A failure of compassion and accuracy

In the latest parapsychology paper

It matters what words we use. Words are incantations. They cast spells. They direct the thoughts of those who read or hear them.

It was disappointing to see that Dr Callum E. Cooper, Professor Chris Roe, Evelyn Elsaesser, and David Lorimer (herein referred to as the authors) used the word ‘hallucination’ to describe the meaningful contact that living subjects have made with their beloved deceased.

In their paper The Phenomenology and Impact of Hallucinations Concerning the Deceased, published in 2021 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the authors state that:

“(The term hallucination is used here to refer to a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus; it is intended to be ontologically neutral, and does not imply that such experiences are necessarily a consequence of disease or dysfunction).” (P1)

The only problem is, as indicated in the authors’ own words, ‘in the absence of an external stimulus’, it is not ontologically neutral. The definition of hallucination is:

‘An experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.’ (My italics).

There are three major problems with using this word, in this context, to describe the experiences of subjects who have perceived passed loved-ones.

The first is that it is intrinsically stigmatizing. It invalidates and pathologizes the subject’s experience, even if that was not the authors’ intentions. The subject must admit to being someone who sees things that aren’t there.

The study talks about these perceptions being a natural part of the grieving and healing process. But how much of that healing comes from the subject’s perception that they are having an actual experience with a passed loved-one? How much of that healing would be taken away with the assertion that they are merely hallucinating?

If the authors were to interview a tearful lady who had just lost her husband, and her husband came to her in a dream giving her information that comforted and reassured her, would the authors be comfortable calling her experience a hallucination to her face, in the course of their interview? That would seem to be a failure of compassion (not to mention factually unconfirmed, given that the source of the dream is inconclusive). It is because of this failure of compassion and accuracy that the word hallucination should not have made it to print.

The second issue is that it seems to signal the authors’ positions to the reader. They think people who have anomalous experiences with the dead are perceiving things that aren’t there. But is that really their position? Throughout the article, the authors’ attempts to be neutral about the findings seem to pendulum swing between asserting the subjects’ perceptions are hallucinatory, and asserting that they are, in fact, communicating with something.

This is best elucidated when the authors state that:

“The phenomenon has been given a variety of labels, including ‘post-bereavement hallucination, ‘encounters with the dead’, and ‘after death communications’ (ADCs), and these terms are used interchangeably here.” (P1)

They fail to see that these terms should not be used interchangeably. When dealing with this highly subjective and intangible aspect of human experience, definitions matter. After-death communication requires another with whom to have an exchange, whereas, the definition of hallucination requires the absence of another to be true. Pick one. Is it a hallucination, or is it a communication?

I’m not sure what the cause of the tension is here. Is it the case that among the parapsychologist authors there are some ‘believers’ and some ‘debunkers’, and so each had to have their say shoe-horned into their paper, or is it the case that the title was chosen to pander to real or assumed cynical reviewers and editors?

This takes me onto my third issue with the use of this word, which is the reasoning behind it and lack of assessing the cost of its use. Dr Cooper admitted that they chose the word hallucination to improve their chances of getting the article published. He had this to say in response to the kickback on Facebook:

“It's a bit of a political game really. The first medical journal based study on this (the actual turning point in acceptance from medical professionals on After-Death Communications) was the publication of Dewi Rees' MD thesis in the British Medical Journal on the 'hallucinations' of widowhood (1971). He fully respected the much earlier ground work of the Society for Psychical Research, but using terms such as 'psychical', 'ghosts' or After-Death Communications would likely have faced rejection at the editors desk. He used hallucination in the broad sense, to mean everything from 'sense of presence' to 'apparitions' also appreciating groups of people could witness these things. Using the term again, its got this through the door of BJPsychOpen. We use ADCs within, and the reviewers and editors took the time to read it in full (the wrongly worded title could potentially damage that opportunity). We got our foot in the door using it, and went through, now the right people who need to know and read this information will use it as needed or cite it in their own work. Hopefully, increasing wider acceptance and understanding for such experiences.”

His justification for using this word is that it was used in a parapsychological paper by Dewi Rees that was successfully published in a mainstream journal in 1971. Dr Cooper clearly thinks this is a win for parapsychology, but sadly, to me, it reads like more of the ‘it’s all in your head’ same. If parapsychology feel the need to use the same invalidating terminology it used fifty years ago in order to get a paper published, then we have a depressingly long way to go.

Do the authors know for sure that another, truly neutral word choice wouldn’t have sufficed? One that simply stated the facts without making a tacit claim about the unreal nature of the subjects’ experiences?

Were the following titles ruled out?

The Phenomenology and Impact of Visions Concerning the Deceased

The Phenomenology and Impact of Experiences Concerning the Deceased

The Phenomenology and Impact of Perceptions Concerning the Deceased

The Phenomenology and Impact of Impressions Concerning the Deceased

The Phenomenology and Impact of Sensations Concerning the Deceased

Were these options - compassionate in their neutrality - vetoed in favour of hallucination?

Were they really the deal-breaker between getting their paper published, or not?

The word hallucination should have been way, way down the list due to its imprecision and lack of compassion. In fact, it belongs in 1971 along with cigarette advertising, and brown and orange wallpaper.

You may think I’m making way too big a deal out of this. But it is a big deal. This paper was published by the top scientists in parapsychology. We depend on them to get to the truth of anomalous experiences, and this choice of word selects a position that invalidates the many millions of people who are having meaningful, life-changing experiences with deceased relatives that do not fit the definition of a hallucination.

As I said, words are incantations - they direct the thinking of those who read them. And this particular word affirms that people who have after death experiences with loved ones are experiencing something that isn’t there. This is the very matter that is at stake in parapsychological research and should not have been thrown out flippantly in a clumsy and imprecise word choice.

Pandering to cynical people who scoff at life-changing and misunderstood experiences has got to stop, or we will never progress to a true understanding of the relationship between the living and the dead, and our own relationship to consciousness, death and existence. It would have done more for the progress of parapsychology for the authors to refuse to have their paper published with misleading and invalidating terminology, than to pander to real or imagined cynical tyrants at BJPsych.

Language traps us when it comes to writing (or speaking) about the diaphanous aspects of existence. Even the word ‘dead’ itself causes us to see things in a certain way. It is such a common word, with such a clear meaning, that we often do not question it or seek alternatives.

Dead.

Onomatopoeically, it sounds like a thud. Like hitting the dirt, hard. Flanked by ‘D’s, short and abrupt, it manipulates us into thinking that this is what happens at the end of life. In abrupt, short order, you hit the dirt hard, and that’s the end of it.

But is that really true, or is it just a spell cast by the word itself? What if we were born into a language where, when someone dies, we describe them, instead, as bodiless.

‘Where is your Grandma?’

‘Oh, she became bodiless two years ago.’

Imagine how different our perspective on dying would be, if we were linguistically drenched in the idea that when we pass we are still around, but bodiless. It could just as easily have gone that way. Thinking about our shimmering, immaterial loved-ones around us would be normal, and we would not feel the need to pathologize such experiences. Say it aloud. How differently it sounds, to be bodiless instead of dead.

Words matter - they are incantations, they cast spells. They direct the thoughts of those who read and hear them. I hope that afterlife research will stop casting the hallucination spell upon its readers imprecisely before I myself become bodiless.

---

Now I’d love to hear from you (I’ve opened the comments to everyone this time). How would you feel being told that your experience with a loved-one in spirit was a hallucination? Am I right to be concerned about this word choice? Please share your thoughts in a comment.

Ps. Remember that on Thursday I’m hosting an exclusive demonstration of mediumship and A.M.A for paying subscribers. If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can do so using the link below. It’s just £9 per month or £90 for a year’s subscription. Enjoy weekly educational content about mediumship, interviews with top mediums, comment and ask questions, and attend subscriber-only events.

Pps. If you found this article thought provoking or valuable in any way, please share it on social media and keep the conversation going.