Refusing to Leave Even in Death

Refusing to Leave Even in Death

Translated by ChatGPT 

For subscribers only

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260619-9233705?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-06-19

Lianhe Zaobao

By Cathryn Lai (赖芊翠)

The author is a business management consultant.

Recently, an incident once again occurred at Disneyland in California, USA, in which visitors secretly scattered the ashes of deceased loved ones within the park. Such behavior is not unprecedented and has even come to be regarded internally as a recurring phenomenon that is difficult to eliminate entirely.

The earliest reports of visitors secretly scattering ashes at American Disney parks can be traced back to an article published by The Wall Street Journal in October 2018. Since then, the topic has continued to attract discussion. Singer Ariana Grande once mentioned in an interview that her mother hoped her ashes would one day be scattered near the castle at Disney World in Florida, although park regulations explicitly prohibit such acts. Actress Whoopi Goldberg, on the other hand, publicly shared that she had once scattered her mother's ashes at Disney, while also reminding the public not to imitate her actions.

These stories continue to resurface not merely because they take place at Disney. What truly captures attention is humanity's attempt to leave the final traces of life in a place imbued with profound emotional significance. On the surface, the issue concerns where ashes should be laid to rest; on a deeper level, it reflects the enduring human question of "how to continue existing."

Psychology has a concept known as "self-continuity," referring to an individual's psychological need to maintain the sense that "I still exist." Death is so difficult to bear not only because life comes to an end, but because one's personal narrative, identity, and life experiences are forcibly interrupted at that moment.

Therefore, even though Disneyland clearly prohibits the scattering of ashes, similar incidents continue to occur from time to time. From a psychological perspective, when a person wishes to remain in such a place, it represents a symbolic continuation of existence. Essentially, this choice anchors the self to the happiest and most meaningful moments of life, allowing life's endpoint to overlap with its brightest memories.

It is also a way of freezing time. Such freezing is, in essence, a refusal to accept disappearance. People attempt to fix themselves at a moment of greatest brilliance so that death becomes not merely disappearance but an eternal presence bound to memory.

In contrast stands another form of memorialization that is gradually being chosen by more people—the return to everyday life.

Examples include tree burials, sea burials, flower burials, or placing ashes in a garden flowerpot so that they become part of a plant's growth. The emphasis of these practices lies not in the location of remembrance but in the continued intertwining of life and daily existence. Death no longer depends upon a gravestone or a designated place but instead enters everyday life and continues to exist in another form.

As flowers bloom, as the sea breeze blows, and as trees continue to grow year after year, the departed seem to participate in the flow of the world in some way. This approach does not seek to freeze time but instead allows memory to extend through time, continually perceived amid change.

From the perspective of continuity, these two choices share the same psychological motivation: one seeks to freeze time and anchor existence to life's brightest memories, while the other extends time and allows existence to merge into the flow of everyday life. Though different in form, they share the same core—the search for a way to remain connected, perceived, and remembered after one has departed.

However, once ashes enter public spaces, they cease to be merely part of private mourning and instead touch upon practical issues such as public order, space management, sanitation standards, and the feelings of others. Who has the right to determine whether a space may become the resting place of the deceased? To what extent should individual emotions be allowed to enter the public sphere? The answers to these questions are far more complex than simply asking, "How do I wish to be buried?" After all, personal grief has never been equivalent to permission for the use of public space.

In traditional societies, the spatial boundaries surrounding death were relatively clear: cemeteries belonged to the dead, cities belonged to the living, and the two were kept separate. In modern society, however, this boundary is gradually becoming blurred. More and more people wish to break free from the limitations of fixed burial sites, allowing death to return to the spaces of everyday life and remembrance to transcend a single framework of time and place.

As a result, a concept has gradually taken shape: institutions require the deceased to depart, while emotions wish for them to remain; public spaces emphasize management and order, while human emotions continue to seek connection and companionship. Consequently, after a person dies, the question of where the ashes should be placed is no longer simply a matter of handling human remains but has become a question about how modern society understands death itself.

In what manner should the deceased be allowed to continue existing? This question also asks the living how they define the boundaries of existence. The way we choose to lay them to rest silently answers the same question: in this era, how should we understand memory, belonging, and the final relationship between human beings and the world?

Perhaps what people are truly seeking has never been a resting place for ashes, but a resting place for memory. For those who fear disappearing are not only the dead, but also those who are still alive.

The author is a business management consultant.