Marilyn J. Schlitz, PhD Sources:

Marilyn J. Schlitz

Marilyn J. Schlitz is a social anthropologist and consciousness researcher whose work spans experimental parapsychology, distant healing intention, and the study of worldview transformation. She is President Emeritus and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), where she previously served as President, CEO, and Director of Research, and holds a faculty appointment as Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Sofia University.[1] Over four decades she has published on remote viewing, Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS), experimenter effects, and consciousness transformation, collaborating with researchers across multiple continents.[1]

Career affiliations: Wayne State University (undergraduate); University of California, Irvine (graduate study under Robert Morris); Institute for Parapsychology / Rhine Research Center; Psychophysical Research Laboratories (Princeton); Mind Science Foundation (San Antonio); Stanford University (Thomas Welton Stanford Fellowship for Psychical Research); Institute of Noetic Sciences (President, CEO, Director of Research; now President Emeritus and Senior Fellow); California Pacific Medical Center (Senior Scientist); Sofia University (Professor of Transpersonal Psychology)[1]

Deeper dives — Schlitz:

Consciousness Transformation Experimenter Effects Remote Staring Detection Remote Viewing Replication Distant Healing Intention Direct Mental Interactions 📖  Death Makes Life Possible

Overview

Schlitz’s research sits at the intersection of experimental parapsychology and mind-body medicine. Her earliest laboratory work focused on remote viewing and free-response ESP, conducted first as a graduate student under Robert Morris at the University of California, Irvine, and later at the Rhine Research Center.[1] She then spent roughly a decade at the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio collaborating with William Braud on the DMILS protocol, a controlled laboratory design in which one person attempts to influence the autonomic nervous system activity of a distant person through intention alone.[3] Braud pioneered the DMILS paradigm; Schlitz was a central contributor to its development and replication across laboratories.[1]

A recurring theme in her work is the experimenter effect, the observation that the same protocol can yield different results depending on who runs it. Her long collaboration with skeptic Richard Wiseman, in which both researchers ran identical remote-staring studies side by side, became one of the most discussed cases of the experimenter effect in the field.[4][5] Schlitz has also contributed to clinical research on distant healing intention, qualitative studies of cancer survivorship, and large-scale interview-based research on consciousness transformation.[9][10][11]

Research Scope and Institutional Context

Schlitz’s career has spanned several distinct institutional phases. At the University of California, Irvine, she conducted an early replication of the Targ-Puthoff remote viewing protocol under Robert Morris’s supervision. At the Rhine Research Center she extended remote viewing research over long distances. At the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton she collaborated with Charles Honorton on the ganzfeld study with Juilliard artists. At the Mind Science Foundation she co-developed the DMILS protocol with William Braud over approximately ten years. At IONS she established a psychophysiology laboratory and led a worldview transformation research program that included natural-history data collection, structured interviews with teachers and scholars from diverse traditions, longitudinal follow-ups, and survey studies. She has also held the Thomas Welton Stanford Fellowship for Psychical Research at Stanford University and served as Senior Scientist at California Pacific Medical Center.[1][12]

Why This Is Hard to Study

Several features of Schlitz’s primary research areas make them genuinely difficult to evaluate, independent of whether the phenomena are real.

Small effect sizes. The DMILS and remote-staring literature shows positive but modest mean effects. Small effects require large samples to detect reliably, and the field has historically operated with modest session counts per study.[3][13]

Experimenter-dependence. In the Schlitz-Wiseman studies the same protocol, equipment, and participant pool produced a significant result for one experimenter and a null result for the other, though the difference between the two experimenters was not itself statistically significant in either study. This makes straightforward replication difficult: a null result from a new laboratory does not cleanly falsify the original finding, because the experimenter variable itself may be operative.[4][5][14]

State-dependent and motivational moderators. Evidence from the compassionate-intention study and the wound-healing trial suggests that participant motivation, belief, and the quality of the sender-receiver relationship may modulate effect size. This means that studies using unselected, unmotivated participants may systematically underestimate effects that appear in bonded or highly motivated pairs, but it also makes the phenomenon harder to pin down experimentally.[6][7]

Physiological measurement complexity. Electrodermal activity, the primary outcome in DMILS and remote-staring research, is sensitive to ambient temperature, electrode placement, slow drift, and respiration artifacts. A systematic review of the DMILS literature found that none of the published studies met the electrode-gel standards recommended by the Society of Psychophysiological Research, though the intraindividual design of the experiments limits how much this could produce false positives.[13] Mainstream EDA methodology sets a high bar for artifact control.[15]

Replication Infrastructure and Sample-Size Considerations

As of the systematic review covering studies through 1999, DMILS research had been conducted in only four laboratories worldwide (San Antonio, Edinburgh, Las Vegas, and Freiburg), with all four tracing their training and tacit knowledge back to the original San Antonio work. This limits the independence of replications. Reviews of the accumulated DMILS literature confirmed that the paradigm had been adopted beyond the originating laboratory, with the remote-staring variant alone reaching two dozen published experiments whose pooled effect differed significantly from zero; but the small number of independent research groups means that systematic artifacts shared across labs cannot be fully ruled out by the replication record alone.[28][29] Mainstream replication science has documented that even well-powered psychology studies replicate at rates well below 100%, and that small effects are particularly vulnerable to false-positive inflation when analytic flexibility is present.[16][17]

Life and career

Schlitz grew up in Detroit and attended Wayne State University as an undergraduate, where she developed an early interest in experimenter effects in psychology. Reading Edgar Mitchell’s Psychic Exploration during her undergraduate years directed her toward parapsychology as a research field.[12] She went on to early laboratory research training under Robert Morris at the University of California, Irvine, where she conducted an early replication of the Targ-Puthoff remote viewing protocol.[1]

After her time at the Rhine Research Center, where she extended remote viewing research over long distances, she moved to the Psychophysical Research Laboratories in Princeton. There she collaborated with Charles Honorton on a ganzfeld study recruiting students from the Juilliard School of Performing Arts, a study that produced statistically significant results and has since been cited in meta-analyses of the ganzfeld literature.[2]

She then spent approximately a decade at the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio working with William Braud. Together they developed and refined the DMILS protocol, publishing a series of experiments and a meta-analytic overview of the database.[3] Braud originated the DMILS paradigm; Schlitz was a central collaborator in its systematic development.[1]

She subsequently joined the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where she held the roles of Director of Research, President, and CEO at various points, and now holds the title of President Emeritus and Senior Fellow. At IONS she established a psychophysiology laboratory and led a multi-year program studying worldview transformation, drawing on structured interviews with teachers and scholars from diverse spiritual and religious traditions, longitudinal cohort studies, and large-scale surveys.[10][17] She also held the Thomas Welton Stanford Fellowship for Psychical Research at Stanford University and served as Senior Scientist at California Pacific Medical Center.[1] She currently holds a faculty position as Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Sofia University.[1]

Personal Experiences and Career Motivation

In a 2015 lecture at The Monroe Institute, Schlitz described two early experiences she connects to her interest in consciousness and healing: a near-death episode in early childhood following accidental ingestion of lighter fluid, and an out-of-body experience during a teenage motorcycle accident in Detroit. She has described the latter as her first direct encounter with questions about the nature of consciousness. She has also cited Edgar Mitchell’s Psychic Exploration as the book that directed her toward parapsychology as a career.[12]

Research

Ganzfeld and artistically gifted populations

Working with Charles Honorton at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories, Schlitz recruited undergraduate students from the Juilliard School to participate in a ganzfeld ESP study. The Juilliard students achieved a hit rate that was statistically significant and substantially higher than the rate achieved by other novice participants in the PRL database. Music students showed the strongest performance of any subgroup. The study used the automated ganzfeld procedure developed at PRL, which was designed to reduce human error and allow direct comparison with the broader PRL database.[2]

Juilliard Ganzfeld Study, Design and Results

Twenty undergraduate Juilliard students (eight music, ten drama, two dance majors; ages 17–26) each served as receiver in a single telepathy ganzfeld session at PRL. Sessions used the automated ganzfeld paradigm described by Honorton, Berger, Varvoglis, Quant, Derr, Schechter, and Ferrari (1990)[27], with a four-alternative forced-choice judging procedure. The overall hit rate was statistically significant (exact binomial p = .014, z = 2.20), double the chance expectation of 25%. Music students produced the highest subgroup hit rate (p = .0042, z = 2.63). The Juilliard students’ performance was significantly superior to that of other novice participants in the PRL population (t = 2.09, 239 df, p = .038, two-tailed). No significant relationships were found between ESP performance and personality or creativity measures as assessed by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Torrance Assessment of Creative Thinking. The study was supported by the Mind Science Foundation (Schlitz) and the John E. Fetzer Foundation (Honorton).[2]

Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS)

The DMILS paradigm tests whether one person’s intentions can influence the autonomic nervous system activity of a distant person under controlled conditions. Schlitz and Braud’s decade-long collaboration at the Mind Science Foundation produced a series of experiments and a meta-analytic overview showing a positive overall effect across the database. The effect was subsequently replicated in independent laboratories in Edinburgh, Las Vegas, and Freiburg.[3][13] The mainstream scientific context for evaluating these findings includes the well-established role of expectancy and suggestion in physiological outcomes[18] and the importance of rigorous blinding in randomized designs.[19]

DMILS Meta-Analysis, Database and Effect Sizes

The 1997 Schlitz and Braud meta-analysis covered 30 experiments using electrodermal activity as the primary outcome: 19 direct intentionality experiments and 11 remote-staring experiments. The 19 direct intentionality experiments yielded an overall Stouffer z of 4.82 (p = .0000007), with a mean effect size r of +.25. The 11 remote-staring experiments yielded an overall Stouffer z of 3.87 (p = .000054), also with a mean effect size r of +.25. Combining all 30 experiments produced an overall Stouffer z of 6.17 (p = 4.58 × 10⁻¹⁰). Effect sizes across individual experiments ranged widely, from negative values to r = .72. The experiment-wise success rate was 47% across all 30 experiments, compared to 5% expected by chance. A later review of the remote-staring variant of DMILS pooled the autonomic staring-detection experiments conducted across the four laboratories that had adopted the paradigm — 24 single experiments in total — and reported an overall unweighted mean effect size of r = 0.33 (SD = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.41), with individual experiments ranging from r = 0.07 to r = 0.57 and the pooled effect differing significantly from zero.[3][28][29]

Experimenter effects, the Schlitz-Wiseman collaboration

One of the most discussed findings associated with Schlitz’s work is the persistent difference between her results and those of skeptic Richard Wiseman when both run identical remote-staring protocols. In two formal joint studies, one conducted at Wiseman’s laboratory at the University of Hertfordshire and one at Schlitz’s laboratory at IONS, Schlitz’s participants showed statistically significant electrodermal responses during staring epochs while Wiseman’s did not. The difference between experimenters was not itself statistically significant in either study, but the pattern replicated directionally across both.[4][5] A third study using a crossover design to isolate whether the effect resided in the initial interaction or the staring itself did not replicate the earlier pattern.[20]

Qualitative interviews with both researchers, conducted by Caroline Watt, documented substantial differences in how Schlitz and Wiseman approached sessions: Schlitz engaged in centering and intention-setting before each session, customized her interaction with each participant, and communicated positive expectations about the study’s likely success; Wiseman described a businesslike approach with no special preparation and did not discuss prior positive results with participants.[14] A German-language interview with both researchers, published the following year, covers the same ground for a European readership.[30] Mainstream research on experimenter expectancy effects in psychology documents that such differences in experimenter behavior can influence participant performance through conventional channels.[16]

Joint Study Designs and Results

Study 1 (Hertfordshire, 1995): 32 participants (16 per experimenter), drawn from the same pool, tested in the same laboratory with the same equipment and randomization procedure. Receivers’ EDA was recorded during 16 stare and 16 non-stare 30-second epochs per session. Wiseman’s participants: Wilcoxon z = −.44, p = .64, two-tailed. Schlitz’s participants: Wilcoxon z = −2.02, p = .04, two-tailed, effect size r = .51. The difference between experimenters was not statistically significant (unpaired t, df = 30, p = .17).[4]

Study 2 (IONS, 1998): 70 participants (35 per experimenter), drawn from IONS employees and members. Same protocol as Study 1 with minor modifications (white noise added, random inter-epoch intervals). Wiseman’s participants: z = −.39, p = .69, two-tailed, effect size = −0.07. Schlitz’s participants: z = −1.93, p = .05, two-tailed, effect size = −0.33 (calming direction). The difference between experimenters was not statistically significant (df = 68, t = −.77, p = .44).[5]

Study 3 (crossover design): A third study using a 2×2 design in which each experimenter served as both greeter and sender for different participant subgroups found no significant EDA differences in stare versus non-stare trials and no significant experimenter role effects. The earlier pattern did not replicate.[20]

Distant healing intention

Schlitz has contributed to both laboratory and clinical research on distant healing intention (DHI). Laboratory studies using autonomic nervous system measures have found positive effects in motivated populations. A double-blind study with bonded couples, one partner a cancer patient, the other trained in compassionate intention, found that receivers’ skin conductance increased significantly during intention epochs, with motivated groups showing larger effects than healthy controls.[6]

Clinical trials have produced more equivocal results. A randomized three-arm study of DHI on surgical wound healing in 72 women found no significant differences in collagen deposition across blinded DHI, blinded control, and unblinded expectancy groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that participants’ prior belief in DHI was negatively correlated with mental health outcomes, and that healers’ sense of connection was negatively correlated with both mood change and collagen deposition, a counterintuitive pattern consistent with findings from other DHI trials.[7] Mainstream placebo research provides context: placebo effects on objective outcomes are generally small in Cochrane-level reviews, and blinding integrity is a key determinant of effect size inflation in clinical trials.[21][19]

Compassionate Intention Study, Design and Results

The 2008 compassionate intention study enrolled 36 couples (72 participants) in 38 sessions. Senders directed 10-second intention epochs toward receivers relaxing in an electromagnetically shielded chamber, with random inter-epoch intervals. Three groups were compared: a trained group (cancer patient plus partner trained in compassionate intention), a wait group (same pairing before training), and a healthy control group. Receiver skin conductance was the primary outcome, analyzed via nonparametric bootstrap procedures. Overall receiver skin conductance increased significantly during intention epochs (z = 3.9, p = .00009, two-tailed). Motivated groups (trained plus wait) showed a stronger effect (z = 3.45, p = .0006) than the control group (z = 2.4, p = .02). The trained group showed a slower but more sustained response peaking at 8 seconds post-epoch onset; the wait group peaked at approximately 5 seconds; the control group’s response subsided after 4 seconds. Effect sizes for motivated groups were substantially larger than prior meta-analytic estimates for the DMILS literature.[6]

Consciousness transformation and worldview research

At IONS, Schlitz led a multi-year program studying how people’s worldviews change over time and what factors predict, mediate, and sustain those changes. The program included structured interviews with teachers and scholars from diverse spiritual and religious traditions, longitudinal cohort studies, and large-scale surveys. Compassion and altruism emerged as near-universal outcomes of positive consciousness transformation across traditions, with experiences of interconnection and oneness identified as a common pathway.[10]

A prospective cohort study of participants in Integral Transformative Practice, a community-based program integrating physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual practices, found improvements in health, psychological well-being, and quality of life over one year, with self-transcendence serving as a partial mediator of these outcomes.[17]

Transformation Project, Methods and Findings

The qualitative transformation study interviewed 47 teachers and scholars from religious and spiritual traditions and modern transformative movements, using a semi-structured interview guide developed through an iterative process. Respondents were at teacher or master level within their traditions and had taught many students over several years. The sample included representatives of Buddhism, Yoga, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shamanism, Native American traditions, Non-Dualism, Sufism, Aikido, Transpersonal Psychotherapy, and other traditions. Thematic analysis identified compassion, love, kindness, generosity, and altruism as the most prominent outcomes of transformative experiences, with experiences of oneness or interconnection identified as a common antecedent. The study proposed several pathways from transformative experience to compassion and altruism: decentralization of the self, increased kinship with others, connection with an authentic compassionate self, and reduced personal distress in response to others’ suffering.[10]

The ITP cohort study followed 53 participants over one year with repeated measures at baseline, six months, and twelve months. Participants showed significant improvements in overall health, reduced health symptoms, and increased psychological well-being. Perceived level of engagement in ITP (but not total activity days) predicted higher psychological well-being, improved quality of life, and greater self-transcendence at both follow-up points. Self-transcendence partially mediated the relationship between ITP involvement and psychological well-being, and predicted general physical health at all time points.[17]

Precognition replication

Schlitz served as lead author on two preregistered international replication studies of Bem’s retroactive priming task, coordinating an international team of experimenters across multiple countries. The preregistered confirmatory hypothesis, that response times to incongruent stimuli would be longer than to congruent stimuli before the prime appeared, was not supported in either experiment’s full sample. Exploratory analyses identified a possible effect in English-language participants in the first experiment and a possible expectancy effect in the second, but these findings were inconsistent across analytic choices and did not replicate across both studies.[8]

Precognition Replication Studies, Design and Results

Experiment 1 involved 32 experimenters and 512 participants across multiple countries. Experiment 2 involved 30 experimenters and 586 participants, with an additional manipulation of pro-psi versus anti-psi framing statements. Both experiments were preregistered with the Koestler Parapsychology Unit. Mixed-model analyses with multiple reaction time transformations and cutoffs examined congruency effects. The preregistered confirmatory hypothesis was not supported in either experiment’s full sample (Experiment 1 all languages p = .22; Experiment 2 p = .88). In Experiment 1, an exploratory analysis of English-language participants only found a significant effect (t(177) = 2.08, p = .02, d = 0.16) using log-transformed data with a 2,500 ms cutoff; non-English samples showed an opposite trend. In Experiment 2, the pro-psi statement produced a larger effect than the anti-psi statement (t(562) = 1.68, p = .05, d = 0.14) under the same analytic conditions, though this was inconsistent across transformations. Experimenters’ and participants’ self-reported psi beliefs showed almost zero variance at the experimenter level and were not consistently associated with outcomes across both studies.[8]

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
Wiseman & Schlitz (1997), Journal of ParapsychologyReceivers run by R. W. (Wiseman, skeptic) — EDA stare vs non-starez = −0.44, p = 0.6416 participants; 16 sessions; 512 trials
Wiseman & Schlitz (1997), Journal of ParapsychologyReceivers run by M. S. (Schlitz, proponent) — EDA stare vs non-starez = −2.02, p = 0.0416 participants; 16 sessions; 512 trials
Wiseman & Schlitz (1997), Journal of ParapsychologyDetect-score comparison: M. S.'s subjects vs R. W.'s subjectst = 1.39, df = 30, p = 0.1732 participants
Wiseman & Schlitz (1999), Journal of ParapsychologyParticipants run by R. W. (Wiseman, skeptic) — EDA stare vs nonstarez = −0.39, p = 0.69, ES −0.07 (Cohen’s h)35 participants; 1120 trials
Wiseman & Schlitz (1999), Journal of ParapsychologyParticipants run by M. S. (Schlitz, proponent) — EDA stare vs nonstarez = −1.93, p = 0.05, ES −0.33 (Cohen’s h)35 participants; 1120 trials
Wiseman & Schlitz (1999), Journal of ParapsychologyDetect-score comparison: M. S.'s participants vs R. W.'s participantst = −0.77, df = 68, p = 0.44, ES 0.09 (Cohen’s d)70 participants
Watt, Wiseman, Schlitz & Radin (2006), British Journal of PsychologyCondition A: MS as both greeter and senderz = −0.17, p = 0.87, ES −0.03 (Cohen’s h)25 participants; 1000 trials
Watt, Wiseman, Schlitz & Radin (2006), British Journal of PsychologyCondition D: RW as both greeter and senderz = −0.35, p = 0.72, ES −0.07 (Cohen’s h)26 participants; 1040 trials
Watt, Wiseman, Schlitz & Radin (2006), British Journal of PsychologyANOVA main effect of greeter (2×2 cross-over design)p = 0.5100 participants
Watt, Wiseman, Schlitz & Radin (2006), British Journal of PsychologyANOVA main effect of sender (2×2 cross-over design)p = 0.64100 participants
Watt, Wiseman, Schlitz & Radin (2006), British Journal of PsychologyANOVA interaction effect (greeter × sender, 2×2 cross-over design)p = 0.85100 participants
Schlitz & Braud (1997), Alternative Therapies in Health and MedicineAcross 30 EDA distant-intentionality experiments, single-mean t tests reached p <= .05 in 14 of 30 cases (47% experiment-wise success rate against 5% expected by chance).ES 0.25, z = 6.17, p = 4.58 × 10−1030 studies; 434 participants
 Source: ESP-Nexus structured study database. Every figure in this table was read from the cited article’s own Results section. Where a study ran two experimenters against the same protocol, both arms and the direct between-experimenter test are listed, because the finding is the contrast between them.

Skeptical Critiques and Discussion

Critique 1: The Schlitz-Wiseman experimenter effect may reflect conventional differences in experimenter behavior rather than any psi-related phenomenon, Schlitz’s positive results could be explained by her more rapport-building, expectancy-positive interaction style, which is known to influence participant performance through ordinary psychological channels.

Skeptic source: Wiseman, R., & Schlitz, M. (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology, 61(3), 197–208.[4]

Response: Wiseman himself acknowledged in the joint paper that the design did not rule out conventional experimenter behavior as an explanation, and that Schlitz’s participants scored higher on a belief-in-psi questionnaire, possibly reflecting differences in how the two experimenters oriented participants before sessions. Qualitative interviews documented substantial differences in preparation, rapport-building, and expectancy communication between the two researchers.[14] The mainstream literature on experimenter expectancy effects documents that such differences can influence participant performance through well-understood psychological mechanisms.[16] The third joint study, which used a crossover design to isolate the source of the effect, did not replicate the earlier pattern, leaving the phenomenon’s origin unresolved.[20]

Analysis. The experimenter effect replicated directionally across two studies but failed in a third designed to isolate it; conventional and psi-based explanations remain live alternatives.

Reading the Schlitz-Wiseman pattern under the binomial-replication lens: Under the binomial-replication framing developed on the replication-in-psi-research hub, this 2-of-3 directional-success pattern is exactly what a real effect at modest statistical power looks like, not what disconfirmation looks like: at the ~50% power typical of well-conducted parapsychology studies, the probability of reaching significance in 2 of 3 replication attempts is 50% — the same as the probability of fewer than 2 of 3 reaching significance. Three-of-three significant replications at this power level is a 12.5% outcome — improbable rather than expected. The widespread skeptical demand for three-of-three consecutive replications as the bar for a real effect (Hansel 1980, restated by many contemporary commentators) implicitly assumes power levels that parapsychology studies at the time were not designed to achieve — see why the three-of-three demand fails for the worked numbers. Reading the Schlitz-Wiseman three-study arc through the binomial lens rather than the three-of-three lens substantially changes the inferential picture: 2 directional-success replications plus 1 directional-null is the modal outcome predicted for a real-but-modest-power effect, not the failure pattern skeptical commentary often presents it as.

Critique 2: The DMILS literature shows methodological problems, particularly inadequate EDA measurement standards, that could compromise the validity of the reported effects.

Skeptic source: Braud and Schlitz’s 1989 overview in Advances: Journal of Mind-Body Health acknowledged methodological shortcomings in the DMILS literature including EDA measurement standards and randomization practices.[13]

Response: Braud and Schlitz’s own 1989 review acknowledged the methodological shortcomings, none of the published DMILS studies used electrode gel meeting the standards recommended by the Society of Psychophysiological Research, but argued that these shortcomings were more likely to cause missed effects than false positives, because the intraindividual design compares experimental and control epochs within the same participant. When studies with inadequate randomization were excluded, the remaining studies still showed a positive mean effect size.[13][24] Definitive EDA methodology standards remain an important benchmark for evaluating these studies.[15]

Analysis. The methodological critique is well-founded and acknowledged by the field; the intraindividual design provides some protection against the most obvious artifacts, but the critique has not been fully resolved.

Critique 3: The distant healing intention clinical trials, including Schlitz’s surgical wound-healing study, have not produced evidence of efficacy on objective outcomes, and some results suggest that knowing one is the object of healing intention may be harmful rather than helpful.

Skeptic source: Masters, K. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Goodson, J. T. (2006). Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 21–26; Benson et al. (2006) STEP trial findings discussed in Schlitz (2014).[11]

Response: Schlitz’s own review of the clinical trial literature acknowledges that results are equivocal and that the clinical application of DHI has not been established. Her wound-healing study found no significant group differences on the primary outcome. She has argued that the clinical trials may not have adequately modeled real-world healing contexts, for example, by using standardized prayers rather than the healers’ own methods, or by failing to account for the relationship between healer and patient. Post-hoc analyses in her wound-healing study suggested that patient motivation and surgical context (reconstructive versus cosmetic) may moderate outcomes, pointing toward future research directions rather than confirming efficacy.[7][11] Cochrane-level reviews of placebo effects on objective outcomes find generally small effects, providing context for interpreting null results in DHI trials.[21]

Analysis. The preregistered primary outcomes of the wound-healing trial were not supported; the field’s clinical evidence base remains insufficient to establish DHI as an evidence-based modality.

Critique 4: The two preregistered international replication studies of Bem’s retroactive priming task failed to confirm the primary hypothesis, suggesting the original findings may have been chance results or undetected artifacts.

Skeptic source: 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.[22]

Response: The preregistered confirmatory hypothesis was not supported in either experiment’s full sample. The paper’s authors, including Schlitz, acknowledged this directly: “In sum, the pre-registered confirmatory hypotheses were not supported.” They noted that “it is possible that the results from earlier studies represented chance findings or undetected subtle artifacts.” Exploratory analyses identified possible language and expectancy moderators, but these are hypothesis-generating only and require independent preregistered replication before they can be treated as evidence.[8]

Analysis. The preregistered hypotheses were not supported; exploratory post-hoc findings do not constitute positive evidence under ESP-Nexus’s evidential standard.

Influence and reception

Schlitz is cited in the parapsychological literature as one of a small number of researchers with a consistent track record of obtaining positive results, a pattern that has made her work central to discussions of the experimenter effect in psi research.[23][24] The Schlitz-Wiseman collaboration is frequently cited as a model for skeptic-proponent joint research, and the qualitative interview data from that collaboration have been used to illustrate how experimenter behavior might mediate psi-related outcomes through conventional channels.[14]

The Juilliard ganzfeld study has been cited in meta-analyses of the ganzfeld literature, including the influential Bem and Honorton (1994) review in Psychological Bulletin, as an example of above-chance performance in a selected population.[25] The DMILS meta-analysis with Braud has been used as a primary source in subsequent systematic reviews of the distant intentionality literature.[13][11]

Her work on consciousness transformation and worldview change has been published in mainstream interdisciplinary venues including Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science and the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, and has contributed to the emerging field of integral wellness research.[10][17] She has also contributed to qualitative research on cancer survivorship published in Qualitative Health Research.[9]

Field Recognition and Collaborative Network

Schlitz is listed among researchers characterized as “psi-conducive” in the parapsychological literature, experimenters who consistently obtain significant results, alongside Charles Honorton, Dean Radin, and others. The Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.) cites her as an example of a psi-conducive experimenter in contrast to psi-inhibitory experimenters such as John Beloff and Susan Blackmore, while noting that the reasons for such differences remain unresolved.[23] The First Sight theoretical framework by James Carpenter also cites her as an example of a charismatic experimenter whose strong intentions may function as primes in experimental contexts.[24] The Global Consciousness Project acknowledges her role in affiliating the project with IONS as its non-profit home. She participated in the 2024 BIAL Foundation symposium on creativity and psi, presenting on the relationship between creative imagination and psi phenomena.[26]

Open Questions: What Would Change the Picture

Several specific research designs would substantially clarify the status of the phenomena Schlitz has studied.

On the experimenter effect: A preregistered adversarial collaboration in which Schlitz and a skeptical experimenter each run a remote-staring study, with participant assignment formally randomized rather than opportunistic, and with video-coded experimenter behavior rated blind to outcomes, would allow the conventional-behavior hypothesis to be tested directly. If Schlitz’s participants show significant effects even when assigned by a neutral party and when her interaction style is experimentally equated to the skeptic’s, the conventional explanation would be weakened.[20][14]

On DMILS: A large-sample preregistered DMILS study using EDA measurement that meets current psychophysiological standards, including appropriate electrode gel, artifact rejection, and pre-specified analysis windows, conducted by an independent laboratory with no prior DMILS training lineage, would provide the most informative replication test. A null result from such a study would carry substantially more evidential weight than previous null results from methodologically weaker designs.[13][15]

On distant healing intention: A clinical trial that models real-world healing contexts, using healers’ own methods, with established healer-patient relationships, and with patient motivation as a stratification variable, would test whether the null results in previous trials reflect genuine absence of effect or inadequate ecological validity. The post-hoc finding in Schlitz’s wound-healing study that reconstructive surgery patients showed better mood outcomes than cosmetic surgery patients suggests that motivation may be a key moderator worth testing prospectively.[7][11]

Methodological Priorities for Future Research

The DMILS systematic review identified several priorities for extending the research: (1) extending from EDA to other physiological and behavioral measures; (2) promoting DMILS findings to mainstream psychophysiological researchers who could bring independent methodological expertise; (3) testing theoretical models by deriving and testing specific predictions in experimental situations; and (4) conducting differential EDA research to understand how EDA is modulated during DMILS sessions, for example, by examining the relationship between EDA and respiration. Preliminary results from the Freiburg laboratory suggested that irregularities in respiration accounted for substantial parts of the EDA-DMILS effect in at least one pilot study.[13] For the experimenter effect specifically, the key unresolved question is whether the effect resides in the initial experimenter-participant interaction, in the experimenter’s behavior during the staring session itself, or in some other variable. The crossover design of the third Schlitz-Wiseman study was intended to address this but produced null results, leaving the question open.[20]

Sources
  1. Alvarado, C. S. (2015). People in Parapsychology: XIX: Marilyn Schlitz. Parapsychology (Carlos Alvarado blog). carlossalvarado.wordpress.com; supplementary biographical narrative at marilynschlitz.com. [Alvarado 2015] R001 ↩︎
  2. Schlitz, M., & Honorton, C. (1992). Ganzfeld psi performance within an artistically gifted population. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 83–98. PDF [Schlitz & Honorton 1992] R002 ↩︎
  3. Schlitz, M. J., & Braud, W. G. (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/ [Schlitz & Braud 1997] R003 ↩︎
  4. Wiseman, R., & Schlitz, M. J. (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology, 61(3), 197-208. http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/staring1.pdf [Wiseman & Schlitz 1997] R004 ↩︎
  5. Wiseman, R., & Schlitz, M. J. (1999). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring: An attempted replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 63, 232–256. marilynschlitz.com (PDF) [Wiseman & Schlitz 1999] R005 ↩︎
  6. 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 [Radin 2008] R006 ↩︎
  7. Schlitz, M., Hopf, H. W., Eskenazi, L., Vieten, C., & Radin, D. (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 8(4), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2012.04.005 [Schlitz 2012] R007 ↩︎
  8. Schlitz, M. J., Bem, D., Marcusson-Clavertz, D., Cardeña, E., Lyke, J., Grover, R., Blackmore, S., Tressoldi, P., Roney-Dougal, S., Bierman, D., Jolij, J., Lobach, E., Hartelius, G., Rabeyron, T., Bengston, W., Nelson, S., Moddel, G., & Delorme, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.31275/20211903 [Schlitz 2021] R008 ↩︎
  9. Killoran, M., Schlitz, M. J., & Lewis, N. (2002). Unremarkable Recoveries: Normalizing Adversity and Cancer Survival. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129119847 [Schlitz 2002] R009 ↩︎
  10. Schlitz, M. J. (2006). I to We: The Role of Consciousness Transformation in Compassion and Altruism. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 41(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2006.00788.x [Schlitz 2006] R010 ↩︎
  11. Schlitz, M. (2014). Transpersonal Healing: Assessing the Evidence from Laboratory and Clinical Trials. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol33/iss1/10 [Schlitz 2014] R011 ↩︎
  12. Transcript: Schlitz at The Monroe Institute (2015). The Monroe Institute. [YouTube] youtube.com [Schlitz @ Monroe 2015] R012 ↩︎
  13. Braud, W. G., & Schlitz, M. J. (1989). Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS). Advances: Journal of Mind-Body Health. researchgate.net [Braud 1989] R013 ↩︎
  14. Watt, C., Wiseman, R., & Schlitz, M. (2002). Tacit information in remote staring research: The Wiseman-Schlitz interviews. Paranormal Review. https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/watt-wiseman-schlitz-2002.pdf [Watt 2002] R014 ↩︎
  15. Boucsein, W. (2012). Electrodermal Activity (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0 [Boucsein 2012] R015 ↩︎
  16. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 [Open Science Collaboration 2015] R016 ↩︎
  17. Vieten, C., Estrada, M., Cohen, A. B., Radin, D. I., Schlitz, M. J., & Delorme, A. (2014). Engagement in a Community-Based Integral Practice Program Enhances Well-being. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol33/iss2/3 [Vieten 2014] R017 ↩︎
  18. Beecher, H. K. (1955). The Powerful Placebo. Journal of the American Medical Association, 159(17), 1602-1606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1955.02960340022006 [Beecher 1955] R018 ↩︎
  19. Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. The Lancet, 359(9307), 696-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9 [Schulz 2002] R019 ↩︎
  20. Schlitz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C., & Radin, D. (2006). Of two minds: Sceptic–proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology, 97(3), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X80704 [Schlitz et al. 2006] R020 ↩︎
  21. 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 [Hróbjartsson 2010] R021 ↩︎
  22. 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: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 [Wagenmakers 2011] R022 ↩︎
  23. Harvey J. Irwin & Caroline A. Watt (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland & Company. Google Books [Irwin 2007] R023 ↩︎
  24. Carpenter, J. C. (2012). First Sight: ESP and parapsychology in everyday life. Rowman & Littlefield. rowman.com [Carpenter 2012] R024 ↩︎
  25. Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4-18. tue.nl (PDF) [Bem & Honorton 1994] R025 ↩︎
  26. BIAL Foundation (2024). Behind and Beyond the Brain — BIAL Foundation Symposium 2024 Abstracts. BIAL Foundation Symposium Proceedings. marilynschlitz.com (PDF) [BIAL Foundation 2024] R026 ↩︎
  27. Honorton, C., Berger, R. E., Varvoglis, M. P., Quant, M., Derr, P., Schechter, E. I., & Ferrari, D. C. (1990). Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 99–139. zenodo.org [Honorton et al. 1990] R027 ↩︎
  28. Delanoy, D. L. (2001). Anomalous psychophysiological responses to remote cognition: The DMILS studies. European Journal of Parapsychology, 16, 30–41. [Delanoy 2001] R028 ↩︎
  29. Schmidt, S. (2003). Direct mental interactions with living systems (DMILS). In Healing, Intention and Energy Medicine (pp. 23–38). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-07237-6.50008-5 [Schmidt 2003] R029 ↩︎
  30. Watt, C. A., Schlitz, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2005). Tacit Knowledge in Remote Staring Research: An Interview with Marilyn Schlitz and Richard Wiseman. Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, 5, 244-253. anomalistik.de (PDF) [Watt 2005] R030 ↩︎

Deeper dives — Schlitz:

Consciousness Transformation Experimenter Effects Remote Staring Detection Remote Viewing Replication Distant Healing Intention Direct Mental Interactions 📖  Death Makes Life Possible

Last updated: 2026-08-01 20:29:25

AI-audited 2026-05-31 · Claude A+ · GPT-5 A+ · Perplexity A+ · Gemini A+

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.