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.

An After-Death Communication (ADC) occurs when a deceased person is unexpectedly perceived through the senses of sight, hearing, smell, or touch. Very commonly, experients simply “feel the presence” of the deceased person or have a subjective impression of having received a contact or a communication, for example during sleep. ADCs occur frequently, with an estimated 25-50% of the bereaved having experienced one or more spontaneous ADCs. Testimonies collected in different countries suggest that this phenomenon is universal and timeless. Other forms of ADCs include sought experiences, such as visiting a spirit medium with the intention of receiving messages, allegedly from deceased loved ones.

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 (experients) usually have no frame of reference through which to understand, integrate and benefit fully from this experience which doesn’t match mainstream conceptions of reality. Whatever the ontological status of ADCs might be, they are perceived as real by a great number of persons and therefore certainly deserve their place on the consciousness research agenda.

Such experiences, when engaged with and understood, can be beneficial for the bereaved person in helping them come to terms with their loss. For example, Drewry (2003) interviewed seven participants who had collectively reported around 40 instances of post-death experiences and alleged communication with the dead. Eight themes to their experiences were found, including that participants initially believed themselves to be delusional before deciding that the experience was genuine, with cues in the experiences that confirmed for them that the encounter was with their deceased friend or relative. After the experience, the experients reported relief, comfort, encouragement, forgiveness, love, joy, and most notably hope. They were found to have reframed their views of the world since their experiences; this included the values by which they chose to live their life and their views on religion and life after death. Participants also felt a continued bond with the deceased, which was helpful when it came to coping with their loss. Experiences were considered beneficial, even if they were initially frightening.

The adaptive grief outcomes of post-death experiences were investigated by Parker (2004). Twelve people were interviewed who had been bereaved within the preceding year, of whom eleven experienced positive changes such as personal and/or spiritual growth. Parker concluded that the experiences were not due to any form of psychopathology, but served ‘needs’ of the bereavement process, especially when the experiences were regarded as veridical in nature. It is evident, then, that anomalous experiences can occur as a natural part of the bereavement process, and can be beneficial for coping and recovery. Whatever the ontological status of such experiences, they have been found to allow the bereaved to assume a continued bond with the deceased that can be a medium for closure or resolution. With this in mind, we would argue that there is a need for greater recognition of their occurrence by therapists and acknowledgement of their potential for healing as part of the therapeutic process.

Whatever the ontological status of such experiences, they have been found to allow the bereaved to assume a continued bond with the deceased that can be a medium for closure or resolution. With this in mind, we would argue that there is a need for greater recognition of their occurrence by therapists and acknowledgement of their potential for healing as part of the therapeutic process.

That's a kind of sales-pitch, trying to promote the topic in the context of its potential therapeutic benefit. As such, it feels a little bit like downplaying the meaning and significance and putting it in a category alongside other therapeutic tools.

It's not wrong or misguided in itself. Just that in my experience ADC can serve different purposes on different occasions. 'Closure or resolution' is only one of them and maybe not the most important. Another role is the counterpart to closure, an opening, an enrichment and expansion of horizons. Awareness of other aspects of reality apart from the mundane physical one can lead to an altered sense of purpose and meaning. This can take place without actually participating in any 'closure', it's a separate thing.

My impression of this study is that it concentrates on the therapeutic benefits of ADCs while hinting that in their etiology the experiences could be due to subconscious hallucination mechanisms fuelled by inner needs. And carefully tiptoeing around any implications of the possibility that the experiences are actually paranormal glimpses of a postmortem existence, which latter idea is still taboo in physicalist establishment science. As such, the study is of little interest to me, other than to establish some more data on for instance the prevalence of these experiences in the population.

I think it is interesting that I posted a thread a while ago on a related case I had direct contact with since it was in my extended family (at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-a...al-service), involving the apparent visitations of a recently deceased relative whose memorial service I attended. These experiences have been mainly of a playful or amusing trick nature implying something of the motivations and attitudes of the apparent deceased spirit. The family generally accept these manifestations (and they continue occasionally today from time to time) as typical of his normal witty personality, playful interferences or interventions to remind them that he is still around and looking after them until no longer necessary, and for them not to worry. Needless to say, there are no scientists or engineers or (God forbid) academics in the family who would most likely be dedicated materialists and scoff at all this.