₦airaland Forum

lawani:
That you have spirit does not mean you are communicating with it seamlessly by divination. You can have spirit and still be an atheist for instance not believing at all in communication with your spirit by divination

And who told you others aren't talking to their spirits?
Are you seeing their minds or you must be the one to tell them how they should talk to their spirits?😂

Fenrir:
There’s something I don’t quite understand in your position.
You’ve said you’re guided by the 256 signs of Orunmila and by a spirit that “owns” you — but you’ve also referred to Christian concepts like God, Jesus, and divine punishment in earlier posts.

How do you reconcile those?
Christianity explicitly forbids divination and spirit consultation (Deuteronomy 18:10–12, Acts 16:16–18), while Ifá is built entirely on communication with spirits. The two systems contradict each other at the foundation.

If your spirit directs you, that’s not the Holy Spirit of Christian theology — and if it’s Orunmila, that’s an entirely different framework.
So which one defines your faith?

You can’t logically claim both, because their rules about revelation, authority, and truth cancel each other out.

Holy spirit is not the same concept as spirit that incarnates for food.
God has always been there before Christianity so it is not a Christianity alone concept. Christianity does not believe in reincarnation.
There is no divine punishment as such but you can be knocked out of existence by constant evil doing

AkinwaleJJ:
And who told you others aren't talking to their spirits?
Are you seeing their minds or you must be the one to tell them how they should talk to their spirits?😂

Deadi bodi get accident yeepa!
Confusion breaki boonu yeepa!

You’re describing a belief system, not a research process.
When someone says “my spirit owns me and gives me answers from 24 incarnations”, that’s theology, not data collection.

Research has three essentials:

Evidence that others can inspect.

Methods others can repeat.

Results that could prove the idea wrong.

Your model has none of those. No one can test your spirit, verify its 24 incarnations, or confirm whether a “deleted incarnation” was reactivated. That makes it unfalsifiable — like saying “God told me so.” You can’t disprove it, but you also can’t prove it.

And when you say a spirit “owns” you, that’s not teamwork; that’s surrender of agency. It turns you from investigator into messenger.
If your spirit controls both the questions and the answers, then there’s no research — just revelation, and only you can hear it.

So let’s call it what it is: a personal faith. There’s nothing wrong with that — but it’s not scholarship, and it’s certainly not science.

In your own framework:
If your Ori Inu truly seeks wisdom, it should welcome scrutiny instead of retreating behind mystery.
Truth, even in Ifá, is confirmed through iwa pele — gentle character and honesty — not ownership or fear.
A spirit that demands obedience instead of understanding is not guiding you; it’s using you.

Fenrir:
You’re describing a belief system, not a research process.
When someone says “my spirit owns me and gives me answers from 24 incarnations”, that’s theology, not data collection.

Research has three essentials:

Evidence that others can inspect.

Methods others can repeat.

Results that could prove the idea wrong.

Your model has none of those. No one can test your spirit, verify its 24 incarnations, or confirm whether a “deleted incarnation” was reactivated. That makes it unfalsifiable — like saying “God told me so.” You can’t disprove it, but you also can’t prove it.

And when you say a spirit “owns” you, that’s not teamwork; that’s surrender of agency. It turns you from investigator into messenger.
If your spirit controls both the questions and the answers, then there’s no research — just revelation, and only you can hear it.

So let’s call it what it is: a personal faith. There’s nothing wrong with that — but it’s not scholarship, and it’s certainly not science.

In your own framework:
If your Ori Inu truly seeks wisdom, it should welcome scrutiny instead of retreating behind mystery.
Truth, even in Ifá, is confirmed through iwa pele — gentle character and honesty — not ownership or fear.
A spirit that demands obedience instead of understanding is not guiding you; it’s using you.

You can't use the exact rules of material science in spirit science. Spirits are not material people but they are people.
Why do you say the spirit demands obedience?. It will help you as much as it can as if it were your servant but it does not tolerate being unserious and it is not your servant. It will always aid you and it always has a better plan than you which is why it is good to always consult it.
I asked my spirit interesting questions and got interesting answers in detail. I still don't see why it is not a research. When people fill questionnaires for you, is that not a research?

AkinwaleJJ:
And who told you others aren't talking to their spirits?
Are you seeing their minds or you must be the one to tell them how they should talk to their spirits?😂

Divination is the only way to seamlessly communicate with your spirit and divination is banned ab initio in Christianity and Islam.

lawani:
You can't use the exact rules of material science in spirit science. Spirits are not material people but they are people.
Why do you say the spirit demands obedience?. It will help you as much as it can as if it were your servant but it does not tolerate being unserious and it is not your servant. It will always aid you and it always has a better plan than you which is why it is good to always consult it.
I asked my spirit interesting questions and got interesting answers in detail. I still don't see why it is not a research. When people fill questionnaires for you, is that not a research?

You’re still confusing research with revelation.

When a scientist does research, they gather evidence from independent sources that others can check and repeat. When you “ask your spirit questions,” no one else can access that source — it exists only in your own mind and belief. That makes it personal experience, not research.

Calling it spirit science doesn’t change that; it just means your evidence is invisible, private, and impossible to test. That’s fine for faith, but not for knowledge.

And about obedience — if your spirit “has a better plan than you” and you must always consult it, that’s not partnership; that’s submission.
Even by your own logic, the moment your “research” can’t be questioned, it stops being research and becomes doctrine.

Fenrir:
You’re still confusing research with revelation.

When a scientist does research, they gather evidence from independent sources that others can check and repeat. When you “ask your spirit questions,” no one else can access that source — it exists only in your own mind and belief. That makes it personal experience, not research.

Calling it spirit science doesn’t change that; it just means your evidence is invisible, private, and impossible to test. That’s fine for faith, but not for knowledge.

And about obedience — if your spirit “has a better plan than you” and you must always consult it, that’s not partnership; that’s submission.
Even by your own logic, the moment your “research” can’t be questioned, it stops being research and becomes doctrine.

It is actually like writing letters to someone and receiving replies then using the data to write a report. No difference.

lawani:
It is actually like writing letters to someone and receiving replies then using the data to write a report. No difference.

That comparison actually proves my point.
If you write letters to someone and no one else can see the replies, verify the sender, or confirm the messages are real, it isn’t research — it’s correspondence.

If the “someone” you’re writing to exists only in your belief system, then it’s private revelation, not public knowledge.
Research requires independent verification. Revelation requires faith.
They’re both experiences, but only one can stand up to scrutiny — and it’s not the one that lives entirely in your head.

Fenrir:
That comparison actually proves my point.
If you write letters to someone and no one else can see the replies, verify the sender, or confirm the messages are real, it isn’t research — it’s correspondence.

If the “someone” you’re writing to exists only in your belief system, then it’s private revelation, not public knowledge.
Research requires independent verification. Revelation requires faith.
They’re both experiences, but only one can stand up to scrutiny — and it’s not the one that lives entirely in your head.

Calling it just revelation is too simplistic in my opinion because I know what I went through before getting it. I agree it is revelation but it was gotten by research.
If a Babalawo were with me they would be able to see the codes as they appear on the tray and be able to read it

lawani:
Calling it just revelation is too simplistic in my opinion because I know what I went through before getting it. I agree it is revelation but it was gotten by research.
If a Babalawo were with me they would be able to see the codes as they appear on the tray and be able to read it

You’re describing revelation, not research.
Research requires independent verification — others must be able to repeat your method and get the same results without sharing your beliefs.
If that’s impossible, it isn’t research by any academic, scientific, or philosophical standard.

There’s nothing to debate here — that’s just the definition of the word.

Fenrir:
You’re describing revelation, not research.
Research requires independent verification — others must be able to repeat your method and get the same results without sharing your beliefs.
If that’s impossible, it isn’t research by any academic, scientific, or philosophical standard.

There’s nothing to debate here — that’s just the definition of the word.

Even in material science you do everything on your own before publishing for peer review.
I did everything on my own. Yes. Others can verify by divination as well. Little difference.

lawani:
Even in material science you do everything on your own before publishing for peer review.
I did everything on my own. Yes. Others can verify by divination as well. Little difference.

That’s not how research works.
In science, findings must be observable, measurable, and repeatable by anyone — not just those who already share your beliefs.
If “verification” only happens through divination, that’s not independent review; it’s circular confirmation within your own conviction.

At that point, it stops being research and becomes personal revelation presented as scholarship — which is exactly how well-meaning mystics and the less well-meaning “spiritual entrepreneurs” end up sounding alike.

Fenrir:
That’s not how research works.
In science, findings must be observable, measurable, and repeatable by anyone — not just those who already share your beliefs.
If “verification” only happens through divination, that’s not independent review; it’s circular confirmation within your own conviction.

At that point, it stops being research and becomes personal revelation presented as scholarship — which is exactly how well-meaning mystics and the less well-meaning “spiritual entrepreneurs” end up sounding alike.

If you ask IFA the questions I asked, you will get the same responses UNLESS you are monkeying around

lawani:
If you ask IFA the questions I asked you will get the same responses UNLESS you are monkeying around

Your own profile says, “I am a self-taught Awo Orunmila. I have no Oluwo but have been learning since 2012… I charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy.”
That statement alone confirms that no one else is involved in your so-called “research.”
You’ve been developing personal interpretations since 2012 and presenting them as divine communication — essentially a one-man belief system packaged as consultancy.

Fenrir:
Your own profile says, “I am a self-taught Awo Orunmila. I have no Oluwo but have been learning since 2012… I charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy.”
That statement alone confirms that no one else is involved in your so-called “research.”
You’ve been developing personal interpretations since 2012 and presenting them as divine communication — essentially a one-man belief system packaged as consultancy.

I may need to edit my profile because I have never collected money from anybody for consultancy. I just put it there because I can do it and I left my job in 2022.
If you are doing research in material science too nobody will gather data for you. It is the exact same way

lawani:
I may need to edit my profile because I have never collected money from anybody for consultancy. I just put it there because I can do it and I left my job in 2022.
If you are doing research in material science too nobody will gather data for you. It is the exact same way

That’s exactly the problem — your own words keep shifting.
Your profile explicitly says you “charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy,” but now you claim you’ve never taken payment and only “put it there.”
That kind of inconsistency would disqualify any serious researcher — in material or spiritual science alike.

You can’t claim to do “research” when your definitions, claims, and methods all change depending on who’s asking.
That’s not research — that’s improvisation.

Fenrir:
That’s exactly the problem — your own words keep shifting.
Your profile explicitly says you “charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy,” but now you claim you’ve never taken payment and only “put it there.”
That kind of inconsistency would disqualify any serious researcher — in material or spiritual science alike.

You can’t claim to do “research” when your definitions, claims, and methods all change depending on who’s asking.
That’s not research — that’s improvisation.

Don't make this about what is on my profile. If you want me to work for you now, I will take 20k but I have not yet gotten any client. I hope that is clear.

lawani:
Don't make this about what is on my profile. If you want me to work for you now, I will take 20k but I have not yet gotten any client. I hope that is clear.

It’s interesting how your statements here differ so completely from what’s written on your own LinkedIn profile.
There, you describe being “adopted by President George W. Bush” and “married to his daughter,” which makes it difficult to treat your claims of research and revelation as credible or consistent.

When someone’s personal narrative shifts this dramatically between platforms, it stops being spiritual discussion and starts looking like a pattern of invention presented as revelation.
That’s why people are sceptical — not because they “don’t believe in spirits,” but because your own record contradicts itself at every turn.

Fenrir:
It’s interesting how your statements here differ so completely from what’s written on your own LinkedIn profile.
There, you describe being “adopted by President George W. Bush” and “married to his daughter,” which makes it difficult to treat your claims of research and revelation as credible or consistent.

When someone’s personal narrative shifts this dramatically between platforms, it stops being spiritual discussion and starts looking like a pattern of invention presented as revelation.
That’s why people are sceptical — not because they “don’t believe in spirits,” but because your own record contradicts itself at every turn.

There is nothing I said that I am countering on any platform. I guess you now want to discuss me? Right?

I got into trouble for trying to save Nigeria by writing. I lost my business and was locked up in psychiatric hospitals like seven times but a US led coalition waded in even before the trouble started to save me. The initiative belong to late President George H W Bush

lawani:
There is nothing I said that I am countering on any platform. I guess you now want to discuss me? Right?

It’s not about “discussing you,” it’s about verifying claims.
When someone presents spiritual ideas as factual research — while their public profiles contain contradictory, unverifiable stories — it naturally raises questions of credibility.
That’s not personal; it’s about honesty.
If your words don’t align across platforms, then what you’re doing stops being spiritual discussion and starts looking like misrepresentation, and that’s the polite term for fraud.

Fenrir:
It’s not about “discussing you,” it’s about verifying claims.
When someone presents spiritual ideas as factual research — while their public profiles contain contradictory, unverifiable stories — it naturally raises questions of credibility.
That’s not personal; it’s about honesty.
If your words don’t align across platforms, then what you’re doing stops being spiritual discussion and starts looking like misrepresentation, and that’s the polite term for fraud.

Can you give me an example of the contradictions?

lawani:
Can you give me an example of the contradictions?

You asked for examples of contradictions, so here they are — directly from what you yourself have written:

🔹 LinkedIn profile

“When I got into the Pastor Adeboye mess which led me into the psychiatry, my biological family abandoned me, leaving me for dead and at that point President George W. Bush adopted me as his son… He also asked his first daughter Barbara Jr to wait for me which is why my marital status reads MARRIED.”

This directly contradicts:

Your claim on this forum that you are a serious researcher of Ifa philosophy — because no credible researcher claims adoption by a foreign president.

Your repeated insistence that you “do not believe in hearing voices” — yet you say George W. Bush, a living man with no connection to you, is your father and authority.

🔹 Forum Profile vs. Your Later Statements

“I am a self-taught Awo Orunmila. I have no Oluwo… I charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy.”

Later you said:

“I have never collected money from anyone and may need to edit my profile.”

That’s another contradiction — either you charge or you don’t. You can’t advertise spiritual consultancy and then deny it when challenged.

🔹 Your Own Teachings vs. Ifa Tradition
You claim:

“I taught myself. I have no Oluwo but I found out via divination that I am the incarnate of Orunmila.”

That violates Ifa orthodoxy, which requires initiation and mentorship.
No genuine babalawo claims to be Orunmila incarnate or self-taught — that’s a personal invention, not Ifa philosophy.

So yes, the contradictions are easy to verify — because you wrote them.
When someone’s story changes this often across platforms, it’s not research or revelation — it’s fabrication.

Fenrir:
You asked for examples of contradictions, so here they are — directly from what you yourself have written:

🔹 LinkedIn profile

“When I got into the Pastor Adeboye mess which led me into the psychiatry, my biological family abandoned me, leaving me for dead and at that point President George W. Bush adopted me as his son… He also asked his first daughter Barbara Jr to wait for me which is why my marital status reads MARRIED.”

This directly contradicts:

Your claim on this forum that you are a serious researcher of Ifa philosophy — because no credible researcher claims adoption by a foreign president.

Your repeated insistence that you “do not believe in hearing voices” — yet you say George W. Bush, a living man with no connection to you, is your father and authority.

🔹 Forum Profile vs. Your Later Statements

“I am a self-taught Awo Orunmila. I have no Oluwo… I charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy.”

Later you said:

“I have never collected money from anyone and may need to edit my profile.”

That’s another contradiction — either you charge or you don’t. You can’t advertise spiritual consultancy and then deny it when challenged.

🔹 Your Own Teachings vs. Ifa Tradition
You claim:

“I taught myself. I have no Oluwo but I found out via divination that I am the incarnate of Orunmila.”

That violates Ifa orthodoxy, which requires initiation and mentorship.
No genuine babalawo claims to be Orunmila incarnate or self-taught — that’s a personal invention, not Ifa philosophy.

So yes, the contradictions are easy to verify — because you wrote them.
When someone’s story changes this often across platforms, it’s not research or revelation — it’s fabrication.

You appear not to know the meaning of contradiction.

lawani:
You appear not to know the meaning of contradiction.

A contradiction is when two statements from the same person cannot both be true.

For example:

You said you charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy, then later said you’ve never collected money from anyone.

You said you’re self-taught with no Oluwo, yet also claim to be an initiated Awo Orunmila.

You said you don’t “hear voices,” yet you also said George W. Bush adopted you as his son and his daughter waits for you.

Each of those statements cancels out the other.
That’s the literal definition of contradiction — and you’ve provided several.

lawani:
You appear not to know the meaning of contradiction.

Profile | LinkedIn https://share.google/iOMaBu99KKZNpoXmF

Fenrir:
A contradiction is when two statements from the same person cannot both be true.

For example:

You said you charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy, then later said you’ve never collected money from anyone.

You said you’re self-taught with no Oluwo, yet also claim to be an initiated Awo Orunmila.

You said you don’t “hear voices,” yet you also said George W. Bush adopted you as his son and his daughter waits for you.

Each of those statements cancels out the other.
That’s the literal definition of contradiction — and you’ve provided several.

My charge is 20k and you or anyone are welcome to be the first client to pay

Fenrir:
A contradiction is when two statements from the same person cannot both be true.

For example:

You said you charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy, then later said you’ve never collected money from anyone.

You said you’re self-taught with no Oluwo, yet also claim to be an initiated Awo Orunmila.

You said you don’t “hear voices,” yet you also said George W. Bush adopted you as his son and his daughter waits for you.

Each of those statements cancels out the other.
That’s the literal definition of contradiction — and you’ve provided several.

Can you show where I said I was initiated?

lawani:
My charge is 20k and you or anyone are welcome to be the first client to pay

You’ve just proven my point.
A moment ago, you said you’ve never collected money and that the fee on your profile was “just there.”
Now you’re inviting me to be your first paying client.

That’s not spirituality — that’s salesmanship dressed as revelation.
And it perfectly illustrates why people question your credibility.

Fenrir:
A contradiction is when two statements from the same person cannot both be true.

For example:

You said you charge twenty thousand naira for consultancy, then later said you’ve never collected money from anyone.

You said you’re self-taught with no Oluwo, yet also claim to be an initiated Awo Orunmila.

You said you don’t “hear voices,” yet you also said George W. Bush adopted you as his son and his daughter waits for you.

Each of those statements cancels out the other.
That’s the literal definition of contradiction — and you’ve provided several.

Yes President George W Bush and even others adopted me as their son because they knew getting me out of the mess would take a long time.

lawani:
Can you show where I said I was initiated?

You asked me to point out contradictions, so let’s look at your own statements and profiles side by side:

1️⃣ In this very thread, you said:

“I am a self-taught Babalawo. I communicate with the spirit world with the 256 signs of Orunmila.”
“According to the research I did with Ifa there are over 60 billion spirits and each of us are owned by one spirit.”
“When you use a diviner you have to pay them what they ask you.”
“I charge twenty thousand naira only for consultancy.” (from your public profile)

So — by your own words, you:

Call yourself a Babalawo, meaning initiated Ifa priest.

Claim to perform research with Ifa (which itself presumes practice).

Say diviners charge money, and even list your own fee.

2️⃣ But later, when challenged, you said:

“I may need to edit my profile because I have never collected money from anybody for consultancy.”
“Can you show where I said I was initiated?”

That’s your first contradiction. You publicly call yourself a Babalawo (which by definition means initiated), claim to communicate with Orunmila and the spirit realm, yet now deny being initiated or charging anyone. Both cannot be true.

3️⃣ Then your LinkedIn profile says something completely different again:

“When I got into the Pastor Adeboye mess which led me into psychiatry, my biological family abandoned me, leaving me for dead, and at that point President George W. Bush adopted me as his son… His daughter Barbara Jr. is waiting for me which is why my marital status reads MARRIED.”

That directly contradicts your current story of being a spiritually guided researcher. It shows a pattern — personal fantasies presented as fact, then denied when questioned.

4️⃣ You also said here:

“God wants everyone to be a diviner.”
but then you added,
“I said every human should be, not every human are.”

That’s not spirituality — that’s circular reasoning.

So the contradictions aren’t my opinion; they’re your documented statements across multiple posts and platforms.

If your position changes every time someone questions you, that isn’t divine mystery — it’s inconsistency.
A true scholar or priest can stand by their words, not rewrite them after every comment.