Have any political events matched Cayce's forecasts, and what are examples of hits and misses?

1. The appeal: grand, malleable prophecies that fit many outcomes

Followers present Cayce as forecasting large, epochal shifts — “a shift of political power and economic systems” and a move toward national unity and peace — phrased in sweeping language that can be mapped onto many events, which is why writers link his words to modern developments ^{[1] [2]}. The sources show proponents emphasize vague, transformational themes rather than precise dates and mechanisms, making apparent “hits” easy to claim after the fact ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Claimed hits: unity, world order shifts, Russia’s role

Enthusiastic accounts list examples they call validations: Cayce’s alleged prediction that “nations once divided would seek unity” and that Russia would “become a pivotal force for world harmony” are cited as matching any post‑Cold War rapprochements or diplomatic turns proponents deem positive ^[2]. Blogs and ebook summaries treat such general forecasts as evidence of prescience, but they do not show original trance text linked to a named event with date‑specific accuracy ^[2].

3. Claimed hits vs. selective reading — who benefits from broad language

The sources reveal an implicit agenda by believers and publishers: broad spiritual narratives sell books and clicks. Material framing Cayce’s visions as confirmations of current politics tends to cherry‑pick language about transformation and “higher consciousness” while ignoring specificity, producing a retrospective pattern‑matching that benefits authors and communities that promote Cayce’s teachings ^{[2] [1]}.

4. High‑profile, recent claims: Trump 2026 prophecy

Modern coverage escalates with articles asserting Cayce predicted a decisive turning point involving Donald Trump in 2026; such pieces present dramatic forecasts but are secondary commentary without linked primary trance transcripts in the supplied material ^[3]. The supplied post frames 2026 as a year of trial and possible rebirth for Trump and the U.S., but the claim in the source is presented as interpretation rather than citation of a dated Cayce reading ^[3].

5. Misses and non‑verifiability: what the supplied sources don’t show

The available reporting does not present incontrovertible examples where Cayce gave a dated, specific political prediction that was later fulfilled exactly; the sources do not supply original Cayce readings tied to precise events or verified timelines ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Therefore, concrete “hits” or “misses” framed to journalistic standards — clear, falsifiable predictions followed by demonstrable outcomes — are not found in the provided material.

6. Two competing perspectives in the sources

Proponents treat Cayce’s broad, spiritual forecasts as proof of prescience and draw links to current geopolitics and individual figures ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The alternative view — implicit in the lack of primary evidence within these sources — is that such claims rely on retrospective interpretation and marketing, not on rigorously documented prophetic hits ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

7. How to evaluate future claims responsibly

Given the patterns in the supplied material, a rigorous approach requires locating original Cayce readings, checking dates and exact wording, and testing whether a prediction was both specific and falsifiable before declaring a “hit” or “miss” — none of which the provided sources fully accomplish ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Readers should regard modern articles that map Cayce onto current politics as interpretive, not documentary.

Limitations: the analysis uses only the three supplied sources; those sources are secondary or editorial and do not include primary Cayce trance transcripts or independent verification, so definitive statements about hits or misses beyond what those pieces claim cannot be made ^{[1] [2] [3]}.