Scientists in Virginia asked 21 people to see a hidden image without leaving their rooms—nobody got it right, but two described a scene they couldn’t see

For centuries, people have described experiences in which they seem to float outside their bodies, look down at themselves or observe places they could not physically reach. These accounts are often linked to spirituality, near-death experiences and other unusual states of consciousness.

But can a person actually perceive something beyond the reach of their eyes and ears?

A new scientific study has tested that possibility under controlled conditions. The results did not show that people experiencing out-of-body experiences could identify a hidden image in another room.


However, two participants later described details about researchers working behind closed doors—observations that were not part of the original test and that scientists say require further investigation.

The findings do not prove that consciousness can leave the body or travel independently. Instead, they highlight the difficulty of studying extraordinary experiences and raise a different question: are scientists testing the phenomenon in the right way?

The research was led by neuroscientist Marina Weiler of the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies. The findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Explore.

What happens when people try to see outside their bodies?

An out-of-body experience, commonly known as an OBE, occurs when a person feels separated from their physical body. Some people report seeing themselves from above, moving through unfamiliar spaces or viewing their surroundings from a position that seems to be outside their body.

Such experiences can feel intensely real to the person involved. However, a powerful subjective experience is not the same as scientifically verified evidence that consciousness has physically moved elsewhere.

To investigate claims of perception during an OBE, Weiler and her colleagues recruited 21 experienced practitioners connected with an institute specialising in out-of-body training. The study was conducted in Brazil.

The participants were placed in one room, where they could sit or lie down in comfortable conditions. Their brain activity was monitored using electroencephalography, or EEG, while they attempted to enter an out-of-body state.

The researchers occupied a second room, separated from the participants.

A third room contained the test target: a laptop displaying one randomly selected image from a collection of 100 objects. The laptop screen was turned towards a wall so that no one could accidentally see the image.

The arrangement was designed to prevent ordinary visual access to the target. The researchers also took steps to ensure that the selected image remained unknown to both the participants and the investigators until the study had been completed and the data were analysed.

The hidden-image test produced no evidence beyond chance

The participants were given between 60 and 90 minutes to attempt to perceive the image in the separate room.

Afterwards, they described whatever impressions they believed they had received. Some reported colours, shapes or objects, while others described something closer to an internal image or “mental screen”.

Not every participant reported a traditional out-of-body experience. According to the study, nine participants said they had experienced an OBE, while 13 provided descriptions that could be assessed against the hidden targets.

The researchers then used computational language analysis to compare the descriptions with captions for the 100 possible images. This approach was intended to reduce the influence of subjective human judgement.

If a participant had accurately perceived the hidden image, the correct target would be expected to receive an unusually high similarity score. Instead, the actual images were ranked between 16th and 92nd among the possible targets. Overall, the descriptions performed no better than guessing.

The result was important because it failed to support the central claim being tested: that participants could obtain accurate visual information from a location they could not access through their ordinary senses.

The study’s formal outcome was therefore negative. The researchers did not find evidence that the participants could identify the hidden object through an out-of-body experience.

Two participants reported something the experiment was not designed to test

The unexpected part of the study emerged after the hidden-image task.

During follow-up interviews, two participants described what they believed the researchers had been doing in the second room. Their accounts were not prompted by a target involving the researchers’ movements or positions.

One participant described a researcher sitting on the left and looking at a computer, while another person sat farther back and read a book. Trial records showed that this arrangement matched what had actually taken place during that participant’s session.

A second participant described one researcher sitting on the right and taking notes, with another researcher positioned on the left at a computer. Once again, the description reportedly matched the researchers’ actual positions and activities at the time.

The details were striking because the participants had no direct view of the room. However, the observations were spontaneous and were not included among the study’s preselected targets.

That distinction matters.

Because the researchers had not planned to test these details, they were not subjected to the same statistical analysis as the hidden-image results. The team therefore treats the reports as anecdotal rather than as proof of remote perception or an out-of-body ability.

In science, an unusual match can be a reason to design a new experiment. It cannot, by itself, establish that a paranormal explanation is correct.

Why the researchers believe the target itself may matter

The study raises the possibility that the traditional way of testing out-of-body experiences may be too narrow.

Many experiments use static photographs, random numbers or simple images hidden in another room. These targets are easy to standardise, but they may not be especially noticeable or meaningful to someone describing an unusual state of consciousness.

The researchers suggest that future studies could include more distinctive targets, such as a researcher wearing a bright item of clothing, holding a recognisable object or carrying out a specific activity behind a closed door.

The idea is not to make the experiment less rigorous. Rather, it is to create targets that can be clearly identified while preserving strict controls against ordinary sensory access.

For example, a future participant might be asked to describe a researcher’s clothing, position or actions without being told in advance what details matter. The descriptions could then be compared with a set of possible alternatives using a prespecified statistical method.

Such a design would help determine whether the two unexpected reports were isolated coincidences or whether similar results appear repeatedly.

Weiler has emphasised that the findings should be tested prospectively and under rigorous conditions before scientists can draw conclusions about their meaning.

The mystery has appeared in earlier OBE research

The new observations are not entirely without precedent.

Researchers have previously reported unusual details emerging during experiments involving people who claim to experience out-of-body states. One often-discussed example involves Robert Monroe, a well-known out-of-body practitioner studied during the 1960s.

In that case, Monroe reportedly failed to identify a hidden target but described a technician and an unfamiliar man outside the room. The man was said to be the technician’s husband, who was present at the time.

However, the original investigator, psychologist Charles Tart, considered the evidence weak. One possible explanation was that Monroe might have heard the visitor during a break.

This earlier case illustrates the central problem facing research into extraordinary perception: even an apparently accurate description may have several possible explanations.

A participant might guess correctly, pick up an unnoticed sound, receive an accidental clue, reconstruct details from memory or describe something that happens to resemble the real scene. Strong experiments must therefore prevent ordinary information from reaching the participant and must define the expected outcome before the test begins.

The University of Virginia researchers say the new study’s unexpected observations could help identify better targets for future work, but they do not overturn the formal result of the experiment.

What does the study actually tell us about consciousness?

The research does not establish that consciousness can detach from the brain, travel through space or see without the eyes.

What it does show is that people can report vivid perceptions during attempted out-of-body experiences, while those reports may not correspond accurately to a concealed visual target.

It also shows that an experiment can produce observations outside its original design. Those observations may be worth investigating, but they must be tested separately rather than treated as confirmation of the original claim.

This is particularly important in consciousness research, where personal experiences can be powerful, emotional and difficult to reproduce. Scientists must find ways to respect what participants report while still distinguishing between the experience itself and claims about the external world.

An OBE may be meaningful to the person experiencing it even if the person cannot accurately describe a hidden object. The feeling of leaving the body and the ability to obtain verifiable information from another location are two different questions.

The University of Virginia team has argued that future research should examine both the subjective experience and the possibility of accurate perception, rather than assuming that one automatically proves the other.

A failed test may lead to a better experiment

The most important result of the study may not be the strange reports from the second room, but the way the researchers responded to them.

The hidden-image test did not produce evidence beyond chance. That finding should be taken seriously, even when some individual accounts appear remarkable.

At the same time, the unexpected descriptions suggest that researchers may need to reconsider what they ask participants to perceive. A static image on a laptop may not capture the kind of information people believe they encounter during an OBE.

The next stage of research could involve more engaging targets, stricter advance registration, larger participant groups and statistical tests designed specifically for unexpected observations.

Until those studies are completed, the question of whether consciousness can travel beyond the body remains unanswered.

For now, the evidence supports a cautious conclusion: out-of-body experiences are reported by some people, but the ability to perceive hidden information from outside the body has not been scientifically established. The latest experiment adds an intriguing puzzle—but not a solution.

Frequently asked questions

1. What is an out-of-body experience?

An out-of-body experience is a subjective state in which a person feels that their consciousness or sense of self is located outside their physical body. Some people report viewing themselves from above or observing their surroundings from an unusual perspective.

2. Did the new study prove that consciousness can leave the body?

No. The formal hidden-image test found that participants’ descriptions were no more accurate than chance. The two unusual reports about researchers in another room were not part of the planned targets and were considered anecdotal.

3. How did scientists test out-of-body perception?

Researchers recruited 21 experienced practitioners in Brazil. Participants attempted to perceive a randomly selected image displayed on a laptop in a separate, inaccessible room. Their descriptions were later compared with all 100 possible target images using computational semantic analysis.

4. Why are scientists still interested in the findings?

Although the main test was unsuccessful, two participants independently described researchers’ locations and activities behind closed doors. Scientists say these observations need to be tested in new, carefully designed experiments before their significance can be understood.