Author of The Bond explains how our scientific understanding of human connection leads to spirituality.

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Lynne McTaggart best-selling author of, The Bond.  During the interview Ms. Mc Taggart discusses how science can give us a greater understanding of the spiritual:

Alex Tsakiris: On Skeptiko we’ve found that a deep examination of many of scientific questions quickly leads to questions of the spiritual. Questions of God, questions of the afterlife, questions about the meaning of consciousness. You don’t seem to go there very much. Why not?

Lynne McTaggart: Because I wanted to argue in terms of science. I wanted to say we’re operating against nature. We’re operating against science, emerging science that is coming to the fore. I believe the science—I always look at scientific elements and I sit probably where science and spirituality meet because the science that I write about is very spiritual in a way.

If you want to look at it this way, I’m just simply looking at it from the point of view of saying we’ve been living against nature. We’ve been living according to the wrong story and that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in.


Alex Tsakiris: When we enter into the materialistic, atheistic, science game that’s been dictated and then we find that it no longer holds together, I think it behooves us to take a step back and re-examine things.  For example, you make a good case for the science interconnectedness, not just at a  subatomic level, but at a level we can feel and experience.  Don’t we then need to look our great wisdom traditions and notice that they’ve been saying the same thing all along?


Lynne McTaggart: I think that’s what my books try to do all the time. They just provide the scientific basis for what spiritual traditions have been saying for centuries. In a sense, my books are always the science of religion. And yes, we have to understand. You have to take it back to the whole idea of unity infusing everything that we are and everything that we do. That’s a very spiritual idea.

Lynne Mc Taggart’s Website

Play it:


Download MP3 (40:00 min.)

Read it:

Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome journalist, part-time consciousness researcher, and multiple best-selling author, Lynne McTaggart to Skeptiko.

Lynne, thanks so much for joining me today.

Lynne McTaggart: Thank you. It’s great to be with you, Alex.

Alex Tsakiris: Well, your new book, The Bond: Connecting Through the Space Between Us, explores our inner connectedness from a scientific perspective. What was the most surprising finding in your research for the book?

Lynne McTaggart: I think probably the most surprising finding was—I mean, there were so many surprising findings, I have to say. I think it was fascinating to me to see really how interconnected on a macro scale we were. I was really interested and surprised to see that all of the information that the evolutionary biologists give us about how we were born to be selfish and that even our genes are selfish, is wrong.

I mean, we were born to be highly cooperative. We were born to share, care, and be fair. It’s hard-wired in us. It’s stronger than any kind of sense of selfishness, and in fact, selfishness is a result of pathology and faulty thinking. It’s a result of a wrong narrative, a narrative we’ve told ourselves based on scientific evidence from before that’s now being revised.

Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, there’s a couple of interesting things to pull apart there. I think you certainly make a strong case for a misinterpretation of Darwinism and the Neo-Darwinist kind of tangent that we’ve kind of gone off on. Let’s just dig into that for a minute. One of the things I guess I’d go back to is is that really such a surprise that that is not true? And have we known that for a while?

One thing I found interesting from a previous guest that we had on and she made this great analogy and she said as soon as we got to cell biology we kind of knew that the Darwin thing didn’t really work out because we looked at our body and we saw all these competing organisms and systems and bacteria and protein that on one level are competing and on another level are completely symbiotic and cooperating. So haven’t we really known for a long time that Darwinism in its simplest form doesn’t really add up?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, yeah. We should have known it. But we have in that time that we discovered all of the things about cells, we’ve also had the evolutionary biologists continuing to maintain that selfishness and a drive to domination powers the body and in fact, powers all of evolution. On a bigger scale, we still thought that that fit, and we still do because now even scientists saying, “Oh, actually groups cooperate and that’s how that gets them to survive.”

What they mean by that is that well, groups cooperate within the group. The individuals within the group cooperate but they compete against other groups and the fittest ones survive. So it’s still based on this competition, fighting, survival of the fittest model. And it is that that I believe is wrong and in fact, even Darwin came to understand that evolution was a process of cooperation much more than he had earlier believed.

Alex Tsakiris: Right, right. So they still want to back-door in, giving ground here but coming in on another front saying, “No, no, survival of the fittest is still really there.”

One of the things I really liked about the book, The Bond, is that you approach this topic not just scientifically but also from the cultural, social aspect of it, which is a must because that’s what we’re talking about here. One of the points of history that I think you draw out really nicely is that from the very beginning, the whole Darwin thing was just as much about politics and about a tool for the empire-builders that fit with their agenda and that’s why it was advanced the way that it was. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?

Lynne McTaggart: Absolutely. I think it’s important to understand that Darwin never coined the term “the survival of the fittest.” That was one of his friends and it fit nicely with burgeoning Capitalism. It view nicely with the view of Adam Smith that had really driven the Industrial Revolution and burgeoning Capitalism. He helped society most by looking out for #1. That was the mindset and the thinking and that thinking has carried on.

Darwinism also justified a lot of political movements that would whiten certain Latin American stock and other things where one race was trying to prevail over another. The thinking was, well, it’s only survival of the fittest. And of course it’s come to justify all sorts of things, from corporate cheating to sociopathic behavior. The guys who sauntered into Columbine High School and blew away their classmates with semi-automatic rifles were wearing a t-shirt that said, “Natural Selection.”

So this is the mindset that we started with and we’re seeing now in all of the crises we have now the end point of this mindset. This is what selfishness looks like. It ultimately comes to a point where all of the systems collapse, and that’s exactly what’s going on now.

Alex Tsakiris: Boy, that’s a really interesting topic that I want to get into. I just want to do it in a minute because I think we’ll get off on a whole different tangent. Instead, I want to bring you back to a related question and that is, okay, so you make this wonderful case and use Darwin and his “science” as an example of that. Why do you think things are different now? Or things are ripe for change now?

Lynne McTaggart: Because we’ve gotten to the point of the end-stage of this mindset, as I’ve just mentioned. We’ve gotten to the point where things aren’t working anymore. We’ve evolved in a sense, using this mindset to a place where we’re eating our own children. We are full of crises, financial crises, ecological crises, extreme weather as a result, a sovereign debt crises, and terrorist crises. All of these crises are really the outgrowth of this kind of mindset, if you really examine them.

And so we’re ripe for change now because our narrative, the scientific story by which we live—and lots of things write the narrative that we live by, but science writes the biggest portion of it. That narrative is now out-of-date from what we understand we are now. The new science coming along demonstrates that we were never meant to be so competitive. We were never meant to and never really do have survival of the fittest.

It’s all about cooperation and we were designed and programmed to cooperate, to come together to be part of a bigger whole. And when we do, we work well and we survive and thrive. When we don’t, as we’re doing now to an extreme degree, we get into trouble. We’re weak.

Alex Tsakiris: But don’t we run a risk? I mean, I hear all that on one level and I’m nodding my head. But on another level, aren’t we straying a little bit from the science when we try and apply these big picture ideas to a very narrow ethnocentric and time-centric view of things? If we lived in one of the other cultures that we co-exist with right now, we might not see an end-time scenario.

If you lived in Haiti, your end-time happened what, seven or eight years ago when the earthquake struck. Or if you lived in China you might be going through the greatest period of growth and prosperity in the memory of you or your most recent generation. So don’t we have to be careful about not applying too much of our stuff of what’s immediately going on with these bigger scientific issues?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, not necessarily, because I’m talking about Western culture. Actually, China will get there. China will have the same situations that we have, but later. It’s going through a tremendous growth. It will all collapse when you have that kind of mindset.

Alex Tsakiris: It’s all collapsed so many times in the past. When we go back–and that’s the beauty of history—we can go back and look at all the rises and collapses and the rises and collapses.

Lynne McTaggart: Sure. But what I’m saying is that we’ve reached a real end-point. If we just look at America, America is in a place that is so extreme there is no society anymore. There’s no government anymore. The government is gridlocked now because of enormous polarization because there is no consideration for the whole. There’s only consideration for the individuals who get elected. They’re two opposing teams that are constantly battling and no one’s getting anywhere.

This society now has totally broken down. There are no neighborhoods. The fastest growing community in America is the gated community, to lock out outsiders and to stay with people who are just like the people who live there. There is a refusal to pay for public good things so most states are now broke. There’s no infrastructure left. There are poor education models.

Of every Western country, even though America is the richest country, it’s got the worst social indicators on every kind of level. From health care and mental health to crime and violence to education, you name it, it has a disaster there. It’s in a much worse depression than the rest of the West.

And I believe it has to do with this very extreme individualism that was promoted in America that isn’t true, isn’t really part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It’s a misreading of our background and it’s an end-point of this kind of belief system that has believed and understood that we’re individual and that those individual things thrive only through competition. So this is what it looks like now.

Alex Tsakiris: So I’m with you. I’m with you on a lot of that in terms of the problem. I’m with you on terms of an understanding of the underlying cause. I’m not with you—and I think this is what kind of drives a lot of people nuts on the other side of this debate and I understand even if I don’t agree with the Atheist skeptical materialist kind of viewpoint.

I do appreciate some of their skepticism when they say, “Hey, wait a minute. You may have some opinions there, Lynn, but you haven’t made a case for really tying that back to quantum mechanics. Haven’t you really taken some leaps there and used science as a springboard to take you in places that you might want to go politically or socially? It doesn’t really tie back to the science.”

Lynne McTaggart: Okay. Let’s start looking at the science, Alex, because I didn’t just talk about quantum physics in this book. I went through biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology.

My argument at the quantum level was simply this: we start on the fundamental premise that the world is populated by things. We are just another thing. We’re separate and self-contained. So in order to say the world is populated by things we have to look for the smallest thing out of which everything else derives. That’s what science tends to do. And when they look and look and look, the more they look the more they find smaller things, more complicated sub-atomic particles, a whole alphabet soup of them.

But when they finally really get right down to it, a sub-atomic particle isn’t a thing at all. It’s a relationship. It’s a bond. It’s a connected batch of energy that connects with other energy and is constantly trading places. If you imagine me juggling right now, you get some sort of idea about what sub-atomic particles do. They send energy back and forth like an endless game of tennis with each other, and also with the background and underlying quantum field.

So on that tiny micro level you’ve got the basic unit of the world is not a thing. It’s a relationship. And the argument in my book is that that is mimicked throughout nature. So when you look at our bodies for instance, which we think is the biggest evidence of our own individuality, what you see and what we think it is is a thing driven by its own blueprint DNA.

But we now realize that DNA is like the keys of a piano. They get played or not according to environmental influences. Influences outside our bodies. So the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the sum total of everything in our lives, including our relationships, all of those determine whether certain genes are going to get expressed or not. So we are not an individual thing. We’re the end-product of a relationship with our environment. If we had a change of environment we’d be very, very different people. So I’m saying that that’s a bond.

And then you go into the effect we have by planetary influence. There’s a huge amount of evidence—and this is not woo-woo astrology. This is hard science coming from places like the University of Minnesota that demonstrates that our biology, even some of our motivation, is affected by solar activity. Now again, this suggests we’ve got this giant intergalactic bond. And not only the sun but the geomagnetic activity of all the different planets.

And finally when you look at things like just our thoughts, again we think our thoughts are wholly individual, but now with the discovery of mirror neurons we understand others’ activities. Their movements and also their emotions by mentally simulating it ourselves. So our thought processes are a mix, a brew of us and all of the thoughts and neural activity of everyone we come into contact with.

So my big argument here is that on every level we are interconnected. We are connected so deeply that there’s a bond which is beyond the connection. It’s something so intrinsic, so connected, so integral to our nature that we can’t say where one thing ends and another thing begins. So that’s all through nature. That drive for wholeness, that interconnection.

And it’s also in our social behavior. We have a drive for wholeness. We’ve been hard-wired to connect with others. So it’s very different. What I’m talking about is nature’s basic drive is not competition but connection and a will to wholeness.

Alex Tsakiris: You make the argument; I’m persuaded. I believe you. I’m on your side. At least at this point. I guess I’m coming at it from a slightly different angle because to me, the question I walk away with is then why are we in the situation that we’re in? Why hasn’t it changed? And I want to refine that a little bit because I’ve hit it a couple of times. I’d suggest to you that the data, the science, doesn’t really matter. It’s a game; we’re being manipulated to a certain extent. That part, I think, is really more interesting because I think it really gets to how we might change and how the change has to come.

Recently we had Deborah Blum on Skeptiko and she has written a fantastic book a couple of years ago exploring the turn of the 20th century, early 1900s scientists like William James and all the great thinkers of the time who were aware and coming to a new understanding along the lines that you’re talking about.

But of course we know because we live in this age that their ideas were defeated by the empire-builders. By the people who like the game the way that it is. They didn’t lose because they didn’t have good data. They didn’t lose because they weren’t brilliant scientists. They lost because the other guys who like the game the way that it is kept playing the game.

If you look and if you ask most people, “Have we advanced since 1903 or whatever to today,” most people will go, “Oh, yeah. Look at my iPhone. Look at my iPod. Look at my wealth. Look at all the rest of this.” So the question is do we really want the kind of change you’re talking about?

We might feel the pain right now of the threat of terrorism or the financial collapse or whatever problem is right now of the moment, but do we really want to give that up? Don’t we like the game that the empire-builders, the materialists, the “scientists” have created for us?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, let me put it this way. We might on a certain level. We have certain material things. Some of us have certain material things, but let’s look at the statistics in America. One in 39 people is a millionaire but 39 million people, which is 1 in 7 live below the poverty line. So not everybody has fun time with iPods, etc. We’re at our most unfair in history.

And I think that when you have a situation like this, as the scientists have shown, it’s hard-wired into us to be fair. It’s hard-wired into us to want to give and to share. It’s there. It’s in our basic makeup. We feel as good about giving to other people and sharing as we do about eating and having sex. I mean caring for strangers, as well. It’s just in there. And we also feel acutely when things are unfair. We need to have things to be fair. We have an “It’s Not Fair” button in our brains that fires if we take too much or we’re given too little.

Alex Tsakiris: But hold on, hold on one second. Let me just interject here because I’m with you again but let’s also get real. You live a very nice, prosperous life, a comfortable life there in London. I live a fantastically wonderful, prosperous life here in San Diego. I can drive 35 miles south, cross the border into Tijuana and just be overwhelmed with the poverty and the lack. Yet I drive back over the border after I do my little volunteer work and I put my head on the pillow and I sleep and I wake up the next day and I continue my life.

Am I really willing to change? And I think that’s at the core of this question that we have. We can wrap it around science and oh gosh darn, that Richard Dawkins and all the rest. We like the system we have. We are not willing to give up. What are we willing to give up? Am I willing to give up my prosperous…

Lynne McTaggart: Okay, Alex, here’s the deal. We like the system we had. Had. Our system is collapsing right now…

Alex Tsakiris: No, you can’t say that. The only reason we don’t like it is because of Enron and the financial collapse. Otherwise, everything’s okay.

Lynne McTaggart: Well, maybe we would have liked it. However, I was just in America. I just arrived back today and there were so many natural disasters over the past six weeks when I was back and forth in the States. I was just shocked. And it’s all having to do with huge climate changes. Everybody predicted there was going to be much more extreme weather and it’s going to get worse. So we might think, Oh, this is just a blip. It’s not a blip. This is also part of this mindset that doesn’t look to the whole, that just looks to the individual eye. Everybody loses. And that’s the big message of my book.

Alex Tsakiris: Yeah, and I guess that was my argument back to you is that I think it’s an illusion to think that we were better at any time. I think it’s an illusion to see the mess that we’re in right now as temporary as if we could fix it by getting more oil or the rest of that. I think you’re coming from kind of the same place. So let me take this in a slightly different direction.

On Skeptiko we’ve found over the many, many interviews we’ve had with some of the leading authorities on these topics that are on the edge of the scientific frontier that a deep examination of these questions really very quickly brings you to questions of the spiritual, really. Questions of God, of the afterlife, of what this consciousness that we have really is and really means. You don’t seem to go there very much. I guess my first question is why? Is there some reason why you don’t put those questions more front and center?

Lynne McTaggart: Yeah. Because I wanted to argue basically in terms of science. I wanted to say we’re operating against nature. We’re operating against science, emerging science that is coming to the fore. I believe the science—I always look at scientific elements and I sit probably where science and spirituality meet because the science that I write about is very spiritual in a way.

If you want to look at it this way, I’m just simply looking at it from the point of view of saying we’ve been living against nature. We’ve been living according to the wrong story and that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. If we understand about nature’s drive to wholeness and we retrain ourselves in a number of very important ways, we can recover the bond. And if we don’t, we can expect more and more calamities.

If we continue to reinspect differences more tightly, the way we are now, and “ashemize” more and more, which is the way I put it, we’re going to continue to see the kind of stuff that we’re doing. Or we can move in the opposite direction. I think we’re at a very critical point. So I tend to always argue for the people who need science and need backing up and need evidence. So just in staying with the science I can make my case.

Alex Tsakiris: That’s wonderful. I just think we have to again look at science as a whole. When we enter into the materialistic, Atheistic, science game that’s been dictated and then we find that it no longer holds together, I think it kind of behooves us to take a step back and relook at it. I mean, take this for example. The book, The Bond. Interconnectedness. And you say, “Wow, the science is very solid.” And you break a very good case for the science being very solid for proving this interconnectedness–not just at a very, very subatomic level but at a level we can feel and experience.

But then we have to go look at our great wisdom traditions and say, “Oh wow, they’ve been saying that all along.” And they’ve been saying that all along not just in one culture and at one time but throughout time and throughout cultures. Don’t we have to work that back into the mix and take a fresh look at God, at religion, at spirituality in its broadest sense and bring that back into the conversation? Can we really play along with the old game of saying, “No, there’s science over here and there’s spirituality over here.”

Lynne McTaggart: No, Alex. I think that’s what my books try to do all the time. They just provide the scientific basis for what spiritual traditions have been saying for centuries. In a sense, my books are always the science of religion. And yes, we have to understand. You have to take it back to the whole idea of unity infusing everything that we are and everything that we do. That’s a very spiritual idea.

So is the Zero Point field, which I wrote about in The Field. You can call it Grace or the Holy Ghost or you can call it the Zero Point field. It’s kind of a similar idea of the all-in-one or Spirit. It’s pretty much the same. But as I say, I think the reason why my stuff’s so popular is that the Western mind likes proof and so my books tend to provide proof for the great spiritual traditions.

Alex Tsakiris: Your books are very popular and that’s certainly encouraging for all of us to think that this message presented in the way that you do resonates with so many people. I think you’re right. I think it’s a wonderful pathway, doorway into this topic. At the same time, I want to challenge you a little bit and push this issue just a tiny bit more because I think that the most interesting questions that we have lie right beyond that little edge that you’re pushing us up to.

I’ll give you an example from your latest book, The Bond. When you talk about, as you were mentioning before, the scientific evidence that the sun and its activity may have a real, measurable biological effect on us and may affect our behavior, one of the examples you use of that is the Son of Sam murders back in the 60s. You point out that they were done on moon cycles and at the same time, this is just a little tidbit that I want to go so much further with is you also point out as Maury Terry has done in his book that these murders are really linked to a Satanic cult and probably Berkowitz was just one of the murderers. A whole different story.

But here’s the question. What about Satan? Is Satan real? What about evil? Does evil exist? These are the questions I think that lie just beyond the next hill. Once we say, “Okay, we really are connected. There really is something called consciousness that exists separate from this biological unit that we are.” How do we get to those questions if we keep playing science’s game? If we keep arguing with Richard Dawkins over this stupid, idiotic Neo-Darwinism? Can we ever really try and answer the more important, profound questions?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, I’d like to think that the last part of my book, The Bond, tries to look at some of that by saying how can we recover this? If we were meant to be this way, how come we aren’t this way? I think the answer is yes, there is evil in the world, but is it inborn in people? I personally don’t believe that. I believe that we’re talking about wounded people and maybe wounded in an earlier life, but wounded nonetheless. And usually when you find psychotic people you don’t have to look too far to see what happened to them in their lives to produce that.

So what I’m really talking about, and there’s a big section in The Bond about forgiveness and how forgiveness is a breaking of this connection that exists with all of us on a deep level. When there’s wrongdoing in some way it’s a breaking of that connection and that people have been healed by a deep truth-telling, which I talk about in the book. But I think the bigger issue that you’re really addressing, Alex, and I think is a wonderful question, is how come we act like we act when we are supposed to be so interconnected?

The answer is because we’ve been living a lie. We’ve been living against nature. We’ve been living in such an individualistic fashion that we don’t learn how to connect with the whole; we don’t learn how to see the whole. We don’t  learn how to put relationships first. We don’t learn how to have a larger view of self-interest. So this ends up in problems big and small. It ends up in transgressions large and small, whether it’s psychotic behavior or it’s just being selfish and saying, “What’s in it for me?” Which is what we do.

So that’s why I’ve tried to provide in my book a blueprint in the last third of the book of the four things I think are necessary to retrain ourselves in in order to recover the bond. That has tried to move well beyond are we talking Neo-Darwinism or whatever to saying this mindset is affecting every layer of our society. If we are going to move forward we have to do this.

Alex Tsakiris: The book is quite fascinating. It’s really packed with a lot of science that will really provoke anyone to think in these directions. I know that the book has done very well. What are your immediate plans with the book? What comes after The Bond?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, right now I’m really getting the message out but I’m also working with groups like The Unity Church and a number of other groups like that. One of the things I’ve talked about in the book is the power of small groups to re-establish community. Our communities have really broken down now and everybody is so polarized in America and many places in the West, but particularly in America.

One of the things that I talked about was superordinate goals. The best way of understanding them is one of the most beloved psychological studies called “The Robert’s Cape Experiment.” In this experiment, some psychologists sent a batch of 12-year-old boys to summer camp. Now, they were psychologists disguised as camp counselors in the days before informed consent. And the boys were sent into separate buses and they were encouraged to create separate identities.

So they became The Rattlers as one group, the Eagles were another group. They had their own flags, their own living quarters, and they were engaged in highly, highly competitive games. After a while, the psychologists didn’t have to set up competitions. The boys were killing each other. They were beating each other up and ripping each other’s flags and stealing each other’s prizes.

So then the psychologists created a series of crises in the camp that could only be sorted by the collective efforts of everyone involved. So the boys, after a while, when they had to work together to remove an impediment from the water supply and pull a truck out of a ditch, they began to hang out together. They began to eat together. Then they befriended each other. Finally, at the very end, they unanimously voted to travel home on the same bus.

It’s called a superordinate goal which means a goal that can only be achieved by the collective efforts of everyone involved. It’s been shown in so many different ways to bring people who are different, who despise each other, who are distrustful of each other, to bring them together and to get them to be close.

There’s a very good reason for this. People engaged in this kind of common purpose, the science shows their brains start resonating and synchroning. And also their pain thresholds increase. There’s been a study of Oxford rowers that shows that when they row together they have a higher pain threshold than when they’re rowing alone. So working together raises everybody’s game.

One of the things you’ve asked what I’m doing, I’m helping a lot of groups with information about how to work together as a group. How to recover things. How to create a generosity as the currency in your area, not greed. I believe that the real recovery of America is going to happen from the bottom up, with these little groups rather than anything from the top down. It’s not working. And also where it’s highly corrupt.

Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. I agree with you. I agree with you on all counts there. I guess I can’t wrap things up without interjecting—it reminds me of back in my business days as an entrepreneur. It used to always drive me nuts when I heard this kind of New Ageish, Do what you love and the money will follow kind of thing. It used to drive me nuts because it’s just total crap. You can’t do what you love and the money will follow. You have to be mindful. If you want money then you have to organize your goals towards having money.

Otherwise, what’s truer is to say, “Do what you love and then you will have love.” Which is a great thing, so why don’t we just stop and stay there? I see a similar connection here that I think is—I can’t buy into it. We should cooperate. We should form community. Not to recover from our current economic ills because if they went away tomorrow, we’d still be suffering in all these other ways. We should do it for a deeper, spiritual reason because it taps into a deeper truth about who we are. That, I guess, is one thing I would pull back on a little bit in The Bond. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Lynne McTaggart: Well, I’m not suggesting we’re going to recover our economic model by carrying on the bond. That wasn’t the purpose of it. I just want to make that clear. I’m not interested in recovering the old economic model. I think it’s a model that was a mistake. I’m interested in creating community and connectedness and bringing people together as a whole. And bringing America back together. I think by creating strong communities that are interconnected, where people care about each other, then you have something there. You know? I’m not interested in more stuff out in the front yard.

Alex Tsakiris:   [Laughs] Very good. Well, Lynn, we certainly wish you the very best with that. It’s a very, very noble and important goal. So please, please push forward with that. Thank you so much for joining me today on Skeptiko.

Lynne McTaggart: Thank you, Alex. I’ll just let everybody know if they want more information to come to my website, which is where they’ll also get some information about a new campaign I’ve got called “The Fairness Campaign,” which is trying to introduce fairness back into America.

Alex Tsakiris: Super. And we’ll make sure to link those up on the Skeptiko website.

Lynne McTaggart: Great.