Published by Blavatsky Study Center. Online Edition copyright 2004.

Statement of Franz Hartmann
to the S.P.R. Committee

[Reprinted from the First Report of the Committee of the Society for
Psychical Research, Appointed to Investigate the Evidence for
Marvellous Phenomena offered by Certain Members of the
Theosophical Society
, Appendix XXXVII, pp. 122-123, London, 1884. 
This online edition is reprinted by permission of the
Society for Psychical Research, London.]


This letter from Dr. Hartmann to ourselves hardly gives enough details to establish anything beyond the receipt at Adyar, after Madame Blavatsky’s departure, of letters apparently in the handwriting of Mahatma M. and Mahatma K. H.


Statement of F. HARTMANN, F.T.S.

“Some of my experience in regard to occult phenomena has been told in the ‘Journal of the Theosophical Society’ and in my pamphlet entitled: ‘A Report of Observations made during a nine months’ stay at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society at Adyar.’  Besides the letters mentioned in these publications I have received several others from Mahatma K. H. and other Mahatmas and their Chelas; but as the contents of most of those letters were of a confidential character, and as no one likes to submit his private correspondence to the gaze of the public, I can only refer to the receipt of such additional evidence, without giving the contents of the letters received.  Moreover, the majority of those letters bear no date, and as their appearance was such a frequent occurrence as to form almost one of the habitual incidents of our daily life, no particular notice was taken as to the date of arrival.  Anything that happens only once in a lifetime may be looked upon as wonderful; but if the most wonderful things happen every day, the wonder and astonishment ceases.  What interested us was not so much the fact that such letters can be sent as the intelligence they contained.

“Madame Blavatsky left Bombay on the 20th of February.  I accompanied her on board of the steamer, and after my return to the shore an incident happened, which is described on p. 65 of the ‘Supplement to the Theosophist.’  From Bombay I went to Poona, and remained two days with Mr. A. D. Ezekiel.  Mr. Ezekiel is a great sceptic, and he made me promise that if any occult phenomena should happen after my return to headquarters, I would let him know it.  Therefore, when soon after my return a letter from the Mahatma K. H. was received, I wrote to Mr. Ezekiel about it.  After sealing my letter another phenomenon happened.  I therefore opened my letter again and added the new occurrence.  I then put my letter in the mail bag, after which again an occult incident took place, in consequence of which I had to re-open my letter a second time.  Ever since then, during the last seven months and during Madame Blavatsky’s absence, I have on many occasions received occult letters, and they arrived in various ways.  One was from Mahatma K. H., handed to me by Damodar, who received it in my presence from the hands of the Astral form of a Chela; one letter, enclosed in a Tibetan envelope and written by another Mahatma, I found lying on my writing desk, when after a moment’s absence I returned to my room; one letter written by a Chela, and approved by Mahatma K. H., I found in my tobacco box, which a moment before contained nothing but tobacco, and there was nobody visible in the room except Damodar and myself; one letter I found in a drawer, which contained no papers whatever when I opened it, but when I was about to close it, there lay the letter, and there was nobody in the room but myself.  I received letters from Damodar K. Mavalankar, while he was in Ootacamund, to which were added annotations and remarks by K. H., to say nothing of letters received from Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, in which another Mahatma had made annotations.  An attempt to go into all the details would be useless, because these letters did not come for the purpose of giving ‘test phenomena’ under ‘scientifically prepared conditions.’  Their genuineness rests upon the perception by the senses of him who witnesses them, and upon his own common sense, experience, and discrimination, but their recital cannot carry conviction to the quarrelsome sceptic.  Far from being desirous to convince such sceptics, I do not even consider it desirable that they should be convinced; I therefore only state the facts, having been requested to do so, and whether the public will believe them or not is entirely immaterial to me. --- Respectfully,