Stevenson's informants were 3000[2] children spontaneously remembering recent ordinary lives, as opposed to adults remembering under hypnosis romantic or heroic lives in the distant past.[3] In addition, birthmarks that occur at the sites of injury in the previous life constitute an important part of Stevenson's evidence.[4]
Stevenson's methodology involved listening to stories, comparing and contrasting variants of stories, verification or falsification of empirical claims, and constructing long, detailed narratives that attempt to "capture" the complex experience of his informants, who claim to remember incidents from past lives. In this sense Stevenson's work is similar to that of ethnographers and cultural anthropologists.[4]
While Stevenson wrote extensively on his reincarnation studies, his work earned limited circulation outside academia. At the outset, Shroder sees his role not only as an observer, but also as skeptic. But as his journey with Stevenson progresses, Shroder finds it increasingly difficult to reject the possibility of past lives.[5]
Reception
Jack Coulehan, writing for the New York University of Medicine, said "This book provides a good introduction to the work of Ian Stevenson, a man who qualifies for this database because he has devoted his professional life to the study of narrative. Stevenson's methodology involves listening to stories, comparing and contrasting variants of stories, and constructing long, detailed narratives that attempt to 'capture' the complex experience of his informants, who claim to remember incidents from past lives. In this sense Stevenson's work is similar to that of ethnographers, cultural anthropologists, and folklorists".[4]
David Wallis, writing for The New York Times, has said "After years of mockery from colleagues, Dr. Ian Stevenson, Director of the Department of Personality Studies at the University of Virginia, is finally getting respect".[6]
More critically, the philosopher and skeptic Robert Todd Carroll wrote that "Old Souls is an interesting read but the author is not very critical in his observations. He takes a lot at face value and seems not to understand the dangers of confirmation bias."[7]
