Making an observation: Beischel excerpt #6

Julie Beischel writes in “Beyond Reasonable: Scientific Evidence for Survival,” her prize-winning essay in the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies competition:

What happens after we die is a tremendously important question that speaks to the nature of consciousness, the potentially infinite essence of our relationships to each other, and even the purpose of our existence. The scientific investigation of mediumship allows us to at least peek through the cracks, to get a glimpse of what might be going on after we die. As such, engaging in the scientific method to examine mediumship must be a precise, careful endeavor. What follows covers specific details of my research. In my descriptions, it is necessary to be thorough in order to demonstrate the quality of the evidence I collected. I only included what was directly relevant. What I will share here may seem nearly overwhelming at times but understanding the details of the methods used and the analyses performed is necessary in order to objectively assess the validity of my conclusions. (Here we go. Buckle up!

Using the steps of the scientific method, I can first make an observation about some aspect of nature. I can then formulate a hypothesis about the observed phenomenon. Experiments can then be designed and performed, collected data can be analyzed, and conclusions can be drawn. Then I can start again based on what I learned in the previous cycle. This standard method can easily be applied to studying mediumship.

The phenomenon of mediumship has several advantages that make it an ideal candidate for scientific inquiry in order to gather the best evidence for the survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. A relatively plentiful population exists capable of performing the task. These individuals can intentionally engage in the phenomenon and can follow instructions while they do so. The bodily death of the discarnate in a mediumship reading is permanent rather than temporary as is the case for NDEs. We don’t have to wait for the phenomenon to spontaneously happen as is the case for OBEs, for NDEs, and for children who report memories of previous lives. It doesn’t require expensive equipment or a specific laboratory set-up; this makes it possible for the experiments to be easily replicated by other qualified researchers to determine if published findings appropriately reflect the actual phenomenon. We can repeatedly bring mediums into a controlled laboratory environment. This allows us to address aspects of the phenomenon that might complicate what we could conclude if we were to let it just run amok or only observe it spontaneously out in the wild.

Step 1: Make an Observation

It is important for scientists to work from a place of observation. To complete this step, I directly observed that there are people here in the US and here in the 21st century who identify as mediums. I further observed that, as the primary aspect of their mediumship, these modern American mediums verbally utter words, phrases, and sentences during a process called a reading. I observed that those utterances are requested by and provided to a second living person called a sitter. I observed that the content of the reading centers around a third person who is deceased and who we call, during research, a discarnate (dis = not, carnate = in the flesh). The word simply identifies the person as someone who previously existed associated with a physical living body but who is now deceased. It does not imply anything further about the survival, location, or characteristics of that person. It just allows researchers to refer to the three people involved in the reading: the medium, the sitter, and the discarnate.

So far, I don’t think even the hardiest of deniers (often called skeptics) could refute the content of those observations. It is irrefutably true that mediums exist and utter words about discarnates to sitters. Therefore, we cannot move forward in the scientific method without keeping in mind the medium-discarnate-sitter triad that we have observed.

Another observation is that it does not appear to be a flawless connection. There seems to be noise or static in the metaphorical signal. Not every single statement made by a medium resonates with the sitter. That is the reality of the observed phenomenon. It is important that we not expect perfection.

A final observation is that the three people in the mediumship triad are just regular folks. The most evidential info comes from mediumship readings for everyday people containing everyday info that can be objectively verified. I observed that the information mediums most often report falls into three main categories (39, also 40). The first is identifying information that allows the sitter to recognize the discarnate. This usually includes the discarnate’s physical and personality descriptions, favorite activities, and cause of death. The second type of information references events that have happened in the sitter’s life since the death. And the third type of information reported in a mediumship reading involves messages specifically for the sitter. These are the types of statements that you might say to someone with whom you had a close relationship but who had to move away: ‘Thank you for everything’ and ‘I love you.’ More specific messages might encourage, reprimand, or provide advice to the sitter. 

 

So, mediumship readings are not perfect and involve regular information from regular people. We don’t need famous dead people to test mediumship scientifically. In fact, that would be problematic because we couldn’t control for information that could be obtained through normal means like Googling. We don’t need to ask for the secrets to the universe channeled from etheric entities. That would also be problematic because that information could not be objectively verified. All we need are some regular mediums providing regular readings to regular sitters about regular discarnates. Easy peasy.

Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).