What the Windbridge Research Center Has Found About Professional Mediums

When people tell me that science has either proven or debunked mediumship, my first question is always: which studies are you referring to? Because most people making that claim — on either side — haven't actually looked at what's been studied. They're repeating a conclusion without knowing the evidence behind it.

I'm just at the beginning of my journey of looking into the research behind mediumship and I am definitely no expert. But I know the Windbridge Research Center is one of the organizations that is highly respected. I'm bringing some of their research here to open up discussion!

Here's what's there — and where the honest limitations are.

What Windbridge Is

The Windbridge Research Center is a private research organization in Arizona founded by Julie Beischel, who holds a doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Arizona. Her co-director Mark Boccuzzi has a background in psychology and research methodology. The organization isn't affiliated with a university, which gives it independence from institutional pressures but also means its funding is limited and its output smaller than a well-resourced academic lab.

Windbridge has published peer-reviewed research in journals including Explore, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Before including mediums in their studies, they put them through an eight-step screening and certification process — which means they're not working with self-selected samples or whoever shows up claiming to be a medium.

How They Designed the Studies

The primary study design Windbridge uses is what they call a quintuple-blind protocol.

Here's how it works:

The medium and the person who commissioned the reading never meet or speak. The medium is given only a first name to focus on — nothing else. A separate researcher who doesn't know which medium received which target manages the transcripts. The sitter then receives two reading transcripts — one intended for them and one intended for a different sitter — and rates both without knowing which is which. Statistical analysis then compares the accuracy scores for intended versus unintended transcripts.

That design controls for cold reading, sensory cuing, hot reading, and the problem of a rater knowing which reading is theirs. It's not a perfect design — no study design is — but it's methodologically serious in a way that most mediumship research simply isn't.

The results, published in a 2015 paper in Explore, showed that sitters rated the transcripts intended for them significantly higher than the transcripts intended for different sitters. The effect was statistically significant.

What That Does and Doesn't Mean

This is where I want to be careful, because it's easy to overclaim in either direction.

What the Windbridge studies show is that the certified mediums in their research produced information specific enough to their intended targets that sitters could reliably distinguish it from information intended for someone else. What they don't prove is the mechanism. Ruling out the most obvious non-paranormal explanations doesn't automatically mean spirit communication is what's happening — it means the results aren't easily explained by what we currently know.

The honest position: this research is suggestive, methodologically careful by the standards of this field, and not yet replicated at sufficient scale by independent groups to be considered settled. The effect sizes are meaningful but modest. The sample of certified mediums is intentionally small. These are real limitations — not reasons to dismiss the work, but reasons to hold it as evidence that warrants more investigation rather than as definitive proof of anything.

I find it compelling. I don't find it conclusive. Both of those things can be true at once.

I don't say any of this to say I'm skeptical of mediumship. That would be strange to say as a medium myself! Just that the scienctific community has not been able to conclusively determine if it's "real" based on current methodologies.

The Finding That Surprised Me Most

Beyond the accuracy research, Windbridge has studied the psychological profile of practicing mediums, their subjective experience of the work, and the effect of readings on bereaved sitters. That last piece is the one I keep coming back to.

Their research on bereaved people who received readings found significant improvements in grief symptoms — even in the absence of high accuracy. The experience of attempting contact appeared to be helpful independently of whether the information received was specific and verifiable.

That finding matters to me for a reason that has nothing to do with wanting to validate my own work. It means the accuracy question and the comfort question are somewhat separate. People aren't only coming to readings for proof. They're coming because something about the attempt itself is meaningful. Understanding that distinction changes how I think about what I'm actually providing when I sit with someone in grief.

That said, for me, accuracy and evidence that is unique and specific is the highest standard that I aim to achieve each and every time. I want to be able to one day show that mediumship is true AND comforting. Both things need to be present for a reading to be impactful. Proof that your loved one continues on and the comfort of feeling the energy of their spirit with you everyday. The best of mediums are able to provide that simultaneously.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Julie Beischel a credible researcher? She holds a doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology and has published peer-reviewed research in multiple journals. Her work has been criticized by skeptics for methodological limitations, and she's responded to those criticisms in published papers. Reading her actual work is more informative than second-hand accounts in either direction.

Has anyone tried to replicate these studies? Independent replication has been limited. Research on mediumship accuracy with blinding controls has been conducted by other groups, but the field is small and well-funded independent replications are scarce. That's a genuine limitation of the existing evidence base — worth acknowledging rather than glossing over.

Are you a Windbridge-certified medium? No. Their certification involves a rigorous eight-step screening process and they work with an intentionally small number of mediums. I reference their research because it represents the most methodologically serious academic work on mediumship accuracy currently available — not because of any affiliation with them. At least not today.

Where can I read the research myself? The Windbridge Research Center website lists their published papers, many available as free downloads. Their 2015 paper in Explore — "Anomalous Information Reception by Research Mediums Under Blinded Conditions" — is the best starting point for understanding their primary methodology and results.

The question of what can actually be studied and verified about this work is one I return to constantly. If that intersection of evidence and spirit communication interests you, it's territory I explore on the Soul Signals Podcast and inside the Soul Alignment Collective.

[Join the SAC Waitlist →]