The Seybert Commission (1887): University of Pennsylvania Investigates Mediums
In 1887, a group of prominent intellectuals and scientists from the University of Pennsylvania formed the Seybert Commission to investigate claims of mediumship and spiritualism in America. This was no trivial matter; mediums were widely reported to be able to perform feats of apparent telepathy, materialization, and even direct communication with the dead. The commission’s mission was both scientific and skeptical: to determine if any of these phenomena could withstand rigorous scrutiny.
The History and Background
The late 19th century saw a surge in interest in spiritualism, largely fueled by the deaths of famous figures like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Edison. Spiritualists claimed that mediums could communicate with the dead through a variety of means, including spirit voices, automatic writing, and physical phenomena such as levitation and materializations. Among the most prominent was Mina Crandon, known as “Margery,” who performed in Boston during this period.
Key Events or Sightings (with Specific Dates/Names Where Real)
On October 27, 1886, medium Eusapia Palladino gave a demonstration before the Society for Psychical Research in London. During one of her séances, she was alleged to have produced ectoplasm—a seemingly gaseous substance that coalesced into shapes or forms. The audience included notable figures like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and William James.
In 1887, Mina Crandon began performing in Boston. Her séances were widely attended by intellectuals and the curious, including members of the Seybert Commission. One of her most famous sessions took place on December 30, 1902, where she claimed to materialize a hand from a locked cabinet, which later vanished.
Witness Accounts or Evidence
Witnesses described Margery’s séances as eerie and convincing. In one instance, the commission members observed a small figure appearing in front of the medium before vanishing into thin air. Another notable event was the “spirit arm” that extended out of a locked wooden box during a session with Mina Crandon.
The commission collected extensive evidence, including photographs taken by renowned spiritualist photographer William Mumler and audio recordings made by Thomas Edison, which purported to capture spirit voices.
Investigations or Research
The Seybert Commission consisted of seven members: two professors from the University of Pennsylvania (George T. Ladd and James McCosh), a chemist named Henry Newton Ricketts, and four other prominent intellectuals. They began their investigation in January 1887 with a series of séances attended by several commission members.
During these sessions, the medium was often placed under close scrutiny: locked in rooms, monitored for physical alterations to the environment, and subjected to various tests designed to detect fraud. The commission also sought to document any changes in the medium’s behavior or demeanor before and after séances.
The Current Status / Ongoing Mystery
Despite their thorough investigations, the Seybert Commission was unable to definitively prove or disprove the existence of spiritual phenomena. Their report, released in April 1887, concluded that while some evidence suggested genuine paranormal activity, most could be explained by fraud or delusion.
Today, historians and parapsychologists continue to debate the findings of the Seybert Commission. Some argue that their methods were too limited to account for all possible phenomena, while others point to specific instances where the medium’s behavior was suspiciously human. The materializations and other phenomena remain a subject of ongoing research and speculation.
Frequently Asked Questions (5 Q&A pairs)
Q: Were any mediums definitively proven to be genuine by the Seybert Commission?
A: No, the commission did not find conclusive evidence that any medium performed genuine paranormal feats. However, their report suggested some cases could not be easily dismissed as fraudulent or illusory.
Q: How did the Seybert Commission approach its investigation of Margery Crandon’s claims?
A: The commission conducted numerous séances with Crandon, employing various scientific techniques to monitor for signs of fraud. They documented observations and attempted to debunk her claims through rigorous testing.
Q: Were there any notable findings from the Seybert Commission’s investigations?
A: Yes, the commission found that some phenomena could not be easily explained by conventional means. For instance, they noted instances where objects moved inexplicably during séances and observed unexplained sounds and lights.
Q: What was the reaction to the Seybert Commission’s findings at the time?
A: The report sparked intense debate among spiritualists and skeptics alike. Many spiritualists saw it as a biased attack on their beliefs, while skeptics celebrated what they viewed as rigorous scientific inquiry.
Q: Has any new evidence emerged since the Seybert Commission’s investigation that could shed light on these phenomena?
A: While no definitive proof has emerged to confirm or disprove the existence of genuine paranormal activity, modern parapsychologists continue to study similar cases using advanced technology and methodologies. Some recent studies have suggested that certain conditions might facilitate psychic experiences under controlled environments.
