one big step: another major study confirms that distant

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Ju ly / August 2006 5

N E W S A N D C O M M E N T

One Big STEP: Another Major Study Confirms That Distant Prayers Do Not Heal the Sick

BRUCE L. FLAMM

For almost a decade, investigators at sixacademic medical centers includingHarvard and the Mayo Clinic have beenworking on a major study of distantprayer. The results of their monumentaleffort, the largest study ever to search foreffects of intercessory prayer, have nowbeen published and the conclusion iscrystal clear: prayer had no beneficialeffects whatsoever (Benson et al. 2006).

The research, called the STEP trial(for “Study of the Therapeutic Effects ofIntercessory Prayer”) was meticulouslydesigned to detect any effects of distantprayer. Note that prayer or loving wordssaid at the bedside may reassure apatient and cause soothing physiologicmind/body interactions. In contrast,distant prayer is claimed to work viasupernatural or paranormal mecha-nisms. This study was designed specifi-cally to investigate distant prayer.

STEP investigators enrolled 1,802 car-diac bypass surgery patients from six hos-pitals and randomly assigned each to oneof three groups: 604 patients receivedintercessory prayer after being informedthey may or may not receive prayers(Group 1); 597 patients did not receiveprayer after being informed they may ormay not receive prayer (Group 2); and601 patients received intercessory prayerafter being informed they definitely wouldreceive it (Group 3). The study enlistedmembers of three Christian groups, twoCatholic and one Protestant, to provideprayer throughout the multiyear study.

To avoid bias and to ensure the resultswould be valid, none of the patients inthe first two groups and none of theirdoctors knew which patients were beingprayed for. This complex type of study,called a randomized double-blind con-trolled trial, is considered to be the goldstandard for scientific proof.

What did they find? When themountain of data was subjected to sta-

tistical analysis the researchers found nosignificant differences in any outcomesbetween groups 1 and 2. In other words,when patients did not know if they werebeing prayed for, distant prayer hadabsolutely no effect.

Interestingly, the patients who weretold that they definitely would receive dis-tant prayers (group 3) actually had worseoutcomes than the other two groups. Wasthis the work of an angry god? Probablynot. The study authors postulated thattelling patients they definitely wouldreceive prayer may have increased their

anxiety levels by leading them to believethat they were so sick that they neededprayer. The high anxiety and stress thusgenerated may have caused more compli-cations, such as irregular heartbeats.

Bob Barth of Silent Unity, the prayerorganization in Lee’s Summit, Missouri,that was the Protestant group involvedin the study, said the results didn’t shakehis confidence in prayer. “People of faithdon’t need a prayer study to know thatprayer works,” he said. Dozens of news-paper articles about the study includedsimilar comments.

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:29 PM Page 5


This raises an interesting question.Why waste several years and millions ofdollars conducting a rigorous multicenterprayer study if you are not going tobelieve the results? Could it be that thesewere not the results that investigators werehoping for? Would they have questionedthe results if prayer was found to be effec-tive? The $2.5-million study was fundedprimarily by the John TempletonFoundation, an organization that pumpsmillions of dollars each year into efforts topromote religion and superstitious beliefs.

Father Dean Marek, a Catholic priestand co-principal investigator of Mayo’spart of the STEP study opined, “I’msure God will be very pleased with theresults of this and getting people talkingabout the results of prayer in their lives.”Since the study showed absolutely nobeneficial effects of prayer one mustwonder exactly what Father Marek hasin mind. Perhaps he means that peopleshould be talking about the fact thatprayer is a waste of time.

More likely he is referring to the count-less excuses that will be used to explain thecomplete failure of prayer in this majorstudy. A few examples include: God knewit was a study so he did not answer theprayers; God does not like to be tested;God prefers prayers from family members;the prayers were answered but not the waywe expected; and of course the classic,God works in mysterious ways. The truthis that once supernatural phenomena areclaimed, the list of potential explanationsfor failure becomes infinite. In otherwords, for true believers the claimed heal-ing effect of distant prayer is nonfalsifiable;nothing could ever change their minds.

But for people who make decisionsbased on evidence, intercessory pray hasbeen dealt a fatal blow. The results of theSTEP research confirm the results of theMANTRA II trial, another major studythat was published last year (Krucoff etal. 2005). The MANTRA II study eval-uated prayer in hundreds of cardiacpatients at nine medical centers. Justlike the STEP study, it concluded thatdistant prayer had absolutely no benefi-cial effect on any health outcomes.

Only one randomized controlled sci-entific study has ever demonstratedapparently profound effects of distantprayer (Cha, Wirth, and Lobo 2001).However, as described previously in theSKEPTICAL INQUIRER (September/Octo-ber 2004 [www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html] and March/April 2005 [www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/miracle-study.html]), the Cha/Wirth/Lobo “Columbia Miracle Study”turned out to be highly flawed andalmost certainly fraudulent. Co-authorDaniel Wirth was convicted of criminalfraud and is now incarcerated in federalprison: co-author Rogerio Lobo ofColumbia University has removed hisname from the bizarre research.

In simple terms, the STEP andMANTRA II studies both found inter-cessory prayer to be totally worthless. Ifprayer was a drug being tested for effec-tiveness, these well-designed studieswould have destroyed it. A medicationthat failed this miserably in two hugerandomized trials would never beapproved by the FDA.

ReferencesBenson, H., J.A. Dusek, J.B. Sherwood, P. Lam,

C.F. Bethea, et al. 2006. Study of theTherapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer(STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multi-center randomized trial of uncertainty and cer-tainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Amer-ican Heart Journal April, 151(4): 934–942.

Cha, K.Y., D.P. Wirth, and R.A. Lobo. 2001.Does prayer influence the success of in vitrofertilization-embryo transfer? Journal of Repro-ductive Medicine 2001(46): 781–787.

Krucoff, M.W., S.W. Crater, D. Gallup, J.C.Blankenship, et al. 2005. The MANTRA IIrandomized study. The Lancet. 366(9481; July16–22): 211–217.

Dr. Flamm has been the senior investigatoron more than a dozen medical researchstudies and is the author of several medicalbooks. He has a major interest in support-ing science over superstition. His ongoinginvestigation of the bizarre ColumbiaUniversity “pray-for-pregnancy” study waspublished in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER andhas been the subject of articles in Time,The New York Times, The Los AngelesTimes, and other newspapers and maga-zine all over the world.

Florida Psychic JailedFor Fraud

L inda Marks, 57, a self-proclaimedpsychic who worked out of aDelray Beach, Florida, storefront

called “The Psychic Shop,” pled guilty tothree counts of wire fraud May 10,2006, and was sentenced to four years infederal prison, three years of probation,and payment of $2 million in restitutionto her victims. Her accomplice JackMakler, 64, a recently retired DelrayBeach police detective, was sentenced tofive years in prison with three years ofsupervised release and ordered to makerestitution of $235,700.

Marks was arrested in April 2005while on probation from an earlieroffense involving insurance fraud. Herscam was to prey on elderly patrons ofher shop, convincing them that theirsavings were cursed and she wouldremove the evil from the money andreturn the cash after the spell was bro-ken. Once the cash was delivered toMarks the money would disappear, andshe would often relocate to another areato start the scam again. One victim wasan end-stage leukemia patient to whomshe promised a cure, but instead stolehis life savings of $320,000.

Makler’s part in the scam was to pro-vide protection for Marks. Assigned toinvestigate complaints against her in1994, Makler instead fell in with Marksand her husband and became her assis-tant while still pretending to work thecomplaints. He persuaded victims toaccept partial reimbursement to dropcharges, interfered with investigations,blocked her supervision while underprobation, and lied to both DelrayBeach Internal Affairs and federalinvestigators about their activities.

Marks was eligible for a fifteen-yearsentence, but prosecutor John Kastre-nakes requested leniency for herbecause her cooperation helped convictMakler.

—Greg Martinez

Greg Martinez works and lives inFlorida.

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:30 PM Page 6

Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcherrecently snubbed the KentuckyAcademy of Science (KAS) in a discus-sion about whether intelligent designshould be taught in the commonwealth’spublic schools.

In his January state of the com-monwealth address, the governorendorsed the teaching of intelligentdesign as an alternative to evolution.Following this address, KAS sent thegovernor a letter expressing its objec-tion “to attempts to equate ‘scientificcreationism’ or ‘intelligent design’with evolution as a scientific explana-tion of events,” according to JeanneHarris, executive director of KAS.

The governor responded with a letterstating that intelligent design is a “self-evident truth” and that not teachingintelligent design in science classeswould “undermine the foundation ofour nation.” He further commentedthat it “disappoints and astounds methat the so-called intellectual elite are soconcerned about accepting self-evidenttruths that nearly 90 percent of the pop-ulation understands.”

However, it appears that this letterwas not even written as a direct responseto KAS. Rather, it seems to be a form let-ter sent out by the governor’s office inresponse to any letter expressing concernabout the teaching of intelligent design.

Immediately after the governor’saddress in January, Brent Norris ofEdmonson County, Kentucky, wrotethe governor expressing similar con-cerns, posting both his letter and thegovernor’s reply on his blog (www.brent-norris.net/blog/?p=191). The governor’sreply to Norris was identical to theresponse he sent to KAS. According toKen Carstens, KAS legislative commit-tee chair, the academy was not initiallyaware that the governor’s response was ageneric letter, commenting that the inci-dent was “very interesting.”

The Kentucky Academy of Sciencewas founded in 1914, and its member-ship encompasses 700 scientists and aca-demics across the commonwealth. Since1981, the academy has passed four reso-lutions opposing the teaching of cre-ationism and supporting the teaching ofevolution, with the most recent being aunanimous vote during its annual meet-ing in November 2005, according to aDecember press release.

While the governor supports theteaching of intelligent design, he notedin his letter that no new legislation wasneeded because Kentucky law (KRS158.177) already allows the teaching ofcreationism in Kentucky schools.Furthermore, that law requires scienceteachers to give credit on exams forBible-based accounts of human origins.

—David Ludden

David Ludden is an assistant professor ofpsychology at Lindsey Wilson College inColumbia, Kentucky.


Dinosaur Adventure LandSlated for Demolition

Flamboyant young-earth creationistKent Hovind may see his lucrativecreationist theme park Dinosaur

Adventure Land in Pensacola, Florida, fallbeneath a wrecking ball and bulldozer.When Hovind built the park in 2001 herefused to pay Escambia County therequired $50 filing fee for a building permit.He has long argued that the fee was an ille-gal attempt by government to control hischurch. Hovind executed many delays in thecase including switching attorneys, filing fora public defender, requesting changes in thejudges hearing the case due to alleged bias, and failing to appear in court. (See“Stupid Dino Tricks,” SKEPTICAL INQUIRER,November/December 2004.)

In March 2006, the case finally had ahearing before Circuit Judge Michael Allen,who ruled the owners of the park were incontempt of court. Within days EscambiaCounty authorities locked up the museum,science center, fossil shop, and schoolhousebuildings, and levied a fine of $500 per day ifthe buildings are used or occupied. EricHovind, Kent’s son, appeared before theEscambia County Commission during theirApril 6, 2006, meeting and appealed for anexemption from the county’s permittingrequirements as a religious organization. Hewas advised that the park must comply withthe court’s order and accede to the county’spermitting requirements. The April 7, 2006,Pensacola News Journal quoted CommissionChairman Mike Whitehead advising Hovindthat “Scripture also says ‘Render unto Caesarwhat Caesar demands.’ And right now,Caesar demands a building permit.”

In late March 2006, Hovind posted amessage on the Dinosaur Adventure LandWeb site decrying the actions of the court.He asked visitors to the Web site for dona-tions and to contact Escambia CountyCommissioners and other officials todemand they “stop this madness.” He alsosuggests that, if their efforts fail, “DAL canmove to a more God-fearing county.” Afinal order on this case is still pending,awaiting a hearing of Hovind’s appeal ofthe previous court decision.

—Greg Martinez

Governor Ernie Fletcher. Photo by Scott J. Ferrell

Governor Snubs Kentucky Academy of Science About Intelligent Design

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:30 PM Page 7

‘Alien Rains’ of KeralaNot So Alien after AllSince January 2006, news headlines theworld over have advanced the claim thatextraterrestrial microbes rained down onIndia. Even the cover of the NewScientist read “Alien Rain” (March 4,2006). What is the basis for such anextraordinary claim? The reports claimthat microscopic particles that coloredmonsoon rains in Kerala, India, between

July and September 2001 have defied allefforts to identify them. But since 2003,two scientists, Godfrey Louis andSanthosh Kumar, believe they’ve solvedthe mystery: the particles are extraterres-trial (ET) cells released into the rainsfrom a meteor explosion.

Could this be the first evidence of ETlife? Not so fast! It turns out that the gov-ernment of India had commissioned astudy of the colored rain. Within twoweeks of the first colored rain, The

Indian Express reported (on August 6,2001) that the Center for Earth ScienceStudies (CESS) and the Tropical BotanicGarden and Research Institute (TBGRI)had determined that the rains were col-ored by some kind of spore. Then inNovember of 2001, commissioned by thegovernment of India, the CESS andTBGRI issued a report concluding thatthe spores coloring the rain had beengrown in culture and were from an aerialalgae of the Trentepohlia genus that grows

8 Volume 30, I s sue 4 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER


When the Danish margarinemanufacturer Poul Thorsendied in 1962, he had

recently bequeathed a large sum ofmoney for a professorship in parapsy-chology and hypnology. The universitiesof Stockholm and Copenhagen declinedthe offer. Lund University in southernSweden accepted it. However, two per-sons were entitled to an allowance fromthe same fund. Therefore, the donationcould not be used until the last of themhad passed away, in 2001.

In May 2003 Lund University an-nounced a professorship in “psychology,including parapsychology and hypnol-ogy.” From the thirty applicants theUniversity selected an American, EtzelCardeña, who was appointed to theposition in June 2005 and took officeon September 1. The choice was contro-versial since none of the three membersof the expert evaluation committeeranked Cardeña first. Cardeña is pri-marily known as a researcher in theoret-ical hypnology, and has published verylittle within the field of parapsychology.Cardeña is apparently the only professorin parapsychology in Europe.

A few days after his appointment,Cardeña was interviewed in Aftonbladet,a major Swedish daily. In the interview,

he said that paranormal phenomena(including telepathy, precognition, andtelekinesis) have been demonstrated in alarge number of controlled studies.

In reply, two Swedish skeptics (SvenOve Hansson and Dan Larhammar)and two parapsychologists (Jan Dalkvistand Joakim Westerlund) wrote a jointarticle in which they pointed out thatCardeña’s statements did not accuratelyreflect the state of knowledge in the fieldof his professorship. Cardeña replied,claiming that he had been misquoted,but without retracting the central claimthat paranormal phenomena have beenscientifically demonstrated.

Last September 1 Cardeña was brieflyinterviewed on a national evening newsbroadcast. Referring to attempts to in-fluence random number generators by para-normal means he said that “there are a num-ber of well-controlled experimental studieswhere people have replicated what seems tobe something like this happening.”

As yet, Cardeña has held this office onlyfor a few months. It remains to be seen whatdirections his academic activities will take.

—Jesper Jerkert and Sven Ove Hansson

Jesper Jerkert and Sven Ove Hansson are,respectively, the chairperson and foundingchairperson of Swedish Skeptics.

A Swedish Professorship in Parapsychology

Lund University

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:31 PM Page 8

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Ju ly / August 2006 9


prolifically in Kerala. The findings werepublished in Eos: Transactions of theAmerican Geophysical Union (83[31]:335,2002). None of the alarming “alien rain”reports refuted the Eos study’s findings;they simply didn’t report those findings.

So what was being presented as anunsolved mystery was in fact a long-solved mystery. Yet even without theofficial findings, there were importantaspects of this case that should haveraised serious skepticism. For example,the purported means of transporting thealleged ET cells to the Earth was ameteor. But the only basis for a meteorburst was merely that some Keralan res-idents reported extremely loud thunderand flash of light just before the first col-ored rain. But a better explanation iscommon thunder, not an extremely rareaudible meteor burst. Moreover, howcould a meteor burst on July 25 accountfor colored rains falling sporadicallyfrom July to September? The monsoonwinds passing over Kerala would havequickly swept away airborne micro-scopic meteor debris to locations far

away. But by the ET theory, the particlesthat fell in the colored rains of lateSeptember would have been fallingstraight down continuously since themeteor burst in July, which, to be blunt,is simply inconceivable nonsense that byitself refutes the whole ET theory.

Other aspects of the ET story shouldhave aroused skepticism. For example,Louis and Kumar claim that their testsof the particles found no DNA, andfrom that finding Louis argues: “Thegenetic molecule DNA is present in allliving organisms found on Earth. So theabsence of DNA indicates that they areextraterrestrial.” But that inference fromallegedly unique cells to ETs is a nonsequitur, since there are no known traitsof ET cells. The argument simplyinvents a category of things (ET cells)and a category-inclusion criterion (lack-ing DNA) without any prior empiricaljustification. By the same reasoning, anyunique type of organism discovered onEarth could be categorized as an invasiveET. Of course, not only is the profferedinference to ETs fallacious, but the par-

ticles in question were found to be aknown variety of algal spore.

Regarding the DNA question,Professor Milton Wainwright of Shef-field University told me that his tests ofthe particles sent to him by Louis andKumar find that they do contain DNA.But another DNA-test procedure didnot find DNA. However, even with suchmixed DNA findings, given (1) the find-ings reporting in Eos, whose researchersgrew the particles into a Trentepohliaalgae, (2) that Louis and Kumar reportthat they heated the particles to 370° C,but spore DNA can be damaged above100° C, and (3) the fallacious inferencefrom oddities to ETs, there is simply noreason to doubt the terrestrial origin ofthe particles that colored the rains ofKerala, India.

—Ian Williams Goddard

Ian Williams Goddard is majoring incomputer science at the University ofMaryland University College and doesarchival research at the National Libraryof Medicine.

Many people have seen the grainy, black-and-white film showing the supposedpostmortem examination of one of theextraterrestrials who allegedly crashednear Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.Some believe it; many others believe thatit’s a fake. Recently, a model-makingsculptor from the British film industryhas publicly admitted to having createdthe aliens in the 1995 film.

John Humphreys, a graduate of theRoyal Academy who has previouslyworked in theater and on such projects asDoctor Who, Max Headroom, and Charlieand the Chocolate Factory, has admitted tosculpting the latex alien corpses that wentunder the knife in the 91-minute film.According to The Times of London, thefilm was shot in an apartment in Camdenin the north of London, far from its sup-posed setting in the southwestern United

States. Philip Mantle, a long-time investi-gator of the hoax, told The Times that“Humphreys had been a prime suspectbut had never admitted involvement.”

The aliens dissected in the originalhoax film (and in a new movie that’sbased on it) are latex models moldedfrom clay sculptures, with their body

Alien Autopsy Hoax Revealed—Again

The infamous alien autopsy film from 1995.

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:32 PM Page 9


cavities packed with “sheep brains,chicken entrails, and knuckle joints”obtained from a nearby meat market,according to Humphreys. In an onlineinterview with the BBC, he says that hedidn’t know what the producers of thefilm intended to do with the footagewhen they hired him; he just ap-proached it as “an exciting thing to beinvolved in.”

The new movie, Alien Autopsy, is aretelling of the making of the hoaxautopsy film and was released in Britainin April 2006.

The 1995 film has always beenlooked at with a great deal of skepticismin at least some circles (see Joe Nickell’spiece “Alien Autopsy Hoax” in theNov./Dec. 1995 SI), but is nonethelessthought to be authentic by some enthu-siasts. Interestingly, however, the hoaxed1995 autopsy film is still said to be basedon an older film that does show the realevent: an autopsy performed on anextraterrestrial in the New Mexicandesert in 1947. Ray Santilli, producer ofthe 1995 hoax, maintains that it wasbased on real footage that he obtained

from a retired American military film-maker. The original film, he says, wasdamaged when it was re-exposed to airafter so many years, so recreating it wasthe best option.

So is the newly released comedy a fic-tion based on a hoax based on anotherhoax based on a rumor? Perhaps onlyfuture confessions will tell the wholestory.

—David Park Musella

David Park Musella is an editorial assis-tant with the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

W hile popular women’s maga-zines have for decades featuredregular astrology columns,

magazines aimed at the men’s market havealso gotten into the paranormal act. Thoughastrology is frowned upon (studies showthat fewer men than women believe inastrology), magazines include columns andarticles on topics such as ghosts and psychicsalong with scantily clad women, sports fea-tures, and reviews of the latest “guy gear.”

The magazine Stuff, for example, has aregular column called “Beyond the Grave:Interviews with Dead Celebrities.” It’s notclear how tongue-in-cheek the readers takeit, but the psychic is certainly serious aboutit. She is “world-renowned medium VictoriaBullis” (her Web site also insists that she’s“internationally known”; rarely do psychicstout themselves as “locally known”).

Apparently some celebrity interviewsare easier to arrange after the subjects havedied, perhaps because their schedulesquickly clear up. In the April 2006 issueBullis supposedly contacted slain rap iconTupac Shakur. The first question amongabout a dozen asked by the magazine(through Bullis) was how he is doing nowthat he’s dead, and Shakur’s fans will berelieved to know that “he’s doing well.”

Instead of providing any useful, inter-esting, or verifiable information from “theother side,” Shakur’s spirit—as spiritsoften do—stuck with vague information.Not that the interviewer didn’t try: When

asked, “Do you know who killed you?”(Shakur’s murder remains unsolved)Bullis—er, Shakur—demurred with, “Ofcourse! When you pass to the next life yousee the whole thing. That’s a question I’m

not going to answer. That could be dan-gerous.” For as often as stories are told ofrestless spirits seeking revenge for theirmurders, you’d think they would take theopportunity when contacted by mediumsto avenge their deaths by giving damninginformation or directing police to incrim-inating evidence. Shakur’s spirit seems toprefer that his murder remain unavenged.Bullis also states that Shakur and AbrahamLincoln “hang out” together in the after-life; apparently the Great Emancipatorand the rapper/convicted rapist have muchin common.

In the following month’s installment,Bullis gave insight into comedian ChrisFarley’s afterworldly presence. Oddlyenough, just about the only people thatBullis mentions whom Farley is now“hanging out with” are ex-SaturdayNight Live cast members—not child-hood friends, not other relatives—rec-ognizable dead folks from his show suchas Phil Hartman and John Belushi. Andhow is Farley doing these days? Youguessed it: “He’s happy.”

—Benjamin Radford

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of theSKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

The Wrong Stuff:Men’s Magazine’s Psychic Columnist

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:33 PM Page 11

12 Volume 30, I s sue 4 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER


Center for InquiryOpens in IndiaJawaharlal Nehru, the founder of modernIndia, famously called its mills and dams“temples of modern India.” Article 51(a)of the Indian constitution enjoins its citi-zens to cultivate “scientific temper,humanism, and the spirit of inquiry.” Thegovernment-supported Indian Institutesof Technology are standard setters aroundthe world. And yet, paradoxically, theorthodox Hinduism enjoys great popular-ity among India’s elite scientists, andgurus like Sai Baba command consider-able respectability and public influence.Compare the United States, where elitenatural scientists are among the most sec-ular-minded people: the rate of belief in apersonal deity among physicists and cos-mologists in the National Academy ofSciences is less than 10 percent.

This paradoxical situation was oneof the topics of a February 2006 gath-ering of outstanding scientists, acade-mics, journalists, and activists inHyderabad, on the occasion of thelaunch of the Center for Inquiry’s newIndian branch. The chief guest was Dr.P.M. Bhargava, one of the country’smost distinguished cellular biologistsand Vice Chairman of the KnowledgeCommission of the Government ofIndia. Also present were the notedguru-buster Premanand; AmardeoSarma of the Center for Inquiry inGermany; David Triggle, a professoremeritus of pharmacology at the StateUniversity of New York; and AustinDacey, United Nations representativefor the Center for Inquiry in New YorkCity. The opening of CFI/India wasmentioned in a February 23, 2006, fea-ture story in The Hindu, India’s largestEnglish-language daily newspaper.

In the spring of 2006, CFI/Indiaopened offices in the high-tech city ofHyderabad and established a researchlibrary on science, skepticism, philoso-phy, and humanism. The branch will beled by Dr. Innaiah Narisetti, a philoso-pher specializing in the work of theIndian humanist M.N. Roy, and Dr.

Santishree Pandit, a professor of interna-tional relations at the University ofPune. One of CFI/India’s first activitieswas to meet with the Vice Chancellor ofSri Potti Sriramulu Telugu University inHyderabad to demand the discontinua-tion of the university’s courses in astrol-ogy and Vaastu, an ancient spiritual sys-tem of architecture and environmentaldesign similar to feng shui.

The Center has also begun to collab-orate with Meera Nanda, the Indian-born science-studies scholar who hasdocumented the connections betweenHindu nationalism, postmodern anti-

science, and so-called Vedic science inworks such as Prophets Facing Back-wards: Postmodern Critiques of Scienceand Hindu Nationalism in India (Rut-gers University Press, 2003). In Febru-ary 2006, Dr. Nanda appeared at aCenter for Inquiry conference inFlorida.

The Center for Inquiry/India is on-line at www.centerforinquiryindia.org.

—Austin Dacey

Austin Dacey is Executive Director of theCenter for Inquiry/Metro New York andthe Center’s representative to the UN. !

Dr. Vijayam Gora, director of the Gora Science in Vijayawada, and Dr. P. M. Bhargava, ViceChairman of the Knowledge Commission of the Government of India.

The inaugural meeting of the Center for Inquiry-India brought together experts from the fields ofscience, philosophy, human rights, and international affairs.

SI J-A 2006 pgs 5/30/06 1:33 PM Page 12

one big step: another major study confirms that distant

Documents