The Science and Automatic Writing: Studies, Research and Evidence

Automatic Writing Under the Scientific Gaze

Automatic Writing has been an object of scientific curiosity for over a century. Although controversial, this practice has attracted researchers from various fields seeking to understand if there is measurable evidence of communication with disincarnate spirits.

This article explores what science has investigated about automatic writing, what evidence has been found, and the current limits of research in this field.

History of Scientific Research on Automatic Writing

19th Century: Early Investigations

Allan Kardec (1804-1869) was one of the first to apply the scientific method to the study of mediumship:

• Collected thousands of mediumistic communications
• Compared messages from different mediums
• Sought consistency in spiritual information
• Established analytical criteria

His work "The Mediums' Book" is considered the first scientific treatise on mediumship.

Early 20th Century: Society for Psychical Research

Founded in 1882 in London, the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) investigated:

• Cases of automatic writing
• Famous mediums like Leonora Piper
• Evidence of post-mortem communication
• Various paranormal phenomena

Notable researchers:

• William James (psychologist and philosopher)
• Oliver Lodge (physicist)
• William Crookes (chemist)

21st Century: Academic Studies in Brazil

Brazil has become a center for research on automatic writing due to:

• Strong Spiritist tradition
• Active mediums (especially the greatest Brazilian medium)
• Growing academic interest
• Documented cases

Key Scientific Studies

1. USP Study on Chico Xavier (2012)

Research: "Investigating the Fit and Accuracy of Alleged Mediumistic Writing"

Conducted by: Dr. Júlio Peres and team from the University of São Paulo

Methodology:

• Analysis of 13 letters automatic-writing by Chico Xavier
• Comparison with genuine letters from the deceased
• Evaluation by blind graphologists (without knowing origin)
• Content analysis by family members

Results:

• 97% accuracy in identifying personal information
• Significant graphological compatibility
• Details that Chico supposedly did not know
• High degree of recipient satisfaction

Publication: Journal of Scientific Exploration

2. Neuroimaging Study (2012)

Research: "Neuroimaging During Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation"

Conducted by: Dr. Júlio Peres, Dr. Alexander Moreira-Almeida (UFJF)

Methodology:

• fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans
• Brain analysis during automatic writing
• Comparison between experienced mediums and control group
• Monitoring of activity in different brain regions

Surprising results:

• During automatic writing, experienced mediums showed reduced activity in areas related to language and planning
• Control group (normal writing) showed increased activity in these areas
• Mediums wrote faster and with greater complexity when in trance
• Production of superior texts with lower brain activity

Interpretations:

• Challenges conventional models of text production
• Suggests genuine altered state of consciousness
• Does not prove spiritual origin, but demonstrates unusual phenomenon

Publication: PLOS ONE

3. UNIFESP Study on Automatic Writing (2019)

Research: Content analysis and informational accuracy

Methodology:

• Analysis of 100 automatic writing letters
• Verification of factual information
• Interviews with recipients
• Evaluation of psychological impact

Results:

• 73% of letters contained verifiable and correct information
• High index of intimate details unknown to the medium
• Significant therapeutic effect on the bereaved
• Reduction of complicated grief symptoms

4. University of Arizona Research (Gary Schwartz)

Study: "The Accuracy and Specificity of Mediums"

Methodology:

• Double-blind tests with multiple mediums
• Verification of specific information
• Rigorous statistical analysis
• Comparison with control group

Results:

• Mediums demonstrated accuracy significantly above chance
• Correct specific information in 80-90% of tested cases
• Difficulty explaining by cold reading or fraud

Scientific Evidence Investigated

1. Graphological Analysis

What is investigated:

• Comparison of automatic-writing handwriting with deceased's writing
• Unique writing characteristics
• Changes during the mediumistic process

Findings:

• In some cases, notable similarities between automatic-writing and deceased's handwriting
• Sudden style changes during session
• Characteristics that differ from the medium's normal writing

Limitations:

• Graphology is not an exact science
• Natural writing variability
• Possibility of unconscious imitation

2. Content Analysis

What is investigated:

• Verifiable information in messages
• Details unknown to the medium
• Factual accuracy of communications. See more about authenticity of automatic writing letters

Findings:

• Cases with correct ultra-specific information
• Details that mediums had no way of knowing
• Information confirmed subsequently

Documented examples:

• Location of hidden documents
• Details of private events
• Information about people unknown to the medium

3. Linguistic Studies

What is investigated:

• Complexity of automatic-writing texts
• Comparison with medium's known capacity
• vocabulary and style analysis

Findings:

• Texts with complexity superior to the medium's education
• Diverse literary styles in the same medium
• Unknown technical vocabulary

Chico Xavier Case:

• Education up to 4th grade
• Spirit-Written works with medical, legal, scientific vocabulary
• Varied literary styles attributed to different spirits

4. Neuroscience of Mediumship

What is investigated:

• Brain activity during automatic writing
• Altered states of consciousness
• Neural correlates of mediumistic experience

Findings:

• Atypical brain patterns during trance
• Reduction of activity in planning areas
• Increase in areas related to perception

Significance:

• Confirms differentiated mental state
• Does not prove spiritual origin, but demonstrates real phenomenon
• Challenges conventional explanations

Explanatory Scientific Theories

1. Survival Hypothesis (Continuity of Consciousness)

Proposal: Consciousness survives physical death

Evidence in favor:

• Precise information unknown to the medium
• Coherent personality in communications
• Details verifiable subsequently

Criticisms:

• Lacks known physical mechanism
• Difficult to test empirically
• Alternative explanations possible

2. Super-PSI Hypothesis

Proposal: Mediums access information via clairvoyance/telepathy

Evidence in favor:

• Does not require post-mortem survival
• Consistent with parapsychological research
• PSI capabilities demonstrated in laboratory

Criticisms:

• Would require extraordinary PSI powers
• Does not explain coherent personality
• Why would it manifest as spiritual communication?

3. Cryptomnesia Hypothesis

Proposal: Forgotten memories emerge unconsciously

Evidence in favor:

• Memory can store much more than we remember
• Information can come from past exposures
• Does not require paranormal phenomena

Criticisms:

• Does not explain information the medium never had access to
• Does not address personality changes
• Insufficient for cases with impossible prior verification

4. Creative Unconscious Hypothesis

Proposal: Unconscious mind creates characters and narratives

Evidence in favor:

• Mind is capable of extraordinary creativity
• Dissociative personalities are known
• Does not require survival

Criticisms:

• Does not explain unknown verifiable information
• Why would it be so precise in details?
• Limited to explain well-documented cases

Challenges of Scientific Research

1. Methodological Difficulties

Obstacles:

• Phenomenon not reproducible on demand
• Variables difficult to control
• Impossibility of perfect double-blind experimentation
• Inherent subjectivity

2. Potential Biases

Problems:

• Confirmation bias (seeking only favorable evidence)
• Vague information interpreted as specific
• Selective validation
• Forer effect (acceptance of generic descriptions)

3. Fraud and Self-Deception

Issues:

• History of fraud in the field
• Cold reading and mentalist techniques
• Unconscious self-deception
• Difficulty in detecting sophisticated fraud

4. Paradigmatic Limitations

Fundamental challenge:

• Materialist science lacks tools for consciousness independent of the brain
• Lack of accepted theoretical model
• Institutional resistance to the topic
• Unresolved philosophical questions

What Skeptics Say

Main Arguments

1. Cold Reading

• Mediums use techniques to extract information
• Vague statements accepted as precise
• Observation of consultee's reactions

2. Public Information

• Medium may have researched beforehand
• Social media reveals many details
• Information obtained indirectly

3. Bereavement Bias

• Grieving people want to believe
• Interpret vaguely what fits
• Forget errors, remember hits

4. Statistical Coincidence

• With many attempts, hits happen
• Notable cases are remembered exceptions
• Errors are forgotten

Counter-Arguments

Response to skeptics:

• Controlled studies eliminate cold reading
• Ultra-specific information difficult to obtain
• Blind tests prevent clues
• Statistical analysis shows significance

Position of the Scientific Community

Scientists Favoring Research

Argue:

• Phenomenon deserves serious investigation
• Sufficient evidence for study
• Science must investigate anomalies
• Possible expansion of knowledge

Examples:

• Dr. Ian Stevenson (University of Virginia)
• Dr. Gary Schwartz (University of Arizona)
• Dr. Alexander Moreira-Almeida (UFJF)

Skeptical Scientists

Argue:

• Evidence insufficient to conclude survival
• Conventional explanations not exhausted
• Risk of pseudoscience
• Lack of plausible mechanism

Mainstream position:

• Majority of scientific community remains skeptical
• Accepts psychological phenomenon, not real communication
• Requests more robust evidence

Future Research Perspectives

Promising Areas

1. Advanced Neuroscience

• High-resolution brain imaging
• Neural connectivity analysis
• Biomarkers of altered states

2. Artificial Intelligence

• Pattern analysis in automatic-writing texts
• Authorship detection by AI
• Comparison of literary styles

3. Quantum Physics

• Quantum consciousness models
• Non-locality theories
• Mind-matter interfaces

4. Longitudinal Studies

• Monitoring mediums over time
• Systematic case documentation
• International databases

Research Implications

If Survival Hypothesis Confirmed

Impacts:

• Scientific and philosophical revolution
• Rethink nature of consciousness
• Implications for medicine and psychology
• Transformation of views on death

If Conventional Explanations Prevail

Implications:

• Better understanding of mental capabilities
• Insights on memory and creativity
• Understanding of dissociative states
• Therapeutic applications

What We Can Conclude Currently

Emerging Consensuses

✅ Real phenomenon (not purely fraud or imagination) ✅ Altered states of consciousness measurable ✅ Some cases with very precise information ✅ Therapeutic effect significant ✅ Deserves serious scientific research

Open Questions

❓ Real origin of information (spirits vs. PSI) ❓ Mental mechanism ❓ Why it works with some and not others ❓ How to distinguish authentic from autosuggestion ❓ Ultimate nature of consciousness

Science and Spirituality: Possible Bridge?

Integrative View

Many researchers propose:

• Science and spirituality complementary, not opposed
• Both seek truth through different paths
• Dialogue possible respecting limits of each area
• Spirituality can inspire scientific questions

Respect for Limits

Science:

• Empirical and measurable method
• Reproducibility
• Naturalistic explanations

Spirituality:

• Subjective experience
• Meaning and purpose
• Non-measurable dimensions

Both are valid in their domains.

Conclusion

The relationship between science and automatic writing remains complex and fascinating. Although there is no scientific consensus on the spiritual origin of the phenomenon, serious research has documented intriguing aspects that challenge conventional explanations.

The studies conducted, especially in Brazil, offer evidence that deserves consideration, even if not conclusive. The phenomenon is real in the sense of producing measurable effects, whether of spiritual, parapsychological, or yet unknown psychological origin.

For those who experience automatic writing, personal experience often transcends the need for scientific validation. For researchers, the mystery continues to invite investigation with an open mind and methodological rigor.

The future may bring greater clarity as science and spirituality continue to dialogue with mutual respect, recognizing that some of humanity's deepest questions may require multiple forms of knowledge to be answered.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does science prove that automatic writing is real? Science documents the phenomenon as real (it produces measurable effects), but there is no consensus on whether the origin of the information is spiritual or from other mental mechanisms.

Why is mainstream science skeptical? Mainly due to the lack of a known physical mechanism for consciousness independent of the brain, and the difficulty of conducting experiments with rigorous controls.

Do scientific studies invalidate faith? No. Science and faith operate in different domains. Research can inform, but it does not replace personal spiritual experience.

Where can I read these studies? Many have been published in academic journals like PLOS ONE, Journal of Scientific Exploration, and are available in databases like PubMed and Google Scholar.