JOURNAL of the Society for Psychical Research VotumE 49 No. 775 March 1978 A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF BELIEFS IN OUT-OF-THE-BODY EXPERIENCES, WAKING AND SLEEPING by Dean Suetts, Px.D. Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin, USA ABSTRACT Data from nearly 70 non-Western cultures were used to explore beliefs in out-of-the-body experiences (OOBEs). The data reveal that OOBE beliefs appear in about 95 per cent of the world’s cultures and that they are striking in their uniformity even though the cultures are diverse in structure and location. Three conventional explanations of OOBE beliefs—social control, crisis, and the dream theories—were tested and found to be inadequate as explanations. Hence, it is possible that the speci- ficity and generality of OOBE beliefs is simply a response to a genuine event; i.e., the actual occurrence of OOBE’. Psychic phenomena have been reported, and studied, by people of diverse backgrounds. But there is one group of potential psychic researchers which is most notable for its lack of contribution to the literature—that of the social scientists. Rarer still are instances of social scientists employing the comparative method to study psychic, phenomena in non-Western cultures. Van De Castle (1974: 270, 274) Ipoint out that anthropologists (one might say comparative social scientists in general) have largely ignored the psychic field with the result that systematic reviews of psychic events contained in eth- nographies* are virtually absent. The purpose of this article is to examine one psychic event, the * Ethnography: that branch of cultural anthropology concerned with the detailed study of a given specific culture, most commonly by direct observation. Ethnology: that branch of cultural anthropology that is concerned with the com- parative study of cultures. Comparative sociology is the analogue of ethnology. 697Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vou. 49, No. 775 out-of-body experience (OOBE), as itis reported to occur in nearly 70 cultures which differ greatly from our own. Before this can be done, however, the strengths and weaknesses of the comparative approach need to be considered. PURPOSES OF CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH It should be made clear at once that comparative research depends on secondary accounts available in the ethnographies. The cross- cultural approach as such deals with reports of beliefs in psychic events and should not be construed to mean that ethnographers are implying they have observed the events themselves. Generally, ethnographers simply report information about a culture, without passing judge- ments about what they have observed. In other words, the fact that a belief in some event is present does not establish the reality of the event. For example, had a Gallup Poll been taken in Medieval Europe, one would find strong support for the belief that the world was flat, a belief we now know to be false. Even so, it is apparent that psychical research is greatly concerned with establishing the reality (or lack of reality) of the phenomena in question. Though comparative research cannot provide direct proof of these events, it can provide indirect evidence in at least three ways. First, comparative research can be used to test the efficacy of alternative explanations of psychic events. There are, as we know, explanations of psychic events that are not themselves psychic—that is, explanations that deny the occurrence of psychic phenomena and seek other routes. For example, Van De Castle (1974: 269) asserts that most anthropologists regard the belief in psychic phenomena to arise from crises. In short, people, especially people in preliterate cultures, face a host of severe crises such as illness, disease, crop failure, etc., which they are unable to explain in conventional ways and which they cannot control through conventional means. Thus, the beliefin psychic ability arises as a kind of “psychological placebo” that aids them in “seeing through” otherwise devastating experi- ences. More will be said about this hypothesis later; for now, it is sufficient to point out that this, and other hypotheses, can be tested cross-culturally to determine if they can in fact account for the belief in psychic phenomena. If they can, well and good. If not, then the door is at least left open to other explanations. A second use of the comparative method involves the testing and refinement of current psychical theories. OOBE theory, for example, has grown up out of two broad classes of observations: case studies and (more recently) laboratory experiments (Tart, 1974: 354-367). 698Marcu 1978] OOBE Beliefs, Waking and Sleeping Both these approaches are of unquestioned value but both share a common limitation: most are based on observations that occur in Western civilization alone. Alll sciences, psychical or otherwise, begin with “raw” observations and then gradually unify these observations through a logical system of propositions (theory) that results in understanding and explanation. If the observations themselves are biased or incomplete then these shortcomings will necessarily be reflected in the theory that has grown out of them. To date, we know pathetically little about the occurrence of psychical events in other cultures and, even less, in preliterate cultures. This may be doubly important because, as Van De Castle (1974: 282) has pointed out, we may be attempting to study psychical phenomena in the “worst of all possible cultures—our own”. New insights may be gained by examin- ing psychical events in cultures which regard themas natural, normal events that can be freely discussed without embarrassment. Thus, we can review some current theory of OOBE and then compare it to accounts of OOBEs as they occur in other cultures, thereby isolating areas of agreement and, perhaps even more important, disparities that point to areas of needed research. A third contribution that can be made by the comparative approach deals with providing evidence, albeit indirect, for the reality or the lack of reality of OOBEs. To the extent that psychical theory is compatible with accounts of OOBEs in other cultures one can begin to arguc that the phenomenon actually occurs. Jacobson (1973: 125) and Tart (1971: 4) have both argued that descriptions of OOBEs from very different cultures are generally much alike “. . . so separation must be considered to be genuine and not entirely imaginary” (Jacob- son, op. cit.). In other words, when very different cultures at different times and in different places arrive at the same or very similar OOBE beliefs we begin to wonder if this results from a common experience of this happening. I would agree with Jacobson but with two reservations. First, while the cross-cultural universality of any specific belief may be striking there could be explanations for it other than the possibility that the OOBE is a real event. These alternative explanations must be con- sidered carefully and the possibility that OOBE beliefs reflect objec- tive events can be seriously considered only if other explanations fail adequately to account for such beliefs. Secondly, Jacobson and Tart may be over-generalizing at this point because the cross-cultural evidence they refer to pertains to very few cultures. This means that the full range of cultural evolution has not been considered and, potentially more damaging, that the cultures examined may be selec- tive, rather than representative, of the whole. In summary, comparative research can contribute to the psychic 699