Actually, "happened to catch" might be putting it a little too mildly. I was working on my latest book when, around 8:50, I began to have a strong desire to turn on my TV. I didn't know why, since at that hour there was nothing I would ordinarily watch. At 9:00, I yielded to this impulse and flipped through the channels, alighting on CNN as Larry King Live was getting underway. Normally I would flip past this show, but in this case I hesitated, curious who his guest might be. It turned out to be Van Praagh, and since I'm interested in psychic phenomena, I decided to watch. I'm not sure this counts as a bona fide "unusual occurrence" (which I wrote about in essays here and here), but it did seem odd that I was motivated to turn on the television at that very moment.

What intrigued me about Larry King Live was that the show was, well, live. No pretaping, no editing. Van Praagh had to take calls at random from all over the world, in real time. He had no chance to prepare and, with only a minute or two for each caller, little opportunity to ask questions. Since he couldn't see the caller, he certainly couldn't be accused of reading the person's body language or facial expression. It seemed like a good test of mediumship on live TV -- working without a net. Did Van Praagh pass the test?

He did. With flying colors.

There are times when I wonder how people can be so skeptical about psychic phenomena. Watching this edition of Larry King Live was one of those times. I would hate to be a skeptic trying to explain the remarkable series of hits Van Praagh produced in the course of this hour of television. If you didn't see the show, I urge you to read the transcript of the episode, available at this web site.

The transcript will give you all the details, but what it won't tell you is how thoroughly convincing Van Praagh's manner of presentation was. Skeptics say that mediums ask leading questions in order to elicit information, but Van Praagh asked almost no questions and frequently interrupted callers who were trying to tell him more than he wanted to know. More than once he said, "Don't tell me. Let me tell you." He looked genuinely irritated at callers who blurted out information he'd wanted to reveal. Skeptics also say that mediums issue vague generalities that could apply to anyone. But a lot of what Van Praagh said was specific -- in many instances uncannily so. Once or twice I felt a chill as a caller verified a piece of information that could not possibly be explained away as a lucky guess.

Finally, skeptics say that any trained mentalist -- i.e. a fake psychic -- can duplicate what Van Praagh, John Edward, George Anderson, and other mediums do. Well, I'd like to see them duplicate what Van Praagh did on Larry King Live. I'd like to see a mentalist come up with specific, detailed information pertinent to a caller who has phoned in at random, in circumstances that preclude cold reading or advance research. If mentalists can reproduce this feat, let them prove it. Until then, I'll be skeptical of the skeptics and their claims.

As I said, the complete transcript is the only way to get the full sense of this program. What follows are a few highlights based on my scribbled notes.

Van Praagh is told by a caller that both her parents have died. He interrupts, saying that the father had a problem with one leg and couldn't walk. The leg was going to be operated on and preliminary tests were carried out, but the operation never took place. Also, the father's sister is deceased. This is all correct.

A caller says her twin sister died three years go. Van Praagh says the sister was not expected to die and had a sudden passing. She was religious and was buried underneath a religious symbol. All correct.

A caller says her mother passed away. Van Praagh focuses on a respiratory problem involving the sinuses and lungs and an inability to breathe. He is told that the mother died of emphysema.

A caller says her grandfather died nine years ago. Van Praagh says he's getting somebody with the last name of Cook or Cooke. The caller does know people by this name. Van Praagh says there's a deceased man named Cook(e) whose death was covered in the newspapers. The caller doesn't verify this, but seems to understand the reference. Van Praagh switches to the caller's grandfather, saying he had an eye condition that affected only one eye, and was unable to speak before he died. This is all correct.

A caller asks about his deceased brother. Van Praagh says the brother is "around your father" (who is living) and that the father has health concerns - specifically blood sugar problems. This is correct. The brother suffered an unexpected death. Correct -- he died in a car accident.

A caller asks about her deceased grandfather, Adam. Van Praagh identifies a farm and is told by the caller that the grandfather was raised on a farm. Van Praagh says the grandfather's brother is also dead and the two men were not close while alive. This is true. Van Praagh says somebody just went to the eye doctor. The caller says, "I just went and got my eyes checked."

A caller wants to know about her Aunt Barb. Van Praagh says Barb wants to send a message to the caller's mother, who, he says correctly, is still alive. He says the mother deserves a lot of credit because, when her husband was not working, the mother worked extra hard to pick up the slack. This is true.

During a commercial break, Van Praagh apparently tells Larry King he is getting somebody's son and expects the next call to relate to this person. The next caller inquires about a father or husband, but Van Praagh says a son must have died before the husband -- which is correct. The son, he says, died by someone else's hand -- correct. The son had a friend named Mike -- correct. The son died at night -- correct. There's a reference to a fishing boat -- correct; the husband had a boat.

A caller wants to know if there is a message from ... But Van Praagh interrupts to say that her father has passed over - correct. There was friction between the father and his sister. True. There is a girl, deceased, whom Van Praagh identifies as the caller's daughter - correct. The caller says she has a gold necklace belonging to her daughter. Van Praagh says the caller thought of holding the necklace in her hand before making the call. True. He says a tree was planted in memory of the daughter. True. Asked by the caller about a friend named Lou, Van Praagh says the daughter knew him, and he liked race cars. True.

A caller wants to know about her father. Van Praagh says someone in the family just got married or is planning a marriage -- correct. He says someone in the family had a heart condition and is told that it was the father. Van Praagh says the father tried a variety of different medicines that didn't work -- correct. The father was put on a liquid diet and hated it -- correct. There are three kids in the family ("Exactly," says the caller), and they are fighting over the terms of the father's will. Correct.

A caller wants to know about a friend named Michael who committed suicide. Van Praagh says Michael was creative, he was thinking of moving before he died, he had his heart broken by someone else, there were two memorial services for him, and there is an important memory involving Florida. All of this is correct.

A skeptic would say I've listed only the hits and ignored the misses. Absolutely. That is precisely what I've done, and deliberately so - I want to stress the most impressive parts of Van Praagh's performance. There were misses, although often they involved callers who seemed so nervous and flustered that they might have failed to take in what Van Praagh was saying. By my count, the hits outnumbered the misses, although a skeptic would count some of my hits as misses and others as lucky guesses.

Is that what we're dealing with - lucky guesses? If so, Van Praagh is the luckiest guesser in the world. Anybody who can make this many lucky guesses in an hour has a skill indistinguishable from psychic power. Or is it a hoax, a massive conspiracy involving Van Praagh, Larry King, and CNN? Count on the skeptics to fall back on this desperate argument when all else fails.

I suppose that by a massive effort at rationalization, a person could pick apart Van Praagh's comments one by one, in much the same way that the O.J. Simpson defense team picked apart the mountain of evidence against their client and succeeded in befuddling the jury. Someone could claim that a particular statement was a lucky guess, while another was a generalization, and another was derived from an unusual insight into human nature, and so on. This is the kind of argument that skeptics make - when they bother to address the specifics of psychic readings at all. To me, it sounds a lot like Johnnie Cochran arguing that one drop of blood was planted by the police, while another blood sample was incorrectly collected, and another blood sample was contaminated in the lab, etc. That may be an effective strategy when trying to score debating points, but the only people who think it's a good way to find the truth are those who believe that O.J. is still searching for "the real killer."

What I think is that Van Praagh is for real. Call me naive, but for me, it's the simplest explanation, and the only one that fits the facts. And if he is for real, then there's no reason to doubt that some other mediums are for real also. Which means the world has suddenly become a much bigger, more interesting, and, I would say, better place.

You know, I'm glad I turned on my TV!

-----------

Update, March 19, 2004: This essay generated a little discussion on a message board devoted to psychic phenomena. You can read the thread here. The most detailed critique was offered by Paul Murray (posts 15 and 16). I react to his points in posts 17 and 18. I've made a few minor changes in the wording of my essay in places where I agreed with Mr. Murray that the original choice of words was misleading.