The Institute of Noetic Sciences at 50

A conversation with IONS Chief Scientist Dr. Dean Radin

Founded in 1973, the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) recently celebrated 50 years as an organization with its first wholly online conference, BEYOND: Global Mind Change in Action. For four days in late May and early June 2024, thousands of attendees around the globe watched over 45 hours of presentations from the top minds in consciousness science. They also wandered through virtual rooms hosted by groups, organizations, and companies, and chatted with fellow attendees in virtual spaces. 

Author Charles Eisenstein; medical pioneer and author Deepak Chopra, MD; philosopher Ken Wilber; and scientist and author Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, all gave mind-opening presentations.

Several members of IONS leadership, including President Thomas G. Brophy, PhD; Interim Chief Executive Officer Claudia Welss; Director of Research Helané Wahbeh, ND, MCR; and Chief Scientist Dean Radin, MS, PhD, also gave engrossing presentations.

Topics included the latest research in consciousness science, of course, along with talks on artificial intelligence, UAPs/UFOs, psychedelics and creativity, mediumship, mind-body healing, and ancient civilizations.

IONS kept all the presentations available online for attendees for two weeks after the event. They can now be purchased for lifetime access.

A few days after the event, I spoke with one of the IONS presenters, Dr. Dean Radin, whose career has kept him on the quantum edge of physics and the frontiers of consciousness for over four decades, doing research for organizations, academic labs, and top-secret government projects. He has written hundreds of academic articles and four best-selling books: The Conscious Universe (1997), Entangled Mind (2006), Supernormal (2013), and Real Magic (2018). His second book on magic is due out soon. 

Radin and I talked about IONS founder Dr. Edgar Mitchell and how his passion for studying consciousness continues to drive the organization a decade after his passing. Radin shared insights into consciousness research’s history, current landscape, and future prospects. I started by asking about his most significant takeaways from the conference. 

Dean Radin: It was fun but tiring! As a presenter, I was on five times. I thought the sections that I was part of and watched were quite good. I like the idea that we are now expanding into areas of general interest, like UFOs and UAPs. It’s something that Edgar Mitchell was certainly interested in. Our institute was founded in many ways to be bold, to be 20 or 30 years ahead of everybody else, provided that we weren’t at the same time being overly credulous.¹

Working with Edgar and knowing him for many years, I was convinced that you don’t become an astronaut, especially in the Apollo programs, by being credulous or irresponsible, and you’re probably also a little smarter than the average person. So, I would say that based on our 50 years of history, our guesses or bets about what topics will become mainstream in the future have been correct. That includes ideas like mind-body medicine, the widespread adoption of meditation, the importance of feelings like gratefulness and forgiveness for mental and physical health, and slowly but surely, the importance of consciousness research and the reality of psychic phenomena.

Sven: IONS President Thomas Brophy used the phrase “the collapse of the wave function” several times. What is that exactly?

Dean Radin: He was referring to the quantum observer effect, which is related to the quantum measurement problem. This is still a big mystery in physics because it asks deep questions about the nature of observation. Does an observation require consciousness (awareness) or not? If it turns out that consciousness is involved in the collapse of the wave function, or said differently, in the transition between quantum and classical experience, then that changes everything because suddenly physics is not just about material things. It has to also include something that you might call nonmaterial—consciousness or subjective experience—because, as far as we know, experience is not material in the same sense as a hunk of brain tissue. It’s like physics from the “inside,” rather than what most of science has focused upon, physics from the “outside.”

Sven: Rupert Sheldrake gave a fascinating presentation. He talked about how many conventional scientists working in the physical realm—the classical—are just kind of stalling out or not making much progress anymore. At the same time, the study of consciousness continues to expand and grow. Is that your understanding of the current state of science?

Dean Radin: It’s not true uniformly across science because the field of genetic engineering, which I’m also involved in, is going crazy, and AI is also going crazy. So, some fields are accelerating very rapidly. Others, like conventional physics, are slowing down. So, yes, some areas are not exactly stalled out but are definitely not advancing anywhere near as fast as some other fields.

Sven: I watched former Navy Commander Suzanne Giesemann’s fascinating presentation on being a medium. She took a disciplined Navy approach to learning how to be a medium, and I thought she was fantastic. I was surprised by how enchanting the topic was, as mediumship had never interested me. I didn’t like most of my relatives when they were alive, so I never wanted to talk to them after they crossed over.

Dean Radin: Yes, she did some of our studies in the lab, and you’re right. She takes it on like a military exercise, and she’s really, really good at it. She’s impressive. 

Crises and Consciousness

Sven: Many conference presenters talked about every world crisis as a crisis of consciousness. Raising consciousness is the solution, whether it’s climate change, AI, increasing wars, or wealth disparity. Do you understand that to be true?

Dean Radin: I’m not sure that consciousness is the solution, but to use an overworked word, it’s about being woke, right? There’s a political problem with using words like that, but in essence, that’s what it means. I think it was Willis Harmon, the former IONS president from years back, who used to say this little story as an illustration of it. 

One day, you’re walking in the forest, and you come along a stream. To your horror, you see babies floating down the stream. Babies. 

So the impulse is to dive in and rescue all those babies, and that’s perfectly understandable and important, but it doesn’t answer the real question, which is, why are there babies in the water in the first place? Where do they come from? So besides the first impulse to jump in and save them, perhaps an equally important thing to do is step back and go upstream to find out why this is happening. 

It’s true, then, that some aspects of why the world is facing multiple crises is because of a lack of awareness of many, many things over many years. We do this, this, this, and that, but we’re not paying attention to the environment. We assume it doesn’t make any difference. That series of unaware decisions has become a major problem now. 

The solution to this problem, at least partially, will entail figuring out why the babies are in the stream and then figuring out how to stop that from happening. That then immediately clashes against politics, against business, against the prevailing worldview, and things like that. So it’s not easy by any means, but otherwise, there is no chance of solving the problem.

Resistance to Consciousness

Sven: Do you think resistance to these ideas is the same, more or less than 50 years ago when Dr. Mitchell founded the organization? Are we making any progress in lowering the resistance to what the woke people are discovering in science? 

Dean Radin: Well, I would say yes, there’s definitely progress, and you can see it very easily by just looking back 30 years ago and counting the number of people and places that were considering the study of consciousness to be important. It was a tiny number. Today, there are centers for consciousness studies in many universities and new conferences practically every month. It’s no longer a fringe area that only a few philosophers are interested in. It’s becoming a major interest. 

You also see thought leaders in physics, neuroscience, psychology, and beyond that have turned 180 degrees away from a purely materialistic stance, and are now seriously entertaining how consciousness and matter interact. That’s a huge change! In many ways, if that change continues, and I think younger people aren’t bound to the dogma like older people, they will be able to see the world in very different ways. 

Sven: Some of these ideas you discuss in your books and things the IONS science team has discovered seem self-evident.

Dean Radin: Well, self-evidence is predicated on the eye of the perceiver, right? So, we all look at the world through different lenses. And if your lenses say, like some physicists insist, that psychic things are impossible, well, why do they say that? They say it because they’re looking at the world through a particular way of understanding it, and they become limited in their imagination as to what is possible. 

It’s not impossible. It’s just something else we need to learn.

Sven: When I interviewed Dr. Mitchell in 2008, I asked him what the most obvious thing we could prove every day in the lab was that most scientists didn’t want to accept. He said that the mind has a positive effect on matter—it actually affects matter. It seems self-evident to me that consciousness must be involved. I’ve had enough psychic experiences that when somebody says, “It’s not real,” I don’t know how to respond.

Dean Radin: The answer is “not real for you.” But it’s also understandable if somebody has never encountered those experiences or even knows anybody who has had such experiences. From their perspective, it’s not part of their reality. It’s not part of the world. So either everybody is lying about it, or they’re unable to see it somehow. 

To Sweat or Not to Sweat

Sven: My book is about getting people to understand some of the things we can prove in science that are just not accepted by most people. A big problem is that men seem left out of most self-help and self-development fields. I’ve been to so many different functions that are so feminized. We’re doing interpretive dance and many feminine things, which is fine. It just happens to turn off many men who don’t want to engage with some of the things we’re discussing here.

Dean Radin: Yes, I am familiar with that syndrome because, as you can imagine, IONS was founded in Northern California. So there’s a lot of dancing, drumming, and ritual work, which I do not resonate with.

Sven: I know. If you show up and you’re the only guy there, you feel like the designated testicles.

Dean Radin: Yes, but there are certainly some men who do enjoy that sort of thing. 

Sven: Oh, certainly, I did for many years. 

Dean Radin: Take most scientists, like myself. We’re introverts. We’re very comfortable not being around other people. So if you have the opportunity, as I’ve had on a number of occasions, to do a sweat lodge where you become a melted puddle in 110-degree heat, half naked, and squashed in with a bunch of other people, well, that’s not something I would volunteer to do. And so what I end up volunteering to do, and did in such instances, was to be the guy outside with the cold cup of water to pour on somebody’s head if they staggered outside the sweat lodge because they couldn’t stand it anymore. That I was happy to do, but to actually go into that space? That’s not for me.

Sven: The IONS presentations I saw were happily free of that over-feminization. From my perspective, I thought a lot of the woo-woo had been cut out—nary a woo to be seen, which I think is tremendously positive. 

Dean Radin: The science team had very little to do with the construction of this meeting. The people in the communications department mostly did that, and we knew who they were inviting. But a lot of it also is now that our new president, Thomas Brophy, is a scientist, and so he understands that if you want to play the science game, you can’t do too much of the rest of it because it’ll turn people off, even ones who are sympathetic to it. So that’s, I think, a positive direction that we’re going. 

The Ethics of Psi

Sven: During one of your sessions, I asked whether any research was being done into winning the lottery or poker, and I realized this brings up the whole issue of ethics. Then you addressed the need for ethicists as this global mind change happens. What kind of ethical issues do you see that we need?

Dean Radin: That’s an interesting question. So, one way to answer it is that I worked on the StarGate Project way back when. And in that environment, in a classified environment, we were working on a so-called black project—this was classified TS/SCI,² and we had SAP³ clearance beyond that, so very few people outside of the project knew what was actually going on. 

One day, I asked Hal Puthoff, our boss at the time, what would happen if we succeeded in our research and came up with the equivalent of a pill that would make you super psychic or some other method that would do that. What if we were able to achieve that?  

The answer was very clear. It would disappear. You’d never be able to talk about it again because it would become so valuable that it might be used by an intelligence agency, but otherwise, it would never be revealed. So, it created a conflict for me in that we were doing top-secret research to demonstrate that there are no secrets.  How do you reconcile that contraction?  

We were using remote viewing for espionage, which was about discovering other people’s secrets, but at the same time demonstrating that there are no secrets to the “psychic eye.” 

 At the time, we strongly suspected, and later we knew, that the Russians—at the time the Soviet Union—had a larger program than we did. Probably, the Chinese still do. Maybe the Russians still do, too, because remote viewing is quite useful and effective when you’re dealing with talented people. 

Yet the moment you stepped out of the building at SRI, you were expected to deflect public attention from this topic and even make it seem silly. You could talk to some colleagues already in the program and discuss the science, which was great. But otherwise, you couldn’t breathe a word about this to anyone else.

So, an important issue is how do you become wise enough and know whether or not to release information that you discover? I don’t have any good answer to that. The approach that we’ve taken at IONS from the beginning was to be transparent about everything, because we’re not smart enough to know what things to hold back. And I think, in general, if you reveal everything you know, then everybody’s on the same playing field, as opposed to keeping certain things back and hoping they don’t find it. 

It takes so much energy to keep secrets that I just decided that working in a classified environment wasn’t for me. At the same time, I was very glad that I had the opportunity to work on the StarGate program (it had a different codename when I was on it), and also very glad that others continued on it. It just wasn’t the path that I wanted to pursue.

Photons, Panpsychism, and Properties

Sven: I’d like to ask you a few questions about photons. From my non-scientific perspective, a photon exists as a wave and a particle until it is observed. Doesn’t that indicate that photons themselves have consciousness? Do they recognize when they’re being observed or have some kind of psi abilities to know when they’re being observed?

Dean Radin: That is one implication, yes. It’s not clear that it’s the only implication. But if you adopt the viewpoint of panpsychism, then, yes, everything, all the way down to elementary particles, has some form of sentience. 

Sven: That’s the only thing that makes sense to me. I don’t know why people want to resist that so much.

Dean Radin: Well, in physics, you resist it because physics, for many, many years, didn’t want anything to do with consciousness or psychology. So, some of that decision was made by scientists who wanted to make the discipline sharp, or at least make the description of the discipline sharp. 

So you can’t have a sharp and deep silo if you’re able to admit that, “Well, actually, we kind of need to pay attention to everything else.” Well, you can’t because it takes a lifetime to become an expert in one subset of physics, so it’s very difficult to break out of the silo you are in, especially in the academic world, because your career is completely enclosed inside the silo. 

So that’s why multidisciplinary research in the academic world is very, very difficult, and it doesn’t generally work very well, even though, in the industrial world, the major breakthroughs in creating new things always come from people who are outside of the field because they haven’t learned yet what is supposedly impossible. So they just go ahead and do it.

Sven: Like the way you bent a spoon yourself. <He picked up and showed the spoon sitting on his desk.>

Dean Radin: Yes, it’s not impossible. I don’t understand it any better than anybody else does, but yeah, at least, well, for me, I bent the bowl of a heavy soup in half with a gentle touch. I keep it on my desk because it’s a reminder of what else I don’t understand.

Sven: So you have two entangled photons. You switch the spin on one, and the other one instantly changes to the same spin. Is that the right way to describe it? 

Dean Radin: Not quite. That’s a popular way of describing it, but that’s actually not the way it works. What you can see with entangled particles, photons, and other things is an anti-correlation. So you have one particle, and you measure it, and you learn something about its nature. With a photon, it might be polarization. It’s one of the properties a photon can have. 

The idea is that you measure the photon’s polarization and see that it’s in a certain direction. And now you look at the other one, the entangled one, you find that it’s in the opposite direction, the different polarization. 

Through many other tests, you can show that the photon or any elementary particle doesn’t actually have fixed properties before you measure them. It is like the two photons have all possible properties before they’re measured. That’s what the mathematics say, and that’s what measurements actually tell us. 

The thing is, though, that even though the two particles are separated from each other and are supposedly no longer connected in any way, if you measure something on this one, the other one will adopt the opposite property. How can that be? 

People originally wondered about this because, well, if an electron has some kind of property, like this one is spinning this way, and the other one is spinning the other way, then when you measured the first one, it’s not surprising that the other one is found to be spinning in the other direction, because they came from the same source. 

But through ways of testing entanglement—this goes back to an idea proposed by physicist John Bell—we know that the correlation between entangled particles did not occur that way. Before an electron or photon is measured, it does not have any properties. When it’s measured, only then does it adopt a property, and its partner will always adopt the opposite property. So there’s some kind of connection between them, but it’s not like a physical connection because this relationship transcends space and time in a way that seems to violate everything we know about the everyday world. Except it’s true. That tells us that our everyday understanding of reality is a special, limiting case and that there’s a “larger” reality out there that we don’t ordinarily perceive.

The Future of Consciousness Research

Sven: Let me get your perspective on how you see things moving in the future. One thing discussed during the conference was the Noetic Signature Inventory, an online test IONS offers to help people discover their unique intuitive abilities. The site says that 87% of us have had some kind of experience that we might call intuitive or psychic. Eighty-seven percent! How many more people need to get it before we have the type of global shift that this conference promoted?

Dean Radin: All of the surveys have shown that the majority of the population in every country has had these experiences. The way that those surveys are usually done is by asking about beliefs. What do you believe? And that’s very different than asking what have you experienced? 

On the experience side, you could have something very strange happen, but you don’t necessarily believe it’s psychic. It’s also true that 94% or so of scientists and engineers have had one or more things that could be called a psychic experience.

Sven: Wow. 

Dean Radin: On average, that is about the same as the general public. Well, then, it’s true that if you have the vast majority of the population who’ve had these experiences, what’s the big deal? Part of the big deal is that the people who are the spokespeople for science are usually extremely conservative, and they know that if they started to say, “I think telepathy is real,” they would be squashed quickly. The stigma about talking freely about these abilities has been around for about 500 years, and they’re not going to dissolve anytime soon. 

I think I would have said 30 years ago that it would take a very long time to get over this taboo, but we’re now beginning to see the taboo crumble as we speak. 

Sven: How did this taboo become so entrenched, so solid? Especially when so many people are “psi-curious.”

Dean Radin: I have a chapter about this topic in my second book about magic. When you look at what scholars would call the disenchantment of the modern world—what some scholars would call modernity—it’s the idea that the modern world was defined by a disbelief in supernaturalism.  

That is, Catholicism, like many religions, completely believes in supernaturalism. It’s all about supernaturalism. But the Protestant Reformation came along and said that It said, “The Catholic Church has been completely corrupted by the indulgences and all this magical stuff, and you’ve drifted away from the teachings of Scripture.” 

So the Protestant Reformation made the very idea of supernaturalism taboo. It was fine to follow the scripture, but that’s all you need to know. Maybe the book talks about this stuff, but don’t mix that into your rituals because it’s corrupting. 

The consequence was that from the religious side, a growing pressure to deny miracles, to deny everything except maybe Jesus did it. At the same time, the scientists of the day also agreed (under threat of the Inquisition) to only study the natural world and leave the world of the spirit to religion. So science eventually learned to say, “We only study the natural world. Science is about the natural world.” 

Over time, you had science pushing against the existence of supernaturalism, religion embracing supernaturalism but only for anointed priests and only if performed within strict religious contexts, and Church leaders increasingly concerned that shamans, pagans, witches, and so on were dangerous because they were deflecting attention from their authority. It didn’t take long before the Church was loudly condemning magic outside their purview as demonic, and scientists who were condemning magic as false.

The problem is that magic, to use just one word to describe a practical consequence of so-called supernatural ideas, couldn’t really disappear because it’s real. So, it got pushed underground and became part of the esoteric traditions. And yet, the origin of modern science was based on magical ideas; they simply refined it from supernatural phenomena to natural, like astrology became astronomy because it was no longer seen as supernatural but a natural phenomenon. The same with Alchemy. The same with herbalism into medicine. Eventually, everything became naturalized, and only science could study it, and we’ve learned much since then but we also forgot our origins.

I think what is happening now is the recognition that consciousness is very important, and that changes everything because it will allow us to re-enchant the world. That’s a term that scholars are using now: we are re-enchanting the world because disenchantment was, in fact, a myth. 

This aspect of nature was called supernatural only because we didn’t know what else to call it. Now we’re beginning to get ideas about how it works, like maybe philosophical idealism is not as silly as some scientists used to believe. 

That’s why part of what I’m writing about in my next book on magic is, in a sense, the naturalization of magic. You pull it out of the supernatural domain, for good reasons, because it’s very closely related to superstition at that point. Then you say, “Well, can science actually learn what magicians were talking about back then? And by the way, also doing continually since then?” The answer is yes. So that’s what that book’s about.

Psi Coaching

Sven: Can people’s psi abilities be enhanced with practice and training? I heard you say that when you screen people for your studies, you look for the most psi-stable. But you see people plateau and don’t move much past that. Can you explain that?

Dean Radin: Yeah, because we’re dealing with something like a talent, right? So we have a question: why can some people who play tennis compete at Wimbledon, and others can’t? Or why are some people really good at musical performance? The answer is simple. People are different. People have different capabilities. 

It’s exactly the same issue in this realm. We know that some personality factors predict better performance. There’s probably also a genetic basis to it, which we are only at the very early stages of understanding. That there is talent in this domain, like any other, should not be surprising at all. And that’s generally what we see. 

Sven: With tennis players or musicians, the more they practice, the better they get. Does it also work with these abilities?

Dean Radin: Up to a plateau. The idea of tennis is a good analog, because someone can say, “I want to play this game I’ve heard about called tennis, and I’m finding it really difficult to do.” So you say, “Show me what you’re doing.” And they’re holding the net part of the racket and trying to hit the ball with the stick. And you say, “Well, I can give you a tip which will help improve your performance. Turn the racquet around and hit the ball with the net part.” And they say, “Oh, this is much easier.” 

This is the kind of tips and tricks that you can tell somebody if they want to become better at psychic performance, and that will improve their game up to a plateau. The plateau is a combination of mental and physical. We know that the mental side is extremely important at elite levels. Simone Biles pulled out of the Olympics in 2020 because she didn’t feel mentally fit. It’s very important. So it’s a combination of both. That means that you can reach physical and mental limits. You take both of them together, and people will go to some level and stop.

Sven: So, if somebody feels a few intuitive sparks, there is some benefit to finding a coach who can tell them which end of the racket to hold. 

Dean Radin: Yes. 

Taboo, or Not Taboo

Sven: Well, last question. I saw this vision of the future, which resembled when the Berlin Wall came down. I call my book CHOOSE A BETTER TRUTH. So, in 1989, a group of people chose a truth better than communism. They picked up sledgehammers and pounded the Berlin Wall to dust. 

I feel that something like that, hopefully without sledgehammers, will happen when most people are actively psi and open about their psi use. Do you have any clues, thoughts, visions, or anything that has come to you about what might happen in the future?

Dean Radin: Well, thoughts, yes. Visions, not so much. But as I write in my new book, look at the difference between 30 to 50 years ago and where we are now. Thirty to 50 years, from an individual’s perspective, is practically a lifetime, but from a historical perspective, it’s like a snap of the fingers. 

For centuries, the suppression of these kinds of abilities was quite strong, but it never went away; they just popped up in entertainment and other places. But the idea that serious journalists and scientists would engage in these sorts of things would always immediately get squashed because some elements of society just didn’t want it. That taboo is really changing, and it’s changing fast. 

In my 2018 book Real Magic, I wrote that you could see this happening. You could see things changing, but this is now five or six years after I wrote that book. And now, cultural and scientific acceptance is changing even faster. 

I’d say we’re on an exponential rise at this point. There’s a lot to indicate this, such as the number of articles published on this topic, the number of conferences, and so on. All of this is presaging that we’re on the cusp of what [Thomas] Kuhn would have said is a paradigm shift. 

It takes a long time, sometimes decades, to see a paradigm shift. I think in a very similar way to, for example, the taboo against same-sex marriage. Overnight, it went from “You cannot do this” to “Who cares, just do it.” So it takes a long time to get to the point where it falls, or the Berlin Wall falls. And when it happens, it seems to happen suddenly, right? 

I think the same will happen here. You’ll get more and more thought leaders who will be less concerned about coming out of the closet about their interests. And I encounter them all the time. Until recently, they always told me, “Don’t tell anybody. I don’t want anyone to know I’m looking at this.” We’re talking about people in the National Academy of Sciences, directors of centers at universities, prominent professors, and so on; all of them are fascinated by this stuff. Only a very few have been comfortable going public about their interest. 

This paradigm-breaking is in historical time. Maybe it takes ten years to do a full break. But on the other hand, if you look back at same-sex marriage, people were working on that taboo for many decades. And then, at some point, some magical threshold was surpassed. And then, like, “Well, who cares anymore?” 

A lot of it has to do with younger people. Older people hold on to taboos that they grew up with for dear life. But younger people come along and say, “What? Why are you even doing that?” So, as each generation comes along, a taboo can just snap.

Sven: Yeah, that’s very true. It gives me a lot of optimism because that’s how I see it happening.

Dean Radin: If we’re lucky, we’ll live long enough to actually see the change. 

One of the things that will happen as a result, as I’ve been predicting for 20 years already, is that a graduate student will do an experiment based on what’s known as “hyper-scanning,” where you take a group of people and take their EEG, and they’re all engaged in some similar task, looking at a screen or something like that. You find that correlations appear in their brain activity as a result of common attention to something. 

Then the grad student will say, “Well, what if we took some of those people and put them in different rooms? Will their brains sync up anyway?” And they’ll find that they do because those experiments have been done, but nobody has paid any attention to them. And then it’ll make a big splash in some of the high-tier journals, and telepathy will be rediscovered for the umpteenth time, only this time, the news will come from the mainstream. 

One hopes that the press will cover the 90 to 100 years of prior research on telepathy, too, and say, “Oh, you know what? This isn’t a new discovery. People have been doing this for a long time.” Unfortunately, what typically happens is that historians remember that, but it’s only the people who made the big splash who are remembered.

Sven: In the biblical story of the apocalypse, we’re expected to have seven years of wailing and gnashing of teeth. That sounds like those who don’t believe in psi abilities and worry that the world is changing and no longer makes sense.

Dean Radin: Well, yes! That is one of the reasons why that taboo has held on; it shatters your beliefs. The other reason why I think there’s a change happening and will continue is because some of the people who have been the strongest skeptics—I’m talking about people like the Amazing Randi and a few other people like that—are dead or dying, and there’s nobody to take their place. They’re very effective at squashing interest in this. 

There were even some rumors that some US government agency may have been involved in supporting some of that activity. They wanted to deflect attention from the StarGate program, so let’s give these skeptics some funding through some laundering foundation. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I believe it might have been true because there was all sorts of nonsense like that going on. But it’s going away. They’re fading away. 

The next thing to fade away will be a change in Wikipedia because Wikipedia adheres very strongly to a scientistic view of reality. 

Sven: Yeah, they still report EMDR as pseudo-science. 

Dean Radin: Yeah, they report anything that’s not mainstream as pseudo-science, and anything that supports it gets the same treatment. And then they sit on those articles to prevent anyone else from editing them. That nonsense is going to go away, too. And when that eventually fades away, then the game has shifted completely.

The entirety of IONS’s work continues to be, as Dr. Mitchell wished, a leading organization in the study of consciousness. The work has fierce implications. No more secrets. A panpsychism view of our world, which includes a conscious and loving universe. 

Some recognize the tremendous freedom this worldview will bring. Others recognize the immense responsibilities that accompany it—that we must be careful and aware of every thought, word, and deed. 

IONS teaches us that we can face this new world with fear and trepidation or with courage and loving anticipation, but we will face it. 

My talk with Dean Radin confirmed what I learned from Edgar Mitchell. We live in a universal consciousness, and resistance to that concept is crumbling more rapidly every day. IONS was 30 years ahead of the mainstream when it was founded, and half a century later, it has stayed 30 years ahead. 

In my next post, we’ll talk with Kim Chestney about her new book, The Illumination Code. In it, she uses the work of IONS to help readers develop intuitive awareness. 

For more information about the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the work they continue to do, visit https://noetic.org/

For more on Dr. Dean Radin, visit https://www.deanradin.com/

1. I had to look this word up. It means basically “gullible.” Oxford Dictionary says, “having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.”

2. Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information

3. Special Access Program