It has been suggested that mediums are really psychics who get information about the people who have passed away and are conveying that, not communicating with the living person in the afterlife. We have the proof that mediums are speaking to people now living in the afterlife. The people are alive, well, and anxious to communicate to their loved ones through the medium.
People who have spoken to individuals whose bodies have died carry on dialogues through mediums, learn information they did not know was true that is verified, may receive information through several mediums that make sense only when taken together, and receive messages for them specifically even when someone else sits with the medium during the reading. The information could not have come to the medium psychically. This article explains why we know mediums communicate with people alive in the afterlife.
Psychic Readings and Medium Readings Are Clearly Different
Mediums and psychics receive information in different ways. Mediums converse with people who are personalities, alive and fully functioning. They carry on dialogues. Mediums are clearly not doing psychic readings, which are very different. Psychics receive information from a vast cosmic storehouse of information about life and people. All psychics say they’re receiving psychic information, not communications from the deceased, and all mediums say they’re getting information from living people on the other side, not simply psychic information.
You would expect that some psychics would feel confusion or doubt about the source of their information, and some mediums would similarly express doubt about whether they are communicating with real people alive in the life after this life. But neither the psychics nor the mediums have any doubt about their different sources of information.
People Validate that the Information and Characteristics Are from Their Loved One
Most importantly, relatives of the deceased attest to the fact that they have been speaking with their deceased loved ones. The following statement was made by Professor James Hyslop, Columbia University, after speaking with his deceased relatives through medium Leonora Piper:
I have been talking with my (dead) father, my brother, my uncles. . . . Whatever supernormal powers we may be pleased to attribute to (the medium) Mrs. Piper’s secondary personalities, it would be difficult to make me believe that these secondary personalities could have thus completely reconstituted the mental personality of my dead relatives.
People come repeatedly to the mediums to communicate with their loved ones for years because they are certain the person coming through in the readings has all the personal characteristics of their loved one. That is even truer when the person hears the voice of their loved one in the afterlife telling them about intimate details about the person’s behavior currently. The medium would have no knowledge of the life of the person receiving the medium. A Google search couldn’t turn up a fact from the person’s life the before.
A professor from Birmingham University in the UK named Dr. Dinshaw Nanji traveled from Sweden twice a year to sit with direct-voice medium Leslie Flint to have casual conversations with his wife, Annie, who had transitioned years before. This is an example. Annie says she is with him constantly. She even describes pictures he has put over his bed. Only Flint and Dr. Nanji are physically in the room. Annie speaks from the afterlife.
Mediums Have Been Given Messages that Only Make Sense When Taken Together
More objective proof that the mediums are speaking to living people in the life after this life comes from research called “cross correspondence.” In cross correspondence, a series of messages is given by someone in the life after this life to different mediums in various parts of the world. Individually, the messages are not meaningful, but together they have a clear message. That means a single medium couldn’t be receiving psychic information. Instead, the person living in the life after this life has carefully planned to give the messages to a number of mediums.
The Myers Cross-Correspondence is the best-known example of such a study. Frederick W. H. Myers was a Cambridge classics scholar and writer in the nineteenth century who was one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research. He originated the concept of cross correspondence.
After Myers transitioned from earth in 1901, over a dozen mediums in different countries began receiving incomplete scripts through automatic writing that were all signed by Myers. The scripts were all about obscure classical subjects that would have been known to Myers, a classics scholar. When all the scripts were assembled like piecing together a jig-saw puzzle, they formed a complete message. Myers, living in the life after this life and communicating through the mediums, had planned and executed the writings so they proved no single medium was receiving psychic knowledge rather than communication from a deceased person.
Later, two other leaders of the Society for Psychical Research transitioned into spirit: Henry Sidgwick and Edmund Gurney. Soon after each of their transitions, fragments of messages came to mediums around the world from them; the Myers “study” was replicated successfully. Over the next 30 years more than 3,000 such scripts were transmitted to mediums around the world, some as long as 40 typed pages. They now fill 24 volumes of 12,000 pages. As investigators involved in the research transitioned, they joined the study on the other side by communicating incomplete messages through a number of mediums around the world that formed complete wholes when brought together.
Hundreds of other accounts of such cross correspondence are recorded in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research.
Mediums Give Accurate Readings When They Don't Even Know Who Is Receiving the Reading
Other evidence that the contact in medium readings and séances is with the actual, living person on the next plane of life comes from “proxy sittings.” In a proxy sitting, someone comes to the medium reading or séance to have a reading for someone else. The proxy sitter knows only the name of the person in spirit and the name of the individual wanting to have contact with the person. That decreases the likelihood that the medium is simply doing a psychic reading of the person without really receiving communication from the loved one speaking from the next plane of life.
The Reverend Charles Drayton Thomas, a Methodist minister, repeatedly acted as a proxy sitter investigating the mediumship of Gladys Osborne Leonard for the Society for Psychical Research. For example, from 1936 to 1937 Thomas went to four sittings with Leonard as a representative for a woman about whom he knew only her name, Emma Lewis, and that she wanted to contact her father, Frederick William Macaulay. With those two pieces of information, Leonard provided seventy items of information, which Thomas recorded and conveyed to Emma Lewis. She confirmed, beyond a doubt, that they came from her father because of the unique content only he would have known.
In another example, Professor Eric R. Dodds, a Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University and president of the Society for Psychical Research, supervised a series of proxy sittings with medium Nea Walker. He concluded, “The hypothesis of fraud, rational inference from disclosed facts, telepathy from the actual sitter, and co-incidence cannot either singly or in combination account for the results obtained.”
Victor Zammit, A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife (Sydney, Aus.: Ganmell Pty. Ltd., 2006), 69.
E. R. Dodds, “Presidential Address,” Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, London, 1962.