Macro-PK

Macro-PK (macro-psychokinesis) is a branch of parapsychological research focused on large-scale, visible psychokinetic effects. These include object movement, metal bending, levitation, and materialization. You can see them with the naked eye, no statistics required. This sets macro-PK apart from Micro-PK, where effects are too small to see and must be inferred from data. The research covers historical investigations of physical Mediumship, Cold War studies of Soviet psychics, and modern fieldwork with claimed PK practitioners.

Key findings

  • Macro-PK means psychokinetic effects large enough to detect with the unaided senses. This contrasts with Micro-PK research, where effects only show up through statistical analysis.[1]
  • The macro/micro-PK split is about how effects are measured, not what causes them. Some researchers call it a useful but shallow boundary, since both types may share the same underlying mechanism.[2]
  • Soviet psychic Nina Kulagina was the most-studied macro-PK claimant of the twentieth century. Scientists ran more than a hundred sessions with her. Fraud accusations were never proven in court.[3]
  • Uri Geller’s metal-bending was tested at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the 1970s by physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. The SRI team reported that they observed metal bending in their lab but could not rule out normal explanations with the controls they had.[4]
  • Poltergeist cases, also called recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK), are a major class of alleged macro-PK events. Researcher William G. Roll investigated many of them in the field.[5]
  • Most parapsychologists today have limited confidence in macro-PK evidence. It is too easy to fake. Since the 1980s, the field has largely shifted to micro-PK methods.[6]
  • Philosopher and parapsychologist Stephen E. Braude argued that the strongest psi evidence may actually lie in the historical record of large-scale macro-PK, not in lab micro-PK studies alone.[7]

Overview

Psychokinesis (PK) is the idea that the mind can directly move or change physical objects, with no known physical force involved. Researchers split PK into two broad types. Macro-PK covers effects you can see with your own eyes: a compass needle spinning, a matchbox sliding, a spoon bending, a table rising off the floor. Micro-PK covers effects too small to see. You can only detect them by running statistics on the outputs of random-number generators or similar devices.

One standard reference defines macro-PK as effects that are “large-scale and detectable with the naked eye (e.g., metal-bending, table-tilting),” while micro-PK effects are “small-scale, and the use of statistics is needed to detect them.”[1] This split is about method, not mechanism. It describes how an effect is observed, not what produces it. Philosopher-parapsychologist Stephen E. Braude pointed out that the boundary is not theoretically sharp. On the most common view in parapsychology, all PK effects start at the micro level. So macro-PK is just micro-PK scaled up to something visible, not a fundamentally different thing.[2]

Historically, macro-PK was the main focus of psychical research from the late 1800s onward. Spiritualist-era séances produced reports of levitating tables, objects appearing from nowhere, and physical materializations linked to mediums. As lab methods improved in the twentieth century, scientific attention shifted toward micro-PK. Macro-PK got a brief revival in the late 1960s and 1970s, driven by Soviet studies of Nina Kulagina and by Uri Geller’s global fame. Since the 1980s, though, the research mainstream has strongly favored micro-PK. Lab methods are easier to control and harder to fake.[6]

How it works

Micro-PK experiments are designed by researchers and run the same way regardless of who the subject is. Macro-PK investigations work differently. A claimant, such as a self-described psychic or a physical medium, presents alleged phenomena. The investigator’s job is to document what happens and control conditions well enough to rule out normal explanations.

This creates an imbalance of control. In macro-PK research, the psychic often sets the terms. If investigators impose very strict controls, the phenomena tend to stop. If they relax controls, they open the door to fraud. This means procedures in macro-PK research are much less well-defined than in micro-PK work.[8]

The phenomena studied under the macro-PK label include:

  • Object movement (telekinesis): Physical objects such as matchboxes, pens, or compass needles move or rotate with no apparent contact.
  • Metal bending: Spoons, keys, or metal rods deform, supposedly through psychic influence. Uri Geller made this famous in the 1970s.
  • Table tilting and levitation: Tables move, tilt, or rise during séances, under conditions where normal muscular force is claimed to be ruled out.
  • Poltergeist / RSPK: Recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis. Objects move, loud knocks occur, and other disturbances happen without a voluntary subject in a controlled setting. These events tend to cluster around one person. Researcher William G. Roll investigated many such cases in the field.
  • Thoughtography: Mental images allegedly appear on photographic film. Psychiatrist Jule Eisenbud studied this most extensively in his work with Ted Serios.
  • Physical mediumship: Séance-room phenomena attributed to a medium, including materializations, levitation, and raps. These dominated nineteenth-century psychical research and were investigated by bodies such as the Society for Psychical Research.

Documentation methods have improved over time. Nineteenth-century investigators relied on eyewitness observation and basic controls like binding a medium’s hands. Later researchers added photography, film, infrared video, electrostatic field monitors, and physiological measurements. A standard set of precautions developed across many investigations: search the subject before sessions; use objects supplied by the researchers, not the subject; maintain continuous multi-angle observation; and tell subjects the security rules in advance, so potential fraudsters know what they face.[9]

the control problem in macro-PK

The central problem in macro-PK research is that investigators cannot fully control the situation the way they can in micro-PK work. The claimant largely decides what phenomena occur and under what conditions. This puts investigators in a bind. Strict controls often make the phenomena stop. Loose controls allow trickery. Critics argue that psychics who only perform under lenient conditions may be doing so precisely because those conditions allow cheating.[8]

Braude raised a deeper philosophical point. If PK is real, it could in principle interfere with the very instruments and observers used to detect it. This makes macro-PK research epistemologically unusual. The field’s response has generally been to gather independent replications across different cultures and investigators using different methods. The argument is that consistent findings from many independent sources, using varied approaches, are more convincing than any single tightly controlled trial.[7]

Major cases and investigators

Nina Kulagina (1926–1990) is the most thoroughly documented individual macro-PK subject of the modern era. She was a Leningrad housewife and Red Army veteran. She came to scientific attention in the 1960s when films showed her apparently moving nonmagnetic objects without touching them. Reports from the Soviet Union state that roughly 40 scientists studied her over her lifetime, including two Nobel laureates.[10] Western parapsychologists who traveled to the USSR to observe her included Jürgen Keil, Benson Herbert, J. Gaither Pratt, Montague Ullman, and J. A. Fahler. Their summary article in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research said the Russian investigations were carefully controlled and at times sophisticated, though also intermittent and non-systematic.[11] Fraud accusations appeared from the start, including claims of hidden magnets and threads. None were ever proven in court. In 1987, Kulagina won a partial defamation case against a Soviet magazine that had accused her of fraud.[3]

Uri Geller (b. 1946) sparked worldwide interest in macro-PK in the 1970s through televised metal-bending and clock-stopping. His most rigorous lab testing took place at Stanford Research Institute in 1972–73. Physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ ran five weeks of experiments with him. The SRI team reported that they observed metal bending in their lab. However, they could not combine those observations with controls strong enough to support the paranormal hypothesis.[4] Some of the better-controlled tests involved a weight on a scale and a magnetometer, both sealed under glass domes that Geller did not touch. A summary was published in the journal Nature in 1974. The editor stated explicitly that publication was not an endorsement of the researchers’ conclusions.[12]

Stephen E. Braude (1945–2026) was emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and a former president of the Parapsychological Association. He was the field’s most sustained philosophical advocate for macro-PK research. He began by focusing on lab micro-PK evidence. Over time he became convinced that the historical record of large-scale physical phenomena, from nineteenth-century physical mediumship to cases like Kulagina’s, represented evidence that parapsychology had undervalued.[7] His books The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science (1986) and The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations (2007) reported direct fieldwork with claimed macro-PK subjects. They offered philosophical analysis of eyewitness and case-study evidence alongside critiques of both credulous and dismissive responses.

Poltergeist research forms a third strand of macro-PK investigation. Cases of recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis are documented in the field, not in the lab. They are generally linked to a specific adolescent or young adult in the household. The Enfield poltergeist, investigated by Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyon Playfair for the Society for Psychical Research, is one well-known example. William G. Roll’s papers at the University of West Georgia document controlled macro-PK studies and poltergeist investigations spanning 1966–1983.[5]

Individual studies in the reference library

The studies and case investigations listed below are individual macro-PK reports and analyses currently held in the ESP-Nexus reference library beyond those the article already cites. What share of the published literature on macro-PK they represent has not been measured, so the list summarizes what the library holds rather than counting what has been published. The entries also report different kinds of number — critical ratios, t values, correlations, percentages, and case counts — and those cannot be added together into one bottom-line figure.

Forwald (1955)[15]
Design and scaleDice-placement experiments with an electrically controlled dice container releasing rows of cubes down a runway onto a walled-in table divided by a string into two target halves; presented at the 1953 Utrecht conference and published in its proceedings in 1955
Reported resultA total of 71,500 die-throws gave a deviation of +691, critical ratio 5.17, with a reported probability of .000,000,3; a Student’s t test in the first two scaled series gave t = 3.62 (P = .000,3); 11,000 control throws without placement effort came out at the chance level. In the printed discussion, participants objected that vibrations or air streams could have caused the deviations; Forwald replied that the apparatus stood on a cement floor and that even relatively strong air streams produced no observable aberrations in the cube movements
McConnell (1955)[16]
Design and scale393 previously untested subjects threw 170,000 die faces under the supervision of three experimenters; the last two-thirds of the throws were tumbled in a motor-driven cage and automatically photographed, with the dice X-rayed and secretly marked
Reported resultThe total score fell below theoretical expectation by 91, an insignificant deviation from chance; a quarter-distribution analysis found the average score declined over the data page at a rate that would be exceeded by chance alone once in 500 such experiments
Puthoff and Targ (1975)[17]
Design and scaleStanford Research Institute tests in which subjects attempted to perturb shielded instruments, beginning with a pilot observation of a superconductor-shielded Josephson-effect magnetometer with Ingo Swann, followed by thirteen ten-trial runs (130 trials, 64 activity and 66 no-activity periods) with Pat Price on a superconducting differential gradiometer
Reported result63 chart-recorder events with signal-to-noise ratio above 1 were observed; 42 fell in activity periods and 21 in no-activity periods, a correlation the authors report as significant at the p = 0.004 level
Delanoy (1987)[18]
Design and scaleTwenty sessions (about sixty hours) at the University of Edinburgh psychology department over seven and a half months in 1983/84 with a seventeen-year-old self-alleged metal-bender, with controls recommended by a professional magician and video recording introduced partway through
Reported resultThe subject was unable to produce any PK under thoroughly controlled conditions; objects bent only outside direct observation and camera view; a hidden camera eventually caught the subject engaging in fraudulent activity, and he confessed to being a practicing magician
Radin and Ferrari (1991)[19]
Design and scaleMeta-analysis of 73 English-language dice-influence reports published 1935–1987: 148 experimental studies by 52 investigators, with 2,569 subjects and 2,592,817 dice-casts, plus 31 control studies totaling 153,288 casts
Reported resultCombined z = 18.2 for experimental studies against z = 0.18 for controls; the full database shows a physical bias that inflated hit rates when higher die faces were targets; in a subset of 59 homogeneous studies controlling for such biases the authors report the effect as independently replicable, significantly positive, and not explainable as an artifact of selective reporting or differences in methodological quality; in the full database, effect size decreased as quality increased (p = .004), and the quality-weighted effect size is about half the unweighted value
Thompson (1991)[20]
Design and scaleReanalysis of the Princeton random mechanical cascade experiments — 9,000 balls cascading into 19 collecting bins — covering 1,131 tripolar sets of runs by 25 operators
Reported resultThe right-minus-left intention difference came out to about .0057 (t = 3.891, probability about 5 × 10⁻⁵); the author reports statistical features that in his analysis tend to rule out selection theories as explanations of the phenomena
Braude (2014)[21]
Design and scaleProgressively stringent, personally supervised series of séances with the Felix Experimental Group physical medium from 2010 to 2013, culminating in well-controlled experiments with video documentation in a secure private location
Reported resultThe paper reports that recent indications of fraud (explored also by Michael Nahm in the same issue) have tarnished the case as a whole, while it remains unclear how extensive the fraud has been; it evaluates the arguments both for and against the paranormality of the phenomena displayed under the author’s supervision
Gimeno (2015)[22]
Design and scaleFormation of a table-turning sitter group in Buenos Aires: fifteen weekly meetings between April and July 2013 attended by 5 to 9 people, followed by another 10 meetings with the one apparently gifted member, Ariel, after his identification
Reported resultOstensible table movements were reported, some recorded on video, and the author states it was impossible to reproduce most of them by normal means; total levitation of the table was not achieved, nor any movement without hand contact
Braude (2016)[23]
Design and scaleFour follow-up séances in Hanau, Germany, in October 2015 with the same physical medium, aimed at better documentation of the table levitations than the 2013 Austria series had achieved
Reported resultThat documentation goal was not met; the author reports phenomena difficult to explain away normally under the imposed controls — including object movements beyond the reach of the sitters and extended levitations — while noting the medium had already cheated on at least one occasion using a light-emitting device of a kind sold as a magic trick
Gimeno and Burgo (2017)[24]
Design and scaleA PK laboratory organized in Buenos Aires between June 2014 and December 2015: 23 meetings with the presumptive PK subject from the earlier sitter group, recorded by up to five video cameras, with devices measuring physical, physiological, and environmental variables
Reported resultThe subject was apparently able to move a table at will and the phenomena were documented on several occasions; muscular effort was ruled out as the cause of the observed movements, but contactless movement of the table or other objects could not be achieved; a repeat of one of Crawford’s experiments did not reproduce his results, and unexplained anomalies were observed in the EEG
Huesmann and Schriever (2022)[25]
Design and scaleQuantitative-statistical analysis of 54 RSPK reports collected at the Freiburg Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health (IGPP) between 1947 and 1986, using a purpose-built questionnaire; an English translation of an article first published in German in 1989
Reported result56% of focus persons were male, and a large number were in puberty when the phenomena began; the authors report clear similarities to existing case collections along with striking differences, including 20% of the person-bound cases lasting more than one year, and state that their focus-person data largely correspond to Roll’s findings
Auerbach, Hedva, Solfvin and Williams (2023)[26]
Design and scaleRemotely conducted investigation of anomalous household disturbances reported by a California family during COVID-19 quarantine, with 295 individually logged events and telehealth family counseling running alongside the investigation
Reported resultA regression found a significantly declining trend in daily disturbance counts over time (r = −0.397, p = .001, two-tailed), described as correlated with the progress of counseling up to cessation of the events; the authors report that features of the case were consistent with other cases in the literature
Dullin (2024)[27]
Design and scaleA phenomenology reference for poltergeist cases built on 105 cases selected from a 1,270-case database, with a historical view of the 50+ qualitative and quantitative studies of the phenomenon
Reported resultThe paper organizes the reported phenomena across historical periods and geographical areas, and reports that the level of investigation of cases increased sharply between the 1500s and 2000s while the level of fraud detected remains at 10% or less

Each entry states what the study itself reported. Critical ratios, t values, z values, correlations, percentages, and case counts are different measurements and are listed separately rather than combined.

Both directions are represented in the entries. On the positive side, Forwald reported a critical ratio of 5.17 across 71,500 die-throws in his placement work, with 11,000 control throws at the chance level;[15] Puthoff and Targ reported that chart-recorder events on a shielded superconducting gradiometer correlated with subject effort at p = 0.004 across 130 trials;[17] Thompson’s reanalysis of the Princeton cascade data found a right-minus-left difference of about .0057 across 1,131 tripolar sets (t = 3.891) with features that in his analysis tend to rule out selection theories;[20] and Radin and Ferrari’s dice meta-analysis reported a combined z = 18.2 for experimental studies against z = 0.18 for controls, with a 59-study bias-controlled subset the authors describe as independently replicable and not explainable as selective reporting.[19] Gimeno and Burgo add that muscular effort was ruled out as the cause of the table movements they recorded.[24]

The critical and null results sit in the same set of papers. McConnell’s 170,000 photographed die faces came out 91 below theoretical expectation — an insignificant deviation — with the reported effect confined to a within-page decline.[16] Radin and Ferrari also report that effect size decreased as methodological quality increased in the full database, and that the quality-weighted effect size is about half the unweighted value.[19] Delanoy’s metal-bending subject produced no PK under thoroughly controlled conditions and was caught in fraudulent activity by a hidden camera.[18] Braude reports indications of fraud that tarnished the Felix circle case as a whole,[21] Gimeno reports that total levitation was never achieved, nor any movement without hand contact,[22] and Gimeno and Burgo could not obtain contactless movement in the laboratory and did not reproduce Crawford’s results.[24]

Skeptical critiques

Skeptical objections to macro-PK research are numerous. In several high-profile cases they are well-supported.

  • Critique 1: Fraud by subjects

    Many claimants have been caught or plausibly suspected of using conjuring tricks. Professional magicians have shown that every major class of macro-PK effect, including object movement, metal bending, and levitation, can be reproduced using known illusionist methods.[13] In Project Alpha (1979–1981), a prominent stage magician placed two trained conjurers inside a parapsychology laboratory that was studying metal-bending. The researchers failed to detect the deception for over two years. This showed how vulnerable researchers without conjuring expertise can be.[13]

    Analysis. Documented deception in multiple cases, including a controlled sting operation.

  • Critique 2: Flaws in how the studies were run

    Critics point to recurring problems in macro-PK investigations: long unsupervised preparation times (Kulagina sometimes needed hours before a session); demonstrations in hotel rooms rather than labs; no expert conjurers present as observers; and protocols set by the subject rather than the investigators.[14]

    Analysis. These weaknesses are documented across multiple investigations.

  • Critique 3: Non-replication and decline effects

    No macro-PK claimant has produced repeatable, independently replicated effects under standardized conditions. Claimed abilities have often weakened or stopped entirely when controls were tightened. Skeptics interpret this as evidence that the phenomena depend on opportunities for cheating.

    Analysis. The pattern is consistent across many cases.

  • Critique 4: No known physical mechanism

    Mainstream physics offers no mechanism by which mental intention could exert force on distant objects. Skeptics argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence base for macro-PK consists largely of eyewitness accounts and case reports, unlike the large statistical database built up for micro-PK.

    Analysis. Absence of mechanism is not proof of absence, but it raises the bar for evidence.

Parapsychology’s own journals have also published documented fraud catches in macro-PK work. Delanoy reported twenty sessions with a self-alleged metal-bender who produced no PK under thoroughly controlled conditions and was eventually caught in fraudulent activity by a hidden camera, afterward confessing to being a practicing magician.[18] Braude, writing as the investigator of the Felix circle, reported that indications of fraud had tarnished the case as a whole,[21] and noted in his follow-up investigation that the medium was already known to have cheated on at least one occasion using a light-emitting device of a kind sold as a magic trick.[23]

Responses and evaluation

Proponents of macro-PK research have several responses to skeptical arguments. On fraud: Braude and others note that repeated accusations do not prove fraud. In the most thoroughly documented cases, such as Kulagina’s, no deceptive mechanism was ever physically demonstrated despite decades of scrutiny.[3] On eyewitness reliability: Braude argued against assuming that observers are inherently unreliable when multiple independent observers from different institutions and countries report consistent phenomena across many sessions.

On controls: researchers point out that while individual macro-PK sessions may not meet the standard of a fully controlled experiment, a cumulative record across many investigators can act as a kind of distributed replication. Evaluating macro-PK evidence is therefore more like forensic science or historical analysis, where convergent independent accounts build a case, than like a single lab study that must be replicated exactly.

There is also a broader point. The field’s shift away from macro-PK toward micro-PK since the 1980s has not resolved the controversy. The micro-PK database has its own unresolved replication problems and file-drawer issues (where negative results go unpublished). Some researchers argue that abandoning macro-PK entirely means discarding potentially useful, if difficult, data. The ongoing challenge is building research protocols that are rigorous enough to be scientifically credible but flexible enough that genuine phenomena, if they exist, are not simply excluded by design.

Related lab research is covered on the Micro-PK research page. Séance-room context is addressed on the Mediumship research page.

References
  1. Irwin, H. J., & Watt, C. A. (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland. [Macro-PK defined as large-scale, naked-eye-observable effects; micro-PK as effects requiring statistical detection.]
  2. Varvoglis, M., & Bancel, P. A. (2015). Micro-psychokinesis. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.), Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century (pp. 266–281). McFarland. [The macro/micro-PK distinction is “useful, but superficial” and based on methods of observation rather than underlying mechanism.]
  3. Keil, H. H. J., Herbert, B., Ullman, M., & Pratt, J. G. (1976). Directly observable voluntary PK effects: A survey and tentative interpretation of available findings from Nina Kulagina and similar subjects. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 56, 197–235. [Kulagina’s effects described; fraud accusations not substantiated; partial 1987 defamation victory noted.]
  4. Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. E. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 252, 602–607. [SRI metal-bending observations of Geller noted but judged insufficiently controlled to support paranormal hypothesis.]
  5. Roll, W. G. (1966–1983). Controlled macro-PK studies and experiments [archival papers, MS-0014, Box 155, Folder 30]. University of West Georgia Special Collections, Carrollton, GA.
  6. Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books. [Contemporary parapsychology’s preference for micro-PK methods over macro-PK given fraud susceptibility of the latter.]
  7. Braude, S. E. (2015). Macro-psychokinesis. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer, & D. Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.), Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century (pp. 258–265). McFarland. [Historical case evidence for macro-PK; critique of exclusive reliance on laboratory micro-PK.]
  8. Stokes, D. M. (n.d.). The evidence for psi: Experimental studies. [Newdualism.org]. [Macro-PK research procedures must be negotiated with the psychic; controls less well-defined than in micro-PK research.]
  9. Broughton, R. S. (1991). Parapsychology: The Controversial Science. Ballantine Books. [Security precautions in macro-PK investigations: subject searches, researcher-supplied objects, multi-angle observation, advance communication of policies.]
  10. Kettlekamp, L. (1977). Investigating Psychics. William Morrow. [Reports of approximately 40 Soviet scientists studying Kulagina, including two Nobel laureates.]
  11. Keil, H. H. J., Herbert, B., Ullman, M., & Pratt, J. G. (1976). [See ref. 3.] [Western observers found Russian investigations carefully controlled but intermittent and non-systematic.]
  12. Nature editorial note accompanying Targ & Puthoff (1974), Nature, 252. [Publication explicitly not an endorsement; editor stated “publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of receiving a seal of approval from the establishment.”]
  13. Truzzi, M. (1987). Reflections on “Project Alpha”: Scientific experiment or conjuror’s illusion? Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, 73–98. [PDF] [Two trained conjurers placed in a parapsychology laboratory; deception undetected for over two years; professional magicians can replicate all major classes of macro-PK effect.]
  14. Polidoro, M. (1997). Secrets of a Russian psychic. Skeptical Inquirer, 21(6), 40–45. [Long unsupervised preparation times and use of non-laboratory settings left ample opportunity for trickery in Kulagina investigations.]
  15. Forwald, H. (1955). Researches in Psychokinesis by Means of Placement Technique. In Proceedings of the First International Conference of Parapsychological Studies (Utrecht, 1953). Parapsychology Foundation. R015 [Forwald 1955] ↩︎
  16. McConnell, R. A. (1955). Some Unpublished Evidence Regarding the Occurrence of Psychokinesis. In Proceedings of the First International Conference of Parapsychological Studies (Utrecht, 1953). Parapsychology Foundation. R016 [McConnell 1955] ↩︎
  17. Puthoff, H., & Targ, R. (1975). Physics, Entropy, and Psychokinesis. In Quantum Physics and Parapsychology (conference proceedings). Parapsychology Foundation. R017 [Puthoff & Targ 1975] ↩︎
  18. Delanoy, D. L. (1987). Work with a Fraudulent PK Metal-Bending Subject. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 54(809). R018 [Delanoy 1987] ↩︎
  19. Radin, D. I., & Ferrari, D. C. (1991). Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5(1), 61–83. https://web.archive.org/web/20230331215150/https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/5/jse_05_1_radin.pdf R019 [Radin & Ferrari 1991] ↩︎
  20. Thompson, R. (1991). Numerical Analysis and Theoretical Modelling of Causal Effects of Conscious Intention. Subtle Energies, 2(1). https://journals.holosuniversity.org/index.php/seemj/article/view/114 R020 [Thompson 1991] ↩︎
  21. Braude, S. E. (2014). Investigations of the Felix Experimental Group: 2010–2013. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28(2), 285–343. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/733 R021 [Braude 2014] ↩︎
  22. Gimeno, J. (2015). Shortage of Rabbits or Insufficient Traps? Table-Turning and the Discovery of a Presumably PK-Gifted Person in Argentina. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(4), 585–600. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/908 R022 [Gimeno 2015] ↩︎
  23. Braude, S. E. (2016). Follow-Up Investigation of the Felix Circle. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 30(1), 27–55. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1016 R023 [Braude 2016] ↩︎
  24. Gimeno, J., & Burgo, D. (2017). Laboratory Research on a Presumably PK-Gifted Subject. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 31(2), 159–186. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1163 R024 [Gimeno & Burgo 2017] ↩︎
  25. Huesmann, M., & Schriever, F. (2022). Wanted: The Poltergeist. Description and Discussion of a Collection of 54 RSPK Reports of the Years 1947–1986. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 22(1), 76–135. https://doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2022.76 R025 [Huesmann & Schriever 2022] ↩︎
  26. Auerbach, L., Hedva, B., Solfvin, G. F., & Williams, B. J. (2023). A Virtually-Facilitated Investigation of Anomalous Household Disturbances Reported During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Parapsychology, 87(1), 33–65. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2023.01.04 R026 [Auerbach et al. 2023] ↩︎
  27. Dullin, E. (2024). A Detailed Phenomenology of Poltergeist Events. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 38(3), 427–460. https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/3263 R027 [Dullin 2024] ↩︎

Last updated: 2026-08-07 19:22:53

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.