A viewer asks: “There is a common saying phrased as “you can’t eat gold” that opponents of gold bullion investing throw around. What is the divine perspective on this saying? Is it wisdom, or is it folly? What is its origin?”

This, by itself, really means nothing because context is all-important for an issue such as this. If you are in an isolated area holding a bag of gold coins, but starving and lack the wherewithal to journey to where you can get food and water, that gold is useless to you. But, on the other hand, if your rations are low, yet you have some savings, and perhaps are uncertain if they will serve you, reapplying those in the gold sector at a time of a coming windfall would be a wise investment, especially if there is a downturn in the market and you are holding shares of companies on the exchanges that will be hit with a downdraft affecting almost every asset. So this is also a question of timing. Each situation is different and the timelines for various scenarios, of what might happen and how people might react, will be hugely variable as well. So someone wanting to be a pundit and give general advice like this, on one side or the other, is doing a disservice because they are not all-knowing and will not be privy to the future, and certainly not the highly varied circumstances of all who might hear that advice given glibly but truly in ignorance of all the potentials and their consequences, so we would encourage people to ignore such voices. You have done your best to caution people about this in your webinars, as general perspectives on what is coming, not individual investment advice for anyone in particular for the same reason as we have said, no two people are in the same circumstances with the same needs and vulnerabilities. But knowing what the future holds for the gold sector is of potential great value for many. What they do with that knowledge will be up to them in how they navigate, and whether they take any particular action or not, as the case might be. You are not taking responsibility, as a channeler, for all that might happen. That would be an unfair burden of responsibility for anyone in your circumstances because you are not claiming to give particular actionable advice that is intended for everyone and have, indeed, cautioned about the volatility and the uncertainty of timing given that it is not under human control, and so forth. That is all you can do in being fair to your listeners. So we see this as simply a kind of dissent that is not well thought out without at least further refinement, and thus more a liability than a benefit, because such things add to confusion and may well cause people to do something ill‑advised, because it instills fear and uncertainty and a reluctance to act when future events are looming that would warrant doing so.