“Debunk (verb): to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear.” – Cambridge English Dictionary

Beginning at age two in the spring of 2000, James Leininger began exhibiting behaviors and making claims that his parents later believed resembled the life and death of World War II fighter pilot James Huston, Jr.  Over several years, James Leininger provided information about World War II, especially fighter planes, as well as specific details that seemed to match facts about Huston’s life.

The James Leininger story came to public attention in 2004. ABC Primetime featured the Leiningers’ story with Chris Cuomo as the correspondent. Shortly thereafter the story became all the rage. Various mainstream news networks have featured the story. It’s garnered waves of attention on social media, including dozens of glowing commentaries on YouTube. Then in 2009 Bruce and Andrea Leininger published Soul Survivor. In their book, the Leiningers  document the alleged evidence that their son is the reincarnation of Huston. After the publication of Soul Survivor, leading reincarnation researcher Jim Tucker investigated the case. In his blurb for the Leiningers’ book, Tucker said it’s a “spectacular example of the phenomenon of young children who seem to remember previous lives.”

The James Leininger story remains popular. The 2021 Netflix series Surviving Death featured it in episode six of the series. Scholarly attention, too. In November 2021 the Bigelow Institute announced that it had awarded Bruce Leininger $20,000 for an essay allegedly presenting the story of his son as the “best evidence” for life after death. Mr. Leininger goes as far as to call his story “definitive proof of reincarnation.”

James Leininger – Evidence for Reincarnation?

On the face of it, the Leininger case exhibits many of the strengths of an ideal case of the reincarnation type. First, the case involves a young child in western culture making veridical claims that seem to fit the life of a formerly living person. Second,  the Leiningers documented many of James’s claims before they identified James Huston, Jr. as the presumed previous personality. Third, James Leininger exhibited behavioral patterns resembling the alleged previous personality. Not surprisingly, many researchers and people who believe in life after death regard this case as one of the best documented cases of reincarnation.

Alas, it’s no such thing.

The James Leininger story is not “definitive proof” of reincarnation. It’s not the “best evidence” for reincarnation. It isn’t even modest evidence for reincarnation. It’s no evidence at all for reincarnation, unless, of course, we wish to trivialize the entire concept of evidence. 

There can, of course, be an appearance of evidence for any claim. Such appearances are often psychologically compelling. Be unaware of counter-evidence. Rely on falsehoods and factual distortions. Deploy fallacious or implausible reasoning. This easily makes what is false appear to be true. But what does not survive critical scrutiny should not be regarded as true. Such is the case with the James Leininger story. It doesn’t survive critical scrutiny. Whatever else it might be, it’s not evidence for reincarnation.

My Two-Year Investigation

I first read about the James Leininger case while writing my 2016 book on survival. I began a detailed investigation of the case in 2019. Between 2019 and 2021 I interviewed over a dozen people. I also acquired important documentation concerning the alleged facts of the case. I developed a detailed chronology of the alleged events based on multiple sources. Unlike other chronologies, my chronology includes a variety of contextual details. These include facts concerning plausible, if not obvious, ordinary sources of information which shaped James’s experiences, behaviors, and claims.

On January 17, 2022, the Journal of Scientific Exploration published my 34,000-word critical report on this case – “The James Leininger Case Re-examined” (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2021). My paper is available on the JSE website Journal of Scientific Exploration and on my Cup of Nirvana website “The James Leininger Case Re-examined” (PDF).

My report also provides an analysis of the impact of my findings on Jim Tucker’s favorable assessment of this case. Tucker is a leading researcher on children who claim to have past-life memories. He is also the Director of the Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), University of Virginia Health System. Tucker’s investigation of the Leininger case is one of many such investigations Tucker and his DOPS’s colleagues have conducted over the years. They’re responsible for thousands of published pages documenting and analyzing such cases. Other researchers regularly cite the cases in the database at DOPS in their own work. And they cite Tucker’s analyses and conclusions.

Why the James Leininger Story is not Credible

The James Leininger story may seem credible, until you dig a little deeper. Things are not as the Leiningers present them. Their story is based on falsehoods, factual distortions, and fallacious reasoning. Here’s an outline of some of the case’s credibility problems. In my paper I develop and support these points with considerable testimonial, written, and photographic evidence. 

Falsehoods about James’s Experience

Ordinary sources of information which shaped James’s experience, behavior, and claims loom large in this case. Understandably so. As ordinary sources of information increase, the need for an exotic explanation in terms of reincarnation decreases. This is why reincarnation investigators and researchers attempt to rule out such sources. It’s also why the Leiningers have emphasized that nothing James saw or heard could have influenced him. They know their reincarnation story depends on this. And this is where their story, not even half told, already collapses under the weight of modest critical scrutiny.

• The Leiningers have repeatedly denied that their son James was exposed to videos or images of planes on fire or combat scenes prior. Specifically, he allegedly didn’t see such images proximate to his nightmares of being a pilot trapped in a burning plane. This is false, and my paper discloses the sources and their content. These include the content of videos James watched and aviation museums he visited.

• The Leiningers have attributed to James nearly two-dozen behaviors and claims occurring between 2000 and 2002. They claim that nothing James saw or read or heard could have influenced these behaviors or claims. This is false, and my paper discloses the sources and their content. The content of videos, aviation museums, and aviation events James participated in play an important role here.

• The Leiningers indicate that they followed the advice of past-life therapist Carol Bowman. She instructed them to tell their son that what he was experiencing in his nightmares were events that had happened to him before. According to the Leiningers’ official 2009 narrative, they initially connected with Bowman in winter 2001. In the context of the Leiningers’ wider chronology of events, this was six to eight months after James began making specific past-life claims. This obviously raises the concern that the Leiningers, following Bowman’s advice, (unwittingly) influenced the evolving reincarnation narrative.

Narrative Redactions, Adjustments, and Alternative Facts

The James Leininger story nearly everyone knows about is a story the Leiningers evolved over many years beginning in 2002. They altered their story in multiple ways in the light of what they later discovered. Consequently, there really isn’t one James Leininger story. There are multiple versions of the story, and they contradict each other in crucial ways.

The narrative the Leiningers present in their 2009 book Soul Survivor is heavily redacted. The versions of the story they presented between 2002 and 2005 significantly differ from later iterations. These include changes to what James allegedly said and when he said it. Moreover, the changes represented in the 2009 account were made only after the Leiningers had discovered pertinent facts about the life and death of James Huston, Jr. The changes to the narrative result in a better fit with facts about the life and death of the alleged previous personality James Huston, Jr. The official Leininger story is a constructed narrative, crafted to fit facts the Leiningers later learned about James Huston.

Misrepresenting the Circumstances of James Huston’s Death

The Leiningers claim to present historical documentation concerning the circumstances of the death of World War II fighter pilot James M. Huston, Jr. The documentation is important because it allegedly confirms the claims the Leiningers attribute to their son. The changes to the claims the Leiningers attribute to their son provide a better fit with the facts. But the Leiningers also systematically misrepresent the content of primary-source documents and mask material that contradicts their narrative. They misquote or misrepresent several World War II documents and suppress the most detailed 1945 account of Huston’s death. As a result, they bury crucial facts that disconfirm their story. I present these facts and their historical documentation.

Jim Tucker’s Defective Investigation and Analysis

The credibility problems outlined above are not limited to the Leinigners’ version of their story. It extends to Jim Tucker’s presentation and analysis. Tucker investigated this case in 2010, after the Leiningers had published their book. Thereafter Tucker provided a favorable analysis of the case in multiple publications, including a 2016 case report. There are many YouTube videos of Tucker’s lectures in which he discusses the case. (See Tucker video 2016 @35:22, and Tucker video 2020 @42:58.) However, Tucker’s investigation of the case and his subsequent favorable analysis of it fails to consider any of the points above. They weren’t even on his radar. Tucker didn’t uncover the ordinary sources of information that shaped this case. His account also depends on considerable fact-fudging and historical inaccuracies. And he trusts the Leiningers as his primary witnesses. Consequently, Tucker’s claim that this case provides evidence for reincarnation is unwarranted.

The Importance of Conscientious Inquiry

Bruce Leininger has consistently portrayed himself as a skeptic who found the light. This has been one of the sexy selling points of the Leiningers’ story. But Bruce Leininger was never a skeptic. He initially rejected reincarnation – said it was “bullshit” – because of his conservative Christian beliefs. So, he rejected one bad idea because he accepted another bad idea. This isn’t skepticism. He later came to accept both bad ideas for no apparently good reason at all. This isn’t an illustration of a defeated skeptic. It’s an example of a lack of conscientiousness.

The James Leininger narrative is not evidence for the rebirth of a pilot who took his last flight on March 3, 1945. It’s a fiction James’s parents exaggerated into a robust narrative over several years. It’s a compelling story, yes. But not of reincarnation. It’s a compelling story of how confabulation, poor critical thinking skills, and a lack of attention to ordinary sources of information can converge to give the appearance of something remarkable but which is utterly pedestrian.

The habit of drawing bogus inferences from alternative facts has become all too common in our culture. The James Leininger story is a sad example of how this malady has infected inquiry into important questions surrounding consciousness and the prospects for life after death. I applaud Robert Bigelow’s interest in securing the best evidence for life after death. But this search leads nowhere unless we’re clear about what is not good evidence for life after death. This is how we cultivate conscientiousness in our inquiries into matters of ultimate importance. And it’s only conscientiousness that prevents us from promoting bullshit. And by “bullshit” here I mean bullshit in the Frankfurtian sense – that is, any speech act that does not have a proper regard for truth. “Bullshit” in this sense is not used as a term of abuse, but as a way to refer to a particular deceptive use of language (see Hary Frankfurt, On Bullshit.)

Blog Update 1/17/2022

In November 2021, the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS) awarded Bruce Leininger $20,000 for an essay in which he re-presented his nearly two-decade old story. BICS subsequently published his paper “Consciousness Survives Physical Death: ‘Definitive Proof’ of Reincarnation.“

On January 17, 2022 I published a detailed critique of Mr. Leininger’s prize-winning essay: Bruce Leininger’s ‘Definitive Proof’ of Reincarnation. This is a supplement to my longer JSE piece. 

Further Updates Spring 2022

In the spring 2022 issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, I provide a response to Jim Tucker’s reponse to my Leininger paper. Tucker’s reply further illustrates the  logical deficiencies that vitiate his discussions of the Leininger case elsewhere.

“Response to Jim Tucker,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 36:1 (2022) 

Revised 2/07/2024

Follow