Overview

Carlos S. Alvarado died in 2021 after a career dedicated to the scholarly evaluation and contextualization of parapsychological literature. Rather than conducting laboratory experiments, Alvarado worked as a historian, archivist, and critical reviewer, roles that proved essential to the field’s self-understanding. He served as a co-editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration and maintained long-term affiliations with the Parapsychology Foundation and Atlantic University, positions from which he shaped how parapsychological research was presented, evaluated, and situated within broader intellectual history.

Alvarado’s approach to critical review was distinctive. He did not dismiss anomalous claims on ideological grounds, nor did he accept them uncritically. Instead, he examined the evidence, methodology, and historical context with scholarly precision, often drawing on his deep knowledge of parapsychology’s pre-twentieth-century roots and the conceptual frameworks that researchers had used to explain psychic phenomena. His reviews appeared regularly in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and covered an unusually wide range of topics, from parapsychological monographs to works on Christian mysticism, medical history, and philosophy of science.

Editorial and Review Work

Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, Alvarado published extensive book reviews and essay reviews in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. These reviews were not perfunctory summaries; they were substantive critical engagements with the literature that often spanned multiple pages and addressed both the strengths and limitations of the works under examination.

In his role as a reviewer, Alvarado evaluated parapsychological monographs alongside works from adjacent disciplines. For instance, he reviewed philosophical and scientific works on the nature of evidence, the relationship between science and spirituality, and the historical development of concepts used to explain anomalous phenomena.⁴ This interdisciplinary approach reflected his conviction that parapsychology could not be properly understood in isolation from broader intellectual currents.

One recurring theme in Alvarado’s reviews was the distinction between legitimate skepticism and what he termed “pseudoskepticism.” Drawing on the work of researchers like Charles Tart, Alvarado noted that pseudoskeptics dismiss parapsychological findings not on methodological grounds but because they believe such phenomena are “scientifically impossible.”⁴ This critique was not an attack on skepticism itself (Alvarado valued rigorous critical evaluation) but rather a call for skeptics to engage with the actual evidence and methodology rather than reject findings on a priori ideological grounds.

Historiography and Contextualization

A central contribution of Alvarado’s critical work was his systematic historicization of parapsychological concepts and phenomena. He traced the intellectual genealogy of ideas used to explain psychic effects, demonstrating that modern parapsychology inherited conceptual frameworks from mesmerism, spiritualism, and nineteenth-century psychical research.

In his essay reviews, Alvarado examined historical texts on “vital forces,” “animal magnetism,” and “subtle bodies”, concepts that had been used since antiquity and were revived in the mesmeric and spiritualist traditions to account for phenomena such as healing, thought transmission, and physical mediumship.² By reviewing and contextualizing these historical works, Alvarado showed that contemporary parapsychology was not inventing new explanatory frameworks but rather refining and testing ideas that had circulated for centuries.

This historical perspective served an important function: it demonstrated that the questions parapsychology asked were not marginal or eccentric but central to the history of Western thought. Alvarado’s reviews of works on Christian mysticism, for example, highlighted the long tradition of scholars taking seriously the reality of extraordinary phenomena (levitations, stigmata, luminous manifestations) rather than dismissing them as purely symbolic or psychological.³ By situating parapsychology within this broader intellectual history, Alvarado argued implicitly for the legitimacy of the field’s research agenda.

Critical Method and Standards

Alvarado’s approach to critical evaluation was characterized by several methodological commitments. First, he insisted on careful attention to evidence and methodology. When reviewing works that made claims about parapsychological phenomena, he examined the quality of the evidence presented and the rigor of the experimental or observational procedures used to gather it.

Second, Alvarado emphasized the importance of case-by-case analysis. He recognized that blanket judgments about the reality or unreality of phenomena like mediumship or survival of death were premature without detailed examination of individual cases. As he noted in his review of Michael Grosso‘s work on afterlife phenomena, “only a case-by-case analysis allows for credible appraisals; needs, desires, and motivation have to be taken into account.”⁵ This approach acknowledged the complexity of anomalous phenomena and resisted oversimplification.

Third, Alvarado valued interdisciplinary perspectives. His reviews drew on insights from history, psychology, philosophy, theology, and medicine to illuminate parapsychological questions. This interdisciplinary stance reflected his conviction that parapsychology could not be adequately evaluated using the standards of any single discipline, but required dialog across multiple fields of knowledge.

Fourth, Alvarado maintained a distinction between the reality of phenomena and their explanation. He could acknowledge that certain phenomena appeared to occur, that mediums produced apparent communications with the deceased, that individuals reported out-of-body experiences, while remaining agnostic about the ultimate explanation of these phenomena. This nuanced position allowed him to engage seriously with parapsychological research without committing to any particular metaphysical interpretation.

Legacy and Impact

Alvarado’s work as a critical reviewer and historian shaped the intellectual culture of parapsychology in several ways. By consistently publishing substantive, scholarly reviews in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, he established a standard for how parapsychological literature should be evaluated and discussed. His reviews modeled a form of critical engagement that was neither dismissive nor uncritical, a middle path that many in the field sought to emulate.

His historical work demonstrated that parapsychology had deep roots in Western intellectual tradition and that the phenomena the field studied had long been subjects of serious scholarly attention. This historical perspective helped counter the narrative that parapsychology was a marginal or recent invention, showing instead that it represented a continuation and refinement of centuries-old inquiries into anomalous human capacities.

Alvarado’s emphasis on distinguishing between legitimate skepticism and pseudoskepticism also influenced how parapsychologists understood and responded to criticism. By articulating this distinction clearly, he provided a framework for engaging with skeptical objections while maintaining that some forms of skepticism were motivated by ideology rather than evidence.

Finally, Alvarado’s interdisciplinary approach, his willingness to review works on Christian mysticism, medical history, and philosophy alongside parapsychological monographs, suggested that parapsychology was not an isolated specialty but part of a broader conversation about the nature of human experience, the limits of scientific explanation, and the relationship between mind and matter. This vision of parapsychology as an intellectually central rather than peripheral field influenced how subsequent researchers understood their work.