Out-of-body experience study yields unexpected results behind closed doors

A test to determine if people who report out-of-body experiences could identify objects in another room produced results no better than chance, but afterward something strange happened: Two participants described, unprompted, researchers' locations and activities behind closed doors.

The participants' unexpected observations were not part of the trial's predefined outcome measures and therefore can't be considered evidence for out-of-body experiences, or OBEs, UVA Health investigators say. But the unexplained results may help researchers design better, more effective ways to evaluate the potential validity of a phenomenon that has been reported for decades.

Marina Weiler, PhD, researcher, University of Virginia School of Medicine's Division of Perceptual StudiesI hope this study encourages researchers to think creatively about how we test these experiences. The unexpected findings give us a potentially useful new direction, but they also need to be tested prospectively and under rigorous conditions before we can know what they mean. For me, the most important takeaway is that unexpected findings can sometimes help us ask better questions. We now have a specific idea that can be tested in future experiments, and that is exactly what science should do."

Understanding out-of-body experiences

In the recent trial, conducted in Brazil, 21 participants attempted to identify a random object on a laptop screen in another room. Of the 21, 10 reported having an out-of-body experience, and 13 provided target descriptions. (The 13 included participants who had not reported leaving their bodies but said they could see images on an internal "mental screen" or the like.)

The descriptions the participants gave of the objects on the laptop screen did not prove statistically more accurate than what could be expected from guessing. But during interviews afterward, one participant described how a researcher in another room, behind closed doors, had been seated on the left looking at a laptop screen while another researcher was farther back reading a book. Another participant described how a researcher had been seated on the right, taking notes, while a second was sitting on the left at the computer.

Trial records confirmed both descriptions were correct at the time of the participants' sessions. Further, there was no way the participants could have seen the researchers, according to the trial organizers.

If participants could recall such items without seeing or being told about them, that might bolster the case for out-of-body remote viewing.

"I hope these findings encourage us to think more deeply about what they might mean for our understanding of consciousness and, ultimately, the nature of reality. If studies demonstrate that people can obtain accurate information that they could not have accessed through their ordinary senses, we would have to reconsider some of our assumptions about the relationship between consciousness, perception and the physical world," Weiler said. "At its deepest level, this research is not only asking whether out-of-body experiences are real. It is asking what we mean by 'real' in the first place, and whether our current understanding of reality is broad enough to account for everything human consciousness can experience."

Findings published

Source:

University of Virginia Health System

Journal reference: