Two mediums describe the same grandmother. Both descriptions are recognised. They do not offer the same degree of evidence.
First medium
“An older woman who was loving, strong-willed and deeply attached to her family.”
Second medium
“She kept a small red tin by her kitchen door, filled with coins for bus fares, and always checked everyone could get home.”
The first could describe a great many people. The second, if offered independently and recognised accurately, describes one particular life. That difference sits at the heart of evidential mediumship: what makes a piece of information genuinely useful in identifying the person believed to be communicating?
The answer involves more than accuracy. It also concerns specificity, how details connect, when information entered the conversation, what the medium may already know, what the sitter contributed, and whether the medium is willing to acknowledge what did not fit. Our guide Evidential Mediumship Explained introduces the discipline as a whole. This article goes one step further, offering a practical framework for judging the quality of information in an actual sitting, useful to students, practising mediums and anyone who has received a reading.
1. What Does “Evidence” Mean in Evidential Mediumship?
Within the Spiritualist tradition, evidential mediumship seeks to communicate information attributed to a person believed to be in the spirit world, the spirit communicator, so that the person receiving the sitting, the sitter, can recognise who is being described. The Spiritualists' National Union describes mediumship as providing evidence of survival by passing information from a spirit, through a medium, to a recipient, and stresses that its purpose is not to predict the future or give advice1. The information might concern the communicator's personality, relationships, experiences, habits, memories or the distinctive details of their everyday life.
In this setting, evidence means information recognised as relevant to the identity of the communicator. It does not mean that every recognised statement proves communication with someone who has died. A sitter may recognise an accurate description and experience it as meaningful evidence within their spiritual understanding. Scientific investigation asks further questions: could the information have been obtained by ordinary means, how was it recorded, how specific was it, and how was its accuracy judged? Both perspectives can be discussed honestly without confusing them; section 10 returns to this.
A medium cannot simply declare something to be evidence because it feels convincing. Evidence is offered for recognition, and then examined.
2. An Impression Is Not Yet Evidence
Mediums commonly describe receiving information as inner images, words, feelings, sensations or a sense of knowing; the traditional terms clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience describe these forms, as our guide to the types of mediumship explains. But the form of an impression establishes neither its accuracy nor its source.
Imagine a student suddenly becomes aware of a bicycle. At that moment, they have an impression, and almost instantly the mind begins to interpret it:
It helps to see three separate stages, each answering a different question:
- The impressionWhat did I actually perceive, before adding anything?
- The interpretationWhat do I think it means, and how sure am I?
- The recognitionWhat does the sitter recognise, partly recognise, or not recognise at all?
The difficulty is that interpretation can happen almost instantly, because our minds naturally link images with memories and ideas. In training, students learn to notice this process rather than assume that every association is part of a communication. Sometimes an impression develops into something distinctive; sometimes it does not. Both outcomes deserve honest attention.
3. Seven Questions for Weighing Evidential Information
There is no universally accepted scale that can establish whether a medium has genuinely communicated with someone who has died. But seven practical questions help teachers, students and sitters assess the quality of information within a sitting. They are the centre of this article.
1. How specific is the information?
Some statements describe a great many people. Notice how these become more distinctive:
- “My father was a hardworking man.”
- “He worked with his hands.”
- “He repaired old clocks and kept the loose parts in little labelled boxes.”
The final statement offers a far clearer opportunity for recognition. But specificity is not the same as accuracy: a highly detailed statement that is wrong does not become good evidence because it sounds impressive. It still has to be recognised.
2. Do the details form a coherent picture?
A sitting may contain many statements about personality, relationships, places, possessions and memories. The important question is whether they develop into a recognisable account of one person. A quiet, meticulous man who repaired watches, valued punctuality and always made sure the household clocks showed the same time is a connected portrait. If the sitter recognises those connected characteristics independently, the description identifies far more than several unrelated statements scattered through a reading. A communicator is not established by collecting enough isolated matches.
3. Was it offered before the sitter supplied it?
Timing changes how information should be weighed.
This does not necessarily mean the medium intended to mislead. It means a responsible practitioner pays attention to the moment each piece of information first entered the conversation.
4. Could it apply to many people?
Some statements feel personal because they describe near-universal experiences: affection, family disagreements, illness, celebrations, money worries, loss. “He was protective” or “she loved family gatherings” may be true, but they distinguish one person from another very little. Controlled research shows how persuasive such statements are. In a well-known UK study, sitters rated statements from all the readings without knowing which were meant for them, and some very general statements were rated as highly applicable whoever they had been intended for2. The question is not only “Is this true?” but “How much does this help distinguish this person from anyone else?”
5. Could it have come from an ordinary source?
Even accurate information can have an ordinary explanation. The medium may have seen a photograph or social media post, heard something in conversation, or noticed the sitter's reactions. Names, occupations and family relationships are often publicly available, and many families post bereavement notices and anniversaries online5. This does not mean every accurate statement came from such a source. It means the possibility should be considered before claiming information could only have come from spirit, and a medium who already knows something about a sitter should never present it as received communication.
6. How clearly was it recognised?
Recognition is not a simple yes or no. A sitter may recognise a detail immediately, recognise part of it, remain unsure, or know it is wrong, and each response should be treated differently. A sitter who says “I don't know anyone like that” has not confirmed anything, and should not be told they will eventually discover who it was. An honest account allows uncertainty to remain unresolved.
7. Were the misses given the same attention as the hits?
Imagine a medium gives thirty statements in a sitting:
- 6 strongly recognised
- 5 partly recognised
- 19 incorrect or not recognised
If only the six successes are remembered or retold, the account of the sitting becomes incomplete. The recognised details may still matter, but weighing them responsibly means acknowledging everything that did not fit. This is especially important in training, when students need to understand their own habits of perception, interpretation and communication. Errors are not a personal failure; they are part of the information honest assessment needs.
Quick reference · seven questions
- Specific? Does it describe one person or many?
- Coherent? Do the details build one recognisable person?
- Independent? Was it offered before the sitter supplied it?
- Distinctive? Would it fit most families?
- Ordinary source? Could it have been known or noticed?
- Recognised? Clearly, partly, uncertain, or not at all?
- Complete? Were the misses counted too?
4. A Worked Example: From a General Impression to a Recognisable Person
The following example is fictional, written only to show how evidential information can be weighed. It is not a record of an actual sitting.
The general description. The student says: “I have an older woman who was caring and very involved in family life.” The sitter thinks this could be their grandmother, but the description is broad. It does not yet distinguish her from many other people.
Distinctive everyday details. The student continues: “I keep seeing a small red tin near a doorway. I feel coins were kept in it, and that she was particular about people having enough money to get home.” This introduces an object, a habit and an aspect of character. They remain claims until the sitter responds.
Independent recognition. The sitter says: “My grandmother kept a red tin beside her kitchen door for bus fares. Whenever we left, she checked we had enough change to get home.” Several details now fit together: an object, its place, its purpose and a characteristic act of care.
What remains uncertain. Even if every detail is recognised, the source of the information has not been scientifically established. Did the student have access to anything beforehand? Was the exchange recorded accurately? Were there cues? In an ordinary sitting, many of these questions cannot be answered. That does not require dismissing the sitter's experience; it requires describing what happened accurately.
And if the red tin is not recognised?Then it remains unrecognised. The student should not invent another explanation, insist that another relative will confirm it, or claim the sitter has forgotten. If further context emerges later, the original outcome still has to be represented honestly.
The value of the example lies not in the unusual object, but in the progression: impression, interpretation, description and independent feedback, each kept distinct.
5. Are Names, Dates or the Cause of Death Stronger Evidence?
Names, dates and places can be valuable, but they are not automatically stronger than other kinds of information. A name such as John, Mary, Ravi or Priya is common in many communities, and how often a name occurs changes how much a match means. If a medium offers several possible names until one is recognised, that eventual match carries much less weight than a single, clearly stated name offered without prompting. Dates raise the same questions: a particular anniversary may be distinctive, but its value depends on accuracy, context, and the chance of ordinary knowledge or coincidence. The same applies to occupations, addresses and places.
More information is not necessarily better. A specific detail becomes more useful when it is accurate, placed in context and connected to an identifiable person. A name alone, without the person around it, rarely identifies anyone.
The circumstances of someone's death
Information about illness, accidents or the manner of passing may be recognised, but it calls for exceptional sensitivity. A medium should never sensationalise suffering or describe distressing physical details to make a reading seem more convincing, and a student should never feel they must obtain information about death in every sitting. How someone lived, loved, behaved and related to others identifies them at least as well. A person's life is more than the circumstances of their passing.
6. Personality and Relationships Can Be Evidential Too
There is a misconception that evidential mediumship must consist mainly of names, dates and precise facts. But think about how you would describe someone you knew for many years: the way they laughed, how they behaved when worried, the phrases they always used, the small habits that made them unmistakably themselves. Such characteristics can carry considerable identifying value, provided the difference between general and characteristic is kept in view:
| General | Characteristic |
|---|---|
| “He was funny.” | “He went unusually quiet just before a joke, and everyone knew from his face that something mischievous was coming.” |
| “She cared deeply for her children.” | “She showed her love by tucking handwritten notes into her children's school bags.” |
| “He was a strict father.” | “He tapped the dining table twice before anyone was allowed to leave it.” |
The question is whether the information develops a recognisable person, or an agreeable personality description that could fit almost anyone.
Why a comforting message is not automatically evidence
“Your father wants you to know he loves you and is proud of you” may be deeply moving, but many fathers could be associated with it; it does not, by itself, identify anyone. In evidential practice, the medium first seeks to establish who is understood to be communicating. A message may follow once sufficient recognition has developed. This does not make love, reassurance or spiritual meaning unimportant. It simply prevents the emotional force of a statement from standing in for identifying information. The same applies to predictions and advice: a statement about the sitter's future is not evidence that a communicator has been identified.
Psychic information is not mediumistic evidence
A practitioner may describe a sitter's present feelings, relationships or plans with apparent accuracy. Many traditions call this psychic awareness. Mediumship makes a narrower claim: communication attributed to someone who has died. Describing a sitter's current worry about moving house does not establish a communicator; describing a family member who has died, through their character and shared history, addresses a different question. Accurate information about a living person does not become evidence of spirit communication because it was given during a mediumship sitting.
7. Why the Sitter's Feedback Matters
The sitter is the person best placed to judge whether information resembles someone they knew, so feedback is essential. But feedback should never become a way of constructing the reading. Four simple responses carry different information:
- “Yes, I recognise that.”
- “That is partly familiar.”
- “I'm not sure.”
- “No, I don't recognise that.”
A responsible medium listens without demanding explanations, and does not press a sitter to reveal family details when something is not recognised. Nor should a student ask a run of leading questions until one produces a yes: asking whether the sitter's father, grandfather, uncle or neighbour worked with machinery will eventually find a match, but that is not the same as describing one identifiable person. The sitter's job is not to make the communication work. It is to respond truthfully to what is offered.
8. What Weakens the Evidence in a Sitting?
Sometimes the problem is not that a statement is wrong, but that the way the reading develops makes its accuracy impossible to assess. Five habits commonly weaken a sitting:
None of these necessarily indicates deliberate deception; they arise naturally through interpretation, expectation, memory and habit. Recognising them in your own practice is an important part of development. Our article How to Recognise a Responsible Medium looks at cold reading and hot reading from the sitter's side.
9. A Practical Way to Review a Sitting
For a developing student, the useful question after a practice sitting is not “Did it feel successful?” but “What actually happened?” Five reflective questions help:
ReviewWhat did I perceive, before I added any interpretation?
ReviewWhat did I actually say, including the statements that were wrong?
ReviewWhat did the sitter independently recognise, partly recognise, or not recognise?
ReviewWhere did I interpret, assume, or ask for information?
ReviewWhat will I do differently next time, in clarity, pace, listening and care?
A simple feedback record keeps the review honest:
| Information offered | Sitter response | How to record it |
|---|---|---|
| Clearly recognised detail | Recognised | Record the exact detail and the feedback |
| Some elements fit, others do not | Partly recognised | Note both the match and the mismatch |
| Sitter cannot confirm | Uncertain | Leave unresolved |
| Sitter says it is incorrect | Not recognised | Record it without changing it |
| Medium learned it from the sitter | Supplied information | Do not count as independently given |
This is an educational reflection method, not a scientifically validated scoring system. Its purpose is to keep students accurate about what they communicated and what the sitter recognised, and it makes room to admit that some exercises develop more clearly than others. Any notes or recordings should be made with consent and kept confidential.
10. Is Recognition in a Sitting the Same as Scientific Proof?
No. This is one of the most important distinctions in evidential mediumship. Within Spiritualist practice, a sitter who recognises a coherent, accurate account of someone they knew may regard it as evidence of communication from the spirit world. Scientific research asks a narrower question first: is the information more accurate than chance would predict, once every ordinary route to it has been closed? To answer that, researchers have developed designs that a private sitting cannot easily use:
- Separation: the medium never sees, hears or meets the sitter, sometimes working by phone with a stand-in “proxy” sitter.
- Blinding: the medium, the experimenter and the sitter are kept unaware of information that could reveal which reading belongs to whom.
- Comparison: each sitter scores their own reading alongside a “decoy” reading meant for someone else, without knowing which is which.
- Statistics: the results are compared with what chance alone would produce.
Studies using such methods have reached different conclusions:
No evidence under controlled conditions. In a 2005 UK study, five professional mediums each gave readings for five sitters they never met. When sitters rated statements from all the readings without knowing which were theirs, they did not rate their own readings as more accurate; the authors found no evidence of mediumistic ability under the conditions tested2.
Above-chance results in blinded studies. A 2015 US study of 86 telephone readings by 20 mediums, with mediums, raters and experimenters all blinded, reported that sitters scored their intended readings higher than decoys and chose them more often than chance would predict3.
A meta-analysis. A 2021 analysis combining 18 experiments reported a small overall effect above chance, while acknowledging that blinding varied between studies and that the research remains controversial4.
These findings remain debated, and no single result establishes a scientific consensus. There is also a further question, sometimes called the source problem: even if unexpectedly accurate information were obtained under controlled conditions, accuracy alone would not show where it came from. It would not, by itself, distinguish communication from a person who has died from other proposed explanations, or from ordinary ones a study had not fully excluded.
A meaningful sitting can therefore be respected as a personal experience without being presented as a scientific demonstration that the dead communicate. The educational value of evidential practice lies in taking information seriously enough to examine it carefully.
11. Ethics Are Part of Responsible Evidence
The purpose of evidence is never to impress a sitter at any cost. It is to communicate responsibly with someone who may be grieving, vulnerable or uncertain about what they are experiencing. A medium should not press for agreement, expose private information without consent, or use apparent evidence to claim authority over another person's life. Information about death, illness, family conflict or deeply personal events needs particular care, and a sitting should never be used to frighten someone, make medical claims, or advise against professional care. The sitter must always remain free to question, decline or end the sitting.
These responsibilities apply equally to students. A supervised classroom exercise is still an encounter with another person who deserves consideration and privacy. Our Ethics & Safety page sets out our standards in full.
12. How We Teach Evidential Development at The School of Mediumship
At The School of Mediumship, established by Soul Consciousness Lab®, evidential development is at the centre of our teaching. We do not treat mediumship as a competition to produce the most statements or the most dramatic experiences.
- Understanding the process: how impressions arise, how interpretation develops, and how information can become more coherent and recognisable.
- The whole person: working with a communicator's character, relationships, memories and lived experience, not just facts.
- Clear distinctions: between psychic and mediumistic impressions, and between evidence and message.
- Honest review: a recognised detail is not automatically treated as proof; an unrecognised detail is not explained away to protect a student's confidence.
- Supervised practice: Dr. Rashhi Sharma and Prabhat Sharma teach Evidential Mediumship Level 1 through practical exercises, supervised partner work, observation and constructive feedback, with repeated opportunities over six residential days to practise and reflect.
No programme can guarantee that a student will demonstrate mediumistic ability, achieve a particular evidential result, or become ready to offer professional sittings. Our responsibility is to provide a structured, honest foundation for continued learning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is considered good evidence in evidential mediumship?
Information is generally more evidential when it is specific, connected into a coherent picture of one person who has died, offered before the sitter supplied it, and clearly recognised by the sitter. Its value also depends on context and on whether it could have come from an ordinary source. Recognition in a sitting does not scientifically prove spirit communication.
Are names and dates the strongest form of evidence?
Not necessarily. Names and dates can be valuable, especially when distinctive and offered without prompting. But common names can match by chance, and an accurate description of someone's personality, habits or shared experiences can be just as identifying. Context matters more than the category of detail.
Does every statement in a sitting have to be correct?
No. Not every impression will be recognised. Incorrect statements should be acknowledged, not ignored or reinterpreted as successes. Honest handling of errors is part of responsible practice.
Can a message of love be considered evidence?
A loving message can be personally important, but it does not by itself identify a particular communicator. Evidential mediumship first seeks recognisable information about who is understood to be communicating; a message may follow.
What if I recognise something only after the sitting?
Later recognition can be meaningful, but record it carefully. Note exactly what the medium originally said, whether the later information is a direct match, and whether its meaning has been stretched. A possible later connection should not automatically be counted as a confirmed success.
Should I record my sitting or take notes?
If the medium agrees, a recording or notes made immediately afterwards help you separate what was actually said from what you remember or interpreted later. Keep records private, and ask permission before sharing them.
Can a student give evidential information during training?
Students often offer information that practice sitters recognise. Supervised training helps them communicate carefully, understand feedback and develop their skills. Individual successes do not establish consistent ability or readiness to work professionally.
What is the “source problem” in mediumship research?
Even if a study found that a medium gave accurate information that could not have been obtained by ordinary means, accuracy alone would not show where the information came from. It would not distinguish communication from a person who has died from other proposed explanations. This is why researchers separate the question of accuracy from the question of source.
Does evidential mediumship scientifically prove life after death?
No scientific consensus has established that mediumship demonstrates communication with people who have died. Controlled studies have reported mixed findings, and questions remain about accuracy, interpretation and possible sources of information. Evidential mediumship is a practice within a spiritual tradition; scientific proof requires a different standard of investigation.
Is a psychic reading the same as evidential mediumship?
No. Psychic information usually concerns the sitter's own life, feelings or circumstances. Evidential mediumship concerns recognisable information about a person who has died. Accurate information about the sitter does not establish a communicator.
The Value of Evidence Lies in the Care We Give It
A powerful sitting is not necessarily the one with the most names, the most details or the strongest emotional reaction. It may be the one in which a recognisable person is described with clarity, the sitter can respond freely, and the medium remains honest about both what fits and what does not.
For developing students, this takes patience. The first impression may be incomplete; the interpretation may need questioning; the sitter may recognise only part of what is offered. These uncertainties are not reasons to abandon the discipline. They are reasons to practise it carefully.
Evidence in mediumship is never something the medium claims on the sitter's behalf. It is information offered for recognition, considered in context, and communicated with responsibility.
About the authors
Dr. Rashhi Sharma, PhDFounder and Lead Trainer of The School of Mediumship. She studied mediumship with Suzanne Giesemann in the United States and in person at Arthur Findlay College and The College of Psychic Studies in the United Kingdom. Full profile
Prabhat SharmaTrainer at The School of Mediumship. He studied mediumship in person at Arthur Findlay College and The College of Psychic Studies in the United Kingdom, and co-teaches every day of Level 1. Full profile
Continue Exploring
- Evidential Mediumship ExplainedThe discipline as a whole: the communicator, the sitter, how a sitting unfolds, and its history.Read the guide →
- How to Recognise a Responsible MediumGood signs, red flags, and how to evaluate a reading from the sitter's side.Read the article →
- Evidential Mediumship Level 1The School's six-day residential foundation: supervised sittings, feedback and ethical communication.Explore Level 1 →
References
- Spiritualists' National Union. Mediumship: the traditional understanding and purpose of mediumship.
- O'Keeffe, C. and Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: methods and results. British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 165–179. doi:10.1348/000712605X36361
- Beischel, J., Boccuzzi, M., Biuso, M. and Rock, A. J. (2015). Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: replication and extension. EXPLORE, 11(2), 136–142. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2015.01.001
- Sarraf, M., Woodley of Menie, M. A. and Tressoldi, P. (2021). Anomalous information reception by mediums: a meta-analysis of the scientific evidence. EXPLORE, 17(5), 396–402. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2020.04.002
- Roe, C. A. Cold Reading. Psi Encyclopedia, Society for Psychical Research.
Research is cited so readers can examine the claims for themselves. Citation does not imply that any author or organisation endorses the School.
