Exclusive SSE Live Event:  July 16, 2025

Álex Escolà-Gascón, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Quantitative Methods and Statistics, Comillas,
Pontifical University, erected by the Holy See, Vatican City State

Join us for a captivating talk exploring the latest research on demonic (or diabolical) possession by an actual Vatican-affiliated scientist. This is a sinister topic where consciousness studies and cultural anthropology intersect with the unexplained. Are diabolical possessions real, or do they stem from altered brain states, deep-seated beliefs, or something beyond science?

Learn more and register

The evolving field of scientific exploration—and notably those areas dealing with anomalistics—demands precision in both data and discourse. Within the flood of new methodologies, cross-disciplinary inquiries, and speculative theories, a subtle but significant distinction often goes underexamined: the difference between evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis and evidence that provides support for it. This post urges our scholarly community to critically reflect on this distinction, for it holds implications not only for interpretation but also for how we communicate credibility, causality, and uncertainty.

To say that data are consistent with a hypothesis is to note that the findings do not contradict the hypothesis. However, this does not necessarily mean they support it. For example, if a participant in a near-death experience study reports seeing a light or encountering deceased relatives, such data may be consistent with the hypothesis of consciousness existing independently of the brain. But the same data could also be consistent with neurological or psychological models involving cortical disinhibition, memory recall, or cultural expectation. Thus, "consistency" often refers to a compatibility across multiple, competing interpretations.

In contrast, to assert that data constitute evidence for a hypothesis implies a higher standard: that the data increase the likelihood of the hypothesis being true relative to its alternatives. This evidentiary role requires not only compatibility but also differential diagnosticity—the capacity to rule out, or at least diminish the plausibility of, competing explanations. Without such discriminative power, "evidence for" becomes a rhetorical overreach, blurring the boundaries between speculation and substantiation.

Why does this matter? In domains where mainstream science remains skeptical—such as new physics, parapsychology, consciousness studies, energy healing, survival research, or ufology—credibility hinges not just on data collection, but on how claims are framed. Inflating the strength of a finding through careless language risks reinforcing the very marginalization such research seeks to overcome. If the scientific community perceives exploratory claims as overstated or epistemically lax, opportunities for serious engagement shrink accordingly.

Moreover, this distinction bears on peer review, funding, and replication efforts. Mischaracterizing consistent data as evidentiary can mislead subsequent investigators, misallocate scarce resources, and corrode the public's trust in scientific discourse. In an era of increasing scrutiny—both institutional and societal—we must strive for conceptual rigor alongside methodological innovation.

The call, then, is not for rhetorical self-censorship, but for epistemic humility. Acknowledging that data are consistent with a hypothesis is a meaningful contribution—especially in under-theorized or highly contentious areas. But we should resist the temptation to overstate what such data entail. Instead, we might emphasize the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, the narrowing of explanatory gaps, or the cumulative weight of anomalies as a plausibility enhancer, rather than as a proof.

Let us reaffirm the value of careful inference in frontier science. As researchers into the unknown, our responsibility is not merely to persuade, but to clarify the terms by which persuasive claims may one day be made.

Get updates on all the SSE news. 

Read Now

In recent months, a quiet but profound shift has occurred in the landscape of frontier science. With the passing of personalities like Charles Tart, Bill Bengston, David Moncrief, Damien Broderick, and Steven J. Lynn, we have lost not just individuals, but entire intellectual ecosystems—constellations of inquiry, courage, and care that once helped illuminate the edges of what science dared to ask. Their deaths are more than personal or disciplinary losses; they are existential reminders of a truth both tender and terrifying... that our time to make a difference is not only finite but actively running out.

These were thinkers who stood not at the center of their fields, but defiantly at the edges—precisely where revolutions often begin. Charles Tart gave us a language for states of consciousness that science still struggles to measure. Bill Bengston, through both curiosity and controversy, chased the mystery of healing across experimental thresholds. David Moncrief, often behind the scenes, held together fragile interdisciplinary bridges. Damien Broderick fused science fiction and science fact, stretching the limits of epistemic imagination. And Steven J. Lynn brought rigorous empirical clarity to domains—hypnosis, dissociation, suggestion—that others dismissed or distorted.

To be a pioneer in these fields isn't just to research what's marginal; it's to live with marginalization. These men did so with remarkable persistence. They withstood ridicule, isolation, institutional indifference. And they did it not for prestige, but because they believed that somewhere, beneath the anomalies, the anecdotes, and the absurdities, something essential about the human condition was waiting to be understood. That commitment—to look deeper, ask harder, and stay longer in the discomfort of uncertainty—is the kind of intellectual courage we often forget to honor until it's too late.

Now it's too late for them...but not for us.

Their passing invites a reckoning, not only with grief, but with our own relationship to time, purpose, and proximity. We tend to imagine that the great projects of our lives—our collaborations, our writings, our paradigm shifts—will have room to grow at their own pace. We fool ourselves into believing there will always be another grant cycle, another conference, another long lunch with a mentor. And then, suddenly, the email arrives, or the news filters in through the grapevine, and we’re left with an unfinished draft, a list of unasked questions, or a heart still waiting to say "thank you."

The lesson isn't just that life is short, but that its most important opportunities are perishable. Ideas are a relational phenomenon; they need exchanges, counterpoints, and embodied presence to thrive. So too with our professional lives. How many times have we deferred a collaboration because we were “too busy”? How often have we stayed silent in a meeting, waiting for someone braver to speak first? How long have we waited to begin the project that we secretly hope will outlive us?

There's no more time for waiting. These passings remind us that the frontier isn't a place, it’s a people. And that frontier is vanishing, one wise and weathered voice at a time.

Let's not mourn them merely with tributes, but with action. Pick up the phone. Send the draft. Reach out to the colleague you admire but have never emailed. Finish the chapter you keep rewriting in your mind. Begin the experiment you’re afraid won’t work. Say what you really mean in your next article. Ask questions that scare you. Push back when it matters. Mentor someone who doesn’t remind you of yourself. Recommit to your highest curiosity, even when it's unfashionable, even when it seems futile.

Above all, cherish the people doing this work with you—those still breathing, still wondering, still struggling to find language for the unspeakable. None of us are guaranteed a long arc. But we can choose, now, to bend the arc we have toward meaning.

There's still a frontier. But it's smaller than we thought. And our names are already being whispered across it.

William (Bill) F. Bengston, SSE’s President from 2010 until 2022, passed away peacefully at his home on April 16, 2025, at the age of 75 surrounded by family.  He is survived by his wife Margaret, his two children Brian & Elizabeth along with their spouses, four grandchildren, as well as his brother and sister.

Bill was a man of immense humor, curiosity and intelligence who loved his family dearly.  He was a professor of statistics and research methods at St. Joseph’s University for 40 years, a researcher, and an author.  He had so many passions — he loved music, he loved to play tennis and table tennis, he swam competitively, he loved to sail, and he dedicated a lot of time to his community as a library and school board member.

His healing research produced the first successful full cures of transplanted mammary cancer and methylcholantrene- induced sarcomas in experimental mice with the hands-on technique that he helped develop. Mice that had successful full cures also had no recurrences of the same cancer. His research continued over forty plus years, and he has numerous peer reviewed academic publications.  His memoir, The Energy Cure, is published by Sounds True Publishers.  He has also lectured widely in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

Bill also investigated assorted correlates to healing such as EEG and fMRI entrainment, and geomagnetic micropulsation anomalies in healing space.  His current work involved the attempt to reverse engineer healing and reproduce healing without the healer, and to develop therapies that can be scaled.

Bill’s impact went beyond his healing research as a mentor and inspiration to many members of SSE and beyond.   Some members of the SSE Council share their thoughts on Bill’s impact.

Bill was such an important figure within SSE; his early studies on healing were a landmark and encouraged me to carry on my own research into healing, and I do hope his ideas will find successors among the younger generation. 

-- Harald Walach

What a loss! Bill was always a positive spirit, and optimistic in his whimsical way. It’s a sad irony that he passed away having healed so many others from similar conditions.

Years ago, I suspected that Bill would be an excellent SSE president and asked him to serve as the program chair for an annual SSE meeting in a ploy to launch him into SSE leadership. He took the bait, became program chair and then succeeded me as SSE president, serving for multiple terms. In our often-chaotic organization, he was always the voice of reason, cajoling the organization over endless hurdles with wit and charm. I always enjoyed our many phone conversations working through ways to improve the organization and appreciated Margaret’s warm support along the way.

The SSE will always be my home, but for me, without Bill it will always feel a little empty. We will all miss him.

-- Garret Moddel

Of the 25 healers I have worked with in experiments, Bill was extraordinary in his ability to alter reality - with love and abundance as his guide – always wanting to heal all the mice, both control and experimental groups, no matter if it messed up the experiment!  While trying to measure infrasound during one of his healings, he placed his hands on my shoulders, and I felt a distinct “love” vibration. It did not produce any sound, but it remains a scientific challenge for us to detect the energy of healers like Bill.

-- Margaret Moga

Witty, relatable, and one of the best science communicators I've seen. He was an inspiration as an accomplished researcher, practitioner, and consummate facilitator and collaborator. His many years of dedicated service to the field more broadly, especially via the SSE, was instrumental in paving the way for junior researchers such as myself.  

He will be very sorely missed.

-- Damon Abraham

Three things profoundly altered my understanding and view of the world and life itself. The first was a book;   AFTERWARDS YOU’RE A GENIUS   by Chip Brown, who used a quote by SSE member Dean Radin as its title; the second was a society, the SSE of course, which I discovered indirectly as a result of having read the book and the third was one man, Bill Bengston, with whom I became acquainted at my second SSE meeting at La Jolla in 2001.

Unlike some other attendees, I was convinced immediately that Bill and his discoveries were the real deal and that he was genuinely on to something – something real that he could describe and replicate -  but also something that himself did not really understand. Bill’s sense of humor and iconoclastic delivery style that day, interjected his special levity, making his presentation that much more compelling.  The levity which was Bill’s hallmark made open-minded discussions and debate easy, entertaining and delightful.

It seems very strange to think of or refer to Bill in the past tense, because whenever I think of him or his ideas or my memories of him or numerous conversations I had with him, they still seem very clear and fresh, something I cannot imagine ever changing. So, to Bill to “The Mouse Healer” to a friend and kindred spirit I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to you and for your role in helping me and surely many others discover our own paths and truths in medicine, science and life. Your efforts are remembered and will not be forgotten.

Thank you, Bill!

-- Carl G. Medwedeff

In lieu of sending flowers, the family asks you to please consider donating to the Society for Scientific Exploration  https://scientificexploration.org/Donate

The phenomenon of “duper's delight” refers to the subtle pleasure individuals experience when successfully deceiving others. This concept, first described by Ekman (1985/2009), manifests through fleeting micro-expressions, involuntary smirks, or nonverbal cues that reveal an underlying sense of triumph in deception. Understanding this psychological behavior is particularly valuable for researchers assessing the sincerity of individuals claiming to have experienced paranormal or anomalous events. By identifying signs of duper’s delight, field investigators can better determine the credibility of witness testimonies and thus differentiate between genuine experiences and intentional fabrications.

Understanding Duper's Delight

Duper's delight arises from the cognitive dissonance between the deception being attempted and the successful evasion of detection. According to Vrij (2008), deceivers may exhibit micro-expressions that last only fractions of a second, making them difficult to detect without careful observation. These involuntary cues often surface due to the emotional reward that deception provides, creating a challenge for researchers who rely on self-reported experiences of the paranormal.

In the context of anomalous experiences, witnesses may either consciously fabricate their encounters or unconsciously embellish details due to psychological influences such as expectation bias or social reinforcement. Some individuals may enjoy the attention and validation that come with extraordinary claims, making them more prone to deceptive behavior. Therefore, researchers must employ critical evaluation techniques, including the analysis of micro-expressions, inconsistencies in narratives, and behavioral anomalies, to distinguish between authentic and deceptive accounts.

Applying Duper’s Delight to Anomalistics Research

To assess the sincerity of paranormal witnesses, researchers should consider a range of both verbal and nonverbal indicators. The key signs of duper’s delight include:

• Involuntary Smirking – A subtle, fleeting smile that appears incongruent with the emotional tone of the story.
• Micro-expressions of Glee – Brief expressions of amusement or excitement at inappropriate moments.
• Inconsistent Body Language – Fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, or excessive blinking, indicating cognitive strain.
• Over-Elaborate Details – Providing excessive, unnecessary details to make a story seem more convincing.
• Evasive Responses – Avoiding direct answers when questioned about specifics.
• Changes in Vocal Tone – Shifts in pitch or speech patterns, particularly when challenged.

By incorporating careful monitoring for these indicators into their methodology, researchers can increase the accuracy of their assessments, ensuring that their studies remain grounded in credible testimony rather than blatant deceit.

Conclusion

Duper’s delight is a crucial concept in assessing the sincerity of reports about anomalous experiences. By recognizing subtle cues of deception, researchers can enhance the integrity of their investigations and contribute to a more rigorous understanding of the paranormal. As methodologies in frontier science continue to evolve, incorporating psychological insights into witness evaluation will remain essential for distinguishing sincerely reported experiences from deliberately fabricated accounts.

References

Ekman, P. (1985/2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W.W. Norton & Company.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

“Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”  

Our next episode involves the SSE commentators discussing Eric Dullin’s 2024 article in JSE (“A Detailed Phenomenology of Poltergeist Events:" https://doi.org/10.31275/20243263), which examines the feature patterns of anomalies reported in poltergeist-like disturbances.

This discussion breaks-down Dullin's detailed analysis and classifications into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain professional parapsychologists and amateur paranormal investigators alike!

Listen now! 

Academia is often portrayed as an "ivory tower" or intellectual fortress—rigorous, isolated, and relentlessly focused on discovery. Yet, researchers and academics thrive not only on data and publications but also social interaction. Socializing is not a distraction; it’s an essential component of intellectual vitality, career development, and mental well-being (O’Meara et al., 2008).

Indeed, scientific innovation doesn’t often occur in isolation. The informal exchange of ideas over coffee or at conferences fosters creativity and interdisciplinary breakthroughs (Collins, 2011). In fact, some of the most transformative insights in history have emerged from casual conversations rather than structured meetings (Latour & Woolgar, 1979/1986). For instance, the double-helix structure of DNA was conceived after informal discussions between James Watson and Francis Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory tearoom (Watson, 1968). Similarly, the foundational ideas behind game theory took shape during conversations between John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern at Princeton in the 1940s (Leonard, 2010). More recently, the concept of the World Wide Web was sparked through casual exchanges between Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (aka CERN) (Berners-Lee, 2000). These examples highlight the indispensable role of informal dialogue in advancing scientific thought.

Networking, as exemplified by the above examples, can obviously enhance collaboration opportunities, providing access to funding, co-authorships, and career advancements (Granovetter, 1973). But beyond these professional benefits, socialization is crucial for researchers’ mental health. The pressure of academic life—publish-or-perish, grant applications, and administrative duties—can be isolating and stressful. Meaningful social interactions can help to provide emotional support, build resilience, and prevent burnout (Levecque et al., 2017). Graduate students and early-career researchers particularly benefit from mentorship and peer networks that help to navigate the complexities and overt drama of academia. Institutions must therefore recognize and encourage social engagement as part of academic culture. From structured networking events to informal gatherings, fostering collegiality strengthens the research community and accelerates progress.

For researchers, the message is clear—Step out of the lab, engage with peers, and embrace the power of connection. Science advances not just through rigorous inquiry, but through the vibrant, dynamic relationships that sustain it. SSE membership is one way to gain valuable connections, so join today (if you haven’t already) and start faithfully attending SSE’s new quarterly webinars and ongoing annual conferences. We’d love to see you!

References

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. Harper San Francisco.

Collins, H. M. (2011). Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. University of Chicago Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.

Leonard, R. (2010). Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the creation of game theory: From chess to social science, 1900–1960. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778278

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., Beuckelaer, A. D., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46, 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. Jossey-Bass.

Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. Scribner. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3035117

This 2025 project is all about chats that provide “Extraordinary Ideas for Ordinary People.”  

These "breakdowns" will be fun and accessible to lay audiences. Hear our slate of science commentators discuss the peer-reviewed research and thought leadership published in JSE.

The first episode involves our commentators discussing Michael Sudduth’s 2024 treatise in JSE (“The Augustine-Braude Bigelow Survival Debate: A Postmortem and Prospects for Future Directions”: https://doi.org/10.31275/20243309), which examines evidence and reasoning related to research on postmortem survival of consciousness.

This discussion breaks-down Sudduth’s detailed and technical analysis into everyday language and examples that are sure to entertain and educate anyone intrigued by the idea of “life after death.”

Listen now! 

Most frontier and mainstream scientists embrace the premise and practice of “citizen science”—the type of research that involves the public in scientific discovery (see e.g., Finger et al., 2023). It’s a way for motivated people to contribute to scientific knowledge by collecting and sometimes analyzing data, thereby partnering with scientists to answer real-world questions. SSE’s own Journal of Scientific Exploration even has a subsection devoted to “Student and Citizen Science Research,” see e.g.: Ramesh Thadani’s (2023) “The Jersey Devil: Examining a Phenomenon Obscured by Myth (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232859) or David Schumaker et al.’s (2023) “Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Profile and Baselines at a Non-Haunted Control Location” (https://doi.org/10.31275/20232725).

But over recent years we have observed the rise of so-called “influencers” throughout society—including their overt participation (invited or not) in scientific discourse. Two major types of actors in this context are “Mobile Journalists” and “Citizen Skeptics.” Mobile journalists, or “mojos,” are professional or freelance reporters who use portable devices like smartphones, tablets, or lightweight cameras to gather, edit, and share news stories. They can work from almost anywhere, covering events in real-time and often publishing directly to online platforms or social media. This approach makes journalism faster, more flexible, and accessible, especially in breaking news situations.

Similarly, the concept of citizen skeptics has emerged in today’s interconnected world as a significant force in public discourse. These are individuals or groups who actively question, investigate, or challenge established claims, particularly those made by authorities, experts, or institutions. Mojos and citizen skeptics more broadly, operate at the intersection of empowerment, accountability, and public participation—leveraging modern tools to scrutinize information and advocate for evidence-based transparency. This all has become more pertinent given many social media platforms stopping the practice of “fact-checking"— which legally equates to mere counter-opinions endorsed by that platform's owners or managers. 

Citizen skeptics and citizen scientists both represent grassroots engagement with knowledge and inquiry, but they differ in focus and approach. Citizen scientists actively participate in scientific research, collaborating with professional scientists to collect data, analyze findings, and contribute to scientific knowledge. Their efforts are typically aligned with established methodologies and aim to expand understanding within scientific frameworks.

In contrast, citizen skeptics typically focus on questioning, critiquing, and evaluating existing claims, often challenging institutional authority or alleged misinformation. While citizen scientists tend to work within the system to generate knowledge, citizen skeptics often scrutinize the system itself, advocating for accountability and transparency. Despite these differences, both roles rely on public access to information and emphasize the value of informed, active participation, underscoring the evolving relationship between expertise and public engagement in the digital age.

Empowerment Through Access to Information

The digital age has democratized access to information, enabling ordinary citizens to engage critically with complex issues. Online platforms, public records, and scientific data offer unprecedented opportunities for non-experts to examine claims and construct counter-narratives. As Brossard and Scheufele (2013) pointed out, this accessibility empowers the public to participate in scientific and policy discussions, breaking down barriers that traditionally limited such engagement to experts.

Focus on Accountability and Transparency

Citizen skeptics often emphasize the need for greater transparency and accountability within public and private institutions. By exposing perceived inconsistencies, conflicts of interest, or potential corruption, they aim to uphold ethical standards and restore trust in governance. As Callahan (2017) noted, this pursuit of accountability can serve as a check on power and privilege, promoting fairness in societal decision-making.

Community Collaboration

Collaboration plays a vital role in the efforts of citizen skeptics. Online communities and grassroots organizations serve as hubs for sharing resources, analyzing evidence, and amplifying critiques. Social media, in particular, has become a powerful tool for mobilizing collective skepticism, allowing voices to resonate far beyond traditional platforms (Hargittai & Shaw, 2013).

Critiques of Expertise and Authority

Citizen skeptics challenge the notion of unassailable expertise, often questioning the biases or errors inherent in expert judgment. While this approach can promote critical thinking and scientific literacy, it also carries risks. Lewandowsky et al. (2017) warned that skepticism, if not grounded in credible evidence, can lead to the spread of misinformation or the proliferation of conspiracy theories.

Benefits and Risks

The role of citizen skeptics in society is both impactful and complex. On the positive side, they can uncover errors, hold powerful entities accountable, and foster a more informed and engaged public (Brossard & Scheufele, 2013). However, without a strong foundation in critical thinking or reliable sources, their efforts may unintentionally contribute to the spread of pseudoscience, divisive narratives, or misinformation (Lewandowsky et al., 2017).

Supporting and Guiding the Cause

Citizen skeptics and mojos exemplify the potential for active public participation in the pursuit of truth and accountability. By questioning established norms and leveraging modern tools, they can contribute to a more participatory democratic society. However, the effectiveness of their efforts depends on their ability to approach skepticism with rigor, integrity, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. Frontier scientists should strive to be effective mentors in this regard. Indeed, at its worse, citizen skeptics might foster nothing more than “white noise” that irresponsibly erodes the public’s trust in science. But at its best, citizen skeptics can perform the valuable exercise of producing constructive free speech composed of cogent commentary informed by critical thinking about data and its implication.

References

Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40–41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

Callahan, D. (2017). The givers: Wealth, power, and philanthropy in a new gilded age. Knopf.

Finger, L., van den Bogaert, V., Schmidt, L., Fleischer, J., Stadtler, M., Sommer, K., & Wirth, J. (2023). The science of citizen science: A systematic literature review on educational and scientific outcomes. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1226529. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1226529

Hargittai, E., & Shaw, A. (2013). Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of social media in civic participation. Daedalus, 142, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00218

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the "post-truth" era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008