Paranormal Review

For decades, Prof Sorpong Peou believed his father to be dead – executed by the Khmer Rouge. But a vivid dream and the insistence of a psychic have led the family to an emotional reunion in their home country, Cambodia. Peou, who is Chairman of the Politics Department at Winnipeg University, Manitoba, Canada, told his story to Winnipeg Free Press on Monday, followed by an interview on Thursday with Canada’s CTV morning news programme.

Sorpong Peou was just 17 and the eldest of seven children in 1975 when he saw his father, Nam, a government official, being thrown into a blue truck with others and driven away. At that time, the Americans had withdrawn, the Cambodian government had fallen and the Khmer Rouge had begun the systematic murder of its most educated citizens – two million in total – over a three-year period.

This was the notorious time, depicted in he movie The Killing Fields, which came to an end with the Vietnamese invasion in 1978. Nam Peou was one of the victims. He was thrown into a ditch and bodies piled on top of him, but miraculously he escaped. He was later recaptured and tortured, escaping once more into the jungle on the Thai-Cambodia border.

Nam Peou assumed the same fate had befallen his wife and children, and for the next 36 years they each assumed that the other was dead. Nam recovered from his ordeal, remarried and had six more children. Sorpong, his mother and six siblings, made it to a refugee camp in Thailand and travelled to Canada in 1982, settling in Ottawa and becoming Canadian citizens.

Sorpong Peou’s academic achievements began at Toronto’s York University with a PhD thesis on international security (now his speciality) and UN peacekeeping, with a focus on Cambodia. He later taught in Singapore and Tokyo before returning to Canada and Winnipeg University.

The story of the reunion begins with a dream that Sorpong had in January 2010, while in Tokyo, in which he walked and chatted with his father. In that dream, his father told him he was still alive. It made a great impression, but he felt it was simply an indication of how much he missed his father.

But then his brother visited an Ottawa psychic to get advice on a business matter. During the course of that consultation, the psychic asked, “Where is your father? Do you see your father?” The brother, who was just five years old when his father was taken away, explained that he had been killed. “No, no, no,” the psychic responded. “Something’s telling me now that your father is still alive.”

Sorpong describes himself as a spiritual man, but he had no belief in psychics. A sister was equally sceptical and decided to consult the psychic without revealing the family connection. She was also told her father was alive. So Sorpong’s mother also consulted the psychic and heard the same story.

The family decided to pay for another brother to travel to Cambodia in search of Nam. The first visit failed to yield a result, but the psychic said he should return. When he did so, with hundreds of posters of Nam Peou as he looked 40 years ago, he began scouring countless Thai border villages and former refugee sites. At one he was directed to an elderly man who, when he looked at a poster, remarked to the younger Peou that he had looked like the man in the picture when he was younger. But his family had died in the killing fields.

The man, aged 85, refused to believe that the Canadian he was talking to could be one of his sons. There was reason for doubt on the son’s part as well. This elderly man had a mole on his face and perfect fingernails. His father, however, had no facial mole and a life-long split nail on one thumb.

Slowly, however, recognition was established. The mole on Nam’s face had developed since the family’s separation, during a near-fatal illness.  And, yes, he had a split nail on one of his thumbs, but the Khmer Rouge had tortured him by pulling all of his fingernails out, one by one. When they grew back, the thumbnail was no longer split.

Years of deprivation and torture had shattered the man’s memory but gradually he was able to recall events relating to his former family and “mutual doubt turned to mutual disbelief”. In long telephone conversations with his first wife and other family members in Canada he was able to relate things that only Nam Peou could know about them.

Sorpong’s mother has now moved back from Ottawa to Cambodia to be with her husband and his new family, along with one of Soprong’s brothers who owns a thriving seafood business in Phnom Penh and cares for them all.

Last month, Professor Sorpong Peou also went to Phnom Penh and once more embraced his father – “a truly gentle man who would not kill a fly, a devout Buddhist” – after a 36-year separation: a reunion that almost certainly would not have happened without a dream and the determined advice of a Canadian psychic.

The full story can be found here, and this is the link to CTV’s website which has a video of their interview with the professor.

UPDATED WITH VIDEO (21 July) If a poll were conducted into the public’s beliefs in a range of phenomena or fables, including ghosts and sea monsters, my guess is that apparitions would get a far higher rating than the Loch Ness Monster or other maritime mysteries.

In a satisfying piece of synchronicity, it was encouraging to learn that last night, while I was dealing with the fall-out from Prof Brian Cox’s insistence that ghosts do not exist and people who believe in them are mistaken, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) was holding a meeting at which the existence of sea monsters was not only discussed but actually supported by at least one of the speakers.

Before the sceptics take to their keyboards and bombard me with comments about the difference between ghosts and sea monsters (apart from the fact that, as sceptics, they probably don’t entertain the possibility of either), I want to point out that in the quotes that follow, the statements made could equally apply to attitudes towards ghostly sightings.

Science writer and University of Portsmouth palaeontologist Dr Darren Naish, one of the speakers at “Cryptozoology: science or pseudoscience?”, a public event held at London Zoo on 12 July, 2011, said prior to the meeting:

“The huge number of ‘sea monster’ sightings now on record can’t all be explained away as mistakes, sightings of known animals or hoaxes. At least some of the better ones, some of them made by trained naturalists and such, probably are descriptions of encounters with real, unknown animals. And because new, large marine animals continue to be discovered – various new whale and shark species have been named in recent years – the idea that such a species might await discovery is, at the very least, plausible.”

The talks were chaired by Henry Gee, a senior editor at Nature, and the event was organised by another of the speakers, Charles Paxton from University of St Andrews, who provided this interesting observation: “The plural of ‘anecdote’ can be ‘data’. Cryptozoological reports can be analysed in a rigorous, statistical manner if the conclusions are restrained.”

Cautiously, Naish (left) explains on Tetrapod Zoology that one of the subjects to be addressed at the meeting is “whether cryptozoology – whatever the term might mean – should be considered a valid branch of zoological science” though he adds that it should not be taken as evidence that the subject “has finally ‘come in from the cold’ nor that the doors are wide open for the acceptance by ‘mainstream science’ of cryptozoologists and cryptozoological investigations. Nevertheless, this is an important step and it demonstrates that the investigation of mystery animal reports remains a topic of interest to trained scientists, or some trained scientists, at least.”

He also makes a comment that certainly applies to those, like Brian Cox, who dismiss the existence of other phenomena, such as ghost sightings:

“What I object to in particular is the knee-jerk reaction that any interest in cryptozoology makes you a crank or a naïve believer in the impossible. Not only are some targets of cryptozoology entirely ‘believable’ (example: new marine sharks and cetaceans*), the assumption that people interested in cryptozoology necessarily ‘believe’ in the existence of the supposed targets of cryptozoology is erroneous. Clearly, you can investigate mystery animal reports because you’re interested in what they might tell you about the evolution and transmission of folklore, the reliability and abilities of eyewitnesses, and so on. Furthermore, I always thought that the scientific evaluation of claims of any kind was meant to be a good thing (see comments in Woodley et al. (2008)). Basically, there’s definitely science to do here, whether you advocate the possible existence of the respective supposed animal species or not.”

Anyone who dismisses the possibility that sea monsters exist needs to provide an explanation for a sighting reported by two experienced British naturalists, Michael J. Nicholl and E.G.B. Meade-Waldo, Fellows of the Zoological Society of London and best known for their ornithological work, at the beginning of the 20th century. Matthew A. Bille tells the story of their encounter at Strangemag.com: The men reported seeing “a creature of most extraordinary form and proportions” during a research cruise aboard the yacht Valhalla, 15 miles east of the mouth of Brazil’s Parahiba River.

They first spotted a large dorsal fin which they did not recognise as belonging to any known fish. Meade-Waldo turned his binoculars on the object and immediately a long neck, about the thickness of a slim man’s body, rose from the water to a height of seven or eight feet.

The sighting, which lasted several minutes and took place in perfect conditions, was reported in the ZSL’s Proceedings (1906) and in the book Three Voyages of a Naturalist. Writer Rupert T. Gould also gave it extensive coverage in his book The Case for the Sea-Serpent (1930).

The illustration I have used at the top of this Blog, incidentally, is not an eye-witness drawing but an imaginative depiction by James Huckaby. However, it does show a resemblance to another sighting of a sea serpent that has been reported in the waters of British Columbia, Canada. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge and head of its Polar Ocean Physics Group – as well as being a member of the Society for Psychical Research – tipped me off about this particular monster. He tells me:

“A physical oceanographic colleague in Canada, Paul LeBlond, wrote an excellent book [see cover, above left] on the sea serpent which frequents BC waters: the ‘Cadborosaurus’ (because it was seen in Cadboro Bay). There is even (almost) physical evidence in that a young serpent was sicked up by a whale that was killed at the local whaling station in 1937. Unfortunately, although it was photographed, the body was not kept.”

If sea serpents do exist, they are not, of course, paranormal. But then it could be that some phenomena described as “paranormal” are also normal, natural events that we incorrectly label as paranormal because we do not yet recognise them for what they are.

UPDATE: Eight days after I posted the above, Paul LeBlond appeared in a special “Alaskan Monster Hunt” edition of Discovery Channel‘s “Deadliest Catch” series. After watching a video of an unidentified creature (see below) made by fisherman Kelly Nash the stars of the show, Johnathan and Andy Hillstrand, go in search of the monster and, it seems, after picking up a large underwater object on their radar, come very close to catching it.

To order books for delivery in the UK or Europe, click on the Amazon.co.uk covers, for delivery in North America or rest of the world, click on Amazon.com covers.

Before revealing why a picture of American actor George Raft (right) adorns this blog, I must explain the lack of recent contributions. There is a very good reason for this. I’ve been working flat out on a new book and have just delivered all 90,000 words to an American publisher. The subject? Reincarnation. I’ll reveal more later in the year, when I have a clearer idea about when it will be published.

It was great bringing myself up-to-date with the latest news and case studies relating to an aspect of the paranormal that has always fascinated me. What reincarnation studies have in common with mediumship and near-death-experience research is that they are looking for evidence that consciousness, in some form, continues after the death of our bodies.

In my new book, I pay tribute to the enormous contribution of the late Ian Stevenson at the Department of Perceptual Studies, which he established at the University of Virginia in 1967. Many of the cases I quote come from his scientific papers and the books he wrote about his investigations in many countries.

The person who is now continuing that work at the University of Virginia is Jim Tucker (left), associate professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences and author of Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives. And he has just revealed, in a recent teleseminar from the Institiute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), details of a fascinating new American case which illustrates the complexities involved in “cases of the reincarnation type”.

Interviewed by IONS’ senior scientist Dean Radin (below right), Tucker told of a child who spoke of a life in Hollywood, of dancing on stage, becoming an actor, then an agent, having a big swimming pool, and travelling around the world on a big boat. It sounded like a fantasy, until his mother showed the boy some old Hollywood movie books to see if they stirred more memories.

Looking at the images, he came across one from an old George Raft movie. “Oh, that’s the movie I made with George,” he told his mother. Then, pointing to a man in the picture, added: “That was me, mom. That’s who I was.”

The person he identified was not another big movie star but an extra. It was, Tucker told Radin, quite a task to identify the man, who turned out to have been a dancer who became an actor, then an agent. He had a big house with a swimming pool and travelled around the world on the Queen Elizabeth. “We’ve got pictures of him on that boat,” Tucker added.

Not all the information was correct, and the teleseminar includes a discussion about the possible reasons for this, and the accuracy we should expect from such memories, as well as about birthmarks related to reincarnation memories. A transcript is available here. I’ll report more on this case when a detailed report is published.

Tucker reveals that although he trained at the University of Virginia and was aware of Stevenson’s work, he wasn’t fascinated by it. After training he went into private practice. However, when he remarried, his new wife was very intrigued “by reincarnation, psychics and things that I had never really given much thought to”. Because of her interest he began reading up on the subject, and found in one of Ian Stevenson’s books a reference to a new grant his Department had recevied to study the effects of near-death experiences on the lives of those who had them.

Tucker, “looking for a hobby”, called up Stevenson and assisted him for a couple of years, interviewing patients. Then Stevenson asked if he would accompany a colleague to Asia to study reincarnation cases. After that, Tucker joined the department on a half-time basis before becoming a full member in 2000.

He continues to be impressed by the cases he encounters – not only their evidential nature but also the emotional component. “It is clear,” he tells Radin, “that for many of these kids this is not a game of make-believe but very important and meaningful for them. They talk about the people they miss. Some children cry daily to be taken to someone they say is their real family.”

Readers in UK and Europe wishing to purchase a copy of Jim Tucker’s book should click on the lefthand book cover, those in the United States or elsewhere in the world should click on the righthand cover.

Particle physicist Brian Cox has angered many by mocking people who believe in ghosts and the afterlife. He did so on Twitter after learning that the BBC had received complaints that Infinite Monkey Cage, the Radio 4 show he hosts with comedian Robin Ince, was unbalanced in an episode dealing with the paranormal.

Prof Cox – a former keyboard player in 1990s pop groups before focusing on cosmology and becoming a star presenter on television (a sort of supernova) – responded to the criticism by Tweeting:

“Just heard we got complaints about lack of BBC balance about ghosts – there are some utter nobbers out there! Here is my official statement, which also has the benefit of being fact. There are no ghosts, so it would be silly to believe in them.”

Which, of course, demonstrates that Cox is himself an even bigger nobber than the people who have upset him. The term nobber, for those unfamiliar with slang, means extremely stupid.

Brian Cox is sceptical of the paranormal, as were the guests on the very entertaining programme that caused offence: psychologists Richard Wiseman and Bruce Hood, and actor and magician Andy Nyman. Which is fine, of course, and their views shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the programme’s concept is to inject comedy into science and make it a fun subject to discuss.

The Twitter pronouncement, on the other hand, was delivered as a statement of fact, based on the assumption that Cox knows the truth of such matters better than anyone else. Has he become God? Does he believe that his scientific credentials are sufficient to allow him to pass judgment on other areas, in which he has no expertise? And what about the incredible theories of multiverses and quantum events that cosmologists ask us to accept? How would he feel if we all dismissed such ideas and labelled their originators as nobbers, just because we don’t understand them or find them difficult to explain?.

While I realise that ghost sightings and hauntings are open to many different interpretations, there’s really no doubt that people report seeing them. Endeavouring to understand the phenomenon of apparitions – both of the dead and the living – has engaged the intellects of many scientists every bit as gifted as Cox over the centuries, and his dismissal of the subject is, to say the least, unscientific. Even a BBC source told the Daily Telegraph that, although the physicist was entitled to his views, “to call people ‘nobbers’ is just a little offensive.”

I suggest Brian Cox shows greater respect in future for those whose views differ from his own, and a good starting point would be to become better acquainted with the best parapsychological literature and those who have taken the trouble to conduct research.

A good starting point would be to acquaint himself with the opinions of British scientist Peter Sturrock, whose research in nuclear physics at Engand’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment led, in time, to a long association with Stanford University, California, where he was appointed Professor of Engineering and Applied Physics in its School of Engineering and its Physics Department. Since 1961, Sturrock has worked primarily on plasma physics, solar physics and astrophysics, as well as gravity research and studying the history and philosophy of science. He has 300 scientific papers to his name, most in solar physics in which he is a towering figure.

Does Sturrock believe in ghosts? I don’t know, but he has studied a range of paranormal phenomena and is open-minded about many of them. His interest in the role of anomalies in the progress of science led him to Chair the Founding Committee of the Society for Scientific Exploration and he has served as its president since 1982.The recipient of numerous scientific awards, Sturrock keeps an open mind on the paranormal for very good reasons: he has experienced an unusual phenomenon – notably a UFO sighting – at first hand.

Wikipedia’s extensive biography of Sturrock tells us that his interest in UFOs began when he employed Dr Jacques Vallee on a research project and learned that he had authored a number of books on UFOs. Sturrock, we are told, ‘felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee’s books’ which led him to research the subject further. Though this story is true, it was not the start of his interest in the subject. That occurred on an autumn day in 1947 – the year the word ‘flying saucer’ was coined – when he was a student at Cambridge and saw an unidentified flying object: an experience he has since described as ‘very disturbing’. It was, he says, his ‘first encounter with an unorthodox world that does not conform to the orthodox, neatly packaged, world of conventional science.’

Sturrock knows from personal experience how closed minded many scientists are. So he has been doubly courageous not only in pursuing his interest in the paranormal but also in expressing his views on the subect in his books, A Tale of Two Sciences: Memoirs of a Dissident Scientist and The UFO Enigma.

Brian Cox’s contributions to litereature, on the other hand, appear to be largely confined to his co-authored books based on his television series, Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. If you want a starry-eyed account of astrophysics, Cox is your man. If you’d prefer a sensible discussion about unusual phenomena and scientists’ attitudes to them, Sturrock is undoubtedly the person you should turn to. [Just click on the appropriate images below, depending on whether you are UK or USA-based. One is a Blue-Ray disk.]

Or Cox could make contact with Prof Bernard Carr, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University, London, or Prof Archie Roy, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the British Interplanetary Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Both are past presidents of the Society for Psychical Research with immense knowledge of the paranormal. I suggest, however, that Cox doesn’t open the discussion with the words, “Hello, nobber.”

I’m not alone in taking issue with Cox. For those interested in a far more academic – and amusing – response, SPR member and psychic investigator Chris Jensen Romer has provided one here.

Cox, I’m sorry to say, appears to have let his TV success go to his head. He is in danger of losing credibility and going the way of all supernovae: fading from sight very quickly. Still, he could always return to playing the keyboards.