

Friend of Gaia

We're more connected than you think

Cristóbal Ambiente
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Introduction

WHO IS GAIA?

Gaia Throughout the Ages

Gaia and Religion

Gaia Hypothesis and Science

HOW CAN WE HELP GAIA?

Connecting with Gaia

What's next for Gaia?

Now that you know, what will you do?

Further Reading

Copyright © 2018 by Cristóbal Ambiente.

All rights reserved except as follows. Minimal quotes from this text may be used in other print or digital publications provided that the book title and author's name are cited. Otherwise, no part of this book's text may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without written permission from the publisher (permissions@mindfulservices.org).

Published by:

Mindful Services, LLC

DISCLAIMER: The author and publisher hold zero liability for your use of this book and the information within.

# Foreword

I have about a dozen other projects going on as I write this. However, I'm setting everything aside for now to focus fully on this project because it's that important. I'm usually the kind of person to juggle multiple writing projects all the while knowing full-well that not all of them will make it to the finish line (trusting the Universe will push that the right ones through). This book is different. It really must make it to the finish line...and as quickly as possible.

I could start out by telling you that our planet is in crisis. I could rattle off (and provide citations off the top of my head) lots of facts and figures about the sad state of our environment, the major global environmental threats, and the possible solutions. I'm not going to do that — not exactly, anyway. If you're paying attention, you already know the deal with our environment. Chances are you care a lot about the Earth. I doubt you would have opened this book otherwise.

Instead I'm going to share my story with you and explain the very real connection that I (and probably you) feel to "Mother Earth" (affectionately known to many – including me – as Gaia). I've always cared a lot about the planet, but until recently I didn't understand why I — and some others — care so deeply about Gaia while many people would just as soon blow her body up (literally...i.e., MTR). It would be wrong to give myself credit for the realization as it came from none other than nature herself, during a long walk on a very beautiful woodland trail.

However, despite my upbringing during which I was taught to respect the environment, I have spent most of my life relatively "detached" from Gaia. Some of the same forces that may have been at work in your life caused me to deny my spiritual connection to the Earth (among other things) for my first 30 years of life. Fundamental religion, dirty politics, separation from nature, and – yes – even modern science are the major contemporary forces that prevented me from seeking the conscious connection with Gaia that is rightly mine – and yours! There's no denying who we are, no matter how we may try. (It catches up with us in one lifetime or another.) But why should we? It's our divine right. I'm grateful that who I am and how I connect to Gaia has emerged in this lifetime, just as it can for you.

In this book, I hope to appeal to your inner senses and awaken the divine wisdom already within you so that you can realize on a deeper level who you really are and why you're really here (at this particular time in the grand Earth experiment). Much of what we were told and have learned about the Earth is wrong and very misguided. I choose to believe (largely for my own sanity) that the people in our lives who taught us many of these things didn't do so maliciously and that they were truly doing the best they could. For me, any other conclusion just breeds bitterness. There are, however, other forces at work actively working against our environmental awakening. We'll get to those later.

However, before we dive right in, I'm sure you're curious about the title of this book. As we will explore more in the coming pages, I'm not the biggest fan of labels (except when blending essential oils...or storing leftovers). Yet the urge I have felt over the years to "define myself" is — I believe — common for most of us.

The misfits and wanderers (I say so lovingly) among us sometimes believe that a simple label will help us connect with and understand deeper truths about ourselves. In some cases, that's true. But more often, "defining" labels actually cause us to impose artificial limits on ourselves. Now in my fourth decade of life and having "tried on" many labels, I have only stumbled upon one label that fits: "friend of Gaia." This simple phrase strolled into my head along with an impressively complete outline of this book as I was taking that long walk outdoors I referenced earlier. As soon as I processed it, I knew that it just "felt right." This is a "label" I can really get behind.

Maybe by the end of this book, after you see what I mean, you'll consider yourself a "friend of Gaia," too.

# Introduction

(or, "Why am I here?")

I am here for one big purpose. Everything in my life that brings me true fulfillment relates back to this "reason" for being. Several decades ago in Earth time, mere milliseconds in the grand scheme of the Universe, I agreed to be born and live a life on Earth. Whether I volunteered or had to be talked into it, I'm not sure. (If spirit-me is anything like physical 3rd dimensional-me, it probably took some strong convincing.) In any case, there were many reasons I chose to come here, but the "deal maker," as it were, was this: an unmissable opportunity to help Gaia and all that she nurtures.

Lest this story go down the wrong path, there is nothing particularly special or unique about my story as compared with the vast majority of souls living life on Earth at this particular time in human history. (To claim otherwise would be a misuse of ego.) There are billions of people alive on the planet today who made the conscious decision to live an Earth life (maybe more than one Earth life) for the specific purpose that I will describe throughout this book. As I decided to take on this very topic to fulfill the research requirement of my metaphysics studies, I initially thought that I was choosing a "fringe" idea that only a few spiritual people had explored. In the process, I found research by spiritual people along with those in typically secular fields (among them were psychology, social work, and even medicine).

I found more reading material in my search than I could possibly consume in a lifetime. A varied and colorful picture of the spectrum that includes the many previously described "high vibration beings" emerged from my research. While some of the information seemed puzzling and I myself never found a category that "exactly" fit me, I did discover a lot of useful information. Just knowing that these many varieties of "high vibration beings" exist should be enough to confirm that you're not crazy (well, at least not any crazier than the rest of us). More importantly, learning about high vibration people is most helpful for those who feel a deep soul-level sense of "purpose," who feel like they're not "from here," and who want to know what it is that they can do to help.

Know that whether or not you fully find yourself in the descriptions that follow is irrelevant. If you have that deep inner-knowing and yearning to "make a difference," but you're not sure how...then you know enough about yourself to get started. Those here on a mission have access to inner wisdom that can satisfyingly answer all of their questions...if only they take the time to really get to know themselves. (Hint: if you're reading this book and you're not a hater, helping Gaia is probably part of your plan.)

Metaphysical and New Thought folks have talked and written about people who are "different" from others, having a number of distinct traits and maybe what some would call idiosyncrasies (as compared with "normal" people). I will discuss a few of the more popular theories here to hopefully make you feel more at home. In her book, "The Three Waves of Volunteers and the New Earth," Dolores Canon proposed, based on her numerous hypnotherapy sessions with clients, that "three waves of volunteers" had incarnated on Earth since the A-bombs were dropped in Japan in 1945.

The first wave, according to Dolores, adjusted poorly yet paved the way for the next generation. Individuals from the second wave (this would be the wave I belong to, if in fact I belong to any wave at all) are known for being literal "energy conduits." The third and final wave is composed of interdimensional visionaries supposedly capable of conducting planetary transformation in indescribable ways quite unlike the other waves.

You have probably also heard of indigo children, and maybe even rainbow and crystal children. Indigos were, as far as I know, first described by Nancy Ann Tappe. She named them based on their characteristic indigo-colored aura. Nancy's original concept focused heavily on technology, globalization, and innovation (according to Nancy's posthumously-maintained website "All About Indigos"). Her concept has been modified by New Age folks and psychologists alike to include more aspects of "spiritual awakening" with regard to the mission of the indigos.

A period of "awakening" is common among all high vibration beings that I have studied. I myself went through what felt like an involuntary "pre-programmed" spiritual awakening, and it was quite an uncomfortable experience at the time. (I thought I was going NUTS!) If you don't know what a spiritual awakening feels like, it's a little like spiritual puberty – accelerated over a few months to a few years. However, I'm happy to report that the end result is truly fabulous and well worth the temporary discomfort.

The modern concept and understanding of indigo children (now adults) describe bold nonconformists who are also highly sensitive to energy and the emotions of others and carry a strong sense of "mission." It may not always be clear exactly what the "mission" is, but this feeling along with the many other indigo characteristics make indigos feel very different from others around them. Depending on the source, some say that indigos began arriving as early as the 1950's (hmm... coincidence with Dolores Cannon's first wave?) though their arrivals tend to be more concentrated in the following decades.

Crystal children are described as the group immediately following the indigos and are often born to indigo parents. They're just as non-conforming as indigos, but they approach it slightly differently. Where many (though not all) indigos would be more likely to be "in your face," crystal children live life unapologetically on their own terms (and – after awakening – without much need to explain themselves). They tend to be very compassionate, highly tuned to energy, natural healers, intuitive, etc. Vegetarianism or veganism, environmentalism, and love for animals are also common traits. There are many other possible traits, but my goal here is not to provide an exhaustive list. Some crystal children were born as early as the 1980's, though most came later in the 1990's and 2000's. Some are still being born, though this is tapering off as more rainbow children enter the picture.

Rainbow children followed crystal children and are being born now. Rainbow children are very compassionate, non-judgmental, gentle, highly intuitive, brimming with energy, and often completely fearless. Rainbows feel no need to compete and tend to work well with others like themselves. Their passion, joy, drive, and imagination are unparalleled by previous generations. They are truly beautiful and loving souls. Rainbow children are said to carry the mission of restoring harmony between people and their environment. It's safe to say that Rainbow children are born with an enviable close connection to Gaia.

There are also, of course, "star people" or "starseeds" or "star children," which have been described by more people than I can possibly tally. Depending on who you ask, star people may have some of the same traits as the indigo-crystal-rainbow trio...or they may be very different. While some Earth religions talk about being "in but not of the World," star people/starseeds are "in but not of this Universe." While they are living lives on Earth, their souls aren't from here – or anywhere near here. Generally, their missions tend to be tied to the elevation of consciousness on the planet.

There are other, more specific roles, but they fall within this general mission. They aren't always explicitly here for Gaia, per se. However, the elevation of human consciousness would bring greater environmental awareness to humanity. Thus, elevating awareness of our environmental impact would be just one of the goals of starseeds. Though not palpably felt by the majority of humanity, 2012 (and the first few months of 2013) was a big year for the starseeds' current mission. But as they say, "it ain't over 'til it's over." The spirit world does not operate on the same 3D time by which we live our lives. Thus, we can't expect an "instant transformation" as some expected to happen at the end of 2012. Quite the opposite – 2012 was just the beginning. The transformation is ongoing, but it depends on willing volunteers.

Let's not forget Doreen Virtue who, before her recent conversion in 2017, described earth angels, incarnated angels, incarnated elementals, and just about any other incarnate mythical or spiritual being that you can think of. Many people turned to Doreen, her books, and her angelic card decks for help understanding "why" they felt different. While my first thoughts when I discovered Doreen were a bit skeptical, I eventually warmed up to her books and found some comfort and understanding within their pages. I cited her work quite a bit in the culminating paper for my metaphysics graduate work.

However, following some of her more recent comments, I have given most of my copies of her books/decks away. Yet, the reality remains that Doreen described "something" that resonated with people who feel different and – most importantly – feel compelled to help. That's powerful. If you can get your hands on one of her older books, you may find it helpful.

There are others, such as "light workers," which I will talk about later, and walk-ins, which I will save for another day. Buddhism contains a few interesting examples of "high vibration beings" as do some other religions. There are other "high vibration beings" that I know too little about to even mention...and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are plenty of examples that I've never heard about at all.

If you're anything like me, trying to determine which group(s) you belong to can get a bit sticky and much less-clear cut than one might think. In choosing or assigning yourself with one of these categories It is possible for a person to belong to one or more of what would seem to be these very different "groups" of high vibration people.

For example, it is possible to be an indigo or crystal child and also belong to one of Dolores Cannon's waves of volunteers. In fact, it is possible for indigos and crystals to both fit within the range of the second wave. The same goes for Doreen Virtue's taxonomy with regard to the realms she described in her books. Couldn't someone fit the profile of one of Doreen's realms while also sharing indigo-crystal-rainbow and/or "three waves" traits? I think yes. Still, some people only identify with one group or another.

Furthermore, the author of sunfell.com suggest that indigos and crystals (and I presume also what we call rainbows) are all actually different generations of the indigos. She then goes on to describe other generations that I haven't seen elsewhere (and she makes a lot of sense). I have even read some opinion pieces elsewhere stating that indigos are actually one type of starseeds. (Now you see why I take a short-cut and call them all "high vibration beings.")

One could spend a lifetime or lifetimes exploring their level of fit within and among these groups. There is no shortage of hypnotherapists, energy therapists, and intuitive readers/healers to help with the process. A psychic once told me that I was an incarnated angel. I was flattered (red flag) and gratefully accepted the ego-inflating news. (My B.S. meter went off later.) A year or so later I pointedly asked another intuitive who claimed to be the "original" angel intuitive – and no I'm not talking about DV. This person quickly affirmed the earlier psychic's impression and went on to insist that I work with them for "mentoring" to "train" my skills – for well over $100 an hour. By then I had already been through my awakening and I knew better. (Plus, I was a ramen and peanut butter-loving graduate student at the time. $100 buys a lot of both of those things.) I declined.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the best and most reputable intuitives that I have worked with don't give such concrete assessments of one's soul origin. These folks understand the limitations of human perception – even when one has highly developed intuition. They also understand the risks of telling someone at the wrong time that they are, for example, an incarnated angel or starperson: backward spiritual progress and counterproductive ego inflation. Some intuitives are more accurate (and reputable) than others, but even the most exacting intuitive is limited by their own experience and perceptions when making readings on this topic. There are simply more intergalactic factors and multidimensional variables related to "high vibration beings" than our limited human consciousness can understand (for now).

Further, we know that our own beliefs, personal experiences, and professional knowledge all color our perceptions and can sometimes actually hinder the clarity of our communication. Our individual human perceptions may cause differentiation where none actually exists. Added to this, our vocabulary – in any language – limits our ability to explain our spiritual experiences. There are some experiences and realities that simply can't be put into words. If you meditate, then you know exactly what I mean.

This is why I find it likely that at least some of these many different "labels" are describing the same or similar phenomena experienced by a multitude of people living on Earth today. While at the spiritual level we may (or may not) have much clearer classifications and while our souls probably do have different galactic origins, all "high vibration beings" living on the Earth today seem to have one thing in common: the utmost respect for and desire to help Gaia.

And so, to return to the beginning, I try to stick with what I know at my core to be true. I chose to be here at this particular time – no one forced me into this – and I came for one very specific reason: to help Gaia. There are other tasks that I also feel compelled to complete and causes that I feel called to work on (education and social justice, for example). But everything comes back to Gaia and to the people, plants, and animals that she supports. Without her, none of us would be here.

I have a daydream sometimes (maybe it's a memory or maybe it's just my imagination) in which I see myself figuratively beholding the Earth from a higher dimension, searching for the greenest spot on our little blue dot, and taking a deep dive down through the many dimensions to begin my work.

Most of us lose our pre-birth memories by the time we learn to talk (possibly as a condition of learning to talk, lest we "over share"). Thus, I can only speculate and intuit as to if this is accurate. Whether or not it happened this way, I think it's a good metaphor for those of us who are here with a strongly elevated environmental consciousness and compelling purpose to help Gaia. I'm one of those, which is why I think of myself as a "friend of Gaia." Now that you know what I mean, let's talk more about Gaia.

# WHO IS GAIA?

"Evolution is a tightly coupled dance,

with life and the material

environment as partners. From the dance emerges the entity Gaia."

– James Lovelock

## Gaia Throughout the Ages

("A Goddess by any other name...")

Gaia has been known by "Gaia" or "Gaea" since the days of Ancient Greece. Before that, it is presumable that she was known by other names. Around the world, most cultures have a concept of "Mother Earth" that developed independently of other cultures, meaning that many people across time and space know Gaia by one name or another. Today, whenever someone references "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" they're talking about Gaia.

However, words like "planet" and "Earth" don't refer to who Gaia is per se, though they do refer to her body. (Gaia is not her body any more than you are your body.) The spirit that is Gaia is responsible for supporting every living being on the planet, from the tiniest microorganism you can think of to the tallest redwood and the longest blue whale. This is to say that Gaia is a very real being – not a metaphorical or figurative one.

If you take a moment to think about different living beings, you can begin to imagine how they connect and interact to form her body. Plants, trees in particular, act as lungs to Gaia and to all non-plants that use oxygen. The waters upon her body provide habitat for aquatic beings and another essential ingredient for the survival of land animals. All elements, nutrients, and minerals required for life are plentiful. When something dies, Gaia's Earth has processes for that too...to recycle the nutrients so that new life can begin again. These cycles are seamless. Everything that any living being needs to survive can be found on the Earth – even natural lifesaving remedies (if we look hard enough and don't drive them to extinction before we find them). Gaia provides all that we need and more than we can imagine.

It is interesting that so many people pray to abstract Gods in the sky asking for their needs to be met, meanwhile Gaia has already cultivated all that we could ever want. While Gaia graciously provides for all of our Earthly needs, she is not the creator of most human souls. There are people alive today who descend from Gaia, but they are few. We'll get into this more in the next chapter. Regardless, Gaia acts as a divine mother to us all. We couldn't survive on the Earth without her care.

Before diving too deeply into Gaia's association with religion, let's look at some of the places that Gaia has appeared throughout human history. In Greek mythology, Gaia was the first deity. Scholars speculate that the name may have come from the Avestan (Zoroastrian scriptural language) word gaiia, which means "life." (My dowsing indicates yes.) As such in Greek mythology, all other gods and goddesses descend from Gaia. Fitting, considering her role as Earth-mother to us all. Greek mythology gives Gaia a role in creation. However, in Greek mythology Gaia was not, and in real life is not, the creator of the known universe (or other universes).

Many of the stories from Greek mythology about Gaia are not related to the real-life Earth-spirit Gaia. It could be that some of these stories actually represent a different goddess and are incorrectly attributed to Gaia. Or it could be that stories and opinions varied in Ancient Greece. Whether these refer to a separate goddess entirely or a different form of the Gaia we know is unclear to me, and a bit beyond the scope of this book.

As the Roman religion appropriated the Greek system as their own, changing the deity names to suit their language, Gaia became "Tellus" and sometimes "Terra." Despite her role as mother of the Earth, similar to her attribution in Greek mythology, Tellus/Terra is usually depicted in sculpture and painting as half-reclining and often surrounded by fruits. It is interesting to see "Mother Earth" in such a lazy stance, but it does demonstrate the Romans' relative dissociation with the natural environment. Perhaps the fruit is a depiction of fertility but is most probably related to bounty. Another possible equivalency, according to Lucretius, is that the Greek Gaia as "Mother Earth" is actually equivalent to the Roman Venus. Meanwhile Norse mythology includes a few feminine divinities similar to Gaia, such as Jörð, while the nearby German equivalent is likely Nerthus.

Ideas of Gaia as "mother nature" of "mother Earth" have surfaced in other traditions around the world, such as pre-Colombian Native American traditions, which will be discussed in the coming chapter, and among indigenous people of Central and South America. Pachamama, was the name used to refer to a Gaia-like figure by people indigenous to the Andes region of South America. The name Pachamama has persisted up to the modern day as a reference for "mother nature" even despite the severe persecution and forced conversion of indigenous people by Europeans.

It is interesting that the Virgin Mary as typified in this region today is actually a blend of the European idea of Mary and Pachamama. Pachamama goes along with the Quechua-speaking people's way of life called "Sumac Kawsay" which emphasizes community and responsible environmental stewardship, among other things. This view even manifests in Bolivia as a national law that has given "Mother Earth" certain legal rights since 2010.

Farther north, the pre-Colombian Taínos in the Caribbean revered Atabey as the goddess of Earth and a motherly figure responsible in one form for nurturing and the spirit of love while in another form creating chaotic events such as volcanic eruptions and violent storms. In some southeast Asian countries, Gaia as "Mother Earth" has taken the form of Phra Mae Thorani while in the Malay Archipelago, she is called Dewi Sri.

Some contemporary animist and pantheist views of the Earth include Gaia. Among those that don't, animism and pantheism at least don't hurt Gaia's Earth. In the present day, Gaia shows up most often in spiritual rather than religious circles. Earth-based religious traditions, such a Druid and Pagan religions, are exceptions that explicitly reference Gaia by name. Beyond that, the lines begin to blur a bit. Druids and Pagans are discussed in the next chapter.

Some people who are part of New Age, particularly those emphasizing connection to the Earth, acknowledge and celebrate Gaia. New Age beliefs and practices are so diverse that it is difficult to make a blanket determination or to even estimate how many New Age followers reference Gaia. Many of those who do consider themselves Gaians.

However, Gaians are not necessarily New Age folks, and some would not consider themselves religious at all. Gaians run the spectrum of political, social, and religious ideas. Gaians tend to live a life close to the Earth and share the view that Gaia and the Earth should be honored, that humans should reduce their impact on the Earth/Gaia, and that humans should respect every living thing.

## Gaia and Religion

Some religions and traditions make heavy mention of Gaia while others, notably the patriarchal Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), traditionally leave out divine feminine figures altogether (to be fair, Shekinah is referenced as a divine feminine energy by Kabbalah). For many people alive today who practice any of these three religions, this precludes discussion of Gaia in religious writings or teachings. It is safe to say that many people alive today and throughout the ages have been forbidden from discussing or discovering the concept of divine femininity and divine feminine beings.

This is most unfortunate, as it means that such people are cut off from understanding a large portion of their own energy. Everyone carries masculine and feminine energy, and everyone can connect with divine feminine and divine masculine beings. (Some people carry a third as-yet-undescribed energy as well.) Biologically, masculine and feminine components are required to form new life, which then carries some aspects of both while generally (but not always) physically, emotionally, and mentally manifesting more heavily masculine or more heavily feminine. (Why then would the soul's creation require only masculine or feminine energy?) Many men and a few women in history have worked to suppress feminine energy as much as possible at the population-level in both men and women. The result has been, except in the rare matriarchal society, a highly patriarchal order that is not only unbalanced because of its suppression of feminine energy, but also far less powerful than it could be if it permitted masculine and feminine energy to flourish equally. This has gone on for so long that masculine energy now has an extremely overbearing negative presence in the workings of global society. The conclusion could easily be that masculine energy is "bad." Its' not – if balanced with feminine energy.

As much attention as possible should be paid to liberating and encouraging the flow of feminine energy. This includes stopping the global suppression of women as well as actively encouraging men to – quite literally – get in touch with their own feminine energy. Women, on the other hand, don't need to be told to get in touch with their own masculine energy because they've already been doing so for years.

Even up to the present day in some professions, the only way for a woman to "get ahead" is to act like a man (spiritually: to channel her masculine energy possibly more than her feminine energy). The tradeoff, of course, is that women who are too successful at this are often criticized while a man acting in the same manner would be praised. A few men, typically gay or highly creative men, do accept and use their feminine energy. (Historically they've been ostracized as well.)

This is why no special attention to masculine energy is needed at this time – not because it isn't important as well – but because extreme correction is needed to bring the importance of feminine energy into the consciousness of humanity. While it may or may not be conscious to those in the feminist movement (I suspect it is conscious), the spiritual/etheric aspect of feminism is as much an effort to counteract the dominance of masculine energy in society as it is to liberate women and men (especially those who don't know they need liberating).

It will take an incredible amount of energy and focus to bring the level of feminine energy in balance with masculine energy. The goal of feminism was never to out-do men. Since its inception the goal has been to gain social equality. Unfortunately, it is because the balance of masculine and feminine energy in society today is tipped so far in favor of masculine energy that, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment didn't have a chance of passing when it was introduced several decades ago. The same won't be said in the future when society treats masculine and feminine energy (and thus, men and women) equally. However, while we still suppress feminine energy so violently in most of the world, we make it incredibly challenging for the majority of society to get in touch with Gaia.

To deprive ourselves of the knowledge of Gaia is to deprive ourselves of a large part of who we are. Despite these imbalances, anyone who chooses to do so may know and connect with Gaia. Meditation is one way to gain clarity and understanding about who Gaia is and how we connect to her. (It is also a great way to work on bringing one's own masculine and feminine energy into balance.) Some would tout meditation as a way to "connect" with Gaia, which is almost true. We are connected with Gaia by virtue of the fact that we live on and interact with her body daily. We may better connect with the spirit of Gaia on a conscious level through such meditation and reflection. However, even time spent in nature can open the doorways of our mind to feeling and understanding her energy. She doesn't have to take human form and walk up to us to say "hi" for us to know that we are connecting with her on a deeper level. We will explore connecting with Gaia more in the next section.

Ancient Empires, Druidry, and Paganism

The Greeks and Romans, as discussed in the last chapter, regarded Gaia/Tellus-Terra as a goddess worthy of worship. Gaia doesn't have a temple of her own, though Delphi is/was regarded as her sacred site. As a nature goddess, in a pinch, anywhere in nature will do. The Greeks and Romans actually worshipped Gaia/Tellus-Terra, as do some modern-day Druids and Pagans.

The Hellenic (Greek) and Roman religious traditions, Druidry, and Paganism are in some ways linked past and present. In fact, the word "Druid" comes from the Greeks and Romans. Some, but not all, modern Druid and Pagan groups worship or venerate the ancient gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome. Even among those who do not, Gaia is frequently referred to by name. Druidry and Paganism connect as follows: some (but not all) Druids are also Pagans or have Pagan beliefs. (One Druid order in the U.S., "Ár nDraíocht Féin" or "A Druid Fellowship," for example, has Pagan roots.)

However, the two terms are not synonymous as in some cases the beliefs of Druid and Pagan groups may barely resemble each other. Both Paganism and Druidry run the full spectrum as far as the beliefs and practices of their subgroups. Subgroups of either may be mono- or poly-theistic. Even among their differences Druids and Pagans commonly hold reverence and respect for the Earth at the core of their beliefs.

Paganism takes many forms, including (but certainly not limited to) Wicca and Heathenism. Paganism is extremely diverse, and Pagans from different traditions often don't agree on many issues or religious tenets. However, they do agree on the need to revere, respect, and protect the environment. John Halstead is the founder of the Pagan working group, which produced the "Pagan Community Statement on the Environment." Halstead told Huffington Post in 2016, "If there is any issue on which we Pagans should be able to speak harmoniously, it is in response to the desecration of the Earth."

Though I am not currently involved with Druidry or Paganism, I have past life connections to Druidry and I draw upon my "past experience" with Druidry a great deal in many areas of my life. (I am fortunate to have a few blessed memories of this time. I find it funny now that I had such a penchant for the dramatic at that time, a total contrast to my personality in this lifetime.)

Though modern-day Druidry is based on the ways of old, it is not identical to the practice of the past. This is in part because some of the old ways have been "lost" to time and in part because Druidry like any other religious or spiritual tradition evolves. (Even Christianity "evolves," albeit less organically. Fundamental Christians, of course, would disagree with me that Christianity has changed at all/ever. A fundamentalist once told me that the Bible was long ago handed down directly by God, as written. Council of Nicaea? Nevermind.)

Other modern changes to Druidry have been instituted because they make sense. (The eight-festival "Wheel of the Year" is an example.) Spiritually speaking, we always have access to exactly what we need (if we're open to it) meaning that modern-day Druids can access whatever ancient knowledge they may need. However, the needs of today differ substantially from the needs of ancient times. As a progressive religion, Druidism adapts. However, Druids always have been and remain very close to the Earth, whether or not they use Gaia's name (though many do). Connection to and care for the Earth are central to Druid practices. One North American Druid order actually has "Gaia" as part of its official name, the "Reformed Druids of Gaia."

A quick note of clarification: Neither Satanism nor Luciferianism are related to either Druidism or Paganism, despite the insistence of many fundamental Christians on lumping anything "non-Christian" into one "group" and labeling members as "Witches" or "Heathens" or "Pagans" (or something else).

Druidism and Paganism pre-date Satanism by millennia (contemporary Satanism is only a little more than 50 years old as of the time of this writing). Satanism does not even so much as acknowledge Gaia, while some forms of Luciferianism actually promote destruction of the Earth. In contrast, as we have seen, many Druid and Pagan traditions are built completely around Gaia. I will end the conversation here about Satanism and Luciferianism, so as to not give them too much focus in this book. I find it unlikely that most people reading this book are "stuck" in Satanism/Luciferianism, though many more are likely dealing with fundamental religious trauma from one lifetime or another. Further, it is a well-demonstrated spiritual principle that "what we focus on tends to expand," thus I want to focus a little more heavily on writing about what you likely need to read at this time. Moving swiftly along...

Abrahamic Religions

The Abrahamic religions are generally regarded as monotheistic, a departure from the generally accepted polytheistic nature of Greek, Roman, and other ancient religions. However, there is some room for debate about how "monotheistic" the Bible really is, especially in the Old Testament. Accepting a polytheistic understanding of the Bible would open the Abrahamic door to the existence of other deities, even if they are not the "preferred" deities.

Though, in this same context it is worth asking the question of when a religion becomes mono- or poly-theistic if it acknowledges multiple gods but worships only one (at a time, for a time). The Abrahamic religions are traditionally grouped together due to their descension from "the" God and religion of Abraham. It is assumed that the three share a God, though according to some sources (and logic, if employed) even the Holy Bible as translated today references multiple gods (but never goddesses). Or, they may refer to "God" at different stages of evolution. (Remember? Even the Divine evolve.)

In the Old Testament, for example, the Hebrew names Yahweh, Jehovah, El Shaddai, El, and Elohim are translated as synonymous names for God. Evidence suggests that these names could refer to different "gods" or even "demi-gods." The New Testament refers to Theos, Kyrios, and Patēr as different Greek names for God, though these are more likely references to the same being. It is unlikely that a single continuous God is referenced throughout all books of the Old Testament and between the Old and New Testaments by reason of these different names and because of the significant and substantial change in language, tone, and action between the two testaments.

This adds context to the "no other God before me" verse (Exodus 20:3) in the Old Testament, which was more than a little confusing to me growing up in a Southern Baptist church. It also explains why "us" was making man in "our" image in Genesis 1:26. (It probably wasn't just one old white-bearded man on a heavenly throne as many imagine.)

I also remember being confused as a teen when a fundamental Christian tract that was presented to me appeared to acknowledge the real existence, yet inferiority to "the" Biblical god, of Hindu deity Kali. Interesting. (The identities of Seth and Abel's wives were also a mystery, but that's another story.) Remember, according to the official teachings of most fundamental Christian churches, there is but one "God" and all others are false "pretend" gods.

Why then would the "God" explicitly state that no other "Gods" come before "him" in Exodus? Why not say "idols" or "false gods" or "imposters" or something else to demonstrate that the other "Gods" were counterfeit instead of what appears to be an acknowledgement of the divinity and existence of other Gods?

In considering the possibility of a singular continuous God, the bloodthirsty "God" of jealousy (Exodus 20:4–5; 34:14), wrath (Romans 1:18, Ezekiel 25:17, Genesis 7), and anger (Psalm 7:11; Mark 3:5) of the Old Testament appears to evolve (or perhaps enter etheric rehab) by the time of Jesus's birth and the beginning of the so-called "Age of Grace" in the New Testament. It is interesting to observe that the "God" of the Old Testament explicitly instructed the sacrifice of animals and even people (presumably created by this same God) in numerous verses while abruptly changing course to offer grace and forgiveness in the New Testament.

Either the singular God of the Bible has diagnosable multiple personality disorder or the Bible in fact records accounts of multiple deities exhibiting diverse behavior (some benevolent, some less-so) not unlike the distinct personalities of the different Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.

In any case, the God(s) of the Bible explicitly authorize several things that directly harm the health of Gaia and her Earth and make little sense when examined with the test of reason. In Genesis, man (not woman) is given dominion over the Earth (and women) to use as he sees fit per Genesis 1:26-28. This short segment has been used to justify everything from the imprisonment, torture and consumption of animals; to drilling for nonrenewable crude oil; to the dumping of toxic chemicals onto the lands and waters of the Earth; to the explosion of mountains for the extraction of non-renewable resources; and to the adopted ignorance regarding climate change and other major global threats. (Just to name a few.)

Besides that, the Bible authorizes the ritual sacrifice of animals (Leviticus...like half of the whole book, much of Exodus, etc.), which is generally regarded as wrong even by modern Christians, and other societal taboos including slavery (Deuteronomy 20:10-14; Exodus 21:7-11) and rape (Judges 21:10-24; Numbers 31:7-18; Deuteronomy 22:28-29; Deuteronomy 22:23-24; 2 Samuel 12:11-14; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges 5:30; Zechariah 14:1-2).

In all fairness, some of the above verses (minus the slavery and rape ones...I'm still confounded about those) have been used by religious leaders (mostly progressive leaders but also Billy Graham) to interpret the need for modern man to be a good steward of his environment. That's a nice retelling, but it doesn't change the fact that the verses have already been used to justify unspeakable harm to the Earth (whether or not you acknowledge the existence of Gaia). It has also been theologically explained to me on numerous occasions that we must take into account the sociology of the time versus the reality of modern society and adjust our interpretation accordingly. Every time I do so, my "adjusted interpretation" is to use a different source than the Bible for moral guidance.

I haven't read the Koran and I legitimately don't know enough about Islam to offer an analysis of its environmental stance. According to an analysis by BBC, the Koran and Hadith appear to offer slightly more explicit language regarding the care and stewardship of the environment than the Bible. I can't speak for fundamental Islam...or offer much more insight. However, because of my past experiences with fundamental Christianity and my (unfortunately) extensive reading and research of Christian literature, I can provide better analysis there. As you may have gone through similar religious trauma, this story may help. I grew up Southern Baptist (until age 16) and then spent several-years-of-my-life-that-I-will-never-get-back in two fundamental Christian churches (until age 20). The Southern Baptist church was by far the most "progressive" of the three.

The first fundamental church was a small country church that that I attended compulsorily (family) and that adopted a very literal interpretation of the Bible in most aspects, except when inconvenient (shrimp, cloven hooves, the sabbath, etc.). Women were most assuredly expected to be subservient to their masters husbands. On numerous occasions it was stated that this church of 100-or-fewer members was the only Church on Earth that was God's true church. They stated on numerous occasions their hate for the Catholic church (I'm still not sure why). Yet they spoke with great "compassion" (their word) for Jewish people, who were "God's chosen people" and...according to them...desperately needed the Baptists' intervention to save them from the "lake of fire." (Because, remember, "God is love," which is why "he" burns you alive if you disobey him. "It's for your own good.")

The members of this church regarded it as the only church that "met the mark" and could assure salvation for those who were truly "saved" and not "lost to the world." Some members of the church appeared to have the "gift" of gazing into one's eyes to determine whether or not the "flame of the holy spirit" dwelled within him or her. Alright, then! (I failed that test, by the way. Thankfully.)

I remember the preacher quite often running around the stage (and sometimes the congregation) screaming into two microphones (one clip-on, one handheld) about hell and damnation and homosexuals and sports (?) and the "evil" Catholic church. Oral prayers (the Bible explicitly teaches followers not to pray aloud in public, but I suppose they chalk it up to the "sociology of our time") were most often self-serving, self-righteous, and designed to demonstrate how well the church met the mark and how much help they needed from God to "save" the other dead churches and their dead congregations from the "evil" Catholic church (and from basketball, which is apparently also on the sh!t list).

The culture in this church with respect to the environment was pretty simple: there was no need to take care of the environment because "God is in control." As far as they were concerned, humans pretty much have leeway to screw the Earth up as much as they wanted because pretty soon God was going to step in and push the start button on the apocalypse. It would all be destroyed anyway. After that, God would just make a new one. As far as coal oil, and other non-renewables are concerned: God put them there for our use and he can put more in there once we use them up. You can't get much more anti-environment than that. (And as Proverbs says, there's no point in arguing with a fool.)

Further, part of the semi-conscious modus operandi of churches like this is that if you scare the living fire out of people (and keep them attached to the church through fear) you continually lower their consciousness and energetic frequency over time. The people consent to this implicitly, but they're barely aware of the spiritual consequences. If you lower consciousness levels/vibrations enough, care and concern for the environment falls entirely off one's radar. After all, if you spend your life worried about hell...who cares about the Amazon Rainforest? (Especially if God will make a new one soon anyway?) This is a very real non-exaggerated picture of what many fundamental churches in the U.S. are doing. Out of my family I was the first to leave this church, which created more chaos than you could possibly imagine. (Worth it.)

At that time, I wanted another Christian church, so I chose what seemed like a friendly and welcoming church. The free coffee and donuts, rock/pop music, "come as you are" dress code, enormous projectors (no hymnal needed...just follow the bouncy ball), and lack of Bibles (verses and their interpretations were provided weekly as printed "notes") couldn't hide the church's true nature for long. These folks specifically designed the church to catch people who fell out of other fundamental churches. I slowly but surely began to see that the sugarcoated sermons and donuts were little more than thinly-veiled hate at worst and contempt at best for the rest of the world. Basically, I was getting the same message as the earlier fundamental church without as much yelling. More implicit than explicit was the understanding that this was the "true church" (wtf, again?) on a mission to "save" all of the other churches (or out-compete them by planting "sister" churches that would of course be run by "brothers," a popular theme in fundamental churches).

It probably goes without saying that this church had a similarly low environmental consciousness. The building was enormous and poorly insulated (but always heated and cooled). The parking lot rivaled that of a Super Wal-Mart (runoff) and there were only a couple trees in sight (remnants of a long-gone deciduous forest). The perspective was similar, if a bit softened. "Don't go out of your way to hurt the Earth...but it doesn't matter that much because God is coming back soon anyway. Sure, we've screwed it up but daddy [God] will fix it. Who wants some more coal?"

Besides, this church believed that the "true believers in Christ" will be long gone by the time the rivers turn to blood and then God will make them a nice new Earth to mess up. This particular mega-church had an international focus with respect to "church planting" and proselytizing. And yet environmental concerns where nowhere on their radar...even in countries where imminent environmental concerns were much, much more important than getting Barbie dolls and shiny new Bibles at Christmas-time.

The breaking point for me at the time wasn't the environmental aspect, but rather a sermon on the evils of homosexuality during which the pastor explicitly said to the crowd of 500+ (plus more via TV) that "homosexuals aren't welcome here" and that it was wrong to say, "we love you," or, "we accept you" to "people like that." The eyes of many people (me included) were magnetically drawn to an effeminate gay couple sitting two rows ahead directly in front of me. I think they were visiting. At the same time, I was glancing side to side to see if anyone was onto me. I had just recently come out to a friend. No one appeared to be looking at me, though I always felt that one of the pastors in particular had gaydar (possibly because...) and could see through me. Though they didn't stone any of us that day, the vibe in the room felt a lot like "CRUCIFY THEM!" Yikes.

I left the church after that Sunday, and not a single soul noticed...or if they did they never said anything. Membership – which had required four days of classes to achieve – was cancelled as simply as unsubscribing from the e-mail newsletter. That's both the beauty and the tragedy of fundamental mega-churches. Unless you're on stage, you're just another grain of sand...indistinguishable from the rest and far beneath worthy of notice.

I don't consider myself a victim. I chose to leave. Even if I had been forcibly ejected (as many, many others have been), why would I want to be part of a group that hates me? Why would any reasonable person?

Since my experiences with the fundamentalists, I have come and gone from more progressive churches, such as the American Episcopal Church as well as non-homophobic Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches that I have visited. I commend them, not least for their tolerance of "diverse lifestyles" but also their growing separation from patriarchy. They haven't incorporated the divine feminine, and they may never, but they're making progress.

Many of these churches that I have been part of or visited also have environmental committees or recycling teams. These churches also tended to be among those that don't use the Bible as justification for destroying the Earth. The Anglican Communion of which the U.S. Episcopal Church is a part actually recommends social action and advocacy for pro-environmental policies nationally and internationally. I respect that because one doesn't have to acknowledge Gaia by name to be a positive force in taking care of her Earth.

There are, of course, plenty of other hateful churches that I have only seen on TV or read about. One has to wonder how much empathy or compassion members of some churches could have when they don't even show an ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings. To put it lightly, I doubt they're organizing neighborhood cleanups, especially those that use fear as a control mechanism.

Unfortunately, some churches would reject refugees, immigrants, gay people, women who have had an abortion, and even people who have been divorced. How much room could they possibly have in their heart for the environment? As I've already discussed, some churches don't hem and haw, but rather tell us exactly how they feel about protecting the Earth. When churches that justify their lack of environmental consciousness (and at times purposeful harm to the Earth) with the assertion that "it's all going to die anyway," they've done the hard work for us. They're straight up telling us that they have zero compassion for Gaia and her Earth.

Native American and Indigenous Peoples

Fortunately, there are other organized religions and spiritual traditions that seem to "get it right" with regard to environmental stewardship if not outright respect for Gaia. Native American traditions come to mind. Some have a "Mother Earth"-like figure, such as the Algonquins and "Earth Mother" Nokomis (who is really more like a "Grandmother" Earth). From what I have been able to research and intuit, Native Americans have historically been and still are good stewards of their lands and resources, despite the atrocities committed against them and the modern-day injustice that still segregates them.

While it has been claimed that "Native Americans were the original environmentalists," this isn't quite accurate, and it doesn't hit the nail on the head in communicating the relationship of native people with their environment. What I – an outsider – consider to be the biggest success of Native American practices and ideals relating to the environment is that they took and take responsibility for their actions with respect to the environment.

This is a lesson still elusive to non-Native Americans who, for example, may acknowledge the existence of climate change but still fail to take personal responsibility for their role in creating and furthering the problem. NON-Native Americans tend to view climate change and other large scale environmental problems as an "us" problem that we must wait to address together rather than something we can immediately address individually by taking personal responsibility and reducing our own carbon footprints.

I state this problem as a general trend among Americans rather than something that universally applies to each and every person. There are, of course exemplary examples of Americans who are very in-tune with their environment and actively working to reduce their impact and encourage others to do the same.

Native Americans, despite their political and social divisions, as a whole, have had and still maintain an elevated consciousness regarding accepting personal responsibility for one's environmental actions. This does not imply that these actions were or are perfect, but it does mean that the Native American perspective regarding the environment and our treatment of it has been and remains leaps and bounds ahead of many other people-groups, including the majority of people living in the modern-day United States.

While Native Americans did not acknowledge Gaia per se (the Native American "Great Spirit" is not synonymous with Gaia), they understood the concept of "emergent properties" long before the field of ecology got around to defining it. If you aren't familiar with the term, an emergent property is something that is greater than the sum of its parts. An example would be the "emergent" significance of Earth in comparison with all of the parts that compose it. With respect to Gaia, she is not an emergent property, but her Earth body is.

Another relevant aspect of Native American culture, and many other native cultures, is shamanism. Shamanism often involves or is often accompanied by a deep understanding of the Earth and environment. Again, shamans don't necessarily have a "perfect" environmental worldview or actions, but their environmental consciousness is elevated. And, both shamanism and Native Americans have been (and continue to be exploited) by others worldwide... unfortunately in some cases even by environmentalists.

Buddhism and Eastern Religions

Modern Buddhism exhibits a remarkable pro-environmental stance. Notably the concept of interbeing, popularized by Thích Nhất Hạnh, pushes followers to realize greater connected-ness with the planet and all within it. In 1987 Thích released a book called "Interbeing: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism" which described in depth Thích's perspectives on interbeing.

Interbeing, a word created by Thích, describes the illusory separation between humans, animals, and their environment and how to overcome it for the purpose of fostering peace and lovingkindness. The process of interbeing mindfulness practice brings, among other things, a deeply spiritual level of understanding of one's connectedness with all that exists in the universe.

Buddhism already acknowledges the inter-connectedness of all life and emphasizes the temporary nature of "being" an incarnated being due to the Buddhist understanding of impermanence. However, interbeing takes this understanding to a new level of practice by emphasizing a mindfulness perspective that every action affects every other living being in some way due to this connectedness. According to Thích, it is impossible to separate the different elements of "being" and any such views of separation are likened to illusion.

In his works, Thích broadly applies the idea of mindfulness to many areas of one's personal life and extends the discussion to include our interactions with other people, animals, and the natural environment. Thích also promotes "engaged Buddhism," which encourages followers to apply what they learn through mindfulness practice and meditation to improve global issues through social and environmental justice.

In a 2013 essay by Thích, which was released as part of a larger collection of environmental ethics-themed writings, Thích's applies interbeing and engaged Buddhism to environmental problems. He describes the need for a global awakening in consciousness that is necessary to collaboratively solve environ-mental problems.

In detail, Thích proposes trading the "American Dream" for a "dream of brotherhood and sisterhood" and thus shifting our collective focus to mindfulness and compassion. Without this, Thích notes, we are destined for global ruin through climate change and international overconsumption of natural resources. Personal responsibility plays a key role in facilitating this change, as Thích notes that humanity can no longer afford to blame other people or governments for these problems. While Gaia is not explicitly mentioned in Buddhism, Thich and others do occasionally use the term "Mother Earth," implying the living nature of the planet and our connectedness to her.

Other eastern religions also contain pro-environmental language in their holy books and/or modern teachings. Having not been part of any eastern religions or traditions other than Buddhism, I rely on my research and intuition to get and to provide information about the environmental stance of these religions. I will leave to you to ponder how these published views reflect reality (or not) as we know that official doctrine does not always translate into practice. This is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all eastern religions, as my goal is to discuss those with explicit views or practices with regard to the environment and/or Gaia. That said, Gaia is not explicitly mentioned in any of the following religions: Hinduism, Jainism, and Zoroastrianism.

The closest analog to Gaia as "Mother Earth" in Hinduism may be the goddess Prithvi, who is also known by the same name in some Buddhist sects. However, in Hinduism the Earth is called Devi, and referred to as feminine. Hindus do view the earth as a living physical body of the divine feminine. Hindu Dharma instructs followers to care for and protect the Earth. Karma is affected by how people treat the Earth, according to Hinduism.

Thus, failure to care for Gaia would results in the accumulation of negative karma, potentially deeper entrenching one's tie to the karmic wheel. (Karma makes the wheel go 'round!) This connects to the idea of reincarnation, which in Hindu understanding includes every living thing. Interdependence and interconnectedness of all life are religious and ethical themes resulting from this belief, and according to the Bhagvad Ghita, "God" is present throughout nature. As such, nonviolence is taught as a means of improving one's karma and eventually achieving liberation. This is why so many Hindus practice vegetarianism.

Jainism is also a very pro-environmental religion. As animists, Jainism asserts that all things on Earth are living beings with spirits. This includes animals but also extends to rivers, trees, etc. While Jainism does not mention Gaia, environmental stewardship is central to the beliefs of its followers. While animism is one reason, the religion also teaches nonviolence toward all living things. To kill any living thing is considered a sin.

According to its followers, Zoroastrianism is similarly focused on environmental stewardship. They share the theme of interconnectedness with other eastern religions, while also believing in taking personal responsibility for one's environmental actions. Several Zoroastrian practices are designed with the health of the environment in mind, such as the practice of not burying the dead in the Earth. There is no Gaia figure, however many of Zoroastrian practices are, according to Zoroastrians, very helpful to and respectful of Gaia.

## Gaia Hypothesis and Science

(You mean science has a theory about Gaia!?)

I will admit that I had never heard of the "Gaia Hypothesis" before I started working on this project. I discovered it in my research rather by accident (I'm sure there was a divine plan all along). It's amazing to think that this hypothesis existed before I was born, and yet I never heard a word about it (or Gaia, for that matter) in my entire K-12, undergraduate (including a lot of science classes), or graduate education (part of which included environ-mental research). How could something this important so neatly evade us? I'll leave you to ponder that.

The Gaia Hypothesis was publicly proposed in 1972 by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. The pair named their hypothesis after Gaia from Greek mythology. They produced a detailed theory as to how the Earth and its systems in all of their intricacies function together as a living organism. Among their proposals was the idea that the biosphere, which is the emergent property resulting from the sum of all of the ecosystems in the world, and the living organisms within the biosphere affect several factors that affect the habitability of Earth. In other words, natural systems directly influence the ability of the Earth to sustain living beings. According to the theory, these systems are fully capable of self-regulating themselves to maintain habitability for all things that live here.

However, we know that some of the environmental factors associated with the habitability of the planet are changing dangerously quickly and are not following the pattern of self-regulation as much as they have historically. That is, when the Earth would normally self-correct, it doesn't seem to be doing so. Scientists are calling this problem "climate change," and evidence overwhelmingly points to human activity as the cause. So, when carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere intensifying the greenhouse effect and warming the planet even slightly, it throws other systems out of whack.

For example, the slightest rise in temperature of the oceans causes the ocean to release carbon dioxide that it has held onto directly into the atmosphere, which magnifies the greenhouse effect even more. As the ocean temperature warms, a few more things happen: glaciers melt, dissolved oxygen in the ocean changes, and the salinity of the ocean water changes. Even slight changes in salinity can affect which oceanic species can survive. Warmer temperatures mean the water is less able to hold onto oxygen, causing dissolved oxygen to decrease and in turn decreasing the total amount of oxygen available for sea life.

You might wonder why Gaia (or some other divine being) doesn't just step in and "stop" it. The answer is that on this planet, humanity has unconditional free will. We can do whatever we want, and no outside forces can stop us. We tend to regulate this among ourselves with things like laws and social norms. However, working together internationally – across borders and beyond the social constructs of "nations" – has never been one of our strong suits.

Gaia can't interfere with our free will. If we want to destroy her body, we have the freewill to do so. And we've been exercising that right as long as we have existed on Earth. None of this should be happening. And if we were living responsibly, none of it would be happening. But in the end, we're allowed to do it. This is one reason why so many souls have incarnated here at this time for the purpose of helping Gaia. We carry the intention of using our free will for Gaia's benefit. We need as many souls here as possible who will still want to help Gaia while living a human life.

Lovelock and Margulis were not the only ones to suggest that the Earth is a living organism. Aldo Leopold referred to the different parts of the Earth (including rivers, the atmosphere, etc.) as "organs," composing a living being. Similarly, other scientists previously proposed theories about the interdependence of Earth's different parts and processes. For example, "living systems" are self-organizing, self-maintaining systems that can be so characterized because of the relationships of their interdependent parts.

Deep ecology, which aims to de-anthropomorphize science by acknowledging the inherent right of every being to exist, falls along similar lines. Several astronauts have also reported enlightenment-like experiences that happened after they viewed Earth from space, when they finally saw Earth as an interdependent and fragile system requiring our care.

Not surprisingly, many in science have disputed the Gaia Hypothesis. I say not surprisingly because science in practice is not as a whole oriented toward protecting the natural environment. While there are aspects of science and a number of very vocal individual scientists that could be called environmental advocates, science does not agree on the need to protect the planet to the level required to reverse and heal the major environmental issues affecting Gaia and the Earth.

Even more troubling, from my experience working in scientific labs and interacting with scientists from many disciplines I learned that many scientists have deceived themselves (and others) into thinking that they are protecting the environment while they are in fact doing the opposite. I have to wonder how some of these scientists – who fully acknowledge and know more about climate change than the average person – fail to grasp the urgency, viewing it more along the lines of an "interesting academic problem."

For example, I spent several years as a graduate student in environmental health sciences. I was naïve when I applied, mistakenly thinking that the field was dedicated to the protection of the environment's health. Wrong. The field is very anthropocentric, or at least, the scientists that I worked with certainly were.

I have been an environmentalist since I learned to talk and walk. As a child I picked up litter everywhere I went and insisted that we recycle and reuse everything possible. Some of my favorite toys were old boxes and packaging materials. Pastimes were "creating" new stuff out of things that would otherwise be thrown away. I have always had a heart for and connection to animals, but I didn't become a vegetarian until my 20s. I volunteered and interned for a few environmental organizations and started writing letters to Congress about environmental issues as soon as I learned to write. I was on the mailing lists of several environmental groups by my 8th birthday.

Thus, it seemed natural that I would study science in college and beyond. And so, I did. I studied biology as an undergraduate and then, following a brief stint working on human health issues, I entered an environmental health sciences graduate program. My understanding of environmental health sciences and environmental work was that humans should do everything possible to protect the environment. I still feel that way. As I progressed through the program, I learned that much environmental work in the United States is actually about compliance with environmental regulations.

In the United States, environmental regulations essentially establish how much people, companies, and governments can pollute. All of the "research" to which I was assigned (and the topics that were available to me) centered on compliance work. How much XYZ is in the water/soil/air? And, are we allowed to have that level of pollution? If so, "great!" If not, then it's time to institute what is often the bare minimum amount of environmental remediation necessary to satisfy the law...not necessarily to actually rehabilitate and heal the environment. Granted, some of the things we've dumped into the soil and water – such as PCB's, DDT, and a laundry list of other persistent organic chemicals – aren't going away anytime soon because their chemical compositions are so darn stable. (Thank you, science, technology, and "progress.")

In all fairness, at the time they were instituted many of our environmental laws were helpful. Before the EPA and the Clean Water Act existed, the Cuyahoga river routinely caught on fire. The air in many U.S. cities was barely breathable. Water quality is a lot better overall, thankfully, and the air in major cities is too. However, there are major sources of pollution (*cough* fracking *cough*) that we can't always "see" yet may be contributing more to our pollution problem than we can possibly imagine. And when taking climate change and other pressing issues in perspective, all that we're doing is not enough. (By the way, fracking can cause bodies of water to catch on fire. What is it with corporations that insist on setting water on fire?)

The "health" part of environmental health refers to human health. While some environmental health scientists probably have the health of people at heart in their research, I haven't met any of them. Most of these folks seemed to not really care about human health, except to the extent that it can produce manuscripts for publication or get grant money.

Occupational health, which often falls under environmental health sciences, is an exception. I found that academic, but not necessarily corporate, occupational health scientists tended to be compassionate people. Environmental health scientists, however, more often seemed to be authorizers of toxic pollution (as long as it meets regulation and "acceptable risk" i.e. an "acceptable" number of human disease cases or deaths according to scientists) and the destruction of natural resources (dams and the re-routing of rivers and streams, for example).

As recently as 2015 I also frequently heard the phrase, "dilution is the solution to pollution" uttered by respected scientists that I worked with in both classroom and research settings. This was the prevailing wisdom in the science of the 20th century, which was used to justify the dumping of any number of chemicals into rivers and streams. The thinking was that almost anything dumped into a river or stream would be diluted as it was carried downstream, eventually rendering it harmless. This was interpreted as license for anyone and everyone to dump almost anything into nearby bodies of water.

This line of thinking resulted lots of dumping points for chemicals all along rivers and streams. This was the fatal flaw in the "dilution/pollution" thinking. If people are regularly dumping chemicals at different points along any given river, "dilution" becomes a joke and pollutants begin to concentrate (especially those pesky environmentally recalcitrant chemicals, which also happen to be among the most toxic). How else did the Cuyahoga river gather enough fuel for its fires? Even though environmental science regards this line of thinking as outdated, it is still being used by scientists who were trained eons ago and refuse to give up their antiquated lines of thinking. This in turn affects very real decisions that affect the Earth and Gaia.

I went through a period of depression upon learning that the people and the field that I thought were doing such great work to protect the environment were really on the side of corporations and people who want permission to pollute. Or, if they're not "on their side," they're definitely complicit to what's actually happening. I heard "we follow the science" one too many times while working in that field. (This assertion isn't entirely true, given what I just discussed. But we'll overlook that for the moment.) Sometimes common sense should prevail. Do we really need to "follow the science" to find out whether or not we should dump any given persistent organic chemical into a river or stream? Hello? Think, people!

I know that there are programs in environmental studies and environmental sciences (axe the health bit) that take a less anthropocentric view and actively promote ideas designed to protect and heal the environment. In the program that I was in such people were snubbed and looked down upon, worthy of little more than a snarky comment here and there from the "real" scientists. It was especially bad for those outside of science who expressed concerned about the environment. The environmental health scientists that I worked with tended to dismiss them entirely and make fun of their environmental concerns, sometimes to their faces.

It was clear that those who didn't "follow expectations" in my graduate program would be "cut off." It was always made plain that the status quo was not to be questioned, and it was implicit that I had better not disagree with how the business science was done. I complied for a while, briefly turning my back on my beliefs, and I paid the emotional/mental price for it. When I finally mustered the courage to raise concerns about my research and ultimately quit the program sans degree, I too was quickly dismissed from the inner circle.

Does this sound like any other group of people you've heard of? Religion, perhaps? It's interesting, considering that so much of science today feels threatened by the world outside the ivory tower and the growing anti-intellectualism in the United States. Science needs to get over its victim complex and recognize its role in creating its own problems by owning up to the fact that it can sometimes be as exclusionary (if not more so) than fundamental religions.

I do believe that science is a valuable tool that humans can use to solve problems – including environmental problems – but that it is not the only tool as many scientists insist. I can't count the many memes and articles that elevate science above all else, usually dissing something else that "pales" in comparison to science. If science is so faultless, then why is this even necessary? Further, who are we as a people if we reach the peak of scientific knowledge yet turn our backs on the desires of our spirits and the needs of our souls?

As it turns out, science is far from faultless – farther than most people realize. For science to be a valuable tool to humans in helping to heal the environment, it has to be used properly. However, the reality is that science currently fails to meet some of the basic benchmarks that science itself insists are necessary for high quality science. This material has been thoroughly covered in other books and articles, so I will only briefly discuss it here.

In 2005, John Ioannidis published an article that has become a must-read in science titled, "Most published research findings are false." In the paper, Ioannidis mathematically demonstrated that most claimed research findings are incorrect for one of several reasons. Not surprisingly the paper highlighted, among other conclusions, that the fewer studies on the same topic that have been conducted the more likely it is that the findings are not true.

This could be addressed with simple replication studies. One of science's basic requirements with which almost no one actually complies is replication. The idea is simple, good science can be replicated and bad science can't be replicated. Very few studies are ever subjected to replication studies, making it impossible to know which studies are accurate. Further, many journals don't want to publish replication studies (especially positive replication studies). What's the point of doing a study no one will publish (other than details like "ethics")? Especially when your university is barking at you to publish-or-forego-tenure?

Predictably, another of Ioannidis' corollaries is that when "financial and other interests" are at stake, findings have a high probability of being false. This is pure and simple human nature: self-preservation. Yet another corollary is that the more popular the research topic, the more likely study results are to be false. Per Ioannidis, positive results are quickly published and negative results, which are less exciting, are not. Human nature to "one up" the competition may also play a role.

Peer review, another cornerstone of scientific research, often works counter-intuitively by accepting deeply flawed papers (and possibly rejecting good papers out of spite because peer reviewers sometimes abuse their roles to keep competitors from being published). Peer review was designed to encourage high caliber studies and to ensure that all research was thoroughly vetted before reaching other scientists. In practice, the peer review process for a single article bears more resemblance to a random crucifixion.

The modern reality of "pay-to-publish" journals, some of which are predatory, is also decreasing the quality of published articles. In 2013, a Science Magazine contributor submitted fake papers to hundreds of journals, of which 60% were accepted. In 2014 according to Vox, an article entitled, "Get me off your f*cking mailing list" was accepted by a predatory technology journal and published for a fee of $150. A fake scientific research paper with heavy Star Wars references was also recently published in three such journals, according to Gizmodo. Later, a fake research paper recounting an episode of Star Trek: Voyager was published by another predatory journal.

The same scientist who sent fake articles to journals for Science Magazine also conducted a fake research study on the subject of how chocolate helps people lose weight. He did so in part to demonstrate how easy it is to fake results with statistics. As he noted in an article published by Gizmodo, "If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a 'statistically significant' result." Yikes.

While these examples are comical, there are more serious issues related to fake research in science. Some research results are "fudged" if not entirely made up. In May 2018 Science Alert reported that a science research assistant had replaced about 100 vials of blood used for cancer research with her own blood. Results from studies based on these fraudulent samples had already been published in two top scientific journals including Cancer and PLOS One. This followed the admission several years earlier of an HIV vaccine researcher falsified data about HIV vaccine studies funded by the National Institutes of Health, according to Nature. In one study, he actually substituted rabbit blood spiked with HIV for human blood.

While this is shocking, it is nothing new. Scientists have been making up data for centuries. Modern science suggests that Mendel, famous for his early genetic "research," actually made up some of his data to fit his conclusions. Mendel's work has actually been under serious scrutiny and skepticism since 1936, before the discovery of DNA, and yet in high school (and college) in the early 2000's I was taught about Mendel's work as if it were the gospel truth. As it turns out, some of Mendel's conclusions turned out to be true in spite of his falsified data. Charles Darwin and Sir Isaac Newton, two more big names in the history of science, also changed (falsified) some of their data to fit their conclusions.

Darwin and Newton were also lucky enough that some of their conclusions turned out to be true, largely saving their historical image. However, that doesn't change the fact that these scientists weren't actually following the scientific method to the letter when they falsified their data to meet their expectations. By boldly drawing conclusions without "real" corresponding evidence, these scientists were doing little more than the religious men that they would so readily condemn: drawing major conclusions based on little more than faith.

Another unfortunate reality of modern science is that much of the research funded in the United States is provided by the private sector (or by the federal government as influenced by the private sector), which introduces bias and presents conflicts of interest. Funding priorities are rarely determined by scientists working "in the trenches." Non-scientists are often at the table in determining research priorities and distributing funding. This is pretty distant from the days when scientists could spend their time in intellectual pursuit...for the sake of science.

In other words, while intellectual freedom still technically exists in science, no one will pay for it. "Publish or perish" most often means "publish what your funder will pay for...or perish." And while you're at it, don't forget to attend your University committee service meetings, mentor a new crop of industry yes-men scientists and teach a dozen or so undergraduate courses a year.

Despite all of these downfalls, science does sometimes get it right. In particular, the scientific evidence with regard to climate change is impressive. As of 2018, over 12,000 studies have been published regarding climate change and the majority of them agree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity. According to the website Skeptical Science, "Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming." While science may not always get replication and peer review right, it is tough to come away with a different conclusion about climate change after reviewing the evidence. The only problem remains is in finding suitable scientific solutions that are actionable to reverse and heal the problems caused by climate change.

As you can see science is in a position either to help or to hurt Gaia. It's not so easy to outright dismiss science as some contemporary non-scientists are prone to do, largely because of the positive work of scientists that I have discussed here as well as countless others actually working on climate change and other environmental issues. Unfortunately, not everyone is on board and there are some substantial structural problems in science that, if not taken into consideration, can allow a lot of bad and Earth-harming science to progress. To best help Gaia, we must use the positive aspects of science while being cautious and mindfully aware of its pitfalls.

# HOW CAN WE  
HELP GAIA?

"Only if we understand, will we care.

Only if we care, will we help.

Only if we help shall all be saved."

– Jane Goodall

## Connecting with Gaia

As a real living being, Gaia is very willing to connect with us. In fact, as our Earth-Mother she wants to connect with each of us. I call her Gaia because it "feels right." However, if another name in this book feels (or even a name that I haven't included) feels better to you, Gaia doesn't mind. The important thing is that you find a way to connect with her. She may not be the creator of all human souls, but for the time that we are on Earth, we completely and totally depend on her Earth to maintain and sustain us. Through all of this, despite the way we ignore her spirit and mistreat her body, she shows exceptional compassion and kindness.

However, the homeostasis that her body has so excellently maintained for so long is beginning to fail. The beginning signs are evident if we simply pay attention. Climate change, with global temperatures warming and climates shifting while becoming more extreme all over the world are just one sign.

We have hunted or outcompeted many of the other species under her care to extinction, with many more at risk of the same fate. We have drilled, exploded, extracted, and exploited her surface in irreversible ways for the purpose of gaining access to non-renewable energies. In the process we have degraded our health and the planet's ecology while showing blatant disrespect and contempt for Gaia.

Despite all of this, Gaia still wants to connect with us and still continues to sustain us. On top of that, she desperately needs our help. There are several things we can do to connect with and help Gaia so that we may change our ways and start showing her the respect that she deserves. We can heal the planet.

As members of a world where unchecked free will is king (I say king because a queen would know better), how we respond to her call is up to us. We can do nothing – at our own peril and hers – or we can be the people that get it right and actually make a difference.

Worldviews

Our worldview can help or hinder our ability to connect with Gaia, or for that matter to have any compassion at all for the Earth and everything in/on it. As such, cultivating a positive worldview that includes environ-mental stewardship is helpful. Worldviews in which "dominion over the Earth and animals" and "the environment is here for man's use" are among the most harmful. Many of us were raised to believe these things, but we can change at any age. Often, such beliefs are unconscious...until we work to make them conscious.

By analyzing our beliefs and the sources of those beliefs, we can identify troubling areas and work to consider alternative viewpoints. One of the best ways to learn more about yourself is to talk to people that seem to be very different from you. We don't do that often enough anymore. Conversations with lots of different people expose us to new ideas and ways of thinking that we wouldn't otherwise encounter.

This is especially true in today's world of personalized media in which we can spend a lifetime consuming only news and entertainment that affirms what we already believe about the world. The result is a world of people with highly individualized social perceptions that are challenging to reconcile. We no longer have to interact with people who think differently than we do. It hasn't always been this way.

One of the major harms in this kind of society is that the contributions to the collective unconscious become less unified over time and increasingly chaotic. If we continue on this path, it will become more and more difficult to find common ground with others different from us and it will be increasingly difficult to achieve unity or consensus on important issues. When many people unify in thought with regard to a particular topic, almost magical global transformation can happen. But no positive progress is made if we can't agree on anything.

For the sake of Gaia, enough of us have to agree that things need to change. We have to unify our thoughts toward helping Gaia and Earth for any meaningful transformation to occur. If each of us examines our worldviews and conducts serious introspection, it can still happen.

Meditation, Reflection, and Contemplation

Per Gaia, it is unnecessary to worship her as our Earth-Mother any more than you would worship your own mother. There are many other things you can do to help Gaia rather than worship her. (If your religious tradition supports the worship of Gaia, by all means continue. There's no harm in it, though Gaia does not require it. If you disagree it's OK. As they say on Twitter: don't @ me.) Being a good steward of the Earth and its resources can even be considered a form of worship.

Meditation is a wonderful way to clear the mind and improve your life...and connect with Gaia. In a meditation state we become more receptive to receiving feelings, impressions, intuitive information, and more. Deep insights about the Earth and the environment...or from Gaia herself...can come during meditation. Such insights supersede anything I could write for you in this book. There's really no replacement for the wisdom that comes from within during meditation. Whenever you're unsure of how you can help Gaia or how Gaia would feel about something as it relates to the environment, meditation is a great way to find your answer.

If you are practiced in meditation and want to help, you may want to try a global healing meditation for the environment. These are organized by different people around the world, and I often see such events posted on Facebook. To participate you don't have to go anywhere special and you don't even have to leave your home if you don't want to. You just have to hold the intent of healing the planet.

These practices really work, as in the book The Isaiah Effect, Gregg Braden wrote that when the number of people praying or meditating on a topic is greater than the square root of 1% of the population a noticeable positive change happens.

Reflection or "day dreaming" or walking meditation can also be opportunities to gain spiritual insights about Gaia and the environment. If you prefer, you can even talk to Gaia. As Gaia does not require worship, she also does not require "prayer." If it fits your tradition and you are more comfortable, then by all means feel free to use prayer.

However, you are welcome to adopt a simple conversational tone with Gaia. She hears you, even if you don't yet understand her. I find that Gaia's communication with me is most often through impressions, feelings, and subtle "inner knowing." At times (but not often) strong communication comes through as my subconscious mind "translates" these impressions into words. Such communication directed me to work on this project, for example. For me, though, any communication from Gaia is much easier to understand when I'm in an authentic natural environment – far from the jungle of modern society.

Visualization may also help, and there are several wonderful guided visualizations available online. For some people, visualizing Gaia may help. My intuition "sees" her as a super-larger-than-life force as large as the planet. My mind's eye imagines a more human form, with a green body and "hair" made of flowing Pacific-blue water. You can imagine her any way you like, just as cultures have been doing for as long as people have acknowledged a "Mother Earth."

Lifestyle Changes and Diet

Small lifestyle changes are a great way to start showing more respect to Gaia. You don't have to move into a solar-powered tiny house to increase your appreciation for Gaia and to help the planet. Being conscious of electricity use, installing low-energy lightbulbs, conserving water, recycling, composting, buying items with less packaging, foregoing drinking straws, delaying replacement of your cell phones and electronic devices, and bringing your own bags to stores are all small lifestyle changes that you can make to help the Earth.

Bigger changes that you may want to make in time would include driving more fuel-efficient cars (or walking/biking/using public transportation), collecting rainwater for your garden (or starting a garden, if you don't have one – if you don't have a yard, look for a nearby community garden), and taking steps to make your home more energy-efficient (if you own your home).

Another major change that you may want to consider, if you haven't already, is your diet. The best and least impactful diet available on the planet is a vegan diet. Vegan diets can contain all of the nutrients necessary to live a healthy life. Frequent questions are: "What about protein?" and "What about iron?" and "What about vitamin B-12?"

It is a common misconception that vegans are deficient in these necessary-for-life nutrients. Indeed, it is possible for vegans, vegetarians, meat-eaters, and every other dietary preference on the spectrum to be nutrient deficient. However, with a little planning, you can get all of the amino acids that you need from plants. Likewise, some plants are a good source of iron and vitamin B-12. A popular (and tasty) source of both protein and vitamin B-12 for vegans is nutritional yeast ("nooch"). Once you've tried it on toast (or popcorn) with a little vegan butter, you'll be hooked. With a vegan diet you can get all of the nutrients you need while significantly reducing your personal environmental footprint.

In addition to carrying these fabulous environmental benefits, vegan diets are healthier for humans. Foods that include animal protein carry the energetic vibration of pain that the animals felt. Even though animals have died, that vibration of pain and suffering is still in their bodies. (Not to mention stress hormones, like cortisol, and their subtle vibrations that also negatively affect your body.) If you aren't familiar with factory farms, Google a few images, check out PETA's resources, or watch a documentary (Earthlings is a good one.) All factory-farmed animals have pain and trauma beyond anything we could imagine. Animals who were mistreated/ tortured and/or kept in factory farms carry that accumulated trauma and suffering in their bodies.

This trauma is passed from parent to offspring, meaning the negative effects for humans increase over time. (This is to say, that meat today is actually worse for you than meat from the pre-factory farm era.) Often their level of terror is highest at death because they see and hear other members of their species being tortured and killed. That doesn't exactly make for happy animals or healthy meat.

Factory dairy farms, which you might initially think of as being better because they don't kill the animals, are actually just as bad (maybe worse). Females are impregnated against their will. Many humans don't think about this, but artificially inseminating an animal or forcing them to mate is just as bad as doing the same thing to people. There are no differences except those that we have created in our minds. Then, shortly after birth, babies are ripped away from their mothers, creating trauma for them both. Babies are either routed to meat (often veal) production or raised to be dairy animals.

Despite popular belief, dairy animals do not "automatically" produce milk any more than humans "automatically" produce milk. Just like humans, dairy animals produce milk as a response to pregnancy and for the purpose of feeding their young. What we expect them to produce far exceeds the amount and length of time they would naturally produce. Normally, a dairy cow would stop producing milk just as a human does...when the milk is no longer needed. Instead, once they begin producing, dairy animals are expected to produce every day for the rest of their lives. Forced insemination occurs again as needed to increase milk production and/or to create more animals. If we're consuming milk or other dairy products produced by a factory farm, it means that we are taking it away from baby animals.

In addition to the animal rights concerns that hopefully emerge in your mind when you read this, consider the environmental impact of a single factory farm. Imagine the quantity of water required (and the energy required to process that water both before and after it reaches the factory farm). Think about the sheer quantity of waste a single animal produces in a year, much less the amount produced by all of the animals in the factory. If you're curious about the amounts you don't have to imagine...several organizations offer this information online on their websites.

Going vegan not only helps the environment, but it also helps animals. It's a relatively easy way to raise your environmental consciousness and compassion at the same time. I don't mean to imply that everyone will be able to adopt a vegan diet, or that everyone can adopt the diet right now. Starting a vegan diet instantly and without taking time to research your nutritional needs, recipes, foods to eat, etc. is a great way to get really discouraged. It's best to start slowly – maybe even just eat vegan one day a week ("Meatless Mondays" for example).

Vegan diets aren't for everyone, despite what the internet "vegan police" say. There are many ways to have a less-environmentally impactful diet. Maybe you'll be able to progress to a full vegan diet eventually. Or maybe you'll at least be able to make a few better choices. A little progress is better than none. As far as I'm concerned, time that you spend feeling ashamed is time that you could be spending doing something (anything) to help Gaia. Any small changes that you can make to your diet are a big help.

Many people start transitioning by becoming vegetarians or partial vegetarians. I gave up beef and pork for several years before I finally gave up chicken and turkey. While I maintained a vegan lifestyle for a while, I haven't been able to maintain it permanently for reasons that I will discuss later. I'm still a vegetarian and I'm working to reduce how many products I eat that contain animal products. There's no shame in that. By avoiding meat and reducing my consumption of other animal products, I am still saving countless animal lives while reducing my carbon footprint. You can do the same if you so choose.

Time in Nature and Healing

The single best way to connect with Gaia is to spend time in nature. Spending time outdoors in a natural spot builds our respect and appreciation for nature and gives us time for contemplation. If we're open to it, communication from Gaia can come at this time, and we can realize deeper spiritual truths about anything that we encounter outside (even trees and stones have stories to tell if we dare to listen).

When wrestling with a problem, spending time outside often presents the solution. Or, it puts the problem in context so that we can more easily solve it. If you haven't tried it, you should. If you live in a large city or metropolitan area, make a point to go to a nearby natural area (a woodland park, beach, lake, or any other spot) and try this out for yourself. You may find that the periodic time spent outside is well worth the travel and time spent away from modern society. Gaia can do a lot more for us when we're in nature than when we're in treeless urban centers from which we have expelled almost all signs of nature.

Gaia provides incredible healing on many levels for those who pay attention and accept the gift. (That's right – even despite the problems facing her Earth, Gaia still heals us.) When taking a nature hike, for example, you can allow nature to purify your energy (and it will – on every level) and fill you with life force as you walk. It's almost effortless but the results are amazing. Have you ever felt absolutely exhilarated after a hike? (More so than exercising indoors?) You see what I mean.

The trick is to allow the process to happen. I find that if I'm taking a walk and obsessing about something that happened at work or with a family member, I don't get the same benefits as I do if I allow my mind to slowly clear (as if my thoughts are going through a filter). We have to do our part, which means allowing and accepting the gift of healing. Everything that we could ever possibly need to heal our bodies and spirits exists in nature if we only stop to find it (and if we don't destroy it first).

My first conscious experience with Gaia was, predictably, outside. I was at a beach, waist-deep in the Atlantic Ocean, and I was worried about something. The sea is a very healing and relaxing place for me. Ordinarily, just being there would make me feel better. However, this day in particular, I was really obsessing about a few things that were beyond my control.

Seemingly out of nowhere, the following calming and compassionate – yet commanding – feeling, which my mind translated into thought, entered my body: "Relax, you're safe with me." I had the clear impression that this communication came from the Earth... specifically the Earth-Mother, Gaia.

Needing clarification and as much information as possible, as usual, I responded with a feeling that my mind would express as, "How? How can I know? I need proof."

"Don't worry...I've got you," was the clear and soothing response communicated by the incoming feeling, "I always have. Let me show you. Relax and let me clear your energy."

I decided to give it a try. What could it hurt? I waded a little deeper into the water and relaxed...allowing myself to float a bit. I immediately felt an almost indescribable sense of relief and safety as I could sense my unwieldy energy shifting, clearing, and calming. It almost felt as though the energy of the water and "nature" herself was passing through me, releasing blockages and aligning my energy. I felt great for the rest of the day. However, the following day I had to return to an urban area and I pushed the experience to the back of my mind.

It wasn't until a few months later during a nature walk on an almost-devoid-of-humans trail that I again felt Gaia's obvious presence. Similarly, I had the clear impression that "nature" would comb through and clear my energy, restoring normal flow and bringing me calm. However, I had to relax and "allow" the process while being willing to stop clinging to my worries.

As I walked, it felt as though all of the trees and plants that I passed were facilitating the flow of clean, wonderful nature energy into my body at the same rate that negative chaotic energy flowed out. The energy that flowed out of me was "relaxed" and transitioned to the same lovely, peaceful energy that was quickly filling my body. I left feeling like a new person.

Gaia is always "there." We just have to slow down enough to feel and listen to her in ways that we normally avoid. Even in an urban area, we can find her if we can still our senses enough to feel her subtle vibrations. (It's a lot easier in the woods, though.)

As an empath, it makes sense that I would receive and interpret communication from Gaia (or any spiritual being) through feeling and inner-knowing. Words and visualizations have never been my preferred way spiritual communication. The energy associated with feelings can communicate far more, and with fewer limitations, than simple English. My 3D brain, however, does its best to "translate" this energy into words. (As I mentioned earlier, my brain also tries to assign human characteristics to Gaia, even though her form is more expansive than we can comprehend – and much larger than the Earth.)

These translations are never perfect and can come across the way I imagine you would explain to someone the concept of snow or the smell of the ground after a rain storm. These are things that you just know and understand when you feel/sense them. You could use all of the words in the English language and not come close to communicating how it feels to feel the wind blowing on your face.

So, it is for me in spiritual-level communic-ation with Gaia. You may experience something similar to me or your experience may be very different. For example, if you're more visual or audient, you may see or hear more than you feel. Trust that whatever is right for you will be your experience.

Compassion for Every Living Thing

Holding compassion for every living thing is one of the Reiki principles, and as a Reiki practitioner it is something that I try my best to practice. I'm not perfect at it, though neither is anyone. That's why we call it practice – we continually work to get better at it. There are many ways to show compassion, among which include changing your diet to be less impactful as described earlier. Again, you don't have to go vegan overnight to increase your compassion toward animals.

Adopting animals from shelters is another great way to show compassion and to build compassion. For me, nothing builds understanding of animals better than being around animals constantly. My cats and dog (and even fish) teach me far more about being a kind and loving person than anything I could ever teach them. (Unconditional love versus "sit"...hmmm...)

If you can't afford to adopt, you can always foster animals or volunteer at an animal shelter – anything that gets you around animals. Zoos and other places where animals are held captive for profit are not good enterprises to support. Non-profit wildlife centers, reserves, etc., however, tend to be excellent pro-Gaia places. Exercise judgment and don't support those who treat animals as slaves.

Other small things like feeding the birds or feeding stray cats are kind acts that build compassion in you and show respect and appreciation for all Gaia's creatures. Stopping or slowing so that an animal can cross the road is another good example. Letting bugs out the car window or scooping them up and releasing them outside are compassionate acts, as well.

The bottom line is, anything that you can do to help any living thing is appreciated, and none of it goes unnoticed.

## What's next for Gaia?

What's next for Gaia? This is the trillion-dollar question. I wish I could give you a definitive answer. I would love to be able to say that "it will all be OK," that good will triumph in the end, and that Gaia and the Earth will be OK. I don't know that. No one knows that, and anyone who claims to know is either lying or deluded. I hope and certainly like to think that Gaia will be OK, and that we will be able to reverse the damage being done by climate change and other major environmental disasters. But that depends on how well we work together from here on out.

Before 2016, I felt that our collective consciousness as humanity was increasing with regard to the environment. There were several positive steps taken in the years preceding and even the Environmental Protection Agency, aided by new laws, seemed to be improving environmental policies. The local food movement was growing, federal funding for environmental work was improving. Things felt great. I thought that the majority of humanity was finally "getting it" and that our ability to turn around climate change was just around the corner. After November 2016, everything changed.

I now know that the positive vibes that I was getting were not a result of the majority of people in the United States. I think it was likely that the effect described by Gregg Braden, (where the square root of 1% of the population successfully changes the collective un-conscious) was in play.

What I'll call the "dark side" or those who are anti-environmentalist in all but name, had not yet succeeded in gaining power in the United States. As we approached the election in November 2016, I could feel our collective consciousness as a people slowly creeping down. The level of discouragement felt by those who love Gaia in any form was palpable. So was the triumph of the other side, with an undertone of revenge mounting.

While this event happened in the United States, the spirit of division was present elsewhere in the world, as the United Kingdom had voted to formally withdraw from the European Union barely six months earlier. As a world power, our elections affect the world at an energetic and spiritual level on a greater scale than many realize. As such, the discouragement wasn't just from U.S. citizens focused on progress: people all around the world focused on love and light lost a little hope that day.

Things have improved somewhat, but not much. We've shifted into a crazy world in which no one has time to focus on any one thing for more than five minutes before another tweet rolls in or another gunshot goes off. Everything, even things we thought were settled, are "up for debate" and we have to be careful of what and who we believe. Yep, the "dark side" is feeling fine. The rest of us, not so much. I'm not sure which of the following effects is causing the greatest damage. Is it that the number of us holding the intention of healing the environment has dipped below the threshold described by Gregg Braden? Or is it that the other side has met (and possibly exceeded) the threshold? (After all, it works both ways.) Could it be both?

New Age folks talk a lot about ascension. Gaia's ascension is a theory that I have heard and read a lot about over the years. There are some variations, but in general the idea is that Gaia is an evolving spiritual being, just like any of us. At her current stage of evolution, she is Earth-Mother to us all.

As time goes on, she will evolve to higher and higher levels and roles. Much of the conversation references dimensions and Gaia's coming ascension to the 5th dimension (and higher). According to some sources, her ascension is being stalled by malevolent forces, not the least of which include corrupt human governments and religions influenced by some of the darkest beings imaginable. Reviewing all that we've already covered...it's not hard to imagine. The ability of Gaia to ascend then depends partly on outside Divine help and also in large part on us.

Again, we shouldn't wait for someone else to come and rescue us. We can act, now. Generally, those who discuss Gaia's ascension give the advice of holding one's self to the vibrations of peace and love with the intent of service to humanity and to Gaia. You should also focus on keeping your energy clear, staying grounded, live with a service attitude, and doing as much good as you possibly can with the good of the environment in mind. I honestly don't know what is happening with respect to Gaia and her ascension. But don't peace, love, and service sound like the best and safest possible path forward for humanity...and Gaia?

In any case, what's next for Gaia and the Earth come down to this: in the absence of obvious outside help, we must assume that it's all up to us. What will we do? What will you do?

## Now that you know,  
what will you do?

Even though we're not all on the same page in the United States and around the world with regard to respect for Gaia and the Earth, we can still act individually and encourage others to do the same. Many small good deeds from people all over the world add up over time to make a big impact. Remember that, even if what you're doing seems small.

Diet and Lifestyle

Though diet was discussed briefly earlier, you don't have to wait on the rest of the world to catch up to start making positive changes. That is, you don't have to wait until the rest of the world is "vegetarian" or "vegan." You can get started right here, right now with what you have. The positive lifestyle changes described earlier are great places to start. Beyond that the single biggest thing you can do to help the environment and Gaia is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.

While hardcore vegans would fault me for saying this, even a vegetarian diet over a diet that includes meat helps to significantly reduce your environmental impact. Is vegan less impactful? Yes. Is it healthier? Yes. Can everyone do it? NO! Veganism isn't for everyone – at least not right now. While I believe that veganism is ideal for everyone, not everyone can accomplish it. However, I believe that everyone can accomplish a vegetarian lifestyle. I lived a vegan lifestyle for about a year before I reverted back to "vegetarianism that leans toward veganism."

I backslid when I lived abroad for a summer and was unable to tolerate the fresh vegetables (the bacteria on vegetables there are different than those I am accustomed to in the United States – every time I ate fresh vegetables, I had severe diarrhea). The availability of fresh produce that could be cooked was...very different as well, and I never could get used to it.

I still travel abroad frequently, and I have never adjusted to this issue. Further, I have a digestive disorder that prevents me from eating some foods at certain times. Some of the staples of vegans including fresh vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, beans, mushrooms nuts, etc. sometimes irritate my intestines, limiting what I can eat. Often and unfortunately cheese is an easy fix. Other than cheese, I probably eat about a dozen eggs per year. (Mostly in baked goods that other people make for me that I'm too polite to refuse.) However, I observe most other vegan practices. For example, I never wear clothes or accessories made of leather or other animal products and I avoid products tested on animals. I'm working toward a more vegan lifestyle as I can.

Ultimately, I suggest that you what you can with what you have and where you are right now. Trust yourself well enough to know what you can change. Don't accept the judgement of others when you know in your core that you're doing your best.

Environmental Policy

One of the most helpful things that you can do policy-wise is to advocate for the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is the practice of exercising caution in the adoption of new practices or the use of new products/substances/methods when there is the possibility that harm to people or the environment may ensue. It is a policy of being careful, a "better safe than sorry" principle acknowledging that prevention is preferable to remediation. The precautionary principle is law in the European Union. It is endorsed by the United Nations and is part of the Kyoto Protocol.

In the United States, it is not federal law, though some localities have adopted it as law. You can advocate that the precautionary principle be integrated into new policies locally, at the state level, and at the federal level. While it appears unlikely that such a policy would be fully adopted by the federal government in the near future, it is likely that in the future the consciousness of this country will elevate to the point that adoption will be necessary. For now, you may be able to advocate for adoption of the principle your local community. Even small steps are progress.

Whenever environmental policy issues are raised, write to and call your legislators. They pay attention to how much communication they get about hot-button issues. And don't forget to vote in every election, no matter how minor it may seem. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. Lack of voter turnout is how we get hate-speech presidents, governors, and congressmen.

Volunteer

A great way to find other like-minded lovers of Gaia is to volunteer for environmental causes. You can find someone in every community who loves the Earth and wants to help the environment. Often, they're just waiting for someone else to connect with. Together, you can help Gaia and the Earth.

There are too many organizations to count that focus on environmental issues. Every person can find an organization to support whose mission resonates with them. Support these organizations and help them as much as you can. Even if your ability to volunteer in person is limited, you can help spread the message on social media. Every positive post that you make will bump one hateful post out of the way (vibrationally-speaking, at least).

I'm not sure why or when people concerned about the environment became "activists" or "extremists." However, I know from my work in government agencies that government really likes the word "advocacy" but despises the words "lobbying" and "activism." Activism in particular is viewed as a bad thing. Lobbying is as well, unless you're lobbying on the behalf of large and well-funded interests, of course.

When I worked for various government entities in the past, "concerned citizens" were considered the enemy of the agency. When such a "concerned citizen" raised an issue, the goal was to get the citizen off the agency's "back" as quickly as possible...whether or not their problem was solved. It will never make sense to me how speaking out for clean water or against fossil fuels could be considered "extreme." And yet, this is the world we live in. Be prepared to hear these remarks as you volunteer to help the Earth, but don't ever let them bother you.

Spirituality and Gaia's Helpers

Last but not least, I want to talk specifically to those who are here for the purpose of helping Gaia. Know that you are loved and appreciated beyond anything your human mind can comprehend. Also know that you don't have to get everything "perfect." Some of you don't have to do anything but be your wonderful self to elevate the consciousness and vibration of the people and the planet.

When I mentioned "light workers" earlier, this is what I had in mind. The idea of a "light worker" is someone who is here to spread light and joy while elevating humanity's conscious-ness. Often people who adopt the term "light worker" place unnecessary pressure and stress on themselves to conduct global trans-formation. If you are one of these people, know this: you don't have to stress, because just being yourself and living your vibration is enough.

Earlier in the book also I talked about several other types of "high vibration" people who have incarnated here specifically for the purpose of helping Gaia. You can usually tell if you are one of these people by going within in meditation or reflection. The answer will come. If you have read this far into the book, I find it extremely likely that you are indeed one of these people. Again, you'll know best. Trust what you feel deeply to be true.

Also know that there are several "special" things about you that can help you do your job. One marvelous trait that many people like you share is the ability to shed toxic religious dogma in a matter of years. If raised among fund-amental and/or hateful religious people, it may seem challenging at first to find your way out and to find yourself.

However, take comfort in knowing that the process of healing from this harmful dogma is greatly accelerated for Gaia's helpers. Many are able to work through/process the toxic concepts in just a few short years. Some people spend their entire lives (or longer) trying to heal from religious trauma syndrome (a very real and diagnosable condition). I count myself among the fortunate ones, as I self-selected out of toxic religious dogma and my trauma healed (with much divine help) within about three years. If it takes you longer, don't despair, and do reach out to groups designed to help you with this specific issue (check the resources at the end of this book).

You may find that you are drawn to new spiritual traditions (even some that you were traditionally taught are "evil"). You are welcome to explore, and you're not required to label yourself as I discussed earlier. You may find different aspects of different "labels" and "traditions" that feel good. Try them on and see what fits. Your dogma days are over (or soon to be over). Try not to feel guilty about abandoning religions or ways of being that just don't suit your soul. You don't have to be religious if you don't want to be!

Another help for you is that nature is on your side as is the spiritual world. However, you have to let them know what you need. The "higher ups" don't always know what we need unless we tell them. Even our spirit guides require our permission to act. We can't give them "blanket permission" to help us in any way they see fit as this would violate our free will. They're more than happy to help us, but we have to give them explicit permission and be very clear with them on what we need.

There are other "benefits" that come with being a high vibration being. Heightened intuition and empathy are common examples. A high capacity for compassion, which may be felt too deeply for comfort at times, is nevertheless an important trait for your work here on Earth. Another trait that has been proposed, but that I would not depend on ("just in case") is the inability of high vibration beings who volunteer to live on earth to accumulate karma that would tie them to the karmic wheel.

This has been proposed by multiple people and, while it seems likely to me that this would be a safeguard and worthy guarantee for volunteers, I find it best to try hard to treat others the way that I want to be treated and to avoid actions that would traditionally accumulate negative as much as possible. While I doubt that one of Gaia's helpers would go down the "ego" path, I do see the inherent danger in interpreting one's lack of karma as license to do "whatever." Besides, it could be that any karma "accumulated" during this lifetime must be worked off before death, which sounds pretty uncomfortable. So, consider it as a possible benefit, but definitely don't bet your next life on it.

Finally, possibly the most difficult part to grapple with, is discouragement. It is very, very easy to become discouraged if you allow yourself to be and if your expectations for yourself and your work are unrealistic. It seems to be a characteristic of many of Gaia's helpers to set the bar too high for themselves and in so doing to set themselves up for failure.

The benefit of this (from the spiritual perspective) is that it pushes us to achieve more than the average human. The downside (not visible from the spiritual perspective – i.e., as we plan our lives from the spirit world it is in our "blind spot") is that we get discouraged if we don't achieve all that we think we have to do. This includes the common feeling that "the work must be accomplished in this lifetime."

My rationale in explaining the many different explanations for high vibration people that are alive in the world today (and those who have lived in the past) was to demonstrate how many generations are required to make any meaningful progress.

People in Dolores Cannon's first wave of volunteers probably felt hopeless about their lives, and we can deduce that because many actually committed suicide. We have the benefit of historical knowledge and the intuitive insights to know that the first wave's mission was simply to pave the way for future waves.

Thus, the second and third waves were progressively better adjusted and ready to complete their missions. To a certain extent, the same can be said of the indigo-crystal-rainbow children. Though indigos didn't have difficulty adjusting to the level that first wavers did, they were primarily born into chaotic families and their lives tend to be challenging.

For crystal children, the foundation had been laid, and life wasn't easy by any means, but better. According to most sources super-high vibration rainbows, riding the success of crystals, have very little difficulty adjusting. Can you imagine the rainbows incarnating in the 1980's or even 1940's? It would have been impossible for them.

I share this to help you understand that profound change does not always happen within a generation. Sometimes the (star)seeds must be sown and given a generation or two to grow. Your role and purpose are very, very important to the overall picture. However, it is unlikely that the overall picture will be complete within your lifetime. That doesn't make you or your role any less important. We don't always know how we fit into the grand scheme, though meditation and reflection can help us "ground" and gain some insight.

Even though we may not see the Earth restored in our lifetime, isn't it helpful to know that we showed up here to help? Again, one generation probably won't do the trick. This planetary transformation has already required the volunteerism of several generations and will likely require a few more. Who knows, maybe you'll sign up to come back?

At the end of a book that I hope has given you a lot to contemplate, I want to leave you with this thought: when you think about the Earth and Gaia, what specifically tugs at your heartstrings? Take the time to figure it out. It may be the answer to how you can best help.

Above all, I hope this book has

inspired you to be a friend of Gaia.

Did you enjoy this book?

If so, please leave a positive review. Authors like me depend on positive reviews to ensure that our books show up in search results. This message about Gaia is too important not to share! Your positive review is a simple way for you to help others find this book.

Gracias. :-)

Cristóbal Ambiente

¡Vaya con Gaia!

# Further Reading

10 Hindu Environmental Teachings

 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jain-phd/10-hindu-environmental-te_b_846245.html

All About Indigos

http://allaboutindigos.com

A Pagan Community Statement on the Environment

http://ecopagan.com

(book) The Children of Now: Crystalline Children, Indigo Children, Star Kids, Angels on Earth, and the Phenomenon of Transitional Children by Meg Losey

Evil Bible

http://www.evilbible.com

The First Environmentalists

 https://www.thenation.com/article/first-environmentalists/

Gaia Hypothesis

 https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Gaia/Gaia-hypothesis-wikipedia.pdf

Gaia: The Greek Goddess of the Earth

 https://www.tripsavvy.com/greek-mythology-gaia-1525978

The Indigo Files

http://www.sunfell.com/indigo.htm

(book) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle by Timothy O'Riordan

Meditation, Mindfulness, and Transforming the Environment

 http://edenkeeper.org/2015/01/14/meditation-mindfulness-transforming-environment/

Overview: Gaia Theory

http://www.gaiatheory.org/overview/

Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, A Global Response

 https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/persistent-organic-pollutants-global-issue-global-response

Religious Trauma Syndrome

http://journeyfree.org/rts/

Seeing the Indigo Children

 https://www.csicop.org/si/show/seeing_the_indigo_children

The Three Waves of Volunteers – Part One with Dolores Cannon.

 http://www.edgemagazine.net/2011/08/the-three-waves-of-volunteers-part-one-with-dolores-cannon/

What does Jainism teach us about ecology?

http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=7

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Ioannidis)

 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Why Thousands of Pagans Are Standing Up for The Environment

 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pagan-community-statement-on-the-environment_us_57193453e4b0d4d3f722c2bd

Zoroastrianism & the Environment

 https://www.w-z-o.org/articles/zoroastrianism-the-environment-2/

About the Author

Cristóbal Ambiente is an environmentalist and spiritual seeker from the beautiful Appalachian Mountains. He has been an outspoken advocate for Mother Nature since the age of three. He is particularly critical of agencies, organizations, and institutions that claim to protect the environment and yet so often actively work against the Earth's best interest.

Cristóbal has studied environmental issues in graduate school and worked on environmental projects in several states. These experiences led him to the realization that national and international leadership has very little chance of solving the major global environmental problems that threaten the survival of every species — including ours. We should assume that no one is coming to save us and that no one will do our work for us. The sooner we take responsibility for ourselves, the better.

Cristóbal strongly believes that environmental stewardship and advocacy are the responsibilities of every human alive on the planet today. It's up to us to help Gaia and save the Earth from the destruction that is otherwise now inevitable.

Keep in touch:

www.friendofgaia.com
