Some mediums I have experienced are very convincing. Others have developed a convincing act. How is it possible to distinguish the two? I would suggest that only through personal verifiable experience can we truly convince ourselves if their veracity.
I went to see Sally Morgan this year. It was a packed house in the centre of Manchester and people seemed to have come from far and wide to be there. I have to say from the outset that I don’t really like her style, but I have seen enough of her on TV to wonder how successful she actually is live. Hey – I’m interested in the psychic phenomenon, and am open-minded enough to give things a go!
I was watching eagle-eyed for any hint that she was being prompted, or using cold reading techniques. On many occasions I recognised the patterns of speech and the mode of questioning as being very much from the book of “How to be a Stage Psychic”. Is that somewhat inevitable, though? Most of the time she seemed frustrated at the bizarre wishful thinking of the audience who took her vague names and made them fit into their lives – past or present. Other times she was baffled that the living didn’t understand the messages from the dead. The first twenty minutes were embarrassing.
However, there were moments of true clarity in which she genuinely seemed to be able to connect to a personalised memory that was specifically for one person to recognise. But what were these messages? A name – just a first name usually, and often with several variations to it. Some unusual names sometimes but mostly very ordinary. Then she moved on to describe the way in which this person died, usually with a whiny emotional twist that really grates on me.
Yet at some times she gave numbers of houses, descriptions of injuries, and talked about specific sayings or traits that the deceased person had. These, although not impossible to obtain by non-psychic means, were much more convincing given the number of ‘hits’ she was achieving (5%). To gather personalised evidence on five people for a show would have been tough work, but to do it twenty times was much more impressive.
I left the show feeling that, whether she was given information or was doing excellent cold reading, she nevertheless came up with some really specialised knowledge on several occasions. I was impressed enough to remain unconvinced, and not dissuaded enough to dismiss her yet. Yet, I have seen Derren Brown do the same act and he was equally as successful, and this makes me wonder a great deal about the whole psychic phenomenon when it is put onto the stage like this.
Gwas – in the middle over mediums
Hi Kal,
That is a lot more than I had ever considered. And yes you are right we should not discount the fact they are talking to the dead. They believe so, and therefore know more than I do, but the thing that makes me doubt it this.If a person is dead don’t they have something more important to pass on to their loved ones, than they noticed Aunties umbrella at the funeral or some such nonsense. No one ever says “Hey I am dead and this is what it is like” You think they would wouldn’t you. I mean I have personally had limited contact with dead family but not like a medium, kind of being shown stuff to let me see they are there. I guess that is the limit of my gift to see, but if a medium is gifted enough to talk then they would surely tell her much more?
Just butting back in on this one… I suppose we have no idea what boundaries need to be crossed in order that information can move between whatever environment some dead spirits inhabit, and that of our very dense three-dimensional world.
Let’s face it, it’s often hard enough to communicate between ourselves on this place, let alone how difficult it is to work through an intermediary from one plane to another!
But you raise the perennial question regarding such communications – Why are they so mundane?
I have asked some friends of mine who claim mediumship skills. Their response is that the discarnate entity is not in the wonderful, blissful world of the “Afterlife” when they communicate with a living person. They are within soem kind of “limbo” plane that is similar to our plane, but has differences of Time and perception (apparently things may be confusing, muddy, difficult to sharpen, unclear, muddled and in flux – very unlike our own environment which is very fixed, sharp and detailed in quality).
Somehow this has a bearing on the type of information that can be communicated successfully. For instance, consider Skype. Often you have such a bad line that what you resort to is simple, basic and mundane communications. You don’t for example embark upon a deep philosophical discussion under such conditions, if the “line” is bad.
Add to that the idea that the way in which communications come across may be in symbols and pictures, then this adds to the issue.
That may help explain such things?
That is all very possible, and much to think about. In my own case as my communications are not clear my Mother shoves things under my nose to make me aware, so I can identify with that. I suppose I fall into the trap of thinking if you are a medium you can do anything, which of course is very Hollywood, and not true they are as reliant on the channels of communication as anyone else.
Hi,
Interesting article, 5% seems low but I guess that makes it more likely to be right. I have watched Sally lots of times on TV and she amazes me. I personally think that she is genuine, but I have one question which I have often wanted to ask and you might be able to help me. I have seen lots of mediums and I always wonder whether unbeknownst to themselves even, they are reading minds from the audience, rather than the dead. The energy from people wanting to contact their lost loved ones is incredibly strong and it would answer how honest mediums always know so much. Dishonest ons don’t count lol.
Ellie
Hi Ellie,
I had the same reaction. On TV you get to see the 5% of hits every program (my rough estimate – at times she got nothing, at times she was on a roll and got quite a bit that people seemed to recognise). Then she may add in some highlights from personal readings with “celebrities” too. This makes it seem like she’s getting regular direct hits, and it seems pretty convincing when edited together. When you see her live you realise that there’s a whole heap of scrabbling around, platitudes, fooling around and re=questioning. Of course, this isn’t TV-friendly, but it makes up the vast majority of the real experience.
Like you, I think this lady really does have “something”, I just don’t know what that something is yet.
Now, is it possible she can read minds, or has an incredible sense of empathy? I don’t think so. That’s not the way she describes her experiences or her talents. She says she is being given information from discarnate entities who say they are the spirits of dead people. Then again, she also describes the input as being a thought in her head. She doesn’t describe whether it’s her own voice or something else, but that sounds very much like my own experiences with this kind of information.
It’s still something that interests me, but I’m more wary of the TV presence now that I have some idea of the level of editing required to make her show “impressive”.
Gwas.
Hi Ellie,
If I may add my two-pence worth? I think it is a fascinating question you propose. Back in the day I investigated several mediums, the most famous of which was Gordon Smith. Although those investigations didn’t reach a conclusion, I certainly had a lot more possibilities of what’s going on than mediums speaking to those passed over. Here is a, off the cuff, list:
This list is by no means exhaustive, however one can see that if one is within the bounds of the paranormal then other explanations are available.
Thanks
Kal Malik