Joseph Sinel and the Pineal Gland

Hypnosis and Clairvoyance experiments in Jersey

Where is the soul believed to reside? How is its location understood? Through what processes does the soul interact with the physical body? For centuries, these questions have haunted the margins of philosophy and medicine, drawing persistent attention to the pineal gland—a small endocrine organ nestled near the centre of the brain. Though contemporary science defines its function primarily in terms of melatonin secretion and circadian regulation, the gland has long borne a symbolic excess, imagined as a threshold between body and spirit. Herophilus of Alexandria, among the first to anatomise the human brain, conceived of the pineal gland as a valve through which “psychic pneuma” flowed—the vital spirit that animated the flesh and served as the first instrument of the soul.

The earliest extant anatomical account of the pineal gland appears in the writings of Galen, the Greek physician, who named the organ for its resemblance to a pinecone. Galen dismissed Herophilus’s pneumatic hypothesis, arguing that the gland’s fixed position and lack of motility rendered it unfit to regulate the flow of spirits. He instead assigned that function to the vermis of the cerebellum. Such was Galen’s intellectual authority that his interpretation dominated for centuries, relegating the pineal gland to anatomical obscurity—an inert structure, stripped of cognitive or spiritual import.

During the Middle Ages, however, the gland’s perceived importance grew as philosophical speculation merged with anatomical misidentification. The Arab Christian physician Qusta ibn Luqa adapted Galenic ideas by proposing that a worm-like structure—incorrectly identified in later medieval texts as the pineal gland—acted as a gate between the brain’s ventricles, controlling the movement of animal spirits. According to this view, in On the Difference between Spirit and Soul, raising or lowering the eyes could manipulate this structure to access memory or isolate reason. This theory gained influence in scholastic Europe, reinforcing the association between the gland and cognitive faculties. Yet terminological confusion persisted, with terms like pinea applied indiscriminately to the vermis, the choroid plexus, and the pineal gland itself, effectively reviving a theory Galen had sought to dismiss.

Additionally, as explained by Lokhorst, G.-J. in Descartes and the pineal gland, some theologians proposed their own theories during that period. St Augustine, for instance, conceived the soul as wholly present in the entire body and in each of its parts, emphasising in On the Trinity the soul as the principle of life that animates the whole organism. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, adopted this view, explaining the soul’s presence in each part of the body by analogy with how whiteness pervades a white surface, while recognising that certain organs play a more important role in specific soul faculties, in line with Aristotelian thought. Both regarded the soul as the vital principle pervading the body, in contrast to later thinkers like Descartes, who identified the soul primarily with thought rather than life.

Anatomical advancements during the Renaissance began to challenge medieval conceptions. Niccolò Massa demonstrated that the brain’s ventricles contained fluid rather than spirits, undermining longstanding pneumatic models. Yet it was René Descartes, writing in the context of the Scientific Revolution and emerging rationalist philosophy, who would reassert the pineal gland’s centrality by integrating earlier metaphysical notions into his dualistic framework. In Treatise of Man and The Passions of the Soul, Descartes identified the pineal gland as the principal seat of the soul—the site where all sensory input converged and where the immaterial soul interacted with the mechanical body. He believed the gland was uniquely singular in the brain and centrally located, allowing it to unify dual sensory impressions into coherent thought. Descartes postulated that it directed the flow of animal spirits—a subtle, flame-like substance—through the nerves to produce movement and perception. Aware that animals also possessed pineal glands, he nevertheless argued that only in humans did it mediate rational thought. Although anatomically flawed (e.g., his belief that the gland was suspended in the ventricles and encased by arteries), Descartes’s theory marked a new paradigm.

Despite the decline of pneumatic and metaphysical models during the scientific revolution, the pineal gland continued to exert a distinctive conceptual appeal. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, even as medicine and physiology increasingly adhered to empirical standards, the gland persisted within speculative discourses that blurred the boundaries between science and metaphysics. Some thinkers, drawing on the legacy of Cartesian dualism, attempted to integrate empirical inquiry with frameworks already discredited as pseudoscientific. One of them was Joseph Sinel, a naturalist and curator at the Société Jersiaise Museum, who contributed to debates on anomalous cognition by treating occult phenomena as evolutionary residues of lost sensory functions. He developed these arguments in The Sixth Sense (1927), published by T. Werner Laurie, a London house known for unconventional titles.

In The Sixth Sense, Joseph Sinel identifies the pineal gland as the biological basis for clairvoyance and telepathy, suggesting it detects etheric waves capable of traversing matter, analogous to wireless signals. While he invokes Descartes’ notion of the pineal as the “seat of the soul”, Sinel reinterprets it through a materialist framework, proposing that extrasensory phenomena are physiological rather than metaphysical. He advanced a mechanistic account of clairvoyance, telepathy, hypnotism, and related capacities, drawing on neurophysiology, comparative zoology, and analogies to contemporary technologies such as wireless telegraphy and X-rays. Rejecting both supernatural explanations and reductive scepticism, Sinel posited a “sixth sense” governed by physical laws and centred anatomically on the pineal gland. This organ, he argued, receives etheric vibrations emitted by all matter, enabling perception independent of the conventional senses. In his model, clairvoyance results from direct stimulation of the visual cortex—particularly the optic lobes—without involvement of the retina or optic nerves, yielding perceptual experiences often indistinguishable from ordinary vision.

Sinel supported his evolutionary hypothesis by noting that the pineal gland, while vestigial in adult humans, remains relatively developed in children and lower animals. He argued that extrasensory faculties were once operative senses in early humans and other species but became suppressed by the dominance of the five conventional senses and cerebral developments linked to language, abstraction, and volition. This suppression, however, was incomplete: in certain individuals or altered states—particularly hypnosis or auto-hypnosis—the pineal gland could still mediate access to non-local information. Though his theory relied on now-outdated concepts such as the ether, Sinel framed his position as grounded in empirical observation and physical principles.

Between 1908 and 1917, Sinel reported experiments with a young girl capable of perceiving concealed objects under controlled conditions, where neither subject nor experimenter knew the hidden object’s identity. The child’s accurate descriptions of shape, texture, colour, and associated meanings led Sinel to interpret the results as evidence that the brain can decode etheric vibrations independently of the eyes or optic pathways. He likened the pineal gland’s role to that of a wireless receiver tuning into appropriate frequencies, with ether conceived literally as a pervasive physical field emitting radiations from all matter.

Telepathy, distinct yet related to clairvoyance, was also understood as a physical process. Sinel described thought as molecular brain movement radiating subtle emissions, which, under suitable neurological conditions, could be received by another brain via the pineal gland. This transmission, he argued, induces congruent brain states through vibrational resonance. He further explained hypnotism as a biological state that suppresses ordinary mental activity and reduces internal interference, enhancing receptivity to subtle signals and thus facilitating both clairvoyance and telepathy.

Supporting his claims with comparative and evolutionary evidence, Sinel challenged Descartes’s mechanistic view of animals by citing complex navigational behaviours in insects, bees, birds, and molluscs accomplished without identifiable sensory mechanisms. He interpreted these as manifestations of the same latent sixth sense in humans. Drawing on anecdotal records, field observations, and informal experiments, he argued that intuitive cognition, remote perception, and nonverbal communication stem from this hidden faculty. Throughout, he insisted on reproducibility, falsifiability, and physiological grounding, criticising both uncritical spiritualism and dismissive scepticism. For Sinel, denying recurring phenomena simply because they challenge current paradigms was as unscientific as blind belief.

The book received a critical yet respectful review in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (November 1927), where philosopher F. C. S. Schiller praised Sinel’s attempt to revive interest in the pineal gland as a sensory organ but questioned the rigour of experiments involving the child medium, attributing reported effects to methodological flaws rather than genuine extrasensory perception. This response exemplified the period’s cautious openness balanced by demands for stricter evidence standards.

Ultimately, Sinel argued that anomalous perception—including clairvoyance and telepathy—should not threaten science but rather broaden its scope. He maintained that science must address all recurrent phenomena, even those unexplained by existing models. Rejecting such data outright, he warned, reflected conceptual inertia rather than empirical integrity. He called for methodological revisions capable of incorporating subjectivity, latent faculties, and altered states without abandoning physical causation. Though distancing his work from occultism, his framework retained speculative and metaphysical elements, revealing a paradox at the heart of his project: advocating scientific openness based on theories at odds with prevailing empirical standards.

Sinel was not alone in exploring such ideas. Around his time, several scientists and intellectuals entertained similar theories: Freud endorsed Fliess’s nasogenital reflex despite lack of evidence; F. W. H. Myers coined “telepathy” and studied posthumous communication; philosophers Henri Bergson, William James, and F. C. S. Schiller led the Society for Psychical Research; C. D. Broad analysed paranormal phenomena within his metaphysics of time; Casimir Lewy examined ghost theories linguistically; and even Arthur Conan Doyle engaged with spiritualism despite mainstream scepticism.

After the publication of Sinel’s book, the pineal gland continued to feature in philosophical thought. Georges Bataille, for example, employed the concept of the “pineal eye” as a metaphor for a blind spot in Western rationality and as a symbolic organ linked to excess and delirium. In his visceral and provocative text The Pineal Eye, Bataille envisions this organ as a surreal, almost mythic entity, transcending its anatomical reality to embody a rupture in human consciousness. He portrays it as an eye at the summit of the skull, gazing directly at the sun, burning with an ecstatic, destructive energy that defies the orderly constraints of reason and science. For Bataille, the pineal eye becomes a site of primal expenditure, where human existence confronts its own obscenity and mortality, erupting in a delirious rejection of utilitarian logic. This concept aligns with his broader philosophy of excess, in which the human condition is not a tidy progression toward order but a chaotic, erotic, and sacrificial plunge into the void of celestial space, marked by a vertiginous interplay of life, death, and forbidden desire.

This enduring fascination with the pineal gland and related anomalous phenomena reflects a broader intellectual effort to probe the limits of human cognition. Contemporary fields such as neurophenomenology and parapsychology continue to grapple with questions that resist easy assimilation into empirical science, including altered states of consciousness, extrasensory perception, and the neural correlates of spiritual experience. While modern neuroscience and physics have expanded the scope for inquiry, the boundary between rigorous investigation and speculative thought remains porous. The legacy of figures like Sinel, Myers, and even Bataille highlights the persistent tension between rational explanation and the human impulse to locate meaning in the obscure, the extraordinary, and the unexplained.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Boudry, M. (2013). The hypothesis that saves the day: Ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience. Logique et Analyse, Nouvelle Série, Vol. 56, No. 223 (juillet–septembre), pp. 245–258.
• Laukaityte, U. (2025). A nasogenital tale. Aeon, 5 June. https://aeon.co/essays/one-womans-nose-and-two-mens-hubris-a-nasogenital-tale
• Lokhorst, G.-J. (2021). Descartes and the pineal gland. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/pineal-gland/
• McCuskey, B. (2012). Sherlock Holmes and Intelligent Design. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 87, No. 3 (September), pp. 225–235. Published by: The University of Chicago Press.
• Moravec, M. (2025). Ghosts among the philosophers. Aeon, 14 March. https://aeon.co/essays/when-psychical-research-and-analytic-philosophy-shared-cambridge
• Popper, K. R. (2017). Science and Enlightenment, pp. 8–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vxm8p6.6
• Sinel, J. (1927). The Sixth Sense. Thomas Werner Laurie. The Lord Coutanche Library.
• Tymn, M. B. (1985). Science Fiction: A brief history and review of criticism. American Studies International, Vol. 23, No. 1 (April), pp. 41–66. Published by: Mid-America American Studies Association.

Supported by The Jersey Community Foundation with funds from the Channel Islands Lottery