I'm suffering from "it's yet another crackpot with a video camera who has no evidence to support his spurious claims (except a warm fuzzy anecdote)" syndrome.

The kids suicide and the resulting good that came from it has no connection to whether he comes back to this reality or not.

First, the resulting good is speculative since his mother is an opportunist getting rich quick off grief and make believe.

Second, Campbell stated Erik had "evolved" through this process, implying he might not need to be reincarnated. It was never fully explained, and I don't recall the mention of a spiritual tabula rasa.

Third, why was Erik's ghost allowed to play telephone with his mother--and later pull pranks on anyone gullible enough to buy her books/believe her fantasy? Remember, this was a unique case. Why does Erik get to stay in Heaven while all the other poor saps who opt out have to reincarnate, die, and repeat?

Logical inconsistencies?? You could fly a planet through the gaps in Campbell's reasoning. It sounded like he was making half this shit up as he went along, similar to L. Ron Hubbard.

But none of that is really due to the inherent 'goodness' or 'badness' of suicide. Suicide is neither good nor bad. Just like eating the flesh of animals is neither good nor bad.

By that logic, nothing is good or bad, as these are just labels used for classification. LULZ!

Eating the flesh of animals kind of sucks for the animals. Or is that "just another challenge" they have to "deal with"? Or are they spared the cosmic punishment of reliving trauma for having less sophisticated brains?

Killing yourself because some kook on the internet told you it's like deleting a video game character would be tragic.

And he doesn't claim to be an authority on anything to my knowledge.

He's alive, yet he claims to know what happens when we die.