Exploring Psychomanteum as a Psi-Conducive State of Consciousness

Abstract

The mirror gazing procedure termed the "psychomanteum" was developed by the world renowned psychiatrist Dr. Raymond Moody. It was designed to facilitate reunion experiences with deceased individuals, as a means of addressing the feelings surrounding bereavement. Although the modern psychomanteum is not normally employed to seek extra-sensory perception (ESP) information about the future, it may be that the psychomanteum is psi-conductive. For example, there are many similarities and differences between psychomanteum experiences and accounts of hypnagogic/hypnopompic imagery, which is conducive to ESP. The aim is of this paper was to explore whether the psychomanteum technique encourages a psi-conducive state of consciousness, which would result in scoring that is significantly above mean chance expectation (MCE). One hundred and thirty participants (92 females and 38 males; mean age= 47.44) were recruited by announcements in newspapers and our web site. Under psychomanteum condition, psi-hitting was obtained (30.8% above MCE); however, under no-psychomanteum (control) condition, 29.2% was obtained (where 25% was expected). The results differ slightly from MCE in the psychomanteum condition (p= .02, one-tailed) in comparison with nopsychomanteum condition, but no significant differences were found. A number of positive correlations were also found, for instance, participants who attained higher scores on auditory and visual hallucinations tended to demonstrate psi-hitting.

Mirror- and Eye-Gazing: An Integrative Review of Induced Altered and Anomalous Experiences

“…Radin and Rebman (1996) reported that power in different EEG frequency bands (i.e., beta, alpha, and theta) was correlated with changes in the magnetic field while participants were in the booth. In a controlled setup, Parra and Villanueva (2015) found evidence of psi-phenomena in the psychomanteum through purported telepathic communication indexed by mean scores, in relation to “hit pictures,” that exceeded the statistical probability of random responding. Nevertheless, results were inconclusive in enhancing ESP with respect to a comparison condition in which the mirror was covered with a blackboard.…”

Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies 2009-2018: Assessing the Noise-Reduction Model Ten Years On

“…Studies included in previous meta-analyses that were then re-published after that meta-analysis, were not used in the present meta-analysis: for example, Holt (2007) = Holt (2013). If there was more than one version of the same study valid in the test period (using the same data), the more detailed study was used: thereby, Parra and Villanueva (2015) replaced two studies -i.e., Villanueva (2010, 2011); replaced Parra and Argibay (2013c). One study ordinarily valid in the test period (i.e., Parker, 2010) happened to include more accurate data from a study already used in a previous meta-analysis (i.e., Parker, 2006, which was therefore excluded from the present analysis -for details, see Storm, Tressoldi, & Utts, 2013).…”

“…When that database (N = 29) was tested against our new database (N = 9), we found no significant differences: z scores, t(36) = 0.30, p = .768 (two-tailed); ES values, t(36) = 0.25, p = .801 (two-tailed). We combined the two databases (29 + 9 = 38), found no outliers, and thereby formed an updated homogeneous database of 38 studies collected for the period 1992 to 2018 -a 27-year span (actual publication dates were from 1997 to 2012): 7 mean z = 0.97 (SD = 1.27), 95%CI [0.549 to 1.381]; mean ES = 0.13 (SD = 0.19), 95%CI [0.071 to 0.194]. Neither of these CIs includes zero.…”

“…In Storm et al (2013) we pointed out that there were missing data from Tressoldi and Del Prete (2007), which were erroneously omitted in the original 2010 database. Also, Parra and Villanueva (2015), which was originally in Category 3, was transferred to Category 2 as there was a relaxation treatment. With a revised database now standing at N = 18, the revised mean ES = 0.10 (SD = 0.18).…”

“…Storm et al (2010) constructed a database of standard free-response studies (N = 21), but Targ and Katra (2000) was later removed, whereas Del Prete and Tressoldi (2005) was added (for the explanation, see Storm et al, 2013). Also, Parra and Villanueva (2015) was removed as explained above (new N = 20). However, tests showed the database would not be homogeneous without the removal of the same six outliers listed in Storm et al (2013, p. 251): Holt (2007; two datasets), May (2007), Simmonds and Fox (2004), Storm (2003), and Watt and Wiseman (2002).…”