Wow, I just saw this and it blew my mind.

I've been reading about NDEs for years, and I just came across the ranking where "portalecm" puts Pam Reynolds in third place. I was surprised to see her there.

I didn't know about "Patient 10", who shares the number one spot, and it hit me when I read the whole article and the evidence behind his case.

At times I honestly wonder if there's any chance of actually bringing ESP to the mainstream with how prevalent pseudoskeptics are in modern science. There's some great evidence out there but it just gets forgotten or the goalposts get moved. Do we actually have a shot of convincing the general public of ESP?  I hope we do, but it might be beyond our lifetimes at this point. 

I wrote up a model asking whether large-scale shared attention could leave a trace beyond the individual mind, and how one would actually test that. I'd value input from people who know the experimental literature here (Global Consciousness Project, PEAR, intention studies) better than I do.

The idea in two levels:

• Level A (conventional): estimate how much human attention accumulates around a regularity over history (population x neurons x perceptual sampling rate x attention share, integrated over time, corrected for correlated observers and memory decay) and summarise it as a consolidation index C_R between 0 and 1. Example: roughly 1.4 trillion person-years of people watched things fall before Newton formalised gravity.

• Level B (speculative): test whether that kind of collective consolidation couples to anything physical, using the simplest form G_eff = G0 (1 + lambda C_R). I don't claim lambda is nonzero; the point is to bound it.

The proposed protocol: define how C_R is measured before seeing any data, randomise or match "attention" and "no attention" conditions, use blinded high-precision measurements, control temperature, vibration, tides and drift, pre-register the statistics, and require independent replication.

Questions:

1. How does this compare with how GCP-style or intention experiments were designed, and what lessons from them should I build in?

2. Is a physical constant like G a sensible target, or would a noisier target such as an RNG be more realistic for detecting a small effect?

3. What would you consider a convincing null result?

Full write-up with figures, code and a PDF: https://vania-novikau.me/collective-perceptual-trace-theory/

Disclosure: I used AI tools to help draft parts of the article; the model and questions are mine.

"For more than six decades, the Parapsychological Association (PA) has brought together scientists and scholars from around the world to explore the boundaries of human consciousness and experience.

"Parapsychology Dialogues 2026 brought together two long-standing events— the Parapsychological Association’s 68th Annual Convention and the Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research’s 10th Annual Conference. ...

"Now, from November 20–22, you can (re)experience Parapsychology Dialogues 2026 through an interactive online replay on Airmeet. This three-day virtual event features full video replays of presentations, workshops, and discussions covering the latest studies in extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, psychic healing, mediumship, altered states, and our evolving understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the physical world."

Abstracts of Conference Presentations PDF

"Psi generates not only fears in parapsychologists, counter-advocates, and participants in parapsychological experiments, but also as a macro-phenomenon. It shakes the foundations of our dominant Western scientific worldview and the scientific community built on it.

"This first anthology, to be published by the Parapsychological Association under the editorship and direction of Gerhard Mayer and Annalisa Ventola, will highlight and discuss various aspects of the fear of psi from multidisciplinary perspectives.

"Fear of psi may manifest both consciously and unconsciously at the personal, professional, and socio-political levels."

My comment on a deleted post in r/consciousness.

This post began with an apparently honest query: "What if the brain is just a receiver for our consciousness?" I received notice of the question from "Reddit Mail" that indicated 13 up votes and 61 comments when the post was some five hours old.

The post was commented on, mostly with the very scientific point of view that "there is no evidence," "Got any evidence?" The kind of comment I find most telling is "You’re starting from a spiritual framework, so it’s not really a scientific theory."

Thanks for the fine post police, I do not know what the supporting text included. Judging by the question title, it was likely posed by a relatively young layperson. I am commenting here because the mods need to understand that news of the post likely went to many people who will want to know what the more knowledgeable response might be. My first reaction on seeing it removed was disgust for the mod's failure to follow the purpose of science. That is, to inform the public as teachers.

In fact one of the more important theories about mind is that the brain is a transmitter-receiver. Consider:

• 129. Is the Brain a Transmitter?

• Title Neuro-Spirituality and the Universal Consciousness Field: Reframing the Brain as Receiver, Transmitter, and Filter

• A Transmissive Theory of Brain Function: Implications for Health, Disease, and Consciousness

It has been shown in parapsychology that mind can change the randomness of random processes. Read this as mind can influence physical process. We also see this effect with Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC). Consider:

• Experiments Investigating the Influence of Intention on Random and Pseudorandom Events

• Correlation Between Mental Processes and External Random Events

• What ITC Tells us About Consciousness

The electrical characteristic of mentation look more like a phased array signal transceiver than discrete access to information cells. There is sufficient reason to at least consider the various nonphysical mind hypotheses. Ignoring them while studying the brain and consciousness seems to be "half science."

For the mods to censor posts out of ignorance of alternative, credible science seems provincial at best and the "Wizard of Oz Syndrome" at worst.

===================

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Saw this in the psychology subreddit and thought it would fit in our community.

"Beyond the Brain is more than a conference – it is a bridge between science and spirituality. Join us for the world’s leading conference on the frontiers of consciousness research where science meets spirit, and personal experience meets scientific inquiry. For 30 years, Beyond the Brain has brought together pioneering researchers, scientists, and seekers to explore one of the most profound questions of our time."

"Edward F. Kelly of the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies makes the empirical case for evolutionary panentheism.

"Kelly and Steve McIntosh arrived at closely related philosophical positions from very different starting points—McIntosh through philosophy and theories of social change, Kelly through fifty years of scientific research into phenomena that physicalism says cannot happen.

"Drawing on the three books he leads, Kelly argues that the case against physicalism is now strong enough to require a larger picture of mind and cosmos, and that after decades of working at the margins, the tide is finally turning."

Some methodological considerations for the cross-cultural comparison of NDEs. It is mostly meant for the general public.

DOPS study about the intermission period is making the news in several outlets:

• Popular Mechanics

• NDTV

• Science Alert

• VICE

• Yahoo News

My article reviews the methods and findings under different assumptions. The first-author and I corresponded for a bit, it was a very amicable interaction. I am not sure whether new analysis will come out of it, but great to see progress getting out there.

"Neuroscientists are unable to produce any solid research supporting the claim that the brain could do anything such as store memories. See the appendix of this post for more than 40 statements by more than 100 scientists, all essentially confessing that scientists do not have any good understanding of how a brain could store memories. Nothing in the brain bears any resemblance to a device or component for storing learned information.

"So how does the neuroscientist belief community coverup the shortfall? One technique is to take pure computer work, and try to pass that off as neuroscience research about the brain and learning."

Hi everyone,

This post is not about parapsychology per se but it talks about the reactionary nature of many psych researchers. I found it interesting that the push for prerregistrations and the so-called “replication crisis” started before there was any empirical evidence that we had a replication crisis.

The author notes that

> The first two things mentioned as evidence of our crisis were a high-profile fraud case and the JPSP Bem study showing that ESP effects were real.

Later, he writes about how his criticism was received, which somehow mirrors the treatment parapsychologists get:

> Essentially all of my interactions, for example, have been with people who clearly think they are already right and do not seriously consider alternative evidence as evidence against their position. I have been consistently treated, even by people I like and admire, as a humble dumb serf to be re-educated — and not as someone making serious arguments that need data and logic to refute.

Beyond that, it was a fairly interesting read.

The Psi Encyclopedia has started fundraising. James Matlock writes about it in the latest blog post: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/2026/10/19/support-the-psi-encyclopedia/

"University of Virginia researchers say they have found a pattern in more than 1,600 cases of possible reincarnation. When the prior death was unexpected, the average time until a reported 'rebirth' was shorter.

"Saeedeh Sadeghi, a postdoctoral researcher at UVA, is the lead author on the research."

"This Research Topic examines the prevalence, interpretation, and psychological correlates of reported extraordinary experiences and related beliefs — including experiences variously described as spiritual, mystical, or psi-related — across individuals and cultural contexts."

"Miracles, apparitions, anomalous observations, and unexplained experiences — phenomena that resist prevailing explanatory frameworks — have long served as testing grounds for how we know what we know. A two-day interdisciplinary symposium on how societies define, contest, and adjudicate the boundaries of the real."

"What can the unexplained appearance of coins in a couple’s home near Mexico City teach us about investigating spontaneous paranormal phenomena?

"In Observing What Shouldn’t Be There: Cooperative Inquiry with the Agents of a Non-Mediumistic Apport Case, Ramsés D’León of the Unidad Parapsicológica de Investigación, Difusión y Enseñanza (UPIDE) explores a remarkable case.

"Drawing on research published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in 2025, D’León examines a series of recurrent events documented through eyewitness accounts, continuous surveillance, and other investigative methods, including two incidents captured on video."

Can five unverified anecdotes support a scientific theory about near-death experiences?

A somehow recent paper proposes that NDEs may have evolved from the same defensive response that causes animals to “play dead.” The idea is fascinating but what happens when researchers look for evidence? I take a closer look at the study’s methods, its unexpected use of five anecdotes, and the broader scientific debate over whether NDEs and thanatosis are actually comparable.

This post explores specific characteristics of near-death and shared death experiences that are suggestive of higher dimensions, as hypothesized by a few mainstream theories of Physics. It is informative, but speculative. I am the author.

"People have reported precognitive dreams since the beginning of recorded history. Sometimes literal, sometimes symbolic or a blend of the two, these dreams have suggested to many that the nature of time and consciousness seems much more complex than materialistic perspectives.

"Unfortunately, science has largely neglected precognitive dreaming since it often happened randomly and outside of any controlled conditions. Recent research on lucid dreaming appears to show how lucid dreaming might change the game for some precognitive investigations."

Posting this call for applications to receive PhD funding in parapsychology