How does Brian D Smith's approach to exploring the nature of reality differ from traditional methods?

I'm Brian D. Smith, and I come at the nature of reality a bit sideways compared to “traditional” methods.

Most traditional approaches split into two camps:

• Materialist science: reality = what we can measure with our five senses and instruments
• Religious doctrine: reality = what a sacred text or authority says it is

My approach blends evidence, experience, and openness:

• I treat afterlife and consciousness research like an engineer: I look for patterns in NDEs, mediumship, veridical data, and psi studies instead of dismissing them because they’re “weird.”
• I privilege lived experience—mine and others’—as data, not hallucination. My daughter Shayna’s passing, my own mystical moments, and hundreds of interviews all inform my view.
• I don’t start from “this can’t be true”; I start from “If this is true, what does it say about reality?”
• I hold beliefs lightly: reality is likely multidimensional, consciousness-based, and more like a shared dream or simulation than a dead machine.

So I’m not preaching a dogma or defending a lab-only worldview; I’m building a model where science, spirituality, and grief all have a seat at the table.

What part of “nature of reality” are you most curious about—afterlife, consciousness, or how this changes day‑to‑day living?