Dark psychic research hero image showing the words “HOW TO DEVELOP CLAIRVOYANCE THE GUIDE TO REMOTE VIEWING” beside a man practicing remote viewing in a moody study filled with occult research tools.

How to Develop Clairvoyance: The Method the CIA Actually Used

How to Develop Clairvoyance: The Progressive Training Method That Serious Psychic Researchers Actually Use

Most guides to developing clairvoyance begin with candles, crystals, and a suggestion to open your third eye. This one begins with the United States government, twenty-three years of classified intelligence operations, and a question that federal agencies paid tens of millions of dollars to answer.

Can human perception extend beyond the known limits of the senses?

The answer they arrived at, buried in declassified documents now publicly available in the CIA reading room, is more interesting than either believers or sceptics tend to admit. The effect is real, the research suggests. It is small, inconsistent, and not fully understood. But it is there. And there is a structured method for developing it, built not in a spiritual retreat but inside a government laboratory.

If you want to learn how to develop clairvoyance using the methodology that trained military remote viewers, this is where you start.

The Research Foundation: What the Science Actually Showed

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory

From 1979 to 2007, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory operated within Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science. The programme was founded by Robert Jahn, a professor of aerospace engineering, and its remit was specific: apply rigorous experimental methodology to the study of anomalous cognition and measure whether statistically significant effects could be documented.

Over twenty-six years, PEAR published a substantial body of peer-reviewed data. Their remote perception experiments asked participants to describe target locations visited by a sender at a randomly selected time. Participants had no prior knowledge of the location and produced written or drawn impressions before receiving any feedback.

Across more than 650 formal trials, PEAR documented a hit rate that deviated from chance with odds against coincidence exceeding one billion to one. The effect size was modest, around 33% above mean chance expectation in their most reliable protocols. But small effect sizes are not the same as no effect. Many well-accepted phenomena in psychology and medicine operate on similar margins.

What made PEAR's work notable was not any single dramatic result. It was the consistency of a modest anomaly across decades of controlled testing, with multiple subjects, and through repeated independent replication attempts.

The CIA Stargate Programme: 1972 to 1995

In 1972, the United States government began funding research into psychic intelligence gathering at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, California. The programme began as SCANATE, evolved through multiple code names including GRILL FLAME and SUN STREAK, and was consolidated under the name STARGATE in 1991.

The core question funding the programme was strategic: the Soviet Union was reportedly investing heavily in psychic research, and American intelligence agencies needed to know whether the phenomenon was exploitable. The programme was funded by the Defence Intelligence Agency and the CIA across two decades.

Declassified documents released through the CIA's Freedom of Information Act reading room describe the structured training methodology, the evaluations of viewer accuracy, and the internal assessments made by programme leadership. These documents are publicly accessible and form the empirical backbone of everything that follows in this guide.

The 1995 final assessment, conducted by the American Institutes for Research, concluded that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated under controlled conditions. The evaluators confirmed that the effect was real but expressed concern about inconsistency and about the difficulty of translating laboratory results into reliable operational intelligence. The programme was subsequently declassified and officially closed, but the training methodology it produced remains available, documented, and teachable.

What Coordinate Remote Viewing Actually Is

The structured technique developed by Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute became known as Coordinate Remote Viewing, or CRV. The structure is not ceremonial. It exists to solve a specific and well-documented problem: the tendency of the mind to produce imaginative confabulation rather than genuine perceptual data.

CRV is a methodology for separating genuine impressions from what Swann and the SRI team called analytical overlay, abbreviated throughout the training documentation as AOL. Analytical overlay is the mind's tendency to interpret vague impressions through familiar patterns. You receive a blurry mental impression of something curved and flowing and your mind immediately constructs a narrative: a river, a coastline, a road. CRV interrupts this process at every stage by forcing you to record raw data before interpretation is allowed to occur.

The six stages of the CRV protocol operate in strict sequence. Each stage accesses a progressively deeper layer of target information. Each stage has specific rules about what you are permitted to record and what constitutes a protocol violation. Understanding why the rules exist is as important as knowing what they are.

Seen A UFO And DOn't Know What To Do Next? Our Strange & Twisted Guide Teaches You How To Document A UFO Sighting And How To Report It.

The Six Stages of CRV: A Full Technical Breakdown

Stage One: Basic Gestalts

A gestalt, in CRV terminology, is the dominant categorical impression of the target before any detail is perceived. The viewer is given only a coordinate, originally a set of geographic coordinates with no other identifying information. Modern practice uses randomly assigned alphanumeric codes.

You write the coordinate at the top of a fresh sheet of paper. You hold a pen in your dominant hand and place it lightly on the paper. You do not think about the target. You do not visualise. You allow your hand to move and you record whatever single word or category arrives first.

The valid Stage One gestalts are broad categorical terms: land, water, structure, life form, space. Nothing more specific than this is permitted at Stage One. If you find yourself writing "mountain range" or "ocean" you have already moved into analytical overlay. Write only the base category.

When you have your single gestalt, you mark it AOL if any narrative interpretation accompanied it, and you continue. The AOL notation does not invalidate the data. It flags that your analytical mind was engaged at that moment, which is information in itself.

The discipline of Stage One is entirely about the discipline of stopping. Most people cannot stop at the gestalt. They immediately want more. The training is learning to sit with the single impression and not embellish it.

Practise Stage One alone for the first full week of your training. Take a coordinate from your target pool, record your Stage One gestalt, then open the target image and evaluate whether your base category matched. You are not trying to be accurate at this stage. You are learning what raw impression feels like compared to constructed impression, and you are training your hand and your attention to respond before your analytical mind takes control.

Stage Two: Sensory Data

Stage Two is where the foundational training becomes most important and where most independent practitioners make their critical mistake.

Stage Two accesses the sensory dimensions of the target: colours, textures, temperatures, smells, tastes, and sounds. These are recorded one at a time as single words or short phrases, not as sentences, not as descriptions, and absolutely not as identifications.

The correct method is to write the coordinate again at the top of a new page, write the letter S2 to designate the stage, and then move through each sensory channel in turn. The conventional order is visual first, then tactile, then temperature, then auditory, then olfactory, then gustatory, though the last two channels produce data less frequently and should not be forced.

For each channel, you close your eyes briefly, hold light attention on the coordinate, and record the first raw sensory word that arrives. Write it. Move on. Do not dwell on any single impression.

The Stage Two session might look like this: rough, grey, cool, hard, open, high, moving, distant sound, mineral. These are all valid Stage Two data points. What is not valid at Stage Two is writing "a stone building" or "a cliff face" or "an old castle." Those are Stage Four and beyond. Writing them at Stage Two is the single most common error in CRV practice and it collapses the entire architecture of the protocol.

When you notice yourself constructing an identification, you write AOL next to the impression, note briefly what the overlay was (example: AOL castle), and continue. The AOL notation is not a failure. It is a structural tool. Naming your overlay externalises it and prevents it from contaminating subsequent impressions. Experienced viewers describe this process as similar to setting down a thought so you can move past it cleanly.

Practice Stage One and Stage Two together daily for the first thirty days. This is not negotiable if you are serious about this methodology. The foundation you build here determines whether your later stage work produces genuine data or sophisticated-sounding imagination.

Stage Three: Spontaneous Sketch

Stage Three is a kinesthetic output rather than a verbal one. After completing your Stage Two sensory data, you set down your written notes and pick up a fresh sheet of paper with a pen.

You place the pen on the page without looking at it. You hold light attention on the coordinate and you allow your hand to move. You do not guide the movement. You do not try to draw anything. You let the motor response happen and you observe what emerges.

The sketch that results from a genuine Stage Three session often looks like nothing to an outside observer: abstract lines, curved shapes, partial geometric forms. This is correct. You are not producing an illustration. You are producing a motor impression of the spatial qualities of the target, and the kinesthetic pathway sometimes accesses data that the verbal pathway misses.

After the sketch is complete, you annotate it lightly with any Stage Two sensory data that feels spatially relevant. Again, you do not name or identify. You note textures, directions, relative heights.

When you evaluate Stage Three against the actual target, you are not looking for a recognisable drawing. You are looking for correspondence between spatial relationships in your sketch and spatial relationships in the target image. A curved line at the top of your sketch corresponding to a curved structure at the top of the target image is a meaningful result even if the sketch looks nothing like the location.

Stage Four: Dimensional and Qualitative Data

Stage Four is the first stage at which you begin to probe the target more actively rather than passively receiving impressions. This is also the stage where the risk of analytical overlay increases significantly, which is why it must not be attempted until Stage One through Three have been practised to the point of becoming habitual.

In Stage Four, you move through a structured set of dimensional probes. You write each probe as a question to yourself and record the immediate response before your analytical mind has time to construct a coherent answer.

The standard Stage Four probes are as follows.

Heights: write "heights" and record the immediate impression. Is there a strong vertical dimension to this target? Is it low and flat or tall and elevated?

Masses: write "masses" and record the impression. Is there substantial solid material present? Multiple masses or a single dominant form?

Spaces: write "spaces" and record whether the impression is of enclosed interior space, open exterior space, or both.

Subjects: write "subjects" and record whether human or animal presence feels part of this target.

Atmospherics: write "atmospherics" and record the emotional or energetic quality of the target. This is not about your emotional response. It is about the emotional quality that seems to belong to the target itself.

Between each probe you pause, briefly clear your attention, and then write the next probe. You are not constructing a description. You are generating a series of discrete data points that will only be assembled into coherent form at the very end of the session.

If an identification arises at Stage Four, which it often does, you write it as AOL, note it, set it down, and continue. The viewer's own suspicion about what the target might be is always recorded but never acted upon within the session.

Stage Five: Tangibles and Intangibles

Stage Five probes two further dimensions of the target: its concrete physical elements and its less tangible qualities including purpose, function, and significance.

For tangibles, you write a list of physical elements that feel present: materials, objects, constructed elements, natural features. You are permitted to be somewhat more specific at Stage Five than in earlier stages, but you continue to work in individual data points rather than constructed narratives.

For intangibles, you probe the target's functional character. Is this place used regularly or abandoned? Is it associated with large numbers of people or isolation? Does it carry significance, either culturally, historically, or emotionally? Is there anything that feels hidden or protected about it?

Stage Five is where experienced viewers often produce their most useful operational data, and also where the untrained viewer produces their most convincing-sounding fiction. The difference is audible if you have done the foundational work. Genuine Stage Five intangible data arrives with a flat, almost boring quality. Imaginative confabulation arrives with narrative momentum. When you notice that your impressions are telling a compelling story, that is the signal to slow down and check whether your analytical overlay has taken over the session.

Stage Six: Three-Dimensional Synthesis

In formal military CRV sessions, Stage Six involved physically constructing a model of the target using available materials, a clay model, a sketch diagram, a spatial map. The kinesthetic act of constructing a physical representation was found to access spatial and relational data that neither verbal nor flat-sketch output captured.

For independent practitioners, Stage Six takes the form of a written synthesis in which you organise all the data from your Stage One through Five notes into a spatial description of the target. You write this as a coherent spatial description, not a narrative story, placing elements in relation to one another: what is at the centre, what is at elevation, what is at the periphery, what is below, what is above, what is to the interior.

The synthesis is written in the present tense, using only data that appeared in your session notes. You do not add impressions at Stage Six. You organise what you already recorded. When you complete the synthesis and compare it to the target image, any correspondence between your organised spatial description and the actual target layout constitutes meaningful session data.

The Double-Blind Target Protocol: How to Set It Up Correctly

The double-blind protocol is not optional if you want to develop genuine skill. This is the element that spiritual traditions most consistently omit, and its absence is why most clairvoyance training produces practitioners who believe they are accurate without any reliable means of knowing whether they are.

The setup is as follows.

You need a facilitator, a second person who will manage your target pool independently of you. Your facilitator collects a minimum of thirty photographs of distinct geographic and architectural locations. These images should be varied in character: coastal landscapes, large structures, dense urban environments, open wilderness, significant landmarks. They should not include close-up images of faces, food, or domestic interiors, as these introduce ambiguity in evaluation.

Your facilitator prints each image or saves each one as a separate numbered file. The numbering system uses randomly assigned alphanumeric codes, not sequential numbers, to eliminate any possibility of pattern recognition. Each image is placed in a sealed opaque envelope labelled only with its code, or stored in a password-protected folder to which you have no access.

Before each session, your facilitator provides you with a code and nothing else. You conduct your session using that code as your only input. You produce your complete session notes, Stage One through whatever stage you are currently working in during your training progression. You pass your notes to your facilitator before any target information is revealed.

Your facilitator then reveals the target image and evaluates your session against it. Evaluation should focus on specific correspondences: did your Stage One gestalt category match the dominant character of the target? Did your Stage Two sensory data include elements that are present in the target image? Did your Stage Three sketch contain spatial relationships that correspond to the actual layout of the location? Did your Stage Four dimensional probes align with the physical characteristics of the target?

You keep a session log recording every session's date, target code, your impressions, and your accuracy rating for each stage. Over thirty to sixty sessions, patterns will emerge. You will begin to identify which sensory channels produce your most reliable data. You will identify the specific character of impressions that tend to be accurate versus the specific character of impressions that tend to be confabulation. This is the actual mechanism of skill development.

Solo Practice: The Independent Target Protocol

If you are working without a facilitator, the following method preserves adequate blind conditions for foundational training.

Ask a friend or family member who is not participating in your training to perform the following task without telling you the results: collect twenty to forty location photographs, assign each a random code using a random number generator, record the key in a private document you cannot access, and store the images in a folder you cannot see. Give you one code per day by text message or written note.

You conduct your session on that code. When you are finished, you send your notes to your contact and ask them to reveal the target and provide an honest evaluation. You record the result in your session log and continue the following day.

This method introduces a small risk that your contact's knowledge of the target could theoretically influence the session through subtle cues if you are in proximity to them, but for foundational practice this risk is minimal and the feedback loop the method provides is far more valuable than the marginal contamination risk.

Associative Remote Viewing for Binary Questions

Associative Remote Viewing, known as ARV, is a specific adaptation of the CRV methodology designed for questions with two possible outcomes, where direct perception of the answer is not possible because the answer does not yet exist as a physical image at the time of the session.

The method works as follows.

You frame a binary question: will outcome A or outcome B occur? You assign a distinct physical image to each outcome. These images should be unrelated to the subject of the question. Image one, assigned to outcome A, might be a photograph of a beach. Image two, assigned to outcome B, might be a photograph of a mountain range. You assign each image a code and give only the codes to your facilitator. You conduct a Stage One and Two session on each code separately, without knowing which image is assigned to which outcome.

After both sessions, you evaluate which target your impressions more closely resembled. The image your session data most closely matches indicates your response to the question.

ARV has been studied formally and has shown above-chance results in controlled research settings, including work conducted through the Institute of Noetic Sciences. It is not a reliable oracle. It is a structured technique with documented modest accuracy that improves with practice and degrades with stress, expectation, and insufficient foundational training.

The Documented Cases That Are Hardest to Dismiss

The Stargate cases that serious researchers return to most consistently are compelling precisely because they are specific, verifiable, and occurred under conditions where conventional explanation is difficult to construct cleanly.

Joseph McMoneagle, documented as Remote Viewer 001 in the programme's records, produced a session describing a large unusual structure under construction at an unspecified Soviet location. His session notes included a detailed sketch and written description of an enormous building containing a large vehicle with unusual horizontal cylindrical structures. Soviet intelligence subsequently confirmed the existence of a submarine construction facility whose dimensions and physical characteristics matched McMoneagle's session output. The session was conducted before any satellite confirmation of the facility existed.

A 1979 operational session conducted to locate a downed Soviet Tu-95 aircraft in Africa produced coordinates and terrain descriptions that assisted recovery teams in locating wreckage that had not been found through conventional search methods. This case is cited in multiple declassified programme assessments as among the most operationally significant results.

These cases are difficult to dismiss not because they are inexplicable in principle, but because the specific technical details produced under genuine blind conditions, followed by physical confirmation of those details, represent a convergence that alternative explanations must work hard to account for. Coincidence becomes statistically implausible at sufficient specificity. This is the argument that kept the programme funded for twenty-three years.

Learn How To Communicate With The Dead The Strange & Twisted Guide.

CRV and Traditional Clairvoyance: Two Frameworks, One Phenomenon

It is worth being honest about where structured remote viewing methodology and traditional clairvoyant practice diverge and where they may ultimately be describing the same underlying capacity through entirely different vocabularies.

Traditional clairvoyance, as practised within spiritual and esoteric traditions across recorded history, frames the ability as a perceptual faculty that can be developed through meditation, symbolic practice, and the cultivation of receptive states of consciousness. The traditions span millennia and appear consistently across cultures that had no contact with one another.

CRV describes a structured methodology for accessing what its developers believed to be a genuine anomalous cognitive function, using double-blind protocols and empirical feedback to filter imagination and overlay from genuine data. The language is scientific and the framework is materialist.

Both traditions acknowledge that the ability is not reliably accessed through conscious effort or direct intention. Both describe a quality of received impression that feels qualitatively different from ordinary thought. Both emphasise repetition, feedback, and the gradual development of a personal felt sense of accurate data versus constructed data.

Whether what Ingo Swann experienced in the SRI laboratories represents the same fundamental phenomenon as what a medieval mystic described in their private journal is a question that remains genuinely open. What the structured research tradition offers that the spiritual tradition historically has not is the one element without which no genuine skill development is possible: honest, systematic feedback.

You cannot improve at something you never test. The double-blind protocol is not merely a scientific formality. It is the mechanism through which real development actually occurs, because it is the only method that shows you the truth about where you are rather than where you hope you might be.

For deeper exploration of psychic phenomena, remote viewing research, and the territories between documented science and genuine mystery, the Strange and Twisted paranormal archive covers everything from ESP research to the most compelling unexplained cases in recorded history. You can explore the full collection at strangeandtwisted.com.

 

If the science of the unexplained pulls at you the way it pulls at us, you're in the right place. Strange & Twisted is a home for people who take the strange seriously - paranormal research, cryptids, folklore, dark history, and the territories where the known world runs out of answers.

Explore the full archive and find something that unsettles you in the best possible way:

 

Back to blog

Leave a comment

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.