Replication Studies of Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Three Independent Investigators ANTONIA MILLS, ERLENDUR Harapsson, and H. H. JURGEN KEIL ABSTRACT: The three authors undertook to replicate Stevenson's studies of children who are reported to remember a previous life; J.K. studied 60 cases in Burma, Thailand, and Turkey; E.H. studied 25 cases in Sri Lanka, and A.M. studied 38 cases in India. From a combined sample of 123 cases, each of the authors presents one case. The authors conclude that in some of the cases the children had no normal way of knowing about the person with whom they identified themselves, but note problem areas to be overcome in future studies. Further research may lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of child development. Since 1960 Ian Stevenson, Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Personality Studies of the Department of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, has been writing about the evidence for survival from claimed memories of former incar- nations (Stevenson, 1960). He has written both from the theoretical point of view (Stevenson, 1977b) and the empirical, presenting detailed case reports from a variety of different cultures. In White's (1992) categoriza- tion of 12 approaches to the study of spontaneous psi cases, Stevenson’s studies are oriented particularly to four categories: individual cases, case collections, surveys, and cross-cultural comparisons. To date his studies include India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Lebanon, Turkey, Brazil, Northwest Coast American Indians, and the Igbo of Nigeria (Stevenson, 1966, 1966/1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1977a, 1980, 1983a, 1985). He and his colleagues have compared the features of the large series of cases he has collected from these cultures as well as among the North American pop- ulation (Cook, Pasricha, Samararatne, U Win Maung, & Stevenson, 1983; Stevenson, 1983b, 1986, 1987). The analyses show the similarities of the cases across cultures. For example, such children start to claim memories of a previous life at the average age of three and cease talking about them between about five to seven years of age. Stevenson also notes features in which the cases differ between cultures. Stevenson has sought to have his results replicated in several ways (Pasricha & Stevenson, 1979, 1987). In 1987 he invited the authors, two psychologists (Erlendur Haraldsson and Jiirgen Keil) and one anthropolo- gist (Antonia Mills), to undertake independent studies of cases of reported The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Vol. 88, July 1994208 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research reincarnation. The intent was to ascertain whether independent researchers would find the cases as compelling or suggestive as had Stevenson. The authors have reported elsewhere on their initial field investigations (Har- aldsson, 1994; Keil, 1991; Mills, 1989, 1990a, 1990b). In this article we summarize the results of our combined investigations to date, and each of us presents a summary of a heretofore unpublished case. We conclude with suggestions for including some of the additional approaches identified by White (1992). OVERVIEW OF COMBINED INVESTIGATIONS To date Jiirgen Keil (J.K.) has studied 60 cases in Burma, Thailand, and Turkey; Erlendur Haraldsson (E.H.) 25 cases in Sri Lanka; and Antonia Mills (A.M.) 38 cases in northern India. The authors derived their sample from cases about which they learned in the field and from cases identified but not yet studied by Stevenson and his associates. In 80% of the 123 cases, a deceased person has been identified who apparently corresponded to some or all of the child’s statements (the case is “‘solved""); 20% of the cases remain unsolved (no deceased person corresponding to some or all of the child’s statements has been identified). In E.H.’s Sri Lanka sample there were far more unsolved cases than in the other countries, a finding consistent with earlier studies (Cook, Pasricha, Samararatne, U Win Maung, & Stevenson, 1983; Stevenson, 1986). Of the 99 solved cases, the person the child claimed to be was unknown to the child’s family in 51%, acquainted in 33%, and related in 16%. Of the combined sample of 123 cases, only one of the cases (of A.M.) appeared to be on the borderline between a consciously perpetrated hoax and self-deception (Stevenson, Pasricha, & Samararatne, 1988). The three cases presented below repre~ sent cases with a relatively high degree of correspondence between the child’s claims and the characteristics of a deceased person. In each of the 123 cases the child had expressed memories of being someone other than who he or she was. In some of the cases the child was also reported to have (a) behavioral characteristics corresponding to the relevant deceased person, (b) birthmarks or birth defects corresponding to injuries or other marks on the deceased person, (c) phobias related to experiences of the deceased person, (d) philias, (¢) untutored skills, and/or ( special knowledge unknown to anyone else that was appropriate to the person with whom they identified. In 19 cases (studied by E.H. in Sri Lanka), a written record was made of the child’s statements before a person was identified that bore important characteristics in agreement with the child's statements. In four of these cases such a person was later identified. E.H. describes such a case below. Other cases of this type have been reported elsewhere by E.H. and Stevenson (Haraldsson, 1991; Stevenson, 1966/1974; 1975b; Stevenson & Samararatne, 1988). J-K. and A.M. also describe a case below in some detail. These three cases allowJoint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 209 the reader to judge whether the correspondence between the child’s state- ments and the facts about the previous personality (the person identified as being the object of the child’s statements) seems likely to be beyond coincidence and/or normal sources of information. THE CASE OF ENGIN SUNGUR (STUDIED BY J.K.) Engin Sungur was bom in December 1980 in Antakya Hospital, Hatay, Turkey, among the Alevi Moslem population who, unlike their Sunni Moslem neighbors, believe in the possibility of reincarnation. The case was studied by J.K., with the assistance of Ayse Efe (A.E.) as interpreter, in 1990. Engin was then nine years old. Engin still remembered substantial details of his earlier identification with Naif Cigek, but according to both his statements and those of his parents, his ‘“‘memories’” had faded during the preceding three years. Engin and his parents lived in the village of Tavla. When Engin was less than two years old, his parents took him to visit a relative in another village. On the way, from the vantage point of a hill he pointed to another village, Hancagiz, and said, ““I can see my village where I used to live.”” Hancagiz is about 2.5 miles (4 km.) by road from Tavla. When Engin’s parents asked him ‘Whose son are you?,”’ Engin replied, ‘I am Naif Cigek.”” He told them various things about Naif, such as that he had gone to Ankara before he died. (See Table 1 for a list of Engin’s statements.) Engin insisted that his parents take him to Hancagiz, but his parents did not initially comply. They had never heard of or met Naif Cigek. ‘According to Naif Cigek’s daughter, Gilhan, Engin called her “my daughter,”’ and said, ‘I am your father,”” when he subsequently saw her in Tavla village. Gilhan attended secondary school in Tavla. On that ‘occasion Engin was concerned about Giilhan and asked her to come to his home, but she did not go. Up to that point there had been no contact between the two families, nor did they have any knowledge of each other. After this, Engin’s mother took Engin to Hancagiz. He was then some- where between two and four years old. When Engin met Naif Cigek's widow, he called her ‘‘my wife.’’ He called at least seven other members of Naif's family by name, but because the various informants disagreed on whom he called by name, these recognitions are counted as a single item in Table 1. Engin also pointed out land that had belonged to Naif; the land was not obviously attached to Naif’s home. Engin asked whether one of “this”? (Naif’s) sons was still hiding himself in the kiln used for baking. He identified various clothes belonging to Naif. Engin told his mother that he {as Naif) had made a particular oil lamp from a tin container. He also described being hit by his truck when his son was backing it up, although some informants thought these statements were made first at a later inci- dent described below. As Table 1 shows, all Engin’s verified statements were correct.210 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Table 1 ‘SYNOPSIS OF STATEMENTS OF ENGIN SUNGUR Correct? 1. Tan see my village where I used to live. y 2. Lam Naif . y 3. Gigek. y 4, Twent to Ankara 7 5. before I died. y 6. Called Gilhan ‘my daughter.”* y 7. Lam your father. y 8. My son hid in kiln used for baking. y 9. Called Naif's wife “‘my wife.”" y 10. Called at least seven other family members by name. y 11. This is my tand, y 12. I made this myself. [tin into oil lamp] y 13. Talked about being hit by his own truck . y 14, when his son Fikret accidentally backed into him. y 15. Recognized Naif's truck. y 16, Identified himself as father of Naif’s son Fikret y 17. You are not taking good care of this truck y 18. Recognized taxi (dolmus) drivers Naif knew. a 19. Thad asked for a loan of money from my sister Nazire ? 20. but Nazire had refused. 2 21. T had asked for a loan of money from my sister Kirciye (he gave her Arabic name) 2 22. and Kiirciye gave him the money. 2 Total Number of Statements 2 Number Correct 7 Number Incorrect, 0 Number Unascertained 5 Naif Cigek had been a truck driver who had died after a prolonged illness. He had gone to Ankara to see a doctor before his death, obtained some pills, but returned sure that he would soon die. He was 54 years old when he died in December 1979. After Engin had returned to his home in Tavla, one of Naif’s sons, who had not been present when Engin had visited Hancagiz, arrived unan- nounced and unexpected in Tavla, in Naif’s truck. Engin said, ““Who is the driver of this truck?”” After meeting Naif’s son, Engin said, ““I am your father, why are you not taking good care of this truck?”” Engin made further statements included in Table 1 whose veracity has not been ascer- tained to date. Naif’s widow was impressed (as were J.K. and A.E.) that Engin spoke and acted like an adult. Naif’s widow noted that he used the same kind of hand gestures as her late husband when talking. J.K. was impressed with the serious confidence with which Engin spoke. A.E. regarded Engin’s command of language as superior to that of many adults. J.K. was able to interview Ugur Oztiirk (U.O.), who was Engin’s teacher during his first three years in school. U.O. reported that Engin was a good student and that from the time he began school at the age of six he behaved like a seriousJoint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 2u adult and talked about being Naif Gigek. U.O. took some notes of what Engin said and some months later checked these against what Engin was then saying. There were no discrepancies. THE Case OF MAHAVIR SINGH (STUDIED BY A.M.) Mahavir Singh (pseudonym) was born on October 8, 1982 in the village of Nagalavicki, population 15,000, near Shamshabad in the Agra district of Uttar Pradesh, India. A.M. and Dr. Narender K. Chadha (N.K.C.) learned of the case in the process of investigating another case in the area. N.K.C. first interviewed Mahavir and his parents in August 1987. A.M. then interviewed Mahavir and his father in 1987, Mahavir and his parents and grandmother in 1988, and his father again in 1990 with Parmeshwar Dayal as interpreter. N.K.C. also returned to the family in February 1988 to ask additional questions sent to him by A.M. Mahavir began speaking at an early age (12 months) and showed a great interest in animals, particularly camels. From an early age Mahavir would get up before his parents and brothers and go out to water his father’s cows. He urged his father to purchase a camel. No one in Nagalavicki owned a camel, but Mahavir would approach camel dealers as they led camels on the path by Nagalavicki. He would take hold of the camel’s rope, and claim that the camel was his. Mahavir continued this behavior from the time he was a toddler until after he identified a particular set of camel dealers as his relatives. When Mahavir was about two years old, he told his mother, “My son [lalu, a term used for son or brother's son] was going through this way.”” Mahavir added that he had some money in the bank and that a businessman had some of his money and had not returned it. He later named Teja as the businessman having some of his money. From the age of about three Mahavir would repeatedly break off a few pieces of food from his portion, saying, ‘This is for my children."* In response to several days of questioning by his father, Mahavir said that he had five children and a wife, and that his brother also had five children. (See Table 2 for a list of the statements Mahavir made.) Over time, in response to further questioning, he said that he was from Baura Gaon and that he had died on the Ganges, where he had gone for business. He said he had two daughters and that one son and one daughter were married. Mahavir annoyed his parents by crying to be taken to his wife. They tried to make him cease talking about this by turning him counter- clockwise on a grinding stone and by employing an indigenous exorcist, but without effect. One day Mahavir told his father: **My brother has fallen from a camel.’’ Mahavir's father went to see, thinking his elder son had fallen, and learned that Pathi Ram, a camel dealer, had fallen from a camel. It was Pathi Ram's adult son Radi Shyam that Mahavir had called “Son"’ [lal], not just once, but numerous times as he passed by Nagala- vicki with camels.212 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Word eventually reached Pathi Ram and his family that Mahavir had made the statements cited above, and they came individually, and then as a group, to see Mahavir. Before these meetings, according to both Maha- vir's parents and Pathi Ram and his family, the two families had not known of each other’s existence, being from different castes and living in different communities about a mile and a quarter (2 km.) apart. Mahavir and his family belonged to a higher caste (Kshatriya) than Pathi Ram and his family, who are Sudras. A.M.’s interviews with Pathi Ram, his brother’s widow, and his sons and nephews revealed that Pathi Ram was the brother of one Khem Raj, a camel dealer from the village of Bada Gaon, who had died near the Ganges close to Allahabad where he had gone to sell camels. As Table 2 shows, he had had five children, of whom one son and one daughter were, at the time of his death, married. Khem Raj had frequently passed on the foot path by Nagalavicki when taking camels to market, prior to his sudden illness and death near Allahabad in March 1982. Kehm Raj was about 50 years old at his death. When Teja and Pathi Ram and his relatives came to visit Mahavir, they were satisfied that he was Khem Raj reborn, from his appropriate behavior and his description of where and with whom his money was kept. He recognized Teja and insisted that Teja owed him money. Teja has since paid the money to Kehm Raj's family, thus acquiescing that the money was owed Khem Raj. Thereafter, Mahavir badgered his father to take him to visit ‘‘his’’ Table 2 SYNOPSIS OF STATEMENTS OF MAHAVIR SINGH Correct? 1, This camel is mine, ? 2. My son was going through this way. y 3. One businessman kept my money. y 4, Teja had my money. y 5. I left money at my home. y 6. I died on the Ganges. y 7. 1 went for business purposes. y 8. I was from Bada Gaon. y 9. Thad five children. y 10. Thad a wife. y 11. Thad two daughters. y 12. One son and one daughter were married y 13. My brother had five children. y 14, My brother fell from a camel y 15. These are my fields. y 16. My wife did not make laddhu for me and now she has. y 17. Thad buried some of my money. a Total Number of Statements 7 Number Correct 15 Number Incorrect, 0 Number Unascertained 2Joint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 213 (Khem Raj's) wife, and when taken he was said, by Khem Raj’s widow, to correctly identify Khem Raj’s fields. One time when visiting Khem Raj’s widow, Mahavir was served food, including a sweet called laddu. Mahavir later said: ‘*That time she did not make laddu for me and now she made it for me.’’ Khem Raj’s widow explained that on the eve of Khem Raj's departure for the camel market at Allahabad at which he died, he had asked her to make laddu for him to take along, but she had not. Thus the laddu was interpreted as answering an unfulfilled wish. Mahavir continued to visit Khem Raj’s family frequently, although his great insistence abated after the first few visits. He has said that some of his money was in the Allahabad bank and some in the Shamshabad bank as well, but these statements, while true, were apparently made after meeting Khem Raj's family, who may have mentioned these facts to him. Mahavir said he had buried some money at his (Khem Raj’s) home, but none was found. He continued to ask his father to purchase a camel for him. Tue Case OF THUSITA SUBHASHINI SILVA (STUDIED BY E.H.) ‘The case of Thusita Silva (pseudonym) is particularly interesting be- cause her statements were recorded before any person was found who corresponded with her statements. Thusita was born on June 16, 1982 in the small town of Elpitiya in southwestern Sri Lanka. In 1988 she moved to Panadura, which is 18 miles south of Colombo. Tissa Jayawardane (T.J.), a research assistant to Stevenson, interviewed the girl and her mother in June 1990. The follow- ing November E.H. independently interviewed Thusita and her family with Godwin Samararatne as interpreter. Thusita’s father had died a few years before the investigation began. ‘According to Thusita’s mother and grandmother, at the age of two and a half years Thusita started speaking about a life in Akuressa. She said she had fallen from a narrow suspension footbridge (wel palama = hanging bridge) into the river and drowned. She said the hanging bridge was not far from her house, that she had a husband, and that she had been pregnant at the time. Thusita also stated that her father’s name had been Jeedin Na- nayakkara, that she had lived in a house larger than the mud hut where her present family was living, that her mother had had a sewing machine, that she had had a yellow bicycle, and that she had worked in a hospital. In the interview with T.J., Thusita had further stated that her husband had thrown himself into the river in an attempt to save her and had almost drowned, that he had been a postman, that they had had a car, that there was a big gate in front of their house, and that she had a brassiere. Her statements are listed in Table 3. Thusita’s mother stated that her daughter had a phobia of bridges and water. She also said that earlier Thusita had mentioned more names, but neither she nor her family remembered them when interviewed by T.J. or214 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research Table 3 ‘SYNOPSIS OF STATEMENTS OF THUSITA SILVA ‘A. Statements made 26/11/90 to E.H. Correct? Tam from Akuressa. My father’s name was Jeedin [Nanayakkara] My father’s name was [Jeedin} Nanayakkara. Thad a bicycle. Bicycle was yellow. T went to work by bicycle. Trode my bicycle alone (by herself). 1 worked in a hospital I wore white uniform in hospital with cap and shoes. 10. Hospital was some distance from house. 11. Mother wore frocks. 12. Mother had a sewing machine. 13. [had two striped frocks. 14. River or stream some distance away 15, Hanging bridge (wel palama) broke down. 16. 1 fell into river. 17. I drowned. 18, Was pregnant when drowned. 19, Thad a husband. 20. House was larger than present house 21, Walls were colored. 22. Had sister's daughter (niece) 23. Former father was called appa (presentidada). B. Items reported to T.J but not to E.H. Pet saMaene wae eRK CCE we eS Se Boe eae 1. Big gate at former home. y Her husband jumped into the river to save her. y Her husband was a postman. a . They had a car. y Thad a brassiere. iu ‘Total Number of Statements 28 Number Correct, 7 Number Incorrect, 7 Number Unascertained 4 E.H. By then Thusita seemed to have forgotten some of her earlier mem- ories. Thusita’s family claimed to have no connections of any kind with Akuressa, and none of them had ever been there when Thusita was talking most about her previous life. Akuressa is some 30 miles (48 km.) from Elpitiya (where Thusita was born) and 78 miles (125 km.) from Panadura. Some considerable time after she started to talk about these things, her brother travelled to Akuressa, but he did not learn of or find anyone Corresponding to her statements. Upon returning home, he scolded Thusita for telling lies. Later he beat her for talking to T.J. In the summer of 1990 T.J. visited Akuressa (population 20,000) and leamed that a young woman with the married family name of Nanayakkara had drowned after falling into a river from a narrow suspension bridge, but T.J. was unable to meetJoint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 215 any members of the family. In November 1990 E.H. and G.S. visited Akuressa and found the relatives of a Chandra Nanayakkara (born Abey- gunasekara) who had drowned by falling off the suspension bridge. They found the house of her in-laws some 100 yards from this bridge. They interviewed two of Chandra’s sisters-in-law, a close friend of the family, her husband (Somasiri Nanayakkara), and her brother. All these persons were cooperative and answered all inquiries. According to these witnesses, Chandra had drowned in 1973, at the age of 27, after falling off the suspension bridge that she and her husband were crossing. A plank that Chandra stepped on apparently gave way, and she fell into the swollen river. Her husband jumped into the river to rescue her but almost drowned himself. Chandra’s body was found three days later some distance down the river. She had been seven months’ pregnant at the time. A document in the coroner's office confirmed that Chandra had died in December 1973 ‘*by choking after swallowing water when the deceased fell into the River Nilwala from the suspension bridge.”” This is the only suspension bridge in the area. After Chandra Nanayakkara’s drowning, the bridge was repaired, but in 1990 it was back in the earlier state of disrepair. Several people have fallen into the river since, but no one has drowned. Briefly stated, the inquiries confirmed that there was a suspension bridge in Akuressa (not common in Sri Lanka), and that a married, pregnant woman had fallen from it and drowned. The name of her father-in-law (not her father) was Edwin Nanayakkara (not Jeedin), In Sri Lanka a married woman commonly refers to her father-in-law as father. She had been accompanied by her husband when the accident happened, and he had jumped into the river to try to save her. Her family (the in-laws) had owned a car (uncommon in Sri Lanka) and a bicycle, and their house was larger than Thusita’s home and had a big gate made of bamboo. Some of Thusita’s statements were found to be incorrect: The bicycle had been black, not yellow; Chandra had never been a nurse (a cousin and close friend of Chandra had been); Chandra’s husband had been a bus driver, not a postman (although his elder brother was a postman); and she had not had a sister who had a daughter but had a sister-in-law who had daughters. The other statements are too general to be of much value. At this stage E.H. planned to bring Thusita to Akuressa for some tests of recognition, but her brother refused any further cooperation, and E.H. had to abandon further investigation of the case. Discussion In all three cases presented, the child and his or her family were unaware of the existence of the deceased person who was later identified. In the case of Thusita, all the statements were recorded before E.H. or T.J. attempted to verify/falsify her statements. In the other two cases presented, incorrect statements may have been eliminated from the account, and/or some state-216 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research ments may include information learned only after contact with the de- ceased person's family. For example, Engin’s parents differed as to wheth- er statements 16 and 17 (of Table 1) were made before or after Engin had gone to Hancagiz. This may account for the absence of incorrect state- ments in these two cases, but incorrect statements also occur among cases solved before they were investigated (Mills, 1989). In the three cases reported above, the subject repeatedly made numerous definite, relatively independent, and substantially verifiable statements that were witnessed by more than one person. In the first two cases, in which the child was able to visit the home of the deceased person identified as corresponding to the child’s statements, the child spontaneously showed appropriate affect to that person’s relatives, who were people the child had not previously encountered. Engin’s concern about the welfare of a par- ticular truck and a particular girl, and Mahavir’s strong attraction to camels are explicable by and consistent with their self-identification as a particular deceased adult who had lived before they were born. In Thusita’s case, the child exhibited another recurrent feature of reported reincarnation cases: a phobia appropriate to the previous personality’s mode of death (Haralds- son, 1991; Stevenson, 1990). Other cases studied, but not here reported, include additional correspondences between the child and a previous per- sonality, such as birthmarks or birth defects related to wounds or marks (Keil, 1991; Mills, 1989, 1990b). In some of the cases studied by the three authors, the correspondence of the child's claimed memories and related behavior to the facts ascertained about the person they apparently claim to be are not readily accounted for by chance. However, the authors noted several problematic areas. One was that in the cases that do not have a written record made before the case is “‘solved,”’ it is difficult to assess how much alteration in the account of the ‘original testimony” has taken place. Factors such as the recency of the statements, the age of the child, and the availability and independence of witnesses have to be considered in evaluating such cases. Another problem is the difficulty of assessing the independence of statements and the rela- tive significance or weight of the bits of information contained therein. The third problem is the assessment of the probability of a match between the statements, behavior, etc. of a child and the characteristics of a deceased person. Any calculation of such a probability estimate has a substantial subjective element. J.K. notes that although the probability that the correct statements were due to normal means of communication may be greater than .05 for each of his cases, the cumulative features of the total sample of new cases investigated indicates that normal explanations are unlikely to account for all the data (Keil, 1991). Another question is whether such children represent any serious psychopathology. E.H. (Haraldsson, 1993) and A.M. have begun administering psycho- logical tests to the children in these cases in order to ascertain if their impression that pathology is not involved could be substantiated and how the psychological profiles of children identified as having previous lifeJoint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 217 memories compare with profiles of a matched sample of children who make no such claim. This continued investigation of cases allows the longitudinal approach advocated by White (1992), and it adds a further dimension by providing psychological profiles of children who are said to remember, or to have remembered, a previous life, and children who make no such claim. In addition, A.M. and E.H. have initiated comparative studies with Western children with imaginary playmates in order to assess whether the two phenomena are culturally divergent treatment of childhood experience and emerging concepts. The investigations of three independent researchers into reported cases of reincarnation in five cultures in which such cases are reported suggests that some children identify themselves with a person about whom they have no normal way of knowing. In these cases, the children apparently exhibit knowledge and behavior appropriate to that person. Although cul- tural belief in the possibility of reincarnation fosters such cases, and more research needs to be done on the social construction of cases, belief itself does not appear to account for the totality of the child’s statements and behavior. The investigators found that some families actively discouraged such children from speaking about a ‘‘previous life.’’ On the basis of longitudinal studies, Keil is assessing what proportion of children ident fied at birth as a particular person do and do not make statements indicating recognition or acceptance of this equation. Further studies of such cases, particularly as they unfold and before a previous personality is identified, may allow us to better assess the probability that a match exists between the statements and behavior of a child and the characteristics of a deceased person. Further studies of these rare cases may lead to a better understand- ing of whether memories from a previous life should be considered as part of the dynamics of child development REFERENCES Cook, E. W., PasricHa, S., SAMARARATNE, G., U WIN Mauna, & STEVENSON, I. (1983a). Review and analysis of ‘“‘unsolved”’ cases of the reincarnation type: II. Comparison of features of solved and un- solved cases. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 77, \NS-135. HarALosson, E. (1991). Children claiming past-life memories: Four cases in Sri Lanka. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 233-261. HaraLpsson, E. (1993). Children claiming previous-life memories: Their personality and abilities. Manuscript submitted for publication. Ket, H. H. J. (1991). New cases in Burma, Thailand, and Turkey: A limited field study replication of some aspects of Ian Stevenson's re- search. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5, 27-59. Mitts, A. (1989). Three cases suggestive of reincamation in northern : A replication study. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 133—218 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research MILLs, A. (1990a). Moslem cases of the reincarnation type in northern India: A test of the hypothesis of imposed identification. Part I: Analysis of 26 cases. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 171-188. MILLS, A. (1990b). Moslem cases of the reincarnation type in northern India: A test of the hypothesis of imposed identification. Part I: Reports of three cases. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 189-202. Pasricua, S., & STEVENSON, I. (1979). A partly independent replication of investigations of cases suggestive of reincarnation. European Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 51-65 Pasricua, S., & STEVENSON, I. (1987). Indian cases of the reincarnation type two generations apart. Journal for the Society for Psychical Re- search, 54, 239-246. STEVENSON, I. (1960). The evidence for survival from claimed memories of former incarnations, Parts I and II. Journal of the American Society ‘for Psychical Research, 54, 51-71, 95-117 STEVENSON, I. (1966). Cultural patterns in cases suggestive of reincarna- tion among the Tlingit Indians of southeastern Alaska. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 60, 229-243. STEVENSON, I. (1974). Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd, rev. ed.). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. (Original work published 1966) STEVENSON, I, (1975a). The belief and cases related to reincarnation among the Haida. Journal of Anthropological Research 31, 364-375 STEVENSON, I. (1975b). Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Vol. 1. Ten Cases in India. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. STEVENSON, I. (1977a). Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Vol. Hl. Ten Cases in Sri Lanka. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. STEVENSON, I. (1977b). The explanatory value of the idea of reincarna- tion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 164, 305-326. STEVENSON, I. (1980). Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Vol. III. Twelve Cases in Lebanon and Turkey. Charlottesville: University Press of Vir- ginia. STEVENSON, I. (1983a). Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Vol. IV. Twelve Cases in Thailand and Burma. Charlottesville: University Press of Vir- ginia. STEVENSON, I. (1983b). American children who claim to remember pre- vious lives. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 742-748. STEVENSON, I. (1985). The belief in reincarnation among the Igbo of Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 20, 13-30. STEVENSON, I. (1986). Characteristics of cases of the reincarnation type among Igbo of Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 21, 204— 216. STEVENSON, I. (1987). Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Ques- tion of Reincarnation. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. STEVENSON, I. (1990). Phobias in children who claim to remember pre- vious lives. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 243-254.Joint Replication of Reincarnation Type Cases 219 STEVENSON, I., & SAMARARATNE, G. (1988). Three new cases of the reincarnation type in Sri Lanka with written records made before veri- fications. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2, 217-238. STEVENSON, I., PASRICHA, S., & SAMARARATHE, G. (1988). Deception and self-deception in cases of the reincarnation type: Seven illustrative cases in Asia. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 82, 1-31. Wu, R. A. (1992). Review of approaches to the study of spontaneous psi experiences. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 6, 93-126. Division of Personality Studies/Anthropology Department (Mills)! University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22908 Institut fiir Grenzgebiete der Psychologie (Haraldsson) Eichhaide 12 D-79140 Freiburg Germany Department of Psychology (Keil) University of Tasmania Hobart Tasmania All correspondence should be directed to Dr. Antonia Mills.