I've often wondered about the problem of denial in querents, including in myself when I am the querent (for my own readings, or for other people). Is it an arrogance to say someone is in denial, as was stated earlier? I don't think so, but at the same time, there is a season for all truth and patience is needed for that truth to emerge inside the querent.
I think it's arrogant, yes, because it's essentially disregarding the Sitter's truth. The Sitter's perception may not be the only perception, but it is a valid perception and their current truth. (I am not speaking to true delusion, which does exist but which is pretty few and far between as Sitters go, and you can usually spot them before you ever read for them.) I think if a reading completely disregards a Sitter's current truth and reality -- and especially if it says things that contradict that truth and reality without addressing them -- then it is inaccurate.
Yes, truth can change, but that I believe both the reading and the Sitter's reality/truths belong to the Sitter. And I don't think there is one true truth... I certainly wouldn't give the cards or a Reader that kind of power over a Sitter to tell them that they hold the one and only version of the Sitter's truth.
Now, I think a Reader can help a Sitter change the Past, but they have to start with what is true for the Sitter and respect that before they can begin to suggest alternate truths.
Of course, I think this is especially true for 'feels.' If someone tells me how I feel, and it's incorrect, I consider that extremely inaccurate. So, I think language is extremely important in a reading. I often find -- within a reading -- that how a Sitter feels and what's really going on around them don't mesh. Does that mean the Sitter is in denial? Not really. It means they don't have the entire perspective, and I assume that's part of why they came for a reading. So, we get to that, but I try not to disregard their truths along the way.
For that reason, I ALWAYS question myself and go inside to listen to what my inner voice is telling me, whenever my immediate response to something a reader tells me is - "NO!", accompanied by a wind of fear and pain.
Yes, there is, an "Oh, no!" NO! that sort of signals denial, but I've also had many a, "Yeah...that's not it" reading in my day and I'm sure I've given dozens or possibly more, too.
I hate it when Sitters go the and go into the, "Well, this could maybe fit if..." because those never turn out to be true. It's just me getting my wires crossed. So, when reading in-person, I now literally stop if a reading isn't going well. No money exchanges hands, I apologize, I say I'm not feeling it, and we part before I get in too deep. If there's major dissonance, I've never found that it worked out well, personally, on either side.
I've been surprisingly right on the Future, but I don't think I've ever been surprisingly right on the Past... to where a Sitter disagreed but later agreed, nor have I ever felt that way in a reading. But if others say that's happened to them, then I suppose it's possible.
The greater issue here is communication. I suppose a Reader could be somehow accurate but not good at communicating, yet I think a reading
is communication, so I wouldn't consider it accurate if it was communicated improperly. There have been times I've gotten 'something' and I feel like the sensation/impression was correct, but I translated it all wrong for someone. I consider that being wrong.