Reviewed by Nemo C. Mörck
The author, Christopher French, heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College, University of London. He considers himself to be a moderate sceptic and I think that is a fair characterization. French finds the evidence for psychic phenomena to be unconvincing, but he is not willing to simply dismiss parapsychology as a pseudoscience. He is perhaps not as well-known as James Randi (1928-2020) – yet, but many readers have probably heard him lecture or seen him on TV.
French notes that if sceptics were allowed to have a patron saint it would probably be Randi. This is somewhat amusing since Randi claimed that he stopped pretending to be a psychic because he could not picture himself becoming a religious figure (Randi, 1982). Apart from Randi other influences on French after his conversion from believer to sceptic include James Alcock, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, and Richard Wiseman (see also French, 2024). Wiseman has contributed a foreword.
It was, in fact, Alcock’s (1981) first book that provoked the conversion experience. Like many sceptics French is an atheist and seem to consider belief in an afterlife to be unwarranted wishful thinking. It so happens that I am also an atheist, but I find the idea that it is, technically, impossible to notice that you are dead – if there is no survival after bodily death – more comforting than the alternative.
Now, forty years or so after having read Alcock’s book French is familiar with the parapsychology literature. However, he acknowledges that some “may feel that my presentation of material sometimes does not address what they feel to be the strongest evidence … I am simply telling the reader what I believe about each topic and why” (p. 318).
Having become something of an expert on sleep paralysis and the experiences that can occur with it French naturally covers this. David Hufford’s (1982) classic book about the subject was aptly named, The Terror that comes in the Night. Some of the experiences are very unpleasant for the percipients, especially those that have no idea about what is going on. French quotes several percipients to give the reader a good idea about what can happen.
Readers with an interest in ufology will also find a chapter, about abductees and more (an extract is freely available), of particular interest. However, readers with an interest in survival after bodily death may be a bit disappointed. Naturally, possible normal explanations for the standard mediumistic readings are covered, and French reminds the reader about what happened when Ciarán O’Keeffe fed incorrect information to the medium Derek Acorah (Roper, 2012). The research with mediums by Julie Beischel and her colleagues at the Windbridge Research Center is mentioned almost in passing. Past life regressions are covered in more depth, including the cases Bridey Murphy and Arnall Bloxham’s “Jane Evans.” This makes sense since hypnosis has also been utilized to recover (or produce) memories of alien abductions.
French also comments on out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences. He notes that a trouble with the latter is establishing exactly when the experience occurred. This is of importance both for people wishing to argue that near-death experiences are evidence of survival after bodily death and those who argue that they are explainable hallucinations. Naturally, he brings up the much debated Pam Reynolds case. Personally, I find it curious that near-death experiences, or at least experiences that are similar, can occur in situations in which the percipient is not in any real danger of dying. This strikes me as being troublesome both for materialists and dualists.
It makes sense for an author to write about research that he himself has been involved in and French does this well, writing with laymen in mind. He also shares recollections about his involvement in TV programs. French is keenly aware of the need to try to construct tests that match the actual claims. For example, it is not fair to expect someone known for precognitive dreams to perform well in psychometry trials unless he or she has claimed to be able to derive psychic impressions from holding objects. (Many readers will know that unsuccessful psychics and mediums will complain about the conditions they agreed on anyway). Of particular interest is perhaps the commentary about David Mandell (an extract about him is freely available), dubbed the seer of Sudbury Hill in Fortean Times. Chris Robinson the “dream detective” and the psychic Patricia Putt also makes an appearance.
Arguably, sceptics are most persuasive when they comment on so-called spontaneous cases, paranormal experiences that occur in the wild – outside the lab. Of course even unlikely coincidences are bound to happen and there are plenty of normal explanations that can give rise to the impression that a ghost has dropped by. I remember once talking to a man that told me that he experienced coincidences of a particular kind, when he checked the time there would be a match – it would be, for example, 13:13, 14:14, or 15:15. Knowing that my explanation would be rejected I meekly suggested that perhaps he only remembered the matches – for a few days afterwards I felt haunted by the same coincidences. Needless to say, all coincidences are not as trivial. One series of coincidences even impressed Marks (2020). French also shares an interesting story from a correspondent about a series of coincidences and strange events.
Sceptics are fond of the expression “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” but naturally what is considered extraordinary is subjective and the evidence is debatable. For example, French comments on the poltergeist agent known as Tina Resch. They are not cited, but Biddle (2022) and Williams (2022) commented on that case from different perspectives. People do not only have different views of the evidence, they also have different boggle thresholds and, in practice, it is not always easy to be open-minded. In passing, it can be noted that Michael Faraday do not seem to have been as open-minded as French suggests (see Lamont, 2005), but at least he tested his hypothesis about table tipping séances.
French has not been afraid to get his hands dirty, and I get the impression that the lack of evidence for psychic phenomena in his own studies influences his perception of the field. At one point he asks if a science with no signal – only noise (i.e. no genuine phenomena) would not look like parapsychology. However, he is acutely aware of the fact that psychology struggles with the same issues, including replication problems and questionable research practices. The fruitful road forward should surely be one of cooperation. French is currently collaborating with Julia Mossbridge and writes a bit about their project, involving lucid dreams.
I certainly do not mind recommending this book, with the caveat that one regards it as commentary from mainstream psychology rather than as a serious attempt to dismiss evidence for psychic phenomena and survival after bodily death. Much more could be written about some of the cases, but this is a good starting point.
References
Alcock, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or magic? A psychological perspective. Pergamon Press.
Biddle, K. (2022). Revisiting the Columbus poltergeist.
French, C. (2024, 19 March). Ten books that shaped how I see our weird world.
Hufford, D. J. (1982). The terror that comes in the night. An experience-centered study of supernatural assault traditions. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Marks, D. F. (2020). Psychology and the paranormal: Exploring anomalous experience. SAGE Publications.
Lamont, P. (2005). The first psychic. The peculiar mystery of a notorious Victorian wizard. Abacus.
Randi, J. (1982). The truth about Uri Geller. Prometheus Books.
Roper, M. (2012, May 15). The spooky truth: Most Haunted exposed as a fake by star that claims Derek Acorah show features “showmanship and dramatics.” Mirror.
Williams, B. (2022). Comments on a recent skeptical revisitation of the Columbus poltergeist case.