Discovery Lab Answers

The question asks about “Gary E. Schwartz experiments and data.” A clarification matters up front: the sources retrieved for this question concern Stephan A. Schwartz — a separate researcher, profiled on ESP-Nexus at Stephan A. Schwartz. The two share a surname but are different people and different research programs.

Gary E. Schwartz vs. Stephan A. Schwartz

Gary E. Schwartz is a psychologist at the University of Arizona known primarily for laboratory mediumship studies and “afterlife experiments” conducted in the early 2000s. The ESP-Nexus Mental Mediumship and Mediumship pages reference his work in that context.

Stephan A. Schwartz (no relation) is a researcher in applied remote viewing, nonlocal consciousness, and intention effects — the subject of the sources retrieved for this question.

What the retrieved sources cover

The numbered sources retrieved here are authored by Stephan A. Schwartz and address his own research program — precognitive remote viewing, consciousness theory, and intention effects — not Gary E. Schwartz’s mediumship experiments ^[3][4][5][6]. One point of overlap the Stephan A. Schwartz page notes: the two collaborated on interpersonal energy-detection experiments with Linda Russek, where blindfolded subjects attempted to detect the presence of another person’s hand held nearby.

Gary E. Schwartz’s mediumship work — what the site’s pages report

The ESP-Nexus Mediumship page notes that Gary E. Schwartz’s “afterlife experiments” of the early 2000s brought mediumship back into laboratory settings and drew wide attention, though their controls were later judged loose by critics. The Mental Mediumship page describes a 2007 triple-blind study by Julie Beischel and Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona in which mediums read absent sitters through a go-between experimenter, a design intended to eliminate conventional information transfer.

The retrieved sources do not contain Gary E. Schwartz’s raw experimental statistics, and the structured evidence block for this question is empty, so I cannot report specific effect sizes, p-values, or hit rates for his studies from this answer’s evidence base. The retrieved excerpts do not carry those figures — that does not mean the papers lack them; it means they are not in what was retrieved here.

Skeptical critiques

What critics argue. No published critique of this work appears in the sources retrieved for this question.

What the experimental data show. The triple-blind 2007 Beischel and Schwartz protocol was a methodological response to those criticisms, routing communication through a go-between experimenter specifically to close off information channels that earlier designs left open. The Mental Mediumship page describes this as part of what researchers called a “resurrection” of laboratory mediumship science.

Analysis. The methodological tightening from the early “afterlife experiments” to the later triple-blind design is documented, but independent replication of the triple-blind results outside the original laboratory group has not been established in the sources available here. The question of whether tighter controls preserved, reduced, or eliminated the reported effects is one the retrieved sources do not resolve.

For a fuller treatment of Gary E. Schwartz’s experiments, the Mental Mediumship and Mediumship pages are the most directly relevant ESP-Nexus resources. If you were asking about Stephan A. Schwartz’s remote viewing and intention research, I can go deeper on that program.