Is mediumship evidence genuine or explainable by cold reading?

The Windbridge Research Center (Beischel) has produced the most sustained program of blinded mediumship research, with multiple studies reporting above-chance accuracy under triple-blind conditions. Critics counter that even elaborate blinding cannot fully eliminate subtle sensory cues, and that scoring methods may be vulnerable to rater bias. The neural-correlate work adds a physiological dimension from two directions: Delorme et al. (2013) found that one medium's frontal theta power correlated with accuracy under double-blind conditions, suggesting a candidate neural signature of the "receptive" state, though only in 1 of 6 mediums; and Peres et al. (2012) showed that experienced mediums produce more complex written content during psychographic trance while showing paradoxically lower brain activation in cognitive processing areas — a finding inconsistent with faking but limited by a very small sample (N=10). The debate has become more methodologically sophisticated over time, but fundamental disagreements about what constitutes adequate blinding persist.