Scientific Investigation and Religious Uncertainty -- 1880-1900

 by Prof. Carl Edwin Lindgren

Part 2 -- Part 3 

The Victorian age was a period of religious uncertainty . . . . Victorians themselves were fully aware that the place of religion in the cultural fabric of their times was scarcely secure. In an effort to counter that insecurity, to calm their fears, and to seek answers where contemporary churches were ambiguous, thousands of British men and women in the Victorian and Edwardian eras turned to spiritualism and  psychical research (Oppenheim 1985, 1). 

    It was in this age of uncertainty that the Society for Psychical Research began their investigation of mental and physical mediumship. The search for understanding and answers would span the next 125 years. Three years later a similar society was established in America (American Society for Psychical Research). Through the diligent works of these two groups, the concept of psychical phenomena was researched.

 In 1885, the year of the founding of the A.S.P.R., Professor William James discovered the Boston medium Leonore E. Piper. James' preoccupation with Mrs. Piper continued until his death in 1910 (Murphy and Ballou 1960). Mrs. Piper became one of the greatest American mental mediums. James, although at first skeptical, became thoroughly convinced of her abilities. She was later studied by Dr. Richard Hodgson (Secretary of the A.S.P.R.) who in previous investigations of psychical occurrences had been skeptical and rigid.  Hodgson, too, conceded that Mrs. Piper's talents were in many cases genuine. Over the next 20 years, Mrs. Piper was further investigated both in America and England. According to Myers: 

On the whole, I believe that all observers, both in America and in England, who have seen enough of Mrs. Piper . . . to be able to form a judgement, will agree . . . that many of the facts given could  not have been learnt even by a skilled detective; . . . [and] that her conduct has never given any ground whatever for supporting her capable of fraud or trickery. (Lodge 1909, 189-90) 

Podmore suggested the phenomena produced by Mrs. Piper could be better explained as thought- transference or telepathy. Using this hypothesis (super psi) Piper was reading the minds of her clients and setting up her "presentation" accordingly. Mrs. Piper was not alone in receiving such attention. During these decades, many other mental and physical mediums would also come under microscopic scrutiny. 

The Investigations of Eglinton and Blavatsky

By the mid-1880s William Eglinton was widely considered to be the most famous living medium. His slate-writing abilities had been demonstrated both in the U.S. and in Europe. "In dimly lit rooms, apports appeared from nowhere, solid phantoms moved about, Eglinton was levitated to the ceiling" (Nicol 1972, 357). Working, then, mainly in day light, Eglinton's accomplishments in slate-writing were exceptional. An extensive account of Eglinton's sittings can be found in the June 1886 issue of the Journal of the Society for Research. The 52 page research article,  written by Mrs. Henry Sidgwick concluded, "'For myself I have now no hesitation in attributing the performances to clever conjuring'" (Nicol 1972, 357). Shortly after this damaging report, Eglinton retired to private life.

Another incident that stirred much commotion in psychical research was the Madame Blavatsky affair. ^[1] Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, a noted theosophy leader (co-founder with Colonel H.S. Olcott of the Theosophical Society), had during the 1870s and 1880s, professed many marvels which she stated was presented to her (as a disciple or Chela) by "certain Eastern Teachers said to belong to an Occult Brotherhood living in the trans- Himalayan fastnesses of Tibet" (Barker 1948, xiii).

     These teachers or leaders were referred to by Madame Blavatsky as "the Masters of Wisdom," "The Mahatmas," or "The Brothers" (Barker 1948, xiii). Starting in 1880 and extending through 1884, A. P. Sinnett entered, with Madame Blavatsky's assistance, into a series of correspondence with several of these teachers (Koot Hoomi and Morya). According to Blavatsky, these Mahatmas (sometimes referred to as Adepts) possessed the ability to produce apparitions or "astral forms" of themselves which could travel over large distances and through solid objects. The Adepts were also gifted with the supernatural ability of "'precipitation' of handwriting and drawing on previously blank paper" (Committee 1885, 203). In considering these phenomena, the S.P.R. stated they had extreme difficulty in distinguishing the psychical phenomena provided by the Theosophists (i.e., "astral form") from that produced by Spiritualists through medium assistance (Committee 1885, 202).

     In Letter XLIX, (of The MAHATMA LETTERS) the Master Koot Hoomi, however expresses a profound dislike for the trend of some groups toward the Spiritualism movement. Master K.H. refers to this movement as "that most insane and fatal of superstitions. . ." (Barker 1948, xv). Although "The Masters" and Theosophy adhere to the general premise that communication between living and dead is feasible, they disavow any possibility of mediums contacting the spirit or souls of the dead. According to "The Masters": 

At death, consciousness . . . soul and spirit and all that makes man human . . . withdraws into an unconscious gestation period. . . . It leaves behind it, the physical corpse, the etheric counter­part or double and lastly the emotional and mental shell which is the correspondence in subtler matter of the  physical body . . . It must be understood clearly however, that each of these empty shells has a certain illusory awareness or consciousness of its own, which is the collective consciousness of the aggregation of atoms and molecules of which they are composed, and quite distinct from the consciousness of the individual, or real entity, which informed them in life. The physical body has a similar consciousness which is purely animal and instinctive in nature. At death the consciousness of even the shell leaves it for a time, and does not return to it until the withdrawal of . . . [soul, spirit, etc.] is complete. . . . It is these disintegrating corpses which can be temporarily galvanized into action by the efforts of a medium  . . . (Barker 1948, xv-xvi)

A Committee was formed by the Society for Psychical Research to investigate the marvels expounded by the Theosophists (especially Blavatsky). This Committee, consisting of Edmund Gurney, Richard Hodgson, F.W.H. Myers, Frank Podmore, Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick and Herbert Stack, began a thorough examination of these phenomena in 1884.The Committee had already performed preliminary examinations on Madame Blavatsky, Col. Olcott, and Mr. Mohini M. Chatterji of Calcutta who had accompanied them for a brief stay in England (summer 1884). Mr. Sinnett also appeared before the Committee to provide evidence and support. After these meetings, the Committee issued a preliminary statement: 

On the whole (though with some serious reserves) it seems undeniable that there is a prima facie case, for some part, at least, of the claim made, which, at the point which the investiga­tions of the Society for Psychical Research have now reached, cannot, with consistency be ignored. And it seems plain that an actual residence for some months in India [the Society's home since 1878] of some trusted observer ‑‑ his actual intercourse with the persons concerned, Hindu and European, so far as may be permitted to him -- is an almost necessary pre‑requisite of any more definite judgement. (Committee 1885, 203) 

In 1885 the Committee sent Richard Hodgson to India to investigate the various phenomena. Hodgson returned to London reporting that Blavatsky's claims were fraudulent.  According to the Committee's findings:  

For our part, we regard her [Blavatsky] neither as the mouth­piece of hidden seers, nor as a mere vulgar adventuress; we think that she has achieved a title to permanent remembrance as one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting impostors in history" (Committee 1885, 207; Harrison 1986, 287).

     The "Report" and decision of the Committee were based, in part, on Hodgson's information about the Shrine in the Occult Room at Theosophical Headquarters (Adyar). The Shrine, according to Hodgson (1893, 133) was a cupboard in the Occult Room, adjoined to Blavatsky's bedroom. It was in this cabinet that letters appeared by "supernatural" means (i.e., sent by Koot Hoomi or Morya). Hodgson's report (1885) presented evidence that, in fact, the letters were placed there "surreptitiously through a sliding panel at the back to which there was access through Madame Blavatsky's bedroom" (Hodgson 1893, 133; also note Committee 1885, 204). Hodgson was also concerned about the authorship of the Koot Hoomi documents (which he believed were primarily written by Blavatsky); misleading statements made by Blavatsky; the Blavatsky-Coulomb Letters and other incidents including: "the pink note in the tree," "the sealed letter," "the brooch," "the cigarette phenomena," etc. (Committee 1885; Hodgson 1893, 147-53).

     Shortly before Hodgson's visit to India, the Madras Church College Magazine (Madras, India) published a series of letters in their September and October 1884 issues which were claimed to have been written by Madame Blavatsky to M. and Madame Coulomb. Most research historians are familiar with the incident of Madame Coulomb's chance meeting with Blavatsky in Egypt (1871). Later, pennyless and destitute, the Coulombs visited Bombay in an attempt to retain Blavatsky's assistance. Although all the details are not apparent, she provided them financial support, and lodging for the next four years (1884). In the spring of 1884, the Coulomb's were, in the absence of Blavatsky, expelled from the Society's property due to "gross misconduct" (Harrison 1986, 287).

     The aforementioned letters implicated Blavatsky in a fraudulent conspiracy to manufacture supernatural  phenomena. Hodgson, after visiting the Theosophical Society in India and examining some of the documents made available to him by the editor of the Madras Christian College Magazine, forwarded the letters to England where they were studied by Mr. Richard Sims of the British Museum and noted  hand­writing expert Mr. F.G. Netherclift. Although denied by Blavatsky, Netherclift, Hodgson, and the Committee stated that the letters were "undoubtedly written by Madame Blavatsky; and suffice to prove that she has been engaged in a long-continued combination with other persons to produce by ordinary means a series of apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophy movement" (Committee 1885, 204).

In a March 1891 issue of Time, Mrs. Annie Besant presented an opinion in favor of the Theosophical Society and Madame Blavatsky in which she accused Hodgson of 1) "English ignorance of Hindu thought," 2) lack of honesty,  3) and extreme prejudice against the Society (Hodgson, 1893). Many similar criticisms were also made by Sinnett in a June 1891 issue of Review of Reviews (p. 556) regarding Hodgson's conduct and ignorance of Indian ways.^[2]

In 1929, Corson (1929, 71) reiterated this position, stating that Hodgson's "contributions to psychical research would make a very thin volume, and that he has really added nothing to our knowledge of the subject. Such minds are not productive or creative."

In an attempt to strengthen his and the S.P.R.'s position, Dr. Hodgson (1893) wrote "The Defence of the Theosophists." In this article he endeavored to present a clear and concise presentation of his "Report" of 1885.

     Agreeing with Hodgson, the noted American sociologist Dr. J.H. Bruening^[3] (date unknown) states: 

There is considerable doubt if all these letters were actually written by Koot Hoomi. It appears that they [the letters] were either written by H.P.B. or Damodar. With this in mind then, they reflect Blavatsky's thinking and opinions and not necessarily direct communications with the Masters of Thibet, if any such exists. [Note  S.P.R. Proceedings, Part xxiv, vol ix, June 1893, pp. 129-159.] 

 

One could say however, that the data in the letters IF FORGED BY H.P.B. could have been placed in her brain by the Masters but why bother to get information out by such a devious route? . . .

 

Hodgson's opinions are also in doubt due to the obvious lies propounded by the Coulombs about H.P.B. and everything else they talked about. [Also note "The Return of the Magi," Maurice Magre, trans. from French by R. Merton, Philip Allen, London, 1931, p.p.  249-75). ]     

[In retrospect] Theosophy's major weakness was an over dependence on phenomena and a lack of demands that the followers live in strict adherence to spiritual philosophy. When H.P.B. died, the phenomena ceased, a curtain fell  . . . because of a lack of a unified philosophy.

     For over 120 years the Committee's "Report" has stood as one of the Society's most celebrated publications. Hodgson too, has been considered as one of the most thorough  researchers in psychical phenomena. In 1986, however, Vernon Harrison, a past president of the Royal Photographic Society presented evidence to repudiate Hodgson's research. According to Harrison (1986, 287) the "Report" 

is a highly partisan document forfeiting all claim to scientific impartiality. It is the address of a Counsel for the Prosecution who does not hesitate to select evidence to suit his case, ignoring and suppressing everything that tends to contradict his thesis.  

In his article, Harrison (1986, 288-90) presented evidence that 1) the Blavatsky-Coulomb Letters were in most probability a forgery; 2) that the Mahatma Letters in the case of Koot Hoomi (signed K.H.) may not have always been scripted by K.H. -- instead of being forged by Blavatsky they could have been written by a pupil, dictated by K.H.; and 3) that Hodgson's research was at times sloppy ((e.g., plates (1885) -- a copy of a copy, not photographing in Madras of vital materials, and poor documentation)).

     In his closing remarks, Harrison (1986) stated that Hodgson was extremely biased in his opinion toward H.P.B. and was willing to use any and all damaging data against her while ignoring and excluding any evidence supporting her claims. "His report is riddled with slanted statements, conjecture advanced as fact or probable fact, uncorroborated testimony of unnamed witnesses, selection of evidence and downright falsity" (Harrison 1986, 309).

      This controversial investigation, taking place over 120 years ago, is still far from being resolved. Although rather unlikely, the future may provide answers to untangle this still heated dispute. 

The Eusapia Palladino Experiments 

     No study of early mediumship would be complete without discussing one of Europe's most outstanding physical mediums -- Eusapia Palladino. Palladino, born in 1854 to peasant parents was orphaned at 12 and forced to work as a laundress. During this period, she dabbled in Spiritualism. Her ability to produce spiritual phenomena was so remarkable that she was selected by Ercole Chiaja to demonstrate her abilities in Paris. Convinced of her ability, Cesare Lombroso, a noted Italian psychiatrist, presented her before a scientific committee in Milan (Pleasants 1964, 240). According to Carrington, the Milan Commission (1892) in a series of scientific experiments determined that Eusapia produced several physical manifestations (i.e., trance state, table levitation, etc.) including weight loss, a change in heart rate, and the ability "to depress the dynamometer^[4]  to 42 Kg., whereas she was never able to reach more than 36 Kg. in the normal state" (Carrington 1975, 102).

     Most of Palladino's seances, which were carried out in dimly lit or dark surroundings, included many physical manifestations such as levitation of tables and chairs and other objects, rapping and mysterious lights. Some of these seances, conducted in Milan, however, were in full light. This lighting arrangement, made it extremely difficult to objectively investigate her paranormal claims. In these experiments tables were levitated while, according to Professor Charles Richet:

Eusapia, seated at one end of the table gave her right hand to one of the investigators, and her left to another.  . . . The other persons stood more or less aloof, so that the two table legs at the end farthest from Eusapia could be seen, and the two at her end of the table, and between which she had placed her legs, knees and feet, were visible all, or almost all, the time. (Podmore 1893, 219) 

Although the Committee expressed confidence that the mediumship of Eusapia could not have been created by trickery, Richet was more reserved in his praise. He stated that  

[a]bsurd and unsatisfactory though they were, it seems to me very difficult to attribute the phenomena produced to deception, conscious or unconscious   . . . Nevertheless conclusive and indisputable proof that there was no fraud . . . is wanting: --  we must, therefore, renew our efforts to obtain such proof. (Podmore, 1893, 224-225)        

Attention should also be drawn to Podmore's comments in his review of several articles on the Committee's investigation. According to Podmore (1893), several issues were of concern to the researchers. They included: 1) the necessity, in many cases, for near total darkness; 2) movement of the medium's dress during the table and balance segments of the seance; 3) the medium's refusal to accept any stringent experimental procedures which would have lessened the probability of fraud; and 4) the lack of physical phenomena when specific safeguards were imposed and accepted. As Richet stated, "'The results degenerated as the conditions were made more stringent'" (Podmore 1893, 224).

     The more Eusapia demonstrated her abilities throughout Europe, the greater her following became and the more she was scrutinized by scientific investigators. Researchers such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, and Albert von Schrench-Notzing were impressed by her abilities. In Cambridge, additional sittings were arranged by Myers and Richard Hodgson. Hodgson's impression, however, was one of skepticism and distrust (Pleasant 1964). The Sidgwicks had also begun to conclude that Eusapia's powers were fraudulent. With Hodgson's help a test was devised which would have eliminated the suspected fraudulent method.  Eusapia, however, refused (as she had in Milan) to participate in any medium phenomena which included stringent controls (Broad 1953). In 1908, the S.P.R. appointed W.W. Baggally, Hereward Carrington, and Everard Feilding to conduct additional research on Eusapia. After a thorough examination, the research team reported that although at times Eusapia cheated, generally, her abilities were factual. Carrington, impressed and willing to learn more of her abilities, brought Eusapia to Columbia University for further testing. During one series of seances, in 1910, Professor Robert W. Wood (Columbia University) conducted the following experiment: 

. . . a huge X-ray tube [was installed] on one side of the seance cabinet, placing a large screen on the other, which could be watched by an investigator seated in the room which this screen was placed. His theory was that, by passing X-rays through the cabinet, shadows of any solid object within it would be thrown upon the screen, where they could be seen by the observer . . . (Carrington 1975, 84).

In 1913, a lecturer at the Brooklyn Philosophical Association stated that study and research in the field of Spiritualism has proven that such a phenomena may exist, to provide sufficient evidence and a scientific theory may take at least two hundred years (Christopher, 1979, 48). As with Crookes, many scientists and magicians questioned Dr. Carrington's ability and integrity. Eusapia's medium abilities too remained, until her death in 1918, controversial. A controversy which continued after her death, when she was "brought-forth" in Carrington's presence by the medium Nino Pecorara.^[5]  

Telepathy and Psychical Phenomena

     With the death of Gurney (d. 1888), Sidgwick (d. 1900), Myers (d. 1901), Podmore (d. 1910), and James (d. 1910) much of the extensive investigation of mediums, Spiritualism, and slate writing lessened. A few brave scientists, philosophers and academicians including: Hamlin Garland, Sir Oliver Lodge, Hereward Carrington, J.H. Hyslop, Walter F. Prince, John Edgar Coover, Christian Winther, Julian Ochorowicz and others continued the investigation of mediums well into the 20th century. In general, however, emphasis was shifting away from observational investigation of mediumship to a more scientific and laboratory controlled environment. Research, filled with mean chance expectancies (MCE), statistical analysis and random card guessing were to become the norm. Telepathy had by this period been accepted as an alternative hypothesis to Spiritualism. In 1917, this hypothesis received extensive examination by John E. Coover of Stanford University. Using a 40-card deck of cards, Coover conducted over 10,000 trials. Although obtaining significant data, the hostile climate relating to psi investigation prevented release of many of his findings until much later. Leonard T. Troland, at Harvard, using the first "ESP machine" (selected target and recorded response), investigated telepathic transmissions and envisioned the significance of negative scoring or scoring below MCE. Other researchers, such as H.I.F.W. Brugmans (University of Groningen) and George H. Estabrooks (Harvard) performed experimentation that was of considerable importance to psi scientific investigation. By the 1920s, clairvoyance was introduced as yet another plausible alternative to post-mortem survival. Clairvoyance soon became a counter-hypothesis that competed with telepathy -- a hypothesis that remained for many years difficult to separate from telepathic experimentation.

Still, however, the haunting words of noted mystifier, Joseph Dunninger (1935, v-vi), remained: 

I have been inside the medium's cabinet. It is a place  unhaunted. It serves only as a covering for trickery and fraud. . . . There are natural laws that still remain for science to discover. There is the soul of life, itself, to which religion alone can supply the needs of man. But neither science nor religion belongs within the medium's cabinet.

  Bibliography

 

Barker, A.T. (trans. and comp.). 1923 rev. 1948. The Mahatma Letters: To A. P. Sinnett from the Mahatmas M. & K. H.        New York: Rider and Company.                               

Broad, C.D. 1953. Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.

Carrington, H. 1975. Laboratory Investigations into Psychic Phenomena. New York: Arno Press. Reprint of 1939       Philadelphia: The David McKay Company.

Committee of the S.P.R. 1885. Report of the Committee Appointed to Investigate Phenomena connected with the       Theosophical Society. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, III, part ix: 201‑400.

Corson, Eugene R. 1929. Some Unpublished Letters of Helena Petrovna Blavasky. London: Rider & Co.

Dunninger, J. 1935. Inside the Medium's Cabinet. New York: David Kemp and Company.

Feilding, Everard. 1963. Settings with Eusapia Palladino. New York: University Books.

Harrison, V. 1986. J' Accuse: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 53, 803: 286‑310.

Hodgson, R. 1893. The Defence of the Theosophists. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, IX, part xxiv:       129-59.

Lodge, O. 1909. The Survival of Man: A Study in Unrecognised Human Faculty. London: Methuen & Co.

Murphy, G. & R.O. Ballou, comps. & eds. 1960. William James on Psychical Research. New York: The Viking Press.

Nicol, J.F. 1972. The Founders of the S.P.R. Proceedings of  the Society for Psychical Research, 55, 205: 341‑67.

Oppenheim, J. 1985. The Other World: Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850‑1914. Cambridge:       Cambridge University Press.