Reviewed by Nemo C. Mörck
David F. Marks has a PhD in psychology and has written a number of books and papers. The parapsychology community knows him primarily for The Psychology of the Psychic (Marks, 2000; Marks & Kammann, 1980) and for his criticism of the remote viewing research that was conducted at Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. Marks ”once held an entrenched skeptical stance” (p. 333), but now writes as a zetetic: ”a person who suspends judgement and explores scientific questions by using discussion or dialogue to enquire into a topic” (p. 336). He was invited speaker at the 45th International Annual Conference of the SPR in 2022. Marks is giving the psi hypothesis a new chance.
My objective is to cut a path through the vast, tangled jungle of publications about psi with a machete that is sharp and decisive (p. xi).
I do not include entertainers, mentalists or self-proclaimed psychics – all of whom are charlatans with one thing in mind: to sucker one – and make a fortune doing so (p. 8).
Marks also believes that spirit mediumship has ”been thoroughly discredited” (p. 10). The focus of the book is meant to be on experimental research, published between 2000 and 2019. Marks warns the reader that this is not an easy read. The text is peppered with statistics and citations. However, there is a useful appendix, in which he explains the meaning of terms used throughout the book. Psychology and the Paranormal also includes an extensive bibliography and an index.
Marks covers relationships between psychological concepts, such as dissociation, and paranormal experiences. He then goes on to discuss paranormal belief and how it may arise. This is of interest to psychology students. However, I would advise them to beware of inflated correlations due to item overlap. For example, see item 21-23 in the Creative Experiences Questionnaire (Merckelbach et al., 2001).
Meaningful coincidences – synchronicities – are also covered. Marks describes and analyses a personal experience, the ’Chiswick Coincidence’: ”From this first-hand experience, and a number of others, I am aware that a coincidence that seems to go way beyond the laws of chance can elicit a strong sense of the paranormal” (p. 66). His own experiences appears to have made him soften his stance on psychic phenomena. James Alcock (2024) regard it as ”a warning about our own susceptibility when confronted by experiences that seem to defy normal explanation” (p. 62).
Synchronicity is interesting, but many parapsychologists are probably more interested in remote viewing (RV) and psychic staring (PS) research. Marks claims: ”For both procedures the quality of the research is well below the standard for controlled scientific experiments” (p. 89). He notes the lack of attention given to the criticism he authored or co-authored: ”To this day, Targ and Puthoff cite their RV research in the most glowing terms as evidence of psi, acting all the while as if nothing was wrong with their procedures” (p. 93). Marks briefly summarises the criticism and then moves on to more recent RV research, and selects four publications for comment. Marks then allows Harold Puthoff to comment on the RV section. Puthoff does not relate a dramatic success story but notes that ”confirmation bias is a two-edged sword that can show up for both advocates and skeptics” (p. 106, emphasis in original). To Marks RV remains unproven and he calls for the ”removal of false propaganda” (p. 107) from the Parapsychological Association’s website.
Have you ever felt that someone was looking at you, and when you turned around, someone did? This is a common experience. Rupert Sheldrake has published evidence for PS and inspired others to experiment. However, Marks notes: ”With the widespread availability of CCTV, it seems odd that so few peer-reviewed studies of PS have been reported. One cannot help wondering whether a multitude of non-significant studies are stuck away in file drawers somewhere” (p. 109). In addition, after reviewing the studies Marks concludes: ”All we have, yet again, is methodological flaws and investigator denial” (p. 114). Sheldrake is allowed to respond; he refers readers to a journal issue devoted to the subject (Freeman, 2005) and is critical of sceptics’ attempts to replicate the effect: ”... there is plenty of evidence for the sense of being stared at, despite the attempts of Marks and other committed skeptics to deny it” (p. 116).
Marks moves on to the Ganzfeld research and initially quotes from publications co-authored by Prof. Adrian Parker; one article, in particular interests him (Westerlund et al., 2006). Marks then touches on the Blackmore-Sargent controversy and includes comments from Susan Blackmore. Instead of focusing on individual studies, Marks focuses on meta-analyses this time, starting with Honorton (1985). An unfortunate typo appears to have made Marks think that Blackmore (1987) published before Honorton (1985). In addition, the commentary about Bem and Honorton (1994) is misleading and refers to their discussion of Honorton (1985). Profs Daryl Bem and Parker have been allowed to comment on the chapter. Marks notes:
The extensive, unresolved debates about meta-analyses in parapsychology suggests the need for a more solid and reliable basis for making decisions about the meaning of research findings (p. 136).
Watt and Kennedy (2017) have suggested prospective meta-analyses, and Marks considers this to be the “most significant methodological development in the history of parapsychology” (p. 137). He then goes on to outline a new magneto-sensory theory that “explains the operation of psi quite literally as the ’sixth sense’” (p. 138).
Evidence of precognition and dream-ESP is also covered. Marks focuses on the meta-analysis by Bem (2011) and the subsequent debate and criticism (bringing to mind the need for prospective meta-analyses). Bem is then allowed to respond. Marks goes on to comment on the dream-ESP research conducted at Maimonides Medical Center from 1962 to 1978. Perhaps the section is somewhat sketchy due to his desire to discuss more recent research. Prof. Stanley Krippner is allowed to answer five questions. Marks then focuses on a meta-analysis by Storm et al. (2017) and a reanalysis (Howard, 2018; see also Storm et al., 2019). Marks notes: “The results on dream-ESP to date remain inconclusive (p. 174, emphasis in original). Marks, to his credit, invited Lance Storm and Patrizio Tressoldi to comment on the chapter, but both declined.
Marks also covers psychokinesis (PK) research: “In this author’s opinion, only one PK paper of any genuine merit has been published in the 21st century” (p. 184). He refers to a meta-analysis by Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006) and covers the subsequent debate (though he overlooked Kugel, 2011),
Unfortunately, the search for psi regresses into an ever deeper exposure of ’lies, damned lies and statistics’. For any would-be connoisseur of the paranormal, there is no other option but to enter the regress (p. 185).
The debate is technical, and Marks, eventually, concludes: “... our search for psi arrives at an impasse … Nothing in the literature between 2006 and 2020 gives this author any indication that this situation will ever change” (p. 193). Prof. Dean Radin has provided commentary:
There are two ways to respond to anomalies. One is to assume that it’s probably nothing after all. Sometimes anomalies turn out to be mistakes, and even if it is real there’s no reliable technology based on it, and so why bother? The other approach is to assume that we had better figure out what is causing the anomaly, because if it’s a genuine effect it would have profound consequences for the scientific understanding of reality (p. 198).
Marks comments: “Technically, the PK effect may be statistically significant, but, for any practical purpose, it is beyond trivial” (p. 199). He devotes a chapter to hypnosis, then goes on to address out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and near-death experiences (NDEs), which journalists claim have been explained a couple of times each year. Marks, like Susan Blackmore, believes that nothing really leaves the body. He focuses on trying to explain the experiences rather than on the studies with percipients able to induce OBEs. Marks relates his own brush with death. He had no OBE and did not become convinced of survival after bodily death. Marks considers the “paranormal hypothesis” of these experiences to be “unconfirmed, yet not disconfirmed” (p. 255). He also recognises: “Subjective experiences similar to the NDE may occur in the absence of near death, cardiac arrest or other clinically significant circumstances, suggesting the need for a more generic explanation than those offered in the literature” (p. 260).
The penultimate chapter concerns the homeostasis theory proposed by Marks. In the final chapter, he provides take-home messages. The chapter heading reveals his stance: “Psi is a spontaneous process that cannot be summoned at will in a laboratory experiment” (p. 291). Marks hence thinks that parapsychology needs to change direction. He then goes on to complain that his “peer reviewers” did not, among other things, “offer any theory about why psi evolved in the first place” (p. 300) yet it is not clear if they were asked to do so. Marks believes that the history of parapsychology would be radically different if J.B. Rhine had paid more attention to Scherer (1948) and his wife Louisa Rhine’s research on spontaneous cases.
A mixture of tradition, naivety and scientific arrogance made psi a candidate for controlled laboratory study (p. 305).
All things considered, without the possibility to give participants psychedelic drugs, the parapsychology laboratory is perhaps one of the last places on Earth where one would expect to observe genuinely produced spontaneous psi (p. 306)
Marks regards the psi hypothesis as being neither confirmed nor disconfirmed. Marks ends his book by providing take-home messages, first to sceptics. He asks them to “moderate the tone and quality of their argumentation” (p. 308). His own tone is somewhat inconsistent and sometimes reminiscent of his earlier writings. Marks shares quips and humour: “The tinier the p, the greater the chance of publication” (p. 175), but it does not distract from his points. Given his conclusions, Marks naturally has much to say to parapsychologists. However, he is particularly bothered by statements on the website maintained by the Parapsychological Association: “nothing more than propaganda, more fitting to a religious cult than to science” (p. 311). Students of anomalistic psychology are told:
You know the many pitfalls and you will strive to avoid them. You may not find what you are looking for, but there will be many discoveries along the way. If psi is one day finally discovered, you will have solved an enigma like no other (p. 313).
Marks is unlikely to convince the parapsychology community to shift focus and abandon experimental research. Cardeña, Palmer, and Marcusson-Clavertz (2015) could have provided him with an update on contemporary thinking. However, there appears to be some unrest and disagreement within the community (see Hyman, 2010). Storm (2025) recently suggested that psychic experiences should be interpreted as examples of acausal synchronicities. There are also calls to expand the scope of research (e.g., Braud, 2013; Rock et al., in press). Ray Hyman expressed a view somewhat similar to Marks’ when interviewed in 1979:
The way I see it, parapsychologists are doing their darnedest to do the best kind of science, in the best tradition of science. The problem is that they don't have a good phenomenon by the hand. If they do have one, it is a very elusive thing. It is very weak. It is very sporadic. They don't have a handle on it (Hyman, 1989, p. 8)
References
Alcock, J. E. (2024). [Review of the book The science of weird shit: Why our minds conjure the paranormal, by Chris French]. Skeptical Inquirer, 48(3), 61-62.
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1). 4-18.
Blackmore, S. (1987). A report of a visit to Carl Sargent’s laboratory. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 54, 186-98.
Braud, W. G. (2013). Expanding psi research: Towards wider, wiser, and more humane inquiry. In S. Krippner, A. J. Rock, J. Beischel, H. L. Friedman., & C. L. Fracasso (Eds.), Advances in parapsychological research 9 (pp. 188-212). McFarland.
Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators-a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497
Cardeña, E.. Palmer, J., & Marcusson-Clavertz (Eds.) (2015). Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century. McFarland.
Freeman, A. (Ed.) (2005). Sheldrake and his critics: The sense of being glared at. Imprint Academic.
Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi Ganzfeld research: A response to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49(1), 51-91.
Howard, M. C. (2018). A meta-reanalysis of dream-ESP studies: Comment on Storm et al. (2017). International Journal of Dream Research, 11( 2), 224-229. https://doi.org/10.11588/ijodr.2018.2.52040
Hyman, R. (Ed.) (1989). The elusive quarry. Prometheus Books.
Hyman, R. (2010). The demise of parapsychology, 1850-2009. The Skeptic, 22(2), 17-20.
Kugel, W. (2011). A faulty PK meta-analysis. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 25(1), 47-62.
Marks, D. F. (2000). The psychology of the psychic (2nd Ed.). Prometheus Books.
Marks, D. F., & Kammann, R. (1980). The psychology of the psychic. Prometheus Books.
Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ): A brief self-report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality & Individual Differences, 31(6), 987-995. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00201-4
Rock, A. J., Friedman, H. L., Quellet, E., Martin, J. A., & Krippner, S. (Eds.) (in press). Advances in parapsychological research 11. McFarland.
Scherer, W. B. (1948). Spontaneity as a factor in ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, 12(2), 126-147.
Storm, L. (2025). A new approach to synchronicity: A re-appraisal of Jung’s acausal connecting principle with a focus on psi. McFarland.
Storm, L., Rock, A. J., Sherwood, S. J., Tressoldi, P. E., & Roe, C. A. (2019). Response to Howard (2018): Comments on ‘a meta-reanalysis of dream-ESP studies’. International Journal of Dream Research, 12(1), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.11588/ijodr.2019.1.59265
Storm, L., Sherwood, S. J., Roe, C. A., Tressoldi, P. E., Rock, A. J., & Di Risio, L. (2017). On the correspondence between dream content and target material under laboratory conditions: A meta-analysis of dream-ESP studies, 1966-2016. International Journal of Dream Research, 10(2), 120-140. https://doi.org/10.11588/ijodr.2017.2.34888
Watt, C. A., & Kennedy, J. E. (2017). Options for prospective meta-analysis and introduction of registration-based prospective meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:2030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02030
Westerlund, J., Parker, A., Dalkvist, J., & Hadlaczky, G. (2006). Remarkable correspondences between Ganzfeld mentation and target content-a psychical or psychological effect?.Journal of Parapsychology, 70(1), 23-48.
A separate review by Chris Phillips appeared in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, vol 85(3).