Discovering a Life’s Purpose

By Marsha Sims

Have you ever asked yourself what your life’s purpose truly is? For many years, I pondered that question—especially because I’ve always had a multidisciplinary background and a passion for living fully across different realms: science, music, and spirituality. It was only recently, after appearing on David Lorimer’s podcast Imaginal Inspirations, that I arrived at a clear and deeply satisfying realization: my purpose is to bridge spirituality, science, and music.

One of the most pivotal phases in shaping this path was my decade (1991–2001) as Executive Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), while my husband, Bernard Haisch, served as Editor-in-Chief. This time immersed us in the writings of the leading minds in frontier science and consciousness research: Peter Sturrock, Russell Targ, Hal Puthoff, Dean Radin, Ian Stevenson, Bruce Greyson, Brenda Dunne and Bob Jahn, Rupert Sheldrake, and Jacques Vallée, among many others. These extraordinary thinkers deepened my curiosity and laid the foundation for what became a lifelong journey of intellectual and spiritual integration.

The JSE and the Society for Scientific Exploration provided a welcoming, open-minded environment for these bold conversations. My own orientation was forever shaped by the quote Bernie crafted during his tenure, which continues to guide our work today: “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”

As a husband-and-wife team for 38 years, Bernie and I have dedicated ourselves to this integrative exploration. Bernie, a PhD astrophysicist, authored The God Theory, The Purpose-Guided Universe, and Proof of God (with Ptolemy Tompkins). Together, we also composed over a hundred original songs and performed in community operettas. I hold a Master of Music, teach piano and voice, and continue to perform opera in the San Francisco Bay Area. Music, for me, is a sacred language that speaks to the soul and links us to something transcendent.

When Bernie’s Parkinson’s disease made it difficult for him to continue writing, I stepped in as co-author for what would become our final collaborative work, The Miracle of Our Universe: A New View of Consciousness, God, Science and Reality (2023). Bernie had gathered extensive notes over time, and I helped shape them into a coherent manuscript—while adding new ideas of my own. It was a profound act of love and shared vision.

In the book, we propose that our universe is a kind of virtual simulation, “thought into existence” by a universal Consciousness—what many would call God. Everything we perceive as physical is, in fact, consciousness in action. Through free will and interaction, this divine consciousness experiences and evolves itself.

Might there be a God and a heaven of some sort?

Are near-death experiences real?

What is the zero-point field?

Is there an afterlife—and what might it be like?

These are the questions we explore in our work and in conversations that continue to resonate through public dialogues. I’ve now appeared on 27 podcasts, including my inspiring interview with David Lorimer, who asked deeply reflective questions that helped crystallize my personal journey. That dialogue gave me space to articulate my deepest spiritual experiences—including a near-death experience, an awakening of the heart, and transcendent moments of group consciousness while singing and teaching music.

I invite you to listen to the conversation on Imaginal Inspirations and to explore our book and website:

• The Miracle of Our Universe — [available via Amazon and major booksellers]: http://www.themiracleofouruniverse.com

• Podcast episode:https://redcircle.com/shows/imaginal-inspirations/ep/139a5d2f-935c-4d2f-89ad-08484bf827ce

A Parallel Path of Purpose

By David Lorimer

It was a pleasure to host Marsha on Imaginal Inspirations. Her reflections reminded me of a complementary journey I’ve walked for decades, one also centered on meaning, awakening, and purpose.

For over ten years, I led a major educational initiative for youth, originally called Learning for Life and later Inspiring Purpose, reaching over 375,000 young people in the UK and beyond. The goal was to foster reflection on personal values and life purpose. This passion also informed my 2021 book, A Quest for Wisdom: Inspiring Purpose on the Path of Life—a collection of 25 essays on consciousness, ethics, and spiritual development.

My own life pivoted early. After graduating in languages and philosophy from St. Andrews and working in the City of London as a merchant banker, I pressed the “eject” button and devoted myself to education and inner inquiry. A year of reading and reflection led me to Cambridge and then to eight years of teaching, largely at Winchester College.

Since 1986, I’ve worked with the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN), where I serve as Program Director and Editor of Paradigm Explorer. The Network was founded in 1973 by visionary thinkers—many of whom had mystical experiences that convinced them of dimensions beyond materialism. Our mission remains clear: to affirm the spiritual essence of humanity as compatible with enlightened science. https://scientificandmedical.net

Our key initiative related to the science of consciousness is the "Galileo Commission," which I am Co-Chair with Prof Marjorie Woollacott – see https://galileocommission.org, where you can also sign up as a professional affiliate, joining over 600 fellow scientists and academics who are committed to:

“Expanding Minds, Connecting Hearts.”

Our goal, like that of the SSE and JSE, is to provide a platform for voices that stretch our understanding of life, death, and everything in between. In times of fragmentation and materialist dogma, we need these bridges—between spirit and science, tradition and innovation, intellect and heart.

Closing Reflection

As our lives unfold across different domains—whether through editorial work, music, teaching, or global dialogue—what we discover is this: the journey of purpose is also the journey of consciousness. To question answers is to keep that journey alive. We invite JSE readers to continue asking the deeper questions, and to trust that the search itself is part of the answer.

We received this information from Stefan Amberg of the International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition that may be of interest to SSE members.

The International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition is an educational astronomy competition open to students from around the world. In three rounds, students use their problem-solving skills and expand their knowledge through diverse astronomy and astrophysics problems. Since its launch in 2019, IAAC has reached over 28,000 students and involved 1,400 educators from more than 120 countries.

This year's prizes include telescopes signed by the astronaut Frank De Winne and Nobel Prize laureates François Englert, Michel Mayor, Gerard 't Hooft and Didier Queloz.

The submission deadline for this year's Qualification Round is Friday, 4 July 2025. Resources such as problem sets, flyers, and posters can be accessed on our website: https://iaac.space. We'd greatly appreciate it if you could share this opportunity with interested students and educators to encourage participation.

If you have any questions or need additional information, reach out to us at outreach@iaac.space.

Best regards,
Stefan Amberg

__________________________________
Outreach Coordinator
E-Mail: outreach@iaac.space
Phone: +49-177-6762399 (Germany)
Address: Pstf 110105 / 69071 Heidelberg / DE

International Astronomy and Astrophysics Competition
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iaac.space/
Instagram: instagram.com/iaac.space
Website: www.iaac.spac

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