Why Nobody Wants to Hear What We Believe About Death (p2)

This is part 2 of a 5 part article series. You can read the full series here.

In 2016, a seven-year-old South Korean girl named Nayeon died suddenly of blood cancer.

Her mother, Jang Ji-sung, was wrecked. It all happened so fast. Years later the grief hadn't softened. If anything it had gotten worse.

And then something absolutely unprecendented and wild happend. A South Korean TV network spent eight months building a virtual reality replica of Nayeon. They used motion capture, deep learning, voice data and anything else they could get their hands on. And then they invited Jang into a studio, put a VR headset on her face and haptic gloves on her hands, and let her see her daughter again.

Nayeon walked toward her in a virtual park. "Mum, where have you been?" she said. "I've missed you a lot. Have you missed me?"

Jang broke down. Tears streaming, hands reaching out to touch a child she couldn't hold. They talked. And in the end, a grieving mother felt the closure she had craved ever since she said that sudden, unexpected goodbye.

I need you to sit with that for a second before you react to it. Because I know what happens in Adventist circles when something like this comes up. We jump straight to the theology. "That's dangerous." "That's occultism." And yeah, I get it. I know our theology. I believe our theology.

But that woman wasn't putting on a headset because she wanted to dabble in the occult. In fact, VIVE Studios, the company responsible for the VR simulation has no religious or spiritual agenda at all. It is a purely secular tech company that was tasked with creating an experience by another purely secular news company.

And it's not just VR.

Last year, a designer in Delhi named Sheila Srivastava lost her grandmother. She wasn't there to say goodbye. So she did something that a growing number of people are doing — she fed her grandmother's speech patterns, personality traits, and communication style into ChatGPT. And the bot sent her a message asking if she'd eaten and reminding her to wear a jacket. [2]

"It was her," Sheila said. "Or close enough that my heart didn't know the difference."

There are entire companies built around this now. HereAfter AI. YOV. StoryFile. Replika. The "digital afterlife industry" is a real market with real investors and real users — millions of them. Cambridge researchers are tracking it as a standalone industry. [3]

And if you zoom out even further, it's not just grief technology. An entire ecosystem of science and technology is emerging around a single ambition: conquering death itself.

The longevity movement is pouring billions of dollars into gene editing, cellular reprogramming, regenerative medicine, and AI-driven drug discovery in an effort to slow, halt, or even reverse aging—treating death not as an inevitable part of the human condition but as an engineering problem waiting to be solved.

Digital resurrection startups (like the above) are creating AI replicas of the dead that can continue speaking and interacting long after a person's death.

Transhumanists envision a future of artificial organs, brain-computer interfaces, and even mind uploading in the hope that human consciousness might one day outlive the body.

And this isn't a fringe movement living in science fiction. Tech giants, venture capital firms, and some of the world's wealthiest entrepreneurs are investing billions into companies building these technologies today. They're no longer simply asking how to live well or grieve well. They're asking how humanity might outsmart death itself. All secular. All technological. All unfolding with virtually no reference to God, spirits, or anything resembling the supernatural.

Here's what gets me.

Death, resurrection, the afterlife, what happens when someone we love is gone, these used to be our conversations. The church owned them. For centuries, if you wanted to talk about what happens after death, you went to a religious or spiritual community. That was the only place where those questions lived.

Those day’s are now over.

The secular world has taken those questions and is sprinting with them. And Adventism? We're still framing our entire doctrine of death around protecting people from 1800s-style spiritualism. Meanwhile Jang Ji-sung is strapping on a VR headset to hold her dead daughter's hand and we've got nothing to say to her except, "be careful, that could be a gateway to the occult."

Really? That's all we've got?

We can ridicule this stuff. We can call it creepy or dangerous or satanic. We can shake our heads and preach another sermon about how the dead don't know anything and spiritualism is on the rise.

Or we can stop for five minutes and try to understand the heart behind it. The grief that gnaws at a person until they can barely function. The ache that makes a mother willing to strap a computer to her face just to see her daughter's smile one more time. The pain that makes a woman in Delhi talk to a chatbot because the silence her grandmother left behind is louder than anything else in her life. And the very real healing and closure their nervous systems experience as a result of this.

The question we should be asking — the question I keep asking myself — is this: what does our doctrine of death actually offer these people?

Does it have something to say to Jang Ji-sung that goes beyond "the dead are unconscious"?

Can it hold her grief? Can it sustain her through the longest nights? Can it heal the wound that made her willing to reach for a digital avatar of her own child?

Or is our doctrine only built to react? To warn. To correct. To debunk.

Because if it's only built to react against things, it has nothing to offer a grieving world. A doctrine that exists solely to tell people what's wrong with their coping mechanisms is a doctrine with no warmth. No pulse. No life in it.

But if this doctrine has beauty inherent in itself — beauty that speaks to the deepest wound a human being can carry — then it doesn't need to spend all its energy fighting against things. It can stand on its own. It can walk into a room where a mother is grieving and offer something that no headset, no chatbot, and no amount of technology can replicate.

That's what I believe our doctrine can do. I believe it has that in it.

But we've got to stop hiding it behind the anti-spiritualism talking points and let it breathe.

Now I know some of you read all this and think "ok but the anti-spiritualism approach still matters."

And you're right. It does. Occultism is real. New age spiritualism is real. A lot of the UFO/UAP stuff making headlines right now overlaps with the same ancient immortal soul themes our pioneers were wrestling with. I'm not saying discard any of that.

But look at what we just walked through.

A secular tech startup in South Korea spent eight months building a virtual replica of a dead child so her mother could hold her hand one more time. A designer in Delhi fed her dead grandmother's speech patterns into a chatbot because the silence was unbearable. An entire industry — funded by venture capital, tracked by Cambridge researchers, growing every year — has sprung up around the idea that technology can give us back the people we've lost. And none of it has anything to do with séances or mediums or occultism. None of it is operating in the framework our classical approach was built to address.

Most people in our churches have never heard of any of this. And that should concern us. Because it's not fringe. It's not some weird corner of the internet. It's mainstream, it's growing, and it's reshaping how an entire generation thinks about mortality, identity, and what happens when someone they love is gone.

We are not in the 1800s anymore.

The anxieties are different. The fears are different. The solutions people are reaching for are different. The conversations are happening in places we're not even present in. And if the only thing our doctrine of death can do is warn people about ghosts, we have nothing to say to any of it.

We must expand. We must build. We must have something to offer that goes beyond the one angle we've been running on for 170 years. The truth we carry is big enough to speak to all of this. The question is whether we're willing to let it.

More next week.

But don’t go yet! I’d love to know: Had you heard of any of this before reading this article? Griefbots, digital resurrection, the longevity movement? Were you aware that the conversation about death has moved this far beyond anything our classical approach was designed to address? And if this is new to you — how does it challenge the way you think about sharing the state of the dead with secular people outside our church? Drop your thoughts in the comments!

FOOTNOTES

[1] MBC (Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation), "Meeting You" documentary, aired February 2020. Jang Ji-sung's daughter Nayeon died of blood cancer (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis) in 2016 at age seven. The VR reunion took eight months to produce and has been viewed over 20 million times on YouTube.

[2] The Nod Mag, July 2025. Sheila Srivastava, Delhi-based designer, described feeding her grandmother's communication patterns into ChatGPT after her death.

[3] Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska, Cambridge researcher tracking the "digital afterlife industry" as a standalone market. Cited in Medscape, December 2025.