Yes I agree there is the possibility that some people have evolved a different ability from others in this respect,

Where do you think Einstein evolved his ability from? Why haven't we all evolved this way? Why is Ensteins mind different?

but this is far outweighed by the possibility that those people who claim to see these things are lying, deluded or deceived. 

Whilst the possibility exists (because people can lie, be deluded or deceived) that does not mean that this is the case and - no it is not 'far outweighed' at all.  If I were to give you an example Martin I don't think it would do any good. This is something you would need to experience yourself - but first you would have to open your mind - at the moment it is very very closed.

No thanks, I'm not interested in wasting my time for the reasons stated above. 

Well there it is in a nutshell - you won't will you. Because of this then there is no point in me even trying to show you as you have already made up your mind.

A|nd again there is no evidence whatsoever other than heresay and potential deception. It's not closed minded to properly assess the real evidence before believing something. As I say, there is no way to prove that reincarnation doesn't happen, but there is no real reason to beleive it does - there are far more likely non-supernatural, non- spirit-world explanations for all the phenomena supposedly observed.

There is a difference in being a skeptic and being a closed minded skeptic

But there is no part of the electromagnetic spectrum which behaves in the way you suggest 'energy' might behave.  That's the point! You have to rely on proposing some form of energy that we haven't found yet, which has equal status to proposing that pink hippos hover above Buckingham Palace.  You have no repeatable, measurable observation and you have nothing that can detect or measure the supposed 'energy' you say drives the procesess - it's not science, it's fantasy.

No its not Martin - but you will not know in your lifetime because you are not prepared to go further with it - not prepared to learn.

No there isn't 'much more'. That's your hypothesis but it is not borne out by measurement. You can't present it as science because it isn't.

Banging head against a brick wall really aren't we ... I try to give you a way forward in learning more - but you don't want to learn.

edit - probably little point in me adding this for Martin - but ...

The afterlife. Throughout human history, the idea that humans have souls that survive their physical death has been a never-ending source of debate. From neolithic shamans who spoke of traveling in other worlds, to the famous 19th century Spiritualist fascination with psychics and mediums, we have always been tantalized by glimpses of our possible immortality.

In modern society, however, investigation of these topics has largely been frowned upon. Organized religions say that such things should not be tested - to do so is to doubt the deity in question, and we should instead show faith. Mainstream science and self-appointed skeptics, on the other hand, say that such things should not be tested because they are quite obviously nonsense and a waste of time - to do so is to admit that you are perhaps a little unhinged.

However, both organized religion and mainstream science ignore two key facts. Firstly, that neither of them are no longer answering the profound questions of personal existence (and non-existence) that all of us ask ourselves in those quiet moments alone. And secondly, that for centuries there has been a steady accumulation of evidence - that we can all assess - which is suggestive of the idea that our consciousness in some way survives the moment of death.

quoted from here

Interesting that there would seem to be a fear amongst some of appearing 'unhinged' or even thinking its a waste of time to explore this.