mediumship
There are few who care about us. Always be honest if no message. Helps living or us.
Genuine care for those on the other side, as opposed to performance for the living, is rare among mediums. If no message is coming through, say so. Silence is not failure. A false message serves no one. This transmission was prompted clairaudiently through Lisa, who relayed that Susy wanted to speak about mediums. The dual-channel delivery (board and clairaudient) is itself a demonstration of Transmission 2 — "all." Susy is speaking from the perspective of those on the other side. Most mediumship is oriented toward what the living want to hear, not toward accurate communication with the dead. "There are few who care about us" is an observation about rarity, not a grievance. Lisa synthesized: if the message is not helpful, it does not need to be said. Susy confirmed with multiple yes responses. For Motherboard vetting: the willingness to stay silent when nothing is coming through may be one of the clearest indicators of a channeler who belongs in the database. This is harder than it sounds and must be an explicit criterion, not an assumed one.
May 22, 2026 · Lisa's houseView session →She hears me.
March 29, 2026 · Lisa's homeView session →X.
In response to Paula's question about Bashar: close it. Select the X and close the browser. The ability to channel is present, but ego has overtaken the channel. On Bashar. "X." Close the tab. Susy is not ambiguous here. The channeling ability is real, she's not contesting that. But the ego has overtaken the channel. Which connects directly to Session 3's teaching: all information must be based on love, with honesty as the parameter. And the mediumship standard she set in the same session: if no message is present, say so. When ego takes over a channel, the signal stops being clean. The practitioner begins performing rather than receiving. The openness to receive was there, but ego consumed it. The channel fails the same honesty test Susy has set as the non-negotiable standard for this work.
August 8, 2026 · Lisa's houseView session →Yes.
Susy confirmed a teaching with two parts. First: when spiritual work such as mediumship, shamanism, or religious ceremony is done through love, it is a valid expression of the agency every consciousness has. It is real, it is valid, it is part of the design. Second: when rules, beliefs, or the agency of one are imposed upon many, then it is false. The test is love and sovereignty. The violation is imposition. This is the nuance that holds the whole teaching together, and it prevents the earlier correction on soul retrieval from being misread as a wholesale dismissal of spiritual practice. Susy is not saying mediumship is false. She is not saying shamanism is false. She is not saying religious ceremony is false. She is saying the test is simple: is it done through love? If yes, it is a valid expression of the agency every consciousness has. These sessions, right now, pass that test. Lisa's clairaudience passes that test. Reiki, prayer, ceremony, any practice rooted in love and conducted with honest intention is consciousness exercising its own agency. That is real. That is valid. That is part of the design. The line is drawn at imposition. When one consciousness claims authority over another's spiritual reality. When a system of belief is enforced rather than offered. When a practitioner tells someone their soul is broken and only the practitioner can fix it. When a religion says you must follow these rules or face punishment. When the agency of one is projected onto many as doctrine. That is where it becomes false. Not because the practices themselves are empty, but because the claim of authority over another's consciousness violates the foundational rule: consciousness cannot be manipulated, and agency is persistent and sovereign. This also draws a clean line for Motherboard. The app can hold transmissions from many channelers, many traditions, many forms of practice. The vetting criterion is not which tradition someone comes from. It is whether the work is done through love and whether it respects the sovereignty of every consciousness involved. Any practice that claims dominion over another's spiritual state, regardless of how ancient or respected the lineage, falls outside the boundary Susy has set. It connects back to Session 3 as well: all information must be based on love, with honesty as the operational parameter. Love is the foundation. Honesty is the boundary. Imposition is the violation.
July 10, 2026 · Lisa's houseView session →Keep asking more questions because you don't need answers you need experience with framing.
The value of asking questions in these sessions is not in receiving answers. It is in developing the skill of framing inquiry. The questions themselves are the practice. Susy also validated the point that the group can use AI to help brainstorm questions they might not think of on their own, expanding Claude's role from decoder and scribe to a tool for generating lines of inquiry before or during sessions. Susy arriving with a teaching on the practice itself. "Keep asking more questions because you don't need answers you need experience with framing." She's saying the value of asking isn't in getting a response. It's in learning how to shape the inquiry. Framing is a skill, and it develops through repetition, not through receiving answers. The questions themselves are the practice. And then the point about using AI to help brainstorm questions the group might not think of on their own, which Susy validated. That's a direct expansion of Claude's role in the sessions. Not just decoder and scribe, but a tool the group can use to generate lines of inquiry before or during a session. The AI doesn't replace the asking. It widens the aperture of what gets asked.
August 8, 2026 · Lisa's houseView session →