Conjurors and the Paranormal

Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.

Plato1

The terms magic and conjuring are defined as the influencing of the physical world via supernatural means, but they are also synonymous with legerdemain, trickery, and sleight-of-hand.2 The two definitions seem to have little in common, but there are actually deep connections between them. The links are obscure, but that obscurity is a clue to their nature. Primitive peoples often did not make a distinction between the two kinds of magic, and it behooves us to understand why. To clarify this it is helpful to examine magicians who perform tricks, especially those who have been involved with the paranormal.

Magicians’ embroilment in paranormal controversies didn’t start with the modern-day skeptical movement or even with Houdini’s attack on spiritualism. Over 400 years ago the first English-language book describing practical conjurors’ methods, Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft, also attacked beliefs in divination, alchemy, astrology, the Catholic Church, exorcism and precognitive dreams. But by no means were all magicians debunkers. John Wilkins’ Mercury: Or the Secret and Swift Messenger, one of the first books discussing mentalist methods, spoke favorably of communications from spirits and angels. Hocus Pocus Junior and the first magic magazine ever published also gave favorable comment to the paranormal. This dichotomy of opinion is not limited to hundreds of years ago; many conjurors have since endorsed the reality of paranormal phenomena while others have been some of the most vocal critics. This peculiar association of conjuring and the supernatural spans centuries, even millennia. The fact that the controversy over the existence of psi continues even within the magic community indicates an especially problematic situation.

At present, many people believe that magicians are almost all skeptical about paranormal phenomena. This impression has been fostered by an effective propaganda campaign by debunkers. The impression is untrue, the campaign intentionally misleading. Many of the greatest names in the history of conjuring endorsed the reality of psychic phenomena, and a list of them is provided in Table 5. In addition I identified many more in a two-part article in The Linking Ring, the monthly magazine of the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

Author or Editor

Scot, Reginald

Year1584TitleThe Discoverie of WitchcraftDescriptionFirst practical English-language work on conjuring. Anonymous

1634Hocus Pocus JuniorFirst original work devoted solely to conjuring. Wilkins, John

1641Mercury: Or The Secret and Swift MessengerOne of the first works describing mentalist methods. Ady, Thomas

1655A Candle in the DarkWritten against the witchcraft persecutions Decremps, Henri

1784La Magie Blanche DévoiléeRegarded as the most important work on magic since Scot’s of1584. Locke, W.

1791The Conjuror’s MagazineThe first magic magazine. Pinchbeck, W. F.

1805The Expositor; or Many Mysteries UnravelledFirst original work on magic published in the U.S.

Table 4 Major Historical Works on Conjuring That Also Addressed the Paranormal

Magician

Reference Abbott, David P.

Abbott (1908) Hyslop et al (1913) Baldwin, Samri S.

Baldwin (1895, p. 104) Bellachini, Samuel

Zöllner (1881, pp. 213-214) Dickson, Abb

Zorka (1976) Evans, Henry Ridgely

Evans (1897, pp. 12, 32) Gibson, Walter B.

Gibson & Gibson (1969) Goldston, Will

Goldston (1933) Jansen, Harry (Dante)

Rauscher (2000, pp. 61-62) Kellar, Harry

Rinn (1950, p. 387) Lewis, Angelo

Lewis (1886) (Professor Hoffmann)

Maskelyne, John Nevil

A Spiritualistic Expose-II (1885) Maskelyne (1885, 1910) McGill, Ormond

McGill (1977) Miller, Katlyn (Katlyn)

Katlyn (1982, 1989) Oursler, Fulton

Oursler (1964, pp. 184, 482-484) Parsons, E. A. (Henry Hardin)

Hyslop et al (1913) Price, Harry

Price (1925) Robert-Houdin, Jean Eugene

Lee (1866, pp. 162-163) Goldston (1906, p. 22) Thurston, Howard

Thurston (1910)

Table 5 Magicians Who Endorsed the Reality of Psychic Phenomena

All of the above persons were of sufficient prominence to be included in The Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians by T. A. Waters (1988). Names in parentheses are stage or pen names. All references give first-person accounts.

Anti-structural Aspects of Conjuring

Conjuring, by its nature is liminal and anti-structural. The magician’s role is one of the margin and outsiderhood, yet I do not recall ever seeing any academic theorist of liminality discuss magicians. This seems to have been completely overlooked. Historically, conjurors have been associated with mountebanks, itinerant entertainers and other unsavory figures—persons not part of the establishment. The

art is seen more in the interstices than as part of the structure, and today conjuring remains apart from most institutional affiliations. Whereas music, painting, and drama are taught in virtually all colleges and universities, magic never became an element of the established curriculum. Magic courses are rarely found even in adult education programs and are virtually never offered for college credit. Few libraries have substantial holdings on the topic; even major universities seldom have much more than do small-town public libraries. Despite this, the literature on conjuring is vast, and the Master Index to Magic in Print (published 1967-1975) compiled by Jack Potter and Micky Hades gives one an appreciation of the literature’s extent. This Index contains nearly 6000 pages. No trick methods are described; it is only an index. Almost all major magic libraries are in private hands. Many of the important works are not listed in Books in Print, they can be obtained only from sources known to magicians.

Conjuring has low status compared with the other arts, despite it being one of the oldest forms of entertainment. There are night clubs, symphony halls and recording studios devoted to music, and theatres to drama, but there is almost nothing comparable for the art of magic. Many magicians are forced to travel to earn a living, and even the biggest names may stay in any one venue for only a week; long engagements are rare. Conjurors are also marginal to show business. Rock stars, movie actors, and TV personalities receive more attention. (There is one exception to this, namely Houdini—the greatest showman ever. Today all schoolchildren know his name. He was a trickster figure of extraordinary proportions.) Although a number of prominent people have made magic their hobby (e.g., George Bush, Norman Schwarzkopf), the role of conjurer is marginal.

Magicians’ organizations are distinctive, and they are not comparable to unions or other professional groups that have objective criteria for qualifications and competence. In many magic societies, rank amateurs and seasoned professionals are all involved, and the groups are usually headed by those with amateur status. Because of the secretive nature of magic, much information cannot be given to outsiders; revealing secrets destroys the effects. However at meetings and conventions, performers can find people with whom they can share ideas and discuss methods. Conjuring is a hobby that cuts across class lines, and magic conventions often promote great camaraderie. There is temporary leveling or even inversion of outside statuses; within magic, carnies may be held in higher regard than medical doctors. Thus magic fraternities provide a measure of communitas.

Trickster Characteristics of Conjurors

The relationship between the trickster character-type and magicians seems obvious, but surprisingly, there is almost no literature addressing it. As far as I can tell, virtually all those pursuing psychological theories of the trickster have missed this exemplar.7 Within magic, there has been only fleeting mention of the association.8 Though the logo of the International Brotherhood of Magicians includes the image of the Roman god Mercury, few members seem to be aware of it or what it signifies.

Mythological trickster characters are typically male, and this is reflected in conjuring. In fact women constitute only 5% of the membership of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, the largest magic organization in the U.S. Trickster figures are also frequently solitary creatures, and sociologist Michael Carroll has shown that many trickster animals have habits of isolation. Likewise, magicians are somewhat solitary. Long hours of practice alone typify the early years of many conjurors, and they generally perform solo or, at most, with a small supporting cast; rarely are large groups involved.

The trickster issue of sexuality can be raised. Though I know of no formal survey of magicians’ sexual preferences, in my experience, conjurors are relatively open about acknowledging the homosexuality and unusual sexual behavior of some of their fellow entertainers. on the basis of statistical percentages, their sexual preferences almost certainly differ from the general population. A fair number of magic performers incorporate ribaldry in their acts, and magic magazines not infrequently carry discussion of “blue” material and its appropriateness, or otherwise, for various venues. Magicians’ affinity for the crude was illustrated by an incident in a promotional effort for oreo cookies. In 1991, the International Brotherhood of Magicians (IBM) and the Society of American Magicians (SAM) helped arrange auditions for magicians to work in grocery stores to promote oreos. In the one-page flyer sent out, auditioners were warned, with emphasis in capital letters, not to use profanity or vulgarity. The magic organizations deemed it necessary to bring this point to the conscious awareness of their members who were auditioning. I wonder whether any other group of performers would require such a warning, since it was clear that the oreo promotions were to be in grocery stores.

Supernatural And Liminal Features of Conjuring

Magic performances are a bit like modern religious ritual; for some they seem silly, childish, or puzzling, but for others they can evoke uneasy feelings of the supernatural. Interpretation poses problems for audiences. Although virtually all academics understand that stage magicians use tricks, not all of the general public does. I have been cautioned by religiously conservative people that legerdemain is demonic, and I know quite a few magicians who have received similar warnings, including some who primarily perform at children’s parties. Yet even sophisticated audiences do not completely escape the ambiguity.

More than any other form of entertainment, magic evokes ideas of supernatural power. Trickery played an important role in the supernatural manifestations of shamans. Some of the earliest written accounts of conjuring describe methods used to promote religious belief, such as the temple tricks of the Greeks described by Hero of Alexandria. The association between trickery and the supernatural is longstanding, yet full comprehension of magic’s appeal remains something of a puzzle and is perhaps paradoxical. Demonstrations of power can be threatening, but also amusing.

Conjuring illusions have parallels with mystical experiences. Many classic stage illusions feature themes of death, dismemberment, and supernatural beings. Cremation, decapitation, impaling, and levitation are all part of the stage performer’s repertoire. Similar imagery is found in shamanic visions, LSD trips, visionary experiences, certain psychotic episodes, and even some UFO accounts. Rogan Taylor’s book The Death and Resurrection Show (1985) discusses the parallels at length. Mystical experiences are more common than most people realize, and they can have great impact. Like mysticism, conjuring provides immediate and direct experience. Whereas books, TV and film can provide similar imagery, conjuring loses its power with the distance and abstraction inherent in those media.

Bizarre Magic

Bizarre magic is a small, modern-day subspecialty of conjuring in which dark supernatural themes are explicit. Performers sometimes don hooded robes, at altars with chalices of (stage) blood, and other performances involve phony séances where evil entities manifest. Bizarre magic emerged from pseudo-spiritism and mentalism around 1967, and though there may be only a few hundred aficionados,

there have been several periodicals and quite a number of books devoted to the topic. The spectators are primarily insiders such as mentalists and other bizarrists. In much of this genre the supernatural element is too strong for lay audiences and is thus not commercially viable.

This branch of magic raises clear, pertinent questions; the problem of explaining magic’s appeal and even its existence is most acute here. The attraction cannot be accounted for as a wish to “evoke a sense of wonder or the mysterious” rather the performances provoke a sense of danger and dread—a more immediate version of horror than encountered in movies or in books. The psychology behind it can illuminate important issues.

Much bizarre magic is not performed to entertain, influence or educate the public. It seems to be more for the gratification of the performers and a very small cultic audience. The supernatural has an undeniable impact on them; many display a preoccupation and fascination with occult and supernatural themes, and some of the most active participants in this genre are noted for their anti-religious feelings. Issue number 666 of Genii, a general-interest magic magazine, carried tricks by bizarrists including one using a St. Christopher’s

medal, and others involved the theme of the beast of the Biblical Book of Revelations.

The writers in that issue of Genii (April 1992) ridiculed religion and parodied rituals. The question is: why? Perhaps they were trying to reassure themselves that such powers are not “real.” After all they spend countless hours writing about paranormal phenomena, simulating them, and attending conventions with like-minded persons. They cultivate a mystique, groom their public personas, and encourage non-magicians to see them as controlling occult forces. The paranormal is often destabilizing (anti-structural), and their “rituals of protection” (i.e., of parody and ridicule) may help them maintain their equilibrium. They may wish to avoid a too sustained involvement with the occult. If the supernatural did not hold such power, a few words of rational explanation should banish any problem.

On the other hand, perhaps some of the aficionados become desensitized and wanted a stronger “kick,” a more immediate contact with supernatural themes. Perhaps they needed to deal with emotionally charged issues that are only partly conscious.

These proffered explanations are not complete, but they point directions that explanations can be sought. Later chapters will discuss the wide appeal of supernatural horror fiction, and that is pertinent to understanding bizarre magic.

Mentalism

Mentalism is the branch of conjuring devoted to simulating psychic phenomena. Mentalists perform mind-reading feats, predict newspaper headlines, and demonstrate telepathy. These performers are some of the most trickster-like within the magic fraternity. As with other trickster characters, they typically perform alone, and I can think of no instance in which a mentalist used a large cast for public performances. During their acts, much of the audience believes they are witnessing genuine psi because mentalists intentionally blur the distinctions between the genuine and the fake. Much of their literature encourages performers to foster belief in the paranormal and even to claim that they possess genuine psychic abilities themselves. Mentalists have had a long association with mediums and psychics, and some do readings at psychic fairs and séances at spiritualist camps.

There are far fewer mentalists than regular magicians, and there have been some antagonisms between the two groups. Episcopal priest William Rauscher and atheist James Randi, both magicians and both upholders of orthodoxy, have suggested that mentalists do a disservice and mislead the public, leaving them vulnerable to charlatans, and giving them a false view of the world. Magic historian David Price as well as J. B. Rhine expressed opinions similar to Rauscher and Randi. Needless to say, mentalists have not always accorded these views a warm reception, and Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist and mentalist, has provided a useful analysis of some of the conflicts. Truzzi pointed out that what is and is not “psychic” is a very difficult distinction to make, especially outside of the laboratory. He noted that a certain amount of illusion in life is healthy, and that even those mentalists who do psychic counseling may be providing as much or more of a service than psychiatrists and other so-called mental health professionals. The ethical issues are fuzzy.

Because of the antagonisms, mentalists formed a group of their own, the Psychic Entertainers Association. It has several hundred members and holds an annual convention. The original name of their bulletin, Psychic Entertainers News & Information Service, was selected for its acronym, which is appropriately tricksterish.

In playing the role of “psychic,” many mentalists come to wonder whether they might, in fact, possess genuine abilities. Even vocal de-bunker Ray Hyman has admitted that he once believed himself to be gifted in reading palms, though he eventually rejected the notion. Yet Hyman has come to devote much of his professional career to attacking the paranormal, which, in its way, attests to its influence over him. A number of con artists have commented in their autobiographies that it is helpful for them to believe their own story line; such beliefs allow them to be more sincere and thus more effective. Similar beliefs may assist mentalists.

Understandably, many magicians are cynical of performers who claim real psychic abilities; they are dismissed as frauds or, more charitably, as those who unfortunately came to believe their own publicity material. Mentalists’ statements to the general public can rarely be trusted; however, a number have written works circulated only among insiders in which they state their belief in the efficacy of psychic practices, though they do not rely on them for performing. The demarcation between trickery and genuine psychic sensitivity is not always clear, even to mentalists. An example is contact mind reading, a technique in which the performer holds on to a person who knows the location of a hidden object. By noting the person’s unintentional bodily cues, the mentalist is able to locate the object. In these performances, the distinction between psi and sensory acuity is blurred, and such an exercise has been recommended as training for genuine telepathy by both George Newmann,22 an eminent mentalist, and psychical researcher Hereward Carrington.23

In a 1978 article in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Richard Reichbart suggested that the act of simulating psi may stimulate the real. If he is correct, psi is extremely subversive. The distinctions between true and false, reality and fantasy, are undermined. understandably this suggestion provokes furious reactions, or contempt, especially from those who despise ambiguity and wish their world to be well structured. Strong protective beliefs are needed. The mentalist-magician antagonism is a symptom of one of the subversive manifestations of the trickster—the blurring of imagination and reality.

Hypnosis

Hypnosis is a liminal and trickster phenomenon in a host of ways. It deserves a section for itself, but it makes sense to include it in this chapter; after all, magicians and mentalists have undoubtedly publicized the phenomenon far more than have psychologists. In fact, the

Amazing Kreskin is probably one of the most famous hypnotists, and some psychologists even consider him an eminent authority.24

Hypnosis highlights the confusing interrelationships among conjuring, liminality, and the paranormal. Hypnotism has been known for thousands of years under a variety of names (e.g., animal magnetism, mesmerism, suggestion), but it is ambiguous, and even its definition is problematical. Psychologists continue to debate whether hypnosis involves a special state or if it is essentially indistinguishable from ordinary consciousness. Some attribute hypnotic effects to mere “suggestion,” doubting that a hypnotic trance exists. The disputes have been intense, and in one form or another, they have continued for over 200 years, but they are not resolved.25 All this has resulted in a somewhat marginal position for hypnosis within psychology. Its public image also suffers from some ambiguous and even unsavory affiliations.

Authorities today credit Franz Anton Mesmer as beginning the first sustained investigation of the phenomenon. In his time hypnotism was associated with traveling clairvoyance. That association continued, and from the earliest days of the Society for Psychical Research in the 1880s to the laboratory-based parapsychology of the 1960s and 1970s, hypnosis was used to facilitate ESP in experiments.

The relationship between hypnotism and psychical research is far too extensive to cover here. But to give just a glimpse of the links, I call attention to the book Hypnosis (1972) by Erika Fromm and Ronald Shor, a book that gives no coverage to the paranormal. Yet on the first page of Chapter one, 23 historically important persons are listed who made significant contributions to hypnosis. Among those were Vladimir Bechterev, Pierre Janet, Henri Bergson, Sigmund Freud, Frederic Myers, Charles Richet, William James, and William McDougall. All of these people (more than a third of those listed) also contributed to psychical research. Additionally, psychical researchers have published important chronicles of the history, and here again we encounter the scholarship of Eric Dingwall, who edited a four-volume series titled Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena (1967—1968). Alan Gauld, a president of the Society for Psychical Research, wrote the 738-page A History of Hypnotism (1992).

In the popular mind also, hypnosis is connected with the paranormal. During the 1950s there was an explosion of interest with the Bridey Murphy reincarnation case. Businessman Morey Bernstein hypnotized Virginia Tighe, a Colorado housewife who recalled details of a life in Ireland during the first part of the nineteenth century. Bernstein’s book The Search for Bridey Murphy (1956) raised a storm of controversy. A few decades later, hypnosis was used to retrieve “memories” of UFO abductions, suggesting the dubious reliability of the practice.

Hypnosis blurs a variety of psychological boundaries. It calls into question who is in control—hypnotist or subject?—thereby blurring the distinction between self and other. Hypnosis challenges the division between mind and body with its startling cures of warts and skin diseases. It is sometimes used as analgesia for surgery, eliminating the need for drugs. The line between the conscious and unconscious is blurred when subjects are hypnotized to regain repressed memories, but hypnotists can implant false ones, thereby blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality. The “memories” of abductions by extraterrestrial aliens is but one instance. These few examples are only a smattering, and there is a vast literature on all these matters. The concept of liminality can be fruitfully applied to them.

Hypnosis and illicit sex have long been associated. Men’s magazines sometimes carry advertisements for books teaching how to hypnotize and seduce women. This unsavory association is nothing new. During Mesmer’s heyday in Paris, the King of France appointed a commission to investigate the so-called animal magnetism. The committee included Benjamin Franklin, Antoine Lavoisier, Joseph Ignace Guillotin and others, and in 1784 they issued a report that was made public. They disparaged Mesmer’s idea of a magnetic fluid, and they asserted that imitation and imagination could explain the phenomenon. The commission also produced a secret report, meant only for the eyes of the king. It warned that mesmerism could lead to sexual

immorality.27

Another trickster quality of hypnosis is seen in stage demonstrations, which, like spirit mediumship, sometimes involved deception. Subjects occasionally performed amazing feats, but other times the effects were more mundane. The phenomenon is not reliable, and performers could not count on producing some of the more spectacular demonstrations, and they resorted to using confederates who faked being hypnotized.28 The deceptions enhanced audience appeal, but they also helped marginalize hypnotism in the eyes of establishment psychologists. In fact Wesley Wells in an article in The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1946) opened with the statement: “Public exhibitions of hypnosis on the stage and over the radio are an affront to science.” Hypnotism’s affiliation with the paranormal in the popular press additionally contributed to its scientific marginality, and

Wells also decried “the association of hypnosis with magic, witchcraft, and telepathy.”29

Magicians have plenty of connections with hypnosis, and I will mention a few for illustrative purposes. Will Goldston, a prolific magic writer, published a magazine titled The Magician. For its first five volumes (1904-1909), it was subtitled A Monthly Journal Devoted To Magic, Spiritualism, Hypnotism & Human Progress. Another striking example of the same nexus is seen in the person of ormond McGill. He authored The Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism (1947) a manual used by numerous stage performers. He was also involved in debates on psychic phenomena. Beginning in January 1937, he wrote a monthly series entitled “The Psychic Circle” for The Tops, the magazine of Abbott’s Magic Novelty Company. McGill not only held a positive view on the reality of psi, but he even gave advice on how to develop psychic abilities. He also wrote books on how to fake them. In the 1940s he toured as Doctor Zomb. His performances often commenced with a hypnosis demonstration; after that was over, lights were turned out, and a ghost show began. Glowing monsters appeared on stage and spirit forms flew over the audience. In the 1970s he published several popular books describing his travels and encounters with supernatural phenomena. McGill exemplifies the combination of the genuine and fake, in both hypnosis and the paranormal. He is but one of many similar individuals in the magic field. These people cross boundaries and deal in both the authentic and the spurious; they do not fit into the usual categories. Parapsychologists don’t trust them; debunkers can’t label them as gullible without looking foolish themselves. Consequently academics, parapsychologists, and debunkers largely ignore them.

In short, the trickster constellation is strikingly obvious in the phenomenon of hypnosis. It is associated with deception, lowered sexual inhibitions, psychological boundary blurring, paranormal manifestations, and marginality—all trickster attributes.

Exemplar Magician-Tricksters

Magicians heavily involved in paranormal controversies often manifest strong trickster qualities, and their biographies can be particularly illuminating. A number of such persons could be examined, but three exemplars are James Randi, Tony ‘Doc’ Shiels, and Eric J. Dingwall—the debunker, the hoaxer, and the investigator, respectively. All are extreme types, and all have had an intense, almost life

long involvement with the paranormal. The three are exceedingly bright, creative, and controversial, and each has published a number of books. Each displays a trickster constellation in almost archetypal form. The all-too-brief sketches that follow emphasize trickster qualities to the exclusion of others.

James Randi

James (The Amazing) Randi (born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, 1928) is the individual most widely associated with the modern-day skeptical movement, and he has made countless public appearances, the world over, as a debunker. Randi has many fans among high status scientists. In 1986 the MacArthur Foundation bestowed upon him a “genius” award along with $286,000, and in 1989 he was given an award by the American Physical Society for “Promoting Public Understanding of the Relation of Physics to Society.” Randi has been involved with the paranormal almost his entire life, and his entry in Current Biography Yearbook 1987 tells how he publicly confronted phoney spiritualists when he was still a teenager. In his early days he produced a newspaper astrology column and pretended to be a psychic. He abandoned that and eventually achieved fame with his attacks on Uri Geller.32 In 1976 the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) was formed, and Randi quickly became one of its most visible members.

In the early 1980s Randi began his Project Alpha. He recruited two teenage magicians, Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, who posed as psychics and visited a number of researchers, demonstrating their purported abilities of psychically bending spoons, producing psychic photographs, and moving small objects. They were able to convince a few nonprofessional investigators of their talents, but many professionals remained unconvinced by the boys, some vocally so. Nevertheless, in January 1983 Randi called a well-attended press conference and claimed that he had fooled the parapsychologists. This garnered wide coverage by television, newspapers, and magazines, and the Project helped to ridicule and marginalize parapsychology.33

Like many tricksters, some of Randi’s antics have caused problems for himself. He was forced to resign from CSICOP because his accusations provoked lawsuits against the Committee. One of the most publicized involved physicist Eldon Byrd, a friend of Uri Geller. On May 10, 1988 Randi made a presentation for the New York Area Skeptics in Manhattan. After his lecture, during the question and answer period, a member of the audience confronted him with a tape recording, which allegedly had Randi speaking in explicit sexual terms with young men (the recording was not played during the public meeting). I was present and watched as pandemonium almost broke out. Randi did not completely regain his composure. He accused Byrd of distributing the tape and went on to claim that Byrd was a child molester and that he was in prison. He made the same assertion in an interview with Twilight Zone Magazine.3 This was untrue, and in a jury trial he was found guilty of defaming Byrd.

Randi has never been married, but his sex life has received published comment regarding rumors of pederasty, including from a longtime friend James Moseley. Randi threatened lawsuits over them, but he never carried through.

Randi has written a number of books on the paranormal, and they are not known for their accuracy. I documented some of his errors in my overview article on CSICOP.38 He was infuriated by that and wrote me an unpleasant letter demanding a correction. I asked him to explain any mistakes I made, but he was unable to do so, and I didn’t hear from him again.

He has allied himself with atheistic causes, and much of his life has been devoted to battles against supernatural ideas, at considerable personal sacrifice. The fights left their mark, and Carl Sagan’s (sympathetic) introduction to Randi’s book The Faith Healers (1987) described Randi as an angry man and labeled his book a “tirade.” All in all, Randi is more a Promethean figure than a Hermetic one.

Tony “Doc” Shiels

Tony “Doc” Shiels (b. 1938), is an artist and musician and also a mentalist and magician who has authored a column for British magazine Fortean Times. He presents himself as “investigator” but is actually a marvelous hoaxer, and Issue No. 8 of Strange Magazine (Fall 1991) exposed some of his hoaxes of aquatic monsters. Because of his expertise at hoaxing, it is perhaps fortunate that he is less known than my other two exemplars.

Shiels was one of the originators of bizarre magic,39 and his performances and writings are noted for the unusual. Shiels describes himself as a surrealist and has written: “Performing, writing, and thinking about trickery, illusion, legerdemain, hocus-pocus, and all such stuff, actually seems to make the genuine thing happen … To perform a ‘trick’ is, in effect, to act out a piece of sympathetic magic.”40 While this may indeed be true, in view of his archetypal tricksterhood, it is difficult to know whether Shiels actually believes this or uses it only as a magician’s patter line. I suspect that he believes it. I’ve had some correspondence with him, and he demonstrated an exceptional understanding of the trickster. He incorporated it into his surrealist worldview.

In the Introduction to Shiels’ book Monstrum! (1990), Colin Wilson noted that some of Shiels’ “writing seems suffused with a touch of alcoholic euphoria,” and Shiels acknowledges that “A mixture of Scottish and Irish blood, plus regular lashings of Guinness and whiskey, pursues its eccentric course through my constantly hardening arteries.” We may assume that altered states of consciousness play a part in his life. Sexuality is also a prominent feature; Shiels’ artwork contains erotic imagery, as do his books on magic, which carry pictures of voluptuous nude women. He has taken photographs of his nude daughters, and that sparked rumors with veiled hints of incest.

Colin Wilson comments on Shiels’ charm and accords him “an immense natural goodness and amiability.” Shiels’ writings are indeed charming and friendly; they display none of the anger and bitterness found in those of Randi. Shiels shows more of a Hermes personality rather than the Promethean demeanor of Randi.

Eric J. Dingwall

Anthropologist Eric Dingwall (1890-1986) was one of the brightest and most knowledgeable characters in the history of psychical research, and also one having a decided taste for the bizarre. He wrote a book on chastity belts (1931), one titled Male Infibulation (1925), and edited another (illustrated) on female sexuality; his book The American Woman (1956) primarily focused on the sexual life of middle and upper class American women. He cataloged erotica at the British Library, and he also investigated black magic, sexuality, and transvestism in Haiti. 45 His explicit interest in the relationship between psi and sexuality was so discomfiting to his colleagues that criminologist and Society for Psychical Research (SPR) president D. J. West felt compelled to comment on it in the obituary he wrote of Dingwall.

Dingwall held both Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees, but he considered himself to be an unsophisticated person. He described his ability to communicate with the primitive and the insane, a talent he found lacking in most highly educated people.47 This is a subtle trickster attribute. The trickster has the ability to communicate effectively across markedly different cultures. Dingwall’s comment indicates an awareness of the issue, though he did not relate it to the trickster.

Dingwall was a conjuror of long standing, and Milbourne Christopher, an eminent magic historian, dedicated his Mediums, Mystics & the Occult (1975) to Ding. At the time of his death Dingwall was the oldest member of the Magic Circle, the prestigious London magic society. He investigated and wrote extensively on psychical research and especially on physical mediumship, where trickery is an especially severe problem. Although he was often highly critical, he made positive statements regarding the existence of psi.

Dingwall had an uneasy relationship with organized psychical research. For a short time he was research officer of the SPR, but that did not last. In his reminiscences on Dingwall, SPR president Alan Gauld described his mischievous and disruptive nature,48 and that is evidenced by the reports of the Annual General Meetings of the SPR, which frequently noted his complaints about how the society was run. In later years, D. J. West tried to convince others to elect Dingwall to the Council, but he was unsuccessful.

Dingwall was also a member of CSICOP and the Rationalist Press Association, and his numerous trickster elements seem to have been balanced by his almost rabid rationalistic beliefs. For instance in one of his essays he blamed parapsychologists for the rise of interest in occultism, and he also commented that “Christianity, unbelievable as it may be to the rational mind, has been supported by the occult superstitions of darker ages.” His strong beliefs may have provided him some structure when grappling with the paranormal.

Dingwall was seen as an “individual” rather than as one who found identity by holding a position in some institution. Although he was employed by several organizations, his private means allowed him to independently pursue personal interests. His anti-structural qualities can be seen in a variety of contexts.

I have referred to a number of Dingwall’s works in preparing this book, and in them I have found exceedingly rich detail, illuminating case studies, but lacking strong, explicit theoretical orientation. His emphasis was on the concrete rather than the abstract.51

Lessons of the Exemplars

None of these three personalities can be described as “normal”; they really are unusual characters. None have held long-term, prominent positions in structured institutions; they are known for individual achievements rather than for directing the work of organizations. All three could be described as disruptive and were known for rocking the boat. Unusual sexuality is prominent in their lives, and all have been intensely involved with magic and the paranormal. Shiels used trickery to fake paranormal events; both Randi and Dingwall spent much of their time exposing similar attempts. Randi and Dingwall display strong rationalistic beliefs which may afford some structure and protection; Shiels’ surrealist worldview perhaps does not furnish the same benefits.

The writings of Randi and Dingwall give much specific detail and rather little on theory, and this perhaps signals another similarity between magicians and mystics. Both are characterized by relatively low levels of abstraction. Magic books and magazines are filled with specific methods for tricks, but very little space is devoted to theoretical ideas. The major magic histories—The Illustrated History of Magic (1973) by Milbourne Christopher, The Great Illusionists (1979) by Edwin Dawes, and Magic: A Pictorial History of Conjurers in the Theater (1985) by David Price—give exceptional, sometimes excruciating, detail, but they offer scant theoretical perspective. At least in the open literature, there is relatively little theoretical work on deception per se (though there is much on the psychology of it). This is puzzling given the vast literature on conjuring and the practical applications (such as defense intelligence). The subject of deception appears somewhat resistant to useful abstraction and theorizing.52

Summary

Conjurors fake paranormal phenomena; illusions of the supernatural are their stock-in-trade. Major stage productions incorporate themes of death, dismemberment, and rebirth. Mentalists counterfeit ESP. None of this is new. Shamans in earlier cultures did the same thing. The paranormal has been affiliated with trickery for thousands of years, and this is an important clue to its nature.

Debates still rage whether famous “psychics” were really only magicians, and conversely, conjurors are often suspected of having psychic powers. They intentionally blur the lines between genuine-spurious and fact-fiction. Some encourage the public to believe in psi, even when they don’t themselves.

Many famous magicians in history believed in paranormal phenomena; others were among the most vociferous debunkers. For over a century conjurors have played major roles in the public debates on the paranormal. Their visibility often eclipsed the scientists. The controversy over the reality of psi rages even within the magic community, and that indicates an especially problematic condition.

Conjuring has trickster qualities in addition to deception and the paranormal. There are other liminal features. Magic is a marginal art. Unlike music or drama, there are no university departments devoted to it, and outside Las Vegas, there are almost no performance halls dedicated primarily to magic. Magicians often work solo; rarely do they use a large cast. Conjurors’ employment is generally temporary, and most are forced to travel from engagement to engagement. Marginality, solitariness, and travel are all associated with the trickster. Further, magicians have been among the most effective promoters of hypnosis—a liminal phenomenon par excellence.

Conjuring and deception are pertinent to theoretical issues addressed in later chapters, and it may help the reader to give some idea of the topics to come. Briefly, deception takes advantage of people’s assumptions. Assumptions are simply abstractions and representations of the world, and they are necessarily incomplete. The issues of abstraction and representation will be discussed later, in conjunction with literary theory and related topics. Deception is somewhat resistant to abstraction; so is mystical experience.

CHAPTER 12

CSICOP and the Debunkers

I am an enemy to all the gods.

Prometheus1

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, pronounced “sigh cop”) is the most aggressive antagonist of the paranormal today. As such, analysis of the group provides a wealth of insight. CSICOP’s personnel, its organizational structure, its operations, and its demographics tell us much about the paranormal and its status in our culture.

The Committee was founded at the 1976 convention of the

American Humanist Association. It quickly grew, and its magazine

The Skeptical Inquirer has a circulation of over 50,000. A survey of its readership found that 54% have an advanced degree and 27% hold a doctorate. CSICOP’s Fellows have included Francis Crick, Murray Gell-Mann, Leon Lederman, Glenn Seaborg, and Steven Weinberg, all Nobel laureates, as well as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, psychologist B. F. Skinner, astronomer Carl Sagan, writer Isaac Asimov, zoologist Richard Dawkins, and philosopher Sidney Hook, among others. CSICOP is headquartered just off the Amherst Campus of the State University of New York at Buffalo in a new 25,000 square foot office building costing $4,000,000, a figure they surpassed in their fundraising for the project. The Committee has spawned more than 65 local and international groups with similar aims. All this is an impressive accomplishment, and CSICOP is highly visible within academe and elite culture. Its success is in marked contrast to scientific parapsychology. The circulation of the Journal of Parapsychology is 757.5 Understandably, many see the Committee as a legitimate scientific authority on the paranormal.

While it purports to be impartial, CSICOP’s early rhetoric revealed its actual agenda. In an interview for Science magazine, Lee Nis-bet, Executive Director of the Committee, articulated its position: “It’s [belief in the paranormal] a very dangerous phenomenon, dangerous to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society … We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball.” Since the early days, CSICOP has slightly tempered its rhetoric but not its stance. It still aggressively denounces the paranormal and labels it as irrational. CSICOP serves as a force for marginalizing the supernatural, and that is its primary function.

Parapsychologists, not surprisingly, sometimes see CSICOP as the enemy. However, such an attitude keeps them from recognizing the larger picture. The Committee only exemplifies pervasive patterns and personifies social forces at work today. CSICOP benefits parapsychology because its antagonism is explicit rather than hidden, and detached examination can clarify issues. The Committee should become an object of study and contemplation.

CSICOP can be profitably compared and contrasted with those who intentionally attempt to elicit paranormal phenomena. A number of such groups will be covered in later chapters, including parapsychologists, spiritualists, the New Age movement, and modern-day witchcraft. Please remember CSICOP when reading about them, because they provide stark contrasts with the Committee and its constituency. CSICOP upholds the status quo. It is structural rather than anti-structural; it values hierarchy over communitas; it desires stability rather than liminality. Nevertheless, because it directly confronts the paranormal, it cannot escape a certain influence from it, and as I will show, the trickster manifests with both the supernatural and its opponents.

In 1992 I published a 45-page overview of CSICOP. I identified four distinguishing features of the Committee: association with high status scientists, heavy dominance by males, pervasive anti-religious sentiment, and an active role by magicians. That paper was largely descriptive; it had extensive documentation but little interpretation. The presentation here is more interpretive. Those wishing greater detail about specifics of CSICOP might seek out my earlier paper.

CSICOP and Science

CSICOP purports to be scientific, but for many years it had an official policy against conducting research itself. The genesis of that policy is amusing. In 1975, before CSICOP was founded, philosopher Paul Kurtz produced a manifesto denouncing astrology, and 186 scientists signed it. That generated intense media coverage and served as a springboard to establish the Committee. Kurtz went on to urge newspapers to label their astrology columns as follows: “ Warning: If taken seriously, this column may be dangerous to your health!” (Kurtz’s emphasis). At that time, Kurtz was editor of The Humanist, and he had allowed some scientifically erroneous attacks on astrology to be published in the magazine.

Under pressure to defend his position, Kurtz was challenged to undertake a scientific study to confirm or dispute some astrological findings of Michel Gauquelin. He and a few colleagues accepted the challenge. Very early on, Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of CSICOP’s Executive Council, warned them of serious problems with their approach, and he later volunteered to assist with the calculations for the project. Data were collected and analyzed, and the results supported Gauquelin’s findings that the position of Mars at a person’s birth was related to sports ability. Rawlins understood that Kurtz’s method was flawed and was unconvinced by the data, but he also said that the outcome, favorable to Gauquelin, should be frankly acknowledged. Kurtz was enraged by that advice, and he refused to heed it. Rawlins charged Kurtz with covering up the mistakes, and he repeatedly tried to bring the problems to the attention of other CSICOP members. Rawlins was rebuffed and eventually forced out of the Committee, and a number of other CSICOP members resigned because of the cover-up. Rawlins published a 32-page exposé in the October 1981 issue of Fate magazine, and that same month CSICOP adopted a formal policy of not conducting research.

After the scandal became public, sociologists Trevor Pinch and Harry Collins published a study of CSICOP. They explicitly warned the Committee that if they actually conducted research, they would no longer be able to hold the views of science that they did. Scientific processes are not nearly as objective as commonly thought, and social factors play a significant role in interpreting results. This is entirely counter to CSICOP’s ideology. If one does research, one runs the risk of obtaining uncongenial results, a danger Kurtz by then undoubtedly understood. In any event, the Committee’s policy accorded with the advice of Pinch and Collins to not undertake research.

Instead of scientific investigation, CSICOP’s primary efforts are directed to influencing public opinion. Its magazine carries innumerable articles decrying the media’s treatment of the paranormal and describing CSICOP’s attempts to combat the favorable coverage. The priorities are particularly striking in its Manual for Local, Regional and

National Groups (1987). Seventeen pages are devoted to “Handling the Media” and “Public Relations”; in contrast only three pages are given to “Scientific Investigation.” No scientific references are cited in that section, and the reader is referred to Paul Kurtz’s book The Transcendental Temptation for an explanation of the scientific method. That volume is by no means a scientific handbook, and among other things, it suggests that Jesus and Lazarus had a homosexual relationship. This is an example of promoting an essentially religious work as a scientific text, a tactic CSICOP frequently accuses their opposition of using.

CSICOP’s actual function can be seen by contrasting it with scientific organizations such as the American Physical Society, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Chemical Society. These and hundreds of others share some common characteristics. Their goals, organizational structure, operations, and demographics indicate how scientific societies advance their fields. Table 6 lists some contrasts between them and CSICOP.

Table 6, by itself, should alert any reader that scientific research is not a high priority of the Committee. This is not surprising, given that of the four members of its board of directors, only one, James Alcock, is a scientist.

Though it has a building worth several million dollars, a paid staff, and a good size library, CSICOP has no research program. In fact for the first 15 years of its existence, none of the scientist-members of its Executive Council ever published a report of a parapsychology experiment in a refereed journal. CSICOP has not established a laboratory in which researchers might attempt to elicit paranormal phenomena; it makes no effort at research similar to that of a scientific organization. However, occasionally a member conducts an ad hoc test of a psychic during an afternoon and writes up a brief report for a popular periodical.

The Committee should not be criticized too harshly for all this, because scientists firmly ensconced in the academic establishment rarely if ever explicitly address paranormal claims, but CSICOP does. Their willingness to confront the paranormal acknowledges its importance, at least indirectly, and this has consequences. To some extent, CSICOP holds a betwixt and between status. It is headquartered just off a university campus, and that is symbolic of a larger pattern. CSICOP serves as a buffer between the academic establishment and claims of the paranormal. The claims are not brought inside academe but handled at its border. The most eminent scientist-members have

Scientific Societies

CSICOP Scientific societies publish technical,

CSICOP publishes no journal. It peer-reviewed journals that are primar

produces a popular magazine carrying ily geared for specialists in the disci

cartoons and caricatures and recom- pline.

mends that technical papers be submit-ted to scientific periodicals. Scientific journals are edited by spe-

The Skeptical Inquirer is edited by a cialists who have training in the disci-

journalist. pline and who have made technical

contributions to that field.

Scientific societies are headed by emi-

CSICOP is headed by a philosopher- nent scientists who have made major

businessman who has never published contributions to their fields.

any empirical research on the para- normal in a refereed scientific journal. Heads of scientific societies typically

The chairman of CSICOP has held his serve for a year or two.

position for over two decades. Scientific societies’ governing boards

Many members of CSICOP’s board of are typically elected, and their mem-

directors and executive council have bers serve for a few years.

maintained their positions for decades. Scientific societies’ governing boards

Many members of CSICOP’s board of are typically elected, and their mem-

directors and executive council have bers serve for a few years.

maintained their positions for decades. Scientific organizations arrange confer

CSICOP puts on conferences for the ences for specialists. Calls for papers

general public with particular emphasis are printed in journals, and submitted

on the media. Calls for papers are not papers are refereed.

issued. Presentations are geared for thegeneral public rather than technical specialists. Scientific organizations promote pro-

CSICOP promotes lay organizations. fessional development among students

in academic departments.

Status in scientific organizations de-

Status in CSICOP is dependent upon pends upon publication of papers in

status in science or the media, but it is professional journals of an appropriate

unrelated to investigation of the para- specialty.

normal.

Table 6 Characteristics of Scientific Societies Contrasted With Those of

CSICOP.11

virtually nothing to do with the running of CSICOP; they serve as mere figureheads. They lend their names to campaigns but rarely comment publicly on the paranormal. When they occasionally do, they reveal a vast ignorance. Consequently, the scientists are not the main debunkers; that task is relegated primarily to journalists, magicians, and philosophers. The most active are Kendrick Frazier, journalist and editor of The Skeptical Inquirer; Joe Nickell, writer; Martin Gardner, writer-magician; James Randi, magician; Philip J. Klass, journalist; Paul Kurtz, philosopher and chairman of CSICOP. The four psychologists who are active debunkers, namely Ray Hyman, James Alcock, Susan Blackmore, and Richard Wiseman, certainly do not rank among the more eminent of the scientists.

Although markedly different from scientific societies, the Committee still has some parallels with science. For instance, CSICOP is particularly attuned to status issues. The Committee honors highstatus scientists, invites them to conventions, gives them awards, and writes favorable articles about them. CSICOP‘s members are typically recruited because of their prestige rather than for their research on the paranormal. Their status allows the Committee to speak with a voice of authority, and those who disagree are portrayed as marginal or without scientific standing, and thus can be disregarded.

Structure, status, and hierarchy are now central to science, and to bureaucracies generally. In the classic, The Sociological Imagination (1959), C. Wright Mills devoted an entire chapter to science’s “bureaucratic ethos.” Many years of training are required before one becomes a practicing scientist, and there are many levels of status after becoming a practitioner (ranks of professorships, grades of schools, and varying levels of professional honors). The hierarchy is international in scope. Those who have been most amply rewarded by this system give it their allegiance. They have spent their lives building and climbing the edifice that will perpetuate their legacy. The personalities most suited to operating in the hierarchical institutional structures have great vested interests. They obtain positions of influence, award grants and honors, and permit publication of papers. Max Weber pointed out that bureaucracies are part of the rationalization process. They help disenchant the world and are inimical to pure charisma, which involves manifestations of supernatural power. Considering all this, it should be no surprise that sociologist James McClenon found that the so-called elite (i.e., high status) scientists were some of the most hostile to parapsychology.

Anti-religion and Rationalism

In my 1992 overview of CSICOP I provided an extended discussion of religious factors affecting the Committee. Later, some of its members and supporters complained to me privately that I devoted too much space to that. It was obviously a sensitive issue for them, and they were clearly uncomfortable with the implications.

CSICOP is pervaded with anti-religious sentiment, and I easily compiled a list of 29 members who had publicly identified themselves as holding nontheistic or atheistic views. This constituted more than 25% of the official membership of the organization. That percentage was not unexpected given the group is composed primarily of academics, but it was the aggressive public profession of religious unbelief that was so striking. Those people vigorously promote their religious opinions, and a number of them contributed to periodicals such as Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s American Atheist.

As an organization, CSICOP is formally allied with atheistic groups. It shares a building, personnel, office equipment, and fund raising with the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH). The two organizations overlap extensively, and both are headed by Paul Kurtz. When I visited their offices in 1991, I sat in the reading area that happened to be next to a copy machine. Several times I overheard employees inquiring whether copies should be charged to CSICOP or CODESH, further illustrating the lack of demarcation between the organizations. Some might be puzzled why such a long cumbersome name was selected for the Council and also why the acronym CODESH was used, rather than CODASH, with “A” for “and.” When one knows that “kodesh” is Hebrew for holy, it makes sense. The acronym was obviously chosen as a slap at the Jewish religion. Someone probably complained because the name was changed to the Council for Secular Humanism as of June 1996.

The Council publishes Free Inquiry, a magazine that belittles religion; it also published the Secular Humanist Bulletin, which was edited by Tim Madigan, a cofounder of Catholics Anonymous. Kurtz founded the Academy of Humanism to honor eminent people who have held secular humanist beliefs; roughly a third of the Academy members were affiliated with CSICOP. Another organizational connection is the Rationalist Press Association (RPA) in Great Britain, with several of its Honorary Associates being CSICOP Fellows. In addition, the American Rationalist was edited by CSICOP member and employee Gordon Stein.

The explicit affiliation of rationalists with debunker organizations is in keeping with historical precedent. Rationalism is inherently antagonistic to the paranormal and supernatural, and this was seen in the early days of the societies for psychical research. A century ago, the RPA served in a capacity similar to Prometheus Books today. Under their imprint, Watts & Co., the RPA published a number of volumes attacking spiritualism and psychical research. This long antagonism is inherent, because fundamentally, the debunkers are a force for the rationalization and disenchantment of the world (in Max Weber’s terms).

CSICOP is an exceedingly rich example of rationalization and its consequences. As discussed in the chapter on Weber, rationalization is a long-term, ongoing process. It is particularly marked in academe, but it is also found in religion. The marginalization of mysticism and miracles in mainline Protestant denominations is an example. In fact virtually all religions acknowledge supernatural power but put strictures around it. They keep it somewhat distant. Early peoples understood that the supernatural was dangerous. It needed to be hedged off from the mundane world. There were rules, prohibitions, and taboos surrounding it. The process continues today, but at an unconscious level. Establishment religion and CSICOP, each with their own means, discourage engagement of the phenomena. Both impose taboos. Religions decree occult dabbling a sin; CSICOP marginalizes it by ridicule. Both enforce the taboo, but in slightly different ways.

The skeptical movement exemplifies trends in scientific and academic thinking. It makes them explicit. Many social scientists and psychologists have been predicting the demise of religion for decades and have largely avoided studying it. The eminent sociologist Peter Berger stated “in recent years sociologists, with very few exceptions, have shown very little interest [in religion], probably because they have sworn allegiance to a scientific ‘progressivism’ that regards religion as a vanishing leftover from the dark ages of superstition and do not care to invest their energies in the study of a moribund phenomenon.”15 Many psychologists are even puzzled by people who believe, yet a 1994 survey by U.S. News & World Report found that 93% of adult Americans believed in God or a universal spirit.16 Obviously many social scientists cannot comprehend a vast realm of human experience. They are isolated from ordinary people, and their alienated, ivory-tower existence destroys their understanding.

Even scholars sympathetic to religion are heavily influenced by the trends. For instance, Peter Berger, who is actively religious himself, in his book A Rumor of Angels (1990) refers to the supernatural saying: “It is impossible to know for sure whether any such rediscovery [of the supernatural] will remain the property of more or less isolated cognitive minorities” (emphasis added). Yet a 1993 survey by Time magazine showed that 69% of adult Americans believed in angels. Clearly, it is the academicians who are the “isolated cognitive minorities.” Berger specializes in the sociology of religion. His ignorance of basic data of human experience is comparable to a physicist who doesn’t know the density of water, and publicly flaunts it. Yet Berger is typical! This is difficult for ordinary people to understand, but much academic work is marked by extreme abstraction, and that is inimical to comprehension of the supernatural.

In some ways, the skeptics are more astute than the average academic, and philosopher-businessman-debunker Paul Kurtz probably has a greater intuitive feeling for the problems posed by the supernatural than do the vast majority of religious scholars. Most of them no longer comprehend the numinous and the supernatural and the deep problems they present. Many consider the supernatural to be only a crude superstition, and the issues have been banished from the awareness of academe, even though they were extensively discussed at the beginning of the twentieth century. In The Idea of the Holy (1917), the eminent German religious scholar Rudolf Otto recognized that “In truth the enemy has often a keener vision in this matter than either the champion of religion or the neutral and professedly impartial theorist. For the adversaries on their side know very well that the entire ‘pother about mysticism’ has nothing to do with ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’.”