ON
← Back to feed
How humans process the extraordinary—most report positive long-term effects
United Kingdom🏛️ PoliticsCenteryesterday

How humans process the extraordinary—most report positive long-term effects

A study published in PLOS ONE examined how people interpret nonordinary experiences such as out-of-body sensations or extrasensory perceptions. Researchers surveyed over 5,117 Brazilian adults using a validated questionnaire called the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences. Findings revealed that while 25% of participants experienced immediate discomfort, over half (51%) reported positive long-term effects. Most participants viewed these experiences as random occurrences and felt they had some level of control. The study highlights the varied interpretations of nonordinary experiences across cultures and suggests that many people do not perceive them as harmful.

A recent study suggests that most people who experience extraordinary phenomena report positive long-term effects, despite initial discomfort for some. Published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on August 5, 2026, the research was conducted by Ronald Fischer of Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino in São Paulo, Brazil, and his team. The findings indicate that while one-quarter of participants initially felt distress, more than half described enduring benefits from their encounters with unusual occurrences such as out-of-body sensations, unexplained coincidences, or extrasensory perceptions. The study focused on how individuals interpret nonordinary experiences, whether they view them as spiritual, paranormal, or even pathological. These interpretations appear to significantly influence the psychological outcomes following such events. Fischer and his colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between the framing of these experiences and the subsequent emotional and mental states of the individuals involved. To ensure the reliability of their assessments, Fischer and his team first validated the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences, a comprehensive tool designed to evaluate the multifaceted nature of these experiences. They tested the inventory with 160 Brazilian adults, refining its 38 core questions along with nine additional ones to achieve an understanding rate of at least 80%. This validation process ensured that the instrument could effectively capture the nuances of nonordinary experiences across different cultural and individual contexts. The final version of the inventory was then administered to a larger sample of 5,117 people from the general population. The responses revealed that nonordinary experiences are typically understood within familiar belief systems. Among the key findings were that 20% of participants reported negative impacts from their experiences, while 25% experienced some form of discomfort or distress. Conversely, 51% of the participants indicated that their extraordinary experiences led to positive long-term changes in their lives. Approximately 39% of the respondents recalled being alone during their nonordinary experiences, whereas 57% were awake and alert. Most participants attributed their experiences to random chance rather than any specific cause. Additionally, a majority believed they had some level of control over the situation, suggesting a sense of agency even in seemingly uncontrollable circumstances. Ronald Fischer emphasized that experiences such as sensing a presence, having visions, or experiencing an out-of-body sensation are more prevalent in the general population than previously thought. He noted that the majority of participants who reported such experiences did not exhibit signs of illness and often viewed them as either neutral or beneficial. These insights challenge existing assumptions about the relationship between nonordinary experiences and mental health. The study highlights the importance of how individuals assign meaning to their experiences. Fischer pointed out that prior research often conflated the actual event with the interpretation of it. His team’s approach, however, clearly separated the context, the experience itself, and the meaning-making process. This distinction allowed them to uncover patterns that contradict earlier theories and practices in psychology and psychiatry. Fischer stressed that acknowledging the potential for positive outcomes from nonordinary experiences is crucial for helping individuals understand and normalize these occurrences. He added that if someone feels that such experiences disrupt their daily life, professional assistance should be sought. The study aims to reduce stigma surrounding these experiences by showcasing the varied ways people perceive and cope with them. The research underscores the need for further exploration into how cultural backgrounds and personal beliefs shape the interpretation of extraordinary events. It also calls for greater awareness among healthcare professionals regarding the psychological implications of these experiences. As the field continues to evolve, future studies may build upon this foundation to better support individuals navigating the complex landscape of nonordinary experiences.

Go to the primary sources (3)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

1 reports

Phys.org logoPhys.orgIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 85yesterday
How humans process the extraordinary—most report positive long-term effects

A study published in PLOS ONE examined how people interpret nonordinary experiences such as out-of-body sensations or extrasensory perceptions. Researchers surveyed over 5,117 Brazilian adults using a validated questionnaire called the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences. Findings revealed that while 25% of participants experienced immediate discomfort, over half (51%) reported positive long-term effects. Most participants viewed these experiences as random occurrences and felt they had some level of control. The study highlights the varied interpretations of nonordinary experiences across cultures and suggests that many people do not perceive them as harmful.

Bias read (Center): The article presents findings from a scientific study without overt ideological framing. It discusses psychological and cultural responses to nonordinary experiences without taking a partisan stance. While the topic relates to human behavior and mental health, the framing remains balanced and fact-f

Why factuality (75): The article accurately summarizes the study's focus on how people interpret nonordinary experiences and their outcomes, mentioning the validation of the INOE questionnaire. However, it incorrectly states the publication date as August 5, 2026, when the actual study was published in 2023. It also omi

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a mostly neutral tone, presenting findings without overt bias. It uses descriptive language rather than emotive or polemic phrasing. However, it slightly emphasizes the 'positive long-term effects' angle, which could subtly frame the study's findings in a more optimistic light.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories