Julie Beischel writes in “Beyond Reasonable: Scientific Evidence for Survival,” her prize-winning essay in the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies competition:
How might we identify where mediums get their information? We asked the mediums about their experiences of psi.
Historically, the mediums performing the séances observed by the researchers of the British and American Societies for Psychical Research (established in 1882 and 1884, respectively) often entered into a trance state of consciousness. Discarnate entities took control of the mediums’ bodies and spoke using their throats and mouths. The mediums were essentially unconscious during the séance, and after they took (or were given) back control of their bodies, they had no recollection of what had happened. Researchers could not ask them about their experiences during the readings because when the readings happened, the mediums weren’t really there.
By the 21st century, the majority of American mediums were not regularly achieving full trance and using spirit controls, though some still do and others do sometimes. Most remain conscious, alert, and aware when they offer in-person, gallery, phone, and Internet readings. During research readings on the phone, modern mediums exhibit—compared to their typical, everyday state—a slightly altered state of consciousness including changes in their awareness of self and body, in the focus of their mental attention, and in their subjective sense of the passage of time. Because they remain conscious and aware, however, they can share with researchers their experiences of survival psi, which was not previously possible.
In addition, this isn’t something that can be done with non-medium discarnate communication channels. That is, we can’t ask spirit boards, knocks on tables, card decks, or electronic equipment (no matter how sophisticated) if the information they share comes from a discarnate or originates from the psi effects of the living. Because, in our current understanding, psi is limitless through space and across time, we can’t blind, control for, sham, placebo, or in other ways remove the effects of the living on alleged communication methods. This is especially true for electronic methods which have been repeatedly demonstrated to be easily affected by the general intention or even the subconscious effects of the living. And it is true even if a process seems intricate enough to outsmart psi.
A phenomenon like psi that can function across distance, through time, around complexity, and regardless of the type of random source being examined surely cannot be fooled by the likes of lowly humans. So, there’s no way to determine the source of the discarnate-related content from these physical or electronic processes: is it the effects of a discarnate or is it the psi of the living? There’s no way to know.
Thus, asking contemporary mediums—whose abilities have been demonstrated in the lab—about the source of the information they report about the dead seems to be the best way to gather evidence about the survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death.
In the last round of the scientific method, we established that certain modern mediums can report accurate information about the deceased under controlled conditions. Here we will observe, from the lists of services various contemporary mediums offer on their websites, that they participate in both mediumship readings for the deceased and psychic readings for the living.
At the start of real-world readings, the medium may ask the client which type of reading they are interested in: mediumistic or psychic. They are then presumably able to shift their mental focus to perform the type of reading requested. As I said above, the rule of thumb is that all mediums are psychic but not all psychics are mediums. Recent research supports this idea.
The Windbridge Psi and Related Phenomena Awareness Questionnaire (WPRPAQ) is an online survey which describes experiential phenomena without mentioning the terms previously used to identify them that might trigger survey respondents because of the cultural baggage they carry (like ‘psychic’ or ‘ESP’).
In a recent study, the WPRPAQ was completed by 316 self- identified mediums and 1,030 self-identified non-mediums. Results included 77% of mediums reporting “knowing—without using any sensory cues—accurate information about another person’s thoughts or feelings,” 82% reporting “knowing—without using any sensory cues— accurate information about an object or event that is at a distance or otherwise concealed,” and 80% reporting “knowing accurate information about an event that will happen in the future and that could not be logically predicted from current information”. Thus, the large majority of these self-identified mediums reported experiencing psychic functioning (i.e., telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition, respectively).
We can also observe that most mediums report that during a mediumship reading they are communicating with the deceased and not using ‘regular’ psychic functioning. That is, in fact, what makes a medium a medium.
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment