Back to overview
Bio-PK (DMILS)
Distant Mental Influence on Living Systems — measurable effects on another person's autonomic nervous system (skin conductance) through focused intention at a distance.
Key Statistic
DMILS meta-analysis: effect on autonomic nervous system of distant subject (d=0.11, p<0.001)
Could your thoughts actually influence the growth of a plant or the healing of a wound, or are we chasing shadows in the laboratory?
Honesty Dashboard
The instrument, not the argument
✔Strongest Evidence
Meta-analyses of DMILS studies show small but statistically significant effects across multiple experiments, suggesting something beyond chance occurrence
Some well-controlled studies report measurable changes in cell growth rates, enzyme activity, and bacterial cultures under intentional influence
Research by institutions like Princeton's PEAR lab documented consistent patterns in bio-PK experiments over decades
Studies using random number generators to select target organisms help eliminate experimenter bias and show persistent anomalous effects
Cross-cultural replication of similar findings in laboratories worldwide suggests the phenomenon isn't limited to specific researchers or locations
5 points
⚠Strongest Criticism
Effect sizes are typically very small and often at the threshold of statistical significance, raising questions about practical relevance
Many studies suffer from methodological flaws including inadequate controls, potential contamination, and insufficient blinding procedures
Publication bias may inflate apparent success rates, as negative results are less likely to be published or reported
No plausible biological mechanism has been identified that could explain how mental intention affects living systems at a distance
Independent replication attempts often fail to reproduce claimed effects, suggesting the results may be due to experimental artifacts
5 points
?Open Questions
What biological mechanisms, if any, could mediate the interaction between consciousness and living systems?
Why do bio-PK effects appear to be so small and inconsistent across different laboratories and experimenters?
How can experimental protocols be improved to eliminate potential sources of bias and contamination while maintaining ecological validity?
3 points