The Two Approaches in Platform Mediumship: Direct and Indirect Methods
Platform mediumship allows mediums to connect the Spirit world with people seeking messages. Mediums use two main approaches to deliver these messages: the direct and indirect methods. Both methods work, but many mediums prefer one based on their style or background. In the US, mediums often prefer the direct method, while European mediums tend to favor the indirect method. Neither approach is better than the other—they are simply different.
The Direct Method: Personal and Focused
The direct method involves the medium addressing a specific individual in the audience. Typically, this starts with the medium asking for permission: “May I come to you with a message?” Once permission is granted, the medium describes the Spirit and delivers the message to that individual. This creates a personal, direct connection between the medium, the Spirit, and the recipient, making the exchange highly focused and specific.
Andy Byng, a well-regarded medium, explains that “the direct style involves the medium allowing the power of the communicator to move their awareness to an individual in the audience.” This process effectively narrows the medium’s focus to a smaller portion of the audience, ensuring the message is directed to the correct person, even when the evidence is general or common. By letting Spirit guide the medium’s awareness, this method helps prevent confusion, and the recipient is more likely to identify with the message.
Why Many Mediums Prefer the Direct Method
The direct method has become popular, particularly among US mediums, for several reasons:
-
- Personal Connection: Direct communication builds an immediate and intimate link with the recipient.
- Clear Evidence: The medium can provide specific information—like names, dates, or memories—that quickly validates the message.
- Respectful: The medium asks for consent before sharing, which helps recipients feel safe and supported.
- Efficient: By focusing on one person or a small group, the medium ensures the message reaches the right person.
Some mediums and audiences feel that the direct method offers a smoother and more personal experience. However, some believe that this method might involve tapping into the medium’s psychic abilities rather than relying solely on Spirit communication. This is where the line between psychic and mediumistic work can become blurred, as the medium might inadvertently read the recipient’s energy.
The Indirect Method: Spirit-Led and Inclusive
In contrast, the indirect method allows the medium to describe the Spirit communicator and let the audience claim the connection. The medium presents evidence—such as a description of the Spirit’s appearance, personality, or shared memories—without first identifying the specific person in the audience. Audience members then have the opportunity to identify with the information and claim the connection.
This approach is commonly used by European mediums, and it offers a broader, more inclusive experience. Andy Byng explains that in the indirect method, “the evidence must be strong enough that only one or two people in the whole audience can understand it.” This method relies heavily on the strength of the evidence provided, as it requires the audience to connect with the information rather than the medium addressing a specific person right away.
Why Some Mediums Favor the Indirect Method
The indirect method appeals to many mediums, particularly in European traditions, for several reasons:
-
- Spirit-Led: Spirit guides the medium to deliver the message.
- Inclusive: Several people may resonate with the Spirit before one claims the connection, making the audience feel more involved.
- Validation: The strong evidence ensures the message resonates with the recipient.
- Pure Spirit Connection: Some believe the indirect method focuses solely on Spirit, rather than tapping into audience energy.
Indirect communication is sometimes considered a more ‘pure’ form of mediumship. It emphasizes the medium’s connection to Spirit rather than the energy of the recipient. However, it can be more challenging, as the medium must present strong evidence quickly to avoid confusion and keep the flow of the demonstration.
The Need for Both Approaches in Mediumship
While mediums often develop a preference for one approach, it’s important to be adept at both the direct and indirect methods. As Byng emphasizes, “the medium cannot demand that the spirit person tailors their need to suit the style that they prefer to adopt.” This means that mediums should remain flexible and responsive to the needs of the Spirit communicator, adapting their approach based on the type of information they receive at the beginning of the communication.
For example, if a Spirit communicator provides more general information, such as a common cause of death, the medium may need to use the direct method to avoid confusion within the audience. On the other hand, if the evidence is strong and specific, the indirect method may work just as effectively.
The Importance of Flexibility and Practice
Both methods require skill and practice to master, and mediums should spend time developing their abilities in both areas. According to Byng, mediums need to “engage in exercises that allow them to understand the practical evidence being conveyed,” whether working directly or indirectly. Practicing both methods ensures that mediums can adjust to the needs of the Spirit and the audience in real-time, creating a more fluid and successful demonstration.
Many mediums blend the two methods. They may begin by describing a Spirit (indirect) and allow the audience to claim the connection. Once someone claims it, they might switch to the direct method for a personal message. This flexibility creates a more engaging experience for the audience.
Embracing Both Direct and Indirect Methods
In platform mediumship, both the direct and indirect methods play valuable roles in delivering messages from Spirit. US mediums often lean towards the direct method, appreciating its personal connection and clear messaging. Meanwhile, European mediums frequently use the indirect method, allowing Spirit to guide the process and focusing on evidential communication.
Ultimately, neither method is better than the other—they simply offer different pathways for Spirit to connect with loved ones. As Byng reminds us, “the medium must adapt their approach at the beginning of the communication to meet the need of the spirit person.” Thus ensuring that each message is delivered in the most meaningful way.
By becoming skilled in both approaches, mediums can ensure that they serve both Spirit and their audience. As a result, providing healing, validation, and a deeper sense of connection.
