The experimental procedure that evokes experiences most similar to the more extreme UFO encounters is the electrical stimulation associated with neurosurgery. It involves very focal current induction (about 1 cc) within the brain. These similarities suggest that the magnetic fields associated with ALP involve highly localized, fluxline-like distributions of energy. [Persinger, 1990, p. 131]
Persinger’s guess about ALP notwithstanding, until the energy characteristics of ALP have actually been determined, their potential for inducing abduction experiences cannot be ascertained.
Finally, the hypothesized correlation between abduction experiencers and temporal-lobe lability has not been confirmed. Spanos et al. (1993) assessed temporal lobe lability with the 52-item temporal-lobe subscale of the Personal Philosophy Inventory, an assessment instrument designed by Persinger and Makarec (1987) specifically to measure traits associated with temporal-lobe lability. Using Persinger and Makerec’s own measure of this variable, Spanos et al. found no differences between control subjects and experiencers. This finding bears not only on the ALP hypothesis. It is also contrary to any suggestion that temporal-lobe lability, by virtue of its own spontaneous activity, may be a significant cause of abduction experiences.
(b) Allergic Reactions
Budden (1994) argues for a much wider contribution of electromagnetic events than that hypothesized by Devereux and Persinger:
The experiences of visitation by a variety of other worldly beings … are the mental and physiological products of a range of environmental illnesses…. Individuals whose bodily systems are severely affected are given spontaneous warnings that their health is at risk, or even better, are cured at a stroke and transformed by events which overtake them. These are called close encounter experiences. [Budden, 1994, p. 1]
Budden’s hypothesis is based on several premises:
(a) The environment (or more specifically, “electronic and electrical pollution”) is a significant health hazard;
(b) This health hazard creates allergic sensitivities to nutritional and biochemical substances;
(c) Electronic pollution causes widespread hallucinatory experience (Budden estimates 20% of the population may be susceptible); and
(d) These hallucinations manifest in consciousness as symbolic representations of the health hazards being encountered.
However, Budden fails to provide a body of evidence in support of these basic premises. Instead, he presents a series of case studies in which individuals who live near apparent EM sources have had apparently hallucinatory experiences. Otherwise, he takes declarative positions without documentation. Consider the following:
[A] commonplace way [for an individual] to acquire allergies is to be in an electrical or electromagnetic field … and during this time eat or drink something or be exposed to a common substance that they are already allergic to…. The body then ‘remembers’ the frequency of the field … and when they are exposed to the same frequency again … they react allergically …. We have therefore, a peculiar situation where there is an interchangability between food, chemical substance and electronic signal. [Budden, 1994, pp. 5-6]
For an individual whose body has had to cope with a number of nutritional, chemical, and electromagnetical assaults upon it there comes a point … where their body will begin to give them messages …. These may begin as weird dreams that have a super-real quality to them, and develop into fully formed figures seen when the person is awake. These commonly appear beside the bed at night…. This is in fact a method by which the mind is trying to calm the allergic individual’s system in a very fundamental way, thereby reducing the stress upon their body.” [Budden, 1994, p. 7]
These and other assertions are presented as fact. Of course, none actually enjoys widespread acceptance or empirical support, and Budden does not help the situation by failing to provide citations for his claims. (He does provide a reference list but the specific relation between reference and claim is unclear.)