Category: Recent Publications

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

Over the years many philosophers have written about the implications of the data of psychical research to the issue of survival of death. Some modern ones include C.D. Broad, Stephen Braude, and C.J. Ducasse. Philosopher Michael Sudduth continues this tradition with his recent book A Philosophical Critique of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

Sudduth Philosophical Critique Survival

Michael (D. Phil., University of Oxford) describes himself in the Amazon page of his book as “a philosopher of religion with a background in analytic philosophy, Christian theology, and eastern philosophy and religion.” Furthermore, “his spiritual journey has led him from the Christian tradition to the Vaishnava bhakti traditions of India, the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, and Zen Buddhism, each of which informs his approach to the Transcendent.” Michael is currently a Philosophy Lecturer at San Francisco State University (San Francisco, CA). Some of the courses he has taught are: The Buddhist Tradition, Ancient Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, and Philosophical Analysis.

For more information about Michael’s ideas and work see his Cup of Nirvana page and blogs.

Michael Sudduth

Michael Sudduth

Here is the table of contents of his book:

Introduction: The Classical Empirical Survival Debate

Exploring the Hypothesis of Personal Survival

Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences

Mediumistic Communications

Cases of the Reincarnation Type

Classical Explanatory Arguments for Survival

Bayesian Explanatory Arguments

Bayesian Defenses of the Survival Hypothesis

The Problem of Auxiliary Assumptions

Exotic Counter-Explanations

Conclusion: The Classical Arguments Defeated


Can you give us a brief summary of the book?

The main objective of my book is to offer a critique of arguments for life after death. There are lots of arguments of this sort. I focus specifically on arguments based on data drawn from phenomena associated with near-death and out-of-body experiences, mediumship, and cases of the reincarnation type. I refer to these arguments as classical empirical arguments for survival.

Unlike other skeptical assessments of such arguments, my critique doesn’t challenge the alleged facts on which the arguments are based, nor do I argue that there is no life after death. Instead, I explore the kinds of assumptions the classical arguments require if they are to succeed in doing what their advocates claim on their behalf, namely, provide good evidence for survival. I argue that we have no good reason to accept these assumptions. Consequently, the classical arguments do not provide good evidence for personal survival.

That’s a general way of stating what I argue, but there are two more specific tiers of argument that make up the structure of my book. To understand these arguments, we should first be clear on what survivalists themselves have claimed about the case for survival. First, there’s an evidential probability claim: postmortem survival has a favorable net probability/plausibility based on the salient facts. In other words, survival is at least more probable than not, if not highly probable relative to the total evidence. Second, there’s an explanatory claim: survival provides the best explanation of the relevant facts. The two claims are interrelated because survivalists often assume that explanatory merit has evidential cash-value. They argue that survival is probable or very probable because it provides the best explanation of the data.

I argue that survivalists haven’t provided a good enough reason to believe either of the two main claims (in italics) above. Here it’s important to emphasize that I don’t argue that survival is not the best explanation of the data, nor that survival is improbable. I only argue that survivalists have failed to make good on their claims. Why? Because the arguments necessarily depend on assumptions that (1) we have no good reason to accept and (2) would be self-defeating to the case for survival, even if we accepted them.

What are these assumptions?

First, there are general assumptions about what the evidence for survival should look like. In the absence of such assumptions, there’s no plausible inference from features of the world to the claim that persons survive death. In much the same way, if I don’t know (or reasonably believe) what the evidence that Mr. X committed the crime should look like, I can’t plausibly regard any crime-scene fact as evidence that Mr. X committed the crime.

But second – and most fundamentally – there are fine-grained assumptions about what consciousness would probably be like if it should survive death. Without these assumptions, we could not say with any reasonable degree of assurance what would count as evidence for the survival of consciousness. These include assumptions about the memories, desires, intentions, and continuing perceptual and causal powers of surviving consciousness, as well as the conditions under which such powers can be exercised. I call these auxiliary assumptions since they’re not intrinsic to postulating the mere continuation of individual consciousness after death.

Since this is a crucial part of my argument, let me clarify. In postulating personal survival we’re postulating the persistence of consciousness and everything essential to individual consciousness. This includes whatever mental processes or content underwrites our sense of self. But this is logically consistent with the persistence of very little autobiographical memory or none at all. Nor is this a mere theoretical possibility. It’s precisely what happens in dream states, dissociative fugue, and other forms of amnesia. And what’s true of memory here is also true of our wider psychology – for example, our desires, intentions, personality traits, and skills. The content in consciousness is very fluid even over short periods of time, as are its behavioral manifestations. So, even if we suppose that postmortem consciousness is likely to exhibit the same general features antemortem consciousness exhibits, we really can’t say with any reasonable degree of assurance what we should expect survival evidence to look like in any particular case. We only get there by making further assumptions.

So simple survival does not logically entail (nor make probable) a surviving self that retains all the right stuff: the stock of memories, desires, intentions, and perceptual abilities and causal powers required for ongoing lifelike interactions with our world and that would justify identifying a person as the same as (or the continuation of) some previous personality. We need auxiliary assumptions to bulk up a generic or simple survival hypothesis (or theory) into a more conceptually robust hypothesis (or theory) that can plausibly account for the data.

I argue that simple survival – postulating the mere persistence of individual consciousness after death – explains nothing because there’s no fact about the world it would lead us to expect or not to expect. For example, simple survival doesn’t lead us to expect on-going veridical perceptions of our world, causal interactions with our world, or any of the individual memory and personality features the data allegedly exhibit and that survival is invoked to explain.

What’s needed is a robust survival hypothesis, but that’s problematic. There are lots of assumptions we can make about what surviving consciousness might be like. After all, as explained above, consciousness in our antemortem state is highly variable, even for the same person. But the assumptions we make about what postmortem consciousness will be like affects the extent to which the data are what we would expect if survival is true. That in turn affects the explanatory power of the survival hypothesis. At present there’s no rational basis for privileging survival assumptions that would lead us to expect the data, and no rational basis for favoring such assumptions over alternative assumptions – equally consistent with survival – that would not lead us to expect the data.

But also, there’s no sufficient reason for favoring the kinds of assumptions needed for a successful survival argument over the kinds of assumptions that would empower proposed counter-explanations of the data and thereby undermine survival arguments. For example, the assumptions that would empower living-agent psi explanations are no less reasonable than as those required for survival arguments. Survivalists will deny this parity, of course, but I’ve tried to show that this denial isn’t plausible.

It’s important to remember that the survival hypothesis will be the best explanation of the data only if it better explains the data than do alternative non-survival hypotheses. I argue that survival can’t explain the data without being bulked up, and it can’t be the best explanation of the data if it’s bulked up. Why the latter? Because the kinds of kinds of reasons survivalists adduce to rule out counter explanations also rule out a bulked-up survival hypothesis.

Let me illustrate the point. Take the standard two-tiered strategy to rule out the appeal to living-agent psychic functioning. On the one hand, survivalists like to point out that living-agent psi can’t account for persons possessing linguistic skills characteristic of a previous personality, the motivation for mediums to impersonate the deceased or confabulate communications with them, or – in cases of the reincarnation type – for persons possessing information about a previous personality in the form of memories. On the other hand, when a living-agent psi hypothesis is bulked up with assumptions drawn from psychology regarding motivational dynamics, dissociative phenomena, rare mnemonic gifts, and the sudden manifestation of linguistic skills not previously evidenced, then survivalists complain that these assumptions are ad hoc, introduce unnecessary complexity, or lack adequate independent support.

As I see it, survivalists either exploit the explanatory limitations that trivially apply to a simple version of the living-agent psi hypothesis or they object to the assumptions used to bulk up such a hypothesis so that it can explain the data. I show that these objections are equally applicable (if not more so) to the assumptions required for any robust survival hypothesis to explain the data.

What’s especially important to appreciate here is how the survivalist is often engaged in a (perhaps unconscious) logical sleight of hand that masks the self-defeating nature of his reasoning. Survivalists routinely contrast a simple survival hypothesis and a robust living-agent psi hypothesis to show that living-agent psi – unlike survival – is overly complex and relies on assumptions that are ad hoc or lack independent support. But when survivalists wish to focus on the explanatory advantages of the survival hypothesis, they contrast a simple living-agent psi hypothesis (which explains very little) and a robust interpretation of survival. And they usually don’t acknowledge the conceptual cost of achieving the alleged explanatory advantages. As a result, they miss how the kind of survival hypothesis that adequately accommodates the data requires assumptions that are at least as complex, ad hoc, and lacking in the way of independent support as those adopted by the defender of the living-agent psi hypothesis in the interest of accommodating the data.

So, contrary to how some reviewers of my book have presented my position, I do not claim that living-agent psi is a better an explanation of the data, only that survivalists are in a particularly poor position to argue that it’s not. And the same holds for other counter-explanations of the data.

I apply similar considerations to argue that classical empirical arguments for survival as far back as C.J. Ducasse fail to show that survival is more probable than not, much less highly probable. I develop this line of argument in considerable detail using different models of evidential probability used in confirmation theory (the logic of evidence assessment). All three forms of survival argument I consider converge on the same basic conceptual problem: the unjustified inclusion and exclusion of auxiliary assumptions required to underwrite what survivalists have wanted to say on behalf of the survival hypothesis.

What is your background in parapsychology, and with the topic of the book specifically? 

I’m a philosopher by profession and academic training, with concentrations in epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. But I’ve had something of a life-long interest in anomalous phenomena, especially phenomena suggestive of survival, based on personal experiences and philosophical reflection.

I developed an interest in the work on survival by H.H. Price, C.D. Broad, and C.J. Ducasse after reading John Hick’s book Death and Eternal Life in graduate school at Oxford. When I started teaching philosophy and religion courses, I incorporated the topic of survival in a lot of my classes, eventually using it as a regular narrative in some of my classes for many years. During that time, I did the bulk of the research on the topical territory of my book.

While the book reading was helpful, I also benefited from a decade of conversations with parapsychologists and fellow philosophers who have worked and published on this topic. I’ve also joined parapsychologists on some field investigations over the years (with Loyd Auerbach, for example), and I’ve critically examined mediums firsthand. I’ve also personally experienced a broad range of ostensibly paranormal phenomena.

The first half of my academic career was devoted to applying developments in epistemology, logic, and philosophy of science in the exploration of questions in the justification religious belief and arguments for the existence of God. After my first book on this topic, I shifted my focus to life after death, philosophy of mind, and a broad range of issues in psychology.

I think my academic training in Anglo-American philosophy, together with an extensive educational and teaching background in Eastern and Western religious traditions, has enhanced my approach to the topic of survival. 

What motivated you to write this book? 

Three things.

First, it was the natural result of a decade-long inquiry during which time my views changed. I started as a survivalist who thought the arguments for survival were good. I became a survivalist who thought the arguments were defective upon closer scrutiny. I ended up concluding that the arguments were more defective than I initially thought, unable to accomplish what their proponents claim on their behalf. I’m no longer a survivalist – I neither affirm nor deny survival – though I remain open to future evidence persuading me. I suspect that evidence will come from cognitive neuroscience and technological developments in artificial intelligence, not parapsychology.

Second, following the lead of C.D. Broad and H.H. Price, I wanted to critically explore the conceptual aspects of reasoning about survival. The literature has emphasized the empirical dimensions of research, the so-called facts, but as is often the case it’s not the facts that divide people but the interpretation of the facts. I wanted to go right to that. That’s what philosophers do. We try to unearth the deeper strata of assumptions that drive a line of reasoning. This allows a more effective assessment of the coherence and plausibility of the underlying commitments and argumentation.

Third, and related to the above, I wanted to write a book that treated the topic with more logical rigor than has typically been the case in the literature over the past thirty years. Much of the literature, the bulk of it I’d say, is little more than a heap of facts and a hasty, if not opaque, inference to survival as being “probable” or “the best explanation.” Survivalists place far too much emphasis on how counter-explanations allegedly fail, but they’re deficient in showing how the survival hypothesis succeeds. Even the importance of this distinction is often not on their conceptual radar. As a philosopher, I’m interested in how we make good arguments and justify claims about evidence, probability, and the explanatory merit of hypotheses and theories. I’ve found the bulk of the literature at this juncture underwhelming at best.

It is unclear why survivalists have so frequently lacked logical rigor in their treatment of the topic. My charitable reading is that they’re calibrating their publications for popular consumption. That has its place of course, but it can become a liability, a conceptual bypass that sidesteps the crucial questions rather than advances the discussion with the appropriate critical scrutiny.

Why do you think your book is important and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

I think the importance of my book is its approach. It’s a new approach to long-standing, widely discussed arguments. And it provides a new analysis of why the classical empirical arguments for survival are defective. I hope this will encourage survivalists and non-survivalists alike to recalibrate their arguments in the light of my critique. That’s a good way to move the dialogue forward.

Outside academic philosophy, the bulk of the literature on survival since the latter part of the 1960s has been almost exclusively focused on presenting data (allegedly suggestive of survival), but the literature has neglected to adequately engage a variety of conceptual issues involved in evidence assessment and explanatory reasoning. As a result, there’s been a disconnect between the data and the kind of argument that’s required to justifiably maintain that the data are good evidence for survival. My book addresses this head on.

Otherwise put, I’m addressing architectural or structural issues in the reasoning about survival. What’s required for survival to be the best explanation of the data? What’s required to “rule out” out counter-explanations? What does it even mean to rule out counter-explanations? When are we reasonable to conclude that evidence makes a hypothesis probable? When highly probable? What kinds of assumptions are built into such reasoning?

To be sure, other books have provided useful informal explorations of some of these questions, but they’ve neglected to dial-in some of the crucial conceptual issues – for example, the role of auxiliary assumptions in hypothesis/theory testing and how this impacts the argument for survival.

But also, I’ve offered a rigorous formal treatment of the classical arguments for survival, something that Broad and Ducasse hinted at in their day. I’ve addressed the favorable probability claims made on behalf of survival by examining these claims through the lenses of the two most widely adopted models of evidential probability – Likelihoodism and Bayesianism. It’s somewhat surprising that survivalists haven’t already done this. After all, many of them rely on and invoke Bayesian principles – for example, referring to prior probabilities in trying to assess the total probability of survival relative to the evidence. And those who don’t invoke Bayesian principles typically rely on Likelihoodist principles, which provide a metric for determining when evidence favors one hypothesis over another.

Oddly, a few reviewers didn’t care for my deployment of the resources of confirmation theory, but they missed the implications of their own critique. As I show, it’s survivalists who tacitly or overtly rely on the assumptions that confirmation theory explicates and systematizes. The formal techniques of confirmation theory create no problems that aren’t already inherent in the informal assumptions about evidence. So if there’s a problem here, it’s a problem for survivalists who rely on Bayesian or Likelihoodist measures for assessing evidence. Naturally I agree that such assumptions make it difficult, if not impossible, for survivalists to justify their claims about the survival hypothesis. However, in the absence of arguments for survival that rely on different, more plausible assumptions about the nature of evidence and how we assess it, survivalist claims look more like wishes and hopes than the conclusions of serious argumentation.

I would also emphasize how my analysis provides results that are provocative and immune to the typical strategies survivalists deploy in defense of their arguments.

First, on my view, arguments for survival are challenged for reasons that have nothing to do with positions in philosophy of mind. This is important because survivalists routinely devote a lot of space to trying to debunk so-called materialist philosophies of mind. But neither my arguments nor their cogency depends on any particular position in philosophy of mind. For example, I argue that the classical arguments fail to show that survival is more probable than not, but without the assumption that materialism is true. In fact, my arguments work even if we assume that materialism is false.

Second, I show that survival arguments fail even if we don’t treat survival as antecedently improbable. Some prominent survivalists claim that critics of survival stack the deck by assigning a very low initial probability to the survival hypothesis. I don’t do that. For example, I show that the classical arguments will still fail to show that survival is more probable than not, even if we begin with the generous assumption that survival is as probable as not.

Third, survival arguments fail even if rival non-survival explanations are antecedently improbable. This is significant because some survivalists think rival explanations of the data can be reasonably invoked only if we assume that such explanations are initially plausible or even more plausible than survival. Or, at any rate, that such counter-explanations couldn’t pose a serious challenge to survival arguments unless we invested them with initial plausibility. This is not true. For example, I argue that the appeal to living-agent psi can challenge survival arguments even if this exotic counter-explanation strains credulity and is antecedently very improbable.

Finally, I show that classical explanatory survival arguments are self-defeating. They must show that survival explains the data, and that rival explanations do not explain the data as well as the survival hypothesis does. But, as explained above, I show that survivalists typically rule out counter-explanations for reasons that equally apply to any formulation of a survival hypothesis or theory that has a ghost of chance of explaining anything at all.

As I said above, when I set out to write my book, it was my hope that I would provide an analysis and set of arguments that would advance the survival debate, perhaps only a smidgeon. To that prospect I think I must say at present what C.D. Broad said about survival: “one can only wait and see, or alternatively (which is no less likely) wait and not see.”

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

Animal magnetism continues to be a topic of historical research. Here are some articles on the subject published between 2015 and 2019.

Animal Magnetism

Alvarado, C.S. (2019). Classic text No. 119: Jules Bernard Luys on magnetic pathology. History of Psychiatry, 30, 359–374. (Available from the author:

In the mesmeric movement, one of the phenomena cited to defend the existence of magnetic and nervous forces was the visual perception of them in the form of luminous emanations from people, or effluvia. This Classic Text is an 1892 article by French neurologist, Jules Bernard Luys (1828–97), about the observation of such effluvia by hypnotized individuals. Interestingly, the luminous phenomena perceived from mentally diseased individuals and from healthy ones had particular properties. Luys’s interest in this and other unorthodox phenomena were consistent with ideas of animal magnetism in the late neo-mesmeric movement, as well as with some physicalistic conceptions of hypnosis and the nervous system held at the time.

Jules Bernard Luys 2

Jules Bernard Luys

Brückner, B. (2016). Animal magnetism, psychiatry and subjective experience in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Friedrich Krauß and his Nothschrei. Medical History, 60, 19–36.

Friedrich Krauß (1791–1868) is the author of Nothschreieines Magnetisch-Vergifteten [Cry of Distress by a Victim of Magnetic Poisoning] (1852), which has been considered one of the most comprehensive self-narratives of madness published in the German language. In this 1018-page work Krauß documents his acute fears of ‘mesmerist’ influence and persecution, his detainment in an Antwerp asylum and his encounter with various illustrious physicians across Europe. Though in many ways comparable to other prominent nineteenth-century first-person accounts (eg. John Thomas Perceval’s 1838 Narrative of the Treatment Experienced by a Gentle manor Daniel Paul Schreber’s 1903 Memoirs of my Nervous Illness), Krauß’s story has received comparatively little scholarly attention. This is especially the case in the English-speaking world. In this article I reconstruct Krauß’s biography by emphasising his relationship with physicians and his under-explored stay at the asylum. I then investigate the ways in which Krauß appropriated nascent theories about ‘animal magnetism’ to cope with his disturbing experiences. Finally, I address Krauß’s recently discovered calligraphic oeuvre, which bears traces of his typical fears all the while showcasing his artistic skills. By moving away from the predominantly clinical perspective that has characterised earlier studies, this article reveals how Friedrich Krauß sought to make sense of his experience by selectively appropriating both orthodox and non-orthodox forms of medical knowledge. In so doing, it highlights the mutual interaction of discourses ‘from above’ and ‘from below’ as well as the influence of broader cultural forces on conceptions of self and illness during that seminal period.

Crabtree, A. (2019). 1784: The Marquis de Puységur and the psychological turn in the west. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 55, 119-215. (Request reprint from author

In 1970 Henri Ellenberger called attention to the previously unrecognized importance of Franz Anton Mesmer’s “animal magnetism” in the rise of psychodynamic psychology in the West. This article takes the next step of tracing the course of events that led to Puységur’s discovery of magnetic somnambulism and describing the tumultuous social and political climate into which it was introduced in 1784. Beginning from the secret and private publication of his first Mémoires, only a few copies of which remain today, the original core of his discovery is identified and the subsequent development of its implications are examined. Puysègur was initiated into his investigations by Mesmer’s system of physical healing, which bears some resemblance to the traditional healing approaches of the East. But Puységur took Mesmer’s ideas in an unexpected direction. In doing so, he accomplished a turn toward the psychological that remains one of the distinguishing features of Western culture.

Puysegur Memoires

Donaldson, I.M.L. (2017). Antoine de Lavoisier’s role in designing a single-blind trial to assess whether “animal magnetism” exists. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 110, 163-167.

“In 1784, a Royal Commission was appointed in Paris to examine the claims made by Anton Mesmer and his associates that there existed a fluid – the so-called Animal Magnetism, which permeated all living creatures – manipulation of which could relieve or cure all human maladies . . . In the course of the investigation, which eventually proved to the Commissioners’ complete satisfaction that the effects produced by the manipulations of the magnetisers were not due to any physical force, the Commission devised the first known experiments using blind comparisons to compare the effects of two treatments.” This paper examines the contributions of Antoine Lavoisier to these studies.

Image result for antoine lavoisier

Antoine Lavoisier

Gainot, B. (2018). Des baquets sous les Tropiques: À propos de la diffusion du magnétisme animal à Saint-Domingue en 1784 [The baquets in the Tropics: On the dissemination of animal magnetism in Santo Domingo]. Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, No. 391, 81-104. (Request reprint from the author

The export of mesmerism out of metropolitan territory is very limited, but it had a great success, a few weeks after the arrival of Antoine Hyacinte Chastenet de Puysegur in the great town of the northern part of the colony of Saint-Domingue, Le Cap Français, in June 1784. This episode is especially known after the hostile testimony, of Moreau de Saint-Mery. The lists of the members of Philadelphes, however, are often the same than those of the members of the Society of Universal Harmonie in Le Cap. So, magnetism and learning sociability are the same expression of a creolising white-consciousness, which self-modelled on the fashions of the metropolitan culture, though different. This social phenomenon will be developed mainly in the great northern town, the other sources coming from the same background. Black slaves and free-coloured people are not directly concerned. The usual testimony of Moreau de Saint-Méry, who gives mesmerism equivalent to voodoo must be kept in perspective.

Häfner, S. (2017). Justinus Kerner and mesmerism. European Psychiatry, 41, S685–S686.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) on Kerner’s way of treating patients . . . Kerner was very much influenced by Mesmer and left volumes of psycho-pathological case histories that helped to prepare a way for a medicine more psychotherapeutically founded.

Justinus Kerner

Justinus Kerner

Laerda, D.C.O. (2018). Saberes ocultos no Brasil Império e arte da cura pelo magnetismo animal e a busca pela legitimidade [Hidden knowledge in the Brazil Empire: the art of healing through animal magnetism and the search for legitimacy]. História e Cultura, 7, 91-119. (For a reprint write to the author:

The principles and practice of animal magnetism were consolidated in France a few years before the French Revolution took place. Amid controversy and a growing number of adepts, animal magnetism surpasses the barriers of time and space frontiers, arriving in Brazil in the first decades of the nineteenth century through the French immigrant Leopold Gamard. The purpose of this work was to understand Gamard’s attempts to legitimize animal magnetism as a curative practice before medical scientific institutions and public opinion in the imperial court. In order to do so, we examined popular scientific journals and newspapers in an attempt to combine fragments to reconstruct Leopold Gamard’s intriguing trajectory and helped to weave the fabric of social relations in the construction of representations and appropriations of the practice of animal magnetism as an alternative for healing diseases.

Manson, D.K. (2017). Science with a soul: James Freeman Clarke and the promise of mesmerism. Studies in Religion / SciencesReligieuses, 47, 246-262.

From the 1840s through to the end of his life in 1888, James Freeman Clarke’s influence permeated newspapers, churches, and lecture halls in Boston. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Clarke was an educated and active participant in his community and a respected voice amongst Boston intellectuals. At a time when sciences of the mind were rapidly expanding, Clarke neither ceded authority nor turned a blind eye. Instead, he studied emerging psychologies himself, approaching them as ways to enhance his understanding of the human being—body, soul, and spirit. In his private writings, including journals and letters, Clarke discusses his applications of experimental science, and he appears especially enthusiastic about mesmerism. However, from the pulpit and the lectern, Clarke was almost silent on the topic. This article examines Clarke’s private letters, journals, and sermon notes, accessed in the archives at the Massachusetts Historical Society, for evidence of the role mesmerism played in Clarke’s religious ideology, specifically his concept of man’s physical and spiritual constitution. For Clarke, mesmerism allowed an intimate incorporation of the body with theology, for through it the body became a conduit to the soul and to individual character. Clarke’s interest in and practice of mesmerism reveals it as an underground force that not only shaped his thoughts and theology, but also influenced a number of fellow theologians and intellectuals during the mid-nineteenth century.

Morabito, C. (2019). Rethinking mesmerism and its dissemination in the 19th century: At the intersection between philosophy, medicine and psychology. Medicina nei Secoli: Arte e Scienza, 1, 71-92. (Reprint available from the author:

The thought and work of Anton Mesmer had a great dissemination in the last decades of the XVIII century and all along the XIX, a dissemination that differed in its theoretical and practical valences in line with the peculiar cultural, social and political contexts of the main European countries. On the basis of a new science of the mind social reforms were invoked, ranging from education to ethics and to the treatment of mental disorders, obviously passing through the questioning of the legal and political organization of the various States. A new physiology justified and at the same time required to replace with the scientific knowledge the basic ideological and social assumptions upon which the whole society was based, from schools to prisons and asylums. But does it really was scientific knowledge? And who had the last word on this problem, a problem that was in the first place epistemological but had also enormous social implications?

Vallejo, M.S. (2015). Magnetizadores, ilusionistas y médicos. Una aproximación a la historia del hipnotismo en México (1880-1900). Trashumante: Revista Americana de Historia Social 5, 200-219.

The purpose of this article is to present a historical reconstruction of the use of hypnosis by physicians in Mexico City during 1880-1900. In addition to discussing how hypnotism was studied and used by these professionals, an attempt is made to show that in the publications of physicians there is a dialog between an academic discipline and other users of hypnosis, mainly theatrical illusionists.  Particular attention is paid to the performances of two hypnotists that visited Mexico at the end of the 19th century.

Image result for animal magnetism

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

I have met the editor of the book commented here, Dr. Gerhard Mayer, in conventions and have had email correspondence with him. He obtained a PhD in psychology from the University of Freiburg with a dissertation about how adolescents view movies about occult topics. Currently he works at the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene on cultural aspects of frontier fields, including parapsychology, shamanism, altered states of consciousness and astrology.

Gerhard Mayer 2

Gerhard Mayer

The book he has edited, N Equals 1: Single Case Studies in Anomalistics (Zurich: Lit, 2019, 397 pp.; click here; to order from the publisher click here), is a unique compilation of papers about the use of single case studies of various types of unexplained phenomena. Such as crop circles, hauntings, poltergeists, recurrent apparitions of the living, and UFOs. I am glad to be one of the authors in the book.

Mayer N Equals 1

Here is the table of contents:

Stephen E. Braude: Foreword

Steve Braude 4

Stephen E. Braude

Part I: General Considerations

Gerhard Mayer & Michael Schetsche: Introduction – Research Logic, Models, and Particularities

Carlos S. Alvarado: The Place of Spontaneous Cases in Parapsychology

Part II: Single Case Studies in Anomalistics

Gerhard Mayer & Michael Schetsche: Introduction: Single Case Studies in Anomalistics

Michael Schetsche

Michael Schetsche

Gerhard Mayer & Michael Schetsche: RSPK Investigations

Gerhard Mayer & Michael Schetsche: Cryptozoology & Crop Circle Research: Two Further Fields of Investigation at a Glance

Andreas Anton: UFO Research

Part III: Historical Case Studies

Michael Nahm: Historical Perspective: Justinus Kerner’s Case Study Into the “Prison Spook” in Weinsberg and Spooky Actions at a Distance in 1835–1836

Gerd H. Hövelmann, Carlos S. Alvarado, Massimo Biondi & Friedrike Schriever: The Case History as an Exemplar: The Recurrent Apparitions of Emélie Sagée

Gerd Hovelmann 2

Gerd H. Hövelmann

Gerd H. Hövelmann

Gerhard Mayer: The Bélmez Faces: An Investigation of a Supposedly Strong Case

Gerhard Mayer: The Authority Strikes Back: Considerations About the Allegedly Fraudulent “Chopper” Poltergeist Case

Part IV: Contemporary Case Studies

Gerhard Mayer: Case Report of the Investigation of a Strange Photographic Anomaly

Gerhard Mayer & Jürgen Kornmeier: Mysterious Objects in Pictures Taken by a Wildlife Camera: The Pitfalls of Perception

Jürgen Kornmeier

Gerhard Mayer: The “Castle Hotel” Case – Becoming a Haunting Myth and a “Lost Place”: An Investigation Report

Manuela v. Lucadou & Sarah Pohl: Dead Monks Walking: Methods and Experiences from the Parapsychological Counseling Centre (Freiburg/Germany) for Dealing with Poltergeist Phenomena

Renaud Evrard: The “Amnéville RSPK Case“: An Illustration of Social Elusiveness?

Renaud Evrard4

Renaud Evrard


About the Contributors


Can you give us a brief summary of the book?

This volume, N equals 1. Single Case Studies in Anomalistics, is intended to give an overview of the methodological peculiarities of anomalistic field research. Single case studies have a long tradition in the field of parapsychology and anomalistics research. Although case studies do not usually provide hard evidence for the existence of paranormal effects, they demonstrate the dynamics of occurrence of such extraordinary phenomena and experiences in the living world. On the basis of historical and current case studies, certain specific psychosocial dynamics and problems in this interesting and challenging field of research are presented and discussed.

N Equals 1 contains 15 chapters written by different authors on the subject of single case studies. Although the focus is on poltergeist cases, other fields of anomalistics are also addressed such as UFOs, cryptozoology, or allegedly photographic anomalies.

What is your background in the study of anomalies, and with the topic of the book specifically?

I have been working at the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene  in Freiburg/Germany since 1996. During my studies in psychology, I was interested in qualitative research approaches because they offer a greater proximity to everyday life and a different view of the phenomena under investigation. This is particularly important for parapsychology and anomalistics because paranormal effects in the laboratory rarely occur spectacularly. Furthermore, they seem to have nothing to do with such phenomena and extraordinary experiences made in, and reported from the living environment. Careful examination of single cases can provide information about contextual conditions of their occurrence and give input for improving experimental research and theory building. I have had the opportunity to be part of the examination of several single case studies in the field. Some reports found their way into the book.

What motivated you to write this book?

The first edition mainly consisted of texts by my colleague Michael Schetsche and me. Since that time, I expanded the research with new as well as old cases to represent specific topics, such as  the role of mass media or the social dynamics. During my translation of the German text, I became interested in going deeper into the reconstruction of some historical cases such as the famous one about the Bélmez faces. This volume, accordingly revised, is a considerably extended version of a German edition published in 2011. I wanted to enrich the book with the work of other authors on this topic. And I wanted to reach a larger readership by publishing it in English.

Why do you think your book is important and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

Single case studies in parapsychology and anomalistics have only been seen as illustrative or anecdotal. In recent years, the value of single case studies for gaining knowledge about anomalistic phenomena and the conditions under which they occur has been increasingly recognized with a wider acceptance of qualitative research methods in general. The book is intended to provide a building block for the appreciation of this type of research as an equivalent complement to laboratory research. In addition, the case reports clarify methodological peculiarities that involve field investigations in anomalistics. Furthermore, contemporary and historical case material is presented to English-speaking readers for the first time in this detailed form. Last but not least, the case studies and methodological considerations presented in this volume are intended to correct the publicly dominant picture of what a scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena looks like, which much of the time is characterized by so-called paranormal investigations by amateur ghost hunters.

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

Those of you who follow my work know of my interest in neo-mesmerism, or the late mesmeric movement popular during the last quarter of the Nineteenth-Century, and even later (click here, and here ). In the article discussed here I focus on a fascinating figure from France, neurologist Jules Bernard Luys.

Jules Bernard Luys

Jules Bernard Luys

Alvarado, C.S. (2019). Classic text No. 119: Jules Bernard Luys on magnetic pathology. History of Psychiatry, 30, 359–374. (a PDF version of this article is available on request:


“In the mesmeric movement, one of the phenomena cited to defend the existence of magnetic and nervous forces was the visual perception of them in the form of luminous emanations from people, or effluvia. This Classic Text is an 1892 article by French neurologist, Jules Bernard Luys (1828–97), about the observation of such effluvia by hypnotized individuals. Interestingly, the luminous phenomena perceived from mentally diseased individuals and from healthy ones had particular properties. Luys’s interest in this and other unorthodox phenomena were consistent with ideas of animal magnetism in the late neo-mesmeric movement, as well as with some physicalistic conceptions of hypnosis and the nervous system held at the time.”

In addition to Luys, some of the figures that participated in the French neo-mesmeric movement were Alexandre Baréty (1844–1918), Émile Boirac (1851–1917), Albert de Rochas (1837–1914), and Hector Durville (1849–1923). “For example, Baréty defended the existence of a neuritic (neurique) force that originated ‘probably from the nervous system, which circulates along the nerves or radiates out of them … and is susceptible of producing certain sensitive, motor and psychic modifications on other human bodies.’ ”

Barety Magnetisme Animal


de rochas Forces Non Definies

Durville Traite Experimental Magnetisme Jules Bernard Luys (1828–1897) was a well-known French neurologist who worked at La Charité, an important hospital in Paris. His work was highly regarded. For example, his book Recherches sur le Système Cérébro-Spinal, sa Structure, ses Fonctions et ses Maladies (1865) was awarded a prize by the Académie des Sciences. In a addition to a great number of articles in medical journals he also published other books about neurology: Iconographie Photographique des Centres Nerveux (2 vols, 1873), Études de Physiologie et de Pathologie Cérébrale (1874), and Leçons sur la Structure et les Maladies du Système Nerveux (1875). His work was rewarded with the titles of Knight and Officer in the Légion d’Honneur, and by his election to the Académie de Médicine.

In later years Luys was interested in hypnosis, as seen in his Hypnotisme Expérimental: Les Émotions dans l’État d’Hypnotisme et l’Action à Distance de Substances Médicamenteuses ou Toxiques (Experimental Hypnotism: Emotions During the State of Hypnotism and the Action of Medical and Toxic Substances at a Distance, 1890). In his later research period Luys was interested in the action of medicines and drugs at a distance, as well as in the magnetic force of the mesmerists, claiming that he had patients that could see the magnetic force while hypnotized, and that he had been able to capture the elusive force on photographic plates. Unfortunately, this work was not well received by the medical establishment. As I stated in the paper: “These studies were not received as well as Luys’s previous physiological research had been. In fact, it was even said that because of this work Luys lost some of his scientific reputation.”

Luys Hypnotisme

Luys Esther

Esther, One of Luys’ Hypnotic Subjects

In my paper I reprint an article Luys published in 1892 entitled “De la Visibilité par les Sujets en État Hypnotique des Effluves Dégagés par les Êtres Vivants” (On the Visibility to Subjects in the Hypnotic State of Effluvia Emitted by Human Beings published in Annales de Psychiatrie et d’Hypnologie dans leurs Rapports avec la Psychologie et la Médicine Légale, 1892, 2, 321–323). “The phenomena described by Luys were in the mesmeric tradition. It may be argued that they also belonged to ideas about the aura, or the perception of various luminous shapes around the human body reported by non-hypnotized individuals such as mediums, psychics and others, a topic discussed frequently over the years. The aura, according to some writers, reflected the mental and physiological state of the person around whom it was seen, an idea also espoused by Luys.”

Luys Annales

Part of Luys’ article read as follows:

“Not only do hypnotized subjects have the attribute of seeing the magneto-electric effluvia which emerge from physical devices . . . but they can also . . . recognize the effluvia that are released from the eyes, ears, nostrils and the lips of living beings – [and can] distinguish them, those on the right side and those on the left side, putting the blue colour on the left and red on the right. Thus they distinguish in the human body and in animals a half which corresponds to the north pole, and another half which corresponds to the south pole of a magnetic bar or of a magneto-electric apparatus . . .”

“The hypnotized subject, whose eyes have been prepared and verified by the assistance of . . . ophthalmoscopic examination . . . can thus be employed as a real living reagent to recognize the differences in the coloration of the effluvia on the left side and those on the right side. In healthy, well men, the irradiated effluvia of the eye and the organs of the senses of the left side appear with a very intense blue coloration – those on the right side with a red carmine coloration. The intensity of the emitted effluvia seems to indicate the maximum energy of the nervous forces – indeed:”

“In hemiplegics, the effluvia irradiated from the eye of the paralysed side are very weak.”

“In chronic tabetics, very markedly weakened, the intensity of the effluvium is greatly diminished on both sides.”

“In neuropaths and in hysterics of both sexes, the red coloration of the effluvia of the right eye becomes violet; this is a diagnostic sign which in certain cases has allowed me to detect states of latent hysteria, and the eyes of these subjects appear incapable of moving upwards until they can form a red color. The effluvia of the ears, nostrils and lips maintain their red coloration.”

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

The authors of a recently published article explore cultural aspects of dissociation in mediumship: Everton de Oliveira Maraldi, Ricardo Nogueira Ribeiro, and Stanley Krippner, Cultural and Group Differences in Mediumship and Dissociation: Exploring the Varieties of Mediumistic Experiences. International Journal of Latin American Religions, 2019, 3, 170-192. (for reprints write to the first author:


“The mental state of mediums has often been explained in the anthropological, psychological, and psychiatric literature in terms of dissociative trance. Even though mediumistic experiences involve, by definition, many of the elements of experiences referred to as dissociative, there is some controversy about the role played by dissociation in mediumistic practices and there are few cross-cultural studies on the phenomenology of mediumship. Despite its influential contributions to elucidating the clinical and neurophysiological correlates of dissociative experiences, the biomedical model has been criticized for its emphasis on psychopathological aspects of experience and the superficial consideration of cultural and psychosocial factors at the origin of mediumistic experiences, particularly in non-clinical contexts. In this paper, we review the evidence pertaining to a series of psychiatric and anthropological investigations of mediumship carried out in Brazil and abroad in order to illustrate how group and cultural differences impact the phenomenology, definitions, and meanings attributed to mediumistic experiences. To do so, we explore the differences that exist (1) between mediums from the same religious affiliation, (2) between mediums from different affiliations, and (3) between mediums from different cultural contexts, focusing on a comparison of cases from Brazil and the UK. We argue that mediumistic experiences and beliefs are highly variable across (and even within) cultures to support a single and monolithic classification. Based on multiple evidentiary sources, we challenge the pathologically oriented biomedical model of mediumship by pointing out the complexity and diversity of these experiences and mediumship’s many cultural interpretations and phenomenological variations. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the studies reviewed for the definition of mediumship in terms of dissociation and trance.”

The authors conclude:

“Our emphasis in this paper was in the phenomenological characteristics of mediumistic experiences and the many relations between mediumship and dissociation. However, several other aspects of mediumship deserve also a detailed psychological and anthropological analysis, such as the relationship of the mediums with the spiritual entities, mediums’ beliefs about the afterlife, the medium’s social role and status within the group, and the impact of institutional dynamics in the practice of mediumship.”

“Many other cultures not mentioned here could be compared in their varieties of mediumship practice, including other countries in Latin America, such as Cuba and Argentina. Future studies could eventually benefit from the same comparative model of analysis to reflect on the diversity of mediumistic practices around the world. We hope that the discussion raised in this work will promote a constructive debate about the viability of concepts such as trance and dissociation in the understanding of experiences deemed mediumistic.”

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

Here is a new article discussing phenomena believed to present evidence against materialism: Toward a Postmaterialist Psychology: Theory, Research, and Applications,” by Mario Beauregard, Natalie L. Trent, and Gary E. Schwartz (New Ideas in Psychology, 2018, 50, 21–33; for a PDF of the article click here).

Mario Beauregard

Mario Beauregard

Natalie L. Trent

Natalie L. Trent

Natalie L. TrentNatalie L. Trent 2

Gary Schwartz


“The majority of mainstream psychologists still adopt a materialist stance toward nature. They believe that science is synonymous with materialism; further, they are convinced that the view that mind and consciousness are simply by-products of brain activity is an incontrovertible fact that has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. This is an incomplete view of what humans are. In this article, we review two categories of empirical evidence that support a shift toward a postmaterialist psychology. The first category of evidence includes mental events that seem to occur outside the spatial confines of the brain, whereas the second category includes mental events that seem to occur when the brain has ceased to function. Taken together, the two bodies of empirical evidence examined here indicate that the idea that the brain creates mind and consciousness is both incomplete and flawed. In the Discussion section, we argue that the transmission hypothesis of the mind-brain relationship can account for all the evidence presented in this article. We also discuss the emerging postmaterialist paradigm and its potential implications for the evolution of psychology.”

The authors argue that “the scientific materialist framework is completely at loss to explain a wide array of empirical phenomena that are thoroughly examined in this article.” They discuss ESP and near-death experiences, and other phenomena such as distant mental influence and reincarnation cases.

It is stated that psychology will be affected in different ways if a materialistic paradigm is rejected:

“Allowing for research from a postmaterialist perspective would impact many subfields within psychology. Not only would a postmaterialist paradigm allow for research to extend further into the potential of the mind, it would do so with an understanding of our interconnection, thereby moving forward in an ethical, holistic way . . . With respect to abnormal psychology, the belief in psi phenomena is currently classified as a symptom of a mental disorder, such as schizotypal personality disorder. A postmaterialist paradigm would recognize that many people do experience psi phenomena, and that these phenomena are not necessarily the products of delusions or pathological belief systems. Furthermore, a postmaterialist paradigm would take into account the enormous power of spirituality and mystical experiences to fundamentally transform one’s life in a positive way . . . As regards social psychology, adopting a postmaterialist paradigm would allow for deeper research into our interconnection and social bonds that may transcend the physical boundaries assumed by scientific materialism . . . The implications of postmaterialist paradigm also extend to crosscultural psychology, whereby other cultural belief systems often correspond to a non-materialist perspective . . . A postmaterialist paradigm can also create a bridge between modern medicine and traditional forms of medicine . . .”

It concluded that:

“Scientific materialism still continues to exert substantial influence in the academic world. QM and the numerous lines of converging empirical evidence discussed here, however, strongly suggest that this ideology is incomplete, erroneous and obsolete: the time is indeed ripe to embrace a broader and more inclusive postmaterialist conception of the world.”

“The history of science has been marked by a few special moments that were characterized by major conceptual breakthroughs that have been called paradigm shifts or changes . . . It appears that we are now approaching another crucial paradigm shift, namely the transition from materialist science to postmaterialist science. We may be witnessing the end of materialism . . . , at least as originally conceived. Holding great promise for science, this transition may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. Toward this end, a group of postmaterialist scientists . . . have founded a global Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences to foster theory, research, and applications in all branches of science.”



Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

In a recently published article Zofia Weaver summarizes the psychical research contributions of Polish philosopher and psychologist Julian Ochorowicz (1850-1917):

Julian Ochorowicz and His Contribution to Psychical Research. Journal of Parapsychology, 2019, 83, 69-78.

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present the contribution of Julian Ochorowicz to the field of psychical research. From early youth Ochorowicz was interested in psychology, particularly in magnetism, hypnotism and mental suggestion, and his experience in these areas influenced his theoretical approach to the subject. His passionate belief that the essence of true science had to be to establish facts before forming conclusions led him to investigate a number of mediums, including
Eusapia Palladino and Stanisława Tomczyk.

Julian Ochorowicz 2

Julian Ochorowicz


Ochorowicz Suggestion mentale

Ochorowicz Mains Tomczyk

Article About Ochorowicz’s Studies of Medium Stanislawa Tomczyck in the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, 1912

The author ends her paper stating:

“Ochorowicz was very much a ‘hands on,’ practical investigator, pursuing every manifestation as far as possible, inventing devices for excluding fraud, and examining every possible and impossible explanation to its logical conclusion in his search for the truth. However, in his pursuit of facts he tended not to allow for the possibility of different interpretations, and in particular was not aware of the ‘experimenter effect’ his powerful personality might produce. In his impatience for answers he would construct theoretical explanations prematurely and without detail, something he acknowledged himself in his later writings . . . Working with the model of the world current at that time, he tried to go beyond it, yet in some respects perhaps he was not so much wrong as ahead of his time, as in his exploration and application of the idea that energy could not be destroyed, only transformed. But perhaps his most important contributions were as an innovative experimenter and a ‘science activist,’ who had the courage to keep pushing at the boundaries of current worldviews, always asking, ‘What is impossible?’ ”

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

I first met the author of this book, James G. Matlock, when I was a Research Assistant for the late Ian Stevenson at the Division of Parapsychology (now Division of Perceptual Studies) of the University of Virginia. One of our first encounters was when he came to visit our offices sometime in 1985 or 1986 to talk to Dr. Stevenson. Since then, he has been a friend with whom I have had countless conversations about parapsychology over the years. From the beginning he had a special interest in reincarnation, but also on other topics I also acknowledge as my own: the history of parapsychology and the study of spontaneous cases in general.

James G. Matlock

James G. Matlock

Jim has been busy over the years. He worked at the American Society for Psychical Research and at the Rhine Research Center, and is a Research Fellow at the Parapsychology Foundation. In addition, he has a PhD in Anthropology from Southern Illinois University (Carbondale). A list of his  published articles about reincarnation, and other topics, appears here.

In addition, he is the co-author, with Erlendur Haraldsson, of I Saw A Light And Came Here: Children’s Experiences of Reincarnation (Hove, UK: White Crow Books, 2016).

Haraldsson Matlock I Saw a Light

The book Jim comments on here has been in his mind for many years, at least since the days I first met him. Signs of Reincarnation: Exploring Beliefs, Cases, and Theory (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019) is a veritable textbook about the concept of reincarnation and research on the subject covering historical, anthropological, psychological, and parapsychological aspects. The book is also an overview of explanatory models. Including the author’s. Furthermore, Signs of Reincarnation is also a defense of the concept of survival of death, of the need to go beyond materialism to account for the best cases.

Matlock Signs of Reincarnation

In my view Signs of Reincarnation is the most comprehensive overview of the subject, and one that considers the topic in relation to other phenomena. It is, in fact, a handbook for the scientific and scholarly study of reincarnation. Furthermore, the book includes a Foreword by Jeffrey Mishlove and an Afterword by Michael Nahm about the implications of reincarnation cases for biology.

Table of Contents

Foreword: A Tale of Two Theories, by Jeffrey Mishlove


Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study of Reincarnation Signs
What is Reincarnation?
Challenge to Materialism

Chapter 2: The Belief in Reincarnation
Signs, Beliefs, and Customs in Animistic Cultures
A Brief History of the Belief in Rebirth, West and East
Karma, God, and the Individual in Rebirth Theory

Chapter 3: Research Methods and Interpretative Frames
Accounts of Past-Life Memory Recorded Before 1960
Ian Stevenson’s Field Research and Its Critics
Interpretive Frames for Reincarnation Cases

Chapter 4: Child Studies: The Principal Signs of Reincarnation
Involuntary Memory of Previous Lives
Behavioral Identification with the Previous Person
Birthmarks and Other Physical Signs

Chapter 5: Child Studies: Secondary Signs of Reincarnation
Signs of Discarnate Agency
Universal, Near-Universal, and Culture-Linked Patterns
The Psychological Impacts of Past-Life Memory

Chapter 6: Past-Life Recall in Adulthood and Third-Party Reports
Developmental Factors in Past-Life Memory Retrieval
Fantasy and Fact in Past Life Regression under Hypnosis
The Contributions of Shamans, Psychics, and Mediums

Chapter 7: The Process of Reincarnation
Beyond Materialism
Personal Identity and Postmortem Survival
Reincarnation and Life

Afterword: Implications of Reincarnation Cases for Biology, by Michael Nahm

Glossary of Specialized and Technical Terms


* * * * *


Can you give us a brief summary of the book?

Signs of Reincarnation opens with the report of a “solved” (verified) American case of past-life memory involving a person not known to the child subject’s family, a rarity in the literature. I then discuss beliefs in and about reincarnation in different religions and thought traditions before turning to a systematic review of findings from over 2,500 investigated cases. I consider various ways the evidence may be interpreted but find that none are as satisfactory as reincarnation and move on to develop a theory of how it might work.

My processual soul theory rejects Cartesian substance dualism as incompatible with the case data and embraces a process metaphysics position that holds that what survives is simply a stream of consciousness continuous with that of embodied life. Reincarnation is best thought of in terms of possession, I argue. Although it means letting go of the materialist idea that consciousness is generated by the brain, my model does not require the acceptance of any radically new concepts or the abandonment of well-established findings in mainstream psychology or biology.

What is your background in parapsychology, and with the topic of the book specifically?

When I was about six years old, I witnessed something that got me thinking about the possibility of postmortem survival. I was standing slightly apart from a group of two boys and a girl. She was in the middle, they on either side of her. She was talking about a ghost she had seen, and they were ridiculing her, telling her that there was no such thing as a ghost. “There is too!” she insisted over and over, the volume of her voice rising each time. My reaction, thinking to myself, was, she is so certain that there are ghosts, perhaps there are ghosts. How can we be sure that there are no ghosts, if some people see them?

From early in my childhood, I wanted to be a creative writer, and in college I majored in English and minored in psychology. This was the early 1970s, but B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning was still being taught in my experimental psychology classes. I wasn’t sure I accepted the Skinnerian perspective, though. I recall asking my mother shortly after my graduation in 1977 if children were born with personalities or acquired them as they grew up. She told me that each child was born with a different personality, and the personalities became stronger as the children aged. I was one of five children, so I figured she knew what she was talking about, and that was all I needed to let go of Skinner.

I started reading the New Age literature that was coming out in the 1970s and around 1980, picked up my first book on reincarnation. I had not previously thought much about it, but I had seen the theme of rebirth coming up repeatedly in short stories and novels, and was intrigued by the concept. It did not take me long to find Stevenson’s books, which led me into parapsychology and changed the direction of my life. I joined organizations and subscribed to journals. I started attending meetings of the Parapsychological Association, my first at Tufts in 1985. My first publication in the field, in 1986, was a review of D. Scott Rogo’s The Search for Yesterday: A Critical Examination of the Evidence for Reincarnation.

During the same period, I was finding it more difficult than I had imagined to make a living writing fiction and enrolled in library school, intending to specialize in archives. I undertook a survey of archival resources in parapsychology, the basis of a paper published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1987. That survey also led to my first job in parapsychology, as Librarian and Archivist at the ASPR. When I left there I pursued doctoral studies in anthropology, but I returned to parapsychology later, as a staff member of the Rhine Research Center in Durham, North Carolina.

Many of my early contributions to parapsychology concerned the history of the field, but I continued to read and write about survival topics, especially reincarnation. Gradually reincarnation took over as my core interest and has remained so. In 2016, field researcher Erlendur Haraldsson invited me to co-author I Saw a Light and Came Here: Children’s Experiences of Reincarnation. I have also written (at present count) eleven articles on reincarnation-related topics for the Psi Encyclopedia. For a list of my publications in parapsychology and anthropology, click here. In the fall of 2017, I sat with Jeffrey Mishlove for a series of twelve conversations about reincarnation research for his New Thinking Allowed video series on YouTube.

What motivated you to write this book?

For many years, I wanted to write a book about reincarnation, but the more I studied the topic, the more I came to feel that I was not yet ready to take it on. When I did think seriously about the project, I could not decide on a structure that would allow me to say all I wanted to say. That changed when Nancy Zingrone asked me to develop a semester-long Masters-level course on reincarnation for a new program in parapsychology at Atlantic University. I began working on course lectures with the idea of eventually publishing them as a book. When Atlantic cancelled its parapsychology program, and Nancy left the school, I went with her, but continued to develop my course and then to teach it online through the Alvarado Zingrone Institute for Research and Education (for information about the course click here). I did not teach the course in 2018, so as to have time to finish this book, which will serve as the course textbook going forward. I plan to resume offering the course this August.

Why do you think your book is important and what do you hope to accomplish with it?

The semester-long lecture format gave me the structure I needed to explore all aspects of the reincarnation problem, from the many ways humanity has conceived of rebirth, to case studies and other research, to trying to understand the process without rejecting the findings of mainstream psychology and biology. Signs of Reincarnation is the first book to cover the topic systematically from all these angles, in a scholarly way. It lays out where we are now and provides a baseline for future work.

The book touches on and has relation to several fields, ranging from consciousness studies to anthropology to religious studies and philosophy. It is written for a college-level audience in the hopes of introducing students to this research before they are settled into their careers. I would like also to educate the larger academic community about the research, and I would like to see parapsychologists grapple with the ideas I present concerning postmortem survival and psi.

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

An important new study about physiological and medical aspects of mediumship has been published by Julie Beischel, Shawn Tassone  and Mark Boccuzzi. Here is the abstract:

Hematological and Psychophysiological Correlates of Anomalous Information Reception in Mediums: A Preliminary Exploration. Explore: Journal of Science & Healing, 2019; 15, 126-133.


“Context: Modern research with mediums—individuals who regularly experience and report communication from the deceased—includes investigations of mediums’ accuracy, psychology, phenomenology, and electrophysiology and the therapeutic potential of mediumship readings for the bereaved. Anecdotal reports imply that chronic medical problems may be a serious concern for mediums.”

“Objective: The aim of this study was two-fold: (I) to systematically investigate the hematological and psychophysiological correlates of anomalous information reception (AIR, the reporting of accurate and specific information about the deceased in the absence of prior knowledge, feedback, or deceptive means) and (II) to compare the reported health issues of mediums and non-mediums.”

“Design: (I) A repeated-measures design in which mediums engaged in blinded mediumship readings and a control condition was used. (II) A parallel-groups design was used to compare mediums’ and non-mediums’ responses to an anonymous online survey regarding their health issues.”

“Participants: (I) Data was collected from five Windbridge Certified Research Mediums. (II) Survey responses from 125 mediums were compared to responses from 222 non-mediums.

Main Outcome Measures: (I) General physiological measures and 28 hematological elements were assessed. (II) Reports regarding autoimmune disease diagnoses and specific ailments by organ system were collected.”

“Results: Novel findings from this study included the following: (I) No significant hematological or physiological changes were seen in the mediums when pre- and post-condition comparisons were made for the counter-balanced sessions. (II) Compared to non-mediums, more mediums reported having at least one autoimmune disease (35.2% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.00076; z = 3.37; h = 0.4). Mediums also reported experiencing more health issues than did non-mediums (8.08 ± 5.38 vs. 5.09 ± 4.17 symptoms; p < 0.000001, g = 0.6). Specifically, more mediums than non-mediums (all p < 0.004) reported water retention (19.2% vs. 5.0%, z = 4.23, h = 0.5), bruising easily (20.0% vs. 9.0%, z = 2.93, h = 0.3), gastrointestinal issues (35.2% vs. 18.5%, z = 3.48, h = 0.4), headaches/migraines (26.4% vs. 11.3%, z = 3.63, h = 0.4), asthma (20.0% vs. 9.0%, z = 2.93, h = 0.3), food intolerances (28.0% vs. 9.9%, z = 4.37, h = 0.5), and sleep disturbances (40.8% vs. 14.9%, z = 5.41 h = 0.6). The proportions of participants reporting exophthalmos, chronic fatigue syndrome, and ankle sprains were not different.”

The authors summarize their results in the conclusion. They state that the mediums obtained “accurate and specific information about the deceased” and that there were no significant relationships with hematological and physiological variables. Furthermore:

“The findings from this study did demonstrate, however, that the mediums surveyed reported a significantly higher disease burden than non-mediums regarding specifically autoimmune disease, water retention, bruising easily, gastrointestinal issues, headaches/migraines, asthma, food intolerances, and sleep disturbances. These reports are in line with those of Assailly . . . who also found high levels of water retention, bruising easily . . . , and gastrointestinal issues in the mediums he examined though he did not compare his sample to a non-medium control group. The mediums in the current study also reported significant sleep disturbances and food intolerances whereas Assailly found that digestion issues and lack of sleep ‘appeared as negligible factors’ . . . In addition, although Assailly noted that the mediums in his study often reported exophthalmos (bulging eyes) and ‘complained of ‘twisting their ankles at every turn,’ these symptoms were not reported by the mediums in the current study.”

Carlos S. Alvarado, PhD, Research Fellow, Parapsychology Foundation

The Journal of Parapsychology, founded in 1937, had its 80th anniversary in 2017, a date commemorated with the publication of a special issue of the journal (2018, Vol. 82, Supplement). The issue starts with Etzel Cardeña’s editorial, “Four Score (Plus) Years Ago,” where he states:

Etzel Cardena 5

Etzel Cardeña

“Among their many achievements, Joseph Banks Rhine and collaborators launched The Journal of Parapsychology (JP) in 1937, the foremost venue for experimental research on parapsychology and sur­passed in longevity only by the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. There had been important experiments in parapsychology preceding the Rhine era, but during the latter experimental parapsy­chology was established more solidly. The eighty-plus years of JP issues would constitute an extraordi­nary achievement in any field, but is even more remarkable in such a contentious area as parapsycholo­gy. To avoid repeating mistakes one should be cognizant of the field’s previous history . . . and even a cursory look at the JP indexes shows how the field has developed throughout the years. My intention for this Supplementary E-issue was to give a bird’s eye view of the coverage in the JP.”

JP 1937 First Issue

First Issue of the Journal of Parapsychology


This is followed by two overview articles:

John Palmer

80 Years of the Journal of Parapsychology: An Historical Overview

John Palmer 3

John Palmer

Abstract: In this invited article, the author reviews the history of the Journal of Parapsychology from its inception in 1937 to 2017. The focus is on published controversies and debates with critics outside the field of parapsychology, JP publication policy, and the changes in editorship.

Journal of Parapsychology 5

Carlos S. Alvarado

Eight Decades of Psi Research: Highlights in the Journal of Parapsychology

Abstract: This is a short review of the 80 years of existence of the Journal of Parapsychology. Found­ed in 1937, the journal articulated the experimental research program of J. B. Rhine and his asso­ciates at Duke University. Highlights of the journal are discussed, starting with examples of articles reporting experiments of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis. Also discussed are articles about spontaneous cases, the presentation of novel and creative approaches, critiques and discus­sions, overviews of the field, J. B. Rhine’s use of the Journal of Parapsychology to prescribe for the field, and concepts and theories. The Journal of Parapsychology is seen as an important influence in the development of parapsychology.

In my paper, I concluded:

“The appearance of the JP represents a change from the psychical research tradition that existed in the United States and elsewhere before the late 1930s, which was dominated by the study of cases and of mediumship . . . Although the research program of J.B. Rhine and his associates was to some extent a reinstatement of earlier interest in experimentation, the JP greatly assisted the devel­opment of parapsychology. This was accomplished by providing a forum that assisted processes such as the standardization of techniques to assess chance, controls for contaminating factors such as sensory cues, and terminology in parapsychology . . . Like every good scientific journal, the JP also facilitated communication between researchers and others in the field helping to disseminate ideas and encourage professional attitudes. The presentation of informa­tion, in the form of reviews of the literature, and book reviews (not discussed in this paper) has made the journal an essential reference source over the years for researchers, students, and others. One hopes that this tradition of excellence and dedication continues beyond this anniversary as parapsychology moves to new horizons.”

The Journal of Parapsychology V36 No 1 March 1972 ESP Precognition Research NC

The editor also reprinted various articles originally published in the JP. These were:

Some Basic Experiments in Extra-sensory Perception: A Background (1937)

By Joseph Banks Rhine

J.B. Rhine 2

J.B. Rhine

Spontaneous Telepathy and the Problem of Survival (1943)

By Gardner Murphy

Gardner Murphy 3

Gardner Murphy

Subjective Forms of Spontaneous Psi Experiences (1953)

By Louisa E. Rhine

Louisa Rhine

Louisa E. Rhine

Precognition of a Quantum Process (1969)

By Helmut Schmidt

Helmut Schmidt

Helmut Schmidt

Studying Individual Psi Experiences (1970)

Gertrude R. Schmeidler

Gertrude Schmeidler

Gertrude R. Schmeidler

A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy (1986)

By Ray Hyman and Charles Honorton

Ray Hyman

Ray Hyman

Charles Honorton

Charles Honorton

An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning (1995)

By Jessica Utts

Jessica Utts 4

Jessica Utts

Mind Matters: A New Scientific Era (2008)

By Roger D. Nelson

Roger Nelson 3

Roger D. Nelson

Those of you interested in the history of the JP may want to consult the following sources:

journal of Parapsychology 7

Alvarado, C.S. (2011). Prescribing for parapsychology: Note on J.B. Rhine’s writings in the Journal of Parapsychology. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 11, 89–99.

Alvarado, C.S. (in press). Journal of Parapsychology. In R. McLuhan (Ed.), Psi Encyclopedia. London: Society for Psychical Research.

Alvarado, C. S., Biondi, M., & Kramer, W. (2006). Historical notes on psychic phenomena in specialised journals. European Journal of Parapsychology, 21, 58-87.

Broughton, R. S. (1987). Publication policy and the Journal of Parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 51, 21-32.

Mauskopf, S.H. (1987). The origin of the Journal of Parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 51, 9-19.

Mauskopf, S.H., & McVaugh, M.R. (1980). The Elusive Science: Origins of Experimental Psychical Research. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Palmer, J. (1987). Controversy and the JP. Journal of Parapsychology, 51, 33-48.

Pope, D.H., & Pratt, J.G. (1942). Five Years of the Journal of Parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 6,  5-19.

Rao, K.R. (1987). Editorial: The Journal of Parapsychology: The first and the next fifty years. Journal of Parapsychology, 51, 1-8.

Rhine, J.B. (1946). Editorial: The first ten years of the journal. Journal of Parapsychology, 10, 221-223.

Rhine, J.B. (1956). Editorial: The Journal’s first twenty years. Journal of Parapsychology, 20, 263-266.

Rhine, J.B. (1961). A quarter century of the Journal of Parapsychology: A brief review. Journal of Parapsychology, 25, 237-246.

Rhine, J.B. (1977). A backward look on leaving the JP. Journal of Parapsychology, 41, 89-102.

Zingrone, N.L. (1988). Authorship and gender in American parapsychology journals. Journal of Parapsychology, 52, 321-343.

Journal of Parapsychology 9