In 1995, the CIA quietly declassified a revealing paper written by parapsychologist Mario Varvoglis titled "‘Anglo-Saxon’ vs. ‘Latin’ Parapsychology."
The subject? Not mind-reading or spoon-bending - but how cultural differences shaped the very foundation of parapsychological research across continents.
What emerges is a rare glimpse into the internal politics of psychic science - where France, the U.S., Italy, and Britain pursued the same mysteries but often couldn’t even speak the same conceptual language.
The result was a fractured field - and perhaps a missed opportunity for deeper understanding of consciousness, telepathy, and the nature of mind.
🌐 The Cultural Divide: Two Sciences of the Paranormal
At the heart of the paper is a simple but profound thesis: Anglo-American parapsychology and Latin-European parapsychology evolved separately - not only in method, but in mindset.
Anglo-Saxon approach (U.S., UK):
- Empirical, statistical, lab-based.
- Favored experiments like card guessing, random number generators, and controlled "remote viewing."
- Strong emphasis on scientific rigor and replicability.
- Distanced from spirituality or metaphysics.
Latin approach (France, Italy, Spain):
- Humanistic, case-driven, and rooted in phenomenology.
- Focused on mediumship, trance states, altered consciousness, and qualitative reports.
- Comfortable blending science with philosophy, literature, and depth psychology.
- Embraced the personal and subjective as valid data.
This divide, Varvoglis argued, created a “communication barrier” as strong as any language barrier.
🧬 Psychic Research in America: Quantifying the Unseen
Parapsychology in the U.S. was born in academia, shaped by figures like J.B. Rhine at Duke University.
Using statistical testing, researchers sought to eliminate bias and quantify psi phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance.
Experiments involved tens of thousands of data points.
Significant effects were sometimes found - but their small size and lack of consistency led skeptics to dismiss them as noise.
Over time, even proponents of psi research within the U.S. scientific community began to distance themselves from "soft" cases like hauntings or mediumship.
The price for credibility was strict reductionism.
🧘 Latin Traditions: Where Phenomenology Reigned
By contrast, French and Italian parapsychologists remained tied to a richer intellectual tradition.
They traced their roots back to figures like Charles Richet, Eusapia Palladino, and Julien Ochorowicz - who approached psi not just as a lab curiosity, but as an extension of the human psyche and cultural consciousness.
Mediums were studied not with EEG machines, but in extended, immersive sittings.
Latin researchers didn’t run from the mystical - they embraced it, so long as it offered insight into human nature.
To Anglo researchers, these accounts felt unverifiable - too reliant on anecdote.
To Latin researchers, the Anglo fixation on sterile lab data seemed like missing the forest for the trees.
⚖️ Bridging or Breaking the Divide?
Varvoglis didn’t argue that one system was better than the other - but he believed the cultural mismatch was costing the field dearly.
Collaboration across these two worlds was rare.
When it occurred, miscommunication often led to mutual dismissal:
- American researchers criticized Latin peers for "lax controls."
- Latin scholars called Anglo parapsychologists "soulless number crunchers."
Worse still, funding priorities began to mirror these divisions.
CIA-backed psi programs like Project Stargate emphasized remote viewing with controlled feedback loops.
Meanwhile, in France or Italy, such methods seemed artificial and spiritually tone-deaf.
🔍 Why the CIA Cared
The existence of this memo in CIA archives underscores a Cold War subtext.
During the 1970s–1990s, the U.S. government actively investigated psychic warfare, spurred by Soviet interest in "psychoenergetics."
Understanding how parapsychology was evolving internationally mattered - especially when psychic claims might lead to intelligence gaps or foreign experimentation.
The CIA didn’t just want experiments - it wanted insight into how other cultures interpreted the paranormal.
This document is one such effort: trying to understand the epistemological terrain of a world few spies were trained to navigate.
🧩 What We’re Still Missing
The paper ends with a call for true interdisciplinary work - between nations, between worldviews, and between methodologies.
It asks: What if lab-based protocols and qualitative, immersive accounts could inform each other?
What if statistics could meet story - and logic could meet meaning?
In that blend, Varvoglis hinted, might be the key to understanding not only psychic phenomena, but the very architecture of consciousness itself.
But to get there, the divide would first have to be acknowledged - and then bridged.
A task not of science alone, but of culture, humility, and shared curiosity.
