This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 2, from 1991.
In 1895, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays, and shortly afterwards gamma rays and alpha and beta particles were first detected. These discoveries made researchers more willing to accept the existence of new forms of radiation. Without this openness the strange affair of N-rays might never have started.
One of the scientists conducting research into the properties of the newly discovered X-rays was Professor Rene Blondlot (1849-1930), head of the Department of Physics at Nancy University and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. He was a distinguished scientist and an expert in the physics of electromagnetic radiation. His research into whether X-rays were waves or particles (they are now known to be both), by seeing what effect polarised X-rays had on the intensity of a spark, indicated through the increased brightness of the spark that they were waves. But further tests showed that the radiation he was using on the spark could not be X-rays. He concluded that the cause of the visible change in spark brightness must be a new form of radiation which he was later to call N-rays, after the University of Nancy.
It was from this mistaken conclusion that the N-ray affair began. Blondlot next devised a series of increasingly sensitive experiments and devices for the detection of N-rays. The best of these involved phosphors, substances which emit light when struck by radiation. In early 1903, after he had investigated some of their properties, he published details of his discovery of N-rays. Soon experiments to detect N-rays were being performed by scientists all over the world.
While most researchers failed to detect N-rays at all, teams in France were discovering many unusual properties of the rays. Some substances opaque to visible light such as wood, paper and aluminium were found to be transparent to N-rays, and Blondlot even used aluminium prisms in his research. In contrast, water was found to be opaque to N-rays. The professor of medical physics at Nancy, Augustin Charpentier, discovered that N-rays were emitted by both living and dead bodies, and if shone on the eyes they improved a person’s ability to see in the dark. During 1904 an increasing number of scientific papers were published on N-rays and their properties.
Outside France, many leading physicists were unable to detect N-rays using Blondlot’s experiments. Some of these physicists met at the year’s meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and decided that one of them should visit Blondlot’s lab in Nancy. The physicist chosen was Robert W Wood (1868-1955), Professor of physics at Johns Hopkins University in the US and an expert in optics and spectroscopy. He was also the author of the humorous book How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers, and had in the past combated fraud by revealing that some spiritualists were fakes.
It was in September 1904 that Wood visited Blondlot’s laboratory. During his three-hour visit he was shown several experiments displaying various properties of N-rays, and he later described what happened in a letter to Nature (29 September, 1904). The first experiment involved the effect of N-rays on the brightness of a spark. Wood saw no difference between when the N-rays were concentrated on it and when his hand stopped them. He was told it was because his eyes were not sensitive enough.
Wood then asked the others to watch the screen upon which the light of the spark fell, and to say the exact moment when he blocked the rays. Not once were they able to correctly answer, despite having claimed that the change was distinctly noticeable. Next, Wood was shown photographic evidence of N-rays which clearly showed a difference in spark brightness. Wood saw that not only did the variability in spark brightness make accurate work impossible, but the manual control of the multiple photographic exposures was also a source of error. Knowing which photos were supposed to show N-rays, the operator could, in each exposure, unconsciously keep those photos exposed for a fraction of a second longer. At this point Wood still remained unconvinced. It was what occurred in the following experiments which convinced him N-rays did not exist
In a darkened room, Blondlot demonstrated how, with the use of an aluminium prism, a beam of N-rays could be separated into four beams of different wavelengths. These four beams were detected by moving a piece of cardboard with a phosphorescent strip painted down the middle along a curved steel support. Wood tried moving the detecting device along the curve but noticed no change in its brightness. While Blondlot prepared to take some measurements, Wood took advantage of the darkness to secretly remove the prism. Blondlot then took the measurements, getting the same values he normally got. Wood replaced the prism before the lights were turned back on. Next, Wood asked if he could move the prism so that Blondlot and colleagues could decide by the use of the detector if it was refracting the N-rays to the the left or the right. Three attempts were made but they were not correct, even once. They claimed that their failure was due to fatigue.
Finally, Blondlot showed Wood some experiments which showed how N-rays improved eyesight. He was taken into a room which was dimly lit so that the hands of a clock on the wall could not be seen. When an N-ray emitter (a steel file) was held close to a subject’s eyes, the subject claimed to be able to distinctly see the hands of the clock. After trying and failing to see any difference, Wood suggested a test. He chose when to move the file near the subject. Realising that the room was light enough for the subject to see when the file was being moved he secretly replaced it with a wooden ruler of the same size and shape which lay on one of the desks in the room. Despite the fact that wood was one of the substances unable to emit N-rays, the experiment was still a success.
Wood left Blondlot’s lab convinced N-rays did not exist, and that much of the evidence was purely imaginary. In his letter to Nature he described his visit and conclusions. This explained why so many top scientists had been unable to detect N-rays, simply because they did not exist, and it destroyed most of the support for N-rays outside of France.
Blondlot responded to Wood’s letter by increasing the accuracy of his experiments, but he still claimed to obtain successful results. During 1905, he and his supporters began to claim “it was the sensitivity of the observer rather than the validity of the phenomena that was called into question by criticisms like Wood’s.” Similar claims have been made in more recent times in paranormal research.
By this time in France, N-rays were also losing support because physicists had unsuccessfully tried to detect them using experiments like those suggested in Wood’s letter. In 1905, a French science journal published details of an experiment which would definitely show whether or not N-rays existed. Blondlot did not reply until 1906, when he refused to participate in such “a simplistic experiment … let each one form his own opinion about N-rays” he said.
Spring has sprung, marking the end of the cold and flu season. Winter isn’t just cold, wet, and dangerous, it also encourages the spread of colds, flu, and Covid. As more people gather indoors, airborne viruses find the perfect conditions to thrive.
Naturally, this surge in illness leads to renewed interest in how to treat a cold effectively, but despite advances in many fields of medical care over recent centuries, the common cold remains stubbornly incurable. Instead of a definitive cure, we’re left managing symptoms to ease discomfort.
BBC Future is part of the BBC’s international online service, covering science, technology, environment, and health. They position themselves as a source of truth, facts, and science – an approach I fully support. So, what do they have to say about the evidence behind home remedies?
Immune supplements
The article begins by noting that many home remedies focus on the idea of boosting the immune system, also noting that for otherwise healthy individuals, immune function is only impaired when there’s a deficiency in essential vitamins or minerals. If your diet is already well balanced, supplements offer little benefit. It’s a valid point – despite the claims of supplement pedlars, supplements won’t supercharge an already healthy immune system. It then goes on to discuss a specific piece of research on this, a pilot study published in PLoS One in 2020.
The study involved 259 participants who were randomly assigned to receive either a supplement (containing vitamins A, D, C, E, B6, B12, folic acid, zinc, selenium, copper, and iron) or a placebo. Over 12 weeks, participants completed weekly surveys tracking any cold symptoms. The results indicated fewer runny noses and fewer coughs among those taking supplements, concluding that this low-cost intervention merits further investigation.
Given the context already discussed (supplements aren’t expected to benefit otherwise healthy individuals without a vitamin or mineral deficiency) one assumes that some fraction of the cohort was mildly deficient in some nutrients, so the supplements here brought their immune function back up to par, reducing the incidence of colds. It’s an interesting finding, but there are a few issues.
The study had a high drop-out rate, with nearly 50% of participants failing to complete the weekly surveys. More concerningly, it did not account for multiple comparisons – a crucial flaw in scientific research.
Studies commonly use p-values to assess whether results are statistically meaningful or just due to chance. The typical threshold is p<0.05, meaning there’s only a 5% chance of observing results like these (or better) if there’s no real effect. However, when multiple outcomes are tested, the likelihood of finding at least one significant result by chance increases. It’s like playing dice: the probability of rolling a six on one attempt is low, but if you roll 20 times, the odds of getting at least one six rise to 97%.
Many studies fail to properly adjust for this, and this pilot study is no exception. The reported improvements for runny noses (p=0.01) and coughs (p=0.04) only hold for a single comparison, but the study also examined the incidence, duration, and severity of headaches, sore throats, congestion, aches, and fever. With so many comparisons, the probability of finding a significant result purely by chance increases dramatically. Just as you can’t roll 20 dice, pick up a six and demand an extra turn, you can’t do 20 comparisons in your study and then talk about how there is only a 1% chance of getting these findings if the supplement does nothing.
While there are a handful of significant effects here, they may well just be noise in the data given the number of comparisons made, and a simple statistical correction for the multiple comparisons eliminates these findings entirely.
To their credit, the authors of the paper acknowledge that the results are not conclusive, calling for more rigorous research. However, these larger, more robust trials have yet to be conducted. Given this, one could argue that it’s premature for BBC Future to reference this paper in an article on the effectiveness of supplements.
Garlic
Next their attention turns to garlic, referencing a 2001 study in which 146 volunteers took either a garlic supplement or a placebo for 12 weeks. The results were striking: the garlic group reported significantly fewer colds; just 24 cases compared to 65 in the placebo group. Cold duration was also notably shorter, averaging just over one day in the garlic group vs five days in the placebo group. The paper even goes so far as to claim that ‘the supplement studied may represent a cure for the common cold.’
These results are so extreme as to be absurd. Are we really expected to believe that participants taking garlic experienced colds lasting only one and a half days? If garlic genuinely cured colds, wouldn’t we have recognised its effects long before 2001? After all, people were chewing willow bark for pain relief for thousands of years before salicin was refined into aspirin. And if we really had discovered that garlic was the cure for the common cold in 2001, where are the Nobel Prizes? Why are we all still getting colds, a quarter of a century later?
Beyond the implausibility of its results, the study also had serious design flaws. The placebo was not taste-matched to the supplement, meaning participants could likely tell which group they were in. This introduces a major source of bias. Another red flag is the author’s claim that garlic ‘may represent a cure’ for colds, since this study wasn’t designed to test garlic as a cure but rather as a preventative, a fundamental difference.
Perhaps the most immediate explanation for these extreme findings lies in the study’s authorship. The lead researcher is the owner of The Garlic Centre, a business that sells garlic supplements – a clear conflict of interest. A 2014 Cochrane review found no reliable support for garlic’s effectiveness against colds, and characterised this paper as ‘poor quality.’ Yet, BBC Future chose to highlight this flawed study as evidence.
However, they fail to mention that this second analysis also found no positive effect for vitamin C. While it does conclude that vitamin C is generally safe, it does not support the claim that it reduces the duration or severity of colds – an omission that I would argue misrepresents the evidence.
The pattern repeats with zinc. BBC Future cites one review which suggests that zinc shortens the duration of runny and blocked noses while also reducing coughing and sneezing. However, a second paper they reference found no such benefit. In fact, some measures in this second paper showed participants in the placebo group do better than those taking zinc, suggesting that in some cases zinc may even be counterproductive. In fairness, this time BBC Future does point this out in their coverage.
Also to their credit, they highlight a key limitation in this type of research: studies rarely, if ever, test whether participants are deficient in vitamin C or zinc before supplementation begins. Any observed benefit could simply be due to correcting an undiagnosed deficiency rather than proving that these supplements provide a meaningful advantage for already healthy individuals. So fair play to BBC Future for recognising that nuance.
What really bothers me is that nearly all the papers on zinc and vitamin C cited by BBC Future come from the same author. Harri Hemilä, a professor at the University of Helsinki, appears to be a strong advocate for vitamin C megadosing and zinc supplementation. Nearly all of his recent publications focus on the supposed benefits of these supplements – not just for colds, but also for Covid, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, sepsis, asthma, and more.
When he’s not promoting vitamin C and zinc, he’s criticising studies that fail to find positive results. He even authored a paper accusing mainstream medicine of bias against vitamin C, insisting that the evidence in its favour is unambiguously positive but unfairly dismissed. Given this, relying so heavily on his work without acknowledging his fringe stance on the subject is a significant oversight from BBC Future.
Skeptics often criticise false balance in journalism, where fringe and mainstream science are presented as if they hold equal weight. But here, we see almost the opposite problem. Even if we accept that there is some scientific debate about the efficacy of vitamin C megadosing, BBC Future leans overwhelmingly on data from a single researcher – one who openly acknowledges that mainstream science does not support megadosing as an effective intervention.
With respect to the common cold, BBC Future cites a 2011 study in which 719 participants who had only just caught a cold were randomly assigned to one of four groups. The first group received echinacea, a popular remedy claimed to help with colds, and knew that’s what it was. The second group also received echinacea, but they were not told it was echinacea, making this a blinded echinacea group. The third group received a placebo but believed they were taking echinacea. The final group received no treatment at all.
The primary outcome measures in the study were illness duration and illness severity. Duration was assessed by asking participants if they believe they still have a cold. The number of days they answered ‘yes’ determined the total duration. Illness severity was measured using a standardised questionnaire – a self-reported and subjective assessment completed by the participants twice a day.
Beyond these, the study collected a range of other data points, including stress levels, general health, and an open-ended question allowing participants to report side effects such as diarrhoea, headaches, nausea, rash, and upset stomach. There were also two objective measures: interleukin-8 concentration, which indicates immune response, and neutrophil counts, which reflect inflammation levels. Finally, researchers asked participants whether they believed echinacea works or not.
For readers who may be unfamiliar, echinacea is a popular alternative remedy derived from a type of daisy. While it has been used for centuries to treat colds, there is no good evidence to support its effectiveness in any medical context. However, it is known to interact dangerously with some medications, making its use potentially risky.
BBC Future reported this study as showing a placebo effect, where participants who believed in echinacea experienced shorter and milder colds than those who did not. They further note that this pattern held regardless of whether participants had actually taken any echinacea at all.
However, these findings rely entirely on self-reported data, where patient bias can easily influence results. People who believe they have received an effective treatment are more likely to report an improvement, even if no real improvement has occurred. This is a well-documented issue with subjective measures in clinical research and often overlooked in placebo effect research.
When looking at the objective data – the inflammation and immune response markers – there was no effect at all, either from echinacea itself or from belief in echinacea. Even the subjective findings disappear once a statistical adjustment is made for the large number of comparisons in the study, further undermining the claim that belief in echinacea had any measurable impact.
Nevertheless, BBC Future goes on to cite a second study in support of the first. This second paper, published in 2010, shows that patients who are unaware if they are getting echinacea do not report improved cold symptoms. This may appear to reinforce the placebo effect narrative: participants in the first study who believed in echinacea reported shorter and less severe colds, but those in the second study, who lacked that belief, did not report the same.
However, upon reading this second paper, I experienced a strong sense of déjà vu. It involved 719 participants who had only just caught a cold being randomly assigned to one of four groups – echinacea, blinded echinacea, placebo, and no treatment. It also shared almost all the same authors as the first study.
Because it turns out that this paper is actually the same dataset. The same patients, documenting the same colds – just published in a different journal eight months earlier. In this earlier version, they found no effect. This earlier paper concluded that illness duration and severity were not significantly affected by echinacea compared to the control groups.
Dissatisfied with these findings, the authors appear to have revisited the raw data and conducted subgroup analyses based on whether participants believed in echinacea. They then published these results in a different journal, presenting them as a separate study all about the placebo effect. Notably, the question about belief in echinacea does not get mentioned in the earlier paper, nor is it mentioned in the trial registration.
On the face of it, this appears to be a case of p-hacking, where researchers manipulate data analysis to produce statistically significant results. This is often done by testing multiple hypotheses, selectively reporting favourable results, or adjusting statistical methods until a desired finding emerges. While usually done with the best of intentions, p-hacking undermines the reliability of scientific research by increasing the likelihood of false positives.
Trial registration is a tool which is designed to combat this, keeping researchers honest about what questions they will ask, and what analyses they will perform. In this case, however, it appears to have fallen down; the second paper with the modified analysis simply does not mention that the registration exists.
BBC Future appears to be a genuine effort to present good science, but in this case, it fell short. Rather than offering a careful, critical analysis, the article relied on flawed studies, overlooked biases, and misrepresented key concepts.
Science journalism should do more than just report findings – it should question them. A more skeptical approach would have provided a clearer, more accurate picture of the evidence. Perhaps next time, BBC Future will live up to its stated mission and truly delve deeper.
From the pages of The Skeptic magazine, this is The Skeptic podcast, bringing you the best of the magazine’s expert analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal since its relaunch as online news source in September 2020.
There is only one certainty in life: everyone will die, from the poorest to the richest. Death is a certainty of life to humans, and we can’t defeat it… or can we?
With so much time and energy spent trying to develop technological equivalents of the fountain of youth, how close are we to arresting the march of time to cheat death or even significantly extend life?
Telomeres
Perhaps the most complicated category of life-extension technology aims to address telomeres – the DNA ‘caps’ that stop our chromosomes from separating or sticking to each other. Think of them as protectors, like the plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces.
Telomeres get shorter every time a cell divides, although telomerase stops this shortening for cells that divide a lot. This shortening is claimed to be associated with ageing; if so, logically, it is argued by some that if we could stop the from shortening or make telomerase active for all cells, we could have immortal cells. Preventing the shortening might not be impossible – we already have cells with effectively infinite telomeres: cancer cells. Many cancer cells can infinitely replicate, thanks to their telomeres.
However, despite what some theories claim, we don’t yet know the full effects of telomeres in ageing. Cellular ageing involves many factors, so it’s hard to know causality with certainty – we might find that we can arrest telomere shortening, which may not reduce cellular ageing. Even if we could make telomeres eternal, we might improve life expectancy, but we could still be just as far from the desired outcome of an immortal lifespan.
Stem cells
Another technology put forth as a potential cure for ageing involves harnessing stem cells, which are versatile cells capable of becoming other cell types, with the ability to repair and renew themselves. Stem cells are more present in the foetus/infant stages, as they are key to human development. They have a vast potential for research and improving the lives of humans, but the key words here are ‘improving’ and ‘extending’ life; they are not a miracle cure.
Imagine for a moment that we could use stem cells to regenerate all body parts (which, currently, we can’t). If you develop a liver problem, you could use stem cells to restore your liver to its youthful state. But what about the brain? Would we inject something into our brain that would slowly make all the old parts new again? The neuron activations and interactions in our lives form our memories and our personality; start to renew the cells, and you risk losing those features. Would you still be you if all your neurons were replaced with fresh new ones?
Digital representation of nerve cells connecting, via wallpaperflare.com
Utilization of fasting diets to alter mood continue to have poorly understood effects and treatment options. Currently, it is not fully understood which fasting option provides the most beneficial effects on groups and even less on individuals nor are there consistent trials assessing the effects of fasting diets in a comparable manner.
Few short and long-term studies work within an isocaloric/isonitrogenous framework making it more difficult to assess the effectiveness of various fasting regimes. Similarly, baseline assessments and comparable populations are limited in many dietetic studies.
Time-restricted feeding studies suggest this may be case, although caution is warranted in applying these results to humans. In mice, once-per-day CR feeding performed early in the dark cycle or early in the light cycle has equivalent effects on lifespan.
I suggest caution and avoiding fad diets or supposed miraculous solutions; we know that some people find benefit in fasting diets, but they aren’t a silver bullet for all health problems.
In conclusion
There are lots of theories around tech that could extend life, using diet, stem cells, and tech designed to target how our cells age. A lot of it is speculative, and where evidence exists, it’s in its infancy. Importantly, none of this would actually reverse ageing; at most, it could only slow ageing, and allow for longer lifespans.
Joseph Mercola – a leading figure in the anti-vax movement and one of the wealthiest and most prolific alternative medicine proponents in the world – derived some of his health advice via a ‘channelled’ spirit named Bahlon, according to new footage released by the Office for Science and Society at McGill University.
In the video, Mercola is seen during multiple extensive business consultations with Bahlon via the help of ‘psychic’ channeller named Kai Clay – otherwise known as Christopher W. Johnson, former CEO of the branding company Whitehorn Group.
During the channelling sessions – videos of which Mercola shared to other staff members within his organisation – Mercola claims to use knowledge from Bahlon, alongside insights generated by ChatGPT, to derive some of his health advice. Mercola also claims in the sessions to be regularly self-administering carbon dioxide enemas, claiming they feed his microbiome and create a forcefield to protect him from the alleged dangers of electromagnetic frequencies like 5G. Bizarrely, he attests to giving similar CO2 treatments to his pet dog, to whom he alleges he has fed samples of Mercola’s own blood.
Kai Clay, aka Christopher W. Johnson, closes his eyes in a trance as he channels the spirit of Bahlon
The exposé also reveals worrying plans to recruit “millions” of members of the public to “march with weapons” on veterinarians – a call to arms that is especially concerning given that Mercola flaunts a Glock 45 handgun during the sessions, kept in a drawer in his home office.
After reviewing 50 hours of leaked footage – dubbed “The Mercola Tapes” – Jonathan Jarry, science communicator at the OSS, has released extensive excerpts as part of a new documentary on Joseph Mercola and his ideas. The video shows Mercola’s claims that the Catholic Church forms the heart of “the Global Cabal”, in apparent support of claims made during an ongoing religious discrimination lawsuit brought by former Mercola Chief Business Officer Ryan Boland and former Chief Editor Janet Selvig (Mercola’s sister), who allege they were fired because of their strong commitments to the Catholic church. The suit specifically highlights the role of Christopher Johnson and his claims to channel “a high-vibration multidimensional entity from the causal plane” called Bahlon.
Mercola, whose website receives 10 million visitors per day and whose wellness empire is revealed in the video to be worth more than $300 million, was named in 2021 part of the “Disinformation Dozen” – a small group of major health misinformation promoters – and has a number of ties to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In 2023, Mercola hosted a town hall in Cape Coral, Florida, as part of RFK Jr’s presidential run, before Kennedy’s appointment as head of Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services.
In the Tapes, Mercola shares his fear that he could be involuntarily committed for appearing delusional: “I’m already whacked out. I’m an anti-vaxxer. Now I’m doing the spiritual stuff. My behaviour suggests I’m a nutcase!” He believes he will earn more Nobel Prizes than anyone before him and that he will destroy the insurance industry and bring about a “Mercola bank system.”
“The people who made Dr. Joe Mercola rich need to know where he gets his health information these days: from ChatGPT and from a branding expert who closes his eyes and pretends to be channelling an entity,” says Jarry. “In my opinion, the grandiosity and paranoia I see in the Mercola Tapes should serve as a case study in what can happen when you reject mainstream scientific knowledge and crave any sort of alternative, no matter how divorced from reality it is.”
This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 2, from 1991.
It is often said in skeptical circles that belief in the irrational has been increasing dramatically in recent years and has now reached unprecedented levels. Whether or not this is strictly true, there can be little doubt that belief in the paranormal and the occult is widespread and plays a not unimportant part in the lives of at least a significant minority of the population. Nowadays, such enthusiasms are often referred to under the heading of the ‘New Age’ and however one might disapprove of it – the social movement which feeds on and propagates such beliefs must be acknowledged as one of the more significant features of the contemporary cultural landscape in the West.
If the skeptical community is to develop the appropriate strategies that will enable it to challenge irrational or unsustainable beliefs effectively then the origin and nature of these beliefs must be thoroughly understood. This will only be possible by studying such beliefs in their proper historical and cultural context. Yet, so far as I am aware, the history and the sociology of the New Age Movement has received relatively little serious attention from within the ranks of ‘organised skepticism’.
As I am neither an historian nor a sociologist by profession it is not my intention to attempt to anticipate the details of what such an understanding might eventually take. But I do want to explore some of the issues involved, more with the aim of opening up discussion and debate than of arriving at some kind of definitive conclusion. In particular, I want to examine how the New Age Movement might be seen as being at least in part a response to what I shall refer to as the ‘crisis of belief’ that confronts contemporary Western societies. In analysing this crisis of belief I shall to some extent draw freely on ideas deriving from recent debates on modernity and postmodernity on the one hand, and from modern cognitive psychology on the other. My aim IS to show that these ideas can help deepen our understanding of the New Age Movement and of the social and psychological forces which have given rise to it.
The New Age Movement
The New Age Movement is notable for its confused and chaotic diversity, and for its tendencies towards eclecticism. Because of this, concentrating only on the paranormal and occult beliefs associated with New Age thought can easily distort one’s perception of it as a whole. In fact, the movement is broad enough to incorporate a great variety of themes, including not only the occult and the paranormal but also (amongst other things) alternative medicine, spirituality and mysticism, fringe science, alternative archaeology, various forms of psychotherapy, a concern with ‘green’ issues, together with elements deriving from feminism and the peace movement. It ranges from the most implausible beliefs concerning, for example, the healing power of crystals, to ideas (like those connected with a concern for the environment) which presumably deserve to be taken rather more seriously.
In retrospect, it has to be admitted that placing such a wide variety of beliefs under the single heading of ‘New Age thought’ may in fact be begging rather a lot of questions. Nevertheless, all these beliefs share a certain ‘alternative’ character in the sense that they provide an alternative to established knowledge and to conventional ways of behaviour.
Fundamental to the essentially ‘alternative’ character of the New Age Movement is the fact that it rejects many of the secular attitudes prevalent in contemporary Western societies – and yet it does so without turning instead to some kind of conventional religious belief. On the one hand, although the founder of Christianity is generally regarded with respect, the New Age attitude towards the Christian churches is largely one of indifference and is on occasions actively hostile. (Eastern religions generally get a much better press). On the other hand, the anti-secular point of view is displayed most clearly by the uniform hostility shown to what is often referred to in New Age literature as ‘scientific materialism’.
The New Age Movement is not, however, an anti-science movement as such, and its hostility does not extend to those often controversial areas of science – which include parapsychology, Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’ hypothesis, and various mystically-inspired interpretations of modem physics, for example – which dwell on the fringes of accepted knowledge but which seem in one way or another to challenge the assumptions of philosophical materialism.
Nevertheless, the New Age Movement is opposed to what it takes to be the dominant scientific/secular view of the world which sees mankind as living in a random, mechanistic universe devoid of purpose. Instead it promotes a view of the world which is non-materialistic in nature, which allows a place for marvels and for magic, for imagination and creativity, and for a ‘spiritual’ dimension to life. In short, the New Age Movement is essentially quasi-religious in character – a point which has not been lost on those skeptics of an anti-religious persuasion who often see challenging belief in the paranormal and other New Age beliefs as simply part of a larger project directed against what is taken to be ‘religious superstition’.
The Decline of Belief
Although it is difficult to prove such connections, the rise of this quasi-religious movement is surely related to the decline in the status of conventional religious belief in the West over the past couple of hundred years or so: we no longer live in an essentially ‘pre-modern’ era in which Christianity is the dominant ideological force. The effects of this process of ‘secularisation’ should not, of course, be exaggerated: the influence of Christianity remains strong in many parts of the world, not least in the United States. But few would deny that there has been a lessening in the status and authority accorded to religious beliefs and institutions during this period. Christianity no longer commands the unqualified support of the intelligentsia and, more generally, no longer exerts the overwhelming cultural influence which once it did: Christian belief has come to be seen as ‘optional’ in a way which previously was not the case.
The decline of religious belief was accompanied by the rise during the course of the nineteenth century of new, secular ideologies – in particular, secular humanism and (far more influentially) Marxism. Despite their many differences these two secular ideologies shared a common, optimistic faith in rationality, science and progress, a belief which can be traced back to the Enlightenment and which formed one of the great themes of the so-called ‘modem’ period. But on the whole, the often bloody history of the twentieth century and the ever-present possibility of nuclear and/or ecological crisis have in fact tended to undermine such a faith and have made the nineteenth century belief in the moral and social advancement of mankind and in the unqualified benefits of scientific and technological progress seem in retrospect to have been rather naive.
For this and for other reasons the decline in the influence of Christian belief in the West has not been matched by a concomitant rise to a position of dominance of any alternative secular ideology. Of course, followers of the secular ideologies still exist, but generally speaking they are restricted to small groups which exert little real influence: the secular ideologies are marginalised in much the same way as Christianity often finds itself marginalised in the contemporary world.
A Catholic priest prepares eucharist wafers. Image by Norbert Staudt from Pixabay
The collapse of faith in both the traditional, religious and the modem, secular forms of belief characterises our era, an era sometimes referred to as the ‘postmodern’ age (to borrow the fashionable phrase of the gurus of culture). This is an age in which the old forms of belief are unable to sustain a consensus, an age characterised by fragmentation when ‘all that is solid melts into air’. Our culture offers no overall message, no larger vision or narrative which might enable people to see their lives in a meaningful way.
Instead there is the world, conceived as a collection of facts revealed by science. But these facts cannot be said to have been fused together into a view of the world and of mankind’s place in it that really satisfies the human need for significance and meaning. Thus, although the mechanistic conception of reality is by no means an inevitable implication of modern science (and is indeed seriously challenged by it in several respects), the overall impression of the scientific world-view presented to the general public is still predominantly a mechanistic-materialist one in which there is little opportunity for deriving any kind of metaphysical comfort.
For many people such a view of the world is extremely bleak, and all the more bleak for the absence of any generally accepted belief system (be it religious or secular) which might serve to ameliorate or modify that view. It is this situation which, I think, the followers of the New Age Movement are reacting against their rejection of ‘scientific materialism’ and why they are nevertheless sympathetic to those forms of fringe science that seem to have rejected some essential elements of the materialist view of reality.
The Search for Belief
Despite the fragmentation of belief which characterises our era, there remains a deep underlying need for belief. For, however incomplete and incoherent it might be, we all require some kind of system of belief with which to generate order out of the chaos of experience and to lend a degree of organisation to our lives. We all need to be able to make sense of the world. We all need to experience life through the meaningful categories of some belief system, whether that system be religious, political or philosophical in character. Indeed, for those who subscribe to it, such a belief system is the meaning of their lives! For all of us, our beliefs play an essential part in the construction of our personal world (ie, the world as we experience it).
Of course, our beliefs may not always immediately show themselves in an explicit commitment to a particular ideology but they nevertheless exist under the surface and undoubtedly play a quite fundamental role in our lives. In particular, what we believe (and whether our beliefs are basically optimistic or pessimistic) can have a profound effect on how we feel. Consequently, the belief system which we happen to accept has an enormous impact on the way in which we, as individuals, come to think, feel and act. Moreover, in the absence of any such relatively consistent and suitable optimistic belief system we are likely to experience considerable confusion and emotional distress.
Far from being a trivial or inconsequential observation, this notion concerning the centrality of belief systems to our mental and emotional life forms one of the key themes of modem cognitive psychology and systems of psychology based on this approach (such as Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory, for example) provide the theoretical underpinning for the view that belief systems are not just pleasant yet dispensable accessories but actually play an essential role in the proper functioning of the human organism.
It is this human need for belief that turns the contemporary situation consisting in the fragmentation of belief into a true crisis of belief. There is an innate human urge to believe to construct meaning. Yet our contemporary situation is not characterised by the ascendancy of any particular system of belief: both Christianity and the secular ideologies are to a large extent marginalised. The result is a large class of confused and alienated people who do not really know what to believe in, but who still feel the need to believe in something.
Is it therefore at all surprising that many of these people should respond to this crisis of belief by creating their own belief system from the materials that are to hand? Bits of modern science, the remnants of old religions and ideologies, fragments of superstition and half-remembered childhood fairy tales have been sewn together to create the confused patchwork, piecemeal system of belief that is the New Age. Its origins lie in nineteenth century movements like Theosophy and spiritualism, which can themselves be seen as a reaction against the advance of secularisation and as a response to the crisis of belief as manifested in that period. But the contemporary New Age Movement is a response to the more urgent sense of crisis and fragmentation which characterises our own postmodern era.
The ‘packaging’ (as distinct from the content) of New Age belief is also profoundly affected by the nature of contemporary Western societies, dominated as they are by the driving force of technological change and by the dynamic of the market. As we all know, peddling New Age wares (in the form of books, cassettes and courses, for example) can be a lucrative business. But is it surprising that here, in the capitalist West, New Age beliefs are regarded as essentially commodities to be sold and bought in the ideological marketplace? And is it surprising that, with the rapid growth in the technology of communications (radio, TV, video, mass-market publishing and so on), such beliefs should spread so widely and with such speed, with new fashions and crazes continually flaring up as old ones fade away? New Age belief has become a product, a consumer item, even an essential component of ‘style’: it has in fact become a form of ‘designer’ belief.
The Future of New Age Belief
Of course, as we all know, the problem with New Age beliefs is that most of them are extremely implausible when seen in the light of modern knowledge and, when explored further, can often be shown to be false (or at best unsubstantiated). This is where the skeptical movement in its ‘investigative’ capacity has such an important role to play in exposing such failings. But, if I am right and the New Age phenomenon is basically a result of an innate human predisposition to believe combined with the effect of certain long-term cultural changes which have been taking place in Western societies over the past hundred or more years, then I think it is doubtful that skeptics will be able to have much impact on the tide of New Age belief as a whole.
Nevertheless, one can speculate that the skeptical movement – in its ‘mission’ role of attempting to persuade people to adopt a more critical attitude towards such beliefs – may be more effective if it attempts to bend belief away from the more unsustainable and/or damaging manifestations of New Age thought than if it attempts to remove or eliminate such belief entirely.
In the long-term, however, New Age belief is only likely to fade when the cultural forces which produced it have moved on, when the present era gives way to a new era in which new forms of belief finally manage to establish themselves on the ruins of the old. It is far from clear what these new forms of belief might be.
Will one of the old religions or ideologies manage to revitalise and renew itself? Will the contemporary interest in green issues be transformed into a new ‘nature religion’ suitable for the twenty-first century? Will elements of science now located on the fringe eventually come to find greater respectability and more widespread acceptance in the years to come, and for the basis for a new scientifically legitimated system of belief? Or will in fact the present state of confusion and fragmentation endure into the indefinite future?
One can only guess, of course, but if it is the last of these possibilities which proves to be the case then I think it probable that the New Age Movement (or at least something very much like it) will be with us for a very long time to come.
References
Basil, Robert (Ed). Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays, (Prometheus Books, 1988).
Boyne, Roy & Rattansi, Ali (Eds). Postmodernism and Society, (Macmillan Education, 1990).
Ptadwick, Owen. The Secularization of the European Mind inthe 19th Century, (Cambridge University Press, 1975).
Ferguson, Marilyn. The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s, (Paladin Books, 1980).
Rowe, Dorothy. The Construction of Life and Death: Discovering Meaning in a World of Uncertainty, (Fontana Paperbacks, 1989).
Stott, Martin. Spilling the Beans: A Style Guide to the New Age, (Fontana Paperbacks, 1986).
If you haven’t heard, the secret to surviving Hollywood is not talent – it is keeping Beyoncé happy.
At least according to the internet, it is.
Welcome to the world of celebrity conspiracies, a place where fame and admiration easily twist into suspicion, and the glitz of stardom becomes a screen for dark, unseen forces. In this world, public figures are more than performers; they are thought to be architects of hidden agendas, puppeteers whose strings extend beyond the stage.
Beyoncé has been called many things: a queen, an icon, a mogul. For her fans, she is a symbol of power and grace, a woman who has mastered the art of performance and built an empire on talent and resilience. Yet in some corners of the internet, there is a much darker portrait being painted.
A grainy YouTube video here, a TikTok theory there, another Reddit post over there – all claiming that Beyoncé has been pulling the strings behind the scenes. From obscure symbols to “hidden” messages in lyrics, fans and theorists alike are piecing together “evidence” that Queen Bey is not just a pop icon but the queen of dark secrets, too.
Destined child of conspiracy
For many, Beyoncé’s journey from Houston’s modest beginnings to global superstardom feels almost too monumental to attribute solely to talent and hard work. To them, her success is not just remarkable; it is suspicious.
Conspiracy theories have only grown alongside Beyoncé’s career. The speculation that she is connected to the Illuminati – once a dominant theory – has since shifted to claims of orchestrated murders linked to her rise and her involvement in shadowy, powerful circles that control the music industry.
Oops! They Diddy it again
The recent arrest of Sean John Combs, AKA Puff Daddy/P. Diddy, has reignited old conspiracy theories involving Beyoncé and the powerful elite in the entertainment industry. Diddy has long been embroiled in rumours of being linked to mysterious celebrity deaths.
These claims often refer back to the infamous East Coast-West Coast rap rivalry of the 90s, where Diddy’s business dealings were entangled with personal vendettas and escalating violence, which ultimately led to the deaths of Tupac and Biggie. Given his close friendship with Beyoncé, the idea that someone with his influence could manipulate Beyoncé’s rise to fame seems to some disturbingly plausible.
TikTok has revived these theories with a popular phrase “She Knows” trending widely, which theorists argue has a double meaning. The internet claimed that “She Knows” is a wordplay on “Sean Knowles,” which is a nod to Beyoncé’s last name, “Knowles,” combined with Diddy’s real name, Sean.
Adding fuel to the fire, J. Cole’s lyrics in his song “She Knows” (which inspired the popular phrase) have become a cornerstone of these theories, with many taking his words out of context to support claims of Beyoncé’s alleged connections to a “celebrity body count.”
Rest in peace to Aaliyah Rest in peace to Left Eye (Left Eye) Michael Jackson, I’ll see ya Just as soon as I die (I die)
These lyrics are taken as a cryptic admission, with theorists pointing out that Aaliyah, Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes, and Michael Jackson all reached similar levels of fame as Beyoncé, and posed a threat to her dominance in the industry, only to meet untimely deaths. The theories surrounding Aaliyah’s passing are particularly detailed, often painting her as Beyoncé’s most direct competitor during the early 2000s.
Fuelling the speculation, theorists argue that J. Cole’s lyrics hint he knows too much. The phrase “Just as soon as I die” is taken as a warning that Diddy and Beyoncé might retaliate against him for exposing their supposed secrets. Fans point to this interpretation as evidence of an elaborate network of power and fear in the industry, with Beyoncé positioned at the centre.
This specific part of the song has become a popular background track in TikTok videos, often paired with clips of celebrities thanking Beyoncé during their acceptance speeches. According to theorists, these public acknowledgements are not merely gestures of gratitude but acts of self-preservation that celebrities do to avoid “falling out of favour” with Beyoncé, fearing they might share the alleged fates of stars who failed to show her proper respect.
These claims often cite high-profile incidents. For instance, Adele’s 2017 GRAMMYs moment, where she broke her Album of the Year award and dedicated it to Beyoncé, is frequently interpreted as more than just an emotional gesture. It is seen as an act of allegiance to maintain goodwill with Beyoncé. Similarly, Kanye West’s infamous interruption of Taylor Swift at the 2009 VMAs – where he declared Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies” is one of the best music videos ever – has been reframed as Kanye “protecting” Taylor from potential backlash or worse, aligning her with Beyoncé’s success. According to theorists, Taylor has even allegedly acknowledged this as a heroic act on his part.
Theories like these flourish, where quick clips and catchy hashtags breathe new life into narratives that might otherwise fade away.
Guilty until proven innocent?
To understand why some people are genuinely convinced by such theories and why Beyoncé often becomes the target of blame for events seemingly unrelated to her, I interviewed Naythan, a die-hard believer in the darker side of Beyoncé’s fame.
For Naythan, the evidence is everywhere – if you know where to look.
One of Naythan’s strongest beliefs centres on Beyoncé’s song “Daughter,” which he interprets as a criminal confession. “She clearly admitted to murdering Jay-Z’s mistress here, lol,” he claimed. He referenced long-standing rumours about Jay-Z’s alleged affair with Cathy White, who was reportedly pregnant with his child in 2011 but tragically passed away shortly after giving birth.
“And guess what? Beyoncé announced her pregnancy in 2011 too, but she’s lying,” Naythan added, showing me a video of Beyoncé’s pregnant belly allegedly deflating as she sat down during a talk show, which he claimed was proof she faked her pregnancy. Naythan pointed to specific lyrics from “Daughter” to support his theory:
Your body laid out on these filthy floors Your bloodstains on my custom coutures I really tried to stay cool But your arrogance disturbed my solitude Now I ripped your dress and you’re all black and blue Look what you made me do
“She killed Cathy because she was jealous of her,” he concluded. “Blue Ivy is Cathy’s child, not hers.” Naythan further argued that Beyoncé admitted everything herself through the song’s description, which mentions her “struggling with violent thoughts in the face of infidelity.” To Naythan, this aligns perfectly with the timeline of Cathy’s death.
Another striking example Naythan brings up is the recent trend tied to Diddy’s arrest (again). He insists that Beyoncé is fully aware of the alleged “manipulations and sacrifices” required to maintain her position and also complicit in them.
“They’re BFFs. How could she not know?” he argued.
Imagining secrets where none exist
When I asked Naythan about his sources of evidence, he told me, “The entire internet is talking about it. Facebook, Instagram Shorts, Reddit posts – you just have to look.”
He was dismissive when I questioned why he did not rely on traditional or credible outlets. “The news can write and report anything. How do you know it’s the truth? It’s all controlled by the government. They only show us what they want us to see,” he said, as though the mainstream media were part of a larger conspiracy to suppress the “real story.”
Conversely, the internet is not controlled by the government, according to him. That is why it is more trustworthy. “It’s people like us sharing what we find.” To Naythan, the chaos of unverified online posts was not a flaw but a feature; the lack of oversight made it more authentic in his eyes.
A 2019 YouGov poll shown in a statista chart reveals a high percentage of adult Americans believing in popular conspiracy theories.
It became evident, however, that his browsing habits likely shaped the conclusions he was defending. By engaging mainly with platforms and communities that fed into his pre-existing beliefs, Naythan seemed caught in a loop of confirmation bias. Rather than seeking diverse perspectives or critically analysing his sources, he gravitated toward content that reinforced his narrative.
In Naythan’s view, the “truth” was not about facts or logic – it was about rejecting the mainstream story and believing he was part of an exclusive group that knew the “real” story. This made the online sources he relied on feel trustworthy and essential, like a hidden treasure of secret information only a few people could access. Being in the know gave him a sense of power, even if it was not based on anything solid, which played into the age-old human desire to uncover secrets and expose supposed hidden agendas.
However, the sources conspiracy theorists like Naythan cite are often unreliable – frequently snippets of fan-made videos, half-remembered rumours, and selective readings of interviews or song lyrics. The evidence is usually circumstantial, often reliant on vague interpretations or dubious associations that do little more than feed into pre-existing narratives.
Dr McNaughton-Cassill explains that conspiracy theories operate in a self-sustaining loop: when confronted with disconfirming evidence, believers often dismiss it as propaganda or cover-up. This helps explain Naythan’s distrust of traditional media and his reliance on social media platforms for information. His insistence that mainstream outlets are controlled and untrustworthy fits McNaughton-Cassill’s observation that conspiracy theorists favour sources that align with their worldview, even when those sources lack credibility.
While these Beyoncé rumours might seem outlandish to many, it speaks to a broader tendency to dehumanise public figures, viewing their success as evidence of secret, sinister forces rather than the culmination of talent and effort. For some, this version of reality is infinitely more entertaining – and perhaps even more comforting – than the idea that Beyoncé’s success is simply her own.
Houston’s Pride
On the other side of the conspiracy debate are those who view Beyoncé not as a shadowy figure but as a cultural icon who has leveraged her fame to advance social change, empowerment, and philanthropy. To them, Beyoncé’s story is one of transformation – from a Houston girl with dreams to a global powerhouse who uses her influence to amplify marginalised voices and break barriers for women of colour.
I talked to Lisa, a Beyoncé fan who sees Beyoncé’s legacy in this light and finds the conspiracy theories misguided and dismissive. “If you look at her works, from the Black pride message in ‘Formation’ to her creation of scholarships for young women of colour, she’s committed to uplifting communities and not some evil witch that these people are saying,” Lisa explained as she told me about Beyoncé’s philanthropic work, much of it under the radar.
In 2017, Beyoncé launched the Formation Scholars program to award scholarships to “female incoming, current, or graduate students pursuing studies in creative arts, music, literature, or African-American studies,” signalling her support for the next generation of Black women leaders. She has also been a steadfast donor to charities like UNICEF and Global Citizen, responding to global crises and supporting health and educational initiatives for underprivileged communities. These highlighted a woman who has continually chosen to channel her resources toward meaningful change.
Lisa continued about how Beyoncé’s music has been a tool for empowerment. Songs like “Flawless,” “Run the World (Girls),” and “Brown Skin Girl” have served as anthems for women’s empowerment and pride in Black identity, reaching listeners across the globe with messages of self-love, resilience, and solidarity. Her albums, often references to Black history and Southern culture, connect her listeners to a deeper heritage.
Beyoncé’s commitment to using her art for advocacy has also come with personal risks. By aligning herself with movements like Black Lives Matter, she places herself at odds with audiences who view such stances as political or controversial. But for her, the risks are outweighed by the possibility of inspiring change. Through her work, she has opened dialogues about identity, race, and power – discussions that often provoke discomfort in those who would rather focus on conspiracies than confront systemic issues. Her high-profile support of movements such as #MeToo and her outspoken support for the LGBTQ+ community add to her role as an advocate for inclusivity and equality, far removed from the secretive figure conspiracy theories paint her to be.
“Honestly, I think some people just have a hard time believing in the success of strong, independent women, especially women of colour,” Lisa said.
Curious, I asked Lisa how she felt about Naythan’s interpretation of Beyoncé’s song “Daughter.” Her disappointment was evident. She explained that Naythan’s theory completely misrepresents the deeper themes of the song. “It’s about exploring her imperfections, not admitting to some made-up crime.”
While the official description of “Daughter” did portray a character (Beyoncé) grappling with violent impulses in the face of infidelity, the main focus was how those impulses prompted her to reflect on inherited traits from her father – both protective and destructive. The song explores her dual role as a defender and a potential aggressor, highlighted by her warning that she is “not harmless” and capable of embodying her father’s combative nature. However, this is not a confession of violence; instead, Beyoncé reflects on these traits to delve into broader themes of human flaws and inherited behaviours.
To Lisa, Beyoncé is far from a shadowy puppet master; she embodies a public figure who has succeeded in an industry where few Black women have reached her level, and she uses that success to make a difference.
The Bey-lief System
The contrast between these perspectives is stark. Conspiracy theories try to reduce Beyoncé to a puppet in some hidden plot, ignoring her real power and complexity. On the other hand, those who see her in a more grounded way recognise her as more than just a celebrity – she is an artist, entrepreneur, activist, and mother, with a positive impact that goes beyond entertainment and touches on real cultural and social issues.
Today, with so much information at our fingertips, it is easy to find “evidence” to back up any opinion, no matter how unlikely. For believers, it feels exciting to spot hidden symbols or patterns—it gives them the thrill of thinking they know something secret and powerful, even if the evidence is shaky at best. On the flip side, skeptics focus on hard facts and actual actions, writing off the wild theories as pure fantasy.
These polarised perspectives highlight a deeper issue: the human tendency toward selective belief. When seeking information that aligns with our existing feelings, we often construct narratives that feel comfortable and affirming. The real challenge is to identify this bias within ourselves and critically evaluate our interpretations – whether they pertain to celebrities or the broader world.
It is easier to imagine hidden forces or secret dealings than to accept that someone could rise through talent and hard work alone. Beyoncé, in this sense, becomes a mirror, reflecting our tendency to distrust success and explain it through fantastical narratives. For many, these conspiracies fulfil a need for mystery or entertainment, turning her every move into hidden “meaning,” her lyrics into codes, and her public appearances into puzzles.
In the end, these stories tell us less about Beyoncé and more about ourselves – our biases, fears, and the desire to find patterns where none exist. As her legacy continues to grow, we have a choice: embrace her achievements as they are, or distort them into tales that satisfy our preconceptions. Perhaps the next time we encounter a sensational story, we should ask if it is true and why it resonates with us.
Pseudonyms are used to respect the privacy of the interviewees.
From the pages of The Skeptic magazine, this is The Skeptic podcast, bringing you the best of the magazine’s expert analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal since its relaunch as online news source in September 2020.
