Out-of-body study misses target hits, but two participants accurately describe concealed researchers
New CapabilitiesUVA-led Brazil trial failed its object-identification measure; two unprompted descriptions of activities behind closed doors were later confirmed
Today: Explore publishes trial; incidental observations reportedNew here? Follow stories to track developments over time. Create a free account to get updates when stories you care about change.
Overview
Updated 1 hour agoA test of out-of-body perception failed its main measure: none of 21 participants identified a hidden on-screen object better than chance. But two participants, unprompted, described where researchers were seated and what they were doing in a separate room behind closed doors. Trial records confirmed both accounts were accurate at the time.
The observations can't count as evidence, since they weren't part of the predefined outcome measures, UVA Health investigators say. The finding has changed how the team thinks about designing OBE tests: moving beyond static objects toward verifiable incidental details that participants might notice during the experience.
Why it matters
Two participants accurately described concealed events they couldn't have seen; future trials will test whether the phenomenon holds.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Play
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.
Higher or Lower
A number from this story, against one from elsewhere in the news — guess which is bigger, then keep the chain going. 5 rounds, 3 strikes; a miss costs a strike and resets your streak.
Keyboard: ↓/L lower · ↑/H higher
0 points — sign up to put that on the leaderboard.
Connections
Sixteen names from the news. Find the four hidden groups of four. Four mistakes max.
Sign up to keep a daily streak — a new puzzle lands every day.
Exit debate?
Your progress in this debate will be lost.
- 1 Two AI personas square off on this story.
- 2 You predict who'll win each round — correct picks earn XP.
- 3 One crossfire question is yours to fire. Pick it carefully.
Couldn't generate a topic
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
The referee scores both sides on
Round Results
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Prediction History
People Involved
Organizations Involved
Timeline
1966 September 2026
-
Explore publishes trial; incidental observations reported
Today PublicationPeer-reviewed paper reports no better-than-chance target identification and two verified observations of researchers behind closed doors.
-
WVIR reports on Weiler's OBE study
NewsLocal Virginia outlet covers the trial and Weiler's surprise at the incidental observations.
-
Tart's Robert Monroe study misses target, verifies incidental detail
ResearchMonroe missed a five-digit target but accurately described a technician's unscheduled visitor in another room, later verified.
-
Alvarado reviews experimental ESP evidence during OBEs
ResearchPublished review in the Journal of Parapsychology on experimental evidence for extrasensory perception during out-of-body experiences.
-
Tart runs Miss Z sleep-laboratory experiment
ResearchFive-digit target placed on a high shelf; subject reported viewing it during an out-of-body experience.
-
Maimonides pilot study tests ESP and OBEs
ResearchFour-night pilot at the Maimonides Medical Center Dream Laboratory studied a subject reporting frequent out-of-body experiences.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
Miss Z Experiment (1968)
Psychologist Charles Tart placed a five-digit number on a high shelf in his sleep laboratory and asked subject Miss Z, who reported out-of-body experiences, to read and recall it. She reported viewing it from above.
Her reports were suggestive but imperfect; the setup became the standard target-identification format.
Established the experimental template for OBE testing that Weiler's trial later repeated.
Shows the target-identification paradigm Weiler used and its enduring limitations.
Pam Reynolds Case (1991)
During cardiac surgery, with her brain flatlined and blood drained from her head, Reynolds reported watching the operation from above and described instruments and procedures she had not been briefed on.
Her detailed account became a widely cited near-death experience case.
Remains debated; skeptics note she may have had partially intact hearing during surgery.
Shows the veridical-perception claims that continue to motivate OBE and near-death research designs.
Robert Monroe Study (1998)
In eight laboratory sessions, Robert Monroe missed a five-digit target placed on a high shelf. During one session he described the technician interacting with a man in another room, an unscheduled visit by the technician's husband, unknown to anyone at the time.
The account was later verified by the researcher team.
Led Tart to argue that fixed, passive targets may not align with the attentional dynamics of the OBE state.
The closest precedent for Weiler's incidental observations: a missed target paired with accurate, verifiable off-target detail.
