standards in evidential mediumship

Mediumship may work wonderfully well when it's successful but has absolutely nothing to offer about why it's not, when it's not...

I wonder if mediums ever ask their spirit-side helper(s) the reason when mediumship is not satisfactory? Are they afraid to find out or don't feel they should ask?

There has to be a reason, or reasons, when mediumship is less than satisfactory. Three immediately spring to mind.

Firstly friends and relatives are unaware that the sitter is hoping to hear from them, to learn they are still alive. Secondly a particular sitter may have no friends or relatives interested or prepared to offer evidence of their survival. Thirdly the individuals are there and trying to reach out but unable to link with the medium, one possible reason being that the medium simply is not skilled/practised enough to achieve what's needed.

Clearly a medium would be unable to bring evidence where individuals are unaware or unprepared to co-operate. But when it has become a regular occurrence for a particular seeker, surely the medium could be asked to find out why? One might also ask if mediums ought to be doing this routinely of themselves when sittings are less than satisfactory? It might be their wake-up call.

Is all this too simplistic? Is there a reason why a competent, experienced medium should not be expected to seek an explanation when a sitting is unsuccessful?

Hi mac I can only give you my opinions here,

but has absolutely nothing to offer about why it's not, when it's not...

I believe it is often the medium's interpretation of what they are recieving which is wrong, some will admit it, some won't, but we have to remember mediums are human and have bad days at work too.

If I give a bad mediumship reading I will apologise and offer another at a later date, if it doesn't work again then it's time to call it a day with that person, but I do find sometimes that there are some people you just can't read for no matter how much you try.

Firstly friends and relatives are unaware that the sitter is hoping to hear from them, to learn they are still alive.

I don't believe this, I feel as soon as a sitter has thought about visiting a medium that thought goes out and their relative will pick it up, particularly if they are thinking 'I wonder if I would get gran through if I went to see a medium' also many relatives look in on their loved ones and will often impress them to go and visit a medium especially if they have an important message for them.

Secondly a particular sitter may have no friends or relatives interested or prepared to offer evidence of their survival.

I feel what you say about them simply not wanting to come through is probably the most likely, this could be for a number of reasons such as their relative not wanting to move forward if they become dependant on mediums and sittings, they aren't 'letting go.' Others may not believe they can come through, others may be so busy up there with their own progression it may not cross their mind to come back.

Thirdly the individuals are there and trying to reach out but unable to link with the medium, one possible reason being that the medium simply is not skilled/practised enough to achieve what's needed.

I think there is truth here too, i'm experiencing this now, a lack of practice due to other issues has left me very rusty, but spirits will often go to great lengths if they want to get a message accross, for instance I did a reading for someone a long time ago and she couldn't take a single bit of it, she showed it another relative and they understood every word, so indirectly it got to the right person in the end, but on the face of it i'd given a rubbish reading to a sitter, which made me feel bad.

Is all this too simplistic? Is there a reason why a competent, experienced medium should not be expected to seek an explanation when a sitting is unsuccessful?

I think sometimes a medium will know in themselves why, but many blame spirit or the sitter, I think you have to be in totally the right frame of mind to give a good reading, I think many (including myself in the past ) try and read when they are not really feeling up to it but it can be very hard to say no sometimes.

There are so many imponderables in the process that it may be not just one thing that is making the reading poor.
It's often been said that the attitude of the sitter is crucial. A barrier can so easily be put up if the sitter in unreceptive or
even hostile. I know for sure, though, that there are other reasons . I had a dreadful reading from one of the main mediums at
the S.A.G.B. of all places. He has a very good reputation and so I was excited to hear what he had to say to me. In a nutshell,
he listed a whole string of names some of whom meant nothing to me and some which could have referred to more than one person.
What was so diappointing was that he never followed on with any message. He just said they were here with us. I can honestly say
only one thing was given to me that meant anything at all. I was very receptive so it must have been something else that caused the poor reading.It cost me £40!!

Viking wrote:There are so many imponderables in the process that it may be not just one thing that is making the reading poor.
It's often been said that the attitude of the sitter is crucial. A barrier can so easily be put up if the sitter in unreceptive or
even hostile. I know for sure, though, that there are other reasons . I had a dreadful reading from one of the main mediums at
the S.A.G.B. of all places. He has a very good reputation and so I was excited to hear what he had to say to me. In a nutshell,
he listed a whole string of names some of whom meant nothing to me and some which could have referred to more than one person.
What was so diappointing was that he never followed on with any message. He just said they were here with us. I can honestly say
only one thing was given to me that meant anything at all. I was very receptive so it must have been something else that caused the poor reading.It cost me £40!!

This kinda makes my point - too little responsibility, or none at all, being taken by the so-called medium. The wake up call for certain sensitives, though, will never be heard as they don't even realise that they are not 'performing' as evidential mediums.

Rarely do I speak about myself but 25 years ago at the SAGB much the same thing happened to me and my wife. I knew little at that time but travelled specially to London in the expectation that what we found at the SAGB would be authentic and reliable - one early lesson of many I had to learn from.

The further I go along my path, the clearer I become on the subject of evidential mediumship. The more I hear nowadays, the more I feel convinced that many so-called mediums have little idea what's going on at all or how poorly they are performing. But I have now accepted that much contemporary mediumship is not what I now deliberately term 'evidential mediumship'. I've often said my piece on that.

For me personally it doesn't matter. For me as a would-be helper of those seeking/needing support it makes my blood boil when I hear about the poor experiences some seekers have. Increasingly seekers are turning to websites to look for answers and I am almost daily appalled at what I read on forum pages from members purporting to know about 'stuff'.

I don't consider myself as an expert on anything but many members are posting as if they are when it's plain their 'knowledge' is superficial or inaccurate.

Violet wrote:Hi mac I can only give you my opinions here,

but has absolutely nothing to offer about why it's not, when it's not...

I believe it is often the medium's interpretation of what they are recieving which is wrong, some will admit it, some won't, but we have to remember mediums are human and have bad days at work too.

If I give a bad mediumship reading I will apologise and offer another at a later date, if it doesn't work again then it's time to call it a day with that person, but I do find sometimes that there are some people you just can't read for no matter how much you try.

Firstly friends and relatives are unaware that the sitter is hoping to hear from them, to learn they are still alive.

I don't believe this, I feel as soon as a sitter has thought about visiting a medium that thought goes out and their relative will pick it up, particularly if they are thinking 'I wonder if I would get gran through if I went to see a medium' also many relatives look in on their loved ones and will often impress them to go and visit a medium especially if they have an important message for them.

Secondly a particular sitter may have no friends or relatives interested or prepared to offer evidence of their survival.

I feel what you say about them simply not wanting to come through is probably the most likely, this could be for a number of reasons such as their relative not wanting to move forward if they become dependant on mediums and sittings, they aren't 'letting go.' Others may not believe they can come through, others may be so busy up there with their own progression it may not cross their mind to come back.

Thirdly the individuals are there and trying to reach out but unable to link with the medium, one possible reason being that the medium simply is not skilled/practised enough to achieve what's needed.

I think there is truth here too, i'm experiencing this now, a lack of practice due to other issues has left me very rusty, but spirits will often go to great lengths if they want to get a message accross, for instance I did a reading for someone a long time ago and she couldn't take a single bit of it, she showed it another relative and they understood every word, so indirectly it got to the right person in the end, but on the face of it i'd given a rubbish reading to a sitter, which made me feel bad.

Is all this too simplistic? Is there a reason why a competent, experienced medium should not be expected to seek an explanation when a sitting is unsuccessful?

I think sometimes a medium will know in themselves why, but many blame spirit or the sitter, I think you have to be in totally the right frame of mind to give a good reading, I think many (including myself in the past ) try and read when they are not really feeling up to it but it can be very hard to say no sometimes.

thanks, Violet. It's a subject where input from mediums (of whatever sort) is important. They are the only ones who can answer from the perspective of the doer but even as I was writing the words, the answers were forming in my head. Thus far I haven't read any different ones in several forums where I've posted this same topic thread.....

Moving on, is it fair to say that if a particular seeker has visited numerous mediums unsuccessfully looking for personal evidence of survival, there is a point at which a different approach needs to be adopted?

How many mediums does it need to 'fail' before something different ought to be attempted? Is it unreasonable for a medium's helpers to try to find out why a seeker has again received nothing - or does every medium and their helper(s) operate in total isolation inasmuch as they wouldn't take heed of the lack of success by other mediums, no matter how many?

Should there be a point when failure to connect is accepted?

Yes I think so, mac, but would any medium accept this and bow out? I doubt it. It's a difficult thing to achieve as what I consider to be a failed reading, someone else may be happy with. The subjective element is what makes the whole thing problematical.

many so-called mediums have little idea what's going on at all or how poorly they are performing.

To be fair mac this isn't helped by sitters smiling and saying yes, yes, yes throughout the reading, like they are afraid to tell them it isn't making any sense, it's like if a hairdresser messed up your hair, or a waiter brought you an undercooked meal, would you simply smile, thank them profusely and pay your money?

If mediums are getting good feedback from the sitter they won't question anything, there wouldn't be a need to question it and yet i'm always hearing 'that medium was rubbish and she/he cost me thirty quid' when asked if they told them they were unhappy with the read they say 'no'???
why not???

Viking wrote:Yes I think so, mac, but would any medium accept this and bow out? I doubt it. It's a difficult thing to achieve as what I consider to be a failed reading, someone else may be happy with. The subjective element is what makes the whole thing problematical.

My question was rhetorical - the answer must be 'no' unless there is a sound explanation why a particular seeker repeatedly finds no personal evidence - it's the reverse of what you've outlined above. It's not the case that the medium is not satisfied but the seeker is....

There is no subjective element when the seeker is not happy - it's not up to the medium to decide that the seeker has had what they needed - that would be subjective.

For any individual medium a reading is given in isolation but for the seeker every unsatisfactory reading is part of a larger picture. A medium who knows about earlier failures would, surely, approach their attempt with a different emphasis? Or am I way off beam in expecting that?

If I came to you hoping for evidential mediumship (personal information from identifiable, possibly related, discarnates, not psychic reading) and told you my experiences of having visited several/many mediums with the same lack of success, what would you do? The same sitting as for any other seeker but without attempting to find out why if your mediumship achieved nothing either?

And may I emphasise that my piece was only about evidential mediumship - not for claimed contact with unknown discarnates, psychic reading, counselling etc...... I add this to help anyone confused by the issues - I know from recent research that many do not define mediumship in this way.

Hi Mac

And may I emphasise that my piece was only about evidential mediumship - not for claimed contact with unknown discarnates, psychic reading, counselling etc...... I add this to help anyone confused by the issues - I know from recent research that many do not define mediumship in this way.

I do, and imo that is the only true mediumship and what mediumship is all about, proving that we do survive death.

If I came to you hoping for evidential mediumship (personal information from identifiable, possibly related, discarnates, not psychic reading) and told you my experiences of having visited several/many mediums with the same lack of success, what would you do? The same sitting as for any other seeker but without attempting to find out why if your mediumship achieved nothing either?

Well I certainly wouldn't promise that I could get you anything, but I would certainly try my best for you. I would ask that you to ask me to stop if you felt I wasn't getting anywhere if it was a face to face, one on one reading.
I tend to do most of my readings via pm which can make things a bit more difficult as I wouldn't know if you were happy with the read or not until you sent feedback. Sadly i've done some readings in the past which meant nothing to the sitter, but at that time I always stated at the beginning that I was just starting out with my mediumship so people knew I was a beginner and I have always apologised for poor readings too. I'm not doing mediumship at the moment as I am not confident, this is down to me, though I am attempting to practise in the forum, but I have made the members aware of this.

Thinking some more on your question, you could visit a medium with one goal in mind and that could be (for arguments sake) connecting with great Uncle Charlie, you're not interested in anything else (and this does happen,) and you go to the medium and ask them to connect with great Uncle Charlie (because you need to know where the shed keys are so you can borrow his lawn mower.)

Great Uncle Charlie may not want to come through, or even believe he can come through and so the medium would be unable to connect, but is that a failed reading? Especially if the medium is up front and admits they can't connect with him (and refuses payment if they do charge for readings.) There could be any number of deceased relatives, who would know you're visiting a medium that day who are longing to pop in and say hello but you only want to connect with that one, and you've asked the medium to just try and connect with that one.
I think this is where some readings appear to fail, as people go with expectations rather than an open mind, usually people do visit a medium in hope of hearing from someone in particular but no medium can ever guarantee contacting that person, though I know some 'mediums' claim they can call up ANYONE.

Violet wrote:Thinking some more on your question, you could visit a medium with one goal in mind and that could be (for arguments sake) connecting with great Uncle Charlie, you're not interested in anything else (and this does happen,) and you go to the medium and ask them to connect with great Uncle Charlie (because you need to know where the shed keys are so you can borrow his lawn mower.)

Great Uncle Charlie may not want to come through, or even believe he can come through and so the medium would be unable to connect, but is that a failed reading? Especially if the medium is up front and admits they can't connect with him (and refuses payment if they do charge for readings.) There could be any number of deceased relatives, who would know you're visiting a medium that day who are longing to pop in and say hello but you only want to connect with that one, and you've asked the medium to just try and connect with that one.
I think this is where some readings appear to fail, as people go with expectations rather than an open mind, usually people do visit a medium in hope of hearing from someone in particular but no medium can ever guarantee contacting that person, though I know some 'mediums' claim they can call up ANYONE.

Yes I agree with all you've said here. If a seeker goes with the specific expectation/hope for the presence of a certain somebody rather than others who would still be equally evidential then such preconditions might well be too onerous for all involved.

The situation of a trivial request such as you outline above is an excellent example. And I guess it's possible that even someone knowledgeable about the notion of survival, but with their mind firmly set against acceptance without specific personal evidence, might be way too demanding for either a medium, their helpers or the very ones needed to present themselves to the medium.....

Again I'd have to guess that a burden of evidence might be so great that all or any who would need to be involved might think: "The hell with it, we're not busting a gut just to prove it when he already has enough understanding to know that survival is authentic" - or words and thoughts to that effect!!

At an individual level (I don't usually talk about me unless it's illustrative of a point) I haven't had specific, personal evidence but within me I already KNOW what the situation is so that the appearance of a 'certain somebody' would be great but their non-appearance would not have any negative effect.

Great reply, Violet. Don't you think you oughta be back out there doin' your stuff again? You might not feel confident but from what you've been saying on these board pages on a number of occasions and by your concern for others, I don't think you have any need to worry ....

Yes I agree with all you've said here. If a seeker goes with the specific expectation/hope for the presence of a certain somebody rather than others who would still be equally evidential then such preconditions might well be too onerous for all involved.

The situation of a trivial request such as you outline above is an excellent example. And I guess it's possible that even someone knowledgeable about the notion of survival, but with their mind firmly set against acceptance without specific personal evidence, might be way too demanding for either a medium, their helpers or the very ones needed to present themselves to the medium.....

Again I'd have to guess that a burden of evidence might be so great that all or any who would need to be involved might think: "The hell with it, we're not busting a gut just to prove it when he already has enough understanding to know that survival is authentic" - or words and thoughts to that effect!!

At an individual level (I don't usually talk about me unless it's illustrative of a point) I haven't had specific, personal evidence but within me I already KNOW what the situation is so that the appearance of a 'certain somebody' would be great but their non-appearance would not have any negative effect.

Hi Mac, This is interesting because I also believed before I had any evidence or to be more specific before I was aware i'd had evidence, the evidence which i've since had more of,was the icing on the cake. (Oh and feel free to talk about you as it's good to get to know you better.)

Great reply, Violet. Don't you think you oughta be back out there doin' your stuff again? You might not feel confident but from what you've been saying on these board pages on a number of occasions and by your concern for others, I don't think you have any need to worry ....
Thank you for that, I really do want to get back to it asap.

".....had evidence, the evidence which i've since had more
of,was the icing on the cake. (Oh and feel free to talk about you as
it's good to get to know you better.)" Thanks, Violet, but I do that only if it's important to illustrate a point I'm making.

I'm sometimes accused of being secretive but the truth is that if get asked something about myself, I'm not. But I despise the twittering 'me, me, me' culture which is found throughout discussion websites, where a general discussion thread becomes swamped by personal accounts and personal beliefs, adding little to the discussion..... Individuals doing what they enjoy most - talking about themselves.

Too often I encounter self-centred, self-occupied, selfish individuals whose only desire is to be the centre of anything and everything. Is that today's society or was humankind never any different?


At times I wonder why I bother with forum boards but then I read a really interesting topic where I think I can add something interesting, or I read a serious request for assistance on a subject on which I have relevant information or experience. And then I find satisfaction that potentially I'm doing something useful and also enjoying doing it - it doesn't get much better than that.

Thanks, Violet, but I do that only if it's important to illustrate a point I'm making.

I'm sometimes accused of being secretive but the truth is that if get asked something about myself, I'm not. But I despise the twittering 'me, me, me' culture which is found through discussion websites, where a general discussion thread becomes swamped by personal accounts and personal beliefs, adding little to the discussion..... Individuals doing what they enjoy most - talking about themselves.
Hi Mac, I've always liked reading about personal experiences, funny how we're all different, I do try to encourage people to discuss their experiences here, (and I will be asking you the odd question here and there if you don't mind me doing that,) I don't think you're secretive btw.

Too often I encounter self-centred, self-occupied, selfish individuals whose only desire is to be the centre of anything and everything. Is that today's society or was humankind never any different?


At times I wonder why I bother with forum boards but then I read a really interesting topic where I think I can add something interesting, or I read a serious request for assistance on a subject on which I have relevant information or experience. And then I find satisfaction that potentially I'm doing something useful and also enjoying doing it - it doesn't get much better than that.

It's always good if you can help someone, that's one of the reasons I created this place