May 2025

SSE’s May Babies are in Good Company

• May 11, 1918:. Richard Feynman was born, a Nobel Prize–winning physicist renowned for his pioneering work in quantum electrodynamics and his deep curiosity about the foundations of science. A professor at Caltech and a key figure in the Manhattan Project, Feynman also made significant contributions to superfluidity, particle physics, and nanotechnology. He was also known for challenging orthodoxy, famously advocating for scientific integrity and open inquiry—values central to frontier science.
  
  Note that JSE’s Fall 2022 special issue was about "Advanced Energy Concepts Challenging the Second Law of Thermodynamics," which was conceived by SSE's own Garret Moddel. You can re-explore those tantalizing articles here: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/issue/view/87

• May 1, 1888: Patent #382,280 was granted to legendary engineer, futurist, and inventor Nikola Tesla for the “Electrical Transmission of Power.” This patent represents a landmark in the development of modern electrical engineering, specifically focusing on Tesla's revolutionary concept of using alternating current (AC) for the efficient transmission of electrical power over long distances. Tesla’s approach laid the foundation for the AC power systems that became the global standard, influencing everything from power grids to industrial machinery. It could be said that Edison lit the world, but Tesla made sure it could reach the suburbs!
  
  Mysteries related to electrical phenomena certainly still persist. For instance,  JSE’s Winter 2024 issue featured Miguel Arsenio Galán Santos and Stanley Koren's article on "electro-balls" that might account for some sightings of UFOs, ball lightning, and strange sounds in the sky ("skyquakes"). Read more here: https://doi.org/10.31275/20243057

It is clear that this year continues to mark a period of significant transformation for the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE). Building on decades of commitment to open-minded inquiry and the rigorous investigation of frontier topics, the Journal is now experiencing a remarkable surge in submissions. This growth spanning domains as diverse as consciousness research, UAP-related investigations, consciousness research, new physics, healing phenomena, controversies in history studies, and cryptozoology—reflects not only a renewed scholarly interest in anomalistics, but also the increasing willingness of researchers to bring interdisciplinary rigor to subjects long considered “fringe.”

This expansion is cause for both celebration and careful reflection. As the boundaries of science evolve and broaden, so too must the frameworks that support them. With more researchers engaging with high-quality exploratory work, the Journal now carries a heightened responsibility: to ensure that our policies, procedures, and review standards are commensurate with the expectations of modern academic publishing.

The demand for professionalization is not about dilution or conformity. Rather, it is about strengthening our core mission—to provide a credible, thoughtful, and inclusive platform for scholarly work that challenges convention. Maintaining academic integrity, transparency in editorial decisions, and consistency in peer review practices are all essential for the Journal to continue serving as a trusted outlet for work that often lies at the edges of mainstream discourse.

To meet these responsibilities, several initiatives are underway. The Journal is refining its editorial workflows to reduce turnaround time and increase clarity for authors. Reviewer guidelines are being updated to emphasize constructive, evidence-based critique, especially for interdisciplinary submissions that may not fit neatly within any one academic tradition. We are also investing in digital infrastructure that improves submission tracking and reviewer matching, aligning with industry standards while preserving our unique focus on scientific exploration.

Additionally, we are actively expanding the diversity of our editorial board. Anomalistics is a field that touches on philosophical, psychological, cultural, and empirical domains. As such, the Journal must reflect a plurality of perspectives—from seasoned scholars in established disciplines to emerging voices who bring fresh insights from the margins.

JSE remains committed to encouraging methodological rigor, transparent reporting, and where feasible, data sharing. We are exploring ways to adapt reproducibility guidelines to the unique nature of exploratory science, without sacrificing the epistemic standards that define good research.

Ultimately, the SSE’s goal is to ensure that our Journal remains a haven for bold thinking and a model of responsible scholarly publishing. We thank our authors, reviewers, and readers for their continued trust and engagement, and we look forward to growing together as we navigate this exciting period of renewal.

Warmly,

James Houran, Ph.D.

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

Back to Top

Alert! JSE’s Policy and Production Upgrades

As part of our improvement process, formal article production is now being handled by a contracted company. This is a professional step up for JSE, as it breaks up the production of the Journal to additional hands and allows the ME and EIC to focus on articles and editing.

However, with the addition of an external company for professional production, we have to alter some of our process to account for additional ‘cooks in the kitchen’.  Production of a formal journal every three months is a highly technical process which has multiple dozens of steps and involves transfer across multiple software and design platforms. A consistent process ensures that article production is as seamless as possible, and that articles are professionally crafted to the best of everyone’s ability, and to the benefit of the Journal and authors.

To that end, our proofing process has changed to accommodate the above. We wish to kindly emphasize that all of the following processes are processes we need authors to follow. As stated above, there are many stages to converting a manuscript into a finished article, and quality is a risk when authors step outside the system of checks and balances we strive for as a small editorial staff.

For the coming issues, the following process has been put in place:

1. Articles will first be checked for cited article accuracy and APA. Issues with citation or articles will be sent back to the author as part of the copy-editing process and not part of the proof process. Authors can now expect to get an edited manuscript which only addresses editing missing articles or incorrect citations. The manuscript will also ask for details such as author affiliations, ORCID id, preferred email, and correspondence. Authors will be asked to provide these, as well as correct reference issues and return them to the Managing Editor within four days. We note here that as the paper is out of peer-review that additional edits of preference are not allowed.
2. The time for reviewing a proof will be shortened to five days and will represent the only opportunity the author has to make changes to the finished article. In the past, we have occasionally allowed for changes after publication, or additional rounds of proofing for exceedingly complex articles. Now that we are working with a production company to produce the final article, the above is no longer feasible or preferred. Therefore, the author will have only one opportunity to correct issues of fact, or substantive error with their proof. Per the general standard of almost every peer-reviewed journal in the US and GB, once the article is formally published, additional edits will not be allowed. In cases of missed factual error(s), the author will have the opportunity to submit a formal ‘correction’ to the journal.

There are many reasons why transferring production is a promotion towards higher quality of JSE, but as always, it is the collaboration of our author’s with our editorial process that makes any article the best professional presentation of your work. We ask both the community and our authors to be patient with us as we manage this new editorial structure. You can best help by facilitating our new procedure.

SSE Celebrates the Life of Bill Bengston (1950─2025)

William (Bill) F. Bengston, SSE’s President from 2010 to 2022, passed away peacefully at his home on April 16, 2025, at the age of 75 surrounded by family. He is survived by his wife Margaret, his two children Brian & Elizabeth along with their spouses, four grandchildren, as well as his brother and sister.

Read more at: https://scientificexploration.org/news/13495657

“Demonic Possession:” Prepare for SSE’s next Anomalies 101 Webinar

Please plan to join us this July for a captivating talk exploring the latest research on demonic (or diabolical) possession by an actual Vatican-affiliated scientist. This is a sinister topic where consciousness studies and cultural anthropology intersect with the unexplained. Are diabolical possessions real, or do they stem from altered brain states, deep-seated beliefs, or something beyond science?

This unprecedented discussion will examine cutting-edge case studies, neurological insights, and historical accounts, challenging what we think we know about the mind, the supernatural, and the power of belief. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, this session might leave you questioning your own assumptions about the nature or limits of reality.

Stay tuned for registration details!

SSE is Excited to Share News from The BIAL Foundation!

RTP (Portuguese TV channel) and the BIAL Foundation cordially invite you to watch the docuseries "Beyond the Brain", which presents the scientific research into the human mind and its multiple dimensions.

Premiering globally, "Beyond the Brain" consists of 16 episodes, each approximately 30 minutes long, and presents the human mind as the epicenter of the most intriguing and challenging discoveries of our time.

Through the insights and research of 50 scientists and experts from prestigious international institutions, this series - focused on the theme of science and spirituality - seeks to challenge taboos by exploring how science addresses phenomena that have long been considered marginal, such as telepathy, mediumship, near-death experiences, and claimed past-life memories.

Don’t miss the premiere of the first episode on Science and Spirituality, airing on May 12, around 11:00 pm (GMT+1), on RTP1. A new episode will be released every Monday.

Viewers from other countries can also watch the docuseries live via this website: https://www.rtp.pt/play/direto/rtp1. Each episode will also be available on RTP Play (RTP's streaming service) until February 2026.

The official website for the docuseries will be launched on May 26th, 2025. It will feature teasers for each episode, synopses, and shorter versions of the interviews.

Watch the teaser, and follow all the updates here.

Back to Top

Meet Michael Sudduth, Ph.D.—a well-known figure in the frontier science community.

He’s a philosopher specializing in the philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, and the epistemology of religious belief and the nature of evidence.

JSE readers will recognize his name as a prominent critic of the popular reasoning about the various types of evidence offered in support of postmortem survival of consciousness. We had the opportunity to connect with Dr. Sudduth and explore his background and work.

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

I’ve been fascinated by questions about human nature, personhood, and consciousness for much of my life. This interest began with paranormal experiences in my childhood and teens, which sparked my curiosity about phenomena that challenge conventional understandings of reality. These questions became more pressing during the past two-and-a-half decades when I lived in a historic home where I and others witnessed haunting and poltergeist phenomena. These experiences led me to survival research, which has been a central focus of my work and publications for the past twenty years.

One formative experience occurred when I was seven or eight years old. Late one night, I felt compelled to walk into the hallway outside my room. As I stared into the dimly lit living room, I began to see the faint outlines of people seated on the furniture—friends and family members who had passed away. The experience was not frightening but comforting, leaving me with a profound sense of connection and curiosity about unseen aspects of reality. It made me wonder whether there are real phenomena that remain hidden under ordinary conditions.

Another pivotal moment came over two decades ago while living in a historic house in Windsor, Connecticut. My wife and I experienced a series of unexplained occurrences, including disembodied voices, moving objects, and electrical disturbances. After moving out, I received 'missed calls' from the house on my cell phone, even though the phone service had been disconnected. Research into the home’s history revealed a tragic story of a suicide and a fatal accident, which added depth to my understanding of these phenomena.

These experiences illustrate how first-hand encounters can ignite and sustain scientific curiosity. They continue to inform my research into the nature of consciousness and its potential survival beyond death.

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

As a philosopher, my primary focus has been on the conceptual foundations of survival arguments—the assumptions they rely on and the logic that supports them. One of my key findings has been the role of the 'comparative expectedness' of the data given the survival hypotheses and its alternatives. Generally stated, this criterion helps us assess which hypothesis better explains the data. For example, if a survival hypothesis (H1) better predicts an observation (O) than an alternative hypothesis (H2), then O supports H1 over H2.

This concept highlights a significant challenge for survival arguments: the reliance on auxiliary assumptions. Survival hypotheses alone rarely predict much; they require additional assumptions. These include assumptions about the continuity of postmortem consciousness with its antemortem states, the epistemic access discarnate persons would have to embodied persons and the physical world, the kind or degree of their causal powers, and a number of other assumptions required to explain away recalcitrant facts, such as discarnate persons having what are otherwise surprising lapses in memory, their indulging in twaddle, and exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with their antemortem personality.

One problem is that these assumptions are largely untestable or otherwise unjustified. Trying to confirm a hypothesis by enlisting assumptions as controversial as the hypothesis you’re trying to confirm results in a spurious confirmation. Not only is there no independent support for most of these assumptions, upon closer inspection it appears that the only reason to adopt them, as opposed to other survival-friendly assumptions, is that doing so results in a particular fit between survival and the data. But this is indistinguishable from rigging a theory to fit data we have collected in advance.

For this reason, the survival theory – hypothesis plus auxiliaries – which survivalists have in mind is excessively permissive; it can accommodation any fact. But a theory that can accommodate anything ultimately explains nothing. Finally, survivalists are hoisted by their own petard. Many of the reasons survivalists typically invoke to rule out non-survival explanations apply equally to a bulked-up discarnate survival hypothesis. Moreover, even if the assumptions had epistemic credentials of some sort, the same would be true of many alternative assumptions that would boost the explanatory power of alternative hypotheses, including alternative survival hypotheses.

These findings emphasize the need for rigorous conceptual clarity and identifying weaknesses in the logic of survival arguments. They challenge researchers to develop more robust frameworks for evaluating evidence and to avoid relying on assumptions that lack independent support.

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

One of the most surprising findings in my research came while investigating the James Leininger reincarnation case. This case, often hailed as compelling evidence for reincarnation, quickly unraveled under scrutiny. I discovered that many of the claims attributed to James were based on information he was exposed to through ordinary sources, such as a Blue Angels video and visits to a World War II themed flight museum. Despite this, the Leiningers confidently denied that James had any such exposure, illustrating how easily critical facts can be overlooked or dismissed.

This case highlighted several broader issues in reincarnation research. First, researchers often underestimate the role of ordinary information sources and coincidence in shaping seemingly extraordinary claims. Second, the investigative process is prone to errors, such as relying on inconsistent witness testimony or failing to account for alternative explanations. Finally, advocates of such cases frequently lack clear criteria for evaluating evidence, making it difficult for them to address counterarguments effectively.

This experience made me far more skeptical about spontaneous cases of reincarnation. It underscored the need for rigorous investigative methods and a more critical approach to analyzing evidence. Ultimately, it reinforced the importance of epistemological clarity in ensuring that such cases are evaluated fairly and accurately.

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

To advance research into survival and anomalous phenomena, several improvements are necessary:

A. Rigorous Investigative Methods:

• Researchers must thoroughly investigate all potential sources of ordinary information. For example, if a child claims knowledge of historical events, investigators should examine any videos, books, or locations the child may have been exposed to.
• Investigations should prioritize contemporaneous documentation rather than relying on reconstructed accounts years later.
• Witness testimony must be critically evaluated, especially when it involves interpretations rather than direct observations, and specifically when witnesses try to give assurance that no ordinary sources of information could have played a role.

B.    Conceptual Clarity:

• Researchers need to frame their findings as arguments rather than narratives. This requires articulating clear hypotheses and using established criteria for evidential support.
• Greater attention must be paid to epistemology and confirmation theory to avoid common fallacies or the reliance on inappropriate criteria of evidential support.

By adopting these practices, researchers can build a more robust foundation for exploring survival-related phenomena. Rigorous methods and clear reasoning will not only strengthen the case for survival but also ensure that the field earns greater credibility and legitimacy.

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

Criticism that anomalous phenomena cannot be scientifically tested or definitively validated often stems from a misunderstanding of what scientific inquiry entails. Scientific testing does not require 'definitive validation,' which implies immunity to revision. Instead, it focuses on questions like: What does the evidence suggest? How strongly does it support a hypothesis? Is this the best explanation of the data?

The scientific testability of anomalous phenomena depends on whether hypotheses have observable consequences. Exact numerical values are not needed here, but our hypothesis must be contentful enough to tell us what we should expect to observe if our hypothesis true and what we would expect to observe if it is false, or some other hypothesis is true. For example, if a survival hypothesis predicts that a discarnate consciousness can provide specific information unknown to the living, this can be tested by comparing the hypothesis's predictions to observed data. However, such hypotheses often rely on auxiliary assumptions—e.g., about the nature of discarnate consciousness and how it interacts with the physical world—that are not independently testable. This weakens their scientific credibility.

So, I’d say that there are two genuine problems for testing hypotheses concerning anomalous phenomena. First, hypotheses or theories must be sufficiently specified to have empirical consequences. Second, to the extent that hypotheses must be joined to auxiliary assumptions, these assumptions must be independently testable. There are, of course, different accounts of independent testability, and I have discussed these elsewhere. But the general idea should be clear enough, as well as why it is the potential Achille’s heel of this domain of inquiry.

Back to Top

A Farewell Funny

“They say Tesla died penniless and alone. Clearly the world wasn’t ready for wireless billing.”