Page 211 of The Secret of Secrets

Sasha’s expression seemed to brighten slightly.

“Before I explain the idea to you,” Langdon said, “I’m sorry, but I need to ask you an unusual question. It may sound quite strange…but it’s absolutely critical that you reply with full honesty. None of this can happen without that.” Langdon paused, fixing her pale eyes with his firm gaze. “Forgive me for asking, but I need to know—with whom am I speaking right now? Is this you, Sasha?”

The young woman studied Langdon for a long moment and then shook her head. “No,” she replied in a deep, hollow voice. “For Sasha’s own safety, I have not released her yet.”

Chapter 135

Katherine sat up abruptly on the ambassador’s couch, realizing she had drifted off. Robert had not yet returned, and the ambassador was at her window, staring blankly into the darkness. Hearing Katherine stir, Nagel turned back into the room and checked her watch.

“Half an hour,” she said. “They’re still talking.”

“It could be a good sign,” Katherine offered. “Robert can be…meticulous.”

“I’ve noticed,” Nagel said, coming over to sit with Katherine. “He took me aside earlier and interrogated me from every angle about your missing manuscript, demanding I order the CIA to return it.”

“And?” Katherine pressed, hopeful.

Nagel shook her head. “Sadly, the director confirmed that Q’s operations team destroyed all copies.”

Katherine scoffed. “I don’t believe them.”

“It tracks, unfortunately. After WikiLeaks, we implemented rigid new protocols governing the immediate disposal of information the agency deemed damaging. I’m sorry, but I do believe the book is gone.”

Katherine picked at the couch, trying not to think of all she had lost. “You know, it’s pretty ironic the CIA destroyed the book. In reality, the ideas in it could have given the agency a fresh perspective on terror management theory.”

Nagel looked surprised by the comment. “You wrote about TMT?”

“It’s quite relevant to my work.” As it is to yours.

Terror management theory was utilized by military intelligence to predict a population’s reaction to certain threats. Its findings were well established. Human anxiety had countless sources—fear of nuclear war, terrorism, financial ruin, loneliness—and yet TMT had established that the predominant fear and strongest motivator behind human behavior was, undeniably…the fear of death. When a person was terrified that he or she might die, the brain employed extremely well-defined strategies to “manage” that terror.

Under normal circumstances, our unpleasant knowledge that we will die—known as “mortality salience”—was managed through a wide range of strategies, including denial, spirituality, mindfulness practices, and various types of philosophical reflection.

Under extreme circumstances, however—war, crime, violent confrontations—people behaved predictably across all demographics; they would either battle to the death to save themselves…or flee the threat. This was known classically as the fight-or-flight response, and for military strategists, it was particularly helpful to predict which of the two would occur.

“As it turns out,” Katherine said, “fight or flight is not the brain’s only response to the fear of death. There is something more gradual that occurs, over many years, as we begin to fear our world is unsafe…as so many people now do.”

“It’s a fear based on sound logic,” Nagel said.

“Every day, we’re exposed to graphic media coverage reminding us of our collapsing environment, increased threat of nuclear war, coming pandemics, genocide, the world’s endless atrocities. All of this triggers the brain’s terror management strategy to run in the background, at a low level—not yet in fight-or-flight mode, but…anticipating the worst. In essence, the more terrifying our world becomes, the more time we spend preparing subconsciously for death.”

Nagel looked uncertain where all this was going. “Prepare for death…how?”

“I think the answer to that will surprise you,” Katherine said. “It certainly did me. While researching mortality salience and the brain, I found that an increased fear of death produced a consistent array of behavioral responses—all of them selfish.”

“I’m sorry?”

“Fear makes us selfish,” Katherine said. “The more we fear death, the more we cling to ourselves, our belongings, our safe spaces…to that which is familiar. We exhibit increased nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance. We flout authority, ignore social mores, steal from others to provide for ourselves, and become more materialistic. We even abandon our feelings of environmental responsibility because we sense the planet is a lost cause and we’re all doomed anyway.”

“That’s alarming,” Nagel said. “Those are precisely the behaviors that fuel global unrest, terrorism, cultural division, and war.”

“Yes, and that make the CIA’s job so difficult. Unfortunately, it becomes a hall of mirrors. The worse things get, the worse we behave. And the worse we behave, the worse things get.”

“And it’s your theory that this troubling pattern stems from humans’ fear of death?”

“It’s not my theory,” Katherine said. “It’s scientifically proven in mountains of statistical evidence gathered through observational analysis, behavioral experiments, and scientific polling. The most important point in the research, however, shows that those who do not fear death, for whatever reason, tend to exhibit behavior that is more benevolent, accepting of others, cooperative, and caring about the environment. Essentially, this means that if we could all free our minds of the burden, of the terror we feel about death…”

“Then we would find ourselves in a dramatically improved world.”