The Germination Intention Experiments

Download the PDF of the Full Results

Since June 2007, The Intention Experiment has been carrying out a series of ‘Germination Intention Experiments’ with noted psychologist Dr. Gary Schwartz and his laboratory team at the University of Arizona to test whether intention can affect the growth of plants. We were inspired by the work of Canadian psychologist Bernard Grad, who had had carried out several studies showing that seeds irrigated with water held by a healer had a faster germination rate and growth than controls (International Journal of Parapsychology, 1964; 6: 473-98).

British researcher Serena Roney-Dougal and parapsychologist Jerry Solfvin had also tested whether healing intention sent by a healer to seeds could be used to affect the health and growth of lettuce plants on a commercial organic farm.

In their first study, the seeds given intention didn’t sprout any faster or grow larger, but they were healthier and had less fungal disease and slug damage than the controls (Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 2002; 66: 129-43). In a replication study, however, they’d showed enhanced growth, as well as health (Journal of Parapsychology, 2003:67: 279-98)

We selected barley seeds – the food of choice of most livestock, and a healthy grain for humans. Dr. Schwartz and Mark Boccozzi, Dr. Schwartz’s lab technician, planned to prepare four sets of barley seeds — one set of seeds, and three controls — to eliminate chance findings. 

Six experiments thus far
Thus far, we have run six Germination Intention Experiments – one via the Internet, with participants from countries all over the world, and five others in front of Lynne McTaggart’s audiences, of various sizes and locations around the world.  These included participants over the Internet, plus audiences in Sydney, Australia (600 participants), Palm Springs, California (130), Rheinbeck, New York (100), Hilton Head, North Carolina (500) and Austin, Texas (120).  

In each of these experiments, we asked the audience to choose one of four sets of seeds (30 seeds per set) and then sent an intention for the seeds to grow “at least 3 cm by the fourth day of growing”.

Once we were finished, Dr. Schwartz’s lab technician Mark Boccozzi (who was kept blind to the set selected) planted the 120 seeds under standardized conditions.  At the end of five days, the seeds were harvested and their lengths measured in millimeters.

Let’s call this kind of procedure the ‘Intention’ Studies.

As a second control condition, with each Intention Experiment, Mark ran a separate Control Experiment. On these occasions, he selected and prepared another 120 seeds into four sets, assigned one set to be the ‘intention’ set (even though no distant intention was to be sent), and, as with the other experiments, planted the seeds, then harvested and measured them after five days. 

So this experiment was to act as a second-tier control – a control of the control. So we’ll call these the ‘non-intention’ Control Studies.

In total, the number of seeds tested was 1440.

Complex analyses
Dr. Schwartz then conducted a variety of complex analyses of the growth of all six Intention Experiments and the six Control Experiments.  He compared overall growth of targeted seeds with that of all the not-targeted seeds, the seed growth of all seeds in the Intention Experiments versus those in all the Control Experiments, and all seeds sent intention in the Intention Experiments plus those assigned ‘intention seeds’ in the Control Experiments) versus all seeds that were not targeted in all 12 experiments.

A number of fascinating results emerged. Firstly, the experiment showed that the intention had a robust effect.

As an overall average, the seeds sent intention grew 56 mm, compared with 48 mm for the non-targeted seeds.  This means that seeds sent intention, on average, were 8 mm (about a third of an inch) higher than the controls. In contrast, the seeds run in the control Intention Experiments only varied by 2 mm. 

This effect was statistically significant (p<0.007). This means that there is a 0.7 per cent possibility that we arrived at this result by simple chance. Anything less than a p value of 0.05 is generally considered statistically significant. 

Dr. Schwartz also found a highly significant effect when comparing the targeted seeds on the Intention Experiment days with those targeted on the Control Experiments. Those targeted during real Intention Experiments grew significantly higher than those targeted in the Control Experiments (p<0.003).

However, there was no different between target seeds and non-targeted seeds during the Control Experiments. Those seeds labeled ‘intention seeds’ in the Control Experiments grew about the same size — in fact, 2 mm shorter — than the non-targeted seeds, a non-significant difference.

Intention ‘grouping’
However, our biggest effect of all occurred when comparing the results of all plant growth in the actual Intention Experiments against all plant growth in the Control Experiments.

We discovered that on the days we sent intention, all the plants grew higher than all the plants in the Control Experiments, with the plants sent intention the highest of all. 

This effect was highly significant (p<0.0000001), with a 0.00001 per cent possibility that we arrived at this result by simple chance.

Scattergun effect
This kind of ‘scattergun’ effect occurred in an experiment by Dutch psychologist Eduard Van Wijk, who works with German physicist Fritz-Albert Popp of the International Institute for Biophysics. Van Wijk placed a jar of a simple algae, near a healer and his patient, then measured the photon emissions of the algae during healing sessions and periods of rest.

After analyzing the data, he discovered remarkable alterations in the photon count of the algae. The quality of emissions significantly changed during the healing sessions, as though the algae were being bombarded with light. There also seemed to be changes in the rhythm of the emissions, as though the algae had become attuned to a stronger source of light.

Information from the environment
Our experiments also suggest that living things register information from the entire environment, and not simply between two communicating entities.

This series of studies suggests that distance from which intention is sent doesn’t have any bearing on the results. A group of people scattered around the globe produced the same effect as a group of 600 located thousands of miles away from the target. 

According to this data, the size of the group didn’t have any bearing, either; even a tiny group of 100 in a room in upstate New York had been able to profoundly affect a batch of seeds more than a thousand miles away.

Power and experience
The only important factor appears to be experience.  The audience in Hilton Head, South Carolina, which included 500 long-time practitioners of Healing Touch, produced the most profound effect.  These were people who were practiced in the use of intention. 

This suggests that with intention, practice and experience count.

The results of these six experiments were presented at the Society for Scientific Exploration’s annual meeting in June 2008.

The Peace Intention Experiment

Download the PDF of the Full Results

Peace Intention Experiment
After all these small-scale studies of leaves and seeds and water, The Intention Experiment decided to take a giant leap, to examine whether ‘group mind’ has the power to lower violence and restore peace. The plan was to have readers all over the world join forces on our website to send peace to a particular war-torn area.

For eight days beginning September 14, The Intention Experiment carried out its first Peace Intention Experiment. As this was a pilot, testing the entire idea and the technology, we deliberately attempted to keep numbers low by carrying out no publicity or advertising. Nevertheless, the idea of a mass intention for peace under scientific conditions caught the public imagination, creating a huge buzz virally on the web and attracting tens of thousands of sign ups in just a few weeks.

We enjoyed participation from more than 65 countries and every continent but Antarctica – even many far-flung quarters such as Mongolia, Nepal, Indonesia and China.

Sri Lanka chosen
We decided on an obscure target — one where no one in the west would be sending prayer or intention to — so that any change there would more likely be the results of our intentions.

Eventually we chose the Wanni (or north) section of Sri Lanka. This area of the world has suffered a civil war for 25 years, with more suicide bombings than anywhere on earth. The Wanni section is the stronghold of the rebel Tamil Tigers, the well-armed and trained rebel forces, and the center of terrorist activities.

Noted peace advocate Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe and his colleagues from the Foundation for Co-existence in Columbo, Sri Lanka, supplied us weekly violence data from the past two years for both the North and Eastern sections of Sri Lanka, the two parts of the country with the worse and next worse levels of violence, and continued to monitor both areas for daily rates of killings and violence for some months after our intention week.

From these statistics, Dr. Jessica Utts, professor of Statistics at University of California at Irvine, modeled a prediction of the likely average violence levels we should have expected in October, if the fighting carried on as normal. We then compared this model of what should happen to what did happen over a month.

A pivotal week
The results of Dr. Utts’s preliminary report are extraordinary – suggesting that our Peace Intention Experiment may have been pivotal in helping to hasten the end of the war, which now appears imminent.

In order to show whether an effect is higher or lower than predicted, statisticians often use a trend-analysis plot.

According to our chart, found in the pdf, our intentions may have had the initial effect, it seemed, of vastly increasing violence. The week of the Peace Intention Experiments experienced a sudden surge of attacks and killings, largely brought on by the Sri Lankan government, which sought a last full-on effort to quash the Tamil Tiger rebels in the Northern stronghold, once and for all. Here is a chart assembled by Rupesinge’s organization, showing an increase in violence.

The Sri Lankan navy sank two Tamil Tiger boats, a sea battle broke out off the northeast coast and the government also brought the battle to the rebel center of the North.

But in the immediate aftermath of the experiment, both deaths and numbers of people injured fell dramatically. The death rate suddenly fell by 74 percent and injuries by 48 percent, as the PDF chart shows.

Dr. Utts’ time analysis reveals that the violence vastly increased to levels far higher than predicted during the week of our experiment and for a few weeks afterward, and then plummeted to below what was expected.

In fact, the violence was the highest it had ever been over the entire two-year period during the very week of our experiment.

In the PDF graph, you’ll see the analysis. The red line represents the average of predicted levels.

The fifth point from the end - the every high one - is the week of our experiment, and the four points afterward are the after effects. As you can see, the violence levels are far than predicted, sharply drop after the high week of the experiment and then fall below what is expected.

From the perspective of these two-plus years, our week of intention may have proved pivotal. During that week, the Sri Lankan army won a number of strategically important battles, which enabled them to turn around the war.

Guerrillas expelled
On January 2, 2009, the army finally expelled the separatist guerrillas from their capital of Kilinochchi. On January 9, the army recaptured the strategic Elephant pass, opening up the entire northern Jaffna Peninsula – where mainland Sri Lanka connects with the northern peninsula - for the first time in nine years, liberating the entire Wanni district – the very target of our intention.

Those of the Tiger Tamil terrorists that remain have been wedged into a tiny corner of northeastern Sri Lanka of about 330 square km.

So was this down to us and our intention?
Certainly, in September, the rebels had a tight grip on the north. Although the army had made some inroads in August, even as recently as May commentators believed that peace talks were out of the question.

Now, after all the decisive wins in September and January, many political analysts have laid down predictions that the 25-year-civil war will end in 2009.

Coincidence or intention?
This could have been entirely coincidental – or it could be the result of intention. Only more Peace Intention Experiments will give us the answer.

But why did the violence initially increase before drastically falling? We don’t know the answer to that yet. It could be:

• coincidence
• our intention to lower violence had the effect of accelerating the army’s victories over the rebels so that further violence would end
• our intention made things worse before they got better

Until we run another Peace Intention Experiment, we won’t know the answer. But as Jessica succinctly put it, when noting that the highest weekly total for violence in the entire 26-month period was our very week: “Weird, huh?”

REG machines change too
Roger Nelson, architect of Global Consciousness Project and a member of our scientific team, also analyzed the effect of our Peace Intention Experiment on the random event generators he continuously runs all over the world for the GCP.

Several analyses reveal that the REG machines were affected within a 40-minute window of meditations during the eight days of our Peace Intention Experiment, and that these changes were similar to those that occurred during moments of mass meditation in areas attempting to lower violence.

The effect was most striking during the actual 10 minutes of our experiment, when we were sending intention.

Intention healed the healers
Most interesting of all was the long-term effect of the experiments on our participants. Some 44 per cent of our participants noticed changes in their relationships with others during the experiment, notably between parents and children, in-laws of every variety or siblings. Intention apparently helped them to feel more love in general, whether they knew the recipient or not.

Although more than a quarter either felt more love for their loved ones or for people they normally dislike or argue with, 41 per cent felt more love for anyone with whom they came into contact, and 19 per cent found they were getting along better with perfect strangers.

In fact, when I asked with whom relationships most improved, the largest group - 38 per cent – said they noticed the biggest change in their relationships with strangers. The experience of working together with thousands of strangers gave many people the ability to bond with or be more accepting of people they don’t personally know.

The Water Germination Intention Experiments

Download the PDF of the Full Results

After our successful Germination Intention Experiment, and the interesting results we got from our three Water Intention Experiments, psychologist Dr. Gary Schwartz, director of the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health at the University of Arizona, and I decided to merge the two by carrying out a Water Germination Experiment. We’d try another Germination Experiment, but this time we would send the ‘grow’ instructions to the water, not directly to the seeds themselves.

In late June 2008 I was due to speak at the Eric Pearl/Wrage event in Hamburg, which seemed a perfect venue to carry out a first pilot study, particularly as a large percentage of the audience would be Reconnection healers. I showed the audience photos of four bottles, like the one in the photo, below, and asked them to choose one. A member of the audience randomly selected bottle number 4, and I asked the audience to send the following intention to the water: ‘My intention is that all the seeds given water from our target jar will sprout at least three inches by the fourth day of growing.’ Dr. Schwartz and Mark Boccozzi, our lab technician, then used each bottle to water a set of 30 seeds. Each set of seeds was assigned a particular jar of water.

The seeds were then soaked in the intended water (or control water) for 24 hours, rinsed in their respective water, and then planted within their water. The water was poured into an airtight bag, and the seeds placed within the soil within them, so they were imbued with the water’s energy for five days.

On the fifth day, Mark measured all five sets of seedlings, and Dr. Schwartz analyzed them.

When he looked at the average level of growth, the seeds watered with the ‘grow intention’ were slightly higher than the others, but the results were not statistically significant, according to the scientific definition. The average growth was 4.77 cm for the intended water (n=30 seeds) versus 4.66 for the non-intended water (n=90 seeds). The difference is 0.11 cm or 1.1 millimeters.

The little seeds that grew
However, Dr. Schwartz noted one other interesting phenomenon. In this experiment, ordinarily all of the seeds don’t sprout in any given group. In this experiment, within all three control groups, only 90 percent of seeds sprouted (that is, 9 of the 90 seeds in total didn’t sprout). However, the full 100 per cent of the seeds, or all 30, sprouted in the group watered with the intended water.

In other words, intention may have given the seeds more energy and caused more of them to sprout than normal.

A chi square statistic on these numbers reached a p <0.07, which is borderline significant (p <.05 is the cutoff for statistical significance). ‘This observation is encouraging, and deserves replication and extension,' wrote Dr. Schwartz. '‘Since this is a "first ever" long distance (Germany to Tucson) group intention experiment on the effects of intention to water on the germination and growth of seeds, there is reason to do the experiment again.'

Master intenders
On July 25, 2008 we tried the experiment again with the Transformational Leadership Council meeting. Composed of the leaders of the personal development movement, such as Jack Canfield, Steven Covey, Lynne Twist and many others, this group represented a powerhouse of hugely experienced intenders.

Again we attempted to imprint an intention into water to enhance the growth of barley seeds being watered by our sample. After five days, the growth of this batch of seeds was compared with three other batches watered with ordinary water.

Sadly, Dr. Schwartz, who analyzed our results, finally determined that the results of our small study were inconclusive.

The lab technician running the study inadvertently placed our jars of water next to some equipment with high levels of electromagnetic fields, which Dr. Schwartz believes interfered with the signal.

The Roy Water Experiment: April 26, 2008

Download the PDF of the Full Results

With this study we wished to delve further into water, by testing whether intention can changes the molecular structure of water.

This time, we decided to work with Rustum Roy, professor of materials science at Pennsylvania State University, who is arguably one of the world’s experts on water. We wished ascertain whether there were any changes in the structural organization of our water sample by looking for any changes in the scattering of light waves through our water sample.

Structured water
The way in which water molecules cluster together can vary enormously. For instance, water can contain molecular clusters of up to several hundred H2O units apiece.

The ‘structure’ of water, from a scientific point of view, refers to the molecular arrangements of individual water molecules (which are, you know two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen). The molecules form units, or ‘clusters’, which remain stable anywhere from a part of a second to several weeks.

As Dr. Roy explains it, think of water molecules as analogous to individual bricks. When you assemble them into a house, the various rooms you’ve created with bricks put together in a particular fashion are its structure.

“Structured water is found in the cytoplasm of healthy tissues and it is characterized by having a high solubility for body minerals. It is also found in healing waters. This appears to be the structure shared by very different healing waters from some healing spas to silver aquasols used worldwide,” says Roy.

Weak bonds
Structured waters have been produced in laboratory experiments using various forms of energy, such as light, sound, heat, pressure and radiation.

As Roy has written, water molecules adhere not only through hydrogen bonds but also a wide range of very weak bonds (known as van der Waals bonds’).

“It is this range of very weak bonds that could account for the remarkable ease of changing the structure of water, which in turn could help explain the half dozen well-known anomalies in its properties,” writes Roy.

“In its subtler form, such weak bonds would also allow for the changes of structure caused by electric and magnetic fields and by radiation of all kinds, including possibly so-called ‘subtle energies’, which are the basis of an enormous range of claims about specially ‘structured’ water,” he says.

This is important, in terms of determining the power of intention, because it is structure (not composition) that largely controls properties and structures can easily be changed-without any change of composition,” says Roy.

A perfect example of this is diamond and graphite. Both share identical composition, yet diamond is one of the hardest substances on earth and graphite one of the softest.

Healing intentions
“Besides being physically necessary to life, since ancient times, water has been closely associated with the psyche, intuition and healing, and many ancient cultures acknowledge that the great flow of life is absolutely and inextricably linked to water,” he says.

“Although this link has been ignored by modern medical research, most religious traditions give water a key place in their rituals — from baptisms and anointing to special blessings.

“It may well be that these blessings, given with true loving intentions, actually change the structure – hence the properties – of water. That is the basis of our experiment.

Measuring subtle changes
In this experiment, we used Raman spectroscopy to measure any change. In 1928, an Indian physicist named Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman discovered that when light is transmitted through matter, part of the light scatters randomly. A small portion of this light has different (usually lower) frequencies to that of the light source.

This discovery earned Raman a Nobel Prize in 1930. Then, in 1998, the Raman Effect, as it grew to be called, was named as an ACS National Historical Chemical Landmark in recognition of its usefulness as a tool for analyzing the composition of liquids, gases and solids.

The Raman Effect is usually caused by a subtle change in the vibration of a molecule, caused by a number of factors. Scientists like Dr. Rustum Roy have recorded changes in the structure of water molecules with electromagnetic radiation. So with this experiment, we decided to examine whether the energy of our collective thoughts can cause these changes.

Any changes in the scattering of light rays would suggest changes in the structure of the water molecules themselves.

The scientists chose to use Raman spectroscopy because they discovered one published study showing that Qigong Grandmaster called Dr. Yan Xin significantly altered the structure of a water sample, as measured by a Raman spectrometer, when he sent his Qi from a place seven kilometers away from the water sample.

The importance of the Raman effect and the Raman spectroscopy, in terms of Intention Experiment, is that we employed a system of measurement that is universally recognized by the scientific community to record any sort of subtle change.

How the experiment worked
In the experiment, a probe was inserted into a beaker of water sample and measurements were taken periodically with the Raman spectrograph (shown below) for several hours before the experiment began.

A long cable connected the probe to a highly sensitive CCD camera on the instrument sensed any the weak Raman scattering from the water molecules as they vibrated in response to a red laser light on the water sample.

According to our protocol, the team continued to take measurements of the water at regular intervals since the scientists did not know exactly when we were going to send intention.

Dr. Roy and his team measured the “before” state of the water, which was essentially identical to the blue curve shown in the graph below.

All of the participants focused on changing the waters in the same direction as other healing waters — to look more like the green curve in the figure.

Unusual calibrations
Professor Roy and his colleagues, Dr. Manju Rao and Dr. Tania Slawecki, found had a great deal of variation in the water one hour before we sent intention.

Our sample water had enormous variation in light scattering to begin with – a situation that became apparent when the data was graphed in a different program. So it is possible that the water itself went through changes before the official time we were supposed to send intention.

Ultimately, they determined that our results were inconclusive.

Possible hypotheses
There are a number of possible reasons for our results thus far.

  • Intention works out of time.
  • The anticipation of the participants, who may have begun thinking about the experiment beforehand, produced changes in the water. A similar situation occurred with the second Water Intention Experiment we ran with Dr. Konstantin Korotkov in January. He discovered changes in light emissions one hour before we sent intention.
  • The water was somehow already structured. Although the team bought purified water, it may have been ‘contaminated’ in some way. It may mean that if we attempt this experiment in future, we should use water reverse osmosis, a process that removes all other possible substances so that there will be nothing present in the sample but hydrogen-oxygen molecules.
  • We’re using the wrong protocol in studying changes in light refraction. The Penn State team ran several experiments examining the effect of healers on water. In a number of instances, the healers did not have an effect on the water, but on the instrument’s infrared detector. In other words,” said Dr. Slawecki, “the healers emitted energy in the infrared spectrum that is not emitted from normal human hands with or without intention.”
  • The time when intention was sent was not completely controlled for. A number of intenders sent intention and hour before and after we’d completed the experiment. It would have been impossible to compare the results during the time when intention was sent with the effects one hour after intention, because, in some cases, the intention was still being sent then.
  • Environmental factors played a part. At 5pm, an intense thunderstorm hit the area. Says Dr. Slawecki: “Perhaps as a result of the falling barometric pressure and excess free ions, our de-ionized water samples were not as stable as they should have been, so our error bars on the data are sufficiently large as to obscure any underlying changes to the water structure.”
  • Anything else could have affected this exquisitely sensitive equipment. “It is important for your readers to understand that these are very sensitive measurements we are making, and sometimes it is difficult to anticipate what factors may come into play,” she added.
  • Intention doesn’t affect water. Although all of our other studies have produced a measurable effect, this hypothesis must always be considered.

Healing effect
One interesting possibility comes from some work the Penn State team did with three healers. In the studies, they discovered healers weren’t affecting the structure of water itself, but were emanating radiation that was being directly picked up by the instrument sensors — in some cases even before they began the study.

The upshot is that Professor Roy and his team believe that they need to refine the protocol and use other, more sensitive equipment.

Pennsylvania State is purchasing a new piece of equipment, developed by Finnish materials physicist, Kiva Rainen, which consists of three separate devices that examine, respectively, the light scattering, the thermal expansion and any infrared changes in a sample of water. Once these measurements are taken, they are sent into a computer, and from this handful of data points, the computer can determine some 1000 parameters of the sample.

“This equipment represents a revolution in characterizing water,” says Roy.

Rainen’s tool may offer us a way to ‘triangulate’ our perception of these subtle bonds in water so that we are able to see what exactly about it has changed through intention.

We will repeat this experiment at a future date.

The Second Korotkov Water Experiment, January 18, 2008

Download the PDF of the Full Results

This experiment was set up roughly similar to the first Water Experiment run by Russian physicist Konstantin Korotkov on November 30 — but with two differences. This time, we used a very specific intention with our Experimental Sample of water. We also had a Control Sample; we set up an identical beaker of water with distilled water from the same source, which would not be sent intention.

Inside each beaker Dr. Konstantin Korotkov placed an electrode, attached to his Galvanic Discharge Visualization (GDV) machines.

The GDV machines, which make use of state-of-the-art optics, digitized television matrices and a powerful computer, work first by stirring up the photonic signals from a substance like water so that they will shine millions of times more intensely than normal. The GDV machine then records this faint pulse via photography, measurements of light intensity and computerized pattern recognition.

As with our November experiment, Dr. Korotkov took measurements before we sent intention, during the time we sent intention and afterward.

However, this time, we extended the time when our initial recording was made, so that we took readings several times in the 90-minute period before intention was sent. We also took readings continuously during the 10 minutes of our intention and then for a half hour after our intention.

Here's how he divided it:

0 – 20 min – Stabilization of the process
20 – 90 min – “Before” data
91 – 101 min – “Intention” data
101 – 133 min – “After” data

Our control beaker of water sat in the same room as the 'intention' beaker, two metres away and also underwent identical readings.

Making the Water 'Glow'
This experiment was different from our first because we'd decided to focus our intention on a specific outcome. In our first Water experiment, we had simply asked our participants to send 'love' to the water. This time, we decided to focus on change in the light signal from the water, by asking our participants to send an intention to make the water 'glow and glow' — similar to the instructions with our Leaf Experiment. We also asked our participants to visualize the water beaker glowing to aid the process.

In our Experimental Sample, we found a highly significant statistical difference between data in the intention period and the period after the intention, compared with our previous measurements. This difference was highly significant, which Dr. Korotkov demonstrated via several parameters, after examining the area (spread) of light, and then its ‘intensity’.

In the Control Sample of water there was no difference in the area of light, but there was a difference between the intensity before the Intention and then afterward, particularly 10 minutes before and afterward. On the other hand, there was no difference in intensity before or after for the Experimental Sample —only during the time intention was sent. Our water was glowing when we told it to, and no more.

This is a huge confounding of expectations. Dr. Korotkov assumed that since the samples were in such close physical proximity, there would have been a certain amount of intention ‘contamination’. The fact that there wasn’t also represents a highly significant result.

From this evidence, says Korotkov, we can conclude that ‘after the Intention time, readings for the Experimental Sample changed significantly compared with previous data. This may be considered as an effect of intentional remote influence. The absence of such changes in the Control Sample proves that it was not related to variations in environmental or experimental conditions.’

In our Experimental Sample, waves of variation in the readings for the area and intensity of light occurred practically from the very beginning of the stable period (the first 20 minutes).

In the Control Sample, these variations were much smaller. A similar phenomenon was witnessed for the statistics measuring the intensity of light.

As with our First Korotkov Water Experiment, the strongest effects were recorded 10 minutes after the Intention time, as though there was a delay of 10 minutes before the target recorded our effect.

In the graph denoting the measurements of the area of light of Experimental Sample, there is a group of high peaks after 110 min. This amplitude was not noted in the previous recordings during the first 20 minutes. It appears that it took the water some time to accept our influence, but afterward it became more stable than before.

Future Shock to Water?
The most interesting effect is shown if you look at a time-line graph measuring the area of light emissions over the entire experiment. It appears to have two parts: the initial stable part and then a part showing clear variations. Those variations appeared to start 90 minutes before we began our experiment. This could be that our participants were thinking about the upcoming experiment in the hour and half before we began.

Or it could be a precognitive effect, in that people already registered their future shock on the water in some manner.

This variation from clear cause-effect prevents us from stating unequivocally that intention was the cause. We can only make the assumption, from the data, that it was our thoughts that had an effect.

We now have demonstrated twice that sending an intention to water changes its light signal, and that asking water to ‘glow’ increases that light, compared with controls.

This suggests that we have the ability to change the very structure and signaling of water.

Powerful Effects for Small Numbers
Interestingly, although our effect was stronger, we had less than half the number of participants (709) that we had on our first Water Experiment. Three quarters were regular meditators, and nearly two-thirds had read The Intention Experiment. Almost a third were participating for the first time.

In total, our participants hailed from 48 countries. Although half were from America and the UK, and other English speaking countries, we also had a good showing from our Dutch contingency in The Netherlands, many from Germany, Belgium and most European countries. The most farflung were from Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, Latvia, India and Latin American countries, such as Peru and Uruguay.

Once again, it appears that the size of group has no bearing on success of intention.

The First Korotkov Water Experiment – November 30, 2007

Download the PDF of the Full Results

Background: Measuring Light From Water

Russian physicist Dr. Konstantin Korotkov of St. Petersburg State Technical University invented the Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV) technique, which makes use of state-of-the-art optics, digitized television matrices and a powerful computer. Ordinarily, a living thing will dribble out the faintest pulse of photons, perceptible only to the most sensitive equipment in conditions of utter pitch black.

Korotkov captures the tiny pulse of photons emitted by all living things by stirring them up — ‘evoking’, or stimulating them into an excited state so that they shine millions of times more intensely than normal.

Korotkov’s equipment blends several techniques: photography, measurements of light intensity and computerized pattern recognition. When used on humans, his camera takes pictures of the field around each of the 10 fingers, one finger at a time.

A computer program then extrapolates from this a real-time image of the ‘biofield’ surrounding the person and deduces from it the state of health in the case of a person.

Like People, Liquids – Water Included – Glow

In the case of liquids, the GDV machine examines the emission activity on the surface of the liquid — that is, its ability to retain important information from other molecules.

The emission activity of the surface of these liquids depends upon the presence of clusters of hydrogen atoms with a special ability to bond. It is this special property, Korotkov believes, that gives water its unique capacity to record and retain information.

Tests on Liquids

Korotkov and his team have carried out a great deal of pilot research on a great variety of biological liquids, showing that the GDV equipment is highly sensitive to changes in the chemical and physical contents of liquids — subtle changes that don’t show up in ordinary chemical analyses.

For instance, Korotkov discovered statistically significant differences between the blood samples of healthy people and those patients suffering from cancer or heart disease. He has also found statistically significant changes in water after it was irradiated — even when when homeopathic remedies diluted 30 times were added to it (Consciousness and Physical Reality (in Russian) 1998; 3 (1): 51-8; J of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2003; 9 (1): 25-37; J of Applied Physics, 2004; 95 ( 7): 3334-8).

His equipment is so sensitive that it can detect tiny differences in between the glow of natural and synthetic essential oils with the identical chemical composition — differences that don’t show up through other means of chemical analysis.

GDV equipment has been able to accurately detect differences between oils that are organic, compared with those produced by ordinary means; between oils obtained in different climatic conditions or extracted by means of different methods; and between those that are fresh compared with those that have been oxidized.

Healing Changes Water

Since 2001 Dr. Korotkov has investigated the remote mental influence of a healer on water samples from different distances and in different modes. Numerous experiments or his have demonstrated that mental influence results in statistically significant changes of the electrophotonic quality (the ‘glow’) of water.

In one of his studies, he enlisted German healer Christos Drossinakis, who sent his mental influence from Japan and Germany at 12 a.m. for 10 minutes to a bottle. Researchers performing the measurements were unaware of when he was sending intention and which target bottle it was.

Significant changes in electrophotonic parameters of water drops between samples from different bottles were found on days when Drossinaki was sending healing from Japan. During control periods, no significant reproducible difference between samples were found.

In another experiment, a sample of drinking water was divided into three vials. A drop of eucalyptus oil was added to one, while the two others were sent intention by Russian healers. When Korotkov analyzed the results, he found that human influence was stronger than the impact of oil added to water.

Although these studies are simply observations, at this point, they offer evidence of water as a means of information storage, which varies under the influence of human intention.

As Korotkov writes: It may be that this ‘structurized’ water influences the person who drinks it. If we manage to prove these hypotheses experimentally, new insights in understanding of the world and health will open up.

“We could even prove that the quality of food depends on the mental mood of the person who prepared it.”

How our Water Experiment was Run

On November 30, Dr. Korotkov filled a test tube to the top with distilled water from a pharmacy in St. Petersburg, Russia. He then inserted an electrode into the test tube, so that water began to run down its sides, to ensure there was no air in the test tube. The electrode was then secured with tape, as shown below.

This electrode was then connected to a cylinder and standard GDV equipment.

Glowing from Intention

Ordinarily, when a bottle of ordinary water is first opened, its ‘glow’ is highly variable before it settles down after two minutes. Korotkov chose distilled water for our experiment because its glow doesn’t have this kind of initial variation but should remain relatively stable over time.

At this time, The Intention Experiment enlisted participants from all over the world and asked them to send love to this sample of water.

We had wanted to create a simple scientific experiment to prove the claims of Masaru Emoto — that love sent to water changes its structure — in a rigorous scientific setting under scientific conditions.

The Intention Experiment website published a photo of the vial of water, which was visible only to those who had agreed to register for the experiment.

Nearly 3000 people had signed up to participate from eighty countries around the globe. Although two-thirds were from the US, Canada, the UK and the Netherlands and other English speaking countries like New Zealand and Australia, we also had a large showing from every country in Europe and then many far-flung places: Indonesia, Bangledesh, Uruguay, Zambia and other countries in Africa, Malaysia, Japan, Croatia, Costa Rica and other countries in central America, Columbia, and China. We had representatives from every continent other than Antartica.

On the day, some 1500 actually participated.

Sixty two per cent —nearly two-thirds — were regular meditators, and nearly half had read The Intention Experiment. Nearly 80 per cent were participating for the first time.

Experimental Process

At 7: 38 pm St. Petersburg time (4:38 GMT) Korotkov turned on his GDV instruments, and kept them on for roughly an hour. Only a single experimenter was in the room. During the experiment, Rachmaninov played on a CD.

Dr. Korotkov says that the purpose of our experiment was to measure the signals being emitted from the water and to compare the signals before intention with those during the intention and then afterward.

To register the subtlest of changes, he examined many parameters, including the power of the signal (its area) and the spectrum of the signal (its intensity).

When he examined the effects 10 minutes before and compared it with the effect during intention, he discovered a highly significant change.

Korotkov chose three intervals to study and compare emissions: 10 minutes before intention was sent, 10 minutes after and four minutes in the midst of the intention. He then compared the size and intensity of emissions and their state of ‘order’ by looking at such measurements as the total area and average intensity of light emissions.

Large Changes in Light

He discovered large differences in a number of parameters, including the intensity of light. Here’s a chart showing the effect of intention and also the variation in the emissions of the water.

In the graph in the pdf, which shows a time line of the experiment, after the instrument was turned on we had a strong variations in the light emissions — contrary to Korotkov’s expectations. These variations came to a halt six minutes before the planned intention time and only started again once we were finished.

These figures show a significant effect in changing the area emissions of the water.

Nevertheless, if you look at the comparison between the time of intention and 20 minutes before, the significance in his data disappears. In the Second Water Experiment, we refined the experiment and studied the data over a longer time frame.

Charged Water

Korotkov hypothesizes three things about water whose structure has been ‘charged’ with love. First, the ‘structurized water’ affects the space where the water sample is – as William Tiller discovered, in his Black Box experiments (see The Intention Experiment, chapter 8). It makes it like a sacred space.

Korotkov also theorizes that this structurized water could change the state of the person who drinks it.

If know we can change and ‘improve’ water by sending love to it, we could have a healing effect on everything that contains water: food, drinking water – indeed every living thing. Remember that all animals (us included) are approximately 80 per cent water and all plants almost 100 per cent water.

Nevertheless, this is only a demonstration of a possible effect. We need to repeat the experiment several times to show without a doubt that our intention changed this structure bonding ability.

Experience Counts

The design of water experiment was itself an experiment. In the past, we have made these experiments open only to those people who have read The Intention Experiment, digested its contents and practiced Powering Up, Lynne McTaggart’s program for maximizing intention.

Because these are rigorous scientific experiments, we had wanted to increase the likelihood of success by using only a coherent, homogeneous group of participants, who were experienced in sending intention using identical techniques.

This was our first experiment open to the public, where participants could be unpracticed in Powering Up.

As it happened, we have a fairly practiced group – two-thirds, were experienced meditators, and we sent all participants abbreviated instructions for Powering Up.

Nevertheless, in a group not long practiced, individual ideas of focusing mind and the like might differ greatly.

Robust as our effect was, it was not as strong as that of an experienced healer. This graph shows happened when a Russian healer named V. Sochevano sent healing to a vial of water. The influence time is between A and B.

As Dr. Korotkov says, ‘This healer was very, very experienced. He knew how to generate specific frequencies, which is why his effect was huge.’

Our effect was indeed smaller. As with our Germination Experiments, it seems that experience in intention counts: the more experienced the intender, the greater his effects.

From this experiment, we also concluded that it was important to make our intention to water more specific. All we had specified was to send love.

The problem is that the idea of love is highly individual. ‘Indeed,’ says Dr. Korotkov, ‘some of the intentions could have interfered with others.’

In other experiments, The Intention Experiment has produced the largest effect with a highly specific intention.

The fact that participants are placed all over the globe again did not seem to matter. What may matter, however, is becoming a coherent, focused group who occupies the same ‘psychic’ space.

The Leaf Intention Experiment

Download the PDF of the Full Results

The little leaf that glowed
Psychologist Dr. Gary Schwartz, director of the Center for Advances in Consciousness and Health at the University of Arizona, generously volunteered to carry out our first experiment. Dr. Schwartz has a great deal of experience carrying out experiments in energy healing, and is the first scientist to have photographed light (biophoton) emissions from living things through

his super-cooled digital CCD camera system, which not only creates digital photos of biophoton emissions, but analyzes and counts them, one by one.

For our first Intention Experiment, we decided to start with a geranium leaf taken from the flourishing plant in the office of his colleague, Dr. Melinda Connor, using a target and an identical control. Both would be subjected to the same conditions, but only one would be sent intention. Although the participants would know our target, the scientists would not be told until they’d calculated the results.

For our first intention experiment, we started from the ground floor. First we had to establish that the thoughts of a batch of disparate people from around the globe could have an effect — any effect. Only after we’d achieved that could we move on to more ambitious targets.

Such a simple experiment nevertheless required a 50-step protocol to be painstakingly followed by our lab technician, Mark Boccuzzi. Mark would select two geranium leaves identical in terms of size and number of light emissions. In order to achieve statistical significance, we would need more than thirty data points with which to compare to two leaves. Dr. Schwartz decided to puncture each leaf sixteen times. That way, we’d have more than enough data points to compare.

Increasing the light
On March 11, 2007, we decided to carry out a trial run using the attendees of an Intention Experiment conference held by my publishing company in London. Mark Boccuzzi hooked up a webcam, and a live image of each leaf appeared on its own web page, visible only to Lynne and her London audience. After selecting one of the leaves, the audience sent intention for 10 minutes to the target leaf, after which Mark placed both leaves under the CCD camera to be photographed.

The audience was told to attempt to increase the light emissions by using their thoughts to make the leaf ‘glow and glow.’

We then asked a member of the audience to choose the target leaf by flipping a coin then displayed the chosen leaf on a Power Point projector. After engaging the audience in a simple Powering Up exercise, they held an intention to make the leaf glow for 10 minutes.

Mark was told which leaf we’d chosen only after he’d finished his calculations. A week later, Dr. Schwartz revealed that the changes in the light emissions of the leaf given the glowing intention had been so strong that they could readily be seen in the digital images created by the CCD cameras.

Numerically, the increased biophoton effect was highly statistically significant. In fact, he said, all the punctured holes in the chosen leaf were filled with light. All the holes in the control leaf, on the other hand, remained black.

Dr. Schwartz eventually will publish these results in a scientific publication, which prevents me at this writing from publishing photos. Science journals demand that all details of a scientific experiment be published first in a peer-reviewed journal before being circulated publicly.

Glowing seeds
A variation of this experiment was repeated for our internet audience on April 14 — this time using string bean seeds as our target to ‘glow.’

Nearly 7000 people from thirty countries participated in the experiment, This time, after Dr. Schwartz had analyzed the results, the bean seed experiment showed a strong 'glow effect' — the same as the London leaf experiment — but not in terms of statistical significance, largely because of the limitations of the imaging equipment.

“The beans were in the predicted direction, but the results did not reach statistical significance,” Gary wrote me in an email. “However, there were only 12 beans per condition (glow versus control). If it was possible to image twice as many beans, the results would have reached statistical significance (through what is called power analysis in statistics).”

In other words, we showed a large effect, but we needed more seeds just to satisfy the scientific definition of ‘significant.’

A third study carried out in September at a Reconnection Master Conference in Los Angeles produced a similar effect to that of our first Intention Experiment in London.

Lynne McTaggart