Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00240)

Caldwell/Graye wrote:
> Bart, we enter into a huge and controversial subject.  How much do you know about
> the history of spiritualism, mediumship, psychical research, parapsychology, the
> views of magicians on the paranormal, various forms of skepticism such as found
> among CSICOP, etc.?

	Quite a bit, actually. I was a actively a student of stage magic and
the history thereof from about 1971-1983, and maintained an interest
since. I was what was called a "semi-professional" stage magician during
the latter part of this period, and also did some work for James Randi
in the late 70's. I used to have an excellent collection of semi-rare
19th and early 20th century books on stage magic (which I eventually
sold to Doug Henning) garnered from discards made by the Columbia
University Library. I also read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works on
Spiritualism (I find what he wrote about Blavatsky to be quite
humorous), as well as the Doyle-Houdini correspondence on the subject. I
have also read the works of a number of mentalists, including James
"Kreskin" Kreskge, whose natural talents border on Sidhi's (for example,
you can name a number from 1-52, and he will cut precisely that many
cards from the top of a deck). I first became interested in the occult
when attempting to develop card tricks using Tarot cards; I read a
number of books on the Tarot to make it "authentic", tried them out,
found out that they worked, and branched into other areas of the occult,
eventually finding Theosophy, which to me explained the discrepencies
between the occult world and the skeptical world. On the other hand, I
still maintain a correspondence with James Randi, and have tried
unsuccessfully to convince Dora Kunz to go after the $1,200,000+ JREF
prize on more than one occasion.

> encountered what they considered real paranormal phenomena?  For example, have you
> read the account by the famous Harry Kellar who was baffled by the spiritualistic
> phenomena of William Eglinton (who is mentioned in the Mahatma Letters)?

	Yes.

> It is true that various skeptical magicians over the past 150 years or so have
> performed most of the phenomena produced by various mediums or by HPB herself.
> Yes, GIVEN THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS, a good magician can perform (i.e. fake)
> almost any psychic phenomena known to humankind.  But does such a performance mean
> that therefore ALL apparent psychic phenomena are  fake, not-real, suspect, etc.?

	Nope. I am convinced, for example, that Dora Kunz is a genuine psychic.
Based on accounts by Fritz Kunz, I am willing to believe that Leadbeater
had at least some psychic ability, as well. I believe that HPB had
psychic abilities. However, one thing that Fritz said was that
Leadbeater was upset when he had to use his psychic abilities, as he
considered it a crime to "waste energy". Since, for Blavatsky's
purposes, fake Sidhi's would demonstrate that there is a world beyond
that which we can sense as well as the real thing, I see no
contradiction with her faking Sidhi's.

> Yes, given the proper stage, the proper equipment, and a number of assistants,
> magicians can outperform most if not all mediums.  But does that mean therefore
> that ALL phenomena produced by mediums, psychics and occultists are therefore
> fake, not real, etc.?  One must always ask:  what were the conditions under which
> the phenomenon was produced or occurred?

	I specifically used the world "SOME".

> Yes, there are fake mediums.  But does that admission mean that ALL mediums are
> fakes?

	Nobody has yet claimed the JREF prize...

> Have you read the Hodgson's Report of 1885?

	And the recent report repudiating it.

	As far as being specific, I do not choose to go through the research
necessary to specify which I think were fake and which I think were real
(well, actually, I think the teacup trick was probably real, because I
don't really see Blavatsky doing the advance perparation necessary when
there was no knowledge that another setting would even be useful). I
gave no absolute statements one way or the other, and the entire
question simply distracts from my main point, and that is that anybody
who uses Sidhi's, real or faked, as a demonstration of spiritual
advancement is immediately suspect.

	Bart Lidofsky