I really think it would be helpful if a group of mediums would take a class in remote viewing and then develop, maybe with the help of remote viewing instructors, a more systematic and scientific approach to learning and doing mediumship.

It’s hard to know exactly how this works. Spiritualists don’t use their intention for any specific purpose except healing for the highest good. It is left to God or spirit guides to implement the specific outcome. This is because a person doesn’t know when a back ache will cause a person to miss a doomed flight or teach them an important lesson about life. Sometimes being sick is for the highest good. But it also takes the person out of the loop so that any bad intentions coming from the healer are not part of the process.

Look at PK. There is research showing that good intentions seem to heal people. That gets a lot of attention, but if that were true wouldn’t the opposite be theoretically possible as well? So if someone had an ability to generate PK, they could be dangerous. Isn’t that why poltergeist cases are often solved when the person generating the PK takes responsibility for the PK events? Once someone realizes that they are to blame, not some ghost or other phenomenon, they usually stop. Probably because to generate that kind of effect consciously would scare the hell out of anyone.

I think this is an important point. A lot of veridical information may come through people who have psychic perceptions. However it is hard to tell what is accurate before it is verified. Sometimes the information is literally true, sometimes it’s symbolic and not literal, sometimes it’s wrong. I often got readings at spiritualist churches with a lot of veridical information but the medium for some reason wove a story around it which was completely false. It’s unfortunate because in order to avoid feeding them information it is customary to just say yes or no if you recognize the information or not so a lot of the time I would have to keep saying “no, no, no”, when the situation was a lot more complex and included a lot of information that was meaningful to me.

Regarding precognition, part of the problem is telling what part applies to the specific individuals. If you dream your plane crashes and skip the flight and it then crashes, does that mean you escaped your fate or just that the plane was destined to crash and you avoided being on it when it did so? On Dean Radin’s blog someone comented about a time they were pulling names out of a hat for some reason and he knew which name he’d get so he took one, then let go of it and took another but wound up with the predicted name. That seems to imply that you can’t beat fate unless you abstain from the entire event. To avoid pulling a certain name you have to back out of the whole thing. To avoid the plane crash you have to skip the flight and wait for it to crash. If it doesn’t crash I suppose you can’t get on another one until the one you would have taken crashes. This brings up some moral dilemmas.

I seem to recall Larry Dossey addresses this in his book, The Power of Premonitions, by suggesting that just like having limited eyesight is preferable to being blind, maybe limited precognition is better than none at all. Personally, I’m not sure if I totally agree with that, but it is one way to look at things