Which reputable sources track the accuracy of Edgar Cayce's prophecies and their historical fulfillment?

1. Where the primary record lives — the home institutions

The most authoritative place to start is the organizations that preserve the original readings: the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.) and the Edgar Cayce Foundation, which hold the full archive of 14,306 readings and associated case files and make them available for research under specific policies ^{[1] [2]}. These repositories control access and publish Cayce-based summaries, events, and curated lists of “fulfilled” prophecies ^{[6] [7]}.

2. What Cayce-affiliated trackers publish and why to treat them cautiously

A.R.E. web pages and foundation publications present lists of prophecies “that came true” and promote events and books explaining Cayce’s predictions ^{[4] [7]}. These sources are primary for anyone wanting to see Cayce’s texts and the organization’s interpretation, but they have an explicit agenda to preserve and promote Cayce’s legacy and so generally emphasize confirmations over falsifications ^{[7] [4]}.

3. Scholarly and critical treatments that evaluate accuracy

Independent academic work exists that evaluates Cayce in context and weighs his successes and failures; a SUNY Press book titled Edgar Cayce in Context examines the readings and explicitly “evaluates evidence for and against Cayce’s reliability” and argues some readings reflect recipients’ interests as well as Cayce’s ideas ^[3]. Christian Research Institute and similar critical outlets catalog notable misses (for example, predictions that did not occur) and point to methodological problems in retroactive matching and vague phrasing ^[8].

4. Popular media and compilations — lots of lists, uneven standards

Media pieces, listicles, and tribute essays commonly compile Cayce “hits” (Stock Market crash, warnings of financial disturbance, Bimini Road, predictions about world wars and “earth changes”), but they differ widely in how strictly they match text to outcome and in whether they mention outright failures ^{[9] [10] [5]}. Some outlets present these items as convincing proof; others note that many predictions are vague or were reinterpreted after events ^{[11] [5]}.

5. Common methodological pitfalls in “tracking” prophecies

Assessing Cayce requires comparing the original reading text, dating, and specificity against the historical record; many favorable claims rely on post hoc interpretation, selective citation, or broad language that can be mapped to multiple outcomes (noted in academic critique) ^{[3] [11]}. Cayce’s corpus also mixes health readings, past-life material, and world-event predictions — roughly 70% dealt with health — so focusing only on a handful of public prophecies gives a skewed picture ^[12].

6. Practical next steps for a researcher or skeptical reader

If you want systematic tracking: consult the archival transcripts at the A.R.E./Edgar Cayce Foundation to read original readings ^{[2] [1]}; then consult independent scholarly evaluations such as the SUNY Press book for methodological critique ^[3]. For balance, read both Cayce-affiliated “fulfilled prophecy” pages and skeptical summaries (e.g., Christian Research Institute or academic analyses) to compare claims about specific prophecies like the 1929 market warning, WWII alliances, the Bimini Road timing, and the unfulfilled 1998/1968 predictions ^{[9] [5] [10] [8]}.

7. What the available reporting does not settle

Available sources do not provide a single, neutral, comprehensive database that rates every Cayce reading against historical outcomes with transparent criteria; instead you must triangulate between the A.R.E./foundation archives, academic treatments, and mainstream reporting to form an evidence-backed view ^{[2] [3] [5]}.