What has Smith published on remote viewing?

The “Smith” in the remote viewing literature most relevant to ESP-Nexus is Paul H. Smith, PhD — retired US Army Major, seven-year operational remote viewer in Project Star Gate, and founder of Remote Viewing Instructional Services (RVIS). His profile is at Paul H. Smith, PhD.

Important scope note first: the library’s share of the published literature on remote viewing has not been measured. The 21 studies in the evidence base below represent what the ESP-Nexus library currently holds, not a complete account of the field. Treat the summary below as a description of what this library holds, not a settled characterization of remote viewing research overall.

What Paul H. Smith has published on remote viewing

The sources retrieved for this question capture Smith primarily as a practitioner, trainer, and reviewer rather than as an experimental psychologist publishing laboratory trials.

Military and operational background

Smith served as a core operational remote viewer and trainer in the US Army’s Stargate program. He was trained directly in Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) protocols by Ingo Swann, the originator of the coordinate remote viewing methodology. He developed and published the Coordinate Remote Viewing training manual, establishing a systematic instructional framework for the protocol. After leaving the military he founded RVIS to transition that training into the civilian domain, and served as president of the International Remote Viewing Association.

Empirical contribution: the ARV stock-options study

The ESP-Nexus Remote Viewing page and the Associative Remote Viewing book page both cite a 2014 study — Smith, Laham, and Moddel — in which 10 inexperienced viewers achieved 7 correct predictions out of 7 stock-options trials. This is a small-sample associative remote viewing (ARV) result reported in the secondary literature; the retrieved excerpts do not contain the full study text, so the specific statistics beyond that raw hit count are not available from what was retrieved here.

Scholarly reviewing and commentary

The two items by Smith in the numbered sources for this question are **book reviews in the Journal of Scientific Exploration**: a 2025 review of Louis Elizondo’s Imminent: Inside the Pentagon’s Hunt for UFOs, and a 2018 review of Damien Broderick’s Psience Fiction: The Paranormal in Science Fiction Literature. Both are signed with his Stargate credentials and his RVIS affiliation, but neither contains original remote viewing data.

His other cited contributions to the Journal of Scientific Exploration engage with contemporary anomalistics literature and UAP research narratives, per the ESP-Nexus profile page.

How Smith’s work fits the broader evidence picture

The structured evidence base for remote viewing (23 result rows across 21 studies) shows a mix of outcomes: several meta-analyses and pooled analyses report positive standardized effect sizes and significant p-values, while Wahbeh (2021) reports a null overall result across 534 participants and Wahbeh (2022) reports a below-chance Hedges’ g on an extended-perception task. Between-study heterogeneity is flagged as high in at least one pooled result, and the evidence base includes metrics that are not directly comparable — hit rates, standardized effect sizes, and p-only reports — so no single pooled “bottom line” figure describes the set. Smith’s own small ARV result sits within that broader, unsettled picture.

Skeptical critiques

The ESP-Nexus profile and the retrieved sources do not surface a specific published critique directed at Smith’s CRV manual or the 2014 ARV study by name. The broader remote viewing literature carries methodological objections — particularly around judging procedures, target-set construction, and the possibility of sensory leakage — but the retrieved sources do not attach those critiques to Smith’s work specifically. Where that skeptical engagement exists in the library, it is more fully treated on the Remote Viewing phenomena page.

The studies behind this answer
PaperReported findingEffect / significanceBasis
Katz et al. (2026), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition [source]Prevalence of sense of correctness.prevalence 0.89N = 122 participants
Schwartz (2025), EXPLORE [source]Self-reported overall accuracy of consensus precognitive RV concepts.prevalence 0.83—
Mossbridge (2024), Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX) [source]Batch 1 – target-matching hit/miss ratio across high- vs low-instigation moon phases.p < .017N = 792 trials
Tressoldi et al. (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Frequentist random-effects, with outliers.ES 0.36, p = 8.7 × 10−10k = 40
Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), EXPLORE [source]Believers group with photo/image-based targets – hit-threshold breakdown.ES 0.853N = 347 participants
Escola-Gascon et al. (2023), Brain and Behavior [source]Group 2 RV hits vs chance.ES 0.853, p < .001N = 9184 trials; 287 participants
Piao et al. (2023), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Primary outcome: trials with >50% grade in both Type-I and Type-II matching.hit rate 0.06N = 100 trials; 1 participants
Wahbeh et al. (2022), International Journal of Transpersonal Studies [source]Extended perception pre-post change – parent study result.ES -0.16, hit rate 0.19N = 481 participants
Mueller et al. (2021), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Overall hit rate, all 100 trials.p = 1.9 × 10−7, hit rate 0.75N = 100 trials; 5 participants
Wahbeh et al. (2021), Research Square (preprint) [source]Quick Remote Viewing task: overall performance.—N = 534 participants
Schwartz et al. (2020), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Location of wreck site by chance – realistic.p = 9 × 10−5—
Roe et al. (2020), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Combined ganzfeld condition – sum of ranks.ES 0.4, z = 4.22, p = 1.2 × 10−5, hit rate 0.39k = 3; N = 110 trials; 110 participants
Schwartz et al. (2019), Zeitschrift fur Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Location prediction – a priori chance probability of the discovered Consensus Area.p = .0046N = 8 participants
Targ (2019), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Pat Price formal series.ES 1.0, hit rate 0.778N = 9 trials
Mueller et al. (2017), Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics [source]Direct hits: target given highest correspondence rating.hit rate 0.388N = 36 sessions; 36 participants
Brown (2012), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]All sessions – clarity-score distribution across 11 targets.—k = 11 events/tests; N = 86 sessions
Wiseman et al. (2010), European Journal of Parapsychology [source]Blind judging trials: majority-vote remote-viewing hits across 4 trials.—4 studies
Dunne et al. (2005), Cellular and Molecular Biology [source]Meta-analysis of 13 REG/RMC/Pendulum experiments combined.z = 7.0, p = 6.5 × 10−1113 studies; N = 5900000 trials
Dunne et al. (2003), Journal of Scientific Exploration [source]Formal trials.z = 6.355, p = 1 × 10−10N = 336 trials; 30 participants
Dunne et al. (1979), Journal of Parapsychology [source]Eight-trial sum of ranks.p < .008k = 8; N = 8 trials; 2 participants
Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database (21 studies; the table shows the 20 highest-ranked). ESP-Nexus reports what each study found and takes no position on whether the effects are genuine.
References
  1. Katz, D. L., Akin, J., & Prather, J. (2026). Sensing Accuracy: A Survey of Experienced Remote Viewers’ Awareness of Correctness and Being on Target. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 6(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.27505
  2. Schwartz, S. A. (2025). Science, precognitive remote viewing, and our future. EXPLORE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2025.103142
  3. Mossbridge, J. (2024). Moon Phases and Online Tests of Precognition: Letter to the Editor. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition (JAEX), 4(1), 142–143. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.26006
  4. Tressoldi, P., & Katz, D. L. (2023). Remote Viewing: A 1974-2022 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3), 467–489. https://doi.org/10.31275/20232931
  5. Escola-Gascon, A., Vilarasau Serra, M., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Denovan, A. (2023). Resources on Escola-Gascon et al.’s (2023) remote viewing research per the original CIA experiments. EXPLORE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2023.07.008
  6. Escola-Gascon, A., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Denovan, A. (2023). Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) remote viewing experiments. Brain and Behavior, 13. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.3026
  7. Piao, D., & Katz, L. (2023). On the Band-Limited Information Throughput of Free-Selective and Free-Responsive Spatially Non-Local Perception. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3), 490–508. https://doi.org/10.31275/20232951
  8. Wahbeh, H., Vieten, C., Yount, G., Cartry-Jacobsen, A., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2022). Transformative, Noetic, and Transpersonal Experiences During Personal Development Workshops. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2021.40.2.75
  9. Mueller, M., & Wittmann, M. (2021). Anomalous Cognition in the Context of Time: Does the Viewer Describe a Deterministic or a Probabilistic Future? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(3), 542–569. https://doi.org/10.31275/20211923
  10. Wahbeh, H., Vieten, C., Yount, G., Cartry-Jacobsen, A., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2021). Reported paranormal experiences associated with improved outcomes of personal development workshops. Research Square (preprint). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-311640/v1
  11. Schwartz, S. A., & De Mattei, R. J. (2020). The Discovery of an American Brig: Fieldwork Involving Applied Remote Viewing Including a Comparison with Electronic Remote Sensing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 34(1), 62–92. https://doi.org/10.31275/2020/1481
  12. Roe, C. A., Cooper, C. E., Hickinbotham, L., Hodrien, A., Kirkwood, L., & Martin, H. (2020). Performance at a Precognitive Remote Viewing Task, with and without Ganzfeld Stimulation: Three Experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 84(1), 38–65. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2020.01.06
  13. Schwartz, S. A., De Mattei, R. J., & Smith, R. C. (2019). The Caravel Project: The Location, Description, and Reconstruction of Marine Sites Through Remote Viewing, Including Comparison With Aerial Photography, Geological Coring, and Electronic Remote Sensing. Zeitschrift fur Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 19, 113–139. https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2019.113
  14. Targ, R. (2019). What Do We Know about Psi? The First Decade of Remote-Viewing Research and Operations at Stanford Research Institute. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(4), 569–592. https://doi.org/10.31275/2019/1669
  15. Mueller, M., & Wittmann, M. (2017). Remote Viewing: A Proof-of-Principle Study. Zeitschrift fuer Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 17, 83–104.
  16. Brown, C. (2012). Remote Viewing the Future with a Tasking Temporal Outbounder. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26(1), 81–110.
  17. Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2010). ‘Twitter’ as a New Research Tool: Proof of Principle with a Mass Participation Test of Remote Viewing. European Journal of Parapsychology, 25, 2–200.
  18. Dunne, B., & Jahn, R. (2005). Consciousness, Information, and Living Systems. Cellular and Molecular Biology, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1170/T679
  19. Dunne, B. J., & Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17(2), 207–241.
  20. Dunne, B. J., & Bisaha, J. P. (1979). Precognitive Remote Viewing in the Chicago Area: A Replication of the Stanford Experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, 43, 17–30.
Deeper dives on ESP-Nexus

Ask another question

More questions answered

All questions and answers →

Last updated: 2026-08-30 22:58:19

Copyright © 2026 Innovative Software Design. All rights reserved.

ESP-Nexus reports published parapsychology research as written by its own authors. Source-fidelity to cited documents is audited on every page; the site takes no position on the epistemic status of parapsychological claims themselves.