#24: Exploring Science & Spirituality with Gina Mollicone-Long
What if the mystical wasn't magic — just misunderstood technology?
In this episode, we continue our deep-dive with Gina Mollicone-Long, a transformational coach and speaker, where she’s exploring the hidden links between science and spirituality.
With an academic foundation in engineering, philosophy, and the science-spirit intersection, Gina is uniquely equipped to bridge seemingly opposing worlds. She draws from both modern and ancient performance technologies, empowering individuals to reprogram outdated conditioning and reconnect with their true greatness. Gifted in rapport, language, and intuitive insight, Gina has a rare ability to cut straight to the root of what’s blocking transformation — and give you the tools to change from the inside out.
This isn’t about blind faith or cold logic — it’s about uncovering the how behind the why. And in Gina’s words, when those meet, you get the wow.
Topics We Explore:
- What hypnosis really is (and why you’re doing it daily without realizing it)
- Reprogramming your subconscious and the myth of “being broken”
- Why breakthroughs require breaking down first
- How spiritual texts may hide scientific principles, waiting to be rediscovered
- The idea that outdated emotional programs run most of your life
- Neuroplasticity, electromagnetic fields, and consciousness — explained simply
Connect with Gina Mollicone-Long: https://ginamollicone.com/
Learn More about The Viking Academy: https://www.vikingacademy.com
Episode Transcript:
Erik Solbakken: Hi everyone and welcome back to the Viking Academy Podcast. So this podcast is part two with Gina Mollicone-Long. Now we go super deep into what her next adventure is, and so she go, we talk about NLP, we talk about hypnosis, we talk about timeline therapy and all the work that she does in this area and, and Gina has this wonderful. Approach to life. It's very pragmatic. It's very systemized. It's like how do things work? And what she's gonna be embarking on is she's doing a PhD in the UK to find the connection between science and spirituality. She believes that in the old teachings of. Just 200 years ago, like Sir Isaac Newton and and so forth, there is proof there that they were already onto some technology that proves the connection between science and spirituality. So one of the things we talk about is that science is the how. Science tells us how things work. Spirituality is about. Why things work. She believes she can find the cross. She's looking for the crossover. That is her thesis that, that there's a crossover between science and spirituality. Two separate systems. The how and the why. When they come together, you get the, wow. We go really deep on that and all the other teachings that she has. I hope you find it incredibly powerful as I did. This is gonna be another one of those podcasts that I'm gonna personally listen to, listen to, probably two or three times myself because she packs in so much information about. Who we are and how our programming works, and how what we can do personally to change things. So if shit's happening in your life, like it is happening to me right now as I'm recording this podcast, I'm in this mushy chrysalis state, like the painful part of shifting from a. Caterpillar to a butterfly. If you're going through kind of a shitty part, and a lot of people are right now, there's a lot of gems in this podcast to help you see how to break through so that you can become that butterfly so you can soar, so you can change the past conditioning you had in yourself so that you can live your best life and live with passion and purpose, which is what the Viking Academy is all about. So there you go. So let's get into the podcast. Let's go explore.
Erik Solbakken: Welcome back to the podcast.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Welcome back.
Erik Solbakken: Welcome back. Welcome back everybody.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Thank
Erik Solbakken: you. So what is, you and I had a conversation after the last podcast.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yep.
Erik Solbakken: And, went for dinner. It was fantastic dinner, by the way.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yep.
Erik Solbakken: Awesome.
Gina Mollicone-Long: That was a good one.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, it was very good. A very great conversation. You are going on a journey. You're going on an epic adventure. tell me what the status is of that right now.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Oh, so I'll be going to Oxford to do my PhD in, theology comma science and Religion. And, yeah, that's what I'm up to. So, it's really just a, a further exploration at the academic level of the intersection of mind and matter spirit and matter, if you will.
Erik Solbakken: You make it sound so nonchalant.
Gina Mollicone-Long: It kind of
Erik Solbakken: is like, no, it's kind of not, it's kind of not, it's kind of a big deal. Like when you told me what you were doing and I was like, holy shit, like. Like, nevermind that, like, okay. There's a lot of things to unpack into this. So there's the, we're just going to pack up and sell off and move to England. Oh,
Gina Mollicone-Long: we do that often. So that's not
Erik Solbakken: that you do that. Okay. But still you're doing that, you're packing up heading to England, right?
Gina Mollicone-Long: But
Erik Solbakken: you were, you had to put in a, application, didn't you?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Like
Erik Solbakken: in Oh,
Gina Mollicone-Long: of course. I had to put in a proposal.
Erik Solbakken: A proposal. Could you explain that a little bit more for the listeners? 'cause they, like, like me, probably don't understand how, what we're talking about here.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Well, so PhD is just, is is research. It's a research based PhD. So you have to put in a proposal of what you want to research. But, again, it, for those of you listening who are shocked at the relationship between science and religion, I just wanna kind of. Point out that they're both just systems of information. They're systems of organization, of information. And so I'm less concerned with who's right and more concerned with what's the same because I believe that what's the same inside those systems of information informs the others on how to maybe progress through what the tricky questions are, right? So they always say science explains how, and religion explains why I, I don't know if that's true, but that's sort of the, the easy explanation. So, and there are a lot of people that hold those things, so totally separate and that's fine. And there are a lot of us who hold them totally integrated. And so I'm just going to try to find the intersections that would serve us in our current search for truth and meaning and whatnot.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. And that's, that's, I still find it so funny how you just kind of nonchalantly say, I'm just trying to connect these two
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right.
Erik Solbakken: Have been traditionally opposing views. You're either like my daughter, Isla, she loves, you ever watched, young Sheldon?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yes.
Erik Solbakken: Okay. She is all of a Isla 12. She has gone bonkers over this. She watches it almost daily. She's watched the whole series and then she watches it again over and over. But at all the same time when she's watching any tv she's knitting or making crafts. She's like this multitasking phenom. Anyways, I'm watching this, and of course the big conflict in, in the show is Sheldon Cooper, his, and he's like Mr. Science and his mother, who is all about, the, the traditional gospel of Jesus and it's. And it's that clash between the two. And it's a historical clash that's been going on for a long time. When you first told me that you were going to do your PhD. To find the connection between the two. That's when I was like, this is epic. But that's not the, that's just the, the, the kind of the high level view of it. Tell the listeners what you're going to analyze to find that connection.
Gina Mollicone-Long: So, this could change. So, we're okay. We're, we're, so we don't, I don't wanna get into too many details 'cause we're not there yet. Call me in a year. Okay. And I'll tell you what exactly that we're doing, but we're just, we're trying to excavate understanding that was potentially present in theological writings that nobody really recognized as being scientific because that science didn't exist at the time. So, as an example, and, and this usually shocks people, everybody knows who Newton is, but nobody realizes that Isaac Newton himself. Didn't have access to use the word energy the way we do kinetic potential, and so on and so forth, because his physics made the discovery of those kinetic potential and so on energy possible. But they weren't available as in vocabulary or vernacular understanding during his time. So he could never have written about, the energetic connection of blah, blah, blah, because it, that wasn't even a thing. Right? So he would, but that doesn't mean that the, that there was no such thing as potential energy or that we just, our science didn't know it at the time. And so if we go with what we know now, back to what was written, then we might also find other principles that were already, there that they couldn't explain in ways we would understand, because. We, they didn't have access to the language, the understandings and things like that. So because of that, we can look back in historical writings that potentially show us other insights that got missed until the, the scientific understanding emerges. And then it's like, oh, well wait a second. This, this writing from the 16th century, or 17th century or 18th century, while it's cloaked in perhaps a little bit more theological talk or whatever, looks a lot like the description of, say, for example, neuroplasticity, but that wasn't a word, obviously in the 17th century or 18th century. So they might have written about it as, information. Even information would've been a questionable word. So we have to look, so we can look back and see that, that the, the things that we think are scientific breakthroughs may have been already there simmering in consciousness, just without a, a vehicle to be put into, like even, for example, Newton himself had to invent calculus. Like the stuff we all take in high school. He had to invent it as a math type to be able to explain what he was talking about with gravity and optics. Like it didn't,
Erik Solbakken: because he conceptually understood gravity, but he didn't have a way of conveying the messaging. So then he created something to like a translator. So, so
Gina Mollicone-Long: almost,
Erik Solbakken: yeah. When you think about it, like calculus was the translator to explain his understanding, his concept of,
Gina Mollicone-Long: I guess the point is that he, he, while he knew it, in order to publish it. He need to corroborate it in a way that was understandable, replicatable, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so there's all kinds of unpublished writings by people like Newton and whatnot. They were never published, they were never made into books or laws or whatever, whatever. but that doesn't mean that what they wrote wasn't valuable. And so people like me, we look at, from our understanding of current scientific advancement, were, were there clues already 400 years ago, 300 years ago? And if so, what else might they be clueing onto that we could now a little bit take for granted? Right? So for example, 25, 30 years ago, if you had told someone that you had a near death experience, they'd put you, they'd put you in the cuckoo category. Right. If you
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Well, they would, they'd be like, oh, okay. Whatever. Right. And now, because we can look at these states in a neuroscience manner and identify some of the states or the chemicals or, we can start to pick apart how it might be working. It's a little bit less cuckoo category and a little bit more understandable and explicable. And so, the scientific, writer, the, the scientific, fiction writer, Arthur C. Clark, one of his idioms, or Axiom Axioms was that any sufficiently, advanced form of technology is indistinguishable from magic. Okay?
Erik Solbakken: Yes, yes, yes.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Big, big, important thing there, and I've been saying this for decades. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there's not a technology or a technique, which is the Greek word for process or steps. Doesn't mean there isn't steps. There, you just don't know what they are. And so it looks like magic. if you've ever seen an actual stage magician do a magic trick, it looks amazing. And then if they teach you how they do it, you're like, oh, well that's kind of boring. Right? And because once the trick, if you will, it ceases to be mystical. And, and therefore the entertainment, which is in the mysticism is gone. Well, that's kind of the same way with our mechanical world, right? So once we, like, once we get to the point where a near death experience is completely explicable, anybody who has one, we will just be like, oh, that's regular, right? Where, because we understand it and until we understand it, we'll be like, oh no, that's weird, or mystical or magical or whatever. And, and I always, people always think that magic is some sort of like out there, standalone, supernatural bag of tricks. Where, I always use the example of my grandmother, if I, when I wrote The Secret of Successful Failing, and if, if I were to say my grandmother lived to be 97, okay, but my grandmother never had an email address. She never had a, cell phone. She had a landline, and that was a big deal, right? She was born in the 19 teens, early 1920s. So, so she had think about the technology that she had to adopt over time, but cell phones weren't one of them. Now imagine when I wrote The Secret of Successful Failing or even Think Her Sync, and I turn to her and I go, Bobby, I wanna get you a copy of my book, and then I pull out this weird device, right? And I, I tap on it three specific times, and tap, tap, tap. And then I put it back down. And then, sometime later, the book appears from nowhere and someone hands it to. Well, from her perspective, like that's like get out the garlic or the cross, because I just conjured up a book out of nowhere. Right. I spoke a spell of, I Want Bobby, I want to give you this book, the Secret of Successful Failing. I pulled out a magical device that she didn't understand. I did a very specific sequence of steps, and then the book appeared as if from nowhere. Well, for her, that's magic. For me, that's just Amazon, which is magical in its effects, to to, to get me stuff to my house that I don't have to go out in the pouring, freezing rain to do it. But the bottom line is, is it's not magic, it's just a step, a simple, supply chain, delivery system. But because she doesn't know the technology, doesn't understand it and doesn't use it, it looks like magic. Well. That is my, that is the basis of everything that I do literally, right? And so the work, so for example, if you are on my coaching page, right? So what the breakthrough work that I do, what sets people will say, well, what's the difference between this and, and all our coaching? Well, first of all, it takes two days instead of two years or whatever painful process people are in. And secondly, it occurs when people recognize that they are more energy than matter. The biggest mistake people make is they try to make changes in the material world, right? And while it can work, it's a lot of effort to make changes. But if you go back to the blueprint, the, the energetic world, the world that's a little unseen, a little unformed, and you make changes there that flows right through to the, to your world, to your material world. And that's where we work, right? We work in the, the, the thoughts, the focus, the emotions, the physiology. These are all upstream of action. Result. So, but it's not, it looks magical. Sure. To the untrained eye. I just taught hypnosis trainers training. People are always like, whoa. It's like really like h hypnosis of all the things I know. It's the most basic. It's so, it's, it's 'cause it's so old that so many people understand it, that it can be used by virtually anyone. And it is just so we're clear. Right. That, is it, is it you're, you're not learning it 'cause someone told you not to? Well, that's like kind of why I wanna learn things. Usually when someone tells me not to, right? Yeah. But like, whoa, it's weird. I'm like, well, hypnosis is just a process of following instructions when you don't have to. So it's like. I know I don't have to follow your instructions, but if I do, I pretend like I am following your instructions that opens the door to hypnosis, which is, being suggestible. Right? Well, why, why would you wanna do that? Well, if you wanted to believe something that you don't currently believe that would support your goals, that would be a reason to do it. Or if you wanted to, do something differently that you couldn't seem to get conscious control of, that would be a reason to do it. And we were like, well, I don't know if I wanna do that. I don't know if I wanna, like, well, have you ever watched a television. They go. Yeah. if you're watching this on a video right now, you're looking at a screen, that screen is flashing at some bit rate that's moving very quickly. Your brain is smoothing that over so that you see a, an image that's processable. Right? So your daughter's watching young Sheldon on a screen, but that tv, the flash rate of that television induces in the brain. Slower brainwaves. That's called a trance. If you, if it hits low alpha, now you're in a trance state. Well, I don't think anybody can argue with that. Right? Have you ever seen anybody watching television?
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. Big wide open mouth. That's me. I always get
Gina Mollicone-Long: that. You literally say they look tranced out. Right. Okay, well that's not hip hypnosis, but that's the beginning. That's required. You have to be in a slow, you have to be in that sort of slower state. And then you have to bypass your critical faculty. And then once you do that, you become suggestible in the context. Well, the bypass of the critical faculty. So the critical faculty is the part of your mind, if you will, that cares to distinguish between reality and fantasy, right? So is it real? Is it real? Is it real? is that true? Is that true? Is that true? and it's there and it, and it forms around age seven, and then we're kind of stuck with the critical faculty for life. But it's very easy to get around the critical faculty. if you're watching a movie, for example, and in the movie something unrealistic happens, Superman flies away or whatever. There's the, the two, the two guys are fighting in midair, whatever, something that doesn't occur. every day the critical faculty goes like. Wait a second. Hold, hold on. This isn't real. And then it goes, oh, what? We're watching a movie. It's, it's good. Go ahead. And so what happens is that relaxes the critical faculty. It goes, oh, alright, we're good. It's, it's for the purposes of entertainment, but it doesn't matter why you've now bypassed the critical faculty and guess whose brain is wide open and ready for suggestion. Okay, now, anybody who works in advertising and I worked in advertising for years, knows this. Or if they don't know it, they're gonna learn it. Right now that advertising is applied. Hypnosis people are in a trance. Okay. They're in a trance because the TV kind of does, it does half the work. And then the show does the rest of the work in providing you something that causes you to bypass your critical faculty. Right. And it doesn't have to be sensational, like Superman flying. if, think about it, when you saw Superman flying, it's not like you got up in the movie theater and whipped a tomato at the screen. You're like, oh, this is bullshit. men can't fly. I'm leaving. Right. Well that, the fact that you don't ab react like that is because you override the critical faculty, which is willful. It. I, I know you're not signing a document or, but you're still doing it. Okay. And then that's my time to advertise to you. Right. So back in the fifties when we started to learn the application of this, the, the commercials were kind of brutal, right? Like, buy my washing powder. Like it was just, now we're so sophisticated. 'cause the more and more we can hone in on this mechanism, right? So now it doesn't even take. Men flying it, it could be something as insane as, in a movie, let's say, a character is in Seattle and you can tell because the Space Needle is, is showing out the window of their office or something. Okay? So they're on the phone and they're talking to another character who's clearly in New York City because you can see the Empire State Building or something. Okay? So by virtue of the fact that you can tell where they are, one's in Seattle, one's in New York, okay? You, that, that they're, across the country. And then in the next scene, they go on the phone, they go, what? We should we, I really like to meet you. Okay, let's do that. And then in the next scene, you see them walking hand in hand in Central Park. Okay, now think about that. D, does anybody stand up in that movie theater and go, well, this is ridiculous. It would take at least five hours to fly from Seattle to New York, and that's not including the time you have to get there extra for security and check your bags and dah dah da and find the gate. So we're talking seven hours plus you have to pick up your bag at the other end. And then what if it's delayed? Then you have to get a taxi. Then you have to go to, so, this should take eight hours and it only took 1.2 seconds. Well, this is ridiculous. I want my money back. Well, nobody does that. You, you go, oh, I get it. It's a movie. It's not real. And so you willfully suspend or bypass the critical faculty and that, that exact second. And anybody who doesn't know this, who works in advertising, this is some free information for you. That's the exact second to put the logo or the product placement of the thing that you're trying to promote using the media that you've purchased. That's hypnosis. Sorry, I'm sorry to burst all the bubbles. And everybody goes, that's not hypnosis. Hypnosis is this evil thing, and I, where did you hear that? Oh, well, the person in position of authority told me that it's that it's this or that. I go, well, if I had to hide a secret, I would put it in plain view and then discredit it from a position of authority so we can sit here and debate it, but I can tell you how the mechanism works in your physiology. Now, we could also sit here and do what a lot of people do and focus on that while they should be doing that, and that's wrong. Who cares? Listen, this is how it works. Here's how you use it. What do you mean? Here's how I use it. Well, it works whether we're trying to sell you, I don't know, washing powder or toothpaste or whatever. But what if you're, what you're trying to do is sell yourself a new mindset. A new belief or, or, or replace a, a limiting belief or, or a new paradigm where you, you, you don't need to inhale, tar or whatever. Okay, so it's the same thing. It's the same mechanism. Well, well wait a second, Gina. I can't obviously afford to buy media on television. So what do I do? Well, you don't need to buy media on television. You can do this in the comfort of your own home, right? And that's what, apply, hypnosis in its traditional form, which is have someone read you an induction script, which is what climbs over the critical faculty in your own brain, and it relaxes you and that brings you into that state. And then you pretend like you're following their instructions when you don't have to, which is kind of what you do when you watch the movie and when you get to that hypnotic state, and then you start accepting the selective thinking, well, that's hypnosis, and we just use the same mechanism, but we did it for your benefit instead of without your explicit consent, which by the way, isn't required. Just your implicit consent is required. And how do we achieve that in a, in a classroom or a setting? We read a script and you follow it. And if you follow it, then you give your implicit consent. It is the same mechanism. So I don't like to get too much into the, Ooh, these guys are the bad guys and the good guys. 'cause honestly, my study of history has shown me that it's, it's not exactly as you always think it is.
Erik Solbakken: No,
Gina Mollicone-Long: right. The bad, the bad guys were the good guys. Were the bad guys. Were the good guys. And usually it's the one who wins that tells you who is who.
Erik Solbakken: Exactly. Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: So I don't spend too much time worrying about that. But I will tell you how the mechanism works and it looks like magic. And if you are not trained, you might get out the garlic or the cross or the, devil horns or whatever. But when I teach the technology, which is kind of a ya really, it's, it's not comp. I teach way more complicated stuff than hypnosis. people are shocked at how simple it is. I just taught the highest level of hypnosis that you can teach. I certified a master trainer. Okay. That's the highest level you can teach. And there was one flip chart. For the entire training. And I am like famous for like my flip charts and there's one in hypnosis. There's one flip chart. It's basic simple and you have to understand this in order to to, to understand how the mind works. And this is only hypnosis from a physiological perspective. And by physiology now we have words like brainwave and slow alpha and right. We have these words now. Okay. We have, we have those. we can, we can verify them. We can, I have a device I can hook up to my ear and, and measure it in my house. But 200 years ago they didn't, they didn't have any of that. It still worked by the way, but they thought maybe it was a little bit more, I have power. Oh, I have power over you, but you don't. Right. But they don't have any, they didn't have any of the words. So now when I teach it to people, they're like, seriously, that's all it is.
Erik Solbakken: ? It's cur, it's, it's interesting. I was just down in, Santa Monica for, a coaching, session, a couple workshops down there, and I met up with a buddy of mine that I went to school with long time ago. He's a film producer down in, he lives down in, Ventura. Great guy. His parents were always, shall we call it, they were more hippie slash woo woo woo. What we called Woo woo at the time. I was talking to him about my, my hip hypnosis session with Nikki, Hughes, and which I did a podcast with Nikki and I was explaining how I did a regression regression, therapy. So we did a regression. We, we did a past life regression and we did a spiritual regression.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yep.
Erik Solbakken: And he's looking at me going really? Really Eric? Is that, so like, tell me about this hypnosis thing. He was, I thought for sure he would've gone, oh, that's really cool. He was going, yeah, right. Whatever. And I was going, dude, have you never, have you ever seen the man they call Ravine? Don't you remember the, the, the show that, that he would go around to towns and he would make people go on stage and dance. And he was just like, yeah, no. Did that, that hypnosis stuff doesn't work. It's not real. And I'm like, oh my God, it is so real. I said, but you don't, it's not someone comes up to you and goes, woo. And I can, I can control their thoughts without their consent. And I like how you said that. It's that.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah. But see, it doesn't have to be explicit. And that's part people don't understand.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: If it's explicit, like in a hypnosis session, it's very explicit to down to the point where you're signing a consent form and, blah, blah. But even then, if they say, take a breath and close your eyes, but you do close your eyes and take a breath, you've just interfered with the instructions. And any interference just kind of keeps a level of, of critical faculty in place. And then that's fine. It, it does have a protective feature so that you don't just believe everything you hear. Right. But that being said, people will always ask me, well, why didn't hypnosis work? I tried to do it for my problem. Quit smoking, whatever it is, whatever. Quit smoking, lose weight, make money, whatever.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: And the issue is that hypnosis is more of a technique for planting ideas. There's a movie called Inception with DiCaprio in it, and it's, it's based, it's literally a movie about hypno. Whoever wrote that is clearly a hypno hypnotist of some kind. And, but it's, hypnosis is an excellent tool if what you're doing is trying to plant an idea. Okay. Because then it goes into the unconscious mind as deeply as you will kind of give it access to, and then it kind of grows. That's what inception means, that it grows. Right. the problem is that, if it were that simple, we, we'd all just. Do it and we'd have what we want, but, but there tends to be stuff in the way. So if you think of it like planting seeds, if I plant seeds in a, in a junkyard full of, roots and rocks and spare tires and whatever, and I plant a seed there and I never water it and I never, it might grow, but it probably won't. And so that's why we don't teach it in, in isolation. We teach it with other tools that come at the mind from different perspectives and the two other sort of legs of the mind, if you will. So hypnosis is very physiological. And we also come at these mine mechanics from a mental, processes. So our thinking processes and that we use NLP, same idea, different. Tools, different processes. And then we also, come at the emotional processes using a technique called timeline therapy, which allows us to, to remove the limiting emotions and, limiting, sorry, the, the negative emotions and the limiting beliefs that usually are sitting somewhere in your construct. And if we remove those first, then hypnosis is extremely effective at sort of planting the seeds.
Erik Solbakken: So this reminds, so we had done, I had done a session with Nikki first. the two of you crossover quite a bit in terms of this. I talked about the blast therapy she did with this and bilateral. I can't, I, I always forget exactly what the acronym stands for, but we worked through some blockages first, similar to that before I did the hypnotherapy, before I did the regressions. So it was like getting these blockages out of the way so that, that had nothing kind of. Stopping me from getting in
Gina Mollicone-Long: there. Well, it's, I use the planting a seed analogy more than any other analogy. a client will come to me and say, I want an English garden. I go, what kind of garden you have? And they're like, oh geez. there's, there's rocks and weeds. And I got like a junkyard, and the dah, dah, dah and a fence. And, I go, okay, well we first gotta remove all that because you can't plant an English garden on top of your junkyard, so you gotta remove all those things. Then you can plant your seeds. But then even that, most coaches are like, oh, I planted the seeds. We're good. No, you now that, now the real work begins, now you gotta water it and weed it. And if another weed should show up, you gotta know, you gotta be at cause for taking the weed away and you gotta, use the hoe and the fertilizer and the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like you have to cultivate it until it's the. Until it's the norm. And that is also where most coaches have no concept of how they enable their clients. And their clients are the ones who have to do it. It's like, if you ever watch a good coach, they should be seated during the game. They can't play the game.
Erik Solbakken: .
Gina Mollicone-Long: They, they, they've done their work. The players have to play. if at that point you're still teaching them fundamentals, you're not, you haven't really done your job. Right. If they're performing the, you are not performing. So coaches who stand there and scream at their players, well that's, that's insane. You haven't, they don't have the. The skills they need to perform. Now you could take stock and maybe make minor adjustments, and perhaps in the next practice go, okay, we gotta work on our shooting. But when they're performing, like think about it, when you're performing, if you were on a stage performing,
Erik Solbakken: yeah, imagine
Gina Mollicone-Long: if someone was barking at you in the middle of you trying to bring your best performance. it's, it's insane, right? So most coaches don't realize that, that the first job is to teach the skill correctly. And then the second job is to make sure it integrates as the norm. And again, most coaches don't understand how the technology works. and I'm not, it's not that I think that the things that we teach are the only things. Listen, anything with steps will work. If someone can give you the steps to do something and it's produced the result, it will work. If it's worked on one person, it can work on all people. So if it's not working, then the person's not prepared. They're not, they're, they're not, they're not willing. Right. They're not, they don't have the desire to, to break the old habit. 'cause that, that's common. You say you do, but you don't really, or they're not willing to follow the instructions. if you go back to that hypnotist example you gave of the stage hypnotist, stage hypnotists are looking for people who go into deepest trance and, and in a, in a room full of a hundred people cold, 20 will go into a light 60 into a medium and 20 into a deep. So they're trying to find the deep people who just naturally go deep and then they're trying to find the extroverts. And if you find an extrovert in a deep trance, you got yourself a great stage show.
Erik Solbakken: That would be me, right? That I was the one of the ones that was on the stage with Ravine Jansen. Like a total ass. It was, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: He was, the suggestions were real and he was kind of operating your machinery, if you will. But it's because you let him, it's
Erik Solbakken: not because, oh, I, yeah, completely. I, I, 'cause I remember breaking the tra, I broke the hypnosis halfway through and when I was in my seats and I just, I stayed there. I felt horrible afterwards because I, I kind of knocked myself out of it. well, you
Gina Mollicone-Long: can take yourself out of it anytime. That's the beauty of the
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. Yeah. So, so let's, let's, that was, wow. There was so much to unpack and, and to. To, digest there. And, and thank you so much for that. I, my, my synapses were firing all over the place as you were sharing, so that the, the thing that you're doing now is you're going back to find that cutting edge between spiritual, so you see spirituality and science, they're the sa, they're systems. They're systems, and they just haven't been able to, we haven't been able to have them talk to one another. And you're looking for that, that bridge that brings them across. So when people start seeing that, 'cause when we talk about religion and the spirituality, it seems like magic, like that, what you just explained, it's like magic and, and woo woo. I call it the woo woo space and the rest of it. But the more we are understanding the way the, the process works or the steps required to make things happen, like hypnosis, it starts to bring the two together. So they're not separate systems. There are, they're just. Its languages. How would you, how would you articulate that?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Well, they're, they are separate systems.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: , but in the same way that a language, two languages are separate systems, but they have rules. Yes. And when the rules of a language, then you can communicate with someone. It's the same thing with, so religion can, can only offer us an explanatory value, insofar as the system can explain what's happening and that the person listening to the explanation accepts, God did it in some form of variation. Now, any kid who's been three years old has probably said, well, well, who's God? Right? Okay. Now you got a bunch of scientists trying to either prove or disprove that maybe one day they'll be able to identify it and, and then a bunch of people who are on the fence. We'll be like, oh, that's all it is. Oh, okay. Well, I can get on board with that. But then the, so what it does is when you bring the two together, you get kind of access to their strengths, right? So, if, if you, I'm trying to think of a good example. So, let's just say hundreds of years ago, if religion was your main system and, and you, and you didn't understand, why you shouldn't marry your brother. Right. But God said so, so you didn't, because religion said so. Okay. 'cause God said so in some form or another, somewhere in your religious belief that was wrong. Okay? But then science comes along and starts to show, well, here's the reason, the the DNA this and the DNA, that, and if you marry your brother, your DNA is gonna corrupt, and then you're gonna end up with a faulty chromosome, blah, blah, blah. Whatever the science says about that, then it doesn't matter if God said so, or the DNA proof is real. In either case, it's,
Gina Mollicone-Long: they're saying the same thing.
Erik Solbakken: Yes. Yes. Right.
Gina Mollicone-Long: You with me? Right,
Erik Solbakken: right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: So, so that, that sort of analogy exists, between the systems, right? So science says this, and, and then it gets to a point, and then it's like, well, just because, and, and then it can't get any further. But what I think is that sometimes that, because. Is also written in the other system in a more poetic language, a little bit more metaphorical or whatever. And then the, because is there and it's like, well, the because is there and the because is there and nobody's been able to pinpoint it. Maybe we can find it now that we've found the fact that they're both that of saying the same thing.
Erik Solbakken: Right. They're both warning you not to marry your sister.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah. They're both, they're both.
Erik Solbakken: It's just
Gina Mollicone-Long: warning, saying the same thing, and religion and science do this over and over and over again. Right. So, it, it, it, the problem is when you go this one is true and that one is false, that's baloney. That's fine. But we have a phrase for that. And it's, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Right.
Erik Solbakken: So you have, you, you, the, the, the thing that struck me when we, we talked, and you've alluded to part of it in, in, in your explanation, and it's fascinating when you, when I look back on phy Phil philosophical teachings. Spiritual teachings, teachings of so-called scientists back in the day. you start looking at, Alfred ad, Adler and all these ones, and then you realize they crossed over this psychology into philosophy. There was always that crossover that happened. I am curious to, to see where, when they were explaining something like, you've kind of said this, let's say Newton has said something and he had a concept of it, but we didn't have any way of interpreting what he said back then, because that didn't exist yet. So it was like, it's this voodoo and so. I'm seeing kind of this resurgence also in, Jordan Peterson does this when he's going back through the scriptures and he's looking at, he's trying to find the patterns psychologically, why we follow these things. And, and his concept of sacrifice, which is your sacrifice. It's, the whole Ted New Testament, it's all about sacrifice, right? That's the thing you're doing. And, and he said, that's the reason why religion was saying this is what you do because God said it. But when we look at it from a sociological standpoint, the reason why you, you sacrifice something for yourself is to help the greater good. Why are you helping the greater good? Because that helps us survive because we're still a bunch of pack animals on the Sahara. Like I look at the human, the, the condition we've been conditioned so over, and everything we do is to. Propagate the species and to survive. Yeah. It's all about survival. Do what?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah. No. I was doing a session yesterday, a breath, a breathwork session. Dan said, the reptilian part of your brain is going, can I eat this thing? Or, or can it eat me? That's it. Yeah.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. That,
Gina Mollicone-Long: that's it. There's, there's not a lot of like contemplative thought, right? That's all the front of the brain and the, so it's not for me. It's not either or, and it's not. they're the same, they're, they're different systems that they, that they offer. They're, well, how do I put this? So breakthrough? So in my reality, the work I do with like an individual person, a private client would be a curated breakthrough. Take them, deconstruct, reconstruct, right? Pull out all the weeds, plant all the new seeds, put the tasking in place so that that becomes the norm so that breakthrough occurs because. The, the, the premise that I, that we're working on is that we're gonna work with the person in the most intangible part of them. That's still part of them, right? It's like, we're gonna work as far upstream as we can, and then that's gonna kind of have a wave through their whole being. But the breakthrough occurs because of that intersection. Well, what I think is, if there was a way to look at the theological writings, concepts, proposals, theories with a current understanding of science. So I, I am from the 20 whatever we are first century, right? So I, even though I was born in the late 19 hundreds, so I can. With my knowledge of the, the scientific ways of the world, right? So I understand thermodynamics and I understand entropy and whatever, because I have an engineering degree and I read, I have a rudimentary understanding of neuroscience, so I understand these things. I've read the studies. I understand a little bit about the non-ag science part of it, right? I get it a little bit. Now with that brain, I can go back and read a ancient writings who didn't know anything about this stuff, but in their writings, I could recognize chiefs that that looks like their, this person who's writing this is trying to explain what we would now take for granted as neuroplasticity. We would just take it for granted
Erik Solbakken: and, and just explain for the listeners what you mean by neuroplasticity so we can,
Gina Mollicone-Long: so the brain's ability to re, so if the brain gets damaged in any way, it is capable of relearning the behavior, using a different part of the brain, using different, different neural networks. so this is, so
Erik Solbakken: if you have a stroke, you
Gina Mollicone-Long: have a stroke,
Erik Solbakken: the way you get stroke and part of the brain dies, but then the brain has this plastic to
Erik Solbakken: work around it.
Gina Mollicone-Long: It can, it can, it doesn't. It can, it can, it doesn't just happen. Well, it could happen spontaneously, but through, the right physio and the right processes, you could learn to walk again, learn to talk again, recover your motor function and so on and so forth. and that's called neuroplasticity. Well, we take it for granted now, but a hundred years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago, that was not a thing. But the brain still had the ability. Do you understand the,
Erik Solbakken: the brain was still doing it back then whether we believe. Oh, hold on. So it's still happening whether you believe it or not.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Exactly. And so
Erik Solbakken: understanding it still happen with you believe. Yeah. We didn't understand it. And so how much of the, this, so this is interesting. This is so
Gina Mollicone-Long: like the hypnotists of your
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Looked like they had power. Right. And mesmerism, which is a very specific type of, it's a little bit more like reiki and a little bit less like hypnosis, but it gets thrown in the hypnosis category. Would've looked like magic pass over somebody for three hours and then all of a sudden you can just make suggestions and there's no pain and you can do a surgery. And it's, it's insane based on our current understanding of, surgery and whatever. But that's, they didn't have anesthetic back then, and they still had to do the surgeries, so they found a way to go around the pain. But now if you study it, you'll, you, you'd be more likely to go, huh? They seem to be interfering with the electromagnetic field, which is, which carries information. In a body and maybe there is somehow, interrupting the pain signal. Maybe we should, maybe we should devise an experiment to see if that's what's happening. I, I'm, I'm making this up now. This, by the way isn't necessarily true, but it's kind of a good research project.
Erik Solbakken: I like it.
Gina Mollicone-Long: It's a good story. I keep going. So, so, but now because of our understanding of the electromagnetic field of the body information flow through electromagnetic fields and so on and so on and so forth, we might be able to easily explain what Mesmer was doing in the 17 hundreds. And it wouldn't have been weird at all. And he never would've been on trial by committee for being a charlatan. Maybe he would've been heralded as being a genius for figuring out the EMF transfer of information on the surface of the body back in the 16, 17 hundreds when we didn't, what? Yeah. But, so instead we threw 'em in jail, which is 10. What we tend to do with people like that, We didn't really throw him in jail. We just punted him back to Austria. But, and so, or we,
Erik Solbakken: or we crucify them or
Gina Mollicone-Long: whatever, we
Erik Solbakken: sentenced them to death. Right. we crucified Jesus. They, they sentenced Socrates to death. That was a story that I didn't realize. This Socrates. Well,
Gina Mollicone-Long: he was kind of, he wasn't like opposed to it. He was like, I'm kind of done with this place.
Erik Solbakken: Well, no, he, he, he, he, the research I did on it, he was talking to his D Dand or DMN, I can't remember the word, it was again, but he's always consulting his inner voice and his inner voice told him, Nope, it's okay. Let him, let him drink
Gina Mollicone-Long: the HeLOCK.
Erik Solbakken: Let him, yeah, go for it. Drink it. Go away. But here's the thing is that. Humans, we seem to fear that, which we don't understand.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right.
Erik Solbakken: And how much, like when you look back on past and you go, oh my gosh, look at how stupid we were back then. Right? Well, hello. How stupid are we right now?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Exactly.
Erik Solbakken: Lots.
Gina Mollicone-Long: A hundred percent.
Erik Solbakken: Like more than we can, right?
Gina Mollicone-Long: , people will literally say to me, hypnosis is bullshit. And then I'll say, well, in our culture, in our current modern culture, the more something costs, the more value we think it has, right? Yes. The more, the more something costs, the more value we think it has. There's a big difference between, a real Gucci person, a Gey purse you bought on Canal Street in New York City, right? So the more it costs, the more value. I'm not saying that's true, but that's the construct we live in right now. Well, a Super Bowl ad when I worked at p and g in advertising, was a million dollars for 30 seconds, and that was in the 1990s. So it's gotta. Five to 10 million now just based on inflation. Well, if something costs, let's, let's just say $5 million for 30 seconds, I would say it was a pretty valuable media buy. Like we weren't even allowed to buy Super Bowl spots on the brands that I worked on because we weren't big enough, right? We couldn't blow our whole media budget on one football game. And so, so that means that those, those spots are very valuable. Well, I think I heard now that, it's got 2 billion eyeballs, so what would you pay for 2 billion eyeballs? That's a lot of eyeballs, so that's valuable. But I just told you that the value is because I've got 2 billion eyeballs in a trance. And I'm, I've got them on the edge of their seat, right? So we're watching a game that's not really real, but we seem to care like it's real. And we, we broke for a commercial at the most suspenseful part of the game, right? And so we're, we're stuck. And that, that also suspends the critical faculty. And then during that commercial break, I'm, I'm selling you my whatever, well that's hypnosis. So we could sit here and debate whether that's good, bad, right or wrong. But now we're having a debate about capitalism. We're not having a debate about hypnosis anymore. I don't give a crap what people do with the technology. What I'm here to tell you is how the technology works. Now, you could use it for yourself, right? And then you could use it to believe more or, sleep better or whatever. Okay. And, but you're doing it on purpose, but the mechanism doesn't work more because the reason you're using it is more virtuous to you. The mechanism doesn't care who who's using it.
Erik Solbakken: Right. It it, it reminds me of, the impersonal life. The, the impersonal It is. It's life isn't, it's not, it's not, it's not personal.
Gina Mollicone-Long: No,
Erik Solbakken: it doesn't, it's not like, it's not personal.
Gina Mollicone-Long: There's no guideline of truth out here commentating what's happening in your life. That is all taking place in here.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. It's this.
Gina Mollicone-Long: No, the paradox is that it, it doesn't matter. It's not true, but without meaning, your life has no purpose. So you assign meaning and then that gives you direction.
Erik Solbakken: Right.
Gina Mollicone-Long: But it's assigned and so we keep assigning crappy meaning. Right? Instead of. Recognizing there's no inherent meaning in this. So instead of making it mean whatever's taken me out, why don't I make it mean something awesome?
Erik Solbakken: What, what, what I want to want it to mean. And, that's, that's where I see the ethos of the Viking Academy, which is like, go explore yourself and live with passion and purpose. Like, but what's your purpose? Go figure that out. Like it's up to you. what? Like, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a decision that you ultimately make for yourself because everything's happening and then you imply the meaning upon it. you, you, you imply that. And so really, the, the quality of my life is directly proportional to the quality of my thinking.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yep. And what if your thinking's missing a few key beliefs, hypnosis, what? What if your thinking is, is prevented by a negative emotion that you have been hanging on to since 1979? enter timeline therapy like these are, you would be, if you came up to me and said, oh yeah, in, in 1998, I got the newest version of Microsoft Office and it blew my mind in 1998, I could have Windows, multiple windows open. I could edit a document and copy. Yeah. From that document to the spreadsheet, it changed my life. So much so that I refused to run any other program. To this day, I'd be like, are you high? Like it was the best program in 1998, but, 40 years later it's been upgraded. But if you are basing your now based on something that worked in 1998, I'm gonna give you a clue. The program's at a date, and it's, you would think a person who was doing that is insane. look at somebody who has like, I don't know, a, a, a, an old iPhone that can no longer be updated. Like my mom had an iPhone six and she used to refute, I'm not updating it anymore. And I'm like, mom, it's outta date. I don't care. It still works, it's still the phone. I can still text people. I don't need anything other than that. But, but you, you can't run the new, I don't need the new. Right? Like, can you imagine? But, but, and then if she were to come to me and be like, I can't get my plane ticket. Well, because you need the new No, no, no, no. I got, got the best version from 2000. like, it we're crazy. You, you people come to me and they go, oh, this part of my life's not working. I go, well, you're, you're running a program from 1981. Oh, well, yeah, but it, but it's who I am. No, it's who you were in 1981, but you're not that person anymore.
Erik Solbakken: And that's the, I think all of humanity needs a major, like we need an upgrade or like a consciousness of consciousness upgrade. I see us working, running on, I've been able to see this, you've articulated it better than me, but it's that we're running on old programming.
Gina Mollicone-Long: That's it.
Erik Solbakken: It's, it's, that's, we're just running
Gina Mollicone-Long: very on. Yeah. Judgmental,
Erik Solbakken: what? It's just, it's old programming because I look at it, I go, where, where is my thinking today not serving me? And ultimately, if it's not serving me today, then the thinking is from old programming. And why am I holding onto the old thinking? The, and the, and the only thing I can, think about why I would hold onto old thinking is somehow that old thinking. Is giving me security of some sort, giving me a huggy blanket of something to hold onto of a past, or it's been some trauma that's locked in me. Well, I think it just, it's not served me somehow, but even though it's not serving me on what I want today, but somehow deep down it must be serving something. Do what I'm getting at? Like,
Gina Mollicone-Long: it just worked at the time.
Erik Solbakken: It worked at the time and it doesn't work anymore
Gina Mollicone-Long: and it's not appropriate for the current circumstances.
Erik Solbakken: Then why are we, but there's my question. So why, as, why does the, why do people hold onto their whole, why is your mom so, so happy? Because they don't know about keeping her old programming. They
Gina Mollicone-Long: don't know my mom, so they don't know. So, if you talk to, so we, a lot of older people in our lives right now and, they don't understand that. So for example, it's for you and me to use for when I use this phone. Okay. I understand what an app is, right? But I'm clear that it's an application on the platform of the phone. And, but for somebody who's older and doesn't, didn't grow up with this and has had to adopt this technology, they treat it like the, like a computer. And so they don't understand the difference between, say, for example, being on the app of the company versus being on the website of the company. Okay. And so they just, they don't know how it works. They just don't know. And so what motivation is there to upgrade anything when they don't even know there's a thing to upgrade? It's just a device. I can get my email on it or whatever. And it, it works fine until, until they go to the website and the website doesn't give them what they need, but they don't have the app and they don't understand the difference between the app. Like they don't even know. Because they don't know how, is there, what's there to upgrade? If you don't know there's something to upgrade, you don't upgrade it.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right. And so when we teach people, listen, you are not, your programs, your programmed responses are the body's way of being efficient and predictable. So if in 1982 you created a program that, that got you out of trouble with your friends or got you from, prevented you from getting the shit kicked out of you in the school yard or whatever, it worked. And so your brain was like, Ooh, file this, do this. Every time we go to the school yard or do this, every time we talk to a friend this, this thing worked. The problem is now that, it's 40 years later and you're trying to talk to a new friend and your brain's running the old program and it's having the old program's effects and it's interfering with the current relationship, you don't even know it's a choice. You just think it's how you are, but it's not how you are. It's how you programmed yourself. And there's nothing wrong with the way you programmed yourself unless it's not working anymore. Then if it's not working anymore, it will show up like a problem. And then if it shows up like a problem, you just reprogram the behavior.
Erik Solbakken: Here's a question on the personal side. Would you describe yourself as more of the how versus the why of life? Like how life works?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Well,
Erik Solbakken: the why work
Gina Mollicone-Long: Here, I'll give, I'll answer. Why work here answer.
Erik Solbakken: what I
Gina Mollicone-Long: mean? I'll answer that with the way you started this podcast. So religion tells us why and science tells us how, and I'm going to do a PhD in the intersection of why? How?
Erik Solbakken: There you go. So you're a, you're a why how? Girl?
Gina Mollicone-Long: I'm a Wow.
Erik Solbakken: You're a wow. Yes. You're very much a wow. Very much so.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right. So, so, and, and again, I I'm, I'm, when you get,
Erik Solbakken: oh, you gotta trademark that, that. Yeah,
Gina Mollicone-Long: sure. I'll trademark the word. Wow.
Erik Solbakken: No, no, no. You gotta trademark that, that I, you, the,
Gina Mollicone-Long: how
Erik Solbakken: you say you're the intersection between that, the
Gina Mollicone-Long: why how, the
Erik Solbakken: why and the how. The, the why and the how. The how and the why. Yeah. And now you're a, and so when you get to the end and when you get to that intersection, it'll be wow.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right?
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: So, I don't know. it could be this could, like I feel like there's not a lot of people cheering for me, just so.
Erik Solbakken: I am.
Gina Mollicone-Long: I know. But, but, religion's sort of over in its corner going, we don't need science and science over in its corner going religion's bullshit. And so, like there is a pre a priest, a Jesuit priest. and, and you may have heard of him, Pierre de Pierre de de Chardon. Okay. Pierre Te de Chardon. It's a big French name. And you may have heard of him because some of the futurists, many years ago, like Kurtzweil and whatnot, jumped on his doctrine. So this guy was a Jesuit priest, okay, a couple hundred years ago. And, but he was also what we call a natural philosopher, which was the term for science before there was science. So
Erik Solbakken: a natural philosopher.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah, that's what they were called. Huh? So he was around Darwin's time, and so he was very much into the sort of whole, evolution argument from a science standpoint. So you can imagine what the priests thought of him. Okay? Right? So, so they were like, that's blasphemy and hearsay, and, God's the architect and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But then. The, the natural philosophers of the time didn't think he was a real scientist because he was a priest and he preached the word of God and dah, dah, dah, dah. So nobody owned this guy, right? They, nobody owned him. He wasn't a real priest. He wasn't a real scientist, so he was sort of in no man's land. So I'm reading some of his writings and he's, he's written so many things. They're so interesting. When I did my master's, I read a bunch of his, his writings, and he wrote about this concept that he termed the, the Noosphere, N-O-O-S-P-H-E-R-E. The noosphere comes from the, the word gnostic for knowledge. And the way he wrote about it hundreds of years ago, see if this sounds familiar, was an interconnected web of information accessible by all human consciousness.
Erik Solbakken: The internet.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Now he, now this is exactly what I'm talking about. He did not write about the internet, got me 'cause there was no such thing as a computer, much less any of that, right? He wrote about this concept. Then now we have the internet. We go, oh, the Chardon was writing about the internet. Well, oh hello. Except he was doing in the 17 hundreds or do what? So there's this concept and then he writes about another concept of the, of the alpha and the omega coming together and he pinpoints the point in time and we would call it the singularity, but again, there was no machine. Do you understand? How could you write about a man machine interface when there was no such thing as a machine Didn't exist. The internet computers didn't exist. So, so you have to wonder, did the, did the person who ultimately. Crafted the first internet web type thing. Had they been reading his stuff and just finally had the technology to make it happen. Like, so where so people like me go, where else did that happen?
Erik Solbakken: . Or where else could it, where else could it happen?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Where else did people write stuff that at the time didn't get published or got overlooked or underappreciated or just cast aside or burned at the stake or whatever. That now with our current understanding of science, look back at it and go, holy shit. And then keep reading because maybe there's other gem like objects in the writing that now with our current understanding of science emerges like the blah, blah, blah, the internet or whatever. It's a saying. There's a, there's, there's a project called, what the hell was it called? It used to, it's called the Global Consciousness Project now, but it used to be, was it called that before? But it, it was, it was for about 40 years. It was run out of a lab in Prince Princeton University by a couple of, information nerd geeks. And these were just a bunch of scientists who maybe read TE Yard and said, let's put a bunch of nodes around the world in secure locations and just random number generators and see if there is a field. Let's see if there's a field. And, and again, based on the same metaphorical writing. so they put these computers, they were literally the old, the old beige plastic. Computer, like literally like pet computers from the eighties where they just generate random numbers all day long. Just all they do is output random numbers. So that's called a random number generator. But they're insecure locations, so like people don't run them over with their cars and get interference from radio towers and whatnot. And so whenever the data would show up as not random, it would correlate to a world event. But it wasn't predictive. So it wasn't psychic, it wasn't like a, an earthquake ter, but sometimes it would be, a world event like an earthquake would trigger global coherence in the field and then that would make the random number generators less random because something was pulling them into. A pattern of some kind. And so this would happen over and over and over again. And there's tons and tons and tons. There's so much data. It's ridiculous. But there are a few instances in human history where it's so not random that it's so statistically not random, that you have to ask yourself like, what the Jesus is going on here, right? Like, and, one instance was, the day of Princess Diana's death. at the time. So, so some would argue that the world was united in an emotional experience. And that cre, sameness, if you will, of emotion created almost like a magnetic pull for, for the, for the random number generators. And another significant, and you can look this all up, just, just look it up. You'll find the, the, the raw data. another one was, on September 11th, 2001. So the data deviates so much, and again, you could argue that a couple billion eyeballs and hearts were focused on something and it was pulling the randomness out of the system and making it more unified. And I always tell this to people, and there's a whole bunch of stuff you can gather from the data. Sometimes I show the data when I'm speaking to CEOs, but one of the things I always say to people is, just watch the movie Monsters Inc. Right? So y yes, we get lots of energy and, and excitement and whatever from fear, right? Fear works and powers the electricity, but love and joy and laughter is way stronger, right? So, so something happens humans. Correlate. That's true. But what are we united in is the question. There was another Russian scientist who did his PhD by correlating, war and sort of, significant human conflict for both 300 years and sun spot, not sun spot, sun, what do you call it? Corona, mass. Ejections and sun activity. 'cause we've got about 250 to 300 years of data. Right? We've been collecting the data for a few hundred years and all he did was plot human conflict and he plotted sun activity. And then he took the two graphs and he put them one on top of the other and they were almost carbon copies. So this intense at
Erik Solbakken: time, same, same time, or was there
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah, same time
Erik Solbakken: or was there a lag, like
Gina Mollicone-Long: conflict happen and then
Erik Solbakken: the flare. The
Gina Mollicone-Long: flare and then the, it was the flare led the conflict, but not by much. Right.
Erik Solbakken: So, sorry, the flare was, but, but it did though, the
Gina Mollicone-Long: flair flare is the incoming energy that humans can't handle. And then the conflict is like a way of discharging, energy you can't handle. It's, again, a fascinating study. You can Google all this. when you read stuff like that, I just go like, what the heck is going on? Right? And so I make up stories and then I try to like create tools to address them. So, in the, in the solar flare story, I go, well, the people on the planet couldn't handle that intense energy. And so they just like chopped each other's to pieces just trying to disperse the energy. If we could have handled it, would we have still had the conflict or could we have used that energy to, I don't know, do something more awesome instead of conflict? I don't know, but so the, like, this is all sort of there and like you said earlier, it doesn't matter if you believe it or even understand it,
Erik Solbakken: it's still happening.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Neuroplasticity was still possible 500 years ago. So if somebody had an a plexy, which is what would've been called back then, two, 300 years ago, a stroke, they could have taught themselves how to walk again by spon, like by accident. They, they could have, right? That's how we discovered neuroplasticity. Somebody was trying to solve a problem and they, they put a bunch of steps together and it worked, and then they, they. Did it again, and it worked again. Then they published something and then they, what? Like, so, but it didn't, our discovery of it didn't herald its first use. It's the newest sphere, Yes, the internet is the newest sphere, but maybe an advanced race is looking at us going, oh my God, these losers use machines instead of their brains.
Erik Solbakken: Right.
Gina Mollicone-Long: what?
Erik Solbakken: Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Like maybe in, in, in Pierre Dere de DE's model of reality, it was meant to be a psychic exchange of information.
Erik Solbakken: Or we look back and, and see the, they, they talk about the pyramids being built and how did the hell did we build the pyramids? Maybe it was all psychic energy and we just created it that way.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Who knows? don't know.
Erik Solbakken: We again,
Gina Mollicone-Long: you
Erik Solbakken: know, like, again, one of those
Gina Mollicone-Long: too far back for me, so I'm just gonna go look a few hundred years back and see if there's anything in the literature. Published or unpublished 200 years ago, that might give us insight as to where, like for example, let's say we, we could find proof of neuroscientific truths that we take for granted. Now there might be other things in there that were on the verge of trying to explain that the metaphor might trigger another way of looking at it. Let's take this back to the Sheldon conversation. So there's an episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon is stuck on a problem. He can't figure out how the. Carbon atoms? No. The, something moves through the graphene, he can't figure it out. He can't figure it out. So he, he's trying to do what Einstein did and take a mundane job so that he can have an insight.
Erik Solbakken: Right?
Gina Mollicone-Long: And he breaks a bunch of plates, working at the Cheesecake Factory because he was trying to be just be, numb his brain at the time. And, and he goes, oh, they move like a wave. Like he sees it in the shards. Oh, it moves like a wave. It's not particles. That was my, and he runs and he has this breakthrough. So where else are there hints of where we could have scientific breakthroughs now written in what we'll call theological or less scientific places that if someone of scientific ilk would be open and minded enough to look at it, we, they might go, oh my God. It moves like a wave or whatever. Like, oh, I, right. So the insight comes from looking in the other systems explanation and vice versa. So let's say you take a theologian who reads a scientific paper and goes, oh my God. That's how God does it. Do what? Like it, but we don't do that enough. And so therefore we're, we're trying to do it. We're trying to come to an understanding of something with no help. And I think the help is in the cross
Erik Solbakken: collaboration. It's in the collaboration though. Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: It's
Erik Solbakken: in, it's in the, the individual. It's everybody. Humans confuse me. I don't understand why we fight each other so much when we could, if we all just work together, like, it sounds like a John Lennon song, right? But if we all just work together. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? I think the only thing that's gonna bring the human species together as a human species is in Don't say
Gina Mollicone-Long: it.
Erik Solbakken: I'm saying it when the aliens show up. Okay. I'm saying it The only thing, like what else is gonna bring us together is that we need a new common enemy. Like, is that,
Gina Mollicone-Long: but that's the old way we've done it.
Erik Solbakken: That's what. Like that's, that's the old thinking, the old way, right? Yep. Like the new way is like seeing that realistically, we're all in this together. We're all in this together. Why aren't we not, and, and how do we, how can we upgrade our programming? Well
Gina Mollicone-Long: see the, I think the answers are already there. And, and what, what causes a major shift is when the, the steps get made explicit. So hypnosis was always hypnosis. It hasn't changed in thousands of years. I do a history of hypnosis every time I teach it, and it's literally hasn't changed. The process hasn't changed. The people have changed. the, the understanding has changed, but the process is essentially the same now that we understand it and we can explain more of what's happening, whereas before it would've looked more supernatural. Now people are less afraid to try, and so they try. It's still the same process. It hasn't, the process hasn't been mod, it's been modernized, but only because it's been turned into steps. It's no longer so-and-so's hand has the power of Thor. Do what? It, it's just the process allows you to access, the. The guarded part of your consciousness and how to get around the guard so that you could replace a program a lot more efficiently.
Erik Solbakken: , I just, when you said that, I just, I was gonna say, yeah, but having the power of Thor is pretty fucking cool. Like, that's a, like, just from a, from a, a fun, energetic sort of sense. And I just had this kind of a vision of going, maybe that's why we also do it. 'cause we like to have the mysterious, like there's some something kind of fun and exciting about not really knowing it and there's this, this, as opposed to having all the steps and I'm just moving more into the area of going why we don't, why we don't change, or why we stick to our old programming. It's like there must be some purpose to it, in other words. Part of it could be, well, protecting for sure. Well, protection is one, but entertainment might be the other one. Like it, it's entertaining to keep ourselves in. Ignorance. It's like what you said about like the, the magician. If the magician shows you the trick, it's no longer entertaining anymore. Exactly. And meh. But, but if you don't know about how the trick's done, every time you're like, whoa, that's so cool. So it's entertaining, it's fun, it's exciting. Keeps doing ignorance, but it's still entertaining.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah. Well,
Erik Solbakken: what are your thoughts on, on just that as a, like, I'm, I'm kind of going to the reasons why we don't,
Gina Mollicone-Long: well, again, I like to turn to popular culture. 'cause I think the answers are already there. Like in the Matrix, they said, oh, we made the perfect program. You didn't want it, you, you wanted it to be hard. And then if you understand anything about challenge and, and failure is that that breakthrough and innovation come when something fails, right? So, I just watched a podcast that was a bit out there saying, it. This is the great training ground. And so when you get here, you, you don't want it to be easy. So you wanna forget that everybody has the power of floor. Do what? You wanna come in here, you wanna forget all that, forget all your thing and see if you can figure it out. Oh, I wanna go tie my hand behind my back. Oh, blindfold me. Right? And so we were all at various levels of that. And, there's things like, God places the biggest burdens on the strongest shoulders and crap like that usually means that we're onto something in humanity's struggle to do what seems so simple, right? And because you have to come to the awareness yourself. You have to want the outcome more than you want things to stay the same, and you have to be willing to do what it takes to get there. it's not complicated, but it is hard for people because. The opposing side of the physiology, if you will, is like, is this thing gonna eat me or can I eat it? Right? Like it's protective in nature.
Erik Solbakken: Yes.
Gina Mollicone-Long: So that's the sort of game. And then all the scary monsters that show up in your drama aren't necessarily real. They're sort, they're sort of real in the Jumanji sense. Like if you watch Jumanji, like the characters in the simulation can be killed, but the, the upstream characters don't die unless the character die. it's like a whole
Erik Solbakken: die three times. Yeah. Did die three times, then you die. Yeah. Right.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah.
Erik Solbakken: And so this is that, I've had this conversation with people quite often. I said, what, it seems to me a lot of the times that I feel like I purposefully gave myself amnesia to come down here to experience this world. It just went, I was up there and I went, okay, ready? Gimme the pill. It's like the, like the matrix. Gimme the pill. I'm gonna forget. Go down there and have some fun. Then when I die, we all show up at the top again and go, Ooh, Gina, that was fun. You wanna do it again? You're like, yeah, Eric, let's do it again. Okay. This time I'll be a chicken and next time you be a snake and you, you eat me. Okay, great. Go bo, go back down. But you forget and now you're just being a chicken and you're being a snake or whatever. Like, it, it, that concept kind of makes a lot of sense when I start seeing the way we act and behave when I realize the things that you're talking about, that we are energy, like I am energy. This is, and this we're scientifically proving that we're just vibrating energy and that it can change at any time. Well then, and we have the power, as you said, and this is what you do. And I want to kind of talk about this a little bit more about the work you do and how you help empower people to unlock that within themselves. That they can, they can start. Believing again, I like the sign you have of right above you. I love the word believe.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah.
Erik Solbakken: And change that. You can, you can change that yourself. But that we're, we've done this on to ourselves, on purpose, is to give ourselves amnesia, to come down to experience what we're not. what?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Well, look, the, the, I found this, hilarious quote somewhere and I put it up in my last training, so I, it, that it says You're a ghost driving, a meat coated skeleton made from stardust riding a rock hurdling through space.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: What are you afraid of?
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right. So I just thought that was funny because on the one hand, it That's true. And on the other hand, it, it's very real, right? Like the, the chocolate cake is very real. It's very real. And so you have to balance that. And what, what I try to flip people's minds with is. What you call your problem is the accelerated answer of where to change the program to change reality rapidly. Right. Whatever the problem is, is the broken program. It's not something wrong with you or them or the government or whatever. It's just the broken program. And so if you, instead of engaging with the 3D world and blaming it or being at its effect, just take it like, okay, the problem is the program that got me to this, so I've just gotta replace that one. Okay? Replace it. And that will be a different experience of reality. And so, gee, Gina, that sounds a bit out there. Okay, well watch. Life is beautiful. Read a man's Search for Meaning. these were extreme situations where people did exactly that. They changed their programming. Didn't change the circumstances and had a very different experience of a concentration camp or of the war or whatever. Same meat coated skeleton, different program, different experience. So look, I'd love to be able to change people's circumstances, but I'm not even sure if I would because, if you help a dragonfly emerge from its, shell emerge from its little bug shell, its little exoskeleton. It won't live, it won't make it, 'cause it has to struggle its way out and, and flex its body and get its wings out and let them dry. It has to do all that, or it doesn't have the developmental resources it needs to survive. Well then would you change people's circumstances if you saw them as a dragonfly, emerging into their dragonfly, inness, and. Would you help them knowing it would not serve them. It would shorten their little dragonfly life. And what I always say to people is, you could witness them doing that and cheer them on from the sideline and maybe prevent the bird from eating them while they're struggling. Sure.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Sure. But, the bottom line is that dragonfly's gotta get itself out of that, out of that exoskeleton. And, or, or let's use the more common caterpillar butterfly analogy. People always say that, oh, just remember that a caterpillar turns into a butterfly. I wanna be a butterfly. And I go, yeah, do you really? Because Caterpillar have to liquefy.
Erik Solbakken: I know. They have to like dissolve down into a
Gina Mollicone-Long: straight go. Like, so are you, do you really wanna be a butterfly? Then if you do, why are you complaining about the goof face?
Erik Solbakken: Yeah,
Gina Mollicone-Long: it's the goof face. Why are you complaining? It's just the goof face.
Erik Solbakken: Right
Gina Mollicone-Long: butterflies next Monday. But you, in order to become an actual butterfly, the actual caterpillar has to die. But interesting question, does the caterpillar die because the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, so the consciousness is retained. So what about that?
Erik Solbakken: It's the ghost wearing a different meat sack.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right? So, but it does have to liquefy and that cannot feel, I don't care who you are, the liquification of a caterpillar has to feel terrible to the caterpillar. It, it, there's no way that feels good because
Erik Solbakken: it's, you're, you're, you're, you're experiencing a death. And I think that's the ultimate, ultimate programming is to avoid death. That's the human programming. To avoid death. It's all about avoiding death, death, death. And how do we maintain the species? How do we propagate it? And it's like. Every behavior is all based on survival. Like it pretty well is all based on will this eat me or can I eat it? Like what you said. I love it. I get Yeah, yeah. and, and so if someone's in the, the state and they're, and they're in the gelatinous state, they're the caterpillar and they're, they're in the goo we're in the tearing down part. You do the work that you do is, you don't change the process for them. You change their
Gina Mollicone-Long: resources,
Erik Solbakken: their, their perception of what's happening. So they realize it part like they, they change the way they look at the world. So the world, they look at changes, not physically changes 'cause they're still a chrysalis and they're still gooing down. But they can, you can be more joyful in the process of becoming a butterfly.
Gina Mollicone-Long: No, no. Let's face it, go phase has gotta suck. Shit. So we shorten it. Right? So the reason why most, so, okay,
Erik Solbakken: so that's what I'm trying to, I'm trying to
Gina Mollicone-Long: get, yeah, yeah. So
Erik Solbakken: what's
Gina Mollicone-Long: the, what's
Erik Solbakken: the, the power? Well,
Gina Mollicone-Long: the go phase, if you're looking at my little diagram over here. Yeah. Between point B and point C would be hell or the go face. Yes. Right. Point B is when you realize you wanna be a butterfly. Point C is when you become a butterfly,
Erik Solbakken: right?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right. Between B and C is that sort of dissolution of the caterpillar. And most people extend that process 'cause they're like, they don't wanna move forward 'cause it's unknown. They wanna go back to the way it was, but they can't really, and so they spend all this time and it's all this time in, in between. Phases. And that's painful.
Erik Solbakken: It's like purgatory. It's, I've often said that to people, put me in heaven or hell, I don't care, but don't leave
Gina Mollicone-Long: me purgatory. Yeah. Yeah. It's painful sucks. So it's like rip the ba. So essentially what a breakthrough does is it rips the bandaid off instead of pulling it off one arm hair at a time, right? So rip the bandaid off, get the caterpillar body. And then from point C to point D is learn to move the new caterpillar body till you're like a fully functioning, or not caterpillar butterfly, till you're a fully functioning butterfly, right? So, point C gets you the wings and then point D, you're flying around and you're a full fledged butterfly.
Erik Solbakken: Okay?
Gina Mollicone-Long: But most people spend time. Resisting the ification phase. They say they wanna change, but then they don't do what's required to change. And so they really, they, they kind of go back to Caterpillar, back to Caterpillar, back to Caterpillar. Okay, I wanna be a butterfly. Okay, back to Caterpillar. Okay. Back. And so they spend more time in the, like you said, purgatory instead of just get through it, delete the programs, install the new programs, and now what are you, you're a butterfly. Okay. Go, go fly around the block 50 times and on your 50th time, then you'll be a full fledged butterfly.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. I'm at, I'm at the, I'm in the middle of that goof phase right now. and it, so it's like the, the shadow, the dark, the gooey, the, and I'm sitting there, I'm thinking to myself going like, how long? How, how is this trip been unnecessarily long?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Probably.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. So then how do I break that? How do I get it quicker? That's what you do, right?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Call me.
Erik Solbakken: That's my good. And where would people call you?
Gina Mollicone-Long: oh, well we're moving. So I think probably the best way is just email me gina greatness group.com.
Erik Solbakken: Okay. Yeah. 'cause you're moving so now you're not gonna be doing in person in
Gina Mollicone-Long: Oh yeah, yeah, we still are. It's just gonna look a bit different than it has.
Erik Solbakken: Okay. So you But because,
Gina Mollicone-Long: I'm not gonna stop working. I am gonna be a lot more selective, I'll tell you that much.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah. Okay. Are you gonna be doing any live workshops in, the uk?
Gina Mollicone-Long: Probably still do them in Canada, in the us just 'cause that's where our business is, but I don't know, honestly don't know the answer to these questions. Okay. we are still running our current calendar the way it's been published, like we're still. We we're not changing that because the, the dates of running those courses are outside of term time. Right. So,
Erik Solbakken: okay. Yeah. Like,
Gina Mollicone-Long: like when you go to school, there's term time and then there's not term time. Right. Right. So I can still run them. It's just requires me to get on an airplane. Well, that's no different than what I normally do anyways. but with respect to moving to doing more, probably not. And the number of private clients I take will be very selective. Right. Which it usually is anyway. But it, it will be just a bit more of an ordeal so that it, it truly is the people who are motivated. I, I'm not in the business of convincing, no one needs this. So we're clear. Yeah. All it does is accelerate things and that's not always a good thing. You have to really want to go quickly from one to the other and be willing to. as you said earlier, get in touch with that power that's within. but then that also means you have to be more responsible because now you have a power. And so now you have to, so it's not for everybody, but I, I do wanna try to find the people who are like, okay, enough. Like, I spent enough time. They're, they're slightly impatient people, and, and somewhat uncomfortable in their sort of relative ification. And they've tried a number of things and, it's going too slowly or they, they just don't have the right process. And so it, it feels very magical, whereas my outcome feels magical, but my process is very linear.
Erik Solbakken: You, but you've been just describing me right there. You're, yeah, we've talked about that too.
Gina Mollicone-Long: We did.
Erik Solbakken: It's a very ification process going on for me right now.
Gina Mollicone-Long: And, and sometimes that, that is what provides the motivation. So don't, don't villainize the goo, Because sometimes you need to, think if we're just gonna go with the goo metaphor, sometimes you need to melt the attachment, right? So you have to, it, the cost of it really has to come to the surface, and until the cost comes to the surface, you live under the illusion that you're giving up more than you stand to gain. But that's, that's not the case. Yeah. It's just, Michael Beckwith said, pain pushes until vision pulls. So,
Erik Solbakken: yeah,
Gina Mollicone-Long: I believe once you become the butterfly, then your vision should pull you along because you, you, once you go through that rite of passage and that it didn't destroy you, and it made you stronger, and you have a process, then doing it again and again, and again and again, becomes fun because you've reframed what it means, right? You've, yeah. You've triumphed. And so that's why whenever I work with someone, they're often shocked because it's like, I don't know what current coaches do, but for me, if my client's like a super, super go, go, go getter or whatever, we do the breakthrough and they're just off and running, I never need to talk to them again unless they want to. But it's not required because, teach a man to fish. So once they get, once they get through it, they should be able to do that for any other process that comes up in life because they've learned the process through the process and then they could, now that doesn't mean I don't have clients who come back and tweak this and tweak that for sure, but it's not a requirement. So it's like two, two and a half days done. And for some people that are short on time, right, and long on money that that's the trade off. And then we also, but the thing like everybody, well, Gina, I don't have the money for that. Okay. Well, we also teach it. I don't hold anything back. When, when I teach, the entrepreneurs, the peak performers and the people who coach them, when we teach in the classrooms of greatness, you, we teach the process that I use and I don't hold anything back. So we DIY it, right? If, if you're longer on time and shorter on money, well we'll teach you how to do it yourself. Right? And, and it still works because it's a process of desire and willingness. So. it's not like I'm sitting in the corner like going, oh my God, I have this power.
Erik Solbakken: Right? Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Right. And you have to call me and if you don't call me, you're never gonna get to experience this. Well, no, that's ridiculous. In fact, you could just change and you wouldn't need me at all. But humans tend to like to hang on to the way it was
Erik Solbakken: the, we had, because the last, week session you had planned out, we were looking at going, I was looking at going and I was like, don't. And it's like, didn't cross time-wise. It's okay. It's okay. It's, but this is where that, that I want the listener to. This has been a fantastic podcast. I want the Listener to really, I want you, I think it would be one of those ones you gotta listen to multiple times. I'd like to re-listen to my podcast because I get so much out of it. I listen to it again and, and what my guests have shared. I'm like, holy crap. Right. This is gonna be one of those two or three time listeners, podcasts that for, for, for the listener out there who's listening or watching the podcast, know that. I think ultimately there is an, there is a way out is what I think what I'm hearing you saying that there is hope and there is a way out.
Gina Mollicone-Long: .
Erik Solbakken: There's a, there is a system and a process to do this.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Beat me up Scotty. see, it's already been, we've already depicted the, all the truisms of human development and evolution. They're already there. those of us who are doing the work to enable others or help others just are putting steps to it. The more steps you have, the more replicatable it is. The more replicatable it is, the more people you can offer it to. Right. But you could just as easily keep it secret and magic in the corner and make it snapping your fingers and, and that would work too. So all I'm on a mission to do is see if we could find steps. That people could follow that make it easier than the people that went before them. And, and here's what I'll say. we're still early on in this journey. Let's do a podcast every year and I can update you on how the research is going.
Erik Solbakken: Oh, that was the whole part. Yes. Thank you for bringing me back to the stage one. Yeah.
Gina Mollicone-Long: The
Erik Solbakken: reason why we wanted to do, I wanted to do part two is to go deeper into this topic, but ultimately to go, Hey, here's this new phase that you're going into. Yep. You're this PhD research paper. I wanted to set the stage to say, okay, here you go. This is what you're going to do.
Gina Mollicone-Long: We'll see,
Erik Solbakken: I definitely, yeah, but this is what your plan is to go do, is to get the connection between the why, the how, and the why, so we get the Wow.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Yeah.
Erik Solbakken: And I definitely want to make sure that we revisit and I want to get updates on where you're at and what you've, the new breakthroughs that you've had, because I think this is. This is when you told me, I went, this is so fucking cool. It is. I'm so excited for you and I'm cheering and I want to be, I want to know how it's going and I wanna participate is wherever I can.
Gina Mollicone-Long: I will keep you posted, I promise.
Erik Solbakken: Okay. Awesome. Well, there you go everybody. Thank you for being on the podcast.
Gina Mollicone-Long: Thanks for having me again. We'll see you next time you come to Toronto.
Erik Solbakken: Yeah, there you go. Okay, everyone, keep exploring.
