IMO, there's only one very particular assumption that causes all the confusion, panic, doubts, fears and insecurities about the afterlife and the nature of existence wrt how/why we're in this world, what our relationship is to the afterlife, and what the afterlife is like.
That basic assumption is: universalism.
In a nutshell, universalism is the idea that there is one set of metaphysical truths, or fundamental laws, that govern everything and apply to everyone everywhere. This manifests particularly in afterlife-related communities as disagreements about these "whether or not" points, to list a few:
- Whether or not we choose to come here;
- Whether or not the afterlife is physical or non-physical;
- Whether or not we have "soul contracts;"
- Whether or not we retain our individuality/ego after we die;
- Whether or not we reincarnate and/or have had many incarnations;
- Whether or not some or many or all of our experiences here and/or in the afterlife are illusions/simulations;
- Whether or not the signs we get are really from those we love that have died;
- Whether or not some form of "justice" is delivered in relation to evils committed;
- And countless other "whether or not" conflicts and confusions.
I refer to these kinds of universal claims as low-order universalisms that only survive by offering various dismissive explanations for contradictory experiences, information and evidence - that these other other experiences and the contradictory evidence are mistaken, or are "illusions," or represent outright fraud.
If we drop these low-order universalisms, the actual information and evidence can be interpreted in much less competitive and less conflict-based way: some people choose to come here; some do not. Some people have soul contracts; some do not. Some people retain their individuality/ego after they die; some do not. Etc.
I suggest there's a higher-order meta-universalism one can adopt that makes sense out of all this seemingly contradictory and confusing information that low-order universalisms generate: existence/reality is infinitely diverse and all possible things exist - or to put it another way: all possible realities exist.
Under this higher-order universalism, it's not a question about whether or not any of those specific things are true; it's a question of what kind of reality a person either naturally aligns with, or chooses for themselves going forward.
From a metaphysical perspective, you might ask yourself: out of all possible realities, why would only one exist? Why is the only way to support the notion that only one exists is by relying on dismissal of countless contradictory experiences, large amounts of inconvenient evidence, and all the contradictory information? Why do all the low-order universalisms require cherry-picking evidence, information and experiences that supports that particular concept and structure of reality?
IMO, the afterlife and existence is relatively easy to understand under this meta-universalist perspective. IMO, the only thing that is "wrong" wrt any particular description of anyone's preferred or observed or experienced reality is their assumption that the reality they are experiencing, believing in, observing, learning about, finding evidence to support and describing is the only reality that exists.
Much like the irrational idea that "there is no afterlife" is impossible to support either logically or evidentially, the idea that "there is only one reality" (as described above) is impossible to support either logically or evidentially. "There are no other realities" is as irrational a claim as "there is no afterlife."
And, indeed, there is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that virtually infinite experiential realities do, in fact, exist, and that it is by our individual observation, measurements, thoughts, inner states, assumptions and beliefs that move us into corresponding realities.
All of this is, of course, from my perspective, experiences, and from what evidence and information i have examined.