Society for Scientific Exploration News

Just a Thought: When Sun Signs Fall Short—Rethinking How We Test Astrology

James Houran — Tue, 09 Sep 2025 11:00:39 GMT

Astrology captivates millions, yet when it comes to rigorous testing, even the most intuitively appealing claims deserve a clear-eyed appraisal. A recent Clearer Thinking analysis¹ —involving 308 online volunteers, 12 sun-sign categories, and 37 life-outcome measures—reports essentially zero predictive power for sun-sign astrology. That headline is hard to argue with, but a closer look at their methods reveals opportunities for more balanced, informative studies.

Sampling and Scope. The study’s convenience sample of self-selected adults skews demographics and limits generalizability. Likewise, reducing astrology to sun-sign dummies overlooks richer natal-chart variables (planetary positions, aspects) that some practitioners argue carry most interpretive weight. A null result for one slice of astrology does not rule out subtle effects elsewhere.
Outcome Choices and Statistical Power Testing. 37 disparate outcomes—from income to mental health—dilutes focus and strains statistical power. Without a priori hypotheses linking specific birth-date features to particular life domains, many real but small effects could slip under the radar. A formal power analysis, or narrowing to theoretically grounded outcomes, would sharpen the inquiry.
Multiple Comparisons and Model Transparency. Running dozens of regressions without correcting for family-wise error inflates false-positive risk and undermines confidence in both hits and misses. The use of ridge regression is promising, but the study’s omission of tuning details and covariate controls (age, gender, seasonality) leaves open questions about under- or over-regularization.
Beyond Sun Signs: Toward Rigorous Astrology Research. A more balanced research agenda would preregister a limited set of outcomes, power studies to detect small effects, and include richer astrological variables. Controlling for demographic and temporal confounders—plus proper multiple-testing adjustments—would transform astrology’s examination from scattershot to scientifically robust.

Astrology tests will always provoke debate. By tightening sampling, clarifying hypotheses, and committing to transparent analytics, we can move beyond simple debunking toward research that genuinely probes whether—and under what conditions—astrology might offer any predictive insight. That kind of rigor serves both skeptics and curious seekers alike.

¹ Clearer Thinking Team (2024, Jan. 10). Can astrological sun signs (or zodiac signs) predict facts about people's lives? We tested it. https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/we-tested-the-predictive-power-of-astrology-here-are-the-results

Call for Applications: JSE Book Review Editor

James Houran — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 10:35:36 GMT

Call for applications:

Book & Multimedia Review Editor,

Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE)

JSE seeks a new editor for its “Book & Multimedia Reviews” section to begin 2026. This is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of the SSE. Since 1987, the JSE has published original research, conceptual works, and commentaries on topics of interest that cover a wide spectrum, ranging from apparent anomalies in well-established disciplines to rogue phenomena that seem to belong to no established discipline, as well as philosophical issues about the connections among disciplines.

This volunteer role identifies suitable books across various topics in frontier science, pairs these with qualified reviewers, and follows-up with the reviewers to ensure timely commentaries ready for publication. In exchange, the Book & Multimedia Reviews Editor has the opportunity for:

Enhanced Subject Expertise: you gain regular exposure to new and influential scholarly books deepens your understanding of emerging ideas, theories, and debates in your field.
Intellectual Networking: you build relationships with authors, publishers, and fellow academics, creating opportunities for collaboration, future projects, or invitations to scholarly events.
Contribution to Academic Discourse: you help to shape conversations in frontier science by curating reviews that amplify significant works and offer critical insights.
Editorial Skill Development: you work with reviewers to refine submissions hones your editorial judgment, writing precision, and ability to assess scholarly quality.

Desired Qualifications

Academic Background

· Graduate degree in a relevant field is preferred

· Experience with academic research and literature

Expertise in the Field

· Knowledge of JSE’s subject areas

· Ability to recognize important trends and contributions

Writing and Editorial Skills

· Experience writing academic reviews or articles

· Ability to help reviewers write clear and balanced reviews

Publishing Knowledge

· Understanding of citation and academic publishing norms and ethics

Professional Communication

· Able to build a network of contacts with publishers, authors, and reviewers

Organization and Time Management

· Able to manage correspondence across multiple reviews and meet deadlines

· Keeps editorial work on track and well-coordinated

Timeline

To start with the 2026 publishing year. Review of applications will begin this September 25^th and continue until the position is filled.

Applications

To apply, send a copy of your CV along with a letter of interest addressing your qualifications to:

Mark Urban-Lurain, Ph.D.

Secretary, Society for Scientific Exploration

secretary@scientificexploration.org

Journal of Parapsychology Conference Issue

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 06 Aug 2025 19:09:01 GMT

From John Kruth of the Rhine Research Center:

The Conference Issue for 2024 has been released for the Journal of Parapsychology. It includes the abstracts from the 2024 conferences of the Parapsychological Association, Society for Psychical Research, Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE Abstracts from 2024 are also available here), and International Remote Viewing Association. This is the second issue that provides a view of the work across the field, and we plan to continue this publication each year with your continued cooperation and interest.

This issue is open access and available on the Parapsychology Press website.

This issue is only offered in electronic format, and it is provided as a service to the field. I hope you enjoy the conference issue and find some interesting topics from those meetings you were not able to attend.

Purpose and Pathways: Bridging Science, Spirit, and the Self by Marsha Sims and David Lorimer

James Houran — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:51:18 GMT

Discovering a Life’s Purpose

By Marsha Sims

Have you ever asked yourself what your life’s purpose truly is? For many years, I pondered that question—especially because I’ve always had a multidisciplinary background and a passion for living fully across different realms: science, music, and spirituality. It was only recently, after appearing on David Lorimer’s podcast Imaginal Inspirations, that I arrived at a clear and deeply satisfying realization: my purpose is to bridge spirituality, science, and music.

One of the most pivotal phases in shaping this path was my decade (1991–2001) as Executive Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), while my husband, Bernard Haisch, served as Editor-in-Chief. This time immersed us in the writings of the leading minds in frontier science and consciousness research: Peter Sturrock, Russell Targ, Hal Puthoff, Dean Radin, Ian Stevenson, Bruce Greyson, Brenda Dunne and Bob Jahn, Rupert Sheldrake, and Jacques Vallée, among many others. These extraordinary thinkers deepened my curiosity and laid the foundation for what became a lifelong journey of intellectual and spiritual integration.

The JSE and the Society for Scientific Exploration provided a welcoming, open-minded environment for these bold conversations. My own orientation was forever shaped by the quote Bernie crafted during his tenure, which continues to guide our work today: “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”

As a husband-and-wife team for 38 years, Bernie and I have dedicated ourselves to this integrative exploration. Bernie, a PhD astrophysicist, authored The God Theory, The Purpose-Guided Universe, and Proof of God (with Ptolemy Tompkins). Together, we also composed over a hundred original songs and performed in community operettas. I hold a Master of Music, teach piano and voice, and continue to perform opera in the San Francisco Bay Area. Music, for me, is a sacred language that speaks to the soul and links us to something transcendent.

When Bernie’s Parkinson’s disease made it difficult for him to continue writing, I stepped in as co-author for what would become our final collaborative work, The Miracle of Our Universe: A New View of Consciousness, God, Science and Reality (2023). Bernie had gathered extensive notes over time, and I helped shape them into a coherent manuscript—while adding new ideas of my own. It was a profound act of love and shared vision.

In the book, we propose that our universe is a kind of virtual simulation, “thought into existence” by a universal Consciousness—what many would call God. Everything we perceive as physical is, in fact, consciousness in action. Through free will and interaction, this divine consciousness experiences and evolves itself.

Might there be a God and a heaven of some sort?

Are near-death experiences real?

What is the zero-point field?

Is there an afterlife—and what might it be like?

These are the questions we explore in our work and in conversations that continue to resonate through public dialogues. I’ve now appeared on 27 podcasts, including my inspiring interview with David Lorimer, who asked deeply reflective questions that helped crystallize my personal journey. That dialogue gave me space to articulate my deepest spiritual experiences—including a near-death experience, an awakening of the heart, and transcendent moments of group consciousness while singing and teaching music.

I invite you to listen to the conversation on Imaginal Inspirations and to explore our book and website:

The Miracle of Our Universe — [available via Amazon and major booksellers]: http://www.themiracleofouruniverse.com

Podcast episode:https://redcircle.com/shows/imaginal-inspirations/ep/139a5d2f-935c-4d2f-89ad-08484bf827ce

A Parallel Path of Purpose

By David Lorimer

It was a pleasure to host Marsha on Imaginal Inspirations. Her reflections reminded me of a complementary journey I’ve walked for decades, one also centered on meaning, awakening, and purpose.

For over ten years, I led a major educational initiative for youth, originally called Learning for Life and later Inspiring Purpose, reaching over 375,000 young people in the UK and beyond. The goal was to foster reflection on personal values and life purpose. This passion also informed my 2021 book, A Quest for Wisdom: Inspiring Purpose on the Path of Life—a collection of 25 essays on consciousness, ethics, and spiritual development.

My own life pivoted early. After graduating in languages and philosophy from St. Andrews and working in the City of London as a merchant banker, I pressed the “eject” button and devoted myself to education and inner inquiry. A year of reading and reflection led me to Cambridge and then to eight years of teaching, largely at Winchester College.

Since 1986, I’ve worked with the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN), where I serve as Program Director and Editor of Paradigm Explorer. The Network was founded in 1973 by visionary thinkers—many of whom had mystical experiences that convinced them of dimensions beyond materialism. Our mission remains clear: to affirm the spiritual essence of humanity as compatible with enlightened science. https://scientificandmedical.net

Our key initiative related to the science of consciousness is the "Galileo Commission," which I am Co-Chair with Prof Marjorie Woollacott – see https://galileocommission.org, where you can also sign up as a professional affiliate, joining over 600 fellow scientists and academics who are committed to:

“Expanding Minds, Connecting Hearts.”

Our goal, like that of the SSE and JSE, is to provide a platform for voices that stretch our understanding of life, death, and everything in between. In times of fragmentation and materialist dogma, we need these bridges—between spirit and science, tradition and innovation, intellect and heart.

Closing Reflection

As our lives unfold across different domains—whether through editorial work, music, teaching, or global dialogue—what we discover is this: the journey of purpose is also the journey of consciousness. To question answers is to keep that journey alive. We invite JSE readers to continue asking the deeper questions, and to trust that the search itself is part of the answer.

Invitation to the IAAC 2025 astronomy education program

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:47:54 GMT

We received this information from Stefan Amberg of the International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition that may be of interest to SSE members.

The International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition is an educational astronomy competition open to students from around the world. In three rounds, students use their problem-solving skills and expand their knowledge through diverse astronomy and astrophysics problems. Since its launch in 2019, IAAC has reached over 28,000 students and involved 1,400 educators from more than 120 countries.

This year's prizes include telescopes signed by the astronaut Frank De Winne and Nobel Prize laureates François Englert, Michel Mayor, Gerard 't Hooft and Didier Queloz.

The submission deadline for this year's Qualification Round is Friday, 4 July 2025. Resources such as problem sets, flyers, and posters can be accessed on our website: https://iaac.space. We'd greatly appreciate it if you could share this opportunity with interested students and educators to encourage participation.

If you have any questions or need additional information, reach out to us at outreach@iaac.space.

Best regards,
Stefan Amberg

__________________________________
Outreach Coordinator
E-Mail: outreach@iaac.space
Phone: +49-177-6762399 (Germany)
Address: Pstf 110105 / 69071 Heidelberg / DE

International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iaac.space/
Instagram: instagram.com/iaac.space
Website: www.iaac.spac

Demonic Possession: SSE's "Anomalies 101" Webinar

Wed, 04 Jun 2025 00:34:38 GMT

Exclusive SSE Live Event: July 16, 2025

Álex Escolà-Gascón, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Quantitative Methods and Statistics, Comillas,
Pontifical University, erected by the Holy See, Vatican City State

Join us for a captivating talk exploring the latest research on demonic (or diabolical) possession by an actual Vatican-affiliated scientist. This is a sinister topic where consciousness studies and cultural anthropology intersect with the unexplained. Are diabolical possessions real, or do they stem from altered brain states, deep-seated beliefs, or something beyond science?

Learn more and register

Just a Thought: The Need for Epistemic Precision in the Study of Anomalous Phenomena

James Houran — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 22:43:50 GMT

The evolving field of scientific exploration—and notably those areas dealing with anomalistics—demands precision in both data and discourse. Within the flood of new methodologies, cross-disciplinary inquiries, and speculative theories, a subtle but significant distinction often goes underexamined: the difference between evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis and evidence that provides support for it. This post urges our scholarly community to critically reflect on this distinction, for it holds implications not only for interpretation but also for how we communicate credibility, causality, and uncertainty.

To say that data are consistent with a hypothesis is to note that the findings do not contradict the hypothesis. However, this does not necessarily mean they support it. For example, if a participant in a near-death experience study reports seeing a light or encountering deceased relatives, such data may be consistent with the hypothesis of consciousness existing independently of the brain. But the same data could also be consistent with neurological or psychological models involving cortical disinhibition, memory recall, or cultural expectation. Thus, "consistency" often refers to a compatibility across multiple, competing interpretations.

In contrast, to assert that data constitute evidence for a hypothesis implies a higher standard: that the data increase the likelihood of the hypothesis being true relative to its alternatives. This evidentiary role requires not only compatibility but also differential diagnosticity—the capacity to rule out, or at least diminish the plausibility of, competing explanations. Without such discriminative power, "evidence for" becomes a rhetorical overreach, blurring the boundaries between speculation and substantiation.

Why does this matter? In domains where mainstream science remains skeptical—such as new physics, parapsychology, consciousness studies, energy healing, survival research, or ufology—credibility hinges not just on data collection, but on how claims are framed. Inflating the strength of a finding through careless language risks reinforcing the very marginalization such research seeks to overcome. If the scientific community perceives exploratory claims as overstated or epistemically lax, opportunities for serious engagement shrink accordingly.

Moreover, this distinction bears on peer review, funding, and replication efforts. Mischaracterizing consistent data as evidentiary can mislead subsequent investigators, misallocate scarce resources, and corrode the public's trust in scientific discourse. In an era of increasing scrutiny—both institutional and societal—we must strive for conceptual rigor alongside methodological innovation.

The call, then, is not for rhetorical self-censorship, but for epistemic humility. Acknowledging that data are consistent with a hypothesis is a meaningful contribution—especially in under-theorized or highly contentious areas. But we should resist the temptation to overstate what such data entail. Instead, we might emphasize the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, the narrowing of explanatory gaps, or the cumulative weight of anomalies as a plausibility enhancer, rather than as a proof.

Let us reaffirm the value of careful inference in frontier science. As researchers into the unknown, our responsibility is not merely to persuade, but to clarify the terms by which persuasive claims may one day be made.

May issue of the Explorer now available.

Mon, 19 May 2025 19:57:52 GMT

Get updates on all the SSE news.

Read Now

Just a Thought: The Vanishing Frontier—On Loss, Urgency, and the Time We Have Left

James Houran — Thu, 15 May 2025 17:33:22 GMT

In recent months, a quiet but profound shift has occurred in the landscape of frontier science. With the passing of personalities like Charles Tart, Bill Bengston, David Moncrief, Damien Broderick, and Steven J. Lynn, we have lost not just individuals, but entire intellectual ecosystems—constellations of inquiry, courage, and care that once helped illuminate the edges of what science dared to ask. Their deaths are more than personal or disciplinary losses; they are existential reminders of a truth both tender and terrifying... that our time to make a difference is not only finite but actively running out.

These were thinkers who stood not at the center of their fields, but defiantly at the edges—precisely where revolutions often begin. Charles Tart gave us a language for states of consciousness that science still struggles to measure. Bill Bengston, through both curiosity and controversy, chased the mystery of healing across experimental thresholds. David Moncrief, often behind the scenes, held together fragile interdisciplinary bridges. Damien Broderick fused science fiction and science fact, stretching the limits of epistemic imagination. And Steven J. Lynn brought rigorous empirical clarity to domains—hypnosis, dissociation, suggestion—that others dismissed or distorted.

To be a pioneer in these fields isn't just to research what's marginal; it's to live with marginalization. These men did so with remarkable persistence. They withstood ridicule, isolation, institutional indifference. And they did it not for prestige, but because they believed that somewhere, beneath the anomalies, the anecdotes, and the absurdities, something essential about the human condition was waiting to be understood. That commitment—to look deeper, ask harder, and stay longer in the discomfort of uncertainty—is the kind of intellectual courage we often forget to honor until it's too late.

Now it's too late for them...but not for us.

Their passing invites a reckoning, not only with grief, but with our own relationship to time, purpose, and proximity. We tend to imagine that the great projects of our lives—our collaborations, our writings, our paradigm shifts—will have room to grow at their own pace. We fool ourselves into believing there will always be another grant cycle, another conference, another long lunch with a mentor. And then, suddenly, the email arrives, or the news filters in through the grapevine, and we’re left with an unfinished draft, a list of unasked questions, or a heart still waiting to say "thank you."

The lesson isn't just that life is short, but that its most important opportunities are perishable. Ideas are a relational phenomenon; they need exchanges, counterpoints, and embodied presence to thrive. So too with our professional lives. How many times have we deferred a collaboration because we were “too busy”? How often have we stayed silent in a meeting, waiting for someone braver to speak first? How long have we waited to begin the project that we secretly hope will outlive us?

There's no more time for waiting. These passings remind us that the frontier isn't a place, it’s a people. And that frontier is vanishing, one wise and weathered voice at a time.

Let's not mourn them merely with tributes, but with action. Pick up the phone. Send the draft. Reach out to the colleague you admire but have never emailed. Finish the chapter you keep rewriting in your mind. Begin the experiment you’re afraid won’t work. Say what you really mean in your next article. Ask questions that scare you. Push back when it matters. Mentor someone who doesn’t remind you of yourself. Recommit to your highest curiosity, even when it's unfashionable, even when it seems futile.

Above all, cherish the people doing this work with you—those still breathing, still wondering, still struggling to find language for the unspeakable. None of us are guaranteed a long arc. But we can choose, now, to bend the arc we have toward meaning.

There's still a frontier. But it's smaller than we thought. And our names are already being whispered across it.

In Memory of Bill Bengston

Mark Urban-Lurain — Tue, 06 May 2025 00:07:41 GMT

William (Bill) F. Bengston, SSE’s President from 2010 until 2022, passed away peacefully at his home on April 16, 2025, at the age of 75 surrounded by family. He is survived by his wife Margaret, his two children Brian & Elizabeth along with their spouses, four grandchildren, as well as his brother and sister.

Bill was a man of immense humor, curiosity and intelligence who loved his family dearly. He was a professor of statistics and research methods at St. Joseph’s University for 40 years, a researcher, and an author. He had so many passions — he loved music, he loved to play tennis and table tennis, he swam competitively, he loved to sail, and he dedicated a lot of time to his community as a library and school board member.

His healing research produced the first successful full cures of transplanted mammary cancer and methylcholantrene- induced sarcomas in experimental mice with the hands-on technique that he helped develop. Mice that had successful full cures also had no recurrences of the same cancer. His research continued over forty plus years, and he has numerous peer reviewed academic publications. His memoir, The Energy Cure, is published by Sounds True Publishers. He has also lectured widely in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

Bill also investigated assorted correlates to healing such as EEG and fMRI entrainment, and geomagnetic micropulsation anomalies in healing space. His current work involved the attempt to reverse engineer healing and reproduce healing without the healer, and to develop therapies that can be scaled.

Bill’s impact went beyond his healing research as a mentor and inspiration to many members of SSE and beyond. Some members of the SSE Council share their thoughts on Bill’s impact.

Bill was such an important figure within SSE; his early studies on healing were a landmark and encouraged me to carry on my own research into healing, and I do hope his ideas will find successors among the younger generation.

-- Harald Walach

What a loss! Bill was always a positive spirit, and optimistic in his whimsical way. It’s a sad irony that he passed away having healed so many others from similar conditions.

Years ago, I suspected that Bill would be an excellent SSE president and asked him to serve as the program chair for an annual SSE meeting in a ploy to launch him into SSE leadership. He took the bait, became program chair and then succeeded me as SSE president, serving for multiple terms. In our often-chaotic organization, he was always the voice of reason, cajoling the organization over endless hurdles with wit and charm. I always enjoyed our many phone conversations working through ways to improve the organization and appreciated Margaret’s warm support along the way.

The SSE will always be my home, but for me, without Bill it will always feel a little empty. We will all miss him.

-- Garret Moddel

Of the 25 healers I have worked with in experiments, Bill was extraordinary in his ability to alter reality - with love and abundance as his guide – always wanting to heal all the mice, both control and experimental groups, no matter if it messed up the experiment! While trying to measure infrasound during one of his healings, he placed his hands on my shoulders, and I felt a distinct “love” vibration. It did not produce any sound, but it remains a scientific challenge for us to detect the energy of healers like Bill.

-- Margaret Moga

Witty, relatable, and one of the best science communicators I've seen. He was an inspiration as an accomplished researcher, practitioner, and consummate facilitator and collaborator. His many years of dedicated service to the field more broadly, especially via the SSE, was instrumental in paving the way for junior researchers such as myself.

He will be very sorely missed.

-- Damon Abraham

Three things profoundly altered my understanding and view of the world and life itself. The first was a book; AFTERWARDS YOU’RE A GENIUS by Chip Brown, who used a quote by SSE member Dean Radin as its title; the second was a society, the SSE of course, which I discovered indirectly as a result of having read the book and the third was one man, Bill Bengston, with whom I became acquainted at my second SSE meeting at La Jolla in 2001.

Unlike some other attendees, I was convinced immediately that Bill and his discoveries were the real deal and that he was genuinely on to something – something real that he could describe and replicate - but also something that himself did not really understand. Bill’s sense of humor and iconoclastic delivery style that day, interjected his special levity, making his presentation that much more compelling. The levity which was Bill’s hallmark made open-minded discussions and debate easy, entertaining and delightful.

It seems very strange to think of or refer to Bill in the past tense, because whenever I think of him or his ideas or my memories of him or numerous conversations I had with him, they still seem very clear and fresh, something I cannot imagine ever changing. So, to Bill to “The Mouse Healer” to a friend and kindred spirit I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to you and for your role in helping me and surely many others discover our own paths and truths in medicine, science and life. Your efforts are remembered and will not be forgotten.

Thank you, Bill!

-- Carl G. Medwedeff

In lieu of sending flowers, the family asks you to please consider donating to the Society for Scientific Exploration https://scientificexploration.org/Donate

Just a Thought: Duper's Delight and the Assessment of Paranormal Witness Testimony

James Houran — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:58:24 GMT

The phenomenon of “duper's delight” refers to the subtle pleasure individuals experience when successfully deceiving others. This concept, first described by Ekman (1985/2009), manifests through fleeting micro-expressions, involuntary smirks, or nonverbal cues that reveal an underlying sense of triumph in deception. Understanding this psychological behavior is particularly valuable for researchers assessing the sincerity of individuals claiming to have experienced paranormal or anomalous events. By identifying signs of duper’s delight, field investigators can better determine the credibility of witness testimonies and thus differentiate between genuine experiences and intentional fabrications.

Understanding Duper's Delight

Duper's delight arises from the cognitive dissonance between the deception being attempted and the successful evasion of detection. According to Vrij (2008), deceivers may exhibit micro-expressions that last only fractions of a second, making them difficult to detect without careful observation. These involuntary cues often surface due to the emotional reward that deception provides, creating a challenge for researchers who rely on self-reported experiences of the paranormal.

In the context of anomalous experiences, witnesses may either consciously fabricate their encounters or unconsciously embellish details due to psychological influences such as expectation bias or social reinforcement. Some individuals may enjoy the attention and validation that come with extraordinary claims, making them more prone to deceptive behavior. Therefore, researchers must employ critical evaluation techniques, including the analysis of micro-expressions, inconsistencies in narratives, and behavioral anomalies, to distinguish between authentic and deceptive accounts.

Applying Duper’s Delight to Anomalistics Research

To assess the sincerity of paranormal witnesses, researchers should consider a range of both verbal and nonverbal indicators. The key signs of duper’s delight include:

Involuntary Smirking – A subtle, fleeting smile that appears incongruent with the emotional tone of the story.
Micro-expressions of Glee – Brief expressions of amusement or excitement at inappropriate moments.
Inconsistent Body Language – Fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, or excessive blinking, indicating cognitive strain.
Over-Elaborate Details – Providing excessive, unnecessary details to make a story seem more convincing.
Evasive Responses – Avoiding direct answers when questioned about specifics.
Changes in Vocal Tone – Shifts in pitch or speech patterns, particularly when challenged.

By incorporating careful monitoring for these indicators into their methodology, researchers can increase the accuracy of their assessments, ensuring that their studies remain grounded in credible testimony rather than blatant deceit.

Conclusion

Duper’s delight is a crucial concept in assessing the sincerity of reports about anomalous experiences. By recognizing subtle cues of deception, researchers can enhance the integrity of their investigations and contribute to a more rigorous understanding of the paranormal. As methodologies in frontier science continue to evolve, incorporating psychological insights into witness evaluation will remain essential for distinguishing sincerely reported experiences from deliberately fabricated accounts.

References

Ekman, P. (1985/2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W.W. Norton & Company.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

#Breakdowns - Poltergeists!

James Houran — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 17:14:42 GMT

“Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”

Our next episode involves the SSE commentators discussing Eric Dullin’s 2024 article in JSE (“A Detailed Phenomenology of Poltergeist Events:" https://doi.org/10.31275/20243263), which examines the feature patterns of anomalies reported in poltergeist-like disturbances.

This discussion breaks-down Dullin's detailed analysis and classifications into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain professional parapsychologists and amateur paranormal investigators alike!

Listen now!

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Just a Thought: Researchers Must Engage Beyond the Lab!

James Houran — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:14:07 GMT

Academia is often portrayed as an "ivory tower" or intellectual fortress—rigorous, isolated, and relentlessly focused on discovery. Yet, researchers and academics thrive not only on data and publications but also social interaction. Socializing is not a distraction; it’s an essential component of intellectual vitality, career development, and mental well-being (O’Meara et al., 2008).

Indeed, scientific innovation doesn’t often occur in isolation. The informal exchange of ideas over coffee or at conferences fosters creativity and interdisciplinary breakthroughs (Collins, 2011). In fact, some of the most transformative insights in history have emerged from casual conversations rather than structured meetings (Latour & Woolgar, 1979/1986). For instance, the double-helix structure of DNA was conceived after informal discussions between James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory tearoom (Watson, 1968). Similarly, the foundational ideas behind game theory took shape during conversations between John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern at Princeton in the 1940s (Leonard, 2010). More recently, the concept of the World Wide Web was sparked through casual exchanges between Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (aka CERN) (Berners-Lee, 2000). These examples highlight the indispensable role of informal dialogue in advancing scientific thought.

Networking, as exemplified by the above examples, can obviously enhance collaboration opportunities, providing access to funding, co-authorships, and career advancements (Granovetter, 1973). But beyond these professional benefits, socialization is crucial for researchers’ mental health. The pressure of academic life—publish-or-perish, grant applications, and administrative duties—can be isolating and stressful. Meaningful social interactions can help to provide emotional support, build resilience, and prevent burnout (Levecque et al., 2017). Graduate students and early-career researchers particularly benefit from mentorship and peer networks that help to navigate the complexities and overt drama of academia. Institutions must therefore recognize and encourage social engagement as part of academic culture. From structured networking events to informal gatherings, fostering collegiality strengthens the research community and accelerates progress.

For researchers, the message is clear—Step out of the lab, engage with peers, and embrace the power of connection. Science advances not just through rigorous inquiry, but through the vibrant, dynamic relationships that sustain it. SSE membership is one way to gain valuable connections, so join today (if you haven’t already) and start faithfully attending SSE’s new quarterly webinars and ongoing annual conferences. We’d love to see you!

References

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. Harper San Francisco.

Collins, H. M. (2011). Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. University of Chicago Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.

Leonard, R. (2010). Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the creation of game theory: From chess to social science, 1900–1960. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778278

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., Beuckelaer, A. D., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46, 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. Jossey-Bass.

Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Scribner. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3035117

Tune in for SSE’s New Series… “#Breakdowns”

James Houran — Fri, 07 Feb 2025 20:04:19 GMT

This 2025 project is all about chats that provide “Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”

These "breakdowns" will be fun and accessible to lay audiences. Hear our slate of science commentators discuss the peer-reviewed research and thought leadership published in JSE.

The first episode involves our commentators discussing Michael Sudduth’s 2024 treatise in JSE (“The Augustine-Braude Bigelow Survival Debate: A Postmortem and Prospects for Future Directions”: https://doi.org/10.31275/20243309), which examines evidence and reasoning related to research on postmortem survival of consciousness.

This discussion breaks-down Sudduth’s detailed and technical analysis into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain and educate anyone intrigued by the idea of “life after death.”

Listen now!

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Just a Thought: Pondering the Rise of Science Commentators and Influencers

James Houran — Sun, 26 Jan 2025 18:49:49 GMT

Most frontier and mainstream scientists embrace the premise and practice of “citizen science”—the type of research that involves the public in scientific discovery (see e.g., Finger et al., 2023). It’s a way for motivated people to contribute to scientific knowledge by collecting and sometimes analyzing data, thereby partnering with scientists to answer real-world questions. SSE’s own Journal of Scientific Exploration even has a subsection devoted to “Student and Citizen Science Research,” see e.g.: Ramesh Thadani’s (2023) “The Jersey Devil: Examining a Phenomenon Obscured by Myth (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232859) or David Schumaker et al.’s (2023) “Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Profile and Baselines at a Non-Haunted Control Location” (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232725).

But over recent years we have observed the rise of so-called “influencers” throughout society—including their overt participation (invited or not) in scientific discourse. Two major types of actors in this context are “Mobile Journalists” and “Citizen Skeptics.” Mobile journalists, or “mojos,” are professional or freelance reporters who use portable devices like smartphones, tablets, or lightweight cameras to gather, edit, and share news stories. They can work from almost anywhere, covering events in real-time and often publishing directly to online platforms or social media. This approach makes journalism faster, more flexible, and accessible, especially in breaking news situations.

Similarly, the concept of citizen skeptics has emerged in today’s interconnected world as a significant force in public discourse. These are individuals or groups who actively question, investigate, or challenge established claims, particularly those made by authorities, experts, or institutions. Mojos and citizen skeptics more broadly, operate at the intersection of empowerment, accountability, and public participation—leveraging modern tools to scrutinize information and advocate for evidence-based transparency. This all has become more pertinent given many social media platforms stopping the practice of “fact-checking"— which legally equates to mere counter-opinions endorsed by that platform's owners or managers.

Citizen skeptics and citizen scientists both represent grassroots engagement with knowledge and inquiry, but they differ in focus and approach. Citizen scientists actively participate in scientific research, collaborating with professional scientists to collect data, analyze findings, and contribute to scientific knowledge. Their efforts are typically aligned with established methodologies and aim to expand understanding within scientific frameworks.

In contrast, citizen skeptics typically focus on questioning, critiquing, and evaluating existing claims, often challenging institutional authority or alleged misinformation. While citizen scientists tend to work within the system to generate knowledge, citizen skeptics often scrutinize the system itself, advocating for accountability and transparency. Despite these differences, both roles rely on public access to information and emphasize the value of informed, active participation, underscoring the evolving relationship between expertise and public engagement in the digital age.

Empowerment Through Access to Information

The digital age has democratized access to information, enabling ordinary citizens to engage critically with complex issues. Online platforms, public records, and scientific data offer unprecedented opportunities for non-experts to examine claims and construct counter-narratives. As Brossard and Scheufele (2013) pointed out, this accessibility empowers the public to participate in scientific and policy discussions, breaking down barriers that traditionally limited such engagement to experts.

Focus on Accountability and Transparency

Citizen skeptics often emphasize the need for greater transparency and accountability within public and private institutions. By exposing perceived inconsistencies, conflicts of interest, or potential corruption, they aim to uphold ethical standards and restore trust in governance. As Callahan (2017) noted, this pursuit of accountability can serve as a check on power and privilege, promoting fairness in societal decision-making.

Community Collaboration

Collaboration plays a vital role in the efforts of citizen skeptics. Online communities and grassroots organizations serve as hubs for sharing resources, analyzing evidence, and amplifying critiques. Social media, in particular, has become a powerful tool for mobilizing collective skepticism, allowing voices to resonate far beyond traditional platforms (Hargittai & Shaw, 2013).

Critiques of Expertise and Authority

Citizen skeptics challenge the notion of unassailable expertise, often questioning the biases or errors inherent in expert judgment. While this approach can promote critical thinking and scientific literacy, it also carries risks. Lewandowsky et al. (2017) warned that skepticism, if not grounded in credible evidence, can lead to the spread of misinformation or the proliferation of conspiracy theories.

Benefits and Risks

The role of citizen skeptics in society is both impactful and complex. On the positive side, they can uncover errors, hold powerful entities accountable, and foster a more informed and engaged public (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). However, without a strong foundation in critical thinking or reliable sources, their efforts may unintentionally contribute to the spread of pseudoscience, divisive narratives, or misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2017).

Supporting and Guiding the Cause

Citizen skeptics and mojos exemplify the potential for active public participation in the pursuit of truth and accountability. By questioning established norms and leveraging modern tools, they can contribute to a more participatory democratic society. However, the effectiveness of their efforts depends on their ability to approach skepticism with rigor, integrity, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. Frontier scientists should strive to be effective mentors in this regard. Indeed, at its worse, citizen skeptics might foster nothing more than “white noise” that irresponsibly erodes the public’s trust in science. But at its best, citizen skeptics can perform the valuable exercise of producing constructive free speech composed of cogent commentary informed by critical thinking about data and its implication.

References

Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

Callahan, D. (2017). The givers: Wealth, power, and philanthropy in a new gilded age. Knopf.

Finger, L., van den Bogaert, V., Schmidt, L., Fleischer, J., Stadtler, M., Sommer, K., & Wirth, J. (2023). The science of citizen science: A systematic literature review on educational and scientific outcomes. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1226529. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1226529

Hargittai, E., & Shaw, A. (2013). Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of social media in civic participation. Daedalus, 142, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00218

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the "post-truth" era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

January 2025 Explorer now available

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:37:04 GMT

Read about January's Maverick Milestones, see the announcement of our new quarterly webinar series, including information about the Remote Viewing Unlocked! A “Try It Yourself!” Workshop coming March 19, and the Member Spotlight interview with Daching Piao.

Read the Full Newsletter

Just a Thought: You Can Only Lose if You’re Playing to ‘Win’

James Houran — Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:33 GMT

In today’s hyper-polarized political and intellectual landscapes, the idea of ‘winning’ dominates debates, discussions, and even research. This pursuit of victory often overshadows the true purpose of inquiry—the search for legitimate knowledge. When positions are framed solely as pro or con, individuals risk oversimplifying complex issues and undermining the collaborative process necessary for genuine understanding. This sort of dichotomous thinking is flawed, whereas a genuine a shift toward truth-seeking can transform discourse.

The Fallacy of Binary Thinking in Research

Binary thinking, where debates are framed as a contest between opposing sides, reduces nuanced issues to oversimplified arguments. For instance, in discussions and published papers on sensitive topics like anthropomorphic climate change and receptivity to ‘misinformation or conspiratorial thinking,’ the focus often shifts to proving the ‘deniers’ wrong rather than collaboratively addressing important uncertainties or exploring innovative solutions (Oreskes, 2018). This adversarial approach fosters confirmation bias, where individuals prioritize evidence supporting their position while ignoring contradictory data (Nickerson, 1998).

When researchers or debaters aim to ‘win,’ they may prioritize persuasive rhetoric over intellectual rigor. This mindset can lead to cherry-picking evidence or manipulating interpretations to fit a narrative, a phenomenon seen in controversial fields like nutrition science or political economics (Ioannidis, 2005). By contrast, framing debates as opportunities to refine collective understanding allows for more productive and ethical inquiry.

The Philosophy of Truth-Seeking

Truth-seeking, as opposed to ‘winning,’ requires humility and open-mindedness. Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability underscores the importance of actively seeking to disprove one’s hypotheses rather than defending them at all costs (Popper, 2002). This approach aligns with the scientific process, which traditionally values iterative refinement over definitive conclusions.

Moreover, truth-seeking emphasizes the process over the outcome. In fields like medicine, for example, randomized controlled trials are designed not to confirm a predetermined hypothesis but to rigorously test it, regardless of whether the results align with researchers' expectations (Straus et al., 2018). By prioritizing truth over victory, researchers contribute to cumulative knowledge that benefits society, as well as the scientific enterprise.

The Psychological Pitfalls of Playing to Win

Psychologically, the drive to ‘win’ fosters adversarial mindsets, eroding trust and cooperation. Studies in conflict resolution suggest that framing disagreements as zero-sum games exacerbates polarization and reduces the likelihood of consensus (Fisher et al., 1991). In contrast, adopting a collaborative mindset encourages empathy and the exploration of shared goals, fostering environments where truth is more likely to emerge. Whether or not disparate communities inside and outside of frontier science fields will ever forge powerful alliances in the shared pursuit for knowledge remains to be seen (see e.g., Houran, 2022; Houran & Schofield, 2023).

Toward a Culture of Collaborative Inquiry

Creating a social and intellectual culture that values truth over victory requires systemic changes. For instance, educational systems must prioritize critical thinking and intellectual humility over rote memorization and competition (Paul & Elder, 2021); media platforms should reward balanced, evidence-based reporting rather than sensationalist headlines that push government propaganda or cater to ideological echo chambers, and academia needs to balance incentives for publishing ground-breaking results with rewards for replicability and methodological rigor.

The Bottom Line

You can only lose if you’re playing to win—this adage reminds us that the pursuit of victory, rather than truth, is a misguided and even counterproductive endeavor in intellectual and societal discourse. By moving beyond combative or tribal mindsets and instead embracing the complexity of truth-seeking, individuals and institutions can foster deeper understanding, greater collaboration, and more meaningful progress. The pursuit of truth is not a competition, but a shared responsibility and journey—one that we must embark on together in good faith and a sense of adventure.

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin.

Houran, J. (2022). Editorial: An introduction and mission of building bridges to reach the unknown . Journal of Scientific Exploration, 36, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.31275/20222439

Houran, J., & Schofield, M. (2023). Championing “exchange and cooperation” efforts in frontier science: Epilogue to the Special Issue. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37, 776–786. https://doi.org/10.31275/20233207

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), Article e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Oreskes, N. (2018). Why trust science? Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvfjczxx

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2021). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (4^th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery (2^nd ed.) Routledge.

Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2018). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (5^th ed.). Elsevier.

JSE’s 2024 Winter Issue Online Now

James Houran — Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:33:04 GMT

Holiday parties can’t stop frontier science! Enjoy the latest issue with its varied array of topics:

Jeff Mishlove’s Guest Editorial about a new parapsychology education program.
New findings on scopaesthesia (the sense of being stared at), reincarnation-type phenomena, and random event generator (REG) effects at Egyptian sacred sites
Thought leadership on biological and spacetime correlates of higher states of consciousness, plasma ball phenomena
Book reviews about UAPs and government programs, remote viewing, and freedom of speech
And Bill Bengston’s special obituary for SSE Founder Peter A. Sturrock

Read the issue:

https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/current

Call for Peer Reviewers – Join the JSE Community!

James Houran — Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:40:46 GMT

We eagerly invite scholars and researchers to support SSE’s Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) as peer reviewers. Contribute your expertise to support rigorous research, advance knowledge in frontier science, help to shape impactful scholarship.

What We’re Looking For:

A passion for high-quality research and academic integrity.
Expertise in your field, with experience in research and publication.
Commitment to providing constructive, balanced feedback.

Your Benefits:

Expand your academic network.
Enhance your reviewing skills and stay updated on the latest research.
Receive recognition for your contributions.

To join our esteemed team of reviewers, please send the JSE’s Editor-in-Chief your areas of interest and expertise today at: editor@scientificexploration.org

Peter Andrew Sturrock 1924-2024

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:37:01 GMT

by William Bengston

Peter Sturrock, founding President of the SSE, passed away peacefully in his home, surrounded by his friends and family, on August 12, 2024, at the age of 100. Peter was a leader among those rare scientists who made major contributions in both conventional and non-conventional science. On the conventional side, Sturrock was known worldwide for his profound contributions to the fields of astrophysics, plasma physics, and solar research. He continued that work until the very end of his life as a distinguished physicist and emeritus professor at Stanford University.

On the less conventional side, Peter, along with peers such as the late Bob Jahn, was among the visionary founders of the SSE. In 1981 they called for a new, generalist society that could function as a magnet for scientists and researchers doing rigorous scholarly work in areas we now label as anomalous. These early founders pushed back against the balkanization of knowledge acquisition which prohibited scholars from veering too far from orthodoxy. Peter and the founders recognized that without a means to network and share ideas, little progress could be made in areas shunned by traditional fields. And so the Society for Scientific Exploration was born to sponsor regular conferences, and the Journal of Scientific Exploration was soon after founded as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

We wouldn’t be here without Peter.

A simple recitation of his many accomplishments, however impressive, doesn’t grasp the profound influence he had on generations of scholars, both conventional and not so conventional. Some personal anecdotes: I first met Peter in 1999 while attending my first SSE conference. After giving a presentation to the group of luminaries assembled, and having no history with them, I was somewhat uncertain what to expect. Soon after I finished, both Peter (and Bob Jahn) approached me with nothing but encouragement and inquired what they could do to help.

That offer never wavered over the quarter century I knew Peter. When I’d be in California we’d try to meet at a restaurant, or at his home in Palo Alto. Sometimes he’d already assembled a group of people who were interested in providing various types of support for me. I would find myself, with his encouragement, giving a spontaneous presentation of some recent work. He obviously took pleasure in being a magnet for scholarly discussions.

When we were at an SSE conference in the US or Europe, we’d try to spend some time in private conversation, catching up with whatever we were working on. I’d be interested in his recent thoughts on UAPs, or the Shakespeare authorship question, or his conventional research on dark matter or neutrinos or whatever. While excited about his ongoing research, he was equally interested in whatever I was working on.

Abstracts of Presentations - 2024 SSE Annual Conference

James Houran — Sat, 05 Oct 2024 12:39:24 GMT

We are pleased to share the abstracts of all the presentations from our recent conference (online event) with SSE's membership. Please see the "Members Only" section of the website.

Thanks to John Kruth (Editor-in-Chief), the Journal of Parapsychology (JP) will publish these abstracts in JP's forthcoming "conference issue."

SSE Conference Sept 27-29: Our Youngest Presenters at this Year’s Conference

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 13:25:27 GMT

Two of our featured presentations at the upcoming 2024 conference.

See the full conference schedule. Don't miss out,register today!

After-Death Communication with Cell Phones: Investigating Their Nature and Relationship with Psychological Measures

Elena Padilla, a student of Dr. Imants Baruss, and 2024 graduate from King’s University College.

Ms. Padilla investigated After-Death Communications (ADC) with cell phones and examined their relationship with psychological well-being factors. Survey advertisements were shared with groups including the Forever Family Foundation and Instrumental Trans-communication Collective. Results revealed that 56 out of 118 participants reported experiencing an ADC with a cell phone. Participants scored higher than norms on personal growth and openness/intellect measures. Participants regarded their ADC experiences as real and meaningful connections with the deceased.

According to Elena, she has, “developed an interest in end-of-life care and a passion for helping others through their grief journey”. Kudos Elena for an interesting study and best wishes in your future career!

Psychic Hacking: Using Remote Viewing to Steal Computer Data

Scotch Wichmann, cybersecurity expert at Meta, with an M.S. in Cybersecurity from the University of Maryland. He is also a paranormal researcher with a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Parapsychology from the University of Sedona.

Declassified documents from the U.S. Government’s Stargate project show that Remote Viewers can accurately describe foreign military installations, missile silos, lost aircraft, planetary features not yet discovered by NASA, and locations of people from thousands of miles away. One question went unanswered, however: could Remote Viewing also be used to steal data from supposedly secure computers? In this talk, I'll present exploratory experiment results demonstrating that "psychic hacking" is possible. Following established Stargate research protocols described by Puthoff, Targ, and others, I led a double-blind experiment hosted on the Internet over a 2-week period that allowed participants to try using their psychic powers to describe picture, video, ATM PIN, and passphrase targets stored on laptop computers located in Los Angeles. 146 remote participants from 10 countries generated 584 experiment rounds. Successful participants bypassed security defenses to describe many unique details about the targets from miles away. Statistically significant results (alpha=0.05) were observed for picture rounds (p=0.000597, ES=1.075) and video rounds (p=0.000911, ES=1.131). ATM PIN results were significant for 3 digits in any order (p=4.118×10^-6, ES=0.788) and 2 digits in any order (p=7.84×10^-6, ES=0.763). The experiment's security implications are far-reaching, since physical distance, attenuating structures, visual shielding, network air gaps, data obfuscation, strict file permissions, and password protection failed to prevent data theft.

When Scotch is not working to protect the data of 4 billion users in cloud and AI environments at Meta, he is doing cutting edge research, exploring the intersection between clairvoyance and data privacy, and the potential for cybercriminals with psychic abilities. Welcome Scotch – we are thrilled to have you with us!

SSE Conference Sept 27-29: Meet some of our featured presenters

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 13:15:05 GMT

Two of our featured presentations at the upcoming 2024 conference.

See the full conference schedule. Don't miss out, register today!

Reports of Non-Physical Beings Assisting in Reiki Sessions

Helane Wahbeh, PhD, Director of Research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Neurology at Oregon Health & Science University.

Across diverse cultures, the belief in non-physical beings plays crucial roles in both illness and healing. In a previous study, participants reported the presence of non-physical beings during energy medicine sessions. To evaluate the perceived presence and characteristics of non-physical beings, six seers observed 40 Reiki sessions, and quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the seers, participants, and Reiki practitioners. All sessions had reports of apparent non-physical beings, including angels, spirit guides, and possession/spirit attachments. The reported entities mainly aided the healing process, but some were also linked to pathology. The findings highlight the potential importance of ostensible non-physical entities in Reiki, warranting further investigation.

Dr. Wahbeh is best known for her book and research on the Science of Channeling. As part of that research, she has, “come out of the channeling closet” about her own and her family’s channeling experiences, breaking barriers to the discussion of trance channeling and the science to study these exceptional abilities. Bravo Helane!

Paranormal Folklore in Western Georgia: A Critical Narrative Analysis of Apparitions

Jacob W. Glazier, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of West Georgia, and Lead Editor of the tri-yearly publication Mindfield: The Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association.

This study employs Critical Narrative Analysis (CNA) to examine local ghost stories through the lens of folklore studies, situating these narratives within a broader cultural and academic context. The methodological approach involves analyzing the interplay between individual narratives and dominant societal discourses. We collected, using an anonymous Qualtrics survey, ten accounts from individuals in the Western Georgia area. The analysis revealed four primary discourses: (1) psychological misperception, (2) scientism, (3) privileged access to subjectivity, and (4) prototypical paranormal explanations. These were countered by the participants in five significant ways: (1) the extension of consciousness across space and time, (2) lucid perceptual experience, (3) the presence of anomalous phenomena, (4) adjudication to story and hearsay, and (5) consensual or repeated verification. These counter-discourses challenge mainstream understandings of reality and push back against normative accounts while highlighting the critical potential of folklore. Our research suggests that many people have exceptional experiences (ExEs), which then become assimilated into their prevailing cultural understanding of the world.

Dr. Glazier is Editor of the recent book, Paranormal Ruptures, which takes a critical approach to exceptional experiences, realizing that if some of these exceptional experiences are true, both experiencers and Society will need to adjust core understanding of our Reality.

JSE Coming Attraction: A Major Treatise on Postmortem Survival

James Houran — Sat, 24 Aug 2024 01:14:33 GMT

The Augustine-Braude Bigelow Survival Debate: A Postmortem and Prospects for Future Directions (in press)

We are excited to announce that Dr. Michael Sudduth―noted philosopher and expert on theories of evidence and the justification of belief (including general and legal epistemology)―spent more than a year preparing an extensive analysis that will soon appear in JSE’s 2024 fall issue. He meticulously studied the published exchange between skeptic Keith Augustine and sympathetic researchers Stephen Braude, Imants Barušs, Arnaud Delorme, Dean Radin, and Helané Wahbeh on the merits and meanings of the evidence presented by winning entries in the 2021 BICS essay contest on the survival hypothesis (see: JSE’s 2022 fall issue).

Sudduth's aim was not to declare a winner to that spirited debate but instead to assess candidly the strengths and weaknesses of the respective arguments in order to extract key learnings and propose recommendations to advance future research in this domain. This was no small feat, so readers can expect a massive (but still a usefully integrative) summary of many foundational issues of evidence and inference with which new students and seasoned researchers alike are encouraged to familiarize themselves. In fact, we think his report will make ideal reading for serious-minded book clubs or discussion groups in parapsychology and consciousness studies.

Rupert Sheldrake to give Keynote at 2024 Conference

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 01:01:00 GMT

Scopaesthesia and the Nature of Visual Perception

Rupert Sheldrake, PhD

The sense of being stared at, or scopaesthesia, is well known; surveys show that up to 95% of people have experienced it. It is also common in animals. Numerous randomized tests have shown that people can detect when they are being stared at from behind. Not surprisingly, some people are better at this than others, and children under the age of 9 seem more sensitive than adults. This sensitivity can be trained, as in martial arts programs, and a new app enables anyone interested to try and improve their own abilities. Recent studies have shown that scopaesthesia is usually directional; the person or animal stared at turns around and looks directly at the starer. It also seems to work much better when coupled to direct vision than when people’s images are looked at on screens and in mirrors. Scopaesthesia implies that influences move outward from the eyes of the looker and are somehow detected by the person or animal looked at, but no one yet knows how this happens. This familiar phenomenon has profound implications for our understanding of the nature of vision and of extended minds.

Rupert Sheldrake, PhD is a biologist and author of nine books and more than 100 papers in peer reviewed journals. After studying natural sciences at Cambridge and history and philosophy of science at Harvard. He worked on plant development for his PhD at Cambridge University. He was subsequently a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. He was then Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India. From 2005 to 2010 he was the Perrott-Warrick senior researcher, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge for research on unexplained human and animal abilities. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, in California, of Schumacher College, in Devon, England and of the Temenos Academy, in London. His website is sheldrake.org.

SSE New Member Campaign ends August 31

Mark Urban-Lurain — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 17:05:17 GMT

We are excited to invite new Student, Associate, or Full Members in the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE)—a community dedicated to pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge and fostering innovative research since 1982.

As a member, you’ll support the publication of cutting-edge research in anomalistics and frontier science, special events, and a network of like-minded professionals who share your passion for exploration.

Why join SSE?

Engage with Pioneering Research: Access groundbreaking studies and advancements in various scientific fields via our platinum open access, Journal of Scientific Exploration.

This is the only peer-reviewed journal devoted to interdisciplinary studies and citizen science works that bridge various topics in frontier science like parapsychology, UAPs, bioenergy & healing phenomena, cosmology & new physics models, consciousness studies, cryptozoology, and maverick anthropology & history.

Connect with Experts: Network with leading scientists and authors from around the globe.

Participate in Special Events: Attend conferences, online seminars, and workshops designed to spark collaboration and inspiration.

By joining before August 31st your membership fee will do even more good, as all new memberships will be generously matched by an anonymous donor!

JOIN NOW

Please act now and unite with a movement that challenges conventional wisdom and explores new frontiers in science. We look forward to welcoming you to our vibrant community of influential explorers!

James Houran, Ph.D.
Interim-President, SSE

Get Ready for SSE’s 2024 Annual Conference!

James Houran — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 11:44:53 GMT

SSE 2024—A Great Shift: Consciousness, Healing, and Reality (September 27-29th)

Dr. Margaret Moga (Program Chair) and the Program Committee have arranged an online event not to be missed! SSE is unique among professional organizations for its diverse focus on, and integration of, various topics in frontier science and anomalistics. Where other organizations might see demarcations or barriers, we see bridges. Like-minded researchers, authors, and students are therefore warmly invited to attend the upcoming conference. Details are soon forthcoming!

Meanwhile, please have a sneak peek at a few of the many fascinating talks that are scheduled over the 3-day event:

SIGIL: Scientific Investigation of Gazing with Intention at Light

Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences

Solar Outbursts and the Demise of an Early Cycle of Civilization: Ramifications for Today

Robert M. Schoch, Director, Institute for the Study of the Origins of Civilization, Boston University

Paranormal Folklore in Western Georgia: A Critical Narrative Analysis of Apparitions

Jacob Glazier, Assistant Professor, University of West Georgia

Successful Replication of Three of Nikola Tesla's Devices Today Regarded as Lost or "Impossible”

William Beaty, Research Engineer, University of Washington - Seattle

Attitude Change in Response to an Anomalous Mass Sighting Event: The Phoenix Lights

Russell Scalpone, Research Director, Organization for Paranormal Understanding & Support (OPUS)

...And so much more! Please join us in supporting open-minded science, not scientism by becoming a Full, Associate, or Student Member today: /join-us

JSE Research in the News!

James Houran — Sun, 04 Aug 2024 18:32:29 GMT

SSE members will be pleased to know their support of our education and research efforts certainly makes important impacts. This includes bringing frontier science topics and findings to mainstream audiences. For instance, JSE has been in the news recently with two of its articles from recent issues...

Congratulations to Ross Fellowes! A London Daily Mail’s article (https://shorturl.at/XYrug) recently highlighted his study published in JSE’s Spring 2024 issue, which concluded that the seemingly mysterious deaths related to the “Pharaoh’s Curse” placed on some Egyptian tombs were caused by radiation poisoning from natural elements containing uranium and toxic waste that were deliberately placed inside the sealed vaults.

Congratulations to Rupert Sheldrake who appeared in the Daily Mail talking about his recent research on end-of-life experiences with pets that was published in the Spring 2023 issue of JSE. Readers can enjoy the news article for free at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13552249/pets-know-die-wish-emotional-farewell-Im-convinced-stories-prove-eminent-biologist-RUPERT-SHELDRAKE.html

JSE Implements Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:58:46 GMT

As the landscape of academic publishing evolves, it has become evident that sustaining the integrity and quality of scholarly journals necessitates innovative approaches. The implementation of APCs is a proactive step towards securing the longevity and vitality of academic publishing platforms. Therefore, all papers (except for “Book & Multimedia Reviews” and “Correspondence”) received as of 1 June 2024 and accepted for JSE publication for 2025 and beyond will incur a fee of USD $250.00 for “corresponding authors” who are non-SSE members and USD $150.00 for “corresponding authors” who are SSE members in good standing (apply for membership at: /join). Note that authors’ personal, non-reimbursed payments toward publication costs are tax deductible in the United States. These modest APCs—while helping to offset operational expenses—also align with the principle of shared responsibility within academia. By contributing to publication costs, authors invest in the dissemination of their research findings and support the accessibility of knowledge to a wider audience.

JSE Moves to Fully Online Format

Mark Urban-Lurain — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:56:37 GMT

JSE has ended print publications with the Spring 2024 issue in favor of a fully online (but printable) format. This approach offers several advantages, including (a) greater cost effectiveness, (b) wider accessibility, (c) increased visibility and impact, (d) accelerated discovery and faster publication times, (e) enhanced collaboration and interactivity, and (f) robust archiving and preservation practices. Note that readers will still be able to print articles or full issues on their own. More detailed information about the impact of this change will be sent soon to current print subscribers.