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.
Have any reanalyses of Cayce case files used blinded controls or preregistered protocols?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the provided sources that any modern reanalyses of Edgar Cayce’s case files used blinded controls or preregistered protocols; the materials and secondary accounts emphasize large archival collections and topical "circulating files" or research bulletins but do not describe controlled, blinded re-analyses or prospective preregistration [1] [2]. Contemporary A.R.E. activity focuses on access, workshops, and topic-based compilations of readings rather than modern clinical-style replications with formal methodology [2] [3].
1. What the archives and collections actually are — not controlled trials
The surviving material about Edgar Cayce is overwhelmingly archival: the Edgar Cayce Foundation and the A.R.E. maintain original readings, case files, and "circulating files" or research bulletins that compile readings by topic and sometimes include statistical summaries; these resources are presented as reference tools and historical documents, not as records of blinded experimental reanalysis [1] [2]. The collections are described as transcriptions, case files and curated topical files rather than as datasets produced for randomized, blinded re‑testing [1] [2].
2. Research bulletins and circulating files: descriptive, retrospective compilations
The A.R.E.’s circulating files (CFs) and research bulletins (RBs) are described as "collections of verbatim Edgar Cayce readings and readings extracts" that may include "statistical analysis for the cause and treatment of a medical condition recommended by Cayce," but that phrasing places them in the realm of retrospective compilation and interpretation rather than prospective, controlled validation with blinded protocols [2]. The materials are intended as reference and study aids, not as documentation of preregistered experimental designs [2].
3. Scholarly and popular discussion acknowledges lack of controlled double‑blind tests historically
Secondary commentary in collected works notes the absence of “carefully controlled double-blind experiments” conducted during Cayce’s life, signaling a historical gap between anecdotal case histories and modern standards of experimental validation [4]. That statement in the literature indicates historians and editors have pointed out a lack of such experimental controls in Cayce-related research [4].
4. Modern A.R.E. activity emphasizes teaching, workshops and community research, not clinical replication
Recent A.R.E. programming and affiliated centers advertise workshops on how to research the readings, certification programs, events, and public-facing resources that promote study and application of the readings rather than announcing blinded reanalyses or preregistered replication projects [3] [5] [6]. The organizational focus shown in the sources is educational and archival [3] [5].
5. What is missing from the available reporting — no documented blinded reanalysis or preregistration
Available sources do not mention any reanalysis of Cayce case files that used blinded controls or preregistered protocols; they document archives, topical compilations, and workshops but do not report formal experimental re‑examination following modern open‑science practices such as preregistration or blinded assessment [1] [2] [4] [3]. If such work exists, it is not described in the provided material.
6. Why this matters — standards of evidence and how to interpret the archive
Archival case files and retrospective statistical summaries can document patterns and generate hypotheses, but they cannot substitute for prospective, blinded, preregistered experiments designed to rule out bias, selective reporting, and post‑hoc interpretation; commentators and editors of Cayce material explicitly note the absence of “carefully controlled double‑blind experiments,” underlining the difference between historical case compilation and contemporary validation [4]. That gap is the central reason why claims of psychic healing or diagnostic accuracy remain disputed when judged by modern experimental standards [4].
7. Paths forward — what to look for if you want rigorous reanalysis
To establish whether any reanalysis meets contemporary standards, look for explicit mentions in A.R.E. or academic outlets of (a) preregistration of methods and outcomes, (b) use of blinded raters or controls, and (c) peer‑reviewed publication of results. None of the supplied A.R.E. materials, circulating files descriptions, or secondary discussions in these sources describe that sequence of practices [2] [3] [4]. If you want, I can search for peer‑reviewed studies or external independent investigations referencing preregistration or blinding beyond these archives.
Limitations: my summary relies only on the supplied documents; available sources do not mention any blinded, preregistered reanalyses of Cayce’s case files [1] [2] [4] [3].