Occasionally, when someone has received conflicting information from more than one channel, I am called upon to do Michael Reading chart "doctoring" to try to help determine what information is correct. Before asking Michael to check the akashic records, we do extensive self-validation. First, I may ask the client exactly what Michael had said through the other channels, and in what context. For example, if Michael said, "You look like you're about sixth- or seventh-level mature" or "You look like a sage with a priest essence twin," Michael obviously wasn't committing to the information. They were probably reading his aura, perhaps in a group where it was hard to be certain, since auras can blend together in a group, or from a photograph during a telephone session, since reading photographs or a person's aura long-distance gives less information than reading the aura of a person who is physically present (if aura-reading is how Michael through that channel obtains their information). On the other hand, if they said something with certainty in an in-person private session, it carries more weight. If the information had been given from the akashic records, it carries more weight still. I also go into further detail with the client about what the different roles, overleaves, etc., actually mean so that he can explore which are most true of his life, and I attempt to guess what is probably correct, based on my observations, as well. Only then do I ask Michael to give the information again; they usually confirm most of our conclusions, but they may not. If they don't, that could lead to more questions.

In my experience, the first information given is usually the most accurate if it comes through a channel who is clear and skilled in that kind of material, under favorable conditions. I am very careful to channel charts only when my physical energy is strong, with no fatigue or headaches. If the circumstances of a channeling are not ideal, such as in conditions of stress or distraction (in either the channel or client), mistakes are more likely. Therefore, as part of self-validation, it can be valuable to consider what was going on each time information was given. If the information was incorrect the first time, the chances of it being correct the second time increase.

When subsequent channelings are largely identical (which occurs in a minority of instances), it is probable that the person's chart is pretty obvious, without a lot of cross-currents (overleaves that pull in different directions, such as a server in dominance, or an artisan with a king essence twin), and/or essence may have set it up to make sure the information came through accurately more than once because the person needed that experience. Conversely, a channel-shopper may get widely differing versions of her overleaves because essence wants her to really learn the teachings and self-validate. Still, she would be wise to examine the circumstances of the first channelings, as outlined above.

Even when channeled Michael teachings information is incorrect, it is still often plausible or has a logic to it. Consequently, it can be messy to sort out just what is correct, and self-validation can require delving more deeply. Even if a person is sure that certain information was incorrect, it can be worthwhile to examine it to see why it came up--it may convey something about what's happening in the client's life, even if it's not the correct Michael information. For example, once, not knowing that the information had already been given, I incorrectly channeled an artisan with a scholar essence twin as being a scholar. She said that friends had told her that she had been looking more scholarly lately. The incorrect information gave her a clue that she was drawing in more of her essence twin energy. (If our essence twin, or twin soul, has a different role, qualities of that role tend to "bleed through" our own, especially when the essence twin is discarnate.)

It is always possible to rationalize wrong information, to find reasons it is correct, just as it is possible to find reasons correct information is wrong. This is especially true when our understanding of what the information really means is not highly developed. For example, if I were new to the Michael teachings and someone told me that I am a king, I could "validate" that by noting that I am sometimes a perfectionist and am a good organizer, as many kings are. I could also "validate" priest because I tend to be compassionate, and artisan because I am somewhat creative. And so forth. (One long-time Michael student swore I was a server because he saw me as being nurturing.) This is all what I refer to as "circumstantial evidence." However, if I gained a deep working understanding of the roles, I would be able to see beyond the surface and eventually, at least, perceive what is actually true, which is that I am a sage, and that, in fact, I look and feel nothing like a king (and not much like a priest, artisan, or server, either).

There is no real harm in having incorrect Michael information--working to stay in the positive pole of priest, compassion, and out of the negative pole, zeal, is certainly a worthwhile endeavor for anyone. However, the correct information will ultimately be far more powerful and profound--recognizing my sagely oration and working for true expression can have far more impact on my life. In the end, correct information rings more true and deep, and incorrect information doesn't quite fit. Still, correct information may not seem right if we don't fully understand what it means or what its limitations are. For example, if a person assumes that all servers like to take care of other people, and he doesn't, he may assume that he could not be a server. Or if someone has a goal of submission but is bossy at times (which could be explained by an occasional sliding to dominance, aggression or power mode, being a king or warrior, or any other number of factors), others might assume that submission couldn't be correct, not recognizing that the goal isn't about behaviors per se but about what motivates a person.

Of all the Michael chart traits, there is by far the most misunderstanding and emotional charge about soul age. People who have read some of the Michael books before having a chart done are often unhappy with the soul age channeled. More often, they think it's too low, but sometimes it's higher than what they expected and they interpret that as being pressure to live up to a standard of spiritual advancement they don't have. Soul age, in fact, is not about spiritual advancement, but simply about the focus of one's lessons. It is much more minor than usually thought.

I have discussed at length with Michael why Michael information is often inaccurate after the first time people ask for it. They explained that asking for specific information forms a sort of electrical circuit between the asker and the information, with the channel and channeled source as go-betweens. (They called this a "structural willingness to receive.") That circuit is strongest the first time the information is requested because there is an intrinsic need for the information--it hasn't been given before. The circuit is weaker subsequently if there is no organic need for the information to be given again. Because of that, other influences can impinge more strongly than they otherwise would. That is not to say that the information will definitely be incorrect, but the chances grow.

One such possible impinging influence is the psychic projection of the person asking when he has a strong investment in certain information being correct. For example, if, from reading one of the Michael books, he is certain he is a sage, or very much hopes that he is, he may project that. The projection can appear to be the reality if it is strong enough, and can obscure the actual fact even for Michael when the circuit to receive the true information is weakened. Another influence that can obscure correct information is an aura that looks different than it usually does. For instance, a priest whose energy is scattered and who lacks a sense of higher purpose may resemble the other high-frequency role, artisan; artisans' auras are naturally diffuse. A third influence might come when a person has more than one essence sharing his body, or is working intimately with another essence, such as his essence twin, a guide, or even another person; Michael might inadvertently read the information for an essence other than the primary "lease-holder."

This is true regardless of who the channel is each time or who asks for the information. If someone else had had my chart channeled without telling me, and then I also have it channeled, the circuit is still weaker the second time. I may have a genuine need and desire for the information, but not a "structural" or organic need, since the information is, at least theoretically, available to me on the physical plane. It doesnąt seem fair, but it does appear to work that way. Michael through me strongly encouraged a sharing of information in order to avoid such problems. This is part of being a good steward of what Michael gives us.

The problem of getting information more than once is not unique to the Michael teachings. It is often said that one's first intuition is the most accurate, even in mundane situations such as taking a multiple choice test. If you doubt your intuition and ask within again, what arises tends to be less certain and clear. When working with tarot cards about a particular problem, the first card drawn is usually the most apropos; if you keep drawing cards about the same problem, the waters become muddied, so to speak. Perhaps this reflects in part that the universe operates with an economy of effort: why ask for information twice when once will do?

A process of self-validation, like the one I outlined relative to Michael Reading chart "doctoring," can strengthen the circuit: after going through the process, there may now be an "organically" valid reason for the information to be given again, since what was first given was taken advantage of fully. An appropriate way to ask Michael again for the information would be something like this: "Such-and-such information was channeled for me. It doesn't seem right, for this reason. Could you please double-check it?"

Michael also told me that Michael students have made an agreement with Michael on an essence level to be good stewards of the information Michael gives, and not to ask unnecessarily for the same material to be looked up more than once.

MICHAEL: "The informational part of the teachings is a means to an end. We're really concerned with advancing growth, not with being a cosmic librarian."

Reconciling discrepancies teaches much about distinctions in the Michael system. For example, if a person is channeled as being second-level old on one occasion, and seventh-level mature on another, it can be quite educational to study the differences between those soul ages and try to determine which one is more true of him. Discrepancies can also help keep channels and clients on their toes, so that no one assumes that a particular channel is infallible. Someone who needs lessons in self-validation, who perhaps has a desire to believe in the infallibility of a particular channel, or who tends to just accept whatever is given without engaging with it and considering it, is more likely to attract inaccurate information when the "structural willingness to receive" is weakened.

Some other channels I have spoken with confirm the difficulty in channeling Michael information more than once, and in "More Messages from Michael," the channels discussed how they "block" information if someone has already channeled it, even if they didn't know that. On the few occasions when I was unknowingly the second one to channel a person's Michael chart, or forgot that I had already channeled a chart and did it a second time, I did not "block"--the information flowed normally. Only once or twice did something seem "fishy." The charts were usually plausible, at least on the surface. However, I later discovered that most of the repeated material was wrong.

An acquaintance of mine went to four Michael channels when visiting northern California, and asked them all for his Michael information (which I had already given him). We now refer to this as "overleaves shopping" or "channel shopping," usually meaning going to different channels until you get the chart you want, although he was doing it more as a test. He didn't tell them he had already asked other channels, and didn't realize the problems involved in doing this. He thought that if the channels were "pure," he'd get identical information each time. That didn't happen, and he felt that indicated that the channels were "editing" the material. Actually, the results were fairly similar, since the information was being read from his aura in person, and some of it, such as his role and soul age, was pretty clear-cut. However, there were some differences in soul-age level and overleaves. Part of the problem, in addition to the weakened circuit, was that he didn't tell the channels that the information had already been channeled. Although his intent was not malicious, there was a lack of openness in that. I can understand his wish to try to validate a channel's accuracy is a "scientific" method, but when information is withheld, the session becomes more about "testing" the channel than about fully participating. Channeling is a delicate process that requires a complete investment by both the client and channel, including total good-faith cooperation and honesty, without any holding back. Telling Michael what was channeled previously can help them avoid inaccuracies. It alerts them that the circuit was probably weakened, and they can explore what was channeled previously to see if it has "roots" all the way back to the core of the person and shows up in his akashic records, or if it is merely somehow part of his appearance. That said, some channels do not want to know what was previously given, and that should be respected.

At a 1996 conference of sixteen Michael channels, including Sarah Chambers, in La Veta, Colorado, there was widespread agreement that "overleaves shopping" is generally not a good idea. However, the idea that channeling Michael chart information more than once is problematic remains controversial. To some, it looks like a cop-out, a rationalization for bad channeling. All I can say is that my experience has repeatedly borne it out: when my charts are the first, they tend to be validated over time; when they're not, they tend to be less accurate unless the client has diligently worked with all the information previously given and presents me with it along a summary of her validation of it; in that case, we usually get a clean chart.

The Yarbro channels regard other Michael channels as not being valid. Occasionally, I've heard about people who'd already had their charts channeled later receiving information from a Yarbro channel that seemed wildly off-base, despite the Yarbro reputation for accuracy. Even if they're careful about not duplicating efforts among themselves, they have no qualms about duplicating channeling by others because they assume that they are the only accurate ones. Any channel who glibly repeats channeling without caution and simply assumes that she or he is correct is treading on thin ice.

Channeling specific Michael information more than once is different from asking more than one channel or psychic what he picks up about, say, your health or a relationship, because with a general question, there are always more "pieces of the puzzle" that can be given, helping fill in the whole picture--there is more than one correct answer available (unlike you role, for example; although there are secondary influences from other roles, you only have one actual true role). Michael information such as your true play or life task are also items that tend to have several parts and can be accurately depicted in a number of ways, so they can be asked about more than once with less diminishment. Still, if a channeled entity or psychic told me something specific about my health and I questioned its accuracy, I might check it with another source, but I would offer to tell him what had been said previously. Again, some (especially psychics, in this case) may not want to know, but I would at least give him the option.

If someone requests a chart on a famous or historical person, I often first consult the database at michaelteachings.com and the book "Celebrities--The Complete Michael Database" by Emily Baumbach. It has a list of Michael information on about twelve hundred well-known figures, culled from the work of many channels. What I get may disagree, but the list provides a starting point. In fact, when Emily compiled the list, there were sometimes discrepancies among some of the contributing channels, and once in a while one channel got different information at different times. Emily, who also channels Michael, chose the information that felt most right to her at the time, and later changed her mind in some instances. Although it can be difficult to validate Michael information on people we do not personally know, we still have to decide for ourselves whether, for example, Shakespeare was a sage or a scholar, or whether Shirley MacLaine is an artisan, priest, or sage. (I channeled that Shakespeare was a scholar, confirming Yarbro, with scholar essence twin, to my surprise, and that Shirley MacLaine is a sage with a priest essence twin. To me, MacLaine is a stereotypical sage, but some Michael students are convinced she's a priest because of her metaphysical writings.) Even when a channel is the first to ask for information on a particular celebrity, if Michael is reading it psychically, the lack of direct personal contact can interfere with the results. Not only is reading someone psychically without direct contact more difficult than in person, but a celebrity's media personality isn't necessarily genuine, and that can alter the way his energy looks.

Although Emily's book is an invaluable reference, Emily doesn't give us alternate channelings or who channeled information on someone first. Furthermore, there is no way to know if channels she didn't work with received information first on someone listed there, or if Michael information has already been channeled on those not listed. Michael has suggested to me that I check with other channels before channeling a chart on a celebrity or historical figure, but that isn't always practical, and I don't want to impose on other people's time.

There have been a few instances when a client has asked for someone's chart, and Michael has not been able to get the information because the essence of the prospective chart subject didn't want it to be given. In each case, the client told me afterward that the subject was intensely private or guarded. In general, a person's Michael information is a matter of public record--like a person's face--and asking for someone else's chart is usually not considered an invasion of his privacy. There is nothing on it that is either good or bad; it is all neutral, and there is nothing on it that could be used against a person. On the contrary, a chart can only help the cause of greater understanding. However, if an essence doesn't want it given out, it won't be, just as if a person doesn't want his face to be seen, he can keep it hidden.