It is a plague of all those who attempt or achieve some kind of 'spiritual contact' to know what is the provenance of those Beings that they contact.
Are they who they claim, or are they someone or something else?
I regard it as an advantage of what I have termed primary thinking or direct knowing - that, because it is 'direct', a sharing of thoughts between Beings, it brings with it a knowledge of provenance - of who is being-contacted.
In other words, when 'communication' is mind-to-mind, we know who or what we are dealing-with; whereas when communication is mediated by sensory factors - words (whether spoken or written) or visions or any kind of symbolism - then this introduces an indirect layer between the minds; which may serve to conceal provenance.
So direct knowing is intrinsically more reliable and valid.
On the other hand, indirect communications are tempting - because they are often more precise, and occur (or can be induced) in higher volume and on-demand.
In other words, direct knowing tends to have a low amount of simple information; but (I would say) can be relied upon more solidly.
Yet even direct thinking is not wholly reliable; because while a Being may be known for who 'it' is, nonetheless a Being can conceal its intent. The motivation behind the thinking is part of the real-self, the ultimate and irreducible basis of our individual being; hence inaccessible to any other Being (inaccessible even to God).
(This ultimate 'privacy' is the reason why Beings have agency or 'free will'.)
My point here is that we would be wise to be satisfied with the lower quantity and precision of direct thinking; and therefore not to crave (or insist upon) detailed and specific information on... whatever we suppose we want, or think we need, to know!
