Dean I. Radin, PhD Sources:

Dean I. Radin

Dean I. Radin is Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and an Associated Distinguished Professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies (from 2015), and co-founder of Cognigenics. His research focuses on whether human consciousness can interact with physical systems in ways not explained by conventional science, including whether people can unconsciously sense future emotional events, whether focused attention perturbs quantum optical interference patterns, and whether large groups of people leave detectable traces in globally distributed random number generators.[1][2][3] He has published meta-analyses of dice-fall and random-number-generator experiments, contributed to the Global Consciousness Project, and developed the “presentiment” psychophysiological paradigm.[4][5][1] His work sits at the intersection of experimental parapsychology, quantum physics interpretation, and consciousness research.[6]

Career affiliations: Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), Chief Scientist; California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), Associated Distinguished Professor (from 2015); Cognigenics, co-founder; Consciousness Research Laboratory, University of Nevada Las Vegas[7]

Deeper dives — Radin:

Automated Ganzfeld Mind-Matter Interaction Double-Slit Consciousness Global Consciousness Project Presentiment and Electrodermal Intention-Mediated Effects Sequential Analysis Methods Meditation, Consciousness Anomalous Cognition 📖  Real Magic 📖  Entangled Minds 📖  Supernormal 📖  The Conscious Universe

Overview

Radin has spent more than four decades investigating whether human consciousness can produce measurable effects on physical systems, and whether anomalous anticipatory responses to future events can be detected in the body before those events occur. His work sits at the intersection of experimental psychology, psychophysiology, quantum physics, and meta-analytic methodology. He has published on electrodermal presentiments of future emotional stimuli, mind-matter interactions with random event generators, observer effects on quantum optical interference patterns, and collective correlations between global REG networks and large-scale human events. In parallel, he has conducted and synthesized research bearing on whether these phenomena, taken together, constitute replicable evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in physical systems.[1][5][9][2]

His career began with early laboratory work on machine-based micro-PK in the 1980s, including positions at institutions adjacent to Princeton’s PEAR program and at SRI International. He subsequently directed the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and led research at the Boundary Institute before joining the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), where he has served as Chief Scientist. From 2015 he has held an Associated Distinguished Professor appointment at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and he is a co-founder of Cognigenics. He has served five terms as president of the Parapsychological Association and holds thirteen issued or pending patents.[38][9][69]

Overview of Research Scope

Radin’s published work spans several distinct research programs: (1) presentiment studies, in which electrodermal activity and other psychophysiological measures are recorded before participants view randomly selected emotional or neutral images, testing whether the body anticipates future stimuli; (2) micro-PK experiments with random event generators and random number generators (REGs/RNGs), including a formal meta-analysis with Roger Nelson covering decades of published studies; (3) consciousness-double-slit experiments, a series of optical interference studies asking whether sustained mental attention toward one slit shifts measurable fringe visibility; (4) contributions to the Global Consciousness Project, analyzing whether a worldwide network of field REGs shows non-random structure during events of collective human attention; (5) automated ganzfeld methodology, including the design of security and randomization protocols for autoganzfeld systems; (6) distant healing intention and intention-on-biology research, examining physiological outcomes in receivers during periods of directed compassionate intention; and (7) meta-analytic synthesis across multiple domains, including the Radin & Ferrari dice meta-analysis and the Radin & Nelson RNG meta-analysis.[1][4][5][22][2][3][49][25]

Why This Is Hard to Study

Radin’s experimental programs share several features that make them difficult to evaluate by conventional standards. The effects he studies are small, often detectable only through large trial counts or meta-analysis, which means individual studies are underpowered and replication failures are expected even if the underlying effect is real.[9] Many of the phenomena appear to be state-dependent: presentiment effects are stronger in some participants than others, double-slit effects are larger in experienced meditators, and geomagnetic conditions appear to modulate performance across multiple paradigms.[2][10][11] This means that a replication attempt using unselected participants under uncontrolled environmental conditions may genuinely fail to reproduce an effect that exists under the right conditions, a Type II error risk that is easy to overlook.[7]

The electrodermal presentiment paradigm faces a specific methodological challenge: slow drift in skin conductance, residual arousal from preceding emotional trials, and flexible choices of analysis window can all produce apparent pre-stimulus differences in null data.[12][13] The somatic-marker literature shows that anticipatory skin conductance responses can arise from implicit learning of statistical regularities without any retrocausal mechanism, which must be ruled out in any presentiment design.[14] Similarly, the double-slit experiments require careful separation of what mainstream physics means by “observation”, which-path information, not conscious awareness, from the consciousness-collapse interpretation Radin tests.[15][16]

Type-II Vulnerability Details

The core Type-II vulnerabilities in Radin’s research programs are: (1) small effect sizes that require large samples or meta-analytic aggregation to detect reliably; (2) state-dependent moderators (meditation experience, geomagnetic conditions, participant belief) that are rarely controlled in replication attempts; (3) sample dependence, effects appear larger in selected or self-identified psi-talented participants than in unselected volunteers; (4) environmental confounders including geomagnetic activity, which Radin himself has shown correlates with performance across multiple paradigms.[17][10][11][18] A neural-network modeling study found that a combination of psychological, sociological, and environmental variables could predict individual psi performance in held-out test data, suggesting that variance in psi performance is lawfully structured rather than random noise, but also that ignoring these moderators in replication designs will produce inconsistent results.[7] The replication crisis in psychology more broadly shows that even well-powered studies in mainstream fields fail to replicate at high rates, so the bar for dismissing a small-effect psi finding on the basis of a single failed replication should be calibrated accordingly.[19]

Life and career

Radin conducted early psychokinesis research using microprocessor-based random-event-generator systems, reporting significant results in experiments where he served as the sole subject under conditions he described as psychologically favorable, and null results under less favorable conditions.[20] He later extended this work to commercial random-number-generator chips, testing whether psi-mediated effects might explain some real-world computer failures.[21]

During his time at the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Radin ran a broad multivariate research program tracking psychological, environmental, sociological, and geophysical variables alongside psi performance across four different experimental tasks.[7] He also investigated geomagnetic correlates of psi performance in ganzfeld experiments at the University of Edinburgh, finding that the direction of the geomagnetic effect differed between normal and creatively talented populations.[10] He contributed to security-measure design for automated ganzfeld systems.[22]

At IONS, Radin developed the presentiment paradigm, measuring electrodermal activity before randomly selected future stimuli, and extended it to eye-tracking, EEG, and electrogastrography.[1][23][24] He also began a sustained program of double-slit optical experiments testing whether focused human attention could perturb quantum interference patterns, a line of work that continued through distributed online experiments and at-home testing with participants trained in attention practices.[2][25][26] He contributed a foreword to Roger Nelson‘s book on the Global Consciousness Project and collaborated with Nelson on analyses of the GCP network data.[27][3]

Radin has also published on distant healing intention, channeling phenomenology, mediumship and dissociation, survival of consciousness, and the relationship between meditation practice and psi performance.[28][29][30][31][32] He has engaged in ongoing theoretical work arguing that dual-aspect monism and quantum-biological frameworks may provide a more adequate foundation for understanding consciousness-related anomalies than classical materialist models.[6][33]

Career Context and Institutional Setting

Nelson, Arnaud Delorme, Julia A. Mossbridge, and Marilyn J. Schlitz, among others.

Research

Presentiment and Psychophysiological Anticipation

Radin’s presentiment research asks whether the human autonomic nervous system responds to randomly selected future emotional stimuli before those stimuli are presented. Across four double-blind experiments, participants showed significantly elevated electrodermal activity in the seconds before emotional photographs compared to calm ones, an effect that correlated with independently assessed emotionality ratings of the target images.[1] A meta-analysis of presentiment studies conducted by Mossbridge, Tressoldi, and Utts, published in the mainstream journal Frontiers in Psychology, found a small but reliable effect across the literature, addressing methodological objections including expectation bias and physiological artifacts.[34]

Radin extended the paradigm to eye-tracking, finding that pupillary dilation and spontaneous blinking increased more before emotional than calm future photographs, and that horizontal eye movements showed asymmetries appropriate to the emotionality and valence of future images.[23] He also found that advanced nondual meditators showed significant prestimulus electrocortical differences prior to unpredictable audio versus light stimuli, while matched controls showed none.[35] A broader meta-analytic review of 75 years of retrocausal experiments found that the presentiment class of studies, physiological measures anticipating future stimuli, showed a consistent positive effect across dozens of laboratories in multiple countries.[36]

Presentiment Paradigm: Design and Statistical Details

The core presentiment design uses a double-blind protocol in which a random number generator selects the target stimulus type (emotional or calm) immediately before or after stimulus onset, preventing any sensory cuing. Radin’s four-experiment series involved 133 participants and 4,569 total trials; the combined effect was statistically significant with a weighted effect size reported in the paper.[1] The eye-tracking study used 74 unselected volunteers across two experiments (1,438 and 2,099 trials respectively), with stimuli drawn from the International Affective Picture System and custom image sets; analysis used nonparametric randomized permutation procedures.[23] The EEG meditator study used 16 subjects (eight advanced nondual meditators, eight matched controls) with 32-channel EEG and False Discovery Rate correction for multiple comparisons; meditators showed significant prestimulus channel differences while controls showed none.[35] A key methodological concern is that slow EDA drift and residual arousal from preceding emotional trials can produce apparent pre-stimulus differences; the standard reference work on EDA methodology details these artifacts.[12] The somatic-marker hypothesis, that anticipatory skin conductance responses can arise from implicit learning of statistical regularities, provides a mainstream non-retrocausal account that must be ruled out in any presentiment design.[14] Researcher degrees of freedom in window selection, baseline definition, and outlier rules are a known source of false positives in psychophysiology studies with small effect sizes.[37]

Random Number Generator Experiments and Meta-Analyses

Radin’s 1989 meta-analysis with Roger Nelson, published in Foundations of Physics, synthesized more than 800 random-event-generator experiments and found statistically significant evidence that human consciousness is associated with anomalous deviations in random physical systems, with control studies conforming to chance expectation and no significant relationship between methodological quality and effect size.[5] A companion meta-analysis of 148 dice-fall studies found a small but positive effect of mental intention that persisted in quality-controlled subsets and required an implausibly large number of unreported null studies to explain away.[4]

When Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller published a critical re-analysis of the RNG literature in Psychological Bulletin in 2006, arguing that the effect size declined with increasing sample size in a pattern consistent with publication bias, Radin and Nelson responded in the same issue. They argued that the assumption underlying Bösch et al.’s model, that effect size should be independent of sample size, was theoretically unjustified for mind-matter interaction, and that an empirical survey of RNG researchers found far fewer unreported studies than the file-drawer model required.[38][9]

RNG Meta-Analysis: Methods and the Bösch Dispute

The 1989 Radin-Nelson meta-analysis covered 152 references (1959–1987) describing 597 experimental and 235 control studies using binary random-number generators. Effect sizes were computed as Z-scores normalized by sample size; quality was assessed via a 16-criterion checklist with inter-judge reliability r=0.80; filedrawer modeling estimated that approximately 54,000 additional null-result studies would be required to reduce the observed effect to nonsignificance.[5] The 1991 dice meta-analysis covered 2,592,817 dice throws by 2,569 subjects across 148 studies; a balanced-protocol subset controlling for dice bias yielded a significant positive effect, and the effect size did not significantly decline with improved methodological quality.[4] Bösch et al.’s 2006 meta-analysis of 380 RNG studies found a significant but very small overall effect size, with heterogeneity they attributed partly to selective reporting; their funnel-plot analysis suggested publication bias. Radin and Nelson’s reply argued that standard funnel-plot methods are inapplicable to heterogeneous MMI data because heterogeneity reflects genuine physical and psychological moderating variables rather than reporting bias, and that the four largest studies in the database, containing far more data than all other experiments combined, showed a significant aggregate effect.[38][9] The canonical publication-bias detection method (Egger’s regression) was developed for medical RCTs and its applicability to heterogeneous psi datasets is contested.[39] The Type M error framework, showing that statistically significant studies systematically overestimate effect magnitude when true effects are small, provides a mainstream account of why effect sizes decline with sample size even without publication bias.[40]

Double-Slit Consciousness Experiments

Beginning with a six-experiment series published in Physics Essays in 2012, Radin has tested whether focused human attention can reduce the interference pattern produced by a double-slit optical system, a result that would be consistent with the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The combined result across the six experiments was statistically significant, with control sessions showing no effect; experienced meditators showed larger effects than non-meditators.[2] Subsequent experiments extended the paradigm to internet-based testing with participants from dozens of countries, finding a smaller but still significant effect that showed no correlation with distance from the apparatus.[25]

A 2021 paper reported exploratory evidence that the 2012–2013 experiment’s preregistered hypotheses were not supported after multiple-comparison correction, but that exploratory fringe-visibility analyses showed a pattern consistent with a causal psychophysical effect, with the top-performing participants maintaining their advantage across sessions.[41] A 2024 distributed study using at-home optical diffraction apparatus found that the three preregistered hypotheses were not supported across all participants combined, but that an exploratory trend analysis showed a progressive decline in observed interference during observation periods that was absent during non-observation periods and in control sessions without observers.[26][42] Per ESP-Nexus’s evidential standard, these exploratory findings are hypothesis-generating only and do not count as positive evidence until confirmed by independent preregistered replication.

Double-Slit Experiments: Design, Physics Context, and Dispute

Radin’s double-slit apparatus uses a laser, two slits, and a detector that records the interference pattern via fast Fourier transform spectral analysis. Participants alternate between epochs of focused attention toward the apparatus and relaxation; the ratio of interference to diffraction components is compared between conditions. The 2012 six-experiment series used 137 participants across 250 experimental and 250 control sessions; EEG alpha-band desynchronization correlated with spectral ratio changes in a subset of sessions; performance was significantly better on days with quiet geomagnetic activity.[2] The 2013 internet study involved 2,089 sessions from 685 participants across 77 countries; the 2016 online study with 1,479 participants found a significant effect in 2013 data and a reversed but also significant effect in 2014 data, which Radin attributed to a feedback coding error that revealed active rather than passive observation effects.[25][43] A 2020 commentary addressed a false-positive critique by Walleczek and von Stillfried, arguing that after False Discovery Rate correction none of the mean comparisons were significant but one variance comparison remained significant, and that across 28 total experiments by multiple independent groups, a significant cumulative binomial probability supported a genuine observer effect.[44] The mainstream physics context is important: in standard quantum mechanics, “observation” means which-path information becoming available to any physical system, not conscious awareness. The quantum eraser experiments by Scully and Drühl and by Kim et al. demonstrate that it is information availability, not consciousness, that destroys interference.[15][16] A survey of physicists found that the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-causes-collapse view is held by a small minority of quantum foundations researchers.[45] Tegmark’s analysis argues that decoherence in the warm, wet brain is so fast that brain-level quantum coherence, a prerequisite for any consciousness-collapse mechanism, is implausible.[46]

Global Consciousness Project and Collective Attention

Radin contributed to the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), a network of continuously operating random number generators distributed worldwide. His analysis of GCP data during 2001 found that September 11 produced the largest daily variance change of any day that year, and that daily RNG intercorrelations were significantly higher on headline news days than on non-eventful days, a pattern he interpreted as consistent with mind-matter interaction at a global scale.[3] A 2023 analysis of 23 years of GCP data using entropy and complexity metrics found anomalous structure in the full dataset beyond the subset of selected high-attention events, suggesting a persistent rather than event-contingent correlation.[47]

A study of New Year’s Eve midnight transitions across time zones found statistically significant deviations in GCP data at midnight, with effects stronger in high-population time zones than low-population ones. A subsequent corrigendum corrected the original statistical analysis for inter-correlated metrics, yielding a revised but still significant p-value; midnight remained the most significant timepoint of the 100 intervals tested.[33][48]

GCP Analysis: Methods and Statistical Details

The 2002 analysis used two primary statistical approaches: variance analysis tracking changes in RNG output distributions, and intercorrelation analysis measuring synchronization among approximately 50 RNG sites worldwide. The September 11 effect was characterized by a 6.5-unit z-score drop over 8 hours, described as unique throughout 2001, and by all RNGs showing coherent deviation rather than localized effects. Daily intercorrelations were significantly larger on 250 headline news days versus 115 non-eventful days; the correlation between an objective daily news metric and daily RNG intercorrelations remained significant when September 11 was excluded. No diurnal electromagnetic artifacts were detected.[3] The 2023 entropy analysis used multiscale entropy and multiscale dispersion entropy on 490 fortnight arrays from 23 years of data; original data were significantly more negentropic than scrambled controls. A deconvolution analysis of 8-minute segments found a joint significant result compared to 200 randomized control runs. Temporal structure was detected primarily at 8–30 minute timescales, consistent with human-centric attention periods.[47] The New Year’s Eve corrigendum found that the original PCA composite score was invalid because five constituent metrics were mutually inter-correlated, inflating the variance of the first principal component; after parametric bootstrap correction, the one-tailed p-value for the midnight composite was revised but midnight remained the most significant of 100 tested intervals and survived Bonferroni correction within a ±5-segment window.[48]

Distant Mental Influence and Healing Intention

Radin conducted and contributed to several studies testing whether one person’s mental intention can influence another person’s autonomic physiology at a distance. A pilot replication of the DMILS (Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems) paradigm found an effect size comparable to prior meta-analytic estimates, and a strong correlation between session results and geomagnetic activity.[11] A study of compassionate intention in couples, including cancer patients and their partners, found that directing intention toward a distant person in an electromagnetically shielded chamber was associated with significant increases in the receiver’s skin conductance, with motivated groups showing larger effects than controls.[49]

Two exploratory studies of distant healing intention found significant physiological changes in receivers despite spatial separation of thousands of miles and, in one case, a two-month temporal separation between the healer’s intention and the recording of the receiver’s physiology.[28] A review article in the Annals of Internal Medicine co-authored with Marilyn Schlitz concluded that DMILS meta-analyses showed small but homogeneous effect sizes, while clinical efficacy trials remained mixed in quality and outcome.[50]

DMILS and Healing Intention: Design and Context

The 1995 DMILS pilot used 16 sessions with 7 influencers and 10 targets separated by 25 meters; the overall effect size was comparable to a prior meta-analytic estimate based on 323 sessions; the correlation between session results and geomagnetic Ap indices was strong.[11] The 2008 compassionate-intention study used 36 couples (72 participants) across 38 sessions; receivers were in an electromagnetically shielded chamber; trained cancer-patient couples showed a more sustained response than controls; effect sizes for motivated groups were substantially larger than prior meta-analytic estimates.[49] The CONSORT reporting standard for RCTs provides the benchmark against which distant-intention trials should be evaluated for randomization, blinding, and outcome-assessor masking.[51] Compassion meditation has been shown in mainstream neuroscience to alter amygdala response to emotional stimuli, providing a fully conventional mechanistic account of why a trained partner’s compassionate intention might confer benefit via the partner’s own emotional regulation, independent of any non-local effect.[52] The Cochrane meta-analysis of placebo interventions found that placebo effects on objective outcomes are generally small, providing context for evaluating subjective outcome claims in healing studies.[53]

Ganzfeld and Altered-State Telepathy

Radin has contributed to the ganzfeld telepathy literature through meta-analytic reviews and methodological work. A 2010 review synthesized six meta-analyses of ganzfeld experiments from 1974 to 2008, finding a consistent above-chance hit rate across more than 4,000 trials and across multiple independent laboratories in multiple countries.[54] He also responded to a critique by Delgado-Romero and Howard, noting that their own eight new ganzfeld experiments produced a hit rate identical to the meta-analytic average from prior studies.[55]

The ganzfeld condition, mild sensory deprivation using translucent goggles and white noise, is characterized in mainstream cognitive neuroscience as producing an activated state with distinctive EEG signatures, distinct from hypnagogia.[56] The default mode network, which activates during stimulus-independent thought, is the dominant mainstream account of the spontaneous imagery that ganzfeld receivers report; roughly half of waking thought is stimulus-independent even without sensory deprivation.[57][58] Signal detection theory provides the standard framework for evaluating forced-choice hit rates against statistical baselines.[59]

Ganzfeld Meta-Analysis: Statistical Summary

Radin’s 2010 review of six meta-analyses found an overall hit rate of 31.5% across 4,196 trials versus 25% chance expectation, with a statistically significant combined effect. All six meta-analyses showed positive effects; the ganzfeld condition produced comparable results to other altered states of consciousness such as hypnosis and dreaming, while non-altered conditions showed chance performance. Special populations such as creative artists showed substantially higher hit rates than unselected volunteers. The review also noted that skeptical researchers Delgado-Romero and Howard, in their own eight experiments, obtained a 32% hit rate, identical to the meta-analytic average.[54][55] A 2023 quantum-biological framework paper synthesized ganzfeld results alongside other psi meta-analyses, reporting that the ganzfeld subset with selected participants showed a substantially higher hit rate than unselected volunteers, both statistically significant.[6]

Environmental Modulation of Psi Performance

Across multiple paradigms, Radin has found that geomagnetic activity correlates with psi performance, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, depending on the population and paradigm. In ganzfeld experiments, normal subjects showed better psi during low geomagnetic activity while creatively talented subjects showed the opposite pattern.[10] In DMILS experiments, session results correlated strongly with geomagnetic Ap indices.[11] In double-slit experiments, performance was significantly better on days with quiet geomagnetic conditions.[2]

A 65-day longitudinal self-experiment using a Geiger counter as the MMI target found that a neural network trained on eight environmental variables could significantly predict MMI performance in held-out test data, and that spatial and temporal rebound effects were detectable, suggesting that psi effects may be subject to a statistical equilibrium principle.[17] A broader multivariate study with 96 participants found that a neural network trained on psychological, environmental, and demographic predictors could significantly predict individual psi performance in new participants, suggesting that psi performance resembles other forms of human performance in being modulated by external factors.[7]

Environmental Modulation: Study Details

The 1994 ganzfeld geomagnetic study used two parallel experiments (32 sessions each) with normal undergraduates and creatively talented students at the University of Edinburgh; Planetary A-index values were retrieved post-hoc; Monte Carlo simulation confirmed results were not methodological artifacts; the creative population showed a nearly mirror-image geomagnetic effect compared to the normal population.[10] The 1993 longitudinal self-experiment tracked 49 environmental, physiological, and cosmic variables simultaneously with MMI performance over 65 days; 44 statistically significant correlations were observed versus 26 expected by chance; a neural network trained on eight environmental variables predicted held-out performance with a correlation of r=0.405.[17] The 1996 multivariate study at UNLV used four psi tests (circle of lights, duck herding, robot arm, video clips) with 96 participants tracked over a full year; the four tests individually showed null results, but a neural network trained on 8 predictors derived from 24 psychological, environmental, and demographic variables predicted individual performance in 24 held-out participants with r=0.473, p=0.0098 one-tailed.[7]

Quantum Entanglement and Consciousness

In five exploratory studies, Radin and colleagues tested whether conscious intention could modulate the strength of quantum entanglement in photon pairs. Laboratory experiments at IONS found statistically significant increases in entanglement strength during concentration epochs compared to relaxation epochs; a parallel experiment at another institution produced null results; an online experiment showed significant effects in a high-quality subset but not in the full dataset.[60] Radin has argued that if mental intention can violate the Tsirelson Bound, the maximum correlation allowed by quantum theory, it would imply that quantum theory provides an incomplete description of the world when conscious systems are involved.[60]

Entangled Photon Studies: Design and Findings

The five studies used real-time feedback displays reflecting entanglement correlation strength (S-values) measured from paired photons; participants alternated between concentrate and relax epochs; analyses tested whether S-values differed between conditions using cosine fits to lag curves and Monte Carlo simulations. Across four laboratory studies, a statistically significant increase in entanglement strength was obtained; the IONS data showed significant effects on all three main hypotheses; the IMI data produced nonsignificant results on all measures. Control experiments with no observers present showed results consistent with chance expectation. The online experiment showed significant effects in the first 500,000 samples after FDR adjustment; the remaining 1.5 million samples were nonsignificant.[60]

Mediumship, Dissociation, and Survival Research

Radin has contributed empirical work on mediumship and anomalous information reception. A large survey study found that people who report mediumship or anomalous information reception experiences have significantly higher dissociation symptom scores than non-claimants, but that both groups score below the clinical threshold for pathological dissociation, suggesting these experiences should not be automatically classified as psychiatric pathology.[30][61] A mixed-methods study of full-trance channelers found that participants scored below clinical cutoffs for dissociation and psychotic symptoms, and that a quantum noise generator showed a modestly significant difference between channeling and control periods.[29]

A structured review of survival-of-consciousness evidence graded nine categories of evidence and proposed ten new experiments; a survey of 422 academics found that out-of-body experiences during near-death experiences, mediumship, and reincarnation experiments were rated most persuasive if successful, while committed skeptics indicated they would not be persuaded by scientific evidence alone.[31][62]

Mediumship and Survival Research: Methods and Findings

The dissociation survey used secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from 3,023 participants who completed the Dissociation Experiences Scale Taxon (DES-T) and answered questions about anomalous information reception or mediumship experiences; 42% endorsed such experiences; the mean DES-T score for claimants was higher than for non-claimants but both groups fell below the clinical cutoff of 30; 22% of claimants versus 11% of non-claimants scored above the clinical threshold.[30] The channeling study used five full-trance channelers at a retreat setting; pre-event questionnaires assessed personality, dissociation, psychotic symptoms, and paranormal beliefs; nine group channeling sessions were audio/video recorded and qualitatively analyzed; a 32-channel quantum noise generator continuously recorded data; composite measures of autocorrelation and mutual information were compared between channeling and control periods using nonparametric circular-shift permutation analysis.[29] The survival evidence review graded mental and physical mediumship as the highest-quality categories (grade B+); no category achieved grade A; the survey of 422 academics found that sheep (believers), goats (skeptics), and birds (agnostics) agreed on which experiments would be most persuasive, but non-believers’ scores were slightly negative, indicating they would not be persuaded even by successful experiments.[31][62]

Key quantitative findings

A machine-readable summary of headline results from this researcher’s landmark papers, extracted from the source articles into ESP-Nexus’s structured study database. It reports what each study found; ESP-Nexus does not assess whether the effects are genuine.

PaperReported findingEffect / significanceBasis
Radin et al. (1989), Foundations of PhysicsA meta-analysis of 597 experimental and 235 control RNG studies (832 total, 1959-1987, 68 investigators) found control conditions conforming to chance expectation and experimental conditions deviating significantly from chance in the intended direction, whether computed per study or per…headline figures not extracted 597 studies
Radin (2004), Journal of Scientific ExplorationAcross four double-blind experiments (133 participants, 4,569 trials), pre-stimulus skin conductance was higher before randomly selected emotional photos than before calm photos.ES 0.064, z = 4.04, p = 1.3 × 10−54 experiments; 133 participants; 4,569 trials
Radin et al. (2012), Physics Essays [DOI]Across six experiments, data contributed by 137 people in 250 test sessions showed that on average the double-slit spectral ratio R decreased as predicted when attention was focused toward the double slit.z = −4.36, p = 6 × 10−6137 participants; 250 sessions
Radin et al. (2013), Physics Essays [DOI]Across three experiments the authors report that focused attention toward a double-slit system was associated with a decline in double-slit interference (reduced spectral magnitude / shifted phase) relative to attention-away periods.ES 0.73, z = 5.16, p = 2.4 × 10−721 participants; 50 sessions
 Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database. Figures linked to a DOI are from born-digital sources; figures marked “pending source-verification” were extracted from OCR text and have not yet been confirmed against the original article.

Skeptical Critiques and Discussion

Critique 1: The RNG literature shows publication bias: effect sizes decline with increasing sample size, and the overall result can be explained by selective reporting of positive studies.

Skeptic source: Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators, a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523.[63]

Response: Radin and Nelson argued in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin that the assumption underlying Bösch et al.’s model, that effect size should be independent of sample size, is theoretically unjustified for mind-matter interaction, where the psychological and physical sides of the interaction are linked in a meaningful way. An empirical survey of RNG researchers found far fewer unreported studies than the file-drawer model required. The four largest studies in the database, containing far more data than all other experiments combined, showed a significant aggregate effect. Radin and Nelson also argued that standard funnel-plot methods are inapplicable to heterogeneous MMI data because heterogeneity reflects genuine moderating variables rather than reporting bias.[38][9]

Response context: The Type M error framework provides a mainstream account of why statistically significant studies systematically overestimate effect magnitude when true effects are small, even without publication bias, which is relevant to interpreting the effect-size decline pattern.[40] The canonical funnel-plot publication-bias test was developed for medical RCTs and its applicability to heterogeneous psi datasets remains contested.[39]

Analysis. Both sides have published rebuttals in peer-reviewed venues; the dispute turns on theoretical assumptions about effect-size distributions that have not been resolved.

Critique 2: The presentiment effect can be explained by conventional anticipatory arousal mechanisms, implicit learning of statistical regularities or residual arousal from preceding emotional trials, without requiring retrocausation.

Skeptic source: Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293–1295.[14] Bradley, M. M., et al. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 276–298.[13]

Response: Radin’s presentiment designs use a random number generator to select the target stimulus type immediately before or after stimulus onset, which prevents implicit learning of sequential regularities. The correlation between pre-stimulus EDA and independently assessed emotionality ratings of target images, across thousands of trials, is difficult to explain by residual arousal alone, since residual arousal would not be expected to correlate with the specific emotionality of the next randomly selected image. A meta-analysis by Mossbridge, Tressoldi, and Utts in Frontiers in Psychology found a small but reliable effect across the presentiment literature after addressing methodological objections including expectation bias and physiological artifacts.[1][34]

Analysis. The meta-analytic effect is replicated across multiple laboratories; the conventional alternative explanations have been partially addressed in design, but residual methodological concerns about EDA drift and analysis flexibility remain unresolved.

Critique 3: The double-slit consciousness experiments conflate “observation” in the quantum-mechanical sense (which-path information) with conscious awareness; mainstream physics does not support the consciousness-collapse interpretation.

Skeptic source: Scully, M. O., & Drühl, K. (1982). Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and ‘delayed choice’ in quantum mechanics. Physical Review A, 25(4), 2208–2213.[15] Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., & Zeilinger, A. (2013). A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), 222–230.[45] Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E, 61(4), 4194–4206.[46]

Response: Radin acknowledges that the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-collapse view is a minority position in physics, but argues that the experimental question is empirical: does focused human attention produce a measurable change in interference patterns under controlled conditions? The six-experiment series found a statistically significant combined effect with control sessions showing no effect; independent groups have reported significant results in related paradigms. A 2020 commentary noted that across 28 total experiments by multiple independent groups, the cumulative binomial probability supported a genuine observer effect. Radin has also argued that the results are better interpreted as active probabilistic modulation than as strong wavefunction collapse.[2][44][43]

Response context: The 2024 distributed study’s preregistered hypotheses were not supported across all participants combined; the key finding (progressive interference decline during observation) was exploratory and requires independent preregistered replication before it can be treated as positive evidence.[26]

Analysis. The empirical results are disputed between Radin’s group and critics; the theoretical interpretation is a minority view in physics; preregistered hypotheses in the most recent study were not supported.

Critique 4: Researcher degrees of freedom in psychophysiology analysis, window selection, baseline definition, outlier rules, can trivially produce significant results from null data, making small-effect psi claims unreliable.

Skeptic source: Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.[37] Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.[64]

Response: Radin has increasingly used preregistration, nonparametric permutation testing, and False Discovery Rate correction in his more recent work to address these concerns. The presentiment meta-analysis by Mossbridge et al. addressed analytic flexibility concerns across the literature. The 75-year retrocausal meta-analysis found that the quality-effect-size correlation was not significant, arguing against the hypothesis that methodological flexibility drives the results.[34][36]

Analysis. Preregistration and permutation testing in recent studies partially address the concern; older studies in the literature are more vulnerable to this critique; the 2024 distributed study’s preregistered hypotheses were not supported, illustrating the value of the preregistration standard.

Influence and reception

Radin’s 1989 meta-analysis with Roger Nelson is among the most-cited quantitative syntheses in parapsychology, and is referenced in subsequent meta-analyses, textbooks, and review articles as a foundational dataset for the RNG literature.[63][65] His presentiment paradigm has been replicated by multiple independent laboratories and was the subject of a mainstream meta-analysis in Frontiers in Psychology by Mossbridge, Tressoldi, and Utts.[34] Daryl Bem cited Radin’s presentiment work in his influential 2011 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology paper on retroactive influences on cognition.[66]

Radin wrote the foreword to Roger Nelson’s book on the Global Consciousness Project, and his conceptual contributions to the GCP’s theoretical framing, including the metaphor of a “world EEG”, are documented in Nelson’s account of the project’s origins.[27] His work is cited in Etzel Cardeña‘s 2018 review of experimental parapsychology evidence in American Psychologist, one of the field’s flagship journals.[67]

Radin has engaged in collaborative skeptic-proponent research with Marilyn Schlitz, Richard Wiseman, and Caroline Watt on remote staring and experimenter effects, contributing to a body of work examining whether the experimenter’s belief orientation affects experimental outcomes.[68][66] He has also written critically about institutional barriers to psi research, arguing that pathological skepticism, rather than lack of evidence, is the primary obstacle to mainstream acceptance.[69]

A survey of scientists and engineers found that they reported exceptional human experiences at rates comparable to the general population, a finding Radin has used to argue that scientific training does not suppress such reports and that the field’s marginalization reflects institutional rather than experiential factors.[8] His books, including The Conscious Universe, Entangled Minds, Supernormal, and Real Magic, have reached audiences well beyond academic parapsychology and are referenced in the broader consciousness and quantum-biology literature.[65][70]

Reception in the Broader Scientific Literature

Radin’s work is cited in the 5th edition of An Introduction to Parapsychology across multiple chapters on RNG research, presentiment, and geomagnetic correlates.[71] The DMILS literature review by Stefan Schmidt notes that Radin established the Las Vegas DMILS laboratory after learning the paradigm from William Braud, and that the four laboratories that have conducted DMILS research all trace their methodology to the same origin, a fact Schmidt uses to argue against independent replication as a critique.[72] Radin’s analysis of the Maimonides dream telepathy data is cited in the third edition of Dream Telepathy as producing even greater odds against chance than Irwin Child’s earlier analysis.[73] The BIAL Foundation funded a study by Radin on entropic anomalies in 23 years of truly random data, listed in the 2024 symposium abstracts.[74]

Open Questions: What Would Change the Picture

The most direct test of the presentiment hypothesis would be a large-scale, fully preregistered, adversarially designed replication by an independent laboratory with no prior commitment to either outcome, using a protocol that explicitly controls for EDA drift, residual arousal from preceding trials, and all analytic degrees of freedom specified in advance. If such a study found no effect, it would substantially weaken the case for retrocausal physiological anticipation; if it replicated the effect, it would substantially strengthen it.[1][34][12]

For the double-slit consciousness experiments, the key open question is whether the exploratory trend findings from the 2024 distributed study can be confirmed in a fully preregistered replication with the specific analysis plan, including the trend metric and the observation-versus-non-observation comparison, registered before data collection. The 2024 study’s preregistered hypotheses were not supported; the exploratory finding requires independent confirmation before it can be treated as positive evidence.[26][42]

For the Global Consciousness Project, the key open question is whether the anomalous structure detected in 23 years of RNG data reflects a genuine mind-matter correlation or an artifact of the analytical pipeline. The corrigendum to the New Year’s Eve paper illustrates that the statistical treatment of correlated metrics matters substantially for the conclusions drawn; future analyses should preregister both the event selection criteria and the statistical methods before examining the data.[48][47]

Radin has proposed that a survey of academics found out-of-body experiences during near-death experiences, mediumship, and reincarnation experiments to be the most persuasive potential evidence for survival of consciousness; he has argued that controlled prospective experiments in these areas, rather than retrospective case studies, represent the most promising path forward for the survival question.[31][62]

Proposed Experimental Designs

Radin’s IONSX program outlined seven application domains for psi research, communication, healing, intelligence, forecasting, archaeology, dowsing, and counseling, and proposed an ATOM framework (Analyses, Targets, Operators, Moderators) for optimizing experimental designs. The program also described a precognition aggregation app (EveryWhen) designed to collect impressions from many individuals and average them to form a single prediction, and an energy medicine pilot study examining healers treating carpal tunnel syndrome clients.[75] For survival research, Radin proposed ten specific experiments and surveyed 422 academics on which would be most persuasive; the survey found that OBE/NDE experiments, mediumship, and reincarnation were rated most persuasive across believers, skeptics, and agnostics, though non-believers indicated they would not be persuaded even by successful experiments.[31][62]

Sources
  1. Radin, D. I. (2004). Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(2), 253-273. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Electrodermal-Presentiments-of-Future-Emotions-Radin/e00ddef190ee9c5134e60ced96a691d75c97fdc8 R001 [Radin 2004] ↩︎
  2. Radin, D. I., Michel, L., Galdamez, K., Wendland, P., Rickenbach, R., & Delorme, A. (2012). Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays, 25(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157 R002 [Radin 2012] ↩︎
  3. Radin, D. I. (2002). Exploring Relationships Between Random Physical Events and Mass Human Attention: Asking for Whom the Bell Tolls. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 16(4), 533-548. https://web.archive.org/web/20240630040825/https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/16/jse_16_4_radin_1.pdf R003 [Radin 2002] ↩︎
  4. 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 R004 [Radin 1991] ↩︎
  5. Radin, D. I., & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19(12), 1499-1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00732509 R005 [Radin & Nelson 1989] ↩︎
  6. Kauffman, S. A., & Radin, D. I. (2023). Quantum aspects of the brain–mind relationship: A hypothesis with supporting evidence. Biosystems, 223, Article 104820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2022.104820 R006 [Kauffman 2023] ↩︎
  7. Radin, D. I. (1996). Towards a complex systems model of psi performance. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal, 7(1). https://journals.holosuniversity.org/index.php/seemj/article/view/212 R007 [Radin 1996] ↩︎
  8. Wahbeh, H., Radin, D. I., Mossbridge, J., Vieten, C., & Delorme, A. (2018). Exceptional experiences reported by scientists and engineers. EXPLORE, 14(5), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2018.05.002 R008 [Wahbeh 2018] ↩︎
  9. Radin, D. I., Nelson, R., Dobyns, Y., & Houtkooper, J. (2006). Assessing the evidence for mind-matter interaction effects. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20(3), 361-374. https://web.archive.org/web/20240712074323/https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/20/jse_20_3_radin_1.pdf R009 [Radin 2006] ↩︎
  10. Radin, D. I. (1994). Geomagnetism and psi in the ganzfeld. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 59, 352-362. https://www.deanradin.com/publications R010 [Radin 1994] ↩︎
  11. Radin, D. I., Taylor, R. K., & Braud, W. G. (1995). Remote Mental Influence of Human Electrodermal Activity: A Pilot Replication. European Journal of Parapsychology, 11, 19-34. https://www.deanradin.com/publications R011 [Radin 1995] ↩︎
  12. Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal activity (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0 R012 [Boucsein 2012] ↩︎
  13. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion (APA), 1(3), 276-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276 R013 [Bradley 2001] ↩︎
  14. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 R014 [Bechara 1997] ↩︎
  15. Scully, M. O., & Drühl, K. (1982). Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and ‘delayed choice’ in quantum mechanics. Physical Review A, 25(4), 2208-2213. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208 R015 [Scully 1982] ↩︎
  16. Kim, Y.-H., Yu, R., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y., & Scully, M. O. (2000). Delayed ‘choice’ quantum eraser. Physical Review Letters, 84(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1 R016 [Kim 2000] ↩︎
  17. Radin, D. I. (1993). Environmental modulation and statistical equilibrium in mind-matter interaction. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal, 4(1). https://journals.holosuniversity.org/index.php/seemj/article/view/158 R017 [Radin 1993] ↩︎
  18. Radin, D. I. (1995). Possible Influence of the Geomagnetic Field on Sports Performance. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal, 6(3). https://journals.holosuniversity.org/index.php/seemj/article/view/206 R018 [Radin 1995] ↩︎
  19. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 R019 [Open Science Collaboration 2015] ↩︎
  20. Radin, D. I. (1984). Mental influence on machine-generated random events: Six experiments. In Research in Parapsychology 1983 (R. A. White, Ed.). Scarecrow Press. https://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/pk-rad.html R020 [Radin 1984] ↩︎
  21. Radin, D. I. (1990). Testing the plausibility of psi-mediated computer system failures. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 1-19. https://www.deanradin.com/publications R021 [Radin 1990] ↩︎
  22. Dalton, K. S., Morris, R. L., Delanoy, D. L., Radin, D. I., Taylor, R., & Wiseman, R. (1996). Security measures in an automated ganzfeld system. Journal of Parapsychology, 60(2), 129–147. https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-parapsychology_1996-06_60_2 R022 [Dalton 1996] ↩︎
  23. Radin, D. I., & Borges, A. (2009). Intuition Through Time: What Does the Seer See? EXPLORE, 5(4), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2009.04.002 R023 [Radin 2009] ↩︎
  24. Radin, D. I., & Schlitz, M. J. (2005). Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions: An exploratory study. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2005.11.85 R024 [Radin 2005] ↩︎
  25. Radin, D. I., Michel, L., Johnston, J., & Delorme, A. (2013). Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern. Physics Essays, 26(4), 553-566. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.4.553 R025 [Radin 2013] ↩︎
  26. Radin, D. I. (2024). Consciousness as an ultra-weak quantum measurement effect in an optical diffraction experiment. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t3jxk R026 [Radin 2024] ↩︎
  27. Roger D. Nelson (2019). Connected: The Emergence of Global Consciousness. ICRL Press. R027 [Nelson 2019] ↩︎
  28. Radin, D. I., Machado, F. R., & Zangari, W. (2000). Effects of distant healing intention through time and space: Two exploratory studies. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal, 11(3). https://journals.holosuniversity.org/index.php/seemj/article/view/309 R028 [Radin 2000] ↩︎
  29. Radin, D. I. (2018). A mixed methods phenomenological and exploratory study of channeling. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 82(3), 129-148. https://www.deanradin.com/publications R029 [Radin 2018] ↩︎
  30. Wahbeh, H., & Radin, D. I. (2018). People reporting experiences of mediumship have higher dissociation symptom scores than non-mediums, but below thresholds for pathological dissociation. F1000Research, 6, 1416-1416. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12019.3 R030 [Wahbeh 2018] ↩︎
  31. Delorme, A., Radin, D. I., & Wahbeh, H. (2021). Advancing the Evidence for Survival of Consciousness. Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies essay. https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/delorme-radin-wahbeh-survival-consciousness.pdf R031 [Delorme et al. 2021] ↩︎
  32. Radin, D. I. (2015). Meditation and the Nonlocal Mind. EXPLORE, 11(2), 82-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.12.011 R032 [Radin 2015] ↩︎
  33. Radin, D. I. (2025). New Year’s Eve as a Case Study in Experimental Metaphysics: Exploring Global Consciousness in Random Physical Systems. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 39(4), 393-406. https://doi.org/10.31275/20253635 R033 [Radin 2025] ↩︎
  34. Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P., & Utts, J. (2012). Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390 R034 [Mossbridge 2012] ↩︎
  35. Radin, D. I., Vieten, C., Michel, L., & Delorme, A. (2011). Electrocortical activity prior to unpredictable stimuli in meditators. EXPLORE, 7(5), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2011.06.004 R035 [Radin 2011] ↩︎
  36. Radin, D. I., & Sheehan, D. P. (2011). Predicting the Unpredictable: 75 Years of Experimental Evidence. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1408, 204-217. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3663725 R036 [Radin 2011] ↩︎
  37. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 R037 [Simmons 2011] ↩︎
  38. Radin, D. I., Nelson, R., Dobyns, Y., & Houtkooper, J. (2006). Reexamining psychokinesis: Comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 529-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529 R038 [Radin 2006] ↩︎
  39. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 R039 [Egger 1997] ↩︎
  40. Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642 R040 [Gelman 2014] ↩︎
  41. Radin, D. I., Wahbeh, H., Michel, L., & Delorme, A. (2021). Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern: Exploratory evidence of a causal influence. Physics Essays, 34(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-34.1.79 R041 [Radin et al. 2021a] ↩︎
  42. Radin, D. I. (2025). Observer influence on quantum interference: Testing the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-collapse theory. Physics Essays, 38(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-38.1.64 R042 [Radin 2025] ↩︎
  43. Radin, D. I., Michel, L., & Delorme, A. (2016). Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system. Physics Essays, 29(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.014 R043 [Radin 2016] ↩︎
  44. Radin, D. I., Wahbeh, H., Michel, L., & Delorme, A. (2020). Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00726 R044 [Radin 2020] ↩︎
  45. Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., & Zeilinger, A. (2013). A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004 R045 [Schlosshauer 2013] ↩︎
  46. Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E, 61(4), 4194-4206. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194 R046 [Tegmark 2000] ↩︎
  47. Radin, D. I. (2023). Anomalous entropic effects in physical systems associated with collective consciousness. Physics Essays, 36(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-36.1.77 R047 [Radin 2023] ↩︎
  48. Radin, D. I. (2026). Corrigendum for “Effects of Global Consciousness on New Years Eve: A Study in Experimental Metaphysics”. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 40(1), 163. https://doi.org/10.31275/20263947 R048 [Radin 2026] ↩︎
  49. Radin, D. I., Stone, J., Levine, E., Eskandarnejad, S., Schlitz, M., Kozak, L., Mandel, D., & Hayssen, G. (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system. EXPLORE, 4(4), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2008.04.002 R049 [Radin 2008] ↩︎
  50. Schlitz, M., & Braud, W. (1997). Distant intentionality and healing: Assessing the evidence. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 3(6), 62-73. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9375431/ R050 [Schlitz 1997] ↩︎
  51. Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340(1), c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 R051 [Moher 2010] ↩︎
  52. Lutz, A., Brefczynski-Lewis, J., Johnstone, T., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Regulation of the neural circuitry of emotion by compassion meditation: Effects on the amygdala. PLOS One, 3(3), e1897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001897 R052 [Lutz 2008] ↩︎
  53. Hróbjartsson, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010). Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3 R053 [Hróbjartsson 2010] ↩︎
  54. Tressoldi, P. E., Radin, D. I., & Storm, L. (2010). Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition. NeuroQuantology, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2010.8.4.353 R054 [Tressoldi 2010] ↩︎
  55. Radin, D. I. (2007). Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research? The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(3), 297-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873260701578384 R055 [Radin 2007] ↩︎
  56. Wackermann, J., Pütz, P., & Allefeld, C. (2008). Ganzfeld-induced hallucinatory experience, its phenomenology and cerebral electrophysiology. Cortex, 44(10), 1364-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.05.003 R056 [Wackermann 2008] ↩︎
  57. Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676-682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 R057 [Raichle 2001] ↩︎
  58. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), Article 932. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439 R058 [Killingsworth 2010] ↩︎
  59. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum / Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611147 R059 [Macmillan 2005] ↩︎
  60. Radin, D. I., Bancel, P. A., & Delorme, A. (2021). Psychophysical Interactions with Entangled Photons: Five Exploratory Studies. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 1(1-2), 9-54. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.23392 R060 [Radin et al. 2021b] ↩︎
  61. Wahbeh, H., Delorme, A., & Radin, D. I. (2023). Rating the Persuasiveness of Empirical Evidence for the Survival of Consciousness After Bodily Death: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 3(1), 78-109. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.24125 R062 [Wahbeh 2023] ↩︎
  62. Bösch, Holger, Steinkamp, Fiona, & Boller, Emil (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators—A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497-523. R063 [Bösch 2006] ↩︎
  63. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 R064 [Wagenmakers 2011] ↩︎
  64. Robert G. Jahn & Brenda J. Dunne (2011). Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey. ICRL Press. R065 [Jahn 2011] ↩︎
  65. Daryl Bem (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. R066 [Bem 2011] ↩︎
  66. Etzel Cardeña (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. R067 [Cardeña 2018] ↩︎
  67. Marilyn Schlitz et al. (2021). Two Replication Studies of a Time-Reversed (Psi) Priming Task and the Role of Expectancy in Reaction Times. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 35(1), 65-90. R068 [Schlitz 2021] ↩︎
  68. Radin, D. I. (2021). On Pathological Skepticism. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik / Journal of Anomalistics, 21(1), 121-126. https://www.anomalistik.de/images/pdf/zfa/zfa2021_1_121_wunder_grams_comm_radin.pdf R069 [Radin 2021] ↩︎
  69. Dean I. Radin (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. R070 [Radin 2006] ↩︎
  70. Harvey J. Irwin & Caroline A. Watt (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland & Company. R071 [Irwin 2007] ↩︎
  71. William G. Braud & Marilyn J. Schlitz (1989). Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS). Advances: Journal of Mind-Body Health. R072 [Braud 1989] ↩︎
  72. Montague Ullman, Stanley Krippner, & Alan Vaughan (1973). Dream Telepathy: The Landmark ESP Experiments. R073 [Ullman 1973] ↩︎
  73. BIAL Foundation (2024). Behind and Beyond the Brain — BIAL Foundation Symposium 2024 Abstracts. BIAL Foundation Symposium Proceedings. R074 [BIAL Foundation 2024] ↩︎
  74. Radin, D. I. (2020). IONS X: A Cutting-Edge Research Program on Psi. Institute of Noetic Sciences. https://noetic.org/blog/ionsx-cutting-edge-research-psi/ R075 [Radin 2020] ↩︎

Deeper dives — Radin:

Automated Ganzfeld Mind-Matter Interaction Double-Slit Consciousness Global Consciousness Project Presentiment and Electrodermal Intention-Mediated Effects Sequential Analysis Methods Meditation, Consciousness Anomalous Cognition 📖  Real Magic 📖  Entangled Minds 📖  Supernormal 📖  The Conscious Universe

Last updated: 2026-07-04 21:38:13

AI-audited 2026-06-11 · Claude A+ · GPT-5 A+ · Perplexity A+ · Gemini A+ · prompt study-audit-v2.0

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.