6

PRINCESS DIANA SHOWS SPIRIT’S INTENT TO GUIDE AND PROTECT US

I’m aware that people I have loved and who have
died are in the spirit world looking after me.

—Princess Diana

If survival of consciousness is real, and therefore discarnate intention—including the genuine capacity for intelligence, creativity, choice, playfulness, and willfulness—exists after we die, then a major premise of many spiritual philosophies is plausible—that life after death exists. It is often claimed by spiritual leaders, as well as laypeople, that when we are in the physical, we are not only watched over by spirits but sometimes protected by them as well. And their protection can show up in the most surprising and even convoluted ways, as this chapter demonstrates.

In the previous chapter, I mentioned two examples from my personal investigations with Joan in which Susy purportedly gave me predictive messages that were warnings about the future—a flat tire and a potentially harmful act by a malicious woman. Since I was focused on the watching-over statements in that personal investigation, not the predictive and potentially protective ones, it is possible that Susy may have felt that I was ignoring an important aspect of her loving and caring concern for me.

Try to imagine that if you were deceased, and you were trying to offer guidance and protection to your loved ones, and they actually received the information but did not take it seriously; how would you feel? Remember that Susy was not only loving and tough, but she had a personal mission to prove that she is still here. I sometimes joke that Susy has given new meaning to the phrase, our work is never done.

The following account describes a completely surprising and bizarre occurrence during a carefully designed, formal, university IRB-approved experiment in which Susy taught me another profound lesson about life after death: the capacity of Spirit to protect us by choosing what information it will, and will not, provide in a reading. Moreover, the account in its entirety illustrates the creative cooperation that can apparently exist on the other side when sophisticated deceased people come together to not only participate in research but also teach the experimenters important lessons about the reality of the afterlife and some spirits’ continuing intent to help us in our lives. As stated previously, in a deep sense, survival is in the details. What you are about to read may sound like spiritual science fiction, but it is all true, though certain names and minor details were changed for the sake of anonymity.

It appears that spirits can not only withhold key information, they can even potentially lie for the sake of protecting us, as in this instance. And they can intentionally mess up carefully designed university-based research for a higher purpose—and in the process, reveal a new research paradigm for documenting life after death and spiritual assistance in our lives.

Testing a Medium’s Psychic Ability

In the spring of 2005, I was contacted by an American film producer who was doing a documentary about a European medium. I will call the medium Sandra. The producer asked me if I would be willing to test Sandra on-camera. The producer claimed that Sandra was extraordinarily gifted, and that she would provide me with important research data.

I had never formally tested a European medium. The woman would be in Connecticut at the time of the experiment. The producer would pay for the research, and the testing would occur in the summer—a lovely time to take a vacation, return to my former home in Guilford, Connecticut, revisit my old teaching grounds of Yale University, and explore some of Connecticut’s beautiful coastal towns.

Also, the filming of the documentary provided me with the opportunity to conduct a unique kind of afterlife experiment over three locations: Arizona, Connecticut, and Europe. My idea was that the double-blind portion of the experiment would be conducted by Dr. Julie Beischel—at that time the William James Postdoctoral Fellow working under my direction—over the telephone in Tucson. The medium, producer, director, camera crew, and I would be in Connecticut, and the two secret research sitters would be in Europe.

Dr. Beischel and I added this medium to our by-then ongoing university-based double-blind mediumship experiment. In this double-blind portion of the experiment—where there is no contact between medium and sitter—Dr. Beischel in Arizona would ask the medium in Connecticut, over the phone, a set of standardized questions about the sitters’ deceased loved ones. The sitters in Europe would not be on the telephone and therefore not hear the readings. The information from the readings would be transcribed, emailed to the sitters, and scored blindly by them—meaning they would not be told which of the two readings was theirs.

In the single-blind portion of the experiment conducted by me in Connecticut, the medium would be allowed to speak with the sitters in Europe over the telephone. In both the double- and single-blind portions of the experiments, the medium was blind to the identities of the sitters and their deceased loved ones.

The testing was to take place over one weekend. For a given sitter and their deceased loved ones, the double-blind portion of the experiment would be conducted in the morning, the single-blind portion in the afternoon. Though this university-based experiment was novel in some ways, it did not include specific techniques that might reveal survival of consciousness. It was testing mediumship capability, not life after death.

For example, I did not employ the double-deceased paradigm because this would be too difficult to explain to the audiences who would eventually view the documentary. Hence, individuals like the late Susy Smith were not invited to participate in the research, given that we would not need a spirit go-getter. Let me reiterate: Susy was not supposed to be part of this experiment.

If positive results were obtained in this testing, the experimental design did not rule out the medium’s possible mind reading of the experimenters and sitters or the reading of the information in the vacuum of space. The testing was to determine if Sandra was psychic, not to establish that she was actually receiving intentional communication from Spirit.

However, as you will see, the experiment that we had designed did not go as planned. Complications arose that ultimately were discovered to be spirit-initiated and illustrative of a novel and powerful proof-of-concept paradigm. Though everything you are about to read really occurred, I still find what happened hard to believe.

Princess Diana Becomes Part of the Experiment

The producer agreed that I would keep the identity of the two sitters and their deceased loved ones secret from the producer and her staff as well as from the medium. I chose two sitters, both female, who were in Europe at the time of the testing.

I will call the first sitter Mrs. Parker. The person she wished to hear from, her deceased husband, I will call Professor Parker. He had been a well-known psychology professor and scientist working in the Netherlands (those details are disguised). I had the privilege to know Professor Parker personally; he was a hero of mine. Respecting the wishes of his family, I have protected their anonymity. The second sitter was Hazel Courteney, a distinguished British journalist and author of numerous articles and books in the field of alternative medicine. She further reported on her experience in this experiment in her book Evidence for the Sixth Sense.

The person she wished to hear from was Princess Diana. Hazel had known Princess Diana and, subsequently, had spiritual experiences involving the late princess that I verified in mediumship research. Hazel had been deathly ill, and she felt that Princess Diana, in spirit, played both a protective and healing role in her return to health. Princess Diana’s assistance supposedly ranged from recommending treatments to making recovery predictions that Hazel confirmed.

For both sitters, there was the possibility that the medium might receive information that the families would not wish to be made public. In all research involving humans, subject anonymity must be protected. This requirement was more severe in the present instance due to the levels of visibility of the deceased and their families, as well as the fact that the research was being conducted as part of a documentary film meant to be aired on television.

Following university and federal guidelines, I negotiated a written agreement with the producer that all filming involving research with the medium would be subject to human protection, and that I would have final say over what content from the research filming was included in the documentary.

Armed with this legal agreement, I could then show each of the respective sitters what information the producer wished to air, and each sitter could personally choose what aspects she felt comfortable in revealing. However, as we would all learn later, I did not have control over the B-roll or background footage when the formal research was not being conducted. Producers are entitled to control over their works of art, and rightfully so—presuming that their subjects have signed legal agreements giving them this control.

The two sitters were informed that the research was being conducted in the context of a documentary. However, they knew that the research information was being protected via the university-approved Human Subjects Consent forms that they had happily signed. As it turned out, the legal protections carefully put in place were insufficient to fully protect the rights of the sitters and the families of the deceased they represented because of what would transpire during the B-roll filming. I was not aware of this shortcoming—I cannot see the future—but apparently my spirit collaborators were, and they intended to do something about it. And interestingly enough, the revelation of this personal and legal complication was made apparent by, of all people, Susy Smith!

Sorry, Her Deceased Husband Is Sleeping

I arrived in Connecticut on Friday night. I briefly met the medium, Sandra, the producer, and the crew. Sandra was clearly nervous. She had never been formally tested by a scientist, and this experience was compounded by the fact that she was being evaluated as part of a documentary about her and her work. We reviewed the testing procedures that were to begin on Saturday morning. They understood that the identity of the sitters and deceased had to be kept secret from them. They did not know that the sitters and deceased were European. Our meeting was videotaped.

On Saturday morning, once the cameras were set up, I called Dr. Beischel in Arizona, she was put on speakerphone, and she began the experiment. Dr. Beischel followed the standard protocol we were using at the time. After introducing herself, she asked that Sandra receive whatever information she could about the deceased loved ones associated with absent sitter 1. Sandra was not told the name of the sitter or the names of the deceased. This was the least focused and most general of instructions in the protocol. As such, anyone could come through.

Sandra began talking. She claimed that she was seeing a woman, whom she described, and shared information associated with her. Since I knew little about most of Mrs. Parker’s deceased family history—just something about Professor Parker—I had no idea who the purported deceased woman might be or even if Sandra was getting anything valid from her.

After about ten minutes, Dr. Beischel asked the second, more focused question. This time she told the medium that the sitter was interested in hearing from a specific person, the sitter’s deceased husband, who used to call her by the secret nickname “Honeybunch” (the Parker family requested a substitute nickname be used in this book). Our experience is that when the request is more focused, the medium will often provide information more directly related to the deceased person the sitter wishes to contact.

What happened next was completely and utterly bizarre. The medium claimed that the female spirit was saying that the deceased man was upstairs sleeping, and that she was not going to wake him!

What? A deceased spirit was interfering with a reading? A deceased woman was claiming that the desired communicant was sleeping? Talk about alleged discarnate intention!

My first thought was that Sandra was a fraud, that she could not pass our rigorous research test, and that this was a clever ploy on her part to displace her failure and blame it on Spirit. I had never witnessed anything like this incident in over a decade of doing such research. Dr. Beischel, who at that time had only a couple of years in this field—her PhD was in toxicology and pharmacology, not in cognitive psychology and parapsychology—was speechless.

It did not make sense to continue this phase of the experiment since it would get even more focused: What does the deceased look like? How did the deceased die? What were some of the deceased’s hobbies?

Before Dr. Beischel hung up, I asked Sandra, on camera, to converse with the deceased woman and see if she was willing to wake the gentleman later, thinking ahead to the single-blind portion that I would conduct in the afternoon. Purportedly the deceased woman said maybe.

Maybe? I was dumbfounded as well as highly skeptical of what was transpiring. The formal portion of the research reading ended. Dr. Beischel hung up thoroughly confused.

Sandra was upset; she felt she had failed the first portion of the mediumship test. The cameras kept rolling for the B-roll as I spoke with Sandra about her experience. What happened next shifted from merely bizarre to frankly alarming. Sandra began getting information about the sitter and her relationship with the deceased male, and I recognized that the emerging information was accurate. Moreover, some of what Sandra was saying was very personal and I seriously doubted Mrs. Parker would want it in a documentary film.

I could not sense if Sandra was getting this psychically—by reading my mind, by remote viewing—or through her guides. What was clear was that it did not sound like it was coming from the deceased Professor Parker. Sandra was not talking as if she were communicating with the deceased. She was not saying, “The deceased is showing me X” or “The man is telling me Y.”

I quickly realized that I did not have control over this B-roll information. The producer and director appeared delighted with what was unfolding and the sensational information being revealed, and this concerned me greatly. This was not part of the formal research paradigm covered by the university Human Consent form, and it would potentially make for juicy viewing, and I was not in a position to protect Mrs. Parker by giving her the option of whether she wished to have this spontaneous information included in the documentary.

I faced an ethical challenge and immediately knew what I had to do. I told the producer, on camera, that some of the information Sandra was now getting was potentially related to the sitter and her deceased husband, and that I seriously questioned whether the sitter would want it aired. I told the producer that we would need to amend what I had signed to include any B-roll footage related to the research, or I would have to stop the experiment and withdraw from the project.

The producer was frankly furious, but with reluctance and begrudging acknowledgment, she agreed to amend our signed document accordingly. We decided to take a break and meet in an hour to add the necessary sentences. When this was completed, I would agree to conduct the afternoon, single-blind portion of the experiment. Meanwhile, Sandra was stressed out and exhausted. As it turned out, this medium was an innocent participant in all these complications.

I called Dr. Beischel, my co-experimenter. I brought her up to date about what had transpired and asked if she recognized who the deceased woman might be. On a few occasions, Dr. Beischel’s deceased mother had spontaneously shown up in her daughter’s experiments. We reviewed the characteristics of this deceased interloper as revealed by Sandra’s reading, and quickly realized it did not fit her mother.

However, it dawned on me that at least 80 percent of the information—which included character traits—was consistent with someone who sometimes showed up unannounced in my research: Susy Smith.

And then it hit me: Susy had met Professor Parker when she and he were alive in the physical; Susy had admired Professor Parker and his work. She would have cared about him and his widow in addition to our research. And Susy would know that the medium was psychic and might pick up information about the deceased loved ones informally. Could Susy have intervened, possibly in agreement with Professor Parker, to ensure that Mrs. Parker, my laboratory, and our research were protected? Was I witnessing a potentially new proof-of-concept possibility? The question was both logical and reasonable.

Of course, there was no way I could know for sure, especially at that time, whether Susy had dropped in to the experiment for the express purpose of protection. Remember that this was not part of any specific protocol for the experiment or its experimental design.

But given Susy’s history with me both before and after she died—as well as the discovery of the double-deceased paradigm—the evidence strongly supported the hypothesis that Susy was one creative, intelligent, caring, persistent, and tough spirit interloper. Little did I realize that this was merely a preamble to even greater surprises and lessons that would unfold over the course of that life-affirming and transforming weekend.

That afternoon I oversaw the single-blind telephone reading between Sandra and Mrs. Parker. Since the medium was now allowed to speak with Mrs. Parker, she quickly recognized the sitter’s foreign accent. According to Mrs. Parker, as well as my own knowledge of her husband, Sandra obtained meaningful and accurate information related to Professor Parker.

However, Sandra said some things purportedly from Professor Parker about specific concerns he had in regards to Mrs. Parker that were not only upsetting to her but were rejected by her. Trained in clinical psychology, I saw the potential accuracy of the medium’s insights and appreciated Mrs. Parker’s difficulty in accepting some of the loving guidance and protective concerns supposedly offered by her deceased husband.

The Medium’s Surprising Revelation

Both Sandra and the producer were relieved when the phone interviewed ended. Sandra appeared to be genuinely psychic, even though the experimentally rigorous portion of the test—the morning’s double-blind portion—had been a complete failure, at least in terms of getting any information related to the allegedly sleeping deceased husband.

We went upstairs for cocktails and dinner. The cameras continued to roll. At one point Sandra said to me, “You may not know this, but I have had some very famous clients. Someone I was especially close to was Princess Diana, and I am going to confess this in the documentary.”

I could not believe what I was hearing.

Think about this: Here I had decided to have Hazel Courteney be the secret sitter 2 for Sunday, and Princess Diana was to be the secret deceased, and it turned out that the medium had a longstanding relationship with Princess Diana! I wondered, what was the probability that I would pick Princess Diana to be the secret deceased subject, and the medium in question would happen to have a secret and deep relationship with the deceased? Princess Diana was known to consult with psychics and mediums, but how many of these were out there? Only a few, I would guess.

Meanwhile, if Sandra knew Princess Diana intimately, and if Sandra was a genuine medium, then she would quickly recognize the deceased in the double-blind portion of the experiment, and it would no longer be double-blind! In other words, the double-blind portion would fail again, this time for a different reason.

Two failed experiments in two days? On the other hand, I realized that because I now had editorial control of any B-roll footage related to the research, I had the potential to protect any information that might come through related to Princess Diana. If ever a deceased person and her family deserved anonymity for selective information, it was her and her family.

I wondered to myself, would Susy be aware of this fact? Would Susy, along with Professor Parker, team up with Princess Diana to ensure that all parties were protected in this emerging new research paradigm, at least in terms of the carefully designed double-blind portion of the experiment?

Though I was relieved that I now could exert legal protection of what might transpire next, I was alarmed that Sunday’s double-blind portion would be a flop.

Once again, however, I was wrong. What transpired was seemingly unbelievable and profoundly meaningful concerning the way Spirit can potentially protect and educate us.

The Unbelievable Double-Blind Reading with Princess Diana

On Sunday morning, I called Dr. Beischel, put her on speakerphone, and she conducted the double-blind session. She began by reintroducing herself and requested that Sandra receive whatever information she could about the deceased loved ones associated with absent sitter 2. As in Saturday’s double-blind session, Sandra was not told the name of the sitter or the names of the deceased. Theoretically, anyone could show up.

Sandra said she saw a woman. The woman was fairly tall and slim and showed herself in the countryside. Curiously the woman did not show her face. Dr. Beischel then asked the second, more focused question. She told Sandra that the sitter was interested in hearing from a specific person, a female acquaintance of the sitter; we didn’t say “Diana” for obvious reasons. Sandra continued to describe a mysterious woman who seemingly would not give her name or show her face. I thought to myself, isn’t that interesting (and odd). But I once again wondered, was this a ploy of Sandra’s, using Spirit as an excuse for her inability to obtain what for skilled mediums is relatively straightforward information? Or was something more going on?

Dr. Beischel then asked the specific question: “What does the woman look like?” In response, Sandra described a fairly tall and slim woman with relatively short and straight, light-colored blond-and-brownish hair. Sandra described her as wearing a simple, full-length dress, in the countryside near a typical-looking farmhouse. Again, Sandra claimed that she could not see the deceased woman’s face.

In response to, “How did the woman die?” Sandra said that the death was relatively quick and that it involved an automobile accident.

In response to, “What were the woman’s hobbies?” Sandra said that the woman showed herself and her sons skiing, and that she really cared about her sons.

As I listened to the information, I realized that the pattern could have easily fit Princess Diana, presuming that you knew who the deceased was. The specific information did not fit Dr. Beishel’s mom or mine, or Susy Smith, for that matter. I was fully expecting that Sandra would say: “I recognize this woman. I knew her. This is Princess Diana.” Instead, Sandra claimed that she had no idea who the deceased woman was!

After Dr. Beischel finished the formal part of the experiment, we entered the B-roll postexperimental portion. I pressed Sandra, asking her if she had any idea who the deceased was. She insisted that the woman was not very forthcoming and that she would not give her name or show her face. In fact, Sandra insisted that the woman was often whispering to her during the reading.

Whoever heard of a deceased person whispering? Sandra claimed to be as confused as I was. The more I pushed her, the more she resisted. I was forced to conclude that either Sandra was one of the most skilled actresses I had ever met, or she was really stymied and did not know who the mysterious female spirit was.

Of course, if Sandra really could not identify the deceased, then the double-blind portion of the experiment would be successful. Whereas my fear had been that the session would be confounded by Sandra’s former relationship with Princess Diana and therefore be a failure, the double-blind portion of the experiment seemed to have worked.

Think about this. If Sandra had been reading my mind (or Dr. Beischel’s), she would have known this was Princess Diana.

Then it dawned on me: if Susy and Professor Parker could intentionally withhold information during Saturday’s double-blind session, could Princess Diana intentionally withhold her identity during Sunday’s double-blind session as well?

Remember that Princess Diana has participated in a previous mediumship experiment with me related to Hazel Courteney. And although the idea that Princess Diana was purposefully withholding her identity was reasonable in light of what was unfolding, I had no idea as to its truth.

After the B-roll session was completed, we took an hour break. I drove my rental car back to the hotel and called Dr. Beischel. I told her what had transpired, and she agreed that the information received in the double-blind portion fit Princess Diana to a tee. And like me, she found it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Sandra did not recognize her purported friend Diana.

I returned for the afternoon single-blind telephone session more confused than ever. I called sitter 2, Hazel Courteney in London, turned on the speakerphone, and allowed Sandra to introduce herself. I presumed that Sandra immediately recognized that Hazel had a British accent. Sandra then said, to my utter amazement, “I see this deceased woman, and she is turning around ... and ... Oh my God, it’s Princess Diana!” At this point, Sandra broke down sobbing and relative bedlam ensued.

Though my heart went out to Sandra, my first thought was, “Oh great, now the single-blind experiment has been ruined! The medium has figured out who the deceased is, and moreover, she knew her intimately.”

Hazel then confessed that she had wished to hear from Princess Diana. Whatever scientific value the single-blind session might have had was thoroughly ruined.

Meanwhile, through her tears, Sandra said, “Now I understand why the deceased was whispering to me. You see, on numerous occasions when she was alive in the physical, Princess Diana would call me for psychic and spiritual advice. I would bring through deceased relatives and spirits who cared for her. It was important to Diana that people not know that she was in contact with a psychic medium, so she would whisper to me on the phone.”

Who would have guessed that a whispering spirit would turn out to be so meaningful and evidential?

Who would have thought that this little detail would be consistent with the hypothesis that not only does consciousness survive with intention but intelligent, creative, and caring spirits can take control over a carefully designed, university-based experiment and provide invaluable lessons for all of us—that is, if we are willing to listen. A new proof-of-concept research possibility was being born.

Proving that Spirits Have Control over Information

Think about this conundrum. Presuming that Sandra, Dr. Beischel, Hazel, and I were not engaged in fraud—and I can state categorically that we were not—the pattern of information revealed during this two-day testing period cannot plausibly be explained in terms of Sandra reading Dr. Beischel’s mind or mine, let alone the two sitters’.

Moreover, the information, as it came to light, did not appear to be dead or retrieved from the vacuum of space by Sandra.

Instead, it looks like it was given to Sandra both for protective and educational purposes. Susy Smith, Professor Parker, and Princess Diana were each playing a part in demonstrating that they were there and in charge, at least of their own continued lives, and that they cared about their loved ones as well as afterlife research.

If you find this hard to believe, welcome to the club. If I have learned any lesson in participating in this research, it is to be prepared for surprises.

We began this chapter with a question: can Spirit protect the living? I end this chapter with another question: can Spirit manage its own information?

Can Spirit choose to give or withhold specific information? If it can, and we can continue to document this proof-of-concept possibility in future controlled research, does this help establish the fundamental premise that survival of consciousness is real and that Spirit can choose how it will interact with us in our daily and collective lives?

Though the documentary was apparently never completed, the producer was correct. Sandra did indeed provide me with important research data, and far beyond what I could have ever imagined.

And if you can believe this, the journey is just beginning, and more shining stars are about to appear.