The Noah's Ark Society newsletters

Hi Normy,

You are quite correct when you say "many physical mediums had demonstrated materializations in the past in lighted conditions, and some had even demonstrated direct voice in light."

When one examines the true history of the development of "full-form manifestations" or "materialisation mediumship" it becomes very obvious that séances held for such phenomena were always held in some degree of light, ranging from very dim to quite bright light.

There seems to be a fundamentally lack of understanding and knowledge about when and how materialisation mediumship developed. To be quite specific, in the early 1870s, in England, for example, séances were divided into two separate aspects. The first, called the "dark sitting" or "dark séance" was held for the production of physical phenomena such as the movement of objects, the ringing of bells, playing of musical-boxes, "spirit-lights," tapping on people's faces by floating "tubes," "direct voice" phenomena through the "speaking tubes," and the touching of the sitters by unseen "spirit hands."

The "light séance" or circle was then held for the "materialisation phenomena." In this part of the séance, there was always sufficient light for people to see the "materialised" spirit-faces through the cut out square in the curtains, and  subsequently, enough light for people to see the fully materialised spirit forms as they came out from behind the cabinet curtains and moved about the séance room.

For mediums attempting to develop the materialisation phenomena it was at first important for them to sit in complete darkness behind the curtains of the cabinet, in order to build up sufficient power for the spirits to manifest, but it was not necessary, or, indeed, desirable for the sitters to sit in darkness. Nor did the manifested spirits ever need complete darkness in the séance room to be able to manifest outside the cabinet.

There was absolutely no rationale for total darkness in the séance room for materialisation phenomena. Spirit not only desired light, they demanded it, and often called for more light in the séance room so that they might be not only seen but be recognised by the sitters.

great piece, Jim! Normy our mutual 'friend' might benefit from an awareness of the historical issues, don't you think? Even better would be his participation here.

Hi Mac,

I take it you meant my piece on the newsletters. I think Lis's post really defines the need to know real history, she is very deep in writing and researches on that particular topic. The latest piece she wrote in February 2015's Psypioneer about the last years of Catherine Wood is great and well worth a read (by the way if you did not receive it contact Lis by PM and she will let Paul Gaunt know).

Yes Normy is welcome here he often adds some really worthwhile ideas and thoughts.

Historical perspective does allow us to correct people's ideas when the story becomes distorted either by time, or people embellishing a story (think Anne Leah Fox's 1860 addition of Mr Splitfoot and her judicious changing of the actual events and the ages of the sister) or by people using purported events to create a different story.

Helen Duncan is a classic case of an over emphasis on events, presented in wrong sequence distorts current perspective. The only time there was really a claim of physical damage was the last séance where the police burst in, after she had lost her SNU certification as a medium, the death certificate makes interesting reading. Yet Helen Duncan is the banner held up for all modern physical mediums for dark séances, no light, no photography and no infra red all the true history is forgotten although grudgingly they may go back to Jack Webber or Rudy Schneider.

As to those first 7 newsletters the attempt to rehabilitate Mary Showers just shows how little people had really studied her story defending the indefensible.

Jim

oops!  foolish fellow!  It was Lis who wrote that history - sorry Lis!

Admin wrote:
As to those first 7 newsletters the attempt to rehabilitate Mary Showers just shows how little people had really studied her story defending the indefensible.

Hmm that was written by Robin Foy, his one on Florence Cook is probably even more full of errors but Lis is an expert on that topic now. They just go to highlight why I suggested the NAS newsletters are interesting but of little value as an educational resource on historical matters.

Admin wrote:Hiu Mac,

I take it you meant my piece on the newsletters. I think Lis's post really defines the need to know real history, she is very deep in writing and researches on that particular topic. The latest piece she wrote in February 2015's Psypioneer about the last years of Catherine Wood is great and well worth a read (by the way if you did not receive it contact Lis by PM and she will let Paul Gaunt know).

Yes Normy is welcome here he often adds some really worthwhile ideas and thoughts.

Historical perspective does allow us to correct people's ideas when the story becomes distorted either by time, or people embellishing a story (think Anne Leah Fox's 1860 addition of Mr Splitfoot and her judicious changing of the actual events and the ages of the sister) or by people using purported events to create a different story.

Helen Duncan is a classic case of an over emphasis on events, presented in wrong sequence distorts current perspective. The only time there was really a claim of physical damage was the last séance where the police burst in, after she had lost her SNU certification as a medium, the death certificate makes interesting reading. Yet Helen Duncan is the banner held up for all modern physical mediums for dark séances, no light, no photography and no infra red all the true history is forgotten although grudgingly they may go back to Jack Webber or Rudy Schneider.

As to those first 7 newsletters the attempt to rehabilitate Mary Showers just shows how little people had really studied her story defending the indefensible.

Jim

Hi Jim

It was Lis's historical perspective that I thought was invaluable. I'm no historian and rely on you guys for that perspective. (By the way I do receive Psypioneer routinely thank you.)

I try to ignore the junk I sometimes see concerning mediumship and especially recently the ongoing wrangle about dark versus light seances and phenomenalism rather than mediumship. But often it annoys me to the point that I have to say something, pointless as that usually is!

Elsewhere p.m. is being conflated with the subject of ETs which is exciting for many (it appears) but misleading and perhaps plain wrong. Another layer of self-delusion as I see things....

[quote="mac"]  
Elsewhere p.m. is being conflated with the subject of ETs which is exciting for many (it appears) but misleading and perhaps plain wrong.  Another layer of self-delusion as I see things....[quote]

Hmm I have seen this Mac; the impact of Robin Foys Stargate wormholes and Kai's New Age Spiritualism; everything in one big mixing pot.

Sadly not just PM Mac, whatever one may think of the SNU at least in the UK there is a large group of churches where, whilst these things may interest individuals attending, the core reason for their being is fundamentally Spiritualist. Have a look at this, do not know the actual facts, but it looks like a form of new age theosophy (now that makes me shudder) is trying to usurp the traditionalists http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Bitter-row-splits-spiritual-group-protest-lock/story-26229034-detail/story.html . A story which relates to the struggle to prevent independent Spiritualist Centres from dropping the seven principles and becoming "metaphysical new age spiritualist centres of the shining light of Christ & the extra terrestrials" across much of the world.

I'll take a look when we get back home, Jim. We're just finishing the last tasks before we set off for the airport.

Lis wrote:Hi Normy,

You are quite correct when you say "many physical mediums had demonstrated materializations in the past in lighted conditions, and some had even demonstrated direct voice in light."

When one examines the true history of the development of "full-form manifestations" or "materialisation mediumship" it becomes very obvious that séances held for such phenomena were always held in some degree of light, ranging from very dim to quite bright light.

There seems to be a fundamentally lack of understanding and knowledge about when and how materialisation mediumship developed. To be quite specific, in the early 1870s, in England, for example, séances were divided into two separate aspects. The first, called the "dark sitting" or "dark séance" was held for the production of physical phenomena such as the movement of objects, the ringing of bells, playing of musical-boxes, "spirit-lights," tapping on people's faces by floating "tubes," "direct voice" phenomena through the "speaking tubes," and the touching of the sitters by unseen "spirit hands."

The "light séance" or circle was then held for the "materialisation phenomena." In this part of the séance, there was always sufficient light for people to see the "materialised" spirit-faces through the cut out square in the curtains, and  subsequently, enough light for people to see the fully materialised spirit forms as they came out from behind the cabinet curtains and moved about the séance room.

For mediums attempting to develop the materialisation phenomena it was at first important for them to sit in complete darkness behind the curtains of the cabinet, in order to build up sufficient power for the spirits to manifest, but it was not necessary, or, indeed, desirable for the sitters to sit in darkness. Nor did the manifested spirits ever need complete darkness in the séance room to be able to manifest outside the cabinet.

There was absolutely no rationale for total darkness in the séance room for materialisation phenomena. Spirit not only desired light, they demanded it, and often called for more light in the séance room so that they might be not only seen but be recognised by the sitters.

A very encouraging post from my own perspective Lis. I take the psypioneer and have tried to work out the real history of those times and how it applies to today. The physical medium I work with has experienced most of the phenomena you describe in a 'dark sitting' in her early development, but is now working with light as well, with some very interesting results. I also have my own convincing evidence from attending her workshops in lighted conditions, when the objective is to let attendees take part in experiments themselves to make their own minds up, and hear about the medium's experiences from more than 5 years sitting in a home circle. Questions are welcomed! I have a rational outlook and question everything until I am satisfied with the evidence, but I am confident that all has been genuine so far in my investigations with this medium.

mac wrote:great piece, Jim!  Normy our mutual 'friend' might benefit from an awareness of the historical issues, don't you think?    Even better would be his participation here.

Mac, I think our mutual 'friend' would benefit, but none so blind who won't see, and he's locked in to the ET scenario never to escape! I don't believe he would contribute to the aims of this forum as he tends not to answer questions he does not like.

mac wrote:

Admin wrote:Hiu Mac,

I take it you meant my piece on the newsletters. I think Lis's post really defines the need to know real history, she is very deep in writing and researches on that particular topic. The latest piece she wrote in February 2015's Psypioneer about the last years of Catherine Wood is great and well worth a read (by the way if you did not receive it contact Lis by PM and she will let Paul Gaunt know).

Yes Normy is welcome here he often adds some really worthwhile ideas and thoughts.

Historical perspective does allow us to correct people's ideas when the story becomes distorted either by time, or people embellishing a story (think Anne Leah Fox's 1860 addition of Mr Splitfoot and her judicious changing of the actual events and the ages of the sister) or by people using purported events to create a different story.

Helen Duncan is a classic case of an over emphasis on events, presented in wrong sequence distorts current perspective. The only time there was really a claim of physical damage was the last séance where the police burst in, after she had lost her SNU certification as a medium, the death certificate makes interesting reading. Yet Helen Duncan is the banner held up for all modern physical mediums for dark séances, no light, no photography and no infra red all the true history is forgotten although grudgingly they may go back to Jack Webber or Rudy Schneider.

As to those first 7 newsletters the attempt to rehabilitate Mary Showers just shows how little people had really studied her story defending the indefensible.

Jim

Hi Jim

It was Lis's historical perspective that I thought was invaluable.  I'm no historian and rely on you guys for that perspective.  (By the way I do receive Psypioneer routinely thank you.)  

I try to ignore the junk I sometimes see concerning mediumship and especially recently the ongoing wrangle about dark versus light seances and phenomenalism rather than mediumship.  But often it annoys me to the point that I have to say something, pointless as that usually is!

Elsewhere p.m. is being conflated with the subject of ETs which is exciting for many (it appears) but misleading and perhaps plain wrong.  Another layer of self-delusion as I see things....

I don't think it's pointless mac: it's the most important discussion if you are passionate about physical mediumship as part of the Spiritualist Movement. Do you ally yourself with dark public seances, Robin Foy and PM4U, and all it's followers, or hold with what Lis described in her post about light being used in the early days, and still was until the middle of the last Century ?

normy wrote:

mac wrote:

Admin wrote:Hiu Mac,

I take it you meant my piece on the newsletters. I think Lis's post really defines the need to know real history, she is very deep in writing and researches on that particular topic. The latest piece she wrote in February 2015's Psypioneer about the last years of Catherine Wood is great and well worth a read (by the way if you did not receive it contact Lis by PM and she will let Paul Gaunt know).

Yes Normy is welcome here he often adds some really worthwhile ideas and thoughts.

Historical perspective does allow us to correct people's ideas when the story becomes distorted either by time, or people embellishing a story (think Anne Leah Fox's 1860 addition of Mr Splitfoot and her judicious changing of the actual events and the ages of the sister) or by people using purported events to create a different story.

Helen Duncan is a classic case of an over emphasis on events, presented in wrong sequence distorts current perspective. The only time there was really a claim of physical damage was the last séance where the police burst in, after she had lost her SNU certification as a medium, the death certificate makes interesting reading. Yet Helen Duncan is the banner held up for all modern physical mediums for dark séances, no light, no photography and no infra red all the true history is forgotten although grudgingly they may go back to Jack Webber or Rudy Schneider.

As to those first 7 newsletters the attempt to rehabilitate Mary Showers just shows how little people had really studied her story defending the indefensible.

Jim

Hi Jim

It was Lis's historical perspective that I thought was invaluable.  I'm no historian and rely on you guys for that perspective.  (By the way I do receive Psypioneer routinely thank you.)  

I try to ignore the junk I sometimes see concerning mediumship and especially recently the ongoing wrangle about dark versus light seances and phenomenalism rather than mediumship.  But often it annoys me to the point that I have to say something, pointless as that usually is!

Elsewhere p.m. is being conflated with the subject of ETs which is exciting for many (it appears) but misleading and perhaps plain wrong.  Another layer of self-delusion as I see things....

I don't think it's pointless mac:  it's the most important discussion if you are passionate about physical mediumship as part of the Spiritualist Movement.  Do you ally yourself with dark public seances, Robin Foy and PM4U, and all it's followers, or hold with what Lis described in her post about light being used in the early days, and still was until the middle of the last Century ?  

Do I ally myself with those gentlemen? I hope that's intended as a rhetorical question... As for being pointless, well other than within the Spiritualist community it's how it has often felt when I have tried to join a discussion. I admit I'm not passionate about physical mediumship any more than I am about other forms but I'm no less passionate.

Purely rhetorical Mac! To paraphrase an old saying, 'Darkness prevails when good men say nothing'.

normy wrote:

mac wrote:great piece, Jim!  Normy our mutual 'friend' might benefit from an awareness of the historical issues, don't you think?    Even better would be his participation here.

Mac, I think our mutual 'friend'  would benefit, but none so blind who won't see, and he's locked in to the ET scenario never to escape!  I don't believe he would contribute to the aims of this forum as he tends not to answer questions he does not like.  

Agreed on both points, normy.