Connect

A test to determine if people who report out-of-body experiences (OBEs) could identify objects in another room produced results no better than chance, but afterward something strange happened: Two participants described, unprompted, researchers’ locations and activities behind closed doors.

The participants’ unexpected observations were not part of the trial’s predefined outcome measures and therefore can’t be considered evidence for out-of-body experiences, UVA Health investigators say. But the unexplained results may help researchers design better, more effective ways to evaluate the potential validity of a phenomenon that's been reported for decades.

“I hope this study encourages researchers to think creatively about how we test these experiences. The unexpected findings give us a potentially useful new direction, but they also need to be tested prospectively and under rigorous conditions before we can know what they mean,” says researcher Marina Weiler, PhD, UVA School of Medicine Division of Perceptual Studies. “For me, the most important takeaway is that unexpected findings can sometimes help us ask better questions. We now have a specific idea that can be tested in future experiments, and that is exactly what science should do.”

Understanding Out-of-Body Experiences

In the recent trial, conducted in Brazil, 21 participants attempted to identify a random object on a laptop screen in another room. Of the 21, 10 reported having an out-of-body experience, and 13 provided target descriptions. (The 13 included participants who had not reported leaving their bodies but said they could see images on an internal “mental screen” or the like.)

The descriptions the participants gave of the objects on the laptop screen did not prove statistically more accurate than what could be expected from guessing. But during interviews afterward, one participant described how a researcher in another room, behind closed doors, had been seated on the left looking at a laptop screen while another researcher was farther back reading a book. Another participant described how a researcher had been seated on the right, taking notes, while a second was sitting on the left at the computer.

Trial records confirmed both descriptions were correct at the time of the participants’ sessions. Further, there was no way the participants could have seen the researchers, according to trial organizers.

That's prompted Weiler and her collaborators to propose that the targets provided during OBE trials may play important roles in determining outcomes. It’s possible, they suggest, that memorable, distinctive or emotionally engaging targets may be easier for participants to visualize. Researchers conducting future trials may want to supplement the traditional targets with other unseen details that participants might notice, such as having a researcher wear a distinctive or colorful item of clothing while behind closed doors. 

If participants could recall such items without seeing or being told about them, that might bolster the case for out-of-body remote viewing.

“I hope these findings encourage us to think more deeply about what they might mean for our understanding of consciousness and, ultimately, the nature of reality. If studies demonstrate that people can obtain accurate information that they could not have accessed through their ordinary senses, we would have to reconsider some of our assumptions about the relationship between consciousness, perception and the physical world,” Weiler said. “At its deepest level, this research is not only asking whether out-of-body experiences are real. It is asking what we mean by ‘real’ in the first place, and whether our current understanding of reality is broad enough to account for everything human consciousness can experience.”

Findings Published

The researchers have published their findings in the peer-reviewed journal Explore. The research team consisted of Weiler, Damon Abraham, David J.P. Acunzo, and Niffe Hermansson. The researchers have no financial interest in the work.

The research was supported by a gift from an undisclosed donor.

About UVA Division of Perceptual Studies 

Established in 1967 under the leadership of UVA psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, MD, UVA Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) stands as the most productive university-based research group in the world dedicated to exploring phenomena that challenge conventional scientific paradigms concerning human consciousness. 

At the core of DOPS’ research mission lies the commitment to rigorous evaluation of empirical evidence surrounding exceptional human experiences and capacities, including utilization of a state-of-the-art neuroimaging lab. DOPS extends its focus beyond fundamental empirical research and explores the profound implications of such research for scientific theory and society at large. By actively sharing insights and findings, DOPS strives to contribute meaningfully to the understanding of consciousness, bridging the gap between scientific inquiry and public awareness.   

To keep up with the latest medical research news from UVA School of Medicine and UVA Paul and Diane Manning Institute of Biotechnology, bookmark the Making of Medicine blog.