A test of leaving the body

Researchers at the University of Virginia Health System ran a study on whether consciousness can gather information from outside the body. The result was not the one they set up to find.

Twenty-one people, one laptop

The team recruited 21 participants and asked each to name a random object displayed on a laptop screen in a separate room, behind closed doors.

Nobody got the object

Ten participants reported having an out-of-body experience. Thirteen named an object. Not a single one named the right object.

Then the twist

Two participants did not identify the object, but described the researchers in the other room in exact detail, including where they sat and what they were doing.

The first description

One participant said a researcher was seated on the left looking at a laptop screen, while a second researcher sat farther back, reading a book.

The second description

Another participant placed one researcher on the right taking notes, and a second on the left at the computer.

The records checked out

Trial records confirmed both descriptions matched what was happening in the room at the time of those participants' sessions.

No line of sight

The participants had no ordinary way to see any of it. The researchers were behind closed doors in another room the whole time.

A name for it

The team floated the idea of "out-of-body remote viewing": picking up scene details rather than the target the experiment was actually testing for.

What it would mean

Lead author Dr Marina Weiler says accurate information gathered outside the ordinary senses would force a rethink of how consciousness, perception and the physical world connect.

“We would have to reconsider some of our assumptions about the relationship between consciousness, perception and the physical world.”

Weiler's own caveat

She is explicit that two cases prove nothing yet. The finding has to be tested prospectively, under rigorous conditions, before anyone can say what it means.

“The unexpected findings give us a potentially useful new direction, but they also need to be tested prospectively.”

Better questions, not answers

Weiler frames the value as methodological. A surprise result handed the team a specific, testable idea they did not have before.

“Unexpected findings can sometimes help us ask better questions.”

The wider backdrop

A 2017 NYU Langone study of cardiac arrest survivors found some could recall conversations and events around them after their hearts stopped, though brainwaves vanish within 20 seconds.