This review highlights the strongest, most-cited empirical lines of evidence in parapsychology—studies that (a) employed relatively tight controls, (b) were synthesized in major meta-analyses, or (c) generated large, multi-decade databases. Across telepathy (ganzfeld), precognition/presentiment, remote viewing, and micro-psychokinesis (PK), the best results are statistically small but have survived multiple replications and meta-analytic scrutiny. They remain contested, but they constitute the field’s most compelling empirical core.

How These Studies Were Chosen

  • Peer-reviewed synthesis: Preference for Psychological Bulletin, Statistical Science, and comparable venues.
  • Automation & blinding: Priority to protocols with RNG-based randomization, sealed data paths, and pre-specified analyses.
  • Longevity & scale: Programs producing large, multi-lab or multi-year datasets.

Core Research Domains

1) Telepathy (Free-Response / Ganzfeld)

Bem & Honorton (1994) reported above-chance hit rates in a Psychological Bulletin review of ganzfeld studies, arguing for an “anomalous information transfer” process. Subsequent meta-analyses—Storm, Tressoldi & Di Risio (2010) and Tressoldi et al. (2021)—again found small but significant effects across newer datasets. The autoganzfeld series introduced tighter automation and remained above chance in aggregate.

  • Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4–18. PDF
  • Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471–485. PubMed
  • Tressoldi, P. E., et al. (2021). Explore. PMC
  • Honorton, C., et al. (1990). Autoganzfeld report. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 99–139. PDF

2) Precognition & Presentiment

Honorton & Ferrari (1989) meta-analyzed 309 forced-choice precognition studies (1935–1987), finding a small but highly significant overall deviation from chance. Physiological “time-reversal” work—Mossbridge et al. (2012)—reported anticipatory autonomic shifts seconds before unpredictable emotional stimuli. Bem (2011) used standard social-psych tasks with reversed time order; results were mixed in later replications but catalyzed preregistered tests.

  • Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. C. (1989). Journal of Parapsychology, 53(4), 281–308.
  • Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P., & Utts, J. (2012). Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 390. Full text
  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. DOI

3) Remote Viewing (Anomalous Cognition)

Declassified U.S. government programs at SRI/SAIC tested double-blind target descriptions over two decades. Utts (1995), in a Statistical Science report to Congress, argued that results across the database were unlikely by chance; May et al. (1995) provided detailed methodological reviews. Debate continues over effect magnitude and operational value, but this remains one of the best-documented ESP programs.

  • Utts, J. (1995). Assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. PDF
  • May, E. C., et al. (1995). SRI/SAIC review (1973–1988). Declassified report

4) Micro-Psychokinesis (RNG/REG Studies)

Two Psychological Bulletin papers in 2006 bracket the micro-PK literature: Bösch, Steinkamp & Boller (2006) meta-analyzed RNG studies and found a small but significant mean effect; a companion comment by Radin et al. (2006) argued the positive deviation remained under bias checks. The Princeton PEAR program reported long-run, marginal mean shifts across millions of trials, and the Global Consciousness Project found small deviations during pre-specified world events. All remain debated; they are nevertheless the best-documented PK datasets.

  • Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523. PubMed | PDF
  • Radin, D. I., Nelson, R. D., Dobyns, Y. H., & Houtkooper, J. M. (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 529–532. CiteSeerX
  • Jahn, R. G., & Dunne, B. J. (1987). PEAR overview (ICRL report). PDF
  • Global Consciousness Project (methods/results). Site | Tech report

5) Dream-Telepathy (Maimonides Program)

Sleep-lab studies (1960s–70s) tested whether a sender’s target influenced a receiver’s REM-dream content under controlled awakenings and blind judging. Reviews note several significant series and strong qualitative matches, along with acknowledged replication challenges outside the original lab. Modern reassessments keep the dataset relevant to free-response ESP.

  • Psi Encyclopedia overview: Maimonides Dream Telepathy. Link
  • Sherwood, S. J., & Roe, C. A. (2013). Updated review since Maimonides. Link

Cross-Cutting Themes

  • Effect sizes are small: Typically a few percentage points above chance (or Cohen’s d ≈ 0.1–0.2). Statistical significance often relies on aggregation.
  • Method matters: Automation, blinding, and a priori analyses improve credibility; some effects are stronger with dynamic targets or selected participants.
  • Heterogeneity and bias: File-drawer concerns and lab heterogeneity persist; several meta-analyses include bias modeling, with mixed conclusions.

What a Fair Reading Concludes

These programs collectively provide the most persuasive empirical case that something anomalous may be present—small, fickle, and method-sensitive. Whether that “something” is psi or a residual artifact remains unresolved. The only decisive path forward is multi-lab, high-power, preregistered testing on standardized platforms with continuous quality audits and public data.