Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

The reports from Ribaud Island were upsetting to SPR member Henry Sidgwick, who wrote in a letter to James Bryce Sidgwick, on August 8, 1894: “A crisis is impending. Three chief members of our group of investigators: f. Myers, O. J. Lodge, and Richet, (Professor of Physiology in Paris) have convinced themselves of the truth of the physical phenomena of Spiritualism . . . we have read the notes taken from day to day of the experiments, and it is certainly difficult to see how the results recorded can have been produced by ordinary physical means . . . At the same time as the S.P.R. has now for some years acquired a reputation for comparative sanity and intelligence by detecting and exposing the frauds of mediums; and as Eusapia’s ‘phenomena’ are similar [in] kind to the frauds we have exposed, it will be a rather sharp turn in our public career if our most representative men come forward as believers” (Gauld 1968, p. 230).

To check Eusapia’s phenomena, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, along with Lodge, then went to Richet’s chateau at carqueiranne, near Toulon. There the researchers also witnessed phenomena under conditions that ruled out deception. Objects such as a melon and a small wicker table floated from behind the medium onto the table around which the researchers were seated. The researchers also felt mysterious touches and saw manifestations of hands. They also heard notes sounding on a piano, which was apparently out of reach of the medium (Gauld 1968, p. 231). But some SPR members retained doubts.

To settle the matter, Eusapia was brought to Myers’s house at cambridge. There she gave an impromptu demonstration to Myers and his wife. Myers noted that it was still light outside when the sitting took place, in the early evening of July 31, 1895. Myers stated: “Under these circumstances the table rose in the air with all feet off the ground five or six times during about ten minutes . . . On each occasion it appeared to us that no known force cd. [could] have raised & sustained the table as we in fact saw it raised & maintained” (Gauld 1968, p. 235).Altogether, Eusapia held twenty sittings at Myers’s house. In attendance at least once were many prominent researchers, including Lord Rayleigh, J. J. Thomson, francis darwin, the Maskelynes (magicians), Richet, and Lodge. The usual phenomena were reported (Gauld 1968, p. 235).

The researchers then invited Richard Hodgson to come from America. He arrived in time for the last seven of the sittings. Hodgson, very suspicious of Eusapia, decided that she must be using trickery. To see if he could catch her he decided to relax the stringent controls. He found that on some occasions Eusapia, if allowed, would manage to get a hand free by tricking two controllers into accepting the same one. This led Hodgson and others to conclude that all the cambridge phenomena were fraudulent (Gauld 1968, p. 238).

Other investigators objected. It was always known that Eusapia might in some cases cheat, if the opportunity presented itself and she were feeling out of sorts, as had been the case in England. According to them, Hodgson had set up a situation that encouraged and allowed Eusapia to cheat (Gauld 1968, p. 239). Eusapia’s supporters pointed out that the kinds of tricks Hodgson detected were not sufficient to explain more than a small fraction of her phenomena (Gauld 1968, p. 240).

A full account of the cambridge sittings was not published. Henry Sidgwick, in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (April 1896) explained: “It has not been the practice of the S.P.R. to direct attention to the performances of any so-called ‘medium’ who has been proved guilty of systematic fraud . . . In accordance, therefore, with our established custom, I propose to ignore her performances for the future, as I ignore those of other persons engaged in the same mischievous trade” (Gauld 1968, p. 240). Myers, on learning of more reports on Eusapia from the continent, wanted to start a new series of tests, but Sidgwick refused to sanction them. Richet, however, continued his own experiments and became absolutely convinced of Eusapia’s phenomena (Gauld 1968, p. 241).

Late in 1898, Richet convinced Myers to come to france for some experiments. Myers was present at two sessions, which took place on december 1 and december 3, at Richet’s house in Paris. Also present were Theodore flournoy (a Swiss psychologist), the duc and duchesse de Montebello (the french ambassador to Russia and his wife), and Emil Boirac (a paranormal researcher). The first sitting had good light—a lamp turned low, a fire, and moonlight. All details of Eusapia’s dress and hands were visible. Her hands were placed far apart, both visible on the table, while an observer under the table held both of her feet. In other words, there was good control and visibility. A zither had been placed in a curtained-off window recess. The window itself was shuttered and bolted shut. The researchers noted movements of the zither and heard it play. The zither emerged from behind the curtain and moved to a position behind the researchers, so that the researchers were sitting between the floating zither and Eusapia. The zither played again and came over Myers’s shoulder and descended onto the table (Gauld 1968, pp. 241–242). Similar phenomena occurred at the second sitting. Myers, now again convinced about Eusapia, wanted to publish. But at this time Hodgson was the editor of the SPR Journal and Proceedings. He would not publish any substantial report, just a brief letter from Myers, stating that recent investigations had led him to renew his faith in Eusapia (Gauld 1968, p.242).

Investigations continued. At the Psychological Institute of Paris, a group of scientists, including Richet, carried out a long series of experiments with Eusapia (43 séances in all), during the years 1905–1907. According to Richet (1923, p. 420) the experiments yielded positive demonstrations of telekinesis. These are the experiments in which the curies participated as members of an investigating committee. Other members of the committee included the philosopher Henri Bergon, Richet himself, and the physicist Jean Baptiste Perrin, who like the curies won a nobel Prize in physics. Bergson won a nobel Prize in literature. So there were at least five nobel laureates in the committee that investigated Eusapia Palladino. After the years of study, the committee issued a favorable report, which included observations such as this: “The two hands, feet and knees of Eusapia being controlled, the table is raised suddenly, all four feet leaving the ground; then two and again four feet; Eusapia closes her fists, and holds them towards the table, which is then completely raised from the floor five times in succession, five raps also being given. It is again completely raised, while each of Eusapia’s hands is on the head of a sitter. It is raised to the height of one foot from the floor and suspended in the air for several seconds while Eusapia kept her hand on the table and a lighted candle was placed under the table; it was completely raised to a height of ten inches from the floor and suspended in the air for four seconds, M. curie only having his hand on the table, Eusapia’s hand being placed on top of his. It was completely raised when M. curie had his hand on Eusapia’s knees and Eusapia had one hand on the table and the other on M. curie’s head, her two feet tied to the chair on which she was sitting” (carrington 1931, p. 135).

Richet was also favorably impressed with a series of experiments carried out with Eusapia in naples. In 1908, Everard feilding, present at the cambridge séances, joined Hereward carrington, and W. W. Baggally, a magician and skeptic, for some experiments with Eusapia in naples. carrington, a magician and author of a book exposing fraudulent mediums, gave his summary impressions of the naples experiments: “In november and december, 1908, Mr. Everard feilding and Mr. W. Baggally and myself held ten séances in our rooms at the hotel under perfect conditions of control, and we were convinced that authentic metapsychic phenomena were produced that no trickery could account for” (Richet 1923, p. 420).