I am an skeptic by nature. I refuse to take for granted anything unless I have experienced it myself or seen some hard evidence to prove it and, even then, I sometimes have a hard time accepting it. I tend to disagree - and sometimes dislike - with some of the things Tom states about ego, the meaning and purpose of life, etc. However, if there is something I am absolutely certain is that Tom cannot be making all of this up for the sake of profit. In the first place, the books are sold at a nominal cost; I can tell you that, when I bought the complete triology, I was amazed at how cheap it was, especially taking into account the quality of the writing, whether it is true or pure fiction, I don't care, the books are amazing to read and absolutely inexpensive... I just don't see how Tom was going to profit selling such inexpensive books (bear in mind that these books are far from being bestsellers, which makes them even less profitable).
Secondly, Tom has devoted many time intervals of his life to answering some of my questions. This, to me, has always been amazingly unbelievable: being able to discuss a book with his author online absolutely for free and receiving long and quality replies, even when he is a very busy man with almost no spare time. I mean, damn it, I am way less busy than he is and sometimes I tend to avoid discussion groups in general because I consider that they take up too much minutes from my time management schedule. Is he doing all this looking for profit? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't know why he does it but if there's something for sure is that it is not for profit.
Third, he sells the lecture DVDs at a nominal cost as well, but he has also uploaded the videos to youtube for free so that anyone can watch them without spending a single dollar. Does that look like someone looking for profit? No way.
If you buy the books, you will realize that there's no way to put together all that information in a lecture. Moreover, even in the books, you will find that Tom gives almost no specifics about the many NPMR and PMR dimensions because he believes all that would be entertainment and little else and he prefers to derive a Theory of Everything and give the information the reader needs to access those places himself if he or she wants those kind of data.
Skepticism is good (I practice it on a daily basis), but focusing on details like whether or not he visits Monroe in the non-physical or whether he recalls correctly the amount of time he spent at the Monroe institute is not the path such skepticism should follow, from my point of view.
This is my first post in this forum:
I raised some issues about what I believed to be inconsistencies in his theory and why I thought that extra-sensory perception couldn't be something real. You will find lots of useful information there.