I think it IS axiomatic that humanity is rising in consciousness. But probably not in the way that support planetary takeover by a monopoly of industries that use politics for power at any cost and have a psyche of extreme abuse in childhood who are now megalomaniacs who have never healed it.
GCP 2.0 is endorsed and advanced primarily by researchers in consciousness studies, parapsychology, and related fields (HeartMath Institute, Institute of Noetic Sciences/IONS, and collaborators), who have published papers describing its design, methods, and early results. It lacks broad mainstream scientific consensus or endorsements from independent bodies outside this community.**
Key researchers and institutional involvement
– Roger Nelson, Ph.D. (founder of the original Global Consciousness Project / GCP 1.0, formerly at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research): He invited HeartMath to continue the work as GCP 2.0 around 2020–2021. He remains involved as founder/director and continues publishing on the broader GCP findings (e.g., a 2024 paper in the *Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition* on structure in random data, with Z ≈ 7.3 across ~500 formal events in the original project).
– Rollin McCraty, Ph.D. (Executive VP and Director of Research, HeartMath Institute): Leads GCP 2.0 under the Global Coherence Initiative. Co-author on key descriptive papers.
– Dean Radin, Ph.D. (Chief Scientist, IONS): Listed as chief scientist on the GCP 2.0 team; long-time collaborator on related RNG/consciousness research.
– Nachum Plonka, Ph.D.(principal data scientist, HeartMath): Lead author on foundational GCP 2.0 papers.
– Other team members include Ulf Holmberg, Ph.D. (senior analyst), Claudia Welss (IONS), Alex Gomez-Marin, Ph.D., and additional scientists/engineers from the original GCP, HeartMath, and independents.
HeartMath Institute hosts and funds the project (donor-supported). The original GCP was affiliated with Princeton and later IONS.
Published papers and scientific framing
Recent papers by the team present GCP 2.0 as a rigorous extension of the original project:
– “The Path to Global Coherence: The Role of the Global Consciousness Project 2.0” (Plonka, McCraty, Welss; *Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion*, 2024/2025). Describes it as part of the Global Coherence Initiative, using a planned network of ~4,000 next-generation RNGs (vs. ~60–70 at peak in GCP 1.0) to measure “Network Coherence” correlated with collective attention/emotion.
– “Global Consciousness Project 2.0: A First Look” (Plonka, McCraty, et al.; *DIALOGO*, 2023). Outlines the updated hardware, larger scale, and citizen-science approach.
– Exploratory analyses, e.g., correlations between local and global RNG networks during group healing meditations (reported in *Explore*, with mean correlation ~0.27, p < 0.01 during specific events).
These frame the work as empirical, data-driven science building on the original GCP’s cumulative ~7-sigma departure from chance across hundreds of pre-registered events (odds against chance on the order of 1 in a trillion, per project summaries). The team emphasizes improved technology (quantum-noise sources, cryptographic standards, multi-RNG devices), continuous data collection, and public access.
Context and limitations on “scientific endorsements”
The original GCP (1998–~2015 formal phase) produced statistically significant results in its own analyses and some peer-reviewed outlets (e.g., *Explore*, *Journal of Scientific Exploration*), but it remains highly controversial. GOOD!
Independent analysts (including some former collaborators like Peter Bancel) have argued the effects are better explained as goal-oriented experimenter effects or selection issues rather than evidence of a global consciousness field. Skeptics (e.g., critiques of 9/11 analyses by May & Spottiswoode, Scargle, and others) have highlighted methodology concerns such as event selection, multiple testing, and lack of predictive power. Wikipedia and skeptical sources summarize these as pattern-matching or bias issues; the project maintains the data are open and the design excludes many mundane artifacts.
No evidence appears of endorsements from major mainstream scientific organizations (e.g., National Academies, APS, or equivalent), large independent replications outside the consciousness/parapsychology community, or broad acceptance in physics/psychology. GCP 2.0 is newer (active network expansion ongoing), so independent external validation is limited. Support is concentrated among researchers already working on mind-matter interactions, coherence, and related topics.
For primary sources, see the project site (gcp2.net), HeartMath research library, IONS pages, and the cited papers. The original GCP data and methods remain publicly available for scrutiny.
We shall see.
