INVESTIGATIONS—WISE AND OTHERWISE
SPIRITUALISM has been the cause of much discussion between men of science, men of magic, and believers in the “Spirit World.” Countless investigations, wise and otherwise, have been held in most of the countries of the globe. Many of them have been made by fair-minded, unbiased men; men who delved deep into the unknown with a clear conscience and whether successful or not were willing to give the world the result of their probings. Men who were not afraid to admit that their experience was not sufficient to cope with the medium’s skill and years of training and that they had been fooled. But there have been other so-called investigators who have attended seances wishing to be fooled and as “the wish is father of the thought” they have been misled.
What these investigators see done and what they think they see done are in reality two entirely different things and by the time they start to write their experiences there are usually complications. I rarely believe a full hundred per cent the explanations I hear or read. It is to be said to the credit of the investigators that they do not deliberately make misstatements but the nature of the brain is such that it is almost impossible to avoid mal-observation and these mal-observations are the curse of investigation.
Investigations under conditions favorable to the medium cannot be termed “investigations.” They are nothing more than a demonstration of the medium’s power to divert the attention, carrying it at will to any place they wish and numbing the subconscious mind. Under such conditions they are not only able to delude the innocent and simple-minded but also men whose accomplishments have proven their intellects to be above the average.
When a medium is subjected to conditions which are, to say the least, disconcerting, and the usual effects are not obtained, almost invariably the claim is made that there are antagonistic waves and that the “auras” are bad, and if, as often happens, the result is an unqualified exposé and the medium’s fall from power the followers of Spiritualism usually put forth a statement saying the medium overstepped the bounds in trying to give results and resorted to trickery, but that the majority of previous seances were genuine.
Perhaps my ideas on the subject of how to conduct an investigation are wrong; I am fully convinced, however, that the only way to conduct a successful one is to get the committee together previous to the seance, discuss the expected manifestations, formulate some plan for concerted action and if possible assign each member some specific part as was done in the case of Palladino’s fall. These parts should be rehearsed and then when the seance is held there is a much greater possibility of the committee being able to judge intelligently. But when scientists report some feat of legerdemain as being abnormal simply because they cannot detect the deception, I think it is time to add to each investigating committee a successful and reputable professional mystifier, and I might add that all mediums hate to have a magician attend a seance.
Of the many investigations, since the beginning of modern Spiritualism, I have selected a few of the most important and will try and show the reader the necessity of placing on investigating committees men who cannot be prejudiced or influenced by subdued lights or weird and mystifying sounds; men who use their God-given gift of reason to the best of their ability; men whose attention cannot be diverted by the medium; men whose brain cells are versatile and not overdeveloped in one particular direction; men who can pay strict attention to their commission and not be led astray by the glib-tongued medium’s misdirection. Then we will have real investigations and the world at large will benefit.
A short time before his death Henry Seybert, an enthusiastic Spiritualist with a conscientious desire that Spiritualism should be authentically established, gave the University of Pennsylvania sufficient money to establish a chair of Philosophy on condition that a commission should be appointed to investigate “all systems of morals, Religion or Philosophy which assume to represent the truth and particularly modern Spiritualism.” Accordingly there were selected from among the doctors and professors of the University ten men to be known as the “Seybert Commission.” A fairer-minded and more impartial commission could not have been appointed. Each man had declared himself holding an open mind and ready to accept whatever there was evidence to prove, but realizing “that men eminent in intelligence and attainment yield to Spiritualism an entire credence,” they felt that one could not “fail to stand aside in tender reverence when crushed and bleeding hearts are seen to seek it for consolation and for hope.” In order to be amply prepared to do their work in an intelligent and understanding manner they provided themselves with the best literature of the day on the subject and such records of previous investigations as were available. After a careful digest of all this information the Commission was ready to begin its actual work in March, 1884. The entire ten men of the Commission were willing to believe, and their adviser, Mr. Thomas R. Hazard, had been a personal friend of Mr. Seybert and was known throughout the land as an uncompromising Spiritualist.”
The first medium to which the Commission gave its attention was Mrs. S. E. Patterson, a slate writing mystifier and automatic writer. The result of this first case was nil. After waiting patiently an hour and a half for the spirits to move the meeting adjourned to the disappointment of all. Mr. Hazard was especially chagrined, for the medium was considered “one of the very best in the world.” She had given him a private sitting the evening before at which “messages from the Spirit of Henry Seybert came thick and fast,” but they declined to manifest for the Commission.
This seance proved to be typical of all that fell to the lot of the Seybert Commission to investigate. It continued its work for three years and investigated every case of importance which came before it. One of these was Margaret Fox, with whom the Commission had two sittings and became convinced that the raps came from her person. When she was told of its conclusion she admitted that the seances were not satisfactory but declined further sittings on the ground of ill health and because she doubted if more satisfactory results would follow and admitting that they might result in a “confirmation” of the Commission’s belief as to the cause of the raps.
Many of the most prominent mediums of the day appeared before the Commission during its three years of work. Some of them underwent a whole series of tests and the phenomena covered the whole gamut from simple rapping to spirit photography, automatic and slate writing, materialization, etc. In every case with but one exception the result was either a blank seance, a positive failure, or a deliberate cheat. The exception was when Mr. Harry Kellar was called in as a magician to demonstrate his power as a slate writer. The Commission was successfully baffled, not a single member being able to fathom his method until he explained it.
The Commission carefully weighed all the evidence placed before it and formed its conclusions with such deliberation and thoroughness that the most critical on either side found no cause for objecting or saying that it was swayed or biased by any undue influence whatever. It pursued its work on purely rational, scientific lines, strenuously avoiding all conditions which might be construed as conducive to doubtful conclusions. It was looking for facts in a matter-of-fact way and as there was no opportunity for screening artifices no occult or psychic phenomena were proven to have existed. As an evidence of the fairness with which the Commission was considered to have done its work, I quote the following letter to the Commission from Dr. Henry Slade.
“No. 11 E. 13th Street, N. Y., Feb. 4, 1885.
“Dear Mr. Furness:—I take this opportunity to express to you, and through you to the other members of the Seybert Commission, my hearty approval of the course pursued by them in their investigation of phenomena occurring in my presence. Fully realizing that I am only the instrument or channel through which these manifestations are produced, it would be presumption on my part to undertake to lay down a line to be followed by the unseen intelligence, whose servant I am. Hence I did say their conditions must be acceded to or I would return to New York. That they did so, is evident to my mind from the results obtained, which I regard as a necessary preliminary to a continuation, when other experiments may be introduced with better prospects of success. It may be well not to insist on following the exact course followed by Professor Zollner, but leave it open to original or impromptu suggestions that may be adopted without previous consideration, which, if successful, would be of equal value as evidence of its genuineness, at the same time give greater breadth to the experiments. In conclusion, allow me to say that in the event the Committee desires to continue these experiments through another series of sittings with me, it will give me pleasure to enter into arrangements for that purpose.
“Very truly yours,
“Henry Slade.”
If all the investigators were to adopt the rational methods of the Seybert Commission they might easily discover the truth and no longer submit to imposition by charlatans nor aid and abet them by accepting as true the claims made by a class which they admit is of a low type, dishonest, and otherwise disreputable. If sincere, they would assist in all reasonable attempts to detect fraud and not accept the irrational pretext that light and touch are detrimental to the health or life of a medium.
Following in the footsteps of the Seybert Commission the Society for Psychical Research was organized in America and England for the purpose of investigating all so-called phenomena and freak occurrences not easily accountable for by natural law and in spite of the following message which it is claimed was sent by the spirit of the late William Walker, President of the Buxton Camera Club, to the Crewe Circle, I believe they are doing good work.
“Dear Friends of the Circle,105
“I would not spend a moment with the Psychical Research Society, because they are nothing more or less than fraud hunters and I want you to come to Buxton for a sitting with Mrs. Walker, 3, Palace Rd., about the 8th, 9th, of Aug. Then the spirit friends can further demonstrate the wondrous powers which to-day are needed more than ever. Peace be with you.
“Yours faithfully,
“W. Walker.”
The membership of these societies is made up of men and women who have a certain degree of scientific training, all classes of scholarship and all professions being represented. As a consequence the investigations have been most exhaustive and carried out by persons especially qualified for the work, but the results have been most emphatically against a belief in the return of a soul after death in the guise of a spirit or the occurrence of anything supernatural at the bidding of a medium.
Naturally, we might not expect a general agreement among a group of scientific scholars who had entered the field of research from different points of view, but I believe I can say without fear of contradiction, that of all who have undertaken the task without prejudice the majority agree in the opinion that all phenomena ascribed to spirit power developed through, and presented by, a medium, are without foundation in fact, and that the result of their investigations has agreed perfectly with the findings of the Seybert Commission.
In January, 1869, the London Dialectical Society appointed a committee with thirty-three members to investigate the phenomena alleged to be Spiritual manifestations and to report on its findings. Professor Huxley, Professor John Tyndall, and Mr. George Henry Lewes, were invited to co-operate with the Committee. Professor Huxley refused to have anything to do with the investigation and in the following letter, written in answer to the Committee’s invitation, he terms Spiritualism a “gross imposture.”106
“Sir,—I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation of the Council of the Dialectical Society to co-operate with a Committee for the investigation of ‘Spiritualism’, and for two reasons. In the first place, I have no time for such an inquiry, which would involve much trouble and (unless it were unlike all inquiries of that kind I have known) much annoyance. In the second place, I take no interest in the subject. The only case of ‘Spiritualism’ I have had the opportunity of examining into for myself was as gross an imposture as ever came under my notice. But supposing the phenomena to be genuine—they do not interest me. If anybody would endow me with the faculty of listening to the chatter of old women and curates in the nearest cathedral town, I would decline the privilege, having better things to do.
“And if the folk in the Spiritual world do not talk more wisely and sensibly than their friends report them to do, I put them in the same category.
“The only good that I can see in a demonstration of the truth of ‘Spiritualism’ is to furnish an additional argument against suicide. Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ‘medium’ hired at a guinea a seance.
“I am, Sir, &c.,
“T. H. Huxley.”
“29th January, 1869.”
A few days later Mr. Lewes declined the Committee’s invitation as follows:
“Dear Sir,—I shall not be able to attend the investigation of ‘Spiritualism’; and in reference to your question about suggestions would only say that the one hint needful is that all present should distinguish between facts and inferences from facts. When any man says that phenomena are produced by no known physical laws, he declares that he knows the laws by which they are produced.
“Yours, &c.,
“G. H. Lewes.
“Tuesday, 2nd February, 1869.”
Under date of December 22, 1869, Professor Tyndall wrote the following in response to his invitation to aid the Committee.
“Sir—You mention in your note to me three gentlemen, two of whom are personally known to me, and for both of whom I entertain a sincere esteem.
“The house of one of these, namely Mr. Wallace, I have already visited, and made there the acquaintance of the lady who was the reputed medium between Mr. Wallace and the supernatural.
“And if earnestly invited by Mr. Crookes, the editor of the ‘Chemical News,’ to witness phenomena which in his opinion ‘tend to demonstrate the existence of some power (magnetic or otherwise) which has not yet been recognized by men of science,’ I should pay due respect to his invitation.
“But understand my position: more than a year ago Mr. Cromwell Varley, who is, I believe, one of the greatest modern Spiritualists, did me the favor to pay me a visit, and he then employed a comparison which, though flattering to my spiritual strength, seems to mark me out as unfit for spiritual investigation. He said that my presence at a seance resembled that of a great magnet among a number of small ones. I throw all into confusion. Still he expressed a hope that arrangements might be made to show me the phenomena, and I expressed my willingness to witness such things as Mr. Varley might think worth showing to me. I have not since been favored by a visit from Mr. Varley.
“I am now perfectly willing to accept the personal invitation of Mr. Crookes, should he consider that he can show me phenomena of the character you describe.
“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“John Tyndall.”
“G. W. Bennett, Esq.”
Unlike the Seybert Commission, which made a formal report to the University of Pennsylvania immediately on the completion of its work, the Committee of the Dialectical Society which was appointed in 1869 did not make any report until 1877 and then only what seems to be a garbled report of sub-committees. The Spiritual Magazine in 1870 commented on this lack of a report as follows:
“Where is the report of the Dialectical Society? This is the question which many people are asking, but to which no one seems prepared to give a satisfactory reply. Has this Report, which was to settle the question of Spiritualism, only unsettled the Dialectical Society—causing, as we learn, some of its principal officers and members to secede from it on finding that the investigations of the Committee pointed in a different way to what they anticipated, and to which they had committed themselves? People ask—Have the Committee come to an opinion on the subject or have they too many opinions?”
The only information I have come in contact with referring to the Dialectical Committee and its work has been from Spiritualistic publications, most of them under authorship of Mr. James Burns, and I copy the following from “The Medium and Daybreak” of November 16, 1877:
“Objection has been taken in some quarters to the fact that the Society itself did not publish the Report, but left the matter of the publication as an open question to its Committee.” Again: on the 20th of July, 1870, the council passed a resolution—“that the request of the Committee, that the Report be printed under the authority of the Society, be not acceded to.”
The exact nature of the work done by the Dialectical Society’s Committee can be summed up by another extract from the same issue of “The Medium and Daybreak”:
“In due time the Committee presented to the Council the General and Sub-Reports, supplementing the same by a voluminous mass of evidence taken directly from the lips of Spiritualists practically acquainted with the subject—persons of the highest respectability and representing nearly every grade of society.” (The italics are mine.)
Another element of discord in the Dialectical investigation is shown by the following:
“Attempt has been made, of course, to undervalue these telling researches. The non-successful Committees have been brought gleefully into prominence, in hope that positive results obtained by the successful Committees might thereby be discredited.”
It seems to be a published fact that this movement on the part of the Dialectical Society resulted in much discord amounting to a split in the Society. Mr. Burns in his editorial column of the “Medium and Daybreak” says:
“Our present issue affords an important and valuable addition to the cheap literature of Spiritualism. It is filled with useful matter for investigators, judiciously extracted from the Report of the London Dialectical Society.” (My italics.)
The supporters of Spiritualism lay great stress and importance on the fact that a few of their co-workers are men prominent in scientific and literary circles, but these are in such a minority, when compared with men of the same time who do not co-operate, that the Spiritualists in order to give force and dignity to their argument “ring the changes” on these few names and keep them prominently to the front, notwithstanding that it has been proven beyond question, time and again, that these sages themselves have frequently been the victims of fraudulent mediums, sometimes knowingly.
Doyle in his book “The New Revelation” says:
“The days are surely passing when the mature and considerate opinions of such men ... can be dismissed with the empty ‘all rot’ or ‘nauseating drivel’ formulæ.”
Perhaps the most prominent man in this respect and whose conclusions, especially in his later years, were pointed to by Spiritualists as being beyond dispute was the eminent chemist, Sir William Crookes. He became intensely interested in Spiritualistic research work as early as 1870 and for the first four years devoted most of his attention to D. D. Home, who seemed successful in baffling Crookes’ super-knowledge of scientific investigation. In 1874 he turned his attention to Florrie Cook, a fifteen year old medium who had been commanding attention for about three years. She seems to have captivated him within the first month to such an extent that he went to her defense in print after a “disgraceful occurrence” had given rise to a “controversy,” after which he entertained her at his house. The most convincing test, though, took place at her home in Hackney. In February, 1874, he wrote:
“These seances have not been going on many weeks but enough has taken place to thoroughly convince me of the perfect truth and honesty of Miss Cook, and to give me every reason to expect that the promises so freely made to me by Katie will be kept. All I now ask is that your readers will not hastily assume that everything which is prima facie suspicious necessarily implies deception, and that they will suspend their judgment until they hear from me again on this subject.”
It was not long, evidently, before the scientist awoke from his dream, for on August 1st, 1874, he wrote to a Russian lady that after four years of investigation, including months of experience with Home, Katie Fox, and Florence Cook, he found “no satisfactory proof that the dead can return and communicate.” A copy of this letter was sent by Aksakoff to Light, and was published in that journal on May 12, 1900. “Sir W. Crookes did not dissent.”107 Sometime along about 1875 forty-four photographic negatives which he had made of Katie King and her medium, Florrie Cook, together with what prints he had, were, for some reason not given, accidentally destroyed and he forbade friends who had copies to reproduce them. He must have made some sort of a discovery for he “buried himself in a sulky silence which he would not break” for forty years. “No one knew whether he was a Spiritualist or not,” his only statement being that “in all his Spiritualistic research he had ‘come to a brick wall.’”108 In 1914 when asked plainly if he were a Spiritualist “he evaded the question.” Perhaps the change in his opinions came over him when he learned that Florence Cook (who became Mrs. Corner) was exposed109 on a continental tour and sent back disgraced. But in 1916, notwithstanding his statement in 1900 and other previous statements, he went on record in the December 9th issue of Light as accepting Spiritualism.
All of this stands as proof that Professor Crookes, even after he was knighted, was of a vacillating mind and for some reason seemed to be deficient in rational methods of discovering the truth, or at least disinclined to put them in force outside of his particular line of science. Possibly, one of the convincing proofs to him may have been the “tricks” played on him by Annie Eva Fay, for if I am not in error his failure to detect her trickery was the turning point which brought him to a belief in Spiritualism. She told me that when Maskelyne, the magician, came out with an exposé of her work she was forced to resort to strategy. Going to the home of Professor Crookes she threw herself on his mercy and gave a series of special tests. With flashing eyes she told of taking advantage of him. It appears that she had but one chance in the world to get by the galvanometer110 but by some stroke of luck for her and an evil chance for Professor Crookes, the electric light went out for a second at the theatre at which she was performing, and she availed herself of the opportunity to fool him. One of the tests was duplicated by Professor Harry Cooke, a magician.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this brainy man was hoodwinked, and that his confidence was betrayed by the so-called mediums that he tested. His powers of observation were blinded and his reasoning faculties so blunted by his prejudice in favor of anything psychic or occult that he could not, or would not, resist the influence.111 This seems more difficult to comprehend when one remembers that he did not accept Spiritualism in full until he was nearing the end of his earthly career. The weakness and unreliability of Sir William’s judgment as an investigator is further proved by the fact that he admitted that many of the tests he proposed were rejected by the mediums he was investigating. Such conditions made the test impossible and he did not seem to realize it, but notwithstanding all this he is one of the most quoted authorities in Spiritualistic realms, particularly by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Another who was misled by the chicanery of mediums which he investigated during many years of research is Sir Oliver Lodge. He failed to find sufficient evidence to prompt him to spread the teachings of Spiritualism until 1904, after which he occasionally sent a “glow through the Spiritualistic world by some bold profession of belief.” In 1905 he was not quite ready to endorse but strongly commended mediums. But by 1916 he had become “the great scientist of the movement, the link between the popular belief and scientific theory.” It is extremely difficult, however, to understand how a leading scientist can permit his pen to lay before a thinking world such inconsistent impossibilities as the following:
“A table can exhibit hesitation, it can seek for information, it can welcome a newcomer, it can indicate joy or sorrow, fun or gravity, it can keep time with a song as if joining in the chorus and most notably of all it can exhibit affection in an unmistakable manner.”
What has all this to do with the spirit of the departed? How is it possible to accept such silly nonsense? Think of it! A table with intelligence, brains—a table with consciousness—a table with emotion. Yet that is the sort of reasoning used by Sir Oliver in his book “Raymond” and it is acceptable to all enthusiastic advocates of occult teaching. When we read of a mind of such high culture being overcome by such misfortune we are moved to compassion rather than censure and can only conjecture that the loss of his beloved son, Raymond, in an accursed war was the cause of it.
Margaret Deland wrote:
“As for the scientific value of the evidence submitted by Sir Oliver, one must not lose sight of the fact that by far the greater part of it is from the experience of others and accepted by him as established facts, in many cases with little or no investigation as applied to telepathy. By following his career, one familiar with the psychology of deception will see that he has been an exceptionally ‘easy mark.’”
In describing a private performance of what is known among magicians as “long-distance second-sight,” after detailing the tests in full, Sir Oliver writes:
“As regards collusion and trickery, no one who has witnessed the absolutely genuine and artless manner in which the impressions are described, but has been perfectly convinced of the transparent honesty of all concerned.
“This, however, is not evidence to those who have not been present, and to them I can only say that to the best of my scientific belief, no collusion or trickery was possible under the varied circumstances of the experiments.”
From the above, the reader may form his own opinion as to the value of Sir Oliver Lodge’s investigation, and at the same time should bear in mind that his so-called investigation is typical of all the investigations by scientists and sages who have accepted Spiritualism as a fact or a religion (?).
The remaining figure of this type most conspicuously in the spotlight on the Spiritualistic stage at the present time is my esteemed friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Very much like Sir Oliver, his opinion hung in the balance during many years of investigation, some thirty or thirty-five, and it is significant that he did not manifest his deep concern in the cult until he too, like Sir Oliver, had lost a son in the late war and his heartstrings had been wrung by a similar grief.
In “The New Revelation,” which was written after he had lost his son, he tells us that for thirty years he had studied the subject of Spiritualism “carelessly,” then suddenly in a crisis of emotion,112 he sees a possible balm in it, but instead of realizing that this was, or should be, the time for real investigation, he threw up his hands with the cry:
“The objective side of it ceased to interest, for having made up one’s mind that it was true there was an end of the matter.”113
It is evident from his own confession that he decided to accept Spiritualism regardless of any real revelation that might present itself at a future time and the fact that he did cease intelligent investigation is proved by his own published statements quoted below.
In a letter in the New York Evening Mail, Dec. 29, 1921, he says:
“I don’t need scientific proof of what I hear with my own ears, see with my own eyes. Nobody does. This is one of the fine things about Spiritualism. Each person can prove it for himself. It proves immortality and the better you live here, the further you’ll go there, progressing finally to the perfect state.”
In the New York World, June 22, 1922, he says:
“That mediums I have recommended have been convicted of fraud; any medium may be convicted, because the mere fact of being a medium is illegal by our benighted laws, but no medium I have ever recommended has been shown to be fraudulent in a sense which would be accepted by any real psychic student.114 This same applies I believe to mediums recommended by Sir Oliver Lodg