SSE’s August Babies are in Good Company

·       August 26, 1951: Edward Witten was born, a renowned American theoretical physicist and mathematician. He is known for his groundbreaking work in string theory, quantum gravity, and topological quantum field theory. He is also recognized for his significant contributions to mathematics, particularly his work connecting physics and topology. In 1990, he became the first physicist to receive the Fields Medal—a prestigious award in mathematics.

SSE Treasurer Daching Piao showed this same spirit of “maverick” theoretical work with his vivo-nergy hypothesis, a novel physics-based model (or model-explanation) for the global pattern of faint light emitted by living tissues in a few interesting physiological and pathological conditions. Published in the summer 2021 issue of JSE, this new framework links a hypothetical “state of internal energy” or "vivo-nergy”—to metabolic free‐radical reactions that generate faint light near a living body. Learn more at: https://doi.org/10.31275/20211685

 

·       August 12, 1865: Baron Joseph Lister (1827–1912) was the first to use antiseptic chemicals in surgery. Lister’s groundbreaking principles of aseptic surgery revolutionized the field, making surgical procedures safe and practical. Arguably no other single development was so important for surgery other than anesthesia.

Of course, health and wellness issues are more complex than ever. Ideally, frontier research in the biomedical sciences might one day even prevent the need for surgery or other invasive techniques to restore health. JSE’s summer 2025 issue just published a special subsection that discusses Stephinity Salazar’s “Social Miasm Theory” of chronic illness. She argued that a multitude of societal-level forces of suppression undermine people’s health. But this doesn’t imply there’s nothing individuals and agencies can do about it. Read more details at: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/view/109

Science holds an unprecedented degree of cultural authority nowadays, so we must remain vigilant about how it is practiced—and what gets left behind. Much of modern science operates within a framework of consensus-driven funding, publication, and institutional validation. While this structure helps to promote methodological rigor and reproducibility, it also produces an unintended, uninspired, and ineffective byproduct: obedient science.

Understand that obedient science doesn’t necessarily mean bad science. Instead, it denotes research that purposively aligns itself with prevailing models, avoids controversy, and prioritizes grant approval or academic advancement over exploratory depth. The “inadvertent” consequence? A culture of caution, where novel questions go unasked, and anomalous data are dismissed rather than explored. Over time, this can erode the very spirit of inquiry that makes science a progressive force.

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) was founded in part as a corrective to this dynamic. We exist to champion frontier science—work that challenges conventional boundaries, follows evidence into uncertain terrain, and remains open to phenomena that may not yet fit neatly into mainstream paradigms. Frontier science is not about belief; it is about disciplined curiosity. It embraces risk not recklessly, but as a necessary ingredient of discovery.

The real danger of obedient science is that it can give the tantalizing “illusion of completeness.” When gatekeeping becomes too rigid, entire domains of potential knowledge may be relegated to the margins—not because they are unworthy, but because they are unfamiliar. This narrowing of vision can hinder breakthroughs and stall the evolution of scientific understanding.

Members of the SSE community play a critically important role. By supporting research that dares to ask bigger questions—and by engaging in respectful, critical dialogue about unconventional ideas—we help to keep the process of science honest, pluralistic, and genuinely open-ended.

Let us remain committed to a vision of science that values integrity over orthodoxy and wonder over complacency.

Warmly,

James Houran, Ph.D.

Interim-President, SSE
Editor-in-Chief, JSE

Back to Top

Time to Renew Your SSE Membership

It’s that time of year—ensure you stay connected, informed, and supported by renewing your SSE membership today. Your continued participation keeps our community thriving and unlocks a host of benefits:

While you’re renewing, please also take a moment to update your SSE profile. Add your newest publications, refine your research interests, and upload a fresh photo so colleagues can find and connect with you more easily.

Please don’t let your membership lapse—renew now to keep advancing both your career and our shared mission.

Registration Open… SSE’s 2025 Online Conference

As scientific knowledge rapidly expands and technological advances accelerate, we’re left questioning: Where does the boundary of discovery lie? What forces shape and constrain it? And how close can we approach the edge before stepping beyond the limits of the established order?

Ultimately, science advances by questioning the present. That is what the upcoming 2025 conference is all about—"Exploring the Unexplained.”

Register today at: https://scientificexploration.org/2025-Conference-Registration

A few of the many fascinating talks scheduled over the two-day online event:  

The agenda includes long talks (30-35-min talk +10~15-min Q/A) and short talks (15~20-min talk + 5-min Q/A). There’s definitely something for everyone, no matter what your particular areas of interest in frontier science!

Unlock the Unknown: Two More Electrifying Webinars Left in 2025

Get ready to embark on journeys beyond the ordinary—our spring webinar series brings you deep into two worlds shrouded in mystery and myth.

First up, Cracking the NDE Code: A Scientific Blueprint for Near-Death Experiences. Dr. Rense Lange is arguably the leading expert in psychometric models of anomalous experiences. Now, attendees will be among the first to hear about his latest replication of a predictable structure to NDE perceptions. His research team has recently validated a “core experience” underlying true-NDEs, but what does it mean for parapsychological vs conventional explanations for these reports?

Then, brace yourself for What Can Dead People Tell Us About Physics. In his award-winning essay for the 2021 Bigelow Institute contest, Dr. Ruickbie presents compelling evidence for consciousness surviving death—drawing from apparitions, NDEs, and quantum physics. Framed through Einstein’s block universe and a Dickens-inspired narrative, he argues that “cloud consciousness” and “timetanglement” offer a scientifically grounded case for life beyond death.

SSE’s webinars offer:

Registration opens soon for the fall webinar—stay tuned for the date and details!

2024 SSE Conference Abstracts and More

Thanks to the Rhine Research Center and John Kruth, Editor of the Journal of Parapsychology, for their special issue devoted to abstracts from various frontier science conferences. This includes the full abstracts of approximately 43 papers presented in 2024 at SSE’s 42^nd Annual Conference (pp. 91-117 in the special issue).

SSE members and visitors can freely download and read this special conference issue here: https://www.parapsychologypress.org/jp-88-conference

Save the Date! 2026 SSE Annual Conference

Join us for SSE's upcoming annual conference, to be held in person on June 17–21, 2026. Since its founding in 1982, SSE has served as a unique professional forum, opening space for inquiry into areas often overlooked or dismissed within mainstream science.

Formal details, including the conference theme and venue, will be announced at this year’s 2025 online event. If you haven’t already, don’t forget to register for the 2025 online conference. We look forward to connecting with you virtually in 2025 and in person in 2026!

Filtering the Noise: JSE Confronts AI-Generated Papers

JSE has experienced a sharp uptick in global submissions that appear to be entirely generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. These papers characteristically lack citations, critical analysis, or any meaningful engagement with their frontier science topics. These “templated” works often mimic academic tone but offer no substantive contribution. As a result, JSE’s editorial team has been desk-rejecting roughly two such papers per week.

While AI tools certainly can accelerate literature reviews, improve clarity, and even assist with formatting, they cannot replace the intellectual rigor, originality, and domain expertise required for credible scientific inquiry. Especially in fields that challenge conventional paradigms, genuine insight—not synthetic mimicry—is what moves the conversation forward.

Back to Top

Michael Nahm is a German biologist and parapsychologist renowned for his pioneering research into the mysteries of consciousness and life. With a doctorate in biology from the University of Freiburg, Nahm has explored frontier topics such as terminal lucidity, near-death experiences, reincarnation-type cases, physical mediumship, and hauntings.

His early fascination with biological anomalies and philosophical questions led him to investigate phenomena that challenge conventional scientific paradigms. Inspired by Rupert Sheldrake’s work, Nahm began conducting independent experiments and later authored several books and papers that bridge biology and parapsychology.

Since 2018, he has been a research assistant at the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene (IGPP) in Freiburg, Germany, where he continues to examine the intersections of mind, matter, and survival beyond death. Nahm advocates for a holistic understanding of biology—one that embraces the anomalous and the unexplained as essential to grasping the full nature of life.

We caught up with Michael to pose five quick questions related to his highly provocative study (“Lucid awareness in nonresponsive patients: The case of a “locked-in experience” and its implications) which will appear in the upcoming Fall issue of JSE/

What inspired you to pursue this particular research question, and do you have any interesting stories from your research journey?

There are several reports according to which nonresponsive coma patients can sometimes be fully conscious, following everything that happens around them chiefly with the sense of hearing. But I am not aware of detailed published case study of such an experience. Because learning about such experiences is highly important for practical and theoretical reasons, I teamed up with the producers of a documentary film about such a case and experts in the field of near-death studies in order to write such a publication.

What have been the most significant findings of your study, and how do they contribute to the current understanding of this issue?

The most significant finding is that according to the medical records, the patient (Gil Avni from Israel) should not have been able to follow what happened around him during his coma. He suffered from severed anoxia in his brain and was additionally put in a medically induced coma to reduce the brain’s oxygen consumption as much as possible. Gil was expected to die soon.

Still, he heard and memorized everything that happened around him perfectly, remembering every dialogue held at his bedside, etc. Being trapped in a nonresponsive body was an utterly traumatic experience for Gil. In order to raise the awareness regarding the occurrence of such cases, we introduce the term “locked-in experience” for them in our publication.

However, Gil had occasional out-of-body experiences (OBEs) in addition and reported verifiable visual perceptions of his surroundings from these occasions. Reporting Gil’s case is important for improving practical aspects of coma patient care and it offers additional insights into the spectrum of patient conditions under which it is still possible to be lucidly aware.

What was the most surprising or unexpected finding in your research, and how did it change your perspective on the topic?

I was surprised to learn that Gil had OBEs also at later stages of his coma experience because they were not mentioned in the documentary film. At that time, he and the producers decided not to report about these controversial features in order to focus on the main issue: Describing his permanent lucid awareness during the coma and to call for improved coma patient care.

What future research directions do you believe are necessary to further explore and understand this controversial issue?

It is of crucial importance to perform large-scale prospective investigations on coma experiences. Ideally, the brain activities and medication provided should be monitored and documented, and tests assessing anomalous kinds of perception should be included.

How do you respond to the general criticism that many anomalous phenomena cannot be scientifically tested or definitively validated?

What someone may regard as "scientifically tested" or "definitively validated" is not objectively definable. It is rather a matter of subjective taste and people with different backgrounds and presuppositions have quite different opinions about this.

But along with our with numerous other publications on related near-death phenomena, our study shows that it is possible to investigate and document remarkable single-case studies using the usual scientific methods that are applied in more "ordinary" scientific contexts as well. Such studies can therefore provide substantial evidence that validates the occurrence of these anomalous phenomena. As mentioned, large scale prospective studies would be best suited to do this, and they can also include tests. I therefore consider these criticisms untenable with regard to this field of research.

If only 1% of the global funds that are spent in the field of critical care medicine and brain studies could be used for pursuing such research avenues, and dozens of research teams would be working on this, I am perfectly convinced that we would be able to advance our knowledge about unusual near-death phenomena and coma experiences in comparably short time.  

Back to Top

A Farewell Funny

Physicists trying to explain consciousness: “It’s just particles… with really strong opinions.”