Editing Rupert Sheldrake (section)

==Selected books==
Reviews of Sheldrake's books have at times been extremely negative about their scientific content, but some have been positive. In 2009, [[Adam Rutherford]], geneticist and deputy editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', criticised Sheldrake's books for containing research that was not subjected to the [[peer-review]] process expected for science, and suggested that his books were best "ignored."<ref name=Rutherford/>

=== ''A New Science of Life'' (1981) ===
Sheldrake's ''A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance'' (1981) proposes that through morphic resonance, various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and that biological growth and behaviour thus become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggests, newly acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations—a biological proposition akin to the [[Lamarckian inheritance]] theory. He generalises this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from [[evolution]] to the [[Physical law|laws of nature]], which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since the [[Big Bang]].{{citation needed|date=July 2022}}

John Davy wrote in ''[[The Observer]]'' that the implications of ''A New Science of Life'' were "fascinating and far-reaching, and would turn upside down a lot of orthodox science," and that they would "merit attention if some of its predictions are supported by experiment."<ref>{{cite news |last=Davy|first=J.|date=9 August 1981 |title=Old rats and new tricks |work=The Observer}}</ref>

In subsequent books, Sheldrake continued to promote morphic resonance.

The morphic resonance hypothesis is rejected by numerous critics on many grounds, and has been labelled [[pseudoscience]] and [[magical thinking]]. These grounds include the lack of evidence for it and its inconsistency with established [[scientific theories]]. The idea of morphic resonance is also seen as lacking scientific credibility because it is overly vague and [[unfalsifiable]]. Sheldrake's experimental methods have been criticised for being poorly designed and subject to [[experimenter bias]]. His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.{{efn|Sources:
* pseudoscience<ref name=gardner/><ref name=sharma/><ref name=samuel/><ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=impostures/><ref name="Jones"/>
* magical thinking<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name=skepdic/>
* lack of evidence<ref name=hood/><ref name="Blackmore 2009"/><ref name=Rutherford/><ref name=sciam/><ref name="Rose 1988"/>
* inconsistency with established scientific theories<ref name="Wolpert 1984"/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/>
* overly vague<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name="Jones"/><ref name="Parkin"/>
* unfalsifiable<ref name="Maddox 1981"/><ref name=rose/><ref name=sciam/>
* experimental methods poorly designed and subject to experimenter bias<ref name=MarksColwell/><ref name="Blackmore 1999"/><ref name=alcock/>
* analyses of results have also drawn criticism<ref name=rose/><ref name=wiseman2/>
}}

Alex Gomez-Marin denies that Sheldrake's basic idea is unfalsifiable, but no conclusive experiments have been performed since mainstream scientists do not wish to get involved in such experiments.<ref name="Gomez‐Marin 2021 p. 2100055">{{cite journal | last=Gomez-Marin | first=Alex | title=Facing biology's open questions: Rupert Sheldrake's "heretical" hypothesis turns 40 | journal=BioEssays | publisher=Wiley | volume=43 | issue=6 | date=9 March 2021 | issn=0265-9247 | doi=10.1002/bies.202100055 | page=e2100055| pmid=33751607 | hdl=10261/267559 | s2cid=232323375 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>

=== ''The Presence of the Past'' (1988)===
In ''The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature'' (1988), Sheldrake expands on his morphic resonance hypothesis and marshals experimental evidence that he says supports it.<ref name=presencepast/> The book was reviewed favourably in ''[[New Scientist]]'' by historian [[Theodore Roszak (scholar)|Theodore Roszak]], who called it "engaging, provocative" and "a tour de force."<ref name="Roszak"/> When it was reissued in 2011 with those quotes on the front cover, ''New Scientist'' remarked, "Back then, Roszak gave Sheldrake the benefit of the doubt. Today, attitudes have hardened and Sheldrake is seen as standing firmly on the wilder shores of science," adding that if ''New Scientist'' were to review the reissue, the book's publisher "wouldn't be mining it for promotional purposes."<ref name=newscientist>{{cite journal |journal=New Scientist |url=https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/did-we-really-say-that.html |last=Lawton|first=Graham |date=14 June 2011 |title=Sheldrake book: Did we really say that?}}</ref>

In a 1988 review of the book in ''[[The Times]]'', [[David E. H. Jones]] criticised the hypothesis as magical thinking and pseudoscience, saying that morphic resonance "is so vast and formless that it could easily be made to explain anything, or to dodge round any opposing argument ... Sheldrake has sadly aligned himself with those fantasists who, from the depths of their armchairs, dream up whole new grandiose theories of space and time to revolutionize all science, drape their woolly generalizations over every phenomenon they can think of, and then start looking round for whatever scraps of evidence that seem to them to be in their favour." Jones argued that without confirmatory experimental evidence, "the whole unwieldy and redundant structure of [Sheldrake's] theory falls to [[Occam's Razor]]."<ref name="Jones"/>

=== ''The Rebirth of Nature'' (1991) ===
Published in 1991, Sheldrake's ''The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God'' addresses the subject of [[New Age]] consciousness and related topics.<ref name=rebirth/><ref>{{cite book |last=Sheldon Ferguson |first=Duncan |year=1993 |title=New Age Spirituality: An Assessment |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aGqPXnDtnzwC&pg=PA204 |page=204 |isbn=9780664252182}}</ref> A column in ''The Guardian'' said that the book "seeks to restore the pre-Enlightenment notion that nature is 'alive'," quoting Sheldrake as saying that "indeterminism, spontaneity and creativity have re-emerged throughout the natural world" and that "mystic, animistic and religious ways of thinking can no longer be kept at bay."<ref>{{cite news|title=The rebirth of mother earth|last=Schwartz |first=Walter |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=7 January 1991|page=7}}</ref> The book was reviewed by [[James Lovelock]] in ''Nature'', who argued that "the theory of formative causation makes testable predictions," noting that "nothing has yet been reported which would divert the mainstream of science. ... Even if it is nonsense ... recognizing the need for fruitful errors, I do not regard the book as dangerous."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lovelock | first1 = J. E. | year = 1990| title = A danger to science? (review of ''The Rebirth of Nature'' by Rupert Sheldrake) | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] | volume = 348 | issue = 6303| page = 685 | doi = 10.1038/348685a0 | s2cid = 46012105 }}</ref>

===''Seven Experiments That Could Change the World'' (1994) ===
In 1994, Sheldrake proposed a list of ''Seven Experiments That Could Change the World'', subtitled "A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science." He encouraged laypeople to conduct research and argued that experiments similar to his own could be conducted with limited expense.<ref name=seven-exp/>

Music critic of ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' Mark Edwards reviewed the book positively, arguing that Sheldrake "challenges the complacent certainty of scientists," and that his ideas "sounded ridiculous ... as long as your thinking is constrained by the current scientific orthodoxy."<ref name="Edwards"/>

David Sharp, writing in ''[[The Lancet]]'', said that the experiments testing paranormal phenomena carried the "risk of positive [[publication bias]]," and that the scientific community "would have to think again if some of these suggestions were convincingly confirmed." Sharp encouraged readers (medical professionals) to "at least read Sheldrake, even try one of his experiments—but pay very close attention to your methods section." Sharp doubted whether "a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs [was] going to persuade sceptics," and noted that "orthodox science will need a lot of convincing."<ref>The Lancet. 343.8902 (9 April 1994): p. 905.</ref><!--[[Colin Tudge]] reviewed the book for ''[[New Scientist]]''.<ref>''[[New Scientist]]'' 141.1918 (26 March 1994): p42</ref> I have no idea whether this is positive or not, but based on his other review it might be. ~~~~ -->

Science journalist Nigel Hawkes, writing in ''The Times'', said that Sheldrake was "trying to bridge the gap between [[phenomenalism]] and science," and suggested that dogs could appear to have psychic abilities when they were actually relying on more conventional senses. He concluded: "whether scientists will be willing to take [Sheldrake] seriously is ... [a question] that need not concern most readers. While I do not think this book will change the world, it will cause plenty of harmless fun."<ref name="Hawkes"/>

=== ''Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home'' (1999)===
{{see also|Human–canine bond}}
''Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home'', published in 1999, covers his research into proposed [[telepathy]] between humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that morphic fields are responsible for it.<ref name=dogs/>

The book is in three sections, on telepathy, on sense of direction, including [[animal migration]] and the [[Homing pigeon|homing of pigeons]], and on animal [[precognition]], including premonitions of earthquakes and tsunamis. Sheldrake examined more than 1,000 case histories of dogs and cats that seemed to anticipate their owners' return by waiting at a door or window, sometimes for half an hour or more ahead of their return. He did a long series of experiments with a dog called Jaytee, in which the dog was filmed continuously during its owner's absence. In 100 filmed tests, on average the dog spent far more time at the window when its owner was on her way home than when she was not. During the main period of her absence, before she started her return journey, the dog was at the window for an average of 24 seconds per 10-minute period (4% of the time), whereas when she was on her way home, during the first ten minutes of her homeward journey, from more than five miles away, the dog was at the window for an average of five minutes 30 seconds (55% of the time). Sheldrake interpreted the result as highly [[Statistical significance|significant]] statistically. He performed 12 more tests, in which the dog's owner travelled home in a taxi or other unfamiliar vehicle at randomly selected times communicated to her by telephone, to rule out the possibility that the dog was reacting to familiar car sounds or routines.<ref name="the">{{cite web | url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/if-the-truth-is-out-there-weve-not-found-it-yet/147748.article | title=If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet | work=Times Higher Education | date=30 August 1999 | access-date=19 February 2015 |last=Blackmore|first=Susan}}</ref> He also carried out similar experiments with another dog, Kane, describing the results as similarly positive and significant.<ref name=dogs/>

Before the publication of ''Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home'', Sheldrake invited [[Richard Wiseman]], Matthew Smith, and Julie Milton to conduct an independent experimental study with Jaytee. They concluded that their evidence did not support telepathy as an explanation for the dog's behaviour,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheldrake|first1=Rupert|last2=Smart|first2=Pamela |title=A Dog That Seems To Know When His Owner is Coming Home: Videotaped Experiments and Observations |journal=[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]] |date=2000 |volume=14 |pages=233–255 |url=http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-seems-to-know-when-his-owner-is-coming-home-videotaped-experiments-and-observations |access-date=18 February 2015}}</ref> and proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's conclusions, involving artefacts, bias resulting from [[experimental design]], and [[post hoc analysis]] of unpublished data.<ref name=wiseman2/><ref name=wiseman1/> The group observed that Sheldrake's observed patterns could easily arise if a dog were simply to do very little for a while, before visiting a window with increasing frequency the longer its owner was absent, and that such behaviour would make sense for a dog awaiting its owner's return. Under this behaviour, the final measurement period, ending with the owner's return, would always contain the most time spent at the window.<ref name=wiseman2/> Sheldrake argued that the actual data in his own and in Wiseman's tests did not bear this out, and that the dog went to wait at the window sooner when his owner was returning from a short absence, and later after a long absence, with no tendency for Jaytee to go to the window early in the way that he did for shorter absences.<ref name="Commentary99">{{cite journal | last=Sheldrake | first=Rupert | title=Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon | journal=Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | date=1999 | volume=63 | pages=306–311 | url=http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/commentary-on-wiseman-smith-and-milton | access-date=18 February 2015}}</ref>

Reviewing the book, [[Susan Blackmore]] criticised Sheldrake for comparing the 12 tests of random duration—which were all less than an hour long—to the initial tests where the dog may have been responding to patterns in the owner's journeys. Blackmore interpreted the results of the randomised tests as starting with a period where the dog "settles down and does not bother to go to the window," and then showing that the longer the owner was away, the more the dog went to look.<ref name="the"/>{{Unbalanced opinion|title=Sheldrake's rebuttal of these findings has been excluded.|date=February 2024}}

===''The Sense of Being Stared At'' (2003)===
Sheldrake's ''The Sense of Being Stared At'' explores telepathy, precognition, and the "[[psychic staring effect]]." It reported on an experiment Sheldrake conducted where blindfolded subjects guessed whether persons were staring at them or at another target. He reported subjects exhibiting a weak sense of being stared at, but no sense of not being stared at,<ref name="sheldrake">Sheldrake, Rupert (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At Part 1: Is it Real or Illusory? ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', '''12'''(6):10–31. [https://web.archive.org/web/20071027063028/http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26Papers/papers/staring/pdf/JCSpaper1.pdf Reprint]. See ''Tests under ‘real life’ conditions'', pp. 21–22.</ref><ref>Sheldrake, Rupert (2003). ''The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind'', London: Hutchinson. {{ISBN|0-09-179463-3}}.</ref> and attributed the results to morphic resonance.<ref name=stared/> He reported a hit rate of 53.1%, describing two subjects as "nearly always right, scoring way above chance levels."<ref name=JCS>Rupert Sheldrake (2005). The Sense of Being Stared At, and open peer commentary. ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', '''12''':6, 4–126.  [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2005/00000012/00000006 Ref.]. Accessed 28 May 2008.</ref>

Several independent experimenters were unable to find evidence beyond statistical randomness that people could tell they were being stared at, with some saying that there were design flaws in Sheldrake's experiments,<ref name=MarksColwell/><ref name=sciam/><ref name=baker/> such as using test sequences with "relatively few long runs and many alternations" instead of truly [[Randomized controlled trial|randomised patterns]].<ref name=MC>David F. Marks and John Colwell (2000). The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization, ''Skeptical Inquirer'', September/October 2000. [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/ Reprint]. Accessed 28 May 2008.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/research_on_the_feeling_of_being_stared_at/|title=Sheldrake, Rupert. "Skeptical Inquirer (2000)," March/April, 58–61|date=March 2001 }}</ref> In 2005, [[Michael Shermer]] expressed concern over [[confirmation bias]] and [[experimenter bias]] in the tests, and concluded that Sheldrake's claim was [[unfalsifiable]].<ref>Michael Shermer (October 2005). Rupert's Resonance: The theory of "morphic resonance" posits that people have a sense of when they are being stared at. What does the research show? ''Scientific American'', October 2005. [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance Reprint]. Accessed 27 May 2008.</ref>

[[David Jay Brown]], who conducted some of the experiments for Sheldrake, states that one of the subjects who was reported as having the highest hit rates was under the influence of the drug [[MDMA]] (Ecstasy) during the trials.<ref name="Hancock2015">{{cite book|editor=Graham Hancock|last=Brown|first=David Jay|author-link=David Jay Brown|title=The Divine Spark: Psychedelics, Consciousness and the Birth of Civilization|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=39KlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT114|access-date=28 June 2015|date=6 April 2015|publisher=Hay House, Inc|isbn=9781781805749|pages=114–}}</ref>

=== {{anchor|The Science Delusion}} {{anchor|Science Set Free}} ''The Science Delusion'' (''Science Set Free'') (2012)===
''The Science Delusion'', published in the US as ''Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery'', summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique of [[philosophical materialism]], with the title apparently mimicking that of ''[[The God Delusion]]'' by one of his critics, [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref>In an interview with ''[[Fortean Times]]'', Sheldrake denied that Dawkins' book was the inspiration for his own, saying, "The title was at the insistence of my publishers, and the book will be re-titled in the United States as ''Science Set Free''&nbsp;... Dawkins is a passionate believer in materialist dogma, but the book is not a response to him."{{cite journal |last=Marshall |first=Steve |journal=[[Fortean Times]] |date=April 2012 |volume=286 |page=38 |url=http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html |title=The Science Delusion |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120416035555/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/6421/the_science_delusion.html |archive-date=16 April 2012 }}</ref>

In the book, Sheldrake proposes a number of questions as the theme of each chapter that seek to elaborate on his central premise that science is predicated on the belief that the nature of reality is fully understood, with only minor details needing to be filled in. This "delusion" is what Sheldrake argues has turned science into a series of dogmas grounded in philosophical materialism rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He argues that many powerful taboos circumscribe what scientists can legitimately direct their attention towards.{{r|ssf|page1=6–12}} The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by [[methodological naturalism]] and does not require philosophical materialism.<ref>{{cite book |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |last=Pigliucci|first=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2010 |page=192 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aC8Baky2qTcC&pg=PA192 |isbn=9780226667874}}</ref>

Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma,"{{r|ssf|page1=337}} says that perpetual motion devices and [[inedia]] should be investigated as possible phenomena,{{r|ssf|page1=72–73}} and has said that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak."{{r|ssf|page1=83}} He argues in favour of [[alternative medicine]] and [[psychic phenomena]], saying that their recognition as legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality."{{r|ssf|page1=327}} Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he says that minds are not confined to brains and that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison."{{r|ssf|page1=229}} He suggests that [[DNA]] is insufficient to explain [[heredity|inheritance]], and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance.{{r|ssf|page1=157–186}} He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.{{r|ssf|page1=187–211}}

Reviews were mixed. [[Anti-reductionist]] philosopher [[Mary Midgley]], writing in ''The Guardian'', welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address what she called "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter."<ref name="Midgley 2012"/> Philosopher [[Martin Cohen (philosopher)|Martin Cohen]], a famous critic of esotericism in science, wrote in ''[[The Times Higher Education Supplement]]'' that "[t]here is a lot to be said for debunking orthodox science's pretensions to be on the verge of fitting the last grain of information into its towering edifice of universal knowledge", while also noting that Sheldrake "goes a bit too far here and there, as in promoting his morphic resonance theory."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Times Higher Education Supplement]]|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-science-delusion-freeing-the-spirit-of-enquiry/419245.article|title=The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry|last=Cohen|first=Martin|author-link=Martin Cohen (philosopher)|date=8 March 2012}}</ref>

[[Bryan Appleyard]] writing in ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' commented that Sheldrake was "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "[[scientism]]," but on Sheldrake's "own scientific theories" Appleyard noted that "morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported. Most of the experimental evidence is contested, though Sheldrake argues there are 'statistically significant' results." Appleyard called it "highly speculative" and was unsure "whether it makes sense or not."<ref name="Appleyard"/>

Other reviews were less favourable. ''[[New Scientist]]'''s deputy editor Graham Lawton characterised ''Science Set Free'' as "woolly credulousness" and chided Sheldrake for "uncritically embracing all kinds of fringe ideas."<ref>{{cite journal |journal=New Scientist |last=Lawton|first=Graham|title=Science's greatest critic is no mood to recant |date= 31 August 2012 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/08/the-science-behind-our-weirdest-behaviours.html}}</ref> A review in ''[[Philosophy Now]]'' called the book "disturbingly eccentric," combining "a disorderly collage of scientific fact and opinion with an intrusive yet disjunctive metaphysical programme."<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake |url=http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_Science_Delusion_by_Rupert_Sheldrake |journal=Philosophy Now |date=July–August 2013 |last=Greenbank|first=John}}</ref>

=== ''Science and Spiritual Practices'' (2017) ===
Reviews for the book were mostly positive. ''[[Kirkus Reviews]]'' described it as a "grounded and inspiring approach to appreciating the benefits of both science and religion".<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 15, 2018 |title=Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake |url=https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/rupert-sheldrake/science-and-spiritual-practices/ |website=[[Kirkus Reviews]]}}</ref> Adam Ford, reviewing the book for the ''[[Church Times]]'', describes it as a "useful and very clear introduction to the practice of meditation" combined with a how-to guide on the "healing and happiness-creating power of gratitude".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ford |first1=Adam |date=August 24, 2018 |title=Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake |url=https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/24-august/books-arts/book-reviews/science-and-spiritual-practices-rupert-sheldrake |access-date=13 December 2018 |website=Church Times}}</ref>

''[[Publishers Weekly]]'' reviewed the book as having "accessible suggestions" and "clear arguments", while noting that "a few fuzzy moments, including reliance on many...overly speculative accounts" do not prevent the work from being "otherwise convincing" and "a good case for reincorporating bygone spiritual habits."<ref name="PubWeekly2018">{{cite news |title=Science and Spiritual Practices by Rupert Sheldrake |url=https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781640091177 |access-date=1 December 2022 |work=www.publishersweekly.com |date=11 June 2018}}</ref>

===''Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work'' (2019)===
Reviews for the book were mixed. In ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', journalist [[Steven Poole]] called Sheldrake's writing "very engaging" and said his defense of prayer worked "sometimes, but not always" and was "not really good enough".<ref name="PooleTelegraph2019">{{cite news |last1=Poole |first1=Steven |title=Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work review: Can science and spirituality mix? |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/ways-go-beyond-work-review-can-science-spirituality-mix/ |access-date=1 December 2022 |work=The Telegraph |date=5 April 2019}}</ref> Veterinary surgeon and barrister [[Charles A. Foster]], writing in [[Literary Review]], called the book "a very mixed bag" but also "funny, wise, [and] full of whimsical weirdness".<ref name="FosterLiteraryReview">{{cite news |last1=Foster |first1=Charles A. |title=More Morphic Resonances |url=https://literaryreview.co.uk/more-morphic-resonances |work=Literary Review |language=en}}</ref>

Writing in the ''[[Times Literary Supplement]]'', anthropologist Jonathan Benthall called the book "an affable, erudite manual to show how life need not be boring", and Sheldrake's arguments "soft at the edges, sometimes presenting his hypotheses as facts".<ref name="BenthallTLS2019">{{cite news |last1=Benthall |first1=Jonathan |title=Rupert Sheldrake" Ways to Go Beyond and Why They Work |url=http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A631649843/AONE |access-date=1 December 2022 |work=Times Literary Supplement |date=12 April 2019 |page=31}}</ref>