The Relationship Between the Emitter and
the Receiver as an Exploratory Factor in Experimental Telepathy

It would be quite convincing if someone from the academic world could demonstrate the phenomena of experimental telepathy with the same ease and precision as the so-called professional telepathists claim to be able to do.

We know about different experiments published by members of the British Psychological Society and also by Dr. Wasilevsky, Dr. Kotik, Dr. Papenstecker, Dr. Fischner, and many others. We have also read with special interest about tests performed by Upton Sinclair and his wife. He rightly pointed out that someone else might might want to write about such a sensational subject in order to make a name for himself, but that in his case it could only ruin his reputation as a writer.

The experiments mentioned so far as well as other tests give results which we can by no means explain as mere coincidence. This is the case even if we take special care not to overlook the fact that coincidence can outweigh all calculations of probability (see our work on coincidence).

The endeavors of various experimenters as well as the observation of spontaneous telepathic phenomena by others prove that telepathy is a natural occurrence. Still, up to now we have been denied the same precision characteristic of experiments and scientific research where demonstrations can be carried out in front of the public.

Not only is today’s scholar who studies this subject and its problems convinced of the existence of telepathy, but also an exact and rapid transfer of ideas can no longer be dismissed, as a hoax without further qualification. On the face of it, the magicians have an advantage over scientists. This has not yet been clarified. We make an attempt here to solve a r)art of this problem.

In Mesmer’s time — around the time of the French Revolution — demonstrations of “mental magnetism” were retarded as frauds by scientists. Thus Lavoisier and Franklin gave up their views on “mental magnetism” in front of the French Academy. It stayed like this until 1840 when Brand could perform hypnotic phenomena on stage no worse than a stage artist who stood next to him and accused him of being a cheat.

Up until today no scientist could simulate those telepathic phenomena as perfectly as was needed for the stage.

I personally have had three different opportunities to witness open demonstrations carried out by different individuals. These presentations hardly differed from one another. A subject was on stage and the hypnotist was in the audience. No attempt was ever made to replace the subject (medium) on stage by someone from the public. The subject was always the same one that appeared with the hypnotist and was usually exulted as a clairvoyant.

Some one very quietly asks the hypnotists a question. The medium on stage immediately repeats the question and also answers it. The question is such that it is beyond the mental capacity of the medium, either because of its context or on account of the intelligence of the medium (in two cases the media were children 10-12 years old). Thus a child can say on stage without hesitation: “You are asking for the serial numbers of your preferred shares of the Asbestos Co. Ltd.” and immediately specify the numbers.

Of course, just before that you have given the serial numbers to the hypnotist who is at your side. However, in case you have given him false information, the medium will repeat this. This only proves that it is not a matter of clairvoyance, as it is claimed to be, but rather telepathy between the hypnotist and the hypnotized. Therefore all answers to questions nut forward by the public about their future destinies or things that the inquirer himself is uncertain about are only deceptive. They can also be especially damaging when, as it happened in the first case, questions were asked about relatives who were involved in the war that raged at that time and the answers that were given were not always encouraging.

It is therefore understandable that such cheating throws a shadow on the whole subject of “clairvoyance” . On the other hand, we do not have the right to pass judgement on the whole and dismiss it as a hoax merely because of these “presumptions” .

It can be easily seen that there is no secret speech between the medium and the hypnotist—either in the manner in which the questions themselves are asked, or by means of gestures. The replies are very fast and accurate and at the same time often quite complex. Since the medium’s eyes were covered up, any secret communication with such precision would in the circumstances be more puzzling yet.

It can be shown that the medium does not come to know the subject of the question by hearing, it (assuming hypersensivity) since it is possible to present the hypnotist with a written or printed piece of paper (as in the case of the above-mentioned shares) and obtain the same result.

It is also possible to prove that ventriloquy is not involved and that the hypnotist does not simulate the speech of the medium who is about ten meters away from him (his eyes are open, but his back is turned to the audience). Instead of speaking, he can write the answer on a piece of paper.

The three cases which I have witnessed were as follows: A Greek with an eleven-year old girl (in Moscow, during the war). An Oriental (China or Indochina) but according to himself an Egyptian, with a boy (in Haifa), and a young Levantine (in Tel-Aviv).

Since all the demonstrations resembled each other, I had the impression that they all stemmed from the same school, or that the last couple (the Levantines) had been taught by the others).

I visited the Oriental in his hotel room after his performance. That man, whom the audience retarded as one gifted with such great powers was clearly in despair. When he found out that I was a doctor he begged me for help—the medium lay in bed with a high fever. It was his son. This had not been disclosed in any way in the advertisements.

I also visited the Levantines in their hotel, and urged them in vain to come and perform experiments in our Institute for Psychological Research (they accepted the invitation, but never took it up). In any case, I was able to find out an important, but again for some reason well-guarded secret—the hypnotist and. his medium were brothers.

It is also interesting to note that Dr. Kotik related especially good results about a medium who could only function in the presence of her father.

We must remember the fact that by far most of the cases in spontaneous telepathy involve members of the same family (people who have an emotional relationship with one another). Most frequently cases are related by the thousand where the death—often unexpected—of a relative who is far away is revealed by a telepathic feeling either in a dream or while the person is awake. We also know about a considerable number of such spontaneous telepathic feelings from the material we have gathered (we still exclude here the cases of similar dreams, since similar interests and impressions can provoke the same-dreams).

It is interesting to note in these telepathic feelings that from the millions of people around, only the relative hears the secret voice and he alone believes it.

Therefore we are inclined to believe that these energy processes are evident in more or less homogenic brains of blood relations much more generally than in people who are not related (the same happens with other characteristics such as physical structure or psychological similarities). This harmony is perhaps the Psycho-physical basis of telepathic events.

We cannot claim with certainty whether spontaneous telepathy occurs with the same frequency between man and wife, i.e. people not related by blood, although such spontaneous telepathic cases do occur without a doubt, and are also documented in our material. It is possible that relationship by choice itself is caused by similarity in physical structure (homogeneity). By the same token, the same emotional life can in time result in homogeneity.

We have heard a certain claim at one of the meetings of the Psychoanalytic Society in Vienna from a member, while Freud’s work on parapsychological phenomena was discussed. It was that when the hypnotist thought very hard while under hypnosis, there was no result, and every effort failed to produce a telepathic thought transfer during hypnosis. We must decipher the conditions under which these professional magicians work.

The practical result of our observations is the suggestion that we must take notice of the relationship (homogeneity) between the sender and the recipient when observing experiments in telepathy in the future.

Translated from the German by Helena Flack