by Everton Maraldi, 2025 Parapsychological Association Presidential Address
In my 2024 PA Presidential Address, I spoke about parapsychology’s contributions to science and contemporary thought. Now, I will turn to a different, but connected theme: the current state and future of our field, adopting a more critical lens. My talk will not focus directly on theories of psi or how to best evaluate psi experimentally. Instead, I will concentrate on the broader institutional landscape of parapsychology, the current challenges hindering the development of the field, and the directions we might pursue going forward.
We all know that our field still struggles to be widely accepted socially and academically. But while we often identify external skepticism and censorship as our primary obstacles, we must acknowledge that internal factors – such as institutional challenges and lack of disciplinary self-critique and integration – also undermine the field’s progress. In science, as in life, it is often easier to identify and confront a common enemy than to acknowledge our own shortcomings or embrace the new possibilities that emerge through sustained self-reflection. As president of the Parapsychological Association, my responsibility extends beyond motivating and engaging our fellow colleagues; it also involves recognizing where we may be falling short and considering how we might realign the field to foster more constructive and meaningful progress.
In this presentation, I would like to discuss not the problems that come from outside the field, but our role in parapsychology’s situation and the attitudes and decisions that I believe may help us move forward. These are some of the broad questions I would like to propose for our reflection during my talk: What is parapsychology’s identity as a research field? What internal challenges threaten the cohesion and scientific legitimacy of parapsychology today? To what extent do theoretical and methodological disagreements contribute to the fragmentation of the field? How has the global distribution and cultural framing of parapsychological research affected its development? Is the field at risk of dissolution, and what might this mean for its historical legacy? If the answer is yes to the possibility of a dissolution, how can we foster integration and conciliation without sacrificing scientific rigor?
These are all very complex, interconnected issues that, of course, I do not intend to resolve entirely. Rather, my goal is to propose possible pathways and explore the options available to us. More importantly, I want to emphasize our capacity to solve many of these challenges if we are genuinely engaged and motivated. My focus is on what we can do now, rather than simply waiting for a paradigm shift in science. Actually, as I intend to demonstrate, there are numerous indications that parapsychological topics are becoming increasingly mainstream – yet this shift is unfolding largely without our active participation, recognition, or clear advantages to our community. The question then is: How can we benefit from this growing interest in anomalous experiences in academia?
Parapsychology’s Place in Science and Society
Before moving to a more detailed discussion of these questions and the challenges mentioned previously, it is important to briefly review the current situation of parapsychology in relation to mainstream science. If we focus solely on the phenomenological and psychological dimensions of anomalous and psi-related experiences, the outlook appears generally positive: research in these areas is growing and strengthening. I’ll talk more about this later. However, the situation becomes more complex when we turn to the ontological status of psi. While there has been some discernible progress in this regard – as I will also illustrate later in the presentation – it remains a controversial terrain within mainstream science.
Parapsychologists argue that anomalous or exceptional experiences such as telepathic impressions, precognition, and out-of-body experiences offer important insights into perception, consciousness, and the nature of reality itself. Although they might be explained in terms of psychological or social factors such as cognitive biases, fraud, or mental disorder, there remains something genuine about these reports or allegations that cannot be entirely reduced to “normal” explanations.
Throughout parapsychology’s history, significant efforts have been made to address previous methodological criticisms and concerns, sometimes in close collaboration with its critics and skeptics. While many investigators have been unable to replicate previous findings, some colleagues argue that the cumulative evidence, when considered critically, is consistent with an anomalous process of information transmission (popularly defined as extrasensory perception) or energy exchange (that is, psychokinesis) that is independent of the known sensory systems or biological processes, respectively.
Over more than a century, the findings of parapsychological research have been published in a series of mainstream scientific journals – attracting the interest, as well as the disdain and criticism of mainstream scientists. Several eminent thinkers, including some Nobel Prize winners, took the possibility of psychic phenomena seriously and even contributed to scientific investigations on the subject, among them Charles Richet (1850–1935), Henri Bergson (1859–1941), Pierre and Marie Curie (1867–1934), Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958), and many others. Our association, one of the most important institutions engaged in the study of psychic experiences, has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969. Still, none of these accomplishments have significantly altered parapsychology’s status as a marginal science. The field faces many problems, such as a lack of funding, few academic departments, unattractive career prospects, and the inability to institute and maintain longitudinal and large-scale studies. We are still looking for a guiding, integrative theory capable of sufficiently explaining our experimental findings and directing future research, while some critics still complain about the lack of consistent and ostensible results in favor of the existence of psi.
Public perception generally reveals a high degree of belief in paranormal phenomena across various countries. Surveys in the US (Wilkinson College, 2018), the Netherlands (Hoogeveen et al., 2024), and Brazil (Monteiro de Barros et al., 2022) illustrate the significant percentages of the population reporting belief in ESP or other psychic phenomena. This widespread interest is often sustained by popular culture and media portrayals. However, the public frequently conflates parapsychology with popular spiritual practices and any supernatural allegation, such as witchcraft or the Loch Ness monster, a pattern intentionally reinforced by skeptics. This creates a situation where the formal definition of parapsychology is often misunderstood, yet the phenomena it aims to study are widely accepted at personal and collective levels. This disconnect or paradox hinders the field’s ability to gain public trust or differentiate itself from fantastical narratives, fictitious accounts, or outright charlatanism, impacting both public perception and potential academic interest. The term “parapsychology” is often the focus of much controversy, and in many countries it immediately prompts negative reactions usually associated with the notion of pseudoscience.
What are the main roots and causes of these several problems? In order to adequately approach them, I will divide the discussion into the following topics or challenges to be faced by the field: 1) Definitional and terminological problems and the question of overlap with other scientific disciplines; 2) theoretical or methodological disagreements within the field; 3) poor development of parapsychology beyond the US and Europe; and 4) institutional challenges and parapsychology’s public image.
Definitional Issues and Overlap With Other Disciplines
Despite more than a century of investigations, definitional problems persist, particularly concerning the scope of parapsychology’s objects of study – whether focused narrowly on psi phenomena and survival research or expanded to include a wider range of anomalous experiences.
A recent, surprising conclusion I have reached during our recent online symposium on Global Parapsychology was that outside the US and Europe, parapsychology has evolved differently, often adopting broader or distinct definitions of anomalous phenomena, reflecting diverse cultural frameworks. It may include phenomena or topics that are not usually considered within the purview of parapsychology in Western countries, such as, for example, the close interaction between ufology and parapsychology in Costa Rica, the almost absence of studies on mediumship in Spain, and the interest of Chinese investigators in qi gong practices. Some phenomena may not be reported or are not investigated at all, such as physical mediumship in India. This raises an important question: To what extent are the phenomena we study phenomenologically stable across cultures? How do different research traditions and historical and cultural frameworks influence the definition of psi and shape the range of topics considered relevant to parapsychology?
The definitions and classifications of parapsychological phenomena commonly adopted in our field are not solely the result of identifying a specific cluster of phenomena or processes; rather, they are shaped to a significant extent by cultural and historical determinants. They point directly to parapsychology’s origins in modern Spiritualism. Our research topics can all be traced back to these spiritualist roots. The study of psychokinesis, for example, evolved from accounts of mediums allegedly moving objects at a distance, such as Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886) or the Italian medium Eusapia Palladino (1854-1918). In this context, we can also consider the concept of ESP as a secular reinterpretation of mental phenomena that were traditionally observed within the frameworks of Mesmerism and Spiritualism. Instead of attributing these experiences to spiritual causes, they came to be understood as manifestations of a latent human ability. This was not without some ambiguity, however. Frederic Myers (1843-1901), who coined the term telepathy, was very interested in the implications of such phenomena to survival after bodily death, illustrating how psi occurrences were initially considered evidence for survival or at least suggested the possibility of an extra-physical aspect of human beings, an idea defended by J. B. Rhine (1895-1980) himself.
But if parapsychological research topics evolved from Spiritualism, then there seems to be no justifiable, scientific reason for restricting our focus to these specific phenomena, unless we are willing to grant Spiritualism a privileged status within the field. In that case, however, the rationale would be more ideological than properly scientific. This realization opens the way for including many other allegations and phenomena within the scope of parapsychology, such as, for example, UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena) and many forms of mystical experience. However, adopting such a conceptual expansion would blur the boundaries between parapsychology and adjacent fields such as consciousness studies, spirituality research, anomalistic psychology, or the broader discipline of “anomalistics” – all of which have gained academic traction in recent decades. This, in turn, raises concerns about the potential erosion of parapsychology’s identity as a distinct and autonomous discipline. Some colleagues might feel that this expansion would be deleterious to the field or would harm a long-standing tradition that needs to be valued and reinforced. I’m not against these colleagues and completely understand the importance of tradition. But I also lament losing interesting opportunities for dialogue and interaction with other disciplines that may help strengthen the field and maximize research development. We are confronted here with a difficult decision, one that touches on the very identity of parapsychology and our long-standing efforts to investigate psi phenomena. Does the expansion of parapsychology’s areas of study risk diluting its identity?
The fact is that the phenomena we investigate don’t exist in a bubble but interact with many other classes of experiences and a whole range of practices and belief systems. Academics from various fields may ascribe different terms, meanings, or explanations to experiences that are virtually identical in terms of their basic phenomenological characteristics. Psi-related experiences are of interest not only to parapsychologists but also to psychologists of religion, religious studies scholars, social scientists, psychiatrists, physicists, and philosophers. And before one argues that the interests of these fields differ fundamentally from those of parapsychology, it is worth noting that many scholars in these areas are also deeply engaged with the ontological implications of psi phenomena – not merely their phenomenological, psychological, or social dimensions. In this context, the boundaries between parapsychology and other fields may become quite fluid and malleable. These disciplines are often able to explore questions similar to those addressed in parapsychology, yet they do so in ways that are more readily accepted within mainstream academic and scientific communities. Even ontological questions – once largely marginalized – are gradually gaining some research attention, with publications in high-impact journals of different areas, as I will show later in more detail. However, this renewed interest often unfolds without any explicit reference to parapsychology, allowing similar inquiries to be pursued under different labels, and sometimes with greater institutional support.
In my presidential address last year, I discussed this curious development: Parapsychological topics are increasingly entering the mainstream, yet parapsychological institutions and researchers are not reaping the benefits of this shift. Rather than acknowledging parapsychology as a legitimate scientific field, mainstream science appears to be absorbing its core topics while distancing them from their original context. Research on non-ordinary states of consciousness and spiritual experiences is gaining momentum, largely fueled by growing interest in psychedelic, contemplative, and near-death experiences. Subjects that were once largely confined to the parapsychological community – such as end-of-life experiences, bereavement hallucinations, and after-death communications – are now attracting broader academic attention. A notable trend emerging from recent studies is the effort to identify common patterns across a wide range of anomalous or exceptional experiences. Researchers are increasingly examining how diverse phenomena – such as psychedelic, near-death, meditative, psychotic-like experiences, and spontaneous spiritual awakenings – may be interconnected. Current investigations are exploring not only their phenomenological similarities but also their potential neurophysiological and cognitive correlates. These recent developments suggest that the study of such experiences may soon evolve into a distinct interdisciplinary research field, drawing contributions from a variety of scholars and disciplines. While anomalistic psychology or the broader domain of anomalistics could theoretically serve the same role, it appears that the mainstream scientific community is moving in a different direction – one marked by the growing use of the term “non-ordinary” to characterize these phenomena. This shift raises a critical question: could such a newly emerging field eventually supplant parapsychology, particularly if it also engages – at least partially – with the ontological dimensions of these experiences? I’ll return to this point later.
Theoretical or Methodological Disagreements
Definitional ambiguities and fluid disciplinary boundaries pose significant challenges to the identity and future of our field. However, an even more disruptive obstacle lies in the theoretical and methodological disagreements that persist within parapsychology itself.
These internal disputes – at times manifesting as personal conflicts, often occurring in internet forums or groups – can be particularly damaging in a field as small and specialized as ours, where even seemingly minor tensions can escalate into complex and enduring problems. Such divisions often revolve around differing theoretical orientations, such as materialist versus dualist perspectives, ontological versus psychological models, or process-oriented versus proof-oriented research. These disagreements are not merely abstract or philosophical; they have tangible consequences for how research is designed, interpreted, and received both within and beyond the field. Conflicting assumptions about the nature of psi – whether it should be treated as a real, external phenomenon or as a subjective, meaning-laden experience – can lead to divergent theoretical and methodological frameworks that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. As a result, it becomes increasingly challenging to develop shared standards for evidence, replicate findings, or even agree on what constitutes a legitimate research question. This lack of epistemological consensus undermines the cumulative growth of knowledge, creating an environment in which isolated efforts prevail over collaborative synthesis.
Addressing this internal fragmentation requires more than simply calling for tolerance or interdisciplinary dialogue; it demands a deliberate and sustained effort to build bridges across theoretical and methodological divides. This might involve fostering secure spaces for structured debate, supporting integrative research programs that transcend dichotomies, and cultivating a culture of epistemic humility – one that values diversity of thought without collapsing into relativism. While some level of disagreement is both inevitable and healthy in any scientific field, parapsychology must find ways to channel these tensions productively rather than allowing them to fester into division. Only by doing so can we ensure a robust and intellectually vibrant future for our discipline and institutions.
Parapsychology Beyond the US and Europe
Another fundamental challenge to consider is the geographical expansion or influence of parapsychology. Currently, the Parapsychological Association has approximately 500 members (Ventola, 2023). Nearly 60% are based in the United States. The last time Annalisa, our Executive Director, conducted an analysis of membership characteristics, she found that the highest percentage of members comes from countries in Northern Europe, North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Six percent are from countries in Western Asia, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and South America, and only 2% are from other regions (Ventola, 2023). These figures highlight the unexplored potential for the PA’s expansion across the globe. Despite more than a century of investigations, the development of parapsychology remains heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe. Outside these regions, the field has seen comparatively limited institutional growth, fewer research centers, and minimal representation in major academic networks.
This geographic imbalance has shaped not only the visibility of parapsychological research on a global scale but also the theoretical frameworks and methodological assumptions that dominate the field. As a result, many culturally grounded experiences and interpretations of anomalous phenomena remain underexplored or poorly integrated into the dominant parapsychological discourse. Ironically, some of the richest phenomenological presentations of parapsychological phenomena exist precisely in regions where parapsychology has been institutionally underdeveloped. Across Latin America, Africa, and Asia, there is a vibrant array of reports involving spontaneous psi experiences, mediumship, reincarnation, possession, healings, apparitions, and other anomalous phenomena. These experiences are often embedded in local cosmologies, religious practices, and cultural narratives, offering not only compelling case studies but also unique opportunities to identify special subjects and contextual variables that may shape or enhance the expression of psi. Incorporating such data could help diversify the field and potentially lead to new theoretical insights or classification schemes.
The cross-cultural prevalence of these phenomena has important implications for ongoing debates about their ontological status and the role of social, psychological, and environmental factors in their manifestation. When similar patterns of experience emerge across widely divergent cultural contexts, it invites reflection on whether certain psi phenomena point to universal transpersonal or neurophysiological mechanisms, or whether sociocultural structures may independently generate comparable effects (the so-called constructivist perspective). In either case, comparative and cross-cultural approaches could greatly enrich parapsychological theory and help address long-standing questions concerning the universality, variability, and contextual embeddedness of psi and related experiences.
An international expansion of parapsychology also holds strategic potential for revitalizing the field. Increased participation from scholars and institutions in underrepresented regions could broaden the membership base of parapsychological organizations, stimulate new research partnerships, and open up funding avenues that have so far remained untapped. Collaborative efforts between Western and non-Western researchers could promote greater epistemological diversity and help legitimize the field in both local and global academic contexts. However, several significant limitations must be acknowledged. Language barriers remain a major obstacle to global integration, often restricting access to non-English publications and impeding dialogue between researchers from different regions. Cultural differences can also lead to divergent understandings of what constitutes parapsychology, with some regions incorporating religious, spiritual, or metaphysical frameworks that do not always align with Western scientific views. Moreover, definitions of key concepts, such as “anomalous,” may vary considerably, complicating efforts to establish common ground in both research design and theoretical interpretation. To move forward, the field must prioritize inclusive and culturally sensitive research practices and multilingual communication strategies. Embracing the diversity of global perspectives can be a strength rather than a threat – one that revitalizes parapsychology both scientifically and institutionally while fostering a truly international vision for its future.
Institutional Challenges and Parapsychology’s Public Image
But beyond geographical expansion, one of the most persistent and damaging challenges facing parapsychology today is its inability to establish a stable and credible public image. While earlier generations of researchers made significant strides toward legitimizing the field through rigorous methodologies and academic engagement, many of these achievements have been gradually eroded. Some of these pioneers and visionaries are now deceased or retired, and the challenge of identifying and supporting new generations of researchers persist. The result of all this is a fractured identity: Parapsychology continues to exist as a scientific endeavor, but it lacks the public credibility enjoyed by more established disciplines. This reputational instability undermines the field’s ability to attract new talent, secure funding, and maintain a sustained presence within broader public and academic discourse.
Paradoxically, recent advancements in the study of anomalous experiences are indeed taking place – but often outside the boundaries of parapsychological institutions. Fields such as cognitive science, neuroscience, consciousness studies, and even segments of the social and behavioral sciences are increasingly exploring phenomena traditionally associated with parapsychology. Ontological questions are cautiously reentering the scientific landscape, as illustrated by a number of articles in respected journals such as Cortex (Freedman et al., 2024) and Scientific Reports (Cohen et al., 2024). However, these developments often occur without reference to the foundational work of psychical research or parapsychology. In some cases, they appear to “reinvent the wheel,” disregarding a century’s worth of accumulated data, theoretical frameworks, and methodological insights.
This marginalization is perhaps most evident in high-profile publications that treat psi-related topics while ignoring parapsychology altogether. A recent example is a widely discussed Nature article on near-death experiences, which presented findings of direct relevance to parapsychology but failed to acknowledge its existing literature (Martial et al., 2025). Such omissions not only obscure the field’s historical contributions but also contribute to a growing perception that these phenomena are now being taken seriously only when reframed outside of parapsychological contexts. As a result, interest in psi and other anomalous experiences is increasing – but at the expense of parapsychology’s recognition as a legitimate scientific field.
This dynamic has serious institutional consequences. As parapsychology loses its footing in mainstream academia, funding opportunities become scarcer, educational infrastructures deteriorate, and professional development pathways narrow. In this precarious environment, some colleagues feel compelled to align their work with more fashionable or commercially viable topics – sometimes drawing on popular or New Age narratives to enhance visibility and attract support. While such strategies may offer short-term benefits, they risk reinforcing external perceptions of the field as ideologically biased, uncritical, or lacking scientific rigor. This, in turn, perpetuates the cycle of marginalization and public skepticism.
The negative image of parapsychology as pseudoscience continues to shape its reception among scientists, educators, and policy-makers. In some circles, interest in anomalous or paranormal phenomena is not only dismissed as unscientific but also portrayed as a social threat – an alleged conduit for irrationalism and obscurantism. Some psychologists equate “paranormal beliefs,” like belief in psi, with the irrationality of conspiracy theories (Müller & Hartmann, 2023). Psi-related beliefs are increasingly being categorized by some scholars as forms of “pseudo-profound bullshit,” a pejorative term implying a link between such beliefs and poor cognitive functioning (Pennycook et al., 2015). Terms like “weird shit” (French, 2024), “contaminated mindware” (Rizeq et al., 2021), and “unsubstantiated claims” (Bensley et al., 2018) are often employed to frame interest in psi phenomena as inherently irrational and false. One of the major challenges currently facing parapsychology is how to engage with and respond to these reductive perspectives, particularly within the fields of psychology and neuroscience. Such views frequently fail to account for the diversity of belief systems, the varying levels of empirical evidence for paranormal claims, and the nuanced motivations behind interest in anomalous phenomena. Instead, they tend to treat all paranormal beliefs as monolithic and uniformly problematic, lumping everything together in a stereotyped description. For many of these critics, belief in the paranormal is not only seen as a sign of cognitive deficits but as a threat to critical thinking, scientific literacy, and even democratic values – something to be actively resisted rather than objectively studied (Kurtz, 1996).
These narratives are not just abstract critiques; they have concrete effects on institutional support, public funding, research findings, and academic freedom. They have clinical implications as well. Relying on labels that uncritically and necessarily associate anomalous experiences and related beliefs with cognitive deficits perpetuates misconceptions and prejudice, which can in turn contribute to negative clinical outcomes. Such pejorative terminology is neither scientifically valid nor clinically appropriate, as it fails to capture the complex psychological processes underlying these experiences and beliefs. Rather than offering meaningful explanations, these terms function more as ad hominem dismissals (Houran et al., 2025).
What Does the Future Hold?
In light of these challenges, a reevaluation is urgently needed. Parapsychology must not only strengthen its institutional foundations but also engage more deliberately with mainstream science – bridging epistemological divides, cultivating interdisciplinary partnerships, and reasserting its historical and intellectual contributions. Despite the many challenges, there are reasons for optimism. The field still possesses active institutions. Organizations such as the Parapsychological Association remain vital hubs for scientific dialogue and community-building. Rather than rebranding these institutions in pursuit of superficial legitimacy, the priority should be to strengthen and modernize them from within. I don’t believe that changing our name will significantly alter public perception, whereas meaningful structural improvements and increased scientific output can enhance both credibility and impact.
Parapsychology must not only strengthen its institutional foundations but also engage more deliberately with mainstream science – bridging epistemological divides, cultivating interdisciplinary partnerships, and reasserting its historical and intellectual contributions.
A key step in this modernization process involves improving the accessibility of our publications. Making our journals more open and available to researchers outside the parapsychological community, not just to members, can foster greater interdisciplinary engagement and visibility. Encouragingly, recent changes in the PA Mindfield Bulletin reflect this growing awareness. Removing paywalls for certain papers, adopting open-access policies, and increasing the presence of our journals in academic databases are concrete steps that can promote wider dissemination of parapsychological research and facilitate intellectual exchange across disciplines.
At the same time, the growing influence of the meta-science reform movement – focused on improving research transparency, minimizing questionable research practices (QRPs), and enhancing reproducibility – presents an opportunity for parapsychologists to engage with cutting-edge methodological debates. I believe it is critically important to reinforce our commitment to open science initiatives (Nosek et al., 2015), including the preregistration of experiments, hypotheses, analysis plans, and other key aspects of research design. The metascience reform movement, which is transforming empirical science across disciplines, poses both a challenge and an opportunity for parapsychology. If we fail to engage with these methodological advancements, we risk further reinforcing the stereotype of parapsychology as a non-scientific or unreliable field. Historically, parapsychology has shown a strong capacity for methodological self-correction, often introducing innovative controls in response to critiques from the broader scientific community (Cardeña, 2018), including the use of registered reports back in the 1970s (Wiseman et al., 2019). There is no reason to believe that rigorous, transparent procedures – when thoughtfully applied – will prevent genuine psi phenomena from manifesting. Although psi remains elusive – and there is evidence suggesting that overly stringent controls may reduce the likelihood of replication – we cannot escape the principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accountability. I strongly encourage all colleagues conducting experimental research in parapsychology to adopt confirmatory, rigor-enhancing methods aligned with the principles of open science. Many researchers in our community are already leading the way in this regard, and these efforts should be recognized, supported, and expanded moving forward.
On the other hand, it is essential that we also advocate for research designs that respect the unique challenges of studying anomalous phenomena. While reproducibility is important, so too is ecological validity – the need for research settings and methods that capture the complexity and spontaneity of real-world psi experiences. Because of their long-standing experience, parapsychologists are well-positioned to contribute critical perspectives to ongoing discussions about the nature of scientific evidence for psi and the limits of conventional methodologies. Recognizing the value of diverse forms of evidence is also vital. A recent paper published in PNAS Nexus (Krauss, 2024) reviewed a series of important scientific discoveries, including Nobel-prize discoveries, and found that experimentation played a significant role in these different discoveries. However, observation and the development of sophisticated instruments obtained higher percentages. These findings highlight the importance of methodological diversity in science. Quantitative experiments offer control and statistical rigor, while qualitative approaches provide rich descriptions and insights into subjective meaning. Combining these methods can yield a more comprehensive understanding of anomalous phenomena. Mixed-method research designs can help bridge the gap between phenomenological depth and empirical generalizability, offering both theoretical and practical benefits. Spontaneous cases, observational methods, and survey research: all these methods have their importance. We must not forget that our experimental methods are only approximations of the “real” thing. People’s experiences are not just “anecdotes”… They form the basis through which everything else in parapsychology is possible. In my view, when we examine the evidence for psi, we should take into consideration all the evidence, not only experimental evidence.
Equally important is the need to engage with the broader public through podcasts, interviews, educational videos, and other forms of science communication. Initiatives like The Telepathy Tapes serve as excellent examples of how parapsychological topics can spark curiosity and create conversations beyond academic circles. Public engagement is not just about defending the field – it is about making it relevant and accessible to people’s lives. Despite criticisms directed at The Telepathy Tapes, it undoubtedly shows the importance of needing to commit to public engagement, especially in a digital era like ours, marked by the growing development of artificial intelligence and other technological advancements. How can we strengthen our connections and relationships with various social actors, including religious leaders, spiritual practitioners, journalists, artists, social media workers, and communities of experiencers, instead of being mostly confined to academia and science? In this context, it is of fundamental importance to share the findings of research in parapsychology responsibly and consider all explanations.
Returning to the topic of parapsychology’s identity as a field and the risk of dissolution, there are different solutions we might discuss. One alternative is what I call the cross-pollination approach. This perspective involves, among the many possibilities, a division into many subfields of what we consider today a unique and identifiable field of research. This would probably entail substantial changes in the way science is being carried out in different laboratories and universities around the world, including the development of a new mindset, more open to disruptive, paradoxical, and heterodox ideas. This seems to me the most challenging, but also one of the most interesting scenarios, because it could transform parapsychology (or the way we investigate and think about psi phenomena) into an essential part of the scientific endeavor in any given discipline and in society at large. In a more pessimistic scenario, however, this approach could actually represent the beginning of the end of parapsychology in any existing form, a way of destroying our contributions by fragmenting our field and throwing out our research achievements into the trash bin of different scientific disciplines. Therefore, we must be careful about how this approach would be conducted.
On my part, I advocate a middle path in which we maintain our autonomy while encouraging the discussion of more disruptive topics in other fields of science. Disruptive science seems to be declining (Kozlov, 2023). We don’t quite have the same intensity of breakthrough discoveries we once had. Perhaps parapsychologists could contribute to the establishment of a new scientific movement, similar to the open science initiative. A new movement directed to foster greater acceptance and less discrimination toward disruptive or controversial topics in science, including the ontological investigation of non-ordinary experiences.
Finally, none of these initiatives can succeed without a shift in the culture of the field itself. Too often, progress is hindered by personal rivalries, ego-driven agendas, and a focus on individual recognition at the expense of collective advancement. To build a thriving and sustainable future for parapsychology, we must prioritize collaboration and shared goals over competition. Working together to cultivate the kind of scientific culture and institutional infrastructure we aspire to will ultimately benefit us all – individually and collectively.
Bensley, D. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., Rowan, K. A., Masciocchi, C. M., & Grain, F. (2020). The generality of belief in unsubstantiated claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3581
Cardeña E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. The American Psychologist, 73(5), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000236
Cohen, L., Delorme, A., Cusimano, A., Chakraborty, S., Nguyen, P., Deng, D., Iqbal, S., Nelson, M., Wei, D., Fields, C., & Yang, P. (2024). Examining the effects of biofield therapy through simultaneous assessment of electrophysiological and cellular outcomes. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 29221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79617-3
Freedman, M., Binns, M. A., Meltzer, J. A., Hashimi, R., & Chen, R. (2024). Enhanced mind-matter interactions following rTMS induced frontal lobe inhibition. Cortex, 172, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.10.016
French, C. (2024). The science of weird shit: Why our minds conjure the paranormal. MIT Press.
Hoogeveen, S., Borsboom, D., Kucharský, Š., Marsman, M., Molenaar, D., de Ron, J., Sekulovski, N., Visser, I., van Elk, M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2024). Prevalence, patterns and predictors of paranormal beliefs in the Netherlands: A several-analysts approach. Royal Society Open Science, 11(2), Article 240049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240049
Houran, J., de Oliveira Maraldi, E., Massullo, B., & Molnar, D. (2025). Evaluating anomalous experiences with respect and responsibility: A critical reflection. Spirituality in Clinical Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000398
Kozlov M. (2023). ‘Disruptive’ science has declined – and no one knows why. Nature, 613(7943), 225. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04577-5
Krauss A. (2024). Redefining the scientific method: as the use of sophisticated scientific methods that extend our mind. PNAS Nexus, 3(4), 112. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae112
Kurtz, P. (1996). Two sources of unreason in democratic society: The paranormal and religion. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 775, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23166.x
Martial, C., Fritz, P., Gosseries, O., Bonhomme, V., Kondziella, D., Nelson, K., & Lejeune, N. (2025). A neuroscientific model of near-death experiences. Nature Reviews Neurology, 21(6), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01072-z
Monteiro de Barros, M. C., Leão, F. C., Vallada Filho, H., Lucchetti, G., Moreira-Almeida, A., & Prieto Peres, M. F. (2022). Prevalence of spiritual and religious experiences in the general population: A Brazilian nationwide study. Transcultural Psychiatry, 13634615221088701. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615221088701
Müller, P., & Hartmann, M. (2023). Linking paranormal and conspiracy beliefs to illusory pattern perception through signal detection theory. Scientific Reports, 13, 9739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36230-0
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, M., . . . Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture: Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999
Rizeq, J., Flora, D. B., & Toplak, M. E. (2021). An examination of the underlying dimensional structure of three domains of contaminated mindware: Paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs, and anti-science attitudes. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1759688
Ventola, A. (2023). From the executive director. Mindfield: The Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association, 15(3), 12-14.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., & Kornbrot, D. (2019). Registered reports: An early example and analysis. PeerJ, 7, Article e6232. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6232
Wilkinson College. (2018, October 16). Paranormal America 2018 — Chapman University survey of American fears. The Voice of Wilkinson, Chapman University. https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/ A
Welcome to Mindfield 17(2) on neurodivergence and communication. In their editorial, Jacob W. Glazier and Anastasia Wasko highlight the popularity of The Telepathy Tapes, connecting public interest and research in neurodivergence with extrasensory communication. They urge honoring the humanity of neurodivergent people while imagining a future that integrates psi into everyday life. They also present …
by Diane Hennacy with Jacob Glazier and Anastasia Wasko
by Julia Mossbridge, Maria Welch, and Jeff Tarrant
