has gone wrong. But it never has. So, let’s say the Monk was going to die anyway. Death is a manifestation but not a bad one. Often, it’s simply the easiest way for us to get what we really want. But how we die may then be part of a larger manifestation. When someone dies spectacularly, in a way that affects a lot of people, it may be to help highlight the issue within society (the more people are outraged by violence, for example, the more people are asking themselves “Isn’t there a better way?” and may ultimately start turning towards solutions).

      I’ve gotten so many questions about this subject lately, that I plan to write about it in the near future. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

      Huge hugs!

  • Hi Melody,

    This is such an interesting challenge. I just love it. Sometimes I feel compelled to share the good news of LOA. It does not go so well at times. Especially when we are not even at the same wavelength with the person. And thus see the world very differently.

    By the way, I am currently rereading the Celestine Prophesy…

    I am really taking notes on the way you are answering the questions.



    • Hey Veeh!

      I had a great time answering these questions. It gave me a chance to combine tons of different LOA principles into one, big, pile of goodness. I love these opportunities to bring them all together, and I think it gives people a better idea of how it all works.

      There’s never any need to try to explain this someone who doesn’t want to hear it. Not everyone even wants to understand how stuff works on a mechanical level. And that’s ok, too. Everyone is exactly where they should be. πŸ™‚

      Thanks so much for your kind words.

      Huge hugs!

  • Hi Melody,

    You wrote, above: “for those who feel a resonance with [LOA], know there’s something there, and essentially would like to believe in it, but can’t make sense of some of the claims out there.”

    That “resonance” is what happened to me when I first came across Esther Hicks/Abraham’s blog, and it has been fortified with your blog posts.

    I started off as a good little Catholic girl who knew by the time I was in third grade that the RC religion was not for me. (The light bulb went fully on when the nuns handed out “indulgences” — prayers for us to say to reduce our years in purgatory. I figured that if the worst criminal could say these prayers often enough and get into heaven, something was seriously wrong with the system. I didn’t realize at the time that Martin Luther objected to the same thing back in the early 1500s when indulgences were sold in order to buy one’s ticket to heaven.)

    Anyway, the next step came in the ’70s, when I was in college and stumbled across a book on Theosophy. There was a tingle of recognition but not enough for me to hang onto.

    Then, a couple of years later, I happened upon Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich.” That book definitely pushed lots of resonance buttons, but it also talked about working hard and taking action. Since I tend to be the thoughtful, sedentary type (I do love to walk and swim, though at a leisurely pace!), Hill’s book didn’t quite do it for me. I wanted an easier way to manifestation/fulfillment. But I was getting closer. (I remember speaking excitedly to my Mom about Hill’s idea that Thoughts Are Things, that anything that manifests in this world begins as an idea. My Mom didn’t quite roll her eyes but she might as well have.)

    Finally, a couple of years ago, I hooked up with Esther Hicks’/Abraham’s blog and bells went off, loud glorious bells. This was the message that I’d been waiting to hear all my life. Recognition to the max. Resonance galore.

    (Nevertheless, there are questions that arise that are hard for me to answer, such as: If LOA is a constant, how does an innocent child become a victim of a predator? How does bad shit happen to good people? If a person is good, how did his/her vibration match up with something horrible?)

    Sorry to be so long-winded. What I REALLY wanted to say in this comment is how much I appreciate this post. I can’t wait to get to parts 2, 3 and 4. I too believe science (you say math? wow!) is on the verge of breaking LOA wide open and proving the theorem.

    So, excellent writing. Excellent logic. Excellent point of view. Love it.

    Here’s to letting in All Good Things.


    • Thanks so much Delving!

      Our paths are very similar. I started with Seth and really resonated with that message, but let it go for years, before coming back to it. When I found Abe, it still took years to really click (I remember the first time I heard their voice. It made me really uncomfortable, but I was fascinated at the same time. Their vibration was a bit too high for me then). But it was through them that everything finally clicked into place. I’ve had other teachers since, and have used various tools, but I still consider Abraham to be my most influential teacher.

      Thanks so much for your wonderful words. πŸ™‚

      Huge hugs!

  • A good start Melody at setting the stage for proving the LOA.

    I do admire your intelligence and look forward to an expanded perspective in your future articles. I promise I will be your No.1 critic and supporter because I am a scientist and someone who has worked with Eastern energy systems as a Chinese Medicine practitioner. My first degree was in Astrophysics where I got direct experience of working with Quantum Physics and Cosmology the two main creation theories in science. However I’m also experienced in energy systems that are founded on intent, especially Qigong, Taoism, Indian Vedic practices as well as Shamanistic practices. Evidence and Experience are not the only forms of ‘proof’. Education sits right between them, so well done for at least trying to educate people and unite the other two ways of of proving.

    Scientists don’t always come up with theories first. Sometimes evidence comes first and you have to try and make sense of it. Nothing is as disturbing as evidence which casts doubt on an existing theory. The biggest example of this is Quantum Physics. The complete opposite of this is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which was imagined first and proved later.

    So thinking does not always create reality if you are looking at how Quantum Theory emerged. The weird thing was that Quantum Theory showed that observation and the consciousness behind it seemed to collapse reality out of many possibilities into a set reality. Now that proves the LOA.

    The notion that scientists are dreamers first is not always true either. Again with Quantum Physics, its founders were incredible experimentalists, checking everything in reality rather than playing with mental visions. Einstein of course was a great thinker but not a great experimentalist which is why people are still trying to prove his theories. So much for thinking in advance.

    We have had more progress in reality with Quantum Physics than Relativity. Relying on the 100th Monkey effect you would think the world would be at Peace now but the fact is a small percentage of people affect the unfolding of our greater reality and we still have wars and dreadful economic screw ups as well as global levels of lack in wellbeing.

    The problem lies in the notion that its all down to one simple law. Now even the scientists have that belief, the idea of a unified field where its formula can be written on the back of a matchbox. Reality though is very different. In fact Imagination is very different too.

    There are dozens of laws that govern the material world. There seem to be dozens of laws that govern the non-material/spiritual world, of which the Law of Attraction is one, the Law of Intention being another. Are all these laws, material or spiritual, just variants of one another that people are rebranding to sell more books and DVD’s?

    In the past when there was a proliferation of laws it was because people understood the parts but nobody understood the whole. Electricity and Magnetism were found to be related and were unified into Electromagnetism. So what will the Law of Attraction and the Law of Intention look like when unified? What about all the other laws? What will we have when they are all unified?

    For answers to such things try reading

    Manifesting and De-Manifesting things is an Art and a Science. Perfecting the science leads you to become an artist. Getting more precise in your art leads you to become a scientist.

    Jazz Rasool.
    A mystic scientist

    • Hi Jazz!

      Welcome to Deliberate Receiving!!
      This is so awesome. I am NOT a scientist, so my explanations can only venture so far into that world. How awesome that you have showed up to fill the gap and offer a perspective from that vantage point. I really look forward to seeing more of what you have to share.

      You’re right – scientists don’t always come up with the theory first. As always, I’ve had to simplify my explanation a bit to make a point. But, we are all in this together (it’s the co-creation part that gets very complex, so that’s why I often simplify it a bit). One particular scientist may “stumble” upon a discovery without having first envisioned that result directly. But, that discovery is an answer to a question that was asked by someone, AND the discovering scientist had to have the ability to believe the discovery, or he would not have been able to make it. Just as I often answer questions that many people have asked without actually contacting me, at JUST the right time.

      We will always have extremes and everything in between. All experiences exist for us to choose from, all realities are possible. The goal is not to get everyone in the world to agree or to come into a peaceful state or any other state. The goal is for each individual to consciously align themselves with the reality of their choosing. For many that is peace, but true free will is dependent on every choice being valid, acceptable, and accessible. But just because war is available to choose on the buffet of life, doesn’t mean we have to choose it.

      Yes, there are dozens of laws if not more. I use the Law of Attraction as the umbrella term for these laws. I get that this is not optimal and if I ever find a better term, I will switch. So, for me, the Law of Intent, the Law of Allowing, etc, these all fall under the LOA. So, I talk about all of them here. Personally, I like seeing it as all one, big, beautiful flow. If others want to break it down, that’s ok for me, too. And I may choose to do so in the future. But right now, this feels right. So, I don’t think that it’s all just about like-attracts-like. There are many different aspects to what I consider to be LOA. We can use MANY different words to describe these aspects, can coin all kinds of terms and phrases and trademark different lists and whatnot, but that doesn’t change the core principles.

      I love how you describe it as an art AND a science. That’s perfect. It is not just a science, although you can approach it scientifically and logically. But that will only get you so far. Looking at is as an art form helps to get into the feeling place of it, but doing that alone can cause our logical minds to interfere. When we use both approaches simultaneously, we really get it.

      Thank you so much for being here. I manifested you, you know. :o)

      Huge hugs!


  • Hi Melody,
    This will be fun. I plan to stay turned. I know you will make your points logically and cogently. Winston Wu is an interesting fellow. Those guys with a marketing background are not timid about self promotion LOL. Hope all is well with you.

    • Hey Riley!

      Great to hear from you! I was so inspired by Winston’s questions. I like to think that the Universe kicked him until he contacted me, LOL.

      Things are fabulous as always. I hope you’re the same.

      Huge hugs!

  • Hi, Melody.

    Your blog got me thinking again, not so much about LOA but about believing versus proving. Personally I do not have the urge to prove anything at all. Mostly I just know in my heart if something is true or not. For me, of course. In fact, the urge to prove everything irritates me. (I am sure that says something about me as well). How do you prove that love exists, for instance? By dissecting everything until it is dead?

    This matter has fascinated me for a long time, actually since the early seventies, when I first got to read the books of Immanuel Velikovsky. I do not know if you know about him? He was a scholar and a scientist with a lot of very different ideas about a lot of things. It was not the things themselves so much that interested me, they may be true or they may not be. What interested me was the fact that nobody seemed to be able to prove that he was wrong and how they reacted to that.

    Just about everything was done to make this man’s life impossible, short of killing him. I read a lot of reactions from scientists to his work, which they had not read by the way (!) and what struck me was how vicious they were.

    I think that when you have invested everything you have at your disposal, both moneywise and what you know and believe, that your vision of the world as it is has to be true or you are going to be left with empty hands. Literally. And of course you will do everything what is in your power to prevent that.

    I have also discovered that science has dogma’s too, just like religions. When the idea of intelligent design came up for discussion, many scientists absolutely refused to even consider the idea that there might be such a thing, without even feeling the need to prove that! I actually heard an interview with one of them, who is a very amiable man, who suddenly turned quite vicious when it was even mentioned as a possibility.

    And as far as proof is concerned, I have seen or heard proofs that Jesus was a historical person and also that he did not exist. The people who presented these proofs genuinely believed that they were right. How much worth does such a proof have? Also lots of things that were considered proven in science, turned out to be only partly true if at all centuries later. Do not ask me to prove that, I do not have a head for science at all, but it does interest me when I hear something like that. I guess every world (and there are about seven billion of them, created by us) has its own truths. And they remain true until we decide otherwise. Each one for him or herself.



    • Hey Anny,

      I totally agree with you. Science and religion have a lot in common. And just with any subject, those who get the most offended and outraged are generally the most insecure. How can anyone ever really claim to know anything 100%? We are always discovering more, always learning new things, always gaining more clarity and new perspectives. All we have to do is look at history – the things we used to KNOW, unequivocally, often turned out to be total rubbish. How much of what we KNOW today will turn out to be BS? I used to work in technology. I found that generally, those techies that knew the most were the most humble. They never argued their point to the death, always left some wiggle room. Because just when you think you know everything, you get proven wrong. They knew so much that they understood and accepted that they would never know everything. It’s actually part of what kept them excited. I think it’s a sign of arrogance and to a certain extent ignorance to believe that we know everything. Ever. We never will! And for me, that’s part of what makes life so fun! We will never get bored, we will never run out of things to discover to learn to figure out. How fun is that?

      Huge hugs!

      • Actually it’s a lot of fun. I love playing ‘what if’ games. If there are no absolute truths, you do not have to be afraid of anything you come up with. If you do not like the result you come up with, you simply discard it and try something else again. And once you can solve a question like a mathematical equasion, you must have something worthwhile. I never thought I would think like that because I used to hate math! But I kind of discovered this principle by chance and now I love it.



        • Hey Anny,

          That’s just the perfect equation for loving life! πŸ™‚
          And I think a lot of people hate math because our school system failed to make it relevant. We should be teaching applied mathematics right from the start. πŸ™‚


  • Hi Melody, great post, i’m looking forward to read the following parts.
    The LOA definitely works, but we can chose to utilize it for an desired outcome, or we can define ourselves as victims of fate and circumstances, which will create accordingly results.

    Science is a great pastime, but only of limited use. We can’t prove the LOA with a scientific method, but neither can we prove love or any other feeling. The question is, are we yearning for love or for evidence of love?

    You probably know that bumblebees can’t fly. They just don’t generate enough lift to fly, it’s absolutely against the laws of aerodynamics. But they do fly, thus we have to bear in mind that science has its limits and is neither infallible nor the measure of all things.

    • Hey Brian,

      I love the bumblebee example. There are so many mysteries that science can’t explain. That doesn’t mean that they are not explicable, we just haven’t figured it out yet. I often think of how far we’ve come. When you go into museums, you see what we used to believe. I find it particularly interesting to look at how doctors used to treat people, etc. It was, by today’s standards, barbaric. Well, how could we possibly think that in another hundred or five hundred years, we won’t look back on 2012 and think “how ignorant and barbaric we used to be”. We don’t have it all figured out. The explanations for everything exist. We just have to discover them. πŸ™‚

      Huge hugs!

  • Hey Awesome Melody,

    At the end of your e-book you have beautifully mentioned:
    You are an infinitely powerful creative being. All you have to do is remember it. If any of this book has resonated with you, if you’ve felt a gut reaction, a rush of energy, that’s YOU, remembering who you really are. Give it a try. What have you got to lose?

    People who ask for proof will any which ways even after getting the proof will not bring the change πŸ™‚

    I know you will Rock in your next part when you will answer the questions! All the best!

    Huge Hugs & Love,

  • I really enjoyed this article, Melody – I think I’m one of the people it’s written for! Some days the LOA just plain makes sense to me – other days I’m more sceptical – I know I want to believe in it, but… as it is, I think I’m just open to the possibility that it might be the way things work and I’ll keep my mind open for evidence either way.

    Looking forward to the next instalment!



    • Hey Tanja,

      Welcome to Deliberate Receiving!

      We are all searching for our own truth. When something doesn’t makes sense to you, it’s simply because the aspect that you are looking at isn’t resonating with you. So, you keep searching until you find another piece that falls into place. What I’m hoping to do on this site is to provide an explanation of HOW LOA works, instead of just saying that it does. I’ve never responded well to the “just trust me” approach, and so I suppose I write for people who are like me – those who want to get into the nitty gritty, and actually need to, or they can’t accept it. But, as you said, a certain amount of open mindedness is a prerequisite. It sounds to me like you’re well on your way to finding your answers. πŸ™‚

      Huge hugs!

  • Hi Melody,

    I’m really looking forward to parts 2, 3, and 4! I wonder if his questions are the same as mine. I’m convinced about attracting positives, but less so on the negatives. Call me an optimist…

    I talk to people about LOA stuff, but I don’t call it LOA. For example, I was explaining to the mechanic why I wasn’t going to drive anymore. I didn’t say that worrying about maintaining a vehicle was lowering my vibration and I wanted to attract maximum tranquility into my life. Here’s the conversation. “I’m a really happy person.” (He nods.) “And I’m always wondering if something is going to go wrong with the truck.” (He nods, and his wife already gets it.) “I just don’t want that stress in my life any more.” (He nods again, and she’s grinning.)

    Since LOA makes sense, people get it when you talk about the results and leave the theorizing out. The key is, as Melody explains, to focus on the emotion, whether you’re asking for something or talking about your experience.

    Hugs and sweet dreams to all,

    Mary Carol

    • Hey Mary Carol,

      That’s the thing – TONS of people are talking about this in the science world, the business world, mathematics, you name it. They are simply using different words, but the core principles are the same. It’s like the same information is being communicated in different languages. Once I understood this stuff on a vibrational level, I could see it being replicated everywhere. And that makes sense. If LOA underlies everything, then every time that we observe that something works, it has to comply with LOA principles. Now, we may interpret those results with different words. The fallacy comes in when we observe something and draw conclusions based on false premises. Such as the world is flat, or that working hard will make you rich. Even though there is tons of evidence that disproves beliefs such as these, many people still hold on to them. Well, maybe not the world is flat anymore. πŸ˜‰

      Huge hugs!

    • Thanks Steve! Yeah, this was quite a project. But I had so much fun answering the Q’s. The tricky part was finding 4 images of Skeptical looking animals, LOL…

      I did! I cleared the rest of my inbox today and am setting new boundaries. More ideas are flooding in as we speak. :o)

      Huge hugs!

  • Isn’t science already starting to “prove” (for lack of a better word) that there is truth to the Law Of Attraction? Books like A Happy Pocketful of Money by David Cameron Gikandi, for one, go heavily into what quantum physics has discovered about how energy in the Universe works, including the energy of emotions/vibrations and thoughts. In fact, that book was the one that really got the former skeptic Bob Doyle starting to believe, wasn’t it?

    • Hey Kori,

      Welcome to Deliberate Receiving!

      Yes, science is starting to prove it, but any study that proves it can also be disproven with science and often is. So, if you believe, you cite the studies that show you are right and it you disbelieve, you cite your own studies. Both sides have valid data. In order for a belief to be accepted as fact by the general populace, enough people have to be willing to believe it. It’s like the 100th monkey experiment. When enough individuals (in the world, not just a location) come to “know” something, everyone else in the world has an easier time accepting it. We’re getting there.
      Love Bob Doyle, BTW.

      Huge hugs!

  • Hi Melody,
    I am really looking forward to your other parts of this blog, answering this man’s other questions!! Now you have me really interested with this one, I just can’t wait to read the rest of it.

    I am still new to the LOA, and after spending my entire adult life in a deep depression, I am finding that the friends I have made during this time in my life and even my family are not very accepting of my changes, even though it has been very obvious that I am healthier, both physically and emotionally. There is PROOF that I am getting better and better every day, but its not enough for some people!!

    Then, when something happens to me such as a flat tire or I get sick, these are the people that are very ready to suck me back into my ‘old way of thinking’. And, recently I didn’t even realize what was happening until I re-read this email I sent to a friend that was full of statements that would bring me the type of energy that I am trying so hard to stay away from!!

    Anyway, thank you for your blog and I really enjoy learning more and more every day from you!! You are amazing!!


    • Hey Leace,

      Your friends are like the people that didn’t believe Galileo. And you’re one of the people who were convinced he was right. They truly believe what they believe and you truly believe what you believe. It’s just that their belief is older and has a lot more momentum going and so that can make you feel a bit more insecure. Keep immersing yourself in material that makes you feel good. You have your proof. As long as you don’t need your proof to be their proof, you’ll be fine. πŸ™‚

      Huge hugs!

      • Thank you for the response Melody!!

        I really had to re-read the part where you wrote, “You have your proof. As long as you don’t need your proof to be their proof, you’ll be fine.” I had to re-read it a few times to let it sink in. I can see where that would make me slip and I don’t want that to happen!!

        Thanks again!!

  • Hi Melody,

    Well, as you mentioned in your post, us, the teachers of the law of attraction are seeing the LOA at work everyday, as for the skeptics ones. It will take them so time.

    I love the fact that you are taking some scientific evidence such as the earth being round. We know that when people of old who thought that way, they were considered crazy πŸ™‚ However, we know today who was really crazy πŸ™‚

    Without going that far down mankind history, only about 100 years ago, people in Sicily thought that the “virgin Mary” lived on the moon. Now would you have wanted to try to convince those people that the moon was just a satellite of the earth and if they’d only waited another 50 years they’ll see the first human being stepping on it? I know that would have been a tough one, don’t you think?

    The LOA is still very new for a lot of people out there, but it growing each and every day, and more and more people will start accepting it, just like they had to accept that the earth is round and that there is no virgin Mary on the moon πŸ™‚

    • Hey Sylviane,

      That’s what I keep thinking – at every stage in history, we were convinced that we KNEW how things were. And we were almost always wrong. We knew as much as we could handle, and when we could handle more, we knew more. So, the moon turned into a satellite of the earth, the earth became round and started revolving around the sun, people got sick because of germs instead of demons, etc. I marvel at what we might KNOW in the future – about ourselves and our world.

      Huge hugs!

  • Love your fearlessness Melody!
    I would say to anyone test it. Try it out for yourself. If you’re honest and sincere and willing and it still doesn’t work for you…so be it.
    In my experience the results are pretty consistent, I couldn’t claim they are one hundred percent, because I still experience what I term ‘operator error’ . The whole Universe is governed by laws…and we are no exception. πŸ™‚
    Encourage one another.

    • Hey Elle,

      I find the best posts are the ones that make me feel a bit nervous when I hit “Publish”. Those are the ones that get the best response and foster the most awesome discussions. πŸ™‚

      I love that “operator error”. That’s so spot on. I may have to steal that…

      Huge hugs!

  • I totally agree with you, Melody!

    I have met quite a few future physicists from one top university and I was very disappointed.

    There’s a thing that I’d like to call “scientific narrow-mindness”. It means that person isn’t willing to even consider that something that is not scientifically proven yet (YET being the key word) can’t possibly exist. The reason it drives me mad is that the underlying assumption behind that is “everything that can possibly be known about the world and the universe is known already”. When you say it like that,it’s clear to everyone that it’s absurd, but so many people take pride operating under this assumption.

    I love science. That doesn’t mean that science is always right, especially given it’s history, with major breakthroughs every few hundred years that basically prove existing theories wrong or open up a completely new perspective on something. Um, there was a time when brightest people in the world were convinced that Earth is flat. Now, every 5 year old know that the Earth is round. What guarantees do we have that scientific “truths” we have today are really true? None.

    “Before any scientist can prove a theory, he must first HAVE the theory, which is not yet proven. He must have an unproven thought and believe it to be possible. So, the possible theories that a scientist can come up with are going to be directly related to his ability to believe them” – EXACTLY, HOW DIFFICULT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, JESUS CHRIST?? πŸ˜€

    I mean, if there are two scientists and they both see a ghost, one who is scientific narrow-minded will think that it must be hallucinations, and the other who is open minded enough to assume that there’s a possibility that ghosts exists might investigate the event. Who’s more likely to get a Nobel prize, the one who thinks that everything is proven already, or the one who believes that there’s much more to life than we currently know?

    I honestly think that science would advance much faster if we would have more open-minded people there. Breakthroughs are made by crazy people.. πŸ™‚

    P.S. I’m sorry I’m a bit fired up about the topic, some personal stories behind that.. πŸ˜€

    P.P.S. That’s a bit offtopic.. I remember I wasn’t impressed when I find out that people who believe in God (I’m a Buddhist, so I don’t believe in God in that sense, so that’s not about religion, it’s about courage) and work in academic/scientific environment hide their belief, because they’re afraid that others will judge them and that will sabotage their career.. Yeah, look at what it did to Einstein, nobody remembers the poor guy now.. πŸ˜€

    • “Breakthroughs are made by crazy people.” Ahahahaha. So true!

      I totally agree Agota. The more visionary the thinker, the bigger their breakthroughs. Science would advance much faster if more scientists were bigger dreamers. Although, I think we’re doing fine as we are and there are many scientists out there now who are venturing into the impossible and proving it to be possible. It’s a lot to ask a scientist to go against the establishment. They are still shunned and lose their tenure, depending on where they work. Scientific peer communities are small and peer pressure can be powerful. It takes a great deal of courage and belief in one self to go against that. So, I don’t blame them. The fact that there are as many that are breaking out of that mold as there are, is miraculous. πŸ™‚

      I also think it’s sad that people have to hide their spirituality (or any other personal beliefs) in any environment. It makes me think of times when you had to hide that you had a black spouse or were Jewish. I would like to think that we’re more enlightened than that now, and I do my best to focus on those communities that are. πŸ™‚


  • Hi Melody
    Once again, an excellent post. Like you, I do not care to involve myself in discussions with people about LOA or other beliefs and opinions I hold unless there is some genuine interest and the conversation can lead to something productive. I too do not feel the need to convince people of my point of view or try to validate my own beliefs by trying to prove why someone else’s is wrong. I try to stick to high-energy interactions whenever possible. I think the main issue with people being open to LOA is an issue that is central to rejecting many things and not being open to them — not being able to prove it or it not making sense logically. Since we are conditioned to think in that mode, I get the reaction. For me, experience is ”proof” and from what I have witnessed in my own life, no one would ever be able to convince me that our thoughts and feelings do not impact our reality for better or worse! I look forward to the upcoming posts dissecting the questions!

    • Hey Kelli,

      Awesome point. This is why I likened it to trying to convince someone of the existence of God. I’ve also had way too many experiences to count that prove to me that LOA works the way that I understand it to. But experiences are not transferable. We will have to reach critical mass (the 100th monkey experiment) before a lab test can be replicated in a way that anyone will see it. πŸ™‚

      Huge hugs!

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

    access teh free video course now:

    are you a spiritual gladiator?

    Find out why you've always been different, why life seems to painful to you, and why you're actually incredibly important.