In a large group reading, a famous medium walked up to a participant, pulled a bag of M&M’s out of the man’s shirt pocket, and helped herself to a few. She claimed she was told by the man’s departed son that his father didn’t believe in mediums. She even licked one and put it in the man’s mouth because his son used to do that. If the man was a genuine skeptic, then why was this dramatic display of the paranormal allowed under the rules of engagement? Was the fact that all who chose to be there, and even later watch the episode on video, were by their very presence and willful observation, allowing for a paranormal miracle to be on display? Will true skeptics simply dismiss it as a pre-arranged fraudulent stunt?

What you are laying out here gets to the heart of the issues that are always considered carefully with any display of paranormal phenomena involving the departed. It is true that most who come to such events have basic belief, and so putting on a show for them is not violating the rules of engagement because the people themselves attending through free will choice are choosing to believe in such things, so there is no technical violation. But even though this was a wildly improbable coincidence to have happened, to know about M&M's being special, and then licking one and putting it in the skeptic's mouth, as the son did in life, would be pretty far-fetched as a coincidence. Skeptics cannot help but disbelieve no matter what happens because, in most instances, the belief is carved in stone. This is true of most beliefs, they are not temporary and flexible, believed sometimes and not others. A belief is a belief, by definition, and will be very hard to overrule even with the help of other beliefs that might, in some respects, clash. So that is a complicated discussion, but if you spend any time looking at the work of psychic mediums, if you are open to the possibility of it is a true demonstration of non‑local consciousness connecting souls in the living with those who have departed and are now residing in heaven, you will see that, in most cases, the level of proof is less than this more dramatic example. The fact it was allowed to happen was because the medium who was doing the reading loves when something that dramatic takes place because that makes her reputation, and it makes it television worthy, and that is how she has built her career, for those quite dramatic readings that make people's jaws drop. It does not happen every time, so when it does it is truly special. So while the light must be very careful to not be overdramatic and too convincing, in order to honor the skeptics in their free will choice to disbelieve, if someone on the human side wants something in the way of a special sign, a convincing demonstration, this might be allowable as long as it is not too over the top. So this is a grey area and you will see a range of examples of these kinds of relative strengths, in terms of being a convincer, on display. This is why a psychic medium, using their own psychic ability to connect, might find quite detailed information out about a spirit and relay that to loved ones in the living that are not offered directly by the spirit in the light, because it would be too improbable a coincidence, and they are not allowed to prove the existence of the hereafter. But if a psychic figures something out, in perhaps looking at the akashic records of what took place with the person's passing, which is open to inspection, and pulls those details out and mentions them as though they are coming from the spirit in the light, and may not be aware that that is not the case because it is just coming to mind for that psychic, it is not breaking the rules, it is simply illustrating that it is human beings who hold power in the earth plane and can do things that the divine cannot, because of free will privileges.