Michael Prescott's Blog

Abraham Lincoln, spiritualist?

A question that comes up fairly often in discussions of the history of spiritualism is the attitude of Abraham Lincoln toward the subject. It is known that Lincoln's wife, Mary, hosted séances at the White House, and that Lincoln attended some of them. But did he take the events seriously, or was he merely humoring his wife or having a bit of fun?

In her magisterial biography Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin downplays Lincoln's interest in the occult. As she tells it, he enjoyed the séances as performances, nothing more, and he was eager to uncover the trickery that lay behind the sometimes astonishing effects.

A very different perspective is offered by an 1891 publication titled Was Abraham Lincoln a Spiritualist?, which can be read in its entirety on Google Books.  The book, written by medium Nettie Colburn Maynard, recounts Nettie's experiences in mediumship, with an emphasis on her visits to the White House. I find the author's account quite convincing in its detail and generally levelheaded tone, but of course it may be asking too much to take the medium at her word.

Fortunately, the publisher - a certain Rufus C. Hartranft - anticipated the skepticism of his readers. In a prologue, he offers a number of testimonials to Nettie Colburn Maynard's abilities and honesty. What is more interesting is that he also includes statements from people who knew Abraham Lincoln and, in some cases, were present with him at White House séances.

He begins:

In February of this year, the writer had the good fortune to meet a gentleman who related that he knew from personal experience and contact, that Abraham Lincoln was a Spiritualist, and implicitly believed in the guidance and teachings of that science or religion, whichever it may be. He further stated that he attended a séance where the President with several other persons had sat upon a piano, and that the instrument had been bodily lifted from the floor by means of spirit power, while the President and his friends remained seated upon it ! He further stated that he knew from personal knowledge that the President had been instructed and guided by spirits in times of particular stress in affairs of state, and that at a period when the nation's future was uncertain, and while the States were in the midst of the throes of a great civil war. He also stated that he knew of his own personal knowledge and experience, that numerous Spiritualistic séances were held in the White House, and that they were frequented by many of the leading men of the time, who were then located in Washington.

This gentleman's statement, being of such peculiar significance, the writer did not believe it. This recitation, however, caused the writer to become greatly interested in the subject from a purely historical standpoint, and, therefore, he immediately started an investigation regarding the matter ...

The investigation led him to discover Mrs. Maynard and to gather encomiums on her behalf, but it also led to some of Lincoln's associates:

Mrs. Daniel E. Somes, of Washington, wife of the late Hon. Daniel E. Somes, Representative from Maine, in the Thirty-sixth Congress, informs the writer that she attended séances at the White House during the war when Miss Colburn (Maynard) was the medium there, and upon one occasion met Major-General Daniel Sickles, and that the circumstances recorded as to that séance are fully described in this volume. This statement she fully and completely indorses; and further adds that her husband was closely and intimately connected with President Lincoln, and had repeatedly informed her of interesting and remarkable incidents which occurred at the White House at séances as herein described and mentioned. She also states that she knows Miss Colburn did not give séances in the White House for money.

Col. Simon P. Kase, of Philadelphia, states that he was present at a séance with Mr. Lincoln, and that he, with several other gentlemen, the President included, sat upon the piano, while it was lifted bodily from the floor by spirit power, and that Mr. Lincoln was not only interested in this physical phenomenon, but was also intensely interested in the statements which the medium made to President Lincoln while in a trance condition.

Mrs. Elvira M. Depuy, of Washington, stated to the writer: "My husband was a visitor to séances where Mr. Lincoln was present, and he has told me of many interesting occurrences which happened thereat. In the winter of 1862-3 I attended a séance at Mrs. Laurie's, at Georgetown, where Mrs. Lincoln was present. She was accompanied by Mr. Newton, Commissioner of Agriculture. At this séance remarkable statements were made by Miss Colburn (Maynard) which surprised Mrs. Lincoln to such a degree that she asked that a séance might be given to Mr. Lincoln. I have always known from my husband and others that Mr. Lincoln attended circles and séances, and was greatly interested in Spiritualism."

Hartranft also includes a statement from Francis Bicknell Carpenter, the artist who painted the "First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation" that is still displayed in the Capitol, and who wrote a biography of Lincoln. According to Wikipedia, "Carpenter resided with President Lincoln at the White House and in 1866 published his one volume memoir Six Months at the White House with Abraham Lincoln."

In his statement, Carpenter vigorously disputes the account of William H. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, who had depicted Lincoln as lacking any interest in spirituality or religion. This may well have been true of Lincoln in his earlier years, when he was something of a "freethinker," but according to Carpenter, the president's attitude changed late in life. Wrote Carpenter:

"I know that Mr. Herndon knew Mr. Lincoln better than any other man, up to the time of his election in 1861; after his election Mr. Herndon knew but little of him, and absolutely nothing of his mental or spiritual condition before the sickness of his son Willie, nor after Willie's death, and I must say that Mr. Lincoln's mind underwent a vast change after that event. Just what Mr. Lincoln's religious views were, I do not know, but it is a fact that he was known to pray, and his condition was much more in accordance with the statement found in [Carpenter's biography] 'The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln' than that stated by other biographers, and you may quote me, that Herndon's statements have neither weight nor value, after the connection between the two men ceased. I am not prepared to state that Mr. Lincoln was a Spiritualist. I do know that he had faith in spiritual comfort and believed that we were, in a measure, directed by spiritual teachers and guidance."

It should be noted that Carpenter became interested in spiritualism in his later years, so possibly his interpretation of Lincoln's outlook is colored by his own beliefs. Nevertheless it seems clear enough from the various testimonies that Lincoln did have a genuine interest in spiritualism and séances, even if he may have balanced his interest with some healthy skepticism about the details (especially regarding the physical phenomena, as Doris Kearns Goodwin points out).

Those who've read Lincoln's speeches and other writings are usually struck by the increasingly religious or spiritual tone of his later remarks. It is likely that the huge tragedy of the Civil War, combined with the intense grief arising from the death of his young son, opened Lincoln's mind to possibilities that he had dismissed in his earlier days. Séances with Nettie Colburn and others seem to have played a role in his spiritual development also. Indeed, if Mrs. Maynard's account can be trusted, her channeled advice may have helped Lincoln to withstand considerable pressure and publish the Emancipation Proclamation.

Here is how Nettie Colburn Maynard herself described the scene (with the first very long paragraph broken up for easier reading):

Mrs. Lincoln received us graciously, and introduced us to a gentleman and lady present whose names I have forgotten. Mr. Lincoln was not then present. While all were conversing pleasantly on general subjects, Mrs. Miller (Mr. Laurie's daughter) seated herself, under control, at the double grand piano at one side of the room, seemingly awaiting some one. Mrs. Lincoln was talking with us in a pleasant strain when suddenly Mrs. Miller's hands fell upon the keys with a force that betokened a master hand, and the strains of a grand march filled the room. As the measured notes rose and fell we became silent. The heavy end of the piano began rising and falling in perfect time to the music. All at once it ceased, and Mr. Lincoln stood upon the threshold of the room. (He afterwards informed us that the first notes of the music fell upon his ears as he reached the head of the grand staircase to descend, and that he kept step to the music until he reached the doorway).

Mr. and Mrs. Laurie and Mrs. Miller were duly presented. Then I was led forward and presented. He stood before me, tall and kindly, with a smile on his face. Dropping his hand upon my head, he said, in a humorous tone, "So this is our ' little Nettie' is it, that we have heard so much about ?" I could only smile and say, "Yes, sir," like any school-girl; when he kindly led me to an ottoman. Sitting down in a chair, the ottoman at his feet, he began asking me questions in a kindly way about my mediumship; and I think he must have thought me stupid, as my answers were little beyond a "Yes" and "No." His manner, however, was genial and kind, and it was then suggested we form in a circle. He said, "Well, how do you do it ?" looking at me.

Mr. Laurie came to the rescue, and said we had been accustomed to sit in a circle and to join hands; but he did not think it would be necessary in this instance. While he was yet speaking, I lost all consciousness of my surroundings and passed under control.

For more than an hour I was made to talk to him, and I learned from my friends afterward that it was upon matters that he seemed fully to understand, while they comprehended very little until that portion was reached that related to the forthcoming Emancipation Proclamation. He was charged with the utmost solemnity and force of manner not to abate the terms of its issue, and not to delay its enforcement as a law beyond the opening of the year; and he was assured that it was to be the crowning event of his administration and his life; and that while he was being counseled by strong parties to defer the enforcement of it, hoping to supplant it by other measures and to delay action, he must in no wise heed such counsel, but stand firm to his convictions and fearlessly perform the work and fulfil the mission for which he had been raised up by an overruling Providence.

Those present declared that they lost sight of the timid girl in the majesty of the utterance, the strength and force of the language, and the importance of that which was conveyed, and seemed to realize that some strong masculine spirit force was giving speech to almost divine commands.

I shall never forget the scene around me when I regained consciousness. I was standing in front of Mr. Lincoln, and he was sitting back in his chair, with his arms folded upon his breast, looking intently at me. I stepped back, naturally confused at the situation—not remembering at once where I was; and glancing around the group, where perfect silence reigned. It took me a moment to remember my whereabouts.

A gentleman present then said in a low tone, "Mr. President, did you notice anything peculiar in the method of address?" Mr. Lincoln raised himself, as if shaking off his spell. He glanced quickly at the full-length portrait of Daniel Webster, that hung above the piano, and replied, "Yes, and it is very singular, very!" with a marked emphasis.

Mr. Somes said: "Mr. President, would it be improper for me to inquire whether there has been any pressure brought to bear upon you to defer the enforcement of the Proclamation?" To which the President replied: "Under these circumstances that question is perfectly proper, as we are all friends [smiling upon the company]. It is taking all my nerve and strength to withstand such a pressure." At this point the gentlemen drew around him, and spoke together in low tones, Mr. Lincoln saying least of all. At last he turned to me, and laying his hand upon my head, uttered these words in a manner that I shall never forget: "My child, you possess a very singular gift; but that it is of God, I have no doubt. I thank you for coming here to-night. It is more important than perhaps any one present can understand. I must leave you all now; but I hope I shall see you again." He shook me kindly by the hand, bowed to the rest of the company, and was gone. We remained an hour longer, talking with Mrs. Lincoln and her friends, and then returned to Georgetown. Such was my first interview with Abraham Lincoln, and the memory of it is as clear and vivid as the evening on which it occurred.

An impossible dream?

There has been a surprising amount of effort expended over more than a hundred years to scientifically establish the reality of life after death. Yet, while a great deal of evidence has been collected, it falls short of providing absolute proof. At best it suggests a very strong probability of life after death, but it has not clinched the case. Why?

Some would argue that absolute proof is rare in any empirical investigation. Science generally operates in terms of probabilities, not absolutes. The philosopher of science Karl Popper went so far as to say that no theory can be proven true; theories can only be falsified, i.e., disproven. If a theory survives concerted attempts at falsification, it may be provisionally accepted as true, but there is always the chance it will be falsified later.

But while abstract theories may not be provable, empirical facts are. And one would think that life after death, if it is real, would constitute an empirical fact and would therefore be susceptible of proof.

Of course, some facts are easier to establish than others. An afterlife, by its nature, would be extremely difficult to prove simply because it presumably exists on a different "level" or "plane" of reality than the one we presently inhabit. It would not be "empirical" in the same sense that a rock or a tree is empirical. But I think there's more to it than that.

Actually, I have started to think it is probably impossible, even in principle, ever to obtain objective proof of life after death. Note that I am talking not about evidence, which is abundant, but about conclusive proof, which remains elusive and perhaps always will.

I could be all wrong about this. These are relatively deep waters, and I may be out of my depth. My perspective depends on the very tricky distinction between objective and subjective, a distinction that has bedeviled people who are far more philosophically sophisticated than I am.

Nevertheless, for what it's worth, here's what I've been thinking.

First, what do we mean by "life after death"? Ordinarily, at least in Western culture, we mean the survival of the individual as an individual. Absorption into some undifferentiated cosmic Oneness might be a kind of life after death, but it's not what we typically are talking about.

But what is the individual? Clearly, in this context, we mean the unique consciousness of a particular person -- the "I," or sense of self.

And here's the rub. Consciousness, by its nature, is a subjective state.

The only consciousness we know directly is our own. Strictly speaking, we cannot be absolutely sure -- we can't prove -- that other people are conscious. We observe their behavior, and from it we infer consciousness. To put it another way, we know that our consciousness directly influences our behavior, and so we assume that other people's behavior has its origins in their consciousness. And this makes sense. It's a perfectly plausible inference ... but still only an inference.

Since we cannot know someone else's consciousness first-hand, we can only rely on other people's statements about their inner state, and on extrapolation from our own personal experience. In short, we draw an "inference to the best explanation."

I'm not denying that this is, in fact, the best explanation. I don't doubt that other people are conscious. I'm only pointing out that we can't access other people's state of being, just as they can't access ours. Consciousness is inherently subjective. As such, it resists any attempt to prove its existence objectively.

Note that this is the case even in the case of ESP. Impressions plucked from someone else's mind are known to us only because they appear in our particular field of consciousness. We still cannot experience the other person's consciousness, his sense of self.

Now, if this is true regarding other human beings who are alive and interacting with us directly, it would be even more true of discarnate beings accessible to us only through an altered state of consciousness or through some intermediary, i.e., a medium. We can't prove that the subjective state of consciousness operates in other living beings, and we can't prove that it persists in those who are no longer physically alive. The best we can do is find pointers that imply such a conclusion -- pointers that make the inference more plausible.

If information coming through a medium is specific, detailed, and likely to be known only to us and to the deceased person who is allegedly communicating, and if hints of that person's distinctive personality also come through, then we may very well feel justified in concluding that our deceased friend really is conveying a message to us. This is arguably an inference to the best explanation, if other possible explanations, such as conscious or unconscious fraud and self-delusion, are ruled out. But it still isn't proof in any absolute sense. It can't be, because objective proof of the reality of a subjective experience is impossible, and the discarnate being's consciousness (like all consciousness) is subjective.

We may just have to accept the fact that no objective proof can actually be attained in this area. The best we may be able to hope for is that we personally become convinced by our own experiences, but not that we can convince others who have not shared our experiences.

I'm not sure this matters very much, since the purpose of life is not convince others to agree with us. But those who are hoping for some slam-dunk, irrefutable, objective proof that will render all skepticism obsolete may be dreaming an impossible dream.

The wheat and the chaff

Recently I received a free copy of a new small-press book about the afterlife, which arrived charmingly gift-wrapped -- sort of an early Christmas present. I don't know the principal author, but he has a blog on this subject which contains a lot of interesting posts. I guess he came across my blog and thought I might be interested.

The book, which is clearly a longtime labor of love, is The Risen: Dialogues of Love, Grief, and Survival beyond Death, by August Goforth and Timothy Gray (2009), with a foreword by longtime NDE researcher Melvin Morse. August Goforth is the pseudonym of a psychotherapist in New York City. Timothy Gray is the actual name of a New York City writer and photographer who passed away in the early 1990s and whose insights are ostensibly channeled in this book.

The "Risen" of the title is the book's term for people who have passed on -- an expression that provides a nice spin on the more traditional way of referring to the deceased as "the fallen" (as in "a roll call of the fallen" or "our fallen heroes").

One of the major issues addressed by the book is what part of us actually "rises." Do we survive with all our neuroses and fears and likes and dislikes, or are we transformed into something greater? The Risen answers this question in an extended discussion of the "ego-mind" and "Authentic Self," an approach that blends elements of nondualistic mysticism (Eckhart Tolle, e.g.) with the teachings of Spiritualism. It's a combination that intrigues me, because I've found value in both approaches but have not seen how to integrate them. Tolle seems to regard the personality as an illusion that will dissolve when the body dies, while Spiritualism attempts to demonstrate that the personality survives death. Both outlooks, it seems to me, have something worthwhile to offer. On the one hand, the evidence for continuity of personality is, in my opinion, very strong; thousands of mediumistic communications attest to it, and I find many of these communications persuasive. On the other hand, who wants to survive as a bundle of quirks and worries and petty grudges? Wouldn't it be hell to be trapped with your chattering "ego-mind" forever? Sweet oblivion would be preferable.

The Risen

states that the ego-mind and its accompanying personas do not survive, or at least don't survive for long, but that the true self -- what the book calls Authentic Self -- does continue, and that it makes use of the memories and experiences of the ego-mind as needed.

It is, of course, always difficult to evaluate channeled material, especially when it consists of philosophical insights rather than verifiable factual claims. I don't know of any objective way to assess this kind of thing, so my personal approach is to see if it subjectively rings true to me.

Though I don't pretend to understand all of what The Risen has to say on this topic, enough of it feels right to me that I want to present it here, in highly condensed form. What follows are selected excerpts from a much longer presentation spread over two chapters of the book.

If you find these ideas interesting, I suggest ordering the book so you can follow the whole presentation in unabridged form. Sadly, your copy, unlike mine, will be neither free nor gift-wrapped. Who says blogging has no perks?

From Chapter 10, "Ego-Mind & the Simulate Selves"

The ego-mind is an obsessively opinionated, decision-making psychological component of the earthly mind-body. All thought arises from its mentality, generated to manifest physical forms and experiences on the physical plane. Simultaneously, it outwardly projects judgments about our mind-body's perceptions and its environment into our inner space, and onto the bodies and environments of others. This projection is the simulate self. When the feeling of Authentic Self has awakened, all thoughts can be observed, accepted, shelved, or dissolved from a consciously aware stance. But until then, the ego-mind is in complete control of any rising thoughts.

The language of a malfunctioning ego-mind is tribal and therefore fear-based. It subscribes to judgmental concepts that use words and phrases such as "exclusive," "special," "restricted," "fashionable," [etc.] ... Gossip, complaint, and criticism are its food and drink. It is motivated by fame and recognition, and fueled by envy and competition. Insatiably seeking entertainment, "gleeful" and "gloating" best describe its sense of humor, which is delivered with jealousy, sarcasm, and resentment. The ego-mind loves competitive contests. It enjoys attracting and manifesting disasters.

The ego-mind is future-oriented -- it cannot wait, and it worries. It worries about worry. Its language, couched in suggestions, generates anxiety attacks. The ego-mind will seize upon the body's minor aches and escalate them into mental terrors and fantasies about disease and death....

Few earth-embodied Authentic Selves are consciously aware of the psychological component of their mind-body-spirit, also called the psyche or soul. The vast majority of people are moving about in the world with the ego-mind in the driving seat while they sleep in the back, occasionally and briefly waking to look at the scenery passing them by, but then quickly falling back into hibernation....

Because of the unlimited energy permitted to the ego-mind, the simulate self is able to present and maintain the semblance of a self-aware consciousness. In effect, this simulacrum or imitation manifests its own kind of form, and simultaneously, a projected, perceived environment for this form. This environment arises from the multitude of anxious thoughts we allow the ego-mind to generate and amplify, drawing from the vast expanses of energy circumscribed by our fear and trembling....

The simulate self fabricates, presents, and maintains a "personality" or "character" in order to appear real and to appeal to others. It assigns the greatest importance to itself regarding the affairs of the world. It is extremely valuable to keep in mind that our personality is an illusion and not who we are at the core of our immortal existence....

The simulate self resides in our material body's mental areas. The core, true self, or Authentic Self, dwells within the non-mental areas of our interpenetrating material, etheric, and astral bodies....

Authentic Self does not think or have thoughts. It observes them as they arise from the ego-mind, which is contained within the infinite space of Mind....

Connecting with true Reality, or even the beginning awareness of a projected edge against Reality [i.e., the awareness of a perimeter beyond which there is a greater reality - MP], would initiate a weakening of the simulate self's structure, contributing to its possible dissolution and reintegration into something larger, even while Authentic Self is still earth-embodied. The dissolution of the ego-mind and its simulate selves is inevitable, which the ego-mind correctly understands and greatly dreads as its own kind of death....

While survival is the ego-mind's prime directive for the simulate self, it is really meant for the physical cells of our temporary mortal bodies, and on a limited basis. It is not intended for the ego-mind's dreams of immortality for the personality of the simulate self. The ego-mind's true function is to serve us while Authentic Self is spiritually embodied....

The experiences of unawakened human beings are multi-layered, consisting of complex and dynamic sets of simulate selves, interacting with one another and with Authentic Self....

This complexity of selves, of many personalities, means there is not just one simulate self, but that the ego-mind has fractured into many simulate selves -- into many "-I'-s". If we closely watch our thoughts and speech, especially when responding to another person's thoughts or speech -- whether or not they are inside or outside our head -- it becomes clear that we carry within us many "-I'-s" of an indeterminate number, each with its own traits and opinions.... There is the -I- of one's career role, the -I- of one's parenting role, the -I- of one's role as lover, friend, enemy, expert, and so on. These could be typed as major -I's-.

There are also countless minor -I's-. These include the sarcastic, the reactive, the self-entitled ones; the opinionated, the resentful, the gossiping and worrying ones. Some are stronger and are leaders which others follow. Some prefer to remain undetected, while others compete for dominance. There are also the "nice" -I's-. We all know the over-cheerful, the do-gooder, the ever-apologetic, the chronic volunteer, the self-denigrater. Seemingly benign, these -I's- are just slipcovers hiding the shabbiness of the ego-mind's own agenda....

If you've ever "come to" and realized you've been mumbling under your breath, or arguing with yourself, or smiling about a delicious put-down you made earlier, or replaying the boss's congratulations, the next step is to consciously realize that a simulate self was using your brain and body while you, as Authentic Self, slept....

From Chapter 12, "Authentic Self"

Authentic Self is beyond language and increasingly revealed as it is "uncovered." This self-revelation happens as we regain control of the ego-mind and its simulate selves....

One can learn to observe an experience beyond an experience. This observation leads to the empowering question: "Who is it that observes?" Some refer to this who as the "Hidden Observer."

Stilling the incessant criticism of the ego-mind will eventually result in an awakening to the Hidden Observer, who is already very awake but just seems hidden, simply because it is much quieter than the ego-mind.

When no longer hidden from us, it becomes clear that this Observer is Authentic Self. It is a direct channel to Original Creator Source, from which all individualities are rise. While remaining individual and unique, all Authentic Selves -- or Higher Individualities -- are interconnected and collectively joined as our One Source. Individually and collectively, we expand our Source while being our Source....

What are the qualities of Authentic Self? If such labels could be found and described here, the ego-mind would attempt to simulate them into personality traits, which the unaware reader would then pretend to have.

Personality is not individuality, yet most modern people seem to equate them. "Personality" comes from the Latin persona, meaning "mask," referring to the masks that Ancient Greek actors once used onstage to personalize a character. The actors used masks to portray something previously unseen, rendering it visible to others. When they left the stage the masks came off, and they knew that the persona did not continue on as their individuality -- "impersonal" means "unmasked."

Like any good actor, a simulate self needs memories to draw on for its character. These memories are supplied by the ego-mind. Actors also know that the success of their persona depends largely on their own belief in it. The basic nature of belief is that it is temporary. But modern humans actually try to maintain a permanent belief that our persona is some kind of externalized result of the bridging between our inner and outer selves. This is yet another misconception of the ego-mind, because there is but one real self, Authentic Self, which only seems to be hidden....

Individuality, not image, is you. The word "individual" comes from the Latin individuos, "not divided." Contrasted with the image of the personality, our individuality is invisible and indivisible, and therefore indestructible. Individuality survives death when we transition to a Risen stage. It has no dimensions, so it cannot be measured, contained, nor defined. Any effort to do so is to try to personalize Authentic Self. One can cover up Authentic Self with masks, but sooner or later all the disguises come off, and then what remains? The Individualized Authentic Self that is you, which not only exists now, but always will exist, without end. When we leave the theatrical stage of earth, the temporary personality will eventually dissolve and be reabsorbed as informative energy into a Risen Authentic Self -- this usually occurs after we leave the material body, but there are exceptions. Any work that remains to be done in dealing with personality issues will be accomplished after Rising.

Psychologists analyze externalized thought forms as they are expressed and presented through our personalities. But they can't measure the quantity or quality of the dimensionless individual. Earthly science tends to see its presumed authority as reliable knowledge, but such authority is largely a competitive matter of fight-or-flight posturing, to ensure the survival of separate ego-minded personalities.

Most people identify with their personality to the extent that it crystallizes. It retains some semi-substantial but still earthly materiality, so the crystallized form can be quite problematic to dissolve, even on the astral planes. Although it is not intelligent, the free-floating, discarnate personality can display a kind of clever mimicry of the memories with which still resonates. The resultant form will linger on in a kind of quasi-existence on the lowest astral levels that are closest to the earth plane. Recall that the ego-mind eventually ceases to exist when we discard the body, an inevitable ending or death which it fears and does all it can to avoid, while allowed to run out of control with that fear. The disembodied, crystallized form of the simulate self no longer has an earthly ego-mind regulated by what we call a "conscience," or inner critic or judge....

These forms present themselves as apparent semi-intelligences, and are often responsible for the nonsensical, crude, and even cruel communications to sensitives during a mediumistic reading.... They are most successful at making their presences known through an Ouija board, and sometimes through automatic handwriting, table tipping, and rappings. People with traumatized psyches, whose brains are disabled by organic disease, by various substances, or by conditions labeled as mental illness may also be susceptible to the invasive efforts of these discarded constructs, for short- and long-term periods....

To communicate with someone on a higher plane, we must raise our vibrations from that of the earth plane. To do this we make a conscious connection with Authentic Self. In turn, those on the higher plane, who are very likely more familiar with and identified as their Authentic Selves, often must lower their own vibrations. This experience has been reported by them as very uncomfortable, like "sinking into thick, muddy water"...

When the earthly material body falls away, Authentic Self then stands revealed. This Self is the bridge. When I say that I am the bridge or the door to other states of consciousness, I mean to where other individuals exist in similar states of consciousness. I am the door to Tim. In the early stages of communication with the Risen, the door is experienced intuitively.

[Excerpts from The Risen, pp. 70-95 and 112-117]

P.S. It occurs to me that the distinction between the ego-mind and Authentic Self might be what the Gnostics were thinking of when they developed the myth of the demiurge.

Gnosticism claimed that the true God is mostly unknown to people, who mistakenly worship a sort of middleman, the demiurge. The demiurge is a lesser deity that thinks of itself as the one and only God. This fanciful story could be seen as a metaphor for the tendency to see the ego-mind as our one and only self, when in fact it is sort of an imposter, and our true self is something higher and more mysterious.

Field reports

The Supreme Adventure: Analyses of Psychic Communications, by Robert Crookall, was published in 1961. It consists of reports describing the dying process, culled by Crookall from various books about mediumship.

There are two points of particular interest about this material. First, even though it was collected from a variety of sources spanning many decades, it displays a remarkable set of similarities. Second, it anticipates descriptions of the dying process reported by near-death experiencers -- descriptions that were not popularized until the mid-1970s.

Of course, some near-death experiences were reported before that date. In fact, in some of his other books Crookall himself collected accounts that he classified as out-of-body experiences, but which today would be called NDEs. (The term "near-death experience" was not coined until 1975, with the publication of Raymond Moody's book Life After Life.) But in the years before the development of advanced medical technology, NDEs were rare , and the distinctive elements of an NDE do not appear to have been widely known. It is therefore of some interest that so many mediums, ostensibly conveying messages from the deceased, indicated the very same elements that would later be understood as characterizing an NDE.

A preview of The Supreme Adventure can be read on Google Books; the book itself is available from Amazon and other online retailers. Trying to summarize all this information inevitably does a disservice to Crookall's work, because its most interesting aspects are the repetitive similarities among the various accounts, and these details must be lost in any brief recap. Still, an overview at least gives the flavor of the book.

Crookall divides his accounts into "natural death" and "enforced death," pointing out interesting dissimilarities between the two. For our purposes, we will limit the discussion to natural death.

Here are the main features of the natural dying process, according to Crookall:

1. The call. The dying person consciously or unconsciously calls out to departed loved ones, who arrive to assist in the transition.

2. The life review. Crookall: "Communicators often declare that, in the early stages of transition, they experienced a panoramic review of their past earth-lives." This review is impersonal and nonjudgmental.

3. Leaving the body. The messages spoke of rising out of the body and floating in the air, then passing through a tunnel or passageway, while experiencing an expansion of consciousness. (Much more about the tunnel accounts is found here.) The deceased persons frequently met friends who had passed over before them. They also reported seeing "a cord of light" connecting the spiritual body to the earthly body -- a cord that snapped at the moment of irrevocable physical death.

4. The sleep, or the second death. For a short time after death, many communicators indicated that they existed in a half-conscious or unconscious state, which was apparently necessary to recharge their energy and help acclimate them to their new environment.

5. The awakening. After the sleep, communicators described coming back to full consciousness. As one said, "Death really is just a sleep and an awakening." (p. 39)

6. The judgment. This experience is held to be separate from the earlier life review, which is nonjudgmental. Crookall calls the judgment "an emotional and a personally-responsible review of the past earth-life which, with average people who die natural deaths, occurs within a few months (reckoned in our time) of 'passing'.... The 'Judgment' takes place after the 'second death' (which occurs, with average men who 'pass' naturally, some three or four days after their transition)." One communicator is quoted as saying, "The judgment-bar is the innermost of yourself." (p. 43)

7. The assignment. Each spirit gravitates toward the sphere of existence that is most closely aligned with his or her personal development.

Crookall notes that many communicators go on to describe conditions in these celestial spheres: "'Communications' of the unverifiable type deal with innumerable subjects -- the supposed conditions of the after-life, the 'spheres', 'planes' or environments in which the 'dead' live, their occupations and activities, their relationships to each other and to us mortals, the methods by which they communicate with us, their 'lecture halls', 'libraries', 'hospitals', etc. Many who have made a study of the numerous independent accounts of such matters have pointed out that they exhibit remarkable similarities and that, although they cannot be taken as literally true and exact descriptions, they must, presumably, refer to reality of some sort. A study of such matters will not, however, contribute towards a demonstration of survival." (p. 5)

Perhaps not, but it is, at the very least, interesting that some modern NDErs, who presumably had no acquaintance with mediumistic messages or spiritualist teachings, describe the afterlife environment in much the same terms, right down to the lecture halls, libraries, and hospitals.

Getting back to the specific steps enumerated by Crookall, we can see that the most obvious similarities with NDEs are found in #1 (the call), #2 (the life review), #3 (leaving the body), and #6 (the judgment). These similarities include: a panoramic review of one's past life; separating from the body and hovering over it; moving through a tunnel; and meeting deceased loved ones, who often are reported to assist in the transition. At least one communicator said there was a light at the end of the tunnel, and in general, the tunnel experience seems to be reported as an interval of darkness followed by new light. Crookall regards the tunnel experience as something like an extended blackout.

The biggest difference between these mediumistic communications and NDEs is that, in NDEs, the early life review is frequently seen as an opportunity for passing judgment on oneself, while in the accounts collected by Crookall, judgment does not take place until a second, later life review. Whether or not this difference is significant is debatable. One might speculate that the NDEr is allowed to learn from his life review ahead of schedule, while he has the opportunity, before being sent back to his physical body. Since his "death" is only temporary, he would not get the chance to go through the extended life review if it was delayed.

Note that the most distinctive feature of the NDE life review -- the sense that one is not only re-experiencing one's own life but also directly experiencing the effect that one has had on others -- is reported by some mediumistic communicators in their description of the judgment: "Each incident brings with it the feelings not only of oneself alone but of all those others who were affected by the events." "One is faced with the effects emotionally of all one's actions." "All the pain he had given to people he experienced himself, and all the pleasure he had given he received back again." "He becomes aware of all the emotions aroused in his victims by his acts... He becomes purified through his identification with the sufferings of his victims." "I have been shown the effects of all my acts upon other people's minds. Their thoughts were shown to me." (pp. 42-45)

Of course, NDErs do not report the second death (#4), subsequent awakening (#5), or permanent assignment to a particular plane (#6). But this is to be expected, since these events -- according to the mediums -- take place only after the silver cord has been cut and death is irrevocable.

The impression I get from comparing these reports with NDEs is that the NDEr is something like a visitor on the celestial plane. He does not have the opportunity to become fully acclimated to his environment (which is the purpose of the second death), nor is he permanently assigned to any particular spiritual sphere. Whisked out of his body before the appointed time, he is allowed a reunion with departed loved ones, a chance to commune with his higher self (or God, or however we look at the "being of light" who appears in so many NDEs), a chance to learn from his past life, and a glimpse of his future home. But he does not go through all the steps that would accompany the full and final dying process.

Nevertheless, the early steps taken by the NDEr dovetail pretty neatly with the accounts provided by mediums. Despite any differences, there are obvious parallels between the two sets of reports.

The recurrent similarities in mediumistic communications could perhaps be explained as the product of the general environment of spiritualism; the mediums, it might be said, simply picked up these ideas from spiritualist literature and then perpetuated them. But most people who've reported an NDE are not spiritualists, and probably have no knowledge of esoteric writings. It is more than doubtful that the average cardiac arrest patient who describes an NDE has spent any time poring over the works of Swedenborg or Blavatsky, or reading the obscure books cited by Crookall -- books like Philip in Two Worlds, by Alice Gilbert (1948) and Shadow Land by Mme. d. Esperance (1897), to choose just two of the titles in Crookall's extensive bibliography. Yet the NDErs consistently report many of the same details, sometimes in almost the same words.

I think it's because the mediumistic communications, or at least a great many of them, are genuine, as are the NDE accounts. There are commonalities between them because they are reports of the same reality -- a reality the rest of us will get to explore for ourselves soon enough.

Book review and excerpt: Guided By Spirit

Lately I've been reading a very interesting book, Guided By Spirit: A Journey into the Mind of the Medium, which was self-published by two authors: Charles F. Emmons, a professor of sociology and anthropology at Gettysburg College, and his wife Penelope Emmons, a psychotherapist with a master's degree in social work who also works as a medium and has had a variety of paranormal experiences.

What's fascinating about the book is the way it intertwines the dual perspectives of its authors. Charles Emmons takes a somewhat more analytical approach, often viewing mediumship as a social phenomenon with important psychological benefits, while his wife has a more overtly "spiritual" perspective. I'm oversimplifying a great deal, since Charles Emmons clearly has an excellent grasp of the spiritual issues involved, and Penelope Emmons keenly appreciates the social and scientific aspects. But each author offers his or her own particular emphasis. The two approaches complement each other very nicely and show that there need not be any irreconcilable differences between a properly "scientific" study of this subject and a more personal experience of it.

Both authors are well-educated, sophisticated, and highly intelligent, and strike me as impeccably honest and straightforward.

Although I enjoyed both perspectives, I identified somewhat more with the viewpoint of Charles Emmons, who came at mediumship, at least initially, as something of an outsider. Later, to deepen his understanding of the phenomenon, he took classes in mediumship and did some informal demonstrations in which he scored his share of "hits" as well as "misses." He also investigated mediumship in Hong Kong, where it is a thriving part of the culture, and wrote a book about it called Chinese Ghosts and ESP: A Study of Paranormal Beliefs and Experiences, which sounds very worthwhile in its own right.

Near the end of Guided By Spirit, the two authors sum up their particular viewpoints. I found Charles Emmons's summary especially congenial to my own way of thinking, so I am reproducing a large part of it below.

The chapter is titled "Charlie's View."

--------

Let me begin by saying that I find some "truth" or usefulness in all of these perspectives: social/behavioral scientific, debunking, parapsychological, and spiritual. I do not think that this represents a "relativization of knowledge," in which anything can be true if you believe in it. I just mean that taken literally each perspective offers interesting possible explanations, some of which may be valid at certain times.

Taken at a deeper level, each of these perspectives tends to become a dogmatic, competitive belief system conducive neither to science nor spirituality. Practitioners of them tend to lose sight of the alleged purposes of systems: to explain reality and to enrich our lives. Every organized belief system is really a social construct created in part to serve the political ends of the group, or at least of the elite members of the group.

What I would like to do is to extract some wisdom from each perspective (giving it a sympathetic reading), and leave the competitive interests and dogmatic structures behind. This (ideally) approaches a multifaceted or pluralistic (and not merely relativized) approach.

I feel good about having played the role of practitioner in each of these systems, so that I can use each without being overly committed to any. The one I have least experience with is debunking, because I cannot accept the narrow view of debunking and its attempt to demolish "ignorance" rather than to engage in open-ended inquiry. If members of CSICOP should hasten to claim that I have an incorrect view of their purpose, which is actually to be skeptical, providing a counterbalance to uncritical belief, then I would happily concur that I have been a "skeptic" in this sense too. And in fact some pieces in Skeptical Inquirer and by members of CSICOP published elsewhere have been fair. Susan Blackmore is my favorite example of such fairness.

I anticipate that some of my colleagues in sociology and anthropology will say that I have taken participant observation too far and have "gone native" by actually learning to do a spirit mediumship. I was supposed to study spirit mediums, not become one. This is a valid criticism that must be considered, but I see what I have done as "participatory science," becoming involved fully in the phenomenon itself, which has made it more understandable to me on a personal level. Of course this becomes more controversial when the phenomenon is considered deviant or dubious by the scientific community.

I say that I have become fully involved, but actually I have not become a registered medium or done mediumship for personal financial gain. I have joined a Spiritualist Church and done "student" mediumship.

Having said all of that, let me now reflect on each of these perspectives and share what I think about spirit mediumship as a phenomenon.

First, there cannot be much doubt about spirit mediumship having social and psychological functions.... Traditional Chinese ancestor worship culture requires mediums to facilitate the communication between ancestors and descendents who are supposed to help each other. Going deeper, ancestor worship has held together large kinship groups who worship common ancestors going back several generations....

As for psychological functions (and dysfunctions), mediumship certainly has a psychological base in terms of altered states of consciousness (which I have also experienced myself), even for mediums today who tend to go into only a light trance. There is no strong general correlation between mediumship and mental illness, although this has been an issue in the literature. Some mediums quite apparently have multiple personality or experience other dissociative states. I think that labeling all of these as pathological is problematic and prematurely judgmental....

I think that scientists who see the connection between brain patterns and anomalous experience as an obvious refutation of the "reality" of the paranormal, and the psychospiritual folks who are upset with this research are both mistaken.

Just because such experiences have a brain component doesn't mean that they don't have "evidential" (containing evidence of paranormal knowledge or experience) aspects as well. If people do have a spiritual or surviving-consciousness component, they also need a physical component in order to experience life on the physical plane and to make connections between the two. Although it seems plausible to claim that a spirit medium, for example, is merely dissociating when he/she experiences a spirit message, it could also be that the brain needs to disconnect from normal patterns in order to get the information more clearly....

Now I am ready for my most difficult task: finding useful elements in the debunking perspective to help understand spirit mediumship. I recall when I was doing my book on UFO researchers how some of them pointed out that UFO debunkers were good for keeping serious ufologists on their toes. Even if some debunkers often were scornful and disrespectful of UFO experiencer claims and often refused to look at the evidence, there were also times when some of them came up with good alternative theories for sightings, such as radar malfunctioning and earthquake lights. Most UFO researchers recognize that the bulk of UFO reports in fact can be "explained away" through mundane explanations. Therefore their own scientific skepticism about any particular report actually coincides with the perspective assumed by debunkers.

Moving to the issue of spirit mediumship, the same sort of overlap exists between debunkers and parapsychologists and even spirit mediums. As pointed out earlier in this book, many of the mediums we interviewed, and even many of the famous mediums in history have had considerable skepticism even about their own personal work. Although many late nineteenth-century Spiritualists became impatient with the scientists who studied mediumship, they did share a desire to root out and expose fraudulent mediums.

CSICOP proclaims the worthy objective of promoting scientific literacy and reducing gullibility in the general population. When it comes to mediumship, this would involve pointing out various tricks used by fraudulent mediums. Even mediums who are not intentionally fraudulent can engage in guesswork through observing body language at other cues....

Now I must show some distance from this perspective. First, it is difficult to judge that believing in the reading is a bad thing, even if it is not really from "spirit". Going to a spirit medium or psychic may be very therapeutic....

Next, I think it is very difficult to pass judgment on particular mediums. Partly this is because it is so difficult to establish a probability frame for scoring a medium's accuracy. Even when a medium is rather general, she or he may be very good at identifying the person's personal issues and do a good service....

One thing that I definitely oppose is the unscrupulous gouging of clients. There are stories of mediums or psychics who tell people that they will remove a curse for a $3,000 fee (although I do not have any first-hand evidence of this). There are also a very few mediums to charge very high fees; but this would be a problem if we were talking about doctors or attorneys as well.

At any rate, debunkers help sound a note of caution for those who are ready to believe in anything allegedly miraculous. In my experience I do not think that many of the people who frequent Lily Dale or who attend the Spiritualist churches I have observed are seriously absent of judgment. They are not participating in some cult that is taking away all their worldly goods. Good mediums also remind people that they have free will and should use their common sense.

Moving to parapsychology, which shares a scientific skepticism with the debunkers, especially when it comes to mediumship as noted above, I think that it requires a great deal of reading to sort out the evidence on mediumship. From reading the sources referred to above and many more, I think that the evidence for mediumship is very supportive of a core of truly remarkable phenomenon that cannot be dismissed.

It was often the case that famous mediums mixed legitimate phenomena with cheating (perhaps unconsciously). These tended to be prematurely dismissed by some even though there was good evidence for the nonhoaxed portion. Also, complex cases like that of the Fox Sisters, who at one point admitted cheating but then recanted, should not be dealt with stereotypically and simplistically as they often are popular publications or debunking literature.

From the beginning I realized that this study could not hope to set the validity issues in mediumship straight when a century and a half of research had failed to do so. No one should accept the last two paragraphs above without doing some research. It is not a very efficient way to do things, but in a field that has not been legitimated by mainstream science, one almost has to do one's own study to decide the issue for oneself. I believe that I have done enough research of my own to appreciate the fact that some phenomena in mediumship are genuine (which is not to say that I can explain it). This is apart from my own experiences as a medium. What I'm referring to here is my study of mediums that was part of a larger study Chinese Ghosts and ESP. It was clear to me that some sessions were so accurate that they were markedly beyond what could be reasonably attributed to chance.

What parapsychology contributes is a relatively open-minded exploration of the truth claims of spirit mediumship, something that social scientists and debunkers do not do (if they are performing their expected roles)....

Last I need to comment on a spiritual perspective on spirit mediumship. In part this is where my own "participatory science" belongs, insofar as my attempted to do mediumship represents a direct experience of an allegedly spiritual phenomenon.

Most of my experience is not directly a test of whether spirit mediumship is really a communication with the spirit world. Most of it is learning to understand the role of spirit medium, how one becomes recruited and socialized to it, and how one performs it and feels about it. Previously in this book we have discussed all of that, including the persistent problem of doing something intuitive in a rational culture.

In a larger sense I feel the mediumship in this society is just one piece of a larger spiritual attempt to find meaning in an increasingly meaningless, technologically dominated mass society....

However, I do not want to just get lost in a spiritual subculture to feel good about my place in modern society and to be at peace with my dead relatives. I also have a curiosity addiction fed by the scientific side of me, which is continually laughing at the "spiritual" side of me. On the other hand, my skeptical side is also fair enough to consider the subject of evidence provided through my own experience. The price my spiritual side pays for this tolerance is that it needs to come up with some pretty good evidence to my skeptical side that I'm not just being deluded by wishful thinking....

The parapsychologist in me is very sure that I have received intuitive messages that are correct way beyond any reasonable chance expectations. This satisfies the skeptical side of me, to a point. However, I cannot prove that there isn't some explanation other than spiritual communication. It could be super-ESP, or the one mind, or whenever.

My spiritual side is convinced (sort of) that I really am communicating with my parents and other people, and that my mother is my spirit guide when I do mediumship. How do I know? I just know. But that's not good enough for my skeptical side. I really don't know of a critical experiment that could settle the matter. Right now I'm content to go on marveling at seeking, and acting as if it's true. I think I've already discovered more than I ever expected to.

But there's more. From my observations I think that spirit mediumship is a great mystery, of which we know only a little. I find it both amusing and annoying when people think they have it all figured out. "It's nonsense." "It's real, but you have to do it this way." From interviewing many mediums and from doing it myself, I think that it happens in a great many ways, not just one way. And of course lots of people try to do it without very good results....

In my own mediumship I have learned to be less analytical (difficult for a college professor) and to bring things forth with less editing. I have learned to set a good intention and to worry about it less. I continue to marvel when I get things right, more right than would seem possible by chance. Any more than that I shall probably have to tell you after I die.

[pp. 285-291]

----------

If you want to read more, you can find Guided By Spirit previewed in Google Books, or you can order it from Amazon.com and other online retailers.

Bird droppings

Today I happened to look at an essay about medium John Edward that I posted on my Web site back in 2003. I found it interesting on two levels. First, I seem to have been a lot snarkier back then! Second, I was much less convinced of the reality of mediumship than I am now.

The other thing I noticed was that in '03 it was still necessary to explain what a "blog site" is.

The reason I reread this old essay was that I remembered a particularly weak skeptical argument used to debunk one of Edward's more impressive televised "hits." The argument was made in an article called "Birds of a Feather" that appeared on the Web site SkepticReport in 2002.

Here is the relevant part of the transcript, as reproduced by SkepticReport:

John: Why is Niagara Falls significant?

Lady 1: We was just there.

John: You were just at Niagara Falls, ok.

Lady 1: Me and my daughter.

John: Did you find a feather there?

Lady 1: Yes, and my daughter…

John: Did you tell your daughter that was from daddy?

Lady 1: Yes.

John: Ok, this is a validation that he was there for you, ok? ‘Cause he’s showing me the feather. Lucky for you that’s my mother’s symbol when she communicates with me. I find feathers. So it was a very easy symbol for me to get. But I need to validate for you that is was definitely, definitely him there for her.

Lady 1: Thank you.

So Edward told the woman that he was getting "Niagara Falls," and in fact the woman had just been there. He then asked if she had found a feather there, and the woman said yes. He then asked if she'd told her daughter that the feather was "from daddy" (deceased). The woman confirmed this, too.

Sounds pretty good to me. But SkepticReport will have none of it. Here is their explanation:

But what of the feather? Isn’t that a fantastic piece of evidence?

Not really. According to the 35th Annual Niagara Falls Christmas Bird Count on Saturday, December 29th, 2001, a total of 101 species of birds were found, and a total of 49,744 birds in Niagara Falls, NY.

There are also quite a few photos on the web from Niagara Falls with birds in them:

[Links to bird photos are given.]

Tons of birds on these ones.

I think we can safely say that it would not be uncommon to find a feather at Niagara Falls.

OK, then: What about Niagara Falls itself?

What does John Edward actually say about Niagara Falls? “Did you tell your daughter that the feather she found at Niagara Falls was from her Daddy?”

No. Previously in the reading, we have learned that Catherine has lost her husband. First, John Edward asks: “Why is Niagara Falls significant?” He doesn’t say anything about the nature of the significance. He asks Catherine!

From there, she tells John Edward that she was there with her daughter. Since birds are commonplace there, it would be likely if the daughter found a feather – it is fun for kids to find feathers.

Immediately after, Catherine – tearfully – begins to tell John Edward that “her daughter” – and then John Edward breaks in and asks about the father.

It takes three steps, and after each, John Edward asks a crucial question. It doesn’t take a genius to see what is happening here.

According to this argument, Edward's references to a) Niagara Falls, b) finding a feather there, and c) the mom telling the daughter that the feather was a gift from her departed father were all lucky guesses or obvious logical inferences. Money quote: "Since birds are commonplace there, it would be likely if the daughter found a feather – it is fun for kids to find feathers."

Now, really. I mean, come on. (Hey, I just found some of my missing snark.)

I have no doubt that there are many birds at Niagara Falls, and it was hardly necessary for SkepticReport to cite bird counts and bird photos to establish this uncontroversial point. (I'd guess that these citations were added to make the article look more "scientific.")

As a matter of fact, there are lots of birds everywhere, except maybe Death Valley. I've lived in several different parts of the country, in widely differing climate zones, and have never found any shortage of birds, even in urban areas.

Even so, I have rarely noticed any feathers on the ground, and to the best of my recollection I have never seen a kid pick up a feather. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not the sort of thing you see every day. ("Hey, look, there's another kid picking up a feather. Third time today.")

Moreover, I have never heard anyone tell a child that a feather was a gift from a deceased parent, or anything of the kind. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard been part of a conversation about picking up bird feathers in any context.

The whole "explanation" is an obvious example of rationalizing after the fact. If Edward had said that the woman's husband was run over by a dump truck in Newark, maybe SkepticReport would cite statistics and photos proving that there are many dump trucks in Newark. When you think of Newark, aren't dump trucks the first thing that come to mind? And since people sometimes get run over by dump trucks, it was easy for Edward to guess that the husband had died this way. Why, when you think about it, it's just common sense!

SkepticReport also points out a minor and debatable discrepancy between the show's transcript and the way it's written up in Edward's book Crossing Over.  Here's how part of the exchange is described in the book:

“Did you find a feather there?” I asked her.

“Yes, and…” Catherine was crying.

“Did your tell your daughter that was from Daddy?”

“Yes.” She buried her face in her hands.

SkepticReport makes much of the fact that Catherine's words "Yes, and my daughter ..." were shortened to "Yes, and ..." in the book. Is this significant?

I don't think so. First, I saw a rerun of this episode of Crossing Over after reading the SkepticReport article, so I was paying close attention. If my memory is correct, there was crosstalk at this point, and Edward, talking very fast as usual, actually said, "Did you tell your daughter ..." at the very same moment when Catherine was saying, "... and my daughter." In other words, he was not reacting to her statement, but talking over it and partly drowning it out.

Second, and more important, the mere fact that Catherine said "and my daughter" would not lead most people to infer that Catherine told her daughter that the feather "was from Daddy." There are countless ways the statement "and my daughter" could have concluded. 

It's probably silly to spend this much time on a trivial and foolish debunking exercise from seven years ago. The SkepticReport article, however, does illustrate an important point: No matter what kind of hits are obtained, no matter how specific they are or how unlikely or how meaningful to the sitter, they can still be rationalized away by a determined doubter.

Two-fer

Two items of possible interest.

Recently I had a telephone reading with medium Georgia O'Connor. This was only the third time I've sat with a medium. While I prefer to keep the details private, I found the reading strongly evidential and emotionally meaningful. I personally feel much more convinced of life after death than I did before. Some of the material that came through was not only accurate and specific, but seemed so eerily on-target that I found myself thinking, "I can't believe she's actually telling me this." I don't think any amount of advance research could explain the results, and "lucky guesses" - while impossible to rule out - seem like an inadequate explanation also.

Of course, I can't guarantee what other people's results might be. For those who may be interested, Georgia O'Connor's Web site is here.

Michael Tymn's blog is one of the few paranormal blogs I read regularly. Currently he's doing a fascinating series on materialization mediumship. Never having witnessed these phenomena first-hand, and knowing there has been much fraud in this area (not to mention some very fake-looking photos, like this one), I remain somewhat skeptical. But the eyewitness reports cited by Michael are certainly impressive; if I'd seen what they saw, I would be a believer too!

Michael's series of posts begins here.

Hidden messages

Currently I'm reading Immortal Longings, by Trevor Hamilton, a biography of pioneering psychical researcher and psychological theorist F.W.H. Myers. Early in the book, the author discloses a fact about Myers that may be relevant to the famous "cross correspondences."

The cross correspondences were a long series of messages received by mediums after Myers' death. These messages were broken up into fragments that appeared in the communications of different mediums, widely scattered around the world. When someone thought of piecing these fragments together, coherent messages emerged.

Of course, people have debated the significance of this for years. Some regard the cross correspondences as among the best evidence for life after death; others think the connections between the fragments are coincidental or the product of "data mining."

What I learned from Immortal Longings is that this method of disguising a message by breaking it into fragments was actually used by Myers when he was alive. As Hamilton reports, some of Myers' diary entries took exactly this form.

Take Myers' cautious approach to recording his love for Annie Marshall, a married woman. Hamilton writes,

Entered in his diary on the next page, broken up into several pieces as was sometimes his way with material that required discretion, was 'Adgnosco Veteris Vestigia Flammae: I recognise traces of the former passion', the anguished cry of Dido in book IV of the Aeneid.

Note that the majority of cross correspondences attributed to the discarnate Myers also involved classical allusions. Myers, a classical scholar, often expressed his ideas in terms of quotations from classical sources.

Later, Myers visited Scarborough with Annie and her husband. Hamilton tells us:

At the foot of the page recording the Scarborough excursion, and of the next three pages, were placed single-line quotes from a poem by William Morris. When these were combined they clearly indicated the way love had been creeping up on him: 'Love is enough;/ while ye deemed he was sleeping/ There were signs of his coming/ and sounds of his feet'."

Referring specfically to this series of entries, Hamilton adds:

For those interested in the puzzle of apparent post-mortem communications from Myers, it may be worth noting that the same device appeared in one of 'his' [postmortem] scripts.

The close similarity between the cross correspondence and Myers' habit, when alive, of concealing his messages by breaking them up is, at the very least, suggestive that Myers' consciousness lay behind some of the messages received after his death.

===== 

(Quotations are from pp. 40-41 of Immortal Longings. The citation given in the last quote is an article by Alice Johnson, "On the automatic writing of Mrs Holland," in Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 21:178. As far as I can determine, this article is not freely available online, though apparently members of the Society can access it.)

The mystery of "cheating things that are not cheats"

In his 1909 book The Survival of Man, Oliver Lodge recounts some séances in which the deceased F.W.H. Myers apparently communicated. In one of the most intriguing and puzzling communications, "Myers" spoke of some earlier sessions and complained:  

I could not say it, but they were translating like a schoolboy does his first lines of Virgil - so terribly confused and inaccurate. But somehow I could not help it. It was not me communicating, yet I saw it going on.... I can only think the things, and false things may creep in without my knowing it.

The medium's spirit control, "Nellie," then added in explanation:

He said it was not he, but neither was it fraud. He does not want you to stop the phenomenon, he wants to study it. You are not to say it was wrong and get it stopped. He likes to watch the somnambulistic thing at work. It is not he that is doing it, and yet he is looking on. He does not see how it is worked, but he finds this more interesting than the genuine communications. He did not rattle the curtains either ... but it was not cheating, and he does not want you to make them think that they are cheats. He does not know how it is worked, but he is studying and he thinks it will help a great deal if he can understand how the cheating things that are not cheats are done ...

He says he is finding out how honest non-phenomena are to be accounted for. Apparently dishonest phenomena are phenomena of extreme [interest] apart from the spirit which purports to be communicating.

Lodge adds this comment:

Whatever their origin, these words do, in my judgment, represent the truth about a good many of these phenomena - that is to say, that they are not precisely what their surface-aspect implies, yet neither are they fraud. [All quotes from p. 310.] 

This is certainly confusing. How can there be "cheating things that are not cheats"? And what can this possibly mean: "He said it was not he, but neither was it fraud"? And who or what is "the somnambulistic thing at work" - the entranced medium or the communicating entity?

A possible answer to all these questions is provided in a book called The Astral Plane, by C.W. Leadbeater. The book is a Theosophist manual published in 1900. It can be read online at Project Gutenberg.

Before going on, I should say that I'm not a Theosophist and have many doubts about that movement, including the career of its charismatic founder, Madame Blavatsky. Famed psychic investigator Richard Hodgson debunked Blavatsky rather damningly, though Blavatsky's defenders continue to dispute Hodgson's findings. In any event, I would not take any Theosophical theory at face value. There is a great deal of jargon and rococo complication in Theosophy, with all sorts of detailed hierarchies of spirits and planes of existence, as well as a complex account of reincarnation that does not seem to fit very well with the best empirical evidence, such as Ian Stevenson's cases. (If I understand it correctly, Theosophy holds that a vast amount of time must elapse between earthly incarnations, while Stevenson's cases - involving children who spontaneously recall a past life - typically indicate a very brief interval between lives.)

Still, there are probably elements of truth in Theosophy. What interests me about this particular idea is that it dovetails nicely with the "Myers" comments quoted above.

In a section called "The Shade" (in Part 2 of the larger section called "Inhabitants"), Leadbeater tells us that lower and more degraded portions of the astral body may be left behind as the soul advances:

Thus comes into existence the class of entity which has been called "The Shade"—an entity, be it observed, which is not in any sense the real individual at all (for he has passed away into Devachan [a higher plane]), but nevertheless, not only bears his exact personal appearance, but possesses his memory and all his little idiosyncrasies, and may, therefore, very readily personate him, as indeed it frequently does at séances. It is not, of course, conscious of any act of impersonation, for as far as its intellect goes it must necessarily suppose itself to be the individual, but one can imagine the horror and disgust of the friends of the departed, if they could only realize that they had been deceived into accepting as their loved one a mere soulless bundle of all his worst qualities. Its length of life varies according to the amount of the lower Manas [mental function] which animates it, but as this is all the while in process of fading out, its intellect is a steadily diminishing quantity, though it may possess a great deal of a certain sort of animal cunning; and even quite towards the end of its career it is still able to communicate by borrowing temporary intelligence from the medium.

Leadbeater is not saying that all mediumistic communications are of this type; elsewhere he talks about how the actual deceased person can reach his loved ones through a medium at times. But according to the Theosophical view, mediumistic communications "frequently" do involve the discarded lower parts of the self, which have an autonomy that persists for a time.

If there is any truth to this theory, it might make sense of the puzzling "Myers" communication conveyed and reported some years after Leadbeater's book was published. The Shade would be communicating in the persona of the deceased person, yet would not actually be that person. The resultant communication would not be from Myers, but "neither would it be fraud." The communicator and its work would be a "cheating thing that is not a cheat." And "the somnambulistic thing at work" would presumably be the Shade, an ongoing (though decaying) fragment of the deceased person with an independent but limited existence. 

All this would seem to be precisely the kind of anomaly that "Myers" would enjoy investigating, since it would offer significant insights into the makeup of the astral body and its gradual progress to higher planes.  So maybe that's what he was talking about.

Incidentally, Richard Matheson makes use of a similar idea in his worthwhile fantasy novel What Dreams May Come, a book that recounts the adventures of a newly deceased person in the afterlife. At one point, the narrator is appalled to realize that a medium is in touch with his disintegrating astral shell or husk, rather than with his true self. Powerless to do anything about it, he can only observe in frustration. This scene reminds me of the "Myers" message: "I could not help it. It was not me communicating, yet I saw it going on." The difference, though, is that in Matheson's book, the astral shell has no mental powers and is merely inert - a sort of mindless zombie.

I, Claude

Here's an interesting excerpt from Claude's Book, by L. Kelway-Bamber, which can be read online in PDF form. The book, published in 1919, purports to be the channeled communications of a young man who died in the First World War. The communications were received by Gladys Osborne Leonard, one of the most famous and most thoroughly tested of all mediums.

In the penultimate chapter of Part I, "Claude" discusses astral bodies and thought-forms:

You want to know the difference between "Astrals" and "Thought-Forms?" They are quite different and by no means interchangeable terms, though people often speak as if they were, for the latter is only a "picture" and not a "spirit" at all.

There are two kinds of "Astrals" (so called because they are functioning on the "Astral" plane). First, there are the spirits existing there in their Astral bodies, which are made out of actual atoms. The Astral, though fine in comparison with the physical body, is still coarse (for it is only undeveloped people who are not spiritually evolved who live on that sphere). There is a great difference between it and the bodies of those on the third sphere....

The second kind of Astral is a spirit connected with a physical body, and functioning temporarily only on the Astral plane, while its earth-body sleeps or is unconscious. It looks much the same as the other, but its body is actually different, for it has an astral "husk" only, much on the same principle as the temporary body made for a materializing spirit at a séance, and like that composed of astral atoms consolidated.

These astral atoms collect round the aura of a developed man, and on his soul emerging (as I have already described to you) from the centre of his body, these atoms close round his spirit and form a "husk" or covering to protect it in its travels.

He could not function in his real "astral" body, for that is not complete; it is not complete for a curious reason. It is this: that a certain amount of the material that makes his astral body is not available while he is connected with his physical body, for it goes to make the vital cord or connection between his travelling spirit and his stationary body, which is only severed at death (for the severing means death).

After this has occurred, of course, no cord being then required, this material is available for his astral body, and so he no longer requires to borrow astral atoms to protect himself; his spirit is sufficiently clothed, being  complete.

As I am not in the Astral I find it difficult to tell if a person is in their permanent astral body or not.

This accounts too for the difficulty a clairvoyant sometimes has in being able to say if a person is in or out of their physical body permanently....

A "Thought-Form" is a picture, a thought-photograph, projected through the atmosphere by some one, but the recipient would have to mentally "develop" it, as it were, in order to see it; by that I mean they would have to be thinking of the sender at the right moment, and in the right way. Space is nothing, for it takes no longer to think four or five hundred miles than into the next room. So if you are in the right mental condition you can see a thought-form; it's only a picture in the atmosphere.

This explains certain things; for instance, visions of Christ to the dying. Hundreds on the battlefields may see Him individually and spontaneously. If He is projecting His thought to all who are lying there, all who are attuned in mind can and may be able to see Him. Just as when a ship at sea sends out a wireless message or a call for help, it is not confined to one receiver, but is open to all ships and receiving stations which are suitably attuned. So all who are suitably attuned and harmonized can receive thought pictures, impressions, and inspiration. This explains also how various people in widely separated places may simultaneously be "inspired" by one individual....

Now as regards a so-called "ghost" haunting a particular spot. If it is a persistent haunt that has continued for many years, even for centuries, it is almost certainly a thought-form and not a spirit; for it is very unlikely that any spirit would be so unfriended as to be permitted to go on in this aimless and unhappy manner indefinitely, for as soon as any one desires help here it is forthcoming.

What happens is this. Certain events (probably tragic), which are felt very intensely by the participators at the time, leave a very clearcut and well-defined picture in the atmosphere, and at first for a short time the actors in the scene may return in spirit to the spot, and by thinking over what happened revivify and intensify that thought picture.

Ordinary people then come to that place knowing its history, and some may see the "ghost," and they see it because they are psychic and unconsciously psychometrize the atmosphere, and so mentally develop the picture that is there, and so constantly renew the image, which thus becomes almost permanent. Yes, I know it does seem difficult to realize, but it also applies to "feeling" as well as "seeing" past conditions; thus a medium feels pain and discomfort when describing the illness of any one. The medium is psychometrizing the condition connected  with the spirit while it was a body, and not the spirit itself.

I say this because I have been told and have noticed myself that spirits are surprised on returning to earth to hear themselves described with symptoms of disease they have almost forgotten they ever suffered. For instance, your father, who "died" over thirty-five years ago, here is in perfect health, yet whenever he returns to earth the mediums describe him as having a cough, and discomfort in his chest; that was true when he passed over (he died of pneumonia), but of course is totally unlike his present condition.

Another man I know, who had some very painful disease which affected one leg, tells me he gets quite angry when he hears it described now, as he no longer feels it at all even when he returns to earth-conditions, and yet the mediums describe it most accurately, and one might imagine he was still in suffering instead of in perfect health!

As I said, I find this interesting, and it has a certain internal logic and self-consistency, as well as being consistent with other such reports. Still, we shouldn't assume that communicators like Claude are infallible. His book ends with a prognostication about the post-WWI world that sadly proved inaccurate:

I know sometimes things look depressing, but I solemnly promise you there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. Men in the old days worked for individual progress; in future the ideal will be to work for others, for the good of the whole and the improvement of the community.

I am told the sacrifices of this war have not been in vain; that a purified England will result. There will be a spiritual revolution; people will try to face truth, to drop some of the shams that are now used to veil it. Perhaps present events do seem to you like a "dark tunnel," but I see the sum shining at the end of it, and I know there has never been a crisis in the world's history which has held so much certainty of ultimate good arising.

Far from leading to a spiritual revolution, the First World War led directly to the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust. And even today, signs of a spiritual revolution remain, at best, faint and indistinct.

Of course, the first excerpt is a description while the second is a prediction. Presumably, predicting the future is more difficult than describing known facts, even to those on "the third plane."