The Phantom Leaf Effect and Its Implications for Near-Death and Out- of-Body Experiences

The phantom leaf effect seen in Kir l ian photography may help researchers better understand near-death and out-of-body experiences. While the process responsible for the phantom leaf effect is unknown, variations of Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory offer three explanations for this phenomenon. Each of these variations has different implications for neardeath and out-of-body experiences. The phantom leaf phenomenon of electrical or Kirlian photography may provide an important clue to the interpretation of both near-death and out-of-body experiences (NDEs and OBEs). In this paper, we explain the phantom leaf effect, explore a possible relationship to humans, and examine this effect's importance for NDEs and OBEs. We describe three processes potentially responsible for the phantom leaf effect and the implications for NDEs and OBEs of each process. James C. Pace, R.N., D.S.N., M.Div., is a hospice chaplain at Alive Hospice and Associate Professor of Nursing at Vanderbilt University. Deborah L. Drumm, R.N., is a graduate student in Psychiatric Nursing at Vanderbilt University. Reprint requests should be addressed to Ms. Drumm at 713 Richfield Drive, Nashville, TN 37205. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 10(4) Summer 1992 9 1992 Human Sciences Press, Inc, 233 234 JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES Phantom Effects and Implications The phantom leaf effect is obtained by cutting away up to 50 percent of a leaf and then photographing it in the dark using electricity instead of light: the entire leaf, including the absent portion, appears in the photograph, sometimes in such exquisite detail that the spine, veins, and skin of the absent portion are readily apparent. Kirlian photographs of leaf phantoms have been obtained using many different kinds of leaves, including maples (Krippner and Rubin, 1974), creeping Charlies (Johnson, 1975), potato plants (H. Oldfield, personal communication, autumn, 1990), and sultanas (G. Gay, personal communication, autumn, 1990). Those who have photographed the phenomenon have reported frequencies of from one appearance in several hundred photographs (Johnson, 1975) to 85 appearances in 120 photographs (J. Hubacher, personal communication, autumn, 1989). The phantom leaf effect is neither a double exposure nor a photographic trick; precautions are routinely taken to ensure that an image cannot occur by mistake. For example, it is standard procedure to cut the leaf immediately before it is smoothed onto the emulsion (photographs are by direct contact) to eliminate the possibility that images could result from moisture prints. In the early 1970s, the credibility of the first phantom photographs was jeopardized by the practice of cutting the leaf while on the emulsion, but that practice was abandoned in the mid-1970s. Is there a related phenomenon in humans? For many years, healthcare professionals have noted the occurrence of phantom limb sensations in amputees, in which amputees complain of itching or pain in their absent extremities. Current theories cite exposed and stimulated nerve endings as the cause of these sensations. But some amputees have complained of these sensations for more than 20 years, long after the nerve endings have healed and stimulations have ceased. There are at least two reports of the photographing of phantom limbs in humans. Jack Worsley (1973) and Joanne Cusack (1989), working in different countries and without prior knowledge of each other, both concluded that phantom limbs can only be photographed during phantom limb pain. While those investigators did not conduct formal studies, and did not monitor or report critical factors such as applied voltage and frequency of appearance, this information implies that, under certain conditions, a photographable phantom effect may exist in humans as well as in plants. In NDEs and OBEs, individuals often claim that they experience existence separated from the physical body. Since objective evidence of JAMES C. PACE AND DEBORAH L. DRUMM 235 this out-of-body state is particularly difficult to find, the credibility of the separation hypothesis remains in question. Despite obvious differences in genetic makeup and consciousness between plants and humans, the recorded image of a leaf section where no physical counterpart exists may be visual evidence of a nonphysical dimension, a state of at least partial independence from the body. Since the phantom half of the leaf may be projected from the remaining physical portion, the assumption cannot necessarily be made that the phantom is distinct and separate from its physical counterpart. Nevertheless, the fact that the photographed image extends beyond the leafs cut borders indicates existence of something at least partially independent from the physical body. If such projections exist in human beings, they could account for both the realness and the veridicality of NDEs and OBEs. Three Explanations for the Phantom Leaf Effect Three hypotheses offer explanations for the phantom leaf effect. Each hypothesis has different ramifications for NDEs and OBEs. Harmonic Projection from a Cellular Blueprint One hypothesis postulates that the phantom section may be projected from a blueprint in the cellular components of the material half of the leaf, perhaps in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This is the contention of researchers Harry Old_field and Roger Coghill (1988): We think that cells broadcast via the resonance of their DNA paired bases' hydrogen bonds and transmit morphogenetic information to adjacent cells. The Kirlian phantom leaf effect is, therefore, produced by intensifying, rather than destroying, the relevant specific frequencies, and these are reproduced by downward harmonics in the visible light frequency range, and captured on photographic film. If the correct frequency is broadcast by a large number of cells it becomes a strong signal, which bonds the whole cellular structure of an organism together. It embodies a morphogenetic field. (p. 116) Elsewhere, they state: "Radiation of waves at cellular frequencies, we believe, is how the Kirl ian photography can produce the phantom leaf effect" (1988, p. 122) 236 JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES This interpretation does not permit extrapolation beyond the hydrogen bonds of DNA paired bases. It neither supports nor contradicts the separation hypothesis of NDEs and OBEs. All that can be assumed is that leaves either radiate encoded oscillations, perhaps similar to the amphibian stump currents described by Joseph Vanable, Lester Hearson, and M.E. McGinnis (1983), or that the material blueprint in the cellular matter of the leaf is somehow able to direct applied electrical current into a leaf pattern. We might also speculate that the same process might exist actually or potentially in other living things, including humans. This theory by itself does not adequately explain NDEs and OBEs. In electrical photography, the additional energy needed to intensify the broadcast of waves at the cellular level, and thus to project the phantom, is generated by currents from the photographic machine. It is possible that changes in the brainwave patterns or surges in the brain's electrical activity could provide the energy to intensify cell broadcasts and induce out-of-body projections in living persons, but what could produce strong electrical emissions in the clinically dead? Janusz Slawinski (1987) described a ~'death flash" of electromagnetic radiation as the moment of passing, but it is questionable whether broadcast waves from cells deteriorating and suffering from anoxia or hypercapnea could be strong enough to produce a human phantom, even if reinforced by some type of radiation from cellular breakdown. And if they could do so, it is questionable whether the emission of such radiation could last more than a mat ter of seconds. What then should be made of vivid NDE accounts such as that of Ricky Bradshaw, who was reported clinically dead for over an hour, during which time he apparently experienced an NDE (Atwater, 1988)? Projection from a Morphogenetic Field A second possible explanation of phantom phenomena assumes that there is something that acts as a blueprint for the DNA itself, channeling the molecules of genetic material into their proper positions and directing the growth of the plant from beginning to end. Rupert Sheldrake (1981) posited the existence of such an underlying multidimensional form in his theory of morphogenetic fields: The morphogenetic germ is part of the system-to-be . . . . The field is not yet "occupied" or ~'filled out"; it contains the virtual form of the JAMES C. PACE AND DEBORAH L. DRUMM 237 final system, which is actualized only when all its material parts have taken up their appropriate places. (p. 76) By morphic resonance the form of a system, including its characteristic internal structure and vibrational frequencies, becomes present to a subsequent system. . , superimposes itself on the latter. (p. 96) In the case of phantom leaves, such a morphogenetic form may underlie the entire plant, or it could be a "germ" of spatial coordinates and polarities tha t allows the projection of the developing plant, much the way the indistinct pat tern in the film beyond a hologram creates the unfolded three-dimensional image. The interpretation of the field as a germ of spatial coordinates may be closer to Sheldrake's intention: "Morphogenetic fields in general are not precisely defined, but are given by probability distributions . . . . The structures of morphogenetic fields will henceforth be referred to as probability structures" (1981,