A team of scientists studying people who claim to be able to talk to the dead via psychic channeling report finding a “complex phenomenon that deserves more serious study. ”
While the researchers did not find definitive support for any of the study subjects’ claimed psychic abilities, they believe their work shows that such claims of mediumship and psychic channeling can be studied scientifically and under controlled conditions.
“Unveiling the dynamic world of channeling, this international study reveals its idiosyncrasies and research challenges,” said Dr. Helané Wahbeh, who headed the research, “offering valuable nuggets of wisdom for future researchers looking to tap into its potential usefulness.”
Four Objectives When Studying Psychic Channeling
Published in the Journal of Scientific Information, which the researchers describe as “an open-access, platinum peer-reviewed journal that is devoted to maverick or frontier science topics,” the exploratory study was designed to determine the potential usefulness of “channeled information” based on ten questions posed by researchers to mediums who claimed an ability to perform psychic channeling.
The work titled “Channelers’ Answers to Questions from Scientists: An Exploratory Study” focused on four main objectives. These were:
Assess the correspondence of channeled and non-channeled answers within questions,
Evaluate the correspondence of different channelers’ responses for each question while in channeling and non-channeling states,
Examine whether channelers believe they are receiving information from the same source and,
Explore qualitative themes that emerge for each question.
To perform the study, the researchers enlisted 15 total channelers. Each channeler was asked ten questions in both ‘channeled’ and ‘non-channeled’ states.
Afterward, the responses were evaluated by a three-judge panel, who used ‘structured criteria’ to determine a measurable, quantitative value to the first three objectives. Following that analysis, the team performed a ‘qualitative’ analysis of the fourth criterion focused on potential themes that may or may not emerge from each question.
Study Finds Results in Support of and Contrary to Researchers’ Hypotheses
The results were mixed; some met the team’s expectations, while others directly contrasted prior assumptions.
For example, the researchers say they found “low correspondence” between answers provided by the channelers in the two different “channeling” and “non-channeling” states. This was as they had expected.
However, when the judges performed a quantitative analysis on the second criterion, they found “virtually no correspondence” between answers given while channeling and when not channeling. This finding was “contrary to our hypothesis, ” they say.
The researchers also say that when performing psychic channeling, the channelers did not perceive they were all accessing the identical source of information. There was no indication whether this finding was in line with or contrary to any pre-study hypothesis.
Finally, the team’s qualitative analysis returned mixed results. In some cases, “coherent and common themes” appeared for specific questions but didn’t appear for others.
Results Find Complex Phenomenon but No Definitive Proof of Psychic Abilities
The researchers point out that they can’t claim to have found definitive proof supporting the channeler’s claimed abilities. However, they say their work “offers insight into improving future studies attempting to obtain valuable information through channeling,” which they say needs to happen.
“The authors concluded that channeling is likely a complex phenomenon that deserves more serious study,” the press release announcing the study concludes, “as such perceptions are probably influenced by many, as yet unknown factors that should reveal much about the limits of brain functioning and human consciousness.”
Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at email@example.com.