CIA Used Psychics to See the Future: Remote Viewing & Signs You Might Be Psychic | Dr. Edwin C. May

Summary of Main Arguments and Points

The episode features an extended interview with physicist Dr. Edwin C. May, who claims he helped develop and oversee the US government’s remote viewing work (widely associated with the “Stargate” program). The discussion argues that:

• Remote viewing/ESP was treated as a real, testable intelligence tool, not just mysticism.
• The government’s version of these methods was structured around protocols, double-blind testing, and statistical scoring, though results were never perfect.
• The work was highly secret, spread across many agencies, and reportedly continued for decades with enough success to justify ongoing funding.
• Success varied strongly by individual, and training attempts struggled because abilities differ and because protocols can be misapplied.

Origins and Transition Into the Field

May describes how he shifted from physics into parapsychology after encountering leaders in out-of-body and ESP research (e.g., Bob Monroe and later Chuck Honorton). He emphasizes a scientific framing: rather than treating ESP as supernatural, he argues it can be studied by looking at changes in sensory responsiveness and related experimental designs.

What “Stargate” Was and How It Operated

Key claims about the program include:

• Starting around 1975 (with earlier work preceding it), the intelligence community allegedly ran over 500 intelligence-collection missions over about 20 years.
• These missions were reportedly distributed across 19 federal agencies (including the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, NASA, State Department, among others).
• May claims the program was kept secret and used “funny names” for projects, preventing public discussion.
• A major theme is that, during the early period, researchers pushed for more foundational research into mechanisms, but were still required to execute “spy activities” and operational tasks.

Effectiveness: Mixed but “Good Enough”

May argues the program was imperfect yet useful, citing multiple examples:

• Intelligence tasks included assessing whether foreign activities posed threats and even tactical questions (e.g., which tunnels under the North/South Korea border to investigate).
• He states one notable use-case was law enforcement, referencing a Washington scandal in which a law enforcement effort allegedly found a body’s location using remote viewing.
• He claims many agencies continued returning with additional missions, including skeptical ones (he highlights CIA returning with additional tasks), and says success was sufficient for some solved problems.

Limits, Measurement, and Statistics

The interview stresses that remote viewing is not perfect and is constrained by method and human factors:

• May frames remote viewing as better than random chance, not infallible perception.
• He describes attempts to quantify results using scoring methods that combine:
  • accuracy of description, and
  • a “precision/confidence”-type measure to estimate what portion of claims likely matched the target.
• He argues the data transfer rate of ESP is too low for extremely complex tasks like winning a lottery, but more feasible for binary or lower-variability target formats (examples: yes/no or limited-choice markets).
• He claims even top performers tend to have meaningful error rates, and novelty/fatigue affects performance (e.g., repeated retesting of the same protocol may fail when conditions become boring or repetitive).

Training and Why It’s Hard to Teach

A central argument is that protocols exist, but training is difficult:

• May says there is no single “correct” way to perform remote viewing because specialists differ markedly (different cognitive styles, sitting, journaling/writing approaches, etc.).
• He criticizes a particular training approach associated with Ingo Swann, describing a “cult”/misinterpretation that overly enforced a single structural method and reduced performance.
• He claims that while some people can perform at above-random levels, he and others attempted to train military or officers and failed, largely because individual differences and anxiety-state/mental conditions can limit performance.
• On the question “Can anyone learn it?”, May’s answer is largely no—he argues natural ability and receptivity have ceilings, even if people can improve to a point.

Telepathy/Precognition Theories and a “Model” of How It Works

May distinguishes between types of extrasensory perception and advances a theory:

• He argues that only one form of gathering information—precognition (foreknowledge)—is consistently workable as a framework.
• He discusses a mechanistic metaphor/model (e.g., entropy/Shannon gradient idea and “information bits”/code-access), but repeatedly admits the physical pathway is not fully explained.
• He contrasts his stance with a Russian model of telepathy using brain rhythms/carriers, saying he believes that earlier telepathy model is wrong.

Relationship to Materialism, Consciousness, and Survival After Death

May presents himself as a “convinced materialist”, meaning:

• He believes remote viewing/foresight can be researched without implying supernatural survival.
• He states he does not believe in survival after death, and interprets near-death experiences as explainable without consciousness continuing after death.
• He acknowledges disturbing/unclear clinical cases (e.g., reports of persons being revived after being pronounced dead) but does not treat them as evidence for post-death survival.

Anxiety, Receptivity, and “State” Factors

A recurring thread is that performance correlates with psychological state:

• May emphasizes that anxiety and cognitive noise reduce the ability to access information.
• He argues that people may change their state (e.g., meditation, breathing practices) to become more receptive, even though the underlying ceiling still varies.
• The discussion includes broader framing comparing:
  • Julia Mossbridge’s perspective that many people can do it, versus
  • May’s view that most cannot access it reliably and that measurable ability varies.

Closing Examples and Broader Speculation

The episode also references:

• A story from the hosts about remote viewing-like awareness used to “check on” a husband while he was camping in Joshua Tree, which allegedly later matched changed plans the next day.
• May’s interest in linking his work to discussions in physics (e.g., retrocausation, entropy-related ideas), framing foresight as potentially compatible with specific scientific models—while still saying the mechanism is unresolved.

Presenters / Contributors

• Mayim Bialik (presenter/host)
• Jonathan Cohen (presenter/host)
• Dr. Edwin C. May (interviewee/guest)
• Angela Ford (referenced; remote viewing specialist)
• Chuck Honorton (referenced; extrasensory perception researcher/mentor figure)
• Bob Monroe (referenced; out-of-body experiences figure)
• Ingo Swann (referenced; remote viewing training figure)
• Nevin Lantz (referenced; remote viewing specialist)
• Julia Mossbridge (referenced; psi/remote viewing discussion figure)
• Rex Stanford (referenced; NYU psychologist)
• Joe McMonigle (referenced; remote viewing expert)
• Ippolit Moseevich Kogan (referenced; Russian telepathy model)