Some researchers of extrasensory perception have theorized that we all use ESP to protect ourselves but at an unconscious level. The concept, essentially, is that ESP looks like luck to most of us. The current study examined non-intentional ESP compared with the intentional use of ESP.
The current study found that participants in the non-intentional ESP task overall scored better than chance, while the intentional ESP participants scored worse than chance. However, neither group achieved a score that was high or low enough to be a reliable finding. Contrary to previous research in ESP these researchers did not find any relationship between participant’s creativity or open-mindedness and their ESP-task performance.
Although many previous studies have found reliable findings both with intentional and nonintentional ESP tasks, it is a point of scientific research to publish findings that are not successful so that an accurate record of research can be maintained. Parapsychology is particularly good with publishing significant and non-significant research due to the misunderstandings and prejudice that the field suffers from.
Luke, D., & Zychowicz, K. (2013). Comparison of outcomes with nonintentional and intentional precognition tasks. Journal of Parapsychology, 78, 223-234.
William Roll, an undisputed expert on poltergeist cases, spent much of his career investigating modern Poltergeist. He also spent considerable time writing research articles and looking at historical claims of the Poltergeist, or “noisy ghost”. Unsurprisingly, the phenomena is not a recent trend and often has substantial witnesses to objects flying or breaking. Roll claims in 1979 that he discovered no less than 47 cases of poltergeist activity before 1958.
Roll goes on to explain that the majority of these cases are English and American (57%). The first well-documented case is reported in 1849 and the last in 1957. We would note here that poltergeist cases appear at first glance to correspond to the beginnings of the spiritualist movement (a group of people who regularly contacted the dead through seances). However, five cases were reported in France and four each from Germany and Holland. Italy had three cases, and Austria, India, Ireland, Russia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland had one or two well-documented reports of Poltergeist phenomena.
Recognizing that many cases could be fraudulent, Roll provides the following facts. In 40 of the 47 cases, visitors not belonging to the household witnessed Poltergeist phenomena. In one case between 30-40 people witnessed pieces of wood floating. In 37 out of 47 cases, witnesses watched an object move from beginning to the end of the movement. Roll also states that in all but one case, only certain types of objects (e.g. Furniture, or figurines) were the target of Psychokinesis.
Historical fraud or honest accounts of the supernatural? You be the judge.
Roll, W. (1972).The poltergeist. New York, Doubleday.
Researchers at the Rhine Institute recently conducted a study in a specially constructed lab with highly sensitive light detection equipment. The goal? To examine if people who meditate, heal others, or regular people produce ultraviolet light (a type of light invisible to the naked eye). These researchers propose that UV (and IR) light emission might serve as an energy mechanism to explain healing or other anomalous abilities.
Results from this study were staggering. Four individuals and three meditation groups intentionally projected three to a hundred thousand times more UV light than the baseline UV established in a tightly controlled dark room. The results, in this case, were so extreme that statistical analysis was not performed. The difference was so great there was no need for a test.
The authors of this study reason that similar to transmission waves used for TV or satellite, UV light could theoretically be modulated to contain a great deal of information, with the use of very little energy. Whereas the authors admit that this is speculation, the UV light emitted by participants when healing or meditating shows that humans do emit this light under certain states of consciousness.
Joines, W. T., Baumann, S. B., & Kruth, J. G. (2012). Electromagnetic emission from humans during focused intent. Journal of Parapsychology, 78, 276-292.
I wanted to reach out to all of you and thank you for your readership of Paranormal Facts. We are proud to announce that we have almost 4000 repeat visitors per month! As we still have a few months to go before we reach a year of Paranormal Facts, none of us here at ISRAE can complain about those numbers.
We sincerely hope that you find value in our summaries of real parapsychology research. Part of our public mission at ISRAE is to provide access to paranormal research for the general public. That is our drive behind what you are reading right now.
I want to remind everyone that we’re offering a free layperson’s parapsychology course on our website. In addition, the Paranormal Experience Registry (PER) is now up and running. The PER is time-consuming to complete, but all of those questions help us create an excellent database to analyze and to eventually provide you with some answers about paranormal experiences. If you can’t donate, consider donating time to the PER. Your experiences are valuable, and we want to hear about them!
We are a non-profit, and we run on your generosity. As a reminder, We have recurring donation plans that cost less than a cup of coffee per month! Our non-profit has a Guidestar Silver Rating, so you can rest assured that all transactions are secure. Every dollar helps us maintain research such as the PER, Paranormal Facts, and future services.
Again, reach out to us if there is a topic you would like to see or something you think we can help with. We serve at your pleasure.
Paranormal is Normal,
One of William Roll’s first investigations, the Herrmanns reported that their two children, Lucille and James, reported noises of bottles popping their caps. Holy water uncapped and spilled in the house. A doll was found with its legs broken. Roll was called in to investigate these claims. The first interview with a patrolman reported the same bottle popping phenomena, while the officer was with the entire family.
In all, 67 psychokinetic events were recorded, where 40 of the incidents involved the movement of the same 16 objects. A male figurine was thrown twice at a visiting Secretary, breaking in the process. 23 separate bottle poppings occurred. Roll himself was present when a bleach bottle popped its top off on its own. At one point, a new coffee table was found turned upside down.
Roll personally investigated the scene for ten days. Engineers and other experts were called in to examine for fraud and magic trickery. The family, horrified, actually spent several days away from the home. To this day neither the police, experts, or Roll himself believe the events were hoaxed.
Roll, W. (1972).The poltergeist. New York, Doubleday.
Marcusson-Clavertz recently conducted a modified Ganzfeld ESP study in hopes of examining how hypnotizability and altered states of consciousness might affect the ability to use ESP. Using the Ganzfeld method, which has excellently controlled for mistakes and errors in psi research over the last several decades, these researchers recruited 14 highly hypnotizable individuals and 12 individuals resistant to hypnosis. Each participant went through a series of procedures to test for ESP.
Results for this study showed that for people who are easily hypnotizable, the belief in ESP success, prior ESP experiences, and the ability to enter an altered state during the ESP task were significantly related to the participant’s ability to perform in the ESP task. In contrast, for those who were not easily hypnotizable, only belief in the ability to perform ESP and belief in the success of the task were associated with ESP performance.
In sum, the current research shows a relationship between those who can alter an altered state of consciousness or be hypnotized appear to have an advantage in performing ESP tasks in laboratory conditions.
Marcussion-Clavertz, D. & Cardena, E. (2011). Hypnotizability, alterations in consciousness, and other variables as predictors of performance in a ganzfeld psi task. Journal of Parapsychology, 75, 235-259.
A study by Haraldsson looks at the features of 337 more recent cases of personal encounters with the dead in Iceland. Inspired by a similar work released by the Society for Psychical Research (Gurney, Meyers, & Podmore, 1886), the current article reviews more modern cases to examine the characteristics of experiences of being visited by the dead.
Haraldsson’s data from the early to mid 1980’s shows interesting themes. Of participants who reported an experience with the dead, 69% had a visual experience, while 28% reported an auditory experience. The remaining reported either touch, a smell, or a strong sense of presence. Contrary to assumption, only 22% of participants were resting during the experience, while almost 50% reported being active in an activity. Also contrary to myth, over 50% occurred during daylight or full electric light.
Who were the undead visitors? Over half of participants reported family or close friends (54%), Sixteen percent were coworkers or acquaintances, and 30% were reported as strangers. In terms of the cause of death of the undead visitors, the bulk was verified to have died from disease (70%), while accidents, suicide, and murder (as well as unknown) comprised the rest of the sample. For those visited by relatives or friends, the cause of death for these visitors was in bulk disease (77 to 82%) or violent death (18 to 23%). Oddly, the odds of being visited by someone murdered increases as the closeness of the participant to the person grows more distant (i.e., being visited by an apparition that was murdered is most likely if they are a stranger to you).
Haraldsson, E. (2009). Alleged encounters with the dead: The importance of violent death in 337 new cases. Journal of Parapsychology, 73, 91-118.
In our previous Paranormal Facts, we reported a paper that examines the physical mediumship of Kai Mugge in Germany. Kai under various degrees of control has produced anomalous lights, the production of ectoplasm, floating tables, and the teleportation of objects. However, in this summary and the previous, both authors agree that some of the anomalous lights and the production of ectoplasm were likely due to trickery.
An expert in historical mediumship, Stephen Braude, reminds the readers in his article that some very famous mediums also performed trickery. Yet, these mediums still produced unexplainable phenomena, such as levitating heavy tables, while all parts of their body were being controlled. Braude makes the fair statement that any medium who performs regularly can be tempted to engage in trickery to meet the expectations of their audience.
That is not to say that Braude denies the trickery of Mugge. Details of the article show that Mugge all but confessed to some of his trickery. However, Braude also states that in his own sessions with Mugge, good controls were used, and anomalous lights, levitation, and the teleportation of a piece of copper, did not appear to have a rational explanation.
So what is the truth behind this modern mediumship? Braude might suggest that some of Mugge’s phenomena may well be anomalous, but other phenomena may well be trickery. Historically, this is not the first time that mediums have baffled parapsychologists and stage magicians with some phenomena, while occasionally using trickery in others.
Braude, S. (2014). Investigations of the Felix Experimental Group: 2010-2013. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28, 285-343.
The next two entries of Paranormal Facts concerns the exact same subject addressed by two separate research authors. Its target was the FEG group, a seance circle with a gentleman named Kai Mugge who serves as their medium. Kai is a physical medium, who in seance sessions has been reported to channel the spirit of Hans Bender, a famous parapsychologist.
Kai’s reported phenomena are varied but include anomalous lights, the production of ectoplasm, floating tables, and apportation of objects (i.e. crystals, nuggets of copper, e.t.c.). He has produced these phenomena under semi-laboratory conditions and stricter conditions.
However, while some phenomena have yet to be explained (i.e. tables floating), other phenomena Kai exhibits have come under suspicion due to trickery. In particular, Kai’s production of ectoplasm has been associated with his purchase of Halloween cobwebs. Likewise, the author of the current paper was able to associate movements of Kai’s hand with the production of an anomalous light (a light which can be recreated with an led device).
So the question remains, is Kai Mugge’s phenomena legitimately anomalous. The author of this report remains skeptical.
Nahm, M. (2014). The development and phenomena of a circle for physical mediumship. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28, 229-283.
Bauer in a contextual article attempts to explain the contrast between the beliefs of mainstream science versus what is coined pseudo-science. Bauer’s evidential claim is that pseudoscience does not really exist. It is simply a label used by mainstream science for any series of research that is contrary to the existing public image and beliefs of popular science.
Can the case be made that pseudo-science is simply a prejudicial term and not based on the actual evaluation of alternative science? Bauer says yes. When reviewing different fields of “fringe science” Bauer finds a consistent pattern. The quality of the research and data is irrelevant. Because fringe science often threatens the “established findings” of mainstream science, spokespeople for science attempt to slander and minimize these findings.
Why would scientists engage in such behavior which is contrary to the idea of science (i.e. data and research driven beliefs and conclusions)? Bauer points to the increasing social and cultural influence of science since WWII and the use of the atomic bomb. As science has gained political influence, official advisory positions, and used in society as an authoritative source of truth, its advocates attempt to stifle any research that could threaten science’s position in society.
On a personal note, Bauer’s analysis strikes home with me. Trained as a Social Psychologist, the research available on peer-pressure, self-serving bias, and other cognitive errors, fully endorse this view. Where society and scientists often make mistakes is the assumption that our human flaws and tendencies don’t apply to science. Science is a data-driven method, not a belief system. However, the spirit of this process has been lost to the human drive for power and prestige. Popularity does not actually make something true.
Bauer, H. H. (2014). Anomalistics, pseudo-science, junk science, denialism: Corollaries of the role of science in society. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 95-111.