Parapsychology and Sociology

PARAPSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY.
A New Horizons Research Foundation Paper.
October 1987.
ml
m
*i
gi
t
if
mt
^
^
mi
jg'
mt
.^i
Mil
mt
INTRODUCTION.
T h i s paper i s w r i t t e n as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to a Conference
to be h e l d a t New Horizons Research Foundation i n November 1987.
As has been s t a t e d before i n other papers the science o f
parapsychology covers many d i s c i p l i n e s , such as p h y s i c s ,
psychology, philosophy, r e l i g i o n , and s o c i o l o g y .
Sociology
i s d e f i n e d as "The science that t r e a t s o f the o r i g i n and
e v o l u t i o n o f human s o c i e t y and s o c i a l phenomena, the p r o g r e s s
o f c i v i l i s a t i o n , and the laws c o n t r o l l i n g human i n s t i t u t i o n s
and f u n c t i o n s " . (Standard D i c t i o n a r y , C o l l i e r ) .
This,
o f course, covers a v e r y wide area and many aspects o f the
study o f s o c i o l o g y are not i n any way r e l a t e d to parapsychology.
But the body o f knowledge upon which the study of parapsychology
i s based comes from the i n d i v i d u a l experiences o f people
o f a l l races and throughout h i s t o r y .
I t i s a part of
the e v o l u t i o n o f human s o c i e t y , and so p r o p e r l y belongs
under the heading of s o c i o l o g y .
Throughout h i s t o r y people have been r e l a t i n g
events t h a t have happened i n t h e i r l i v e s f o r
f i n d no l o g i c a l or reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n .
have been g e n e r a l l y lumped under the heading
and d e a l t with a c c o r d i n g l y .
accounts of
which they can
These occurrences
o f parapsychology,
I n the b e g i n n i n g years of p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h these
s t o r i e s t o l d by people of strange events were accepted,
and they formed the b a s i s of much of the r e s e a r c h t h a t was
done a t t h a t time.
L a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s became more s c e p t i c a l ,
and they began to want more proof, more evidence, o f the
r e a l i t y o f these experiences, and above a l l they wanted to
be able to produce the e f f e c t s i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g .
People's own p e r s o n a l s t o r i e s were l a b e l l e d " a n e c d o t a l " ,
and r e l e g a t e d to the back pages o f the j o u r n a l s and magazines;
parapsychology became a s c i e n c e , experiments had to be
done i n l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g s , and they had to be reproducable,
to g a i n c r e d i b i l i t y .
The very word "anecdotal" downgraded
the experience, and has done much to take away c r e d i b i l i t y
from the s u b j e c t as a whole.
Now the wheel has turned f u l l c i r c l e , and r e s e a r c h e r s
and experimenters are t u r n i n g again to those "anecdotal"
s t o r i e s , and r e a l i s i n g t h a t they have, f o r many years,
ignored a r i c h source o f knowledge t h a t may h e l p them to
understand the whole s u b j e c t o f p s y c h i c a l r e s e a r c h .
Perhaps a s t a r t should be made by u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t word
f o r p e r s o n a l experiences than " a n e c d o t a l " .
Perhaps t h a t
word should be reserved f o r the f o l k l o r e type of i n c i d e n t ,
and the words " d i r e c t experience" should he used f o r those
accounts that are p e r s o n a l .
The Forteans coined the
phrase ' f r i e n d o f f r i e n d s ' ( f . o . f . s ) to use f o r what we
would c a l l true anecdotal and f o l k l o r e m a t e r i a l .
This
k i n d of s t o r y cannot, u s u a l l y , he t r a c e d "back to i t s
origins;
i t can very o c c a s i o n a l l y be t r a c e d back to an
o r i g i n a l s t o r y that has been 'claimed* by many people
subsequently.
T h i s k i n d o f s t o r y i s u s u a l l y t o l d to the
l i s t e : ner as having happened to a f r i e n d , or a f r i e n d o f
a f r i e n d , or a d i s t a n t r e l a t i v e . I f the l i s t e n e r p e r s i s t s
i n t r y i n g to t r a c e i t s o r i g i n he f i n d s t h a t the f r i e n d
got i t from another f r i e n d , and that f r i e n d heard i t from
someone e l s e , and the o r i g i n can r a r e l y be found. However
the s t o r y i s always t o l d as a p e r s o n a l one.
Readers of
our p r e v i o u s paper Strange and Anomalous Phenomena (January
1985) w i l l remember that we wrote a chapter on Modern Urban
Lege -.nds and Rumours, when we d e s c r i b e d t h i s phenomenon
of modern f o l k l o r e .
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y one cannot p i n p o i n t
the exact date and p l a c e where the events happened, nor
can one i d e n t i f y the a c t u a l person to whom they happened.
But t r u e p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l phenomena are i n a d i f f e r e n t
category. There are thousands of people i n the world
today who have had p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiences, who are
q u i t e w i l l i n g to t e s t i f y p e r s o n a l l y as to what happened,
they can give dates and p l a c e s , and there are f r e q u e n t l y
witnesses to the events.
T h i s experiences should, i n our
o p i n i o n , be l a b e l l e d " d i r e c t experiences" and not confused
with "anecdotal" m a t e r i a l of f o l k l o r e .
As we have s a i d , o f r e c e n t years r e s e a r c h e r s have begun
t u r n i n g once again to a l l the d i r e c t experiences t h a t people
claim to have had i n t h i s f i e l d .
Lawrence Le Shan, i n h i s Book The Science o f the Paranormal,
The L a s t F r o n t i e r , Acquarian Press" 1987) > puts i t t h i s
way "a q u i e t and l i t t l e n o t i c e d process has been g a i n i n g
momentum i n western s c i e n c e . T h i s was the movement away from
the idea that o n l y one model of the u n i v e r s e was necessary
to e x p l a i n a l l of r e a l i t y towards the concept that d i f f e r e n t
models were necessary to d e a l with d i f f e r e n t aspects (realms)
of experience. I t s t a r t e d with Max Planck's demonstration
i n 1900 that the metaphysical system necessary to e x p l a i n
the microcosm (the world of t h i n g s too small f o r the senses
to observe, even t h e o r e t i c a l l y ) and to make i t s data
meaningful ( i . e . t<j» f i n d the laws r e l a t i n g to the data)
was a d i f f e r e n t one from the system necessary and v a l i d f o r
the realm o f experience o f t h i n g s a c c e s s i b l e to the senses.
In h i s words, we l i v e i n a two-tracked u n i v e r s e " . As the
p h y s i c i s t Erwin Schrodinger put i t :
:
'As our mental eye penetrates i n t o s m a l l e r and s m a l l e r
d i s t a n c e s and s h o r t e r and s h o r t e r times, we f i n d nature
behaving so e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t l y from what we observe i n
v i s i b l e and p a l p a b l e bodies o f our surrounding, t h a t no
model shaped a f t e r our l a r g e - s c a l e experiences can ever
be t r u e '
A few years l a t e r , E i n s t e i n showed that a t h i r d system, a
t h i r d model, was necessary f o r t h a t realm of experience which
i n c l u d e d t h i n g s too l a r g e , or going by too f a s t , to be
a c c e s s i b l e to the senses.
None o f these explanatory systems
c o n t r a d i c t each other. They are compatible.
None o f them i s
more or l e s s v a l i d than the o t h e r s : i t i s simply a c c e s s i b l e to
a realm of experience. I n Goethe's words, 'Nature has n e i t h e r
k e r n e l nor s h e l l .
T h i s means t h a t f o r the f i r s t time data
can be examined without preconceptions;
we can examine data
on t h e i r own terms and f o l l o w them to whatever laws they
l e a d us."
1
Our view of s o c i e t y i s coloured very much by our b e l i e f s .
The way we behave i n s o c i e t y i s very much a f f e c t e d by our
beliefs.
B e l i e f systems can be
p e r s o n a l or g e n e r a l , t h a t
i s p e r t a i n i n g to s o c i e t y as a whole.
Personal b e l i e f s
are o f t e n based on one's own p e r s o n a l experience, whereas
g e n e r a l b e l i e f s are based on the experience o f s o c i e t y as a
whole. F o r i n s t a n c e , a person who has experienced more than
t h e i r f a i r share o f p e r s o n a l v i o l e n c e may conclude t h a t we
l i v e i n a v i o l e n t s o c i e t y , and take p r e c a u t i o n s a c c o r d i n g l y ,
whereas s t a t i s t i c s may prove that the s o c i e t y we l i v e i n
i s not i n f a c t more v i o l e n t than i n p r e v i o u s ages, and so
there i s no need to be o v e r l y c a u t i o u s .
How does s o c i e t y
i n g e n e r a l d e a l with those people whose p e r s o n a l experiences
l e a d them to d i f f e r from the g e n e r a l b e l i e f s o f s o c i e t y i t s e l f ?
Sometimes we have the impression t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y i s measured
on a ' s l i d i n g s c a l e ' . Both as i n d i v i d u a l s and as a s o c i e t y
as a whole we have ' l i m i t s ' of b e l i e f .
While we can ' s t r e t c h '
our b e l i e f to c e r t a i n p o i n t s , we w i l l say, there are c e r t a i n
t h i n g s we cannot b e l i e v e .
These l i m i t s can v a r y both
with i n d i v i d u a l s and with the whole o f s o c i e t y .
The l a c k o f b e l i e f i n c e r t a i n p o s s i b i l i t i e s has, o f course,
hindered progress throughout the ages.
How many sentences
could one not w r i t e beginning "For many years i t was not
b e l i e v e d p o s s i b l e that
until
" A
good example was the four-minute m i l e .
U n t i l B a n n i s t e r proved
t h a t a man could run a m i l e i n f o u r minutes i t had been
b e l i e v e d impossible; s i n c e then i t has become commonplace
f o r a t h l e t e s to run a mile i n f o u r minutes.
What are the f a c t o r s t h a t l i m i t one's b e l i e f s , e i t h e r
p e r s o n a l l y , or as a member of s o c i e t y as a whole?
There
are many f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d of course, and we w i l l not be
able to l i s t them here, but perhaps we can touch upon some
that are most r e l e v a n t to the subject under d i s c u s s i o n .
F e a r o f the unknown i s o f course a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r ;
we
cannot b r i n g o u r s e l v e s to b e l i e v e i n something that we
do not understand or cannot comprehend.
F e a r i s a prime
f a c t o r i n the l i m i t a t i o n o f b e l i e f .
As i n d i v i d u a l s , and
as a s o c i e t y , we do not, g e n e r a l l y speaking, l i k e change.
I f b e l i e f i n a h i t h e r t o unaccepted idea w i l l e f f e c t
r a d i c a l changes i n our l i v e s , we would p r e f e r not to b e l i e v e
it.
We do not l i k e to b e l i e v e that some members of our
s o c i e t y might have powers, g i f t s , or a b i l i t i e s , d i f f e r e n t
from the r e s t o f us.
We p r e f e r to b e l i e v e t h a t we are a l l
b a s i c a l l y very much a l i k e .
But above a l l we f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t
to b e l i e v e anything that d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s the known
laws o f science and the universe as we know them today.
At any given p o i n t i n time, s o c i e t y as a whole, seems to
b e l i e v e that i f i t hasn't the answers to a l l problems, a t
l e a s t the problems are known and the methods o f s o l v i n g them
are at hand. I t seems d i f f i c u l t to b e l i e v e that there are
areas yet t o t a l l y unexplored, problems not yet even f a i n t l y
recognized, and answers q u i t e out o f range, that w i l l face
f u t u r e generations of humankind. I think i t was Frances
Bacon who remarked i n the seventeenth century that e v e r y t h i n g
was now d i s c o v e r e d , there was nothing l e f t to dot
However,
h i s t o r y has shown i n the enormous progress that has been made,
and continues to be made, that there are ever 'fresh f i e l d s
to conquer'. H i s t o r y has a l s o shown that, g e n e r a l l y speaking,
the people who are i n the vanguard o f discovery, those who
are p o i n t i n g the way to the next area of experimentation,
those who are l o o k i n g round the next bend, are g e n e r a l l y
derided, and they are not b e l i e v e d .
T h i s has c e r t a i n l y
been true f o r p a r a p s y c h o l o g i s t s , as i t has f o r many other
scientists.
So i n the l i g h t of these remarks, l e t us look at what
experiences some people are having, and see i f they can
g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n of where the science o f parapsychology
should be l e a d i n g us.
Frequency o f D i r e c t Experiences.
From time to time r e s e a r c h e r s i n parapsychology have
attempted to a s c e r t a i n what p r o p o r t i o n o f the g e n e r a l
p o p u l a t i o n experiences paranormal events, and a l s o which
type o f phenomenon i s most commonly encountered.
The f i r s t survey undertaken i n t h i s regard was the one
undertaken i n the v e r y e a r l y days o f the h i s t o r y o f the
S o c i e t y o f P s y c h i c a l Research and conducted by i t s
founders.
I t became known afterwards as the Census o f
H a l l u c i n a t i o n s , and the m a t e r i a l r e c e i v e d from t h i s survey
formed tne o a s i s o f many i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t s i n the
years t h a t f o l l o w e d .
The survey was undertaken i n the
y e a r s 1889-1892.
The main q u e s t i o n read as f o l l o w s :
"Have you ever, when b e l i e v i n g y o u r s e l f to be
completely awake, had a v i v i d impression o f seeing,
or being touched by a l i v i n g being o r inanimate
o b j e c t , o r o f h e a r i n g a v o i c e ; which impression as
f a r as you could d i s c o v e r was not due to any e x t e r n a l
cause?"
I t should, be noted that the e a r l y p s y c h i c a l r e s e a r c h e r s
were p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n p r o o f o f s u r v i v a l , and much
o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h was d i r e c t e d to o b t a i n i n g such p r o o f .
F o r i n s t a n c e , they s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded any attempt to
r e c o r d i n s t a n c e s o f t e l e p a t h y , which they regarded as
o u t s i d e the scope o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r enquiry.
The i n v e s t i g a t o r s r e c e i v e d 17,000 answers to t h e i r
q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a very good response, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h a t
time.
Of the 17,000 answers 2272 were i n the a f f i r m a t i v e ,
but on r i g o r o u s l y s c r u t i n i z i n g the answers and e x c l u d i n g
those n o t f u l l y and c l e a r l y d e a l i n g with a l l the attendant
q u e s t i o n s , the i n v e s t i g a t o r s were l e f t with 353 cases
which they f e l t were t o t a l l y a f f i r m a t i v e .
As a matter
o f i n t e r e s t we might note that they excluded answers t h a t
d e a l t with h a l l u c i n a t i o n s o c c u r i n g duing i l l n e s s e s o f
a k i n d i n which d e l i r i u m i s known to occur;
dream images
and nightmares (even when p e r s i s t i n g i n t o the waking s t a t e ;
v o i c e s r o u s i n g the p e r c i p i e n t from sleep; v i s i o n s o f o b j e c t
seen with c l o s e d eyes; and a number o f other s i m i l a r catego
I t should be noted t h a t t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out
on a p e r s o n a l b a s i s - the members o f the SPR (and some o f
t h e i r f r i e n d s ) c o l l e c t e d the i n f o r m a t i o n , and most o f the
people r e l a t i n g t h e i r experiences t o l d them p e r s o n a l l y to
the q u e s t i o n e r s . Some s t o r i e s were incomplete because the
person concerned had f o r g o t t e n some of the d e t a i l s and
so t h e i r experience was not i n c l u d e d i n the f i n a l count.
As i n a l l such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s the anonymity of the
informant was r e s p e c t e d .
As we have s a i d the r e s u l t s
o f the Census gave r i s e to many a r t i c l e s and hooks "being
w r i t t e n , and was a source of m a t e r i a l f o r many y e a r s .
We o u r s e l v e s are not aware of a s i m i l a r widespread
i n v e s t i g a t i o n b e i n g conducted u n t i l we o u r s e l v e s attempted
a s i m i l a r f e a t i n 1978.
T h i s was conducted d i f f e r e n t l y
from the o r i g i n a l Census o f H a l l u c i n a t i o n s by the S.P.R.
We arranged f o r a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to be p r i n t e d i n a weekly
newspaper which had a wide c i r c u l a t i o n i n North America,
The N a t i o n a l E n q u i r e r .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was accompanied
by an a r t i c l e e x p l a i n i n g the r e s e a r c h nature o f the
p r o j e c t and i n v i t i n g r e p l i e s which would be t r e a t e d i n the
s t r i c t e s t confidence. The questions were wide-ranging,
c o v e r i n g a v a r i e t y of paranormal phenomena, and the
informants were asked to d e t a i l t h e i r experiences on a
separate p i e c e of paper i n t h e i r own words.
The q u e s t i o n s
were as f o l l o w s !
1.
Have you ever seen, heard, smelled, f e l t , or t a s t e d
anything that was not due to any p h y s i c a l cause?
2.
Have you ever had a dream or v i s i o n which came true?
3.
Have you ever bent or moved an o b j e c t s o l e l y by u s i n g
the power o f your mind?
4.
Have you ever had the experience of f l o a t i n g away
from your body?
5.
Have you ever sent messages to someone e l s e or r e c e i v e d
messages u s i n g o n l y the power o f your mind?
6.
Have you ever acawately made a p r e d i c t i o n about an important
event prior to i t s a c t u a l occurrence?
7.
Did you ever get the strong f e e l i n g an event was a c t u a l l y
t a k i n g p l a c e a t t h a t exact moment and then found out l a t e r
i t d i d i n f a c t happen?
8.
Have you ever healed an i n j u r y , or s u c c e s s f u l l y t r e a t e d
i l l n e s s or ailment of someone e l s e u s i n g mind power?
9.
Have you ever seen o b j e c t s move by themselves, or seen
g h o s t l i k e f i g u r e s , or heard unexplained sounds?
10.
Have you ever had experiences or memories of a p r e v i o u s
life?
an
11.
Have you ever experienced, any other strange,
phenomenon?
unexplained
As we have noted the range o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e f a r exceeded
that o f the o r i g i n a l Census o f H a l l u c i n a t i o n s .
We r e c e i v e d
i n r e p l y a t o t a l o f 3,3^-0 l e t t e r s d e t a i l i n g 19,607 experiences
altogether.
( I t should "be noted that whereas the o r i g i n a l
Census o f the S.P.R. engendered 17,000 answers, only 2,272
r e l a t e d a f f i r m a t i v e experiences, whereas our own q u e s t i o n n a i r e
e l i c i t e d i n f a c t 19,607 t o t a l e x p e r i e n c e s ) .
Most o f the
r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e forms wen? accompanied by l e t t e r s
e x p l a i n i n g i n d e t a i l the w r i t e r ' s experiences.
As w i l l be
seen,a l a r g e number o f the respondents were able to answer
i n the a f f i r m a t i v e to more than one q u e s t i o n .
The answers
were d i s t r i b u t e d among the questions roughly i n the p r o p o r t i o n
we have o u r s e l v e s come to expect i n the p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e .
The f i g u r e s were as f o l l o w s :
F o r q u e s t i o n No 1.
2480 people
r e p l i e d i n the a f f i r m a t i v e ;
2. 2599 3. 366
4. 1721 ••
5. 2071 ..
6. 17^3 ••
7. 1886 ..
8. 837 ••
9. 2104
10. I k k 5 -•
11. 2355
Total
19607
G e n e r a l l y speaking we were not able to folbw up more than a
f r a c t i o n o f these s t o r i e s f o r f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n o r
a m p l i f i c a t i o n , ' and i n f a c t have not had the o p p o r t u n i t y o r time
to p u b l i s h much i n the way o f any r e f l e c t i o n on these r e s u l t s .
Approximately one q u a r t e r o f the r e p l i e s came from men (686)
as opposed to 2,619 from women, some people d i d not d i s c l o s e
t h e i r sex when r e p l y i n g .
I t h i n k i t f a i r to say we were
s u r p r i s e d by the number o f people answering a f f i r m a t i v e l y
to No. 3" "the P.K. question, as w e l l as by the number o f
people who claimed to have s u c c e s s f u l y made a p r e d i c t i o n o f
the f u t u r e . Question number 11 was a ' c a t c h - a l l ' question,
and i n c l u d e d many r e p o r t e d UFO s i g h t i n g s .
Other f a c t o r s which
s u r p r i s e d us were the number o f people who reported seeing
l i g h t s - b a l l s o f l i g h t , sparks o f l i g h t , - i n p o l t e r g e i s t
s i t u a t i o n s , a phenomenon with which we were only then becoming
f a m i l i a r , and a l s o the number o f people r e p o r t i n g t e l e p o r t a t i o n
experiences althqmgh we had not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned
t h i s phenomenon. We s h a l l r e t u r n to some o f the a c t u a l
s t o r i e s l a t e r i n t h i s paper.
F i n a l l y , very r e c e n t l y , on Sunday October 11th I 9 8 7 , i n
f a c t , Tom Harpur,. the r e l i g i o u s e d i t o r o f the S t a r newspaper
w r i t e s as f o l l o w s ;
" M i l l i o n s o f North Americans now say they undergo m y s t i c a l
o r p s y c h i c experiences, a c c o r d i n g to p r i e s t - s o c i o l o g i s t
Rev. Andrew G r e e l e y .
These range from ESP (67 p e r cent o f a l l a d u l t s ) to some
form o f c o n t a c t with the dead (42 p e r cent, up 24 p e r cent
from h i s 1975 p o l l ) .
My own r e c e n t i n f o r m a l p o l l i n g o f
r e a d e r s supports these f i g u r e s .
I n a column on J u l y 5 I
asked people to w r i t e s a y i n g whether or not they b e l i e v e i n
l i f e a f t e r death,
As w e l l , I asked, "Have you ever experienced anything that
amo unts to s o l i d evidence ajs f a r as you y o u r s e l f are
concerned?"
The response was almost overwhelming.
Only
about 5 p e r cent s a i d they thought such b e l i e f was nonsense
or w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g .
N e a r l y 200 l e t t e r s a f f i r m e d the deep
c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h i s hope corresponds to an e t e r n a l r e a l i t y .
Of these, more than 50 p e r cent witnessed to an encounter
with dead l o v e d ones.
Some were more c o n v i n c i n g o r
i n e x p l i c a b l e than o t h e r s . But what s t r u c k me most
f o r c i b l y was the way the m a j o r i t y began with some form o f
the f o l l o w i n g ! "I have never t o l d t h i s to anyone b e f o r e ;
i t seemed too p r i v a t e o r e l s e l thought o t h e r s would t h i n k I
was c r a z y . I am only t e l l i n g i t now because you asked.
P l e a s e r e s p e c t my anonymity".
"
Again, Harpur's q u e s t i o n n a i r e l i m i t e d i t s e l f to p r o o f o f
s u r v i v a l o f death, and the c r i t i c i s m might a l s o be l e v e l l e d
t h a t h i s r e a d e r s h i p could q u i t e w e l l be b i a s e d i n f a v o u r
of b e l i e f i n s u r v i v a l , but h i s readers p r o v i d e d him with
what they f e l t was evidence, not j u s t testimony to t h e i r
belief.
I t i s a b s o l u t e l y t y p i c a l o f the m a j o r i t y o f these correspondents
t h a t they do not wish t h e i r i d e n t i t y to be r e v e a l e d ; they
are n o t seeking p u b l i c i t y ? they have a genuine f e a r o f being
thought crazy, and i n the m a j o r i t y o f cases they are seeking
some l o g i c a l and reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the events they
have experienced.
Some magazines and j o u r n a l s , i n p a r t i c u l a r FATE magazine,
p u b l i s h e d monthly i n Highland Park, I l l i n o i s , 60035, f e a t u r e
a r e g u l a r column d e t a i l i n g readers' experiences with the
paranormal.
The j o u r n a l s o f the s o c i e t i e s , (the S.P.R. and
the A.S.P.R.) c a r r y s i m i l a r accounts from time to time,
while the more s t r i k i n g happenings, such as v i o l e n t p o l t e r g e s i t
outbreaks may make the pages o f the n a t i o n a l P r e s s .
Yet, s t r a n g e l y , while the p u b l i c g e n e r a l l y w i l l b e l i e v e
most o f what i t sees i n p r i n t , s t o r i e s o f paranormal events
are l a r g e l y ignored. Those who have had such experiences
believe what they read about o t h e r s ' experiences', those
who have not had a p e r s o n a l experience tend to e i t h e r exclude
them from t h e i r t h i n k i n g o r s u b j e c t them to o u t r i g h t r i d i c u l e .
I t seems c e r t a i n that acceptance o f paranormal events i s
bound up i n one's p e r s o n a l b e l i e f systems, thus i n some
way r e l e g a t i n g them to the area o f r e l i g i o n r a t h e r than
s c i e n c e . And y e t these are not j u s t matters o f f a i t h , i n
f a c t they f r e q u e n t l y have nothing to do with p e r s o n a l f a i t h ,
they are matters o f r e a l i t y and a c t u a l experience.
S t o r i e s o f P e r s o n a l Experiences.
People's p e r s o n a l experiences range, as we have s a i d e a r l i e r ,
over a wide v a r i e t y o f types o f experience. They a l s o
range i n degree.
By t h i s we mean t h a t some people may o n l y
have one o r two experiences i n a l i f e t i m e , whereas others
may have had many many experiences.
I t has been our own
p e r s o n a l experience t h a t when a d d r e s s i n g an audience o f
some 30 people o r more one asks the q u e s t i o n "Have you ever
had an experience you cannot e x p l a i n by normal means?" a t
l e a s t % o r 3 people w i l l r e p l y i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , and
the events w i l l range from the a p p a r e n t l y t r i v i a l to events
which have chamged t h e i r whole l i v e s .
Over the years we have o u r s e l v e s been t o l d some hundreds
o f accounts o f strange t h i n g s t h a t have happened to people,
and the l i t e r a t u r e o f parapsychology c o n t a i n s many hundreds
more, most o f them w e l l a t t e s t e d , and many o f them having
been thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e d .
We w i l l r e l a t e a few o f the
more t y p i c a l ones i n the f o l l o w i n g pages.
Perhaps the most commonly r e l a t e d experience i s t h a t o f seeing
a ghost, o r a p p a r i t i o n , and o f course many o f these are
s u b j e c t i v e experiences. A t y p i c a l s t o r y i s the f o l l o w i n g ,
which appeared i n the SPR Newsletter, January
1987.
E n t i t l e d The G l i d i n g Grey Lady, i t reads as f o l l o w s :
"In the l a t e autumn o f 1973 when I was 19 years o l d , I r e t u r n e d
one evening to the London H o s p i t a l , Whitechapel, where I
was t r a i n i n g to be a nurse.
I was walking down Houndsditch
towards M d g a t e from Bishopsgate.
I t was almost dark, j u s t
a f t e r n i g h t f a l l , and the s t r e e t was w e l l l i t with s t r e e t lamps.
I was f a i r l y a l e r t — n e c e s s a r y when walking through London s t r e e t s
alone a t n i g h t .
I t was a Sunday evening and there were a
few o t h e r people around. As I walked along I saw a woman walking
towards me.
She wore a c r i n o l i n e dress very f u l l and
e l a b o r a t e l i k e h e r h a i r s t y l e , with i t s r i n g l e t s and c u r l s
dressed high on h e r head.
I thought she must be on h e r way
to a fancy dress p a r t y but i t seemed strange t h a t she was on
her own.
As she approached and passed me I n o t i c e d s e v e r a l
more t h i n g s t h a t made me wonder i f she were ' r e a l ' .
Firstly,
no one e l s e i n the road looked a t her.
Secondly, she had a
v e r y s e r i o u s deadpan expression, which would have been unusual
i f she were 'dressed up'; t h i r d l y , she made no eye c o n t a c t
with me a t a l l - j u s t looked s t r a i g h t ahead (I would have
expected h e r to be s l i g h t l y embarrassed to meet someone as she
was l o o k i n g so s t r a n g e ) . F o u r t h l y she appeared to be grey a l l
over.
Under sodium l i g h t s c o l o u r s a l t e r I know, but h e r
appearance was very d i f f e r e n t from others I had passed d u r i n g
my walk.
Her c o l o u r i n g was a l t o g e t h e r p a l e r , and h e r h a i r ,
s k i n and c l o t h e s were a l l the same shade. F i n a l l y , the
s t r a n g e s t t h i n g I n o t i c e d was t h a t she had no g a i t a t a l l .
She looked as i f she had skates on under h e r voluminous s k i r t s
and was r o l l i n g along.
She went by as n o i s e l e s s l y as i f she
were g l i d i n g .
Once she had passed me I was q u i t e taken aback t r y i n g to f i t
a l l the images together. I should have turned around to look
a t h e r but I t h i n k a mixture o f shock and f e a r p l u s not wanting
to appear c h i l d i s h f o r s t a r i n g made me walk very q u i c k l y ahead.
I d i d glance around a few minutes l a t e r but could see no s i g n
o f her, only other p e d e s t r i a n s , a l l normal-looking.
I hope I have r e t o l d my experience a c c u r a t e l y and without
embellishment.
I have t o l d very few people o f my experience
because I cannot put i t under the heading o f 'ghost'.
However,
I have not experienced anything l i k e i t before o r s i n c e .
I have pondered on the mystery f o r 13 years and s t i l l
cannot decide i n my own mind i f she was a r e a l person o r not.
I wish I had had the presence o f mind to reach out and
touch her;
t h i s might have s e t t l e d the i s s u e . "
The l e t t e r i s signed with the w r i t e r ' s name and address i n
t h i s case. I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case i t should be noted t h a t
the p e r c i p i e n t h e r s e l f i s d o u b t f u l as to whether what she saw
was a 'ghost' o r not, but i n view o f the behaviour o f the
o t h e r people on the s t r e e t , and the o v e r a l l 'grey' c o l o u r o f
the a p p a r i t i o n , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t i t was no r e a l person
t h a t she saw on the s t r e e t .
I t i s not a t a l l uncommon
f o r people to have only one such experience, with no apparent
reason why they should see a ghost a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r time.
I t i s important a l s o to r e a l i s e t h a t the g r e a t e r number
o f ghosts or a p p a r i t i o n s that people see are not o f the
dramatic v a r i e t y we are l e d to b e l i e v e when reading f i c t i o n ,
but are more f r e q u e n t l y taken to be ' r e a l ' people i n normal
surroundings, u n t i l something about t h e i r appearance, or
the circumstances, l e a d s the viewer to r e a l i s e that they are
not l i v i n g human beings. A l s o , although ghosts tend to
appear a t times o f s t r e s s , or i l l n e s s on the p a r t o f the viewer,
i t sometimes happens that there i s no apparent reason, as
i n the case mentioned above, f o r the person to see a ghost.
P o l t e r g e i s t outbreaks are much more common than i s g e n e r a l l y
realised.
I t i s o n l y the prolonged and v i o l e n t type o f
happening t h a t reaches the pages o f the d a i l y newspaper;
t h i s kind o f phenomenon i s d i f f i c u l t to conceal, but most
people who experience minor outbreaks w i l l go to almost any
l e n g t h to hide from t h e i r neighbours and f r i e n d s what i s
happening to them.
The people who s u f f e r such an outbreak
are u s u a l l y f r i g h t e n e d , uncomfortable, bewildered, and they
only want to know 'how to make i t go away'.
Sometimes we
have had as many as three or f o u r people a week seeking our
help and advice i n a p o l t e r g e i s t case. They come to us because
t h e y r e a l i s e we understand what i s happening, and we w i l l
not d i s b e l i e v e them, or t e l l them they are crazyj
Because
t h i s has been a s p e c i a l area o f study with us we have been
the r e c i p i e n t s o f a l a r g e number of v a r i e d s t o r i e s .
As
the reader w i l l know from our p r e v i o u s w r i t i n g s i n a l l the
cases which we have s t u d i e d over the years some form of
s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n surrounding the people concerned i s
present.
The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g about p o l t e r g e i s t r y i s that i t can take
so many forms;
sometimes a number of the v a r i o u s phenomena
w i l l be present, a t others only one o f many p o s s i b l e phenomena
occurs.
We have l i s t e d i n other p l a c e s the many t h i n g s
t h a t can happen i n a p o l t e r g e i s t s i t u a t i o n , n o i s e s , sounds
o f f o o t s t e p s , o b j e c t s moving, b e l l s r i n g i n g , v o i c e s heard,
l i g h t s f l a s h i n g on and o f f , b a l l s o f l i g h t appearing, o b j e c t s
appearing and d i s a p p e a r i n g , and so on.
I t i s hard to choose
examples, but one o f the e a r l y accounts t h a t was given to
me was t y p i c a l .
I was at the time working as a c o u n s e l l o r
with a group of d i v o r c e d women who were needing help i n
d e a l i n g with t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s response to the d i v o r c e .
One of these women came to me one day (she d i d not a t t h a t time
know o f my i n t e r e s t i n parapsychology, and indeed h e r s e l f
knew n o t h i n g of the s u b j e c t ) .
She r e l a t e d the f o l l o w i n g
event.
She and her husband had had a v i o l e n t argu?ment
two days p r e v i o u s l y , i n f r o n t of t h e i r teenage daughter,
who was very upset over the p a r e n t s ' impending s e p a r a t i o n .
The husband l e f t the house i n a rage, f o l l o w e d s h o r t l y
afterwards by h i s wife, l e a v i n g the daughter s i t t i n g alone
at the b r e a k f a s t t a b l e .
When the mother returned l a t e r
she t o l d me she found the g i r l , 'as white as a sheet' w a i t i n g
o u t s i d e the house. When questioned she s t a t e d that a f t e r the
p a r e n t s had l e f t a l l the doors i n the house opened and slammed
shut with a l o u d n o i s e , although there was no wind.
She
then s a i d t h a t her mother's bag ffif k n i t t i n g , which had been
s i t t i n g on a c h a i r i n the d i n i n g room, s l o w l y rose and f l o a t e d
through the open hatch i n t o the k i t c h e n and r e s t e d upon
the top o f the garbage c o n t a i n e r . When the mother went
i n t o the house t h i s was indeed where she found i t .
The
mother's r e a c t i o n was that the g i r l had become m e n t a l l y i l l ,
and needed p s y c h i a t r i c treatment.
She was q u i t e s u r p r i s e d
when I took the matter very calmly, and e x p l a i n e d about
poltergeistry.
I advised that i f the s i t u a t i o n of s t r e s s
w i t h i n the f a m i l y was r e s o l v e d , then there wwould l i k e l y
be no more t r o u b l e ;
t h i s was indeed the case. As a r e s u l t
of t h i s episode I was asked to g i v e a t a l k to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
group about p o l t e r g e i s t phenomena, and the r e l a t i o n o f
s t r e s s to these outbreaks. I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to d i s c o v e r
t h a t q u i t e a number o f the members had had p o l t e r g e i s t
experiences o f one s o r t or another a t the times when the
s t r e s s o f t h e i r s i t u a t i o n was a t i t s worst.
Commonly
they r e p o r t e d t h i n g s such as l i g h t switches going on and o f f
as they passed, n o i s e s heard, such as f u r n i t u r e b e i n g dragged,
or f o o t f a l l s , and o b j e c t s being moved.
The above i s a very t y p i c a l example of p o l t e r g e i s t r y i n
a s i t u a t i o n where the people concerned have never been e s p e c i a l l y
i n t e r e s t e d i n the s u b j e c t ; indeed i n t h i s case they d i d
not even know the word, and they were t o t a l l y unable to
understand what was happening.
Such cases are happening a l l
the time.
An i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of many modern p o l t e r g e i s t cases i s
the f a c t that modern e l e c t r i c a l apparatus i s o f t e n put out o f
commission;
we have been f a m i l i a r f o r some time with tape
r e c o r d e r s m a l f u n c t i o n i n g i n the presence o f a p o l t e r g e i s t
person, and we are aware that strange t h i n g s happen a t times
with cameras.
More r e c e n t l y we have had r e p o r t s o f computers
m a l f u n c t i o n i n g d u r i n g a p o l t e r g e i s t episode.
S e v e r a l people
wrote o f t h i s phenomenon i n answer to our q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The f o l l o w i n g case i s worth quoting i n f u l l ;
i t was p u b l i s h e d
i n J u l y 1987 i n the SPR Newsletter.
"Most o f the f o l l o w i n g events took p l a c e i n an o f f i c e
measuring about 14 f o o t by 9 f o o t with one door and p a r t i a l
glass partitioning.
They happened only when a young man i n
h i s "twenties ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "X") was i n or near the
office.
S i m i l a r events occurred i n another a d j o i n i n g o f f i c e
when "X" was present'.' (There f o l l o w s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the
arrangements o f the o f f i c e , accompanied by a sketch).
"The f i r s t PK event was while I was s i t t i n g at my desk.
Suddenly the p l a s t i c cap o f a soap d i s p e n s e r f l e w p a s t me
a p p a r e n t l y from the d i r e c t i o n o f the doorway, f a l l i n g on the
f l o o r behind me.
As someone happened to be passing along
the c o r r i d o r outside at the time I assumed he had done i t f o r a
joke;
but when questioned he vehemently denied i t .
The cap
proved to have come from the t o i l e t behind the cupboards.
(Note: these cupboards were behind the w r i t e r ' s desk, and
opposite the door.)
From then on f o r about two weeks there
was a continuous shower o f small a r t i c l e s i n c l u d i n g c o i n s ,
most o f which were of the value o f 2p and o f date p r i o r to
t h a t o f the events.
I e v e n t u a l l y had q u i t e a c o l l e c t i o n o f
these a r t i c l e s which I kept i n my drawer. Along the c o r r i d o r
j u s t beyond the l a v a t o r i e s was a d r i n k s d i s p e n s e r f o r which
2p c o i n s were r e q u i r e d .
Three events I remember most v i v i d l y :
(1) I was s i t t i n g at the t a b l e i n the o f f i c e when before my
eyes about two f e e t away a piece o f wood m a t e r i a l i s e d out o f
t h i n a i r , and f l o a t e d s i l e n t l y to the ground.
I p i c k e d i p up
and found i t to be a p e r f e c t l y normal p i e c e of wood.
What
I n o t i c e d p a r t i c u l a r l y was that i t f e l l at constant v e l o c i t y , not
a c c e l e r a t i n g as an object normally does under g r a v i t y .
(2) I was s i t t i n g at my desk when there was a tremendous crack
l i k e a r i f l e shot, and a 2p c o i n f e l l to the f l o o r .
The
n o i s e unnerved me and I jumped up from my desk and moved
to the doorway.
There f o l l o w e d two more loud "cracks" and
two more 2p c o i n s appeared on the f l o o r , behind my desk. I
was q u i t e f r i g h t e n e d because I thought the c o i n s were h i t t i n g
the g l a s s p a r t i t i o n and I was a f r a i d the g l a s s would s h a t t e r .
However, w h i l s t standing i n the doorway there was another
loud crack and I was f o r t u n a t e to a c t u a l l y see a c o i n m a t e r i a l i s e
out o f t h i n a i r and slowly drop to the ground. I then
r e a l i s e d t h a t the noise I had heard was not t h a t Of c o i n s h i t t i n g
the g l a s s but t h a t of the c o i n s m a t e r i a l i s i n g .
(3) The f o l l o w i n g i n c i d e n t was perhaps the most s p e c t a c u l a r
of a l l .
A s e n i o r colleague o f mine came i n t o the o f f i c e .
I was s i t t i n g a t my desk and X was at the o t h e r end.
I t was
time f o r me to go to lunch so I rose from my c h a i r and moved
through the doorway i n t o the c o r r i d o r l e a v i n g my colleague i n
the o f f i c e .
At the moment when I had almost c l o s e d the door
and was standing i n the c o r r i d o r there was a tremendous crack.
I opened the door and I immediately n o t i c e d a t e r r i b l e smell
of r o t t e n eggs; and l y i n g on the f l o o r was a s t a p l e remover
which c e r t a i n l y had not been there a few moments b e f o r e .
I went to my desk, which was locked, opened the drawer where
I kept my s t a p l e remover and found i t was no longer there.
I am sure the one on the f l o o r was mine as i t had c e r t a i n damage
to i t which would be u n l i k e l y to be d u p l i c a t e d on another.
My colleague p i c k e d ib up and r e p o r t e d i t was at normal
temperature.
A f e a t u r e o f the phenomena was t h a t whenever X used the
computer t e r m i n a l i n my o f f i c e i t would e v e n t u a l l y "crash"
a f t e r a short time. My colleague reported t h a t once i n
h i s own o f f i c e he was t a l k i n g on the telephone when X came i n .
As he d i d so i n t e r f e r e n c e noise s t a r t e d i n the earpiece and
the n e a r e r X appraached the l o u d e r i t became u n t i l i t was
impossible to hear the person a t the other end of the l i n e .
I o f f e r no e x p l a n a t i o n of the above phenomena, but merely
r e c o r d what I saw and heard.
Needless to say*there were many
who r e f u s e d to b e l i e v e any of the events could a c t u a l l y have happened
and I count myself f o r t u n a t e that the major event occurred
while I was o u t s i d e the o f f i c e and i n the presence o f my
s e n i o r c o l l e a g u e who was an i n i t i a l u n b e l i e v e r .
To my layman's mind i t seems that d u r i n g PK a c t i v i t y when
an o b j e c t m a t e r i a l i s e s the process, whatever i t may be,
produces a loud noise s i m i l a r I suppose to the sonic boom.
So f a r as I am aware no o b j e c t s d e m a t e r i a l i s e d .
All
the phenomena ceased completely
when X l e f t the Company."
I quoted the above account as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of i n t e r f e r e n c e
with computers and telephones during a p o l t e r g e i s t outbreak, but
o f course, the reader w i l l have been aware that another
phenomenon was e s p e c i a l l y to the f o r e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
case, that o f t e l e p o r t a t i o n .
On a c r e d i b i l i t y s c a l e t e l e p o r t a t i o n i s perhaps the most
d i f f i c u l t phenomenon to b e l i e v e . The most experienced
p a r a p s y c h o l o g i s t s f i n d i t a d i f f i c u l t p i l l to swallow, and
i t has been l a r g e l y ignored as a phenomenon f o r much o f the
time. But i t i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore. Accounts o f
t e l e p o r t a t i o n s occur c o n t i n u a l l y , r i g h t through the l i t e r a t u r e
and, as i n the case quoted a o o v e i n modern s i t u a t i o n s .
Moreover i t seems to happen i n i s o l a t i o n , i n much the
same way as many people r e p o r t j u s t one i s o l a t e d p o l t e r g e i s t
effect.
In t h i s paper f o r the sake o f c l a r i t y I w i l l
use the word t e l e p o r t a t i o n to cover both the i n e x p l i c a b l e
appearance, as w e l l as disappearance o f o b j e c t s ;
these
o b j e c t s are g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d to as 'apports*.
;
?
T e l e p o r a t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t from the movement o f o b j e c t s that
occurs i n p o l t e r g e i s t s i t u a t i o n s , although f r e q u e n t l y both
types of phenomenon are present.
A t e l e p o r t e d o b j e c t may
vanish, never to reappear, or by c o n t r a s t an o b j e c t t o t a l l y
u n f a m i l i a r to the r e c i p i e n t may suddenly appear b e f o r e h i s o r
her a s t o n i s h e d eyes, as i n the case r e l a t e d above.
We
have had some very p u z z l i n g cases reported to us over the
years by people whose honesty i n r e p o r t i n g i s impossible to
doubt. A s t r i k i n g case was t h a t o f a l a d y i n a small town
i n England some twenty years ago who t o l d us that she had
bought a new s u i t to attend a wedding, and hung i t i n her
wardrobe a few weeks before the wedding. On the day she
went to her wardrobe, o n l y to f i n d the s u i t had gone.
She
searched high and low, to no a v a i l .
The apparent t h e f t
was r e p o r t e d to the p o l i c e , although n o t h i n g e l s e was taken,
and they had not been aware o f a b r e a k - i n .
Some months
l a t e r the f a m i l y moved,: and the wardrobe was to go with the
furniture.
I t was emptied, and the c l o t h e s packed separately?
the wardrobe was too l a r g e to be t r a n s p o r t e d down the s t a i r s
i n one p i e c e , so i t was dismantled, and reassembled i n the
new home. When the l a d y opened the door i n her new home to
r e p l a c e her c l o t h e s , to her astonishment there was her new
wedding s u i t , hanging alone i n the wardrobe. Of course the
moving men d e c l a r e d i t was empty when they had reassembled
the wardrobe i n i t s new s i t u a t i o n .
A neighbour o f ours
here i n Toronto, who has no p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n parapsychology,
l o s t a costume i n s i m i l a r circumstances some three y e a r s
ago.
She had bought i t f o r a s p e c i a l occasion, and when she
went to put i t on on the n i g h t i n q u e s t i o n i t had disappeared
from her c l o s e t .
Again there was no evidence that i t might
have been s t o l e n .
That p a r t i c u l a r costume has not y e t
reappeared.
Dr. Brunvand, the P r e s i d e n t o f the American
F o l k l o r e S o c i e t y t e l l s us of one o f h i s correspondents who
wrote to him o f a mysterious appearance o f some c l o t h i n g .
T h i s p a r t i c u l a r lady was n u r s i n g her t o t a l l y bedridden mother
i n her home i n a remote country area.
On the afternoon i n
q u e s t i o n , a f t e r s e t t l i n g her mother down f o r a sleep, she
sat a t her desk, which overlooked the one lane which l e d to
the house to do some w r i t i n g .
She had been wishing as she
tended her mother that she could go i n t o town and buy her
mother some new d r e s s i n g gowns, her c u r r e n t b e d c l o t h i n g was
g e t t i n g r a t h e r worn. During the course o f the a f t e r n o o n she
heard a r a t t l i n g i n her mother's room, but i t was a small
sound and she d i d n ' t i n v e s t i g a t e .
L a t e r , when her mother
was awake she went i n , and i n the course o f a t t e n d i n g to her
mother she opened the c l o s e t door, o n l y to f i n d s e v e r a l new
and b e a u t i f u l nightgowns hanging on the r a i l .
She r e a l i z e d t h a t
the small sound she had heard was l i k e to the noise a hanger
might make on the r a i l s .
Her mother was t o t a l l y bedridden,
and nobody to her c e r t a i n knowledge had approached the house
that a f t e r n o o n .
I t happens t h a t these three s t o r i e s r e l a t e to the disappearance
and appearance o f c l o t h i n g , but any o b j e c t can be the focus
o f such phenomena.
We a l l know how easy i t i s to misplace
keys, and perhaps we might tend to d i s c r e d t i t a s t o r y about
the l o s s and reappearance o f keys, but we were struck by
one account g i v e n us.
The lady i n question kept the keys
to her o f f i c e and her c a r keys on the same r i n g .
On t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r day she had d r i v e n to her o f f i c e , locked her
car, and used the keys to go i n t o the o f f i c e (she worked
alone).
On l e a v i n g f o r the day she could not f i n d the
keys i n order to l o c k the o f f i c e and r e t u r n homej
finally
she wandered over to her car, wondering i f by chance she
had a t l e a s t l e f t i t unlocked and could go home, only to see
on the seat o f the car, which was locked, the bunch o f m i s s i n g
keys.
She could not have locked the car, o r opened the o f f i c e
without the keys, and y e t there they were i n s i d e the locked
car, i n p l a i n view on the seat.
When she f i n a l l y got the
car undone, and a r r i v e d home she s a i d "on the k i t c h e n t a b l e ,
i n a heap, were a number of o b j e c t s which had gone m i s s i n g
over the past few months.
Most o f them I had not bothered
about, b e l i e v i n g they would turn up again sometime, they
had been misplaced, and together with them were a number
o f o b j e c t s I had not r e a l i s e d were missing, and some I
d i d not recognise at a l l " .
I t was as i f some agency had
gathered up a bunch o f transported o b j e c t s and returned them
i n a heap.
T h i s i s another c h a r a c t i s t i c o f t e l e p o r t a t i o n ;
f r e q u e n t l y m i s s i n g a r t i c l e s are returned i n a bunch, a l t o g e t h e r ,
as i f they had been gathered i n some kind o f 'storeeoom!
i n another dimension.
In most cases the o b j e c t s appear o r disappear without
the a c t being seen by the people around, but that i s not
always the case.
I wonder whether i t i s more d i s c o n c e r t i n g
to see something vanish, or to see something suddenly appear
before your eyes? I remember the t o t a l astonishment i n the
v o i c e o f a person who r e l a t e d to me o f an occasion when he
was u s i n g a small penknife to cut the root o f a p l a n t , when
suddenly the k n i f e vanished from h i s hand, and the t o t a l
i n c r e d u l i t y i n the account given by a lady who was r e p l a c i n g
a l i g h t bulb, when suddenly the l i g h t bulb was no longer i n
her hand - i t had ' d e m a t e r i a l i s e d ' .
When t h i n g s reappear
they u s u a l l y seem to drop g e n t l y from the c e i l i n g , not a c t i n g
as i f they are thrown, but people d e s c r i b e them as g e n t l y
f l o a t i n g to the ground.
Some people, l i k e the man i n the
e a r l i e r s t o r y who saw the 2p p i e c e s m a t e r i a l i s e have a c t u a l l y
seen the o b j e c t s appearing.
G e n e r a l l y they appear completely,
but we have a l e t t e r from one lady who said she saw a book
g r a d u a l l y appear - cover f i r s t .
She said the book had been
missed and had been searched f o r . T h i s r a t h e r reminds one
of the Cheshire Cat i n A l i c e i n Wonderland whose face
g r a d u a l l y vanished u n t i l only the g r i n was l e f t .
Lewis
C a r r o l l , author o f A l i c e was o f course i n t e r e s t e d i n p s y c h i c
r e s e a r c h , and a member o f the S o c i e t y f o r P s y c h i c a l Research.
DISCUSSION.
While one c o u l d e a s i l y d i s c o u n t the odd i n d i v i d u a l s t o r y
as being the exaggeration o f a f a n c i f u l mind, o r an embroidered
v e r s i o n o f a s i m p l e r t r u t h , i t i s impossible to d i s m i s s
a l l the accounts that have been g i v e n o f a l l these phenomena.
Together they make up a body o f evidence which cannot
be d i s c o u n t e d .
Simply because we f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to
encompass these s t o r i e s i n our p r e s e n t b e l i e f system we
cannot a f f o r d to ignore them.
They are a p a r t o f our
c u l t u r e , our s o c i e t y , our s o c i o l o g i c a l p a t t e r n , whether
we l i k e i t o r n o t .
Whether we l i k e i t o r not a l a r g e
p a r t o f our s o c i e t y has experiences that are not c u r r e n t l y
accepted by the s c i e n t i f i c community, o r by some o t h e r s .
As regards the " s c i e n t i f i c community" o r to put i t more
b r o a d l y "the corpus o f o f f i c i a l knowledge" we have to be
fair.
Modern science i n England and France had i t s b i r t h i n
a p e r i o d c h a r a c t e r i s e d by two f r i g h t e n i n g t h i n g s , on the one
hand was a host o f s u p e r s t i t i o n s l e a d i n g to w i t c h c r a f t
p e r s e c u t i o n s , t o r t u r e and death, on the o t h e r r e l i g i o u s
i n t o l e r a n c e l e a d i n g to p e r s e c u t i o n s f o r heresy* t o r t u r e and
death, and furthermore to a t r o c i o u s wars o f r e l i g i o n .
These
h o r r o r s ceased i n t o t a l i t y l e s s than three c e n t u r i e s ago.
An i m p a r t i a l person can t h e r e f o r e sympathize to an a p p r e c i a b l e
degree with the u l t r a s c i e n t i f i c a t t i t u d e that bans even the
mere d i s c u s s i o n o f the paranormal.
One may a l s o sympathize to some e x t e n t with C h r i s t i a n c l e r g y
i n most c o u n t r i e s who (with a very few honourable exceptions
i n North America and B r i t a i n ) t o t a l l y ignore the whole f i e l d
o f the paranormal.
Now, i n s t e a d o f being top dogs, as they
were not so l o n g ago, they have, i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , to keep a
low p r o f i l e .
Otherwise past excesses o f r e l i g i o u s z e a l , super
p a t r i o t i s m , and the d i s m a l r e c o r d o f dogmatism, p e r s e c u t i o n ,
and i n t o l e r a n c e , might be thrown i n t h e i r f a c e .
One could say t h a t , however i t might be amongst laymen, i n
the p r o f e s s i o n a l c l a s s e s i n regard to p o s s i b l e t h i n g s beyond
our p r e s e n t m o r t a l ken, an u n e n t e r p r i s i n g c a u t i o n r e i g n s .
Because the world i s i n h a b i t e d by a c t u a l people and not by
standard textbooks, strange r e a l i t i e s p e r p e t u a l l y keep b r e a k i n g
i n whatever the B r i t i s h M e d i c a l J o u r n a l . The J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y ,
The Church T i m e s , o r the V a t i c a n might say.
The p l i g h t o f t h © s e
persons who experience paranormal phenomena which are not o f
p s y c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l o r i g i n i s o f t e n a very miserable one.
Often t h e i r medical a d v i s e r s are q u i t e u n h e l p f u l whether i t be
a case o f mental impressions o r o f a p o l t e r g e i s t outbreak.
The l o c a l c l e r g y a r e , on the whole, even more blank and
i n d i f f e r e n t than the f a m i l y d o c t o r s or p s y c h i a t r i s t s .
It
should be s a i d t h a t i n Toronto a t l e a s t there i s a commendable
l e a v e n i n g o f p h y s i c i a n s who w i l l take the t r o u b l e to l i s t e n
to t h e i r p a t i e n t s and who can recognise a paranormal event
when i t i s d e s c r i b e d to themi
Even they are few i n number.
S i m i l a r l y as regards to the c l e r g y , nothing i n our experience
over n e a r l y two decades encourages us to suppose t h a t more
than a h a n d f u l o f m i n i s t e r s i n t h i s m e t r o p o l i s have the
s l i g h t e s t i n k l i n g as to what the subject i s about.
In
f a i r n e s s one might ask whether o r not a b e l i e f i n the paranormal
i s not i n f a c t harder f o r a c l e r i c than f o r a l a y s c i e n t i s t ?
T h i s may seem a strange q u e s t i o n to ask.
However i t may
become i n t e l l i g i b l e i f we r e f l e c t that these good people may
f e a r parapsychology as a c r i t i q u e o f r e l i g i o n . The methods
o f our s c i e n c e , f o r such i t i s , e n t a i l the minute examination
o f the a l l e g e d processes o f r e v e l a t i o n , v i s i o n , and m i r a c l e s .
Orthodox science mainly l a y s o f f t h i s kind o f c r i t i c i s m on account
o f a k i n d o f t a c i t t r e a t y between science and formal Western
r e l i g i o n entered i n t o by about 1900 A.D.
But parapsychology,
( q u i t e i n n o c e n t l y and without meaning to) by i t s very nature
and type o f a n a l y s i s cuts n e a r e r to the bone.
It treats
r e l i g i o u s h i s t o r y as being on a p a r with any o t h e r form o f
h i s t o r y , a l b e i t that i t a p p l i e s a c a l c u l u s more ample and powerful
than the u s u a l s e c u l a r h i s t o r i a n — one comprising psychology
and p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l experience.
There i s another p o s s i b l e reason why C h r i s t i a n c l e r g y tend to
shun p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l knowledge.
Any d i s p a s s i o n a t e study
o f paranormal phenomena which extends over the s e c u l a r f i e l d ,
the area o f C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , and o t h e r r e l i g i o n s i s , we
f e e l , l i k e l y to a r r i v e at the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t strange but
s t r a n g e l y s i m i l a r happenings occur both i n the s e c u l a r sphere
and i n the spheres of not one but many r e l i g i o n s (New H o r i z o n s
Review, Stigmata and P h y s i o l o g i c a l and o t h e r Phenomena o f
M y s t i c i s m , March 1987).
Thus parapsychology may embarrass
those who b e l i e v e i n the uniqueness o f t h e i r r e l i g i o n , whatever
i t might be, J u d a i c , C h r i s t i a n , o r I s l a m i c ;
in this
connection i t could f a i r l y be s a i d t h a t some o r i e n t a l r e l i g i o n s
are i n t e r e s t i n g i n b e i n g l e s s dogmatic.
However i t i s f a i r to say that a l l the f o r e g o i n g s p e c u l a t i o n s
may he a l t o g e t h e r too h i g h - f l o w n and c l e r i c a l t i m i d i t y i n
t h i s f i e l d i s e n t i r e l y due to the l a c k o f teaching about the
paranormal g i v e n i n C o l l e g e s i n r e l a t i o n e i t h e r to theology
o r to p a s t o r a l c a r e .
CONCLUSION.
But
raw
to r e v e r t to the main theme o f t h i s paper — p e o p l e ' s
experiences.
What do these s t o r i e s t e l l us i n s o c i o l o g i c a l terms?
Are we moving towards a c u l t u r e t h a t accepts t h a t d e s p i t e
t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances i n communication we can s t i l l
communicate p e r s o n a l l y and on a one-to-one b a s i s by means
of telepathy?
Are we e v o l v i n g i n t o a s o c i e t y t h a t i s
s p l i t between the t e c h n o l o g i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c world
t h a t we regard as ' r e a l ' and t h a t ' o t h e r ' world where
we can communicate t e l e p a t h i c a l l y , move o b j e c t s ,
h e a l the s i c k , and see i n t o the f u t u r e ?
When we look a t what some people are e x p e r i e n c i n g we see
a s o c i e t y t h a t regards i t s e l f as more c l o s e - k n i t and more i n
communication than we would have b e l i e v e d .
Although we
have moved away from many c o n v e n t i o n a l r e l i g i o n s , i t would
seem there i s a b a s i c b e l i e f t h a t i s almost a u n i v e r s a l
r e l i g i o n to which we a l l subscribe and t h i s i s manifested
o f t e n i n paranormal phenomena.
S o c i o l o g y i s the study o f the e v o l u t i o n o f human
s o c i e t y , and i t s p r o g r e s s .
Are paranormal phenomena an
i n d i c a t i o n o f s o c i e t y ' s p r o g r e s s , or do they c o n s t i t u t e
a r e l i c o f what we once were, but are now no more?
New Horizons Research Foundation Paper 28
The original copy deposited at the University of Manitoba Department
of Archives and Special Collections contains more pages than this
digital copy.
Due to the time that would be involved in seeking usage permissions,
the pages listed below have been omitted from this digital copy which
is being made freely available for research and educational purposes.
Page(s)
20-24
Andrew MacKenzie, “Parapsychology Today: How Common are
Psychic Experiences?,” Fate (November 1987), pp. 42-50.
2$
P.A.Convention
Edinburgh, August 1987
I n v i t e d Address
E x t r e m e Phenomena and
the Problem
of
Credibility
by
John
Beloff
Department of Psychology
University
of Edinburgh
George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ
Extreme
Phenomena and t h e P r o b l e m
John
of C r e d i b i l i t y
Beloff
I cannot define what I mean by 'extreme phenomena' I can only o f f e r
examples.
Yet I am confident that a l l of you who are f a m i l i a r with the
l i t e r a t u r e of p s y c h i c a l research w i l l understand
t a l k i n g about.
what i t i s that I am
From time to time we come across c e r t a i n claims about which
one can say only that they take one's breath away.
They seem to go so f a r
beyond anything i n our own experience and to make such a mockery of a l l our
presumptions as to the kind of world i t i s we l i v e i n that words f a i l us,
and yet we can see no easy way of dismissing them as sheer fantasy.. Our
sorcery
ancestors c a l l e d them 'miracles' or, i f they resented them, m»g»u or witchcraft;
we would do best to adopt a n e u t r a l term so I am c a l l i n g them 'ex-
treme phenomena'.
The problem of c r e d i b i l i t y i s best understood
as the attempt to provide
an answer to the age-old question: what ought a r a t i o n a l person t o believe ?
In one sense, of course, t h i s question i s decidedly odd.
For, i n any given
s i t u a t i o n at any given time, e i t h e r one believes a c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t i o n or
one does not, one does not i n q u i r e whether i t i s one's duty to b e l i e v e or
to d i s b e l i e v e . On the other hand a wise person w i l l t r y to formulate
c e r t a i n general p r i n c i p l e s or g u i d e l i n e s so as to a n t i c i p a t e a p a r t i c u l a r
contingency
and make i t e a s i e r to reach a s a t i s f a c t o r y d e c i s i o n when
confronted by some contentious i s s u e .
T h i s problem of s p e c i f y i n g what i s
c r e d i b l e or i n c r e d i b l e has exercised philosophers since a n t i q u i t y . The
Greek s k e p t i c s were greatly preoccupied with i t although mainly
negative sense of f i n d i n g reasons to doubt everything.
i n the
As with a number of
the perennial problems of philosophy - e.g. the problem of causation or the
problem of personal i d e n t i t y - i t i s i n the w r i t i n g s of David Hume that we
f i n d i t s c l a s s i c expression and Hume, moreover, brought i t to bear d i r e c t l y
on the question of extreme phenomena. So allow me to remind you what Hume
has to say on t h i s t o p i c i n h i s j u s t l y celebrated essay on m i r a c l e s .
he l a y s i t down quite simply that i n no circumstances
i s one ever
There
justified
i n b e l i e v i n g that a miracle has occurred, i f by 'miracle' we mean some s i n g u l a r v i o l a t i o n of the known laws of nature, i f only because those same laws
are constantly being confirmed
d e f i n i t i o n , a one-off
i n our experience whereas the miracle i s , by
event.
Hume was not being dogmatic i n speaking so c a t e g o r i c a l l y .
denying
He was not
that miracles might occur, indeed i t was he who pointed out that
we can have no proof that the laws of nature w i l l hold from one day to
the next.
What he does i n s i s t on i s that we can never bej-justified i n
accepting a miracle unless^we could be sure that i t would be an even
greater miracle i f the person t e s t i f y i n g to
miracle were t e l l i n g a l i e .
But,
given the f a l l i b i l i t y of human beings, such could never be the case. To
d r i v e home h i s point he imagines what would happen i f a l l the
competent
a u t h o r i t i e s agreed that Queen E l i z a b e t h of England, a month after her
burial,came back to l i f e ,
three years.
ascended the throne and reigned for a further
Would he, as an h i s t o r i a n - and i n h i s day, I may say, he
was esteemed more as an h i s t o r i a n than as a philosopher - have to concur
with t h i s consensus of experts and admit that here at l e a s t was a genuine
miracle ?
By no means, "I would s t i l l reply" he says "that the knavery and
f o l l y of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe
the
most extraordinary events to a r i s e from t h e i r concurrence, than admit so
s i g n a l a v i o l a t i o n of the laws of nature".
Although Hume's essay did not
go unanswered by philosophers and c r i t i c s who seized upon various weaknesses and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s
i n h i s argument, by and large most s e l f - s t y l e d
ration-
a l i s t s since then, up to and i n c l u d i n g members of CSICOP, have been content
to follow Hume's l i n e .
celebrate
Tom Paine, the 250th anniversary of whose b i r t h we
t h i s year, put i t a l l i n a n u t s h e l l when he asks,
rhetorically,
whether i t i s more l i k e l y that nature should go out of her way than that a
man should t e l l a l i e ?
In what follows I s h a l l try to show, f i r s t ,
that Hume, however much we
may revere him i n t h i s c i t y , was mistaken and that i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y more
r a t i o n a l to d i s b e l i e v e
than to believe i n a given extreme phenomenon.
then consider whether,
in fact,
there are any instances of extreme phenomena
to which one i s r a t i o n a l l y j u s t i f i e d i n g i v i n g credence and I w i l l
i n t h i s connection some notable h i s t o r i c a l cases that have so far
demolition.
I shall
discuss
resisted
F i n a l l y I want to discuss some possible consequences of taking
s u c h c a s e s on board
Let us s t a r t ,
w i t h us a s p a r t
o f our i n t e l l e c t u a l
then, with the Humean p o s i t i o n .
baggage.
Obviously to
acknowledge
a claim that runs counter to so much that we normally take for granted i s a
much r i s k i e r proposition than to dismiss i t from our thoughts without more
ado.
At the same time i f the f a c t s demand that we acknowledge i t ,
be sheer i n t e l l e c t u a l cowardice or evasiveness to refuse to do so.
i t would
Now Hume
argued, for the reasons we have mentioned, that the f a c t s are never such as
to make assent o b l i g a t o r y .
a paper on i t s own.
serious defect.
To do j u s t i c e to Hume's argument would require
Here I w i l l confine myself to what I regard as i t s most
I t i s an argument that cannot carry any weight with someone
who has a c t u a l l y witnessed an extreme phenomenon - i f ,
such.
of
you.
indeed, there are any
Needless to say I am not one of these and I expect that goes for most
Nevertheless,
i t would not be d i f f i c u l t for any of us to think up
a scenario i n which we not only witnessed such a phenomenon but were i n a
p o s i t i o n to s a t i s f y
ourselves
to our h e a r t ' s content that we were not the
28
3/
v i c t i m of any kind of t r i c k or i l l u s i o n .
As an e m p i r i c i s t , Hume would have
to agree that we are r i g h t to t r u s t to the evidence of our senses.
Hence,
since he did not deny that miracles might occur and, hence, that people
might have d i r e c t experience of them, he would have to argue that such
people must be disbelieved, whatever t h e i r previous reputation or c r e d e n t i a l s .
But, i f a r u l e i s v a l i d i t ought to be v a l i d i n a l l circumstances r e a l or
hypothetical.
I t should not lead to opposite conclusions depending on whether
our knowledge of a given event i s at f i r s t or at second hand.
Hume's r u l e
leads to a kind of epistemological s o l i p s i s m whereby only our own experience
i s allowed to count.
T h i s , I submit, cannot be regarded as a r a t i o n a l
prescription.
Recently, some parapsychologists, notably John Palmer, have sought
circumvent the Humean objection by arguing that the question of b e l i e f
to
need
never a r i s e .
Instead of d i v i d i n g people i n t o sheep and goats, b e l i e v e r s and
disbelievers,
Palmer suggests that we d i s t i n g u i s h between 'conventional
theorists'
i.e.
ventional l i n e s ,
those who t r y to explain an o s t e n s i b l e
anomaly along con-
that i s try to explain i t away, and 'paranormal t h e o r i s t s '
who try to introduce some novel type of explanation.
In t h i s way, he suggests,
we can a l l keep an open minded about everything and need waste no further time
on f r u i t l e s s controversy.
I t i s an ingenious formula and I appreciate the
diplomatic sentiment behind i t .
I do not t h i n k , however, that i t
an answer to the problem of c r e d i b i l i t y .
provides
However open-minded one t r i e s
to
be one i s bound to veer more to one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the facts rather than
another depending on one's b i a s .
Furthermore t h i s w i l l influence our
assessment of what the facts are that have to be explained.
B e l i e f may
always be a matter of degree but i t i s neither possible nor d e s i r a b l e to
forego e n t i r e l y having any b e l i e f s .
In the case of extreme phenomena the
question of b e l i e f i s bound to loom very l a r g e .
Before we proceed to discuss some a c t u a l examples of extreme phenomena
I want to make a few general points about how one might deal with them.
There a r e , I want to suggest, three pertinent questions that we can always
ask about them, one a f t e r another: (1) Could there be some normal explanation
for what i s alleged to have happened ?
I f the answer to t h i s f i r s t
question
i s no, then (2) could the witnesses be deceived or mistaken about what they
thought they had observed ?
I f the answer to t h i s question i s s t i l l no,
then (3) could the witnesses themselves or those who report t h e i r
be l y i n g ?
Finally,
testimony
i f the answer i s s t i l l no then we have reached what I
would c a l l a ' c r e d i b i l i t y impassel
The only escape from t h i s impasse i s
suggest that the evidence i s incomplete and t h a t , i f we had a l l the
the s i t u a t i o n would appear i n a very d i f f e r e n t l i g h t .
to
facts,
The plea of ignorance
4/
can always be used to sustain any p o s i t i o n which appears to c 6 n t £ a d i c t the
known f a c t s but i t should be recognized for what i t i s ,
a desperate
expedient.
So far I have been concerned only to argue that i | _ we had good evidence
for an extreme phenomenon we would not need to discount that evidence on.
any a p r i o r i grounds be they Humean or otherwise.
I t i s now time to turn
to the more e x c i t i n g question as to whether h i s t o r y has supplied us with
any examples of extreme phenomena which bring us to a c r e d i b i l i t y impasse.
L i k e a good philosopher Hume did not t r y to make things easy for himself
by dwelling on those miracles that were p l a i n l y r i s i b l e , as an i n f e r i o r
polemicist might have been tempted to do.
He was aware, for example,
that,
only s h o r t l y before the time he was w r i t i n g , a whole c l u t c h of m i r a c l e s ,
mostly having to do with h e a l i n g , had been taking place i n , of a l l
P a r i s , then the undisputed c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l of Europe.
They were a l l
connected with the tomb of Francois P a r i s , a revered and s a i n t l y
p r i e s t who was buried i n the cemetry of Saint Medard.
places,
Jansenist
The fact that P a r i s
had been a Jansenist and thus a h e r e t i c i n the eyes of the Church made t h i s
a t e s t case since the c i v i c a u t h o r i t i e s , egged on by the J e s u i t s ,
did every-
thing i n t h e i r power to suppress and d i s c r e d i t these claims and eventually
o
they closed down the cemetry, thereby provking V o l t a i r e s witty observation
that i t was a case of no miracles by order I. We must remember, t h e r e f o r e ,
that those who t e s t i f i e d
to such miracles were r i s k i n g persecution.
In
s p i t e of that scores of people came forward to add t h e i r testimony.
No
wonder Hume was driven to exclaim: "Where s h a l l we f i n d such a number of
circumstances agreeing to the corroboration of one f a c t ?
we to oppose to such a cloud of witnesses ?".
And what have
But then, immediately, Hume
answers h i s own r h e t o r i c a l question i n the way we have l e a r n t to
expect.
"The miraculous nature of such claims" he a s s e r t s " i s s u f f i c i e n t
reason
to dismiss them" since "where men are heated by z e a l and enthusiasm,
there
i s no degree of human testimony so strong as may not be procured for the
greatest absurdity".
So long as we are content to s t i c k ,
think we are secure enough.
l i k e Hume, to g e n e r a l i t i e s we may
Let us focus, however, on one s p e c i f i c case -
not one, i n c i d e n t a l l y , which Hume mentions i n h i s essay - and l e t us
whether i t ,
ation.
too, can be dismissed as the product of an overheated imagin-
The case i n point i s that of M i l e . Louise C o i r i n .
i t has come down to us i s ,
b r i e f l y as
Her s t o r y ,
as
follows:
Louise C o i r i n l i v e d with her widowed mother at Nanterre outside
Her two brothers, l i k e t h e i r father before them, were o f f i c e r s
Household.
see
Paris.
i n the Royal
In 1716, at the age of 31, she developed a cancer of her
breast which gradually destroyed the fle^sh and the nipple and l e f t
left
her
5/
w i t h a suppurating wound whose odour rendered her w e l l nigh
unapproachable.
In 1718, t o add t o her misery, she became completely paralysed on her l e f t
side.
The f o l l o w i n g year two l o c a l surgeons recommended a mastectomy, as
the one hope of saving her l i f e , but she d e c l i n e d .
By 1731 - she was now
47 - she had reached the b r i n k of death and had already r e c e i v e d the l a s t
sacraments on s e v e r a l occasions.
I t was only then, on August 9 t h t o be
p r e c i s e , that she decided t o seek supernatural a i d .
She was f a r too i l l
h e r s e l f to make the pilgrimage t o St Me'dard but she persuade a pious woman
of the neighbourhood t o undertake the mission f o r her.
The woman was t o
b r i n g back a clod of earth from around the tomb and a garment, which she
gave her a f t e r i t had touched the tomb.
The next day, a f t e r a n n o i n t i n g
h e r s e l f with the clod of earth and p u t t i n g on the chemise t h a t had been
t r e a t e d , her recovery began.
Before the end of the month she had r e -
gained p e r f e c t h e a l t h and, more t o the p o i n t , her breast was whole a g a i n .
The J e s u i t s l o s t no time i n p u t t i n g out rumours t o the e f f e c t t h a t
a r e l a p s e had occurred and that her cancer and her p a r a l y s i s had returned.
Stung by these slanders M i l e C o i r i n went i n person t o P a r i s t o make a
d e p o s i t i o n before a notary s t a t i n g the f u l l f a c t s of her case.
More
important i s the f a c t that one of the r o y a l surgeons, r i s k i n g the d i s pleasure of the c o u r t , went himself t o the same notary t o t e s t i f y that
no t r a c e of the cancer remained and he l a i d s p e c i a l s t r e s s on the f a c t
that her l e f t n i p p l e was now p e r f e c t l y formed and i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from
her r i g h t n i p p l e .
Let us now apply our three questions t o t h i s case.
Could the phenom-
enon have a normal explanation ? Spontaneous remissions i n case of cancer
are,
a f t e r a l l , not unknown t o the medical l i t e r a t u r e .
complicated the e v a l u a t i o n of some of the Lourdes cases.
Indeed they have
However, though
I speak as a layman, I would suppose t h a t the complete regeneration of a
breast and i t s n i p p l e i s unique.
So could the witnesses, who i n c l u d e a
number of medical men who are mentioned by name, have been mistaken about
what they saw ? The only p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t I can see i s i f some other
woman, some l o o k - a l i k e , had impersonated
Louise C o i r i n during these
examinations but the f a c t that she then resumed her normal l i f e among
her f a m i l y and f r i e n d s makes such a f a r - f e t c h e d hypothesis q u i t e untenable.
There remains, t h e r e f o r e , only one p o s s i b i l i t y , namely t h a t the e n t i r e
s t o r y was a f a b r i c a t i o n on the part of the w r i t e r on whose a u t h o r i t y the
case has become known t o us.
This i s by f a r the most a t t r a c t i v e hypothesis
from the standpoint of a s k e p t i c s i n c e , as f a r as I know, there i s only one
extant source f o r t h i s s t o r y , as there i s f o r so many other St Me'dard cases,
«s Carre de Montgeron's three volume work e n t i t l e d 'La V e r i t e de M i r a c l e s
operes par 1 ' i n t e r c e s s i o n de M. de P a r i s ' ( I am indebted to Ian Stevenson f o r
procuring f o r me the r e l e v a n t pages of t h i s obscure work from the Bibliotheque
Nationale).
Who,
then, was t h i s Montgeron ?
Even Hume had to admit that Montgeron was no ignorant f a n a t i c but a
of substance and repute.
He was,
member of the P a r i s Parliament.
man
i n f a c t , a nobleman, a magistrate and a
P r i o r to h i s encounter with these events
he had the r e p u t a t i o n of being something of a s k e p t i c i n matters of r e l i g i o n .
But what, i n the end, makes i t so extremely u n l i k e l y that he was l y i n g
that he had nothing to gain from i t .
for
was
On the contrary he had to pay dearly
h i s audacity i n p u b l i s h i n g h i s book, despite the precaution he took of
d e d i c a t i n g i t to the king (Louis XV), f o r he was promptly i n t e r n e d i n the
B a s t i l l e , although even t h i s d i d not teach him a lesson
because he
still
managed to b r i n g out two f u r t h e r volumes while i n p r i s o n .
For our next e x h i b i t we go back another century to a case that must
s u r e l y rank as among the most remarkable of a l l time.
case of the l e v i t a t i n g f r i a r , Joseph of Copertino.
I a l l u d e to the
The l a t e E r i c Dingwall
wrote a chapter on him i n h i s Human O d d i t i e s (1947) on which I have f r e e l y
drawn and, q u i t e r e c e n t l y , Stephen Braude has again drawn a t t e n t i o n to t h i s
case i n h i s new
book The L i m i t s of Influence (1986).
Here are the main
i n c i d e n t s of h i s l i f e as f a r as we know them:
Giuseppe Desa was born i n 1603 to an impoverished
family.
By the
age
of 17 he had decided to devote h i s l i f e to r e l i g i o n but he was too ignorant
and too simple-minded to q u a l i f y as a p a r i s h p r i e s t .
accepted
He was,
however,
i n t o the Capuchin Order i n 1620 and then, i n 1625, i n t o the Order
of St F r a n c i s .
As a monk he was notorious f o r h i s extreme a s c e t i c i s m and
the r a t h e r gruesome m o r i t i f i c a t i o n s that he would i n f l i c t on h i m s e l f .
What
alone makes him memorable, however, was h i s h a b i t of going i n t o a rapture
and then l e v i t a t i n g , sometimes to a considerable height and sometimes
remaining suspended j u s t above the ground f o r a considerable period of
time.
Such l e v i t a t i o n s took place i n broad d a y l i g h t , sometimes i n the
open a i r . There i s even a s t o r y t h a t , on one occasion he c a r r i e d up a
f e l l o w monk w i t h him i n t o the r a f t e r s of a church but that may
exaggeration.
Joseph
be an
apologized f o r h i s l e v i t a t i o n s c a l l i n g
them h i s f i t s of g i d d i n e s s .
I s h a l l mention one p a r t i c u l a r i n c i d e n t
which s t r i k e s one as more e v i d e n t i a l than most because i t occurred
during h i s f i n a l i l l n e s s when two doctors were assigned to him. A Dr
P i e r p a o l i was i n the process of c a u t e r i z i n g Joseph's r i g h t l e g when he
n o t i c e d that he had gone i n t o a trance and was s i t t i n g a few inches above
the seat of h i s c h a i r .
To make a b s o l u t e l y sure of t h i s both doctors
went down on t h e i r knees to get a b e t t e r look.
present
A f t e r t h i s had gone on f o r
about f i f t e e n
minutes, Joseph's s u p e r i o r , F r . E v a n g e l i s t a , entered the room
and brought him back to h i s senses, and to t e r r a firma. by c a l l i n g out h i s
name.
Joseph died i n 1663 at the age of 60.
Within three years of h i s death
an o f f i c i a l i n q u i r y was i n s t i t u t e d with the aim of e s t a b l i s h i n g the true
f a c t s of h i s career and, more e s p e c i a l l y ,
obtaining depositions
who had a c t u a l l y witnessed h i s l e v i t a t i o n s .
from those
On t h i s basis a biography was
eventually published by one, Domenico Bernino, i n 1722.
This, in turn,
to Joseph becoming a candidate for b e a t i f i c a t i o n and a Process was set
led
in
t r a i n by the Congregation of Rites who are responsible for a d j u d i c a t i n g
such matters.
I t i s noteworthy,
from our point of view, that the key
f i g u r e i n charge of t h i s was Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, a man of advanced
views - at one time he even corresponded amicably with V o l t a i r e ! - and the
whose function was to play d e v i l s advocate
author of the standard work on canonization.
Lambertini^does not seem to
have raised any serious doubts about the l e v i t a t i o n s
but he was perturbed
by the somewhat outrageous aspects of Joseph's l i f e - s t y l e
such extreme a s c e t i c i s m .
Nevertheless,
i n 1753,
and he d i s l i k e d
by which time Lambertini
had become Pope Benedict XIV, b e a t i f i c a t i o n was duly decreed.
Canonizat-
ion followed i n 1767 - just over a century a f t e r Joseph's death - and thus
i t was that Giuseppe Desa became,for a l l the world, St Joseph of Copertino.
Le us now ourselves
sophisticated
play d e v i l ' s advocate and see whether,
vantage point,we can puncture t h i s pious t a l e .
s t r i k e us, a f t e r more than three centuries have elapsed,
remotely l i k e t h i s has ever happened again I
from our
What must
i s that nothing
Inevitably there have been
claims i n every generation that someone at some time had l e v i t a t e d .
Some
of the best known p h y s i c a l mediums are supposed to have l e v i t a t e d at one
time or another, one thinks e s p e c i a l l y
on t h i s s c a l e .
of Daniel Home, but, s t i l l ,
nothing
Perhaps one's f i r s t i n c l i n a t i o n i s to regard t h i s as an
example of the n a t u r a l human tendency to exaggerate.
I am reminded of
s t o r i e s that used to c i r c u l a t e about the dancer, N i j i n s k y .
the
I t was said that
he must have possessed supernormal powers to land so gently on the stage
a f t e r one of h i s prodigious leaps.
Perhaps Joesph was given to leaping
up and down when he got excited and the legend took o f f from there and got
out of hand.
very f a r .
I am a f r a i d , however, that such speculations w i l l not get
us
There would have had to be a massive c o l l u s i o n to have produced
t h i s amount of documentary evidence.
More promising, from the standpoint of
the skeptic would be the idea that Joseph was the stooge or puppet i n a
fiendish counter-reformation plot to bring h e r e t i c s back i n t o the one true
church.
T h i s , at any r a t e , might help to explain what happened to the
Duke of Brunswik, a Lutheran, now only remembered as the patron of
the
8/
philosopher, L e i b n i t z .
expressed
The Duke v i s i t e d A s s i s i i n 1651 and while there
a wish to meet Joseph.
With two of h i s companions he was con-
ducted to a chapel where, without h i s being aware that he was being observed, Joseph was saying mass.
After a while he uttered a loud cry and
was seen by the three onlookers to r i s e i n t o the a i r i n a kneeling
ion.
posit-
The Duke was so i n t r i g u e d that he begged to be allowed to go again
next day.
On t h i s occasion Joseph was seen to r i s e a few inches and remain
f l o a t i n g above the a l t a r steps for about quarter of an hour.
This was too
much for the good Duke who there and then decided to become a C a t h o l i c .
Had he been ensnared by some a d r o i t piece of conjuring ?
Contrary to
what many people imagine, the C a t h o l i c Church has always been
wary of e x p l o i t i n g miracles produced by l i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s .
accorded to the l a t e Padre Pio would be a case i n p o i n t .
taking advantage of h i s l e v i t a t i o n s ,
exceedingly
The treatment
So far from
much l e s s putting him up to i t by
using some fraudulent device, Joseph was a l l h i s l i f e an embarrassment to
his superiors.
On no l e s s than three occasions he was summoned before
I n q u i s i t i o n and for much of h i s l i f e he was under s t r i c t i n s t r u c t i o n s
remain i n h i s c e l l where he could l e a s t a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n .
the
to
Of course we
are heavily dependent on h i s biographer, Bernino, for our knowledge of
his
career - Dingwall r e l i e s mainly on t h i s source - but Bernino names so many
eminent persons that there was a l i m i t to what he would have been able to
invent or embroider.
For example, he c i t e s three c a r d i n a l s each of whom
was w i l l i n g to t e s t i f y to having seen Joseph l e v i t a t e .
Then there i s
the
famous i n c i d e n t where the Father General of the Order of St F r a n c i s arranged
for Joseph to k i s s the feet of the then Pope, Urban V I I .
As so often happened
when Joseph got too excited^ he rose i n t o the a i r and there, apparently, he
remained suspended i n tfee * * r u n t i l the Father General r e c a l l e d him to h i s
senses, to the amazement of the Pope.
i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g a named Pope ?
How easy would i t be to invent an
A l l things considered I am i n c l i n e d to
agree with Dingwall when he says: "For my part I do not find i t easy to
believe that C a r d i n a l s , Bishops, S u p e r i o r s , monastic physicians and lay
v i s i t o r s were a l l l y i n g or engaged i n a system of deceit for the apparent
purpose of b o l s t e r i n g up the reputation of a fraudulent f r i a r or the Order
to which he was attached".
As from the middle of the 19th century, the S p i r i t u a l i s t movement
provided the new power-house for generating paranormal phenomena.
My
remaining three e x h i b i t s have a l l been drawn from the careers of p h y s i c a l
mediums who f l o u r i s h e d during the present century. Each, as i t
been made the subject of a recent b i o g r a p h i c a l study.
happens,has
Now, p h y s i c a l mediums,
unlike saints, have a murky reputation and, to the u n i n i t i a t e d , t h i s
alone
34
9/
must seem s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r d i s m i s s i n g , or at l e a s t , p l a y i n g down any
claims that are made on t h e i r behfuajf.
At the same time, one could argue,
with more l o g i c , t h a t the more s u s p i c i o u s the medium, the more v i g i l a n t w i l l
be the i n v e s t i g a t o r s . No one, a f t e r a l l , wants to be taken f o r a r i d e . But,
f o r t u n a t e l y , the argument i s i r r e l e v a n t because the c r i t i c a l question i n
these matters i s never/the i n d i v i d u a l involved would cheat, given the chance,
but, always, whether he or she could have cheated i n the c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d .
These remarks are p e r t i n e n t because my next e x h i b i t concerns a medium
who was,
in
s u r e l y , one of the most tempestuous and c o n t r o v e r s i a l characters
the whole stormy h i s t o r y of p s y c h i c a l research, namely, Mrs Mina Crandon,
n l e S t i n s o n , known to a l l the world as 'Margery'.
who
There can be few mediums
caused q u i t e so much havoc i n the course of t h e i r career.
As you know,
the American S.P.R. s p l i t i n two on her account causing W.F.Prince to set
up a r i v a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , the Boston S.P.R.
J.B.Rhine was
so q u i c k l y d i s -
i l l u s i o n e d with her, a f t e r a s i n g l e s i t t i n g , that he never wanted to have
anything f u r t h e r to do with mediums i n h i s l i f e ( u n l e s s , l i k e Mrs
Garrett,
they were w i l l i n g to play his. game) so one could say that Margery had a
hand i n launching modern laboratory-based
in
experimental
parapsychology. But,
f a i r n e s s , and despite the r e v u l s i o n that many people f e l t towards her,
i t must be s a i d that she submitted p a t i e n t l y and i n d e f a t i g a b l y to the s t r e n uous t e s t s that were demanded of
her, perhaps, even, at the cost of her s a n i t y .
O s t e n s i b l y , she d i d a l l t h i s as the passive v e h i c l e f o r her deceased brother,
Walter, but whatever was
s t i l l remain b a f f l i n g .
going on she undoubtedly produced phenomena that
Perhaps we s h a l l begin to understand her a l i t t l e
b e t t e r when Mrs Marian Nester has completed the biography she has been
working on.
She, a f t e r a l l ,
as the daughter of Dr Mark Richardson, one
of the l e a d i n g f i g u r e s i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , l i v e d through i t a l l when
she was a young woman.
I s h a l l here confine myself to a s i n g l e episode
i n Margery's m u l t i f a r i o u s mediumship, namely her r i n g s .
A seamless l i n k a g e of s o l i d r i n g s , which i s a t o p o l o g i c a l m i r a c l e , i s
one of the r a r e s t of extreme phenomena.
Yet, during the 1930s, Margery
produced a whole s e r i e s of such l i n k a g e s .
so you may
None of them, a l a s , has
f e e l that I am wasting your time d i s c u s s i n g them but we
survived
still
have to t r y and make sense of the documentary and photographic evidence.
If even one such object had s u r v i v e d , parapsychology, I reckon, would be
ina
very d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n today.
For the beauty about a permanent para-
normal object or 'PPO', as I l i k e to c a l l i t , i s that i t i s independent of
the i n d i v i d u a l who was
originated.
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t or of the c o n d i t i o n s i n which i t
I f one i s going to deny i t s paranormality
e x p l a i n , or, b e t t e r s t i l l , demonstrate, how
one has got to
i t might have been normally
con-
10/
structed.
In other words, the onus, for once, would be on the doubter
rather than on the b e l i e v e r .
With a l l the other extreme phenomena, one
can always say, as I have heard David Berglas say when he was challenged
to explain some h i s t o r i c a l case of mediumship, 'I wasn't there'
Even
I
i f we have a f i l m recording of what went on at a seance, we have to
prove that the f i l m was not faked.
to the
But a PPO stands as a permanent
challenge
skeptic.
The components used i n these experiments consisted
of
substantial
wooden r i n g s , some of these have survived and I have been able to see them.
Care was taken to use p a i r s where each r i n g was made from a d i f f e r e n t timber
so as to preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that the linkage could have been carved
from a s i n g l e
bl'aock.
We have accounts of some of the s i t t i n g s at which
'Walter' engineered the linkage which would suggest that a c e r t a i n amount
of d e m a t e r i a l i z a t i o n and r e m a t e r i a l i z a t i o n was i n v o l v e d .
We a l s o have the
photograph of one i n t a c t linkage which i s said to have been on d i s p l a y at
one time at the headquarters of the American S . P . R .
of a l e t t e r
We even have the text
from an outside expert a f f i r m i n g that the linkage had been
X-rayed and that "nothing resembling an a r t i f i c i a l l y concealed cut or break"
could be d e t e c t e d /
Unfortunately, with that p e r v e r s i t y which i s so t y p i c a l
(but paranormailv)
_
of extreme phenomena, the linkages regularly/became u n l i n k e d . I t i s as i f
Margery (or was i t Walter')could only get as far as c r e a t i n g a semi-permanent
paranormal o b j e c t .
The whole a f f a i r , as you see,
b r i s t l e s with a b s u r d i t i e s
but who are we, a f t e r a l l , to say that r e a l i t y cannot, at times,
resemble
a theatre of the absurd !
At a l l events, my next e x h i b i t w i l l probably s t r i k e you as even more
absurd.
onist,
It i s c e r t a i n l y far more obscure.
F o r , i n t h i s case, the protag-
far from being world-famous or world-infamous, was someone whose
very name was unknown to me u n t i l a few months ago and i s ,
unknown to a l l of you, unless,
that i s ,
probably, equally
you happen to be an Icelander.
[ continue on p.11
]
n/
you happen to be an Icelander.
I n d r i d i Indridason was rescued from o b s c u r i t y
when, at the i n s t i g a t i o n of Erlendur Haraldsson, L o f t u r G i s s u r a r s o n , a student
at
the U n i v e r s i t y of I c e l a n d , decided to w r i t e h i s
medium of y e s t e r y e a r .
Thesis on t h i s
The SPR are planning to p u b l i s h t h i s monograph as
an i s s u e of Proceedings so i t i s to be hoped that Indridason may become
b e t t e r known i n f u t u r e .
Indridason who,
I gather, i s the only p h y s i c a l medium which that country
has produced, died prematurely
29.
from t u b e r c u l o s i s i n 1912 at the e a r l y age of
early
His mediumship f i r s t manifested/in 1905 - there had been no previous
mediums i n Iceland - so the events we are t a l k i n g of occupy roughly the
f i r s t decade of t h i s century.
By then, of course, p h y s i c a l mediumship was
widespread both i n Europe and i n America.
Indridason never l e f t Iceland
and thus never came to the a t t e n t i o n of those with experience i n d e a l i n g
w i t h p h y s i c a l mediums.
In some respects the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of h i s mediumship
compares unfavourably with/best work of i t s k i n d being done i n Europe.
For
example, except on r a r e occasions h i s s i t t i n g s were conducted i n the dark
apart from the o c c a s i o n a l s t r i k i n g of matches.
Moreover no attempt was
made to use f l a s h l i g h t photography as i t was i n the cases of P a l l a d i n o ,
Kathleen Goligher or Marthe Beraud.
We are f u r t h e r hampered i n assessing
t h i s case by the f a c t that a l l the contemporary seance notes kept by the
Experimental S o c i e t y , so c a l l e d , have s i n c e been l o s t .
the case has some very d e f i n i t e pluses i n i t s favour.
On the other hand,
In p a r t i c u l a r , the
group who undertook the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was made up of persons of good standing
i n the community.
They were not s p i r i t u a l i s t s and were not l o o k i n g f o r
evidence to support t h e i r preconceptions, they were thus able to focus on
the one e s s e n t i a l question, namely whether what they observed was something r e a l and mysterious or j u s t part of an elaborate hoax.
d i s t i n g u i s h e d member of the group who,
The most
a f t e r 1908, took charge of the
i n v e s t i g a t i o n was Gudmundur Hannesson who became P r o f e s s o r of Medicine
at
the U n i v e r s i t y of Iceland from 1911 to h i s death i n 1946.
He
was
a l s o twice president of the u n i v e r s i t y and f o r a time a member of p a r l i a ment.
Gissurarson and Haraldsson say of him that he "had a greater reput-
a t i o n as a s c i e n t i s t i n Iceland than any of h i s contemporaries
known f o r h i s i n t e g r i t y and i m p a r t i a l i t y " ( p . 8 4 ) .
and
was
Most of the s i t t i n g s
took place i n a l i t t l e b u i l d i n g which the S o c i e t y had b u i l t s p e c i a l l y f o r
t h i s purpose but some of the s i t t i n g s were held i n Hannesson's own house
and the medium was o b l i g e d to wear Hannesson's own c l o t h e s . In the end,
36
a l l the i n v e s t i g a t o r s , not l e a s t Hannesson h i m s e l f , came round to the view
that they had witnessed phenomena t h a t were t r u l y i n e x p l i c a b l e .
The p a r t i c u l a r i n c i d e n t t h a t I have s i n g l e d out f o r d i s c u s s i o n i s not
by any means one of the best a t t e s t e d - i t p e r t a i n s to the period before
Hannesson took over - but i t i s , perhaps, the most unusual and i t s b i z a r r e
and f a r c i c a l aspects r a i s e the problem of c r e d i b i l i t y i n an acute form.
I t i n v o l v e s nothing l e s s than the temporary
l e f t arm I
disappearance of Indridason's
I t happened f o r the f i r s t time on the 19th December 1905 and
then again on two subsequent occasions during t h a t w i n t e r .
On the t h i r d
occasion we are informed no l e s s than seven witnesses were present each
of whom afterwards signed a document s t a t i n g t h a t they had not been able
to f e e l or to f i n d Indridason's l e f t arm and were ready to c e r t i f y t h i s
under oath.
We are f u r t h e r informed t h a t at one point Indridason stood
i n f u l l l i g h t and s t i l l no arm was v i s i b l e although hal^an hour l a t e r
i t reappeared as normal.
The^rfason f o r t h i s strange happening,
as
provided by Indridason's s p i r i t c o n t r o l * s p e a k i n g through the medium,
was t h a t the powers on the other s i d e were g e t t i n g ready to b r i n g about,
through the medium,full-form m a t e r i a l i z a t i o n s .
f e a t u r e of h i s l a t e r
T h i s was, i n f a c t , a
seances.
What are we to make of t h i s s t o r y ?
One o b v i o u s l y s u s p i c i o u s f a c t
i s t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t o r s were never permitted to undress the medium.
We can not even be sure from the published account whether the medium
wore h i s j a c k e t throughout or was i n h i s s h i r t s l e e v e s .
A l l the same,
i t i s not easy to fathom how anyone could conceal an arm from seven
i n q u i s i t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s whose only aim was to f i n d i t I
No doubt
d i s c i p l e s of Batcheldor w i l l see t h i s as a c o n f i r m a t i o n of the
Batcheldorian d o c t r i n e that unless some element of ambiguity i s allowed
i n the s i t u a t i o n nothing paranormal can t r a n s p i r e .
[ continue on p.13
]
13/
All
paranormal phenomena a r e , by d e f i n i t i o n , 'impossible' but some,
one might say, are more i m p o s s i b l e than others I
Nothing, I t h i n k , i n
a l l the l i t e r a t u r e of p s y c h i c a l research s t r e t c h e s our c r e d u l i t y more
s e v e r e l y than the phantoms of the seance chamber.
At one moment we have
c r e a t u r e s t h a t , i n a l l r e s p e c t s , resemble l i v i n g , t a l k i n g human beings, a t
the
next they have ceased t o e x i s t I
For my l a s t e x h i b i t , t h e r e f o r e , i t
i s f i t t i n g that we take a look a t t h i s u l t i m a t e extreme and the example
I want t o d i s c u s s i s taken from the case of the S c o t t i s h medium, Helen
Duncan, who died i n 1956 at the age of 58.
The c h o i c e may s t r i k e you as
p e r v e r s e l y foolhardy on my part - that i s i f you know anything about
Mrs Duncan.
For there i s no d i s g u i s i n g the f a c t that she had an unsavoury
reputation.
I f m i r a c l e s were the p r e r o g a t i v e of persons of s a i n t l y c h a r a c t -
er,
or even of moderate refinement, Helen Duncan would be nowhere i n the
running.
To be b l u n t , she was an uneducated woman of gross appearance
and
her manners and her language was anything but l a d y l i k e . More t o the p o i n t ,
both she and her husband-manager were deeply i m p l i c a t e d i n f r a u d .
t h e l e s s , she has two advantages from my point of view.
Never-
F i r s t , whereas we
can no longer i n t e r r o g a t e those who witnessed Joseph's l e v i t a t i o n s , Mrs
Duncan's phenomena are c l o s e enough to us i n time f o r me t o have met a
f a i r number of those who d i d witness them.
Secondly, my f r i e n d , Manfred
C a s s i r e r has done h i s homework on Helen Duncan and has produced a hefty
monograph on her (he has c a l l e d i t 'Witchcraft at Portsmouth') which he
has lodged w i t h the S.P.R.
I f there were others l i k e her at the present
time we would not now have t o bother with such an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y case but,
a l a s , as w i t h a l l my e x h i b i t s , there i s nothing comparable
today.
The witnesses w i t h whom I have spoken or corresponded and whose s a n i t y
I have no reason t o doubt - two of them, I may
say, are good f r i e n d s of
mine and d i s t i n g u i s h e d members of the S.P.R. - a l l t e l l roughly the same
story.
They speak of seeing f i g u r e s emerge from the cabinet or take shape
from the amorphous ectoplasm, sometimes these are s a i d t o correspond to
deceased i n d i v i d u a l s whom the s i t t e r knew i n l i f e , and then, a f t e r a
b r i e f i n t e r v a l , d u r i n g which they may converse with^fe&ati^tf&y disappear
again by slowly s i n k i n g through the s o l i d f l o o r .
i s v i r t u a l unanimity as C a s s i r e r p o i n t s out.
On t h i s l a s t point there
These spectaculjfr phenomena
however, were reserved f o r c l i e n t s who attended her seances.
When she
performed f o r p s y c h i c a l r e s e a r c h e r s , such as Harry P r i c e or Mrs Goldney,
the
phenomena she produced were not nearly as impressive
copious
mainly o f ^ q u a n t i t i e s of ectoplasm whose paranormal o r i g i n remained
prob-
lematic.
E v e n t u a l l y , Mrs Duncan made l e g a l h i s t o r y by becoming the l a s t person
14/
ever to be charged under the 'Witchcraft Act'.
This was an a r c h a i c s t a t u t e ,
introduced i n the r e i g n of George II,which s t a t e d t h a t : "anyone pretending
to e x e r c i s e or use any kind of w i t c h c r a f t , s o r c e r y , enchantment or c o n j u r a t i o n
could be committed to p r i s o n f o r one year".
March 1944,
Her t r i a l at the Old B a i l e y , i n
became something of a cause ce'lebre i n wartime London.
I t lasted
seven days, c a p t u r i n g the headlines i n the d a i l y press, a t the end of which
the j u r y , seven men and one woman, w i t h l i t t l e h e s i t a t i o n , found her g u i l t y
and she was duly sentenced to 9 months i n p r i s o n .
Her defence counsel, during
the t r i a l , made a bold o f f e r to hold a seance f o r the b e n e f i t of the jury,
none of whom knew anything about such matters.
The judge consented t o permit
t h i s option but the j u r y turned i t down. That, too, might have made l e g a l h i s t ory but i t was not to be.
No doubt the j u r y reckoned t h a t i t would be l e s s
confusing to condemn the wretched woman without f i r s t seeing what she
was
c l a i m i n g to be able to do !
The defence d i d , however, produce a long s t r i n g of witnesses.
One
who
made a p a r t i c u l a r l y good impression on the court, as being a s e n s i b l e , l e v e l
headed s o r t of woman was Jane Rust, a r e t i r e d municipal midwife and a widow
who
described at some legnth her experiences at a s i t t i n g i n Portsmouth on
January 17, 1944.
She t o l d the court how she had met and embraced her
deceased husband and how she had f e l t the knobbly knuckles on h i s rheumatic
hands, how she was able to i d e n t i f y her deceased mother by two moles, the
one i n the hollow of her c h i n , the other above her l e f t eyebrow and
how
her Aunt Mary appeared and spoke to her i n Spanish with a G i b r a l t a r i a n
accent saying that " I would have come sooner but they d i d not understand".
Was
t h i s a l l a pack of l i e s ?
But why
should a p r o f e s s i o n a l woman of
unblemished character perjure h e r s e l f to no purpose ?
h a l l u c i n a t e d during that seance ?
way
Was
she then deeply
That i s more p l a s u i b l e and yet the only
I know whereby one can induce such s p e c i f i c h a l l u c i n a t i o n s i s f i r s t to
hypnotize the subject and then make the appropriate v e r b a l suggestions.
If
Mrs Duncan was able to induce such h a l l u c i n a t i o n s j u s t by s i t t i n g there i n
her c a b i n e t , that i n i t s e l f would suggest a paranormal f a c u l t y a l b e i t not
a p h y s i c a l one.
Of one t h i n g , o n l y , we can be c e r t a i n .
I t was not the
r e s u l t of Mrs Duncan r e g u r g i t a t i n g cheesecloth I
These, then, are my s e l e c t i o n of extreme phenomena.
To r e c a p i t u l a t e ,
we have M i l e . C o i r i n with her new b r e a s t , St Joseph of Copertino
sitting
on h i s cushion of a i r , Margery's impossible o b j e c t , Indridason's
missing
arm and, l a s t l y , Helen Duncan w i t h her troupe of phantoms.
endless such examples to choose from and you may
your own
favourite l i s t .
There are
enjoy t r y i n g t o compile
The common f a c t o r i n a l l these cases i s that
the act as i n t e l l e c t u a l i r r i t a n t s .
They c o n t r i v e to make us f e e l uneasy
15/
but we see no way of g e t t i n g r i d of them. Some of you may be disappointed
thatjJ- d i d not s e l e c t any more t o p i c a l example.
ing
I can only plead t h a t , look-
around a t the world today, I could see no obvious candidates.
has long been i n a c t i v e .
Ted S e r i o s
U r i G e l l e r has taken a t e r r i b l e b a t t e r i n g and the
m i n i g e l l e r s have become ever s c a r c e r .
The SORRAT group i n M i s s o u r i have
never won the confidence of the parapsychological community.
Batcheldor's
is
set-up i n Exeter sounds great fun f o r the p a r t i c i p a n t s but i t does not e a s i l y
t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the p u b l i c domain and Batcheldor himself now says that he
makes no f i r m c l a i m s .
There i s , o f course, S a i Baba i n I n d i a .
He has h i s
admirers and I am l o o k i n g forward eagerly t o reading Haraldsson's new book
about him but, a t the same time, we cannot ignore the f a c t that he has never
l e t Haraldsson, or anyone else, t e s t him.
I f I had t o choose a contemporary
example I would plump f o r the Chinese c h i l d r e n .
They a r e c r e d i t e d w i t h
c l a i r v o y a n t a b i l i t y f a r surpassing anything we have known i n the West. I
have now read three separate accounts o f t h e i r phenomena, each w r i t t e n
by a Western s c i e n t i s t of Chinese e x t r a c t i o n who knows the language. Each,
w h i l e v i s i t i n g China, was allowed access t o one or more such c h i l d r e n .
Each was given c a r t e blanch t o devise h i s own t a r g e t s , p i c t u r e s or i n s c j l p o t i o n s ,
and t o administer the t e s t i n h i s own p r e f e r r e d way. I n each case the r e s u l t s
were phenomenally s u c c e s s f u l and yet i n each case the s c i e n t i s t went back t o
the West convinced that the c h i l d r e n could not have t r i c k e d him.
But, of
course, t h i s i s only a beginning and much more r i g o r o u s evidence i s needed
before we are brought t o a c r e d i b i l i t y impasse.
F i n a l l y , what lessons do I want you t o takeaway from a l l that I have
been saying ?
I hope no one w i l l regard t h i s t a l k as an i n v i t a t i o n t o
members of the P.A. t o throw c a u t i o n t o the winds and abandon t h e i r customary
and commendable s c i e n t i f i c r e s t r a i n t .
I want, f u r t h e r , t o say that although
I am indeed f a s c i n a t e d by extreme phenomena I do not want t o g l o a t about
them.
On the c o n t r a r y , I am f e a r f u l of what might happen i f such phenomena
ever become more widespread o r more widely c r e d i t e d . For the i r o n y of my s i t u a t i o n
i s t h a t , i d e a l o g i c a l l y speaking, I am on the s i d e of David Hume.
I consider
that excessive c r e d u l i t y does f a r more harm than excessive i n c r e d u l i t y .
The
g r e a t e s t menace that confronts us today i s s t i l l , as i t was f o r David Hume,
s u p e r s t i t i o n , i r r a t i o n a l i t y and f a n a t i c i s m . The recent resurgence of fundam e n t a l i s t r e l i g i o n p a i n f u l l y underscores my p o i n t .
However, i f extreme phenomena e x i s t i t would be i n t e l l e c t u a l l y dishonest
as w e l l as cowardly t o discount them.
And a f t e r a l l , t o be a r a t i o n a l i s t
does not mean that one has got t o b e l i e v e t h a t everything i n the end w i l l
be s u s c e p t i b l e to r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , there may be some things we s h a l l never
understand.
A r a t i o n a l ' r a t i o n a l i s t ' i s one who merely denies that there i s
16/
any a l t e r n a t i v e short-cut to t r u t h , whether we c a l l i t f a i t h , i n t u i t i o n or
whatever and who
therefore refuses to abandon reason.
S u r v i v a l i s t s w i l l no doubt f i n d i n many of these extreme phenomena a
v i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r p o s i t i o n and, of course, they have every r i g h t to
do so.
who
For my p a r t , however, i t puzzles me why
those on the other s i d e
have the power to communicate with us should choose to do so i n such
a b i z a r r e and unseemly f a s h i o n .
And yet, I must confess, that I f i n d i t
no l e s s i m p l a u s i b l e to a t t r i b u t e such cataclysmic disturbances to the
medium's p r i v a t e unconscious.
Perhaps some t r a n s p e r s o n a l or cosmic f o r c e
i s somehow being harnessed i n these s i t u a t i o n s ?
One
consequence of t a k i n g aboard these phenomena, so i t seems to
me,
i s that i t jeopardizes what I l i k e to c a l l the ' a s s i m i l a t i o n i s t program'.
At almost every gathering of parapsychologists that I have attended
has been someone who
there
gets up and d e c l a r e s , often with an e v a n g e l i c a l f e r -
vour, that we need only one more turn of the s c i e n t i f i c s p i r a l , one more
paradigm s h i f t , and we w i l l be able to take our r i g h t f u l place alongside
the e s t a b l i s h e d sciences.
I have always been d o u b t f u l about t h i s s c e n a r i o .
The i d e a , so widely canvassed, that we might somehow get i n on the coatt a i l s , as i t were, of quantum theory never s t r u c k me as being very p l a u s i b l e
However, as long as parapsychology could be seen as confined to a c e r t a i n
w e l l defined set of s t a t i s t i c a l anomalies - as many of our c r i t i c s
imagine i t to be - there was something going f o r such an i d e a .
still
Once we
admit extreme phenomena, on the other hand, t h i s prospect looks increasingly
forlorn.
They are j u s t too a n a r c h i c .
What, then, i s the a l t e r n a t i v e ? At f i r s t blush they may
appear to take
us r i g h t away from the o r d e r l y world of science and plunge us back i n t o the
dark c h a o t i c world of magic.
not be q u i t e so bleak.
But, on f u r t h e r r e f l e c t i o n , the s i t u a t i o n
I f , l i k e me,
may
you b e l i e v e that parapsychology, alone
among the sciences, s t u d i e s the i n f l u e n c e of mind on matter, i s i t r e a l l y so
s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , every once i n a w h i l e , we meet with a case where mind overreaches i t s e l f with the r e s u l t s that we have been d i s c u s s i n g .