Hi everyone. I’m very new to Sapien medicine and would like to ask a few questions.
Is it ok to listen to the frequencies at a very low volume?
2. Is it sufficient to lsten from an iphone speaker rather than with the headphones?
3. How close do you need to be to the speaker for it to be effective?
4. If you are listening to a stack of similar frequencies, all in some way connected with anti ageing, ie collagen, stem cell, skin regeneration, scar tissue, face lift.......then does it matter if you are listening to more than 4 at a time? I know its been said that its wise not to listen to more than 4 but I wonder if that only applys if you are listening to different types or subject matters?
Thank you for any answers and insights on this. xxx
You might want to take the time to read our excellent Official Sapienmed FAQ (Updated). (While you’re at it, check out our helpful forum search engine–that little magnifying glass icon in the upper right corner of every page of this forum.) These tools will help you find answers to commonly-asked questions and to help you get the most out of your Sapien fields!
Yes. The volume just needs to be loud enough so that you can tell if your field is playing or not.
Sure.
As long as the speaker is within your aura (an oval that, for most people, is typically the width of your outstretched arms). Some people feel that the closer the speaker is to the vertical midline of your body, the better. Other people are just fine if their speaker is off to the side (but still within their aura).
So, listen to what you’re saying here, which is “I know that its been said that its wise to X but I (for my own reasons) would rather not be wise and…?” Guess what? You get to choose! You get to do what you want to do.
When you read the FAQ, you’ll learn the guideline of limiting yourself to “4 fields for permanent physical changes” is because physical changes can be energetically taxing and permanent physical changes are the most energetically taxing of all. They’re energetically taxing because you’re using your energy to create changes in the “solid” physical world. And your fields will be affecting physical, biological and chemical processes with your body (which can affect other, unrelated processes in your body).
Now, might there be a difference if your fields are focused on one subject as opposed to 4 different subjects? Different individuals have reported different experiences, so it’s hard to draw a hard-and-fast conclusion that could apply to everyone (or most of everyone).
ETA: Since your thread title is asking about “Creating the best stack,” you might also be interested in our How to Create Great Stacks thread, too.
Hi. Many thanks for your reply. I do want to be wise! It’s just that I also read somewhere that if the frequencies are covering a similar topic, in this case anti ageing, then they can compliment each other, which is why I was asking if more than 4 would potentially be ok in this case, and not necessarily too taxing (since ultimately they are all working towards a similar end). But ofcourse I would rather do what’s wise. I was just unsure of this aspect, I can imagine if one is listening to a ton of audios all relating to different subject matters, then that could be very demanding and overwhelming for the energy.
I agree with what you’ve read, they can compliment each other.
I think you’re being wise in how you’re asking this question. You (and this is NOT a criticism at all) given yourself a lot of out’s and wiggle room in the way you’re asking this question. And at the same time, you’re getting to the heart of the matter: These are guidelines, and everyone’s going to have a different experience, because we’re all at different places, with different physical strengths and different (physical and energetic) bodily capabilities, and different energy sensitivities. What I can handle is what I can handle; you might be able to handle more.
Back to your question…
Yes, more than 4 could potentially be ok in this case. Like I said, the “4” is a guideline, to give you a starting point.
A simple way of answering that for you would be for you to try your “4” and see what your experience is with your “4,” and adjust from there, right?
I get what you’re saying there and it sounds good on paper, doesn’t it? The thing is there have been reports where sometimes it works in the way you’re presenting here and other times it doesn’t. It’s like an ab routine in a physical gym. Yes, it makes a great deal of sense to hit the abs for all sorts of different directions with different movements and exercises, and for some people, depending on their previous conditioning, that’s a really productive strategy. For other people, who may not have that kind of conditioning, doing 20 different ab exercises, all targeting all the different movements of those muscles, might be uncomfortable or counterproductive, you see?
Now, here’s the funny thing. Some people take this approach and have an easy time of things because they’re hitting one issue and then giving the energy involved in that issue time to regroup and restore.
Keeping in theme with my earlier example, it’s like those people who do a full-body routine as their workout. With their full-body routine, they might be hitting each part of their body (each “issue,” if you will) each time they’re in the gym–so maybe 3-4 times a week, whereas the person who does a focused routine will only hit the body part maybe 1 time a week. Both ways have their proponents because people get results with each of those ways.
I know this doesn’t give you The Answer. That’s because we’re all different but also because our different body parts within the same person are different. I might be able to listen to a bunch of–say–age-defying skin fields because my skin is one of my healthier organs, but because my–say–digestive system is less healthy, I can listen to only one of those fields before I get side effects.
tl;dr: I’d vote you start with the guideline set out by the creators of these fields (you know, the ones most knowledgeable about them) and then scale up or add on according to your experience.
