Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of trying to learn about something that is far away or not visible, using only the mind. There is no scientific proof that remote viewing works, and it is usually considered pseudoscience. A remote viewer is asked to describe an object, event, person, or place that cannot be seen directly and is located far away. Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, who studied parapsychology at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), are often credited with creating the term "remote viewing" to differentiate it from a similar idea called clairvoyance. Targ said the term was first suggested by Ingo Swann in December 1971 during an experiment at the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City.
Remote viewing experiments have often failed to include proper controls or produce results that can be repeated.
Interest in remote viewing grew again in the 1990s after government documents about the Stargate Project were made public. This $20 million program, funded by the U.S. government from 1975 to 1995, aimed to explore possible military uses of psychic abilities. The program ended in 1995 after evaluators found that remote viewers could not consistently provide useful information for military purposes.
History
In early occult and spiritualist writings, remote viewing was called telesthesia and traveling clairvoyance. Rosemary Guiley explained that remote viewing involves "seeing distant or hidden objects with the inner eye, or through claimed out-of-body experiences."
Scientists began studying psychic abilities in the mid-1800s. Researchers such as Michael Faraday, Alfred Russel Wallace, Rufus Osgood Mason, and William Crookes tested individuals believed to have psychic talents. Their experiments involved careful testing, but many in the scientific community doubted the results.
In the 1930s, J. B. Rhine expanded paranormal research by testing larger groups of people using standard methods. Like earlier researchers, Rhine avoided sharing his findings quickly due to concerns about criticism from mainstream scientists.
Paranormal studies remained on the edges of scientific research. However, by the 1960s, cultural attitudes became more open to paranormal ideas. The rise of "New Age" thinking and the Human Potential Movement increased public interest in consciousness and psychic abilities, making funding for such research more available.
In the early 1970s, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ worked at the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory at Stanford Research Institute (SRI, now SRI International). They began paranormal studies initially funded by private groups like the Parapsychology Foundation and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
In the late 1970s, physicists John Taylor and Eduardo Balanovski tested psychic Matthew Manning in remote viewing. Their results were described as "completely unsuccessful."
An early experiment was praised for improving remote viewing testing methods but criticized for accidentally giving participants clues. Later experiments, which removed these clues, had less successful results.
The Stargate Project’s findings were always vague and lacked detail, so they were never used in intelligence operations. In a 2005 interview, former President Jimmy Carter recalled a time when the CIA claimed a psychic in California helped locate a missing plane in Africa. Carter expressed doubt about the claim, saying he was unsure whether it was a coincidence or not.
In the early 1990s, the Military Intelligence Board, led by Harry E. Soyster of the Defense Intelligence Agency, assigned Army Colonel William Johnson to evaluate the usefulness of remote viewing. Funding ended in 1994, and the program declined. In 1995, the project was moved from the DIA to the CIA.
In 1995, the CIA hired the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to review the Stargate Project’s results. Reviewers included Ray Hyman and Jessica Utts. Utts claimed some participants scored 5–15% above chance, suggesting a statistically significant effect. Hyman argued that proving ESP existed was premature, as findings had not been independently replicated. Based on these reviews, the CIA ended the $20 million project in 1995. Time magazine reported in 1995 that three psychics still worked at Fort Meade, Maryland, on a $500,000 annual budget, which was soon closed.
The AIR report concluded that the program did not produce usable intelligence. David Goslin of the American Institute for Research stated, "There is no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community."
From the late 1970s, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR) studied remote viewing extensively. By 1989, they had conducted 336 trials, reporting a composite z-score of 6.355 and a p-value of 1.04 × 10. In 1992, Hansen, Utts, and Markwick criticized the PEAR experiments for not following standard scientific research methods. PEAR responded that their protocols and methods were not compromised and reaffirmed their results.
After Utts’ focus on replication and Hyman’s concerns about consistency, PEAR conducted hundreds of trials to replicate experiments from SAIC and SRI. They developed a new method to replace human judgment in past experiments and released a 1996 report. They believed their results aligned with SRI experiments. However, statistical flaws were later pointed out by others in the parapsychological and general scientific communities.
Scientific reception
Scientific studies on remote viewing have been carried out over many years. Early experiments showed some promising results, but they had serious problems that made the findings unreliable. More recent experiments, when done with proper controls, have not produced clear evidence of success. Because of this, most scientists do not believe in remote viewing. They say there is no strong evidence, no clear explanation for how it might work, and no reliable methods to test it.
Science writers Gary Bennett, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and professor Terence Hines describe remote viewing as pseudoscience.
C. E. M. Hansel reviewed experiments by parapsychologists like Puthoff, Targ, Bisha, and Dunne. He found that the experiments lacked proper controls and did not prevent the possibility of fraud. He said the designs were not well reported and were too loosely controlled to be useful.
Psychologist Ray Hyman says that even if remote viewing results were repeated under strict conditions, they would not prove psychic abilities. He explains that claims about ESP depend on results not being explained by normal causes, but the experiments lack a clear theory to guide what should be tested or ignored. He also says parapsychologists have not developed a solid theory to explain remote viewing.
Hyman adds that the number and quality of remote viewing experiments are too low to convince scientists to change their understanding of causality, time, or other scientific principles.
Martin Gardner wrote that Harold Puthoff, a researcher in remote viewing, was influenced by Scientology before his work at Stanford University. In 1970, the Church of Scientology published a letter Puthoff wrote while studying remote viewing. The letter praised Scientology as a highly advanced system. Puthoff also supported ideas from the 1908 book Occult Chemistry, which claimed two followers of Madame Blavatsky could remote-view the structure of atoms.
Michael Shermer studied remote viewing experiments and found problems with how targets were chosen. He said the sketches used in experiments often included simple designs like lines and curves, which could match many objects and be considered a "hit." He also wrote about biases, such as confirmation and hindsight bias, that may have affected results.
Skeptic groups have tested remote viewing and other paranormal claims under strict conditions, but found no reliable evidence of success.
Psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann tried to repeat experiments by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff from the 1970s. In 35 studies, they could not reproduce the results. They found that notes given to judges in the original experiments had clues about the order of targets, such as mentioning previous days or including session dates. These clues likely caused high success rates.
Terence Hines said that published transcripts from Targ and Puthoff’s experiments also contained clues. Marks and Kammann asked for copies of the transcripts but were refused. However, they obtained them from a judge and found many clues.
Thomas Gilovich wrote that transcripts included honest descriptions by participants but also extra details that could help judges match them to targets. For example, transcripts mentioned dates, times, and locations, which helped judges place them in order. Surprisingly, judges were given a list of targets in the exact order they were used.
Marks found that when clues were removed, results dropped to chance levels. He achieved 100% accuracy using only clues, without visiting sites. James Randi said other researchers, after removing clues and other issues, also found no evidence of remote viewing. Students even solved locations using clues in the transcripts.
Marks and Kammann concluded that until remote viewing is tested without clues, Targ and Puthoff’s results remain unproven. In 1980, Charles Tart claimed a rejudging of transcripts showed above-chance results, but Targ and Puthoff again refused to share data. In 1985, transcripts were studied and still had clues. Marks and Scott wrote that Tart’s failure to remove clues made it impossible to support remote viewing.
Information from the Stargate Project’s remote viewing sessions was unclear and included incorrect details. The project was not useful for intelligence work, and some managers may have altered reports to match clues.
In his book The Psychology of the Psychic (2000), Marks detailed flaws in the Stargate Project. He said experiments did not rule out clues or sensory leakage, were not independently tested, and some were secret, making peer review impossible. He also noted that the judge, Edwin May, was the project leader, creating a conflict of interest. Marks called the project a "subjective delusion" and said it failed to provide scientific evidence for remote viewing.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, pointed out problems in an early SAIC experiment, including information leakage.