Psi in Practice: Observation Talk | October 23, 2026 | Online at Airmeet Observing What Shouldn’t Be There: Cooperative Inquiry with the Agents of a Non-Mediumistic Apport Case Ramsés D’LeónUnidad Parapsicológica de Investigación, Difusión y Enseñanza (UPIDE) Parapsychology is a field where the most striking phenomena tend to refuse two things at once. They refuse to happen on schedule, and they refuse to happen in laboratories. Apports, the apparent spontaneous appearance of physical objects without a conventional cause, are a textbook example. They have historically been documented around mediums in séance rooms, where the observer chooses the setting. But what happens when the phenomenon chooses you? This lecture is built around a case my colleagues Alfredo Silva, Alex Álvarez and I published in 2025 in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (D’León et al., 2025): a recurrent apport phenomenon, mostly involving coins, that has been following a non-mediumistic couple, whom we call HM and LS, through four houses on the outskirts of Mexico City since 2018. Between June 2021 and July 2022 alone, we documented 42 events. Two of them were captured on high-definition surveillance video in real time, with the sound of a coin landing 1.5 to 1.7 seconds before anything entered the camera frame. I want to use this case as an excuse to talk about something more general. What does it actually mean to observe phenomena that are uninvited, recurrent, intimate, and lived by people who are not laboratory subjects but co-experiencers of their own life? Three Problems of Observation The first problem is temporal. Apports do not arrive by appointment. Our six cameras ran continuously for thirteen months. Most of the time, nothing happened. The second problem is spatial. HM and LS reported that 40% of events occurred in their main bedroom. Three months into the study, in September 2021, we agreed with them to switch that camera off. Privacy mattered more than data. We knowingly threw away the most productive observation window of the entire study. I will discuss why that decision was both correct and methodologically painful. The third problem is epistemic. Who is doing the observing? In a classical experiment, the answer is the experimenter, with the subject as the observed. In our case, it could not work like that. HM and LS were not subjects in front of us. They were the ground on which the phenomenon was happening. They knew their house, their patterns, their bodies, their history. They had been the only witnesses for years, and anything we recorded that they could not contextualize was almost meaningless. So we did not treat them as subjects. We treated them as co-investigators. Cooperative Inquiry as an Observation Paradigm The framework we used is called cooperative inquiry. It comes from action research traditions, not from parapsychology (Heron, 1996; Heron & Reason, 2001). It assumes that the people who live inside the phenomenon hold knowledge the visiting researcher does not, and that the only way to access it is to invite them into the design itself. Concretely, in our study this meant the following: HM and LS chose the camera locations. They told us where the “hotspots” of the house were, and our analysis confirmed they were right: 40% of events in the main bedroom, 26% on the stairs, 17% in the TV room. HM tracked his own emotional state in real time for each event. This gave us a phenomenological data layer we could never have collected from the outside. The dominant state turned out to be “relaxed” (44%), not “depressed” as he had previously assumed. The cooperative method corrected a self-interpretation that decades of personal experience had calcified. LS noticed body signs, particularly a sudden abdominal stiffness, that preceded apport events. These signs are now part of our event-detection protocol. When the couple needed answers that empirical methods could not provide, we honored that with a second study phase that included consultations with three mediums (one certified by the Windbridge Research Center; Beischel, 2007) and a channeler, transparently reported alongside the camera evidence. This is not soft methodology. In our view, it is the only honest way to study a phenomenon whose primary witnesses outnumber and outdate the visiting researcher by years. Lecture Summary In 45 minutes, I will walk through five things. The case itself. Who HM and LS are, how the phenomenon presents, and why a recurring stream of mint-condition $20 Mexican peso coins, which represent only 0.51% of national circulation, is more than a curiosity. The observation architecture. Six HD cameras, numismatic analysis, neuropsychological evaluation of HM, the two real-time recordings, the unexplained camera disruptions, and the bedroom we deliberately stopped watching. The cooperative inquiry method. How decisions were made with HM and LS, where this improved the data, where it created uncomfortable trade-offs, and how I would do it differently next time. Observation as relationship. The case for treating the agents of a recurrent phenomenon as research partners. The risks include contamination, advocacy bias, and loss of blinding. The benefits include access to data no external protocol can recover, and an ethical stance that the agents of psi phenomena have earned by living through them. A practical proposal for the field. A tiered methodological hierarchy (Tier 1 to 3 in the JSPR paper) that any team could adopt when faced with a similar case, scaled to the resources they actually have. This is not a lecture about whether psi is real. It is a lecture about what we are willing to call observation when the conditions we usually require, namely control, repeatability, and neutrality of the observer, are precisely what the phenomenon refuses to grant. I think we owe the field that conversation. References Beischel, J. (2007). Contemporary methods used in laboratory-based mediumship research. Journal of Parapsychology, 71, 37–68. D’León, R., Silva, A., & Álvarez, A. A. (2025). Investigating coin-based apports: A methodological approach to non-mediumistic recurrent physical anomalies. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 89(4), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.63499/7ttg1h83 Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. Sage. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 179–188). Sage. Ramsés D’León Unidad Parapsicológica de Investigación, Difusión y Enseñanza (UPIDE) Instagram Website Bio Ramsés D’León is a Mexican parapsychology researcher and administrator. He is Founding Member and President of CISC, Chief Researcher at UPIDE, Mexico’s International Liaison for the Parapsychological Association, and Board Member of the Rhine Research Center. His interests include psychokinesis, anticipatory physiology, and AI. He chaired the 65th PA Convention (Mérida, 2024) and is lead author of the 2025 JSPR coin- apports case study.

Psi in Practice: Observation talk | September 4, 2026 | Online at Airmeet Observing the Human as a Human:Parapsychology and Human Science Research Jacob W. Glazier University of West Georgia Observation occupies a precarious place in scientific investigation. This is due, in part, to the researcher being the one who is observing, and, given the nature of parapsychological investigation, that which is observed is often another human. Such a reflective, paradoxical nature is captured nicely when Merleau-Ponty (1964/1968) writes, “Since the seer is caught up in what he sees, it is still himself he sees. There is a fundamental narcissism of all vision” (p. 139). Observation, in this regard, is best understood from the vantage point of human science.  A human science paradigm does not just rest on the qualitative side of the quantitative/qualitative methods distinction. Instead, it is an entirely different way of relating to and “seeing” participants, data, and phenomena uniquely and as they truly are. Often contrasted with the natural sciences in terms of focusing on the human, as the name itself indicates, the perspective places serious philosophical weight on the fact that any science must take as its starting point that it is, first and foremost, a human activity and that this fact has heavy ethical and conceptual implications that flow from it. Natural science approaches reduce what they study into smaller constituent parts—in the case of the human, these are the infrahuman elements that are subject to investigation, including the biochemical, mechanical, genetic, and so on (Aanstoos, 2026). In fact, all of the social sciences started by importing their understanding of science from the natural sciences, which means conceptualizing the human reductively “as a node in a chain of mechanistic, causal, or extrinsic relationships” (Aanstoos, 2026, p. 242). Envisioning the human through natural science, in any of the social sciences, assumes that the human, or the psyche, is just one more natural event governed by cause-and-effect relationships (Churchill & Fisher-Smith, 2026). As such, before even getting off the ground, natural sciences assume the thesis of naturalism, whether studying phenomena like thunderstorms or medical conditions, which is undoubtedly helpful in some regards; however, when used to study the human, natural science overlooks important facets of meaning, relationality, morality, and other human-centered concerns. Progenating the phenomenological tradition, a precursor to human science, Husserl (1970) began by bracketing this naturalistic assumption. In so doing, the hope was the return to the phenomena themselves, as they appear without assumption or presupposition, without this naturalistic framework already in place. Moreover, Dilthey was likewise advocating for the creation of a new human form of science based on Geist, which translates as “spirit,” and this approach “would be based upon compassionate understanding as its primary mode of access to meanings (rather than mechanisms)” (Churchill & Fisher-Smith, 2026, p. 78). Such an approach to science admits that the data collected is always going to be incomplete and, as a result, encourages cultivating an embodied presence that listens in solicitude and invites elaboration (Churchill & Fisher-Smith, 2026). This means listening and observing with our entire embodied consciousness, not just observing what is measurable or that can be subject to rational control using, for example, numbers and statistical analyses. Such a mode of observing is what Finlay (2005) called reflexive embodied empathy, which is not merely emotional knowing but, rather, is a “felt, embodied, intersubjective experience… that underpins researchers’ ability to understand their participants” (p. 272). As a result, researchers should learn to be in touch with the way that they respond in an embodied way to their participants. The author delineates three layers of this reflexive embodied empathy that include connecting-of, acting-into, and merging-with, which interpenetrate one another and where different dimensions of the experience reveal themselves. Human science is a broad framework that encourages similar research strategies, including feminist objectivity (Harding, 1992), understanding how knowledge is situated (Haraway, 1988), reflexivity (Finlay, 2002), the role of metaphor and narrative in science (Hermans & Hermans-Jansen, 2001), and the necessity of hermeneutics in knowledge production (Josselson, 2004; Rennie, 2007).  Of course, qualitative work in parapsychology is valuable and important, even though qualitative work in the field has lagged in advancing when compared to the other social sciences (Kruth, 2015). Human science research, more broadly and importantly than mere qualitative methods, brings forward a very careful, attuned, intersubjective, embodied, and participatory paradigm of research that is often overlooked in parapsychology. Such a paradigm does not just add onto quantitative work by including mixed-methods research as an adjunct, given that researchers often fail to see the philosophical incommensurability regarding this kind of approach (Wiggins, 2011). Instead, the point is that human science research calls upon the researcher to understand themselves as implicated in important and undeniable ways with what they study. Reflexive embodied empathy (Finlay, 2005), as well as other human science research protocols, could aid parapsychologists in understanding the role of emotionality, intuition, and felt-sense in their investigations (for more on the latter point of felt-sense, see Gendlin, 2007). Excellent qualitative and phenomenological work has already been done in parapsychology that resonates with human science research both historically (Greyson, 2000; Hufford, 1989; White, 1997) and more contemporarily (Ait Melloul et al., 2024; Mondragón-Benítez et al., 2026; Turnbull, 2024). Future parapsychologists can carry this mantle forward by envisioning parapsychology as a human science, reminding us that observation of psi is always mediated through what it means to be human—careful, deliberate, and ethical considerations arise from this fact and should inform research. References Aanstoos, C. M. (2026). Conceptual and historical foundations of human science for psychology. In L. Hoffman, L. X. Vallejos, D. Hocoy, P. Tummala-Narra, & E. M. DeRobertis (Eds.), APA handbook of humanistic and existential psychology: History, research, philosophy, and theory (pp. 241–261). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000431-010 Ait Melloul, A., Kinnunen, K., & Cardeña, E. (2024). The phenomenology of distressing near-death experiences and their aftereffects. Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition, 4(2), 192–224. https://doi.org/10.31156/jaex.25433 Churchill, S. D., & Fisher-Smith, A. (2026). Qualitative methods for humanistic and existential research grounded in phenomenological, hermeneutic, and constructivist paradigms. In L. Hoffman, L. X. Vallejos, D. Hocoy, P. Tummala-Narra, & E. M. DeRobertis (Eds.), APA handbook of humanistic and existential psychology: History, research, philosophy, and theory (pp. 73–108). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000431-003 Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205 Finlay, L. (2005). “Reflexive embodied empathy”: A phenomenology of participant-researcher intersubjectivity. The Humanistic Psychologist, 33(4), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473333thp3304_4 Gendlin, E. T. (2007). Focusing (2nd ed.). Bantam Books. Greyson, B. (2000). Near-death experiences. In E. Cardeña, S. J. Lynn, & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience (pp. 315–352). American Psychological Association. Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and “strong objectivity.” Social Research, 59(3), 567–587. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970706 Hermans, H. J., & Hermans-Jansen, E. (2001). The person as motivated storyteller: Basic metaphor. In Self-narratives: The construction of meaning in psychotherapy (pp. 1–25). Guilford Press. Hufford, D. J. (1989). The terror that comes in the night: An experience-centered study of supernatural assault traditions (Rev. ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Northwestern University Press. Josselson, R. (2004). The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.14.1.01jos Kruth, J. G. (2015). Five qualitative research approaches and their applications in parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 79(2), 219-233. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968).The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1964). Mondragón-Benítez, O., Díaz-Castro, L., Corona-Hernández, F., & Cabello-Rangel, H. (2026). Phenomenology of subjective anomalous experiences in people with schizophrenia. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 50, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-026-09989-w Rennie, D. L. (2007). Methodical hermeneutics and humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873260709336693 Turnbull, E. J. (2024). Encountering living individuals in near-death experiences: A phenomenological study. Consciousness, Spirituality & Transpersonal Psychology, 5, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.53074/cstp.2024.74 White, R. A. (1997). Dissociation, narrative, and exceptional human experience. In S. Krippner & S. M. Powers (Eds.), Broken images, broken selves (pp. 88–121). Brunner/Mazel. Wiggins, B. J. (2011). Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022612 Jacob W. Glazier University of West Georgia LinkedIn Website Bio Jacob W. Glazier, PhD, LPC, NCC, has a doctorate in Psychology: Consciousness and Society from the Universityof West Georgia. He has a Master of Science in Education in Clinical Mental Health Counseling degree fromWestern Illinois University and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Psychology degree from Augustana College.Dr. Glazier is an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the School of Social Sciences at the University of WestGeorgia. His research revolves around critical theory, subjectivity, and exceptional experiences. He also practicespsychotherapy. Dr. Glazier’s work has been published in academic journals that include Psychoanalysis, Culture &Society, Subjectivity, Mortality, Critical Horizons, Rhizomes, Journal for Cultural Research, Journal of ScientificExploration, Anthropology of Consciousness, and others. He is the author of Arts of Subjectivity (2020) and editorof the PA Book Award-winning Paranormal Ruptures (2023). He is currently working on his next book for theseries, Concepts for Critical Psychology: Disciplinary Boundaries Re-thought for Routledge. In addition, Dr. Glazieris the Lead Editor of Mindfield: The Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association, serves on the board of the Parapsychological Association, and is the co-coordinator of the annual Bill Roll Lecture sponsored by thepsychology program and Ingram Library's Special Collections.

Volunteer Needed: Planet Minute Technical Steward Organization: Public Parapsychology (501(c)(3) nonprofit)Project: Planet Minute Time Commitment: Light & flexible (estimated 1–3 hrs/month on average)Compensation: Volunteer (recognition, authorship credit where appropriate, public acknowledgment) About Planet Minute Planet Minute is a nonprofit research app exploring whether brief, collective, consciousness-based practices can support positive climate outcomes. The app is live, functional, and publicly available, and serves as a research and engagement tool within a broader scientific and ethical framework. Role Overview We are seeking a Technical Steward to support the ongoing care, continuity, and light development updates of the Planet Minute app. This is not a rebuild, scale-up, or startup role. The app exists and works. The role is about stewardship—ensuring that the codebase is accessible, maintainable, and updatable as the project evolves. The Technical Steward works in collaboration with the project lead and, when appropriate, the original developer, serving as a calm and reliable point of technical continuity. Responsibilities Maintain access to and familiarity with the Planet Minute codebase Support occasional updates (e.g., OS compatibility, minor feature adjustments, maintenance) Advise on technical feasibility of proposed changes Serve as a technical point of contact for the project lead Help ensure responsible, ethical handling of user data and app infrastructure Ideal Background You might be a good fit if you: Have experience with mobile app development  Are comfortable translating between technical and non-technical collaborators Value thoughtful, ethical, mission-driven work Appreciate low-drama, low-urgency volunteer collaboration Are interested in consciousness research, climate restoration, or nonprofit technology  What We Offer Meaningful participation in a novel nonprofit research initiative Public acknowledgment on the Planet Minute website and app Opportunities for co-authorship or formal credit on research outputs, where appropriate A flexible role shaped collaboratively to fit your availability and interests How to Express Interest If you are interested—or know someone who might be—please contact: info@publicparapsychology.org We are happy to begin with an informal conversation to explore fit and answer questions.

Public Parapsychology (PuP) has released Planet Minute, a mobile app that empowers us to harness the power of collective intent (or “secular prayer”) to support the health of our planet.  The Power of Planet Minute Developed by PuP’s volunteer team, Collective Intent Tech, Planet Minute enables us to collaborate virtually, focusing on easing the planet’s growing environmental challenges. Here’s how it works: What Makes Planet Minute Unique? While other apps encourage group prayer or meditation, Planet Minute goes further by also contributing to scientific research. The app anonymously collects data to advance research into the effects of focused intention. This open-access data allows researchers to explore critical questions: By combining action with research, Planet Minute opens new possibilities for addressing climate challenges while deepening our understanding of consciousness-based practices. Download for Free Planet Minute is a free (and ad-free) service supported by donors. The app is designed to be a tool for everyone, anywhere, anytime, offering hope and action in the face of planetary emergency. 

We’re recruiting U.S.-based participants for a study examining the relationship between directed intention and CO2 levels. Activities include a brief (4-minute) meditation, intention-setting task, or interactive game. Optional surveys follow—all online. Eligibility: 18+, U.S. resident. Learn more and participate here: https://co2busting.com Your voluntary participation will help advance scientific understanding of consciousness and intention.