Return to Free Library

Return to Science Menu

Previous Article                                                                         Next Article


This article is the final article in this six-part series on the holographic universe.  In the last article we discussed the biological properties of a holographic Aether and the unique resonant frequencies that make up each species of life.

In this article we will discuss the fascinating topic of the spontaneous generation of life.



The Spontaneous Generation of Life (Abiogenesis)

“As a theory, spontaneous generation stimulated scientific creativity and discourse for centuries.  Scientists refined techniques of microscopy and experimentation in an attempt to explain the sudden appearance of worms, mice, insects, and lower organisms from organic or inorganic matter while considering the ultimate question:  How did life originate?”1


Can living things and how they work be completely explained by, or reduced to, only the laws of physics and chemistry?

This idea is called physical-chemical reductionism.


Are organisms just complicated physical-chemical machines?

This idea is called mechanistic materialism.


Or is there something different about living things – not that they disobey the laws of physics and chemistry, but are there elements of life that cannot be explained only by the laws of physics and chemistry?

This idea was traditionally called vitalism.

People took many different positions on defining what exactly vitalism was.


Henri Bergson (1859-1941), an immensely popular French philosopher, “rejected what he saw as the overly mechanistic predominant view of causality.  He argued that we must allow space for free will to unfold in an autonomous and unpredictable fashion.”2

Bergson believed there was an “elan vital that animated living matter and was not necessarily accessible to modern laboratory science.”3

British chemist F. J. Allen’s “most useful observations is that most of the attempted ‘definitions of life” up to that point have some merit, but they all tried to find a single key formulation to capture an extremely complex, many-sided phenomenon.  ‘Life,’ he said, ‘is too complex to be described in a concise aphorism.’

Allen argued that life’s cause might belong to the metaphysical domain.”4



Bacteria is Everywhere

The mainstream theory of evolution advocates an evolution of the species from one bacteria in the primordial soup.

Bacteria has been found in many places it was not thought possible.

This includes in the Antarctic ice; 1.7 miles below the Earth’s surface; the interiors of volcanoes; in hermetically sealed nuclear reactors; and floating in space.

There were amino acids found in the dust from comet 81P/Wild 2.

There has been living bacteria found floating in fluid trapped inside salt crystals for 34,000 years.  Interestingly, it took them about 2 ½ months to wake up and begin reproducing normally.

There have been bacteria recovered from Antarctic ice and revived after 10 years of being frozen.

Some black sea strains of bacteria photosynthesize light from the darkness and some bacteria is found in the deepest parts of the ocean.



Dr. Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe

Dr. Hoyle (1915-2001) was an English astronomer and director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge who rejected the Big Bang theory and promoted panspermia as the origin of life on Earth.

Dr. Wickramasinghe (1939-present) is a Sri-Lankan born British mathematician, astronomer and astrobiologist.  He is a student and collaborator of Dr. Fred Hoyle.  He has written over 30 books on astrophysics and related topics.

“Throughout his career, Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle, has advanced panspermia, the belief that life on Earth is, at least in part, of extraterrestrial origin. The Hoyle–Wickramasinghe model of panspermia include the assumptions that dormant viruses and desiccated DNA and RNA can survive unprotected in space; that small bodies such as asteroids and comets can protect the “seeds of life”, including DNA and RNA, living, fossilized, or dormant life, cellular or non-cellular; and that the collisions of asteroids, comets, and moons have the potential to spread these “seeds of life” throughout an individual star system and then onward to others.”5


In the 1960s Hoyle and Wickramasinghe explored the composition of galactic dust.

They found that 99.9% of all the dust in the galaxy has the spectrographic signature of freeze-dried bacteria.

In 2001 and 2002 Wickramasinghe and collaborators found living cells in the stratosphere.

Wickramasinghe “collaborated with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to search for bacteria in the stratosphere of the Earth that may have come from comets, and still continue to arrive here in vast number. They used a balloon launched to an altitude of 41 km, an altitude that wind-borne native Earth bacteria can never reach, and took samples under sterile conditions.

On return to Earth the samples were found to contain clumps of bacteria, different to the strains we are familiar with. The same results were obtained in several later balloon flights conducted both in India and in Sheffield in collaboration with Professor Milton Wainwright from the University of Sheffield. From 2014 onward Russian scientists have been studying surface deposits on the International Space Station that orbits at the height of 400km way above any contact with the Earth’s atmosphere. They have now reported the discovery of microorganisms including plankton-like structures that cannot have come from the surface of the Earth, and must be of extraterrestrial origin, almost certainly from comets.”


Dr. Holye said on April 15, 1980, “Microbiology may be said to have had its beginnings in the 1940s.  A new world of the most astonishing complexity began then to be revealed.  In retrospect I find it remarkable that microbiologists did not at once recognize that the world into which they had penetrated had of necessity to be of a cosmic order.  I suspect that the cosmic quality of microbiology will seem as obvious to future generations as the Sun being the center of our solar system seems obvious to the present generation.”36

“Wickramasinghe attempts to present scientific evidence to support the notion of a cosmic ancestry and ‘the possibility of high intelligence in the Universe and of many increasing levels of intelligence converging toward a God as an ideal limit.”6

These concepts relate heavily to Vedic traditions and the Perennial Philosophy.

It is to be noted that Dr. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did not subscribe to the belief of spontaneous generation of life.  They believed in panspermia – that life was seeded from extra-terrestrial origins such as comets, but not limited to comets.



Spontaneously Generating Life

In science historian James Strick’s book Sparks of Life from 2000 he covers the little known debates from 1860 to 1880 over the origin of life by spontaneous generation.

He notes the interesting implications of spontaneous generation and how those implications made people on all sides of the debate uneasy.

“From the first, the doctrine of spontaneous generation was seen to be fraught with religious implications.  If life could originate spontaneously from lifeless matter, the position of philosophical materialism, then a Creator God was irrelevant.  If spontaneous generation occurred in present times, this was also at odds with a single original Creation as described in the Bible.  However, those interested in a naturalistic worldview, such as supporters of Darwinian evolution, had a potential conflict as well.  The doctrine of evolution was based on a profound philosophical assumption of continuity in nature, i.e. That there were no sudden unbridgeable gaps between similar living forms, which would require supernatural intervention.  Furthermore, Darwin’s theory implied that the vast diversity of living things had come from one or at most a few first ancestral organisms and these must have originated somehow.  For many, then, to believe in evolution and a completely naturalistic worldview required the belief that no unbridgeable gap occurred between living matter and nonliving matter and that living organisms must have been capable of arising from non-life at least once on the early earth.”7

Nonetheless, it appears that spontaneous generation can occur, whatever the opinions and feelings are regarding it.

As the book continues, Strick reveals an extensive conspiracy involving the suppression of any scientific discoveries of microbes that appeared spontaneously rather than through ‘random Darwinian mutation.’

In 1862 the French Academy of Sciences offered prize money to any scientist who could conclusively prove that life was either spontaneous or random.

Louis Pasteur won despite the fact that his competitors were able to get life-forms to grow out of nonliving environments by using preparations of sterilized hay in water.

Louis Pasteur


Pasteur even found life spontaneously appearing in a small percentage of his own experiments.  He chalked these up to experimental mistakes.

Many scientists did not find Pasteur’s experiments conclusive.  “While the French Academy of Sciences claimed Pasteur’s ‘swan-necked flask’ experiments conclusively disproved the possibility of spontaneous generation of microbes in boiled infusions, for instance, Felix Pouchet pointed out that (a) Pasteur never used hay in his infusions, the most successful ingredient for generation of microbes in his own infusions; and (b) by showing no microbial growth occurred when dust was kept out, all Pasteur had really proven was that dust must contain some ingredient essential for spontaneous generation.”8

There were other examples of microscopic life appearing in tubes of fluid boiled for hours.  “Those scientists concluded that either the tubes must have leaked after boiling, or that there must be some kind of structures produced by microorganisms that were capable of withstanding previously unheard of temperatures, even though nobody had ever seen such structures.”9

As Sparks of Life continues, Strick discusses the neurologist Henry Charlton Bastian, the ‘last great supporter of spontaneous generation.’  Bastian was a highly revered scientist who ran in distinguished scientific circles.  He and his colleagues such as Ernst Haeckel, Anton Dohrn, Michael Foster and St. George Mivart were all mentored by the famous biologist T.H. Huxley, grandfather of author Aldous Huxley.

T.H. Huxley


Frederick Davis writes, “To [Huxley’s] considerable detriment, Bastian pursued his belief in spontaneous generation despite Huxley’s attempts to discourage him. When Bastian published a two-volume work, The Beginnings of Life, in 1872, Huxley initiated a systematic attack on Bastian’s reputation, fully utilizing the power and influence he wielded in English scientific circles.”10

Strick goes on to discuss how Huxley’s authority came in part from the inception of the X Club, “an informal organization of nine friends who began meeting in 1864 to discuss how to advance Darwinism and the professionalization of science, in addition to other topics.”11

The X Club was able to consolidate considerable influence over science in England.  From 1873 to 1885, three members, botanist Joseph Hooker, mathematician William Spottiswoode and Huxley himself were Presidents of the elite Royal Society of London.

“Through meticulous analysis of archival sources, Strick shows how Huxley, as Secretary of the Royal Society, restricted Bastian’s ability to publish his research in the society’s Proceedings. In another episode, Strick reveals that reviews of Bastian’s submissions were delayed to the point of disregard while the opposing submissions of another X club member, John Tyndall, sailed through the review process. Tyndall’s attacks on Bastian’s reputation would become so vicious that Bastian retired from the spontaneous generation debate in order to improve his candidacy for a full professorship at University College (which he obtained in 1878).

Not only did Huxley, his colleague Tyndall, and other associates nearly destroy Bastian’s reputation as a scientist, they expunged Bastian’s defense of spontaneous generation from the biology courses they taught and the textbooks they wrote.”12

However, Huxley stated “conclusively that although abiogenesis (as he called spontaneous generation) might have occurred, indeed probably occurred, in the distant past, Pasteur’s experiments convinced him that no such process could still be occurring today.”13


Then, in 1912, physiologist Edward Sharpey-Schafer in his British Association for the Advancement of Science Presidential address, wet the tone for the strong mechanistic program when he criticized the ’empty language’ of the vitalists.

Liverpool biochemist Ben Moore writes of this in The Origin and Nature of Living Matter, “The position which denies the existence of a form of energy characteristic of life [Shafer’s position, for example] is one of peculiar absurdity even for the pure mechanician, which can only be explained as a natural reaction from the entirely different medieval conception of a vital force which worked impossible miracles.”

Strick writes, “Moore was attempting to avoid the extreme of vitalism.  Bur rather than fall back on a purely mechanistic view of physical-chemical reductionism, he and others at this time (c. 1910-1920) saw a specific life energy as a more likely explanation of the phenomena that such ‘vitalists’ had been pointing to.”

By the late 1920s the idea of vitalism totally waned in the scientific community and the dogma of mechanistic materialism prevailed.

So what is the point of spontaneous generation?  As Strick states, it shows “that matter contained within itself all the properties necessary to organize into life.”  It also creates a linkage between transmutation of species and spontaneous generation.



Andrew Crosse

Andrew Crosse (1784-1855) was a British scientist and early pioneer and experimenter in the use of electricity.

In 1837 Crosse tried to grow crystals artificially by zapping chemicals with a weak electrical current.

He mixed up a silicate of potash and hydrocholoric acid then dropped a fist sized piece of iron oxide rock in.

He then zapped the acid bath with a small battery.

He did not find crystals, but after 14 days began to see whitish specks forming on the electrified stone.

Four days later the specks were larger and had 6-8 strands growing out from it.


Crosse described what he saw, “On the 26th day, each figure assumed the form of a perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail. Till this period I had no notion that these appearances were any other than an incipient mineral formation; but it was not until the 28th day, when I plainly perceived these little creatures move their legs, that I felt any surprise, and I must own that when this took place, I was not a little astonished. I endeavored to detach, with the point of a needle, one or two of them from its position on the stone, but they immediately died, and I was obliged to wait patiently for a few days longer, when they separated themselves from the stone, and moved about at pleasure, although they had been for some time after their birth apparently averse to motion. In the course of a few weeks, about a hundred of them made their appearance on the stone. I observed that at first each of them fixed itself for a considerable time in one spot, appearing, as far as I could judge, to feed by suction; but when a ray of light from the sun was directed upon it, it seemed disturbed, and removed itself to the shaded part of the stone. Out of about a hundred insects, not above 5 or 6 were born on the south side of the stone. I examined them with the microscope, and observed that the smaller ones appeared to have only 6 legs, but the larger ones 8. ”14

Genus Acari: From Andrew Crosse


W.H. Weeks obtained the same results as Crosse, after taking extensive measures to assure a sealed environment by placing his experiment in a bell jar.15

Crosse was criticized and accused of blasphemy.  It is to be noted, however, that Crosse did not think he created the insects.  He assumed there were insect eggs embedded in his samples “even though no eggs had been seen originally and no shells were to be seen after the insects appeared.  Containers of the same chemical liquid source showed neither insects nor eggs.”16

He even tried the experiment using various poisonous liquids that were known to be impossible for life to exist within.  In most of the experiments, tiny insects appeared.



Wilhelm Reich

William Reich (1897-1957) was an Austrian psychoanalyst, biologist, inventor, political theorist, pioneer of body therapies, and prophet of the sexual revolution.  He became known as one of the most radical figures in the history of psychiatry.

He worked with Sigmund Freud for many years at Freud’s psychoanalytic outpatient clinic in Vienna.  In 1924 Reich became the director of training at the Psychoanalytic Institute in Vienna.

Reich and Freud later parted ways over differing opinions.


The full story of Wilhelm Reich’s life and work is vastly complex.

He advocated the concept of orgone, which was a biological or cosmic energy.  “He argued that it is in the soil and air (indeed, is omnipresent), is blue or blue-grey, and that humanity had divided its knowledge of it in two: aether for the physical aspect and God for the spiritual.”17

His scientific work was greatly suppressed and burned by both the Nazis and the U.S. government.

“In 1956 and again in 1960, officers of the U.S. government supervised the public burning of the books and scientific instruments of Austrian-born scientist Wilhelm Reich.  This was one of the most heinous acts of censorship in U.S. history, as New York publisher Roger Straus was heard to remark many times over decades afterward…Surely no one felt the injustice of the act more keenly than Reich himself, having narrowly escaped Nazi Germany in April 1933 not long before the Nazis burned his books.”18

Reich said he was fascinated by the mechanism-vitalism debate discussed earlier in this article.

“Reich believed that the supreme goal of natural science involved tangibility and the capacity to practically handle the phenomenon under study.  He did, however, think that the vitalists seemed to come closer to a correct understanding of life ‘than the mechanists who dissected life before trying to understand it.” 19


“Reich points out that the key question that motivated his research was always, what is psychic activity in terms of quantitative, scientifically measurable, underlying biological processes?”

Reich’s concept of a ‘specific life energy’ grew into a practical, experimental research program.  “His approach demonstrated new connections between the psychology of emotions and drives, physiology, and microbiology.” 20


Through Reich’s bion experiments he found evidence of spontaneous generation in sterile environments.

“He examined protozoa and grew cultured vesicles using grass, and, iron and animal tissue, boiling them and adding potassium and gelatin.  Having heated the materials to incandesence with a heat-torch, he wrote that he had seen bright, glowing blue vesicles.  He called them ‘bions’.”18

Reich hypothesized that bions were instrumental in originating life from nonliving matter.

Credit: Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust.  See more of Reich’s images here:


James Strick wrote in Wilhelm Reich, Biologist that Reich’s work in Oslo “represented the cutting edge of light microscopy and time-lapse micro-cinematography.”  He argues that the dominant narrative of Reich as a pseudoscientist is incorrect and that Reich’s story is ‘much more complex and interesting.’21


Reich’s studies with amoeba began in 1936 in Oslo, Norway.  He was studying his tension-charge hypothesis in relation to sexual interactions and ended up discovering data that supported the existence of abiogenesis.

He obtained cultures that had few amoebae in them and so asked a technician in the Botany Department at Oslo University how to prepare fresh cultures.

“He was told to just soak dried hay or moss in water and in ten to fourteen days the amoebae would be numerous.  Though he had extensive biology training in medical school some eighteen months previously, Reich inquired, ‘Where do the amoebae come from?’  Startled, the technician replied that they developed from spores or cysts that were ubiquitously present in nature and needed only water and food to hatch and begin to grow.”22

He was skeptical of this explanation and so decided to watch the entire process over many days and nights to observe the amoebae being germinated from spores or cysts.

“Over two days the fibers lost their green color, and many chloroplasts were seen floating loose in the water.  But in addition, as the plant tissues swelled and disintegrated, they showed many tiny, bacteria-sized vesicles and clumps of these vesicles within them.  (He later called these bions.)”23

Reich was struck by the similarity between the amoeba and the clubs of vesicles along the margin of a disintegrating plant fiber.

“Once those clumps of bions formed, they then gradually developed more and more motility, a clump eventually after several hours breaking away from the margin of the moss and swimming off looking indistinguishable from free-living amoebae.”24

Reich saw immediately that his ‘observation and the resulting hypotheses clashed severely with the ‘germ theory.’.


“As a kind of control, Reich made similar non-sterile water preparations of other plant material (a tulip leaf, a rose petal, grass) and of simple earth from his garden.  The tulip and rose preparations showed no development of protozoa, even after three days.  The grass showed motile rods, vesicles, and a few protozoa.  Since they were non-sterile, they only served by way of comparison with the moss preparations, but this showed that not all plant material yielded protozoa as one might expect if the germs of protozoa really were ubiquitous in nature.

The earth soaked in water showed surprising things.  There were a few common rod-shaped soil bacteria and inorganic mineral crystals with occasional vesicular formations in the liquid between them.  By the third day of soaking in water, the crystals had begun to show internal vesicles.  The preparation was ‘full of motile angular structures moving in exactly the same manner as the rods and vesicles.”25

Credit: Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust,


“Could these be a result of germs of organisms in one or more of the ingredients since these preparations were uncovered and unboiled Reich wondered?  As a control, he boiled the preparations for fifteen to thirty minutes in closed glass containers.  The result was totally unexpected.  In the boiled preparations, there were far more numerous and more active bion vesicles, already seen immediately after boiling, than in the unboiled preparations after days of swelling…when a dilute sterile gelatin was added, the same pseudo-amoebae formed.

This made it clear that the pseudo-amoeba did not come from germs.

The appearance of actively moving vesicles in large numbers immediately after boiling also tended to suggest they could not have come from spores or cysts, which would have required at least a few minutes to germinate.”26

He thought these objects or beings were in preliminary stages of life.


Reich asked himself, “I was continually faced with the question of how it was possible for boiled substances to contain more life than unboiled, non-sterile substances.”


“Reich later switched to autoclaving the bion preparations at 120° C and 15-20 psi of steam pressure.  This accelerated the process still more:  very few unstructured crystals remained in earth-KCl preparations, and the solution contained almost entirely very motile bions and clusters of bions.”27

“Reich next added egg white (albumen) as a nutrient substance to the mix.  The result was dramatic and unexpected: round, cell-like structures formed immediately, which had dark central objects like nuclei and which ‘underwent frequent division in rapid succession…

The best results were obtained by adding soot:  very small, but extremely motile, finely structured amoeboid objects formed.”28

Reich stated, “My experiments showed that there are developmental stages in the progression from lifelessness and immobility to life and that, in nature, life is being created out of inorganic matter by the hour and by the minute…I merely succeeded in revealing, experimentally, the developmental process of life.”29


Later Reich used sand, heating it to incandescence then plunging it into a liquid culture medium.  Bions were again produced, but this time much larger and less motile.  He called these SAPA (sand packet) bions.  He saw a very bright field around these bions which made him think they might be emitting radiation.

Working with these bions created strange effects.  Parts of the skin, such as the palms, turned red then became inflamed and painful.  His eyes, after looking through the microscope for long periods, became painful and developed conjunctivitis; his fingers and hand began to glow, metallic objects near the cultures became magnetized; Reich’s oscillograph in the room ceased functioning.

These SAPA bions were also found to kill cancer cells.



Wilhelm Reich & Cancer Research

Reich studied cancer cells in detail.  He believed that cancer was an endogenous disease.  This is the same belief that Dr. R.R. Rife had.

Rife stated, “In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it to be the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease.  We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease.”30

Reich postulated that local oxygen deficiency due to poor respiration makes tissue decay.  S bacteria then form.  This S-bacilli is present in the blood before any trace of cancerous growth and tissues.  It is the by-product of the internal asphyxiation of red blood cells as they decompose.  Then the tissue regenerates itself as a tumor.  The S form the metastases.

“Reich understood the increased rate of mitosis in cancer tissue to be a defensive reaction against decades-long stagnation, shrinking, and dying off of the tissues from lack of oxygen and, thus, lack of energy.  In the end, this led to a chronic, long-term shrinking of the organism…

Over the next several years, Reich worked out a concept of some diseases including cancer as ‘biopathies’.  By this term Reich meant chronic rigidity of the musculature and the emotions, contraction, and eventually resignation from any hope of pleasure, all of which lead to impairment of the basic function of pulsation of the total organism.  That includes impaired respiration, impaired peristalsis, impaired sexual excitation and discharge, and impaired pulsation of the cells themselves.  This in turn, leads to further damming up of biological energy: stasis.

For Reich, the strength of the immune function – like the strength of respiratory function, peristaltic function, and orgiastic function – is rooted in the degree to which free pulsation of the total organism proceeds relatively uninhibited.  ‘The weakening of the tissues due to oxygen lack, is what renders them vulnerable to such [carcinogenic] stimuli, which would otherwise have no significant adverse effect.”31


“Does describing a process in which a patient’s withdrawal from life leads to disease amount to blaming the victim, or could it merely be a difficult kind of biological reality for a very ill patient to accept?”


Despite Reich’s ground-breaking research he was ridiculed in the media and was called a ‘charlatan’.  A year-long intensive smear campaign was waged against Reich in Oslo, Norway where he was living and working.  This led him to move to the United States in 1939 just as WWII began.

None of his enemies ever looked through his microscope, except for one person – for one hour.

He was unable to find funding during the Depression and war years due to the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) being the only game in town that was funding scientific research.  Naturally, they chose not to fund him.

“It has been well documented that physicist Warren Weaver, head of the RF Natural Sciences Program for over four decades, had a clear agenda in funding life sciences research that would import the methods of physics and chemistry into biology…

Thus, mainstream life science took a fairly sharp turn from the late 1930s through the 1940s, away from numerous older research strategies and overwhelmingly toward physical-chemical reductionism of an unprecedented extremity.”32


Sadly Reich was vilified numerous times in his life beginning with his time in Vienna with Freud, to the smear campaign launched against him in Oslo in the late 1930s and then again in the United States by the FDA regarding his ‘orgone’ boxes in the 1950s.  That is another story for another article.

Reich was a genius and he died in prison because his science went against the dominating paradigm of profiteering industries such as radiation treatment and pharmaceuticals.

As Dutch physicist Willem Frederick Bon said to Reich, “Whether the world is ripe for your discovery I cannot judge.  There are in the history of science many examples of new theories confirmed by lots of evidence that were simply denied.”33



Dr. Ignacio Ochoa Pacheco

Dr.  Pacheco replicated Reich’s experiments in 2000 and subsequently published a paper about it entitled Ultrastructural and light microscopy analysis of SAPA bions formation and growth in vitro.

Dr. Pacheco heated ordinary sand from a non-polluted beach to white-hot levels of 1400 degrees.  This destroys all known forms of biological life.

The sand was cooled in a sterile environment, poured into a sterile test tube with distilled water and capped off.

Each tube was then sterilized in an autoclave two times in a row, with 24 hours between each sterilization.

A variety of different structures appeared in the water that looked like complex living organisms capable of growth and division.

They were actively moving around and he videotaped the results.34

Credit: Ignacio Pacheco


Some looked like microscopic sea vegetables like Gorgonia.

Some looked like single leaves of plants.

Some looked like soft-looking blobs which started to grow a bright white spiraling shell of calcium around them showing what appeared to be the formation of a shellfish.

Credit: Ignacio Pacheco


Note, if he did not sterilize the sand first, nothing would appear.


“Pacheco believes these are transitional forms from the inorganic stage of organization to the organic and living condition of evolution.”35




This article discusses the fascinating and bizarre idea of spontaneous generation of life from ‘non-living’ matter.

It appears this concept can no longer be dismissed outright, but must be investigated anew.

The reality of spontaneous generation of life isn’t so strange when viewed through the lens of a fractal-holographic universe in which continual creation occurs where consciousness is contained within every particle of matter, regardless of its size, form, function or evolutionary status.

As Reich said, “The scientist has only one correct social task: to continue his search for the truth in spite of everything, not to give heed to any restrictions that the bearers of life-negating ideologies may try to impose on him…


This article is the last in this series on the holographic universe; however we will revisit these ideas again from various perspectives as we move through Cosmic Core.


Next is a 27-part series on consciousness, the mind and the emotions.



  1. Davis, Frederick R. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over Spontaneous Generation – Review, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 57.2, 2002,
  3. Strick, James E, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist, Harvard University Press, 2015
  4. ibid.
  6. ibid.
  7. Strick, James, Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over Spontaneous Generation, Harvard University Press, 15 October 2002
  8. ibid.
  9. ibid.
  10. Davis, Frederick R. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over Spontaneous Generation – Review, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 57.2, 2002,
  11. ibid.
  12. ibid.
  13. Strick, James, Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over Spontaneous Generation, Harvard University Press, 15 October 2002
  14. Crosse, Andrew, The American Journal of Science & Arts; Vol. 35: 125-137 (January, 1839) ~ Reprint of Annals of Electricity, Magnetism, & Chemistry, vol. 2: 246-257 (January-June 1838)
  18. Strick, James E, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist, Harvard University Press, 2015
  20. Strick, James E, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist, Harvard University Press, 2015
  21. ibid.
  22. ibid.
  23. Ibid
  24. Ibid
  25. Ibid
  26. Ibid
  27. Ibid
  28. Ibid
  29. Ibid
  30. Seidel, R.E. and Winter, Elizabeth M. The New Microscopes, Journal of the Franklin Institute Volume 237(2): 103-130, 1944,
  31. Strick, James E, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist, Harvard University Press, 2015
  32. ibid.
  33. ibid.
  35. Wilcock, David, The Source Field Investigations, Dutton by Penguin Group Inc. 2011
  36. Dias, Keshala, Life is a Cosmic Phenomenon; Wichramasinghe-Hoyle theories vindicated, 5 June 2017,

Return to Free Library

Return to Science Menu

Previous Article                                                                         Next Article