Empirical Evidence for ? Examining Stevenson's xMost Impressive' Case

LEONARD ANGEL

ne of the most influential sources of empirical evidence for reincarnation is O Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, by (1974). In recent years, my students in various philosophy of religion classes have reminded me of just how influential it has been. Their papers on the afterlife routinely quote authors persuaded by this book that reincarnation or some other paranormal hy- pothesis is the only plausible explanation of Stevenson's data. Ian Stevenson's For example, Linda Badham and Paul Badham conduct of the (1987: 262-263) are struck by "the sheer thoroughness of Stevenson's methods Every Imad Elawar witness was subjected to rigorous questioning, investigation, careful notes were taken of what was said, and these were checked against a second inquiry considered some years later. ... It is just not plausible among the to write Stevenson off as being so keen to con- strongest of his vince us of the truth of reincarnation that he misrepresents matters to fit his case. ... He cases, fails on six does not try to make weak cases out to be fundamental stronger than the evidence warrants." The results, according to the Badhams, are signif- grounds. icant. "Stevenson presents a strong case . . . for saying that at least some claimed 'memories of a former life' appear to be evidential for and suggestive of some theory of reincarnation or possession" (p. 269). Guy Lyon Playfair (1976:165) states that "a study of [the Imad Elawar] case does not seem to lead to any probable explanation other than that of reincarnation." Robert Almeder (1990: 50) concludes that "there is good reason to suppose

Fall 1994 that the hypothesis of reincarnation naturalistic and paranormal phenom- is the best explanation of the cases ena is indicated by the strongest data. documented by Stevenson." Sylvia Sarah Thomason (1987) critically Fraser (1992), like Playfair, specifically scrutinizes later work of Stevenson cites the Imad Elawar case, and based on competences, but endorses Playfair's conclusion. Gun- not the Twenty Cases materials. How apala Dharmasiri (1989:41) states that difficult is it, then, to account for the Stevenson "objectively verified [the] specific content of the best of the claims, and found them true." And Twenty Cases material on purely there are others in a similar vein. naturalistic hypotheses? Oddly enough, despite the length It seems important, however of time since publication of Twenty belated, to undertake a thorough Cases, it is hard to come by detailed critical examination of the Twenty examinations of it. Those who Cases methods and materials. I propose endorse Stevenson's work state that to begin this task. Further, I suggest they have been persuaded, but do not that it is possible in a relatively short say more than that. And skeptics tend space to establish the presumptive to dismiss the work without detailed unreliability of Stevenson's Twenty explanation. For example, Paul Kurtz's Cases work in general, due to gross compendious Transcendental Tempta- failures in his methods of research, tion has a subsection "Reincarnation: write-up of data, and analysis of Past Lives" (Kurtz 1986: 411-414), but hypotheses. there is only the briefest mention of Which case shall we review?The Imad Stevenson's data. Elawar case leaps out at us as especially Paul Edwards (1987) has presented significant. Stevenson (1974: 371) general arguments to support the includes it among his strongest cases. view that the reincarnation hypothe- Further, in this case alone among the sis must be held to be highly improb- 20, Stevenson himself recorded the able. But this seems to sidestep the prior-to-verification memories, was issue of the specific content of the present at the initial meetings evidence. This, in effect, is Almeder's between the boy who had the past- (1990:48) rejoinder to Edwards: life memories and the surviving family "Edwards's charge that all this is just members of the apparent past life, and too incredible for any rational person conducted the verifications of the to believe is simply a blatant bit of memories. "The most impressive in question-begging." John Beloff (1985: this respect is the case of a Lebanese 361) makes a similar point. Ian Wilson boy called Imad, for in this case, (1981, 1987) criticizes Stevenson for Stevenson arrived before anyone had being too light on the fraud issue. But tried to verify any of his alleged most reviewers of these materials hold memories" (Badham and Badham that outright deliberate deception on 1987: 261). And, as we've seen, it is the part of enough of the participants singled out by several for special to warrant dismissing the data is mention as a convincing case. It is highly unlikely. perfect for our review. Edwards quotes Chari's dismissal 111 now try to show that Steven- of many of the cases as cultural son's conduct of the Imad Elawar fabrications. But Chari is not the right investigation fails on six fundamental person to rely on in dismissing the points. Stevenson cases, for Chari (1978: 315) 1. In a proper investigation of is persuaded that a combination of spontaneous past-life memories of a

482 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 18 child, first and foremost is the need of the tabulation makes clear the need to record and report the "original, for a record of just what the parents prior-to-verification memories" in the said, how Stevenson recorded their form in which they were originally data prior to verification, and how it noted. Stevenson presents the original was or was not subsequently reorgan- information he received concerning ized for presentation in tabular form. the boy's memories, according to the Amazingly enough, the boy's memo- parents, as follows: ries are in the end held to be good evidence for reincarnation in spite of They believed that he was claiming the fact that the best past-life candi- to have been one Mahmoud Bou- date Stevenson found was not named hamzy of Khriby who had a wife Mahmoud Bouhamzy, did not have a called Jamilah and who had been fatally injured by a truck after a wife named Jamilah, and did not die quarrel with its driver, (p. 277) as a result of an accident at all, let alone one that followed a quarrel with Stevenson later tabulates 57 items the driver. Yet Stevenson does not as constituting the original prior-to- give sufficient information for the verification memories. But the form reader to know what exactly the in which they were originally recorded parents or the boy himself said that is not given. Inspection of the items entitled Stevenson to discount the

Fall 1994 483 original claims as interpreted by the cation for interpretation of the data parents and instead present the very and as "baffling" (p. 280). Thus it is different claims given in the clear that Stevenson's formulation of tabulation. the data to be verified followed the 2. Any attempts on the part of the effort to verify and was not fixed prior investigator to distinguish between to verification. what the boy stated and what the Examples of this sort of problem informant relatives of the boy inter- abound. The reader who wishes to preted him as stating must be done pursue this can consider item 20, before efforts at verification. Now which reads: "A truck ran over a man, consider Stevenson's write-up of the broke both his legs, and crushed his name "Mahmoud" in the tabulation: trunk" (p. 291). The question is, when did Stevenson formulate the wording 2. Mahmoud (name mentioned by "A truck ran over a man" thus leaving Imad). (p. 287) open whether the man run over was the past-life or not? The parents Under Stevenson's "Comments" we certainly took it that Imad thought his find "Mahmoud Bouhamzy was an past-life was killed as a result of an uncle of Ibrahim Bouhamzy." (Ibrahim accident (pp. 303-304). And Stevenson Bouhamzy is the apparent past-life of understood right to the end that the the boy, according to Stevenson.) boy took it that the past-life had died Thus it is taken as verified that a name as a result of the accident (p. 319). the boy mentioned corresponded to a Then by what right did he alter the real person in the past-life's family, claim. Stevenson has seemingly obfus- as though it is clear that the boy had cated the prior claims and distorted been mentioning a name by way of what he understood to be the boy's referring to that uncle. memories. What is not mentioned in the 3. A third requirement is that data tabulation of data is that the original must not be presented in such a way information given by the parents of as to obscure alternative hypotheses. the boy was that they took their son Consider the identification of the to be claiming to have been Mahmoud town of Khriby. In the tabulation we Bouhamzy of Khriby. Presumably find that the boy is presented as Stevenson doesn't mention this in the having remembered: tabulation because he came to the conclusion that the parents had mis- 1. His name was Bouhamzy and understood the boy, or drew unwar- he lived in the village of Khriby. (p. ranted conclusions from what the boy 287) had said. But when did he come to that conclusion, and on what basis? There In the general account of the is clear evidence that Stevenson came events, it is reported that Imad "had to that conclusion only after traveling given the name of the village (Khriby)" to Khriby with the expectation that (p. 276). Stevenson apparently made the past-life was named "Mahmoud no effort to clarify when the boy was Bouhamzy" and had died as a result supposed to have begun to refer to of an accident. Stevenson refers to his the name "Khriby." However, we are discovery (in Khriby) that the Mah- given to understand that the boy's moud Bouhamzy who had lived in claims were taken seriously only after Khriby was not killed as a result of "a resident of the village of Khriby, an accident with a truck as a compli- where Imad claimed to have lived,

484 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 18 came to Kornayel, and Imad, seeing 5. The specific methods of verifi- him in the street, recognized him in cation should be properly docu- the presence of his paternal grand- mented. However, Stevenson's mother" (p. 276). However, Stevenson method of reporting on his verifica- does not clarify for us—nor, appar- tion standards is certainly inadequate, ently, did he attempt to clarify for and there is strong reason to believe himself—whether or not the identi- that his verification standards them- fication of the town of the previous selves are inadequate. For example, we life as Khriby by Imad followed the see that Stevenson, on at least some "recognition" of the lost friend in the occasions, gathered information by street or preceded it. Did people infer leading questions: "It occurred to me to from the recognition in the street that ask the next day if Ibrahim had happened Imad's past-life would have been in the to have tuberculosis of the spine. Mr. town of the person "recognized," Haffez Bouhamzy then stated that which is to say, Khriby? Or did Imad Ibrahim had tuberculosis of the spine" first state that his past-life was in (p. 281; emphasis added). We soon find Khriby and then recognize the visitor out that the response thus elicited was from Khriby as a neighbor of his past- contradicted by the brother of Ibrahim life? Nothing in the presentation Bouhamzy. Thus, Haffez's verifica- clarifies the point. Thus the tabulation tions are of questionable reliability. He of data creates an unwarranted seems to have been willing to go along impression that there was an original with suggestions. According to the memory of the boy that the residence tabulation, however, the verification of the past-life was a town named of data hinges very largely on Haffez's "Khriby." A similar question can be remarks. Haffez Bouhamzy. was a raised about the name "Bouhamzy." verifier of 28 items. All told, Steven- Stevenson's handling of this sort of son's failure to document his methods issue, indeed, his failure to mention of eliciting verification must count as these questions, vividly demonstrates a serious, even fatal, flaw in his work. an unfortunate insensitivity to central issues in data-gathering, presentation, 6. Most deeply problematic is the and interpretation. fact that the most challenging rival account of the data to the rein- 4. Tabulation of the data should carnation hypothesis has not even not hide problems in comments. How- been raised, let alone assessed. The ever, Stevenson fails egregiously on appropriate rival account has to do this issue. A typical example: accord- with the statistics of the informational ing to item 35, the boy referred to a nexus surrounding any "psychically" full well and an empty well at the delivered material. home of the past-life. This is taken Consider the names, for instance. as confirmed by the fact that there Was it likely that there had been were two vats used for storing grape references to the name "Bouhamzy" juice. "During the rainy season one that Imad would have heard prior to of these vats became filled with water, using it? (Yes.) Are the first names, but the other, shallower vat did not, "Mahmoud," "Amin," "Said," and so because the water evaporated from it. on, common names? (They are.) Was Thus one would be empty while the it common for there to be wells in other was full" (p. 293). Does a five- these villages? (Yes.) How common year-old Druse village boy not know were garages, sheds, gardens, and the difference between a vat and a other items prominent in the tabula- well? tion of supposed verifications? (Very

Fall 1994 485 common.) In general, then, how was the memory correct that he difficult would it be to find someone himself did not drive his truck (since in any large village in that general Ibrahim was a truck driver), nor were vicinity who matched more or less as there two garages in Ibrahim's house, many features as Ibrahim Bouhamzy nor was it true that Ibrahim had had is said to have matched, given an equal one goat (rather, Ibrahim's family had amount of post-facto reinterpretation a flock of goats when Ibrahim was and latitude allowed? young), nor is it true that Ibrahim had The correspondences between a sheep (his family had a flock of sheep Imad Elawar's memories and Ibrahim when he was young), nor is it true Bouhamzy of Khriby are hardly that Ibrahim had five children (Ibra- impressive when we remember the him never married, and died at the age information accepted originally by of 25, after spending the last year in Stevenson and other points buried in a tuberculosis sanatorium), nor could the comments: The boy seemed to Ibrahim speak English. claim he was Mahmoud Bouhamzy, In virtue of what original claims, but no Mahmoud Bouhamzy fitting then, does Stevenson allow himself other features could be found. The and the family to zero in on Ibrahim best candidate according to Stevenson Bouhamzy? There were three infor- and the family members was Ibrahim mants who said Ibrahim had a mistress Bouhamzy. But Ibrahim Bouhamzy named Jamilah, and three who gave did not have a wife named Jamilah, "discrepant testimony." Jamilah was did not have a daughter named beautiful, and Imad said Jamilah was Mehibeh, did not have a brother who beautiful. Jamilah wore red and was a judge in Tripoli, did not have dressed well; Ibrahim was a "friend" a son called "Adil," did not have a son of the famous Druse politician Kemal called "Talil or Talal," did not have a Joumblatt; he had a farm; there was son called "Salim," did not have a son a sort of entrance with a round called "Kemal," did not have an opening; Ibrahim was fond of hunting; accident in which his legs were Ibrahim had a hidden gun; Ibrahim broken, did not go to the doctor's place once beat a dog; there was a slope near where he had an operation as a result Ibrahim's house; Ibrahim had been of the accident, nor was any accident rebuilding his garden; Ibrahim had a connected with Ibrahim the result of small yellow automobile, a bus, and a quarrel with the driver of a truck a truck (although they were owned in the accident, nor were people killed by the family and not, as Imad had in such an accident, nor did Ibrahim suggested, by the past-life as an die as a result of an accident, nor was individual). That seems to be the sum the driver of Ibrahim's truck, or any total of the correspondences remain- truck, involved with Ibrahim, a Chris- ing from the original prior-to- tian, nor did Ibrahim have a hunting verification memories. (That the dog, nor did Ibrahim have two wells garden had cherry and apple trees at his house, nor did Ibrahim use a cannot be taken to verify the memory truck to haul stones to his garden (nor that "the new garden had cherry and was the truck in the accident full of apple trees" since Stevenson did not stones), nor was it correct that Ibra- claim to establish when these trees him had enough money and land so were planted.) as to enable him to have no regular business (Ibrahim used a truck com- All these correspondences are mercially and was a bus driver), nor easily accounted for on naturalistic lines. Given all the failures, the

486 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 18 uncertainties, the unexplored con- even less reliable than this one. trary possibilities, and the evident unreliability of the supposed verifica- References tions, the case seems particularly Almeder, Robert. 1990. "On Reincarnation." unimpressive. Most important is this: In What Survives? ed. by Gary Doore, 34- the boy seemed to have in mind that 50. Los Angeles: Tarcher. in his past-life he was a n important Badham, Paul, and Linda Badham. 1987. family man, wealthy enough not t o Immortality or Extinction? Savage, Md.: have to work, with a beautiful wife Barnes & Noble. (As excerpted in Philo- sophical Thinking, ed. by Ralph Clark, and five children, moving in important West Publ. Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1987. circles, who met with a tragic accident Page references are to the Clark anthol- in which his legs were broken, from ogy. No date is given for the original which he died. This just doesn't seem source in the Clark anthology.) to be Ibrahim Bouhamzy, a truck Beloff, John. 1985. "What Is Your Counter- Explanation? A Plea to Skeptics to Think driver who used his family's cars, and Again." In A Skeptic's Handbook of Para- died unmarried, and probably child- psychology, ed. by Paul Kurtz, 359-377. less, at 25 of tuberculosis. It's only the Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. way in which the information is Beyerstein, Barry. 1987-88. The brain and misleadingly tabulated that leads consciousness, SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, 12: 163-173, Winter. Reprinted in The Hun- people to miss the problems. Once we dredth Monkey, ed. by Kendrick Frazier, factor in what Persi Diaconis (1978) Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y., 1991. calls the problems in confirming data Chari. 1978. "Reincarnation and Research: with "multiple end points," w e see just Method and Interpretation." In The Signet how weak the Imad Elawar case is. Handbook of Parapsychology, ed. by Martin Ebon, 313-324. New York: Signet. By far the majority of the details Dharmasiri, Gunapala. 1989. Buddhist Ethics. of the original claims attributed by the Antioch: Golden Leaves. Diaconis, Persi. 1978. Statistical problems in parents to t h e i r son were failures, but ESP research. Science, 201:131-136. discounted on some ground or other. Edwards, Paul. 1986-1987. The case against One can't help but w o n d e r what the reincarnation, Parts 1-3. Free Inquiry, boy would have done if he had been 6(4): 24-34; 7(l):38-43, 46-48; 7(2): 38- led to some other village altogether. 43, 46-49. Fraser, Sylvia. 1992. The Book of Strange. (For clear evidence of the boy's Toronto: Doubleday. malleability, see p. 312.) All in all the Kurtz, Paul. 1986. The Transcendental truly relevant rival hypothesis to rein- Temptation. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus carnation is that of a distorted impres- Books. sion of the significance of the data. Playfair, Guy Lyon. 1976. The Indefinite Boundary. New York: St. Martin's. Yet Stevenson never even considered Stevenson, Ian. 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive it. of Reincarnation. Charlottesville: Univer- Conclusions: In sum, Stevenson sity of Virginia Press. does not skillfully record, present, or Thomason, Sarah. 1987. Past tongues remembered. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, analyze his own data. If a case 11:367-375, Spring. regarded by Stevenson to be among Wilson, Ian. 1981. Mind Out of Time. Cited the strongest of his cases—the only by Paul Edwards, 1986-1987. case of the 20 that had its purported . 1987. The After-Death Experience. verifications conducted by Stevenson New York: William Morrow. himself—falls apart under scrutiny as badly as the Imad Elawar case does, Leonard Angel is in the Arts & Human- it is reasonable to conclude that the ities Department, Douglas College, P.O. other cases, in which data were first Box 2503, New Westminster, B.C. V3L gathered by untrained observers, are 5B2, Canada.

Fall 1994 487