What Does Spirit Communication Feel Like? Inside the Mind of a Medium

Two mediums compare clairvoyance, clairsentience, symbolism, intuition and the deeply individual experience of communicating with the spirit world

What actually happens inside the mind of a medium when someone in the spirit world draws close?

Do we see them?

Hear them?

Feel them?

Simply know?

And perhaps more importantly: does everybody experience it differently?

These questions fascinate me because the longer I develop my own mediumship, the less interested I become in presenting it as something neat, mechanical or easily reduced to a set of instructions.

In fact, I increasingly think that one of the most confusing things we can say to somebody beginning their mediumistic development is:

“This is what it should feel like.”

Because what if it doesn't?

That was really the starting point for a recent Soul Sync conversation with Dutch psychic medium Dennis Blaauw of Astra Anima.

Dennis and I both work mediumistically, but the fascinating part is that our internal experiences are not identical. Even during the conversation we disagreed, challenged one another, changed direction and occasionally discovered contradictions in our own thinking.

And I rather liked that.

Because perhaps mediumship needs more exploration and fewer absolute answers.

Listen to the Soul Sync conversation

Two Mediums Reveal How They Experience the Spirit World with Dennis Blaauw

So, What Does Mediumship Actually Feel Like?

This is probably one of the questions I'm asked most frequently.

And my slightly frustrating answer is:

It depends.

For me, spirit communication very often begins visually.

A face appears within my mind.

Not necessarily as though a physical person is standing in front of me. It is more like an image within my internal awareness — sometimes incredibly vivid and sometimes fleeting.

That face starts something.

It is almost as though my consciousness recognises: someone is here.

But the more I've examined my own process, the more I've realised that the image isn't actually the whole experience.

Alongside it there is usually feeling.

Emotion.

Personality.

A change in atmosphere.

A knowing that seems to arrive before I've logically worked out why I know it.

Dennis's experience can be different again. In our conversation, he explained that the nature of a connection can change depending upon who — or what — he feels he is connecting with.

And that raises what I think is a hugely important point:

Perhaps there isn't one correct sensation of mediumship.

There may be many doorways.

Clairvoyance, Clairsentience and the Different Languages of Perception

Traditionally, mediumistic experiences are often described using the various clairs.

Clairvoyance generally refers to receiving visual impressions.

Clairsentience relates to feeling or sensing.

Clairaudience refers to impressions experienced as sound or words.

Claircognizance is often used to describe an unexplained sense of knowing.

There are other terms too, including experiences associated with smell, taste and physical sensation.

But even these labels can become boxes if we're not careful.

I spent a long time thinking clairvoyance was my dominant way of working simply because my visual impressions can be so vivid.

Yet during another conversation, medium Colin Bates challenged me on that.

He suggested that underneath the image, my real starting point may actually be clairsentience — feeling.

And I think he was right.

I see the face.

But I feel the person.

That distinction has completely changed the way I work.

Interestingly, Science Also Shows That Our Inner Worlds Differ

This is where the conversation becomes especially interesting.

Leaving aside the question of whether an impression originates from spirit, modern neuroscience does support one important part of this discussion:

human beings do not all experience their internal world in the same way.

Research into visual mental imagery shows enormous individual variation. Some people's mental imagery is extraordinarily vivid, whereas people with aphantasia report little or no voluntary visual imagery at all. Neuroscientist Joel Pearson's review of the field describes mental imagery as involving brain networks extending from frontal regions into sensory areas and notes this striking variation in vividness between individuals.

That does not prove clairvoyance or mediumship.

But it does tell us something important.

When one medium says:

“I see spirit very clearly.”

and another says:

“I don't really see anything — I feel it.”

there is no reason to assume that one person's internal experience should resemble another's.

The human mind itself is already far more individually configured than we sometimes acknowledge.

What About Feeling Spirit in the Body?

Then there is clairsentience.

For many mediums, information seems to be experienced through bodily sensation and emotion.

A heaviness.

A warmth.

A feeling in the chest.

A sudden emotional shift.

A sense of somebody's personality.

Science has its own term for our ability to perceive internal bodily states: interoception.

Research into interoception examines how the brain represents sensations from within the body and how these contribute to emotion, mood and our sense of self.

Again, that does not establish that a particular bodily sensation has come from someone in spirit.

But it gives us another useful framework.

Our bodies and minds are constantly receiving, interpreting and integrating information.

Perhaps good mediumistic development therefore involves becoming more sensitive to our internal experience without immediately deciding what every sensation means.

That last part matters.

Does Spirit Communicate Through Our Memories?

This was one of the areas Dennis and I explored most deeply.

My own belief, based upon how I experience mediumship, is that spirit can communicate using the enormous library already contained within our consciousness.

Our memories.

Images.

Emotions.

Relationships.

Music.

Places.

Films.

Smells.

Objects.

People we have known.

Everything within what I sometimes call our tapestry of life.

In my own mediumship, my grandfather has sometimes appeared within my awareness when I have known perfectly well that the communicating spirit person is not actually him.

Initially that confused me.

Why are you here?

Eventually I began to realise that the image itself could be part of a language.

What does my grandfather represent to me?

What is he doing?

Where is he?

What feeling accompanies the scene?

What aspect of that memory am I being drawn towards?

Dennis quite rightly challenged me on this during our conversation.

He pointed out that some impressions can feel completely novel: a smell somebody doesn't remember encountering, a landscape they don't recognise, a voice or sensory impression without an obvious personal association.

And I think that's important.

I don't want my beliefs about how mediumship works to become so rigid that I stop noticing when my own experience contradicts them.

Mediumship should remain an enquiry.

Symbolism: The Pizza Is Sometimes Just a Pizza

This is something I've had to learn the hard way.

Spirit gives me a washing machine.

My brain says:

Launderette!

Spirit gives me a pizza.

My brain immediately decides:

Domino's!

Spirit shows me a woman.

My analytical mind races ahead:

Daughter!

And suddenly I've moved away from what I actually received into something I've constructed myself.

I reached a point where I almost had to renegotiate my relationship with the spirit world.

I decided:

Just say what you are given first.

Stay with it.

Feel it.

Explore it.

But don't rush to make it mean something.

That distinction between perception and interpretation has become enormously important in my own mediumship.

Dennis caught me out during the episode, because I also said spirit communicates symbolically.

His response was essentially:

Well, a symbol requires interpretation.

Touché.

And he's right.

The answer, for me at least, isn't to stop interpreting altogether.

It is to become increasingly aware of when the interpretation begins.

Why “No” Can Be One of the Best Words in Mediumship Development

For developing mediums, a “no” can feel catastrophic.

You give information.

The sitter says:

No.

And suddenly:

I've lost it.

I'm rubbish.

I've made everything up.

I'm never doing this again.

I know that territory very well.

But I increasingly think we need to change our relationship with being wrong.

A “no” contains information.

Did I accurately perceive something but interpret it incorrectly?

Did I move too quickly?

Did I turn an impression into a relationship that wasn't there?

Did I simply get it wrong?

That's okay too.

Dennis and I actually demonstrated this rather beautifully during the episode with an impromptu colour experiment.

He selected a colour.

I confidently felt into it.

Turquoise appeared first.

Then I changed my mind.

Dark purple.

The colour?

Orange.

Not exactly my finest psychic hour.

Then I chose one for Dennis.

He slowed down.

He sensed blue-green.

And irritatingly, he was basically correct.

But that is precisely why experimentation matters.

If we're terrified of being wrong, we stop experimenting.

And if we stop experimenting, how do we ever discover the nuances of our own perception?

Can Mediumship Actually Be Taught?

Dennis and I disagreed on this too.

I tend to resist the phrase “teaching someone to be a medium.”

I prefer unfoldment.

My belief is that a good mediumship teacher is helping somebody recognise, understand and develop a sensitivity that already belongs to them.

Dennis made the perfectly reasonable counterargument that there clearly are skills involved.

And of course there are.

Discernment can improve.

Attention can improve.

Vocabulary can improve.

Confidence develops.

A medium learns how to communicate what they perceive.

They learn how not to lead somebody.

They learn when they have moved into interpretation.

They learn to stay with an impression.

They learn how their own consciousness works.

So perhaps the distinction is this:

A teacher cannot give you somebody else's mediumship.

But a good teacher may be able to help you discover your own.

That is a very different proposition.

Are We Trying Too Hard?

This may be the most paradoxical part of mediumship development.

We want to become better.

So naturally, we try harder.

But the harder we try to make something happen, the more we can interfere with the very process we're trying to allow.

I know this intimately.

I've sat in readings internally screaming:

Come on. Give me something. Anything. Name. Date. Memory. COME ON.

Shockingly, that rarely improves matters.

The more pressure I create, the more analytical I become.

The more analytical I become, the further away I move from that subtle first impression.

There is actually an interesting parallel here with established psychology.

Research into “choking under pressure” has found that excessive pressure can impair skilled performance. One proposed mechanism is explicit monitoring: something that normally operates relatively automatically becomes disrupted when we begin consciously scrutinising every step of it.

That research is not about mediumship.

But the parallel fascinates me.

How many times do we interfere with something subtle because we're monitoring ourselves too intensely?

Am I connected?

Am I doing it right?

Is this good enough?

What does this mean?

Perhaps sometimes development is not about concentrating harder.

Perhaps it is about becoming sufficiently practised that we can stop gripping the experience quite so tightly.

“I Care — But I Don't Care”

That sounds dreadful out of context.

Yet it has become one of the most useful ideas in my own development.

Of course I care.

Deeply.

Mediumship involves people's lives, memories, grief, relationships and love.

It deserves sensitivity and responsibility.

But I cannot care so intensely about performing well that my need to succeed becomes louder than the communication itself.

That is a different type of caring.

It is caring about the result.

Caring about being right.

Caring about how I am perceived.

And that creates pressure.

So increasingly I tell myself:

I care deeply about the work.

But I don't care about proving myself.

There is tremendous freedom in that distinction.

Should Mediumship Training Have More Room for Experimentation?

This was another area Dennis and I explored.

I have enormous respect for the history and traditions of British mediumship.

The great pioneers experimented relentlessly.

They sat in circles.

Explored altered states.

Investigated different forms of communication.

Worked with healing.

Trance.

Physical mediumship.

Psychometry.

Inspirational speaking.

And many other approaches.

Yet I sometimes wonder whether parts of modern mediumship development have become more standardised than the pioneers themselves ever were.

Dennis made an important counterpoint.

Frameworks have value.

They create boundaries.

They establish common language.

They can help people develop safely and methodically.

I agree.

The problem comes when:

“Here is one useful framework”

quietly becomes:

“This is the only way it can happen.”

Because if consciousness is individual, and if spirit communication is individual, surely our development must leave at least some room for discovery.

What Does the Scientific Research Say About Mediumship?

I think it's important to be careful here.

Science has not established that communication with deceased people is a proven explanation for mediumistic experiences.

But it is also inaccurate to suggest that mediumship has never been experimentally studied.

It has.

Some blinded experiments have reported that certain mediums produced information rated significantly more accurately for intended sitters than control readings. A 2020 meta-analysis of 18 experiments reported an overall result above chance and concluded that its findings supported anomalous information retrieval through an unknown mechanism.

Other controlled research has failed to find such an effect. One study testing mediumistic writing under strict blinded conditions found no significant difference between target and control letters, while another forced-choice experiment reported insufficient evidence for anomalous information reception.

And I actually find that tension interesting.

Because the scientifically responsible position isn't:

“Science has proved mediumship.”

Nor is it:

“Nobody has ever found anything interesting.”

It is:

There are intriguing findings, conflicting findings, methodological challenges and unanswered questions.

For me, that makes consciousness worth continuing to investigate rather than pretending the mystery has already been solved.

Perhaps the Biggest Mistake Is Comparing Your Mediumship With Somebody Else's

This is really where Dennis and I landed.

If you're developing your mediumship and somebody else sees faces while you don't, that does not automatically mean you're doing something wrong.

If somebody hears words and you only receive feelings, that does not mean they're “more advanced.”

If somebody produces names easily while your communication arrives through memories and emotion, that does not automatically make their connection better.

Experience matters.

Practice matters.

Evidence matters.

Discernment matters.

But comparison can become resistance.

Your consciousness contains an entirely different lifetime from mine.

Different memories.

Different emotional associations.

Different imagery.

Different sensitivities.

Different ways of processing the world.

Why would your mediumship need to be a copy of mine?

In the episode I said that assigning people labels such as beginner, intermediate and advanced can sometimes become unhelpful if those labels encourage constant comparison rather than unfoldment.

I'm increasingly convinced that good development should help somebody become more themselves, not more like their teacher.

Mediumship as a Creative Relationship

Perhaps that's the phrase I've been searching for.

A creative relationship.

Not creative in the sense of inventing information.

Quite the opposite.

Creative in the sense that two worlds — however we ultimately understand them — are attempting to communicate through the enormously complex instrument of human consciousness.

Learning that instrument takes time.

It requires curiosity.

Experimentation.

Humility.

A willingness to be wrong.

And perhaps most importantly, the confidence to stop asking:

“How does somebody else do this?”

and begin asking:

“How does this unfold through me?”

That is the conversation Dennis and I really had.

We didn't finish with a single theory of mediumship.

I'm rather pleased about that.

Because certainty closes questions.

Curiosity opens them.

And when it comes to consciousness, the spirit world and what human beings may ultimately be capable of perceiving, I think we still have an extraordinary amount left to explore.

Listen to the full conversation

Listen to my full Soul Sync conversation with psychic medium Dennis Blaauw, where we compare how we experience spirit communication, experiment with intuitive colour perception and explore whether mediumship is something that can really be taught — or something that has to be individually discovered.

Discover Dennis Blaauw and Astra Anima:
AstraAnima.com

Explore more conversations about mediumship, consciousness and the spirit world through Soul Sync here on JasonPaulMedium.com

Read the full conversation

If you'd like to explore the conversation in full, open the section below to read the complete transcript of my Soul Sync discussion with Dennis Blaauw. We explore what spirit communication feels like, clairvoyance and clairsentience, symbolism, the role of memory, mediumship development, experimentation, traditional training and why trying too hard can sometimes get in the way.

About Jason Paul

I'm Jason Paul, a psychic medium based in Bristol, working with people throughout the UK and internationally via Zoom.

My approach to mediumship is grounded in the belief that this work is first and foremost an act of service — an opportunity to explore the continuity of life and, where possible, bring evidence, connection and meaning through communication with the spirit world.

You can explore my mediumship readings, upcoming events, Soul Sync conversations and further reflections on mediumship and consciousness throughout this website.

Next
Next

Spirit Guides, Self-Discovery and Why Circle Matters