STUDIES INVOLVING MEDIUMS ATTEMPTING COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEAD
Gary E. Schwartz is a psychologist who is professor at the University of Arizona. He wrote in the Preface to this 2002 book, “If it could be proved beyond a doubt and in an entirely convincing way, if it could be proved scientifically that life and love are eternal---would your love be enhanced; would your fears vanish; would your purpose in life be magnified?... This book presents the scientific possibility that all this, and more, has been proved and is real. How you handle this information is up to you; even skeptics will begin to evolve as a result of these findings… This journey unfolds as a scientific adventure tale investigating life after death… In a previous book… Linda Russek and I explained how contemporary science is leading to the conclusion that everything in the universe is eternal, alive, and evolving. Now I describe how Linda and I continued along that earlier path and explain how contemporary science is investigating the hypothesis of survival of consciousness after physical death… This work will show you how science is experimentally addressing the hypothesis of a living spiritual reality… This book is written for people who long to find scientific research that bears on what they hold most dear---that love matters, that love evolves, and that love continues forever… All of this is documented here for the first time.” (Pg. xv-xvi)
He continues, “Some people still insist that all we have been seeing in our laboratory experiments is examples of cold-reading technique that any professional stage magician can duplicate. But in fact, cold readers blanch when we challenge them to produce information this accurate and this unusual with a sitter unknown to them. And skeptics… have nonetheless been unable to point out any error in our experimental technique to account for the results. The mediums have provided information that is sometimes chilling, sometimes painful, sometimes shocking, sometimes unknown even to the sitter, but later verified as correct… But does all this mean the mediums are actually getting information from the departed? It seems unlikely---it contradicts accepted science. Yet we have been unable to find any other convincing explanation for the totality of the findings. And as you discover, many of the readings in these pages had an accuracy rate as high as 90 percent.” (Pg. xxi-xxii)
He recounts, “I asked myself, ‘What kind of God would allow the starlight from distant stars to continue forever, even after the star has ‘died’… yet would not provide the same opportunity for our personal biophotons?’ … If these cosmically ancient ‘info-energy packets’ persist in the universe today, why can’t our info-energy packets persist as well?... This realization was accompanied by a deep personal revelation, in which I experienced myself as an extended energy being … I came to know firsthand how our individually patterned energy is like all energy---that it extends into space at the speed of light throughout our physical life and beyond.” (Pg. 8-9)
He describes the first round of experiments, in which Susy (an elderly woman) “asked each of … four departed people to suggest a picture that she could draw for them… [Later] Laurie [a medium] attempted to contact each of the deceased individuals and receive specific information about the pictures that Susy had drawn…. We matched pictures with people based on the information Laurie provided from her readings…” (Pg. 38-40)
He acknowledges, “Certainly there are magicians who engage in fake mediumship and there are mediums who use cold readings. Could any of that have been going on here? Absolutely. Frauds with any skill at all would pull the wool over our eyes, probably without half trying… we would create an informal Magicians’ Advisory Committee so that we could have professionals in the field examine our experimental design and conduct of the research… Without scientific integrity, all of this is worthless… the possibility of clever fraud needed to be considered and ruled out.” (Pg. 42)
A new phase of the research (filmed by HBO) included some well-known mediums such as John Edward, George Anderson, and Suzane Northrup. Schwartz notes, “John had received names, causes of death, and many other specific facts but never recognized his mistake in thinking Pat’s husband was dead. John was confused; Pat was cagey. We would in time discover a possible explanation…” (Pg. 72) “Like the other mediums, Laurie made mistakes… she saw the two boys on the East Coast, through they had moved. She saw Pat’s son dying from some kind of what she identified as a ‘blood disease…’ but did not figure out that it was suicide by gunshot. However, like the other mediums before her, she received a pattern of information that most certainly fit Pat.” (Pg. 84)
After a session with Suzane Northrup, he states, “was this simple stretching to find a favorable interpretation for what Suzane had said? Despite my earnest intention to maintain a scientist’s critical detachment, was I unwittingly playing the game that magician mediums count on---so eager to believe that I was finding ‘facts’ where they really didn’t exist, in order to bolster the belief?” (Pg. 109)
He continues, “despite the impression we both had at the time of the sitting that Suzane had done poorly, when the scoring was completed… she had in fact obtained a remarkably high percentage of accurate facts. We were probably misled by the many mistakes in conveying opinions---only 30 percent of the opinion statements were correct. But overall, the experience illustrates how the unique selectivity of our memories can sometimes complicate and even confound this research… We believe that selective memory may also affect viewers observing readings on television… Selective remembering applies to all of us… That’s precisely why we make sure that the scientific date we report are based on careful scoring of the actual transcripts, not a person’s selective memory of the session.” (Pg. 110)
He summarizes after this phase, “I had a nagging certainty I could not yet answer all the challenges that might be thrown at me. Were there ways to make the experimental procedure even more fraud-proof? There must be… Yet for the time being, I could hardly help but feel elated… we had planned and carried out a significant experiment with fairly elaborate safeguards. The results were decidedly impressive, certainly enough to give us confidence and the strong desire to continue.” (Pg. 123-124)
He cautions, “We’ve discovered that sometimes… there are ‘anomalies within the anomalies’ as the data unfold. When you conduct research in such a way that you are open to uncovering the strange within the strange, you sometimes come upon an extraordinary class of data---information that does not easily fit the conventional ‘anomalous' explanations such as reading the mind of the sitter. While these kinds of data are the most difficult to detect, produce on demand, and evaluate, they are the most exciting and sometimes the most definitive.” (Pg. 185-186)
After a later stage, he admits, “it happened in these readings that the mediums sometimes got nothing---zero---for a given sitter… How are we to explain these dreadful performances? In a traditional scientific publication, we would simply report the lowered averages, period… Yet sometimes key evidence is revealed in the errors… anomalies in the anomalies. Sometimes the truth is revealed in the mistakes. We just have to be willing to listen to what the data are telling us. But despite the disappointment with the overall averages of the silent-period data, the Canyon Ranch experiment represented a major step in the development of our experimental techniques… In that sense, the experiment had been a rousing success.” (Pg. 200-201)
He asserts, “It’s one thing to be skeptical---open to alternative hypotheses. It’s another to be DEVOUTLY skeptical—always ‘knowing’ that cheating, lying, fraud, and deception are the explanations for any not-yet-explainable phenomenon…. At what point does the instinct to dismiss data reflect a bias so strong that it begins to border on the pathological? Simply put, when does skepticism become what I would call skeptimania?... Science will die if it does not follow the data with integrity.” (Pg. 216)
He observes, “Our dream team of mediums tells us that when they face hostile clients or a hostile audience, they get anxious. They get negative thoughts and feelings that distract them from getting the subtle information they’re trying to receive… Of course, if the mediums were engaged in fraud, it shouldn’t matter whether they were reading believers or skeptics… On the face of it, at least, the mediums’ explanation of why they don’t like to read for skeptics appears reasonable. Maybe it really is more difficult…” (Pg. 218-219)
He says, “In fairness to professional skeptics like James Randi and Michael Shermer, they claim that they will give in to compelling data. They have certainly played a valuable role by revealing tricksters and deceivers. However, if John Edwards … turns out to be the real deal… we hope the Amazing Randi won’t turn out to be the ‘Amazing Deceiver.’” (Pg. 224-225)
He summarizes, “If the living soul hypothesis is true, and we develop our abilities to ‘hear’ what the dead have to say to us, perhaps human deceit might come to an end. It’s possible that we could enter a new era of human caring that Linda and I call integrity love… as more of us openly look to the deceased for everyday guidance, this potential could make like easier, safer, and more rewarding… Some of what follows may sound laughable and unworthy… But it a given suggestion seems ludicrous to you, please remember that all of them are offered with a clear purpose. Though the question of the living soul opens a veritable Pandora’s box, it is a box that, for better or worse, must ultimately be opened if it truly exists.” (Pg. 242-243)
He concludes, “After three years of conducting the experiments laid out in these pages, Linda asked me one day how I could see all these data and still not believe… The truth is, I couldn’t believe… because I’m a scientist, and the data, though highly supportive, are not 100 percent certain… The truth is that I was being scientifically hypocritical. I had failed to do the very thing I always try to encourage my students and colleagues to do… My growing fear was that if I actually summarized and interpreted the entire set of observations, I might be forced to conclude… the skeptics were completely wrong… Linda was asking me to face my fear about believing in mediumship… I realized that concerning belief in survival of consciousness… Scientific theory strongly indicated the plausibility of the hypothesis… to enable me to hold the opinion that survival, in theory, was true… In terms of belief as having confidence---no, I did not have confidence in that reasoned opinion… My degree of doubt … was frankly irrational. I was experiencing skeptimania… It was time to tally up the score and see that the data revealed… I can no longer ignore the data and dismiss the words…” (Pg. 256-257)
I was frankly not as persuaded by these ‘results’ as Schwartz was; there seemed to be a lot of ‘suggestibility’ going in with answers from the mediums that he and Linda scored as ‘verified,’ for example. [E.g., “Was your gallbladder removed?” Not it specifically. “… Was their stomach surgery like gallbladder, appendix removed?” Yes. Pg. 192] But this book will be of great interest to those looking for research involving mediumship, and how it relates to the question of survival.