Out Of The Body And Into The Lab: Defining Dr. Alex Tanous' Abilities

CALLUM E. COOPER

 During a recent monthly meeting for the Centre of the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes (CSAPP), University of Northampton, a presentation was given by the author on the ‘The Life and Work of Dr Alex Tanous’.  At the end of the presentation, after showing film-footage of out-of-body (OB, or out-of-body experiences, OBE) research carried out by Dr Karlis Osis on Dr Alex Tanous, one student raised an interesting point about the definitions used between OBEs and astral projections.  

Dr Tanous was labelled as having the ability to consciously release his mind from the body and have OBEs in which he obtained information from sources which he would not be able to obtain within known sensory means.  During the footage of the experiments held at the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) conducted in the late 1970s to early 1980s, the relaxed body of Dr Tanous would speak to relate the targets he was seeing – while out-of-the-body.  However, the student at the CSAPP meeting remarked ‘‘in an altered state of consciousness, to let the mind travel beyond the body, the body becomes more-or-less functionless, yet Dr Tanous spoke to relay the targets seen during the experiment, how?’’  (or something along those lines). 

Let us discuss the experiences of Dr Tanous to firstly assess whether he was an OBEer or an astral projector (if they are two different things), which should in itself answer our second question, of whether something does actually leave the body or not to create such classifications of experience/ability which we currently use today.

Generally, in OBEs, people report a sense of hovering above their own body, and then travelling to whatever location they desire, to then eventually return and contemplate their experience.  With astral projection, there is the suggestion that something more is leaving the body, an essence of the mind which is not out of sight but can be seen as mists, shadows, shapes or full apparitional forms, which are assumed to be some physical aspect of consciousness (occasionally referred to as the soul).  An excellent example of this can be found in the reported astral projection abilities of the psychic medium Attila von Szalay, which were witnessed by Raymond Bayless (see McAdams & Bayless, 1981, pp. 10-12).  When von Szalay astral projected, he reported his visions as like seeing through a goldfish bowl or an aquarium; he could travel at will, and report the envirnments he explored.  Once, when he travelled to the home of Raymond Bayless, it was reported by Bayless that he saw a shadowy shape hovering about one foot off the floor, it was stationary for a few seconds, moved about the rooms at incredible speed and then vanished.  At the next meeting von Szalay and Bayless had in person, von Szalay told Bayless - to his surprise - that he had visited his home in his astral body.

Therefore, astral projections suggest that a physical form can be seen traveling and exploring, while on the other hand, having an OBE, or indeed remote viewing, involves the percipient psychically seeing information at distant and extending their consciousness to that distant location to obtain information.  However, even OBEs and remote viewing may be separate classifications of the mind leaving the body, therefore, we may have to understand the OBE in terms of stages of altered states of consciousness.  This is more explainable if we further examine the OB abilities of specifically Dr Alex Tanous, which have been researched and reported, and his experiences discussed. 

Dr Tanous used the following definitions for astral projection and OBEs: ‘‘astral travel [is] the casting out and later retrieval of one’s ‘astral body’, a kind of energy or spirit entity, and out-of-body experiences or OBE, in which some relatively intangible part of a person leaves his body and returns’’ (Tanous, with Ardman, 1976, p.114).    It was believed by Dr Tanous that he had astral projected at times, whereupon people witnessed apparitions of him (see Auerbach, 1986, p 43), as well as having had OBEs.  However, he was never sure exactly how he managed to do this, the main suggestion is that it required him to be relaxed and perhaps lost in thought, like a daydream.    These experiences for him had also been occurring since childhood and therefore were accepted as a natural process.  Dr Tanous specifically described his OBEs as follows: ‘‘When I was about seven years old I began to find myself in places which I didn’t recognise.  The form of the experience has not changed.  I seem to myself to have become a very small point of light, my body seems to be no longer there, but the whole universe seems to have opened up to me’’ (Tanous, 1975, pp. 231-232).

This process of the OBE is how Dr Tanous described his personal experiences with the phenomenon during experiments he participated in at the ASPR.  These experiments were filmed for publicity of the research at one point, but were also subsequently published (Osis & McCormick, 1980).  These experiments not only set out to investigate OBEs, but also to see whether any physical essence does indeed leave the body which is in some way measurable.  Dr Tanous further stated that during these experiments ‘‘The observers say that I can speak through the whole experiment, and describe what is going on, and what targets I see inside Dr Osis’ apparatus.  I myself declare when (subjectively at least) I have left the body and the little ball of light which I seem to be is at its brightest.  At that moment I name the target which I see.’’ (Tanous, 1975, p.232).

These experiments suggested from the point of view of the researchers and from Dr Tanous’ experiential point of view, that an altered state of consciousness had been achieved, whereby the subject was no longer aware of their physical body and therefore concentrated on their second body, the body that travels (in Dr Tanous’ case he called this second body ‘Alex 2’).  Therefore, an altered state of consciousness appears to be essential in successful OBEs.  This has been found to be the case in many laboratory experiments where the most hit rates appeared to be achieved when altered states of consciousness are recognised and reported by either the participant or experimenter (Osis, 1974).

Though Dr Osis and McCormick never saw an ‘astral body’ of Dr Tanous next to the apparatus which held the targets, some physical changes were noted.  For example, for Dr Tanous, or anyone to know what the targets were, this required the observer to stand next to the apparatus in the laboratory and place their eye in line with a view hole, where the targets could be seen inside the apparatus.   When Dr Tanous felt the most externalised and actually ‘out of his body’ this corresponded with higher hit rates.  It also corresponded with strain-gauge activation  levels which were highest during high scoring periods when Alex 2 claimed to experience physically peering through the view-hole on the apparatus at the target.  This suggested ‘something’ physical was present and being measured, but what this was exactly was only put down to speculation and was presumed to be some form of extension of consciousness or the astral body (Osis & McCormick, 1980).  However, Rogo (1986) pointed out that with this particular experiment on Dr Tanous’ abilities, we have to be careful in assuming that some form of consciousness or astral body was being measured during the experiment, as it is equally - or more so likely - that the higher strain-gauge levels could have been caused by a psychokinetic effect produced by Dr Tanous (or possibly even the experimenters unconsciously).

If we strictly assume astral projection to be the production of a physical form or apparitional figure when the subjects feels themselves to be traveling, while in an altered state of consciousness and experiences a passage of time, then we could keep the definitions of OBE and astral projection as two different phenomena, with one leading into the other and only being marginally different.  In that case, Dr Tanous’ own definitions of OBE and astral projection are most suitable.   The experiences are different in the sense that one involves more of a physical presence experienced by observers during the event, and a deeper sense of an altered state of consciousness for the experient who extends their mind.  However, even though Dr Tanous claimed at times he had had both experiences, and that he wasn’t aware he was speaking/communicating during the ASPR experiments, his experiences do seem to be more like that of the definitions given to OBEs.  Though we could argue that perhaps Dr Tanous’ experiences were bordering between the two.  If we consider psi experiences and altered states of consciousness in stages (from descriptions of reported experiences), they would likely follow the steps below: 

• CLAIRVOYANCE

• REMOTE VIEWING

• OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCE

• ASTRAL TRAVELING

It is common knowledge in parapsychology that OBEs and astral projection are often casually classified as the same thing, something which Dr Tanous himself noted (Tanous, with Ardman, 1976).  He also stated that in some cases of military projects involving psi research, remote viewing experiments were given a large amount of funding, and changed the name of OBEs to ‘remote viewing,’ this was simply because it ‘‘sounded better’’ and appeared by many to be the same thing and ultimately a casual label (Tanous, 1988).  And yet, from the stages above it seems we have such definitions for a reason, to classify the experienced phenomena.  This has not simply added a label to something which we cannot explain, there is suggestion that psi may become more prominent and more objective the more our conscious awareness alters.  This is supported by meditation studies (e.g. Tribbe, 1979), Ganzfeld research (e.g. Roe, Cooper & Martin, 2010), and work on psychedelics (e.g. Luke, 2010).

Certainly in the experiments conducted at the ASPR, it appears Dr Tanous was being tested for - and producing - an out of body ability, as is stated in the study title.  By the definitions presented, it seems that throughout his life he had had both OBEs and astral projections, where in the latter phenomenon, people had reported Dr Tanous’ apparition and at times interacted with it.  It is equally a fair argument that these labels and definitions are just not needed, and that ultimately all we need to know is that they suggest a psi ability in which the mind extends into the environment to psychically retrieve information.  However, purely to answer the question of whether there is a difference between these phenomena, it seems there are marginal differences, so marginal in fact that we can argue that one experience leads into the other which could be down to varying levels of individual conscious awareness.  There is some suggestion that something leaves the body during an OBE that could be measured, and there is certainly eyewitness evidence to suggest that apparitional forms have been seen of people who at the time of the sighting were actually miles away having some form of astral projection (perhaps mediating at the time or sleeping).  Therefore, from exploring the experiments and experiences of Dr Alex Tanous, there appears to be a difference between OBEs and astral projection, but this difference might be considered by some to be trivial, which will likely continue to be subjected to a circular debate amongst researchers.

References

Auerbach, L. (1986).  ESP, hauntings and poltergeists: A parapsychologist’s handbook.  New York: Warner Books.

Luke, D. (2010). Connecting, diverging and reconnecting: Putting the psi back into psychedelic research.Journal of Parapsychology, 74, 219-234.

McAdams, E.E., & Bayless, R. (1981).  The case for life after death: Parapsychologists look at the evidence. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Osis, K. (1974).  Perspectives for out-of-body research.  In W.G. Roll, R.L. Morris, & J.D. Morris (Eds.)Research in parapsychology 1973 (pp.110-113).  Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Osis, K., & McCormick, D. (1980).  Kinetic effects at the ostensible location of an out-of-body projection during perceptual testing.  Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 74 (3), 319-329.

Roe, C., Cooper, C.[E]., & Martin, H. (2010).A Comparison of ESP performance under remote viewing and Ganzfeld conditions (pp. 21-22).  Presented at the 53rd Annual Parapsychological Association Convention: Enclos Rey, Paris, France.

Rogo, D.S. (1986). Researching the out-of-body experience: The state of the art. In K.A. Rao (Ed.) Case studies in parapsychology (pp.97-119). London: McFarland & Co.

Tanous, A. (1975). Out-of-the-body experiences.  New Horizons [Proceedings of the First Canadian Conference on Psychokinesis], 1, (5) 231-232.

Tanous, A. (1988).  My psychic journey.  Guest lecture given at Mount St. Vincent College, 13 April, New York.

Tanous, A., with Ardman, H. (1976). Beyond coincidence.  New York: Doubleday & Co.

Tribbe, F.C. (1979). The role of meditation in holistic healing.  Journal of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, 2 (1), 17-22.

Source: Article submitted to the Paranthropology Journal(http://paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com/):

https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=VcEcAAAAQBAJ&pg=GBS.PA245

Why Do Ghosts Wear Clothes?

The question ‘Why do ghosts wear clothes’ is sometimes posed as a skeptical retort to reports of ghosts and apparitions. It’s one thing to say that when people die they survive as ‘spirits’, the argument goes, quite another to suppose that their clothes also survive in the spirit world. In fact, ghosts usually appear fully clad, and sometimes elaborately so—for example in costumes appropriate to the period in which they might have lived. But the question does in fact point to interesting and apparently serious theoretical obstacles for certain accounts of apparitions and out-of-body experiences (OBEs).

Introduction

As far as OBEs are concerned, explanations by parapsychologists divide into two broad classes. According to the first, externalist hypothesis, out-of-body consciousness is somehow physically separable from the body; the OBEr’s mind or mental states are literally at the sites from which the OBEr seems to perceive. According to the second, internalist hypothesis, nothing of the sort happens; the experience of being outside the body is always illusory. In short, it’s merely a misleadingly vivid, imagery-rich type of clairvoyance.

Most externalists adopt a form of animism, according to which one’s mental capacities can exist only so long as they are grounded in or supported by a kind of underlying substrate. So if our mental capacities and traits can operate apart from the body during an OBE (and persist even after bodily death and dissolution), it would appear that some substrate besides the normal physical body makes that possible. At this point, externalists typically assert that the human mind ‘is essentially and inseparably bound up with some kind of extended quasi-physical vehicle, which is not normally perceptible to the senses of human beings’.1 It’s this vehicle that some identify as the secondary or astral body they experience during OBEs, and which observers at remote locations apparently perceive in so-called reciprocal cases—that is, cases that typically take the following form: Agent A experiences an OBE in which she ostensibly ‘travels’ to percipient B’s location and is subsequently able to describe features of the state of affairs there that she could not have known by normal means. B, meanwhile, experiences an apparition of A at that location. (In a few instances, others on the scene also experience A’s apparition.)

As far as explanations of apparitions are concerned, the main contenders are various forms of a telepathic theory,2 and an objectivist account, according to which apparitions are distinct entities (perhaps psychokinetically-produced) actually located at the place where they are perceived. Of course the totality of apparitional cases needn’t be handled by just one theory of apparitions. Some cases may be most neatly explained telepathically, while others—collective apparitions especially—might be handled best by an objectivist approach.

The Problem of Apparitional Clothing

We may now consider how the old question about why ghosts wear clothes highlights a problem for both the externalist account of OBEs and the objectivist account of apparitions. Stephen Braude explains the problem as follows:

Suppose that, while decked out in my new Armani suit, I try to project myself in an OBE to a friend, who then has an apparition of me in my sartorial splendor. If we explain my friend’s ability to describe me accurately by positing a traveling ‘secondary body’, how do we explain my friend’s experience of my new suit? Does my Armani suit also have a double? It seems absurd to think so. But if we can—and indeed, should—explain the apparition of my Armani suit without appealing to a secondary or astral suit (e.g., if we explain the apparition of my suit in terms of ‘ordinary’, non-traveling ESP), it seems far less compelling to explain the apparition of me in terms of a detachable part of consciousness or secondary body.3

The following case illustrates the issue nicely. Early on the morning of January 27, 1957, ‘Martha Johnson’ (a pseudonym) from Plains, Illinois, had a dream in which she traveled to her mother’s home, 926 miles away in northern Minnesota. In a statement sent to the American Society for Psychical Research the following May, she wrote,

After a little while I seemed to be alone going through a great blackness. Then all at once way down below me, as though I were at a great height, I could see a small bright oasis of light in the vast sea of darkness. I started on an incline towards it as I knew it was the teacherage (a small house by the school) where my mother lives... After I entered, I leaned up against the dish cupboard with folded arms, a pose I often assume. I looked at Mother who was bending over something white and doing something with her hands. She did not appear to see me at first, but she finally looked up. I had a sort of pleased feeling and then after standing a second more, I turned and walked about four steps.4

Martha woke from her dream at 2:10 am (1:10 am in Minnesota). The dream ‘nagged’ her mind for several days, at which point she received a letter from her mother, who wrote that she had seen Martha. Martha then replied, describing her experience and asking her mother to identify what she had been wearing. A second letter from Mrs Johnson answered that question and provided further details about her experience.

In the first of her two letters, dated January 29, Martha’s mother wrote,

Did you know you were here for a few seconds? I believe it was Saturday night, 1:10, January 26th, or maybe the 27th. It would have been 10 after two your time... I looked up and there you were by the cupboard just standing smiling at me. I started to speak and you were gone. I forgot for a minute where I was. I think the dogs saw you too. They got so excited and wanted out—just like they thought you were by the door—sniffed and were so tickled.5

Mrs Johnson’s second letter was written on February 7, 1957. She wrote,

I was bending over the ironing board trying to press out a seam... You were standing with your back to the cupboard (the front of it) between the table and the shelf, you know, just sort of sitting on the edge of the lower part of the cupboard... I looked at the dogs and they were just looking at you. I’m sure they saw you longer than I did... I turned to go in the bedroom and you must have started to go out the door then. That’s when the dogs went wild.

Your hair was combed nice—just back in a pony tail with the pretty roll in front. Your blouse was neat and light—seemed almost white.... You were very solid—JUST like in life. Didn’t see you from the lower bust down—that I can remember, anyway.6

Martha confirmed in correspondence that during her ‘visit’ she had indeed experienced her hairstyle and clothing as her mother described.

It should be clear why this case poses a problem for both an externalist account of OBEs and an objectivist explanation of the reciprocal apparition. The clothing and hairstyle of the apparitional figure were not those of the sleeping Martha. They corresponded, instead, to the way Martha experienced herself during her OBE. Assuming that telepathic explanations are at least sometimes appropriate, one such explanation comes immediately to mind. Presumably, Martha’s hairstyle and clothing during her OBE are mental constructs, just as they would be if her experience were merely a dream. But then it certainly looks as if Martha telepathically communicated those features of the OBE to her mother, as well as influencing Mrs Johnson to experience her with arms folded, near the cupboard, and so on.

Of course, an apparitional experience could be a mixture of genuine perception (of an apparitional figure) with a telepathically induced quasi-perception (for instance of the figure’s attire), just as genuine and quasi-perceptions would combine if I were to hallucinate a hippo in the real corner of the room. But if we must appeal to ESP (telepathic influence) to explain parts of the apparitional experience, then it may simply be gratuitous to suppose that a detachable part of consciousness or astral body was actually present at the remote location.

Furthermore, in some reciprocal cases, it’s the percipient, rather than the OBEr, who seems to supply features such as apparitional clothing. In one such case,7 the Rev Clarence Godfrey tried to appear to a friend at the foot of her bed. He made the mental effort in the late evening after retiring to bed, and he fell asleep after about eight minutes. He then dreamed that he met his friend the next morning, and she confirmed that he had appeared to her. This dream woke him, and he noticed that his clock showed 3:40 am.

When his friend confirmed the experiment’s success the following day, she noted that it occurred at about the time the servant put out all the lamps, which usually took place around 3:45. In her written account, she says that Godfrey ‘was dressed in his usual style’. Frank Podmore, an early investigator in the British Society for Psychical Research, recognized the significance of this. He wrote that the apparition’s dress

was that ordinarily worn in the day-time by Mr. Godfrey, and that in which the percipient would be accustomed to see him, not the dress which he was actually wearing at the time. If the apparition is in truth nothing more than an expression of the percipient’s thoughts, this is what we should expect to find, and as a matter of fact in the majority of well-evidenced narratives of telepathic hallucination this is what we actually do find. The dress and surroundings of the phantasm represent, not the dress and surroundings of the agent at the moment, but those with which the person is familiar.8

In a similar case, Mr G Sinclair tried mentally to ‘visit’ his ailing wife, whom he had left back at home while he was traveling.9 At the time of Sinclair’s attempt, he was undressed and sitting on the edge of his bed. Mrs Sinclair later wrote, ‘I saw him as plain as if he had been there in person. I did not see him in his night clothes, but in a suit that hung in the closet at home’. Because the apparitional clothing in these cases seems to be supplied by the percipient’s mind, the cases clearly support the view that the apparition itself is likewise (as Podmore puts it) ‘an expression of the percipient’s thoughts’ and not an ordinarily perceived astral body or localized objective entity.

Before leaving this topic we should consider another issue. If an apparition’s clothing is constructed subjectively in response to telepathic influence, then what (according to externalists or objectivists) would observers perceive if the telepathy were unsuccessful or—as is often noted—deferred to a later time? If externalists want to say that only the secondary body is genuinely perceived, are we to suppose that this body is unclad and that the clothing is supplied telepathically? What would happen, from that point of view, if the telepathy were unsuccessful? Would there be, in those cases, perceptions of naked secondary bodies? In fact, if externalists contend that our secondary bodies go forth into the world unclad, one would expect at least some reports of naked apparitions. Given the vagaries of successful ESP and PK, one would expect the genuine perception of naked secondary bodies to occur more reliably than the associated quasi-perceptions of their clothing. But the extensive literature on apparitions contains almost no reports of naked human figures. According to Irwin, ‘in Crookall’s extensive case collection only four such cases occur and in some of these the astral body quickly became clothed’.10

At this point, OBE externalists might argue that one’s secondary body has a certain degree of malleability, so that it can alter its age, size, and other features (such as whether or not it has a beard or long hair). So perhaps this malleability can also extend to the simulation of clothing. However, certain cases make this externalist strategy seem particularly incredible. Consider the following example,11 in which two persons agreed to experiment with producing OBE apparitions.

JAKOB: The day after our decision I drove my daughter to her job, the time was 6 P.M. I was suddenly reminded of this agreement with Eva. Then I transported myself astrally to her home and found her sitting on the sofa, reading something. I made her notice my presence by calling her name and showing her that I was driving my car. She looked up and saw me. After that I left her and was back in the car which I had been driving all the while without any special awareness of the driving.

EVA: I was sitting alone in the room in an easy chair.... Suddenly I saw Jakob sitting in front of me in the car, saw about half the car as if I were in it with him. He sat at the wheel: I only saw the upper part of his body. I also saw the clock in the car, I think it was a couple of minutes before six. The car was not headed towards our house but in another direction.12

Presumably, positing the existence of a duplicate car is even less plausible than positing the existence of duplicate clothes. And as Alan Gauld notes, even if the externalist manages to explain how a secondary body might transform its outer parts into semblances of clothing, it seems excessive to suppose that our subtle bodies might also shape-shift into a half car with a clock showing the correct time. A telepathic explanation is obviously most compelling in this case, and that seems to weaken considerably the externalist recourse to secondary bodies in other reciprocal cases.

Conclusion

Of course the variety of OBE accounts and apparitional cases accommodates—in principle at least—a variety of explanatory options. And there is no reason to insist that all cases must be explained along the same general lines. Nevertheless, the problem of apparitional clothing serves as a useful reminder that some popular externalist accounts of OBEs might be considerably more simplistic than is usually appreciated.

Stephen Braude

Literature

Braude, S.E. (2003). Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life after Death. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Broad, C.D. (1962). Lectures on Psychical Research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Dale, L.A., White, R., & Murphy, G. (1962). "A Selection of Cases from a Recent Survey of Spontaneous ESP Phenomena." Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 56: 3–47.

Gauld, A. (1982). Mediumship and Survival. London: Heinemann.

Irwin, H.J. (1985). Flight of Mind: A Psychological Study of the Out-of-Body Experience. Metuchen, N.J. & London: Scarecrow Press.

Myers, F.W.H. (1903). Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death. London: Longmans, Green, & Co. (Label: 545)