Open Skepticism of FC or Willful Ignorance? Thoughts About the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 4)
Today’s blog post is a review of episode 4 of the Telepathy tapes. I’ll link prior blog posts and reviews of the podcast below. We’ve been getting emails from followers of our website (thank you!) and others who are concerned about the podcast and, hopefully, our critique of the series will help answer some questions and give voice to some of those concerns.
Image by Susan Wilkinson
Unlike prior episodes, Ky Dickens, the narrator and documentarian for the podcast, spends very little time describing the testing she and Diane Hennacy Powell are conducting into the phenomenon of telepathic abilities in nonspeaking or minimally speaking individuals with autism. Rather, most of the episode is focused on parents’ experiences with Facilitated Communication (FC) and the less publicized aspect of the “spellers” community: a belief in psychic or telepathic abilities that they report exists between facilitators and their children and/or among nonspeaking individuals who, it’s claimed, communicate “mind to mind” over long distances. Dickens implores her listeners to approach the subject with “open skepticism” (whatever that means). She, seemingly, wants us to take on faith that all nonspeakers have telepathic abilities, because that’s what is being told to us by proponents of FC. She’s quick to characterize doubters of these claims as ableist critics who are materialistic and “unable to think outside the box.”
Editor’s note from: Prior, Margot and Cummins, Robert. (1992).
There has always been a fringe element of the “spellers’ community” who believe in FC as a psychic power, but with the Telepathy Tapes and promotion by Dickens, there appears to be a push by some within the community to break the silence about these beliefs and make them mainstream. (See Haskew and Donnellan’s Bizarre take on FC) I have yet to see a critical review of the series by FC/S2C/RPM proponents, so I wonder how “fringe” this belief actually is. We’re told, perhaps inadvertently, by one of the FC-generated messages included in the episode that FC/S2C/RPM proponents are not interested in scientific studies or academic work but instead want to popularize FC and telepathy by recruiting sheer numbers to the cause.
Update: since writing this blog post, I-ASC, a pro-FC group, has added this statement to their policies and positions page: “I-ASC does not integrate or endorse telepathy or other such personal beliefs as part of S2C. Introducing such concepts into S2C compromises the integrity and credibility of this rigorously defined methodology.”
And while I strongly disagree with their characterization that S2C is a rigorously defined or “evidence-based” methodology (wording they use in other parts of the statement), it is interesting to me that an organization that supports one pseudoscientific practice (FC/S2C) is distancing themselves from another pseudoscientific practice (telepathy). I suspect it’s because they don’t want researchers, educators, parents, and skeptics like me looking too closely at FC/S2C/RPM.
This isn’t the first time proponents of FC have employed a marketing strategy that goes straight to the popular media. As Brian Gorman recounts in his 1999 article “Facilitated Communication in America: Eight years and counting,” Douglas Biklen, founder of the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University (now the ICI) bypassed the scientific peer review process with what Eric Schopler called an “unusual and excessive hype” of FC (See Cummins and Prior, 1992) first with the publication of his article “Communication Unbound” in the scholarly-sounding (but not peer reviewed) publication Harvard Review and then with feel-good, miracle accounts of FC “success” stories in newspapers and on television which were later used as testimonials in pro-FC workshops as “proof” that FC works. And, in doing so, Biklen “turned tens of thousands of people into believers of FC overnight without presenting a shred of scientific evidence.” (Gorman, 1999)
Soma Mukhopadhyay, too, employed this marketing strategy when she turned to the popular media to promote Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), a technique she “created” after a simple blind test set up by her husband failed to prove their son’s touch-based FC communications were independently produced. (See Truth Will Out: Review of Portia Iversen’s “Strange Son”). We’ve documented some of the many credulous news reports, YouTube videos, and movies that promote FC in all its variant forms on our website. (See FC in the Media: News)
And, while the Telepathy Tapes isn’t forging new ground (founder Rosemary Crossley, in her 1994 FC training book, mentioned that she believed telepathic messages obtained via FC were the product of facilitator influence), I wondered why an academic like Powell would want to participate in such a project. As the series has unfolded, it’s been clear to me that Powell isn’t interested in testing for authorship in FC, since in every so-called telepathy test Dickens has described in the podcast so far (and that I paid the fee to watch), the facilitators have had access to the test stimuli (e.g., pictures, numbers, words, passages from books) while the nonspeaking participants have been blinded from seeing the cues. (This is exactly backwards from what the researchers should be doing to rule in or rule out facilitator interference over letter selection). In episode 4, we get a glimpse into Powell’s past and, perhaps, the reason she signed on to the project.
Throughout the series, Dickens has been crafting an “us against them” narrative between scientists, educators, and others who question the validity of FC and telepathy and the parents, academics, and documentarians (like herself) who believe, without reliably controlled evidence, in the existence of both. Right from Episode 1, she’s lamented about how hard it is to get funding for research into telepathy and blaming the supposed close-mindedness of scientists for the dearth of research supporting these supernatural abilities. In episode 4, Dickens claims that Powell didn’t get funding for her research project into telepathy because she wrote a book on the topic. As Dickens tells it, “When Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell published her book the ESP Enigma, the medical board fined her and revoked her license without even reading it. The mere mention of ESP was so taboo that she paid the price before anyone considered the science behind her work. Only after they reviewed her research was her license reinstated.”
2011 Stipulated Order from the Oregon. Medical Board, State of Oregon
But science communicator Jonathan Jarry found something altogether different when he researched Powell’s past for his article “The Telepathy Tapes Prove We All Want to Believe.” In it, Jarry writes that publicly available documents (here and here) from the Oregon Medical Board revealed the real reasons for the suspension of Powell’s license in 2010. The suspension had nothing to do with her book. Among other things, Powell was found by the board to have treated some patients “living outside of Oregon primarily by telephone sessions” and of “charting of other in-state patients [that] did not comply with community standards.” According to one court document, Powell waived her right to a contested case hearing and any appeal, but neither admitted nor denied the Board’s findings. Regardless, the Board found she engaged in conduct that was “unprofessional or dishonorable” and in violation of ORS 677.190(1)(a) and ORS 677.188(4)(a)(b) and “gross or repeated acts of negligence” in violation of ORS 677.190(13). In 2011, Powell’s license was reinstated, and she was allowed to return to her practice subject to specific terms and conditions as outlined in a stipulated court order from the Oregon Medical Board.
I include this not because I think that, in 2025, Powell shouldn’t continue to pursue her career as a neuropsychiatrist, if she’s licensed to do so and follows the rules of the licensing board. It’s possible there is a reasonable explanation for the mistakes she made in 2011. But I find it disingenuous of Dickens to blame Powell’s suspension on the scientific community when it appears that Powell herself (whether she admitted it publicly or not) made poor choices in her professional practice that led to the (temporary) suspension of her license.
Although these were the major issues that stood out to me in episode 4, I was also left with some questions and concerns as to relationship building and FC use. Dickens and the others involved with the project continue to avoid the question of authorship in FC, which in my mind is the major question they need to overcome before moving on to investigating claims of telepathy.
For now, I leave you with these thoughts and questions:
I wonder why Dickens refers to FC/S2C/RPM facilitators as “therapists.” What kind of therapists are these? Psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral analysists, and Speech/Language Pathologists should not be using FC, since their professional organizations all have statements opposing its use. The word “therapy” implies some form of treatment aimed at rehabilitating the person in some way. To my understanding, facilitators aren’t meant to do anything except support the person physically and emotionally during the letter selection activity. Are facilitators now calling themselves “therapists” even though there is no national standardized training or licensing board for FC/S2C/RPM practitioners?
The parents and facilitators in this episode appear to be encouraging a relationship (with hopes of marriage) between two nonspeaking individuals based on FC-generated messages even though the words cannot be independently verified (e.g., without interference from the facilitators). This raises questions about the role of facilitators in intimate relationships between nonspeaking individuals. It didn’t sound like the two individuals featured in the episode spent much time with each other (their “relationship” was largely centered around supposed “mind to mind” interactions when they were apart from each other in their own, separate houses), however, it does remind me of the song “Four in the Bedroom,” attributed to RPM user Elizabeth Bonker, that discusses the prospect of the facilitators “supporting” the nonspeaking individuals in fulfilling their sexual desire for one another. That opens up a whole new avenue of creepiness and possible criminal activity.
The episode also raises the issue of informed consent—something Dickens claims is important—which cannot be obtained by using facilitator-dependent techniques like FC/S2C/RPM. Not only is informed consent an issue in conducting research where FCed individuals are participants, it also includes relationships with nonspeaking individuals being subjected to FC and any potential romantic/intimate partners (speaking or nonspeaking). The parents in Episode 4 were talking about marriage between the two individuals who, one mother reports, barely spend any time together and while this may only be a fantasy at this point, the idea raises ethical issues around using FC-generated messages as a basis for serious, life-changing decisions, which most organizations opposing FC/S2C/RPM warn against. See also false allegations of abuse and facilitator crimes.
Proponents of FC/S2C/RPM are under the misconception that the validity of FC messages can be obtained with the use of multiple facilitators. However, for this to be true, each facilitator would have to be tested individually under reliably controlled conditions to rule in or rule out their interference with letter selection. Multiple facilitators (either in a school setting or in a family setting) often share information without being fully conscious of the fact and, therefore, FC-generated messages produced by multiple facilitators cannot be relied upon as a guarantee of authenticity. In some instances, where two facilitators produced different written output in authorship testing, the facilitators blamed the nonspeaking individual for goofing around or for not taking the activity seriously enough.
The QEEG tests described in the episode do not prove the existence of telepathic brain activity in the participants, particularly given that the facilitator had access to the test stimuli (e.g., pictures, words, numbers). I find it interesting that there was no detectable difference in brain activity between the client’s resting QEEG and the supposed telepathic QEEG. To me, that indicates that the FCed individual might not have been actively engaged in producing the responses. It would be interesting to see if the facilitator’s brain activity changed during her resting, then facilitating states.
The person doing the tests, Jeff Tarrant, author of a book called Becoming Psychic: Lessons from the Minds of Mediums, Healers, and Psychics, concluded that there was telepathic activity in the person with autism even though there was no change in brain activity between the resting and active states. I wonder if he would, equally, have found telepathic activity if there were differences in brain activity? Also, how would he be able to discern “telepathic” brain activity from brain activity that occurred, say, if the person being tested fidgeted because the cap on his head was uncomfortably tight or the clip on his ear was bugging him? Is there a way to discriminate between and among different types of brain waves (e.g., brainwaves caused by irritation that the cap is too tight vs. telepathic brainwaves)? Do telepathic brainwaves have distinct characteristics? How would he know?
References and Recommended Reading
Blog Posts Reviewing the Telepathy Tapes
FC’s Lesser Known Side: Thoughts about the Telepathy Tapes (Episode 1)
Proving Facilitator Authorship in FC/RPM Messages: Thoughts about The Telepathy Tapes (Episode 3)
Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.60.3.013h5022862vu732
Gorman, Brian. (1998). Facilitated Communication in America: Eight Years and Counting. Skeptic. Vol 6 (3), p. 64
Jarry, Jonathan. (2024, December 13). The Telepathy Tapes Prove We All Want to Believe. McGill Office for Science and Society.
Lilienfeld, S., Marshall, J., Todd, J., & Shane, H. (2014). The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated Communication for autism as a case example. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 8(2) 62-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.976332
Prior, Margot and Cummins, Robert. (1992). Questions about Facilitated Communication and Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol. 22 (2); 331-337.
Spitz, H. (1997). Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to Facilitated Communication. Routledge. ISBN 978-0805825633
Todd , J.T. (2012) The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator”. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 36-57. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.704738
Tostanoski, A., et.al. (2014, August). Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17 (4), 219-223. DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2012.749952
Twatchman-Cullen, Diane. (2018). A Passion to Believe: Autism and the Facilitated Communication Phenomenon. Routledge.