The concept that animals survive death is not a common belief in the western world. The principal religions that dominate western thinking have traditionally excluded non-human life from the afterlife, and this remains the case even today.

Despite a number of prominent Christian thinkers in past centuries having proposed animal survival, e.g. Henry Moore, Bishop Butler, John Wesley, Lord Shaftesbury, such thinking has, for the most part, been deemed unorthodox and not worth serious attention. There is no reference to animal survival in the scriptures of western religious thinking, with everything revolving around the destiny of human beings. From this apparent silence, it is concluded that animals have no part of any divine scheme, and this naturally downgrades the worth of animals; this has been a major contributory factor to the abominable cruelty that animals have suffered, and still suffer.
With the birth of new schools of thought in the nineteenth century, one of which was Spiritualism, a new insight was conceived. With this perception, from its early years, Spiritualism has been concerned to combat animal cruelty and was in the forefront of this activity. A principal motivation was, quite simply, the belief that animals survived death and there was no logic to the idea that they did not, apart from the excellent evidence supplied to confirm the belief. Even though Spiritualists found themselves virtually isolated by this view, it has continued to the present time due to its obvious validity.

The background to the common western belief that only humanity survives death lays in the Christian view that animals are not included in God's scheme to be reconciled with his creation. Therefore, they face oblivion. But is this logical? There is even Biblical material that indicates the work of salvation was not only to redeem humanity, but to reconcile the whole universe that had become estranged from God. However, this is almost universally ignored. Secondly, there is an absence of logic when attributing immortality to only one group of life. How would this actually be effected? For example, as humanity has evolved over many years from its animal ancestor, where exactly is the 'cut-off' point - and what is it? One argument that attempts to draw a distinction is that while humanity has language, animals do not; this is rather weak as human infants do not possess the ability to converse in this way. Indeed as Humphry Primatt, an eighteenth century English theologian said in his, A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy, the noises made by an animal can be likened to a human being 'whose language we do not understand'. The further collapse of the supposed gulf between humans and animals because of language is demonstrated by studies discussed in The Great Ape Project (1993), edited by P. Cavalieri and P. Singer; in this it becomes evident that members of the ape family, 'are capable of sophisticated co-operation and complex social manipulation...a variety of helping and care-giving behaviours and are capable of true altruism'.
In such research, they have not only used American Sign Language, but developed this, providing them with a vocabulary equivalent to a young child. Two researchers refer to how one gorilla remembered and communicated about past events and remarked that 'she understands and has used appropriately time- related words and she also 'talks about her feelings...[and] grieves for those she has lost [have died]'.
James Rachels, one writer who, while expressing doubts about the significance of sign language in his Created from Animals, nevertheless mentions Darwin's belief that 'rationality' was not necessarily indicated by language, and mentions instances where reason in animals was evident, despite a lack of language involvement. Therefore, another supposed distinction between human beings and animals is shown to be extremely weak.

The argument can be developed when we consider that in the case of human beings and the great apes, 98-99 per cent of the same genetic composition is shared. To be precise, not only are humans part of the great ape family, but, we differ in about 1.6% of our DNA from the common and pygmy chimp, and much of that 1.6 per cent difference is designated as 'junk'. It is nothing less than absurd to propose that 1.6% DNA junk separates human beings and a group of animals from a common destiny after death. It was for the most part, only Spiritualists, who have argued long before this information became available that such arbitrary division was inappropriate. What people overlook in arguing that only human beings survive death because of their 'higher rationality' is that this means the many infants who die and are often far less developed than many animals, would also perish at death. Few people who reject animal survival would also argue that all infants lacking rationality die; therefore, in this, it becomes obvious that their argument is inconsistent and cannot be sustained. The full absurdity of the view that only human beings survive death is demonstrated by the fact that this limits survival to only one group of living beings, that actually makes up less than one per cent of life on earth. The obvious problem that emerges for those rejecting animal survival, is what precisely distinguishes the human being from the animal. If it is a higher consciousness, or the ability to believe, etc, we return to the same question about infants, the mentally ill and various other groups unable to function normally.
Indeed, when George Berkeley, an Anglican bishop, wrote his 'A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge' in 1710, he pointed out that the differentiation between humans and animals, because the latter supposedly had no capability for 'general ideas', was questionable; and went on to say that even if it was valid, the absence also existed in 'a great many' humans. There is the further point that animals can often display a higher awareness: when D. Scott Rogo wrote about experiments in OBEs in Life After Death, it was noted that different animals would visibly react to the person leaving his body and visiting the area where they were situated. And yet this was not apparent to those humans who were present.
In the upshot, the gulf that appears to differentiate human beings and animals is not as great as it is sometimes claimed, and even if it was, it causes considerable difficulties for those who argue that only human beings possess an inherent immortality. Moreover, what animals appear to lack is compensated for by faculties that human beings do not possess.

Bill Schul, in his very readable The Psychic Power of Animals, remarks on how different animals react to death: 'Some animals seem to be unaware of approach, while some make preparations for the event; for example, certain dogs and cats search for places to be alone at the time of death, knowing that it is imminent'. Some people testify to the unusual behaviour of their pets as the time of their departure approaches: the animals appear to know of what is to happen and await the event as part of the natural order. This ability is something human beings have either lost or have failed to develop unlike the animals.

Through the data produced by Spiritualism, the evidence of animal survival is not only adequate, but striking. Silver Birch's affirmation of animal survival is unequivocal: in The Teachings of Silver Birch, he confirms that animals survive death either as individual spirits or to join a group spirit.
Those who communicated through such mediums, as Leslie Flint reiterate this point without hesitation. There are many records about those people who have 'seen' their beloved pets after they have died. This was not simply 'wishful thinking as in some cases, they were actually unaware of the animal's death at the time.
Franek Kluski was surely the best example of demonstrating that animals survive death, and that Spiritualism possesses the rare quality to provide evidence of this. The work of Franek (1873-1943), a Polish medium, who was investigated by some of the most experienced researchers at the time, is mentioned by Sylvia Barbanell in her book, When Your Animal Dies. She referred to Professor Pawlowski's testimony that sitters experienced the materialization of various types of animals; he recorded an instance of a dog materializing and jumping upon the laps of the sitters, and in a seance with a red lamp, a hawk-like bird flew around, with its wings beating against the walls: this occasion was photographed. Confirming an important characteristic of Spiritualist belief, i.e. that relationships are not severed by death, it was noted than when some next-world visitors materialized in Franek's seances, they would be accompanied by an animal that promptly left as soon as their human companion departed. Mrs Barbanell made the important point that the types of animals that joined the Kluski seances clearly showed that all animals survive physical death. The survival of 'our brethren in fin, fur and feather' is confirmed by the words of such guides as White Eagle; his words are given by Isa Gray in her excellent book From Materialisation to Healing: 'The life beyond would be incomplete without the companionship of animals. They too survive death; they too enjoy a life of freedom with all the joys of their animal life...they remember their former friends...and await their coming'.

The question that is often asked, is whether all life survives death, i.e. not only domestic pets and cattle, but insects, and even bacteria? Once again, we return to the question of a cut-off point. In fact those who ask this, often in ridicule, are nevertheless faced with the same problem themselves; I have often found those who ask this question are usually those who believe only in the survival of human beings; consequently, they too need to address the problem of why some life forms should survive death and others not. This subject is raised in Many Mansions, by Lord Dowding, a highly enlightening writing that many would find worth reading. In his book, he asked, 'How far down the scale do animals possess souls?'. His reply to this is clearly apt, i.e. 'This may not be a matter of any great importance for man to understand, but it is a matter of great interest'. It is indeed not something that is fundamental, nor does it invalidate the belief in animal survival, despite some thinking that it does. We can only surmise that certain characteristics have to be present to ensure survival; this may simply be the will and desire to survive. If this is so, we should therefore expect most life forms, even those of a very elementary type, to enter the next realm of existence. In sum, there must be a cut-off point, and we can assume that it is logical.

One can take this discussion even further; communicators assure us that in their new lives, they have gardens, and enjoy the same colourful panorama that also confronts us whether we walk in a garden, park or even a jungle. Such scenery in the new life may of course only be the projection of the person's own mind, but I am personally inclined to believe that the sight of rivers, seas, mountains and flowers may have its origins in a persisting and enduring spirit that is part of an on-going and developing process.

To return to the view that humans are unique in surviving death, this is usually proffered simply because western religious traditions say virtually nothing about God's relationship with animals. However, this overlooks the fact that the subject of humanity dominates religious belief is simply because that belief is of human making; also, that traditionally, religious belief is to overcome humanity's estrangement from God, and animals do not fall into this category. Accordingly, there is no requirement for animal life to be part of the discussion. Silence does not indicate disinterest, but rather that it is only mankind that requires healing. In this respect, Carl Jung, the renowned psychologist, who was also keenly interested in Spiritualism, made an illuminating statement at a Basel seminar in 1934, that is worth remembering: 'Animals fulfil God's will most faithfully: they live to fulfil their Creator's purpose. We do not do this. We meddle with the work of the Creator. But the animals are themselves and they fulfil the will of God that is within them in a true and faithful manner'.

In view of the considerable evidence for animal survival, and the soundness of the argument, those who accept the reality of survival can be assured that the next life will be accompanied by those beings who do not fall into the category of human existence, but certainly add so much to it, and will certainly continue to do so.

"We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy us;
that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority".
(Bertrand Russell, 'If Animals Could Talk', 1932)

The above was written in loving memory of Bruce, Sam, and the many other animals who have passed on, that I have had the joy of knowing, and in gratitude to those mediums who have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they continue with their lives.

Back to the Index

Email