"The movement of physical objects or influence on physical systems through mental intention alone — one of the most investigated and most contested claims in parapsychology, with a body of documented evidence that is larger and more serious than most people realise."
Telekinesis — from the Greek tele (distant) and kinesis (movement) — refers to the movement or influence of physical objects or systems through mental intention alone, without physical contact. The broader scientific term is psychokinesis (PK), subdivided into macro-PK (visible, large-scale physical effects such as object movement or metal bending) and micro-PK (statistically detectable influence on random physical systems such as random number generators, below the threshold of direct observation).
The history of telekinesis research spans over a century of serious scientific investigation — from the SPR's early studies of physical mediumship phenomena in the 1880s through the rigorous parapsychology laboratories of the late 20th century, to the CIA- and Department of Defense-funded research programmes of the Cold War era. The evidence is genuinely mixed: some of it is clearly fraudulent, some of it is methodologically weak, and a residuum — particularly the micro-PK research at the Princeton PEAR laboratory and the controlled macro-PK studies of figures like Nina Kulagina — is difficult to dismiss without engaging with the actual data.
The popular understanding of telekinesis, shaped by fiction and entertainment, dramatically exceeds what the evidence actually shows. Laboratory-documented PK effects are typically small, inconsistent, and statistically detectable only in aggregate across thousands of trials — not the dramatic object-hurling of Hollywood. This gap between expectation and evidence has contributed both to dismissal of the entire field (because the dramatic effects don't materialise) and to its exploitation by fraudsters (who can produce impressive large-scale effects through ordinary means). The serious scientific question is at the micro level, where the data is more reliable precisely because it is less dramatic.
Nina Kulagina (1926–1990) was a Soviet citizen who came to the attention of Soviet researchers in the 1960s after she reportedly demonstrated the ability to influence physical objects without contact. Over the following two decades she was studied by dozens of Soviet scientists — physicists, biologists, and physicians — under controlled conditions, and her abilities were filmed in more than 200 documented sessions. The films, declassified after the collapse of the Soviet Union, show objects moving on a table, compass needles rotating, and other physical phenomena occurring in her vicinity without apparent normal explanation.
The scale and quality of the Soviet research programme on Kulagina was unprecedented. In 1968, Soviet physicist Genady Sergeyev measured significant electromagnetic disturbances in Kulagina's vicinity during PK demonstrations, with field intensities far exceeding what the human body normally produces. In 1970, a team of Soviet researchers documented her apparent ability to stop the heart of a frog in a saline solution — an observation that, if genuine, would constitute one of the most significant demonstrations of direct biological PK ever recorded. The physiological cost to Kulagina herself was documented: after intense PK sessions she showed elevated blood sugar, disturbed heart rhythm, and significant physical exhaustion.
Western researchers were permitted to study Kulagina under controlled conditions beginning in the late 1960s. Benson Herbert and Montague Ullman conducted sessions in Leningrad in 1970 that they found genuinely impressive; Czech researcher Zdeněk Rejdák, who had extensive access to her, was convinced of the genuineness of her abilities. The consistent finding across researchers was that her effects were real under controlled conditions — that normal explanations such as hidden threads, magnets, or air currents had been adequately excluded — while offering no agreed explanation for the mechanism.
Uri Geller (born 1946) is the most publicly visible psychic of the 20th century — the Israeli entertainer whose metal bending, watch restarting, and apparent mind-reading made him an international phenomenon from 1972 onwards. He is also the most extensively tested psychic in history and the most controversial: his research record contains both impressive controlled results and credible allegations of fraud, often from the same investigators.
The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) research of 1972–1974, conducted by laser physicists Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff with CIA and Department of Defense funding, produced the most significant controlled data on Geller. The experiments — published in Nature in 1974, one of the most prestigious scientific journals — tested Geller on dice-guessing, hidden drawing identification, and other protocols under conditions designed to exclude normal explanations. The results were statistically significant and the paper's publication in Nature represented an extraordinary event: the journal's editors were convinced the methodology was sound even while being uncomfortable with the implications.
The subsequent history is more complicated. Geller's public career has included numerous exposures of apparent fraud — James Randi documented multiple instances of deception in his live performances. Geller himself has never claimed that all his demonstrations are psychic; he acknowledges using conjuring techniques in some contexts while maintaining that he also has genuine abilities. The SRI researchers maintained that the controlled laboratory results were genuine regardless of what occurred in uncontrolled public demonstrations. This distinction — between controlled research results and uncontrolled performance — is critical to evaluating the Geller case.
The distinction between macro-PK (visible, large-scale physical effects) and micro-PK (statistically detectable influence on random systems) is crucial for evaluating the evidence. Macro-PK claims — objects visibly moving, spoons bending, watches restarting — are more dramatic but also easier to fake, harder to control experimentally, and more subject to the motivated perception of audiences and investigators. The history of macro-PK research is littered with fraud exposures alongside genuinely puzzling cases.
Micro-PK research is less dramatic but methodologically cleaner. Random event generators cannot be cheated through sleight of hand; the experimental protocols exclude normal explanations more thoroughly; and the effect — while small — can be measured with statistical precision across large data sets. The PEAR laboratory's 28-year data set represents the most substantial evidence for micro-PK ever assembled, and its quality has been acknowledged even by critics who dispute its interpretation.
The honest summary is: the evidence for micro-PK from controlled laboratory research is more compelling than most people realise, and the evidence for macro-PK is more mixed than its proponents claim. The two phenomena may or may not be related; the mechanisms, if any exist, may be quite different. The field deserves neither the uncritical acceptance of believers nor the dismissive rejection of sceptics who have not engaged with the actual data.
The fraud history: The history of telekinesis claims includes an enormous amount of fraud — both deliberate deception and self-deception. Uri Geller has been exposed using normal conjuring methods on multiple occasions; Eusapia Palladino was repeatedly caught cheating in controlled tests while also apparently producing genuine effects in others; numerous smaller figures have been straightforwardly fraudulent. This history is important context but does not prove that all PK claims are fraudulent — it proves that the field attracts fraud and that extremely careful controls are essential.
The file-drawer problem: Parapsychology research suffers from significant publication bias — studies showing positive results are published; studies showing null results often are not. If only a fraction of conducted PK studies are published, and these are the ones that happened to produce positive results by chance, the published literature would show positive results even if the phenomenon does not exist. Meta-analyses that attempt to include unpublished studies consistently find smaller effect sizes than analyses of published literature alone — suggesting some publication bias is present, while not eliminating the evidence entirely.
The replication problem: PK effects, even when genuine, appear to be inconsistent and subject to unknown moderating variables — the psychological state of the subject, the investigator, the experimental context. Effects that are robust in one laboratory often fail to replicate in another. This inconsistency is itself data about the nature of the phenomenon (if real), but it makes systematic scientific study extremely difficult and gives legitimate grounds for scepticism about any individual positive result.