The concept of telepathy has long captivated human imagination and is a subject of cultural fascination. Imagine if humans could communicate through the power of our minds alone! We don’t have to imagine too hard thanks to telepathic characters in popular media ranging from the Marvel Universe to Anne Rice’s vampires and beyond. Another such media phenomenon, The Telepathy Tapes, has recently brought telepathy into the spotlight in ways that some may not have encountered before. The claim is that nonverbal autistic children possess mind-reading abilities which can be utilised through the proper methodologies.

Although I research paranormal claims, the reason I am writing about The Telepathy Tapes here is because I’m autistic. The assertions promoted on this podcast cause me great concern about unscientific claims being promoted uncritically in a way which contributes to stigma and misunderstanding about autistic people and our lived experiences. Not only this, but there are profound ethical implications about promoting unsupported claims which may offer false hope to families living with nonverbal autistic children.

These are hardly new conversations, but it’s essential to set the lay of the land considering recently inspired discussions. Professor Chris French is featured on The Guardian’s Science Weekly podcast this week. The episode asks, ‘Telepathy… what’s the evidence?’

French points out that although some evidence exists, it’s largely poor quality—a mix of anecdotal evidence or studies for which other researchers cannot replicate the results. Additionally, he says believers in telepathy have yet to propose a plausible mechanism for how telepathy might work and need to develop robust, replicable study methodologies if they want to convince the scientific community.

French also remarks that skeptics cannot prove telepathy does not exist (a statement I suspect is edited for stylistic reasons from a more nuanced response). While technically correct, the Science Weekly episode misrepresents the burden of proof because the responsibility lies with the claimant to provide evidence for their assertions (something French mentioned previously in the show). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; without it, skepticism remains the rational default position. Framing skepticism as having an impossible challenge of disproving unproven claims rather than as an essential method of inquiry, the podcast risks obscuring the true nature of scientific skepticism and its role in separating fact from fiction.

As an autistic adult who sometimes struggles to communicate my thoughts and feelings effectively when I’m overwhelmed or overstimulated, I cannot imagine the experience of nonverbal children for whom the ideas promoted are a lived reality. This is where I believe the skeptic movement can make the sort of impact needed by effectively challenging misinformation and holding those who are responsible accountable.

By prioritising sensationalism over critical analysis and by excluding skeptical voices and the perspectives of experts in communication and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, The Telepathy Tapes risks spreading pseudoscientific beliefs to a broad audience. But so, too, do the wider media if they fail to write properly informed analyses of the popular podcast. Instead, uncritical promotion or the failure to adequately counter the claims promoted could inadvertently work to spread misinformation instead, which diverts attention from genuine understanding and support for autistic people, and strengthens stereotypes instead of helping to promote true representation of autistic experiences.

All things considered, we should have seen this coming.

Recommended Reading:

The Telepathy Tapes Prove We All Want to Believe | Jonathan Jarry, M.Sc
The Telepathy Tapes: A Dangerous Cornucopia of Pseudoscience | Stuart Vyse,

Adblock test (Why?)