IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Miscellaneous meandering musings of middling merit | Main | Read the whole thing »

Comments

I just watched these videos. This is absolutely damning.

At the same time though, while this is enough for many people to assume all his mediumship is fraudulent, those of us who are familiar with mediumship history will be aware that its perfectly possible for a genuine medium to also engage in fraud. Why exactly we don't know, but may be something to do with pressure to produce results on demand during 'dry spells'.

Stephen Braude writes about this and calls it 'mixed mediumship'. I think this is what we get with Mannion as there are witnesses to Mannion's seances who swear they have experienced at least some genuine phenomena.

Unfortunately most of the public are not familiar with Stephen Braude's work or the history of mediumship in general where this kind of genuine and fake mixed mediumship is common.

I can understand why any evidence of fakery is enough to write off the medium completely. Gary Mannion's mediumship career is unlikey to recover from this, and whatever genuine abilities he has are now wasted.

One thing that bothers me is an author of paranormal research who I respect and believe to be sincere has already defended him. I don't know him at all. But, while their are people like Gary Swartz and Julie Biesel (sorry I'm sure I just misspelled her name.) doing good research on mediums and such. I am very skeptical of mediums as a whole. Although, I'm certainly not a Skeptic as in close minded religious atheist. Anyway, this doesn't help as far as research into the paranormal is concerned.

Misspelling and their for there. Sorry. My Degree is certainly not as an English Major.
:-)

We'll see. But in defense of the credulous physical mediumship sitters, Gary's been kicked out of the retreat he performs at, and last I saw there was a mob with pitchforks coming after him.

Well I personally think that all of the reports of floating trumpets, materializations, apports and ectoplasm occurring in a séance are bogus. (I still can't explain D.D. Hume though). There must have been a lot of gullible people in these circles. Skeptics can have a heyday by collecting evidence on someone whom they know to obviously be fraudulent. They then flaunt around that evidence hoping people will apply it generally to all mediums and other related parapsychologal phenomena. What we have here is one fraudulent cheating charlatan taking advantage of a lot of very vulnerable people. - AOD

I'm less convinced every single case was or is fake. I know physical mediums personally who only practice among friends, charge nothing, and work on their seances 4 or 5 times a week. Then, after a year, paranormal things start happening... things start flying around the room, etc. So, there's no way I can dismiss physical mediumship at this point. However, people taking paranormal claims and then using them to amass wealth or power, is a very old story. And it continues now in the form of Gary Mannion, whose name is hopefully now permanently finished.

I think if someone has gone to that much effort to fool people then relying on them sometimes being genuine is grasping at straws. It's more reasonable to assume that the people who "swear they've experienced at least some genuine phenomena" from that individual simply don't know how he did the particular tricks he did. After all the ones sitting in the dark in those videos would also swear what they witnessed was impossible to fake.

Having said that I've been tempted to believe in the "mixed mediumship" idea myself. Witnessing a woman conducting a spiritualist service she was either completely wrong or brazenly talking in "cold reading" generalities. Except...when she wasn't. There were seemingly (barring the use of plants or overheard conversations)a few instances of giving information to people that couldn't fit under the cold reading label. And it made me wonder if people like herself were getting anomalous information from the ether somehow, but the delusion/fraud lay in the claim they could do so instantly and on demand for an expectant audience. Perhaps, I wondered, they just ramble and "cold read" to play for time until the real stuff comes through.

That would hardly apply to physical mediumship however. Which just seems inherently silly. The necessity to sit in the dark is a direct equivalent of a stage magician doing his trick behind a curtain...it serves no logical purpose barring to stop you seeing what he's doing.

Amos... not quite so vulnerable in this case, maybe, given that the culprit was covertly filmed and exposed. It's a common misconception that all proponents of physical mediumship are gullible dupes. In my experience, although that could justly be applied to many who attend this sort of event, some experienced sitters who believe they have witnessed genuine phenomena of a more extreme nature can be incredibly critical.

Kai Muegge from the Felix Circle is able to produce some apparently genuine phenomena including ectoplasm etc, although again, he has been caught cheating on at least one occasion (see Stephen Braude's article regarding the LED light incident)!

Stephen Braude has investigated the Felix Circle, and concludes that the circle is producing some genuine phenomena which he has personally experienced and can vouch for.

I agree with Braude that we have spent a lot of time investigating whether the phenomena is genuine, but very little research on the psychological motivations and neuroses of the mediums themselves.

I think this research is urgent in order to understand why mediums with at least some genuine ability also engage in fraud. It's no good simply writing them all off completely, as the available evidence doesn't suggest that. The realty seems more complicated.

Predictably, some people are defending Mannion or at least "raising questions" about the incident. EVP/ITC researcher Tom Butler posted this on Facebook:

"First, I am guessing the camera was smuggled in.... [T]here are considerable ethical issues we should all have with the camera person.

"Second, a common concern amongst deep-trance mediums is the problem of being used as a trance puppet. Matter-through-matter has been demonstrated in good light. Accepting the reality of it, and accepting that the medium does go into deep trance to produce the phenomena, it may be more energy efficient for his control to simply release the medium from his bonds and use his body as an instrument."

I don't see any ethical issues associated with hiding a camera in the room, given that it was used to expose a fraud. The hidden camera is a standard part of undercover investigations done in the media.

As for the "trance puppet" argument - well, if this is how Spirit works, then why bother with materialization seances at all?

Steve,
Yes, I agree some sitters can be incredibly critical. For the past 150 or more years mediums of various types have been investigated by people (mostly men; Eleanor Sidgwick and Amy Tanner were the exceptions) who also sat with the medium , some repeatedly. Now we have available to us a residue of mediums who have remained unscathed after those critical investigations. I think that few materialization mediums come away untainted. Most who remain unexposed are the mental mediums. Scientific studies e.g. Gary Schwartz focus on the mental phenomena. I have not seen a current scientific study of physical mediumship. Most of what I have read is anecdotal and even if that anecdotal information is from someone like professor Stephen Braude, it is still anecdotal.

Mediumship in whatever form just provides a piece of the evidence for survival of spirits. I think it is a small part and not the best and as I said before, I have not yet found any physical medium which I can take seriously - AOD

On the other hand, we have mediums such as George Anderson - if you haven't read about him, he's worth a look. He doesn't operate in the classic dark room either.

I still remain skeptical of him and others of course. Among the comments for one of his books, a woman bitterly complains that he was totally off in her reading with him. And yet there are many many people who state that he was dead-on right with them.

My own feeling is that it must be extraordinarily difficult for those "on the other side" to communicate with us. There may be people who have some inborn talent for this, but I would suspect that they probably strike out many times and don't succeed - just like most of us do every day in our endeavors.

Wretched scumbag. Hurting himself is one thing, but guys like this know that they are hurting the credibility of others, and they don't care.

We've talked about David Thompson a lot on here too. My guess is that one would see much of the same thing were a camera to be smuggled in.

Also, I of course have an issue that he was ripping people off. But I meant that the worst aspect of such fraud is that it gives Skeptics the best kind of fuel for their debunking of everything paranormal.

Michael wrote,

||I don't see any ethical issues associated with hiding a camera in the room, given that it was used to expose a fraud. The hidden camera is a standard part of undercover investigations done in the media.||

Indeed. I think the only issue would be if he captured *real* phenomena and was making money off of those videos while giving the medium nothing. Sort of like bootlegging a tape at a concert (which is not necessarily unethical, but by way of analogy...).

Thompson has not allowed infrared video in his sessions, saying that the camera, even though it's a 100% passive device, could harsh the vibe or something. Even though he does voice recording all the time. Bollocks!

Kathleen,
George Anderson is a credible mental medium, as is John Edward and Chris Stillar among others. Mental mediums do not produce floating trumpets, materializations or ectoplasm. - AOD

Michael, Tom Butler also admitted to covering up a case of fraud "for the greater good" in another comment he posted on FB. This is what he had to say:

"I am in no position to speak for the medium in question. Of course, deliberate deception is inexcusable and the center is right not to ask him back. We encountered such a situation in France and had to sort out the cost benefits to our community of speaking out. As directors of a paranormalist organization, we decided to remain silent for the greater good. We continue to struggle with how we might do so without undue damage to the larger community."

It's unfortunate that people like Butler are willing to keep silent rather than deal with these situations honestly.

Wow... well, this is further proof that healthy skepticism is always needed when it comes to those who want to make money off of spirit.

AOD, I've watched John Edwards a few times and my impression was that he was fishing. I received this impression by the way he was talking fast, and the way he uses the "I've got a "G"..." I didn't get the same impression from George Anderson. But then again, I am extremely skeptical and could be wrong.

Ian wrote,

||Wow... well, this is further proof that healthy skepticism is always needed when it comes to those who want to make money off of spirit.||

I think that healthy skepticism is needed when it comes to just about anything. There will always be those who want to take shortcuts in any endeavor.

Kathleen wrote,

||I've watched John Edwards a few times and my impression was that he was fishing. I received this impression by the way he was talking fast, and the way he uses the "I've got a "G"..."||

As a psychic and a medium, I would say that what he is doing is trying to make the most of limited information, indeed "fishing" of a sort with weak, inexact impressions. One has to decide what one's threshold is for offering information to the sitter. I personally think, "I'm getting a G name," etc., is really lame. It means that you're not getting much of anything and you should either wait or not try at that moment.

Psi comes in waves and streaks and sometimes pinpoint, highly accurate bits. It comes in all forms and flavors. The problem with being a professional is that you are saying that you are always "on" and able, and that's not possible. It can lead to lame readings and unconscious cheating and even to conscious cheating if one is not careful. This is one reason why I offer psi pro bono to my friends and don't charge for it.

Kathleen,
John Edward was part of Gary Schwartz's study group along with George Anderson and others.

Kathleen,
I have followed John Edward (with no 's') for quite some time and I think he is legitimate. Apparently Dr. Gary E. Schwartz thought so too. See The After Life Experiments at http://www.amazon.com/Gary-E.-Schwartz/e/B001H6N8Y6

I think that there are some people who just don't like him personally. The same is true of James Van Prague. His personality seems to turn some people off. Edward does talk fast sometimes but so does George Anderson. It may be that the information they receive is fleeting and the only way to remember it and get it out is to report it quickly before it fades.

Names seem to be the most difficult for some mental mediums to get especially if the medium uses imagery to get his information. For instance what image would you use to convey the names Alfred, Jeremy, Suzanne etc. Mediums like Edward and Anderson in particular seem to get names by seeing images of movie stars or movie titles or other things in their conscious or subconscious minds. (I think that both Edward and Anderson liked to go to movies.) Anderson uses a lot of religious icons in his visualizations also.

For the longest time George Anderson was my favorite and I think I have read most of his books (actually they were written by other people)
My favorite mental medium now,(and I certainly don't know them all) is Christopher Stillar. He is a mental medium living in Canada so not much is reported about him in the U.S.

For me there was no greater turn off than Sylvia Brown. It was obvious to me she was bogus from the beginning. - AOD

Kathleen,
I just want to add that Pearl Curran gave a rather detailed point-by-point description of what she was seeing as visual images in her mind when she was receiving information from Patience Worth. In Pearl's case her visualizations were complimented by what she described as Patience Worth speaking the words to be conveyed over and above what Pearl Curran was experiencing as images in her mind. I think that Pearl Curran was unique in this I am not aware of other mediums who so clearly saw and heard information from some other source.

http://www.patienceworth.com/i-am-a-child-with-a-magic-picture-book/

Even Pearl Curran at times had difficulty understanding names that Patience Worth used in her story, especially The Sorry Tale where names were Roman, Greek, Arabic, and Indian. Patience had to resort to 'sounds like' in order to get Pearl Curran to understand the name (The name 'Legia' is an example.) - AOD

AOD,

What you write about Pearl and the names rings true for me.

I tend to be pretty good at getting names in ratings. Sometimes, the whole name is just "said" to me. Sometimes--this is a subtle difference--I get the "fact" of the name. It's the difference between hearing a sound or seeing the web of associations associated with the name.

Sometimes, I get the latter type of thing in order to tell me a name whose associations I'm having trouble picking up. To use the "Legia" example, I might be told that it's "like Layla but not exactly."

This why psychics sometimes/often seem to be "guessing" at a name. I don't think "I have a G name" is a very good bit of information to through out. But if you guess "Darren" and the name is "Warren," that's pretty close. And so on.

It was just my impression that John Edward was fishing. It was a few years ago that I saw a program that featured him, and he seemed to be asking the subject person the first letter of a departed one. It didn't leave a good impression on me, his behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I observed. I felt George Anderson was more accurate (and eerie). Not all of these men and women claiming to be mediums are legitimate, I think that's clear. I still remain very very skeptical of them, including Anderson, as everyone should be.

Stephen Braude posted a response to an article written by Tom Butler that can be seen here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3ai0lmozcbkea7/getting%20facts%20straight%20rev%205-2016.docx?dl=0


Sorry, here is the correct link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6caudn1rn5wrfzd/Motif_%20Rebuttal,%20with%20Accompaniment%20_%20Spirit%20and%20Science%20Journal.pdf?dl=0

K9!
Interesting comments/rebuttal by Professor Stephen Braude. This is a good example why I believe that the Patience Worth Case is perhaps the least tainted with similar accusations of fraud, lies, and innuendos. The evidence in support of something superusual in the Patience Worth Case is there for anyone to see. It just takes a lot of effort to consider it all. It's like a giant puzzle that has to be put together by the reader. I respect Braude's career but I think he can be duped as easily as anyone else. I also think he has a strong 'will to believe.' - AOD

Kathleen wrote,

||It was just my impression that John Edward was fishing. It was a few years ago that I saw a program that featured him, and he seemed to be asking the subject person the first letter of a departed one. It didn't leave a good impression on me, his behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I observed.||

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong per se. I have watched a bunch of Edward videos on YouTube and read some transcripts, and it definitely seems he gets big hits. I think the pressure to be "on" all the time causes him to "fish" with poor, undifferentiated psychic information, which I totally agree is not a good thing to do, as it leads to the kind of impression you have received. Moreover, it's just not a very aesthetic way to practice psi, IMHO. If you're not getting much, say you're not. There's no shame in that. The problem arises when you have to deliver a "product."

My overall impression is that Edward is sincere, he's not a fraud, though we can't rule out the possibility that sometimes he's truly just guessing (consciously or unconsciously).

You are correct Matt when you say, "The problem arises when you have to deliver a "product." When a medium has an audience of, say, 150 people who paid more than $100 for a ticket he has to deliver something. I know what you mean but John Edward cannot say to that audience, "Well, folks I'm not getting anything tonight so I guess you all need to go home." I know that's silly but obviously he can't do that. He has to make an effort and use whatever means available to him to produce something meaningful for the audience participants. What he provides may be a mix of intuition, body-reading, guesses, telepathy, and spirit communication. But, I think at times he has had some spectacular hits. I do like John Edward and believe that he is sincere in his efforts to obtain information from the deceased.

I prefer the one-on-one sessions over the audience sessions mediums give. Christopher Stillar is especially good at intimate readings with just one or two people. His 'performances' before an audience are not as good. Stillar apparently spends a lot of time with each of his clients and I think it becomes a very emotional experience to watch some of his videos of the one-on-one sessions. I recommend them. - AOD

Amos, I probably wouldn't trust Kai after finding out about the cheating. But if good controls are in place it doesn't matter how honest the medium is or how credulous the researchers are. I think Braude's argument for not throwing out evidence where good controls were in place is valid. Then the issue becomes "How good were the controls?", which is easier to sort out than the personal attributes of those involved in the seance.

Could be, Matt. Frankly, I just got bored of watching him. I think NDEs are far more indicative of an afterlife anyway.

Although however I did find the activities of a certain group in the U.K. really interesting. I can't remember the name of the group (starts with an "S" of course...). They weren't receiving any monetary compensation, and video-taped some wild stuff. Whatever it was about, I remember watching a program about them and thinking how would have had to put in an awful lot of time and work to pull off those effects, and for what? Attention, maybe. Their "work" and "results" were quite elaborate.

Thought this was kind of funny -she got her answer. Although you can't see the chair, only hear it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGy-hu65c98

Lynx.

\\"Could be, Matt. Frankly, I just got bored of watching him. I think NDEs are far more indicative of an afterlife anyway." - Kathleen//
-----------------

To me it's more like a puzzle with lots of pieces and when they are all put together and all viewed as a whole they paint a picture that this life is not all there is. It has to do with that thing called "consilience" that Michael Prescott shared with us in an earlier blog. It was the first time I had ever heard of that word but one I think is really important for understanding life after death and other paranormal phenomena.

So even though I am especially fond of death bed visions - simply because I find them comforting and uplifting - I tend to view my spiritual beliefs as a whole or a puzzle with the outside being framed by quantum physics and the holographic universe theory, and the inside pieces made up by near death experiences, death bed visions, EVP, mystical and transcendental experiences, a few gifted Mediums, etc. So it's not one thing, it's everything all together, and I like to look at the big picture, and I really like what I see.

I'm looking forward to what comes after and I feel like I've lost a lot of my fear of death, and I hope that when it comes my turn to cross over I hope my mom is waiting on me because it will be so good to see her again.

I agree Art. Taking a composite view of the evidence seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Kathleen, you may be thinking about the Scole Experiments originating from rural Norfolk, U.K.

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/the-scole-experiment-overview.html


The Gary Mannion ‘fake medium’ saga continues
Nic Whitham of the UK’s Banyard Centre where Gary conducted a physical seance, exposed him as a ‘fraud’ in this video
http://www.garyfiles.co.uk/# where he was seen moving round the circle of sitters getting them to touch his chest and waving his shirt to create a breeze.
The sitters, who paid fees to attend, assumed what they felt was ‘spirit’ and that Gary was bound up in a chair.
Now Gary has released a video answering questions about what happened:
https://youtu.be/BziW_wm6zkg
In it he claims that it wasn’t trickery but his ‘spirit team’ took him out of his chair in a trance and worked him like a puppet – an action he completely approves of – and he says he can’t remember anything about what went on.
Meanwhile Psychic News this week plans to publish a second exposure article.
For any of you interested enough to pursue this further, Gary’s private circle in Australia, released a statement from his ‘spirit team’ suggesting the entrancing was some kind of experiment they conducted.
Here is that statement from the Wallacia Development Centre, followed by some comments of my own about the Gary response video.


Who is in control during a séance?
Statement by a spirit team, who's way of working is questioned. Direct answers in regards to sitter’s questions stated by the team during home-circle. Posted with permission from the spirit team. Transcript and recording available to those that I (Inge Crosson), as circle leader, trust to be true and trustworthy.
"The time has come to re-evaluate physical mediumship and prevent its destruction. We are aware of the damage which has been done to the medium, but he will not be the only medium who will be subjected to this. We are obliged to work with the other teams as well and yes, we may have used this medium as the first port of call, but he won’t be the last, as the wheels are in motion. We are not the only team which has been asked to put their medium through this and are aware he is not the only medium in the firing line and other teams go through a similar process.
It is not our intention to ridicule or destroy that medium, especially as we work with this medium, but we all, on our side of life, do understand that there is a greater picture and a greater desire from your side of life. Sometimes we must destroy and establish structure in order to change. Indeed, you yet have to understand physical mediumship. Many of your world will not understand and that is fine, as has been happening in the past with physical mediumship as well. Many who have been put down and were neglected by your side of life are now revered. (Inge’s note: read about defamation of Helen Duncan, Gordon Higginson, Alec Harris etc.) This will raise awareness of physical mediumship on your side of life and will draw many back to home-circle and redevelopment. This is a necessary fact of what we want to achieve with your side of life. Yes, sacrifices will be made and have been made before.
On the grander picture this is about changing your movement and your understanding, and indeed within the circles and smaller groups, it gives us an opportunity to try new things and make improvements for the long run. We can attempt a lot more in a safer, smaller environment than what we were achieving in a public sitting. And this is not just with this medium, but with all other mediums. We have a greater opportunity to achieve greater things with your side of life and this will change the movement for the better. We are not the only team and work in collaboration with other teams to improve your movement. There is a need to upset the movement, to put questions in people’s minds to evaluate what is happening in a séance room and our capabilities, to raise knowledge, awareness and understanding. If questions are raised, we are happy to answer them. At the moment, this is the best way forward for us.
Do understand, we gave the medium the impression not to sit and the location of the camera, but again, we were given the signal to go ahead with permission from the medium, so we worked the best way we could and work with what is our limitation. We have worked with your technology if and when we have chosen to and we have been happy with the results, but we do that at a time and place when we dictate and the time and energy is right to do so. The best argument we can give you with your statement going forward is, we worked with the situation which was provided to us. Under different circumstances we would have attempted to work differently. Just because your equipment cannot pick up everything we were attempting, does not mean fraud is automatically the result, as has been demonstrated by other mediums throughout the years. In regards to the night in question, yes, we used the medium as our blueprint, as the base to work from. Indeed, if we had not gone through it this way, it would have manifested in another way, in a more harmful way for the medium’s body. (Inge’s note: During a séance here, a loose light socket caused the light to come on while the medium was outside the cabinet tied in the chair, and ectoplasm was being extruded from his fingertips and nose and eyes. The medium was very ill for over 3 weeks).
In regards to the night in question, that was a great opportunity for us to experiment to try something different and indeed, many who sat there that night were worked with and they felt our side of life and their loved ones and they experienced phenomena. Yes, we used the medium as a blueprint, as a base to extract that phenomena, but what they experienced for themselves was real.
As we have spoken earlier, it’s a new experience for us as we normally work with the ectoplasm and it was a very different and strange experience and indeed, when we work that way we work with the medium's mind and the personality. And indeed, we are happy with that experiment and I know from your side of life you do not understand it and are unhappy, which we hope to correct, but we were happy with what we were able to achieve.
Also, as I said in regards to the cable ties, indeed as we have demonstrated with this medium and with other mediums, if we wish to go beyond the restraints we will do so and we have done so. Indeed, because your side of life has become so caught up on what is genuine and what is fraud, you see the cable ties as a means of restraining the medium, whereas the cable ties are there for the medium's protection. If we were to try to experiment and we need to subdue the body, it prevents injury to the medium, but as it has been demonstrated with multiple mediums, that if we wish to work beyond the cable ties we can do so. (Inge’s note: example - during checking by sitter, she noticed that the medium’s arms were tied to the front of the chair and the lower half of his body was towards the back of the chair and in another sitting the lower part of the body was missing all together. Another time, Imelda was asked to check the ties and then move back for 2 seconds and then forward to check again and the medium's onesie was flying out of the cabinet with the medium still securely tied.)
It is not a necessity of the cable ties that is a misunderstanding from your side of life. The cameras which were used in the incident in question would not pick up on a lot of what happened in the room that night." (Inge’s note: Medium was tied at the beginning and still tied at the end of the séance and independent sitters verified that they were the same cable-ties through the way they cut them when tying him up)
Released by the Spirit teams home-circle Inge Crosson, Imelda Penny, Jennifer Bennett, Cindy Grimwood, Eddie Dzenis and Olive our beautiful matriarch.



My comments about Gary’s video response to the claims of fraud.

Unfortunately Gary Mannion comes across to me as rather over confident with a degree of arrogance.
I don't think I heard one word of apology to those sitters who felt they had been tricked and not got what they paid for.
When challenged about this Gary tried to argue that sitters could ask any question they liked - did he really expect anyone to ask 'When we feel a spirit materialisation will it actually be you in the flesh out of the chair?"
Of course not because they had bought into the concept that the seance was a demonstration of paranormal phenomena - if they saw the trumpet moving they trusted it was spirit moving it and not Gary out of his chair.
Gary reveals in the interview that it's not the first time this 'entrancement' had happened.
Does he then warn sitters at all seances that this kind of thing might happen? Does he put this in his literature so they can make a decision whether or not to spend their money? I think not.
What disturbed me most about this interview was Gary's inference that his spirit team could do absolutely anything and he would go along with it.
He must accept that people were deceived.
Even if has has been argued there was some 'genuine' phenomena there not recorded on film, some sitters at least didn't get what was promised but Gary refuses to accept that this is ethically wrong whether through people or a spirit team.
Cooperation between humans and spirit is one thing but when one gives spirit carte blanche to do whatever they like, it's getting close to religions who worship a god who can even direct them to kill in his name.
Personally I don't know what happened here.
I'd like to believe Gary's version of events is the truth - I have friends who testify that he can produce genuine phenomena and certainly I know a scientist who has tested his healing abilities and finds them genuine.
But I would like to see a little more humility and understanding from Gary to people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by these revelations.
And I'd like to hear an interview with NiC of the Banyard Centre who it seems is being accused by Gary of some kind of personal vendetta against him.

Correction to the above
Banyan Centre not Banyard Centre

I have to laugh to myself when I read comments how John Edward is classed as a Medium,not in a month of Sunday's, JVP, and others are psychics if that! I have never head so many questions in my life as he asks, Mediums have an acute sensitivity and awareness of the Spirit world it is not a talent! The parapsychologists who are doing the research are quite naive to be polite, yt? hey are not knowledgeable of the difference there is a between a psychic and Mediums.Psychics read the auric fields of the individual,it is an repository of impressions of incidents in a person's life,so information can be retrieved but Mediums are are aware of Spirit energies,they receive the consciousness/soul who relays their characters,personalities and idiosyncrasies of the Spirit person, what you mostly see on church platforms today is abysmal,it could b e psychic or hot reading butt in many cases not mediumship. I have nothing against psychics,they can help but not platforms as ""plastic" Mediums

This is a statement about seances with physical medium "Kai Muegge" from Hanau Germany.

This statement is based on various séances in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and is supported by 9 witnesses who are experienced in the field of (physical) mediumship, research and practice. This statement is only applicable for séances where Kai Muegge is the medium and it is NOT applicable to other physical mediums.

This statement is supported by 9 people who witnessed one or more séances of Kai Muegge. The names of these people remain private by reason that their main objective is to put a warning to others. They do not wish to be part in the true/false discussion that will follow after this statement is published. The supporters of this statement are 100% sure of their findings and discussing it (like others did in the past) has no positive added value to their point of view regarding the involved medium.

Statement text
Over the last years, various people spoke out about their experiences regarding the physical mediumship of Kai Muegge. These experiences are based on various séances, investigations by trustful people who witnessed situations that were explained, sold and interpreted as an act of physical mediumship.

The supporters of this statement do not find it necessary to describe their own experiences in detail, because these details have already been published on earlier occasions by many others. We herewith refer to the detailed publications of Michael Nahm, Peter Mulacs, Stephen Braude and the collected work of many others who wrote about their experiences and published them online.

Based upon our own experiences and the detailed descriptions of earlier mentioned publications, the supporters of this statement conclude that most of the current public Kai Muegge séances contain none to very little happenings which can be typed as an act of physical mediumship. The happenings that are shown during the séances of Kai Muegge have the express intent to be the outcome of physical mediumship, but the supporters of this statement conclude that these are mostly not part of something of which where spirit is involved.

If people have the intention to be part of a séance where the working medium is Kai Muegge AND if this séance is sold as a demonstration of physical mediumship, this statement makes it very clear that in most cases, the content of this séance will be one with very little spirit intervention. In our opinion, the happenings you will witness are mostly initiated by a physical person from this world and NOT the world of spirit.

In this statement we use words like " most, mostly or most cases" and "none to very little" Reason for this is the following: Based upon séances that were held in other years than which this statement refers to, it is known that there were séances of Kai Muegge that were good demonstrations of physical mediumship. Therefore we find it sad that the development of the séances over the last years have headed into a different direction.

Advice for seances of Kay Muegge
Physical mediumship always has a purpose. Why should Spirit make an effort to produce ectoplasm, bring apports or move things in the room? The happenings in a physical séance should have a deeper meaning to at least one person in the room. This mostly is the missing part in the séances of Kai Muegge.

Our advice to those who wish to attend a seance of Kai that is published as a seance of "physical mediumship” is:
• Go, if you accept the fact that only a part of what you will witness is real physical mediumship.
• If you wish to go, but if quality is important, you can ONLY accept this as "physical mediumship” if all of these four points are met:
1. the basics are good. Every sitter, the medium and helpers are checked by an independent checker. The cabinet and the room are checked by independent checkers and there is nothing they are not allowed to examine;

2. the medium brings a beloved one from the spirit world through for one or more sitters. In this contact solid proof is given, where solid means that the information that is given cannot be found on the internet nor can it be gained in any other way;

3. In the case of an apport, it needs to be unique and there must be a deeper meaning to it;

4. this séance is conducted with the presence of an independent cameraman with a thermal camera, where afterwards the film is showed to the sitters to confirm the authenticity of the physical séance. (needs to be announced when booking) Next to this we need to make the remark that the delivery of infrared, thermal film material or photos of earlier séances cannot be seen as the proof of authenticity for future physical séances, unless you have participated in the earlier séance yourself and that convinced you of it’s uniqueness.

If (4) is not announced and not followed up, or announced but not followed up in the séance, then you should doubt the uniqueness of the séance and ask for money back. In the case of any payments asked, we find that it is not fair to ask € 100,- to € 200,- per person for attending a physical séance where the quality is not assured by these 4 points.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)