Session 202212011

Health, Wellbeing and the Changes of the Twentieth Century


“Health, Wellbeing and the Changes of the Twentieth Century”
“The Pendulum Extreme of Gender”
“You’re Not Equal, You’re Different”
“Recovering Self-Healing Abilities”
“The Role of Honor in Human Experience”
“Helplessness and Victimhood”
“Lessening the Importance of Difference in the Shift”
“The Sides of the Brain and Physiological Changes in the Shift”
“Sugar, Stevia, Honey and Maple Syrup”

Thursday, December 1, 2022 (Private/Phone)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Jean-François (Samta)

ELIAS: Good morning!

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Hey! Good morning, Elias.

ELIAS: (Laughs) And what shall we discuss?

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Well, today for me, I would have a series of questions about health, general questions about health. And the first question is, you know you’ve said on a number of occasions that most of us don’t make health a priority, that it isn’t the most important factor for us. And I wonder, like why would that be? Are there cultural or societal or otherwise general reasons for that? And I’m wondering about that, especially given that, as you’ve also said, we have created more diseases in the past hundred years or so than at any other time in our entire history as a species. So why are we downplaying health?

ELIAS: Because if it doesn’t appear to be life-threatening, you’re too distracted with everything else. I would say that life as you know it has become very complicated in the last 120 years. I would say that up until that point, life was simpler and therefore people had less to distract them and they paid more attention to themselves. They paid more attention to their lifestyle and their living and their health and wellbeing. But in your twentieth century, that genuinely changed.

You moved in the direction of so many new inventions and it became somewhat of a race to invent, and a race to create more and more and more in your reality of what you could invent, what could make life simpler or easier. And in the process you were complicating life more and more, because you were generating more and more and more distractions. And you’re still doing it.

And in that, you’ve had so many distractions that it moves your attention very automatically away from those simple principles that are very important: health and wellbeing, and yourselves and your immediate environment, and your family and friends. And in that, I would say that this is something that you are generating somewhat of a return to, in becoming more self-aware, altering what you value and what is important to you. And instead of expressing that ultimately what is important to you is more, more, more, more and more, you are beginning to recognize that what is genuinely important to you is you, your health and wellbeing, your family and friends. Your life is ultimately more important to you.

But it hasn’t been expressed in that direction for over a century. But as I have expressed also, that your twentieth century – and somewhat before the beginning of your twentieth century, but it very much began to solidify and change tremendously in your twentieth century – has created significant historical changes. And that has been very affecting actually of your lifestyles and of your health and wellbeing.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Hm. Yeah. Definitely.

ELIAS: In that, much of it has had effects on your health and wellbeing and was viewed originally as moving in the direction of promoting wellbeing more. And much of this has to do with the shift in relation to gender. And in that, it’s not only that, but a lot of it does have to do with that, and has affected history in much more capacities than you realize, as I’ve expressed with all of you previously in different capacities. But in relation to what you perceive as the women’s movement, which actually began almost at the midpoint of the nineteenth century and then very much moved into prominence in the twentieth century, that in itself has affected a tremendous amount of your health and wellbeing. For men and women.

And it’s expressions that you wouldn’t have expected. And it’s not that you move in a particular direction, and if you do one action then you’re going to sacrifice something for that action. It’s not about that, but it is about a significant shift in what you made important and therefore shifting the energy and shifting the balance. And that has created a significant change in health and wellbeing, and as I said, for men and women. And much of it has to do with gender-related dis-eases. Not all of it, but a lot of it does have to do with gender-related dis-eases.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Where would say that we are at collectively now, in relation to those gender changes that were initiated and developed last century?

ELIAS: I would say at this point you’re swinging in the direction of an extreme in moving in swinging the pendulum in the other direction in an extreme. If you were to look at it from the perspective of a pendulum and a graph, in a manner of speaking, and where it began was in the extreme of male dominance and control, and then moving into an extreme of female recognition and acknowledgment, but all of that is on one side, in one extreme: the extreme of the male dominance and the extreme of the female movement in what was perceived as an expression of moving into equality – which wasn’t equality at all, but another extreme – and now it has moved in a different extreme of expressing no gender at all. That will not last.

But that is the extreme of how the pendulum has swung now, in the direction of no male dominance, no female dominance, no gender at all. And in that—

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah, that is very noticeable in society, yes.

ELIAS: Yes. And in that, I would say that this is the swinging of the pendulum in the other extreme, and then it will likely move to settle in a balance. And in that, recognizing that it’s not about dominance. It’s not about control. It’s not about one gender expressing more than another gender. It’s not even about equality, because you’re not equal. You’re different.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: But can I say something here? Because I’ve heard you say that different times in recent years, and when people seek equality, are we not seeking equality of worth and value? And not necessarily equal as in like sameness? But it sounds like you’re saying we actually have tried to make it sameness.

ELIAS: I would say you have.


ELIAS: And in that, yes, the ideal is the equality in value but it doesn’t translate in that manner when you are expressing in physical capacities. And how it has translated is attempting to create equal expressions and equal manifestations in relation to both genders, which is ludicrous. It can’t happen, because you’re different.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Right. I think the ideal would be much more to acknowledge and celebrate equality of worth in our differences.

ELIAS: And I would say that THAT is not about gender. THAT is about people. That’s about being. And that’s what your younger generation is attempting to express now by moving in the direction of no gender.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Right. They do make it about gender very much. Yeah.

ELIAS: Yes. Therefore, in all of that I would say that in relation to health and wellbeing, much of that has gotten lost in the shuffle.


ELIAS: And that also what has contributed again, in addition to the factor that you create more dis-ease than in any other time in your history, including time frameworks in which you have created mass expressions of dis-ease such as the plague.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: (Laughs) Yeah. The middle ages had nothing on us, huh?

ELIAS: I would say.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: (Laughs) Tell me what would be, which countries or cultures or groups, would you say are the most healthy, or some of our better examples of people making health more important today?

ELIAS: (Pause) I would say (pause) Indonesia, (pause) native Australians—

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: You mean the Maori?

ELIAS: Repeat.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Do you mean the Maori?

ELIAS: The original, the aboriginal.


ELIAS: I would say (pause) some people in South America, some of the areas and cultures in Peru, but there are some in other areas of South America. That’s not the only piece. But for the most part, most of your countries that you view as being the most civilized are (laughs) the least healthy.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah, that’s not surprising. Hm. Okay. Well, thank you for that. And to follow up on that, like a few years ago you had told us that humans used to be more accomplished at healing, like as people. And that was before the increased separation and all the kind of self-concern that came to be in the last century. So are we…? Are we going to recover those abilities or some of those abilities with the shift? I also remember that you had said we won’t necessarily be more interested or invested in self-healing than we are now, once the shift is completed, but I wonder if we are not going to just recover the abilities?

ELIAS: I would say yes, and I would say that the reason you wouldn’t necessarily be more invested in healing in the completion of this shift is that you will be more self-aware and therefore it won’t be necessary.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: So we are poised to reverse that trend of creating the most disease in history?


JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Okay, well that’s encouraging. Yeah!

ELIAS: I would agree.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: You’ve talked about the loss of honor in relation to trauma. How would you say the loss of honor has impacted our biological – or I mean biological but also psychological and emotional health? I mean, some of it is obvious, but would you elaborate on that?

ELIAS: I would say it has affected all three of those tremendously, tremendously. I would say that that is also tremendously obvious in the escalation of physical dis-ease, emotional dis-ease, and mental dis-ease, that you have compounded all three of them. And in that, I would say that it’s tremendously obvious how all of them interplay with each other.

And I would also say that in relation to mental, what you think of as mental dis-ease – now there is an actual expression of mental dis-ease, but then there are all of the mental conditions that you think of as being dis-eases when they may not necessarily be. What they are, are manifestations that individuals have moved more and more and more in directions of choosing alternative expressions of reality and alternative explorations of reality in YOUR reality because of trauma or because of an inability to cope with how reality is forming and the expectations in relation to society.

And in that, in being considerably confused also, you have created more and more and more situations in which individuals choose to be expressing very different experiences of your reality that your psychology deems to be mental illnesses. Which THAT has escalated tremendously also in the past century. Not that you haven’t always had that type of expression and individuals that choose that type of exploration of your reality throughout your history, but it has definitely escalated tremendously in your last century.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah. I mean we… collectively we still think there is this one, one reality, right? But (laughs) that’s breaking apart too I think, as we move into the shift. But if we go back to honor for a minute, how would you define honor and what is its role in human experience?

ELIAS: Honor is an important factor in the human experience because it is an acknowledgment of value. It is the recognition and the acknowledgment of worth and value, even in relation to things that seem to be devalued. Therefore even in situations such as slaves, that in let us say Egyptian times or Roman times, even in relation to the peasantry and the slaves, which are people that are in a manner of speaking devalued, there still was a factor of honor.

The Romans incorporated the gladiators and the games, and in that, these are individuals that are slaves and therefore they don’t or didn’t incorporate much value other than a monetary value. And I would say that they did though still incorporate the perception of worth, that these individuals could be earning their freedom through their expression of their accomplishment, that they had some worth and that they were expressed in a direction of recognition and acknowledgment of that worth, that even a slave had some type of worth and could be, if nothing else, expressing entertainment.

In this, because there has been this expression of honor, this recognition and acknowledgment of worth, it has affected humans throughout history even in what you would think of the worst of situations. Even in relation to war and enemies and in association with slaves, there has been an expression of honor to a degree. To a degree.

Now; understand that within every age there are also individuals that don’t honor and that don’t express that and that is obvious in how they interact with or behave and treat other individuals. Individuals that incorporate slaves that are entirely brutal to them, they express no honor. Individuals that incorporate livestock that are brutal are expressing no honor.

In this, honor is that expression and acknowledgment of value. And you can see the difference when that is being expressed and when it is not being expressed.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: It’s a kind of reverence for life, no?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: And why…? How did we lose honor? Like how did we move out of that as a culture or collectively?

ELIAS: It’s all intertwined, as with everything, that everything is interconnected. And what I would say to you is that in relation to your history, within the twentieth century – but it goes back to the nineteen century also, the latter part of the nineteenth century, and then moving into the twentieth century – and the incorporation of all the movements that were occurring and the first world war, and then moving very quickly on the heels of that into the second world war – and by the time you moved in the direction of the second world war (sighs) what I would say to you is that you incorporated a very weary world. And at that point, there was too much war and not enough provision for war, AND there was the incorporation of allowance of individuals to move in directions and a valuing of individuals moving in directions of no honor and no value of human life.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah. Wouldn’t it be like directly connected to increasingly over time moving into, you know, a strong materialism? An extreme materialism related to separation? You know, as we got all enamored with materialistic sciences over the centuries and then it culminated with this, where if we sap that sense of non-physical source, then we’re just left like with chickens with their heads cut off and running around, and everything is viewed in a materialistic way?

ELIAS: But it’s more than the materialistic view. It’s also a matter of the promotion and the acknowledgment and the valuing of people moving in directions of devaluing other humans. That was something that actually began in your second world war in a tremendous degree. And because that was not only acknowledged but encouraged, that genuinely began to move you in a direction of expressing a type of helplessness and victimhood. And that moves you more and more in the direction of less and less and less worth.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah, and as I’m listening to you it makes me think that that movement has also normalized exploitation of humans – and animals too, right? Oh, and the planet?

ELIAS: Yes, most definitely. All of it.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah. Thank you. We were… You brought up the subject of mental health and I (laughs) had a question about that. Did I imagine that or…? Because I can’t find the source anymore, where you would have said that in the years leading, moving into the shift, it would be likely that we would experience mass lunacy of sorts. Did you say that?

ELIAS: That was not precisely what I expressed, but I did express in a manner of that.

Now; what I was saying was not that you would be experiencing mass lunacy, but that you would perceive the movement of parts of this shift as being similar to mass lunacy.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Ah! Yeah. So that has started, no? (Laughs)


JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yeah. I mean, there’s definitely a strong current right now, insisting on one reality. So that’s the part where as this breaks apart, it would be perceived as mass lunacy?

ELIAS: Yes. And also moving more and more and more in the direction of individuals that are expressing different realities within your reality, because this is their direction of how they can cope.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: But that is, you know, that’s natural, no? I mean, if we each create our own reality, there’s bound to be a whole spectrum of individual realities within the larger agreed reality?

ELIAS: Yes, but not to the degree that it has been in the past century.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: So, upon completion of this shift, how would you qualify the likely expression of mass reality will be? I mean, how homogenous is it likely to be?

ELIAS: (Pause) Define that, what you mean.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Well I guess I’m not clear about this subject. Like I mean… (pause) in moving into the recognition of perception and that we do indeed create individually, even though at lot of that overlaps, right, a lot of that we agree on. A lot of what we perceive. I mean, there are variations, but are we as a people likely to express more diversity and recognize the diversity and accept the diversity of perceptions in the shift? Is that not what we are moving into?

ELIAS: I would say not necessarily more diversity, but more acceptance of all of that diversity. You already express a tremendous diversity, but there’s not an acceptance of that because you still want everyone to conform to a particular reality and to not have that diversity. But that IS changing. And in that, that doesn’t mean that you want everyone to be exactly the same or that when you move in the direction of accepting more diversity that everyone will be tremendously different. It doesn’t mean that at all. It simply means that moving in the direction of more acceptance of difference lessens the importance of difference and therefore you don’t notice it as much. You don’t pay as much attention to it, because it’s not important.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Hm. Yes. That makes sense. Okay.

ELIAS: And if it’s not important and you’re not paying as much attention to it, then it’s not necessary for individuals to create significantly different expressions because they wouldn’t be paid attention to anyway. Therefore there’s not the necessity for creating significant differences because it’s (chuckles) not important.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yes. Yes. I understand. Thank you.

ELIAS: You are welcome.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: I’d like to ask you a technical question, something that I still find confusing, this whole thing about the left side and the right side of the body and the brain physically and energetically. So I think our basic understanding is that at least biologically, the right side of the brain is the intuitive, the feminine, which controls the left side of the brain [sic, but the intended meaning was that the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body] and then vice versa, where the left side of the brain is the masculine, analytical, controls the right side of the body. Which, you know I’d asked you at some point about those Egyptian statues, that so many of them depict the left foot forward, and you had confirmed that it was a way to denote the intuition, the feminine side, being put forward culturally. By then I’ve heard you also say oh no, actually it’s flipped. It’s reversed. The masculine and feminine associations to both sides, they’re flipped. But did, do you mean that? Like there’s a difference between biologically and energetically, and that energetically it’s reversed? What’s the story on this? What’s the (laughs) final word on this? I’m confused.

ELIAS: Physiologically, you’re correct.


ELIAS: Physiologically, the opposite side of the brain is associated with that opposite factor of the body. Therefore yes, you are correct. The right side of the brain physiologically is expressing in relation to the left side of the body. Therefore that, you are correct.

But there’s also a shift in energy, and the shift in energy is shifting how many things are expressed in physical capacities. Therefore at this point, it’s beginning to change and mirror the energetic expression more. And yes, you are also correct that energetically it is not necessarily that the left side of the brain is the masculine side and therefore is also energetically expressed in a masculine capacity. That’s not always correct energetically, and it’s not so black and white. And I would say that that has been throughout history, but NOW even more so because you’re shifting the energy entirely and creating a different paradigm. And that is creating a very different expression of male and female energy and the masculine and the feminine, the intellectual and intuitional. I would say that yes, physiologically that would be correct, but it’s not black and white.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: So it’s a changing structure? Like there’s an ongoing change and it’s changing the structure of how it’s been expressed physiologically in the past?


JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Ah, so that’s why it was confusing. (Laughs) So what are we arriving at then, in terms of that expression with our bodies and the energy? (Pause) In terms of those polarities?

ELIAS: Moving more in a direction of balance and more of a symbiotic expression of energy.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: So the fact that it has been polarized in that way with the sides, that is basically an expression of compartmentalized we have been?

ELIAS: And division. Yes, and division.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: So when the shift, the energy that we are going to be expressing through our bodies and the physiological expression and makeup itself is going to move into less of a division? We’re not going to be doing that right side, left side thing anymore?

ELIAS: Not as much, and that’s already occurring. It’s not that you’re not going to be doing it any longer as in future tense, but you’re already moving in that direction. And this is all part of all of this construction that you’ve been doing in the physical brain, in creating new grooves, creating new neurological pathways. And in that, you’re constructing yourselves even physiologically differently.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Hm. Well that’s fascinating. Thank you. So we have a couple of minutes left. Let me see. Okay, a little quick health question. So it’s pretty well established by now that sugar is not beneficial for most people in certain quantities or in certain aspects. What about something like stevia, which is… It doesn’t spike sugar blood levels in the same way, but it’s often used as a replacement for sugar. What about that substance generally for people? Is that problematic?

ELIAS: In long term, yes. And let me express to you, that sugar itself is not bad for you, but it’s how you consume it, that you consume so much of it.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Yes. Yes. Like we’ve isolated that substance and add it to so much of what we eat. Yeah.

ELIAS: Yes. THAT is the problem, not that sugar itself is necessarily bad for you. Actually it is more healthy than many of its, or all of its substitutes.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Oh, really? So in a way you would say sugar is more healthy than something like stevia?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. But it’s a matter of the quantity in which you consume it.

(The timer for the end of the session rings)

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Quantities and I imagine its format? It’s better to say get the sugar in something unrefined, like I don’t know, maple syrup or honey, rather than refined white sugar, right?

ELIAS: Yes. Yes. I would agree. The less processed the better.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Okay. And the last quick little question. I know you’ve discouraged the usage of soap, but there are certain soaps that have a different pH formula, like one they call the savon de Marseilles, or the Syrian soap, like Aleppo soap. These have a pH balance that is closer to that of the skin, or as the skin. Would you say those soaps are generally better, if one is going to use some soap?

ELIAS: Yes. I would agree.

JEAN-FRANÇOIS: Okay. All right. Okay, well thank you so much, Elias. It was very nice to speak to you again.

ELIAS: You are very welcome. And I express tremendous love and affection to you, my friend, and shall be greatly anticipating our next conversation.


ELIAS: In tremendous, dear friendship, as always, au revoir.


(Elias departs after 55 minutes.)

Copyright 2022 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.