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.
Which independent scholars have critiqued the A.R.E.'s evaluations of Edgar Cayce since 2000?
Executive summary
Available reporting and scholarship in the provided sources identifies several independent scholars and critics who have engaged seriously with Edgar Cayce and (by extension) the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) since 2000 — most prominently Sidney D. Kirkpatrick (biographer) and K. Paul Johnson (scholar) — and notes continued skeptical treatments by popular debunkers and religious critics [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage in these sources highlights both sympathetic reassessments and methodological critiques of Cayce’s readings but does not offer a comprehensive list of every independent scholar who has critiqued A.R.E. since 2000 [1] [3] [4].
1. Who the visible independent critics and scholars are
Two of the clearest names in the provided material are Sidney D. Kirkpatrick, whose 2000 biography Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet brought renewed attention to Cayce and is discussed on A.R.E.’s own pages and in reviews [1] [5], and historian K. Paul Johnson, author of Edgar Cayce in Context, who is described as offering “deeply balanced and meticulous” scholarly analysis and effective critiques of Cayce’s thought [3] [2]. These works function as independent scholarly or journalistic evaluations rather than internal A.R.E. defenses, and they appear in reporting and publisher descriptions supplied here [3] [1] [2].
2. What kinds of critique these independent voices advance
The critiques range from literary-historical contextualization to methodological skepticism. K. Paul Johnson is presented as offering “effective critiques” and historical placement of Cayce between late-19th‑century esotericism and New Age movements, implying careful scholarly evaluation rather than polemic [3]. Journalistic reviews of Kirkpatrick’s book both praise Cayce’s record and note the parade of "would-be debunkers" and skeptical reception; Salon’s review frames Kirkpatrick as sympathetic but acknowledges longstanding skeptic challenges [1]. More explicitly skeptical summaries (e.g., encyclopedic or skeptical writers cited on Wikipedia) emphasize that Cayce’s “verified” claims can be tied to contemporaneous sources and that evidence for clairvoyance relies heavily on testimonies rather than independently verifiable data [4].
3. Religious and ideological critics also feature
Religiously oriented critics are visible in the supplied material: Probe Ministries and Christian Research Institute-type reporting evaluate Cayce from a biblical or doctrinal standpoint, arguing that Cayce’s worldview is pantheistic or incompatible with biblical Christianity and questioning methodological claims about accuracy [6] [7]. These critiques are independent of A.R.E. and focus on theological consistency and evidentiary standards rather than archival history [6] [7].
4. A.R.E.’s presentation and sympathetic scholarship
A.R.E.’s own materials and affiliated pieces portray Cayce positively, calling him “the most documented psychic of the 20th century” and highlighting institutional stewardship of the readings [8] [9]. The A.R.E. site also commemorates recent figures who promoted Cayce’s legacy, like Kirkpatrick, indicating overlapping audiences between sympathetic biographical work and the organization itself [5]. This institutional framing can shape perception of critiques as coming from outside or adversarial perspectives [8] [5].
5. Limits of the available sources and what they do not show
Available sources do not mention an exhaustive roster of independent scholars who have critiqued A.R.E. since 2000; they name a few prominent figures (Kirkpatrick, Johnson) and summarize broad skeptical positions [1] [3] [4]. The snippets include general references to “would‑be debunkers” and unnamed scholars questioning methodology, but they do not list additional independent academics, peer‑reviewed articles since 2000, or a comprehensive survey of critique directed specifically at the A.R.E.’s post‑2000 evaluations or institutional practices [1] [4] [7].
6. How to pursue a more complete answer
To build a comprehensive list you would need to search academic databases, book reviews, and specialized journals for scholarship on Cayce and the A.R.E. after 2000; consult historiographical works (e.g., K. Paul Johnson) and look for critical responses in religious studies, history of medicine, and skeptical periodicals cited beyond these sources — material not provided in the current set (not found in current reporting). The present sources establish key independent voices and the major fault-lines (sympathetic biography, scholarly contextualization, methodological skepticism, and religious critique) that any fuller accounting should address [3] [1] [4] [6].