What is alluded to, or openly claimed is that if we simply "tune into" the right frequency, vibration, or some such, anything we want will be "attracted" into our lives. Okay, I ask in response, "assuming we have whatever we want, describe one thing in your life, right now, that does NOT have a consistent history associated with it." By consistent history, I mean a history (associated with some event or object) that makes sense, or is able to be, in some fashion, explainable, or consistent.
For example, the clothes you are wearing. Did they just magically appear on you, or did you use money to purchase them? If the latter, did you add value to your local community (via a service, even if a cleaner, or maid), for which you received money, with which you purchased your clothes? Were the clothes given to you, and if they were, did you give anything in return, and if not, is the process of others giving to you, without you giving in return, sustainable?
Here's were most will get defensive and start going on and on about frequencies and wavelengths, and on one occasion, "alien abductions" (I kid you not).
Those types of responses are derivatives of the standard idealisation of perfection: "when we get over there" (or up there), then we'll be happy", etc. This idealisation occurs in many new-age schools and teachings — when you transcend your ego and achieve enlightenment (perfection), then you'll be blissfully happy (mind you, in the meantime, you'll need to pay lots of money for various courses, and heed the advice of various not-perfect gurus who'll advise you how to do what they can't).
Perfection is the perfect sales pitch. There's never any money-back guarantee. "You mean, if I attend your course and I'm not enlightened and perfect by tomorrow afternoon, I'll get a full refund?" Nope. Implication being "it's your fault" (and NOT that of the perfect instructor/teacher/guru who has a perfect track record of success. Imperfect teachers selling/teaching that which they don't have. Imperfect teachers selling something they'll never have, but, hey, give them money anyway).
And that's the reason for my "disconcerting disconnect" — they're habituating deeper levels of hopelessness, chasing some ideal they'll never achieve.
Now, some might mistake my pragmatic questioning as indicating I don't believe in the value of creativity. Far, far from it. Quite the opposite (See "Leading God: the wonderfully new"). But for those in deep do-do (disconnect territory), adding to society with some practical, pragmatic creative idea or service is too distant, too foreign for them. Instead, the idealisation of that which they won't ever achieve continues.
On a deeper level, in quantum theory, at least according to some interpretations of it, we can and do (routinely) engage and enter alternate probabilities, whereby we can find things have emerged in our present experiences (we don't actually see the emerging). As I've previously explained, "we get to move in and out of these alternative systems by the choices, desires and actions we take." Heart-felt, deep-seated desire and expectation is the key that initiates and solidifies the "real-ization" of the new.
However, that still doesn't discount the "consistent histories". When the switch occurs, (or in my experience, soon after) and one notices new things in one's familiar personal environment (e.g. more money in one's bank account), a momentary period of surprise will ensue, where after a gradual awareness of how it came to be (in our present) will emerge, in order to ensure a consistent history.
In my opinion it's important to give validity to the consistent history approach, because then we remain responsible for the present, rather than being passive recipients to surprises that can be both desired, or undesired. If we allow ourselves to reflect, we'll re-align our memory with that (new) history (past) and everything will makes sense — even if that is only to recognise that in this (new) present, the desire to experience (e.g. a new car sitting in the garage), will still have a history associated with it even though we may know all the details. Again, if desired things can pop into our reality without a consistent history, then equally undesired things can as well, since we've not been responsible for the ensuing reality.
In my sense of things, "consistent histories" (think parallel train tracks, and jumping from one to the other), is the most consistent model that fits our experiences, including "miraculous" ones.