Living Free
The Afterlife is Not What You Think
Brendan joins David Armstrong on Living Free to challenge the mainstream picture of what happens at death. Drawing on NDE research, cross-tradition structural analysis, and the Consciousness Transition Model, the conversation maps what the evidence actually shows—and why it differs fundamentally from both materialist and religious accounts.
[0:00] Introduction
David: Welcome to another episode of Academy. We're back with Brendan D. Murphy and we're talking about Reverse Engineering the Afterlife. You've got a new book going into this, Brendan. Welcome back. Let's have a chat — give us a little intro of your background again, and then what gave you your interest in this area.
Brendan: Happy to. Where do you want to start?
David: Let's start with your background. What really got you into this? Why the research into the afterlife, and so much so that you've written a couple of books?
Brendan: As you know a little bit of my backstory, it was really sparked by the initial mind expansion of discovering Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe. That just ignited this need to try to understand what it's all about, how it all works — the nature of consciousness and reality. If you're interested in that, by extension you want to know whether consciousness survives the death of the physical body. One thing extends from the other. Book Two was originally intended to be part of Book One, but Book One was so big I had to split them. Then Book Two became its own beast over time as I came back to it and started working on it again around 2019 after seven years of not touching it. It developed into something much deeper and more rigorous than anything I'd initially imagined.
[3:00] Personal Experiences and Research Background
David: You sort of explained that the book draws on near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, and a bunch of other research. What other aspects or personal journeys have you taken to try to confirm some of that research?
Brendan: When I was twenty I started going to a spiritualist church, which I attended for two years — different services, and a weekly trance mediumship group on Thursday nights for a couple of years. At that point I wanted to develop my clairvoyant abilities, and it definitely started to work. I also dabbled briefly with out-of-body experiences. I had a spontaneous one — basically bouncing off the walls of the room, so to speak, and straight back into my body. Very rapid. I also discuss in Chapter Two a kind of parallel universe experience that happened when I lost consciousness having a small blood sample taken. Apparently that's very common for healthy young men to handle poorly in those situations.
For me the practical side of it has been somewhat neglected in favor of developing a more rigorous intellectual and philosophical grasp of things. I meditated a lot in my early twenties and had a number of very deep, profound mystical experiences — infinite consciousness, that kind of thing. Talbot's book actually opened my mind and consciousness up to be able to have my first experience, which was just spontaneous: lying in bed, I suddenly experienced myself as infinite. Like an infinite pinpoint of awareness expanding out everywhere at the same time — aware of being like a nucleus but also everywhere at once. That grounded things for me and then gave me the fire to want to go deeper on the research side of things, which is what I've been doing ever since.
[7:30] How the CTM Differs From Other Frameworks
David: Your theory is a bit different from some other people's work in this area. Do you want to explain some of the differences in what you've come up with?
Brendan: One of the main things I've tried to do is separate form from function — to distinguish between here's how we can interpret something, rather than just going: this is what it looks like, therefore that's what it must be. That's what most people in the alternative space do. In the more academic world they're a little more analytical, but they generally shy away from trying to develop a full-blown philosophical framework. I try to separate form, function, and interpretation in ways that most people in this space don't.
When you develop a meaningful interpretive framework, it allows you to extrapolate a level of meaning from reported experiences and perceptions that isn't normally available. Most people stop their analysis at "that's what it looked like" or "that's what happened, end of story." What I do instead is look for the underlying structure and try to identify the underlying psychological dynamic that generates a certain experience, rather than looking at the experience itself and going "this is the ontology." Most people are essentially saying perception equals reality. I'm not doing that. That distinction automatically differentiates me from a large number of commentators in the space.
David: Can you give some examples?
Brendan: Sure. Take NDEs — people experience certain realms and they're very persuaded because an NDE tends to be extremely vivid and realistic. It's very transformative. I have one specific example in the book where a woman went to bed one night while her husband was away on business. She had this experience — more real than a dream — where she met up with him in a virtual reality kind of space resembling an airplane hangar. They had an interesting interaction, a bit of a life review, they did a dance they hadn't been able to complete. They reminisced, went through some memories, and then he seemed to be saying goodbye. She woke in the morning confused, and found out shortly after that he had actually died at virtually the same time she'd had that experience.
The point is that the environment she was in was a construct created by two consciousnesses connecting and merging to some extent. Rather than looking at it as a literal spatial location you could drive to, like the beach or the mountains, what I'm trying to get at is that consciousness renders an environment that is perceptually very realistic but non-spatial — it doesn't exist anywhere in the conventional geographical sense. It's a rendered experiential interface. She actually described feeling that it was some kind of virtual reality construct, which is pretty on point.
David: Thomas Campbell in his My Big TOE theory had experiences where he and others were able to consciously go up into a shared space, have a conversation, come back down, and verify the same information. How does that fit in?
Brendan: It's really the same kind of thing — non-local mind, non-local consciousness. We're not restricted to the physical operating system. The mind is not generated by it. When you loosen the constraints placed on consciousness — for example when the physical body undergoes trauma or an NDE — you get this kind of smearing or expansion of awareness. In the broader field of consciousness we can connect with each other over arbitrarily large distances because it's a non-spatial environment. It doesn't matter how far away someone else's physical body is.
I'm not saying Campbell's wrong. I'm just trying to get at that underlying structural aspect where consciousness is inherently non-spatial and atemporal — it has no dimensions. So instead of actually experiencing that abstract quality, it creates the experience of spatiality as a kind of virtual reality simulation.
[18:00] Time, the Past, and the Information Field
David: Is time and place irrelevant in that model? The idea of going back in time to deal with trauma and fix things in the future — is that something that can happen in an altered state?
Brendan: A lot of people have reported that type of thing. In the non-physical you have access to the information field where past, present, and future exist in something like an undifferentiated state — all the information is there. If people want to experience what we call the past, that information can be re-accessed and rendered. It's a bit like scanning a specific track on a CD. You go to that part of the disc, bring up that song, that memory. In the field you can do that kind of thing, and it's experientially very persuasive and powerful — so it seems to people like they've gone back in time. But you're not really going back or forward. You're pulling up information and rendering an experience again, because the information never dies and never goes anywhere.
David: Does the past actually exist?
Brendan: On a level that doesn't quite make sense to the mind working through human biology. But at the same time, it becomes somewhat like what we say about the future being probabilistic. I think the past is actually similar — and there are modalities that work with that idea, going back, recreating a memory, changing it. How real is the past? Is it as real as a probable future? People can debate that endlessly. It's not a question I'm trying to settle in Book Two.
[25:00] The Tunnel, the Light, and Early-Stage NDE Perception
David: One of the interesting things from your work is your take on what people experience in an NDE as they go through the tunnel or toward the light. My understanding is that you see those experiences as something the consciousness needs in order to reorganize itself as it transitions. Can you go further into that?
Brendan: The tunnel specifically — not everyone experiences it. I think it's anywhere between ten and thirty percent of people who actually report a tunnel-like effect. To me it's really just a perception created by the mind reorienting itself from one operational context, which is physical and biological, into a completely different non-physical one. There's this sense of movement or travel, which is again virtual rather than actually spatial. It's an early-stage symptom of a transitional event which not everyone goes through.
People put a lot of weight and emphasis on the tunnel and the early-stage phenomena, but if you look at the bigger picture, it's not that significant on its own. I know at least one researcher who built an entire theory of the afterlife and survival of consciousness based off the life review — but that's also just an early-stage phenomenon. You move past it, you go deeper, you integrate more, and there are further stages beyond. The tunnel is more a perceptual shift — almost symbolic, like: I'm moving from one mode of perception into a very different non-physically oriented one.
As for the reorganization piece — what's happening is people are overwhelmingly experiencing what they have learned through their life. If they have strong religious beliefs, or if their only reference point for an afterlife is, say, Catholic doctrine, that can become the orientation point as they enter the early stage of the transition. People tend to experience what they've been pre-programmed with in terms of personal knowledge, expectations, and beliefs. That conditioning serves as a stabilizing mechanism for what is otherwise a pretty unfamiliar non-physical existence. You get the encounter with a being of light, or a grandmother showing up to greet you — something reassuring. People with fire and brimstone belief systems can have that kind of experience in the early stages, which is a minority experience but still possible, because when you strip the body away, the thing that's left is the mind, and the contents of the mind heavily dictate what experience you have initially.
The Tibetan Book of the Dead addresses exactly this. They try to guide the dying person in a controlled and calm way, to orient and stabilize them so they can move beyond the gods, deities, saviors, demons, and angels — which are essentially creations of consciousness. Their doctrine says: don't get distracted by them, or you risk making them more real and potentially terrifyingly real. These are conjurings of the consciousness field itself. Let them go and move past them.
That's why people generally experience gods and saviors early in the NDE — it's just a glimpse of the other side. As people transition deeper and deeper, they move into the different tiers I've mapped, where none of that fades away. They stabilize into a new virtual reality. Often people find themselves in a consensus environment — Buddhists in a Buddhist belief environment, Catholics in a Catholic one, Hindus in theirs. Even those are relatively low-level constructs where the individual's egoic identification is still very strong. So they recreate a virtual reality that reflects their beliefs, they still seem to have a body, they gather in their churches and shrines and temples and perform their rituals — and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just how their belief structure manifests in the non-physical realm, rendered by consciousness.
David: So they're creating their own dimension or construct based on their life's experience — and it could literally be experienced as a place?
Brendan: Absolutely. It is experienced as a place. And you can basically create it in whatever way makes sense to you, infinitely varied. The transition is generally quite automatic — it's not consciously created or thought out. People just find themselves in an environment that matches their belief system. Most people, because they're so identified with their physical self, will find themselves in something like a mid-astral virtual reality construct where they meet old friends from school or fellow church congregation members. They settle into an environment that's familiar and stabilizing for the ego structure. It's not an ultimate end point by any means. It's a temporary virtual reality for as long as they feel they want or need to be there.
[35:00] What Comes After
David: And then what? What's after that?
Brendan: There's a spectrum — from very physical, very embodied, and non-abstract all the way through to very non-embodied, very abstract, very non-physical, all the way through to infinite consciousness, what some call the monad. As people move into the more abstract and fluid states of consciousness, they open up vast vistas of possibility because there is functionally no limit in a field of abstract consciousness. There's no boundary, no border. Where do you want to go? What do you want to create? It's a very open-ended situation.
But a lot of people are so stuck in their belief systems that it takes them a long time — from our point of view — to be prepared to move on. One very experienced OBE writer, William Buhlman, pointed out that the longer you stay in one of those consensus environments with your churches and belief-system constructs, the closer and closer you drift toward automatic reincarnation on the physical level. I think that's because the identification with physicality and earth life is so strong for those people that they're drawn back to it automatically and unconsciously. Whereas if you start to become a little more expanded and aware, you realize other options exist. It's really very unlimited.
[40:00] Ayahuasca, OBEs, and Shifting Operational Contexts
David: Have you ever done ayahuasca?
Brendan: I think it's one of the only things I haven't done.
David: I did it in Brazil. People in those ceremonies spoke about similar things — infinite understanding, different dimensions, things that felt a hundred percent real. There was also this ability to go back and deal with trauma. When you say out-of-body experience, do you think that's literally an out-of-body experience, or something else?
Brendan: The language of "out of body" is actually part of the issue. What you're essentially doing is changing the channel — shifting from one state of consciousness, one operational context, into a completely different one. Whether you frame it as "in the body" or "out of the body" doesn't really have to factor in.
[44:00] Purpose, the Soul, and the Architect Level
David: What's the purpose of why we're here, and how does that affect where we ultimately end up?
Brendan: Going for the big ones. People will understand this better when they read the book because there's a massive amount of context in there. But I don't empathize with the idea that we've got to escape, ascend, get out of the loop, break the trap — all that stuff that's gaining traction lately. I'm more aligned with something like the Daoist view, where they accept that there doesn't seem to be a way to avoid some kind of existence, some maybe embodied or earth-like experience. So you may as well surrender to it, because there really isn't an escape key.
If there were a pure escape into nirvana or samadhi forever, we wouldn't all be here. And the thing is, at different tiers of awareness and consciousness, you're going to be aware of those options anyway. There's also that part of us that's always present in that ground state — the source, the monad, Brahman, the atman — the higher spiritual principles considered to be, at least in a couple of frameworks, the atman and the buddhi. These are impersonal. I don't have my atman and you have yours. It may be refracted through the individual, but at the top it's all one source. It emanates these other levels of reality — most of these traditions are emanationist — but the atman never leaves the source point. It is the ontological backdrop of all manifest reality. That part of us is always there and always ready to be accessed. It's just that we tend to identify very strongly with our human side, and we spatialize everything. We think God is out here somewhere. But every spiritual principle is reflected internally within us.
[52:00] Mythology, Non-Physical Beings, and Misreading the Astral
David: When you look at different spiritual and indigenous traditions talking about similar beings — Nephilim, Elohim, figures from Greek mythology — there's a commonality across cultures that seems to suggest a shared truth. How do those beings fit into your research?
Brendan: That's a very interesting area, but it's not a focus of Book Two because it's a huge topic in itself. I've had a lot of interest in the non-physical information we've been getting through regression research, past-life hypnosis, and that kind of thing about supposed existence in other realms as different beings. But again, I look at all of it very critically, because a lot of the time when you do that, you realize there's something a little different going on than what people think.
There's actually one dichotomy I've noticed that might speak to what you're getting at. There's a very clear difference between what kinds of information tend to come through in out-of-body experiences and remote viewing on one hand, versus near-death experiences and channeled reports from the other side on the other. People operating through an active functional nervous system — OBEs and remote viewing — very often pick up on mythological sorts of themes in the non-physical. It's informed largely by their experience in the world, and by tuning into the broader field of consciousness you can access information from anybody and everybody through all of history. So there's this lingering mythological imprint in the information field that can be picked up on.
It can appear as beings, aliens, demons, all sorts of weird stuff. Then we get this merging of mythological themes. It started as angels and demons — classical altered-state and NDE type figures. As time goes on and our ideas about how things work change, the angels and demons start to morph into aliens and demons. I describe it in the book as code splitting or forking. You have the original classical code — God on the throne, the cherubim, angels, and demons representing light and darkness. Then gradually it gets morphed and keeps up with the times. Our ideas around the divine or the infernal start to be symbolized differently. People start having these different types of experiences as the code splits and mutates.
One of the reports I actually came across was the Buddha piloting a jet plane, armed with a weapon — a literal variation of the ancient "war in heaven" mythological theme, now involving spaceships and lasers. It becomes this astral circus of altered-state perception. If we take it at face value and literally, we lose the plot. People end up with belief systems that have no real constructive use and won't help them orient themselves when they actually transition out of the physical body.
[1:05:00] Internal Configuration and What Determines Post-Mortem Experience
David: To try to bring it together — what does someone's life here actually do to shape their experience afterward?
Brendan: The thing that most people haven't grasped is that your experience post-mortem is the result of your internal psychological configuration — your level of internal coherence, your awareness, your beliefs. The possibilities are in principle endless from there. But most people are stuck at the level of the concrete lower aspect of the soul or mind, where divinity has to be anthropomorphic, has to look like a man or a woman. If I'm a good boy or good girl I get to go up to the cloud and hang out with Jesus — very simplistic ideas which have nothing to do with what actually happens.
For me, if people are happy to move past those comfortable frameworks and look at something a little more complex and nuanced, then I'm the guy. If they want tick-box ABC theology, I'm obviously not. But ultimately, when you take the body away, the only thing left is the mind operating in what is essentially an infinite field. So then the question becomes: how does that individual consciousness orient itself in that new environment?
Robert Monroe described going into a building during one of his OBE states — people were surprised to see him because they could tell he was still attached to a body. He met a couple of figures who explained that they were there helping people from the medical profession who were dying and crossing over — specifically the ardent materialists who'd spent their careers not believing in an afterlife. They were going to be really shocked to find they're still alive and would need someone to explain what's going on. Blavatsky and Theosophy took a slightly different view — that an absolutely convinced physicalist materialist would simply be unconscious or asleep until drawn back into another incarnation. There's more than one perspective on this, and I think there are aspects of truth in all of them.
[1:14:00] Fatherhood and the Purpose Question
David: You're a father now. What do you say to your daughter when she asks why we're here?
Brendan: Do you want me to answer that as I would answer a five-year-old? Because that's how old my daughter is.
David: Potentially yes, because it brings it back to the most simplistic form. Sometimes people need exactly that — simplistic enough to feel comfortable, like a starting point.
Brendan: I'd hate to try to give a comforting answer because for me those comfortable answers aren't viable. With my daughter at five, if she asked that question I'd honestly put it back on her — "What do you think? Why do you think you're here?" I try to encourage her to reflect internally even at that age, rather than giving her my answer. She'll learn unconsciously to find answers internally rather than looking to an authority. If she's twelve, she'll get a slightly different kind of response. By fourteen or fifteen the brain goes through another profound energetic and neurological shift — they start to actually activate the intellect, whereas before that they're not really operating there. So then completely different conversations become possible. And then at twenty-one another seven-year cycle has passed and they're different again. Unfortunately for men, the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until around thirty. Women are more like twenty-five.
I want to train my daughter to find her internal resources. When she's old enough she'll maybe realize she has one of the best-researched people in this field who just happens to be her dad, with these books on the shelf. But I'm not going to push this on her and say "look, I've got the answers." I'd rather see her creativity, intuition, and inner knowing be nurtured.
[1:22:00] Reincarnation — Conscious, Unconscious, and the Spectrum
David: On the question of conscious choice to incarnate — something like child trafficking, where someone experiences the absolute worst at a young age with no ability to control it. Is that a conscious choice to have that experience?
Brendan: The danger in this kind of conversation is that people will twist it into "you're gaslighting victims" or "blaming the victim." But in my model there's a spectrum of different states that can lead us back into embodied life, and it doesn't necessarily always result from that very high architect level where it's consciously orchestrated. This comes from both old and modern sources.
You can have a process of very unconscious reincarnation. People who get stuck in those comfortable consensus astral environments get drawn back into reincarnation naturally — earth life is just the magnetic attractive point for them. I think it happens on a spectrum. A lot of what happens is probably very unconscious — people drifting from a low-level perhaps unconscious state back into embodied life.
One intuitive source I cited made the point that dying under a very sub-optimal condition can naturally lead you back into being drawn into a very similar situation in the next incarnation. Nobody is choosing it. There's also the idea of karmic relationships — someone who carries an intense emotional charge of hatred toward a particular group, through that intensity of connection, might unconsciously be drawn back into life as a member of that very group. The shoe is on the other foot.
Michael Newton's regression work gives the impression that it's all consciously chosen and intended. I think from certain levels it largely is selected, but they're not reporting on the unconscious stuff because if it happened unconsciously, the subject can't report it — they didn't choose it in a state of awareness. So there's a very interesting mixed bag.
I did mention this on Alec Zeck's show a while back — there was a woman born into a generational family of Satanists who was horrifically abused from infancy. She had multiple out-of-body experiences during which she reported that, separated from the child's body and operating from a more expanded and adult-like spiritual reference point, she had memories flood back of being in the spirit world and looking at this family and deciding: this family needs an intervention. I'm going to incarnate into it to try to spark some kind of empathy or compassion, because they're so broken and lost. She experienced that incarnation as a conscious choice. I'm not here to advocate that it's objectively true — that was simply the experience she had.
[1:33:00] Soul Contracts and the Life Review as Self-Encounter
David: What do you think of the idea of soul contracts — that in NDEs you're sometimes given a choice to come back based on an agreement to do things differently? I read about a priest who in his NDE met a being who told him flatly that he didn't know God at all, had been living the opposite of what he was teaching, and essentially needed to go back and do it properly. Do you think that's a real contract with some external authority, or something else?
Brendan: What a lot of people don't grasp is that ultimately you are arranging this with yourself. There's no signing your name in blood, no lawyers, no courts. It's an agreement with yourself. What that priest experienced in the NDE is essentially his disowned conscience or disowned spirituality coming back at him. That's in part what the life review does. It's a temporary low-level interface — a construct where people who haven't lived with a great deal of conscience experience it coming back at them as if it's an external entity rather than something internal. But it's an aspect of the self coming back and saying: look, this is your conscience, that thing you left behind years ago — time to clean up our act.
The spiritual aspects of us carry a higher level of awareness, empathy, and compassion. They see the chain of cause and effect in the way we impact other people through our decisions. That's very clear through panoramic life review reports. People experience not only what they did, but what it felt like from inside the other person. Dannion Brinkley reported not only that, but the ripple effects through other people's lives — concentric circles of impact, because he'd killed people professionally. In the life review he got all of it. Because we operate with such a limited bandwidth inside the physical body, that multi-perspectival awareness isn't normally possible. When separated from the body, informational capacity and awareness expand significantly — you're not just yourself, you're the other person, and then the next, and it just goes on.
The conscience externalized can be symbolized in different ways. Some people experience being watched by a great eye. They're told the things they thought mattered don't matter. It's the little things. It's constructive feedback, so that when they come back to the body, they do better. On some level, to some part of us, how we perform here does matter. The goal is basically to grow, evolve, develop, and become the best version of ourselves.
[1:43:00] Why We Don't Remember Past Lives
David: Why are memories wiped between incarnations? Why do we start from scratch again?
Brendan: I don't love the term "memory wipe" because it implies someone is maliciously deleting our awareness. On a biological level, we're just very limited — operating through this neurological system that filters out ninety-nine percent of reality. We're constantly blocking out more than we're letting in just by default. But there are metaphysical aspects to it as well.
Bruce Moen had some really interesting OBE perceptions around watching souls come into the earth-life system from outside it. They seemed to drift in unconsciously and asleep, some attached by luminous cords to others — those were the groups going to be working together or as families in earth life. He was at this sort of facility with a being he called "the constriction" or something similar, and was informed that everybody goes through this process voluntarily. What happens is a massive compression of our awareness and energy, because the earth-life environment is so chaotic that if we arrived as open as we normally are, we simply wouldn't survive — we wouldn't be able to function. The sensory awareness would be too overwhelming. So the filtering is actually a protective mechanism.
There's also the interference problem: if you knew all the horrible things other versions of yourself had done across other lifetimes, that would really mess with you and adversely affect your experience here. And there's the practical aspect — I might avoid certain experiences if I knew they were coming, but those experiences might be necessary for my evolutionary process as Brendan. The whole point is to harvest as much as possible from the experience and take the worthy parts of it, and of yourself, back into non-physical existence.
[1:53:00] How This Knowledge Shapes How You Live
David: How does all of this knowledge affect your life now? Do you seek out to be good, or do you just try to live every experience fully and make the most of every moment?
Brendan: I've internalized so much of what I've been grappling with and studying that it's just kind of the background operating system. I don't know that I try to be good — all I know is that if I do something most people would label as good, I tend to feel good. And from a spiritual or esoteric framework there's a reason for that: ultimately we have a buried, subconscious knowledge of who and what we really are, and an understanding that we are different versions of each other, deeply interconnected.
One of the readers of Book One said in her review, "If this is what's possible, what the hell have I been doing with my life?" And that's the effect it seems to have on a lot of people. I intentionally designed what I do to have that kind of impact. For me, I'm driven internally. I don't feel like I try to be good or do good — it's more like a subroutine in me that compels me to do this work. I can rationalize it as trying to change the world for the better, but I don't think I could even switch that off. My job is to do this work. As soon as I had that first experience of infinity, it got locked in — you become kind of possessed by the mission, almost puppeteered by it.
I don't do any of this because I hope for a better afterlife experience. The afterlife experience is dictated by the state of consciousness you're in when you die. You could do a billion different things in your life that won't change that outcome. It's all state-dependent in terms of your psyche.
[2:02:00] What Brendan Wants Readers to Take Away
David: Last question: what would you like people to walk away with after reading your book?
Brendan: Everyone will take what they take from it. For me, one of the things that drove the whole project was that I had to understand the mystery of death — I wasn't satisfied with anybody else's take on it, which is why we're here and why I've written this book. At the very least, on a basic level, I hope it destroys the fear of death for people. I hope they can understand that consciousness is actually the only reality, and it's just a matter of what state of consciousness you happen to be in. The body modifies it but doesn't create it, and will not sustain it. Consciousness self-sustains independently of any kind of biology. If people aren't afraid of death anymore, that's amazing. For people looking for a deeper understanding of the process they're involved in — the game they're playing — it will give them a lot to chew on.
David: Awesome. I always find that these interviews with you push the absolute limits of my intelligence trying to keep up. I enjoy the conversation and the challenge. Thank you for your time. Where can we find your book?
Brendan: Thanks again for having me. We have a pre-order campaign active right now — it'll still have a few weeks to run when this goes up. People can put in a purchase for the book over on my website. It's brendandmurphy.com — I'll drop the direct link. That's where people can order Book Two, and it's also essentially the crowdfunding page. We're getting the momentum going to get this launched this year. All the premium versions and extra parts of the offer — things that won't be available once the campaign finishes — are there now.
David: Will people need to have read Book One to understand Book Two, or are they separate?
Brendan: They don't need to have read Book One at all.
David: Excellent. Awesome, brother. Appreciate you for your time.
Brendan: Thanks. All the best with the family.
David: Likewise. Take it easy.