DedicatedtothememoriesofCurtDucasse,JohnEccles,andFredericMyers,threeremarkableindividualswhoneverletfashiondictatetheiropinions.

SCIENCEANDTHE

AFTERLIFEEXPERIENCE

“The evidence in favor of an afterlife is vast and varied. The evidence from near-death experiences and deathbed visionswasdescribedintwopreviousbooksbyChrisCarter.ScienceandtheAfterlifeExperienceisthefinalworkofhistrilogy,andonewillseeinthiswonderfulbookthatwedoindeedhavestronglyrepeatableevidenceforthecontinuityofconsciousnessafterphysicaldeath, based on childrenwho remember previous lives, reports of apparitions, and communication from the deceased.What allthesecasesshowisthathumanpersonalitysurvivesdeathand,byimplication,humanconsciousnesscanexist independentlyofafunctioningbrain.Whenonehasreadtheoverwhelmingevidenceasdescribedinthisexcellentbook,itseemsquiteimpossiblenottobeconvincedthatthereshouldbesomeformoflifeafterdeath.Anycontinuingoppositiontotheevidenceisbasedonnothingmorethanwillfulignoranceorideology.Highlyrecommended.”

PIMVANLOMMEL,M.D.,CARDIOLOGISTANDAUTHOROFCONSCIOUSNESSBEYONDLIFE

“ChrisCarteraddressesthequestionthatis,orshouldbe,thesinglemostimportantquestionforanybeingwhoconsidershimself—or suspects himself to be—mortal. He argues that this is not the case. If he is right then this is not only the single most life-transformingrealizationforamortalorperhapsimmortalbeingbutalsooneofthemostpotentrealizationsthatcouldpromptsuchabeingtoenteronabetterpathduringhisorherknownlife.”

ERVINLASZLO,PH.D.,AUTHOROFSCIENCEANDTHEAKASHICFIELD

ANDTHENEWSCIENCEANDSPIRITUALITYREADER

“. . . some of the best evidence offered by the near-death experience. This book is informative, interesting, intriguing, andinspirational.”

MICHAELTYMN,AUTHOROFTHEAFTERLIFEREVEALED

ANDTHEAFTERLIFEEXPLORERS

“ThisthirdvolumeofChrisCarter’strilogymaybethebest.Reincarnation,ghostlikevisions,andmessagesfromthedeadmakeforsomeverystimulatingreading.Asanhistoricalchroniclealonethiswouldbeavaluablework.ButCarter’shistoricaltreatmentalsocombinesphilosophyandanalysisintoanalwaysinterestingandwell-organizedtreatise.”

ROBERTBOBROW,M.D.,AUTHOROFTHEWITCHINTHEWAITINGROOM

“Thestatement‘Survivalofhumanconsciousnesspastthepointofbiologicaldeathisafact’willseemanextraordinaryclaimtosome, and theymay reasonablydemandextraordinaryevidence to support it.Carterhasbothmade the claimandprovided theevidence.”

GUYLYONPLAYFAIR,AUTHOROFTHISHOUSEISHAUNTED,IFTHISBEMAGIC,ANDTWINTELEPATHY

“Carterboldlyconcludesthatthesurvivalofconsciousnessafterthedeathofthebodyisascientificfact—aswellestablishedasanyotherscientificfact.”

NEALGROSSMAN,PH.D.,PROFESSOREMERITUSOFPHILOSOPHY,UNIVERSITYOFILLINOISATCHICAGO

“ChrisCarter has produced a compelling synthesis andbrilliant analysis of someof thebest evidence for life beyondphysicaldeath.Thisbookshouldberequiredreadingforbelieversandskepticsalike.”

GARYE.SCHWARTZ,PH.D.,PROFESSOROFPSYCHOLOGYANDMEDICINEATTHEUNIVERSITYOFARIZONAAND

AUTHOROFTHEAFTERLIFEEXPERIMENTS

“ChrisCarterestablishestheexistenceoftheafterlifebeyondareasonabledoubt.Icongratulatehimonsuchasolidsynthesisoftherelevantdataandarguments—bothforandagainst.”

EBENALEXANDERIII,M.D.,AUTHOROFPROOFOFHEAVEN:ANEUROSURGEON’S

NEAR-DEATHEXPERIENCEANDJOURNEYTHROUGHTHEAFTERLIFE

“Inthiswonderfulbook,aworkofgreaterudition,ChrisCartersuccinctlyexaminestheworksofgiantsinthefieldofsurvivalofconsciousness. . . . Carter’s careful analysis of evidence for survival promptly lays super-ESP counterarguments to rest. . . . Ihighlyrecommendthisbooktotheseriousstudent.”

JOHNL.TURNER,M.D.,AUTHOROFMEDICINE,MIRACLES,ANDMANIFESTATIONS

Contents

1. TitlePage2. Dedication3. Epigraph4. Foreword

5. Introduction

6. PsychicPhenomenaandtheNear-DeathExperience 1. BASISOFTHECONTROVERSY

2. MODERNPHYSICSDOESNOTPROHIBITPSIPHENOMENA3. THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENMINDANDBRAIN4. THETRANSMISSIONHYPOTHESIS5. THEPRODUCTIONHYPOTHESIS6. DENIERS,DEBUNKERS,ANDMILITANTATHEISM

7. PARTI:Reincarnat ion

1. Chapter1:EvidencefromIndiatoEngland

2. Chapter2:CharacteristicsofReincarnationCases

1. BEHAVIORALSIMILARITIES2. FACTORSINFLUENCINGREINCARNATION

3. Chapter3:AlternativeExplanationsforReincarnationEvidence 1. POPULATIONINCREASEANDREINCARNATION

2. FRAUD3. CULTURALFANTASY

4. Chapter4:TheObjectionsofPaulEdwards

5. Chapter5:ReincarnationinReview 1. DOESTELEPATHYORESPACCOUNTFORREINCARNATIONEXPERIENCES?

8. PARTII:Apparit ions

1. Chapter6:StrangeVisits

1. REPORTSFROMCHILDREN2. APPARITIONSOFANIMALS

2. Chapter7:CharacteristicsandTheoriesofApparitions

1. TYPESOFAPPARITIONS2. THEORIESOFAPPARITIONS

3. Chapter8:WhatUnderliesGhostlyVisions? 1. COLLECTIVELYPERCEIVEDAPPARITIONS

2. APPARITIONSOFTHELIVING3. APPARITIONSWITHTHEIROWNAGENDA4. VERIDICALAPPARITIONS

4. Chapter9:FinalThoughtsonApparitions

9. PARTIII:MessagesfromtheDead

1. Chapter10:AncientEvidence

2. Chapter11:TheSPRInvestigates

3. Chapter12:AlternativeExplanations 1. CONSCIOUSFRAUD

2. SUBCONSCIOUSFRAUD3. ESPANDSUBCONSCIOUSFRAUD4. DIFFICULTIESWITHESPASANEXPLANATION5. ALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONS:CONCLUSION

4. Chapter13:Super-ESPasanExplanation? 1. PURPOSECONTRARYTOTHATOFTHEMEDIUMORSITTERS

2. COMMUNICATIONFROMTHEPERSPECTIVEOFTHEDECEASED3. MANIFESTATIONSOFPERSONALITY4. MANIFESTATIONSOFSKILLS5. THELANGUAGECASES6. SUPER-ESP:CONCLUDINGTHOUGHTS

5. Chapter14:CrossCorrespondences 1. CASTOFCHARACTERS

2. EARLYMESSAGES

6. Chapter15:TheLetheExperiment 1. COMMENTSONTHELETHEEXPERIMENT

2. IDIOSYNCRASIESINTHESCRIPTS3. LODGECONTINUESTHELETHEEXPERIMENT

7. Chapter16:EvaluationoftheCrossCorrespondences 1. CHANCE

2. FRAUD3. SUPER-ESPANDSUBCONSCIOUSFRAUD4. SURVIVAL

10. PARTIV:Conclusions

1. Chapter17:HowtheCaseforSurvivalStandsToday 1. MOTIVEBEHINDTHESUPER-ESPHYPOTHESIS

2. SURVIVAL:CONCLUDINGREMARKS

2. Chapter18:IsSurvivalaFact? 1. THEORYOFKNOWLEDGE

3. Chapter19:WhattheDeadSay

1. THEWORLDOFTHEDEAD11. Epilogue

12. Appendix:TheDreamChild13. Footnotes14. Endnotes15. Bibliography16. AbouttheAuthor17. AboutInnerTraditions•Bear&Company18. BooksofRelatedInterest19. Copyright&Permissions

Theanswertohumanlifeisnottobefoundwithinthelimitsofhumanlife. CARLJUNG

Foreword

ByRobertAlmeder

I am a philosopher, and skeptics on the possibility of life after death occasionally defend their skepticism with reasons that arephilosophical.Take,forexample,threeofthemostpopularphilosophicalarrowsintheskeptic’squiver. Thefirstisthattheveryideaofhumansexistingindependentlyoftheirbodiesisinconceivableorincoherent.Itmakesnosense,theysay, to talk aboutpersonal survival afterdeath, eitherbecausewecannot imaginewhat ahumanperson is if it isnot at leastpartiallyidentifiablewith a unique human body or else because the very idea of surviving one’s death is conceptually incoherent.We are ourbodies,sotheysay.Intheend,ofcourse,thisobjectionisrootedinthemistakenbeliefthatjustbecausewemaynotbeabletoimaginewhatadisincarnatehumanislikewithoutahumanbody,therecannotbeany. However, thehistoryofscienceshowsagainandagain thata failureof imaginationprovidesnocompellingreason todoubtclaimsthataresupportedbytheevidence.Reportsofrocksthatfallfromthesky—whatwetodaycallmeteorites—wererejectedbyscientistsfordecadesonthegroundsthattherearenorocksintheskytofall.Continentaldriftwasridiculedbygeologistsfordecadesbecausetheycouldnotimagineanymeansbywhichthecontinentscoulddrift.Theincredibleclaimsofquantummechanicsmayforeverdefyourability to imagine them. And, finally, we might just find very strong evidence for accepting the ancient belief in the existence ofdisincarnatepersonseveniftheyarenotphysicalbodiesaswegenerallydescribetheminnaturalscience. The second objection is that even if human survival of death were logically and factually possible, we still have no scientificknowledgeofanybodyeversurvivingbiologicaldeath,becausewehavenoexperimentalevidenceforitthatwillholdupunderseriousscientificscrutiny.Wecannot, so theobjectiongoes,generateatwillcompellingcasestudies;wecannotcontroldisembodiedspirits inorder to make them appear under empirically desirable conditions. Any evidence offered for the survival of humans or humanconsciousness after death is not repeatableunder controlled conditions.Unless the evidence canbe repeated atwill under controlledconditions,thebeliefcannottranscendtheanecdotalintotherealmofhumanknowledge. However, therearemany thingsweknowexist thatcannotbe repeatedatwill.The fact thathomerunscannotbe repeatedatwilldoesnotmeanthathomerunsdonotoccur.Wenowknowthatrocksdosometimesfallfromthesky,eventhoughwecannotproduceatwilltheevidenceforthisbelief.Uniquehistoricaleventscannoteverberepeated.Evenso,asyouwillseeinthiswonderfulbookwedoindeedhavestronglyrepeatableevidence basedon reincarnation studies, reportsof apparitions, andapparent communication from thedeceasedviamediums. Thethirdobjectionisthattheevidenceforpersonalsurvivalispersuasiveonlyiftheever-presentpossibilityoffraudorhoaxcanbeclearly excluded. But the possibility of fraud or hoax can never be completely excluded in any field. Even so, we do not need tocompletely exclude all logical possibility of fraud.We only need the continual widespread emergence of cases that have the samecharacteristicsastheidealcases(ofthesortyouwillfindinthisbook).Whenenoughcasescontinuetooccurandareexaminedbymanydifferentresearcherswhoareincapableoffindinganyfraud,overtimetheprobabilityoffraudbecomesremote,justbecausesuchcasesarerepeatingthemselvesinwidelydifferingcontextsandinthehandsofdifferentresearchers.AstheesteemedCambridgephilosopherHenrySidgwickremarkedinhispresidentialaddress to theBritishSocietyforPsychicalResearchin1882,“Wehavedoneallwecanwhenthecritichasnothinglefttoallegeexceptthattheinvestigatorisinthetrick.”1

This is not the place to examine closely all the arguments offeredby the skepticswho advance themagainst themore persuasiveargumentsforpersonalsurvival.Buttheauthorofthisbookhaswrittentwootherbooksontheskepticalarguments,andhehasdoneanadmirable job in showing just how terribly superficial the skeptical arguments are, primarily because skeptics typically come to thediscussionwithadeeplyrootedbiasthatunderminesthespiritofinquirybasedonthefacts. This sort of bias is nothing new. It is a tribute toWilliam James to keep inmind his claim that progress in the area of paranormalresearchandbeliefinlifeafterdeathwillbeaslowprocessmorelikelytooccurincrementallyastheproductofsustainedresearchinthearea.Jamessuggestedthatskepticisminthisareadiesslowlybecauseofthedeepculturalandreligiousinfluencesontheformationofbelief. Even so, for thosewho have studied carefully the various bodies of evidence for belief in some form of human survival it issomethingofamysterywhysomemembersofthescientificcommunitystillresistseriousresearchintothisbelief. Theauthorofthisbook,likesomanyothers,islessmotivatedbysomeneedtorefuteskepticsthanheisinreachingthosewhocometotheissuewithanopenmindandwhoarenotfearfuloflearningthatwhichmaychallengetheirpresentbeliefs.Evenso,asyouwillsee,hiscarefulcriticismsoftheskepticalpositionaremorethanenoughtoputthetypicalskepticinhisorherplace. Asamatteroffact,whenyoufinishreadingthisbook,youwillprobablyfindtheargumentsforsurvivalandagainsttheskepticssocompelling thatyouwillcometoviewdeathnotasasadextinctionofone’spersonalitybut ratherasa joyfulbeginning inadifferentdimensionofexistence.AsphilosopherAliceBaileyputit:

Wecanliveintheconsciousnessofimmortality,anditwillgiveanaddedcoloringandbeautytolife.Wecanfostertheawarenessofourfuturetransition,andlivewiththeexpectationof itswonder.Deaththusfaced,andregardedasapreludetofurtherliving

experience,takesonadifferentmeaning.2

Evenso,theultimatequestionmaynotbewhetherwearestronglyjustifiedinbelievingsomeformoflifeafterdeath,althoughthatis

certainlyanimportantquestion.Ratherthequestionismoreproperlywhetherthatbeliefismorerationallyjustifiablethanitsdenialquiteindependentofwhetheronebelievesordisbelievesit.Inthemeantime,wecancontinuetoarguethatnotonlyisitreasonabletobelievein some formof lifeafterdeath,butmore interestingly, that it is irrationalnot tobelieve, basedpurelyon the forceof theavailableevidence.

ROBERTALMEDER,PH.D., is aprofessorofphilosophyatGeorgiaStateUniversity.A formerFulbright scholar,he is theauthorofTruthandSkepticismandDeathandPersonalSurvival:TheEvidenceforLifeafterDeath.

Introduction

Themajorproblemofourtimeisdecayinthebeliefinpersonalimmortality. GEORGEORWELLThemannerinwhichweliveourlivesdepends,toalargeextent,onwhatwebelievecomesafterit.Menandwomenthroughouthistoryhavewillinglygonetotheirdeathsfortheirspiritualbeliefs.Criticsmaypointoutthathumanbeingshavealsocommittedgraveatrocitiesandevenlaunchedwarsmotivated,at least inpart,by“spiritual”beliefs inspiredbythevariousreligions.Ontheotherhand,however,thosewho believe that death is nothing but oblivion often lead selfish and ruthless lives, concerned onlywithmomentary pleasures,status,andthepursuitofmaterialwealth. Orwell’sgrimvisionofthefuture,portrayedinhisnovel1984,fortunatelydidnotcometopass.However,wemaynowfaceafutureevenworsethananythingOrwellimagined.PhilosopherDavidGriffenrecentlyissuedthisdirewarning:

Ibelievethehumanracenowfacesthegreatestchallengeinitshistory.Ifitcontinuesonitspresentcourse,widespreadmiseryanddeathofunprecedentedproportionsisacertainty.Annihilationofhumanlifeandofmillionsofspeciesofnon-humanlifeaswellisprobable. This is so because of polluting technologies, economic growth-mania, out-of-control population growth, globalapartheid between rich and poor nations, rapid depletion of non-renewable resources, and proliferation of nuclear weaponscombined with a state of international anarchy that makes war inevitable and sufficient measures to halt global ecologicaldestructionimpossible.

Whatseemsclearisthatatransitioninworldorder,ifitistooccur,willhavetobeaccompaniedbyashiftinworldview,onethat would lead to a new sense of adventure, replacing the modern adventure of unending economic growth based on thetechnologicalsubjugationofnature.Onlyifwecometoseehumanlifeasprimarilyaspiritualadventure,anadventurousjourneythat continues beyond this life, will we have a chance of becoming sufficiently free from destructive motivations to affect atransitiontoasustainableglobalorder.1

GriffenandIbothagreethatthebeliefinanafterlifeoffersseveralpracticalbenefits:

Suchabeliefcanhelpovercomethefearofdeathandannihilation.If people are convinced that they are ultimately not subject to any earthly power, this can increase their courage to fight forfreedom,ecologicallysustainablepolicies,andsocialjustice.Ifpeoplebelieve that this life isnot the finalword,and that justicewillprevail in thenext life, thiscanhelp themwithstand theunfairnesstheyencounterinthehereandnow.The idea of life as an unfolding journey,which continues even after death, can lead to a greater sense of connectionwith theuniverseasitunfoldsintothefuture.The belief in life after death can help counter the extreme degree of materialism that has pervaded every niche of moderncivilization.Thebelief thatweareona spiritual journey, and thatwehave time to reachourdestination,canmotivateus to thinkcreativelyaboutwhatwecandonow—socially,internationally,andindividually—tomoveclosertowhatweshouldbeinthehereandnow.

Butformanyofusthesepracticalbenefitsalonearenotsufficienttocompelbelief.Weseekhardevidencethatstandsuptothemost

rigorous critical scrutiny.Yearsbefore I evenconsideredwriting thisbook, I sought to find such evidence, andafter combing throughnumerousbooksandjournals,Iwassurprisedbythesheerquantityandvarietyoftheevidenceforanafterlife.Someofthereportsdatedback hundreds and even thousands of years.But themost rigorous evidence by far has been gathered inmodern times by respectedscientistsandscholars,beginningintheclosingyearsofthenineteenthcentury,andcontinuingtothepresentday. However, as a philosopher, Iwas not content tomerely examine the evidence in favor of the survival of death; I knew that anycounterarguments must also be fairly and closely examined if we are to arrive at any solid conclusions. I was aware that severalphilosophers and scientists have doubted or denied thatwe survive the death of our bodies, and so I began an in-depth study of the

skeptical literature.Through reading, discussion, and the occasional debate, I eventually came to understand not only the “skeptical”arguments,butalsothemotivationsofthosewhodenysovehementlythatthereismoretohumanbeingsthanmaterialbodies. The idea that our minds survive the deaths of our bodies is known as the survival hypothesis, and although many people todayassociatebelief inanafterlifewith religious faith, it is important to remember that thisbelief longpredatesanyorganized religion. It isfoundintheoldshamanicspiritualbeliefsofhunter-gatherersfromaroundtheworld,anddatesbackatleasttotheNeanderthals,whoburied their dead with flowers, jewelry, and utensils, presumably for use in the next world. Reports of phenomena suggesting thecontinuedexistenceofthosewhooncelivedonEarthhavecomefromvirtuallyallknowncultures,andhavecontinuedintothemodernage.Aswewillsee,themostconvincingevidencehasbeengatheredunderrigorousconditionsoverthelast125years. The evidence in favor of an afterlife is vast and varied, and comes from near-death experiences, deathbed visions, childrenwhoremember previous lives, apparitions, and communications through mediums. In my previous book, Science and the Near-DeathExperience,Idiscussthefirst twolinesofevidenceindepth.InthisbookIconcentrateontheevenmoreimpressivelast threelinesofevidence. Part1,“Reincarnation,”explores thisancient ideabyexaminingcontemporary reportsofchildrenwhoclaim to rememberpreviouslives.AlthoughmostpeopleassociateabeliefinreincarnationwiththereligionsoftheFarEast,itisshownthatthisbeliefhashistoricallybeenfoundamongculturesallovertheEarth.Assuch,modernreportsfromchildreninavarietyofculturesandlocationsarecriticallyexaminedinordertoseehowsuchevidencestandsuptocriticalscrutiny. Part2,“Apparitions,”considerstheancientandwidespreadbeliefthatthedepartedsometimesreturntovisitthelivingintheformofapparitions.We carefully examine accounts of apparitions, including accounts in which they are reported by numerous eyewitnesses,accounts inwhich animals also seem to perceive them, and accounts inwhich the apparitions behavewith a purpose of their own andsometimes convey information unknown to the living. Skeptics have challenged the testimony of these witnesses, and we carefullyscrutinizethesechallenges. Part3,“MessagesfromtheDead,”evaluates theevidencethat thedepartedarecapableofdetailed, two-waycommunicationwiththe living through talentedhumanmediums.Although this ideacanalsobe traced toancient times,modernscholarly researchershaverigorously and thoroughly examined the validity of communication throughmediums for well over a century.We carefully examinealternativeexplanationsinordertoseehowwelltheystanduptothebestcases,andthereaderwillseewhymediumisticcommunicationisconsideredthemostconvincingsinglelineofevidenceforsurvival. Finally,part4,“Conclusions,”summarizes thecaseforsurvivalas it stands today,basedonallof theavailable linesofevidence.Thebookconcludeswithasampleofmessagespurportingtocomedirectlyfromtheafterworld. Theexperiencesdescribedinthepagesthatfollowhaveimportantimplicationsforhumanity.Baseduponmyownexperienceandthatofmanyothers,Isincerelybelievethatdeeplybeneficialchangesinourviewoftheuniverseandourplacewithinitwillbegainedbythosewhoreadaboutthesestrangeandoftenwonderfulexperiences,andthentaketheirprofoundlessonstoheart. Mostpeoplebasetheirbeliefsregardingtheafterlifeonreligiousormaterialisticfaith.Butthereisathirdalternative,onethatrequiresneitheraleapoffaithnorthedenialofevidence.However,asphilosopherCarlBeckerhaswritten, thisthirdalternativecomeswithanunusualrequirement:

Wemustalwayswalkatightrope:weareexaminingdataoftenignoredbythescientificcommunityandembracedbythereligiouscommunity, butwe are usingmethodology that is advocated by the scientific community and ignored bymuch of the religiousworld.Thereforeweshouldexpecttobecriticizedbydogmatistsfrombothsidesofthefence.2

Thepurposeofthisbookistoexaminethemostconvincingancientandmodernevidencefortheexistenceoftheafterlife;tocarefully

consideralltheskepticalobjections;andfinally,toarriveatasolutiontothisdeepandancientmystery.

PsychicPhenomenaandtheNear-DeathExperience

Background

Although this is the thirdand finalbook ina trilogy, it isnotnecessary to read the first twobooksbefore reading thisone.However,becausethefirsttwobookscontainmuchofthebackgroundformanyofthemainpointsofthisbook,itisusefultosummarizeheresomeoftheirconclusions.Thosereaderswhoareinterestedinpursuingtheseissuesinmoredepthmayalwaysconsulttheoriginaltexts. It isacuriousfact thatmost—althoughbynomeansall—ofthosewhodoubtordenythesurvivalofmindpast thepointofbodilydeath also deny the existence of psychic abilities, such as telepathy.As such,my first book,Science and Psychic Phenomena, wasprimarilyconcernedwithunderstandingwhyasubstantialminorityofthescientificcommunityhasbeenvehementlydenyingtheexistenceofpsychicabilitiessuchas telepathyforwelloveracentury.Atfirstglance, thismayseemverypuzzling:Reportsofpsychicabilitiesdatebacktothedawnofhistory,andcomefromculturesallovertheworld.Surveysalsoshowthatmostworkingscientistsacceptthepossibilitythattelepathyexists,1andmanyleadingscientistshaveendorsedandsupportedpsychicalresearch.2

Thosewhocallthemselves“skeptics”assertthatthereisnoreplicable,experimentalevidencefortheexistenceofpsychicabilities,nowcommonlycalledpsi (pronounced“sigh”).However,asIdescribedat lengthinmyfirstbook,high-quality,consistent, replicableexperimental evidence for the existence of psi has in fact been provided for decades.3 If this were any other field of inquiry, thecontroversywouldhavebeensettledbythedatadecadesago.However,parapsychologyisnotlikeanyotherfieldofinquiry.Thedataofparapsychologychallengedeeplyheldworldviews,worldviewsthatareconcernednotonlywithscience,butalsowithreligiousandphilosophicalissues.Assuch,theevidencearousesstrongpassions,andformany,astrongdesiretodismissit.

BASISOFTHECONTROVERSYItisimpossibletofullyunderstandthiscontroversywithoutrealizingthatithasastrongideologicalcomponent.Theideologyinvolvedisaproductof theuniquehistoryofWesterncivilization.Until theeighteenthcentury, thegreatmajorityofourphilosophersandscientiststook for granted the existence of psychic phenomena. Among educated people, all of this changed with the dawn of the ScientificRevolution,spanning theperiodbetweenthebirthofGalileo in1564andthedeathofNewtonin1727.During thisperiod theuniversecametobeviewedasagiganticclockworkmechanism,operatingasaself-regulatingmachineinaccordancewithinviolablelaws. Theseviewsbecameprevalentintheeighteenthcentury,duringwhatbecameknownastheEnlightenment,whichcanbethoughtofastheideologicalaftermathoftheScientificRevolution.Itsmoststrikingfeaturewastherejectionofdogmaandtraditioninfavoroftheruleof reason inhumanaffairs,and itwas theprecursorofmodernsecularhumanism. Inspiredby thedazzlingsuccessofdevelopments inphysics,prominentspokesmensuchasDiderotandVoltairearguedforanewworldviewbasedonanuncompromisingmaterialismandmechanismthatleftnoroomforanyinterventionofmindinnature,whetherhumanordivine. Thehorrorsof the religiouswarsandof the Inquisitionwerestill fresh inpeople’sminds,and thenewscientificworldview,canbeseenpartlyasareactiontotheecclesiasticaldominationoverthoughtthatthechurchheldforcenturies.TheScientificRevolutionoftheseventeenth century completely transformed the outlook of educated people, so that by 1750 the picture of a mechanistic universegovernedby inviolable lawshad established its holdon themindsofEnlightenment thinkers; nowsuch things as sorcery and secondsight seemed incredible at best, and vulgar superstition at worst. Lingering widespread belief in the reality of these phenomena wasconsideredtobetheunfortunatelegacyofasuperstitious,irrational,prescientificera. ThecounteradvocatesofparapsychologyatthepresenttimearethosewhoseethemselvesasheirsoftheEnlightenment,guardiansofrationalitywhomustatallcostsdiscreditanydangerousbackslidingintoreligiousfanaticismandsuperstition. ThescienceofNewton,Galileo,andKeplerhadbreathednew life into theancientphilosophyofmaterialism. It is thematerialisticworld-view that isdefendedbymodern secularhumanists,which they rightly seeas threatenedby theclaimsofparapsychology.Formanysecularhumaniststhewidespreadacceptanceoftheseclaimswouldbethefirststepinareturntoreligiousfanaticism,superstition,andirrationality. Modernsecularhumanistsandothermilitantatheistsare thedirectdescendantsof theEnlightenment thinkers, thephilosophes, andtheir thinking is, for the most part, still based on the materialism implied by classical physics. And materialism simply cannotaccommodate the reality of psi phenomena. If materialism is proven false by the data for psi, then one of the foundations of theiroppositiontoreligionandsuperstitionistherebyremoved.Hence,theirvehementdenialofanyevidencefortheexistenceofpsi.*1

The doctrine of materialism is one of the implications of taking classical physics to be a complete description of all of nature,includinghumanbeings.*2Itisessentiallytheideathatalleventshaveaphysicalcause:inotherwords,thatalleventsarecausedbytheinteractionbetweenparticlesofmatterandforcefields.Itfollowsfromthisthatmindhasnocausalroleinnaturebutisatmostmerelyauselessby-productproducedbythebrain,andsoinshort,allthatmattersismatter. Consideredasascientifichypothesis,materialismmakesaboldandadmirableprediction:psychicabilities,suchastelepathy,simplydonotexist.Iftheyareshowntoexist,thenmaterialismisrefuted.†3Ofcourse,inpractice,followersofatheorydonotalwaysadmit

defeatsoeasily,asthephilosopherofscienceKarlPopperremindedus.

Wecanalwaysimmunizeatheoryagainstrefutation.Therearemanysuchimmunizingtactics;andifnothingbetteroccurstous,wecanalwaysdenytheobjectivity—oreventheexistence—oftherefutingobservation.Thoseintellectualswhoaremoreinterestedinbeingrightthaninlearningsomethinginterestingbutunexpectedarebynomeansrareexceptions.4

Immunizingatheoryagainstrefutationturnsitintoanideology,abeliefheldasanarticleoffaith:abeliefwhosetruthissimplynot

questioned,because it is considered so important.This is justwhat thecriticsofparapsychologyhavedone, for the so-called skepticshavegonetoextraordinarylengthstotrytodismissandexplainawaythedata. Remarkstotheeffectthat“theexistenceofpsiisincompatiblewithmodernscience”arecommonintheskepticalliterature.However,itisrareforacritictoeverbackupthiscriticismwithspecificexamples.Onthoserareoccasionswhentheydo,5theyinvariablyinvokethe principles of classical physics, which have been known to be grossly and fundamentally incorrect since the early years of thetwentiethcentury.

MODERNPHYSICSDOESNOTPROHIBIT PSIPHENOMENAHowever,anumberof leadingphysicists, suchasHenryMargenau,DavidBohm,BrianJosephson,andOlivierCostadeBeauregard,haverepeatedlyclaimedthatnothinginmodernphysicsprohibitspsiphenomena.CostadeBeauregardevenmaintainsthatthetheoryofquantumphysicsvirtuallydemandsthatpsiphenomenaexist.6

There is no longer any conflict on a theoretical level between physics and reports of psychic abilities. Objections based on anincompatibilitywithphysicsaregroundedinatheoryofphysicsthathasbeenknowntobeobsoleteforoveracentury. Itisimportanttorememberthatmostso-calledskepticsofparapsychologyarenotphysicists,butpsychologists.Inoneofthesurveysmentioned above,Evans found that only 3 percent of natural scientists consideredESP “an impossibility,” compared to 34 percent ofpsychologists. And many of the most prominent “skeptics”—such as Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, and JamesAlcock—arepsychologists. Accordingly, the great psychologist Gardner Murphy, a president of the American Psychological Association and later of theAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch,hasurgedhisfellowpsychologiststobecomebetteracquaintedwithmodernphysics.

[T]he difficulty is at the level of physics, not at the level of psychology. Psychologistsmay be a little bewilderedwhen theyencountermodernphysicistswho take thesephenomena in stride, in fact, take themmuchmore seriously thanpsychologistsdo,saying,asphysicists,thattheyarenolongerboundbythetypesofNewtonianenergydistribution,inversesquarelaws,etc.,withwhichscientistsusedtoregardthemselvesastightlybound...[P]sychologistsprobablywillwitnessaperiodofslow,butdefinite,erosionoftheblandlyexclusiveattitudethathasoffereditselfastheonlyappropriatescientificattitudeinthisfield.Thedatafromparapsychologywill be almost certainly inharmonywithgeneral psychological principles andwill be assimilated rather easilywithinthesystematicframeworkofpsychologyasasciencewhenoncetheimaginedappropriatenessofNewtonianphysicsisputaside,andmodernphysicsreplacesit.7

Genuine skepticism is an important part of science.New claimsmust be subjected to themost severe critical scrutiny and rigorous

testing ifwe are tominimize our chances ofmistakenly accepting false claims.However, genuine skepticism involves the practice ofdoubt,notofdenial.AndsoIarguedinmyfirstbookthatmostoftheso-calledskepticsofpsiarenottrueskeptics,butmerelydeniers. Onefinalpointneedstobemadehereregardingtherelevanceofpsiabilitiestothesurvivalhypothesis.Imentionedearlierthatmostof thosewhodoubtordeny the survivalofmindpast thepointofbodilydeathalsodeny theexistenceofpsychicabilities.However,thereareskepticsofsurvivalwhodonotdoubttheexistenceofpsi;neitherdotheytrytodismisstheevidenceforsurvivalasfraudulent.Rather,theyarguethatacombinationoftelepathyandclairvoyance*4canexplainthedatabetterthantheideaofsurvival. Hence,oneoftheotherreasonsIstartedthisserieswithabookonthecontroversyovertheexistenceofpsiisthatIwantedtofullyexploreanddiscussthenatureofpsiabilities,inordertoeffectivelydealwiththisskepticalobjection.ThepresentbookfullyexploresanddiscussesthenatureofthesurvivalevidenceandalsocontainsacriticalexaminationoftheideathatESP—orevenSuper-ESP—canexplaintheevidencebetterthanthehypothesisofsurvival.

THERELATIONSHIPBETWEENMINDANDBRAINMysecondbook,ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience,beganbyexaminingthequestionofwhetherornotconsciousnessdependsonthebrain.Obviously,ifconsciousnessdependsforitsexistenceonamaterialbrain,thenourmindscannotsurvivethedestructionofthebrain.So,variousmaterialist theories to thateffectwereexamined,and itwas shown thatall thearguments for thedependenceof themental on the physical—such as the effects of age, disease, brain damage, and drugs on the mind—are all based on an unstatedassumption. Theimplicitassumptionmadeinall thematerialistargumentswasthat therelationshipbetweenbrainactivityandconsciousnesswasalways one of cause to effect, and never that of effect to cause. But this assumption is not known to be true, and it is not the onlyconceivableoneconsistentwiththeobservedfactsmentionedabove.Justasconsistentwiththeobservedfactsistheideathatthebrain’sfunction is that of an intermediary between mind and body. In other words, that the brain’s function is that of a two-way receiver-transmitter:sometimesfrombodytomind,asinsenseperception;andsometimesfrommindtobody,asinwilledaction.

THETRANSMISSIONHYPOTHESIS

Theideathatthebrainfunctionsasanintermediarybetweenmindandbodyisanancientone.Butithasbeendiscussedandendorsedbymodern thinkers, such as Henri Bergson, William James, and Ferdinand Schiller. The form of interactive dualism implied by thisrelationshiphasalsobeenendorsedbyseveralmodernphilosophers, includingCurtDucasse,KarlPopper,RobertAlmeder,andNealGrossman, and by several prominent neuroscientists, including renowned brain surgeonWilder Penfield andNobel Laureate Sir JohnEccles. Inaddition,anentirechapterinmysecondbookisdevotedtoshowingwhymanyphysicistsnowbelievemodernphysicssupportsadualisticmodelofmind-brain interaction.Severalof thesephysicistshavegoneevenfurther,andhaveadvancedhypotheticalquantummechanicalmodelsthatproposetoexplainpreciselyhowanonphysicalmindmayinteractwithabrain.Ironically,thesedaysitispossibletobeamaterialistonlybyignoringthemostsuccessfultheoryofmattertheworldhasyetseen. I argued in the secondbook that the transmissionhypothesiscanexplaineverything theproductionhypothesisexplains, suchas theeffect of drugs and brain injury on themind. For any change in brain functioning, such as that resulting from intoxication or a stroke,shouldbeexpectedtoaffectitscapacityasareceiver-transmitterjustascertainlyasitscapacityasaproducer. Ifthemindmustinhabitabiologicalmachineinordertooperateinandmanifestitselfinthematerialworld,thenaslongasitisboundto thismachinewe should expect its operation andmanifestation to be affected by the condition and limitations of themachine. If themachine is impaired, then under both the production hypothesis and the transmission hypothesis, so too will be the operation andmanifestationofmind. However, thedualistic theory that themindplays agenuine, causal role innaturehas the advantageof alsobeingable to explainmany phenomena that are simply inexplicable under any doctrine ofmaterialism in whichmind is atmost only a useless by-productproducedbythebrain.Thesewouldincludetheplaceboeffect,cognitivebehavioraltherapy,andpsychicabilitiessuchastelepathy.

THEPRODUCTIONHYPOTHESISThemost dramatic phenomena that remains utterly inexplicable by the theory ofmaterialism is theNear-Death Experience (NDE), inwhichpeopleneardeathsometimesreportleavingtheirbodies,observingthesurroundingsceneindetail,travelingthroughatunnel,andsometimesmeetingdeceasedfriendsandrelatives,oramysterious“beingoflight.”Inmanyofthesecases,peopleaccuratelydescribeddetailsoftheirsurroundings,yetmedicalpersonnelpresentatthetimelatertestifiedthatthepersonwasdeeplyunconscious,withlittleifanybrainactivitypossible. ManyattemptshavebeenmadetoexplaintheNDEwithinamaterialistframework,andtheseweredealtwithinthesecondbook.AlltheattemptstoexplainawaytheNDEastheproductofamalfunctioningbrainwerecloselyexamined,andultimatelynotonestooduptocriticalscrutiny.TheconclusionfinallyarrivedatwasthattheNDEisexactlywhatitappearstobe:agenuineseparationofmindfrombodyduringtheearlystagesofbiologicaldeath. Thesecondbookdemonstratedthattheideathattheminddependsonthebrainhasbeenconclusivelyrefuted,andsoitisahypothesisthat no longer has the support of scientific evidence.Hence, it is unscientific to continue to accept it.Any continuing opposition to theevidencethatfalsifiesmaterialismisbasedonnothingmorethanignoranceorideology.*5

DENIERS,DEBUNKERS,ANDMILITANTATHEISM

In summary, the deniers and debunkers tend to be militant atheists who are motivated by allegiance to an obsolete worldview, byignoranceof the implicationsof thenewphysics,andbyahatredof religionandsuperstition. If theyadmitted to the realityofpsychicabilities, such as telepathy, and of near-death experiences as involving a genuine separation ofmind from body, then thematerialisticfoundation of their worldviewwould crumble. The deniers fear that the demise of materialismwould usher in a return to an age ofreligiouspersecutionand irrationality.This fear isevident in theapocalypticstrain tosomeof theCommittee’swriting.For instance, theannouncementofthefoundingofCSICOPstated:

Perhapsweoughtnottoassumethatthescientificenlightenmentwillcontinueindefinitely...liketheHelleniccivilization,itmaybeoverwhelmedbyirrationalism,subjectivism,andobscurantism.8

Butthesefearsseemtobeabsolutelygroundless.Asmentionedabove,surveysshowthatmostscientistsacceptthelikelyexistence

ofpsychicabilities.Amongthegeneralpublic,beliefintherealityofpsiphenomenaiswidespread,butpollshavealsoshownthatover90 percent of the public regard scientists as having “considerable” or even “very great” prestige.9 And many of the leading NDEresearchers are respected cardiologists and neuroscientists. So, society is unlikely to return to theDarkAges because ofwidespreadinterestinpsychicphenomenaandtheNDE. OnelastpointabouttheNDEisworthyofmention:mostoftheindividualswhohavehadanNDEfeelthatithasbeenthesinglemostsignificant event in their lives. The nature of the near-death experiencemay be controversial, but there is little disagreement that theexperienceusually has profound, life-changing aftereffects.These typically include a thirst for knowledge; increased compassion andtoleranceforothers;reducedcompetitiveness;reducedinterestinmaterialpossessions;anincreasedinterestinspirituality,coupledwithadecreasedinterestinsectarianreligion;agreaterappreciationforlife,coupledwithagreatlyreducedfearofdeath;andmoststrikingly,agreatlyincreasedbeliefinanafterlife. PeoplewhohavehadanNDEareoftenchangedforthebetterbytheexperience,andreturnwithavitalmessageforhumanity:after

deaththereismore,andthepurposeoflifeistogrowinloveandknowledge. Similarly,thereseemtobeimportantmessagescontainedintheexperiencesdescribedinthepagesthatfollow.Butitisnotnecessarytodirectlyexperiencethesephenomenainordertolearnfromthem. Ifyouareencounteringtheselinesofevidencehereforthefirsttime,thenyoumayperhapsbeastonishedatthevarietyandquantityoftheevidenceforsurvival.If,ontheotherhand,youaresomewhatfamiliarwiththisevidence,thenyoumaybesurprisedtofindouthowwellthebestevidenceholdsuptocloseandcarefulscrutiny.Ourpre-scientificancestorsacceptedsurvivalofdeathasamatterofcourse, until the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century seemed to provide theoretical support for the ancient doctrine ofmaterialism.Modern science—as opposed to classical science—provides no such support for materialism. Ironically, the twenty-firstcenturyapplicationofthescientificmethodofempiricalhypothesistestingmaynowrestoretheideaofsurvivaltoapositionstrongerthananyithaseveroccupied.

PARTI

Reincarnation

WereanAsiatictoaskmeforadefinitionofEurope,Ishouldbeforcedtoanswerhim:Itisthatpartoftheworldwhichishauntedbytheincredibledelusionthatmanwascreatedoutofnothing,andthathispresentbirthishisfirstentranceintolife.

ARTHURSCHOPENHAUER

ONE

EvidencefromIndiatoEngland

Reincarnationisanancientbelief,onefoundinmanywidelyseparatedpartsof theworld.Westernersfrequentlyassociate thebelief inreincarnationexclusivelywiththeHindusandBuddhistsofSoutheastAsia,butthisisamisconception.DespitethebesteffortsofChristianmissionaries,abeliefinreincarnationpersistsamongthetribesofeastandwestAfrica,thenativetribesofnorthwestNorthAmerica,theEskimoofthearctic,theTrobriandIslandersoftheSouthPacific,theAinuofnorthernJapan,theDrusesofLebanon,andtheAboriginesof central Australia. There are some religions outside the scope of the Judeo-Christian tradition that do not include a belief inreincarnation; but as one leading researcher in the fieldwrote, “Nearly everyone outside the range of orthodoxChristianity, Judaism,Islam,andScience—thelastbeingasecularreligionformanypersons—believesinreincarnation.”1

AtonetimethebeliefinreincarnationwasalsocommoninpartsoftheWesternworld.ThePythagoreansofancientGreecetaughtadoctrineofreincarnation,andPlatoexpoundedtheideaofreincarnationinPhaedoandtheRepublic.TheCeltsofGreatBritainbelievedinreincarnation,asdidtheVikingsofScandinavia.InsouthernEuropeatleastsomeChristiansbelievedinreincarnationupuntilthesixthcentury.Althoughitwasnotpartofofficialinstruction,leadersofthechurchappeartohavetoleratedthebeliefasacceptable,untiltheCouncilofNicein553CE.Ithasbeenarguedthattheactionsofthiscouncildidnotconstituteabindingofficialban,asthecouncilwasnotcalledbythepope.2However,adeclineintheacceptabilityoftheideasetinamongorthodoxChristiansataboutthistimeandhaspersistedeversince.*6

ThelatetwentiethcenturydidwitnesssomethingofarenaissanceinthebeliefinreincarnationintheWest.AGalluppollconductedin1968showedthat18percentofpeopleineightcountriesofWesternEuropebelievedinreincarnation,andasurveyayearlatershowedthat 26 percent of Canadians questioned said they believed in reincarnation. In a 1982 survey, 23 percent of American respondentsclaimed tohold thisbelief.3By the late1960s reincarnationevenbegan toappear inpopular culture, andhasappearedasa theme inliterature,film,andmusic.†7

How did reincarnation come to be such a widespread belief in the premodern world, shared by people separated by enormousdistancesoverlandandsea?ThebeliefinreincarnationcanbetracedinIndiatoatleast1000BCE,anditdoesseempossiblethatthebeliefinAsiacanbetracedtoacommonsource.ItseemsfarlesslikelythatanEskimoinnorthernCanadaandavillageroftheGangesValleyacquiredtheirbeliefsfromacommonsource;andevenlesslikelythatthebeliefinreincarnationspreadfromsouthAsiatowestAfrica,theCelticBritishIsles,andtocentralAustralia. Ifthebeliefdidnotariseinasinglelocationandthenspreadtootherregions,itmusthavearisenindependentlyinseverallocations.Howcouldthishaveoccurred?

A skeptic could argue that the belief in an afterlife is comforting to those left behind, and that this is sufficient to account for thewidespreadbeliefinanafterlife.Butthisdoesnotseemsufficienttoaccountforthespecificbeliefthatthedeceasedwillberebornintothisworld,asopposedtosimplyspendingeternityinsomeotherworldlyrealm.Someadditionalfactorseemstoberequired.Onesuchpossibilityisthatsomeindividualsindifferentpartsoftheworldhaveclaimedtorememberhavinglivedbefore. Thereare several ancientaccountsofclaims to rememberprevious lives: for instance,bothPythagorasandApolloniusclaimed torememberhavinglivedbefore.Inthesixteenthcentury,TulsiDas,thetranslatoroftheRamayana,claimedtorememberapreviouslife.Intheeighteenthcentury,theMogulEmperorAurangzeb,althoughaMuslimwhodidnotbelieveinreincarnation,wassufficientlyopen-mindedtointerrogatewitnessestoacaseinthemannerofamoderninvestigator.Intheearlynineteenthcentury,aJapaneseboynamedKatsugoroseemedtorememberthelifeofafarmer’sson.Afterthiscase,noothercasesappearedtohavebeendocumenteduntil1898,whenthesummariesofsixBurmesecasesappearedinprint.4

Between1900and1960anumberofcases,mostlyfromIndia,werereportedinnewspapers,magazines,journals,andbooks.Mostwere reports of only a single case, and so were easily dismissed as superstitious tales of imagination. But in the 1950s, psychiatryprofessorDr. IanStevenson began to collect and systematically compare such accounts.After finding forty-four reasonably detailedaccountsthatcouldnotbeeasilydismissedasfraudulent,Stevensonpublishedanarticlein1960thatstartledmanyofhisreaderswiththeconclusionthatthecasesprovidedsufficientlystrongevidenceforreincarnationtojustifyfurtherresearchofsimilarcases.5Hedidnothavelongtowait. In1961helearnedaboutanewcase inIndia, receivedasmallresearchgrant togothere,andthusbeganhisfieldinvestigations. NothingpreparedStevensonfor theabundanceofcasesofclaimedmemoriesofpast lives thathefoundinIndiaafterhearrived—during his first five weeks in India he learned of no fewer than twenty-five cases. Since then, Stevenson and his colleagues haveinvestigated thousands of reincarnation cases, with over 250 cases intensively investigated. In 1966 he published his landmark book

TwentyCasesSuggestiveofReincarnation,andhasfollowedupthisbookwithseveralothers.TheresurgenceofinterestinreincarnationintheWestsince1960is,inlargepart,duetotheresearchofStevensonandhiscolleagues. Stevensonemploysresearchmethodsthathavebeenusedbylawyersandhistoriansforcenturies.Hisprimarymethodistointerviewthe subject and all firsthandwitnesses.Repeated interviews are usually heldwith themost important informants in order to check theconsistencyof theirreports,andtostudydetailspreviouslymissed.Inaddition,Stevensonlocatesandcopiesbirthcertificates,hospitalrecords,andreportsofpostmortemexaminationsinordertosubstantiatedetailsofthewitnesses’accounts. Inatypicalcase,achildbetweentheagesoftwoandfivebeginstospeakofapreviouslife.Insomecasesthisoccursassoonasthechildisabletospeak,althoughitisoftentriggeredbyanincidentorobservationthatisrelatedtothosememories.Oftenthechildwilluseadultexpressionsandbehaveinawaythat isstrangeforachild,butwhichseemsentirelyappropriatefor thepreviouspersonality.Thememories of the previous life usually begin to fade by ages five or six, and are usually gone by age eight, although there areexceptions to this rule. The unusual behavior and dispositions generally persist for some time after the specific memories havedisappeared,althoughthesetooseemtofadewithtimeandmaturity. LetusnowconsidersomespecificcasesStevensonhascollected.

TheCaseofCorlissChotkinJr.ThiscasestartedwithapredictionbyanelderlyTlingetfishermannamedVictorVincent,who,shortlybeforehisdeathinAlaska,toldhisniece,IreneChotkin,thathewouldberebornasherson.HeshowedMrs.Chotkintwoscars,oneonhisnoseandoneonhisback,andtoldherthatshewouldrecognizehimbybirthmarksonhisbodycorrespondingtothesescars.VictorVincenthadbecomeveryfondofhisnieceandtoldher:“IknowIwillhaveagoodhome.” Inthespringof1946,VictorVincentdied.Abouteighteenmonthslater,onDecember15,1947,Mrs.Chotkingavebirthtoababyboy,whowasnamedafterhisfather.CorlissChotkinJr.hadtwobirthmarks,whichhismothersaidwereofexactlythesameshapeandlocationasthescarsVictorVincenthadpointedtoinhispredictionofhisrebirth. OnedaywhenCorlisswas thirteenmonthsold,hismotherwas trying togethim to repeathisname. Instead,he repliedpetulantly,“Don’tyouknowme? I’mKahkody.”VictorVincenthadbeena full-bloodedTlinget,andKahkody hadbeenhis tribalname.WhenMrs.Chotkintoldoneofherauntsabouttheboy’sclaimtobeKahkody,theolderwomanclaimedthatshehaddreamedshortlybeforeCorliss’sbirththatVictorVincentwascomingtolivewiththeChotkins.Mrs.ChotkinwassurethatshehadnottoldherauntaboutVictorVincent’spredictionbeforesheheardaboutthisdream. WhenCorlisswastwoyearsoldandbeingwheeledalongthedocksbyhismother,hespontaneouslyrecognizedastepdaughterofVictorVincent. Theywere not there tomeet her, and neitherMrs. Chotkin nor her other child had noticed thewoman beforeCorlisspointedherout.Corliss showedgreat excitementon seeingher, jumpingupanddown, saying“There’smySusie.”Corlisshuggedheraffectionately,calledherbyherTlingittribalname,andkeptrepeating“MySusie.” Onanotheroccasionwhenhewastwo,CorlissspontaneouslyrecognizedVictor’ssonWilliam,saying,“ThereisWilliam,myson.”OnanotherherecognizedthewidowofVictorVincent,andonseveralotheroccasionsherecognizedoldfriendsofVictorVincent.AlltheserecognitionsoccurredbythetimeCorlisswassixyearsold. AccordingtoCorliss’smother,hehadalsomentionedtwoeventsinVictorVincent’slifethatshedidnotthinkhecouldhavelearnedaboutnormally.Inaddition,hesharedseveralbehavioraltraitswithVictorVincent:Corlisscombedhishairinaverysimilarmanner;likeVictor,Corlissalsostuttered;bothwereleft-handed;andbothhadastronginterestinboatsandbeingonthewater.Corlissalsoshoweda precocious aptitude for handling and repairing engines, and, according to hismother, had taught himself to run boat engineswithoutlessons. Aftertheageofnine,Corlissmadefewerremarksaboutthepreviouslifeheseemedtoremember,andwhenStevensoninterviewedhimin1962,whenhewasfifteen,hesaidherememberednothingofthepreviouslife.By1972,whenStevensonmethimforthelasttime,Corlisshadalmostcompletelyovercomehisstuttering,althoughhemaintainedhisinterestinboatengines.6

TheCaseofthePollockTwins

OnMay5,1957,acrazedautomobiledriverdeliberatelydrovehercarontothesidewalkofastreetinHexham,England,killingtwosisters, Joanna and Jacqueline Pollock,who had beenwalking to Sunday school. Joannawas eleven years old, Jacqueline six. Thedriverhadbeendistraughtoverlosingherownchildreninacustodybattle,andwaslaterconfinedtoamentalhospital. The parents grieved, but JohnPollock believed that the girls had survived death, and felt that they remained close to the family.WhenhiswifeFlorencebecamepregnantagainearlyin1958,heconfidentlyassertedthatthetwodeceasedsisterswouldberebornastwins.Despite theopinionofherphysician that shewouldhavea singlebaby (hecouldonlyhearone fetalheartbeat),onOctober4,1958,FlorencePollockgavebirthtotwingirls. John andFlorence soon noticed that Jennifer, the younger twin, had two birthmarks that corresponded in location and size to twomarksonJacqueline’sbody.Onewasonherforehead,andmatchedascarthatpersistedonJacqueline’sforeheadaftershehadfallenandcutherself.Theotherwasonherleftside,andmatchedasimilarcongenitalmarkthathadbeenonJacqueline. BothGillianandJenniferwerealittleslowinacquiringspeech,notreallyspeakingcoherentlyuntiltheywereaboutthreeyearsold.Betweentheagesofthreeandsixtheymadeafewstatementsaboutthelivesoftheirdeceasedsisters,andrecognizedsomeobjectsthattheirdeceasedsistershadowned.One incidentconcernedacoupleofdolls thathadbeenpackedinaboxandput inanatticafter the

deathsofJoannaandJacqueline.YearslatertheboxwasopenedandthedollsweregiventoGillianandJennifer,whoidentifiedthemas“Mary”and“Susan,”thenamesthedeadgirlshadgiventhem.GillianclaimedtheonethathadbelongedtoJoanna,andJenniferclaimedtheonethathadbelongedtoJacqueline. Whenthetwinswerelessthanayearold,thefamilyhadmovedawayfromHexham.Thetwinsdidnotreturnthereuntiltheirparentstook them there on a trip when they were about four. According to their father, the twins spontaneously mentioned two places—aplaygroundandaschool—beforethesecameintoview.JohnPollockdidnotbelievethattherewasanynormalwaythegirlscouldhaveacquiredknowledgeoftheschoolorthepark. Thebehaviorofthetwinsalsocorrespondedinsomerespectswiththatoftheirdeceasedsisters.Jenniferwassomewhatdependentonheroldertwin,Gillian,justasJacquelinehadbeenonheroldersister,Joanna.GilliangavethegeneralimpressionofbeingmorematurethanJennifer,andlikeJoanna,wasverygenerous,andmoreinterestedinplayactingwithcostumesthanhersister.CommentsontheCaseofthePollockTwinsStevensonfirstlearnedofthiscasethroughnewspaperpublicityitreceivedinthespringof1963,andmetthefamilyattheirhomeinthefallof thatyear.Criticsof thecasehavepointedout thatsinceJohnPollockbelievedinreincarnation,andthathisdeceaseddaughterswouldreturntothefamily,hemayverywellhavetalkedaboutthedeadgirlsinfrontofthetwins.Whenajournalistraisedtheobjectionthathispriorbeliefinreincarnationmayhavebiasedhisobservationsandreports,herepliedthatifhehadnotbelievedinreincarnation,hewould not have noted and remembered the remarks and behaviors of his twin daughters thatmost otherWestern parentswould haveignoredorridiculed. StevensonremainedintouchwiththePollockfamilyuntil1985,andbythattimeGillianandJenniferhadgrownuptobecomenormalyoungwomen.Longbeforethat,theyhadcompletelyforgottenthememoriestheyhadofotherlives,andweremildlyskepticalaboutwhetherornotreincarnationdidoccur.However,theydidnotchallengeordenythetestimonyoftheirparents,andwillinglyparticipatedinatelevisionprogramthatwasalmostentirelydevotedtotheircase.7

Inthesetwocasesthechildrendidnotrepeatanythingthattheirfamilymembersdidnotalreadyknow.Butthefollowingtwocasesareverydifferentinthisregard.

TheBishenChandCaseBishenChandKapoorwasbornin1921,inBareilly,India.Ashegraduallygainedthepowerofspeech,hebegantospeakofapreviouslifeinPilibhit,atownapproximatelyfiftykilometerseastofBareilly.NooneinBishen’sfamilyknewanyonethere. ButbythetimeBishenChandwasfive,hehadmentionedmanydetailsofapreviouslife.HeclaimedthathisnamehadbeenLaxmiNarain, and that he had an uncle namedHarNarain.He also claimed that his father had been awealthy landowner, and frequentlyexpresseddisdainforhispresentfamily’spoverty.Hisfatherearnedthemeagersalaryofaclerkintherailwayservice,andcouldonlysupporthisfamilywithdifficulty.BishenChandreproachedhisfatherforhispoverty,torecottonclothesoffanddemandedsilkones,andcomplainedthateventheservantsinhispreviouslifewouldnottouchthefoodtheyinsistedheeat. Once,whenBishenChandwasaboutfive,hisoldersistercaughthimdrinkingbrandy,whichfinallyexplainedthediminishingsupplyof brandy that his family kept in the house formedicinal purposes.When thismatterwas discussedwith him, he claimed that hewasaccustomedtodrinking.Onanotheroccasionaroundthistime,herecommendedthathisfatheracquireamistress.Heclaimedtohavehadamistressinhispreviouslife,andboastedthathehadoncekilledamanhehadspottedcomingoutofherapartment.Theinfluenceofhiswealthyfamily,hesaid,hadenabledhimtoescapepunishment. BishenChand’sfathermentionedhisson’sstatementstoanotherman,who,inturn,informedK.K.Sahay,aprominentandrespectedattorneyinBareilly.Sahaybecameinterestedinthecase,andvisitedBishenChand’sfamilyinthesummerof1926,writingdowntwenty-onestatementstheboymadeaboutthelifeheclaimedtoremember.HepersuadedBishenChand’sfathertoundertakeavisittoPilibhittoverifytheboy’sstatements,andonAugust1,1926thetwomentookBishenChandandhisolderbrothertoPilibhit. OnceinPilibhit,BishenChandrecognizedvariousplacesandmadeadditionalstatementsabouthispreviouslife.Acrowdofcuriousonlookersgathered,andsomeoneproducedanoldphotographofLaxmiNarainandHarNarain. In thepresenceof thecrowdBishenChandputhisfingeronthephotographofHarNarainandsaid“HereisHarNarainandhereI,”whichseemedtoestablishhisidentityasLaxmiNarain,althoughHarNarainturnedouttobehisfather,nothisuncle. LaxmiNarainhadbeenthespoiledsonofawealthylandowner,whohaddiedtwoyearsbeforeBishenChandwasborn.AfterHarNarainhaddiedwhenLaxmiwasabouteighteen,Laxmihadsquanderedthefamilyfortuneonhighlivinganddebauchery,although,likehisfather,healsoseemstohavebeengenerousindonatinghismoneytotheneedy.HehadbeeninvolvedwithaprostitutewhostilllivedinPilibhit,andinajealousragehadoncekilledamanhespottedcomingoutofherapartment.Hisfamilywasinfluentialenoughtogetthechargesdropped,buthediedofnaturalcausesafewmonthslater,attheageofthirty-two. TheattorneySahaypublishedhisaccountofthatremarkabledayinthenationalnewspaperTheLeaderinAugust1926.Accordingtothisaccount,BishenChandrecognizedthehouseofSanderLal,whichhehadpreviouslydescribedashavingagreengate.Sahayverifiedthat the gatewas paintedwith a faded varnish, butwas still green.He also recognized the house ofHarNarain,which,much to hisdistress,hadfallen intoastateofdisrepairandhadbeenabandoned.Hepointedout thecourtyardwherepartieshadbeenheld,notedwhereacollapsedstaircasehadoncestood,andpointedtowherethewomen’squartersonceexisted.Peopleinthecrowdfollowingtheboyrepeatedlyaskedhimfor thenameof theprostitutehehadassociatedwithinthepreviouslife.BishenChandreluctantlyanswered“Padma,”whichpeopleinthecrowdcertifiedwascorrect.

Whentheboywaspresentedwithasetoftabla—apairofdrums—hesurprisedhisfamilybyplayingthemskillfully,asLaxmiNarainhadbeenfondofdoing.HisfathersaidthatBishenhadneverevenseentablabefore.ThemotherofLaxmiNarainwasstillliving,andwhen theboywasbrought toher she askedhima seriesof test questions that convincedher thathewasher surviving son.Themostdramatic example concerned some treasure that itwas thoughtHarNarainhadhid inhishousebeforehedied.WhenLaxmi’smotheraskedBishenaboutthis,heledthewaytoaroomintheoldhouse.Afterasubsequentsearch,thetreasurewasfoundinthisroom,andturnedouttoconsistofgoldcoins. Nearly all ofBishenChand’s statements that couldbeverifiedwere correct.Of the twenty-one statements thatSahayhadwrittendownbeforeverificationwasattempted,fourteenweresubsequentlyverified.Sixitemswerenotverified,butmostofthesewerethoughttobealmostcertainlycorrect.8Onlyoneitemwaswrong—thenameofHarNarainwasgivencorrectly,butturnedouttobeLaxmi’sfather,nothisuncle. BishenChandclaimedthatLaxmiNarainhadknownhowtospeakUrdu,avariantofHindithatcivilservantsinIndiaatthattimewererequiredtouse.AsLaxmiNarainhadworkedingovernmentserviceforatime,thisdoesseemlikely.Bishen’solderbrother,Bipan,saidthatwhenBishenwasachildhecouldreadUrdudespitenotreceivinganyinstruction.Bishen’sfathertoldhowBishenunexpectedlyusedtwoUrduwordswhenhewasachild:masurateinsteadoftheHindiwordzenana(“women’squarters”)andkofal insteadoftheHindiwordtala(“lock”). Atanyrate, followingthefirstvisit toPilibhitat theageoffive,BishenestablishedaffectionaterelationswithLaxmi’smother,andaftershemovedtoBareillyhewouldvisitherfrequently.HealsoattemptedtoestablisharelationshipwithPadma,althoughshequitenaturallyconsideredthisinappropriate. WhenBishenwasachild,hehadaquicktemper.Asmentionedearlier,hischildhoodbehaviorwasthatofarichspoiledyoungman:hewouldfrequentlyboastofthemurderherememberedcommitting,wouldrebukehisparentsfortheirpoverty,andwoulddemandfoodandclothing thathisparentscouldnotafford.However, ashegrewolder,hisattitudegraduallychanged.Thememoryof themurderpersisted longafterothermemoriesof theprevious lifehad faded. Itgraduallyoccurred toBishen thatperhapshehadbeenborn intopovertybecauseofthemurderthatLaxmiNarainhadcommitted.Hebecameareformedperson,andwhenStevensonknewhiminlaterlife,heshowednotraceofviolentbehavior.Remorsehadreplacedhaughtiness;andStevensonfelthimselfinthepresenceofagenerouspersonoflimitedmeans,whohadlearnedthatmaterialgoodsandcarnalpleasuresdonotbringhappiness.9

CommentsontheBishenChandCaseInhisdetailedreviewofthiscase,Stevensonconsidersittobeofconsiderablesignificance.Numerousstatementswerewrittendownbyarespectedattorneybeforeverificationwasattempted,andmanypeoplewhohadpersonallyknownthepreviouspersonalitywerestillalivetoverifyBishen’sclaims.Inaddition,twoskillswereshown—playingthetablasandunderstandingUrdu—whichBishenapparentlyhadnowayofacquiringnormally.Asforthepossibilityoffraud,nofinancialgainwaspossible:itwaswellknownthatLaxmiNarainhadsquanderedthefamilyfortune,leavingthesurvivingmembersalmostdestitute,andunabletomaintainthefamilyhome.Finally,canwereasonablysupposethatafatherwouldwanthissontoboastofamurder,andtoscoffathisfamily’spoverty?

TheCaseofSwarnlataMishraSwarnlataMishra,daughterofSriM.L.Mishra,wasbornonMarch2,1948.Whenshewasthreeyearsold,herfamilylivedinPanna,andonedayherfathertookherwithhimonatrip170milessouth.Onthewayback,astheypassedthroughthecityofKatni—aboutahundredmilessouthofPanna—Swarnlataunexpectedlyaskedthedriverofthetrucktoturndownaroadtoward“myhouse.”Thedriverdidnot followher request, of course.A littlewhile later,when thegroupwas taking tea inKatni,Swarnlata toldher father that theycouldhavemuchbetterteaat“herhouse”nearby.Aspuzzlingasthesestatementswere,SriMishrabecameevenmorepuzzledwhenhelearnedthatSwarnlatalatertoldotherchildreninthefamilyfurtherdetailsaboutapreviouslifesheclaimedtorememberinKatni,aspartofafamilynamedPathak.Atthetime,theMishrafamilydidnotknowanyonebythenameofPathakinKatni. Twoyears later, theMishra familymoved fortymileswest toChhatarpur.When shewas about five, Swarnlata began performingunusual songs and dances, in a language incomprehensible to her parents. In 1958, when shewas ten and had been talking about apreviouslifeforaboutsixyears,SwarnlatametawomanfromtheareaofKatnithatsheclaimedtorecognizefromapreviouslifeinthatcity.SriMishrawasnowabletoconfirmsomeofhisdaughter’sstatements,andbegantotakethemmoreseriously.InMarch1959,SriH.N.Banerjee investigated thecase,andwrotedownninestatements thatSwarnlatamadeabout thePathakresidence inKatnibeforeattemptingverification.Stevensoninvestigatedthecasein1961,andcheckedthedetailsthatBanerjeehadreported. GuidedbySwarnlata’s statements,Banerjeehad found thePathak residence, and confirmed thenine statements.He found that herstatementscorrespondedcloselywiththelifeofBiya,daughterofafamilycalledPathakinKatni,anddeceasedwifeofamannamedPandey.Biyahaddiedin1939,nineyearsbeforeSwarnlatawasborn.SomeofSwarnlata’sstatements—suchasherdescriptionofthefamilyhousebeingonlypartlyfinished—werenolongertrue,buthadbeentruetwentyyearsearlierwhenBiyawasliving. In the summer of 1959,members of the Pathak family and of Biya’smarital family traveled to Chhatarpur tomeet her.Withoutintroductions,Swarnlatarecognizedallofthem,calledthembytheircorrectname,andrelatedpersonalincidentsconcerningthemthatBiyawouldhaveknown.ThePathakscametoacceptSwarnlataasBiyareborn.Shortlyafterthesevisits,SwarnlataandmembersofherfamilytraveledtoKatniandthentoMaihar,wherethedeceasedBiyahadlivedmuchofhermarriedlifeandhaddied.Inthesetownssherecognizedadditionalpeopleandplaces,andcommentedonthechangesthathadtakenplacesincethedeathofBiya.Ononeinstance,sherecognizedafriendofthePathakfamily,andthencorrectlypointedoutthatthemandidnotwearspectacleswhenBiyaknewhim;onanotheroccasion,sheinquiredaboutaparapetatthebackofthePathakresidenceinKatni,whichhadbeenremovedsincethedeathof

Biya.All together herwitnessed recognition of people amount to twenty, and despite several attempts tomislead her, shewas neverfooled. As mentioned earlier, Swarnlata began performing songs and dances when she was about five, in a language that wasincomprehensible to her parents. The language of the songs was identified as Bengali by Professor P. Pal, a native of Bengal. Thisseemed topresent aproblem:bothSwarnlata andBiya spokeHindi, andneitherhad learnedBengali.Swarnlata claimed that shehadlearnedthesongsanddancesfromafriendnamedMadhu,duringapreviouslifeinbetweenthelivesofBiyaandSwarnlata.ShestatedthatafterherlifeasBiya,shewasrebornasagirlnamedKamleshinSylhet, livedtoaboutnine,andwasthenrebornintotheMishrafamily.AlthoughStevensoncouldnotidentifyachildwhoselifecorrespondedwiththefragmentaryinformationgivenbySwarnlata,hedidthinkthatheraccountoflifeinSylhetcontainedseveralplausiblefeatures,suchasdetailsofgeography.Perhapsofmoreimportance,thepeopleofSylhetspeakmostlyBengali.AlthoughthenameKamleshisunusualforaBengalifamily,anon-Bengalispeakercould,ofcourse, learn a song from aBengali friend. It should be noted that Swarnlata could not translate thewords for her parents, and thatSwarnlata’s parentswere certain that she had not had contactwithBengali-speaking persons fromwhom she could have learned thesongs.*8Althoughthesongshadbeenrecordedandplayedincertainfilms,Swarnlata’sparentshadnotheardthesesongsbefore.Sincefemale children inAsia are kept under close surveillanceby their families, it seemsverydoubtful thatSwarnlata couldhave learnedthesesongsanddanceswithoutherparents’knowledge. Asmentioned,thePathakfamilyacceptedSwarnlataasBiyareborn.AmongmembersofherpresentfamilyinChhatarpur,Swarnlatabehavedlikeachild,althoughshewassomewhatmoreseriousandmaturethantheaveragechildherage.ButamongthePathaks,shebehavedlikeanoldersisterofmenfortyormoreyearshersenior,whocompletelyacceptedherastheiroldersisterreturned.Oneofherbrothers, Rajendra Pathak, stated that he had no convictions regarding reincarnation prior to Swarnlata’s visit, which had completelychangedhismind. Swarnlata’s behavior around Biya’s children depended on who was present. If the parents or elders of her current family werearound,shewasreserved.ButMurliPandeyreportedthatifSwarnlatawasalonewithhimorherbrother,sherelaxedandtreatedthemasamotherwouldtreathersons—despitethefactthathewasthirty-fivein1961andSwarnlatawastwelve.Heandhisbrotherdidnotfind this behavior inappropriate, as they, too, accepted her asBiya reborn. Like his uncle, SriMurli Pandey also said that he did notbelieveinreincarnationuntilhemetSwarnlata. AsSwarnlatagrewoldershespokelessaboutapreviouslifeasBiya,butunlikemostotherchildrenwhoclaimtorememberpreviouslives,hermemoriesdidnotseemtofade.Herparentshaddonenothingtosuppressherstatements,andastheyearswentbysheremainedclosetobothherownandthePathakfamily.

TWO

CharacteristicsofReincarnationCases

Asmentionedearlier,inthetypicalcasethechildbeginsspeakingaboutapreviouslifebetweentheagesoftwoandfive.Thisseemstobetrueregardlessofthecultureintowhichthechildisborn.Ananalysisof235casesinIndiacarriedoutbyStevensonandhisassociatesshowedthat theaverageageatwhichthechildbegantospeakaboutapreviouslifewasthirty-eightmonths;asampleofseventy-fiveAmericancasesalsoshowedanaverageageofthirty-eightmonths,almostthesameascasesfromfiveothercultures.1

Thechildrenalmost always stop talkingaboutprevious livesbetween theagesof fiveandeight, althoughsomeseem topreservetheirmemoriesintoadulthood.However,withfewexceptions,achildwhoclaimstorememberapreviouslifehaslittlemorethanthreeyearstocommunicatehismemoriestootherpersons,andheoftenhasless. Childrenwhoclaimtorememberapreviouslifeareeasilyfoundincertainareasoftheworld.TheseincludenorthernIndia,SirLanka,Burma, Thailand, Lebanon, Syria, West Africa, and the northwestern region of North America. Regions of the world in which theinhabitantsbelieveinreincarnationtendtohaveahighdensityofreportedcases,butitwouldbeamistaketoassumethatcasesarenottobefoundinotherregions.SuchcasesseemtooccurinWesterncountriesmuchmorefrequentlythantheaverageWesternerrealizes,andStevenson and his colleagues have investigatedmany cases inEurope andNorthAmerica.They have also found some cases inAsiaamonggroupsofpeoplewhodonotbelieveinreincarnation,suchastheChristiansofLebanonandSriLanka. However, cases of reincarnation are much more frequently reported in countries in which most of the population believes inreincarnation.One obvious explanation for this is simply that such cases aremuchmore likely to be suppressed in cultureswhere themajorityofpeopledonotbelieveinreincarnation.Parentsofthesubjectmaythinkthechildistalkingnonsenseortellinglies,andtellhimorher toshutup.ButStevensonhasalsofound thateven incultureswithastrongbelief in reincarnation,parentssometimes try tosuppress a child’s statements about aprevious life.This seemsparticularly likelywhen theparentsdislikewhat the child is saying,ordislikethebehaviorthatcorrespondswiththechild’sstatements. Insomecultures thecase frequentlybeginswithaprediction,usuallybyanelderlyperson, thathewillbe reborn intoaparticularfamily after he dies. Such cases occur rarely inmost cultures, but Stevenson found in ten of forty-six Tlinget cases (22 percent) heinvestigatedthepreviouspersonalityhadindicatedhisdesiretoberebornintoaparticularfamily. Morecommonaredreamsinwhichadeceasedpersonappearstothedreamerandannounceshisdesireorintentiontoberebornintoaparticularfamily.Thepersonhavingsuchadreamisusuallyanexpectantmother,althoughthedreammayalsooccurtoherhusband,arelative,orafriend.Announcingdreamsarereportedinallcultures,butmorefrequentlyamongtheBurmese,theAlevisofTurkey,andthetribesofnorthwesternNorthAmerica.Stevensonrealizesthatsuchannouncingdreams,occurringbeforebirthorbeforeconception,lessenthevalueofevidencethatmayappearlaterinthecase,asit tendstobiastheattitudesoftheparents; itmayalsocausethemtoinfluencethechildtoadoptthebehaviorofthedeceasedperson,evenwithoutbeingawarethattheyaredoingso.Nevertheless,someannouncingdreamsdoseemtoindicateadeterminationofsomeindividualstoberebornintoaparticularfamily.StevensondescribesonesuchcaseinIndia:

Adaughterofthefamilywaskilledinanaccident.Later,hermotherhadadreaminwhichthedaughterseemedtoannounceherwishtobereborntoher.Rajani’smother,however,didnotwishtohaveanotherchildandinducedanabortion.Thedeceasedchildappearedagaininadreamandrebukedthemotherfornotlettingherreincarnate.Eventually,themotherconsentedandgavebirthtoRajani,wholaterrememberedthelifeofheroldersister.2

Theamountofdetailincludedineachchild’sstatementsseemstovarywidely,withsomerememberinglittleofapreviouslife,and

others,suchasSwarnlata,claimingalmosttotalrecall.Butinthemajorityofcases,themostvividmemoriestendtoconcerneventsinthelastyearof the lifeof thepersonremembered.For instance,more than three-quartersclaimtorememberhowthepreviouspersonalitydied.But the subject also usually remembers the name of the previous personality, and of somemembers of his circle of family andfriends. Most subjects have nothing at all to say about events between the death of the previous personality and their own birth. Theirmemoriesofanythinginbetweenareusuallyacompleteblank.Afewsubjects,however,doclaimtohavememoriesoftheintermediateperiod,andthesetaketwoforms:memoriesofterrestrialeventsandmemoriesofalifeinadiscarnaterealm. Inthefirsttype,thesubjectsclaimtohavestayednearwherethepreviouspersonalityhadlivedanddied,andtohavemonitoredlocalevents.OnesubjectinAsiaclaimedthathewatchedhismurderersdraghisbodyintoafield,andthenstayedinabambootreenearthemurder site for years, until he sawhis present father pass by, and followedhim tohis newhome.AThaimonk claimed to rememberattendinghisownfuneral,althoughhewasinvisibletotheguests.3

Thesecondtypeofmemoriesismorecommon:subjectsclaimtorememberspendingthetimebetweenlivesinanotherworld.Thesesubjectsrecallwithnostalgiaspendingsometimeinapleasantenvironment,andsometimesclaimthattheyeventuallymetasagelikeman

whobefriendedthem,andadvisedthemontheirnextrebirth. On rare occasions, subjects will claim to remember a previous life as a nonhuman animal. Hindus and Buddhists believe thatnonhumananimalsreincarnate,andarecapableofreincarnatingashumanbeings.However,StevensonhasfoundthatclaimedmemoriesofapreviouslifeasanonhumananimalareveryrareinAsiaandalmostcompletelyabsentelsewhere:hisinvestigationshaveuncoveredfewerthanthirtysuchcases.Forobviousreasons,mostoftheseclaimsaresimplyimpossibletoverify.

BEHAVIORALSIMILARITIESItmustbestressedthatmanysubjectswhoclaimtorememberapreviouslifeshowmuchmorethanmerememoriesoffactsandeventsinthepreviousperson’s life: theyalsoshowformsofbehavior thatmaybeunusual in thechild’s family,but thatcorrespond to traits thepreviouspersonalitywasknowntohavehad. Thesebehavioraltraitsareintheformoffears,likes,interests,andskills.Stevensonhasfoundthatinabout50percentofthecasesinwhichthepreviouspersonalitydiedviolently,thesubjectshowsaphobiacorrespondingtothewayinwhichthepreviouspersonalitydied.Ifthepreviouspersonalitydiedfromdrowning,thesubjectmayshowafearofwater;iffromgunshotwounds,heorshemayshowafearof firearms. Favoring (or having an aversion to) particular foods also seems common. It could be argued thatmany children share aparticularfear,like,orinterest;butmanyofthechildreninStevenson’scasesshowaclusterofbehaviorsthatsetthemapartfromtheirfamily,butwhichcharacterized theperson thechildclaims tohavebeen.MaTinAungMyo,agirl inBurma,claimed tohavebeenaJapanesesoldierstationedinBurmawhowaskilledafterbeingstrafedbyanenemyairplane.Assuch,sheshowedmasculinetraits,hadaphobia of airplanes, played at being a soldier, and longed for Japan.4 Bishen Chand disliked the food his family insisted he eat,complainedabouthaving towearcottonclothes, showeda fondness foralcoholandmeat,andgenerallybehaved likeaspoiledandarrogant youngman. These behaviors often persist long after the subject has forgottenmost or all of the previousmemories. BishenChand, for instance, continued to eat meat whenever he was away from his vegetarian family long after he had almost completelyforgottenthelifeofLaxmiNarain. Childrenwhoclaimtohavelivedapreviouslifeasanadultoftenseemtotheirelderstobemorematurethanotherchildrentheirownage.Someofthesechildrenadoptanattitudeofcondescensiontowardotherchildren,andeventowardsomeadults.Theirparentsmaydiscoverthattheycantrustthesechildrenwithgreaterresponsibilityatanearlieragethantheycanwiththeirotherchildren. Mostofthechildrenwhoclaimtohavebeenamemberoftheoppositesexinapreviouslifewillshow,invaryingdegrees,habitsofdressingandmannersofplayappropriatefor thesexofthepersonwhoselifetheyclaimtoremember.TheBurmesegirlMaTinAungMyoisaratherextremeexample:eventhoughshewasbornagirl,shecontinuedtoinsistthatshewasaJapaneseman,anddressedasamanintoadulthood.

FACTORSINFLUENCINGREINCARNATIONTimebetweenDeathandRebirthThe interval between the previous personality’s death and the subject’s birth is usually less than three years. In 616 cases from tendifferent cultures, Stevenson found that the median interval was fifteen months, although Stevenson says that in the cases he hasexamined,theintermissionlengthvariesfromafewhourstomorethantwentyyears.5

IncidenceofViolenceInseveralcultures,peoplebelievethataviolentdeathleadstoamorerapidreincarnation,andStevenson’sdatasupportsthisidea.InananalysisofcasesinbothNorthAmericaandIndia,therewasastatisticallysignificantshorterintervalbetweendeathandpresumedrebirthinthosecasesinwhichthepreviouspersonalityhaddiedaviolentdeath.6

Infact,oneofthemostprominentfeaturesofStevenson’scasesisthehighincidenceofviolentdeathamongthepreviouspersonalities.In725cases fromsixdifferent cultures,Stevensonandhis colleagues found that61percentof subjects remembered lives that endedviolently.7Thisincidencefarexceedstherateofviolentdeathinthecountriesinwhichthesecasesoccurred.UnfinishedBusinessAnother prominent feature of Stevenson’s cases seems to be a sense of unfinished business in the lives of most of the previouspersonalities—evenoftheminoritywhodiedanaturaldeath.Consideringthemajorityofhiscases,Stevensonwrites:

[W]ecanseethat...theirlivesendedinastateofincompleteness.Atthetimeofdeaththeymightall,fordifferentreasons,havefeltentitledtoalongerlifethantheonetheyhadhad,andthisinturnmighthavegeneratedacravingforrebirth,perhapsleadingtoaquickerreincarnationthanthatamongpersonswhodiedrepletewithlife,sotospeak,andatitsnaturalend.8

KarmaFinally, formanypeople theconceptof reincarnation is linkedwith theHinduandBuddhistconceptofkarma,according towhichourconduct in one life determines the circumstances we will find in a subsequent incarnation, although not necessarily the incarnationimmediatelyfollowingthecurrentlife.TheideaofretributivekarmaismostlypeculiartoHinduandBuddhistcultures,althoughseveralothercultureswithabeliefinreincarnationdocontainthebeliefthattheremaybesomecausallinksbetweenlives.However,Stevenson

writes:

In the cases that I have investigated, I have found no evidence of the effects of moral conduct in one life on the externalcircumstances of another. When I examine the cases that include the feature of a marked difference in socioeconomic statusbetween the families concerned, I can discern no pattern indicating that the vicious have been demoted in this respect and thevirtuouspromoted.9

Stevensonhasfoundonlyafewhintsofretributivekarma,suchasthecaseofBishenChand,whocametobelievethathispresentlife

ofpovertywasduetohisbehaviorinapreviouslife.However,despitethepaucityofevidence,Stevensonhasconcluded:

Although thecasesprovidenoevidence foraprocess like retributivekarma, thisdoesnotmean that conduct inone lifecannothave effects in another. Such effects, however, would not occur externally in the material conditions of successive lives, butinternallyinthejoysandsorrowsexperienced.Inthisrespect—andinitalone,Ithink—thecasesprovidehopeforimprovementinourselvesfromonelifetoanother.Thesubjectsfrequentlydemonstrateinterests,aptitudes,andattitudescorrespondingtothoseofthepersonswhoselivestheyremember.Thesesimilaritiesoccurnotonlyinmattersofvocationbutalsoinbehaviortowardotherpersons,thatis,inthesphereofmoralconduct.Onechildcountseveryrupeehecangrasp,liketheacquisitivebusinessmanwhoselifeheremembers;butanothergivesgenerously tobeggars, justas thepiouswomanwhose lifesheremembersdid.Oneyoungboy aims a stick at passingpolicemen, as if to shoot them, as did the banditwhose life he remembers; but another solicitouslyoffersmedicalhelptohisplaymatesinthemannerofthedoctorwhoselifeheremembers.

Thechildrenjustmentioned,however,didnotallremainsetintheattitudesofthepreviouslives,andIhavehadthepleasureofhearingabout, andoccasionallyobserving, thedevelopmentofdifferenthabits in someof them. In these evolutionswe see the effectofnewenvironmentsperhaps;butIthinkwealsoseetheinnergrowthofpersonalities,accomplishedonlybytheselfworkingonitself.ThereisadeeptruthinaremarkmadebyFriarGiles,oneofSt.FrancisofAssisi’sclosecompanions:“Everythingthatamandoeth,goodorevil,hedoethtohimself.”Thereisthen—ifwejudgebytheevidenceofthecases—noexternaljudgeofourconductandnobeingwhoshiftsusfromlifetolifeaccordingtoourdeserts.Ifthisworldis(inKeats’sphrase)“avaleofsoul-making,”wearethemakersofourownsouls.10

THREE

AlternativeExplanationsforReincarnationEvidence

Severalexplanationsfor thesereports,whichdonot involvereincarnation,havebeenproposed.Beforewedealwith these, letus firstaddressacommonlyproposedobjectiontotheveryideaofreincarnation.

POPULATIONINCREASEANDREINCARNATIONSomehaveobjectedtotheideaofreincarnationbynotingthattheworld’spopulationhasincreasedfromroughly5millionin8000BCEtoitspresentlevelofroughly5billion.Itisarguedthattherejustdonotseemtobeenoughhumanmindstoaccountfortheexplosionintheworld’shumanpopulation. Ofcourse,thisargumentisbasedontheassumptionthatthenumberofpersonsthereareorcanbeissomehowfixedorlimited,orthatthe duration between incarnations is fixed. However, there are other possibilities that are consistent with the population increase. Onepossibility,ofcourse, is thatmindspresently incarnated inhumanbodieshavebeenpromoted fromprevious lives innonhumanbodies.Another is that the interval between lives has not remained fixed, but has fluctuated. There may have been periods in which manydiscarnatemindswerewaitingforanopportunityforaterrestrialincarnation,ortoperhapsavoidone.Theconceptofreincarnationdoesnot,inandofitself,implyanyparticularassumptionsregardingthenumberofmindsavailable,whatsortsofbodiestheymayinhabit,orthelengthoftheintervalbetweenincarnations.Theobjectionbasedonthefactthatthehumanpopulationhasincreasedcarriesnoweightwhatsoever.

FRAUDAmoreseriousobjectiontotheevidenceisfraudonthepartofparticipantsinthecases.Criticspointtocasesinwhichthechildclaimstorememberapreviouslifeinmoreprosperouscircumstances,andraisethepossibilityoffraud,withpotentialfinancialgainasthemotive. Stevensondoesnotdenythatfraudulentcasesmayinfactoccur:hehasuncoveredonesuchcasehimselfinIndiathatwasdefinitelyahoax(perpetratedbythesubject),andhaslearnedoftwootherfakedcases—oneinIsraelandoneinLebanon.1ButcriticspointoutthatperhapsStevenson’snaïvetéandsloppymethodologyaccount for the fact thathehas failed touncoverevidenceof fraud in theothercases inwhich there is anobviousdisparityofwealthbetween thepresentcircumstancesof the subject and theprevious lifeheor sheclaimstoremember. However,thereareseveralreasonstoquestionthissimpleinterpretationoftheevidence.Firstofall,itisimportanttorememberthateven someofStevenson’s critics admirehis researchmethods.2AnthropologistP.K.Bock, past chairmanof the of theAnthropologyDepartment at theUniversity ofNewMexico and former editor of the Journal of Anthropological Research, reviewed Stevenson’swork andwrote that Stevenson “has had to findways to verify interviewdata thatmany readerswould accept if the topicwere lesscontroversial.”3

Second,itisalsoimportanttorememberthatStevenson’sresultshavebeenreplicatedbyothers.Stevensonissometimesportrayedasalonefanatic,butthisissimplymisleading.WehavealreadyseenthattheBishenChandcasewasfirstinvestigatedbylocalattorneyK.K. Sahay, and the SwarnlataMishra case was first investigated by Sri H. N. Banerjee. More recently, anthropologist AntoniaMillsstudiedtennewcasesinnorthernIndiaandconcludedthat“anindependentinvestigator,usingStevenson’smethodsofinvestigation,findscomparableresults.Someaspectsofthesecasescannotbeexplainedbynormalmeans.IfoundnoevidencethatthecasesIstudiedaretheresultoffraud.”4MillslaterjoinedpsychologistsErlendurHaraldssonandJurgenKeilinanotherreplicationstudyof123casesinBurma,Thailand,Turkey,SriLanka, and India,which concluded, “Somechildren identify themselveswith apersonaboutwhom theyhavenonormalwayofknowing.Inthesecases,thechildrenapparentlyexhibitknowledgeandbehaviorappropriatetothatperson.”5

Third,thehypothesisoffraudformaterialgaincanhardlyaccountforthemanycasesinwhichthesubjectremembersalifeinpoorercircumstances.DifferencesinwealthbetweenthesubjectandthepreviouspersonalityaremostapparentincountriessuchasSriLankaandIndia, inwhichwidespreadvariationinwealthcaneasilybefound.YetinthirtyofthefortycasesStevensonstudiedinSriLanka,therewasnocleardifferenceinthecircumstancesofthetwofamilies.Inthetencasesinwhichtherewasadistinctdifference,sevenfoundthepreviouspersoninbettercircumstances,andthreeinworse.*96

However, in IndiaStevenson found that two-thirds claim to recall lives in better conditions, andone-third inworse conditions.7AreplicationstudybySatwantPasrichafoundthat58percentofIndiansubjectsreportedlivesinbettercircumstances,andanotherstudybyDavid Barker and Satwant Pasricha found that only 53 percent claimed to recall a more prosperous previous life.8 And where adifference was reported, the difference was often slight. So, while there does seem to be a tendency for Indian subjects to recall apreviouslifeinmoreprosperouscircumstances,thisisbynomeansalwaysthecase,andtheactualpercentagemaybeevenlessthanthe

two-thirdsStevensonreports. Fourth, it isalso important toremember thatachild,orhis family,doesnotnecessarilybenefit fromclaiming toremembera life inmoreprosperouscircumstances.AchildinIndiawhodoessowillbejudgedtohavedonesomethingsinfulinthepreviouslifethatearnedthedemotion.Subjectsmayalsocausetroubleforthemselvesbycomplainingabouttheirfamily’spoverty,refusingtoeatfoodtheyaregiven,andsoforth.Wehavealreadyseenthat,intheBishenChandcase,nofinancialgainwaspossible,asitwaswellknownthatthepreviouspersonalityhadsquanderedthefamilyfortune,leavingthesurvivingmembersalmostdestitute.AndalthoughSwarnlataMishraalsofondlyrecalledlivinginmoreprosperousconditions,shedidnotstruggletoreturntothePathakfamily.HerfatheralsoseemstohavedeclinedoffersoffinancialaidfromthePathaks.9

Finally,evenincasesinwhichamotiveforfraudcanbeseentoexist,thisinandofitselfcannotexplainhowachildcametoknowintimatedetailsofadeceasedstranger’slife.Opportunityaswellasmotivemustbeestablishedinordertomakeasolidcaseforfraud.Inconnectionwith this,Stevensonconcedes thathemayhavebeenthevictimofahoaxonoccasion;butheremainsconfident that thismayonlyhavehappenedrarely,ifever,becauseofthecircumstancesofthepeopleamongwhomthesecasesareusuallyfound.

TheaveragevillagerinAsiaandAfricadoesnothavetimetodeviseandperpetrateahoax.Hesometimesbegrudgesthetimewetakeforour interviews;ahoaxandits relatedcover-upwould takefar longer.Onecanseenoprofit inmoneyfromacaseandusuallynone,oronly the slightest, in local fame.Moreover,with themultiple interviews that Iusually conduct, a fraudwouldrequire the cooperation of numerous witnesses, any one of whom might forget his rehearsed lines or defect from the otherconspirators.10

CULTURALFANTASY

The most popular rival to the reincarnation interpretation of Stevenson’s cases has been the hypothesis that all such cases can beexplained in terms of culturally conditioned fantasies, combined with unconscious distortions of memories regarding what the childactuallysaid.Severalwritershavestatedthishypothesisinoneformoranother,butDr.EugeneBrody’sstatementhasprobablybeenthemostconcise. Brody,aphysician,iscontenttoruleoutfraud,praisingStevenson’sworkas“meticulous,”andwritingthat“itseemstomeunlikelythatthecomplexeffortnecessarytoconstructafraudulentpicture,ortherewardsfromsodoing,haveoccurredwithsufficientfrequencyto account for the bulk of the observations.”11 Brody is confident that Stevenson has established that we are dealing with a realphenomenon,butthinksthattheclaimedmemoriesofapreviouslifecanbeaccountedforbynormallytransmittedinformation.Headmitsthat the exhibition of skills, interests, and habits of the previous personality cannot be a consequence of the normally transmittedinformation,butwrites

The problem here, if fraud is discounted, would either be one of parental interpretation and reporting of the behavior, orreorganizationofboththesubject’sandparents’perceptionswithincreasinginformationabouttheotherfamily.Itisnotimpossible,either,thatsomeshredofinformationaboutsimilarcharacteristicsinanotherrecentlydeceasedpersonorhisfamily—reinforcedbycultural expectations—could serve as an organizing event. In this instance, the child’s odd behaviorwould bemore apt to beperceived as evidence of reincarnation. More important, the “previous” family could actually be unwittingly selected by theimmediatefamilytofitthechild’sbehaviorpatternsandstatements.12

Brodyhimselfconsiderstheseproposedexplanationsfar-fetchedandspeculative,buthasadvancedthemlargelybecauseofwhathe

perceives as the difficulties of reconciling reincarnationwith the accepted bodyof scientific knowledge. “Theproblem lies less in thequality of the data Stevenson adduces to support his point,” he says, “than in the body of knowledge and theory which must beabandoned or radically modified in order to accept it. . . . [P]aranormal phenomena in general and the theory of reincarnation areintrinsicallyunacceptable—thereisnowaytomakethemcompatiblewiththetotalaccumulatedbodyofscientificknowledge.”13

Unfortunately,Brodydoesnotspecifyindetailjustwhatscientificknowledge“mustbeabandonedorradicallymodified”inordertoacceptreincarnationasanexplanationofStevenson’sdata.TheonlyspecificdifficultythathementionsiswithStevenson’sstatementthat“memoriesmayexistinthebrainandina‘somewhereelse’thatmayendureafterphysicaldeath.”14Brodyappearstobelievethattheidea thatmemories are stored in the brain is part of the accumulated body of scientific knowledge, and that reincarnation is thereforeunacceptablebecauseitwouldimplythatmemoriescanexistapartfromabrain.However,aswesawinchapter5ofmypreviousbook,ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience,wedonot“know”thatmemoriesarestoredinthebrain.Theideathatmemoriesarestoredinthebrainisonlyanassumption thatfollowsfromthephilosophyofmaterialism.Allsurgicalattemptstolocalizememorytracesinthebrain have failed, leading one researcher to the untestable conclusion that “memory seems to be both everywhere and nowhere inparticular.” That researcher published his findings fourteen years before Brody wrote his critique of reincarnation. A testable—andtherefore scientific—biologist’s theory of howmemories are stored outside the brainwas also outlined.Great painswere taken in thischapter to show that there is nothing intrinsically incompatible between the facts and theories of modern science and the idea thatmemoriesmaysurvivethedeathofthebrain.Thisissueispurelyoneforthetestimonyofthefactstosettle.NeitherBrodynoranyothercritichassucceededinspecifyingtheprecisenatureoftheincompatibilitybetweenreincarnationandmodernscience.Untiltheydoso,theclaimthattheideaofreincarnationissomehow“intrinsicallyunacceptable”remainsnomorethananemptypieceofrhetoric. However, despite the spurious nature of Brody’s rationale, the cultural fantasy hypothesis is a viable counterexplanation forStevenson’s data. Stevenson himself considers a version of this hypothesis to be the most serious objection to the reincarnation

interpretation of his data. Brody’s case is for “culturally influenced unconscious parental selection” of a previous personality as analternativetoreincarnation.Stevensonlaysgreateremphasisonparamnesia,whichisthetechnicaltermfordistortionsandinaccuraciesintheinformants’memories.

Tounderstandhowparamnesiamayoccur . . .weneed to consider again a child’s first utterances about a previous life that heseemstoremember.Letussupposethathisparents,hearinghimmakeafewstatements,begintogivethemacoherencethattheymaynothavehad.Theythinkofthesortofpersonwhomthechildmightbetalking.Thentheystartsearchingforsuchaperson.Theyfindafamilyhavingadeceasedmemberwhoselifeseemstocorrespondtothechild’sstatements.Theyexplaintothisfamilywhat their childhasbeen sayingabout theprevious life.The second family agrees that the child’s statementsmight refer to thedeceasedmemberoftheirfamily.Thetwofamiliesexchangedetailedinformationaboutthedeceasedpersonandaboutwhatthechildhasbeensaying.Fromenthusiasmandcarelessness,theymaythencreditthechildwithhavingstatednumerousdetailsabouttheidentifieddeceasedperson,when,infact,hesaidverylittle,andperhapsnothingspecific,beforethetwofamiliesmet.Inthisway,amythofwhatthechildhadsaidmightdevelopandcometobeacceptedbyboththefamilies.15

ProblemswiththeCultural-FantasyHypothesisThereisagooddealofdatathatdoesnotfitverywellwiththecultural-fantasyhypothesis.Inmanycasesthefamilieslivedfarapartandhadno contact before the casedeveloped.Contact cameaboutbecauseof claimsby the child, andnot before.Yet inmanyof thesecases thechild talkedabout theprevious life inconsiderabledetail for severalyearsbeforeameetingoccurredbetween the families.Suchrepetitionwould tendtofixwhat thechildsaidfirmly in themindsofhisorher listeners,makingthecaseformemorydistortionsmoredifficult. Thecultural-fantasyhypothesisalsorequirestheparentsofthesubjecttowanttofindevidencethattheirchildhasreincarnated,and,infact,thisisoftenthecase.Butinmanyothercases,thefamiliesconcernedareeitherindifferenttothechild’sclaims,oradoptahostileattitude toward them.Theymayworryabout losing thechild to another family;maydislikewhat thechild is sayingabouthis currentfamily’s living standards; andmayworry that verification of the child’s statementswill only encourage behavior in the child that theparentsfindunattractiveorinappropriate.Suchpeoplewouldnotactivelyseektoidentifyadeceasedindividualwhoselifematchesthechild’s statements. On the other hand, the members of the previous personality’s family may also not wish to endorse the case,particularly if they arewealthy andwaryof being taken in by a hoax.For all these reasons, the adults in these caseswould tend tominimize,notexaggerate,theaccuracyofthechild’sstatements. The cultural-fantasy hypothesis also has difficulty explaining caseswith similar features in placeswhere reincarnation is a foreignconcept,suchasEuropeandtheUnitedStates.StevensonhasfoundnumerouscasesinEuropeandtheUnitedStates,andaboutthelatterhaswritten:

SomeAmericancasesofthistypeoccurinfamiliesalreadybelievinginreincarnation,butmanyothersdonot.Inthesefamiliesthechild’sstatementsaboutapreviouslifeareoftenpuzzlingandevenalarmingtohisorherparents.Thechildissometimesinvolvedinconflictovertheapparentmemorieswithmembersofhisorherfamily.Inturn,thefamilymembersimmediatelyinvolvedoftenfearthatothermembersofthefamilyorotherpersonsinthecommunitywillconsiderthechildabnormal.16

Itisdifficulttoseehowculturallyinfluencedfantasycouldplayanyroleinsuchcases.

Culturalfantasyalsohasdifficultyexplainingbirthmarksonthechildcorrespondingwithmarksorwoundsthatwereonthebodyofthe deceased previous personality, especiallywhen the subject and the previous personalitywere not related, andwhen the subject’sfamilyhadnocontactwiththepreviousperson’sfamilybeforethecasedeveloped.Theonlywayaroundthisdifficultyistoarguethatthesubject’sfamilysearchedforadeceasedindividualwhohadwoundsresemblingbirthmarksontheirchild,andonthesebirthmarksbuilttheircase. Anotherproblemwith thishypothesis is that thedetailsof casesdonot alwaysconform to thebeliefsof the culture inwhich theyappear.Itistruethatthecharacteristicsofcasesoftendoconformtothebeliefsoftheirculture:forinstance,sex-changecasesareonlyfound with extreme rarity in cultures in which it is believed to be impossible to change sex between lives. However, several othercommon beliefs are usually not reflected in the cases. The Hindus and Buddhists believe in the possibility of nonhuman animalsreincarnating as humans, but memories of previous lives as nonhuman animals are only rarely reported, even among Hindus andBuddhists.Andasmentionedearlier,evidenceofkarma—atleastinthenarrowsenseofretributioninthepresentlifeformisdeedsinthepreviousone—isalsoscarce.Ifpast-lifememorycasesareonlyfantasiesderivedfromculturalbeliefs,weshouldexpecttofindsuchimportantculturalbeliefsmoreoftenreflectedincases. Also, several features of reincarnation cases occur universally, independent of cultural beliefs.Everywhere such cases are found,subjectsbeginmentioningmemoriesofapreviouslifeataveryearlyage,betweentwoandfive;andeverywheresuchcasesarefoundsubjectsnearlyalwaysstop talkingaboutprevious livesa fewyears later,betweenagesfiveandeight. Inalmosteveryculture,malesubjectsoutnumberfemalesubjects,andtheproportionofpreviouspersonalitieswhodiedviolentdeathsgreatlyexceedstheincidenceofviolentdeathintheculture. It isworth noting that the fact thatwe find cultural variation in some of the characteristics of the cases does not, in and of itself,necessarilyimplythatthecasescanbeexplainedasculturalfantasy.ThispointwasmadeclearlybyJamesMatlock,who

proposesthatreincarnationbethoughtofinpsychologicalratherthanmechanicalterms.Perhapsthedyingpersonhassome(albeit

usuallyunconscious)controlovertheprocess.Ifonebelievedfirmlythatonecouldnotchangesexbetweenlives,onemightnotbeinclinedtotry.Ifonebelievedthatoneoughttobereborninone’sfamily,thatiswhereonemightchosetogo.Ifonebelievedthattheperiodbeforeone’snextlifeoughttobeofacertainlength,onemightstrivetomakeitasclosetothislengthaspossible.TheTlingitandotherNorthwestCoasttribesbelievetheyhavecontrolovertheprocess,andsomeoftheircasessuggestthattheydoinfacthavesuchcontrol.Controlisalsosuggestedinthosecasesinwhichsubjectsclaimtorecallhavingchosentheirparentsintheintervalbetweenlives....Reincarnationmaybeanaturalprocess;wemaynothavecontrolovertheprocessassuch,butmerelyoversomeaspectsofitsoperation.17

Finally,cultural fantasycannotexplain thosecases,suchas thoseofBishenChandandSwarnlataMishra, inwhichwrittenrecords

weremadeofwhat thechildsaidbefore thechild’sstatementswereverified.In thesecases—assumingtheabsenceofaconspiracyoffraud—weknowwhatthechildsaidbeforethefamiliesmet.Suchcasesareadmittedlyonlyasmallfractionofthetotal:onepercent,or24innumberatlastcount.18Buttheirrelativelysmallnumberdoesnotbyitselfdetractfromtheirevidentialvalue.

FOUR

TheObjectionsofPaulEdwards

PaulEdwards,aphilosopherofmaterialismhasprobablywrittenmorematerialcriticizingtheideaofreincarnationthananyone.Hismostrecentworkonthesubjectisabook-lengthcritiqueoftheideaofreincarnationingeneral—butthewritermostfrequentlycriticizedinthebookis,notsurprisingly,Stevenson. Edwards lays great stress onwhat he calls “the initial presumption against reincarnation.”By this hemeans that, regardless of theevidence,theveryideaofreincarnationinvolvesasetofassumptionsthatarejusttoopreposterousforarationalpersontotakeseriously. Inhisownwords,

Abeliever in reincarnation is committed to a host of collateral assumptions themost important ofwhich Iwill now enumerate.Whenahumanbeingdieshecontinuestoexistnotontheearthbutinaregionweknownotwhereasa“pure”disembodiedmindorelse as anastralor someotherkindof “non-physical”body; andalthoughdeprivedofhisbrainhe retainsmemoriesof lifeonearthaswellassomeofhischaracteristicskillsandtraits;afteraperiodvaryingfromafewmonthstohundredsofyears,thispuremindornonphysicalbody,whichlacksnotonlyabrainbutalsoanyphysicalsense-organs,picksoutasuitablewomanonearthasitmotherinthenextincarnation,invadesthiswoman’swombatthemomentofconceptionofanewembryo,anduniteswithittoformafull-fledgedhumanbeing;althoughthepersonwhodiedmayhavebeenanadultandindeedquiteold,whenheisrebornhebeginsanewlifewiththeintellectualandemotionalattitudesofababy;finally,manyof thepeoplebornin thiswaydidnotpreviouslyliveontheearthbut(dependingonwhichversionofreincarnationonesubscribesto)inotherplanesoronotherplanetsfromwhichtheymigrate(invisiblyofcourse),mostofthempreferringtoenterthewombsofmothersinpoorandover-populatedcountrieswheretheirlivesarelikelytobewretched.Thecollateralassumptionslistedsofarareimpliedbypracticallyallformsofreincarnationism,butinStevenson’scasethereistheadditionalimplicationthatthememoriesandskillsthattheindividualtookover from thepersonwhodiedand that are transmitted to thenew regularbodyappear thereforea relatively short timeduringchildhoodtodisappearforeverafter.

IfStevenson’sreportsareevidenceforreincarnationtheymustalsobeevidenceforthecollateralassumptionsjustmentioned.Theseassumptionsaresurelyfantasticifnotindeedpurenonsense;and,evenintheabsenceofademonstrationofspecificflaws,arational personwill conclude either that Stevenson’s reports are seriously defective or that his alleged facts can be explainedwithoutbringinginreincarnation.Anacceptanceofthecollateralassumptionswould,toborrowaphrasefromSørenKierkegaard,amounttothe“crucifixion”ofourintellect.1

EdwardsthenapprovinglyquotesBrody’sstatementabouthowtheproblemlieslesswiththequalityofStevenson’sdata,“thaninthebody of knowledge and theory which must be abandoned or radically modified in order to accept it,” and sums up his “initialpresumption”againstreincarnation:

Insimplifiedform,thequestionbeforearationalpersoncanbestatedinthefollowingwords:whichismorelikely—thatthereareastralbodies,thattheyinvadethewombsofprospectivemothers,andthatthechildrencanremembereventsfromapreviouslifealthoughthebrainsofthepreviouspersonhavelongbeendead,orthatStevenson’schildren,theirparents,orsomeoftheotherwitnesses and informants are, intentionally or unintentionally, not telling the truth: that they are lying, or that their very falliblememoriesandpowersofobservationshaveledthemtomakefalsestatementsandbogusidentifications.2

PhilosopherRobertAlmederwritesthatEdwards’sassertions“havethedisturbingringofdogmaticmaterialismcommittedtoshowing

that,owingtotheincrediblenatureofthereincarnationistthesis,thecasesofferedbyStevensonmustbeinstancesoffraud,orhoax,orculturalfabrication,ordelusionalimaginingonthepartofStevensonhimself.”3IfStevenson’scasesareseriouslyflawed,thenofcoursethecase for reincarnationcollapses.Butdeciding inadvance thatmemories, skill, and traits cannot survive thedeathofonebrainandbecomeassociatedwithanother,andthenusingthisprejudgmenttodismisstheevidenceisjustanotherexampleofaprioridogmatism.Wedonotknow—inadvanceofexaminingtheevidence—thatconsciousnessandmemoriescannotexistintheabsenceofabrain.Weknownothingofthesort.AsAlmederwritesinhisthoroughreviewofEdwards’swork,

Intheabsenceofourbeingabletodocumentthatthecasestudiesareflawed,whatthecasesdoshowisthathumanpersonality(whatever it is) survivesdeath and, by implication, humanconsciousness can exist independentlyofbrains, flourish for aperiodwithoutabodyasweknowit,andreincarnate.So,thechargethatallthisisjusttooincredibleforanyrationalpersontobelieveisablatantbitofquestionbegging,unworthyofareasonedresponse.4

Thefactthatwecannotspecifyamechanismforthetransferofmindsfromonebodytoanotherdoesnot,inandofitself,invalidate

theevidence,nordoesthis,inandofitself,makethecaseforreincarnationlessplausible.Thefactthatwecouldnotspecifyhowrockscouldfallfromthesky,orhowcontinentscoulddriftacrossthefaceoftheearth,didnotmeanthesephenomenawerenotreal.NodoubthadEdwardslivedinanearlierera,hewouldhavebeenoneofthoseskepticsasking:Whatismorelikely:thatrocksfallfromthesky,orthattheindividualsreportingtheseeventsarelying? Edwards describes themain characteristics of Stevenson’s child cases andwrites that “if one reads his books and articleswithoutknowingwhatthecriticshavetosay,onecanhardlyfailtobeimpressed.”5EdwardsthenturnshisattentiontosomeoftheactualcasesStevensonhasendorsed. Thefirstcasehediscussesdidnotinvolveachild,butratheranelderlyEnglishmannamedEdwardRyallwhowrotealettertotheDailyExpressinMay1970,inwhichheclaimedtorememberthelifeofafarmerintheseventeenthcenturynamedJohnFletcher.AfterthelettercametoStevenson’sattention,StevensonpaidRyalltwovisitstohishome,concludedthatthecasemaybeauthentic,andwrotean introduction to Ryall’s book Second Time Round. It should be noted that thirteen years before Paul Edwards’s book appeared,Stevensonpubliclymodifiedhispositiononthiscase.*106Butbeforementioningthis,Edwardswrites,“Ryallwaseventuallyexposedas either a hoaxer or the victimof delusions, or very possibly, a combination of the two.Credit for his exposure belongs toMichaelGreen,anarchitecturalhistorian,...ReneeHaynes,...andtoIanWilson,whoseMindOutofTime...presentedthefulldetailsofthestoryforthefirsttime.”7

Edwardspointsout thatHaynesandWilsonfoundthatwhilesomeofRyall’srecollectionsdidcheckout,othersdidnot.Themostdamagingof thesewas that theparish recordsofWestonZoylanddonot list a JohnFletcher for theperiodofRyall’s story—forhismarriage,forthebaptismofhistwosons,orforhisdeath.However,Edwardswrites,“WhatfinallyprovedtheundoingofRyall’sclaimsweretheinvestigationsofMichaelGreen.”InGreen’sopinion,nofarmhousecouldhavestoodwhereRyalllocatedJohnFletcher’sfarminthelateseventeenthcentury. AlthoughStevenson hasmodified his position on the case, and concedes that the absence of parish records is damaging, he is notprepared to discard it altogether, pointing out, “Critics have focused onRyall’smistakeswithout addressing the question ofwhere heobtainedallthemorenumerouscorrectdetailsthatheincludedinSecondTimeRound.8AtthetimeStevensonwrotethis,henotedthathehadbeenwaitingeightyearsforMichaelGreentoprovide thegroundsforsayingtherecouldhavebeennofarmwhereRyallsaidFletcherlivedintheseventeenthcentury.Inthemeantime,StevensonalsonotedthatDr.RobertDunning,editoroftheVictoriaHistoryofSomerset,hasgoneonrecordasstatingthathethinksitquitepossiblethatafarmdidindeedexistatthesiteindicatedbyRyallasthatofFletcher’sfarm.9

StevensonhasalsopointedoutseveralmistakesinthereviewofHaynes,andseveralwriters—includingAlanGauld,JamesMatlock,andStevenson—havepointedoutnumerousmistakesoffactandreasoninginWilson’sbook.10Edwards,however,seemstohavereliedentirelyonWilsoninhiscritiqueofthecase,andevenrepeatsWilson’smistakenspellingofthetitleasSecondTimeAround. Atanyrate,Edwards’spersistentfocusonthiscaseispuzzling.Becauseitinvolvesanadult,itishighlyatypicalofStevenson’scases.StevensonalsoexpressedreservationsaboutthecasemanyyearsbeforeEdwardsdid.Finally,asMatlockpointedout,“it isarguablytheweakestcaseStevensonhasendorsed.”11

Onemore example should serve to illustrate the quality of Edwards’s criticisms of Stevenson’s data. Edwards devotes an entireparagraphtotheonlycaseonrecordinwhichthereisacleardisagreementbetweentworesearchers,bothofwhomconductedinterviewswiththewitnesses.ThecaseconcernsanEastIndianboynamedRakeshGaur,whoclaimedtorememberapreviouslifeasacarpenterinthecityofTonk.ResearchersSatwantPasrichaandDavidBarkerinvestigatedthecasetogethershortlyafterlearningofitinanewspaper,andcametodifferentconclusionsregardingthebestinterpretationofthecase.AlthoughBarkerconcededthatRakeshmayhaveshownsome paranormal knowledge about the previous person’s life, Barker interpreted the case “largely as a product of Indian socialpsychologyandthewidespreadbeliefinthepossibilityofrememberingapreviouslife.”Pasrichadisagreed,thinkingthatthecaseisbestexplainedaseitherduetoextrasensoryperceptionormemoriesofapreviouslife.Thesedifferingopinionswerecarefullypresentedinajointlywrittenpaper,consistingofthreeparts.Inthefirstpart,theauthorssummarizedthefactsofthecasethattheybothagreedon,andtheothertwopartscontaintheirseparatelywrittenevaluations. Edwardsmentionsonlythebarestdetailsofthecase,andwrites,“Anybodysufficientlyinterestedshouldreadallthreepartsofthearticle.Ihavenodoubtthat,unlessoneisalreadyapassionatebelieverinreincarnation,onewillfindBarker’sconclusionvastlymorereasonable.IshouldaddthatPasrichastrikesmeasapersonoftrulystaggeringcredulity...”12

TheCaseofRakeshGaur

Both researchersagreedon thekey factsof thecase.RakeshGaurwasbornonMarch15,1969, intoa familyof theBrahmincaste.Whenhewasalittlemorethanfiveyearsold,hebegantotellhisparentsthatinapreviouslifehehadbeenamemberofthecarpentercastewhohadlivedintheChhippaneighborhoodofTonk,acityabout225kilometersnorthwestofthefamily’shomeinKankroli.Hesaid that he had beenmarried to awomannamedKeshar, and that he had died after having been electrocuted.Three informants toldPasrichaandBarkerthatRakeshhadmentionedthenameBithalDasbeforethetwofamiliesmet,butthreeotherinformantssaidthathehadnotdonesointheirpresence.SeveralinformantsagreedthatRakeshhadshownaninterestincarpentryandrepeatedlyaskedtobetakentoTonk.AlthoughfamilyfriendsurgedRakesh’sfathertotakehimtoTonk,S.N.Gaurdidnotappeartotakehisson’sstatementsseriously,andhesitatedtotaketheone-daytrip. In the summer of 1976 a bus driver from Tonk named Chhittarji stopped in Kankroli. Chhittarji said that Rakesh spontaneously

recognizedhimanddescribedseveraldetailsoftheirfriendshipinTonk.ThebusdriverwassoimpressedthatwhenhereturnedtoTonkhetoldthefamilyofBithalDasthathehadbeenreborninKankroli.S.N.Gaurwasalsoimpressedbythischanceencounter,andwrotetotheTonkElectricityBoardtoinquireifanyemployeebelongingtothecarpentercastehadbeenelectrocuted.Attheurgingoffriends,GaurfinallytookRakeshtoTonkinOctober1976,toseeifanyofhisson’sassertionscouldbeverified. AstheirbusenteredTonklateintheafternoon,Rakeshpointedtoanelectricitypoleandsaidthathehaddiedwhilerepairingit.Atthepostoffice,theyencounteredsomedifficultyintracingthefamilyofthepersonRakeshwasdescribing.Alargecrowdgraduallyformed,and an elderly person in the crowd recalled that a carpenter namedBithalDas hadbeen accidentally electrocuted twenty-one yearsearlier,in1955. ThecrowdsetoffforthehouseofBithalDas,butturnedbackbeforereachingit.Onthewayback,witnessestestifiedthatRakeshsawandrecognizedBhanwarLal,thesonofBithalDas.BhanwarLalwassomedistanceoffandleavingforJaipur,andthetwodidnotmeetthatevening.ThewidowofBithalDas,awomannamedRadha,wassentfor.Whentheymetatthepostoffice,Radhacriedmostofthetime.Closetomidnight,S.N.Gaurconcludedthathehadseenandheardenoughtoconfirmhisson’sstatements,andtheyreturnedtoKankrolionalate-nightbus. TwodayslaterBhanwarLalvisitedtheGaurfamilyinKankroli.WhenBhanwarLalaskedRakeshwhathispreviousnamehadbeen,Rakeshanswered“Arun,”whichBhanwarLalunderstandably took tobeamistake.ButwhenBhanwaraskedRakesh todescribehishouse,Rakeshdidsoaccurately,mentioningsuchdetailsas thenumberofrooms, thathisroomwaspaintedgreenandhadtwodoors,andthatinatablehehadkept1,500rupees.Thevisitlastedonlyfourhours,butwassufficienttoconvinceBhanwarLalthatRakeshwasthereincarnationofhisfather. BithalDashadbeenborninTonkinorabout1922,andhadworkedasacarpenter.Healsoenjoyedelectricalworkandusedtodoitprivately,butwasneverformallyemployedasanelectrician.Formostofhislife,heseemstohavebeenratherpoor,buthedidmanagetosavesomemoney.BithalDasdiedonAugust15,1955,duringtherainyseason.Hewastryingtoclearablockeddrainwithanironrodwhentherodaccidentallytouchedaliveelectricwire,killinghiminstantly.Hewasaboutthirty-fouryearsoldwhenhedied. Tonkisasmallcityofabout70,000,locatedabout225kilometersnortheastofKankroli.Thereisnoregularexchangeofgoodsorpeople between the two cities. Barker and Pasricha learned of this case about a month after Rakesh’s visit to Tonk, and conductedinterviewswiththeprincipalwitnessesshortlyafterward.Inall,theyconductedthirty-sixinterviewswithtwenty-fourinformants,andnotasingleinformantindicatedthattherehadbeenanykindofcontactwhatsoeverbetweenthetwofamiliesbeforeRakeshbegantospeakofapreviouslife.CommentsontheCaseofRakeshGaurAllinall,ofthetwenty-eightstatementssaidtohavebeenmadebeforethefamiliesmet,twenty-twoweredeemedcorrect,fiveprovedwrong,andononekeypoint thereissomeuncertainty.ThecorrectdetailscorrespondingwiththelifeofBithalDasincludedthehomecity of Tonk, membership in the carpentry caste, death by electrocution, the recognition of the bus driver and knowledge of theirrelationship,andtheaccuratedetailsaboutthehouseofBithalDas,includingthefactthatBithalDashadkept1,500rupeesinatableinhis room.Themistakeswere thenameof thewifeasKeshar (itwasRadha); thatBithalDashaddiedwhilewiringapole; thathehadlivedintheChhippaneighborhoodofTonk;thathehadlivedinahouseofclay(ithadbeenmostlybrick);andanswering“Arun”whenBhanwarLalaskedRakeshwhathispreviousnamehadbeen. The disagreement betweenBarker andPasricha hinged primarily onwhether or notRakesh actually gave the nameofBithalDasbefore thefirstvisit toTonk.Three informantsclaimedthatRakeshdidprovide thename,and threeothers, includingBithalDas’sson,said that he did not mention the name in their presence. Rakesh’s father and the bus driver Chhittarji both claimed that Rakesh hadspontaneouslymentioned the name in their presence.Unfortunately, the onlywritten record that could decisively settle the issue—thepostcardthatS.N.GaurhadsenttotheElectricityBoardinTonk,askingifacarpenterhadbeenelectrocuted—hadbeenthrownout.Thepostcardhadbeenturnedovertotwoclerks,namedPhoolChandandBholChand.Theysearchedtheirrecords,foundnoemployeeoftheBoardwhohadbeenelectrocuted,andthrewthepostcardaway.WhenBarkerandPasrichainterviewedthetwomeninNovember1978,PhoolChandinsistedthatBithalDas’snamehadbeengiveninthepostcard.HeaddedthatseveralemployeesoftheElectricityBoardknewofBithalDas’sdeath,butthathehadnotbeenanemployeeoftheBoard.BholChandrememberedthepostcardandsaidthatithadincludedthenameofthepersoninquiredabout,butalsosaidthathecouldnotrememberthename. Barker considered the question of whether or not Rakesh had mentioned the name of Bithal Das the “most serious point ofdisagreementamongthe informants.”Theeventsof thefirstvisit toTonksuggested tohimthatRakeshhadnotmentionedthenameofBithalDasbeforegoingtoTonk:

HeandhisfatherspentaboutsixhourssearchingTonkforhishouseinthepreviouslife.ItseemstomeextremelyunlikelythattheboywouldhavebeenaskedtodothisifthenameBithalDashadbeenattachedtohisotherstatementsfromthemomentoftheirarrival; thepostmasterwouldhavesimplysentsomeonethe500meters toBithalDas’shouse to tellamemberofhisfamily tocomeimmediately.This iswhateventuallyhappened,butonlyhours later,afteranelderlypersonin the largecrowdthoughtofBithalDas,whosewifewasthenbroughttothepostoffice.13

This,combinedwiththeothermistakesinRakesh’sstatements,ledBarkertoconclude:

IinterpretthecaseofRakeshGaurlargelyasaproductofIndiansocialpsychologyandthewidespreadbeliefinthepossibilityofrememberingapreviouslife.AsIreconstructthecase,Rakeshasayoungchildrepeatedlymadeafewgeneralstatementsabouta“previouslife.”HewastakentoTonkinorderto“confirm”thesestatementsbyleadinghisfathertothefamilyofhispreviouslife.

Hecouldnotdothisbecausemanyofhisstatementsandrecognitionsdidnotcorrespondtoanyoneknowntohaveexisted.Aftertwoorthreehoursofsearching,alargecrowdgathered.ApersoninthecrowdthoughtofBithalDas,amanwhomatchedenoughof Rakesh’s statements to satisfy nearly everyone that Rakesh had been talking about thisman from the beginning. From thatmomentRakeshwasprovidedwithabundantclues forappropriatebehavior,andRakesh,anunusually intelligentandobservantchild,quicklylearnedtobecomeBithalDas....RakeshbecamethereincarnationofBithalDasbecauseheidentifiedhimselffullywithBithalDas’slifeandbecauseotherpeoplesupportedhimandrewardedhiminthisidentification.14

However,althoughBarkerdidnotinterpretthisparticularcaseasevidencethatapreviouslifecanberecalled,hedidthinkthatthere

was“atleastoneinstanceofwhatmightbecalledparanormalknowledge”onthepartofRakesh:hisrecognitionofChhittarji,andthefactthathemanagedtoconvinceChhittarjithathewasindeedBithalDasreborn.Atanyrate,Barkerconcluded:

I hope that as the importance of these cases is perceived by scientists, qualified investigators can begin before the two familiesmeet. Had we been able to accompany Rakesh during his first visit to Tonk, we might have acquired stronger evidence thatreincarnationactuallyoccurs.15

PasrichalaidlessemphasisonRakesh’smistakes.Althoughshethoughtthereweremoremistakesandinconsistenciesinthiscasethan

inothercasesshehad investigated, shealso thought that someof themhadavalidexplanation.For instance,BhanwarLalhadaskedRakeshwhathisnamehadbeen“before,”andRakeshhadanswered“Arun,”whichBhanwarLalunderstandablytooktobeamistake.ButPasrichapointedout thatArunwas aname thatRakeshhadbeengivenwhenhewasyounger. It seemed toPasricha thatRakeshsimplymisinterpretedBhanwarLal’suseofthewordbefore. PasrichaalsoconcededthatthreewitnessesreportedthatRakeshhadnotmentionedthenameofBithalDasintheirpresencebeforethejourneytoTonk,butcommented:

IfinformantAreportsthatthesubjectmadeaparticularstatementtohim,butinformantBsaysthatthesubjectdidnotsaythesamethinginhispresence,theirtestimoniesarenotdiscrepantunlessbothwerereferringtothesameoccasionwhenbothwerepresent.Asubjectmaymakeoneremarktooneperson,butnotrepeatthisinthepresenceofanotherpersononsomeotheroccasion.16

But if Rakesh hadmentioned the name ofBithalDas before going to Tonk,why did it take his father and post office employees

severalhourstolocatethecorrectfamily?Pasrichathoughtthattheremightbeseverallikelyexplanationsforthedelay.BithalDashaddiedabouttwentyyearsearlier,soyoungpeoplewouldnotknowofhim.Rakeshhadalsogiventhewrongneighborhoodofresidence,andhadwronglystatedthathehadbeendoingelectricalwiringatthetimeofhisdeath.PasrichafeltthatthesemistakesbyRakeshmayhave put false scents on the trail.Also, the assistant postmaster atTonk stated that during the search for a familymatchingRakesh’sstatements,“Oneelderlycarpentersaid,‘CertainlytherewasapersonofthatnamewhousedtoworkattheElectricityBoardwhodiedofelectricshock.’”17Although thedeceasedperson theyweresearchingfordidnot, in fact,workfor theElectricityBoard,PasrichaconsideredthisassomeevidencethatRakeshorhisfatherdidmentionthenameofBithalDasinTonk. Pasrichalaidgreaterstress thanBarkeronthecorrectdetailsRakeshhadmentioned.Pasrichapointedout thatnotonlydidRakeshcorrectly identify the bus driver from Tonk, but he also recognized Bithal Das’s son from a distance. Pasricha also pointed out thatBhanwar Lal said that when he asked Rakesh about the house, he had expected Rakesh to make only a simple statement about itsstructuralquality.ButRakeshspontaneouslywentontoprovideseveralcorrectdetailsaboutthehousesinterior,includingthedetailthat1,500rupeeshadbeenstoredinatableinBithalDas’sgreenroom.Hissonacknowledgedascorrectboththeamountofmoneyanditslocation insidea table in thegreen room.Pasricha laterpointedout thatanormalexplanation for this requiresus toassumeeither thatRakeshlearnedallthesedetailsduringthesinglemeetingwithBithalDas’swidowinTonktwodaysearlier,orthatBhanwarLalgrosslydistortedwhatRakeshhadtoldhimwheninterviewedafewweekslater.Shewrotethat“althoughtheyseemimprobable,neithercanberuledoutasimpossible.”18

Barker concluded that this case is best explained as cultural fantasy, with at least one element that may be an example ofextrasensoryperception.PasrichadisagreedwithBarker’scultural-fantasyinterpretation,buthesitatedtoconsiderthecasesolidevidencefor reincarnation. Instead, she wrote, “It seemswiser to close this discussionwith the expression ofmy belief that some paranormalprocess—nototherwisedefinableatpresent—shouldbeconsideredthemostlikelysourceofthecorrectinformationthatRakeshshowedaboutthelifeofBithalDas.”19

WhenPasrichaandBarkerwrote theirarticle in1981, theywrote,“Wedonot regard the investigationof thiscaseascompleted.”Pasrichasubsequentlyreexaminedthecasetwoyearslater.Intheirjointlywrittenarticle,bothBarkerandPasrichahadnotedthatalltheinformantsagreedthatRakeshsaidthreethingscorrespondingtoBithalDas’slife:thathehadbelongedtothecarpentercaste,thathehadlived inTonk, and that he had been electrocuted.Themain point of disagreementwas overwhether or not itwas likelyRakesh hadmentioned the name of Bithal Das before the first visit to Tonk. Consequently, Pasricha set out to determine the odds that Rakesh’sstatementscouldhavecorrectlyappliedtosomeoneotherthatBithalDas,evenifRakeshhadnevermentionedthenameofBithalDasbeforevisitingTonk. Essentially, her method involved estimating the number of carpenters in Tonk who had died after being electrocuted during thefourteenyearsbetween1955 (theyearofBithalDas’sdeath) and1969 (theyearofRakesh’sbirth).Usingconservative assumptionsregardingthenumberofdeathsbyelectrocutionandthetotalnumberofdeathsinTonk,sheconcludedthat“thereisaprobabilityoflessthan1in1,500thatRakesh’sstatementscouldhavecorrectlyappliedtosomeoneotherthanBithalDas.”20Shethereforefeltconfident

thatBarker’scultural-fantasyhypothesiscouldberejected,whetherornotRakeshdidordidnotmentionthenameofBithalDasbeforethefirstvisittoTonk.However,shestilldidnotthinkthatthecaseprovidedstrongevidenceforreincarnation. I have only examined and described this case in detail in order to illustrate the shallowness and poor quality of Edwards’sexaminationoftheempiricalevidence.Edwardswrites,“Theentire1981articleishighlyinstructivebecauseitclearlyillustratesChari’sviewthatthekindofcaseinvestigatedbyStevensonisaculturalartifactandnothingelse.”21ButEdwardsdoesnotbothertomentionthat this isnotoneofStevenson’scases—itwas investigateddirectlyonlybyPasrichaandBarker.PasrichaandBarker say that theyreportedonthiscaseonlybecauseitwasthecasetheystudiedmostthoroughlytogetherwithoutStevenson’sparticipation.Thecaseitselfisnotparticularlyimpressive:theonlyrecordofRakesh’sstatementwrittendownbeforethefamiliesmetwasthrownout,Rakeshmadean unusual number of errors, and therewere several discrepancies in the accounts of the informants.OnemaywonderwhyEdwardswouldpoint to this caseas indicating that “thekindof case investigatedbyStevenson is a cultural artifact andnothingelse.”But it isconsistentwithhishabitoffocusingontheweakestcaseswhileignoringthestrongest.ClosingRemarksInclosing,itmaybeinterestingtonotethemannerinwhichEdwardsreferstoStevensoninhisbook.WhenhefirstintroducesStevensoninanydepth,Edwardsreferstohimas“aninvestigatorandspokesmanwhosepresentationsdeservetobetakenseriously....Itshouldberemarkedthatheisanexcellentwriterandthatthepresentationofhiscasesisalwayslucid,systematic,andextremelydetailed....I...wishtorecordthatIhavethehighestregardforhishonesty.”22

However,threeramblingchapterslater,hereferstoStevensonas“asincere,butdeludedman,”andtoStevenson’sworkas“absurdnonsense.”23 Later in the book he is even more effusive in his “praise,” writing that “Stevenson evidently lives in a cloud-cuckooland.”24

However, insultsaside,open-mindedpeoplewhoreadStevenson’sbook,ChildrenWhoRememberPreviousLives,will concludethat Stevenson is a muchmore sensible and coherent writer than Edwards. And despite the way Edwards describes reincarnation asabsurdnonsensethatnorationalpersoncouldtakeseriously,heisoddlyreluctanttopubliclydefendhisviewsagainstthosewholiveinacloud-cuckooland.Hisfellowphilosopher,RobertAlmederattheUniversityofGeorgia,haswrittenagooddealofmaterialonthesubjectofreincarnationandhascometoconclusionsdiametricallyopposedtothoseofEdwards.InAlmeder’swords:

IonceinvitedEdwardstocomehereforalargestipendanddefendhisviewspublicly.Hetoldmehehadasorebackandwouldgetbacktouslater.Heneverdid.(personalcommunication,October27,2003)

FIVE

ReincarnationinReview

Reincarnationprovidesarationalandcoherentexplanationforthedatafrompast-lifememorycases.Atthispoint,itwouldalsoappearthatreincarnationprovidesthebestexplanationofthedata.Aswithallempiricalhypotheses,wecannotclaimthatreincarnationhasbeenproven beyond all possible doubt; but the best cases have not been proven false. The competing explanations all have seriousshortcomings,and—despitethedogmaticassertionsofEdwards—theydonotexplainthedatanearlyaswell. Preciselywhatitisthatreincarnatesisdifficulttosay:wemaycallitamind,acenterofconsciousness,orasoul,butmorethanthatwecannotsayatpresent.Preciselyhowreincarnationworksislikewiseamystery.Butthefactthatwecannotspecifythedetailsoftheprocessdoesnotlogicallypreventusfromconcludingthatreincarnationoccurs,atleasttosomepeople.Thefactthatuntilrecentlymendidnotknowhowthesunshonedoesnotimplythatitdidnotshine. Some skeptics say that reincarnation is not a scientific hypothesis. But it should be clear that the reincarnation hypothesis can beformulated as a scientific hypothesis; that is, one that is capable of being tested. The blanket statement “Reincarnation occurs” isobviouslynotcapableofbeingdisproved,forthesimplereasonthateveninthecompleteabsenceofevidenceitmaypossiblybetrue.ButStevensonandtheotherresearchersdonotformulatetheirhypothesisinthisdogmaticmanner.Instead,theyproposereincarnationasthebestexplanationforthedata.InastronomerCarlSagan’swords,itisthehypothesis“thatyoungchildrensometimesreportthedetailsof a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate andwhich they could not have known about in any other way thanreincarnation.”1Stated thisway, itcanbedisprovedasanexplanation inanyparticularcasewhenever (1) thedetailsof thechildren’sreportsdonotturnouttobeaccurate,or(2)thedetailsareaccurate,butcouldhavebeenknownaboutbyothermeans. Thereincarnationhypothesispredictsthatcasesofaccuratepast-lifememorieswillsometimesbefound.Itistrue,ofcourse,thatsuchcases cannot be produced on demand. But this is also true of home runs and earthquakes, and does not mean that home runs andearthquakesdonotoccur. Finally,itshouldbepointedoutthatthereincarnationhypothesisdoesnotstandinoppositiontocurrentbiologicalandpsychologicalexplanationsofpersonality.Past-life-memorytheoristsdonotproposereincarnationasanalternativetoheredityandenvironment,butasasupplementtothem.Reincarnationisproposedasathirdfactorcontributingtotheformationofpersonality,inadditiontoheredityandenvironment.*11

DOESTELEPATHYORESPACCOUNTFORREINCARNATIONEXPERIENCES?

There is only one remaining alternative explanation for these cases that does not involve reincarnation. Some critics of reincarnationaccept the existence of extrasensory perception and object to the reincarnation interpretation on the grounds that such cases can beexplainedbythetelepathicorclairvoyantabilitiesofthechildren.Thesecriticsassertthatthechildrenareunconsciouslyclairvoyant:thatis,withoutbeingawareof their unusualpowers, the childrenhaveknowledgeofpast events and thepersons involvedwithouthavingbeentoldaboutthem.Thesecriticsalsoassertthat,forsomereason,thechildunconsciouslyidentifieswithacertaindeceasedindividual,andthensubconsciouslyimpersonatesthatperson. Butthereareseveralthingswrongwithtelepathyorclairvoyanceasanexplanationofpast-lifecases.Firstofall,theerrorsmadebythe subjects are farmore consistentwith the characteristics ofmemory thanESP. For instance, ESP cannot explainwhy subjects havedifficultyrecognizingpersonsorplacesthathavechangedsincethedeathofthepreviouspersonality,andcannotexplainwhythesubjectsareunawareofchangesinthepreviouspersonality’senvironmenttheyhavenotyetseen. Second, informationacquiredclairvoyantlyor telepathically isnot typically experiencedas something remembered.Also, thebestclairvoyantsandtelepathsmakeapredictablenumberofmistakes,butwehaveseenthatSwarnlataandBishenChandmadevirtuallynoerrors. Third, theESP hypothesiswould predict thatwewould occasionally findmore than one child claiming to remember the life of acertaindeceasedperson, andmaking statements about thedeceasedperson’s life that, uponchecking, turnout tobe accurate.Butwehavenotfoundcaseswithmorethanonechildmakingsuchclaims. Fourth, while ESP can explain the acquisition of knowledge, it cannot explain the acquisition of skills requiring a great deal ofpractice.Thatis,ESPcanexplainknowingthatsomethingistrue,butcannotexplainknowinghowtodosomething.Butwehaveseentwocases in which the subjects exhibited skills that they did not have the opportunity to learn: Bishen Chand apparently knew how toskillfullyplaythetablaswithoutbeingtaught,andSwarnlataknewhowtoperformcomplicatedsongsanddances,inalanguageneithershenorherparentsspoke. Fifth,inmostcases,theoperationofESPappearstobegoal-directed,operatingtosatisfysomedesireorneedoftheexperient.Butinmanycasesofthereincarnationtype,wecanfindnoplausiblemotiveonthechild’sparttoimitatethedeceasedperson.Onthecontrary,thechild’sstatementsandbehaviorfrequentlycausethechildtroublewithhisorherfamily.

Sixth, there is simply no evidence, apart from these cases, of young children having the ability to impersonate a person they havenevermet.AsAlmederwrites:

Apart fromthe fact that there isnoknownevidenceofchildrenevermistakenly identifying themselveswithotherpeoplewhomtheyhavenevermet, theargument that thesechildrensuccessfully impersonatedeceasedpeoplewhomtheymistakenly identifywith is adhoc in theextreme.After all, cananybodyhonestlybelieve thatSwarnlata, aneight-year-oldchild,was sogoodatimpersonatingBiya thatnobody inBiya’s family (brother, sisters, father,mother, andhusband)coulddetect it as acleverbitofimpersonation?Itseemsveryunlikelythatshecouldhavedupedthewholefamily.2

Finally,theadhocnatureofthisexplanationisapparentwhenweconsiderthefactthatwehavenoevidenceofESPabilitiesinmost

ofthesechildrenapartfromtheirclaimedmemoriesofapreviouslife.Stevensonexplainsthatthesuper-ESPhypothesis...

doesnotadequatelyaccountforthefactthatthesubjectsofcasesofthereincarnationtypeshownoevidenceofhavingpowersofESPapartfromtheclaimedmemoriesofapreviouslife.Itmayreasonablybeaskedwhyachildwithparanormalpowersofthissortthatwouldberequiredtoobtainallthecorrectinformationthatmanyofthesechildrenshowwouldnotmanifestsuchpowersinothersituationsorwithregardtootherpersonsbesidesthesingledeceasedpersonwhoselifethesubjectclaimstoremember.3

PARTII

Apparitions

Controversial data . . . tend to lay bare the decision process. They reveal, if you will, a scientist’s “ bogglethreshold,”beyondwhichheorshewillacceptnomore.Formanyscientiststhethoughtthattheremightbeyetunknownforcesoperatingintheuniverseissimplytoomuchtoaccept.Theyfeelthatanynormalexplanationforallegedlyparanormaleventsispreferable,regardlessofhowstrongorweaktheevidencetosupportit.Forotherscientists thepossibilityofunknown,“paranormal” forcespresentsnoproblem,butdiscarnateentities?Spirits?Thatisaskingtoomuch.

RICHARDBROUGHTON,THECONTROVERSIALSCIENCE

If, like most contemporary Western philosophers and scientists, I were completely ignorant of, or blandlyindifferenttothesephenomena,Ishould,likethem,leavethematterthere.ButIdonotsharetheirignorance,andIamnotcontenttoemulatetheostrich.

C.D.BROAD,LECTURESONPSYCHICALRESEARCH

IshallnotcommitthefashionablestupidityofregardingeverythingIcannotexplainasafraud.

CARLJUNG,JUNGONSYNCHRONICITYAND

THEPARANORMAL

SIX

StrangeVisits

Reportsofapparitionscomefromvirtuallyallsocietiesofwhichwehaverecords.ItissaidthattheyareportrayedonEgyptianpapyri,andSt.Augustinewroteaboutthemasfamiliaroccurrences.Accountspresentedasgenuinealsoappearinclassicalliterature. Pliny theYounger tells the story of Athenodorus the philosopher, who one day heard that a housewas going cheaply inAthensbecause itwashauntedbythespecterofanoldman,describedasskinnyanddirty,withfettersonhis legsandclankingchainsonhiswrists.Consideringthehouseacuriousbargain,thephilosopherdecidedtorentit.Thefirstnight,ashesatreadingabook,hefirstheardthechains,andthensawthefigure.Itbeckonedhimintothegarden,andthephilosopherfollowed.Afterpointingtoaspotontheground,thespectersuddenlyvanished.Athenodorusmarkedthespotwithsomegrassandleaves,andonthenextdayhadthelocalmagistratesdigthere.Askeletoninchainswasfound,andgivenaproperburial.Fromthattimeon,wearetold,thehauntingceased.1

Ghost stories of this kind continued to be reported down through the centuries, but by the nineteenth century it was becomingunfashionabletoadmitbelievingthem—evenafterpersonallyexperiencingthephenomena.Fearingridicule,evenpeoplewhohadbeenpersonallyconvincedoftherealityofapparitionsoftendeclinedtotestifyforthebenefitoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch.Asthenextaccountillustrates,thisreluctancecausedseveralresearchersagreatdealoffrustration. WhenErnestBennettwasgatheringmaterialforhisbookApparitionsandHauntedHouses,hereceivedaletterfromtheUniversityofLeeds, describinghow“MrH,” cyclinghomeonenight, spotted a strange ladywalking along,wearing a crinoline-shaped ankle-lengthdress.Later,afriendtoldhimthatthisapparitionwaswellknowntolocalresidents,andthemangaveBennettthenamesoffourlocalmenwhoclaimedtohaveseenher.However,tryashemight,hecouldnotgetthementoattesttothestory.Normally,Bennettdidnotincludeaccountsthatwerenotformallyattestedtobywitnesses;butheincludedthisonejusttoshowhowdifficultitwastoobtaincorroboration for such stories out of fear of ridicule, evenwhenwitnesses were assured that their identities would not be disclosed.GegenDummheitkampfendieGottervergebens!hethundered:Againststupidityeventhegodsbattleinvain.2

REPORTSFROMCHILDREN

Childrenhavereportedencounterswithapparitionsand,unliketheiradultcounterparts,typicallyshownoreluctancetorelatetheirstory.Theyoftenalsoseemtoshowneitherdistressnordisbeliefwithregardtotheexperience.KarlisOsisandErlendurHaraldssontellofaseven-year-oldboydyingofmastoidinfectionwhowasbeingrebellious,refusingtotakehismedicine.Thenoneday:

TheboyinsistedthatUncleCharlie[adoctor]came,satbesidehimandtoldhimtotakehismedicine.Healsotoldtheboythathewouldgetwell.TheboywasverysurethatUncleCharliehadsatinthechairandtoldhimthesethings.Afterthisexperience,thepatientwascooperative.Hewasnotexcited,andhetookthedeceaseddoctor’s“visit”asamatterofcourse.Thenextmorning,theboywasmuchbetter—adramaticchangehadoccurredinhiscondition.3

This case is somewhat unusual, as it includes a report of spoken communicationwith the apparition.But it does illustrate a typical

feature of apparition reports: unlike themisty, translucent figures of fiction, apparitions are typically reported as appearing completelylifelike, so much so that witnesses frequently report mistaking them for living persons. The following case, involving an Icelandichousewifewhohadlosthereight-year-oldboytwoyearsearlier,ismuchmoretypicalofapparitionreports.

IwaswashingthewoodenfloorinourlivingroomwhenIlookedupamomenttopause.ThenIsawhimstandingsomedistanceawayfrommelookingtowardme.Ilookedforawhileanddidnotimmediatelyrealizethathehaddied.Irantowardhimsaying,“MyBeggi,”but thenhedisappeared.Hewasdressed in theclotheshehadonwhenhedrowned. Isawhimon twooccasions,bothtimesonthesamespot.Hisgrandmotheralsosawhimonceatherhome.4

Occasionally,apparitionsareseenatthesametimebymorethanoneperson.In1919,HoraceTraubel,aclosefriendandbiographer

ofthepoetWaltWhitman,laydyinginaremotevacationlodgeinOntarioownedbyaCanadianminingfamily,theDenisons.Lieutenant-ColonelMusgravewaspresentatthedeathbed,andgavethefollowingaccountofwhathappened.

[OnSeptember6, 1919, twodaysbeforeTraubel’s death] about 3 a.m. hegrewperceptablyweaker, breathing almostwithoutvisiblemovement,eyesclosedandseeminglycomatose.Hestirredrestlesslytowardsthefurthersideofthebed,hislipsmoved,endeavoringtospeak,Imovedhisheadback,thinkingheneededmoreair,but...hiseyesremainedrivetedonapointsomethreefeetabovethebed.Myeyeswereatlastdrawnirresistiblytothesamepointinthedarkness,astherewasbutasmallshadednightlampbehindacurtainonthefurthersideoftheroom.Slowlythepointatwhichwewerebothlookinggrewgraduallybrighter,alighthazeappeared,spreaduntilitassumedbodilyform,andtookthelikenessofWaltWhitman,standinguprightbesidethebed,a

roughtweedjacketon,anoldfelthatuponhishead,andhisrighthandinhispocket...hewasgazingdownatTraubel,akindly...smileuponhisface.Henoddedtwiceasthoughreassuringly,[his]featuresquitedistinctforatleastafullminute...towardtheendofhisappearance,whileHoraceandIweregazingathim, [Whitman]movedcloser toHorace, fromthefurthersideof thebed, [and] Horace . . . said, “There isWalt.” At the samemoment,Walt passed apparently through the bed towardsme, andappearedtotouchmyhand,asthoughinfarewell.Idistinctlyfeltit,asthoughIhadtouchedalowelectriccharge.HethensmiledatHorace,andpassedfromsight.5

APPARITIONSOFANIMALS

Apparitions of animals have also been reported, such as the following by Celia Green and Charles McCreery from their book,Apparitions.

In thebeginningof thesummerof1884weweresittingatdinnerathomeasusual, in themiddleof theday. In themidstof theconversation I noticedmymother suddenly looking down at something beneath the table. I inquiredwhether she had droppedanything,andreceivedtheanswer,“No,butIwonderhowthatcatcanhavegottenintotheroom?”Lookingunderneaththetable,IwassurprisedtoseealargewhiteAngoracatbesidemymother’schair.Webothgotup,andIopenedthedoortoletthecatout.Shemarchedroundthetable,wentnoiselesslyoutofthedoor,andwhenabouthalfwaydownthepassageturnedroundandfacedus.Forashorttimesheregularlystaredatuswithhergreeneyes,andthenshedissolvedaway,likeamist,underoureyes.6

InGreenandMcCreery’sstudyofapparitions,thegreatmajorityofanimalapparitionswereofdogsandcats.However,apparitionsof

awidevarietyofotherspecieswerereportedtothem,suchasapparitionsofhorses,adeer,andatiger.Thefollowingcaseinvolvesarabbit.

I had gone to bed and had slept for a couple of hours and had to get up to visit the bathroom.As I was about to leave thebedroom,thedoorofwhichopensinwards,Ihappenedtoseeafluffywhiterabbitsittingatthefootofthedoor.Istoodthereforacouple of seconds to make sure of what I was seeing. I then bent down in an attempt to touch the back of the rabbit and itdisappeared.Ievenfoundmyselfturningthelightonandrunningmyhandoverthecarpetwheretherabbithadbeensitting.7

Someapparitionsareofapurelyauditorynature,suchasthefollowing.

ForsomefifteenyearsIownedaworkingSheepDog,whichIhaddestroyedbecausehewassuffering,duetooldage.TwohoursafterhisdeathIwassittingintheloungeafterlunchwhenIhearddistinctlythepadofhisfeetandhischaracteristicsnufflingatthebottomofthedoor,soundswhichIhadheardhundredsoftimesbeforewhenhewantedtocomeintotheroom.Ihalfrosefromthechairtogoandopenthedoor,realizedIwasimaginingthingsandsatdownagain.8

Althoughthepreviouscasemightbedismissedasanauditoryhallucination,perhapsbroughtonbyhabitandsorrow, thefollowing

caseismoredifficulttoexplaininthatmanner.Butwhateveritisacaseof,itisanextremelyunusualreport,sinceitinvolvesmuchmorethanameresighting.

Thirteenyearsago,Iwasinthearmy,stationedinGermany,andcominghomeonleavebyship,andtrain,usuallymeantarrivinghomesomewhereduring theearlyhoursof themorning.Myparentsknewonwhichday Iwasarriving, and left thebackdooropen.Thismeantgoingthroughadarkpassagebetweenthetwohouses...Ihadmadegoodfriendswiththenext-doorneighbor’sdog“Bobby,”alargeblackmongrel.BeforeIwentinthearmy,wehadgrownveryfondofeachother,andanoutsiderwouldhave thought hewasmydog—Iwould take him forwalks every daywithout fail. I volunteered for the army to be a regularsoldier,butmyattachmenttothedogwassogreat,thatIalmostdidn’t“joinup.”Nevertheless,Idid,butdon’tmindadmittingIsufferedalotofemotionalupsetoverthedog.

On thenight inquestion, I arrivedhomeat about2 a.m., and sure enough, as soonas I opened the sidegate, “Bobby,”whonormallyslept inakenneloutside thehouse,boundedup tome,andmadea terrific fussofme,nuzzlingand lickingmyface. Istayedwithhimforsometenminutesorso,andthenwentindoors.Thereisnoquestioninmymind,tothisday,thatIplayedwith“Bobby”forthatshorttime.Iknewandlovedhimsowellthattherecouldn’tpossiblybeanymistakeabouthisidentity.Asheleftme,hedisappearedoutofsightintomyneighbor’slargedahliabed,andthatwasthelastIsawofhim.Thefollowingmorningafteranenjoyablereunionwithmyfamily,Imademyusualvisittomyneighbor,thedog’sowner,who

wasaverygreatfriendofours.ItoldhimaboutmeetingBobbythepreviousnight,andremarkedquitecasuallythathewasoutofhiskennel (hewasnormallykept chained in).Myneighborwas thunderstruck, and said, “Bobbydied threemonthsago, and isburiedinthemiddleofthedahlias.”9

SEVEN

CharacteristicsandTheoriesofApparitions

Reportsofapparitionsarenotasuncommonasonemightthink.In1975ErlendurHaraldssonaskedarepresentativesampleofpeopleinIceland: “Have you ever perceived or felt the nearness of a deceased person?” Thirty-one percent of respondents replied in theaffirmative.1In1979parapsychologistJohnPalmersurveyedtheresidentsofCharlottesville,Virginia,andfoundthat17percentof622respondents claimed to have had the impression of an apparition, and about three-quarters of these acknowledged more than oneexperience.2

Apparition reports are not necessarily visual; peoplemay say the apparitionwas only heard, or somehow “sensed” as a presence.Palmerfoundthatabouthalfthereportsseemtobevisual:44percent,or7.5percentoftheoriginalsample.However,Haraldssonfoundthat67percentofreportswerevisual,3andGreenandMcCreery’sstudyfoundthat84percentofexperienceswereprimarilyvisual,withabout a third of these cases also having an auditory component; only about 14 percent of their caseswere entirely auditory.4 In thischapterwewillbeprimarilyconcernedwithvisualapparitions. Thedurationofthereportedexperienceisvariable.InGreenandMcCreery’s1975survey,abouthalfconsideredtheirexperiencetohavelastedlessthanoneminute,while20percentestimateditsdurationtoexceedfiveminutes.5Apparitionsonlyrarelyarereportedtohavebeenseeningloomyordarkconditions.Haraldssonfoundthatslightlymorethanhalftheexperiences(52percent)occurredeitherindaylightorfullelectriclight,andonly10percentoccurredindarkness.6

As mentioned earlier, apparitions typically appear real and solid, so much so that they are frequently mistaken for actual livingpersons.GreenandMcCreerystate thatonly46percentof theirsamplerealized immediately theywereexperiencinganapparition;18percentrealizedthisbeforetheexperienceended,6percentasitended,and31percentonlyafteritended.Inotherwords,overhalfdidnotimmediatelydistinguishtheapparitionfromalivingperson,andnearlyathirdthoughttheywereseeinganordinarypersonthroughouttheentireexperience.7

Thereareseveralreasonsforthisperceivedrealism.Apparitionsmaycastashadow,andbereflectedinamirror.Theytypicallyshowawarenessoftheirsurroundings,avoidingfurnitureandpeople,andtheymayturntofollowaperson’smovements.Somearereportedtospeak, although this is not common; if the apparition does speak, there are usually only a few words. However, in other respectsapparitionsdonotresembleordinarylivingpersons:theymayappearanddisappearinlockedrooms;vanishwhilebeingwatchedorfadeawayinfrontofthepercipient;passthroughphysicalobjects;andbevisibletosomepeopleinaroom,butnottoothers.Mostattemptstotouchanapparitionareunsuccessful,butmostwhodoreporttheirhandssimplypassingthroughthefigure.Onlyrarelydopeoplereportapparitionsthatarecapableofbeingfelt.Sometimesafeelingofcoldisreported,especiallywhenthefigureisnearby.Typically, theyleavebehindnophysicaltraces,suchasfootprints.Attheendoftheexperiencethefigureusuallyvanishesinstantly,althoughitmayfadegraduallyorsimplywalkoutoftheroom. In Haraldsson’s survey, most apparitions were of persons recognized by the respondents. Almost half, or 47 percent, of theapparitionswereofdeceasedpersonsrelatedtotheexperient;24percentwererecognizedasacquaintances;andtheremaining29percentwerecompletestrangers(someofwhomwerelateridentified). Aprominentcharacteristicofapparitionsof thedead is thehighfrequencyofpersonswhodiedviolently.Haraldssonfound that30percentofhisIcelandiccasesinvolvedencounterswithpersonswhohaddiedviolently,almostidenticaltothe28percentfrequencyofviolent death found among the nineteenth-century British cases of Phantasms of the Living.8 Haraldsson also pointed out that thepercentageofpersonsidentifiedwithapparitionswhodiedviolentlyis4.6timesthepercentageofpersonsinIcelandwhodiedviolentlyoverthesameperiod(6.5percent).9

TYPESOFAPPARITIONS

Varioustypesofapparitionshavebeenreported,andthefollowingcategoriesareusuallyusedtoclassifythecases.CrisisApparitionsIncrisiscases,anapparitionisperceivedatatimethepersonrepresentedisundergoingsomesortofcrisis.Byconvention,acasequalifiesasacrisiscaseonlyifthecrisisoccurswithintwelvehoursbeforeoraftertheperson’sapparitionisperceived.Oftenthecrisisisdeath,sothe apparition is reported as having been seen shortly before or after the person’s death. According to Alan Gauld, this is the mostfrequenttypeofveridicalapparition,thatis,themostfrequenttypeofapparitionthatconveysinformationlaterverifiedascorrectbutnotknowntotheexperientatthetimeitwasconveyed.Intermsofallcases,though,crisiscasesareintheminority.

PostmortemApparitionsThesecasesinvolveanapparitionofapersonwhohasbeendeadforat least twelvehoursbeforetheexperience.About two-thirdsofrecognizedapparitionsareofthedead.10

ApparitionsoftheLivingApparitions are sometimes reported of people who turn out to have been very much alive at the time someone reported seeing anapparitionintheirform.Theyseemtooccurwhentheagentisasleeporinatrancelikestate,althoughthereareafewcasesonrecordofpeopletrying,allegedlywithsuccess,tomakeanapparitionofthemselvesappeartoafriend.11

HauntingsGhostsareapparitionsthatareseeninthesamevicinityoverandoveragain,sometimesbythesameperson,andoftenbyanumberofdifferentpersons.They seem to show less awarenessof their surroundingsandofpeople thandoother apparitions.Although theyarefrequentlyassumedtobedeceasedpersons,theiridentityisoftenamystery.

THEORIESOFAPPARITIONSThemodernstudyofapparitionsbeganwithEdmundGurney,FredericMyers,andFrankPodmore in1886.Since that time, threemaincategoriesofexplanationshavebeenadvanced:thefirstisthatapparitionscanbeexplainedasmistakeneyewitnesstestimony,ordinaryhallucinations, or fraud.The second is that apparitions are telepathically induced hallucinations; and the third is that apparitions are, insomesense,physicallyorquasiphysicallyreal.Thefirstisthesimpleskepticalposition:anyapparitionthatisnotsimplyacaseoffraudormisperceptionisapurelysubjectivehallucination.Onlythelasttwoallowforthepossibilitythatsomediscarnateagencyisresponsiblefortheapparition.TheSkepticalTheoryThesimpleskepticalpositionisprobablytheeasiest todealwith.Backin1886,Gurney,Myers,andPodmore, intheir landmarkbookPhantasmsoftheLiving,presentedingreatdetailover700reportsofapparitions.Thethreeresearcherstriedveryhardtoexcludeanycasesthatmightbeduetomistakeneyewitnessidentity,faultymemories,orfraud.Theyarguedthattheircasesmustbeexplainedawayindetail,andwentontodescribethesheernumberofimprobablehypothesesthatmustbeadvancedifthebestdocumentedcasesaretobeexplainedaway.

Wemust . . .makesuppositionsasdetailedas theevidence itself.Wemustsuppose thatsomepeoplehaveawayofdating theirlettersinindifferencetothecalendar,ormakingentriesintheirdiariesonthewrongpageandneverdiscoveringtheirerror;...thatwhen[aman]saysthatheisnotsubjecttohallucinationsofvision,itisthroughmomentaryforgetfulnessofthefactthathehasaspectralillusiononceaweek;thatthatwhenawifeinterruptsahusband’sslumberswithwordsofdistressoralarm,itisonlyherfun,orasuddenmorbidcravingforundeservedsympathy;andwhenpeopleassertthattheywereingoodhealth,ingoodspirits,andwideawake,ataparticulartimewhichtheyhadoccasiontonote,itisasafeconclusionthattheywerehavinganightmare,orwere the prostrate victims of nervous hypochondria. Every one of these improbabilities is, perhaps, a possibility; but as thenarratives drive us from one desperate expedient to another, where time after time we are compelled to own that deliberatefalsification is less unlikely than the assumptions we are making, and then again when we submit the theory of deliberatefalsification to thecumulative test,andseewhat is involved in thesupposition thathundredsofpersonsofestablishedcharacter,knowntousforthemostpartandunknowntooneanother,havesimultaneouslyformedaplottodeceiveus—therecomesapointwhere...reasonrebels.12

One hundred years later, Henry Gordon, magician, newspaper columnist, andmember of CSICOP, briefly reviewed the work of

sociologistIanCurrieonapparitions,andwrote:

I find one basicweakness in Currie’s arguments:His “evidence” is based on personal anecdotes and eyewitness testimony. Toaccept suchevidenceyouhave toagree thatmostpeopleare reliablewitnesses, that theyhaveperfectmemories, that theycantrusttheevidenceoftheirsenses.It’sanillusiontobelievethis.Therehavebeenagreatnumberofpsychologicalstudiesdoneinthepast fewyearson the subjectof eyewitness testimony. It is flimsy. It isoftenunreliable.Apart fromwhat these studieshaverevealed,itisalsowellknownthateyewitnesstestimonyhascausedtragicerrorstobemadeinsomecourtcases.13

Onthispoint,philosopherDavidLorimerhaswritten:

Recently theunreliabilityofhuman testimonyhasbeen the subject ofpsychological experiments inwhich a sequenceof stagedevents suddenly takes place during a psychology lecture, and the students are asked towrite a description. Inmany cases thisproves tobe inaccurate in its details, sometimeswildly so.The result of this is thenused to justify awholesale rejectionof thevalidityofhumantestimony.Butwedonottakehumantestimonyatitsfacevalue.Thelawhasanelaborateprocedureofcross-questioning of witnesses, whose accounts are expected to square with other facts pertinent to the case, including the allegedperpetrators’ own description. If the testimony reveals a discrepancy, then this is followed up in turn, so that either a morecomprehensiveaccountisarrivedat,orsomepartoftheevidenceortestimonyisrejected.Intheendtherearegenerallyanumber

offactsandtestimonieswhichsupportaparticularhypothesisasthemostplausibleaccountoftheevent,evenifitisrecognizedthatabsolutecertaintyisruledout.14

Yes, tragic errors have occurred in courtrooms because of mistaken eyewitness testimony. But this fact does not imply that all

eyewitnesstestimonyisseriouslyflawed,andthatcourtsshouldthereforeruleallsuchevidenceinadmissible.Juriesareonlyaskedtodecidebasedonguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt,notbeyondalldoubt,andwrongfulconvictionsarefrequentlyoverturnedonappeal. Itisimportanttorememberthatalthougheyewitnessaccountsofanevent,actualorstaged,maydifferindetail,eyewitnessesmayallagreethat theevent tookplace.That is, eyewitnessesmaydiffer as towhether theassailantwaswearingablue shirtor agreenone,whetherhehadredhairorbrown,firedthreeshotsorfour,andsoforth;yettheyallmayagreethatashootingoccurred. Andjusthowreliableiseyewitnesstestimonyinreal-lifesituations?Almostallthestudiesindicatingthateyewitnesstestimonyisoftenflawedhave involvedstagedevents inpsychologyclassrooms.Becauseof theunrealisticnatureofstagedevents, theresponseof thejudicialsystemtomostpsychologicalstudiesdoneonthesubjectofeyewitnesstestimonyhasbeenlukewarm.15Stagedeventscannotduplicatetheseriousnessofactualevents,andinmanyofthestudiesthesubjectsaretoldbeforehandthattheyarewitnessingacontrivedevent.Thisproblemcanbeavoidedbydeceivingobservers,butthisraisesobviousethicalproblems. Acutelyawareofthelimitationsofstagedevents,psychologistsJohnYuilleandJudithCutshallexaminedeyewitnessaccountsofanactualshootingthatoccurredonacitystreetinbroaddaylight,infullviewofseveralwitnesses.Athiefhadrobbedagunstore,andtheownerpickeduparevolverandfollowedthethiefintothestreet.Atadistanceofsixfeet, thethieffiredtwoshotsat theowner,who,afteraslightpause,emptiedhisrevolverinthethief’sdirection.Bothmenfell,butonlythethiefwasmortallywounded. Twenty-onewitnesses to theshootingwere interviewedbypolice.Fivemonths later,YuilleandCutshall interviewedthirteenof thefifteenprincipalwitnesses, andcompared their statementswith thepolice reconstructionof the incident,*12 andwith the statements thewitnesseshadgivenfivemonthsearlier.Thestatementsgiventothepolicewerefoundtobehighlyaccurate,andfivemonthslater,therewasvirtuallynoreductioninthelevelofaccuracy.YuilleandCutshallconcluded

We take issue with the essentially negative view of the eyewitness that has been consistently presented by most eyewitnessresearchers. . . .Inthepresentresearch. . .adifferentpictureemerges.Mostofthewitnessesinthiscasewerehighlyaccurateintheiraccounts,andthiscontinuedtobetrue5monthsaftertheevent.16

ButGordondoesnotdismissallaccountsofapparitionsasdueonly tomistakeneyewitness testimony.He thinks thatmanypeople

whohavereportedseeingapparitionsmayhavehadagenuineexperience—ofsorts.Gordonwritesthat“themostcommonpsychologicalexplanationforseeingghostsisthatofhallucination.”Whataboutcasesinwhichmorethanonepersonreportsseeinganapparitionatthesametime?HereGordonalsohasareadyanswer:“Thefact is,onceagain, thatstudieshaveshownthatcollectivehallucinationsdotakeplace.Andthepowerofsuggestionistheexplanation(emphasisadded).”17

Whatstudies?Gordonprovidesnoreferences.InresearchingthischapterIcombedthroughtheentirePsychInfodatabase,from1887to the time of writing, and could find only one article on collective hallucinations. It appeared in theRoyal NavalMedical ServiceJournalin1942,anditdescribedtheexperiencesoftheshipwreckedsurvivorsofatorpedoedshipinArcticwaters.Outofthehundredsofmenwhomanagedtomakeit toraftsandlifeboats,onlythirty-sixsurvived,andtwoofthesediedshortlyafterbeingrescued.Themenwerewithoutfoodandwaterforthreedaysbeforehelparrived.Themortalityratewassohigh,andtheexhaustionofthemensogreat,thattheywerefinallyunabletojettisonthedead. Theshipwreckedsurvivorstoldahorrifictaleofhunger,thirst,bittercold,anddespair.Bythethirdday,someofthemeninthefloatsstarted to hallucinate. They claimed to see land, a dockyard, and ships on the horizon. Although some of the other men remainedskeptical,othersbegantothinktheyalsosawthesethings.Mostofthevisionswereseenonthehorizon,atwhatseemedtobeadistanceofseveralmiles,andnohumanswereseen.Mostofthevisionsonlylastedafewminutes,althoughsomeseemedtohavelastedanhourorso.Aftereachvisionceased,mostofthemenrealizedwhattheyhadseenwasonlyanillusion,andtheirdepressionreturned. Ifoundabsolutelynothinginthissinglestudythatisinanywayrelevanttothevastmajorityofreportsofapparitions.Theauthorofthe study,SurgeonLieutenant-CommanderE.W.Anderson,would almost certainly have agreed: hewrote, “It is hardly necessary tostatethatvisualhallucinationsinasettingofclearconsciousnessarerare,ifindeedtheyeveroccur.Itiscertainthatinsomeofthecasesdescribedhereconsciousnesswasnotalwaysclear,andinsomecasesthesubjectwasactuallydelirious.”18

Anderson briefly mentions psychical research, and quickly adds that “the observations here contain little relevant to thisdiscussion.”19Indeed,itseemspreposteroustoarguethatthehallucinationsexperiencedbythesedesperateandmiserablemen—whichseemed to spread to some of those around them by the power of suggestion—could throw any lightwhatsoever onmost reports ofcollectivelyperceivedapparitions.AsAndersonconcludes:

Powerfulaffects, in thiscase,hope,expectationand trust indelivery setagainstabackgroundofdespair, and the imminenceofdeath, in a series of small communities shut off from contactwith the outerworld,with no diversions, togetherwith graduallyincreasingexhaustion,theresultinpartoftheabsenceoffoodanddrinkandexposuretotherigoursoftheArcticclimate,whichinturninfluencedthestateofconsciousnessinmanyifnotall,andlastlythediminishingdaylightandprobablycloudformation,arethe essential factors involved. The inevitable increase in the suggestibility of each individual needs no underlining, and nopsychiatristwould,therefore,besurprisedtohearoftheoccurrenceofcollectivesense-deceptioninthesecircumstances.20

Withmistakeneyewitnesstestimonyandordinaryhallucinationseliminatedfromconsideration,thesimpleskepticalpositionisleftonly

with fraud as an explanation. As wewill see, although fraud is always a possibility, in several cases it can be shown to be a veryimplausibleexplanation.Humantestimonyiscertainlyfarfromperfect.Butitisimportanttorememberthatallknowledgenotduetoourowndirectexperienceultimatelydependsonthetestimonyofothers.Aswereviewseveralofthemoreimpressivecases,itwillquicklybecomeapparenttothereaderthatthesimpleskepticalpositioncanonlybemaintainedbyignoringtheobjectionableevidence.TheTelepathicTheoryAmoresophisticatedtheoryofhallucinationswasfirstadvancedbyEdmundGurney,andwasmeanttoexplainhowtheappearanceofsome apparitions could convey information that later turns out to be accurate. Basically, Gurney contends that apparitions aretelepathicallyinducedhallucinations.AccordingtoGurney’stheory,ifyouperceiveanapparitionofsomeoneyouknow,butinclothingorcircumstancesofwhichyoucouldhavenonormalknowledge,thentheinformationhasbeentelepathicallyacquired,anddressedupinthe formofanapparition.Collectivelyperceivedapparitionswereexplainedas telepathically sharedhallucinations.Onepersonwouldacquire the extrasensory information and then telepathically communicate thehallucinatory figure tootherpeoplepresent in a formof“contagioustelepathy.” Gurney’s theory was originally designed to explain crisis apparitions and apparitions of the living, but was extended to coverapparitionsof thedeceasedbypostulating impedances in thepercipient’smind,whichallowedan“arrived”communication towork itsway into consciousness slowly. Gurney’s theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the source of the telepathichallucinationisthedeceasedpersonality;butitdoesnotnecessarilypointtoiteither.Accordingtohistheory,theonlysourcecouldbethemindoftheoriginalpercipient,whothen“infects”thosearoundhimwithhishallucination. G. N. M. Tyrell, former president of the Society for Psychcial Reasearch, agreed with Gurney that apparitions were telepathichallucinations,butthoughtGurney’stheorydidnotadequatelyexplaincollectivesightings,inwhichdifferentindividualsdidnotmerelyseethesamething,butsawthefigureascorrectfromtheirownperspectiveanddistance.Tyrellproposedthatthesubconsciousmindsofthewitnessescollaboratedtogethertoproduceahallucinationthatwasappropriateforeachobserver,sothatthefigureisseenasthoughitwerea real,physicallypresentperson.As inGurney’s theory, themindof thepersonrepresentedby theapparition isnotnecessarilyinvolved. TyrelladvancedhismodificationofGurney’stheorybecauseheemphaticallybelievedthatapparitionscouldnotbematerialobjects.Hestatedthefollowingdifferencesbetweenapparitionsandphysicalobjects:

1. Apparitionsappearanddisappearinlockedrooms.2. Theyvanishwhilebeingwatched.3. Theysometimesbecometransparentandfadeaway.4. Theyareoftenseenandheardbysomeofthosepresent,butnotall.5. Theydisappearintowallsandcloseddoors,andpassthroughphysicalobjects.6. Peoplehaveputtheirhandsthroughthem,andhavewalkedthroughthemwithoutencounteringresistance.7. Theyleavebehindnophysicaltraces.21

However, physicist-philosopherC.D.Broadwas quick to note that some physical phenomena share a number of these properties.

Gasesandrainbows,forinstance,haveproperties2,3,4,and7;andelectromagneticfieldshaveproperties1,5,6,and7.22

In its favor, the theory thatapparitionsare telepathichallucinationsdoessolve theproblem thatapparitionsarealmostalwaysseenwearingclothes.Thishaslongbeenseenasastumblingblockfortheideathatapparitionsarephysicallyreal:asonewitputit,“Ifghostshave clothes, then clothes have ghosts.” However, if apparitions are, in fact, physically real, then it seems unclear to me why thematerializationofclothingshouldposeanygreaterproblemthan,say,thematerializationofhair.ThePhysicallyRealTheoriesButanumberofproblemshavebeen raisedwith the theory thatapparitionsare telepathichallucinations.Firstofall,whyshouldonlypeopleinonesmallareashareinthehallucination?Inmyfirstbook,Ipresentedevidencethattelepathydoesnotseemtobeaffectedbydistance. Second,why should complete strangers sometimes share the experience?We also saw in the first book that telepathy onlyseemstooperatebetweenpeoplewhosharesomecommonrapport. Theseandotherproblemshaveledsometheoriststosupporttheideathatapparitionsare,insomesense,physicallyreal.Oneancientidea is that everyonehas an “astral body”; that is, a secondbodymadeupof somequasiphysical substance that is attached toone’sphysicalbodyduringlifeandenduresafterdeath.Accordingtothisview,anapparitionistheliteralappearanceoftheastralbody—onethatiseitheracopyofthephysicalbodyoronethatiscapableofappearingasareplica. Butthisisnottheonlypossibility.FredericMyersarguedthatwehavenorighttoassumethatthesightofanapparitionofadeceased

person literally is that deceased person, even if it is thought that in some cases the source of the apparitionmay be themind of thedeceased.HerejectedGurney’s theoryof telepathic infectionon thegrounds that if the theorywere true, thenwewould findcasesofordinaryhallucinations(fromdrugsorillness)spreadingbytelepathicinfectiontoothersinthevicinity.ButaccordingtoMyers,wedonotfindanysuchcases,andGurneycametoagreethatordinaryhallucinationsdonotseemtospreadbyinfection. Myersproposedatheorythatthepersonwhoseapparitionisperceivedisnotonlyameresourceofinformation,butisanactualagentinthefullsenseoftheterm.Hespeculatedthattheperceivedperson,livingordead,maycausechangesinsomenonphysicaldimensionof existence that intertwines with physical space. Myers referred to this other dimension of reality as the “metetherial world,” andspeculated that changes in themetetherialworld in thevicinityofwitnesseswouldallow them to see the figureof theagent inproperperspective, as though it were a normal person. The fact that some of those present may see the figure while others do notMyersattributedtothedifferentsensitivitiesofthosepresent.Myerswasnotveryspecificinhisspecificationofthemetetherialworld,anditisdifficulttoseehowthistheorycouldeverbetested.Butatleastitisanattempttoprovideanexplanationforfeaturesofthereportsthataretroublesomeunderthetelepathictheories.Myersalsothoughtthatthedifferenttypesofapparitionsmayrequiredifferentexplanations. OxfordphilosopherH.H.Pricedevelopeda theorybasedonMyers’sconcepts,whichspeculates thatapparitionsare formedfromsomething intermediate betweenmind andmatter, possessing properties of both. PhysicistRaynor Johnson developed this idea further,speculating on the existence of a “psychic aether” that acts as a bridge between mind and matter. He attributed the fact that someapparitions are reported as transparent and insubstantial while others are reported as capable of being felt to different degrees ofmaterialization.Onthisheremarked:

There isnothing remarkableaboutdifferentdegreesofmaterialization. . . . I regard the telepathic thought-formas theanimatingprincipleortransientmindwhichclothesitselfinanaethericbody.Thismaycondenseenoughchemicalmatteraroundittoreflectlight.Theextenttowhichitdoesthisseemstodiffergreatly:sometimesthefigureistransparentandthebackgroundcanbeseenthroughit;atothertimesithasasolidityindistinguishablefromanordinaryfigure.23

Johnson’stheoryisaresurrectionoftheancientideaoftheastralbody,withamoderntwist.Applyingtheconceptofmorphogenetic

fields,*13Johnsonspeculatesthatthematerializationofapparitions“isnotsubstantiallydifferentfromthatassociatedwithcreationandgrowthinNature.”

Howdowesupposeaphysicalbodyisbuilt?Whydoesaleaforflowergrowtothesize,shape,colourandsymmetry-patternwhichinfactitdoes—andtonoother?Whenrepairofawoundtakesplace,whyaretheformandoutlineoftheoriginalpatternsoclosely followed? Perhaps the so-called “astral” body is a dynamic, precise and persistent thought-form, which, through themedium of the aetheric body-structure which it directly creates, in turn molds the body of ordinary matter to its form. ThedifferencebetweenthenormalprocessesofgrowthinNatureandtheseparanormalprocessesmayonlybeamatterofdegree.24

OnemajoradvantageofJohnson’s theoryover the telepathichallucination theory is that itaccounts for the fact thatapparitionsare

reportedtobeverylifelikeindetail.Accordingtothetelepathictheories,theappearanceofapparitionsmustbederivedfrommemories.Butmostreportsstronglysuggestthatapparitionsarenotatalllikerememberedimagesthathavefadedovertime.Therearealsomanyreportsonrecordofapparitionsseenbystrangers,whoonlylateridentifiedthepersonfromaphotograph.Obviously,insuchcasesthesourceoftheapparitioncannotbethemindofthepercipient,asheorshehadnomemoriesoftheappearanceofthedeceased.Apparitionsare reported to be as lifelike in the back as they are at the front,which causes difficulty for any theory that says that apparitions arederivedfrommemoriesbelongingtothedeceased. However, Johnson’s theory still leaves the problemof apparitional clothingunsolved.Wemaywonderwhy thematerializationofclothingshouldbehardertoacceptthanthematerializationofhair.Butarewewillingtoextendtheconceptofmorphogeneticfieldstoclothing? Wehave examined the threemajor categories of theories: the skeptical theory, the telepathic hallucination theory, and the physicaltheories.Wehavealsoseenthatthelasttwotheoriesallowforthepossibilitythatapparitionsprovideevidenceinfavoroflifeafterdeath.Letusnowseehowthevarioustheoriesstandupafterreviewingsomeofthemorestrikingcases.

EIGHT

WhatUnderliesGhostlyVisions?

COLLECTIVELYPERCEIVEDAPPARITIONSCollectivelyperceivedapparitionsaremuchlesscommonthanthoseseenbyasingleperson.Palmerfoundthatonlyaboutone-eighthofhiscasesinvolvedseveralsimultaneouswitnesses.Amajorreasonforthisisthatmostpeoplewhoreportseeinganapparitionstatethattheywerealoneatthetime. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of reports of collectively perceived apparitions. FredericMyers wrote that when two ormorepersonsarepresentat the timeanapparition isperceived, in two-thirdsof suchcases twoormorepersonsperceive it.1 In a twentieth-centurystudy,HornellHartandhiscollaboratorsexaminedforty-sixcasesthat“reportedotherpersonssosituatedthattheywouldhaveperceivedtheapparitionifithadbeenanormalperson”andfoundthatintwenty-six,or56percentofsuchcases,theexperienceswereshared.2

TheCaseoftheCheltenhamGhost

One of the most famous cases of a collectively perceived apparition concerns the haunting of a large stone house in Cheltenham,England.TheCheltenhamghostfirstappearedin1882toRosinaDespard,thenanineteen-year-oldmedicalstudentlivingathomewithherfamily.TheearliestaccountsofthehauntingwerewrittenunderthepseudonymofMissR.C.Morton,anditwasnotuntilyearslaterthatthefamilynameandlocationofthehouseweremadepublic.Rosinadidnotwishtojeopardizehermedicalcareer,andherfatherhadgoodreasontoworryaboutthevalueoftheproperty. In herwritten account,MissDespard describes howone night she had gone up to her room and heard someone outside her door.Thinkingitmightbehermother,sheopenedthedoor,butatfirstsawnoone.Then,aftersteppingintothehallway,shesawthefigureofatalllady,dressedinblack,standingatthetopofthestairs.Afterafewmomentsthefiguredescendedthestairs,andRosinafollowed,curiousastowhatitmightbe.Butthesmallpieceofcandleshewascarryingwentout,andshereturnedtoherroom.Shewrote:

Thefigurewasthatofatalllady,dressedinblackofasoftwoolenmaterial,judgingfromtheslightsoundinmoving.Thefacewas hidden in a handkerchief held in the right hand. Thiswas all I noticed then; but on further occasions,when Iwas able toobservehermoreclosely,Isawtheupperpartof theleftsideoftheforehead,andalittleof thehairabove.Herlefthandwasnearlyhiddenbyhersleeveandafoldofherdress.Asshehelditdownaportionofawidow’scuffwasvisibleonbothwrists,sothatthewholeimpressionwasthatofaladyinwidow’sweeds.3

Duringthenext twoyearsRosinasawthefigureabouthalfadozentimes,andwrote thatsheonlymentionedtheseappearancesto

onefriend,whomshebelieveddidnotspeakofthemtoanyone.Duringthisperioditwasalsoseenonthreeoccasionsbyothers.Intheautumnof 1883, her older sister,while comingdown the stairs for dinner, sawa tall figure in black cross the hall andwalk into thedrawingroom.Thinkingthefigurewasavisitor,sheaskedothermembersofthefamily,“WhowasthatSisterofMercywhomIhavejustseengoingintothedrawing-room?”Shewastoldtherewasnosuchvisitor,anduponchecking,thedrawingroomwasfoundtobeempty.Shewrote,“ThiswastheyearbeforeIheardofanyappearancebeingknownofinthehouse.”4Nextahousemaidwasreportedtohaveseenthefigure,andfearedthatanintruderhadbrokenintothehouse.Finally,inDecemberof1883Rosina’syoungerbrother,thenabouteightornineyearsold,wasplayingoutsidewithafriendwhenthey“bothsawatallfigureinblackholdingahanderkerchieftoherfacewithherrighthand,seatedatthewritingtableinthewindow,andthereforeinfulllight.”Theyranintoseewhothevisitorwas,butfoundnoone.Herbrother later signeda statement that“itwas fulldaylightat the time,”and thatprior to this sighting,“Ihadheardnothingaboutanythingunusualbeingseeninthehouse.”5Afterthis,Rosinatoldtherestofthefamilythatshehadseenthefigureseveraltimesinthepasttwoyears. Hersightingsbegantofollowaregularpattern.Often,shewouldfirsthearnoises,usuallyslightpushesagainstherbedroomdoor,accompaniedby light footsteps. If she thenopenedherdoor, she invariablysaw the figure.Several timesshe followed the figureas itmoveddownstairs into thedrawing room,where it usually stood to the right-hand sideof a bowwindow.After remaining there for avariablelengthoftime,thefigurewouldthenleavethedrawingroomandmovealongthepassagetothegardendoor,whereitalwaysdisappeared. OnseveraloccasionsRosinaattemptedtospeaktothefigure.ThefirsttimewasonJanuary29,1884.

Iopenedthedrawing-roomdoorsoftlyandwentin,standingjustbyit.Shecameinpastmeandwalkedtothesofaandstoodstill

there,soIwentuptoherandaskedherifIcouldhelpher.Shemoved,andIthoughtshewasgoingtospeak,butsheonlygaveaslight gasp andmoved towards the door. Just by the door I spoke to her again, but she seemed as if shewere quite unable tospeak.Shewalkedintothehall,thenbythesidedoorsheseemedtodisappearasbefore.6

Attemptstotouchtheapparitionwerealsounsuccessful.ThefigureeludedRosina,andiffollowedintoacorner,simplydisappeared.

WhenRosina told her fatherwhat she had seen and heard, hewas astonished, as he had neither seen nor heard anything unusual.CaptainDespardaskedthelandlordifheknewofanythingunusualaboutthehouse.Thelandlordrepliedthathehimselfhadonlylivedthereforthreemonths,andhadneverseenanythingunusual. DuringthemonthsofJulyandAugust1884,thesightingswereattheirmostnumerous.OnAugust11,attwilight,Rosinaandhereldersisterbothsawtheapparitiononthebalcony,lookingintothewindowforseveralminutesbeforewalkingaway.Laterthatevening,heryoungersistersawthetallwomaninblackonthestairs.Thefollowingevening,Rosinaspottedthefigureoutside,andwatchedthefigureentertheopensidedoor.Shefollowed,asthefigurewalkedintothedrawingroomtotakeupherusualpositionnearthebowwindow.Herfatherenteredtheroom,buthecouldnotseethefigure.Rosinatoldhimtheapparitionwasstanding;whenherfatherwalkedtotheplaceindicated,theapparitionquicklylefttheroomanddisappearedasbefore.Laterthesameevening,oneofheryoungersisterswassittingalone in thedrawing room, singing,whenshe felt a cold shiverand saw the figurebendoverheras if to turn thepagesofhersongbook.Another younger sister came in from the garden, saying she sawher outside.With all the sisters searching,Rosina’s oldersistercalledoutfromawindowthatthefigurewaswalkingtowardtheorchard.Thateveningthen,fourpeoplereportedseeingthefigure. Altogether,thespecterwasseenorheardbyabouttwentypeople,mostlyfamilymembers,servants,orvisitors.Itwasseeninbothdarknessandindaylight, insideandoutsidethehouse,andononeoccasionforoverhalfanhour.Occasionally, theladyinblackwasseenbytwopeopleatthesametime,butmorefrequently,bydifferentpeopleatdifferenttimes. Accordingtothereports,animalsalsoreactedtotheapparition.Alargeretrieverwhosleptinthekitchenwasonseveraloccasionsfoundbythecookinastateofterrorinthemorning.Rosinainsistedthatthedog“waskindlytreatedandnotatallanervousdog.”Shealsodescribedthereactionsofasmallterrier:

Twice,Irememberseeingthisdogsuddenlyrunuptothematatthefootofthestairs,waggingitstail,andmovingitsbackintheway dogs do when expecting to be caressed. It jumped up, fawning as it would do if a person had been standing there, butsuddenlyslunkawaywithitstailbetweenitslegs,andretreated,trembling,underasofa.Wewereallundertheimpressionthatithadseenthefigure.7

However,Rosinawrites:

Thesefactswerekeptquiet,onaccountof the landlord,whofeared theymightdepreciate thevalueof thehouse,andanynewservantswerenottoldofthem,thoughtoanyonewhohadalreadyheardofthemwecarefullyexplainedtheharmlessnatureoftheapparition.Someleftusonaccountofthenoises,andwenevercouldinduceanyofthemtogooutoftheirroomsaftertheyhadoncegoneupforthenight.8

FredericMyeroftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch(SPR)joinedtheinvestigationin1885,andofferedvarioussuggestionsforthe

investigation.Rosina kept a camera onhand, butwas unable to obtain the long exposure necessary to capture the figure on film.Shegluedfinestringsacrossthestairway,andwrotethatonatleasttwooccasionsthefiguresimplypassedthroughthecords,leavingthemintact. Upuntil1886,thefigurewasreportedtobesosolidandlifelikethatitwasfrequentlymistakenforarealperson;after1886itseemstohavegraduallybecomelessdistinct.From1887to1889,thefigurewasseldomseen,thoughfootstepsweresometimesheard.After1889,thefigurewasapparentlynotseenagain;thefootstepslastedalittlelonger,butalsoeventuallyceased. Some unanticipated evidence came to light sixty years later,when an attorney namedGeorgeGoodingwrote a letter to the SPR,indicating thathewasoneof theboyswhohadseen the tall figure inblackwhileplayingwithRosinaDespard’syoungerbrother.Hementionedthatwhiletheadultsdidnotseemalarmedbythefigure,thedogsdislikedandapparentlyfearedit.Goodingrecalledseeingthe apparition on two occasions: once outside in bright sunlight, and the other time inside the drawing room. On the latter occasionGoodingwrotethattheboyshadjoinedhandsaroundthefigure,“fromwhichsheappearedmerelytowalkoutbetweentwopeopleandthendisappeared.”9

CommentsontheCheltenhamGhostCaseWhocouldshehavebeen?Afteraninvestigation,thefamilyconcludedthatthemostlikelycandidatewasImogenSwinhoe,secondwifeofHenrySwinhoe,thehouse’sfirstoccupantin1860.ThedescriptionoftheapparitionfitImogenSwinhoe,accordingtothosewhohadknownher,andRosinaidentifiedapictureofImogen’ssister,who,itwassaid,stronglyresembledher.Sadly,itdoesnotseemthatthemarriageofHenryandImogenwasahappyone.Thecouplefrequentlyquarreled,andMrs.Swinhoeleftherhusbandseveralmonthsbeforehediedin1876.ShewenttoBristol,whereshediedinSeptember1878,attheageofforty-one.ShewasburiedinthechurchyardofHolyTrinityChurchinCheltenham,aboutfivehundredyardsfromherformerhome,andthereisacommemorativetablettoherinthechurch. The SPR first heard about the case several years after it had apparently begun, and were not about to simply accept Despard’saccount without corroboration. Myers—who, as mentioned earlier, joined the investigation in 1885—interviewed all the principal

witnesses and obtained several written accounts from them.Of the various accounts, hewrote: “In this case it is observable that thephenomenaasseenorheardbyallthewitnesseswereveryuniformincharacter—eveninthenumerousinstanceswheretherehadbeennopreviouscommunicationbetweenthepercipients.”Withtheexceptionofoneincidentanelderlymancouldnotrecallsixyearslater,he“foundnodiscrepancyintheindependenttestimonies.”10

Could it have all been an elaborate hoax? Myers could find not one shred of evidence that Rosina had reported the eventsinaccurately. It is hard to conceiveof a possiblemotive for such a hoax.Theoriginal reportwaswrittenunder thepseudonym“R.C.Morton,” partly out of fear that the report would jeopardize Rosina’s medical career (at the time unusual for a woman), and partlybecauseCaptainDespard feared for the valueof the house,whichbelonged to a friend.The family also apparently tried to keep theapparitionasecret,becauseofthedifficultyreportsofitcausedinattractingandretainingservants. In1885Mrs.Sidgwick,oneof theSPR’smost skeptical investigators, examined thecase.She suggested that the figuremayhavebeenanotherwomankeptsecretlyinthehousewiththehelpofCaptainDespard,whosewifewasapartiallydeafinvalid.HersuggestionprobablyaccountsforRosina’sexperimentsingluingstringsacrossthestaircase,andforherattemptstotouchthefigure.Thereportsofthefigurepassingthroughthestrings,andofeludingattemptstotouchitcountagainstthistheory.Accordingtothereports,thefigurealsodidnotactlikesomeoneinhiding,asitreportedlyoftenappearedinbroaddaylight,andwasspottedoutside.ForallthesereasonsMrs.Sidgwickeventuallyrejectedthisexplanation. Othercriticshavetriedtoexplainthecaseusingvariousversionsofthehallucinationtheory.In1958,G.W.Lambertsuggestedthatthenoises frequentlyheardwerecausedbyanunderground stream runningbeneath thehouse.Lambert examinedanold surveymap,whichindicatedthatastreamcouldhavepassedunderthehouse,andspeculatedthatthestrangenoisesmayhavebeencausedwhenthefloodingoftheCheltRiverfedthestream.Inthattheory’sfavor,LambertpointedoutthatthefloodingoftheCheltwasreducedwiththeopeningoftheDowdeswellReservoirsin1886,whichcorrespondswiththedeclineinreportednoises.Lambertdismissedthesightingsoftheapparitionasasecondaryeffect,perhapscausedbysuggestionandanxietyaboutthenoises.11

Lambert himself admitted that the foregoingwas inconclusive and based only on circumstantial evidence. Even so, there ismuchaboutthetheorythatdoesnotseemtofitthecase.Itishardtounderstandhowrushingwatercouldcausenoisesthatwereheardprimarilyonthesecondfloor,withoutalsocausingagreatdealofvibrationthroughoutthehouse.TheDespards’formerresidencewasnotsomeflimsywoodenstructure,butratherasturdystoneandbrickhousethatstillstandstoday.Andifthephenomenawerecausedbyrunningwater,thenwhywereadjacenthousesnotsimilarlyaffected? Other critics have also dismissed the sightings of the apparition as due to hallucination. They argue that onceRosina reported herexperience,ordinarysuggestion,combinedwithanxiety,inducedsimilarhallucinationsintheothers.However,thistheoryfailstoaccountfortheearlyinstanceswhenotherpeoplesawtheapparitionbeforeRosinareportedherexperiences.Italsofailstoaccountforsightingsreportedbymaidswho,forobviousreasons,hadnotbeentoldabouttheghost.Italsoneedstoberememberedthatseveralmembersofthe family did not seem overly disturbed by the apparition. In his report, Myers noted that members of the Despard family “wereunusually free from superstitious fears.” Rosina herself seems to have taken a largely scientific interest in the apparition, and oncereportedseeingthefigurefornearlyhalfanhour.Thesimplehallucinationtheoryseemstohavetoomanylooseendstobeconsideredsatisfactory. Rosinaeventuallybecameaphysician,and theDespard family left thehouse in1893. Itwasafterwardused forvariouspurposes,suchasaschoolandanunnery,untilthehousewasboughtandconvertedintoapartmentsin1973.Atanyrate,theoldstonehousestillstands,atthecornerofPittvilleCircusRoadandAllSaints’Road,inCheltenham.

TheBut lerCaseIn 1826, a remarkable bookwas published by theReverendAbrahamCummings, titled Immortality Proved byTestimony of Sense.CummingssaysthathehadheardthatanapparitionintheformofonedeceasedMrs.ButlerhadmadenumerousappearancesinaMainevillage,andthathehadjourneyedthereinordertoexposewhatheassumedmustbeahoax.However,hisopinionwasforcedtochangewhenhehimselfwasmetinafieldbywhathecalled“theSpectre.”Hewrote:

Sometime inJuly1806, in theeveningIwas informedby twopersons that theyhad just seen theSpectre in the field.About tenminutesafter, Iwentout,not toseeamiracle, for Ibelieved that theyhadbeenmistaken.Looking towardaneminence, twelverodsdistancefromthehouse,Isawthere,asIsupposed,oneofthewhiterocks.Thisconfirmedmyopinionoftheirspectre,andIpaidnomoreattentiontoit.Threeminutesafter,Iaccidentallylookedinthesamedirection,andthewhiterockwasintheair;itsformacompleteGlobe,whitewithatinctureofred,likethedamaskrose,anditsdiameterabouttwofeet.Fullysatisfiedthatthiswasnothingordinary,Iwenttowarditformoreaccurateexamination.Whilemyeyewasconstantlyuponit,Iwentonfourorfivesteps,when itcametomefromthedistanceofelevenrods,asquickas lightning,and instantlyassumedapersonal formwithafemaledress,butdidnotappeartallerthanagirlsevenyearsold.WhileIlookeduponher,Isaidinmymind,“youarenottallenoughforthewomanwhohassofrequentlyappearedamongus!”ImmediatelyshegrewupaslargeandastallasIconsideredthatwomantobe.Nowsheappearedglorious.Onherheadwastherepresentationofthesundiffusingtheluminous,rectilinearrayseverywaytotheground.ThroughtheraysIsawthepersonalformandthewoman’sdress.12

InhisbookReverendCummingsreproducedthirtyaffidavitsfrompersonswhoclaimedtohaveseenorheardtheapparition.Between

1800 and1806, the apparitionwas seen on at least twenty-sevenoccasions by groups of people from two to nearly twohundred. ItidentifieditselfasthespiritofNellyButler,thedeceasedfirstwifeofCaptainGeorgeButler.Initsdiscourses,theapparitionseemedveryconcerned withmatters of marriage and family, urging Captain Butler to remarry, and accurately predicting the birth of a child. The

apparition also seemedvery concernedwith establishing its identity as the deceasedMrs.Butler, and to this end repeated snatches ofconversationsbetweenNellyandhersister,husband,andmotherwhenshewasalive,andwhichwereknownonlybythem.Informationwasalsoconveyedtothegroup—suchastherecentdeathofaman’sfathertwohundredmilesaway—thattheycouldhavenonormalwayofknowing.Onewitnessdescribedthevoiceoftheapparitionas“inimitable,andthemostdelightfulthatIeverheardinmylife.”13

ReverendCummingstellsusthatsomeofthewitnessesbelievedtheapparitionwasfromSatan,othersfromGod.Healsotellshowitpresenteditself“toonealone...sometimessheappearedtotwoorthree;thentofiveorsix;thentotenortwelve;againtotwenty;andonce tomore thanfortywitnesses.Sheappeared inseveralapartmentsofMr.Blaisdel’shouse,andseveral times in theopenfield . . .There,whiteas the light,shemoved likeacloudabove theground inpersonal formandmagnitude,and in thepresenceofmore thanfortypeople.Shetarriedwiththemtillafterdaylight,andvanished.”14Theapparitionalso invited thosepresent to try to touchher.Ononeoccasion,CaptainButler“puthishanduponitanditpasseddownthroughtheapparitionasthroughabodyoflight,intheviewofsixorsevenwitnesses.”15

CommentsontheButlerCaseAccusationsoffraudweremade,mostofwhichweredirectedatthenewMrs.Butler.Curiously,theapparitionnotonlypredictedthatthenewMrs. Butler would soon give birth to a child, but would also die shortly afterward. Both predictions reportedly came to pass.Cummingscarefullyconsideredtheaccusationsoffraud,butrejectedthem,concludingthatthespiritofNellyButlerhadreturnedtohercommunity,inordertobolstertheirbeliefinalifeafterdeath.

TheCaseofAnimalsSensingApparit ionsThefollowingcaseisveryodd:itconcernsanapparitionthatisunknowntotheexperientandisalsoapparentlyperceivedbytwodogs.TheaccountwasrelatedtotheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch(ASPR)byanofficerintheU.S.Navy.HehadbeenassignedtotheNavalPowderFactoryatIndianHead,Maryland,in1926,and,withhiswifeandtwodogs,movedintohalfofadoublehouse.InSeptember1927,anotherofficerandhisfamilymovedintotheotherhalf,andthetwofamiliesbecameclosefriends.InhislettertotheASPR,thelieutenantwrites:

EarlyinthefollowingMarchIwassittingatacardtableintheden,solvingaprobleminnavigation.Iwasfacingthefrontofthehouse.Thetimewasabout12:25a.m.Bothdogsweresleepingonthefloorattheendofadavenportintheliving-room.Iheardthespanielgrowl;butasheoftengrowlsatthemarinesentryashepassesthehouse,Ipaidnoattentiontoit.Bothdogsthengotup,passedmeinthedenandwentdownthebackhallintothedining-roomwherebothdogsagaingrowledandthentoremadlyacross thehallandup thestairway.Thenoise theymadegoingup thestairsawakenedmywife,whowasasleepon thesecondfloor.

Surprisedattheiractions,Ilookedupfrommyworkandsawamanstandingintheliving-roomnearthehallarchway.Hewasprobablytwenty-twofeetfromme.Alloutsidedoorsandwindowswereclosed....Icouldseehimplainly.16

Becauseofhisduties,itwasnotuncommonformentocometothehouseatallhours.However,thelieutenantwassurprisedthatthemancouldhaveenteredwithouthishearingthedoorsopenandclose,andthelieutenantwasirritatedthatthemandidnotknockorringthedoorbell.Healsodidnotrecognizethemanasanemployeeofthefactory.Thelieutenantstaredatthemanforabouttenseconds,asthe stranger seemed about to speak. Then he rose from his chair and took a few steps forward to greet theman, when the strangervanishedinstantly. Afteracarefulsearchofthehouse,thelieutenantconcludedthathehadbeenseeingthingsafterworkingtoolong,andturnedinforthenight.However,aboutaweeklater,whenhewasaloneinthehouse,thelieutenantagainsawthemanstandinginthelivingroom,inexcellentlight.Heappearedtoweighalittleovertwohundredpounds,wasdressedinlightgrayclothing,andlookedlikehehadadeeptan.Againthefigureseemedtobetryingtospeak,andthelieutenantwatchedhimforaboutfifteenminutes.Finally,hesteppedtowardthefigure,andagain,itsimplyvanished. Abouttenminuteslater,thelieutenantvisitedhisneighborintheotherpartofthehousetogethisopinion.Whentheneighbor’swife,Mrs.G.,cameintotheroom,herhusbandtoldhimthatthelieutenanthadseenaghostthathedidnotrecognize.Atthispointthewomanputabouttwentyphotographsbeforethelieutenant,andaskedhimtolookthroughthem.

IshuffledthenthroughcarelesslyandatabouttheseventhoreighthpictureIcameacrosstheportraitofthemanIhadseenafewminutesbefore.Thereisnodoubtinmymindastoitsbeingthesameman.Iwouldknowhimamongathousand.

Dumbfounded,Isaid“Thatistheman.Whoishe?”Shereplied,“Myfather:hehasbeendeadforseveralyears.”17

ThelieutenantconcludedhislettertotheAmericanSocietyofPsychicalResearchwiththesewords:

Iamwilling toswear to the truthof theabovestatement. Ihope there issomesimpleexplanationofall this,as Iwouldhate tohavemy life-long faith inaghostlessworld shattered.Myparents taughtme fromchildhood thatghostsdidnotandcouldnotexist,andallmylifeIhavefirmlybelievedthattobetrue.Naturallythebeliefsofalifetimearehardtoshatter.Hencethisletterseekinganexplanationofthatwhichtomeisinexplicable.18

CommentsontheCaseofAnimalsSensingApparitionsHowcanthiscasebeexplainedintermsofatelepathichallucination?WewouldhavetosupposethatMrs.G.wasthinkingofherlatefather,thatthelieutenanttelepathicallyreadthosethoughts,andthencreatedthehallucinationofherfather.Needlesstosay,thiswouldbetelepathyofanastonishingdegree,exercisedbyapersonwhoneverbeforehadanysimilarexperience.Whataboutthebehaviorofthedogs?Theybecameexcitedimmediatelybeforethelieutenantfirstsawthefigure,andsocouldnothavebeenmerelyreactingtohisastonishment.ArewetosaythatthedogsalsotelepathicallyreadMrs.G.’sthoughtsatthesamemoment,andalsobeganhallucinating?Finally,what possiblemotive could the lieutenant—or the dogs for thatmatter—have for telepathically acquiring information about adeceasedmantheyhadnevermet?

TheCaseofaFather’sVisitOnChristmas Eve 1869,Mr. andMrs. P., alongwith their fifteen-month-old daughter, had just settled in for the night.As usual, thecouplehadcarefullylockedallthedoors,includingthedoortotheirbedroom.Mrs.P.hadaskedherhusbandtoleavealampburninginthebedroombeforehegotintobed,sothatMrs.P.couldfeedherdaughter.Thelamp,sittingonasetofdrawersattheotherendoftheroom,hadbeenturneddown,sothattheroomwasdimlylit.Mrs.P.describedwhathappenednext.

I[was]justpullingmyselfintoahalf-sittingpostureagainstthepillows,thinkingofnothingbutthearrangementsforthefollowingday,whentomygreatastonishmentIsawagentlemanstandingatthefootofthebed,dressedasanavalofficer,andwithacaponhisheadhavingaprojectingpeak.The lightbeing in thepositionwhich Ihave indicated, the facewas in shadow tome, and themoresothatthevisitorwasleaninguponhisarmswhichrestedonthefoot-railofthebedstead.Iwastooastonishedtobeafraid,but simplywonderedwho it couldbe; and instantly touchingmyhusband’s shoulder (whose facewas turned fromme), I said,“Willie,whoisthis?”Myhusbandturned,andforasecondortwolaylookinginintenseastonishmentattheintruder;thenliftinghimselfalittle,heshouted,“Whatonearthareyoudoinghere,sir?”Meanwhiletheform,slowlydrawinghimselfintoanuprightposition,nowsaidinacommanding,yetreproachfulvoice,“Willie!Willie!”

Ilookedatmyhusbandandsawthathisfacewaswhiteandagitated.AsIturnedtowardshimhesprangoutofbedasthoughtoattacktheman,butstoodbythebedsideasifafraid,oringreatperplexity,whilethefigurecalmlyandslowlymovedtowardsthewallatrightangleswiththelamp.Asitpassedthelamp,adeepshadowfellupontheroomasofamaterialpersonshuttingoutthelightfromusbyhisinterveningbody,andhedisappeared,asitwere, intothewall.Myhusbandnow,inaveryagitatedmanner,caughtupthelamp,andturningtomesaid,“Imeantolookalloverthehouse,andseewhereheisgone.”...[W]ithoutpausing,myhusbandunlockedthedoor,hastenedoutoftheroom,andwassoonsearchingthewholehouse.19

Whileherhusbandsearched thehouse,Mrs.P.sat inbed,convinced that theyhadseenanapparition,andwonderingwhat itcouldpossiblymean.HerbrotherArthurwasinthenavy,andshewonderedif thismeantthathewassomehowintrouble.Afterherhusbandreturnedfromhisfruitlesssearch,sheexpressedherfearthattheapparitionhadsomethingtodowithArthur;towhichhereplied“Oh!No,itwasmyfather!”

Myhusband’sfatherhadbeendeadfourteenyears:hehadbeenanavalofficerinhisyounglife;but,throughill-health,hadlefttheservicebeforemyhusbandwasborn,andthelatterhadonlyonceortwiceseenhiminuniform.Ihadneverseenhimatall.MyhusbandandIrelatedtheoccurrencetomyuncleandaunt,andweallnoticedthatmyhusband’sagitationandanxietywereverygreat:whereashisusualmannerwascalmandreservedintheextreme,andhewasathoroughandavowedscepticinallso-calledsupernaturalevents.20

Later,Mrs.P’shusbandconfessedtoher thathehadbeeningreatfinancialdifficulties,andwasabout to taketheadviceofaman

whoalmostcertainlywouldhaveledhimintoruin,orworse.Onlytheapparitionofhisdeadfatherhadstoppedhimfromfollowingthiscourse.Mrs.P.’saccountwascorroboratedinwritingbyherhusband,andanothercoupleacknowledgedthatMrs.P.hadtoldthemthesamestoryyearsearlier.Mrs.P.concludedthat theapparitionwas“adirectwarningtomyhusbandinthevoiceandappearanceof theonethathehadmostreveredinallhislife,andwasthemostlikelytoobey.”CommentsontheCaseofaFather’sVisitIfweattempttoexplainthiscaseasatelepathicallysharedhallucination,wewouldfirsthavetosupposethatMr.P.hadbeenbroodingordreamingaboutwhathislong-deadfatherwouldhavethoughtabouthisfinancialdifficulties.ThenwewouldhavetosupposethatMrs.P.readherhusband’smind,andconstructedarealistichallucinationofherhusband’slatefather,standingatthefootofthebed.Afterherhusbandwas roused, he then telepathicallypickedupher vision, and alsobeganhallucinating.Thepurposeof the figure—to stop theactions ofMr. P.—was actuallyMr. P.’s own. He knew that what hewas about to dowas dangerous andwrong, but he needed tohallucinateavisionofhisdeadfathertostophimself. AlanGauld,commentingonthissortofexplanation,haswrittenthat“aflat-eartherinfullcrycouldhardlysupporthishypothesiswithmoretortuousargumentation.”21Hebelieves it ismuchsimpler tosuppose thatdiscarnateagenciesshape thecollectiveexperiences inaccordancewiththeirownpurposes:

Thatwaywe can avoid suchbizarre notions as that persons hitherto not known to bepsychically gifted can suddenly develop

powersofESPcomparableto,ifnotexceeding,themostremarkablethathaveeverbeenexperimentallydemonstrated;thattwopeoplewithoutanyconscious thoughtofdoinganysuch thingcanatanunconscious level telepathically linkupwitheachotherandhammeroutthedetailsofahallucinatoryfigurewhichbothshallsee;thatanimalsmaytosomeextentshareinthisprocess;that the information thus acquiredwill be dressed up by processes unknown and presumably unconscious and presented to theconscious mind quite indirectly in the form of dramatic but really irrelevant interventions by deceased persons; and that thepurposespromotedby thehallucinatoryepisodes, evenwhenostensiblymoreappropriate to the supposeddeceasedperson, arereallythoseofthelivingpercipientorofsomeotherlivingpersonwhosemindtelepathicallyinfluenceshis.22

Finally, it is important to stress that collectively perceived apparitions are almost invariably seen in proper perspective by the

witnesses,giventheirpositionanddistancefromtheapparition.Inonereportedcase,arecentlydeceasedmanwasseenstandingonthealtarstepsofhischurchbythreepeopleinthreedifferentpartsofthechurch,lookingcompletelynormal.23Inanothercase,awomanandherdaughtersleepinginthesameroomsuddenlyawokeandsawafemalefigureinawhitegarmentwithdarkcurlyhair,standinginfrontofthefireplace,overwhichtherewasamirror.Themothersawthefaceinquarter-profile;herdaughtercouldonlydirectlyseethebackofthefigure,butcouldseethefigure’sfaceclearlyreflectedinthemirror.24InanEnglishcasefromthe1930s,ninemembersofafamily reported that together they saw the apparition of their recently deceased grandfather,which even the smallest girl, aged five,recognized.25 These andmany other similar cases can leave no doubt that collective apparitions are perceived as though theywereactual livingpersons,obeyingall thenormalrulesofperspectiveanddistanceforeachobserver.Unlessweholdonto theuntestabletheorythatthesubconsciousmindsofthewitnessesinthesecasescollaboratedtogethertotelepathicallycreateacollectivehallucinationthatwasnotmerely identical,butcorrectfor theperspectiveofeachobserver, itseemsas thoughwearedrivento theconclusionthatcollectivelyperceivedapparitionsaresomethingobjectivelypresent.

APPARITIONSOFTHELIVINGThereareseveralaccounts in the literatureofapparitionsof livingpersons. In thefollowingcase, thewomansuspected thepersonshesawhadjustdied.

Mymotherlivedwithme,andatthetimeofwhichIwritewasagedabouteighty-three,soconsequentlywenttobedagooddealearlierthatIdid.OnenightIwasleavingthesittingroomwithmyblackcockerspanieldogbymyside,andonopeningthedoortherewasmymother standing just outside in the hall, perfectly solid and in her nightdress andwith the little shawl aroundhershoulderthatshealwaysworeinbed.Ithoughtshehadjustcometothedoorandspoketoher,whensheimmediatelyvanished.Thedog’shacklesroseslightlyandIknewfromhisappearancethathehadseenher,too.Myfirstthoughtwasthatshehaddiedinhersleep,andthatthiswasherghost,soIwentatoncetoherroom,whereshewaslyingpeacefullyasleep.

Shelivedforfouryearsafterthis.26

Themost impressive of these cases are the reciprocal cases, ofwhichwe have several examples on record. These are the casesinvolvingalivingpersonwhoclaimstoremembervisitingtheplaceatwhichwasreportedanapparitionbearinghisorherlikeness.ThefollowingisacasefromSweden:

MRS.L.:Wewerebuildingoursummercottage.Olle,oneoftheneighbor’sboys,wentawayonholidayjustwhenthefoundationwaslaid,andthehousewentupduringhisabsence.Oneeveningatdusk. . . itwasstill light,[and]Isaw[a]man. . .stridingobliquely over the rise toward the house, dressed in light blue pajamas and [looking] just likeOlle.The figurewalked rightthroughthesprucetreesanduptothehouse,wherehestopped,andwithhandsonhips,studiedthehouse—andthendisappearedintonothing.AfterafewweeksOllestrolledupjustthewaythefigureinpajamashad,butnowheavoidedthespruces.Helookedupatthehousecompletelyterrifiedandburstout,“ButI’veseenthisbefore!”

OLLE:TheL.familyhadjuststartedlevelingandgradingforthefoundationwhenIwentaway,soIhadnowayofknowinghowthehousewasgoingtolookwhenitwasfinished.OnenightIdreamedIwaswalkingalongthepaththatledup...totheL.’s[cottagesite].Inthedream,whenIreachedthecottageIsawitabsolutelyclearly...I...sawMrs.L.standingonthestepsasifwelcomingme.Later,whenIcamebackfromthetrip,IwalkedovertotheL.’stochat.IwasterrifiedwhenIcaughtsightofthecottage;itlookedexactlyasI’dseenitinthedream,andMrs.L.satonthesteps.SheaskedmeifI’dwornapairoflightbluepajamasthenightIhadthedream,andinfactIdid.Thetimecorresponded,too.27

TheSPR’sJournalof1891containstheaccountofS.R.Wilmot,amanufacturerfromBridgeport,Connecticut.In1863hecrossed

theAtlanticinTheCityofLimerick,which ran intoa fiercestorm.Onenight thegaleabated,andhesleptsoundly for the first time ineightdays.Hedreamedthathiswifecametothedoorinhernightdress;afterhesitating,asifrealizinghewasnotaloneinthecabin,she“stoopedandkissedme,andafterhavingcaressedmeafewmomentsshequietlywithdrew.” WhenWilmotwokeuphiscabinmate,WilliamTait,“asedateandveryreligiousman”wasstaringathim.“Youarealuckyfellowtohavealadycometovisityouinthisway!”Taitremarkedwithindignation.WhenthesurprisedWilmotaskedTaittoexplainhimself,Taitdescribedwhathehadseen,whichcorrespondedexactlywithWilmot’sdream. WhenWilmotmethiswifebackinBridgeporthewasstartledagain,whensheasked,“Didyoureceiveavisitfrommeaweekago

Tuesday?”ShehadheardofthestormandofthesinkingofanothershipontheAtlanticcrossing,andhadlainawakeoutofworry.Atfourinthemorningofthedayhehadhisdream,ithadseemedtoherthatshehadgoneouttoseekherhusband,crossedthestormysea,foundhisship,andenteredhiscabin.“Amanwasintheupperberth,lookingrightatme,andforamomentIwasafraidtogoin,butsoonIwent up to the side of your berth, bent down and kissed you, and embraced you, and thenwent away.”According toWilmot, thedescriptionshegaveofthesteamerwas“correctinallparticulars.”Wilmot’ssister,whowasalsoonTheCityofLimerick,latertestifiedthatTaithadaskedherwhetheritwasshewhohadcomedowntoseeherbrother.28

In2007,EdwardKelly,EmilyKelly,AdamCrabtree,AlanGauld,MichaelGrosso,andBruceGreysonsummarizedthiscaseintheirbookIrreducibleMind.At theendof theirbriefdiscussion theydescribehowSusanBlackmoreandPaulEdwards (whomwemet inchapter4)havegrosslymisrepresentedthiscase:

Blackmore[“AreOut-of-BodyExperiencesEvidenceforSurvival?,”143–44]thinksshehassuccessfullydiscreditedtheWilmotcase, and Edwards [Immortality, 20] agrees, asserting that “the case totally collapsed when it was investigated by SusanBlackmore.”BlackmoreclaimsthattheentirestoryrestsonMrWilmot’stestimonyaloneandthatthistestimonywasunreliablebecausehehadbeenseasickat thetime.Shefurtherclaimsthat“MrsWilmotneverreportedhavinghadanOBE [out-of-bodyexperience]atall.”[emphasisadded]

AlthoughBlackmore claims to have read the original reports (citingMyers’ reprinting of the case), she clearly did not readthemcarefullyenough, andEdwardsapparently reliedentirelyonBlackmorewithout reading theoriginal reporthimself. In thereport,boththeoriginalandMyers’reprintingofit,lettersareprintednotonly fromMrWilmotbutalso fromMrsWilmotandMissWilmot,corroboratingtheessentialfeaturesofhisaccount.AlthoughMrsWilmotneverexplicitlysaid“Ihadanout-of-bodyexperience,”shedidsay“Ihadaveryvividsenseallthe[next]dayofhavingvisitedmyhusband.”[emphasisadded]Shealsosaid“Ifeltmuchdisturbedathis[themanintheupperberth’s]presence,asheleanedover,lookingatus.”Shefurther

reportedthat“theimpressionwassostrongthatIfeltunusuallyhappyandrefreshed,”incontrasttotheanxietyaboutherhusbandthat had preceded it.We do not unfortunately have the testimony of theman in the upper berth [who had since died], but, asmentionedabove,wedohaveMissWilmot’stestimonythathetoldherabouthisexperiencethenextmorning,beforeshehadseenherbrotherandheardhisaccountofwhathadhappened.The case is not perfect, but Blackmore’s and Edwards’s misrepresentation of the reported facts, and offhand dismissal of

testimonythatconflictswiththeirbeliefs,isindefensibleatbest.29

Apparitions of the living are of special interest forwhat light theymay shed on apparitions of the dead.HornellHart has provided adetailedanalysisof thecharacteristicsofapparitions.Hearrangedhiscasesof apparitions inchronologicalorder,beginningwith thoseoccurring long before the projector’s death and ending with those occurring long after the person’s death. Hart argued that ifconsciousnessisdependentonthefunctionofaphysicalbrain,thenapparitionsshouldshowanabruptchangeincharacterandbehaviorwhenthepointofdeathispassed.Buttheobservedfactsdonotindicatesuchachangeexcept,asHartwrites,“suchasmightbeexpectedfrom the alterations of purpose which death would produce in the appearer.”30 Hart concluded that apparitions of the living areindistinguishable from those of the dead. Hewas also able to show that in 82 percent of cases of apparitions of the living that heanalyzed, these living people cited as apparitions either remembered leaving their body, or had been directing their attention to thepercipient,oftenwith the ideaof“going” tohimorher. Ifweare justified inconcluding that at least someapparitionsof the livingarevehiclesforthemindsofthosetheyrepresent,thenitwouldseemthatweareequallyjustifiedinconcludingthatatleastsomeapparitionsofthedeceasedarealsovehiclesforthemindsofthosetheyrepresent.Thefactthatapparitionsofthelivingareindistinguishablefromapparitionsofthedeadmeansthatapparitionsofthedeadprovideevidenceinfavorofsurvival.

APPARITIONSWITHTHEIROWNAGENDAAPromiseKeptInhisautobiography,HenryBrougham—laterLordChancellorinHisMajesty’sGovernment—relateshow,inDecember1799,hewastravelinginSwedenwithfriends.

Dec.19—WesetoutforGothenburg,determiningtomakeforNorway.Atoneinthemorning,arrivingatadecentinn,wedecidedtostopforthenight.Tiredwiththecoldofyesterday,IwasgladtotakeadvantageofahotbathbeforeIturnedin.Andhereamostremarkablethinghappenedtome—soremarkablethatImusttellthestoryfromthebeginning.

AfterIhadlefttheHighSchool,IwentwithG.,mymostintimatefriend,toattendtheclassesintheUniversity.Therewasnodivinityclass,butwefrequentlyinourwalksdiscussedandspeculatedonmanygravesubjects—amongothers,ontheimmortalityofthesoul,andonafuturestate.Thisquestion,andthepossibility,Iwillnotsayofghostswalking,butofthedeadappearingtotheliving,weresubjectsofmuchspeculation:andweactuallycommittedthefollyofdrawingupanagreement,writtenwithourblood,totheeffectthatwhicheverofusdiedthefirstshouldappeartotheother,andthussolveanydoubtswehadentertainedofthe“lifeafterdeath.”AfterwehadfinishedourclassesatthecollegeG.wenttoIndia,havinggotanappointmentthereintheCivilService.Heseldomwrotetome,andafterthelapseofafewyearsIhadalmostforgottenhim;moreoverhisfamilyhavinglittleconnectionwithEdinburgh,Iseldomsaworheardanythingofthem,orofhimthroughthem,sothatallhisschoolboyintimacyhaddiedout,andIhadnearlyforgottenhisexistence.Ihadtaken,asIsaid,awarmbath,andwhilelyinginitandenjoyingthecomfort

oftheheatafterthelatefreezingIhadundergoneIturnedmyheadround,lookingtowardsthechaironwhichIhaddepositedmyclothes,asIwasabouttogetoutofthebath.OnthechairsatG.,lookingcalmlyatme.HowIgotoutofthebathIdonotknow,butonrecoveringmysensesIfoundmyselfsprawlingonthefloor.Theapparition,orwhateveritwas,thathadtakenthelikenessofG.,haddisappeared.31

LordBroughamwroteanaccountof theexperienceinhis journalshortlyafter,writing,“NodoubtIhadfallenasleep;andthat theappearance presented so distinctly to my eyes was a dream I cannot for a moment doubt.” However, shortly after Lord BroughamreturnedtoEdinburgh,aletterfromIndiaconveyedthenewsthatG.haddiedonDecember19,theexactdateLordBroughamhadthe“dream”thatlefthimsprawlingonthefloorbesidethebathtub.

TheCaseoftheDoctorMakingaHouseCallOnSaturday,October18,1868,Mr.andMrs.BacchusleftsomefriendswithwhomtheyhadbeenstayingandwenttoCheltenhamtovisit a sick friend.First they found rooms ina local lodginghouse,and left tovisit theirailing friend.On theirwayoutof the lodginghouse,theynoticedsomemedicinebottles,andinquiredifanyoneinthehousewasill.TheyweretoldthataMrs.R.,whokeptaroomdownstairs, had been ill for some time, but that her illness was not a serious one. In the course of the evening they mentioned thiswoman’snametotheirfriend,andhetoldthemthatshewasthewidowofaphysicianwhoformerlypracticedinCheltenham.OnSundaymorningMr.BacchusinformedMrs.BacchusthatMrs. R.hadsuddenlydiedinthenight,andthatherbodywasbeingkeptinthebedroomdownstairs,directlybelowtheirownrooms.NotwishingtomoveonaSunday,andbeingofkinddisposition,thecoupledecidedtoremainatthelodginghouse.Thedaywasspentwiththeirfriendandhisnieces,andtheyreturnedtothelodgingslateintheevening,intimetogotobed.Mrs.Bacchuswrote:

Iwenttosleepquicklyasusual,butwoke,Isuppose,inthemiddleofthenight,notfrightenedbyanynoise,andfornoreason,andsawdistinctlyatthefootofthebedanoldgentlemanwitharoundrosyface,smiling,hishatinhishand,dressedinanold-fashionedcoat(blue)withbrassbuttons,lightwaistcoatandtrousers.ThelongerIlookedathim,themoredistinctlyIsaweveryfeatureandparticularofhisdress.Ididnotfeelmuchfrightened,andafteratimeshutmyeyesforaminuteortwo,andwhenIlookedagain,theoldgentlemanwasgone.32

Muchtohersurprise,Mrs.Bacchuswasnotfrightened,andaftersometimefellbackintosleep.Thenextmorning:

[W]hiledressing,[I]madeupmymindthatIwouldsaynothingofwhatIhadseentillIsawoneofmynieces,andwouldthendescribetheoldgentleman,andaskifDr.R.couldbelikehim,althoughtheideaseemedabsurd.Imetmyniece,MaryCopeland,comingoutofchurch,andsaid,“WasDr.R.likeanoldgentlemanwitharoundrosyface,”etc.,etc.,describingwhatIhadseen.Shestoppedatonceonthepavement,lookingastonished.“Whocouldhavetoldyou,aunt?Wealwayssaidhelookedmorelikeacountryfarmerthanadoctor...”33

Heraccountwascorroborated,initsessentials,byherhusbandandtwoofhernieces.

CommentsontheCaseoftheDoctorMakingaHouseCallThiscaseisdifficulttoexplainasahallucinationgeneratedbythemindofMrs.Bacchus.Sheknewneithertherecentlydeceasedwomannorherdeceasedhusband.Whatpossiblereasoncouldshehavefortelepathicallyacquiringdetailsoftheappearanceofamanshehadnevermet,andthenincorporatingthemintoarealistichallucination?Ontheotherhand,thedeceaseddoctor—ifhestillexisted—couldreasonablybecreditedwithastrongmotiveforvisitinghisrecentlydeceasedwife,namely,tohelpherthroughthetransitionofdeath.

TheBlueOrchidCaseArthurC.Clarke,authorof2001:ASpaceOdyssey,wastoldthefollowingstrangetalebyEnglishwomanGeorginaFeakes. BeforetheSecondWorldWar,Georgina’ssister,Beatrice,andherfamilyhademigratedtoSouthAfrica.Whenhostilitiesbrokeout,Georgina’s cousin,OwenHowerson, signedup, andwaskilled in action in1944.Soonafter,Georgina claimed,he appeared toher inEngland,surroundedbyagoldenmist.“Hesaidhistankhadbeenhit,buthestillfeltverymuchalive.WouldIpleasetellhismum,andpleasegivehislovetopoorHelen.”Georginaclaimstohavebeendumbstruckatfirst.“Itriedtospeak,althoughmylipswerenumbandfrozen.”Finally,shesaysshefoundhervoice:“Isaid,‘Proof,givemeproof.’Andhesaid,‘Watch.’”

To my amazement, he opened the top of his shirt, and took out a beautiful blue flower, of penetrating perfume. It was verybeautiful, longandbell-like,orchid-like.Awonderful scentpermeated thewhole room.While I stared inamazement,heput itbackinhisshirt,tookitout,andputitback,andtookitout.Andthenhesaid,quiteloudly,“Tellmum,TableMountain.”

According toGeorgina, the apparition then shimmeredandvanished.Withnoneof thismakingany sense toGeorgina, shewrote at

once toOwen’smother;back fromSouthAfricacame thiscuriousexplanation.OwenhadonedaygoneupTableMountain,pickedaprotectedblueflower,andbrought ithome,hiddenit inhisshirt.Theflowerwasarareblueorchid thatgrewonTableMountain,and

sinceitwasillegaltopick,Owenhadriskedprisontobringitbacktoher.Whileshowingittoher,thedoorslammed,andhenervouslyhidtheflowerinhisshirt,onlytakingitoutagainafterlearningitwasafalsealarm.HerauntBeatriceinSouthAfricahadkeptthestorysecret,inordertoprotectOwen,whocouldhavebeenimprisonedfortheoffense.SoitdoesnotseemlikelythatGeorginacouldhaveknownabouttheincident. GeorginaclaimsOwenappearedasecondtime,againinagoldenmist.Butthistimehismannerwasnotfriendly.“Hereproachedmebitterly for not contacting Helen. And I was very distressed about this, because I had tried.” His mother had been through all hiscorrespondence,andhadfoundnoletterfromanyonenamedHelen,oranyreferencetoanyonewiththatname. ButtherehadbeenaHelen inOwen’s life,a lovelyyoungwomanwithdarkhairandeyes, forwhomOwenhadwritten romanticlettersandpoems.Afterreadingthestoryoftheblueorchidinthenewspapers,shecontactedthefamily,andthemysteryofHelenwassolved.34

Casesliketheseseemhardtoexplainintermsoftelepathyamongtheliving.Insuchcasestheapparitionshowsapurposethatisdifficulttoattributetoanyoneliving,butwhichcouldeasilybeattributedtothedeceased,iftheystilllived.

VERIDICALAPPARITIONSWehaveseenseveralexamplesofapparitionsthatseemtoconveyinformationnotknowntothepercipient,whichuponchecking,turnedout to be accurate.We classify such cases as veridical: that is, the experiences provide information that corresponds with facts. Thefollowingapparitionconveyedinformationaboutaninconsequentialdetailthatturnedouttohavebeencorrect.

TheCaseofaSoldier’sDeathEdmundGurneyreceivedaletterin1886fromaBritishArmycolonelthatbegan:

Iamnotabelieveringhosts,spiritmanifestations,orEsotericBuddhism.Ithasbeenmylot—alotsoughtbymyselfoverandoveragain, and never falling to me by chance—to sleep in well-known, or rather well-believed-to-be haunted rooms. I haveendeavoredtoencounterghosts,spirits,orbeings(ifyoulike)fromanotherworld,butlikeothergoodthingsthatoneseeksforinlife,withoutsuccess.WhenIleastexpectedit,however,Iexperiencedavisitationsoremarkableinitsphenomena,sorealisticinitsnature,sosupportedbyactualfacts,thatIamconstrained,attherequestofmyfriends,toputmyexperienceintowriting.35

Thecolonel thendescribedhow,nearly twenty-threeyearsearlier,hehad formeda friendshipwithanother subaltern, towhomhe

referred to as simply “J. P.” Their friendship continued up until the TransvaalWar,when J. P.was called to the scene of action. Themorninghe left, the twofriendshadbreakfast togetherat theofficers’club;at thedoor, J.P. told thecolonel“Weshallmeetagain,”waved,andwasgone. Overayearlater,thecolonelawokewithastartatdawn.

Standingbymybed,betweenmeand thechestofdrawers, I sawa figure,which inspiteof theunwonteddress—unwonted,atleast,tome—andofafullblackbeard,Iatoncerecognizedasthatofmyoldbrother-officer....Hisfacewaspale,buthisbrightblackeyesshoneaskeenlyaswhen,ayearandahalfbefore,theyhadlookeduponmeashestoodwithonefootonthehansom,biddingmeadieu.

FullyimpressedforthebriefmomentthatwewerestationedtogetheratC___inIrelandorsomewhere,andthinkingIwasinmybarrack-room,Isaid“Hallo!P.,amIlateforparade?”P.lookedatmesteadily,andreplied,“I’mshot.”“Shot!”Iexclaimed.“GoodGod!Howandwhere?”“Throughthelungs,”repliedP.,andashespokehisrighthandmovedslowlyupthebreast,untilthefingersrestedovertheright

lung.“Whatwereyoudoing?”Iasked.“TheGeneralsentmeforward,”heanswered,andtherighthandleftthebreasttomoveslowlytothefront,pointingovermy

head to thewindow,andat thesamemoment the figuremeltedaway. I rubbedmyeyes, tomakesure Iwasnotdreaming,andsprangoutofbed.36

Twodayslaterthecolonellearnedofhisfriend’sdeath,atalmosttheexacttimehehadseentheapparition.Sixmonthslaterhemetanofficerwhowasatthebattle,andlearnedthatJ.P.haddiedafterbeingshotthroughtherightlung,wearingthesameuniform,andwithafullbeard,whichthecolonel“hadneverseenhimwear.”Thereseemstobenoexplanationforthebeardiftheimageofthecolonel’sfriendoriginatedonly in themindof thecolonel,due to thecolonel’s telepathicperceptionofhis friend’sdeath.Askepticof survivalcould,ofcourse,maintainthatthecolonelclairvoyantlyperceivedhisdeadfriend’sappearance,butthiswouldbepostulatingaleveloftelepathyandclairvoyancerarely,ifever,seen,apartfromapparitioncasessuchasthis.Itisalsoworthpointingoutthatthecolonelhadnever had an experience like this before or since, and considered himself “not a believer in ghosts, spirit manifestations, or EsotericBuddhism.”

CommentsontheCaseofaSoldier’sDeathThisandotherveridicalcasesallinvolvedinformationthatcouldplausiblyhavebeenknowntosomeonewhowasaliveatthetime,andareopentoanexplanationintermsoftelepathyamongtheliving.However,reportsofapparitionsthatrevealinformationapparentlynotknownbyanyonelivingdatebacktoancienttimes,suchasthestoryofthephilosopherAthenodorusthatservedtoopenthissection.WealsohavesimilarreportsfrommedievalEurope,suchasthestoryconcerningDante’slostCanto.Hisson,Pietro,wasanxioustopublishtheDivineComedy in its entirety,but couldnot find the final canto.After a longand fruitless search,Pietrodreamtonenight thathisfatherappearedathisbedsideandtoldhimthatthemanuscripthadbeenhiddenunderaboardnearthewindow,whereitwasthepoet’scustomtositandwrite.Accordingtothestory,themissingpaperswerethenfoundatthespotindicatedbytheapparition. Somehave attempted to explain this case as due to clairvoyant perception on the part ofDante’s son.They argue that Pietrowasstronglymotivated to find themissingmanuscript, and that the informationcame in the formofa clairvoyantdream.According to thisinterpretation, the figureofhis father in thedreamserved thepurposeofproviding legitimacy to themessage.However, the followingcaseismoredifficulttoexplaininthismanner.

TheChaffinWillCaseThis case involves the contestedwill of JamesL.Chaffin, a farmer inDavieCounty,NorthCarolina. It is an unusual case in severalrespects,nottheleastofwhichisthatitisunusuallywell-authenticated,asallknownfactswerecarefullyscrutinizedinacourtofjusticein1925,inthecaseofChaffinv.Chaffin. OnNovember16,1905,JamesL.Chaffinmadeoutawill,dulyattestedbytwowitnesses,wherebyhegavehispropertytohisthirdson,Marshall.Tohiswidowandtheotherthreesons,heleftnothing.OnSeptember7,1921,Mr.Chaffindiedsuddenly,asaresultofafall.His sonMarshall duly took ownership ofMr.Chaffin’s farm and other possessions.Hiswidow and the other three sons did notcontestthewill,astheyknewofnovalidreasonfordoingso. Almostfouryears later, inJune1925, thesecondson,JamesP.(J.P.)Chaffin,begantohaveveryvividdreamsinwhichhisfatherappearedathisbedside,butwithoutsayinganything.Laterthatmonth,eitherinadream,orinastatebetweenwakingandsleeping(J.P.himselfwasnotsure):

[H]eappearedatmybedsideagain,dressedasIhadoftenseenhimdressedinlife,wearingablackovercoatwhichIknewtobehisowncoat.Thistimemyfather’sspiritspoketome,hetookholdofhisovercoatthiswayandpulleditbackandsaid,“Youwillfindmywillinmyovercoatpocket,”andthendisappeared.37

Convincedthathisfatherhadvisitedhim,J.P.Chaffinvisitedhismotherthefollowingday,inquiringaftertheovercoat.Thecoat,he

wastold,hadbeengiventohisbrotherJohn.ThefollowingMonday,hetraveledtwentymilestohisbrother’shome,andfoundthattheinsidepocketof theoldcoathadbeensewnshut.Aftercutting the threads,a rollofpaperwasfound,withamessage in their father’shandwriting:“Readthe27thchapterofGenesisinmydaddie’soldBible.” Moreconvinced thanever that themysterywouldnowbesolved,Chaffin recruited twoneighbors—oneMr.Blackwelderandhisdaughter—aswitnesses, and traveledback to hismother’s home to examine the old familyBible.After a considerable search itwasfound,sodilapidatedthatitwasbrokeninthreepieces.BlackwelderpickedupthesectionthatcontainedthebookofGenesis,andturnedtothetwenty-seventhchapter.There,withinfoldedpages,hefoundthesecondwilloftheelderJamesChaffin,whichreadsasfollows.

After reading the27thchapterofGenesis, I, JamesL.Chaffin,domakemy lastwill and testament, andhere it is. Iwant, aftergivingmybodyadecentburial,mylittlepropertytobeequallydividedbetweenmyfourchildren,iftheyarelivingatmydeath,bothpersonalandrealestatedividedequallyifnotliving,givesharetotheirchildren.Andifsheisliving,youallmusttakecareofyourmammy.Nowthisismylastwillandtestament.Witnessmyhandandseal.

JamesL.ChaffinThisJanuary16,191938

Thetwenty-seventhchapterofGenesistellshowtheyoungerbrother,Jacob,supplantedtheelderbrother,Esau,andwonhisbirthright.Thesolebeneficiaryofthefirstwillwas,itwillberemembered,theyoungestbrother,Marshall. Marshallhaddiedwithinayearofhisfather’sdeath,leavingasontoinheritthefamilyproperty,whichhadbeenhisaccordingtothefirst will.When the secondwill was tendered for probate,Marshall’s son and his widow contested the document with a lawsuit. InDecember1925,ajurywassworninandacrowdpackedthecourtroom,hopingtowatchthespectacleofabitterfamilyfeudfoughtoutin public. The court was adjourned for lunch; when the hearing continued, one of the lawyers announced that during the interval anamicableagreementhadbeenreached,andthatthenewwillwouldnowbeadmittedtoprobatewithoutopposition. Whenthetrialstarted,Marshall’swidowandsonhadbeenpreparedtocontestthesecondwill.However,duringthelunchintervaltheyhadbeenshownthedocument.TenwitnesseswerepreparedtotestifythatthesecondwillwasinthedeceasedChaffin’shandwriting,andthewidowandsonadmittedthisassoonastheysawit.Theiroppositionwasatoncewithdrawn,andthecrowdretired,disappointed.CommentsontheChaffinWillCaseIt should be clear that this is an unusuallywell-researched andwell-documented case.Not onlywere the facts put in evidence in a

contestedlawsuit,buttheyalsounderwentthescrutinyofNorthCarolinaattorneyJ.M.Johnson,whoresearchedthecaseonbehalfoftheAmericanSocietyofPsychicalResearch.Aspartofhisreport,JohnsonforwardedtotheSocietytheoriginalnewspaperarticleonthecase, official records of the proceedings from the Superior Court of Davie County, North Carolina, and sworn statements from theprincipalwitnesses.TheoriginaldocumentscanstillbestudiedattheofficesoftheASPR.AsaresultoftheCourt’sjudgment,thesecondwillofJamesChaffinwasrecordedintheBookofWillsofDavieCounty,andthefirstwillwasannulledandmadevoid. Nevertheless,couldthesecondwillhavebeenafake?If itwasnot, thenwhydidtheelderChaffinhideit intheoldfamilybible,instead ofmaking thewill publicwhen hewas alive?Evidently, therewas some bitterness and acrimony in the family,which almostsurelyaccountsfortheneglectofthewidowandotherthreesonsinthefirstwill.Possibly,Chaffinintendedtorevealtheexistenceoftherevisedwillonhisdeathbed,andhissuddendeathasaresultofanaccidentfrustratedhisintention.Tenwitnesseswerepreparedtoswearthat the second will was in Chaffin’s handwriting, andMarshall’s widow and son agreed that it was genuine as soon as they wereallowed to see it. These facts would seem to decisively counter the suggestion of a forgery. J. M. Johnson, who interviewed andquestionedtheChaffins,was,inhiswords,“muchimpressedwiththeevidentsincerityofthesepeople,whohadtheappearanceofhonest,honourablecountrypeople,inwell-to-docircumstances.” Couldthesurvivingfamilymembershavehadsomesubconsciousknowledgeofthesecondwill,orofthenoteinthecoatpocket?Johnson considered this explanation. “I endeavoredwith allmy skill and ability by cross-examination and otherwise to induce someadmission thatpossibly therewasasubconsciousknowledgeof thewill in theOldBible,orof thepaper in thecoatpocket, thatwasbroughttotheforebythedream:butIutterlyfailedtoshaketheirfaith.Theanswerwasaquiet:‘Nay:suchanexplanationisimpossible.Weneverheardof theexistenceof thewill till thevisitation frommy father’s spirit.’”39 It shouldbeclear thatnoneof the survivingfamilymembershadanyconsciousknowledgeofthesecondwill.If thewidowandthreesonswhowerenotprovidedforbythefirstwilldid,thentheywouldnothaveallowedthefirstwilltobeprovedwithoutopposition.Norweretheylikelytoforgetaboutthewillduringtheshortperiod(twoyears,eightmonths)betweenthewritingofthesecondwillandtheelderChaffin’sdeath. Somehavearguedthatthecasemightbebestexplainedbyclairvoyantperceptiononthepartoftheson.Theseindividualscorrectlypointout that thesonstoodtogainbythediscoveryof thesecondwill.But thisdoesnotaccountfor thefact that themessagewastolookforthewillintheelderChaffin’scoatpocket,andnotintheoldfamilybible.Itseemsdifficulttoexplainwhytheson’sclairvoyantperceptionshouldfocusonascrapofpaperthatprovidedonlyacluetothelocationofthewill,andnotsimplyonthewillitself.*14Ontheotherhand,weallarefamiliarwiththemannerinwhichtwocloselyrelatedfactscanbecomeconfusedinmemory.IfthemessageisinterpretedascomingfromthedeceasedJamesL.Chaffin—motivatedbyadesiretorectifyaninjustice—thenthemistakenreferencetothewillinthecoatpocketisreadilyexplicable.

NINE

FinalThoughtsonApparitions

Wehave seen that theories of apparitions fall into twomain categories: those that consider thempurely psychic entities and those thatconsider themphysical entities. Some features of apparitions fit the psychicmodelmore closely,while other features seem to suggestsomesortofphysicalrealitytoapparitions. Could it be that the truth of thematter lies somewhere in between? Somewriters have suggested that the distinction between thepsychicandthephysicalisnotasabsoluteatitappearstous,butmayratherbeamatterofdegree.Andthatthereasonapparitionsseemtoshowqualitiesofboththementalandthematerialisthattheyshare—insomesense—bothmentalandmaterialproperties.Others,suchasMyers,haveposited that apparitions arequasimaterialethericdoubles of ordinaryphysical objects.Thiswould imply that they arecomposed of some form of matter that we do not normally perceive, or that does not normally interact with the physical universeaccessibletooursenses.Johnson,buildingonthetheoriesofMyersandPrice,speculatesthatmaterializationmaybeamatterofdegree,andthat theorganizingpatternsresponsiblefor thematerializationofapparitionalbodiesaresimilar to thoseresponsiblefor thegrowthanddevelopmentofbiologicalbodies. Tosolve theproblemofapparitionalclothing,Harthascomeupwithahybrid theory.Hespeculates thateveryphysicalobjecthaswhathecallsanethericcounterpart,similartoitineverydetail.Healsospeculatesthatethericobjectsmaybecreatedbyimagination;thatis,byimitatingormodifyingobjectsfoundinnature.Inordertoexplaintherangeofcharacteristicsofapparitions,hewritesthat“thedifferencesbetweenethericobjectsandphysicalobjectsaremattersofdegreeandmayvarythroughthewholerangebetweenthoseofsheer subjective imagination and those of completely materialized forms. Collective percipience of apparitions, materializations anddematerializations,andphysicalphenomena ingeneral (sofarasgenuine) involverelativelyhighdegreesofapproximation tophysicaltraitsonthepartofethericobjects.Ontheotherhand,‘purelymental’imaginingsanddreamsonthepartofindividualswouldrepresentpointstowardstheotherendofthesamescale.”1

Apparitionsarebaffling,becausethereseemstobenosatisfactoryexplanationastowhattheyarethatwillfitintotheneatcategoriesintowhichwefitalltheotheraspectsofourexperience.Perhapsthereasonisthatourcategoriesareinadequateandincomplete. However, we have also seen that some theories of apparitions contain the conjecture that whatever apparitions may be, they arevehicles for the consciousness of the person they appear to represent.Collectively perceived apparitions, and the fact that apparentlyconscious apparitions of the living are virtually indistinguishable from those of the dead, provide evidence supporting the idea thatapparitionsareobjectivelyreal.Thesecharacteristicsalsoprovideevidencethat,atleastinsomecases,apparitionsarealsovehiclesforthesurvivingconsciousnessofthedeceased. Butthereportsofapparitionsthatprovidethemostcompellingevidenceforsurvivalarethosethatapparentlyinvolvethedeceasedpersoncommunicatinginformation,unknowntoanyonepresent,inordertofulfillwhatappearstobethedeadperson’sownagenda,andinwaysthataredifficulttoaccountforintermsofclairvoyanceortelepathyamongtheliving.TheBlueOrchidcaseandtheChaffinWillcasearetwoofthemostoutstandingexamplesofthiskind.Butthevastmajorityofreportsofapparitionssimplydonotprovideevidencesupportingsurvivalnearlyasstrongasthesecasesdo.Itshouldbeclearthatwhatmakesthesecasessocompellingisthattheyseemtobeevidenceofgenuinecommunicationwiththedeceasedpersoninquestion.Thisleadsustothefinallineofevidencetobeexamined.

PARTIII

MessagesfromtheDead

Wehavedoneallwecanwhenthecritichasnothinglefttoallegeexceptthattheinvestigatorisin[on]thetrick.Butwhenhehasnothinglefttoallege,hewillallegethat....Wemustdrivetheobjectorintothepositionofbeingforced toadmit thephenomenaas inexplicable,at leastbyhim,or toaccuse the investigatorseitherof lyingorcheatingorofablindnessincompatiblewithanyintellectualconditionexceptabsoluteidiocy.

HENRYSIDGWICK,FIRSTPRESIDENTIALADDRESSTOTHEBRITISHSOCIETYFORPSYCHICALRESEARCH,1882

The evidence is already strong, and is growing in bulk and cogency, thatwe are in communicationwithmindswhicharediscarnate.

OLIVERLODGE,“THEUNIVERSITYASPECTOFPSYCHICALRESEARCH,”1926

Unfortunately,mostscientistslackthespecificskillsneededtodistinguishfactfromillusionintheworldofmagic.The universe does not lie; people lie. And so Lodge and other nineteenth-century psychical researchersunwittinglyallowedthemselvestobefooledbythetricksofprofessionalfortunetellersandsleight-of-handartistsposingasspiritualists.

VICTORSTENGER,THEUNCONSCIOUSQUANTUM,1995

TEN

AncientEvidence

Theideathatwecancommunicatewithspiritsisanancientbelief,foundamongmanysocietiespastandpresent.Intribalcultures,oneoftherolesoftheshaman,witchdoctor,orseerwastocommunicatewithdiscarnateentities.Suchindividualswereoftenselectedfortheirspecialrolebasedontheirperceivedabilitytoactasintermediariesbetweenthespiritworldandtheirtribe. AsWestern culture has relentlessly encroached on traditional societies, first-person accounts from tribal cultures are increasinglydifficult to find. However, historical records show that there is a curiously consistent and genuine quality to the testimony of thephenomenonintheconfessionsofformershamanswhohadbeenconvertedtoChristianity.Yearslater,theywouldnotrecanttheirformerbeliefthatthespiritphenomenahadbeengenuine. In 1863,WilliamHowitt gave an example provided by aGermanmissionarywho had lived among theNativeAmericans.Yearsearlier,hehadbeenbaffledbythephenomenahehadobservedduringaséancewithamedicineman.HistorianBrianIngliswrites:

HearingthirtyyearslaterthatthemedicinemanhadbecomeaChristian,themissionarythoughtthatatlasthewouldbeabletofindouthowthetrickhadbeendone;butno.“Believeme,”themedicinemantoldhim,withevidentsincerity,“Ididnotdeceiveyou;Idid not shake the lodge; it was shaken by the power of the spirits.” Nor, he insisted, had he employed a “double tongue”—ventriloquism.“Ionlyrepeatedwhatthespiritssaidtome.Iheardtheirvoices.Thetopofthelodgewasfullofthem,andbeforemetheskyandwidelandslayexpanded;Icouldseegreatdistancesaroundme;andIbelievedIcouldrecognizethemostdistantobjects.”1

Similar accounts ofmediumship and spirit possession have been gathered from traditional cultures around theworld, including not

onlyNativeAmericanbutalsoAfrican,Chinese,andNepalese.2Itissometimessaidthatcommunicationwiththedeadviamediumswasrarelyreportedprior to thestartof themodernSpiritualistmovement in1848;but thisremarkholds trueprimarilyforWesternEurope,whereatypicalconstraintshaveoperated.Thereseemstobeeveryreasontobelievethatmediumisticcommunicationwiththedeadhasbeenpracticedforcenturies innon-Europeancultures. Inhiscomprehensive1933workLifeBeyondDeath in theBeliefsofMankind,ProfessorJamesThayerAddisonsurveyedseveralancientcultures,andwrote:

InrecordsofancientBabyloniawhichcitethevariousordersofpriestsarelisted“theinquirerofthedead”and“hewhoraisesthespirits of the dead.” In Gabun today the fetish doctor calls up the spirits by the sound of his little bell, interprets to them therequestsoftheliving,andreturnswiththerevelationoftheirconsentorrefusal.Asimilartypeofmedicine-mannowservesamongtheMaoris ofNewZealand and thePelew Islanders, forwhen he goes into a trance the ghosts can speak through him.WangCh’uang,thecleverskepticoffirst-centuryChina,hadbeenwatchingjustsuchaceremonywhenhewrote“Amongmenthedeadspeakthroughlivingpersonswhomtheythrowintoatrance,andthewizardsthrummingtheirblackchords,calldownsoulsofthedead,whocanthenspeakthroughthemouthsofthewizards.”

ButthemostfamousofallthecharacterswhohavetalkedwiththedeadareKingSaulandOdysseus.3

However,evenwith the threatofbeingburnedalive fornecromancy,communicationwith thedeadwasstill sometimes reported inmedievalEurope.Hereisanexamplefromsixteenth-centuryFrance.

TheCaseofSisterAlisThiscasewaspublishedinParisin1528,inapamphletbyAdriandeMontalembert,almonerandpreacherforFrancisI.Itconcernssomestrangeevents thatoccurredat theAbbeyofSt.Pierre in1526.Prior to1516,whensomereformswere instituted, thenunscameandwentastheywished.InthisyearayoungwomannamedAlisdeTelieuxtookadvantageofherpositionassacristan(keeperofsacredobjects) to depart for the citywith some of the valuables in her protection. In 1524, having fallen on hard times and suffering fromdisease, shediedpraying for forgiveness,outsideofa smallvillage. Insteadofbeingburied in theabbeyasshehadwished, shewasgivenapauper’sburial. Intheabbeyatthistime,therelivedayoungnunnamedAnthoinettedeGrollee,abouteighteenyearsold,describedaswiseforherageandofgoodfamily.Shehadcometotheabbeybefore1516,andwhenSisterAlislaydying,shehadcontinuallytalkedofherandcalledhername. Onenightearlyin1526,asAnthoinettelayhalfasleepinbed,shereportedthatsomeoneliftedherveil,madethesignofthecrossonherforehead,andkissedhertenderly.Shewokeupastonished,sawnoone,anddismissedtheexperienceasadream.However,afewdayslatershebegantohearlittlerapsbeneathherfeet,asthoughsomeonewererappingwithastickunderneaththetiles.“Ihaveoften

heard it,” de Montalembert wrote, “and at my request it would rap as many blows as I demanded.” The sounds followed hereverywhere,andwereneverheardwhenshewasnotpresent. TheastonishednunsaskedAnthoinettewhatshethoughtwasthesourceofthesounds.Anthoinetterepliedthatshedidnotknow,butthought that itmightbeSisterAlis the sacristan,becausesince the latter’sdeathshehadoftendreamedofher.The rappingentitywasitselfquestioned,andthroughacodeitconfirmedthatitwasindeedthespiritofSisterAlis.ThespiritwasaskedifitwishedthebodyofAlistobeburiedintheabbey.Itrespondedthatitdid;andsotheremainswerelocated,disinterred,andreburiedintheabbey. MuchoftherestofthepamphletdealsintediousdetailwiththeecclesiasticalactivitiesthatweresetinmotionforthebenefitofSisterAlis.However,atonepointthedeceasedsisterseemedtodirectlyusethevoiceofAnthoinettetobegforforgiveness,andGauldwrites,“Someoftheeventsnarratedcouldalmosthavetakenplaceatamodernspiritualistséance;wereitnot, indeed, thataCatholicbishophadchargeofthem!”Atanyrate,thedramacametoanendinMarch1526,whenitseemedasthoughthespiritofAliswasfinallyatpeace.CommentsontheCaseofSisterAlisAttheendofhisexcellentreviewofthiscase,AlanGauldconcludes:

No purpose would be served by speculating about the phenomena reported in this case. De Montalembert does not go intosufficientdetailabouttherappingstoenableonetoformanopinionatthisdistanceoftimeaboutwhetherornottheycouldhavebeenfraudulentlyproduced.Thecaseisofinterestchieflyasaprecursorto,andearlyparallelfor,laterpoltergeistcasesinwhichcommunicationhasbeenheldwith apurported spirit bymeansof raps.Such caseshavebeen surprisinglynumerous, and itwasthroughoneof them—atHydesville in1848—that themodernSpiritualistmovementbegan.AtHydesville the twoyounggirlsroundwhomthepoltergeistphenomenacentredbecamethefirstSpiritualistmediums.HadAnthoinettedeGrolleelivedatalaterdateandinadifferentsettingshetoomighthavebecomesuchanother.4

TheSwedenborgCase

HereisanotherEuropeanstoryfromtwocenturieslater,involvingthefamousscientistandmysticEmmanuelSwedenborg.

In 1761 the Countess de Marteville came to Swedenborg to explain that her husband, who had been ambassador to theNetherlands, had given her a valuable silver [necklace] before his death. The silversmith was now demanding an exorbitantpayment,eventhoughshewassurethatherhusbandhadpaidforitalready;butthereceiptwasnowheretobefound.ThecountessaskedSwedenborgtocontactherhusbandtoaskaboutthereceipt.Threedayslaterhetoldherthathehadspokentoherhusband,who had informed him that the vital document was in a bureau upstairs. Thewoman replied that the bureau had already beensearched,butSwedenborginsistedthatsheshouldremoveacertaindrawerandpulloffitsfalseback.Thepapersweredulyfoundin the secret place, whose existencewas only known to the dead count. The story is related by eleven different sources andvouchedforbySwedenborghimselfwhenhewaslaterquestionedaboutit.5

Itwasnotuntilthelastquarterofthenineteenthcenturythatalarge-scaleeffortwasmountedtogatherandcriticallyassessreportsofcommunication from the dead.This effort beganwith the founding of theBritishSociety for PsychicalResearch in 1882, andwith itsAmericancounterpartin1884. TherecanbelittledoubtthatsomeofthefoundingmembersoftheBritishandAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch(SPR)hopedtofindimpartialevidenceinsupportofsurvival.The1870shadbeenadecadethatwitnessedtherapidriseofmaterialism.Inspiredbytheongoing success ofNewtonian physics and byDarwin’s new theory of evolution,writers such asHuxley andTyndall popularized aversionof“scientific”materialismthathadshakenthefaithofVictoriansociety.ManyofthefoundersoftheSPR,disillusionedwiththesimplefaithoftheirfathers,longedtotakeonthematerialistsattheirowngame.Usingthemethodsofempiricalscience,thesedissidentthinkershopedtodiscoversoundscientificevidencethatwouldrefutethedoctrineofmaterialism.However,bynomeansdidtheearlymembersallsharethesameoutlookandattitude.Severaloftheearlyinvestigatorswereextremelyskepticalofsurvival,andsomewereevendedicated to demolishing the evidence.But regardless of the hopes of individualmembers, theSPRwas formally committed toinvestigatingthephenomena“withoutprejudiceorprepossession,andinascientificspirit.” ThefirstpresidentoftheSPR,theCambridgephilosopherHenrySidgwick,expressedthesentimentsofseveralofhiscofounderswiththefollowingwordsinhisinauguralpresidentialaddress:

Webelievedunreservedlyinthemethodsofmodernscience,andwerepreparedtoacceptsubmissivelyherreasonedconclusions,when sustained by the agreement of experts; butwewere not prepared to submitwith equal docility to themere prejudices ofscientific men. And it appeared to us that there was an important body of evidence—tending prima facie to establish theindependenceofsoulorspirit—whichmodernsciencehadsimplyleftononesidewithignorantcontempt;andthatinsoleavingitshehadbeenuntrue toherprofessedmethodandhadarrivedprematurelyathernegativeconclusions.Observe thatwedidnotaffirmthatthesenegativeconclusionswerescientificallyerroneous.Tohavesaidthatwouldhavebeentofallintotheveryerrorweweretryingtoavoid.Weonlysaidthattheyhadbeenarrivedatprematurely.6

Clearly, thework of the SPR filled a large contemporary need.Many of themost capable individuals of the period devoted an

enormousamountoftime,effort,andmoneytocarryingouttheveryextensiveinvestigationsthatwerereportedinitspublications.SomeoftheearlymemberswhowereparticularlydevotedtoinvestigatingthesurvivalissuewereFredericMyers,EdmundGurney,physicistsSirOliverLodge andSirWilliamCrookes, andphilosopherRichardHodgson andwriterFrankPodmore.Myers andGurney seemedfavorably disposed toward the idea of survival from early on; Lodge and Crookes were cautious but open-minded; Hodgson andPodmoresharedthereputationofbeingruthlesslyskeptical.

ELEVEN

TheSPRInvestigates

Amediumisaperson—usuallyawoman—whoapparentlyactsasatransmitterbetweenourworldandtheworldofthedeceased.Theearlyinvestigatorsbeganbyexaminingmediumsthatfallintotwobroadcategories:physicalandmentalmediums. Inphysicalmediumship,communicationwiththedeceasedisallegedtooccurthroughvariousformsofphysicalphenomenathatoccurnear the body of the medium. These phenomena would include raps, object movements, and even materializations of deceasedindividuals. The medium Daniel Douglas Home provided some such evidence for communication with the deceased, and was neverexposedasafraud.ButunlikeHome,manyphysicalmediumsinsistedonperformingtheirfeatsincompletedarkness,which,ofcourse,offered endless possibilities for fraud. Seeking to exploit the vulnerability of the grieving,many unscrupulous individualswere to befoundamongtheranksofprofessionalphysicalmediums.Severaloftheseweredulyexposedasfrauds,sometimesbymembersoftheSPR.Asaresult, thequasireligiousmovementknownasSpiritualism—basedinpartonphysicalmediumship—acquiredareputationforbeingriddledwithmalpractice.EvenHomehimselfcomplainedbitterlythatfraudulentpractitionershadbroughttheentiremovementintodisreputeandmadeamockeryofitsmission.1

ThisscandalousaspectofphysicalmediumshippersuadedthefoundersoftheSPRtoconcentrateinsteadonthephenomenaofmentalmediumship.Thisgenerallytakestwoforms.Themostfrequentlyseenisthatofclairvoyantmediumship.Themediummaybeinaslightlydissociatedstate,butisusuallynotinatrance.Heorsheclaimsto“hear”or“see”deceasedfriendsandrelativesofpeoplepresent,andtotransmitmessagesfromthem.Sometimestheinformationispresentedintheformofsymbolicimages,whichthemediummustlearntointerpret. Themostadvancedformofmentalmediumshipiswhatisknownastrancemediumship.Inthisformthenormalpersonalityseemstobe completely dispossessed by an intruding intelligence, which assumes a varying degree of control over the speech, writing, andbehaviorof themedium.Usually there is justoneentity (the“control”) that appears tocommunicatedirectly through themedium,andservestorelaymessagesfromdeceasedacquaintances(the“communicators”)tothosepresentat theséance(the“sitters”).Sometimes,however, itappears thatasuccessionofdeceasedindividualswill“dropin”andcommunicatedirectlythroughthemedium.Inthemostextremecases,knownaspossessionmediumship,themedium’sbodyappearstobecompletelypossessedbytheintrudingagent,andthemedium’spersonalityseemstobereplacedentirelybythatofadeceasedindividual. Trancemediumship—especiallyinitsmostextremeformofpossession—isbyfartherarestformofmentalmediumship.ButitisthisformthatreceivedthemostattentionfrommembersoftheSPR.Theinvestigatorsrealizedearlyonthatevidenceobtainedfromphysicalmediumshipisnotoriouslyunreliable,andcanbeeasilydismissedongroundsoffraudormistakeneyewitnesstestimony.Butwithtrancemediumship,thesituationisverydifferent.Inthesecases,weusuallyhavecompletecontemporaryrecordsofwhatthemediumssayorwrite,sothequestionofmistakeneyewitnesstestimonyusuallydoesnotarise. LetusnowconsidersomeoftheevidencegatheredfromtwoofthemostimpressivetrancemediumseverstudiedbytheSPR.

TheMediumshipofMrs.PiperOneoftheveryfirsttrancemediumstobestudiedingreatdepthbymembersoftheSPRwasMrs.LeonoraPiperofBoston.Hercareerasamediumbeganin1884whensheconsultedahealingmediumnamedJ.R.Cocke.Duringhersecondvisit,shepassedintoatranceandwrotedownamessageforoneoftheothersitters,JudgeFrostofCambridge.ThemessagepurportedtocomefromFrost’sdeceasedson,anditsevidentialvalueimpressedhimmorethananyotherhehadreceivedduringhisextensiveinvestigationintomediumship. Mrs.Piperthensetupherowncircle,andaseriesofspiritguidestookturnsactingashercontrol.Thesesoonretiredfromthescenewiththearrivalofanewcontrolwhogavethename“Dr.Phinuit,”andclaimedtobeadeceasedFrenchphysician.However,notraceofhimcouldbefoundinFrenchmedicalrecords,andhisknowledgeofFrenchwasveryscanty.Assuch,researcherscametobelievehewasmerelyafictitiouscharacterinventedbyMrs.Piper’ssubconsciousmind.Butwhateverhisultimatestatus,Mrs.Piper’strancestatecertainlydidseemgenuine.Shecouldbecut,pricked,andevenhaveabottleofammoniaheldunderhernosewithoutbeingdisturbed.Within a fewminutes of entering a trance,Mrs.Piperwould begin to speakwith the voice ofPhinuit,whichwas gruff andmasculine.WhenPhinuitwas in topform,hewouldgivesittersaccountsof theappearancesofdeceasedfriendsandrelativesandwould transmitmessagesfromthem,oftenwiththeappropriategestures.Copiouscommunicationsfromdeceasedfriendsandrelativesofsitterswouldberelayed,andtheinformationwouldoftenturnouttobeaccurateineventhetiniestofdetails. Onoffdays,Phinuitwould rambleand fish for information,providingvaluable ammunition forhostile critics.But evenathismostbanal,hewascapableofspringingasurprise.AtasittingonJune3,1889,Mr.J.RichgavePhinuitadogcollar.Shortlyafter,Phinuitsaidhesawthedogcoming,andexclaimed:“Herehecomes!Oh,howhejumps!Thereheisnow,jumpinguponandaroundyou.Sogladtoseeyou!Rover!Rover!No—G-rover,Grover!That’shisname!”ThedoghadoncebeencalledRover,buthisnamewaschangedtoGroverin1884,inhonoroftheelectionoftheU.S.presidentGroverCleveland.2

Mrs.PiperwasdiscoveredfortheSPRbyWilliamJames,whofirstattendedoneofherséanceswithhiswifebackin1885.JamesandhiswifegavenoinformationaboutthemselvesandsaidnothingwhileMrs.Piperwasintrance.Nevertheless,PhinuitspoketothemaboutmattersthatJamesandhiswifefeltcertainnobodybuttheycouldhaveknown.Jameswassoimpressedthathesubsequentlysenttwenty-fiveotherpersonstositwithherunderpseudonyms.Inareportonhermedium-ship,writteninthespringof1886,Jameswrote,“Iampersuadedof themedium’shonesty, andof thegenuinenessofher trance; andalthoughat firstdisposed to think that the ‘hits’ shemadewereeitherluckycoincidence,ortheresultofknowledgeonherpartofwhothesitterwas,andofhisorherfamilyaffairs,Inowbelievehertobeinpossessionofapowerasyetunexplained.”3

AsaresultofJames’sreport, theleadersoftheSPRinLondonengagedMrs.Piperonapermanentbasisbypayingheraretainingfee,inorderthatshewoulddevoteherselfexclusivelytoresearch.In1887,RichardHodgsonwassenttoBostonbytheSPRinLondonto takechargeof the investigation.Asmentionedearlier,hehad the reputationofbeinga ruthlessskeptic,andwasalsoconsideredanexpertintheunmaskingoffraud. HodgsonfirsthadseveralsittingshimselfwithMrs.Piper,atwhichmuchintimateknowledge,someofitverypersonal,wasshownofdeceased friends and relatives ofHodgson.He then arranged for sittingswith at least fifty peoplewhomhebelieved to be completestrangers toMrs.Piper,and theutmostprecautionswere taken topreventher fromobtainingany informationon thesittersbeforehand.Sitterswereintroducedanonymouslyorunderapseudonym;theyoftenenteredtheroomonlyafterMrs.Piperhadgoneintoatrance,andthensatbehindratherthatfacingher.Inmostofthesecases,theresultswerethesameaswithHodgson:mostsittersweregivenfactsthattheyweresureMrs.Pipercouldnothaveknownaboutthroughordinarymeans.Forseveralweeks,Hodgsonevenhadhertrailedbydetectives,toascertainwhethertherewereanyindicationsthatMrs.Piperorherhusband,orothersconnectedwithher,triedtoascertainfacts about possible sitters, or employed confederates to do so. But as Hodgson tells us, “not the smallest indication of any suchprocedurewasdiscovered.”4WilliamJamesconcurred:

DrHodgsonconsiders that thehypothesisof fraudcannotbeseriouslymaintained. Iagreewithhimabsolutely.Themediumhasbeenunderobservation,muchofthetimeundercloseobservation,astomostoftheconditionsofherlife,byalargenumberofpersons,eager,manyofthem,topounceuponanysuspiciouscircumstancesfor[nearly]fifteenyears.Duringthattime,notonlyhastherenotbeenonesinglesuspiciouscircumstanceremarked,butnotonesuggestionhaseverbeenmade,fromanyquarterwhichmight tendpositively toexplainhow themedium, living theapparent life she leads,couldpossiblycollect informationabout somanysittersbynaturalmeans.5

Mrs.PiperwasevenbroughttoEnglandtobetested,wheresheknewnooneandcouldhavenoagents.AsinAmerica,sitterswere

usuallyintroducedanonymously;andMrs.Pipercontinuedtogetimpressiveresults.However,theinvestigatorscouldnotdecideifMrs.Piperwas really in touchwithdeceased individualsor if sheweremerelygaining the information telepathically from themindsof thesitters. WhatprovedtheturningpointforHodgsonweretheso-calledGPcommunications.George“Pelham”(apseudonymforPellew)wasayoungBostonlawyer,intenselyinterestedinliteratureandphilosophy.AsafriendofHodgson,thetwohaddiscussedthepossibilityofanafterlife;althoughGP(Pellew)wasextremelyskepticalofeventhepossibility,hedidpromiseHodgsonthatifheshoulddiefirstandfindhimselfstillliving,hewouldtryhisbesttocommunicate. Twoyearslater,GPmethisdeathaccidentallyattheageofthirty-two,byafallinNewYorkinFebruary1892.Aboutfourweekslater,HodgsonaccompaniedaclosefriendofGP’stoasittingwithMrs.Piper,withthefriendsittingundertheassumednameof“JohnHart.”WithPhinuitactingasanintermediary,messagespurportingtocomefromGPwererelayedtoHart.ItshouldberememberedthatGPhadattendedasittingwithMrs.Piperaboutfiveyearsearlier,alsounderanassumedname,andthatHodgsondidnotthinkthatMrs.Pipereverrememberedseeinghim.But,atanyrate,atthesittingGeorgePellew’snamewasgiveninfull,thesitterwasrecognizedbyhisrealname,andthecommunicationsreferredtoincidentsthatwereunknowntoboththesitterandHodgson. OneoftheseunknownincidentsconcernedJamesandMaryHoward,whowerementionedbyname,alongwiththatoftheirdaughter,Katherine.Themessagewas“Tellher,she’llknow.Iwillsolvetheproblems,Katharine.”ThesewordsmeantnothingtoHodgsonorthesitter,butwhen“Hart”gaveJamesHowardanaccountofthesittingthenextday,thesewordsimpressedhimmorethananythingelse.GP,whenhehadlaststayedwiththeHowards,hadtalkedfrequentlywithKatherine(agirloffifteen)aboutcertainphilosophicalproblems.ItturnedoutthatGPhadtoldthegirlthathewouldsolvetheproblemsandletherknow,usingalmosttheexactsamewordscommunicatedatthesitting. Threeweeks later a sittingwas arrangedwith theHowards,without their names being given. Phinuit first said a fewwords; then,suddenly,GPappeared tocontrolMrs.Piper’svoicedirectly.Thisnewcontrol lastedalmost thedurationof theséance, thenatureofwhichHodgsondescribes.

Thestatementsmadewereintimatelypersonalandcharacteristic.Commonfriendswerereferredtobyname,inquiriesweremadeaboutprivatematters,and theHowards,whowerenotpredisposed to takeany interest inpsychical research,butwhohadbeeninducedbytheaccountofMr.HarttohaveasittingwithMrs.Piper,wereprofoundlyimpressedwiththefeelingthattheywereintruthholdingaconversationwiththepersonalityofthefriendwhomtheyhadknownsomanyyears.6

Thefollowingpassagesarefromnotestakenduringthatséance,andmayservetosuggestthefreedomwithwhichtheconversation

wascarriedon.TheremarksinparenthesesarethosemadeduringtheséancebyJamesHoward.

GP:Jim,is thatyou?Speaktomequick.Iamnotdead.Don’tthinkmedead.I’mawfullygladtoseeyou.Can’tyouseeme?Don’tyouhearme?Givemylove tomyfatherandtellhimIwant toseehim.Iamhappyhere,andmoresosinceI findIcancommunicatewithyou.Ipitythosepeoplewhocan’tspeak...

(Whatdoyoudo,George?Whereareyou?)

I am scarcely able to do anything yet. I am just awakened to the reality of life after death. Itwas like darkness, I could notdistinguishanythingatfirst.Darkesthoursjustbeforedawn,youknowthat,Jim.Iwaspuzzled,confused.Shallhaveanoccupationsoon.NowIcanseeyou,myfriends.Icanhearyouspeak.Yourvoice,Jim,Icandistinguishwithyouraccentandarticulation,butitsoundslikeabigbassdrum.Minewouldsoundtoyoulikethefaintestwhisper.

(Ourconversationthenissomethingliketelephoning?)

Yes.

(Bylongdistancetelephone.)

[GPlaughs.]

(Wereyounotsurprisedtofindyourselfliving?)

Perfectlyso.Greatlysurprised.Ididnotbelieveinafuturelife.7

In séances from this time on, GP sometimes communicated directly throughMrs. Piper’s voice, and sometimes through automatic

writing,withthelatterbecomingmorecommonastimepassed.GP’scareerasa“drop-in”communicatorpersisteduntil1897,andoutof150sitterswhowereintroducedtoGPduringthattime,herecognizedbynametwenty-nineofthethirtythatGeorgePellewhadknowninlife(thesoleexceptionwasayoungwomanwhohadbeenachildwhenthelivingPellewhadlastseenher).Heconversedwitheachoftheseindividualsintheappropriatemanner,andshowedanintimateknowledgeofhissupposedpastrelationshipswiththem.AsHodgsonwrites,ineachcase“therecognitionwasclearandfull,andaccompaniedbyanappreciationoftherelationswhichsubsistedbetweenGPlivingandthesitters.”8Andtherewasnotasinglecaseoffalserecognition;thatis,GPneveroncegreetedanyoneofthe120thatthelivingPellewhadnotknown. Hodgsonadds:

The continual manifestation of this personality—so different from Phinuit or other communicators—with its own reservoir ofmemories,withitsswiftappreciationofanyreferencetofriendsofGP,withits“giveandtake”inlittleincidentalconversationswithmyself, has helped largely in producing a conviction of the actual presence of the GP personality, which it would be quiteimpossibletoimpartbyanymereenumerationofverifiablestatements.9

By1898,whenhepublishedhisreportonMrs.Piper’smedium-shipfortheSPR,Hodgsonhadbecomeafirmbelieverinsurvival.In

large part, his conversion seems to be due to the clear expression of the personality andmemories of the deceasedGeorge Pellew.Hodgsonwas convinced thatMrs. Piper had no knowledge of the living Pellew. So how could she have succeeded in dramaticallyimpersonatingsomebodyshehadbarelymetmorethanfouryearsearlierinawaythatconvincedthirtypeoplewhowereintimatewithPellewbeforehedied?Neartheendofhisreport,Hodgsonstatesthat,althoughfurtherexperimentalevidencemayleadhimtochangehismind,“atthepresentIcannotprofesstohaveanydoubtbutthatthechief‘communicators’towhomIhavereferredintheforegoingpagesareveritablythepersonalitiesthattheyclaimtobe,thattheyhavesurvivedthechangewecalldeath,andthattheyhavedirectlycommunicatedwithuswhomwecallliving,throughMrs.Piper’sentrancedorganism.”10

InDecember1905,Hodgsondiedunexpectedly,attheageoffifty,followingagameofhandballathisclub.Aweeklater,messagespurportingtocomefromthedeceasedHodgsonbegantoberelayedbyMrs.Piper.ReportsofthemessagesfromHodgsonreachedhisoldfriendWilliamJames.Intrigued,JamesonceagaininvestigatedMrs.Piper’smediumship.HisreporttotheSPRin1909coveredsomeseventy-fivesittingsinwhichHodgsonwassaidtobeincontrol.Jamesfoundmuchofthematerialimpressiveasevidenceofsupernormalknowledge;andeveryoneadmittedthattheHodgsoncontrolshowedmanyofthepersonaltraitsofHodgson.However,Jamesstoppedshort of committinghimself to theview that themessageswere indeed fromhis deceased friend.After all,Mrs.Piper hadknown theliving Hodgson very well, so James felt that Mrs. Piper could be subconsciously dramatizing his personality and furnishing it withinformationacquiredbyESP.Atanyrate,James’sreservationsweresharedbyMrs.Sidgwick,SirOliverLodge,andJ.G.Piddington,allofwhomweretogofurtherthanJamesintheircommitmenttothesurvivalhypothesis.

CommentsontheMediumshipofMrs.PiperMrs. Piper’s trance mediumship continued until 1911, and she was to play a part in the famous “cross correspondences,” which arediscussedinchapter14.ThediscoveryofMrs.Piperinauguratedanerainwhichseveraloutstandingmediums—manyofthemamateurs—puttheirservicesatthedisposalofresearchers,ofteninsteadofcultivatingaclientele.Duringthisperiod,mostoftheleadingfiguresoftheSPR,bothinAmericaandinEngland,gavehighprioritytosurvivalasaresearchproblem. Next,wewillbrieflyconsideranothergiftedmediumstudiedextensivelybytheSPR.

TheMediumshipofMrs.LeonardAsachild,Mrs.GladysOsborneLeonard (1882–1968)wouldhavebeautifulvisions,ofwhichherconventionalparentsdisapproved.Muchlater,whilemarried,sheheldanexperimentalséancewithsomefriends,anddiscoveredhergiftsasamedium.Shehadpassedintoa tranceand,afterrecovering,was told thathermotherandayounggirlnamedFedahadspokenthroughher.Fedaclaimedtobe thespiritofanIndiangirlwhomanancestorofMrs.Leonardhadmarriedintheearlynineteenthcentury.Althoughthestatementscouldnotbeverified,therewasafamilytraditionofsuchagirl,thestorybeingthatshehaddiedinchildbirthatanearlyage.But,whateverhertruestatus,FedabecameMrs.Leonard’schiefcontroland,fromthatpointon,treatedherwithamixoftoleranceandamusedcontempt. AstheFirstWorldWarapproached,Fedabegantospeakofacomingcatastrophe,andurgedMrs.Leonardtodoherdutytohelpasmanybereavedpeopleaspossiblewithhertalentsasamedium.Whenthewarstarted,Mrs.Leonardbecameaprofessionalmedium,anddevotedherselftohelpingthebereaved.Yet,atthesametime,shesubmittedtocriticalinvestigationbymembersoftheSPR,andforatimeshewasalsoshadowedbydetectives toensure thatshedidnotmake inquiriesaboutsitters,oremployagents todoso.ThefirstmemberoftheSPRtostudyherindetailwasSirOliverLodge,whowasgreatlyimpressedbycommunicationspurportingtocomefromasonkilled in thewar.Lodge’sbookabout thesecommunications,Raymond (1916),madeMrs.Leonard famous.Fromthenuntil theearlyyearsoftheSecondWorldWarshewasregularlystudiedbySPRinvestigators.Fedaremainedherprincipalguidethroughouttheentireperiod.Mostcommunicationsweregivenbyspeech,withFedaactingas intermediary.Occasionally,othercommunicatorswouldtakecontrolofMrs.Leonard’svoice,andonrareoccasions,messageswerereceivedinwriting. InmanywaysthemediumshipofMrs.LeonardresembledthatofMrs.Piper,andthereisnoneedtocoverthesamegroundtwice.WesawearlierhowMrs.Piperoccasionallyproducedinformationthatwasunknowntoanyofthesitters,yetlaterturnedouttobeaccurate.Mrs.Leonard’smediumshipisprimarilyofinterestbecauseofthemanyinstancesinwhichsheproducedsuchinformation,whichwouldapparently rule out telepathywith the sitters as the source.Themost impressive of these instances took the formof “book tests” andproxysittings.Thelatterwillbeconsideredindepthinalatersection.Herewewillexamineoneofthemoreunusualoftheformer. Theorigin of the book test is obscure, but at least onewriter thinks it quite likely that book testswere first proposedbyFeda.11Essentially,theprincipleisthatthecommunicatorhastospecifythelocationofabookinahousetowhichthemediumhasnoaccessbutwhichwaswell-knowntothecommunicatorwhileliving.Thecommunicatormustalsospecifyapagenumberofthatbook,onwhichwillbefoundapassagethatconveyssomeappropriatemessage. The following isoneof the earliestbook testsofwhichwehavea record.OnMarch19,1917,Mrs.Leonardgavea sitting to awidow,Mrs.HughTalbot.AccordingtoMrs.Talbot,“Mrs.Leonardatthistimeknewneithermynamenoraddress,norhadIeverbeentoheroranyothermedium,before,inmylife.”12

Duringthefirstpartoftheséance,nothingremarkablehappened.Therewasonlya“medleyofdescriptions”ofvariouspeople.Butthensuddenly,accordingtoMrs.Talbot:

Fedagaveaverycorrectdescriptionofmyhusband’spersonalappearance,andfromthenonhealoneseemedtospeak(throughherofcourse)andamostextraordinaryconversationfollowed.Evidentlyhewastryingbyeverymeansinhispowertoprovetomehisidentityandtoshowmeitreallywashimself...Allhesaid,orratherFedaforhim,wasclearandlucid.Incidentsofthepast,knownonlytohimandtomewerespokenof,belongingstrivial inthemselvesbutpossessingforhimaparticularpersonalinterestofwhichIwasaware,wereminutelyandcorrectlydescribed,andIwasaskedifIstillhadthem.13

Mrs.TalbotwasalsoaskedrepeatedlyifshebelievedthatitwasthedeceasedMr.Talbotwhowascommunicating.

Fedakeptonsaying:“Doyoubelieve,hedoeswantyoutoknowitisreallyhimself.”IsaidIcouldnotbesurebutIthoughtitmustbetrue....

SuddenlyFedabegana tiresomedescriptionofabook,shesaid itwas leatheranddark,and tried toshowme thesize.Mrs.Leonardshoweda lengthofeight to ten inches longwithherhands,andfouror fivewide.She[Feda]said,“It isnotexactlyabook,itisnotprinted,Fedawouldn’tcallitabook,ithaswritingin.”ItwaslongbeforeIcouldconnectthisdescriptionwithanythingatall,butatlastIrememberedaredleathernotebookofmy

husband’s,whichIthinkhecalledalogbook,andIasked:“Isitalogbook?”Fedaseemedpuzzledatthisandnottoknowwhatalogbookwas,andrepeatedthewordonceortwicethensaid,“Yes,yes,hesaysitmightbealogbook.”Ithensaid,“Isitaredbook?”Onthispointtherewashesitation,theythoughtpossiblyitwas,thoughhethoughtitwasdarker.Theanswerwasundecided,andFedabeganawearisomedescriptionalloveragain,addingthatIwastolookonpagetwelve,

forsomethingwrittenthere,thatitwouldbesointerestingaftertheconversation.Thenshesaid,“Heisnotsureitispagetwelve,itmightbe thirteen, it is so long,buthedoeswantyou to lookand tryand find it. Itwould interesthim toknow if thisextract is

there.”14

NoneofthisinterestedMrs.Talbot.Althoughshethoughtsherememberedthebook,shewasnotevensureifshestillhadit,andatanyrate,thewholebusinesssoundedpurposelesstoher.Shereplied“ratherindefinitely”thatshewouldseeifshecouldfindthebook,butthisdidnotsatisfythecommunicatorwhowasapparentlypassingmessagesthroughFeda.

Shestartedalloveragain,becomingmoreandmoreinsistentandwentontosay,“Heisnotsureofthecolour,hedoesnotknow.Therearetwobooks,youwillknowtheonehemeansbyadiagramoflanguagesinthefront...Indo-European,Aryan,Semiticlanguagesandothers.”...Itsoundedabsoluterubbishtome.15

Thinking that themediumwas tired and talkingnonsense,Mrs.Talbotwasgladwhen the sitting came to an end.Over dinner that

evening,shementionedtheséancetohersisterandniece,and“aftertellingmysisterandnieceallthatIconsideredtheinterestingthingssaidinthebeginning,Ididmentionthatintheendthemediumbegantalkingalotofrubbishaboutabook,andaskingmetolookonpagetwelveorthirteentofindsomethinginteresting.”Afterdinner,hersisterandniecebeggedhertolookforthebookatonce.AlthoughMrs.Talbotwantedtowaituntilthenextday,shefinallygavein,andafterabitofsearchingfoundtwoofherhusband’soldnotebooksatthebackofatopbookshelf. Mrs.Talbottellsusthatinherwrittentestimonythatshehadneveropenedeitheroneofthenotebooks.

One,ashabbyblackleather,correspondedinsizetothedescriptiongiven,andIabsent-mindedlyopenedit,wonderinginmymindwhethertheoneIwaslookingforhadbeendestroyedoronlysentaway.Tomyutterastonishment,myeyesfellonthewords,“TableofSemiticorSyro-ArabianLanguages.”16

Even more astonishing was what she found on page thirteen. On this pageMr. Talbot had transcribed, some time in his life, the

followingpassagefromabookcalledPostMortem,publishedanonymouslyin1881:

IdiscoveredbycertainwhisperswhichitwassupposedIwasunabletohearandfromcertainglancesofcuriosityorcommiserationwhichitwassupposedIwasunabletosee,thatIwasneardeath....

Presentlymymindbegantodwellnotonlyonhappinesswhichwastocome,butuponhappinessthatIwasactuallyenjoying.Isawlongforgottenforms,playmates,school-fellows,companionsofmyyouthandofmyoldage,whooneandall,smileduponme.Theydidnotsmilewithanycompassion,thatInolongerfeltthatIneeded,butwiththatsortofkindnesswhichisexchangedbypeoplewhoareequallyhappy.Isawmymother,father,andsisters,allofwhomIhadsurvived.Theydidnotspeak,yettheycommunicated tome their unaltered and unalterable affection.At about the time they appeared, Imade an effort to realizemybodilysituation . . . that is, Iendeavored toconnectmysoulwith thebodywhich layon thebed inmyhouse . . . theendeavorfailed.Iwasdead.17

Therewas also “adiagramof languages” in the front,matching thedescriptiongiven throughFeda.Mrs.Talbot’s sister andniececorroboratedMrs.Talbot’saccount,andalsoprovidedwrittenandsignedtestimonyfortherecordsoftheSPR.18

CommentsontheMediumshipofMrs.LeonardWasMr.Talbot trying toprovehiscontinuedexistence tohiswifebydirectingher toa relevantpassagehehadwritten inanotebookwhilealive,theexistenceofwhichonlyhewasaware?Inthenextsectionweconsidertheotherpossibilitiesforthisandforothercasesofapparentcommunicationwiththedeceased,andevaluatethemintermsoftheevidence.

TWELVE

AlternativeExplanations

Inadditiontothehypothesisofgenuinecommunicationwiththedeceased,thereappeartobethreealternativeexplanations.

CONSCIOUSFRAUDAlthough therehavecertainlybeen fraudulentmediums—someofwhichwereexposedbymembersof theSPR—in thebest casesofmentalmediums,thisdoesnotseemevenremotelyplausible.BothMrs.PiperandMrs.Leonardwereinvestigatedinminutedetail,andevenarchskepticFrankPodmoreagreedthatnottheslightestsuspicionoffraudwasjustified.*15Bothwomenweretrailedbydetectivesatcertaintimes;Mrs.PiperwasevenbroughttoEnglandwheresheknewnoone,andyetshecontinuedtoprovideimpressiveresults.Inorder for fraud to account for themessages, it seems that any conspiracy of fraudwould have had to include the investigators andwitnessesthemselves!Hodgsonfeltitwasnecessarytobrieflydealwiththiswildaccusation:

IthasbeensuggestedthattheimportantwitnessesinconnectionwiththeGPevidencemayhavebeenincollusionwithMrsPiper.Theabsurdityofthissuggestionwouldbeatonceapparentiftheirrealnamesweregiven,butsincetheonlyrealfullnamesgivenofactualsitterswithGParethoseofProfessorC.EliotNortonandJamesM.Peirce,ofHarvardUniversity,whoarereferredtochiefly as casesofbeing recognizedby the communicatingGPaspersonallyknown tohim, I state concerning theothers that IknowpersonallyallbuttwooftheGPsitters,andmostofthemintimately,thattheybelongtothemostcultivatedandresponsibleclassintheUnitesStates,andthatitwouldbeasabsurdtosupposeanycollusionbetweenthemandMrsPiperastosupposethatthemembersoftheCounciloftheSPRwereincollusionwithher.1

InthecaseofMrs.Leonard’sbooktests,fraudalsoseemsunlikely.Ofcourse,it ispossiblethatMrs.Talbot,alongwithhersister

andniece,colludedwithMrs.Leonard—butforwhatconceivablepurpose?ItcouldbearguedthatMrs.TalbotandherrelativeswerepaidbyMrs.LeonardtoprovidewrittenandsignedtestimonyfortherecordsoftheSPR,inordertoenhanceMrs.Leonard’sreputationasamedium.Butagain,forwhatpurpose?Mrs.LeonardwasalreadygrowingfamousbecauseofLodge’spopularbookabouther.Tobringinthreeconfederateswouldbeveryrisky,especiallyifthecaseweretobescrutinizedbythededicatedandcriticalresearchersoftheSPR.Ontheotherhand,ifMrs.Leonardactedalone,howwouldshehavegatheredtheinformationaheadoftime?Whiletherehadbeenanotherséancetwodaysearlier,confederateswouldhavehadtobreakintotheTalbotplacebeforethesecondséance,findthebookwithitspassage,andalsodiscovermanysmalldetailsaboutMr.Talbot’spersonallife,allwithoutarousingthesuspicionofMrs.Talbotorherrelatives.Then,theinformationwouldhavehadtobepresentedinaconvincingmanneronthenightoftheséance.RecallhowMrs.Talbotdescribedthemessages:

Incidents of the past, known only to him and tomewere spoken of, belongings trivial in themselves but possessing for him aparticularpersonalinterestofwhichIwasaware,wereminutelyandcorrectlydescribed,andIwasaskedifIstillhadthem.

Finally,Mrs.Talbot’sniecetestifiedthatthenotebooksweredustywhenfoundontheshelf.Consciousfraudseemscompletelyoutof

the question in the most carefully documented cases. For all but the most paranoid conspiracy theorists, this explanation will seemcompletelyinadequate.

SUBCONSCIOUSFRAUDA somewhat less sinister explanation that has been proposed is that themedium is not consciously deceiving the sitters, but is rathersubconsciously dramatizing the communications. The idea is that the medium, in her trance state—similar to a hypnotic trance—isessentiallytellingthegrief-strickensitterswhattheywanttohear,butmaynotevenbeawareofthecharadeherself.Thesitterssimplyignoreandforgetthemistakesmadebythemedium,butrememberandcelebrateanycorrectguessesshestumbleson. However, thisexplanationwillnotgetusveryfar.DuringtheSPR’sresearchinto themediumshipofMrs.PiperandMrs.Leonard,carefulrecordsweremadeofeverythingthemediumsaidorwrotewhileintrance.Itisclearthat,inmanycasesinwhichthemediumdidnot know the sitters, the amount of accurate, highly detailed information received far exceeded what could be expected from sheerguesswork.H.J.Saltmarsh,amemberoftheSPRwhodidagreatdealofinvestigationintomediumship,devisedamethodoftestingtheexplanation of chance coincidence.He sent a transcript of two sittings that had been heldwith themediumMrs.Warren Elliot to sixpeoplewhohadnotvisitedher,butwhohadasimilarexperiencetothesitter:eachhadbeenaffectedbythedeathofayoungpilotinthewar.Thestatementsweremarkedforaccuracy,andtheresultsforthesitterwerethencomparedwiththeresultsfromthecontrolgroup.Inthefirstsitting,outofatotalof5,642statements,73percentofthestatementsweremarkedaccurateforthesitter,butonly8percentof the statementsweremarkedaccurate for thecontrolgroup. In the secondsitting,outof5,554statements,58percentweremarkedaccurateforthesitter,butonly9percentforthecontrolgroup.

StatisticianR.A.Fishercalculatedthattheoddsagainstthemediumobtainingherresultsbychancewereapproximatelyonebillionto

one.Muchmorethanluckyguessworkisrequired. Somecriticshavemaintainedthatmediums“fish”forinformationastheygoalong,inordertopickuphintsfromthesittersthattheyareontherighttrack.Thesehintscouldbeintheformofexplicitverbalagreement,orinmoresubtleforms,suchasfacialexpressionsandbodylanguage.Itisarguedthatthemediumpicksuponthesecuestoquicklydropanyclearmisses,andtohomeinonanycorrectguesses.However,thiscriticismbecamehardtosustainaftertheinventionofproxysittings—sittingsinwhichasitterwillvisitthemediumonbehalfofathirdpersonwhoisnotpresent.Inseveralofthesecasesthesitterdidnotevenknowthepersonforwhominformationwassought,andsocouldnotpossiblyhaveprovidedanyclues.Yet,aswewillseelater,thesuccessescontinued.*16

ESPANDSUBCONSCIOUSFRAUD

Themost sophisticatedobjection tomediumship as evidenceof survival combines the extrasensory capabilitiesof themediumwith thedramatizingpowersofhersubconsciousmind.Itisallegedthatthemediumpicksupinformationtelepathicallyorclairvoyantlyandthen“dressesitup”intheformofanimitationofapersonality.Itisassertedthatthisisamoreeconomicalexplanationofthecommunications:we alreadyhave independent evidence that telepathy and clairvoyance exist, and so—it is argued—anexplanation in termsofESP is“simpler”thanthehypothesisthatfurtherassumesdiscarnatesurvival. CurtDucassediscussedthisandmadeaveryinsightfulcomment:

It[hasbeen]urgedthatpossessionofsuchpowersbythemediumisamoreeconomicalexplanationofthecontentsandstyleofthe communications; for the medium is anyway known to exist and so is extrasensory perception; whereas the spirit survivalexplanation requiresone toassumegratuitously (1) that spiritsexist; (2) that theyarecapableof remembering; (3) that theyarecapableof temporarily“possessing”thebodyofsomelivingpersons;and(4) that theyarecapableof telepathiccommunicationwithsomelivingpersons.

Thefirstcomment thesecriticismsinvite is that, indiscussionsof thequestionofsurvival,clarityof thought ispromotedif, foronething,oneleavesoutaltogethertheweaselword“spirits,”andusesinsteadtheword“minds”;thequestionthenbeingwhetherthereisanyevidencethatmindsthatwereincarnatecontinuetoexistandtofunctiondiscarnate,thussurvivingtheirbody’sdeath.When the question of survival is formulated thus in terms not of “spirits” but ofminds, then the allegation that the survival

explanationmakesgratuitouslythefourassumptionsmentionedaboveisseentobeerroneous.For(1)thatthereismindsisnotanassumptionbutaknownfact;(2)thatmindsarecapableofrememberingislikewisenotanassumptionbutisknown;(3)thatmindsarecapableof“possessing”livinghumanbodiesisalsoaknownfact,for“possession”isbutthenameofthenormalrelationofamind to its livingbody.Paranormal “possession”wouldbe a possession in thevery same sense, but only temporary, andof aliving body by amind other than its own—that othermind being one which had been that of a body now dead; and (4) thattelepathiccommunicationbetweenmindsispossibleandalsoaknownfact.2

AsevidencethatESPbetweenthelivingcanexplaincommunications,criticshavepointedoutthatfictitiouspersonalitieshaveplayedarole in communications frommediums.We have seen howWilliam James and others thought that Dr. Phinuit was a creation ofMrs.Piper’s subconscious mind. Chapter 7 of my first book, Science and Psychic Phenomena, presented evidence that altered states ofconsciousness seem to enhance telepathic abilities. And there is evidence that telepathy between medium and sitter does at leastsometimesseemtooccur,andisthenincorporatedintothemedium’sportrayalofcommunicationfromthe“deceased.”Forinstance,onedayHodgsonhadbeenreadingJohnLockhart’sLifeofScottwithgreatinterest.AtasittingwithMrs.Piperthenextday,aludicrousSirWalterScottannouncedhimself,andproceededtogiveaguidedtourofthesolarsystem,evenstatingthattherearemonkeysinthesun!3StanleyHalloncereceivedcommunicationsthroughMrs.PiperfromayoungwomannamedBessieBeals,atotallyfictitiouspersonalityinventedbyhimforthepurposeoftestingthemedium. Finally, as evidence in favorofESPas anexplanation, criticshavepointedout that reportsof communicationshavebeen receivedthroughmediums from people presumed dead, but, in fact, very much alive. Such cases are exceptionally rare, but there are a fewexamplesintheliterature.

TheGordonDavisCase

Byfarthemostfamouscaseofthissortisthe“GordonDavis”case,recordedbyS.G.SoalduringhissittingswithMrs.BlancheCooper,adirectvoicemedium.GordonDaviswasoneofSoal’sboyhoodacquaintanceswhomSoalbelievedhadbeenkilledintheFirstWorldWar.AccordingtoSoal,onJanuary4,1922,acommunicatorcallinghimself“GordonDavis”appearedtocontrolthespeechorgansofthemediumand spoke in amanner characteristicofGordonDavis.Thecommunicator seemed tobelieve thathehadbeenkilled, andspoke of two experiences thatDavis and Soal had shared—one from boyhood and one from a chance encounter they had at a trainstationduringthewar.AtalatersittingonJanuary9,Nada,aregularcontrolofMrs.Cooper’s,purportedtospeakonbehalfofGordonDavisanddescribedthehousetheDavisfamilylivedin,referringtoseveralexternalfeatures,andsomefurnitureandpicturesinsideit.Finally,SoalreportedthatonJanuary30,1922,Nadaspokebrieflyabouta“blackdickiebird”onapiano,andthatwasthelasttimeanythingregardingGordonDaviswascommunicated.However,in1925,SoalwassurprisedtolearnthatDaviswasverymuchalive,andwenttoseehim.HefoundthatmuchofwhatNadahadsaidaboutthehouseanditscontentswascorrect,butthatDavisandhisfamilyhadnotmovedintothehouseuntilsometimeafterSoal’ssittingwiththemedium(althoughDavishadinspectedthehouseonJanuary6,1922,withtheintentionofpurchasingit).4

CommentsontheGordonDavisCaseThisappearstobeacaseinwhichthemedium,orhertrancepersonality,acquiredtheinformationaboutDavisandthebeliefthathewasdeadtelepathicallyfromthemindofSoal,andthenpresentedtheinformationwithDavis’scharacteristic toneofvoiceandaccent.Theinformationaboutthehousemaysuggestsomesortofprecognition,althoughitcouldbearguedthatitwasreceivedtelepathicallyfromthemindofGordonDavis,givenhisintentionsofmovingin. WhenSoal published this case in 1926, it received enormous publicity, andmadeSoal famous both among the public and amongpsychicresearchers.ItseemstobeanexampleofamediumexercisinganextraordinaryamountofESPinordertounconsciouslydeceiveasitterintothinkingthatshewasreceivinggenuinecommunicationfromthedeceased.Thecasehasbeenwithoutparallelsincethen.Butwhatarewetothinkofittoday? Thecaseisfarlessimpressivetodaythanitwasin1926,aswenowhavegoodreasontosuspectthatSoal“improved”thecase.First,in 1978 statistician Betty Markwick demonstrated how Soal fraudulently manipulated the results of his famous card-guessingexperiments,andtherebycompletelydiscreditedSoal’sresearchintoESP.5In1982,AlanGauldreviewedtheGordonDaviscase,andnotedthat“certainfeaturesofitraisedoubts—forexample,Soal’sclaimthathewasabletorecordthemedium’sstatementsindetailinthedarkusingonlyhislefthand,andthefactthathisbrothersignedastatementthathehadreadthecommunications,whichallegedlytookplaceinJanuary1922,intheChristmasvacationof1921.”6

Then,in1986,BBCwriterMelvinHarrisexaminedtheprimarysourcesoftheGordonDaviscaseanduncoveredsuspiciousevidencebearingdirectlyonit.Harrispointsout thatSoalhadampleopportunity tocommitfraud.Inmid-February1925,heis told thatGordonDavisisalive,andhisrecordsfromtheséancesnowassumeanewimportance.Yetnooneisallowedtoexamineandwitnessthem.NocopiesaresenttotheSPR.Instead,Soalkeepsthesepotentiallyexcitingdocumentstohimselfforseveralweeks—untilafterhisvisittoseeGordonDavis. AndwhatcouldpossiblyaccountforthisextraordinarydelayinvisitingDavis?HarrisquotesSoal’scriticismsofanotherresearcher’sbook,showingthatSoalclearlyunderstoodthecrucialimportanceoftimelycorroborationofevidence.So,simplenaivetécannotexplainthedelay. Whataboutdifficulty in traveling?Toaccount forhiscontinuedbelief thatGordonDaviswasdead,Soalexplains thatDavis“hadstartedbusinessinSouthendandwasbecomingverywellknowninthedistrict.Ilive,however,inPrittlewellanddonotveryfrequentlyvisiteitherSouthendorRochford.”ButHarrisnotedthatSoalcouldhavebeenwithDavisinlessthantenminutesanytimehechose.ForPrittlewellis,infact,partofSouthend!GordonDavis’sofficeswereonlyamiledownastraightmainroadfromSoal’shouse. Harrisproposesanotherreasonforthesix-weekdelay:

Mr.Soalwasadeviouscharacter.And it’sclear that in the sixweeksathisdisposalhehadplentyofchance to findout thingsaboutnumber54.I’vevisitedthehousemyselfandnotedthatallSoalhadtodowaswalkpasttheplace,thenridepastonthedouble-deckerbusandrecordeverythingthatcouldbespottedthroughtheplainglasswindows.

Let’s notmincewords. I’m asserting that the house forecastswere faked.The original exercise books he used to record hissittings were easily falsified. The metal staples only had to be sprung and the pages would lift out, allowing newly writtenaccountstobeinserted.Inthat[manner]hewasabletocreateacunningenigma.HereIshouldemphasizethatthereweregenuine“messages”intheaccountsthatneedednodoctoring,butthesedidnotexhibit

precognitionoranythingvaguelystartling,andSoalcouldhavelearnedofallthebitsandpiecesbyquitenormalmeans.Onlythehouseforecastsweredestinedtomakethisaffairnoteworthyandextraordinary.Soonlythosepassagesneededtobere-jiggedorinvented.7

This,asHarrisnotes,wouldonlybea“wild, spiteful theory” ifhedidnothaveevidence thatSoal faked the records.WhatmadeHarrissuspiciouswasSoal’saccountofhisvisittoseeDavis.Onthatnighthetookwithhimatypedcopyofthehandwrittenaccountsofthe relevant sessions with Blanche Cooper. The typed and handwritten accounts had to be identical, because Soal wanted Davis tocommentoneachitemandsignastatementregardingtheirdegreeofaccuracy. AfterleavingDavis’shouseatnumber54onthenightofhisvisit,bothmenwalkeduptotheDavis&HollinsAgencyoffices,somefiveminutesaway.Onreachingtheoffice,Soalsuddenly“remembered”tomentionsomethingthatwasnotinthetypedrecordshehad

broughtwithhim,whichhecalled“acuriousoversight.”

Onmy first visit toMr.Davis’ house onApril 8, by a curious oversight I entirely overlooked the statement concerning ‘blackdickybirdonpiano,’anditwasnotuntilIreachedhisofficelaterintheeveningthatIrememberedtomentionit.Mr.Davistheninformedmethathehadinhispossessionasmallornamentintheformofakingfisherwhichstoodonablackchinapedestal.Atthetimeofmyvisititwasactuallystandinginaplantpotonthepianoand,owingtoitsbeingalmosthiddeninsidetheplantpot,hadescapedmynotice.8

WhenSoalwrotehisarticle,heclaimedthatabriefmessageabout“blackdickiebird—thinkit’sonpiano”hadbeencommunicated

onbehalfof“GordonDavis”inthemiddleofthesittingonJanuary30,1922.Inhisarticle,Soalevenincludedasampleofthetranscriptthatcontainsthemessage.But,asHarriswrites:

This ispure fiction.Hisknowledgeof thebirdcamefromhisobservationofDavis’skingfisherornament—not fromanyséance.Whenhespontaneouslyinventedthismorsel,he’dforgottenonevitalfactor.He’dforgottenthatacompleterecordoftheessentialsittinghadbeeninprivatehandsforthepastthreeyears.9

TheReverendA.T.FryerhadhelpedSoalinvestigatesomeofthemessagesreceivedviaBlancheCooperconcerningJamesMiles,a

youngboywhohaddrowned.AccordingtoHarris,ReverendFryerhadbeensentcopiesofallthesittings,andacopyofthesittingwithMrs.CooperonJanuary30,1922,stillsurvives.

ThiscopyisinSoal’sownhandwriting.Itlists,stagebystage,everystatementmadethatdayanditevenlistseverypauseduringthesitting.Nothingisomitted—evenwhenthemessageisasslightasasingleletter.YetthereisnomentionofGordonDavisonanypageofthisrecord.Thedicky-birdmessagesimplydoesnotexist.10

So,itappearsthatonceagainSoaldoctoredhisownrecordsinordertomaketheevidencemoreimpressivethanitreallywas.Both

the Gordon Davis case and his card-guessing experiments brought Soal fame and recognition, and his bizarre personality may havecontributedtohisbehavior.Inherexposéofhiscard-guessingfraud,BettyMarkwickwrote,“Itisclearfromtheliterature,andfromthecommentsofthosewhoknewSoalpersonally,thathiswasindeedastrangepersonality:obsessive,absorbed,secretive,andsubjecttoboutsofdissociation.”11

Harrisadds that “aswell as this,hewasdoggedby involuntarywhispering.”Hespeculates thatSoalmayhavemutteredaway tohimselfwhilesittingwithBlancheCooper,andendedupmakingrecordsofhisownvoice! Thesix-weekdelay incontactingDavis, combinedwithSoal’suntruthful remarksabout thedifficulty incontactingDavis; theeasewithwhichallthemajordetailsofthecasecouldhavebeengatheredbyfraudulentmeansduringthissix-weekperiod;theeasebywhichthe recordscouldhavebeendoctored;Soal’shistoryof fraud; theevidenceof fraud in thiscase; andSoal’s strangepersonality—allthesefactorscombinetorendertheGordonDaviscasecompletelyworthlessasevidence.Asmentionedearlier,genuinecasesinwhichcommunicationisreceivedfromsomeonepresumeddeadbutactuallyaliveareveryrare.However,wedohaveasomewhatmorerecentexample.

TheRosalindHeywoodCaseRosalind Heywood, a respected psychic researcher, has described her own experience in which a medium was obviously acquiringinformationfromthesitter.Shewrites:

SoonaftertheSecondWorldWarIdecidedtotestamediumbyhavingananonymoussittingwithherandmentallyaskingthefateofaGermanfriend,ofwhomIheardnothingsince1938.Hewasaprominentmanofgreat integrity,andI fearedhemusthavebeenkilled,eitherbytheNazisortheRussians.Hesoonappearedtoturnupatthesitting,gavehisChristianname,spokethroughthemediumincharacterandremindedmeofvariouspleasantexperienceswhichhehadsharedwithmyfamilyinAmerica,andIhadforgotten.Hethensaidhehadbeenkilledingrimcircumstanceswhichhedidnotwanttotalkabout.AfterthesittingImadeenquiriesastohisfate.HewaseventuallytracedbytheSwissForeignOfficetoaneutralcountry,andinreplytoaletterfrommehesaidthathehadescapedbothNazisandRussians,hadmarried,waslivingintworoomsandhadneverbeensohappyinhislife.Here,then,itlooksasifthemedium,unknowntoherself,wasbuildingapictureoftheGermanfrommysubconsciousmemoriesandfearsastohisfate.12

CommentsontheRosalindHeywoodCasePerhapsthismoremodestcaseisagenuineexampleofconvincingyetfalsemediumisticcommunication,basedentirelyontelepathywiththe sitter. However, we have also seen cases described above in which more than telepathy between medium and sitters would berequired to explain the communications—cases in which correct information was sometimes conveyed that was unknown to anyonepresent.According to thehypothesisofESPandsubconsciousfraud,someof theGPcommunications, for instance,wouldalsorequiretelepathywithpersonsnotpresentattheséance,regardlessofwhatthosepeopleweredoingorthinkingofatthetime.

Thebooktestsdescribedabovealsorequiremore thansimple telepathyasanexplanation.Thecaseweconsideredwould involveMrs.LeonardtelepathicallyreadingMrs.Talbot’smind,findingoutsmalldetailsaboutherhusband,“trivialinthemselvesbutpossessingforhimaparticularpersonalinterest.”Then,withMrs.Leonardpretending“Mr.Talbot”wasanxioustoprovehisidentity,shewouldhavehad toclairvoyantlyscan thebookshelves inMrs.Talbot’shouseuntilanappropriatepassagewas located inoneofMr.Talbot’soldnotebooks.AndthisexplanationrequiresthatallofthiswasdonesubconsciouslybyMrs.Leonard.Again,evenassumingthatwehaveanyevidencethatsuchadegreeoftelepathyandclairvoyanceeveroccurs,thequestionremains:Forwhatpurpose?Tosubconsciouslyperpetratea fraud?SinceMrs.LeonardwaspresumablypaidbyMrs.Talbot,andsinceMrs.Talbotpresumably thought she receivedmorethanhermoney’sworth,weat leasthavesomesortofplausiblemotiveforsubconsciousdeception.Thequestionis:Dowealsohaveanyplausiblemeansofcarryingitout? Notethatnotasingleindividualwhohascarefullystudiedtheevidenceforcommunicationfromthedeceasedviamentalmediumshasever proposed any viable alternative to the hypothesis of genuine communication, other than that ofESP combinedwith subconsciousfraud.Letusnowexaminehowthisproposedexplanationstandsuptothefacts.

DIFFICULTIESWITHESPASANEXPLANATIONWehaveseenthatsomecasesofapparentcommunicationwiththedeceasedarebestexplainedbytelepathybetweenthemediumandthesitter.Wehavealsoseenthatothercasesmightpossiblybeexplainedintermsoftelepathyinvolvingnotjustthesitters,butperhapsotherlivingpeopleaswell;andthatclairvoyantperceptionofdistantobjectsmightalsobeinvolvedinsomecases. ButthereareanumberofdifficultieswithESPasanexplanationofallcaseswhicharenotsimplyfraudulent.DegreeofESPRequiredThemostobviousobjection to the idea that thebestcasesaredue to telepathycanbe illustratedwithanextract from the firstof twosittingsMrs.PiperhadwiththeReverendS.W.SuttonandhiswifeonDecember8,1893.Hodgsonfirstintroducedthesittersunderthepseudonymof“Smith,”andthenPhinuitspokeonbehalfoftheSuttons’deceaseddaughter,whohaddiedsixweeksearlier.Apracticednotetakeractedasrecorder,andtheannotationsinsquarebracketsarebyMrs.Sutton.

Phinuitsaid . . .Alittlechild iscomingtoyou . . .Hereachesouthishandsas toachild,andsayscoaxingly:Comehere,dear.Don’tbeafraid.Come,darling,here isyourmother.Hedescribes thechildandher“lovelycurls.”Where isPapa?WantPapa.[He(Phinuit)takesfromthetableasilvermedal.]Iwantthis—wanttobiteit.[Sheusedtobiteit.][Reachesforastringofbuttons.]Quick!Iwanttoputtheminmymouth.[Thebuttonsalso.Tobitethebuttonswasforbidden.Heexactlyimitatedherarchmanner.].. .WhoisDodo?[HernameforherbrotherGeorge.] . . .IwantyoutocallDodo.TellDodoIamhappy.Cryformenomore.[Putshandstothroat.]Nosorethroatanymore.[Shehadpainanddistressofthethroatandtongue.]Papa,speaktome.Canyounotseeme?Iamnotdead,Iamliving.IamhappywithGrandma.[Mymotherhadbeendeadmanyyears.]Phinuitsays:Herearetwomore.One,two,three,here,—oneolderandoneyoungerthanKakie.[Correct.]...

Wasthis littleone’s tongueverydry?Shekeepsshowingmeher tongue. [Her tonguewasparalyzed,andshesufferedmuchwithit to theend.]HernameisKatherine.[Correct.]ShecallsherselfKakie.Shepassedout last. [Correct.]Where ishorsey?[Igavehimalittlehorse.]Bighorsey,notthislittleone.[Probablyreferstoatoycart-horsesheusedtolike.]Papa,wanttogowide[ride]horsey.[Shepleadthisallthroughherillness.]...[I asked if she remembered anything after shewasbrought downstairs.] Iwas sohot,myheadwas sohot. [Correct.] . . . [I

asked if she suffered in dying.] I saw the light and followed it to this pretty lady . . .Donot cry forme—thatmakesme sad.Eleanor.IwantEleanor.[Herlittlesister.Shecalledhermuchduringherlastillness.]Iwantmybuttons.Row,row,—mysong,—singitnow.Isingwithyou.[Wesing,andasoftchildvoicesingswithus.]

Lightlyrow,lightlyrow,O’erthemerrywaveswego,Smoothlyglide,smoothlyglide,Withtheebbingtide.

[Phinuithushesus,andKakiefinishesalone.]

LetthewindandwatersbeMingledwithourmelody,Singandfloat,singandfloatInourlittleboat

...Kakiesings:Bye,bye,babye,bye,bye,Obabybye.Singthatwithme,Papa.[PapaandKakiesing.Thesetwowerethesongssheusedtosing.]WhereisDinah?IwantDinah.[Dinahwasanoldblackrag-doll,notwithus.]IwantBagie[HernameforhersisterMargaret.] IwantBagie tobringmemyDinah . . .TellDodowhenyouseehim that I lovehim.DearDodo.Heused tomarchwithme,heputmewayup.[Correct.]13

Throughoutthetwosittings,noinformationwascommunicatedthatlayoutsidetheknowledgeofthesitters.Doesthismeanthatwe

canattributeallofMrs.Piper’s“hits” to telepathywith thesitters? Inhis reviewof thiscase,Gauldwrites,“Iknowofno instanceofundeniabletelepathybetweenlivingpersons,orforthatmatterofanyothervarietyofESP,inwhichtheflowofparanormallyacquiredinformationhasbeensoquick,socopious,andsofreefromerror.”14

Theamountofdetailedinformationconveyedquicklyandaccuratelycertainlyfarexceedsanythingseeninboththeanecdotalandexperimentalevidence. We have also seen examples in bothMrs. Piper’s andMrs. Leonard’smediumship in which themedium displays knowledge notknowntoherortothesitters.Butinordertoconclusivelyeliminatetelepathybetweenmediumandsittersasanexplanation(aswellasthetechniqueof“fishing”forinformation),thetechniqueofproxysittingswasdeveloped.Asthenamesuggests,aproxysittingisoneinwhichasitterwillvisitthemediumonbehalfofathirdpersonwhoisnotpresent.ThebestknownofallproxysittingsarethenumeroussittingswithMrs.Leonardatwhich theReverendDraytonThomasactedasproxy,usuallyonbehalfofbereavedparentsandspouseswhohadcontactedThomasbymail.Iftheproxysitterdoesnotevenknowthepersonheisrepresenting,thentelepathywiththesitterisobviouslyruledoutasthesourceofinformation. One of the best known proxy sittingswas arranged by Professor E. R.Dodds, awell-known critic of the evidence for survival.DoddsaskedThomastodoaproxysittingwithMrs.Leonard,butnotonhisbehalf.ItwasforaMrs.Lewis,whowantedtocontactherdeceasedfather,aMr.Macaulay.Thus,thesittingwasnotevensecondhand,onbehalfofDodds,butthirdhand.BothMrs.LewisandMr.Macaulay,whoinlifehadbeenahydraulicengineer,werecompletelyunknowntobothThomasandMrs.Leonard.TheonlyfactsthatThomaswastoldaboutMr.Macaulaywerehisname,hishometown,andhisdateofdeath.YetFedaseemedtogetintouchwithhimrightaway.Shedescribedinstrumentsheworkedwith,mathematicalformulasheused,andmorepersonalmatters,suchashispetnameforhisdaughter.Shealsogavethenamesofthreepeoplewhohadsharedwithhimanespeciallyhappyperiodofhislife.However,onenamepuzzledher,andshesaid,“ItmightbeReecebutsoundslikeRiss.” NoneofthismeantanythingtoThomas.HesenttheinformationtoDodds,whointurnpasseditontoMrs.Lewis.Shewasimpressedby the information, and stated that the names and nickname given were correct, but found the reference to “Reece” particularlyinteresting.Duringthehappyperiodreferredto,herelderbrotherhadhero-worshippedanolderschoolboywhosenamewasRees.Herbrotherhadstatedthathisnamewasspelled“Rees”andnot“Reece”somanytimesthathisyoungersisterswouldteasehimbysinging“NotReecebutRiss”untiltheirfatherstoppedthem. Overfivesittings,124itemsofinformationweregiven,ofwhich51wereclassifiedascorrect,12asgood,32asfair,2aspoor,22asdoubtful,and5aswrong. Dodds,theskepticalinvestigatorbehindthisexperiment,remarked:

It appears to me that the hypothesis of fraud, rational influence from disclosed facts, telepathy from the actual sitter, andcoincidence cannot either singlyor in combination account for the results obtained.Only thebarest informationwas supplied tositterandmedium,andthatthroughanindirectchannel.15

Inorderfortelepathytoexplainthiscase,itwouldbenecessaryforMrs.Leonard’strancepersonalitytohavetelepathicallytapped

intothemindofMrs.Lewis,tworemovesaway.Thereiscertainlynoexperimentalevidenceforsuchanindirectformoftelepathy;andthe anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that telepathy usually operates between people who are emotionally linked or, at least,associatedinsomeway. In the proxy case just considered, all the informationwas known to one person—Mrs.Lewis.But in the final proxy casewewillconsider,nosinglepersonknewalltherequiredinformation. The case began when Drayton Thomas received a letter from a Mr. Hatch, whose ten-year-old stepson had recently died ofdiphtheria.NeitherThomasnorMrs.LeonardhadevermetMr.Hatchoranyofhisfamily,andsoknewnexttonothingaboutthem.Overaseriesofelevensittings“Bobbie,”speakingthroughFeda,madeunmistakablereferencestomatterssuchasa“JackofHearts”costumehehad onceworn, somegymnastics equipment set up in his room, and a girl skater ofwhomhewas fond.Most curious of allwerereferencestosome“pipes,”andthroughFedatheopinionwasrepeatedlyexpressedthatBobbie’sillnesscouldbetracedtosomethingpoisonous connected with these pipes. It was said that the pipes were not at the boy’s home; that animals would be a guide to theirlocation;thatBobbie’sfamilydidnotknowoftheplace,butthathewenttherewithanotherboy. WhenMr.HatchandBobbie’smotherreadthescripts,theywereutterlypuzzledbythesereferences.Butfinally,thecommunicatorgavedirectionstothelocationofthepipes,andfollowingthesedirectionstheinvestigatorsfoundtwopipesthroughwhichspringwaterissued into pools and from which animals would drink. A medical officer testified in writing that the water was not fit for drinkingpurposes,andthatapersonwhodrankitmightdevelopanacuteinfection.Bobbie’sfriendJackadmittedthatheandBobbiehad“playedwiththewater”intheweeksshortlybeforeBobbiefellill. The difficulty with telepathy as an explanation is not only that Bobbie’s family and friends were unknown to Thomas andMrs.Leonard.Inthiscasewehavethefurtherdifficultythatnoonepersonhadalltherequiredinformation.Bobbie’sfamilydidnotknowoftheexistenceofthepipes;hisfriendswould,ofcourse,butwouldhavehadnoideathatBobbie’sillnesswasduetohisplayingwiththewater. If the information conveyedwas due to telepathy among the living, thenMrs. Leonard’s trance-consciousness pieced togetherfragmentarybitsofinformationfrompeopleshedidnotevenknowinordertofabricateconvincingmessagesfromadeceasedpersonshehadnevermet. Thomascommentedonthiscaseasfollows:

Criticswhowishtoapplythetelepathichypothesistothiscasewillneedtoassume,withoutanyjustificationforsuchanassumption,

that thoughts pass between peoplewho have not heard of each other and betweenwhom there is no link save that theywereinterested in a personwhodied.And further, the selectionmust be assumed to actwith unerring discretion, so that no facts areallowedtopassthatdonotrelatetotheinquiryathand.Inshort,everythingmusthappenexactlyasif an intelligent supervisorwereobtaininginformationfromthedeceasedforthepurposesoftheinquiry.16

TheseproxycasesmaybedifficulttoexplainasaresultofESP,buttheso-called“drop-in”casesareevenmoredifficult.Theseare

casesinwhichadeceasedpersonality,unknowntoanyonepresent,simply“dropsin”toaséance,andbeginspassingmessagesthroughtothesitters.Insuchcasesthereisnoapparentlink,howevertenuous,toanylivingpersonorpersonswhohavetherequiredinformation.Thefactsabout thegreatmajorityofdrop-incommunicatorsarenotparticularlyeye-catching,andmediumsandsittersdonotseemtohave any special motive for desiring information about the deceased person. However, as Stevenson writes, “Some ‘drop in’communicatorshaveexplainedtheirpresenceverywellandtheirmotivationtocommunicateisanimportantpartofthewholecasewhichhastobeexplained.”17Thesecommunicatorsmayexplainthattheywishtorelievethegriefoflivingfriends;thattheyarelostinakindoflimbowherethemediumistheironlymeansofcontactwithothers;thattheyarelinkedthroughcommoninteresttopersonspresent;orthattheyarealtruisticallytryingtohelp. Of course, cases of this kind are easy to fake. A fraudulentmedium can easily “bring through” alleged communications from anunknowncommunicatorandsetthesittersoffonatrailofresearchforapersonwhoseexistencewasalreadywellknowntothemedium.Stevenson lists several fraudulent cases, includingoneheprobedhimself, but alsomaintains that “in thebetter cases of this type, thecommunicatedinformationincludesfactsneverinprint,orneverinprint inanyonesource,andknownonlytooneorasmallcircleoffamilymembers.”18Insuchcasesfraudcanberuledoutasanexplanation. AnearlyexampleofsuchacaseoccurredataséanceheldNovember17,1887,atthehomeofanobleman,M.Nartzeff,inTambof,Russia.Theotherthreepersonspresentwerehisaunt,hishousekeeper,andtheofficialphysicianofTambof. Theséancebeganat10p.m.atatableplacedinthemiddleoftheroom,bythelightofanightlightplacedonthemantelpiece.Thelefthandofeachpersonwasplacedontherighthandoftheirneighbor,andthefootofeachpersontouchedtheirneighbor’sfoot.Sharprapsweresuddenlyheardinthefloor,theninthewallandceiling,andtheninthecenterofthetable,withsuchviolenceandsooftenthatthetabletrembledthewholetime. Thereportoftheséancereads,inpart:

M.Nartzeffasked:“Canyouanswerrationally,givingthreerapsforyes,oneforno?”“Yes.”“Doyouwishtoanswerbyusingthe alphabet?” “Yes.” “Spell your name.” The alphabet was repeated, and the letters indicated by three raps—“AnastasiePereliguine.”“Ibegyoutosaynowwhyyouhavecomeandwhatyoudesire.”“Iamawretchedwoman.Prayforme.Yesterday,during the day, I died at the hospital.Thedaybefore yesterday I poisonedmyselfwithmatches.” “Give us somedetails aboutyourself.Howoldwereyou?Givearapforeachyear.”Seventeenraps.“Whowereyou?”“Iwasahousemaid.Ipoisonedmyselfwithmatches.”“Whydidyoupoisonyourself?”“Iwillnotsay.Iwillsaynothingmore.”19

The report was signed by all four persons present, along with a document in which they all swore that they had no previous

knowledgeoftheexistenceordeathofAnastasiePereliguine,andthattheyheardhernameforthefirsttimeintheséance. Thephysicianpresent,Dr.Touloucheff,didnotatfirstconsiderthecommunicationgenuine,asthepoliceusuallyinformedhimatonceofallcasesofsuicide.Buthesentalettertohiscolleagueatthelocalhospital,simplyaskingiftherehadbeenanyrecentcaseofsuicideatthehospitalandifso,forthenameandparticulars.Acertifiedcopyoftheletterofhisreplyreads,inpart:

Onthe16thofthismonthIwasonduty;andonthatdaytwopatientswereadmittedtothehospital,whohadpoisonedthemselveswithphosphorous...thesecond,aservantintheinsaneward[apartofthehospital],AnastasiePereliguine,agedseventeen,wastakeninat10p.m.Thissecondpatienthadswallowed,besidesaninfusionofboxesofmatches,aglassofkerosene,andat thetimeofheradmissionwasalreadyveryill.Shediedat1p.m.onthe17th.20

Wecanseefromtheletterthattheinformationdidexistinthemindofatleastonelivingperson,butitisdifficulttodetermineanylink

at all between the information regarding Anastasie’s suicide and the séance. None of the participants knew of her, and the hospitalphysicianpresumablydidnotknowanythingabouttheséance—soitisdifficulttoseehowtelepathyfromthelivingcouldaccountforthemessage(ignoring thequestionofhowtherapswereproduced).Ontheotherhand, thesurvivalofAnastasieandhermemorieswouldaccountbothforthemotiveandtheinformation.

TheCaseofRunolfurRunuolfssonThereisintheliteratureatleastonecarefullyinvestigatedcaseinwhichadrop-incommunicatormadeaseriesofcorrectstatementsthatcould not have been obtained—normally, telepathically, or clairvoyantly—from any single living person orwritten document. Itwasreceived through awell-known Icelandic trancemedium,HafsteinnBjornsson.Hafsteinn*17 did not earn his living as a professionalmedium, although he did accept fees from sitters.His regular control, “Finna,”would relaymessages fromother communicators, butsometimestheseotherpersonalitieswoulddirectlycommunicatethroughHafsteinn. In the winter of 1937–38 Hafsteinn began to conduct regular séances with a home circle in Reykjavik. One of the earliest

communicators dropped in intermittently, refused to give his name, and kept repeating that he was looking for his leg. This quicklybecamebothirritatingandboring. InJanuary1939,thecirclewasjoinedbyLudvikGudmundsson,whoownedahouseinthevillageofSandgerdi,aboutfortymilesfromReykjavik.MuchtoLudvik’ssurprise,theanonymouscommunicatorwasdelightedtoseehim.WhenLudvikaskedthemysteriouscommunicatorwhohewas, he again refused to reveal his identity.However, hedid say that hismissing legwas inLudvik’s house atSandgerdi!Afterthisridiculousclaim,themembersofthecircleranoutofpatienceandtoldtheinterloperthatifhedidnottellthemwhohewas, theywouldnolongerspeaktohim.Refusingtodoso,he left.Buthereturnedafewweeks later inaconciliatorymood,andgavethefollowingstatement:

My name is Runolfur Runuolfsson, and I was 52 years old when I died. I lived with my wife at Kolga or Klappakot, nearSandgerdi. Iwas on a journey fromKeflavik [about sixmiles fromSandgerdi] in the latter part of the day and Iwas drunk. IstoppedatthehouseofSveinbjornThordarsoninSandgerdiandacceptedsomerefreshmentsthere.WhenIwenttogo,theweatherwassobadthattheydidnotwishmetoleaveunlessaccompaniedbysomeoneelse.IbecameangryandsaidIwouldnotgoatall if I could not go alone.Myhousewas only about 15minutes’walk away.So I left bymyself, but Iwaswet and tired. Iwalkedoverthekambuin[pebbles]andreachedtherockknownasFlankastadakletturwhichhasalmostdisappearednow.ThereIsat down, tookmy bottle, and drank somemore. Then I fell asleep. The tide came in and carriedme away. This happened inOctober,1879.IwasnotfounduntilJanuary,1880.Iwascarried inbythe tide,but thendogsandravenscameandtoremetopieces.Theremnants[ofmybody]werefoundandburiedinUtskalargraveyard[aboutfourmilesfromSandgerdi].Butthenthethighbonewasmissing.Itwascarriedoutagaintosea,butwaslaterwashedupagainatSandgerdi.ThereitwaspassedaroundandnowitisinLudvik’shouse.21

He said proof of his story could be found in theUtskalar church book. Intrigued, themembers of the circle examined the church

book,andfoundthefollowingentry:

On October 16, 1879, Runolfur Runolfsson, living in Klappakot, was missing on account of some accidental or unnaturaloccurrenceonhiswayhomeduringastorm.. .inthemiddleofthenight.. .theseacarriedhimaway.. .hisboneswerefounddismemberedmuchlater.

AlaterentryindicatedthathehadbeenburiedonJanuary8,1880,butsaidnothingaboutamissingthighbone.

Ludvikknewnothingaboutathighboneinhishouse,butafterquestioningsomeoftheoldermeninthevillage,helearnedthatyearsearlierahumanthighbonehadbeenfoundandpassedaround.Oneofthementhoughtthatithadfinallybeeninterredinaninteriorwallof Ludvik’s house. After locating one of the carpenters who had built the house, Ludvik learned that this was indeed true, and thecarpenterwasabletopointoutthespot.Whenthewallwasopenedthefemurofaverytallmanwasfoundandrecovered,supportinganearlierstatementofRunolfurthathehadbeenanunusuallytallman. Mostof theremainingstatementswereverifiedfromentriesdistributedbetweentwomanuscripts, theUtskalarchurchbookandtheReverendSigirdurSivertsen’sAnnalsofSudurnes,whichatthetimewasunpublishedandsittingintheNationalLibraryatReykjavik.Hisgrandson confirmed thatRunolfur had been tall, although he had not known him, and did not know about the bone.Haraldsson andStevenson carefully investigated this case, and concluded, “It does not seem feasible to attribute all of this information to any singlepersonoranysinglewrittensource.And thiswouldbe true,webelieve,whether themediumacquired the informationnormallyorbyextrasensoryperception.”22

As a coda to this case, the following may be of interest. Sixty years after Runolfur’s death, and three years after the firstcommunicationsthatapparentlycamefromhim,thefemurwasburiedinatraditionalIcelandicceremony.Theclergymangaveasermoneulogizing thedeadman,achoirsang,andafterward therewasareceptionat theclergyman’shome.Severalof theregularsitter’satHafsteinn’sséancesattendedtheburialceremonyandparty,butthemediumwasnotpresent. AtaséanceheldimmediatelyaftertheburialceremonyRunolfurexpressedgratitude,sayinghehadbeenpresentattheceremonyandreception, and described both in detail. To Ludvik he was particularly grateful, as he and his wife had arranged the ceremony. ButRunolfur’s storydidnot endwith theburialof the thighbone.Hecontinued to communicate throughHafsteinn,becominggentler andincreasinglyhelpfultoothercommunicators.Eventually,hebecamethemedium’smaincontrol,andwasstillfunctioninginthiscapacitywhenHaraldssonandStevensoninvestigatedthecase.

ALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONS:CONCLUSIONIfthecasesdescribedabove,andothersimilarcases,areindeedexamplesofESPonthepartofthemedium,thentheyareexamplesofESPofadegreethatisseldomifeverseen,apartfromsuchcasesofallegedcommunicationwiththedeceased. First of all, in themost impressive cases, the sheer speed, quantity, and level of accuracy and detail of the information conveyedthroughmediumsgreatlyexceedsthatofvirtuallyallreportedinstancesofESP,whetherexperimentaloranecdotal.Inthebestcasestheflowofknowledgeiscomparabletothatwhichmightoccurinanordinaryconversation.Bycontrast,theverybestsubjectsinaGanzfeldexperimentmightguess(atmost)50percentof thepicturescorrectly,when25percentwouldbeexpectedbychance.Nothing in theirperformancewouldsuggestthat“messages”couldbecommunicatedtothem. Secondly,wehaveseenthat, insomecases, the information, ifconveyedviaESP,musthavecomefrommultiplesources,someofthemcompletelyunknowntobothmediumandsitters.ThereisverylittleevidencethatESPcanprovidedetailed,copious,andcorrect

informationaboutapersonwhentherequiredinformationisscatteredamongmultiple,distantsources.*18ThisraisesthequestionofjusthowESPwasabletolocateandcollatetheinformation—informationthattheallegedcommunicator,ifstillliving,mightbeexpectedtoremember.Ontheotherhand,thisquestiondoesnotarisewiththehypothesisthatthecommunicationsarewhattheyclaimtobe,becausethenonlyasinglesourceofinformationwouldberequired:thememoryofthedeceased.

THIRTEEN

Super-ESPasanExplanation?

ThedifficultiesofusingESPasanexplanationforthemostimpressivecasesofmediumshiphaveresultedinthehypothesisofsuper-ESP—thatis,ESPofarangeandpowerrarelyifeverfoundinexperimentsoranecdotalreports.Defendersofthesuper-ESPhypothesispointoutthatthelimitationsofESParenotcurrentlyknown,andsoarguethatwehavenorighttoexcludeESPasapossibleexplanationofallegedcommunicationfromthedeceased.*19

But evidence for the existence of ESP of the required power and range is practically nonexistent. Defenders of the super-ESPhypothesisarehard-pressedtofindanysuchexamples—outsideofcasesofapparentcommunicationfromthedeceased. WehavealsonotedthatESPusuallyoperatesbetweenpeoplewhosharesomeemotionalconnection,orwhoareotherwiselinkedinsomeway.Butintheproxycasesdiscussed,thelinkwasextremelytenuous;inthedrop-incases,therewasapparentlynolinkatall.Yetit is maintained that an enormous amount of telepathy occurred between individuals with whom there was little or no association orconnection. Thisfinalpointhasamoresubtleimplication.Inordertoaccountforcasesinwhichtherewasanabsenceofanysortofemotionallinkbetweenmedium, sitters, and the deceased,we are beginning to require the operation of something not only different in degree fromtelepathyasfoundinexperimentsandanecdotalreports;inthesecaseswearebeginningtorequiretheoperationofsomethingdifferentinkind.Thisdifferenceinkindwillbecomeevenmoreapparentwhenweconsidertheotherdifficultiesfacingthesuper-ESPhypothesis.

PURPOSECONTRARYTOTHATOFTHEMEDIUMORSITTERSThe evidence for survival discussed so far is mostly evidence for the existence of memories of the deceased. We have examinedevidencefor thecommunicationoffacts thatwerenotpossessedbyanysingle livingpersonoronanysingledocument,butwhichtheallegedcommunicator,ifalive,wouldbeexpectedtoremember.Memoriesareinvaluableasindicatorsofidentity:notevenfingerprintssouniquelyidentifyeachoneofusasourownsetofmemories. Butmorethantheexistenceofmerememorieswouldberequiredtoconstitutethesurvivalofaperson.Livingpeoplehavepurposes,pointsofview,personalities,knowledgeandskills,inadditiontoastorehouseofmemories.Itistoevidenceforthepersistenceoftheseadditionaltraitsofthedeceasedthatwenowturn,startinginthissectionwithevidenceofpurpose. Onesuchpurpose,whichisfrequentlyexpressedbycommunicators,isthatofprovingtheirownsurvival,inordertobringconsolationtogrievingrelatives.Thisisapurposethatalargenumberofthedeceasedmightbeexpectedtoshow,iftheydosurvive;sothefactthatany one communicator seems to show this purpose is not in itself evidence for survival. However, in our review ofMrs. Leonard’smedium-ship,wehaveseenonecase inwhichanallegedcommunicator seemed to insistondeliveringamessage thathiswifedidnotwishtohear. AccordingtoMrs.Talbot’snotes,thecommunicatorwastryingbyeverymeansinhispowertoprovehisidentity.Clearlyandlucidly,he recitedmany incidents from the past, and talked of trivial belongings that possessed some personal significance for the livingMr.Talbot.Repeatedly,Mrs.Talbotwasaskedifshebelieveditreallywasherhusband;whenshesaidshethoughtso,“butcouldnotbesure,” thecommunicatorbegan“a tiresomedescriptionofabook.”Whentheexactcolorof thebookcouldnotbeestablished,“Fedabegan a wearisome description all over again.” Reading her account, one can almost feel Mrs. Talbot’s sense of boredom andbewilderment.

Iwasratherhalf-heartedinrespondingtoallthis,therewassomuchofit,anditsoundedsopurposeless...ButthechiefreasonIwasanxioustogetoff thesubjectwasthatIfeltsurethebookwouldnotbeforthcoming;eitherIhadthrownitaway,or ithadgonewitha lotofother things to a luggage room in theoppositeblockof flatswhere itwouldhardlybepossible toget at it.However,Ididnotquiteliketosaythis,andnotattachinganyimportancetoit,repliedratherindefinitelythatIwouldseeifIcouldfindit.ButthisdidnotsatisfyFeda.Shestartedalloveragain,becomingmoreandmoreinsistent...1

Thinking themediumwas talking nonsense,Mrs. Talbot pacified her by promising to look for the book, andwas gladwhen the

séanceended.ItwasonlyafterMrs.Talbottoldherrelativesthatnightthat“intheendthemediumbegantalkingalotofrubbishaboutabook”thatshewaspressuredintolocatingthestrikingpassage.In“reallife,”ESPseemstooperateaccordingtothedesiresandemotionsofthepartiesinvolved.IftheonlypartiesinvolvedinthiscasewerethemediumandMrs.Talbot,thenitisdifficulttoseewhosedesireswerebeingmetduringthelengthyexchangethesitterfoundso“tiresome”and“purposeless.”

TheCaseofSchura’sWarningThefollowingcaseishighlyunusual,becauseofthedegreetowhichthepurposeoftheallegedcommunicatorseemstobecontraryto

that of the mediums and sitters. This odd case was reported in detail by a Russian corresponding member of the SPR, AlexanderAksakov,imperialcouncilortotheczar. In January 1885,Mrs. A. vonWiesler (Aksakov’s sister-in-law) and her daughter Sophie began to experiment with a planchette(pointer)andanalphabetwrittenoutonasheetofpaper.Motheranddaughterlightlyplacedtheirfingersontheplanchette,andforafewweeksnothinghappened,apartfromthenameofSophie’sdeceasedfather—Andreas—beingcontinuallyspelledout. Then,onJanuary22,thename“Schura”(thepetnameforAlexandrine)wasspelledout.Thisnewcommunicatorclaimedtobethedeceaseddaughterofsomewhatdistantacquaintances.Schura,whohadadoptedrevolutionaryviews,hadendedherlifebypoisonattheageofseventeenaweekearlier,followingtheimprisonmentanddeathofalike-mindedmalecousinwhomshehadloveddearly.Nowshewasdemanding that another cousin,Nikolaus,bebrought atonce to a sitting.According toSchura,Nikolaushad fallen inwith abandofradicalsandwasindangerofcompromisinghimselfpolitically.However,Sophieandhermotherexpressedhesitationforreasonsofsocialpropriety,astheiracquaintancewiththefamilyofNikolauswasfarfromintimate.“Absurdideasofpropriety!”was“Schura’s”indignantreply. All thiswas very characteristic of the livingSchura,who had been very decisive and forceful, andwho had come to despise theconventions of society.However, Sophie andhermother continued to hesitate. “Schura’s” demands for them to act becamemore andmorevehementatsuccessivesittings,untilfinally,onFebruary26,shewrote,“Itistoolate...expecthisarrest.”Thesewere“Schura’s”lastwords.ThevonWieslersthencontactedNikolaus’sparents,whowere,however,quitesatisfiedinregardtotheirson’sconduct. TwoyearslaterNikolauswasarrestedandexiledbecauseofpoliticalassemblieshehadattendedinJanuaryandFebruary1885—theverymonths inwhich“Schura”was insisting that steps shouldbe taken immediately todissuadeNikolaus from takingpart in suchmeetings.Aksakovwrites:

Onlynowwere thecommunicationsof“Schura”estimatedat their truevalue.ThenoteswhichMrsvonWieslerhadmadewereread again and again by the families both of “Schura” and of Nikolaus. “Schura’s” identity in all those manifestations wasrecognizedasincontestablydemonstrated,inthefirstplace,bythemainfactinrelationtoNikolaus,byotherintimateparticulars,andalsobythetotalityofthefeatureswhichcharacterizedherpersonality.2

CommentsontheCaseofSchura’sWarningThiscasecreatesseveraldifficultiesforthesuper-ESPhypothesis.Firstofall,itisanexampleofa“drop-in”communicator,onewhoinlifewasonlyslightlyknown to thevonWieslers.TheycertainlyknewnothingofSchura’spolitical secrets,yet theseandmanyotherintimatefactswerecommunicated.Secondly,thepurposeofthecommunicationsreceivedwasdefinitelynotthatoftheoperatorsoftheplanchetteboard(whofunctionedasbothmediumsandsitters).Sincetheyknewtheotherfamilyonlyslightly,thethoughtofcontactingthemaboutsointimateafamilymatterembarrassedthem.YetthepurposeshowninthecommunicationswouldcertainlyhavebeenthatofthelivingSchura,ifshehadknownofthedangertoNikolaus.Finally,thepurposewascarriedoutinthedirectandforcefulmannerthatwascharacteristicofthelivingSchura,andwithhertypicaldisdainforthesocialconventionstowhichthevonWieslersfeltsobound. Manifestationsofthepersonalityofthedeceasedwillbediscussedingreaterdetaillater.Amoresubtleproblemforthesuper-ESPhypothesisisthefactthatinsomecases,communicationsseemtobeunmistakablyfromtheperspectiveofthedeceased.

COMMUNICATIONFROMTHEPERSPECTIVEOFTHEDECEASEDConsiderthecaseofthe“Kakie”communicatormentionedearlier,inwhichthedeceaseddaughteroftheReverendS.W.Suttonappearedtocommunicate throughMrs.Piper’sPhinuitcontrol.All thefacts receivedwereknownto thosepresent,but thefactswerepresentedfromthechild’spointofview.Ifthefactswereobtainedtelepathicallyfromthemindsofthesitters,thenitappearsthatMrs.Pipermusthaveobtainedparent’s-eye-viewinformationaboutKakiefromthesitters,andthen,withagreatdealofdramaticskill,haveplayedbackthosefactsfromKakie’sperspective. WhatisevenmoredifficulttoexplainonthebasisofESPisthatatbothsittingsassociationsweremadethatseemedtobeinthemindofthechild,butnotinthemindsoftheadults.Forinstance,duringthefirstsittingtheKakiecommunicatoraskedatonepointforahorse:

Whereishorsey?[Igavehimalittlehorse.]Bighorsey,notthislittleone.[Probablyreferstoatoycart-horsesheusedtolike.]

Andatthesecondsitting,thesamerequest:

Kakiewantsthehorse.[Igavehimthelittlehorsesheplayedwithduringherillness.]No,thatisnottheone.Thebighorse—sobig[Phinuitshowshowlarge].Eleanor’shorse.EleanorusedtoputitinKakie’slap.[Thishorsewaspacked,inTrenton,andhadnotoccurredtomeinconnectionwithKakie.Whatshesaidofitwastrue.]3

AtthefirstsittingKakieaskedtwicefor“thelittlebook,”whichMrs.Suttonthoughtatthetimereferredtoalinenpicturebook.Atthe

secondsittingKakie, throughPhinuit, asked,more specifically, for“the littlebitofabookmama readbyherbedside,with theprettybright thingshangingfromit—mamaput it inherhands—thelast thingsheremembers.”4Both requestsnowseemed to refer toa littleprayerbookwithsymbolsinsilver,readtoKakieasshelaydying,andplacedinherhandsafterherdeath. Gauldcommentsonwhatthesepassagesseemtoimply.

IfwearetosaythatMrsPipercouldselectfromthesitters’mindsassociationsconflictingwiththeonesconsciouslypresentand

utilize theminorder tocreate the impression that thecommunicator’s thoughtsmovedalong linesdistinctivelydifferent fromthesitter’s,wearebeginningtoattributetohernotjustsuper-ESPbutsuper-artistryaswell.5

There are also cases on record inwhich the communicator seems to contradict and correct themedium. TheAmerican researcher

WalterFranklinPrince andhis adopted daughterTheodosia visited themediumMrs. Soule on several occasions, and during one visitTheodosia’s mother appeared to control the medium. At one point it seemed she was trying to remind her daughter of a visit to aneighbor’sfarmtoseeacalf(colloquiallya“Bossy”),butwasexperiencingdifficulty.

Wewenttoaneighbor’stoseeapetBunny—pause—petBunnyBBBunny—pause—No,itwasapetBunnyBBBunnyB—longpause—(mediummoans)Milk—asmallcowBossy.6

Princeremarks:

Whocandoubt that someoneor something intended“Bossy” . . . from the first?Elsewhydid thecommunicator stopatBunnyeverytimeandbeginagain,expressdissatisfaction,pauseasthoughponderingwhatwasthematterorhowtoremedyit,experienceemotionwhichextortedmoansfromthemedium,andfinallysay“smallcow”asthoughtoavoidthewordbeginningwithB?Iftwomindswereengagedintheprocess,thesecondreceivingfromthefirst,wecanseehowthissecond,callitthe“control”orthemedium’ssubconscious,would,when the“petB-”was reached,conceive thepictureofa rabbitandcling to thepreference forsometimedespitetheeffortsofthefirstmindtodislodgeit.7

TherearealsomanyexamplesofmistakesandsubsequentcorrectionsintherecordsofsittingswithMrs.Leonard.Insightintowhat

seems to be occurring at times may be gained by considering the various methods the communicators seem to use in order to passmessagesthrough.Asmentionedearlier,mostofthemessageswererelayedbyMrs.Leonard’s“Feda”control,andthecommunicatorsdistinguished twoways inwhich theycangivemessages toFeda.Theycanactuallyspeak toherusingwords;or theycanpass toherthoughtsorvisualimages. DraytonThomasspentyearsstudyinghermediumship,andkeptelaboraterecordsofwhattranspiredduringsittings.Thomasobservedthatthemedium’sbodyisofteninapositionoflisteningwhenFedaisreceivingamessage.TothesittersitseemedasthoughmessageswerebeingdictatedtoFeda,whichshewouldthenrepeat.Fedaalsoseemedtooccasionallymakemistakesofthepreciselythesortthatwewouldexpectifshehadindeedmisheardaword.Thomasprovidedthefollowingexamplesfromhisnotes.

FEDA:Weekafterweekforfears—(longpauseasisthemisheardwordcausedacheckintheflowandafaltering).Years.Weekafterweekforyears.

FEDA:Iseegreatly—Whatdidyoucallit?Something—I’vemissedsomething.I’msorry.Well,hesays,Iseegreatdifferences.

FEDA:Wecannotas—as—Wecannot,What?Oh,Ican’tgetthatword.Well,sayitanotherway,Feda,hesays.8

Perhaps the most interesting corrections are the ones made by what Thomas called the “direct voice.” An odd feature of Mrs.

Leonard’smediumshipwas this: at timeswhenFedawas in control and relayingmessages from another communicator, shewould beinterruptedbyawhispercomingapparentlyfromtheemptyairafootortwoinfrontofthemedium.This“directvoice”seemedtobethatofthecommunicator,andwouldcorrectandclarifythestatementsthatFedawasmakingthroughMrs.Leonard.Thefollowingaretwosuchexamples.

FEDA:Willy—What?Who’s he?Willy somebody—I can’t get his other name.Willy—somebody is compelling you.Wait aminute,I’vemixedthatup.

D.V.:Itisnotthatatall.

FEDA:Willy-nilly?Isthatright?Willy-nillyyouarebeingcompelled...

FEDA:Stuartthinkshewillhavemoreimportantworklater,thoughhedoesn’tknowquitewhatitis.

D.V.:Atpresent—

FEDA:Present?Hedoesn’tknowatpresent.Whatisitthen?“NO,”hesaid.“Idon’tknowwhatitisquite.Fullstop.”Fullstop?ButatpresentIamhelpingwith...9

Thomaspointsouthowthesecondexampleindicatesadistinctionbetweenspeakerandlistener.Fedahadmistakenlyjoinedthefirst

twowordsofanewsentencetotheendofthepreviousone.Thecommunicatorrepeatstheendofthefirstsentence,indicatesafullstop,andthencontinueswiththenextsentence. ThedirectvoicesometimesseemstocorrectFeda’schoiceofwords,evenwhenFedainsertsherowncomment.

FEDA:It’sjustasifthingsbecomeseparate,likethespectrum,hecallsit.(Then,addingforherself—)AmanoncesaidFedawasaspectrum.

D.V.:Spectre,notspectrum!

FEDA:Hesays,spectrum;everythinggetsdivided.10

AndattimesthedirectvoiceappearstoexpressfrustrationwithFeda,asthoughirritatedbytheeffortoftryingtodictatetoarather

obtusesecretary.

FEDA:Hesaysthatthephenometer—phenomena—He’sgotathermometer!

D.V.:Iwasnottalkingaboutthermometers!

FEDA:Oh,hesays,phenomena.Isthatright?Thephenomenareferredto.

FEDA:Yourfathersays—

D.V.:Afewdaysout!

FEDA:Afewdaysout?What,outofbed?

D.V.:No,no,nono!

FEDA:Afewdaysout?Oh,I’lltellhim.Hewasafewdaysoutinhisreckoningaboutthewar.11

ONANOTHEROCCASION:

FEDA:Hesaysyoumusthavegoodworking—What?Hippopotamuses?

D.V.:Hypotheses.

FEDA(MORELOUDLY):Hippopotamuses.

D.V.:Hypotheses—anddon’tshout!

FEDA:I’mnotshouting.I’monlyspeakingplainly.12

Theseexamplescreateanobviousdifficultyforthehypothesisoftelepathyfromtheliving.Forthereisnoevidencethattelepathically

receivedinformationiseverfirstreceivedwrongly,andthencorrected.Butthemistakesandsubsequentcorrectionsmakeperfectsenseifthemessagesare,infact,whattheypurporttobe.

MANIFESTATIONSOFPERSONALITYWe have already seen several examples of mediumship in which the distinctive personality of the deceased appears evident in thecommunication. The following remarks, fairly typical,weremade after séanceswithMrs. Piper duringwhich deceased friends of thesittersseemedtospeakdirectlythroughtheentrancedmedium.

The clearly-markedpersonality of the friend,whom Iwill callT., is tome themost convincingproof ofMrsP.’s supernaturalpower,butitisaproofimpossibletopresenttoanyoneelse.13

Anothersitterremarked:

Inagreatmanylittlewaysheisquitelikewhatmyfriendusedtobewhenliving,somuchsothatIamafraiditwouldtakeagreatdealof explanation tomakemebelieve thathis identical selfhadnot something todowith it,wholly apart from themedium’spowersorfromanythingthatmaybeinmyownmindconcerninghim.14

TheReverendM.A.BayfieldcommentedingreatdetailonmessagesreceivedthroughtheEnglishmediumMrs.Willet,purportingto

comefromhisoldfriendDr.A.W.Verrallafterhisdeathin1912.Afterquotingsometypicalpassages,Bayfieldwrites:

AllthisisVerrall’smannertothelifeinanimatedconversation....WhenIfirstreadthewordsquotedaboveIreceivedaseriesof

little shocks, for the turnsof speechareVerrall’s, thehigh-pitchedemphasis ishis, and I couldhear thevery tones inwhichhewouldhavespokeneachsentence.15

An intimate friendofVerrall’s fromhisundergraduatedays agreedwithBayfield’s assessment, asdid anieceofVerrall’s andhis

survivingwife.Verrall’scharacteristicsenseofhumorandimpatiencecouldbefoundinthescripts,leadingBayfieldtowrite:

WehavehereanextraordinaryfaithfulrepresentationofVerrallinrespectofapeculiarkindofimpatienceandahabitofemphasiswhichhehad in conversation, andofhis playfulness and senseofhumour. Inwhatwayare these life-like touchesof characterintroduced?How are theyworked into the essentialmatter of the scripts?Have they the air of being inserted by an ingeniousforger...ordotheygiveustheimpressionofbeingspontaneousandgenuine?16

ForBayfieldtherewasnodoubtaboutthenatureofthescripts.

Nowhere is there any slipwhichwould justify the suspicion that in realitywehave todowith a cunninglymasquerading“sub.”Neithertheimpatience,northeemphaticutterance,northeplayfulnesshasanywheretheappearanceofbeing“puton,”—ofbeingseparable from the matter of the scripts. . . . to me at least it is incredible that even the cleverest could achieve such anunexampledtriumphindeceptiveimpersonationasthiswouldbeiftheactorisnotVerrallhimself.17

ItshouldbementionedthatMrs.WillettdidmeetthelivingDr.Verrallthreetimes,althoughheracquaintancewithhimseemstohave

beenveryslight.Noneoftheinvestigatorsfeltthatsheknewhimintimatelyatall.However,inthecaseofthe“GP”communications,therelationshipbetweenthelivingPellewandthemediumMrs.Piperwasevenslighter—hewassomebodyshehadbarelymetmorethanfouryearsearlier,whenheattendedasinglesittingwithher,underanassumedname.YetwhentheGPcommunicatorspokethroughMrs.Piper, thereproductionofPellew’spersonalitywasso lifelike that itconvinced thirtypeoplewhowere intimatewithPellewbeforehedied that theywere indeedconversingwith theirdeceasedfriend.Even theskepticalHodgsonbecameconvinced thathewasspeakingwithhisoldfriend. ItshouldbeclearthattheGordonDaviscase(assumingitisnotcompletelyfraudulent)andthecaseinvolvingthe“communication”through a medium of the still-living German friend of Rosalind Heywood, bear only the most superficial resemblance to the GPcommunications.IntheGordonDaviscase,wehavethemerereproductionofvoicepeculiaritiesandoftwomemoriesinthesinglebriefconversationSoalclaimedtohavehadwiththepurportedGordonDavis.Inthesecondcasethedetailsarescanty,butitdoesnotappeartobeanymoreimpressive.Inbothofthesecasestelepathywiththesitterisenoughtoaccountforthevocalpeculiarities,thememoriesmentioned,andtheagreementofthe“communicator”thathehaddied. TheGPcommunicationsareradicallydifferent.Notonlywascorrect informationgiventhatwasunknownto thesitters,but theGPpersonalityappearedandmanifesteditselfinaconsistentmannerregardlessofwhetherornotthesitterknewthelivingPellew.*20TheGP personality appeared again and again, engaged in lengthy conversations with those who knew the living Pellew very well, andconvinced all of them that theywere indeed speakingwith their old friend.By contrast, the “communications” received by Soal andHeywoodinvolvenomoredifficultyinexecutionthantheexampleofanactorimpersonatingahistoricalfigureinabriefskit. Itseemsthat,inthebestcasesinwhichawholepersonalityseemstomakeitselfknown,somethingmorethanextrasensoryperceptionis required. This seems to be the case even if we grant—purely for the sake of argument—that the medium possesses enormouslyextendedpowersofESP.Somethingmore is required, for there is an enormousgapbetweenknowingmere facts about a person, andtranslatingthosefactsintoaconvincingimpersonationofsomeoneeitherunknownorbarelyknowntotheactor.Anentirelydifferentskillisrequired—askillthatcannotbereducedtoamereknowledgeoffacts.AllanGauldillustratesthedifferencewithanexamplefromhisownresearch:

Some10or12yearsagoIspentagooddealof timestudyingthepapersanddiariesorFWHMyersandHenrySidgwick, thuslearningagoodmany intimatedetails about their lives, characters, friends, families, anddomesticarrangements.Yet I couldnomoredeploythisaccumulatedknowledgetodevelopimpersonationsofthemwhichwouldhavepassedmusterbeforetheirclosefriends than I could fly. The gap between accumulating such knowledge and deploying it in the construction of a realisticcommunicatorisenormous.18

GeorgePellewhadattendedoneséancewithMrs.Piperasananonymoussitterfouryearsbeforehisdeath;yettheGPcommunicator

conversedwith thefriendsandrelativesofGeorgePellewinacompletelyconvincingmannerforaperiodoffiveyears.Sincecorrectinformationnotevenknowntothesitterswassometimesconveyed,thedegreeoftelepathyrequiredisstaggering.Thecommunicationswouldhave required instant telepathic acquisition of facts about Pellewwhenever theywere needed in conversation, taken from theminds of his living friends, relatives, and acquaintances—regardless of whether they were known to the medium, and regardless ofwhatever they happened to have been thinking about at the time. Then, the facts would have to be presented within a lifelikeimpersonation of someone Mrs. Piper had barely met four years earlier, lifelike enough to convince dozens of witnesses who hadintimatelyknown the livingPellew that theywere indeedconversingwith theirold friendor relative.There is simplynoevidence thattelepathycanbeemployedtosuccessfully impersonatean individualsomeonehasneverknowinglymetwithanythingapproachingthelevel of accurate detail shown in this case. Even super-ESP does not seem to be enough to account for the lifelikemanifestation ofPellow’spersonalitythroughtheentrancedmedium. ThereisonefinalpointtobemaderegardingtheGPcommunications.ThereadermayrecallthattheGPcommunicatorneverfailedto

recognizethefriendsandacquaintancesofthelivingPellew,withoneexception:ayoungwomanwhohadbeenachildwhenthelivingPellew had last seen her.At the first sittingMissWarner hadwithMrs. Piper, “Phinuit”was the predominant control and gaveMissWarneragooddealofcorrect informationconcerningherfamilyandfriends.GPcommunicatedbrieflyat theendof thesitting, toaskaboutanoldfriendofhisnamedRogers,andtosendregardstohim.ThesittermentionedthatsherememberedGP,butthatheknewhermotherbetter.AtMissWarner’ssecondsitting,heldthenextday,GPaskedwhoshewas,andHodgsonrepliedthathermotherwasaspecialfriendofMrs.Howard.Thefollowingexchangethenoccurred.

Idonot thinkIknewyouverywell. (Very little.Youused tocomeandseemymother.) Iheardofyou, I suppose. (Isawyouseveraltimes.YouusedtocomewithMr.Rogers.)Yes,IrememberedaboutMr.RogerswhenIsawyoubefore.(Yes,youspokeofhim.)Yes,butIcannotseemtoplaceyou.Ilongtoplaceallofmyfriends,andcoulddosobeforeIhadbeengonesolong.YouseeIamfartheraway....Idonotrecallyourface.Youmusthavechanged....(R.H.:DoyourememberMrsWarner?)Ofcourse,oh,verywell.Forpitysakeareyouherlittledaughter?(Yes.)ByJove,howyouhavegrown.. . .Ithoughtsomuchofyourmother,acharmingwoman. (Shealwaysenjoyedseeingyou, Iknow.) . . . IwishIcouldhaveknownyoubetter, itwouldhavebeensonicetohaverecalledthepast.(Iwasalittlegirl.)19

ThesesittingswereheldfiveyearsafterthedeathofGeorgePellew,andPellewhadnotseenMissWarnerforatleastthreeyears

beforehisdeath,whenshewasonlya littlegirl.Sinceshehadchangedagreatdeal in theeightyears, thenonrecognitionbyGeorgePellewwouldhavebeenperfectlynatural. However, on the hypothesis of telepathy, there seems to be no explanation forGP’s failure to recognizeMissWarner.BothMissWarner andRichardHodgsonwere aware of the fact thatMissWarner hadknownPellewwhen shewas a little girl, so sources fortelepathywereathand.IfthepersonalityofGPwasonlyacreationofthesubconsciousmindofMrs.Piperpatchingtogethertelepathicinformation,itwouldseemnaturalforMissWarnertohavebeen“recognized.”GP’snonrecognitionofthegirlhehadknownonlyasachild is therefore evidence of the independent existence of George Pellew, in contrast to being only some secondary personalitydependentonthemindsoftheliving.*21

MANIFESTATIONSOFSKILLS

Thefinaldifficultyforthesuper-ESPhypothesisthatwewillconsiderinthissectioncomesfromcasesinwhichthemediumdemonstratesskills known to be possessed by the deceased, but not known to be possessed by themedium. Such displays of skills not normallyacquiredareevenmoredifficulttoexplainintermsofESPthanlifelikeimpersonationsofdeceasedindividualsneverknowinglymet.

TheMediumshipofMrs.WilletThefirstexamplecomesfromthemediumshipofMrs.Willet.UnlikeMrs.PiperandMrs.Leonard,whentheEnglishmediumMrs.Willetwentintoatrance,shedidnotlosecontrolofherbodyasifshewereasleeporinafaint.Shewouldsitupandtalkinanaturalway,andMrs.Willethadnoregularcontrol.Messagesusuallyappearedtobeconveyedtoherdirectly,andshewouldthenpassthemontothesitters.However,after regaininghernormalconsciousness, sheusually remembered littleornothingofwhathad takenplace.Clearly,shewasnoordinarytrancemedium. HertwomaincommunicatorsclaimedtobethesurvivingspiritsofEdmundGurney,whohaddiedin1888,andFredericMyers,whohaddied in 1901.Bothmenwere classical scholars and founders of theSociety forPsychicalResearch, and both hadmade sizablecontributionstoresearchintomediumshipandotherpsychicphenomena.Whenalive,GurneyandMyerswereavidphilosophers,widelyread in philosophy and psychology. On several occasions the alleged postmortem personalities of Gurney andMyers communicatedthroughMrs.WillettherequestthatoneofthesittersbetheirfriendG.W.Balfour,akeenpsychicresearcherandpresidentoftheSPRfrom1906to1907.OnnumerousoccasionsBalfourhadengagedinphilosophicaldiscussionswithGurneyandMyersbeforetheydied. WithBalfourandotherspresent,Mrs.Willetwouldenteradeeptrance.Livelyphilosophicaldiscussionswouldthenensue,betweenBalfourandthecommunicators“Myers”and“Gurney.”ThephilosopherC.D.Broadcommentedonthecontentofthesediscussions,andwrote that all the communicationswere “plainly theproduct of ahighly intelligentmindorminds,with akeen interest inpsychology,psychicalresearchandphilosophy,andwithacapacityfordrawingsubtleandsignificantdistinctions.”20ThepurportedcommunicatorsalsoshowedathoroughacquaintancewiththeviewsandterminologyofbookswrittenbythelivingMyersandGurney. At these sittings there was not merely an outpouring of views, which the sitter simply passively recorded and accepted. On thecontrary,thesittingsprovidedexcellentexamplesoftheconversationalgive-and-takethatbyitselfstretchestheESPhypothesisnearlyto thebreakingpoint. Inbetween sittingsBalfourwould leisurely examine the recordof a previous sitting, and then at thenext sittingwouldmakecriticismsorsuggestions,andwouldaskforexplanationsofobscurematters.Thecommunicatorswouldaddresstheissuedraised,andwouldaccept,orattimesvigorouslyreject,Balfour’ssuggestions.ThephilosopherRobertAlmederwrotethatsomeofthesittings“werepurelyphilosophicalandsoundlikethetranscriptofanIvyLeaguegraduateseminaronclassicalphilosophy.”21

Mrs.Willet’s mediumship strains the ESP hypothesis in two crucial ways. First,Mrs.Willet had nevermetMyers or Gurney, yetBalfourandotherswereconvincedthattheMyersandGurneycommunicatorsactedandspokeinwaysuniquelycharacteristicofMyersandGurney.Second—andperhapsevenmorestartling—Mrs.Willetwasneithereducatednorinterestedinphilosophy,andshowedlittlepatienceforsuchdiscussions.Theattitudeofher trancepersonality(aswellashernormalpersonality) towardthecommunicationscanbest be described as one of boredom and bewilderment. At one point, when the Gurney personality was discussing in detail somephilosophicalproblem,sheexclaimed“Oh,Edmund,youdoboremeso!”Atanotherpoint shecomplained,“Yousee it seemsa long

timesinceIwasherewiththem[withMyersandfriends]andIwanttotalkandenjoymyself.AndI’veallthetime,tokeeponworking,andseeingandlisteningtosuchboringold—OhUgh!”22Whenthecommunicatorswerecomparingthreeconflictingviewsofthemind-body relationship—interactionism, epiphenomenalism, and parallelism—she seemed to have great problems communicating the wordinteraction.Atlastshesaid,“I’vegotit.”Andthen,“OhbutnowI’vegottogiveitout.Oh,I’mallbuzzing.Ican’tthinkwhypeopletalkaboutsuchstupidthings.Suchlongstupidwords.”*2223

Unlike theHodgson communications,we cannot attribute these communications as due toESP, plus the dramatizingpowers of themedium’strancepersonality.Firstofall,Mrs.WilletnevermetthelivingMyersorGurney,and—giventhetechnologyavailableatthetime—almostcertainlyneverhadtheopportunityofstudyingaudiotapesoftheirvoices.Second,thehigh-levelphilosophicaldiscussionsreflect an acquired skill—the skill of philosophizing well. There is evidence that ESP can be used to acquire facts—to learn thatsomethingistrue.Butthereisasubstantialdifferencebetweenknowledgethatsomethingistrue,andknowledgeofhowtodosomething.The knowledge of how to do something—such as play an instrument or speak a language—frequently requires a skill that is onlydevelopedthroughyearsofsolidpractice.Iflearningtophilosophizewellisonesuchskill,thenitisaskillforwhichthereisnoevidencethatmereperception—extrasensoryorotherwise—canbeusedtoinstantlyacquire.CommentsontheMediumshipofMrs.WillettReflectingonthiscase,C.D.Broadwrote:

SupposewealtogetherruleoutthesuggestionthatMyersandGurneyinsomesensesurvivedbodilydeathandwerethedeliberateinitiatorsof theseutterances.Weshall thenhave topostulate insomestratumofMrsWillet’smindratherremarkablepowersofacquiring information from unread books or theminds of living persons or both; of clothing it in phraseology characteristic ofMyersandGurney,whomshehadnevermet;andofworking itupandputting it forth inadramatic formwhichseemed to theirfriendBalfourtobenaturalandconvincing.24

At any rate, Balfour found the communications so natural and convincing that he came to believe that he was indeed discussing

philosophywiththedepartedspiritsofMyersandGurney,andthatnootherhypothesiscouldexplainthedataaswell.ThephilosophicalviewsexpressedbytheMyersandGurneycommunicatorscertainlydidnotseemtocomefromhismind,sincebothofthecommunicatorscontradictedBalfour’sopinionsonseveraloccasions.When,forinstance,Balfourarguedthattheconsciousandsubconsciousmindsofonepersonmaycommunicatewitheachotherbytelepathy,theMyerspersonalitywouldhavenoneofthat.When,onanotheroccasion,Balfoursuggested that theconsciousandsubconsciousselveswereasseparateas twopersonsareseparate, theGurneycommunicatorfirmlyreplied,“Bosh!Differentaspectsofthesamething.” Notealsotheradicaldifferencebetweenthiscase,andthecasesofGordonDavisandRosalindHeywood’sGermanfriend.Thelattertwocasescanbecompared toanexampleofanactor impersonatinga famousscientist inabriefskit, inwhich theactor recallsa fewknownfactsaboutthepersonwiththegestures,toneofvoice,andpetphraseshehadlearnedwerecharacteristicofthatscientist.Apartfromthematterofhowtheinformationaboutthecharacterwasgathered—viatelepathyasopposedtostudyandobservation—nogreaterdifficultyinexecutionisinvolvedinthesetwocases.Butthecasewehavejustcovered,undertheESPhypothesis,wouldbeequivalenttoanactor,untrainedanduninterestedinscience,engaginginseverallengthyimprovisationaldiscussionsanddebateswithanoldfriendandcolleagueofacertainscientistoveratelephone,inamannersotrueandlifelikethatitmanagestocompletelyconvincehisoldfriendthatitreallyisthatscientistontheotherendoftheline. Of course, the skepticmay object at this point that the ability to philosophizewell, unlike the ability to discuss science or play amusicalinstrument,doesnotrequireaskill thatisonlydevelopedthroughyearsofsolidpractice.Theskepticmayarguethat,atsomelevel,Mrs.Willetwasindeedcapableofphilosophizingwell,eventhoughhernormalpersonalityknewlittlephilosophyandhadevenlesspatienceforanysuchtalk.*23However,thisobjectionmostcertainlydoesnotapplytotheabilitytospeakaforeignlanguage.

THELANGUAGECASES

TheHungarianCaseA1939 edition of theLondon paperPsychicNews carried an account ofDr.Nandor Fodor’s first encounterwith themediumArthurFord.†24Havingarrivedunexpectedlythedaybeforetheséance,hisgoodfriendWilliamCartheuserintroducedhimtoFordjustbeforethesitting. Ford’smediumshipwasofthepossessionvariety.Hewouldgointoatrance,andacontrolnamedFletcherwouldspeakthroughhim.Occasionally,anotherpersonalitywouldappear tocontrolFord’svocalapparatus,andtospeakdirectlythroughhim.OnthisoccasionFodoraskedFletcherifhewouldbringforthsomeonewhocouldspeakHungarian,Fodor’snativetongue.Fletchersaidhewouldtry,andaperiodofsilencefollowed.Dr.Fodor’saccountcontinues.

Ihearavoice.Coldshiversrundownmyback.Itsoundslikeadistantcry.Itisrepeated.Someoneiscallingmyname. “Who—whoisit?Whomdoyouwant?”Iaskhoarselyinmynativetongue.

Thecallismoreexplicit:“Fodor—Journalist!”Thelastwordshakesmetothecore.It ispronouncedinGerman.It is theonlyGermanwordmyfathereverused.Heusedit

onlywhenhespokeaboutme!I stammered an answer. Craning my neck in the dark—I listened with strained nerves to tatters of a terrific struggle for

expression.“Edesapa—edesapa—”(Dearfather—dearfather—)Thevoicevibrateswithemotion.Itmakesmehotandburning.Isoundunnaturaltomyself:“Apam?Apam?”(Father,dear?)“Iges.Edesfiam—”(Yes,dearson—)I cannot describe theminutes that followed. From beyond the Great Divide somebodywho says he ismy father ismaking

desperateefforts tomastersomeweird instrumentofspeech,and trembleswithanxiety toprovehispresencebyspeaking inhisnativetongue:“Budapest—newertesz?Enekelek—MagyarKislanyvagyok.”(Budapest—don’tyouunderstand?—Iwillsing—)Idon’tknowthesong.Twolinesrhyming.HaveIheardthembefore?Irecognizethepetnameofmyeldestbrother,towhom

myfatherwasveryattached.Thevoicecomesfromneartheceiling.Butitcomesneareratmyrequest.Itisstillstrugglingforwords.Fletcher takespityandexplains. “Your fatherwishes to tellyou thathediedon January16. It is for the first timehe tries to

speak.Thatmakesitverydifficultforhim.”Theinterruptionbringsrelief.Thevoicebecomesmuchclearer.Itgivesmeamessageaboutmymotherandsister.Then:“Istenaldjonmeg,edesfiam.”(Godblessyou,myson.)ThevoicespeaksagaininHungarian:“EstiUjsag.”(EveningNews.)Mywifescreams.EstiUjsagwasthenewspaperonwhichherbrotherwasemployedbeforehedied.“Sanyika?”“Yes.”Ifeelhervoicetremblingwithexcitement.Thevoiceisyouthfulandexplosive.Itspeaksasmywife’sbrotherwould.He

knowsallaboutthefamilyandisalwaysabout.Hehasbutoneregret:“SzegenyVilmisbasci!”(PoorUncleVilmos.)“Why,whatiswrongwithUncleVilmos?”“Heisnotwell,hewillgoblind.”Wereceivetheprophecyindeadsilence.Myexperiencewasmoreunusualthanthatofthemajority.IwasaforeigndailyinNewYork.Ihadfewfriends,theywereall

newones.Noneofthemknewaboutmyoldcountryrelations.Yetthestatementsaboutmyfamilywerecorrect.Thevoice spoke inHungarian.Plainas thewordswere,mynative tongueoffers avarietyof expressions for the relationship

betweenfatherandson.Thevoicemadenomistake.Myfatherwasinthehabitofusingtheverywords.HehadforgottenhisGermanyearsbefore.It

was no more spoken at home. The only word retained was “journalist.” He was very proud of his boy, the journalist. TheHungarianequivalentofujsagiro.Heneverusedit.HepreferredtheGermanterm.Thereferencetothedateofhisdeathwasnotcorrect.HedidnotdieonJanuary16.Buthewasburiedonthatday.UncleVilmos,aspredicted,wentblind—andcommitedsuicide!IknowhimasUncleVilly.Vilmos(thepropername)leftme

uneasy.Ihadthematteroutwithmymother-in-lawtwoyearslaterwhenIrevisitedBudapest.Sheopenedhereyeswide.

“Why,didn’tyouknow?MyboyaloneinthefamilycalledhimUncleVilmos.HewasUncleVillytoeverybodyelse!”25

CommentsontheHungarianCaseThere is no evidencewhatsoever thatArthurFord knewhow to speakHungarian.AndbecauseDr. Fodor arrived unexpectedly fromEuropeandwas invitedat the lastmoment to attendFord’s séance, it ishighlyunlikely thatFordhadanopportunity to learn intimatedetailsaboutFodor’sfamily,andtoexpresstheminHungarian.Ofcourse,FordcouldhavelearnedthefactsaboutFodor’sfamilyviaESP.ButthereisnotashredofevidencethatanyonecanlearntospeakanunknownforeignlanguageviaESP. It ispossible thatFodorsufferedahighlyunusualauditoryhallucination—but thenwewouldhave tosay thathiswifesuffered thesame hallucination at the same time. It may seem more plausible to suggest that the whole episode was a hoax invented by Ford,Cartheuser,andtheFodors.Butwhatwouldthesepeoplehavetogainfromsuchahoax?However,inthenextcasefraudseemstobecompletelyoutofthequestion.

TheGreekCaseIn 1855 Judge JohnWorth Edmonds, president of the NewYork State Senate and later judge of the Supreme Court of NewYork,reported a case in which a trance medium spoke in a language of which she was normally entirely ignorant, and used it to conveyaccurateinformationthatwasunknowntoanyonepresent.ThemediumwasMissLauraEdmonds,daughterofJudgeEdmonds.ItalmostgoeswithoutsayingthatJudgeEdmondswaswidelyregardedasapersonofunquestionableintegrityandconsiderableintelligence. Atone time the judgehadstudiedpsychic research inorder todemonstrate theworthlessnessof theactivity.Onecanonly imagine

whathethoughtwhenhisowndaughterLaurabegantoshineasadevelopingmedium. Nevertheless,herabilitiesbecamemoreremarkableovertime,andJudgeEdmondseventuallybecameconvincedthathisdaughter’sgiftwasgenuine.Oneofhermostimpressivegiftswasanabilityto“speakinmanytongues,”asheputit.

Sheknowsnolanguagebutherown,andalittlesmatteringofboarding-schoolFrench;yetshehasspokeninnineortendifferenttongues,sometimesforanhouratatime,withtheeaseandfluencyofanative.It isnotunfrequentthatforeignersconversewiththeirSpiritfriends,throughher,intheirownlanguage.Arecentinstanceoccurred,whereaGreekgentlemanhadseveralinterviews,and for several hours at a time carried on the conversation on his part in Greek, and received his answers sometimes in thatlanguage,andsometimesinEnglish.Yet,untilthen,shehadneverheardawordofmodernGreekspoken.26

AfewyearslaterEdmondselaboratedontheséancewiththeGreekgentleman.

The incidentwith theGreekgentlemanwas this:Oneevening,whensome twelveor fifteenpeoplewere inmyparlor,MrE.D.Green,anartistofthecity,wasshownin,accompaniedbyagentlemanwhomheintroducedasMrEvangelides.HespokebrokenEnglish, andGreek fluently. Ere long, a Spirit spoke to him throughLaura, inEnglish, and said somany things to him, that heidentifiedhimasafriendwhohaddiedathishouseafewyearsbefore,butofwhomnoneofushadeverheard.

Occasionally, through Laura, the Spirit would speak a word or a sentence in Greek, until Mr E inquired if he could beunderstoodifhespokeinGreek?Theresidueoftheconversation,formorethananhour,was,onhispartentirelyinGreek,andonhers,sometimesinGreekandsometimesinEnglish.Hewassometimesverymuchaffected,somuchsoastoattracttheattentionofthecompany,someofwhombeggedtoknow

whatiswasthatcausedsomuchemotion.Hedeclinedtotell,butaftertheconversationended,hetoldusthathehadneverbeforewitnessedanySpiritmanifestations,andthathehad,duringtheconversation, triedexperimentstotest thatwhichwassonoveltohim.These experimentswere in speakingof subjectswhichheknewLauramustbe ignorantof, and in frequently and suddenlychangingthetopicfromdomestictopoliticalaffairs,fromphilosophytotheology,andsoon.Inanswertoourinquiries—fornoneofuseknewGreek—heassuredusthathisGreekmusthavebeenunderstood,andherGreekwascorrect.27

Yearsafterthis,EdmondsexplainedwhyEvangelideshadbeensoemotionallyaffectedbywhatLaurahadsaid.

OneeveningIhadavisitfromastranger,aGreeknamedEvangelides;itwasnotlongbeforehewasspeakingtoLaurainhisowntongue.Inthecourseoftheconversationheseemedgreatlyaffected,andevenshedtears.Sixorsevenpeoplewerepresent,andoneofthemaskedthereasonforhisemotion.TheGreekavoidedadirectreply,sayingthatitwasaquestionoffamilymatters.

OnthenextdayherenewedhisconversationwithLaura,andsincetherewerenostrangersinmyhousethistime,hegaveusthedesired explanation. The invisible personality with whom he was speaking, with Laura as an intermediary, said that he was anintimatefriend,whohaddiedinGreece,thebrotheroftheGreekpatriot,MarcoBozarris.ThefriendinformedEvangelidesofthedeathofhis[Evangelides’s]son,whohadstayedinGreeceandhadbeeninexcellenthealthwhenhisfatherleftforAmerica.Tendaysafterhis firstvisitEvangelides informedus thathehad just receiveda letter tellinghimof thedeathofhisson.The

lettermusthavebeenonitswayatthetimeofhisfirstinterviewwithLaura.28

CommentsontheGreekCaseFraudseemsoutofthequestioninthiscase.Whatwouldtheparticipantsgainfromsuchahoax?WouldtheriskofdiscoveryforapersonsuchasJudgeEdmondsbeworthwhateverentertainmentvaluetherecouldpossiblybeinperpetratingsuchahoax? OnecritichassuggestedthatbecauseEvangelideswastheonlypersonpresentwhospokeGreek,wehavenoindependentverificationthat themediumdid, in fact, speak fluentGreek. Inotherwords,Evangelides spoke inGreek to themedium,andhallucinated that themediumreplied inGreek(everyoneelsepresent testified that themediumwasnotspeakingEnglish).ButEvangelidesbrokedownandweptwhenhelearnedthathissonhaddied,afactthatwassubsequentlyconfirmed.But,asAlmederwrites:

Ifweweretoacceptthatthescepticisrighthere,wewouldneedtosupposewhathasneveroccurredinthehistoryofhumankind,namely,thattwopeoplecouldhaveaconversationintwodifferentlanguagesandthatoneofthemcouldacquirefromtheother,viathisconversation,veridicalinformationaboutaneventthatneithercouldhaveknownabout.29

JudgeEdmondsmadethefollowingobservationsaboutwhathappenedduringtheséance:

Todenythefactisimpossible,itwastoowellknown;Icouldaswelldenythelightofthesun;norcouldIthinkitanillusion,forit is innowaydifferentfromanyotherreality.It tookplacebeforeteneducatedandintelligentpersons.WehadneverseenMr.Evangelides before; he was introduced by a friend that same evening. How could Laura tell him of his son?How could sheunderstandandspeakGreekwhichshehadneverpreviouslyheard?30

TheMediumshipofCarlosMirabelli

TheBrazilianmediumCarlosMirabelliwasborninSãoPauloin1889,thesonofItalianimmigrants.MirabelliwascarefullyinvestigatedbymanyeminentmembersofBraziliansocietyand,ifreportsofhismediumshiparetobebelieved,thenhemustcertainlybeconsideredoneofthemostimpressivemediumseverdocumented. ReportsofMirabelli’smediumshipwerewidely reported inBrazil, andeventually came to the attentionofEuropean investigators.Beforegivingthecasepublicity,theZeitschriftfurParapsychologie(MagazineforParapsychology)feltitnecessarytoinvestigatethepossibilityofahoax,andinquiredfromtheBrazilianconsulatMunichthereputationofthewitnessestoMirabelli’sfeats.EricDingwallwrote:

TheanswerwaspositiveandtheConsuladdedthat14personsonthesubmittedlistwerehispersonalacquaintancesandtowhoseveracityhewouldtestify,norhadhetherightofquestioningthestatementsofotherpeopleonthelist,knowntohimnotonlyasscientistsbutalsoasmenofcharacter.31

In 1919 theAcademiadeEstudosPsychicos formed a committee to investigateMirabelli.According toDingwall, theZeitschrift

describedthemembersasfollows:

Apart from two university professors, 555 people studied the medium, among them 450 Brazilians and 105 foreigners. Theirprofessionswere:72M.D.s,18chemists,12engineers,36lawyers,8translators,89statesmen,128merchants,18journalists(andothersofwidelydivergentprofessions).32

Dingwallbrought thiscase to theattentionof theEnglish-speakingworld,usingtranslationsof theoriginalPortugueseandGerman

documents.SeveralremarkableabilitieswereattributedbywitnessestoMirabelli,butthosethatconcernushererelatetohisabilitiestospeakandwriteinseverallanguageswhileinatrance. AlthoughMirabelliwaspoorlyeducatedandpresumablyabletospeakonlyPortuguese(andperhapssomeItalian),whenintrancestatesthemedium“spoke26languagesincluding7dialects;itwrotein28languages,namelyLatin,ChaldaicandHieroglyphics.. .Alist of languages in which the talking is done comprises Brazilian dialects as well as all European languages and includes such asJapanese,Chinese, ancientGreek,Hebrew,Syrio-Egyptianandothers.His talksconcernawide rangeof subjects frommedicine, law,sociology to astronomy,musical science and literature, all ofwhich, says themedium, are inspired by his ‘leaders’ such asGalileo,Kepler,Voltaire,orLenin.”33

Thelistoftopicscoveredintheautomaticwritingisalsovaried,andalsopurportstocomefromthedeceased.Dingwallwrites:

So we find Johann Huss impressingMirabelli to write a treatise of 9 pages on ‘the independence of Checho-slovakia’ in 20minutes;Flammarioninspiringhimtowriteabouttheinhabitedplanets,14pagesin19minutes,inFrench;MuriKaKsileadinghimto treat the Russian-Japanese war in Japanese, in 12 minutes to the extent of 5 pages; Moses is his control for a four pagedissertationentitled“TheSlandering,”writteninHebrew;HarunelRaschidmakeshimwrite15pagesinSyrian;andthemostoddfeaturementionedisanuntranslatablewritingofthreepagesinhieroglyphicswhichtook32minutes.34

The cases described above involve mediums suddenly demonstrating skills that normally require years of practice to acquire:

philosophizing at a high level and speaking an unknown foreign language fluently. The next remarkable case involves a mediumdisplayingyetanotherskill,andatalevelveryfewpeoplenormallypossess.

ChessGamewithaDeceasedGrandmasterThe remarkable story of a chess game played between living and deceased grandmasters began in 1985 when asset-manager andamateur chess playerDr.WolfgangEisenbeiss decided to initiate a chessmatch between living and deceased persons.Eisenbeiss hadbeenacquaintedwiththeautomatic-writingmediumRobbertRollans(1914–1993)foreightyears,andtrustedhisassertionthathedidnotknow how to play chess and had no knowledge of chess history. Rollans was not paid for his services, and his stated motive forparticipationwastoprovidesupportforthesurvivalhypothesis. Eisenbeisswas able to persuade theworld-famous chess championViktorKorchnoi, then ranked third in theworld, to participate.Korchnoiwasrankedsecondintheworldformorethanadecade,andwasdescribedinChessbase(April4,2002)as“unquestionablyoneofthegreatchessplayersofalltime.” EisenbeissgaveRollansalistofdeceasedgrandmastersandaskedhimtofindonewhowouldbewillingtoparticipateinagame.OnJune15,1985,acommunicatorclaiming tobe thedeceasedHungariangrandmasterGezaMaroczyconfirmedhiswillingness toplay,and then opened the game bymaking the firstmove.GezaMaroczywas ranked third in theworld in 1900, andwas known for hisremarkablystrongendgame. TheMaroczycommunicatorprovidedhismotivationforparticipatinginthegameasfollows:

Iwillbeatyourdisposalinthispeculiargameofchessfortworeasons.First,becauseIalsowanttodosomethingtoaidmankindlivingonearthtobecomeconvincedthatdeathdoesnotendeverything,butinsteadthemindisseparatedfromthephysicalbodyandcomesuptousinanewworld,whereindividuallifecontinuestomanifestitselfinanewunknowndimension.Second,beinga

HungarianpatriotIwanttoguidetheeyesoftheworldintothedirectionofmybelovedHungaryalittlebit.Boththeseitemshaveconvincedmetoparticipateinthatgamewiththethoughtofbeingateveryone’sservice.35

TheMatchForthesakeofsimplicity,inthefollowingIwillreferto“thecommunicatoridentifyinghimselfasMaroczy”assimplyMaroczy. As mentioned,Maroczy opened the match with the first move, which was directly passed by Rollans to Eisenbeiss, who thenforwardedthemovetoKorchnoi.Korchnoi’scountermovewasrelayedbacktoRollansviaEisenbiess,andtheentiregamewasplayedwithEisenbeiss as the intermediary.At no timedidRollans andKorchnoi havedirect contactwith eachother, except for a handshakewhentheymetduringaTVshowinSeptember1992,fourandahalfmonthsbeforetheendofthegame. Thirteenmonthsintothegame,atthetwenty-seventhmove,Korchnoicommentedonthequalityofhisopponent’splay.

DuringtheopeningphaseMaroczyshowedweakness.Hisplayisold-fashioned.ButImustconfessthatmylastmoveshavenotbeentooconvincing.IamnotsureIwillwin.Hehascompensatedthefaultsoftheopeningbyastrongend-game.Intheendgametheabilityofaplayershowsupandmyopponentplaysverywell.36

Thegamecontinued, alwayswithEisenbeiss as the intermediary, for sevenyears andeightmonths, untilFebruary11,1993,when

Maroczyresignedatmoveforty-eight.ThelongdurationwasduetoKorchnoi’sfrequenttravels(thesewerethedaysbeforewidespreade-mailandtextmessaging),andtoRollans’sillnesswhenhewasunabletosetupcommunication;infact,Rollansdiedatageseventy-nine,justnineteendaysafterMaroczyresigned. Thefullmatchwentasshownonthefollowingpage.1. e4 e6 19. Qe4 Qe4+ 37. Rf5+ Kxg42. d4 d5 20. fxe4 f6 38. h6 b33. Nc3 Bb4 21. Radl e5 39. h7 Ra84. e5 c5 22. Rd3 Kf7 40. cxb3 Rh85. a3 Bxc3+ 23. Rg3 Rg6 41. Rxf6 Rxh76. bxc3 Ne7 24. Rhgl Rag8 42. Rg6+ Kf47. Qg4 cxd4 25. a4 Rxg3 43. Rf6+ Kg38. Qxg7 Rg8 26. fxg3 b6 44. Rfl Rh29. Qxh7 Qc7 27. h4 a6 45. Rdl Kf310. Kdl dxc3 28. g4 b5 46. Rfl+ Rf211. Nf3 Nbc6 29. axb5 axb5 47. Rfx2+ Kxf212. Bb5 Bd7 30. Kd3 Kg6 0–113. Bxc6 Bxc6 31. Rfl Rh8 Maroczyresigns14 Bg5 d4 32. Rhl Rh7 (48. b4 c215. Bxe7 Kxe7 33. Ke2 Ra7 49. Kxc2 Ke216. Qh4+ Kxe7 34. Kd3 Ra2 50. b5 d3+17. Ke2 Bxf3+ 35. Rfl b4 51. Kc3 d2

18. gxf3 Qxe5+ 36. h5+ Kg5 52. qb6 dl+Q)*25

CommentsonChessGamewithaDeceasedGrandmasterNeuropsychiatristVernonNeppe,who is also a formerSouthAfrican chess champion, reanalyzed this case in 2007,with the aid of achess-playingcomputerprogram.Specifically,hewantedtoanswerthesethreequestions:

1. AtwhatleveldidMaroczyplaythischessgame?2. Couldachesscomputerreproducethisgame?3. WastheMaroczystylesomethingacomputercouldreplicate?

Regardingthelevelofplay,Neppeconcluded:

Inmyopinion,Maroczyplayedat leastat theMaster level,andverydebatablyand less likely,ata rusty, lowishgrandmasterlevel.This level couldnot havebeen achievedby themediumeven after great training, assuming themediumwasnot a chessgenius.37

Neppe’sonlycriticismofMaroczy’splaywashisweakopening:likeKorchnoi,hefoundthisold-fashioned.Chesstheoryhasmade

enormousstridesinthewaygamesshouldbeopenedsincethedeathofGezaMaroczy,andNeppeblamesMaroczy’slossonhisweakopening.ConcerningMaroczy’sseventhmove,Neppewrites,“ItisfittingandsupportingthestyleofMaroczy...[but]...Modernchessopeningtheory looksaskanceatsuchmoves.”38ConcerningMaroczy’s tenthmove,hewrites,“Thekeymove in thegame, the tenth,makingMaroczy’s gamedifficult,was legitimate at the timeofMaroczy’sdeath thoughverymuchout of fashion later.”39However,three moves later, “From that point (move 13) on,Maroczy, in my opinion, plays perfect chess and no moves can be seriouslycriticized.”40

LikeKorchnoi,althoughNeppefoundweaknessinMaroczy’sopening,hewasalsoveryimpressedwiththeskillwithwhichMaroczyplayedfromthatpointon.Knowledgeofmodernopeningtheoryprovidesplayerswithanenormousadvantagehowever,*26andNeppepoints out that “given detailed re-analyses by grandmaster mathematician Dr. John Nunn (1999) of average standards in leadingtournamentsofacenturyago,thelegitimatetopplayersofthe1910eramightarguablyplayonlyatMasterlevelorlowertoday.”41

Neppethentriedtoanswer thequestionas towhetheracomputercouldhavesimulatedthegame.Accordingly,heset theprogramSigmaChess6.0torespondtoKorchnoi’smoves,andthencomparedthecomputer’schoiceswiththoseofMaroczy.

Maroczy played human-typemoves, and the computer simulation played computer-typemoves correctingwhat it thoughtwereinferior moves (e.g. in moves 23 and 24) despite their illogicality.Maroczy clearly played the endgame far better than thecomputer,whichmighthavebeenexpected.ThisisnotonlybecauseofMarcoczy’sknownendgameversatility,butbecausethewidenumberofchoicesacomputerhasinachessendgamegiveittoomanyalternatives;humansunderstandchessstrategybetterthancomputersandcanthriveonthelogicrequired.42*27

Neppenotedthat theold-fashionedopeningstyleofMaroczy’sgamealsomakes itunlikely thatacomputerwasused tohoax the

game.

ItissignificantthatthechesscomputerIwasusing(andawell-knownmodernone,Fritz9)doesnotevenconsiderMaroczy’s12.Bb5asalegitimatealternative.Thisfactisimportantbecauseitsuggeststhatanyonehoaxingthegameisunlikelytohavedonesowithacomputer.43

ComparingthestyleofMaroczy’sgamewiththestyleofacomputer’sgame,Neppewrote:

Maroczyplayedinastylereminiscentoftheearlytwentiethcentury,anddemonstratedtheendgameexpertisehewasfamousfor....Inanyevent,thedifferencesinstylebetweenanaccomplishedchessplayer(likeagrandmaster)andeventhemostremarkablecomputerhardwareandsoftwareareprofound.44

Consideringthepossibilityoffraudwiththeuseofacomputer,Neppeconcluded:

AsimulatedcomputeranalysisshowsthatMaroczy’sstyleandmanyofhismovesappearverydifferentfromthatoftherelativelybasic chess computer used for the analysis. In short, the alternative hypothesis of fraud bymeans of a chess computer playingMaroczy’smoves is unlikely.More specifically, it ismyopinion that a chess computer couldnot reproduce this gameasof the1980s.NorisitlikelythatitcouldreplicateMaroczy’splayeventodaybecauseofthestylisticelements.45

Inotherwords,computer technology—bothsoftwareandhardware—wassimplynotadvancedenough in the1980s toplayat the

masterorlowgrandmasterlevel,andthuswasnotadvancedenoughtogiveachessgrandmasterachallenginggame.Furthermore,itisunlikelythesoftwarewouldbeprogrammedtouseanold-fashionedopening.Finally,computerprogramscannot—atleastatthepresent—simulate a human style of play, and certainly cannot simulate the unique style of play of an accomplished chess player such asMaroczy. NeppealsorejectedthepossibilitythatoneormorelivingchessmasterswereconsultedtoplaysomeofMaroczy’smoves.Rollansthemediumwasunfamiliarwith the rules of chess, had an impeccable reputation for honesty, and apparently did not knowany chessmasters. Commentingonthepossibilityoffraud,EisenbeissandHasslerhadearlierwritten:

Since1982Eisenbeisshadbeenacquaintedwiththeautomatic-writingmediumRobertRollans(29January1914–2March1993).Heknewhimandworkedwithhimfor8years,wellenoughtotrusthisassertionthathedidnotknowhowtoplaychess,hadnoknowledgeofchesshistory,andwasnotcheatingthroughsecretcommunicationwithalivingchessexpert.Rollanswasnotpaidfor his services.Hismotivewas to support the survival hypothesis.Hiswidowattests to this judgement (a copyof the letter of

confirmationhasbeenlodgedwiththeEditor).46

EisenbeissandHassleralsotestifiedonbehalfofRollans’shonesty.

To the best of our knowledge,Mr Rollans did not seek help (from persons or databases) concerningmoves of thematch ormattersofchesshistoryduringtheyearsofthematch.WitnesseswhoattesttothesecircumstancesandtheircontinuationfromthebeginningtotheendofthematchareDr.Eisenbeiss,Mrs.EllenRollans,Prof.SchiebelerandMr.Holbe.

Mr.Rollansundertookhispartofthisendeavouronavoluntary,unpaidbasis.Hispurposeinfacilitatingthismatchwashiswishtoprovethatphysicaldeathisbynomeanstheendofpersonallife.Mr.Rollansbelievedinreincarnation.47

Moreover,thestyleofthegamewasconsistentthroughout,andtypicalofthestyleofGezaMaroczy.Rollanshadfirstdiscoveredhisabilityasamediumaccidentallywhilecomposingaletterattheageof33,almost40yearsbeforethechessgamebegan.Inadditiontoworkingasamusicianandcomposer,hehadalsobeenanamateurpracticingmediumovertheinterveningyears.Rollansdidnotacceptpayment for his services as amedium, andwas never exposed as a fraud.The supposition that an elderly, frequently illmanwith animpeccablereputationforhonestysecretlyconspiredwithalivingchessmasteroversevenyearsandeightmonthsinordertomimicthechessabilityandstyleofadeceasedgrandmasterfornoapparentpurposeorgaincanbesafelyrejectedbyallbutthemostdogmaticskeptics. But there is evenmore to this remarkable case than demonstrated high-level chess skills.Maroczy, through Rollans, was askedquestionsabout theobscure lifeofGezaMaroczy.Heansweredseventy-nineoutofeighty-onecorrectly,or97.5percent, forall theauthenticateditems.Evenmoreremarkablewastheaccuracyrateforthemostdifficult-to-retrieveitemsinvolvingexpertknowledgeorprivateknowledge:ofthese,Maroczyansweredthirty-oneoutofthirty-one,or100percentcorrectwhenanswerswereauthenticated(fortwo of these items the answers remained unknown).48 *28 Many of these answers were so difficult to authenticate that the expertKorchnoicouldnotanswerthem,anddeclinedtoeventrybecauseoftheenormouseffortinvolved(intheendaprofessionalhistorianfromHungarywasemployedtotrackdowntheanswers).Theseconsiderationsmakefraudevenmoreunlikelysince,asNeppewrites,“Itwouldrequiremajorconspiracyinvolvingthelibrarian,Maroczy’schildren,Eisenbeiss,pluspossiblymediainvolvementtooasitwasreportedin1987.”49

The only remaining explanation—besides genuine communication from Maroczy—is that Rollans subconsciously fabricated theMaroczycommunicationsusingsuper-ESP.However,thefollowingfeaturesofthiscasecreategreatdifficultiesforthishypothesis.

Romi(h)EisenbeissquestionedMaroczyabouthislife,andatonepointreceivedaveryunexpectedanswer.EisenbeissandHasslerwrote:

InquestioningMaroczyabouthislife,Eisenbeisshaddeliberatelyselectedachessmatchagainstarelativelyunknownplayer,butwhichhadincludedasurprisingkey-movewhichmightatthetimehavebeensoimpresseduponMaroczy’smemoryasstilltoberecollectednow.ItwasthematchagainstacertainRomi,playedinSanRemo,Italyin1930.50

InthisgameMaroczyrecoveredfromaseemingly“hopelesssituation”andunexpectedlybecamethewinner.

Withthisinmind,EisenbeissaskedMaroczy(viaRollans)whetherthename“Romi”meantanythingtohim.InhisanswerMaroczymocksEisenbeissfornotknowing thecorrectspellingof“Romi”whichshouldhavebeen“Romih”(i.e.withan“h”).Eisenbeisswasnotawareandhadnoideathatthenamecouldbespelledthatway.Sotheparticularwayinwhichthequestionwasansweredcameasacompletesurprise.51

Maroczy’sanswerwas:

Iamsorry tosay that IneverknewachessplayernamedRomi.But I thinkyouarewrongwith thename. Ihada friend inmyyouth,whodefeatedmewhenIwasyoung,buthewascalledRomih—withan“h”at theend.I thenneveragainsawthefriendwhomIsoadmired.In1930atthetournamentofSanRemo—whoisalsopresent?MyoldfriendRomihcomingfromItalyalsoparticipated in that tournament.Andso itcameabout that Iplayedagainsthimoneof themost thrillingmatchesIeverplayed. Isuspectthatyouwerethinkingaboutthesamepersonbutgavethenameincorrectly.52

Whichwasthecorrectspelling?Thehistorian-researcherfoundbothandcouldnotreachadecisiononwhichwascorrect.Finally,a

copyoftheofficialbookfromtheSanRemoTournament1930wasobtained,with“Romih”throughoutspelledwiththeh. So,whataccountedfortheconfusioninthespelling?

With thehelpof a chess expert from ItalyEisenbeiss learned that the aforementionedRomihwasofSlavonicorigin,where thespellingwith“h” is common.Romihemigrated in1918 to Italyandafter “manymanyyears” . . . (letter toDrEisenbeiss,21stOctober1992)sometimeinthe1930s,butdefinitelyafterthetournamentofSanRemoin1930,decidedtodropthe“h”becauseitwasunfamiliartoItalians.TheSlavonicoriginofRomihalsomakesitmoreprobableforMaroczyasanHungariantohaveknown

Romih,bothbeingsubjectsoftheHabsburgAustro-Hungarian“DualMonarchy.” So,becauseMaroczyclaimed toknowRomihfromhisyouth, it is logical thathewouldhaveknowntheoriginalspellingof

Romih’snameandwouldnothavereplaceditwiththelaterItalianization.Forthesuper-ESPhypothesistowork,thecontrollingmind, on perceiving varying references to Romih or Romi, would have to be able to grasp the correct one fromMaroczy’sperspective, decide to address the situation, formulate a response to the conflict and dramatize it in the context of a teasingdialoguewithEisenbeiss/Rollansabouttheirignoranceofthecorrectspelling.53

TheVeraMenchikClubAnother question put toMaroczy was taken from a reader competition in the August 4, 1988, edition of the Swiss chess magazineSchachwoche,whichEisenbeissdulyputtoMaroczyviaRollans.Thequestionwas:WhowastheAustrianfounderoftheVeraMenchikClub?VeraMenchikwasthefirst-everwomen’sworldchesschampion,andhadbeenapupilofMaroczy.MembershipintheclubwasrestrictedtothosewhohadbeenbeatenbyVeraMenchik. On August 8, 1988, Maroczy via Rollans speculates on who the founder was, first naming Rudolf Spielmann and later ErnstGrunfeld.OnAugust11,1988,Maroczyconfessesheisuncertainaboutthefounder,discussesProfessorAlbertBeckerasapossibility,butintheendrejectsBecker.Notethatifsuper-ESPwererealandoperating,thenthemedium—posingasMaroczy—shouldhavegiventhecorrectnameofthefounder,becausebyAugust4,1988,theentireeditingteamoftheSchachwocheknewtheanswertothecontest. MaroczycorrectlystatedinhistranscriptthathehadbeenateacherofMenchik,butdescribestheideaofaVeraMenchikClubas“asillyjoketowhichhepaidnoattention.”Thatisgivenasthereasonforhisnotrememberingthefounder’sname.Maroczywrotethat“it’svery natural and like your world: what is pleasant and important can be more easily remembered, whilst the unpleasant andinconsequential—soonerorlater—getforgotten.”54

ThesolutiontothequestionwaspublishedinthesamemagazineonAugust18,1988:ProfessorAlbertBecker.OnAugust21,1988,anothertranscriptcamefromMaroczy,inwhichAlbertBeckerisagaindiscussed.However:

HestilldoesnotnameBeckerasthefounderoftheclub,asmightbeexpectedundertheSuper-ESPhypothesis;oncethesolutionwaspublisheditshouldbepossibleforthemediumtoaccesstheinformation,eitherclairvoyantlyortelepathicallyfromthemindsofthemagazine’sreaders.ButinsteadofcorrectinghiswronganswerMaroczyquiteunpromptedcomesupwithadifferentstorywhichevidentlydemandedhisattentionmuchmorethanthe“sillyjoke.”55

Maroczywentontorelateanamusingstoryinvolvingamarriedchesschampion,accompaniedbyhisbeautifulRussianmistressata

tournament,beingsoshockedbytheunexpectedarrivalofhiswifefromCubathathelostagame.EisenbeissandHasslerconclude:

InourexampleMaroczy’srationaleforforgettingthenameofamanwhomhewouldhaveconsideredtobemerelyindulgingapointless jokebut then relating anunprompted story about awomanwhosebeautyhad impressedhim is plausible,whereas forRollansthemediumitisdifficulttounderstand[ifusingSuper-ESP]whyheshouldbeunabletoretrievethenamerequested,givenhisabilitytoconveydetailedpreciseinformationonotheroccasions,evenlesswhyheshoulddigresstoanunpromptednarrativethread.56

The1924NewYorkTournament

Eisenbeiss and Hassler describe another similar incident, which provides a second example of inferences that can be drawn frominformation that is not given and the psychological background to this. Maroczy in his transcript talks about the 1924 New Yorktournament, emphasizing thathe achievedadrawagainstAlekhine,but failing tomention that the tournamentwasdisappointing tohimoverall,ashefinishedinsixthplace.Inthetranscripthesays:“IonceagaintravelledtoAmericain1924,againtoNewYork.IhadathrillinggameagainstAlekhinethere,endinginadraw.Youcertainlyhaveobservedmytrickinsaying‘Inolongerknowwhichofuswonthegame.’IndoingsoIwanttoburyafailureinordernottohavetowritesomuch,becausefailuresarerathercommonamongallchess players. This is a joke only, my dear friends; in fact it is true forme that I am not able to remember everything, most of allwheneverwinningeludedme.

Thefactsarecorrect:MaroczytookpartintheNewYorkTournamentin1924andhadamatchwithAlekhine,endinginadraw,as confirmed in Lasker (1992). This article confirms thatMaroczy finished sixth, well below expectations. The psychologicalexplanationforfailuretodisclosethisinthetranscriptisgivenbyMaroczyhimself(seeabove).IfRollansweretryingtoengineerastorywithverifiablefactsasevidenceofsurvival,hecouldhave insertedMaroczy’sfinal ranking,acheckablefact.Clearly,elsewheretheMaroczytranscriptscontaininnumerablesuchverifiablefacts... .weknowMaroczytohavebeenveryambitiousandit is thusentirelyincharacter thathewouldomitreportingfailuresormediocretournamentrankings.YetforRollans,whosemain objective was to provide convincing evidence to support the survival hypothesis, it would make no sense to censorinformationconcerningMaroczy’sfailures.57

Unlessofcourse,toparaphraseGauld,wearewillingtoattributetoRollansnotjustsuper-ESPbutsuper-guileaswell.

ChessGamewithaDeceasedGrandmaster:SummaryWhatissoimpressiveaboutthiscaseisthecombinationofademonstratedhigh-levelskill(knowinghow)withvastandaccuratedetailsprovided of an obscure life in the early twentieth century (knowing that), all presented in the style and from the perspective of adeceasedchessgrandmasteroveraperiodofalmosteightyears,andenrichedbyanunanticipatedrevelationaboutaminordetailaboutthespellingofaname(Romi[h]). EisenbeissandHasslerdescribethedifficultyofusingpsitoexplainthedetailsprovidedaboutMaroczy’slife:

None of the persons around Rollans nor Rollans himself knew themany details aboutMaroczy’s life in advance. So the psifacultyrequiredofRollanswouldhavetobesoextraordinaryastopermittheextractionoftheinformationwhichappearsinhistranscripts from books andmagazines in different libraries, against a huge amount of background “noise” from other sources.CertainfactsnotsetdowninwrittenformwouldhavehadtobecollectedfromtheprivatememoiresoflivingpeoplewhowerecertainlynotthinkingaboutthesefactsatthemomentwhenitwastranscribedbyRollansas“automaticwriting.”58

AndNeppedescribesthedifficultyofusingpsitoexplainthechess-playingskillattributedtoMaroczy:

Far more so, chess-playing skill requires a further profound leap when applying the super-ESP hypothesis—delving into aMaster’s(orseveralMasters’)unconsciousmind(s)isinsufficient;theiractiverepeatedcogitation47times(as47moves)overmany years plus the medium obtaining it all by automatic writing. . . . Merely divining this information from the Master’sunconsciouswould notwork, as the responseswould require active intervention.Themediumwould [then] need to be able torecordthemovesbyautomaticwriting.59

Asmentioned,anelaborate fraud involvingseveralhighly respectedpeopleoveraperiodofalmosteightyearswouldhavebeen

extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.As for super-ESP, it utterly fails to explain not one but four features of this case.The soleremaining alternative is that the transcripts are in factwhat they consistently appear and claim to be: genuine communication from thedeceasedchessgrandmasterGezaMaroczy.

SUPER-ESP:CONCLUDINGTHOUGHTSWestartedoutdiscussingcasesinwhichtheflowofinformationfromthemedium,ostensiblyfromadeceasedpersonbutpossiblyfromthesitters,seemedtofarexceedinvolume,speed,andaccuracyanythingseen inexperimentaloranecdotalcasesof telepathy.Afterthis,wediscussed cases inwhich apurpose, characteristic of the deceasedbut contrary to that of the sitters,was displayed.We thenexaminedcasesinwhichthecommunicationsseemedunmistakablyfromtheperspectiveof thedeceased.Followingthis,weexaminedcases in which the personality of the deceased was accurately portrayed in the communications. Finally, we examined cases thatcombined several of the foregoing features with themanifestation of skills not possessed by the medium, but known to have beenpossessedbythedeceased. Thesefivefeaturesofthecommunicationsprogressivelystretchthesuper-ESPhypothesisfurtherandfurther.Thefirstthreestretchitalmost to thebreakingpoint; the final two stretch it past thatpoint, simplybecause there isno independent evidence that extrasensoryperceptioncanbeusedtosuccessfullyimpersonateanindividualwhomapersonhasneverknowinglymet;andnoindependentevidencethatextrasensoryperceptioncanbeusedtotelepathicallyandinstantlyacquireskillsnormallyrequiringyearsofpracticetoacquire.Wesimplyhavenoreasontothinkthatmereperception—extrasensoryorotherwise—canbeusedtoimpersonateothersoveraprolongedperiodwell enough to deceive intimate friends and relatives.We also haveno reason to think thatmereperception—extrasensory orotherwise—canbeusedtoinstantlyacquiretheskillsofothers,skillsthatrequiredthoseothersyearsofpracticetoacquire.Commentingonsuchcases,Broadwrote:

It seems to me that any attempt to explain these phenomena by reference to telepathy among the living stretches the word“telepathy”tillitbecomesalmostmeaningless,andusesthatnametocoversomethingforwhichthereisnoindependentevidenceandwhichbearshardlyanyanalogytothephenomenawhichthewordwasintroducedtodenote.60

Telepathywasa termcoinedbyFredericMyersand literallymeans“distant feeling”(fromtheGreek telemeaning“distant,” as in

telephoneandtelevision,andpathymeaning“feeling,”asinsympathyandempathy).Mostexamplesoftelepathy—amongbothhumansandanimals—involvehunches,impressions,feelingsofdistressassociatedwithanother,callsforhelportogotoaparticularplace.*29Somehaveargued thatcommunicationwith thedeceasedviaamediummustalso involve telepathy,as itmust involvedirectmind-to-mindcommunicationwithouttheuseoftheordinarysenseorgans.Therefore,itisargued,ifthesecasesmustinvolveaformoftelepathy,thenwhycan’ttheybeexamplesoftelepathybetweentheliving? ButasBroadwrote,whenappliedtothemostimpressivecasesthisclaimstretchesthewordtelepathyuntilitbecomessogeneralthatit is almost meaningless.We have examined cases in which the deceased person appears to speak to the medium as though over atelephoneline;casesinwhichthedeceasedseemstocontrolthemedium’shandtorapidlywritelengthyanddetailedmessages;casesoftrancemediumshipinwhichthedeceasedappearstodirectlycontrol themedium’sbrainandvocalcordssoastospeakdirectlytothesitters, sometimes in a language unknown to the medium, often with a lifelike manifestation of the personality of the deceased, andsometimestoservepurposesthatseemonlythoseofthedeceased.Inallsuchcases,boththelevelandtypeofcommunicationinvolvedseemsverydifferent fromtelepathybetween the living. In thesecases, the typeofcommunicationmoreclosely resemblesonepersondictatingamessagetoasecretaryoveratelephone,whothenimmediatelyrepeatsitforthebenefitofothersintheroom;orinthecase

ofpossessionmediumship, it seems that thedeceased temporarily takescontrolof themedium’sbody.Thecrucialdifferencebetweenthesecasesandtelepathybetweenthelivingisthis:theactiveparticipationofthedeceasedperson’smindseemstoberequired,notjustmerely the gathering of information about the deceased. In other words, the best cases require not merely perception, but alsocommunicationfromthedeceased;and in themostdramaticcasesof trancemediumship, theywouldseemtorequirepossessionof themedium’sbodybyadisincarnatemind.AsBroadremarked,callingwhatisrequiredtoexplainsuchcases“telepathy”stretchestheworduntilit“bearshardlyanyanalogytothephenomenawhichthewordwasintroducedtodenote.” Intheopinionofmanywhohavestudiedtheissue,thecasesalreadycoveredprovidestrongevidenceinfavorofsurvival,andagainstthehypothesisthatallsuchcasescanbeexplainedbythetelepathicandclairvoyantpowersofthemediumcombinedwithsubconsciousimpersonation. The five features described in this chapter seem to create insurmountable difficulties for the super-ESP hypothesis.However,thefinalextraordinarysetofcasestobeconsideredcombinesseveraloftheabovefeatures,andaddsacompletelynewtwist.

FOURTEEN

CrossCorrespondences

FredericMyers died on January 17, 1901.During his life he had been a classical scholar, extremelywell-versed in the literature ofancientGreeceandRome.Hewasalsotheauthorofamonumentaltwo-volumework,HumanPersonalityandItsSurvivalofBodilyDeath,stillconsideredaclassicinthefield.Inaddition,hewasoneofthefoundingfathersoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchand,atthetimeofhisdeath,theSociety’spresident.Myershadbeenintenselyinterestedinthesurvivalproblem,andhadspentagreatdealoftimeandeffortinvestigatingtheevidence.However,althoughhehimselfcametobelieveinsurvival,healsorealizedthattheevidenceavailableatthetimewasnotyetsufficienttocompelgeneralbelief. ShortlyafterMyersdied,messagespurportingtocomefromhimwerereceivedbyseveralmediumsindifferentpartsoftheworld.Mostofthesemessageswerereceivedbythetechniquecalledautomaticwriting,inwhichthemediumgoesintoatranceandwriteswithpencilorpenonpaper.Manyof theseearlymessagesexpressedapassionate longingon thepartof thepurportedMyers toprovehiscontinued existence. For instance, on January 12, 1904, the following message was received by Mrs. Holland in India from anintelligenceclaiming tobeFredMyers:“If itwerepossiblefor thesoul todieback intoearth lifeIshoulddiefromsheeryearning toreachyoutotellyouthatallweimaginedisnothalfwonderfulenoughforthetruth.”AndthroughMrs.PiperinBoston:“Iamtryingwithalltheforces...togethertoprovethatIamMyers.”AndagainthroughMrs.Holland:“Oh,Iamfeeblewitheagerness—howcanIbestbeidentified?...Iamtryingaloneamidunspeakabledifficulties.” Asapsychicresearcher,MyerswasfullyawareofhowdifficultitwastofindevidenceforsurvivalthatcouldnotbeexplainedbyESP.Theproblemisthis:mostoftheevidenceforsurvivalcomingfrommediumsconsistsofcommunicationsofknowledgenotknowntoanyonepresent,butwhichwas,orcouldverywellhavebeen,knowntothedeceased.Nowitisclearthatifsuchcommunicationsaretobeofanyvalueasevidence,thentheinformationconveyedmustbecapableofbeingverified;andthisimpliesthatsomelivingpersonorpersonsmustknowthefacts,orthatsomewrittenrecordofthemexistssomewhere.Butiftheknowledgeisrecorded—eitherinmemoriesof the living or in writing—then it is always possible, at least in principle, that the knowledge was gained from the telepathic orclairvoyantpowersofthemedium. Asmentioned,Myerswasfullyawareofthisproblem.WhatmakesthecrosscorrespondencessounusualisthattheyappeartobeamethodinventedbythepostmortemMyersinordertoovercomethisdifficulty.Inotherwords, theyappeartobeamethodinventedinorder to provide evidence of his survival, whichwould be very difficult—if not impossible—to explain on the basis of telepathy orclairvoyanceamongtheliving. Themessages,whichbecameknownascrosscorrespondences,werereceivedbymediumsinEngland,theUnitedStates,andIndiaduring the period 1901–1932. Their distinguishing feature is that they appear to bemeaningless when read by themselves. But whencombinedwithmessagesreceivedbyothermediumsataboutthesametime,theyshowvariouscorrespondences,sothatwhenagroupofthemisconsideredtogethertheycanbeseentoclearlyrefertosomecommontopic,usuallyfromclassicalliteratureorhistory.Theyareintheformofliterarypuzzles,analogoustothepiecesofacrosswordpuzzle—individuallymeaningless,butwhencombinedcanbeseentoformapattern.Thenatureofthesepuzzlesseemstoruleouttelepathybetweenthemediumsastheirsource.Afterall,ifeachofthemediumsdoesnotunderstandtheirownpartofthemessage,thenhowcouldtheytransmitthecorrespondingmessagesthatcompleteandsolvethepuzzle? Afurtherdifficultythesepuzzlesraiseforthehypothesisoftelepathyisthatmanyofthemrequiredknowledgeoftheclassicsthatfarexceeded the knowledge ofmost of themediums involved—but not that of the livingMyers. In some of the best cases, solving thepuzzles required a great deal of study on the part of the investigators. And throughout these investigations, the mediums frequentlyremainedignorantofwhattheotherautomatistshadwritten. This, then, is the scheme that themessages claimwas invented on the other side in order to prove the survival ofMyers and hisdeceasedcolleagues.Therearemanypassagesinthescriptsthatbearthisout.Theautomatistsareexhorted“toweavetogether”andaretold that by themselves they can do little. In the script ofMrs.Verrallwe find: “Record the bits andwhen fitted theywillmake thewhole,”and“Iwillgivethewordsbetweenyouneitheralonecanreadbuttogethertheywillgivethecluehewants.”1Itisconstantlyclaimedinthescriptsthattheenigmaticmessagesarepartofanexperimentdesignedtoprovideconvincingevidenceofsurvival,andthatthesourceoftheenigmaticmessagesisthemindofFredericMyersor,later,ofsomeofhisdeceasedcolleagues. Also,inseveralinstancesthereareinstructionsinthescriptsfortheautomatisttosendherscripttooneoftheotherautomatists,ortooneoftheinvestigators.Aswewillsee,itwassuchinstructionsthatfirstbroughttwooftheautomatiststogether.

CASTOFCHARACTERSInadditiontoFredericMyers,thecommunicationsclaimedtocomemostlyfromthetwoothercofoundersoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch, Edmund Gurney and Henry Sidgwick. Gurney was Myers’s friend and collaborator, and had helped write a book onapparitions,titledPhantasmsoftheLiving.HediedinJune1888.Sidgwickwasawell-knownphilosopheratCambridge,andwasthe

firstpresidentof theSPRwhen itwas founded in1882.Hedied inAugust1900.Latercommunicationswere received thatclaimed tocomefromDr.A.W.Verrall,aclassicalscholaratCambridgewhodiedin1912;andfromhisfriendHenryButcher,anotherclassicalscholaratCambridgewhodiedin1910. TheautomatistsincludedtheBostonmediumMrs.Piper,whomwehavealreadymet.Mrs.Piperwastheonlyprofessionalmediuminthe group.Most of the other principalmediumswere upper-class women, some of themwell-known figures in public life who usedpseudonymsandkepttheirmediumshipacloselyguardedsecret,evenfromtheirfriends.TheseincludedMrs.Verrall,wifeofDr.A.W.Verrall and lecturer in classics atNewnhamCollege; her daughterHelen;Mrs.Holland, thepseudonymofMrs.Fleming, a sister ofRudyardKiplingwholivedinIndia;Mrs.Forbes,anotherpseudonym;andMrs.Willett,apseudonymforMrs.Coombe-Tennant,justiceofthepeaceandthefirstwomantobeappointedbytheBritishgovernmentasadelegatetotheassemblyoftheLeagueofNations.*30

Thechief investigatorswereGeraldBalfourandJ.C.Piddington.Balfourwasanexpertclassicalscholar,andPiddingtonalsohadsufficientknowledgeof theclassics tounderstandthefrequentallusionsmadeto themin thescripts.Bothmendevoteda largepartoftheirlivestothestudyofthescripts,andthescriptintelligencestookanactiveinterestintheirefforts.OthersinvolvedinasignificantwayincludeMissAliceJohnson;Mrs.HenrySidgwick(sisterofGeraldBalfourandwifeofoneofthecommunicators);physicistSirOliverLodge;FrankPodmore;andRichardHodgsonuptothetimeofhisdeathin1905.Mrs.Verrall,asalecturerinclassics,filledthedualroleofbothmediumandinvestigator. Theinvestigationofthescriptsprovedtobeanenormoustask,astheycontinuedtoappearforoverthirtyyears,andfinallynumberedoverthreethousand.Themembershipofthegroupofmediumschangedsomewhatovertheyears.Intheend,morethanadozendifferentmediumswereinvolved,fromthethreecountriesofEngland,India,andtheUnitedStates.

EARLYMESSAGESShortly afterMyersdied in1901,Mrs.Verrall inCambridgebegan towrite automatic scripts thatwere signed“Myers.”At first theywere rather poorly expressed, but gradually became more coherent. However, the messages remained cryptic, as though their truemeaningwerebeingconcealed.Aboutayearlater,allusionstothesamesubjectsbegantoappearinthescriptsofMrs.PiperinBoston,andthese,too,claimedtocomefromMyers.SometimelaterMrs.Verrall’sdaughterHelenbeganautomaticwriting,andsimilarobliquereferences to the same subjects were found in her scripts as well. Starting at this point, the scripts were sent toMiss Alice Johnson,secretaryoftheSPR. Soonafterward,Mrs.HollandinIndiaalsobegantoreceivemessagesthatpurportedtocomefromMyers.OnNovember7,1903thescriptread,“MyDearMrs.VerrallIamveryanxioustospeaktosomeoftheoldfriends—MissJ.—andtoA.W.”TheseinitialsweretakentorefertoMissJohnsonandDr.A.W.Verrall.ThiswasfollowedbyalargelyaccuratedescriptionofDr.Verrall,andfinallythewords:“SendthistoMrs.Verrall,5SelwynGardens,Cambridge.”2

Mrs.Hollandknew the nameofMrs.Verrall, as it appears inMyers’sHumanPersonality,which she had recently read.But sheknewnothingaboutherpersonally,andmostcertainlydidnotknowheraddress,oreveniftherewassuchaplaceasSelwynGardens,Cambridge.Assuch,shedidnotfollowthese instructions,butdideventuallysendthescripts toAliceJohnson,secretaryfor theSPR,whodulyfiledthemawaywithoutsuspectingthattheycontainedallusionstothesamesubjectsastheVerrallandPiperscripts. Itwasnotuntil1905thatMissJohnsonrealizedwhatwashappening.Bythattime,thescriptscontainedtheastoundingclaimthatthediscarnateMyers,Gurney,andSidgwickhaddevisedtheschemeofprovidingmeaninglessfragmentsinthescriptsofdifferentmediums,fragments ofwhichwould be found to express a coherent idea onlywhen combined. In her article of 1908, the theory of the crosscorrespondencesisfullydiscussedforthefirsttime.Shefirstdescribesthenatureofthemessages:

Whatwegetisfragmentaryutteranceinonescript,whichseemstohavenoparticularpointormeaning,andanotherfragmentaryutterance in the other, of an equally pointless character; but when we put the two together, we see that they supplement oneanother,andthatthereisapparentlyonecoherentideaunderlyingboth,butonlypartiallyexpressedineach.3

Later,shediscussestheapparentoriginofthemessages:

Now,grantedthepossibilityofcommunication,itmaybesupposedthatwithinthelastfewyearsacertaingroupofpersonshavebeentryingtocommunicatewithus,whoaresufficientlywellinstructedtoknowalltheobjectionsthatreasonablescepticshaveurgedagainstthepreviousevidence,andsufficientlyintelligenttorealizethefullforceoftheseobjections.Itmaybesupposedthatthesepersonshaveinventedanewplan—theplanofcross-correspondences—tomeetthesceptic’sobjections....

Wehavereasontobelieve...thattheideaofmakingastatementinonescriptcomplementaryofastatementinanotherhadnotoccurredtoMr.Myersinhislifetime,forthereisnoreferencetoitinanyofhiswrittenutterancesonthesubjectthatIhavebeenable todiscover . . . Itwasnot theautonomists thatdetected it,butastudentof thescripts; ithaseveryappearanceofbeinganelementimportedfromoutside;itsuggestsanindependentinvention,anactiveintelligenceconstantlyatworkinthepresent,notamereechoorremnantofindividualitiesofthepast.4

As we will see later, several of the features discussed earlier that cause problems for the super-ESP theory appear in the crosscorrespondences.Whatthecrosscorrespondencesaddtotheevidencefrommediumshipisevidenceofdesign—adesignthatseeminglycouldnothaveoriginatedinthemindsofanyoneliving,butwhichgiveseveryindicationofbeingdesignedbythedeceasedMyers. It is important topointout that the recordsof thecross correspondencesdonot suffer frommanyof theobjections thathavebeen

raisedagainsttheevidencefordeathbedvisions,forreincarnation,andforapparitions.Thecrosscorrespondencesarenottheproductofeyewitnesstestimony;theyaretheproductofhandwritingperformedautomaticallybymediumswhileintrance.Inotherwords,thecrosscorrespondences are documentary evidence that is available for anyone to study at any time. They are therefore permanent andobjective,andcannotsufferfromerrorsofobservationorexaggeration. Thecrosscorrespondencesgraduallybecamemoreandmorecomplex,asitbecameclearthatwordsandtopicswerenotgoingtobemerelyrepeatedinthescriptsofdifferentmediums,butthathidden,complementaryallusionstothesametopicweregoingtobemade.Wewillfirstconsidertwosimplecrosscorrespondences,thenacomplexone,andthenanothersortofliterarypuzzlethatappeared.

TheCaseofThanatosAsMrs.Piper inBostonawoke from tranceonApril17,1907, awordwas spoken thatwas firstheardasSanatos, then repeated asTanatos.Mrs.Sidgwick, the sitter, inserted anote saying thatThanatoswas probablymeant.OnApril 23, in thewaking stage of theséance,thewordwascorrectlypronouncedas“Thanatos,”andonMay7“IwanttosayThanatos”camethroughinthewakingstage. ThanatosistheGreekwordfor“death.” Bythistimetheinvestigatorshadlearnedthattherepetitionofawordinadisconnectedfashionwasusuallyasignalthatit isbeingusedinacrosscorrespondence. OnApril16,1907,Mrs.HollandinIndiawrotethefollowingwords:“MauriceMorrisMors.Andwiththattheshadowofdeathfelluponhislimbs.”Itwasthoughtthat‘MauriceMorris’werethefirstattemptsatMors,theLatinwordfor“death.”ThelateroccurrenceoftheEnglishworddeathpointstothis. OnApril29,1907,Mrs.VerrallinEnglandwrote:“Warmedbothhandsbeforethefireoflife.ItfadesandIamreadytodepart...Manibusdateliliaplenis...Comeaway,comeaway,Pallidamors.” Finally,inthesamescriptcamethemessage:“Youhavegotthewordplainlywrittenallalonginyourownwriting.Lookback.”5

“Warmedbothhands...”isaquotationfromapoembythenineteenth-centuryEnglishpoetWalterLandor.Manibusdateliliaplenis(Latinfor“Givelilieswithfullhands”)isaquotationfromasectionofVirgil’sworkTheAeneid, inwhichAnchisesforetellstheearlydeathofMarcellus.“Comeaway,comeaway” is fromasongbyShakespeare,and thenextword in the song is“death.”*31Pallidamors(Latinfor“paledeath”)arethefirsttwowords,intheoriginalLatin,fromalineinOdesbyHorace.†32

CommentsontheCaseofThanatosInaperiodoflessthantwoweeks,thesamekeywordwasgivenbythreemediumslocatedinthreedifferentcountries,inthreedifferentlanguages, combinedwith indirect references to the same topic. If the occurrence of the same idea in the threemessageswas due totelepathyamongthemediums,itseemssurprisingthatitshouldtaketheformofliteraryallusionstypicalofaclassicsscholar.

TheRodenNoelCaseOnMarch7,1906,Mrs.Verrall’sscriptcontainedanoriginalpoem,whichstartedwiththewords:

Tintagelandtheseathatmoanedinpain.

WhenMiss Johnson read this she was struck by its similarity to a poem by Roden Noel, titled “Tintadgel.” To the best of herrecollection,Mrs.Verrallhadneverreadthispoem. OnMarch11,1906,Mrs.Holland’sscriptcontainedthesewords:

ThisisforA.W.AskhimwhatthedateMay26th,1894meanttohim—tome—andtoF.W.H.M.Idonotthinktheywillfindithardtorecall,butifso—letthemaskNora.

Thedategiven,whichmeantnothingtoMrs.Holland,isthedateofdeathofRodenNoel.TheinitialsA.W.refertoDr.Verrall,and

F.W.H.M. refers,ofcourse, toF.W.H.Myers,bothofwhomknewNoel,butnotverywell.NorameansMrs.Sidgwick,whichseemsappropriate,asNoelwasanintimatefriendofDr.Sidgwick. OnMarch14,beforeanyoftheabovefactswereknowntoMrs.Holland,shewrote,inatrancestate:

Eighteen,fifteen,four,five,fourteen,Fourteen,fifteen,five,twelve.Nottobetakenastheystand.SeeRev.13,18,butonlythecentraleightwords,notthewholepassage.6

Thewhole thingwasmeaningless toMrs.Holland,andshedidnot lookup thepassage.ButMissJohnsondid,andfound that the

centraleightwordswere:“foritisthenumberofaman.”Takingthistobeahint,shetranslatedthenumbersgiveninthescriptintothelettersofthealphabet,withdbeingthefourthletter,ethefifth,andsoon.Whenfinished,thelettersspelledRodenNoel. Therewas a further reference toRodenNoel inMrs.Verrall’s script ofMarch 16, 1906, and finally, onMarch 28, 1906,Mrs.Holland’sscriptcontainedthenameRodenNoelwrittenoutinfull.Hence,thecommontopicofthescriptswasonlyrevealedinalater

script,andbythedutifuleffortsofMissJohnsontounderstandtheearlierscripts.CommentsontheRodenNoelCaseInthiscrosscorrespondencebetweentwomediums,wefindthreereferencestothesameperson,butgiveninanindirectmannerthatdidnot reveal thechosen topic to theconsciousmindsof themediums.Thisdeliberateconcealmentseems tobecrucial to theplanof thecrosscorrespondences:themessagesaredeliberatelyenigmatictopreventthemediumsfromacquiringknowledgeofthetopic,inordertoruleoutthepossibilityofthemediumshelpingeachother,normallyortelepathically. Thefollowingcaseisamorestrikinginstanceofthesameprinciple.

TheCaseoftheMediciTombsIn1907,withinthespaceofthirtydays,thefollowingmessagesappearedinthescriptsofthreemediums,inthefollowingorder:

MRS.PIPER:Moorhead.Igaveherthatforlaurel. MISSVERRALL:Alexander’stomb.Emblemlaurelsforthevictor’sbrow. MRS.HOLLAND:AlexanderMoorsHead.7

Thethirdmessage,writtenincompleteignoranceoftheothertwo,revealstheconnectionbetweenthem.Butthecommontopicwas

stillnotapparent.Nearly threeyears later, in thescriptofafourthmedium,Mrs.Willett,cametheclue:“Laurentian tombs,DawnandTwilight.” However,themysteryremained,anditwasnotuntil1912thattheriddlewasfinallysolved.ItwasthenrealizedthatthewholeseriesreferredtoAlexanderoftheMedicifamily.Thelaurelwasthefamilyemblem,especiallyofLorenzodeMedici.ThetombofLorenzohas two reclining figures representing Dawn and Twilight.What the investigators learned in 1912 was that Alexander was buried inLorenzo’stombinFlorenceafterhisassassinationin1537,andsothetombmayalsobecalledAlexander’stomb.HewasthesonofPopeClementVIIandamulattowoman,andisshowninhisportraitashavingaveryNorthAfricanappearance.Becauseofthis,hewasknownasIlMoro(theMoor),andsoitisquiteaccurateforhimtobecalledAlexander,Moor’sHead. Mrs.Piper,whowrotefirst,knewpracticallynothingof theMediciorof theMedici tombs,andnothingatallofAlexanderof theMedici.Thispartofthescriptwassimplymeaninglesstoher,andtothosewhoreadherscript. MissVerrall,whowrotesecond,statedinwritingthatshehadneverbeentoFlorence,andsohadneverseentheMedicitombs.Shealso had never heard ofAlexander of theMedici, and had supposed, quite naturally, that her script referred toAlexander theGreat.ThosewhofirstreadthescriptalsothoughtitreferredtotheMacedonianwarrior-king. Mrs.Holland,whowrote last,hadbeen toFlorenceanddidknowthe tombs.However, thewordsAlexanderMoorsHead inherscriptareassociatedwithdrawingsofmastsandthewordsThetallmast,butthisonenotatsea.Thiswasinterpretedbythereaderstorefer to the tallmasts (150 feet high) of theLodge-Muirheadwireless telegraph apparatus that had been developed recently, and towhichreferenceshadbeenmadeonseveralotheroccasionsinherscript.Consequently,whenMissJohnsonfirstreadthescript,shehadnodoubtthat“AlexanderMoorsHead”meantDr.AlexanderMuirhead. However, in thesamescriptofMrs.Holland,followingthename“AlexanderMoorsHead,”arequotationsfromOthello (“Antresvastanddeserts idle,”and“Onenoteasilyjealous”).ThereisnoconnectionbetweenOthelloandDr.Muirhead;but thereisadefiniteconnection between Othello, the Moor of Venice, and Alexander the Moor, of Florence. With regard to this script, Miss Johnsoncommented:

Itlooksthenasifthe“author,”outofanumberofassociationswith“MoorsHead,”hasdeliberatelyandcarefullyselectedonethat fits in admirably with its special purpose and has influenced the writer to express it, and has then left her subliminal[subconscious]mindfreetoselectanotherassociation—“thetallmast”—inordertoshowwhatherownsubliminalinterpretationofthescriptis.8

CommentsontheCaseoftheMediciTombsHerewehaveanexampleofacrosscorrespondence involvingfourmediumsin threedifferentcountries.Telepathybetween the livingseemstobeclearlyruledout,sincenooneinvolvedunderstoodthecommontopicofthemessagesuntil1912.Thefirstmessagesimplyseemed meaningless to all concerned. The second appeared to be a reference to the undefeated general Alexander of Macedon,although bothmessages did include the commonword laurel, indicating a possible connection between them. The third script clearlyillustratestheconnectionbetweenthefirsttwo,butatfirstappearedtobeareferencetoalivingperson—engineerAlexanderMuirhead(d. 1920).And finally, in the script of a fourthmedium, there appears a cluewhich finally reveals the common topic:Alessandro deMedici,IlMoro.

FIFTEEN

TheLetheExperiment

Thefinalcasetobeconsideredisnotexactlyacrosscorrespondence,asitwasclearlyinitiatedbyeffortson“thisside.”However,thisremarkablecaseisanexcellentexampleofaliterarypuzzlethattookmucheffortonthepartofinvestigatorstosolve,anditdoessharesomeofthefeaturesofthepurecrosscorrespondences. Inearly1908,Mr.G.B.Dorr,amemberoftheSPR,heldaseriesofsittingswithMrs.PiperinBoston.DorrhaddroppedLatinandGreek at eighteen, and had hardly read anyLatin,Greek, or translations of the classics since then.Mrs. Piper knewvirtually nothingabout classical literature.Myers, in his lifetime, hadbeen a classical scholar of repute.So, in order to test thememoryof theMyerscommunicator,Dorrobtainedvariousquestionsonclassicalliterature,andbegantoputthemto“Myers”whenMrs.Piperwasintrance,writingautomatically. OnMarch 23, 1908he posed this question: “What does thewordLETHE suggest to you?” InGreekmythology theRiverLetheflows throughHades, and is also known as the River of Forgetfulness. The dead are said to drink from this river to obliterate theirmemories,beforebeingbornagainonearth.Dorrwasexpectingareplyalongtheselines.Instead,hegotthefollowingstrangeanswer:

MYERS:Lethe.Doyourefertooneofmypoems,Lethe?1

Dorr answered in the negative, and pressed the communicator for an answer, getting in response some disjointedwords, including

“Winds,”“Greece,”andthen: ...Itisallclear.DoyourememberCave? DORR:Ithinkyouareconfusedaboutthis.Itwasawater,notawind,anditwasinHades,wheretheStyxwasandtheElysian

fields.Doyourecallitnow? MYERS:Lethe.Shore—ofcourseIdo.LetheHadesbeautifulriver—Lethe.Underground.2

Thinkingthemediumwasgrowingtired,Dorrshortlyafterwardclosedthesitting.AsMrs.Pipercameoutofhertrance(aperiodcalledthe“wakingstage”),shesaidthefollowing:

Sybil—Olympus—water—Lethe—delighted—sad—lovely—mate. —Putthemalltogether... Entwinedlove—beautifulshores... Warm—sunlit—love. Limeleaf—heart—sword—arrow Ishotanarrowthroughtheair AnditfellIknownotwhere3

Mrs.Piperthendescribedavisionofawomanintheairwithabowandtwoarrows.

NoneofthismadeanysenseatalltoDorr.TheverynextdayheheldanothersittingwithMrs.Piper;atfirstthecontrolappearstobethedeceasedRichardHodgson,whosometimesreferstoMyersasheandhim.

HODGSON:NowMyersfeelsalittledistressedbecausehethinksyoudidnotquiteunderstandhisrepliestoyourlastquestion[i.e.,thequestionaboutLethe].

DORR:Ioughtnottohavebroughtanyquestionsupafterthelettersandthetalktheyledto.[TheearlypartoftheséancethedaybeforewasconcernedwithlettersDorrreadto“Myers.”]

HODGSON:No,quiteright,buthedidgiveyouoneortworeplieswhichheandIbothfearyoudidnotunderstand. DORR:No,itwasn’tclear.Iworkedoverthesittingsyesterdaytillnearlymidnight,tryingtostraightenthingsout. HODGSON:LetMyersexplainwhathethinksyoudidnotgrasp. MYERS:IwroteinreplytoyourlastinquiryCave—Lethe. DORR:Iaskedhim[i.e.Myers]whetherthewordLetherecalledanythingtohim. HODGSON:HerepliedCave—Banks—Shore...Hedrewtheform—apictureofIriswithanarrow.

Dorr:Buthespokeofwinds. MYERS:Yes,clouds—arrow—Iris—Cave—MorMORLatinforsleepMorpheus—Cave.Sticksinmymindcan’tyouhelpme? DORR:Good.Iunderstandwhatyouareafternow.Butcan’tyoumakeitcleareraboutwhattherewaspeculiaraboutthewaters

ofLethe? MYERS:Yes,IsupposeyouthinkthatIamaffectedinthesamewaybutIamnot.4*33

After this, some of thewords, such as Iris andClouds,were spelled out in capitals. Then, asMrs. Piper came out of trance, she

murmuredafewwordsthatcouldnotbecaughtclearly,andsaid:

MrMyersiswritingonthewall...C[apause]YX. Iwalkedinthegardenofthegods—entrancedIstoodalongitsbanks—likeoneentrancedIsawheratlast...Elysianshores.

Atthenextsitting,onMarch30,1908,theMyerscommunicatorspelledoutCYNX,andaftersomeconfusedpassages,wrote:

Wewalktogether,ourlovesentwined,alongtheshores.InbeautybeyondcomparisonwithLethe.Sorryit isallsofragmentarybutsupposeitcannotallgetthrough.5

Inthewakingstagecameseveraldisjointedphrases,including:

OrpheusandEurydice.Itremindsmeofthem.6

AtasittingthenextdaycamethewordsMorpheusandEurydice.InthenextséanceonApril7thewordPygmalionwasmentioned,

alongwith:

Alilycameupoutoftheblood.Don’tyouremembertheflowerthatgrewoutofthedropofblood?7

OnApril21theséancebegan:

MYERS:Goodmorning,friend.Hyacinthus.

DORR:Good.NowwhataboutHyacinthus? MYERS:Blood.8

After this sitting, Dorr looked up some of the names mentioned in a reference book, to see which authors referred to them. He

discovered from the referencebook thatOvidwrote about a flower that sprang from thebloodofHyacinthus, and found threeotherauthorsfromantiquitywhowroteaboutsomeofthenamesmentionedinthescripts.IntheséanceofMay8,1908,DorrmentionedthreeoftheseauthorstotheMyerscommunicatorinthefollowingorder:Aristophanes,Horace,andOvid.HethenmentionedtheCyclopsfromHomer’sOdyssey,towhichtheMyerscontrolresponded:

IrememberwellOVID.9

COMMENTSONTHELETHEEXPERIMENT

Inorder to fullyappreciate thecrosscorrespondences,someknowledgeof theclassics is required.This isespecially true in theLethecase,asthesolutionofthepuzzlerequiredagreatdealofresearchandthoughtonthepartoftheleadinvestigator,J.G.Piddington.Thesolutionwasbynomeansapparentfromthestart,andthisisoneoftheveryrealstrengthsofthecase:puzzlesthataretooeasilysolvedcanservenorealpurpose.So, inorder toconveytheevidentialstrengthofthiscase, therelevantclassicalstorieswillbepresentedinsummaryformwhennecessary. At first, theonlypartof thescripts that seemed tohaveanyconnectionwithLethewas the reference to“Sibyl”during thewakingstageofthefirstsitting.Mr.Dorr,itmustberemembered,didnotoriginallyaskwhatLethewas,butwhatitsuggested;andLethemightwellsuggest theSibyl toascholarintimatelyfamiliarwiththeworksofVirgil,whichthelivingMyersmostcertainlywas.InthesixthbookofVirgil’sAeneid is found the connection between the riverLethe and theSibyl. ForwhenAeneas first saw the river ofLetheflowingbytheElysianFieldsandthesoulsabouttoreturntoearthdrinkingofitswaters,hewasinhercompany. Butnoneoftherestmadeanysenseatalltotheinvestigators.Piddington,whoeventuallybecametheleadinvestigatorinthiscase,writes:

InNovember,1908,MrsVerrallwentcarefullythroughtherecordsofMrDorr’ssittings,andshefailedtotraceanycoherenceintheanswersgiventothequestionaboutLethe.Anotherclassicalscholar,MrGeraldBalfour,whenhereadthroughtherecords,likewisesawnosenseintheseanswers.NordidI,whenIfirstconsideredthem.ButIwasstruckbythewayinwhichMyersPandHodgsonP [the twocommunicators throughMrsPiper] at the sittingofMarch24,1908, spontaneously repeated, amplified andemphasized theanswersgiven to theLethequestionon thepreviousday;andshowed themselvesapprehensiveof itsnothaving

beenunderstood,andconfidentofitsrelevancy.Whenconfidenceofthiskindisexhibitedbythetrance-personalitiesitisusuallywell-founded.Accordingly I thought it worthwhile to search for passages in classical authorswhichmight throw light on thematter;andbygoodluckcameonapassageintheeleventhbook,hithertounknowntome,oftheMetamorphosesofOvid,whichexplainsandjustifiesthemainpartoftheanswersgiveninthetrance.10

TheeleventhbookofMetamorphosestellsthestoryofCeyxandhiswifeAlcyone.ThefollowingsummaryisadaptedfromGauld

(MediumshipandSurvival)andPiddington(“ThreeIncidentsfromtheSittings”).Thecorrespondenceswiththescriptsareindicatedbycapitalletters.

CEYX,KingofTrachin,wasdrownedatsea,andJunosentIRIS,goddessoftherainbow,toSomnus,godofSLEEP,tobidhimcarry thenews inadream toAlcyone,Ceyx’sbelovedQueen,daughterofAeolus,godof theWINDS. Iris clothedherself inraimentofathousandhues,andimprintingherbendedBOWuponthesky,travelsalongtherainbowthuscreatedtotheCAVEofSleep,hiddenbydarkCLOUDS.Ovidwrites,“Fromoutthegroundreekmistsandmurkyfogs,glimmeringinadoubtfulduskylight . . . Beasts there are none, nor flocks, nor brancheswaving in the breeze; and never outcry of human voice awakes theechoes.It is thehomeofsilentrest.Yetfromthefootof therockissuesthestreamofwaterofLETHE,andas thewaveglidespurlingthroughthestreamamongthebabblingpebbles,itinvitessleep.Beforethecavern’sentranceabundantpoppiesbloomandherbs innumerable, from the juice ofwhichNight brews sleep . . .Nowatchman on the threshold stands; but in the centre is acouch,whereonliesthegodhimselfwithlimbsinlanguorloosed.”Irisentersthecave,irradiatingitwiththecolorsofherapparel,delivershermessagetoSomnus,andreturnstotheheavensalongtherainbow-pathbywhichshecame.FromamonghisthousandsonsSomnuschoosesMORPHEUS,whose specialgift is tomimic the formofman, to impersonate in adream thedeadCeyx.Alcyone thus learns her husband’s fate. In despair, she goes down to the SHORE, and throws herself into the sea, beingtransformedintheprocessintoahalcyon.ButthegodstakepityonherSADness,andtransformCeyxintoakingfisher;andthusAlcyonerejoinsherbelovedMATE.Hernestfloatsonthesea;andeverywinterherfatherAeolusconfinestheWINDSforsevendaystosecureacalmsurfaceforherbrood.

Thecorrespondencesappearunmistakable.Mrs.PiperknewnothingofOvid,anddidnotevenknowwhoOvidwas.11Dorrclaimed

to“haveneverreadanyOvidatall.”Ontheotherhand,Myersinlifewasanaccomplishedclassicalscholar,andcertainlyknewVirgilandOvidwell,asthefollowingautobiographicalquoteofhisindicates.

ThatearlyburstofadmirationforVirgilofwhichIhavealreadyspokenwasfollowedbyagrowingpassionforoneafteranotheroftheGreekandLatinpoets.FromtentosixteenIlivedmuchintheinwardrecitalofHomer,Aeschylus,Lucretius,Horace,andOvid.12

On the surface it seems as though themindofFredericMyerswas theonlyplausible sourceof the associationgivenbetween the

CaveofSleepand theRiverLethe.Asanexpert in theclassicswhohadstudiedOvid indetail,MyerswouldhavebeenfamiliarwithOvid’sdescriptionofthecaveasthesourceoftheriverinOvid’sstoryofCeyxandAlcyone,inwhichtherainbowgoddessIrisvisitsthegodofsleep.Onthesurface,then,itappearsthatwecanruleouttelepathybetweenmediumandsitterasthesourceoftheassociation. ButthestoryofCeyxandAlcyonehasoftenbeentoldintheEnglishlanguage.PerhapsMrs.PiperorMr.DorrhadreadanEnglishversionofthestory.Afteranintensivesearch,Piddingtoncouldfindonlytwobooks,otherthanOvid,fromwhichMrs.PiperorMr.Dorrcould have derived the details of the story as given in the trance: Bulfinch’sThe Age of Fable andGayley’sThe ClassicMyths inEnglishLiterature, thelatterbasedontheformer.Mrs.Pipersaidthatshehadneverreadanyofthesebooks;andalthoughtherewasneveranyrealquestionaboutherhonesty,thiswasborneoutbyclosequestioningofherselfandherdaughters,andbyexaminationofherbookshelves.DorrhadreadBulfinch’sbookasaboy;however,thewordsreceivedinthesittingsstirrednorecollectionofthestoryinhismind;andwhenhewashandedacopyofthebookmonthsafterthesitting,heclaimedtorememberalmostnothingaboutit.Theonlyassociation“Lethe”hadforhimwastheobviousone:watersofforgetfulness. It could still be argued thatDorrwas the source fromwhichMrs. Piper telepathically gained her knowledge, even thoughDorrretained no recollection of the story and failed to recognize the allusions to it in the trance.However, as Piddington pointed out, thiswouldhavebeenplausible if theallusions in the trancehadbeenconfinedonly to the storyofCeyxandAlcyone.But allusions tootherstoriesinthetenthandeleventhbookofOvid’sMetamorphosesarealsomentioned,suchasthestoryofOrpheusandEurydice,andofPygmalion.ThesestoriesarerelatedtoeachotherinOvid,butnotinBulfinchorGayley.Piddingtonwrites:

ThetenthbookofOvid’sMetamorphosesopenswiththedeathofEurydice,andOrpheus’descentintoHadesinquestofher.OvidthengoesontorelatehowOrpheusinhissorrowretirestoMountRhodope,andtheresingsoftherapeofGanymede;ofthedeathofHyacinthusandof the flower that sprang fromhisblood;of the transformationof theCerastae intobulls;of thePropoetideschangedintostones;ofPygmalion’sstatuechanged intoa livingwoman;ofMyrrha;ofVenusandAdonis;andofAtalantaandHippomenes.Thiscompletesthetenthbook.

TheeleventhbookopenswiththedeathofOrpheusandhisreunionwithEurydiceinElysium.ItwillthusbeseenthatthetenthandeleventhbooksareveryintimatelyconnectedbyreasonofOrpheusandEurydicebeingacommonsubjectofeach.Nowtheeleventh book contains, besides the death of Orpheus, the story of Ceyx and Alcyone. I think, then, that it is clear that thereferencesmadeinthetrancetoOrpheusandEurydice,toPygmalionandalsotoHyacinthus,arereminiscencesofthetenthandeleventh books of theMetamorphoses, and not reminiscences of classical dictionaries, or of popular collections of classicalmyths,orofBulfinch’sAgeofFable,orGayley’sClassicMyths;foralthoughinthesetwolatterbooksallthestoriesinquestion

are mentioned, they are not in any way held together by any common bond, as they are in theMetamorphoses, but appeardisconnectedly,andwithoutanythingbeingsaidtosuggestaconnexionbetweenthem.13

Couldtheinformationhavebeenderivedtelepathicallyfromoneoftheotherinvestigatorsormediums?Piddingtonruledhimselfout,on thegrounds that“my first acquaintancewith the tenthandeleventhbooksof theMetamorphoses dates fromagoodmanymonthsaftertheconclusionofMr.Dorr’ssittings.”Mrs.Verrall,theonlypersonwhodoubledasbothmediumandinvestigator,seemsamoreobviouschoice,asshewasalecturer inclassicsatNewhamCollege.However,asmentioned,whenshewentovertherecordsofMr.Dorr’s sittings with Mrs. Piper—to try to find obscure points in the classical allusions—she completely failed to understand thereferencestotheCaveofSleep,Iris,Morpheus,andsoon. Inawrittenstatement,Mrs.VerrallclaimedtohavenoknowledgeofOvid’sMetamorphoses,apartfromhavingreadthedeathofEurydiceaboutfouryearspreviousinordertocompareitwithVirgil’saccount.And,sheadded,“IhateOvidbeyondwords,andhaveneverreadalinethatIcouldavoid.”Herdaughter,themediumMissVerrall,alsohadsomeknowledgeoftheclassics,butwrote“IamnotatallfamiliarwiththeworksofOvid.”14

Also—inspiteof thesestatements—ifweweretoassumethatoneof thewomenhadsubconsciouslyknownthestoryofCeyxandAlcyoneandthatthisknowledgepassedfromhermindintothatofMrs.Piper,itwouldstillleaveMrs.Piper’sknowledgeofOrpheusandEurydice,ofPygmalion,andofHyacinthusunexplained.ItseemshardtobelievethatMrs.orMissVerrallcouldhavereadallfourstoriesfromOvidandthenhaveforgottenallofthem.Ontheotherhand,iftheydidreadandrecallanyofthestories,thenthereferencestotheminthescriptwouldhaveledMrs.VerralltothetenthandeleventhbooksofOvid’sMetamorphoses,andthepuzzlewouldhavebeensolvedmuchsoonerthanitwas. ThereseemtobeseveralreasonsforconcludingthatthesourceoftheobscurereferencestoLethefromOvid’sMetamorphosesmusthavebeenthemindofFredericMyers—quiteapartfromthefactthatthisclaimappearsseveraltimesinthescripts.Firstofall,boththeallusiveanswertotheLethequestion,andthenatureofthecluesinthescriptthatledPiddingtontofindthepuzzle’ssolutioninOvid,arestronglycharacteristicofthemindofaclassicalscholar—onefamiliarindetailwiththeworksofOvid.Piddingtonwrote:

I consider that the references toOrpheusandEurydiceand toPygmalionwere introduced inorder to indicate the sourceof theallusionstoIris,CaveofSleep,Morpheus,Ceyx,etc.,whichconstitutetheanswertotheLethequestion.15

Thispuzzleshowsevidenceofadesignthatwasnotatallapparenttoanyoftheinvestigators,butitisadesignthatthelivingMyers

wascertainlycapableofcreating. ThedesignrequireddetailedknowledgeofOvid,whichMrs.Piperandtheotherssimplydidnotpossess.Theassociationsprovidedinthe scriptwere onesMyerswould have naturallymade, but associations that at first leftMrs. Piper,Dorr, Piddington, and the otherinvestigatorscompletelybaffled. TheothercluewasgivenonMay8.AfterDorrmentionedAristophanes,Horace,Ovid,andHomer,thecommentwas“IrememberwellOVID.”Piddingtonnoted that thiscommentcameataparticularlyappropriatepoint, justafterDorrhadspokenof theCyclops inHomer.AsanexpertinOvid,MyerswouldhaveknownthattheCyclopsisfrequentlymentionedinOvid’sworks.NothingmentionedbyDorrsuggestedanyconnectionbetweentheCyclopsandOvid. There isnoobviouscandidate,orsetofcandidates, fromamongthe living,whohad theknowledgeofOvidrequired tocreate thepuzzle.But,ofcourse,surelytheremusthavebeenmanypeopleintheworldwhopossessedtherequiredknowledgeofOvid,andwhocould, in principle, have constructed the puzzle. It could be argued thatMrs.Piper telepathically searched thememoryof some suchperson,pickingoutobscurereferencestoLethe.Or,itcouldbearguedthatMrs.PiperclairvoyantlysearchedthroughMyers’spublishedandunpublishedworks,notedan interest inOvid,and then instantlysearched through theworksofOviduntilanobscure reference toLethewasfound.Eitherway,thepuzzlewasthenconstructedandcompletedoverfourorfivesittings,underthecharadethatitwasbeingdonebythedeceasedFredericMyers. Apartfromthefactthatthereisvirtuallynoindependentevidencethattelepathyoftherequireddegreeeveroccurs,wehavealreadynoted that both the anecdotal and experimental evidence indicates that telepathyoccurs betweenpeoplewho are bondedor linked insomeway.Wehaveseenhownolivingpersoninvolvedintheinvestigationseemedtohavepossessedtherequiredknowledge. WehavealsoseenthattherequiredknowledgewasalmostcertainlypossessedbythemindofFredericMyers.

IDIOSYNCRASIESINTHESCRIPTSTherearealsocertainpersonaltouchesinthescriptsthatpointtothedistinctivecharacterofFredericMyersasthesourceoftheallusionstoOvid. Firstofall,bothVirgilandOvidwereobjectsofMyers’sspecialadmiration.SoitseemsfittingthatthewordLethewouldsuggesttoMyers,ifsurviving,storiesfromtheseparticularauthors. Secondly, three out of the four stories told inMetamorphoses X andXI to which “Myers” alluded are also alluded to in threeconsecutivestanzasofoneofFredericMyers’spoems;andPiddingtonfoundthat theorder inwhichtheallusionsemergeinthetranceandinthepoemarethesame. TheallusionsinquestionweretoIris,OrpheusandEurydice,andPygmalion.Theyemergedspontaneouslyinthatorderinthetrances:IrisonMarch23and24,OrpheusandEurydiceonMarch30,andPygmaliononApril6.And theorder inwhich these threesubjects

emergedinthetrancesandinthepoemarenottheorderinwhichtheyemergeinOvid’sMetamorphoses;*34noraretheytheorderinwhichtheyarementionedinGayley’sClassicMythsorinBulfinch’sAgeofFable.†35

PiddingtonalsoshowedthatrecognizingtheallusionstoIris,OrpheusandEurydice,andPygmalioninthesuccessivestanzasofthepoemwouldrequiresolidknowledgeoftheclassics.Forinstance,thesubjectofthefirststanzaisapicturebyWattstitledTheGeniusofGreekPoetry,with itsmost prominent feature a rainbow that stretches nearly across the entire picture. The first four lines of the thirdstanzaare:

Yetoftenestinthepasthewalked,Withgodorherolonggoneby,Oft,likehispicturedGeniustalkedWithrainbowformsthatspanthesky.

Piddingtoncommented:

AclassicalscholarlookingatthispictureandknowingitstitlecouldhardlyfailtoberemindedofIris,therainbowgoddess,bythe“rainbow-form”;andif,likeFredericMyers,thisscholarwereatthesametimeanenthusiasticconnoisseurofWatts’work,hewouldalmostinevitablyberemindedof[Watts’sotherpicture]Iris.16

InthefourthstanzaOrpheusandEurydicearenotdirectlynamed;similarly, inthefifthstanzaPygmalionisnotdirectlynamed,but

onlyreferredtoindirectly.PiddingtonfeltsurethatMrs.Pipercouldnotpossiblyhaverecognizedtheclassicalallusions.

IdonotbelievethatitisthekindofcoincidencewhichMrsPipercouldconsciouslyorsubconsciouslyhaveconcocted;for,evenifshehadreadthepoem(whichshehadnot),IdonotbelievethatshepossessestheclassicalscholarshiprequisitetodetecttheindirectallusionimplicitinthethirdstanzatoIris,ortheallusionstoOrpheusandEurydiceinthefourth,andtoPygmalioninthefifth.Meanwhile,itispreciselythekindofdelicatecoincidencewhichmightbeexpectedtooccur,ifthecommunicationsofMyerspareinfluencedbythemindoftheauthorofStanzasonMrWatts’CollectedWorks.*3617

ThefourthandlaststoryinMetamorphosesXandXItowhich“Myers”alludedisthestoryofHyacinthus.Piddingtondidnotthink

that this referencespoiled thecoincidence,as this referencewasgiven inresponse toaquestion,askedbyDorronMarch31,aboutastatueinGreece.PiddingtonfeltthatthereferencetoHyacinthuswouldnothavebeengivenifthequestionaboutthestatuehadnotbeenasked.18

Finally, thechoiceof the twomythscontained inBooksXandXIof theMetamorphoses as topicsof allusions in response to theLethequestion is entirelyappropriate for themindofFredericMyers,butnotnecessarily thatof anyother classical scholar.Wehavealready covered the story ofCeyx andAlcyone inBookXI, and have noted that the story ofOrpheus andEurydice is the commonsubjectofbothbooks. BookXdealswiththedeathofEurydice,andofthesongOrpheussanginhissorrow.InBookXIOrpheusdies,andisfinallyreunitedwithhisloveintheElysianFieldsalongthebanksoftheriverLethe.ThereunionofOrpheuswithhisbelovedseemstobethesubjectofthesuccessiveallusionsonMarch24and25.

Iwalkedinthegardenofthegods—entrancedIstoodalongitsbanks—likeoneentrancedIsawheratlast...Elysianshores. Wewalktogether,ourlovesentwined,alongtheshores.InbeautybeyondcomparisonwithLethe.

PiddingtonnotedhowappropriatethesethemesweretoFredericMyers.

ItwasappropriatetorepresentFredericMyersasrememberingandutilizinginhiscommunicationsthestoriesofCeyxandAlcyoneandofOrpheusandEurydice.Thethemeofbothstoriesisadfinemservatosamoresandthehappyreunionoftwolovers,“afterlonggriefandpain,” inanotherstateofexistence;and,asmustbeapparent toanycareful readerofMyers’spoems, thiswasathemeverynearindeedtohisheart;andtheOrpheusandEurydicestoryhadevidentlytakengreatholduponhim.*3719

So,thedefenderoftheESPhypothesishastoexplainnotonlyhowtelepathy—asthetermisnormallyunderstood—wasemployed

byawomanalmostcompletelyunfamiliarwiththeclassics inorderto instantly trackdownobscureclassicalreferencesfromsourceswithwhichshehadnopersonalconnection.Thedefendermustalsoexplainhow theassociationsspecificallychosen from theclassicswerethosethatMyersmightplausiblyhavemadewiththenameLethe.Saltmarshhasnotedtheimplicationstheseassociationshaveforestablishingpersonalidentity.

Someofthemostcharacteristicindividualpossessionsofthehumanmindaretheassociationswhichitmakesbetweenideas.Theseassociationsaretheresultofpasthistoryandareasclearanindicationofpsychicalindividualityasfinger-printsareofphysical.Notwo persons will make exactly the same associations between ideas, because no two persons have ever exactly the samehistory.20

To sum up: the answers given to the Lethe question appear to have been deliberately chosen so that they would not be initiallyunderstood by the investigators; however, after a great deal of detailed investigation, theywere found to have all the hallmarks ofMyers’suniqueinterests,personality,andclassicaleducation.AsDucassepointedout:

To account for such an ingenious feat of inventive and constructive activity as the purported Myers performed in this case,somethingdifferent fromESP inkind, not just in degree, is indispensable; namely, eitherMyers’s ownmind atwork, or else aduplicateofit;which,however,thenneedstobeitselfaccountedfor.21

LODGECONTINUESTHELETHEEXPERIMENT

Andthisisnotallthereistothisremarkablecase.AtthetimeDorrwasquestioningtheMyerswhopurportedtowritethroughMrs.PiperinBoston,SirOliverLodgewasalsoinBoston,andbecameinterestedinthecase.HethoughtthatusefulevidencemightbeobtainediftheMyerswhopurported towrite throughMrs.Willett inEnglandwereasked thesamequestion.So, inSeptember1909hewrote thefollowinginaletter,tobereadbyMrs.WilletttoherMyerscommunicator.

MydearMyers,Iwanttoaskyouaquestion—notanidleone.WHATDOESTHEWORDLETHESUGGESTTOYOU? Itmaybethatyouwillchoosetoanswerpiece-mealandatleisure.Thereisnohurryaboutit.

OliverLodge22

ItshouldbestressedthatMrs.Willett inEnglandhadnonormalknowledgeof thequestionthatwasaskedofMrs.Piper’sMyerscontrolinBoston,norofthematerialthathadbeenobtainedinreply. OnFebruary4,1910,Mrs.Willettsatwithpenandpaper,andthefollowingwaswrittenautomatically:“MyersyesIamhere.Iamreadynowtodealwith thequestion fromLodge.Beforeyouopen theenvelope rereadhis letter toyou theone thataccompanied thelettertome.”23

Mrs.WillettthenopenedtheenvelopeandreadthelettertothecommunicatorwhoclaimedtobeMyers.Thescriptbeganatonce.

MyerstheWillagaintolive theWillagaintolive

theRiverofforgetfulness...theblendingoftheEssencewiththeinstrumentMyerstuMarcellusErisyouknowthelineyou[Mrs.Willet]Imean...writeitnevertheless,andaddHenrySidgwicksInValleReductaAddtootheDovesandtheGoldenBoughamidtheShadowsaddtooGonottoLetheMyersMyerstherewasadoortowhichIfoundnokeyandHaggiBabbatooThisisdisconnectedbutnotmeaninglesstheshiningsoulsshiningbytheriverbrim.ThepainforgottenbutthereisanothermeaninganothermoreintimatelinkandconnectionthatnowIcannotgiveitdoesnotescapemeIseethebearingRoseflutteringroseleavesblownlikeghostsfromanenchanterfleeingMyersandLoveLovetheessentialessencenotspiltlikewateronthegroundfaroffforgottenpainnotnot[Abreakandpausehere.]DarienthePeakinDarienthePeakPeakPEAK[anotherpause.]mMyersIhavenotdoneyet

toLodgethismayhavemeaningtoLodgethismayhavemeaningLethimremembertheoccasionMyersIamnotvagueIamnotvagueIwantananswertothis...tothisScriptfromLodgeMyerstellhimIwantananswerDoesherecognizemyrecognition

LetLodgespeak...enoughforto-dayMyers24

Thenextday,whilereadinganewspaper,Mrs.Willettfeltanoverpoweringurgetowrite.Althoughotherpeoplewereintheroom,shesatdownandobtainedthefollowingscript.

Youfeltthecall...itisIwhowriteMyersIneedurgentlytosaythistellLodgethisword...thewordisDORR25

NoneofthismadeanysensetoMrs.Willett,exceptthatsheknewthenameDorrasthatofanAmericanwhohadsomesittingswith

Mrs.Piper.Shehadnonormalknowledgeofhisconnectionwiththe“Lethe”question. TheallusionstoLetheinthescriptofFebruary4thareobvious.Thefirstsentence,“thewillagaintolive”isfromapoemwrittenbythelivingMyers,andreferstosoulsgatheringonthebanksofLethe,waitingtodrinkthewatersofforgetfulness,andwillingagaintoliveonearth.26

Godtheinnumeroussoulsingreatarray

ToLethesummonsbyawondrousway Tillthesethereintheirancientpainforgive Forgettheirlife,andwillagaintolive

RecallthatthefirstresponseofMrs.Piper’sMyerscommunicatorinresponsetotheLethequestionhadbeen:“Doyourefertooneofmypoems?”ThisanswerwasthoughtbyPiddingtontobeconfusedandinappropriate,ashehadfailedtodiscoveramentionofLetheinanyofFredericMyers’soriginalpoems.*3827

TheblendingoftheEssencewiththeinstrumentisaparaphrasefromVirgil’sAeneidinwhichthedeceasedAnchisesexplainstohissonAeneashowsoulsrejoinmortalbodiesafterdrinkingfromtheRiverLethe.TuMarcelluserisisaLatinquotefromtheAeneid;itisadescriptionofoneofthesoulsonthebanksofLethewhowouldintimebecomeMarcellus.Invallereducta(inashelteredvale)isthephrase that opensVirgil’s descriptionofLethe.TheDovesand theGoldenBough are further references toVirgil’s story: the goldenboughhadtobeobtainedbeforethegodswouldallowAeneastojourneytoHadestovisithisfatherbytheRiverLethe;anditwasthedoveswhoguidedhimtoit. Thesubjectisthenchanged,andaquotefromOmarKhayyamisgiven:TherewasadoortowhichIfoundnokey.*39ThisquotehasnoobviousconnectionwithLethe,butwasfollowedbywhatappearstobeanattemptatthenameAliBabbaofAliBabbaandtheFortyThieves,andbythewordsThisisdisconnectedbutnotmeaningless. OnMarch7,theMyerscommunicatorwrote:“therewasapunbutIdonotwanttosaywhere.”ThissentOliverLodgeon“alongandfruitlesshunt for it.”OnJune5,Lodge toldMrs.Willett’sMyerscommunicator thathecouldfindnopun. Inresponse,hegot thefollowingwrittenmessage.

ReLETHE...I,Myers,madeapun,IgotinawordIwantedbywrappingitinaQUOTATION.LaterIgottheWORDitself.28

OliverLodgeinterpretedthisasreferringtotheworddoorintheOmarKhayyamquotationasapunonthenameDorr,theAmerican

whofirstaskedMyersthequestionaboutthewordLethethroughMrs.Piper.Thedoortotherobber’scaveintheAliBabbastoryonlyopenedwiththewordsOpenSesame,andmightclearlybedescribedas“adoortowhichIfoundnokey.”ThefactthatthenameDorrwasgivenspontaneouslythefollowingdayseemstojustifythisinterpretation. TheMyerscommunicatorevidentlyunderstoodwhatDorrandLodgeweretryingtoaccomplish,forinascriptonFebruary10(fivedays after he firstmentioned thewordDORR in the script ofMrs.Willet) hewrote, “Dorr’s scheme excellent. That I have differentscribesmeansthatImustshowdifferentaspectsofthoughtsunderlyingwhichunityistobefound”and“IknowwhatLodgewants.HewantsmetoprovethatIhaveaccesstoknowledgeshownelsewhere.”29

ThescriptofFebruary10containsvariousreferencestoVirgilandtoHomer,andfollowingthementionofDorr,thenameGanymedeismentioned.HerstoryistoldinBookXofOvid’sMetamorphoses,immediatelybeforethatofHyacinthus,whichhadbeenintroducedbyMrs.Piper’sMyerscommunicator inconnectionwith theLethequestionasputbyMr.Dorr.ThenameWatts ismentionedaswell,

which seems to indicate knowledge of the connectionPiddington had drawnbetweenMrs. Piper’s script and the painter, even thoughPiddingtonhadnotyetpublishedhispaperatthetime.WhoevertheMyerscommunicatorwas,itseemsthathesucceededinshowingthathehadaccesstoknowledgeshownelsewhere. Itisimportanttostressthat,likeMrs.Piper,Mrs.Willettknewpracticallynothingabouttheclassics.ShehadreadChurch’sStoriesfromVirgil,butastudyofthatbookconvincedLodgethattheknowledgeshowncouldnothavebeenderivedfromthatsource.Foronething,thewordLetheisnotevenmentionedinChurch’sbook(althoughthereisareferencetoMarcellus,whichjustifiestheremark,“youknowtheline”).LodgealsostatedthatatthetimehewasnotfamiliarwithBookVIofVirgil’sAeneid,fromwhichtheknowledgeshownisderived.LikePiddingtonbeforehim,heneededtocompleteagreatdealofresearchbeforeheunderstoodtheclassicalreferences.Butas we have already seen, Myers in his lifetime profoundly admired Virgil. And in the script of February 10 and in the weeks thatfollowed, theMyerscommunicatorshowshimselfpossessedofwideclassicalknowledge,completelybeyondanything thatcouldbeattributedtoMrs.WillettortothephysicistLodge. SirOlivercommentedonthelevelofskillshowninthescripts.

Thewayinwhichtheseallusionsarecombinedorputtogether,andtheirconnectionwitheachotherindicated,isthestrikingthing—itseemstomeasmuchbeyondthecapacityofMrs.Willettasitwouldbebeyondmyowncapacity.Ibelievethatifthematterisseriouslystudied,and ifMrs.Willett’sassertionsconcerningherconsciousknowledgeandsupraliminalprocedurearebelieved,thiswillbetheopinionofcriticsalso;theywillrealize,asIdo,thatwearetappingthereminiscencesnotofanordinarilyeducatedpersonbutofascholar—nomatterhowfragmentaryandconfusedsomeofthereproductionsare.30

Aswehaveseen,muchofthecrosscorrespondencemessageshaveafragmentary,disjointednature.Thiscontrastssharplywiththe

passages in which cross correspondences are not being attempted; in these, we often find long coherent passages showing greatintellectualsophistication,andanappreciationofthedifficultiesofcommunication. Itseemsthatthecrosscorrespondencemessagesarefragmentaryanddisjointedbydesign;theyaredeliberatelykeptenigmaticsoasnot toreveal theirmeaning. In the truecrosscorrespondences, thisseemsnecessary inorder toeliminate thepossibilityofonemediumcommunicating—telepathically or otherwise—the true meaning of the fragment to another medium in order to complete the crosscorrespondence.ThemessagesreceivedthroughMrs.PiperintheLethecasearenottruecrosscorrespondencesinthenarrowtechnicalsense,asthemessagesdeliveredthroughMrs.PiperdidnotrequirethemessagesdeliveredthroughMrs.Willetttobeunderstood;theyonlyrequiredresearch,followinguponcluesprovidedonlyinthescriptsofMrs.Piper.However,eveninthiscase,forthepuzzletobeeffective itwas necessary to avoid revealing the truemeaning before the investigators had a chance to discover it through their ownresearch,inordertoruleouttelepathyfromtheinvestigatorsasthesource. Thereissomeevidencethat thecommunicatorsare limitedbythenormalcontentsof themindsof themediums.For instance,whileGreekandLatinquotationsare freelygiven throughMrs.andMissVerrall,whoare thoroughlyconversantwith these languages, it isveryraretofindtheminthescriptsofMrs.Holland,Mrs.Willett,andMrs.Piper,whonormallyknowverylittleofclassicalliterature.Itseemsasthough—andthisisrepeatedlyclaimedinthescripts—thecommunicatorsfinditeasiesttoselectthewordstheyneedfromthenormalmindsofthemediums. But there is also a certain amount of nonsense in the passages inwhich the cross correspondences are to be found. Themediumssometimes seem towander along a train of thought that is their own, and the scripts seem to bemodified by the personalities of theautonomists. The communicators themselves often complain that the mediums are very inefficient channels. An early script of Mrs.Hollandcontainsthefollowingmessage,purportedlyfromMyers,inwhichhedescribestheconditionsunderwhichhelabors.

Thenearest simile I can find to express the difficulties of sending amessage—is that I appear to be standingbehind a sheet offrostedglasswhichblurssightanddeadenssounds—dictatingfeeblytoareluctantandsomewhatobtusesecretary.Afeelingofterribleimpotenceburdensme...Youneedmuchtrainingbeforeyoucaneverbegintohelpme.31

Eitherthesedifficultieswereovercomelater,orthereissomethinginthenatureofthecrosscorrespondencesthataddstothedifficulty

of communication.Because, as themessages fromMyers,Gurney, and theothers continued, thereweremany longcoherentpassageswrittenthatshownoconfusionorrambling.Atanyrate,Myers,purportingtowriteinthe1920sthroughthemediumGeraldineCummins,describedthespecialdifficultiesofthecrosscorrespondencesasfollows:

The innermind is very difficult to dealwith from this side.We impress itwith ourmessage.We never impress the brain of themediumdirectly.That isoutof thequestion.But the innermindreceivesourmessageandsends iton to thebrain.Thebrain isameremechanism.Theinnermindislikesoftwax,itreceivesourthoughts,theirwholecontent,butitmustproducethewordsthatclotheit.Thatiswhatmakescross-correspondencesoverydifficult.Wemaysucceedinsendingthethoughtthrough,buttheactualwordsdependlargelyontheinnermind’scontent,onwhatwordswillframethethought.IfIamtosendhalfasentencethroughonemediumandhalfthroughanotherIcanonlysendthesamethoughtwiththesuggestionthatapartofitwillcomethroughonemedium and a part through another . . .We communicate an impression through the inner mind of the medium. It receives theimpressioninacuriousway.Ithastocontributetothebodyofthemessage,wefurnishthespiritofit.Inotherwords,wesendthethoughtsandthewordsusuallyinwhichtheymustbeframed,buttheactuallettersorspellingofthewordsaredrawnfromthemedium’smemory.Sometimesweonlysendthethoughtsandthemedium’sunconsciousmindclothestheminwords.32

Whateverwemaythinkofthispassage,thereseemstobenothingfragmentaryordisjointedaboutit.

SIXTEEN

EvaluationoftheCrossCorrespondences

Thesummaryofeachofthefourcasespresentedabovehasonlyscratchedthesurfaceoftheenormousvolumeofsourcematerialonthecross correspondences. Clearly, sophisticated knowledge of classical literature was shown in the scripts, and sometimes substantialresearchintotheclassicswasrequiredtosolvethevariouspuzzles.Boththesefactscertainlycontributetotheevidentialstrengthofthecross correspondences. But, unfortunately, these facts also contribute to the difficulty most laypersons have in evaluating them. Inaddition,nothinglessthanastudyoftheoriginalreportscanconveytherichnessofdetailandtheelementofintentioninthem.AndeventhatcannotconveythevividnessofcharacterizationthatsoimpressedtheinvestigatorswhohadknownMyersandhisfriends. But,atanyrate,thereseemtobeonlyfourpossibleexplanationsforthecrosscorrespondences,anditistoanevaluationofthesethatwenowturn.

CHANCEIthasbeenproposedthatthecrosscorrespondencesaresimplyduetochancecoincidence.Afterall,inscriptsfullofcrypticliteraryandhistoricalallusions,wemight reasonablyexpectoccasionalcoincidencesof themeand reference.However,anexplanation in termsofchancecoincidencehasseveralstrikesagainstit. First of all, Piddington and Dorr tried to generate artificial cross correspondences. Fourteen people were each sent quotations—twelve inall—fromVirgil,Homer,Shakespeare,Shelly,Milton,Rostand,Wordsworth,andColeridge,andwereaskedtowritedownwordsorphrasesassociatedwith them.Theresultswereverydifferentfromthecrosscorrespondences thatappearedspontaneously inthescriptsoftheautomatists.Therewasnotendencytoreturnagainandagaintoonetheme,andPiddingtonandDorrconcludedthatthefewcrossreferencesthatoccurredborenoresemblancetothecrosscorrespondencesofthescripts. Second,variousexperimentsmaybeperformedinordertoattempttocreatecrosscorrespondences.Chooseabookbyanauthorwithwhoseworksyouarewellacquainted,andpickapassageatrandom.Pickanotherbookbythesameauthor,randomlychooseanotherpassage,and try toworkoutacrosscorrespondencebetween the twopassages.The results (or,more likely, the lackor results)willgiveaclearindicationofhowmuchpurechanceislikelytohavebeenresponsibleforthecrosscorrespondences. Third,Piddingtoncountedcrosscorrespondenceonalargescale,andfoundthatallusionspertinenttoagivencrosscorrespondencedidnotwaxandwanehaphazardly,butaroseduringtheappropriateperiodandthenlargelydisappeared.Andfinally,wehaveseenthatthe cross correspondences are accompaniedby explicit statements that they are indeedparts of aplanned experiment.Here is anotherexample:onMarch2andMarch4,1906,Mrs.VerrallwroteaseriesofcrypticscriptsreferringtothemaineventsinthehistoryoftheCityofRome,accompaniedbyastatementthatshewouldreceiveamessagethroughanotherwoman.OnMarch7,fivethousandmilesaway,Mrs.Hollandwrote:“AveRomaImmortalis.HowcouldImakeitclearerwithoutgivinghertheclue?”1Similar remarksoccuragainandagain.Forallthesereasons,chancecoincidencecanbeeffectivelyruledoutasanexplanation.

FRAUDIt also seems that fraud on the part of the autonomists can also be quickly ruled out.All the autonomistswere persons of excellentreputation, and no indications of fraud ever came to light. Several of the autonomists did not evenknoweach other; and at importantperiods,one(Mrs.Holland)wasinIndia,another(Mrs.Piper)wasintheUnitedStates,andtherestwereinGreatBritain.Itishardtoseehowtheconspiracycouldhavebeencarriedoutwithouttheaidoftheinvestigators,asthescriptswereoftenwrittenundertheirowneyes.Moreover,severalwritershavecommentedontheenormousamountofworkthatwouldhavebeenrequiredtoperpetratesuchafraud.For instance, Rosalind Heywood describes a simple experiment that a skeptic can perform to illustrate the amount of knowledge,ingenuity,andresearchrequiredtocreatethesepuzzles:

To construct an elementary cross correspondence, a topic or quotation from a particular author must be chosen and furtherquotations collected from his work which allude to this topic but do not mention it directly. Puns are allowed. Finally anindependentinvestigatormustfindthecluewhichbindsthequotationsintoacoherentwhole.Anyonewhotriestoconstructacrosscorrespondence of the quality of thosewhich claimed to come from theMyers groupwill sympathizewith the remark inMrs.Willett’sscriptwhichpurportedtobemadebyDr.Verrallshortlyafterhisdeath:“Thissortofthingismoredifficulttodothanitlooked.”2

Thecaseagainstsuchapointlessandfar-reachinghoaxissummedupbySaltmarshasfollows:

Noreasonablepersoncouldsuggestthatagroupofladiesofthecultureandintelligenceofthosehereinvolved,wouldcombinetogether to carry out a scheme of concerted cheating—a conspiracy of fraud, and persist in the practice for over thirty years.

Moreover, it ishard toassignanymotive for suchconduct:had itbeen for the sakeofapractical joke, itwas surelya strangesenseofhumourwhichcouldderivesatisfactionfromanythingsocumbrousandprolonged;haditbeenforthesakeof‘showingup’theinvestigators,theschememissedfirefortheplotwasneverdivulged.3

SUPER-ESPANDSUBCONSCIOUSFRAUD

Theonlyalternativeexplanationthathasbeenproposedbyskepticswillingtoexaminetherecordofcrosscorrespondencesindetailisafurther extension of the super-ESPhypothesis.We have already seen that this hypothesis has been progressively stretched in order toaccountforotherformsofcommunicationthroughmediums.MostoftheobjectionsthatwereraisedearlieragainstESPasanexplanationalso apply in the case of the cross correspondences. In particular, we see in the cross correspondences the manifestation of thepersonalitiesofthedeceasedand,evenmorepronounced,thedisplayofskillsandknowledgefarexceedingthatofbothmediumsandsitters,butcharacteristicofthedeceasedfromwhomthemessagespurporttocome. Butthesuper-ESPhypothesismustbeextendedevenfurtherinordertoaccountforthecrosscorrespondences.Sincetheirproductioneventually involved several differentmediums in three different countries, it is now necessary to account for the coordination of themessagesreceivedthroughthevariousautonomists,sothatwhiletheproductionsofeachareindividuallypointless,takentogethertheyformameaningfulpattern. If themessagesdidnotcomefromthedeceasedMyers,Gurney,andothers, thenonepossibility is that thesubconsciousmindofsomelivingpersontelepathicallydirectedandcoordinatedthescriptsofthevariousmediums,inordertopulloffaremarkablethirty-yearhoax. ThemostobvioussuspectwasMrs.Verrall.Criticspointedoutthatshewasinterestedinpsychicphenomena;thatsheknewMyersandSidgwickpersonally;andthatshewasaverygoodclassicalscholar.Ifitwashersubconsciousmindthatdesignedthescripts,thedegreeof telepathyexercised isnothing less thanastounding.Wewouldhave to suppose that, usingvarious falsenames, she subconsciouslydirectedthesubconsciousselvesofherscatteredpupils,someofwhomshedidnotevenknow—inorder toperpetrateahoaxontheirnormalpersonalities,aswellasonherown.Incasesinwhichsheherselflackedtherequiredknowledgeoftheclassics,shemusthaveobtaineditbyclairvoyantlyscanningtheliterature,orbytelepathicallypickingthemindsofotherclassicalscholars. Butthistheoryhasafatalflaw.Mrs.Verralldiedin1916,yetthecrosscorrespondencescontinuedonformanyyears.Onecasethatbegan inher scripts, the“PalmSunday”case, continued foryearsafterherdeath.4And somenewcaseswere initiatedonly after herdeath,despitethefactthattherewasnoautonomistleftwhocombinedherknowledgeoftheMyersgroupwiththeclassicalscholarshipanddeepinterestpresumablyneededtoinducethesubconsciousmindtoworkoutsuchanelaborateplan. Theonlyotheralternativeseemstobethatthegroupofmediumsobtainedtherequiredknowledgeoftheclassicsbyclairvoyantlyscanning the literature, or by telepathically picking theminds of other classical scholars; themessageswere then framed in amannertypicalofthelivingMyersbypickingthememoriesofMyers’ssurvivingfriends,orbyclairvoyantlyscanninghisworks.Inotherwords,the alternative is an unconsciously hatched, telepathically coordinated conspiracy. It must be noted that this alleged campaign ofdeceptionwascarriedonforthreedecades,despitepersonnelchangesinthegroupasfreshrecruitscameinandoldmembersdroppedout.Thereisnoindependentevidencethattelepathyandclairvoyanceofsuchdetailandcomplexityeveroccurs.Italmostgoeswithoutsayingthat thereisalsonotashredof independentevidenceforunconsciouslyhatched, telepathicallycoordinatedconspiracies.Andifthedeceptionisallegedtobeentirelyunconscious,thenwhatcouldsuchevidencepossiblyconsistof?

SURVIVALIna1908reviewofsomeoftheearliestcrosscorrespondences,Piddingtonwrote:

TheonlyopinionwhichIholdwithconfidenceisthis:thatifitwasnotthemindofFredericMyersitwasonewhichdeliberatelyandartisticallyimitatedhismentalcharacteristics.5

But as the years went on, Piddington, who disliked the idea of survival, was driven more and more to the conclusion that

communication from the surviving minds of Myers, Gurney, and the others was the most plausible explanation of the crosscorrespondences.Withveryfewexceptions,theotherinvestigatorsalsocametothisconclusion. WehaveseenhowthedeathofMrs.Verrallin1916madeverylittledifferencetothecontentornatureofthescripts.Thiscontrastssharplywiththechangeinthescriptsfollowingthedeathofherhusband,Dr.A.V.Verrall,onJune18,1912.Withinafewweeksofhisdeath,messagespurportingtocomefromDr.Verrallbegantoappearinthescripts.Therealsoappearedseveralstrikingliterarypuzzles,purportedlycreatedbyDr.Verrall,whichdifferedsharplyinstylefromthosethatpurportedlycamefromtheMyersgroup.Likesomeofthe earlierpuzzles, theywere at first completely incomprehensible to the investigators—includinghis survivingwife anddaughter.Butafter followingupon clues provided in the scripts, solutionswere found indicatingknowledge that very few living classical scholarspossessed—butthatwasknowntobepossessedbyDr.Verrall.*40

In addition, the accompanyingmessages displayedmany idiosyncratic personal characteristics of the livingVerrall.We have seenearlierhowhisoldfriend,theReverendBayfield,afterreviewingthesemessages,testifiedthat“tomeatleastitisincrediblethateventhecleverestcouldachievesuchanunexampledtriumphindeceptiveimpersonationasthiswouldbeiftheactorisnotVerrallhimself.” Years of reviewing and researching the cross correspondences eventually convinced Piddington, Lodge, Miss Johnson, Mrs.Sidgwick,Balfour,andothersthatthecrosscorrespondenceswere,infact,whattheyconstantlyclaimedtobe—messagesfromMyersandhisdeceasedcolleagues. In1932,as thecrosscorrespondenceswere finallypeteringout,Mrs.Sidgwickwroteanaccountof thehistoryoftheworkoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchduringitsfirstfiftyyears.AtthetimeshewaspresidentofhonoroftheSociety,

and her keenmind and cautious approachwerewidely respected.At the Society’s Jubilee, her paperwas read by her brother, LordBalfour.Afterhefinished,headdedapersonalcomment.

Someofyoumayhavefeltthatthenoteofcautionandreservehaspossiblybeenover-emphasizedinMrsSidgwick’spaper.Ifso,theymaybegladtohearwhatIamabouttosay.Conclusiveproofofsurvivalisnotoriouslydifficulttoobtain.Buttheevidencemaybesuchastoproducebelief,eventhoughitfallshortofconclusiveproof.IhaveMrsSidgwick’sassurance—anassurancewhichIampermittedtoconveytothemeeting—that,upontheevidencebeforeher,sheherselfisafirmbelieverbothinsurvivalandintherealityofcommunicationbetweenthelivingandthedead.6

Asmentioned,Balfourhadcometosharethisbelief.Certainlyveryfewpeoplehavebeenasthoroughlyacquaintedwiththeevidence

fromcrosscorrespondences,andatthesametimeasobjectiveandkeenlycritical,aswereMrs.SidgwickandLordBalfour.

PARTIV

Conclusions

Itisastupidpresumptiontogoaboutdespisingandcondemningasfalseanythingthatseemstousimprobable;this isacommonfaultamongthosewhothinktheyhavemoreintelligencethanthecrowd.Iusedtobelikethatonce,andifIheardtalkofghostswalkingorprognosticationsoffutureevents,ofenchantmentsorsorceries,orsomeothertaleIcouldnotswallow,Iwouldpitythepoorpeoplewhoweretakeninbysuchnonsense.AndnowIfindthatIwasatleastasmuchtobepitiedmyself.

MICHELDEMONTAIGNE,ESSAYS

SEVENTEEN

HowtheCaseforSurvivalStandsToday

Thefullcaseforsurvivalrests,ofcourse,onmuchmorethanjusttheevidencefromcommunicationthroughmediums.Itisnecessarytotakeintoaccountallthelinesofevidence,includingthosethathadbarelybeenexploredduringthefirstfiftyyearsoftheSPR. Becauseofmodernresuscitationtechniques, thenear-deathexperienceisnowamuchmorecommonlyreportedexperience,andthesecond book of this trilogy, Science and the Near-Death Experience, concludes that several features of the near-death experiencesuggestsurvival.Theseincludenormalorenhancedmentalprocessesatatimewhenthereiseverymedicalreasontobelievethatbrainprocesses are either severely impaired or entirely absent; accurate out-of-body views of one’s own body and the surroundingenvironment; and the perception of deceased friends and relatives.*41 ESP—super or otherwise—fails utterly to explain thesephenomena. Clairvoyant descriptions are not typically from an elevated position and certainly not from an elevated position directlyabovetheviewer’sownbody.Nordotheynormallyoccurwhenwehaveeveryreasontobelievethesubject’scerebralprocessesareeitherseverelyimpairedorentirelyabsent. ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperiencealsodescribeddeath-bedvisionsinwhichpeoplehavereportedseeingdeceasedfriendsandrelatives that theydidnotknowweredeceased.WealsosawthatESPalsofailsutterly toexplain theseexperiences,as there isnotashred of independent evidence that the dying becomemore clairvoyant or telepathic in the finalmoments of life, and not a shred ofevidencethatESP“dressesup”knowledgeofunpleasantoccurrencesintopleasanthallucinations. Theexperiencespeoplehavewhileapproachingorduringclinicaldeathallowustoconcludethatconsciousnessandperceptioncancontinuetofunctioninanormalorevenenhancedmannerafterbrainactivityceases,atleasttemporarily.Theoverwhelmingmajorityofthose who have these experiences are convinced that life continues long after the body ceases to function. However, because thesepeoplewerenotirreversiblydead,theseexperiencesprovidetherestofuswithonlysuggestiveevidenceinfavorofconsciouslifeafterthepointof irreversiblebraindeath.Thisbookhasbeenconcernedwithexaminingevidence for survival from thosewhohave indeedpassedbeyond the thresholdofdeath.The threeadditional linesofevidenceconsidered in thisbook thereforeprovidemoreextensiveevidencethatconsciousnesscontinueslongafterbrainandbodyceasetofunction. When we considered cases other than near-death experiences and death bed visions, we have seen that that only onecounterexplanationisstilldefendedascrediblebythoseskepticswhohavetakentimetofamiliarizethemselveswiththeevidence.Atthispointonlytheinferenceofsuper-ESPremainsinthefieldtochallengetheinferenceofsurvival. Thesuper-ESPhypothesisisapeculiarlyelusivetheory,becauseit involvesprogressivelyextendingthepostulatedreachofESPtocovereverynewtypeofevidenceforsurvival.Itistypicallyarguedthatthiselastichypothesisisjustifiedaccordingtosomeprincipleofsimplicity or parsimony.We know thatESP exists, so the argument goes, andwe also knowof the existence of incarnateminds.Thesurvivalhypothesis,itisargued,requiresustofurtherassumetheexistenceofdiscarnateminds.Hence,itismoreparsimonioustocastourexplanation only in terms of ESP among incarnateminds. By so doing, we avoid postulating the existence of awhole new class ofentities. Butacceptanceof the facts coveredearlierdoesnot require thatweassume the existence of discarnateminds, anymore thanouracceptanceofthefactthatMagellan’sshipcircumnavigatedthegloberequiresustoassumetheearthisround.Rather,thefactspresentedearlierprovideevidenceofdiscarnateminds,justasthesuccessofMagellan’svoyageprovidedadditionalcorroboratingevidence thattheearthisround. Anddoesthesuper-ESPtheoryreallyhaveanadvantageofsimplicity?Inourreviewofthevariouscategoriesofevidence,wehaveseenhow thishypothesis iscontinuallystretchedandextendedwithauxiliaryassumptions inorder tocovereachnew typeofcase.Toexplainaccurateperceptionoftheenvironmentduringnear-deathexperiences,aformofclairvoyantperceptionisinvoked;however,thishypothesizedformofclairvoyanceonlyoperateswhenneardeathandwhenbrainfunctioniseitherseverelyimpairedorentirelyabsent,andthenonlytoprovideaviewfromapositiondirectlyaboveone’sseeminglyunconsciousbody.Toexplainvisionsofthosenotknowntobedeceasedduringdeathbedvisions,itismaintainedthatthedyingoccasionallyhaveenhancedtelepathicperception,butonlyaboutrecentlydeceasedfriendsandrelatives;itisalsomaintainedthatthissingularperceptionisthenincorporatedintoapleasanthallucinationinvolving friends and relatives known to be deceased. To explain the knowledge of a previous life shown in reincarnation cases,telepathyisinvoked,but,inexplicably,ofnothingmorethanmemoriesofonedeceasedstranger;andthisknowledgeisthenrequiredtotake the form of personal memories belonging to the living subject. To explain collectively perceived apparitions, it is claimed thathallucinations are telepathically projected and shared,with due allowances for different physical perspectives on thehallucination.Toexplaintheevidencefrommediums,itisclaimedthathumanmediumscantelepathicallygatherappropriateinformationfromthemindsofstrangersatanytime,nomatterwhatthosestrangersmaybethinkingaboutatthetime;anditisclaimedthatmediumscanclairvoyantlyscanvolumesofbooks,includingbooksatunknownlocationsandonesoterictopicsofnopersonalinteresttothemediuminhernormalstate,inordertoinstantlyacquireinformationthatthedeceasedwouldhaveknown.Then,thehypothesisofextra-sensoryperceptionisstretchedtoincludepowersthatinvolvefarmorethanmereperception,butalsopowerstoartfullyanddeceptivelypresentthegatheredinformation and various comments from the perspective of the deceased and to serve purposes that appear to be only those of the

deceased.Attemptsaremadetostretchthehypothesisevenfurther,inordertograntthemediumpowerstousetelepathytoingeniouslyandconvincingly impersonate thepersonalityofdeceasedpersons themediumhasnevermet,aswellas to instantly(and temporarily)acquireskillsthatthedeceasedpersonpurportingtocommunicaterequiredyearsofpracticetoacquire.Finally,inadditiontoallthis,itisevenheldthattelepathycanbeusedtocoordinatecomplexsubconsciousconspiraciesofdeception. Itshouldbeclearthatthereisnothingsimpleaboutthesuper-ESPtheory.AsphilosopherCarlBeckerwrote,“Itsadhoccontortionsto fit the data deprive it of all simplicity and elegance.”1 By contrast, the hypothesis of survival provides one simple and elegantexplanationforallthedatawehavesurveyed,fromfiveverydifferentlinesofevidence. Proponentsofthesuper-ESPtheorysaythatwedonotknowthelimitsofESPorofthesubconsciousmind,andthatthenatural,all-too-humanfearofdeathissodeep-seatedthatthesubconsciousmaygotoanylengthstosuppressit,eventotheextentofusingextremepowersofESPtoconductremarkablyelaboraterusesinordertodeceiveourconsciousminds. However, all experimental and anecdotal evidence indicates that psi is a low-level ability that cannot even be used to beat thecasinos.“Skeptics”oftenask thenaïvequestion, that ifpsi is real thenwhydocasinosmakemoney?Theanswerofcourse is that theodds infavorof thecasinosaresooverwhelmingthateventhemost talentedsubjects incontrolledexperimentsdonotcomeclose todisplayingpowersthatcanovercometheseodds.*42Thisobjectioncannotbeusedtodefendtheexistenceofsuper-ESP. Ifthefunctionofsuper-ESPistheuseofitsvirtuallyunlimitedpowersbythesubconsciousmindtosurreptitiouslyprotectusfromthefearofdeathbyfabricatingelaborateevidencethatseemsineveryrespectexactlyasifthedeceasedarevisitingorcommunicating,thenwhydon’twehaveevidenceofoursubconsciousmindsemploying thesevastpowers toprotectus fromtheactual threatof imminentdeath?Thatwouldatleastprovideamoreplausibleevolutionaryreasonfortheexistenceofthesepowers. ThetheoryoftheunconsciousemploymentofvastpowersofESPwouldthereforeseemtopredictthatthesepowersshould,atleastoccasionally,beusedtosaveusnotfrommerelythefearofdeath,butfromactualimminentdeath.Plentyofpotentialopportunitiescanbefoundinhistory.Consideronlyone: theRussianfrontduringtheSecondWorldWar.Surely theremusthavebeenmanyinstancesinwhichSlavscouldhavesaved their lives from thedeathsquadsof theSSbyusingsuper-ESP to instantlyacquire theability tospeakexcellentGermanandthuspassthemselvesoffascapturedGermanstakenprisonersofwar.Answeringtestquestionssuchas“whichcityisthecapitalofBavaria?”wouldseemchild’splaycomparedtothevastpowersoftelepathyandclairvoyancetheproponentsofsuper-ESPattributetomediums.TheremustalsohavebeenmanyinstancesinwhichGermanscouldhavesavedthemselvesfromRussianworkcamps by using super-ESP to instantly acquire the ability to speak excellent Russian and thus convincingly pass themselves off ascapturedRussians. Butwe have not one single shred of evidence that unfortunate people on either sidewere able to save themselves fromdeath orlengthyandbrutal incarcerationbyusing thesevasthypotheticalpowers.And if theproponentsof super-ESPargue that theseabilitiesonlybecomemanifestinatrancestate,thenwemaywonderwhytrancemediumsinheavily-bombedLondonwerenotinvaluableguidesto German plans and intentions. Plenty of other examples can easily be found fromWWII in which people could have reduced notmerelytheabstractfearofdeathbutthethreatofactualimminentdeathbytheemploymentofthevast,virtuallyunlimitedtelepathicandclairvoyantpowersattributedtomediumsbytheproponentsofsuper-ESP.*43

Itshouldbeclearthatthetheoryofsuper-ESPismagicalthinking,anunbridledfantasywithoutashredofsupportingevidence.Worseyet, it isa fantasy that,wheneverchallenged,shamelesslycloaks itselfwithelaborateadhoc,untestable,auxiliaryhypotheseswhoseonlypurposeistorenderthenonsurvivaltheoryimmunefrombeingprovenfalsebytheoverwhelmingevidenceagainstit.

MOTIVEBEHINDTHESUPER-ESPHYPOTHESISOfcourse, theobviousmotivebehind the super-ESPhypothesis is theperceived implausibility of itsmain rival.The ideaof discarnatesurvival isheld tobesoantecedently improbable thatany alternativeexplanation in termsofESP is consideredpreferable,nomatterhowfar-fetchedorunsupported.Butwehaveseenthattheideaofsurvivalisnotincompatiblewithanyoftheknownfactsofphysiology.Thehypothesis that thebrainproduces themindand the rivalhypothesis that thebrainworksasa transmitter-receiver for themindarebothfullycompatiblewiththeordinaryfacts,andsothereisnothingabouttheordinaryfactsthatfavorseitherhypothesis.Assuch,thereisreallynoantecedentimprobabilityofsurvival—noranyantecedentprobability,either.Theissueisentirelyoneforthetestimonyofthefactstosettle.*44

Inmypreviousbook,ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience,wesawthatthetheorythatthebrainworksasareceiver-transmitterfor consciousness can account for the facts that refute the rival theory that the brain produces consciousness.By contrast, in order toremainworthyofseriousconsideration,theproductiontheoryrequireseitherwholesaleignoranceofreamsofevidence;ortheadditionofacontortedandelaboratetheoryofsuper-ESP,withitsvariousadhocauxiliaryhypothesestackedonwheneverrequired.Itisdifficulttounderstandhowanyonecouldargueforsimplicityasanadvantageoftheproduction-plus-super-ESPhypothesis. Andwhyissimplicityofvalueinascientificexplanation?InhisgroundbreakingworkTheLogicofScientificDiscovery,KarlPopperexaminedthenotionofsimplicityasappliedtoexplanations:

Our theory explainswhy simplicity is sohighly desirable. To understand this there is no need for us to assume a ‘principle ofeconomyofthought’oranythingofthekind.Simplestatements,ifknowledgeisourobject,aretobeprizedmorehighlythanlesssimpleonesbecause...theyare[more]testable.2

Popperconcludedthatformostoftheearlierwriters,simplicitywasaconcept“partlyaestheticandpartlypractical.”*45Williamof

Occam famously wrote, “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily”—or in other words, do not add unnecessary causal factors toexplanations.Ifinertiaandgravityaresufficienttoexplaintheorbitsoftheplanets,donotaddinvisibleangels.Andifyourtheoryoftheplanetaryorbits iscontradictedby thedata, thendonotadd theactionsof invisibleangels to“explain” thediscrepancybetweenyourtheoryandthedata.Theonlysenseinwhichsimplicityisofvalueinscientificexplanationisthesensethatwerefrainfromaddingadhocauxiliaryassumptions toour theories inorder to render themimmunefromdata thatprove themfalse,and this isprecisely thesense inwhichthetheoryofsuper-ESPviolatestheprincipleofparsimonyintheuseofhypotheses.The“invisibleangels”ofsuper-ESParealltheuntestableadhocauxiliaryassumptionsthatareaddedinordertoimmunizefromfalsificationthetheorythatESPofthelivingcanexplainaway the evidence for survival.Any scientistwho defended a pet theory that did not fit the data by dreaming up ad hoc excuses torenderhistheoryunfalsifiablewouldberightlycondemnedforpracticingpseudo-science. ButPoppersoughtamorerigorouscriterionofsimplicity,onethathecouldincorporatewithinhisremarkablephilosophyofscience.

Frommypointofview,asystemmustbedescribedascomplexinthehighestdegreeifoneholdsfasttoitasasystemestablishedforeverwhichoneisdeterminedtorescue,wheneveritisindanger,bytheintroductionofauxiliaryhypotheses.Forthedegreeoffalsifiabilityofasystemthusprotectedisequaltozero.Thusweareledback,byourconceptofsimplicity,tothemethodologicalprinciplewhichrestrainsusfromindulgenceinadhochypothesesorauxiliaryhypotheses:totheprincipleofparsimonyintheuseofhypotheses.3

ForPopper,simplicityintheoriesisdesirablesimplybecausesimplertheoriesareeasiertotest;thatis,simplertheoriestendtobemore

readily falsifiable.However,due its elasticnature, the super-ESP theory iscompletelyunfalsifiable!Toaccount foreachnew typeofcaseorcategoryofevidence,auxiliaryhypotheses thatcannotbe tested independently areadded inorder tocontinuallypropup thenonsurvival position. The theory of super-ESP is thus, in Popper’swords, complex in the highest degree, and so constitutes a grossviolationof theprincipleofparsimony in theuseofhypotheses. It shouldbe clear that the additionof adhoc auxiliaryhypotheses asrequiredisanotherexampleofwhatPopperreferredtoasanimmunizingtactic—atacticusedtoimmunizeatheoryfromfalsification. By rendering itself unfalsifiablewith the addition of supplementary hypotheses that cannot be tested independently, the super-ESPhypothesismaybealogicalpossibility,butit isclearlynotascientifictheory.Rather, it isametaphysicalexcuse, inventedforthesolepurposeofimmunizingtheproductiontheoryfromfalsification.Assuch,itissimilartothe“laststand”positionofthosecreationistswhomaintainthatGodinventedtheevidenceforbiologicalevolutionfoundinthegeologicalrecordinordertotestourfaithinbiblicalstories.Thisisalogicalpossibility,ofcourse,butalsoonethatiscompletelyuntestable(inadditiontobeingacrassdeceptionunworthyofanyCreator). Likewise, the super-ESP theory is the last stand position of those who are opposed to the notion of survival, whether forreligious, ideological, or personal reasons. This elastic theory is the only excuse they have left for not abandoning their position ofnonsurvival.Itshouldbeclearthatinventingunfalsifiableadhocassumptionstoexplainawayeverynewcategoryoffalsifyingevidenceisneithersciencenorskepticism,butmerelyideologicaldogmatismmasqueradingasskepticism. Itmayhaveoccurredtosomereadersthatthestatement“Humanmindssurvivebodilydeath”isnotitselffalsifiable.Afterall,evenifwehadabsolutelynoevidenceforsurvival,itcouldverywellbethatconsciousnesssurvivesthedeathofthebody.Wecouldsaywehavenoevidence;butwecouldnotruleoutthepossibilityonlogicalorempiricalgrounds. Buttheoppositestatement,“Humanmindsdonotsurvivebodilydeath”mostcertainlyiscapableofbeingprovenfalsebyevidence.And it is important to remember that the falsificationof a statement implies the truthof its negation, even if its negation is not directlyfalsifiable.Theevidencepresentedhereconstitutesascientificrefutationoftheproductiontheory,andofitsantisurvivalistimplications. Thefactthatwedohavesubstantialevidencemeansthattheproductionandtransmissionhypothesesaremorethanmeremetaphysicaltheories; in otherwords,we can choose between themonpurely empirical grounds.*46And if the proponents of survival respect thescientificmethod, then theyshouldbewilling todropcertain linesofevidence if itcanbeshown—incasesapart fromthoseprovidingevidenceforsurvival—thatESPcanbeusedinthemannerrequiredbythesuper-ESPhypothesis.Specifically,ifitcouldbeshownthatgiftedsubjectscouldsuccessfullyimpersonatealivingperson,whomtheyhadneverknowinglymet,wellenoughtoconvincedozensoftheirfriendsthatitwasreallythatperson,thentherecordoftheGPcommunicationswouldlosemuchoftheirpersuasiveforce.Similarly,ifitcouldbeshownthatESPcouldbeusedtoinstantlyacquireskillsnormallyrequiringyearsofpractice,thenthelanguageandchesscasescouldbesetaside.But,asphilosopherRobertAlmederasks:

What evidence—experimental or otherwise—would the proponents of the ESP hypothesis (whether normal or super) accept asgoodgroundsforsettingasidetheESPhypothesis?Failuretoanswerthisquestionputstheantisurvivalist inthepositionofbeingdogmatic.4

As mentioned in my first book, Science and Psychic Phenomena, the criterion of testability is not a criterion of meaning, of

importance,oroftruth.Anuntestablebeliefmaybetrueorfalse;butuntilitisstatedinatestableform,wehavenowayoflearningifitis,infact,false.Scientificprogressisonlypossibleifourscientifictheoriesaretestable.Metaphysicaltheoriesmaybeusefulasguidestoresearch, andmay in time turn out to be testable; this eventually happenedwithDemocritus’s theory of atoms.Butwhen the reverseoccurs—when a testable theory is rendered immune to evidencewith the addition of untestable ad hoc assumptions—then a scientifictheoryisturnedintoideologicaldogma,thatis,intoabeliefthatisheldregardlessoftheevidence.

SURVIVAL:CONCLUDINGREMARKSPhilosopherCurtDucasseuses thefollowinganalogy toevaluate thestrengthof theevidencefrommediums.Supposewe learn thatafriend of ours was on a plane that was known to have crashed with no reported survivors. Further suppose that sometime later we

apparentlyreceiveaphonecallfromourfriend,tellingusthathesurvivedthecrash,andrequestingthatasumofmoneybesent.Or—inacloseranalogywithmostmediumisticcommunications—supposethatourfriendcannotspeakdirectlywithusforsomereason,butmustspeakthroughathirdparty,whooccasionallyappearsincoherent.Howwouldwedecidewhetherornottosendmoney? Ourveryfirstconsiderationwouldbewhetherornotitwaspossiblethatourfriendsurvivedthecrash.If,forinstance,hisdeadbodyhadbeenfoundandidentifiedbeyondquestion,thenthepersonrequestingthemoneycouldnotpossiblybeourfriendnotyetdeceased.Butifwehavenosolidevidencethatourfriendwaskilledinthecrash,thenourdegreeofconfidencethatthemessageisreallyfromourlivingfriendmustbebasedentirelyonanevaluationoftheevidenceconveyedtousoverthephone. Inourevaluationoftheevidence,wemustaskourselvesthefollowingquestions:istheevidenceofourfriend’sidentityabundant,orisitscanty?Doesitincludeagreatdealofdetail,ornot?Istheregreatdiversityinthekindsofevidencethemessagessupply?Doesitconsistonlyofcorrectmemoriesofpersonalmatters?Ordoesitalsoincludeevidenceofpurposetypicalofourfriend?Doesitincludeevidenceofidiosyncraticpersonalcharacteristics,notonlyofpersonality,butalsooftheassociationsofideasthatwerepeculiartoourfriend? Ducassearguesthatthesameconsiderationsofevidencethatwewouldapplyintheabovecaseshouldbeappliedtotheevidenceofpersonalidentityreceivedviahumanmediums.Specifically,ourevaluationshouldbebasedonthequantity,quality,anddiversityoftheevidencethatwegetoverthemediumistic“telephone.” Andtheseconsiderationscanalsobeapplied to theother linesofevidencewereviewed.Moregenerally, theevidencefromnear-deathexperiences,deathbedvisions,reincarnationcases,andapparitionsofthedeadcontributetothequantityofevidence;manyoftheindividualcasesareofhighquality;andthislistindicatesthediversityofthefactualevidencesupportingtheideaofsurvival. Whatconclusion,Ducassethenasked,doallthefactsdictate?

Theconclusiontheydictateis,Ibelieve,thesameasthatasfinallyreachedbyMrsSidgwickandbyLordBalfour—aconclusionwhichalsowasreachedintimebySirOliverLodge,byProf.Hyslop,byDr.Hodgson,andbyanumberofotherpersonswholike themwere thoroughlyfamiliarwith theevidenceonrecord;whoweregiftedwithkeenlycriticalminds;whohadoriginallybeenskepticaloftherealityorevenpossibilityofsurvival;andwhowerealsofullyacquaintedwiththeevidencefortherealityoftelepathy and of clairvoyance, and with the claims that had been made for the telepathy-clairvoyance interpretation of theevidence,asagainstthesurvivalinterpretationofit.

Theirconclusionwasessentiallythatthebalanceoftheevidencesofarobtainedisonthesideoftherealityofsurvivaland,inthebestcases,ofsurvivalnotmerelyofmemoriesofthelifeonearth,butofsurvivalalsoofthemostsignificantcapacitiesofthehumanmind,andofthecontinuingexerciseofthese.5

Theevidence for survivalwasstrongerwhenDucassewrote thosewords than itwaswhenMrs.Sidgwickwroteheressay for thejubileeanniversaryof theSPR.AsIwrite thesewords, theevidence isevenstronger than itwaswhenDucassewrote.And like thosebeforeme,Itoohavecometotheconclusionthatanimpartialexaminationofalltheevidence,withoutreligiousormaterialisticprejudice,fullysupportstherealityofsurvivalandcontinuingexerciseofthemostsignificantcapacitiesofthehumanmind.

EIGHTEEN

IsSurvivalaFact?

Thewholeoftheavailableevidenceisexplicableonlyonthehypothesisofthesurvivalofthehumansoulinasoulbody.Thereis no longer a deadlock or a stalemate on the question of survival. On the contrary, survival is as well established asEvolution.

ROBERTCROOKAL,GEOLOGIST,THESUPREMEADVENTURE

Iproposethreecategoriesofconvincingevidence:

1. proofbeyondalldoubt2. proofbeyondallreasonabledoubt3. preponderanceoftheevidence

Manywriters,suchasDucasse,havearguedthattheevidenceforsurvivalbelongstothethirdcategory.Iargueherethatitbelongs

tothesecond. Thefirstcategory—proofbeyondalldoubt—isgenerallyagreedtoapplyonlyinthefieldsofpurelogicandmathematics.Inthesefields,wearereasoningfrompremisesacceptedmerelyasaxioms;orwearesimplyexpressingthesamerelationshipinadifferentform.Aslongasweexpressourstatementsconsistently—thatis,aslongasthestepsinourreasoningdonotcontradictourpremises—thenitisgenerallyagreedthatinpurelogicandmathematicsourconclusionscanbeprovedbeyondalldoubt.Butthisisonlythecasebecausethese fieldsarenotempirical: that is, there isno requirement that thepremisesneed tobebasedonobservationorexperiment. Indeed,thereisnorequirementthatthepremisesandconclusionsneedtohaveanythingatalltodowithourworldofexperience. Themathematician andphilosopherRenéDescarteswasnot satisfiedwithonly abstractproofs, andwonderedwhichofhisbeliefsabouttheworldcouldbecertain,immunetoallpossibledoubt.Whatabouttheordinaryfactsofhislife?No,becauseheimaginedthepossibility that an all-powerful,malevolentdeityhadcreatedhis senseperceptions aspure illusion, and therefore the existenceof theearth, the sky, other people and his body were not immune to all possible doubt (similar to the computer-generated dream worldimagined by thewriters ofTheMatrix). Descartes also imagined the possibility that his pastwas not real, as this demon could havecreatedhimmomentsago,completewithmemories. However,thismalevolentdeitycouldneverconvincehimofthepossibilitythathedoesnotexist,becauseifsomeoneiswonderingwhether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist; henceDescartes’s famous dictum: I think, therefore I exist.Descartesconcludedthattheonlybeliefheknowstobetruewithabsolutecertaintyisthefactthatheexistsatthismoment,atleastasabeingofpurethought. However,itseemsextremelylimitingtoconsiderthisbelieftobeouronlyitemofknowledge.So,beforewecananswerthequestionofwhethersurvivalshouldbeconsideredasafact,weneedtoconsiderthemoregeneralquestionofwhatexactlyisknowledge,andwhatisafact.

THEORYOFKNOWLEDGEIwoulddefineknowledgeasbeliefthatmeetsthefollowingcriteria.

Itisjustifiedbythecriticalevaluationofevidence,andsowethereforehavegoodreasontothinkitistrue;andfurthermore,wehavenogoodreasontothinkitmaynotbetrue.

Considermy belief that I have only one brother. I believe this to be true because Iwas raised alongside him and never sawmy

parentsbringhomeandraiseanotherboy.Ithereforehavegoodreasontoconsiderthisbelieftrue.Furthermore,Ihaveneverheardanyrumors aboutmymothergivingaboyup for adoptionbefore Iwasborn;norhas anyone,bearinga family resemblanceornot, everapproachedmeclaimingtobemylong-lostbrother.Ithereforehavenogoodreason—oranyreasonatallforthatmatter—tosuspectthatmybeliefmaynotbetrue. CouldIpossiblybemistakeninmybelief?Ofcourse!ButmypointisthatIhavegoodreasonstothinkmybeliefiscorrect,andnogoodreasonwhatsoevertothinkitmaybefalse.IthereforeconsidermybeliefthatIhaveonlyonebrothertobeanitemofknowledge. Somephilosophersarguethatforabelieftobeconsideredknowledgeitmustbetrue.Buthowdoyouknowwithabsolutecertaintythatyourempiricalbeliefsaretrue?Thehistoryofsciencehasshownthatwecanbemistakeninevenourmostfirmlyheldbeliefs,andthatwecanneverknowinwhatwaysourbeliefsabouttheworldmayeventuallyhavetoberevised.Ifweinsistthatforabelieftobeanitem of knowledge it must be held to be truewith absolute certainty, then, following Descartes, we have to restrict what we call“knowledge” to only our existence as a thinking being at this very moment. Being more generous, we could arguably expand“knowledge”toalsoencompassthemostbasicfactsofourlives,whichwebelievetobetruewithasubjectivesenseofnear-certainty. Ithereforeconsiderknowledgeasacategoryofbelief:knowledgereferstothosebeliefsthatwehavegoodreasontothinkaretrue,andnogoodreasontothinkmaybefalse.Inotherwords,knowledgereferstothosebeliefsthat—ifourcorroboratingevidenceissolidandourreasoningisvalid—aretruebeyondanyreasonabledoubt.*47

Thisdefinitionofknowledgeallowsfor the fallibilityofhumanbelief: ifnew,unexpected informationcomes to light, thenwemayreclassifyourbeliefs,fromknowledgetoopinion,ortoerror. Iequateanitemofknowledgewithwhatweconsidertobeafact.Forinstance,IconsideritafactthatIhaveonlyonebrother.Let’sconsidersomebeliefsthatmanypeopleconsidertobefacts,butwhichothersconsidertobemerelycontroversialopinions. In July 2009,NewYorkTimes columnist JohnSchwartzwrote, “Forty years aftermen first touched the lifeless dirt of theMoon,pollingconsistentlysuggeststhatsome6percentofAmericansbelievethelandingswerefakedandcouldnothavehappened.Theseriesoflandings,oneofthegreatestgamblesofthehumanrace,wasanelaboratehoaxdevelopedtoraisenationalpride.”1

Mostpeoplebelievethatthemoonlandingsofthelate1960sandearly1970sactuallyhappened,foranumberofgoodreasons:thefilmevidence,thetestimonyofastronautsandNASAofficials,themoonrocksbroughtback,thefactthatscientistsofothernationsalsotrackedthemissions,andsoforth.Ontheotherhand,thereisnotashredofcredibleevidencetosupporttheviewthattheywerefakedinafilmstudio,andasSchwartzwrote,“Thesheerunlikelihoodofbeingabletopulloffsuchanimmenseplotandkeepitsecretforfourdecadesstaggerstheimagination.”2

Ofcourse it is logically possible that themoon landingswere faked; that the supportingevidencewas fabricated; thathundredsofhighlyrespectedscientists,engineers,andotherwitnesseswerebribedorthreatened,andsoon.Butwedonothaveashredofcredibleevidencethatanyofthesethingshappened,sowehavenogoodreasontodoubtthatthemoonlandingsareanythingbutactualfacts. The philosopher Neal Grossman has written extensively on this issue, specifically with regard to the evidence for survival. In anarticlefortheJournalofNear-DeathStudies,Grossmanfirstdescribestheideologicalnatureofthebeliefinmaterialism.

Icoinedtheterm“fundamaterialist”tocharacterizeapersonwhoseattitudetowardsmaterialismisthesameasthefundamentalist’sattitude towards his or her religion. In each case, the attitude is one of unwavering certainty towards the chosen ideology. Forfundamaterialists,materialism does not appear to be an empirical hypothesis about the realworld; it appears to be a given, anarticleoffaith,thecentraltenetofhiswebofbelief,aroundwhicheverythingelsemustconform.3

Hethendiscussesvariousformsoffallaciousreasoningthatmaterialistdebunkersfrequentlyemployintheirattemptstocastdoubton

evidenceforsurvival,andelaboratesonthefallacywehavetouchedon.

[This]kindoflogicalfallacy,whichIwillgointoingreaterlength,involvesanequivocationbetweentwoverydifferentmeaningsof the word “possible.” I recently asked students in my graduate seminar to say what we mean when we call a theory orhypothesispossible.Aphilosophygraduatestudentansweredthattosaythatahypothesisispossiblemeansthatitisconsistent,thatit can be formulated without self-contradiction. This is the correct conception of logical possibility: a hypothesis is said to belogicallypossibleifitisnotself-contradictory.Butapsychologygraduatestudentofferedadifferentconceptionofpossibility.Shesuggested that a hypothesis is possible only if there is some empirical reason to believe that it might be true. Let us call thisconceptionofpossibilityempiricalpossibility.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwomeaningsoftheword“possible”isenormous,andIwillarguethatanequivocationbetweenthetwomeaningsallowsdebunkerstobelievetheyactuallyhavearationalperspective;it isalsoamainreasonthat theso-called“superpsi”hypothesiswasever takenseriously.Butfirst Iwillgivesomeexamples toillustratethetwoverydifferentmeaningsoftheword“possible.”

Considerthefollowinghypothesis:anadvancedcivilizationexistsonMarsandislivingbeneaththesurfaceofthatplanet.Isthishypothesispossible?Thehypothesis isnotself-contradictory,so it is logicallypossible.But there isabsolutelynoevidence thatsuggeststhatthehypothesismightbetrue.Soitisnotpossibleinthesensethatthereareanyreasonstobelieveitmightpossiblybetrue.4

Grossmanisconcernedwithdrawingadistinctionbetweenahypothesisthatismerelylogicallypossible,andahypothesisthatisnotonlyalogicalpossibilitybutalsoactuallyhasthesupportofevidence.Hecontinues:

Scienceisconcernedwithrealpossibilitiesonly,notwithmerelogicalpossibilities,thatis,notwithhypotheseswhosesolevirtueisthat theycanbestatedwithoutself-contradiction.Philosophers,on theotherhand,doconsiderwhat Ihavecalledmere logicalpossibilities, and such consideration is an indispensable and important aspect of a philosopher’s training. One such logicalpossibility,whichwouldbefamiliartoanyonewhohastakenanundergraduatephilosophycourse,isthe“evilgenius”argumentofDescartes. Is itpossible,askedDescartes, thatamischievousdeity iscausingus tohave the senseperceptions thatwedohave,while at the same time there isno externalworld, and soourbelief in an externalworld is false?Or equivalently, as studentstodayposetheproblem,isitpossiblethatwearelivinginthe“Matrix”?Thisisofcoursealogicalpossibility,butitisnotarealpossibilityunlessempiricalreasonsareforthcoming.5

Grossman takes pains to explain that it is the confusion between logical possibility and real possibility that allows the claims of

debunkers—whetherforelaboratefraudorforsuper-ESP—tobetakenseriously.Itisworthwhileheretoquotefromhisarticleatsomelength.AsGrossmanpointsout:

Themere fact [that] a sentence isnot self-contradictory isnot a reason tobelieve itmight actuallybe true.This ishowwegettricked into taking seriously the debunkers’ various claims that “it could be this,” or “it could be that.” This is to treat amerelogicalpossibilityasifitwerearealpossibility.It isasifwetreatedDescartes’“evilgenius”argumentasarealpossibility,andfeltwecouldnotassert therealityofanexternalworlduntilwehad“proved”thatwewerenotbeingsystematicallydeceived.Philosophers love to worry over arguments like this, but they have nothing to do with science, which considers real, that is,empiricalpossibilitiesonly.NoonewouldeverthinkofapplyingforgrantmoneytoinvestigatewhetherornotwearelivingintheMatrix.

Iwish tomention briefly twohistorical examples, one famous and the other not, that involve this confusion between logicalpossibility and real possibility.As iswell known,Creationists,when confrontedwith the data such as fossils that show that theEarthismucholderthanaliteralreadingoftheBiblewouldindicate,claimthatwhenGodcreatedtheworld5700yearsago,hecreateditwiththefossilsaswefindthem.Whatarewegoingtobelieve,askstheCreationist:thetestimonyofoursensesorholyscripture?They then challenge theEvolutionists to “prove” thatGoddidnot thus create theworld. Is this a challenge that anyscientist,oranyrationalperson,ought toaccept?Thehypothesis“Godcreatedtheworld5700yearsagowiththefossilsaswefind them” is of course logically possible. But no one reading this seriously believes that evolutionary theory is on less solidground simply because this logical possibility cannot be refuted. And likewise, no one reading this seriously believes that theindependenceofconsciousnessfromthebrainisonlesssolidempiricalgroundsimplybecausethelogicalpossibilityoffraudcanneverberefuted.Neither theCreationists’hypothesisnorthedebunkers’varioushypothesesrepresentrealempiricalpossibilities;theywereproposedforthesolepurposeofignoringdatathatcontradictedtheiraprioriworldview.Here is another example that is just as silly, but because its silliness was expressed in sophisticated philosophical jargon, it

actuallygotpublishedintherespectablejournalPhilosophia.PhilosopherRobertAlmeder(2001),afterexaminingseveralofthestrongerreincarnation-typecasescollectedbyIanStevenson,whichincludeverifiedmemories,skillsandbehaviorsappropriatetothepurportedpast-lifepersonality,birthmarks, andsoon,concluded that it is irrationalnot tobelieve in reincarnation,given thedata.ButphilosopherStevenHales(2001)arguedthatitcouldbethecasethatthesechildrenwithverifiedpast-lifememorieswerereallyabductedbyaliens.Thesealiens, for theirownamusement,plantedfalsememories into thebrainsof thechildren,so thattheywould come to believe they had been somebody else. Presumably, themothers of these childrenwould also have beenabductedwhilepregnant,sothatthebirthmarkscouldbeplantedonthefetus.This, claimed Hale, would explain everything that needed to be explained, and had the virtue of being consistent with

materialism.Thealiens,afterall,arephysicalbeings,sothatthereisnoneedtoposittheexistenceofdisembodiedconsciousness,whichveryideawasrepugnanttoHales,toaccountforcasesofthereincarnationtype.Theburdenofproofwascleverlyshiftedto thebelievers in reincarnation toprove that thechildrenhadnotbeenabductedbyaliensbefore theycanrationallyassert thetruthofthereincarnationhypothesis.But this is just sophisticated nonsense that should not be, and should never have been, taken seriously. The alien abduction

hypothesisisofcourselogicallypossible,butcallingit“logicallypossible”meansmerelythatthesentence“aliensabductedthechildren and plantedmemories in their brains” is not self-contradictory. But that is not a reason for serious scientists trying tounderstandreal-lifephenomenatotakeitseriously.Scientistsareobligatedtoinvestigaterealpossibilities,notimaginaryones.Alogicalpossibilityisimaginaryonly;thatis,anythingthatahumanbeingcanconsistentlyimagineisalogicalpossibility.Thealienabductionhypothesiswouldmovefromtherealmofthepurelyimaginarytotherealmoftherealonlyifthereweresomeevidenceto suggest itmight be true.Whatmight count as evidence? If the childrenwere found to have implants in their skulls, or if thechildrenwereabletorememberbeingabducted,thentheabductionhypothesiswouldrepresentarealpossibility.Butnosuchdataareforthcoming.Notice,incidentally,thatneitherHalesnoranyotherfundamaterialisttriestodeduceanyobservationalconsequencesfromtheir

imaginary hypotheses, as I have just done.They are content tomerely imagine that everything can be explained away in termsconsistentwiththeirmaterialistideology;theyhaveabsolutelynointerestininvestigatingwhetherwhattheyareimaginingistrue.Thatwouldtakethemoutoftheirarmchairimaginingsandintotherealworld;andreal-worlddatahaverefutedmaterialismoverandoveragain.Hales’sconcern, like thatof thereligiousfundamentalists, is ideological,notempirical.Hewantsrealscientists,whoaretryingtoaccountforrealdata,totakeasarealpossibilitywhathehimselftakesasonlyalogicalpossibility,orinotherwords,merelyimagines.Thedebunkerwantsustorefutemerelogicalpossibilitiesbeforewecanlegitimatelymaketheinferencefromthedatatosurvival.6

Andasfortheclaimthatthesurvivalhypothesisissomehowextraordinary,Grossmanreplies:

“Thereisabsolutelynothingextraordinaryaboutthehypothesisofanafterlife.Theoverwhelmingmajorityofpeopleintheworldbelieve it, andhavealwaysbelieved it.”On the contrary, it is thematerialists’worldview that is truly extraordinary, especiallywhen one considers the ridiculous hypotheses that that worldview advances in order to save itself, such as “superpsi,” alienabductionofchildrenwhoappeartorememberpastlives,andnonfunctioningbrainsstillsomehowproducingconsciousexperience.

Survival researchers are under no obligation to refute every, or even any, logically possible alternative hypothesis. Such“hypotheses” are nothing more than the imaginings of the fundamaterialists; the burden is on them to provide non-ideologicalempirical support for their hypotheses before scientists should take them seriously. In the absence of empirical support, suchhypothesesmerelyreflectthefantasylifeofthedebunkers,andscienceisnotobligedtotakeunsupportedimaginingsandfantasiesseriously.7

So,doesthebeliefinsurvivalcountasafact,ordoesitremainmerelyareasonableconclusionbasedongoodevidence? Wehaveseenthatthebeliefinsurvivalisjustifiedbythelogicalevaluationofevidence.InthisbookandinScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience,wehaveseenthattheevidenceinitsfavorisvastandvaried;itcomesfromnear-deathexperiences,deathbedvisions,childrenwhorememberpreviouslives,apparitions,andcommunicationsthroughmediums.Theselinesofevidence,allverydifferentfromeachother,allpointinthesamedirection. Muchof this evidence is alsoverywell-corroborated; sincemuchof it standsup to themost severecritical scrutiny,we thereforehavegood reason tobelieve survival of consciousnesspast thepoint ofbiological deathmaybe true.Theonlyquestion remaining iswhetherwehaveanygoodreasontobelieveitmaynotbetrue. Imaintainthatwehavenosuchreasons.Considerhereonlyoneoftheseverallinesofsurvivalevidence,thatofcommunicationfromthedeadviamediums.Formaterialistsandotherdoubtersofsurvival,thisdataissimplyinexplicable,exceptfor:

elaborateconspiraciesoffraud,orsuper-ESP

Inordertoconvictapersonofacriminaloffense,thelawdoesnotrequirethattheprosecutorprovethecasebeyondallconceivable

doubt,butonlybeyondallreasonabledoubt.Butwhataboutfraudandsuper-ESP?Dotheselogicalpossibilitiescastreasonabledoubtontheideaofsurvival? Inmany of the best cases described earlier, explanations involving fraudwould have to involve elaborate conspiracies by highlyrespectedpeople,including,inmanycases,theresearchersthemselves,someofwhomstartedtheirinvestigationsasprofessedskeptics.Thispurelylogicalpossibilitywillbeconsideredreasonablebyonlythemostparanoidanddogmaticofmaterialists.Asforsuper-ESP,we have seen that the degree of extrasensory perception required to explain the best evidence far exceeds anything found in theanecdotal or experimental records.Wehave also seen thatmuchmore thanmere telepathyor clairvoyance is required, stretching thedefinition of ESP until it bears almost no resemblance at all to the ordinarymeanings of thewords telepathy and clairvoyance.*48Somethingdifferentfromordinaryextrasensoryperceptioninbothdegreeandtypeisrequired. The super-ESP hypothesis asks us to accept the likely existence of supernormal human powers far exceeding in degree anythingobservedinothersituations—powersthatincludenotmerelyperception,butalsobrillianttheatricalskillsofimpersonation;powersthatallowpeople to temporarilyandinstantlyacquireskills theyhaveneverdeveloped; toservepurposes that, insomecases,seemtobeonly thoseofadeceasedperson; thatenablemultiplepeople tosubconsciouslyandtelepathicallycollude together inelaborateplots;and allwith the purpose of carrying out an elaborate deception of everyone involved, including the self-deception of thosewho it isclaimedareexercisingthesevastpowers. Theutterlackofevidenceforanyofthesepowers,apartfromthesurvivalcasesinquestion,makessuper-ESPnothingmorethananunsupportedlogicalpossibilityatbest,andmagicalthinkingatworst.Theformerisalsotrueofexplanationsinvolvingfraud,sinceinthebest cases, there isnot a shredofevidence that elaborate fraudwascommittedby thehighly respectedpeople involved. It isnothingmore thanamere logicalpossibility thatcanneverbe refutedwith100percentcertainty.Andamere logicalpossibility isnot agoodreasontodoubttherealityofsurvival,anymorethanthemerelogicalpossibilitythattheU.S.governmentfakedthemoonlandingsinafilmstudioisagoodreasontodoubtthefactthatmenhavewalkedonthemoon.Similarly,themerelogicalpossibilitythatGodcreatedallthegeologicalandbiologicalevidenceforevolutionmerelytotestourfaithinbiblicalstoriesisnotagoodreasontodoubtthefactofevolution.Asothersbeforemehaveconcluded,survivalofhumanconsciousnesspastthepointofbiologicaldeathisafact.

NINETEEN

WhattheDeadSay

Mostofthemessagesfromthedeadthatwehavereviewedsofarhaveeitherbeenbriefsnippetsofconversationorenigmaticpiecesofliterarypuzzles.Butfarmoredetailedandinformativemessageshavebeenreceivedthroughthemostpowerfulmediums.Manypeoplehavefoundthesemessagestobeofgreatinterest,andsowewillnowconsiderthecontentofsomeofthesemessages. Dr.KarlNovotnydiedinViennainApril1965.Twodayspriortohisdeath,hisfriendandformerpatient,GreteSchroder,hadadreaminwhichafigure toldher thatNovotnywasdying.AlthoughFrauSchroderhadnopreviouscontactwithmediums,shewaspersuadedafterNovotny’sdeathtovisitone;andonherveryfirstvisit,Dr.Novotnyannouncedhispresence.Hedescribedhisdeathasfollows:

ItwasalovelyeveninginSpringandIwasspendingEasteratmycountryhome.Ihadnotbeenreallywellforsometime,butwasnotconfined tobed.So I agreed togo forawalkwith some friends.Aswestartedout, I feltvery tiredand thoughtperhaps Ioughtnottoaccompanythem.However,Iforcedmyselftogo.ThenIfeltcompletelyfreeandwell.Iwentaheadanddrewdeepbreathsofthefresheveningair,andwashappierthanIhadbeenforalongtime.Howwasit,Iwondered,thatIsuddenlyhadnomoredifficulties,andwasneithertirednoroutofbreath?

Iturnedbacktomycompanionsandfoundmyselflookingdownatmyownbodyontheground.Myfriendswereindespair,calling foradoctorand trying togetacar to takemehome.But Iwaswelland feltnopains! Icouldn’tunderstandwhathadhappened.Ibentdownandfelttheheartofthebodylyingontheground.Yes—ithadceasedtobeat—Iwasdead.ButIwasstillalive! I spoke tomyfriends,but theyneithersawmenoransweredme. Iwasmostannoyedand left them.However, Ikeptonreturning.TosaytheleastitwasupsettingtoseemyfriendsintearsandyetpayingnoattentiontowhatIwassaying.Itwasveryupsettingtoo,tolookdownatmydeadbodylyinginfrontofme,whileIfeltinperfecthealth.Andtherewasmydog,whokeptwhiningpitifully,unabletodecidetowhichofmeheshouldgo,forhesawmeintwoplaces

atonce,standingupandlyingdownontheground.Whenalltheformalitieswereconcludedandmybodyhadbeenputinacoffin,IrealizedthatImustbedead.ButIwouldn’t

acknowledgethefact;forlikemyteacher,AlfredAdler,Ididnotbelieveinanafter-life.Ivisitedmyuniversitycolleagues:buttheyneithersawmenorreturnedmygreeting.Ifeltmostinsulted.WhatshouldIdo?IwentupthehillwhereGretelives.Shewassittingaloneandappearedveryunhappy.Butshedidnotseemtohearmeeither.Itwasnouse, Ihad to recognize the truth.Whenfinally Ididso, I sawmydearmothercoming tomeetmewithopenarms,

tellingmethatIhadpassedintothenextworld—notinwordsofcourse,sincetheseonlybelongtotheearth.Evenso,Icouldn’tcreditherstatementandthoughtImustbedreaming.Thisbeliefcontinuedforalongtime.Ifoughtagainstthetruthandwasmostunhappy.1

A similar message was communicated through the trancemediumGeorgeWoods. Once in a trance,Woods would apparently bepossessedby thecommunicator,whowould thenspeakdirectly to thesittersusing themedium’svocalcords.Here isa tape-recordedmessagefromamanwhoidentifiedhimselfasGeorgeHopkins,afarmer.

Ijusthadastroke,orseizure,orheartattack.Orsomethingofthatsort.AsamatteroffactIwasharvesting.Ifeltabitpeculiar,thoughtitwasthesunandwentdowninthe‘edge.’Ifeltabitdrowsy,abitpeculiar,andmusthavedozedoff.Butdear,ohdear,Ihadsuchashock.

Iwokeup,asIthought.Thesunhadgonedown.Andtherewasme,orwhatappearedtobeme.Icouldn’tmakeitoutatall,Iwasthatpuzzled.Itriedtoshakemyselftowakemyselfup.Ithought,wellthisisfunny.Imustbedreaming.Icouldn’tmakeheadnortailofit.ItneverstruckmethatIwasdead.AnywayIfoundmyselfwalkingalongtheroadtothedoctor’s.Ithoughtwell,perhapshecanhelpme.Iknockedonthedoor

butnooneanswered.Ithoughtwell,Ishouldn’thavethoughthewouldhavebeenoutbecausepeopleweregoinginthesurgerydoor.Isawoneortwoofmyoldcronies.Theyallsortofseemedtowalkthroughme.Nooneseemedtomakeanycommentabout

me.Ithoughtthisahow-de-do.Istoodthereforabittryingtoworkitout.ThenIsawsomeonehurryingdowntheroadlikemadtothedoctor’s.Herushedin,

pushedpastmeandeverybody, andnextmoment I heard them talking aboutme. I thoughtwhat thehell’swrong? I’mhere! IheardthemsayIwasdead!

Severaldayslater,heattendedhisownfuneral.

Theywerecarryingmybodydowntheoldchurchyardinthebox,andtheyputmetherewiththeoldlady.ItsuddenlydawnedonmeaboutPoll,mywife.Ithought,“That’sfunny.Ifit’sashowIamdead,Ishouldbewithher.Whereisshe?”

Iwasstandingtherewatchingthemputthisbodyofmineinthegrave.AftertheceremonyIwaswalkingbehindthemdownthepath.There,rightinfrontofmecominguptowardsme,wasmywife!ButnotmywifeasIhadknownher, in the last fewyearsofher life.ButasI firstknewherwhenshewasayounggirl.She

looked beautiful, really beautiful. And with her I could see one of my brothers who died when he was about seventeen oreighteen.Anicelookingboywhowasfair-haired.Theywerelaughingandjokingandcominguptome.IthoughtwellhereIamandtheretheyare,soI’mallright.They’resuretoknowwhattodonow.Mywife andbrothermade a proper fuss ofme, sayinghow sorry theywere that theywere late.They said, “Weknewyou

hadn’t been toowell, butwe had no idea youwere coming as sudden as youwere.We got themessage butwe’re sorrywecouldn’tgetherequicker.”I thought that’s odd.How the hell do they get about? I knew I’d got about, but as far as Iwas concerned I seemed to be

walkingabout,sameasIdidbefore,exceptthateverythingwasmuchlighter.Ididn’tseemtohaveanyheavinessofthebody,andnomoreachesandpainslikeIusedtohave.Theystartedtotrytoexplainthings,buttheywouldn’tsaytoomuch.TheysaidI’dgottogetsortofadjustedandsettled.2

Thefollowingaccountwasdictated throughGeorgeWoodsbysomeonewhoidentifiedhimselfasRupertBrooke,butprovidednodetailsofwhenandhowhedied.Nevertheless,thecommunicatorisclearlyofananalyticalturnofmind.

IcameoverintheFirstWorldWar.Itwasallverysudden.ItseemedasifIwasinabodywhichnolongerseemed,atfirst,tobethesame,andyetinappearanceitwasthesame.Ijustcouldn’tunderstandit.Ijustdidn’trealizethatIhaddied.

Everythingseemedinasensequitenatural,andyet thebodyIwasusingseemedquiteforeign tome. Ididn’t feel ithadanyweight.Therewasaterriblelightnessaboutmyself.IpinchedmyselfandwasstartledtofindthatIdidnotfeelanything.Thatworriedmeterribly.ThenIhadoneortwoshocks

whenIrealizedpeopledidn’tseeme. . .IthoughtifIcan’tfeelmyselfwhenIpinchmyself,whyshouldapersonseemewhowas still on earth in the old body? I thought itmust be that I amon some vibrational ratewhich is not common toEarth, andthereforepeoplecan’tseeme.Icouldseeotherpeoplebuttheycouldn’tseeme.Itallseemedsostrange.Iremembervividlysittingbesideariverandlookingatmyself,andnotseeingmyself.Icouldseenoreflection.Ithought“That

seemsmostextraordinary.Ihaveabodyandyetithasnoreflection.”Icouldn’tadjustmyselfatall.IwasgoingroundtovariouspeoplethatIhadknown,tryingtotellthemthatIwasaliveandwell,andtheyjustdidn’trealizethatIwasthere.Irealizedthatthereasontheycouldn’tseemewasbecauseifmybodydidn’thaveareflection,itcouldn’tbesolidtothem.It

justcouldn’tbeonthesamevibration:itcouldn’tbethesamesortofmatter.IhadtoadjustmyselftothefactthatIhadabodywhichwastoalloutwardappearancesthesame,andyetobviouslywasnotarealbodyfromthepointofviewofEarth.ThereforeIwasinwhatIsupposeonewouldtermaspiritualbody,andyetIwasnotparticularlyspiritual.Iwaspuzzledandbewildered.3

Duringhislifetime,thephilosopherBertrandRussell’sattitudetowardthesurvivalofconsciousnessafterbiologicaldeathcouldbedescribed as something between skeptical dismissal and reluctant agnosticism. It may therefore seem oddly interesting thatcommunicationsostensibly fromRussellhavebeen transmitted through themediumRosemaryBrown.Atanyrate, themessagesshowbothanawarenessofpreviousopinionsandanopen-mindedattitudetowardchange.

IwaspositiveIknewtheanswers tomanyquestions includingthevexingoneconcerningtheprobabilityof takingupanewlifeafterthisonehasceased.IusethewordprobabilityratherthanpossibilitybecauseIbelievedinthepossibilityofmanyimprobablethings, andpreferred to considerproblems in the lightofprobability rather than in thehalf-lightofpossibility. . . . [however] Ifrevelationscomewhichpresentachallengetosomeofourpresentideas,wemustacceptthemanddesignatetheirpositioninthescheme of things. All the formulations in the world will not arrest the tide of advanced thinking from sweeping away falseconceptionsandfalsegods.4

Russelldescribedhisowndeathasfollows:

Afterbreathingmylastbreathinmymortalbody,Ifoundmyselfinsomesortofextensionofexistencethatheldnoparallel,asfar as I could estimate, in the material dimension I had recently experienced. I observed that I was occupying a bodypredominantlybearingsimilarities to thephysicalone Ihadvacated forever;but thisnewbody inwhich Inowresidedseemedvirtually weightless and very volatile, and able to move in any direction with the minimum of effort. I began to think I wasdreamingandwouldawakenalltoosooninthatoldworld,ofwhichIhadbecomesomewhatweary,tofindmyselfimprisonedoncemoreinthatageingformwhichencasedabrainthathadwaxedwearyalsoanddidnotalwayswanttothinkwhenIwantedtothink.

Severaltimesinmylife,IhadthoughtIwasabouttodie;severaltimesIhadresignedmyselfwiththebestwillIcouldmustertoceasingtobe.TheideaofB.R.nolongerinhabitingtheworlddidnottroublemeunduly.Ifelttheworldhadhadenoughofme,andcertainlyIhadhadenoughoftheworld.Now,hereIwas,stillsameI,withcapacitiestothinkandobservesharpenedtoanincredibledegree.I feltearth-lifesuddenlyveryunrealalmostas thoughithadneverhappened.It tookmequitea longtimeto

understandthisfeelinguntilIrealizedatlastthatmatteriscertainlyillusoryalthoughitdoesexistinactuality;thematerialworldseemednownothingmorethanaseething,changing,restlessseaofindeterminabledensityandvolume.HowcouldIhavethoughtthatthatwasreality,thatlastwordofCreationtomankind?Yetitiscompletelyunderstandablethatthestateinwhichamanexists,howevertemporary,constitutesthepassingrealitywhichisnolongerrealitywhenithaspassed.5

In addition to this, there are extended remarks on the pursuit of happiness, on personal identity, and even a three-page essay onpolitics,allinastylecharacteristicofthelivingRussell.Headmitsthatsomeofhisopinionshavechanged,andthat“IamfarlessofacynicthanIwas,althoughIremaintobeconvincedofmanythings.Iam,however,stillverycynicalasregardshumannature,themoreso,perhaps,becauseIcannowseeitspettinessinsharperdetail.”6HeisalsoawarethatwemaynotconsiderhimtobetherealRussell.

YoumaynotbelievethatitisI,BertrandArthurWilliamRussell,whoamsayingthesethings,andperhapsthereisnoconclusiveproofthatIcanofferthroughthissomewhatrestrictedmedium.Thosewithaneartohearmaycatchtheechoofmyvoiceinmyphrases,thetenorofmytongueinmytautology;thosewhodonotwishtohearwillnodoubtconjureupawholetableoftrickstodisprovemyretrospectiverhetoric.7

ThemusicianSirDonaldToveyalsoclaimedtobeoneofRosemaryBrown’scommunicators.Atonepointhefirstdescribeshisown

death: “I could notmyself believe that I had passed through death’s door uponmy arrival here: the entire process is so natural, soautomatic,soserene,andsoimperceptiblefromthesoulaspect.”8Hethendescribedwhathehadapparentlylearnedsincethen.

I havewatched the comingof souls tomy spiritual surroundings, andhave seen that they appear to rise through a seaof light,gentlyandslowlyandeffortlessly,bornesecurelyintheirnewbodieswhichareprovidedfortheirsoulsuponcessationoftheirphysicalexistence.Inactualfact,thosenewbodiesalreadyexistedalthoughmergedwiththephysicalbodiesandlinkedtothembythesilvercord,asitisknown.AtDeath,thiscordisdissolvedorsevered,andcanbecomparedwiththeumbilicalcordwhichis also dispensedwith after birth.Death, after all, is like another birth into anotherworld, excepting that one’s new body is acounterpartofthelatelyvacatedphysicalbody.Whenyouarebornonearth,youenterabodyprovidedbyyourparents;whenyouarebornintotheWorldofSpirit,youemergeinthecounterpartofthatbodyatwhateverstageithasreached,exceptingthatisitwithoutdefectfordefectsarecharacteristicsoftheworldofmatterandnotoftheworldofspirit.9

So far, we have reviewed five apparently postmortem descriptions of dying, received through three different mediums. There are

obvious similarities in thedifferent accounts.Theprocessof dying seems so imperceptible that the recentlydeceased seem frequentlyunawareofwhathashappened;andtheyseemtobeinpossessionofanewbody,althoughpossessingdifferentpropertiesfromtheonerecentlyvacated. ThemediumJaneSherwoodhadseveralcommunicators;oneofthese,whoonlyidentifiedhimselfas“E.K.,”discussedatlengththerelationshipbetweenlifeandmatter.

Twosystemsareinterlockedintheorganismasyouknowit.Theyworktogetherandmodifyeachotherandthewholestoryoftheorganism is the story of their gradual disentangling. They finally draw away from each other at death. The inorganic body isreturned into the downward trend towards entropy and the invisible body of life is set free into the upward trend towardsdevelopment.Ofnecessityitgoesontodevelophigherphasesofactivityforyoumustthinkofthisbodywhichisonlyinvisibletoyou,asbeingperfectlymaterialonitsownplane.Getridofthenotionoftheephemeralstuffofwhichphantomsaremade.Lifeissimplymatterwhichhasbeenpushedupwardintoahigherphaseofactivityandhasthusgainedthepowertoexistandcontinueinanotherdegreeofbeing...Alllivingenergysystemstendtowardgreatercomplexityandtheconsequentcreationofhigherformsof activity; all dead systems of activity tend towards greater simplicity and end in stagnation. The organism represents theinteractionofboththeseprocessesandatitsdeaththeydrawapart.10

E.K.describesthenormalexperienceasfollows:

Asoldagecomesonthetwoformsofbeingrepresentedinthebodybegintodrawapart.Failinghealthandfailingsensesarethesymptomsofthiswithdrawal.Thebraintissuesoftenseemtoseverconnectionsfirstbeforetheotherorgansofthebodyareready.Thisisthemeaningofseniledecay.Whenthefinalbreathisdrawntheprocessofseveranceispracticallycompleteandroundedoff by unconsciousness.Where death comes gradually and naturally like this onewakes quietly in the new conditions after anintervalofafewdays....deathisakindofbirthanditshouldproceedwithaquietinevitablenessandnotbeaccompaniedbypainordistress.Muchoftheapparentsufferingofadeath-bedisnotconsciouslyfeltbythesufferer.Hisreallifeisalreadyhalfretiredfromthemortalbodyandneitherexperiencesnorrecordsitspangs.Shakespeareisveryneartotheliteralfactswhenhespeaksof“shufflingoffthismortalcoil.”11

Afterthis,E.K.thengaveanaccountofhisownexperience.

Ifoundmyselfawakeinthetransitionstateofwhichwehavespoken.Ithoughtmyselfstillweakandill,butIarosefrommyrestfeelingmarvelouslyrefreshedandhappyandIwanderedforawhileinthesomething-nothingsurroundingsofthisqueerworldandwasunabletomakeanysenseofit.Thebroodingsilencedruggedmeintounconsciousnessforalongtime,becausewhennextI

wokemybodyfeltquitedifferent,nolongerfrailandweakasIhadsupposed,butvigorousandreadyforanythingasthoughIhadsuddenlysteppedbackintoyouth....Therewasafeelingofexpectation,ofwaitingforsomethingtohappen.12

Thiswasfollowedbyalifereview,afterwhichheunderstoodthefailuresandsuccessesofhislife.Thelifereviewlefthimsaddened

andhumbled;againhefellasleep,andawokeinanotherland.

THEWORLDOFTHEDEADE.K.foundhimselfonahillside,anddescribedwhathesaw.

Thiswasnoearthlybeauty.Therewasalightonthingsandinthemsothateverythingproclaimeditselfvividlyalive.Grass,trees,andflowersweresolightedinwardlybytheirownbeautythatthesoulbreathedinthemiracleofperfection....

IamalmostatalosstodescribetheheavensasIsawthemfrommyhillside.Thelightradiatedfromnoonedirection,itwasaglowing,universalfact,bathingeverythinginitssoftradiancesothatthesharpshadowsanddarkedgeswhichdefineobjectsonearthweremissing.Eachthingglowedorsparkledwithitsownlightandwaslightedaswellbythecircumambientsplendour.Thesky,asIlookedupwardwaslikeavastpearlgleamingwithopalescentcolours.Therewasasuggestionofunfathomabledepthsofspaceastheshimmeringcolourspartedtheirtransparenciestoshowtheinfiniteabyss.Iwasawakenedfrommyabsorptionbythesoundofvoices.Ifthelovelinessoftreeandflowerhadheldmespellboundmy

first sight of fellow beings gave me more cause to rejoice. Here was another form of life, a more complex one which alsoemanateditsownlovelyqualitiesinvisiblerays.Thesepeopleweremorethanalive;lifestreamedfromthem,palpitatingwiththeiremotions,litandsplendidwiththeirjoyandwaxingandwaningwithitsintensity.Here,again,bodieswerenotdefinedbyshadowsandthesofteroutlinesweregloriouswiththeout-flowinglife.Itrembledattheirapproachandfeltlikeaninterloperfromalowersphere.Theycametowardme,greetedmeandreassuredme...nowIhadtorealizethatIwasoneofthemandwasgladtogowiththemandlearnsomethingoftheconditionsofmynewlife.13

Manyotheraccountsoftheafterlifehavebeenrecordedbymediums,andmostoftheaccountsshowmanysimilarities.*49ButbyfarthemostdetailedandextensiveaccountofthenextworldpurportstocomefromFredericMyers. Myershadbeendead twenty-threeyearsbeforeattempts todescribe thenextworldclaimed tocomefromhim.Hehad firstbeenanxioustoestablishhiscontinuingidentitytohislivingfriendsandcolleagues,byusingthecrosscorrespondences.However,by1924heseemedreadytoatlastdescribehisexperiences,andtotellwhathehadlearnedsincehisdeath.Thecommunicationswererecordedintwobooks,bothdictatedthroughtheamateurtrancemediumGeraldineCummins. MyersfirstannouncedhispresencetoMissCumminsasadrop-incommunicatorinNovember1924,claimingtobeattractedbytheunusual power of the medium. Miss Cummins did not know the living Myers, and was only a small child when he died. But thecommunicationsreceivedthroughMissCumminsimpressedthosewhohadknownthelivingMyers.SirLawrenceJones,pastpresidentoftheSPR,acceptedthescriptsascomingfromhisoldfriend,anddeliveredseverallecturesonthem.Mrs.EvelynMyers,thewidowofthecommunicator,wassoimpressedthatsheboughtdozensofcopiesofthebookstogivetoherfriends,andeveninvitedMissCumminstolivewithheronthetopfloorofherhouse.OliverLodgewassimilarlyimpressed.ThroughMrs.LeonardheaskedMyersaboutthecommunicationsdeliveredthroughMissCummins,andthroughMrs.LeonardreceivedpermissionfromMyerstowriteaforewordtothefirstbook. AfterdeliveringsomecrosscorrespondencesbetweenMissCumminsandMrs.Leonard,Myersgotbusydictatinghisdescriptionofthe afterlife. There had been earlier descriptions of the afterlife from other communicators, but these had often been dismissed asridiculous.CommunicatorsdescribedabeautifulworldthatwasnotonlysimilartoEarth,but,somethought,toosimilar.Inthenextworldpeopleplayedgolf,drankscotch, smokedcigars,hadsexualadventures, lived inhouses, andevenwent towork!Myerswenton todescribe realms of existence thatwere farmore strange and exotic, butwas also to showwhy these other descriptionswere at leastpartlyright. Myers’s first postmortem book, dictated to andwritten by the hand of Geraldine Cumminswhile in trance, is titledThe Road toImmortality.Itbeginswithachaptertitled“Why?TheRiddleofEternity.”

Manywonderful speculationshavebeenmade about thewhence andwhither ofman’s destiny.Fewhavedirectly attempted todiscuss why man was created, why the material universe spins apparently for ever and ever through space, its elements evercontinuing,nothinglost,seeminglyimmortal,changingbutinitsimagery.

“Avastpurposelessmachine.”Suchwastheepitaphthescientistofthelastcenturywroteofit,andinsodoinghedeclaredthefaithofthethinkingmenofhisage,namely,thatthereisnowhy.Thereis,therefore,nofulfillment.Matteristheonlyreality.Andthisterror,apurposelessmechanicaldramaofmotionandlife,must,withghastlymonotony,playonforeverandever.Now,truthisfarfromusall;butitwasimmeasurablyremotefromthosewhocametothismelancholyconclusion.However,if

mindisacceptedasexistingapartfrommatter,thereisaverydefiniteprospectofdiscoveringthereasonforthestrangefantasyofexistence.14

InhisbooksMyersdescribedaprocessofgradualdevelopmentastheindividualembarksonastupendousjourneythroughtheastralplanes.Aftermostdeaths,aperiodofunconsciousnessandrecuperationusuallyoccurs,inaplaceMyersreferredtoasHades.ThetimespentinHadesissaidtovarywiththeneedsoftheindividual,withchildrenoftenrequiringhardlyanyrestatall.However,forMyers:“I

diedinItaly,alandIloved,andIwasverywearyatthetimeofmypassing.FormeHadeswasaplaceofrest,aplaceofhalf-lightsanddrowsypeace.”15

ButHadesisdescribedasonlyanintermediatestage,onthebordersoftwoworlds,inbetweenwhatMyersreferstoas“theplaneofmatter”and“theLotusFlowerparadise.”Thisparadiseseemedtobetheheavenforwhichmenhavealwaysyearned,andofwhichtheirvarious theologieshad told them.Myershad loved thisplane, for it couldbesupremelybeautiful.Buthisownfeelings toward ithadbecomeambivalent,forhehaddiscoveredthattherewasarealmbeyondit.OncehehaddevelopedenoughtojourneybeyondtheLotusFlowerparadise,hedescribeditinsomewhatnegativeterms,as“theplaneofIllusion.” ButinhispostmortembooksMyerswroteaboutfarmorethanthevariousplanesofexistence.Healsoclaimedtohavediscoveredthereasonforexistence,theverypurposeofouruniverse. According toMyers, realityhas two fundamental attributes:psychicandphysical,ormental andmaterial.Eachofusbeginsasanextremelyrudimentarypsychicentity,capableofphysicalembodimentasonlyasimpleformof life.Throughrepeated incarnations,asplants, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, the conscious being ascends the chain of living matter, attaining greater andgreatercomplexity.And,accordingtoMyers,humanlifeisfarfromtheultimatestate.Afterrepeatedincarnationsinhumanbodies,onefinallygraduatesfromthehumanrace.Thus,weare“godsintraining,”andoncewearedevelopedenoughtopassbeyondtheplaneofIllusion,thereisnoneedtorepeatexistenceinourworldofearthlymatter. An identical claim ismade by “Seth,” the entitywho purported to communicate through themedium JaneRoberts. Sociologist IanCurriehasconciselysummarizedtheessenceofSeth’smessageasfollows:

According toSeth,each individualconsciousnessmustundergoa longperiodof trainingand learning through repeatedphysicalembodiments.Being human is simply one “stage” in this process of development, andwhen, through repeated incarnations, thisstageisfinished,onepassesonwardtootherplanesofexistencewhichoffermoreexaltedopportunitiesfordevelopment.Themostcrucial“lesson”tobelearnediskarmicorethical.Throughrepeatedembodiments,theundevelopedindividualtreatsotherswithcrueltyandhatred,and,inaccordancewiththekarmicprocess,issubjectedtocrueltyandhatredinreturn.Theultimateresultofthesehardlessonsisspiritualdevelopmentandapassagebeyondphysicalembodiment,givingaccesstogod-likecreativepowersoncetheentityishighlyevolvedenoughtousetheseinakarmicallyresponsibleway.Whileheisstillunevolvedenoughtousethesepowerstoinjure,control,exploitordestroyothers,hedoesnothaveaccesstothem.16

Seth had given JaneRoberts and her husband a series of lectures on the nature of reality, and one night a particularly interesting

messagewasreceived,asJanedescribes:

WithallSeth...toldusaboutman’spotentials...we...wondered...whytheraceisn’tmoredevelopedmorallyandspiritually. Onenightbeforeour regularWednesday sessionRoband Iwereprettyupsetover the stateof theworld ingeneral.Wesat

talkingandRobwonderedwhywebehavedaswedid.“Whatrealsenseorpurposeisbehinditall?”hesaid.“Idon’tknow,”Isaid.Ifeltasbadashedid.ThatwasNovember6,1968,and . . .on that . . .evening . . .Seth . . .came through inhisdistinctclearvoice.Amongother

things, Seth . . . said: “The human race is a stage throughwhich various forms of consciousness travel. . . .Before you can beallowed intosystemsof reality thataremoreextensiveandopen,youmust first learn . . . throughphysical [life] . . .Asachildformsmudpiesfromdirt,soyouformyourcivilizations...“When you leave the physical system after reincarnations, you have learned the lessons—and you are literally no longer a

memberofthehumanrace,foryouelecttoleaveit....Inmoreadvancedsystems,thoughtsandemotionsareautomaticallyandimmediatelytranslatedinto . . .whateverapproximationofmatter thereexists.Therefore, thelessonsmustbetaughtandlearnedwell.“Theresponsibilityforcreationmustbeclearlyunderstood.[Inphysicallifeonearth]...youareinasoundproofandisolated

room.Hatecreatesdestructioninthat‘room,’anduntilthelessonsarelearned,destructionfollowsdestruction...theagonies...aresorelyfelt...youmustbetaught...tocreateresponsibly.[Earthlife]...isatrainingsystemforemergingconsciousness.“If the sorrows and agonies within your systemwere not felt as real, the lessonswould not be learned. . . . [It] is like an

educationalplay.”17

AccordingtoMyers,developingpsychicentities

mustgather...numberlessexperiences,manifestandexpressthemselvesinuncountableformsbeforetheyattaintocompletion...Oncetheseareacquired,[theseentities]...takeondivineattributes.Thereason,therefore,fortheuniverseand...thepurposeofexistence...[is]theevolutionofmindinmatter.18

Myersdescribeshowtheprocessofpsychicdevelopmentrelatestolifeonearth:

Placeplants,insects,fish,birdsandbeastsintotheirseveralclasses.Theseresemblethe[grades]inapublicschool.Theessencesorsoulsofplants,afterdying,gathertogetherintheirmyriadsandintimeformonewhole.Theseinnumerablelittlebeings...gouponestepintheladderthen,andareonewhentheyenter thebodyofaninsect.Myriadsof insect livesagainmakeonebeingwhich,induecourse,entersthebodyofafishorabird.Andsotheprocesscontinues...

Certain dogs, horses and cats, alsomonkeys, are possessed of a nucleus of intelligence that resembles, in someways, thecrudestofsoulsthatinhabitthebodiesofmen.These...friendsofourspassintothe“landofearthlydesire,”assomeofuscallit....theydo,veryoften,existinaworldbeyondyourworld....inthishabitat,olddogfriendsorcatswhowerecomradesinotherdaysmaygravitateagaintotheirmastersormistressesby

virtue of their affection for them, that is, if themasters andmistresses are living in this ShadowLand. Forwe call it “ShadowLand,”thoughitisreallyfarmorebeautifulthantheearth.Itis,intruth,thenextstate,andthejourneyingsoulmustpassthroughit,even thoughhemaynot tarry longwithin itsborders.But thoseanimalswhocometo itcannot journeybeyondit.Theymust,atsometime,gobacktoearthandenterthebodiesofhumanbeings.19

Inbetweenandaftereachlifeontheplaneofmatterisaperiodofrestonthethirdplane,describedbyMyersas“arestingplaceontheroad.”FromtheplaneofIllusionhumansandsomeofthehigheranimalsreturnagaintoearth.Myerswrites:

Itmustberememberedthatwearenotmerelyshortstoriesonthepagesofearth,weareaserial,andeachchaptercloseswithadeath.Yet the new chapter develops from thosewhich preceded it, andwe pick up the threads, continuing a narrative that hasalwaysdesignandpurposethoughthepurposemaybehiddenbecausehumanbeings,asarule,areonlypermittedtostudytheonelife,theoneperiodoftheirhistoryatatime.20

Regardingthenumberoftimeshumansmustagainbecomeincarnate,Myersadds:

I do not for a moment believe that the individual returns a hundred times or more to the earth. The majority of people onlyreincarnatetwo,threeorfourtimes.Though,iftheyhavesomehumanpurposeorplantoachievetheymayreturnasmanyaseightorninetimes.Noarbitraryfigurecanbenamed.Weareonlysafeinconcludingthat,inthehumanform,theyarenotdoomedtowanderoverthespaceoffifty,ahundredandmorelives.21

AfterspendingtimeoncemoreintheLotusFlowerparadise,Myersclaimedtohavepassedintothenextrealmbeyond,fromwhich

hedictatedthechaptersofhisbooks.Butinadditiontodescriptionsofthevariousastralplanes,Myersalsotoldofwhathehadlearnedconcerningvarioustopics,someofwhichmaybeofinterest. Hisremarksontheprocessofdyingareverysimilartotheremarksofothercommunicatorswehaveexamined.

The twoarebound togetherbymany little threads,by twosilvercords.Oneof thesemakescontactwith the solarplexus, theotherwiththebrain.Theyallmaylengthenorextendduringsleeporduringhalf-sleep,fortheyhaveconsiderableelasticity.Whenamanslowlydiesthesethreadsandthetwocordsaregraduallybroken.Deathoccurswhenthesetwoprincipalcommunicatinglineswithbrainandsolarplexusaresevered....Theaveragemanorwomanwhenheorsheisdyingsuffersnopain.Theyhavebecomesodisseveredalreadyfromthebodythatwhenthefleshseemstobeinagonytheactualsoulmerelyfeelsverydrowsyandhasasensationofdriftinghitherandthither,toandfro,likeabirdrestingonthewind.22

TheremarksonsenilityofE.K.thatwecoveredearlierechothoseofMyers,whowrote:

Theveryoldmay,beforetheirpassingfromearth,inpartlosememoryorlosetheirgraspoffacts,theirpowerofunderstanding.ThistragicdecayalltoooftencausestheobserverofittolosefaithinanAfter-life.Forthesoulseems,undersuchcircumstances,merely the brain. This, however, is a false conclusion. The soul, or active ego, has been compelled partially to retire into thedoubleduringwakinghoursbecausethecordbetweenthebrainanditsethericcounterparthaseitherbeenfrayed,orhassnapped.Theactuallifeofthephysicalbodyisstillmaintainedthroughthesecondcordandthroughanyofthethreadswhichstilladheretothetwoshapes.Sotheaged,apparentlymindlessmanorwoman,isinnosensemindless.Heorshehasmerelywithdrawnalittlewayfromyou,andhasnoneedofyourpity.23

ButaccordingtoMyers,thecruelmandoesnotfindparadiseonthethirdplane.Instead,helanguishesinastateofmentaldistress,

until

thisindividualfacesuptohisownmisery,tohisvice;andthenthegreatchangecomes.HeisputintouchwithaportionoftheGreatMemory...theBookofLife.Hebecomesawareofalltheemotionsrousedinhisvictimsbyhisacts....Nopain,noanguishhehascausedhasperished.Allhasbeenregistered,hasakindofexistencethatmakeshimsensibleofitonceheasdriftedintotouchwiththewebofmemorythatclothedhislifeandthelivesofthosewhocameintocontactwithhimonearth.

ThehistoryofthecruelmanintheHereafterwouldmakeabookwhichIamnotpermittedtowrite.Icanonlybrieflyaddthathissoulormindbecomesgraduallypurifiedthroughhisidentificationwiththesufferingsofhisvictims.24

Decadeslater,themusicianDonaldToveymadeasimilarclaimthroughRosemaryBrown.

Eachandeverysoulmeetsherewithitsjustdeserts,notbecausetheyaredispensedbyapresidingdeity,butbecauseitisliterallytruethatonereapswhatonehassown.Ifonehasendeavoredtomakethelotofotherseasierinearth-lifeandsoughttopromote

thewelfareandhappinessofone’sfellow-beings,thenonefindsoneselfinapleasingenvironmentamongcongenialcompanions,andabletoadaptwithoutdifficultytothenewmodeofliving.Butthosewhohavedeliberatelydeprivedothersoftheirmaterialrightsandhumanneeds,orhavewantonlycausedsuffering,willfindthemselvesinturndeprivedandalsoimprisonedbytheirownmeannessofoutlook.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheyaretrappedforeverinaself-madehell;themomentasoulseesandconfessesitspastmisdeedsandattemptstorectifythem,thewayopensforittoevolveintothelight.25

Myersdescribeshowthenatureofthenextincarnationiskarmicallymotivated.

Whenasoulisbornintoadefectivebodyit isduetothefactthatinapreviousexistenceitcommittederrorsfromtheresultsofwhichitcanonlyescapebysubmittingtothisparticularexperience.

The . . . soul of an idiot, for instance, functions on thematerial plane and gathers, dimly, certain lessons from its earth life.Actually,suchmenastyrantsandinquisitorsoftenreincarnateasidiotsorimbeciles.Theyhave,ontheothersideofdeath,learnedto sympathisewith and understand the sufferings of their victims. These are sometimes of such an appalling character that theirperpetrator’s centreof imaginationbecomesdisorganizedandhe isdoomed toexist throughouthisnext incarnation ina stateofmentaldisequilibrium.26

Likemanyothercommunicators,Myersstronglydiscouragedsuicide,because the“despair, terror,orcynicaldisillusionmentwhichusuallyaccompaniesthesuicideisgreatlyintensified. . . themoodthatdrovehimtoself-slaughterwillenvelophimlikeacloudfromwhichwe,ontheothersideofdeathmaynotforalongwhilegivehimrelease.”27

However:

Iamnot,ofcourseembodyingthepost-mortemhistoryofeverysuicide.Thereareexceptions—caseswhereinthemanwhokillshimselfisfilledwithsomenoblepurpose,sacrificeshislifeinorderthat,throughhisdeath,othersmayberelievedofwant,orofthepainfulsightofalovedoneslowlyperishingofanincurabledisease.Theverymood,then,inwhichhecommitsthelastdreadact,hasinitacertainfinefervour,aconfidence...whichredeemshimintheblackhoursafterhispassing....heishauntedbynoinverteddespair,notormentofself-pity.

Thus,indiscussingthepenaltiesthatmaybeattachedtosuicide,youmustbearinmindthecharacterofthesoul,themood,themotivesbehindtheact,anduntiltheseareclearlyenvisagedyouarenotinapositiontocalculateitsconsequences.28

Myersalsodescribed themysteriousgeographyof theworldof thedead.Myersonlyclaimedpersonalexperienceof thesecond,third, and fourth planes of existence (the first plane being the world of ordinarymatter). He never claimed that his knowledge wasinfallible,onlythatitwasbasedonhisownexperience,andonwhatthosemoreadvancedhadtoldhim.ThePlaneofIllusionAccording toMyers, immediatelyafter thedeathof thebody the individualbriefly recuperates ina transitional statehe referred toasHades.Afterabriefperiodofrest,onenormallywakesinthethirdplane,whichhecallsthe“LotusFlowerparadise,”orthe“planeofIllusion.” Formost,thisfirstworldappearsbreathtakinglybeautiful,butnotstrange,astheirearthlivesanddreamshavepreparedthemforit.AccordingtoMyers,theplaneofIllusionisalsomadeofaformofmatter,butoneresponsivetothedeepestsubconsciousthoughtsanddesires.Unlikeexistenceinourphysicaluniverse:

Onhigherplanesofbeingyourintellectualpowerissogreatlyincreasedthatyoucancontrolform;youlearnhowtodrawlifetoit....Inthefirststate[beyonddeath]yourvisionislimitedbyyourearthexperiencesandmemories,andsoyoucreateyourownversion of the appearances you knew on earth. . . . however, in Illusion-land you do not consciously create your surroundingsthroughanactofthought.Youremotionaldesires,yourdeepermindmanufacturethesewithoutyourbeingawareoftheprocess.29

Myers tells us that communities of like-minded individuals with similar tastes come together and live in mutually constructed

environments;thoseofamoresolitarynaturemayliveinanenvironmentcompletelyoftheirownsubconsciousconstruction.Here,foodandwaterareno longer required; sexualdesiresare inmostcases stillpresent,butwomendonotbearchildren.Regarding loveandmarriage,Myerswrites:

In the world after deathmen are the possessors of bodies which reproduce in shape and in general appearance the discardedphysicalform,thoughtheyareclothedinanetherealsubstance.

Womendonotbearchildrenthoughsexualpassionmaybeexperiencedaslongasitisthesoul’sneed.Thewomanpossessesanethericbodysoframedthatitcanserveherasthematerialshapeservedhervariouspurposes,wishes,andappetitesonearth.The problem ofmarriage, of two husbands or of twowives, is usually solved after death by the pull of the stronger, finer

affection.Eachsouliseitherdrawntotheonewhoismostakinandsympathetictoit,orisabsorbedbywhateverspecialpassionordesirefillsitsnature.30

Onequestionthathasfrequentlybeenaskedaboutapossibleworldbeyonddeathisthis:Whereisit?Myersanswersthisquestion,sayingthatmostoftheplanesofexistenceoccupythesamephysicalspace,butarecomposedoffinerandfinerformsofmatterthat,forthemostpart,neverinteractwitheachother.Myerswritesthatpartofourbeing

containstheinfinitesubtletyofatomsthatarenotdestroyedthroughthedeathofthatcrudemachine,thebody.Actually,thoughIcallthematoms,theywouldappeartoyoutobeofafluidcharacter.31

Regardingthecompositionofthenextworld:

Oursurroundingsareofametethericcharacter.Youaskmetodefinethis.It isexceedinglydifficult.ButI thinkImaysaythat itcontainsatomsoftheveryfinestkind.Theypassthroughyourcoarsematter.Theybelongtoanotherstatealtogether.32

Thisworldbeyonddeath...consistsofelectronsdifferingonlyintheirfinenessorincreasedvibratoryqualityfromthoseknowntoearthlyscientists.Theseverysubtleunitsareextremelyplasticand,therefore,canbemouldedbymindandwill.33

Thefirsttwoquotesregardingatomicstructureweretransmittedbetween1924and1927;thethirdbetween1927and1931.Theyare

all the more remarkable when we consider the fact that in the early 1920s some physicists still held serious reservations about theexistenceofatoms.Quantumphysics,bornintheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,tellsusthatapparentlysolidmatterisinfactmostlyempty space.Muchof this empty space isbetween themutually repulsive,negativelychargedelectron shellsof atoms; the remainingspaceisbetweentheelectroncloudsandthepositivelychargedcentralnucleiof theatom.IfanatomwasexpandedtothesizeofthedomeofSt.Peter’sCathedralinRome,thenucleusoftightlyboundprotonsandneutronswouldbeanaltarthesizeofagrainofsalt.Theelectronswouldflitlikemothsaroundtheceilingofthedome(notrevolveinorbitlikeminiatureplanets).Becausematterisalmostentirelyemptyspace,cosmicparticlescaneasilypassthroughlayersofapparentlysolidrock.Itisthereasonwhytrillionsofneutrinos—tinyparticleswithoutmassor charge that rarely interactwithmatter—penetrate the earth every second as though it didn’t exist (theseparticlesarenotaffectedbytheelectromagneticforce,andsoarenotcapturedorrepelledbytheelectricandmagneticfieldsofotherparticleswhileflyingpastthem). PhysicistPeterRussellhaswritten:

Earlyinthetwentiethcentury,physicistsrealizedthatatomsarecomposedofevensmaller,subatomicparticles.Anatommaybesmall, amere billionth of an inch across, but these subatomic particles are a hundred-thousand times smaller still. Imagine thenucleusofanatommagnifiedtothesizeofatennisball.Theelectronswould[be]severalmiles[away],makingtheatomitselfthesizeofLondonorManhattan.Astheearlytwentieth-centuryBritishphysicistSirArthurEddingtonputit,matterismostlyghostlyemptyspace,99.9999999999999%emptyspacetobealittlemoreexact.34

IwroteDr.Russell,andfoundthat thefigurementionedabove isslightlymisleading:hiscalculationrefers to thepercentageofan

atom that isemptyspace. Ifwefactor in theemptyspacebetweenthenegativelycharged,mutuallyrepulsiveelectronshells, then thepercentageofmatterthatisemptyspaceisevenlargerthanthefigurequotedabove. SciencewriterTimothyFerrishasillustratedhowmatterwouldbehaveifatleastsomeofitwerenotaffectedbytheelectromagneticforce.

Ourmentalpicturesaredrawnfromourvisualperceptionoftheworldaroundus.Buttheworldasperceivedbytheeyeisitselfexposedasanillusionwhenscrutinizedonthemicroscopicscale.Abarofgold,thoughitlookssolid,iscomposedalmostentirelyofemptyspace.Nor,toreturntotheoldclassicalmetaphor,doesacueballstrikeabilliardball.Rather,thenegativelychargedfieldsofthetwoballsrepeleachother;onthesubatomicscale,thebilliardballsareasspaciousasgalaxies,andwereitnotfortheirelectricalchargestheycould,likegalaxies,passrightthrougheachotherunscathed.35

Inshort,itiscertainlylogicallypossiblethatthisuniversedoescontainformsofmatterthatcoexistwithinthesamespaceandarenot

affected by each other’s force fields. At this point in time the existence of such rarefied forms of matter is of course metaphysicalspeculation—justastheexistenceofatomsandneutrinoswere,untilthetwentiethcentury,purelymetaphysicalspeculations. So,accordingtoMyers, thethirdplaneiscomposedofafinerformofmatter,responsivetosubconsciousthoughtsanddesires.*50Myers explains that this is why so many descriptions of the afterlife have seemed so much like a glorified version of the earthlyenvironment.Forwhentheaveragemanonthestreetfindshimselfintheafter-deathstate,heatfirstdesiresonlyanenvironmentsimilartotheoneheleftbehind. However,Myerstellsusthatfarmoreextraordinaryformsofexistencearepossible.

Themoreadvancedsouls—whomtheChurchmaycalltheangelsandwhomIcall“theWise”—canexistintenuousformswithinvastvistasof spaceand leadwithin itanextraordinarilyvividexistence. [Theaveragenewlydeadperson] isquite incapableoffacingsuchastrangeandstrenuousstateofbeing.

Sowe,whoarealittlemoreadvancedthanhe,watchbythegatesofdeath,andweleadhimandhiscomrades,aftercertainpreparatorystages, to thedreamwhichhewill inhabit, livingstill, according tohisbelief, inearth time.Hebearswithinhim the

capacityforrecallingthewholeofhisearthlife.Familiarsurroundingsarehisdesperateneed.Hedoesnotwantajeweledcity,orsomemonstrousvisionofinfinity.Hecravesonlyforthehomelylandscapeheusedtoknow.TheWise,asIcall them,candrawfromtheirmemoryandfromthegreatsuper-consciousmemoryoftheearththeimagesof

housesandstreets,ofcountryasknowntothesewayfarerssorecentlycomefromtheearth.TheWiseSpirits think,andtherebymakeacreationwhichbecomesvisible[tothenewlydead].36

Andgradually,thematteronthisplanerespondstothesubconsciousthoughtsanddesiresofthenewlyarrived.

The largemajority of human beings when they die are not prepared for an immediate and complete change of outlook. Theypassionatelyyearn for familiar though idealized surroundings.Theirwill to live ismerely to live, therefore, in thepast. . . .Forinstance, theunthinkingman in the streetwilldesire aglorifiedbrickvilla in aglorifiedBrighton.Sohe findshimself theproudpossessorofthattwentiethcenturyatrocity.Henaturallygravitatestowardshisacquaintances,allthosewhowereofalikemind.Onearthhelongedforasuperiorbrandofcigar.Hecanhavetheexperienceadnauseamofsmoking thisbrand.Hewanted toplaygolf,soheplaysgolf.Butheismerelylivingwithinthefantasycreatedbyhisstrongestdesiresonearth.*5137

But there isa limitation to thiskindofexistence. Itseems thatpartof thepurposeof the thirdplane is toexhaust thepossibilitiesof

earthlylife,sothatanindividualmaydevelopbeyondthelimitationsitimposes.Eventually,boredomsetsin,andtheindividuallongsforsomesortofchallenge,anewadventureintotheunknown.Atthisstage,theindividualhastwopossibleoptions:hemayreturntoearthforanotherincarnationinhumanform;orhemaychoosetoascendtothefourthplane.Ifheishighlyenoughdeveloped,hemayenterit.TheHigherPlanesMyerswrote,“[I]fyouareaSoul-man—inotherwordsanintelligent,ethicallydevelopedsoul—youwilldesiretogouptheladderofconsciousness.The longing for aphysical existencewillhavebeenburned intoasheswith,however, a fewexceptions.”38 These fewexceptionsarethosewhowishtoachievesomeremarkableintellectualtriumphonearth,orwhowishtoplayanotablepartinthestrifeof earth life.But themajority of ethically developed beings no longerwish to live again on earth, and “they are then released fromIllusion-land,fromthatnurseryinwhichtheymerelylivedintheoldfantasyofearth.”39

Myershimselfclaimedtohaveascendedtothefourthplane,whichhereferredtoasEidos,ortheplaneofColour.Hedescribedtheearthasonlyapoorcopyofthefourthplane,inhiswords,“acopyofamasterpiece.”

Wedwell inaworldofappearances insomerespectssimilar to theearth.Onlyall thisvast regionofappearances isgigantic inconception, terrifyingandexquisiteaccordingto themanner inwhichitpresents itself to theSoul-man.It isfarmorefluidic, lessapparentlysolidthanearthsurroundings.40

Inhissecondpostmortembook,thesequelBeyondHumanPersonality,Myerselaborateson thenatureofEidos;compared to the

LotusFlowerparadise,hedescribesitas

aloftierworld,magnificent,exquisite,fullofstrangebeautiesandformsthatmaystillbe,insomerespects,reminiscentofearth.Theseare,however,infiniteinvariety.Theyarecomposedofcoloursandlightunknowntoman.There,onthislevel,willbefoundaperfection in outward form, in surface appearances; a perfection only occasionally realized in the creations of the greatest ofearthlyartists.41

Inthisworldthemindisnowendowedwithgodlikecreativepowers,anditusessubstancesandcolorsunknownonearthtocreatean

infinitevarietyofformsofunsurpassablebeauty.Thepurposeofexistenceonthisplaneistoexperienceallthepossibilitiesofform,sothattheevolvingsoulmayeventuallypassbeyondallinvolvementwithit.

Onthis luminiferousplanethestruggleincreases inintensity, theeffortsexpendedarebeyondthemeasureofearthlyexperience.Buttheresultsofsuchlabour,ofsuchintellectualizedandspiritualisedtoilandbattlealsotranscendthemostsuperbemotioninthelifeofman.Inbrief,allexperienceisrefined,heightened,intensified,andtheactualzestoflivingisincreasedimmeasurably.42

TheplanesbeyondtheplaneofIllusionareprogressivelymoreremotefromhumanexperience,andwordsbegintolosetheabilityto

describethem.Nevertheless,Myerstrieshisbest.BeyondthefourthplaneliestheplaneofFlame,inwhichtheindividual“isasanartistwholivesinhismasterpiece,derivesfromit,inallitsfeatures,inthefreshnessofitsevolving,changingcreation,thatstrangeexhalationwhichmay,perhaps,atoneraremoment,beknowntoacreativegenius—thoughveryfaintly—whilehestilllivesupontheearth.”43

BeyondtheplaneofFlameliestheplaneofLight,whichisdescribedasexistencebeyondform.

Onthis levelofconsciousnesspurereasonreignssupreme. . . . thesoulswhoenter this lastrichkingdomofexperience. . .bearwiththemthewisdomofform,theincalculablesecretwisdom,gatheredonlythroughlimitation,harvestedfromnumberlessyears,garneredfromlivespassedinmyriadforms....Theyarecapableoflivingnowwithoutform,ofexistingaswhitelight...aspurethought.44

Finally,beyondalltheothersliestheseventhplane.Myersstrugglestoconveywhatothersmoreadvancedthanhehadtoldhimof

it.

TheSeventhstate . . .bafflesdescription.It isheart-breakingeventoattempttowriteof it. . . . thepassagefromtheSixthtotheSeventhstatemeanstheflightfromthematerialuniverse...Youdwellnotonlyoutsideoftimebutoutsideoftheuniverseonthislastplaneofbeing.45

Afterhehaddescribedtheotherworlds,Myerssummedupthereasonwhyhehasstruggledsolongandhardtocommunicate.

Becauseamandies,itdoesnotfollowthathelosestouchwiththeearth,withthatstateofPenia—poverty—fromwhichheroseinto the delights of the plane named Illusion, fromwhich he penetrated into theworld ofEidos, to the human soul theHeavenWorld,theultimategoal.

Weperceive the strangedisorderof theworldofmenandwomen.Werecognize thecausesof thatdisorderand thepurposebehind them.We realize the necessity for suchdisorder and at the same timewedesire to convey some indicationof theGreatReality.ForthisreasonI,FredericMyers,haveendeavoredtotracearoughoutlineoftheroadmanmustfollowintheAfter-deathifhe

beaseekerofimmortality.46

Epilogue

For myself, Birth and Death seem to be respectively the great Exile and the great Returning Home. I expect, when theimmediateshockofchangeisover,tofindmyselfwithabodyfamiliartome(becauseithasalwaysbeenapossessionwithoutmyrealizingit),inacountryfromwhichcomethrongingbacktomewelcomingechoesofoldfamiliarity.Itwillstillbeaworldof Appearance; but since one veil at least will then have fallen from the face of Truth, I shall expect to find myself moreresponsivetoherEternalBeautyasIsetoutagain—apilgrimonanendlessway.

RAYNORJOHNSON,THEIMPRISONEDSPLENDOUR

Thisisthefinalworkofatrilogy,andnotoneofmybookswaswrittentochangethemindsofthedogmaticpseudo-skeptics.Theywerewritten only as an appeal to those with an open mind on the subjects discussed. Those readers who suppose that the evidence andargumentspresentedinthesebookscanbeusedtochangethemindsofthe“skeptics”wouldbewisetoconsiderthewordsofsurgeonandanthropologistPaulBroca.

Anewtruthcontrarytotheprejudicesofourteachershasnomeanswherewithtoovercometheirhostility,fortheyareopenneithertofactsnortoreasoning;itisnecessarytowaitfortheirdeath.1

Thosewordswerewritteninthenineteenthcentury,anddidnotspecificallyrefertowhatwasthencalledpsychicalresearch.Butthey

areeverybitasapplicabletoday,tothecontinuingstruggleofparapsychologyforrecognitionandlegitimacy.Thereissomethinginournature that resistsnew ideas that runcontrary toourentrenchedopinions.Perhapsweall share thischaracteristic to somedegree.Andperhapsitisgoodthatwedonotdropouropinionsatthefirstsignofcontraryevidence,withoutfirstputtingupavigorousdefense.Buttheso-calledskepticsofparapsychologyseemtohavecultivatedthischaracteristictoanabsurddegree. Psychologist Gary Schwartz has conducted twenty-first century research with mediums, and on numerous occasions he has beenforced to defend himself against skeptical attacks. Apparently, on one occasion a prominent skeptic privately made to him a candidconfession.

ProfessorRayHyman,oneofthemostdistinguishedacademicskeptics,hastoldme,“Idonothavecontrolovermybeliefs.”Hehad learned from childhood that paranormal events are impossible. Today he finds himself amazed that even in the face ofcompellingtheoryandconvincingscientificdata,hisbeliefshavenotchanged.2

WehaveseeninmyfirstbookScienceandPsychicPhenomenahowtheso-calledskepticshaveresortedtoeverypossibletrickto

discreditpsi research.Wehaveseenhow,afterconductinganexperiment thatproduced results theydidnotexpect, theCommittee forScientific Investigation into Claims of the Paranormal refused to carry out any more “scientific investigation.”We have seen how aprominent“skeptic”hasconductedresearchthatsuccessfullyreplicatedapsiexperiment,andhowhethendeniedanddistortedhisresultsinordertoavoidadmittinghewaswrong.Wealsohaveseenhowthe“skeptics”havefinallyrunoutofplausiblecounterexplanations,andhowtheynoware leftwith littlemore thanemptyrhetoric.PsychologistNancyZingronehasstudiedtheskepticalmovement,andwonders:

Canitbetruethatmanycriticsbehaveasif theyhaveneverreallynoticedhowcomplicatedtheworldreallyis,asif theyhaveneverturnedtheirfocusinward?Whenonereadstheirwritinginasystematicway—fromthepagesoftheSkepticalInquirertotheentriesinGordonStein’sEncyclopediaoftheParanormaltotheirvariousbook-lengthtreatmentsoftheparanormal—onegetstheimpressionthatwhatcharacterizesthegenreisexceptionallysuperficialreasoning.3

Aspointedoutinthefirstbookinthisseries,parapsychologyistheonlybranchofscientificresearchwithabodyofskepticsactively

trying to discredit it. Itwas also indicated that this opposition can be best understood in terms of the historical struggle of science toescapefromthefettersofreligion. Galileowasthefirstscientisttoopenlychallengetheauthorityofthechurch.LikethemonkGiordanoBrunobeforehim,heinsistedthattheearthrevolvesaroundthesun;andlikeGiordanobeforehim,Galileopaiddearlyforhisheresy.Shortlyafterward,thescientifictheoryofNewton,withitsdeterminismandmechanism,gavecertaineighteenth-centuryphilosophersmorematerialwithwhichtoshakethecomplacencyof religiousbeliefs.By this time thechurchhad lostmuchof itspower tosilencedissidents.However, itwasDarwinwhodeliveredwhatwasformanythedecisiveblowagainsttheliteraltruthofscripture,withhisargumentthatbothmodernanimalsandhumansmayhaveevolvedovermillenniafromsimplercreatures,throughthemechanismofnaturalselectionoperatingonrandomnaturalvariation in the characteristics of offspring. In the 1930s, Darwin’s work was combined with the discovery of genes, and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolutionwas created. In a nutshell, randomgeneticmutations are thought to occurwithin an organism’s genetic

code. Most mutations are harmful, but beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival—a process known as “naturalselection.”Thesebeneficialmutationsarepassedontothenextgeneration.Overtime,beneficialmutationsaccumulateandtheresultisanentirelydifferentorganism(notjustavariationoftheoriginal,butadifferentspeciesaltogether). It is the assertion that the variation is entirely random, purely amatter of chance, that sticks in the craw of somany people. TheCatholic Church accepts evolution as a historical fact, but believes that evolution is guided by themind of God.*52 Evolution as abiologicalfactwasacceptedlongbeforeDarwin,butthemoderntheoryofevolutionhastwomainplanks:randommutationleadingtovarietyofform,andnaturalselectionoperatingonthisvarietyinordertoperpetuatethosemutationsthatfavorsurvivalandreproduction. Evolutionasafactofnaturecanhardlybedisputed—theevidenceforitcomesfromthegeologicalrecord;fromvestigesofnow-uselessparts,suchasourowntailbonesandappendixes;andfromphenomenasuchasstrainsofbacteriathatdevelopgrowingresistancetoantibiotics.Norcanitbedeniedthatnaturalselectionoperatesinfavorofcertaininheritedcharacteristics. The legitimate source of controversy concerns the first tenet—that is,whether or not all geneticmutation is purely random. In theorthodoxview,ithascometobebelievedthatthenaturalvariationfoundintheoffspringofplantsandanimalsarisesthroughchanceandnatural selection alone, but Darwin himself was in doubt about this. Unlike many modern neo-Darwinians, Darwin was modest andundogmatic in his claims. In correspondence with Asa Gray of Harvard on divine design Darwin wrote to Gray, one year after thepublicationofOntheOriginofSpecies:“...aboutDesign.IamconsciousthatIaminanutterlyhopelessmuddle.Icannotthinkthattheworld,aswesee it, is theresultofchance;andyet Icannot lookateachseparate thingas theresultofDesign.”Ayear laterDarwinwrotetoGray:“WithrespecttoDesign,Ifeelmoreinclinedtoshowawhiteflagthantofire.. .[a]shot. . .Yousaythatyouareinahaze;Iaminthickmud;...yetIcannotkeepoutofthequestion.”4

Sciencesuggeststousapictureofauniversethatiscreative;butisthiscreativitytheresultofblindchanceoroftheactionofmind?Ifminds can produce blisters on skin under hypnosis, influence radioactive decay, and possibly collapse state vectors in the brain in adesireddirection,thentheycouldconceivablydirectmutationbyaffectingthenucleotidesinDNA.5

Chancemay verywell play a large role in evolution, but the hypothesis of directedmutation and theDarwinian interpretations ofevolutionarenotmutuallyexclusive.Thecompletelyrandomnatureofgeneticmutationisanassumption,andevidencetothecontraryhasbeenfound.*53Sincemutationoccursattheatomicandmolecularlevel,itmaypossiblybeinfluencedbythepsychokineticpowersofhumanornonhumanminds.†54

GeneticistMichaelDenton refers to the ideaof random,undirectedmutationas“the fundamentalassumptionuponwhich thewholeDarwinianmodelofnatureisbased,”andas“anunquestionedarticleoffaith.”6

InhisremarkablebookNature’sDestiny,Dentondescribes indetailhowadvances inphysics,cosmology,andastronomysince thebeginningofthetwentiethcenturysupportthegrowingopinionwithinthescientificcommunitythattheuniversegiveseveryappearanceofbeingspeciallydesignedforlife.

Severalwell-knownphysicistsandastronomers,amongthemBrandonCarter,FreemanDyson,JohnWheeler,JohnBarrow,FrankTipler, andSirFredHoyle, to citeonlya few,haveallmadeapoint in recentpublications—thatour typeof carbon-based lifecouldonlyexist inaveryspecial sortofuniverseand that if the lawsofphysicshadbeenveryslightlydifferentwecouldnothaveexisted.With theevidenceas itnowstands, it isnotsurprising that therenowexistsasignificantbodyofopinionwithin thescientificcommunitypreparedtodefendtheideathattheuniverseisinsomewayprofoundlybiocentricandgiveseveryappearanceofhavingbeenspeciallydesignedforlife.7

However,Dentonnotesthat“thelife-givingcoincidencesdonotstopat thedistributionofsupernovaeorwiththeresonancesofthe

energylevelsof thecarbonandoxygenatoms.Theyextendon intochemistry, intobiochemistryandmolecularbiology, into theveryfabric of life itself.”After a detailed review of the long chain of life- giving chemical, biochemical, and biological coincidences, heeventuallyconcludes:

Water,thecarbonatom,oxygen,thedoublehelix,andmanyoftheotherconstituentsoflifepossessuniquepropertieswhichseemsoperfectlyadapted to thebiologicalends theyserve that the impressionofdesign is irresistible.Manyof theseadaptationsnotonlyserve theendofmicroscopic lifebutalsogiveeveryappearanceofhavingbeenadjusted toserve theendofmacroscopicterrestriallifeformssuchasourselves.Thisraisestheverynaturalbuthereticalideathatifthecosmosisfitforthebeingofhigherlifeforms,thensurelyit isnotinconceivablethatanevolutionarymechanismfortheiractualizationcouldalsohavebeenwrittenintotheorderofthingsandthatperhapstheentireprocessofbiologicalevolution,fromtheoriginoflifetotheemergenceofman,wassomehowdirectedfromthebeginning.Ibelievethatourcurrentmodelofmoleculargeneticssanctionssuchpossibilities.8

TheNobelPrize–winningneuroscientistSir JohnEccles thought thatwhile evolutioncould account for thedevelopmentofbrains,

somethingelsewasneededtoaccountfortheexistenceofconsciousminds:“TheevolutionaryoriginofourbodiesandtheirbuildingbytheuniqueinstructionsprovidedbyDNAinheritanceisatbestbutapartialexplanation,andcertainlynotasufficientexplanationofourexistence as conscious beings.”9 He referred to neo-Darwinism as a “psuedo-religion” if taken as a complete explanation of life,includingconsciouslife. PhysicistssuchasJamesJeansandNickHerberthaveseriouslyproposedthatmodernphysicssuggeststhatmindisnotderivedfrommatter,butratherthatmindisanelementalpropertyoftheuniverse,aselementalasenergyandforcefields.AsHerbertwrote,“Inthe

vonNeumanninterpretationofquantumtheory,consciousnessisaprocesslyingoutsidethelawsthatgovernthematerialworld,anditisjustthisimmunityfromthequantumrulesthatallowsmindtoturnpossibilityintoactuality.”10

Wemayindeedbeghostsinmachines,mindsoutforaspininmaterialbodies.Accordingtothisview,theoriginsofconsciousnesslieoutside the story of biological evolution. The datawe have examined in detail indicates that consciousness emerges into the physicalworldthroughthemediumofbrains,andthatspiritualevolutionhasbecomeintertwinedwithbiologicalevolution,andthatconsciousnesshasusedthematerialworldasaspringboardforgrowth. Whenconsideringthisidea,itisimportanttorememberthatmanyofourintellectualsareprejudicedintheliteralsense:thatofbeinginclinedtoprejudge.ProfessorofMedicineLouisLasagnahadthisprejudicialattitudeinmindwhenhewrote:

Tobelievewithoutquestioningortodismisswithoutinvestigatingistocomportoneselfnon-scientifically.Itisnotinspiringtoreadthat the audience hissedwhen the great neurologist Sir JohnEccles ended aHarvard lecture by admitting that evolution couldaccountforthebrainbutnotforthemind,andthatonlysomethingtranscendentcouldexplainconsciousnessandthought.11

FINALTHOUGHTS

Perhaps it is time theconventional theorists realized that there isanotherchoice inspiritualmatters, somethingelsebesides religiousormaterialisticfaith.Perhapsthisisoneofthefinestlessonsourhistorycanteachus. Wehaveseenthattheshamanhasbeenfoundworldwideinhunter-gatherersocieties,asthememberofthetribewhoisthoughttoactas an intermediarybetweenhisorherpeople and the spiritworld.Wehavealso seen that some shamanicpractices involvedwhatwewouldnowcallmediumship.Theveryearliest religionsofourwanderinghunter-gathererancestorswouldhavebeenshamanic,and itseemsplausiblethatearlyspiritualbeliefsgrewdirectlyoutofthesortsofhumanexperiencesthathavebeendescribedinthisbook. Withthedevelopmentofagriculture,ourancestorssettleddownincommunities,andreligionbecameinstitutionalized.Priestlycastesformed,andoverthecenturiesaddedlayersofdogmatotheancientbeliefs,accordingtothecircumstancesoftheirsocieties.Eventually,societiescameintocontactwithothersocieties,anddifferencesofreligiousbeliefsweresometimesasourceofconflict.Ofcourse,withinreligionstherehavealsobeenconflicts—sometimesviolent—betweenvariousfactionswithdifferentviews.Bythetimehumansbegantobuildcities,suchbeliefsinmanypartsoftheworldwerenolongerbasedonhumanexperience,butwereinsteadtaughtbymembersofthe priestly castes, and accepted by their people on faith. Since spiritual beliefs were now amatter of faith, no rationalmethodwasavailabletosettledisputes.Unfortunately,bydefault,violencesometimesbecamethemethodofchoiceforsettlingreligiousdifferences. ItcannotbedeniedthatduringtheDarkandMiddleAges,peopleintimesoftroubletookcomfortintheteachingsofthechurch.Butthe science ofGalileo, Newton, andDarwin challenged the faith ofmany thinking persons, and ushered in a new age of skepticism.However,skepticism—thepracticeofdoubt—turnedformanyintodogmatism,thepracticeofdisbelief.Scienceitselfbecame,formanyindividuals,anewreligion,withitsownsaints,blasphemers,andcherisheddogmas.Materialism,onceamerehypothesis,becameoneofthesecherisheddogmas,theunquestioningacceptanceofwhichseemedcrucialifthehumanracewerenottoregresstoanearlierageofsuperstitionand religiouspersecution. It is this attitude that accounts for the continuing refusal to accept the considerable evidence thatprovesmaterialism false.The psychologyof this reaction to the evidence is perhaps understandable.But it has also left a void in thehumanpsyche. InthewordsofJohnEccles:

Manhaslosthiswaythesedays—whatwemaycallthepredicamentofmankind.Heneedssomenewmessagewherebyhemaylivewithhopeandmeaning. I think that sciencehasgone too far inbreakingdownman’sbelief inhis spiritualgreatness and ingivinghimtheideathatheismerelyaninsignificantmaterialbeinginthefrigidcosmicimmensity.I thinkthereismysteryinman,andIamsure thatat least it iswonderful formantoget thefeeling thathe isnot justahastilymade-overape,and that there issomethingmuchmorewonderfulinhisnatureandhisdestiny.12

Ibelieveourspecieshasmuchgrowinguptodo.Manyofushaveoutgrownthecomfortablesmugnessof thereligionsdeveloped

duringtheinfancyofthehumanrace.Yetwenowfindourselvesexperiencingarathertroubledadolescence,withallitsattendantdoubt,dismay,andspiritualcrisis.Intheadolescenceofourspecieswearestrugglingtofindanswerstoquestionsthathauntus.Butifthereisone thing this book should havemade clear, it is that themodern choice is not between blind religious faith and the pseudoscientificideologyofmaterialism.Thereisathirdalternative,onethatrequiresneitheraleapoffaithnorthedenialofevidence.Ourscienceandphilosophyhave evolved to the point atwhich they can finally come to gripswith someof the deepest questions the human race hasstruggledwith in thedark for thousandsofyears.Dawn’searly lighthasappearedon thehorizon,and theanswerswehavebegun toglimpseappearbreathtaking.

Wearenothumanbeingshavinga spiritualexperience;wearespiritualbeings havingahumanexperience. TielharddeChardin

APPENDIX

TheDreamChild

ThefollowingisanaccountofwhatthedeceasedcommunicatorFredericMyersclaimsisatruestoryofonewoman’sexperiencesintheLotus Flower paradise. It is taken directly from the second postmortem book,BeyondHumanPersonality. This account may be ofinteresttomanyreaders,asitillustratesseveralaspectsofwhatMyersdescribesasthenextplaneofexistenceanditsrelationshiptothislife.

Acertainmotherlongedforadaughter.Sonswereborntoher,butthelittlegirlshedesiredsomuchneverappearedintheflesh.Yetsheiswaitingforhermotherintheworldbeyonddeath,forhersoulhas,ontwoorthreeoccasions,madetheattempttobebornbutfailedineachinstance.There isacogentreasonfor thisfailure.Thesoulof thedaughtermaynotmeet themother infullconsciousknowledgeuntilafter the latter’sdeath.Theymeetalready,butsubjectively, in themannerIhavedescribedinapreviouschapter.Imightcall thisdaughter the“dream-child.”Shehasa lovelysouland if shehadbeenborn into thispresent lifewouldhavemadeaparadise forhermother. Nowduringthisearth-life,owingtothefact that thisparticularheart’sdesireofherswasnotgranted,themotherhaslearnedmuchanddevelopedspiritually.Thelittledaughterwasboundtoabsorbherattention,leadinghertobecomeselfishandonlyoccupiedwiththepleasureofmotherhood.For thechildwouldhavemaderadiantallherdays.Suchhappinessbelongsasarule to thefirstheaven-world—toEidos,andthereshewill, induecourse,experiencesuchjoy.IntheworldofIllusionshewillmeet thisdaughterandbesooverjoyedatseeingherandhavinghercompanionshipthattheseparationfromhersons,causedbydeath,willnotinflictthesufferingthatmightotherwisehavebeenherportion. So,thereisprovidenceinthefactthatthischildhasnotbeengivenintoherchargeduringherearthlife.Afterdeaththemotherwillobtainherlonging—aquiet,lovely,countryplacewhereherfamilyliveandcomeandgo—anurserywhereshefindsthislittledaughterwhofulfillsthedream,isthedreamofherimagination,theonesheproudlycherishesandshowstoherownbrothersandsistersandtoherparents;theprettybirdlikethingwithwhomsheplaysgamesandthusfulfillsherownnature;toherthattreasurebeyondalltreasures—asmallgirl,daintyandexquisite. Therefore,themother’struehappinessliesintheworldbeyonddeath.Deepdownshealreadyknowsthislittledaughterbecauseshehas beenwith the childwhen shewas in deep slumber.But the inexorable supernal law forbids her to bring thememoryback to herconsciouslife,shebearsonlytheacheofpartingfromthechildandthisacheisexpressedinavaguedissatisfaction—akindofwearinessor feeling of disappointment which she cannot understand and attributes to all but the true cause. After death her memory of thesemeetingswithherdaughterwillberecapturedbyhersoul,andsotheywillmeetasadoringmotherandchild. Butyoumustnotassumethatthemanyyearsofearth-timeaffectthischild.IntheHereafterthereexistsasubjectivetimethatmayrunaccordingtothecharacterofthesouls.Appearanceanddesirewillharmonize.Atthetimeofthemother’sdeathandentryintothenewlife,thedaughterwillhavereachedthatlovelyagewhenthechildbeginstotalkbrokenly,tomakebraveexpeditions—halfcrawling,half walking—across the vast expanse of nursery floor. All the enchantment of the great, big world for the slowly blossomingintelligencewillbeperceivedbythemotherwhenshecomesoverhere:shewillfindallthatshehasmostdesiredonearthintheLotusFlowerParadisewhichliesbeyondtawdrydeath,beyondthetomb. YoumaysaythatthispictureIhavedrawnofamother’shappinessandheavensoundstoogoodtobetrue.Butbearinmindthatfatepresents a debit and credit account. The mother, in this case, has known a great deal of unhappiness while on earth—troubles anddisappointments that torment and take the colour out of life. So, before she chooses to go farther along the road to immortality, herheart’sdesireisgrantedandshereapsthefullharvestfromthegrainsownwithcareandtoilandsometimespaininthatterrestriallifeofhers. Iwasinterestedinthiswoman’ssoulandtraceditbacktotheroots,andsomadetheacquaintanceofthedream-child.Iseethatsheistheoutstanding feature in the former’s supernalexistence.As thingsare themotherwill alwaysbedeeplyaffectedby thepullof thisotherworldwherelivesthedream-child.Forwhereyourtreasureistherewillyourheartbealso. Ishouldliketodrawyourattentiontomyrepeatedstatementsthatimaginationhasextraordinarycreativeforceinsomeinstances,andyoumust not think it essential that to be an artist it is necessary to paint pictures, or write poems, or composemusic. Thismother isessentiallyanartistandsuchanartistmaymakeapoemoflife.Ifshebeamothershemaydesiretomakeapoemofchildhoodforasmalldaughter.Prayrememberalways that,howeveryouareplaced,youcanmakeanartof livingandthusenrich the livesof thosewhoareofyourimmediatecircle.

Footnotes

*1Thereisadeepconnectionbetweentheideologyofsecularhumanismandtheso-calledskepticalmovement.Forinstance,the

world’sleading“skeptical”organization,theCommitteefortheScientificInvestigationofClaimsoftheParanormal(CSICOP)wasformed in1976atameetingof theAmericanHumanistAssociationbyatheistphilosopherPaulKurtz (in2006CSICOPshorteneditsnametoCommitteeforSkepticalInquiry).

*2NewtondidnotsubscribetothisviewbutinsteadfollowedDescartesonthismatter,viewinghumansasthesoleexceptioninanotherwisedeterministicuniverse.Asmentionedabove, thisdoctrinewaspopularizedbyNewton’sfollowers,suchasVoltaireandDiderot,bothofwhomwerestronglymotivatedbyoppositiontoreligion.

†3 3 Note thatmaterialism can be refuted independently of parapsychology. See Beauregard,The Spiritual Brain, 125–153;Carter,ScienceandPsychicPhenomena,165–80;PopperandEccles,TheSelfandItsBrain,98–99.

*4Telepathyreferstotheexchangeofinformationbetweenmindswithoutuseoftheordinarysenses.Clairvoyance,alsocalled“remote viewing,” refers to information about the physical environment received from a distance, beyond the reach of theordinary senses. Together with precognition—seeing the future—these three abilities are collectively referred to as extra-sensoryperception,orESP.ESPpluspsychokinesis—mind/matterinteraction—arecollectivelytermed“psi.”

*5 Nor is there any evidence that memories are stored within the brain. Chapters 5 and 6 of Science and the Near-DeathExperiencedealwiththisissue.

*6ThisisevenmorepuzzlingwhenwerealizethatthereareatleasttworeferencestoreincarnationintheNewTestament.AtonepointthedisciplesaskJesusifablindmansinnedinapreviouslife,andJesusdidnotrebukethem(John9:1–2);atanotherpointJesusdescribesJohntheBaptistastheprophetElijahreborn(Matthew11:11–15).

†7Examplesincludethenovel(andlaterfilm)TheReincarnationofPeterProudbyMaxErlich;thesong“DéjàVu”byCrosby,Stills,Nash,andYoung;“CosmicDancer”byT.Rex;and“Highwayman,”performedbythegroupHighwayman.

*8ProfessorPalmadethefollowingcommentinhisreportonSwarnlata’ssongs:“Someofthewordsareblurred,modified,orchangedbySwarnlata, though the sound,meter, and tunearemaintained fairly intact, just aswouldhappen to someonewhodoesnotunderstandEnglish,but learnsanEnglishsongsungbyanEnglishsingerfromhissinging.Theoriginalsingermightalsohavedeviatedfromtheoriginalsongatplacesasissometimesdonebysingers”(Stevenson,TwentyCasesSuggestiveofReincarnation,85).

*9Stevensonwrites:“Onechildofratherprosperousparentsrecalledalife ina lowerclassfamilyofdefinitelyinferior,almostsqualid circumstances.Andanother childborn in a familyofwell-to-do,well-educatedprofessionalpersons rememberedalife as a child in a peasant family living at a level of bare subsistence in a village not far from where she was born”(“CharacteristicsofCasesoftheReincarnationTypeinCeylon,”34–35).

*10ThereasonStevensonchangedhismindwasthatthenamesofJohnFletcherandhisfamilywerenotfoundintheparishandotherrecords.ThesearchhadonlyjustbegunwhenRyall’sbookwaspublishedin1974.

*11 It isworthmentioning thatmanygeneticbiologists arenot at all impressedby the influenceofheredityonpersonality.Forinstance,PaulEhrlichandMarcusW.Feldmanrecentlywrote:“Manyothercasesilluminatethefailureofgenesto‘control’behavior.TheoriginalSiamesetwins,ChangandEng,werejoinedfor lifebyanarrowbandof tissueconnectingtheirchests.Despitetheiridenticalgenomes,theyhadverydifferentpersonalities.Onewasanalcoholic,theothersober;onewasdominant,theothersubmissive.EquallyfascinatingisthestoryoftheDionnequintuplets,fivegeneticallyidenticallittlegirlswho,inthe1930s, were essentially raised in a laboratory under the supervision of a psychologist.When the girls were only five, thepsychologistwroteabookthatexpressedhisastonishmentathowdifferentthelittlegirlswere—somethingconfirmedbytheirvery different life trajectories.One had epilepsy, the others did not; some died young, the others old; somemarried, othersremainedsingle;andsoon.Similarly, the identicalMarks tripletsgrewupwithdifferent sexualorientations, twostraightandonegay;oneofthetwoidenticalFerezgirlschosetochangehersexwithhormonesandsurgeryandmarriedawoman,whiletheothertwinremainedfemaleandmarriedaman”(“Genes,Environments,andBehaviors,”9–10).

*12This reconstructionwas done by combining the eyewitness reportswith photographs of the scene, location of bloodstains,reportsfromambulanceattendants,andforensicevidence.

*13AnextendeddiscussionofmorphogeneticfieldsandtheirrelationtolifemaybefoundinCarter,ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience,chapter6;andinSheldrake,MorphicResonance.

*14Itispossible,ofcourse,thatMarshall’sfamilyknewaboutthereferencetoasecondwillinthecoatpocket,butkeptquiet,hoping itwouldnotbediscovered.Then it couldbeargued that J.P.Chaffinpickedup thisknowledge telepathically.But ifMarshall’s family were this selfish, dishonest, and disrespectful toward their late benefactor, then surely they would haveattemptedtodestroythenoteandthesecondwill,ratherthanriskthewill’sdiscovery.Butthereisnoevidencetheyattemptedto do so in the four years between the death of the elder Chaffin and the discovery of the secondwill; instead, their firstreactionwastoopposethesecondwillwithalawsuit.

*15 Podmore summarized the case against fraud by Mrs. Leonard in his 1898–99 article, titled “Discussion of the TrancePhenomenaofMrsPiper.”

*16Notethat“fishingforinformation”basedoncluesprovidedbysittersalsocannotexplaincasesinwhichthemediumproducescorrectinformationnotknowntoanyofthesitterspresent.Wehavealreadyexploredtwosuchcases,andseveralmorewillbediscussedinthepagesthatfollow.

*17 It is customary in Iceland to identify persons (e.g., in the phone book) primarily by their first names. This customwill befollowedhere.

*18Theonlyexceptionsappeartobetheresultofexperimentsinpsychometry—inwhichasensitiveisgivenanobjectbelongingtoapersonandthendescribesthatperson.Evenhere,however,theperformanceofthesensitivedoesnotseemtoquitematchuptothebestcasesofmediumshipintermsofrapidityofinformationflowandlevelofdetail.Themostimpressiveevidenceofpsychometrycomes from theworkofFrenchphysicianE.Osty,but, asGauld remarks, “Unfortunately,Osty’s standardsofevidenceandpresentationleaveagreatdealtobedesired”(seeGauld,MediumshipandSurvival,chapter10).

*19NotethatIusethetermsuper-ESPandnotsuper-psi.Thetermpsireferstoextrasensoryperception(ESP)pluspsychokinesis.The latter is simply not relevant here, as I deal only withmentalmediumship, as opposed to themuchmore controversialphysicalmediumship.

*20Hodgsonwrites: “Themanifestations of thisGP communicating have not been of a fitful and spasmodic nature, they haveexhibitedthemarksofacontinuouslivingandpersistentpersonality,manifestingitselfthroughacourseofyears,andshowingthe samecharacteristicsof an independent intelligencewhether friendsofGPwerepresent at the sittingsornot. I learnedofvariouscaseswhere inmyabsenceactiveassistancewas renderedbyGP to sitterswhohadneverpreviouslyheardofhim”(Hodgson,“AFurtherRecordofObservations,”330).

*21 A few years later the reverse happened: GP recognized someone who did not remember him. Hodgson describes whathappened:“AfterGPbegantowrite, Iasked:——“(Doyouknowthisgentleman,MJSavage?)[Mr.SavagehadhadsittingsyearspreviouslyandwasknowntoMrsPiper.]Yes.Ido.Howareyousir?Speaktome.Thisistoodelightful.Iamsopleasedtoseeyourfaceagain.(Youremembermeetinghiminthebody?)Ohyes,well,Idowell.”IsupposedatthetimethatMr.SavagehadnevermetGP,andthatwasMr.Savage’sopinionalso,andwebothexpectedtheanswer“No”tomyfirstquestion...Verysoon,however,duringthesitting,IrecalledwhatIhadtemporarilyforgotten,viz.,thatwhen[theliving]GPhadhissittingwithMrsPiperonMarch7th,1888,theRev.MJSavagewastheCommitteeOfficer,whowaspresentofficiallyatthesitting.ButGPwasnotintroducedunderhisrealnametoMr.Savage...(Hodgson,“AFurtherRecordofObservations,”326[emphasisadded]).

*22Incidentally, the twocommunicatorsclearly favor interactionism.When theGurneypersonalitywaspassingmessages,Mrs.Willet said: “You can’t make parallelism square he says with the conclusions to which recent research points. Pauvreparallelistes!They’relikedrowningmenclingingtospars.Buttheepiphenomenalisticbosh,that’ssimplyblownaway.It’soneoftheblindalleysofhumanthought.Oh!Idon’twanttohearanymore.I’mtired.”

*23Thedubiousnatureofthispointwillbeobvioustoanyonewhohasfoundanintroductoryphilosophycoursedifficult. †24 In his long career as a famousmedium, Fordwas never shown to be a fraud.Among hismany admirerswereApollo 14

Astronaut EdgarMitchell, QueenMaud of Norway, Aldous Huxley, Upton Sinclair, and the rigorously skeptical HarvardpsychologistandpsychicresearcherWilliamMcDougall.Formoreinformation,seeSpraggettandRauscher,ArthurFord.

*25Moves48–52showhowthegamewouldhaveplayedoutandprovidethereasonMaroczyresignedatmove47. *26Neppewrites,“Openingtheoryisthemosttime-intensivepartofchesscompetitionatveryhighlevels,sinceinferiorplayers

canobtainenormousadvantageoverthemorenaturallygiftediftheyhaveencyclopedicknowledgeoftheintricaciesofchessopenings”(“ADetailedAnalysisofanImportantChessGame,”142).

*27PhilosopherandchessenthusiastTimMcGrewofMichiganUniversityhasextensivelyanalyzed theabilityofcomputers toplaychess,andwrote:“Itischieflybythischaracteristic—thereadinessoftheprogramtoabandonthestrategicallyindicatedpathsinthedubiouspursuitofmaterialgains—thatcomputerscanbedistinguishedfromhumanbeingsinblindtests.Thetroubleisnotjustthathumanssometimesmakegrossmistakes—themachinecouldbeprogrammedtoblunderfromtimetotimeaswell—butratherthatcurrentlyprogrammershavenoideahowtoenablethemachinetoselecttherelevantfeaturesofthepositionortoformandfollowplans.Barringaconceptualbreakthroughinthisdirection,computerchessisandwillremaindetectablyinhuman”(McGrew,“TheSimulationofExpertise:DeeperBlueandtheRiddleofCognition”).

*28Note thatNeppecorrectedanerrormadebyEisenbeissandHassler: twoitemsthought tobe incorrectwerereclassifiedasunsolved.

*29Typicalexamplesofhumantelepathywouldincludeasenseofbeingstaredat,ortheoccasionalhunchbeforearingingphoneisansweredthatacertainpersonwillbeontheline.BiologistRupertSheldrakehasgatheredexperimentalevidenceshowingthatpeoplecan,infact,performthefirstfeatatarateofabout55percentwhen50percentwouldbeexpectedbychance,andthesecondfeatatarateofabout40percentwhen25percentwouldbeexpectedbychance(Sheldrake,TheSenseofBeingStaredAt).

*30Atthispointthereadermayrecallwithsomeamusementtheremarkby“skeptic”VictorStengerthatopenedPartIIIofthisbook:“Lodgeandothernineteenth-centurypsychicalresearchersunwittinglyallowedthemselvestobefooledbythetricksofprofessionalfortunetellersandsleight-of-handartistsposingasspiritualists.”

*3131Comeaway,comeaway,death,/andinsadcypressletmebelaid;/Flyaway,flyaway,breath:/Iamslainbyafaircruelmaid(Shakespeare,TwelfthNight,II).

†3232PaleDeath,with impartialstep,knocksat thepoorman’scottageandthepalacesofkings(PallidaMorsaequopulsatpede,pauperumtabernasregumqueturris)(Horace,Odes,1.4).

*33 Themajor investigator of this case, J. G. Piddington, commented on this line as follows: “The way in whichMyers herewithheldtheobviousandcommonplaceansweruntilpressedtogiveitbyMrDorris,Ithink,deservingoftheutmostattention;forthisavoidanceofthetriteandobviouscreatesapresumptionthatMyersdeliberatelypreferredsotoframehismessagesthatonlystudyandthoughtwouldrenderthemintelligible”(Piddington,“ThreeIncidentsfromtheSittings,”91).

*34 In theMetamorphoses, the stories appear in this order: Death of Eurydice and Orpheus’s descent into the Underworld;PygmalionandtheStatue;DeathofOrpheusandhisreunionwithEurydice;Iris(CeyxandAlcyonestory).

†35InGayley’sClassicMyths thestoriesappearinthisorder:Hyacinthus,chap.X;Pygmalion,chap.X;OrpheusandEurydice,chap.XII;CeyxandAlcyone,chap.XIV. In Bulfinch’sAge of Fables the stories appear in this order: Hyacinthus, chap. VIII; Pygmalion, chap. VIII; Ceyx andAlcyone,chap.IX;OrpheusandEurydice,chap.XXIV.

*36Forinstance,inthefourthstanzaOrpheusisnotnamed,butisonlyreferredtobyhiscountryoforigin,as“theThracian.”NotethatPiddingtonthoughtthatthereferencetoHyacinthuswasbroughtinasananswertoaquestionaskedbyDorr,andnottoprovideacluetothesourceoftheallusionstoIrisandtheCaveofSleep.

*37Atagethirty,Myersfelldeeplyinlovewithamarriedwoman,wholovedhiminreturnbutstayedloyaltoherhusband.Shediedthreeyearslater,andMyersneverforgother(Salter,“FWHMyers’sPosthumousMessage,”6–7).

*38Piddingtonwrote:“ThoughIhavenotdiscoveredareferencetoLetheinanyofFredericMyers’soriginalpoems,oneexistsinhisversetranslationofAnchises’sfamousspeechinAenidVI.”ThispaperwasnotpublishedatthetimethequestionwasputtoMrs.Willett,butitseemsthatMrs.Willett’sMyerscommunicatorneverthelesscorrectedPiddington’smistake.

*39TherewastheDoortowhichIfoundnoKey:/TherewastheVeilthroughwhichIcouldnotsee.—OmarKhayyam,Rubaiyat,XXXV.

*40ExcellentsummariesofthesecasescanbefoundinSaltmarsh,EvidenceofPersonalSurvival,chapterVI. *41 When others are reported perceived and identified during an NDE, they are almost invariably deceased. For instance,

cardiologist andNDE researcherPimvanLommelwrote: “I haveheardhundreds andhundredsof people tellingme abouttheirNDE,andIhavemorethanonethousandwrittenreportsofNDEinmyfiles.However,Icannotrememberasinglereportofameetingwithlivingrelativesorfriends”(personalcommunication,September26,2010).

*42ThismatterisdiscussedinmoredepthinmypreviousbookScienceandPsychicPhenomena,chapter5. *43ThereareinfactsseveralaccountsfromWWIIofpeopleusingpsychicabilitiestosavetheir lives.Oneofthemostfamous

involvedWinstonChurchill,whoselifewassavedbyafeelingthatheshouldnotsit inhisusualplaceinacar.“Isometimeshaveafeeling—infactIhavehaditverystrongly—afeelingofinterference,”hetoldagatheringofminerslaterinthewar.“Ihaveafeelingsometimesthatsomeguidinghandhasinterfered.”SheldrakealsoreportsthecaseofaBritishsoldierinMalayawhofelthewasbeingstaredat,accompaniedbyasenseofdanger.Heturnedtoseeanenemysoldierabout20yardsaway,bringinghisrifleuptofire.TheBritishsoldiershotfirst,killinghisenemyandtherebysavinghisownlife(TheSenseofBeingStared At, xii). These and other historical accounts do not stretch the original meanings of the words telelpathy andclairvoyance,andcanbefoundinScienceandPsychicPhenomena,chapter3.

*44Skepticssometimesliketoclaimthat“extraordinaryclaimsrequireextraordinaryevidence”butweneedtorememberthatwehave no objective guidelines as to what constitutes an “extraordinary claim.” Many claims that were once considered“extraordinary”—such as claims that rocks sometimes fall from the sky, or that the continents drift—became in time to beconsideredquiteordinary.Also,onecouldeasilyargue,asphilosopherNealGrossmandoes,that“thereisabsolutelynothingextraordinary about the hypothesis of an afterlife. The overwhelming majority of people in the world believe it, and havealways believed it” (“Four Errors Commonly Made by Professional Debunkers”). Finally, we could further remark thatseveral of the best cases—such as Maroczy versus Korchnoi or the cross correspondences—certainly do provideextraordinaryevidence.

*45This is sometimesmisunderstoodas implying the fallacy that the simplest explanation ismost likelycorrect.Examples thatillustrate thisfallacyareeasytofind:for instance, thequantummechanical theoryofmatter isfarmorecomplicatedthanthesimpleclassicaltheory,butitisnowknownthattheclassicaltheoryisgrosslyandfundamentallyincorrect.

*46The crux of the issue is really the old philosophical question of the true relationship between the brain and themind. Theproductiontheorypredictsthatthemindwillnotsurvivethedeathofthebrain(andhence,thatnosolidevidencewillbefoundforsurvival).Thetransmissiontheoryallowsthepossibilityofsurvival(andhence,isconsistentwithanyevidenceforsurvivalthatisfound).Wehaveseenthatthereissubstantialevidenceforsurvival.But,wecanimmunizetheproductiontheorywiththeadditionof adhoc auxiliary super-ESPhypotheses, inorder to explain away thedata that threatens to falsify theproductiontheory. In their testable forms, theauxiliaryESPhypotheseswouldpredict thatevidenceof theseabilitieswouldbe found incasesoutsideofthoseinquestion;thatis,incasesthatdonotappeartoprovideevidenceforsurvival.Butsuchevidencehasnotbeenfound.Ifthesuper-ESPhypothesisisheldregardless,thenitsonlypurposeistopropupadogma—thatis,abeliefthatisheldforreasonsotherthanthesupportofcorroboratingevidence.

*47 Note that while some beliefs about nature—such as the existence of gravity—may count as scientific facts, our scientifictheoriesdonotcountasknowledge,astheyaremerelyhypotheses—conjecturesthatareattemptstoexplainhowcertainfactsfittogether.Thedistinctionhereisbetweengravityandevolutionasfacts,andthetheoriesthattrytoexplainhowtheywork.Theproblemofinduction—nottomentiontheentirehistoryofscience—meansthatwecanneverconsiderourscientifictheoriestrue beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is elaborated in chapter 15 of my previous book, Science and PsychicPhenomena.

*48ThetermclairvoyancecomesfromFrenchclairmeaning“clear”andvoyancemeaning“vision.” *49See,forinstance,Barker,LettersfromtheLight;CumminsandToksvig,SwanonaBlackSea;andHamilton,IsSurvivala

Fact? *50 Regarding clothing, Myers writes: “It is necessary for me to emphasise once again the important part our subconscious

memoryofourpastterrestriallifeandourcreativefacultyplayinthebuildingupofanewlife,afreshstorywhich,however,fora time,naturallybearsa resemblance to thepastoutofwhich ithas sprung .For instance,wewereaccustomed towearclothesthatbelongedtoourparticularperiod.Theimagesofthesearedeeplymarkedinoursubconsciousmemory.Soourfirstinstinctistoappeartothoseweloveaswewereonearth.Ourminds,thoughunconsciousoftheimaginativeact,fashionoutofthisamazinglyplasticethereverythread,everyinchofthegarmentswhichwehabituallyworeduringourearth-life.Naturally,afterawhile,webecomeawareatlastofthecreativepowersofimagination,anddevisestrangeandlovelycoveringsforourethericbodies(Cummins,BeyondHumanPersonality,33).Notethatthisprovidesasolutiontotheproblemmentionedearlierregardingreportsofappropriatelyclothedapparitions(seepages88–89).

*51TheappendixcontainswhatMyersclaimsisatruestoryofonewoman’sexperiencesintheLotusFlowerparadise. *52InthewordsofliberaltheologianArthurPeacocke,“Godcreatestheworldthroughwhatwecall‘chance’operatingwithin

thecreatedorder”(Peacocke,TheologyforaScientificAge,119). *53Thisideaisalsoknownasdirectedmutagenesis,andJohnCairnsofHarvardfirstproposedthishypothesisin1988.Hefound

thatEscherichiacolibacteriaevolvedtheabilitytometabolizelactoseataratemanytimesgreaterthanthatwhichwouldbepredictedifthemutationsweretrulyrandom.SusanRosenbergattheUniversityofAlbertalatercorroboratedhisresults.(SeeSymonds,“AFitterTheoryofEvolution”;andNash,“TestofPsychokineticControlofBacterialMutation.”)

†54 54 See chapter 4 ofmy bookScience and theNear-Death Experience for experimental evidence of this effect, and therelationshipoftheeffectwithmodernphysics.

Endnotes

FOREWORD 1.Sidgwick,“AddressbythePresidentattheFirstGeneralMeeting,”12. 2.Bailey,Death,2.

INTRODUCTION 1.Griffen,Parapsychology,Philosophy,andSpirituality,291–92. 2.Becker,ParanormalExperienceandSurvivalofDeath,3.

PSYCHICPHENOMENAANDTHENEAR-DEATHEXPERIENCE:BACKGROUND 1.Evans,“Parapsychology”;WagnerandMaryMonet,“AttitudesofCollegeProfessorsTowardExtra-SensoryPerception.” 2.Carter,ScienceandPsychicPhenomena,60,131–32. 3.Ibid.,chapters4–8.SeealsoRadin,TheConsciousUniverse. 4.Popper,“RepliestoMyCritics,”983. 5.Carter,ScienceandPsychicPhenomena,chapter12. 6.CostadeBeauregard,“TheExpandingParadigmoftheEinsteinTheory,”182. 7.Murphy,“PsychologyintheYear2000,”527. 8.Kurtz,“CommitteetoScientificallyInvestigateClaimsofParanormalandOtherPhenomena.” 9.HarrispollreleasedJanuary1978,quotedinClark,“SkepticsandtheNewAge,”425.

CHAPTER1.EVIDENCEFROMINDIATOENGLAND 1.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRememberPreviousLives,26. 2.SeeAlmeder,Death&PersonalSurvival,66–81. 3.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,26. 4.Ibid.,125–26. 5.SeeStevenson,“TheEvidenceforSurvivalfromClaimedMemoriesofFormerIncarnations.” 6.Stevenson,TwentyCasesSuggestiveofReincarnation,259–69;Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRememberPreviousLives,57–59. 7.Ibid.,71–73;Stevenson,ReincarnationandBiology,2041–62. 8.Stevenson,CasesoftheReincarnationType,194. 9.ThiscaseisdescribedindetailinStevenson,CasesoftheReincarnationType,176–205.

CHAPTER2.CHARACTERISTICSOFREINCARNATIONCASES 1.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,103. 2.Ibid.,248. 3.Ibid.,109–10. 4.Ibid.,115. 5.Ibid.,171. 6.Ibid.,117. 7.Ibid.,117,160. 8.Ibid.,212. 9.Ibid.,257. 10.Ibid.,258–59.

CHAPTER3.ALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONSFORREINCARNATIONEVIDENCE 1.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,147.

2.Forinstance,seeBrody,“ReviewofCasesoftheReincarnationType,”770. 3.QuotedinMatlock,“PastLifeMemoryCases,”252. 4.Mills,“AReplicationStudy,”180–81. 5.Mills,Haraldsson,andKeil,“ReplicationStudiesofCasesSuggestiveofReincarnationbyThree Independent Investigators,”

217. 6.Stevenson,“CharacteristicsofCasesoftheReincarnationTypeinCeylon,”34–35. 7.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,215. 8.MentionedinMatlock,“PastLifeMemoryCases,”227–28. 9.Stevenson,TwentyCasesSuggestiveofReincarnation,332. 10.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,147. 11.Brody,“ReviewofCasesoftheReincarnationType,”770. 12.Ibid.,771. 13.Ibid.,770. 14.QuotedbyBrody,“ReviewofCasesoftheReincarnationType,”773. 15.Stevenson,ChildrenWhoRemember,150–51. 16.Stevenson,“AmericanChildrenWhoClaimtoRememberPreviousLives,”742. 17.Matlock,“PastLifeMemoryCases,”238. 18.Stevenson,“CommentsbyIanStevenson,”237.

CHAPTER4.THEOBJECTIONSOFPAULEDWARDS 1.Edwards,Reincarnation,255. 2.Ibid.,256. 3.Almeder,Death&PersonalSurvival,34. 4.Ibid.,35. 5.Edwards,Reincarnation,103. 6.Stevenson,“CryptomnesiaandParapsychology,”27. 7.Edwards,Reincarnation,103–4. 8.Stevenson,“CommentsbyIanStevenson,”231. 9.Ibid.,232. 10. See Gauld, Mediumship and Survival, 106–7, 182; Matlock, “Past Life Memory Cases,” 247–48; and Stevenson,

“CommentsbyIanStevenson.” 11.Matlock,“PastLife,”251. 12.Edwards,Reincarnation,264. 13.PasrichaandBarker,“ACaseoftheReincarnationTypeinIndia,”396–97. 14.Ibid.,396–97. 15.Ibid.,399. 16.Ibid. 17.Ibid.,404. 18.Pasricha,“NewInformationFavoringaParanormalInterpretationintheCaseofRakeshGaur,”79. 19.PasrichaandBarker,“ACaseoftheReincarnationTypeinIndia,”406. 20.Pasricha,“NewInformation,”83. 21.Edwards,Reincarnation,264. 22.Ibid.,102. 23.Ibid.,140. 24.Ibid.,268.

CHAPTER5.REINCARNATIONINREVIEW 1.Sagan,TheDemonHauntedWorld,302. 2.Almeder,Death&PersonalSurvival,47. 3.Stevenson,“ResearchintotheEvidenceofMan’sSurvivalAfterDeath,”165.

CHAPTER6.STRANGEVISITS

1.Inglis,TheParanormal,186. 2.Ibid.,189–90. 3.OsisandHaraldsson,AttheHourofDeath,218. 4.Haraldsson,“SurveyofClaimedEncounterswiththeDead,”107. 5.QuotedinCurrie,YouCannotDie!157–58. 6.GreenandMcCreery,Apparitions,64–65. 7.Ibid.,194. 8.Ibid.,174. 9.Ibid.,144–45.

CHAPTER7.CHARACTERISTICSANDTHEORIESOFAPPARITIONS 1.Haraldsson,“SpontaneousCases,”1. 2.Stevenson,“TheContributionofApparitionstotheEvidenceforSurvival,”345. 3.Haraldsson,DepartedAmongtheLiving. 4.GreenandMcCreery,Apparitions,143. 5.Ibid.,143. 6.Haraldsson,“SpontaneousCases,”3. 7.GreenandMcCreery,Apparitions,50. 8.Stevenson,“TheContributionofApparitions,”346. 9.Haraldsson,“SpontaneousCases,”5. 10.GreenandMcCreery,Apparitions,188. 11.SeeforinstanceGurneyetal.,PhantasmsoftheLiving,93–94. 12.AsquotedinLorimer,Survival?182. 13.Gordon,ExtrasensoryDeception,103. 14.Lorimer,Survival?183. 15.YuilleandCutshall,“ACaseStudyofEyewitnessMemorytoaCrime,”291. 16.Ibid.,299. 17.Gordon,ExtrasensoryDeception,103–4,emphasisadded. 18.Anderson,“AbnormalMentalStatesinSurvivors,”369. 19.Ibid.,375. 20.Ibid.,376–77. 21.Hartetal.,“SixTheoriesaboutApparitions,”215–16. 22.Broad,LecturesonPsychicalResearch,234. 23.AsquotedinHartetal.,“SixTheories,”222. 24.Ibid.,223–24.

CHAPTER8.WHATUNDERLIESGHOSTLYVISIONS? 1.AsreportedinStevenson,“TheContributionofApparitionstotheEvidenceforSurvival,”349. 2.Hartetal.,“SixTheories,”203–4. 3.Morton,“RecordofaHauntedHouse,”313. 4.Ibid.,326. 5.Ibid. 6.Ibid.,314. 7.Ibid.,323. 8.Ibid.,319. 9.MacKenzie,HauntingsandApparitions,58–59. 10.Morton,“RecordofaHauntedHouse,”311. 11.Lambert,“TheCheltenhamGhost,”267–77.

12.AsmentionedinDucasse,ACriticalExaminationoftheBeliefinaLifeAfterDeath,155–56. 13.Roll,“ANineteenth-centuryMatchmakingApparition,”404. 14.Ducasse,ACriticalExamination,155. 15.Ibid.,155. 16.Lieut,“AnApparitionIdentifiedfromaPhotograph,”54. 17.Ibid.,55. 18.Ibid.,56. 19.Myers,“OnRecognizedApparitionsOccurringMoreThanaYearafterDeath,”27–28. 20.Ibid.,28. 21.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,235. 22.Ibid.,235–36. 23.Bird,“TwoStrikingCasesofCollectiveApparition,”429–30. 24.Hartetal.,“SixTheoriesaboutApparitions,”207–8. 25.HartandHart,“VisionsandApparitionsCollectivelyandReciprocallyPerceived,”220. 26.GreenandMcCreery,Apparitions,180. 27.Jacobson,LifeWithoutDeath?110–11. 28.Myers,“OntheEvidenceforClairvoyance,”41–46. 29.Kellyetal.,IrreducibleMind,395–96,footnote. 30.Hartetal.,“SixTheories,”235. 31.Brougham,LifeandTimesofLordBrougham,200–203. 32.Gurney,“OnApparitionsOccurringSoonafterDeath,”423. 33.Ibid.,424. 34.Clarke,“WorldofStrangePowers.” 35.Gurney,“OnApparitionsOccurringSoonafterDeath,”413–14. 36.Ibid. 37.“CaseoftheWillofJamesL.Chaffin,”519. 38.Ibid.,523. 39.Ibid.

CHAPTER9.FINALTHOUGHTSONAPPARITIONS 1.Hartetal.,“SixTheories,”230.

CHAPTER10.ANCIENTEVIDENCE 1.Inglis,NaturalandSupernatural,40. 2.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,17. 3.QuotedinHart,TheEnigmaofSurvival,256–57. 4.GauldandCornell,Poltergeists,26. 5.Lorimer,Survival?193. 6.AsquotedinHeywood,BeyondtheReachofSense,53–54.

CHAPTER11.THESPRINVESTIGATES 1.Beloff,Parapsychology,57. 2.Hodgson,“ARecordofObservationsofCertainPhenomenaofTrance,”130. 3.QuotedinGauld,MediumshipandSurvival,33. 4.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecordofObservationsofCertainPhenomenaofTrance,”285. 5.Myers,HumanPersonalityandItsSurvivalofBodilyDeath,vol.2,239. 6.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”300. 7.Ibid.,300. 8.Ibid.,328. 9.Ibid.

10.Ibid.,406. 11.SeeGauld,MediumshipandSurvival,47. 12.Sidgwick,“AnExaminationofBook-testsObtainedinSittingswithMrs.Leonard,”254. 13.Ibid. 14.Ibid.,255. 15.Ibid. 16.Ibid.,256. 17.Ibid.,257. 18.Ibid.,258–59.

CHAPTER12.ALTERNATIVEEXPLANATIONS 1.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”296. 2.Ducasse,“WhatWouldConstituteConclusiveEvidenceofSurvivalafterDeath?”402–3. 3.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,39. 4.Soal,“AReportonSomeCommunicationsReceivedthroughMrsBlancheCooper.” 5.Markwick,“TheSoal-GoldneyExperimentswithBasilShackleton.” 6.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,137–38. 7.Harris,InvestigatingtheUnexplained,141. 8.Soal,“AReportonSomeCommunications,”582. 9.Harris,InvestigatingtheUnexplained,142. 10.Ibid. 11.Markwick,“TheSoal-GoldneyExperimentswithBasilShackleton,”272–73. 12.12.Toynbee,Heywood,etal.,Man’sConcernwithDeath,233. 13.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”485–86. 14.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,41. 15.“NotebyProfessorE.R.Dodds,”inThomas,“AProxyExperimentofSignificantSuccess,”294. 16.Thomas,“AProxyExtendingoverElevenSittingswithMrsOsborneLeonard,”502–3. 17.Stevenson,“ACommunicatorUnknowntoMediumandSitters,”63. 18.Ibid.,54. 19.Myers,HumanPersonality,vol.2,472. 20.Ibid.,473. 21.HaraldssonandStevenson,“ACommunicatorofthe‘Dropin’TypeinIceland,”39. 22.Ibid.,57.

CHAPTER13.SUPER-ESPASANEXPLANATION? 1.Sidgwick,“AnExaminationofBook-tests,”255. 2.Myers,HumanPersonality,vol.2,181. 3.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”491. 4.Ibid.,493. 5.Gauld,MediumshipandSurvival,42. 6.Ibid.,142. 7.QuotedinIbid. 8.Thomas,“ANewHypothesisConcerningTranceCommunications,”134. 9.Ibid.,135. 10. Ibid.,140. 11.Ibid.,143. 12.Ibid.,142. 13.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”290. 14.Ibid.

15.Bayfield,“NotesontheSameScripts,”246. 16.Ibid.,249. 17.Ibid. 18.Gauld,“DiscarnateSurvial,”620–21. 19.Hodgson,“AFurtherRecord,”324–25. 20.Broad,LecturesonPsychicalResearch,297. 21.Almeder,Death&PersonalSurvival,219. 22.Heywood,BeyondtheReachofSense,102. 23.Ibid.,103. 24.Broad,Lectures,313. 25.Almeder,Death,208–9. 26.Edmonds,Spiritualism,45. 27.Edmonds,LettersandTractsonSpiritualism,70–71. 28.Lomaxe,“JudgeEdmonds,”11–12. 29.Almeder,Death,236. 30.Ibid.,206. 31.Dingwall,“AnAmazingCase,”302. 32.Ibid.,304. 33.Ibid.,303,304. 34.Ibid.,304. 35. Eisenbeiss and Hassler, “As Assessment of Ostensible Communications with a Deceased Grandmaster as Evidence for

Survival,”70. 36.Ibid.,67. 37.Neppe,“ADetailedAnalysisofanImportantChessGame,”146. 38.Ibid.,135. 39.Ibid.,142. 40.Ibid.,135. 41.Ibid.,132. 42.Ibid.,136. 43.Ibid.,142. 44.Ibid.,143. 45.Ibid.,146. 46.EisenbiessandHassler,“AsAssessmentofOstensibleCommunications,”66. 47.Ibid.,71. 48.Neppe,“ADetailedAnalysis,”145. 49.Ibid. 50.EisenbeissandHassler,“AsAssessment,”73. 51.Ibid.,74. 52.Ibid.,74. 53.Ibid.,74–75. 54.Ibid.,75–76. 55.Ibid.,76. 56.Ibid.,80. 57.Ibid.,77–78,80. 58.Ibid.,79. 59.Neppe,“ADetailedAnalysis,”146–47. 60.Broad,Lectures,427.

CHAPTER14.CROSSCORRESPONDENCES

1.Saltmarsh,EvidenceofPersonalSurvivalfromCrossCorrespondences,36. 2.Ibid.,46. 3.Ibid.,36. 4.Ibid.,36–37. 5.Ibid.,60. 6.Quotedinibid.,57.Fororiginalmaterial,seeProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch,Vol.XXI. 7.Johnson,“AReconstructionofSomeConcordantAutomatisms,”151–52. 8.Ibid.,154.

CHAPTER15.THELETHEEXPERIMENT 1.Piddington,“ThreeIncidentsfromtheSittings,”87. 2.Ibid.,87–88. 3.Ibid.,89. 4.Ibid.,90–91. 5.Ibid.,92–97. 6.Ibid.,105. 7.Ibid.,109. 8.Ibid.,110. 9.Ibid.,114. 10.Ibid.,98–99. 11.Ibid.,139–40. 12.Asquotedinibid.,129. 13.Ibid.,117. 14.Ibid.,121,122,respectively. 15.Ibid.,120. 16.Ibid.,130. 17.Ibid.,131–32. 18.Ibid.,120,seefootnote1. 19.Ibid.,132–33. 20.Saltmarsh,EvidenceofPersonalSurvival,134. 21.Ducasse,“WhatWouldConstituteConclusiveEvidenceofSurvivalafterDeath?”406. 22.Lodge,“EvidenceofClassicalScholarshipandofCross-correspondenceinSomeNewAutomaticWritings,”117. 23.Ibid.,122. 24.Ibid.,122–24. 25.Ibid.,126. 26.Ibid.,132. 27.Piddington,“ThreeIncidents,”87. 28.Ibid.,128. 29.Saltmarsh,EvidenceofPersonalSurvival,95–96.SeealsoLodge,“EvidenceofClassicalScholarship.” 30.Lodge,“Evidence,”172–73. 31.Johnson,“OntheAutomaticWritingofMrs.Holland,”208. 32.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,23.

CHAPTER16.EVALUATIONOFTHECROSSCORRESPONDENCES 1.Saltmarsh,EvidenceofPersonalSurvival,85–86. 2.Heywood,BeyondtheReachofSense,87. 3.Saltmarsh,Evidence,26. 4.SeeBalfour,“ThePalmSundayCase,”79–267. 5.Piddington,“ASeriesofConcordantAutomatisms,”243.

6.Balfour,“Remarks,”26.

CHAPTER17.HOWTHECASEFORSURVIVALSTANDSTODAY 1.Becker,ParanormalExperienceandSurvivalofDeath,118. 2.Popper,TheLogicofScientificDiscovery,142. 3.Ibid.,145. 4.Almeder,Death&PersonalSurvival,228. 5.Ducasse,ACriticalExamination,203.

CHAPTER18.ISSURVIVALAFACT? 1.Schwartz,“VocalMinorityInsistsItWasAllSmokeandMirrors.” 2.Ibid. 3.Grossman,“FourErrorsCommonlyMadebyProfessionalDebunkers,”231. 4.Ibid.,233. 5.Ibid.,234. 6.Ibid.,235–37. 7.Ibid.,237.

CHAPTER19.WHATTHEDEADSAY 1.Lorimer,Survival?272–73. 2.Randall,LifeafterDeath,32. 3.Ibid.,11. 4.Brown,ImmortalsbyMySide,33–43. 5.Ibid.,28–29. 6.Ibid.,170. 7.Ibid.,170–71. 8.Ibid.,104. 9.Ibid.,104. 10.Sherwood,TheCountryBeyond,55–57. 11.Ibid.,60–61. 12.Ibid.,63. 13.Ibid.,64–66. 14.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,30. 15.Ibid.,38. 16.Currie,YouCannotDie!336–37. 17.Roberts,TheSethMaterial,275–77. 18.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,31–32. 19.Ibid.,189–90. 20.Cummins,BeyondHumanPersonality,25. 21.Ibid.,76. 22.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,80–81. 23.Ibid.,88–89. 24.Ibid.,47. 25.Brown,Immortals,105. 26.Cummins,BeyondHumanPersonality,79. 27.Ibid.,64. 28.Ibid.,65. 29.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,41. 30.Cummins,BeyondHumanPersonality,36–37. 31.Cummins,TheRoad,100.

32.Ibid.,110. 33.Cummins,Beyond,40–41. 34.“NoMatter.” 35.Ferris,ComingofAgeintheMilkyWay,288–89. 36.Cummins,TheRoadtoImmortality,43–44. 37.Ibid.,49. 38.Ibid.,54. 39.Ibid.,54. 40.Ibid.,57. 41.Cummins,Beyond,46. 42.Cummins,TheRoad,58. 43.Ibid.,69. 44.Ibid.,71. 45.Ibid.,72–73. 46.Ibid.,77.

EPILOGUE 1.Inglis,ScienceandParascience,139. 2.Schwartz,TheAfterlifeExperiments,224. 3.Zingrone,“FailingtoGotheDistance.” 4.QuotedinPopper,“NaturalSelectionandtheEmergenceofMind,”142. 5.Firsoff,“LifeandQuantumPhysics,”116. 6.Denton,Nature’sDestiny,285. 7.Ibid.,16. 8.Ibid.,298. 9.Eccles,FacingReality,62. 10.Herbert,ElementalMind,172. 11.Lasagna,“LetMagicCastItsSpell,”10–11. 12.PopperandEccles,TheSelfandItsBrain,558.

Bibliography Addison,JamesThayer.LifeBeyondDeathintheBeliefsofMankind.BostonandNewYork:HoughtonMifflinCo.,1932. Almeder,Robert.Death&PersonalSurvival.Lanham,Md.:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc.,1992. _____.“OnReincarnation:AReplytoHales.”Philosophia28(2001):347–58. Anderson, E. W. “Abnormal Mental States in Survivors, with Special Reference to Collective Hallucinations.” Royal Naval

MedicalServiceJournal28(1942):361–77. Bailey,Alice,andDjwhalKhul,eds.Death:TheGreatAdventure.NewYork:LucisPublishingCo.,1985. Balfour, G. “Remarks on Mrs. Sidgewick’s Paper on the History of the Society,” Proceedings of the Society for Psychical

Research41(1932):26. Balfour,J.“ThePalmSundayCase:NewLightonanOldLoveStory.”Proceedingsof theSociety forPsychicalResearch 52

(1958–60):79–267. Barker,David.“LettertotheEditors.”JournalofParapsychology43(1979):268–69. Barker,Elsa.LettersfromtheLight:AnAfterlifeJournalfromtheSelf-LightedWorld.Hillsboro,Ore.:BeyondWorlds,1995. Barrett,William.DeathBedVisions.London:Methuen,1926. Bartley,W.W.“ThePhilosophyofKarlPopper,PartII:ConsciousnessandPhysics.”Philisophia7,nos.3–4(July1978):675–

716. Bayfield,M.A.“NotesontheSameScripts.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchXXVII(1914–15):244–49. Beauregard,Mario,andDenyseO’Leary.TheSpiritualBrain.NewYork:HarperCollins,2007. Becker,Carl.ParanormalExperienceandSurvivalofDeath.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993. Beloff,John.“Mind-BodyInteractioninLightoftheParapsychologicalEvidence.”TheoriatoTheory10(1976):125–37. _____.“TheMind-BrainProblem.”TheJournalofScientificExploration8,no.4(1994):509–22. _____.Parapsychology:AConciseHistory.London:TheAthlonePress,1993. _____.TheRelentlessQuestion.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland&Co.,1990. Bird,J.M.“TwoStrikingCasesofCollectiveApparition.”Journalof theAmericanSociety forPsychicalResearch 22 (1928):

429–32. Blackmore,S.“AreOut-of-BodyExperiencesEvidenceforSurvival?”Anabiosis:TheJournalforNear-DeathStudies3(1983):

137–55. Blanke,O.,S.Ortigue,T.Landis, andM.Seeck. “Stimulating IllusoryOwn-BodyPerceptions.”Nature 419 (September 2002):

269. Braud, W. G. “Conscious versus Unconscious Clairvoyance in the Context of an Academic Examination.” Journal of

Parapsychology39(1975):277–88. Braude,Stephen.TheLimitsofInfluence.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge&KeganPaul,1986. Broad,C.D.LecturesonPsychicalResearch.NewYork:HumanitiesPress,1962. _____.TheMindandItsPlaceinNature.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&Co.,1929. _____. “The Relevance of Psychical Research to Philosophy.” Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy XXIV, no. 91

(October1949):291–309. Brody, Eugene. “Review ofCases of the Reincarnation Type. Volume 2. Ten Cases in Sri Lanka.” Journal of Nervous and

MentalDisease167,no.12(1979):769–74. Brougham,Henry.LifeandTimesofLordBrougham,vol.1.EdinburghandLondon:WilliamBlackwoodandSons,1871. Broughton,Richard.Parapsychology:TheControversialScience.NewYork:BallantineBooks,1991. Brown,Rosemary.ImmortalsbyMySide.London:Bachman&Turner,1974. Carter,Chris.ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience.Rochester,Vt.:InnerTraditions,2010. _____.ScienceandPsychicPhenomena.Rochester,Vt.:InnerTraditions,2011.Originallypublishedin2007asParapsychology

andtheSkepticsbySterlinghouse,Pittsburgh,Pa. “CaseoftheWillofJamesL.Chaffin.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch36(1926):517–24. Clark,Jerome.“SkepticsandtheNewAge.”InNewAgeEncyclopedia,byJ.GordonMelton,JeromeClark,andAidanKelly.

Detroit:GaleResearch,1990. Clarke,ArthurC.“WorldofStrangePowers:MessagesfromtheDead.”YorkshireTelevision(1985).AvailableonPacificArts

Video.

Collins,H.H.ChangingOrder:ReplicationandInductioninScientificPractice.BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage,1985. Cook, E., B. Greyson, and I. Stevenson. “Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human

PersonalityafterDeath?RelevantFeaturesandIllustrativeCaseReports.”JournalofScientificExploration12,no.3(1998):377–406.

_____.“TheExpandingParadigmoftheEinsteinTheory.”InTheIcelandPapers,editedbyA.Puharich.Amherst,Wis.:EssentiaResearchAssociates,1979.

Costa de Beauregard, Olivier. “Quantum Paradoxes and Aristotle’s Twofold Information Concept.” InQuantum Physics andParapsychology,editedbyLauraOteri.NewYork:ParapsychologyFoundation,1975.

Crookal,Robert.TheSupremeAdventure.Cambridge,U.K.:JamesClark,1961. Cummins,Geraldine.BeyondHumanPersonality.London:PsychicPressLtd.,1935. _____.TheRoadtoImmortality,4thed.London,U.K.:LoweandBrydone,1967.Originallypublished in1932.London,U.K.:

LoweandBrydone. Cummins,Geraldine,andSigneToksvig.SwanonaBlackSea.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1965. Currie,Ian.YouCannotDie!Toronto:SomervilleHouse,1978. Dean,Douglas.“20thAnniversaryofthePAandtheAAAS,Part1:1963–1969.”ASPRNewsletter(Winter1990). Denton,Michael.Nature’sDestiny:HowtheLawsofBiologyRevealPurposeintheUniverse.NewYork:TheFreePress,1998. Dingwall, E. J. “An Amazing Case: The Mediumship of Carlos Mirabelli.” Journalof the American Society for Psychical

ResearchXXXLV(1930):296–306. Ducasse,Curt.ACriticalExaminationoftheBeliefinaLifeAfterDeath.Springfield,Ill.:CharlesCThomas,1961. _____.ParanormalScienceandLifeafterDeath.Springfield,Ill.:CharlesCThomas,1959. _____.“WhatWouldConstituteConclusiveEvidenceofSurvivalafterDeath?”Journalof theSociety forPsychicalResearch

41,no.714(December1962):401–6. Eccles,John.FacingReality:PhilosophicalAdventuresofaBrainScientist.NewYork,Heidelberg,andBerlin:Springer-Verlag,

1970. _____.TheNeurophysiologicalBasisofMind.Oxford,U.K.:OxfordUniversityPress,1953. Edmonds,JohnEdwards.Spiritualism,vol.2.NewYork:J.Partridge&Brittan,1855. _____.LettersandTractsonSpiritualism.London:J.BurnsProgressiveLibrary,1874. Edwards,Paul,ed.Immortality.Amherst,N.Y.:PrometheusBooks,1997. _____.Reincarnation:ACriticalExamination.NewYork:PrometheusBooks,1996. Ehrlich,Paul,andMarcusW.Feldman.“Genes,Environments&Behaviors.”Daedalus,AmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences

(Spring2007):5–12. Eisenbeiss, Wolfgang, and Dieter Hassler. “An Assessment of Ostensible Communications with a Deceased Grandmaster as

EvidenceforSurvival.”JournaloftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch70.2,no.883(April2006):65–97. Elitzur, Avshalom, Beverly Sackler, and Raymond Sackler. “Consciousness Can No More Be Ignored.” Journal of

ConsciousnessStudies2,no.1(1995):353–57. Evans,Christopher.“Parapsychology—WhattheQuestionnaireRevealed.”NewScientist25(January1973):209. Eysenck, H., and Carl Sargent.Explaining the Unexplained: Mysteries of the Paranormal. London: Book Club Associates,

1982. Ferris,Timothy.ComingofAgeintheMilkyWay.NewYork:HarperCollins,2003. Firsoff, V. A. “Life and Quantum Physics.” In Quantum Physics and Parapsychology, edited by Laura Oteri. New York:

ParapsychologyFoundation,Inc.1975. Frazier,Kendrick,ed.ParanormalBorderlandsofScience.Buffalo:PrometheusBooks,1981. Gabbard,Glen,andS.W.Twemlow.WiththeEyesoftheMind.NewYork:Praeger,1984. Gauld,Alan.“DiscarnateSurvival.”InHandbookofParapsychology,editedbyB.Wolman.NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold,

1977. _____.MediumshipandSurvival:aCenturyofInvestigations.London:WilliamHeinemannLtd.,1982. Gauld,Alan,andTonyCornell.Poltergeists.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1979. Gordon,Henry.ExtrasensoryDeception.Toronto:MacmillanofCanada,1988. Greeley,A.“MysticismGoesMainstream.”AmericanHealth7(1987):47–49. Green,Celia,andCharlesMcCreery.Apparitions.London:HamishHamiltonLtd.,1975. Greene,John.“TheKuhnianParadigmandtheDarwinianRevolutioninNaturalHistory.”InParadigmsandRevolutions,editedby

GaryGutting.NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1980. Grey,Margot.ReturnfromDeath.Boston:Arkana,1985. Griffen,D.R.Parapsychology,Philosophy,andSpirituality.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1997.

Grossman,Neal.LettertotheEditor:“FourErrorsCommonlyMadebyProfessionalDebunkers.”JournalofNear-DeathStudies26,no.3(Spring2008):231–38.

_____.“Who’sAfraidofLifeafterDeath?”JournalofNear-DeathStudies21,no.1(Fall2002). Groth-Marnat,G., andR.Summers. “AlteredBeliefs,Attitudes andBehaviorsFollowingNear-DeathExperiences.”Journal of

HumanisticPsychology38(1998):110–25. Gurney,Edmund.“OnApparitionsOccurringSoonafterDeath.”Proceedingsof theSociety forPsychicalResearch (1888–89):

403–85. Gurney,E.,F.Myers,andF.Podmore.PhantasmsoftheLiving,2vols.London:Trubner,1886. Lieut,A.M.H.“AnApparitionIdentifiedfromaPhotograph.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch20(1931):

53–57. Haku,Michio.Hyperspace.NewYork:Doubleday,1994. HalesS.“EvidenceandtheAfterlife.”Philosophia28(2001):335–46. Hamilton, Margaret Lillian. Is Survival a Fact? Studies of Deep-Trance Automatic Scripts and the Bearing of Intentional

ActionsbytheTrancePersonalitiesontheQuestionofHumanSurvival.London:PsychicPress,1969. Hansen,George.“CSICOPandtheSkeptics:AnOverview.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch86(January

1992):19–63. _____.“MagiciansandtheParanormal.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch86(April1992):151–85. _____.“MagiciansWhoEndorsedPsychicPhenomena.”LinkingRing70,no.8(1990):52–54. Haraldsson,Erlendur.TheDepartedAmongtheLiving:AnInvestigativeStudyofAfterlifeEncounters.Surry,U.K.:WhiteCrow

Books,2012. _____.“SurveyofClaimedEncounterswiththeDead.”Omega19,no.2(1988–89):103–13. _____. “Spontaneous Cases: Apparitions of the Dead.” InResearch in Parapsychology, edited by Emily Cook and Deborah

Delanoy.London:TheScarecrowPress,1994. Haraldsson,E.,andIanStevenson.“ACommunicatorofthe‘Dropin’TypeinIceland:TheCaseofRunolfurRunolfson.”Journal

oftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch69(1975):33–59. Harman,Willis.GlobalMindChange:ThePromiseofthe21stCentury.Indianapolis:KnowledgeSystems,1988. Harris,Melvin.InvestigatingtheUnexplained.Buffalo:PrometheusBooks,1986. Hart,Hornell.TheEnigmaofSurvival.London:Rider,1959. Hart,Hornell, etal. “SixTheoriesaboutApparitions.”Proceedingsof theSociety forPsychicalResearch 50,part185 (1956):

153–239. Hart,Hornell,andEllaHart.“VisionsandApparitionsCollectivelyandReciprocallyPerceived.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyfor

PsychicalResearch41(1933):205–49. Hebb,D.O.“TheRoleofNeurologicalIdeasinPsychology.”JournalofPersonality20(1951):39–55. Herbert,Nick.QuantumReality:BeyondtheNewPhysics.NewYork:AnchorPress,1985. _____.ElementalMind:HumanConsciousnessandtheNewPhysics.NewYork:PenguinBooks,1993. Heywood,Rosalind.BeyondtheReachofSense.NewYork:E.P.Dutton&Company,1961. Hodgson, Richard. “A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance.” Proceedings of the Society for

PsychicalResearch13(1897–98):284–582. _____. “A Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance.” Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 8

(1892):1–169. Holden,J.M.“MoreThingsinHeavenandEarth:AResponseto‘Near-deathExperienceswithHallucinatoryFeatures.’”Journal

ofNear-DeathStudies26(2007):33–42. Honorton,C.“RhetoricoverSubstance:TheImpoverishedStateofSkepticism.”JournalofParapsychology57(1993):191–214. Horgan,John.TheUndiscoveredMind.NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1999. Hutcheon, Pat Duffy. Leaving the Cave: Evolutionary Naturalism in Social-Scientific Thought. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred

LaurierUniversityPress,1996. _____.“PopperandKuhnontheEvolutionofScience.”InBookReview4,nos.1/2(1995):28–37. Huxley,Aldous.TheDoors of Perception. London: Granada Publishing, 1984. Originally published in 1954 byHarper, New

York. Inglis,Brian.NaturalandSupernatural.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1977. _____.TheParanormal:AnEncyclopediaofPsychicPhenomena.London:Paladin,1985. _____.ScienceandParascience:AHistoryoftheParanormal,1914–1939.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1984. Ingram,Jay.“WhyI’mSkeptical—EvenoftheSkeptic.”TorontoStar(March16,2003):A14. Irwin,H.J.AnIntroductiontoParapsychology,3rded.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland&Company,1999.

Jacobson,Nils.LifeWithoutDeath?London:Turnstone,1974. James,William.HumanImmortality:TwoSupposedObjectionstotheDoctrine.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1898. Jenkins, Elizabeth.The Shadow and the Light: ADefense ofDanielDunglasHome theMedium. London: Hamish Hamilton,

1982. Johnson,Alice. “On theAutomaticWriting ofMrs.Holland.”Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 21, part LV

(January1908):166–391. _____. “A Reconstruction of Some Concordant Automatisms.” Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 27, part

LXVIII(January1914):1–56. Josephson,B.,andF.Pallikari-Viras.“BiologicalUtilisationofQuantumNonLocality.”FoundationsofPhysics21(1991):197–

207. Kaku,Michio.Hyperspace.NewYork:Doubleday,1994. Keeton,M.T.“SomeAmbiguitiesintheTheoryoftheConservationofEnergy.”PhilosophyofScience8,no.3(July1941):304–

19. Kelly,E.,A.Crabtree,A.Gauld,M.Grosso,andB.Greyson.IrreducibleMind.NewYork:Rowman&Littlefield,2007. Kircher,Pamela.LoveIstheLink.Burdette,N.Y.:LarsonPublications,1995. Kuhn,Thomas.TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,3rded.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1996. Kurtz,Paul.“CommitteetoScientificallyInvestigateClaimsofParanormalandOtherPhenomena.”Humanist (May/June1976):

28. Lambert,G.W.“TheCheltenhamGhost:AReinterpretationof theEvidence.”Journalof theSociety forPsychicalResearch 39

(1958):267–77. Lamont,Corliss.TheIllusionofImmortality.NewYork:TheContinuumPublishingCompany,1990. Lasagna,Louis.“LetMagicCastItsSpell.”TheSciences(May–June1984):10–11. Lasker,E.“DasNewYorkerTurniervon1924.”SchachJournal3(1992):47ff. Laudan,Rachel.“TheRecentRevolution inGeologyandKuhn’sTheoryofScientificChange.” InParadigmsandRevolutions,

editedbyGaryGutting.NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1980. Libet,Benjamin.“DoWeHaveFreeWill?”JournalofConsciousnessStudies6,nos.8–9(1999):47–57. Libet,B.,A.Freeman,andK.Sutherland,eds.TheVolitionalBrain:TowardsaNeuroscienceofFreeWill.Thoverton,England:

ImprintAcademic,1999. Lodge,Oliver.“EvidenceofClassicalScholarshipandofCross-CorrespondenceinSomeNewAutomaticWritings.”Proceedings

oftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch,partLXIII(June1911):113–75. Lomaxe,Paul.“JudgeEdmonds:APsychicSensitive.”NewYork:GeneralAssemblyofSpiritualists,1945. Lorimer,David.Survival?Body,MindandDeathintheLightofPsychicExperience.London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1984. MacKenzie,Andrew.AGalleryofGhosts.London:ArthurBarkerLtd.,1972. _____.HauntingsandApparitions.NewYork:GranadaPublishing,1982. Markwick,Betty.“TheSoal-GoldneyExperimentswithBasilShackleton:NewEvidenceofDataManipulation.”Proceedingsof

theSocietyforPsychicalResearch56,part211(May1978):250–81. Masterman,Margaret. “TheNatureofaParadigm.” InCriticismandGrowthofKnowledge, editedby ImreLakatos andAlan

Musgrave.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970. Matlock, James. “PastLifeMemoryCases.” InAdvances inParapsychologicalResearch, vol. 6, edited by StanleyKrippner.

Jefferson,N.C.:McFarlandPublishers,1990. Mattuck,R.,andEvanHarrisWalker.“TheActionofConsciousnessonMatter:aQuantumMechanicalTheoryofPsychokinesis.”

InTheIcelandPapers,editedbyA.Puharich.Amherst,Wis.:EssentiaResearchAssociates,1979. McClenon,James.DeviantScience:TheCaseofParapsychology.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1984. McGrew,Timothy. “The Simulation of Expertise:DeeperBlue and theRiddle ofCognition,”Origins andDesign 19.1 (1998).

AccessedMarch,152012,fromwww.arn.org/docs/odesign/od191/deeperblue191.htm. Mills,A.“AReplicationStudy:ThreeCasesofChildreninNorthernIndiaWhoAreSaidtoRememberaPreviousLife.”Journal

ofScientificExploration3,no.7(1989):133–84. Mills, A., E. Haraldsson, and J. Keil. “Replication Studies of Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Three Independent

Investigators.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch88(1994):207–19. Milner,Richard.“CharlesDarwinandAssociates,Ghostbusters.”ScientificAmerican(October1996):96–101. Morton,R.C.“RecordofaHauntedHouse.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchIII(1892):311–32. Murchison,Carl.TheCaseforandagainstPsychicalBelief.Worcester,Mass.:ClarkUniversityPress,1927. Murphy,G.“Psychologyin theYear2000.”InThere isMoreBeyond:SelectedPapersofGardnerMurphy,editedbyLoisB.

Murphy.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland&Co.,1989. Myers,Frederic.HumanPersonalityand Its SurvivalofBodilyDeath, vols. 1 and 2.NewYork:Longmans,Green, andCo.,

1903. _____.“OntheEvidenceforClairvoyance.”JournaloftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch7(1891–92):30–99. _____. “On Recognized Apparitions Occurring More Than a Year after Death.” Proceedings of the Society for Psychical

Research6(1889):13–65. Nash,C.B. “Test of PsychokineticControl ofBacterialMutation.” Journal of the Society forPsychical Research 78 (1984):

145–52. Neppe,Vernon.“ADetailedAnalysisofanImportantChessGame:Revisiting‘MaroczyversusKorchnoi.’”JournaloftheSociety

forPsychicalResearch71.3,no.888(July2007):129–47. “Nomatter.”PeterRussellSpiritofNow.www.peterrussell.com/Reality/RHTML/R21.php.AccessedApril20,2012. Noble,HolcombB.Next:TheComingErainScience.Boston:Little,Brown,1988. Osis,Karlis,andErlendurHaraldsson.AttheHourofDeath.NewYork:AvonBooks,1977. Oteri,Laura,ed.QuantumPhysicsandParapsychology.NewYork:ParapsychologyFoundation,1975. Pasricha,Satwant.ClaimsofReincarnation:AnEmpiricalStudyofCasesinIndia.NewDelhi:HarmanPublishingHouse,1990. _____. “New Information Favoring a Paranormal Interpretation in the Case of Rakesh Gaur.” European Journal of

Parapsychology5(1983):77–85. Pasricha,Satwant,andDavidBarker.“ACaseoftheReincarnationTypeinIndia:TheCaseofRakeshGaur.”EuropeanJournalof

Parapsychology3(1981):381–408. Peacocke,Arthur.TheologyforaScientificAge.London:SCMPress,1993. Penfield,Wilder.TheCerebralCortexofMan.NewYork:TheMacMillanCompany,1952. _____.TheExcitableCortexinConsciousMan.Liverpool,U.K.:LiverpoolUniversityPress,1958. _____.TheMysteryoftheMind.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1975. _____. “TheRole of theTemporalCortex inCertainPsychicalPhenomena.”Journal ofMental Science 101, no. 424 (1955):

451–65. Piddington,J.G.“ASeriesofConcordantAutomatisms.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch22(1908):19–416. _____.“ThreeIncidentsfromtheSittings:Lethe;theSibyl;theHoraceOdeQuestion.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychical

Research24(1910):86–169. Pinch, T. J., andH.M. Collins. “Private Science and Public Knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the

ClaimsoftheParanormalandItsUseoftheLiterature.”SocialStudiesofScience14(1984):521–46. Plato.Phaedo.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1975. Podmore, Frank. “Discussion of the Trance Phenomena ofMrs Piper.”Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 14

(1898–99):50–70. Polkinghorne,J.C.TheQuantumWorld.London:LongmanGroup,1984. Popper,Karl.“Autobiography.”InThePhilosophyofKarlPopper,partI,editedbyPaulArthurSchilpp.LaSalle,Ill.:TheOpen

CourtPublishingCompany,1974. _____.ConjecturesandRefutations.NewYork:Harper&Row,1965. _____.TheLogicofScientificDiscovery,2nded.NewYork:FirstHarperTorchbook,1959. _____.“NaturalSelectionandtheEmergenceofMind.”Dialectica22,no.3(1978):339–55. _____. “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan

Musgrave.London:CambridgeUniversityPress,1970. _____.“PhilosophyandPhysics.”ProceedingsoftheXIIthInternationalCongressforPhilosophy2(1960):367–74. _____.“RepliestoMyCritics.”InThePhilosophyofKarlPopper,partII,editedbyPaulArthurSchilpp.LaSalle,Ill.:TheOpen

CourtPublishingCompany,1974. Popper,Karl, and JohnC.Eccles.The Self and ItsBrain:AnArgument for Interactionism.NewYork: Springer International,

1977. Prasad, J., and I. Stevenson. “A Survey of Spontaneous Psychical Experiences in School Children of Uttar, Pradesh, India.”

InternationalJournalofParapsychology10(1968):241–61. Price,George,R.“ScienceandtheSupernatural.”Science122,no.3165(August26,1955):359–67. Puharich,A.,ed.TheIcelandPapers.Amherst,Wis.:EssentiaResearchAssociates,1979. Putnam,Hillary.“The‘Corroboration’ofTheories.”InThePhilosophyofKarlPopper,partI,editedbyArthurSchilpp.Chicago:

OpenCourtPublishingCo,1977. Radin,Dean.TheConsciousUniverse:TheScientificTruthofPsychicPhenomena.SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1997. Randall,Neville.LifeafterDeath.London:Hale,1975. Rawcliffe,D.H.IllusionsandDelusionsoftheSupernaturalandtheOccult.NewYork:Dover,1959. Ring,Kenneth,andSharonCooper.Mindsight.PaloAlto,Calif.:WilliamJamesCenterforConsciousnessStudies,1999.

Ring,Kenneth,andEvelynElsaesserValarino.LessonsfromtheLight.Portsmouth,N.H.:MomentPointPress,1998. Roberts,Jane.TheSethMaterial.NewYork:BantamBooks,1976. Rogo,D.S.TheReturnfromSilence.Northampton,U.K.:TheAquarianPress,1989. Roll, Muriel. “A Nineteenth-Century Matchmaking Apparition: Comments on Abraham Cummings’ ‘Immortality Proved by

TestimonyoftheSenses.’”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch63,no.4(October1969):396–409. Rommer,Barbara.BlessingsinDisguise:AnotherSideoftheNear-DeathExperience.St.Paul,Minn.:Llewellyn,2000. Rosenblum,B.,andF.Kuttner.“ConsciousnessandQuantumMechanics:TheConnectionandAnalogies.”JournalofMindand

Behavior20,no.3(Summer1999):229–56. Russell,Bertrand.PortraitsfromMemory.London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,1956. Sabom,Michael.Light&Death.GrandRapids,Mich.:ZondervanPublishing,1998. Sagan,Carl.Broca’sBrain.NewYork:RandomHouse,1979. _____.TheDemon-HauntedWorld.NewYork:RandomHouse,1995. Salter,W.H.“FWHMyers’sPosthumousMessage.”Proceedingsof theSociety forPsychicalResearch52,part187(October

1958):1–32. Saltmarsh,HerbertF.EvidenceofPersonalSurvivalfromCrossCorrespondences.London:G.Bell&Sons,1938. Schoolcraft, Henry R. Travels in the Central Portion of the Mississippi Valley. New York: Kraus Reprint Company, 1975.

Originallypublishedin1825byCollinsandHannay,NewYork. Schwartz,Gary.TheAfterlifeExperiments.NewYork:PocketBooks,2002.Schwartz,John.“VocalMinorityInsistsItWasAll

SmokeandMirrors.”NewYorkTimes(July13,2009). Searle,JohnR.TheMysteryofConsciousness.NewYork:NewYorkReviewofBooks,1997. Serdahely,William.“Questionsforthe‘DyingBrainHypothesis.’”JournalofNear-DeathStudies16(Fall1996):41–53. Sheldrake,Rupert.CanOurMemoriesSurvivetheDeathofOurBrains?InWhatSurvives?editedbyGaryDoore.LosAngeles:

JeremyP.Tarcher,Inc.,1990. _____.MorphicResonance:TheNatureofFormativeCausation.Rochester,Vt.:ParkStreetPress,2009. _____.TheSenseofBeingStaredAt:AndOtherAspectsoftheExtendedMind.NewYork:CrownPublishers,2003. Sherwood,Jane.TheCountryBeyond.London:NevilleSpearman,1969.Originallypublishedin1945,London:Rider&Co. Sidgwick,H.AddressbythePresidentattheFirstGeneralMeeting.ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch1(1882):

7–12. Sidgwick,Mrs.Henry. “AnExaminationofBook-testsObtained inSittingswithMrs.Leonard.”Proceedings of the Society for

PsychicalResearch,partLXXXI(April1921):242–378. _____.“TheSocietyforPsychicalResearch:AShortAccountofItsHistory.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch,

partXLI(April1932):1–26. Siegel,Ronald.“Hallucinations.”ScientificAmerican237(1977):132–40. _____.“ThePsychologyofLifeAfterDeath.”AmericanPsychologist35,no.10(1980):911–31. Snow,CharlesP.TheSearch, 5th ed.London:Macmillan andCo., 1963.Originally published in 1934byMacmillan andCo.,

London. Soal, S. G. “A Report on Some Communications Received through Mrs Blanche Cooper.” Proceedings of the Society for

PsychicalResearchXXXV(1926):471–595. Sperry, Roger. “Holding CourseAmid Shifting Paradigms.” InNewMetaphysical Foundations ofModern Science, edited by

WillisHarmanandJaneClark.Sausalito,Calif.:InstituteofNoeticSciences,1994. Spraggett,Allen,andWilliamRauscher.ArthurFord:TheManWhoTalkedwiththeDead.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,

1973. Squires,Euan.TheMysteryoftheQuantumWorld,2nded.London:InstituteofPhysicsPublishing,1994. Stapp,Henry.“Attention,Intention,andWillinQuantumPhysics.”JournalofConsciousnessStudies6,nos.8–9(1999):143–64. _____. “TheoreticalModel of PurportedTheoreticalViolations of thePredictions ofQuantumTheory.”Physical ReviewA 50

(1994):18–22. Stenger,Victor.PhysicsandPsychics.Buffalo,N.Y.:PrometheusBooks,1990. _____.TheUnconsciousQuantum.Buffalo,N.Y.:PrometheusBooks,1995. Stevenson,Ian.“AmericanChildrenWhoClaimtoRememberPreviousLives.”JournalofNervousandMentalDisease171,no.

12(1983):742–48. _____.CasesoftheReincarnationType:Volume1,TenCasesinIndia.Charlottesville:UniversityPressofVirginia,1975. _____.“CharacteristicsofCasesoftheReincarnationTypeinCeylon.”ContributionstoAsianStudies3(1973):26–29. _____.ChildrenWhoRememberPreviousLives.Charlottesville:UniversityPressofVirginia,1987. _____.“CommentsbyIanStevenson.”JournaloftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch55(1988):230–34.

_____.“ACommunicatorUnknowntoMediumandSitters.”JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforPsychicalResearch64(1970):53–65.

_____.“TheContributionofApparitionstotheEvidenceforSurvival.”JournaloftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch76(1982):341–58.

_____.“CryptomnesiaandParapsychology.”JournaloftheSocietyforPsychicalResearch52(1983):1–30. _____. “The Evidence for Survival from Claimed Memories of Former Incarnations.” Journal of the American Society for

PsychicalResearch54(1960):51–71,95–117. _____.ReincarnationandBiology,vol.2.Westport,Conn.:PraegerPublishers,1997. _____.“ResearchintotheEvidenceofMan’sSurvivalAfterDeath.”JournalofNervousandMentalDisease165,no.3(1977):

153–83. _____.TwentyCases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Charlottesville:University Press ofVirginia, 1974.Originally published in

1966. Stokes, Douglas. “Theoretical Parapsychology.” In Advances in Parapsychological Research, edited by Stanley Krippner.

London:McFarland&Company,1987. Symonds,Neville.“AFitterTheoryofEvolution?:BiologistsHaveAlwaysDeniedThatOrganismsCanAdaptTheirGenestoSuit

aNewEnvironment.ButSomeStartlingDiscoveriesaboutBacteriaAreMakingThemThinkAgain.”NewScientist,issue1787(September21,1991).AccessedJune10,2007fromwww.newscientist.com.

Teuber,Hans-Lukas.“RecoveryofFunctionafterBrain Injury inMan.” InOutcomeofSevereDamage to theCentralNervousSystem,editedbyRuthPorterandDavidFitzsimons.Amsterdam:Elsevier,1975.

Thomas, C. Drayton. “A New Hypothesis Concerning Trance Communications.” Proceedings of the Society for PsychicalResearchXLVIII,part173(1949):121–63.

_____.“AProxyExperimentofSignificantSuccess.”ProceedingsoftheSocietyforPsychicalResearchXLV,part159(1938–39):257–306.

_____. “A Proxy Extending Over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard.” Proceedings of the Society for PsychicalResearchXLIII,part142(1935):439–519.

Thouless, R. H., and B. P.Wiesner. “The Psi Processes in Normal and Paranormal Psychology.”Proceedings of the SPR 48(1949):177–96.

Toynbee,Arnold,R.Heywood,etal.Man’sConcernwithDeath.London:Hodder&Stoughton,1968. Utts, J.M.“AnAssessmentof theEvidence forPsychicFunctioning.”JournalofScientificExploration 10, no. 1 (1996): 330.

AlsopublishedinJournalofParapsychology59,no.4(1996):289–320. _____.“ResponsetoRayHyman’sReportofSeptember11,1995,‘EvaluationofProgramonAnomalousMentalPhenomena.’”

JournalofScientificExploration10,no.1 (1996):59–61.Alsopublished inJournalofParapsychology 59,no.4 (1996):353–56.

Valarino,EvelynElsaesser.OntheOtherSideofLife.Cambridge,Mass.:PerseusPublishing,1997. Vallee,Jacques.Confrontations:AScientist’sSearchforAlienContact.NewYork:BallantineBooks,1990. Vandenberg,Philipp.TheMysteriesoftheOracles.NewYork:MacmillanPublishingCompany,1979. Wagner, Mahlon, and Mary Monet. “Attitudes of College Professors toward Extra-Sensory Perception.” Zetetic Scholar 5

(1979):7–16. Walker,E.H.“ConsciousnessandQuantumTheory.”InPsychicExploration,editedbyJ.White.NewYork:G.P.Putnam’sSons,

1974. _____.“Measurement inQuantumMechanicsRevisited.”Journalof theAmericanSociety forPsychicalResearch 81 (October

1987):333–69. _____.“TheQuantumTheoryofPsiPhenomena.”PsychoenergeticSystems3(1979):259–99. Wheeler,John,andWojciechZurek,eds.QuantumTheoryandMeasurement.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983. Wigner,Eugene. “Remarks on theMind-BodyProblem.” InQuantumTheory andMeasurement, edited by JohnWheeler and

WojciechZurek.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984. Yuille,J.,andJ.Cutshall.“ACaseStudyofEyewitnessMemorytoaCrime.”JournalofAppliedPsychology71,no.2(1986):

291–301. Zingrone,Nancy.“FailingtoGotheDistance:OnCriticsandParapsychology.”ParapsychologyFoundation,1997. Zollner,Friedrich.TranscendentalPhysics.Boston:Colby&Rich,1888. Zollschan, George, John Schumaker, and GregWalsh, eds.Exploring the Paranormal: Different Perspectives on Belief and

Experience.Dorset,U.K.:PrismPress,1989. Zorab,George.“ReviewofTheEnigmaofDanielHome:MediumorFraud.”JournalofParapsychology49(1985):103–5.

AbouttheAuthor

ChrisCarterreceivedhisundergraduateandmaster’sdegreesfromtheUniversityofOxford.Heis theauthorofScienceandPsychicPhenomenaandScienceandtheNear-DeathExperience.OriginallyfromCanada,Cartercurrentlyteachesinternationally.

AboutInnerTraditions•Bear&Company

Founded in 1975, InnerTraditions is a leading publisher of books on indigenous cultures, perennial philosophy, visionary art, spiritualtraditions of the East andWest, sexuality, holistic health and healing, self-development, as well as recordings of ethnic music andaccompanimentsformeditation. InJuly2000,Bear&CompanyjoinedwithInnerTraditionsandmovedfromSantaFe,NewMexico,whereitwasfoundedin1980,toRochester,Vermont.Together InnerTraditions•Bear&Companyhaveeleven imprints: InnerTraditions,Bear&Company,HealingArts Press, Destiny Books, Park Street Press, Bindu Books, Bear Cub Books, Destiny Recordings, Destiny Audio Editions, InnerTraditionsenEspañol,andInnerTraditionsIndia. For more information or to browse through our more than one thousand titles in print and ebook formats, visitwww.InnerTraditions.com. BecomeamemberoftheInnerTraditionscommunitytoreceivespecialoffersandmembers-onlydiscounts.

CLICKHERE

BOOKSOFRELATEDINTEREST

ScienceandtheNear-DeathExperienceHowConsciousnessSurvivesDeath

byChrisCarter

ScienceandPsychicPhenomenaTheFalloftheHouseofSkeptics

byChrisCarter

MorphicResonanceTheNatureofFormativeCausation

byRupertSheldrake

ThePresenceofthePastMorphicResonanceandtheMemoryofNature

byRupertSheldrake

ScienceandtheAkashicFieldAnIntegralTheoryofEverything

byErvinLaszlo

TheAkashicExperienceScienceandtheCosmicMemoryField

byErvinLaszlo

WhereDoesMindEnd?ARadicalHistoryofConsciousnessandtheAwakenedSelf

byMarcJ.Seifer,Ph.D.

ForbiddenScienceFromAncientTechnologiestoFreeEnergy

EditedbyJ.DouglasKenyon

INNERTRADITIONS•BEAR&COMPANYP.O.Box388

Rochester,VT057671-800-246-8648

www.InnerTraditions.com Orcontactyourlocalbookseller

InnerTraditionsOneParkStreetRochester,Vermont05767www.InnerTraditions.com

Copyright©2012byChristopherDavidCarter

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedorutilizedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,orbyanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataCarter,Chris.Scienceandtheafterlifeexperience:evidencefortheimmortalityofconsciousness/ChrisCarter.p.cm.Summary:“Revealstheevidenceoflifebeyonddeath”—Providedbypublisher.Includesbibliographicalreferences.printISBN:978-1-59477-452-2ebookISBN:978-1-59477-499-71.Futurelife.2.Immortality.3.Parapsychology.4.Occultism.I.Title.BF1999.C2932012133.901ˇ3—dc23

2012007915Tosendcorrespondencetotheauthorofthisbook,mailafirst-classlettertotheauthorc/oInnerTraditions•Bear&Company,OneParkStreet,Rochester,VT05767,andwewillforwardthecommunication,orcontacttheauthordirectlyatwebslinger_999@yahoo.com.

Electroniceditionproducedby

www.antrikexpress.com