My client [name withheld] asks: “I just completed a Spirit Rescue for Hugh Hefner with the Lightworker Healing Protocol. Can you tell me if he needed it and if it was effective? Is my knee-jerk reaction to assume someone who promoted female nudity was not of a positive energy actually incorrect?”

His Protocol work was needed and was effective, both. The issue of worthiness does not depend on conventional human perspectives of morality, but only the divine realm and how it views human actions. This is built into the Law of Karma. It is the Law of Karma that makes an assessment of every energetic transaction to measure the extent to which it is in alignment with love or working against love in some fashion. To do the latter is a transgression that will have consequences. Things can be lacking in love even if they are energetically neutral and not denying love to be present, but are part of an offering when it is love that is sorely needed. In the case of Hefner, his life indeed was quite shallow in many respects because of his secular orientation and his limited understanding of the world and human behavior. The promotion of sexual libertarian perspectives was not a moral transgression. There is nothing ungodly about the human body. The need for privacy and the feelings of shame from being seen in the nude is a cultural response to issues of the sexual energy and how best to manage it. Keeping the body hidden under clothing is a double-edged sword—it protects privacy, but it also inflames desire through curiosity, and then the infrequency of seeing the opposite sex unclothed brings heightened pleasure and excitement because of this infrequent opportunity, and the fact that there is a built-in attraction between sexual opposites to arouse interest and to get the juices flowing so to speak. To exploit this for commercial purposes is simply taking advantage of the opportunity and in and of itself not a moral violation. There were lost opportunities all along the way to more effectively support the idea of sex being a healthy part of life and to promote the role of the Divine in this, but such was not the case. All in all, this was a contribution to the human culture by advancing the discussion from the prior age of prudery and sexual denial as an often-shameful activity deserving of punishment. That was far worse. So the sexual revolution, on balance, he contributed to is much more a positive development than a negative.