Rupert Sheldrake: The Experiments That Suggest the Mind Extends Beyond the Brain

Morphic Resonance, Telepathy Data, and the Most Banned TED Talk in History

Rupert Sheldrake holds a doctorate in biochemistry from Cambridge University. He was a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge. He was a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. He studied plant hormones and cell biology at the highest levels of academic science. He published in Nature and other top-tier journals.

And then he proposed an idea that got his book publicly burned by the editor of Nature — an unprecedented act in the history of that journal.

The idea was morphic resonance: the hypothesis that nature has a kind of memory, that the forms and behaviors of organisms are shaped not only by genes and physics but by the accumulated habits of all previous organisms of the same type. The more an organism or behavior has occurred, the more probable it becomes, through a field of information — the “morphic field” — that connects all organisms of the same species across space and time.

This idea, first published in A New Science of Life (1981), was described by Sir John Maddox, then editor of Nature, as “the best candidate for burning there has been for many years.” Maddox’s editorial, titled “A Book for Burning?”, was not a review; it was an excommunication. Sheldrake had violated the most fundamental assumption of materialist biology: that the forms of organisms are fully determined by their genes and the laws of physics, with no need for anything resembling a field of memory.

But Sheldrake did not respond to the excommunication by retreating. He responded by designing experiments. And over the next four decades, he accumulated a body of experimental evidence that, while controversial, poses questions that materialist biology has not answered.

Morphic Resonance: The Theory

Sheldrake’s morphic resonance hypothesis begins with a genuine problem in biology: the problem of form.

How does an organism know what shape to be? The standard answer — genes — is insufficient. Genes specify proteins, not shapes. A gene can code for a protein that is an enzyme, a structural element, or a signaling molecule. But genes do not specify the three-dimensional form of a leaf, the branching pattern of a tree, the spiral of a nautilus shell, or the body plan of a salamander.

The problem becomes acute in the case of regeneration. If you cut a flatworm in half, each half regenerates the missing portion — producing two complete worms. The cells at the cut site must “know” what structures they need to produce and in what arrangement. How? The DNA in every cell is identical. What tells the cells at the head end to produce a tail, and the cells at the tail end to produce a head?

The standard answer invokes “positional information” — gradients of signaling molecules that tell each cell where it is in the body and what it should become. This is undoubtedly part of the answer. But Sheldrake argued that positional information is itself insufficient — it can specify relative position but not absolute form. The gradients tell cells where they are; they do not tell them what the complete organism looks like.

Sheldrake proposed that organisms develop their form by reference to a morphic field — a field of information that contains the “memory” of all previous organisms of the same type. The morphic field is not electromagnetic, not gravitational, and not based on any currently known physical force. It is a new type of field that operates through what Sheldrake calls “morphic resonance” — a process by which the form and behavior of current organisms is influenced by the form and behavior of all previous organisms of the same type.

The analogy Sheldrake uses is tuning a television. The TV set does not contain the images it displays. It receives them through electromagnetic fields transmitted from a distance. Similarly, the developing organism does not contain its form in its DNA. It receives its form through the morphic field — the accumulated memory of its species.

The Crystal Test: A Testable Prediction

Sheldrake’s morphic resonance hypothesis makes a specific, testable prediction: when a new chemical compound is first synthesized and crystallized, the process should be difficult (because there is no morphic field to guide the crystal formation). As the compound is crystallized more often, in more laboratories, the crystallization should become progressively easier (because the morphic field becomes stronger with each repetition).

This prediction aligns with a well-known but poorly explained phenomenon in chemistry: new compounds are often difficult to crystallize for the first time, but once they have been crystallized, subsequent crystallizations proceed more easily — even in laboratories that have never worked with the compound before and could not have received “seed crystals” (tiny crystal fragments that provide a template for new crystal growth) from the original laboratory.

The conventional explanation invokes contamination: tiny crystal fragments (seed crystals) spread through the atmosphere, on scientists’ clothing, or through shared laboratory equipment. Sheldrake argues that while contamination is a factor, it cannot account for all cases — particularly cases where crystallization becomes easier in laboratories on different continents that have had no contact with the original laboratory and have used freshly synthesized material.

The crystal test has not been definitively resolved. Both the contamination hypothesis and the morphic resonance hypothesis can account for the available data. A definitive test would require a new compound crystallized for the first time under rigorously controlled conditions that eliminate all possible contamination pathways, with simultaneous crystallization attempts in multiple isolated laboratories. This experiment has been proposed but, as of this writing, has not been conducted at the scale needed for a definitive result.

The Sense of Being Stared At

One of Sheldrake’s most accessible and widely tested experimental claims involves the sense of being stared at — the common human experience of feeling that someone is looking at you from behind, turning around, and finding that someone is indeed staring.

Sheldrake has conducted and compiled extensive experimental data on this phenomenon:

The Basic Experiment

The simplest version of the experiment involves two participants: a “starer” and a “subject.” The subject sits with their back to the starer. In a randomized sequence, the starer either looks at the back of the subject’s head or looks away. After each trial, the subject reports whether they feel they are being stared at or not.

By chance alone, subjects should be correct 50% of the time. Sheldrake’s data, compiled from thousands of trials conducted by researchers, students, and the general public across multiple countries, shows an overall accuracy rate of approximately 54-55% — a small but statistically significant deviation from chance.

Controlled Laboratory Versions

More rigorous versions of the experiment have been conducted in laboratory settings with:

• CCTV cameras replacing direct staring (the starer views the subject on a monitor in a separate room)
• Automated randomization (the staring/non-staring sequence is determined by a computer random number generator)
• Physiological measures (skin conductance) replacing subjective reports

The results of laboratory studies have been mixed. Some studies find a significant effect; others do not. A meta-analysis of staring detection experiments, published by Stefan Schmidt and colleagues in the British Journal of Psychology in 2004, found a small but statistically significant overall effect across the combined studies.

The Critique

Critics, including Richard Wiseman, have argued that the staring detection effect is an artifact of randomization failures, sensory leakage (the subject hearing the starer move), or statistical cherry-picking. Sheldrake has responded by addressing each criticism specifically and by conducting experiments designed to eliminate the identified confounds. The debate continues.

Telephone Telepathy

Sheldrake has conducted extensive experiments on what he calls telephone telepathy — the common experience of thinking about someone just before they call.

The Experiment

The basic design: a subject nominates four people who call them regularly. In each trial, one of the four callers is randomly selected (by the experimenter, not by the caller) to phone the subject at a pre-arranged time. The subject, who knows that one of the four will call, must guess which one it is before answering the phone.

By chance, subjects should be correct 25% of the time (one out of four callers). Sheldrake’s data, from hundreds of trials, shows an overall hit rate of approximately 40-45% — significantly above chance.

The Controlled Versions

Sheldrake has conducted increasingly rigorous versions of the experiment:

• Videotaped trials: Subjects are filmed before answering the phone, so their guess is recorded and cannot be retrospectively changed
• Automated randomization: The caller selection is made by a computer random number generator, eliminating any pattern that subjects might detect
• Unknown callers: In some trials, one of the four possible callers is someone the subject knows well, and the others are strangers. Hit rates are highest for the familiar caller
• Email telepathy: A similar experiment using email instead of phone calls, with similar above-chance results

Replication

The telephone telepathy experiment has been replicated by independent researchers, including a study by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart published in Explore (2005) and a replication by David Luke at the University of Greenwich. Not all replications have found significant results, and the overall evidence is debated.

Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home

Sheldrake’s most widely known research involves the claim that some dogs can anticipate their owner’s return — not by routine or schedule but by some form of connection that operates at a distance.

The Experiment

The most extensively studied case involved a terrier named Jaytee, whose owner, Pam Smart, reported that Jaytee would go to the window and wait for her whenever she was coming home — regardless of the time, the route, or the mode of transport.

Sheldrake designed a controlled experiment. Pam Smart would leave Jaytee at home, and a camera would record the dog’s behavior continuously. At a randomly selected time (chosen by the experimenter after Pam had left, so she could not have a routine expectation), Pam would begin her return journey. The question: does Jaytee go to the window more often during the period when Pam is returning than during the rest of the time she is away?

The Results

Sheldrake’s data showed that Jaytee spent a significantly greater percentage of time at the window during the period when Pam was returning than during control periods. The effect was not explained by routine (Pam’s return time was randomized), by sensory cues (Pam used different modes of transport, including unfamiliar vehicles), or by associative learning.

The Wiseman Controversy

The Jaytee experiment became the center of one of the most contentious disputes in parapsychological research. Skeptic Richard Wiseman conducted his own experiments with Jaytee and concluded that Jaytee did not display telepathic behavior — the dog went to the window frequently throughout the day, and the apparent anticipation was an artifact of the dog’s general restlessness.

Sheldrake responded that Wiseman’s data, when analyzed correctly, actually supported the telepathy hypothesis: Jaytee went to the window and stayed there significantly more often during the return period than during other periods. The disagreement was not about the data (which was similar in both researchers’ experiments) but about the statistical analysis and the criteria for a positive result.

This controversy has never been fully resolved and illustrates a fundamental challenge in consciousness research: researchers with different theoretical commitments can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.

Morphic Resonance in Human Learning

Sheldrake has proposed and conducted experiments testing whether morphic resonance operates in human learning — whether tasks that many people have learned become easier for new learners, even without any direct communication.

The Hidden Image Test

Sheldrake collaborated with researchers to test whether hidden images (images that are difficult to perceive at first but “pop out” once you know what you are looking for) become easier to detect over time as more people learn to see them.

The experiment: a hidden image is shown to a large audience (via television in some experiments). Before the broadcast, the image is tested on a sample of naive subjects to establish a baseline detection rate. After the broadcast (in which the hidden image is revealed and millions of viewers learn to see it), a new sample of naive subjects (who did not see the broadcast) is tested.

Morphic resonance predicts that the post-broadcast group should show a higher detection rate than the pre-broadcast group — even though they had no direct exposure to the solution — because the morphic field has been strengthened by the millions of people who learned to see the image during the broadcast.

Results have been mixed. Some experiments showed an increase in the expected direction; others did not. The experiments are difficult to control rigorously (populations change over time, and many factors besides morphic resonance could affect detection rates), and the results have not been considered definitive by either proponents or critics.

The Extended Mind: Sheldrake’s Broader Vision

Sheldrake has synthesized his research into a broader philosophical framework that he calls the extended mind hypothesis (not to be confused with the extended mind thesis of Andy Clark and David Chalmers in philosophy of mind, though there are parallels).

Sheldrake’s extended mind hypothesis proposes that the mind is not confined to the brain. It extends beyond the brain through the morphic fields of the organism, connecting the individual to:

• Their own body (through the morphic field of the organism, which organizes and maintains the body’s form)
• Other members of their species (through morphic resonance, which connects all organisms of the same type)
• Their environment (through the morphic fields of ecosystems, landscapes, and the Earth itself)
• The past (through morphic resonance, which transmits the accumulated habits and forms of the species across time)

In this framework, telepathy is not anomalous but expected — it is the natural result of minds that are extended and interconnected through morphic fields. The sense of being stared at is a perception mediated by the extended mind. Dogs that anticipate their owners’ return are connected through the morphic field of the human-animal bond. These are not paranormal phenomena; they are normal phenomena of an extended mind that materialist science has refused to acknowledge.

The TED Controversy

In 2013, Sheldrake delivered a TEDx talk titled “The Science Delusion” (the title of his 2012 book, published as Science Set Free in the US), in which he challenged ten assumptions of materialist science that he argued are treated as unquestionable dogmas rather than testable hypotheses.

TED initially posted the talk on its main site, then removed it following complaints from materialist scientists and skeptics. The talk was moved to a special “quarantine” page with a warning that its content was “outside conventional scientific thinking.” The incident became a cause celebre in the debate over scientific freedom and the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

The TED controversy exemplifies the tension that Sheldrake’s work provokes. He does not present himself as a pseudoscientist or a mystic. He presents himself as a scientist who asks uncomfortable questions and designs experiments to test them. His experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals. His data is available for scrutiny. His hypotheses make testable predictions. And yet, his conclusions are so threatening to the materialist framework that institutional science treats them as heretical.

Critics and Fair Assessment

Sheldrake’s work faces legitimate criticisms:

The mechanism problem. Morphic fields have no known physical basis. They are not electromagnetic, not gravitational, and do not fit within any established physical framework. Without a mechanism, morphic resonance remains a description of a hypothesized phenomenon rather than an explanation.

The replication challenge. Many of Sheldrake’s experiments show effects that are statistically significant but small, and independent replications have produced mixed results. The telephone telepathy experiments, the staring experiments, and the morphic resonance learning experiments all show effects in some studies but not others.

The self-selection problem. Many of Sheldrake’s experiments are conducted by volunteers, students, and members of the public, who may be sympathetic to his ideas. This does not invalidate the data, but it introduces potential biases that are difficult to control.

The alternative explanation problem. For most of Sheldrake’s experimental findings, there are alternative explanations that do not invoke morphic resonance. The crystal crystallization data can be explained by contamination. The telephone telepathy data can be explained by unconscious pattern recognition. The staring detection data can be explained by sensory leakage. These alternative explanations may not be more parsimonious than morphic resonance, but they are more consistent with established physics.

These are fair criticisms. But they should be weighed against Sheldrake’s strengths: he asks genuine questions that mainstream science has not answered (particularly the problem of biological form), he designs experiments to test his hypotheses, he publishes his data, and he engages openly with critics. Whether or not morphic resonance proves to be real, Sheldrake’s insistence on testing it experimentally is a model of how anomalous claims should be handled in science.

Sheldrake in the Digital Dharma Framework: The Species Network

Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance maps onto the Digital Dharma framework as the species-level network protocol — the mechanism by which individual organisms connect to the accumulated memory and wisdom of their entire species.

If the body is wetware, morphic fields are the firmware — the pre-installed patterns that configure the wetware for a specific function. The DNA provides the hardware specifications (what proteins to make), but the morphic field provides the system configuration (what shape to take, what behaviors to express). This is why identical DNA can produce different forms depending on context (the same genome produces a butterfly from a caterpillar, a frog from a tadpole) — the morphic field, not the DNA, determines the form.

If DNA is source code, morphic resonance is version control — the system by which each generation’s code builds on the accumulated “commits” of all previous generations. This is not genetic inheritance (which is passed through DNA) but a parallel inheritance system that operates through the morphic field. It is the species’ collective memory, continuously updated by every organism’s experience.

If consciousness is the operating system, the extended mind is the OS’s networking capability — its ability to connect to other instances of the OS (other minds) through the morphic field. Telepathy, remote viewing, and the sense of being stared at are all networking functions — data exchange between connected instances of the consciousness OS.

The shamanic concept of the “web of life” — the interconnected field that links all living beings — is a description of the morphic field. The shaman who “merges” with an animal spirit is accessing the morphic field of that species. The medicine person who “reads” the patient’s energy body is accessing the patient’s morphic field. The healer who channels the wisdom of the ancestors is resonating with the accumulated morphic field of the lineage.

Key Works

• A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance (1981, 3rd ed. 2009)
• The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (1988)
• Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999, revised 2011)
• The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Unexplained Powers of the Human Mind (2003)
• Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery (2012; UK title: The Science Delusion)
• Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work (2019)

The Bottom Line

Rupert Sheldrake is either a visionary who has identified a fundamental aspect of nature that materialist science has missed, or a talented scientist who has constructed an elegant but ultimately incorrect hypothesis and interpreted ambiguous data too generously. The verdict depends on whether morphic resonance can be demonstrated convincingly in controlled experiments — and after four decades, the experimental evidence remains suggestive but not definitive.

What is beyond dispute is the value of the questions Sheldrake asks. How do organisms acquire their form? Why do new compounds crystallize more easily over time? Why do so many people report knowing who is calling before they answer the phone? These are genuine questions, and dismissing them because the proposed answer (morphic resonance) is uncomfortable is not science. It is dogma.

Sheldrake has spent a career poking at the edges of the materialist paradigm, looking for the places where the map does not match the territory. He has found several. Whether morphic resonance is the correct explanation for what he has found is an open question. That he has found something that needs explaining is not.