I know this may seem negative but if Mr. Wattles truly practiced what he preached, he would most likely have lived longer. That is, assuming that he also followed the principles outlined in his book "The Science of Being Well" and that he principles actually work.

Any information on this?

That is a very good question, behappynow! All I can say is that very little is known about Wally (as some of us refer to him) even as he lived his life, let alone how he died. And would I be wrong in assuming that lifespans in those days were much shorter than they are now?

Hi behappynow,

I have wondered this myself, out of professional interest (I used to be a nurse).

The biographical note at the end of The Science of Being Great quotes part of a letter from Florence Wattles (Wally's daughter) to Elizabeth Towne, editor of Nautilus magazine, where most of Mr Wattles' work was published. From reading it, it seems that it was only in the last few years of his life that Mr Wattles really developed his philosophy of health and riches. The Science of Getting Rich was published in 1910; he died in 1911.

One line of Florence's letter says, "In the last three years he made lots of money, and had good health except for his extreme frailty." The phrase 'extreme frailty' is interesting; if you look at the photo of Wally that Rebecca has put on the website, 'frail' is certainly an adjective that could describe the man in the picture.

My guess - and I must stress that it is only conjecture - is that Mr Wattles had suffered from a long term illness or weakness, perhaps congenital heart disease or something similar, which had taken its toll by the time he formulated The Science of Being Well.

He would have been in his late forties when he died. If he had developed his philosophy of wellness twenty years earlier, the story may have been very different.

Peace and prosperity to all.

Polly.

He died from a parasite at age 51. He died several years past the life expectancy for a Caucasian man in the US in those years. (I looked it up once and I think I remember the expected span was 47.)

I believe that he did "practice what he preached," and that he came to understand these principles late in his life. I also believe that his knowledge of the principles and how they work was less than we know now. Of course, that only makes sense as we've had a hundred years nearly to build on his foundation.

My friend, Dr. Alexandra Gayek, has done some wonderful work with Wally's second book, The Science of Being Well, and she had to do quite a lot of work with that original manuscript before she felt good about giving it away on her website,
scienceofbeingwell.net (The Science of Being Well NETwork -- a wonderful "sister" site to this one.)

That's largely because Mr. Wattles lived in a time when ideas about what was healthy were undergoing a huge upheaval and there was a lot of conflicting information (some of it just plain wacky) floating around. My reading of that original work is that he was focused quite a bit on action -- and some of that action was not particularly useful.

Alexandra (a naturopathic physician) has done a terrific job sorting through that. Even so, she tells me that if she were to edit that book again today, there are many more changes she would make, knowing what she now knows. And she's changed her entire practice since then, building on her own expanding understanding of the universal principles, based on Law of Attraction.

It seems to me that, basically, it's a LOT easier for most of us (Mr. Wattles included) to change our way of thinking about money, wealth, etc. than our way of thinking about our own health, bodies, etc. I think that's largely because we are bombarded with so much conflicting information daily about what's healthy and what's not. Pile that on top of what we've been taught from childhood and it's one big mess, tricky to sort through. It can be really difficult to let go of thinking that it's our ACTION that makes all the difference.

And I think that happened to Wally, as I know he was focused quite a lot on finding out what was wrong with his body. (He didn't know; that was discovered only after his death.) Perhaps that all-too-human need to know swayed him into focusing a bit too much on the pressing physical problem rather than on the natural state (and birthright) of wellbeing.

That's easy to understand since the "instruments" through which we focus are our physical bodies. And, too, when something has gotten hold of us -- in this case the thought of the illness -- to the point that our bodies are deteriorating quite a bit, there's a kind of momentum built up.

Anyone who's tried to lose weight can understand this in a heartbeat.

So my question is this: What difference does it make, really, whether he lived a long or short life? Do we require our teachers to be perfect? If so, we'll be pretty short on teachers. And do we need to think of "death" as something bad?

I am immensely grateful for Mr. Wattles for so many reasons and in so many ways. That he returned to Source/the Formless/All the Mind There Is/God/Whatever Name You Choose earlier than he might have wanted to is no deterrent to me personally. Starting with what I learned from him, I've enjoyed amazing, wonderful changes in my life -- and some of those changes include new understanding, new teachers, new developments.

I have a feeling that once he made his transition, our friend Wally was pretty delighted with what he discovered, including the answers to ALL his unanswered questions!

Fantastic response as usual Rebecca, thank-you. I partcularly agree with your point about teachers and do they need to be perfect. Many of us know the adage "teach that which you most need to learn". I am becoming rapidly aware just how true this is and by way of analysing that statement clearly if you're still learning it you won't always be right (nay 'perfect'). The teaching part of the act forces one to understand well enough to structure what you know in a way that can be retold to others in the best way for them, in doing so you come to better understand the material, probe more and ask further questions that perhaps hadn't occurred to you when first 'understanding' the work. Without doubt (and like many great minds through-out history I believe) regardless of his success with his own life Wattles has left us a set of rules for functioning in this world and this life that frankly in my opinion leaves many religions in the dark ages, no wish to offend anyone it's just my opinion
Cheers
gertie

Thanks to all who answered this, particularly, Rebecca for your insight. It's interesting that you mentioned Mr. Wattles' focus on what was wrong with his body instead of wellbeing. This is really the crux of all of it, richness, health, happiness, isn't it? How to use the "Flip-Switch" when you feel sick particularly when illness is debilitating and prevents one from participating in healthful activities like exercise. For example, for the past 8 months I have had asthma and a sinus inflamation for which I take daily medications. Yesterday, quite by accident, I forgot to take them, and then went swimming. After two laps I was gasping for my breath. I took a few moments, caught my breath and focused only on wellbeing and a healthful body and tried again to swim, but alas, 2 laps and I was done. I would love to stop taking the medication anyway because it has side effects and I would like to be able to participate freely in exercise. Do you have any ideas how to overcome this using Mr. Wattles or Dr. Gayek’s idea?
Much gratitude to you for any help you could offer.

Peace and happiness to you,
Dennis

Wonderful answers to a very interesting question, and I'm so glad that behappynow asked in the first place.

I have one thing to add: we've all seen time and time again that some people are born into this world to lead extremely important and significant lives - or lead quiet and anonymous lives, but leave behind extremely important and significant messages for the rest of us - and then depart this world with unseemly haste. It seems to be part of the grand scheme of things that some people, once their work here is done, move on to greener pastures. I see nothing wrong with this.

Following sogr or any spiritual study doesn't guarentee when, where or how we will make our transition. All we have is now and I believe our only job is to learn to live each instant fully in love.

To answer the question how did Wattles die, Well, his heart stopped and he stopped breathing. (ok, sorry, I couldn't help being a smarty pants, it's all in fun)

Lot's of love and laughter,

Richard De Haven

Hello Behappynow and all,

It's true that in the three years that I've worked with The Science of Being Well my ideas and understanding have evolved considerably. One thing I now understand that I didn't when I first published the ebook was that focusing on good health is not enough -- and may in some cases be counterproductive. (Those cases are when trying to focus on good health just makes you aware of how far from it you are.)

Just as Mr. Wattles talks about not needing to focus on healing specific organs, but instead trusting that the principle of health knows what to do, I've learned that you don't need to focus specifically on health, because good health is the natural state to which you will return as soon as you get out of the way.

What it means to get out of the way is to replace any focus on what's wrong in ANY area of your life and focus instead on what you love, to replace impatience with relaxing into the faith that everything always works out for the best for you, to drop the search for the cause, stop trying to measure your results physically and focus just on feeling better any way you can. (This of course is a very abbreviated explanation of a big subject.)

Angeles Arien wrote about the four human addictions that cross all cultures. I'm not quoting her, but as I recall, they are:
Intensity (in my words, drama)
Perfection
Needing to know (and also, in my words, needing to be right)
Focusing on what's wrong.

Heal those addictions and watch what happens.

Then there's Miguel Ruiz' The Four Agreements. He explains similar stuff in another way.

I've been working on a course to guide people through the healing process. It's taking a long time, because my ideas and understanding keep evolving, and there's A LOT to talk about!

What's going on in your body is the RESULT of your thinking, so trying to fix the problem at the level of the body is VERY hard work! And the moment you stop doing whatever action you're doing, your body reverts right back to where it was. That's why people have such a hard time losing weight and healing permanently from any condition when the treatment is only on the physical level (diet, drugs, surgery, exercise.)

Those things work when they are tools to help you drop your resistance to getting results. Or, as Mr. Wattles says, when you have personal faith in them.

The real healing happens on the mental level.

Mr. Wattles wrote several books about healing, and it seems that he was pretty attached to some very wacky ideas about the role of food. While those ideas may have seemed reasonable at the time, had Mr. Wattles known what we know more about nutrition, physiology, biochemistry, and all the related sciences, I'm sure he would have reached different conclusions.

In my opinion, those other writings are so far from accurate as to lead people in the wrong direction. This is why I have not published them, and why I made the adjustments I did to The Science of Being Well.

Because of those wacky ideas, it makes perfect sense to me that he attracted the particular illness that made life in his body no longer possible.

You are not in danger of doing that by reading The Science of Being Well! It's an excellent place to start, but it's not the end of the story. I've tried to help people stay on track in the Be Well!(tm)ezine that goes along with it, and I'm sure Rebecca will let you know as there are more resources to go along with it.

Does that help?

Warmly,
Alexandra

An interesting question. I'd like to know more about what he achieved in life, i.e. how much money he made, where he lived, travelled, what kind of house he owned, etc. At what stage in his life did he begin to discover the SOGR/SOBW principles. Has a biography been written?

Thanks Dr. Gayek for your comments. I've read SOBW and will be looking forward to reading your ezine. I'm not quite sure how it all intergrates into a way of life but I love the ideas.
Sincerely,
Dennis