The situation of trying to gain evidence of survival from mediums is far from satisfactory at this time. I have been told by alleged communicators that I will soon be travelling abroad, that there is an 'anniversary' nearby (but never elaborating any further upon this), and that I am going through a time of upheaval. Despite being able to convey an abundance of, essentially banal, information, I am bewildered by the fact that these supposed communicators invariably cannot, or will not supply important details such as their name or relationship to me. Furthermore, there is the question of why these supposed communicators are nearly always those whom I do not know and never say anything remotely evidential or useful, while those who would be able to identify themselves always seem unable to communicate. In the upshot, they often seem to be little more than imbeciles, apparently unaware that they will not be recognized and that what they say has no value.

This unfortunate state of affairs has only become a problem in the last decade, with many mediums also now taking on the role of 'counsellors' and fortune-tellers, although it must be said that this prevails because the vast majority of sitters actually require this form of 'mediumship'. Some mediums are genuinely surprised when I advise them that I am seeking evidence of survival.
However, this was not so just twenty years ago when I found sittings with Doris Stokes, Jessie Nason and others to be extremely evidential. I am aware of the criticisms made of Mrs Stokes, but the fact remains that she was able to convey specific information both to myself, and to others for whom I arranged sittings.
The medium who actually succeeded in convincing me of survival beyond any doubt was Stewart Lawson, who unfortunately has now, emigrated. In the period 1980-1982, I had a number of sittings with him and also arranged these for family members and work colleagues. Despite their varying opinions regarding the concept of survival, there was unanimous agreement after their sittings that they had heard from loved ones who had died. For those who persist in 'the Great Spiritualist Conspiracy', asserting that mediums have access to personal information about sitters, I would add that no sitter gave his or her full name, including myself when booking, and all payments were made by cash and lacked any indication of whom the person was. It is astonishing that I have to even say this, but I have lost count of how many, otherwise intelligent people, subscribe to the idea that mediums access required information by normal means.

In sittings with Stewart Lawson, I would estimate that about 10% of what he said was incorrect, 20% was generalised and 'correct' because of this, 25% was generalised but approached an evidential quality, and a remarkable 45% was actually correct, being accompanied by names and very precise details, and the characteristics of the person communicating.
These sittings were significant as they also provided information that was unknown to me and could only be confirmed at a later date. In the case of Stewart Lawson, unlike any other medium whom I have seen, the feeling of the communicators' presence was very much in existence. His mediumship was literally like having visitors in the room who could only be seen and heard by him. The sittings were taped and I can give a few examples; the following are verbatim, and it will be noted that the medium talks almost non-stop and does not 'fish'. These are not isolated pieces of information amidst a stream of irrelevant statements, but a continual flow:-
Stewart:- Your father is here. He greets you. I sense a dog that has just followed your father and is near to him;; I can't see it yet. The dog barked! Suddenly there was a bark of a dog. I still can't see it so I can't describe it. But from its bark, it was not a twee dog [Our dog who had died shortly before my father was a large labrador]. I can see it now. It is a labrador [Correct].
He wasn't black - he was golden [Correct].
The dog is very close to your father [My father used to look after him, and deal with all that was related to trying to stop his health deteriorating. In the year before they both died, they became very attached].
The dog passed over before him [Correct].
Only a short period before him [Correct - ten days].
It was a dog and not a bitch as I can hear what your father is calling him [Correct. I then ask what my father is calling him]. He is saying 'Ben! Sit down!' [Correct - this being the dog's name. At this point the medium's voice and mannerisms become like my father's].
Yes, the dog has now come into vision - he is a large golden labrador and he's now laid down by your father's feet.
Your father is saying 'Look! He's OK now'. He is stroking and pointing to his back. He keeps pointing to his back and saying 'He's fine now'. Was there something wrong that was connected to back? This seems to be the cause of his passing [Correct. The dog suffered a severe skin allergy that was far worse on his back than anywhere else and this eventually resulted in him being put to 'sleep' because he was in so much discomfort].
#
Your father is telling me that he passed over on a Monday due to a heart attack [Correct - he died of a heart attack on a Monday]. It was dark - in the early hours [Correct - 4am].
He was there at his cremation service [His body was cremated] and he's saying that he was with you, your mother and sister [Stewart had no idea of what my family comprised; indeed, it is a mother and sister and they were with me at the funeral].
He's saying 'Didn't that bloody doctor take a long time to get to me?' [Correct. The doctor took over an hour to arrive, by which time my father had died in great discomfort. A complaint was made about this to the Local Medical Services. Also, my father used to frequently prefix words by the word 'bloody'(!)].
#
Your father says 'I have met Alex. I am with Alex again. Alex sends his love to Alison'.
[The one member of his own family for whom my father had any fondness was his brother Alex who had died some years before; they had spent many years together in the army abroad and were very close.
Alex's widow was called Alice (presumably the name was not conveyed with 100% accuracy)].
#
He says he liked gardening - but now he's grinning. He jokes that it was more in the way of a supervisory capacity [My father was very fond of gardening, but as his health deteriorated, he would go into the garden when others were working there and frequently joke by saying something like he was 'making sure they were doing it properly' or 'supervising them'. This was a standard comment of his].
He is saying there was a flower in the garden that was important; it had special significance and he took special care of it as it meant something; it was a rose [Correct. He deliberately grew a rose that is known as 'the Anne Rose' which he thought appropriate being my mother's name and was especially attentive to looking after this].

What was interesting was that some of the 'incorrect' statements appeared to arise from the manner in which my father would speak and related to how he spoke in 'in-family' personal conversation; this became evident in the sitting that my mother had. For example,
Stewart:- Alex sends his love to the grandchildren.
Mother:- I don't have any grandchildren.
Stewart:- He is definitely referring to 'the children'. Wait a minute [Stewart converses to one side]. Ah! He is talking about your son and daughter. Although they are adults, he calls them 'the children'. When I heard this, I presumed they had to be grandchildren. This was his way of referring to them.
[My father did do exactly this. Even when I was in my mid-20s and my sister was nearly 30 when he died, my father nevertheless referred to us as 'the children' when talking about us to my mother].
Another example was:-
Stewart:- I have your brother here.
Mother- Yes.
Stewart:- He was shot.
[My mother was just about to say this was incorrect, but Stewart interrupts her before she can say anything].
Stewart:- Wait. I've got that wrong. What was that you said [Looking to his side]? Sorry! He says that he was shot out of his body. Very quick. Heart attack. On a railway station. So very quick. One minute at a railway station and the next he was in spirit.
[Correct. He had a massive/fatal heart attack at Liverpool Street ailway station while waiting for his train home from work.].

These examples are adequate illustrations of how a good communication can actually lead to misunderstandings, because communicators continue to speak as they did before death, and not strictly accurately. Presumably, this could be viewed as an inter-dimensional equivalent of the party-game 'Chinese Whispers'. I would also add that in detailing the sittings as I am now doing, it is naturally difficult to convey the personal mannerisms that were evident; my father's stoical nature and sandpaper-dry sense of humour were also very much present in what was said.
The speed in which Stewart relayed information, invariably correctly, bore little resemblance to the best examples of telepathy. Obviously, I will not even discuss super-ESP as this is, in my opinion, 'the last refuge of the defeated non-survivalist'.

Some suggest the communicators are mere fragments of some people who have survived physical death; however, in the sittings that I had, the communicators demonstrated memory, humour, emotions, and of course the ability to attend the sitting and communicate coherently, being able to say what would be both meaningful and evidential. I cannot see how these qualities, and others witnessed, could be present in something that is merely a 'fragment'. Or, indeed, how a 'fragment' with these qualities can really be distinguished from a full personality.

The common objection to survival is the silence, i.e., as so many have died, why is there so little evidence of their survival? I would suggest that Hodgson's argument is sufficient is this respect, that the ability to communicate may be as rare as those talents which make a great artist, mathematician or philosopher in this life.(1) I would also suggest that a successful sitting not only require a medium on 'this side', but the person communicating on 'the other side' must have some degree of mediumistic-type skill. Ironically, Berger maintains that the 'ideal communicator' is someone who adopted a sceptical stance towards the possibility of surviving death.(2) But anyone who has carried out an exploration of the subject will surely conclude, as I have done, that there may also be a host of other factors that determine the quality of the sitting.
In the matter of 'the silence' of all those who have died, it should be borne in mind that communication is precisely that, and requires two parties to be involved - and the appropriate conditions. As noted, the amount of quality mediumship is depressingly meagre at present, and although it involved a good deal of time, it was possible up to twenty years ago to obtain good evidence. Now it is extremely difficult, but I believe that evidence can nevertheless still be obtained if someone is prepared to dedicate sufficient time and energy. However, the number of people prepared to do this appears to be quite minimal. As Stevenson rightly notes:-

'The question of whether man survives after physical death is surely one of the most important that he can ask about himself. Yet it has so far received little attention and less support from scientists than many other questions of lesser importance. If results in this field of inquiry have been small and remain indecisive, that is because the labourers have been few'.(3)

Bibliography
(1)Richard Hodgson, 'A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance', Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 13 (1898), 283-582 (p.362).
(2)Arthur S. Berger, Aristocracy of the Dead (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1987), p.149.
(3)Ian Stevenson, 'Research into the Evidence of Man's Survival After Death', The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 165 (1977), 152- 170 (p.168).

Send an e mail to the Webmaster regarding any technical difficulties using this site.