David Eells continues in his heretical new doctrine of multiple timelines of faith and unbelief with the added abomination of necromancy— which is FORBIDDEN by God. In this article/post we will breakdown and refute David Eells latest heresy with biblical and scientific truths. It is important to note that this delusional shared-fantasy of David is an attempt to explain-away his recent declass of adultery and continued cover-up. (See the ‘David Eells – EXPOSED :0)’ page for declass evidence and details)
The cult dynamics of UBM are on full display as David’s followers gird-up his heresy with their own dreams as they partake of his narcissistic shared fantasy. In the audio version of his article, David mentions talking with Amber in Heaven— this is NECROMANCY.
What David Eells is doing is DANGEROUS- he is supporting and teaching folks to talk to the dead and to believe for peoples’ deaths and judgment, a far cry from the spirit of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul said that anyone who brings a different gospel than what was taught by him should be refused and is anathema (CURSED).
Here is the link for the text reference to David Eells’ latest heretical installment called ‘The Science of Healing and Quantum Faith.’ (Part 3)
We will breakdown each section of David’s article with comments and refutations, starting with the first section called:
‘Timelines’ (Our thanks to Deb and husband Will Horton, who majored in Physics.)
Note: the fact that Mr. Horton majored in classical physics does not validate David’s multiple timelines based on faith and unbelief. David is attempting to leverage someone’s education to sell his heresy.
David Eells’ assertion about the quantum nature of time and the ‘twinkling of an eye’ as an indivisible moment is an interesting interpretation. However, there are logical, quantum mechanics, and biblical aspects to consider:
- Quantum Mechanics and Time:
- Refutation: While quantum mechanics deals with the quantization of certain properties, the application of this concept to time is not universally accepted in the scientific community. Time is often treated classically in many physical theories.
- Quantum Reference: The definition of ‘quantum’ provided aligns with standard quantum mechanics principles, but applying it directly to time requires more consensus in the scientific community.
- ‘Twinkling of an Eye’ and Quantum Indivisibility:
- Refutation: The interpretation of the ‘twinkling of an eye’ as an indivisible moment in quantum terms is speculative. The biblical passage may convey a concept of immediacy rather than a reference to quantum mechanics.
- Biblical Reference: 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 describes a rapid transformation, but it doesn’t explicitly equate the ‘twinkling of an eye’ with a quantum concept.
- Nature of Time in Physics:
- Refutation: Time is a complex concept in physics, and its nature is not yet fully understood. While quantization is explored in various physical properties, applying it directly to time involves assumptions not universally supported.
- Quantum Reference: The absence of a defined ‘element’ or ‘particle’ of time in current scientific understanding suggests caution in drawing direct parallels with quantum concepts.
- Wave-Particle Duality:
- Refutation: While it’s true that some quantum entities exhibit wave-particle duality, extending this duality to the ‘twinkling of an eye’ oversimplifies the biblical metaphor.
- Quantum Reference: Wave-particle duality is a recognized phenomenon, but its application to macroscopic biblical concepts requires very careful consideration and is leaven that David introduces; how ironic is this coming from the ‘leader’ of Unleavened Bread Ministries?
In summary of section one, while there are intriguing connections between biblical passages and quantum concepts, it’s crucial to avoid over-stretching interpretations. The scientific understanding of time, especially in the context of quantum mechanics, is an ongoing exploration. The ‘twinkling of an eye’ in biblical terms conveys a sense of immediacy, but directly equating it with quantum mechanics requires speculative interpretation. David is a professional at presenting narcissistic word-salads to support his heresies. Additionally, pulling snippets from Wikipedia and implying that Mr. Horton believes and agrees with the full context of this article is deceptive and dishonorable.
Section 2 of David Eells’ article: Schrodinger’s Cat: (Re: The 10/27/23 Friday UBM Live Broadcast)
David Eells’ incorporation of Schrödinger’s Cat into the narrative involves an intriguing blend of quantum concepts, biblical passages, and personal experiences. Here’s a critical analysis:
- Schrödinger’s Cat and Opposing Timelines:
- Refutation: Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment illustrating quantum superposition, not a literal scenario. Applying this to opposing timelines is a metaphorical interpretation and silly.
- Quantum Reference: Schrödinger’s Cat addresses the nature of quantum states, not timelines. The experiment highlights the peculiarities of quantum mechanics but isn’t directly applicable to biblical concepts.
- Observer Effect and Faith:
- Refutation: While the observer effect is a recognized phenomenon in quantum mechanics, linking it directly to faith and biblical passages involves a subjective (and delusional) interpretation.
- Biblical Reference: Matthew 9:29 does emphasize the role of faith, but the direct correlation with the observer effect requires careful consideration and is indeed leaven.
- Biblical Instances of Time Reversal:
- Refutation: The interpretation of Ezekiel 37 and 2 Kings 20 as descriptions of time reversal lacks consensus. These passages are often understood metaphorically or as divine interventions rather than literal time manipulation through the faith of David Eells or his followers.
- Biblical Reference: These passages may symbolize spiritual renewal or divine intervention but don’t straightforwardly support the idea of reversing time as understood in physics.
- Joshua’s Sun and Moon Standing Still:
- Refutation: Joshua’s command for the sun and moon to stand still is a miraculous event often attributed to divine intervention rather than a manipulation of time as understood in physics.
- Biblical Reference: Joshua 10:12-14 narrates a unique event demonstrating God’s response to Joshua’s faith, but it doesn’t imply time reversal as described in quantum mechanics that David purports.
Summary of section two: while David Eells draws parallels between quantum concepts and biblical narratives, extreme caution is needed in stretching these connections. Quantum mechanics and biblical texts operate in distinct realms, and interpreting one through the lens of the other leads to speculatively delusional conclusions. The application of Schrödinger’s Cat to opposing timelines and the direct correlation between the observer effect and faith involve subjective interpretations that do not find universal agreement within either scientific or religious communities. Once again, David is adding a little leaven here and there which leavens the whole lump!
Section 3 of David Eells’ article: Eve’s New Body
The assertion that Eve’s new body represents what the Bride will have requires careful examination:
- Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:17:
- Refutation: While 2 Corinthians 5:17 speaks of becoming a new creature in Christ, interpreting this as a completely different physical body demands caution. The passage is often understood in a spiritual sense, signifying a transformation of character rather than a literal physical change.
- Biblical Reference: The verse is commonly seen as referring to spiritual rebirth, not a literal reconstruction of the physical body.
- Terri McGinley’s Revelation:
- Refutation: Terri McGinley’s communication with the Lord about Eve’s body being defiled and the Lord giving her a new one is subjective at best. It involves personal revelations that do not universally align with biblical doctrines.
- Biblical Reference: The specific guidance received through random computer-generated verses should be approached with extreme caution, as random selections may not necessarily provide direct answers to complex theological questions. This method of random-by-faith is ripe with opportunity for demonic deception; we are instructed to listen for the voice of God through His Holy Spirit, not flip coins all day long or other ‘random’ acts– God is NOT the author of confusion and will give wisdom liberally from above if we believe and wait on Him.
- Comparison with Acts 2:38 and Philippians 3:20-21:
- Refutation: Associating the need for repentance with the concept of receiving a new body, as suggested by the ‘random verse’ from Acts 2:38, involves a huge interpretive leap. This correlation is not be supported by broader biblical context.
- Biblical Reference: Philippians 3:20-21 discusses the transformation of the body, but it pertains to believers awaiting the glorification of their bodies in the resurrection, not a complete physical overhaul. This is just plain silly as I have seen Eve and she is not in a new body– this is a DELUSIONAL SHARED FANTASY.
- Claim of Uniqueness and Special Abilities:
- Refutation: Descriptions of Eve’s new body having characteristics she desired, being almost unique on Earth, and possessing special abilities resemble extreme interpretations that go beyond explicit biblical teachings.
- Biblical Reference: While the Bible speaks of glorified bodies and the restoration of believers, specific details about individual physical characteristics and abilities are not explicitly outlined.
In summary of section three, interpreting Eve’s new body as a template for the Bride’s future physical state involves blending personal-fantasy revelations with biblical passages.
Section 4 of David Eells’ article: The Double Slit Experiment
The attempt to link the Double Slit Experiment with the assertion that everything is happening simultaneously is a speculative interpretation at best:
- Particle-Wave Duality and Time Perception:
- Refutation: While the Double Slit Experiment reveals particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics, extending this to claim that everything is happening simultaneously requires a significant interpretive leap. The experiment’s focus is on the behavior of particles, not a broad understanding of time.
- Quantum Mechanics Clarification: The double-slit experiment demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light, where particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like characteristics. However, this doesn’t inherently imply that all events in time happen concurrently.
- Feynman’s Reference and Quantum Mystery:
- Refutation: Referring to Richard Feynman’s characterization of the experiment as the central mystery of quantum mechanics doesn’t necessarily endorse the claim that everything is occurring simultaneously in time. Feynman’s emphasis is on the perplexing nature of quantum phenomena.
- Quantum Mechanics Clarification: Quantum mechanics is indeed mysterious and defies classical intuition, but interpreting this mystery as evidence for a simultaneous occurrence of all events is a subjective and delusional extrapolation.
- Temporal Interpretation and Quantum Weirdness:
- Refutation: The idea that saying ‘Now’ places one in the future and that everything is happening at the same time oversimplifies the complexities of time and quantum mechanics. It reflects a speculative interpretation rather than a widely accepted scientific or theological understanding. Deb’s idolatry with David Eells has blinded her mind in this regard and she is being answered accordingly.
- Quantum Mechanics Clarification: Quantum mechanics introduces peculiarities, but extending these concepts to make broad claims about the nature of time requires careful consideration and does not find consensus among physicists.
In summary of section four, while the Double Slit Experiment reveals fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics, using it to support the assertion that all events are happening simultaneously is a speculative and delusional interpretation. Quantum phenomena and temporal concepts are intricate, and drawing definitive conclusions about the nature of time from these experiments goes beyond their established scientific scope.
Section 5 of David Eells’ article: Coming Resurrections (Eve’s New Job)
This dream by Matthew S. is a result of idolatrous shared-fantasy input by David Eells. If you talk about a topic long enough and loud enough people will start dreaming about this topic thus supporting the ongoing delusions of David Eells.
The dream provided doesn’t offer scientific evidence for the assertion that individuals are at different points on the same timeline, nor does it establish a correlation between quantum mechanics and this concept. Here are the key points of Matt’s dream:
- Eve’s Presence in the Dream:
- Refutation: Dreams are subjective experiences and cannot serve as empirical evidence. While the dream presents a narrative of Eve being ahead on the timeline, it lacks scientific rigor and cannot be considered a factual representation of quantum principles or temporal dynamics.
- Scientific Clarification: Dream content is shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and thoughts, and in this case idolatry of David Eells. Scientifically, interpreting dreams as evidence for specific theological or quantum claims is speculative at best.
- Spatial Setting in Outer Space:
- Refutation: The dream’s setting in outer space is symbolic and metaphorical. Taking it as a literal representation of a job in ‘heavenly places in Christ’ doesn’t provide concrete evidence for the proposed concept of different timelines.
- Scientific Clarification: Dreams often incorporate symbolic elements, and the interpretation of these symbols varies widely. Scientifically, dreams are complex phenomena influenced by brain activity during sleep, and in this case Matt hearing David drone on-and-on about these topics of resurrection and Eve (and others) coming back to UBM with a new body. This is just plain silly.
- Temporal Discrepancies in Communication:
- Refutation: The claim that temporal differences affect communication during the dream, where Eve perceives the meeting differently, is anecdotal and lacks scientific substantiation. Again, dreams are personal and subjective experiences, affected by idolatry and constant input from David Eells.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the nature of time within dreams is not fully understood. Any interpretation of temporal dynamics in dreams remains speculative and subjective at best.
- Reference to Out-Resurrection:
- Refutation: The concept of ‘out-resurrection’ is a theological interpretation and not a scientifically proven phenomenon. The dream’s reference to everyone being on the same timeline after receiving a new body aligns more with theological beliefs rather than established scientific principles. Remember, David is trying to use quantum science/mechanics as ‘proofs’ of his heretical revelation.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the idea of a collective spiritual resurrection affecting the timeline is not supported by empirical evidence.
In summary of section five, while the dream provides an interesting narrative, it doesn’t serve as scientific evidence for the proposed ideas about timelines, quantum mechanics, or the nature of resurrection. It’s crucial to differentiate between subjective experiences, theological interpretations, and scientifically established principles else a little leaven will leaven the whole lump.
Section 6 of David Eells’ article: Amber’s Return Flight
This dream by Anna S. is a result of idolatrous shared-fantasy input by David Eells. Again, if you talk about a topic long enough and loud enough people will start dreaming about this topic thus supporting the ongoing delusions of David Eells. Anna and others are hoping for Amber to return in the natural, even though she has died and been cremated. David Eells is reinforcing this cruel and evil expectation using quantum mechanics principles and Bible word salads gaslighting hopeful UBMers. This is sick and destructive– it is what narcissists do as they get a dopamine high off the confusion, pain and suffering of others. Widows and widowers CANNOT properly grieve/mourn the loss of their loved ones when David applies this evil abuse. However, let’s present a refutation of this ‘dream.’
The dream presented by Anna S. and the interpretation provided don’t offer scientific evidence for the assertion that individuals are on different timelines or that time exhibits the characteristics of both a wave and a particle. Let’s address the key points:
- Amber’s Return Flight:
- Refutation: Dreams are subjective experiences and should not be taken as literal evidence. The dream depicts a scenario before Amber’s death, making it a symbolic representation rather than a factual account of her current state. Claiming that she has already returned is a theological interpretation unsupported by empirical evidence.
- Scientific Clarification: Dreams are complex phenomena influenced by various factors such as emotions, experiences, and thoughts. Scientifically, interpreting dreams as evidence for different timelines or the nature of time is speculative.
- Temporal Dynamics in the Dream:
- Refutation: The dream’s narrative of casting down thoughts about a delayed flight and affirming Amber’s on-time return is a subjective and symbolic element. It doesn’t provide empirical evidence for the proposed concept of different timelines.
- Scientific Clarification: The idea that affirmations in a dream impact events in reality lacks scientific basis. Scientifically, the study of time and its nature is complex, and dream experiences are not considered valid indicators of temporal dynamics.
- Interpretation of Time Characteristics:
- Refutation: The interpretation introduces the idea that time exhibits characteristics of both a wave and a particle, supporting the concept of different timelines. However, this interpretation is theological and not scientifically substantiated.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, time is not described as both a wave and a particle. The wave-particle duality is a quantum concept applied to particles, not time. Applying quantum principles to time in a way that supports the proposed theological claims lacks empirical support.
- Affirmation of Different Timelines:
- Refutation: The claim that Amber has already returned but requires specific eyes to see her aligns with theological beliefs about different timelines. However, this is a subjective interpretation not grounded in scientific evidence.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the idea of different timelines and the need for specific perception to observe individuals from these timelines lacks empirical support. It falls within the realm of theological delusion or speculative interpretations.
In summary of section six, the dream and its interpretation are subjective and theological in nature, lacking scientific evidence for the proposed concepts of different timelines and the characteristics of time.
Section 7 of David Eells’ article: ‘Amber IS Going to Arrive on Time’
It is worth noting again that Amber died earlier this year and has been cremated. Deb Horton’s personal experience, while intriguing, doesn’t provide scientific evidence for the existence of different timelines or the assertion that individuals can experience time at different speeds. Let’s address/refute the key points:
- Dual Timelines Experience:
- Refutation: Personal anecdotes, while fascinating, are not scientifically reliable evidence. Deb Horton’s experience of simultaneously existing in two timelines with different speeds is subjective and lacks empirical verification.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the concept of experiencing multiple timelines at different speeds lacks support. Time, as understood in physics, is a continuous and linear dimension, and subjective experiences do not redefine this fundamental understanding.
- Astral Plane Description:
- Refutation: Describing the experience as on the astral plane is a subjective interpretation with spiritual connotations. Scientifically, the astral plane is not recognized as a valid dimension, and experiences within it are often attributed to personal beliefs or psychological phenomena.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of the astral plane or experiences outside the body. Such experiences are typically studied within the context of psychology and neurology.
- Time Elapsed Discrepancy:
- Refutation: The claim of a lengthy conversation in the alternate timeline while only a fraction of that time passed in the primary timeline lacks scientific grounding. Such discrepancies are common in subjective experiences and are not considered valid evidence for the proposed concept.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, time dilation, as described in theories like relativity, occurs under extreme conditions, such as near the speed of light or strong gravitational fields. Deb’s experience does not align with these well-established scientific principles.
- Reference to God’s Punctuality:
- Refutation: The phrase ‘God always starts on time to finish on time’ is a theological assertion and doesn’t provide scientific evidence for the specific claim about dual timelines or variable time speeds.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, theological statements about God’s timing are outside the scope of empirical investigation. Theological beliefs are matters of faith and interpretation.
In summary of section seven, while Deb Horton’s experience is interesting, it falls within the realm of subjective and spiritual interpretations. Scientifically, there is no substantiated evidence for dual timelines, varying time speeds, or experiences on the astral plane as described in this personal account. It’s crucial to differentiate between personal experiences and scientifically validated principles, especially when asserting what David Eells has presented regarding quantum mechanics.
Section 8 of David Eells’ article: Cutting The Python
Marie Kelton’s dream, while vivid, is a subjective experience that doesn’t provide empirical evidence for the existence of two timelines or the ability to cut them apart. Here are the refutations:
- Python Vision Interpretation:
- Refutation: The dream’s interpretation, associating parts of the python with timelines and asserting that the bad timeline will die off, is a symbolic and subjective interpretation without scientific basis.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, interpreting a dream as a representation of timelines requires objective evidence, which is lacking. Dreams are complex phenomena influenced by various psychological and neurological factors, such as David Eells droning on-and-on about hopeful topical assertions.
- Cleaver Knife Symbolism:
- Refutation: The use of a cleaver knife as a symbol for cutting timelines is a metaphorical interpretation and doesn’t align with established scientific principles.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the notion of cutting timelines with a cleaver knife lacks empirical support. Time, as understood in physics, is a continuous and linear dimension, and the idea of cutting it is not within the scientific framework.
- Hell Vision and Timeline End:
- Refutation: Describing a visit to hell and showing the fate of individuals on a specific timeline is a subjective and spiritual claim without verifiable evidence.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the concept of visiting hell or predicting the timeline end for individuals lacks empirical support. Such claims are typically associated with personal beliefs and interpretations rather than scientific principles.
- Associating Words with Timeline Outcome:
- Refutation: Connecting the fate of individuals in a specific timeline with spoken words (Mat 12:36) is a theological interpretation and not a scientifically supported concept.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, while words can have psychological and social impacts, attributing specific outcomes in timelines to spoken words goes beyond the scope of scientific understanding.
In summary of section eight, Marie Kelton’s (a.k.a. Shalonda) dream provides a narrative that is heavily reliant on symbolic interpretations and subjective experiences. Scientifically, there is no empirical evidence supporting the notion of cutting timelines or visiting hell as described in the dream. It’s crucial to differentiate between personal experiences and scientifically validated principles.
Section 9 of David Eells’ article: Alternate Time Island
The dream shared by Anonymous involves symbolic elements and subjective interpretations. Here’s a refutation:
- Quantum Physics and Alternate Realities:
- Refutation: The dream’s interpretation, connecting the island experiences to Quantum Physics and alternate realities, is a subjective and metaphorical understanding that lacks scientific support.
- Scientific Clarification: While Quantum Physics explores the behavior of particles at a subatomic level, the dream’s application of quantum principles to create alternate realities is an imaginative extension without a basis in established scientific principles.
- Great Gulf and Faction Couple:
- Refutation: Drawing parallels between the dream’s island scenario and biblical references (e.g., Luke 16:26) is a theological interpretation that may resonate with personal beliefs of UBMers but lacks empirical evidence.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, interpreting a great gulf and the cursed nature of the faction couple’s island as representative of biblical concepts goes beyond the scope of empirical observation and testing.
- Cursed Island and Limited Perception:
- Refutation: Describing the faction couple’s island as cursed with thorns and thistles, along with their inability to perceive the other reality, is a symbolic and subjective interpretation.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, concepts like cursed islands and limited perceptions due to faction fall outside the realm of empirical observation and scientific investigation.
- Two Realities as One:
- Refutation: The notion of two different realities coexisting as one, with individuals having the choice to perceive both, is a subjective interpretation without scientific grounding.
- Scientific Clarification: Scientifically, the idea of separate realities that individuals can choose to perceive lacks empirical evidence and is more aligned with subjective experiences and delusional beliefs.
In summary of section nine, the dream’s narrative involves symbolic elements and metaphorical interpretations that are deeply rooted in personal beliefs. While the dream may hold spiritual or symbolic significance for the dreamer, attributing its elements to Quantum Physics or alternate realities goes beyond the scope of scientific understanding. It’s important to differentiate between subjective experiences and scientifically validated principles.
Section 10 of David Eells’ article: Multiple Shifting Timelines
Deb Horton’s explanation involves a speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics and parallel timelines. Here’s a strong refutation:
- Quantum Mechanics and Observers:
- Refutation: The claim that nothing is fixed until observed and believed oversimplifies the principles of quantum mechanics. Quantum superposition doesn’t imply that all possibilities must exist simultaneously.
- Scientific Clarification: Quantum superposition refers to the potential states of a particle until measured, but it doesn’t entail the coexistence of all possibilities simultaneously.
- Movies as Evidence:
- Refutation: Citing movies like ‘The Shift’ and ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ as evidence for multiple timelines is a fallacious appeal to popular culture, not scientific validation and is just plain silly.
- Scientific Clarification: Movies and entertainment are works of fiction and imagination, not empirical evidence. Scientific theories are based on rigorous testing and observation.
- Biblical References:
- Refutation: Quoting Deuteronomy 30:19 and Ezekiel 12:2 to support the concept of choosing timelines is a subjective interpretation and does not relate to quantum mechanics or multiple timelines.
- Scriptural Clarification: These biblical verses primarily address choices in obedience to God’s commands and the consequences of rebellion, not the existence of parallel timelines.
- Misinterpretation of Psalm 82:6:
- Refutation: Psalm 82:6 is misinterpreted to support the idea that humans are gods and co-creators of their lives based on belief. This interpretation lacks theological and contextual accuracy. This belief feeds into David Eells narcissistic Christ Complex.
- Theological Clarification: Psalm 82:6 is an exhortation to judges, and the term ‘gods’ here refers to their authority. It doesn’t grant divine creative power to humans.
In summary of section 10, the presented dreams and assertions, utilized by David Eells to support the concept of multiple shifting timelines, lack scientific and scriptural basis. The attempt to connect quantum mechanics, movies, and selected Bible verses to construct a narrative of parallel realities is a speculative and subjective interpretation. It is crucial to distinguish between imaginative beliefs and empirically supported scientific and theological principles. Yet David continues on his heresies to coverup his sins and avoid accountability as demanded in the Bible for someone leading others.
Overall summary David’s strategy and agenda in this article. David Eells is employing a strategy that combines elements of speculative interpretations of scientific concepts, selective use of biblical passages, and anecdotal dreams to construct a narrative that supports his unique and delusional theological framework. Here are some aspects of his strategy:
- Synthesis of Science and Theology:
- David Eells attempts to merge scientific concepts, particularly from quantum mechanics, with theological ideas. This synthesis creates a narrative that might seem sophisticated and intriguing to those not well-versed in either field.
- Appeal to Anecdotal Dreams:
- Using dreams as evidence gives a personal touch and subjective validation to his assertions. However, dreams are inherently subjective and can be interpreted in various ways.
- Selectivity in Biblical References:
- David Eells selectively chooses Bible verses, sometimes out of their original context, to lend apparent scriptural support to his claims. This selective use contributes to the illusion of a coherent theological foundation.
- Casting Doubt on Conventional Interpretations:
- By introducing the concept of multiple timelines, David Eells challenges conventional interpretations of biblical and scientific principles. This may appeal to individuals seeking alternative or unconventional perspectives.
- Building a Shared Fantasy:
- The UBM community around David Eells shares a collective narrative reinforced by dreams, visions, and interpretations. This shared fantasy creates a sense of unity and purpose among followers.
- Narcissistic Overtones:
- There are red flags of narcissism in the way David Eells positions himself and his followers as uniquely enlightened or chosen. This can foster a sense of exclusivity and dependence on his teachings.
***Narcissism Addendum. Additionally, David Eells is a covert malignant narcissist. Covert malignant narcissists often exhibit manipulative behaviors aimed at gaining control and admiration while maintaining a façade of humility. Here are some potential aspects of David Eells’ assertions that align with traits associated with covert malignant narcissism:
- Grandiosity and Uniqueness:
- Covert narcissists may harbor a sense of grandiosity and uniqueness. David Eells positions his teachings as uniquely enlightened, suggesting a special understanding of biblical and scientific concepts.
- Manipulative Use of Information:
- Covert narcissists tend to manipulate information to suit their narrative. David Eells selectively uses scientific terms, biblical passages, and anecdotal dreams to construct a narrative that reinforces his heretical teachings.
- Building a Follower Base:
- Narcissists often seek admiration and a devoted following. David Eells’ strategy of constructing a shared fantasy, where followers share dreams and visions supporting his teachings, is a way to build a loyal and admiring follower base followed by needed donations.
- Exploiting Vulnerabilities:
- Covert narcissists may exploit the vulnerabilities of others. David Eells exploits the uncertainties and search for meaning in individuals by presenting his teachings as a unique and exclusive source of enlightenment.
- Gaslighting and Reality Distortion:
- Gaslighting involves distorting reality to make others doubt their perceptions. David Eells’ narrative about multiple timelines, dreams, and unique insights is a form of reality distortion that keeps followers dependent on his interpretations.
- Narcissistic Supply:
- Narcissists seek a constant supply of admiration and validation. Constructing a narrative that positions him as a unique and enlightened teacher serve to fulfill this need for narcissistic supply.
FINALLY, David Eells has added necromancy to his latest heretical teachings. This is dangerous and could open the doors to demonic influence or worse. Approach David Eells with extreme caution and discernment.
About the author: ‘Nathan_Jehu‘ holds university-level degrees in Electrical/Electronic Engineering (Bachelor of Science, Summa Cum Laude) and Computer Science (Master of Science); he is also working towards a Ph.D. in Computer Science focusing on the revolutionary convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Quantum Technology and Data Science (AQD). He has taught AI as a professor at the college level and created/presented lectures on Quantum Physics/Mechanics in the context of computing, amongst other technical subjects. He also is the Chief Executive/Scientist of a consulting / research & development corporation focused on various technical vectors, including AQD.
