About 5 years ago I submitted a formal report to the SPR. I included a drawing of what I saw. They emailed me saying that they had not in all their research encountered what I saw. Then they asked me if I was happy for other SPR committee members to reply to me. I said yes. I got an email from their "psychologist guy" who was a total materialist reductionist. He said that because I was an adolescent at the time [early 90's] what I saw was just an example of "brain development". That is pathetic and so flawed that I don't know where to start. Where does that leave adults who see things? That is contrived.
It seems to me that he was going to retro fit anything into his materialist reductionism; the brain is just a lump of glorified jelly and if we just explain everything it sees by chemical equations then we are done and can all head off to the pub. No retro fitting was too ludicrous or ad hoc for him. He also did not read my report properly and cherry picked it. If that is the standard that is set by the SPR then they are seriously a joke. I stress that I was not even asking them to agree with what I saw. I wrote that I was open to intelligent skeptical questions! Yet they did not ask me a single question! Is this a new style of research? Don't ask someone who saw something a question?? Imagine if you did a thesis like that. I would not as a supervisor pass it.
This whole experience has been an eye opener to me. That a supposedly respected society for investigating psychic experiences can act like this. In the end I wrote my experience as a faction - fiction that is based on a real experience. But that is a whole other topic.