After-Death Communications: New Cases That Bear on the Question of Survival

Abstract:

A spontaneous After-Death Communication (ADC) occurs when a bereaved person unexpectedly perceives the deceased person. This may be through the senses of sight, hearing, smell, or touch, but experients might simply feel the presence of the deceased person or have an impression of having received a contact or a communication, for example during sleep. The deceased person is perceived in a manner that is typically interpreted by experients as indicative of the continued survival of some aspect of that person.

This phenomenon is quite common among those who have suffered a bereavement, with an estimated 25-50% reporting one or more ADCs, and have been reported in different cultures and times. Despite their widespread occurrence, ADCs have been little researched and are absent from the media and public discourse. As a consequence, persons who experience an ADC usually have no frame of reference in terms of which to understand, integrate, and benefit fully from this experience, and fear that disclosure will cause them to be labelled as credulous, or even as suffering from some pathology. For many participants, involvement in a research study can be the first time they have spoken openly about such experiences; Rees reported that only 27.7% of his participants had previously discussed their exceptional experiences (EEs) with anyone, and just 14.6% had told more than one person. Although some did not share their experiences because they believed that others would be uninterested or potentially upset by them, approximately half the sample believed that they would be ridiculed, reinforcing the impression that such experiences are stigmatized. This reticence acts as a hindrance to research into the effects of anomalous experiences upon the bereavement process.

Although the vast majority of experients are convinced of the authenticity of their experience, ADCs are by nature intrinsically subjective, and therefore susceptible to explanation as a psychological response to a deep emotional need. People profoundly affected by the death of a family member or friend might imagine having experienced these perceptions, even unconsciously, as their suffering would be so intense that they would be unable to cope with life without the loved one by their side, if only for brief, hallucinatory moments. There are, however, some types of ADCs that are more resistant to explanation in such terms and are therefore more evidential with respect to the survival hypothesis.

These include contacts during which previously unknown information is perceived; contacts witnessed simultaneously by more than one person; and contacts that occur when the experient is not in bereavement, so that a psychodynamic explanation is implausible. This presentation will focus on new cases that involve previously unknown information so as to evaluate the degree to which it supports the survival hypothesis.

Data and Methodology: The research project received ethical approval from the University of Northampton and was pre-registered with the Koestler Parapsychology Unit registry. An extensive online questionnaire was constructed in three language versions (English, French, and Spanish) using the JISC online surveys platform that asked about the circumstances of occurrence, type of ADC, message conveyed, emotions and sense of reality associated with the experience, impact and implications for the grieving process, and profile of the experient and of the deceased person perceived (including cause of death).

An interesting if somewhat dry presentation. I did halt a couple of times at some broad statements or assertions such as "ADCs are by nature intrinsically subjective, and therefore susceptible to explanation as a psychological response to a deep emotional need", which even though counterbalanced by further content, seemed unnecessarily provocative as a starting point.

Another one, perhaps simply a reaction from my own personal experience was the phrasing "recovery from the loss of a loved one" which sounded like the characterisation of life experience in the language of disease or sickness. It jolted me and I shook myself a little there, I grasp the context in which it is used but isn't how I and those around me tend to describe their lives.

More usefully I did relate exactly to one of the cases shared, where someone was looking for something - in the video it was a box of negatives - and seeking an answer as to their whereabouts from the deceased. This didn't happen to me, but was reported by my mother, she got the answer as to where something was located, but still couldn't find them. Some time later I chanced on the missing items, found exactly where the telepathic message said they would be, but in a different room where my mother had not thought to look.

I guess it may depend on what he means by “intrinsically subjective”. If there are veridical elements, I suppose the experience of them is subjective  but the information would be objective wouldn’t it?

I guess it may depend on what he means by “intrinsically subjective”. If there are veridical elements, I suppose the experience of them is subjective  but the information would be objective wouldn’t it?

My thoughts were on those lines. I mean if I look at a thermometer to see what is the temperature, that is a subjective experience too. If I describe it to someone else later, they could claim it was just my imagination or something.

My feeling was he was trying to separate the cases that are *just* a feeling/dream/etc versus those where you have some external evidence like multiple witnesses, learning someone's death from the ADC, imparting some knowledge to the living, etc.

My feeling was he was trying to separate the cases that are *just* a feeling/dream/etc versus those where you have some external evidence like multiple witnesses, learning someone's death from the ADC, imparting some knowledge to the living, etc.

Yeah I wasn't meaning to be too harsh on Chris Roe, he's one of the positive drivers of research and interest in these things. I was mainly reacting to the language used - my response to business language is often even more strong. It's the human element which in this instance is much deeper than say ganzfeld or other mundane psi experiments.