http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/mediumship.

html

Title Page
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Foreword

. Introduction
!. "ediumship: #eneral
$. The "ediumship of "rs Piper
%. The "ediumship of "rs Leonard
&. '(rop-in) *ommunicators
+. "anifestations of Purpose
,. "anifestations of other Personal *haracteristics
-. The *ontrols of "ediums
.. '/vershadowing) and the 0uper-10P 23pothesis 4 Theoretical *onsiderations
5. '/vershadowing) and the 0uper-10P 23pothesis 4 The (ata
6 Illustrations 6
. /7session and Possession
!. 8eincarnation
$. "emor3 and the 9rain
%. /ut-of-the-9od3 1:periences and Apparitions
&. Apparitions of the (ead
+. A Theor3 of Apparitions
,. *oncluding 8emarks

9i7liograph3
Inde:
"ediumship and 0urvival
A *entur3 of Investigations
Alan #auld
0eries 1ditor: 9rian Inglis
Pu7lished on 7ehalf of the 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch
21I;1"A;;: L/;(/;
<illiam 2einemann Ltd.
5 =pper #rosvenor 0treet> London <? .PA
L/;(/; "1L9/=8;1 T/8/;T/ @/2A;;109=8# A=*ALA;(
B Alan #auld .-!
First pu7lished .-!
09; %$% !-$!5 ,
Printed in #reat 9ritain 73
8edwood 9urn Ltd> Trow7ridge> <iltshire
This work is licensed under a *reative *ommons Attri7ution-;oncommercial-;o
(erivative <orks $.5 License.
Note to the Digital Edition
This edition of Mediumship and Survival is pu7lished with the permission of the author
and cop3right holder> Alan #auld. The te:t of the original hardcover edition has 7een
professionall3 captured and edited. The onl3 changes in the te:t are the corrections of
t3pographical errors> modification of the ta7le of contents to accommodate a digital
format> and the creation of links from in-te:t references to the 7i7liograph3 and from the
inde: into the 7od3 of the te:t. The page num7ers of the original 7ook are indicated at the
7eginning of each page 73 red num7ers within vertical lines: C$-C.
Please report an3 errors found to rt7ergDpost.harvard.edu.
To 0heila
<ho uncomplainingl3 put up with a difficult summer
93 the same author
The Founders of Ps3chical 8esearch
2uman Action and its Ps3chological Investigation Ewith @ohn 0hotterF
Poltergeists Ewith A. (. *ornellF
In the same series
2A=;TI;#0 A;( APPA8ITI/;0 73 Andrew "acAenGie
91H/;( T21 9/(H: An Investigation of /ut-of-the-9od3 1:periences 73 (r
0usan @. 9lackmore
T28/=#2 T21 TI"1 9A88I18: A 0tud3 of Precognition and "odern Ph3sics 73
(anah Iohar
#L/00A8H /F T18"0 =01( I; PA8AP0H*2/L/#H compiled 73 "ichael A.
Thal7ourne
List of Illustrations
9etween pages %+ and %,
An ouiJa 7oard sitting
"rs L. Piper
<illiam @ames
/liver Lodge
8ichard 2odgson
"rs #. Leonard
"rs ". de #. Kerrall
"rs. 2. 0alter
"rs <illett
F. <. 2. "3ers
Automatic writing
"rs 1leanor 0idgwick
0ketch 73 F. L. Thompson
Painting 73 8o7ert 0. #ifford
Acknowledgements
For their kindness in reading a draft of this work> and for man3 helpful comments and
suggestions> I am much inde7ted to Ian 0tevenson> 9rian Inglis> @ohn 0t @ohn> Louise
9loomfield and @ohn 9eloff. For valua7le help in various related matters I have to thank
9ernard *arr> Ton3 *ornell> 0am #rainger> 1leanor /)Aeeffe> (. ;. *larke-Lowes>
1mil3 <illiams *ook> and 9ert 2a3lett.
A num7er in parentheses in the te:t refers to the source listed opposite that num7er in the
9i7liograph3 Epp. !+-L!-!F.
C:C
C:iC
Foreword
Around the 3ear -,$> Frederic "3ers was to recall in his Human Personality, a small
group of *am7ridge friends came to the conclusion that neither religion nor materialism
had provided satisfactor3 answers to Muestions that were puGGling them:
/ur attitudes of mind were in some wa3s differentN 7ut to m3self> at least> it seemed that
no adeMuate attempt had 3et 7een made even to determine whether an3thing could 7e
learnt as to the unseen world or noN for that if an3thing were knowa7le a7out such a
world in such fashion that 0cience could adopt and maintain that knowledge> it must 7e
discovered 73 no anal3sis of tradition> and 73 no manipulation of metaph3sics> 7ut
simpl3 73 e:periment and o7servation4simpl3 73 the application to phenomena within
us and around us of precisel3 the same methods of deli7erate> dispassionate e:act inMuir3
which have 7uilt up our actual knowledge of the world which we can touch and see.
Along with his friends4chief among them 2enr3 0idgwick and 1dmund #urne34
"3ers 7ecame one of the founder mem7ers of the 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch> when
it was formed in --! to put these ideas into practice> and this series is 7eing pu7lished to
mark the 0ociet3)s centenar3.
The phenomena of the 'unseen world) to which "3ers referred were originall3 for
convenience put into five categories> each of which a committee was set up to
investigate: telepath3> h3pnotism> 'sensitives)> apparitions and 'the various ph3sical
phenomena commonl3 called 0piritualistic). /ver the 3ears the emphasis has to some
e:tent shifted4in particular h3pnotism> which at that time was dismissed as an occult
delusion> was Just a7out to 7e accepted as a realit3> so it ceased to 7e on the ps3chic side
of the fence. 9ut 7roadl3 speaking> the phenomena under investigation are the same> and
the wa3s in which the3 have 7een investigated have remained as "3ers planned.
The terminolog3> however> was changed4and changed rather often> which made for
some confusion. "3ers himself introduced C:iiC 'telepath3)> as 'thought reading) was
am7iguousN it could refer to the wa3 in which 0herlock 2olmes picked up what was in
<atson)s mind 73 watching his e:pression. '0upernormal)> however> which "3ers
thought prefera7le to supernatural to descri7e the class of phenomena with which the
0ociet3 would 7e dealing> has since itself 7een replaced 73 'paranormal)N and
'paraps3cholog3) has 7een easing out 'ps3chical research)4though some researchers
prefer to restrict its use to la7orator3-t3pe work> leaving 'ps3chical) for research into
spontaneous phenomena. 'Psi) has also come in as an all-purpose term to descri7e the
forces involved> or to identif3 them4for e:ample> in distinguishing a normal from a
paranormal event.
If evidence were lacking for 'parascience)4as it might now more em7racingl3 7e
descri7ed> 7ecause the emphasis of research has 7een shifting recentl3 awa3 from
ps3cholog3 to ph3sics4it could 7e found in the composition of the 0ociet3> from its
earliest 7eginnings. There can 7e few organiGations which have attracted so distinguished
a mem7ership. Among ph3sicists have 7een 0ir <illiam *rookes> 0ir @ohn @oseph
Thomson> 0ir /liver Lodge> 0ir <illiam 9arrett and two Lord 8a3leighs4the third and
fourth 7arons. Among the philosophers: 0idgwick himself> 2enri 9ergson> Ferdinand
0chiller> L. P. @acks> 2ans (riesch> and *. (. 9roadN among the ps3chologists: <illiam
@ames> <illiam "c(ougall> 0igmund Freud> <alter Franklin Prince> *arl @ung and
#ardner "urph3. And along with these have 7een man3 eminent ligures in various fields:
*harles 8ichet> a ;o7el priGewinner in ph3siolog3N the 1arl of 9alfour> Prime "inister
from .5!L+> and his 7rother #erald> *hief 0ecretar3 for Ireland in -.&L+N Andrew
Lang> pol3mathN #il7ert "urra3> 8egius Professor of #reek at /:ford and drafter of the
first *ovenant of the League of ;ationsN his successor at /:ford> 1. 8. (oddsN "rs
2enr3 0idgwick> Principal of ;ewnham *ollege> *am7ridgeN "arie *urieN the 2on "rs
Alfred L3ttleton> (elegate to the League of ;ations Assem7l3N *amille Flammarion> the
astronomer> and F. @. ". 0tratton> President of the 8o3al Astronomical 0ociet3N and 0ir
Alister 2ard3> Professor of Ioolog3 at /:ford.
0uch a list> as Arthur Aoestler pointed out in The Roots of Coincidence, ought to 7e
sufficient to demonstrate that 10P research 'is not a pla3ground for superstitious cranks).
/n the contrar3> the standards of research have in general 7een rigorous4far more
rigorous> as ps3chologists have on occasion had to admit> than those of ps3cholog3. The
reason that the results have not 7een accepted is 7asicall3 that C:iiiC the3 have not 7een
accepta7le: e:tra-sensor3 perception and ps3chokinesis have remained outside science)s
domain> in spite of the evidence. And although the preJudice against paraps3cholog3 has
7een 7reaking down> so that it is 7eing admitted as an academic discipline in universities>
it is still ver3 far from securing a firm 7ase in the academic world.
0ceptics have sedulousl3 propagated the notion that ps3chical researchers 7elieve in 10P>
PA> apparitions> and so on 7ecause the3 long to 7elieve> or need to 7elieve. An37od3 who
has studied the 0ociet3)s Journals and Proceedings> or attended its meetings> will testif3
that this is a ludicrous misconception. "an3 of the most assiduous and skilled researchers
have originall3 7een prompted 73 dis7elief473 a desire> sa3 to e:pose a medium as a
fraud. It has to 7e remem7ered> too> that man3> pro7a7l3 the great maJorit3> of the
mem7ers have 7een and still are desirous of showing that paranormal manifestations are
natural> and can 7e e:plained scientificall34though admittedl3 not in the narrow terms
of materialist science> which in an3 case the nuclear ph3sicists have shown to 7e
fallacious.
;o: insofar as a 0ociet3 containing such a diverse collection of individuals can 7e said to
have a corporate identit3> it could almost 7e descri7ed as scepticalN certainl3 as rational>
as this series will show. ;ot> though> rationalist. =nluckil3 rationalists> in their
determination to purge societ3 of its religious and occultist accretions> often failed to
draw a distinction 7etween superstitions and the o7served phenomena which gave rise to
them4which led them into such traps as refusing to accept the e:istence of meteorites>
7ecause of the association with @ove)s thunder7oltsN and to this da3> the3 are prone to
lapse into support for dogmas as rigid> and as ill-founded> as an3 of those of the
*hurches. If the series does nothing else> it will show how rationall34using that term in
its proper sense4the writers have e:amined and presented the evidence.
/f all the issues which have 7een of concern to ps3chical researchers> 0urvival4
commonl3 spelt with a capital 0 to indicate that it means the survival of the soul or spirit
after death4has 7een the hardest to come to terms with. From the start> the 0P8 has
included some mem7ers who are *hristians> some who are mem7ers of other religions>
some who 7elieve in reincarnation> and some who flatl3 reJect the e:istence> or even the
possi7ilit3 of the e:istence> of a discarnate spirit life. As the holders of these different
views are apt to hold them to 7e of transcendental importance4none more so than those
who regard C:ivC themselves as rationalists4it has alwa3s 7een difficult to surve3 the
evidence for Eand againstF 0urvival as agnostics would like to see itN with the same
detachment as> sa3> the evidence for Eand againstF telepath3. "an3 mem7ers of the
0ociet3> in fact> have felt inhi7ited a7out considering it at all.
Het for o7vious reasons 0urvival cannot 7e pushed to one side. If ps3chical research has
an3 light to shed on it> then that light ought to 7e shed> 7ecause whether or not there is
spirit life independent of the 7od3 is indeed of transcendent importance> to all of us. 'The
Muestion for man most momentous of all)> as "3ers put it> was 'whether or not his
personalit3 involved an3 element which can survive 7odil3 death)N and he went on to
state his 7elief that the answer should 7e sought through the method of science> a method
'never 3et applied to the all-important pro7lem of the e:istence> the powers> the destin3
of the human soul). ;o7od3 is 7etter Mualified than Alan #auld to take a dispassionate
look at the evidence from the metaps3chical4the term coined 73 *harles 8ichet to
descri7e the new science> as he 7elieved it to 7e4rather than from the metaph3sical or
religious point of view. (r #auld has for man3 3ears 7een a mem7er of the *ouncil of the
0ociet3> his account of its earl3 3ears esta7lished him as a historian in his own right. The
Founders of Psychical Research was a well-documented and o7Jective 7ut ver3 reada7le
account of the 0ociet3)s earl3 3ears> and the pro7lems its mem7ers faced. In Mediumship
and Survival, he has set himself the same high standards.
rian Inglis
CC
1 Introduction
People have 7elieved or dis7elieved in human survival of 7odil3 death for various
reasons> philosophical> theological> religious> emotional> moral> intuitive or factual. This
7ook deals with the factual reasons with the empirical evidence Eor some of itF on which
7elief in survival> and also dis7elief in the ver3 possi7ilit3 of survival> has 7een
grounded. Philosophical issues will 7e E7riefl3F raised onl3 when the3 7ear upon the
interpretation of the evidence.
The gathering of evidence> or supposed evidence> for survival is no new endeavour. "an3
anecdotes that might 7e thought to 7ear upon the Muestion are strung together in lives of
the earl3 saints> in the !ialogues of Pope #regor3 the #reat> in various late mediaeval
collections of ghost stories> in post-8eformation 7ooks of remarka7le 'providences)
illustrative of #od)s mercies> in the works of earl3 nineteenth centur3 #erman
mesmerists influenced 73 0chelling and a romantic philosoph3 of nature. These materials
were> however> onl3 rarel3 su7Jected to critical scrutin3> and were generall3 presented not
as curious natural phenomena in need of an e:planation> 7ut as support for religious
7eliefs antecedentl3 favoured 73 the writers.
It was not until the last Muarter of the nineteenth centur3 that a large-scale attempt was set
afoot to collect and criticall3 assess ostensi7le evidence for survival> and to interpret that
evidence in a scientific spirit and without an3 prior commitment to religious or
survivalistic h3potheses. This attempt 7egan with the foundation of the 9ritish 0ociet3
for Ps3chical 8esearch Ethe '0P8)F in --! and of its American counterpart Ethe 'A0P8)F
in --% Erefounded .5,F. 9oth are still active> and I have drawn heavil3 upon their
pu7lications in the preparation of this volume. These societies> it should 7e noted> do not
hold corporate opinions> and the views advanced 73 mem7ers Eincluding m3selfF are
entirel3 their own.
The 0P8 was not founded to pursue the pro7lem of survival as such. The aim e:pressed
73 its founders was 'to investigate that large group C!C of de7ata7le phenomena designated
73 such terms as mesmeric> ps3chical> and 0piritualistic)> and to do so 'without preJudice
or prepossession of an3 kind> and in the same spirit of e:act and unimpassioned inMuir3
which has ena7led science to solve so man3 pro7lems> once not less o7scure nor less
hotl3 de7ated) E%-> pp. $ and %F. These o7Jectives sound4indeed are4a little vague> 7ut
in the conte:t of --! it was reasona7l3 clear what were the phenomena intended. First of
all there were certain alleged findings that had increasingl3 caught pu7lic attention in the
wake of the mesmeric movement of the late eighteenth and earl3 nineteenth centuries
Esee $!N !!cN !!dF. The facts Eor supposed factsF of mesmerism Eor 'animal
magnetism)F were at first sight themselves sufficientl3 surprising4striking cures of cases
given over 73 orthodo: medicine> the 'rapport) 7etween mesmeric operator and his
su7Jects> the induction in good su7Jects of a trance state in which su7Jects might
'perceive) the nature of their own ailments> predict their course and give prescriptions for
them. /ut of happenings of the last kind> further peculiar phenomena developed. *ertain
su7Jects 7egan to manifest the a7ilit3 to 'see) not Just diseased and malfunctioning
aspects of their own internal workings> 7ut those of other people> sometimes even of
distant people. A class of professional and semi-professional sensitives grew up> whose
mem7ers> usuall3 female and usuall3 under the influence of one particular mesmeric
operator> would diagnose> predict and prescri7e for all comers. ;ow if the 'clairvo3ant)
vision of these ladies could reach inside people> or reach distant people> or predict the
course of diseases> wh3 should it not reach inside other kinds of closed containers> e.g.
sealed 7o:es> or reach distant or even future scenes and eventsO 9efore long> entranced
clairvo3antes were purportedl3 giving demonstrations of Just these a7ilities. 0ome>
indeed> 7elieved that their vision e:tended 7e3ond this world altogether> and regaled
admiring wonder-seekers with visions of heaven> angels> other planets> guardian spirits>
and the souls of deceased human 7eings.
/ut of the 'rapport) 7etween mesmeric operator and mesmeric su7Ject Esupposedl3 due to
the transmission of the Muasi-electrical 'magnetic fluid) from the former to the latterF
arose other alleged 'paranormal) phenomena. 0u7Jects could> it was 7elieved> read the
thoughts of the operator> feel pinpricks inflicted upon him> taste su7stances placed in his
mouth. An operator might 7e a7le to entrance or influence the su7Ject 73 the sheer
e:ercise of his will4it was supposed that he e:ercised this control 73 directing the
magnetic fluid C$C into appropriate parts of his su7Ject)s nervous s3stem. Indeed> towards
the middle 3ears of the nineteenth centur3> some mesmeric su7Jects purportedl3 fell
under the 'control) of departed spirits and other e:alted 7eings> and thus 7ecame
'mediums) for communication 7etween this world and the ne:t.
The second categor3 of phenomena falling within the 0P8)s field followed immediatel3
from the first and was closel3 related to it. <hat ma3 7e called the spiritualistic wing of
the mesmeric movement> the wing that took seriousl3 the tales of contact with angels and
departed spirits Ethere was> incidentall3> a materialist> even atheist> wing> which allied
itself with phrenolog3F> had 73 the late -%5s 7ecome moderatel3 well known> and had>
especiall3 in America> achieved some degree of harmon3 with the 0weden7orgians> who
were likewise well known> and in some Muarters influential. Thus it came a7out that when
what looked at first like an unremarka7le poltergeist case> of a kind common enough
down the centuries> and usuall3 attri7uted to dia7olic influence> took a peculiar E7ut not
unprecedentedF turn> a new religious movement was 7orn. (uring the earl3 months of
-%-> the small wooden cottage of "r @. (. Fo:> a 7lacksmith of 23desville> ;ew Hork
0tate> was distur7ed 73 a variet3 of odd events. The most nota7le were sustained and
imperious rapping sounds of unknown origin> which resounded night after night> fra3ing
the famil3)s nerves and spoiling its sleep. 1ventuall3> in despair> "rs Fo: and her
daughters 7egan to address Muestions and commands to the invisi7le agent> and to their
shock and astonishment received intelligent replies> rapped out 73 means of a simple
code. ;eigh7ours were summoned. The rappings assumed the form of communications
from deceased persons> and showed a surprising knowledge of local affairs. An
enterprising local pu7lisher> "r 1. 1. Lewis> 7rought out a pamphlet containing the
signed statements of twent3-two witnesses E.5F. 0ightseers 7egan to come from miles
around to witness the wonders.
1ventuall3 it 7ecame apparent that the phenomena centred not upon the house> 7ut
around the two 3oungest Fo: children> "argaretta Eaged fifteenF and Aate Eaged elevenF>
descri7ed 73 0later 9rown E.> p. ..F as 'simple> corn-fed countr3 girls). /thers
discovered that the3 had similar gifts. The phenomena spread 73 a kind of infection.
Persons who visited 23desville found on their return home that the spirits would also rap
for them. The Fo: sisters went on the road> e:hi7iting their 'mediumship) in ;ew Hork
and other large cities> and 73 the earl3 -&5s '0piritualism) had 7egun to spread Muite C%C
widel3 through the 1astern =nited 0tates. 0piritualist associations and 0piritualist
newspapers sprang up> and soon the phenomena were e:ported Ewith somewhat limited
successF to 9ritain and the *ontinent of 1urope. E/n the earl3 histor3 of 0piritualism> see
. and !!c.F
The relationship 7etween mesmerism and 0piritualism was twofold. The mesmeric
movement had accustomed the pu7lic to the supposed phenomena of clairvo3ance> and to
the idea that certain gifted sensitives might perceive> or 7e influenced 73> the inha7itants
of the ne:t world. Thus it had prepared the ground for the acceptance of 0piritualism. 9ut
the mesmeric movement also had its own press and its own supporters> its own operators
and its own clairvo3antes. These were ver3 readil3 transferred to or a7sor7ed 73 the
growing 0piritualist movement. "esmeric clairvo3antes> or the t3pe of person who
would previousl3 have 7ecome such> now emerged as the first 'mental mediums)4
mediums whose contact with the spirits was through 'interior) vision or hearing> or
through the spirits 'taking over) and controlling their 7odies or parts thereof> especiall3>
of course> the parts reMuired for speech and writing.
'Ph3sical mediumship)4the sort in which communication with the departed proceeds
through paranormal ph3sical events in the medium)s vicinit34diversified during the
remainder of the nineteenth centur3 a great deal more than did mental mediumship. From
simple raps> the spirits> or the mediums> or 7oth> graduated to 'ta7le-tipping) with> and
sometimes without> contact of hands with ta7le Ean upturned top-hat made an accepta7le
su7stitute for a small ta7leFN to movement of other household o7Jects> including musical
instrumentsN to actual pla3ing on those musical instrumentsN to the visi7le
'materialiGation) of hands with which to move o7Jects and pla3 instruments Ethese
materialiGations were held to 7e made of a fluidic su7stance> later known as 'ectoplasm)>
descended from the old magnetic fluid of the mesmerists> and generated 73 the peculiarl3
constituted organism of the mediumFN to the materialiGation of vocal apparatus through
which the spirits could speak directl3 Ethe 'direct voice)F> often with the aid of a speaking
trumpetN and at last to the materialiGation of complete ectoplasmic replicas of the 7odies
which deceased persons had formerl3 inha7ited. /f course man3 of these phenomena
reMuired darkness or near-darkness for their production Edelicate ectoplasmic structures
were> it was claimed> lia7le to 7e damaged 73 light> especiall3 short-wavelength 7lue
lightF> a fact which led c3nics to suggest that darkness was merel3 a cover for fraud. This
C&C suggestion received support> especiall3 in and after the -,5s> from a series of
unsavour3 'e:posures).
/ther phenomena of ph3sical mediumship included: levitation of the medium> elongation
of the medium)s 7od3> the production of 'spirit lights)> 'apports) Esmall o7Jects 7rought
into the seance room 73 the spiritsF> the precipitation of paintings onto 7lank cards or
canvases> and 'ps3chic photograph3) Ethe appearance of 'e:tras)> often veiled in clouds of
'ectoplasm)> on studio photographs of pa3ing sittersF. 1:posures of ps3chic
photographers were numerous and devastating.
The third categor3 of phenomena falling within the provenance of ps3chical research was
less directl3 linked with the other two> though still having some connections with them. It
was that of traditional ghost stories4apparitions> hauntings> and linked perhaps thereto>
assorted cases of visions> cr3stal visions> and so forth.
It was thus> I think> in the historical setting of --!> fairl3 clear what phenomena could
7e designated as the su7Ject matter of 'ps3chical research). The3 included the phenomena
of mesmerism and h3pnotismN of paranormal healingN of clairvo3ance> thought-
transference and precognitionN of mental and ph3sical mediumshipN and of apparitions
and hauntings. There is no dou7t> of course> that man3 of the founders of the 0P8 hoped
for a positive outcome to their inMuiriesN hoped> that is> that impartial investigation would
prove that some at least of the phenomena under scrutin3 were genuine. The -,5s had
7een a decade in which 'scientific) materialism of a rather crude kind had made
unparalleled advances at the e:pense of all varieties of religious 7elief. 2u:le3> T3ndall>
*lifford> 9astian> drew upon the *ontinental materialism of 9Pchner and 2aeckel> and
upon (arwinian evolutionar3 theor3> to produce a 'materialist s3nthesis) which shook the
faith of the older generation and drove man3 of the 3ounger into agnosticism. =nder
these circumstances the work of the 0P8 assumed in the e3es of some a peculiar urgenc3
and importance Esee %%7F. Perhaps it would 7e possi7le to answer materialism with
science and to show that not all the findings of science tended to the support of
materialism. 2owever one must not let the hopes of certain earl3 ps3chical researchers
o7scure the fact that the3 were committed to investigating the phenomena 'without
preJudice or prepossession> and in a scientific spirit.) /thers who Joined the enterprise
were dedicated to demolishing the evidence for survival and for the miraculous in
general. <hat we have to consider here is the validit3 of C+C data and of arguments> not
the religious and philosophical views of those who profferred them.
<ithout dou7t the 0P8 answered a contemporar3 need. 0ome of the a7lest people of the
period devoted a great deal of time> energ3 and mone3 to running it> and to carr3ing out
the ver3 e:tensive investigations reported in its earl3 pu7lications. The3 included 2enr3
0idgwick E-$-L.55F> professor of moral philosoph3 at *am7ridge> and first president
of the 0P8N his wife 1leanor E-%&L.$+F> second principal of ;ewnham *ollege>
*am7ridgeN F. <. 2. "3ers E-%$L.5F> a poet and classical scholar> author of Human
Personality and its Survival of odily !eath E.5$F> a two-volume surve3 of the first
twent3 3ears of the 0ociet3)s workN 1dmund #urne3 E-%,L---F> who wrote Phantasms
of the "iving Etwo volumes> --+F> a work on apparitions that is still freMuentl3 referred
toN 0ir /liver Lodge E-&L.%5F> a ph3sicist and pioneer of wireless telegraph3N and
Frank Podmore E-&+L.5F> the historian of 0piritualism> who consistentl3 pla3ed the
role of advocatus dia#oli, e:amining and reJecting all evidence which others had
presented as tending to prove human survival of 7odil3 death. "rs 0idgwick was the
niece of a Prime "inister> the sister of a Prime "inister> and the sister-in-law of the wife
of the Arch7ishop of *anter7ur3. I mention this not 7ecause I think that sharing the genes
of prime ministers is a guarantee of intelligence E"rs 0idgwick)s intelligence was in an3
case manifestF> 7ut to 7ring out the point that ps3chical research was thought important
73 mem7ers of the intellectual> literar3 and even political 'esta7lishments). Among the
earl3 mem7ers and honorar3 mem7ers of the 0P8 were Tenn3son> 8uskin> #ladstone>
'Lewis *arroll)> A. @. 9alfour> Lord 8a3leigh> *ouch Adams> <illiam @ames> @. @.
Thomson> 0ir <illiam *rookes> #. F. <atts and Alfred 8ussel <allace. Tenn3son
e:pressed what ma3 have 7een his thoughts a7out the enterprise in lines first pu7lished in
--.:
The #host in "an> the #host that once was "an>
9ut cannot wholl3 free itself from "an>
Are calling to each other thro) a dawn
0tranger than earth has ever seenN the veil
Is rending> and the Koices of the da3
Are heard across the Koices of the dark.
It is pro7a7le that several of the earl3 leaders of the 0P84and most especiall3 F. <. 2.
"3ers4took a similarl3 e:alted view of the C,C achievements and potentialities of
ps3chical research. I wonder what the3 would make of the present state of the art.
Investigations of mediumship> apparitions> and other survival-related phenomena have
7een to a considera7le e:tent displaced 73 la7orator3 e:periments on telepath3>
clairvo3ance and precognition. Pro7lems of statistics and e:perimental design loom large
in the literature. *omputers and other electronic gadgets are widel3 used in 7oth the
running of e:periments and the assessment of the results.
There have 7een innovations in terminolog3. The *ontinental and American term
'paraps3cholog3) is 7eginning to replace 'ps3chical research)> to which it is largel3
eMuivalent. From America has come the term 'e:trasensor3 perception) E10PF to cover
an3 instance of the apparent acMuisition of non-inferential knowledge of matters of fact
without the use of the known sense organs. 10P is usuall3 said to have three varieties:
'telepath3)> in which the knowledge is of events in another person)s mind> 'clairvo3ance)>
in which the knowledge is of ph3sical o7Jects or states of affairsN and 'precognition)
Etelepathic or clairvo3antF> where the knowledge relates to happenings still in the future.
The word 'knowledge) is> however> not entirel3 appropriate> for there ma3 7e telepathic
or clairvo3ant 'interaction)> in which a person)s mental state or actions ma3 7e influenced
73 an e:ternal state of affairs> though he does not 'know) or 'cogniGe) it.
Another American term is 'ps3chokinesis) EPAF> the direct influence of mental events on
ph3sical events e:ternal to the agent)s 7od3. The term 'psi) E#reek letter QF is sometimes
used to cover 7oth 10P and PA.
I cannot> in the space availa7le to me> undertake a general review and assessment of the
evidence for psi-phenomena. That a fairl3 good case can 7e made out for 10P will 7e
taken for granted in much of the rest of this 7ook. EFor a surve3 of 10P research I
recommend Palmer> -a.F Lest this 7e thought a sign of such credulit3 as to undermine
the remainder of m3 argument> I should perhaps point out> what will I trust 7ecame clear
later on> that if there were no evidence at all for 10P> the 'case for survival) could well 7e
much stronger than it is$
(espite changes of emphasis the paraps3chological enterprise toda3 is recogniGa7l3
continuous with the undertaking set afoot 73 those distinguished and earnest Kictorians
one hundred 3ears ago. There has in fact 7een in the last decade or so something of a
revival of interest among paraps3chologists in the pro7lem of survival. It is m3 task in C-C
this 7ook to review some of the factual evidence> old and new> which has 7een thought to
7ear one wa3 or another upon this pro7lem. I emphasiGe the 'some)> for it is 7oth
impossi7le and undesira7le to attempt to 7e comprehensive. The Muantit3 of potentiall3
relevant material is enormous Ea select 7i7liograph3 will 7e found in %%eF> and those who
have not taken a serious look at complete sets of the Proceedings and Journal of the 0P8
and the A0P8 have perhaps little idea of its e:tent. 0ome of this material I can cut out at
once> 7ecause it consists mainl3 of evidence for fraud and self-deception. I omit it with
regret> for much entertainment is to 7e derived from stud3ing the methods of ps3chic
photographers and fraudulent ph3sical mediums. Another class of material which I shall
omit is much harder to define satisfactoril3. It consists of evidence> ma37e sound> ma37e
not> for phenomena which> if genuine> could with some degree of plausi7ilit3 7e
interpreted in terms of the survival h3pothesis if that were antecedentl3 esta7lished> 7ut
which do not 73 themselves even 7egin to constitute evidence for that h3pothesis.
Phenomena such as the production of 'spirit lights) at a seance> or the elongation of the
medium)s 7od3> or the levitation of the medium into the air> will perhaps serve as
e:amples. 0uch phenomena have often 7een attri7uted to the activities of 'the spirits)>
and the3 ma3 well 7e ver3 difficult to e:plainN 7ut there is nothing a7out them> taken Just
in themselves> to suggest to us that the3 are manifestations of a personalit3> still less of
the personalit3 of a deceased human 7eing.
Let us go one stage further. 0uppose that at a seance or in a haunted house there appears
and is photographed a perfect simulacrum of a certain deceased person> and that there is
no sign of tricker3N or let us suppose that the recogniGa7le voice of a certain deceased
person is tape-recorded> and that the 'voice-print) matches up with that of his voice when
alive. <ould these astonishing phenomena #y themselves constitute evidence that the
person himself has survived the dissolution of his 7od3O The3 would not. A simulacrum
or shell> or a hollow voice mouthing empt3 words> need have '7ehind) them no
personalit3> no surviving sentient mind. Further evidence would 7e reMuired 7efore we
could 7egin to take the survivalist e:planation seriousl3. And it is eas3> up to a point> to
see what such evidence would have to consist in. <e would need evidence of
intelligence> of personalit3 characteristics> of goals> purposes and affections> and of a
stream of memor3> that are largel3 or recogniGa7l3 continuous with those once possessed
73 a certain formerl3 incarnate human 7eing. That is the sort of evidence C.C we are
concerned with> and a materialiGation> 'direct voice)> or tape-recorded spirit voice> would
have to provide it in addition to mere ph3sical similarit3 7efore we could 7egin to take it
seriousl3 as evidence for survival. For that reason phenomena of these classes will not
often 7e mentioned in this 7ook.
I shall instead> and 73 the same token> concentrate upon classes of phenomena4certain
sorts of apparitions> and some cases of mental mediumship and of ostensi7le
reincarnation4which do sometimes appear to provide evidence for the survival of a
personalit3. /f course the notion of personal identit3 is a comple: and elusive one> and
some people would sa3 that personal identit3 is logicall3 as well as factuall3 linked to
7odil3 continuit3> so that it makes no sense to talk of a person surviving the dissolution of
his 7od3. I shall touch 7riefl3 on this issue later on. Another possi7ilit3 to 7e 7orne in
mind4one with which not a little of the evidence could 7e sMuared4is that there is
survival> 7ut survival onl3 of a diminished and truncated something> capa7le of
manifesting as a Muasi-person in certain circumstances> 7ut not ordinaril3 to 7e thought of
as a person at all. The late professor *. (. 9road discussed this idea under the name of
the 'ps3chic factor) or 'psi-component) h3pothesis E-a> pp. &$+L&&N -c> pp. %.L%$5F.
I do not> however> want to spend too much time discussing such issues in the a7stract
7efore I have given some concrete e:amples of the evidence> or supposed evidence> with
which we have to deal.
"ost of the material which I shall cite will> as I have said> come from the pu7lications of
the 0P8 and the A0P8. /ccasionall3 I shall draw upon evidence of compara7le Mualit3
from other sourcesN and where I cite cases of more du7ious authenticit3> it will 7e mainl3
to illustrate possi7ilities. /f course the Muestion immediatel3 arises of what> in this
conte:t> would constitute evidence of appropriate Mualit3. 0ome writers of sceptical
tendenc3 are apt to den3 not Just that we have> 7ut that we ever could have> evidence
strong enough to esta7lish the genuineness of such paranormal phenomena as telepath3 or
precognition> let alone to esta7lish human survival of 7odil3 death. The position of these
e:treme dis7elievers was discussed 73 1dmund #urne3 in an illuminating essa3 first
pu7lished in --, E&%F. "an3 of them have implicitl3 7ased themselves on principles
derived from a cele7rated essa3 on miracles 73 the eighteenth centur3 0cottish
philosopher> (avid 2ume. 2ume)s argument Esuita7l3 emendedF is> in essence> this. The
cumulative evidence in favour of certain 7asic C5C 'laws of nature) is immensel3 strong>
so strong> in fact> that no evidence in favour of an event contravening one of them> in
favour> that is> of a paranormal phenomenon> could ever outweigh it. 2ence whenever we
encounter supposed evidence for a paranormal event> we are alwa3s Justified in
dismissing that evidence. The 'laws of nature) taken 73 upholders of this doctrine as
'7asic) are commonl3 ones which the3 think fundamental to a rather crudel3 materialistic
view of the universe.
If practising scientists as a 7od3 had ever come to take this argument seriousl3 we would>
I suppose> still 7elieve ourselves to inha7it a universe whose leading features would 7e
conceived precisel3 as the3 were conceived at the moment of mass conversion to 2ume)s
doctrines. /f course scientists do not take it seriousl3> and we no longer 7elieve that the
earth is flat. The argument errs in the first place 73 eMuating 'paranormal) events with
events which violate currentl3 accepted laws of nature. If> at a seance> an o7Ject Eor a
personRF suddenl3 floats up into the air> this does not necessaril3 constitute a violation of
the law of gravit3. The first reaction of an o7serving scientist Eor sa3 his second reaction>
7ecause his first reaction would certainl3 7e astonishmentF would 7e to look for the
unknown force or the unknown structure Ea force or a structure perhaps in no conflict
with the accepted principles of mechanics or ph3sicsF which had raised it up. 9ut in an3
case there can 7e no law of nature that is so solidl3 esta7lished as to 7e immune from
revision. *onsider the following possi7ilit3. A law of nature changes overnight.
Following 2ume)s argument we refuse to accept an3 evidence whatever that it has
changed. <e sa3 'that can)t 7e rightR)> 'that can)t 7e rightR)> and so on. *onseMuentl3 all
our predictions and calculations continue to 7e hopelessl3 wrong. <here did we errO The
answer is o7vious. First of all we assumed that the evidence in favour of the old law grew
stronger 73 a constant amount with each successive verificationN hence we could hardl3
e:pect it to 7e overthrown in an3 period of time shorter than that alread3 taken to 7uild
up this massive accumulation of evidence. It is> however> clear that what> as a matter of
ps3chological fact> each one of us acts upon is not some conspectus of the accumulated
wisdom of the ages> 7ut a kind of running average of the more recent o7servations. ;or
Ethough I cannot go into this furtherF is it irrational to act upon such a 7asis. 0econdl3> we
did not allow this evidence in favour of the new law to accumulate. <e dismissed each
piece of evidence separatel3 on the grounds that since it conflicted with an esta7lished
law it cannot really %&&% have #een sound evidence$ And this is wholl3 irrational.
1vidence is good if it fulfils certain criteria appropriate to evidence Ee.g. the witness or
e:perimenter is of good repute> he made recordings with instruments generall3 agreed to
7e relia7le> and so onF. It does not 7ecome 7ad evidence Just 7ecause the phenomenon it
is evidence for is regarded as antecedentl3 impro7a7le.
It has> in fact> 7een peculiarl3 characteristic of those hostile to the claims of
paraps3cholog3 to adopt the second of the a7ove-mentioned stratagems. The3 sa3 in
effect EI am Muoting #urne3 hereF> 'The fact is so impro7a7le that e:tremel3 good
evidence is needed to make us 7elieve itN and this evidence is not good> for how can 3ou
trust people who 7elieve such a7surditiesO) E&%> p. !+%F. *omment would 7e superfluous.
It is not superfluous> however> to point out that though e:treme sceptics have pushed their
arguments to the verge of paranoia> it is none the less vital when e:amining the alleged
evidence for novel and de7ata7le phenomena to maintain a strict watch for certain
recurrent sources of error. These sources of error can arise in all the areas which I propose
to discuss> so it will 7e as well to sa3 something now a7out each of them in turn. If the3
can 7e eliminated from the evidence under review> we shall 7e a7le to present that
evidence> at least provisionall3> as 7eing of a Mualit3 which merits serious attention. The3
ma3 7e taken under two headings: hoa:ing and fraudN and mistaken testimon3.
1. Hoaxing and Fraud
2oa:ing and fraud could vitiate the evidence we have to deal with in one of two wa3s:
EaF the supposed witnesses of apparitions> and other e:perients in cases of 'spontaneous)
10P or PA> might have concocted their stories for amusement> notoriet3> or even for what
the3 conceive to 7e the good of humanit3N
E7F mediums who stand to profit financiall3 from successful sittings might take steps to
deceive their clients.
The first of these possi7ilities does not strike me as a ver3 serious one> at least so far as
the cases investigated 73 the 0P8 are concerned. It is true that several hoa:es have come
to light after the pu7lication of the case reports. 9ut in the great maJorit3 of cases the
witnesses have 7een persons of un7lemished reputation> with no apparent motive for
deceit. The3 have as a matter of routine given signed statements to the 0ociet3)s
representatives> the3 have su7mitted to Muestioning> their C!C friends have given
corro7orative testimon3> all relevant supporting documents> e.g. death certificates> have
7een o7tained and put on fileN and so forth. I do not think that under these circumstances
it is reasona7le to postulate wholesale hoa:ing as a general e:planation of the inflow of
case reports.
The matter stands somewhat differentl3 with regard to possi7le fraud 73 mediums. "an3
ph3sical mediums> and some mental mediums> have 7een caught in the most egregious
tricker3. 0till> I shall not in this 7ook 7e dealing with ph3sical mediumship to an3 e:tent>
and the mental mediums whom I shall principall3 discuss4most nota7l3 "rs Piper and
"rs Leonard4were never caught in fraud despite some rigorous precautions. In the case
of "rs Piper these precautions included opening her mail and having her shadowed 73
detectives to ascertain whether or not she emplo3ed agents. "rs Leonard was also at one
time shadowed 73 detectives. I do not think that the fraud h3pothesis will help us here.
2. istaken !estimon"
That e3ewitness testimon3> especiall3 as to unusual or 7iGarre happenings> cannot 7e
relied upon> is a commonplace of sceptical assaults upon the credi7ilit3 of evidence for
the sorts of phenomena we are consideringN and it is a commonplace which can 7e
su7stantiated 73 an appeal to a large 7od3 of ps3chological findings. These findings>
however> 7ear somewhat uneMuall3 upon different parts of our su7Ject-matter. Testimon3
concerning the phenomena of ph3sical mediumship> which are commonl3 e:hi7ited
under conditions of near darkness and of emotional stress> is notoriousl3 unrelia7le.
2owever I shall present ver3 little of such testimon3. <hen it comes to mental
mediumship the case is different. <e usuall3 have complete contemporar3 records of
what such mediums sa3 or write> so that the Muestion of mistaken testimon3 rarel3 arises.
It is over stories of apparitions and related phenomena that the pro7lem impinges most
directl3 upon the su7Ject-matter of this 7ook.
0ome writers Esee> e.g.> +.aF appear to want to dismiss almost all testimon3 concerning
apparitions on the following grounds: EaF In onl3 a few cases did the percipients
immediatel3 write down a full account of their e:perience. 0tories told months or even
3ears after the event are likel3 to 7e seriousl3 in error> for memor3 is notoriousl3 falli7le>
and tall stories tend to grow with retelling. In one cele7rated case> the principal witness>
0ir 1dmund 2orn73> claimed that he saw C$C an apparition whilst he was in 7ed with his
wife> who also confirmed the stor3. 2owever it was later esta7lished that at the date of
the supposed apparition 0ir 1dmund was not 3et married.
E7F ;umerous e:perimental investigations have cast dou7t on the relia7ilit3 of e3ewitness
testimon3 even when that testimon3 has 7een given immediatel3 after the event.
I do not think that these o7Jectives are ver3 powerful. <ith regard to EaF we do have the
witnesses) contemporar3 statements in a modest num7er of cases. Furthermore there is no
reason to 7elieve that percipients of apparitions have a general tendenc3 towards
retrospective e:aggeration. 0tevenson E&$7F gives a num7er of instances in which
witnesses have written a second account man3 3ears after the first without introducing
su7stantial changes or e:aggerations. This finding receives support from e:perimental
studies. 8ecent fresh evidence concerning the 2orn73 case rather suggests that 0ir
1dmund 2orn73 and his wife had simpl3 forgotten that the3 were not 3et married at the
time when the apparition was seen E%%aF. E7F These investigations show that e3ewitnesses
are lia7le to 7e mistaken over details important for forensic purposes> e.g. who fired first>
or what colour Jacket the accused was wearing. The3 do not show that witnesses are
likel3 to 7e mistaken upon points crucial to the assessment of apparition stories> e.g.
whether the figure which stood 7efore one was that of one)s maternal grandfather.
0uppose> then> that we accept> provisionall3 and for the purposes of argument> that we do
possess some Muantities of evidence> not so inferior in Mualit3 as to 7e instantl3
dismissi7le> which seems prima facie to suggest that certain formerl3 incarnate human
7eings have survived the dissolution of their carnal 7odies> and continue to e:hi7it some
at least of the memories and personal characteristics which the3 possessed in life. 2ow
are we to interpret this evidenceO (iscussions of the pros and cons of the 'survival)
h3pothesis will occup3 much of the rest of the 7ook. There are> however> two recurrent
counter-h3potheses which merit a mention at this point.
#hance #oincidence
The first> and less important> is what ma3 7e called the chance coincidence h3pothesis. It
is seen at its simplest in connection with allegedl3 precognitive dreams. There are in print
Muite a num7er of cases in which a dreamer has apparentl3 dreamed> with considera7le C
%C correspondence of detail> of an event which> at the time of the dream> had not 3et
happened. Is this proof of precognitionO The following counter-e:planation might 7e
offered. There are in the world> or even in that limited part of the world where the
pu7lications of the 0P8 and the A0P8 circulate> man3 millions of persons> each of whom
pro7a7l3 dreams several dreams a night. A 3ear)s total of dreams will add up to thousands
of millions. #iven so man3 dreams> surel3 we would e:pect that now and again> and
simply #y chance, one or two of them will correspond> to a marked e:tent> with some
immediatel3 su7seMuent eventO These dreams will 7e remem7ered and talked a7out>
while the others4which we ma3 call the 'forgotten also rans)4will simpl3 pass into
o7livion. Thus it comes a7out that the pu7lications of certain learned societies are swelled
with a growing num7er of accounts of dreams falsel3 thought to have 7een precognitive.
A ver3 similar argument can 7e applied to certain stories of apparitions. Two sorts of
apparition case that figure prominentl3 in the literature are cases of apparitions coinciding
with the death of the person seen> and cases of apparitions simultaneousl3 seen 73 more
than one person. ;ow suppose we make the assumption that some people have
hallucinations of a certain t3pe Ei.e. see apparitionsF more freMuentl3 than the3 let on.
The3 keep Muiet a7out it for fear of 7eing thought un7alanced. Then we might e:pect that
now and again one of these hallucinations would> Just 73 chance> coincide with a death>
or coincide spatiall3 and temporall3 with someone else)s hallucination. The percipients
will 7e prepared to talk a7out these hallucinations> 7ecause the3 will not think such talk
will endanger their reputations for sanit3. 2ence stories of 'crisis) apparitions and of
collectivel3 perceived apparitions will get into circulation. The 'forgotten also rans) will
not 7e heard of again.
This issue will recur later. 2ere I shall simpl3 remark that a num7er of surve3s> old and
new> suggest Muite strongl3 that what ma3 7e called the 'spontaneous hallucination rate)
in the population at large is not nearl3 high enough to support the argument Esee &,N &-N
-$N -7N %+N +.7F.
A variant of the chance coincidence h3pothesis is often applied to e:plain awa3 the 'hits)
so often scored 73 mental mediums. "an3 mediums> it is held> deal to a considera7le
e:tent in 7analities. The3 deliver 'messages) from the 7e3ond which would pro7a7l3 7e
appropriate for a high percentage of likel3 sitters> especiall3 sitters of the se:> age and
class group of the current client. ;aturall3 the messages appear 'evidential) to the sitterN
7ut the3 are not. The medium has C&C succeeded 73 a mi:ture of chance and skill.
The pro7lem touched on here can 7e a ver3 real one> and attempts have 7een made to
devise statistical methods of assessment to circumvent it. I do not> however> think that the
pro7lem is an important one for our immediate purposes> for I do not 7elieve that in the
maJorit3 of e:amples of apparentl3 successful mental mediumship which I shall actuall3
cite an3one would seriousl3 raise the chance coincidence h3pothesis.
$%u&er'E%()
The second commonl3 preferred counter-h3pothesis to the survivalistic one is what 2art
E+57F has called the 'super-10P) h3pothesis. It is that all the phenomena which we are
tempted to take as indicating the survival of the memories and personalities of certain
deceased persons can 7e more simpl3 and satisfactoril3 e:plained in terms of 10P 73
living persons473 the mediums who deliver the messages> the percipients who see the
apparitions> and so on. This h3pothesis> pushed to its limits> lands us in the following
dilemma. If a piece of putative evidence for survival is to 7e of use> it must 7e verifia7le
4we must 7e a7le to check 73 consulting records or surviving friends that the
information given 73 the ostensi7le communicator was correct. 9ut if the sources for
checking it are e:tant> the3 might in theor3 7e telepathicallv or clairvo3antl3 accessi7le to
the medium or percipient. 0ince we do not know the limits of 10P we can never sa3 for
certain that 10P of the e:traordinar3 e:tent that would often 7e necessar34'super-
10P)4is actuall3 impossi7le. This is the central dilemma in the interpretation of
ostensi7le evidence for survival> and it will crop up again and again throughout the rest of
this 7ook. I have no convenient sword with which to cut this #ordian knot. 9ut as a
guiding principle in approaching it I propose the following. /ne should> whenever
possi7le> avoid maintaining an3 h3pothesis 73 engaging in speculations which do not> so
far as we can at the moment see> commit one to propositions which can 7e tested against
the facts. It is> for e:ample> Muite unprofita7le> 7ecause 7arren of further conseMuences> to
maintain the super-10P h3pothesis 73 postulating telepath3 7etween the unconscious
mind of the medium and the unconscious mind of some distant person> for this is a
process uno7serva7le in principle> and nothing further can 7e done to check up on itN and
it is eMuall3 7arren to e:plain awa3 mistakes and inconsistencies 73 a purported
mediumistic communicator 73 suggesting that the error came not from the supposed
communicator 7ut from l3ing and malicious impersonating spirits.
C+C Finall3> I must emphasiGe that this 7ook is onl3 a 7rief introduction to some
e:ceedingl3 difficult and comple: pro7lems. Large volumes could 7e4indeed have 7een
4written upon topics or cases to which I have 7een a7le to devote onl3 a chapter> or a
paragraph> or a sentence. Though I tr3 to develop certain lines of argument> and to reach
certain conclusions4the 7ook would 7e ver3 flat if I did not4I am more concerned to
present the data and the issues than to promote a particular set of views. The conclusions
that I in fact offer are fairl3 modest. I profess no overwhelming certaint3 as to the true
e:planations of the phenomena under review. I am> however> certain of two things. The
first is that we are here confronted with a great range of unsolved pro7lems and
une:plained phenomena> all of which are potentiall3 of great ps3chological and
philosophical interest. The second is that these issues are not of merel3 academic
concern. The3 are important to an3one who thinks and feels a7out the human situation. I
have heard man3 people of a 7luff and fiddlesticks turn of mind talk somewhat as
follows. '/f course we all perish utterl3 at our deaths. 9ut one life> lived to the full>
should 7e enough for an3one.) 0uch people have> I think> commonl3 had comforta7le and
prosperous lives. Those4the maJorit34who have 7een less fortunate> often through no
fault of their own> might e:press other feelings.
C,C
2 ediumshi&* +eneral
<ith the phenomena of mediumship> which will occup3 the ne:t seven chapters> we at
once reach the ver3 heart of the de7ate concerning the alleged evidence for survival. I
gave in the first chapter a 7rief account of modern 0piritualist mediumship and its origins
within the animal magnetic movement of the earl3 nineteenth centur3. 9ut these forms of
mediumship4known at least 73 hearsa3 to most mem7ers of contemporar3 <estern
societ34are onl3 local and culturall3 shaped versions of phenomena which have> and
have had> their eMuivalents in man3 societies> past and present. This point will 7e
forcefull3 7rought home to an3one who glances at some of the Muite numerous field
studies of possession and kindred phenomena pu7lished 73 social anthropologists Ee.g. ,N
!&N $-N +&N !%N +-F. I am talking here a7out 'possession) in a strong sense4the
ostensi7le controlling of someone)s speech and 7ehaviour 73 a discarnate entit3 capa7le
of intelligent communication. In some societies all kinds of diseases and ailments are
attri7uted to possession 73 malevolent spiritsN 7ut with 'possession) in this sense we are
not concerned.
Possessed persons ma3 7e divided into two 7road categories: those who are the victims of
possession> who are involuntaril3 taken over and manipulated 73 discarnate entities
Eusuall3 hostileFN and those who invite and indeed cultivate possession 73 7etter-disposed
7eings through whose agenc3 good works of one kind or another ma3 7e performed.
Among the latter class of persons are the shamans> witchdoctors> cunning men> seers and
spirit mediums who fulfil similar roles in so man3 widel3 different and widel3 separated
societies. The discarnate entities which possess persons of these two categories include in
man3 cultures not Just deceased human 7eings Eas in <estern 0piritualismF> 7ut all sorts
of gods> godlings> demons> devils> and animal spirits. These last> I think> are usuall3 not
the spirits of individual deceased animals> 7ut are either the spirits of tiger-in-general>
crocodile-in-general> and so forth> or superhuman entities C-C which assume the form of
animals> as in the numerous oriental tales of fo: spirits> monke3 spirits> etc.
Anthropologists of an earlier generation were prone to write off shamans and
witchdoctors as impostors or h3sterics or some amalgam of the two. 0ir @ames FraGer> for
e:ample> wrote in .$ E%!> p. &F:
S these persons more or less craGed in their wits> and particularl3 h3sterical or epileptic
patients> are for that ver3 reason thought to 7e peculiarl3 favoured 73 the spirits> and are
therefore consulted as oracles> their wild and whirling words passing for the revelations
of a higher power> whether a god or a ghost> who consideratel3 screens his too daGGling
light under a thick veil of dark sa3ings and m3sterious eJaculations. I need hardl3 point
out the ver3 serious dangers which menace an3 societ3 where such theories are
commonl3 held and acted upon.
(espite FraGer)s prognostications of doom> man3 societies in which shamans and
witchdoctors pla3 a leading role have survived ver3 well> and look like continuing to do
so. This suggests that> whatever appearances there ma3 7e to the contrar3> such persons
possess a far greater degree of worldl3 efficienc3 than Kictorian anthropologists allowed.
"odern anthropologists recogniGe this> and tend to regard shamanism not as a form of
mental alienation> dangerous to the sufferer and to his societ3> 7ut as a phenomenon with
man3 facets> reMuiring> perhaps> e:planation on a num7er of different levels. /ne level of
e:planation ma3> indeed> in some cases 7e the ps3chopathological. The 'classical) 1skimo
or 0i7erian shaman often undergoes during his training or initiation a period of emotional
insta7ilit3 and mental distur7anceN 7ut from this he ma3 emerge a stronger and more
integrated person than he was 7efore E$,> pp. !$L$!F. 2e has 7een cured through
suffering> or rather has cured himself through suffering. For novice shamans in other
parts of the world even this period of suffering and distur7ance ma3 not 7e necessar3.
After conducting in-depth interviews with ten 0hona ngangas> "ichael #elfand
concluded that all were 'ph3sicall3 and mentall3 normal) E%,> p. $$F> whilst the editors
of a standard anthropological work on spirit mediumship in Africa> state E,> p. ::ivF that
in Africa mediums are 73 no means craGed in their wits. '/n the contrar3 the3 are usuall3
shrewd> intelligent> and accepted mem7ers of their communities.)
Although 7eing 'possessed) 73 discarnate entities> and the converse phenomenon> namel3
Muitting the ph3sical 7od3 to visit the spirit world and talk and negotiate with its
inha7itants> are the most spectacular of the shaman)s skills> the3 form onl3 a part of his C
.C repertoire. The shaman EI am using the word now in an e:tended sense to include not
Just 1skimo and 0i7erian shamans 7ut all kinds of witchdoctors> mediums> and so forthF
is in man3 societies first and foremost a repositor3 of cosmological and theological
doctrines. 2e knows his tri7e)s comer of the universe> the unseen powers which occup3
and rule it> and the proper means for approaching and propitiating them. This knowledge
ma3 7e thought vital to the management of weather> crops> and game. The shaman can
communicate with and o7tain information from the ancestral spirits of his tri7e. 2e pla3s
a leading part in all sorts of religious ceremonies and rites de passage> which ma3 have in
turn not Just inner s3m7olic meanings> 7ut recreational aspects> so that his dramatic and
artistic skills ma3 7e of great importance to the communit3. A7ove all the shaman is a
healer. 2e diagnoses> perhaps clairvo3antl3> the nature and causes of afflictions> drives
out the evil spirit responsi7le> prescri7es her7s to cure the residual ph3sical damage. 2e
ma3 7e especiall3 successful with what we should regard as mental illnesses> and if these
take the form of ostensi7le possession> we ma3 have the curious spectacle of a possessed
shaman treating a possessed patient. 2is clairvo3ant capacities and his a7ilit3 to dream
dreams ma3 7e in demand for locating lost propert3 and detecting thieves. 2e ma3 thus
come to 7e involved in the maintenance of social order. A good shaman o7viousl3
reMuires man3 gifts other than Just that of entering trance and uttering wild and whirling
words while 'possessed). 2e reMuires knowledge> intelligence> dramatic flair> tact> social
skills> and a thorough understanding of the individuals with whom he has to deal.
The successful e:ercise of these gifts ma3 7ring a shaman commensurate rewards in the
shape of wealth and social status. This fact has led some writers Esee especiall3 .!F to la3
emphasis upon the possi7ilities for advancement which a career as a shaman ma3 open up
to persons from normall3 underprivileged sections of a societ34for instance women>
homose:uals> the ver3 poor> and mem7ers of minorit3 groups. ;o dou7t there is an
element of truth in this view> as in man3 other views of this comple: phenomenon. /ne
must> however> 7eware of supposing that shamans from underprivileged 7ackgrounds
have in all> or even most> cases adopted this course of life from conscious polic3.
9ehaviour like that of an entranced or possessed shaman> which from a certain point of
view ma3 appear irrational and ar7itrar3> ma3 conceal a deeper rationalit3 and a strateg3
which is not full3 comprehended even 73 the agent himself.
C!5C A Muestion of particular interest to paraps3chologists is of course that of whether
shamans Eusing the word still in an e:tended senseF ma3 sometimes include among their
other gifts the 'paranormal) ones of 10P and PA. This is a difficult issue. It is onl3 Muite
recentl3 that a few anthropologists have given serious consideration to the possi7ilit3 that
there ma3 7e elements of the paranormal in the performances of shamans> 7ut adeMuate
investigations remain largel3 to 7e carried out Esee> for instance> % and .%N and for older
material -,a and $F. "eanwhile we have a fair num7er of travellers) tales of var3ing
credi7ilit3> and a much smaller num7er of footnotes and incidental o7servations 73
anthropologists. I wish that I had the space to review this highl3 entertaining literature.
"3 personal impression of it is that there is some evidence that certain shamans
occasionall3 e:hi7it 10P and perhaps also PAN and that there is rather more evidence that
certain shamans Esometimes the same onesF ma3 work wonders 73 adroit conJuring4not
necessaril3> it should 7e added> with an3 criminal intent> 7ut simpl3 as part of a dramatic
performance designed> for instance> to manipulate a patient)s mind in directions
favoura7le to a cure.
There are ver3 few studies from an anthropological perspective of spirit mediumship in
<estern societ3. This might seem surprising> since the phenomenon is relativel3
common. "ost accounts of mediumship come either from dedicated 7elievers> or else
from paraps3chologists chiefl3 interested in assessing the ostensi7le evidence for 10P. It
ma3 7e that anthropologists are afraid of 7eing tarred with these 7rushes. I think>
however> that most people who have an3 su7stantial acMuaintance with <estern
0piritualism will recogniGe that man3 of the a7ove o7servations a7out shamans and
shamanism appl3 eMuall3 to 0piritualist mediums in our own societ3. It is true> of course>
that the discarnate entities which are alleged to 'possess) or otherwise communicate
through 0piritualist mediums usuall3 Ethough not alwa3sF claim to 7e Just the spirits of
deceased humans rather than of the gods> demons> animal spirits and other 7eings which
additionall3 manifest through shamans. 9ut the outward forms of the phenomena present
man3 analogies which it would 7e superfluous to pursue in detail. In fact there are few
mediumistic phenomena for which the literature of shamanism cannot provide parallels>
and few shamanistic performances to which 0piritualism provides no counterpart. I have
not heard of an3 shaman who has allegedl3 produced full-form materialiGations clad in
flowing white ectoplasmic C!C draper3N nor> to m3 regret> do I know a contemporar3
0piritualist church in which the officiating medium dances wildl3 when under spirit
control. 9ut these> and a few others> are the e:ceptions which prove the rule.
@ust as Kictorian anthropologists were apt to think shamans merel3 craG3> so some
ps3chiatrists and clerg3men have dramaticall3 or unreflectingl3 asserted that man3
mediums are mentall3 distur7ed and pro7a7l3 certifia7le. 0uch assertions are as mistaken
in the latter case as in the former. "ost mediums e:hi7it in their ordinar3 lives no
s3mptoms of h3steria> epileps3 or mental distur7ance. There are> of course> e:ceptions>
7ut I should hesitate to sa3 that these are more numerous than in the ordinar3 run of the
population. In fact several mediums are among the most practical people I know. ;one
the less some mediums claim to have gone through a period of suffering and emotional
distur7ance due to earl3 ps3chic e:periences which the3 did not understand and which
led them to fear the3 were going mad. As with shamans> these initial pro7lems
disappeared after contact with and training 73 other and more developed mediums.
Again it is Muite clear that although communication with the dead is the principal function
which a medium performs> he or she Eusuall3 the latterF ma3 fulfil man3 other functions
too. Like shamans> mediums are repositories of> or vehicles for> assorted theological and
cosmological teachings> though the importance of this role is somewhat diluted in our
societ3 73 the e:istence of a large 7od3 of readil3 accessi7le 0piritualist literature.
"ediums who are the ministers of 0piritualist churches ma3> like shamans> officiate at
such rites de passage as weddings and funerals Eargua7l3 the most significant rite de
passage of allRF. 2ealing and mediumship go hand in hand almost as much as do
shamanism and the treatment of disease. Ph3sical diseases are treated in healing sessions
73 dedicated spiritual healers> man3 of whom 7elieve that spirits channel healing forces
through their hands. "ost mediums are apt to suggest homel3 Eoften her7alF remedies for
minor ailments. "an3 in effect function as ps3chotherapists and general counsellors> and
it would not surprise me to learn that with a clientele possessing appropriate 7ackground
7eliefs the3 achieve a success rate Muite as high as that of Mualified professionals. A
reputa7le medium> like a reputa7le shaman> is apt to 7e shrewd> 7alanced and well-
meaning> to have perhaps a touch of vanit3 and a liking for the dramatic> 7ut to do overall
much more good than harm.
It has> as I pointed out> not infreMuentl3 7een suggested that C!!C shamanism offers a road
to status for talented persons who might otherwise find themselves condemned to remain
in underprivileged or even despised o7scurit3. 0imilar arguments might 7e put forward in
connection with 0piritualist mediumship. Female mediums greatl3 outnum7er male
Ewhich is not the case with shamans> 7ut shamanism is a career4almost the onl3 career
4open to womenF. In fact it must 7e easier for a woman to 7ecome a minister or church
leader within the 0piritualist movement than within almost an3 other religious
organiGation. Furthermore these ladies often come from relativel3 poor and uneducated
7ackgrounds. ;ot a few male mediums are Elike certain shamansF reputedl3 homose:ual>
which might 7e construed as further evidence for the thesis under discussion. It is not a
thesis which I personall3 would attempt to push ver3 far> 7ut whatever can 7e said in its
favour so far as shamanism is concerned> can pro7a7l3 also 7e said in connection with
0piritualist mediumship.
I e:pressed a7ove a fairl3 Mualified 7elief that some shamans ma3 in the e:ercise of their
craft at times e:hi7it 10P or PA. "3 7elief that certain mediums sometimes e:hi7it
paranormal a7ilities is much less Mualified4I was almost rash enough to write that it is
unMualified47ut since most of the ne:t five chapters will 7e devoted to the sort of
evidence on which m3 7elief is 7ased> I shall not further discuss the matter at this point.
I have tried> in this 7rief and inadeMuate account of the relevant anthropological material
to show that 0piritualist mediumship> as we know it in 1urope and America> has such
clear affinities with what I have somewhat loosel3 chosen to call shamanism that it can
onl3 7e regarded as a culturall3 conditioned variet3 of the latter. It is> if 3ou like> the local
variant of a general human potential. This conclusion can now 7e shelved and
temporaril3 forgotten. It will 7e 7rought out again when I come to attempt a general
assessment of the nature of mediumship. To a more detailed account of mediumistic
phenomena we must now turn.
As I pointed out in the first chapter> 0piritualists themselves commonl3 distinguish two
categories of mediumship> ph3sical mediumship and mental mediumship. In ph3sical
mediumship> the spirits of deceased persons communicate through ostensi7l3 paranormal
ph3sical happenings in the medium)s neigh7ourhood. The 'power) for these happenings
Eraps> o7Ject movements> materialiGations> etc.F is supposedl3 o7tained from the
medium)s own> peculiarl3 endowed> C!$C organism. In mental mediumship> the spirits
either impress pictures and sound-images upon the medium)s ps3chic perceptivit3
E'clairvo3ant) mediumshipF> or else use her hand or vocal apparatus to communicate 73
speech or writing.
9oth kinds of mediumship have man3 varieties> and are carried on in man3 different
settings. 0ome mediums function as ministers of 0piritualist churches> and regularl3
enliven church services with a demonstration of clairvo3ant mediumshipN others see
individual clients 73 appointmentN others lead small groups of enMuirers in so-called
'home circles)N some do all of these things. The initial aim is alwa3s the same. 0itters are
to 7e convinced 73 the force of evidence that the communicating personalities are indeed
the surviving spirits of particular formerl3 incarnate human 7eings. Thereafter the
pronouncements of these spirits concerning the status and prospects of the post-mortem
individual> and upon religious matters in general> will 7e accorded the weight due to
genuine inside information. It is this emphasis upon evidence and proof that underlies
0piritualism)s freMuent claim to 7e a 'scientific) religion.
(h"sical ediumshi&
93 far the greater part of the ostensi7le evidence for survival comes from the phenomena
of mental mediumship. This is> as I pointed out in the first chapter> 7ecause it is the
content of what is communicated> rather than the means 73 which it is communicated>
that 3ields Eif an3thing does 3ieldF evidence for the survival of personalit3. If paranormal
raps resound in the vicinit3 of a medium> and hammer out intelligent sentences 73 means
of a simple code Ea phenomenon> incidentall3> which I have several times witnessed
m3self in good lightF> this is no dou7t ver3 curious and interesting> 7ut it does not per se
constitute evidence for human survival of 7odil3 death. 2owever the raps might conve3
an 'evidential) message. In fact we have firsthand accounts of a num7er of cases in which
the3 have apparentl3 done so. 0everal of these concern (. (. 2ome E-$$L--+F>
perhaps the most remarka7le of all ph3sical mediums. Thus> in a seance held at
1din7urgh in -,5> and recorded 73 "r P. P. Ale:ander E> pp. $&L+F> raps spelled out the
name 'Poph3 0oph3). It transpired that this was the pet name of a child whose mother
and aunt were present. The aunt 7urst into tears. The raps then spelled out> 'Hou were not
to 7lame> and I am happ3.) The aunt had 7lamed herself for supposed carelessness in
allowing the child to catch scarlet fever.
C!%C The onl3 form of ph3sical mediumship of which I shall su7seMuentl3 cite e:amples is
the so-called 'direct voice). The 0piritualist theor3 of the direct voice is that spirits
construct for themselves vocal organs out of 'ectoplasm) supplied 73 the medium. <ith
these vocal organs the3 are a7le to speak to the sitters> often directing their remarks into a
speaking trumpet provided for the purpose. If the sitting is held in the dark> the trumpet>
usuall3 marked with luminous paint> ma3 move around the circle> so that the voices speak
from different positions. The possi7ilities for fraud here are limitless4one medium
known to me used to conceal the reaching rods with which he manipulated his trumpets
in the hollow legs of a small 7am7oo ta7le47ut some curious o7servations have none the
less 7een made. For instance in the earl3 part of this centur3 an American direct voice
medium> "rs 1tta <riedt E-&.L.%!F> of (etroit> greatl3 intrigued several leading
mem7ers of the 0P8. 0ir <illiam 9arrett E-%&L.!&F> one of the founders of that
0ociet3 gives E5$> pp. -$L-%F the following account of a sitting with "rs <riedt:
<hen after m3 e:amination of the room "rs <riedt and "iss 8amsden entered> the door
was locked> and one of the electric lights over our head was left on to illuminate the
room. <e sat on chairs adJoining each otherN I sat ne:t to "rs <riedt and held her hand.
"iss 8amsden sat on m3 left. <e asked "rs <riedt to let us tr3 in the light first> and at
her suggestion "iss 8. held the small end of a large aluminium trumpet to her earN the
larger end I supported with m3 left hand. "3 7od3 therefore came 7etween the trumpet
and the medium. I had previousl3 looked into the trumpet> which was perfectl3 7are and
smooth. Presentl3 "iss 8amsden said she heard a voice speaking to her> and entered into
conversation with the voice. I onl3 heard a faint whispering sound> 7ut no articulate
words. To avoid the possi7ilit3 of "rs <riedt 7eing the source of the whispering> I
engaged her in talk> and while she was speaking "iss 8amsden still heard the faint voice
in the trumpet> 7ut 7egged us to stop speaking> as it prevented her hearing distinctl3 what
the voice said. "iss 8amsden assured me afterwards that there could 7e no dou7t
whatever that the voice in the trumpet was independent of "rs <riedt> and I can testif3
that I watched the medium and saw nothing suspicious in the movement of her lips. 0he
did not move from her place> and no accomplice or concealed arrangement could possi7l3
have produced the voice.
"iss 8amdsen adds a note concerning the EevidentialF message which she received. 0he
sa3s further> '<hile holding the trumpet I could feel the vi7ration of the little voice
inside.)
C!&C
ental ediumshi&
/f mental mediumship there are numerous kinds> and I can mention onl3 the more
important. The most freMuentl3 seen> 7oth in private consultations> and on the pu7lic
platform> is that of 'clairvo3ant) mediumship> which I mentioned a7ove. The medium or
sensitive ma3 7e in a slightl3 dissociated state> 7ut is usuall3 not entranced. 0he claims to
'see) or 'hear) deceased friends and relatives of persons present> and to transmit messages
from them. /ccasionall3 the 'seeing) and 'hearing) seem to reach an hallucinator3
vividness> and the e:perience resem7les that of seeing an apparition Esee *hapter
FourteenF. 0ometimes the medium)s guides Espirits who are alleged to direct her activities
from the 'other side)F ma3 present the information in the form of s3m7olic visions which
she must learn to interpret. 0omething of the flavour of such demonstrations ma3 7e
gleaned from the following ver7atim transcript E+%a> pp. +$L+%F:
Medium ' 0ee> a 7o3 comes in 3our surroundings. 2e looks to me to 7e a7out , or ->
and I think there will have 7een a good deal of sorrow over the passing awa3 of this 7o3.
A lad3 7rings this 7o3> and she wants the parents to know a7out him. <hether he passed
awa3 in weakness or not> I don)t know. 2e is a ver3 7eautiful 7o3N she is telling me that it
is 2er7ert 1rnest. There is some7od3 7elonging to him called 0eth. I cannot get along
with it. (o 3ou know an37od3 called 0eth and "ar3 that had a 7o3 called 2er7ert 1rnest
2o7sonO
(ns)er$ Hou are right> friend.
Medium$ The3 want 3ou to know.
8ight in the corner there TpointingU> I don)t know what to make of this at all. It is a 3outh.
I should take him to 7e a7out -. There is a gentleman with this 3outhN and I have a ver3
curious feeling. I rather think this 3outh will have 7een killed from shock. ;ow he comes
and shows me. 2e is without Jacket> and his clothes are covered with colour. 2e is
holding out his hands and there is a reddish d3e on them. 2e ma3 have worked in a d3e
works. I feel I would fall over. 2e ma3 have met with his death in a d3e works. It is "rs
"iller)s 7o3> <illiam 2enr3 "illerN lived in Kalle3 Place> and I think he would 7e killed
in a d3e works. ;ot more than four or five 3ears ago> as far as I can see in the
surroundings. This gentleman comes with him. 2e is 2enr3 "itchell> and he used to
7elong to Headon. 2e is helping the 7o3 forward.
*(ll correct, e+cept that Henry Mitchell is unrecogni,ed$ Mr Holden, my informant, -ne)
.illiam Henry Miller$ "eg hurt at dye )or-s, #lood poisoning, died a#out &/&&$ 0alley
!ye .or-s$1
(ns)er$ I know this man.
*lairvo3ant mediumship has 7een less e:tensivel3 studied 73 ps3chical researchers than
it perhaps deserves. I shall give what are in effect some C!+C e:amples of it in *hapter
1leven. "ore attention has 7een focused on the kinds of mental mediumship that
manifest through what F. <. 2. "3ers christened 'motor automatisms). "otor
automatisms are actions of an intelligent> purposive and even s3m7olic kind which go on
outside the automatist)s conscious control. The3 ma3 include speech and writing> and
then communication can sometimes 7e esta7lished with a Muasi-personalit3 ostensi7l3
different from that of the automatist. In our societ3 such Muasi-personalties ver3 readil3
take on the guise of deceased persons> and then> of course> automatism passes into
ostensi7le mental mediumship.
A simple and well-known form of such mediumship is that of writing with an ouiJa or
planchette 7oard. 0everal persons sit round a ta7le with the fingers lightl3 resting on an
upturned glass or other pointer> or on a small> heart-shaped piece of wood> into the ape:
of which a downward-pointing pencil is inserted. The glass ma3 then move so as to spell
out words on letters of the alpha7et encircling it E'ouiJa)F> or the 7oard writes with its
pencil on an underl3ing piece of paper E'planchette)F. In neither case need the outcome 7e
deli7eratel3 7rought a7out 73 one of the operators. It is as though each sitter> knowing
that others are also involved> no longer feels tempted to anal3se the situation and ask>
'Am I doing thisO) =nder these conditions one)s hand ma3 'run 73 itself> under the
control of s3stems outside the main stream of consciousness. 0ometimes the sitters
simpl3 rest their hands on top of a small ta7le> which then 'tips) to spell out words and
sentences 73 means of a simple code. In Kictorian times upturned top-hats often served
instead of ta7les43et another use for this versatile 7ut now> alas> outmoded form of
headgear.
To the participants in such seances> the mere fact that the devices move often seems
surprising> indeed uncann3> and should coherent sentences 7e written the3 ma3 7e
accorded the respect due to the deliverances of an oracle. I have m3self come across a
num7er of cases in which an ouiJa 7oard wrote copiousl3 and fluentl3 and produced
material which was Muite alien to the conscious minds of the persons operating it. In each
case> however> it appeared highl3 likel3 that the material was coming from some hidden
level of the mind of a particular sitter. Thus I was once a sitter in a circle which received
pungent communications from #oering and #oe77els and other deceased ;aGi leaders.
The3 favoured us with such interesting pieces of information as that 2itler was alive and
well and operating a petrol pump in the town of *lifton> Arkansas> and that "artin
9ormann was C!,C in #othen7urg disguised as a priest 73 the name of Father /do. The3
favoured us also with various apologias for ;aGism. After several sessions it 7ecame
apparent that this little 7and of unrepentant sinners onl3 communicated when the finger
of one particular person was on the glass. Ker3 reluctantl3 he admitted that man3 3ears
7efore he had gone through a phase of admiration for certain features of 2itler)s
#erman3> and had Joined an e:treme right-wing political organiGation. ;ow he
repudiated> indeed a7horred> his former paltering with ;aGism. ;one the less these views
were clearl3 still alive in him somewhere> and slipped out when his conscious censorship
was circumvented 73 the ouiJa 7oard. I am a7solutel3 certain that he was not deli7eratel3
manipulating the glass4his em7arrassment was too great> and he refused to participate
further.
I have also come across a num7er of instances of ouiJa and planchette writings in which
correct information was given which was prima facie unknown to an3 person present.
0ome e:amples will 7e given in a later chapter.
A rarer form of motor automatism is that of automatic writing 73 a single individual Esee
+$N 5,F. 0uch writing ma3 develop as a s3mptom of mental distur7ance> or it ma3 7e
encouraged 73 a ps3chologist or ps3chotherapist as a means of reaching memories or
emotions which have 7ecome dissociated from consciousness. Ker3 often> however> it has
7een deli7eratel3 cultivated 73 normal persons 7ent upon 'ps3chical development). The
state of mind of an automatist during the production of automatic writing ma3 7e
an3thing from normal wakefulness> with full knowledge of what is 7eing written> to
profound trance> with su7seMuent loss of memor3 for the events of the trance.
In most cases automatic writing does not progress 7e3ond the production of crude and
repetitive sMuiggles. 0ometimes> however> the automatist ma3 come in time to write more
fluentl3 and to e:hi7it skill or knowledge 7e3ond her ordinar3 capacities. Automatic
writing has 7een known to report events forgotten or unnoticed 73 the waking self> and to
e:hi7it what look like flashes of 10P. The writing ma3 profess 7eliefs and opinions
differing from those of the automatistN ma3 displa3 literar3 fluenc3 greatl3 e:ceeding
hersN ma3 compose long romances or religio-cosmological treatises Econcerning the
merits of which opinions differ considera7l3FN and ma3 claim to come not from the
automatist 7ut from a deceased person or supernatural 7eing who has gained control over
her neuromuscular apparatus. *laims to have a discarnate origin are> of course> in most
cases not to 7e taken seriousl3N C!-C the3 simpl3 reflect the dramatiGing tendencies> and
the responsiveness to suggestion and to cultural influences> characteristic of automatic
writing in general.
0ome e:amples of automatic writings which have ostensi7l3 7een the vehicles of 10P
will 7e given in later chapters.
Two important ideas crop up again and again in discussions of automatic writing and
kindred motor automatisms.
EaF Automatic writing> or at an3 rate automatic writing which e:hi7its literar3 and artistic
a7ilities> the capacit3 to converse rationall3> etc.> is clearl3 the product of an intelligence.
The intelligence> however> is not that of the automatist)s waking mind> for the automatist
does not consciousl3 control what is written> and she ma3 7e as surprised as an3one else
when she reads it. <e must therefore suppose that whatever ps3choneural s3stem
underlies> underpins or constitutes this intelligence must 7e of a nature not fundamentall3
different from that of the s3stem which underlies the conscious activities of the ordinar3
waking intelligence. <e are driven> in short> to postulate the e:istence of what ma3
perhaps 7est 7e called dissociated or su#liminal streams of consciousness.
E7F Automatic writing is sometimes the vehicle for ostensi7le 10P> and it is so to an
e:tent which makes it plausi7le to allege that 10P is more likel3 to manifest itself
through a motor automatism than through the normal channels of waking activit3.
The former of these proposals is hard to reJect> though one might perhaps accept it onl3
with some Mualifications. The latter is ver3 difficult to assess. F. <. 2. "3ers supports it
simpl3 73 advancing numerous apparent e:amples of 10P manifested in automatic
writing E5a> II> pp. -L--F. The pro7lem> however> is that even if his e:amples are
individuall3 accepta7le> this does not prove that the mental state Ewhatever it ma3 7eF
which accompanies automatic writing is more favoura7le to the occurrence of 10P than is
an3 other mental state. The necessar3 controlled e:periments to discover whether or not
this is so have still not 7een carried out. 2owever> if we accept that "3ers has made a
preliminar3 case> we ma3 proceed to some further considerations.
Paraps3chologists who have collected and studied large num7ers of cases of spontaneous
10P4cases in which the 10P has manifested itself in dreams> intuitions> hallucinations>
visions> etc.4have often 7een driven to the conclusion that the information concerned is
generall3 C!.C received Eif that is the right wordF and initiall3 anal3sed> at a level 7eneath
the threshold of ordinar3 consciousness. Furthermore it has trou7le in forcing its wa3 into
the main stream of consciousness. It ma3 onl3 7e a7le to do so when the latter is rela:ed
or idle> or in one of those 'altered states) Esuch as dreamsF which seem to permit a freer
passage of hitherto e:cluded material into consciousness. From this point of view motor
automatisms> and especiall3 automatic writing> represent a path 73 which dissociated or
su7liminal material> including information ac2uired #y 3SP> can find direct e:pression
without having to crash whatever 7arrier it is that hinders its transition into
consciousness. "otor automatisms are thus outpourings of the same levels of the
personalit3 which produce the dreams> visions> etc.> 73 which spontaneous 10P is
commonl3 manifested. Indeed F. <. 2. "3ers la7elled the dreams> visions> etc.> sensory
automatisms$ @ust as the 7odil3 movements in motor automatisms are made without the
initiation> and generall3 without the concurrence> of conscious thought and will> so do
these dreams> visions> etc.> arise without itN and "3ers regarded 7oth motor and sensor3
automatisms as means 73 which su7liminal streams of consciousness> often possessing
enhanced dramatic a7ilities and powers of memor3> and in receipt of e:trasensor3
information> can make their deliverances availa7le to the ordinar3 workada3 mind.
It is impossi7le adeMuatel3 to assess these comple:> plausi7le> 7ut controversial notions
here. I introduce them mainl3 7ecause the3 constitute a pervasive 7ackground to much
paraps3chological thinking in this area.
To return now to m3 e:position of the various kinds of mental mediumship. The most
'advanced) form of mental mediumship is without dou7t what is generall3 termed 'trance)
mediumship. 2ere the normal personalit3 is> as it were> completel3 dispossessed 73 the
intruding intelligence> which achieves a var3ing degree of control over the medium)s
speech> writing> and entire neuromuscular apparatus. The medium herself retains little or
no recollection of what has 7een said or done in her 'a7sence)> though sometimes she
ma3 on awakening seem to remem7er scenes and persons from some other sphere of
e:istence.
This kind of trance mediumship Etrance in the sense of unconsciousness of surroundings
ma3 accompan3 other forms of mediumship> including ph3sical mediumshipF tends to
develop not> as it were> 73 the piecemeal advance of sensor3 automatism> so that now C$5C
one hand is under e:ternal control> now 7oth hands> and so on. =suall3 it evolves out of
the 'clairvo3ant) mediumship which I touched on earlier. The clairvo3ant ma3 feel herself
to 7e overshadowed> influenced> graduall3 'taken over) 73 another personalit3> while her
own awareness of her surroundings progressivel3 diminishes. <ith repetition> the passage
to full trance 7ecomes Muicker and easier. 0ometimes a sensitive discovers her gift when
she is suddenl3 and completel3 entranced during a casual visit to a seance.
=suall3 there will 7e onl3 a few deceased persons who can ostensi7l3 control the
medium)s hand or vocal apparatus directl3. The3 are generall3 referred to as 'controls).
*ontrols will often rela3 messages from other deceased persons> spoken of as
'communicators)> with whom the3 purport to 7e in touch. The term 'communicator) is
also used genericall3> to cover 7oth controls and communicators. =se of these terms must
not 7e held to impl3 a 7elief that the 'controls) and 'communicators) are an3thing other
than aspects of the medium)s own personalit3N I shall therefore hold m3self e:cused from
too freMuent a use of such phrases as 'ostensi7le communicator)> 'alleged control)> etc.
Trance mediumship will figure somewhat prominentl3 in the chapters that followN more
prominentl3 than its actual freMuenc3 would indicate. This is 7ecause the fullest
manifestations of the personalities of ostensi7l3 deceased persons have often 7een
o7tained through trance mediums> and 7ecause ps3chical researchers have shown a
corresponding interest in collecting detailed records of this kind of mediumship. Among
prominent trance mediums who have 7een su7Jected to e:tensive and careful stud3 are:
"rs L. 1. Piper> "rs '0mead) E"rs <. L. *leavelandF> "rs '*henoweth) E"rs ". ".
0ouleF> "rs 8. Thompson> "rs 1. @. #arrett and "rs #. /. Leonard. 0everal of these
ladies will 7e discussed in more detail later on.
I talked Just now of the manifestation through mediums of the personalities of deceased
personsN and the Muestion inevita7l3 arises of what these manifestations could possi7l3
consist in. This pro7lem was in effect raised in the first chapter> where I pointed out that
some philosophers would sa3 that one)s personal identit3 is logicall3 linked to the
continuit3 of one)s ph3sical organism> so that to talk of the manifestation of the
personalit3 of a deceased human 7eing is nonsense. This issue will 7e mentioned again
later on. 2ere I can onl3 point out that if> for instance> one had to identif3 a person>
whose 7od3 one could not see> 73 conversing with him over a somewhat nois3 telephone
line> one could not identif3 him unless his conversation C$C e:hi7ited certain distinctive
features4unless> for e:ample> he could remem7er certain things that he ought to 7e a7le
to remem7er if he is the person he purports to 7e Eone)s individual memories must 7e far
more specific even than one)s fingerprintsFN and unless he e:hi7ited certain motives and
purposes> skills and personalit3 characteristics known to 7e hisN and so forth. 8ather
similarl3> evidence of Just these kinds is at least evidence )ithout )hich one would have
no grounds at all for supposing that some human 7eings ma3 in some sense survive the
dissolution of their 7odies. Accordingl3 I shall for the moment defer philosophical
worries> and shall in the ne:t few chapters present in turn evidence from communications
through mediums for the ostensi7le survival of memor3> of purpose> of intellectual skills
and of individual personalit3 characteristics.
C$!C
, !he ediumshi& of rs (i&er
"rs Leonora 1. Piper E-&,L.&5F is important in the histor3 of ps3chical research for at
least three reasons. /f the mental mediums su7Jected to stud3 73 mem7ers of the 0P8
and the A0P8 she was the first to provide su7stantial evidence for the possession of some
paranormal facult3N the records of her case are still unsurpassed in Muantit3 and detail4if
the papers on her pu7lished in the Proceedings of the 9ritish and American 0P8s were
collected together the3 would fill a good few volumesN and she is one of the ver3 few
mediums whose trance speech and writings have 7een su7Jected to a serious and
e:tensive ps3chological anal3sis. The most comprehensive general account of her
mediumship is that contained in 2olt E+,FN see also 0age E$+F and Piper E!F.
"rs Piper lived in 9oston> "assachusetts> where her hus7and was emplo3ed in a large
store. 2er career as a medium 7egan more or less accidentall3. In --% she consulted a
7lind healing medium named @. 8. *ocke. At her second visit to him she passed into a
trance> and wrote down a message for another of the sitters> @udge Frost> of *am7ridge>
"assachusetts. The message purported to come from @udge Frost)s deceased son> and it
impressed him more than an3 other which he had received during an e:tensive
investigation into 0piritualism.
"rs Piper then set up a 'home circle). 2er first spirit guide is said to have 7een a red
indian girl named '*hlorine). Among other communicators were 9ach> "rs 0iddons>
Longfellow and *ommodore Kander7ilt. These less than convincing dramatis personae
retired from the scene the following 3ear with the arrival of a new control who rapidl3
7ecame predominant. This was a soi-disant French doctor who gave the name of '(r
Phinuit). In some wa3s Phinuit was Muite as implausi7le as his predecessors. ;o trace of
him could 7e found in French medical records> and his knowledge of the French language
was scant3 indeed. In fact it seemed likel3 that he was an unconscious plagiarism from
*ocke> who possessed an Irish guide named 'Finne3). C$$C 9ut whatever his ultimate
status> he was a 'character)> and more important he was> as we shall see> a success.
=nder Phinuit)s regime the general procedure at a sitting would 7e this. "rs Piper would
pass into a trance. The onset of the trance was in these earl3 da3s often accompanied 73
unpleasant spasmodic movements> grinding of the teeth> etc. There was never the least
dou7t that the trance-state was in some sense> 'genuine)4in it "rs Piper could 7e cut>
7listered> pricked and even have a 7ottle of strong ammonia held under her nose without
7eing distur7ed. After a few minutes. "rs Piper would 7egin to speak with the voice of
Phinuit> which was gruff and male and made use of Frenchisms> and also of slang and
swearwords> in a manner Muite unlike that of the waking "rs Piper. Phinuit would give
sitters accounts of the appearances and activities of deceased Eand sometimes also of
livingF friends and relations> and would transmit messages from them> often with
appropriate gestures.
"rs Piper was 'discovered) for ps3chical research 73 <illiam @ames> of 2arvard
=niversit3> argua7l3 the greatest ps3chologist of that> perhaps of an3> time. @ames was
sufficientl3 impressed 73 his sittings to send some twent3-five other persons to her under
pseudon3ms. In the spring of --+ he wrote an account of the results in which he stated
E> p. +&$F> 'I am persuaded of the medium)s honest3> and of the genuineness of her
tranceN and although at first disposed to think that the 'hits) she made were either luck3
coincidence> or the result of knowledge on her part of who the sitter was> and of his or her
famil3 affairs> I now 7elieve her to 7e in possession of a power as 3et une:plained.)
'Luck3 coincidence) was not> I think> an e:planation ever seriousl3 considered 73 an3one
who had e:tensive firsthand acMuaintance with "rs Piper)s performances. It was true that
on an off-da3> Phinuit would ram7le and flounder hopelessl3> would fish for information>
and if given an3> would 7latantl3 serve it up again as though it had 7een his own
discover3. 9ut when he was on form he could> with hardl3 an3 hesitation or fishing> rela3
copious communications from the deceased friends and relatives of sitters>
communications which would turn out to 7e ver3 accurate even in tin3 details> and far too
accurate for the h3pothesis of chance or of guesswork from the appearance of the sitters
to seem in the remotest degree plausi7le.
As a result of @ames)s report> a leading mem7er of the 9ritish 0P8> 8ichard 2odgson
E-&&L.5&F> came out to 9oston in --, and C$%C assumed charge of the investigation
E++aF. 2e was looked upon as an e:pert in the unmasking of fraud. 2e arranged for the
careful recording of all sittings> and took the most e:tensive precautions against tricker3.
0itters were introduced anon3mousl3 or pseudon3mousl3> and were drawn from as wide
a range of persons as possi7le. 1special notice was taken of first sittings. For some weeks
"rs Piper was shadowed 73 detectives to ascertain whether she made enMuiries into the
affairs of possi7le sitters> or emplo3ed agents so to do. 0he was 7rought to 1ngland
where she knew no one and could have had no esta7lished agents. (uring her sta3 there
in the winter of --.L.5> all her sittings were arranged and supervised 73 leading
mem7ers of the 0P8. 0itters were for the most part introduced anon3mousl3> and
comprehensive records were kept EF. And still "rs Piper continued to get results.
(r Phinuit remained "rs Piper)s chief control until the spring of -.!. Thereafter he was
graduall3 superseded 73 a control who> whatever his ultimate nature> was at least not
fictitious. This was #eorge Pellew E'#P)F> a 3oung man of literar3 and philosophical
interests who had 7een killed in ;ew Hork a few weeks previousl3. 2e was known to
2odgson> and five 3ears previousl3 had had> under a pseudon3m> one and onl3 one
sitting with "rs Piper. 2e first manifested at a sitting to which 2odgson 7rought a close
friend of his EPellew)sF. Then and thereafter the #P communicator showed a most
detailed acMuaintance with the affairs of the living Pellew. /ut of &5 sitters who were
introduced to him> #P recogniGed twent3-nine of the thirt3 who had 7een known to the
living Pellew Ethe thirtieth> whom he recogniGed after an initial failure> was a person who
had 'grown up) in the intervalF. 2e conversed with each of them in an appropriate
manner> and showed an intimate knowledge of their concerns> and of his own supposed
past relationships with them. /nl3 rarel3 did #P slip up 7adl3> as he sometimes did when
discussing> for instance> the philosophical Muestions which had so much interested Pellew
in life. (uring the period of #P)s ascendenc3> 2odgson 7ecame convinced Ehe had not
previousl3 7een soF that "rs Piper)s controls and communicators were> at least in man3
cases> what the3 claimed to 7e> namel3 the surviving spirits of formerl3 incarnate human
7eings E++7F.
#P> like Phinuit> would pass on messages from other deceased persons who wished to
communicateN 7ut now it apparentl3 7ecame easier for other deceased persons to
'communicate) directl3 73 speaking or writing through "rs Piper)s organism. <riting in
trance C$&C 7ecame much commoner> and ultimatel3 predominant> and sometimes two
different spirits would communicate simultaneousl3> one 73 the hand and one 73 the
voice.
The later histor3 of "rs Piper)s mediumship reMuires onl3 a 7rief account. #P remained
the principal communicator until earl3 in -., Eduring this period 2odgson had almost
complete charge of her sittings> and ver3 full records were keptF. Thereafter for some
3ears her principal controls were a 7and of spirits of the might3 dead who disguised their
illustrious identities under such appropriatel3 solemn so7riMuets as 'Imperator)> '(octor)>
'8ector)> 'Prudens)> etc. 1vidence figured somewhat less in the proceedings> and elevated
teachings somewhat more> than the3 had previousl3 done. In .5& 2odgson died> and>
predicta7l3> 7ecame himself one of "rs Piper)s controls. The purported communications
from him were discussed in an interesting paper 73 <illiam @ames E,%F. Later on "rs
Piper pla3ed a part in the famous 'cross-correspondences) Ewhich are discussed laterF.
2er trance mediumship ended in .> perhaps in conseMuence of the harsh treatment
which she received at the hands of two American ps3chologists> Professor #. 0tanle3
2all> and (r Am3 Tanner E&+F. 2owever she continued to do automatic writing.
As I implied a moment ago> I am prepared wholl3 to dismiss chance hitting as an
e:planation of "rs Piper)s achievements. Although on his off da3s> Phinuit)s ram7lings>
fishings and platitudes were such as to provide invalua7le ammunition for hostile critics>
he was capa7le even at his most 7anal of springing a surprise. Thus at a sitting on $ @une
--. E++a> p. $5F> "r @. 8ogers 8ich gave Phinuit a dog)s collar. After a while Phinuit
said he saw the dog coming> and then went on: '2ere he comesR /h> how he JumpsR
There he is now> Jumping upon and around 3ou. 0o glad to see 3ouR 8overR 8overR ;o4
#-rover> #roverR That)s his nameR). The dog was once called 8over> 7ut his name was
changed to #rover in --%> in honour of the election to the American Presidenc3 of
#rover *leveland.
<ith Phinuit at his 7est> chance hitting is an impossi7le e:planation. Another general
e:planation which I am prepared to dismiss is that of fraud. I have alread3 indicated some
of the considerations which tell against it. The thought of fraud was never far from "rs
Piper)s earl3 investigators. The case against it was powerfull3 summariGed in --. 73
Frank Podmore E!!7F> a highl3 sceptical writer. Podmore points out that despite careful
overseeing C$+C amounting at times to invasion of privac3> "rs Piper had never once 7een
detected in dishonest3 or found to have emplo3ed agents. 0he could not in an3 case have
afforded to emplo3 agents. Furthermore arrangements had commonl3 7een made to
preserve the anon3mit3 of sittersN these arrangements were made not Just 73 2odgson>
7ut at various times 73 a num7er of other responsi7le people. ;or was the information
communicated through "rs Piper generall3 of the sort which could have 7een o7tained
from pu7lic records> cemeteries> or talkative servants. ;ames and dates were ver3
difficult to 'put through). (espite the fact that she had given sittings to hundreds of
people> material relating to different individuals was hardl3 ever mi:ed up. In delineation
of character "rs Piper far outreached an3thing which could have 7een constructed from
an accumulation of such facts as might have 7een unearthed 73 snooping or 73 7ri7er3.
0uccessful communicators would often address sitters in e:actl3 the right tone> and might
unmistaka7l3 refer to trivialities of a wholl3 private significance. The charge of credulit3>
said Podmore> rested with those who> without consideration and without enMuir3> could
lightl3 attri7ute all the results to imposture.
0ome of these considerations also tell against another 'naturalistic) e:planation that is
sometimes propounded. It ma3 7e called the 'grapevine) theor3 and goes like this. "rs
Piper 7efore long 7ecame Muite well known in 9oston> and 7uilt up a network of clients
each of whom was in turn likel3 to recommend her to friends. 93 this means> and without
an3 Muestion of deli7erate tricker3 or the emplo3ment of agents> she could have 7uilt up a
store of information a7out numerous interlinked 9oston families> and could often have
made a good guess at the identities even of sitters introduced anon3mousl3. Add to these
suppositions the possi7ilit3 that she possessed a 'fl3paper) memor3 for personal details>
and we can 7egin to see a wa3 of accounting for her remarka7le successes.
At least one thing ma3 7e said in favour of these ideas. There was not a little evidence to
suggest that when in trance "rs Piper possessed a remarka7l3 good memor3 for what had
7een said during previous trances. And this fact could clearl3 have a 7earing upon the
interpretation of certain cases. For e:ample in "a3 and @une .5&> shortl3 after
2odgson)s death> "rs Piper)s 2odgson-control made some references to correspondence
7etween 2odgson and a certain "iss (ensmore E'2uldah)F of *hicago> and stated that
2odgson had C$,C proposed marriage to her. ;one even of 2odgson)s closest 9oston
friends had an3 inkling of this> 7ut it turned out to 7e true. =nfortunatel3 it also transpired
that 2odgson had mentioned the matter to "rs Piper)s controls ten years previously when
he was hoping that the lad3 would accept him E,%> pp. !5L!+F. 0o this apparentl3 striking
case must 7e dismissed as evidence for the paranormal: or almost dismissed> since it must
7e added that a living person Ea ;ew Hork lad3F to whom 2odgson had confided his
disappointment4certainl3 not at a Piper sitting4was located through information given
73 the 2odgson-control.
In general> however> I think that this theor3 ma3 7e safel3 reJected. The chief
investigators of the Piper case were well aware of the dangers in Muestion> and made
ever3 effort to avert them 73 anon3mousl3 7ringing to her a su7stantial sprinkling of
sitters from as far afield as possi7le> and 73 taking her on several e:tended trips to
1ngland. It was a7undantl3 clear that whatever part the local grapevine ma3 have pla3ed
in marginall3 improving "rs Piper)s results> it was not her chief source of inspiration.
/n the face of it the 'grapevine plus stick3 memor3) theor3 should have 7een on its
strongest ground with the alleged post-mortem communications from 8ichard 2odgson
himself. For not merel3 had "rs Piper known 2odgson for eighteen 3earsN she could also
have learned a good deal a7out those friends of his who were most likel3 to attempt to
make contact with him after his death. 0he would therefore Eit might 7e saidF have 7een
a7le to produce those 2odgson-reminiscences which had a particular appropriateness for
each sitter.
In his report on "rs Piper)s 2odgson-control> <illiam @ames considers and reJects this
h3pothesis> sa3ing of 2odgson E,%> p. +F: '#ifted with great powers of reserve 73 nature>
he was professionall3 schooled to secretivenessN and a decidedl3 incommunicative ha7it
in the wa3 of personal gossip had 7ecome a second nature with him>4especiall3 towards
"rs Piper.) In fact one has onl3 to consider a few of the incidents descri7ed in @ames)s
report to see Just how implausi7le is the grapevine h3pothesis as a general e:planation of
"rs Piper)s successes. I shall give three e:amples:
1. !he (ecuniar" essages
2odgson)s salar3 as secretar3 of the American 7ranch of the 0P8> though small> was
often irregularl3 paid. The result was that he was C$-C sometimes left in circumstances of
great financial em7arrassment. /n one occasion he was rescued 73 a wholl3 une:pected
remittance from a friend. To this remittance> sa3s @ames E,%> p. !+F>
S he replied 73 a letter which S cited the stor3 of a starving couple who were overheard
73 an atheist who was passing the house> to pra3 aloud to #od for food. The atheist
clim7ed the roof and dropped some 7read down the chimne3> and heard them thank #od
for the miracle. 2e then went to the door and revealed himself as its author. The old
woman replied to him: '<ell> the Lord sent it> even if the devil 7rought it.)
At this friend)s sitting of $5 @anuar3> T2odgsonU suddenl3 sa3s: (o 3ou remem7er a stor3
I told 3ou and how 3ou laughed> a7out the man and woman pra3ing.
0ITT18: /h> and the devil was in it. /f course I do.
2/(#0/;: Hes> the devil> the3 told him it was the Lord who sent it even if the devil
7rought it S A7out the food that was given to them S I want 3ou to know who is
speaking.
The sitter feels Muite certain that no one 7ut himself knew of the correspondence S
Later another friend agreed to make up an3 deficit in 2odgson)s salar3> provided this
action should remain anon3mous> and 2odgson should ask no Muestions. /n the first
sitting which this friend had after 2odgson)s death> the 'spirit) of 2odgson immediatel3
referred to the matter and thanked the sitter. 'The donor is of opinion>) sa3s @ames E,%> p.
!,F> 'as I am also> that 2odgson ma3 have suspected the source of the aid while receiving
it> and this his VspiritW ma3 therefore naturall3 have thanked the right person. That "rs
Piper)s waking consciousness should have 7een acMuainted with an3 part of this
transaction is incredi7le.)
2. !he $Fist'%haking) E&isode
I Muote @ames)s own account of this episode E,%> p. 5.F:
The following incident 7elongs to m3 wife)s and "iss Putnam)s sitting of ! @une .5+:
4"rs @. said: '(o 3ou remem7er what happened in our li7rar3 one night when 3ou were
arguing with "argie T"rs @.)s sisterUO4'I had hardl3 said Vremem7erW>) she notes> 'in
asking this Muestion> when the medium)s arm was stretched out and the fist shaken
threateningl3>) then these words came:
8. 2. Hes> I did this in her face. I couldn)t help it. 0he was so impossi7le to move. It was
wrong of me> 7ut I couldn)t help it.
TI m3self well remem7er this fist-shaking incident> and how we others laughed over it
after 2odgson had taken his leave. <hat had made him so angr3 was m3 sister-in-law)s
defence of some slate-writing she had seen in *alifornia.4<. @.U
C$.C
,. $-u"ing -ill")
Again I Muote @ames)s own account E,%> p. !F:
/n $5 @anuar3 .5+> "rs ". had a sitting. "rs " said:
(o 3ou remem7er our last talk together> at ;.> and how> in coming home we talked a7out
the workO
E8. 2.F Hes> 3es.
"rs. ". And I said if we had a hundred thousand dollars4
9u3ing 9ill3R R
"rs. ". Hes> (ick> that was it4'7u3ing 9ill3).
9u3ing onl3 9ill3O
"rs. ". /h no4I wanted 0chiller too. 2ow well 3ou remem7erR
"rs. ".> 7efore 8. 2.)s death> had had dreams of e:tending the American 9ranch)s
operations 73 getting an endowment> and possi7l3 inducing Prof. T<. 8.U ;ew7old
E9ill3F and (r TF. *. 0.U 0chiller to co-operate in work. 0he naturall3 regards this
veridical recall> 73 the control> of a private conversation she had had with 2odgson as
ver3 evidential of his survival.
If one regards the various 'naturalistic) e:planations of "rs Piper)s performances as 73
and large inadeMuate Eand personall3 I do so regard themF> and is further prepared instead
to consider the possi7ilit3 that she ma3 have possessed a7ilities of kinds not 3et generall3
recogniGed 73 science> then the most o7vious h3pothesis to present itself is undou7tedl3
that of telepath3 7etween the medium and persons present at the sitting. *lairvo3ance
will hardl3 serve> for most of the evidence Enot allF transmitted was confirmed 73 the
recollections of living persons rather than 73 documents> photographs> etc.> which might>
73 a great stretch of imagination> 7e supposed deciphera7le 73 clairvo3ance. All the cases
so far Muoted in this chapter could in principle 7e e:plained 73 telepath3 7etween
medium and sittersN and some incidents from the Piper records strongl3 suggest it. For
instance> 2odgson had one da3 7een reading with great interest Lockhart)s "ife of Scott$
;e:t da3 a ludicrous 0ir <alter 0cott turned up at a Piper sitting> and gave a guided tour
of the solar s3stem> stating that there are monke3s in the sun E%&7> pp. %$,L%%-F. "r @.
T. *larke was told 73 Phinuit that he was in financial trou7le> which was correct. Phinuit
further asserted that things would improve within four and a half months> and that 'There
are parties that haven)t dealt honoura7l3 with 3ou.) 2e warned *larke particularl3 against
a man named 2. ;one of Phinuit)s further assertions was JustifiedN 7ut the3 accuratel3
reflected *larke)s own 7eliefs at the time E> pp. &+-L&,F.
;ot Just isolated incidents> 7ut the overall pattern of whole series of sittings seemed
sometimes to favour the h3pothesis of telepath3 C%5C 7etween medium and sitters. For
instance> 0ir /liver Lodge gave (r Phinuit a chain> entrusted to him 73 a gentleman
a7road> which had 7elonged to that gentleman)s father. Phinuit produced a large num7er
of facts and purported facts concerning the father> which Lodge transmitted to the son.
The son)s repl3> according to Lodge E> p. %+F> was
S Important and distinct. It recogniGes the correctness of those things which I knew> and
it asserts the total incorrectness of those things of which I was ignorant. 0o far as this
series of facts goes> therefore> the h3pothesis of a direct thought-transferential means of
o7taining information is immensel3 strengthened. I can indeed hardl3 resist the
conclusion that the series of facts purporting to 7e related 73 the elder "r <ilson have no
more su7stantialit3 than a dream of m3 ownN that I was> so to speak> dreaming 73 pro:3>
and imposing upon m3self through the mouth of the medium> a num7er of statements
such as it is not difficult to imagine reported to one in a dream.
The theor3 of telepath3 7etween medium and sitters has thus in certain cases a good deal
of plausi7ilit3> which is more than can 7e said for the other theories we have so far
considered. 9ut Just how far can we push this theor3O I shall give now an e:tract from the
first of two sittings with "rs Piper had 73 the 8ev and "rs 0. <. 0utton> of Athol *enter>
"assachusetts E++7> pp. %-&L%-+F. The sitting was held on - (ecem7er -.$. It was
7ooked 73 2odgson> and the sitters were introduced under the pseudon3m of '0mith). A
practised note-taker acted as recorder. It must 7e understood that throughout Phinuit
speaks Eand sometimes gesticulatesF on #ehalf of the child communicatorN she does not
'control) herself. The annotations in sMuare 7rackets are 73 "rs 0utton.
Phinuit said S A little child is coming to 3ou S 2e reaches out his hands as to a child>
and sa3s coa:ingl3N *ome here> dear. (on)t 7e afraid. *ome> darling> here is 3our mother.
2e descri7es the child and her 'lovel3 curls). <here is PapaO <ant Papa. T2e Ei.e.
PhinuitF takes from the ta7le a silver medal U I want this4want to 7ite it. T0he used to
7ite it.U T8eaches for a string of 7uttons.U XuickR I want to put them in m3 mouth. TThe
7uttons also. To 7ite the 7uttons was for7idden. 2e e:actl3 imitated her arch manner.U S
<ho is (odoO T2er name for her 7rother> #eorge.U S I want 3ou to call (odo. Tell (odo
I am happ3. *r3 for me no more. TPuts hands to throat.U ;o sore throat an3 more. T0he
had pain and distress of the throat and tongue.U Papa> speak to me. *an 3ou not see meO I
am not dead> I am living. I am happ3 with #randma. T"3 mother had 7een dead man3
3ears.U Phinuit sa3s: 2ere are two more. /ne> two> three here>4one older and one
3ounger than Aakie. T*orrect.U S
C%C
<as this little one)s tongue ver3 dr3O 0he keeps showing me her tongue. T2er tongue was
paral3sed> and she suffered much with it to the end.U 2er name is Aatherine. T*orrect.U
0he calls herself Aakie. 0he passed out last. T*orrect.U <here is horse3O TI gave him a
little horse.U 9ig horse3> not this little one. TPro7a7l3 refers to a to3 cart-horse she used to
like.U Papa> want to go wide TrideU horse3. T0he plead this all through her illness.U S
TI asked if she remem7ered an3thing after she was 7rought downstairs.U I was so hot> m3
head was so hot. T*orrectU S (o not cr3 for me4that makes me sad. 1leanor. I want
1leanor. T2er little sister. 0he called her much during her last illness.U I want m3 7uttons.
8ow> row>4m3 song>4sing it now. I sing with 3ou. T<e sing> and a soft child voice
sings with us.U
Lightl3 row> lightl3 row>
/)er the merr3 waves we go>
0moothl3 glide> smoothl3 glide>
<ith the e77ing tide.
TPhinuit hushes us> and Aakie finishes alone.U
Let the wind and waters 7e
"ingled with our melod3>
0ing and float> sing and float>
In our little 7oat.
S Aakie sings: 93e> 73e> 7a 73e> 73e> 73e> / 7a73 73e. 0ing that with me. Papa. TPapa
and Aakie sing. These two were the songs she used to sing.U <here is (inahO I want
(inah. T(inah was an old 7lack rag-doll> not with us.U I want 9agie T2er name for her
sister "argaret.U I want 9agie to 7ring me m3 (inah S Tell (odo when 3ou see him that
I love him. (ear (odo. 2e used to march with me> he put me wa3 up. T*orrect.U
8emarka7le though this e:cerpt is Enot more remarka7le> however> than the full
transcripts of the two sittings> which are> incidentall3> documents of social as well as
ps3chical interestF> no information was communicated which la3 outside the knowledge
of the sitters. (oes this mean> then> that we can comforta7l3 attri7ute all "rs Piper)s
'hits) here to telepath3 with the sittersO 0uch a conclusion would 7e too hast3. I know of
no instance of undenia7le telepath3 7etween living persons> or for that matter of an3
other variet3 of 10P> in which the flow of paranormall3 acMuired information has 7een so
Muick> so copious> and so free from error. EI ma3 sa3 that these features are understated 73
the 7rief e:tract which is all I have 7een a7le to Muote.F Then again there is the Muestion
of the point of view from which the information is presented. It appears that "rs Piper
must have o7tained parents)-e3e information a7out Aakie from the sitters> and C%!C then
with a fair degree of dramatic skill have constructed on the 7asis of this information a
Aakie)s-e3e view of the same facts. Furthermore Eand this is e:ceedingl3 oddF> incidents
at 7oth sittings apparentl3 showed associations that seemed to 7e in the mind of the child>
and which did not awaken the corresponding associations in the minds of the sitters. For
instance when Aakie asked for 'horse3)> and was given a little to3 horse> she said '7ig>
horse3> not this little one.) "rs 0utton surmised that she referred to another to3 horse that
she used to like. At the second sitting Aakie reMuested the horse again> 7ut when given
the little horse> said E++7> p. $-,F ';o> that is not the one. The 7ig horse4so 7ig. TPhinuit
shows how large.U 1leanor)s horse. 1leanor used to put it in Aakie)s lap. 0he loved that
horse3.) These additional particulars made it clear to "rs 0utton what horse was meant4
one which was packed awa3 and forgotten in another cit3. In a later passage> not given
a7ove> from the first sitting Aakie asked for 'the little 7ook). 2er mother supposed that
she meant a linen picture 7ook. At the second sitting it 7ecame clear that what was
intended was a little pra3er 7ook which had 7een read to Aakie Just 7efore her death> and
then put in her hands. If we are to sa3 that "rs Piper could select from the sitters) minds
associations conflicting with the ones consciousl3 present and utiliGe them in order to
create the impression that the communicator)s thoughts moved along lines distinctivel3
different from the sitter)s> we are 7eginning to attri7ute to her not Just super-10P 7ut
super-artistr3 as well.
The theor3 of telepath3 from the sitters is> of course> manifestl3 ruled out when correct
information is given which is not at the time known to an3 sitter. Incidents of this kind
are sprinkled throughout the Piper records Eand throughout the records of various other
mediums too4see %%e> p. &-,F. I shall end this chapter with summar3 accounts of two
such cases Ethe original records are too long to 7e Muoted in fullF.
1. %ir .li/er Lodge)s 0ncle 1err"
This case took place during "rs Piper)s visit to 1ngland in the winter of --.L.5. 0ir
/liver Lodge)s summar3 of it E> pp. %&-L%&.F is as follows:
It happens that an uncle of mine in London T=ncle 8o7ertU> now Muite an old man> had a
twin 7rother who died some twent3 or more 3ears ago. I interested him generall3 in the
su7Ject> and wrote to ask if he would lend me some relic of his 7rother. 93 morning post
on a certain da3 I received a C%$C curious old gold watch> which his 7rother had worn S I
handed it to "rs Piper when in a state of trance.
I was told almost immediatel3 that it had 7elonged to one of m3 uncles S After some
difficult3 S (r Phinuit caught the name @err3 S and said S 'This is m3 watch> and
8o7ert is m3 7rother> and I am here. =ncle @err3> m3 watch.) S I pointed out to him that
to make =ncle 8o7ert aware of his presence it would 7e well to recall trivial details of
their 7o3hood S
'=ncle @err3) recalled episodes such as swimming the creek when the3 were 7o3s
together> and running some risk of getting drownedN killing a cat in 0mith)s fieldN the
possession of a small rifle> and of a long peculiar skin> like a snake-skin> which he
thought was now in the possession of =ncle 8o7ert.
All these facts have 7een more or less completel3 verified. 9ut the interesting thing is
that his twin 7rother> from whom I got the watch> and with whom I was thus in a sort of
communication> could not remem7er them all.
2e recollected something a7out swimming the creek> though he himself had merel3
looked on. 2e had a distinct recollection of having had the snake-skin> and of the 7o: in
which it was kept> though he does not know where it is now. 9ut he altogether denied
killing the cat> and could not recall 0mith)s field.
2is memor3> however> is decidedl3 failing him> and he was good enough to write to
another 7rother> Frank> living in *ornwall> an old sea captain> and ask if he had an3 7etter
remem7rance of certain facts4of course not giving an3 ine:plica7le reason for asking.
The result of this enMuir3 was triumphantl3 to vindicate the e:istence of 0mith)s field S >
and the killing of a cat 73 another 7rother was also recollectedN while of the swimming of
the creek> near a mill-race> full details were given> Frank and @err3 7eing the heroes of
that foolhard3 episode.
It should 7e noted that =ncle Frank could not remem7er the snake-skinN so that if "rs
Piper got all this information 73 telepath3> she must have ransacked the memor3 stores of
two separate individuals and collated the results.
2. !he Dog $2ounder)
The following is a summar3 E+%a> p. $&%F 73 "iss 2elen Kerrall E"rs <. 2. 0alterF of a
case from a long paper in which she descri7es and anal3ses some remarka7le
communications from a recentl3 deceased 3oung man> 9ennie @unot> to surviving
mem7ers of his famil3:
/n Fe7ruar3 .5!> "r @unot TseniorU sent a message through his son 9ennie to a
former coachman of his> 2ugh Irving> who had 7een dead some months> asking where
'the dog 8ounder) was. 2ugh Irving had left "r @unot)s service a7out two months 7efore
his death and taken the dog with C%%C him. In the waking stage Ti.e.> when "rs Piper was
7eginning to 'come to)U on ! April .5!> it is stated that '@ohn <elsh has 8ounder). "r
@unot succeeded after some difficult3 in tracing '@ohn <elsh)> 7ut unfortunatel3 it proved
impossi7le to discover whether he had ever had the dog in his possession. It is certain>
however> that he was closel3 associated with the coachman> who took the dog awa3> and
it was through his attempts to find @ohn <elsh that "r @unot recovered the dog.
"oreover> there seems good reason for thinking that @ohn <elsh> even if he never had the
dog himself> knew something of his wherea7outs> and could have helped "r @unot to
recover him. ;either "r @unot nor an3 of his famil3 had ever to their knowledge heard of
@ohn <elsh Eat an3 rate under that nameF> still less of his connection with 2ugh Irving
and possi7le connection with the dog. (ou7tless people could have 7een found to whom
all these facts were known> 7ut the3 were not people with whom "rs Piper had ever 7een
7rought into contact. =ntil we know to what limitations> if an3> telepath3 7etween living
minds is su7Ject> we cannot determine whether it is a sufficient e:planation of such
phenomena as this.
<e are> alas> toda3 no nearer knowing the limitations> if an3> of telepath3 than we were in
.5> when "iss Kerrall wrote the a7ove passage. <hat 7earing cases such as these>
which go so far 7e3ond telepath3 from the sitters> ma3 have upon the survival h3pothesis
is a Muestion which must 7e taken up after we have considered some further kinds of
case. "iss Kerrall goes on to remark:
S if we suppose> as the controls themselves declare> that the source of the information is
the minds of the dead> such incidents present no difficult3> and therefore> though the3
cannot 7e said to prove their h3pothesis> the3 would> if freMuentl3 repeated> render it
more pro7a7le.
This is> I fear> an oversimplification> 7ut it is an oversimplification of a standpoint that
ma3 perhaps 7e defensi7le.
To "rs Piper I shall return again in various places. For the moment I should like to
emphasiGe that the Piper cases which I have presented in this chapter constitute onl3 a
tin3 proportion of the mass of 'evidential) materials supplied 73 the records of her
mediumship.
C%&C
3 !he ediumshi& of rs Leonard
At the end of the last chapter I 7riefl3 descri7ed and discussed several e:amples of
mediumistic communications in which the correct information given was ostensi7l3 not
known 73 normal means to an3 person present at the sitting. 0uch cases> in sufficient
num7er> and with sufficient assurances that no sitter had a 7uried memor3 of the relevant
details> would seriousl3 undermine the theor3 that mediums) 'hits)> when not fortunate
flukes> are due to telepath3 with the sitters. In this chapter I shall talk a7out a remarka7le
medium who made> one might almost sa3> a specialit3 of producing evidence of this kind.
I refer to the 9ritish medium> "rs #lad3s /s7orne Leonard E--!L.+-F.
As a child "rs Leonard> like so man3 other mediums> used to have 7eautiful visions> of
which her conventional parents disapproved E-.F. "uch later> when she was alread3
married> she discovered her mediumistic gifts as a result of e:perimenting in ta7le-
tipping with some friends. 0he passed into a trance> and was afterwards told that her
mother> and a 3oung girl named Feda> had spoken through her. Feda 7ecame her chief
control. 0he purported to 7e the spirit of an Indian girl whom an ancestor of "rs Leonard
had married in the earl3 nineteenth centur3. These statements were naturall3 unverifia7le>
though there was a famil3 tradition of such a girl Eshe had died in child7irth at an earl3
ageF. Feda spoke in a high-pitched voice> with occasional grammatical errors and
misunderstandings of word-meanings> and had sometimes a touch of the archness and
childish wa3s which> in a more e:treme form> have endeared numerous child-
communicators to middle-aged lad3 sitters. E'I 7elieve we are going to have a Tops3)>
such a sitter once e:claimed at a home circle which I used to attend> clasping her hands
together in anticipation.F Feda regarded "rs Leonard with something 7etween tolerance
and amused contempt> and would sometimes cause her em7arrassment> for e:ample 73
soliciting small presents> which she thereafter fiercel3 insisted were her own and not "rs
Leonard)s.
C%+C As the First <orld <ar approached> Feda 7egan to speak of a coming catastrophe>
and urged upon "rs Leonard that it would 7e her dut3 to help as man3 people as possi7le
73 her mediumship. "rs Leonard shortl3 thereafter 7ecame a professional medium> and
devoted herself to helping the 7ereaved. At the same time she was Muite prepared to
su7mit herself to critical investigation 73 mem7ers of the 0P8> some of whom Eas with
"rs PiperF had her shadowed 73 detectives to ensure that she did not make enMuiries
a7out sitters or emplo3 agents so to do. The first paraps3chologist to stud3 her in detail
was 0ir /liver Lodge> whose 7ook Raymond E.+F> descri7ing communications from a
son killed in the war> made her famous. 0he continued to 7e regularl3 studied 73 0P8
investigators from then until the earl3 3ears after the 0econd <orld <ar. Throughout that
time Feda remained as her principal guide. "ost communications were given 73 speech>
with Feda acting as intermediar3N sometimes other deceased persons would control the
vocal apparatusN and ver3 occasionall3 communications were made 73 writing.
A most odd feature of "rs Leonard)s mediumship in later 3ears was this. At times> when
Feda was in control> and was transmitting messages from another communicator
purportedl3 in touch with her on the 'other side)> she would 7e interrupted 73 a whisper
coming apparentl3 from the empt3 air a foot or two in front of the medium. This 'direct
voice) Eostensi7l3 that of the communicator whose remarks Feda was rela3ingF would
correct and clarif3 the statements which Feda was making through "rs Leonard. Tests
made with the acoustic instruments then availa7le did not suffice to determine whether or
not this voice was trul3 independent of "rs Leonard)s vocal apparatus EF. In 7rief
recordings to which I have listened it never overlaps with the voice of Feda.
In man3 wa3s the mediumship of "rs Leonard resem7led that of "rs Piper> and I do not
want to go over similar ground twice. I shall therefore concentrate upon those singular
aspects of it which> as I mentioned a moment ago> seem irreconcila7le with the
h3pothesis of telepath3 from the sitters. Indeed the3 are not eas3 to reconcile with
an3thing much less than a form of the super-10P h3pothesis which allows the medium
potential e:trasensor3 access to an3 identif3ing detail whatsoever relating to an3 living or
recentl3 dead person in the whole of the <estern world. The aspects of "rs Leonard)s
mediumship concerned are> first> her remarka7le successes Eor Feda)s C%,C remarka7le
successesF with '7ook tests)> and> second> her Muite numerous apparentl3 successful
'pro:3 sittings).
The origin of the Leonard 7ook tests is a little o7scure> and it seems Muite likel3 that the3
were first proposed 73 Feda. If so> the3 share with the 'cross-correspondences) Eto 7e
discussed laterF the remarka7le feature of 7eing 'tests of survival) ostensi7l3 suggested 73
deceased persons. There are> however> analogies for them from earlier literature. The
principle of 7ook tests is well summariGed 73 0ir /liver Lodge E&5> p. :viF. A
communicator> usuall3 passing the message through Feda> has to specif3
the num7er of a page in a 7ook> itself indicated onl3 73 its num7ered place on a given
shelf in a 7ook-case whose position is descri7ed> in a house to which the medium need
have no access> though a house presuma7l3> or usuall3> well-known to the ostensi7le
communicator. The idea is that a sentence shall su7seMuentl3 7e found on that page> 73
an3 one who follows the instructions and identifies the 7ook> which sentence shall
sufficientl3 conve3 an intended message> or shall show a similarit3 in thought to what has
otherwise 7een said> or shall 7e appropriate to the actual circumstances or past connection
of communicator and intended recipient.
0ince the 7ook chosen need not 7e one known to the sitter> or indeed known in the
reMuisite detail to an3one living> it is plain> as Lodge sa3s> that 'no simple kind of mind-
reading can 7e appealed to or regarded as a rational e:planation.) I will take as an
e:ample a short 7ut somewhat remarka7le case in which the communicator is 1dward
<3ndham Tennant E'9im)F> a 3oung officer killed on the 0omme in .+. The sitting E&5>
p. +5F was held on , (ecem7er .,.
Feda$ '9im now wants to send a message to his Father. This #oo- is particularly for his
FatherN underline that> he sa3s. It is the ninth 7ook on the third shelf counting from left to
right in the 7ookcase on the right of the door in the drawing-room as 3ou enterN take the
title> and look at page $,.)
<e found the ninth 7ook in the shelf indicated was: Trees T73 @. 2arve3 AelmanU.
And on page $+> Muite at the 7ottom and leading on to page $,> we read:
4Sometimes you )ill see curious mar-s in the )ood5 these are caused #y a tunnelling
#eetle, very in6urious to the trees '7
E0ignatures of two testificators to the finding and verif3ing of this 9ook-"essageF.
#L1;*/;;18
(AKI( T1;;A;T
C%-C
9im)s father was intensel3 interested in Forestr3N and his o7session with 'the 7eetle) was
a famil3 Joke. Thus the message was particularl3 appropriate> and the 7ookshelf from
which it had 7een culled was one known to the alleged communicator.
(uring the period immediatel3 7efore and after the end of the First <orld <ar man3
successful 7ook tests were carried out E%&c> &,aF. In a length3 paper pu7lished in .!
E%&cF> "rs 1. ". 0idgwick anal3sed the results of &$! such tests. 0he classified .!
E,YF as successful> 55 E.YF as appro:imatel3 successful. .+ as du7ious> %5 as nearl3
complete failures and !5% as complete failures. In a control e:periment E$-aN cf. 5F
-55 'sham) 7ook tests were su7Jected to a similar anal3sis. There were $% successes
Eunder !YF and & partial successes Eunder $YF.
0ome of the individual successes in these tests were ver3 remarka7le. In one case E%&c>
pp. !&$L!+5F an anon3mous sitter E"rs Tal7otF received through Feda a message from
her late hus7and advising her to look for a relevant message on page twelve or thirteen of
a 7ook on her 7ookcase at home. Feda said the 7ook was not printed> 7ut had writing in
itN was dark in colourN and contained a ta7le of Indo-1uropean> Ar3an> 0emitic and
Ara7ian languages> whose relationships were shown 73 a diagram of radiating lines. "rs
Tal7ot knew of no such 7ook> and ridiculed the message. 2owever when she eventuall3
looked> she found at the 7ack of a top shelf a sha773 7lack leather note7ook of her
hus7and)s. Pasted into this 7ook was a folded ta7le of all the languages mentionedN whilst
on page $ was an e:tract from a 7ook entitled Post Mortem$ In this case the message
related to a 7ook unknown to medium and sitter Eindeed> so far as could 7e told> to an3
living personF> 7ut undou7tedl3 known to the communicator.
The two 7ook tests which I have Just descri7ed might 7e thought to constitute rather
striking evidence for survival. "ind-reading does not seem a likel3 e:planation> for it
was highl3 unlikel3 that the reMuisite information was possessed in sufficient detail 73
an3 living person. /n the other hand the e:istence of the 7ooks> and of the relevant
passages> could have 7een> and in the second case certainl3 was> known to the alleged
communicator. =nfortunatel3 the results of man3 other 7ook tests serve onl3 to confuse
the issueN not 7ecause the3 were unsuccessful> 7ut 7ecause the3 were too successful. For
the communicators proved eMuall3 a7le to transmit information relating to the contents of
7ooks deli7eratel3 placed on shelves in houses unknown to them> 7ooks> furthermore>
having for them no special significance. /n the face of it C%.C this would impl3 that the
communicators got their knowledge of the contents of these 7ooks 73 clairvo3ance Ethe
7ooks> of course> 7eing all closedF. Feda certainl3 talks as though the communicators
were independent entities who homed in on the test 7ookshelves> scanned the 7ooks for
appropriate passages> and then returned to rela3 the results through her. 9ut if these
communicators can e:ercise clairvo3ance of such remarka7le degree> wh3 should not
FedaO <h3 should not "rs Leonard herselfO The information given is no longer such as
the alleged communicators are speciall3 Mualified to suppl3. In some cases E%&c> pp.
$55L$$F> indeed> correct information was apparentl3 given a7out the contents of 7ooks
in classical #reekN 3et neither "rs Leonard> nor the sitter> nor the alleged communicator
knew classical #reek> while the person who lent the 7ooks E"rs 0alterF> though she knew
#reek> had not properl3 studied several of the volumes. ;either telepath3 with the living>
nor communication with the dead> nor 3et clairvo3ance> would seem to suppl3 us with an
adeMuate e:planation here.
I think it would 7e fair to sa3 this of the 7ook tests:
EaF The fact that in certain cases meaningful reference was made to passages from 7ooks
to which the communicators had in life had special access cannot 7e taken as evidence
that the surviving memor3 stores of those communicators were somehow active in the
matter. For> as we have Just seen> communicators were also a7le to refer unmistaka7l3 to
passages in 7ooks which it was highl3 unlikel3 the3 had read when alive.
E7F 0till> if we grant for the sake of argument that the 7ooks were in some sense open to
clairvo3ant inspection 73 an agenc3 other than that of the communicator> there remains
the pro7lem of how> from this mass of potentiall3 availa7le material> Just those passages
were so often selected which were particularl3 appropriate as messages from the
communicator to the particular living recipient. .ho selected for 9im)s father the passage
a7out the 7eetle damaging treesO To select a passage as appropriate as this> the medium
would have had e.g. to tap 9im)s father)s mind> and then in the light of information
telepathicall3 gained from it> select that one of the ver3 numerous 7ook passages
clairvo3antl3 accessi7le to her which would 7e most likel3 to impress 9im)s famil3 as a
message of a kind he might plausi7l3 address to his father. This pro7lem of selection will
arise againN as will that of the apparent synthesis of information e:trasensoriall3 acMuired
from more than one source.
C&5C The term 'pro:3 sitting) is almost self-e:planator3. A sitter takes a sitting on 7ehalf of
a third part3> a7out whom 7oth he and the medium know as little as possi7le. If
'evidential) communications are then received> the e:planation can hardl3 7e laid at the
door of telepath3 with persons present. =suall3 the third part3> or a7sent principal> desires
communications from a particular deceased person who has in some wa3 or another to 7e
contacted. To achieve this the pro:3 sitter ma3 give the medium carefull3 circumscri7ed
details Ee.g. name> identif3ing phraseF of the desired communicator> or ma3 7ring some
relic of him to serve as a 'token o7Ject)N or he ma3 privatel3 appeal to him> or concentrate
upon him> 7efore the sittingN or he ma3 reMuest his own 'spirit guides) to act as
intermediaries. The 7est-known of all pro:3 sittings are without dou7t the numerous
sittings with "rs Leonard at which "iss ;ea <alker and the 8ev *. (ra3ton Thomas
acted as pro:ies E&,dN &,eN &,fN +,a> +,7N cf. &-F. These sittings were usuall3>
although not alwa3s> the outcome of letters from 7ereaved> sometimes despairing>
parents> spouses> etc.
"an3 pro:3 cases went on for several sittings> and it is hard to conve3 the 'feel) of them
adeMuatel3 in a 7rief summar3. For instance one of (ra3ton Thomas)s most remarka7le
cases> the '9o77ie ;ewlove) case E&,eF> e:tended over eleven sittings. 9o77ie was a
7o3 of ten who had died of diphtheria. 2e proved a fluent communicator> and through
Feda made unmistaka7le references to such matters as a dog-shaped salt-cellar he had
owned> a '@ack of 2earts) costume he had once worn> visits to a chemical la7orator3 with
his grandfather> g3mnastic apparatus which he had set up in his room and e:ercises
carried out therewith> a girl skater of whom he was fond> an inJur3 to his nose> and the
topograph3 of his home town Eincluding place-namesF. "ost curious of all> he repeatedl3
insisted that some weeks 7efore his death his constitution had 7een undermined 73
contact with poisonous 'pipes)> and that this had lowered his resistance to the diphtheria.
In connection with the pipes he talked of cattle> a sort of 7arn> and running water. This
meant nothing to his famil3> 7ut upon investigation some water pipes round which he had
pla3ed with a friend were discovered. The localit3 answered the description given and it
is possi7le that 9o77ie had drunk 7ad water there.
In another case> (ra3ton Thomas was asked 73 Professor 1. 8. (odds> well-known as a
critic of the evidence for survival> to attempt to contact a certain Frederic <illiam
"acaula3 on 7ehalf of the latter)s daughter> "rs Lewis. Thomas had five sittings with
"rs Leonard. C&C (istinctive references were made to "acaula3)s work as an h3draulic
engineer. The following passages E&,f> pp. !+&L!+.F refer to more personal matters. "rs
Lewis)s annotations are in sMuare 7rackets.
F1(A: There is a @ohn and 2arr3> 7oth with him. And 8ace S 8ice S 8iss S it might
7e 8eece 7ut sounds like 8iss> and Francis. These are all names of people who are
connected with him or linked up with him in the past> connected with happ3 times. I get
the feeling of an active and 7us3 home in which he was rather happ3.
TThis is a ver3 curious passage S Pro7a7l3 the happiest time of m3 father)s life was in
the four or five 3ears 7efore the war> when we> his five children> were all at school> and
the home was packed with our friends during the holida3s. @ohn> 2arr3 and Francis could
7e three of these . . 9ut the most interesting passage is 'It might 7e 8eece 7ut it sounds
like 8iss) S "3 elder 7rother was at school at 0hrews7ur3 and there conceived a kind of
hero-worship for one of the 'Tweaks) Esi:th form 7o3sF whose name was 8ees. 2e wrote
home a7out him several times and alwa3s drew attention to the fact that the name was
spelt '8ees) and not '8eece). In the holida3s m3 sister and I used to tease him 73 singing
';ot 8eece 7ut 8iss) until m3 father stopped us SU
F1(A: I get a funn3 word now S could he 7e interested in S 7aths of some kindO Ah>
he sa3s I have got the right word> 7aths. 2e spells it> 9AT20. 2is daughter will
understand> he sa3s. It is not something Muite ordinar3> 7ut feels something special.
TThis is> to me> the most interesting thing that has 3et emerged. 9aths were alwa3s a
matter of Joke in our famil34m3 father 7eing ver3 emphatic that water must not 7e
wasted 73 our having too 7ig 7aths or 73 leaving taps dripping. It is difficult to e:plain
how intimate a detail this seemsSThe mention of 7aths here also seems to me an
indication of m3 father)s Muaint humour> a characteristic which has hitherto 7een missing
S U
F1(A: S #odfre3N will 3ou ask the daughter if she remem7ers someone called #odfre3.
That name is a great link with old times.
T"3 father)s most trusted clerk> one who speciall3 helped in the h3draulic research> was
called <illiam #odfre3. 2e was with m3 father for 3ears and I remem7er him from
almost m3 earliest childhood S U
F1(A: <hat is thatO S Pegg3 S Pegg3 S Pugg3 S he is giving me a little name like
Pugg3 or Pegg3. 0ounds like a special name> a little special nickname> and I think it is
something his daughter would know S
T"3 father sometimes called me 'pug-nose) or 'Pugg3).U
Altogether> !% items of information were given> of which & were classified as right> !
as good> $! as fair> ! as poor> !! as dou7tful> and & as wrong. (odds> the instigator of this
e:periment> remarks: 'It appears to me that the h3potheses of fraud> rational influence
from disclosed facts> telepath3 from the actual sitter> and coincidence cannot either singl3
or in com7ination account for the results o7tained.)
C&!C /f the more impressive pro:3 cases> most are> like the 9o77ie ;ewlove and
"acaula3 cases> too long to 7e done Justice to in a 7rief summar3. The ne:t case E&,gF
has some ver3 unusual Ethough not unprecedentedF features> the essentials of which can
7e set forth fairl3 7riefl3. <e ma3 call it the 'Aitken) case> after the famil3 involved.
At a Leonard sitting on !- /cto7er .$-> (ra3ton Thomas)s regular communicators Ehis
father and his sisterF enMuired if he had recentl3 received from a middle-aged man a letter
a7out his son. 2e had not 3et received such a letter> and the communicators proceeded to
give some further particulars of its contents. The letter would concern an accident to do
with a motor car. In this accident the 3oung man was killed outright> or nearl3 so. There
was a connection with '"orton) or a like-sounding name. The father once lived near
where (ra3ton Thomas lived. Finall3 another name> sounding like '*har)> was given.
The anticipated letter dul3 arrived. It was dated eleven da3s after the sitting> and was
from "r Lionel #. Aitken> a mem7er of the 0P8. "r Aitken told (ra3ton Thomas that he
first thought of writing after hearing him speak at a Xueen)s 2all meeting on . /cto7er>
i.e. three weeks 7efore the sitting and nearer five 7efore he actuall3 wrote. A sentence of
the letter reads> ';ot ver3 long ago I lost m3 son> a splendid 3oung man> full of the Jo3 of
life and success.) After reference to certain London mediums> it continues> 'I think on the
whole that we have 7een most fortunate in the evidential nature of the messages
received.) Finall3 Thomas)s advice was asked a7out other mediums> 7ut there was no
word to suggest that he might possi7l3 o7tain a message for him through "rs Leonard.
(ra3ton Thomas entered into correspondence with "r Aitken. From this correspondence
certain facts emerged concerning the statements made at the sitting of !- /cto7er. In this
Muotation E&,g> pp. 5$L5%F (ra3ton Thomas places these facts for comparison 7eside
the items given at the sitting.
. I am to e+pect a letter from a father a#out his son ' /n m3 enMuiring when "r
Aitken had first thought of writing he replied> 'I don)t think I had thought of mentioning
m3 case to 3ou and asking for advice until I actuall3 wrote the letter. I merel3 intended to
thank 3ou for 3our address. It appears that 3ou had news of something I was going to
write 7efore I wrote it or had consciousl3 thought of it.)
!. The father is middle aged$ This is correct.
$. (n accident case$ This is also correct.
%. Connected )ith a motorcar$ "r Aitken writes> ';ot a motorcar accident e:actl3.)
C&$C
&. The young man )as -illed outright or very nearly so$ 2e was killed outright.
+. Morton or a li-e8sounding name5 this father once lived near )here you lived$ In
correspondence a7out this statement I learnt that "r Aitken had resided at the village of
;orton and that his son was 7orn there and had 7een familiar with all the neigh7ourhood.
;orton is 7ut one and a half miles from 9aldock where I lived with m3 parents in -,+L
-. Is it too much to suppose that Feda)s '"orton) was misheard 73 her for ;ortonO
,. (nother name li-e Char9is given$ This was unsatisfactor3> Just possi7l3 an attempt
for *harles> the *hristian name of "r Aitken)s friend killed at #allipoli.
(ra3ton Thomas was entirel3 convinced that something more than chance was at work
here. 0everal of the items> however> are either commonplace or wrong. The case rests
largel3 on:
EaF the coincidence in time 7etween the prediction of a letter that a man would write
a7out his son> and the fulfilment of that prediction> and
E7F the fairl3 clear indication of a particular localit3.
The former is somewhat hard to assess in the a7sence of detailed knowledge a7out the
sort of letters (ra3ton Thomas ha7ituall3 receivedN E7F is> however> not eas3 to discount.
Thomas uses the apparent precognition displa3ed 73 his communicators to knock the
super-10P h3pothesis. 2e sa3s Ep. 5%F:
Those who incline to the universal telepath3 h3pothesis will suggest that the messages
originated with "r Aitken. 9ut this would impl3 that the medium tapped the Aitken
memor3 7efore either she or I were aware of his e:istence and> more incredi7l3 still> that
she divined a purpose of which he remained entirel3 unaware until he was in the act of
writing to thank me for remarks he heard me make in pu7lic.
(ra3ton Thomas)s criticism of the 'universal telepath3 h3pothesis) is no dou7t entirel3
Justified. /ne suspects> however> that he wishes to pass from the shortcomings of that
h3pothesis directl3 to the validit3 of the survivalist position. The principle seems to 7e4
and it is> unfortunatel3> a principle enthusiasticall3 applied in this field 73 partisans of all
persuasions4that if 3our chief competitors are 7ankrupt> 3our own 7usiness must 7e on a
sound footing. "an3 hopeful theorists have tried to persuade themselves of the latter 73
proving the former to their own satisfaction. 9ut of course the present pro7lem4that of
the apparent precognition of "r Aitken)s letter4is not solved simpl3 73 attri7uting the
precognition to discarnate spirits. 0uch a move would 7e entirel3 regressive.
C&%C The most remarka7le aspect of this case> however> still remains to 7e told. At four
later Leonard sittings> for which (ra3ton Thomas was sitter> and at which "r Aitken was
not present> a good deal of material ostensi7l3 relating to "r Aitken)s son was received.
"r Aitken regarded much of this matter as highl3 evidential. There were however some
passages which he could make little of> 7ut which his other son recogniGed at once as a
message concerning a common friend of his and his 7rother)s> a friend of whom "r
Aitken had never heard. It transpired that the living son had Ein thoughtF deli7eratel3
asked his dead 7rother to tr3 to send a message concerning this friend through some
medium.
I give now "r Aitken)s own corro7orations of Feda)s statements E&,g> pp. !!L!$F:
In "r (ra3ton Thomas)s sitting of !5 @anuar3 .$.> Feda sa3s: 'There was some7od3
else he was ver3 interested in> that perhaps 3ou don)t know S a name that starts with the
letter 9> and I think there is an 8 in it S it)s not a long name4ver3 much linked with
him S it might 7e a "r 98I*A S I feel this is something 3ou could use for 7uilding>
and is a name much connected with this 7o3 and his interests.)
In "r (ra3ton Thomas)s sitting of $ Fe7ruar3 .$.> Feda sa3s: 'A name starting with 98
4rather an important name with him S 0ome7od3 he was linked up with shortl3 7efore
his passing S there is a link 7etween this 98 S and the 7o3)s passing. I also want to
know if there is an3thing to do with him like a little ship S or a little model of a ship4
something he had on earth and was ver3 fond of. 2e is showing me something like a to3
ship4a fanc3 ship> not a plain one4)la7orate> rather )la7orate4with a good deal of
detail shown in it4it seemed to 7e connected with his earth life47ut some time 7efore
he passed over> rather earl3 in his earth life> 7ut I think it is something that his people
have still got S)
A name 7eginning with 984like the name Feda sa3s 'might 7e "r 98I*A)4had 7een
mentioned 73 other mediums> 7ut we had 7een una7le to place it> nor was the reference to
a 'model ship) understoodN 7ut m3 son> on seeing the Leonard script> recognised its
meaning.
2e and his deceased 7rother had 7een friends at an 8AF 0tation with a 3oung officer
called 98I(#1;4whom we had not heard of4and who had 7een killed a7out a 3ear
after m3 son.
This 3oung man> 7efore Joining the 8AF> had worked for a firm which made scale
models of ships for shipping companies> and he had shown m3 son a photograph of one
of these models which he had made himself and which he said his people still had at
home. "3 son had felt sure that this matter of the model ship would 7e given as a sign if
the3 were una7le to get the name through correctl3.
These corro7orations were accompanied 73 the following letter from "r Aitken)s
surviving son:
C&&C
The 3ditor,
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research$
(ear 0ir>
I have read m3 father)s account of the 'Leonard-Aitken) pro:3 sittings> and I testif3 to its
correctness.
I was the onl3 living mem7er of the famil3 who knew of '9ridgen)> and I had never had
an3 communication with "r (ra3ton Thomas or "rs Leonard.
"3 'thought-message) was not directed to "r (ra3ton Thomas or to "rs Leonard47ut
to m3 'dead) 7rother4and to me> the repl3 was unmistaka7le.
Hours sincerel3>
LI/;1L AITA1;>
Fl3ing-/fficer> 8AF
&: ;ovem#er &/</
I shall not at this point attempt to work out the full implications which successful pro:3
sittings ma3 have for the pro7lem of survival. 9ut the following points are worth 7earing
in mind for future discussion:
. It seems rather unlikel3 that all or even most of the information transmitted at these
sittings could have come in a large part from clairvo3ance 73 the medium. "an3 of the
details given could 7e verified onl3 73 consulting the memories of friends and relatives of
the deceased personsN there were> so far as we know> no pictures> no records> written or
printed> and no other ph3sical state of affairs which> clairvo3antl3 perceived> might have
3ielded such pieces of information as that 9o77ie ;ewlove had an affection for a girl
skater a little older than him> that F. <. "acaula3 had an o7session a7out 7aths> and that
he used unfeelingl3 to call his daughter 'pug-nose)> and so on. And even if there had 7een
such clairvo3antl3 accessi7le sources of information> the sources for each case would
almost certainl3 have 7een scattered> so that the medium would have had to locate them>
read them and s3nthesiGe them into a coherent and plausi7le stor3. Telepath3 with some
living person possessed of all the relevant scraps of information sounds a far more
hopeful proposition.
!. 2owever it appears that in at an3 rate two of the pro:3 cases cited in this chapter there
was no one living person who possessed all the information. This is most o7vious in the
Aitken case Just descri7ed> in which Feda produced some distinctive pieces of
information not known to "rs Leonard> to (ra3ton Thomas> or to "r Aitken> 7ut onl3 to
the latter)s still living son. In the 9o77ie ;ewlove case some of the C&+C relevant
information Ea7out the pipes and their locationF was not known to an3 mem7er of the
communicator)s famil3. <e are forced to attri7ute its production either to telepath3
7etween "rs Leonard and one of 9o77ie)s friends Ethe one who pla3ed with him around
the pipesF> or to clairvo3ant scanning of the neigh7ourhood plus skilful guessing a7out
9o77ie)s likel3 ha7its> or to a clairvo3ant monitoring prior to o##ie7s death of his
pastimes and activities> and a su7seMuent storing up of a record of them in the medium)s
unconscious mind. EThis last possi7ilit3> impl3ing as it does continual monitoring of the
lives of an indefinitel3 large num7er of potential communicators who are as 3et still
living> seems to me more fantastic than an3 version of the survival h3pothesis.F For 7oth
of these cases> therefore> we would on the 10P Eor super-10PF h3pothesis have to
postulate that "rs Leonard located Etelepathicall3 or clairvo3antl3F two separate sources
of information> tapped them> and collated and s3nthesiGed the results.
In the remaining case cited> the "acaula3 case> (ra3ton Thomas listed three correct items
given 73 Feda which were not known to "rs Lewis> the presumed principal source of
telepathicall3 o7tained information. 2owever (odds found these items too vague and
general to 7e convincingN and I agree with (odds)s estimate of them.
$. An o7vious underl3ing pro7lem which successful pro:3 sittings present for the 10P
h3pothesis is of course that of how the medium manages to locate Etelepathicall3 or
clairvo3antl3F sources of information appropriate to the case in hand. These sources are>
in a num7er of different senses> remote from the sitting and the sitter> to whom the ver3
e:istence of some of them is likel3 to 7e unknown. <e might propose that the medium
learns from the sitter)s mind the identit3 of his principal Ei.e. of the person for whom he is
acting as pro:3F> and that this somehow ena7les her to home in on the mind of the
principalN from the mind of the principal further clues to other sources of information
ma3 7e o7tainedN and soon. /ne has onl3 to ask oneself in detail what would 7e involved
here to see that the proposed process is grotesMuel3 implausi7le. Proper names> addresses>
dates> and so forth4details which identif3 a person uni2uely9 are notoriousl3 among the
most difficult of all items for sensitives to o7tainN and 3et such uniMuel3 identif3ing
details Eor their eMuivalentsF would have to 7e o7tained in a pro:3 case 7efore the
medium could pinpoint the right source of information to tapN and in some cases the3
would have to 7e o7tained from several sources as the medium)s mind so to speak moved
along the chain of clues.
C&,C It must 7e added> of course> that the survivalist theor3 too must cope with the
pro7lem of how Feda managed to locate 9o77ie ;ewlove> F. <. "acaula3> etc.> on the
'other side) in order to e:tract evidential messages from them. (id she do it 73 10PO
*ertainl3 she often speaks as though her awareness of communicators were of a
fluctuating and uncertain kind. 2owever> if there is 'another world) to which our spirits
pass at death> it is perhaps reasona7le to suppose that it contains some form of esta7lished
communication network or heavenl3 post office director3.
%. Finall3 it should 7e noted that in some pro:3 cases the principals have felt the
messages received contained not Just correct information> 7ut hints of the personal
characteristics Ehumour> interests> turns of phrase> and so forthF of the ostensi7le
communicators. If the3 are correct in this> we have additionall3 to attri7ute to the medium
the power to glean the relevant facts and then> instead of presenting them in statement
form E'he had a dr3 sense of humour)F> so to speak to enact them in dramatic form 73
reproducing the communicator)s characteristic dr3 humour Eor whatever it ma3 7eF.
*ertainl3> the more numerous the unusual gifts we have to attri7ute to mediums in order
to support the super-10P h3pothesis> the more cum7ersome that h3pothesis 7ecomes.
C&-C
4 $Dro&'In) #ommunicators
In successful pro:3 sittings> such as those descri7ed in the last chapter> there is still> it is
often> however implausi7l3> argued> some kind of link 7etween the medium and some
a7sent person or persons possessing the relevant information. If necessar3 an upholder of
the super-10P h3pothesis will propose a series of such links> ending up> naturall3> with
someone who knows whatever it was that the medium came out with. In the class of
cases which I shall now discuss even those tenuous and e:ceedingl3 ill-defined links are
a7sent. The class concerned is that la7elled 73 Professor Ian 0tevenson E&$dF 'drop-in)
communicators. '(rop-in) communicators are> as the name implies> communicators who
arrive uninvited> and are ostensi7l3 unknown to medium and sitters. <e have on record a
num7er of cases in which 'drop-in) communicators have made statements a7out
themselves and their careers which it has su7seMuentl3 proved possi7le to verif3. 0uch
cases are of o7vious theoretical interest and> 7efore proceeding to some actual e:amples>
I shall 7riefl3 e:plore their potential theoretical implications. These implications are> in
general> hostile to the super-10P h3pothesis> and favoura7le to some form of survival
theor3. The difficulties for the super-10P h3pothesis ma3 7e spelled out under two
headings> viG. selection of communicator and locating of materials.
The first of these sets of pro7lems 7ecomes apparent if one asks wh3> in an3 verified
drop-in case> the medium)s supposed 10P should have lit upon facts a7out that particular
deceased person. The facts a7out the great maJorit3 of 'drop-in) communicators are not in
an3 wa3 especiall3 e3e-catching. The3 would not> for instance> 7e enshrined in unusuall3
striking o7ituar3 notices or letters of condolence such as might 7e supposed to attract the
medium)s clairvo3ance more than would other such notices or letters. ;or> so far as one
can tell> would the3 stand out with such prominence in the minds of grief-stricken
relatives as particularl3 to arrest her telepathic attention. ;or have medium and sitters an3
special motive for desiring information a7out C&.C that particular deceased person. 0ome
ver3 7road constraints do seem to 7e imposed on the selection of 'drop-in)
communicators> in that most of them Ethat is most of the ones whose statements a7out
themselves have 7een verifiedF come from the medium)s own countr3 and speak her own
language. 9ut these constraints aside> we seem reduced> on the super-10P h3pothesis> to
supposing that selection of communicator depends upon the random operation of wholl3
unknown factors.
The second set of difficulties which verified 'drop-in) cases ma3 raise for the super-10P
h3pothesis> that to do with the location of materials> is much more comple: and difficult.
In most 'drop-in) cases there is> no dou7t> some single possi7le source> such as a printed
record> or the organiGed memor3 s3stem of a living person> from which the medium
could through her supposed e:trasensor3 powers have o7tained the whole of her
information. 9ut what if Eand some cases ma3 at least appro:imate to this t3peF the
reMuisite information could have 7een assem7led onl3 through the tapping of a num7er of
discrete sources> e.g. the memor3 s3stems of several different living persons or a variet3
of different printed recordsO 2ow is the medium> having selected the deceased person she
will present to her sitters> to discriminate from amongst all the innumera7le items of
information telepathicall3 and clairvo3antl3 availa7le to her> those and onl3 those which
are relevant to that personO I do not think that it is possi7le to give an account of this
matter that is even remotel3 plausi7le.
*onsider first the case where the different items are locked in the memories of a num7er
of different people. The most o7vious h3pothesis is pro7a7l3 that the various relevant
memor3-sets in different peoples) minds are all flagged or marked out 73 similar Muasi-
percepti7le features> for instance recognisa7l3 similar images of the deceased
communicator. 9ut even if we set aside for the moment the logical difficulties involved in
the suggestion that one person can inspect another person)s images 73 a kind of Muasi-
perception> the image-theor3 remains grossl3 implausi7le. It would force one to predict
that mediums should 7e prone to confuse with each other persons who simpl3 happened
in life to look alike> and even perhaps confuse real people with fictional characters. It
would force one further to maintain that each person)s memor3-images are> when not in
use> stored awa3 in some internal filing ca7inet accessi7le to the medium)s telepathic
rummagings. This is a remarka7l3 implausi7le idea. Het if one replaces it with the notion
that memories are stored up in the form of su7tle structural or functional changes in the
7rain> one must C+5C attri7ute to the medium the a7ilit3 to read the neural code in which
the memories are represented> a skill which no neuroph3siologist is currentl3 an3where
near attaining Eor> as I shall later argue> ever could attainF. Finall3> it is in an3 case Muite
clear that it is not an3 Muasi-percepti7le features of an image which make that image an
image of some particular person> 7ut the reference or intentionalit3 with which the imager
invests it. An image of a round and Joll3 face4the same face4can serve as an image of
one)s late =ncle ;at> as an image of @ohn 9ull> as an image of "r Pickwick> as an image
of a 7rand of 7reakfast cereal> as an image of @upiter> the 7ringer of Jollit3> as an image of
Jollit3 in general> and so forth. Ps3chological processes outside the image determine what
the image is an image of.
It might seem as though the case where the different items of information e:ist in the
form of written or other records presents less difficult3 than the case Just discussed. For
o7ituar3 notices> letters of condolence> and so forth> commonl3 carr3 distinctive headings
or addresses which> clairvo3antl3 perceived> would at once indicate that the same person
was involved. Perhaps this does simplif3 the pro7lemN 7ut it is far from making it simple.
*onsider the case where a num7er of newspaper notices have to 7e clairvo3antl3 collated.
Let us assume that Eas is commonl3 the caseF the newspapers concerned are old ones> and
not current issues l3ing on 7reakfast ta7les throughout the countr3. Then it has to 7e
supposed that the medium> in the course of her incessant clairvo3ant 7ut presuma7l3
unconscious 7rowsings among the files of old newspapers> picks out from the enormous
num7er of o7ituar3 notices thus accessi7le to her those and onl3 those relating to a
certain person> and then Ju:taposes and s3nthesiGes them. In other words she must
discriminate these o7ituaries from all o7ituaries of persons of the same or similar name>
from all o7ituaries of persons who had similar careers> from all o7ituaries of persons who
had the same dates> and so on and so forth. An3one who has had Eas I have hadF occasion
to stud3 newspaper o7ituar3 notices e:tensivel3 will realiGe that this is an e:ceedingl3
tall order> and a few e:amples of o7vious confusion 7etween newspaper o7ituaries would
greatl3 strengthen the clairvo3ant e:planation4especiall3 in view of the fact that so far
as I am aware we do not have> from outside the mediumistic situation> a single properl3
authenticated e:ample of a clairvo3ant managing to read a concealed passage of prose in
an3thing like the necessar3 detail.
It is thus possi7le to construct an idealiGed 'drop-in) case which C+C pushes the super-10P
h3pothesis to the verge of unintelligi7ilit3N indeed 7e3ond that verge. 0uch a case would
have the following features:
EaF The 'drop-in) communicator in Muestion would have a strong and comprehensi7le
reason for wishing to communicateN a reason clearl3 stronger than an3 which the medium
might have for wishing to contact him.
E7F The information which he communicates would 7e such that the medium could not
have o7tained it all 73 e:trasensor3 contact with a single living person> o7ituar3 notice>
etc.
EcF <e can 7e tolera7l3 certain that the medium could not have o7tained the information
73 ordinar3 means Ethis is a point to which I shall shortl3 returnF.
It is hardl3 necessar3 to spell out how great are the advantages of the survivalist theor3 in
respect of cases where the super-10P h3pothesis would have to suppose that the medium
had used her e:traordinar3 powers of 10P to locate several disparate sources of
information a7out the communicator and had then put together the information thus
gleaned. It also has o7vious advantages when it comes to e:plaining wh3 the medium
selects one unknown deceased person rather than another unknown deceased person as
the su7Ject for her e:trasensor3 researches. The deceased person selects himself. As
0tevenson remarks E&$d> p. +$F> '0ome Vdrop-inW communicators have e:plained their
presence ver3 well and their motivation to communicate is an important part of the whole
case which has to 7e e:plained as well as the provenance of an3 information
communicated.) '(rop-in) communicators ma3 represent themselves as wishing to
assuage the grief of living friends> as 7rought along 73 persons in the ne:t world who
have previousl3 communicated through the same medium> as lost in a kind of lim7o
where the medium is their onl3 means of contact with others> as linked through common
interest to persons present> as altruisticall3 tr3ing to help> as simpl3 'dropping in) for a
chat. It is difficult indeed to decide how seriousl3 communicators) own e:planations of
their presences ought to 7e takenN 7ut sometimes at least the professed e:planations are
'in character).
0o much for the theoretical implications of drop-in) communicators and for the ideal Eand
hence imaginar3F case. <e must now get to grips with some actual cases and see to what
e:tent Eif at allF the3 measure up to the ideal.
C+!C *ases of verified 'drop-in) communicators are fairl3 scarce in the 'reputa7le)
literature of ps3chical research Efor e:amples see %-N +%7> pp. .,L5!N 5a> II> pp. %,L
%,,N &$dN &$eN +!aN ,%F. 2ow far this reflects an overall scarcit3 it is hard to sa3.
'(rop-in) communicators seem to 7e much more characteristic of the 'home circle)> the
ouiJa and planchette 7oards> and the automatist e:perimenting out of curiosit3 and
interest> than the3 are of the professional medium. There could 7e various reasons for
this> one of them 7eing> of course> that there are often pressures on mediums who
regularl3 give sittings to individual clients to e:clude communicators other than those
with whom the sitter wishes to speak. 0ince a high proportion of the investigations of
mediumship pu7lished 73 the 0P8 and the A0P8 have concerned mediums of this latter
sort> cases of 'drop-in) communicators have not often figured Efor some cases of this kind
with "rs Piper see ++a> pp. $,L%!F. Also> of course> the verification of 'drop-in) cases
reMuires a good deal of time> and also> ver3 often> a working knowledge of the countr3)s
pu7lic records s3stem together with access to a large li7rar3. '(rop-in) communicators of
the utmost veridicalit3 could march into and out of the average home circle without its
occurring to an3one that it would 7e feasi7le to check up on them. And where such
checks have 7een undertaken> the3 have often fallen far short of the reMuired standard of
thoroughness.
I shall illustrate this last point with an e:ample taken from 0ir Lawrence @ones)s
Presidential Address to the 0P8 E,+F. In the 3ear .55 0ir Lawrence had for some time at
his house in the 0outh of France a home circle centring around the well-known amateur
medium> "iss Aate <ingfield Eshe is referred to as '"iss A.) in F. <. 2. "3ers)s Human
Personality1$ *ommunications were received 7oth 73 raps and 73 automatic writing. /n
- 0eptem7er .55 a certain 0arah <illett> of , 03dne3 0treet> London> wrote through
"iss <ingfield that she had 7een shot and killed 73 one @ack Parr> of #reen 0treet> a
polisher. /n $5 0eptem7er> "iss <ingfield had a vision of this girl> and on the evening of
! /cto7er saw an ominous 'figure with a 7lack thing like a sack tied over his head and
shoulders). 8aps spelled out '@ohn Parr hanged toda3). "iss <illett> whose dall3ings
with another man had precipitated the murder> e:pressed terror at the revenge which @ack
Parr might e:act upon his premature transition to the other side. 0hortl3 afterwards @ohn
Parr 7egan to communicate regularl3> at first 7reathing vengeance against the dou7l3
persecuted 0arah. Later on> C+$C however> he calmed down and dictated a recipe for
furniture polish which proved highl3 servicea7le.
@ohn Parr)s e:ecution on ! /cto7er was not mentioned in 9ritish newspapers until the
following da3. 2owever its date could pro7a7l3 have 7een predicted 73 an3
knowledgea7le person who had read accounts of the murder and inMuest EMorning Post
!. August and 0eptem7erF and of @ohn Parr)s trial EThe Times> % 0eptem7erF. The
details given in the 'communications) corresponded closel3 to the newspaper reports. 0ir
Lawrence @ones> 73 all accounts a man of the greatest charm> was happ3 to accept the
assurance of the medium> and of her mother Ewho was also sta3ing with himF> that the3
had not read these newspaper accounts> and normall3 did not look at The Times and The
Morning Post$ 9ut a c3nic would certainl3 sa3 that "iss <ingfield had fraudulentl3 'got
up) the newspaper accounts and regurgitated them in her automatic writing. A less serious
supposition would 7e that of cr3ptomnesiaN the supposition> that is> that she looked at the
reports> forgot them> 7ut retained a latent or hidden memor3 of them which su7seMuentl3
found e:pression in her automatic writing. /ne or other of these h3potheses would
certainl3 have 7een suggested if> for instance> the newspaper accounts had proved to
contain errors which were reproduced in the communications. 0ir Lawrence did not even
attempt to discover whether the recipe for furniture polish had 7een lifted from (unt
=ate7s Home Treasury or some similar compilation. ;or on the other hand did he enMuire
whether the two addresses given E0idne3 0treet and #reen 0treetF> which do not appear in
the Times report of the trial which he Muotes> were correct. If the3 had proved correct> the
case for paranormalit3 would have 7een correspondingl3 strengthened.
To rule out the fraud and cr3ptomnesia e:planations one would need> not charita7l3 to
accept the medium)s sa3-so that she had never come across the relevant information> 7ut
to give reasons for supposing that she could not have come across it. And this involves
proving a negative> a notoriousl3 difficult undertaking. The negative cannot> I think> 7e
proved in the case Just discussedN certainl3 it was not proved. 9ut there are other cases in
which it ma3 7e not proved e:actl3> for 'proof) is a word somewhat strong for an3 non-
mathematical demonstration> 7ut at an3 rate powerfull3 supported. I shall now proceed to
outline and comment upon three such cases.
The first of these cases was received through a well-known Icelandic C+%C trance medium>
2afsteinn 9Jornsson. 2afsteinn was not a professional medium in the sense of earning his
living through his mediumship> 7ut he did accept fees from sitters. 2e had a regular
control named 'Finna)> who would rela3 messages from other communicatorsN 7ut
sometimes the latter would themselves control. The original communications were
o7tained in .%> and were investigated shortl3 afterwards E--F. The case was further
studied in .,L! 73 2araldsson and 0tevenson> who pu7lished their report in .,&
E&.7F.
/n !& @anuar3 .%> 2Jalmar #udJonsson> a visitor from eastern Iceland> had a sitting
with 2afsteinn 9Jornsson in 8e3kJavik> which is in the e:treme south-west. EIt is perhaps
worth noting that at that time communications 7etween 8e3kJavik and eastern Iceland
were poor and mainl3 73 7oat.F The sitting was held at the home of #udrun @onsdottir> an
e:perienced sitter> who was also present> along with another lad3> 2ansina 2ansdottir.
2Jalmar #udJonsson was an:ious to contact various persons he had known> 7ut to his
anno3ance an intruding communicator> who gave the name #udni "agnusson>
monopoliGed the sitting. #udni> who was not known to medium or sitters> stated that he
had ties with 1skifJordur> in 2Jalmar)s part of the world> and addressed himself to
2Jalmar for that reason. 2e said that he had died following internal inJuries received
while attempting to repair his truckN and he gave various other details a7out himself
which we will come to. "ost unfortunatel3 no contemporar3 notes were made of what
was said.
Two da3s later> 2Jalmar)s hostess at the sitting> #udrun @onsdottir> told a friend>
Asmundur #estsson> a7out this intrusive communicator. Asmundur had a cousin> #udrun
#udmundsdottir> who was the wife of a ph3sician practising in 1skifJordur> the place with
which #udni "agnusson had claimed to 7e linked. 2e accordingl3 wrote to this cousin>
asking if she knew of an3one corresponding to the supposed communicator. 2is letter>
dated !+ Fe7ruar3 .%> survives4it was unearthed 73 1rlundur 2araldsson4and is the
earliest document which gives details of the communications. It antedates> and in fact led
to> verification of the communicator)s statements.
Asmundur #estsson)s cousin replied on % "arch .% confirming that a #udni
"agnusson answering the description given had lived in 1skifJordur and had died in
circumstances resem7ling those given. This letter> which is Muite detailed> will 7e referred
to 7elow as the '#udmundsdottir letter).
At this point Asmundur #estsson realiGed that he had an interesting C+&C case on his hands
and got 2Jalmar #udJonsson and #udrun @onsdottir to write out independentl3 their
recollections of the sitting and sign them. 2Jalmar)s account is dated $5 "arch .%> and
#udrun)s> which is fairl3 full> + @une .%. The third sitter> 2ansina 2ansdottir> signed
#udrun)s statement. There do not seem to 7e an3 serious discrepancies 7etween these
statements> or 7etween them and our earliest document> Asmundur #estsson)s letter of !+
Fe7ruar3 .%. I think that> despite the a7sence of contemporar3 notes> we ma3 safel3
accept the statements as accuratel3 reflecting what passed at the sitting> especiall3 since
the3 are confirmed 73 the Asmundur #estsson letter written 7efore the verifications were
received.
In his investigations of .,L!> 1rlundur 2araldsson found further sources of verification
for some of the statements made. 2e interviewed 2Jalmar #udJonsson> and #udni
"agnusson)s 7rother and sister> /tto "agnusson and 8osa "agnusdottirN he o7tained a
cop3 of #udni)s death certificate Esuch certificates are not o7taina7le 73 the general
pu7lic in IcelandFN he found an o7ituar3 notice of #udni in the issue of Morgun#ladid for
, ;ovem7er .%5N and he interviewed the author of this o7ituar3 notice. Putting together
all the information thus o7tained we can> following 2araldsson and 0tevenson> ta7ulate
the communicator)s statements and the verifications as follows:
Communicator7s Statement 0erification from
. 2is name was #udni or #udni
"agnusson.
#udmundsdottir letter
!. 2e was 7etween !5 and $5
3ears old when he died.
#udni)s death certificateN o7ituar3
$. 2e was of average height. /tto "agnusson
%. 2e had 7lond hair. /7ituar3 noticeN /tto "agnusson
&. 2is hair was thin on top. /tto "agnusson
+. 2e had died a7out four or five
months 7efore the seance.
(eath certificateN o7ituar3
,. 2e had 7een a truck driver. #udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson
-. 2e had a connection with
2erad Ea districtF.
=nverifiedN 7ut there were reasons for thinking
#udni might have known 2erad
.. 2is parents were living. #udmundsdottir letterN 8osa "agnusdottir
5. 2e was crossing a mountain
pass when his truck 7roke down.
#udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson C++C
. 2e was alone in his truck
prior to his death.
#udmundsdottir letter
!. 2e had 7een repairing his
truck and had crawled under it.
Kerification not satisfactor3
$. 2e had torn or ruptured
something inside himself.
(eath certificateN #udmundsdottir letterN /tto
"agnusson. E2e died of peritonitis almost certainl3
due to the stated causeF
%. 2e had not died immediatel3>
7ut managed to get home.
#udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson
&. 2e had 7een 7rought 73 7oat
7etween fJords to medical care.
#udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson
+. 2e had died on the wa3. #udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson
,. 2e was 7rought to a doctor
#udmundsdottir letter. E2e was with two doctors
when he died> 7ut was on his wa3 to hospitalF
-. 2e had 1skifJordur 'on his
mind).
#udmundsdottir letterN /tto "agnusson. E2e was on
his wa3 home to 1skifJordurF
.. There was a connection also
with 8e3darfJordur.
#udmundsdottir letter. E2e was driving from
8e3darfJordur to 1skifJordurF
!5. 2e had known some relatives
of 2Jalmar #udJonsson.
Incorrect so far as 2Jalmar #udJonsson could
ascertain
<e now come to the Muestion of whether this material could have 7een known to the
medium or sitters through ordinar3 channels. In their article on the case 2araldsson and
0tevenson give much attention to this issue. The3 summariGe their conclusions a7out it as
follows E&.7> pp. !+5L!+F:
The communicator came from a part of Iceland which the medium had never even
visited. The sitters> even including the one person present E2Jalmar #udJonssonF who was
from eastern Iceland> had no connection whatever with #udni or his famil3. The
newspaper o7ituar3 could not have furnished the medium with all the correctl3
communicated details> nor could the writer of the o7ituar3> who then lived in eastern
Iceland> which the medium had never visited. The communicator had an uncle in
8e3kJavik> 7ut as far as we can learn> he had no connection with the medium. Thus
despite e:tensive enMuiries we have not 7een a7le to find an3 channel for C+,C normal
communication to the medium of the correct information he had a7out #udni "agnusson
and e:pressed at the seance under consideration.
2araldsson and 0tevenson are here considering> and reJecting> primaril3 the cr3ptomnesia
h3pothesis> that is> that 2afsteinn 9Jornsson might have somewhere come across the
relevant information> and have retained a latent memor3 of it which came to the fore onl3
in his trance state. The3 do not take seriousl3 the h3pothesis of outright fraud 73
2afsteinn> and there do indeed seem to 7e Muite strong reasons for dismissing it.
2afsteinn)s reputation throughout some fort3 3ears of mediumship was generall3 goodN
he had no known connection with 1skifJordur> 3et to have o7tained all the information
a7out #udni he would have needed not Just an agent in 1skifJordur Ea remote and
sparsel3 populated placeF> 7ut an agent who knew #udni personall3N and it was certainl3
not 2afsteinn who pushed or promoted the investigation of the #udni communicator4it
was in fact a person EAsmundur #estssonF who was not even present at the sitting. I
agree> therefore> with the cautious assessment of 2araldsson and 0tevenson: '<e
conclude S that despite its o7vious weaknesses Tthe a7sence of seance notesU> the case
Justifies an interpretation that includes some paranormal process.)
9ut what kind of paranormal processO <e can rule out clairvo3ance at once> 7ecause the
onl3 relevant record of events which might 7e supposed to have 7een clairvo3antl3
accessi7le Ethe o7ituar3 noticeF contained 73 no means all of the items given> and would
in an3 case have had to 7e cogniGed precognitively$ E/ne cannot> I think> take seriousl3
the idea that 73 some sort of unconscious clairvo3ance 2afsteinn monitored the events at
the time when the3 occurred> and stored up a record of them for future regurgitationN how
man3 other such sets of events must he have 7een simultaneousl3 monitoringOF The
h3pothesis of telepath3 from the living is more plausi7le> provided> at least> that one is
prepared to 7elieve Edespite lack of su7stantial evidenceF that telepath3 of such a range
and e:tent can occurN there must at the time of the sitting have 7een several persons alive
who possessed all the reMuisite information. Thus the case of #udni "agnusson is not
one which strains the super-10P h3pothesis in the wa3 that I indicated when constructing
m3 'ideal) drop-in case earlier in the chapter. It does not reMuire one to suppose that the
medium e:trasensoriall3 located and then collated relevant information from several
different sources. #udni does> however> offer an intelligi7le motive for communicating4
the desire to talk to someone C+-C from his own part of the world4whereas neither
medium nor sitters had> so far as can 7e ascertained> an3 reason at all for picking out that
particular deceased person as a target for super-10P.
I shall ne:t give a case from a series which I investigated m3self E%%cF. The3 occurred in
the conte:t of a ouiJa 7oard circle operated 73 a small group of people in *am7ridge
during and after the 0econd <orld <ar. Altogether more than two hundred deceased
persons Eand one living oneF communicated through this circle. "ost were friends and
relations of the sitters. There were> however> eleven instances of verified 'drop-in)
communicators> plus a rather larger num7er of unverified ones. "ost of the verified cases
were first verified 73 me> from thirteen to twent3-eight 3ears after the original
communications. This constitutes> I think> a strong argument against the likelihood of
deli7erate fraud. ;o one> however devious> would 7e likel3 to cast so much 7read upon
the waters> without eventuall3 dropping some hints which might facilitate a return. The
sitters> it should 7e noticed> made no attempts to promote the cases> or to o7tain pu7licit3>
and had themselves not much idea of how one might set a7out checking them. I shall
7riefl3 summariGe one of the more interesting cases.
At a num7er of sittings 7etween .&5 and .&! a communicator calling himself '2arr3
0tock7ridge) Enot the real nameF spelled out the following items of information a7out
himself:
0econd Loot attached ;orthum7erland Fusiliers. (ied Fourteen @ul3 si:teen.
T3neside 0cottish.
Tall> dark> thin. 0pecial features large 7rown e3es.
I hung out in Leicester S Leicester holdTsU a record.
TAsked what were his likes and dislikesU Pro7lems an3. Pep3s reading. <ater colouring.
TAsked if he knew a 'Powis 0treet) a7out which two sitters had dreamedU I know it well.
"3 association took m3 memor3 there.
TAsked if his mother was with himU Hes.
The sitters made one4unsuccessful4attempt to check up on these statements. The
matter then rested until .+&> when I 7egan to investigate the 0tock7ridge case. In an
2"0/ pu7lication entitled >fficers died in the ?reat .ar of &/&:@&/ I found it stated
that a 0econd Lieutenant 2. 0tock7ridge of the ;orthum7erland Fusiliers was killed on
. Enot %F @ul3 .+. I then sent for 0tock7ridge)s death certificate. This gives his date
of death as % @ul3 .+ Eas in the scriptsF and not . C+.C @ul3 Eas in the official listF. To
resolve the issue> I wrote to the Arm3 8ecords *entre> and received official confirmation
that the death was % @ul3.
0tock7ridge)s death certificate shows that he was 7orn in Leicester in -.+. This
information is also contained in @oseph Aeating)s Tyneside Irish rigade ELondon> -.+F>
the onl3 militar3 histor3 I have found which mentions 0tock7ridge Eit does not> however>
give the date of his deathF. This 7ook states that 0tock7ridge was in one of the T3neside
Irish 7attalions of the ;orthum7erland Fusiliers. 2owever a record card in the <ar /ffice
Li7rar3> kindl3 consulted for me 73 a friend> states that 7efore his death he had 7een
transferred to a T3neside 0cottish 7attalion.
That 0tock7ridge was tall> dark and thin> and had large 7rown e3es> was confirmed 73 his
surviving 7rothers> and also 73 a photograph of him preserved in the archives of his old
school. <hether he read Pep3s or enJo3ed water-colouring no-one could sa3. <e ma3
presume that he enJo3ed 'pro7lems an3)> since school records show that he won form
priGes in mathematics and ph3sics. 2e later enrolled for a universit3 science course. 2is
mother had died 7efore the period of the communications.
The sitters thought that 'Leicester hold a record) meant that 0tock7ridge)s name might 7e
on a <ar "emorial in Leicester. The3 asked a friend who was passing through Leicester
to investigate> 7ut she found nothing. 2is name is in fact on a <ar "emorial in his old
school in Leicester.
There was a 'Powis 0treet) near the house in which 0tock7ridge was 7orn> although the
famil3 left the district within a few 3ears.
0o much> then> for the verifications of what the 0tock7ridge communicator said a7out
himself. <e have now to ask whether all these correct statements could have originated
from a latent memor3 in the mind of one of the operators of the ouiJa 7oard. (uring all
the relevant sittings the ouiJa 7oard was worked 73 a married couple> whom I shall call
"r and "rs L. #. Eit was Muite clear that "rs #. was the mediumF. /ther persons were
present> 7ut did not operate the 7oard. ;either "r nor "rs L. #. had an3 contacts in
Leicester or had ever visited it> and I could trace no likel3 line of contact 7etween either
of them and an3 mem7er of the 0tock7ridge famil3. "r L. #. served in the First <orld
<ar> 7ut not in 0tock7ridge)s regiment. Furthermore he did not Join up until after
0tock7ridge had 7een killed EI have seen his pa3 7ookF.
*ould the relevant information have 7een hoarded up C,5C su7consciousl3
E'cr3ptomnesia)F> following a glance at some o7ituar3 notice of 0tock7ridgeO I was
una7le to trace a contemporar3 death notice of 0tock7ridge in an3 national newspaper>
nor did 'In "emoriam) notices appear in later 3ears. Two Leicester newspapers printed an
o7ituar3 notice of him on . @ul3 .+. This o7ituar3 notice Ewhich it is highl3 unlikel3
that an3 of the sitters would have seenF gives the correct date of death> 7ut the wrong rank
ELieutenant instead of 0econd LieutenantF> and makes no reference to the 'T3neside
0cottish) 7attalion. It give none of the details a7out 0tock7ridge)s appearance and
interests Ethere is no photographF> and of course sa3s nothing a7out Powis 0treet.
Aeating)s Tyneside Irish rigade contains several of the items of information which the
0tock7ridge communicator produced. It is> however> a ver3 out-of-the-wa3 7ook> and it
gives no death date> makes no reference to 'T3neside 0cottish)> and contains no
photograph or description of 0tock7ridge. 0tock7ridge)s appearance> and his T3neside
0cottish connections are> in fact> not mentioned> so far as I can discover> in an3 pu7licl3
availa7le source. It does not seem to me that the h3pothesis of cr3ptomnesia can possi7l3
suffice to e:plain awa3 the correct statements made 73 the 0tock7ridge communicator.
If> as I have argued> we can rule out the fraud and the cr3ptomnesia e:planations in this
case> we seem left to weigh up the respective merits of some form of survival h3pothesis
and of some version of the super-10P h3pothesis. The 0tock7ridge case does appear to
stretch the super-10P h3pothesis in some of the wa3s which I indicated earlier in the
chapter when discussing an 'ideal) 'drop-in) case. 0tock7ridge advances as his reason for
coming that he is to help one of the other sitters Eanother e:-servicemanF. This ma3 not 7e
an especiall3 powerful reason> 7ut it at an3 rate gives him a stronger reason for
communicating than an3 of the sitters had for singling out facts a7out him as targets for
super-10P. If we suppose that the medium o7tained information a7out him 73 clairvo3ant
apprehension of e:isting records> we must face the fact that she must have located> and
s3nthesiGed the contents of> at least four separate sources> including the archives of his
old school and the <ar /ffice Li7rar3. *ould there at the time of the communications
have 7een a living person or persons whose minds> telepathicall3 tapped 73 the medium>
might have provided all the reMuisite itemsO It is e:tremel3 difficult to sa3. 2is parents
were 73 that time dead. It was nearl3 twent3 3ears later that I made contact with two
living 7rothers> and through them with a third 7rother and a sister. The3 had onl3 the
vaguest recollections of the 7rother who had died over fift3 3ears 7efore> and it C,C was
Muite apparent that as a result of following up the seance data I knew more details a7out
his life than the3 did. "3 own guess is that the situation would not have 7een
su7stantiall3 different at the time of the sittings. 9ut in this slipper3 field a guess is not
good enough.
It seems therefore that even the ver3 curious 0tock7ridge case does not full3 measure up
to the ideal 'drop-in) case for which I suggested criteria earlier in the chapter. 2ad it 7een
investigated in .&! it might have done so. There is in the literature> however> at least one
carefull3 investigated case in which a 'drop-in) communicator made a series of correct
statements> the totalit3 of which could not have 7een o7tained either clairvo3antl3 from a
single document> o7ituar3> etc.> or telepathicall3> from the mind of a single living person.
I refer to the case of 8unolfur 8unollsson E'8unki)F> for which the medium was once
again 2afsteinn 9Jornsson. and the investigators were once again 2araldsson and
0tevenson E&.aF. The case is a comple: and singular one> 7ut it is unfortunatel3 too long
to 7e full3 presented here. In outline the stor3 is this. (uring the 3ears .$,L-> 2afsteinn
was acting as medium for what seems to have 7een a home circle in 8e3kJavik. In this
period a highl3 eccentric communicator 7egan to manifest through the entranced
medium. 2e showed a 3earning for snuff> coffee and alcohol> refused to give his name>
and kept reiterating that he was looking for his leg. Asked where his leg was> he replied
'in the sea). In short he must have appeared at this time to 7e one of those comic-relief
characters who so freMuentl3 7righten up the otherwise so7er proceedings at home
circles.
In @anuar3 .$. the circle was Joined 73 Ludvik #udmundsson> the owner of a fish
factor3 in the village of 0andgerdi> a7out $+ miles from 8e3kJavik. The unknown
communicator showed great interest in this new sitter> and eventuall3 stated that his
missing leg was in the latter)s house at 0andgerdi. After a good deal of further pressure
from the sitters> he made the following statement E&.a> p. $.F:
"3 name is 8unolfur 8unolfsson> and I was &! 3ears old when I died. I lived with m3
wife at Aolga or Alappakot> near 0andgerdi. I was on a Journe3 from Aeflavik Ta7out si:
miles from 0andgerdiU in the latter part of the da3 and I was drunk. I stopped at the house
of 0vein7Jorn Thordarson in 0andgerdi and accepted some refreshments there. <hen I
went to go> the weather was so 7ad that the3 did not wish me to leave unless
accompanied 73 someone else. I 7ecame angr3 and said I would not go at all if I could
not go alone. "3 house was onl3 a7out & minutes) walk awa3. 0o I left 73 m3self> 7ut I
was wet and tired. I walked over the kam7uin Tpe77lesU and reached the C,!C rock known
as Flankastadaklettur which has almost disappeared now. There I sat down> took m3
7ottle> and drank some more. Then I fell asleep. The tide came in and carried me awa3.
This happened in /cto7er> -,.. I was not found until @anuar3> --5. I was carried in 73
the tide> 7ut then dogs and ravens came and tore me to pieces. The remnants Tof m3 7od3U
were found and 7uried in =tskalar grave3ard Ta7out four miles from 0andgerdiU. 9ut then
the thigh 7one was missing. It was carried out again to sea> 7ut was later washed up again
at 0andgerdi. There it was passed around and now it is in Ludvik)s house.
/n another occasion the communicator stated that he had 7een a ver3 tall man. To cut a
long stor3 short> 8unki)s e:traordinar3 tale was su7seMuentl3 verified in considera7le
detail> although it did not appear that he had in fact stopped at the house of 0vein7Jorn
Thordarson. Ludvik #udmundsson knew nothing a7out an3 thigh 7one in his house> 7ut
after enMuiries among older local inha7itants> he found that sometime in the .!5s such a
7one> 7elieved to have 7een washed up 73 the sea> had 7een placed in an interior wall. It
was recovered> and turned out to 7e the femur of a ver3 tall man. ;o one knew whose
7one it was> and there was no record which indicated whether or not the thigh 7one was
missing from 8unki)s remains. /ne wonders> indeed> wh3> even if the deceased 8unki
were the source of the communications> and even if the thigh 7one were actuall3 his> he
should have had an3 special knowledge of the matter.
The remaining statements were nearl3 all verifia7le from entries distri7uted 7etween two
manuscript sources> the *hurch 7ooks of =tskalar Ein the ;ational Archives at
8e3kJavikF> and the 8ev 0igidur 0evertsen)s (nnals of Sudurnes, which at the time of the
sitting rested unpu7lished and little known in the ;ational Li7rar3 at 8e3kJavik. That
8unki had 7een tall was confirmed 73 his grandson> who> however> had not known him>
and was not aware of the 7one and of other relevant facts. 2e could therefore not have
7een> either through telepath3 or through normal channels> a source for all the
information communicated. It is possi7le that the 8ev @on Thorarensen> who in .&$
edited (nnals of Sudurnes for pu7lication> was even in .$. aware of the maJor details of
the stor3> 7ut he did not know a7out the 7one. ;or did he meet 2afsteinn 7efore .%5.
2araldsson and 0tevenson consider in great detail the possi7ilit3 that 2afsteinn could
have o7tained 73 normal means information from these and other less important sources
4it seems e:tremel3 unlikel3 that he would have heard of the (nnals of Sudurnes9 and
sum up the possi7ilities as follows E&.a> p. &,F:
C,$C
S for the medium to have acMuired all the correctl3 communicated information> it does
not seem feasi7le to attri7ute all of this information to an3 single person or an3 single
written source. And this would 7e true> we 7elieve> whether the medium acMuired the
information normall3 or 73 e:trasensor3 perception. <e think> therefore> that some
process of integration of details derived from different persons or other sources must 7e
supposed in the interpretation of the case. It ma3 7e simplest to e:plain this integration as
due to 8unki)s survival after his ph3sical death with the retention of man3 memories and
their su7seMuent communication through the mediumship of 2afsteinn. /n the other
hand> sensitives have 7een known to achieve remarka7le feats of deriving and integrating
information without the participation of an3 purported discarnate personalit3.
The last remark 7rings us to the cru: of the matter. If sensitives operating in a non-
mediumistic conte:t can perform feats of location and integration of detailed information
from discrete sources which> duplicated in the mediumistic sphere> would permit the
construction of such communicators as 8unki> 2arr3 0tock7ridge> "r Aitken)s son> or
Lodge)s =ncle @err3> then the super-10P h3pothesis> fantastic though this is> will 7e
rendered more plausi7le. To this issue I shall return in later chapters. <ith regard to the
survivalist h3pothesis> the following o7servation ma3 7e made. If communication
7etween the living and the dead is possi7le> and can 7e carried on through the agenc3 of
mediums> we should e:pect to meet with 'drop-in) communicators> for there must 7e
man3 recentl3 deceased persons who earnestl3 desire to send messages of comfort>
reassurance and advice to their 7ereaved relations. 2ad there 7een no records at all of
verified 'drop-in) communicators> the survivalist position would necessaril3 have 7een
seriousl3 weakened. As it is> the onus is still on the survivalist either to e:plain awa3> or
else to present reasons for den3ing> the supposed fact that such cases are relativel3 rare. I
7riefl3 discussed this matter earlier in the chapter.
C,%C
5 anifestations of (ur&ose
The 'evidence for survival) discussed in the previous three chapters has 7een for the most
part what might 7e called evidence for the survival of memories. (eceased persons>
ostensi7l3 communicating through mediums> have produced a7out their supposed earthl3
lives facts> not easil3 accessi7le to others> which the3 themselves> if the3 are indeed the
persons the3 purport to 7e> might 7e e:pected to remem7er. It is Muite reasona7le to
concentrate on this sort of evidenceN for> as I pointed out in *hapter Five a7ove> nothing
4not even fingerprints4differentiates one person from another with greater certaint3
than his own individual set of memories. 0till> the mere survival of memories> however
detailed and characteristic the3 were> would not constitute survival of a person. /ne
might imagine> for instance> that the magical arts of *agliostro> who summoned 7ack
from 7e3ond the grave so man3 of the sages of the 1nlightenment> had created a life-like
simulacrum of (r @ohnson. 0uppose that this simulacrum sat in a coffee-house chair>
e:hi7ited the sort of range of information that @ohnson had possessed> and readil3 gave
correct answers to Muestions a7out @ohnson)s lifeN the whole tall3ing e:actl3 with data
contained in 9oswell)s "ife, "rs Thrale)s (necdotes, and as 3et unpu7lished manuscript
sources. ;one the less this @ohnson-simulacrum did nothing 7ut sit and inflict a ceaseless
flow of factual reminiscence upon its hearers. It e:hi7ited none of @ohnson)s individual
and peculiar goals> purposes> intellectual skills> and personalit3 characteristicsN none
indeed of any#ody7s purposes and personalit3 characteristics> etc. It did not> for e:ample>
engage in intellectual argument upon ever3 occasionN strive energeticall3 for victor3 in
de7ateN sMuash an3 0cotsman presentN censure la:it3 of e:pressionN support Tor3 and
Anglican principlesN or in an3 wa3 tr3 to do an3thing e:cept prose endlessl3 a7out its
own past histor3. =nder these circumstances we should have to sa3 of *agliostro)s
creation that whatever it was it was not (r @ohnson> or at least was @ohnson suffering
from some advanced and highl3 selective form of mental deca3> which C,&C had destro3ed
man3 of those capacities which made him most trul3 a human 7eing. To switch to a more
modern metaphor4a memor3 7ank is not a person.
It is correspondingl3 important in investigating the pro7lem of survival to look not Just at
the evidence for the survival of memor3> 7ut also at such evidence as we have for the
survival of these other individual characteristics. In this chapter I shall consider some of
the evidence that certain deceased persons have after their deaths continued to attempt to
pursue goals and purposes that were characteristic of them in life> or have 7egun to
pursue goals that might 7e thought a natural development of these. EAn3 totall3 new
goals that the3 might develop would of course help one to regard them as persons> 7ut
would not constitute evidence for survival.F In the ne:t chapter I shall take up some of the
evidence for the survival of personalit3 characteristics> intellectual skills> and so forth. It
is to 7e o7served> however> that none of these kinds of evidence can 7e sharpl3 separated
from one another.
To carr3 much weight as evidence for survival> a case of ostensi7le post-mortem
manifestation of purpose would of course have to come in the conte:t of related evidence
for surviving memor3. That said> however> it can readil3 7e seen that such a case might
put strain upon the super-10P h3pothesis in two respects:
. (ifferent people pursue their purposes4even the same purpose4in ver3 different
wa3s. 9utcher *um7erland> for instance> might have had a ver3 different idea of how to
sMuash a 0cotsman from that entertained 73 @ohnson. A medium who wished to work the
pursuit of a certain characteristic purpose into her personation of a particular deceased
person EI am not talking here of conscious deceptionF> would have to select not Just an
appropriate purpose> 7ut an appropriate wa3 of carr3ing it out. This would involve her
Eassuming> of course> for the sake of argument that she has no ordinar3 access to the
relevant informationF in discovering 73 10P a goal or purpose which the deceased person
in Muestion might plausi7l3 7e regarded as pursuingN and it would further involve her in
rummaging around telepathicall3 in the memories of those persons who knew him well>
or clairvo3antl3 in the files of newspapers which printed o7ituar3 notices of him> in order
to infer from the material thus gathered in what wa3 he would most likel3 have attempted
to implement his purpose. The inference would then have to 7e worked up into dramatic
form for presentation at the sitting. It is> I think one ma3 unhesitatingl3 sa3. a prett3 tall
order.
C,+C !. The purpose in Muestion ma3 ver3 possi7l3 7e one which the medium herself has
no cause to supportN conceiva7l3> indeed> it could 7e one Muite opposed to her own
conscious desires and interests. In the latter case the pro7lem of motive 7ecomes an
urgent one. <h3 on earth should the medium Epla3-acting the role of a certain deceased
personF endeavour to promote events which Ewhen her normal sellF she does not wish to
happenO /ne could> of course> repl3 that unconsciousl3> or partl3 consciousl3 and partl3
unconsciousl3> the medium has so great a desire to achieve fame in her chosen profession
that no other consideration can stand in its wa3. This is one of those convenient proposals
which it is in principle not possi7le to refute> and which I suggested in *hapter /ne> we
should whenever possi7le decline to entertain.
*ases in which a deceased person has> through a medium> apparentl3 manifested a clear-
cut and characteristic purpose are somewhat uncommon Esee $F. There are a few Muite
dramatic ones> in which> for instance> suicide or starvation have ostensi7l3 7een averted
73 discarnate intervention through a mediumN 7ut these tend not to 7e among the 7est-
evidenced cases. The following> e:ceedingl3 odd> case> was reported in detail 73 a
8ussian corresponding mem7er of the 0P8> Ale:ander Aksakov> an Imperial *ouncillor
to the *Gar.
In @anuar3 --&> "rs A. von <iesler EAksakov)s sister-in-lawF> and her daughter 0ophie>
7egan to e:periment with a planchette 7oard. The 7oard was soon monopoliGed 73 an
e:ceptionall3 forceful communicator> who claimed to 7e '0chura) EAle:andrineF the
deceased daughter of somewhat distant acMuaintances. 0chura> who had adopted
revolutionar3 political views> had committed suicide at the age of seventeen> following
the death while escaping from prison of a like-minded male cousin. 0chura demanded> in
no hesitant tone> that another cousin> ;ikolaus> should 7e 7rought to a sitting. According
to 0chura> ;ikolaus was in danger of compromising himself politicall3. 0ophie hesitated
for reasons of social propriet3. 0chura)s demands 7ecame more and more vehement at
successive sittings> until on !+ Fe7ruar3 --& she wrote> 'It is too late S e:pect his
arrest.) The von <ieslers then contacted ;ikolaus)s parents> who were> however> Muite
satisfied in respect of his conduct.
Two 3ears later ;ikolaus was arrested and e:iled 7ecause of political assem7lies which
he had attended in @anuar3 and Fe7ruar3 --&. 'The C,,C notes which "rs von <iesler
had made were read again and again 73 the families 7oth of V0churaW and of ;ikolaus.
V0chura)sW identit3 in all these manifestations was recogniGed as incontesta7l3
demonstrated> in the first place 73 the main fact in relation to ;ikolaus> 73 other intimate
particulars> and also 73 the totalit3 of features which characteriGed her personalit3) E5a>
II> p. -F.
This case e:hi7its to some degree 7oth of the characteristics which I noted a7ove as
constituting especial difficulties for the super-10P h3pothesis: '0chura) pursued her
characteristic purpose in the direct and forceful wa3 which had clearl3 7een t3pical of her
in lifeN and this purpose was Muite definitel3 not that of the operators of the planchette
7oard> to whom the thought of contacting ;ikolaus)s famil3 caused considera7le
em7arrassment.
Among the purposes freMuentl3 professed and pursued 73 mediumistic communicators is
that of proving their own survival and thus 7ringing consolation to their 7ereaved
relatives. This purpose is one which a considera7le percentage of deceased persons
might> if the3 indeed survive> 7e thought likel3 to entertain. That a particular
communicator e:hi7its it will therefore hardl3 constitute part of the ostensi7le evidence
for survival. There have 7een> however> some people who> when alive> e:hi7ited an
intense> even a passionate> interest in the pro7lem of survival itself> and the methods 73
which it ma3 7e investigated. <e might e:pect that if such persons in some form survive
the dissolution of their 7odies> the3 will make some special> ingenious> and a7ove all
planned> attempt to prove that fact to those still on earth. And this 7rings me straightawa3
to a discussion of what is undou7tedl3 the most e:tensive> the most comple:> and the
most puGGling of all ostensi7le attempts 73 deceased persons to manifest purpose> and in
so doing to fulfil their overriding purpose of proving their survival. I refer to the
cele7rated 'cross-correspondences).
#ross'corres&ondences
A 'cross-correspondence) occurs when what is written or spoken 73 or through one
medium or automatist corresponds to an e:tent that cannot 7e normall3 e:plained with
what is written or spoken 73 or through another> and independent> medium or automatist.
The cross-correspondences are the e:tensive and comple:l3 interlinked series of cross-
correspondences which appeared 7etween .5 and .$! in the automatic writings Eand
sometimes speechF of a group of automatists C,-C associated with the 9ritish 0P8. The
automatists were all ladies> and the principal ones were "rs ". de #. Kerrall> wife of
Professor A. <. Kerrall> a well-known classical scholar> and her daughter 2elen Elater
"rs <. 2. 0alter> the onl3 mem7er of the group whom I m3self metFN "rs '<illett) E"rs
<inifred *oom7e-Tennant> of whom more will 7e said in the ne:t chapterFN "rs
'2olland) E"rs Fleming> the sister of 8ud3ard AiplingF> and "rs Piper> the onl3
professional medium among them.
The communicators ostensi7l3 responsi7le for the cross-correspondences were at first
three earl3 leaders of the 0P8> F. <. 2. "3ers Edied .5F> 2enr3 0idgwick Edied .55F
and 1dmund #urne3 Edied ---F> all three of whom had of course 7een deepl3 concerned
with the pro7lem of survival. /ther deceased persons later appeared as mem7ers. The
cross-correspondences were not instigated or asked for 73 the communicators) still living
colleaguesN the3 simpl3 7egan to appear in the scripts> and were> indeed> not noticed for
some time. The idea thus came ostensi7l3 from the 'other side). The scripts and
utterances were principall3 studied and collated on 'this side) 73 five leading mem7ers of
the 0P8> "iss Alice @ohnson> @. #. Piddington> and #. <. 9alfour Elater the second 1arl
9alfourF> and to a lesser 7ut still noteworth3 e:tent 73 0ir /liver Lodge and "rs 1. ".
0idgwick. Their task proved an e:traordinaril3 difficult one. This was partl3 7ecause of
the sheer Muantit3 of material the3 had to scrutiniGe4there were several Muite 7us3
automatists over and a7ove the ones I have alread3 named. Partl3 also it was 7ecause of
the content of the writings. Those of "rs Kerrall and her daughter> 7oth of whom were
accomplished classical scholars> contained man3 #reek and Latin phrases> and other
literar3 allusions. All the writings tended to 7e fragmentar3> allusive> and disJointed> and
to operate at a s3m7olic rather than a straightforward level. This ma3 have 7een 7ecause
automatisms originate from an unconscious or dissociated level of the mind Ethe
'su7liminal self)> 'primar3 process thought)F which tends to function in s3m7olic terms.
9ut it was also> as we shall see in a moment> part of the plan of the supposed
communicators that messages should 7e transmitted in an o7scure and disguised fashion>
so that their true significance should not 7e at first appreciated. 9oth the communicators
and those who attempted to decipher the communications were e:ceptionall3 well-read
and literate persons. The whole enterprise reminds me sometimes of that old radio
favourite 'Transatlantic XuiG)> in which devious and o7scure Muestions were put C,.C to
particularl3 well-informed people> who had often to work their wa3 towards the right
answers. In the present case> the gulf 7etween the teams seems vastl3 harder to overcome
than the Atlantic /cean.
The cross-correspondence materials are e:ceedingl3 voluminous> and pu7lication of them
marks out a kind of epoch in the histor3 of the 0P8. In his valua7le short introduction to
the su7Ject> 2. F. 0altmarsh E%5F lists fift3-two papers a7out them Eman3 of them 7ook
lengthF from the Proceedings of the SPR$ 1ven so a su7stantial Muantit3 of material
remains unpu7lished. /7viousl3 I shall not> in the 7rief space which I have at m3
disposal> 7e a7le to do an3thing like Justice either to the strengths or to the weaknesses of
the cross-correspondences considered as evidence for survival.
0altmarsh distinguishes 7etween 'simple)> 'comple:) and 'ideal) cross-correspondences.
0imple cross-correspondences 'are those where in the scripts of two or more
TindependentU automatists there occurs the same word or phrase> or else two phrases so
similar as to 7e clearl3 interconnected.) An o7vious e:planation of simple cross-
correspondence would 7e that one automatist gains e:trasensor3 knowledge of what the
other is writing> and writes something similar herself. *omple: cross-correspondences
'are cases where the topic or topics are not directl3 mentioned> 7ut referred to in an
indirect and allusive wa3). An 'ideal) comple: cross-correspondence would 7e one in
which two independent automatists each wrote apparentl3 unconnected meaningless
messages. ';ow> if a third automatist were Tindependentl3U to produce a script which>
while meaningless taken 73 itself> acts as a clue to the other two> so that the whole set
would 7e 7rought together into one whole> and then show a single purpose and meaning>
we should have good evidence that the3 all originated from a single source.) If these
conditions were fulfilled one might propound the following argument. *all the first two
automatists A and 9> and the third one> who gives the ke3 that unlocks the whole> *. 9
will not 7e a7le to discover what he should write 73 paranormall3 cogniGing A)s script>
and A)s mindN nor will * 7e a7le to discover the 'ke3) 73 paranormall3 cogniGing the
scripts or minds of A and 9N for in this 'ideal) case Eto which perhaps no actual case has
done more than appro:imateF there is nothing in A)s script or 9)s script> or in the minds of
A or 9> to indicate what must 7e written to complete the cross-correspondence.
There is in m3 view no dou7t that the scripts of the 0P8 automatists do contain numerous
cross-correspondences> for the occurrence of C-5C which no ordinar3 e:planation will
suffice. *onspirac3 to deceive 73 the principal automatists seems e:traordinaril3
unlikel3. The3 were all persons of e:cellent reputation> and no indications of fraud ever
came to lightN 7esides> at important periods one E"rs 2ollandF was in India> another E"rs
PiperF was in the =nited 0tates> while the rest were in #reat 9ritain. *hance-coincidence
is another e:planation which can> I think> 7e ver3 Muickl3 ruled out. It is true that the
scripts are full of cr3ptic literar3 and other allusions> so full that one might e:pect
occasional coincidences of theme and reference. 9ut Piddington> who counted such
references on a large scale> found that allusions pertinent to a given cross-correspondence
did not wa: and wane haphaGardl3> 7ut arose during the appropriate period> and then
largel3 died out again Emodern techniMues of computer anal3sis would have immensel3
helped him in this arduous taskF. Furthermore various attempts to generate artificial
cross-correspondences 73 collating pseudo-scripts written 73 outsiders were largel3
unsuccessful E$%7N +%7F.
/ne can readil3 imagine in the a7stract that some of at an3 rate the simpler cross-
correspondences might have arisen 7ecause two or more of the automatists had
simultaneousl3 7een e:posed to the same e:ternal source of stimulation> e.g. the same
issue of a dail3 newspaper. This seems particularl3 likel3 in the case of "rs Kerrall and
her daughter 2elen> who at this time lived together> though the3 produced their scripts
independentl3. If 7oth these ladies had on a given morning noticed a Muotation from
Aristotle)s Politics in The Times7s leading article> or had come across a cop3 of
LempriZre)s *lassical (ictionar3 l3ing open at a certain entr3> their minds> and
su7seMuentl3 their automatic writings> would> so this theor3 goes> have 7een set racing
off along similar tracks. /ne has> however> onl3 to read a few pages of the cross-
correspondence records to see that this sort of e:planation will not get one ver3 far. In
an3 case> of course> the reall3 interesting correspondences are not those 7etween the
scripts of "rs Kerrall and her daughter> 7ut Esa3F 7etween the scripts of "rs Kerrall and
those of the ver3 distant and ver3 different "rs 2olland or "rs Piper. To e:plain such
correspondences as these we shall 7e forced towards some ver3 odd h3potheses indeed.
I shall now give a much a7ridged outline of a not e:cessivel3 comple: 'comple:) cross-
correspondence. It is the case commonl3 called the '2ope> 0tar and 9rowning) case
E!57> pp. &.L,,N ,&d> pp. !-L%.F. 0ome idea of Just how comple: these cases can 7e
will 7e given C-C if I point out that the '2ope> 0tar and 9rowning) case is in effect a
cross-correspondence within a cross-correspondence. It forms part of the case known as
the 'Latin "essage) case.
The 2ope> 0tar and 9rowning case was triggered off on + @anuar3> .5,> when @. #.
Piddington suggested to '"3ers)> who was communicating through "rs Piper> that he
should indicate when a cross-correspondence was 7eing attempted 73> for instance>
drawing on the script a circle with a triangle inside.
This notion was apparentl3 taken up 73 the '"3ers) who influenced "rs Kerrall)s
automatic writing. 2e wrote on !$ @anuar3 .5,: 'an anagram would 7e 7etter. Tell him
that4rats> star> tars and so on S' E"3ers was in life greatl3 addicted to anagramsF.
"rs Kerrall)s "3ers to3ed further with the anagram idea in her script of !- @anuar3 .5,.
2e wrote 'Aster) E#reek for '0tar)F and 'Teras) E#reek for '<onder)F. 2e then apparentl3
proceeded to free associate on the themes of wonder and star> producing a Jum7le of
Muotations from the poetr3 of 8o7ert 9rowning> together with some related #reek
phrases> as follows:
The world)s wonder
And all a wonder and a wild desire4
The ver3 wings of her
A <I;#1( (10I81
hupopteros eros T#reek for 'winged love)U
Then there is 9lake
and mocked m3 loss of li7ert3
9ut it is all the same4the winged desire
eros potheinos T#reek for 'passion)U
The earth for the sk34A7t Kogler for earth
too hard that found itself or lost itself4in the sk3.
That is what I want
/n the earth the 7roken sounds threads
In the sk3 the perfect arc
The * maJor of this life
9ut 3our recollection is at fault
There followed drawings of a triangle inside a circle and of a triangle within a semi-
circle> a clear response to the proposal Piddington had made to "rs Piper)s
communicator.
/n $ Fe7ruar3 .5,> a supposed '"3ers) influence upon 2elen Kerrall)s script drew a
monogram> a star and a crescent> and wrote> 'A monogram> the crescent moon> remem7er
that> and the star.) This shows a knowledge of what "rs Kerrall)s "3ers communicator
had C-!C written> and perhaps> in the reference to a monogram> hints at a knowledge of
Piddington)s original proposal to the Piper-"3ers.
/n Fe7ruar3 .5, "rs Piper)s "3ers communicator showed undou7ted knowledge of
what "rs Kerrall)s "3ers had recentl3 written. 2e wrote: '(id she T"rs KerrallU receive
the word evangelical Tlater corrected to 1vel3n 2ope> the title of a poem 73 9rowningUO I
referred also to 9rowning again. I referred to 2ope and 9rowning S I also said star S
look out for 2ope> 0tar and 9rowning.)
;e:t the "3ers influence on 2elen Kerrall)s script picked up the 9rowning theme. /n ,
Fe7ruar3 .5, he drew a star> and then wrote: 'That was the sign she will understand
when she sees it S ;o arts avail S and a star a7ove it all rats ever3where in 2amelin
town Treference to 9rowning)s poem on the Pied Piper of 2amelinU.)
Lastl3 came three scripts from "rs Piper)s "3ers communicator> the second of which
supplied the supposed 'ke3) to the whole.
/n + "arch .5,> the Piper-"3ers told Piddington that he had given "rs Kerrall a circle
and a triangle> 7ut dou7ted that the latter had appeared. EIn fact it had.F
/n $ "arch .5, the Piper-"3ers claimed that he had drawn a circle and a triangle for
"rs Kerrall> and then said> '9ut it suggested a poem to m3 mind> hence 920) Ei.e.
9rowning> 2ope> 0tarF. "3ers here offers an outright e:planation of the o7scure
references that had appeared in the scripts of the other two automatists. 2e sa3s> in effect>
that Piddington)s original proposal a7out drawing a triangle within a circle suggested
certain anagrams Erats> star> etc.F to his mind> and these in turn suggested certain passages
of 9rowning. 2e developed all these themes Etriangle> circle> rats> star. 9rowning> etc.F in
the scripts of the other two automatists> and then returned to "rs Piper to give an
e:planation of what he had done.
/n - April .5, the Piper-"3ers said he had drawn a circle> and added that he had drawn
a star and also a crescent moon.
It is at first sight tempting to conclude that the cross-correspondences 7etween these three
sets of writings were 7rought a7out 73 a purposive intelligence e:ternal to the conscious
minds of the automatists concerned. <hether this intelligence 7elonged to the deceased F.
<. 2. "3ers is an issue that one could properl3 assess onl3 in the light of the numerous
other communications allegedl3 received from him at that time through these and other
automatists. It is> however> not difficult to think up possi7le alternative e:planations. C-$C
/ne might suppose> for instance> that the various automatists were 73 now aware of each
other)s identities> and of the principle underl3ing the attempts at cross-correspondence.
/ne might suppose further that "rs Kerrall> the central figure in the 2ope> 0tar and
9rowning case> maintained an unconscious> e:trasensor3 scrutin3 of the scripts and
related mental processes of the other automatists. 93 this means she learned of
Piddington)s suggestion to the Piper-"3ers that he should indicate a cross-
correspondence 73 drawing a triangle within a circle. 0he took up the idea in her own
scripts> introduced the alternative proposal of anagrams E7eing an old friend of "3ers)s>
she knew his fondness for anagramsF> and in her su7seMuent scripts unconsciousl3 gave
free rein to her own associations relating to rats> stars> etc. The result was a series of
9rowning Muotations interspersed with #reek phrases. The other automatists e:ercised
their 10P upon "rs Kerrall)s scripts> 'saw) the drawings and references to 'star)> picked
up the not ver3 o7scure 9rowning Muotations> and 7egan to ela7orate these themes in
their own writings. After the 7all had 7een thrown to and fro for a few weeks> "rs Piper
7rought the game to an artistic conclusion 73 making her "3ers communicator state that
the 9rowning Muotations and other material represented his own associations to
Piddington)s original proposal.
"rs Piper was> however> a lad3 of somewhat limited education> and perhaps did not
possess the reMuisite literar3 knowledge. /ne might therefore instead propose that "rs
Kerrall Eor rather her unconscious mind or su7liminal selfF pla3ed a more active role> and
somehow inJected her own associations and "3ers-fantasies into the depths of the other
automatists) minds. Thence the3 found their wa3 out in the scripts.
This is ver3 much the position taken 73 Frank Podmore in his a7le earl3 critiMue of the
cross-correspondences E!!e> pp. !!&L!,+F. Podmore could 'see no evidence whatever to
Justif3 the assumption> even provisionall3> of a directing intelligence other than those of
the automatists concerned.) 2e has two sorts of reasons for sa3ing this. The first Ewhich
some people would pro7a7l3 disputeF is that although "3ers was the purported instigator
of these cross-correspondences> the Piper-"3ers> who pla3ed a leading role in several of
the cases> was never a7le uneMuivocall3 to state the principle of the cross-
correspondences.
Podmore)s second line of argument is as follows. There is at least one case> the '0evens)
case E,&7> pp. !!!L!&-F> in which it seems likel3 C-%C that "rs Kerrall Eor rather some
part of "rs Kerrall)s mindF was '7ehind) a comple: and a7solutel3 characteristic cross-
correspondence. 9etween April and @ul3 .5- the scripts of several automatists>
including "rs Kerrall> contained numerous allusions to the num7er seven. *ertain of
these allusions were> additionall3> clear references to passages from (ante. It turned out
that Piddington Ewho> as we have seen> was much involved in the stud3 of the cross-
correspondencesF had deposited with the 0P8 a sealed package> the contents of which he
hoped to communicate after his death. The package contained a statement referring to his
life-long o7session with the num7er seven. The statement did not mention (ante. "rs
Kerrall> however> had latel3 7een reading (ante. Podmore puts his case as follows: '"r
Piddington had for 3ears 7een repeating Seven for all the world4that is> all the world
within the range of his telepathic influence4to hear. 2is is a voice cr3ing in the
wilderness> however> until it happens that "rs Kerrall reads the V(ivine *omed3W> and
the idea of Seven, alread3 latent in her mind> is reinforced 73 a series of (ante images.
"rs Kerrall then S swells the stream of telepathic influence> and the effects> in the five
remaining automatists> rise to the surface of the dream consciousness.)
There are further considerations which might 7e thought to point to "rs Kerrall as the
pro7a7le source of these cross-correspondences. 2ints and foreshadowings of the cross-
correspondences appeared first of all in her scriptsN man3 of the individual cases 7egan
thereN she possessed much of the necessar3 classical and literar3 knowledge. ;o other
mem7er of the group of automatists would have filled the 7ill. ;one the less Podmore)s
theor3> according to which "rs Kerrall)s unconscious mind was> unknown to her
conscious mind> a telepathic 7roadcasting station of formida7le power> sending out>
furthermore> signals of whose import she was freMuentl3 unaware> faces what appear to
7e intolera7le difficulties.
An initial and o7vious difficult3 is that> as I have alread3 pointed out> we have not much
clear evidence for the sort of active telepathic 'sending) or intrusion into other peoples)
minds which Podmore postulates. This is an important issue which I shall mention again
when talking a7out communications from the living. Podmore seeks to 7olster the notion
73 invoking the '0evens) case Esee a7oveF> 7ut his account of this case is somewhat over-
simplified. 2e fails to point out that the Kerrall-"3ers claimed to have read) Piddington)s
message at the time when it was written> and to have spread its theme around the C-&C
various automatists. Piddington himself asserted that he was Muite unsuccessful as a
sender of telepathic messagesN certainl3 he did not succeed in sending one when he
served as an agent for some e:periments in the generation of pseudo-correspondences
E$.7F.
A second difficult3 for Podmore)s proposal is this. "rs Kerrall was centrall3 involved in
several cross-correspondences in which the ostensi7le communicator conve3ed literar3
information apparentl3 possessed neither 73 "rs Kerrall nor 73 an3 other automatist
involved. An e:ample which merits a 7rief discussion is the autos ouranos a-umon
incident E!57> pp. 5,L,!F. At a sitting with "rs Piper on !. @anuar3 .5,> "rs
Kerrall> who had given much previous thought to this test> spelled out to the Piper-"3ers
Ein Piddington)s presenceF the #reek words autos ouranos a-umon and suggested to him
that he might either translate them> or tell her of what the3 made him think. E"3ers> of
course> was a considera7le classical scholar> whilst "rs Piper knew no #reek.F These
words ma3 7e translated as 'the ver3 heaven waveless). The3 come from a passage 73 the
neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus> and form part of a description of the conditions
necessar3 for the attainment of ecstas3 or connection with the divine. This passage states
that the soul must 7e 'free from deception and ever3 kind of 7eguilement> and 7e in a
state of peace> also that the earth must 7e calm> the sea calm> and the air> and the ver3
heaven waveless.) It should 7e noted that "3ers had used the words autos ouranos
a-umon EuntranslatedF as a motto for his poem on Tenn3son> and that he gives them in
translation Ewithout the original #reekF in his Human Personality E5a> II> p. !.F.
(uring the ne:t si: weeks "rs Kerrall)s own automatic scripts were filled with references
to Tenn3son> and especiall3 to passages which concern calm seas> calm air> and serene
and calm spaces. The poem which cropped up most freMuentl3 was In Memoriam> and
there were also some insistent allusions to Crossing the ar$ The constant references to In
Memoriam led "rs Kerrall to suspect a special link 7etween that poem and the 3nneads
of Plotinus Ethe general similarities of thought had of course 7een commented on 7eforeF.
After some investigations "rs Kerrall unearthed certain parallel phrases on which she
wrote a paper in the Modern "anguage Revie) for @ul3> .5, E+&F.
It seems Muite likel3 that F. <. 2. "3ers Ethe communicatorF had known of these
parallels. 2e was himself well read in PlotinusN in his essa3 on 'Tenn3son as Prophet) he
mentions the influence of Plotinus C-+C on Tenn3sonN and he tells us elsewhere that he
learned this in conversation with Tenn3son> whom he knew well.
;ow we come to "rs Piper)s side of the cross-correspondence. /n + "arch> .5,> the
Piper-"3ers wrote: 'A cloudless sk3 7e3ond the horiGon). In the waking stage of her
trance "rs Piper said 'moaning at the 7ar when I put out to sea) Ea Muotation from
Crossing the arF $ 0he also mentioned Arthur 2allam Ewhose earl3 death inspired
Tenn3son to write In MemoriamF $
/n !. April .5,> "rs Kerrall had a sitting with "rs Piper. The words 'AGure a 7lue sea)
were spelled out. "rs Kerrall took them to relate to the idea of halc3on da3s Ei.e. da3s
when the sea is especiall3 calmF> which had 7een alluded to in her own scripts. At the end
of the sitting came some incoherent references to 0weden7org> 0t Paul and (ante.
The ne:t da3> the Piper-"3ers claimed to have answered the Muestion a7out autos
ouranos a-umon> adding that it reminded him of 0ocrates and of 2omer)s Iliad$ ;either
of these references nor the preceding ones made sense at the time.
/n "a3 .5,> "rs Kerrall)s scripts contained the words '1agle soaring over the tom7
of Plato)> a well-known description of Plotinus which is Muoted in "3ers)s Human
Personality E5a> II> p. !+F. This led her to delve further into "3ers)s 7ook. 0he found
that the 1pilogue to this 7ook> in which occurs a passage concerning the 'vision of
Plotinus)> is prefi:ed 73 a #reek Muotation from Plato)s Crito mentioning 0ocrates and
Muoting a line from the Iliad$ It thus appears that in life "3ers could well have associated
Plotinus with 0ocrates and the Iliad$ /n page !+ of Kolume II is a list of persons who>
like Plotinus> underwent moments of m3stical ecstas3 or union with the divine. This list
includes Plotinus> Tenn3son> 0weden7org> (ante and 0t Paul. The Piper-"3ers)s
references on !. April .5, can thus 7e seen to have reflected "3ers)s own associations.
Finall3> on + "a3 .5,> when "rs 0idgwick was sitting with "rs Piper> the Piper-"3ers
wrote> '<ill 3ou sa3 to "rs Kerrall4Plotinus). "rs 0idgwick said> '<hat is thatO) The
Piper-"3ers replied> ' My ans)er to autos ouranos o-umen TsicU.)
It was Muite clear that @. #. Piddington> the principal sitter with "rs Piper did not know
enough of "rs Kerrall)s scripts> and of Plotinus and his relation to Tenn3son> to have
7een the source of "rs Piper)s 'hits). ;or was "rs Piper sufficientl3 well educated to
have caught the drift of the allusions in "rs Kerrall)s scripts even had she 7een a7le to
read C-,C these scripts in detail 73 means of 10P. The important Muestion is> did "rs
Kerrall herself possess the reMuisite knowledge to have engineered the whole thing>
alwa3s supposing that we grant to her unconscious mind the somewhat sinister a7ilit3 to
direct the course of "rs Piper)s automatismsO I think we ma3 safel3 assume that she was
not consciousl3 aware of the detailed links 7etween Plotinus and In Memoriam until the
script intelligence Epurportedl3 "3ersF led her to them. 9ut could she have known of
them unconsciousl3O It is hard to know what to make of this proposal. <hat is 7eing
suggested is not cr3ptomnesia Ethe re-emergence of a latent memor3F> a possi7ilit3 for
which we have some evidence. "rs Kerrall)s article on the Plotinus- In Memoriam links
was considered sufficientl3 original for pu7lication> and so presuma7l3 could not have
7een 7ased on a latent memor3 of a previous similar article. Presuma7l3 also "rs Kerrall
could not have noticed the links herself 7efore> and su7seMuentl3 forgotten a7out themN
for she would surel3 have written her article when she first thought of them. The proposal
must therefore 7e that having separatel3 read Tenn3son)s In Memoriam and Plotinus)s
3nneads> and retained fairl3 detailed> 7ut perhaps largel3 latent> memories of 7oth> she
unconsciousl3 grasped the connection 7etween them. This unconscious insight then
7egan to work its wa3 into the light through her own automatic writing> and also through
that of "rs Piper> over which she e:ercised a continual 7ut unconscious influence.
"rs Kerrall claimed> too> that she did not discover the relevance of the 0ocrates> 2omer>
(ante> 0weden7org> and 0t Paul allusions given 73 the Piper-"3ers until her own "3ers-
communicator provided the clue '1agle soaring over the tom7 of Plato)> which made her
turn again to "3ers)s Human Personality$ ;ow we can hardl3 den3 here that "rs Kerrall>
who had certainl3 read this 7ook> might have retained a latent memor3 of the relevant
allusions. The pro7lem> however> is that the allusions were given not through her own
automatic writing> 7ut 73 the Piper-"3ers. /n the theor3 we are considering "rs
Kerrall)s unconscious mind must have reasoned as follows: 'I remem7er now that
"3ers)s 7ook contains a series of names close to that phrase a7out Plotinus. If I produce
these names as if from "3ers> it will look as though these are "3ers)s associations> not
mine> which will 7e ver3 striking. 9ut hang on4I see a snagR I knew "3ers Muite well>
and ever3one is aware that I have read his 7ook. Therefore if I produce these names
m3self it will not make much impression. 0uppose> however> I were to infiltrate them into
"rs Piper)s scripts. Then it will C--C look as though the3 reall3 are "3ers)s associations.
#oodR I will do itR
I simpl3 do not know what to sa3 a7out these tortuous and Muite unverifia7le h3potheses>
which seem> it should 7e noted> to follow inevita7l3 from Podmore)s proposal that "rs
Kerrall 7rought a7out the cross-correspondences through her unconscious a7ilit3 to direct
and infiltrate the writings of the other automatists under a false name. I know of no
independent evidence to suggest that such happenings are possi7le> and it is hard to see
what evidence there could 7e> since the postulated events go on unconsciousl3 and
uno7served 73 an3one. The onl3 reason for adopting Podmore)s h3pothesis seems to 7e
the antecedent implausi7ilit3 of its main alternative> the survival theor3> which>
implausi7ilit3 apart> can on the face of it give a much simpler account of the case we
have Just 7een considering. 9ut the implausi7ilit3 of one theor3 is never 73 itself a
satisfactor3 reason for adopting some other theor3N the other theor3 ma3 7e Muite as
implausi7le.
There are still further reasons for a7andoning Podmore)s proposal. 93 no means all of the
cross-correspondences 7egan in "rs Kerrall)s scriptsN in some she was not involved at allN
one particularl3 famous e:ample4the 'Palm 0unda3) case E+F47egan in her scripts> 7ut
continued for man3 3ears after her death in the scripts of other automatistsN some cases
were wholl3 initiated after her death. It is indeed sometimes stated that the cross-
correspondences at an3 rate declined after "rs Kerrall)s death. I think it is more nearl3
true to sa3 that the scripts had 7egun to change character 7efore her death> with cross-
correspondences pla3ing a less prominent part. It seems clear that the cross-
correspondences canot 7e wholl3 or even largel3 laid at "rs Kerrall)s door. At earl3 as
.> Alice @ohnson was a7le to write E,&c> p. !.F:
S we have now reached a point where> on the supposition that the whole of the cross-
correspondences are worked e:clusivel3 73 the automatists> we should have to assume
that several of them> 7esides "rs Kerrall> are capa7le of the task. /r else we should have
to assume a sort of telepathic committee meeting of the su7liminal selves of the
automatists> at which the3 scheme together and settle on their different parts.
The idea of a telepathic committee meeting of su7liminal selves is one that we shall meet
again in *hapter Fifteen. It is essentiall3 what has 7een proposed to account for the fact
that the different aspects of a collectivel3 perceived apparition seen 73 the various
percipients seem to 7e in correct perspective.
C-.C <e have no independent evidence that telepath3 of such detail and comple:it3 ever
takes place. /ne might add> too> that we have no evidence for unconsciousl3 hatched>
telepathicall3 co-ordinated> plots or conspiracies. It is> indeed> hard to see what such
evidence might consist in.
Alice @ohnson herself did not 7elieve in the telepathic committee meetings of su7liminal
selves. Like the other principal investigators of the cross-correspondences she ultimatel3
came to 7elieve that "3ers and the other deceased 0P8 leaders were 7ehind them. I too
find it hard to 7elieve in telepathic committee meetings> nor can I den3 that an
intelligence> or rather intelligences> seem to have inspired the cross-correspondences. 9ut
was the intelligence of F. <. 2. "3ers among themO This is an altogether larger Muestion.
To answer it one would need to take into account the st3le and intellectual and personal
characteristics of the "3ers-scripts> and an3 correct information given a7out "3ers
which could not have 7een known to the automatist in Muestion. There was ver3 little of
the latter sort of evidence Eseveral of the more important automatists knew the living
"3ers wellF> 7ut the investigators seem in the end to have found the former satisfactor3.
Thus @. #. Piddington wrote E!57> pp. !%!L!%$F:
/n the pro7lem of the real identit3 of this directing mind4whether it was a spirit or
group of co-operating spirits> or the su7consciousness of one of the automatists> or the
consciousness or unconsciousness of some other living person4the onl3 opinion which I
hold with confidence is this: that if it was not the mind of Frederic "3ers it was one
which deli7eratel3 and artisticall3 imitated his mental characteristics.
I can at this point offer no useful comment on Piddington)s viewsN 7ut in the ne:t chapter
I shall take up the Muestion of how far manifestations of ostensi7l3 surviving personal
characteristics and ostensi7l3 surviving intellectual skills ma3 constitute evidence for
survival.
C.5C
6 anifestations of .ther (ersonal
#haracteristics
It is not uncommon for persons who have had successful sittings with mental mediums to
sa3 afterwards something like this: '2ere is a transcript of the tape recording Eor
stenographer)s notesF> with m3 comments. There were a good man3 e:cellent 'hits). 9ut
simpl3 reading the record can give 3ou no idea of Just how convincing the communicator
reall3 was. 0o much of the impression he made was due not to what he said> 7ut to the
wa3 he said it> to his turn of phrase> tone of voice> characteristic humour> to his
mannerisms and gestures. The3 were so completel3 rightR)
Lest I 7e thought to e:aggerate> I shall Muote the comments of a ver3 e:perienced sitter>
=na Lad3 Trou7ridge E+> pp. $+!L$+$F> on communicators who 'controlled) "rs
Leonard Ei.e. displaced Feda as the personalit3 speaking through "rs Leonard)s vocal
apparatusF:
S on the other hand> a totall3 different facult3 is demonstrated Tin personal controlU>
sometimes to a startling degree> that of the reproduction with var3ing success of
intonations> vocal mannerisms and general characteristics pertaining to deceased persons
whom the medium had never known. It is difficult to conve3 an accurate impression of
these personal controls to an3one who has never witnessed the production> through the
agenc3 of a reall3 fine medium> of phenomena of this description. An3 assertion
regarding these impersonations is naturall3 open to the suspicion that the imagination and
e:pectation of a witness ma3 pla3 a ver3 considera7le part in the impression received S
nevertheless> in m3 own e:perience these o7Jections have 7een countered to a great
e:tent 73 the fact that the purported personal control with which I am most familiar S
has in the maJorit3 of cases 7een witnessed 7oth 73 m3self and 73 "iss 8adcl3ffe-2all.
In the pu7lished Piper and Leonard records EI single out these mediums 7ecause of their
0P8 affiliationsF one finds various controls who achieved remarka7le verisimilitude in
mannerisms> turns of speech> etc. /ne might instance> in the case of "rs Piper> #P and C
.C 9ennie @unot> and> in that of "rs Leonard> 'AK9) Ea deceased lad3 to whom Lad3
Trou7ridge is especiall3 referring in the passage Just MuotedF> @ohn and 1tta Thomas and
1rnest <hite Eon whom see +,7F. In none of these instances had the mediums an3 such
knowledge of the communicators in life as would account for the accurac3 of the
dramatiGations. 9ut as Lad3 Trou7ridge indicates it is e:ceedingl3 difficult to pin down
these 'characteristic touches) in terms that would carr3 conviction to outsiders. I shall
confine m3self for the moment to making one preliminar3 and o7vious point a7out such
cases> namel3 that in addition to crediting the medium concerned with whatever powers
of 10P she ma3 have reMuired to collect factual information a7out the characteristic
mannerisms> turns of phrase> tone of voice> etc.> of the deceased person concerned> we
have now to credit her with the a7ilit3 to incorporate this assem7l3 of facts into a
convincing dramatic representation of the so-called communicator. And this is to credit
her with a further kind of unusual gift.
0omewhat more amena7le to independent assessment are claims that a given
communicator can still e:hi7it a particular and somewhat distinctive competence or skill
which he possessed in life. 0uppose> for e:ample> that a certain deceased person Ecall him
Professor 0harpF was in his life particularl3 adept at the game of 7ridge. 2e now purports
to control a medium who knows nothing at all a7out the game. The medium proceeds to
pla3 several hands of 7ridge competentl3> even well. This must surel3 count as evidence
of 0harp)s survival. For not ever3one can pla3 7ridge> and onl3 a few can pla3 it reall3
well. The fact that the medium)s '0harp) control can pla3 it well> whilst she cannot pla3 it
at all> would seem on the face of it
EaF to show that the '0harp) influence cannot 7e the normal personalit3 of the medium>
and
E7F to narrow down the influences it could 7e to a range including the deceased 0harp.
/ther facets of the 0harp control might serve to narrow this range down still further>
perhaps even Just to 0harp himself. If> on the other hand> the '0harp) influence had 7een
Muite ignorant of 7ridge> or a hopeless duffer at it> this would have given us strong
grounds for thinking that the 'control) could not possi7l3 have 7een the late Professor
0harp.
Let us assume ne:t that evidence that the medium knows nothing of 7ridge is a7solutel3
cast-iron. Then we can ask> what e:planation is C.!C possi7le of her sudden access of skill
at 7ridge other than the proposal that she is controlled or overshadowed 73 the deceased
0harp or one of his deceased fellow pla3ersO <e could suggest instead that the medium
learns the rules of 7ridge clairvo3antl3 73 cogniGing the printed rule-7ook> or
telepathicall3 73 reading the minds of those who regularl3 pla3 7ridge. 0he might even
look clairvo3antl3 at a te:t-7ook on the su7Ject> or telepathicall3 glean a hand3 list of dos
and don)ts from the mind of an accomplished pla3er. 9ut would all this e:trasensor3
stud3 ena7le her to pla3 a competent hand as soon as she was 'controlled) 73 the soi-
disant Professor 0harpO 0urel3 notN for there is much more to learning to pla3 7ridge
competentl3 than merel3 getting the rules off 73 heart and mugging up a list of hints for
the helpless. The fundamental reMuisite is hours and hours of intelligent and attentive
practice against good opponents. And no7od3 is going to suggest that that can 7e
o7tained 73 10P.
It seems to me> therefore> that even if we allow that the rules of 7ridge might 7e
adeMuatel3 learned 73 10P Eand I do not know a particle of evidence that 10P of such a
degree ever occursF> the super-10P theor3 would still fall far short of giving an3 plausi7le
account of the 0harp-control)s a7ilit3 to take a hand at 7ridge.
The e:ample is of course an h3pothetical one> 7ut the point has wider applica7ilit3. It
does not seem likel3 that skills and competences> intellectual> and for that matter
ph3sical> could 7e acMuired 73 10P. If a mediumistic communicator unmistaka7l3
e:hi7its an unusual skill or competence which he possessed in life> and which the
medium is known not to possess> this fact ma3 in some circumstances 7e ver3 difficult
for the super-10P theor3 to digest. It is time to inMuire whether an3 actual case will carr3
us as far as our h3pothetical e:ample.
I shall not attempt to deal with cases of the apparent post-mortem manifestation of such
skills as piano-pla3ing or painting> 7ecause it is in most cases so difficult to decide
whether or not the medium could have herself reached the level of competence displa3ed.
In a few cases Esee> e.g.> %> pp. %$L%$-N 5a> II> pp. !$L!$%N !5a> pp. !$&L!%$F> the
hand-writing of a particular deceased person has 7een closel3 imitated: the pro7lem>
however> is in most cases to ascertain with certaint3 whether the medium could not at
some time or another have seen the handwriting of the individual concerned.
C.$C
Literar" (u77les
I shall 7egin> therefore> 73 considering certain cases which do not> perhaps> e:actl3
Mualif3 as e:amples of the apparent post-mortem e:ercise of an intellectual skill> 7ut
which without dou7t constitute e:amples of the ostensi7le post-mortem displa3 of a high
level of a rather unusual intellectual attainment Ean attainment which had 7een
characteristic of the alleged communicator in lifeF. I refer to the cases4closel3
interlinked with the cross-correspondences4generall3 known as the 'literar3 puGGles). In
these cases attempts were ostensi7l3 made 73 communicators who were in life
particularl3 well-read in classical literature to manifest their knowledge through mediums
largel3 ignorant of classical languages and literature. I shall 7riefl3 outline two such cases
4the 'Lethe) case and the '1ar of (ion3sius) case4and shall consider how far each of
them ma3 7e 7rought into line with the super-10P h3pothesis.
In the 'Lethe) case E!5c> pp. -+L%%F> the principal medium was "rs Piper and the sitter
was "r #. 9. (orr> a Kice-President of the A0P8. (orr was in touch through "rs Piper
with a communicator who claimed to 7e F. <. 2. "3ers. "3ers had in life 7een a
profound classical scholar. (orr had dropped Latin and #reek at eighteen> had scarcel3
looked at an3 since> while 'translations from the classics I have hardl3 read at all.) "rs
Piper knew virtuall3 nothing of classical literature. In order to test the memor3 of the
"3ers communicator> (orr 7egan to o7tain and put to him various Muestions on classical
su7Jects. /n !$ "arch .5- he posed the Muestion: '<hat does the word L1T21 suggest
to 3ouO) 2e clearl3 e:pected a repl3 making reference to forgetfulness and the waters of
o7livion. Instead he got the following:
"H180 Ti.e. "rs Piper)s communicatorU: (o 3ou refer to one of m3 poems> LetheO TThis
is not an inappropriate answer> since Lethe is referred to in one of "3ers)s verse
translations of Kirgil.U
The "3ers communicator> egged on 73 Muestions and remarks from (orr> then wrote
some disJointed words> including '<inds)> '#reece)> and '/l3mpus)> and went on:
S It is all clear. (o 3ou remem7er *aveO
#9(: I think 3ou are confused a7out this. It was a water> not a wind> and it was in 2ades>
where the 0t3: was and the 1l3sian fields. (o 3ou recall it nowO
C.%C
"H180: Lethe. 0hore4of course I do. Lethe 2ades 7eautiful river4Lethe.
=nderground.
0hortl3 afterwards (orr closed the sitting. As "rs Piper came out of trance Ethe 'waking-
stage)F she spoke the following words:
Pavia Tlater conJecturall3 emended 73 Piddington to papavera> the Latin for 'poppies)U.
S
Lethe4delighted4sad4lovel34mate4
Put them all together S
1ntwined love47eautiful shores S
<arm4sunlit4love.
Lime leaf4heart4sword4arrow
I shot an arrow through the air
And it fell I know not where
"rs Piper then descri7ed a vision of someone with a 7ow and arrow.
/n !% "arch .5-> the "3ers communicator wrote as follows Ethe deceased 8ichard
2odgson is> apparentl3> acting as intermediar3> and sometimes refers to "3ers as 'he) and
'him)F:
I wrote in repl3 to 3our last inMuir3 *ave4Lethe
#9(: I asked him Ti$e$ "3ersU whether the word Lethe recalled an3thing to him.
"H180: 2e replied *ave49anks40hore S 2e drew the form4a picture of Iris with
an arrow.
#9(: 9ut he spoke of words.
"H180: Hes> clouds4arrow4Iris4*ave4"or "/8 Latin for sleep Morpheus9
Cave$ 0ticks in m3 mind can)t 3ou help meO
#9(: #ood. I understand what 3ou are after now. 9ut can)t 3ou make it clearer what
there was peculiar a7out the waters of LetheO
"H180: Hes> I suppose 3ou think I am affected in the same wa3 #ut I am not$
After this some of the a7ove words were repeated in conversation with (orr> and the
words '*louds) and 'Flower 9anks) were introduced. As the medium came out of trance
she again murmured the word 'pavia) EpapaveraOF> and went on:
"r "3ers is writing on the wall S * Ta pauseU H?. I walked in the garden of the gods4
entranced I stood along its 7anks4like one entranced I saw her at last S 1l3sian shores.
/n $5 "arch .5-> after an erroneous translation of *H? as 'chariot)> C.&C the Piper-
"3ers spelled out *H;?. Then> after some confused passages> he continued:
<e walk together> our loves entwined> along the shores. In 7eaut3 7e3ond comparison
with Lethe. 0orr3 it is all so fragmentar3 7ut suppose it cannot all get through.
/n , April .5- the letters 0*H? and *0H? were written> and in the waking stage "rs
Piper gave> '"r "3ers sa3s> V;o poppies ever grew on 1l3sian shoresW.) EThis seems to
7e an o7liMue wa3 of den3ing that there is forgetfulness in the after-life.F
The records of these sittings> which I have considera7l3 a7ridged> were carefull3
e:amined first 73 "rs Kerrall> and then 73 #. <. 9alfour> 7oth of whom were
accomplished classical scholars. To neither did the3 make sense. The3 were then sent to
@. #. Piddington> who eventuall3 located a passage Epreviousl3 unknown to himF in the
eleventh 7ook of /vid)s Metamorphoses which seems to provide the ke3 to "3ers)s
'Lethe) associations. It tells the stor3 of *e3: and Alc3one> of which I give the following
summar3> adapted from Podmore E!!eF. The correspondence with the scripts are
indicated 73 capital letters:
*1H?> Aing of Trachin> was drowned at sea> and @uno sent I8I0> goddess of the rain7ow>
to 0omnus E0L11PF> to 7id him carr3 the news in a dream to Alc3one> *e3:)s 7eL/K1(
Xueen> daughter of Aeolus> ruler of the <I;(0. Iris points her 9/< upon the sk3> and
glides down to the *AK1 of 0leep> which was surrounded and hidden 73 dark *L/=(0.
From the foot of the rock flows the river of L1T21> and on its 9A;A0 are P/PPI10 and
innumera7le FL/<180> from whose Juice ;ight distils 0leep. 0omnus sends his son
"/8P21=0 to impersonate in a dream the dead *e3:. #oing down to the 02/81>
Alc3one finds *e3:)s 7od3> and in despair throws herself into the sea. The gods take pit3
on her 0A(ness> and transform her into a halc3on. Later her L/K1( *e3: is restored to
her as her "AT1 in the form of a kingfisher. 2er nest floats on the seaN and ever3 winter
her father Aeolus confines the <I;(0 for seven da3s to secure a calm surface for her
7rood.
The correspondences> I think it is fair to sa3> are a7solutel3 unmistaka7le. ;ow "3ers
had certainl3 read /vid in detail E57> p. 5F> whereas none of the 0P8 investigators had
studied the Metamorphoses, nor> of course> had "rs Piper. EI should add> perhaps> that
reading /vid in the original is not so light an undertaking that one is likel3 to forget itRF
/n the face of it> therefore> the "3ers-communicator)s associations to 'Lethe) accord
with the supposition C.+C that the3 came from "3ers)s own mindN the3 do not fit the
h3pothesis of telepath3 from an3 of his living colleagues. 9ut of course the stor3 of *e3:
and Alc3one has often 7een told in the 1nglish language. Perhaps "rs Piper> or else #. 9.
(orr> had read an 1nglish version of it. (espite considera7le search> Piddington could
onl3 locate two popular works which gave the stor3 in the reMuisite detail> viG. 9ulfinch)s
(ge of Fa#le, and #a3le3)s The Classic Myths in 3nglish "iterature, which is 7ased on
9ulfinch. "rs Piper> of whose honest3 there was never an3 serious Muestion> said that she
had never read an3 such 7ooks> and this was 7orne out 73 close Muestioning of herself
and her daughters> and 73 e:amination of her 7ookshelves. (orr had as a 7o3 read at least
some parts of 9ulfinch. ;o recollection of the stor3> however> stirred in his mind when he
saw the scripts or read Piddington)s interpretation of them. 2is own association to 'Lethe)
was the o7vious one> waters of forgetfulness.
There seem in fact to 7e reasons for den3ing that the script intelligence reflected
9ulfinch)s version of the stor3. 0cripts immediatel3 following the 'Lethe) ones make
apparent references to other passages of /vid which are not paraphrased 73 9ulfinchN and
the scripts introduce at a certain point the word '/l3mpus) which is in the te:t of /vid
"3ers would pro7a7l3 have had> 7ut is not in 9ulfinch E!5dF.
It appears> therefore> highl3 unlikel3 that "rs Piper could have o7tained her information
a7out the stor3 of *e3: and Alc3one telepathicall3 from an3one in the circle of those
who were investigating her. ;or> incidentall3> could she have read it up in a li7rar3 after
the first sitting4too much undenia7l3 relevant information was given straight awa3.
*ould "rs Piper have o7tained knowledge of /vid)s version of the stor3 73 10P> 73> for
instance> clairvo3antl3 reading a translation of /vid> or telepathicall3 tapping the mind of
a classical scholarO 1ven if one were prepared to admit that such a degree of 10P is
possi7le Efor which there is ver3 little evidenceF> there still remains the pro7lem of how
this material was located. For what had to 7e located was not /vid> or the stor3 of *e3:
and Alc3one> 7ut associations which "3ers might plausi7l3 7e e:pected to give to the
name 'Lethe). (id "rs Piper first track down the passage in /vid 73 clairvo3antl3 Eand
instantaneouslyF reading a7out Lethe in some reference workO Piddington could not find
one which mentioned /vid under the heading "ethe$ /r did she with lightning speed pick
out from the minds C.,C telepathicall3 accessi7le to her one well furnished with classical
knowledge Ea 2arvard professor no dou7tF> and flicking straightwa3 through his
su7conscious> much as she might have done through a reference work> unearth the word
'Lethe) and a string of o7scure associations to itO These suggestions are totall3
preposterousN and later on we shall have to tr3 to put a finger on Just wh3 the3 are
preposterous.
The ne:t 'literar3 puGGle) which I shall outline is one of two o7tained through the
mediumship of "rs '<illett) E"rs *oom7e-TennantF. The other <illett puGGle is known
as the '0tatius) case E&aF. "rs <illett was not a professional medium> 7ut a 9ritish
'0ociet3) lad3 active in national politics and in the League of ;ations. 0he 7egan
automatic writing in .5-> 7ut in .5. it was suggested to her> ostensi7l3 73 the deceased
"3ers and #urne3 Eshe was related to "3ers 73 marriageF> that she should instead tr3 to
apprehend ideas and images which the3 would insinuate into her mind> and should then
record them 73 writing or speaking. The principal investigator of the 0tatius and 1ar of
(ion3sius cases was #. <. 9alfour> and the communicators were two recentl3 deceased
classical scholars> A. <. Kerrall Ethe hus7and of "rs ". de #. KerrallF and 0. 2. 9utcher.
The3 had 7een close friends. 9utcher was not known in life to "rs <illett> and Kerrall
onl3 slightl3.
The 1ar of (ion3sius case E&7F is long and complicated> and once again I can onl3 give a
7are outline. In a num7er of <illett scripts> the maJorit3 dating from .%> with #. <.
9alfour as sitter> the following topics are mentioned or alluded to:
The 1ar of (ion3sius. TA cave from which (ion3sius the 1lder> T3rant of 03racuse %5&L
$+, 9*> was wont to listen to possi7l3 seditious conversations among prisoners. It opened
from certain stone Muarries in 0icil3. A <illett script of .5 had referred to it> and "rs
Kerrall had in conseMuence asked her hus7and a7out it.U
The stone Muarries of 03racuse> in 0icil3.
1nna> in 0icil3. The heel of Ital3.
=l3sses and Pol3phemus. TPol3phemus> the one-e3ed giant> imprisoned =l3sses in his
cave.U
Acis and #alatea. TAcis> a shepherd> loved the n3mph #alatea> and was murdered 73 the
Jealous Pol3phemus.U
@ealous3.
C.-C "usic.
A Iither.
Aristotle)s Poetics$
0atire.
These references did not 'add up) to an3thing so far as 9alfour and "rs Kerrall were
concerned. The ke3 was provided 73 the 9utcher-communicator in a script of ! August
.&> "rs Kerrall 7eing the sitter> in which the following was written:
The Aural instruction was I think understood (ural appertaining to the 1ar and now he
asks 2A0 the Satire satire 7een identified S
The man clung to the fleece of a 8am [ so passed out surel3 that is plain Ti.e. =l3sses
escaping from Pol3phemus) caveU
well conJoin that with *3thera [ the 1ar-man S
There is a satire
write *3clopean "asonr3> wh3 do 3ou sa3 masonr3 I said *3clopean
Philo: 2e la7oured in the stone Muarries and drew upon the earlier writer for his 0atire
@ealousl3
The stor3 is Muite clear to me [ I think it should 7e identified
a musical instrument comes in something like a mandoline thrumming S 2e wrote in
these stone Muarries 7elonging to the t3rant
This script links together the previous cr3ptic references. Philo:enus of *3thera E%$+L
$-59*F was an o7scure #reek poet who lived under the protection of (ion3sius the
elder> t3rant of 03racuse. Philo:enus fell into disfavour with (ion3sius> and was
imprisoned in the stone Muarries of 03racuse> 7ecause he seduced the t3rant)s mistress>
#alateia. After his release Eor> according to some accounts> while still in prisonF
Philo:enus wrote a satirical poem entitled either Cyclops or ?alateia$ In this he
represents himself as =l3sses> and (ion3sius> who was 7lind in one e3e> as Pol3phemus.
It was poetr3 of a kind usuall3 recited to the accompaniment of a Gither. Philo:enus)s
Cyclops is mentioned in Aristotle)s Poetics EII> %F> which 9utcher had translated.
;either "rs <illett nor the investigators had ever heard of Philo:enus> of whose works
onl3 a few fragments remain. The classical knowledge displa3ed in constructing this
puGGle was far 7e3ond that possessed 73 "rs <illett> who had no acMuaintance with
classical languages and little if an3 with classical literature in translation. Articles on
Philo:enus in various standard classical reference 7ooks current at that time did not
contain all the details given in the scripts. "an3 E7ut not allF of these details are>
however> to 7e found in a C..C moderatel3 o7scure American 7ook E2. <. 0m3th)s ?ree-
Melic PoetsF> a presentation cop3 of which Professor Kerrall> the ostensi7le
communicator> had used in the preparation of some lectures.
;ow there is no dou7t that if "rs <illett was consciousl3 and deli7eratel3 dishonest> we
can readil3 account for the material ostensi7l3 communicated in this case. An3
reasona7l3 intelligent person could have put together a puGGle like this after a moderate
period of hard research in a large li7rar3> or after a piece of luck in a second-hand
7ookshop Esuch as finding 0m3th)s 7ook and following up the leads contained thereinF.
;o test phrase to which the communicator had to respond was presented to "rs <illett at
the outsetN she was free to introduce whatever su7Ject-matter came readiest to hand.
There is> however> no evidence of "rs <illett)s dishonest3 in this or an3 other case> so
that the h3pothesis has no ground in esta7lished fact> 7ut is instead an assumption 7ased
onl3 upon the supposed antecedent implausi7ilit3 of the alternatives. This> as I have
pointed out 7efore> is never a satisfactor3 reason for adopting a theor3.
If we reJect the theor3 of deli7erate deception 73 "rs <illett> we seem forced towards
some form of 10P theor3N for cr3ptomnesia Elatent memor3F concerning o7scure points
of classical scholarship hardl3 seems a likel3 possi7ilit3 in a person of "rs <illett)s
known reading ha7its. <e might tr3 supposing that "rs <illett> scanning clairvo3antl3
around for likel3 material> happened upon the relevant page of 0m3th)s ?ree- Melic
Poets, or that in her telepathic investigations of the contents of suita7le minds> she
chanced upon that of a classical scholar who had read and assimilated this work. 0he
e:tracted the Juice from her chosen source> and Eat a purel3 unconscious levelF concocted
the 'literar3 puGGle). <e have reached this point so often 7efore that it grows wearisome.
There is no independent evidence for such 'super-10P). *lairvo3ance> indeed> we can
rule out immediatel3> 7ecause 0m3th)s 7ook> though in derivative accounts of this case
often represented as containing all the relevant facts on a single page> does not in realit3
do so. The information which it gives on page %+ would need to 7e supplemented 73 an
informed classical scholar 7efore the 1ar of (ion3sius puGGle could 7e constructed from
it. There remains the possi7ilit3 that the information was e:tracted telepathicall3 from the
mind of a classical scholar. 9ut the communicating intelligences did not Just present a
package of factsN despite the apparent difficulties of communication> the3 deplo3ed C55C
their facts intelligentl3 in the manner of persons who were masters of their su7Ject4the
e:tract given a7ove from the sitting of ! August .& will perhaps conve3 something of
what I mean. <e come 7ack to the fundamental point that I raised earlier4to acMuire a
set of facts a7out> from or related to a certain topic or area is not 73 itself to 7ecome a
master of that topic or an adept in that area. "aster3 is achieved 73 use and intelligent
practice> not 73 swallowing and regurgitating facts.
0hortl3 after #. <. 9alfour)s paper on the 1ar of (ion3sius case was pu7lished came a
7rief 7ut incisive critical note 73 a classical scholar> "iss F. "elian 0tawell E&5F. "iss
0tawell pointed out that "rs <illett> though not a classical scholar> no dou7t had some
relevant knowledge latent in her mind. 0he pro7a7l3 knew the stor3 of =l3sses and
Pol3phemus> and ma3 have heard that 0. 2. 9utcher had written on Aristotle)s Poetics$
Perhaps this latent knowledge could have 7een first stimulated and then augmented 73
the e:ternal influence of Ethis will not come as a surpriseRF "rs Kerrall)s su7conscious
mind. Pro7a7l3 "rs Kerrall had at some time or another come across all the necessar3
information. There are Muite a few scattered references to Philo:enus in classical
literature> and students commonl3 follow such things up when the3 come across them.
"iss 0tawell herself had run into much of the relevant material. ;one the less it did not
spring to her mind when she heard 9alfour)s paper. It is reasona7le to assume that "rs
Kerrall had similarl3 come across it and forgotten it. And surel3 she could have had a
look Esu7seMuentl3 forgottenF at her hus7and)s presentation cop3 of 0m3th)s ?ree- Melic
PoetsO And the '0evens) case Ementioned in the previous chapterF shows that "rs
Kerrall)s su7conscious was capa7le of influencing the productions of other automatists.
"iss 0tawell added that 0m3th)s 7ook had now 7een adopted as a standard te:t7ook at
*am7ridge. 2ers is a persuasive case> and 9alfour)s repl3 to it E&cF does not seem to me
to 7e effective. 0till> we must 7eware of constantl3 treating the supposed prodigious
powers of "rs Kerrall)s su7liminal self as a universal solvent for disposing of cases
which might otherwise endanger the super-10P h3pothesis. There is little clear evidence
that she Eor an3one elseF possessed the powers for the imagined use of which she has so
often 7een incriminated. Let us spell out what these putative powers must have 7een: "rs
Kerrall must have 7een:
EaF An immense repositor3 of information which she could not consciousl3 call to mind.
C5C E7F A successful automatist in her own right.
EcF *apa7le of telepathicall3 7ut unconsciousl3 controlling in some detail the writings of
other automatists> including "rs <illettN of 7eing> in effect> an unconscious 'living
communicator) operating 73 means of 'active) telepath3.
EdF *apa7le of deciding at an unconscious level what material she might appropriatel3
incorporate in her own scripts> and what material would Elike classical knowledgeF 7e
more convincing if palmed off on other automatists.
EeF *apa7le of acting as a living communicator under false names> her real identit3 and
indeed her 'presence) remaining unknown to the automatists she influenced.
EfF EIn some casesF capa7le of telepathicall3 or clairvo3antl3 apprehending Eagain
unconsciousl3F what was said to the distant automatist and of unconsciousl3 inducing in
that automatist a relevant repl3 Muickl3 enough to conduct a conversation with that
automatist)s sitter.
In a later chapter I shall sa3 a little on the important topic of living communicatorsN 7ut I
do not know of an3 case of ostensi7le communication from the living which would
Justif3 us 73 analog3 in attri7uting all these e:traordinar3 powers to "rs Kerrall.
8enogloss"
Interest in the apparent post-mortem e:hi7ition of characteristic skills has in recent 3ears
focused especiall3 on cases of ostensi7le :enogloss3N on cases> that is> in which persons
Eusuall3 mediums> or the su7Jects of reincarnation casesF have spoken a real language
Enot an imaginar3 one> as in 'glossalalia)F> of which the3 have ordinaril3 no knowledge
Esee especiall3 &$fF. E*ompara7le cases in which the language is written are called
':enograph3)> 7ut I shall neglect this distinction.F 0uch cases are o7viousl3 of crucial
importance to the present discussion. Imagine> for instance> that a mediumistic
communicator> who has> for preference> given some factual 'proofs of identit3)> purports
to speak through a medium in his own native language. 2e does so fluentl3> maintaining
long and grammatical conversations with detailed understanding on 7oth sides. Het the
language is one which the medium Muite certainl3 does not know. *ould we plausi7l3
argue that the medium acMuired her transient linguistic skill 73 10PO
0everal decades of fairl3 intensive la7orator3 investigations of 10P have not ena7led us
to fi: an3 clear limits to its possi7le scope. If there C5!C are distances too great for 10P to
transcend> or 'targets) too comple: for it to grasp> we have not discovered what the3 are.
There seems no reason to suppose that linguistic facts would not 7e as much within its
reach as an3 other kind of fact. /r at an3 rate we should 7e ill-advised to den3 the
possi7ilit3 if the alternative is so difficult an h3pothesis as survival. There are in fact
some e:perimental findings E!-aF> together with a few anecdotes> which suggest that
su7Jects ma3 grasp through 10P the meaning of individual words in a language unknown
to them. And if word-meanings can 7e thus learned> wh3 not grammatical rulesO
<e are now> of course> 7ack again with the point which I raised when discussing the
imaginar3 e:ample of the mediumistic communicator whose 7ridge-pla3ing skills had not
deserted him at death. The a7ilit3 to pla3 7ridge well is not simpl3 a matter of learning
Ewhether normall3 or 73 10PF the rules Econsidered as a set of factsF together with the
precepts given in some manual. It can onl3 7e acMuired 73 practising intelligentl3 until
things fall into place. And it is the same with learning a language. I might stud3 Esa3F a
te:t7ook of #erman> and learn innumera7le word-meanings Esuch as that Fehler is the
#erman for 'mistake)> and Pfote the #erman for 'paw)F> together with all sorts of trick3
grammatical rules a7out the formation of passive tenses> the word-order in su7ordinate
clauses> and so on and so on. Perhaps I could even learn these things 73 10P directed
upon the te:t7ook or upon the mind of a teacher of #erman Ethere is no evidence
whatsoever that 10P of this degree occurs> 7ut that is not the present pointF. 9ut
knowledge of facts to do with word-meanings and grammatical rules Eknowledge that1,
while it might help me to 7ecome a fluent #erman-speaker> would not immediatel3
transform me into one> would not 73 itself give me the skill Eknowledge ho)1 of speaking
#erman. 1ver3 schoolchild who has had to learn the grammar and voca7ular3 of a
foreign language 73 rote is well aware of this gap4a gap that can onl3 7e crossed 73
intelligent practice> prefera7l3 with accomplished speakers of the language in Muestion.
The gap would e:ist whether or not one)s factual knowledge of the elements of the
language were acMuired ordinaril3 or 73 10P. Thus cases of fluent :enogloss34were
such to occur4might in the right circumstances constitute strong evidence against the
super-10P h3pothesis. For we have Eso far as I am awareF no clear evidence> e.g. from
spontaneous cases> to suggest that comple: skills ma3 7e suddenl3 acMuired 73 a process
of e:trasensor3 induction from persons alread3 possessing C5$C them> and then as
suddenl3 vanish again. I have not heard> for e:ample> of an3 1nglish traveller in darkest
<ales who has une:pectedl3 found himself a7le to speak and understand <elsh> and has
then lost the a7ilit3 on recrossing into 1ngland.
<hat evidence> then> do we actuall3 have for :enogloss3 in a mediumistic or related
conte:tO The answer> I think> is not a great deal> or rather not a great deal that has 7een
satisfactoril3 recorded and anal3sed. <hat evidence there is ma3 7e convenientl3 taken
under four headings> of which the first three ma3 7e treated ver3 7riefl3.
. In some cases a mediumistic communicator> though una7le to speak a foreign language
known to him in life> has shown some understanding of words or phrases spoken in that
language. Thus "rs Piper)s supposed French control> (r Phinuit> was occasionall3 a7le
to understand 7its of spoken French> even though himself a7le to speak onl3 occasional
clich\s. Another control of "rs Piper)s was a7le to translate the first few words of the
Lord)s Pra3er in #reek E!> pp. %&L%-F> 7ut the similarit3 of the first words Epater
hemonF to the first words of the 7etter known Latin Pater ;oster ma3 have provided the
clue.
!. In a num7er of cases a communicator has correctl3 used single words or ver3 short
phrases of a language unknown to the medium. For instance> some Italian and 2awaiian
words were on occasion spoken through "rs Piper E++7> pp. %+L%-> %-5L%-!F> and
(utch words E$+F through "rs 8osalie Thompson E7. -+-F> a 9ritish medium studied 73
"3ers and Piddington.
$. <e have a few e:amples of what (ucasse E$%7F calls 'recitative :enogloss3) in a
mediumistic or similar conte:t. In 'recitative :enogloss3) the su7Ject repeats> as it were
73 rote> fragments of a strange language which he does not necessaril3 understand. In
most such cases cr3ptomnesia Elatent memor3F is difficult to rule out Esee> e.g.> $5F.
There are in the literature one or two curious cases of adult or elderl3 persons in a state of
illness or delirium repeating phrases> sentences or passages from languages the3 had
known or heard as children> 7ut had su7seMuentl3 forgotten Ee.g. %$F. I shall descri7e a
case of recitative :enogloss3 in *hapter Twelve.
<here cases of categories to $ are not due to cr3ptomnesia> it does not seem impossi7le
Ethough it ma3 7e implausi7leF to frame an e:planation of them in terms of 10P.
=nderstanding of phrases in C5%C foreign languages might 7e gained 73 telepathicall3 or
clairvo3antl3 grasping the intention of the speaker. Isolated words> phrases or sentences
might 7e telepathicall3 or clairvo3antl3 cogniGed> with or without their meanings> or> if
'active agent) telepath3 is possi7le> might 7e inJected into the sensitive)s mind 73 the
endeavours of another person. It is with cases of the remaining categor3 that the sort of
difficulties for the super-10P h3pothesis which I descri7ed a7ove 7ecome acute.
%. Lastl3 we have cases of what (ucasse E$%7F calls responsive :enogloss3> cases in
which the su7Ject converses intelligentl3 in the foreign language. Xuite a few accounts of
such cases are to 7e found in the literature of 0piritualism> 7ut the standards of recording
and investigation are rarel3 such as to carr3 weight. An apparentl3 remarka7le case is that
of the automatist '8osemar3)> studied 73 <ood and 2ulme E,5N ,$aN ,$7F 8osemar3)s
guide ';ona) claimed that she had 7een a 9a73lonian princess who had married the
Pharaoh Amenhotep III Ec. %5L$,& 9*F. In addition to giving some highl3
circumstantial accounts of her life in 1g3pt> and of her relationship with 'Kola)> a
previous incarnation of 8osemar3> ;ona communicated over a period of 3ears a ver3
large num7er of apparentl3 correct phrases and short sentences in the ancient 1g3ptian
language. 8osemar3 heard these phrases 'clairaudientl3) and then spoke them out loud.
The3 were taken down phoneticall3 73 (r <ood> who su7mitted them for stud3 to a
scholar interested in the ancient 1g3ptian language> A. @. 2ulme. <ood later studied this
language himself. The late Professor *. @. (ucasse> who su7mitted the case to a close
anal3sis> concludes E$%a> p. !&+F: 'The :enogloss3 S does provide strong evidence that
the capacit3 once possessed 73 some person to converse e:tensivel3> purposefull3>
intelligentl3> and intelligi7l3 in the 1g3ptian language of three thousand 3ears ago> or
an3wa3 in a language closel3 related to it> have survived 73 man3 centuries the death of
that person)s 7od3.) I think> however> that (ucasse)s positive verdict is premature> and
that one should suspend Judgement concerning this case until such time Eif everF as it has
7een independentl3 e:amined 73 an acknowledged authorit3 on the ancient 1g3ptian
language. For it is far from clear how accepta7le were 2ulme)s Mualifications.
"an3 of the alleged cases of responsive :enogloss3 have involved 'direct voice)
mediums> and have taken place in the darkness which the C5&C spirits seem to find
essential for manipulating the speaking trumpets and for constructing 'voice 7o:es) out of
ectoplasm. In a volume E5$F concerning the American direct voice medium> "rs 1tta
<riedt EI Muoted in *hapter Five a7ove 0ir <illiam 9arrett)s account of an e:perience
with herF we are told that there were occasions on which the deceased friends and
relations of ;orwegian-> 0panish-> *roatian-> (utch-> Italian-> #erman-> French->
2industani-> <elsh-> 0er7ian-> and #aelic-speaking sitters conversed with them on
appropriate topics in their own languages. "an3 of these sitters supplied signed and dated
statements.
=nfortunatel3 we do not have gramophone or stenographic recordings of these voices>
and it is e:tremel3 difficult to know what to sa3 a7out them. A similar diversit3 of
languages was allegedl3 heard at the seances of another American direct voice medium>
#eorge Kaliantine E&aN &7> +-F. A <elsh sitter> "r *aradoc 1vans> spoke at a sitting on
!, Fe7ruar3 .!% to the soi-disant spirit of his father. Asked in <elsh for the location of
the house in which he died> "r 1vans) father replied E&a> pp. !5L!F: '=ch 7en 3r
avon. "ae steps4lawer iawn4rhwng 3 t3 ar rheol. Pa 7ath 3r 3d3ch 3n gof3nO H chwi
3n m3nd i weled a t3 7o7 tro 3r r3d3ch 3n 3 dre)> which means> we are told> 'A7ove the
river. There are steps4man3 steps47etween the house and the road. <h3 do 3ou askO
Hou go to see the house ever3 time 3ou are in the town.) At a Kaliantine sitting in ;ew
Hork> an e:pert in oriental languages> (r ;. <h3mant> conversed in an archaic *hinese
with an alleged A)ung-fu-tGu upon points of te:tual scholarship. <h3mant prints E,5F
what appear to 7e contemporar3 notes in 1nglish of this voice)s *hinese
pronouncements.
=nfortunatel3 our assessment of these e:citing claims is 7ound to 7e affected 73 the fact
that Kaliantine was several times detected in fraud of the grossest kind E&cN $-cF. A
recording of his '*hinese) voice had the appropriate intonation> 7ut could not 7e
understood 73 *hinese speakers> including (r <h3mant. Kaliantine had undou7tedl3 the
gift of catching the intonation and rh3thm of various foreign languages> and it was also
his ha7it to repeat the last phrase spoken to him 73 his interlocutor. The pro7a7ilit3 seems
to 7e that e:pectant sitters heard much more in his 'foreign language) utterances than was
actuall3 there. Few people realiGe> perhaps> how prone is the human ear to hear articulate
words in all sorts of murmurings and stra3 sounds with the right kind of periodicit3N at
least as prone as is the e3e to see faces in ink7lots. This point is clearl3 7rought out in
(avid 1llis)s E$.F C5+C recent investigations of the '8audive voices) Ethe voices>
allegedl3 of deceased persons> picked up 73 tape recorders under certain conditionsF. In
one '8audive voice) case that I o7served personall3 the sitters were interpreting as
comprehensi7le whispered words sounds made 73 their own fingers unconsciousl3
ru77ing the case of a small tape recorder Ethe microphone was integral with the caseF.
The most detailed studies so far of instances of responsive :enogloss3 are those 73
Professor Ian 0tevenson of the cases of '@ensen)> '#retchen)> and '0harada). All three of
these cases have what is apparentl3 a reincarnationist rather than a mediumistic setting>
7ut in none has the communicating personalit3 7een identified with some person known
once to have lived. 93 far the most remarka7le is that of 0harada> which I discuss in
*hapter 1leven 7elow. /f the other two the case of @ensen E&$fF is the more interesting.
'@ensen) is the name of the 0wedish speaking personalit3 that emerged spontaneousl3 in
.&&L+ during h3pnotic age regression e:periments with T. 1.> the $,-3ear-old 1nglish-
speaking wife of a Philadelphia doctor. The h3pnotist was the lad3)s hus7and> A. 1. The
language spoken 73 @ensen> and the details he gave of his life> were consistent with a
previous e:istence in seventeenth centur3 0weden. Three 0wedish speakers who
conversed with @ensen> and four who have su7seMuentl3 listened to the tape recordings>
agreed that he conversed sensi7l3> grammaticall3 and with good pronunciation in
0wedish> though his remarks were usuall3 short. An anal3sis of four tape-recorded
sessions showed that> if dou7tful words> and words which sound alike in 0wedish and in
1nglish were e:cluded> @ensen introduced into one conversation at least si:t3 0wedish
words not previousl3 used in his presence 73 his interviewers.
0tevenson considers in great detail the possi7ilit3 that "rs T. 1. might have acMuired a
knowledge of 0wedish 73 normal means. 2is conclusions are entirel3 negative. 0ome
3ears after the @ensen e:periments> however> T. 1. developed a more conventional kind of
mediumship> with a control and various communicators. (uring this period> evidence
came to hand that on two occasions she had 'got up) in advance the material for some
'scientific) messages which were delivered at her sittings. 0tevenson advances reasons for
supposing that she did so in a dissociated state for which she was afterwards amnesic.
There was nothing to suggest that she had ever entered such states prior to the @ensen
e:periments.
"r Ian <ilson has latel3 argued E,!> p. $F that this case ma3 7e C5,C entirel3 reJected.
2e Muotes part of 0tevenson)s remarks on the 'scientific message) im7roglio Just
mentioned> and goes on: 'The identities of the doctor and his wife have 7ecome known to
me> and suffice it to sa3 that the case does not merit the serious consideration which
0tevenson advances for it.) /f course it will not 'suffice) to sa3 this. I cannot imagine
wh3 an3 reasona7le person should attach more weight to "r <ilson)s one dismissive
sentence than to the twent3 pages which 0tevenson devotes to the Muestion of whether or
not T. 1. could have learned her 0wedish 73 normal means.
A curious point to do with responsive :enogloss3 is the following. If I am right in
proposing that skills> linguistic or other> cannot 7e acMuired 73 10P> then the3 o7viousl3
cannot 7e acMuired 73 telepath3 with deceased persons Eif such a thing 7e conceiva7leF.
2ence we should not e:pect a mental medium whose gifts are essentiall3 those of
telepath3 with the living or with the dead to e:hi7it a fluent responsive :enogloss3 Eas
distinct perhaps from the a7ilit3 to understand or hesitatingl3 utter the odd phrase or word
of a foreign language unknown to herF. This might 7e thought 73 some to accord with the
fact that most apparent cases of responsive :enogloss3 come either from direct voice
mediums or from persons ostensi7l3 reincarnated.
I 7egan this chapter 73 mentioning cases in which mediumistic communicators have so
e:actl3 reproduced the mannerisms> gestures> intonations> humour> etc.> characteristic of
them in life> that friends and relations were overwhelmingl3 impressed. I went on to
descri7e e:amples of the apparent post-mortem manifestation of characteristic skills and
accomplishments. And in previous chapters I descri7ed at some length evidence for the
survival of memories and characteristic purposes. 9ut Eand this is a point almost
impossi7le to put over in so 7rief a spaceF in certain rather striking cases4the #P case>
sa3> or the AK9 case> or the "3ers communicator of the cross-correspondences4these
various elements were> according to those 7est Mualified to Judge> #lended together in a
characteristic and recogniGa7le wa3. 0omething that is almost a whole personalit3 had
7een 7uilt up.
;ow the a7ilit3 to construct> or dramatiGe> or imitate a whole personalit3 out of these
elements is itself a skill which cannot 7e reduced to mere knowledge of facts concerning
the various elements. Let me illustrate what I mean. At one period of m3 life I spent a
good deal of time stud3ing the correspondence> diaries> papers> etc.> of 2enr3 0idgwick
and F. <. 2. "3ers. I learned a great man3 facts C5-C a7out their private lives> their
friends> their ha7its and their domestic arrangementsN far more facts than it is remotel3
plausi7le to suppose that the greatest sensitive could have o7tained 73 10P. 9ut no
amount of such factual knowledge Eknowledge thatF would per se have ena7led me to
imitate them Ea skill> knowledge ho)F in a wa3 that their close friends would have found
an3thing other than a7surd or pathetic. "3 performance would have 7een infinitel3 less
impressive than those of "rs Piper or "rs Leonard at their 7est4indeed at their worstR It
might 7e pointed out that I am not e:actl3 the sort of person who gives impersonations at
parties to the accompaniment of loud applause. I am not talented in that direction. 9ut
could even a skilled impressionist> of whom we have seen so man3 on stage and
television> have done much 7etterO 0uch a person would presuma7l3 have generaliGed
skills related to his profession> and would no dou7t attempt something if pressed. 9ut
impersonating> sa3> "r 1dward 2eath> is none the less a different s-ill from
impersonating 0ir 2arold <ilson. 0ome impersonators might 7e a7le to 'do) one 7ut not
the other. And the skills of doing a 2eath-impersonation and of doing a <ilson-
impersonation have to 7e acMuired separatel3 73 listening to tape and video recordings>
practising> recording the practice attempts> practising again> and so on. The3 don)t arise
directl3 from knowing facts a#out 2eath)s and <ilson)s lives> mannerisms> voices> ha7its
of thought> turns of phrase> etc. 1ven if we grant Ewhich is a rash thing to doF that such
mediums as "rs Piper and "rs Leonard ma3 have had enormousl3 e:tended powers of
10P> there still remains an immense pro7lem over how the3 translated the factual
knowledge the3 were thus a7le to o7tain into convincing impersonations of deceased
people well known to their sitters.
C5.C
9 !he #ontrols of ediums
In the preceding five chapters> I have placed m3self> as it were> on the side of the angels.
I have 7een principall3 concerned to set forth e:amples of the ostensi7le evidence for
survival from the phenomena of mediumship. "3 conclusions have 7een> on the whole>
favoura7le to this evidence> in that I could find no read3 formula for e:plaining all of it
awa3. The time has now come to change sides and undertake the role of devil)s advocate.
In this chapter> and in *hapters Ten and Thirteen 7elow> I shall introduce and evaluate
various considerations which ma3 7e thought either to undermine large chunks of the
evidence for survival> or else more directl3 to prove that survival is impossi7le. EPerhaps
'devil)s advocate) is the wrong phrase> since the devil might 7e supposed to have his own
reasons for favouring survival.F
An initial pro7lem with this enterprise is that of finding a starting point. "an3 of those
who have inveighed most strongl3 against survivalistic views and the alleged evidence
for survival displa3 a readiness to accept inadeMuate evidence Muite as marked as that
which the3 so freel3 Eand often so rightl3F attri7ute to their opponents Efor an e:ample
see %%7> pp. $+L$+$F. EIt can> I think> 7e no freak fact that one of the worst pro-
paraps3cholog3 7ooks of recent 3ears> and one of the worst anti-paraps3cholog3 7ooks>
are 7oth written 73 the same individual.F The most succinct> and the 7est informed>
statement of the case against survival is still the late Professor 1. 8. (odds)s classic paper
'<h3 I do not 7elieve in survival> pu7lished in the Proceedings of the SPR a7out fift3
3ears ago E$$F. I shall 7ase m3 own statement of that case primaril3 upon (odds)s paper>
without> however> giving detailed references to it. The present and succeeding chapters
will attempt a critiMue and assessment of the ostensi7le evidence for survival provided 73
the phenomena of mental mediumship.
As a classical scholar and historian of ;eoplatonism> (odds was ver3 impressed 73
certain historical considerations. If the departed can C5C indeed communicate with the
living through the agenc3 of mental mediums> wh3 did the3 show so little sign of doing
so prior to the start of the modern 0piritualist movement in -%-O There was no lack of
the necessar3 machiner3 or the necessar3 interest on the part of the living> for
S the evidence collected in /esterreich)s 7ook on Possession shows that the mediumistic
trance is a fairl3 constant phenomenon in all ages and among all peoplesN and curiosit3
a7out the state of the dead has left its mark alike on the literature of #reek and 8ome> of
the "iddle Ages> and of the 8enaissance. 9ut there is something more singular still. The
two groups of pre-nineteenth centur3 mediums a7out whom we have most information>
the -atochoi of the late #raeco-8oman period and the witches of the si:teenth and
seventeenth centuries Tor rather the 'victims) of the witchesU> while performing a num7er
of the feats performed 73 modern mediums> perversel3 attri7uted them in the one case to
the agenc3 of non-human gods or demons> in the other to the agenc3 of the devil. /nce
again> wh3O E$$> pp. &!L&$F
It seems to me that (odds is here e:aggerating somewhat. 2is remarks hold true mainl3
of <estern 1urope> where unt3pical constraints have operated> and even in <estern
1urope there have 7een nota7le e:ceptions Efor a si:teenth centur3 e:ample see %&> pp.
!$L!,F. There is ever3 reason to suppose that in man3 non-1uropean cultures
mediumistic communication with the dead has 7een practised for centuries in the forms
touched upon in *hapter Two a7ove. It seems to 7e> and to have 7een> a ver3 widespread
practice indeed. It is true> of course> that little in the wa3 of 'evidence for survival) has
come down to us from these cultures> 7ut that could well 7e 7ecause> for totall3 different
reasons> neither the mem7ers of the culture> nor visiting travellers> anthropologists> etc.>
have felt called upon to record it.
0till> even if (odds)s point is not proved> there is a related point which carries some
weight. If most people survive the transition of death with their memories> purposes>
affections and intellectual skills more or less intact> we might e:pect them> or at least a
su7stantial num7er of them> to tr3 as hard as the3 can to communicate with loved ones
left 7ehind should communication 7e possi7le. <h3 are drop-in communicators not all
the time insinuating messages for friends and relations through whatever mediums ma3
7e availa7leO drop-in communicators are apparentl3 rather rare> and I do not know of a
single instance in which a drop-in communicator has tried to put the same message
through two different mediums. Het surel3 we might CC e:pect that some of them
would tr3. In fact cases in which an3 kind of communicator has convincingl3 manifested
through more than one medium without the presence of the same sitter are fairl3
uncommon> though we have some e:amples. The "3ers and #urne3 communicators of
the cross-correspondences did so> 7ut the3 were of course well-known personalitiesN so
did "rs Piper)s #P control EI have not> however> seen an3 useful comparative anal3sis of
the communicationsF. In short: visit a good medium> and there is a reasona7le chance that
3ou will hear from the deceased person 3ou desire to contact. That deceased person is>
however> rather unlikel3 to send 3ou a message out of the 7lue. /ther things 7eing eMual>
this might 7e held to suggest that whatever ma3 7e involved in mediumistic
communication> it is factors in this world that are crucial rather than factors in the ne:t.
A repl3 to this argument might> for instance> e:plore other possi7le reasons for the
seeming scarcit3 of drop-in communicators Ecompare *hapter Five a7oveF> or contrast
mediumistic communicators with apparitions of the dead. Apparitions of the dead ver3
often come as unwanted intruders upon the peace of mind of perfect strangers> 3et refuse
to appear for those who deli7eratel3 seek them out4especiall3 if the3 happen to 7e
paraps3chologists.
S when the glum 8esearchers come
The 7rutes of 7oge3s4go.
An issue of more su7stantial importance> and one which has e:cited a great deal of
argument> is that of the status of the 'controls) of trance mediums. Leading trance
mediums> such as "rs Piper> "rs Leonard> "rs 0oule and "rs #arrett> have provided
what must surel3 7e the most impressive of all the mediumistic evidence for survival.
Trance mediums tend to have one or a few regular controls Ethat is spirits who ostensi7l3
'take over) the medium)s 7od3 for e:tended periods> and communicate through itF
amongst whom will 7e the medium)s own 'guide) Espirits who> like "rs Piper)s Phinuit or
"rs Leonard)s Feda> look after the medium)s interests> and act as interviewers or masters
of ceremonies on 'the other side)F. It has often 7een suggested that the controls of trance
mediums are simpl3 secondar3 personalities> to 7e compared with the different phases of
the various well-known cases of h3sterical multiple personalit3 Efor an illuminating
histor3 of this idea see -F. This tactic might well 7e o7Jected to as e:plaining one C!C
phenomenon of dou7tful status in terms of anotherN 7ut one implication is fairl3 clear.
Ps3chiatrists these da3s tend to argue that earlier investigators greatl3 e:aggerated> and
sometimes 73 their own pro7ings greatl3 increased> the differences 7etween the various
personalities which manifest in such cases. At root there is onl3 one personalit3>
undergoing sudden and rather sharp changes Eno dou7t of pathological originF. If this is
the correct wa3 of looking at the controls of trance mediums> these controls4even
though the3 ma3 e:hi7it flashes of paranormal knowledge4are not entities independent
of the medium.
It is possi7le to pile up arguments on 7oth sides of this Muestion. Thus in favour of the
multiple personalit3 theor3 we ma3 sa3:
. It is possi7le to construct a whole series of intermediate cases which so to speak 7ridge
the gap 7etween> sa3> "rs Piper)s and "rs Leonard)s most realistic controls and instances
of undou7ted multiple personalit3. E0ee for instance 5a> I> pp. $%L,5> !.-L$+-.F
!. There are o7vious similarities 7etween the somewhat childish guides of certain
mediums E"rs Leonard)s Feda for e:ample4see +> pp. $%-L$&.F and the rather
mischievous and capricious secondar3 personalities which have emerged in some cases of
h3sterical multiple personalit3.
$. In at least one case E(oris Fischer4see ,7N !&aN !&7N !&fF the su7Ject of a classic
case of multiple personalit3 afterwards developed into a versatile medium. E2owever it
must 7e added that this happened after she had 7een relieved of h3sterical s3mptoms> and
had 7ecome for the time 7eing apparentl3 a normal person.F
Against the multiple personalit3 theor3 we can advance the following considerations.
. The num7er of distinct personalities which ma3 control a trance medium during the
course of her career greatl3 e:ceeds an3thing for which the annals of multiple personalit3
provide a parallelN nor do I know of a complete parallel for the simultaneous and
apparentl3 Muite full manifestation of two personalities Eone through the hand and one
through the voiceF> which occurred Muite commonl3 during one period of "rs Piper)s
mediumship.
!. There does not seem to have 7een an3thing distur7ed a7out the normal personalities of
"rs Piper> "rs Leonard> and other leading trance mediums. EIn *hapter Five I made a
similar point a7out the C$C shamans and witchdoctors who fulfil analogous roles in other
societies.F
$. The comings and goings of most mediumistic controls> unlike those of secondar3
personalities> are strictl3 circumscri7ed.
I cannot see much hope of reaching a decision on the 7asis of these general o7servations.
Attempts have 7een made> with "rs #arrett and "rs Leonard> to throw light on the issue
73 administering various ps3chological tests to the medium in her normal state> and when
controlled 73 her guide. *ertain differences emerged> 7ut the work has 7een criticiGed>
and it is unclear how the results should 7e interpreted E!!aN !!7N !!cN !$N &.aF. To get
an3 further we must look at in-depth ps3chological studies of individual trance mediums.
=nfortunatel3 these are not numerous. 93 far the most important is "rs 1. ". 0idgwick)s
ver3 length3 investigation of the phenomenolog3 of "rs Piper)s mediumship E%&7N cf.
%&aF.
"rs 0idgwick discusses in considera7le detail what the Piper controls and
communicators sa3 a7out themselves> their situations> and the process of communication.
"uch of this is in line with the general traditions of <estern 0piritualism. The3 one and
all represent themselves as autonomous 7eings Muite separate from the medium. The3
have 7odies of a su7stance more su7tle than that of our earthl3 ones> so that the3 can
change shape and siGe and transport themselves great distances ver3 rapidl3. The3 sa3
that to them the medium appears as> or surrounded 73> a 7all of light> to which the3 are
attracted. The3 have to 'enter the light) in order to communicate. The light seems to 7e
regarded as a sort of energ3 or power which makes communication possi7le. 0ometimes
it seems to 7e thought of in terms of the notion of a luminiferous ether which was utiliGed
in the ph3sics of the da3> at other times we get such a7surd suggestions as that the light is
made of 'air> light and h3drogen) or of 'vacium) TsicU.
<hen a spirit enters the light he is a7le> 73 means that are not made altogether clear> to
operate the medium)s organism more or less effectivel3> and to 7ecome aware of the sitter
and the medium)s surroundings through her sense organs> especiall3 her ears Eher e3es
7eing usuall3 shutF. 0ometimes> however> controls speak as if the3 could directl3 see the
seance room> or for that matter other and more distant earth scenesN and the3 regularl3
speak as if the3 could 7oth see and hear and so transmit messages from other deceased
persons in the hereafter.
C%C An o7vious Muestion that arises at this point is that of what happens to "rs Piper> or
to the spirit of "rs Piper> when her 7od3 is 7eing operated 73 deceased persons. The
stor3 told 73 her controls is that as a spirit moves into her organism> she herself moves
out of it> and into the spirit world. 0he is freMuentl3 said to remain connected to her 7od3
73 a slender cord> perhaps made of the m3sterious 'light) referred to a7ove. If this cord
were 7roken> she would not 7e a7le to return to her 7od3 and it would die. The cord is
sometimes assigned other functions. *ontrols are occasionall3 represented as sliding
down it in order to enter the medium)s organism> and it is also more than once said to
function as a sort of telephone line 73 which non-controlling communicators can speak to
controls occup3ing the 7od3.
"rs Piper herself> on awakening from her trance> would sometimes for a short while
retain an apparent memor3 of what had 7efallen her in the spirit world> and even seem to
have some lingering awareness of that world. In this 'waking stage) she would sometimes
repeat EcorrectF names given to her while 'in) the spirit world> and on a num7er of
occasions she was a7le to pick out from photographs deceased persons whom she had
ostensi7l3 met there.
"rs Piper)s controls thus apparentl3 regard themselves as entities completel3 separate
from the medium> and in support of their contention the3 present a detailed picture of
their own activities whilst controlling and communicating. *an we accept their own
estimate of themselvesO "rs 0idgwick argues that we can not. There are man3 points
which weigh against it.
To 7egin with> there are a num7er of controls who are Muite certainl3 fictitious. Phinuit is
one. *hlorine is another. Among others are> for instance> a @ulius *aeGar TsicU and a 0ir
<alter 0cott so totall3 unlike the originals that one can hardl3 even regard them as
impersonations. The 'Imperator) 7and of controls also 7elong in this group. The3 claimed
identit3 with the controls of the same pseudon3ms who had manifested through the
famous 9ritish medium> <. 0tainton "oses Esee +5F. The3 were never a7le to esta7lish
this identit3> 7ut haGarded all kinds of incorrect and contradictor3 guesses at their own
'real) names. 1ven the most life-like and realistic controls> such as #P> show signs of
7eing impersonations Enot deli7erate onesF. The3 7reak down at Just the point where "rs
Piper)s own stock of knowledge runs out> viG. when the3 are reMuired to talk coherentl3
of science> philosoph3 and literature Ewhich the living #P could readil3 have doneF.
C&C "rs Piper)s controls sometimes e:cuse their shortcomings on the grounds that
coming into the medium)s 'light) has a confusing effect upon them> or that the3 cannot
manipulate her organism in wa3s to which it is not accustomed. These e:cuses are>
however> not adeMuate. The confusion which o7literates the controls) grasp of science and
philosoph3 does not prevent them from spouting reams of pompous nonsense upon
religious and philosophical topics and presenting it as profoundest truth> sometimes in the
teeth of the sitters) MueriesN so that we have to attri7ute to them not Just confusion 7ut
downright tale-spinning> which was certainl3 not a ha7it of the purported communicators
in life> nor 3et of the normal "rs Piper.
0imilar tale-spinning tendencies are manifested in the wa3 in which controls cover up
their mistakes. *ontrols will> generall3 speaking> not admit their 7lunders. The3 will
rationaliGe> e:plain awa3> concoct an3 e:cuse> however tenuous and childish. All other
considerations seem su7ordinated to an overwhelming urge to keep the drama flowing
without pause or hiccup.
That the trance drama of communication with the departed reall3 is onl3 a piece of pla3-
acting 73 the medium Enot a deli7erate piece of pla3-acting4call it rather the enactment
of a dreamF is strongl3 suggested 73 the following further consideration. 0ome controls>
like #P> or 9ennie @unot> are ver3 life-like> and in fact convinced man3 people of their
authenticit3. /thers> however> like @ulius *aeGar> 0ir <alter 0cott> and the #eorge 1liot
who claimed she had met Adam 9ede in the ne:t world> are so implausi7le> and so stilted
and st3liGed in their diction and sentiments> that no one could possi7l3 regard them as
an3thing other than fictions. Het the most plausi7le communicators will in the firmest
tones guarantee the authenticit3 of the least plausi7le ones> so that the authenticit3 of the
former is ine:trica7l3 and disadvantageousl3 tied up with the authenticit3 of the latter>
and it 7ecomes a7undantl3 clear that the maintenance of the drama is all-important and
that ever3 one of the controls> from #P down to @ulius *aeGar> is part and parcel of the
pla3wright)s creative fantas3.
If further proof were wanted that the controls and communicators are simpl3 aspects of
"rs Piper herself> it can perhaps 7e found in features of the diction and wording of the
communications. It ma3 7e found for instance in the wa:ing and waning of the use 73 the
Imperator 9and and others of archaic forms of speech. Although mem7ers of the 9and
claimed to 7e E7ehind their pseudon3msF 2omer and =l3sses> "rs Piper Ea ;ew 1ngland
ProtestantF would naturall3 C+C have e:pected religious leaders to use /ld Testament
forms of speech> and the mistakes made in the handling of the archaic diction would have
7een in accordance with her somewhat limited education.
Again> there was evidence that the various ostensi7l3 separate controls possessed a
common stock of associations> which could hardl3 have 7een the case if the3 had reall3
7een separate personalities. Thus Imperator once called Lodge '*aptain)> which was
Phinuit)s nickname for himN 3et Phinuit never overlapped with the Imperator regime.
0everal communicators showed a somewhat marked interest in clothes and hats> which
would not have 7een characteristic of them in life> 7ut )as characteristic of "rs Piper.
For m3 part I do not see how it is possi7le to dissent from "rs 0idgwick)s conclusion that
the Piper controls were one and all aspects of "rs Piper)s own personalit3.
"rs Piper was without dou7t one of the most remarka7le and the most successful mental
mediums of all time> and it seems highl3 likel3 that if "rs 0idgwick)s conclusions a7out
the status of the Piper-controls are correct> the3 will also hold true of the controls of other
trance mediums. =nfortunatel3 we do not have an3 investigation of the status of "rs
Leonard)s controls compara7le in scope and detail to "rs 0idgwick)s massive stud3 of
the Piper controls. A num7er of papers on the modus operandi of trance communication
through "rs Leonard> together with relevant o7servations from other papers> are
summariGed and criticall3 discussed in a valua7le chapter of *. (. 9road)s "ectures on
Psychical Research E.+!F. "rs Leonard)s controls seem to have 7een fewer in num7er
than "rs Piper)s EFeda stuck to her post throughout "rs Leonard)s careerF> and I have the
impression that the3 were rather less prone to engage in fishing> covering up mistakes>
giving each other spurious testimonials> and the other sorts of activities which> carried out
73 the Piper controls> encouraged "rs 0idgwick to regard them as stage characters in a
drama created 73 the medium. The Leonard controls also give a somewhat more coherent
account of the process of communication> though I can 73 no means reconcile with each
other> or full3 make sense of> their various statements as to how the3 operate the
medium)s organism. ;one the less there are certain hints that in the Leonard mediumship>
as in that of "rs Piper> a dramatic construct is 7eing 7uilt around events which> whatever
their real nature> are not as the3 are made to appear. For instance> Feda often talks as
though she can directl3 see and hear the communicators from whom she rela3s messages.
9ut there is much to show that these claims cannot 7e taken at face value. Thus "rs <.
2. C,C 0alter sa3s E$-7> pp. $5.> $!F of a series of statements made 73 Feda
concerning a communicator su7seMuentl3 said to 7e her mother E"rs KerrallF> '"an3 of
these statements S are trueN the3 contain> however> an admi:ture of such errors as could
hardl3 have arisen had Feda)s knowledge 7een derived from an3 clearl3 apprehended
image or series of images.) And again> 'The general inference which I should draw S is
that a certain amount of veridical information a7out m3 mother was woven 73 Feda into
an imaginar3 picture of an elderl3 widow> 7ased on preconceived ideas of the appearance
such a picture might 7e e:pected to present.)
/f course if we leave the top end of the scale and descend to the 7ottom we find trance
mediums in whom the element of 'veridical information) is largel3 missing> and
imagination reigns supreme. 0uch a medium was the #enevese '2\lZne 0mith)
E*atherine 1lise "ullerF> of whom the 0wiss ps3chologist> Theodore Flourno3 wrote a
remarka7le stud3> From India to the Planet Mars$ Flourno3)s conclusion is that all
2\lZne)s controls are constructs of a somewhat childish dream stratum of her personalit3>
and are> indeed> not separated from her own consciousness '73 an impenetra7le 7arrier>
7ut that osmotic changes are effected from the one to the other). It would> I think> 7e
possi7le to produce a graduated series of cases> from those in which there is no element
of veridicalit3 Esa3 the shamans or witchdoctors who are controlled 73 animals or
godlingsF> through cases> like that of 2\lZne 0mith> in which there is a small admi:ture of
veridicalit3> up to cases like those of "rs Piper and "rs Leonard in which there is a good
deal of veridicalit3> and argue that there is no discontinuit3 marking a changeover from
mediums who in trance e:ercise their own dramatic gifts> eked out perhaps 73 10P> to
those who are 'possessed) 73 alien and intrusive spirits which operate their 7odies
directl3. The ps3chological processes are in all cases at root the same.
It would seem> therefore> that we have to a7andon the idea that the controls of trance
mediums are the spirits of deceased persons temporaril3 controlling a living 7od3. Are we
then forced to adopt some form of the super-10P h3pothesis> to suppose that "rs Piper
and "rs Leonard were a7le to inJect into their dramatic representations of various
deceased persons correct and appropriate information o7tained telepathicall3 from the
minds of living persons or clairvo3antl3 from e:isting recordsO "rs 0idgwick did not
think so. 0he eventuall3 came to 7elieve that 7ehind "rs Piper)s dramatic rendering of
communication from the dead> overshadowing it and C-C somehow directing its course>
there might sometimes lie those same deceased persons who figure as characters in the
drama. The medium writes man3 of the speeches> and ensures continuit3 in the plotN 7ut
some of the lines Eperhaps the most important onesF are filled in 73 outside authors. Let
us call this theor3 the theor3 of 'overshadowing). It seems to 7e a version of it towards
which <illiam @ames moves at the end of his report on "rs Piper)s 2odgson-control E,%>
p. ,F:
1:traneous 'wills to communicate) ma3 contri7ute to the results as well as a 'will to
personate)> and the two kinds of will ma3 7e distinct in entit3> though capa7le of helping
each other out. The will to communicate> in our present instance> would 7e> on the prima
facie view of it> the will of 2odgson)s surviving spirit> and a natural wa3 of representing
the process would 7e to suppose the spirit to have found that 73 pressing> so to speak>
against 'the light)> it can make fragmentar3 gleams and flashes of what it wishes to sa3
mi: with the ru77ish of the trance-talk on this side. The wills might thus strike up a sort
of partnership and reinforce each other. It might even 7e that the 'will to personate) would
7e comparativel3 inert unless it were aroused to activit3 73 the other will.
C.C
: $./ershadowing) and the %u&er'E%(
H"&othesis ; !heoretical
#onsiderations
If we hold> as I certainl3 do> that fraud and chance-coincidence will not suffice to e:plain
awa3 the successes of such mediums as "rs Piper and "rs Leonard> and if we agree that
"rs 0idgwick is correct in regarding the 'personalities) which communicate through
mediums as 7eing facets of the medium herself> we appear to have left on our hands not a
theor3 of 'possession) or direct control 73 deceased persons> to which is opposed some
kind of super-10P h3pothesis> 7ut two forms of 10P theor3> namel3 the super-10P theor3>
aforementioned> and the theor3 of 'overshadowing) which I have Just touched upon.
'/vershadowing)> if it takes place> would appear 73 definition to involve telepathic
interaction 7etween the deceased person and the medium. In so far as mediums who are
'overshadowed) ma3 instead or in addition have a 'clairvo3ant) or 'clairaudient)
awareness of deceased persons> we ma3 need to enlarge the theor3 of overshadowing to
accommodate it.
0ince 10P is thus a ke3stone 7oth of the survivalist and of the anti-survivalist positions> I
shall 7egin 73 raising the Muestion of how 10P is itself to 7e conceived. For it ma3 7e that
the super-10P theor3 and the theor3 of overshadowing do not harmoniGe eMuall3 well
with the conception of 10P towards which we are forced. "3 remarks will necessaril3 7e
7rief to the verge of total inadeMuac3> 7ut it is important that I raise certain issues even
though I can hardl3 pretend to resolve them. EFor further discussion of these and related
issues see , and !-7.F
In a recent Presidential address to the Paraps3chological Association> Palmer E-cF
distinguishes two 'paradigms) Emodels or patterns of thoughtF which paraps3chologists
have applied to psi phenomena E10P and PAF. The first of these is what he calls the
transmission paradigm$ This paradigm> which has until recentl3 7een the received one>
'assumes that psi involves the transmission of information across some kind of channel
from a source to a receiver> at least one of C!5C which is a mind Eor> according to a few
diehards> a 7rainF.) Palmer)s second paradigm> the correspondence paradigm> is> he
thinks> harder to define. 'In fact> it might 7e fair to sa3 that it is simpl3 a negation of the
transmission paradigm. A7out the 7est I can do to define it positivel3 is to sa3 that it
postulates some principle which causes events in nature to coincide to a greater than
chance degree> given certain preconditions.)
!he !ransmission (aradigm
I shall 7egin 73 looking at the transmission paradigm. This paradigm clearl3 encounters
its greatest difficult3 when one attempts to e:tend it to cover the phenomena of
clairvo3ance Eprecognition is too vast an issue for me to raise at this pointF. In terms of
the transmission paradigm clairvo3ance must involve the receipt> through some sort of
surrogate sense-perception> of a distinctive emanation Ekind unknownF from the o7Ject
that is clairvo3antl3 perceived.
It seems to me that the implications of this theor3 have onl3 to 7e set forth for it to 7e
decisivel3 reJected. <e should have to suppose that an o7Ject ma3 emit a kind of
emanation that passes round or through all o7staclesN that is emitted 73 all the sorts of
o7Jects that have 7een targets in successful clairvo3ance e:perimentsN that supplies
information a7out colour and shape> regardless of whether the target o7Jects are edge-on
or in a light-tight 7o:N that is not confused or o7literated 73> 7ut can 7e distinguished
from> the emanations emitted 73 all surrounding o7JectsN that 3ields indifferentl3 the
information normall3 provided 73 sight> hearing> etc.N and that gives rise to no
characteristic sensor3 e:perience of its own> 7ut is accuratel3 translated into the terms of
an3 other sense-modalit3. It is impossi7le not to agree with the late Professor *. (. 9road
when he sa3s in a classic paper E-+> pp. !,L+,F on this theme that such theories involve
a 'ver3 heav3 draft on the 7ank of possi7ilit3.)
/ne might at first think that telepath3> so often conceived as 'mental radio)> would accord
more happil3 with the transmission paradigm than does clairvo3ance. 9ut this is not the
case. *onsider the following points.
. If we regard the 'transmission) as mediated 73 an3 form of ph3sical energ3 transfer> we
confront the pro7lem that the energ3 concerned appears a7le to pass through all material
7arriers. 9ut then it should pass through the 7rain too> and not 7e stopped as> for e:ample>
radio waves are stopped 73 aerials.
!. If Eagain thinking in ph3sical termsF we suppose that the end C!C result of the
supposed process of energ3 transfer is to produce in the receiver)s 7rain a pattern of 7rain
cell activit3 similar to that which o7tains in the sender)s 7rain> we run upon the following
difficult3. There does not seem> as we shall see in *hapter Thirteen> much reason for
supposing that the same spatio-temporal pattern of 7rain cell activit3 will necessaril3 give
rise to the same e:perience in two different people> or even in the same person on two
different occasions.
$. Let us waive the preceding o7Jection> and assume that> following upon some process of
transmission from sender to receiver> the latter 7ecomes aware of what the former is
e:periencing. For e:ample> a friend of mine had one night a distressing dream of his
father E+.F. 2e felt that his father was a7out to die> and he himself underwent the pain of
his father)s heart attack. 2is father was not known to have a weak heartN 3et the dream
turned out to 7e veridical Eit was actuall3 precognitive 73 a7out twent3-four hours> a
point which I shall here neglectF. ;ow one can Just a7out imagine that 73 some unknown
process of transmission and induction he might have 7een 7rought to feel a heart-pain
resem7ling his father)s. 9ut how did he know that the pain reflected his father7s pain
rather than that of an3 other of the numerous persons who would at that time have 7een
undergoing heart attacksO 2e had no previous e:perience of the Mualit3 of his father)s
heart-pains. To his father> of course> the heart-pains had a meaning. The3 meant 'I am
d3ing). The son> however> did not pick up the meaning the pains had for this father. 2e
did not think 'I am d3ing). 2e thought '"3 father is d3ing)> which was not what his
father was thinking. 0o how did the son know how to interpret the painO 2e knew
7ecause in a strange wa3 he identified with his father> almost 7ecame him. 9ut what
signals could 7e transmitted that could induce this state of mind in him> and how> indeed>
could he recogniGe such a state> given that he had Eand could have hadF no prior
e:perience of what 7eing his father was likeO In short the meaning of the heart-pains is
something that could not 7e transmitted.
%. "ost cases of ostensi7le spontaneous telepath3 are> however> not of this kindN the3 are
not instances of the receiver undergoing an e:perience mirroring the e:perience of the
sender. Take the following e:ample of a 'reciprocal dream)> Muoted 73 "rs 0idgwick
E%&d> pp. %&L%,F. A mother holding her sick 7a73 sleeps> and dreams that her son of
thirteen> awa3 at 7oarding school and ill with measles> wanted to put his head on her
shoulder> 7ut could not 7ecause of the 7a73. /n the same night her son dreams that he
wants to put his head on her C!!C shoulder 7ut finds the 7a73 in the wa3. ;ow the
minimum h3pothesis here> within the transmission paradigm> is that one of the two
dreamers picked up the other)s dream> and himself or herself dreamt accordingl3. 9ut
consider what this h3pothesis involves> sa3 from the 7o3)s point of view. 2is mother> in
addition to dreaming> must have 7een transmitting her dream to him. 9ut he did not
dream her dreamN he did not dream of 7eing his mother> holding a 7a73> and having a 7o3
cuddle up to her. ;or> for e:actl3 the sorts of reasons given under $ a7ove> is it clear how
he could have attached an3 meaning to 'copies) of his mother)s sensations had he
undergone them. Perhaps> then> some part of his mother)s 7rain was watching her own
dream and 7roadcasting a coded account of it which the eMuivalent in words would 7e> 'I>
;;> of such and such an address> and mother of F;> am dreaming that S' The 7o3>
picking up this message> and decoding it> could initiate a reciprocall3 corresponding
dream. 9ut this idea too is nonsense. An3 such telepathic code would have to 7e the
functional eMuivalent of a language> perhaps of a universal language> would have to 7e as
fle:i7le as a language> and like a language would have to grow continuall3 as the
conceptual eMuipment of its user enlarges. For there does not seem to 7e an3 limitation on
the sorts of telepathic messages that can 7e sent and received> other than the limitations
imposed 73 the conceptual eMuipment of sender and receiver. ;one the less this code
would have to 7e untaught and> with most people> ver3 rarel3 used.
I hope that these few remarks will at an3 rate serve to suggest that an3 defender of the
transmission paradigm is taking on an uphill task. There is> however> a variant of the
transmission paradigm that reMuires 7rief notice. It ma3 perhaps 7e called the 'scanning
paradigm). Its central idea is that the percipient or receiver is not a passive recipient of
10P> 7ut activel3 and continuall3 'scans) those parts of the environment accessi7le to him
73 10P. 0ome such idea as this seems essential in connection with clairvo3ance to
account for the fact that clairvo3ance seemingl3 3ields not useless information a7out a
haphaGard selection of ph3sical states of affairs> 7ut primaril3 information relevant to the
concerns of the percipient. (r Louisa 8hine E!.F thinks that a similar idea is forced upon
us in connection with telepath3> 7ecause in certain cases of apparent spontaneous
telepath3> namel3 'call) cases Ecases> that is> in which the telepathic message takes the
form of a heard 'call)F the supposed 'sender) did not C!$C in fact call or even think of the
receiver. Telepath3 in her view is thought- reading rather than thought 8transference$ EIt
ma3> however> 7e that (r 8hine> whose collection of cases consists mostl3 of letters Just
from the percipient> underestimates the possi7ilit3 of an effect from the agentN cf. #i7son>
%.> and 0tevenson> &$c> pp. !&L!+.F
The notion of scanning is all ver3 well if it is held to involve some active process of
selection among competing inputs> where the inputs are conceived in terms of the
transmission paradigm. 0uch a notion is legitimate> 7ut of course mistaken since the
transmission paradigm is mistaken. 9ut there is a half-hidden tendenc3 for the idea of
scanning to pass into something Muite different from this. 0canning seems sometimes
implicitl3 to 7e regarded as Ein the case of telepath3F a direct and immediate cogniGing of
other people)s mental states> or Ein the case of clairvo3anceF a sort of reaching out of the
mind to grasp Eor 'prehend)F a distant ph3sical state of affairs. It is ver3 hard indeed to
make sense of either of these conceptions. Take first this kind of view of clairvo3ance. In
terms of it the clairvo3ant mind seems rather like an amoe7a. It can e:trude itself round
o7stacles and seiGe upon targets 7e3ond them. It can prehend the faces of o7Jects which
are edge on to it> presuma7l3 73 flowing across them. It can filter into sealed 7o:es or
closed houses. =nlike an amoe7a> it can operate on an3 scaleN it can prehend pla3ing
cards> printed words> even Eon some accountsF the state of electronic circuitr3 or nerve
cells in the 7rainN it can eMuall3 readil3 grasp a portrait> furniture> the front of a house> the
view from a hill. It operates usuall3 upon the surfaces of o7Jects> 7ut could no dou7t
operate eMuall3 well upon their insides. It can 7e functionall3 eMuivalent to an3 sense
modalit3. It can> in short> do an3thing that is reMuired of it. 2ence the idea of prehension
is of no e:planator3 value whatsoever.
The notion of 'telepathic scanning)> a direct and selective cogniGing of other peoples)
minds> is in no 7etter case. For it makes no sense at all to talk of a 'direct awareness) of
other peoples) e:periences. The onl3 awareness one can have is of one)s own e:periences
4this is a logical rather than a factual point. /ne cannot> so to speak> 7reak out of the
circle of one)s own awareness into someone else)sN an3 e:perience that one has is one)s
own e:perience and not another person)s. And in an3 case it is o7vious> from what was
said a7ove> that in most instances of spontaneous telepath3 the e:perience of the
percipient does not directl3 reflect that of the agent.
Another reason wh3 the 'scanning) concept of telepath3 has C!%C surreptitiousl3 gained
ground is of course that it seems to 7e an essential ingredient in the super-10P
h3pothesis. For that h3pothesis had to suppose that mediums can have access to the
memories of distant persons even when those memories are not activated> i.e. are
presuma7l3 not generating telepathic signals. 0ince the idea that even an activated
memor3 could 7e directl3 scanned 73 telepath3 makes no sense> the idea that unactivated
and merel3 stored memories ma3 7e so scanned must 7e eMuall3 unintelligi7le. Indeed>
the proposal that our memor3 stores contain vast num7ers of memor3-images through
which mediums can telepathicall3 rummage appears so 7iGarre that most theorists have
instead supposed mediums to have clairvo3ant access to memories stored in the form of
neural charges in the 7rain. This suggestion seems to me no more helpful than the
previous one. I have alread3 proposed that 7oth transmission and prehensive theories of
clairvo3ance are Muite untena7le> and the3 will 7e no less untena7le when the target of the
clairvo3ance is the state of someone)s 7rain. Furthermore I shall argue in *hapter
Thirteen that the notion of a memor3 store> containing coded representations of our past
e:periences> is Muite incoherent in whatever form it is cast> and cannot possi7l3 e:plain
our a7ilit3 to remem7er. If this argument is correct> the thesis that mediums can 'scan)
distant memor3 stores necessaril3 collapses> whether the scanning is regarded as
telepathic or as clairvo3ant> and with it collapses all hope of coherentl3 formulating the
super-10P h3pothesis in the terms of this offshoot of the transmission paradigm.
!he #orres&ondence (aradigm
<e come now to the correspondence paradigm of 10P. This paradigm dispenses with
ideas of transmission and proposes that in certain circumstances certain sorts of events in
nature come into correspondence with each other. The tendenc3 for such correspondences
to occur is> presuma7l3> an ultimate fact a7out the wa3 things are. The principal theories
of this categor3 are the 'conformance) model of 0tanford E+N $&N %.aN %.7F and the
's3nchronicit3) theor3 of @ung and Aoestler E,,> -!N I am not sure how the so-called
'o7servational) theories4see 54should 7e classifiedF. 2owever I do not think it
would 7e profita7le at this stage to stick to one specific version> so I shall merel3 offer
some general remarks a7out the correspondence paradigm. I shall furthermore confine
m3self to discussing this paradigm in relation to telepath3. Telepath3 is> for our C!&C
immediate purposes> more important than clairvo3anceN and I find it e:tremel3 hard to
think how clairvo3ance might 7e intelligi7l3 handled within the correspondence
paradigm.
0o far as telepath3 is concerned> a 'correspondence) approach might go something like
this. =nder certain preconditions the mental processes> and also the actions> of two
persons ma3 without an3 e:planation of an ordinar3 kind from time to time come into
correspondence in such a wa3 that if> for instance> one of them develops a pain in the
knee> the other will likewise feel such a painN if one feels depressed> the other feels
depressed alsoN if one has a certain tune running through his head> the other will whistle
itN and so on. The time relations 7etween the two sets of events might not 7e e:act> 7ut
the gap would not 7e ver3 great. /ne might suppose that the occurrence of such
correspondences is simpl3 a feature of the workings of e:traordinaril3 comple: s3stems
Esuch as 7rainsF and is suscepti7le of no further e:planation Eother perhaps than that the
apparentl3 separate s3stems> in some wa3 that we cannot comprehend> are parts of a
larger and overriding s3stem or s3stemsF. The 'preconditions) mentioned a7ove ma3
include such factors as> for e:ample> the minds of one or 7oth 7eing in a relativel3
rela:ed state Ei.e. open to intrusive random thoughts and stra3 ideasFN the two persons
concerned alread3 having man3 associations and ha7its of thought in commonN and the
presence of emotional 7onds and motivational factors.
I am far from sure that I can make sense of these ideas. 9ut if we are going to entertain
them at all> I think we are 7ound to e:tend them a little> and suppose that the
correspondences concerned will not 7e Just ones of sensor3 content or of emotional state
Ewhich are in fact not ver3 commonF> 7ut correspondences on what ma3 7e called a
propositional or conceptual level. This seems to 7e reMuired to account for the not
uncommon instances of apparent dream telepath3 in which there is similarit3 of theme
rather than of detailed dream content E+$FN and also for cases Esuch as the 7o3)s dream of
wanting to la3 his head on his mother)s shoulder cited a7oveF in which two people have
reciprocal or complementar3 dreams. 1.g. if @ack dreams of kissing @ill> @ill)s reciprocal
dream will not 7e that she is @ack and is kissing a simulacrum of herself. It will 7e that
she is in propria persona and is 7eing kissed 73 @ack. /ne would have to sa3 here> I
think> that @ack)s mind and @ill)s correspond Esome would sa3 overlapF in point of an
underl3ing idea or conception> which could 7e e:pressed as '@ack-kissing-@ill) Eor in more
comple: cases> perhaps> as '@ack-kissing-@ill- C!+C on-the-hill-and-to-hell-with-the-
7ucket-of-waterF> and that the dream consciousness of each ela7orates this theme in
individuall3 appropriate wa3s. 1la7oration of the theme could> however> onl3 7e in terms
of the knowledge and conceptual eMuipment which the dreamers alread3 possess.
"uch more might 7e said 7oth for and against these notions. 2owever> for immediate
purposes the important Muestion is how could the super-10P h3pothesis fare within the
7ounds of the correspondence paradigm as thus conceivedO /ne could not> I think>
e:actl3 rule the h3pothesis out4all kinds of odd correspondences might come into 7eing
7etween the thoughts of an3 two persons whatsoever> even persons well separated in
space and time. ;one the less it seems to me unlikel3 that within the correspondence
paradigm the super-10P theor3 would ever get off the ground. For the correspondence
paradigm is not a cognitive paradigmN there is no Muestion of one person scanning> or
7ecoming directl3 aware of> events in another person)s mind or 7rainN and it is the idea
that a medium might as it were look at> riffle through> and make a selection from> another
person)s memories that more than an3thing else has led people to take the proposals of
the super-10P theor3 seriousl3. For if 3ou can riffle though one person)s memor3-store>
wh3 not through another)s and another)s> until 3ou come to the information 3ou wantO
The correspondences of the correspondence paradigm> however> are> and can onl3 7e>
7etween actual mental events Eeven if these are ultimatel3 7rain-processesFN the
correspondences might Just conceiva7l3 involve events in dissociated or su7conscious
streams of consciousness> 7ut the3 could not 7e 7etween events in one person)s mind and
inert memories stored awa3 in another person)s memor3-store. For in the a7sence of
scanning there could 7e no principle 73 which one out of the innumera7le coded
memories in A.)s memor3-store is selected to 7ring a7out a corresponding effect on
current events in 9.)s mind. The onl3 possi7le form of selection would consist in A.)s
activating the memor3. 9ut wh3 should not the event in 9.)s mind conform itself to
whatever memor3 in A.)s memor3-store represents the information which 9. needsA 9.)s
need then constitutes the principle of selection. To suggest this is to endow 9.)s mind
with a power of selective discrimination among A.)s memories which is simpl3 scanning
in disguise. /ne could continue de7ating these issues more or less indefinitel3> 7ut I do
not see the super-10P h3pothesis 7ecoming an3 more plausi7le within the framework of
the correspondence paradigm.
C!,C To recapitulate: I distinguished two kinds of theor3 a7out how mental mediums> and
especiall3 trance mediums> achieved their successes. 9oth involved attri7uting 10P to
them. /ne theor34the super-10P theor34suggested that the3 o7tain all their
information 73 telepathicall3 tapping the memor3-stores of living persons> clairvo3antl3
scanning archives> etc. According to the other theor3 discarnate persons ma3 sometimes
influence the course and content of mediumistic 'communications) 73 a process>
presuma7l3 telepathic in nature> which I termed 'overshadowing). I then outlined two
approaches to the Muestion of how 10P is to 7e conceived. Following Palmer> I called
these the 'transmission) paradigm and the 'correspondence) paradigm. I argued that the
transmission paradigm is incoherent> and that furthermore no sense can 7e made of the
super-10P h3pothesis within either paradigm. It remains for me to ask whether the theor3
of overshadowing stands in 7etter case.
./ershadowing
It seems to me that this theor3 could 7e given some sort of more or less intelligi7le
e:pression within either the transmission paradigm or the correspondence paradigm. Its
most straightforward e:pression would 7e in terms of the transmission paradigm. <e
should have to suppose a largel3 passive 'receiver) Ethe mediumF whose stream of
thought and action is sufficientl3 la7ile to 7e directed and influenced 73 the endeavours
of an active Eand generall3 discarnateF 'sender). The relationship 7etween events in the
sender)s mind and events in the receiver)s mind might Ein favoura7le casesF 7e a fairl3
straightforward one> so that when the sender thought of certain words or of a certain
person or scene> similar words> or a similar picture> came into the receiver)s mind. It
might> however> 7e less eas3 to give within the transmission paradigm an account of how
the discarnate person 7ecomes aware of> and thus is a7le to respond to> what is said and
done in the medium)s vicinit3.
=nfortunatel3 the transmission paradigm is> or so I have argued> untena7le upon other
grounds> and the correspondence paradigm does not generate Muite such a simple account
of the proposed process of 'overshadowing). In general terms> of course> we might
suppose that a medium)s stream of thought and action is so fle:i7le and so Muick to
'correspond) with another person)s> that a wil3 and knowledgea7le discarnate influence
can e:ploit this fact to 'drive) it. 9ut man3 pro7lems arise to which no ver3 o7vious
solutions present themselves. C!-C 1arlier in the chapter I suggested that in cases of> for
instance> 'reciprocal dreams) we must postulate correspondence in respect of some
general idea> which each participant ela7orates in his or her own wa3. '/vershadowing)>
however> would on the whole reMuire much more specific correspondences. <hat
determines in a given case the level of generalit3 or specificit3 of the correspondencesO
<hat determines> also> which mind 'overshadows) the otherO "ust we invoke motivation>
concentration> attention> need> purpose> personalit3 factors> role-pla3ing> etcO ;o clear
answers are currentl3 availa7le.
These o7scurities are> however> less difficulties for the overshadowing h3pothesis as
such> than s3mptoms of the undeveloped state of the correspondence paradigm> a
paradigm which has onl3 Muite recentl3 come to the fore. I do not think that the3 render
the general notion of overshadowing unintelligi7le. The main pro7lem which confronts
the theor3 of overshadowing is not whether it is intelligi7le> which it is> at least up to a
point> 7ut whether it coheres with the empirical facts concerning 10P. For central to the
whole theor3 is the idea that the sender> or the dominant partner in the 'correspondence)
relationship> 73 some kind of special concentration or endeavour can directl3 influence
the course of the receiver)s or medium)s thoughts and actions. 0ome writers> (r Louisa
8hine for e:ample> tend to den3 that in cases of apparent spontaneous telepath3
concentration or activit3 73 the supposed sender has an3 effectN in a su7stantial num7er
of cases the supposed sender remains unaware that he has sent. A few e:periments>
however> do suggest that concentration or strong willing 73 an agent ma3 have a positive
effect Esee -a> pp. .+L5!F. The issue is one that reMuires further investigation> on the
results of which the tena7ilit3 of the theor3 of overshadowing will depend. The
e:periments concerned might well in effect 7e ones on 'mediumistic communication 73
the living)> a topic which I shall mention again shortl3. E93 analog3 with cases of trance
mediumship one might suppose that such 'communication) would 7e facilitated if the
su7Ject were to imagine himself to 7e the 'sender) and were to speak in that role.F
C!.C
1< $./ershadowing) and the %u&er'E%(
H"&othesis ; the Data
"3 feeling> then4and I deli7eratel3 speak of 'feeling) rather than of 'Judgement) 7ecause
of the o7scurities and uncertainties which confront one whichever direction one moves in
4is that the theor3 of overshadowing can 7e e:pressed within either of the two leading
models of or paradigms for 10P> whilst the super-10P h3pothesis makes sense within
neither. 9ut one would 7e ill-advised to let a decision 7etween the super-10P h3pothesis
and the theor3 of overshadowing hang largel3 upon the a7stract issue of their agreement
or otherwise with some speculative framework of thought. 2ow far do the3 fit the factsO
That is the decisive Muestion4or rather would 7e if we could make the theories definite
enough for the Muestion to 7e answera7leR
The super-10P h3pothesis is a peculiarl3 elusive theor3> and I am conscious that I have
hitherto invoked it and attacked it without an3 attempt to set it forth s3stematicall3. The
trou7le is that it is not so much a theor3 as an attitude of mind4an attitude which simpl3
refuses to admit that there is or ever could #e an3 evidence for survival which cannot 7e
e:plained awa3 in terms of the psi faculties> especiall3 the 10P> of living percipients and
mediums. The postulated reach of 10P is progressivel3 e:tended to cover an3 new
evidence> indeed an3 possi7le evidence> that ma3 come in. A Justification of this elastic
wa3 of thought is usuall3 given 73 appeal to some principle of simplicit3 or parsimon3.
<e know that 10P takes place> the argument goes> 7ut we have no independent evidence
for the spirits of the deadN hence it is more parsimonious to cast our e:planations onl3 in
terms of the former. 93 so doing we avoid postulating a wholl3 new class of entities.
*onsiderations of parsimon3> however> have to 7e weighed against considerations of
factual adeMuac3. A theor3 that will not do the Jo7 cannot possi7l3 7e parsimonious> for it
will soon get snared in a hopeless tangle of supplementar3 assumptions. The central
plank of the super-10P h3pothesis must 7e that 10P of the reMuired degree C$5C EreMuired
that is to e:plain awa3 the most striking mediumistic dataF takes placeN and whether we
consider the literature of e:perimental or of spontaneous 10P we come across little to
suggest that it can. The e:perimental material is indeed ver3 difficult to relate to the
Muestion at hand. In what is> I think> 73 far the 7est recent surve3 of it> @ohn Palmer
E-aF concludes there is no evidence that 10P is limited 73 either separation in space>
separation in time or the ph3sical characteristics of the target. 9ut the targets used in
modern 10P e:periments EIener cards> the outputs of 7inar3 random num7er generators>
etc.F are totall3 unlike> and> so far as one can tell> usuall3 much simpler than> the 'targets)
Ememor3 traces in distant 7rains> printed o7ituar3 notices> etc.F upon which mediums
must score regular 'hits) if the super-10P h3pothesis is correct. Furthermore> even the
most successful su7Jects in la7orator3 10P e:periments do not achieve 'hit) rates which
suggest that one could 'communicate) messages to them. An outstanding scorer might
correctl3 guess $&5 cards in 555 in tests where one would e:pect !&5 hits an3wa3> 'Just
73 chance). It seems to me that if one compares the most successful mental mediums> on
the one hand> with the most successful la7orator3 su7Jects> or percipients in spontaneous
cases> on the other> the former greatl3 outstrip the latter in at least the following respects>
of all of which I have given e:amples in the preceding chapters.
. The rapid and occasionall3 almost non-stop flow of paranormal knowledge sometimes
e:hi7ited4in the 7est instances a flow of knowledge compara7le to that which might
occur in an ordinar3 conversation.
!. The detailed knowledge and the knowledge of detail shown 73 the ostensi7le
communicators> again> of course in the most favoura7le instances.
$. The retailing of information which> if o7tained telepathicall3 from living persons Eas>
according to the super-10P h3pothesis> it must have 7eenF could onl3 have come from
distant persons whose ver3 e:istence was unknown to the medium> and who had almost
certainl3 not 7een consciousl3 thinking a7out the facts concerned at an3 recent or
relevant time.
%. The retailing of information which> if o7tained 73 10P not involving deceased persons>
must have 7een assem7led and put together from several different sources> often
including ones which would also fall under $ a7ove. The pro7lem of how the medium
might 7e supposed> on the super-10P h3pothesis> to locate such sources is Eas I C$C
pointed out in *hapters Four and FiveF a ver3 considera7le one.
&. The e:hi7ition of intellectual skills and attainments not hitherto characteristic of the
medium> 7ut formerl3 characteristic of a person now dead> skills and characteristics
which> on the super-10P h3pothesis> must have 7een temporaril3 caught from living
persons 73 some sort of telepathic contagion.
+. The realistic delineation> sometimes involving impersonation> of the personalit3
characteristics> wa3 of thought> turns of phrase> tone of voice> gestures> etc. of a deceased
personN the a7ilit3 to put on a personation of a given individual 7eing a kind of skill
which could not EI argued in *hapter 0evenF 7e caught telepathicall3 from living persons.
,. *o-ordination of the 10P of several sensitives> so that while the productions of each
are individuall3 pointless> taken together the3 constitute a meaningful pattern Ecf. *hapter
0i:F.
Add to these considerations the fact that the mediums who> when purportedl3 contacting
or transmitting messages from the dead> e:hi7it such unparalleled 10P> are commonl3 not
73 an3 means star su7Jects in 10P tests> and we would appear to have a formida7le case
against the super-10P h3pothesis as applied to the 7est mediumistic material. ;othing
that we have so far learned a7out 10P licences us to claim that 10P can do the Jo7 which
the super-10P h3pothesis reMuires of it.
!he E/idence for %u&er'E%(
0o can we decisivel3 reJect the super-10P h3pothesesO Alas> nothing in paraps3cholog3
is ever clear-cut or straightforward. I have omitted to mention two further factors which
have a 7earing on the issue. The first of these is the performances of certain sensitives
who might loosel3 7e descri7ed as fortune-tellers. The investigations most freMuentl3
cited are those of a French ph3sician> 1. /st3> (irector from .!+ to .$- of the Institut
"etaps3chiMue of Paris E+F. /st3)s sensitives> it is alleged> e:hi7ited e:trasensor3
powers amounting to what could Justifia7l3 7e called 'super-10P)> and did so without an3
suggestion that the information originated from spirits. 2ence> it is argued 73 (odds and
others> we have undenia7le evidence that certain persons indeed possess super-10P.
Furthermore these persons cannot as a class 7e sharpl3 distinguished from the class of
mental mediums. '*lairvo3ant) mediums often talk ver3 much like fortune-tellers> make
predictions a7out their sitters) futures> diagnose their ailments> etc. In C$!C fact the guides
of trance mediums often act in ver3 much the same wa3> with respect to sitters and also
with respect to other supposed inmates of the ne:t world. It follows that the difference
7etween fortune-tellers and mental mediums is not that the latter tap a source of
information that the former do not> viG. deceased persons> 7ut that the latter dramatiGe the
deliverances of their super-10P as messages from the departed. E0imilar arguments have
7een advanced> e.g. 73 Andrew Lang T-,7U> in connection with the achievements of
scr3ers or cr3stal gaGers> 7ut I shall neglect these since the cases appear to 7e much the
same.F
<hat> then> were the performances of /st3)s sensitives likeO 2e seems to have found
man3 such persons4France has a long tradition of them4and his custom was either to
arrange sittings for persons known to him> and take notes himself> or else to hand the
sensitive an o7Ject which has 7een worn or carried 73 the person a7out whom
information was desired E"rs Piper> like man3 mediums> sometimes made use of such
'token o7Jects) or 'ps3chometric o7Jects)F. The o7Jects seemed in some wa3 to link the
sensitive to the a7sent person 7ut their use was not essential4it was usuall3 sufficient if
/st3 merel3 thought of the 'target person) or handed the medium a photograph. I Muote
ver7atim a sensitive)s delineation of a certain "me F.> a7out whom /st3 knew ne:t to
nothing> 7ut of whom he was thinking Ethe omissions> represented 73 dots> are /st3)s
ownF:
This is a woman with au7urn hair> good-looking> decidedl3 good-looking. I think her
frank and sincere> 7ut she knows how to 7e otherwise on occasion. 0he is ga3> amia7le>
s3mpathetic> rather depressed sometimes> and then e:u7erant S she is lia7le to these ups
and downs> as if there were two natures in her.
0he had a strong will S although nervous> she can control herself. 0he is conscious of
the ;orth.
0he is fond of music> gaiet3> 7ut of work too. 2er past has 7een cloud3> there are things in
it that are not clear S I think she was illegitimate> there was some secret a7out her 7irth
S some personage is concerned S could he have 7een her fatherO 2er father seems to
have 7een a well-known personage> an important person.
There is a widow S her mother was a widow when her daughter was 7orn. 0he was
attended 73 a ver3 few persons. It was a difficult 7irthN there was a doctor and a priest.
2er mother had two other children. 0he was a light woman> had lovers S not worth
much S is still coMuettish and does not trou7le herself to see her daughter.
The poor child lived awa3 from her mother. <hat changes and travels. I see her with a
wicked woman. 0he must have gone a7road when Muite C$$C 3oung S There is a woman
near her who has 7een in prison. /hR Thefts and imprisonment4what surroundingsO 0he
has 7een 7eaten and roughl3 treated. ;o worse people could 7e found than those among
whom she grew upN the3 were capa7le of an3thing> would have made her a lost woman.
2appil3 the child had an honest nature. 0he has wept much. "an3 changes from one
town to another.
2er mother came 7ack to her. The3 wrote to each other and met a7out her marriage. The
mother will make a little revelation 7efore she dies. The 3oung woman is married now
and ver3 happ3. 2er hus7and is good and clever S he seems to 7e a chief over others S
he wears a uniform and is much at sea4has travelled much and will travel more. E+>
pp. .!L.$F
To cut a long stor3 short> a large part of the information given was confirmed 73 two of
"me F.)s close friends. 9ut almost none of it was known to the sitter> /st3. <e therefore
have here a case in which a sensitive gives detailed> copious and correct information
a7out a distant living person without an3one possessing that information 7eing actuall3
present. In one or two of /st3)s cases> furthermore> correct information was given which
was pro7a7l3 neither all known to an3 one distant person> nor contained in an3 written
record> document> etc.> which might 7e supposed accessi7le to clairvo3ance.
1:trasensor3 knowledge as e:tensive as that displa3ed 73 fairl3 good mediums is here
7eing displa3ed in a non-mediumistic conte:t. The super-10P h3pothesis> which looked
in a poor wa3 onl3 a few paragraphs 7ack> now 7egins to take on a healthier tinge4or at
least it would do if /st3)s work were a7ove criticism.
=nfortunatel3 /st3)s standards of evidence and presentation Ethe two are hardl3
separa7leF leave a great deal to 7e desired. It is clear> for e:ample> that the cases he
actuall3 gives are onl3 a ver3 limited selection from an indefinitel3 larger mass of
material> much of which represented the errors and confa7ulations of his sensitives. 1ven
his individual case reports are edited and heavil3 a7ridged> and we have no means of
knowing what was left out. 2is verifications of his sensitives) statements are freMuentl3
73 no means adeMuate4in the case I Muoted> for instance> which is not unt3pical> the
verification was at second-hand. The lad3 to whom the statements purportedl3 referred
was not herself consulted. I think it is almost certain that were the whole of /st3)s
materials laid 7efore us> the cases he Muotes would appear less rather than more
impressive. I could well understand the position of someone who argued that we should
reJect /st3)s findings altogether.
C$%C ;one the less I cannot m3self so comprehensivel3 reJect them. It would take an
immense mass of erroneous material to outweigh /st3)s more remarka7le cases> and a
great deal of misrecording and misverification to undermine them. The3 receive some
support from compara7le findings 73 others Ee.g. Pagenstecher> ,N Prince> !&c> !&eF.
And the3 have some curious and fascinating features. *onsider> for e:ample> the case I
have Just Muoted. *an one possi7l3 attri7ute the 'hits) to telepath3O The sensitive gave Eas
often happenedF a sort of conspectus or pr\cis of the su7Ject)s life. /ne can hardl3
suppose that the su7Ject herself was revolving such a pr\cis in her mind and thus
7roadcasting it to the world. ;or can one plausi7l3 suppose that the sensitive Muickl3
scanned the memor3-store of her distant su7Ject and was immediatel3 a7le to e:tract
therefrom the series of general facts reMuired4especiall3 when one adds that in man3
cases this sort of conspectus was apparentl3 continued into the future. *lairvo3ance is not
a possi7le e:planation4it is not stated that the main facts of the su7Ject)s life were
an3where recorded in ph3sical form. It seems to me that what we have here does not Ein
most instancesF suggest a telepathic cogniGing of the su7Ject)s memor3-storeN it suggests
rather the direct acMuisition Ewhatever that ma3 meanF of propositional knowledge a7out
the su7Ject. If I understand /st3)s somewhat vague remarks aright> this is the sort of
conclusion towards which he too is driven. 2e points out that the visions and images
which pass 7efore the minds of his sensitives cannot 7e regarded as perceptions of distant
persons> scenes> etc. The3 are often s3m7olic in formN and the same piece of information
can present itself to the same sensitive in numerous different guises. It is as though what
the sensitive grasps is on a conceptual level> a level of propositional or factual
knowledge> which she then translates into the language of sensor3 imager3 Ecf. +!7N also
%%d and %%e> pp. +,L+-F. I am not sure that this sort of knowledge-acMuisition fits into
the conventional categories of 10P at all. The knowledge is> one ma3 note> knowledge
primaril3 a7out people and thus differs markedl3 from the 'knowledge) which it is hoped
that e.g. su7Jects in card-guessing e:periments will displa3.
To return to m3 main theme: If Eand it is a siGa7le 'if)F we accept an apprecia7le
percentage of /st3)s findings> there can 7e little dou7t that the super-10P h3pothesis
must> so far as mediumistic material is concerned> appear a good deal more plausi7le. The
gap 7etween what mediums can do and what 10P EI call it 10P for lack of a 7etter nameF
C$&C can achieve has 7een apprecia7l3 narrowed. 2ow far it has 7een narrowed I shall
enMuire shortl3.
I must emphasiGe at this point that I do not think /st3)s findings make the super-10P
h3pothesis more plausi7le so far as either the cases of apparitions discussed in later
chapters of this 7ook> or the reincarnation cases which will 7e discussed in *hapter
Twelve 7elow> are concerned. For /st3)s sensitives were> if we accept his accounts>
clearl3 persons with ver3 unusual a7ilitiesN whereas there is much to suggest that 7oth the
percipients of veridical apparitions> and the 'reincarnated) personalities in the more
striking reincarnation cases> are not on the whole especiall3 endowed with such gifts.
I said a few pages ago that I had left out two factors from m3 preliminar3 assessment of
the super-10P h3pothesis. The first of these was the performance of sensitives like those
studied 73 /st3. I now come to the second> which is the evidence> such as it is> that
mediums actuall3 do incorporate in their representations of deceased persons information
o7tained 73 10P directed upon persons or events in this world. I cited earlier some
instances in which "rs Piper had apparentl3 done thisN and there were similar happenings
with "rs Leonard. For instance one evening "rs 0alter heard in conversation a stor3
a7out a man who wore several pairs of trousers simultaneousl3. The ne:t da3 her father>
the late Professor A. <. Kerrall> communicated through "rs Leonard and erroneousl3
stated that he had once worn two pairs of trousers E$-7> p. $!5F. E0ome allowance must
however 7e made in the assessment of such e:amples for chanceN on how man3 occasions
did sitters hear prior to sittings odd stories which were not retailed at the ne:t sittingOF
The late (r 0. #. 0oal claimed to have telepathicall3 foisted a fictitious communicator of
his own invention upon "rs 9lanche *ooper> a well-known London medium. 0oal would
invent 'facts) a7out this control> '@ohn Ferguson)> prior to a sittingN and these facts would
often then 7e unam7iguousl3 communicated to him E%,> pp. &!$L&%-F.
<e have thus:
EaF apparent evidence that persons in man3 wa3s indistinguisha7le from mediums can
e:ercise powers of 10P so marked that the3 might well 7e called super-10P without there
7eing the slightest suggestion that the information concerned is purve3ed 73 spiritsN and
E7F evidence that mediums ma3 incorporate in their representations of deceased persons
information acMuired 73 telepath3 with the C$+C living or 73 clairvo3ance of the ph3sical
world.
Put EaF and E7F together> and 3ou come up with the possi7ilit3 that mediums ma3 utiliGe
super-10P in their portra3als of communication from the dead. And indeed there is at
least one case in which this apparentl3 happened.
The case concerned> the '#ordon (avis) case> is again one recorded 73 0oal during his
sittings with "rs 9lanche *ooper E%,> pp. &+5L&.$F. In outline it goes as follows. /n %
@anuar3 .!! a communicator calling himself '#ordon (avis) 7egan to speak in a clear
and strong voice E"rs *ooper was a direct voice mediumF. #ordon (avis was an old
school acMuaintance whom 0oal 7elieved had 7een killed in the First <orld <ar. The
communicator did not state that he had 7een killed> 7ut said> '"3 poor wife is m3 onl3
worr3 now4and kiddie.) 2e referred correctl3 and unmistaka7l3 to matters relating to
their past acMuaintance> and used forms of words characteristic of the real #ordon (avis.
At two later sittings> ;ada> a regular control of "rs *ooper)s> descri7ed in considera7le
detail certain e:ternal features of #ordon (avis)s house> and made some Muite specific
references to the furniture> pictures and ornaments inside it. In .!& 0oal learned that
#ordon (avis was still alive> and went to see him. 2e found that much of what ;ada said
a7out the house and its contents was correctN 3et (avis> and his 'wife and kiddie)> had not
moved in until a 3ear after the relevant sittings. (avis)s diar3 showed that at the times of
these sittings he had 7een interviewing clients Ehe was a house agentF.
<e seem to have here an instance of the construction of a mediumistic communicator 73
means of telepath3 with the sitter plus precognitive telepath3 or clairvo3ance relating to a
distant living person. '0uper-10P) seems an appropriate term to descri7e what was going
onN and if it could occur in this case> wh3 not in others> indeed in all the others that have
7een presented as evidence for survivalO For the /st3 cases> and others like them> show
that man3 persons 7esides "rs *ooper can e:ercise super-10P.
(o the considerations Just advanced suffice to make the super-10P h3pothesis once again
seem plausi7le> and to render the theor3 of overshadowing> with its survivalistic
implications> unnecessar3O I think that the3 do not altogether do so> for the following
reasons:
. 0ome weight must 7e allowed to the criticisms of /st3 which I detailed a7ove.
!. The performances of even /st3)s 7est sensitives do not> I think> C$,C Muite measure up
to the achievements of the most remarka7le mediums in point of rapidit3 of information
flow> and the level of detail conve3ed. The Piper-0utton sittings> with their mass of
identif3ing detail> including names> will conve3 something of what I mean Esee *hapter
ThreeF. /r again: "rs Piper)s 2odgson-control reminded a sitter of the very )ords the
living 2odgson had once used in telling him a stor3.
$. 0imilar considerations appl3 with regard to the detailed delineation of personal
characteristics> voice> gestures> mannerisms> turns of phrase> etc.> and the presentation of
a tout ensem#le of these> in which some trance mediums have> as I pointed out in *hapter
0even> achieved an astonishing verisimilitude> a verisimilitude the attainment of which> I
argued> is itself a skill of a kind not to 7e acMuired 73 the mere gathering of information
Ewhether 73 10P or more ordinar3 meansF a7out the person concerned.
%. "ore generall3> /st3)s sensitives give no sign of the paranormal acMuisition of skills
and attainments Esee *hapter 0even a7ove> and *hapters 1leven and Twelve 7elowFN
rather the sensitives have so to speak their own specialist capacities Emedical
clairvo3ance> depiction of intellectual states> etc.F which determine the t3pe of material
the3 can most successfull3 o7tain.
&. ;or> in general> do /st3)s sensitives so co-ordinate their individual deliverances
concerning a particular individual or topic that separatel3 those deliverances are
meaningless> 7ut together the3 add up. 2owever to sa3 this is not to sa3 that the3 could
not have done soN for> clearl3> their activities were carried on in a conte:t within which
such 'cross-correspondences) were not called for.
+. The #ordon (avis case does not Muite suffice to undermine some of the more striking
mediumistic cases. For in the latter the medium must> according to the super-10P
h3pothesis> have assem7led the reMuisite information 73 telepathicall3 tapping several
different sources> none of whom was the alleged communicator. In the #ordon (avis case
the principal source must have 7een (avis Ethe communicatorF himself.
,. It is hard to avoid some degree of suspicion that 0oal ma3 have 'improved) the #ordon
(avis case. There is now no dou7t at all that he manipulated the results of his famous
card-guessing e:periments E..F. The #ordon (avis case has remained for over fift3 3ears
without a real parallel> and certain features of it raise dou7ts4e.g. 0oal)s claim that he
was a7le to record the medium)s statements in detail in the dark using C$-C onl3 his left
hand> and the fact that his 7rother signed a statement that he had read the
communications> which took place in Fe7ruar3 .!!> in the *hristmas vacation of .!.
/n 7alance> then> it seems to me that the super-10P h3pothesis cannot 7e Justifia7l3
e:tended to cover all the data which were set forth in *hapters Three to 0even a7ove. In
so far as the theor3 of overshadowing seems at present to 7e the most via7le alternative to
the super-10P h3pothesis> the former ma3 perhaps draw strength> or at least comfort>
from the latter)s shortcomings. 2owever> as I have several times emphasiGed> a theor3
cannot 7e adeMuatel3 esta7lished Just 73 undermining its onl3 apparent rival. Its own pros
and cons must> so far as possi7le> 7e independentl3 scrutiniGed.
!he #ase for ./ershadowing
It will 7e 7est to tackle the pros and cons of the theor3 of overshadowing in two parts.
There is firstl3 the Muestion of its survivalistic implications. If the theor3 is correct>
somewhere '7ehind) the trance and other utterances of certain mediums there sometimes
lie the actual deceased persons who purport to 7e communicating. <hat evidence can we
find telling against this idea> and what for itO 0econdl3 there is the Muestion of the nature
of 'overshadowing)> which> on the face of it> must 7e a form of telepathic interaction. (o
we have an3 evidence that this sort of telepathic interaction can occurO I turn first to the
theor3)s survivalistic implications.
<ith one standard o7Jection to the survivalistic interpretation of the phenomena of
mental mediumship the theor3 of overshadowing can easil3 cope. I refer to the complaint
so often made that the late so and so Ea man of incisive mind and distinguished prose
st3leF could not possi7l3 7e responsi7le for the reams of vapid ru77ish he has allegedl3
written Eor spokenF through the agenc3 of such and such a medium or automatist. The
o7vious answer is that the ru77ish comes from the mediumN the flashes of knowledge and
intelligence Eif an3F from the communicator. In general we would e:pect on the theor3 of
overshadowing that the contents of automatic writings> trance utterances> etc.> would 7e
limited to matter within the medium)s own grasp. For according to the theor3 of
overshadowing> it is her intelligence> not that of the supposed overshadowing entit3> that
communicates directl3 with the sitters. /ne would e:pect that ideas outside the scope of
her own conceptual eMuipment could 7e 'got C$.C through)> if at all> onl3 in a rounda7out
and circuitous wa3. /f this there are one or two apparent e:amples Esee &dN -c> pp. $5-L
$%F.
The other standard o7Jections to the survivalistic interpretation are of a more general
kind> and will 7e discussed in *hapter Thirteen 7elow.
<hat> then> can 7e said in favour of the theor3 of overshadowing in so far as that theor3
is one which implies survivalO <hat positive indications can we glimpse that the
'overshadowing) is carried out 73 deceased persons hidden> as it were> from our view> 7ut
manifesting themselves through their influence upon a medium)s dream life and
dramatiGing tendenciesO
/ne must tread carefull3 here. The immediate temptation is to answer this Muestion 73
citing sample cases in which mediumistic communicators have retailed copious and
correct information a7out their lives on earth> information which the medium could not
possi7l3 have acMuired 73 ordinar3 means. (o not such cases strongl3 suggest that the
deceased persons themselves are somewhere in the 7ackground> directing and influencing
the communicationsO The trou7le with this line of argument is> of course> as follows. The
proposed process of overshadowing> though its nature remains o7scure> must 7e or
involve or Mualif3 as a form of telepathic interaction. 2ence to the e:tent that
overshadowing is alleged to occur we are invoking a form of 10P. And when the
communicators are fluent and successful we are invoking fluent and successful 10P. 9ut
as soon as we do this> the theor3 of overshadowing is in danger of losing an3 advantages
it ma3 have over the super-10P h3pothesis. For if we are going to postulate fluent and
successful 10P> wh3 not let it 7e 10P involving onl3 living persons Ethe ones who
possess the information which confirms the medium)s statementsFO
Thus it is not so much to the Muantit3 and detail of the material retailed 73 mediumistic
communicators that we might look for indications of an overshadowing discarnate agent>
as to the wa3 in which that material is patterned and deplo3ed. The Muestion of the
patterning and deplo3ment of material in effect figured prominentl3 among the issues
with which> I suggested> the super-10P h3pothesis cannot adeMuatel3 cope. It is over Just
these issues that the theor3 of overshadowing comes into its own. The super-10P
h3pothesis has difficult3 over cases in which it must assume that the medium integrated
into her personation of one communicator information o7tained 73 10P directed upon a
num7er of different living or C%5C contemporar3 sources Ewhich must furthermore 7e
locatedFN the theor3 of overshadowing> of course> simpl3 sa3s that since the
overshadowing agent alread3 possesses all the information> the need for integration does
not arise. The super-10P h3pothesis runs into trou7le when communicators e:hi7it
intellectual capacities and skills which the medium does not possess> for acMuiring such
capacities and skills does not consist simpl3 in learning lists of facts of the kind to which
10P might 7e supposed to give one access: the theor3 of overshadowing sa3s that the
deceased agent is using his still surviving skill or capacit3 in directing the medium)s
activities Eif> however> the skill is one> like a linguistic skill> involving a 7odil3 element>
the pro7lem is more comple:F. The super-10P h3pothesis had pro7lems with cases in
which a medium)s personation of a certain deceased person has 7een particularl3 lifelike
and convincing> for there is an immense gap 7etween accumulating factual knowledge
a7out a certain deceased person and developing the skill of giving a realistic
impersonation of himN the theor3 of overshadowing holds that the deceased person in
Muestion is himself '7ehind) the medium)s 'impersonation). The super-10P h3pothesis has
great difficult3 in accounting for cases of the 'cross-correspondence) kind> in which
different and separatel3 meaningless parts of one meaningful communication appear in
the productions of different mediums or sensitivesN the theor3 of overshadowing can
propose that the same intelligent agenc3 overshadowed them all.
I have alread3 discussed these issues in some detail in earlier parts of this 7ook> and there
is no point in ela7orating them further now. The overall upshot is this. In certain cases
over which the super-10P h3pothesis loses impetus and 7egins to flounder we can detect
hints of the operation of what we ma3 perhaps call 'overshadowing) agencies imposing
characteristic> recogniGa7le and appropriate patterns upon the fantasies and personations
dreamed up 73 the medium and fed 73 her powers of 10P. The patterns are over> a7ove>
and 7e3ond an3thing which can 7e plausi7l3 accounted for 73 the medium)s own 10P>
even if we suppose her to possess unusual dramatic gifts. It therefore looks as though we
have here what can reasona7l3 7e regarded as positive evidence in favour of the theor3 of
overshadowing.
There are two further groups of cases> not eas3 to define> which I have not so far
mentioned> that seem to me to provide further evidence of the same kind. The first is that
of cases in which mediumistic communicators have given their sitters not e:actl3 facts
unknown to C%C persons present or outside the knowledge of an3one at all> 7ut what
ma3 7e called insights into episodes in their own earthl3 lives> insights which once
received can 7e seen to 7e valid> 7ut which had not previousl3 7een thought of> still less
written down> 73 an3one at all> and which the medium could therefore not have o7tained
73 10P. *onsider the following remarks 73 <alter Franklin Prince E-+$L.$%F> 73 far
the a7lest and most Judicious American ps3chical researcher of his da3> upon some
sittings which he and his adopted daughter> Theodosia> had with "rs '*henoweth) after
the death of his wife.
S It was the peculiar selective character of the details purporting to come from m3 wife
and relating to her last weeks on earth which most impressed me when I realiGed it S in
the alleged communications there is no hint of the features of the case which to us stood
out so prominentl3> and in fact she never knew what her malad3 reall3 was> she never
realiGed that there was an open wound> and she e:pected> up to her last five minutes> to
get 7etter and return to her home. /n the contrar3> what we do find is a multitude of true
little details> her 7ack 7eing ru77ed> her head ru77ed in a particular wa3> the trou7le with
her foot and knee> continuing sensations of hunger> the sensitiveness of her head when
her hair was washed or com7ed> feeling that she would 7e all right again> trou7le with her
7ack towards the last> 3et not 7eing permitted to lie on her side> the chicken 7roth which
Theodosia 7rought her> the trou7le her 'store) teeth were to her> a sensation of fulness in
the chest and of 7ad pain in the a7domen> pain stopping all at once Efrom the opiateF>
comforting visions of her relatives> sense of re7ellion associated with death> etc. It came
to me as I scanned this list that it was these details and others like them that had loomed
large in m3 wife)s sick mind S I> Theodosia> or 7oth of us> knew all the a7ove details>
7ut some were wan and fading images in our minds> luridl3 overshadowed 73 the
memories I have mentioned and others. E!> pp. !5!L$F
The 'insight) in this case is into what might 7e descri7ed as the late "rs Prince)s whole
point of view during the last few weeks of her life. The facts were known to Prince and
his daughter> and pro7a7l3 to them alone> 7ut the point of vie) was not full3 appreciated
73 them. Het it was the point of vie) that was communicated to them. It was as though
the medium)s selection and presentation of the facts Efacts perhaps accessi7le to her 10PF
was shaped and directed 73 an e:ternal overshadowing presence. Prince goes on:
;othing that we know or think we know of telepath3 would lead us to suppose that it acts
otherwise than after the analog3 of a mechanical force> gives ground to suppose that it
dramatiGes> intelligentl3 adopts the C%!C viewpoint of a third person> and selects to suit
the characteristics of that person. It appears as though there were the stamp of "rs
Prince)s mind upon the details alleged in the te:t to 7e connected with her.
The second group of cases is even more difficult to define than the first> 3et it contains
cases that can 7e individuall3 and collectivel3 Muite impressive. '*ases) is> however>
perhaps the wrong word. <hat I have in mind are the somewhat numerous small
incidents occurring in the course of successful sittings> in which 'communication) seems
to encounter a 7lockage which the communicating intelligence tries 73 various
stratagems to circumvent. 2ere is an e:ample from an interesting paper 73 <. F. Prince Ea
paper in which he is weighing up considerations for and against the super-10P
h3pothesisF.
Theodosia Prince)s mother> controlling "rs '*henoweth)> was tr3ing to remind her
daughter of a visit to a neigh7our)s to see a calf EcolloMuiall3 a '9oss3)F. <hat came ne:t
was Eroughl3F as follows: '<e went to a neigh7our)s to see a pet 9unn34pause4pet
9unn3 99 9unn34pause4;o> it was a pet 9unn3 99 9unn3 94long pause4Emedium
moansF "ilk4a small cow 9oss3.) As Prince remarks:
<ho can dou7t that someone or something intended '9oss3) S from the firstO 1lse wh3
did the communicator stop at 9unn3 ever3 time and 7egin again> e:press dissatisfaction>
pause as though pondering what was the matter or how to remed3 it> e:perience emotion
which e:torted moans from the medium> and finall3 sa3 'small cow) as though to avoid
the word 7eginning with 9O If two minds were engaged in the process> the second
receiving from the first> we can see how this second> call it the 'control) or the medium)s
su7conscious> would> when the 'pet 94) was reached> conceive the picture of a ra77it
and cling to the preference for some time despite the efforts of the first mind to dislodge
it. E!&d> pp. 5-L5..F
To e:plain such incidents in terms of the super-10P theor3 we would> I think> have to
postulate that the medium was at some level all the time aware of what she wished to
communicate> and chose to 'put it through) in this o7liMue fashion in order to heighten the
impression that an e:ternal intelligence was indeed present and active in the 7usiness. 9ut
this is to attri7ute to the medium not Just super-10P 7ut fantastic skill and su7tlet3 as an
impersonator and dramatist> an e:tra assumption which should clearl3 7e avoided if
possi7le. There is no dou7t> as Prince in effect remarks> that an interpretation in terms of
the overshadowing h3pothesis is far more straightforward and natural.
] ] ]
C%$C I turn now to the 'overshadowing) aspect of the theor3 of overshadowing. The
proposed process of 'overshadowing)> whatever its precise nature> falls under the general
heading of telepath3N and it is a kind of telepath3 in which the active endeavours of the
overshadowing person must pla3 a decisive role in determining the mental processes of
the overshadowed person. <ithout dou7t considera7le difficulties confront these notions.
The most o7vious one is that> as I pointed out 7efore> we have onl3 a little e:perimental
evidence to support the idea that active 'sending) 73 a telepathic agent makes receipt of
the message an3 more likel3. /f course not man3 relevant e:periments have 7een doneN
7ut it must also 7e remem7ered that (r Louisa 8hine)s studies of spontaneous cases have
Eas I said 7eforeF led her to a similar Ethough disputedF conclusion.
#ommunications from the Li/ing
/f relevance in this connection are the various supposed cases of mediumistic
communication from the living. This is a topic which seems to me to 7e potentiall3 of
great interest and importance> and one that has 7een commonl3 neglected 73 1nglish and
American paraps3chologists. A num7er of ostensi7le cases of such communications are
scattered through the literature> 7ut onl3 a few attempts have 7een made to collect them
together and anal3se them Ee.g. %N !,F. For e:ample> 0ir Lawrence @ones tells us E,+> p.
$%F that his 3oungest daughter> aged nine> alive 7ut asleep> several times purported to
communicate from a distance through the automatic writing of "iss Aate <ingfield. /n
the first occasion she was asked> '<hat a7out the sailor frockO) Those present knew that
there was a plan to 7u3 her one 7ut nothing of the outcome. The answer came> '<e went
to a shop. "ummie Just said> VHou get those things out. That is her tallness.W And the3
got themN nothing else to 7e done> no cutting. The3 Just sent them home. That)s what I
like.) This turned out to 7e correct.
The trou7le with this case> as with a good man3 others> is that if there was a deli7erate
attempt 73 the 'agent) to send or 'overshadow)> we know nothing of it4she was asleep at
the time. Furthermore a clairvo3ant e:planation can hardl3 7e ruled out.
The nearest we can get among cases of 'communications from the living) to a case of
overshadowing is perhaps one reported in the Journal of the SPR in .!$ 73 a (utch
mem7er of the 0ociet3> (r @. K. 0uringar E&&F. In this case a (utch 7o3 of fifteen> who
desired to attend a home C%%C circle in a neigh7ouring house> 7ut was not allowed to>
apparentl3 spelled through the ouiJa 7oard operated in the circle su7stantial parts of a
short poem in 1nglish which he had passed the time in reading. <hile the poem was
actuall3 communicated> he was doGing. The communication thus did not> so far as one
can tell> represent a conscious 'overshadowing)N 7ut the 7o3)s thoughts had 7een ver3
much oriented upon the sitters and the seance.
In a su7stantial proportion> though 73 no means all> of the cases> the purported
communicator has 7een asleep> in a state of dissociation> in a coma> or d3ing Esee> for
instance> &,7> pp. $5L$F. EIn at least one ver3 curious case the ostensi7le
communicator was an elderl3 lad3 in an advanced state of senile dementia> which would
usuall3 involve e:tensive degeneration of 7rain cells. The 'communications)> though
disJointed> were rational T%!U.F 0ome> like 9oGGano> have seen in this fact an indication
that some part of the communicator)s personalit3 'proJects) as in 'astral travelling)> and
influences the medium directl3. 9e that as it ma3> the sad fact is that none of these living
communicators was afterwards a7le to give an account of their endeavours and
e:periencesN so we have little information 7earing upon the Muestion of whether or not
the3 could have 7een deli7eratel3 attempting to overshadow the mediums. And> as I said
7efore> there remains the alternative possi7ilit3 that the medium got her information 73
her own active 10P> that is 73 thought-reading or 73 clairvo3ance.
All in all there is at the moment little evidence in favour of overshadowing or agent-
active telepath3: this ma3 well> however> 7e due to the small amount of work done and
the difficult3 of designing conclusive e:periments. It seems to me that studies of
attempted communication 73 the living would 7e well worth undertaking> and would
com7ine well with the recent growing interest in out-of-the-7od3 e:periences. Positive
results would lend plausi7ilit3 to the theor3 of overshadowingN negative results would
weaken itN while certain kinds of results might altogether undermine the survivalist
interpretation of mediumistic phenomena4for e:ample if a medium proved a7le to 7uild
up a fictitious communicator from fragments each one of which was in the mind of a
different living person. 0uch results would also reflect 7ack upon the Muestion raised in
*hapters 0i: and 0even> of "rs Kerrall)s possi7le role in 7ringing a7out certain of the
cross-correspondences and literar3 puGGles.
C%&C A second difficult3 which confronts the notion of overshadowing Ewhere
overshadowing is regarded as a form of telepathic interactionF is this. In the most
impressive cases of trance mediumship veridical communications from the supposedl3
overshadowing communicators can come with considera7le fluenc3 and can conve3 Muite
detailed veridical information. The 'fluenc3) and detail have few if an3 parallels in the
literature of spontaneous and e:perimental 10P. The telepath3 concerned does not EI
argued a7oveF have all the characteristics of 'super-10P) 7ut it is still prett3 powerful
stuff. It seems inevita7le> therefore> that we shall have to add to the theor3 of
overshadowing a postulate to the effect that after one)s death one)s capacities for
telepathicall3 sending or overshadowing> and also for receiving 73 10P what ma3 7e
called the 'return) messages> are greatl3 enhanced. The most remarka7le cases of trance
mediumship illustrate what ma3 happen when a telepathic agent> with his powers thus
emancipated> works upon a gifted ps3chic4one> sa3> at least as remarka7le as the 7est of
/st3)s sensitives4who adds to these essential gifts the ps3chological Muirk> whatever it
ma3 7e Ea tendenc3 to dissociation> perhaps> or a lia7ilit3 to sink into unstructured
reverieF> which makes her in addition highl3 responsive to suggestions conve3ed 73 or
implicit in the telepathic influences pla3ing upon her. The proposal that death can unleash
a latent power to 'overshadow) ma3 appear wholl3 fantastic. 9ut it seems to me that an3
survivalistic interpretation of the phenomena of trance mediumship is 7ound to involve
itself in suppositions a7out the li7erating effect which death ma3 have upon the
decedent)s powers of 10P. For:
EaF persons who have in life shown no special gifts of telepath3 Eeither as sender or
receiverF seem to have made after death e:cellent mediumistic controls and
communicators.
E7F 0hould there 7e an3 form of survival of 7odil3 death> we can sa3 for sure that we shall
no longer possess our present sense organs. If our post-mortem state is not one of total
isolation> locked in the prison of our own dreams and memories> if we can sometimes
communicate with friends and relatives on earth> or with other deceased persons> that
communication will 73 definition come under the heading of 10P.
In sum: In *hapter 1ight I posed the Muestion of whether or not the 'controls) of trance
mediums can indeed sometimes 7e the deceased persons with whom the3 claim identit3>
possessing and operating the medium)s nervous machiner3 much as she does herself. The
evidence> I C%+C concluded> suggests that the3 cannot 7e regarded in this light. The3 are
most pro7a7l3 Just phases or aspects of the medium)s own personalit3. 2owever it is
possi7le that these phases of the medium)s mental life> in addition to favouring the
e:ercise of 'ordinar3) 10P> ma3 sometimes 7e directed or 'overshadowed) 73 the
deceased persons whom the3 so to speak represent. There are features of not a few cases
upon which it would 7e ver3 eas3 to put such an interpretation. *ertainl3 the super-10P
theor3> the theor3 that mediums in all instances simpl3 put on the show 73 means of their
dramatic gifts and powers of 10P> appears for reasons which I detailed most implausi7le.
/n the other hand I could not find much evidence for the kind of active-agent telepath3
that might 7e involved in the supposed process of overshadowing> so that overall I feel a
good deal more convinced of the shortcomings of the super-10P h3pothesis than I do of
the tena7ilit3 of the theor3 of overshadowing.
If further investigations fail to 3ield evidence for such active-agent telepath3 we might
perhaps instead e:plore the possi7ilit3 that a deceased person ma3 sometimes gain some
degree of direct control over the medium)s neuromuscular apparatusN a control> however>
that never full3 displaces that of the medium> who continuall3 influences the conJoint
output. A theor3 of this kind was occasionall3 put forward 73 "rs Leonard)s controls
E-c> pp. !+L!-+N &,cN &,iF. 2owever I do not at the moment find it plausi7leN for
wh3 should the medium)s influence so often intervene and override the control)s Just
when the latter is going to e:hi7it literar3 and philosophical information greatl3
e:ceeding the medium)sO And wh3 should it intervene to force the control to appear to
give a 7lessing and a certificate of genuineness to perfectl3 preposterous 'controls) who
can 7e nothing other than fictions dreamed up 73 the mediumO I shall not attempt to
suppl3 answers to these Muestions> 7ut the3 7ring us convenientl3 to the topic of the ne:t
chapter> viG. ostensi7le e:amples of o7sessions and possession.
An ouiJa 7oard sitting. The pointer spells out words letter 73 letter without conscious
intervention 73 the sitters. E*ourtes3 of A. (. *ornellF
"rs Leonora Piper E-&,L.&5F was the first mental medium to provide su7stantial
evidence for paranormal faculties.
<illiam @ames E-%!L.5F> the great American ps3chologist> was the first person to
investigate "rs Piper)s mediumship.
/liver Lodge E-&L.%5F was one of "rs Piper)s sittersN he handed her a watch
7elonging to a dead uncle and received some appropriate communications.
8ichard 2odgson E-&&L.5&F went to 9oston from 1ngland to investigate "rs Piper)s
mediumship> and after his death 7ecame one of her controls.
"rs #lad3s /s7orne Leonard E--!L.+-F conve3ed information which could not have
7een known to her sitters> through 7ook tests and pro:3 sittings.
"rs ". de #. Kerrall EupperF and her daughter 2elen> later "rs 0alter> were 7oth
automatists in the cross-correspondence writings. "rs 0alter also anal3sed some of "rs
Piper)s and "rs Leonard)s communications. E*ourtes3 of the "ar3 1vans Picture Li7rar3
and the 0.P.8.F
'"rs <illett) E"rs *oom7e-TennantF supposedl3 received dictation from (r Kerrall and
from "3ers after their deaths. E*ourtes3 of @ohn 2. *uttenF
F. <. 2. "3ers E-%$L.5F was a founder of the 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch>
proposed a theor3 of apparitions> and was ostensi7l3 one of the deceased people
responsi7le for the cross-correspondences.
Automatic writing 73 "rs <illett> supposedl3 from "3ers.
"rs 1leanor 0idgwick E-%&L.$+F anal3sed the material from the cross-
correspondences> and was herself President of the 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch in
.5-L..
0ketch 73 Frederic L. Thompson> left with Professor 23slop and drawn while he felt he
was 'overshadowed) 73 the personalit3 of the artist 8o7ert 0wain #ifford Esee *hapter
F.
Painting 73 #ifford E-%5L.5&F which shows a landscape with gnarled> wind7lown
trees.
C%,C
11 .=session and (ossession
I argued in *hapter 1ight that the claims so freMuentl3 made 73 the controls of mediums
to operate the medium)s neuromuscular apparatus directl3> much as ordinaril3 she does
herself> cannot Eat least in the great maJorit3 of casesF 7e taken at face value. "ediums as
it were pla3 at 7eing possessed. I do not mean that the3 are not in earnest> or that the3 are
conscious deceivers. I mean simpl3 that the whole drama of communication and control>
though it ma3 sometimes serve as a vehicle for paranormall3 acMuired information> is a
fiction spun from who knows what strange threads within the deeps of the hidden self. Is
there ever a realit3 corresponding to that which the mediumistic trance merel3 simulates>
a possession that is not Just pla3-actingO
In recent 3ears possession> whether considered as a variet3 of mental illness or as a mode
of dia7olic mischief-making> has undergone a curious revival4one that> could the3 know
a7out it> would have saddened and astonished forward-thinking Kictorian agnostics. <e
even have> once again> clerg3men who are virtuall3 specialists in e:orcism. The form of
possession which the3 have principall3 to com7at> or rather perhaps the form which most
often makes headlines> is the dia7olic> 7ut cases of ostensi7le possession 73 deceased
human 7eings also crop up. Ker3 fortunatel3 it is onl3 the latter which we need> for
present purposes> to consider.
*losel3 related to cases of ostensi7le possession> and in practice not eas3 to separate from
them> are cases of ostensi7le o7session. In cases of possession the supposed intruding
entit3 displaces or partl3 displaces the victim from his 7od3> and o7tains direct control of
it4the same sort of control> presuma7l3> as the victim himself had. EIt will 7e understood
here that I am talking a7out the 'e:ternals) of the phenomena> not speculating as to their
underl3ing cause.F In cases of o7session> the victim remains in immediate control of his
7od3> 7ut the supposed intruding entit3 influences his mind. It esta7lishes a sort of
parasitic relationship with his mind> where73 it can to an e:tent see C%-C what he sees>
feel what he feels> enJo3 what he enJo3s> etc.> and can also change the course of his
thoughts and actions to conform with its own desires. The process is commonl3> 7ut ver3
vaguel3> looked upon as one of reciprocal telepath3. The victim ma3 have a feeling of
7eing 'overshadowed) 73 another personalit3> and some writers have seen in o7session a
possi7le e:planation for various forms of mental distur7ance> including pho7ias> mor7id
cravings> se:ual perversions> sudden changes of character> paranoid delusions> aggressive
out7ursts and hallucinations.
*ases 7oth of ostensi7le possession and of ostensi7le o7session crop up from time to time
in the annals of 7oth 0piritualism and ps3chical research. Particularl3 popular with
0piritualists have 7een the series of cases reported in detail 73 (r *arl <ickland of
*hicago in his well-known 7ook Thirty Bears among the !ead E.!%F. <ickland 7elieved
that man3 cases of mental illness were due to o7session 73 earth-7ound spirits of
deceased persons. 2is method of tackling these cases was to induce the o7sessing spirits>
if necessar3 73 electric shocks> to leave the victim)s 7od3> to enter the 7od3 of a medium
Eto wit "rs <icklandF> and thence finall3 dislodge them 73 persuasion> o7Jurgation and
the help of spirit guides. (r <ickland possessed an assertive personalit3> a commanding
voice> and an electric shock machine of terrif3ing dimensions. 2is treatment seems often
to have 7een highl3 effective. =nfortunatel3 he showed insufficient interest in the
mundane 7usiness of checking out the communicator)s statements a7out themselves. In
the great maJorit3 of cases he seems simpl3 to have assumed that 7ecause the treatment
worked> its rationale was fundamentall3 correct4the ps3chotherapist)s classic error. 2is
copious records provide little solid evidence to support his theories.
;one the less one here and there comes across cases of ostensi7le o7session that are of
some paraps3chological interest. For instance> some curious e:amples were reported to
the First International *ongress of Ps3chical 8esearch> held at *openhagen in .!> 73
(r 1. "agnin of #eneva E.+F. "agnin gives> among others> the case of "adame ".>
aged &!> who suffered from a tendenc3 to undergo spasmodic and violent falls. 2er
malad3 had resisted the efforts of four doctors. It chanced that one afternoon> in "agnin)s
waiting room> this lad3 encountered a clairvo3ant medium whom she had never met
7efore. The clairvo3ant afterwards told "agnin that she had seen near "adame ". an
authoritarian> 7rutal and wicked man. "agnin 7rought the ladies together> and the
medium> in trance> was controlled C%.C 73 the purported spirit of the man she had Just
seen. 2e claimed to 7e "adame ".)s father> called her 'Louise)> spoke of a Muarrel
immediatel3 prior to his death Ea Muarrel 7rought a7out 73 his refusal to put on an
overcoat 7efore going outF. The father mentioned '"aurice) Ehis son-in-lawF> and '8ene)
Ehis grandsonF. Finall3 he was 7rought to a penitent frame of mind> and agreed to leave
his daughter. The names and facts given> though unknown to "agnin> were correct. <hen
the medium awoke she gave an accurate description of the old gentleman and of the
overcoat which had precipitated the Muarrel Eand hence the old man)s deathF> and she
gave the date of his death as , (ecem7er .$. The actual date was . (ecem7er .$.
"adame ".)s s3mptoms disappeared.
!he !hom&son'+ifford #ase
The most voluminousl3 documented> and pro7a7l3 the most e:traordinar3> of all the
o7session cases which have 7een su7Jected to serious investigation is that generall3
known as the Thompson-#ifford case. The principal investigator> Professor @. 2. 23slop
E-&%L.!5F> formerl3 professor of logic and ethics at *olum7ia =niversit3> was
secretar3 and e:ecutive head of the A0P8> which he had in effect re-founded in .5,. A
dedicated 7eliever in survival> he was none the less a stickler for the recording and
pu7lication of all possi7le details of seances> case investigations> etc.> and his report on
the Thompson-#ifford case occupies %+. pages of the Proceedings of the (SPR for the
3ear .5. E,aN cf. ,c> pp. !5$L!$5F. As a result of his investigations> he 7ecame
convinced that certain s3mptoms of apparent mental distur7ance ma3 sometimes 7e due
to the influence of o7sessing spirits. 2e su7seMuentl3 came upon further cases which he
thought supported this view> and investigated them 73 the methods he had tried out in the
Thompson-#ifford case. These methods involved consulting several different mediums>
sometimes with and sometimes without the presence of the o7sessed person. 1ach of the
mediums would clairvo3antl3 'see) the o7sessing entities> 7e themselves controlled 73
them> etc. If the statements made 73 or through the various mediums agreed with each
other> and with the patient)s s3mptoms> 23slop would diagnose a true o7session> and
might instigate a cure on this assumption.
After 23slop)s death> his procedures were taken up 73 a colleague> (r Titus 9ull> a
neurologist practising in ;ew Hork E-+aN -+7F. It seems that 9ull eventuall3 took the
further step of dispensing altogether with C&5C an3 direct contact 7etween patient and
medium E$%F. 2e would act in effect as a pro:3 sitter on 7ehalf of the o7sessed person.
;ow if under these conditions:
EaF o7sessing entities communicated and gave correct information a7out themselves.
E7F unknown to the patient these entities were talked or caJoled into MuittingN and
EcF the patient thereupon recovered>
we would have a case presenting severe and o7vious difficulties for the super-10P
h3pothesis.
I do not know whether an3 of 9ull)s cases met these criteria. The records which have
7een pu7lished relate mainl3 to the earlier period. 2e seems to have had> like <ickland> a
good success rate. =nfortunatel3> and also like <ickland> he tended to accept the mere
fact of cure as supporting his theor3. 2e did not go out of his wa3 to verif3 the
communicators) statements a7out themselves.
To return to the Thompson-#ifford case: The 'o7sessed) person here was Frederic L.
Thompson> aged $+ at the 7eginning of the events concerned. Thompson was a goldsmith
73 profession> and had occasionall3 e:hi7ited some slight talent for sketching. (uring the
summer and autumn of .5& he was freMuentl3 seiGed with impulses to sketch and paint
in oils. <hile painting he often felt> and remarked to his wife Eshe confirmed itF> that he
was an artist named 8o7ert 0wain #ifford E-%5L.5&F> whom he had met 7riefl3 a few
times> 7ut of whose work he knew virtuall3 nothing.
In @anuar3 .5+ he went to an e:hi7ition of #ifford)s work> and there learned for the first
time that #ifford had died a 3ear previousl3. <hile looking at one of the pictures he
heard a voice sa3> 'Hou see what I have done. *an 3ou not take up and finish m3 workO)
After this episode> the urge to paint 7ecame stronger> and he 7egan to have freMuent
visual and auditor3 hallucinations. 2e painted some of these visions> and sold two or
three of the resultant pictures Etheir resem7lance to #ifford)s work was commented
uponF. The visions were especiall3 of landscapes with wind7lown treesN and one
particular scene4of gnarled oaks on a promontor3 73 raging seas4continuall3 haunted
him. 2e did several sketches of it> and a painting> which he called 'The 9attle of the
1lements).
The paintings were done in states of mind which ranged from slight dissociation to more
or less complete automatism. Thompson had alwa3s 7een dream3 and prone to reverie.
;ow he 7ecame incapa7le C&C of attending properl3 to his work> and his financial
position deteriorated. 2e 7egan to fear he was 7ecoming insane> and on + @anuar3 .5,
called on 23slop> to whom a mutual acMuaintance had recommended he go.
23slop was at first inclined to think him mentall3 distur7ed> 7ut decided that it might 7e
interesting to check out the #ifford connection 73 taking him to a medium. Accordingl3
he took him on - @anuar3 to visit a non-professional clairvo3ant medium> "rs
'8ath7un). "rs 8ath7un spoke of a man 7ehind him who was fond of painting> and
descri7ed this man in terms not incompati7le with #ifford. Thompson told her that he
was tr3ing to find a certain scene of oak trees 73 the sea. 0he descri7ed a group of oak
trees with fallen 7ranches> and said it was a place near the sea> to which one had to go 73
7oat.
Thompson was encouraged 73 this sitting to 7elieve that he was not insane and carried on
sketching and painting his visions. "eanwhile 23slop took him to various other mediums
Ealwa3s incognitoF. The most interesting sitting in this period was one with the trance
medium "rs '*henoweth) E"rs 0ouleF on + "arch .5,. Full stenographic records
were made of what her control said Eshe also wrote occasionall3F. "uch 'came through)
at this sitting to identif3 #ifford. 2is characteristic clothes and mannerisms> his fondness
for rugs> his love of hills and the ocean and of red and 7rown leaves> the oil skins he wore
when 7oating and painting> his liking for mist3 scenes> and the unfinished canvases in his
studio> were all unmistaka7l3 referred to. "an3 of the statements made were confirmed
73 "rs #ifford. #ifford was represented as sa3ing> 'I will help 3ou> 7ecause I want
someone who can catch the inspiration of these things as I did> to carr3 on m3 work.)
Thompson soon afterwards decided that he would set forth to tr3 to locate the actual
scenes of his visions> keeping a da3 73 da3 diar3 of his endeavours. /n ! @ul3 .5,>
7efore departing> he gave 23slop a num7er of the sketches which he had done under the
'#ifford) influence in the summer and autumn of .5&. 2e went first to ;onMuitt>
"assachusetts> where #ifford had had his summer home> e:pecting to locate the scenes
in that neigh7ourhood. 2e learned here E"rs #ifford allowed him to see her late
hus7and)s studioF that more likel3 settings were various of the 1liGa7eth Islands> off
9uGGard)s 9a3> "assachusetts> and especiall3 ;aushon Island> on which #ifford had
7een 7orn. 2e thereupon set off for these islands. The result of his tour ma3 7e
summariGed as follows:
C&!C . Thompson discovered set up on an easel in #ifford)s studio a painting that
corresponded in close and unmistaka7le detail with a sketch of his own> made from a
vision> a sketch which was among those he had left 7ehind with 23slop. 23slop prints
photographs of 7oth in his paper> together with a letter from "rs Thompson which makes
it clear that Thompson could not have seen the painting on an3 previous occasion. Later
on Thompson found the original scene on ;ashawena Island> and painted it himself.
Also in #ifford)s studio were two other pictures which 23slop descri7es as 'identical)
with sketches previousl3 made 73 Thompson> sketches> however> which were not among
those deposited with 23slop. The photographs of the #ifford pictures reproduced as
23slop)s figure ?I? are so small and so poor that one cannot properl3 assess the
similarit3 for oneself.
!. Thompson found actual scenes corresponding to several of the sketches he had left
with 23slop. 2e photographed these scenes. The photographs Eas reproduced 73 23slopF
are not of good Mualit3> and some outlines have 7een inked in. In one instance4that of a
group of trees near ;onMuitt4the resem7lance 7etween the conformation of the trees in
the sketch and in the photograph is e:ceedingl3 close. In other cases> however> the
resem7lance is much less close> and I should hesitate to put reliance on itN though it must
7e said that from all accounts similarities of colouring 7etween sketch and scene> which
cannot of course 7e assessed from a 7lack and white photograph> ma3 have 7een
impressive.
$. Thompson also located> or 7elieved that he had located> other scenes from his visions.
2e felt that he was led or guided to them. <hile e:amining and sketching such a scene> a
group of trees on ;aushon Island> he heard a voice tell him to look on the other side of
the trees. 2e did so> and found #ifford)s initials carved there> with the 3ear .5!. 23slop
later e:amined the carving Eit was not recentF and photographed it.
%. /n the same island Thompson located and painted the group of gnarled oaks on a
promontor3 73 the seas> the group his earlier pictures of which were termed 'The 9attle
of the 1lements). An earl3 sketch of this had 7een left with 23slop. The painting from the
vision and the painting from the realit3 resem7le each other closel3. Thompson went 7ack
to the island with 23slop and> after much difficult3> relocated the spot. 23slop took some
photographs which clearl3 show relevant details of the twisted and fallen 7ranches.
=nfortunatel3 he was not C&$C a7le to take photographs showing the whole of that side of
the promontor3 which is represented in the paintings> 7ut had instead to take close-up
shots of the oaks from another angle. Thus the undou7ted correspondences 7etween the
actual scene and the visionar3 sketches have to 7e worked out rather than 7eing instantl3
o7vious to the e3e.
It must 7e pointed out at this Juncture that as a lad Thompson had lived for a couple of
3ears in ;ew 9edford> which is within striking distance of the 1liGa7eth Islands. 2e
maintained Eand there was never an3 serious reason to Muestion his veracit3 on this or an3
other aspect of the caseF that he had never visited the islandsN and the truth of this
assertion was attested 73 his mother> his sister and his wife.
23slop decided that in the light of these new> and e:ceedingl3 curious developments> he
and Thompson Ethe latter incognito as usualF should have some further sittings> and in
April .5- he once again 7egan to do the rounds of the mediums. =nfortunatel3 the3
o7tained nothing of interest prior to the middle of "a3> at which point gar7led versions of
the stories leaked into the press> and could have 7een picked up and acted upon 73 the
mediums concerned. 0till> a lot of material 'came through) which could hardl3 have 7een
the result of clandestine enMuiries. At sittings in @une "rs *henoweth)s controls gave
Muite a num7er of small 7ut correct details a7out #ifford. "ention was made of Efor
instanceF his ha7it of holding something 'like a cigarette) Ea little stickF in his mouth
while paintingN of the fact that he had illustrated poetr3N of his two studios> town and
countr3 Eidentif3ing details of the latter were givenFN of his old-fashioned furniture and
rush-7ottomed chairsN of a 7ureau with outward-spreading legsN of his ha7it of keeping
large Muantities of his old 7rushes to paint rocks and rough thingsN of a scene which he
had painted near his homeN of a white lighthouse there with a stead3 Ei.e. not revolvingF
lightN and of the fact that he had lost a child and tried to put its face into pictures.
At the sitting of & @une .5-> #ifford himself purported to control "rs *henoweth> and
asked if Thompson remem7ered an incident when he had stood on a 7ridge> and looking
down into the water saw there pictures like reflections> which had inspired him with a
great desire to paint. Thompson had in fact had such an e:perience while standing on a
7ridge on ;aushon Island. #ifford again ostensi7l3 controlled> and showed a knowledge
of Thompson)s hallucinations> at a sitting on . (ecem7er .5- with another trance
medium> "rs '0mead). The purported #ifford wrote 'ocean 3es 3es 3es)> drew what C&%C
looked like a pile of rocks surmounted 73 a cross> and then wrote 'm3 name is on it> m3
name is on it). /ver a month 7efore the sitting> Thompson had come across such a cross
7eside the sea4it formed part of the wreckage of a ship4and had seen on it #ifford)s
initials> 8. 0. #. <hen he approached the wreck> the initials faded. 2e was> however> so
impressed> that he painted the scene> and descri7ed the incident in a letter to his wife>
which was in 23slop)s hands #efore the sitting of . (ecem7er. ;one of the mediums>
incidentall3> ever gave #ifford)s full name> 7ut "rs 0mead produced his initials> first as
8. #. 0. and then as 8. 0. #.
It does not seem to me that either the theor3 of fraud or the theor3 of chance coincidence
can usefull3 7e applied to the Thompson-#ifford case> whether we think Just of
Thompson)s visions> or of the whole comple: of other phenomena Ethe paintings> the
mediumistic sittings> etc.F associated with them. Two sorts of accounts of Thompson)s
visions might 7e given from the point of view of the super-10P h3pothesis. The first
would reMuire us to suppose that> for some apprecia7le time prior to #ifford)s death>
Thompson had 7een in close and freMuent E7ut unconsciousF e:trasensor3 contact with
him Eit will 7e recalled that the two had metF> and had stored up for su7seMuent use the
manifold images thus o7tained. ;ow there is something to suggest that in certain cases of
spontaneous 10P there ma3 have 7een a dela3 of a few hours 7etween the receipt of an
e:trasensor3 impression and its emergence into consciousness. 9ut I know of no case
which involves an3thing like the length of dela3 and the num7er of impressions which
one finds in the Thompson-#ifford case. I think therefore that one should reJect this
version of the super-10P h3pothesis.
The second possi7le version of the super-10P h3pothesis would 7e the more orthodo:
one which would postulate that Thompson acMuired clairvo3ant knowledge of the
canvases still in #ifford)s studio> learned telepathicall3 Eperhaps from "rs #iffordF of
#ifford)s favourite hunting grounds> clairvo3antl3 investigated them> and selected from
them> as the themes of recurrent visions> the sort of spots which might appeal to a painter.
The onl3 thing I can sa3 in favour of this fantastic h3pothesis Efor which the annals of
10P provide no parallelF is that it ma3 7e less fantastic than its chief competitor> the
survival theor3. This does not seem to me a sufficient reason for accepting it.
As soon as we pass on to consider other aspects of the case> 7oth forms of the super-10P
h3pothesis run upon further difficulties. There is C&&C firstl3 the pro7lem of the st3le and
techniMue of the paintings. This is perhaps the least serious of the pro7lems. The
resem7lance of su7Ject-matter 7etween Thompson)s paintings and #ifford)s was o7vious
to an3one. As to whether or not there was an underl3ing similarit3 of st3le and techniMue>
e:pert opinions differed> and it is perhaps safer to sa3 that few e:perts could 7elieve that
the Thompson paintings were the work of a man who had onl3 7een painting a short time
and had had virtuall3 no formal training. Het there could 7e little dou7t that this was so. It
was clear> however> that Thompson had alwa3s had a talent for sketching> and we can
hardl3 define the limits of the possi7le in respect of a sudden artistic flowering.
A more serious pro7lem is that of motive. Thompson)s finances suffered severel3 7ecause
of his overpowering urge to sketch and paint> and he was a married man. ;o such
overpowering urge had previousl3 crossed the threshold of his consciousness. <e could
sa3 that it had lain simmering in his unconscious for 3ears prior to the death of #ifford>
and that the death Eof which Thompson remained unaware for a 3earF had 7een picked up
and unconsciousl3 utiliGed as an e:cuse for letting it out. 9ut these proposals a7out
happenings in the unconscious mind are as unverifia7le as stories a7out the other side of
nowhere> and seem to me Just the sort of 7arren speculations with which> I argued in
*hapter /ne> we should tr3 to avoid 7ecoming entangled.
Further vistas of comple:it3 unfold if we take into account the statements made 73 the
various mediums. Although several of the sittings were tedious and unsuccessful> it
certainl3 seems to me that at others correct information a7out #ifford came through>
information not infreMuentl3 unknown to either of the sitters. Anowledge was also shown
of the contents of Thompson)s visions. The mediums must> it seems> have telepathicall3
picked the thought of #ifford from Thompson)s mind> and then have telepathicall3 and
clairvo3antl3 located other sources of information a7out him.
There is no dou7t that the super-10P h3pothesis> applied to this case Eas to othersF is
messy in a wa3 not to 7e eMuated with mere comple:it3. If the survivalist theor3 were
tena7le it would immensel3 simplif3 things. The trou7le with the survivalist theor3 is not
e:actl3 messiness> 7ut rather conflict with other areas of our knowledge> and an
underl3ing vagueness upon certain crucial issues.
0uppose that> purel3 for the sake of argument> we were to accept a C&+C survivalist
interpretation of the Thompson-#ifford case. The o7vious Muestion would then arise>
what sort of relationship might 7e supposed to e:ist 7etween the o7sessing entit3 Ethe
deceased #iffordF> and his willing victim> ThompsonO Thompson)s mental state while
under the #ifford influence varied from dreaminess and mild dissociation Eto which he
was in an3 case lia7leF to a fairl3 complete automatism with Epro7a7l3F a good deal of
amnesia> not however Muite amounting to a trance. I have seen not a few mediums in
what I should guess were states from the same range. It might 7e proposed> for the sorts
of reasons mentioned in previous chapters> that e:trasensor3 influences most readil3 well
up into consciousness or into action when the su7Ject is in a dreamlike and dissociated
state of mind> and it might also 7e proposed Ethough this is a considera7l3 disputed pointF
that in some people such a state ma3 7e accompanied 73 a heightened responsiveness to
suggestion. *om7ine these notions with that of reciprocal telepath3 7etween the medium
and the discarnate entit34one might suppose that the medium simpl3 picks up whatever
the discarnate entit3 clearl3 imagines> or one might assign the latter a more active role of
somehow inJecting material into the former)s dream4and we arrive again at a view of
the process of communication ver3 like the theor3 of 'overshadowing) which I outlined in
earlier chapters. And it is ver3 eas3 to see how this theor3 might 7e applied in the
Thompson-#ifford case4provided alwa3s Eand it is a 7ig provisoF that we can arrive at a
concept of telepath3 which will fill the 7ill. The onl3 difference 7etween the Thompson-
#ifford case and man3 cases of mental mediumship would 7e first that Thompson was
influenced onl3 73 one discarnate entit3> and second that the influence manifested itself
7oth in sensor3 hallucination and in motor automatism. If we look upon the Thompson-
#ifford case in these terms> there is no Muestion of its 7eing an e:ample of true
possession4of the direct control of a living person)s neuromuscular apparatus 73 a
discarnate person.
(ossession
Are there an3 cases at all which even suggest a 'true) possessionO A case which is often
cited as 7eing at an3 rate a contender is that of Luranc3 Kennum> the '<atseka <onder).
This case is descri7ed in a ver3 rare pamphlet 73 1. <. 0tevens E&!F> the doctor who
was in charge of this 3oung lad3. The pamphlet was a7ridged and e:cerpted 73 F. <. 2.
"3ers> who also added details o7tained 73 8ichard 2odgson from C&,C interviews with
some of the principal participants E5a> I> pp. $+5L$,5F. I shall draw upon the
a7ridgment in m3 account of the case.
Luranc3 Kennum was 7orn on + April -+%> at a place a7out seven miles from <atseka>
Illinois. 2er famil3 moved to <atseka on April -,. The3 took a house a7out two
hundred 3ards from that of a "r A. 9. 8off and his famil3. The two families developed
onl3 a formal and distant acMuaintance. A7out the autumn of -,> the Kennum famil3
moved awa3 from the vicinit3 of the 8offs> and never again lived nearer to them than the
'e:treme opposite limits of the cit3).
In @ul3 -,,> Luranc3 7egan to have fits or trances. It was generall3 thought that she had
7ecome insane. "r 8off> whose deceased daughter "ar3 8off had had periods of
insanit3> persuaded "r Kennum to let him 7ring (r 1. <. 0tevens to see her. (r 0tevens
and "r 8off visited Luranc3 on $ @anuar3 -,-.
It appears that various deceased persons now purported to control Luranc3 and to speak
through her. After 7eing h3pnotiGed 73 (r 0tevens> she stated that one "ar3 8off wished
to come. "r 8off said> 'Hes> let her come> we)ll 7e glad to have her come.) ;e:t morning
the girl 7egan to claim to 7e "ar3 8off> who had died> aged eighteen> in @ul3 -+&> when
Luranc3 was Just over a 3ear old.
A7out a week later> "rs A. 9. 8off> and her daughter> "rs "inerva Alter> "ar3)s sister>
hearing of the remarka7le change> went to see the girl. As the3 came in sight S "ar3
Ti.e. Luranc3 'controlled) 73 "ar3 8offU looking out of the window> e:claimed e:ultingl3>
'There comes m3 ma and sister ;ervieR)4the name 73 which "ar3 used to call "rs
Alter in girlhood. As the3 came into the house she caught them around their necks> wept
and cried for Jo3> and seemed so happ3 to meet them. From this time on she seemed more
homesick than 7efore. At times she seemed almost frantic to go home.
/n the th da3 of Fe7ruar3> -,-> the3 sent the girl to "r 8off)s> where she met her 'pa
and ma)> and each mem7er of the famil3> with the most gratif3ing e:pressions of love and
affection S /n 7eing asked how long she would sta3> she said> 'The angels will let me
sta3 till some time in "a3)N and she made it her home there till "a3 !st> three months
and ten da3s> a happ3> contented daughter and sister in a 7orrowed 7od3.
The girl now in her new home seemed perfectl3 happ3 and content> knowing ever3
person and ever3thing that "ar3 knew when in her original 7od3> S recogniGing and
calling 73 name those who were friends and neigh7ours of the famil3 from -&! to -+&
S calling attention to scores> 3es> hundreds of incidents that transpired during her natural
life. (uring all the period of her soJourn at "r 8offs she had no knowledge of> and did
not recogniGe> an3 of "r Kennum)s famil3.
/ne evening> in the latter part of "arch> "r 8off was sitting in the room C&-C waiting for
tea> and reading the paper> '"ar3) 7eing out in the 3ard. 2e asked "rs 8off if she could
find a certain velvet head-dress that "ar3 used to wear the last 3ear 7efore she died. If so
to la3 it on the stand and sa3 nothing a7out it> to see if "ar3 would recogniGe it. "rs 8off
readil3 found and laid it on the stand. The girl soon came in> and immediatel3 e:claimed
as she approached the stand> '/h> there is m3 head-dress I wore when m3 hair was shortR)
0he then asked> '"a> where is m3 7o: of lettersO 2ave 3ou got them 3etO) "rs 8off
replied> 'Hes> "ar3> I have some of them.) 0he at once got the 7o: with man3 letters in it.
As "ar3 7egan to e:amine them she said> '/h> ma> here is a collar I tattedR "a> wh3 did
3ou not show to me m3 letters and things 7eforeO) The collar had 7een preserved among
the relics of the lamented child as one of the 7eautiful things her fingers had wrought
7efore Luranc3 was 7ornN and so "ar3 continuall3 recogniGed ever3 little thing and
remem7ered ever3 little incident of her girlhood.
S "r 8off asked "ar3 if she remem7ered moving to Te:as Tin -&,U or an3thing a7out
it. 'Hes> pa> and I remem7er crossing 8ed 8iver and of seeing a great man3 Indians> and I
remem7er "rs 8eeder)s girls> who were in our compan3.) And thus she from time to time
made first mention of things that transpired thirteen to twent3-five 3ears ago S
After a few 7rief reappearances> the Luranc3 personalit3 returned completel3 on ! "a3
-,-> and remained in control thereafter> apart from 7rief interventions from "ar3 when
Luranc3 visited the 8offs. Luranc3)s health remained good> and there was no return of
the fits.
The simplest e:planation of this ver3 curious case is clearl3 that of impersonation>
deli7erate or h3sterical. Luranc3> it might 7e suggested> though not living close to the
8olfs> might have picked up gossip a7out them. After she went to live with them she
would have had all sorts of opportunities of picking up trivial 7its of information. <e
have no ver7atim reports of her conversations with the 8offs> reports in which the hints>
leading Muestions> etc.> which pro7a7l3 helped her> could 7e detected> and from which the
numerous mistakes which she pro7a7l3 made could 7e disinterred instead of left 7uried
and forgotten. All this is ver3 true> and perfectl3 argua7leN 3et I do not find it altogether
convincing. <hen 2odgson visited <atseka in April -.5> he o7tained from the
witnesses Ein this case "ar3)s sister "inervaF such details as the following.
Luranc3> as "ar3 8off> sta3ed at "rs Alter)s home for some time> and almost ever3 hour
of the da3 some trifling incident of "ar3 8off)s life was recalled 73 Luranc3. /ne
morning she said> '8ight over there 73 the currant 7ushes is where cousin Allie greased
the chicken)s e3e.) Allie was a cousin of "ar3 8off> and lived in Peoria> Ill. 0he visited
the 8offs in the C&.C lifetime of "ar3> with whom she pla3ed. This incident happened
several 3ears 7efore the death of "ar3 8off. "rs Alter remem7ered it ver3 well> and
recalled their 7ringing the chicken into the house for treatment.
That does not sound the sort of fact likel3 to have 7een elicited 73 a leading Muestion> or
picked up in casual gossip> and it would take Muite a lot of forgotten mistakes to
counter7alance it.
If the case was not one of impersonation> how might we regard it Espeaking still> and
simpl3 for the sake of argument> from a survivalistic viewpointFO <as it an e:ample of
unusuall3 sustained 'overshadowing)> 7asicall3 like other cases of mediumship or
o7session> or was it a true case of 'possession)O It is Muite unlike most cases of
mediumship in the length of time for which the apparent control lasted> in the
completeness of the control over all aspects of mental and ph3sical functioning> and in
the sustained manifestation of what was apparentl3 a whole and recogniGed personalit3.
Het there are indications4initial trances> and ostensi7le control 73 other deceased
persons4that Luranc3 was 7asicall3 of the mediumistic t3pe. Perhaps she had also
tendencies towards secondar3 personalit3 Eif that is indeed a different thingF. 0ome
com7ination of these two ideas might suffice to e:plain the case without resort to the
further h3pothesis of possession.
/f course if one turns to the super-10P h3pothesis the usual o7vious difficulties arise4
the e:tent of the 10P involved and the rapidit3 with which it must 7e supposed to
operate> together with the length of time for which it would have had to have 7een almost
continuousl3 sustained> and the motive for the charade. 9ut 7efore one reJects this
h3pothesis as altogether outrunning an3thing that we know a7out 10P one must recollect
the o7vious point that I have in effect made several times 7efore> namel3 that the
'overshadowing) h3pothesis itself postulates a form of telepath34that 7etween
overshadower and overshadowed4which would appear to have some of these de7ata7le
characteristics.
0ome people might 7e tempted to sa3 that the case of Luranc3 Kennum was all a long
time agoN and perhaps it didn)t happen> and ma37e it would 7e as well if that were so.
There is however a ver3 much more recent> and even more remarka7le> case which
presents certain analogous features> and which has 7een studied 73 persons who full3
appreciate the standards of evidence which must 7e applied in investigating such cases. I
refer to the case of =ttara 2uddar> reported 73 0tevenson and Pasricha in the Journal of
the (SPR for @ul3 .-5 C+5C E&%7N cf. &%aF. =ttara is an unmarried lad3> 7orn in .%>
and living in ;agpur> "aharashtra> India. 0he is a part-time lecturer in the Postgraduate
(epartment of Pu7lic Administration at ;agpur =niversit3. 1arl3 in .,%> =ttara)s
normal personalit3 was Muite suddenl3 replaced 73 a markedl3 different one> who called
herself 0harada. 0harada remained in control for several weeks> and has reappeared since
at least thirt3 times> for periods ranging from one da3 to seven weeks.
0harada appeared ignorant not Just of =ttara)s famil3 and surroundings> 7ut of all features
of modern life post-dating the Industrial 8evolution. 0he dressed> acted and spoke like a
married 9engali woman> and spent much of her time in religious e:ercises. 0he claimed
to 7e the daughter of a certain 9raJanath *hattopadha3a> gave man3 names and other
details of her relatives> and showed a knowledge of various o7scure villages and temples
in 9engal. =ttara states> and her relatives confirm> that she has never visited 9engal.
"ost of the places mentioned 73 0harada are in what is now <est 9engal> some &55
miles from ;agpur. A town called 9ans7eria Enorth of *alcuttaF figured prominentl3 in
0harada)s statements. It transpired that a famil3 named *hattopadha3a still lives there.
The head of this famil3 possesses a genealog3 for the period -5L$5 when it seems
from other clues that 0harada lived. This genealog3 lists five of the men named 73
0harada> in relationships to her corresponding to those which> as a daughter of 9raJanath
*hattopadha3a> she would have had to them. =nfortunatel3 it lists onl3 men> so it cannot
directl3 confirm or disconfirm 0harada)s e:istence. The relevant part of the genealog3
was pu7lished in .5, in a 9engali magaGine circulating in the area of 9ans7eria.
0harada claims to have 'fainted) after 7eing 7itten 73 a snake at the age of !!> and to have
known nothing since then until she 'awoke) to her present intermittent e:istence.
The oddest aspect of the case remains to 7e mentioned. 0harada at first showed no
knowledge of "arathi> which is =ttara)s native language Eshe has since learned a few
phrasesF> 7ut spoke fluent 9engali> a language with which =ttara denies all acMuaintance.
There is a7solutel3 no Muestion of 0harada)s competence in 9engali. 0i: different well-
educated native speakers of 9engali who have conversed with her> sometimes for long
periods> testif3 on this point. Pasricha has made a tape-recording of 0harada> and the
authors also possess another tape-recording with partial transcript.
C+C I have alread3 commented on the importance of cases of responsive :enogloss3 and
on the difficulties which the3 present for the super-10P h3pothesis. It is accordingl3 of
the first importance to inMuire how far =ttara)s claim to have no previous acMuaintance
with 9engali can 7e su7stantiated. <hile still at school she had had a few lessons in
reading the scripts of languages other than "arathi> and these included 9engali. 9ut she
was taught to pronounce the letters of the scripts with "arathi sounds rather than 9engali
ones. 2er father had a few friends from the 9engali communit3 in ;agpur> 7ut none of
them ever spoke 9engali with him 7ecause he had no knowledge of it himself. =ttara)s
parents and two of her sisters denied that she had ever had an3 opportunit3 to learn
9engali. A 7rother who had lived in /rissa> and had picked up some 9engali> stated that
he had never used it in her presence.
0tevenson and Pasricha spent much time inMuiring a7out and interviewing 9engali-
speaking persons who might have communicated a knowledge of 9engali to =ttara. The3
were not successful.
93 wa3 of conclusion I can do no 7etter than Muote 0tevenson and Pasricha)s own
conclusions:
The marked alterations of personalit3 in this case have some resem7lance to mediumistic
trances> 7ut the differences are greater than the similarities. "ediumistic trances are
almost alwa3s induced voluntaril3> whereas T=ttara)sU personalit3 changes occurred Muite
involuntaril3. "ediumistic trances usuall3 last an hour or two at the mostN 0harada
remained 'in control) for da3s> sometimes for weeks.
The case also has some resem7lance to cases of secondar3 personalit3> 7ut the usual
secondar3 personalit3 claims to 7e more or less contemporar3 and collocal with the
primar3 personalit3> whereas 0harada descri7ed a life in another part of her countr3 and
a7out &5 3ears earlier. Furthermore> the usual secondar3 personalit3 has no paranormal
powers> although there have 7een rare e:ceptions. 0harada)s a7ilit3 to speak fluent
9engali constitutes> in our opinion> a paranormall3 acMuired skill.
The case also resem7les in some respects cases suggestive of reincarnation> 7ut in such
cases the su7Ject usuall3 7egins to speak a7out the previous life he or she claims to
remem7er 7etween the ages of ! and &. "oreover> such a child)s ordinar3 personalit3 is
rarel3 suppressed completel3 Eas was T=ttara)sUF during the narration of his or her
claimed memories. E&%a> p. &.!F
To this I can onl3 add the following. If it is indeed true Eas proposed in *hapter 0evenF
that the linguistic skills reMuired for fluent responsive :enogloss3 cannot 7e transmitted
73 telepath3> this case Ethat is> of C+!C course> if we accept the paranormal aspects of itF
would appear to leave us with a choice onl3 7etween 'true) possession and reincarnationN
for 7oth the super-10P theor3 and the theor3 of 'overshadowing) Ewhich also involves
telepath3F would 7e ruled out.
C+$C
12 2eincarnation
There can 7e no issue that more effectivel3 separates optimists from pessimists than that
of reincarnation. <ill the world of the future 7e such that a rational man could possi7l3
desire to 7e re7orn into itO I must confess to 7eing a pessimist. <hilst I can endure with
fortitude and even curiosit3 the thought that I ma3 have 7een incarnated man3 times in
the past> the prospect of future incarnations distur7s me profoundl3. I am inclined to
appl3 to reincarnation in particular a remark made 73 the late Professor *. (. 9road E-d>
p. &,F concerning survival in general: '2aving had the luck S to draw an eel from a sack
full of adders> I do not wish to risk putting m3 hand into the sack again.) 1els> it seems to
me> rare enough now> are likel3 in the future to 7e an endangered species.
"3 pessimism is of no importance to the present discussion> e:cept in so far as m3
readers need to 7e warned against it. It seems> indeed> not to 7e widel3 shared. In recent
decades a growth of interest in oriental thought has 7rought a greater awareness of
reincarnationist philosophies. /pinion surve3s suggest that in 1urope and America 7elief
in reincarnation is increasing. A #allup Poll pu7lished in The !aily Telegraph for !5
April .- found that the percentage of 9ritons e:pressing a 7elief in reincarnation had
risen from eighteen to twent3-eight per cent since .+. Ecf. !%> p. 5F.
<hat concerns us at the moment> however> is not the e:tent of 7elief in reincarnation> 7ut
whether that 7elief can 7e supported 73 appeal to empirical facts. For reincarnation is a
form of survival> and evidence for reincarnation is therefore evidence for survival. In his
Human Personality and its Survival of odily !eath> a massive surve3 of the materials
collected 73 the 0P8 in its first twent3 3ears> F. <. 2. "3ers wrote E5a> II> pp. $%L
$&F> 'S for reincarnation there is at present no valid evidenceN and it must 7e m3 dut3 to
show how its assertion in an3 given instance S constitutes in itself a strong argument in
favour of self-suggestion S) "3ers goes on to comment on the C+%C reincarnationist
form of 0piritualism which> from the mid-nineteenth centur3 onwards> spread in France
and 9raGil mainl3 through the influence of 'Allan Aardec) Eon Aardec> see 5%F. Aardec>
sa3s "3ers E5a> II> p. $&F> 'took up reincarnationist tenets> enforced them Eas there is
reason to 7elieveF 73 strong suggestion upon the minds of various automatic writers> and
set them forth in dogmatic works which have had much influence> especiall3 among
Latin nations> from their clarit3> s3mmetr3> and intrinsic reasona7leness. Het the data thus
collected were a7solutel3 insufficient S)
"3ers)s assessment of the evidence for reincarnation as it stood in his time seems to me
largel3 correct. ;or was there an3 dramatic upturn in that evidence during the first half of
the twentieth centur3 Ethough see !.N %N $,F. Anglo-American 0piritualism remained
generall3 opposed to the idea> and it received little attention from the 0P8 and the A0P8
prior to the pu7lication of Professor *. @. (ucasse)s ( Critical 3+amination of the elief
in a "ife after !eath E.+F> and of Professor Ian 0tevenson)s case investigations> which I
shall discuss shortl3. EFor some reincarnationist communications through "rs Leonard>
however> see &,h.F Toda3 the picture is ver3 different. <e have a good deal of apparent
evidence for reincarnation> some of which reaches a standard that reMuires its inclusion in
an3 general surve3 of the evidence for survival.
The ostensi7le evidence for reincarnation ma3 7e divided into two 7road categories. <e
have> firstl3> statements made 73 sensitives of a certain sort concerning the supposed past
incarnations of their clients4the 'life readings) of 1dgar *a3ce are the most famous
e:amples. 0econdl3> we have Muite numerous cases of persons claiming to have
memories> more or less detailed> of their earlier incarnations. I shall not discuss evidence
of the former categor3 at all> not 7ecause I think that the sensitives concerned never give
indications of possessing paranormal faculties> 7ut 7ecause searching for and evaluating
these indications would reMuire much effort and 3ield small reward.
1vidence of the latter categor34the claimed memories of previous lives4ma3 for our
purposes 7e further su7divided into three classes> namel3: evidence from h3pnotic
'regression) into past livesN ostensi7le recollections 73 Eunh3pnotiGedF adults of their
supposed previous incarnationsN and childrens) ostensi7le memories of previous
incarnations.
C+&C
H"&notic 2egression
The 7est-known of these classes is without dou7t that of h3pnotic regressions into past
lives. I do not know who first thought of tr3ing such e:periments. The3 are a fairl3
o7vious development of some of the demonstrations4making h3pnotiGed su7Jects act the
part of ;apoleon> act like a child of five> etc.4which had 7ecome part of the staple
repertoire of itinerant 'magnetiGers) and 'electro7iologists) 73 the middle of the
nineteenth centur3. This trick can 7e performed with most moderatel3 good h3pnotic
su7Jects. 0piritualists of the school of Aardec were certainl3 attempting h3pnotic
regression into past lives 7efore the 3ear -.5> and in . the practice received some
impetus from the pu7lication of *ol. A. de 8ochas) "es vies successives$ *ol. de 8ochas
proJected his su7Jects forward into future incarnations> as well as 7ackwards into past
ones> 7ut I have not heard of an3one who> on looking into "es vies successives> has found
the stor3 of his present life written there. Perhaps this is 7ecause the 7ook is ver3 scarce.
The modern vogue4almost craGe4for h3pnotic regression dates from the pu7lication in
.&+ of ". 9ernstein)s The Search for ridey Murphy$ 0ince then> and especiall3 during
the last few 3ears> we have 7een assailed 73 numerous 7ooks> newspaper articles and TK
and radio programmes on the su7Ject. "an3 of these have contained reports of new cases.
A school of fringe h3pnotherap3 is growing up which approaches 7ehavioural
distur7ances in this life 73 seeking out their causes in a previous one. Practitioners of this
wa3 of thinking seem often to take a 'cure) as sufficient validation of their patient)s stor3>
and> indirectl3> of their own theoretical framework. <e have here the ps3chotherapist)s
classic error in 3et another guise.
It will alread3 7e apparent that I have strong reservations a7out the h3pnotic regression
material. /ne must> however> at the ver3 least admit that the su7Jects of these
e:periments sometimes tell a good stor3N a much 7etter stor3 than one would ordinaril3
think them capa7le of inventing. The h3pnotic induction procedure seems to release in
them powers of creative imagination that the3 did not know the3 possessed. Perhaps this
helps to e:plain the apparent successes of the reincarnationist h3pnotherapies which I
mentioned a moment ago. 9ut it also la3s certain snares for the investigator. The stories
are sometimes so dramatic> and so full of human interest> that one can)t help wishing
them to 7e true. And then one ma3 7e misled into accepting as confirmations of them
evidence that would not withstand a reall3 critical scrutin3. For instance one case that has
7ecome widel3 C++C known E,!F relates to the supposed massacre in .5 of a @ewish
famil3 which had taken refuge in the cr3pt of a church identified as 0t "ar3)s>
*astlegate> Hork. This church was not at the time of the h3pnotic regression known to
possess a cr3pt. 0u7seMuentl3 one was unearthed> and the stor3 was suddenl3 'made to
seem more likel3. The entire regression was now a credi7le account of what might have
happened in Hork in .5) Ep. &$F. The onl3 evidence presented that the cr3pt reall3 e:ists
is> however> a secondhand statement to the effect that an unknown workman discovered
what might have 7een a cr3pt 7elow the chancel. It was immediatel3 7locked up again
7efore it could 7e properl3 e:amined.
#r"&tomnesia
0till> the creation of a powerful stor3 concerning a previous incarnation> whether fictional
or otherwise> reMuires some Muantit3 of accurate> or at an3 rate convincing> historical
information. In some cases a good man3 Muite recondite historical facts have 7een
incorporated into the stor3 told 73 an h3pnoticall3 regressed su7Ject. <here do these
facts come fromO The most popular non-reincarnationist e:planation has involved
cr3ptomnesia Elatent memor3F. E/n cr3ptomnesia in general see &$J> pp. $%&L$%.N and
&$k.F 9uried in our mind> this theor3 proposes> are all sorts of memories not ordinaril3
accessi7le to the waking consciousness. Among them will 7e memories which the su7Ject
does not recollect having acMuired from another source and is lia7le to consider his own.
The memories concerned ma3 7e memories of school histor3 7ooks> of historical films
and pla3s and TK programmes> of historical novels and serials in women)s magaGines> of
historical notes in local newspapers> and so on and so on. This could amount to Muite a lot
of information. ;owada3s the makers of historical films take pains to get the
7ackgrounds right> and historical novelists commonl3 append 7i7liographies to their
7ooks. All these 7uried memories ma3 under certain circumstances find their wa3 out.
The3 ma3 7reak into ordinar3 waking consciousness with no awareness of their source
Evarious instances of apparent literar3 plagiarism have almost certainl3 originated in this
wa3FN the3 ma3 emerge through automatic writing> or in dreams or drug-statesN and the3
ma3 7e retrieved and em7ellished under h3pnosis.
0uch is the theor3> and to some it seems so o7viousl3 correct that> given that
cr3ptomnesia occurs> there is no need to worr3 further a7out C+,C the e:planation of
cases of h3pnotic regression in which verified historical details have 7een o7tained. 9ut
this attitude is at 7est over-simple> and it is over-simple on two counts.
The first is that while there undou7tedl3 is some evidence for cr3ptomnesia> that evidence
is small in relation to the weight of other material it is 7eing used to support. "an3
modern workers in the field of h3pnotism would simpl3 den3 that h3pnosis facilitates
recallN properl3 designed e:periments reveal no such effect. This is> however> not a denial
that cr3ptomnesia ma3 occasionall3 7e e:hi7ited> 7ut onl3 a denial that h3pnosis is
particularl3 conducive to the emergence of memories whose normal source the su7Ject
has forgotten. As it happens> the most freMuentl3 cited e:ample of undou7ted
cr3ptomnesia> the '9lanche Po3nings) case E$5F> did take place under h3pnosis. '9lanche
Po3nings) was the name given 73 a spirit contacted under h3pnosis 73 a 3oung lad3
referred to as '"iss *.) 9lanche gave a great man3 e:ceedingl3 recondite historical and
genealogical details a7out her life in the time of 8ichard II and 2enr3 IK. 0u7seMuentl3 it
was discovered> through a planchette 7oard which "iss *. operated in the waking state>
that almost all these details came from a novel which had 7een read to her as a child>
namel3 1mil3 0. 2olt)s Countess Maud$ The contents of the novel> in which 9lanche
Po3nings is onl3 a minor character> had> however> 7een su7stantiall3> and one might add
creativel3> rearranged. /ne can readil3 see how> in different circumstances> this material
could have emerged as a reincarnationist fantas3. A Finnish ps3chologist> 8. Aampman
E,.N -5F> has o7tained some compara7le results from a series of e:periments with
schoolchildren whom he h3pnoticall3 'regressed) into past lives. 93 the simple techniMue
of taking the children under h3pnosis to the occasion on which the3 o7tained the
information on which their reincarnationist fantasies were 7ased> he was a7le to trace
several fantasies 7ack to their sources in printed material. 9ut this techniMue> alas> is 73
no means universall3 successful4other h3pnotists who have tried the same stratagem
have 7een met 73 denials that there is an3 such ordinar3 source.
The second reason wh3 one must hesitate 7efore accepting the simple cr3ptomnesia
theor3 is that the reincarnationist theor3 itself involves cr3ptomnesiaN onl3> of course> the
'7uried memories) retrieved are memories of a previous incarnation rather than of this
one. <hatever conditions favour the one sort of cr3ptomnesia will presuma7l3 also
favour the other. 2ence we cannot argue that 7ecause C+-C the su7Ject is in a state
Eh3pnosisF 7elieved E73 someF to favour cr3ptomnesia> cr3ptomnesia for 7ooks read>
films seen> etc.> in this life> must 7e the e:planation of the correct historical details which
he gives. =nless we are to rule out the reincarnationist theor3 Eand the other kinds of
evidence which ostensi7l3 support itF upon purel3 a priori grounds> we must find support
for the cr3ptomnesia theor3 Ecr3ptomnesia> that is> directed upon events of this lifeF from
features of the actual regression cases it is intended to e:plain. This conclusion is
reinforced 73 the fact> Just pointed out> that the evidence for cr3ptomnesia is not so strong
as to lead us to regard it as a ver3 freMuent occurrence.
The strongest support for the cr3ptomnesia theor3 would 7e provided 73 a demonstration
that in a given case:
EaF all the information conve3ed was to 7e found in a single source Ea 7ook> an article> a
film> etc.FN
E7F the su7Ject would have had access to that sourceN and
EcF he had actuall3 studied that source.
/f these factors EaF and E7F ma3 not 7e too difficult to esta7lish4there are various easil3
accessi7le indices of historical novels4and an3 case which falls foul of these two criteria
must clearl3 7e set aside as evidence for reincarnation on the grounds that a possi7le
7asis for cr3ptomnesia was demonstra7l3 there. 1sta7lishing EcF would 7e tantamount to
esta7lishing the cr3ptomnesia h3pothesis for the case in Muestion> and this has not often
7een achieved. In some instances the su7Ject has 7een 7rought> 73 h3pnosis Eas in the
Aampman cases mentioned a7oveF or some other stratagem Ein the 9lanche Po3nings
case a planchette 7oardF> to recollect the source of information himself. Another
possi7ilit34one for o7vious reasons rarel3 actualiGed4is that the source of information
should contain an error which the su7Ject repeats. A rather nice e:ample of this has
recentl3 7een unearthed 73 "r Ian <ilson in a case for which @oe Aeeton> a leading
9ritish e:ponent of regression> was the h3pnotist E5&> pp. ,L.N ,!> pp. .+L!5,F. /ne
of Aeeton)s su7Jects> a 3oung woman> gave under h3pnosis copious and consistent details
of a trial at which she> as @oan <aterhouse> had 7een accused of witchcraft. The trial took
place at *helmsford in &++. Aeeton)s su7Ject> however> dated it as &&+4the date
mistakenl3 put upon a Kictorian reprint of the ver3 rare original pamphlet descri7ing the
trial. The error has 7een copied 73 some Ethough not allF su7seMuent writers.
(irect support of these kinds for the cr3ptomnesia h3pothesis is C+.C relativel3
uncommon> and it is hardl3 freMuent enough to Justif3 our e:tending the theor3 without
more ado to cover all the regression cases in which verified information has 7een
produced. There is> however> a su7stantial 7lock of cases which> though we have no
evidence of cr3ptomnesia in connection with them> cannot 7e accepted as providing
adeMuate evidence of reincarnation. The3 must go on that large heap of 'not provens)>
where> perhaps> the maJorit3 of cases 7elong. I have two sorts of case especiall3 in mind
here. The first is that of cases4not so freMuent as one might antecedentl3 suppose4in
which a su7Ject claims to have 7een some famous historical figure> e.g. ;ell #w3nn>
"arie Antoinette or 9onnie Prince *harlie. <hen the supposed previous incarnation is>
like these> a person concerning whom a great deal has 7een pu7lished> it will> save in the
most impro7a7le circumstances> 7e almost impossi7le to esta7lish with even moderate
plausi7ilit3 that the su7Ject could not somewhere> at some time> have run across a 7ook>
magaGine article> film> TK documentar3> radio programme> or Reader7s !igest rundown
containing the relevant information. Thus it will likewise 7e almost impossi7le to reJect
the cr3ptomnesia theor3 with an3 certaint3.
Ker3 similar considerations appl3 to the second kind of case> that of cases which are
thought to 7e verified Eor almostRF 73 the multiplicit3 of correct 7ackground details given>
despite the fact that the central persons in the dramas Ethe supposed previous incarnations
of the su7JectsF cannot 7e proved to have e:isted. Information a7out interesting places at
interesting periods of their histor3 gets ver3 widel3 disseminated 73 novels> pla3s>
museums> TK> local newspapers> etc.> and it is e:tremel3 difficult to 7e sure that the
su7Ject of a regression e:periment has never come across it. A significantl3 high
proportion of the pu7lished cases Eincluding the cele7rated 9ride3 "urph3 caseF fall into
this categor3.
Take> for e:ample> another of @oe Aeeton)s cases E5&> pp. %!L,%F> the fascinating stor3
told under h3pnosis 73 Ann (owling> a fort3-seven-3ear-old working class housewife
from 2u3ton ELiverpoolF> of her previous incarnation in the period around -$5L-&5 as
0arah <illiams> a homeless waif from 1verton ELiverpoolF. 0arah <illiams showed some
knowledge of the geograph3 of nineteenth centur3 LiverpoolN she referred unmistaka7l3
to @enn3 Lind)s visit to Liverpool in -&5N she correctl3 named a chemist)s shop in
93rom 0treetN she referred to Prince Al7ert)s sta3ing with a @udge in Liverpool in -%+N
asked for the name of Kictoria and Al7ert)s ship> she replied The Fairy, C,5C which was
the name not of the ro3al 3acht 7ut of the tender in which the ro3al couple made their
inspectionsN she mentioned a demonstration of electric lighting given at Liverpool in
-&!N and she referred to Aitt3 <ilkinson> a social reformer of the time> who advocated
setting up wash-houses for the poor. All these verified historical details were given in the
conte:t of a ver3 livel3 rendering of a distinctive personalit3 and of the hardships of
povert3 in a nineteenth centur3 cit3. Het of 0arah herself no trace was found> despite the
fact that her death> at least> should 73 the -&5s have 7een a matter of pu7lic record. A
death certificate or o7scure newspaper paragraph recording the manner of her murder
would at once have made the cr3ptomnesia h3pothesis several orders of magnitude less
likel3. As it is> man3 of the facts correctl3 given concern events which would have found
their wa3 into local histor3 7ooks and articles> even into novels or TK programmes>
which a local resident> such as "rs (owling> could conceiva7l3 have come across. To
track down all the potential sources and compare them with the statements made 73 0arah
<illiams would 7e an impractica7le task> perhaps an impossi7le one. The case must 7e
relegated to the 'not proven) categor34not proven 7oth from the point of view of
reincarnation and from that of cr3ptomnesia. As for the dramatic force of the 0arah
<illiams personalit34some of the most convincing and dramaticall3 effective
personalities to emerge in regression e:periments have 7een without dou7t totall3
fictitious. This at least is a fact of great ps3chological interest> and one which deserves
further stud3.
<hen all necessar3 sacrifices have 7een made to the cr3ptomnesia theor3> however> there
remain one or two cases which it cannot so readil3 swallow up. These cases have> for the
most part> some or all of the following characteristics:
EaF The e:istence of the supposed previous personalit3 has 7een confirmed.
E7F The personalit3 was an o7scure one> not likel3 to have achieved mention in novels>
films> etc.>
EcF The stor3 is supported 73 verified 7ackground details of the kind we have Just 7een
considering.
EdF There does not appear to 7e an3 single source from which all the relevant information
could have come.
A case that at first sight fills some of these reMuirements is descri7ed in @ess 0tearn)s The
Second "ife of Susan ?anier$ @oanne "acIver> a girl living in /rillia> /ntario> was
h3pnoticall3 regressed 73 her father into C,C a num7er of supposed previous lives. /ne
of these was as 0usan #anier> allegedl3 7orn a7out -$& in 0t Kincent Township> /ntario>
a7out ninet3 miles from the spot where the "acIvers lived. In -%. Esaid 0usanF she
married Thomas "errow> a farmer> and lived with him in the town of "assie> /ntario.
Thomas was killed in an accident in -+$> 7ut 0usan lived on until .5$.
0usan #anier was 7orn 7efore registration of 7irths was introduced> and no record of her
death could 7e discovered. ;one the less> she correctl3 gave various recondite
geographical facts a7out the district where she lived> and some o7scure 7ut correct details
of the life of that time. 0he named various persons in "assie whose e:istence was
confirmed from pu7lic records. And an elderl3 gentleman> "r Arthur 1agles>
remem7ered 0usan "errow> her famil3> and some of her neigh7ours> and knew a7out the
death of her hus7and.
The trou7le with this case is that The Second "ife of Susan ?anier is written like a novel>
and it is 73 no means clear what opportunities the su7Ject might have had to learn
relevant facts 73 normal means. /f such cases one can onl3 sa3 that if there were more of
them> and if the3 were 7etter recorded and investigated than the3 generall3 are> the3
would force us to reJect the cr3ptomnesia h3pothesis as totall3 inadeMuate. <hether the3
would force us to accept a reincarnation theor3 instead> rather than> sa3> some version of
the super-10P h3pothesis> is another Muestion. "3 own guess would 7e that further cases
fulfilling these criteria will pro7a7l3 come to lightN 7ut the3 will 7e so small a solid
residue from so great a flood of entertaining 7ut inconclusive e3ewash> that one would 7e
ill-advised to waste one)s lifetime in attempting to induce them.
Non'h"&notic 2ecollections
<e come ne:t to m3 second class of alleged evidence for reincarnation from claimed
memories of past lives> namel3 ostensi7le recollections 73 Eunh3pnotiGedF adults of their
supposed previous incarnations. This class includes a great assortment of varied
spontaneous e:periences> ranging from simple 'paramnesias)4feelings that one has
'7een here 7efore)4to Ein ver3 rare instancesF the emergence of comple: sets of
'memories) relating to a supposed past e:istence at a definite period and place. It is onl3
cases at the latter end of the scale that would concern us here. 9ut I do not propose to
linger long over them. "r 1. <. 83all)s ostensi7le memories of his life in seventeenth
centur3 0omerset> set forth in a manner reminiscent of a novel E$&F> have the C,!C
curious characteristic> on the freMuenc3 of which I have alread3 commented> that man3 of
the 7ackground details are correct while all the central characters appear to 7e fictitious.
/n (r Arthur #uirdham)s recollections of his incarnation as a *athar in thirteenth
centur3 France> together with the correlated past-life recollections of various of his
Eanon3mousF patients and friends> now all reincarnated as a 'group) E&$aN &$7F> I can
offer no useful comments. ;o one 7ut an independent specialist in the histor3 of that
period could properl3 evaluate the mass of recondite details thus ostensi7l3 retrieved4
the3 include verified names and famil3 relationships> details of *athar dress> practices>
s3m7ols> etc.> and events in *athar histor347ut such an evaluation would onl3 7e
profita7le if it were 7ased upon (r #uirdham)s original records rather than upon the stor3
as he tells it in his 7ooks. In his 7ooks he seems more concerned to share his convictions
with persons antecedentl3 s3mpathetic to them> than to dent 73 signed statements and
careful documentation the dis7elief of the less romanticall3 inclined.
$2eincarnated) #hildren
"3 third> and final> class of claimed memories of past lives> is that of the ostensi7le past-
life recollections of ver3 3oung children. /ccasional e:amples of such stories found their
wa3 into print in the <est during the first half of the present centur3. 9ut far the most
impressive case-investigations in this area> indeed in an3 area of reincarnation research>
are those conducted since .+5 73 Professor Ian 0tevenson of the =niversit3 of Kirginia.
In order to carr3 out his investigations on the spot> 0tevenson has engaged in freMuent and
e:tensive travels. The upshot has 7een a series of four su7stantial volumes Ethe series is
still in progressF> containing in all reports on fift3-two cases E&$gN &$hN &$iN &$JF> and
various shorter accounts of individual cases. 0tevenson has fifteen or twent3 times as
man3 cases on file.
The greatest strength of 0tevenson)s work> it seems to me> is that he has a ver3 Just
appreciation of the canons of evidence against which such cases must 7e tried> an
appreciation which he keeps at all times 7efore his own mind> and 7efore the minds of his
readers. This is not to sa3 that all> or even man3> of his cases full3 satisf3 these canons>
nor does he claim that the3 do. The point is rather that he puts 7efore his readers> as full3
and as fairl3 as he can> the materials which the3 reMuire to form their own Judgements.
2e has himself deli7eratel3 supplied most of the ammunition which his critics have used
against C,$C him. And he has pressed for independent replications of his research.
0tevenson)s methods of case-investigation> like the la3out of his case reports Eto which
the3 are of course closel3 tiedF> were developed at an earl3 stage of his research> and
naturall3 reflect the matters upon which it is vital to have information when assessing a
case of this kind. The facts or alleged facts which ostensi7l3 link a certain 3oung child
Ecall him the 'present personalit3)F to a definitel3 identifia7le deceased person Ecall him
the 'previous personalit3)F ma3 7e of three sorts. There are statements made 73 the
present personalit3 concerning his memories of his life as the past personalit3N there are
7ehaviours> skills> attitudes> a7ilities> and so forth> shown 73 the present personalit3>
which accord with those of the previous personalit3N and there are recognitions 73 the
present personalit3 of the previous personalit3)s relations> friends> 7elongings> house> etc.
4when the child)s parents find that the previous personalit3 reall3 e:isted> the3 almost
alwa3s give wa3 to curiosit3 and the child)s demands> and arrange for him to visit the
previous personalit3)s famil3. /7viousl3 the first thing we need to know is Just what
statements the child made> what relevant 7ehaviours he e:hi7ited> and at what age he
7egan to make or e:hi7it them. It is especiall3 important to know what relevant things the
child said and did 7efore he first met the previous personalit3)s famil3. After the first
meeting there ma3 7e 'contamination) of the present personalit3)s memories> especiall3
if> as not uncommonl3 happens> he 7ecomes a regular visitor in the previous personalit3)s
home. In onl3 a few cases E0tevenson4&$h> p. %%n4lists a doGenF has an investigator
or independent person 7een a7le to make a list of the present personalit3)s statements
7efore the first meeting has taken place. Failing such a list> the investigator)s 7est tactic is
o7viousl3 to interview in detail first> of course> the child himself> and then as man3
persons as possi7le who saw him 7efore the first meeting> heard statements from him>
o7served his 7ehaviour> etc. The separate interviewing of a multiplicit3 of witnesses ma3
help to offset or resolve errors of testimon3> retrospective e:aggerations> and tendencies
to think that the child made 7efore the first meeting statements which in fact he onl3
produced after it.
Another crucial issue is that of how the first meeting 7etween the present personalit3 and
the previous personalit3)s famil3 was conducted. <ere the recognitions trul3
spontaneousO <hat cues could have 7een given 73 persons presentO <hat mistakes ma3
have 7een overlooked in the e:citement of the momentO And so on. /nce again C,%C we
have onl3 a few cases in which an outside investigator> alert to these possi7ilities> has
7een present as recorder on the da3 itself. /nce again> therefore> we have generall3 to
rel3 on detailed interviews with e3ewitnesses> and cross-checking of their statements.
The ne:t Muestion to arise is clearl3 that of how far the child)s statements and 7ehaviour
agree with what is known of the previous personalit3)s life> death and characteristics. To
ascertain this it is o7viousl3 necessar3 to interview mem7ers Eas man3 as possi7leF of the
previous personalit3)s famil3> to visit their home and its surroundings> to consult pu7lic
records and newspaper files> and so on. These procedures ma3 help to throw light on the
remaining crucial issue> namel3 whether the child could have learned relevant facts a7out
the previous personalit3 73 normal means. <ith children as 3oung as these> cr3ptomnesic
recollection of> sa3> a newspaper o7ituar3 notice seems outstandingl3 unlikel3. The
possi7ilit3 that the child ma3 have picked up information through listening to adult
gossip needs however to 7e thoroughl3 e:plored. In some cases the child is antecedentl3
7elieved 73 the parents to 7e the reincarnation of another mem7er of the famil3> and then
of course the danger is ver3 real. 9ut in man3 cases the parents den3 having known
an3thing a7out the previous personalit3 prior to the child)s revelations. Their denials
have> however> to 7e checked in the light of the geographical situations of the two homes>
and of an3 ordinar3 lines of communication that can 7e discovered 7etween them. The
investigator)s task is here ver3 much like that of a detective. And indeed he needs> of
course> to 7e continuall3 watchful for signs of fraud> and of financial e:ploitation of the
case.
#iven this 7ackground of comple: and interrelated pro7lems> one can readil3 see wh3
0tevenson la3s out his case reports as he does. 2e usuall3 7egins with a short summar3 of
the case> indicating how he first heard of it> when he first visited the families concerned>
who participated in the investigation with him> and so onN he lists the people he
interviewed> with or without the need for an interpreterN he sets out relevant geographical
factors> and considers possi7le normal lines of communicationN he presents his
information a7out the life and death of the previous personalit3N he ta7ulates the relevant
statements and recognitionsN states whether the3 are correct or not> and if the3 are correct>
gives his authorit3 for sa3ing soN he discusses an3 other relevant mattersN considers the
7ehavioural aspects of the case Ethe 7ehaviour patterns> skills and attitudes which the
present personalit3 appears to C,&C share with the previous oneFN comments on the
paranormal aspects of the caseN and lastl3 mentions later developments> follow-up visits>
etc.4it is his general and prudent practice to watch a case over a period of 3ears to see
what ma3 come to light.
I turn now to certain general> or statistical> features of 0tevenson)s collection of cases. It
will 7e convenient to mention these 7riefl3 under two headings> namel3 features
recurring in cases from all cultures studied> and culture-7ound recurrent features of the
cases.
Features recurring in cases from all cultures studied
. "ost of the su7Jects are 7etween two and four 3ears old when the3 start speaking
a7out their previous livesN i.e. the3 start as soon as the3 can speak.
!. These memories come> for the most part> in the waking state.
$. =suall3 something like ninet3 per cent of the su7Ject)s statements a7out his previous
life are correct.
%. In most cases su7Jects stop talking a7out their previous lives 7etween the ages of five
and eightN memories of them usuall3 do not survive into adulthood> though there are
e:ceptions.
&. In a high percentage of cases> the previous personalit3 met a violent> and often an earl3
death.
+. 1vents connected with> or Just preceding> the death of the previous personalit3 tend to
7e prominent among the su7Ject)s memories.
,. The present personalit3 is likel3 to 7e 7orn within a few kilometres of the previous
personalit3)s home> and to speak the same language. There are man3 e:ceptions to the
former part of this rule of thum7> 7ut the e:ceptions grow fewer as the distance gets
greater. It has> of course> to 7e 7orne in mind that verification of the previous
personalit3)s actual e:istence might 7ecome more difficult with increased separation of
the families concerned.
#ulture'=ound recurrent features of the cases
. 8eported cases are most common in regions where reincarnation is widel3 7elieved inN
e.g. in India and 0ri Lanka and in 0outheast Asia> or among the (ruses and Alevis of
<estern Asia> and Tlingits of Alaska. This could o7viousl3 7e e:plained in a variet3 of
wa3s.
!. Though in all cultures there is a high incidence of violent deaths among the previous
personalities Ehigher than the norm of the countr3 C,+C concernedF> the proportion varies
from $-Y in 0ri Lanka to over ,-Y among the (ruse cases of 03ria and Le7anon.
$. Previous lives as a mem7er of the opposite se: are much more freMuentl3 claimed in
some cultures than in others. The3 are unheard of among the Tlingits> (ruses and Alevis>
occur in $Y of Thai cases> !-Y of 9urmese cases> and in as much as &5Y of cases
among the Autchin of northwestern *anada. 0uch cases occur most freMuentl3 in cultures
which 7elieve them possi7le> most rarel3 in cultures where such change is thought
impossi7le.
%. Instances of reincarnation within the same famil3 are ver3 common in 9urma and
among the Tlingits and the 1skimos> and rare in other cultures.
&. The apparent interval 7etween the death of the previous personalit3 and the 7irth of the
present one varies a good deal from culture to culture> the variations again 7eing linked to
culturall3 determined 7eliefs on the su7Ject. The median interval among the 2aida of
Alaska and 9ritish *olum7ia is four monthsN among the (ruses si: monthsN among the
Alevis . monthsN in 0ri Lanka and in India - monthsN and among the Tlingits %- months.
There appears to 7e once again a Enot ver3 e:actF link with culturall3 determined 7eliefs
on the su7Ject.
In one or two cases the previous personalit3 has not died until after the 7irth of the
present personalit3. The most remarka7le such case is an Indian one> that of a 7o3 named
@as7ir E&$g> pp. $%L&!F. At the age of three and a half> @as7ir 7ecame so ill with
smallpo: that he was thought to have died. 2owever he graduall3 revived and thereafter
claimed to 7e 0o7ha 8am> a recentl3 deceased 3oung man from a village a7out twent3
miles awa3. The case has some affinities with that of Luranc3 Kennum> descri7ed in the
previous chapter> 7ut unlike the Luranc3 Kennum personalit3> the @as7ir personalit3 never
returned.
+. 'Announcing dreams)> dreams in which an e:pectant mother receives information as to
the identit3 of the un7orn child she is carr3ing> are known in most cultures> 7ut are
commonest among the 9urmese> the natives of northwestern ;orth America> and the
Alevis of south central Turke3.
,. Also known in most cultures so far studied are 7irthmarks corresponding either to
those 7orne 73 the previous personalit3> or else to the wounds from which he met his
death. The correspondences are in some instances e:tremel3 close> and have 7een
verified 73 medical records or autops3 reports concerning the previous personalit3. 0uch C
,,C cases are speciall3 common among the 1skimos> the Tlingits> the 9urmese> and the
Alevis.
2aving 7riefl3 descri7ed 0tevenson)s methods of case-investigation and case-reporting>
and touched on some relevant general features of the cases in his collection> I shall now
come down to a more concrete level 73 giving an outline of a sample case. For this
purpose I have selected the case of 0warnlata E&$g> pp. +,L.F. This case is unusual in
that the su7Ject claimed to remem7er two previous incarnations. I will deal first with the
earlier and more important one. 0warnlata was 7orn on ! "arch .%-> the daughter of ".
L. "ishra> an assistant in the office of a district inspector of schools> and lived during the
period with which we are concerned in various towns in "adh3a Pradesh> India. From
a7out the age of three and a half she e:hi7ited ostensi7le memories of a previous life as
9i3a> daughter of a famil3 called Pathak> in Aatni> "adh3a Pradesh> and Eit later
transpiredF wife of 0ri *hintamini Pande3 of "aihar> a town north of Aatni. It is to 7e
noted that the "ishra famil3 never lived closer to Aatni than a7out a hundred miles.
0warnlata confided fragments of her apparent memories mostl3 to her 7rothers and
sisters> 7ut also to some e:tent to her parents. 0he still retained her memories in .&-
when she met 0rimati Agnihotri> a lad3 from Aatni whom she claimed to recogniGe from
her previous life there. This prompted ". L. "ishra> 0warnlata)s father> to write down
some of her statements> which he did in 0eptem7er .&-.
In "arch .&. 2. ;. 9anerJee> an Indian paraps3chologist> spent two da3s with the
"ishra famil3 investigating the case. 2e noted down nine statements made 73 0warnlata
a7out the Pathak residence. 2e visited Aatni> and guided 73 0warnlata)s statements was
a7le to find the house of the correct Pathak famil3. 2e was the first to esta7lish the close
correspondences 7etween 0warnlata)s ostensi7le memories of a past life> and the life of
9i3a> the Pathak)s daughter> who had died in .$..
In the summer of .&. mem7ers of the Pathak famil3 and of 9i3a)s hus7and)s famil3
travelled to 0warnlata)s house. The3 took considera7le precautions to avoid giving
0warnlata cues> and the3 made various attempts to mislead her. ;one the less she was
successful in recogniGing them and was not misled. 0hortl3 afterwards 0warnlata was
taken to Aatni and "aihar> where 9i3a had lived. 0he recogniGed additional people and
places> and commented on various changes that C,-C had taken place since the death of
9i3a. 2er father> ". L. "ishra> made written notes on some of the recognitions soon after
the3 occurred. 0warnlata seems thereafter to have 7een accepted as 9i3a 73 the Pathaks
and Pande3s> and 7uilt up affectionate relationships with the '7rothers) and 'children) of
her previous life.
0tevenson spent four da3s investigating the case in the summer of .+. 2e interviewed
fifteen persons from the three families concerned> including 0warnlata herself.
Interpreters were in most instances not necessar3. 2e also had put at his disposal
documents and notes a7out the case prepared 73 2. ;. 9anerJee Esee a7oveF and notes
made 73 Professor P. Pal during his stud3 of the case in .+$. After he left he kept up a
correspondence with 0warnlata and her father> and met 0warnlata again in ;ovem7er
.,> 73 which time she had o7tained a 90c and an "0c with distinction in 7otan3. 0he
stated that she had not lost her memories of her previous life. This ma3 have 7een
7ecause the "ishra famil3 was completel3 tolerant of them.
I shall now present a summar3 list> heavil3 a7ridged from 0tevenson)s ta7ulation> of the
various statements and recognitions made 73 0warnlata. The first eighteen are statements
made 73 0warnlata 7efore she met an3 mem7ers of her previous famil3. "ost of them
were written down 73 her father. It was items +> $ and % which ena7led 2. ;. 9anerJee
to find the Pathak)s house without help when he went to Aatni in "arch .&..
Item Informant Confirmed #y
. 0he 7elonged to a famil3
named Pathak in Aatni
". L. "ishra>
0warnlata)s
father
8aJendra Prasad Pathak> 7rother of
9i3a
!. 0he had two sons> Arishna
(atta and 0hiva (atta
". L. "ishra
"urli Pande3> son of 9i3a. E9i3a
had two sonsN the other was named
;aresh. The names given are
however names of other persons in
the famil3.F
$. 2er name had 7een Aamlesh ". L. "ishra
Incorrect. EThis refers to the other
ostensi7le past life recalled 73
0warnlata.F
%. 2er name had 7een 9i3a
Arishna *handra>
0warnlata)s
7rother
8aJendra Prasad Pathak
&. The head of the famil3 was
2ira Lal Pathak
". L. "ishra
Incorrect. EA 'portmanteau) name>
containing correct elements.F
C,.C +L%. The Pathak house was
whiteN it had four stuccoed
rooms> 7ut other parts were less
well furnishedN the doors were
7lackN the doors were fitted with
iron 7arsN the front floor of the
house was of stone sla7sN the
famil3 had a motorcarN there was
a girls) school 7ehind the houseN a
railwa3 line could 7e seen from
the houseN so could lime
furnaces.
". L. "ishra
8aJendra Prasad Pathak. I.
0tevenson Epersonal o7servationF.
All items correct.
&. 2er famil3 lived in Ihurkutia
(istrict
". L. "ishra
". L. "ishraN "urli Pande3>
0warnlata)s son. E;ame should 7e
Iharratikuria.F
+. 0he had had pains in her
throat and had died of throat
disease
". L. "ishra
8aJendra Prasad Pathak. Incorrect.
E0he had had throat trou7le> 7ut
died of heart disease.F
,. 0he had 7een treated 73 (r 0.
*. 9ha7rat of @a7alpur
". L. "ishra
"urli Pande3N Ename should 7e 0.
1. 9arat.F
-. 0he had once gone to a
wedding at Tilora village with
0rimati Agnihotri and the3 had
difficult3 in finding a latrine
". L. "ishraN
Arishna *handra
". L. "ishraN Arishna *handra.
E0rimati Agnihotri was the lad3
from Aatni who first confirmed
some of 0warnlata)s past-life
memories. 0ee a7ove.F
The ne:t items> items .L!$> occurred when the Pathak and Pande3 families first visited
the "ishras in the summer of .&. Esee a7oveF.
.. 8ecognition of 2ari Prasad>
7rother of 9i3a

". L. "ishraN
2ari Prasad
Pathak

E2ari Prasad Pathak arrived
unannounced and gave no name.
0warnlata at first called him 2ira
Lai Pathak> 7ut recogniGed him as
her Ei.e.> 9i3a)sF 3ounger 7rother>
and called him '9a7u)> the name
73 which 9i3a knew him.F
!5 and !. 8ecognition of
*hintamini Pande3> hus7and of C
-5C 9i3a> and of "urli Pande3>
". L. "ishraN
"urli Pande3
EThe two anon3mous visitors along
with nine other men> some known
to her> some unknown. 0he was
her son
asked to name them all. 0he told
*hintamini Pande3 she knew him
in Aatni and "aihar> and looked
7ashful as 2indu wives do in the
presence of their hus7ands. 0he
identified "urli despite his
maintaining for almost !% hours
that he was not "urli 7ut
some7od3 else.F
!!. ;on-recognition of stranger
unknown to 9i3a.
"urli Pande3
E"urli was tr3ing to pass off a
friend he had 7rought with him as
his 7rother ;aresh.F
!$. *hintamini Pande3 took !55
rupees from a 7o: in which she
E9i3aF had kept mone3.
"urli Pande3
"urli Pande3. EThis was told to
"urli Pande3 73 *hintamini
Pande3. ;o one e:cept he and 9i3a
had known a7out it.F
Items !%L%. Emost of which I omitF took place on 0warnlata)s visits to the Pathak and
Pande3 families Esee a7oveF. The items I have omitted relate to recognitions of relatives
and servants known to 9i3a> or to recognition of places> rooms> and features of houses
altered since 9i3a)s death. 0warnlata was often a7le to specif3 the relationship> and to
give other appropriate details.
!.. 8ecognition of famil3
cowherd

9riJ Aishore
Pathak> fourth
7rother of 9i3aN
Arishna *handra

EPresented to 0warnlata as a
speciall3 difficult test. 9riJ Aishore
Pathak also tried to persuade
0warnlata that the cowherd had
died.F
$!. InMuiring a7out neem tree
formerl3 in compound of Pathak
house.
8aJendra Prasad
Pathak
8aJendra Prasad Pathak. EThis tree
had 7een 7lown down some
months 7efore 0warnlata)s visit.F
$$. InMuiring a7out a parapet at
7ack of Pathak house.
8aJendra Prasad
Pathak
8aJendra Prasad Pathak. EThis had
7een removed since 9i3a)s death.F
$%. ;on-acceptance of suggestion
that 9i3a had lost her teeth> and
statement that she had gold nails
in her front teeth.
8aJendra Prasad
PathakN ". L.
"ishra
8aJendra Prasad PathakN ". L.
"ishra. E9riJ Aishore Pathak tried
to deceive 0warnlata 73 sa3ing that
9i3a had lost her teeth. 0warnlata
denied this and insisted she had
gold fillings in her front teeth. The
Pathak 7rothers could not
remem7er this and consulted their
wives> who verified 0warnlata)s
statement.F
C-C In addition to 0warnlata)s correct recognitions and statements> certain aspects of her
7ehaviour reMuire mention. <ith the "ishra famil3 she 7ehaved like a Esomewhat
seriousF childN 7ut when with the Pathaks she 7ehaved like an older sister of her
'7rothers)> who were in fact fort3 3ears and more older than she was. The3 completel3
accepted her> and the emotional 7ond 7etween them 7ecame ver3 strong> though it did not
interfere with her affection for her natural famil3. <hen alone with the 'children) of her
previous life Emen much older than herF she rela:ed completel3 and treated them as a
mother would. ;either 8aJendra Prasad Pathak E9i3a)s second 7rotherF nor "urli Pande3
Eher sonF had 7elieved in reincarnation 7efore the3 met 0warnlata/9i3a.
The gap of nearl3 ten 3ears 7etween 9i3a)s death> and 0warnlata)s 7irth> is an unusuall3
long one 73 the standards of such cases. 0warnlata had in fact some fragmentar3
ostensi7le memories of an intervening life at 03lhet in 9angladesh Ethen AssamF. 0he
gave her name as Aamlesh> and e:hi7ited some knowledge of the geograph3 of the
district. A proper investigation was not possi7le. 0warnlata retained some memories of
conJoined songs and dances she had supposedl3 learned during her 03lhet incarnation.
The words of the songs were in 9engali E0warnlata spoke onl3 2indiF. Professor P. Pal> a
native of 9engal> transcri7ed the songs> and translated them into 1nglish. Two out of
three were clearl3 derived from poems of 8a7indranath Tagore. The accompan3ing
dances were of an appropriate st3le.
<e have here an e:ample of ostensi7le recitative :enogloss3 Esee *hapter 0even a7oveF.
The Muestion which naturall3 arises is whether 0warnlata could have learned the songs 73
ordinar3 means 7efore the age of five when she first 7egan to perform them. 0tevenson
considers in great detail the possi7ilit3 that she might have seen them in a film Ea film in
a language not her ownF> heard them on radio> or otherwise witnessed a performance of
them. 2e thinks it most impro7a7le that she could have learned them normall3N 7ut I do
not have space to go into the details of his arguments.
I have now> at least in a preliminar3 wa3> laid out the pieces of this puGGle> and we must
now ask into what patterns the pieces can 7e arrangedN ask> in other words> what
e:planation can 7e given of the apparentl3 paranormal factors in the case. In tackling this
Muestion I shall tr3> so far as possi7le> to pass occasionall3 7e3ond the case of 0warnlata
and offer some general comments on 0tevenson)s findings. C-!C 9ut the 7ulk of his work
is so large that an3 remarks of mine are 7ound to 7e most inadeMuate.
The o7vious starting point is with those approaches which attempt to normaliGe the
paranormal> to demonstrate that> despite all appearances to the contrar3> there is nothing
in these cases which cannot 7e e:plained awa3 in commonplace terms. The sticks with
which upholders of this approach are wont to 7eat their opponents are> in ascending order
of power to 7ruise> errors of memor3 com7ined with retrospective e:aggeration> genetic
memor3> fraud and cr3ptomnesia.
The first two of these can 7e immediatel3 dismissed> 7oth for 0tevenson)s pu7lished
cases in general> and for the case of 0warnlata in particular. ;o dou7t the testimon3
contains a sprinkling of errors as to what the su7Jects did or did not sa3 prior to their first
meetings with the families of the previous personalities> and no dou7t there would 7e a
temptation to enrich the su7Ject)s supposed statements with facts gleaned after the first
meeting. 9ut I do not think that an3one who seriousl3 studies 0tevenson)s case reports
will conclude that this can 7e an3thing more than a ver3 minor factor in promoting the
correct statements and recognitions which these su7Jects are said to have made. *ertainl3
it cannot 7e an important factor in the case of 0warnlata> in which a su7stantial num7er of
statements were written down and passed on to an outsider 7efore the first meeting of the
two families.
"r Ian <ilson E,!> pp. &+L&,F seems to think that there ma3 7e an underl3ing weakness
in some of the evidence collected 73 0tevenson 7ecause two persons who assisted him in
a num7er of case investigations in India and in 0ri Lanka were ardent 7elievers in
reincarnation. I should imagine that others of 0tevenson)s helpers ma3 have fallen into
this categor3> and that 0tevenson himself is not uninterested in reincarnationist
philosophies. 2owever the criticism strikes me as Muite illegitimate. ;either a person)s
practical work> nor his arguments> can 7e undermined 73 pointing to the hopes> however
strong> that ma3 as a matter of ps3chological fact> have inspired them. Practical work can
onl3 7e demolished 73 pointing to flaws in design> method> apparatus> techniMue> etc.N
arguments can onl3 7e demolished 73 pointing to fault3 assumptions or fault3 logic. An3
contrar3 claim must ultimatel3 7e self-defeating.
For genetic memor3 there is> so far as I am aware> virtuall3 no accepta7le evidenceN and
in the vast maJorit3 of 0tevenson)s cases> the present personalit3 was certainl3 not>
7iologicall3 speaking> directl3 C-$C descended from the previous one.
The possi7ilities of fraud are a great deal harder to assess. /ne has for the most part to
evaluate these possi7ilities for each individual case. In the case of 0warnlata fraud seems
e:ceptionall3 unlikel3. There was no evidence that either 0warnlata or her father
7enefited financiall3. 2er father received a certain amount of pu7licit3 from the affair>
which to some ma3 appear a sufficient motive for fraud. 9ut even so the pro7lem remains
of how he could without attracting attention have o7tained so much detailed and highl3
personal information a7out the private lives of the Pathaks> and have successfull3
coached 0warnlata in it. ;othing that 0tevenson could find out a7out him from persons
who knew him gave an3 grounds for suspicion that he had perpetrated a hoa:> and it will
7e remem7ered that 0tevenson remained in touch with 7oth father and daughter for man3
3ears.
There seem> furthermore> to 7e some general reasons wh3 fraud cannot 7e regarded as a
likel3 e:planation of the apparentl3 paranormal elements in cases of this kind. /ne is that
cases in ver3 different parts of the world e:hi7it closel3 similar features Elisted a7oveF>
features for the most part lacking in those few cases in which fraud has actuall3 7een
detected.
*r3ptomnesia is an e:planation which has likewise to 7e assessed case 73 case. In the
case of 0warnlata it seems to me almost inconceiva7le that cr3ptomnesia should 7e the
answer. The "ishra and Pathak families denied an3 previous acMuaintance with each
other and had never lived nearer each other than a7out a hundred miles. The chief
possi7ilit3 for a normal line of communication was that 0warnlata)s mother came from an
area where the Pathak famil3 had 7usiness interests. 2er own maiden name was in fact
Pathak> though she was entirel3 unrelated to the Pathaks of whom 9i3a had 7een the
daughter. /ne of 9i3a)s 7rothers had some acMuaintance with a cousin of 0warnlata)s
mother. The "ishras had also passed through Aatni from time to time. 2owever even if
0warnlata or her parents had heard something a7out the Pathaks of Aatni> and then
forgotten it Eand there is nothing to suggest thisF it would certainl3 not have included the
intimate details of which 0warnlata showed knowledge> nor could it have accounted for
her e:tremel3 successful recognitions of man3 relatives and servants of her supposed
previous life.
In others of 0tevenson)s cases Enot an overwhelming num7erF the likelihood of
cr3ptomnesia seems greater4the two families concerned lived near each other or the
parents of the present personalit3 C-%C undou7tedl3 knew something a7out the life and
death of the previous personalit3. 9ut 0tevenson ver3 reasona7l3 points out:
EaF that man3 of his su7Jects were onl3 three or even 3ounger when the3 e:hi7ited their
first apparent memories of a previous e:istenceN
E7F unlike the su7Jects in man3 of the classic cases of demonstrated cr3ptomnesia> the3
were not h3pnotiGed 7ut in an ordinar3 waking stateN and
EcF that so far none of his cases has 3ielded clear evidence for cr3ptomnesia4there has
7een nothing which unmistaka7l3 linked the su7Ject)s statements to some source of
information to which he undou7tedl3 had access.
It seems to me e:tremel3 unlikel3 that either fraud or cr3ptomnesia have 7een more than
marginal factors in producing the correct statements and recognitions so freMuentl3 found
in the pages of 0tevenson)s case reports. Attempts to normaliGe the paranormal in this
area have not proved convincing. <e must therefore move on to consider those
e:planations which invoke paranormal factors or processes. The factors or processes
most commonl3 invoked have 7een 10P> o7session 73 the spirit of some deceased person>
and actual reincarnation.
The 10P theor3 proposes> of course> that the 'reincarnated) su7Ject o7tains all his
information a7out the previous personalit3 73 10P> in most cases almost inevita7l3
telepath3 with the living. <h3 data concerning that particular deceased person Eand
usuall3 no otherF should 7e selected as target material remains unclear.
The telepath3 theor3 suffers from several o7vious shortcomings: In the great maJorit3 of
cases the ostensi7l3 reincarnated person shows no signs of having an3 special 10P
a7ilities E0warnlata> however> was once the percipient in a not ver3 impressive case of
apparent spontaneous 10PFN some of the reincarnated personalities have e:hi7ited skills
characteristic of the previous personalit3> and I have alread3 argued that skills cannot 7e
acMuired 73 10PN in some cases the telepathicall3 acMuired information would have to
have come from more than one sourceN and in a few cases the information concerned
seems not Just to have 7een acMuired> 7ut to have 7een organi,ed in a pattern appropriate
to the mind of the previous personalit3.
The last two points make it apparent that we are once again confronted with what can
onl3 7e termed a version of the super-10P h3pothesis. It is worth Muoting 0tevenson)s
e:positions of these two points in connection with the case of 0warnlata E&$g> pp. $%,L
$%-F:
C-&C The Pathak 7rothers knew the facts a7out the changes in the Pathak house in Aatni
and nearl3 all the other facts apparentl3 remem7ered 73 0warnlata a7out events at Aatni>
although the3 did not remem7er the gold fillings in the teeth of their sister> 9i3a. 9ut it is
e:tremel3 unlikel3 that the3 knew an3thing a7out the latrine episode which 0warnlata
told 0rimati Agnihotri and it is eMuall3 unlikel3 that the3 knew an3thing a7out the mone3
taken from 9i3a 73 her hus7and. 2e had told no one a7out this for o7vious reasons. ;ow
it is possi7le that 0warnlata derived different items of information from different persons
each acting as the agent for one or a few items and no others S 9ut what then 7ecomes
noteworth3 is the pattern of the information 0warnlata thus derived. ;othing not known
to 9i3a or that happened after 9i3a)s death was stated 73 0warnlata during these
declarations. <e must account somehow not onl3 for the transfer of information to
0warnlata> 7ut for the organiGation of the information in her mind in a pattern Muite
similar to that of the mind of 9i3a. 1:trasensor3 perception ma3 account for the passage
of the information> 7ut I do not think that it alone can e:plain the selection and
arrangement of the information in a pattern characteristic of 9i3a. For if 0warnlata gained
her information 73 e:trasensor3 perception> wh3 did she not give the names of persons
unknown to 9i3a when she met them for the first timeO 1:trasensor3 perception of the
magnitude here proposed should not discriminate 7etween targets unless guided 73 some
organiGing principle giving a special pattern to the persons or o7Jects recogniGed. It
seems to me that here we must suppose that 9i3a)s personalit3 somehow conferred the
pattern of its mind on the contents of 0warnlata)s mind.
I am Muite at one with 0tevenson over his dou7ts concerning the 10P Eor super-10PF
theor3> 7ut since I have alread3 dwelt much upon the aridit3 of that theor3> I shall pass on
to discuss the possi7le survivalistic interpretations of 0tevenson)s cases. The first of these
interpretations> the theor3 of o7session> has 7een the favourite resort of 0piritualists
hostile to the idea of reincarnation. Their view is that the earth-7ound spirit of some
disreputa7le deceased person 7ecomes in some wa3 attached to a person still in the flesh.
Through a process of reciprocal telepath3 Ethe supposed process which in previous
chapters I called 'overshadowing)F this ps3chic parasite ma3 influence the thoughts and
7ehaviour of his victim Eusuall3 for the worseF.
It is ver3 difficult to know what to sa3 of this theor3. <e cannot list the characteristics of
a num7er of authenticated o7session cases> and then see how far the characteristics of our
reincarnation cases match up to them. "an3 paraps3chologists would strongl3 den3 that
there are any authenticated cases of o7session. Perhaps the 7est we can do here is to argue
as follows> If there are indeed genuine cases of o7session> the Thompson-#ifford case>
which I descri7ed in the last chapter> has as C-+C good a claim to 7e one of them as has
an3 other case. Let us therefore compare the e:periences of the o7sessed or
overshadowed #ifford with those of a t3pical child su7Ject in one of 0tevenson)s
reincarnation cases. If the two are ver3 different> then the o7session theor3 will have
failed to get off the ground> and we ma3 properl3 leave it there until such time as further
discoveries succeed in re-energiGing it.
It is immediatel3 o7vious that Thompson)s e:periences differed from those of a t3pical
reincarnation su7Ject in at least the following respects:
EaF 2e had a freMuent sense of an e:ternal presence 'overshadowing) him.
E7F 2is paintings Ee:hi7ition of a characteristic skill characteristic of #iffordF were often
done in a state of dissociation> with some degree of su7seMuent amnesia.
EcF 0cenes for his paintings were presented to him> as if from an e:ternal source> in
visions.
EdF The overshadowing presence seemed to communicate with him as if from the outside
through auditor3 hallucinations.
EeF The scenes which came to him did not come as scenes from his own past.
EfF "ediums into whose presence Thompson was 7rought picked up the presence of the
o7sessing '#ifford) entit3 Eso far as I know compara7le e:periments have not 7een tried
with 0tevenson)s su7JectsF.
EgF Thompson did not identif3 with #ifford in the sense of coming to regard #ifford)s
famil3 and possessions as his own> etc.
"ore generall3 one might remark that the children in 0tevenson)s reincarnation cases do
not> on the whole> present the signs of ela7orating and maintaining a su7conscious
romance which led "rs 0idgwick towards the theor3 of overshadowing in regard to the
controls and communicators of "rs Piper.
There seem therefore to 7e grounds for sa3ing that in at least one case the e:periences of
a supposedl3 o7sessed person were ver3 different from those of the su7Jects of
0tevenson)s cases of ostensi7le reincarnation. This appears to me a sufficient reason for
consigning the o7session theor3 not to o7livion> 7ut indefinitel3 to the shelf. For since
o7session is a state in which mind and 7ehaviour are ostensi7l3 influenced from the
outside> the fundamental evidence for it could onl3 7e ps3chological evidence.
It is 7eginning to look ver3 much as though> having 7egun 73 C-,C e:pressing m3 ver3
considera7le distaste for the idea of reincarnation> I have now> 73 eliminating all the
o7vious alternatives> argued m3self into a position where I am 7ound to accept it> or at
an3 rate to 7egin a serious attempt to make sense of it. *an one indeed make sense of this
or an3 other form of the survival theor3O If> after m3 death> some recentl3 7orn 3oung
person starts to e:hi7it memories corresponding to m3 memories> skills corresponding to
m3 skills> and so on> would it therefore follow that I am come againO These are the sorts
of Muestions we shall have to discuss in the concluding chapters.
Pending the results of this discussion> I must admit that I do not find it eas3 to dissent
from the ver3 moderate opinion which 0tevenson e:presses at the end of his most recent
stud3 E&$J> pp. $+.L$,5F:
Persons who favour the certainties of religious traditions over the uncertainties of
empirical investigations ma3 prefer to remain with the former until we have improved the
latter. 9ut other persons ma3 welcome a growing 7od3 of evidence that permits a rational
7elief in reincarnation> even though this evidence falls far short of 7eing decisive. And for
the future> there is the possi7ilit3 that further and improved investigations of this t3pe
ma3 develop stronger evidence of a Mualit3 that will permit a firmer conclusion to the
most important of all the Muestions that man can ask a7out himself: <hether human
personalit3 survives death.
C--C
1, emor" and the -rain
"3 conclusions have so far 7een on 7alance favoura7le to some form of survival
h3pothesis. *ertain mediumistic communications and certain ostensi7l3 reincarnated
personalities displa3 so man3 correct and detailed apparent memories of a former
e:istence on earth that 10P 73 medium or reincarnated su7Ject scarcel3 seems a possi7le
e:planation> unless> indeed> we are prepared to postulate 10P of an e:tent and comple:it3
for which we have no independent support. 1ven if we were prepared to postulate such
'super-10P) we would still 7e una7le to account for other aspects of the 'evidence for
survival)> for the manifestation of skills> personalit3 traits> purposes> a whole point of
view> characteristic of the formerl3 living person. The super-10P h3pothesis suffers from
a large credi7ilit3 gap.
To man3 the credi7ilit3 gap of the super-10P h3pothesis> and the disputes 7etween the
supporters of that theor3> and those of the survivalist theor3> must seem matters of no
conseMuence whatsoever> like arguments 7etween rival schools of astrologers. The
findings of modern 7iological science strongl3 suggest Eit would 7e claimedF that such
'mental) phenomena as remem7ering> thinking> forming plans> using language> and all
e:pressions of human 'personalit3)> depend upon> and at the 7ottom simpl3 are> aspects
of the functioning of the 7rain. There can therefore 7e no Muestion of human personalit3
surviving the dissolution of the 7rain> and no rational and scientificall3 educated person
should waste time in stud3ing the supposed 'evidence) for survival. The evidence for 10P
ma3 7e marginall3 more worth3 of credence> 7ut the margin is so small as to make little
difference.
<e come here upon issues of immense difficult3 and comple:it3. <hat is in Muestion is
the nature of the relationship 7etween mind and 7rain> and the widel3 held> almost
orthodo:> contemporar3 view that the mind is 7rain in action. ;ow these issues are too
vast and too o7scure to 7e adeMuatel3 tackled here> perhaps an3where> 3et the3 cannot 7e
altogether dodged for> as I have Just remarked> a powerful C-.C current of opinion holds
that onl3 one sort of answer is possi7le> and it is an answer which puts the ostensi7le
evidence for survival with which this 7ook is concerned wholl3 out of court.
Faced with the daunting necessit3 to sa3 something> however inadeMuate> upon this
crucial topic> I have decided to adopt the following tactic. I shall discuss principall3 the
Muestion of whether memor3 is entirel3 a function of the 7rain. For> to put it somewhat
over-simpl3> if memories are to 7e eMuated with aspects of the structure and operation of
the 7rain> one)s power to remem7er could not survive the destruction and dispersal of
one)s 7rain. And since evidence for the survival of memor3 is a central4indeed the
central4part of the 'evidence for survival)> all evidence for surviving memor3 would
have to 7e dismissed or radicall3 reinterpreted. Furthermore> it is likel3 that what holds
true of memor3 will also hold true of the other facets of human personalit3 with which
we are principall3 concerned> so that 73 investigating the issues with respect to memor3>
we ma3 7e a7le to reach conclusions of general applica7ilit3.
!he Nature of emor"
A venera7le view of the nature of memor3> a view going 7ack to classical times> is this.
0timuli falling on our sense organs produce distur7ances in our 7rains> which cause us to
'perceive) those stimuli. The distur7ances in our 7rains leave 7ehind 'traces)> minute
changes in the structure of the 7rain. As a result of these changes> 7rain activit3 7ecomes
more likel3 to follow those same paths again> making us lia7le to relive the original
perceptual e:periences in a watered down form E'memor3 images)F> even in the a7sence
of the stimuli which originall3 produced them. 0uch a revival of the original e:perience
is especiall3 likel3 to 7e triggered off 73 stimuli whose own traces are intermingled> or
'associated)> with those of the first stimulus.
Toda3 this venera7le theor3 is formulated in the terms of modern neuroscience and
modern cognitive ps3cholog3. <e know that the 7rain contains thousands of millions of
specialiGed nerve cells EneuronsF> each sending out filaments which make connections
Es3napsesF with man3 other cells. 93 means of these filaments travelling regions of
electrochemical distur7ance Enerve impulsesF are transmitted from one nerve cell to
another. In an active 7rain immensel3 comple: patterns of nerve impulses are continuall3
shifting and changing and re-esta7lishing themselves.
0ome nerve impulses and patterns of nerve impulses seem to C.5C originate
spontaneousl3 within the 7rain itself. 9ut others are set going when e:ternal stimuli strike
the sense organs. Kolle3s of nerve impulses rush down the sensor3 nerves which pass
from the sense organ concerned to the 'central) nervous s3stem and the 7rain. 0uch
patterns of incoming nerve impulses are usuall3 said to represent or encode the e:ternal
stimulus Eo7Ject or eventF which gave rise to them.
Against this 7ackground> an account of memor3 is commonl3 developed along the
following lines. The incoming nerve impulses that 'encode) the e:ternal event must
themselves somehow change the properties of further neurons in such a wa3 that the
changes could also 7e said to 'represent) or 'encode) the e:ternal stimulus> 7ut in a
different fashion. These changes4which constitute the process of memory storage9 are
usuall3 thought to involve such alterations in the connections 7etween nerve cells as will
facilitate the revival or partial revival of the 'stored) pattern of nerve impulses. The
supposed process 73 which the stored pattern is revived as needed> and perhaps
recirculated> is known as retrieval$ It is 'retrieval) that gives rise to the e:perience of
remem7ering.
!he #oding'%torage'2etrie/al odel
<e ma3 call this view of memor3> which is endorsed 73 the conventional wisdom of
current ps3cholog3 and 7rain science> the coding8storage8retrieval model. *uriousl3
enough Ethis is perhaps a significant pointF this model was widel3 accepted for 3ears>
indeed decades> 7efore there was an3 serious evidence in its favour. In fact it was
accepted despite what some regarded as weight3 evidence against it. The evidence
against it was as follows. If memories are stored in the 7rain> it is natural to ask
wherea7outs in the 7rain the store ma3 7e. It had 7een known for a long time that general
deterioration of the 7rain4especiall3 deterioration involving atroph3 of nerve cells in the
cere7ral corte: Ethe la3er of 'gre3 matter) on the outside of the 7rainF4leads to a general
loss of intellectual faculties> including memor3. 9ut numerous attempts to show> 73
e:periments with animals> that particular memories were 'stored in) particular parts of the
corte: were largel3 unsuccessful. 1sta7lished memories could survive the removal of
considera7le amounts of cortical tissueN and when deficits were produced the3 were more
o7viousl3 related to the amount of tissue removed than to its location. There was little to
suggest the e:istence of a memor3-store> or indeed of an3thing resem7ling memor3-
traces as usuall3 conceived4a fact which greatl3 encouraged certain 7elievers C.C in
survival. The coding-storage-retrieval model of memor3 was still largel3 an article of
faith.
2owever> in the last couple of decades or so> various findings have come to hand which>
though the3 do not amount to the discover3 of a memor3 store or of clearl3 localiGed
memor3 traces> are at an3 rate consonant with the coding-storage-retrieval model of
memor3. For instance:
. 1lectrical stimulation of the 7rain Eespeciall3 of the temporal lo7es> the parts Just in
from> and in front of> the earsF 73 means of a small electrode sometimes produces the
apparent reliving of a past e:perience with an hallucinator3 vividness. 0ome workers
7elieve that the electrodes ma3 activate a 'retrieval) mechanism E7ut this interpretation of
the findings is disputedF.
!. 1:tensive damage to the front part of the temporal lo7es has 7een found> if it occurs on
7oth sides of the 7rain> to produce a frightful memor3 deficit. The victim is una7le to
retain for more than a minute or two a memor3 of an3 new event occurring> new person
met> new place visited> etc.> after the date of his inJur3. 2e will not even 7e a7le to keep
track of the plot of a film> pla3> etc.R This has 7een interpreted variousl3 as due to an
ina7ilit3 to store new material> to a selective ina7ilit3 to retrieve material> or to an
ina7ilit3 to encode new material.
$. The 7rain ma3> for our purposes> 7e regarded as consisting of two maJor portions> the
7rain stem> which is at it were an upward and forward e:tension and enlargement of the
spinal cord> and the large twin hemispheres> which overlie the 7rain stem and conceal it.
The hemispheres are connected 73 a large 7undle of nerve fi7res> called the corpus
callosum> and if this is severed Eproducing a so-called 'split 7rain)F the two hemispheres
can to some e:tent act independentl3. In e:periments with animals it has 7een shown that
each hemisphere can 7e taught different things> and can learn to respond differentl3 to the
same stimulus. It is as though different memor3 traces have 7een diffusel3 laid down and
separatel3 stored in left and right hemispheres. Analogous findings have 7een o7tained
with human patients whose 7rains have 7een 'split) for the relief of epileps3.
%. It has often 7een claimed that the inJection of certain su7stances into the 7rain4for
instance ones which assist or inhi7it the manufacture of protein in 7rain cells4ma3 have
a 7eneficial or inJurious effect on the a7ilit3 to learn and retain new material. 0ome
workers think that we must 7e tapping the molecular 7asis of memor3 C.!C storageN 7ut
the proper interpretation of such findings has 7een much disputed.
/n the face of it we seem to have here evidence for a coding-storage-retrieval model of
memor3> in which the coding> storage and retrieval are all activities of the 7rain. If this
approach to memor3 is correct> it is clear that one)s memories could not survive the
dissolution of one)s 7rain.
It is ironical that the decades which have seen the first seemingl3 solid pieces of
ph3siological evidence in favour of the coding-storage-retrieval model of memor3 have
also witnessed the 7eginnings of a strong and perhaps une:pected attack upon the
presuppositions of that model. This attack has come mainl3 from what ma3 seem an
unlikel3 Muarter> namel3 certain philosophers interested in the philosoph3 of mind E,N
!5N +!aN +!7N .-aN .-7F. The issues are e:tremel3 comple: and difficult> and I can here
give onl3 the 7arest outline of themN 7ut the3 are of such o7vious importance to the
central pro7lems of this 7ook that it is impossi7le to pass them 73. 8eaders who prefer
not to em7ark at all on what are to them uncharted seas will find an interim summar3 on
pages !5!L$ and a concluding summar3 on pages !$L%.
9efore we tackle these trick3 issues> it is necessar3 to touch upon two commonl3 made
distinctions which will 7e relevant to the discussion. The3 are as follows:
. The distinction 7etween what I shall call 'personal) memor3 and what I shall call
'factual) memor3. 93 'personal) memor3 I mean one)s a7ilit3 to recollect events> actions>
persons> places> etc.> which one o7served oneself. 93 'factual) memor3 I mean the a7ilit3
to call to mind items of factual or propositional knowledge> such as the fact that platinum
dissolves in molten lead> or the fact that Aing @ohn died of a surfeit of peaches and 7eer.
It should 7e noted that factual memor3 does not necessaril3 involve personal memor3N
one can recall a fact without recalling the occasion on which one learned it. /n the other
hand personal memories are alwa3s also to some e:tent factual memories. Thus if one
remem7ers the dome of 0t Peter)s one eo ipso remem7ers that 0t Peter)s is a *athedral
with a dome.
!. The distinction 7etween phenomena which possess or e:hi7it 'intentionalit3) and those
which do not. 'Intentionalit3) in this technical sense has nothing special to do with
intention. It is the propert3 which man3 mental states or events have of 7eing 'a7out) or C
.$C 'directed upon) e:ternal o7Jects or states of affairs. Thus a hope is alwa3s a hope for
something or that something will come to pass> a 7elief is alwa3s a 7elief that so and so
is the case> a memor3 is alwa3s a recollection of something or a recollection that such
and such is or was the case. A full specification of an3 such mental state reMuires a
specification of the state of affairs which is the 'o7Ject) of that mental stateN 7ut these
'intentional o7Jects) need not of course e:ist> or have e:isted> in the e:ternal world4I
can 7elieve ardentl3 in things that do not e:ist> seem to remem7er something that never
happened> or hope for an event which will never transpire. There is a large> and highl3
technical> literature a7out intentionalit3> 7ut for present purposes we need simpl3 note
that memor3 Eat least the kinds of memor3 we are here concerned withF is essentiall3 an
'intentional) phenomenon.
<e can now consider some of the more o7vious o7Jections to the coding-storage-retrieval
model of memor3. I shall take these under two headings:
. /7Jections to the idea that one)s power to remem7er is due to one)s having in one)s
7rain coded 'representations) or coded s3m7ols of e:ternal events.
!. Pro7lems that arise over the retrieval or tapping of these stored representations.
1. .=>ections to the Idea of Inner 2e&resentations
The central pro7lem confronting accounts of memor3 which postulate stored
'representations) of e:ternal events is that of clarif3ing what> in this conte:t> could 7e
meant 73 'representation). In the ordinar3 sense of the term 'representation) Eas when a
map might 7e said to 7e a representation of a stretch of terrain> or a grouping of pipe
cleaners and ping-pong 7alls of a comple: moleculeF> one thing can 7e a representation of
another onl3 if someone creates or adopts it for that purpose> or decides> 7elieves> claims>
etc.> that it is or shall 7e so. *reating> deciding> adopting> 7elieving> etc.> are all
'intentional) states of mind or 'intentional) mental events Ei.e. the3 are 'a7out) or 'directed
upon) conceived or imagined states of affairs e:ternal to themselvesF. It is clear that the
e:istence of such representations reMuires> and cannot 7e used to e:plain> memor3 and
other 'intentional) phenomena.
Those who e:plain memor3 E'factual) and 'personal)F in terms of inner 'representations)>
and assume that such representations are em7odied in the 7rain> appear to 7e developing
their own special or C.%C technical concept of representation. The essential features of
this concept are that incoming stimuli E'inputs)F produce changes in the 7rain Eone could
use the old word 'traces) for theseF. The traces in some EunknownF manner lawfull3
correspond to or parallel or 'represent) some aspects of the inputs which gave rise to
them.
/ne has> I think> onl3 to spell out what is involved in or implied 73 this concept of
representation to see that it cannot possi7l3 help us to understand the phenomena of
memor3. The concept has commonl3 7een developed in one of two general wa3s.
The simpler of these two wa3s has 7een in the past widel3 adhered to> and provides an
account of 7oth 'factual) and 'personal) memor3. It proposes in essence that when an
episode of remem7ering takes place a memor3 trace Eor stored representationF is
'retrieved) or reactivated. The effect of this retrieval is rather as though the input which
originall3 gave rise to the trace had 7een again received> and had 7een processed through
the s3stem to the point at which its nature and character were deciphered. The original
perceptual e:perience is> as it were> partl3 reinstated in the form of an imageN or it ma3 7e
that a series of inputs have 7een assimilated to a single trace or representation> in which
case retrieval will give rise to a general or composite image> more suited for carr3ing
'factual) than 'personal) memories. The supposed inner representations are usuall3
thought of as either 'visual) or 'ver7al). The3 are> in short> such that when 'retrieved)>
the3 3ield a visual image of some person> event> or state of affairs> or an auditor3 image
of certain appropriate spoken words.
This version of the representational theor3 has of late found man3 critics even amongst
ps3chologists. In the first place> it hardl3 seems possi7le> e:cept in the limiting case of
certain highl3 'personal) memories> to suppose that one)s memor3-knowledge of an3
given factual or personal matter consists in or is 7ased upon the a7ilit3 or tendenc3 to
evoke or entertain a particular image> or some image or images from a delimita7le set>
such as inner visual or ver7al representations might 7e supposed to generate. Take as an
e:ample m3 memor3 of the fact that Aing @ohn died of a surfeit of peaches and 7eer. I
find that I can call the facts a7out Aing @ohn)s death to mind through such images as
those of a certain page of a certain elementar3 histor3 te:t7ookN of an entr3 in the
!ictionary of ;ational iographyN of the voice of a former histor3 teacher Ewith whom in
fact I never studied the relevant periodFN of a crowned figure rolling on grassN of a picnic
hamper containing peaches and 7ottled 7eerN of loud intestinal C.&C rum7lingsN of a
cartoon in Humours of HistoryN of the figures !+ superimposed on a dish of tinned
peachesN and so on. 0everal of these images are ludicrousl3 inappropriate> 7ut the3 all
appear to 'work)> and an3 one of them might come to mind or 7e deli7eratel3 summoned
up in some circumstances. It is o7vious that m3 knowledge that Aing @ohn died of a
surfeit of peaches and 7eer does not derive from an a7ilit3 to activate or retrieve a
particular inner representation> or a representation or representations from a limited set. I
can create )hatever visual or ver7al images seem at the time to constitute appropriate
e+pressions of the underl3ing memor3-knowledge. The underl3ing memor3-knowledge
transcends an3 such limited set of visual or ver7al images as the retrieval of inner
representations mirroring episodes in past histor3 lessons> etc.> might 7e supposed to give
rise to.
There seem also to 7e possi7le episodes of 'remem7ering) in which retrieved
representations need not figure at all. If> for instance> I decline a meal of peaches and 7eer
with a Joking reference to Aing @ohn> it does not follow that I first had one of the images
listed a7ove> or indeed an3 image at all. "3 action is itself as much an e:pression of the
memor3 knowledge as an3 visual or ver7al image.
1ven if we set these difficulties aside> man3 others still remain. The partial reinstatement
or reliving of a past e:perience Esuch as e+ hypothesi would result from the retrieval of an
inner representationF could not 73 itself constitute an act of remem7ering. An image
representing some past scene that I had witnessed might occur to me at regular intervals
without m3 ever realiGing that I had gone through this e:perience 7efore. And similarl3 I
might freMuentl3 find m3self entertaining in m3 mind)s e3e an image of a crowned figure
clutching its stomach 7eside a ta7le 7earing tinned peaches and 7ottled 7eer without m3
once linking it to the death of Aing @ohn. The occurrences of the images might indeed 7e
due to modifications in m3 7rain caused 73 past inputsN 7ut their occurrence would not
constitute remem#ering$ A full3-fledged act of remem7ering would have> in addition> to
involve what can perhaps 7est 7e called an 'affirmation) that the 'intentional o7Jects) of
the images Ethe events or states of affairs> e:ternal to themselves> that the3 are 'of)>
'a7out) or 'point to)F reall3 took place> e:isted> were or are the case> etc. 9ut this element
of 'affirmation)> of sa3ing to oneself> 'this is how it was Eor isF)> is clearl3 that aspect of
the whole episode in which memor3-knowledge is effectivel3 deplo3ed. And Muite
o7viousl3 no account of the memor3-knowledge displa3ed C.+C in 'affirmation) can 7e
given in terms Just of revived or retrieved 'representations)N for> as I have Just pointed
out> a representation does not 3ield memor3-knowledge until an affirmation has 7een
made. The theor3 of visual and ver7al representations misses the essence of what is
involved in remem7ering.
A closel3 related point is this. If I call to mind a visual image of a crowned figure> gluml3
clutching its stomach> and perhaps 7earing the legend '@ohn: !+)> or if I have a ver7al
image of the words> 'Aing @ohn died of a surfeit of peaches and 7eer)> I could still make
nothing of these images> could 'affirm) nothing a7out them> if I did not alread3 -no) that
Aing @ohn died in !+> and that these images referred to that knowledge. Indeed> unless
I were alread3 furnished with a great deal of 7ackground information in the light of
which the visual and ver7al images concerned 'made sense)> I could not interpret them at
all. I would need to know> for instance> what a king is> that there was a king called @ohn>
what peaches and 7eer are> what eating is> that overeating or 7ad food ma3 lead to
stomach disorders> etc. All these essential items of 7ackground information> without
which the images concerned could not 7e properl3 interpreted or understood> themselves
involve or constitute memor3-knowledgeN so that we cannot avoid postulating that into
this one act of overt remem7ering there covertl3 enters a kind of memor3-knowledge that
does not reMuire to 7e em7odied or presented in the form of retrieved visual or ver7al
images> and cannot without regress 7e thought to reMuire such em7odiment.
I said a few paragraphs ago that the attempt to give an account of memor3 in terms of
inner representations has taken one of two general forms. The first was the form which
we have Just discussed and reJected> namel3 the form which supposes inner
representations to 7e predominantl3 either visual or ver7al. /7Jections such as those I
have Just outlined> together with the fact that people find it easier to recall the 'gist) or
'meaning) of> sa3> a film or a prose passage> than the3 do the visual details or the e:act
words> have led man3 cognitive ps3chologists to develop the idea of what are called
'a7stract) or 'prepositional) representations Euseful general accounts will 7e found in> for
instance> $> chapter %N ,-N -%F.
(ro&ositional 2e&resentations
A7stract or propositional representations are so called 7ecause the3 are held to em7od3
a7stract> propositional knowledge Eknowledge that C.,C so and so is or was the caseF
rather than the Muasi-perceptual information derived from the sense-organs em7odied in
visual and ver7al representations. The3 are supposed to em7od3 not Just individual
memories or pieces of memor3-knowledge> 7ut the whole structure of our propositional
knowledge in particular areas> including 7oth conceptual knowledge E'whales are
mammals)F and factual knowledge E'whales swim in arctic seas)F. The3 must thus 7e
regarded as themselves structured> though the nature of their neural em7odiment> like
much else a7out them> remains unclear. It is supposed that the underl3ing propositional
structure can generate a great variet3 of different 'surface) e:pressions> e.g. different
sentences> different actions> different images> and that conversel3 it mediates our
understanding of man3 different statements that fall> so to speak> within a given area of
knowledge. The generation of the surface e:pressions from the underl3ing
representations is said to 7e lawful. It is 'factual) memor3 that propositional
representations are primaril3 designed to e:plainN 7ut some authorities Ewith whom I tend
to agreeF think that even 'personal) memories are reall3 'factual) or propositional Ei.e. are
recollections that such and such an event of a certain kind happened to one> etc.F Esee>
e.g.> !+F.
*ognitive ps3chologists and ps3cholinguists commonl3 characteriGe propositional
representations> or interconnected networks of such representations> in a somewhat
technical manner 73 means of s3m7olisms derived from mathematics and formal logic.
0omething of the 'feel) of these characteriGations ma3 perhaps 7e gained in the following
wa3. Imagine something like an enc3clopaedic dictionar3 in which the entries are heavil3
cross-inde:ed. Thus the entries for 'whale)> 'swim)> 'mammal)> 'arctic)> and 'sea) will 7e
cross-inde:ed in such a wa3 as to indicate that E73 definitionF whales are mammals> and
that Eas a matter of factF whales swim in arctic seas. 0imilarl3 the entries for '7lu77er)>
'whale)> 'fat)> 'skin)> etc.> will 7e cross-inde:ed in such a wa3 as to indicate that 7lu77er
is an insulating la3er of fat found 7eneath the skin of whalesN and so on and so forth more
or less indefinitel3. ;e:t imagine that all these cross-inde:ings> instead of 7eing written
into the various dictionar3 entries> are set out on one large sheet of paper> with ke3 terms>
or concepts> like 'whale)> 'mammal)> '7lu77er)> 'swim)> etc.> shown 73 small circles> and
their meaning-relationships and factual relationships indicated 73 connecting lines of
different colours or of different kinds and degrees of 7rokenness. This gives one a vague
and somewhat misleading> 7ut still> C.-C I hope> for present purposes sufficient> idea of
the sort of wa3s in which propositional representations have commonl3 7een
characteriGed.
0omewhere in the 7rain> it is implicitl3 assumed> there must 7e anatomical or
ph3siological s3stems Epropositional representationsF whose structures and operations are
in some sense mapped 73 the diagrams or s3m7ol s3stems whose 'feel) I have 7een tr3ing
to conve3. If an incoming statement or proposition so to speak harmoniGes or chimes in
with some part or aspect of this underl3ing> ph3siologicall3 em7odied> network> it will 7e
understood and accepted. *onversel3> the network will> so to speak> generate or permit
the generation of onl3 such propositions as are em7odied in the cross-linkages of the
network. Present versions of this approach deal principall3 with statements> and how the3
are produced and understood> 7ut their proponents clearl3 hope to e:tend them to cover
the generation of thoughts> Judgements> images> etc.> in short to all the phenomena of
'factual) memor3.
I think that some of the writers who have adopted this sort of approach to the pro7lems of
memor3 Eand of cognition in generalF ma3 look upon their delineations of the 'structure)
of 'propositional representations) not as speculations a7out supposed inner mechanisms>
7ut as a means of Ean appropriate notation forF so to speak mapping the 'structure) of our
propositional knowledge Eespeciall3 our memor3 knowledgeF> of e:hi7iting the wa3s in
which our concept of '7lu77er) is linked to our concepts of 'mammal)> 'sea)> 'fat)> and so
on and so on. <ith this enterprise> though I dou7t its point and long-term prospects> I
have no Muarrel. /thers> however> seem to regard themselves as working out the
groundplan of the inner mechanism through which we understand what is said to us and
what goes on around us> and 73 means of which we know> remem7er> formulate
propositions> etc. 9roadl3 speaking this enterprise could take one of two forms> 7oth of
which appear to me to 7e Muite unintelligi7le.
EaF It might 7e supposed that propositional representations> once 7uilt up> are simpl3
stored awa3 and so to speak consulted when needed. This idea is Muite o7viousl3
regressive> for it implies a further s3stem which does the consulting and understands the
outcome thereof> and this second s3stem would itself need to possess concepts>
intelligence and memor3. E(espite the o7vious regress> some neurops3chologists are
prone to talk as if the3 thought that certain 7rain lesions> which interfere with the victim)s
grasp of semantic and conceptual relationships> were damaging a store of this kind.F
E7F A position that seems to 7e commonl3> if implicitl3> held> is C..C that 'propositional
representations) are themselves the 7rain mechanisms of the understanding and
production of propositional speech and thought Eincluding thoughts and utterances which
would 7e said to manifest or e:press factual and perhaps also personal memor3F. The
diagrams and s3m7ol s3stems 73 means of which propositional representations have 7een
characteriGed are then regarded as 7eing in effect 7lueprints of these underl3ing
mechanisms> al7eit 7lueprints of a ver3 schematic and general kind.
It is possi7le> and> as I remarked a moment ago> Muite legitimate to regard diagrams of
propositional representations as wa3s of summariGing what ma3 perhaps 7e called the
'intellectual competence) of a particular human 7eing> or of human 7eings in particular
societies. 0uch diagrams map the organiGation of a person)s knowledge> his grasp of the
interrelationships of the concepts em7odied in the ordinar3 speech of his societ3> and so
on. To regard such mappings of someone)s intellectual competence not as partial
specifications of what a supposed underl3ing mechanism would have to accomplish> 7ut
as specifications of the mechanism itself> is> on the face of it> a gross confusion. It is like
taking a schematic drawing of a finished car for a 7lueprint of the production line which
assem7led that car.
0ome people ma3> I think> have 7een misled into supposing otherwise> for the following
reasons. <hen the 'finished product) which has 7een mapped or delineated is competence
in carr3ing out some rule-governed activit3> like pla3ing checkers or tic-tac-toe> or
constructing grammaticall3 correct sentences> it is relativel3 eas3 to translate the map
into a computer programme. The computer can furthermore 7e made to run through
moves formall3 paralleling the actions of a human 7eing who is 'competent) in the rule-
governed activit3 concerned. The same holds true when the competence 7eing delineated
is of the kind mapped 73 the diagrams favoured 73 7elievers in 'propositional
representations). It is tempting to suppose that when we have programmed a computer to
'pla3 games)> emit grammatical sentences> spell out the relationships 7etween commonl3
accepted propositions in a certain area> and so on> we have in effect created machines
which work on the same sort of principles as we ma3 supposed to 7e em7odied in the
7rains of human 7eings who possess these competences. These computers must therefore
in effect contain mechanical em7odiments of 'propositional representations). 0urel3 we
ma3 assume that the human 7rain is likel3 to contain something analogousO
C!55C The mistake here consists in forgetting that what has 7een programmed into the
computer is still> so to speak> onl3 a 'map) or diagram of the competence concerned> and
not the competence itself. The computer goes through certain changes in accordance with
its 'map) and prints certain signsN these signs can 7e interpreted #y an intelligent
computer user as moves in a game of tic-tac-toe or checkers> or as sentences following
the rules of 1nglish grammar> or whatever. 9ut all the computer is doing here is as it were
putting up 7it 73 7it for its user)s 7enefit a ver3 detailed diagram of the sort of
competence which a person who could reall3 and trul3 pla3 this game> understand the
connections 7etween these propositions> etc.> would displa3. It develops man3 of the
details as it goes along E'computes) themF from principles alread3 7uilt into it. ;one the
less it can no more 7e said itself to 'possess) the competence concerned than a computer
which can flash up road maps with distances> compute the shortest route from Land)s 1nd
to @ohn o) #roats> etc.> could 7e said to 'know the wa3) from one place to another. For
'competence) in games> and in compara7le rule-governed activities> does not consist in
7lindl3 going through motions into which intelligent Eand 'competent)F persons can 'read)
the moves of the games concerned. It consists in making the proper moves Eor what one
conceives to 7e the proper movesF from the understanding that this is a game> that it has
rules> that such and such are the permitted moves in this situation> and that of the
permitted moves some are> in the current state of pla3> '7etter) or more logical than
others.
I conclude that the advocates of 'propositional representations) have so far given us onl3
EpartialF maps or diagrams of the intellectual competence displa3ed 73 persons
possessing propositional or factual knowledge. The3 have not 3et 7egun to approach the
Muestion of what the underl3ing mechanism of this competence might 7e like. That it is
possi7le to approach the Muestion at all remains at the moment a pious hope. *ertainl3 it
will not 7e possi7le to approach it 73 invoking inner 'representations) of the 'structure) of
the intellectual competence concerned.
2. (ro=lems to do with $2etrie/al)
If a stored representation> propositional or otherwise> is to give rise to an episode of
remem7ering> it must> in terms of the coding-storage-retrieval model of memor3> 7e
'retrieved)> and as it were reactivated and partl3 recirculated through the s3stem. ;ow if
such a representation is to 7e retrieved from storage> it must first 7e located> C!5C and this
in turn reMuires that it 7e la7elled> tagged or coded in some wa3 Eas is the case with
computer 'memories)F. /therwise the mechanism would not 7e a7le to retrieve on
demand the right representation from the store. And the retrieval mechanism must
possess or 'know) the various la7els or tags. 9ut Esince the la7els cannot 7e innateF this
means that the mechanism must itself have a memor3. And its memor3 cannot> without
regress> 7e e:plained on the coding-storage-retrieval model. 2ence this model can never
give us an adeMuate account of memor3.
It might 7e replied that 'content-addressa7le) storage s3stems can circumvent this
difficult3. These are s3stems in which representations are retrieved 7ecause some element
in the input Ee:ternal stimulusF contains the la7el or 'address) of the appropriate
representation. The short answer is that the e:ternal circumstances in which an intelligent
person might find it appropriate to retrieve a given fact are indefinitel3 numerous> and are
lia7le to an indefinitel3 large increase in num7er as time progresses. ;o content-
addressa7le s3stem could match the range of possi7ilities here.
These pro7lems arise whatever kind of stored representations are in Muestion. 0pecial to
propositional representations> however> are a further set of pro7lems of the following
kind. Propositional representations are supposed inner or 'deep) structures which generate
a variet3 of different possi7le 'surface) e:pressions. There must> according to the theor3>
7e rules determining which one of the possi7le surface e:pressions is generated on an3
particular occasion. 9ut what can these rules 7eO Take as an e:ample m3 memor3 of the
interesting fact that platinum Emelting point ,,5^*F will dissolve in molten lead at a
much lower temperature. 0o far as I can tell this memor3 does not> in m3 case> lead to the
generation of an3 special or 'preferred) image or imagesN however> I might in some
circumstances summon up various more or less appropriate images> e.g. of someone
stirring a gre3ish> 7u77ling liMuid> or the printed words 'melting point ,,5^*)> or of a
voice sa3ing> 'It will not melt> 7ut it will dissolve). In what actions will m3 memor3-
knowledge of this fact find e:pressionO Pro7a7l3 noneN or perhaps it ma3 make me nod
m3 head sagel3 when I come to read 8. Austin Freeman)s !r Thorndy-e Intervenes> a
detective stor3 in which the solu7ilit3 of platinum in lead pla3s a part. 9ut in what
actions might this knowledge find e:pressionO <ell> I might pass a remark during a
coffee-7reak conversation> or write something in an e:amination paper> or make a
comment to m3 wife while looking at her wedding C!5!C ringN I might write notes towards
a treatise on the oddities of natural philosoph3N I might in some remotel3 conceiva7le
circumstances engineer a craft3 escape from a platinum-7uilt =F/. And so on and so on
indefinitel3.
<hat> then> could 7e the 'transformational) rules that relate the underl3ing propositional
representation which em7odies the information a7out the solu7ilit3 of platinum in lead to
the various possi7le surface e:pressions which it ma3 generateO The trou7le is that it is
Muite impossi7le to set limits on the num7er of possi7le surface e:pressions which the
propositional representation of a fact such as we are considering might have. /ne can
create relevant images on demand> in as much variet3 as the occasion reMuires. /ne will>
within the limits of one)s capacities> utter whatever words or carr3 out whatever actions
an intelligent person who knows the fact in Muestion should utter or carr3 out in the
prevailing circumstances Ewhatever the3 ma3 7eF. And that> I think> is the point. There is>
and can 7e> no finite set of rules relating propositional representations to their surface
e:pressions. Into the theor3 there must instead of rules surreptitiousl3 7e introduced an
intelligence Ea creative intelligence I might addF whose function is to understand and
interpret the propositional representations and to direct thoughts> utterances and actions in
the light of them. And this intelligence> I need hardl3 sa3> is going to reMuire its own
intentionalit3> and its own memor3 with its own retrieval s3stem and its own intelligence
to operate that retrieval s3stem> and so on for ever.
In sum: a widel3 adopted approach to the e:planation of memor3-phenomena consists in
supposing that there are laid down in our 7rains coded traces or 'representations) of past
events or circumstances. An act of remem7ering occurs when one of these coded
representations is 'retrieved) and so to speak put into circulation once more. I called this
model of memor3 the 'coding-storage-retrieval) model. It is of importance in the present
conte:t 7ecause if our memories consist of 'traces) laid down in our 7rains> then clearl3
our memories cannot survive the dissolution of our 7rains> and a large part of the
'evidence) for survival4that involving evidence for the survival of memories4has to 7e
a7andoned or radicall3 reinterpreted. I argued> however> that the coding-storage-retrieval
model of memor3> in an3 of the forms so far developed Eand> I should like to add> in an3
form that could 7e developedF> is Muite incoherent.
A central part of m3 o7Jections was in essence this. According to this C!5$C model of
memor3 Ewhich is also a model of thought in generalF we adJust our present thought and
7ehaviour to the lessons of the past 73 retrieving and reprocessing or e:amining stored
representations of past events Ewe ma3 also use these resources to represent present
events and situations to ourselvesF. 9ut the stored inner representations on which we can
thus supposedl3 draw to assist us in our dealings with the outer world would themselves
constitute a kind of 'world) of their own. <e would have to learn our wa3 round this
world> and learn to interpret and manipulate its contents> Just as we have to learn our wa3
round the outer world. To make use of these inner representations we would> in short>
need alread3 to have developed memor3-knowledgeN hence we cannot e:plain memor3 in
terms of the retrieval of 'inner representations).
I cannot of course den3 that past e:perience ma3 leave 7ehind in the 7rain traces or
representations which> when reactivated E3ielding> perhaps> a 'memor3-image)F ma3
cause or prompt us to remem7er. 0uch representations would> of course> simpl3 have the
status of aides8mCmoire, and I need hardl3 sa3 that an aide8mCmoire presupposes> and
does not itself constitute> a working memor3. I am 7ound to sa3> however> that the idea
that inner representations can have even this limited role is far from plausi7le. For an
aide8mCmoire is normall3 something that I might keep in m3 pocket to consult as needed.
(o I then have a second aide8mCmoire in m3 head which I likewise consult as neededO I
am never conscious of consulting it. /n what occasions do I desist from m3 ordinar3
mode of recollection Ewhatever that ma3 7eF and unknowingl3 turn to the inner aide8
mCmoireA Is it when I hesitate for a moment and then remem7erO <hat sort of code or
language is the inner aide8mCmoire written inO (o I as the 3ears go 73 develop different
codes for different purposes> corresponding to the different sorts of s3m7olisms
Emathematical> technical> graphic> linguisticF in which knowledge in different areas is
customaril3 set downO /r is there one universal inner language or codeO If so is it innate
E'7uilt in) to the 7rainF or acMuiredO These Muestions> and man3 others eMuall3 vain> arise
from the Muagmires of the representational theor3 the moment one 7egins to take the
aide8mCmoire proposal seriousl3> like an endless series of will o) the wisps inviting
pursuit.
Im&lications for %ur/i/al
I must emphasiGe that I have so far said nothing directl3 to challenge the supposition that
memor3 is entirel3 dependent upon 7rain C!5%C function> a supposition for which there is a
great deal of empirical support. All I have done is challenge a widel3 received theor3 Eor
rather theoretical frameworkF concerning the relationship 7etween memor3 and the 7rain.
The o7Jections to this theor3> the theor3 of inner representations Eor coding-storage-
retrieval modelF> do> however> 7ear indirectl3 upon the pro7lem of survival in two wa3s.
The first of them is as follows. The super-10P h3pothesis> the chief alternative to the
survival h3pothesis> seems inescapa7l3 committed to a 'representational) view of
memor3. For according to the super-10P h3pothesis> successful mediums must o7tain
much of their information a7out deceased persons 73 so to speak riffling through the
memor3-stores of the living and 'reading) their contents. 9ut if there are no
representations there are no memor3-stores and nothing 'in) those stores which mediums
can telepathicall3 e:amine. The super-10P h3pothesis seems 7ound to collapse along
with the coding-storage-retrieval theor3 of memor3. It collapses> furthermore> whether we
suppose the 'storage) to take place in the human 7rain> or Eas some have thoughtF outside
it4in> for e:ample> a localiGed 'ether of images)> a cosmic memor3 pool> the 'Akashic
records) of the theosophists> or the mind of #od. The o7Jections to coding-storage-
retrieval theories of memor3 would in all cases 7e similar.
The second wa3 in which the collapse of the coding-storage-retrieval model of memor3
would indirectl3 affect the prospects of the survival theor3 is this. If memories are simpl3
traces or representations in the 7rain> the3 cannot possi7l3 survive the destruction of the
7rain. Personal survival of death is therefore a7solutel3 ruled out Eif> that is> we set aside
the idea of a 7odil3 resurrection> which would amount to the undoing or reversal of death>
rather than survival of it> and is clearl3 not a candidate-e:planation for the sorts of
phenomena we are consideringF. If> on the other hand> the a7ilit3 to remem7er> whatever
it ma3 consist in> is not 7ased upon 7rain-traces or inner representations> we are> so to
speak> licensed to speculate along other> less fashiona7le lines> some of which may> while
others Muite certainl3 will not make the survival theor3 once again a conceiva7le option
for e:plaining certain mediumistic Eand otherF phenomena. In the remainder of this
chapter I shall 7riefl3 e:plore the Muestion of what the leading features of such an
alternative approach to the pro7lems of memor3 might 7e like.
C!5&C
.ther ?iews of emor"
An3 such alternative approach must> I think> to 7egin with emphasiGe a point that is not
so much denied as underpla3ed 73 man3 proponents of representational theories> the
point> namel3> that human memor34at an3 rate the sort with which we are here
concerned>4and which the representational theories are intended to e:plain4is
essentiall3 and 7efore ever3thing else a manifestation of human conceptual a7ilities. Ker3
roughl3 one might sa3 that concept-possession involves the capacit3 to group o7Jects
together in thought and to think of individual group-mem7ers as mem7ers of the group.
In its simplest form this capacit3 ma3 simpl3 involve grouping together a miscellaneous
collection of o7Jects that one happens to find in a particular location4as when one sa3s
to oneself> 'I must tid3 all that stuff awa3R) "ore commonl3 one groups things together
not in virtue of their spatial location 7ut 7ecause the3 all possess a certain characteristic
or set of characteristics. /ne groups> sa3> all 'oranges) together in thought 7ecause the3
have similar weights> colours> te:tures> are edi7le> moist> sweet-tasting> etc.N and when
one encounters an individual specimen possessing these characteristics one sa3s of it>
'Ah> 3es. /ne of thoseR) /ne ma3 divide the class of oranges into further su7groups4
0evilles> @affas> mandarins> clementines> etc.>4on the 7asis of more specific
characteristics> or assimilate it to a larger grouping4'fruit)473 restricting oneself to a
small num7er of more general characteristics.
;ow if one can sa3 of an individual o7Ject which one encounters Ean orangeF> 'Ah> 3esR
/ne of thoseR) Eoranges as a classF> one is o7viousl3 in a sense transcending the here and
nowN one is in thought assimilating the present specimen> on account of certain
characteristics which it possesses> to a group of other o7Jects not currentl3 7efore one.
/ne can go further and think a7out either the group of o7Jects> or some individual o7Ject
considered as a mem7er of the group> in the total a7sence of either group or specimen.
/ne can indeed thus 'conceive) them not Just in their a7sence> 7ut even if the3 do not
e:ist at all> and never have e:isted Eas when> for instance> one makes out for oneself in
thought a class of diminutive human-shaped creatures possessing 7utterfl3-like wings and
magical powersF.
It is at once apparent that onl3 a 7eing who e:hi7its these 'conceptual) capacities> the
nature of which I have Just> ver3 crudel3> tried to indicate> could trul3 possess memories>
whether 'personal) or 'factual). If I am to 7e said to remem7er that Aing @ohn died of a
surfeit C!5+C of peaches and 7eer> I must possess such concepts as those of king> peaches>
7eer> illness> etc. I must 7e a7le to assign> in thought> certain o7Jects Ethose which caused
the king)s deathF to a class of things EpeachesF marked out in terms of certain
characteristics EsiGe> taste> colour> growing on trees> etc.F. If I could not think of these
o7Jects as 7elonging to that class> I could not think of them as peaches, and accordingl3 I
could not recall the fact that Aing @ohn died of a surfeit of peaches and 7eer. 1ven if
those ver3 words came into m3 mind> I should not adeMuatel3 understand their meaning>
and the3 would therefore not constitute a true recollection of the fact concerned.
It is o7vious that a similar point could 7e made in connection with all the other terms in
the proposition Eking> death> 7eer4the proper name '@ohn) would reMuire special
treatmentF> and it is also o7vious that the same pro7lems arise in connection with
'personal) memories. I remem7er> for instance> the occasion on which4a hero for the
first> and so far the onl3> time in m3 life4I defied the fast 7owler in a house match. I
could not in an3 real sense have this recollection at all unless I possessed such concepts
as 7at> 7all> deliver3> game> etc.> etc. /ne)s capacit3 to remem7er is part and parcel of
Eand is indeed insepara7l3 linked withF one)s overall conceptual capacities.
<e now reach our central Muestion> namel3 that of how memor3-capacit3 and conceptual
capacit3 in general> might 7e linked to 7rain function. It has 7een fashiona7le among
ph3siologists and ph3siological ps3chologists to approach memor3 in what ma3 7e called
a '7ottom up) manner. The3 have sought> in other words> to account for memor3
phenomena 73 postulating that e:perience causes changes within or 7etween functional
elements Enerve cells> protein molecules> etc.F in the 7rain. 0ince the overall pattern of
relationship 7etween these elements Ethe 'structure)F is held to determine all levels of
7ehaviour and mental functioning> the changes will produce corresponding alterations in
these things> changes which constitute memor3 of facts or past events. I think that there
are reasons Ewhich I cannot spell out hereF for supposing that an3 theor3 which attempts
thus to derive the phenomena of memor3 entirel3 from the interactions of the elements of
a s3stem is 7ound to 7e a theor3 of the representational or coding-storage-retrieval sort.
For if within such a s3stem Eof which a digital computer appropriatel3 programmed
would serve as a central e:ampleF past functioning Einput-output relationsF is
s3stematicall3 to influence future input-output relations> this can onl3 7e 7ecause of
changes in the relations 7etween the elements of the C!5,C s3stem> changes which
s3stematicall3 reflect its past input-output-input histor3. 0uch changes would almost
certainl3 Mualif3 73 definition as inner 'representations) of past o7Jects or events. If>
therefore> the dou7ts which I have e:pressed a7out representational theories of memor3
are Justified> not Just representational theories> 7ut all theories starting from supposed
elements and the supposed laws of their interactions must go 73 the 7oard. <e must
instead tr3 out what ma3 7e called 'top down) theories> theories according to which the
elements of a s3stem sometimes act in conformit3 with laws which characteriGe the
functioning of the overall s3stem> and cannot 7e derived from the laws which govern the
interactions of elements with their fellows. /ne might call the laws or principles of the
working of such a s3stem 'supervenient) laws or principles> 7ecause the3 supervene upon>
and so to speak override or overrule> the laws of the 7ehaviour of the elements. EA
corollar3 of this would> I think> 7e that there must 7e a certain randomness or
indeterminac3 in the 7ehaviour of the elements.F
In the case we are considering> the supervenient laws or principles are those of the
'conceptual) Eor simpl3 'mental)F level of functioning> which include of course the 'laws)
of memor3N the laws upon which the3 supervene are the commonplace and commonl3
accepted chemical and ph3siological laws which govern the 7ehaviour of 7rain cells. <e
should have to suppose> I think> that when> during the development of the individual> or
the evolution of the species> the overall spatio-temporal patterns of 7rain activit3 reach
and pass a certain level of comple:it3> the supervenient laws appear> and 7egin> so to
speak> partiall3 to direct those patterns of activit3> the result 7eing> among other things>
characteristic changes in the organism)s 7ehaviour. The 7ehavioural changes will>
however> not 7e constant from one individual organism of the species to the ne:t> for
different individuals with different histories develop different conceptual capacities and
different sets of memories> and the supervenient 'laws) or 'principles) of functioning will
differ correspondingl3 from one individual to the ne:t. Thus> from a standpoint> so to
speak> at the level of 7rain cells and their summed individual activities and relationships>
memor3 Ealong with other manifestations of conceptual capacitiesF will involve
supervenient principles of functioning> principles differing somewhat in detail from one
individual to the ne:t> and not deriva7le from an3 amount of information concerning
structural changes within and 7etween 7rain cells.
C!5-C The supervenient principles which> according to the h3pothesis we are considering>
emerge and develop when the overall spatio-temporal pattern of 7rain activit3 reaches a
certain kind and degree of comple:it3> might 7e supposed either:
. to inhere in the stuff of the universe in wa3s which contemporar3 ph3sical science has
as 3et scarcel3 7egun to glimpse> and to 7e 'released) when patterns of the right kind and
comple:it3 are generatedN or
!. to 7e created> 7rought into 7eing> 73 comple: patterns of 7rain activit3N or
$. to result from the interaction 7etween some influence outside the 7rain> and 7rain
activit3 of a sufficientl3 comple: kind Eone might sa3 that when an active 7rain is 7lown
upon 73 the cosmic wind> or swims in the holomovement or the sea of hidden varia7les>
strange and unforeseen phenomena come into 7eingFN or
%. to come from outside the 7rain and 7e permitted e+pression when a 7rain e:hi7its a
certain kind of highl3 comple: activit3-pattern.
I do not think that> for present purposes> it greatl3 matters which of the a7ove positions
we adopt> for> without specificall3 adhering to an3 one of them> we can make some
plausi7le further suggestions as to how the supervenient level of function might 7e
supposed to 7e related to the patterns of activit3 of 7rain cells. These suggestions are si:
in num7er:
. It seems fairl3 clear that> within certain modest limits> there is no intrinsic or necessar3
link 7etween specific instances of supervenient functioning Eparticular thoughts>
particular memories> etc.F and the firing of particular sets of 7rain-cells. /nce the critical
level of comple:it3 of 7rain-activit3 has 7een passed> the thinking of a particular thought
is likel3 to 7e compati7le with the firing of an3 one of a ver3 large num7er of possi7le
su7sets of 7rain cellsN and vice versa. There are various kinds of reason for sa3ing this.
/ne kind of reason is empirical: there are man3 e:amples in which the power of
conceptual thought has 7een gravel3 impaired following considera7le loss of 7rain tissue>
and has su7seMuentl3 to a greater or lesser e:tent 7een reesta7lished. There have also
7een man3 cases of earl3 loss of 7rain tissue Esometimes as much as a whole cere7ral
hemisphereF or of congenital a7normalities leading to a similar result> in which
conceptual functioning has developed to lie within normal limits. In 7oth these sorts of
case it seems inevita7le that we should have to sa3 that this> that> or the other thought
Esupervenient level of functioningF C!5.C now occurs in connection with> or is mediated
73> the activit3 of a set of 7rain cells other than the set with whose activit3 it was once
associated> or would have 7een associated had earlier circumstances 7een different.
Another kind of reason is logical. According to the h3pothesis we are considering Ethe
h3pothesis> indeed> to which we have 7een driven 73 the 7reakdown of the coding-
storage-retrieval model of memor3F the supervenient level of functioning reflects 7ack
upon> and directs> the neural events which accompan3 it. The supervenient level of
functioning could not have this kind of autonom3> and could not thus act as a factor or
principle ordering neural events> if each actual or possi7le supervenient Emental>
conceptualF event or state were uniMuel3 related to the activation of one and onl3 one set
of 7rain cells. For if the supervenient level of function is to 7e thought of as 7ringing
a7out changes in the pattern of neural events rather than as merel3 accompan3ing such
changes> it must> so to speak> change first> and 7ring the neural events into line
afterwards.
I do not> of course> wish to go to the opposite e:treme and suggest that the firing of an3
sufficientl3 comple: su7set of 7rain cells is compati7le with the appearance of an3 kind
of supervenient functioning whatsoever. The particular kind of higher functioning that
appears or emerges will 7e constrained though not determined in detail 73 aspects or
features of the overall comple: spatio-temporal pattern of 7rain activit3> and it is not
impossi7le that such constraints will 7ecome stricter as the organism grows older. Thus
dreams occur when the 7rain e:hi7its certain patterns of electrical activit3 Eperhaps
linked to regenerative processes in 7rain cellsFN the 7rain activit3 ma3 constrain mental
activit3 into a certain mode EdreamingF without determining the content of the dream in
an3 detail. /ther Eperhaps partl3 overlappingF patterns of 7rain activit3 ma3 7e
particularl3 conducive to Esa3F rational> or ver7al> or musical> or depressive> or action-
oriented modes of thought. The wa3 in which mental states follow one another Etheir
seMuenceF ma3 7e determined through the 'higher) level of function constraining the
'lower)> or vice versaN or some admi:ture of 7oth.
!. It seems likel3 that more comple: patterns of 7rain activit3 will permit the appearance
of more comple: kinds of supervenient functioning Eit would> however> 7e no light task
to give an adeMuate definition of comple:it3 hereF. This is> I think> 7asicall3 a matter of
o7served fact Ethough one might find reasons for regarding it as C!5C antecedentl3
likel3F. As a human 7eing grows towards mental maturit3> so the interconnections
7etween his 7rain cells grow immeasura7l3 more complicated. This in turn makes for an
immense increase in the possi7le comple:it3 and variet3 of spatio-temporal patterns of
nervous activit3. The multiplication of links 7etween 7rain-cells is generall3 regarded as
due to> or rather as constituting> learning. I should> however> 7e inclined to suppose that
much of this multiplication represents the 7asis for a general increase in the num7er and
comple:it3 of possi7le patterns of nerve cell activit3> and hence of possi7le modes of
supervenient EmentalF functioning> and not the 7asis for the canaliGation of mental
activit3 into determinate channels.
$. If> as I suggested a moment ago> there ma3 7e> or ma3 develop> some> though not a
strict> association 7etween certain general features of the overall pattern of 7rain activit3>
and the emergence of certain modes of supervenient functioning Edreaming> rational
thought> musical thought> etc.F> the following further issue arises. <hat happens when
circumstances reMuire the simultaneous production of more than one of these
supervenient modes of functioning> for instance the musical and the ver7alO 0uppose that
the particular mode of supervenient function to emerge is related Eas seems inescapa7leF
to the pattern of activit3> of all or much of the 7rain. ;ow the )hole #rain cannot
simultaneousl3 e:hi7it two different patterns of activit3. 9ut perhaps in so large and
intricate a 7rain as that possessed 73 humans two different comple: patterns of activit3
might develop in two different parts> sa3 the left and right hemispheres> thus permitting
the simultaneous emergence of ver7al and musical functioning. *ould one then sing the
;ational Anthem as distinct from having to choose 7etween humming the tune and
reciting the wordsO ;ot necessaril3N 7ut pro7a7l3 one could do so provided that the
patterns of activit3 in the two 7rain regions involved stood in whatever Epresentl3
unknownF spatio-temporal relationships to each other and to patterns of activit3 in the
rest of the 7rain are necessar3 to make them su7-patterns within an overall pattern of a
kind upon which this new and 'higher) kind of functioning might supervene.
/f course this e:ample is immensel3 oversimplifiedN 7ut there is> as is well known> a
good deal of evidence for the 'localiGation) of specific ps3chological functions 'in)
specific parts of the 7rain. (amage to the parts of the 7rain concerned leads to
impairment of the ps3chological function. '(isconnection) of two such parts Ei.e.
destruction of the nervous pathwa3s connecting themF will impair performance in an3 C
!C task that reMuired the integration of 7oth the ps3chological functions concerned.
E*onventional thinking on this last matter supposes that coded 'representations) can no
longer 7e shunted around as reMuired.F The approach we are e:ploring would lead us to
take a somewhat different view of the effects of 7rain damage on ps3chological
functioning. If Eto return to m3 over-simplified e:ampleF that region of the 7rain in which
the 'music) pattern had 7ecome esta7lished were destro3ed> the 'musical) function would
no longer supervene> at least until that pattern had re-esta7lished itself elsewhere> or the
function 7ecome linked to a somewhat different pattern. If the 'ver7al) region 7ecame
'disconnected) from the 'musical) region> the two patterns might 7e thrown out of gear in
such a wa3 that the supervenient function would 7e rendered at least temporaril3
incoherent> and attempts to sing the ;ational Anthem would 7e dismal failures.
The suggestions I have so far e:plored concerning the possi7le relationship 7etween the
postulated 'supervenient) level of functioning and patterns of 7rain activit3 have mostl3
concerned conceptual functioning in general. "3 final suggestions have more specificall3
to do with memor3.
%. I am not> of course> suggesting that once the 'higher) level of functioning has
supervened> memor3 Eas an aspect of this higher level of functioningF is independent of>
or unaffected 73> activities and changes at cellular level. <e might make some plausi7le
guesses at the relations 7etween the two levels of functioning. For instance> suppose that
when I first grasped that interesting point a7out the solu7ilit3 of platinum in molten lead>
m3 7rain was e:hi7iting such and such a spatio-temporal pattern of activit34a pattern
from a limited 7ut still e:tensive range of possi7le patterns> an3 one of which might have
permitted or underpinned m3 moment of understanding. Thereafter two tendencies come
into pla3:
EaF <hen I ne:t think a7out> remem7er> e:ercise m3 understanding of> platinum and lead
Ea higher level or supervenient activit3F> that pattern of 7rain activit3 will 7e more likel3
to come into 7eing than others from the same range Ethis might underlie the fact that an
action which> when first e:ecuted> is carefull3 thought out> ma3 with repetition 7ecome
automaticF.
E7F The recurrence of that pattern of 7rain activit3 will tend to 7ring me once again to
think a7out platinum and its solu7ilit3 in lead Ethe com7ination of this tendenc3 with the
preceding one might facilitate reinstatement of m3 knowledge of the solu7ilit3 of
platinum C!!C in lead as soon as m3 thought 7egan to turn in the right directionF.
These two changes ma3 well involve changes at s3napses Ethe Junctions 7etween nerve
cellsF> giving some possi7le patterns advantages over others.
&. I think we shall also have to suppose some kind of law of inertia with regard to the
formation of memories. ;ot ever3 new piece of information that comes one)s wa3 results
in a change in one)s conceptual eMuipment> in the supervenient principles of functioning
of which I have spoken. Indeed one would not wish to have it otherwise> for the
disadvantages of having a perfect memor3 would 7e considera7le. There must 7e a
tendenc3 for the 'supervenient) principles to remain as the3 were> or to su7side again into
their previous state> unless there is some positive feature of the situation which permits or
promotes change. /ne must remem7er that the relationship 7etween 'lower) and 'higher)
levels of functioning is a two-wa3 one. Lower level events constrain higher level events
as well as vice versa. If lower level conditions Ethe pattern of electrochemical happenings
in the 7rain cellsF are not right> changes in the supervenient principles will not come
a7out> or the s3stem will Muickl3 su7side again into the status 2uo$ The effect of an
epileptic fit> an electric shock to the 7rain or a 7low to the head ma3 well 7e to precipitate
Just such a return to the status 2uo> leading to complete amnesia Eloss of memor3F for
events immediatel3 preceding the traumatic happening. Perhaps a less devastating
influence of the same kind4sa3 a continued diffuse 7om7ardment of the hemispheres 73
nerve impulses originating from the 7rain stem4is alwa3s at work and needs to 7e
inhi7ited or modulated in some unknown fashion 7efore an3 permanent change in the
supervenient principles can get under wa3. 8emoval of the modulating influence would
lead to a grave impairment in the a7ilit3 to learn new material> an effect which is of
course produced 73 certain 7rain lesions.
+. "emor3 will of course also 7e impaired Ealong with all other manifestations of
conceptual capacitiesF 73 an3 factor which interferes with the comple: patterns of 7rain
activit3 upon which the 'higher) level of functioning supervenes. For instance the senile
and pre-senile dementias> which involve a general deterioration of all intellectual
faculties> are marked 73 an e:tensive degeneration of cortical nerve-cells> a degeneration
which would without dou7t disrupt and ultimatel3 a7olish the intricate spatio-temporal
patterns of 7rain activit3 necessar3 for the emergence of the 'higher) level of functioning.
C!$C
%ummar"
This 7rief e:cursus on memor3 and the 7rain is> of course> to 7e taken with a grain of salt.
Its purpose is illustrative rather than e:positor3. I argued in the first part of the chapter
that the coding-storage-retrieval model of memor3> with its assumption that memories are
traces or representations in the 7rain> and its conseMuent incompati7ilit3 with survivalist
theories of the sorts of phenomena we have 7een discussing in this 7ook> is Muite
incoherent and must 7e a7andoned. <hat I have 7een tr3ing to illustrate in later parts of
the chapter is that it is 73 no means difficult to dream up other> and Muite different>
accounts of how memor3 ma3 7e related to 7rain function> accounts which can
accommodate 7asic facts a7out localiGation of function in the 7rain> the effect of 7rain
damage on memor3> and so forth> with at an3 rate no greater implausi7ilit3 than attends
the Efar from convincingF e:planations of the same facts given 73 proponents of the
coding-storage-retrieval model.
"3 own account is> as I said> intended to 7e merel3 illustrative. 9ut it does have at least
one feature which Eit seems to meF an3 longer and more serious account would have to
have. It places the phenomena of memor3 among a class of ps3chological phenomena
which cannot 7e e:plained in terms of> 7ut rather supervene upon> the comple: patterns
of electrochemical activit3 manifested 73 the 7rain4at least as these are conceived 73
contemporar3 science. From the standpoint of the activities of one)s 7rain-cells> one)s
memories represent supervenient principles of ordering which in part direct and constrain
those activities. And since m3 personal and man3 of m3 factual memories are different
from 3our memories> it could 7e said that in a sense each 7rain has its o)n set of
supervenient principles of ordering.
;ow if memories are not 'written in) to the 7rain> 7ut involve an emergent or
supervenient level of function which constitutes> relative to the activities of nerve cells in
the 7rain> a principle or principles of ordering not deriva7le within the framework of
conventional neuroph3siolog3> then possi7ilities remain open which 7ear upon the
tena7ilitv of the survival h3pothesis. The principles of ordering which supervene upon the
'lower level) functioning of each person)s 7rain have e+ hypothesi some degree of
autonom3 from the neural events which the3 'constrain)N and certainl3 memories 'lost)
after shock or actual damage to the 7rain ma3 sometimes reinstate themselves in wa3s
that suggest that the3 are now sustained or underpinned 73 the activit3 of neural elements
other than those which originall3 sustained C!%C them. *ould this autonom3 e:tend so far
as reinstatement in some other setting altogetherO I have tried to show that this possi7ilit3
cannot at the moment 7e effectivel3 ruled out on neurops3chological or
neuroph3siological grounds. /ne might well demand ver3 strong evidence indeed 7efore
conceding that the possi7ilit3 ma3 in fact 7e realiGed. Het I think it might fairl3 7e said
that some of the evidence presented in this 7ook4and it is onl3 a small part of the total
evidence4is at least e:ceedingl3 curious.
C!&C
13 .ut'of'the'-od" Ex&eriences and
A&&aritions
I suggested in the previous chapter that memor3> and phenomena involving concept-
possession> must 7e regarded as manifestations of a level of function which supervenes
upon> and cannot 7e e:plained in terms of> electrochemical events within and 7etween
7rain cells> at an3 rate as these events are currentl3 understood. I suggested further that
from the standpoint of the activities of the cells in a given individual)s 7rain> his
particular memories> memor3-knowledge> and conceptual a7ilities in general> must
constitute supervenient principles of functioning special to him. 2is surviving the death
of his 7rain would involve> amongst other things> the continued operation of these
principles in some other setting than that of the 7rain with which the3 were originall3
associated. And evidence for survival> such as we have 7een discussing in this 7ook>
could reasona7l3 7e said to constitute evidence for such continued operation4for the
'supervenient level of functioning) approach to memor3 does not rule out this possi7ilit3
in the wa3 that the 'inner representation) approach does.
;ow if we are to take the survival theor3 seriousl3> two further Muestions immediatel3
suggest themselves. The first is this. <ould the survival of the supervenient principles of
functioning once associated with a particular person)s 7rain involve or amount to or
reMuire the survival of that person as a conscious individualO This is an e:traordinaril3
difficult pro7lem> to which I have no read3 answer. In the case of mediumistic
communicators one might tr3 to develop an argument along the following lines. If we
encounter and communicate with a skilled and purposive intelligence which e:hi7its an
apparentl3 coherent stream of memories> then we must accept that we are dealing with a
conscious individual. For we have no other criteria> and no other possi7le criteria> for the
presence of such an individual. The presence> e.g.> of a moving and 7reathing 7od3 would
not 7e a sufficient criterion Esome would> however> wish to argue4mistakenl3 in m3
view4that it is a necessar3 oneF. The issue> therefore> that we C!+C have to decide when
confronted with the apparentl3 surviving memories> purposes> etc.> of some person now
deceased is not whether the3 indicate the presence of a conscious individual> 7ut whether
or not the conscious individual whose presence the3 indicate is some living and
em7odied human 7eing> e.g. a medium in a state of dissociation e:ercising her powers of
super-10P. If we are prepared to rule out the super-10P h3pothesis> is there an3
remaining h3pothesis other than that of survival that even 7egins to make senseO
The onl3 alternatives I can think of are of the most ne7ulous kind. The most freMuentl3
canvassed has 7een the 'ps3chic factor) theor3 developed> though not necessaril3
endorsed> 73 the late Professor *. (. 9road E-a> pp. &$+L&&N -c> pp. %.L%$5F.
According to this theor3> when a person dies something survives> 7ut it is a something
much less than a whole person. In and of itself it is not sentient or purposive> 7ut it is
none the less a vehicle for memor3 traces and perhaps for other kinds of dispositions. It is
capa7le under certain circumstances of entering into such a relationship with the nervous
s3stem of a living person as will ena7le that person Emedium> percipientF to develop a
transient and perhaps dissociated stream of consciousness which will e:hi7it some of the
memories> purposes> etc.> once characteristic of the deceased person concerned. 9road
seems to think of 'ps3chic factors) as 7eing spatiall3 localiGed entities> 7ut no dou7t it
would 7e possi7le to develop versions of the theor3 which made 'ps3chic factors)
something like holograms> i.e. not localised in themselves> 7ut capa7le of localiGed
manifestations.
The ps3chic factor theor3 would> I think> run into considera7le difficulties if the
criticisms of trace theories of memor3> which I presented in the last chapter> are correct.
For the insentient ps3chic factor would have to 7e the 7earer not of a store of inert
memor3 'traces)> which a medium might in some wa3 'read)> 7ut rather of a whole
comple: and interrelated set of conceptual capacities> capacities which EI have arguedF
cannot possi7l3 7e 7ased upon inner traces or representations in an3 su7stance
whatsoever> 7ut instead constitute principles in accordance with which the whole s3stem
7ehaves. 2owever I cannot form a sufficientl3 clear idea of what a 'ps3chic factor) might
consist in to criticiGe the notion further.
*ases of ostensi7le reincarnation raise somewhat similar issues> though in one wa3 at
least the issues are simpler. <hereas in cases of mental mediumship two Muestions are at
stake> namel3:
EaF whether or not there is at work in the communications a stream C!,C of consciousness
other than that Eor thoseF of the medium who now confronts us> and
E7F whether it is continuous with that of a formerl3 incarnated person> in reincarnation
cases we have onl3 to ask whether the consciousness of the incarnated person who now
confronts us is Ein the same senseF continuous with that formerl3 associated with another
7od3 at an earlier period of time.
0ome people would argue that Eas a matter of logic rather than of factF we can onl3
reidentif3 something as the same thing we previousl3 encountered if it can 7e shown or
agreed to have had a continuous spatio-temporal histor3 in the interim. 2ence in
reincarnation cases we cannot identif3 the present personalit3 with the previous one
however accurate are the former)s apparent memories of events in the life of the latter.
EAnalogous arguments are held to show that 'disem7odied) survival is a meaningless
notionN we could not la3 down criteria 73 means of which to decide whether or not a
disem7odied entit3 had a continuous spatio-temporal histor3> or> indeed> a spatio-
temporal histor3 distinct from that of other such entitiesN hence a disem7odied entit3
could not 7e reidentified as the erstwhile occupant of a formerl3 living 7od3.F I do not
agree with these arguments> 7ut the relevant literature is considera7le Esee e.g. $N %5N %+N
.N .F> and I cannot delve into it here.
The 'ps3chic factor) theor3 could also 7e tried out on cases of apparent reincarnation. It
would involve sa3ing that some part or element or aspect of the previous personalit3
survives> and> coming somehow to influence the nervous s3stem of the present
personalit3> causes the present personalit3 to have e:periences as of remem7ering events
which in fact 7elonged to the life of the previous personalit3. 2owever the same
o7scurities 7eset the ps3chic factor theor3 here as 7eset it in connection with mediumistic
controls and communicators. In addition various further ad hoc assumptions would have
to 7e 7uilt into it to account> for instance> for the fact that the present personalit3 is
prepared to affirm that the 'past life) e:periences he recalls were his e:periences> and for
the fact that Ein contrast to mediumsF the su7Jects of reincarnation cases are onl3
influenced 73 one ps3chic factor> or at an3 rate 73 no more than one ps3chic factor from
a given period in the past.
There is> 7esides> a certain scarcel3 rational ar7itrariness a7out attempts to appl3 the
ps3chic factor h3pothesis to at an3 rate the 7etter reincarnation cases. For it is 7eing
proposed that something Ea C!-C formerl3 incarnated entit3 of a peculiar kindF was once
conscious and possessed certain conceptual capacities> memories> etc.> and that
something Ea presentl3 incarnated entit3F is conscious and possesses ver3 similar
conceptual capacities> memories> etc.> Eand furthermore claims continuit3 of
consciousness with the formerl3 incarnated entit3F> and 3et that there is in fact no
continuit3 of consciousness 7etween the two> the apparent continuit3 7eing effected 73
the aimless intervention of an insentient ps3chic factor whose nature is unknown.
The second of the two further Muestions which suggest themselves if we take the survival
h3pothesis seriousl3 is eMuall3 difficult. It is as follows. I have spoken of each person)s
memories> and his conceptual capacities in general> as sets of principles of functioning
which supervene upon and constrain> and are not reduci7le to> the patterns of
electrochemical activities e:hi7ited 73 assem7lages of cells in his 7rain. If human
personalit3 does> in an3 meaningful sense> survive death> it is these principles of
functioning Edifferent sets for different peopleF which must survive and manifest again.
9ut 'principles of functioning) cannot Just e:ist in a void. The3 must 7e principles of
something7s functioning. And if the3 can survive the destruction of the 7rain with which
the3 were originall3 associated> then the3 cannot have 7een primaril3> 7ut onl3
derivativel3> principles of the operation of that #rain> and must instead have 7een the
principles of operation of something that so to speak )or-ed through that 7rain. <hat
could this something 7eO A mind or soul as conceived in the tradition of <estern
theological and philosophical thoughtO /ne of 9road)s 'ps3chic factors)O A portion of the
(ivine mind or <orld-soulO 0ome kind of ph3sical emanation or field of whose inner
nature we have at the moment no inklingO An aspect of the 'holomovement)O <here did
this something come fromO <as it created 73 the activities of the 7rain when these pass a
certain level of comple:it3O (id it result from the interaction of 7rain activit3 with some
influence e:ternal to the 7rainO (id it e:ist in its own right and merel3 manifest through
the 7rain when the activities of the latter reached a level of comple:it3 that permitted it to
do soO To all these Muestions> and man3 others> I must confess m3self stumped for
answers. "an3> indeed> would find the Muestions themselves ridiculous or unintelligi7le.
Perhaps the3 are. I can onl3 repl3 that so far as I can tell it is 7ecause of facts and
arguments rather than of pre-e:isting 7ias that I find m3self led to ask them.
I have discussed these two interesting Muestions in the a7stract> 7ut C!.C there are of
course phenomena which man3 would assume 7ear immediatel3 upon the answers to
them. 0ome would sa3 that the 'controls) of mediums have man3 times told us all that we
can or need to know upon these matters. All such controls Eso far as I knowF claim that
the3> and other deceased persons> are full3 conscious individuals Just as the3 were 7efore
deathN indeed more so. And man3 controls have favoured us with a great deal of
purported information> often of a scientific or pseudo-scientific character> a7out what it is
that is supposed to survive the death of the 7od3. A suggestion commonl3 made is that we
have a second 7od3 Esometimes more than oneF of a su7tle and tenuous kind> made> it is
sometimes said> of matter at a higher rate of 'vi7ration) than the matter of our present
7odies. This second 7od3 Eor 'soul)F is the true housing or vehicle of that indwelling
spark of the divine Ethe 'spirit)F which constitutes our animating intelligence 7oth here
and hereafter.
;ow if a mediumistic control first gives us convincing 'evidence of identit3)> and then
proceeds to favour us with copious teachings a7out the ne:t world and its inha7itants> we
might well feel that what he had to sa3> containing as it does inside information> must 7e
well worth listening to. The snag> alas> lies in the considerations which I advanced in
*hapter 1ight a7ove. There is ever3 reason to suppose that> whatever the ultimate source
of the 'evidential) statements made 73 the controls of trance mediums> those controls
themselves are dramatiGations 73 some level of the medium)s own mind. 2ence it is
entirel3 possi7le that an3 teachings the controls ma3 deliver or purportedl3 scientific
statements the3 ma3 make> emanate from the medium in this world rather than from the
control in the ne:t. /ne would not> of course> wish to reJect these statements out of hand
7ecause of this possi7ilit3N one would merel3 wish to test them in the same wa3 as one
would test an3 other purported statements of scientific fact473 o7servation and
e:periment. =nfortunatel3 I have not as 3et heard of an3 such statement which has 7een
sufficientl3 e:plicit and sufficientl3 in tune with the tendencies of modern science to
render it testa7le.
There are however certain phenomena4common enough> and adeMuatel3 recorded4
which seem on the face of it to shed some direct light upon the two Muestions we have
7een discussing. The phenomena concerned are those of 'out-of-the-7od3) e:periences
E/91sF and of apparitions. *ases falling under 7oth these headings have from time to
time 7een collected and pu7lished on a considera7le scale 73 mem7ers C!!5C of the 0P8
and the A0P8. A comprehensive review of this large literature does not fall within the
scope of the present volume. 8eaders who wish to em7ark upon a more e:tensive stud3
of it ma3 consult two 7ooks in the present series> Hauntings and (pparitions 73 Andrew
"acAenGie> and eyond the ody 73 0usan 9lackmore> or some of the Muite numerous
other works on the same su7Jects Ee.g. -N &N &!N &N +!cF. I shall sa3 Just enough a7out
these cases to indicate their possi7le 7earing upon the Muestions with which we are here
concerned> and upon the pro7lem of survival in general.
.-Es
/ut-of-the-7od3 e:periences E/91sF are those curious> and usuall3 7rief> e:periences in
which a person seems to himself to leave his 7od3 and to o7serve the world from a point
of view other than that which he would have were he still 'in) his 7od3. In some cases the
e:perients claim that the3 'saw) and 'heard) things Eo7Jects which were reall3 there>
events and conversations which reall3 took placeF which the3 could not have seen or
heard from the actual positions of their 7odies. /91s are surprisingl3 commonN different
surve3s have 3ielded somewhat differing results> 7ut all in all I think that one would not
7e too far wrong if one said that somewhere 7etween one person in ten and one person in
twent3 is likel3 to have had such an e:perience at least once Efor a surve3 of the surve3s
see $> pp. -!L.$F.
/91s are most freMuent during sleep> during unconsciousness following anaesthesia or a
7ang on the head> and during stress. 9ut the3 can occur during almost an3 kind of
activit3. #reen E&$> pp. +$L+%F cites a couple of cases in which motor-c3clists> riding at
speed> suddenl3 found themselves floating a7ove their machines looking down on their
own 7odies still driving along. Accidents did not ensue. I have 7een informed> 73 an
authorit3 on aviation medicine> that pilots of high-fl3ing aeroplanes Eperhaps affected 73
a7sence of vi7ration> and uniformit3 of sensor3 stimulationF have similarl3 found
themselves apparentl3 outside their aircraft struggling to get in. /ne might well struggle
franticall3 under such circumstances.
;ot all /91s occur spontaneousl3. 0ome people have> 73 various techniMues> cultivated
the facult3 of inducing them more or less as desired> and a num7er have written detailed
accounts of their e:periences. These accounts do not alwa3s in all respects sMuare with
accounts given 73 persons who have undergone spontaneous /91s. For instance the
great maJorit3 of voluntar3 'astral travellers) state C!!C that the3 find themselves still
em7odied> 7ut in a 7od3 whose shape> e:ternal characteristics> and spatial location are
easil3 altered at will> and an apprecia7le num7er refer to an elastic 'silver cord) Joining
their new 7od3 to their old one. A much smaller percentage of those who undergo
spontaneous /91s mention 7eing em7odied> and some specificall3 state that the3 found
themselves disem7odied. The 'silver cord) is Muite rarel3 mentioned. It is hard to avoid
suspecting that man3 features of self-induced /91s are determined 73 the su7Ject)s
reading and his antecedent e:pectations.
/91s> especiall3 spontaneous ones> are often ver3 vivid> and resem7le ever3da3> waking
e:periences rather than dreams> and the3 ma3 make a considera7le impression on those
who undergo them. 0uch persons ma3 find it hard to 7elieve that the3 did not in fact
leave their 7odies> and ma3 draw the conclusion that we possess a separa7le soul> perhaps
linked to a second 7od3> which will survive in a state of full consciousness> perhaps even
of enhanced consciousness> after death. (eath would 7e> as it were> an /91 in which one
did not succeed in getting 7ack into one)s 7od3.
0uch conclusions present themselves even more forcefull3 to the minds of those who
have undergone the variet3 of /91 known as a 'near death e:perience) or ;(1. It is not
uncommon for persons who have 7een to the 7rink of death and returned4following>
sa3> a heart stoppage or serious inJuries from an accident4to report an e:perience
Ecommonl3 of a great vividness and impressivenessF as of leaving their 7odies> and
travelling Eoften in a duplicate 7od3F to the 7order of a new and wonderful realm. At the
7order the3 are stopped 73 a 'presence)> or 73 a deceased friend or relation> and sent 7ack
again> 7ecause> so the3 are informed> their time is not 3et. The3 awake to find themselves
7ack in their 7odies.
;(1s> even more than /91s> have latel3 caught the pu7lic imagination> especiall3 in the
=nited 0tates Esee e.g. $> pp. %!L&!N 5!aN 5!7N $!F> and recent surve3s of patients
who have had close encounters with death> suggest that ;(1s are much commoner than
had previousl3 7een thought. =ndergoing an ;(1 ma3 change a patient)s whole religious
and philosophical outlook. 2e has> it seems to him> learned 73 e:perience what it is like
to die.
A school of thought has grown up within paraps3cholog3> and around its fringes> which
takes such ideas ver3 seriousl3 indeed. <e ma3 refer to this school of thought as the
'animistic) school> 'animism) 7eing the view that ever3 human mind> whether in its
7efore death or C!!!C after death state> 'is essentiall3 and insepara7l3 7ound up with some
kind of e:tended 2uasi-ph3sical vehicle> which is not normall3 percepti7le to the senses
of human 7eings in their present life) E-c> p. $$.F. An argument which one commonl3
hears from mem7ers of the animistic school is this. /91s and ;(1s are> so far as we can
tell> universal. The3 have 7een reported from man3 different parts of the world and man3
different historical eras. The e:periences of the persons concerned therefore must reflect
genuine features of the human constitutionN for we cannot possi7l3 suppose that the3
derive from a common stream of religious tradition or folk-7elief4the societies from
which the3 have 7een reported are too widel3 separated in space and time for that to 7e a
possi7ilit3.
The most powerful shot in the animist)s locker remains> however> still to 7e mentioned.
There are some cases473 no means a negligi7le num7er4in which a person who is
undergoing an /91> and finds himself at or 'proJects) himself to a particular spot distant
from his ph3sical 7od3> has 7een seen at that ver3 spot 73 some person present there.
0uch cases are generall3 known as 'reciprocal) cases> and I proceed ne:t to give an
e:ample. The following is an e:tract E!+> p. !.F from a statement sent to the A0P8 in
"a3 .&, 73 "iss '"artha @ohnson)> a woman of !+ from Plains> Illinois. 0he descri7es
a dream which she had earl3 in the morning of !, @anuar3 .&,. 0he dreamed that she
had travelled> 73 walking or floating> to the home of her mother in northern "innesota>
.!+ miles awa3.
After a little while I seemed to 7e alone going through a great 7lackness. Then all at once
wa3 down 7elow me> as though I were at a great height> I could see a small 7right oasis
of light in the vast sea of darkness. I started on an incline towards it as I knew it was the
teacherage Ea small house 73 the schoolF where m3 mother lives S After I entered> I
leaned up against the dish cup7oard with folded arms> a pose I often assume. I looked at
m3 "other who was 7ending over something white and doing something with her hands.
0he did not appear to see me at first> 7ut she finall3 looked up. I had a sort of pleased
feeling and then after standing a second more> I turned and walked a7out four steps.
0he awoke from her dream at !.5 A.". E.5 A.". "innesota timeF. The mother gives
her account of her own e:periences in two letters to her daughter> dated !. @anuar3 .&,
and , Fe7ruar3 .&,> from which I e:tract the following:
I 7elieve it was 0aturda3 night> .5> !+ @anuar3> or ma37e the !,th. It C!!$C would have
7een 5 after two> 3our time. I was pressing a 7louse here in the kitchen S I looked up
and there 3ou were 73 the cup7oard Just standing smiling at me. I started to speak and
3ou were gone. I forgot for a minute where I was. I think the dogs saw 3ou too. The3 got
so e:cited and wanted out4Just like the3 thought 3ou were 73 the door4sniffed and
were so tickled.
Hour hair was com7ed nice4Just 7ack in a pon3 tail with the prett3 roll in front. Hour
7louse was neat and light4seemed almost white. T"iss @ohnson confirmed in
correspondence that she had 'travelled) got up in this wa3.U
In this case> the 'traveller) perceived correct details of the scene which she visited> so her
e:perience can hardl3 have 7een Just an hallucinationN and the 7od3 in which she
7elieved herself to 7e corresponded in hair st3le and clothing with details of the form
which her mother saw standing 73 the cup7oard. 0urel3 we cannot avoid supposing that
something Ea duplicate 7od3OF went forth from "iss @ohnson which acted as a vehicle for
her consciousness> or was perhaps in part a product of it> and at the end of its vo3age was
actuall3 seen 73 her mother and would also have 7een seen 73 an3 other person with the
right kind of sensitivit3 who happened to 7e on the spot. And is it not eMuall3 o7vious
that had "iss @ohnson)s ordinar3 ph3sical 7od3 7een destro3ed during her 'a7sence) from
it she would have 7een left> so to speak> stranded> 7ut still conscious> still a whole person>
and still the occupant of some kind of su7tle or rarefied 7od3O
Thus the animist> starting from his stud3 of /91s and ;(1s> comes up with answers to
the two Muestions which I posed at the 7eginning of this chapter. 2e claims to have direct
evidence that after death:
EaF we remain the conscious individuals that we alwa3s have 7eenN and
E7F that the 'vehicle) of our surviving memories and other ps3chological dispositions is a
surrogate 7od3 whose properties Eother perhaps than that of 7eing mallea7le 73 thoughtF
are> he would admit> largel3 unknown.
In addition to taking /91s and ;(1s as themselves evidence for survival> the animist
might well feel a7le to offer the following argument for regarding a further class of
phenomena as evidence for survival. There is in the literature on apparitions Ethe topic
which I shall ne:t come toF a su7stantial sprinkling of cases of apparitions of deceased
persons> some of which have 7een seen 73 witnesses who did not know the deceased in
life. An e:tensive statistical investigation 73 the late Professor 2ornell 2art E+5aF
strongl3 suggests that apparitions of the dead and the phantasms of living 'proJectors) in
reciprocal cases C!!%C are> as classes> indistinguisha7le from each other in what ma3 7e
called their 'e:ternal characteristics)4such as whether the figure was solid> dressed in
ordinar3 clothes> seen 73 more than one person> whether it spoke> adJusted itself to its
ph3sical surroundings> etc. ;ow we know that in reciprocal cases the phantasm of the
proJector is in some sense a centre of or a vehicle for consciousness> namel3 the
consciousness of the proJector. 0ince apparitions of the dead and of living proJectors
manifestl3 7elong to the same class of o7Jects or events> we ma3 properl3 infer that since
the apparitions of living proJectors are vehicles for the consciousness of the person in
Muestion> this must 7e true of apparitions of the dead also. 2ence the consciousness of
deceased persons survives and ma3 either have> or make use of> a kind of 7od3.
A&&aritions
I wish now to approach the same ground again from a somewhat different starting point>
a starting point> to wit> in the phenomena of apparitions> some aspects of which I have
Just 7riefl3 mentioned. 0tories of apparitions E'ghosts)F have 7een reported from all
societies of which we have adeMuate records. "odern surve3s suggest that in western
societ3 perhaps one person in ten will Ewhile sane> so7er and awakeF have seen a human
figure or heard a human voice to which no person present corresponded. E0ometimes the
figure that is seen is also heard to speakN onl3 rather rarel3 is it additionall3 perceived 73
the sense of touch.F The most commonl3 profferred e:planation of apparitions has>
historicall3> 7een some version or another of the animistic h3pothesis which I have Just
discussed. This theor3 is> however> reJected 73 the great maJorit3 of modern
paraps3chologists> most of whom regard apparitions as hallucinations> as figments of the
mind having no e:ternal realit3. Their principal reasons E+!c> pp. &$L+5F for holding this
view are as follows. Although apparitions> with a few e:ceptions> tend to look and 7ehave
much like ordinar3 people> the3 have a ha7it of suddenl3 vanishing into thin air> leaving
not a trace 7ehindN the3 ma3 perform feats which ph3sical o7Jects could not perform>
such as passing through doors and wallsN the3 are apt to move instantaneousl3 from one
place to another. 0ometimes the3 are accompanied 73 phantasmal and clearl3 s3m7olical
appurtenances> such as hearses or coffins. If the3 are seen to open a door or move an
o7Ject> the o7Ject will afterwards 7e found not to have moved and the door to 7e still
locked and 7olted. (oor-openings and o7Ject-movements C!!&C were part not so much of
an hallucination as of a whole hallucinator3 scene.
The hallucination theor3 of apparitions has clearl3 a good deal in its favour. 9ut it also
confronts certain difficulties. The most o7vious of these arise over the fact that in a not
inconsidera7le num7er of apparition cases the hallucinations concerned ma3 7e descri7ed
as 'veridical). 93 this is meant that the3 correspond in wa3s for which we can offer no
ordinar3 e:planation> either with some event e:ternal to themselves or with the
e:periences of another percipient or percipients. The principal classes of veridical
hallucinations are these.
&$ Crisis (pparitions$ These constitute 73 far the largest class of veridical hallucinations.
The percipient sees Eor hears the voice of47ut for simplicit3 I shall for the most part
confine m3self to visual casesF a person known to him> who then suddenl3 vanishes in an
ine:plica7le manner. 0u7seMuentl3 it turns out that the person who was seen died> or
underwent some other unpleasant crisis> at or a7out the time of the apparition. E93
convention> a 'crisis) apparition must occur within twelve hours either wa3 of the crisis
involved.F
!. Collectively Perceived (pparitions$ Two or more persons simultaneousl3 see the same
phantasmal figure in the same place Ehallucinations of all the other classes ma3 in
addition 7e collectivel3 perceivedF.
$. (pparitions of !eceased Persons *4Post8Mortem (pparitions71$ E93 convention> an
apparition is classified as post-mortem onl3 if the person it represents has 7een dead for
at least twelve hours.F 0uch hallucinations ma3 7e classed as 'veridical) if either:
EaF the percipient did not know that the person he saw had diedN
E7F the apparition> though not known to the percipient> was su7seMuentl3 identified 73
him Ee.g. from a photographF as that of a deceased person formerl3 connected with the
spot in MuestionN
EcF the figure conve3ed some information once known to the deceased person concerned>
7ut previousl3 unknown to the percipientN or
EdF the figure manifested some purpose characteristic of or appropriate to the deceased
person> 7ut unknown to> and not characteristic of> the percipient.
%. Haunting (pparitions$ The same figure is seen in the same localit3 on a series of
different occasions 73 the same Eor 7etter stillF different percipients. 0uch apparitions are
usuall3 assumed to 7e those of deceased persons> 7ut evidence of identit3 is often
lacking.
C!!+C &. (pparitions of "iving Persons$ 0uch apparitions ma3 7e termed veridical if> for
instance> the figure seen is that of a living person who formerl3 freMuented that spot> or
that of a living person who is a7out to arrive there Efor preference une:pectedl3F.
/f each of these classes we have well-authenticated instancesN instances> at least> which
seem to me to 7e well-authenticated. I shall later on give e:amples from some> 7ut not
all> of these classes. 8eaders ma3 care to follow up the references given a7ove> and stud3
some of the testimon3 for themselves. ;ow if we accept that cases of these five
categories do occur> how is the hallucination theor3 to accommodate themO The answer is
fairl3 o7vious. The hallucination theor3 must 7e supplemented 73 the introduction of the
factor of 10P. The percipient 7uilds into his hallucination> and as it were fleshes it out
with> information o7tained 73 10P. That is where the 'veridicalit3) comes from. The form
of 10P that has to 7e involved is> in all categories other than the first> usuall3 that of
telepath3. In some cases Eapparitions of the dead> haunting apparitionsF we could invoke
either telepath3 with the living or telepath3 with the departed. For the moment I shall
stick to the version that postulates onl3 telepath3 with the living.
<hen the hallucination theor3 is supplemented 73 introducing 10P> we come up with a
variet3 of possi7le e:planations of the various categories of veridical hallucination. In
crisis apparitions> the percipient learns 73 10P of the death or impending death of the
person involved. The information is received 73 some unconscious or su7liminal level of
the personalit3> and has some difficult3 in finding its wa3 into ordinar3 consciousness. It
manages to crash the 7arrier in the form of a 'sensor3 automatism) Esee *hapter Two
a7oveF. In collectivel3 perceived apparitions> one percipient 7ecomes telepathicall3
aware of the other)s hallucination> and constructs a corresponding hallucination himselfN
or perhaps 7oth telepathicall3 contact an outside source. In cases of haunting apparitions
and of apparitions of the dead> the present witness makes telepathic contact with some
living person who remem7ers the deceased person who died at that spot> or perhaps he
clairvo3antl3 scrutiniGes a photograph al7um in which that person)s picture is to 7e
foundN and so on. It can all Eif one does not anal3se it too carefull3F 7e made to sound
most plausi7le.
<hen proponents of the hallucination theor3 of apparitions have> to their own
satisfaction> chased mem7ers of the animistic school off this C!!,C territor3> the3 are apt to
pursue them 7ack into their own ground. In other words the3 tr3 to develop an
hallucination theor3 of /91s> ;(1s and reciprocal cases. The3 tend to argue along the
following lines. It ma3 7e true that /91s and ;(1s are of world-wide distri7ution> and
that we cannot attri7ute the universal propensit3 to undergo such e:periences to the
shaping influence of a common cultural tradition. 9ut it does not follow from this that
these e:periences therefore reflect some 7asic fact a7out the human constitution Ee.g. that
we are a compound of 7od3> soul and spiritF. 8ather do the3 reflect the fact that> in
fundamentals> peoples) minds work the same wa3 even in ver3 different cultures. The
soul-theor3 of the human constitution is a ver3 o7vious one> given certain striking> 7ut
not uncommon> sorts of events Edreams> hallucinations> 10P> loss of loved onesF. That the
soul-theor3 emerges and shapes peoples) e:periences in all Muarters of the glo7e is a fact
no more surprising than the fact that certain recurrent themes crop up in folktales from
widel3 separated cultures. And the e:periences Elike the m3thological themesF tend to
emerge in certain situations Edreams> drug-states> hallucinationF and in response to certain
e:ternal stresses Eworr3> anaesthesia> shortage of o:3gen in the 7rain following a heart
attackF> usuall3 stresses which the e:perient can do nothing to relieve. /91s and ;(1s
and certain sorts of related hallucinations are> according to this view> generated as a
means of coping with otherwise unendura7le ps3chological pressures.
Indeed if one e:amines numerous reports of /91s and ;(1s one can see Muite plainl3
that the underl3ing themes are heavil3 influenced 73 cultural factors> which would hardl3
7e the case if the e:periences were insights into the nature of the soul and of the world to
come. The self-induced /91s of 'astral travellers) in our societ3 differ> as I have alread3
pointed out> in important respects from the spontaneous ones. The self-induced /91s of
shamans and witch-doctors are wildl3 different from those of our own tame astral
travellers Esee $,> passim1$ Those undergoing ;(1s in our societ3 tend to find
themselves moving towards a peaceful and harmonious realm of indescri7a7le 7eaut3N
mediaeval ;(1s contain horrific visions of hell> as well as visions of a heaven which not
ever3one would enJo3 E!> II> pp. .,L!5!> !!&L!$$FN an eighteenth centur3 Xuaker
finds himself approaching a realm resounding with 'songs of praise unto the Lord #od
and the Lam7) E++FN and so on and so on.
C!!-C <hat of those cases in which a person who has 7een 'out of the 7od3) has
apparentl3 7rought 7ack information which he could not have o7tained had he 7een at the
location of his ph3sical 7od3O 0ince we have alread3 argued that facts acMuired 73 10P
can 7e incorporated in various kinds of hallucinations> the proposal that such insights
ma3 also 7e incorporated in 3et another 7iGarre kind of hallucination should create no
additional difficult3. As for reciprocal cases: things are> of course> a little more
complicated hereN still> we can without too much difficult3 develop an account along the
following lines. The 'proJectionist) acMuires 73 10P information a7out o7Jects and events
at some distant spot> and constructs therefrom an hallucination representing that scene as
o7served from a certain point of view. The 'percipient) at that scene telepathicall3 learns
that the proJectionist is having an hallucination as of 7eing at that spot. 2e em7odies this
information in an hallucinator3 representation of him.
Thus we have disposed of reciprocal cases too. And indeed the animist)s theor3 that in
such cases the proJectionist goes forth clad in a second and su7tle 7od3 is o7vious
nonsense. *onsider the following reciprocal case> collected 73 ;ils @aco7son> a 0wedish
ps3chiatrist much interested in unusual e:periences. The two persons concerned had
agreed to e:periment. I e:tract from their statements E,$> p. !F:
@AA/9: S The da3 after our decision I drove m3 daughter to her Jo7> the time was +
P.". I was suddenl3 reminded of this agreement with 1va. Then I transported m3self
astrall3 to her home and found her sitting on the sofa> reading something. I made her
notice m3 presence 73 calling her name and showing her that I was driving m3 car. 0he
looked up and saw me. After that I left her and was 7ack in the car which I had 7een
driving all the while without an3 special awareness of the driving S
1KA: I was sitting alone in the room in an eas3 chair S 0uddenl3 I saw @ako7 sitting in
front of me in the car> saw a7out half the car as if I were in it with him. 2e sat at the
wheel: I onl3 saw the upper part of his 7od3. I also saw the clock in the car> I think it was
a couple of minutes 7efore si:. The car was not headed towards our house 7ut in another
direction S
1ven if Ewhich I dou7tF one could tinker with the animistic theor3 in such a wa3 as to
give a plausi7le account of how 'duplicate) 7odies form their outer parts into the
sem7lance of clothes> one could hardl3 e:tend the supposition to cover their transforming
themselves into the sem7lance of half a car> complete with clock showing the correct
time.
At this point a supporter of the hallucination theor3 would no dou7t feel that he had
swept the supporters of the animistic theor3 completel3 C!!.C off the field of pla3> even
off their favourite corner of it4the one devoted to /91s> ;(1s and reciprocal cases.
And for m3 part I find it hard to dissent. At least4I can at the moment find among the
phenomena of /91s and ;(1s no strong grounds for disagreement with the
hallucination theor3> though I would not 7e altogether surprised if some grounds for
disagreement were eventuall3 to 7e unearthed. For instance some Muite intensive studies
have recentl3 7een carried out in the =nited 0tates Emost nota7l3 73 /sis> "orris and
8oll4see $> pp. !!5L!!%F of persons claiming to 7e a7le to travel out of the 7od3 at
will. Attempts have 7een made to ascertain:
EaF whether such persons can 'home in on) and correctl3 identif3 target o7Jects placed in
special screened localitiesN
E7F whether> when the3 do so home in> the3 can in an3 wa3 influence 'detectors)4
human> animal or instrumental4placed around those targetsN and
EcF whether success in EaF correlates significantl3 with success in E7F. The results to date
have 7een eMuivocal and somewhat frustrating. I think it would 7e fair to sa3 that while
occasional apparent successes have 7een reported under all three headings> successes
have not 7een consistent or striking enough for us to 7e a7le either to accept or to reJect
them with confidence. =nless future e:periments produce unmistaka7l3 positive results
we must> I think> continue to refuse credence to the animistic h3pothesis.
%ummar"
I 7egan this chapter 73 discussing two Muestions:
EaF would survival of a person)s memories> and other conceptual capacities> involve or
amount to the survival of that person as a conscious individualN and
E7F what could 7e the nature of that which survives> the presumed 'vehicle) of the
surviving memories> etcO
After 7riefl3 discussing these Muestions> I turned to the answers to them given 73 a school
of thought whose mem7ers I called 'animists)> and who have interested themselves
especiall3 in /91s> ;(1s and reciprocal cases. These answers I have 7een una7le to
accept. 0o we are 7ack again to the 7eginning of the chapter. 2as the whole e:cursus then
7een a waste of timeO I hope notN for in the first place the phenomena I have 7riefl3 and
inadeMuatel3 touched upon E/91s> ;(1s> reciprocal cases> apparitionsF are ones
freMuentl3 introduced into discussion of the pro7lem of survival> so that it is desira7le
that C!$5C the3 should have 7een at least mentionedN and in the second place I propose to
use what I have said in this chapter as a Jumping-off ground for a further e:position of
the hallucination theor3 of apparitions and its possi7le 7earing upon the pro7lem of
survival.
C!$C
14 A&&aritions of the Dead
In the previous chapter I e:plained wh3 it is that most paraps3chologists regard
apparitions as having no o7Jective realit3> as 7eing hallucinations constructed 73 the mind
of the 7eholder. 0o compelling are the reasons for this view that when presented with
cases in which the figure has for instance conve3ed to the percipient information which
he did not previousl3 know> paraps3chologists> reluctant to admit that some 7eing
e:ternal to the percipient might have 7een o7Jectivel3 there> have tended to suggest that
the percipient o7tained the information 73 his own 10P> and> for o7scure ps3chological
reasons> dressed it up 7efore his own mind in the form of an hallucination. I adopted the
standpoint of the hallucination theor3 in order to cast dou7t upon its main rival> the
animistic theor3. <ith deplora7le perverseness> I am now going to raise dou7ts a7out the
hallucination theor3.
The dou7ts I shall raise concern principall3 the applications of the theor3 to certain sorts
of post-mortem apparitions. EIt ma3 or ma3 not 7e the case that analogous dou7ts could
7e raised concerning its application to other sort of cases.F The post-mortem apparitions
in Muestion 7elong to kinds which have often 7een thought to constitute evidence for
survival4the apparition has 7een of some recogniGed or su7seMuentl3 identified
deceased person> has in one wa3 or another conve3ed information which the deceased
person might 7e e:pected to have possessed> 7ut of which the percipient was unaware>
has manifested purposes characteristic of the deceased person> 7ut not necessaril3 of the
living percipient> and so on. 0o> while not letting the Muestions raised in the last chapter
drop altogether out of sight> I shall in e:ploring the hallucination theor3 7e presenting
some further kinds of ostensi7le evidence for survival.
The hallucination theor3 of apparitions has> as I pointed out in the previous chapter> to 7e
supplemented with proposals to the effect that in a su7stantial num7er of cases the
occurrence of the hallucination> or C!$!C its contents> or 7oth> are supplied 73 the
percipient)s own 10P. <ithout this assumption the theor3 can give no account of the
various kinds of 'veridical hallucinations) which I listed in the previous chapterN unless>
indeed> it were simpl3 to find grounds for den3ing that the3 ever occur> a stance which>
for the reasons I sketched in *hapter /ne> seems to me indefensi7le. The upshot> as I
hope shortl3 to illustrate> is that the hallucination theor3 is forced to postulate the
occurrence of 10P of e:traordinar3 comple:it3. In fact the hallucination theor3 7ecomes
Just one of the man3 guises of our old friend Eor enem3F the super-10P h3pothesis. I
shall> in what follows use the terms 'hallucination theor3) and 'super-10P h3pothesis)
more or less interchangea7l3.
<hat one ma3 call the 'strong) form of the super-10P h3pothesis4the form against
which I have directed a good man3 arguments in earlier parts of this 7ook4invokes
either clairvo3ance or telepath3 with living persons. This would involve one)s sa3ing> in
the current conte:t> that the percipients of veridical apparitions get all their information
either through clairvo3ance or through telepath3 with living persons. It is also possi7le to
frame what one ma3 call a 'weak) form of the super-10P h3pothesis> a form which admits
the possi7ilit3 of telepath3 with the departed. The theor3 of 'overshadowing) which I
discussed in *hapters ;ine and Ten was in effect a theor3 of this kind. Applied to
veridical hallucinations> the weak form of the super-10P h3pothesis would allow us to
sa3 that the information which percipients em7od3 in their hallucinations ma3 sometimes
come through telepath3 with the dead.
I shall argue> with special reference to three classes of apparition> that 7oth the strong and
the weak forms of the super-10P h3pothesis are alike untena7le. The three classes of
apparition concerned are as follows:
. *ertain cases of seemingl3 purposive post-mortem apparitions.
!. *ollectivel3 perceived apparitions Ewith special reference to a post-mortem e:ampleF.
$. 2aunting apparitions Eagain with special reference to a postmortem e:ampleF.
1. (ost'ortem A&&aritions Exhi=iting (ur&ose
The first class of case which I shall discuss consists of post-mortem apparitions which
conve3 information previousl3 unknown to the percipient> and conve3 it> perhaps in a
characteristic manner> in C!$$C pursuit of a goal presuma7l3 favoured 73 the deceased> 7ut
not consciousl3 entertained 73 the percipient. 0uch cases on the face of it are 7ound to
strain the 'strong) form of the super-10P-cum-hallucination h3pothesis> for the3 suggest
rather forcefull3 that the contents of the e:perience were somehow imposed on the
percipient 73 an outside agenc3. Let us tr3 out the strong form of the super-10P
h3pothesis upon the following series of a7ridged case-reports.
a. A 3oung man owns a tow 7oat which he runs to help support his famil3. The engine
keeps 7reaking down. /ne night the 3oung man is l3ing awake worr3ing a7out it. 2is
latel3 deceased father comes through the closed 7edroom door. The3 have a conversation
a7out the engine> and the father correctl3 advises him how to set it right E!.> pp. &&L
&+F.
/ne might simpl3 suppose here that 'deep down) the 3oung man alread3 knew the
answerN for o7scure ps3chological reasons it found its wa3 into consciousness in the form
of an hallucination.
E7F A man Ewho had had other visionsF sees an e:alted or angelic spirit Eidentit3
unknownF who tells him that his sister is in need> and that he is to send her a certain sum
of mone3. 2e complies> and afterwards finds that at that time she had 7een in great
difficulties> and had 7een pra3ing for help E55F.
2ere one might propose that the percipient learned 73 10P of his sister)s distress> which
he would naturall3 wish to relieve. 2is ps3chological Muirks were such that the 10P>
instead of taking a direct route Ean intuition> a 'call) in his sister)s voiceF> was dressed up
in the form of a visit from a spiritual 7eing.
EcF "r @. P. *haffin> whose father had died nearl3 four 3ears previousl3> dreams on a
num7er of occasions that his father appears at his 7edside. /n the last occasion his father
is wearing his old 7lack overcoat> and shows him the pocket> sa3ing> 'Hou will find m3
will in m3 overcoat pocket.) EThe percipient was not clear whether this e:perience was a
dream or a waking apparition4there are in fact a num7er of cases in which the former
has passed into the latter.F "r *haffin searches the pocket of this coat> and finds therein a
roll of paper which reveals the location of a hitherto unsuspected second will E$.aF.
<ith this case the 10P h3pothesis must move towards the super-10P h3pothesis. <e have
to sa3 that "r @. P. *haffin learned 73 10P not Just where a clue to the will was> 7ut that
there was a will at all. This involves his 'reading) what was written on the rolled up paper
in the overcoat pocket> a task reMuiring 10P of a degree hardl3 paralleled C!$%C in an3
e:perimental investigation. For o7scure ps3chological reasons> his unconscious mind
dressed up the information as though it were coming from his late father.
EdF A naval officer> Lieutenant 2.> and his wife are assigned new Muarters in a house
which the3 share with another famil3> the #s. /n four occasions he clearl3 sees> for up to
fifteen minutes> the figure of a man Epreviousl3 unknown to himF> which seems as though
a7out to speak> 7ut vanishes into thin air when approached. /n one occasion the figure
7locks light from electric light 7ul7sN on another> two dogs are alarmed prior to its
appearance. It transpires that the ghost closel3 resem7les "rs #.)s late father> who had
never 7een to the house. Lieutenant 2. picks out his photograph from among a7out
twent3 others E&+F.
The 10P h3pothesis has now to 7ecome the super-10P h3pothesis. /ne might suppose
that "rs #.)s thoughts were dwelling much upon her late father. Lieutenant 2.
telepathicall3 'read) those thoughts> and e:ternaliGed the information in the form of an
hallucinator3 figure of the old gentleman. 9ut there are numerous pro7lems. *an we
make sense of the idea that one might telepathicall3 'read) or 'perceive) events in
someone else)s mind> when it makes no sense to talk of reading or perceiving them 73
an3 form of sense perceptionO Furthermore the 10P that is here 7eing postulated is of a
ver3 remarka7le degree> and was e:ercised 73 a person who had had no other such
e:perience to weaken his scepticism. <hat> ne:t> of the 7ehaviour of the dogsO The3
7ecome e:cited immediatel3 #efore Lieutenant 2. first saw the figure> and could not
therefore have picked up his astonishment. *an we reall3 suppose that the3 too 7oth
happened to read "rs #.)s mind at that momentO Lastl3> there is the Muestion of motive.
In most> though not all> cases of spontaneous 10P> the e:perient might 7e supposed to
desire to have the information that is conve3ed to himN and sometimes the presumed
telepathic agent might 7e supposed to wish to conve3 it. In this case> however> Lieutenant
2. had no motive to wish for information a7out "rs #.)s father> nor had "rs #. an3
motive for wishing him to receive it.
EeF "rs P.> a lad3 who has once 7efore had an hallucination4a non-veridical one
however4is l3ing in 7ed waiting to feed her 7a73. A lamp is 7urning. 0uddenl3 she sees
a tall man> dressed in naval officer)s uniform> come to the end of the 7ed. 0he rouses her
hus7and> who also sees the figure. It speaks reproachfull3 to her hus7and. 2e then leaps
out of 7ed. The figure moves awa3> transientl3 7locking the light from C!$&C the lamp> and
vanishes into the wall. "r P. tells her the apparition was that of his father> who had 7een
dead fourteen 3ears. Later she learned that her hus7and was prevented 73 this vision from
taking financial advice which would have proved ruinous E5a> II> pp. $!+L$!.F.
/n the super-10P h3pothesis we would have to tackle this case as follows. "r P. was or
had 7een 7rooding or dreaming a7out his long-dead father> wondering what he would
have thought a7out his great financial difficulties> etc. There is no evidence of this> 7ut
we might suppose that he was 7rooding unconsciousl3. "rs P. read her hus7and)s mind>
and constructed therefrom an hallucination of his father standing in a certain spot. <hen
she roused "r P.> he telepathicall3 picked up her vision and e:ternaliGed a corresponding
one himself. The purpose apparentl3 manifested 73 the phantom4to reprove "r P.4was
reall3 "r P.)s own. In his heart of hearts he wanted to stop himself from the course of
action he was a7out to em7ark on> 7ut his ps3chological Muirks were such that he could
7est do so 73 manufacturing the monitor3 hallucination of his deceased father. That "r
and "rs P. should on this one occasion alone have e:hi7ited reciprocal 10P of so
e:traordinar3 an e:tent ma3 7e e:plained on the grounds that worr3 facilitates 10P4or
upon an3 other grounds one can dream up.
It cannot> I think> 7e denied that the super-10P theor3)s account of these cases> especiall3
EcF> EdF and EeF> is ad hoc and convoluted to the last degree. In fact a flat-earther in full
cr3 could hardl3 support his h3pothesis with more tortuous argumentation> or with
proposals less open to direct test. It is> of course> correspondingl3 difficult to prove the
super-10P theor3 wrong. <e don)t know the limits Eif an3F of 10P> or of the dramatic
inventiveness of the unconscious mind. 9ut still> isn)t it o7viousl3 simpler to suppose that
in each of these cases there was at work some further agenc3> to 7e identified with a still
surviving portion of a formerl3 incarnate human 7eing> which somehow shaped the
e:perience of the percipient or percipients in accordance with its own persisting
knowledge and persisting purposesO That wa3 we can avoid such 7iGarre notions as that
persons hitherto not known to 7e ps3chicall3 gifted can suddenl3 develop powers of 10P
compara7le to> if not e:ceeding> the most remarka7le that have ever 7een e:perimentall3
demonstratedN that two people without an3 conscious thought of doing an3 such thing can
at an unconscious level telepathicall3 link up with each other and hammer out the details
of an C!$+C hallucinator3 figure which 7oth shall seeN that animals ma3 to some e:tent
share in this processN that the information thus acMuired will 7e dressed up 73 processes
unknown and presuma7l3 unconscious and presented to the conscious mind Muite
indirectl3 in the form of dramatic 7ut reall3 irrelevant interventions 73 deceased personsN
and that the purposes promoted 73 the hallucinator3 episodes> even when ostensi7l3 more
appropriate to the supposed deceased person> are reall3 those of the living percipient or of
some other living person whose mind telepathicall3 influences his. All these proposals>
and man3 others that seem likel3 to emerge from the super-10P theor3> appear in the
present state of our knowledge to 7e Muite untesta7le against an3 actual or conceiva7le
findingsN and we ought therefore in accordance with the pragmatic principle laid down in
*hapter /ne that one should> when one can> avoid a likel3 dead end> refrain if possi7le
from adopting them.
The pro7lem> of course> is whether or not an3 form of survival theor3 reall3 is going to
prove itself more straightforward and more open to empirical test than the super-10P
h3pothesis. <hilst a survivalist theor3 might 7e thought to simplif3 Muestions of motive>
and of the tortuous paths taken 73 alleged 10P> it does not free us from the necessit3 of
postulating 10P> sometimes Muite comple: 10P. For how> other than through a process
that would fall under the catch-all heading of 10P> could a discarnate entit3 communicate
with living persons Esometimes with two or more of them at onceFO <e have here> of
course> what I called the 'weak) form of the super-10P h3pothesis4the one that permits
telepath3 with deceased persons. 0uppose we attempt to appl3 this version of the theor3
to case EeF a7ove. Then we should have to suppose something like the following we7 of
telepathic relationships. "r P.)s father> the late "r P. senior> learns through telepathic
contact with his son that the latter is in danger of accepting unsound financial advice. 2e
wishes to avert the impending catastrophe and perhaps tries in some wa3 to influence his
son. 2owever he manages at first onl3 to influence his son)s wife> who never knew him.
2e telepathicall3 conve3s to her not a warning a7out her hus7and)s financial rashness>
7ut information as to his own appearance> information which she e:ternaliGes into an
hallucination of him. Frightened> she awakens her hus7and> "r P. Junior. 2e too picks up
the telepathic influence from "r P. senior> and likewise e:ternaliGes it in the shape of an
hallucination. 1ither 7ecause "r and "rs P. are in telepathic rapport with each other> or
7ecause "r P. C!$,C senior is a telepathic 'sender) of great skill and power> the two
hallucinations E'his) and 'hers)F are made to coincide with each other in location> dress>
speech> movements and disappearanceN the3 do not Eso far as we can tellF get 'out of
s3nchron3) with each other.
It would> of course> 7e possi7le> from the point of view of the 'weak) super-10P theor3> to
anal3se the supposed network of telepathic relations in this case in various other wa3s.
9ut I do not think an3 of them would 7e apprecia7l3 simpler than the one I have adopted.
And the one I have adopted involves postulating telepath3 of a detail and comple:it3 for
which no e:perimental investigation provides the remotest parallel. The weak form of the
super-10P h3pothesis is here scarcel3 simpler than the strong.
2. #ollecti/el" (ercei/ed A&&aritions
*ollective percipience is not too uncommon> and ma3 take place with apparitions of all
classes4crisis> post-mortem> visual> auditor3> etc. I have alread3 cited one case of a
collectivel3 perceived post-mortem apparition. 2ere are e:tracts from the witnesses)
statements in another E-> pp. $.L%F. Two girls are sta3ing one night in a Lincolnshire
farmhouse a7out twent3 3ears prior to the time of writing E-.F:
<e retired to rest a7out the usual farmhouse hours. <e slept in an old-fashioned four-post
7edstead> at a7out four feet from the wall. In the centre of the wall> at the side of the 7ed>
was a cup7oard.
<e had 7een in 7ed a7out half a hour when I looked towards the door of the cup7oard. I
saw a little> rudd3-faced old lad3> with a frilled white cap on her head> a white
handkerchief folded round her neck> and a white apron> as if she was sitting with her
hands folded in her lap. It seemed almost as if it were a painting on the doorN it looked
e:actl3 as if it were living. I gave a sudden start> and said to "iss Xuilt3> '(id 3ou see
an3thingO) and her answer was the same> '(id 3ou see an3thingO) I related to her what I
had seen> and "iss Xuilt3 had seen e:actl3 the same as m3selfN our rest was distur7ed for
the night. /n relating our stor3> the ne:t morning> it proved the e:act likeness of the
farmer)s mother> who had lived there 7efore him> and died in that 7edroom.
0. "//81
The other witness> "iss 1llen Xuilt3> gives fuller details of the room and of the
surrounding circumstances. 2er account of what she saw is as follows:
0tanding 7ack in the wall I had seen a little old woman> with a white muslin handkerchief
neatl3 arranged on her shouldersN a white 7ordered cap fitting close to a sweet> calm face>
her arms folded> and an apron of the same material as the kerchief.
C!$-C It is ver3 tempting to sa3 of this case> and others like it> that it two or more persons
Eand cases with more than two percipients are 73 no means unknownF simultaneousl3 see
the same thing in the same place> then we have evidence that that thing is o7Jectivel3
there. In fact 'evidence) ma3 7e the wrong word. Perhaps it would 7e more appropriate to
sa3 that part of what )e mean 73 calling a thing or event 'o7Jective) is that more than one
person can o7serve it. <e must also mean that different percipients) views of the o7Ject
are mutuall3 interrelated in such a wa3 that the rules of perspective are not violated. And
this condition also seems to hold in most instances of collective apparitions. There are
e:amples in which a figure has 7een seen full-face 73 a person confronting it> in right
profile 73 a person to its right side and in left profile 73 a person to its left side E!F.
There are even a few cases of a ghost 7eing apparentl3 reflected in a mirror Ee.g. -> cases
&+ and +5F. I do not know of an3 case in which a phantasm perceived 73 several persons
in a slightl3 scattered group has simultaneousl3 appeared full-face to each of them.
2ow> then> could we set a7out undermining the proposition that when an apparition is
collectivel3 perceived there reall3 must 7e something o7Jectivel3 present at the spot in
MuestionO First of all one might soften up this thesis 73 pointing out that even if some sort
of entit3 is o7Jectivel3 present> it is a ver3 odd sort of entit3> one that could 7e called
'o7Jective) onl3 in an attenuated or Pickwickian sense. If si: people are in a position to
perceive it> three ma3 do so and three not. It leaves no ph3sical traces. /ne might ne:t
point out that collectivel3 perceived apparitions as a class do not differ in e:ternal
characteristics from other sorts of apparitions> man3 of which must> for the reasons
alread3 given> 7e looked upon as purel3 hallucinator3.
0o far> so good. The crunch for the non-o7Jective Eor pure hallucinationF approach to
crisis apparitions comes when it has to give an account of the fact that the hallucinations
suffered simultaneousl3 73 the various percipients of a collective apparition are so
remarka7l3 alike. 0ome writers E&!> pp. %L%-F have tried to lessen the impact 73
suggesting that the witnesses) statements often lack enough details for us properl3 to
Judge the e:tent of the similarit3> and that> when details are given> these ma3 not in fact
agree. Perhaps the hallucinations of the different percipients have merel3 a common
theme> ela7orated 73 each person in his own wa3.
I cannot sa3 that I find this argument convincing. The differences 7etween the statements
of the separate witnesses of a collective C!$.C apparition seem to me generall3 not to
e:ceed what one might e:pect had a real o7Ject or event 7een involved> and the
similarities are sometimes numerous and detailed. E1:amples of 7oth agreement in detail>
and occasional disagreement> ma3 7e seen in the sample statements which I Muoted a
moment agoF. 2art and 2art> in an e:tensive review of relevant material> reach the same
conclusion. The3 cite eleven of the cases in their sample and conclude E+> p. !%&F: '2ere
then are eleven cases> in each of which two or more percipients Ein so far as their
accounts relate the factsF saw the same figure in the same TspatialU location> wearing the
same clothes> with the same facial e:pressions and doing the same things. Although these
are perhaps the most striking cases> much the same thing might 7e said of the other
collective perceptions of apparitions.)
If this wa3 of avoiding the pro7lem 7e reJected> those who den3 the o7Jective realit3 of
collectivel3 perceived apparitions4and in particular of collectivel3 perceived post-
mortem apparitions> which are those of especial concern to us at the moment4seem
stuck with one or other of two possi7le theories> viG. the theor3 of super-10P involving
onl3 the living Ethe 'strong) formF> and the theor3 of super-10P including telepath3 from
the dead Ethe 'weak) formF.
The first of these theories ma3 7e 7riefl3 e:pounded> with special reference to veridical
post-mortem apparitions> as follows. /ne of the two Eor moreF percipients picks up 73
means of 10P the information that is to 7e e:ternaliGed in the form of the hallucination.
Let us sa3 Eusing the specimen case given a7oveF that she telepathicall3 o7tains from the
farmer)s mind a picture of his late mother> or that she clairvo3antl3 perceives a
photograph of her> shut within the massive covers of the famil3 al7um. Then the second
percipient picks up all this information telepathicall3 from the first percipientN or else she
too> marvellous to relate> happens to scan 73 10P the mind of the farmer of the
photograph of the farmer)s mother at Just the moment when the first percipient did the
same thing. Finall3 the EunconsciousF minds of the two percipients have somehow to
make contact with each other to ensure that when> as a result of all this 10P> the3 each
construct an hallucination> the two hallucinations are reciprocall3 adJusted to allow for
differences of perspective> etc.> whilst the main details of 7oth are kept constant.
To sa3 that this is a tall order is a great understatement. I do not think that there are an3
e:amples of e:perimental 10P of an3thing like this detail and comple:it3> and precious
few such e:amples of C!%5C spontaneous 10P other than apparitions. It is possi7le that
some instances of ostensi7le spontaneous 10P in dreams till the 7ill. 9ut even so> the
following difficult3 remains. In a sample of cases studied 73 2art E+5a> p. !5%F> there
were %+ in which there was a second person in a position to have seen the apparition if
the apparition were like a real o7Ject. In !+ of these %+ cases the second person did see it.
These figures are supported 73 the findings of the well-known *ensus of 2allucinations
Eit polled ,>555 personsF conducted in the earl3 da3s of the 0P8 E%+F. The census
o7tained !-$ cases of visual hallucinations in which the percipient had a waking
companion> and .5 cases of auditor3 hallucinations EvoicesFN .& of the former
hallucinations and $% of the latter were shared. The census committee issued certain
warnings a7out the possi7ilit3 that real o7Jects and real sounds might have 7een thought
hallucinator34the percentage of collectivit3 was higher in outdoor cases47ut even so
we must recogniGe that if a person has an hallucination of the kinds we are considering
Ei.e. ones not due to insanit3> drugs> fever> h3pnosis> etc.F> there is an apprecia7le
pro7a7ilit3 that an3 companion he has will share it. This remains true whether or not the
hallucination is otherwise veridical Ei.e. is a crisis case> etc.F. It follows that if we regard
the sharing of an hallucination as due to 10P e:ercised 73 7oth percipients> we are in
effect proposing that 10P a7ilities of an e:traordinaril3 high order are ver3 widel3
distri7uted among the population at large> and could presuma7l3 7e tapped
e:perimentall3 if onl3 the right circumstances could 7e hit upon. /f this> alas> there is> so
far as I know> no evidence at all. ;or is there much evidence that when spontaneous 10P
takes forms other than the hallucinator3 Ethe intuitions> realistic dreams and unrealistic
dreams of Louisa 8hine)s classificationF> there is an3 great likelihood that it will 7e
shared. There are some convincing cases of shared or reciprocal dreams> 7ut the3 onl3
constitute a minute fraction of the total dreams dreamed. If one of two people sharing a
7ed sees an apparition> it is Muite likel3 that the other person> if awake> will see it also. It
is immensel3 unlikel3 that the3 will share a dream> even though it 7e precognitive.
This must surel3 count as evidence against the theor3 of super-10P involving onl3 the
living. Furthermore it is far from clear what> at least in the present state of
paraps3cholog3> could count as evidence for it. The unconscious minds of the percipients
are supposed to get together to arrange the details> perspective> etc.> of their reciprocall3
related hallucinations. This is a process uno7serva7le in principle. In the C!%C e:ample I
Muoted> we had to suppose that one or another or 7oth of the girls clairvo3antl3 o7served
a picture of the farmer)s mother> or telepathicall3 found one in the farmer)s mind. There
was no actual evidence that such a picture e:isted> or that the farmer had 7een especiall3
thinking a7out his late mother. Perhaps the girls dug the image out of the farmer)s
unconscious mind Eor out of the memor3-stores in his 7rainF. ;o further evidence which
might throw a light on such proposals seems at the moment within the realms of
possi7ilit3. 0urel3 Efollowing the 'avoid dead ends) principle which I proposed in *hapter
/neF we must dismiss the theor3 of super-10P involving onl3 the living as one with
which> in the present state of our knowledge> we can get no further.
0uppose> then> we admit discarnate agenc3 into our theoriGing> and instead tr3 out that
approach to collectivel3 perceived apparitions which I called the 'theor3 of super-10P
including telepath3 from the dead). This theor3 would ena7le us to sa3 that the girls got
the information a7out the farmer)s late mother through telepathic contact with the lad3
herself> and not through some more circuitous channel. 9ut does this supposition reall3
helpO It lands our theor3 with e:tra deadweight in the form of the idea of a discarnate
human 7eing> a notion that is at 7est far from eas3 to elucidate. And we are still left not
Just with telepath3 of a degree that might well 7e called 'super-10P) 7etween the two
girls> and 7etween the girls and the deceased lad3> 7ut with a pro7lem over how the girls
could have gleaned from the old lad3)s mind the sort of detailed image of her that the3
actuall3 saw. If the old lad3 had 7een 7rooding a7out her former home> her mind would
presuma7l3 have 7een filled with memories of walking around the rooms> looking out of
the windows> etc.> not with third-person pictures of what she herself would have looked
like walking or sitting or standing there. 0uppose> as in a num7er of cases> that the
collectivel3 perceived apparition had 7een that of an animal> such as a cat E-> cases ., to
5F. *ould we seriousl3 suppose that the various witnesses 7uilt up their similar
hallucinations of it 73 e:ternaliGing the information gleaned from telepathic contact with
its surviving spirit> as the latter relived in recollection the pleasures of prowling around
the house or garden concernedO This theor3 has all the difficulties of the previous one>
plus some e:tra pro7lems of its own.
The 10P which proponents of the hallucination theor3 are forced to invoke in order to
account for cases of collective percipience is so comple:> so devious> so detailed> and so
unsu7stantiated 73 an3 C!%!C independent empirical evidence> that one might well 7e
tempted to revert to the supposition that some entit3 of a kind not as 3et understood is
o7Jectivel3 present at the spot where the apparition is seen. 9ut no amount of evidence
for the o7Jective presence of such an entit3 could possi7l3 resuscitate the crude animistic
theor3 which I discussed in the previous chapter.
,. Haunting A&&aritions
Het another class of veridical apparition stor3 which might 7e thought to provide
evidence for 'o7Jectivit3) is that of haunting apparitionsN cases> that is> in which the same>
or apparentl3 the same> figure is seen> or the same voice> etc.> heard> in the same localit3
on a series of occasions 73 the same> or different Eand prefera7l3 independentF
percipients. The archives of the 0P8 contain a num7er of such cases in which the
statements of the various witnesses have 7een o7tained. I shall now summariGe and Muote
from the statements in one sample case E!!a> pp. !,5L!,+F. It is not> evidentiall3
speaking> one of the ver3 strongest> 7ut it has the advantage of 7eing relativel3 short. It
also has the advantage that although the four percipients saw the same> or a ver3 similar>
figure> none had previousl3 heard of the e:periences of the others. The witnesses
concerned were (r 2.> the proprietor of the haunted house> his daughters "iss #. 2. and
"iss A. 2.> and a cousin> "iss @. A. A. The first three accounts date from the latter part of
--$.
. 0ome time 7etween -+$ and -+&> (r 2. Ewe have this from his )ife7s statement>
apparentl3 confirmed 73 himF was going upstairs a7out ..55 P.". 2e was 'rather startled
to see on the landing Ea few steps higherF a little child> who ran 7efore him into m3 T"rs
2.)sU room. "3 little 7o3 9.> a7out two or three 3ears of age> was at that time sleeping in
a small child)s 7ed at m3 7edside. (r 2. followed and spoke> calling the 7o3 73 name>
7ut he gave no answer. The gas was 7urning on the landing outside m3 room> 7ut there
was no light inside S 2e lighted a candle> searched m3 room> and also saw the 7o3 was
unmistaka7l3 asleep. 2e e:pected to find one of the other children> as the figure appeared
to 7e taller than that of the 7o3.)
!. 1arl3 one morning in @anuar3 -,,> "iss #. 2. passed the door of the room in which
the 3oungest sister slept. The door was open. 'Taking hold of the handle> I was a7out to
shut it Ethe door opened inwardsF> when I was startled 73 the figure of a child> standing in
a corner formed 73 a wardro7e which was placed against the wall a7out a foot and a half
from the doorwa3. Thinking it was m3 sister> I e:claimed> V/h> ".> 3ou shouldn)t startle
me soRW and shut the doorN 7ut in the same instant> 7efore I had time to Muit m3 hold of
the handle> I opened it again> feeling sure that it could not 7e m3 sisterN and> sure enough>
she was in fact asleep in 7ed so far from C!%$C the door that it would not have 7een
possi7le for her to have crossed from the door to her 7edside in the short space of time
when I was closing the door. In the corner where the child had 7een there was nothing>
and I felt that I must have seen a ghost> for I was suddenl3 seiGed with a feeling of horror
which could not have 7een caused 73 an3thing imaginar3. The child had a dark
comple:ion> hair and e3es> and a thin oval faceN it was not white> as when seen 73 "iss
A.> 7ut it gave me a mournful look as if full of trou7le. 2ad it 7een a living child> I should
have imagined it to 7e one who enJo3ed none of the thoughtlessness and carelessness of
childhood> 7ut whose 3oung life> on the contrar3> was filled with premature cares. Its age
might 7e a7out nine or 5N its dress I could not distinguish> as I onl3 seemed to see its
head and faceN the e:pression struck me mostN so vividl3 did I see it that if I were a7le to
draw I could> I 7elieve> give an accurate representation of it> even now after a7out five
3ears.)
$. "iss A. 2. Elater "rs A.F> "iss #. 2.)s eldest sister> had a similar e:perience onl3 a
few minutes later. Looking into "iss #. 2.)s empt3 room she saw 'a little figure in white
standing near a ta7le). It made her so nervous that she ran from the room.
%. "iss @. A. A.)s statement concerned an e:perience in @ul3 -,.. It first appeared in
;otes and Dueries for !5 "arch --5. 0he was woken one night a7out da37reak 73 her
7edroom door 7eing opened and shut and then opened again. 'Almost at the same time
that the door opened for the second time> I was a little startled 73 the rustling of some
curtains 7elonging to a hanging wardro7e> which stood 73 the side of the 7edN the rustling
continued> and I was seiGed with a most uncomforta7le feeling> not e:actl3 of fright> 7ut a
strange unearthl3 sensation that I )as not alone$ I had had that feeling for some minutes>
when I saw at the foot of the 7ed a child a7out seven or nine 3ears old. The child seemed
as if it were on the 7ed> and came gliding towards me as I la3. It was the figure of a little
girl in her night-dress4a little girl with dark hair and a ver3 white face. I tried to speak to
her> 7ut could not. 0he came slowl3 up to the top of the 7ed> and then I saw her face
clearl3. 0he seemed in great trou7leN her hands were clasped and her e3es were turned up
with a look of entreat3> an almost agoniGed look. Then> slowl3 unclasping her hands> she
touched me on the shoulder. The hand felt ic3 cold> and while I strove to speak she was
gone. I felt more frightened after the child was gone than 7efore> and 7egan to 7e ver3
an:ious for the time when the servant could make her appearance.)
&. In the earl3 part of --& (r 2. reported hearing a num7er of series of knocks in the
house> for which he could offer no normal e:planations. It does not appear that an3one
else heard them.
"rs 2. 7elieved the apparition to 7e that of a little girl> @. ".> who had died in the house
in -&%. 0he remem7ered her as having 'fine dark e3es> 7lack hair> oval face> and a pale
olive comple:ion). This child had died in the room in which "iss A. 2. saw the figure.
At the time of her death this room was in the ne:t-door house. The houses were
su7seMuentl3 Joined together> and the other three appearances were not in the part of the
house in which the child had lived.
C!%%C It is unusual to find a case in which there are even these rather limited grounds for
identif3ing the apparition with a particular deceased person Efor a somewhat compara7le
case see -&F. There are in the literature> however> a num7er of cases in which the
apparition has 7een seen more freMuentl3> and in which the witnesses) testimon3 is fuller
and more recent. The o7vious interpretation of such cases Eo7vious> at an3 rate> to
persons uncontaminated 73 the sophistries of paraps3chologistsF is certainl3 the animistic
one> the suggestion that in the house in Muestion there is actuall3 to 7e found> at least
from time to time> a persisting and peculiar Muasi-ph3sical entit3> to 7e identified or
linked with some now deceased human 7eing who formerl3 dwelt there. 9ut the
o7Jections to 7e offered to the animistic theor3 in this conte:t are in essence the same as>
and Just as insupera7le as> the ones I have run through in other conte:ts> and I shall not
pursue them further.
Frank Podmore> who first pu7lished the case I have Just outlined> was strongl3 averse to
an3 form of the survivalist and su7tle 7od3 theories> and instead developed various forms
of the super-10P h3pothesis. 2e applies it to this case as follows E!!a> p. !,+F.
It is not difficult to trace the pro7a7le genesis of the first appearance. A hardworking
countr3 doctor> who has on various occasions in his life e:perienced hallucinations>
visual and auditor3> coming home late one evening> after a long da3)s work> sees a figure
7earing a vague resem7lance to one of his children4a purel3 su7Jective hallucination.
The later appearances> if in fact there was no communication of (r 2.)s e:perience> are
more difficult of e:planation. The two earlier ma3 have 7een the result of hereditar3
predisposition to hallucination. 9ut it seems at least possi7le that all three were due to
thought-transference> with (r 2.> or perhaps "rs 2.> on whom the first appearance seems
to have made some impression> as the agent. In this wa3 also the general resem7lance
which appears to have e:isted 7etween the various appearances ma3 7e most readil3
accounted for. This e:planation ma3 seem far-fetched and impro7a7le: the critic should
7e reminded that we have much evidence for the operation of telepath3 7etween living
minds> 7ut we have ver3 little for the e:istence or the agenc3 of disem7odied spirits.
This sort of h3pothesis would 7ecome even more involved if it were applied to cases in
which> as sometimes happens> a haunting apparition continues to manifest in a particular
house through several changes of occupanc3N or> indeed> manifests not in a house at all>
7ut in> sa3> a particular stretch of road E.&> pp. %L!$F. /ne would have to suppose that
someone> not present at the spot> is continuall3 C!%&C 7rooding over and inwardl3
revolving events which once happened thereN somehow persons now occup3ing or
passing through that place 7ecome telepathicall3 linked to this distant person> and
e:ternaliGe the information thus gained in the form of hallucinator3 figures. The figure
seen is usuall3 not that of the distant telepathic agentN 7ut> depending upon the direction
which his 7roodings take> ma3 represent a person or persons> or even Eas Podmore
postulatesF a frightening hallucination from his past. This accounts for the occasional
cases in which various different figures are seen. <hat one sa3s of cases in which the
apparition wears clothes from a past era is not made clear.
Podmore)s description of his h3pothesis as 'far-fetched and impro7a7le) seems entirel3
Justified. It is also cum7ersome and utterl3 ad hoc$ In no case that I know of is there an3
actual evidence to relate the recurrent manifestation of a post-mortem apparition in a
particular spot to the distant 7roodings of some living person formerl3 associated with
that spot. The telepathic links 7etween the distant agent and the various percipients must
7e supposed to 7e esta7lished simpl3 73 the fact that the various percipients are in a
localit3 once well-known to the agent. Het if links of such strength reall3 can 7e
esta7lished in this wa3> wh3 do not> for e:ample> the successive long-term occupants of a
particular prison cell enJo3 lives regularl3 enriched 73 telepathic contact with previous
inmates now freeO Furthermore in some cases haunting apparitions have 7een collectivel3
perceived> so that we have to add to the a7ove difficulties> those difficulties> alread3
discussed> raised for the super-10P h3pothesis 73 e:amples of collective percipienc3.
Finall3 there is the Muestion of motive. In ver3 man3> though 73 no means all> cases of
spontaneous 10P> the e:perient has some reason for 7eing concerned with the welfare of
the person to whom his e:perience relates. In the great maJorit3 of e:amples of haunting
apparitions> the ghost> if identifia7le with an3 plausi7ilit3> has 7een that of a person with
whom the percipients had no kind of special connection.
The various difficulties which confront the super-10P h3pothesis as applied to haunting
apparitions are> it seems to me> in no wise diminished if we su7stitute for the telepathic
agenc3 of some unknown living person> that of a deceased person who once flourished at
the place in Muestion. Perhaps> indeed> this proposal would help us over cases in which
the ghost wears the clothes of a past age. 9ut to counter7alance this> we are again
confronted with the pro7lem of what sort of information telepathic contact with the mind
of a 7rooding or C!%+C dreaming deceased person might 7e supposed to 3ield. Primaril3>
one would suppose> the information would concern what it felt like to walk through a
certain house> e:amine the furniture> etc.> etc. /nl3 secondaril3 would it have to do with
what the telepathic agent looked like as he or she moved from room to room. If> indeed>
the supposed telepathic agent were a deceased cat Eand cats are certainl3 place-loving
animalsF> I have no idea what sort of information one might glean. I suspect a lot of it
would have to do with the smell of food in the kitchen.
I find it hard4indeed impossi7le4to resist the conclusion that no account of haunting
apparitions can 7e given in terms of telepathic or clairvo3ant links 7etween the various
persons successivel3 associated with the haunted spot> not even if one e:tends the range
of permissi7le links to include persons now deceased. 0omething in> or a7out> or to do
with the place itself pla3s a crucial role in generating the phenomena.
This conclusion perhaps receives support from the following additional circumstances
Einto which I do not have the space to enter full3F. A house which is trou7led 73 a
haunting apparition is not unlikel3 to 7e trou7led also 73 other kinds of distur7ances.
These include the appearance of luminous patches> 7alls of light> etc.N the turning of
doorhandles and opening of doorsN tugging at 7edclothesN loud 7angs on doors or
seMuences of ine:plica7le rapsN movement or displacement of small o7JectsN and a7ove all
imitative noises4sounds as of the dragging of furniture> the dropping of weights> the
7reaking of crocker3> the opening of drawers> etc.> also footsteps> voices> groans> etc.> all
without an3 determina7le cause. In some cases4generall3 called 'hauntings) E%&>
*hapters 5L!> &F4phenomena of these kinds ma3 take place without an3 recurrent
apparition> or with onl3 occasional tantaliGing glimpses of shadows> mist3 figures> etc. It
is worth noting that> unlike apparitions and person-centred poltergeists> hauntings tend to
7e primaril3 nocturnal. Tenn3son captured the essence of hauntings in some memora7le
lines:
A footstep> a low thro77ing in the walls>
A noise of falling weights that never fell>
<eird whispers> 7ells that rang without a hand>
(oor-handles turn)d when none was at the door>
And 7olted doors that open)d of themselves:
And one 7etwi:t the dark and light had seen
Her> 7ending 73 the cradle of her 7a7e.
The issue which such cases raise for our immediate purposes is this. C!%,C *ases of
hauntings shade without percepti7le 7reak into cases of haunting apparitions. <e clearl3
have here not two classes of case 7ut onl3 one. 9ut the phenomena of hauntings include
some that are ostensi7l3 o7Jective and ph3sical. It is as though 'haunted) houses> in
addition to 7eing visited 73 elusive phantoms> are the pla3grounds of unseen 7ut
ph3sicall3 localiGed agencies of limited intelligence and mischievous proclivities. 2ow
does this fact> if fact it 7e> 7ear upon the theor3 that apparitions are purel3 hallucinator3>
that when one is seen nothing is 'o7Jectivel3 there)O
The answer of man3 paraps3chologists has 7een to den3 that the ostensi7l3 ph3sical
phenomena of hauntings are reall3 ph3sical at all. If the3 are not suscepti7le of ordinar3
e:planations> then the3 must 7e hallucinator3> Just as the figures seen are hallucinator3.
This proposal greatl3 increases the pressure inside that over-stretched 7alloon> the super-
10P theor3. For we have now to sa3 not Just that the apparitions are hallucinations
generated 73 comple: processes of 10P involving past and present occupants of the
house> 7ut that the footsteps> noises> door openings> raps> etc.> all of which> one might
add> ma3 7e collectivel3 perceived> have a similar origin. I have argued at length
elsewhere against this position E%&> *hapter 5F> and will not recapitulate m3 arguments
here. I shall simpl3 point out that cases of hauntings> which shade at one end into cases of
'pure) haunting apparitions> shade at the other into cases so marked 73 ph3sical
phenomena that the3 have often 7een classified as poltergeists> despite the fact that the3
have not centred around an3 o7vious poltergeist 'agent).
;ow if there is indeed a tendenc3 for the places freMuented 73 a haunting apparition to 7e
also the scenes of peculiar ph3sical happenings of the kinds indicated> this must surel3
strengthen the view that haunting apparitions either are> or are in some wa3 produced 73>
localiGed and o7Jective entities or factors. For neither haunting apparitions nor 'distur7ed)
houses are so common that we can regard the relativel3 freMuent associations or overlaps
7etween the two sorts of phenomena as due to chance. <hatever produces the one set of
phenomena must also 7e instrumental in producing the other. And in 'hauntings) the
apparentl3 ph3sical effects show ever3 sign of 7eing o7Jective and localiGed> and of
having a localiGed source.
Let me now summariGe the general conclusion to 7e drawn from the preceding discussion
of the three classes of case which I singled out for special scrutin3 in this chapter.
C!%-C The hallucination theor3> when com7ined with what I called the 'strong) form of the
super-10P h3pothesis4the one which does not admit telepath3 with the dead4seems to
me Muite untena7le. It is forced not Just to postulate 10P of an e:tent and comple:it3 for
which there is no other warrant> 7ut also to make utterl3 ad hoc assumptions a7out
ps3chological processes and peculiarities in 7oth percipients and presumed agents
E'senders)F.
The 7reakdown of the 'strong) form of the super-10P h3pothesis would seem on the face
of it to open the door to the survival h3pothesis. For in certain cases Eincluding some
more remarka7le than those to which> for reasons of space> I have had to confine m3
illustrationsF information unknown to the percipient> 7ut known to the deceased person>
has 7een conve3ed> and purposes more appropriate to the deceased person than to an3one
living have 7een manifested. If we are not a7le to e:plain these facts in terms of the
strong form of the super-10P h3pothesis> we must surel3 turn to some form of survival
theor3.
The o7vious snag here is this. If the information and the purposes concerned are
communicated from the dead to the living> or o7tained from the deceased person 73 the
living one> the process of communication must 7e one which we can onl3 call 10P. <e
have turned> in fact> to what I called the 'weak) form of the super-10P h3pothesis. 9ut
earlier in the chapter I e:plored this version of the theor3 in several different conte:ts>
and each time reached the conclusion that it is scarcel3> if at all> more tena7le than the
'strong) form.
/ne further theor3 I will unhesitatingl3 reJect. It is what ma3 7e called the retrocognitive
or 'pla37ack) theor3 of haunting apparitions and of post-mortem apparitions in general.
The idea is that the percipients of such apparitions are simpl3 witnessing a pla37ack of a
past scene or scenes. Perhaps that scene is somehow imprinted or recorded on the
ph3sical localit3 in which it happenedN perhaps there is a recurring kink or loop in space-
time at that point. 9ut either wa3 the upshot is much the same. The percipients 'tune-in)>
or slip out of present time for a moment> and witness a past event> scene> or seMuence of
happenings.
;ow there are certain cases which> if accepted> might 7e interpreted in this wa34I refer
to such phenomena as apparent visions of past 7attles> etc. 9ut I don)t think post-mortem
apparitions can> in general> 7e so interpreted. For although some such apparitions act in a
somewhat Gom7ie-like and automatic manner> rather as though the3 C!%.C were in a
trance> the3 are none the less not alwa3s wholl3 repetitive in their 7ehaviour> and
sometimes seem responsive to persons in their vicinit3> on rare occasions even speaking.
0o I will set the pla37ack theor3 aside.
"ust we then once more tr3 out the animistic theor3 that we earlier on reJectedO There
are certainl3 some features of these cases that seem Muite strongl3 to suggest the presence
of some sort of localiGed entit3: the fact that when an apparition Epost-mortem or
otherwiseF is collectivel3 perceived> each percipient will see it in the appropriate
perspectiveN the fact that if one person in a particular spot sees an apparition Epost-
mortem or otherwiseF an3 other person present stands a far greater chance of seeing it
also than he does of telepathicall3 participating in another person)s e:perience under an3
other circumstances whatsoeverN the fact that haunting apparitions are> as a class> not
distinct from 'hauntings)> in which phenomena of an o7Jective kind do seem to occur. 9ut
the difficulties which confront the animistic h3pothesis remain as intracta7le as ever. <e
seem to have reached a complete impasse.
C!&5C
15 A !heor" of A&&aritions
I have now discussed the chief categories of 'veridical) post-mortem apparitions> and I
have considered each of them in relation to the two maJor sorts of theor3 of such
apparitions> namel3 the hallucination plus super-10P h3pothesis and the animistic theor3.
The super-10P theor3 has usuall3 7een given an anti-survivalistic turn> 7ut man3> perhaps
most> forms of survival theor3 have also had to postulate what is in effect super-10P. In
either case we are in what seems to me a total dead end. The animistic theor3 has> so far
as I know> alwa3s 7een linked to the survivalist position. Taken at face value> it is not Just
a dead end 7ut a road to a realm of fantas3N and if that sounds like a contradiction> it
nicel3 reflects the theor3. All in all this is a 7affling and dispiriting state of affairs. Het I>
for one> can find no e:cuse for dismissing the phenomena> nor an3 wa3 of lulling m3self
into the 7elief that the3 do not occur.
In this unhapp3 situation it appears worth 7riefl3 considering one further theor3> a theor3
which ma3 well seem to some even more fantastic than those I have Just reJected. It is the
theor3 developed 73 F. <. 2. "3ers E&&> II> pp. !,,L$+N 5a> *hapters + and ,F> who
found himself> even so earl3 as --+> in ver3 much the dilemma that I have Just mapped
out.
The starting point of his attempt to resolve the dilemma is reciprocal cases like those
discussed in *hapter Fourteen. 2e proposes that when a voluntar3 or involuntar3
'proJector) views a distant scene as if from a point within or confronting that scene> and
o7tains correct information a7out it> there ma3 7e an actual modification of space at the
spot where he conceives himself to 7e. This portion of space ma3 7e modified 'not
materiall3 nor opticall3> 7ut in such a manner that persons perceptive in a certain fashion
would discern in that part of space an image appro:imatel3 corresponding to the
conception) of his own aspect latent in the proJector)s mind E5a> I> p. !+-F. "3ers is
most insistent that he is not postulating the going forth of an etheric C!&C 7od3 or
'metaorganism)N he clearl3 held> however> and later uneMuivocall3 stated> that there is in
such cases 'a real transference of something from the agent> involving an alteration of
some kind in a particular part of space). This 'something) would not itself 7e that which is
directl3 perceived when the proJector)s phantasm is seenN rather it would 7e> as it were>
the seed which 73 some unknown means causes non-optical perceptions of the phantasm
to 7urgeon in appropriate perspective around it as if the3 emanated from a 'radiant point).
If the agent)s latent conception of himself at that moment included such accessories as a
hat> a horse> or half a motor car> these too could emerge as features of the phantasm.
*ases in which a voice is heard can 7e treated analogousl3.
Those other kinds of veridical apparitions of the living in which the proJector 7rings 7ack
no recollection of his supposed e:cursus Efor instance 'arrival) cases> in which the figure
arrives on the scene Just 7efore its originalF "3ers treats more or less as imperfect
e:amples of the foregoing. 2e supposes that there is some kind of e:cursus> 7ut that the
proJector fails to remem7er it> 7ecause the e:cursus is of a dissociated or dream stratum
of the personalit3 Eaccording to "3ers such dissociated or 'su7liminal) mental activit3 is
going on in us all the timeF. In some cases the phantasm of a particular living person has
7een repeatedl3 seen. "3ers descri7es such persons as having a 'ps3chorrhagic
diathesis)> literall3 a capacit3 to let the soul 7reak loose. It is hardl3 surprising that this
term has not caught on> 7ut the fact is fairl3 well supported EI once m3self knew Muite
well a person4a mem7er of the 0P8R4whose dou7le had formerl3 7een often seen and
heardF.
"3ers does not appl3 his theor3 e:tensivel3 to crisis apparitions> man3 of which> he
seems to think> ma3 7e 'ordinar3) hallucinations> 7ut he proposes that it can 7e of help in
those crisis Eand otherF cases in which either:
EaF there is collective percipienceN or
E7F the figure is seen 73 a 73stander and not 73 the 'intended) or appropriate person.
<ith regard to cases of the former kind "3ers sa3s E5a> I> p. !+$F: '<hen two or three
persons see what seems to 7e the same phantasm in the same place and at the same time>
does that mean that that special part of space is somehow modifiedO /r does it mean that
a mental impression> conve3ed 73 the distant agent S to one of the percipients is
reflected telepathicall3 from that percipient)s mind to the minds of C!&!C the other S
percipientsO S I o7serve as telling against that other view> of ps3chical contagion4that
in certain collective cases we discern no pro7a7le link 7etween an3 of the percipient
minds and the distant agent.) <ith regard to cases of the latter sort "3ers sa3s E5a> I> p.
!++F: 'If in such a case a 73stander perceives the invading figure> I must think that he
perceives it merel3 as a 73stander4not as a person telepathicall3 influenced 73 the
intended percipient> who does not in fact perceive an3thing whatsoever.)
It will 73 now 7e o7vious how "3ers can appl3 his theor3 to postmortem apparitions. A
post-mortem apparition in which the phantasm appears intelligent and purposeful>
conve3s information> etc.> is different in onl3 one important respect from the conscious
proJection of a purposeful living agent Eas in 'e:perimental) casesF4that respect is> of
course> that the agent> having died> is now permanentl3 detached from his 7od3. As for
haunting apparitions> 'I am inclined>) sa3s "3ers E5a> II> p. ,&F> 'to la3 stress on the
parallel 7etween these narratives of haunting and those phantasms of the living which I
have alread3 classed as psychorrhagic$ In each case> as it seems to me> there is an
involuntar3 detachment of some element of the spirit> pro7a7l3 with no knowledge
thereof at the main centre of consciousness. Those Vhaunts 73 the livingW> as the3 ma3 7e
called4where> for instance> a man is seen phantasmall3 standing 73 his own fireplace4
seem to me to 7e repeated> perhaps more readil3> after the spirit is freed from the flesh.)
2aunting apparitions ma3 7e due to the dreams of the departed.
"3ers sa3s of his theor3> not without Justice> that it 'suffers from the comple:it3 and
apparent a7surdit3 inevita7le in dealing with phenomena which greatl3 transcend known
laws) E5a> I> p. !+%F. 2e also sa3s of it that it does in its wa3 colligate a good man3
cases of odd and var3ing t3pes. This claim> too> is hard to den3. 9ut 7efore attempting to
assess the theor3 I shall propose certain revisions of it Ewhether maJor or minor will
depend on one)s point of viewF. The3 have the effect of whittling down its 7asic
assumptions. Thus the theor3 I shall actuall3 assess will not 7e "3ers)s theor3> 7ut
another and related h3pothesis. The revisions which I propose are as follows:
. Let us take as a 7asic assumption> or rather perhaps as a 7asic fact> that some people>
under certain o7scure circumstances> can produce an effect at a spatial location more or
less distant from their 7odies> such that persons appropriatel3 positioned> and endowed
with C!&$C a certain form of peculiar sensitivit3> will see at that location a phantasm
corresponding in appearance> position and orientation to some conception latent in the
agent)s mind. That conception ma3 7e> 7ut need not necessarily #e> the agent)s
conception of himself. After all> if an agent can generate a phantasm of himself seated on
a horse> or driving a car> wh3 should he not> under some circumstances> generate a
phantasm Just of the horse> or Just of the car> or indeed of some person other than
himselfO Thus a collectivel3 perceived crisis apparition might 7e generated 73 the d3ing
person who is its originalN 7ut it might, on the other hand> 7e generated 73 a living person
Epro7a7l3 one of the percipientsF in response to e:trasensoriall3 acMuired information
a7out his death. <e could even> perhaps> devise along the latter lines some e:planation of
the occasional stories of animal apparitions> or of 7iGarre or grotesMue non-human or
super-human apparitions> which most paraps3chologists would not dare to compromise
their scientific respecta7ilit3 73 investigating.
It would> of course> similarl3 7e possi#le to tr3 to e:plain awa3 all cases of veridical
apparitions of the dead in this wa3> i.e. as generated 73 a conception latent in the mind of
some still living person who is merel3 7rooding a7out the deceased person concerned.
Thus the theor3 could e:plain such apparitions in either survivalist or non-survivalist
terms. Its general tendenc3 is> however> as "3ers holds> survivalistic> for the following
reasons. In cases of veridical postmortem apparitions> the generator of the phantasm
cannot Eor usuall3 cannotF on "3ers)s theor3 7e among the percipients of it. For to the
e:tent that the apparition is 'veridical)4to the e:tent> in other words> that it contains
details and conve3s information unknown to the witnesses> represents a person with
whom the3 were not acMuainted> ostensi7l3 pursues a goal which the3 do not consciousl3
entertain> etc.4it cannot Eassuming> that is> that we refuse to credit them with powers of
super-10P such as we have Just reJectedF represent a conception in the mind of an3 of the
percipients. If an3one other than the deceased original of the phantasm generates that
phantasm it must 7e some person not present at the time and place of its appearance. 9ut
this view does not seem eas3 to defend:
EaF /ften no plausi7le candidate for the role clearl3 emerges. There is no person who is
known to 7e still 7rooding over> dwelling upon> or grieving over the deceased> with
peculiar intensit3> or who has some powerful motive for attempting to generate a
phantasm of some person other than himself.
C!&%C E7F *ases in which a person has apparentl3 generated a phantasm> visi7le to others>
of some one other than himself> are fairl3 rare> and I do not know a single one in which
the supposed generator has not 7een himself among the percipients.
!. If we allow the possi7ilit3 that someone might generate a phantasm of a person other
than himself> we must also a7andon the idea> at first sight so natural> that some aspect of
the personalit3 necessaril3 makes an e:cursion to the spot at which the apparition is seen
and there pla3s a causal role in its genesis. If the figure need not 7e that of the person
who produces it> this idea loses its intuitive plausi7ilit3> and moreover it did not in the
first place accord ver3 well with cases in which the presumed proJector retained no
memor3 of his e:cursion. I should 7e inclined to regard the generation of the phantasm as
usuall3 the product> or more pro7a7l3 the unsought 73product> of ps3chological
processes in a distant agent. Among these ps3chological processes is certainl3 the state of
what used to 7e called 'travelling clairvo3ance)> or seeming to see a distant scene as if
from a point within that scene. /f course it might 7e the case that during successful
travelling clairvo3ance> some conscious entit3 of unknown kind does sometimes leave
the proJector)s organism> and that it is round this spatiall3 localiGed entit3 that the
phantasm is seen. 9ut even were this so> I should still 7e inclined to suggest that the
phantasm is generated at the proJected entit3)s own location 7ecause the proJector)s latent
conception of himself is of a clothed and em7odied person at the spot where he now is.
To see the phantasm is not to see the proJected entit3> nor is the phantasm in an3 sense the
vehicle of consciousness.
It is possi7le EI do not put it more strongl3F that the distinction Just propounded 7etween
the local modification of space Ethe 'phantasmogenetic focus)F which causes certain
persons to see an apparition> and the temporaril3 or permanentl3 disem7odied proJector
who produces the local modification of space> 7ut sometimes is and sometimes is not
himself at the site of that modification> might 7e usefull3 applied to some of the more
7iGarre cases of haunting. /ne might suppose that when in a certain house the occasional
appearance of a phantasm is part of a comple: of odd and pro7a7l3 nocturnal happenings>
some of which are almost certainl3 ph3sical> there is present> or occasionall3 present> on
the site a localiGed entit3> perhaps identical in some wa3 with an element in the
personalit3 of some formerl3 living human 7eing> which #oth induces a
'phantasmogenetic) C!&&C modification of a portion of space> perhaps of that portion
surrounding itself> and, 73 accreting energ3 to itself and deplo3ing it in some wa3 not 3et
understood> is a7le to cause the paranormal ph3sical effects. The phantasm> the figure
seen> would of course not 7e itself directl3 instrumental in producing the ph3sical
phenomena> not even if it were seen apparentl3 effecting them. If it were photographed>
nothing would appear on the film> or at an3 rate Esince one would not wish to rule out the
ph3sical detection of a putative energ3 sourceF nothing much resem7ling what the
percipients reported. All this is the wildest speculationN 7ut it is at an3 rate consistent with
the range of alleged phenomena which we have to e:plain.
$. Although "3ers emphasiGes that apparitions are not material o7Jects> nor 3et Muasi-
ph3sical meta-o7Jects like etheric 7odies> he none the less undou7tedl3 7elieved that the
'local modifications of space) which constitute or underlie his postulated
'phantasmogenetic centres) are modifications in a realm of 7eing Ethe 'metetherial)F other
than the ph3sical world with which ordinar3 sense perception acMuaints us. /ther
distinguished writers in the field Efor instance 2. 2. Price> !$F have developed similar
ideas. ;one the less I think we shall> at least in the foreseea7le state of our knowledge> 7e
well advised to steer clear of such notions. The3 raise at the moment no issues that can 7e
scientificall3 investigated> and will lead onl3 to dead ends of the kind which> I proposed
in the first chapter> we should tr3 to avoid. For present purposes it is enough if we accept
as a fact> or postulate for the sake of argument> that certain persons in certain
circumstances are a7le so to modif3 a certain region of space that other persons> visiting
that region> ma3 see there a figure corresponding to some latent conception in the agent)s
mind.
9ut> it might 7e asked> are the percipients s3stematicall3 hallucinated> or is there reall3
some peculiar> 7ut pu7licl3 accessi7le> o7Ject which the3 all perceiveO Isn)t the tendenc3
of the theor3> with its talk of local modifications of space> to suggest that there is indeed
some peculiar kind of o7Ject Ecall it a 'thought-form)F where an apparition> at an3 rate a
collectivel3 perceived apparition> is seenO *an we prove or disprove this suggestion> and
with it therefore the theor3O
I think4although I have not space to ela7orate the point here4that this argument
misconceives the logic of the situation. It is Muite likel3 that we know as much a7out the
characteristics of apparitions as we ever shall. <e know that in some wa3s the3 resem7le
ph3sical o7Jects> and in other wa3s the3 do not. The3 generall3 look and sound and C!&+C
7ehave much like ordinar3 ph3sical o7Jects> and ma3 7e seen in appropriate perspective
73 several persons simultaneousl3N on the other hand the3 do not last ver3 long> the3 do
not affect ph3sical o7Jects around them> and the3 ma3 not 7e perceived 73 ever3one in a
position to perceive them. =nder these conditions> the Muestion whether the3 are
hallucinations or 'real) o7Jects is surel3 no longer a factual oneN it is a matter of which
wa3 of speaking> which linguistic convention> it is simpler to adopt> and which coheres
7est with our fashions of discourse upon related matters. The issue is philosophical rather
than factual. 0hall we talk of an agent)s capacit3 to create a sort of radiant point around
which persons are lia7le to suffer s3stematicall3 related hallucinationsO /r shall we talk
of an agent)s capacit3 to create a kind of o7Ject that does not affect ph3sical instruments
and is percepti7le onl3 to people with a certain kind of non-optical sensitivit3O The
former wa3 of talking leaves the s3stematic relatedness of the hallucinations without a
rational 7asisN the latter leaves the presence or a7sence> or the percepti7ilit3> of the o7Ject>
more than a little ar7itrar3. "3 guess Eand presuma7l3 "3ers)s tooF would 7e that on the
whole the shortcomings of the second wa3 of talking would 7e easier to live with than
those of the first. 9ut perhaps we can simpl3 dodge making a choice.
%. <hichever wa3 of talking we adopt> we are confronted with the following further
pro7lem. The process of 'non-optical) perception 73 which "3ers thinks we 7ecome
aware of apparitions would seem> at least when the apparition is veridical> to fall under
the general heading of 10P4it involves the acMuisition of information without the use of
the known sense-organs. 9ut it does not fall readil3 under the heading of 'telepath3) nor
3et under that of 'clairvo3ance). The 'local modifications of space) which 7ring a7out
apparitions ma3 7e caused #y 'conceptions latent in the mind) of the agentN 7ut 73 no
stretch are the3 those conceptions or literall3 part of the agent)s mind. Apparitions are
onl3 the effects of the agent)s mental activities> Just as are> sa3> his paintings or his poems.
2ence the 'perception) of them cannot 7e classed as telepathic> for it does not amount to
direct and non-inferential knowledge of what is in the agent)s mind. 0ince clairvo3ance is
defined as e:tra-sensor3 knowledge of physical events or states of affairs> we cannot sa3
that the 'non-optical perception) concerned is a form of clairvo3ance. <e seem to have
here a form of 10P that can 7e la7elled neither as telepath3 nor as clairvo3ance. At least
this proposal consorts well with the fact Ementioned in the C!&,C previous chapterF that
apparitions are not infreMuentl3 shared 73 those in a position to share them> whereas 10P
manifesting in other forms is rarel3 shared. <e need a new word for this further form of
10PN 7ut I will not ta: m3 ingenuit3> nor add to paraps3cholog3)s e:tensive ver7al
lum7er> 73 tr3ing to invent one.
That completes m3 account of "3ers)s theor3 of apparitions Ein a slightl3 doctored
versionF> and it is now time to attempt an assessment. Its strong point is clearl3 that it can
account for the 'veridicalit3) of veridical cases without resort to the comple:ities of
super-10P> and can e:plain the apparent o7Jectivit3 of the phantasms seen in cases of
collective percipience and haunting ghosts without pitching us into the a7surdities of the
animistic theor3. It confronts> however> numerous difficulties. Let us 7egin with a minor
one. It is often suggested that most people have a relativel3 imperfect idea of how the3
look to others> especiall3 from 7ehind> or in profile. That 7eing so> how can we possi7l3
propose that an agent)s 'latent conception) of himself can so modif3 a certain region of
space that suita7l3 gifted persons see a realistic phantasm of him thereO This argument
has> I think> some weight> 7ut not a great deal. Is the average person)s idea of how he
looks likel3 to differ so much from how he actuall3 looks that a percipient would 7e
likel3 to notice the differenceO Perhaps peoples) ideas of how the3 look are not so much
conditioned 73 their images in their mirrors as one might suppose. 0chatGman E%F has
recentl3 conducted some 7rief 7ut immensel3 intriguing e:periments with a su7Ject>
'8uth)> who possesses in a remarka7le degree the a7ilit3 to create for herself totall3
realistic hallucinations Eones which from all accounts> though unlike the hallucinations of
epileptics> alcoholics> drug-takers> the insane> etc.> closel3 resem7le the figures seen in
classic apparition casesF. 0o 'real) are her hallucinations that when she summoned one up
to interpose 7etween her e3es and a source of flickering light> her 7rain)s normal
electrical response to the light ceased. 8uth can with eMual facilit3 create hallucinations
of herself or of other people> and the hallucinations are not Just visual> 7ut auditor3>
tactile and olfactor3 Ethe figures talk> and she can feel and smell themF. <hen 8uth
creates an hallucination of herself the hallucination is apparentl3 Muite realistic and is not
a mirror image.
The most important criticism is so o7vious that it ma3 7e stated 7riefl3. The theor3 gives
credit to numerous unknowns> and a shortfall in an3 one of them would 7ankrupt it. It
postulates 'phantasmogenetic) modifications> nature unknown> of particular spatial
localitiesN an C!&-C unknown process where73 certain persons can cause such
modificationsN an unknown form of sensitivit3 73 means of which certain persons can
perceive the phantasms thus generatedN discarnate intelligences of which we know
nothing e:cept that the3 were formerl3 incarnated as particular human 7eingsN and
Epresuma7l3F some totall3 unknown facult3 of 10P 73 means of which these discarnate
intelligences o7tain their information a7out this world and the ne:t. ;o sensi7le theorist
would entrust his intellectual capital to such unknowns> for unknowns are not credit-
worth3.
The trou7le is> it seems to me> that we have little choice 7ut to allow "3ers)s theor3>
unknowns and all> Just a little credit. The theor3> as he remarks> ties together a good man3
phenomena of 'odd and var3ing t3pes)> and even if his account of them is highl3
implausi7le> it does not> and this is the important point> appear Muite such a dead end as
are the super-10P and the animistic theories. There do seem to 7e> even in the present
state of our knowledge> certain further empirical inMuiries to which it might lead. <e
might> for e:ample> investigate the 'phantasmogenetic) capacities of such gifted su7Jects
as '8uth). 0chatGman e:perimented with 8uth to see whether her hallucinations could 7e
shared 73 others. The3 were not. 2owever on two occasions> when no e:periment was in
progress> other persons apparentl3 o7served phantasms which she had created Ea similar
incident is descri7ed 73 (avid-;eel> !-F. /ne person actuall3 held a conversation with
the figure> which he 7elieved to 7e that of a real person> viG. 8uth herself. /nce a dog
7ecame greatl3 distur7ed when 8uth generated a phantasm in its vicinit34a phenomenon
for which the literature of apparitions holds numerous parallels. The findings so far 3ield
no certainties> 7ut raise man3 intriguing possi7ilities.
At the 7eginning of *hapter Fourteen I posed two Muestions which arose from the fact
that we seemed forced 73 the facts and the considerations advanced earlier in the 7ook to
take the survival theor3 seriousl3. The two Muestions were:
. <ould the survival of a person)s memories> and his conceptual capacities in general>
involve or amount to his survival as a conscious individualO
!. If such memories and capacities survive> what could underpin their survival> 7e> so to
speak> their vehicleO
It was> partl3> in pursuit of answers to these Muestions that I C!&.C em7arked on the
discussion of /91s and of apparitions. At the end of this discussion I have found m3self>
despite its numerous o7scurities> taking seriousl3 "3ers)s 'phantasmogenetic centre)
theor3 of apparitions. (oes this theor3> if true> or rather if in some Epro7a7l3 minorF
degree an appro:imation to the truth> have an3 7earing upon the a7ove two MuestionsO
<ith regard to the first Muestion> one would> I suppose> naturall3 assume that if the
evidence suggests that certain sorts of phantasms Everidical post-mortem onesF are
generated 73 surviving portions of formerl3 living human 7eings> whatever survives and
generates them must possess ver3 much the same memories and conceptual a7ilities as
are possessed 73 the living persons who sometimes similarl3 seem to generate phantasms
of themselves. For e+ hypothesi the phantasms are in some sense e:ternaliGations of
'conceptions latent in the minds of) the proJectors. /ne could> at an3 rate> without dou7t
put up a defence of this view. 9ut there are man3 difficulties. There seem> as "3ers
remarks> to 7e cases of proJection 73 living proJectors in which the proJector has no
awareness of what he is a7out> in which the proJection is> as it were> automatic and a
function of some unconscious level of the personalit3. *ould something survive which
was not conscious> was less than a personalit3> a mere vestige or trace> which could none
the less still give rise to 'automatic) proJectionsO A repl3 to this difficult3 might make a
distinction 7etween those phantasms which seem> as it were> intelligent and responsive to
living persons> and those which are mere Gom7ies or automata. The former could onl3 7e
generated 73 conscious and intelligent proJectors. 9ut de7ate on these topics could go on
more or less indefinitel3> for we know at the moment a7solutel3 nothing of the process 73
which 'phantasmogenetic centres) are created 73 living proJectors> of the relationships
7etween this process and the ph3sical world> and the dependence or otherwise of the
process upon particular kinds of 7rain functioning. <e are even more in the dark when
we 7egin to speculate as to what ma3 7e involved in the creation of such centres 73
deceased proJectors.
As for the second Muestion> that concerning the supposed 'vehicle) of surviving memories
and capacities> "3ers)s theor3 carries> so far as I can see> no specific implications> 7ut
adopting it might well set one off on some such train of thought as this. If> as seems to 7e
the case> some people can> even during their lifetimes> sometimes create
phantasmogenetic centres at considera7le distances from their own 7odies and nervous
s3stems> can themselves perceive phantasms C!+5C emanating from such centres when the
latter are created 73 themselves or 73 other people> can e:ercise other forms of 10P
directed upon distant events or persons> can perhaps even influence ph3sical events
around them other than 73 ordinar3 7odil3 actions> then the relationship 7etween
perceiving and indeed creative mind> and the ph3sical world> must 7e utterl3 different
from> and far more complicated than> an3thing which we now envisage. I would
emphasiGe the word 'creative)> for it would appear that we ma3 in a sense 7e a7le in our
insignificant wa3s to meddle with the universe> or rather with our local corners of it> 73
means as 3et totall3 7e3ond our comprehension. EIt ma3 7e that a control)s a7ilit3 to
'overshadow) a medium is another facet of this power to meddle.F 2ow much further
7e3ond our present comprehension> then> must 7e the relationship 7etween an3 portion of
the personalit3 which survives death and the known and unknown ph3sical world.
These professions of present and pro7a7le future ignorance in the face of immensel3
difficult pro7lems will please no one. "an3 religious 7elievers of one kind and another
alread3 have> and ma3 centre their lives and thought around> simple or seeming-simple
answers to these pro7lems. 0uch persons are apt to think those who remain unconvinced
73 their simple answers> or who do not find them simple> merel3 o7stinate and perverse.
/n the other hand those esprits forts who make almost a religion out of science> or rather
out of the scientific knowledge we currentl3 possess> and who pride themselves on their
educated scepticism> will 7e even less happ3 with m3 professions of ignoranceN for while
it is proper and even lauda7le for a scientist sometimes to admit ignorance or temporar3
7afflement> the ignorance I am professing is of the wrong kind. I am professing the sort
of ignorance which implicitl3 disparages the present state of our scientific knowledge>
and does so on the 7asis of what man3 would assume to 7e a few marginal phenomena.
And indeed it certainl3 seems to me that at the moment we know a7out as much of these
matters as the #reeks did of electricit3 when the3 discovered that if 3ou ru7 pieces of
am7er on 3our sleeve the3 will pick up straws.
C!+C
16 #oncluding 2emarks
<ith regard to the evidence for survival> I have now said> pro7a7l3 several times over>
nearl3 ever3thing that I have to sa3. I cannot dismiss this evidence en #loc as 7ad
evidence> as entirel3 the product of fraud> misrecording> malo7servation> wishful
thinking> or plain chance coincidence. I can find no other decisive reasons for reJecting it.
I have separatel3 argued in connection with the phenomena of mediumship> with
apparitions> and with certain cases of ostensi7le reincarnation> that the super-10P
h3pothesis will not suffice to e:plain the Muantit3 of correct and appropriate information
sometimes furnished. I have further pointed out that some cases present features
suggestive not Just of surviving memories Ethe sphere in which the alternative super-10P
e:planation might seem to 7e at its strongestF 7ut of more positive personalit3
characteristics4distinctive purposes> skills> capacities> ha7its> turns of phrase> struggles
to communicate> wishes> point of view. 8eaders must assess these aspects of the puGGle
for themselves. For m3self I can onl3 sa3 that it seems to me that there is in each of the
main areas I have considered a sprinkling of cases which rather forcefull3 suggest some
form of survival. At least4the supposition that a recogniGa7le fragment of the
personalit3 of a deceased person ma3 manifest again after his death without there 7eing
some underl3ing causal factor common to the original manifestations and the later>
a7errant ones> seems impossi7l3 magical. And it is hard to see in what terms we could
conceive this underl3ing causal factor e:cept those of an individual consciousness of
some degree of coherence and comple:it3. The h3pothesis of an insentient 'ps3chic
factor) seems> as I pointed out at the 7eginning of *hapter Fourteen> to present numerous
difficulties. 9ut in this area> and in important related areas> what we know stands in
proportion to what we do not know as a 7ucketful does to the ocean. *ertaint3 is not to 7e
had> nor even a strong conviction that the area of one)s uncertaint3 has 7een narrowed to
a managea7le compass.
C!+!C 1ven if one accepts that in the present state of our knowledge some sort of survival
theor3 gives the readiest account of the o7served phenomena> man3 issues remain
undecided. In the vast maJorit3 even of favoura7le cases the 'surviving) personalit3 which
claims continuit3 with a formerl3 living> or previousl3 incarnated> personalit3> is onl3
a7le to demonstrate such apparent continuit3 on a ver3 limited num7er of fronts> and
ma3> indeed> markedl3 fail to demonstrate it on others. This does not> of course> mean
that 7ehind the o7served manifestations there does not lie the fullest possi7le continuit3N
7ut eMuall3 it means that the h3pothesis of complete continuit3 is unproven> and all sorts
of possi7ilities remain open. Is there partial or complete survivalO 0entient survival> or
Efar worse than mere e:tinctionF survival with Just a lingering> dim consciousnessO Is
there long-term survival or survival during a 7rief period of progressive disintegrationO Is
there enJo3a7le survival> or survival such as one would wish to avoidO 0urvival with a
ph3sical su7strate> or disem7odied survivalO 0urvival as individual> or survival with one)s
individualit3 for the most part dissolved in something largerO Is survival the rule> or is it
Just a freakO To these and man3 other Muestions I can at the moment see no ver3 clear
answers.
"an3 people> indeed> do not reMuire> or perhaps wish for> clear answers. The3 will take
the mere reJection of the super-10P h3pothesis as Justif3ing the view that #od)s in 2is
heaven and all)s right with the world.
/h> eas3 creed
That our 7eloved ones are not lost indeed
9ut> somewhere far and fainter> live secure>
<hile 3et the3 plead
<ith voices heard in visions live and pure>
<ith touch upon the hand> that the3 endure>
/nl3 withdrawnR
For m3 part I think that an3 further decisive progress will have to wait upon the results of
a great deal of further difficult and time-consuming work on a num7er of different fronts.
93 the time this work has 7een even partl3 carried out> most of us will 7e dead> and will
thus know the answers an3wa3> or not know them as the case ma3 7e. And the results of
the work ma3 7e to point awa3 from the survivalist theor3 once again. As to this> one can
at 7est e:press a tentative view as to the likel3 future trend of the evidence. I have given
m3 own view. /thers will estimate the situation differentl3.
C!+$C To those hot for certaint34whether it 7e certaint3 of survival or of e:tinction4this
answer ma3 seem dust3 enough. 2owever it will not seem dust3 to ever3one. For> as I
have tried to show> it is possi7le from a properl3 informed consideration of the evidence
to 7uild up a rational case for 7elief in some form of survival> and also a rational case
against it. And a rational case> of either tendenc3> 7uilt on evidence> however difficult to
interpret> is to 7e preferred to an3 amount of 7lind 7elief or 7lind dis7elief. Furthermore>
to persons such as m3self> with an overdeveloped 7ump of curiosit3 and a liking for
m3steries> what ma3 7e called a *hinese 7o: universe4a universe made up> so to speak>
of a puGGle containing another puGGle deep within it> and so on indefinitel34has much
appeal. And ma37e at the heart of all truth and Justice lie hidden> and 7rought to light>
will prevail. /r ma37e not. 9ut in either case the puGGles are there> and their fascination
is irresisti7le.
<hat> then> of the futureO 2ow might these puGGles 7e further studiedO I do not think that
there are an3 short cuts to a solution> or to a dismissal of the pro7lem. The idea of a
decisive 'test of survival) has commended itself to man3> and some pu7lic-spirited
individuals have left 7ehind them sealed packages> the contents of which the3 hoped to
communicate after death. In onl3 a few instances has an3 degree of success 7een reported
Ee.g. 5a> II> pp. -!L-&N $.cFN and even had successes 7een more freMuent the3 might
have 7een attri7uted to clairvo3ance 73 the medium.
8ecentl3> more sophisticated forms of test have 7een suggested. Thouless E&.7F has
proposed that persons who wish to leave a 'test) 7ehind them should encipher and deposit
with a reputa7le organiGation some prose passage of appropriate content. All the3 would
need to communicate would 7e the ke3word. A control against the possi7ilit3 that
mediums could crack the code 73 super-10P would 7e o7tained 73 having them attempt
to o7tain the ke3word while the su7Ject is still alive. If the3 fail to o7tain it we must
assume that it is 7e3ond the reach of 10P. Perhaps such a proJect will work4a supposed
8ichard 2odgson communicated through "rs Piper a 'password) which turned out to 7e
the name of her own daughter enciphered in a comple: manner almost certainl3 known to
2odgson in life E5.> pp. !5%nL!5&nF. 0tevenson E&$aF has initiated a similar proJect
using com7ination locks instead of ciphers. A positive result in such a test would
o7viousl3 7e of great interest and importanceN 7ut to constitute strong evidence for
survival it would> I think> still need to 7e com7ined with evidence for the survival of
purposes> personalit3 C!+%C characteristics> other sorts of memories> etc.
0uch 'tests of survival) apart> it seems to me that work on the Muestion of survival will
have to proceed> piece 73 piece> on two 7road fronts. The first would involve the slow
and patient sifting and accumulation of ostensi7le 'evidence for survival) such as I have
presented and discussed in this 7ook. The second Emuch harder to defineF would involve
the sort of inMuiries> factual and conceptual> which might result in our 7eing a7le to 7uild
up a general framework of thought within which survival and the various categories of
evidence for survival will cohere and made sense> and will cohere also with the findings
of other 7ranches of science. E/n the other hand we might decisivel3 fail to achieve such
a framework of thought> and that too would 7e a matter of great significance.F <e have
Eas I have tried to showF alread3 acMuired a good deal of material on the former frontN 7ut
we have acMuired ver3 little on the latter. If the evidence for survival were a great deal
more copious and more startling than it actuall3 is Eand it is fairl3 copious and sometimes
Muite startlingF we could perhaps get 73 with little accumulation of material on the latter
front. I can certainl3 imagine a state of affairs in which> as a matter of fact> no one> or no
one e:cept philosophers when actuall3 philosophiGing> would e:press dou7ts a7out
survival. 0uppose> for e:ample> that persons 'out of the 7od3) were regularl3 a7le to act
as living communicators> conve3ed fluent and appropriate information> etc.> and could
give on their 'return) full accounts of what had transpired> and after their own deaths
continued to communicate in much the same wa3 right up to the moment of their
reincarnation as one of 0tevenson)s child su7Jects. 9ut such a state of affairs does not
o7tain. 2ence> it seems to me> it has 7ecome as important to attempt to progress on the
second front as on the first. <e alread3 have Muite a lot of ostensi7le evidence for
survivalN we do not have a conceptual framework into which we can satisfactoril3 fit it.
I shall accordingl3 not pursue the Muestion of what further ostensi7le 'evidence for
survival) we might o7tain> 7ut shall instead move immediatel3 to the second of the two
'7road fronts) on which EI arguedF work on the pro7lem of survival needs to proceed.
<hat steps might 7e taken to enlarge our relevant '7ackground) knowledge in such a wa3
that the evidence for survival comes to 'make sense) in an overall conte:t which includes
the findings of other sciences as well as those of paraps3cholog3O I should e:pect
progress on this front> if progress there is> to 7e slow and painful> a gradual fitting
together of la7oriousl3 C!+&C acMuired pieces> rather than a sudden insight into their true
relations. And one can set no limit 7eforehand upon the num7er of 'pieces) which might
in the end prove relevant. In previous chapters I have suggested various kinds of
paraps3chological work which> it seems to me> might have relevance to this endeavour.
For e:ample:
. 1:periments directed towards o7taining mediumistic communications from living
persons. Living communicators might turn out to face much the same difficulties and to
get into much the same muddles> as discarnate onesN and then we might perhaps o7tain
some clues as to the mechanism of communication> and the tena7ilit3 of what I called the
theor3 of 'overshadowing)> and so forth. The work might or might not cohere or com7ine
with work on /91s. 1Muall3> the upshot might 7e to suggest that the #ordon (avis and
@ohn Ferguson cases were not freaks or frauds> and hence to strengthen the 7ackground to
the super-10P h3pothesis.
!. Likewise capa7le of supporting the super-10P h3pothesis would 7e e:periments with
sensitives Eif such could 7e foundF resem7ling those studied 73 /st3 Esee *hapter Ten
a7oveF. I do not think that the status of the super-10P h3pothesis can 7e adeMuatel3
esta7lished until such e:periments have 7een carried out utiliGing modern methods of
e:perimental design and statistical assessment> features conspicuousl3 a7sent from /st3)s
pioneering work.
$. Full and e:tensive studies of the a7ilities of such gifted su7Jects as '8uth) Esee previous
chapterF to generate hallucinations in themselves and sometimes> apparentl3 in other
people> might> as I pointed out> throw light on the tena7ilit3 or otherwise of the theor3 of
veridical apparitions which I discussed in *hapter 0i:teen.
%. The most urgentl3 needed investigation in the area of spontaneous cases is> it seems to
me> a detailed investigation 73 competent and properl3 eMuipped persons into the
ph3sical aspects of a reall3 marked 'haunting). For in such cases we have> ver3 often>
localiGed ph3sical distur7ances that are prima facie not suscepti7le of an ordinar3
e:planationN and we have also Eat least sometimesF apparitionsN and the pro7lem of the
relation 7etween these two is a7solutel3 central to all Muestions concerning the nature and
genesis of apparitions> and ramifies into other Muestions. Furthermore> in some hauntings>
there are certain signs of an intelligence Ewhose origins and nature remain to 7e
elucidatedF. /ne might tr3 7ringing different mediums and sensitives to the spot
independentl3 of each other to see if there was an3 agreement in their 'diagnoses)> and
thus o7tain 7oth C!++C 'mental) and 'ph3sical) avenues of approach to the same case Ecf.
.,N 5+N %$F. From a num7er of such investigations> one might Ewith an immense and
unlikel3 amount of luckF 7egin to glimpse an overall pattern within which several
different kinds of ostensi7le survival evidence might fall into place.
2owever> as I remarked a moment ago> relevant discoveries are likel3 to come4I think
will have to come4from outside paraps3cholog3 altogether. From what I said in *hapter
Thirteen> it should 7e clear that the ph3siolog3 of memor3 processes will constitute an
area of central concern. <ider aspects of 7iolog3 ma3 come to have relevance E%%F.
There are also man3 signs4which I cannot detail here4that progress in the frontier
regions of ph3sics and mathematical ph3sics ma3 open up new ideas for paraps3cholog3.
8ecentl3 pu7lished work on the 'metal-7ending) phenomenon constitutes an empirical
focus for these speculative ideas> 7ut the ramification of these ideas could e:tend much
more widel3 than that.
The pro7lem that confronts survival research is not shortage of things to do> 7ut shortage
of funds> with which necessaril3 goes shortage of personnel. <hen the 0P8 was first
founded> it had a num7er of ver3 a7le mem7ers with private means and ample leisure. It
was these persons who were primaril3 responsi7le for the immense amount of work and
the significant progress that marked the first three or four decades of the 0ociet3)s
e:istence. The situation toda3 has radicall3 changed. There are fewer wealth3 and
leisured persons> and some of the investigations that are now desira7le would reMuire
sophisticated and e:pensive scientific eMuipment. #overnments and grant-giving
agencies have not enough funds for tackling pro7lems in this world> and will certainl3 not
su7sidiGe the stud3 of pro7lems relating to the ne:t. It is onl3 if a sufficient num7er of
interested individuals 7and together and contri7ute their mone3 and their time that we
ma3 hope for an3 concerted rather than piece-meal progress to 7e made. There continues
to 7e a vital role for the 0P8> the A0P8> and kindred societies. The recent work of
0tevenson and /sis> as well as the original la7ours of the 0P8)s founders> have shown
how much can 7e accomplished even 73 a small num7er of dedicated persons with
moderate funds and facilities at their disposal.
0u7stantial parts of this 7ook have 7een taken up with an attempt to reconcile the
apparentl3 irreconcila7leN to reconcile> in other words> the data of modern ps3cholog3
and modern neuroscience> with certain C!+,C odd empirical facts that apparentl3 suggest
that human personalit3 ma3 at least sometimes survive 7odil3 death. I do not for a
moment pretend that I have satisfactoril3 harmoniGed these 7odies of data. 1ach time I tie
up> with fum7ling fingers> a couple of loose ends> a third one slips free again. "ost of the
protagonists will continue to reJect the opposite camp)s data without an3 adeMuate
scrutin3 and purel3 on faith4faith> that is> that 7ecause their own findings and
interpretations are unshaka7le> or at least shaka7le onl3 in inessentials> the other fellow)s
findings and interpretations cannot merit serious stud3. It is not Just> sa3> neuroscientists
who have this attitude to the ostensi7le evidence for survival. 0ome paraps3chologists
Efrom the e:perimental campF tend to take this view of the data gathered 73 other
paraps3chologists Ethose interested in the topics of this 7ookF. 0ome 0piritualists would
accord a like negligent dismissal to the findings of neuroscience. I do not like this
reJection of data on faith4it is at 7est a not ver3 honest wa3 of protecting oneself from
the la7our of having to adJust one)s opinions. A far 7igger act of faith4one to which I
must confess I cannot at all times rise4is to accept 7oth sets of data> and to assume that
since the universe is not in the last resort disorderl3> some wa3 of reconciling them will in
the end 7e found.
C!+-C
-i=liogra&h"
. Ale:ander> P. P. SpiritualismE a ;arrative )ith a !iscussion E1din7urgh: <. P. ;immo>
-,F.
!. Allison> L. <. "eonard and Soule 3+periments E9oston: 9oston 0ociet3 for Ps3chic
8esearch> .!.F.
$. Anderson> @. 8. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications E0an Francisco: <. 2.
Freeman> .-5F.
%. Angoff> A.> and 9arth> (.> eds. Parapsychology and (nthropology E;ew HorkN
Paraps3cholog3 Foundation> .,%F.
&a. 9alfour> #. <. '0ome 8ecent 0cripts Affording 1vidence of Personal 0urvival)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .%L&> !,> pp. !!L!%$F.
&7. 9alfour> #. <. 'The 1ar of (ion3sius: Further 0cripts Affording 1vidence of Personal
0urvival) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> .-> !.> pp. .,L!%$F.
&c. 9alfour> #. <. 'The 1ar of (ion3sius: a 8epl3) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, .-> !.> pp. !,5L!-+F.
&d. 9alfour> #. <. 'A 0tud3 of the Ps3chological Aspects of "rs <illett)s "ediumship)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$&> %$> pp. %$L$-F.
+. 9alfour> @. 'The VPalm 0unda3W *ase: ;ew Light on an /ld Love 0tor3) EProceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research, .&-L+5> &!> pp. ,.L!+,F.
,. 9eattie> @.> and "iddleton> @. Spirit Mediumship and Society in (frica ELondon:
8outledge and Aegan Paul> .+.F.
-. 9ennett> 1. (pparitions and Haunted Houses ELondon: Fa7er and Fa7er> .$.F.
.. 9ernstein> ". The Search for ridey Murphy E#arden *it3> ;H: (ou7leda3> .&+F.
5. 9esterman> T. 'Further InMuiries into the 1lement of *hance in 9ooktests)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> .$L!> %5> pp. &.L.-F.
. 9esterman> T.> and 2eard> #. ';ote on an Attempt to locate in 0pace the Alleged
(irect Koice /7served in 0ittings with "rs Leonard) EJournal of the Society for
Psychical Research, .$$> !-> pp. -%L-&F.
!. T9ird> @. ".U 'Two 0triking *ases of *ollective Apparitions) EJournal of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research, .!-> !!> pp. %!.L%$!F.
$. 9lackmore> 0. @. eyond the odyE an Investigation of >ut8of8the8ody 3+periences
ELondon: 2einemann> .-!F.
%. 9oGGano> 1. !iscarnate Influence in Human "ife ELondon: @. ". <atkins> n.d.F.
&a. 9radle3> 2. (. To)ards the Stars ELondon: T. <erner Laurie> .!%F.
&7. 9radle3> 2. (. The .isdom of the ?ods ELondon: T. <erner Laurie> .!&F.
&c. 9radle3> 2. (. (nd (fter' ELondon> T. <erner Laurie> .$F.
+. 9raud> <. #. 'Lia7ilit3 and Inertia in *onformance 9ehavior) EJournal of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research, .-5> ,%> pp. !.,L$-F.
,. 9raude> 0. 3SP and Psycho-inesisE a Philosophical 3+amination EPhiladelphia:
Temple =niversit3 Press> .-5F.
-a. 9road> *. (. The Mind and its Place in ;ature ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul>
.!&F.
-7. 9road> *. (. Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research ELondon: 8outledge and
Aegan Paul> .&$F.
-c. 9road> *. (. "ectures on Psychical Research ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul>
.+!F.
-d. 9road> *. (. 'Auto7iograph3) Ein 0chilpp> P. A.> ed.> The Philosophy of C$ !$ road$
;ew Hork: Tudor Pu7lishing *o.> .&.> pp. $L+-F.
.. 9rown> 0. The Hey8!ay of Spiritualism E;ew Hork: 2awthorn 9ooks> .,5F.
!5. 9ursen> 2. A. !ismantling the Memory Machine E(ordrecht> 2olland: 8eidel> .,-F.
!. *almet> A. The Phantom .orldE or, the philosophy of Spirits, (pparitions, etc$ E!
vols. London: 8. 9entle3> -&5F.
!!a. *arington> <. <. 'The Xuantitative 0tud3 of Trance Personalities. Part I.)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$%> %!> pp. ,$L!%5F.
!!7. *arington> <. <. 'The Xuantitative 0tud3 of Trance Personalities. Part II.)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$&> %$> pp. $.L$+F.
!!c. *arington> <. <. 'The Xuantitative 0tud3 of Trance Personalities. Part III.)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> .$+L,> %%> pp. -.L!!!F.
!$. *arrington> 2. (n Instrumental Test of the Independence of a Spirit Control E;ew
Hork: American Ps3chical Institute> T.$$UF.
!%. *hristie-"urra3> (. ReincarnationE (ncient eliefs and Modern 3vidence E;ewton
A77ot: (avid and *harles> .-F.
!&. *rapanGano> K.> and #arrison> K. Case Studies in Spirit Possession E;ew Hork: <ile3>
.,,F.
!+. (ale> L. A.> <hite> 8.> and "urph3> #. 'A 0election of *ases from a 8ecent 0urve3
of 0pontaneous 10P Phenomena) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical
Research, .+!> &+> pp. $L%,F.
!,. (allas> 2. A. '*ommunications from the 0till Incarnate at a (istance from the 9od3)
E>ccult Revie), .!%> %5> pp. !+L$!F.
!-. (avid-;eel> A. Magic and Mystery in Ti#et ELondon: 0ouvenir Press> .+F.
!.. (elanne. #. !ocuments pour servir _ l 4\ tude de la r\ incarnation EParis: 1ditions de
la 9.P.0.> .!%F.
$5. (ickinson> #. L. 'A *ase of 1mergence of a Latent "emor3 under 23pnosis)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .> !&> pp. %&&L%+,F.
$. (ille3> F. 9. '<hat is <rong with (isem7odied 0piritsO) EResearch "etter of the
Parapsychology "a#oratory, Fniversity of Ftrecht, ;o. > Aug. .-> pp. $L%F.
$!. (ingwall> 1. @. ed. (#normal Hypnotic PhenomenaE a Survey of ;ineteenth8Century
Cases E% vols. London: @. and A. *hurchill> .+,L-F.
$$. (odds> 1. 8. '<h3 I (o not 9elieve in 0urvival) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, .$%>%!> pp. %,L,!F.
$%a. (ucasse> *. @. ( Critical 3+amination of the elief in a "ife after !eath E0pringfield>
Illinois: *. *. Thomas> .+F.
$%7. (ucasse> *. @. '<hat <ould *onstitute 1vidence of Life after (eathO) EJournal of
the Society for Psychical Research, .+!> %> pp. %5L%5+F.
$&. 1dge> 2. L. 'A Philosophical @ustification for the *onformance 9ehavior "odel)
EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .,-> ,!> pp. !&L!$F.
$+. 1eden. F. van. 'Account of 0ittings with "rs Thompson) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, 5!> ,> pp. ,&L&F.
$,. 1liade> ". ShamanismE (rchaic Techni2ues of 3cstasy E!nd ed. London: 8outledge
and Aegan Paul> .,5F.
$-. 1lliott> A. @. A. Chinese Spirit8Medium Cults in Singapore ELondon: London 0chool
of 1conomics> .&&F.
$.. 1llis> (. @. The Mediumship of the Tape Recorder E2arlow> 1sse:: (. @. 1llis> .,-F.
%5. Flew> A. #. ;. 'Is there a *ase for (isem7odied 0urvivalO) EJournal of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research, .,!> ++> pp. !.L%%F.
%. Flourno3> T. From India to the Planet Mars E;ew Hork: =niversit3 9ooks> .+$F.
%!. FraGer> @. #. The elief in Immortality EKol. I. London: "acmillan> .$F.
%$. Free7orn> 2. 'Temporar3 8eminiscence of a Long-forgotten Language during
(elirium) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research, .5!> 5> pp. !,.L!-$F.
%%a. #auld> A. '"r 2all and the 0P8) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research,
.+&> %$> pp. &$L+!F.
%%7. #auld> A. The Founders of Psychical Research ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul>
.+-F.
%%c. #auld> A. 'A 0eries of V(rop-inW *ommunicators) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, .++L,!> &&> pp. !,$L$%5F.
%%d. #auld> A. '10P and Attempts to 1:plain It) Ein Thakur> 0. *.> ed.> Philosophy and
Psychical Research$ London: #. Allen and =nwin> .,+> pp. ,L%&F.
%%e. #auld> A. '(iscarnate 0urvival) Ein <olman> 9. 9.> ed.> Hand#oo- of
Parapsychology$ ;ew Hork: Kan ;ostrand 8einhold> .,,> pp. &,,L+$5F.
%&. #auld> A.> and *ornell> A. (. Poltergeists ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul>
.,.F.
%+. #each> P. ?od and the Soul ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul> .+.F.
%,. #elfand> ". .itch !octor ELondon: 2arvill Press> .+%F.
%-. #i77es> 1. 9. '2ave <e Indisputa7le 1vidence of 0urvivalO) EJournal of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research, .$,> $> pp. +&L,.F.
%.. #i7son> 1. P. 'An 1:amination of "otivation as Found in 0elected *ases from
Phantasms of the "iving7 EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .%%>
$+> pp. -$L5&F.
&5. #lenconner> P. The 3arthen 0essel ELondon: @ohn Lane> .!F.
&. #reen> *. 1. >ut8of8the8ody 3+periences E/:ford: Institute of Ps3choph3sical
8esearch> .+-F.
&!. #reen> *. 1.> and "c*reer3> *. (pparitions ELondon: 2amish 2amilton> .,&F.
&$a. #uirdham> A. The Cathars and Reincarnation ELondon: ;eville 0pearman> .,5F.
&$7. #uirdham> A. .e (re >ne (nother ELondon: ;eville 0pearman> .,%F.
&%. #urne3> 1. 'The ;ature of 1vidence in "atters 1:traordinar3) Ein #urne3> 1.> Tertium
Duid$ London: Aegan Paul> Trench and *o.> --,> vol. I> pp. !!,L!,$F.
&&. #urne3> 1.> "3ers> F. <. 2.> and Podmore> F. Phantasms of the "iving E! vols.
London: TrP7ner> --+F.
&+. 2.> A. ". 'An Apparition Identified from a Photograph) EJournal of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research, .$> !5> pp. &$L&,F.
&,. 2araldsson> 1. 'Apparitions of the (ead: a 8epresentative 0urve3 in Iceland) Ein 8oll>
<. #.> 9elolf> @.> and "cAllister> @.> eds.> Research in Parapsychology &/GH$ "etuchen>
;.@.: The 0carecrow Press> .-> pp. $L&F.
&-. 2araldsson> 1.> #udmundsdottir> A.> 8agnarsson> A.> Loftsson> @.> and @onsson> 0.
';ational 0urve3 of Ps3chical 1:periences and Attitudes towards the Paranormal in
Iceland) Ein "orris> @. (.> 8oll> <. #.> and "orris> 8. L.> eds.> Research in
Parapsychology &/IJ$ "etuchen> ;.@.: The 0carecrow Press> .,,> pp. -!L-+F.
&.a. 2araldsson> 1.> and 0tevenson> I. 'A *ommunicator of the V(rop inW T3pe in
Iceland: the *ase of 8unolfur 8unolfsson) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical
Research> .,&> +.> pp. $$L&.F.
&.7. 2araldsson> 1.> and 0tevenson> I. 'A *ommunicator of the V(rop inW T3pe in
Iceland: the *ase of #udni "agnusson) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical
Research, .,&> +.> pp. !%&L!+F.
+5a. 2art.> 2. '0i: Theories a7out Apparitions) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, .&$L+> &5> pp. &$L!$.F.
+57. 2art> 2.> The 3nigma of Survival ELondon: 8ider> .&.F.
+. 2art> 2.> and 2art> 1. 9. 'Kisions and Apparitions *ollectivel3 and 8eciprocall3
Perceived) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$!L$> %> pp. !5&L!%.F.
+!a. 2eil> @. '*ognition and 8epresentation) *(ustralasian Journal of Philosophy, .-5>
&-> pp. &-L+-F.
+!7. 2eil> @. '(oes *ognitive Ps3cholog3 8est on a "istakeO) EMind, .-> .5> pp. $!L
$%!F.
+$. 2ilgard> 1. 8. !ivided ConsciousnessE Multiple Controls in Human Thought and
(ction E;ew Hork: <ile3> .,,F.
+%a. 2ill> @. A. SpiritualismE Its History, Phenomena and !octrine ELondon: *assell>
.-F.
+%7. 2ill> @. A. 3+periences )ith Mediums ELondon: 8ider> T.$%UF.
+&. 2itchcock> @. ;.> and @ones> 8. L. Spirit Possession in the ;epal Himalayas
E<arminster: Avis and Phillips> .,,F.
++a. 2odgson> 8. 'A 8ecord of /7servations of *ertain Phenomena of Trance)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, -.!> -> pp. L+,F.
++7. 2odgson> 8. 'A Further 8ecord of /7servations of *ertain Phenomena of Trance)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, -.,L-> $> pp. !-%L&-!F.
+,. 2olt> 2. >n the Cosmic Relations E! vols. London: <illiams and ;orgate> .&F.
+-. 2ope> *. '8eport on 0ome 0ittings with Kaliantine and Phoeni: in .!,)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$L!> %5> pp. %L%,F.
+.. 2ughes> I. ". 'A Paranormal (ream) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research,
.&-> $.> pp. -+L--F.
,5. 2ulme> A. @. 2.> and <ood> F. 2. (ncient 3gypt Spea-s ELondon: 8ider> .$,F.
,a. 23slop> @. 2. 'A *ase of Keridical 2allucinations) EProceedings of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research, .5.> $> pp. L%+.F.
,7. 23slop> @. 2. 'The (oris *ase of "ultiple Personalit3) EProceedings of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research> .,> > pp. &L-++F.
,c. 23slop> @. 2. Contact )ith the >ther .orld$ E;ew Hork: The *entur3 *ompan3>
..F.
,!. Iverson> @. More "ives than >neO ELondon: 0ouvenir Press> .,+F.
,$. @aco7son> ;. "ife )ithout !eathO ELondon: Turnstone> .,%F.
,%. @ames> <. '8eport on "rs Piper)s 2odgson *ontrol) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research'> .5> !$> pp. !L!F.
,&a. @ohnson> A. '/n the Automatic <riting of "rs 2olland) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, .5-L.> !> pp. ++L$.F.
,&7. @ohnson> A. '0econd 8eport on "rs 2olland)s 0cript) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research> .5> !%> pp. !5L!+$F.
,&c. @ohnson> A. 'Third 8eport on "rs 2olland)s 0cript) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research> .> !&> pp. !-L$5$F.
,&d. @ohnson> A. 'A 8econstruction of 0ome V*oncordant AutomatismsW) EProceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research> .%L&> !,> pp. L&+F.
,+. @ones> L. A. 'Presidential Address) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, .!-L.> $-> pp. ,L%-F.
,,. @ung> *. #. Synchronicity ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan Paul> .,!F.
,-. @uscG3k> P. <. and 1arhard> 9. 'The "ingua Mentis and its 8ole in Thought) Ein
@uscG3k> P. <.> and Alein> 8. ".> eds.> The ;ature of ThoughtE 3ssays in Honor of !$ >$
He##$ 2illsdale> ;.@.: L. 1rl7aum> .-5> pp. &&L-+F.
,.. Aampman> 8. '23pnoticall3 Induced "ultiple Personalit3: an 1:perimental 0tud3)
E(cta Fniversitatis >ulensis Series ! Medica, ;o J, Psychiatrica ;o < /ulu: =niversit3
of /ulu> .,$F.
-5. Aampman> 8.> and 2irvenoJa> 8. '(3namic 8elation of the 0econdar3 Personalit3
Induced 73 23pnosis to the Present Personalit3) Ein Frankel> F. 2.> and Iamansk3> 2. 0.>
eds.> Hypnosis at Its icentennial$ ;ew Hork: Plenum> .,-F.
-. Aenn3> ". #. '"ultiple Personalit3 and 0pirit Possession) EPsychiatry, .-> %%> pp.
$$,L$&-F.
-!. Aoestler> A. The Roots of Coincidence ELondon: 2utchinson> .,!F.
-$. Aohr> 8. L. 'A 0urve3 of Psi 1:periences among "em7ers of a 0pecial Population)
EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .-5> ,%> pp. $.&L%F.
-%. Aossl3n> 0. ".> and PomerantG> @. 8. 'Imager3> Propositions and the Form of Internal
8epresentations) Ein 9lock> ;.> ed.> Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology I$ London:
"ethuen> .-> pp. &5L+.F.
-&. Lam7ert> #. <. 'An Apparition of a *hild: the *ase of @ohnnie ".) EJournal of the
Society for Psychical Research, .++> %$> pp. %!-L%$F.
-+a. Lam7ert> 2. *. '1:periments in Ps3chic 2ealing 73 Titus 9ull> ".(.) EPsychic
Science, .!,> +> pp. -$L-.F.
-+7. Lam7ert> 2. *. 'The *ase of "r *. 1.> an /7session *ase Treated 73 Titus 9ull>
".(.) EPsychic Science, .!-> ,> pp. .,L!%F.
-,a. Lang> A. Coc- "ane and Common8Sense ELondon: Longmans> #reen [ *o.> -.%F.
-,7. Lang> A. '8eflections on "rs Piper and Telepath3) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research> .55L> &> pp. $.L&!F.
--. Larusdottir> 1. Midillinn Hafteinn 6ornsson EIceland: ;ordri> .%+F.
-.. Leonard> #. /. My "ife in T)o .orlds ELondon: *assell> .$F.
.5. TLewis> 1. 1.U ( Report of the Mysterious ;oises Heard in the House of Mr John !$
Fo+ ' E*anandaigua: 1. 1. Lewis> -%-F.
.. Lewis> 2. (. Persons and "ife after !eath ELondon: "acmillan> .,-F.
.!. Lewis> I. ". 3cstatic ReligionE an (nthropological Study of Spirit Possession and
Shamanism E2armondsworth: Penguin> .,-F.
.$. Lodge> /. Raymond, or "ife and !eath ELondon: "ethuen> .+F.
.%. Long> @. A.> ed. 3+trasensory 3cologyE Parapsychology and (nthropology
E"etuchen> ;.@.: 0carecrow Press> .,,F.
.&. "acAenGie> A. Hauntings and (pparitions ELondon: 2einemann> .-!F.
.+. "agnin> 1. 'XuelMues gu\risons en m\decine ps3chiatriMue dues _ l)emploi des
proc\d\s m\taps3chiMues) Ein Kett> *.> ed.> "e compte8rendu officiel du Premier CongrKs
International des Recherches Psychi2ues L Copenhagen MJ (oNt@M Septem#re &/M&$
*openhagen: Internationale des comit\s pour les recherches ps3chiMues> .!!> pp. $%L
$$$F.
.,. "aher> ".> and 0chmeidler> #. 8. 'Xuantitative Investigation of a 8ecurrent
Apparition) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research> .,&> +.> pp. $%L
$&!F.
.-a. "alcolm> ;. '"emor3 and 8epresentation) E;ous, .,5> %> pp. &.L,5F.
.-7. "alcolm> ;. Memory and Mind EIthaca: *ornell =niversit3 Press> .,,F.
... "arkwick> 9. 'The 0oal-#oldne3 1:periments with 9asil 0hackleton: ;ew 1vidence
of (ata "anipulation) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .,-> &+> pp.
!&5L!,,F.
55. "attiesen> 1. 'A *ase of Telepathic 2allucination) EJournal of the Society for
Psychical Research> .$> +> pp. -L!+F.
5. "illar> 9. ' The /7servational Theories: a Primer) E3uropean Journal of
Parapsychology, .,-> !> pp. $5%L$$!F.
5!a. "ood3> 8. A. "ife after "ife E;ew Hork: 9antam> .,+F.
5!7. "ood3> 8. A. Reflections on "ife after "ife ELondon: *orgi 9ooks> .,,F.
5$. "oore> <. =. The 0oices ELondon: <atts> .$F.
5%. "oreil> A. "a vie et l7oeuvre d7(llan =ardec EParis: 1ditions 0perar> .+F.
5&. "oss> P. and Aeeton> @. 3ncounters )ith the Past E2armonsworth: Penguin> .-F.
5+. "oss> T.> and 0chmeidler> #. 8. 'Xuantitative Investigation of a V2aunted 2ouseW
with 0ensitives and a *ontrol #roup) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical
Research> .+-> +!> pp. $..L%5F.
5,. "uhl> A. ". (utomatic .ritingE an (pproach to the Fnconscious ;ew Hork: 2eli:
Press> .+$F.
5-. "urph3> #. Three Papers on the Survival Pro#lem E;ew Hork: American 0ociet3 for
Ps3chical 8esearch> T.&&UF.
5.. "urph3> #.> and 9allou> 8. /. .illiam James on Psychical Research ELondon:
*hatto and <indus> .+F.
5a. "3ers> F. <. 2. Human Personality and its Survival of odily !eath E! vols.
London: Longmans> #reen and *o.> .5$F.
57. "3ers> F. <. 2. Fragments of Inner "ife ELondon: 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch>
.+F.
. "3ers> F. <. 2.> Lodge> /.> Leaf> <.> and @ames> <. 'A 8ecord of /7servations of
*ertain Phenomena of Trance) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> --.L
.5> +> pp. %$+L+&.F.
!. ;ew7old> <. 8. 'A Further 8ecord of /7servations of *ertain Phenomena of
Trance) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, -.-L.> %> pp. +L%.F.
$. /esterreich> T. A. Possession, !emoniacal and >ther E;ew Hork: 8. 8. 0mith>
.$5F.
%. /s7orn> A. <. The Superphysical ELondon: I. ;icholson and <atson> .$,F.
&. /sis> A.> and 2araldsson> 1. (t the Hour of !eath E;ew Hork: Avon 9ooks> .,,F.
+. /st3> 1. Supernormal Faculties in Man ELondon: "ethuen> .!$F.
,. Pagenstecher> #. 'Past 1vents 0eership: a 0tud3 in Ps3chometr3) EProceedings of
the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .!!> +> pp. L$+F.
-a. Palmer> @. '1:trasensor3 Perception: 8esearch Findings) Ein Arippner> 0.> ed.>
(dvances in Parapsychological Research ME 3+trasensory Perception$ ;ew Hork: Plenum
Press> .,-> pp. &.L!%$F.
-7. Palmer> @. 'A *ommunit3 "ail 0urve3 of Ps3chic 1:periences) EJournal of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research> .,.> ,$> pp. !!L!&F.
-c. Palmer> @. 'Paraps3cholog3 as a Pro7a7ilistic 0cience: Facing the Implications) Ein
8oll> <. #.> ed.> Research in Parapsychology &/I/$ "etuchen> ;.@.: The 0carecrow
Press> .-5> pp. -.L!&F.
.. Penelhum> T. Survival and !isem#odied 3+istence ELondon: 8outledge and Aegan
Paul> .,5F.
!5a. Piddington> @. #. '/n the T3pes of Phenomena (ispla3ed in "rs Thompson)s
Trance) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .5$L%> -> pp. 5%L$5,F.
!57. Piddington> @. #. 'A 0eries of *oncordant Automatisms) EProceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research> .5-> !!> pp. .L%+F.
!5c. Piddington> @. #. 'Three Incidents from the 0ittings: Lethe> the 0i73lN the 2orace
/de Xuestion) *Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> .5> !%> pp. -+L
+.F.
!5d. Piddington> @. #. 'Postscript to the Lethe Incident: ;ote on '/l3mpus)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research> .5> !%> pp. $!,L$!-F.
!. Piper> A. L. The "ife and .or- of Mrs Piper ELondon: Aegan Paul> .!.F.
!!a. Podmore> F. 'Phantasms of the (ead from Another Point of Kiew) EProceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research> -.-L.> %> pp. &5L,5F.
!!7. Podmore> F. '(iscussion of the Trance Phenomena of "rs Piper) EProceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research, -.-L.> %> pp. &5L,5F.
!!c. Podmore> F. Modern SpiritualismE a History and a Criticism E! vols. London:
"ethuen> .5!F.
!!d. Podmore> F. Mesmerism and Christian Science ELondon: "ethuen> .5.F.
!!e. Podmore> F. The ;e)er Spiritualism ELondon: Fisher =nwin> .5F.
!$. Price> 2. 2. '0urvival and the Idea of Another <orld) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, .&$L+> &5> pp. L!&F.
!%. Prince> 8.> ed. Trance and Possession States E"ontreal: 8. ". 9ucke "emorial
0ociet3> .+-F.
!&a. Prince> <. F. 'The (oris *ase of "ultiple Personalit3) EProceedings of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research, .&> .> pp. L,55> and .+> 5> pp. ,5L
%.F.
!&7. Prince> <. F. 'The (oris *ase of Xuintuple Personalit3) EJournal of (#normal
Psychology, .+> > pp> ,$L!!F.
!&c. Prince> <. F. 'Ps3chometric 1:periments with 0enora "aria 8e3es de I.)
EProceedings of the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .!> &> pp. -.L$%F.
!&d. Prince> <. F. '*ertain *haracteristics of Keridical "ediumistic Phenomena
*ompared with those of Phenomena #enerall3 *onceded to 7e Telepathic) Ein Kett> *.>
ed.> "e compte8rendu officiel du Premier CongrKs International des Recherches
Psychi2ues L Copenhague MJ (out@M Septem#re &/M&$ *openhagen: Internationale des
*omit\s pour les 8echerches Ps3chiMues> .!!> pp. 5L!!F.
!&e. Prince> <. F. '0tudies in Ps3chometr3) EProceedings of the (merican Society for
Psychical Research, .!%> -> pp. ,-L$&!F.
!&f. Prince> <. F. The Psychic in the House E9oston: 9oston 0ociet3 for Ps3chic
8esearch> .!+F.
!+. P3l3sh3n> I. '<hat the "ind)s 13e Tells the "ind)s 9rain: a *ritiMue of "ental
Imager3) EPsychological ulletin, .,$> -5> pp. L!%F.
!,. 8adcl3ffe-2all> ".> and Trou7ridge> =. '/n a 0eries of 0ittings with "rs /s7orne
Leonard) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .!5> $5> pp. $$.L&&%F.
!-a. 8ao> A. 8. '0tudies in the Preferential 1ffect. II. A Language 10P Test Involving
Precognition and VInterventionW) EJournal of Parapsychology, .+$> pp. %,L+5F.
!-7. 8ao> A. 8. 'Theories of Psi) Ein Arippner> 0.> ed.> (dvances in Parapsychological
Research ME 3+trasensory Perception$ ;ew Hork: Plenum Press> .,-> pp. !%&L!.&F.
!.. 8hine> L. The Invisi#le PictureE a Study of Psychic 3+periences E@efferson> ;.*.:
"cFarland and *o.> .-F.
$5. 8ichet> *. '?enoglossie> l)\criture automatiMue en langues \trangZres) EProceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research> .5&L,> .> pp. +!L.%F.
$. 8ichmond> I. 3vidence of Purpose ELondon: 9ell> .$-F.
$!. 8ing> A. "ife at !eath E;ew Hork: *oward> "c*ann and #eoghegan> .-5F.
$$. 8ochas> A. de "es vies successives EParis: *hacornac> .F.
$%. 8ogo> (. 0. 'Titus 9ull> American 1:orcist) Ein 17on> ".> ed.> 3+orcismE Fact not
Fiction$ ;ew Hork: 0ignet 9ooks> .,%> pp. +,L,+F.
$&. 83all> 1. <. Second Time Round E@erse3: ;eville 0pearman> .,%F.
$+. 0age> ". Mrs Piper and the Society for Psychical Research ELondon: 9rimle3
@ohnson> .5$F.
$,. 0aha3> A. A. ;. ReincarnationE 0erified Cases of Re#irth after !eath E9areill3: ;.
L. #upta> T.!,UF.
$-a. 0alter> 2. de #. '/n the 1lement of *hance in 9ook Tests) EProceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research> .!$> $$> pp. +5+L+!5F.
$-7. 0alter> 2. de #. '0ome Incidents /ccurring at 0ittings with "rs Leonard which
ma3 Throw some Light on their Modus >perandi' EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research> .$5L> $.> pp. $5+L$$!F.
$-c. 0alter> 2. de #. 'The 2istor3 of #eorge Kaliantine) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research> .$!> %5> pp. $+$L%5F.
$.a. T0alter> <. 2U '*ase of the <ill of "r @ames L. *hallin) EProceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research> .!-> $+> pp. &,L&!%F.
$.7. 0alter> <. 2. 'An 1:periment in Pseudo-0cripts) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research> .!-> $+> pp. &!&L&&%F.
$.c. 0alter> <. 2. 'F. <. 2. "3ers)s Posthumous "essage) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, .&-L+5> &!> pp. L$!F.
%5. 0altmarsh> 2. F. 3vidence of Personal Survival from Cross Correspondences
ELondon: 9ell> .$-F.
%. 0chatGman> ". The Story of Ruth ELondon: (uckworth> .-F.
%!. 0chiller> F. *. 0. 'A *ase of Apparent *ommunication through a Person Living> 7ut
0uffering from 0enile (ementia) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research, .!$>
!> pp. -,L.!F.
%$. 0chmeidler> #. 8. 'Xuantitative Investigation into a '2aunted 2ouse) EJournal of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research, .++> pp. $-L%.F.
%%. 0heldrake> 8. ( ;e) Science of "ife ELondon: 9lond and 9riggs> .-F.
%&a. 0idgwick> 1. ". '(iscussion of the Trance Phenomena of "rs Piper) EProceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research, .55L> &> pp. +L$-F.
%&7. 0idgwick> 1. ". 'A *ontri7ution to the 0tud3 of the Ps3cholog3 of "rs Piper)s
Trance Phenomena) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .&> !-> pp. L
+&,F.
%&c. 0idgwick> 1. ". 'An 1:amination of 9ook-tests /7tained in 0ittings with "rs
Leonard) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .!> $> pp. !%L%55F.
%&d. 0idgwick> 1. ". 'Phantasms of the Living) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, .!$> $$> pp. !$L%!.F.
%+. T0idgwick> 2.> 0idgwick> 1. ".> and @ohnson> A.U '8eport on the *ensus of
2allucinations) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, -.%> 5> pp. !&L
%!!F.
%,. 0oal> 0. #. 'A 8eport on 0ome *ommunications 8eceived through "rs 9lanche
*ooper) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .!&> $&> pp. %,L&.%F.
%-. 'The 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch: /7Jects of the 0ociet3) EProceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research> --!L$> > pp. $L+F.
%.a. 0tanford> 8. #. 'Towards 8einterpreting Psi 1vents) EJournal of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research> .,-> ,!> pp. .,L!%F.
%.7. 0tanford> 8. #. 'The Influence of Auditor3 #anGfeld *haracteristics upon Free-
response 10P Performance) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research,
.,.> ,$> pp. !&$L!,!F.
&5. 0tawell> F. ". 'The 1ar of (ion3sius: a (iscussion of the 1vidence) EProceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research> .-> !.> pp. !+5L!+.F.
&. 0team> @. The Second "ife of Susan ?anier ELondon: Leslie Frewin> .+-F.
&!. 0tevens> 1. <. The .atse-a .onder E*hicago: 8eligio-Philosophical Pu7lishing
2ouse> --,F.
&$a. 0tevenson> I. 'The *om7ination Lock Test for 0urvival) EJournal of the (merican
Society for Psychical Research, .+-> +!> pp. !%+L!&%F.
&$7. 0tevenson> I. 'The 0u7stantialit3 of 0pontaneous *ases) EProceedings of the
Parapsychological (ssociation> .+-> &> pp. .L!-F.
&$c. 0tevenson> I. 'Telepathic Impressions: a 8eview and 8eport of Thirt3-five ;ew
*ases) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .,5> !.> pp. L.-F.
&$d. 0tevenson> I. 'A *ommunicator =nknown to "edium and 0itters) EJournal of the
(merican Society for Psychical Research, .,5> +%> pp. &$L+&F.
&$e. 0tevenson> I. 'A *ommunicator of the '(rop-in) T3pe in France: the *ase of 8o7ert
"arie) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical Research, .,$> +,> pp. %,L,+F.
&$f. 0tevenson> I. OenoglossyE a Revie) and Report of a Case E9ristol: <right> .,%F.
&$g. 0tevenson> I. T)enty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation E*harlottesville:
=niversit3 Press of Kirginia> .,%F.
&$h. 0tevenson> I. Cases of the Reincarnation Type$ 0ol I$ Ten Cases in India
E*harlottesville: =niversit3 Press of Kirginia> .,&F.
&$i. 0tevenson> I. Cases of the Reincarnation Type$ 0ol$ M$ Ten Cases in Sri "an-a
E*harlottesville: =niversit3 Press of Kirginia> .,,F.
&$J. 0tevenson> I. Cases of the Reincarnation Type$ 0ol$ <$ T)elve Cases in "e#anon and
Tur-ey E*harlottesville: =niversit3 Press of Kirginia> .-5F.
&$k. 0tevenson> I. Cryptomnesia and ParapsychologyE Some Ha,ards of Forgotten
=no)ledge ELondon: 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch> forthcomingF.
&%a. 0tevenson> I.> and Pasricha> 0. 'A *ase of 0econdar3 Personalit3 with ?enogloss3)
E(merican Journal of Psychiatry, .,.> $+> pp. &.L&.!F.
&%7. 0tevenson> I.> and Pasricha> 0. 'A Preliminar3 8eport on an =nusual *ase of the
8eincarnation T3pe with ?enogloss3) EJournal of the (merican Society for Psychical
Research, .-5> ,%> pp. $$L$%-F.
&&. 0uringar> @. K. 'A *ase of Thought-transference) *Journal of the Society for
Psychical Research, .!$> !> pp. ,5L,&F.
&+. Tanner> A. 1. Studies in Spiritism E;ew Hork: Appleton> .5F.
&,a. Thomas> *. (. Some ;e) 3vidence for Human Survival ELondon: *ollins> .!!F.
&,7. Thomas> *. (. 'The 9eard *ase) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research,
.!+> !$> pp. !$L$%F.
&,c. Thomas> *. (. 'The Modus >perandi of Trance-communication according to
(escriptions 8eceived through "rs /s7orne Leonard) EProceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research, .!-L.> $-> pp. %.L55F.
&,d. Thomas> *. (. 'A *onsideration of a 0eries of Pro:3 0ittings) EProceedings of the
Society of Psychical Research, .$!L$> %> pp. $.L-&F.
&,e. Thomas> *. (. 'A Pro:3 *ase 1:tending over 1leven 0ittings with "rs /s7orne
Leonard) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$&> %$> pp. %$.L&.F.
&,f. Thomas> *. (. 'A Pro:3 1:periment of 0ignificant 0uccess) EProceedings of the
Society for Psychical Research, .$-L.> %&> pp. !&,L$5+F.
&,g. Thomas> *. (. 'A ;ew T3pe of Pro:3 *ase) EJournal of the Society for Psychical
Research, .$.> $> pp. 5$L5+> !5L!$F.
&,h. Thomas> *. (. 'A (iscourse #iven through "rs Leonard and Attri7uted to 0ir
/liver Lodge) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research, .%&> $$> pp. $%L&+F.
&,i. Thomas> *. (. 'A ;ew 23pothesis concerning Trance *ommunication)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .%+L,> %-> pp. !L+$F.
&-. Thomas> @. F. eyond ;ormal Cognition E9oston: 9oston 0ociet3 for Ps3chic
8esearch> .$,F.
&.a. Thouless> 8. 2. 'A 8eview of "r <hatel3 *arington)s <ork on Trance
Personalities) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .$+L,> %%> pp. !!$L
!,&F.
&.7. Thouless> 8. 2. 'A Test of 0urvival) EProceedings of the Society for Psychical
Research, .%+L.> %-> pp. !&$L!+$F.
+5. Trethew3> A. <. The 4Controls7 of Stainton Moses *London: 2urst and 9lackett>
T.!$UF.
+. Trou7ridge> =. 'The V"odus /perandiW in 0o-called "ediumistic Trance)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, .!!> $!> pp. $%%L$,-F.
+!a. T3rrell> #. ;. ". 'A *ommunicator Introduced in Automatic 0cript) EJournal of the
Society for Psychical Research> .$.> $> pp. .L.&F.
+!7. T3rrell> #. ;. ". 'The V"odus /perandiW of Paranormal *ognition) EProceedings
of the Society for Psychical Research> .%+L.> %-> pp. +&L!5F.
+!c. T3rrell> #. ;. ". (pparitions ELondon: (uckworth> .&$F.
+$. =llman> ".> Arippner> 0.> and Kaughan> A. !ream Telepathy ELondon: Turnstone>
.,$F.
+%a. Kerrall> 2. de #. E"rs <. 2. 0alterF. '8eport on the @unot 0ittings with "rs Piper)
EProceedings of the Society for Psychical Research$ .5> !%> pp. $&L++%F.
+%7. Kerrall> 2. de #. E"rs <. 2. 0alterF. 'The 1lement of *hance in *ross-
correspondences) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research, .> &> pp. &$L,!F
+&. Kerrall> ". de #. 'A Possi7le 8eminiscence of Plotinus in Tenn3son) EModern
"anguage Revie), .5+L,> !> pp. $!,L$$5F.
++. 'Kision during a 0tate of *oma) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research,
.5,> $> pp. -,L.5F.
+,a. <alker> ;. The ridge ELondon: *assell> .!,F.
+,7. <alker> ;. Through a Stranger7s Hands ELondon: 2utchinson> .$&F.
+-. <avell> 0.> 9utt> A.> and 1pton> ;. Trances E;ew Hork: (utton> .++F.
+.a. <est> (. @. 'The Investigation of 0pontaneous *ases) EProceedings of the Society
for Psychical Research, .%+L.> %-> p. !+%L$55F.
+.7. <est> (. @. 'A "ass-o7servation Xuestionnaire on 2allucinations) EJournal of the
Society for Psychical Research, .%-> $%> pp. -,L.+F.
,5. <h3mant> ;. Psychic (dventures in ;e) Bor- ELondon: "orle3 and "itchell>
.$F.
,. <ickland> *. A. Thirty Bears among the !ead ELos Angeles: ;ational Ps3chological
Institute> .!%F.
,!. <ilson> I. Mind out of TimeA ELondon: #ollancG> .-F.
,$a. <ood> F. 2. (fter Thirty Centuries ELondon: 8ider> .$&F.
,$7. <ood> F. 2. This 3gyptian Miracle ELondon: <atkins> .&&F.
,%. Iora7> #. 'A *ase for 0urvival) EJournal of the Society for Psychical Research,
.%5> $> pp. %!L&!F.
C!-$C
Index
Adams> @. *.> +
Aitken> L. #.> &!L&
Ale:ander> P. P.> !$
American 0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch EA0P8F> > !++
Animal "agnetism> !L$
Animism> !!L%> !%!> !%+L,> !+5
Apparitions> &> L%> > !!%L.> !$5L+5
collectivel3 perceived> %> !!&> !$,L%!> !&L!
'crisis)> %> !!&> !&
haunting> !!&> !%!L.
of living> !!$L%> !!+> !&5L> !&!
post-mortem> !!&> !$L%.> !&!
Apparitions> percipients of
*haffin> @. P.> !$$L%
2.> (r> and famil3> !%!L%
2.> Lieut> !$%
2orn73> 0ir 1dmund> !L$
"oore> "iss 0.> !$,
P.> "r and "rs> !$%L&
Xuilt3> "iss 1llen> !$,
Automatic <riting Eillus.F> !+L.
'Automatisms)
"otor> !+L.
0ensor3> !.
Autos ouranos akumon case> -&L,
9alfour> A. @.> +
9alfour> #. <.> ,-> .&> .,L5
9anerJee> 2. ;.> ,,> ,-
9arrett> 0ir <. F.> !%> 5&
9ernstein> ".> +&
9Jornsson> 2afsteinn> +%L,> ,L$
9lackmore> 0. @.> !!5
9ook tests> %,L.
9oGGano> 1.> %%
9rain> and memor3> --L!5
9road> *. (.> .> +> !5
9ull> T.> %.L&5
'*arroll> Lewis)> +
*a3ce> 1.> +%
*hance coincidence h3pothesis> $L&> $&
*hattopadha3a> 9.> +5
'*henoweth)> "rs> see 0oule> "rs ". ".
*lairvo3ance> see 1:trasensor3 perception
*larke> @. T.> $.
*leaveland> "rs <. L.> $5> &$L%
*ocke> @. 8.> $!
*ommunicators> living> $&L-> %$L+> !+&
*ommunicators> mediumistic
Aitken> &!L$> ,$
'AK9)> .
9utcher> 0. 2.> .,L-
'*aeGar> @ulius)> %> &
*hlorine> $!> %
(avis> #ordon> $&L-> !+&
'1liot> #eorge)> &
Feda> %&L&,> .5> > !> &L+
Ferguson> @ohn> $&> !+&
'#rover)> $&
#urne3> 1.> ,->
C!-%C
2o7son> 2. 1.> !&
2odgson> 8.> $+L.> .$L%> $,> !+$
'Imperator)> $&> %> &
@unot> 9ennie> %$L%> .> &
Lodge> @err3> %!L$> ,$
"acaula3> F. <.> &5L!> &&L,
"agnusson> #udni> +$L-
"iller> <. 2.> !&
"3ers> F. <. 2.> ,-> -5L.> .$L,>
;ewlove> 9o77ie> &5> &&L,
';ona)> 5%
Pellew> #eorge E#PF> $%L&> .5> > %L&
'Phinuit> (r)> $!L&> $.> 5$> &> +
'Pop3 0oph3)> !$
Po3nings> 9lanche> +,
8off> "ar3> &+L.
8unolfsson> 8unolfur E'8unki)F> ,L$
'0chura)> ,+L,
0cott> 0ir <alter> $.> %> &
0idgwick> 2.> ,-
'0tock7ridge> 2arr3)> +-L,> ,$
0utton> 'Aakie)> %5L!
Tal7ot> 2.> %-
Tennant> 1. <.> %,L-> %.
Thomas> 1tta> .
Thomas> @ohn> .
Kerrall> A. <.> .,L55> $&
Kerrall> "rs ". de #.> ,
<hite> 1.> .
<illett> 0arah> +!L$
*omputers> -5> ..L!55
'*ontrols)> mediumistic and communicators> $5
status of> 5.L-> %+> !.
*oom7e-Tennant> "rs <. Eillus.F> ,-> .,L5
*ooper> "rs 9lanche> $&L+
*rookes> 0ir <.> +
*ross-correspondences> ,,L-.
*r3ptomnesia> $+L,> +$> 5$> ++L.> -$L%
(avid-;eel> A.> !&-
'(ensmore> "iss) E'2uldah)F> $+L,
(issociation> !-L.> ,-
(odds> 1. 8.> &5L> 5.L5
(orr> #. 9.> .%L+
(owling> Ann> +.L,5
(reams> $L%> !-L.> !L!> !&> ,+
(ropLin communicators> &-L,$> 5L
(ucasse> *. @.> 5$> 5%> +%
1agles> A.> ,
'1ar of (ion3sius) case> .&L5
1ctoplasm> %> 5&
1llis> (. @.> 5&L+
1vans> *.> 5&
1vidence> standards of> .L$
1:trasensor3 perception E10PF> ,> !5> &-L+> 5L$> !L%> $%> !!+> !&+L,
correspondence paradigm> !5> !%L,
transmission paradigm> .L!%
'Fischer> (oris)> see Prince> Theodosia
Fleming> "rs> ,-> -5
Flourno3> T.> ,
Fo:> @. (.> $
Fo:> Aate> $
Fo:> "argaretta> $
Fraud> L!> $&L+> +$> -$
FraGer> @. #.> -
'#.> "r and "rs L.)> +-L.
#arrett> "rs 1.> $5>
#elfand> ".> -
#estsson> A.> +%L,
#i7son> 1. P.> !$
#ifford> 8. 0.> %.L&+
#ladstone> <. 1.> +
#reen> *. 1.> !!5
#udJonsson> 2.> +%L&
#udmundsdottir> #udrun> +%L+
#udmundsson> L.> ,L$
#uirdham> A.> ,!
#urne3> 1.> +> .L> ,-
2all> #. 0.> $&
2allucinations> apparitions and C!-&C /91s as> !!%L.> !$L!> !%,
2araldsson> 1.> +%L,> ,L$
2art> 2.> &> !!$> !$.> !%5
2auntings> &> !%+L,> !+&L+
2eadlam> <.> Muoted> !+$
2odgson> 8. Eillus.F> $$L&> &-
'2olland)> "rs> see Fleming> "rs
2olt> 2.> $!
2ome> (. (.> !$
'2ope> 0tar and 9rowning) case> -5L-&
2ulme> A. @. 2.> 5%
2ume> (.> .L5
23pnotic regression> +%L,
23slop> @. 2.> %.L&+
@aco7son> ;.> !!-
@ames> <. Eillus.F> +> $$> $,L.> -
@ohnson> Alice> ,-> --L.
'@ohnson> "artha)> !!!L$
@ones> 0ir L.> +!L$> %$
@onsdottir> #udrun> +%L+
@ung> *. #.> !%
Aampman. 8.> +,
'Aardec> Allan)> +%
Aeeton> @.> +-> +.
Aoestler> A.> !%
Lang> A.> $!
Muoted>
Leonard> "rs #. /. Eillus.F> !> $5> %&L&,> L$> +L-> .> $&> %+> +%
'Lethe) case> .$L5
Lewis> 1. 1.> $
Lewis> "rs <. 0.> &5L
'Literar3 PuGGles)> .$L5
Lodge> 0ir /. Eillus.F> +> %5> %!L$> %+> %,> ,-> +
"acAenGie> A.> !!5
"agnin> 1.> %-
"aterialiGation> %
"ediumship
clairvo3ant> !&> $L$
direct voice)> !%> %+> 5%L&> 5,> $+
mental> %> !> %L&> !!L$> !&L$> $!L%+
ph3sical> %L&> -> !> !!L%
trance> !.L$> $!L&,
"emor3> !%> --L!$> !++
coding-storage-retrieval model> .5L!5$
genetic> -!L$
"esmerism> !L$
"iracles> 2ume on> .L
"ishra> ". L.> ,,L-5
"orris> 8. L.> !!.
"oses> <. 0.> %
"ultiple personalit3> L$
"3ers> F. <. 2. Eillus.F> +> !-L.> +!> ,-> &+> +$L%> !&5L+5
;ear-death-e:periences E;(1sF> !!L%> !!,L.
;ew7old> <. 8.> $.
/7session> %,L&+> -&L+
/esterreich> T. A.> 5
/sis> A.> !!.> !++
/st3> 1.> $L&> $,> !+&
/uiJa 7oard Eillus.F> !&L+> +-
/ut-of-the-7od3-e:periences E/91sF> !.L!!%> !!,L.> !+&
'/vershadowing)> -> .L%+> &+> -+> !+5> !+&
Pagenstecher> #.> $%
Pal> P.> ,-> -
Palmer> @.> ,> .L!5> $5
'Palm 0unda3) case> --
Parr> @.> +!L$
Pasricha> 0.> &.L+!
Pathak> famil3> ,,L-&
Personalit3> and survival> -L.> $5L$> &,> ,%L&> -.> .5> 5-> $L,> !&> !&.> !+L!
'Phantasmogenetic centres)> !&5L+5
Piddington> @. #.> ,-> -5L-.> .&L+
Piper> "rs L. 1. Eillus.F> !> $5> $!L%%> +!> ,-> -5L-.> .$L,> 5$> L!> .> $&> -+>
!+$
Planchette 7oard> !&L+
Plotinus> -&L,
C!-+C
Podmore> F.> +> $&L+> -$L&> --> !%%L&
Possession> ,> %,> &+L+!
Precognition> see 1:trasensor3 perception
Price> 2. 2.> !&&
Prince> Theodosia> > %5> %
Prince> <. F.> $%> %5L%!
Pro:3 sittings> &5L&,
Psi phenomena> ,
'Ps3chic factor) h3pothesis> .> !+L-
Ps3chokinesis EPAF> ,> !5
Ps3chometr3> $!
Purpose> manifestations of> ,%L-.
8amsden> "iss> !%
'8ath7un)> "rs> &
'8audive voices)> 5&L+
8a3leigh> Lord> +
8eincarnation> +$L-,
8eincarnation> cases>
9i3a/0warnlata> ,,L-&
Fletcher> @ohn/1. <. 83all> ,L!
#anier> 0usan/@oanne "aclver> ,5L
#ottlie7> #retchen/(olores @a3> 5+
@ensen/"rs T. 1.> 5+L,
Aamlesh/0warnlata> -
8off> "ar3/Luranc3 Kennum> &+L.
0harada/=ttara 2uddar> 5+> &.L+!
0o7ha 8am/@as7ir> ,+
<aterhouse> @oan/)@an)> +-
<illiams> 0arah/Ann (owling> +.L,5
8epresentation> !%> --L!5$
8epresentations
propositional> .+L!55
visual and ver7al> .$L.+
8hine> Louisa> !$> !-> %$
8ich> @. 8odgers> $&
8ochas> A. de> +&
8off> A. 9.> &,L-
8oll> <. #.> !!.
'8osemar3)> 5%
8uskin> @.> +
'8uth)> !&,> !&-> !+&
0age> ".> $!
0alter> 2. de #. Eillus.F> %$L%> %.> ,-> -5L-$> +L,> $&
0altmarsh> 2. F.> ,.
'0canning)> !!L%
0chatGman> ".> !&,
0chiller> F. *. 0.> $.
'0evens) case> -$L%> 55
0hamanism> ,L!!
0idgwick> "rs 1. ". Eillus.F> +> %-> ,-> $L-> .> !5> -+
0idgwick> 2.> +> ,-
0kills> survival of> .L!> 5!> 5,L-> $
'0mead)> "rs> see *leaveland> "rs <. L.
'0mith> 2elene)> ,
0oal> 0. #.> $&L-
0ociet3 for Ps3chical 8esearch E0P8F> L!> &L+> %+> ,-L.> !++
0oule> "rs ". ".> $5> > %> %!> &> &$
0piritualism> histor3 of> $L%> !5L!$> 5
0tanford. 8. #.> !%
'0tatius) case> .,
0tawell> "iss F. "elian> 55
0tearn> @.> ,5L
0tevens> 1. <.> &+L,
0tevenson> I.> $> &-> +> +%L,> ,L$> 5+L,> !$> &.L+!> +%> ,!L-,> !+$> !+%> !++
0u7liminal self> !-L.> ,-> --> 55L5
'0uper-10P) h3pothesis> &L+> &$> &+> &-L+> ,5> ,&L+> ..L5> .L%+> !5%> !$L!>
!$&L,> !$.L%!> !%&L+> !%-L.> !+> !+&
0uringar> @. K.> %$
0urvival h3pothesis> &$> &&L,> ,$> ,%L&> $-L.> %5L%!> !5%> !+L%
0utton> 8ev. and "rs 0. <.> %5L%!
Tanner> Am3 1.> $&
Telepath3> see 1:trasensor3 perception
Tenn3son> A.> +> -&L,
Muoted> +> !%+
C!-,C
Testimon3> pro7lems of> .L$> -!
'Tests) of survival> !+$L%
Thomas> *. (ra3ton &5L&+
Thompson> F. L.> %.L&+
'Thompson-#ifford) case Eillus.F> %.L-+> -+
Thompson> "rs 8.> $5> 5$
Thomson> @. @.> +
Thorarenson> 8ev> @.> ,!
Thouless> 8. 2.> !+$
Trou7ridge> =na Lad3> .5L.
Kaliantine> #.> 5&
Kerrall> 2. de #.> see 0alter> 2. de #.
Kerrall> "rs ". de #. Eillus.F> ,-> -5L-.> .&> .,L5
von <iesler> "rs> ,+L,
<allace> A. 8.> +
<atts> #. F.> +
<h3mant> ;.> 5&
<ickland> *. A.> %-
'<illett)> "rs> see *oom7e-Tennant>
"rs <. <ilson> I.> 5+L,> +-> -!
<ingfield> Aate> +!L$> %$
<ood> F. 2.> 5%
<riedt> "rs 1tta> !%> 5&
?enogloss3> 5L5,> &.L+!> -
9ack to 1salen *T8 0cholarl3 8esources