The study of Anomalous Information Reception (AIR) with mediums, where an individual supposedly has access to data without the use of the basic senses, claiming to have received information from deceased personalities, has the potential to introduce new information about the relationship between mind and brain. Recent studies investigating if AIR occurs in mediumistic procedures have produced conflicting results. This article compares seven studies with greater rigor in the control over information leakage regarding their methods and results, with the aim of identifying the cause of the disparity in results. We found that there seems to be a higher probability of significant results for AIR when the study protocols: select mediums with previous consistent evidence of AIR; select sitters who are strongly motivated for the study; supply the medium with some information about the deceased; allow him/her to speak freely but also ask objective questions; provide scores for both overall readings and individual items; and avoid a large number of readings and items of information to evaluate. This diligence seemingly provides greater equilibrium between ecological validity and control over leakage, favoring the occurrence and detection of AIR.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 both author and journal hold copyright