Hello everyone. I’m glad to announce that I’ve rolled out a new design for the Mind-Energy.net site. The design was done by a professional web designer and I believe it provides better readability, clearer structure to the site and also a fresh look. I am looking for your feedback on the design, since I might have overlooked things or simply you can see things differently than I do (and probably see better as well).
If you have further suggestions, please use the comments to this entry or write in the forum section Mind-Energy.net site discussions, I’ve started a new thread there on the design.
I’ve found an article, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, by John A. Astin, PhD; Elaine Harkness, BSc; and Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, in 2000. The article is titled ‘The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials’ and can be downloaded in PDF from here.
The purpose of the study was “To conduct a systematic review of the available data on the efficacy of any form of “distant healing” (prayer, mental healing, Therapeutic Touch, or spiritual healing) as treatment for any medical condition.”
The study verified 23 trials involving 2774 patients. “Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing intervention, 11 assessed noncontact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing.”
Now, although the studies didn’t show a statistically significant result (for the overall 23 studies), “13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects” and the researchers advise further study. Prayer and distant healing studies showed almost equal positive and negative findings, while majority of Therapeutic Touch (7 of 11) showed “a significant treatment effect”.
I’m not a scientist and can’t understand all the article is saying but it doesn’t seem to say that the distant or closing healing techniques don’t seem to work. On the other hand, it does get some positive results (although not strong statistically) and proposes to continue the study of healing efficacy.
I will be writing some more personal thoughts on researching healing later.
Annalisa Ventola from Public Parapsychology is reporting from the 3-day Annual conference of the Parapsychological Association, which is held in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She has already reported from day 2 of the convention – Forgotten Pioneers of Parapsychology Panel and Psychological Variables. I believe the events of day 3 will be published on Monday as they will take place.
My thanks go to Annalisa who allows her readers to almost visit the PA convention using the power of the internet. If you are into serious parapsychology and have not known of her site, you should definitely add it to your RSS feed (or visit it regularly, if you prefer so).
The Parapsychology forums member, Kim, wrote in the scientific debates forum an interesting post. He titled it “How important is proof?” but I called it “Which kind of a paranormal researcher are you?”. Read below and post your answer and thought right into the article’s thread on the forum. Below is the post, verbatim.
Overall there are two types of explorers in the world of paranormal investigation. There is nothing wrong with either POV in my opinion, but either you are one or the other:
Category 1.) wants to find proof, to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that there really are psychic phenomonon.
Category 2.) wants to research the most extreme phenomonon out there, no matter what method they have to resort to, and not worry about whether they can explain or prove it. There are pitfalls to both sides to be sure.
The people who want to PROVE something, have many of the same problems as mainstream evangelists like Billy Graham. Billy Graham was a very intelectual theologian. He knew much more than he put forth in 99 percent of his sermons. Yet he constantly repeated the slavation message because it was most important. Occasionally he got a chance to speculate a bit, and teach those who were also advanced in his field, but despite his brilliance, and substantial abilities, he spent most of his time explaining the basics to non-believers, and novices. Like Rev. Graham, those provers, are always stuck with the basics. They repeat the same experiments, and listen to the same dull skeptics explain away their ‘proof’ over and over. These guys are ghost hunting with a camera, while most phenomonon don’t photograph. All they want is a scrap of film they can blow up into an 8×10 glossy of some snarly ghost, so skeptics can insist they doctored it on photoshop.
The most problematic part of this plight, whether evangelist, or psychic investigator, is trying to prove a spiritual reality, with physical means, in a physical world, to people who are so caught up in the concrete physical, they can’t even wrap their minds around a simple phenomonon.
The plus to this is credibility, for the movement and for themselves. Even if they don’t find their proof, they are scientists. Some people still scoff of course, but they don’t get accused of being insane very often. Fruther if they prefer they can keep what they are trying to prove and explain fairly simple, and they dont’ have to draw extrapolated conclusions involving contradictions with various religious belief systems. Also by keeping at least one foot in the physical realm, they don’t risk the delusions the other types are at risk for.
The other types have largely abandoned the idea of proving anything. It becomes irrelivant what the masses believe. The factors involved in their quests vary, so maybe I should subdivide them. They are either
A.) Obcessed with finding deep spiritual truth for themselves
B.) Seeking to help others, or even save the world with their abilities
C.) Curious, intelectual, spiritual, and bored enough to seek other worlds
D.) All of the above.
These people could care less if they can photograph a ghost, though they would give their eye teeth to see the picture, having no doubt it was real. They would type and categorize it, then find out who the creature was and who he worked for. Would their findings be credible? Not to anyone but themselves and others like them.
These people are the Tent Revivalists of the Psi movement. They heal, they cast out devils, and they tell the wildest most hell fire and brimstone stories you can imagine. They may have seen heaven, hell, and all the 32 plains of astral existance… but they can’t prove it. Proving things takes time, and limits their exploration. They realize their stories lack credibility with most people, but those who know, know… right? They delight in finding other explorers to compare notes with. Like the healing preacher Earnest Angely, they are made fun of, but I’ll tell you what. I went to one of his meetings once, and I saw hundreds of empty wheelchairs at the end of that. The man may seem crazy, and he might talk funny but his stuff works. Sometimes those crazy explorers of the shadowlands hit on something that works too. Still normal people listening to them, are hard pressed to understand, much less believe…
The plus side, involves a lot of freedom in practice, attitude, and of course the ability to keep a low profile if they choose. There are a lot of opportunities to go further… way further with extrapolation, and theory, than one could if they had to prove themselves at every turn…
But that leads us to a huge pitfall, and the deepest pit of all; becoming self deluded, confused and appearing to be an idiot even to your peers. There are also physical and emotional side effects to that kind of work, and it is a major commitment of time and sweat, for which you can’t really take credit or even acknowledge to most of the people around you. The pitfalls of this approach, are numerous, and involve potential for delusions, and a serious risk to sanity. I mean actual loss of sanity is possible even probable, but being perceived as sane, goes out the window the minute they open their mouths outside their own group. Heck there are times just observing a quiet visionary, in public can make you wonder what is wrong with them, unless you see what they see.
Which am I? I am pretty much Category 2. D) which is all of the above crazy tent preaching investigator. Why? I figured out even as a child, that most people don’t believe in stuff like this… except late at night, in a dimly lit room listening to the best darned experiences I can remember. Then I can scare the pants off even the most logical skeptics… and for a little while they believe. They sit on the edge of their chairs, and scream if the cat moves.
IF I wanted proof, I’d still be ghost busting my first case. I still wouldn’t have incontestable proof, and I wouldn’t know jack about what really causes these things, or how to deal with them. People either believe, or they don’t want to, and life is too short to explain and argue over the same baby steps over and over, to the willfully ignorant. Sometimes people have good reason to be skeptical… not because it isn’t true, but because they couldn’t handle knowing. I’d rather deal with being called insane, than argue with someone who needs their doubts. I’d rather risk insanity… (well it’s too late to do that anyway, it’s gone)… than deny what I see, to myself. I’ll deny it to others if necessary.
“In a world of only blind people, what is a man with 20-80 vision called? Delusional!” I’ll be the first to admit that my sight and understanding is probably less than equal to 20-80 vision, when it comes to all that is really out there, but I’ve definitely seen a lot of stuff, and comprehended at least a tiny fraction of it.
Which kind of parinormal investigator are you?
A forum user posted a question asking about using remote viewing to find lost object (on forum). Apparently, he lost one his gameboy games inside the house and now can’t find it. Do you know if Remote Viewing can be used to locate lost things?
This question comes in at a good time for me, too, since I seem to have lost my wrist watch and I’m not even sure it’s at my home. I’ve never actually learned remote viewing so I don’t know if it can be used for that but I’ve learned some dowsing and my mother-in-law, who also studied it, once found my wife’s lost jewelry, in only 2 minutes, using an L-Shaped rod to answer the questions of its location. So, I guess something is possible. See more what I wrote about Dowsing.
Also, back in Oct’ 2005, when I only started this blog I’ve already written about this subject, but mostly related to Silva Method, see: Remote viewing to find lost objects (blog)
I’ve seen this press release about a new pendant. Here’s the headline: “Gold Plated MegaChi™ Pendant Protects Wearer’s DNA From Negative Affects from EMF’s (Electro-Magnetic Fields) when Using Cell-Phones According to Dr. Glen Rein Study”. Wow. What a cool thing. It’s even beautiful, just look at the picture. But, personally, I have so many problems with it and with other devices that tell you that they’ll protect you from cell phone radiation or with devices which have the word Chi in them. This particular devices seems to be the best of both worlds, so to speak.
Another excerpt from the press-release:
Mary A. Thomas, Director of Marketing of the MegaChi™ Pendants for Worldwide Distribution, herself a Master, Healer, Spiritual Teacher and author, had this to say “I have spent roughly 37 years studying and working with God’s Divine Energy Transference Healing. I have never before come across anything that has the potential for doing so much good for a person, on so many levels of being, and with so many possible applications. Now scientifically proven to help protect the wearer from negative affects from EMFs, with Its capability to help restore and heal the body from damage already done, this pendant is worth the wearers weight in gold for all that it is capable of doing for everyone.” she said, and went on to say “You’d be surprised at the amount of business owners who have been buying pendants for not only themselves and their families, but for their employees who work for them using the computers and cell-phones.”
The 18Karat gold plated MegaChi™ Pendant is priced at 250.00 each. The Pendants include a Lifetime guarantee. Dealer and distributor inquiries welcome.
The press-release also refers to Dr. Glen Rein’s study, where it was found to be helpful. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any links to the study, not even on the product’s page, where there are a lot of obviously positive testimonials. Maybe they are buried there somewhere.
The site even provides you with a set of before and after photos of using this devices. The photos are written to be performed using “Krilian” photography, as the site states. First of all, they should check the name. It’s Kirlian. But look at the photos:
OpenSourceScience released a press-release about their search for psychic dogs:
Researchers at OpenSourceScience.net have offered a $1,000 prize to dogs who successfully demonstrate they know when their owners are coming home. Many dog owners claim their pets anticipate their arrival by going to wait at a door, window, or driveway. Some claim their dogs do this even when they arrive home unexpectedly or at odd hours. While some researchers, including Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist, and former Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University have investigated this phenomena, many scientists remain unconvinced it really occurs.
OpenSourceScience is a project started by Alex Tsakiris, host of the Skeptiko.com podcast, where he interviews leading scientists and their critics on topics of controversial science, like psi research, consciousness and its survival after death. Alex started the OpenSourceScience.net projects in order to create scientific experiments on collaborative ground between all kinds of researcher, skeptics and not. The first experiment is a replication of a famous research performed by Rupert Sheldrake, which deals with the subject of whether dogs know when their owners return home.
If you have a dog who, in your opinion, knows when you come home, you’re invited to take part in the experiment and you could earn a $1000 prize for a successful demonstration. For an example, look at Dogs That Know:de la Cuadra Dogs.
The researchers are encouraging dog owners who have noticed this anticipating behavior in their dogs to take part in the experiments and have set-up a special website address for participants: www.dogsthatknow.com. OpenSourceScience.net founder Alex Tsakiris explains: “This is an experiment that anyone can join in on and make a real contribution. We feel very confident this happens all the time. It’s a matter of finding dog owners who are willing to help demonstrate just how special these animal abilities are.”
For an interview I’ve done with Alex Tsakiris, where he explains more of the project read Interview with Alex Tsakiris.
Michael Tymn writes an interesting blog. Most his articles deal with the subject of life after death, mediumship, etc. His latest post on the blog deals with the question of why do mediums struggle with names during a reading. Frankly, I thought of this myself. It seems that mediums can know very good some complicated details of your life, yet can’t properly name you relatives. Sometimes they’ll just offer the first letter or two. He explores several cases, incuding an answer channelled trough a medium:
Etta (the spirit) also explained to her brother that it was much easier to send ideas to Feda (spirit guide of the trans medium) than it was to send words. She said that she could not get her husband’s name, Whitfield, through Feda. “Is it not strange that I cannot say my husband’s name?” she communicated. “I can feel it, but cannot say it; that is, I cannot get it spoken. I get it on the surface, so to speak, but cannot get it into the medium’s mind.” At a sitting four months later, Etta again attempted to get her husband’s name through, but only succeeded in getting Feda to say to say, “Wh-, Whi-, Wht-.”
Etta further told her brother that the more she tried to think on the name, the more difficult it was to get it through the medium’s brain, adding that she could not control the medium’s power of expression. “One may get a word into her mind and yet be unable to make her express it,” she explained. “Because it is in the mind it does not follow that her brain will take it. Unless the ideas in the mind are tapped on to the actual brain one cannot express them.”
This also reminds me what medium Marcel Cairo told that it looks to him that the spirits use medium’s mind to communicate, using his worldview. And that’s it’s not a clear text, rather ideas. Interesting read.
I’m presenting today another article by Bryan. This time it’s about ESP during dreams and describes an interesting experiment being done in this field with the help of the “Greatful dead” band.
Revisiting a Dream ESP Experiment with “The Grateful Dead”
The band “The Grateful Dead” has become well-known throughout the decades for its classic rock sound and concerts at Winterland, with its status and recognition becoming even more elevated with the passing of band member Jerry Garcia. Probably less known about The Grateful Dead is that the band had once participated in a dream ESP experiment in the early 1970s.
If we look at the ESP experiences of people in everyday life, we might notice that a great deal of ESP information seems to come in the form of dreams, sometimes manifesting as detailed, realistic representation of distant events that appear as part of our dream images (Irwin, 1994, p. 19; Targ, Schlitz, & Irwin, 2000, pp. 223 – 224). In particular, precognitive dreams (dreams of the future) seem to be most common (Rhine, 1954). Early on, this prominence of ESP in dreams led parapsychologists to try and study ESP in the laboratory by having people try and dream about a distant event while being monitored in a sleep lab. The most extensive and well known series of dream ESP experiments to date was carried out by Montague Ullman, Stanley Krippner, and Charles Honorton at the Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, NY, from the mid-1960s to early 1970s (Ullman, Krippner, & Vaughan, 1973).
The basic procedure for these experiments, most of which had tested for telepathy (mind-to-mind communication), was as follows: As one person (the receiver) slept in one room, another person (the sender) in a separate room concentrated on a visual target (like an art print), and attempted to mentally “send” details about it to the receiver in the hopes that doing so would influence the images that the receiver would see in his or her dream. The receiver was awakened soon after and asked to describe the dream they were having. The description of the dream provided by the receiver was then compared to the target (along with three or four decoys) to see if they matched to a notable degree. If the receiver’s description seemed to match the target the closest (as opposed to the decoys), then the experiment was considered a success (a “hit”). Years after the Maimonides dream ESP experiments, psychologist Irvin Child (1985) of Yale University statistically analyzed the experimental series database, finding that on the whole the entire series of experiments was successful to a degree far beyond that expected by mere chance alone (odds of* more than 500,000 to 1 against chance!*).
Paranormal review reports that police in Portugal has confirmed that they are following up leads by psychic in their search for Madeleine McCann, who disappeared in the country four weeks ago.
Three British psychics, all of who claim previous successes in such cases, flew to Portugal in order to be closer to the place of the event. This, in their opinion, will help them to “sense” better information. The three psychic mediums are: Amanda Hart, Ben Murphy and Diane Lazarus.
The article then cites a long report from Amanda Hart, where she describes her vision if Madeleine, her abductors and whereabouts, including such claims that her hair was cut like a boy, that there’s a woman and two men involved in the kidnapping and that she gets two locations, one Mombassa and other Amsterdam. She furthermore describes the countryside where the child is held.
I have recently wrote about Sharon Neill, a psychic medium, also from the UK, who helps the police in lost people cases. It will be interesting to see how this story will progress from here and if she will be close to the truth or be like Sylvia Browne in her famous false prediction in the Shawn Hornbeck case.