Remarkable Psychic Experiences Of Famous Persons
BY WALTER F. PRINCE, PH.D.,
Official Investigator American Society for Psychical Research
It does not necessarily give an occult incident more weight that it was
experienced or related and credited by a person whose name is prominent
for one reason or another. The great are nearly as likely to suffer
illusions, pathological hallucinations, and aberrations as the humble
remainde
of mankind, or, according to Lombroso a good deal more so. Nor
have famous persons a monopoly of veracity. Besides, a rare
psychological incident is not more or less a problem, nor has it more or
less significance in the experience of honest John Jones than in that of
William Shakespeare.
And yet it is natural and quite proper to look with somewhat enhanced
interest upon the experiences or the testimonies of those whose names
are in the cyclopedias and biographical dictionaries. It is legitimate
to set these forth and to call attention to them. These persons at least
we know something about. William Moggs of Waushegan, Wisconsin, may be a
very excellent and trustworthy man but we don't know him, and it is
tedious to be told that somebody else whom we may know as little knows
and esteems him. How do we know that the avouching unknown could not
have been sold a gold brick? But Henry M. Stanley, and General Fremont,
and W. P. Frith, and Henry Clews are characters whom we do know
something about, or at least whom we can easily look up for ourselves in
biographical dictionaries and Who's Whos. They are names which have at
the very outset a reputation which has impressed the world, which stand
for assured ability, genius, achievement, forcefulness of one kind or
another. Even though we have no particular data at hand regarding the
veracity of a particular member of the shining circle, it is not easy to
see why he, having an assured reputation, should dim it by telling
spooky lies. It is easier to conceive of William Moggs, a quite obscure
man, calling attention to himself by the device, though as a rule the
William Moggs's do nothing of the kind. We spontaneously argue within
ourselves, in some inchoate fashion, "That fellow made his mark in the
world; he gained a big reputation by his superiority to the rank and
file in some particular at least; it will be worth while to hear what he
has to say."
We present herewith a group of such testimonies either given out to the
world by prominent persons as their own experiences or as the
experiences of persons whom they knew and believed, or else as told by
friends of the prominent persons whose experiences they were.
It is not owing to any selective process that the material is mostly of
the sort which favors supernormal hypotheses. We take what we can get.
Whenever an experience is accompanied by a normal explanation, such will
be included only a little more willingly than an experience which does
not readily suggest a normal explanation. But, let it be noted, the
groups which we propose will be composed of human experiences, and not
opinions, except as the opinions accompany the experiences. And it
cannot be expected that, after certain types of experiences as related
by certain men have been given, we shall then proceed to name other men
who haven't had any such experiences. True, against Paul du Chaillu's
assertion that he had seen gorillas was once urged the fact that nobody
else had ever seen gorillas. Nevertheless the sole assertion of the one
man who had seen them proved to outweigh in value the lack of experience
on the part of all other travelers up to that time.