How have researchers evaluated the accuracy of Edgar Cayce's disaster predictions?

1. Who is doing the evaluating — and why it matters

Most visible evaluations of Cayce’s prophetic accuracy in the provided sources are produced by Cayce-affiliated organizations and sympathetic authors: the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) frames readings as prophetic and spiritually instructive ^{[1] [2]}, while recent popular writers and books compile and interpret readings as evidence of validation ^{[3] [4]}. That institutional origin matters because it creates an interpretive pipeline: the same archive of readings is filtered by people with an explicit interest in affirming Cayce’s significance, which shapes which predictions are counted as “accurate” ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What counts as a “hit” in Cayce scholarship

Sources sympathetic to Cayce treat broad, symbolic, or long-range statements as successful predictions when later events can be read back into them. For example, A.R.E. highlights readings about China’s future prominence and geophysical changes and presents those as foresight rather than ambiguous language ^[1]. Contemporary authors and popular books follow a similar approach, comparing Cayce’s general statements about world events, technology and geological change against the historical record and concluding many were “partially validated” ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Methods used by proponents to validate predictions

Proponents typically: (a) select readings that resemble later events, (b) interpret metaphoric or symbolic passages as literal forecasts, and (c) present partial matches as confirmation. Event-by-event statistical testing, clearly defined success criteria, or counterexamples do not appear in the materials provided; instead, narrative matching and retrospective interpretation are the dominant techniques ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

4. Absences and limitations in the supplied reporting

The supplied sources do not include independent, peer-reviewed, or skeptical analyses that apply rigorous historical methodology, pre-registration of predictions, or falsifiability testing (not found in current reporting). Academic critique, methods for avoiding hindsight bias, or comprehensive counts of misses versus hits are not present in these materials; available sources focus on affirmation and public education rather than neutral verification ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Competing perspectives visible in the record

Within the supplied material there is a clear split: Cayce organizations and popular authors emphasize validation and ongoing relevance ^{[1] [3] [2]}, while the lack of skeptical or academic voices in these sources signals that counterarguments — such as the role of vague language, selection bias, or post hoc interpretation — are not being engaged here (not found in current reporting). Readers should note that advocacy and promotion are explicit aims of some sources ^[2], which creates an interpretive agenda.

6. What a rigorous evaluation would require

A robust evaluation would require public, time-stamped predictions with explicit success criteria; a full accounting of predictions that failed; third-party replication of scoring rules; and statistical analysis that accounts for chance and hindsight bias. None of these methodological safeguards appear in the materials provided, which center on retrospective narrative confirmation ^{[1] [3] [4] [2]}.

7. Practical takeaway for readers

If you want a balanced judgment about Cayce’s disaster predictions, the current accessible record is weighted toward believers and promoters who catalogue agreeable matches ^{[1] [3] [4] [2]}. Independent, critical scholarship and transparent, quantitative methods are absent from the supplied sources, so definitive claims about Cayce’s predictive accuracy cannot be established from this corpus alone (not found in current reporting).