Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there recent academic books or dissertations analyzing the A.R.E.'s handling of Cayce's readings since 2000?
Executive summary
There is limited coverage in the supplied results of recent (post-2000) academic books or dissertations that critically analyze how the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) has handled Edgar Cayce’s readings; most documents in the set are A.R.E. materials, archival collections, or popular/organizational summaries rather than independent scholarly monographs published after 2000 [1] [2] [3]. A notable scholarly volume that analyzes the Cayce corpus from a critical, academic perspective — Edgar Cayce in Context — exists but its publication date and framing in the provided snippet are not explicitly dated here, and the results do not list recent dissertations addressing A.R.E.’s institutional handling of the readings (p1_s11; available sources do not mention recent dissertations).
1. What the record in these results actually shows
The searchable items returned are overwhelmingly A.R.E.-produced resources: the A.R.E. website presents the readings, databases, circulating files, research bulletins and promotional materials describing access to the 14,306 readings and topical collections [1] [4] [2] [5]. The Edgar Cayce Foundation/Archives collections and catalog records likewise document the holdings and how they’re organized for research use [3] [6] [7]. Those items demonstrate rich primary-source access but are organizational/archival rather than independent scholarly critiques of A.R.E.’s editorial, curatorial, or institutional practices [2] [3].
2. Where academic critique appears in the supplied set
The clearest academic treatment in the results is the book listed as Edgar Cayce in Context from SUNY Press, which the snippet describes as the “first book to focus solely on appraising the entire body of the Cayce readings from a scholarly perspective,” and that it evaluates the readings’ content and limitations [8]. That suggests scholarly interest in Cayce’s readings and methodology, but the provided excerpt does not specify whether the author assesses A.R.E.’s posthumous stewardship, nor does it indicate that the book is a post-2000 work in these search snippets [8].
3. Gaps: what the sources do not show (important for your question)
Available sources do not mention a corpus of recent academic books or doctoral dissertations (post-2000) that analyze A.R.E.’s handling of Cayce’s readings specifically. The search returns archival guides, A.R.E. publications, promotional material, and at least one scholarly book focused on Cayce’s readings broadly — but none of the snippets report contemporary academic monographs or PhD theses that critique A.R.E.’s editorial practices, governance, or changes in access policy since 2000 [1] [2] [8] [3]. In short: the supplied results document primary materials and organization, not a body of recent secondary scholarly critique.
4. Possible reasons for the gap and where to look next
The material returned suggests two likely explanations: (a) A.R.E. and the Edgar Cayce Foundation maintain and promote extensive primary-source access, producing institutional literature (circulating files, research bulletins, databases) that crowds out critical takes in general web searches [2] [4] [1]; (b) independent academic studies may exist but were not among these search hits — they could be in university repositories, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, specialized journals in religious studies/new religious movements, or academic presses beyond the SUNY title shown [8] [3]. The archives themselves (Edgar Cayce Foundation collection records) indicate materials are available for research, which may support future dissertations or books if not already published [3].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas you should note
A.R.E.’s own materials present Cayce’s readings as continuing therapeutic and spiritual resources and stress broad access to the corpus via member databases and curated topical files [1] [4] [2]. That institutional framing carries an implicit agenda of preservation, promotion, and use of the readings. By contrast, at least one scholarly source (Edgar Cayce in Context) frames the readings as objects of critical appraisal and notes fallibility and the influence of questioners’ interests on content — a more skeptical, analytical stance [8]. The supplied sources do not provide other explicit dissenting scholarly views on A.R.E.’s editorial stewardship after 2000 (p1_s11; available sources do not mention further competing academic critiques).
6. Practical next steps I can do for you
If you want, I can (a) search academic-dissertation databases (ProQuest, university repositories) and library catalogs for post-2000 dissertations specifically about A.R.E.’s handling of the readings; (b) pull publication details (author, year, publisher) for Edgar Cayce in Context from full records; or (c) query the Edgar Cayce Foundation archives record for researcher access policies or published finding aids that might list scholarly works citing institutional decisions since 2000 [3]. Say which of these you prefer and I’ll run the targeted search using available sources.