The History of Sleepwalking Provides Evidence for Clairvoyance

When writers refer to artificial somnambulism, a term often used before 1900, they mean the same thing as what is now called a hypnotic trance, produced by a hypnotist acting on some subject, trying to put the subject into a state of trance. There is very much written evidence for clairvoyance occurring during such a state of artificial somnambulism or hypnotism. You can read about such evidence in my post here and my post "Taboo Truth: The Reality of Hypnotic Clairvoyance and Hypnotic Telepathy," which you can read here. 

When writers refer to natural somnambulism, they refer to a natural phenomenon often called sleepwalking. One major difference between artificial somnambulism (hypnotism) and sleepwalking (natural somnambulism) is that in sleepwalking (natural somnambulism) there is no agent such as a hypnotist attempting to bring people into some abnormal state.  

In the fascinating 1839 book Curiosities of Medical Experience, we read this:

" Somnambulism was well known by the ancients ; and Aristotle tells us, 'there are individuals who rise in their sleep, and walk about seeing as clearly as those that are awake.'...There is no doubt but that in somnambulists the intellectual functions are not only active, but frequently more developed than when the individual is awake. Persons in this state have been known to write and correct verses, and solve difficult problems, which they could not have done at other times. In their actions and locomotion they are more cautious, and frequently more dexterous, than when awake."

Later in the same work we read this account of a sleepwalker or somnambulist:

"She also became capable of following her usual employment during the paroxysm. At one time she would lay out the table for breakfast, and repeatedly dress herself and the children, her eyes remaining shut the whole time. The remarkable circumstance was now discovered, that, during the paroxysm, she had a distinct recollection of what had taken place in former attacks, though she had not the slightest recollection of it during the intervals. She was taken to church during the paroxysm, and attended the service with apparent devotion, and at one time was so affected by the sermon that she actually shed tears ; yet in the interval she had no recollection whatever of the circumstance, but in the following paroxysm she gave a most distinct account of it, and actually repeated the passage of the sermon that had so much affected her. This sort of somnambulism, relating distinctly to two periods, has been called, perhaps erroneously, a state of double consciousness."

 In Volume 2 of his 1876 book The Mechanism of Man, Edward W. Cox discusses natural  somnambulism, also called sleepwalking. He states this, using the term "somnambule" to refer to a sleepwalker:

"With the vast majority of Somnambules the eyes are firmly closed, so firmly that considerable force is required to open them. The countenance is extremely placid, the face very pale, the extremities abnormally cold and clammy, the breathing regular and full, with frequent sighing, or rather, deep inspirations that make the sound of a sigh, but are not like sighing, expressions of mental emotion.

But here the resemblance to sleep ends. The conditions differ from those of sleep in many particulars. The muscles are not flaccid, but retain all, and often more than, the ordinary tension of waking life. The limbs are not relaxed, but in energetic action. The head does not droop. If the eyelids be forcibly raised (and they are always lifted with difficulty, so firmly are they pressed together), the eyeballs are found in an unnatural position, drawn upwards and inwards, so that the direction of the line of vision would fall within the upper orbit of the projecting frontal sinus — a position in which the exercise of sight would be impossible, even if the eyelids were raised. This remarkable position of the eyes is especially to be noted, for it is the characteristic of the somnambulist condition and distinguishes it at once from ordinary sleep, in which the eyes always preserve their natural position. It is important also in this respect, that it cannot he voluntarily assumed. No effort of the Will can place the eyes in the position exhibited by a Somnambule. It will be noted also that, when the eyeballs are in this abnormal position, they are not still, as in sleep, but in a state of rapid and constant quivering.

All the senses appear to be closely sealed. No sounds sensible to pain. Taste, touch and smell are paralysed. The strongest snuff does not cause sneezing. There is not the slightest wincing from the application to the nostril of the most powerful ammonia. Sight is impossible, for in the position of the eyes no ray from any external object can fall upon the retina.

Nevertheless, in this apparently helpless state, deprived of the assistance of all his external senses, the patient rises from his bed and walks with facility and firmness in the dark as well as in the light, avoiding obstacles as readily as if he could see or feel them. Thus he passes, without fear and with perfect ease and safety, over places dangerous even to the waking footstep— on the ridge of a house roof; across a narrow plank above a stream; down a steep and perilous path by a precipice over which he would be hurled if the footstep erred but a few inches ; through rooms crowded with furniture, threading his way without stumbling or mistaking.

Nor this only. The Somnambule, with his eyes closed and all his senses sealed in the darkness of the darkest night, will perform his daily work, however intricate— write, read, thread a needle, draw and paint, and do other acts requiring keen sight, manual dexterity and delicate touch. During the entire of this, all his external senses are paralysed. He neither sees, hears nor feels with the bodily organs. The Mind only is awake. Manifestly the Mind, in this condition of somnambulism, receives impressions of external objects and guides the actions of the body without the assistance of its usual informants, the senses. And these things are done, not tentatively nor with hesitation, as by one feeling his way or seeking for something in darkness, but firmly, unhesitatingly, easily, perfectly, and without mistakes, as if he had been awake and was acting in the daylight instead of in the dark."

In the five pages beginning on page 170, Cox cites quite a few cases of people who performed extremely complex activities while sleepwalking. In each case quoted we are told that the person's eyes were closed during such activities.  

A bit later Cox concludes this:

"But with the Somnambule the external senses only are sealed. All the faculties of his mind are wide awake. He has perceptions of external objects, although certainly through some other medium than the five senses, and he acts upon the impressions so abnormally received as perfectly and as rationally as when he is awake." 

We do not know the ratio between eyes-closed sleepwalking and eyes-open sleepwalking. You sometimes may read statements claiming that sleepwalkers walk with eyes open, but such generalizations are not backed up by scientific studies, and may be made sometimes by those trying to "sweep under the rug" the clairvoyance-suggesting anomaly of skillful movement by sleepwalkers with closed eyes. I find quite a few statements claiming that sleepwalkers "often" have eyes open, an indication that such a thing is by no means invariable for sleepwalkers. There are many observational reports of sleepwalkers walking or moving very skillfully either with eyes closed, with eyes turned upward or in a state of darkness (some of them being quoted in this post); and in the quote above by Cox we read that "with the vast majority of Somnambules the eyes are firmly closed." Even when sleepwalkers have eyes open, there seems to be no real perception with the eyes. 

In the literature of sleepwalking, it is often reported that when sleepwalkers walk with their eyes open, their eyes are turned upwards in a way that would make normal vision impossible. So, for example, pages 60 to 61 of the document here reports a sleepwalker with the most astonishing physical dexterity in avoiding obstacles while sleepwalking; and page 62 says, "eyes were alternately shut and open, but when the latter, they were convulsively turned upwards, showing nothing but the whites, so that he could not have seen with them."

It seems rather clear that sleepwalking (the same as somnambulism) provides evidence for ESP or clairvoyance. This is the conclusion that was made by a writer in 1838, who stated this:

"II. Clairvoyance, or vision without the eyes. — In the most simple cases of natural somnambulism this phenomenon occurs. The person who rises in the night, dresses himself, moves from room to room, and performs with nicety and precision a variety of minute actions, presents us with this anomaly in its most familiar form. There are few sceptics who do not acknowledge cases of this kind ; for after all, somnambulism is a very common occurrence, and is observed to be hereditary in many families. Yet when this faculty becomes more perfectly developed, manifesting itself by finer discriminations, the very same philosophers, forgetting the fact which is universally accredited in domestic life, open their eyes with astonishment, and declare the whole thing utterly incredible. This is unreasonable. It is a notorious fact, that all sleep-walkers are clairvoyants."

The fascinating page here has an interview with Lee Hadwin, who has long produced remarkable art works in his sleep. The page has a headline of "Interview: Man Makes World-Famous Art in His Sleep But Has No Creative Talent While Awake."  We read this of Hadwin: "While he’s asleep, his creative side comes alive and he crafts portraits, landscapes, and abstract drawings that only someone with amazing artistic prowess can produce."  We hear that he sells some of his pieces created during sleepwalking for thousands of dollars a piece. We read that in his sleep Hadwin produced three portraits of Marilyn Monroe. The article shows one of them, which is of stunning quality. This is even though Hadwin has apparently had no artistic training. 

In the 1905 newspaper story here, we have a description of sleepwalking consistent with the description of Cox above:

At the link here, we have an article entitled "Teen Awakes From Sleepwalking 9 Miles From Home, Police Say." We may presume that something more than moving in a random direction is involved when journeys so long occur.

In the newspaper article here (in the right column and entitled "Somnambulism"), we have an account of a sleepwalker. We read of him writing intelligibly during sleepwalking. The last paragraph suggests telepathic or clairvoyant abilities during sleepwalking. 

"In the capital of the island of Syra, there is a young man from a town on the border of the Black Sea, -aged about eighteen years, tall in stature, and of robust constitution, who went to Syra to follow his studies at the Gymnasium. It frequently happens that, almost immediately after falling asleep, he gets up and makes remarkable declamations. Sometimes he recites very long speeches from Xenophon with perfect correctness although when awake he cannot remember more than a few lines. One night he wrote the theme he had to deliver the next day. In the morning having overslept himself, he was vexed at not having time to prepare himself for his tutor, but great was his astonishment at finding on his table his stipulated composition, written with his own hand, folded, and ready to be given in. The professor was surprised at finding it so well done and still more so when the young scholar became embarrassed, and unable to answer certain questions put to him on the subject. Doubts were entertained as to its being his own work, but a companion who slept in the same room with him came voluntarily forward and declared, that in the night he saw his fellow-student at the writing table writing, and calling upon his father to assist him in composing his theme.

When in a slate of somnambulism, he plays at cards, and uniformly wins. This is attributed to his having the faculty at that time of knowing what cards are in the hands of the rest of the party. When in this state, also, he has been taken by his companions to a tavern, and when, after eating and drinking with them, he awoke, he was greatly astonished at finding himself where he was. It appears that in his somnolescent state, his sense of feeling is entirely suspended, while all the other senses are alive and active. At first, the slightest touch would wake him; but now he is totally insensible to any violence, even that which would in others, or in himself when awake, produce acute pain. In general, on coming out of his state of somnambulism, he is so weak and languid as to faint away. One fact is more extraordinary than the rest: one day, when in his dormant state, he announced that three persons, whom he named, were coming to see him. In an hour after, these three persons entered his room.”

The 1834 book "Somnambulism : the extraordinary case of Jane C. Rider, the Springfield somnambulist" by L. W. Belden M.D. can be read here. We read of Jane sleepwalking many times in the dark, acting just as if she could see things  just fine. On the page here, we read this:

"Her  eyes  were  generally  closed,  but  at times  they  were  stretched  widely  open,  and the  pupil  was  then  very  considerably  dilated. These  different  states  of  the  eye  seemed  to occasion  no  difference  in  the  power  of  seeing — she  saw  apparently  as  well  when  they were  closed,  as  she  did  when  they  were open."

On a later page we read this:

"The  members of  the  family  in  which  she  lived  were very  early  convinced  that  she  saw  both when  her  eyes  were  closed,  and  in  the  dark. They  were  irresistibly  led  to  this  conclusion, when  they  saw  her,  night  after  night,  perform that  which  seemed  impossible  for  her to  do  without  the  aid  of  vision,  when  at  the 

same  time  they  could  discover  nothing which  indicated  the  want  of  sight.  She never  betrayed  any  thing  like  hesitancy  or 

indecision — there  was  no  groping,  no  feeling after  the  object   which  she  wished  to  lay hold  of,  but  the  motion  was  quick  and direct,  as  if  perfectly  aware  of  its  precise 

situation.  When  obstacles  were  placed  in her  way,  or  the  position  of  a thing  was changed,  she  always  observed  it,  and  accommodated herself  to  the  change."

On the next page we read of a test performed:

"No  direct  trial  of  her  power  of  vision  was 

made  until  Sabbath  evening,  November 

10th,  when  it  was  proposed  to  ascertain 

whether  she  could  read  with  her  eyes 

closed.  She  was  seated  in  a corner  of  the 

room,  the  lights  were  placed  at  a distance 

from  her,  and  so  screened  as  to  leave  her 

in  almost  entire  darkness.  In  this  situation 

she  read  with  ease  a great  number  of  cards 

which  were  presented  to  her,  some  of  which 

were  written  with  a pencil,  and  so  obscurely, that  in  a faint  light  no  trace  could be  discerned  by  common  eyes.  She  told  the date  of  coins,  even  when  the  figures  were 

nearly  obliterated.  A visitor  handed  her  a 

letter,  with  the  request  that  she  would  read 

the  motto  on  the  seal  which  she  readily 

did  although  several  persons  present  had 

been  unable  to  decipher  it  with  the  aid  of  a 

lamp.  The  whole  of  this  time  the  eyes 

were  to  all  appearance  perfectly  closed." 

On another page we read of another test performed ten days later:

"On Wednesday, Nov. 20th, I took a large black silk handkerchief, placed between the folds two pieces of cotton batting, and applied it in such a way that the cotton came directly over the eyes, and completely filled the cavity up each side of the nose — the silk was distinctly seen to be in close contact with the skin. Various names were then written on cards, both of persons with whom she was acquainted, and of those who were unknown to her, which she read as soon as they were presented to her...Being desirous, if possible, to prove that the eye was actually closed, I took two large wads of cotton, and placed them directly on the closed eyelid, and then bound them on with the handkerchief before used. The cotton filled the cavity under the eyebrow, came down to the middle of the cheek, and was in close contact with the nose. The former experiments were then repeated without any difference in the result."

On a later page we read this:

"Her eyes were then covered with a white handkerchief folded so as to make eight or ten thicknesses, and the spaces below the bandage filled with strips of black velvet. She then took a book and read audibly, distinctly, and correctly, nearly a page." 

Page 74 of the document here gives us an account of sleepwalking with eyes eyes, combined with apparent clairvoyance:

"A servant girl aged fourteen, fell suddenly into a state of somnambulism, whilst in church. She had previously been visiting the grave of her sister’s child, to which she had been much attached, and by whose death she was deeply affected. She rose from her seat during the service, and, with her eyes closed, walked straight home where she was found half undressed, lying on the bed. She gave no answer on being spoken to, and when raised up remained without motion in the sitting posture. Thinking that she was only in a profound sleep, the people about her endeavoured to rouse her ; but after fruitless attempts to make her open her eyes, they left her sitting, and watched her. In a few minutes her head was suddenly drawn backwards by a spasm ; and on this giving way, she jumped off the bed and endeavoured to escape, her eyes continuing firmly closed. On finding her intention frustrated, she quietly went to a table, and took up the hymn book which she had brought with her from church, and after turning over the leaves quickly, she found the place in which they had been singing, and commenced reading from where she had left off in church. She afterwards became liable to frequent paroxysms of somnambulism..."

This apparently was an example of "sleep reading" with eyes closed.  After reading that the girl much later apparently sleep-walked two-and-a-half miles to her doctor (who wrote her a prescription) we read this on page 76:

"The girl delivered the prescription at the apothecary’s, and waiting for the medicines, put them into her basket, and went towards home, still continuing profoundly asleep. The doctor followed her at the distance of about fifteen or sixteen paces, and was astonished to observe, with what address she avoided the many vehicles on the road, and got out of the way of all obstacles, pursuing her road calmly and safely. After walking for half an hour, she suddenly awoke, and looked about her, bewildered and alarmed. The doctor then went up to her and accosted her, and found that she had no idea how she had got there or where she had been to."

On pages 76 to 77 of the same document, we read this about another girl:

"Dr. Dyce of Aberdeen relates the case of a servant girl, who, during similar paroxysms of day somnambulism [sleepwalking], used to continue her usual occupations. At one time, she laid out the table for breakfast,; and she repeatedly dressed herself and the children of the family, her eyes remaining firmly closed the whole time."

By providing evidence for clairvoyance, sleepwalking helps to undermine "brains make minds" ideas. The utter incompatibility of evidence for clairvoyance and "brains make minds" ideology is shown by the fact that those holding "brains make minds" ideas typically refuse to believe in clairvoyance. It is senseless denialism to deny the reality of clairvoyance. We have 200 years of written evidence for its reality, much of it written by doctors and scientists. You can study some of the evidence by reading my series of 14 posts here, continuing to press Older Posts at the bottom right. The best test subjects such as Alexis Didier very often passed "with flying colors" the most stringent tests of clairvoyance, both in public exhibitions and private demonstrations to careful observers. At the link here you can read a report of 52 pages describing clairvoyance tests of Alexis Didier. 

"The distinguished Parisian Professor of Medicine, Rostan, gave at the time his corroborative testimony to the existence of this power in the article ' Magnetisme,' in the ' Dictionnaire de Medecine,'  wherein he remarked : 'There are few facts better demonstrated than clairvoyance' ....Innumerable instances are recorded of the possession of the faculty of clairvoyance by persons in the normal state, in sleep [hypnotism], and in some abnormal conditions of the system, " -- Edwin Lee, MD, "Animal Magnetism and Magnetic Lucid Somnambulism" page 103 and page 133.

"Crying Wolf" Astrobiologists Are Squandering Their Credibility

Charles Darwin never had any decent explanation for any of the more impressive organization marvels of biology. The claim that he had such an explanation is a socially constructed triumphal legend. I call it the Lamest Legend, because of the cobweb weight of Darwin's appeals to insanely lucky luck, and also because most of the more hard-to-explain wonders of biology (such as gigantic amounts of fine-tuning and component interdependence and information-rich organization in cells and biochemistry) are things Darwin knew nothing about. So telling the legend that Darwin explained the wonders of biology is like telling the legend that the ancient philosopher Plato explained the electronic wonders of television sets. 

When such triumphal legends are socially constructed, what typically occurs is that stakeholders with vested interests begin endlessly reciting boastful  narratives that serve their ideological needs and economic interests. If you were an  atheist biologist in the second half of the nineteenth century, it very much served your economic interests to start telling the story that biologists are Grand Lords of Explanation who have an answer to deep mysteries such as how the human species originated. And if you were such an atheist biologist, it very much served your ideological interests to start telling the narrative that human origins had been naturally explained by processes understood by scientists. 

This year we saw an attempt to socially construct the triumphal legend that NASA found some sign of life on Mars. The boast that such a sign of life was found is as groundless as the boast that Charles Darwin figured out how species originated or how mankind originated. The claimed evidence for life on Mars is about as weak as any evidence you could find. Zero evidence has been produced of any biological complexity. All that was found was some slightly funny-looking rock or rocks with features that could easily be the result of mere lifeless geological processes.  But using "give us an inch, and we'll take a mile" tactics, NASA and the ever-credulous "science news" press has attempted to exaggerate this finding into some "sign of life." 

The original claim was that a "potential biosignature" was found. It means very little to have something that you can call a "potential biosignature." I will give an example. Suppose a crater is observed on the Moon. There are three possible explanations:

(1) Maybe some meteorite hit the Moon ages ago, producing the crater. 

(2) Maybe some geological process produced a kind of sinkhole effect to create the crater. 

(3) Or, maybe there are living beings on the Moon, and maybe the crater was caused when they were digging up an area while trying to lay a foundation for a house. 

So a crater on the Moon qualifies as a "potential biosignature." But that means basically nothing. In this case the non-biological explanations are far more plausible. A crater is no sense at all a "sign of life" on the Moon. 

In such cases, you have to factor in the habitability context. The Moon is an airless rock in which no signs of life or any building component of life has ever been found. So within the habitability context, we must say: while a crater on the Moon could conceivably have been dug by extraterrestrials, it almost certainly was not, given how inhabitable the Moon is. 

And in regard to Mars, we must do the same factoring in of the habitability context. Mars is an inhabitable planet with only the thinnest atmosphere. An enormously important fact is that amino acids have never been found on Mars. Amino acids are the building components of protein molecules, and many types of proteins are required for life to exist. The non-discovery of amino acids on Mars is an extremely strong reason for thinking that life never existed on Mars.  Properly factoring in the habitability context in this case, we must say: with extremely high likelihood, the claimed "potential biosignatures" on Mars were not produced by life, and are not any signs that life ever existed on Mars. 

Just as the social construction of the Darwinist triumphal legend was fueled by the economic and ideological vested interests of those who helped build up this groundless legend, the social construction of the "signs of life " triumphal legend was fueled by the economic and ideological vested interests of those who helped build up this groundless legend.  The vested interests are these:

(1) Before the press conference announcing the "potential biosignatures" on Mars, NASA was in a position where it looked like funding was going to be cancelled for its proposed 10-billion-dollar mission for returning soil samples and rock samples from Mars. What better way to gin up interest in such a future mission than by announcing without a sound basis that "potential biosignatures" had been found on Mars?

(2) Atheist scientists have for a very long time had an ideological yearning for the discovery of extraterrestrial life, particularly in some inhospitable place such as Mars. They have claimed that if such life was discovered, it would show that the accidental origination of life is "inevitable" rather than some special event requiring divine guidance. 

(3) The web sites driving the social construction of the groundless "sign of life found on Mars" legend have a very big economic motivation to produce "science news" web pages ginning up such a legend. Headlines such as "NASA finds signs of life on Mars" are an example of clickbait. When you click on such headlines, you will go to ad-filled pages that generate revenue for the web sites that show such pages. 

The latest example of credibility-squandering "crying wolf" astrobiologists can be found in a New York Post story with this clickbait headline:

" 'Phenomenal’ new evidence reveals Saturn’s moon ‘ticks all the boxes’ for alien life: scientists"

In a pun, the story says that scientists are "over the moon" about something they observed. But it's just another example of scientists getting groundlessly excited over "nothing special" results. What happened is that the Cassini space probe made a reading after flying by Saturn's moon Enceladus. Nothing of any great interest was found. The results are reported in the scientific paper here. None of the chemical constituents of protein molecules were found, because no amino acids were found. None of the chemical constituents of DNA or RNA were found, because no nucleobases acids were found. The paper confesses that no amino acids have ever been found on or near Enceladus, because it says this: " Black boxes refer to compounds that have not yet been detected on Enceladus, but would be significant either in the context of astrobiology (for example amino acids) or as intermediates between other detected compounds (for example cyanoalkynes)."

All that were found were some carbon-containing molecules that are not any of the building components of living things. "Ticks all the boxes?" More like: "ticks none of the boxes." 

Acting just the author had no understanding of the key point that "organic molecules" merely means "containing carbon" and not "related to life," the Guardian has a similar groundless hype article, one entitled "Prospect of life on Saturn’s moons rises after discovery of organic substances." We have this "give me an inch, and I'll take a mile" quote from a scientist:

"Dr Nozair Khawaja, a planetary scientist at Freie University Berlin and lead author of the work, said the results increased the known complexity of the chemistry that is happening below the surface of Enceladus. 'When there is complexity happening, that means that the habitable potential of Enceladus is increasing right now,' he said."

No, it sure as hell means no such thing. Life is incredibly complex, but discovering something a little more complex than what you had previously found at some outer space location does not by itself mean that the habitability of a moon or planet is increased, nor does it increase the likelihood of life arising there. For example, the surface of a lifeless moon may be smooth, but meteorite falls over a billion years may add lots of craters, making the surface of that moon more complex. That does nothing to increase that moon's habitability. It is not just complexity that leads to life, but the most enormously specialized and well-arranged and well-engineered complexity. 

There is nothing very new in the latest story on Enceladus. It is little more than just a repeat of what was reported in 2019. In a 2019 blog post I reported on very similar groundless hype, describing how an analysis of water plumes from Enceladus had failed to show any amino acids, but was being wrongly described by the press as being a promising indicator suggestive of life. Astrobiologists keep doing the same old "crying wolf" tricks of trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and our ever-credulous "science news" press keeps falling for this baloney. 

The lying about life in outer space grows ever more brazen. One recent story claimed that Enceladus "shows major signs of life." That is a complete fiction. The molecules supposedly detected are not components of life, and are in no sense whatsoever signs of life. 

Similar fictions were present in a recent press account about the observation of ethanol in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our galaxy. The headline of the story referred to the discovery of "ingredients of life," a claim very misleading, as creatures such as humans do not need ethanol, but may merely drink it in an alcoholic beverage. The text of the article then went into downright deception, by referring to the chemicals as "building blocks of life." None of the chemicals mentioned were any type of building components of living things. 

What we have these days is a "science news" ecosystem that incentivizes poor science scholarship and scientific illiteracy displayed by so-called science journalists. An example was how the Fake News headline "Human DNA detected in 2 billion year old meteorite" appeared on Yahoo News, grossly misinforming countless people.  The reported discovery involving the tiniest microscopic traces (along the lines of 1 part in a billion) was a mere report of a discovery of amino acids. The writer apparently did not know the difference between human DNA and the tiniest amino acids. The headline involves the same type of stupidity and science illiteracy as you might be guilty of you claimed that trees contain inside them bestseller novels, on the basis that bestseller novels are printed from paper made from wood pulp made from trees. 

Like so much of the Fake News that we see on our "Science News" sites, the story was not any actual news at all, but an absurdly bungled discussion of a paper co-authored by Glavin that appeared almost a year earlier, in January 2025. The paper claimed to have detected only the most minute traces of amino acids in a sample a spacecraft gathered from an asteroid (Bennu).  The most abundant protein-related amino acid found (glycine) was found at a level of only 44 nanomoles per gram, a negligible amount of only about .00000004 moles per gram.  All other protein-related amino acids were found at a level of less than 5 nanomoles per gram. I discuss in my post here why the reported levels of amino acids and nucleobases are so low that we can have no confidence at all that any amino acids and nucleobases were detected in the asteroid Bennu. When the reported levels are so low, a more likely explanation is that they all come from earthly contamination; and the paper states that "laboratory contamination is a possible explanation." Here is a quote from that post:

"The paper here ("OSIRIS-REx Contamination Control Strategy and Implementation") tells us about methods to prevent microbes and amino acids from existing on the Osiris/REx spacecraft that gathered the sample from the asteroid Bennu. It claims, 'To return a pristine sample, the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft sampling hardware was maintained at level 100 A/2 and <180 ng/cm² of amino acids and hydrazine on the sampler head through precision cleaning, control of materials, and vigilance.'  This is a mention of some standard of cleanliness that was a target level, and we have no guarantee that such a target level of cleanliness was actually obtained. Moreover, the standard of cleanliness mentioned is less than 180 nanograms per square centimeter.  Under such a standard, we might expect that you would get tiniest trace amounts results as reported by Glavin  (no better than 44 nanomoles per gram) from trace amounts from Earth that were left on the spacecraft when it reached the asteroid Bennu. Or, if such a standard had been followed after samples had been returned, we might have easily got the tiny trace amounts of amino acids reported by Glavin, purely from earthly contamination after the samples had been returned."

If you want another example in the recent headlines of a scientist "crying wolf" about extraterrestrial life,  you can probably find it in the professor whose claims about a particular comet have been so dubious that I am tempted to call them Cambridge Comet Comedy. It's kind of a deal where all the other astronomers see a comet, but this guy tries to make it sound like a spaceship. The guy I refer to is the same guy who launched an expedition to dredge up tiny specks of metal from the ocean, and who called this little sea voyage an "interstellar expedition." The specks he dredged up were the most ordinary run-of-the-mill little metallic specks, but he tried to suggest that they were remnants of an interstellar spaceship. Apparently this guy thinks that super-advanced extraterrestrials capable of traveling between stars would be so stupid that they would not have their spaceship come within 150 million miles of the only inhabited planet in a solar system they were exploring. 

Comparing "ETs Visit Our World From a Nearby Mothership" to "Our World Can Interact With a Spirit World"

If you have got your astronomical education from watching science fiction movies, you probably think that travel between stars is a pretty fast experience. You just jump into your interstellar spaceship like Han Solo's Millennium Falcon, turn on the warp drive, and whoosh, you jump through hyperspace arriving at a distant planet. Even more recent movies (like the movie Interstellar) depict the same type of rapid interstellar travel.

But this is fiction, not science fact. There is no known evidence for anything like hyperspace that can be used to enable rapid interstellar travel. Nor is there solid evidence that you can instantaneously transport anything by using a space warp. Scientists have not been able to transport even a grain of sand from one place to another using a space warp.

It seems, regrettably, that interstellar travel will be a very slow affair. According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, the speed of light is the fastest speed that can ever be reached. If you could somehow build a spaceship capable of traveling at the speed of light, it would take you about five years to get to the nearest star. But there are engineering reasons for thinking that a spaceship will never be able to accelerate to more than a small fraction of the speed of light. This means that it would take many years to get from one star to another. Interstellar travel might require multi-generation starships, in which many of the travelers are born and die on the starship before it reaches its destination. 

Recruiting poster for a multi-generation interstellar mission

So therefore it would seem that interstellar expeditions should only very rarely arrive at Earth after travel from some other solar system. But imagine you wish to believe that Earth is being frequently visited by spaceships, as many UFO enthusiasts like to believe. It would seem unbelievable for you to maintain that each new major sighting of a UFO is a separate interstellar expedition. That would seem to require believing in very many interstellar expeditions arriving at Earth. And based on the difficulty of interstellar travel, such expeditions should only arrive rarely if at all. 

But there is a way in which a UFO theorist can get around such a difficulty: by the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial mothership. The idea is that somewhere in outer space (unseen by humans) is a gigantic extraterrestrial spaceship, and that such a ship sends out smaller craft to explore our planet, craft sometimes called "daughter vehicles." The idea is that the smaller craft leave the gigantic mothership, travel to Earth, and then later return to the huge mothership. The visual below depicts the mothership idea. The large ship far away from Earth is the extraterrestrial mothership, a ship capable of traveling between different solar systems. The much smaller ship leaving the mothership is a ship designed to explore planet Earth. After exploring Earth for a while, the smaller ship will return to the much larger mothership, to restock its fuel and supplies. 

Under such an idea, you can believe in many UFO sightings without believing in the arrival of many different interstellar expeditions arriving in our solar system. It might be that all of the UFOs are landing craft coming from a single giant mothership. The mothership is typically imagined to be a vehicle fit purely for traveling through space, not something designed to ever enter the atmosphere of a planet. Similarly, in the original run of the television series Star Trek, the interstellar spaceship Enterprise would never land on a planet. 

But how could this huge mothership ever fail to be detected by earthly telescopes? Theorists have various ideas to explain its non-detection, such as the idea that the mothership is many millions of miles away, or the idea that the ship is in orbit around the Moon, always hiding behind the Moon. 

It is possible to make an interesting comparison between this concept of an extraterrestrial mothership and the small exploratory craft coming from it and the concept of a Spirit World from which comes visitors to planet Earth. The two concepts may at first sound extremely different, but it is surprising how much they have in common. 

First, let me explain the concept of a Spirit World from which comes visitors to planet Earth (with the travel also occurring from Earth to the Spirit World).  The concept is associated with ideas of life after death. The idea is that humans are essentially souls or spirits, and that when a physical body dies, a soul or spirit migrates to some Spirit World in which life after death can occur.  The concept allows for possible interaction or communication between beings in such a Spirit World and humans living on Earth. The Spirit World is believed to be invisible to telescopic observations, but accessible from our planet, with a possibility of spirits moving between the Spirit World and planet Earth, or vice versa. The existence of such a Spirit World was asserted by very many people in the nineteenth century, who claimed to receive communication from such a realm.  Since about 1975 there has been renewed interest in such a possibility, spurred by an abundance of near-death experiences in which many people report making brief trips to some mysterious realm resembling such a Spirit World. 

Now let's look at some of the similarities between the two ideas:

	Extraterrestrial Mother Ship Theory	Spirit World Idea
Source of enigmatic visitations to Earth	An extraterrestrial mother ship, a giant interstellar spaceship holding many smaller “daughter vehicles”	A Spirit World populated in part by spirits of the dead
Reason this source is not seen by telescopes	Various speculations, such as it hiding behind the moon, or being very far away in the solar system	Various speculations, such as the idea that the Spirit World is made of some different type of matter or energy that human devices cannot detect
How someone on Earth would experience such visitations	Maybe by seeing an inexplicable UFO or UAP in the sky, or perhaps by having a “Close Encounter of the Third Kind” or an “alien abduction”	Maybe an apparition sighting, a deathbed vision of a deceased relative, a vivid  dream of the deceased, or a mysterious “after death communication” or ADC in which an unseen presence mysteriously interacts with a living human
Can humans see the source of the  visitations?	No – basically no one ever reports seeing or visiting the extraterrestrial mother ship	Perhaps so, because during near-death experiences many report trips to some otherworldly realm that may be such a Spirit World

The square at the bottom right of the table above would seem to give us a reason for thinking that the Spirit World hypothesis is on firmer empirical ground than the Extraterrestrial Mothership hypothesis. It is true that people report seeing strange inexplicable things in the sky, and that people even report more dramatic experiences such as so-called "alien abductions" or "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." But it seems that pretty much no one ever reports seeing or visiting the claimed extraterrestrial mothership existing outside of Earth and its atmosphere. However, people seem to rather often report visiting a Spirt World. Such accounts often occur during near-death experiences. 

For example,  the original AWARE study was one of the leading scientific studies of near-death experiences. It ended up with a group of 101 persons who had experienced a close encounter with death, generally because of a cardiac arrest. Of this pool of 101 persons,  13% answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you feel separated from your body?” 13% answered “Yes” to the question, “Were your senses more vivid than usual?” 8% answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you seem to encounter a mystical being or presence, or hear an unidentifiable voice?” 7% answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you seem to enter some other, unearthly world?” 3% answered “Yes” to the question, “Did you see deceased or religious spirits?” That's 7 out of 101 reporting what sounds like a visit to a Spirit World. 

 The AWARE study  quoted one respondent who gives an account very much like what has been published in previous books on near-death experiences:

"I have comeback from the other side of life. ..God sent (me) back, it was not (my) time — (I) had many things to do. ..(I traveled) through a tunnel toward a very strong light, which didn’t dazzle or hurt (my) eyes. ..there were other people in the tunnel whom (I) did not recognize. When (I) emerged (I) described a very beautiful crystal city. .. there was a river that ran through the middle of the city (with) the most crystal clear waters. There were many people, without faces, who were washing in the waters. ..the people were very beautiful. .. there was the most beautiful singing. ..(and I was) moved to tears. (My) next recollection was looking up at a doctor doing chest compressions."

The account is like many given in near-death experiences. In many such accounts it as if the person having the near-death experience makes a trip to a Spirit World. Often the person will report seeing deceased relatives at such a location. For example, the 1897 account below involves trances in a young girl (Tillie Faith), apparently trances occurring in a state near death. We have some interesting evidence cited suggesting that more than mere imagination is involved:

You can read the account on its original news page using the link below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn92064073/1897-05-27/ed-1/seq-6/

We may therefore wonder whether the hypothesis of visitations to and from a Spirit World is much better established than the hypothesis of visitations to and from an extraterrestrial mothership. It also seems that the number of people who report seeing apparitions is many times greater than the number of people who report seeing something looking like an extraterrestrial. 

Some relevant studies are below:

In Arcangel's study of 827 people, 596 (72%)  responded that they had had an "afterlife encounter." We read, "69% of respondents listed some form of visual encounter (Question 4), 19% were Visual only, 13% were a combination of Visual/Auditory, 8% Visual/Sense of Presence and 8% Visual/Auditory/Sense of Presence."

Erlendur Haraldsson surveyed 902 people in Iceland in 1974, finding that 31% reported seeing an apparition or having an encounter with a dead person.  He did another survey in Iceland  in 2007 with a similar sample size, finding that 42% reported seeing an apparition or having an encounter with a dead person, with 21% reporting a "visual experience of a dead person,"  along with 21% reporting an out-of-body experience. 

According to the paper "Psychic Experiences in the Multinational Human Values Study: Who Reports Them?" here: "Three items on personal psychic experiences (telepathy, clairvoyance, contact with the dead) were included in a survey of human values that was conducted on large representative samples in 13 countries in Europe and in the U.S. (N = 18,607). In Europe, the percentage of persons reporting telepathy was 34%; clairvoyance was reported by 21%; and 25% reported contact with the dead. Percentages for the U.S. were considerably higher: 54%, 25% and 30% respectively.".  

A 1973 survey of 434 persons in Los Angeles, USA ("Phenomenological Reality and Post-Death  Contact" by Richard Kalish and David Reynolds) found that 44% reported encounters with the deceased, and that 25% of those 44% (in other words, 11% of the 434) said that a dead person "actually visited or was seen at a seance."

As reported in the 1894 edition of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (Volume X, Part XXVI), an 1890's "Census of Hallucinations" conducted by the Society for Psychical Research asked, "Have you ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid impression of seeing or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice ; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?"  As reported in Table 1 here (page 39), the number answering "Yes" was about 10%.  Because the question did not specifically refer to the dead, ghosts or apparitions, the wording of the question may have greatly reduced the number of "yes" answers from people experiencing what seemed to be an apparition of the dead or a sense of the presence of the dead. 

In the March-April 1948 edition of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, page 187, there appeared the result of a survey asking the same question asked in 1894: "Have you ever, when believing yourself to be completely awake, had a vivid impression of seeing or being touched by a living being or inanimate object, or of hearing a voice ; which impression, so far as you could discover, was not due to any external physical cause?"  According to page 191, 217 out of 1519 answered "Yes." This was a 14% "yes" rate higher than the rate of about 10% reported in 1894. 

A 1980 telephone survey of 368 participants found that 29% reported "post-death communication." 

The British Medical Journal published in 1971 a study by Rees that involved almost 300 subjects, one entitled "The Hallucinations of Widowhood."  Rees reported that 39% in his survey reported a sense of presence from a deceased person and 14% reported seeing the deceased, along with 13% hearing the deceased.

A 2015 Pew Research poll found that 18% of Americans said they've seen or been in the presence of a ghost, and that 29% said that they've felt in touch with someone who died. 

A survey of 1510 Germans found (page 12) that 15.8 reported experience with an apparition, and more than 36% reported experience with ESP. 

A Groupon survey of 2000 people found that more than 60% claim to have seen a ghost.

A 1976 survey of 1467 people in the US asked people if they had ever "felt as though you were really in touch with someone who had died?" 27% answered "Yes."  

On page 123 of the 1954 Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research (Volume 48), which you can read here, we read of a poll done of 42 students who were asked: "Have you ever actually seen your physical body from a viewpoint completely outside that body, like standing beside the bed and looking at yourself lying in the bed, or like floating in the air near your body?” 33% answered "Yes." 

 A  study found that "Of the 30 interviewable survivors of cardiac arrest, 7 (23 percent) described experiences classified as NDEs by scoring 7 or more points on the NDE Scale." Of these reporting a near-death experience in this study (11), 90% reported out-of-body experiences. 

 A Dutch study found 18% of cardiac arrest survivors reporting a near-death experience, but with only a minority of these reporting an out-of-body experience. 

A survey of family members of deceased Japanese found that 21% reported deathbed visions. A study of 103 subjects in India reports this: "Thirty of these dying persons displayed behavior consistent with deathbed visions-interacting or speaking with deceased relatives, mostly their dead parents." A study of 102 families in the Republic of Moldava found that "37 cases demonstrated classic features of deathbed visions--reports of seeing dead relatives or friends communicating to the dying person." 

A survey about near-death experiences in Australia said that nearly 9% of Australians reported them.  

A study on after-death communication (ADC) states, "Results indicated that, regarding prevalence, 30-35% of people report at least one ADC sometime in their lives and, regarding incidence, 70-80% of bereaved people report one or more ADC experiences within months of a loved one's physical death."

A paper  "Out-of-Body Experiences" by Carlos S. Alvarado tells us that according to 5 surveys of the general population, 10% of the population report out-of-body experiences. A larger number of surveys of students show they report out-of-body experiences at a rate of about 25%. 

On the page here, we read this about an October, 2025 poll: " A new YouGov poll asked Americans about their paranormal experiences. Most Americans say they’ve had at least one paranormal experience, and many believe that they personally have a paranormal ability." The poll was a survey of 1136 American adults. Among the more interesting findings were these:  16% of the Americans polled reported "seeing a spirit or ghost." Of these, the majority said they had seen such a thing more than once. 

A year 2023 Pew Research survey of 5079 adults in the USA found that "46% of Americans report that they’ve been visited by a dead family member in a dream, while 31% report having been visited by dead relatives in some other form," with 53% reporting either or both of these experiences. 34% said that in the past 12 months they have "felt the presence of a family member who is dead." This wasn't just churchgoers. The survey found that "Roughly half (48%) of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – atheists, agnostics, and those who report their religion is “nothing in particular” – say they have ever been visited by a dead relative in a dream or other form."

We read the following on a page of the Psi Encyclopedia: "In 2017, Una MacConville carried out a study with Irish health care professionals. The carers reported that 45% of their patients spoke of visions of deceased relatives, often joyful experiences that bring a sense of peace and comfort."

These numbers are much higher than any percentage of people reporting seeing what seemed to be an extraterrestrial. So it can reasonably be argued that the idea of visitations from and to a Spirit World is much better empirically supported than the idea of visitations to and from some extraterrestrial mothership. 

Pinker Misspeaks On Psychic Phenomena

 In two previous posts I documented bad misstatements of Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. In my 2014 post "Pinker's Fallacious Case Against the Self and Soul" I documented some misstatements Pinker made in a Time magazine article. One of Pinker's bad misstatements in his article was this claim: "Surgery that severs the corpus callosum, separating the two hemispheres (a treatment for epilepsy), spawns two consciousnesses within the same skull, as if the soul could be cleaved in two with a knife." That is the exact opposite of the truth. The surgery in question that severs the two halves of the brain does not produce two minds, but leaves people with a single unified mind, contrary to what is predicted by the dogma that brains make minds. 

Pinker here took an experimental result that very strongly argues for the existence of something like a soul and argues against the claim that the mind is the product of the brain, and misstated the experimental result as being the opposite of what it was.  His misstatement here  was every bit as bad as someone saying that people have taken pictures from outer space that show planet Earth is flat, which is the exact opposite of what happened.  Read the appendix of this post for more on this topic. 

In a 2018 post I looked at some of the many misstatements and cases of bad logic in Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress." An example of the  bad misstatements Pinker made in that book was this statement: "A momentous discovery of 20th-century theoretical neuroscience is that networks of neurons not only can preserve information but can transform it in ways that allow us to explain how brains can be intelligent.” To the contrary, there is no understanding at all of how a brain could possibly be generating intelligence, nor is there the slightest speck of evidence that neurons store learned information. It is now the year 2025, and not a speck of anything a human ever learned has ever been found in a brain by microscopic examination. The failure to discover any trace of learned information in brains by microscopic information is one of the strongest reason for rejecting claims that brains store human memories. 

On page 426 of the book  Pinker stated, "Nor are the computational and neurological bases of consciousness obstinately befuddling." The truth, quite to the contrary, is that no one understands or can credibly explain any neurological or computational explanation for consciousness or intelligence or human memory. In my post I stated "Pinker again and again claims that he and his colleagues understand deep things that they do not at all understand. " In the past five years it has been widely acknowledged by neuroscientists and psychologists that we do not understand how a brain could produce consciousness, contrary to Pinker's silly boasts on this topic. 

Below are some of the scientists who told us the truth on this topic:

• "Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience.” -- Donald D. Hoffman Department of Cognitive Sciences University of California, "Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem."
• "Little progress in solving the mystery of human cognition has been made to date." -- 2 neuroscientists, 2021 (link). 
• " We don't know how a brain produces a thought." -- Neuroscientist Saskia De Vries (link). 
• "You realize that neither the term ‘decision-making’ nor the term ‘attention’ actually corresponds to a thing in the brain." -- neuroscentist Paul Ciskek (link). 
• "We know very little about the brain. We know about connections, but we don't know how information is processed." -- Neurobiologist Lu Chen. 
• "The neuroscientific study of creativity is stuck and lost." -- Psychologist Arne Dietrich,  "Where in the brain is creativity: a brief account of a wild-goose chase."
• "How creative ideas arise in our mind and in our brain is a key unresolved question." -- nine scientists (link).
• "The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Were we able even to see and feel the very molecules of the brain, and follow all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges if such there be, and intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem,...The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable."  -- Physicist John Tyndall (link).
• "But when it comes to our actual feelings, our thought, our emotions, our consciousness, we really don't have a good answer as to how the brain helps us to have those different experiences." -- Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist, Ancient Aliens, Episode 16 of Season 14, 6:52 mark. 
• "Dr Gregory Jefferis, of the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge told BBC News that currently we have no idea how the network of brain cells in each of our heads enables us to interact with each other and the world around us."  -- BBC news article (link). 
• "The mind-brain problem, i.e., how our conscious experience is related to material brain processes, has been debated by philosophers for centuries and remains one of the deepest unsolved problems in science." -- 12 scientists in the year 2024 (link). 

In that 2018 post and my my 2014 post  I documented quite a few misstatements of Steven Pinker on the topic of parapsychology and psychic phenomena. Steven Pinker fails to show signs of serious scholarship on these topics, and routinely speaks erroneously when he writes on them. 

I find more evidence of Pinker's shallow, lazy scholarship of these topics when I go to his website at www. stevenpinker.com. Doing that on my I-Pad, I got my entire I-Pad screen filled up with a huge image of Steven Pinker's head.  I'm not sure why any scholar who wants to be taken seriously would have an image so oversized filling up the first page of his web site.  It's the kind of visual you might expect on, say, the home page of some young actress hoping to become a starlet. 

Not Pinker, just a guy like Pinker

A year 2022 article on Pinker's website shows Pinker's failure to seriously research the topics of psi, ESP and telepathy. He gives us this very untrue statement: "Also, the classic claims for ESP in controlled experiments cited by Horowitz, such as those of J. B. Rhine and his intellectual descendants, have been exposed as artifacts of investigator bias, leakage of information, selective reporting, overinterpretation of coincidence, questionable research practices (such as post hoc data exclusion), and outright fraud."  No such thing ever happened. The experiments of Duke University professor Joseph Rhine have never been successfully debunked, and stand up very well as very strong evidence for ESP and telepathy.  The separate-buildings experiment of Riess was about as strong as a result in favor of telepathy as anyone could ask for.  In a test requiring 1850 card guesses, an unnamed woman in a different building guessed an overall average of 18.24 cards correctly per 25 cards, rather than the expected average of only about 5 cards correctly per 25 cards, with the number of correct guesses being 979 more than expected by chance. 

The Ganzfeld experiments in recent decades have been laboratory experiments that very well-replicated the phenomenon of ESP shown by Rhine's experiments, with results consistently showing an average hit rate of 30% or more, much higher than the expected by-chance hit rate of only 25%.  Far from being debunked, results like those of Rhine have been well-replicated in recent decades. By claiming that Rhine's results were overturned, Pinker has told us the opposite of the truth. The latest result of an ESP test is the result reported on page 62 of the year 2025 document here. It is a test of 240 participants conducted at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland's largest university), by two professors. The researchers used the long-successful Ganzfeld protocol, which for many years has produced results of around 30% to 32%,  well above the result expected by chance (only 25%).  The tests were done in a "ganzfeld laboratory" in a "quiet and secure basement room of a university building," in the years 2023 and 2024. We read that "Seventy-two hits were obtained out of 240 sessions, a 30% hit-rate," a success well above the result expected by chance, only 25%.

At the end of his statement I quoted above claiming that Rhine's research was discredited, Pinker gives four references, numbered 11, 12, 13 and 14. Reference number 11 is to a Skeptical Inquirer article by Blackmore that does not mention any research by Rhine. Reference 11 is to a paper by Hyman that has no detailed discussion of the research of Rhine, but merely the very false claim that "Rhine's data are no longer used to argue the case for psi." Reference 13 is to a paper that does not mention Rhine or his research. Reference 14 is to a paper that does not refer to Rhine or his research. So none of the papers or articles that Pinker has cited back up his claim that Rhine's research was debunked. Rhine's research was enormously convincing evidence for ESP, and Pinker has done nothing to discredit such research, while providing only bad citations to try to back up his claim that such research was discredited. 

We have two hundred years of extremely convincing written evidence in favor of clairvoyance, a large fraction of it written by reliable and distinguished sources such as scientists and doctors. Some of that evidence is discussed in the 18 posts you can read here. A relevant quote from a 19th-century authority is below:

"The distinguished Parisian Professor of Medicine, Rostan, gave at the time his corroborative testimony to the existence of this power in the article ' Magnetisme,' in the ' Dictionnaire de Medecine,'  wherein he remarked : 'There are few facts better demonstrated than clairvoyance' ....Innumerable instances are recorded of the possession of the faculty of clairvoyance by persons in the normal state, in sleep [hypnotism], and in some abnormal conditions of the system, " -- Edwin Lee, MD, "Animal Magnetism and Magnetic Lucid Somnambulism" page 103 and page 133.

The scientist Joseph-Philippe-François Deleuze stated on pages 129 to 130 of an 1817 book that more than two thousand somnambulists (hypnotized people) had been observed since 1784, and also that the majority of them were observed to see with their eyes closed (which is clairvoyance), while also stating that in France more than 50,000 people had witnessed such phenomena. In subsequent decades extremely strong evidence for clairvoyance would continue to appear -- for example,  the cases discussed  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, 

here and here.

The denial of this century's professors of the reality of clairvoyance is a case of denialism as bad as what would be going on if professors claimed that meteorites have never fallen to the earth. Pinker is the kind of thinker who apparently cannot be bothered to seriously read up on two hundred years of evidence for clairvoyance and telepathy, and who resorts to dumb armchair circular-reasoning arguments against their existence. He says, "If ESP really existed, not only would the laws of physics have to be overturned, but life would be unrecognizable." Nonsense. Whether ESP or telepathy exists has very little or nothing to do with physics, a topic Pinker does not appreciably write about.   And there is no reason why our understanding of physics or life has to stay unmodified.

At no point in the article does Pinker show any signs of being a serious scholar on the topic of telepathy research or research into paranormal phenomena.  I defy anyone to produce a single article or paper or book Steven Pinker wrote in which he sounds like a deep and diligent scholar of the anomalous, the paranormal, parapsychology or psychical research.  Deep scholars of these topics bury their noses in old books, and quote abundantly from original source materials. We don't get that when Steven Pinker lazily pontificates on these topics, sounding like a dabbling dilettante making the tiniest of efforts while just "phoning it in." None of Pinker's generalizations about these topics can be trusted, because he shows no signs of diligence in studying these topics. Psi denialists such as Pinker seem to senselessly follow a rule of "discard or ignore all clues that offend me," like the people I describe in my post here. 

We got a more recent example of Pinker's lazy, shoddy scholarship about spooky phenomena in his year 2025 article on the topic of terminal lucidity. Terminal lucidity is a phenomenon in which some very sick person  believed to be very close to death or with a very damaged brain or demented mind suddenly shows a brief period of intellectual clarity before dying from his disease. This often can occur after a long period of stupor or mental incapacity. 

Pinker's article shows zero signs that Pinker has studied any of the cases of terminal lucidity. All he gives us is some armchair reasoning and gaslighting, and a bunch of rhetorical questions. It's just the kind of "can't be bothered to make a few Google searches" affair that we might expect when Pinker is writing about unexplained phenomena. He mentions not a single specific case in which terminal lucidity was claimed. 

Here are some terminal lucidity cases that help discredit the false claims about the human mind that Pinker likes to make. On page 603 of the September 17, 1936 edition of the journal Light, which you can read here, we read this: 

"In one of his lectures last year to the L.S.A., the Rev. Cruwys Sharland related how a one-time pupil of his, after suffering for many years from disintegration of the brain, when approaching his death, suddenly recovered complete mental control and gave those present a long circumstantial account of a walking tour he had undertaken when quite a boy, in company with Mr. Sharland, then his tutor. Every detail was correct, every fact rightly placed, as Mr. Sharland himself testified. 

Psychica quotes several analogous cases from the German Wahres Leben. A young girl, imbecile for eight years, one morning informed the doctor of the asylum in which she lived that she would die the following night—which she did—and discussed various points with him with full mental awareness. M. Martensen Larsen has recorded the case of an Army doctor confined for homicidal mania, who, just prior to his passing, recovered his sanity and wrote several letters asking the forgiveness of those he had attempted to injure. M. G. W. Surya writes of a friend of his who was summoned to the asylum in which his brother had for years been confined with complete softening of the brain. He found his brother perfectly normal and anxious to make certain suggestions to him. He died the same day, and autopsy revealed that the brain had entirely disintegrated.

How can we account for his complete lucidity before death ? 

Similarly, the well-known Berlin anatomist, Benecke, assured his students that Schinkel, the architect, died in possession of all his faculties, in spite of the fact that his cranium was subsequently proved to have been, ' so to speak, empty.' ” 

We have here not just one but three different cases in which it is stated that someone with the most severe brain damage seemed to gain or have normal mental function shortly before dying. In two cases it is reported that the person acting normally or with normal cognition just before death had the most extreme disintegration or wasting of the brain, leaving basically no brain left. 

The year 2021 scientific paper "Spontaneous Remission of Dementia Before Death: Results From a Study on Paradoxical Lucidity" discusses many cases of terminal lucidity.  We read this:

" Detailed case reports of 124 dementia patients who experienced an episode of paradoxical lucidity were received. In more than 80% of these cases, complete remission with return of memory, orientation, and responsive verbal ability was reported by observers

of the lucid episode. The majority of patients died within hours to days after the episode..... More than 80% of the patients in this study appeared to have experienced a full, albeit brief, reversal of often profound cognitive impairment in advanced and end-stage dementia."

In the paper we read this: "Macleod (2009) observed 100 consecutive deaths in a hospice in New Zealand and found six cases of unexpected, spontaneous return of cognitive functions and verbal ability within 48 hr before the death of the patient."

Recently there was published the paper "Terminal Lucidity in a Pediatric Oncology Clinic," which reported some similar cases of terminal lucidity. You can read the full paper here. One or more of the  authors interviewed the physicians involved in the cases.  Before discussing its fascinating account of terminal lucidity in a patient identified as Patient One, I should mention that the term "encephalopathic" typically refers to a severe brain pathology, most often involving a brain infection or a failure of the immune system to protect the brain from infection. In the paper we read this:

"The patient was a three-year-old Hispanic female with prolonged medical treatment history for her diagnosis of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), a complex and often life-threatening medical condition resulting from an uncontrolled and ineffective immune response, leading to extreme inflammation in many organs/tissues. After over a year of intense treatments, she underwent an umbilical cord blood transplant, which is the only known cure for this condition. Unfortunately, the transplant was rejected, and while attempts were made to find another option for a second transplant, she had a re-emergence of her HLH and was admitted to the hospital for chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Despite some initial improvements, she developed progressive organ damage and deterioration over the next several weeks, prompting transfer to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), with worsening liver and pulmonary failure. She became severely jaundiced and encephalopathic, and was no longer speaking, eating, or responding to parents/providers. The ICU physicians were worried that she was an aspiration risk, prompting intensification of Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate (DNR/DNI) conversations with her parents. As all the known treatments available were exhausted and her condition worsened, the focus shifted to providing palliative care. Although initially resistant, after nearly two weeks of intense conversations with parents (including family members and a Catholic priest) and further deterioration in their daughter’s condition, a DNI and modified DNR status change was agreed. That evening, the patient awoke and asked for her usual comfort items (i.e., Lion King movie, parents, toys) and food. She showed no indication of mental impairment and regained the ability to sit up in bed and participate in coloring and other simple age-appropriate tasks. She spoke using logical, organized full sentences, and had multiple conversations with her parents that evening, which they and the bedside nurse described as 'like a miracle.' During the conversations with her parents, she reviewed all the important people in her life and prayed for them. She indicated awareness of transitioning to death and reassured loved ones of the need not to be concerned about her. She also seemed to be communicating with people who were not visible to others. After several hours, she asked to 'go to bed' and returned to her comatose state. During the next 24-48 hours, she never awoke again, and she ultimately died peacefully of cardiac arrest in her parents’ arms."

No such thing as terminal lucidity should occur if your brain was producing your mind. Once a mind-producing brain had deteriorated, such a deterioration would be irreversible. A brain producing a mind would no more suddenly restore itself in the hours before death than a book missing many of its pages would suddenly restore such pages. Terminal lucidity is one of endless examples of paranormal phenomena that collectively show the irrationality of the materialist dogmas that Pinker cherishes the most, with brain physical shortfalls and accidentally unachievable biological organization doing even more show to show the irrationality of such dogmas. 

Pinker's very frequent "holier than thou" lectures about the virtue of rationality (in which he sells thinkers like himself as Men of Reason) should not prevent us from getting insight as to how irrational his materialist belief system is. A small fraction of the aspects of such irrationality are discussed in my 2018 post and my 2014 post about Pinker's writings. A major reason why people fail to perceive the irrationality of the materialist belief system of thinkers like Pinker is that those selling such a belief system have typically hidden their irrationality by using a thick layer of misstatements, like some bald, very wrinkled old man who hides his old age by using a toupee and a thick layer of makeup. Once we study, list and strip away such misstatements, the mask of rationality is pulled away, and we can see the underlying irrationality. There is nothing rational about claims such as the claim that a human body so supremely systemic and having so very many just-right interdependent components arose because of a mere  accumulation of copying errors. 

In his career Pinker got very absorbed in studying history and linguistics, which may have been a case of getting sidetracked from the studies he should have done before making the kind of statements about minds, souls, brains and biological origins that he has made.  While Pinker frequently appeals to dogmas about brains and biology, I rather doubt that he is a very deep and very broad scholar of brains and biology and the full spectrum of human mental capabilities, human mental experiences and human mental performances.

When Pinker makes erroneous biology statements like "the most selfish thing a gene can do is build a selfless brain" and "the organization of our mental modules comes from our genetic program," or when he refers most erroneously to "the genetic recipes that build the mind" (as he does on page 20 of the book here), he sounds like someone who has fallen "hook, line and sinker" for the worst "old wives' tale" myths about DNA and its genes (which do not have any such thing as a program or specification of how to make a brain or any of its cells or any of the organelles of such cells, and do not have any specification of anything like a mental module or a mind, or a recipe or program for making any such thing). A sufficiently deep study of the human brain and the sky-high information-rich fine-tuning and hierarchical organization of human bodies not specified by DNA or its genes, and a sufficiently deep critical study of neuroscience research (combined with a sufficiently deep study of medical case histories and the full spectrum of human mental experiences and the full spectrum of human mental performances) will very much undermine and discredit the type of dogmas that Pinker likes to preach. 

Sounding a note similar to one of my criticisms above, a Harvard authority states, "Pinker has strong opinions on how religious people think, yet he seems not to have done the work of actually reading religious thinkers." 

Pinker is one of the key figures in evolutionary psychology, one of the worst junkyards of unscientific and unfounded speculation in academia. Sitting on their armchairs, evolutionary psychologists spend endless hours making cheesy impossible-to-test speculations such as "you have such and such a mental trait because cavemen needed such and such a trait for such and such a reason," or "people still act in such and such a way because evolution made cavemen act in such and such a way for such and such a reason." It is ironic Pinker has criticized Rhine, who was much more of an experimental scientist than Pinker. Rhine spent the prime of his career gathering valuable hard laboratory data, something very different from Pinker's "just-so story" evolutionary psychology tall tales that are the opposite of hard data. The article "Why Jeremy Epstein Loved Evolutionary Psychology" explains some aspects of evolutionary psychology that are morally troubling. 

But it seems some people do think Pinker wrote a good book promoting optimism about mankind's progress and a good book on language; and a visit to his site will allow you to find out about such  works if you are interested. 

Appendix

This appendix will support my claim that Pinker made a false claim when he claimed in his Time article that "Surgery that severs the corpus callosum, separating the two hemispheres (a treatment for epilepsy), spawns two consciousnesses within the same skull, as if the soul could be cleaved in two with a knife.)"

See  this scientific paper "The Myth of Dual Consciousness in the Split Brain." The actual facts about split-brain surgery are related here by a surgeon who has performed such an operation. He states this about split-brain patients:

"After the surgery they are unaffected in everyday life, except for the diminished seizures. They are one person after the surgery, as they were before."

The surgeon states: "In a rational scientific community in which evidence and reason held sway, split-brain surgery would be hailed as compelling evidence for dualism and the immateriality of the intellect and will."

Physician Michael Egnor states the following about Sperry's research:

"The neuroscientist Roger Sperry studied scores of split-brain patients. He found, surprisingly, that in ordinary life the patients showed little effect. Each patient was still one person. The intellect and will – the capacity to have abstract thought and to choose – remained unified. Only by meticulous testing could Sperry find any differences: their perceptions were altered by the surgery. Sensations – elicited by touch or vision – could be presented to one hemisphere of the brain, and not be experienced in the other hemisphere. Speech production is associated with the left hemisphere of the brain; patients could not name an object presented to the right hemisphere (via the left visual field). Yet they could point to the object with their left hand (which is controlled by the right hemisphere). The most remarkable result of Sperry’s Nobel Prize­–winning work was that the person’s intellect and will – what we might call the soul – remained undivided. The brain can be cut in half, but the intellect and will cannot. The intellect and will are metaphysically simple."

The article here in Psychology Today describes the bizarre experiment that was used to make the groundless claim that split-brain patients have two minds. It was some experiment based only on visual perception, using some very strange experimental setup unlike anyone normally encounters. The article shreds to pieces claims that results from such an experiment shows that split-brain patients have two minds:

"Not so fast. There are several reasons to question the conclusions Sperry, Gazzaniga, and others sought to draw. First, both split-brain patients and people closest to them report that no major changes in the person have occurred after the surgery. When you communicate with the patient, you never get the sense that the there are now different people living in the patient's head.

This would be very puzzling if the mind was really split. Currently, you are the only conscious person in your neocortex. You consciously perceive your entire visual field, and you control your whole body. However, if your mind splits, this would dramatically change. You would become two people: 'lefty' and 'righty.' 'Lefty' would only see what is in the right visual field and control the right side of the body while 'righty' would see what’s in the left visual field and control the left side of the body. Both 'lefty' and 'righty' would be half-blind and half-paralyzed. It would seem to each of them that another person is in charge of half of the body.

Yet, patients never indicate that it feels as though someone else is controlling half of the body. The patients’ loved ones don’t report noticing a dramatic change in the person after the surgery either. Could we all — patients themselves, their family members, and neutral observers — miss the signs that a single person has been replaced by two people? If you suddenly lost control of half of your body, could you fail to notice? Could you fail to notice if the two halves of your spouse’s or child’s body are controlled by two different minds?"

A 2020 paper states this about split-brain patients: " Apart from a number of anecdotal incidents in the subacute phase following the surgery, these patients seem to behave in a socially ordinary manner and they report feeling unchanged after the operation (Bogen, Fisher, & Vogel, 1965; Pinto et al., 2017a; R. W. Sperry, 1968; R. Sperry, 1984)." 

A very relevant case  reported is that of an 88-year old man (identified as H.W.) who tested very well on a test of mental functioning, getting the maximum possible score of 30. But it was found that the man had no corpus callosum. The corpus callosum is the main part of the brain that links the two brain hemispheres.  A man who has no corpus callosum is equivalent to a split-brain patient. As an article reports:

"Given the importance of the callosum for connecting the bicameral brain, you’d think this would have had profound neuropsychological consequences for H.W. In fact, a detailed clinical interview revealed that he’d led a normal, independent life – first in the military and later as a flower delivery man. Until recently, if H.W.’s testimony is to be believed, he appeared to have suffered no significant psychological or neurological effects of his unusual brain...Brescian and her colleagues conducted comprehensive neuropsych tests on H.W. and on most he excelled or performed normally. This included IQ tests, abstract reasoning, naming tests, visual scanning, motor planning, visual attention and auditory perception."

The article has a very clear title telling us the truth about this matter:

This Elderly Man Was Born With His Brain Hemispheres Disconnected. Did It Affect His Life? Hardly.

But the corresponding scientific paper sounds as if was written to try and make this case as unlikely as possible to be noticed. We have this title: "Case study: A patient with agenesis of the corpus callosum with minimal associated neuropsychological impairment." Agenesis is a word meaning "absence," one that would only be used by someone trying to get as few people as possible to notice an absence.

Making a generalization about people born without a corpus callosum connecting the two sides of the brain, a scientific paper states this:

"The major anatomic feature of Primary AgCC is the absence of the corpus callosum....Primary AgCC has surprisingly limited impact on general cognitive ability. Although the full-scale IQ may be lower than expected based on family history, scores frequently remain within the average range."

We hear no mention of any "two minds in one body" effect. Another paper states this, using the term "agenesis of the corpus callosum" which means a failure of someone's body to ever have  the corpus callosum connecting the two halves of the brain:

"In the 37 adult cases of agenesis of the corpus callosum, 19 (51%) had some degree of intellectual impairment, with the remainder being judged to have a normal IQ. Of those with learning difficulties, two thirds had a mild impairment, and one third had a moderate or severe problem."

You can find papers on the condition of being born with no corpus callosum by searching on Google Scholar for papers having the phrase "agenesis of the corpus callosum."  You will not find any discussion of "two minds in one body" in such papers about split-brain equivalent patients, which helps show that the claim of such an effect is groundless.   

The paper "Outcomes Associated With Isolated Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum: A Meta-analysis" tells us that for those with complete agenesis of the corpus callosum (complete failure of the corpus callosum to appear) "abnormal cognitive status occurred in 15.16% (95% CI, 6.9–25.9) of cases," which is fewer than 1 case in 6. The same paper tells us that for those with partial agenesis of the corpus callosum (partial failure of the corpus callosum to appear) "cognitive status was affected in 17.25% (95% CI, 3.0–39.7) of cases," fewer than 1 in 5.  This suggests the great majority of people born with split brains and no corpus callosum have normal minds, and nothing like split minds or two minds in one body.