Question
What statistics or records support Brian D Smith's claims about mediumship and its scientific basis?
1 answer · 0 votes
mediumshipscientific realityquantum physics
Answer
From Brian D Smith0 votes
Several lines of evidence are typically pointed to when talking about a scientific basis for mediumship, including what I reference in my work.
- Laboratory studies of mediums
- Dr. Julie Beischel at the Windbridge Research Center has run tightly controlled, triple‑blind experiments with mediums.
- In these studies, mediums receive only a first name of a deceased “target.” No one interacting with them knows who the sitter is.
- Sitters later rate two readings (one for their person, one a “decoy”) without knowing which is which.
- Across multiple studies, the “hit” rates are statistically significantly higher than chance, even after controlling for hot and cold reading, feedback, and sitter bias.
- Replication and peer review
- Windbridge has published results in peer‑reviewed journals showing mediums can provide specific, verifiable information at rates unlikely by chance alone.
- Importantly, Beischel does not claim this “proves” communication with the dead; she concludes that some currently unknown information source is operating. Mediums themselves experience it as contact with the deceased.
- Converging evidence from other fields
- Research in consciousness studies, near‑death experiences, and telepathy suggests that consciousness may not be strictly produced by the brain.
- This aligns with the idea, explored in episodes like my interview with Mark Anthony (author of The Afterlife Frequency), that mediumship could involve interaction with a broader field of consciousness, sometimes framed with concepts like the electromagnetic soul and quantum nonlocality.
- Experiential and testimonial evidence
- My own readings, and thousands of reports from bereaved parents and others, include highly specific “impossible” details later verified (names, private jokes, unique medical details, cause of death, etc.).
- While anecdotes are not “proof,” they are consistent with the lab findings: information appears that cannot reasonably be explained by prior knowledge, guesswork, or normal senses alone.
In summary, the support is not a single “smoking gun statistic” but a pattern of statistically significant lab results, converging with large bodies of experiential data and theoretical work in consciousness research. That is why I say a truly open‑minded skeptic has to at least acknowledge that something real and non‑trivial is happening, even if we do not fully understand the mechanism yet.
Is there a particular kind of evidence you are most interested in—lab studies, personal cases, or theoretical (physics/consciousness) arguments?
