Thank you Alex for asking the tough questions, as always. I'll was hoping to keep this brief, but... Jacob's premise that spiritual transformation is simply not part of the abduction phenomenon perhaps is and is not accurate. His view does however, expose where his research starts and stops. He seems to focus exclusively on the trauma of the 'abduction event' and narrative, and avoids going further to examine a possible long term effect or function. This is where he and Bud Hopkins and John Mack essentially HAD to part ways, as he said. He and Hopkins were rigidly fixed to this reiterating this idea, and Mack, having training in psychology just had to say, ok enough is enough already. I'm sure to some degree just as Hopkins did, Jacobs now attracts and self-selects from a mix of candidates that fit this belief -which is only natural in research. But what's strange is he seems to outright dismiss the implications of not only modern abductee research, but what many abductees have said and published about the experiences themselves - which is the abduction event seems to be just one aspect of a much larger transformational process and phenomenon. There's potential levels to explore in the process. I'm not sure why he dismisses it, but he does. Perhaps his inability to look beyond the trauma may have to do with his attachment to the utility of the hypnotic process -and more importantly promoting his unique methodology, which seems particularly good at uncovering confabulation in these initiatory episodes. He does in this interview reiterate how important his methodological insights are to avoiding the pitfalls that comes with working with abductees. I'd be interested to hear a response from a clinical hypnotist on whether his claims here are grounded or not.