Belief systems that take reincarnation seriously eventually run into a tidy puzzle. If every life follows an earlier one, did the chain ever begin, and if it did, what was the first link like? The question of a “first life” is the kind of thing that surfaces in regression circles, sometimes raised by a client who has accepted the framework and is now chasing it to its starting point.
Different traditions answer in incompatible ways, which is itself a clue about what kind of question this is. Some hold that souls are eternal and uncreated, so there never was a first life and the search for one is a category error. Others describe an original emergence, a point where a self first entered the cycle. Still others treat the whole sequence as illusory, a story the mind tells rather than a ledger of real events. These are cosmologies, frameworks of belief about the shape of existence, and they cannot be reconciled by appealing to evidence because none of them rests on evidence in the first place.
That is the heart of an honest answer. Whether a first life exists is a metaphysical question, not an empirical one. There is no observation that could settle it, no record to consult, no experiment that could distinguish a beginningless chain from a chain with an origin. Past life regression certainly cannot resolve it. A session might produce a scene that feels primordial, a sense of being very early or very first, but that impression is generated in the moment by an imaginative, suggestible mind. It carries no information about whether any prior life occurred, let alone a first one. The vividness of the feeling and the truth of the claim are unrelated.
People who find the question compelling are usually doing something other than fact-finding. They are exploring what they believe about continuity, beginnings, and where a self fits in a very long view. That exploration can be meaningful as reflection or as part of a faith already held. It becomes misleading only when the speculation gets dressed as a discovery, when a felt impression of an earliest existence is presented as if it had been verified.
So the short of it is that the idea of a first life lives entirely in the realm of belief and speculation, beyond the reach of anything that could confirm or deny it. A person can hold a view about it, or hold the question open, and either stance is reasonable. What the evidence supports is a humbler statement: the answer is unknown, and probably unknowable, and no regression session changes that.