Overview

Braude’s engagement with physical mediumship and macro-psychokinesis emerged from his broader philosophical investigation into parapsychology’s conceptual foundations. Unlike experimental parapsychologists who design controlled laboratory tests, Braude approached the field as a philosopher and case analyst, examining both historical records and contemporary phenomena. His work in this domain reflects a conviction that non-laboratory evidence in parapsychology often possesses greater evidential richness than laboratory experiments, despite being more difficult to control and verify.

Physical mediumship—the alleged production of observable, physical effects (object movement, materialization, dematerialization) attributed to discarnate spirits or the medium’s own psychokinetic abilities—represents one of parapsychology’s most controversial and least studied areas. Braude recognized that nearly a century had elapsed since serious investigators had the opportunity to study classical spiritistic phenomena under any meaningful conditions of control.² This gap in the research record motivated his decision to conduct field investigations alongside his philosophical work, beginning with case studies of historical mediums and eventually moving to direct observation of contemporary practitioners.

Historical cases and the Mirabelli problem

Braude’s analysis of historical physical mediumship culminated in a detailed examination of Carlos Mirabelli, a Brazilian medium (1889–1951) whose reported phenomena were extraordinary even by the standards of classical mediumship. If the accounts were accurate, Mirabelli was among the most widely reported physical mediums in history. His reported abilities included moving large objects without contact, levitating himself while bound to a chair, dematerializing and transporting objects and people across distances, and producing full-form materializations of deceased individuals in bright daylight.¹

What made Mirabelli’s case particularly significant—and frustrating—was the quality of documentation. Attending physicians reportedly examined materialized figures for up to 30 minutes, noting ordinary bodily functions; photographs were taken; and witnesses watched the figures slowly dissolve before their eyes.¹ Yet Mirabelli was also demonstrably guilty of fraud on occasion, most notably his use of a doctored photograph purporting to show him levitating. This mixture of apparently genuine phenomena alongside clear deception created what Braude termed the “mixed mediumship” problem: how should investigators assess cases in which a medium has produced both authentic and fraudulent manifestations?

Braude noted that Mirabelli’s case never received the full scrutiny accorded to other celebrated mediums such as Daniel Dunglas Home or Eusapia Palladino, in part due to prevailing skepticism within the Society for Psychical Research toward physical mediumship generally.¹ This historical neglect underscored a broader problem in parapsychology: the tendency to dismiss entire categories of evidence based on methodological concerns or prior skepticism, rather than engaging with the actual quality and consistency of the data.

Contemporary investigations: the Felix Circle

Braude’s most extensive contemporary investigation involved the Felix Experimental Group (FEG), a German physical mediumship circle centered on medium Kai Mügge. Beginning in 2010, Braude conducted a series of progressively more stringent séances, culminating in well-controlled experiments with video documentation in a secure private location.² This investigation represented a rare opportunity to study classical physical mediumship phenomena under modern conditions of observation and control.

During his initial visits to the FEG in 2010, Braude and his colleague Peter Mulacz were treated to cabinet sittings and table séances under relatively casual controls. Both Kai and the group’s leader, Jochen S., expressed their desire to work under good conditions of control, yet they also articulated concerns—grounded in the history of mediumistic research and contemporary psychodynamic studies—that overly stringent controls imposed too early might inhibit the phenomena.² Braude respected this position, recognizing that the entire history of mediumistic investigation supported the view that group dynamics and the medium’s psychological state significantly influenced manifestation quality.

Over the course of multiple visits between 2010 and 2013, Braude documented table levitations that he found particularly compelling. He recorded two instances on video—one in infrared light and another using an incandescent red lamp—though both recordings presented technical limitations. In the infrared video, Kai inadvertently blocked much of the table’s view, obscuring one hand; in the red-lamp recording, the dim lighting made it unclear where Kai’s thumbs were positioned.³ Despite these limitations, Braude noted that the table’s movements possessed sensory characteristics of weightlessness and buoyancy rather than being forced upward, which he found inconsistent with the skeptical hypothesis that Kai could have produced the levitation using his thumbs.

In October 2015, Braude supervised an additional series of séances in Hanau, Germany, specifically to obtain better video documentation of the table levitations. Although that primary goal was not achieved, the group witnessed interesting phenomena difficult to explain through normal means: object movements beyond the reach of sitters, a strange “exploding” sound from the séance table, and extended levitations in which the table appeared to sway or swim in midair.³

Methodological challenges in physical mediumship research

Braude’s investigations of the Felix Circle illuminated fundamental tensions in physical mediumship research. The phenomena allegedly produced by physical mediums are inherently difficult to document convincingly. Video recording, while seemingly objective, presents its own interpretive challenges. Infrared cameras may obscure crucial details; visible-light recording in dim séance conditions produces ambiguous footage. The very act of imposing stringent controls—multiple cameras, locked doors, restraints—may alter the psychodynamic conditions necessary for phenomena to manifest.

Braude acknowledged that mediums and their circles often resist controls, citing both their own experience and the mediumistic literature as evidence that controls inhibit manifestations. Yet without controls, skeptics can always attribute phenomena to fraud or normal trickery. This creates a methodological bind: either accept weaker controls and risk fraud, or impose stringent controls and risk suppressing genuine phenomena. Braude’s approach was to negotiate this tension pragmatically, beginning with rapport-building and casual observation, then progressively introducing controls as trust and group cohesion developed.

The psychodynamic dimension proved crucial. Braude noted that what readers needed to understand about FEG phenomena had as much to do with the personalities involved—their hopes, fears, conflicts, and interpersonal dynamics—as with the phenomena themselves.³ This insight reflected his broader conviction that parapsychological phenomena, particularly macro-PK, are deeply embedded in the psychological and social context of their occurrence and cannot be adequately understood through purely mechanical or experimental frameworks.

Mainstream cognitive science offers a well-developed account of how convincing “impossible” effects are produced. Kuhn and colleagues’ taxonomy of misdirection details how performers exploit attention and perception—precisely the mechanisms a séance room maximizes. Braude’s framework already concedes pervasive fraud and argues only for a residue of cases that resist such explanation; placing his analysis beside the misdirection literature makes the evidential bar explicit: a candidate macro-PK case must survive exactly the perceptual and attentional confounds that mainstream science has catalogued.⁶

The problem of mixed mediumship and fraud

The most significant complication in Braude’s Felix Circle investigations was the discovery of fraud. Before publishing his 2014 comprehensive report, Braude and his collaborator Michael Nahm already knew that Kai had cheated on at least one occasion by using a light-emitting device similar to a magician’s trick called the D’Lite Flight—a diode at the end of a thin wire attached to the thumb, capable of creating the illusion of moving points of light.³ Photographs taken by a regular FEG investigator in 2011 revealed suspicious reddish lights whose movement corresponded precisely to Kai’s thumb movements, consistent with use of such a device.

This discovery forced Braude to confront the mixed mediumship problem directly. If a medium has demonstrated both genuine and fraudulent phenomena, how should investigators evaluate the overall case? Braude’s approach was neither to dismiss all phenomena as fraud nor to excuse the fraud as irrelevant. Instead, he carefully distinguished between the phenomena he had personally supervised under his own controls—which he found compelling—and those produced in other contexts where fraud had been documented.² He acknowledged that the extent of fraud remained unclear and that the case as a whole had been tarnished by the deception.

This nuanced stance reflected Braude’s broader philosophical position: that parapsychological evidence must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with careful attention to the specific conditions under which phenomena were observed. A medium’s capacity for fraud does not automatically invalidate all phenomena attributed to that medium, just as the occurrence of some genuine phenomena does not excuse fraudulent behavior. The investigator’s task is to parse the evidence carefully, acknowledging both the genuine and the fraudulent components. Experimental work underscores how difficult that parsing can be. Richard Wiseman and colleagues found that a confederate’s suggestion during a darkened séance led a substantial share of sitters to report object movements that never occurred, demonstrating one mechanism by which sincere witnesses can generate convergent but unreliable testimony in physical-mediumship settings.⁵

Conceptual framework and macro-PK theory

Braude’s investigations of physical mediumship were grounded in a broader conceptual framework developed in his philosophical works on psychokinesis. In The Limits of Influence, he examined the philosophical implications of macro-PK, exploring how large-scale object movements could be theoretically possible and what such phenomena would mean for our understanding of mind, matter, and causation.⁴ This philosophical work informed his approach to field investigation: he was not simply documenting phenomena but testing the coherence and plausibility of macro-PK as a genuine causal process.

In his case investigations, Braude treated physical mediumship as a window into macro-PK mechanisms. If genuine, the phenomena produced by mediums like Mirabelli or Kai Mügge would provide evidence that human consciousness could directly influence physical objects at a distance, without apparent mechanical intermediaries. This would challenge fundamental assumptions about the relationship between mind and matter. Conversely, if such phenomena could be explained through fraud, psychology, or normal physical processes, the case for macro-PK would be weakened.

Braude’s work in this area also drew on his broader conviction that parapsychological phenomena are best understood not as isolated laboratory effects but as expressions of latent human capacities that emerge under specific psychological and social conditions. Physical mediumship, in this view, represents an extreme manifestation of macro-PK abilities that may exist in attenuated form in the general population. Understanding mediums’ phenomena thus contributes to understanding the nature and limits of human psychokinetic potential.

Significance and ongoing influence

Braude’s investigations of physical mediumship and macro-PK have had several important effects on parapsychological research and discourse. First, he demonstrated that serious, philosophically informed investigation of classical mediumship phenomena remained possible and worthwhile in the modern era. His work with the Felix Circle showed that contemporary physical mediums existed and were willing to submit to investigation, even if the results were mixed.

Second, his case analyses—particularly his treatment of Mirabelli and the Felix Circle—provided detailed models for how to approach the mixed mediumship problem. Rather than adopting an all-or-nothing stance, Braude showed how investigators could acknowledge both genuine phenomena and fraudulent behavior within a single case, evaluating each component on its merits.

Third, his work highlighted the importance of psychodynamic and social factors in physical mediumship. By attending carefully to group dynamics, personality conflicts, and the medium’s psychological state, Braude enriched the investigative framework beyond purely mechanical or experimental approaches. This perspective has influenced how contemporary parapsychologists think about the conditions necessary for psi phenomena to manifest.

Finally, Braude’s investigations underscored the enduring methodological challenges in studying macro-PK. The tension between control and rapport, the ambiguities of video documentation, and the ever-present possibility of fraud remain unresolved problems. His work did not solve these problems but clarified their nature and demonstrated the intellectual honesty required to engage with them seriously.