Radionics Authority Frances Farrelly

Radionics “Black Box”


The father of this movement was Dr. Albert Abrams, a professor of pathology at Stanford University’s medical school. Basing his discoveries on the philosophy that all matter radiates information that can be detected by his instruments in conjunction with the unconscious reflexes of another human being, Abrams succeeded in attracting a large following and also arousing the unremitting ire of the medical and scientific establishment. Thousands of self-professed healers were effecting cures, making diagnoses, and even removing pests from gardens merely by twisting dials, swinging pendulums, or rubbing their fingers across strange devices., The following passage describes the use of one such instrument known as the Delawarr machine:

Suppose that it is required to find out the condition of a patient’s liver. We place a bloodspot or saliva sample in one of the two containers at the top of the main panel, according to whether the patient is male or female, and start turning the tuning knob slowly, passing the fingers of the right hand over the rubber detector at the same time with a series of “brushing” strokes until a “stick” is obtained. The patient’s bloodspot is then tuned into the set.

The stick refers to a particular rubbing sensation in the finger. The location of the dials when the “stick” occurs, when properly translated is said to indicate the diagnosis of the disease. When the disease is tuned in to the instrument, the cure can be “broadcast” over any distance, to the patient.

Other radionic developments are said to have been even more startling, such as the camera developed by the Los Angeles chiropractor, Ruth Drown. Using nothing but a drop of blood, it is claimed that this camera could take pictures of the organs and tissues of patients-sometimes at a distance of thousands of miles. She also claimed to take pictures in “cross-section” a feat that cannot be duplicated even with X-rays. While she received a British patent for her apparatus, Drown was persecuted as a charlatan by the FDA.

A story about Drown’s ability is told by the cosmologist Arthur M. Young, who invented the Bell helicopter:

Ruth Drown was truly an angelic sort of a person–if you can imagine an angel in the flesh. She started reeling off these Pythagorean relationships that just made my mind spin. I couldn’t keep up with her.

It wasn’t on the first occasion, but maybe on the second, that I wanted to put her to a test. I was at that time having a toothache. So I asked her if she would diagnose my condition and take a photograph. But I didn’t tell her anything. And she took these photographs that were about eight by ten. It looked like a very detailed picture of teeth.

She put the film in this box, but there were no lenses or anything like that. Whatever this radiation was, it exposed the film. It was not done with light. And she got a photograph of the tooth.

Being scientific in nature, I said, “Now do it again.” This was all in the dark. She couldn’t see me. So I pressed the tooth hard with my finger to make it hurt more, to see what would happen. The next picture was an enlargement of this same tooth.

Today there are two developments effecting the standing of radionics. On the one hand, researchers in a new area dubbed psychotronics are taking a serious interest in understanding the possible mechanisms such instrumentation might have., In fact, several new radionics devices have recently been manufactured with computerized components. At the time of this writing, there is no clear indication that such new devices represent any genuine advance in the arcane art of radionics. There is no reason to suspect that a major breakthrough is at hand. On the other hand, a number of radionic practitioners and investigators have reported that after becoming proficient in the use of the “black boxes,” they were able to obtain the same effects without them.,

One radionics expert, Frances Farrelly, demonstrated her ability to work without her instrument at the International Conference on Psychotronics in Prague in 1973:

…she was confronted by a professor from the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences who gave her a chip of mineralized rock and asked her before a large audience if she could state its origin and age. Rubbing the table before her to get a radionic type “stick,” Farrelly, after putting a dozen questions to herself, stated that the mineral in question came from a meteor and was about 3,200,000 years old, answers which exactly matched the most considered conclusions of expert Czech mineralogists.

It was her contention she had learned to “run the instrument in [her] head.” Perhaps, then, the “black box” is to radionics what the pencil is to arithmetic — a tool for focusing consciousness within the structure of a disciplined system.


Interview: A leading radionic medical diagnostician for doctor’s clients discusses her decades of research and experience with the “black boxes” of radionics, as well as her own sensitivity.

Radionics Authority Frances Farrelly

By Christopher Bird

Psychic Magazine – July/August 1975


CBird:  How do you describe yourself?

FARRELLY:  I am a retired medical technician using my psychic abilities for diagnosis of health conditions.  As reported in Dr. Karagulia’s (a M.D.) book Breakthrough to Creativity —  I am referred to in it as the clairsentient, “Kay” —  I am clairvoyant and clairsentient, and I have had many precognitive experiences.

    For example, there have been three instances in which I foresaw the wreck of the train on which I had been traveling.  I got off at the next stop, while later down the track the wreck occurred.  One of these was while I was in Paris ready to board a train when I got a very clear impression.  “You must not travel on this train,” that came through both times I attempted to board it, so I took the next one.  Later we were stopped because the train ahead had been wrecked — the one I would have been on.  In each case I did not get a mental image of the wreck, but rather I just sensed it or had an urgent feeling to get out of the way of danger.

    As a clairsentient, which is my most developed ability, I am able to pick up the physical and emotional feelings of individuals, which tells me exactly what’s bothering them.  I use it in my diagnostic work with doctors.

CBird:  When were you first aware of these abilities in yourself?

FARRELLY:  At the time of the influenza epidemic during World War I, when I was six years old, I made myself a little Red Cross uniform and went round to our sick neighbors.  I’d rub their heads and their symptoms would disappear.  When they informed my mother, she retorted, down-to-earth Vermonter that she was: “Don’t admit it to her, for God’s sake!  She’s crazy enough as it is.”  So I didn’t really know I had any healing ability until I was over forty when I was first introduced to other healers and the practice of laying-on-of-hands.

CBird:  Were there any other psychic experiences as a child?

FARRELLY:  Well, I could see little nature spirits in the woods.  They were similar to what I learned later were called leprechauns in Irish stories.  We had a flower-collecting contest in elementary school.  All the children were sent out to collect wild flowers and got points for the number of varieties they could find.  I won the contest each year, starting from the first grade, with the help of my little friends.  Finally, in the fourth grade, my teacher asked me how it was that I’d won the contest three years running.  I told her honestly that my friends told me where to find the flowers.  She asked, “What friends?”  And I told her about the little people I played and talked with and that they’re around all the time.  I mentioned how they often walked to school with me and then waited and walked home with me.  The teacher smiled and said she’d like to go along and see what happened next time.

    So one morning, one of these . . . you could call them elves . . . told me he could show me a place in the woods where there was a rare white lady slipper.  There had been lots of pink lady slippers in our area, but I’d never seen a white one.  All excited, I asked my elfin friend if my teacher could come along and he agreed.  He led us about two miles from the school to a part of the woods I had never visited before.  As we walked along, my little friend played games.  He’d walk along the top of rail fences for instance.

CBird:  What was your teacher’s reaction to being led by your little guide?

FARRELLY:  She couldn’t see him but she seemed to accept my running account of what he was doing.  He led us right up to a gorgeous white lady slipper.

    Delighted he’d been true to his word, I turned, beaming at my teacher.  Her response was unexpected.  She suddenly grabbed me and began shaking me and slapping my face.  She told me that I was a liar and a cheat and that I’d known all along that the white flower was where it was.

    As hurt as I was, it was nothing compared to the fright I felt when the teacher said she would report the incident to my mother.  I’d had several confrontations with my mother from about the age of eight about my fancied play with “little people.”  At first, she made light of it but then she told me with great severity that it was all in my “imagination” and it was time to forget about it.  She began punishing me whenever she caught me talking to my friends.

    When the teacher told my mother about the white lady slipper, I got a nasty licking with a switch and was told there’d be more if I was ever again caught talking to the little people.  Although I continued to see them for a couple of years more, I never told anybody.

CBird:  What did they look like?

FARRELLY: Lovely and elfish.  They were dressed in little costumes, and were about six to eight inches tall.  They’d speak to me in good English, but with high-pitched squeaky voices.  After I saw Geoffry Hodson’s books on the little people, I was amazed to learn that someone had actually written seriously about what I’d seen as a child.

CBird:  When did you first get involved in the unusual diagnostic and healing technology known as “Radionics?”

FARRELLY:  When I was operating the Approved Laboratories in St. Petersburg, Florida, doing milk and water analysis for the state.  It was straight chemistry, bacteriology, hematology.  One day Dr. Robert Love, an osteopath, who described himself as an “electronic physician,” called me to analyze some milk samples for bacterial count and undulant fever.  I found it strange that he wanted all his samples back since, generally, we just poured them down the sink after the testing.

CBird:  Why did he want them back?

FARRELLY:  I found out when I took them to his office.  He had a large desk covered with Leeds and Northrop rheostats.  He told me to sit down and he’d check my findings on his milk samples.  He picked up a sample bottle and put it on a metal plate.  After turning some dials on a box-like machine, he rubbed his fingers on a wooden plate attached to it and told me that sample number 16 was negative.

    I checked my list of findings.  Number 16 was negative.

    He took up the next sample.  After a few seconds rubbing, he said that it was very bad.  My finding on the sample read “Four plus,” which indicated very bad.  He went through the complete collection and his almost instant findings accorded exactly with all the ones it had taken me the whole night to make.

CBird:  What was your reaction?

FARRELLY:  I thought he could have been reading my mind.  So I asked him if he could identify some samples I could bring him from my lab.  I selected about five, as I remember, one a slide of a piece of liver section with a spirochete of syphilis in it.  Another was a sample of lymphatic leukemia for which I had counted the white blood cells myself that same morning.

    I gave him the sample unlabeled.  While he did his testing I went into an adjoining room and kept my mind off what he was doing and the specimens by reciting poetry to myself.  When I came out he told me his analyses.  Each one was 100% correct.  Of the leukemia specimen he told me that he couldn’t get over the white count in this person.  He got over 190,000 white cells, which seemed to him impossible.  But that very morning I had counted them in the lab at 192,000 —  5 to 10,000 is normal.  I was astonished.  Dr. Love seemed to be able to make accurate analyses as fast as one could dial telephone numbers.

CBird:  That was the beginning?

FARRELLY:  Yes.  I asked him if I could try his machine.  He showed me what to do.  If my fingers stuck when rubbing across the plate, the answer was yes.  If they traveled freely over the plate, it was no.  I seemed to have the talent.  I became very excited.  I made a bargain with him to train me in the technique in return for my doing lab tests on any unusual specimens for a year.

CBird:  Did you learn how Dr. Love’s mysterious instrument functioned?

FARRELLY:  No, he would never show me how his instruments were made.  Then I heard of Dr. Ruth Drown in Pasadena, California.  I contacted her, went out there, and took a course with her.  There was so much rivalry in this field among practitioners about “who had stolen what from whom.”  Dr. Drown, for instance, detested Love and didn’t want his name mentioned.

    Dr. Drown had a “camera” which worked at a distance.  She showed me how to operate it.  But she seemed to be the only one who could interpret the pictures taken with it.  They could not begin to compare with the ones taken by George De la Warr which I later saw in England.  They weren’t clear cut whereas De la Warr’s were very clear.  A bone was clearly recognizable as a bone, a stomach, a stomach or a gall bladder, a gall bladder.  Dr. Drown also could not duplicate her pictures but De la Warr could.  Drown maintained that duplication was impossible because of the different amount of energy flowing through a particular organ each moment.  But from my observations of both techniques.  I don’t think that was the case.

CBird:  What were your conclusions about these various devices?

FARRELLY:  It was when I was working with Dr. Drown that I first began to feel that the instruments themselves were not doing the work.  Occasionally we’d get a blood sample and believe we were testing it in the instrument only to find that, when we went to remove it, we’d forgotten to put it there.  So I began to wonder exactly who or what was being tested.

CBird:  Your results were just as effective as if you had put the blood sample into the device?

FARRELLY:  Precisely, as long as we knew the patient.  Then, too, the Drown instrument operated with no electricity.  Other devices used electricity.  It was her theory that the sample of blood or hair, or whatever it was, was a part of the patient and therefore in constant rapport with him or her and that one was just tuning in on that frequency, for that patient.  There were many other theories developed, here and abroad.  I don’t think any of them were even close to correct.

CBird:  Did you develop your own theory or reconcile the various theories, which were around?

FARRELLY:  Both.  And I got the chance when I was introduced to Arthur Middleton Young, inventor of the Bell helicopter, who was running his Foundation for the Study of Consciousness in New York City.  I went to work for him for what I thought would be one summer and stayed over five years.  Arthur was interested in radionics but felt strongly that the results obtained with this art were a function of consciousness, that they came not from the machines themselves but from the operators.

    I had to admit that I had been successful in diagnosis even when blood samples of patients had been inadvertently left out of the instruments.  Also, I had noted that, when certain devices which usually operated on AC current were surreptitiously unplugged, the operator could still go on making successful diagnoses, even though the radio tubes and other components were not electrically activated.

CBird:  What kind of research was conducted at the foundation?

FARRELLY:  We began with experiments on plants and animals, especially with the effects of insecticides.  We sprayed fruits and vegetables with DDT and then treated them radionically to try to remove the effects of the poison.  Analytic tests run at the Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene in New York City indicated that the treated samples showed less insecticide than those untreated.

    We also wanted to see if we could counteract the effects of arsenic poisoning in mice.  We fed them nothing but a standard commercial mouse poison but none of them showed any effects from it.  Young talked to a professional vermin exterminator who maintained that the poison should have been lethal.  He gave us another poison “strong enough to kill a horse.”  We gave the mice this stronger dose but, again, none of them would die.

CBird:   How did you explain this?

FARRELLY:  Arthur Young’s deduction was that since I had not intended to kill the animals in the first place, the strength of my intent overrode the strength of the position.

    We did many other interesting experiments with plants and small animals.  One of them was to see if some ancient Mexican figurines would have any effect on mice.

    One of these figures was eighteen or so inches tall with a fluted neck.  I connected it by copper wire to a mouse cage, the statue being three feet from the cage.  The mice in the cage immediately got agitated.  They would crawl under the paper in the cage as if trying to hide.  After about two days, half of the tail of one mouse fell off and even more strangely, its ears developed fluting on their edges.  While keeping two more mice under constant observation, we were able to flute the ears on them as well.  (See pictures of mouse and figurine.)  I took these mice to a nationally known laboratory at Bar Harbor, Maine, where they raise mice and asked if the ear fluting could somehow have been caused by the mice scratching or biting.  The laboratory experts said they’d never seen anything even closely resembling the fluting.  They had no explanation for it.

    We took other figurines and tried out their effects on mice.  One of them caused pregnant mice to abort.  I later found out that the psychic Fredrick Marion, author of In My Mind’s Eye had psychometrized some of our figurines and had ‘seen’ a group of people potentizing them for various uses.

CBird:  What other radionics research did you do?

FARRELLY:  Mr. Young sent me to England to make a study of radionics there.  I met people in various medical radiesthesia groups: one composed exclusively of doctors, one made up of people Dr. Drown had trained while in England and, the third, people trained by the De la Warrs.

    It was then that I had a good look at the De la Warr camera.  It wasn’t really a camera.  It had no light source.  It could be operated only by the physicist Leonard Corte.  Other people could use it successfully only if Corte loaded the films put in it.

    I decided that there was something which tied the camera specifically to Corte.  He suggested we take it apart and that I handle all the various separate mechanical components in order to impress my own energy upon them.  After I ran my fingers over all the internal components of the camera, I was able to get pictures, albeit somewhat less clearly than Corte.

CBird:   What else did you do in England?

FARRELLY:  While there, I also spoke to a group of prominent physicians at the office of Michael Ash, an orthodox doctor who was experimenting with healing by the laying-on-of-hands.  I did some healing with him.  Ash had a theory about the radionics devices which corresponded with that of Arthur Young.  To test it, he brought a deaf-dumb-and-blind patient to this office and introduced me by writing my name with his foreigner in her hand.  He told me to step up to her and lay my hands on her and tell him what was ailing here.  When I stepped towards her, I got a sudden severe pain across my middle and a searing flash of heat on the right side of my head affecting an area about the size of a quarter dollar.  I immediately stepped back and both pains disappeared.  When I approached her again, they returned.  I looked at Dr. Ash and, knowing the patient couldn’t hear me, I asked what was wrong with her across her middle.  He chided me to be more anatomically specific.

     I began surveying various organs of the body in my head.  Diaphragm.  Stomach.  Liver.  I got no reaction to any of these and others until I thought “pancreas.”  Then the pain in my middle instantly returned.  I asked myself if it was the head of the pancreas.  The pain disappeared again.  Same for the tail of the pancreas.  I thought: “the Isles of Langerhann, which make insulin.”  I immediately got a sharp pain back again in what was obviously my own pancreas.

    I told Dr. Ash it was the Isles of Langerhann.  He nodded affirmatively and asked if I felt anything else.  I decided to plunge ahead and felt a hot spot on my head.  I ran a few possibilities through my head: “tumor?” “growth?”  Finally “blood clot” occurred to me and when it did, I felt the hot pain in my head.

    When I gave this diagnosis to Dr. Ash, he beamed.  “See, you are the instrument, not those devices you’ve been working with.  This woman got this way from a diabetic coma and indeed has a blood clot in the very area you’ve pinpointed.”


CBird:  Did you make other diagnoses for Dr. Ash?

FARRELLY:  I spent two more weeks with him and sat next to him at his desk writing down my impressions about all his patients.  That gave me much more confidence to go ahead and work without the instrument.  I would just hold a blood sample in my hand and either directly feel what the patient was afflicted with or determine it by rubbing, not on the plate of a radionics device, but right on the top of the desk or table in front of me.

CBird:  Today you just do the rubbing when necessary don’t you?

FARRELLY: Yes.  It was when I was about to leave the Young’s in 1960 that I began working with the California psychiatrist Shafica Karagulla, M.D.  I gave up tuning into people directly and getting a pain because my senses were becoming so acute that if I were, say, just sitting in a train, I would begin unconsciously to pick up pains from the people in the same car I was in.  My back, my shoulders, my stomach would ache.  My bunions would hurt.  And the emotions of various people would assail me to the point that I hardly knew how I was feeling myself.  I’d feel sad and mad and glad, all at the same time.  I could pick out the person associated with each pain or emotion but I had to learn how to shut this out because it was becoming overpowering.

CBird:  What use is a radionics device, do you think, if people like yourself can diagnose without it?

FARRELLY:  I believe it acts something like a dowsing device.  A dowser uses a divining rod or a pendulum to get answers.  The rod or pendulum acts to signal a yes or no answer to the questions.  In my case, the rubbing provided the answer.  The technique I employ may be ages old.  There is a passage in a book, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande by the celebrated English anthropologist, Edward Evans-Prichard relating how a witchdoctor made a little round disk with a tail on it and another disk with a handle on it.  He’d sit down and put his foot on the tail to hold it steady and then he’d rub the other disk over it and then ask, for example, if his neighbor’s pigs had cholera.  If it stuck, they had the disease.  If it slid smoothly, they did not.  The technique hardly differs from my own.

CBird:  Have your talents been formally tested by doctors?

FARRELLY:  I have been repeatedly asked by doctors to take some hundred samples and analyze them under test conditions, being promised that the data I supplied would be written up formally by them in medical or other specialized journals to put the radionics technique on the map, so to speak.

    Well, “I’ve spent hundreds of hours fulfilling these requests.  Perhaps some of these doctors even did go ahead and write up the data, but I’ve never seen any of their accounts in print.

CBird:  Why, do you think?

FARRELLY:    It’s hard to say.  I believe that either the editors of journals would not accept such an article or that the authors are warned by friendly colleagues not to stick their heads out by associating themselves with what must appear to be pure mumbo-jumbo to the medical profession as presently constituted.

    Radionics, as you know, principally refers to a device or instrument and its use, at least in the United States.  I believe the term “radiesthesia” which on the continent means “medical dowsing” is better, because it does not imply that an instrument is the key to the diagnostic art.

    There has been half a century of controversy about Abrams-type “magic boxes” or radionics devices.  At issue today in the United States is whether the science of radionics is against the law.  To his letter to the United States Food and Drug Administration asking this question, Mr. Edward W. Russell received the following reply: “In answer to your specific question, the ‘practice of Radionic Medicine’ is not forbidden by the FDA, however, devices intended for such use may be ‘misbranded’ within the meaning of that term under the Federal Food, Drug Cosmetic Act.”  The FDA further stated to Mr. Russell: “In order to comply with the statute, a device used in ‘Radionic Medicine’ must be safe, effective and properly labeled.  Frankly, we know of no way of labeling a device so that it would bear adequate directions for use for Radionic Medicine.

    I agree 100% with the FDA.  From what is scientifically known today, or from what radionic operators have said about their instruments in the past, there’s no way a device could be labeled correctly for use.

    From the historical point of view, I feel that it is important to remember that Dr. Abrams, who founded the art of radionics, referred to “electronic reactions.”  In 1898, electronics was coming into vogue.  So Abrams used ohms of resistance to measure the so-called “rates” from various bodily organs.  When Drown came along in the 1920s, radio was becoming the new rage.  She called her method “radiotherapy.”  Now we’re in the computer age and I hear that some radionics practitioners are labeling the technique “computerized analysis.”

CBird:  But what about the radionics instruments as devices for, not diagnosis, but treatment?  How is the treatment effected, if it is?

FARRELLY:  I wish I knew.  I know that it works but don’t know why or how.  There are several different methods for treatment.  Drown would use a diagnostic rate to determine an affliction and then select a remedy, put it in the circuitry of the machine, and claim that the treatment was affected by the vibrations from the remedy.

    The De la Warrs used what they called a “complementary rate.”  They subtracted a diagnostic rate, say, for flu which is 38 and subtract each of the digits from 10 to get 72, which was the treating rate.  This also seemed to work.

    Dr. Love had a third method.  He’d use another number to annul the first one.  If he had a rate for flu, he’d work the dials on the device until he found another number which would completely wipe out his reaction to it.

    Even after thirty years in the field, I don’t know how the treatment instruments work, whether for humans or animals.

CBird:  What has been the track record?

FARRELLY:  Whether it was Dr. Love, Dr. Drown, De la Warr or others, they all have claimed a very high percentage of success with all kinds of illnesses.  But it also depended to what stage the disease had advanced.  This applies to any disease.  It is my impression that with treatment devices using electricity, such as the one developed by T. Galen Hieronymous, the treatment seemed to proceed faster than those which used no electrical current such as the Drown and De la Warr instruments.  I know that Dr. Love’s treating machines which used electricity, accomplish in three minutes what it took Dr. Drown’s an hour to accomplish.  But I don’t know how to account for this.

CBird:  Do most doctors today send you cases they simply cannot diagnose or do they use you as a sort of diagnostic machine for everything?

FARRELLY:  Both, some for tough cases, others routinely.  I am much more challenged by the tough cases.  For example, I had to analyze a sample from a sixteen-year-old who’d had a history of chronic ear trouble.  In checking it, I first found it was bacterial so I began checking through the bacteria.  And I found tuberculosis.  This seems impossible since I’d never heard of tuberculosis in the ear.  But I relied on my analysis and sent it to the doctor.  He called me long distance to ask: “Have you lost your cotton-picking mind?  Whoever heard of TB in the ear?”  I told him I didn’t know, but would stick with that diagnosis, no matter how far-fetched it might seem.

    The next day he called me back to say that he’d spoken to the patient’s mother, a registered nurse, and told her that she should have a bacterial exam made but using, as I’d suggested in my report, an acid-fast stain to reveal TB.  The doctor was surprised that, instead of getting angry, the mother told him that her child had a swollen gland on the side of the neck at age six months.  The gland had been found to be tubercular.  But they never made a connection with TB and the running ear.

Christopher Bird:  How do you work with doctors?

FARRELLY:  I am sent a sample of the patient’s blood.  I no longer sit with the patient; all of my work now is done in absentia.

    I also have a form which they fill out about their patients, which contains standard statistical information requests, as well as any history that may be important to the current complaint.  The reason I ask for a current history is because there might be something I need to check which would fall outside the routine diagnosis I ordinarily do.  For example, ordinarily I don’t check the eyes or ears or parts of the brain.  But if the history warrants or a special request is made, I can go into the specific areas in detail.

CBird:  What’s your procedure in diagnosing, your methodology?

FARRELLY:  I do a physical report on the various organs and glands of the body, as well as a vitamin assay.  In addition, I check the remedies of Edward Bach, M.D., M.B., D.P.H., who was a homeopathic physician.  These are homeopathic remedies made in England for treatment of what Dr. Bach calls “the problems of the spirit of man, such as anger, concern, conflict, jealousy, and so on.”

    Also, if the doctor asks for it, I run allergy tests on about 700 allergens and am further able to select and suggest suitable dietary supplements for the patient.

    I work for about as many MDs and osteopaths, as I do chiropractors.  Of course it depends on each doctor’s professional limitations in what I would suggest for his patient.  This also applies to the selection or suggestion of medications, or if I feel that surgery is indicated.  I have to keep within the realms of what each person’s license permits him to do.

CBird:  Do you only diagnose for doctors?

FARRELLY:  Yes.  I don’t do it for individuals because I would then be both diagnosing and prescribing, which would be outside the law.

PSYCHIC:   Then the only way for someone personally to use your services is to find a doctor who is sympathetic and understanding to your methods of diagnosis.

FARRELLY:  That’s right.  But there are more and more doctors willing to work with patients in this manner, although when I began doing this back in the 1940s, there were hardly any physicians willing to work with me or their patients on this basis.  Yet most of the ones I work with still wish to remain anonymous.  So I leave it up to each particular doctor if they wish to disclose our association.

CBird:  Do all of them know that you use a psychic method and not an orthodox one in diagnosing the blood samples and data they send you?

FARRELLY:  Yes.  They all know that I’m using psychic means to diagnose their samples.  Mostly all have been referred to me by other doctors; I make no effort to go out and get them.  In the beginning, they’re quite curious but then become accustomed to my procedure.  Currently I work with about 70 doctors across the country, many of whom have been using my services for over ten years now.

CBird:  How do you get yourself in a state to do a diagnosis?

FARRELLY:  I just focus my attention on the blood sample and data starts coming about the person.  Also, it helps immensely to focus my attention when the diagnosis is a challenge to me.  But if I received a report that indicated that someone was getting gas from eating onions, that’s no challenge.  I would just naturally, without psychically looking into it, think, “Well, why the devil are they eating onions!”

CBird:  Are you able to turn on and off at will?

FARRELLY:  Yes, over the years it’s become an automatic thing.  I just go into a state — probably an altered state of consciousness — by merely focusing my attention on the case at hand.  And I know I’m not in a trance, because I am still aware of what’s going on around me, yet I’m not disturbed by it.  I was once tested on a bio-feedback machine which showed that I apparently slip very easily in and out of alpha (alpha brainwave state) which is necessary since I have to come back up again to write my report as I go along.

CBird:  How do you distinguish between the patient’s ailment and your own?

FARRELLY:  Sometimes when I’m looking at the patient and I’m not sure whether it’s his pain or mine, then I will ask myself, “What’s the matter with me?”  If the pain goes away, then I know it’s the patient’s and not mine.

CBird:  Since you feel and sense things, do you ever see anything visually?

FARRELLY:  I’m a very poor clairvoyant.  I do see psychically, but it’s not normal for me.  And it has to be rather dark, not full light.  During such times I have seen colors about the person — like the aura other people describe — and then I see a dark spot in the area of the person where there’s a problem.  But I don’t have full control over this at all, because sometimes I see and sometimes I don’t.  The feeling part is the one I can rely on much more steadily.  And when I’m testing from a blood sample, I do not feel the pain or the emotional factors of the person.

CBird:  What about pictures or scenes?

FARRELLY:  Yes.  Sometimes they occur in a flash.  For example, once while driving a car I actually saw the front tire with a bulge on it ready to blow out.  I was able to stop in time to avoid the blowout.

CBird:  Have you ever used your technique outside the medical field?

FARRELLY:  I’ve located lost objects and missing persons.  I should say that, to me, a very important fact in this work is the purpose or intent of the client.  In my opinion, this has a great deal to do with success.  For example, when someone hides something and asks that I locate it, I’m not really turned on to the task because I know they already know where it is.  But if it is a real challenge — being truly helpful instead of just demonstrating — I get turned on.



CBird:  What have been some of your useful cases in searching for missing people?

FARRELLY:  Just recently, a woman called me to say that her son had gone out in a boat and not returned by nightfall.  The weather being bad, she was worried and asked me if I could say where he was.  I got a map of the Tampa Bay area and taking a photo of the boy, I ran through a number of questions and put an “X” mark on a sand bar off a small island.  That’s where the Coast Guard found his boat stuck with the boy still in it.

    Then at the First International Meeting for Psychotronic Research, held in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1973, some of the Czech scientists who had heard me lecture asked me to tell them the age and origin of a small mineralized sample they’d brought with them.  I sat down at a wooden table and within about three minutes I told them it was three million, two hundred thousand years old and came from a meteorite.  They confirmed that, according to the best judgment of their experts, both my answers were correct.

CBird:  Has this changed your philosophy of life or view of the cosmos?

FARRELLY:  In the beginning it shook me up considerably, since my background had been quite orthodox — I’m a Christian.  But I learned to accept it as a normal part of my life.

    As for my view on the cosmos, I have a very definite feeling that there’s a creator — an organized force and energy.  And I have no difficulty in accepting a great many of the philosophies and religions.  For example, I don’t have any difficulty in accepting beliefs in reincarnation, and I certainly believe in a continuity of life.  As I see it, there is this organization force in the universe and we as a part of it have our roles to play.

CBird:  Do you think you have guides or entities helping you as some sensitives seem to?

FARRELLY:  I don’t deny such presences but I don’t call upon them for help.  I feel my approach — the one that works for me — is a little more direct in that I spend a certain amount of time in prayer and mediation each day —  without entities interceding.  To me it’s the God energy, the Great Spirit, or whatever you want to call it.

CBird:  Do you think your technique can be taught?

FARRELLY:  I think so.  People have varying grades of psychic ability which they can be taught to use effectively.  A lot depends on their interest and devotion.  I’d like to see many people trained.  Children are especially gifted but need training to develop their gifts.  Unfortunately, the gift is usually trained out of them just as it was with me when I was a child.

CBird:  What else do you think is important to the technique besides personal motivation?

FARRELLY:  Several things.  First, the truth.  Any  doctor working with me must know how I work, I say “psychically” for short though I often go into a long description of the process for them.  Second, and most important, is evaluation of accuracy.  If, for example, I find gallstones, or a brain tumor, the doctors I work for will follow through with so-called orthodox methods to prove or disprove my work.  In turn, they will advise me of their findings.  Lastly, and no less important is to continually share what knowledge I have about the subject with others.

    I find many young people, engineers, doctors, and physicists who have heard either of the Hieronymous or De la Warr “boxes,” eager to rush out and build replicas of them or at least something similar.  I always ask them “Why?”  I then go on to tell them that they are the operators and that it is the operators who are the equipment.

    So I would say to anyone: You don’t need a device.  Train yourself to use your psychic ability.

    I am encouraged, after some thirty years in the field, that psychic ability and ESP are more widely and openly accepted because somewhere in the field of radiesthesia, or dowsing, lies the basis of so-called radionics, not in the instrumentation.  Everyone longs to make an instrument that will read out answers on a graph or flashlights.  To date no one has accomplished this.  But if any knowledge I have about the various instruments would help some bright young person to come up with such a device, I will feel I have contributed to the accomplishment in some small way.





    Born in Vermont, Frances Farrelly was raised in Norwood, Massachusetts, south of Boston.  Her childhood was replete with psychic experiences, including healing and being able to see “the little people.”

    Of a religious bent from early life, she entered Saint Lawrence University at Canton, New York, an Universalist Church theological school, to study for the ministry.  At the outset, she began to doubt the theology taught, which the dean told her was merely a case of “freshman measles.”  Yet the doubt persisted, and in her junior year she “dropped out.”

    Opting for a more practical profession, Ms. Farrelly enrolled in the Northwest Institute of Medical Technology in Minneapolis, and after graduation, with three of her classmates, opened her own school for medical technicians in Utica, New York.  She later moved to Florida’s west coast and started another school in Sarasota.  Unmarried, she also adopted two infant boys, Stephen and Peter.

    The year 1944 was a traumatic one in her life.  Hardly had she learned that her father, to whom she was deeply devoted, was killed in an automobile accident than her son Peter, age 4, fell out of the car she was driving and died within hours, despite her best efforts to save him.  Two days later, her business went bankrupt.

    With only seven dollars in the bank, Ms. Farrelly took a job as a teacher in a small private school.  But she soon found that work insufficiently demanding, so took up laboratory work again, this time in a new hospital, where she demonstrated such skill that she was appointed inspector of Milk and Water by the city of Sarasota, as well as the county, and later appointed State Examiner.

    While her laboratory work was expanding, she was invited by a young woman physician who admired her work to lecture to a local medical society on clinical interpretations of hematology reports.  After the meeting, the two had coffee together and became friends.  A general practitioner, the physician informed Ms. Farrelly that she was interested in “electronic medicine,” a peculiar art of diagnosis which had first been developed at the turn of the century by the San Francisco genius and Director of Medical Studies at Stanford University, Albert Abrams, M.D.

    Abrams’s method of diagnosis by picking up “vibrations” from healthy or diseased tissue with the help of a strange “black box” of his own design was ridiculed by scientific and medical establishments in the United States, though not before he had trained over 3,000 doctors in its use.  In England the “box” was officially tested by a committee chaired by Sir Thomas Horder, M.D. who later became physician to the royal family.  Its main conclusion was that Abrams’s “electronic reactions” were valid in diagnosis and should be investigated in depth.  This recommendation and challenge was never taken up by the British Medical Association.

    It was when Ms. Farrelly met one of Abrams’s students who introduced her to the use of the “box” that she became convinced that a new method of diagnosis, astounding in its accuracy and rapidity, had been invented.  Through her physician friend, she was introduced to Dr. Ruth Drown of Pasadena, California, one of Dr. Abrams’s most brilliant followers.  Dr. Drown asked Ms. Farrelly to come and work with her.

   When, after a short-lived period of service in an Anglican sisterhood, Frances Farrelly found herself once again penniless, she remembered Dr. Drown’s offer.  A phone call to California landed her the job.  After several months’ work with Dr. Drown, whose innovative work was later attacked as fraudulent by the medical establishment and the FDA, she met Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, who had formed the Foundation for the Study of Consciousness in New York City.  She was employed by Young in investigating the diagnostic techniques of Dr. Abrams, which were flowering in England under the name of “radionics.”

    While investigating radionics in the U.S. and England, Ms. Farrelly became increasingly skeptical about the radionic “box” device used in the diagnostic technique.  She came to the conclusion that the operators were themselves the devices.

    Returning to Florida in 1960, she found the demand for her psychicdiagnostic work becoming so large that she eventually had to devote full time to it.  Today she provides her unique service to professionals only — physicians, osteopaths, chiropractors throughout the country.  “I can no longer diagnose on a personal basis,” she says, “because there is not enough time and because there is always the possibility that it might be construed as being illegal.”

    Three years ago, after working out of the Bahamas for several years, she founded her own company, Update Consultants, in St. Petersburg, Florida, where she now makes her home.