Which historians or scholars have published critical assessments of Edgar Cayce's prophetic record?

1. Who has taken Cayce seriously enough to critique him from a historical angle

Historian K. Paul Johnson produced a scholarly study titled Edgar Cayce in Context, described in the publisher’s materials as a “deeply balanced and meticulous scholarly analysis” that evaluates evidence for and against Cayce’s reliability; that book explicitly examines Cayce’s place between late‑19th‑century esotericism and the New Age movement ^{[1] [8]}. Sidney D. Kirkpatrick wrote a comprehensive biography, Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet, based on unrestricted access to Cayce’s letters and organizational records; while Kirkpatrick’s work is not framed here as a refutation, it is treated in the literature as a major archival source that allows other scholars to test Cayce’s claims ^{[2] [1]}. These two authors represent scholarly and archival engagement rather than merely devotional or promotional writing ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Skeptical and religious critiques documented in coverage

Skeptical scientists and religious critics appear repeatedly in press accounts and organized critiques. The Los Angeles Times piece and other mainstream reporting note that skeptics point to Cayce’s “missed” predictions and diagnostic errors as grounds for doubting his prophetic reliability ^[4]. The Christian Research Institute framed Cayce as “the would‑be sleeping prophet,” cataloguing methodological problems in how alleged healings were supported and noting cases where readings were given for people already dead when letters arrived—an argument used to question both medical and prophetic claims ^[3].

3. Reference works that summarize criticisms and limits

Britannica, Wikipedia and Encyclopedia.com entries on Cayce summarize both his central claims (he gave more than 14,000 trance readings and built the A.R.E.) and the mainstream, scholarly and skeptical reactions—highlighting that he had little formal education, that some treatments were folk remedies, and that skeptics view some diagnoses as coincidental recoveries ^{[5] [6] [9]}. These reference entries are useful as neutral compendia that point readers to contested areas (medical efficacy, prophetic accuracy, and intellectual lineage) without advocating a single conclusion ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Where journalists and popular historians focus their criticism

Journalists and popular historians concentrate on verifiable patterns: the volume of readings (often cited as ~14,000), specific high‑profile misses, and organizational promotion by the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) that sometimes blurs advocacy and scholarship ^{[7] [10]}. The Washington Post and other mainstream outlets emphasize Cayce’s cultural standing and the cyclical reappraisal of his predictions—reporting both devotees’ claims and critics’ emphasis on failed or vague prophecies ^{[11] [4]}.

5. Themes critics raise about methodology and postdiction

Critics—both academic and popular—highlight several methodological problems: that many readings are retrospective or depend on vague symbolism, that recipients’ interests may shape readings, and that hindsight and postdiction (interpreting ambiguous statements after events) complicate claims of prophetic success ^{[8] [12]}. K. Paul Johnson’s scholarly appraisal explicitly argues the readings reflect late‑nineteenth and early‑twentieth‑century esoteric currents as much as objective clairvoyance ^[8].

6. What supporters and Cayce’s organization argue in response

The A.R.E. materials and Cayce‑friendly writers emphasize readings on ancient mysteries, medical remedies and future “earth changes,” and contest that many of Cayce’s insights were ahead of their time; A.R.E. publishes selections of Cayce’s prophecies and frames some contested items (e.g., Essene claims, Atlantis) as topics meriting further inquiry ^{[13] [14] [10]}. Supporters such as John Van Auken and Cayce scholars present interpretive frameworks that treat symbolic readings as meaningful rather than falsifiable in straightforward empirical terms ^{[15] [14]}.

7. How to read these critiques: competing agendas and limits of the sources

Be aware that archival biographers (Kirkpatrick) and historians (Johnson) aim for documentary rigor, while media outlets and evangelical critics (Christian Research Institute) often write from particular institutional angles that can be skeptical or polemical ^{[2] [1] [3]}. The A.R.E. and sympathetic writers seek to defend Cayce’s legacy and promote ongoing interpretation of ambiguous material ^{[10] [13]}. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, single list of every historian who has issued a formal scholarly rejection of Cayce’s prophecies; instead the literature is a mix of archival biography, scholarly contextualization, skeptical appraisal, and A.R.E. advocacy (not found in current reporting).

If you want, I can pull direct quotations from Kirkpatrick, Johnson, Britannica and the Christian Research Institute for a side‑by‑side comparison of their most pointed criticisms and their suggested defenses ^{[2] [8] [5] [3]}.