Inside The Telepathy Tapes
Two new conversations with creator Ky Dickens and collaborator Dr. Jeff Tarrant
[This article has an 8/10 Woo Rating]
Ky Dickens’ podcast series The Telepathy Tapes emerged from nowhere to become the #1 podcast in America. For those who haven’t had time to listen yet, the series claims that certain non-speaking autistic children are demonstrating psychic gifts, ranging from telepathy to precognition and mediumship. They also experience non-local and unity consciousness. This podcast is ultimately not just about telepathy, because if it’s legitimate, it calls our entire scientific paradigm into question.
This week Mona Sobhani, PhD and I conducted two interviews for The Leading Edge, one with Ky and another with her independent collaborator, Dr. Jeff Tarrant. This is the half hour one with Ky (Spotify/Apple Podcasts). Jeff’s hourlong interview is in section 3 below.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” The last couple of months have revealed that I probably don’t have a first-rate intelligence.
The meteoric rise of The Telepathy Tapes has been both immensely gratifying and very confusing. It’s been validating because I’ve been writing about the likely emergence of these kinds of phenomena for the last few years, and often felt like I’ve been going crazy. It’s also been confusing because I’ve tried to maintain the position of healthy skepticism towards the content while also, like Fox Mulder, wanting to believe it’s true.
On the one hand you have the possibility that this podcast is a product of willful gullibility, deliberate deception or experimental incompetence. On the other hand, you have nothing less than a cultural black swan event for the proof of non-local consciousness.
I have never held myself up to be a journalist or even an expert in anything in particular. But my collaborator on this piece is. Dr. Sobhani is a neuroscientist and author who explores the science of psi phenomena. Psi research describes interactions between individuals and their environment that would seem to transcend the ordinary constraints of spacetime. This would include telepathy, as well as precognition, remote viewing and clairvoyance. Her tremendous book Proof of Spiritual Phenomena presents her findings (her Substack Cosmos, Coffee, & Consciousness is also great).
I hope we can add four meaningful dimensions to the debate.
1. The Telepathy Tapes is Supported by Science.
The most hostile review of the podcast I’ve read comes from The London Times: The Telepathy Tapes review — this hit podcast has contempt for science. This article actually accidentally raises a valuable point. The response to this topic by non-scientists (this critic’s background appears to be 17th century poetry), can assume that psi either hasn’t been studied or that it’s been successfully debunked. This is simply untrue.
Psi research has been conducted for over a century, by many prestigious institutions, in hundreds of thousands of participants. Moreover, the evidence for the reality of psi is on par with that of other established psychological phenomena. In fact, the effect sizes of some psi protocols are much larger than those for the clinically recommended uses of some common medications, such as aspirin for the prevention of heart disease, metformin for type 2 diabetes, statins for cholesterol lowering and antidepressants for depression.1
Where The Telepathy Tapes has the potential to be paradigm shattering is that these effects are typically statistically significant but subtle; such as consistently scoring 30% on a 25% outcome. In stark contrast, the indications from these preliminary tests are that some of the kids’ telepathy is close to 100% accurate.
The broader point to be made is that there’s also an all-caps SCIENTIFIC explanation for these phenomena, as further discussed with Ky’s researcher Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell in an interview with Scott Britton earlier this week (33 minutes in). As I’ve previously explored with Dr. Sobhani, if consciousness is a foundational aspect of the universe like energy, rather than simply a byproduct of neurons firing in the brain, all the phenomena of non-local consciousness become explicable as products of tapping into this larger energy field.
So when skeptics talk about The Telepathy Tapes’ contempt for “science” they probably mean “materialist science,” where everything is composed of matter. And that’s perfectly understandable. It’s what most of us were taught in school, grew up with and it has been our dominant cultural paradigm. But it seems to be on its last legs as an accurate explanatory model of reality.
Mona: If we use a different worldview – like where consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe (similar to how we consider matter fundamental in physicalism) then it becomes possible to explain these phenomena. This isn’t a fringe theory from a dark corner of the internet. It’s a serious scientific theory currently being explored. In fact, we (Mona & Allison Paradise) held an event at the 2023 annual Society for Neuroscience conference to explore some of this work (you can watch it here). It isn’t just a few isolated scientists either. A number of groups (such as this and this and this), and ours, have formed to create space for scientists, physicians, scholars, practitioners, etc to explore theories of consciousness, science & spirituality, and the nature of our reality. In other words, while the mainstream jumps on the trend of being skeptical of anything ‘woo-woo’, hundreds of scientists and scholars have become skeptical that materialism/physicalism is a sufficient model for our universe.
Tom: This leads us to a crucial nuance that some people seem to be missing. Just because the mechanisms being demonstrated in The Telepathy Tapes are consistent with leading edge science, doesn’t equate to the tests themselves being formal “scientific proof.”
2. The Telepathy Tapes ISN’T SCIENCE.
Another critical article by Jonathan Jarry M.Sc. at least engaged with the pre-existing scientific literature (as did the appropriately-named Skeptical Inquirer). Ky’s primary researcher Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell issued a comprehensive response to Jarry’s piece, which you can read yourself here.
The primary experimental criticism I’ve seen online, as raised by Zaid Jilani in this piece, seems to be the potential for the parents consciously or unconsciously signalling to their children or the children reading these cues from the parents. As Ky has said multiple times, and reiterated to us, the podcast was never intended as definitive scientific proof.
Mona: I wasn’t planning on writing about The Telepathy Tapes. I thought it was a fantastically produced and wonderfully entertaining podcast that did a good job of using storytelling to pique interest in an unexplained phenomenon. But after reading some of the responses in the media, a few things need to be said.
Why is anyone wasting their time digging into the scientific rigor of an “experiment” on a podcast?
Right off the bat, as a scientist, I understood that I was listening to a journalist fashioning a test of these abilities to satisfy her own curiosity. I did not bother to scrutinize the test setup because, as Ky correctly points out in the podcast, under no circumstance would these one-off tests be considered as evidence in the scientific domain. So, it doesn’t matter how much scientific rigor was used because, well, the tests would never “count” as scientific proof. And that’s not at all a knock on her or the tests or lay people making their own “experiments” or tests.
The simple fact is that when we want to scientifically investigate something with the intention of contributing to the official body of knowledge that already exists, there’s a process. We would first scour the entire academic literature to glean best practices, protocols, and findings on unconscious communication or cuing, telepathy, and working with populations with autism and specifically non-speakers (ensuring there is proper informed consent and harm reduction).
Next, we would design and submit a study protocol to an institutional review board, ensuring scientific rigor and safety. When the study is completed, we would submit it for scientific peer review, where our colleagues would point out every single thing we did wrong. Then, we’d go back and forth with the reviewers until everyone agrees the study can be published.
(Obviously?) none of that has been done with the tests in the podcast… because it’s a podcast.
Being generous, we could consider the tests done thus far with this population as case studies, or feasibility studies. Typically, before a scientist gets funding for a study, they run a feasibility study with a small number of participants to work out kinks in the protocol to ensure it’s, well, feasible. And to ensure that you’re truly testing and measuring what you intend to. The feasibility study results are used to get big money for the bigger study.
In my opinion, the only correct response to the experiments in the podcast is: “That’s interesting. We will see what the science says when the funding comes through for a full-blown study.”
That’s not to say that the tests or the podcast are not valuable. They certainly are – look at the conversation it has sparked! They pave the way for the real work ahead. That’s where the scrutiny and skepticism should be directed.
If you’re skeptically inclined, or simply want to wait until the formal lab tests, what follows is likely not for you.
3. The Case Studies are Strong.
This week Dr. Sobhani and I interviewed Diane and Ky’s third-party collaborator Dr. Jeff Tarrant. As an expert in neurofeedback, Jeff was brought in by Diane to study the brainwave patterns of the participants.
Jeff’s used to seeing the characteristic subtle-but-statistically-significant psi effects. But as he puts it, these kids “don’t miss.” When it comes to concerns around facilitated communication, Jeff’s opening comments around the setup of the tests and speed and accuracy of the kids’ responses alleviated a significant amount of my own lingering skepticism. Put simply: his impression was that they were responding too fast and in too many diverse circumstances to likely be reading cues. But I invite you to listen and make up your own mind (Spotify/Apple Podcasts).
As I wrote above, I was concerned that The Telepathy Tapes could be a result of willful gullibility, deliberate deception or experimental incompetence. After speaking with Ky, I no longer think it’s willful gullibility or deliberate deception. And after speaking with Jeff, I’m less inclined believe it’s experimental incompetence. Which leaves me facing the possibility that it’s the paradigm shift it seems to be. But, like Ky and Mona, Jeff is also quick to point out that that we need more definitive data from well-controlled lab studies, and proper funding to determine that. We will see.
4. The Message is Consistent
For many people, the valid questions around the scientific legitimacy of the tests poisons the well for any content that emerges afterwards. I totally get that. And once again I need to emphasize my pre-existing bias. If you’ve read any of my articles over the past year, you’ll see that the messages that emerge from those kids are eerily similar to the ideas and worldviews that have emerged from my studies of mysticism. A recent piece by my own mystical mentor Bodhi vibe-checked the consistency of the content.
I’ve consumed 20-30 hours of mystical material a week for the last 15 months or so, and I feel I’m able to easily and regularly debunk a great deal of sensationalist content found on YouTube and social media. There are all sorts of psi/paranormal podcasts and videos out there that are an embarrassment and an insult to these topics.
I’ve also listened to each episode of The Telepathy Tapes at least twice, and I can say with full and complete confidence that there wasn’t a single red flag (or even a yellow flag) regarding the mystical principles, frameworks, messages, or metaphysics presented by the children (or adults) in the podcast.
Personally, I’ve been anticipating a common knowledge event like this for over a year, but now that it might have arrived I can barely believe it myself. Since the silence has been broken in this non-speaker community, wider awareness appears to have snowballed. And, as Ky noted in our interview, the level of agreement across all her sources would have required an unusual degree of coordination.
As far as the skeptics coming after it around telepathy and stuff, there are always going to be people who just can’t believe this, but unless we hired hundreds of actors that are therapists, teachers, parents, siblings, doctors, ministers… which didn’t happen obviously… so then what did happen? Are all these people lying around the world?
No.
So the question for a lot of people is can you believe the testimony of hundreds of people, thousands really, saying the same thing, who don’t know each other, in different states and different countries, and I think that’s pretty convincing evidence right there.
I think we should also end by asking one question: why has The Telepathy Tapes exploded to become the number one podcast in America with no marketing? One perfectly acceptable answer is that it’s making ludicrous claims in a well-produced narrative format. But the internet is already flooded with people making ludicrous claims in a well-produced narrative format. Why is this specific topic capturing the attention of an entire nation, if not the world?
I think it’s because, if the children prove to be telepathic, we then need to take their broader gifts and messages even more seriously. This includes revelations as dramatic as entertaining the existence of God, angels and life after death. Some of the kids explicitly say that this paradigm shift in consciousness is underway right now. That’s why this podcast matters and why I’ve spent so much time recently exploring it.
If you believe the tapes faithfully tell the stories of the children, it’s only appropriate to end with their words. In this case it’s Anthony, giving his best advice for humanity.
Love is eternal. Everything else is an evolution caused by separation. Great change occurs when we join our souls as one. The highest human power is love. Spiritual evolution occurs when hearts are aligned in mass to create loving vibrations during all circumstances at all times. Planetary upgrade is needed now. Future humans must be driven by loving kindness. Love purely, love openly, without conditions. Love soulfully. Feel God in every person. Kindness is the best way to evolve.
We’d love to hear your questions and comments, on email or below.
[If you want to dive in deeper, earlier this week Jesse Michaels released a two hour documentary on the making of the podcast].
Source: Proof of Spiritual Phenomena, page 141.
 | A guest post by
|
Hi, your Substack is new to me but I’m guessing you’re familiar with Rupert Sheldrake’s work? Also interesting to me about TTT are the quantum-like effects at play, for example Mia struggles with reading her dad and had previously written in her diary at some point that she can read everybody’s mind, but you have to believe in her. Like anything that is “real”, there is an element of relationship that comes into it. Also reminds me of the story of Clever Hans, the horse who could apparently do arithmetic – turned out he could sense his owner’s anxiety around him getting the answers right. But that doesn’t detract from the horse’s abilities due to its heightened senses. There’s very little that the majority of humans understand about the non-verbal, human and non-human; being skeptical though, is seemingly disruptive to the field.
It seems really clear to me. There isn't even a need to reject a materialist explanation of things, unless by materialism one means the laughably hubristic view that there can't possibly be connections between things that we aren't currently capable of reliably measuring.
I.e. we are physically connected in a continuum with the entire universe - with the whole of it. All changes to specific parts of the whole, change the condition of the whole. Really the question is, how sensitive are we? What are we capable of sensing? Are we not capable of sensing our environments? And given that our environment is connected in continuum with the entirety of everything, if there is somehow a limit to our ability to sense the whole (rather than discrete 'facts' within it) - where is that limit, and why exactly there?
Which seems very obviously something which is highly influenced by beliefs.
As a basic principle this seems pretty much undisputed - eg amongst many others https://news.mit.edu/2019/how-expectation-influences-perception-0715 . How have we been conditioned into sensing the world, and how deep are we prepared to go to investigate this question?
It seems to me that people are very scared to examine the foundations of their own beliefs.
The idea of science is an extremely effective smokescreen for this - it presents itself, or at least functions within discourse, as a story about the universe with the force of an authoritative structure to give its version of truth a concrete primacy, and so free people from the need to be sure about their own perceptions. Paradoxically, while its claims for truth rely on questioning itself, there is only a certain amount of doubt it can tolerate.
And the nature of the authority which it clothes itself in is highly questionable and fallible - who funds it, who gatekeeps, who stands to win or lose from maintaining rigid stories about what is a valid belief or not?
Doubting too much of its truths tends to provoke a very strong reaction.
From my perspective, I have to ask: why do people cling so strongly to this story of reality (which to me seems highly rigid and very limiting)?
What I see has very old and primal roots: many people feel safer belonging to the group and being told by authority what the truth is, than relying upon their own inner knowledge. This is an issue of very deep disempowerment. Some people deciding they are capable of living in their own reality feels extremely threatening to those who have given all their sense of security to the authorities and arbiters of truth.
Those old roots? Well, the current worldview evolved out of opposition to Catholicism - which exerted a horrifically violent compulsion to its truth. 'Either believe reality is what we say (and therefore do exactly what we tell you), or you will be sent to the worst place imaginable for eternity when you die, and we'll probably torture you while you're still alive.' Truth becomes a very binary proposition. Which I think it still is, for many people still attached to the scientistic view for their security in reality.
Obviously, it's not very secure, because otherwise there wouldn't be such a tremendous backlash when it's threatened. The security is an illusion which requires an ever-increasing amount of energy to maintain.
Underneath that, the roots of that insecurity are in the millennia of (often extremely traumatic) control and conditioning, to separate us from our inner self, of which Catholicism was only one manifestation. These are all very present in the bedrock of our current way of relating as a society, but we'll hidden by all the layers of trauma that we don't want to look at, but which are clearly being replicated externally.
This is hugely disempowering. And to regain that independent source of power is extremely difficult, it entails being honest with the entirety of our own history of traumatic disempowerment. And many people would much rather not face that.
Of course, this also leads to very binary thinking. I'm suspicious of the way 'Materialism' has been set up in this context. Let's beware the journalistic tendency to find drama and opposition in everything, and approach this with as much openness to disagreeing as possible.
So to get back to the point, there are questions which I think could really help. If you're struggling to get your head around 'telepathy', first define what exactly what you mean by that. Then ask, and perhaps be really clear in answering:
Why shouldn't we be able to sense things which are currently hidden to a limited worldview?
And, why do we have to prove it in a certain way before it becomes an acceptable 'fact'?
How much do you as an individual, need your beliefs about reality to be identical with billions of others on this planet?