Introduction
In this topic, we will be messing about with mediums. In the 'Origins of mediumship', it will be discussed how mediumship developed and, if it is possible, why. The story of the Fox sisters, Marge and Kate, who are credited with the beginning of the movement of Spiritualism. Early mediums, such as D.D. Home, Leonora Piper, Helen Smith and Charles Bailey will also be included. Hopefully some more historical examples will be included sometime in the near future. In 'Messin' with mediums', it is discussed whether all mediums are charlatans or whether a portion of them genuinely believe in the abilities they claim to have. Then in the 'Barnum Effect' it is evaluated as to whether this is what happens in mediumistic readings; in 'Prior assumptions' the concept of whether assumptions may have some influence on the content of the reading is explored; in 'Faulty mediumship' it is investigated as to the faults of mediumship; in 'Cold reading' the term, 'cold reading', is properly explained. In 'Preaching to the preached' the focus is on the idea that those who already believe in mediumship, or want to, are the type of people who go to mediumship demonstrations. In 'Same Spirit?' we debate on whether a medium sees how Ol' Betty really looked like when she was alive, or what seems to be an impression of someone like her, but who is perceived to be the spirit of Ol' Betty herself. After that, in 'Hot reading' it is investigated as to whether mediums provide information through the 'feeding back' of information they already knew beforehand - or even information given to them by the sitter at the time. Finally, in the conclusion, 'Implications of mediumship' it is discussed as to what the implications and applications, if any, there might be if mediumship was 'scientifically proved' to be channelling the dead.
Origins of mediumship
Messin' with mediums
According to http://skepdic.com/medium.html,
a medium is “…one with whom spirits
communicate directly.” Under the same entry, Richard Hodgson, a former
secretary for the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), is quoted as
having said that "...nearly all professional mediums
are a gang of vulgar tricksters who are more or less in league with one
another." Is this true for all mediums, or just a number of them? According to http://observationdeck.io9.com/the-languages-and-architecture-of-mars-circa-1899-1648582630,"Typically, a medium would conduct a ritualistic sitting (or seance)
for a small group in a darkened room, entering a trance state that was
supposed to allow a discarnate "spirit guide" to communicate through
them. The spirit guide would then answer questions posed by the group,
via various means such as "automatic writing", after which the medium
would return from the trance state, often professing no memory of what
their spirit guide had said." This is what trance mediumship principally involves, because a trance medium goes into a deep trance-like state in which they channel and communicate with spirits and spirit guides. It is also a requirement for mental and spiritual mediumship, but not for physical mediumship.
Mediumship
Mediumship is the alleged ability to communicate, or channel, with spirits. It supposedly involves psychic abilites: clairvoyance, claircognition, clairsentinence, clairaudience, telepathy and intuition. According to The Aftlerlife, by Jenny Randles and Pete Hough, p.58, mediums "...see themselves as radio recievers tuned into a particular frequency which carries information from the afterlife...".
A key element that is required for mediumship is belief. Scepticism doesn't help at all - which is why you won't find too many mediums with a good supply (if any!) of scepticism. In mediumship, classically the medium goes into a meditative state. They relax, clear their mind of mundane thoughts and are open to any 'impressions' that appear in the mental space, their mind. Then, whatever comes to mind is put into a reading. I'm not saying that this is how all mediums work, or that this is the only way of going about it. But now imagine if a professional sceptic was in this state. Even if they did get 'impressions' on their mind, their scepticism may cause them to question. Questioning whether these impressions did not just come from one's own mind - or simply, the subconscious - can override the mediumistic process. From experience, it can make any attempt at mediumship disastrous. Scepticism is, however, good, although an open mind with plenty of scepticism is even better. In the spiritualist, psychic, mediumistic and complimentary therapy circles, there aren't a load of people who practise scepticism. Very few are even aware of the psychology and psychological explanations that are involved in their practices.
If being 'psychic' had something to do with the right brain hemisphere - or simply the stimulation of particular areas of it - and not the left hemisphere, then it would follow that people who have particularly well developed right brain hemispheres should be more 'psychic'. They should do better in parapsychological experiments which aim to find out if ESP exists or not. People such as artists, musicians, poets, story writers, film makers, etc. There are some interesting papers on such experiments.
Furthermore, if people who are psychics, mediums or just people interested in that sort of thing have a more developed right brain hemisphere than the left brain hemisphere, could this implicate that these types of people might seem less 'logical' in the conventional sense? As in, being less logical conventionally, or being less logical in some areas but logical in others. This would mean that they would be more 'open' and less sceptical or questioning of what are considered to be unusual claims - such as being able to communicate with the dead or to psychically connect with animals. If this is the case, then these people need to develop their left brain hemisphere more in order to be more sceptical. Having a wild imagination helps too, because someone who can imagine 'extreme' possibilities can make it easier for them to perceive the existence of fairies, elementals, pixies, chakras, angels, archangels, etc., than someone who doesn't have such an imagination.
Facilitating mediumship
A mediumship circle is rather entertaining and the atmosphere of it is excellent for facilitating mediumship. It also provides the opportunity to get to know some rather "crazy" people. People, that is, whose list of paranormal beliefs is taller than the ceiling. Some people believe in the existence of angels, archangels, elves, devas and elemental spirits, as well as in the existence of chakras, meridians, acupuncture points, ley lines, spirits and fairies. However, the best thing about the mediumship circle is the fact that you can get an appreciation of such beliefs, as well as an understanding of them. It is difficult to explain, but through socialising with these folk, you also are able to see things from their perspective. And although mediumistic phenomena is not proof of any sort that it is communication with dead people - or 'spirits'- you can nonetheless understand why the mediums and psychics believe that it is and believe what they do. For example, if you were a medium and you shut your eyes and went into a meditative state and seemingly out of the blue you saw a human-looking figure that is clothed but seems to be tinted with white, the most obvious explanation is that, through 'clairvoyance' what you saw was a spirit. The aim of mediumship in the circle at this point, the point where the medium sees the 'spirit' is to communicate with it. The only way this is possible is by the medium using his or her own mind. What now? Simple: the medium must think their message, with the intention of it being sent and received by the spirit.
The Mediumship Circle
 |
| D. D. Home, a historical physical medium |
Even though 'seeing' the spirit was actually the imagination - because physically, the medium did not see a person in front of them, but in their mind they did - seeing the spirit was also 'clairvoyance', as advocates claim. Why is this? Since clairvoyance is not supposed to involve seeing something with the physical eyes, clairvoyance, if it were to exist, would involve the mind instead. As humans, we use our minds - or brains if you like - all the time and we conjure up images of things in our minds most of the time. If you think of a friend, your mind might conjure up a mental visual impression of that friend. Even though this was involving visual memory - because in order to visualise what that person looks like, you need to be able to remember what their physical appearance is - it was also clairvoyance because you weren't seeing that person with your real eyes.
So in order to get visual images as medium during your mediumship, you need to be able to visualise images in your mind or imagination. If you can't do that then you will find it difficult to visualise. Furthermore, if you find it difficult to visualise, you may find that clairvoyance isn't your strongest 'psychic' ability. Even though I'm suggesting what clairvoyance must be I'm not saying that it's paranormal - but rather, a potential ability that we all have, even those of us who do not use it.
How do they do it? Mediumship
What
is required for doing a good round of mediumship? A number of things:
your mind, psychic abilities and belief (scepticism won't make things too
easy).
So, what's the process?
Forget
out-and-out frauds for a moment and consider the 'genuine' guys - the
mediums who are not intentionally frauds, but the people who may be
deluded. The folks who are convinced that they do contact the dead, the people who do believe
that they provide 'evidence' that the deceased live on, the people who
are genuinely trying to preach to those who are willing to listen, the
people who were going to believe that spirits do exist, that there is,
in fact, an afterlife.
Types of medium
Spirit
mediums and mediumship are the branches of mediumship discussed so far,
but there are other types - or breeds - of medium and these include:
- Mental mediums
- Spirit mediums (so far discussed)
- Physical mediums
- 'Psychic' mediums
Another type of mediumship is
that of channelling people's dead pets which is a practice that at least
one animal psychic claims to be able to do.
Mental mediumship
According to The Afterlife, by Jenny Randles and Peter Hough, mental mediums "...utilise ESP which enables spirit communications to take place. They receive mental impressions from deceased persons which they then try to interpret for the living. These impressions can be heard 'clairaudiently' - spirit voices are paranormally heard; or 'clairvoyantly' - sensed or seen. Sometimes these communications take place in the form of automatic writing and drawing. Mental mediums are much more prevalent than their 'physical' colleagues."
Mediumship
Physical mediums seem to be a rare species these days. According to The Afterlife, "Physical The Afterlife, the medium "...acts as a channel for psychokinetic (PK) effects initiated by the deceased. These can take the from of levitation of objects and persons, the playing of musical instruments and the sound of of discarnate voices. The deceased themselves can occasionally manifest by shaping a substance called 'ectoplasm' which extrudes from the medium's body."
mediumship was very prevalent up until the middle of the twentieth century, but has since declined."
However, physical mediumship, as a practice, still happens, even if there aren't as many physical mediums around as there used to be. One exercise done by physical mediums is that involving a darkened room with a red lamp. The red lamp is placed on the floor of the room near to the seated medium. This is done in a seance-type setting. Now, the medium invokes their spirit guides to come forth and make their presence known. What is supposed to happen is the rest of the group - or audience - to notice a change in the appearance of the medium, a change which is supposed to be due to the spirit guides. So the medium's face looks more like the face of their spirit guide.
Another example of physical mediumship is table-tipping. However, this practice has been explained by the concept of ideomotor movement. No instance of physical mediumship should be seen as an example of psychokinesis.
mediumship was very prevalent up until the middle of the twentieth century, but has since declined."
However, physical mediumship, as a practice, still happens, even if there aren't as many physical mediums around as there used to be. One exercise done by physical mediums is that involving a darkened room with a red lamp. The red lamp is placed on the floor of the room near to the seated medium. This is done in a seance-type setting. Now, the medium invokes their spirit guides to come forth and make their presence known. What is supposed to happen is the rest of the group - or audience - to notice a change in the appearance of the medium, a change which is supposed to be due to the spirit guides. So the medium's face looks more like the face of their spirit guide.
Another example of physical mediumship is table-tipping. However, this practice has been explained by the concept of ideomotor movement. No instance of physical mediumship should be seen as an example of psychokinesis.
Mediums' Work
Mediums can help people to overcome their grief over the death of a loved one. However, the medium does have a duty to ensure that their readings are always positive and uplifting. One reason for this is that it helps ensure that the medium's client has had a positive experience with a medium and will, consequently, recommend their services to friends or acquaintances; or the client will be inclined to return for a subsequent reading, or the client may do both.
Although mediums do channel the spirits of other people's deceased relatives, they cannot channel their own dead relatives. This could be because:
- the medium does not need to, since they already believe in spirits and the afterlife
- it could be because the medium is a deliberate charlatan and does not channel spirits at all
- it could be because the medium does not need to know mediumistically that their dead relatives are still around - or perhaps they do, but not through channelling them
- it could be that because channelling their own dead relatives is more personal, that the medium may not wish to channel them
- it could be that as their dead relatives are more personal than channelling the dead relatives of others, that the medium may exercise a bit of scepticism, so if they do think they are getting Old Aunty Susan coming in and talking to them in their mind, they may assume that their conscious mind wished to contact their dead relatives and it may have been due to wishful thinking or something similar
If a medium wants to get a reading regarding their own personal dead relatives, they must consult a medium themselves. Alternatively, whilst doing a public demonstration of mediumship, another medium may 'pick-up' on one of their deceased relatives accidentally. Such an occasion is rather entertaining, but can and does happen.
People who attend seances and mediumship demonstration
Flower psychometry
Everything is possible if you believe
The types of people who attend mediumship circles and/or public demonstrations are rather limited. They consist of people who:
- want to believe
- almost believe
- already believe
Those who "want to believe" consist of people who are not quite sceptics, but those who may have a desire or need to believe, for reasons that are probably psychological. They may be labelled as gullible, credible or naive. Most likely, by the end of the demonstration, they will come away from it as believers. Meanwhile, those who "almost believe" require just a small bit of evidence, which will probably be given at the mediumship demonstration, resulting in a new-found belief in mediumship. Lastly, the people who "already believe" go to the demonstration more to socialise and take part in the atmosphere of it all, people who might enjoy watching people's eyes open when they are confronted with proof and, consequently, are converted to mediumship.
Speaking spirits
Mediumship is supposedly where the medium channels spirits. It involves clairaudience and clairvoyance, amongst other psychic abilities. When a medium "hears" a spirit talking to them, its voice seems audible, but only to the medium. This voice is what they hear in their head. Clairvoyance, meanwhile, is when the medium sees the spirit's form in their mind.
Psychic children
Some young children see what society calls "invisible" or "imaginary" friends. Their parents usually cannot see these beings, yet for the children, they are just as real as the members of their actual family. When a child tells their parents about these beings at first, the reaction they get from them may be anything from surprise, shock, horror, or understanding. If their parents are not psychic (or profess to be) and are rather cynical of such matters, they may scold the child and tell them that they are not real and are just seeing things. But if the child continues to see these "invisible" friends, this type of reaction does them no good and can adverse affect them. They may become afraid, introverted and fearful. They do not understand why they are seeing such beings, and they are being scolded by their parents when they haven't done anything wrong. All they did was tell their parents what they had truthfully been seeing and they cannot understand why they were not understood and were scolded. This may cause them to hide their true feelings and to not express their honest thoughts to people including their parents. If they had actual psychic ability, they may inhibit it as a result.
On the other hand, if the reaction from parents is positive and open-minded, then the child will feel more comfortable and at ease. They feel that they can tell their parents about these beings without being afraid. Their parents may be able to give helpful suggestions, even try to encourage their psychic ability. The latter reaction will lead the child to become more confident and willing to share the true thoughts and feelings with other and cause them to feel more confident.
Normally, psychometry would fall under 'psychic abilities'. Psychometry is a practice which mediums tend to use. What is the difference between 'psychic readings' and 'psychometry'? Psychic readings normally consist of information that is about the client. The medium will, for a psychic reading, ask to hold the client's hands or have some sort of physical contact with them. However, is this entirely necessary, especially if it is possible to give 'psychic readings' through using deceptive techniques such as cold reading, flattery and high-probability statements?
Flower psychometry is psychometry using flowers. Although anyone can have a go at faking a psychometric reading by using deceptive techniques such as those I've listed above and perhaps with the aid of Richard Wiseman's book, Paranormality, a psychometric reading is also possible using the interpretation of symbolism, I discovered. Alternatively, it can be done the 'proper' way by going into a meditative state and just say aloud to the client what impressions you are getting on your mind. Either way, the information will still be 'cold reading' and a few other things besides.
As well as personal readings using flower psychometry, it is also possible to get a 'spirit link' through the flower and flower psychometry. It uses intention: in order to get a spirit link, you must intend to get one. Or if you want to cheat, you could just make it up. Regardless, getting a 'spirit link' is possible and isn't much different to describing the person's personality.
Everything is possible if you believe
A key element that is required for mediumship is belief. Scepticism doesn't help at all - which is why you won't find too many mediums with a good supply (if any!) of scepticism. In mediumship, classically the medium goes into a meditative state. They relax, clear their mind of mundane thoughts and are open to any 'impressions' that appear in the mental space, their mind. Then, whatever comes to mind is put into a reading. I'm not saying that this is how all mediums work, or that this is the only way of going about it. But now imagine if a professional sceptic was in this state. Even if they did get 'impressions' on their mind, their scepticism may cause them to question. Questioning whether these impressions did not just come from one's own mind - or simply, the subconscious - can override the mediumistic process. From experience, it can make any attempt at mediumship disastrous. Scepticism is, however, good, although an open mind with plenty of scepticism is even better. In the spiritualist, psychic, mediumistic and complimentary therapy circles, there aren't a load of people who practise scepticism. Very few are even aware of the psychology and psychological explanations that are involved in their practices.
If being 'psychic' had something to do with the right brain hemisphere - or simply the stimulation of particular areas of it - and not the left hemisphere, then it would follow that people who have particularly well developed right brain hemispheres should be more 'psychic'. They should do better in parapsychological experiments which aim to find out if ESP exists or not. People such as artists, musicians, poets, story writers, film makers, etc. There are some interesting papers on such experiments.
The Explanations
The phenomena regarding mediums cannot be classed as examples of 'psychic ability'. Even if they were, the processes involved would need to be understood in order to clarify that the phenomena would caused through paranormal means or processes. Below are discussed the explanations for mediumship. Although still under construction, we will try to cover everything from the 'Barnum Effect', to 'cold reading', to 'hot reading' to 'cognitive dissonance'. These explanations will be separate entries which you can click on.
The typical mediumistic reading employs statements which could
apply to almost anyone’s loved one. When a medium states, for example during a
public demonstration of mediumship, that she is getting “a man, about average
height, with a beard”, more than one person may respond to this statement,
believing that the medium picked up on their own loved one. The statement was
general, vague and is an example of ‘cold reading’. When one or more
people responded to this statement, a psychological technique, called the
‘Barnum Effect’, was involved: the statement was not attributable to one person
only, yet each person who responded, believed that the medium’s statement was
uniquely attributable to their own loved one, when in fact, the man the medium
described could have been anyone’s loved one.
Prior assumptions
Is it possible for a medium to base their reading on
information they gathered about the sitter beforehead – what is called a ‘hot
reading’? Or in the case of psychometry - which is supposedly where the energy of an object is 'read' - to base the information on what is
obvious about the object, based solely on the information one can glean from its appearance? For example, before I did psychometry on an item
brought in for a reading, which was a Freemasonic medal, I’d presumed beforehand
that it was a medal from the army. Later, during the reading, I stated that the
medal’s deceased owner, had “…served in the army…”. Could my prior assumption
have prompted me to say this statement? Only at the end of the reading did I learn that the medal was not, in fact, 'from the army'. Indeed, the previous owner had worked in the army - I was informed of this after the reading - but because I'd previously figured that out - or thought that out - through my assumption that the medal I was presented with was originally awarded to its deceased owner from the army, perhaps that idea had already formed itself in my mind and presented itself again during the reading.
Faulty mediumship
Mediumship hasn't provided evidence that it is 'communication with the dead' scientifically, but it nonetheless appears to provide its advocates with 'proof' that it is communication with the dead. It's not a matter of 'seeing is believing', but it seems to be that those who were 'open' to the possibility of life after death and spirits are more likely to go away after a mediumship demonstration convinced that spirits do exist and that communication with spirits is, in fact, possible. It is, quite simply, a case of "People will only believe what they are prepared to believe." Evidence of the existence of spirits is purely subjective, not conclusive. A sceptic may be baffled as a result of a given 'paranormal' phenomena, but will not conclude that it is paranormal. There is a plethora of sceptical and psychological explanations for seemingly 'paranormal' phenomena, which people should be aware of before they should even consider something to be 'paranormal'.
Cold reading
A number of people go to mediums because they want to be given proof that their loved ones live on. Perhaps they grieve someone and need personal evidence that spirits exist. In a mediumship development circle, social conformity would be involved: if the majority of the other people in total at the mediumship circle believed in spirits, perhaps ‘normative social influence’ may influence another, newer member's beliefs, because the majority - already believe in communication with spirits. People who already believe in spirits are the sort of people who turn up at mediumship demonstrations. Why do these people turn up at this event if they already believe? Do they really go to the demonstration for 'evidence' that the dead live on? Do they go because they like the atmosphere, or the feeling they get when a member of the audience receives a message from a loved one and as a result, they have a new-found belief that there is an afterlife?
It would seem that people who go to these events do so because they want to believe. They are very rarely 'sceptics', but have some prior interest in the paranormal. They may have had experiences which they could explain, which they consequently assume to have been paranormal or had a paranormal cause; they may have been inspired by watching a celebrity medium doing a mediumship demonstration on television and wanted to see the real thing for themselves; they may already believe in elemental spirits, God, bigfoot, Atlantis, kundalini, devas, elves, fairies, meridians and chakras, but now they would like to be presented with the 'evidence' that communication with the dead is possible. They go because they would like to believe. Those who are open-minded about mediumship go to a demonstration, and often come away believers. Sceptics, meanwhile, steer clear of mediumship demonstrations. Or if they attend one, they do not come away believers; instead, they have multiple explanations (or should have!) for the medium's acclaimed abilities.
Same Spirit?
Cold reading
Cold readings seem to be everywhere: mediumistic readings, psychic readings, auric readings, psychometric readings, palm readings, Tarot readings and astrological readings. Cold readings are general, vaue, non-specific statements that could apply to anyone. For example,
Preaching to the preached
A number of people go to mediums because they want to be given proof that their loved ones live on. Perhaps they grieve someone and need personal evidence that spirits exist. In a mediumship development circle, social conformity would be involved: if the majority of the other people in total at the mediumship circle believed in spirits, perhaps ‘normative social influence’ may influence another, newer member's beliefs, because the majority - already believe in communication with spirits. People who already believe in spirits are the sort of people who turn up at mediumship demonstrations. Why do these people turn up at this event if they already believe? Do they really go to the demonstration for 'evidence' that the dead live on? Do they go because they like the atmosphere, or the feeling they get when a member of the audience receives a message from a loved one and as a result, they have a new-found belief that there is an afterlife?
It would seem that people who go to these events do so because they want to believe. They are very rarely 'sceptics', but have some prior interest in the paranormal. They may have had experiences which they could explain, which they consequently assume to have been paranormal or had a paranormal cause; they may have been inspired by watching a celebrity medium doing a mediumship demonstration on television and wanted to see the real thing for themselves; they may already believe in elemental spirits, God, bigfoot, Atlantis, kundalini, devas, elves, fairies, meridians and chakras, but now they would like to be presented with the 'evidence' that communication with the dead is possible. They go because they would like to believe. Those who are open-minded about mediumship go to a demonstration, and often come away believers. Sceptics, meanwhile, steer clear of mediumship demonstrations. Or if they attend one, they do not come away believers; instead, they have multiple explanations (or should have!) for the medium's acclaimed abilities.
Same Spirit?
If a medium picks up on a spirit, which a member of the audience of circle believes is someone they know, because they recognise the description the medium is giving on that person, can they really be sure that the spirit the medium is seeing really is their relative? If the medium was shown an actual photo of the relative, would that relative
have looked exactly like the person the medium saw in their mind? Or if the medium had drawn a picture of who they were seeing, would the
lady recognise her without any prior suggestion? Obviously, if she believed in the medium's abilities, she would believe that it was her relative is the same person as who the medium had seen. If she was sceptical, however, she wouldn't be convinced.
Hot reading
An example of a medium using
‘hot-reading’, which is the feeding-back of information, is described by stage
psychic, Billy Roberts, in his co-authored book, The Great Paranormal Clash, p. 85, in an instance in which he spent
the day with Doris Stokes in her hotel suite, just before one of her famous
mediumship demonstration shows. He describes that “…After Laurie had finished explaining
the running order of the show to me, he turned his attention to Doris. I was
somewhat shocked when he mentioned some of the names of the people who would be
in the audience, and even reminded her of the deceased people they would be
expecting to hear from. ‘Oh, I remember him,’ said Doris. ‘Paul Strachen is the
young man who wears his grandmother’s locket that has some of his own baby hair
in?’ ‘That’s right!’ smiled Laurie. ‘If you get stuck just call on him.’”
Roberts tells us that “…Laurie went on to
remind Doris of a woman whose brother had been shot and although the coroner
had given an open verdict, the whole family believed that he had been murdered
by his partner. ‘So if you have any problems whatsoever,’ he assured her,
‘these people will help you out, ok, Doll?’” Roberts was so shocked, he thought
he was hearing things. He couldn’t believe that Doris Stokes, in his words,
“…would resort to such things to make her show work.” He was even more shocked
when during the evening’s demonstration, “…I heard Doris call out, ‘Paul
Strachen! Is there someone called Paul Strachen in the audience?’” Roberts then
heard Doris “…repeat everything I had heard Laurie O’Leary say to her in the
hotel room during the day.” It makes you wonder, are any mediums genuine?
There comes a point when a medium has
generated so much popularity that they must resort to methods in order to
maintain that popularity – and, therefore, all the business they generate from
such a following. Not all mediums do resort to such things as stooges in the
audience, or checking through information of people who have booked themselves
a place at their demonstration. However, some are known to have done so.
In his book, Tricks of the Mind, stage magician and debunker, Derren Brown
recalls an instance involving another of Doris Stokes’s demonstrations, as told
to him by a woman he met who “…had recently lost her son in a drowning accident,
and the local papers had reported the tragedy.” And who should we meet around
the corner, but our friend, Doris Stokes. Yes, for as Derren Brown tells us, “…
around the same time, Stokes was coming to town, and her press office was
preparing the way for her. The woman got a call from Stokes’s people, who had
presumably come across the story, saying that the famous medium was aware of
her loss and had a message for her from her son; they would like to provide her
with a complimentary seat at the event so that Doris could pass it on.” It came
out later that Doris Stokes’s team would, according to Brown, “…go through
local papers…” for such stories as that above, or “…rely on information … from
the huge numbers of desperate letters from bereaved people anticipating her
arrival in their home town.”
It is very, very easy for a medium to cheat during one of public mediumship demonstrations. If someone want to see 'real' mediumship, they should join a development circle, not go to a demonstration. I once picked up a biography of Doris Stokes some years ago, but it wasn't what I'd expected at all. I got rid of it soon after starting to read it. What makes more interesting reading are books authored by contemporary mediums, many of whom have starred on paranormal television shows.
So, is it small wonder that only a minority of parapsychologists bother to experiment with mediums? Not all mediums work like how Stokes did above, although it is highly doubtful she was the only or last person to have worked using such deceit and trickery as in the above example. Not surprisingly, Parapsychology has found multiple sceptical explanations for the work of mediums, none of which states that the medium is indeed in contact with the dead, or that any aspect of the paranormal is involved in their work.
Are mediums fooling themselves and their victims by believing that they are in communication with the dead? If they are - and they are unaware of it - then they wouldn't know. As far as they are concerned, they do channel spirits, they are psychic, there is a spirit world, there is an afterlife...
Public demonstrations of mediumship
Spiritually speaking...
Experiments with mediumship
Implications of mediumship
Whilst some examples have been given already of public demonstrations of mediumship, it seems necessary to expand on this topic further. A public demonstration of mediumship is just that: a public demonstration of mediumship. With these events, ordinary members of the public can go along to see what is a demonstration of mediumship. A public demonstration of mediumship should be much the same as mediumship demonstrated at a mediumship development circle. Whilst the two have some similarities, they are quite different.
For one thing, it is easy to cheat or deceive the audience at the public demonstration. Who is in control of the event? The star of the show: the medium. The demonstration doesn't need to be genuine, as long as it is a good show. If the medium has studied mediumship, they hardly need to do the 'actual thing' (i.e. go into a meditative state and say what impressions come to their mind which might be auditory, visual or intuitive - those are the result of 'psychic abilities' which are supposed to be what 'genuine' mediums use). In fact, if the evidence provided by mediums is cold-reading, then the medium can create one without tuning into their 'psychic abilities', at the spur of the moment or use one previously created.
Secondly, mediumistic readings are always positive and uplifting. It's the most basic thing taught at the development circle. So that's the other thing to include: a positive, uplifting message. That can easily be created without tuning into 'psychic abilities'. A bit of flattery will make it more successful too, because it will help ensure the audience or the person it is aimed at will remember the demonstration in a positive, glowering light, ensuring, coincidentally, that they will come back to the medium's demonstrations again.
Thirdly, the reading doesn't need to be specific in order to convince people that the medium is in communication with spirits. The Barnum Effect will aid the medium, because they are keen to believe that the medium is in communication with their loved one, so there is always a chance that someone will believe that what the medium is saying is describing their loved one.
For one thing, it is easy to cheat or deceive the audience at the public demonstration. Who is in control of the event? The star of the show: the medium. The demonstration doesn't need to be genuine, as long as it is a good show. If the medium has studied mediumship, they hardly need to do the 'actual thing' (i.e. go into a meditative state and say what impressions come to their mind which might be auditory, visual or intuitive - those are the result of 'psychic abilities' which are supposed to be what 'genuine' mediums use). In fact, if the evidence provided by mediums is cold-reading, then the medium can create one without tuning into their 'psychic abilities', at the spur of the moment or use one previously created.
Secondly, mediumistic readings are always positive and uplifting. It's the most basic thing taught at the development circle. So that's the other thing to include: a positive, uplifting message. That can easily be created without tuning into 'psychic abilities'. A bit of flattery will make it more successful too, because it will help ensure the audience or the person it is aimed at will remember the demonstration in a positive, glowering light, ensuring, coincidentally, that they will come back to the medium's demonstrations again.
Thirdly, the reading doesn't need to be specific in order to convince people that the medium is in communication with spirits. The Barnum Effect will aid the medium, because they are keen to believe that the medium is in communication with their loved one, so there is always a chance that someone will believe that what the medium is saying is describing their loved one.
Providing 'proof' of the paranormal - a problem with privacy
If
mediums really could give specific, personal information from the
spirits they channel, well, fantastic! The problem is that of privacy.
How would Mrs Collins feel if the medium, Stacey Jones, picked up on her
great-granddad and gave evidence in the form of the precise address
he'd lived at, at a mediumship demonstration she went to? Because Mrs Collins is sceptical her great-granddad had
come through, Luke, her great-granddad was frustrated. Imagine what he
might have been thinking. So he didn't know when to stop. He gives the
medium the address of Mrs Collins as well as the names and surnames of
his family and, for good measure, the names and surnames of some of Mrs
Collins's relatives. How would she feel?
It would be unethical to disclose such personal information from
spirits about people in public. It may give more substantial 'evidence'
for people, but scientifically, there may be other explanations for how
the medium got the information in the first place. Also, mediums are
supposed to censor what they 'receive' from spirits, so Stacey Jones
should have known not to disclose the information - perhaps is private,
instead. But, logically, would that make a good reading? The real
'evidence' of the medium's abilities cannot be discussed in public for
privacy (and confidential) reasons? Surely it would be missing the best
bit! So even if the instance as illustrated in my example did occur, it:
- Would not be 'proof' that the medium is in communication with the dead, so therefore:
- The instance can still be explained sceptically.
- Would be too private, personal and would need to be and remain confidential
- Would be unethical for the medium to pick up/be given such information from spirits about people
- Wouldn't make good viewing if it did occur, because the information could not be disclosed in public
Would
it be practical if the medium gave more convincing evidence that he/she
was channelling from spirits? By this, would the medium's public
demonstrations of mediumship still be:
- Mysterious - The demonstration's style of disclosing little tid-bits of information that the medium got from the spirits would need to be maintained, so if the 'evidence' (personal information) was given, it would need to be given gradually, to keep the audience waiting expectantly and, well, wanting to find out more. However, mysterious instances would be lessened, because the medium is giving specific information which in my example is almost undeniable (not it reality, though!)
- Enthralling - In order to keep the audience enthralled, not everything the medium gives should be too specific, because the audience should be left more than once wondering what the medium will pick up on next. Also, they need to still be left wondering who the medium is picking up on and indeed what member of the audience the spirit belongs to, so therefore specific information given constantly or most of the time may not be so enthralling to listen to. Specific information would reduce how many 'cliffhangers' there are encountered.
- Exciting - Would it be considered 'exciting' to hear the medium giving so much specific information, knowing instantly what member of the audience the reading is for, etc. In fact, the medium is already privy to the information constantly, so this may show up unintentionally and make a duller demonstration.
- Entertaining ? From the above points, apply what's been discussed and see if you can answer this question yourself: If the medium gave loads of specific information, would it still be entertaining for the audience?
Spiritually speaking...
What if the medium is right? What if he or she IS channelling spirits? What if... what if clairvoyance IS getting random images in the mind (or in the head)? What if clairaudience is hearing one's own thoughts? What if... What if... it seems only logical to the psychic or medium that they are communicating with spirits because, well, a random thought, which sounds foreign, or does not sound like their own thought or 'inner voice' seems to be coming from, or associated with the image they're seeing in their mind that looks like a spirit (a ghostly dead person)?
But... how would the medium know that the 'voice' is not coming from their subconscious mind? How would they know whether it was originating from their subconscious mind, or received by their subconscious mind and acknowledged by their conscious mind? Even if they were in communication with a spirit, how would it be proven scientifically? How would a scientist test them, testing whether the voice came from an discarnate source? What if the medium or psychic is just deluded?
Philosophically speaking...
If spirits were to exist, what would they be? Would they be life force? Would they be consciousness? Would they be the psyche, the mind? If the spirit, or soul of a person was their mind it:
- Would mean that the mind is what live on after death
- Would point towards the possibility that what is termed the 'imagination' is actually the Spirit World
- Would explain why all spiritual practices work or function psychologically
- Would explain why mediumship and spiritual experiences are psychological and are subjective experiences - because their interpretation is up to the person's psychological state and understanding (belief)
- Would explain why experimenters who are believers in the tested phenomenon and those closed minded to it, find evidence with regard to psychics and mediums that confirms their belief or disbelief
- Would explain the division between sceptics and believers
- Would mean that it is pointless to find evidence that mediums do channel the deal, except to discover how it might function, but not conclusive evidence of their supposed ability
- Would mean that there is no difference between an incarnate mind (the medium's) and a discarnate mind (the spirit). Essentially, given that the mind retains its same consciousness after the death of the physical body, yet it was prior to death the same as anyone else's mind, it should behave and act the same way as a mind would in the physical body. Therefore, to distinguish that mind from the medium's mind should be theoretically impossible.
- If a genuine spirit did show a completely different character to the medium's, it could still be explained away as being another personality of the medium.
There are some interesting experiments conducted by parapsychologist, Gary E. Schwartz, in his book, The Sacred Promise. I will expand on that in due course.
Social conformity occurs in the mediumship circle. Please see 'informative social conformity' for more information.
Social conformity in the mediumship circle
Social conformity occurs in the mediumship circle. Please see 'informative social conformity' for more information.
What would the implications and applications of mediumship be, if it was proved that mediums channelled the dead? For a start, science would need a make-over. Most importantly, it would mean that there is an afterlife. It might cause people to believe that they can do what they like and not be punished for their actions. Spiritually speaking, however, souls do get 'punished' for their actions in the Spirit World, but not in the same manner spoken of in Christianity, in its concept of there being a Heaven for good folks and a Hell for bad folks. In spirituality, the soul discusses, after their last lifetime had finished and they have reached the Spirit World, what the lessons are they had learned whilst they were in the physical body and what things they still need to learn. According to his book, Life Between Lives, Michael Newton also found, during his regressions with clients, that the souls go through a sort of video of their life in fast-forward, with the aid of their spirit guides. Previously, I haven't come across that concept before, but it's nonetheless interesting.
The next implication is that people may be more inclined to go and see spirit mediums. Since it was 'scientifically proven' in my example, that mediums do channel the dead (in real life, remember it hasn't been) , then mediums will get more business with more people consulting them for their services. What would this lead to? Fraudsters will pop up in their thousands and people who genuinely want to contact their deceased relatives and friends may consult a fraud without realising. This will lead to people losing fast on money, lead to people who have been emotionally used - such people whose loss may have been taken advantage of. It might be seen as more desirable by some people to be a medium as a profession. It may also lead to people believing in more unusual, crazy or paranormal things. Having said all that, it may be a good thing for some, because they have been given 'proof' that Old Man Jimmy is still around "...and is keeping an eye on his sweetheart!"
Another problem...
This is definitely written somewhere else on this blog, but this concept will repeated again. The problem starts with Barnum Effect. Supposing that the SPIRIT as channelled (hypothetically) by the MEDIUM (please see Figure 1 opposite) was intending to contact PERSON A, but PERSON A was sceptical that Uncle Harvey had come through for them, so was not so easily convinced that the medium was channelling him, although his discription did seem to fit Harvey's, yet the description also suited one of PERSON B's relativies, (who was less sceptical), and so through the Barnum Effect, believed that the spirit described by the MEDIUM was describing one of their relatives, is it possible that the SPIRIT who had intended to contact PERSON A would actually be perceived to be the deceased relative of PERSON B's, so the message given by the SPIRIT intended for PERSON A is actually delivered instead to PERSON B? That is assuming that the medium was in contact with the spirit at all, of course.
Related: Psychology, Spirits, cognitive dissonance, ESP, PK, psychics, psychic abilities, meditation, cold reading, Parapsychology.
No comments:
Post a Comment