A moldy tale

Arthur Conan Doyle's History of Spiritualism, in two volumes (complete text available online: Vol. I and Vol. II), makes rewarding reading for anyone interested in the early years of parapsychology. That's not to say there aren't problems with the book. Doyle's dogged commitment to the reality of psi phenomena, especially as pertaining to life after death, led him to endorse some questionable characters. In Volume I, he goes to some lengths to establish the Davenport Brothers as legitimate, even though most observers then and later have made then out to be clever frauds. He endorses such dubious activities as slate-writing and spirit photography, and seems genuinely peeved at the efforts of the Society for Psychical Research to tighten up the experimental controls on mediums.

Despite these caveats, the two volumes of his book are well worth a look. There are many fascinating anecdotes, and a good deal of seemingly solid evidence is presented. Doyle's smooth, lucid prose style makes the pages turn quickly.

One section I found particularly interesting is found in Vol. II, in a chapter titled "Voice Mediumship and  Moulds." Here Doyle discusses the practice of producing paraffin molds of spirit forms - faces and hands, usually - in the séance room.

Skeptics understandably dismiss such claims, saying that the medium or an accomplice made the impressions surreptitiously, or that pre-made molds were smuggled into the room and substituted in the dark. This is undoubtedly true in some cases, as in the infamous case of "Margery" (Mina Crandon), who produced a spirit thumbprint that turned out to belong to her all-too-living dentist.

But consider the following series of tests first reported in the magazine Revue Metapsychique in June, 1921. It seems that every reasonable precaution against fraud was taken, yet positive results were obtained. Doyle tells us: 

Dr. [Gustave] Geley carried out with [Franek] Kluski a number of remarkable experiments in the formation of wax moulds of materialized hands. He has recorded the results of a series of eleven successful sittings for this purpose. In a dim light the medium's right hand was held by Professor Richet and his left hand by Count Potocki. A trough containing wax, kept at melting-point by warm water, was placed two feet in front of Kluski, and for the purpose of a test the wax was impregnated (unknown to the medium) with the chemical cholesterin, this to prevent the possibility of substitution. Dr. Geley writes:

The feeble light did not admit of the phenomena being actually seen; we were aware of the moment of dipping, by the sound of splashing in the liquid. The operation involved two or three immersions. The hand that was acting was plunged in the trough, was withdrawn, and, covered with warm paraffin, touched the hands of the controllers of the experiments, and then was plunged again into the wax. After the operation the glove of paraffin, still warm but solidified, was placed against the hand of one of the controllers.

In this way nine moulds were taken: seven of hands, one of a foot, and one of a chin and lips. The wax of which they were composed on being tested gave the characteristic reaction of cholesterin. Dr. Geley shows twenty-three photographs of the moulds and of plaster casts made from them. It may be mentioned that the moulds exhibit the folds of the skin, the nails and the veins, and these markings in nowise resemble those of the medium. Efforts to make similar moulds from the hands of human beings were only partially successful, and the difference from those obtained at the sittings was obvious. Sculptors and moulders of repute have declared that they know of no method of producing wax moulds such as those obtained at the séances with Kluski.

Geley sums up the result thus:

"We will now enumerate the proofs which we have given of the authenticity of the moulds of materialized limbs in our experiments in Paris and Warsaw.

"We have shown that quite apart from the control of the medium, whose two hands were held by us, all fraud was impossible.

"1. The theory of fraud by a rubber glove is inadmissible, for such an attempt gives crude and absurd results which can be seen at a glance to be imitations.

"2. It is not possible to produce such gloves of wax by using a rigid mould already prepared. A trial of this shows at once how impossible it is.

"3. The use of a prepared mould in some fusible and soluble substance, covered with a film of paraffin during the séance and then dissolved out in a pail of water, will not fit in with the actual procedure. We had no pail of water.

"4. The theory that a living hand was used (that of the medium or of an assistant) is inadmissible. This could not have been done, for several reasons, one being that gloves thus obtained are thick and solid, while ours are fine and delicate, also that the position of the fingers in our moulds makes it impossible that they could be withdrawn without breaking the glove. Also that the gloves have been compared with the hands of the medium and of the assistants, and that they are not alike. This is shown also by anthropological measurements.

"Finally, there is the hypothesis that the gloves were brought by the medium. This is disproved by the fact that we secretly introduced chemicals into the melted wax, and that these were found in the gloves.

"The report of the expert modellers on the point is categorical and final."

Nothing is evidence to those who are so filled with prejudice that they have no room for reason, but it is inconceivable that any normally endowed man could read all the above, and doubt the possibility of taking moulds from ectoplasmic figures.

A rebuttal of Geley's work was presented by two Italian researchers, Massimo Polidoro and Luigi Garlaschelli, who cast doubt on some of his claims. In particular, they showed that thin molds could be obtained rather easily, and that it was possible for a person to twist his hand free of the paraffin without breaking the mold. Their work is important and interesting, but it does not address the most significant claims made by Geley - namely, that the medium's hands were controlled throughout the séance, and that the paraffin had been pretreated with a certain chemical (without the medium's knowledge) to expose any attempted substitution.

If substitution is eliminated as a possibility, and if the medium's hands were properly controlled, then the only remaining non-paranormal explanation is the action of an accomplice, who would make a mold of his own hand. Could Geley have been careless enough to allow a potential accomplice into the séance room, and would this person's actions pass unnoticed in the dim red light? It seems doubtful.

Skeptics will probably say Kluski fooled the experimenters into believing they had control of both his hands, when actually they were controlling only one. But remember that one of the molds was of a foot, and another was of a partial face ("chin and lips"). Maybe, just maybe, Kluski could have lowered his face into the paraffin, though it seems likely that this action would have been observed, and that some traces of the paraffin would cling to his face afterward.

More important, how would he get his bare foot onto the table and into the trough of paraffin?

Comments

[william]

“This is undoubtedly true in some cases, as in the infamous case of "Margery" (Mina Crandon), who produced a spirit thumbprint that turned out to belong to her all-too-living dentist.”

And over how many years did she produce a thumbprint of her deceased brother Walter? I consider the Margie mediumship one of the best examples of mediumship on record. Even Houdini could not prove her a fraud; it appears that Houdini was the fraud.

Read the book “ a life after death” by Ralph Harlow this person actually witnessed years of these séances unlike the researchers you quote in your article. I suspect Margery was the real deal that may have lost her abilities over time.

Ralph has devoted a whole chapter in his book on her mediumship. To suggest that the head of surgery at Harvard and his wife who set out to debunk mediumship were frauds is a bit of a stretch.

[Renaud Evrard]

Hi,

Massimo Polidoro and Luigi Garlaschelli hadn't show that thin molds could be obtained rather easily. They obtained paraffine's gloves of more of 1 mm, wherehas Geley obtained paraffine of less of 1 mm.
Everybody can try : get a hand out of a glove under 1 mm is quite impossible.
It's true that Polidoro and Garlaschelli obtained molds of complex hands forms. But they do some things that was not in the Geley's experiments :
- Put the hands many times in the paraffine, in order to have a more solid glove (and less thin). With experimental controls, the difficulty improve !
- Use a cold water in order to not be burn, and to accelerate the solidification. (In Geley's experiments, there is no cold water, and an another anomaly was that the gloves being strong in 2 minutes. In normal way, it needs at least 10 minutes without cold water.)

There was a good controversy on experiments with Kluski in the JSPR beetween 1992 and 2003. Here are some links :
- Mario Varvoglis article on Kluski hand moulds.
http://www.metapsychique.org/The-Kluski-Hands-Moulds.html
- A French radio-podcast on this experiment and his critics.
http://psiland.free.fr/sud_radio/20080301.htm

Thanks for your interessant blog.
Renaud EVRARD, psychologist, PA Student Affiliate, Member of the Student Group of Institut Métapsychique International

[Vitor]

William,

Houdini was not a fraud. Please, see this article:

http://www.cicap.org/new/articolo.php?id=101010

[Leo MacDonald]

This is the worst argument i have seen from a skeptic

Leo- Lol it had no mind so how did we wind up with a universe with all constants perfect for life? I know what you will say the many world's interpretation can explain away the apparent fine tuning of the universe but to me it sounds more unlikely than a creator. Even atheists admit the fine tuning of our universe.

atrib- Ever been to the center of the Sun? Or to the mantle of this little planet we call home? Or even the surface of the Moon? Would you say these places are "fine-tuned" for life? A majority of this universe is hostile and completely unsuitable for life. Your argument is based on the arrogant assumption that this universe exists simply to serve us - entire galaxies spread across the night sky like little toys hanging above a child's bed. In the end we are all worm food, and completely irrelevant to the workings of the universe we inhabit. The sooner we realise this fact the sooner we can get on with living instead of waiting to join some imaginary friend in the sky, a prisoner in our own minds.

Interesting evidence for physical mediumship there or course skeptics will say it was fraud.

[The Major]

That is a rather odd argument. The crux of it is that there can be no 'fine tuning' as the sun and the moon are examples of hostiles habitations and therefore serve no purpose.

However, as the earth relies on the sun for warmth, and the moon for gravitation forces, surely they therefore have purpose and in fact, their absolutely precise proximity to our planet would support the fine tuning argument if anything.

Also, even if the universe is fine tuned to support life, it doesn't make it an arrogant assumption that it exists 'purely to serve us'. A plant may help to support my life by providing me with the nutrients I require, but it doesn't mean I believe it exists solely for this purpose.

Who's the 'prisoner in their own mind' I wonder?

[Leo MacDonald]

Here's more

Keith- Absolutely precise? Are you aware of how much Earth's orbit varies in the course of a year?

Go-No Go question time: How would you distinguish between a small area in the universe that's adapted to provide support for a particular form of life, and a life form that's adapted to a particular niche in the universe?

[Michael Prescott]

Thank you for the links, Renaud, and for the additional information.

I wondered about the cold water, since Geley said explicitly, "We had no pail of water."

It appears that this is yet another case of skeptics telling us only part of the story. Still, I give the Italian researchers credit for doing some hands-on work.

[william]

“Houdini v. The Blond Witch of Lime Street: A Historical Lesson in Skepticism”

vitor: take a look at the title. “The blond witch” no way is this article going to be bias! Ralph Harlow tells a different story and he sat in on the séances for years. The title is a give away as to the bias of this author.

Much more is involved in my believing Ralph Harlow than this author. Read the book. Thanks for the link another lesson in how belief and nonbelief can bias all of our minds.

[Ross W]

An interesting link, Michael. And I agree about Conan Doyle's style (nearly as good as Jack Vance). It has reminded me to investigate Swedenborg, who was influential on William Blake.

Has anyone come across the idea of Christ's resurrecting and appearing to his disciples by use of the etheric or shrouding his spirit in ectoplasm? I'm sure I read it somewhere once.

[Art]

We don't know that the whole Universe isn't conscious. We don't have a clue what consciousness is nor where it arises from. We also don't know where memories are stored. Personally I like Dr. Pimm Van Lommel's theories about consciousness and memories.

[Michael Prescott]

Vitor, thanks for the link to the article on Margery. I thought it was quite good, even if I am a little more skeptical of Houdini than the author is.

I tried to cover the story of Margery in an evenhanded way in one of my old essays. Not sure how well I succeeded, though.

[Art]

As far as the anthropic principle I remember reading in some book that the chances of hitting exactly on our Universe is something like one chance out of ten billion to the 123 power.

In addition to that little bit of information, it's the total aggregate of "evidence" pointing towards "life after death" that leads me to believe that something of who we are survives the death of the physical body. As to what that something is, I don't have a clue. I guess I'm about 97.75% confident in "life after death."

One of the most amazing things are the parallels, support, and corroboration between NDE's and the holographic paradigm.

[william]

“Vitor, thanks for the link to the article on Margery. I thought it was quite good”

Michael P: the title of the article says it all. “The blond witch” that is blatant bias besides I suspect being sexist.

I have found in my research that our minds love reading articles and books that support our paradigms and tend to reject those articles and books that reject our paradigms.

Studies have shown that in most research studies data that disagrees with the researchers paradigm often is overlooked and the researchers do not use this data in their final analysis. Kind of like an inconvenient truth.

We only have to look at religious and political beliefs to see this phenomena happening on a daily basis.

From his writings Ralph Harlow appears to have had so much more integrity than this writer that wrote the article with a title that begins with “the blond witch”. One has to read the last chapter of Harlow’s book to get a hint of how humble this man appeared to have been.

[william]

“I guess I'm about 97.75% confident in "life after death."

http://lifeafterdeath.info/

Art you may want to read this persons website and see how he calculates the probability of there being NO life after death. I think you will be surprised at how the probabilities change for there being life after death.