An apparent childhood disappearance sent Akiane Kramarik's family and police scrambling to find her, but the artist who famously painted Jesus at age 8 says she was somewhere no one thought to look.

"I recall I am in this entire zone, I'm seeing my whole family and all the dogs and all of the police below," Kramarik said on the "Hang Out with Sean Hannity" podcast.

"It's as if I have like an eagle-eyes perspective."

RUDY GIULIANI REVEALS HE HAD 'SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE' WHILE IN PNEUMONIA-RELATED COMA

Kramarik, 32, recalled feeling as though her body had "zoomed out" before everything went black. 

According to Kramarik, her disappearance sparked fears of a possible kidnapping, prompting family members, neighbors and police to launch a search.

"My mom comes and she can't find me. My brothers search around the house, they couldn't find me. [They] call[ed] my dad. Every single neighbor, every friend... The police come, their dogs come, everybody is around the whole neighborhood searching for me. I'm missing, and no one knows where," she said.

'BLIND SIDE' STAR QUINTON AARON SAYS HE 'SAW JESUS' WHILE IN A COMA AFTER NEAR-FATAL STROKE

"They think it was a potential kidnapping," she continued. "So my photo was displayed in all the town."

Kramarik said she was just 5 years old when the incident occurred in Missouri, recalling that what she described as a journey through another realm corresponded to nearly seven hours of elapsed time, according to her parents.

"My parents told me it was about six and a half, seven hours, something like that," she shared.

During that time, Kramarik said God showed her extraordinary sights and imparted knowledge to her. She described the experience as lasting longer than the nearly seven hours she said she was missing.

LOST CITY WHERE JESUS PERFORMED MIRACLES HAS FINALLY BEEN IDENTIFIED, EXPERT SAYS

Kramarik's account is one of several spiritual experiences she has described from her childhood, a period also marked by her exceptional artistic talent.

At age 8, she painted "Prince of Peace," her now-famous portrait of Jesus that helped propel her to international recognition as a child prodigy.

Kramarik said her otherworldly experience left a lasting impression that extended beyond her artwork. She said the experience also prompted her parents, who had raised their children in a nonreligious household, to reconsider their beliefs.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Viewers and listeners can watch or listen to Hannity's full conversation with Akiane Kramarik on "Hang Out with Sean Hannity," available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts and iHeartRadio.

La dana Adam ha golpeado el Mediterráneo y ha obligado a movilizar a la UME en Baleares y en la Comunidad Valenciana. Las imágenes de calles inundadas, barrancos desbordados, vecinos atrapados y mensajes de Es-alert para que los vecinos no salgan de casa recuerdan a las inundaciones de octubre de 2024, aunque el número de víctimas no tenga punto de comparación. ¿Tenemos que prepararnos para vivir una catástrofe así cada otoño?

Seguir leyendo

Cuando se tiene una rutina de trabajo intensa durante mucho tiempo, es normal que el cansancio termine pasando factura. Hay días en los que todo sale con facilidad y otros en los que cuesta mucho más concentrarse, organizarse o simplemente mantener el ritmo. Para mí, lo importante es encontrar una forma de trabajar que permita seguir adelante sin llegar constantemente al límite.

Una de las cosas que más ayuda es organizar bien el día y tener claras las tareas más importantes. Cuando se intenta hacer todo a la vez, es fácil acabar perdiendo tiempo y sintiendo que no se avanza. Por eso, creo que es mejor centrarse en una cosa cada vez y dejar para después aquello que no sea tan urgente.

También es importante hacer pequeños descansos. Cuando se llevan muchas horas delante del trabajo, seguir insistiendo no siempre significa trabajar mejor. A veces, levantarse unos minutos, caminar, tomar algo o simplemente desconectar un momento ayuda a volver con más claridad y concentración.

Además, hay que cuidar los hábitos básicos. Dormir bien, comer de forma adecuada, beber agua y hacer algo de ejercicio pueden marcar una gran diferencia cuando las jornadas son largas. Son cosas sencillas y más que consabidas, pero cuando se acumula el cansancio son precisamente las que más fácilmente se descuidan.

Por último, creo que también hay que aprender a aceptar que no todos los días se puede rendir al mismo nivel. Lo importante es mantener un ritmo que podamos sostener en el tiempo.

Trabajar bien no significa estar siempre al máximo, sino saber cuándo apretar, cuándo bajar el ritmo y cuándo parar para recuperar fuerzas.

Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below:

Do you remember the Yellow Vests movement that shook France 2018? On TikTok, a young user has called for a national mobilisation on the seventeenth of October against the cost of living, and the video quickly went viral. So could the Yellow Vests make their big return?

“Please, give us a date, we’re ready to protest! We young people are struggling. We just can’t make a living anymore,” that’s what Justine, a TikToker from Normandy in France has posted a few weeks ago, while wearing a fluorescent yellow vest.

The reference to the 2018 Yellow Vests is unmistakable. The French movement, which began in protest at rising fuel prices, has been widely revived on social media in recent weeks, especially by younger users.

Our colleague Romane Lizée from StreetPress, a fellow member of the Sphera Network alongside Europod, spoke to some of them: young people reviving a protest movement they only knew from a distance.

Yves, a 24-year-old TikToker with over 80,000 followers, made a video called “Survival Guide for the Yellow Vests 2026”. He gives would-be protesters practical advice, such as bringing thick ski goggles or writing a lawyer’s phone number on a piece of paper.

So why is the movement resurfacing now? For many, the movement has come to stand for a general sense of being fed up, something they still feel today.

 “Eight years ago, France put on the yellow vest because petrol hit 1.50 euros a litre, and now we’re almost at three euros and nothing is happening!” That’s how Saïd, a 23-year-old delivery driver, sees it.

The economic context is indeed worse than it was eight years ago. The price of fuel is now almost 2.40 euros a litre.

Throughout September, a series of protests followed one another, called by different professions and for different reasons: climate action, firefighters, a public-sector strike, the law on sexual violence, and finally the student blockades.

High school students have been protesting for a few weeks now, blockading their schools to demand better conditions. We talked about this in a previous Briefed episode. You can find the link in the description.

Now, will the protest be as big and long-lasting as the one in 2018?

Online, a petition launched by the website 17octobregiletjaune, which calls for the protest, has gathered more than 21,000 signatures. Over a thousand actions across the country have been identified on a map by the same website: mostly protests in several cities, but also actions on roundabouts and at petrol stations.

Youth organisations, students’ unions and education staff have already answered the call. More importantly, the CGT, one of France’s main labour unions, has backed it, as have some political figures, like Marine Tondelier, the Green candidate for the presidential election. Still, the true extent of the movement is difficult to predict.

In other European countries, protests are also multiplying, especially among young people. In Spain, huge demonstrations for the right to housing have been taking place in several cities since mid-September. They went quite far: they pushed Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to call snap elections.

In Brussels, on October 9th, thousands of protesters, including rail workers, teachers, and university and secondary school students, marched against the federal government’s policies, in particular its socio-economic measures. Here again, precarity is a central grievance.

In Italy, on October 8th, students called for mobilisation, notably by camping in front of universities across the country to protest against the sharp rise in tuition fees and student rents.

The triggers behind these protests are not all the same, and the mobilisations take different forms from country to country. But the goal is broadly the same: to call for better living conditions and to defend basic social rights. And young people are particularly mobilised.

All’inizio Jennifer Welch parlava solo di seccature quotidiane e di tutte quelle piccinerie da dare in pasto al pubblico annoiato sul divano. Un giorno era un gender reveal party, un altro il galateo su Instagram, altre volte i bambini maleducati. Si era ritagliata un ruolo in quel frammento di rumore mediatico che pretende di dire alla gente da che parte sta il buon senso. Poi Trump è tornato alla Casa Bianca e le ha offerto un bersaglio più grosso. Anzi due: Welch insulta il presidente un giorno sì e l’altro pure, poi si gira dall’altra parte e tratta allo stesso modo i democratici che non lo combattono come vorrebbe.

Durante una puntata del suo podcast “I’ve Had It” reagisce a una dichiarazione del Segretario di Stato Marco Rubio sulle sanzioni contro la Corte penale internazionale cominciando dall’aspetto fisico. «Sembra invecchiato di venticinque anni, ecco che effetto deve fare essere Maga e commettere crimini di guerra». Poi aggiunge che Trump ha la maturità di una cheerleader dodicenne che non è riuscita a entrare nella squadra della scuola.

In un’intervista con Don Lemon definisce il vicepresidente J.D. Vance «la miglior prostituta del Paese», accusandolo di essersi lasciato trasformare in un prodotto politico dal miliardario Peter Thiel. È la sua cifra stilistica. Welch attacca da sinistra repubblicani e democratici, ma lo fa con i metodi del trumpismo. Cioè vocabolario da spogliatoio del calcetto e attacchi sul personale, attingendo a piene mani al torbido della conversazione pubblica. Una miscela di populismo e trivialità. È la versione più esasperata del woke estremo – quello che perfino Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ha cercato di mettersi alle spalle.

“I’ve Had It” va in onda dal 2022, co-condotto da Welch con l’amica Angie Sullivan. Le due hanno raccolto milioni di follower sulle piattaforme e più di un milione di iscritti su YouTube. Gli ascoltatori sono cresciuti talmente tanto da diventare una tappa quasi obbligata per i personaggi della sinistra americana. Negli anni sono passati al microfono Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani.

A gennaio, intervistata da David Remnick del New Yorker, Welch ha definito la sua filosofia «dark woke», una specie di magia nera applicata alla sinistra radicale – o il contrario. La giustizia sociale come stella polare, la volgarità becera come vascello. Tutto è pensato per diventare un pezzettino virale sui social. Persino i titoli dei contenuti che posta su YouTube – principalmente spezzoni di “I’ve Had It” – sono portati all’estremo, con aggettivi roboanti in caps lock e anteprime appariscenti. «Devi sapere contro chi ti stai battendo, e devi essere spregiudicato», ha detto.

L’idea è di combattere il trumpismo con le sue stesse armi, una ricetta semplice e spietata. Se il woke tradizionale è diventato un sistema di sorveglianza morale, una disciplina dell’eloquio, il dark woke vuole conservare gli obiettivi progressisti liberandosi di ogni riguardo formale.

È un declivio pericoloso da intraprendere. E Welch ci si è tuffata di testa. Con Trump dice di non condividere nulla, ma considera il suo modo di parlare un modello di comunicazione che la politica democratica dovrebbe avere il coraggio di adottare.

Nelle biografia di Welch ci sono tutti gli elementi che l’hanno portata fin qui. È nata a Dallas, ma è cresciuta a Oklahoma City, con due genitori atei e progressisti nel cuore della Bible Belt. Intorno a lei una cultura evangelica in cui religione e identità politica spesso si sovrappongono. La distanza fra la famiglia e il mondo che la circondava ha alimentato il suo antagonismo.

Prima faceva l’interior designer e aveva successo. In tv è arrivata alla ribalta con “Sweet Home Oklahoma”, un reality dell’emittente Bravo che seguiva la sua attività e la vita di un gruppo di amiche benestanti. Il programma è stato cancellato nel 2018, dopo due stagioni.

“I’ve Had It” è nato poco dopo, senza troppe ambizioni. Welch e Sullivan hanno un’amicizia ventennale e volevano solo parlare alle persone che avevano seguito il reality, soprattutto donne della loro generazione. Già il titolo è una specie di manifesto: ne ho abbastanza. Conteneva il germe della protesta.

La virata sulla politica ha avuto diversi ostacoli, soprattutto da parte del network (PodcastOne ha acquistato i diritti del programma nel 2023) che avrebbe preferito contenuti meno divisivi. Ma il dibattito pubblico americano era incendiato da anni, il trumpismo aveva avvelenato i pozzi: più Welch e Sullivan alzavano il livello dello scontro, più gli ascolti crescevano.

Sul Washington Post, la giornalista Rachel Monroe ha descritto le due conduttrici come una coppia che difficilmente i democratici avrebbero immaginato di reclutare per trovare nuovi messaggeri: due cinquantenni dell’Oklahoma, con accento del Sud, modi bruschi e un aspetto che Welch definisce «Fox News-coded», cioè codificato sui parametri di Fox News, la tv più vicina a Trump. Monroe ricostruisce anche un momento in cui le due si sono accorte di essere arrivate molto più lontano di quanto immaginassero: il figlio di Welch le segnalò che Hasan Piker, lo streamer di sinistra seguito soprattutto da un pubblico giovane e maschile, aveva elogiato il loro programma definendolo «il podcast progressista più radicale del Nord America, il quartier generale della vera resistenza». Poi Piker è diventato un ospite ricorrente, nel più prevedibile dei crossover.

Nel 2016 Welch aveva votato Hillary Clinton contro Bernie Sanders, una scelta che in seguito avrebbe considerato un errore. Nel 2024 aveva sostenuto Kamala Harris, ma già dubitava della scelta di spostarsi verso il centro. La sconfitta elettorale ha accelerato la sua rottura con le posizioni maggioritarie del partito.

Trump resta il nemico principale, ma Welch attacca anche Chuck Schumer, che chiama «Chuckles», Hakeem Jeffries, Rahm Emanuel e tutti i democratici non estremisti. Un anno fa il senatore democratico Cory Booker si era fatto intervistare da Welch e Sullivan, che lo hanno incalzato perché definisse Benjamin Netanyahu un criminale di guerra. Booker ha contestato la formulazione della domanda; Welch ha giudicato evasiva la risposta, leggendola come l’emblema di un partito che sacrifica i propri principi alle alleanze e agli interessi politici.

James Kirchick sull’Atlantic le contesta proprio questo modo di argomentare, con accuse gravissime senza un adeguato approfondimento, in cui alla fine il suo avversario del momento emerge sempre come quello mosso da intenzioni maligne.

Il 6 ottobre Welch ha pubblicato il libro “Not Today, Fascists”, in cui ha riversato tutta la sua insofferenza. Le prime recensioni insistono sul linguaggio aggressivo, ma gli obiettivi che elenca sono concreti, come se fosse un programma politico: salari più alti, assistenza sanitaria accessibile, infrastrutture migliori, un sistema di protezione sociale più robusto e meno influenza delle aziende sulla politica. Vorrebbe una rivolta interna al Partito Democratico, con la sostituzione dei suoi vertici parlamentari e una profonda ristrutturazione della Corte Suprema a colpi di impeachment contro i giudici più conservatori. «L’unico modo per uscirne è la rivoluzione», dice. Non è un appello alla violenza, è più un rifiuto del gradualismo e della deferenza verso le istituzioni; rigetta anche l’idea che, una volta sconfitto Trump, si debba semplicemente tornare allo status quo ante. Sa che questo approccio può allontanare gli elettori, ma in fondo non è candidata per un seggio (almeno non ancora) e non ha intenzione di comportarsi come se dovesse piacere a tutti.

Il dark woke è tutto qui. Una sinistra che vuole combattere l’autoritarismo senza preoccuparsi di apparire gentile, che rivendica la giustizia sociale ma considera l’umiliazione dell’avversario un’arma legittima. Jennifer Welch ha capito che la rabbia può cementare una comunità, può diventare perfino un programma politico. Resta da vedere se possa diventare anche una strategia per governare, dal momento che Trump non sta andando granché bene. Per ora, quella che aveva cominciato dicendo di averne abbastanza delle piccole seccature quotidiane sembra averne abbastanza anche dell’obbligo di essere educata e composta mentre distribuisce patenti di democraticità. Con milioni di persone disposte ad ascoltarla mentre manda tutti al diavolo.

L'articolo La podcaster americana che sogna una sinistra uguale e contraria al trumpismo proviene da Linkiesta.it.

Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below: 

Ten years after the Brexit vote, more and more Britons are asking whether they should go back. According to a YouGov poll conducted earlier this month, 52% would vote to rejoin the EU in a referendum.

And the UK’s new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, seems to be keeping that door open.

But how realistic is that? Andy Burnham became Prime Minister this summer. And since then, he has been dropping hints here and there about a possible return to the EU. A few months ago, he was saying it was too early to even discuss it.

So what changed? Perhaps the international context, but also the realisation that the UK cannot get everything it wants while staying outside the Union.

On 20 November, EU leaders will have the opportunity to discuss the relationship with the UK during a bilateral summit. They will try to reach agreements on a number of issues that have stalled.

What are those topics? First, food. Today, agri-food products face checks and certification when they enter the EU, and that slows trade down. The solution on the table is for the UK to align its sanitary and phytosanitary standards with the EU’s. But the details still need to be agreed.

Second, people. Right now, a European who wants to work in the UK needs a visa. The two sides could agree on a scheme to make mobility easier, especially for young people.

Third, carbon. The British would like to link their carbon market to the EU’s, so that their exporters don’t have to pay extra for their emissions when they sell to Europe. In practice, that means avoiding the EU’s carbon border tax.

Last but not least, industry. And this is a big part of the discussion. As the EU moves towards giving priority to European products, the British fear being left out of this “European preference”.

Now, you might say: in all these cases, isn’t this a bit like being in the EU, without the drawbacks? That’s exactly what critics call cherry-picking.

At the heart of the problem is a simple question: where do you draw the line between being a member and being a partner? It’s the same debate the EU has with Switzerland, which wants to stay very close but not be part of the bloc.

Now, is a return to the EU a realistic scenario? The door is open, as Emmanuel Macron and others have put it.

The UK could apply, and it’s unlikely that any member state would block the process. But the European Commission has already warned: there would be no special treatment for the British.

On the positive side, the UK would start from a good position. It already applies a good part of EU legislation, and it meets the rule-of-law criteria.

But all these years after leaving the EU, the two sides are still negotiating. There are sticking points on free movement and on standards. And those disagreements would make any accession talks that much harder.

Let’s see what comes out of the summit on 20 November.

O Big Problema é uma conversa sobre o impacto das escolhas de quem está com a caneta na mão. Esse podcast narrativo foi idealizado pela primeira turma de trainees da Agência Pública e procura entender como grandes empreendimentos têm impactado a cultura local das cidades brasileiras. Sabe quando bate um desespero porque a solução dos problemas ao seu redor não parece estar sob seu controle? Então, esse é um Big Problema.

A cada episódio, uma reportagem em áudio parte da vivência de um dos trainees para abordar como nossa relação com o espaço tem sido transformada com a chegada de gigantes da tecnologia e mais. Olhando as particularidades de cada cidade, esperamos mostrar que a distância não deve nos enganar: no fim, um problema local também é um problema coletivo. O nosso questionamento é: em nome dos interesses de poucos, o que temos deixado de fazer?

Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.

EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.

Find the full transcript below: 

Two ships have been hit by drones in Bulgarian waters in the Black Sea on Monday. Several other ships have been targeted in recent weeks, at a time when Russia is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine.

So, at what point does a hybrid attack become an attack on Nato? On Monday, two ships were hit by drones in the Bulgarian economic zone in the Black Sea.

One of them sank, with 11 crew members missing. The second vessel, which belonged to Ukraine, was damaged but did not sink, and all 15 people on board were rescued.

A week earlier, two other cargo ships had been attacked by drones in the same area, killing 10 people. And on 5 October, a Turkish cargo ship carrying grain was sunk by drones shortly after leaving Ukraine.

There is currently no evidence proving that Russia was behind these attacks, and Moscow has not claimed responsibility.

But that did not stop Bulgarian Prime Minister Roumen Radev from summoning Russia’s ambassador. Radev said that, while there was no conclusive evidence, the outcome of these attacks clearly benefited Russia more than anyone else.

Russia’s ambassador to Bulgaria, Eleonora Mitrofanova, said she had received no information from the Russian defence ministry about the attacks. She also suggested that they could have been provocations carried out by a third party.

And that uncertainty is important, because it makes it much harder for Nato countries to decide when an incident should be treated as an attack.

So how do Europeans cope with these attacks? We’ve already seen several Russian drones end up inside EU territory in recent months. And in some cases, they have been clearly identified.

Take the Russian drone that crashed on a residential building in the Romanian city of Galați in May and injured two people. Or the two drones found at Leipzig airport in Germany this summer, charged with explosives. They were all identified as Russian.

So far, however, the response has consisted mainly of diplomatic measures and political statements. Neither Bulgaria nor Germany has requested formal consultations under Article 4 of the Nato treaty.

Article 4 allows a Nato member to ask for consultations when it believes its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened.

Bulgarian Prime Minister Radev has spoken with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte about the incidents, which are serious enough to be discussed at Nato level. But Bulgaria has not gone as far as triggering Article 4.

One reason is precisely the ambiguity surrounding all these drone attacks: who is controlling them, whether they were deliberately sent into EU territory, and whether they were jammed or diverted.

But if an attack were clearly attributed to Russia, how would Nato respond? That’s one of the questions currently being discussed within the alliance.

On Monday, Nato’s top military commander, US General Alexus Grynkewich, said he did not believe a conflict between Russia and Nato was imminent or inevitable.

But he also presented what Nato calls a “theory of victory”: a plan designed to ensure that the alliance could rapidly neutralise an enemy attacking one of its members.

The strategy rests on several pillars. One is establishing clear red lines that an adversary should not cross. Another is investing in new military technologies, with drones playing a central role. And the third is maintaining the ability and readiness to fight at short notice.

The idea is not only to be able to respond if a direct attack happens, but also to deter Russia from continuing what Nato describes as hybrid activities against its members.