Less than amazing

At a used bookstore, I came across the 1995 first edition of An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, by James Randi – or as the title page has it, "exposed by" James Randi. I wasn't sure I would find it of much interest, since I have many qualms about Randi's honesty and accuracy when it comes to paranormal matters. Nevertheless, I figured I could get a blog post out of it.

What follows is not a book review, because I haven't read the entire book. Actually, I doubt that many people would read this book, or any other "encyclopedia," from cover to cover. It's intended as more of a reference work. I read the first three chapters covering the letters A through C, then thumbed through the rest.

In a foreword, noted science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke wholeheartedly endorses Randi's crusade against the "New Agers," whom Clarke describes as "nitwits" whose New Age is "about a thousand years past its sale date." He goes on to wish that Randi’s Encyclopedia could be in every school library, opining that:

“Freedom of the press" is an excellent ideal, but as a distinguished jurist once said in a similar context, "Freedom of speech does not include freedom to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Unscrupulous publishers, out to make a cheap buck by pandering to the credulous and feebleminded, are doing the equivalent of this, by sabotaging the intellectual and educational standards of society, and fostering a generation of neobarbarians.

This quote does not particularly surprise me. I read a lot of Arthur C. Clarke when I was young, and even then I couldn't help but notice a strong strain of authoritarianism – one might say fascism – in his writing. This trait is often attributed to his contemporary Robert A. Heinlein, but Heinlein was really more of a libertarian, while Clarke endlessly fantasized about a utopian society in which the government would run everything, imposing mandatory social service on its citizen-subjects and determining which profession each of them should have, according to where he or she would prove the most useful. A technocrat, Clarke had boundless faith in the wisdom of experts, to whom the rest of us “credulous and feebleminded” types should genuflect. It's not a shock that he would also think that freedom of the press should be limited to the exposition of ideas he personally agreed with.

In any event, let's get to the book itself. The most notable thing about it is that a great deal of the content is devoted to subjects that are hardly controversial at all. Randi spends many pages on obvious fakes and frauds, some of them dating back to the Middle Ages or even earlier – people and movements no one would defend or even remember today. The very first entry is for Abaris, an ancient magician from the time of Pythagoras. It's doubtful that Abaris has many followers now.

Many of these entries are pretty extensive. An entry on the obscure Aetherius Society takes up most of a page, while more than a page – as well as two illustrations – are given over to a Renaissance Era mystic named Agrippa. More than two pages are spent on Cagliostro, an 18th century alchemist. More than a page covers the "curse of Princess Amen-Ra,” a tabloid newspaper story I’d never even heard of. You get the idea.

One of the most thoroughly covered topics is the case of the Cottingley fairies, in which Arthur Conan Doyle and a few other people were taken in by primitive photographs of "fairies" (actually paper cutouts). Not only does Randi devote roughly two pages and two illustrations to this trivial episode, but he refers to it again in his much briefer entry on Conan Doyle. There's nothing wrong with Randi's summary of the case, which is drawn from a more extensive presentation in his earlier book Flim-Flam! – in fact, I think the treatment of the episode in Flim-Flam! is the best I've read – but again, this is hardly a case that many people are going to be taken in by today.

Now you might say, What's the problem? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia of frauds and hoaxes, right? True enough ... but the problem is that these extended entries on obscure or long-debunked topics serve as cover for the superficial or nonexistent treatment of far more challenging topics. Randi goes into detail on stuff like the Cottingley fairies or Clever Hans the "counting horse," while largely skirting more serious cases.

Before we get to the serious cases, though, it's worth pointing out that he provides little detail about some of the more frivolous cases, as well. Take the entry on "ancient astronauts." After briefly describing the claim that extraterrestrials assisted in the development of civilization, and mentioning Erich von Daniken, he concludes:

The theory is presently promoted by tabloid newspapers, sensationalist journals, UFO periodicals and other fringe-science entities, but holds little interest for serious researchers.

I'm inclined to agree, but notice that there is no actual content here. Anyone using the Encyclopedia as a reference and hoping to find slam-dunk arguments against the “ancient astronauts” idea will come away disappointed.

There is a separate entry on Von Daniken, but this also lacks much detail. Randi simply asserts:

Von Daniken's work does not survive even cursory examination. His calculations are wrong, his facts are misquoted or invented, and he has admitted, during a 1978 PBS Nova television program, that some of his claims, conversations, and research did not take place at all; he simply invented material via what he termed "writer's license."

Other than the reference to the television interview, there's nothing here that a debunker could use to discredit Von Daniken – even though I think Von Daniken deserves to be discredited. What is the point of compiling an encyclopedia like this if it consists of nothing but unsupported opinions? Anyone can say that a particular theory is bunk, and it may well be, but what is needed – and what people who buy a book like this are presumably looking for – is the evidence and arguments to back up this opinion. For too many entries, this evidence is lacking, rendering the Encyclopedia of questionable value even to the skeptics who are its intended audience.

Nor is this an isolated example. Take the entry on “bilocation” – which is printed twice, presumably as a typo, although it's just possible that it' s a joke, inasmuch as bilocation means "appearing in two places at once." In any case, after mentioning four people who allegedly exhibited the ability to bilocate, Randi merely concludes:

An impossible phenomenon.

Yes, that's the whole of it. Bilocation may well be an impossible phenomenon, but he's provided no argument, no substance, almost no content at all.

Then we have cases that quite plausibly involve conjuring tricks, but unfortunately we have to take Randi's word for it, because he never explains how they were done. Consider a certain Kuda Bux, a mentalist from Kashmir. According to Randi:

Bux had a version [of the blindfold act] which involved large wads of cotton placed over bread dough to seal his eye sockets and the whole thing was then bound in place with multiple layers of bandages until his head appeared to be a huge ball of cloth. He would then drive a car, duplicate handwriting or drawings, and even fire a rifle at targets indicated by a volunteer. Once, he bicycled on New York's Broadway while blindfolded …

A photo is included that shows Bux's head completely wrapped in bandages. Randi writes, "Though his performance methods were and are well understood in the trade, he has been made into one of the Unexplained Mysteries so needed by the paranormalists to bolster their beliefs."

Okay, I'm very much open to the idea that this guy was using some kind of conjuring trick. But Randi never explains, or even hints at, how the trick is done. He simply assures us that the method is well understood "in the trade." Again, it's hard to see how this kind of approach can be of any use even to the skeptical debunker who wishes to rely on the Encyclopedia as a resource.

When we get into cases that, in my opinion, probably involve authentic phenomena, Randi's approach is even less successful. Take his entry on "astral projection." It consists of the following:

Traveling out of the body via astral planes, a notion probably derived from the experience of highly colorful and memorable dreams.

That's it. That's all he has to say. But wait! If we look up “out-of-body experience,” we get a little more. Randi talks about an obscure passage in 2 Corinthians that may describe an out-of-body experience, then supplies a definition provided by parapsychologist Charles Tart. He nitpicks the definition, which proves nothing except that maybe the definition isn't all that it could be. After this, he says:

Given the exceedingly complex nature of the cognitive processing human beings, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that sensory/perception malfunctions do not occur to give the strong impression of being "real" while in actuality there is no corresponding situation or event.

Well, that doesn't get us very far. His only other remark is to recommend two books by parapsychologist (and skeptic) Susan Blackmore. Once again, the aspiring debunker is left with little to go on – quibbles about a definition, some boilerplate about the complexity of cognition, and then a handoff to other books.

Randi devotes more than a full page to the obscure 19th century medium Mary Rosina Showers, who was exposed as a fake. This is consistent with Randi's usual practice of devoting a lot of words to cases that are relatively uncontroversial. But here's how he treats Gladys Osborne Leonard, a far more famous medium who was tested by the SPR for two decades without scandal: 

A failed British actress who at age thirty-two took up the profession of spirit medium, at which form of theater she was hugely successful. Her main claim to fame was bringing a message to Sir Oliver Lodge from his son Raymond, who had died in the war. Lodge was convinced of the validity of the message, but he was convinced of almost everything else anyone told him, as well.

Believe it or not, that's the entire entry. Maybe we ought to get Arthur C. Clarke on the case, because this is surely an abuse of "freedom of the press" if ever there was one. Randi omits any mention of the SPR's extensive investigations, including the remarkable book tests and newspaper tests, as well as the classic Bobby Newlove case. A reader of this encyclopedia, knowing nothing of parapsychology, would understandably conclude that there is nothing about Mrs. Leonard that would be worth further investigation.

And this is a book that's described on Amazon's sales page as "examin[ing] the shady world of manipulators, occultists, and shamanists in microscopic detail." Microscopic detail? When it comes to the more serious topics, there is little or no detail at all. 

Just look at the entry on Eileen Garrett, one of the most famous mediums of the 20th century, known for the R-101 case, among others. Well, let me rephrase that. You can't look at the entry, because there is none. Garrett is never mentioned. She doesn't even appear in the index. 

There is an entry on Leonora Piper, but it takes up less than half the space devoted to Rosina Showers and presents almost no details of Piper's mediumship, preferring to dwell on doubts about her spirit guides (doubts shared by the parapsychologists who investigated her, most of whom regarded the spirit guides as subpersonalities of the medium, a position seriously entertained by Piper herself), and to a failed prediction on her part regarding SPR investigator Richard Hodgson. There is no discussion of the remarkably evidential readings purportedly originating from George Pelham, which convinced many of the more skeptical researchers that they were genuinely in contact with the deceased. There is no mention of the proxy sittings used to eliminate the possibility of cold reading. There is no mention of Hodgson's method of bringing unscheduled visitors to see her, to preclude any possibility of advance research. There is no mention of tests performed on Piper while she was in trance that proved, even to hostile skeptical researchers, that the trance was genuine. There is no mention of Piper's trip to England, where she sat with people she had never met before, who used assumed names, and yet was able to give successful readings. And so on. (See Michael Tymn's Resurrecting Leonora Piper for details on all of the above.)

When all else fails, Randi can always fall back on sarcasm. Even though his own Encyclopedia frequently relies on the investigations carried out by the (British) Society for Psychical Research and its American counterpart, he is perfectly happy to tell us, under the entry for the American Society for psychical research, that:

It is currently headquartered at 5 W. 73rd St., New York City, NY, 10023, and has an adequate library and study facilities where members pursue various chimerae.

Lest his more obtuse readers miss the point, he also offers an entry for the topic “chimera,” where he writes:

The term is used today to describe an unrealistic goal such as squaring the circle, levitating by Transcendental Meditation, bending a spoon by looking at it, or parapsychology.

Naturally Randi's own organization, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, does not come in for such abuse. Randi presents it as "essentially a scientific group, [which] has no religious ties, and has a strong advocacy of truth and investigation of paranormal, occult and supernatural reports." He takes umbrage at Colin Wilson's description of CSICOP as "a society to combat belief in all forms of occultism." According to Randi, this description misses "the intent and value of the group." Actually, Wilson's description is dead-on. CSICOP – or CSI, as it's known today – clearly is intended to combat occultism, as is Randi's Encyclopedia, and for that matter Arthur C. Clarke's foreword. CSICOP/CSI has never been a neutral, unbiased, impartial research organization; in fact, it's not a research organization at all. As far as I know, the only research it's ever conducted is the so-called Starbaby case, which backfired on the group and discouraged further research studies. 

Although I read only part of the Encyclopedia and thumbed through the rest, I found factual mistakes here and there. I'm not alone in this. Even Susan Blackmore, in her review of the UK edition of the book (which was titled The Supernatural A – Z: The Truth and the Lies), concluded that the book "has too many errors to be recommended." It's possible that some of these errors were corrected in later editions; I can only point to what I found in the first edition.

For instance, in an entry labeled “Margery Crandon,” Randi addresses the case of a Boston medium who was well-known in her day. But her name was not Margery Crandon; it was Mina Crandon. She used the name Margery (with no surname) as a pseudonym when she started to practice mediumship.

In his discussion of the medium Eva C. (who is listed in the Encyclopedia under the name of Eva Carriere), he says that her so-called materializations were "items not too difficult to conceal from the type of examination that was usually employed by researchers." But anyone familiar with the case would know that extensive precautions were taken to prevent this particular form of trickery. As I wrote in an otherwise skeptical essay some years ago, 

[Eva] was stripped and searched before each séance, a search that included the examination of her hair, nose, mouth, armpits, knees, and even her rectum and vagina. On some occasions she was said to have been given an emetic, forcing her to void her stomach and esophagus, thereby removing any suspicion that she had swallowed some muslin to be later regurgitated as ectoplasm.

I'm not saying Eva C. was genuine; photographs taken of her "materializations" don't look convincing. But saying that she could easily smuggle in small objects because the experimenters did not take adequate precautions is untrue. Their body-cavity searches were humiliatingly thorough.

Then there's the the entry on Daniel Dunglas Home, which I've covered elsewhere. 

I'm sure there's a lot of other questionable stuff in this book, but frankly, I got bored with it. Maybe I'll put The Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes in the bathroom and read it there. I'd say that's where it belongs.

Comments

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Michael,
Excellent! You have pretty much summed-up all Skeptics (with a capital ‘S’). Much of what you pointed out about Randi’s debunking skills, or lack of, could be said about Joe Nickell, whom CSICOP/CSI seems to rely on for some of their commentaries. Both of them always seem to pick the ‘low hanging fruit’ which few if any real skeptics or non-skeptics take seriously. I have always thought that reading articles from the likes of Randi and Nickell was a waste of my time as they rarely if ever provide any information worthy of scientific consideration. - AOD

[Paul]

Those old threads are well-worth reading. I had a good old chuckle.

[Eric Newhill]

Great critique. What's with owl feather eye-browed, face of Randi, appearing as if in homage to the All Seeing Eye on the cover?

Is it supposed to confer a sense of penetrating knowledge? I call a fail. It impresses me as somehow rather authoritarian as opposed to authoritative - as well as vaguely demented, grumpy and a sad attempt at being at least a little bit scary in a comic book kind of way.

[Michael Prescott]

Good point, AOD. Incidentally, Randi's Encyclopedia doesn’t mention Patience Worth (Pearl Curran) either.

Nor does it include near-death experiences, Ian Stevenson (or any past-life memories of children), or deathbed visions.

The entry on "UFO" is only one page long and includes no details whatsoever. No specific cases are cited, and Randi lazily ascribes most UFO sightings to "weather balloons, science projects, meteors, regular airline flights, and other relatively mundane events." (He forgot swamp gas and the planet Venus.) He spends the remainder of the short entry telling how the "Ig Nobel Prize," a satirical award offered by Skeptics, was given to John Mack and David Jacobs for their study of so-called alien abductions.

Though I’m not well versed in UFO phenomena, even I know that the entire subject, whatever the truth of it, cannot be dismissed so breezily. I guess this is more of that "microscopic detail" the promotional blurb promises.

[Kris]

It seems to me Randi simply wrote a book aimed at those who were already skeptical. That would explain the slap dash nature of it. It certainly could not have been considered a serious work as serious works explain proponents view points then refute them. This book clearly never did that.

[Art]

\\"Nor does it include near-death experiences, Ian Stevenson (or any past-life memories of children), or deathbed visions." - Michael Prescott//
--------------------

Thanks for the inclusion of deathbed visions in your list. Art loves him some deathbed vision stories. There is just something about them that rings true to me. I find them endlessly uplifting and comforting. I think I've read maybe 6 or 7 deathbed vision books in the last 19 years? They sound like something that a "God of Love" would allow or do? It's such a kind thing. And how comforting would it be if you knew you were fixing to die if someone you love was there to sort of hold your hand and be your guide on the journey to the next life?

And about that people who have NDEs aren't really dead thing... I also find it comforting that our soul is allowed or able to exit the body before we are good and dead, or really dead. How horrifying would it be if we had to stay in the body till it was very very dead? Like in the grave rotting dead? Or in the morgue with a toe tag stored in a sliding drawer in a cooler?

Isn't it a kindness that at the slightest hint of death that the soul seems to be able to jump out of the body and view the whole thing from above, more like a spectator, and then only later after it's over, if the body is repairable, is either forced or encouraged or allowed to take up residence again in the body?

There is a method to this God's madness. And perhaps everything happens for a reason? Even the really bad stuff? Maybe we are learning something here that couldn't be learned in our forever home? And after we get to this eternal home we are loved so much and hugged and held and comforted so thoroughly that we are healed by just being in the presence of this Light that also seems to be a person and a God and Love all at the same time?

[Lloyd]

My parents were organizers of an informal parapsychology research group in the1960s. Sort of like a meet up group, except that there were no consumer-level computers in those days.

At one point they hosted a talk by Uri Geller, and had a chance to hang out with him a little bit. Dad told me not long afterwards that he and several of the other people in the group (all family friends) personally blindfolded Mr. Geller, satisfying themselves that there was no way he could see out. Uri then got behind the wheel of one of their cars, and drove them around town. If you knew my father, you'd know he would never make something like that up.

Years later, as I was getting a BA degree in Interdisciplinary Social Science, I had a professor who kept saying this and that thing had been debunked. I knew better, but still, his pronouncements were beginning to mess with my head, reminding me of the title of an old comedy album by Firesign Theatre, "Everything you know is wrong..." When he got around to proclaiming that Uri Geller had been debunked, that's when I decided that the professor really didn't know what he was talking about.

[Lloyd]

Full disclosure of the trivial kind: I think the story I posted above actually happened in the 1970s. My parent's parapsychology group started in the mid '60s, but lasted through the beginning of the 80s.

After looking up his biography on the Psi-Encyclopedia, I now know that Uri Geller didn't hit the world stage until the beginning of the '70s.

So, I guess everything I know is wrong, after all... :-)

[Kathleen]

Art, you might be interested to learn that I recently learned that a relative of mine before he passed said "I see my father."

As for the soul quickly leaving the body, when I had what I believe was an NDE, I'm still to this day am amazed at how quick and painless the "process" was. One minute I'm fine, and the next I slip, fall, and slam my head on the hood of a car, knocking myself out. I know I hit that car with tremendous force as my poor face was bruised for about a month and I had that weird humming feeling that people get from concussions for a long time. But there was only like a tenth of a second, if at all, of actual pain, and then I seemed to instantly be somewhere else. Strange.

[Art]

"Art, you might be interested to learn that I recently learned that a relative of mine before he passed said "I see my father." - Kathleen
------------------

Kathleen I LOVE your post. It made me smile. Literally. Thank you so much for sharing. I have read so many NDEs where they say things like "it was as easy as walking through a door" and "it felt so good not to hurt anymore". We leave our body behind with all it's limitations.

And God is good for not forcing us to stay in our bodies till it is rotting or in the grave! What a kindness! At the first hint that we might be dead the soul leaves the body. People get in wrecks and find themselves floating up above the car, even sometimes way up in the air where they can survey the whole wreck scene. My wife's Uncle died after hitting black ice. He flew into an oak tree in his Jeep Cherokee. I wonder what he saw and did he find himself just floating looking down while trying to figure out what just happened?

My wife's sister had a dream about their father a couple of days after he died. In her dream she was in his hospital room and she looked down and said to him "Daddy you're still alive! We need to call the nurse and tell her you're alive." At that moment she looked towards the door and saw her father and another person walking through the doorway into the brightly lit hallway.

I wonder who the other person with her father was? I'm thinking his father since he was very fond of his father? Our preacher thinks it was Jesus. Anyway my wife's sister is very religious and normally wouldn't be into dreams and visions and stuff as that. A lot of fundamental Christians are suspicious of such things as NDEs and deathbed visions and dreams. But for some reason my wife's sister was the one that had that dream and told us about it.

[Kathleen]

Art,and what about people on their death beds stating that they need "to pack" or that they're going on a trip? There seem to be many anecdotes about that.

From my own experience and what others have said, I suspect that passing over is swift and easy. It's the lead up to it that's not - the cancer, the heart disease, etc. Jane Roberts' Seth also stated that the spirit/soul leaves the body almost immediately.

[Matt Rouge]

When I first started engaging with Skeptics online in the early 2000s, I at least expected a sort of adherence to rules of sort: consistency, single standards (as opposed to double), a willingness to see the other person's points and respond directly to them... etc. After all, these were the self-styled rational ones. Yet the truth, as you point out, is that they tend to be incredibly sloppy and unaware that they are likely to look pretty bad to anyone not already drinking their Kool-Aid. Michael, you have provided another fine example of the phenomenon. Sloppy stuff!

[Art]

"Art,and what about people on their death beds stating that they need "to pack" or that they're going on a trip? There seem to be many anecdotes about that." - Kathleen

The title to David Kessler's book is "Visions, Trips, and Crowded Rooms." One of my favorite books... if not my most favorite book! I've read it through twice, maybe I should read it again.

I like Colm Keane's book, "Going Home, Irish deathbed vision stories." And of course "Final Gifts" by Maggie Callanan and Patricia Kelly, The Art of Dying by Peter Fenwick, At the Hour of Death by Karl Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson, One Last Hug Before I God by Carla Wills-Brandon, etc. etc. etc. I've probably read and got a few more death bed vision books in my little "life after death" library but I can't remember them right off the top of my head. Good stuff!

[Tony Dermendziev]

Good stuff here Prescott! James Randi deserves all the pushback he receives! Well done. And I did see a mention of Susan Blackmore and of course Randi would refer to her to marshal his opinions. Her skeptical objections to NDE's have never stood up to scrutiny. The irony is that Blackmore still believes in her "Tremes – the third replicator" woo stuff! I know that is another subject and I've drifted here, but Randi and Blackmore brought back some memories for me regarding consciousness and guerrilla skepticism.

Tony D

[Ken Lee]

The reason the Great Randi misses out Eileen Garrett and the Captain Hinchcliffe and R101 episode is because its not so easy to blow it away after this involved people from the Air ministry at the time of the disaster and the sittings brought highly technical jargon through the Medium which people from the services could understand but not the medium , so sceptic's leave this one alone.

[Kamo]

“I at least expected a sort of adherence to rules of sort: consistency, single standards (as opposed to double), a willingness to see the other person's points and respond directly to them... etc. After all, these were the self-styled rational ones. Yet the truth, as you point out, is that they tend to be incredibly sloppy and unaware that they are likely to look pretty bad to anyone not already drinking their Kool-Aid.”

I stopped wasting my time visiting and commenting on skeptic bloggers a while ago.
In 2014 (where did the time go? ), I’ve visited quite a few bloggers, like PZ Myers, freethoughts, Jerry Coyne, Brian Hines, ect, expecting open mindedness, but they seem to dismiss as ‘metaphysical woo peddling’ the second you support paranormal, or question materialism and humanism.
Especially sites like Web results[ weird things ] | science, tech, and other ...https://worldofweirdthings.com

I think I’ve commented on a site similar to Worldofweirdthings.
And the response I’ve received, when I’ve so much as mentioned the possibility of consciousness not depending on the brain, was that I was just a naive, uneducated believer clinging to superstition, fantasy, pseudoscience, and New Age mystic woo, not “hard and real science”.
I don’t call that open mindedness.

Yes, I’m aware that nobody is immune to attacking things that go against their beliefs. We all do it from time to time.
But so-called “skeptics” act like they are immune to it all, and only mind beyond brain proponents behave that way.

[Kamo]

“And about that people who have NDEs aren't really dead thing... I also find it comforting that our soul is allowed or able to exit the body before we are good and dead, or really dead. How horrifying would it be if we had to stay in the body till it was very very dead? Like in the grave rotting dead? Or in the morgue with a toe tag stored in a sliding drawer in a cooler?”

I too find it comforting, Art.
Besides, I would want my death to be quick. I am terrified of suffering a long, painful, agonizing, and drawn out death.

[Art]

Kamo, my fundamentalist sister in law (SIL) had a dream two days after her father died. In her dream she was in her father's hospital room. She looked at her father and said "Daddy you're not dead? We need to call the nurse and tell her that you're alive." At that moment she turned towards the door and saw her father and another man walking through the doorway into the brightly lit hallway.

I found it interesting that she was the one that had the dream because normally fundamentalist Christians aren't too big on this sort of thing. She is a very nice person but she isn't really all that interested when I start talking about NDEs or deathbed visions. I wonder if perhaps her father was letting her know that he was still alive and okay? In life her father was a Church of Christ preacher for about 50 years.

I don't know how many times I've read in NDE descriptions where they say "It's as easy as walking through a doorway." I found it interesting that in SIL's dream that is exactly what she saw. I know she didn't know about that metaphor beforehand. I'd also like to know who the other man was?

[Paul]

Thanks for the reading recommendations Art.

[Art]

\\"Thanks for the reading recommendations Art." - Paul//
------------

You're welcome! Art loves him some deathbed vision stories! I find them endlessly comforting and uplifting. Something about them just strikes me as "true". Like it's something that a God who loves us would do (or allow?). They don't break the rules (like giving us too much information) but they do allow us to catch a glimpse of the other side.

I have said that if we knew absolutely 100% for certain that there was life after death - the death of someone we love would lose a lot of its sting. There is a connection between emotion and memory and the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates. Losing someone we love is the ultimate lesson in separation. If this Earth life is a school and we simply learn here the things that can't be learned in heaven then experiencing death would be something that simply does not exist in heaven. How could someone learn what it means or how it feels to be separate in heaven if the feelings of oneness and connectedness were so powerful and overwhelming that one literally felt like you were the Universe? You and the Universe were "one", as many near death experiences I've read describe in their NDE descriptions.

The only way to learn what it means or how it feels to be a separate unique individual is by experiencing lots and lots of separation - but heaven is the place of oneness and connectedness - so we have to live someplace else for a while to learn what separation is and to become separate unique individuals. Enough so that after we transtion to heaven we don't lose our sense of self (or else what would be the purpose of coming here in the first place?) and so that we can remember for eternity what it feels like to be a separate unique individual.

If we forget who we were then that would be sort of like a second death? That wouldn't really be life after death would it?

[Bruce L Siegel]

Michael, here’s a question for you. The NYT has an article today on a campaign to expose celebrity psychics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/magazine/psychics-skeptics-facebook.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

While I haven’t read much of it, this caught my eye:

“The poet Robert Browning once exposed the mid-19th century Scottish psychic, Daniel Home, who claimed to conjure the spirit of Browning’s infant son, who died young. Except Browning hadn’t lost a son. Worse, the poet lunged at the apparition to unmask it and found himself clutching Home’s bare foot.”

Now that surprised me. So I checked out what Deborah Blum has to say on the matter in Ghost Hunters, and found this:

“Even Robert Browning, who had so deftly skewered Home as “Mr. Sludge,” confessed to Myers and Podmore that he had never been able to catch Home in fraud. Browning only wished, as so many other critics had done, that he had been so lucky.”

So who’s telling the truth here? My guess is it’s Blum. And that’s partly because the author of the Times article seems to consider James Randi a heroic figure, making him biased—or at least gullible—in my eyes.

[Michael Prescott]

Browning resented Home because his wife, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, was much taken with the medium. He penned his poem "Mr. Sludge" as a fantasy exposé. In reality Home was never caught cheating by anyone.

[Lawrence B]

Finding this a few weeks late.

I had this Randi book in my teens and initially loved it, as it was like being in on the magician's secrets and i could - taking his word for everything - breezily explain how all these things were nonsense when they cropped up on tV. But even then there was something that bugged me, and began my evolution into someone who is sceptical of sceptics. It was pretty much as you describe..those entries where he was merely sarcastic without giving me the rational explanation i longed to be in on. The one that stuck in my mind was the largely forgotten phenomenon reported when a scientist attached a polygraph to plant life and found it was reacting to danger, including his mere intention to harm it. I've no idea of the truth or validity of that, but Randi merely sneered and told me no reason why it was false.

@ Art - I knew my mother's death was imminent (enough to alert my siblings to come to the house, despite no medical person declaring her to be dying of anything) when on that morning the care workers who tended her in bed asked me who Gerry was. Apparently my mum had just clearly told them (despite having lost the ability to speak meaningful words for at least several months) "I've just been down the road with Gerry. It was lovely".

Gerry was my late father.

It was knowing about death bed visions (and terminal lucidity) that lead me to send out a text to my siblings. She passed away later that day with her family around her.

[Art]

\\"It was knowing about death bed visions (and terminal lucidity) that lead me to send out a text to my siblings. She passed away later that day with her family around her." - Lawrence//
----------------

Nice story. Thank you for sharing. I'm hoping my mom is there to greet me when it comes my turn to cross over to the other side. I haven't seen her in half a century. I was 15 years old when she died of stomach cancer. She sent all of us out of the house and then died while we were gone.

[Roger Knights]

I have Robert Todd Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary and it's not nearly as bad as Randi's book.

[Renee]

Great stuff, Michael! Art, "Visions, Trips, and Crowded Rooms" sounds very intriguing. I think I'm gonna check it out. The subject of NDE's has always been a gray area for me. I'm both incredibly interested because it's the type of thing that does offer a sense of comfort but my own skeptical nature tends to get in the way too. Definitely want to look more into it though.

[Martin]

"In reality Home was never caught cheating by anyone"

This is not entirely true, as Gordon Stein says:

"While the statement that Home was never caught in fraud has been made many times, it simply is not true... It is simply that Home was never publicly exposed in fraud. Privately, he was caught in fraud several times. In addition, there are natural explanations both possible and likely for each of his phenomena."

The observed incidents of fraud include:

*Delia Logan
*Frederick Merrifield
*General Felury
*Also see statements by Count Petrovsky Petrovo-Solovo
*Hiram Powers

The above are not mentioned by Home defenders. Stephen E. Braude for example covers none of them on the PSI encyclopedia for Home.

Paranormal believers say Wikipedia is biased but this is because it contains skeptical references that refute their beliefs. There are a wealth of sources on the Wikipedia article that debunk Home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home#Allegations_of_fraud

[Steve Hume]

Great post, Michael!

You, pretty much, cover most of my own thoughts about this book after I made the mistake of purchasing it upon its initial publication – so I won’t bore you by repeating those, in full, here. However, buying Randi’s masterpiece of misdirection (the ‘Truth and the Lies’, indeed) played a part in triggering what still stands as, maybe, the most bizarre incident yet in my career of looking into matters psi.

First a bit of background…

In the mid-1990’s I embarked on a private study of militant Skepticism, that I thought might turn into a book, at some point. I’d become fascinated by the movement after seeing people like Randi, Kurtz, Dawkins et al. appearing on TV and angrily denouncing the ‘paranormal’ and, although I had some sympathy with their arguments, I found it rather unsettling that they usually appeared to be only telling part of the story. And they were often factually inaccurate to a degree that implied that they didn’t know what the hell they were talking about; or they were leaving out, deliberately, facts that weakened their arguments – especially in relation to serious psi research. I think the final straw was seeing Dawkins giving the BBC Richard Dimbleby Lecture in 1996. I was also aware that the movement had been accused by psi-sympathetic researchers, and some claimants, of not playing on a level playing field and using dirty tactics, in what seemed to be little more than a propaganda assault on the media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic. At this point, though, I expected to find that most of these complaints were probably unfounded – just a result of sour grapes on the part of people whose claims probably deserved debunking.

Anyway, I told Guy Lyon Playfair of my plans in the SPR library one afternoon, and within a couple of days he had put me in touch with a whole load of people involved with the psi debate and Skepticism (including Marcell Truzzi) who seemed eager to help. Truzzi, in particular, was great, and I kept up a correspondence with him until his death a few years later.

I started by exploring the Skeptic literature. This involved trawling through practically every issue of ‘The Skeptical Inquirer’ up to that point, and lots of the books by well-known Skeptics. However, I was truly dismayed at the poor quality of much of the material, and wanted to see the best that Skepticism had to offer. It was at this point that I bought Randi’s book and spent an afternoon boggling at the inaccuracies and sometimes awful grammar. Surely, I thought, this is a joke? Someone, it may have been Guy, recommended that I get hold of ‘A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology’ and suggested that I contact a book seller in Oxford who would probably have it. They didn’t, but recommended a chap in London who acted as a distributor for Prometheus – the publishing wing of CSICOP – in the UK.

The phone conversation that ensued went something like this (note: what follows may read like a Monty Python script – but I’m not exaggerating).

Me: “Hello, I was hoping you could help me get hold of ‘A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology’”.

Initially polite Skeptic man: “Why do you want that? Why don’t you try James Randi’s latest book?”

Me: "I already have it, and I’m not very impressed. ‘A Skeptic’s Handbook’, I’m told, is much better?"

Shortly to become very angry Skeptic man: “What’s wrong with Randi’s book? It’s excellent!”

Me: “I beg to differ, it’s full of inaccuracies, I really can’t take it seriously. I’m told that the ‘Handbook’ represents the best arguments against the paranormal that Skepticism has to offer”.

Suddenly quite tetchy sounding Skeptic man: “There aren’t any inaccuracies in Randi’s book”.

Me (trying desperately to stay polite): “Look, I want ‘A Skeptic’s Handbook’ can you get it for me or not?”

Skeptic man (now starting to sound quite aggressive): “Name one of these inaccuracies”.

Me (finally losing my patience): “Look mate, Randi’s book is probably the biggest pile of shite that I’ve ever read in my life, on any subject, I’d probably get more sense out of ‘Viz Comic’, can you get me the other book?”

Skeptic man now shouting very loudly, indeed: “I CHALLENGE YOU TO NAME ONE OF THESE INACCURACIES!!!!”

Luckily the book was within reach, so I opened it at random to be faced with the section on French psychical research pioneer, author, educationalist and Spiritist codifier, ‘Alan Kardec’ (Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail).

Me: "OK – I have the book here, it says that Alan Kardec was a medium and that his followers in Brazil worship in temples. None of that is true."

And, after another random flick…

"It says here that Charles Richet believed in spirits – he didn’t, he rejected the spirit hypothesis."

By now, sneering, and slightly apoplectic Skeptic man: “So, who is this Alan Kardec?”

To cut a long story short, I told him (and a fair bit else, besides), despite many sneering and shouty interruptions. After about thirty minutes of attempting to educate this loony, I finally managed to get him to admit that he didn’t have a copy of 'A Skeptic’s Handbook'. But he told me, rather petulantly, that I could get it from the Rationalist Press Association at Conway Hall in London.

SO – after a cup of tea and a ciggy, to gather my thoughts, I reached for the phone again to call the RPA. But I decided that if they didn’t have the book, I’d just have to borrow the SPR Library copy long term, and have done with it. When the phone was answered, the bizarreness continued…

Me: “Hello, I’m told that you can sell me a copy of ‘A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology’?"

Rather bored sounding RPA bloke: “Who told you that?”

Me: “The guy at the UK Prometheus distributer, who I just spoke to”

Now rather suspicious sounding RPA bloke: “Why do you want it?”

Me (supressing irritation): “I want to read it”

RPA bloke: “Why?”

Me: “What’s that got to do with you? Do you have it, or not?”

RPA bloke: “I’ll have to check, can you call back later?”

Upon calling back the next day, I was told that they did have it, but I’d have to go and collect it in person. So, I jumped on the tube and headed into the West End.

Upon arriving at the spiritual home of UK Secular Humanism, I was told by Reception to wait, someone from the office was coming down. After a while, a tallish, thick-set and grey-haired posh guy in a yellow shirt and faded jeans turned up, muttered a few words and walked off. I assumed I had to follow. Without saying a word to me, he took me down what seemed like a labyrinth of short corridors, up and down stairs and through the sort of security air-lock that you usually see in large data centres, before finally reaching a sizable office with about six or seven desks, each with a CRT computer monitor and a keyboard. There were two young guys seated at two of the desks who were gazing rather earnestly at their monitors until I entered the room, whereupon they glanced up and stared at me. Feeling distinctly uneasy, I realised that yellow shirt man was now standing by what appeared to be his desk, and was silently looking me up and down.

“Do you have the book for me?” said I.

Without saying anything, he turned to a bookshelf behind him and seemed to make an unnecessary show of scanning along it. Then, pulling out a weighty looking tome, he stared at me for a couple of seconds before theatrically thrusting it at me with a look of utter contempt on his face. Incredibly, he then just stood there staring. By now, I was getting genuinely angry – who on Earth did these creeps think they were? I managed to retain enough composure to say ‘how much do I owe you?’, and after a couple of more seconds of dumb insolence he muttered the price. “Cash or check?” I asked. Then, after not receiving an immediate reply “do you want cash or a sodding check? or what?” After telling me a cheque would do, I then had to endure another unnecessary silence after asking him who to make it payable to. It was like pulling teeth. And I left feeling slightly ashamed that I was wishing I’d just stuck the book up his backside.

Was it worth the hassle? The ‘Handbook’ is certainly better than Randi’s book, though that’s not saying much. It contains essays from leading Skeptics and researchers alike, which range from the sublime (contributions from the likes of Truzzi and D Scott Rogo) to the ridiculous (a rambling piece by Dingwall, and a few thousand words of the usual self-aggrandisement from the ‘Merely Amusing Randi’ himself). The rest is somewhere in between. But it hardly amounts to the last word on anything.

Seriously, though, Randi’s book reminded me of earlier books by conjurer Skeptics such as ‘Sixty Years of Psychical Research’ by Joseph Rinn, or Houdini’s ‘A Magician Amongst the Spirits’ i.e. bluster, interspersed with badly researched ‘facts’, replete with misspellings and, especially in the case of the former, a fair bit of pure fantasy. With Rinn, like you said about Randi, many of the subjects he addresses were of no interest at all to the serious psychical researchers of the early Twentieth Century.

When I told Guy Playfair about the hoops that I’d had to jump through to get hold of the book, he was highly amused. He pointed out to me that the guy that had gone nuts at me over the phone was a close associate of Randi’s and ‘ a bit of a nutter’. I realised later that Randi had actually given this chap a credit in the book. I read, a few years later, in Jonathan Margolis’ ‘Uri Geller Magician or Mystic?’ that Randi carries out little research of his own for his books, relying instead on associates, such as his coterie of young camp followers. I also saw online somewhere recently that Randi tried, rather late in the day, to pass this particular book off as humour. C'est la vie!

[Art]

\\"The subject of NDE's has always been a gray area for me." - Renee//
-------------------

NDEs make more sense and are more understandable if one first reads Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe and also the online essay "The Universe as a Hologram." People who have NDEs oftentimes describe the place they went to in a language that sounds very "holographic" and there are several authors like Dr. Ken Ring in his book "Life At Death" that have chapters that discuss these parallels and corroboration between NDEs and the holographic universe theory. Dr. Ken Ring also taught a course on NDEs at the University of Connecticut and Talbot's book The Holographic Universe was required reading for that course. Dr. Melvin Morse also discusses this connection in his book "Where God Lives."

The Universe as a Hologram (sort of like the Cliff Notes for Talbot's book):

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Martin,
The saddest words ever penned by men, are these: the words, "It couldashouldawouldamighta been."

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Steve, I think you have met the Wikipedia Guerrillas. - AOD

[Steve Hume]

Lol, Amos. Maybe a bit early for that, but I know what you mean. The tone of the situation that I blundered into, I belive, developed quite naturally into the Wiki-fiddling situation of recent years. But it did seem quite obvious to me, at the time, that the Internet would be exploited by Skeptics to great effect. The movement had already proved itself to be incredibly media savvy, by that point.

[Researcher]

Steve Hume on Amazon there is a review of Peter Lamont's book "The First Psychic" by Doug Harlow that says:

"Hiram Powers did claim during this time to have caught Home cheating but his "evidence" consists of nothing more specific than anything else that has been chronicled and in later years he seems to have retracted much of it anyway, affirming his belief that Home's phenomena was genuine (although he continued to have a personal dislike for the medium)."

The accusation of fraud from Hiram Powers is from a letter he wrote to Elizabeth Browning about how he faked the table rappings. I think this accusation carries weight because Powers was a card-carrying spiritualist, not a skeptic but it is very hard to find information about it. Search on Google books for Hiram Powers and Home and there is only one book that mentions the letter in a footnote.

Doug Harlow says that Powers retracted his claim but I can find no evidence for this. Can you help with this? Allegations of fraud should not be ignored. Proponents do themselves no favors by ignoring them.

[Michael Prescott]

I haven’t found anything more about the Hiram Powers episode than you already reported. It doesn’t sound to me as if Powers actually caught Home cheating. Rather, he apparently had a theory of how Home could have faked table raps and movements. As best I can tell from the very limited information available, this was only speculation on his part.

The most convincing account of Home's abilities comes from William Crookes, who tested him in a series of pretty ingenious experiments. Though Crookes has come under (deserved) criticism for his careless handling of the Florence Cook experiments, his approach to Home was considerably more professional.

[Steve Hume]

'Researcher'

The Doug Harlow in question may be a social media acquaintance of mine. So I've messaged him. Watch this space. I have Lamont's excellent book, by the way, and I'd agree with most of Doug's review.

As Michael has implied, however, a vague theory of how an effect might have been produced (especially at this distance in time) doesn't exactly count for much. I've attended hundreds of séances over the years, and if I had a quid for every half-baked theory re how certain 'strong' effects 'might' have been produced, then I would have made quite a tidy sum by now. Of course, though, some fraud theories are more plausible than others, and there are tons of those pertinent to the production of 'raps'.

I too would be interested to hear more of Powers' alleged accusation of alleged fraud by Home. Lamont only mentions Powers twice, in passing, as being present at a seance at the Trollopes' in 1855. He doesn't mention any fraud accusation, or theory. I'd be surprised if Lamont didn't know about it, however. I can only assume, for now, that the accusation, whatever it amounted to, didn't warrant inclusion. Lamont, a Skeptic, after all, does devote much space to exposing the weakness of most of the accusations against Home.

[Paul]

Steve - as ever, brilliant balanced and well-informed. Thank you. The subject is wide and complex. To get at the answers one has to be prepared to do what you do and not simply sit in an armchair and regurgitate the opinions of others. It requires effort and commitment.

I can sympathise with you as, although I have nowhere near the knowledge and experience that you do, I do have an inkling at least of how much work is necessary to arrive at realistic view of the evidence. It is all too easy to make rash judgements based on incomplete information or mislead people by presenting biased views and ignoring the (very much) bigger picture in order to sell a book or two, please a crowd or reinforce one’s own preconceptions.

I’d say it applies to both sides of the debate - from the dishonesty of some of the leading so-called ‘sceptics’, to those who set aside common sense and sometimes their own integrity when reading about, observing or presenting purportedly psychic or paranormal events.

Dogmatism is ugly any in any form.

[Steve Hume]

Lol. Looks like I was thinking of the wrong Doug! Oh well. This could take a while.

[Tom]

Michael where do you stand on the fire test of Home?

Apparently he could touch extremely hot coals, the skeptics say this was a sleight of hand trick and he merely substituted the coals for something else but there are seance reports that say he gave this power to his seance sitters.

The skeptics say this was just suggestion and making people believe what they wanted to believe but how did he touch the coals and then his seance sitters could as well? I see on Wikipedia it suggests substitution.

The source given on Wikipedia is Henry Evans. (1897). Hours With the Ghosts Or Nineteenth Century Witchcraft. Laird & Lee, Publishers. pp. 106-107. "The "coal" is a piece of spongy platinum which bears a close resemblance to a lump of half burnt coal, and is palmed in the hand, as a prestidigitateur conceals a coin, a pack of cards, an egg, or a small lemon. The medium or magician advances to the grate and pretends to take a genuine lump of coal from the fire but brings up instead at the tops of his fingers, the piece of platinum."

I have not read the seance reports but does a piece of platinum sound reasonable?

Wikipedia seems to cite any hypothesis of fraud no matter how far-fetched as long as it is a naturalistic suggestion. Obviously a lot of these mediums were caught in fraud, but sometimes the allegations of fraud are a bit far-fetched. Didn't someone once suggest Home was using a pet monkey?

[Michael Prescott]

Interesting comments, Tom. Not being a magician, I can’t say how credible the prestidigitation theory is in this case. What I would point out, though, is that Home often gave impromptu seances at other people’s houses, so he would have been limited in the props he could carry or the preparations he could make.

I seem to recall reading that Home would thrust his hands into the coals in the hearth and then let the hot coals run through his fingers. I may be mistaken, or the claims may have been embellished, but if this is true, it would raise additional questions. Some people say Home could have coated his hands with a protective substance before handling the coals. Again, though, many of these performances were held on the spur of the moment. His pockets must have been awfully crowded with fake coals, hand lotion, stuffed gloves (for spirit hands), and other paraphernalia. And there’s still the question of his levitations, allegedly witnessed in good light by large crowds.

[Max]

Steve Hume mentions the book by Joseph Rinn.

In Rinn's book he says that the materialization medium Franek Kluski confessed to fraud. Melvin Harris repeats this claim. But where is the confession? It is not in any primary literature.

I have been unable to verify this. Do anyone have access to any Polish literature of the time that may document this confession? I guess around 1930-1940? Or is it made up by Rinn?

[Steve Hume]

Max

I remember Rinn's claim about Kluski.

Consider the following: Rinn also claimed to have been a long standing and respected member of the SPR. He was never a member at all. He also claimed to have had various encounters with certain prominent early members of the British and American SPRs, about which reviewers of his book in the Journals of both Societies expressed extreme skepticism. There are other sundry tall stories throughout the book, although there are some which can be corroborated, sort of.

Therefore, if you can't find any evidence for Kluski having admitted to fraud, then it's likely that's for the same reason that the British SPR reviewer (a former SPR Secretary) couldn't find any evidence of Rinn ever having been a member i.e. it never happened.

Zofia Weaver, had access to Polish sources for her book on Kluski, 'Other Realities', and I don't remember her mentioning it. I have Harris' book too (God help me), so I'll look into it a bit further, when I get a minute or two.

Harris,by the way, also claimed that Archie Jarman's report into Eileen Garrett and the R101 case concluded that there was nothing paranormal about it, while the exact opposite is the case. So I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. Many of these authors are cut from the same cloth.

[Steve Hume]

Max

I've just taken a look at both Rinn's and Harris' statements in relation to Kluski. Rinn repeats it twice, but provides no corroboration, at all. Harris, in his book 'Strange to Relate' seems to be using Rinn as his source (although he provides no reference) so, naturally, he provides no corroboration, either.

Given what I've said already about Rinn's book, I'll leave you with the appraisal provided by Hovelmann, Truzzi and Hein Hoebens in “A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology” (pp.479-480): -

"It is a book full of opinions, gossip, and anecdotes, and it needs to be treated that way – not as a work of objective scholarship."

and...

"Readers should also consult the highly critical reviews that call attention to many of the factual inaccuracies in Rinn’s book…"

Good luck if you decide to try and track down Rinn's source. But I suspect that was actually his own brain.