Daniel Gontijo and ex-spiritists

Daniel Gontijo, materialist and atheist, on his YouTube channel, entitled “Prof. Daniel Gontijo”, chose to highlight very superficial analyzes of Spiritism, a philosophical science that, unfortunately, he doesn't know. To do this, it forms a quorum with “ex-spiritists”, people who also do not know Spiritism, and ends up issuing or echoing opinions that end up reflecting a false idea of the Spiritist Doctrine, based on opinions gathered from the surface of reflections that, unfortunately, the Spiritist Movement produces.

Daniel Gontijo has a degree in Psychology from FUMEC University (2009), as well as a master's degree (2013) and doctorate (2019) in Neurosciences from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). Despite so many titles, he acts in a manner that is absolutely contrary to that of a good researcher, who only issues an opinion after trying to get to know the subject very well, something he has never done (he himself says, in his videos: “I remember something like that, because A certain person once said that there is something more or less like this in one of the Spiritist Magazines”).

Because, in good logic, criticism only has value when the critic is knowledgeable about what he is talking about. Mocking something you don't know, that you haven't probed with the scalpel of a conscientious observer, isn't criticizing, it's showing levity and a sad display of lack of criteria.

KARDEC, Allan. The Spirits' Book

However, it is far from my intentions to create an image of a malicious executioner. No, on the contrary: Daniel appears to be a happy and affable person. This, however, is what seems most incongruous to me, because, from this lightness, the necessary task of a good researcher, who investigates everything, analyzes everything, does not come from this lightness, in order to then be able to express an opinion. Unfortunately, with the support of the opinion of people who never got to know true Spiritism, it is based on the errors of the Spiritist Movement to judge Spiritism, just as many, lightly, judge Jesus for the absurdities done in his name.

It's interesting to note that Daniel graduated in Psychology, first of all. Has he never heard or read that the Revista Espírita carries the subtitle “Journal of psychological studies” on its cover? And, if you saw it, were you not interested for a moment in knowing why it was called?

Certainly, Daniel Gontijo does not know that Psychology, in Kardec's time, was included under the studies of Rational Spiritualism, in the grid of moral sciences of French teaching (which spread throughout the world): for this, it would be necessary to read Autonomy: the never told story of Spiritism, by Paulo Henrique de Figueiredo. He probably does not know the history of the development of these sciences through rational observation, culminating in the rational conclusion that Will is the essential attribute of the soul. Much less should you know that, long before Kardec began investigating spiritist science, researchers linked to animal magnetism and Rational Spiritualism have already collected, in certain studies with people in an induced hypnotic trance, hundreds of “letters” attributed to other deceased personalities, giving details confirmed by family members who are still alive:

“The magnetizers proved very early on the relationships of somnambulists with invisible beings. Deleuze, a disciple of Mesmer, in his correspondence maintained with doctor GP Billot for more than four years, from March 1829 to August 1833, was initially reluctant, but finally affirmed: “Magnetism demonstrates the spirituality of the soul and its immortality; it proves the possibility of communication between intelligences separated from matter and those still connected to them.” (BILLOT, 1839)”

In turn, Deleuze stated: “I see no reason to deny the possibility of the appearance of people who, having left this life, take care of those they loved here and come to manifest themselves to them, to give them salutary advice. I just had an example of this.” (Ibid.)

It was with these words that Deleuze introduced the narration of the case of a sleepwalker whose deceased father spoke twice in order to advise her on choosing the young woman's future husband. In his Critical History, he had already written: “All somnambulists, left free in a trance, say they are enlightened and assisted by a being that is unknown to them.” (DELEUZE, 1813) In turn, Billot declared that he received instructions from superior spirits, through those magnetized in a somnambulistic trance, in his research.

The topic of communication with spirits became part of the discussions of magnetizers and the pages of their periodicals. A study of the works of Chardel, Charpignon, Ricard, Teste and Aubin Gauthier reveals several descriptions of experimental phenomena that reveal communication between the living and the disembodied.

Years later, the magnetizer Louis Alphonse Cahagnet (1809-1885), with courage and determination, spoke to the spirits through his ecstatic somnambulists, mainly Adèle Maginot, recording in his work more than one hundred and fifty minutes signed by witnesses who recognized the identity of the communicating spirits. Cahagnet anticipated this spiritist science research instrument by more than ten years. For Gabriel Delanne, “This worker was a superb fighter, who had the glory of doing what he was: one of the pioneers of truth.” (DELLANE, 1899)

FIGUEIREDO, Paulo Henrique de. Autonomy: the untold story of Spiritism

Certainly, Daniel also does not know the facts that led Psychology to leave Rational Spiritualism and organize itself under dogmatic materialism, full of categorical and unscientific statements! He certainly still does not know the facts that led Comte to become Victor Cousin's enemy, having then achieved what he wanted so much: affirming his dogmas, after the forced fall of Rational Spiritualism. For him, Daniel, today it may be unreasonable to even imagine the existence of Rational Spiritualism, but it existed. I say more: it paved the way for Spiritism, which is its development, formed through the most basic characteristics of science — rational observation — and the scientific axiom — every effect has a cause and every intelligent effect has an intelligent cause (remaining to know which cause it is this, with fraud even being possible and investigated).

If you had studied the Spiritist Magazines, even if you were to conclude otherwise (since, in science, people can reach different conclusions or theories), you would see that, of all the possible disagreements, one cannot affirm the work of the Parisian Society of Spiritist Studies , led by Allan Kardec, as something shallow, without seriousness or without scientific methodology. Much less could it be said that Kardec was naive or foolish, but quite the opposite: he would see all of Kardec's careful considerations in this regard, something, in fact, that no one else after him knew how to do:

Undoubtedly, say some contradictors, you were imbued with such ideas and that's why the spirits agreed with your way of seeing. It is an error which proves, once again, the danger of hasty and unexamined judgments. If, before judging, such people had taken the trouble to read what we wrote about Spiritism, they would have spared themselves the trouble of such a frivolous objection. Therefore, we will repeat what we have already said about it, that is, that when the doctrine of reincarnation was taught to us by the Spirits, it was so far from our thinking that we had built a completely different system on the antecedents of the soul, a system shared by the by many people. On this point, the doctrine of the Spirits surprised us. We'll say more: it antagonized us, because it overthrew our own ideas. As you can see, it was far from a reflection of them.

This is not all. We don't give in to the first shock. We fight; we defend our opinion; we raise objections and only surrender in the face of evidence and when we realize the inadequacy of our system to resolve all issues relating to this problem.

KARDEC, Allan. Spiritist Magazine of November 1858.

I close with the big question: does Daniel Gontijo have this desire to know what he doesn't know, even if he ends up concluding in a divergent way? Or will it continue to show “proof of levity and a sad display of lack of judgment”? We'll see.

I did a video analysis of the channel's last case and its response to my video. You can check:

Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/pt-br/foto/adulto-conselhos-orientacoes-assistencia-4100672/