Leslie Kean's new Netflix documentary

Maybe but for me the biggest thing is tha t the mediums all sounded like they were using cold reading. they kept asking "so does that mean anything to you?" and similar, as well as not providing all that specific of information and generally the sitters filled in the rest. Quite frankly if they can do what they believe they can do they shouldn't need so much confirmation. and yes as much as someone could argue that's just my preconcieved notion of mediumship I far more consider it the expectation of standard of quality that one should reach before thinking of themselves as a medium.

So when you combine such low quality mediumship, a bunch of excuses on their part that "oh we just have to deal with the fact that people won't believe what we do" and then saying that all the alleged ectoplasm all must be in total darkness AND that its actually produced by the spirits the medium supposedly is hearing for normal mediumship it makes all of it look like garbage.

Even though I have zero problems believing in ectoplsm both because of my own experimentation and that of others, for someone who's not done that or experienced anything like it themselves those things combined makes it too much to believe in.

Of note, there's two interviews with Stuart Alexander on New Thinking Allowed, so you can at the very least hear his take on his own seances in his own words, and personally he sounds totally genuine and better than the other featured mediums.

I have not yet seen the series or specifically the mediumship episode, but I think that if your impressions are correct Keane made a fundamental error in choosing to present current mental mediums' performance as representative of mediumship in general in presenting the case for its validity in the pantheon of paranormal phenomena. She probably should have concentrated on the outstanding mediums of the heyday of Spiritualism, that were very extensively tested over years by initially very skeptical investigators. Like Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard. Their performance is impossible to plausibly explain away as cold reading and the like. This level of mediumship has been extremely rare historically. Either the show should have done it that way or not at all.

I have not yet seen the series or specifically the mediumship episode, but I think that if your impressions are correct Keane made a fundamental error in choosing to present current mental mediums' performance as representative of mediumship in general in presenting the case for its validity in the pantheon of paranormal phenomena. She probably should have concentrated on the outstanding mediums of the heyday of Spiritualism, that were very extensively tested over years by initially very skeptical investigators. Like Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard. Their performance is impossible to plausibly explain away as cold reading and the like. This level of mediumship has been extremely rare historically. Either the show should have done it that way or not at all.

Just to point out, the series (although it is associated with her book) was not produced by Leslie Kean and she wasn't in control
of it in any way. I agree with you about Piper and Leonard etc.

I have not yet seen the series or specifically the mediumship episode, but I think that if your impressions are correct Keane made a fundamental error in choosing to present current mental mediums' performance as representative of mediumship in general in presenting the case for its validity in the pantheon of paranormal phenomena. She probably should have concentrated on the outstanding mediums of the heyday of Spiritualism, that were very extensively tested over years by initially very skeptical investigators. Like Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard. Their performance is impossible to plausibly explain away as cold reading and the like. This level of mediumship has been extremely rare historically. Either the show should have done it that way or not at all.

100% agree.

I have not yet seen the series or specifically the mediumship episode, but I think that if your impressions are correct Keane made a fundamental error in choosing to present current mental mediums' performance as representative of mediumship in general in presenting the case for its validity in the pantheon of paranormal phenomena. She probably should have concentrated on the outstanding mediums of the heyday of Spiritualism, that were very extensively tested over years by initially very skeptical investigators. Like Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard. Their performance is impossible to plausibly explain away as cold reading and the like. This level of mediumship has been extremely rare historically. Either the show should have done it that way or not at all.

It's ironic because the series literally shows shots from the SPR (IIRC) of books about historical mediums, including one on Piper, making you think they'll focus on them. But they don't!

I have not yet seen the series or specifically the mediumship episode, but I think that if your impressions are correct Keane made a fundamental error in choosing to present current mental mediums' performance as representative of mediumship in general in presenting the case for its validity in the pantheon of paranormal phenomena. She probably should have concentrated on the outstanding mediums of the heyday of Spiritualism, that were very extensively tested over years by initially very skeptical investigators. Like Leonora Piper and Gladys Osborne Leonard. Their performance is impossible to plausibly explain away as cold reading and the like. This level of mediumship has been extremely rare historically. Either the show should have done it that way or not at all.

While we are second guessing Netflix, I think that they should build on the success of this series (which seems to have been quite popular despite the skeptics) and produce a follow-up about those original superstar mediums. Maybe they could include the efforts of debunkers like Harry Houdini and other debunkers turned believers and why they eventually became convinced. There is an untapped wealth of interesting material there.

Now, who do I call at Netflix to get this done?

Could you expand on this remark? I kind of interpret this as saying that science disproves notions of a soul and some sort of interactional dualism (?). What are these ideas or concepts or theories that science disproves?

Yeah, I'd say if anything you have pop science sites giving off a sense that there can be a soul in theory via the Simulation Hypothesis or stuff like this ->

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

=-=-=

Birds Have a Mysterious 'Quantum Sense'. For The First Time, Scientists Saw It in Action

While we are second guessing Netflix, I think that they should build on the success of this series (which seems to have been quite popular despite the skeptics) and produce a follow-up about those original superstar mediums. Maybe they could include the efforts of debunkers like Harry Houdini and other debunkers turned believers and why they eventually became convinced. There is an untapped wealth of interesting material there.

Now, who do I call at Netflix to get this done?

I agree, I'm amazed that something like this even got made, and I'm constantly amazed at the progress parapsychology is making into mainstream consciousness. I honestly never thought this would happen. When I had the paranormal force its way into my life in 2008 and I had to throw myself into it after awhile with the attitude that I had to do all this on my own I never thought that there'd be an entire community of practitioners that would spring up all trying to figure out how to make this stuff work for real. Let alone that the science that I started to learn existed around 2015 or so would begin to be seen as normal and accepted.

At this point, even though my confidence is wavering for my own ability to regain my own magic, I'm pretty much certain that someone else will develop it within 25 years or so if things continue this way and after that first generation magic will be a real thing and the world will fundamentally change to more of a degree than what happened with the internet. This really needs to be pushed for all its worth in my opinion.

SPOILER ALERT!

OK, so I have watched the first three episodes. The first was encouraging - a couple of new (to me) NDE stories there. The next two - about mediumship - were a hard watch. In fact I had to look away sometimes and, for the part that dealt with the physical medium strapped to the chair, I just had to fast-forward. 

Also, I found that the people in the Dutch retreat were typical of those I have met in my life - the "need to believe" set, as I think of them. Then there was the mother of the guy who has been trying to contact his dad (her late husband). She was so desperate that she was basically telling the medium what to say. 

I read Leslie Kean's book that this series was based on and I believe that she is a genuinely interested and open-minded investigator but she was not approaching the subject as a sceptic might. She was looking at the experiences more as how they could affect and, perhaps, help those involved. So she was not as critical as I would have been - especially with physical mediumship. Still, I'll be interested to follow the other episodes.

To update my previous post: I have now watched all of the episodes and I'd say that the first and the last were probably the pick. I did not enjoy the "school for mediums" (the Dutch retreat), however.

I watched the series with a view to whether or not to recommend it to my atheist/materialist son. So far I have been reluctant to do so because there is not the balance that he would demand: no sceptical refutations in other words. So he would not be convinced or even curious because he will see it as fodder for the believers. Perhaps I could sit with him through just the James Leininger segment - maybe.