| April 2026 |
In this Issue
- Maverick Milestones
- President's Message
- Items of Interest
- Ripped from the Headlines
- A Farewell Funny
Maverick Milestones
SSE’s April Babies are in Good Company
In Volume 33, No. 4 of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Russell Targ shared his findings, which suggested that remote viewing accuracy was largely independent of distance and could even extend to short-term future events, challenging conventional ideas of causality. Overall, the research argued that remote viewing is a non-analytical but surprisingly reliable ability, contradicting the notion that psi phenomena are weak or inconsistent.
In Volume 36, No. 4 of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Henry Bauer suggests that eyewitness accounts and many surface photos of the Loch Ness Monster can be explained as misperceptions or hoaxes, though some underwater images and films are harder to dismiss. When considered together, the evidence may suggest a real, unknown animal, especially when evaluated cumulatively using approaches like Bayesian reasoning. The case also highlights how early narratives shape belief, and how both public opinion and science can resist changing conclusions even as new evidence emerges. |
Since its beginning in 1982, one of the enduring strengths of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) has been the diversity of perspectives within our community. Our members come from many disciplines and bring different theoretical commitments, methodological preferences, and interpretations of puzzling data. Yet the vitality of the Society has never depended on everyone agreeing. Instead, it depends on something far more valuable: the willingness to engage one another directly, respectfully, and thoughtfully. Scientific progress is rarely the product of solitary thinking alone. It grows out of conversation, sometimes lively, sometimes challenging, but always rooted in curiosity about the unknown. While emails, preprints, and online meetings help us stay connected, they cannot fully replicate the dynamic exchange that occurs when scholars gather in the same room. Ideas move differently in person. A question raised after a talk leads to a hallway conversation, which becomes a shared meal discussion, which in turn sparks a new collaboration or a fresh way of interpreting a longstanding problem. These moments of intellectual cross-pollination have always been a hallmark of our annual conferences. They are spaces where physicists speak with psychologists, historians with engineers, and seasoned researchers with early-career scholars. In those interactions, speculative ideas can be tested, disagreements can be explored. constructively, and new research directions can emerge. This is why our upcoming June SSE conference is so important. Beyond the formal presentations and panels, the conference creates a rare environment where people genuinely interested in frontier questions can gather, exchange perspectives, and engage in open-minded debate. For many members, these conversations become the most memorable and productive part of the meeting. If you have attended an SSE conference before, you likely remember how energizing it can be to spend several days surrounded by colleagues who share a commitment to exploring challenging topics with rigor and curiosity. If you have not yet joined us at one, this year's meeting is an excellent opportunity to experience that atmosphere firsthand. I encourage all members who are able to attend. Bring your questions, your ideas and even your healthy skepticism. The SSE advances not only through the research we publish, but through the relationships and conversations that help us to refine our thinking. I look forward to seeing many of you in June! |
Research in JSE Sparks Vital Debate on "Haunted People Syndrome"Recent discussions in the paranormal community have highlighted contrasting approaches to spontaneous ghostly and poltergeist-type experiences (collectively called “ghostly episodes”). These explorations and debates are healthy: scientific progress thrives on rigorous comparison of models. Yet productive dialogue demands accurate representation of competing ideas. A recent study in JSE (O’Keeffe et al., 2025) applied the Haunted People Syndrome (HP-S) framework to an independent case report of alleged “poltergeist” activity affecting a Silicon Valley family during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Their analysis found strong alignment with HP-S patterns, offering some concurrent validity for their model. Read the full open-access paper here: https://doi.org/10.31275/20253479 The original Silicon Valley investigators—Loyd Auerbach, Bryan Williams, Gerald Solfvin, and Beth Hedva—sharply criticized the HP-S approach on the “Deadly Departed” podcast (and in a privately disseminated white paper that has not undergone peer review), expressing concerns that O’Keeffe et al. “pathologized” their witnesses and reduced the anomalies in question to “psychological error.” These characterizations, while passionate, unfortunately misalign with the peer-reviewed literature on HP-S. What HP-S Actually Proposes… Developed via grounded-theory analysis of survey data, case reports, and literature reviews, HP-S is a systems-oriented, phenomenological framework. This inductive approach allowed the model to develop from the data itself rather than from a priori assumptions about the causes for these anomalous experiences. Subsequent work has provided empirical support for the five recognition patterns that characterize HP-S cases. But the model has since been refined through empirical studies and theoretical analyses examining recurrent features of spontaneous haunt-type cases. HP-S specifically maps how ghostly episodes emerge and unfold through the dynamic interaction of several key variables or recognition patterns:
Therefore, the HP-S model is not diagnostic or pathologizing. It treats percipients as active participants (not passive witnesses) in a complex environmental system and remains agnostic on the full range of underlying causes—including potential parapsychological processes like discarnate agency or recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis. Unfortunately, the technical term “syndrome” is often misread by non‑specialists as implying a psychiatric disorder or condition. Instead, as is common in behavioral sciences, it refers to a cluster of signs, symptoms, or features with no established cause. It is a descriptive label—not a diagnostic one—and carries no implication of pathology. This clarification has been made repeatedly in the published literature. As such, HP-S complements—not competes with—parapsychological hypotheses, embracing biopsychosocial and complexity-science perspectives. On Ethics and Scholarly Practice… The podcast critics also questioned the ethics of re‑analyzing a published case without new interviews or the original authors’ consent. Such assumptions stem from common misunderstandings of sound research principles and guidelines. To clarify, O’Keeffe et al.’s (2025) analysis was not a clinical assessment or psychiatric evaluation of the individuals involved. Moreover, secondary analysis of publicly available scientific reports and their underlying data is standard practice in the behavioral and social sciences. It involves no human-subjects interaction and requires no additional consent when no new identifying details are disclosed. Researchers regularly revisit previously reported cases to evaluate alternative interpretations, test theoretical models, or situate individual reports within broader empirical frameworks—this is the scientific enterprise in action. These methodological and ethical clarifications were communicated to the podcast critics many months ago, following the circulation of their written critique, which formed the basis of their podcast discussion. As often occurs in emerging research areas, debates can arise and persist when theoretical frameworks are interpreted differently or when the scope of secondary analysis in research practice is misunderstood. Clarifying such points is a critical part of maintaining constructive scholarly dialogue. In short, O’Keeffe et al.’s (2025) HP-S study is an example of standard scholarly commentary and theoretical analysis, not a psychiatric evaluation that pathologized the individuals in the case. Again, the HP‑S framework does not diagnose individuals or assign psychiatric labels, nor does it imply the presence of any psychiatric condition. Its purpose is simply to analyze patterns in haunt‑type episodes using information already documented in the scientific record or collected in ethical studies using informed consent. But O’Keeffe et al.’s (2025) article also discussed the importance of ethics and the growing area of “clinical parapsychology,” and they passed along some recommended reading for our SSE community:
But What About the Paranormal? The podcast critics also fundamentally misread the motives and perspectives of O'Keeffe and colleagues. Although most of these authors outlined their positions in their 2022 book Ghosted! Exploring the Haunting Reality of Paranormal Encounters, we at SSE asked them to restate their current views. They emphasized that the HPS model neither rejects nor assumes parapsychological mechanisms; it simply identifies an open scientific question that demands rigorous investigation. The team also proudly clarified that they are "skeptical" in the traditional sense—not as synonymous with "debunker," but as scientists who ground their conclusions in empirical evidence rather than ideology. This is likewise the scientific enterprise in action. But they also lament the entrenched "believer vs. debunker" factions that are routinely reinforced within the paranormal community, viewing such tribal divisions as an obstacle to genuine scientific progress. Instead, O'Keeffe et al. noted that they endorse a principled middle path—one that rejects the dogmatic certainties of both camps in favor of the open-mindedness and intellectual humility that genuine scientific progress demands. This view also happens to be a core value of JSE. It is puzzling, then, that the podcast critics would reduce O'Keeffe and colleagues to "anomalistic psychologists," especially given that many of these authors have published empirical work—both in parapsychology and in mainstream journals—supporting the possible reality of psi phenomena. The HPS model is fully capable of accommodating hypotheses involving extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, or even postmortem survival of consciousness when warranted by indisputable evidence. Readers interested in the authors’ psi‑related papers can explore some examples directly:
A Teachable Moment for the Field… Differences among researchers and theoretical frameworks should be viewed as opportunities for comparative research and open and responsible scholarly dialogue. The goal shared across these efforts is the same, namely, to improve our understanding of the complexities involved in ghostly episodes and to examine them with both open-mindedness and methodological rigor. As research in this area continues to develop, the HP-S model represents one empirically informed attempt to organize the phenomenology of these episodes within a broader systems and complexity-science perspective. Conventional scientific principles in the social sciences certainly advance our knowledge, but they might not be enough to complete the picture. Time will tell. This is why ongoing discussion and careful evaluation of models like HP-S will ultimately strengthen the scientific study of things that go bump in the night. Ultimately, that highly-charged podcast highlights something important: the very fact that the HP‑S study has sparked such vigorous discussion shows that JSE is making a real impact. Scholarly debate—especially when it involves clarifying concepts, correcting misconceptions, and refining theoretical tools—is evidence that the Journal’s contributions are being taken seriously and are actively shaping discourse in the field. Congratulations to Ciarán O’Keeffe and his JSE co‑authors for giving the scientific pot a vigorous stir…and doing it in style! Explore the Real Science Behind HP-S Further…
June SSE Conference Full Program Now Available!
The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) invites you to join us June 17-21 in Westminster, Colorado—located between Denver and Boulder—for our 44th Annual Conference. This year’s theme, Evidence & Encounters, explores two complementary approaches to frontier science:
Together, these tracks aim to deepen our understanding of anomalous phenomena, their cross-disciplinary relevance, and their potential real-world impact. New for 2026 When SSE Members register for the full conference, you may add one Guest registration which grants full access to all sessions and events.
Upcoming MAVERICK Talks: Interactive Virtual Chats about Bold IdeasMAVERICK = Monthly Adventures Via Exploration, Revealing Inquiry, Curiosity, and Knowledge. Help us shape the future of scientific exploration - one bold idea at a time! SSE's monthly virtual forum, where members can share works-in-progress, spark fresh inquiry, and receive thoughtful feedback from fellow explorers. Whether you're refining a method, testing a hypothesis, or navigating a controversial topic, this is your space to engage, reflect, and grow. When & Where: Second Sunday of each month (unless a quarterly webinar is scheduled) 1-hour Zoom sessions at 5 PM ET | 4 PM CT | 3 PM MT| 2 PM PT More Information and Upcoming talks:
Stay ConnectedWant to go deeper? Follow us on Substack and YouTube for expanded content that goes beyond what you’ll find here. On Substack, we’re building a space for deeper exploration—featuring:
And on YouTube, you can watch talks, presentations, and discussions that bring these ideas to life. If you’re drawn to the edges of science, Substack is where the conversation continues. |
11 Scientists Dead or Missing—And Washington Wants AnswersThis week, the House Oversight Committee launched a probe into the mysterious disappearances and deaths of 11 scientists and researchers. At present, there is no confirmed evidence linking these incidents, and explanations range from unrelated personal tragedies to broader questions about occupational risk, mental health, and the pressures surrounding high-stakes research environments. Still, the clustering of such cases—particularly among individuals working in advanced scientific and technological domains—has sparked public curiosity and debate. As always, distinguishing signal from noise is essential. Are these events coincidental, or do they point to something more systemic that warrants closer examination? We invite our readers to explore the reporting, consider the evidence, and reflect. Join the conversation on Substack. |
Until next time—keep your protocols tight, your priors flexible, and your anomalies… well-documented. |
If you haven’t yet joined SSE as a Professional, Associate, or Student, Never miss a single issue of JSE: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/archive The Explorer is produced with the support of: SSE/JSE Social Media Specialist Ashlea Perry |