Group-Optimized Psi: A Longitudinal Experimental Program on Anomalous Cognition and Mind–Matter Interaction

Grant Proposal for Private Funders

Note: This project is registered with the Open Science Framework.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & LAY OVERVIEW

The Opportunity

Despite over a century of laboratory research, fundamental questions about human psychic abilities remain scientifically unresolved. Recent meta-analyses show small but consistent statistical evidence for “psi” phenomena—anomalous cognition (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition) and micro-psychokinesis (mind-matter interaction)—especially when research conditions are optimized for psychological factors like relaxation, belief, and group cohesion.[1]

Yet most studies focus on isolated individuals or brief protocols. No major longitudinal study has systematically trained and optimized small groups while rigorously testing what makes psi effects appear stronger or weaker over time.

What We Will Do

We will conduct a 5-year, evidence-based experimental program with 120–160 carefully selected and trained volunteers, organized into small groups. Using state-of-the-art randomization, blinding, and open-science practices, we will:

Maximize observable psi effects by selecting participants with psi-conducive traits (prior anomalous experiences, meditation practice, openness) and training them in proven techniques (altered states, real-time feedback, emotionally engaging tasks).
Systematically map what strengthens or weakens psi by varying psychological factors (relaxation depth, feedback timing, group cohesion, expectancy) and measuring how they interact over time.
Explore how psi works by correlating successful trials with self-reported mental states (absorption, imagery vividness, emotional resonance) and group dynamics, generating testable mechanistic hypotheses.
Produce credible, replicable science through preregistration, published protocols, open data sharing, and registered-report submissions—ensuring that results are trusted by both proponents and skeptics.

Why This Matters

For science and philosophy: If psi is real, understanding its mechanisms could challenge fundamental models of mind, consciousness, and causation. If it is not real, rigorous research can definitively establish this and redirect resources elsewhere.

For participants: Volunteers gain access to cutting-edge research, training in stress-reduction and mindfulness-adjacent practices, and the satisfaction of contributing to frontier science.

For society: A high-credibility study on a taboo topic demonstrates that rigorous science can address unconventional questions responsibly, building public trust in both mainstream and exploratory research.

Funder Appeal

Private funders often prioritize:

Bold, high-impact research that academia avoids
Tangible outcomes: published papers, open datasets, trainable protocols
Rigor and transparency: we use preregistration, registered reports, and open-science standards to ensure credibility
Long-term vision: this 5-year study lays groundwork for decades of follow-on work
Public engagement: results attract media attention and volunteer participation

This project offers all four.

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

Current State of Psi Research

Over 70 years of controlled laboratory experiments on anomalous cognition (psi) and micro-psychokinesis have produced:

Meta-analytic effect sizes: Ganzfeld ESP studies (n ≈ 2,500 trials across 200+ experiments) show odds ratios of ≈1.4 in favor of anomalous cognition.[2] Remote-viewing studies (1974–2022) show small but significant effect sizes, with some viewers consistently scoring above chance.[3]
Context-dependence: effects are strongly moderated by psychological and methodological factors—altered states of consciousness, free-response (vs. forced-choice) tasks, selected (vs. unselected) participants, immediate feedback, and participant belief all correlate with larger effect sizes.[2][4]
Replicability concerns: some effects have shrunk over time, attributed partly to tightened controls, publication bias, or changes in participant motivation.[2] However, preregistered and high-rigor studies still show small positive effects, not zeros.

Why Current Evidence Is Ambiguous

Short-term studies: most protocols last weeks or months. No systematic data on whether psi effects grow, stabilize, or decline with prolonged training and group bonding.
Individual focus: most research emphasizes single participants. Group dynamics, shared intention, and collective belief are rarely studied in controlled settings, even though historical macro-PK (table-tilting, poltergeist) phenomena involve groups.
Methodological trade-offs: rigorous controls (randomization, blinding, automation) sometimes reduce effect sizes compared to more naturalistic, psychologically conducive settings. Current practice tends to choose one or the other rather than integrating both.
Mechanism gaps: we have correlates (belief, state, feedback) but little understanding of how or why these factors modulate performance. Are effects due to noise reduction in perception? Expectancy artifacts? Genuine information transfer? Group-level resonance?

Our Solution

By combining:

Rigorous randomization and blinding (standard in modern psi research)
Psi-conducive conditions (altered states, free-response tasks, emotionally engaging targets, immediate feedback)
Longitudinal design (weekly sessions over 3–5 years per group)
Systematic factor variation (preregistered manipulations of state, feedback, cohesion, expectancy)
Transparent, open-science practices (preregistration, registered reports, open data)

We can answer: What really strengthens or weakens group psi, and how does it work?

RESEARCH AIMS & HYPOTHESES

Aim 1: Maximize Measurable Psi in Small Groups

Approach: Recruit 120–160 adults and assign them to:

High-conducive groups (n ≈ 60–80): selected for prior psi experiences, meditation practice, openness, and positive expectancy; trained in relaxation and visualization; provided with rich, emotionally engaging targets; given immediate feedback.[2][4]
Control groups (n ≈ 40–50): unselected or low-conducive participants, similar protocols but without optimization.

Primary hypothesis (H1a): High-conducive groups will show statistically significant anomalous cognition and micro-PK effect sizes; control groups will not.

Secondary hypothesis (H1b): Effect sizes will be roughly 2–3 times larger in high-conducive groups, consistent with meta-analytic estimates of selection effects.[2]

Aim 2: Identify Moderators of Group Psi Performance

Approach: Using preregistered factorial designs, systematically vary:

State induction: standard relaxation vs. enhanced Ganzfeld (sensory reduction) vs. guided imagery
Feedback schedule: trial-by-trial vs. session-level vs. delayed feedback
Group structure: stable core vs. controlled rotation of members
Expectancy framing: neutral scientific vs. mildly positive (without deception)

Primary hypothesis (H2a): Anomalous cognition effect sizes will be larger under enhanced Ganzfeld states, free-response tasks, and immediate feedback, consistent with meta-analyses.[2][4]

Secondary hypothesis (H2b): Group cohesion and positive expectancy (measured via post-session questionnaires) will independently predict trial-level performance when controlling for individual trait differences.

Aim 3: Explore Mechanisms and Generate Testable Models

Approach: Collect trial-level psychometric data (absorption, imagery vividness, emotional arousal, perceived synchronicity) and model trial-level performance using mixed-effects regression.

Primary hypothesis (H3a): Successful trials will cluster with high-absorption, vivid-imagery states, suggesting that noise-reduction or attention-allocation mechanisms are operative.

Secondary hypothesis (H3b): Group-level cohesion, shared rhythm/timing, and “synchronicity” feelings will independently predict group-average performance, supporting collective-resonance or shared-intention models.

METHODS & STUDY DESIGN

Overview

Duration: 5 years (60 months)
Phases: Planning (0–6m) → Recruitment & Piloting (6–18m) → Main Experiments (18–36m) → Advanced Analyses (36–48m) → Synthesis & Dissemination (48–60m)

Participants

Target N: 120–160 adults, age 18+, fluent in English, no active psychotic disorders or uncontrolled substance use
Recruitment: public website, social media, psi-interest communities, university partnerships
Screening:
Online questionnaires (Qualtrics) on psi experiences, openness-to-experience, meditation background, belief in psi
Telephone/video interviews to assess rapport, motivation, and clarity of instructions
Group assignment: stratified random assignment to high-conducive (selected) or control (unselected) groups after initial screening

Experimental Paradigms

Protocol A: Anomalous Cognition (Ganzfeld & Remote Viewing)

Ganzfeld ESP:

Participant (receiver) sits in dimly lit room with halved ping-pong balls over eyes, exposed to mild pink/white noise and red light
Distant sender (outbound experimenter or group member) focuses on randomly selected visual target (vivid photographs, videos, or artwork) for 30 minutes
Receiver provides free-verbal description (recorded and transcribed)
Receiver then ranks four targets (actual + three decoys) and provides confidence ratings
Sender gives feedback and outcome immediately

Remote Viewing:

Viewer, in an isolated room free from sensory cues, receives numeric random target coordinates
Viewer describes impressions, sketches, and intuitions about the target location (which is visited simultaneously by an outbound experimenter at a randomly selected site within a predefined geographic radius)
After ~45 minutes, viewer’s description is given to independent blind judges, who rank it against four candidate sites
Feedback provided immediately post-session

Protocol B: Micro-Psychokinesis (Group-Intention RNG)

High-quality hardware (Psyleron M10) or open-source software RNG generates binary random sequences at 4 bits/second
Each “trial” consists of a 60-second intention period (e.g., “intention to bias the RNG toward 1s”) followed by a 60-second baseline period
Trial-level data logged automatically; group intention guided via brief pre-trial script
Group members focus collectively, with no physical contact with the device
Real-time visual feedback provided after each trial

Randomization & Blinding

Target randomization: randomized.org or cryptographically secure PRNG seeds (logged and archived)
Experimenter blinding: independent judge (blind to participant group, condition, and hypothesis) scores free-response data
Participant blinding: participants told they are “testing a new feedback method” or “exploring group dynamics in perception tasks” (without revealing specific hypotheses)
Automated data logging: experiment control software (PsychoPy, OpenSesame, or custom Python) time-stamps all events, prevents experimenter deviation from protocol

Session Schedule & Factor Manipulation

Frequency: weekly 60–120-minute sessions per group for 156 weeks (3 years of main experiments)
Session structure:
Welcome & brief meditation (5 min)
State questionnaire (2 min)
Task 1: Ganzfeld or remote viewing (45 min)
Break & informal group reflection (5 min)
Task 2: RNG group-intention (15 min)
Post-session state & cohesion questionnaires (5 min)
Factor manipulations (varied across counterbalanced blocks):
Weeks 1–13: enhanced Ganzfeld with immediate trial-by-trial feedback
Weeks 14–26: standard relaxation (no sensory reduction) with same feedback
Weeks 27–39: enhanced Ganzfeld with delayed (session-level) feedback
Weeks 40–52: enhanced Ganzfeld with neutral framing vs. mild positive framing (randomized weekly)
Weeks 53+: exploratory follow-ups and parametric refinement based on preliminary findings

Data Collection & Management

Outcome measures:
Ganzfeld/RV: hit rates (4-choice task), receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) areas, confidence ratings
RNG: z-scores of deviation from chance, trial-level intention-correlation
Self-report: absorption (Tellegen Absorption Scale), imagery vividness (Visual Analog Scales), emotional arousal, perceived synchronicity, group cohesion (post-session)
Data security: encrypted server storage, access via secure login, automated daily backups
Version control: analysis scripts (R, Python) deposited in GitHub repos linked to OSF
De-identification: participant IDs only; names and identifiers stored separately under restricted access

Preregistration & Registered Reports

Phase 1 analyses (Aims 1 & 2): preregistered on OSF before main-experiment data collection begins; submitted as Registered Report (Stages 1 & 2) to a peer-reviewed journal accepting controversial topics
Phase 2 analyses (Aim 3): preregistered exploratory analyses focused on high-confidence findings from Phase 1, also submitted as Registered Report if major mechanistic claims made

ANALYSIS PLAN (Summary)

Primary Analysis

Aim 1 & 2 (Effect sizes and moderators):

Frequentist hypothesis tests: one-sample t-tests of hit rates vs. 25% or 50% chance (depending on task), with Bonferroni-corrected α = 0.05
Effect sizes: Hedges g, Cohen d, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals
Mixed-effects logistic regression: trial-level hit (yes/no) as outcome, fixed effects for group type (high-conducive vs. control), state condition, feedback schedule, and block; random intercepts for group, session, and participant
Stopping rule: apply sequential monitoring (Lan–DeMets α-spending) to control Type I error across phases

Secondary Analysis

Aim 3 (Mechanistic modeling):

Mixed-effects regression: trial-level z-score (RNG) or rank (free-response) as outcome, fixed effects for state variables (absorption, imagery, arousal), group cohesion, and condition; random intercepts for group and participant
Bayesian regression: complementary Bayesian analyses with weakly informative priors (e.g., standard normal on scaled predictors) to quantify posterior probability of moderator effects
Time-series/trajectory modeling: test whether effect sizes change over the 156-week period, fitting polynomial and spline models

Subgroup Analyses (Preregistered)

By prior psi experience (high vs. low)
By trait absorption (high vs. low median split)
By meditation history (practitioner vs. non-practitioner)

SIGNIFICANCE & EXPECTED IMPACTS

Scientific Contributions

First rigorous, longitudinal group-psi study: will provide unprecedented data on how psi effects develop, stabilize, or decline in trained groups over years
Mechanistic insights: trial-level psychometric correlates will suggest whether effects operate via attentional/perceptual noise reduction, expectancy/demand effects, or genuine information transfer
Methodological integration: demonstrates how to combine tight controls with psychologically conducive settings, useful beyond parapsychology
Open-science model: preregistration, registered reports, and open data will raise standards for controversial topics

Practical Outputs

2–4 peer-reviewed papers in journals accepting strong-method studies of controversial topics (e.g., PLOS ONE, Frontiers in Psychology, Journal of Parapsychology)
Open-access protocol manual and data publicly available on OSF, enabling replication and methodological critique
Training package: web-based guide for other labs on group-psi optimization and measurement (potentially generating future collaborations and multi-site studies)

Broader Impacts

Public engagement: high media interest in psi research; results will be communicated via project website, podcasts, and popular-science articles
Volunteer impact: 120–160 participants gain training in meditation-adjacent practices, contribute to frontier science, and develop sense of community
Foundational for future work: if effects are robust, opens door to neuroscience collaborations (fMRI, EEG) and theoretical modeling; if null, provides clear evidence to redirect funding

PROJECT MANAGEMENT & TEAM

Leadership

Principal Investigator: [Name], PhD, [affiliation], [relevant credentials in parapsychology or psi research]
Co-Investigator (Methodology/Statistics): [Name], PhD, statistician with expertise in mixed-effects modeling and open-science practices
Research Manager: Full-time coordinator responsible for recruiting, scheduling, data management, and compliance

Supporting Staff

Research Assistants (2–3 FTE): protocol implementation, participant instruction, data entry, equipment maintenance
External Consultant: methodologist and/or ethicist (contract, as needed, for protocol refinement and oversight)

Governance

Steering Committee: PI, Co-I, Research Manager, 1–2 external advisors (parapsychologist, statistician, bioethicist) who meet quarterly to review progress, address challenges, and ensure transparency
Data Monitoring: independent monitor reviews interim analyses for safety/quality but remains blinded to outcomes until final analysis

BUDGET SUMMARY (60 months)

Budget Category	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Total
Personnel
PI (0.2 FTE)	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000	$150,000
Co‑I (0.2 FTE)	$27,000	$27,000	$27,000	$27,000	$27,000	$135,000
Research Project Manager (1.0 FTE)	$90,000	$91,800	$93,600	$95,500	$97,400	$468,300
Research Assistants (2.5 FTE total)	$125,000	$127,500	$130,100	$132,700	$135,300	$650,600
External Consultant (contract)	$10,000	$10,000	$8,000	$6,000	$4,000	$38,000
Subtotal Personnel	$282,000	$286,300	$288,700	$291,200	$293,700	$1,441,900

Equipment & Facilities
Lab setup (Ganzfeld room acoustics, furniture)	$45,000	$0	$0	$0	$0	$45,000
RNG hardware (2 Psyleron M10s, backup)	$12,000	$2,000	$0	$0	$0	$14,000
Computers & servers (workstations, data storage)	$15,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$27,000
Audio/visual equipment & maintenance	$8,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$16,000
Facility rent/utilities (monthly lab space)	$36,000	$36,000	$36,000	$36,000	$36,000	$180,000
Subtotal Facilities	$116,000	$43,000	$41,000	$41,000	$41,000	$282,000

Materials & Operations
Participant honoraria ($30/session × ~100 participants × 52 sessions/year)	$156,000	$156,000	$156,000	$156,000	$78,000*	$702,000
Target images, video clips, database licensing	$5,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$1,000	$12,000
Software licenses (surveys, repositories, cloud)	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$15,000
Office supplies & consumables	$4,000	$4,000	$4,000	$4,000	$4,000	$20,000
Travel (conferences, collaborator meetings)	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000	$30,000
Subtotal Operations	$174,000	$171,000	$171,000	$171,000	$92,000	$779,000

Dissemination & Outreach
Project website & maintenance	$4,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$12,000
Open‑access publication fees (4–6 papers @ $2–3k each)	$0	$6,000	$8,000	$8,000	$2,000	$24,000
Public engagement (video, podcasts, infographics)	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000	$25,000
Subtotal Dissemination	$9,000	$13,000	$15,000	$15,000	$9,000	$61,000

Direct Cost Subtotals	$581,000	$513,300	$515,700	$518,200	$435,700	$2,563,900

Overhead & Administration (15%)	$87,150	$76,995	$77,355	$77,730	$65,355	$384,585

TOTAL PROJECT COST	$668,150	$590,295	$593,055	$595,930	$501,055	$2,948,485

*Year 5 participant honoraria reduced as main-experiment phase winds down; follow-up analyses and advanced studies may continue but with smaller active cohort.

Budget Justification

Personnel: Personnel lines are grounded in 2025 U.S. median salary ranges from multiple sources (ZipRecruiter, Talent.com, Jobted, PayScale, BLS, and postdoctoral/faculty compensation benchmarks). PI and Co-I at 0.2 FTE reflect leadership roles in a specialized, long-term program; Research Manager is full-time core staff; Research Assistants at 2.5 FTE cover daily protocol implementation and data management. Modest 2% annual cost-of-living increases applied to manager and RA lines.

Facilities: Ganzfeld room is the main capital investment ($45,000 Year 1); ongoing facility rent ($36k/year) is moderate for a university-affiliated or stand-alone lab in most U.S. locations. RNG hardware is concentrated in Year 1 with maintenance in Year 2.

Participant honoraria: $30/session for 60–120 weekly participants is modest but sufficient to ensure consistent participation and respect for volunteers’ time.

Open science & dissemination: Significant investment in preregistration, open data, and public engagement reflects commitment to credibility, transparency, and social responsibility.

Overhead: 15% institutional overhead is typical for non-profit research institutions.

Funding Strategy

This total ($2.95M over 5 years, ≈$590k/year average) is suitable for:

Single large foundation ($3M+ grant)
Consortium of 2–3 foundations ($800k–1.2M each)
Government agency (NSF, NIH, if willing to fund controversial topic) + foundation co-funding
Wealthy individual philanthropist interested in frontier science or consciousness studies

TIMELINE & MILESTONES

Phase	Timeline	Key Milestones
Planning & Setup	Months 0–6	Protocol finalized; IRB approval; OSF preregistration; lab renovated; staff hired
Recruitment & Piloting	Months 6–18	120–160 participants recruited & screened; groups formed; 20–30 pilot sessions completed; procedures refined
Main Experiments (Phase 1)	Months 18–36	~3,000 Ganzfeld/RV trials & ~1,500 RNG trials; preliminary Aim 1 & 2 analyses; Registered Report submitted
Advanced Analyses & Follow-ups	Months 36–48	Mechanistic modeling (Aim 3); exploratory registered-report on high-confidence findings
Synthesis & Dissemination	Months 48–60	2–4 peer-reviewed papers published; open datasets & protocols released; training package finalized; grant reporting

CONCLUSION

This project represents a rare opportunity to conduct rigorous, long-term research on a scientifically controversial but culturally significant topic—one that academia largely avoids but private funders can champion. By combining:

Rigorous methodology (preregistration, blinding, randomization, open science)
Psychological realism (altered states, free-response, emotionally engaging tasks)
Longitudinal depth (small groups trained and measured over years)
Mechanistic ambition (trial-level modeling of mind-state correlates)

We can move beyond isolated anecdotes and fragmented studies toward a coherent understanding of whether—and how—group psi effects operate. The results will either reveal a robust phenomenon warranting continued investigation, or provide definitive evidence that psi is an artifact of expectancy and suggestion, allowing resources to be redirected.

Either outcome is scientifically and societally valuable.

REFERENCES

[1] Bem, D. J., Tressoldi, P. E., Rabeyron, T., & Duggan, M. (2016). Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anticipation of random future events. F1000Research, 4, 1188.

[2] Bourke, P., & Sherwood, S. J. (2021). Anomalous cognition: An umbrella review of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28(10), 25–53.

[3] May, E. C., Utts, J. M., & Spottiswoode, S. J. (2022). A meta-analysis of remote viewing research: 1974–2022. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–15.

[4] Radin, D. I., & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19(12), 1499–1514.

Contact & Additional Information

For inquiries, please visit: [Project Website URL]
For technical details: [PI Email]
For funding opportunities: [Grant Administrator Email]