Scientific Approaches to Animal Communication

Researchers are studying the field of interspecies telepathic communication in new ways that go beyond old scientific research models that do not adequately approach or reveal the multifaceted results of this subject. These contemporary scientists have also taken intuitive interspecies communication classes. Some are even practicing professionals in the field. It is an exciting time for enormous expansion to new people who may not have been open to or even have heard of animal communication. See the 2023 International Multispecies Methods Research Symposium.

I put together this comprehensive article with revealing contributions from other seasoned animal communicators about scientific proof, published in Species Link, The Journal of Interspecies Telepathic Communication, Issue 53 Winter 2004. Enjoy the time you take to dive into its riches.


An e-mail message to me from a man called R.C. started a thought provoking dialogue. In answering his earnest questions, I opened to new possibilities of bridging our field to a larger public.

R.C. asserted that unless I could scientifically prove the existence of telepathy and my claims about interspecies communication that I was potentially causing innocent people psychic damage. He further stated that truth is testable and repeatable and that scientific experiments should be set up to test the authenticity of our claims. He affirmed his belief that the mechanism of what we called telepathic communication could be explained in terms of the normal five senses.

Finely-tuned Extension of Our Physical Senses
I view telepathy as an extension of our five senses ─ a finely tuned communication of energy, thoughts and feelings experienced through internal and extended sensing. While telepathic communication is invisible, it is able to be perceived if one is attuned to and practiced in that form of communication, even across vast distances. Radio waves are also invisible but able to be perceived with a properly tuned transmitter and receiver.


For me the observable positive results of telepathic communication seen in animals and people are the proof of its existence and validity. These results include both physical behavior changes that can be easily seen plus emotional and spiritual healing which is experienced uniquely by the individuals involved. Outside observers or researchers would not experience the benefits in the same way.

Scientific studies in remote viewing and other forms of telepathic communication with humans and in other species have been done that show its nature and prove its existence. Well known biologist and biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, employs scientific experiments to show that animals can telepathically communicate with people in his book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals).

Marta Williams, an animal communicator with a background as a biologist, mentions in her book, Learning Their Language, that physicist, Russell Targ, did extensive studies on human intuitive powers, or “psi phenomena” focusing on remote viewing in his book The Mind Race: Understanding and Using Psychic Ability and related studies in Miracles of the Mind: Exploring Nonlocal Consciousness and Spiritual Healing. Also, Gary Schwartz used strict scientific protocol to test accomplished intuitives in The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life after Death.

Animal communicators have repeated experience of the positive response of animals after communicating telepathically with them, often at a distance where no behavioral cues are observed. Specific information and results have been verified by numerous people, including veterinarians.

In scientific parlance, these examples are considered anecdotal and not accepted as scientific proof. Rupert Sheldrake points out in his book that the word anecdote means “not published,” so an anecdote is an unpublished story. Once published, anecdotes become case histories. When people’s accounts point to consistent and repeatable patterns, anecdotes are called natural history. Dr. Sheldrake feels that open minded scientific inquiry, paying attention to evidence and testing theories by means of experiment can be very enlightening.

I had to overcome my resistance and doubt as to how such complex, intangible yet obviously beneficial results as those regularly obtained by animal communicators could be scientifically tested. I began to see that setting up repeatable experiments to verify some of the information obtained in animal communication could be another way to validate the existence and results of interspecies communication. Moreover, it could open the benefits of telepathic connection to another segment of the population.

R.C. proposed this experiment:

You have all made the claim that animals communicate information about their surroundings which you can receive. We know from experimentation that dogs are good at distinguishing shades of gray. So, they could tell a white bowl from a black one. For a given number of trials, place either the black bowl or the white bowl (maybe with a little treat in it) before the dog. Have the animal psychic who cannot see the bowl, "ask" the dog if the bowl that contains his treat is "kind of light" or "kind of dark" and record the answer. Calculate the percentage of correct answers. Recognizing that no communication is 100% (I have enough experience here to make this bold claim!), and that pure chance would predict correct answers 50% of the time, the existence of interspecies telepathic communication would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt if your answers were correct significantly more than 50% of the time! 

I (Penelope) did an experiment on human telepathy in college on the relationship of emotional closeness of sender and receiver and telepathic accuracy. In a series of separate trials, the people tested wrote down what number they received telepathically as I viewed one card at a time. The correlation of telepathic accuracy and degree of emotional closeness was statistically significant.

In the course of our e-mail discussion, I went from dread at receiving another long, involved message from R.C. to being excited about how we could use a scientific approach to expand our reach and effectiveness. We could set up a study with many animal communicators, from beginners to experienced professionals, testing common information that animal communicators receive.

As long as we would take the time and effort to do this research, we could make it a more comprehensive and useful study than the dog bowl experiment R.C. proposed. Factual information, such as physical health conditions, living quarters, people in the family, and other elements of animals’ physical life could be checked. This could help animal communicators to validate and even improve their own telepathic skill. Other parameters and ways to research are proposed by other contributors to this article.

I asked other seasoned animal communicators, including some with scientific backgrounds, to respond to R.C.’s challenge. The result is a rich exploration of many angles on the subject. This landmark discussion can help us to better understand and present to others the validity of telepathic communication with other species.

Elizabeth Severino offered:
I would suggest that this man first read Power vs. Force by David R. Hawkins, M.D. Dr. Hawkins has spent his life studying the internal truth inherent in the body's knowing, its pure relationship to Truth and Universal consciousness, and the ability to sense and know that truth. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and videotapes and co-authored Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling. I further suggest that this man read The Biology of Consciousness and watch the video, The Biology of Belief, both by Dr. Bruce Lipton. Dr. Lipton is a Stanford University Researcher whose work with cell behavior has yielded extraordinary insight into the molecular basis of consciousness including the conclusion that Neo-Darwinian biology is gravely in error. A major conclusion of Dr. Lipton's work is that the energy of compassion, love, and community actually changes the field into which it is expressed.

Isn't that what animal communication is? Sensing with our feeling body and introducing great love and compassion into a situation?

I figured out many years ago what I needed to feel validation for myself and to feel validated by veterinarians and care-persons. I moved forward to acquire that experience and the validation, often putting myself very much on the line. Many of my early experiences with each of the veterinarians I now work with as a veterinary medical intuitive were in emergency situations where life and death were in the balance.

I was first tested as an intuitive in Vassar College in the 1960's through a study from John Hopkins University. A few unedited capsules from my notes follow.

"K.C. called, dying cat, no external indicators of cause, cat said it inhaled chemical fertilizers sprayed on next door neighbor's lawn, vet took immediate hair sample, sample confirmed chemical poisoning, appropriate remedy given, cat recovered fully."

"D.K. called, dog dying, external indicator of major bite wound vet felt was from either a brown spider or a wasp, vet said antidote for one if it was the other would kill it, dog said it was a brown spider, immediate antidote for brown spider given, dog recovered fully."

"B.Sp. called, cat dying, hemoglobin level 13, vet said hemoglobin level must rise, prayed for 45 minutes, hemoglobin level then 27, vet said 'medical impossibility but there it was'."

"D.K. called, cat presented with major phlegm and near asphyxiation, okay only on oxygen, cat sent me basement's energy, sensed spores in basement, subsequent test proved spore presence in respiratory, remedies given, cat recovered fully."  

One of my favorites: "A.J. called, Dachshund paralyzed for six weeks. A.J. said "not responding to anything" "tried everything" "no hope of recovery" "recommending euthanasia", dog said "not ready need help big-time", took this as God and prayer needed NOW, told A.J., begged A.J. to hold off, A.J. agreed "what can we lose?", started praying deeply, A.J. called during prayer session and reported dog had "fallen into a deep trance" feared trance meant precipitation of dog's death 'cause we agreed I would also pray for Highest Good, dog woke up finally after 2 hours (whew!), got up, walked and has been walking ever since."

Anita Curtis:
I was told recently, “Experts have let us know that dogs are color blind.”

The first thing I do on a communication call is ask the animal to tell me something that will let his person know we are talking to him. Usually, if there is a physical problem, I feel the animal’s pain or discomfort. If there is no pain, the animal often describes a place or something in his environment. I am either shown a picture of an object, such as a green chair, or the animal will describe the item as well as the color. The conversation can only continue if we have verification that we are speaking to the correct animal.

One caller’s dog had run off from the veterinarian’s office far from where he lived. He had been gone for over a week and needed surgery and medication. The dog described to me telepathically several red brick buildings and the caller thought one of them might be a firehouse. I asked the dog if he had seen long red trucks with ladders on the sides. He said he had seen the trucks but they were yellow.

The woman called the firehouse at once and found out their trucks were yellow. She called me back excitedly and said she would set a humane trap with food in it in a certain place. We described the place to the dog and told him it was safe to go there and eat the food. He got the message, went into the trap, and they had their dog back within hours of the call.

The gifts of animal communication are the joy and relief felt by the animals and their people when their problems are resolved, messages delivered, and fears are put to rest.

Sometimes the issues are simple. Many behavioral problems are resolved by communicating with animals. Cats who urinate beside the litter box can explain that they are “pissed off” because another kitty is fed first, or they do not like the smell of the litter, or a myriad of other reasons. When the person makes the appropriate change the cat returns to using the litter box. This happens too often to be a coincidence.

In all the years that I have been communicating with animals my most poignant memories come from the times when I have been called to speak to an animal who was about to move on in his spiritual journey. I always ask the animal to give me information so the caller will know we are truly talking to his or her best friend. That information usually comes in the form of where the pet will visit his person once he is in spirit form. It is comforting for the person to hear, “I will visit you in the room with the piano.”

The callers are usually distraught because they think their beloved friends are afraid. When they receive messages of love and understanding it helps to ease the pain of the transition for both the person and the animal.

Jeri Ryan addressed R.C.’s concerns:
I understand your skepticism regarding "felt-sense", or intuition, given that many have been found to be in error for that and others have been persecuted for the work they did to challenge that. I know that Galileo did much scientific work (as it was defined in those days) to reach his conclusions. I do genuinely wonder, however, where his belief originated. Was it an intellectual "Ah ha!" after reviewing and rearranging the available data into combinations and permutations? Or was it the "felt-sense that we call intuition?

Descartes was renowned for his scientific work, and is still greatly relied upon in modern times for his major contributions to mathematics and physics. He was not challenged for his mechanistic view of the world, which left no room for free will and which has turned out to be greatly deficient, according to modern physics. That mechanistic view, when applied to nonhuman animals in Descartes’ time, allowed the most brutal research to be applied to them as subjects. Today that mechanistic view still allows the scientific use of animals again in brutal research, this time with the knowledge that they are indeed sentient, that they have emotional brains, and that they have emotional receptors on every cell in their bodies. Emotional receptors exist on every cell in the human body as well. They assist in that "felt-sense."

Einstein did feel uncomfortable with his own theories, as did Max Planck with Quantum Theory. Yet both revolutionized physics to the point where now there are two camps: classical and modern. Einstein refused to accept Quantum Theory in its entirety, even though he contributed to its development, because he insisted that "God does not play dice," a rather unscientific statement. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was a vast departure from the Newtonian scientific method. Relativity takes research into the real world, where phenomena are not removed from their influential environments and isolated. Both approaches are very useful, and much needed.

There is a solid piece of research on telepathic communication conducted in the early part of the 19th century by Vladimir Bechterev. See the Journal of Parapsychology, 13, 166-76. It could be of great benefit to do further study of telepathy between humans and animals.

Dean Raden conducted consciousness research for twenty years at Stanford Research Institute, think tanks and several universities. He has applied science to psychic phenomena, and specifically to telepathy.

Dr. Raden addresses nonlocal consciousness. The physics phenomenon of nonlocal resonant activity of two separate particles, no matter how far away from each other they might be, has been applied as possible substantiation to telepathy per se, and then to telepathy between animals and humans. Larry Dossey, a medical doctor with a penchant for physics has reported on this, also, and on the nonlocal effectiveness of prayer in healing.

I am a deeply spiritual person, as I understand you (R.C.) to be from your discussion of God. I am totally comfortable without proof for my spiritual beliefs or even for the existence of God, albeit that is not a scientific attitude according to Newtonian science. With the strength of your support for Newtonian science, I wonder if you are.

Please consider the fact that many animal communicators have their feet on the ground. They sincerely want to be of help, and they are. They study; they learn. Their work is an extension of the five senses that falls into the intuitive realm. However, the intellectual is also present to monitor the work for interference, accuracy and validity, and to determine the reality of recommendations for solution. Their work is substantiated by the validations they receive from their clients and by the willingness of the animals to change their behavior.

When I studied psychotherapy, I learned that the healing methods that are effective are the ones that the afflicted people embrace in their belief system. Newtonian science may consider such healing to be a result of placebo effect. Perhaps, and placebo studies show that the results of modern medicine could be the same.

Belief systems are very powerful. Rupert Sheldrake addresses intention as an important ingredient for successful telepathic communication between animals and humans. Intention is what allows the karate black belt to crack a cinder block with the side of her/his hand. It allowed a nine year old female child to crack a two inch thick block of wood with the side of her little hand. It allows the spiritual practice of walking over hot coals in bare feet to occur without injury or pain. Intention allows telepathic communication with animals to happen.

These have all been considered impossible events. Telepathy with animals is considered by many to be impossible, as were travel to the moon, the healing effectiveness of prayer, artificial intelligence, etc. Field theory and the observation that particles become each other suggest that telepathy between any beings is possible.

We always work to improve our work. Research could help that. Your suggestion for a research topic is a good place to start. I would like to see it move into the phenomenological method of research, a bit closer to modern physics because it allows for movement, instead of confining the study to a static linear approach.

According to modern physics, to have the whole truth we need to allow for some mystery.

Barbara Janelle responded:
Relatively few ideas and "facts" in our world have been subject to double-blind studies. Double-blind studies are full of difficulties. They attempt to look at only a couple of variables although functioning in our world is very much more complex. Examples are studies done in animal psychology and health. Animals, from mice to monkeys, are kept in artificial environments. Moreover, the larger species are usually kept in isolation. These conditions stress animals and any study results are questionable because the impact of stress on immunity and behavior is not fully understood.

There is a large and growing body of evidence that suggests that the researcher's interest and attention can change study outcome. Even something like a lab technician's interest in a particular animal can change that animal's behavior and health.

We have a very limited understanding about how information spreads. Rupert Sheldrake and others have written about how a whole species behavior shifts once a threshold population knows how to do something. Work on String Theory suggests that once cells have been in contact that they continue to show similar changes over time even when separated by thousands of miles. This suggests a wide range of additional variables that we know little about.

There is a huge amount of writing on the philosophy of science that essentially says that the scientific approach is very limited as a testing procedure and what we learn from it are only approximations in understanding, not hard, unchanging facts.

Another way of looking at the validity of ideas and information is to examine the effects of using them. Indeed much of what we think we know through scientific study is based on examining effects. For example very little is understood about what electricity is, but we have a lot of studies that show us what it does.

A principle of Hawaiian Huna Philosophy is "A measure of truth is effectiveness."
We can work with this principle in examining interspecies communication. Primary questions are:

a) Does interspecies communication change something in the behavior, health or performance of the animal?
b) Does interspecies communication change the relationship between animal and guardian?
c) Does interspecies communication change anything in the communicator's life?

This is an avenue that we can explore both formally and informally through questioning clients about the effect of the work. Informally, as I look at the letters I have received from clients in the last three months, about 80% of them mention changes in the animal and/or in their relationship with the animal as a result of the communication consultation. Formalized studies using questionnaires can certainly be devised and done. This kind of approach is commonly used in health studies and in the social sciences.

There are other indicators that interspecies communication is real:

a) In almost every communication there is some piece of information that signals to the person that the communicator is actually receiving information from the animal.
b) In classes, there is always some correlation in information received by the participants.

These can be examined in formal studies as well.

On the test of dogs seeing color, it is my sense that dogs and other animals, including many humans, experience colors as vibration. An animal can send this kind of information to a communicator and the communicator may interpret it as color.

Another issue raised by R.C. is about ethics. The Code of Ethics that Penelope developed is a fine statement of the principles we abide by. Again too, there is the measure that effectiveness in our work determines whether we stay in business. Many of our clients come by word of mouth. If a communicator is not ethical or accurate, the client base will disappear.

My skill and that of many others in this work has been developed over years of training, practice, and sharing of information through writing, teaching and self-examination. This is demanding work and we continue to grow in skill, clarity, and understanding.

Mary Getten answers R.C.:
There is plenty of proof with many thousands of animals and clients that have been helped by communicators. Most communicators work on the telephone. They do not see the animal and are not interpreting “body language or animal sounds” as you (R.C.) assert.

I am also not a psychic. I cannot predict the future, diagnose illness, nor compel any animal to change its behavior. My job is to be a link between the person and the animal—to help them understand each other. I am in effect a translator. This does not mean that each communicator will translate what that animal has to say in exactly the same way. Human language translators often interpret what they hear a bit differently. The essence is the same, but the way of expressing it may differ.

Like a language expert, I studied and practiced to learn this skill. Communicating with animals was not a “gift” I just woke up with one day. I took my first class in 1988 and studied with many teachers for eight years before I felt confident and had enough proof to do this work professionally. The communicators I know and network with have similar stories.

In my work I have been able to help thousands of animals and their people. How do I know this? I get phone calls, e-mails and letters from clients every week, telling me about the changes that occurred after our consultation, or that the vet confirmed what I was feeling. I also call my clients about three weeks after a consultation to see how things are going. This gives me valuable feedback or “proof” that I am communicating well with animals.

The point of telepathic communication is to relay information. What the person does with that information and how they respond will influence what happens. I make suggestions, negotiate with the animal and help them understand each other. I do not claim to be able to “fix” their problems, although very often this is the outcome.

Animals are a lot like people. You can ask them to change their behavior and some will be happy to do so. Others will not. Some might want to, but in the end fail. You (R.C.) relayed a story about your friend’s dog who said he would not kill another cat, but then did. Do you have any friends who said they were going to stop drinking or smoking, but then didn’t? I suspect that the dog’s intentions were good; he just wasn’t able to control himself in the moment. This is common with all living beings. Animals like people, also change their minds.

Our world is full of variables. There is very little that can be proven by the scientific method if you require that the results are the same every time. Math is the one science which seems to be constant – 2 plus 2 always equals 4. There are some laws, such as gravity that appear to be constant as well, but when you bring living beings into the equation, your definition of scientific proof fails.

Let’s look at our medical system. Some would say that we have proof that chemotherapy kills cancer, yet this is often not the case. The same is true of vaccines and any medical procedures. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t. Does that mean we should stop using our current medical system until we have proof that it works every time? It does not work a good percentage of the time, yet it is commonly and wholeheartedly accepted. Individuals react and respond differently and there is no scientific method that can show that the same result will occur again, under identical circumstances. There are no identical circumstances when dealing with individuals.

Scientific researchers can “prove” whatever they set out to prove. They start with an assumption and then set out to prove it. Almost any hypotheses can be “proven” according to the scientific method. This proof is based on the law of averages, not that it will happen exactly the same in each incident. This is acceptable science in the twenty-first century.

Nothing is 100% in this world we live in—not medicine, not science, not anything that deals with individuals. The animal communicators I know and respect can all furnish written and oral proof from their clients about the effectiveness of their communication. The fact that this information has not been published in a scientific journal is irrelevant.

Marta Williams to R.C. and other skeptics:
I read through your (R.C’s) test and find it to be logical and repeatable. The only problem I see is that it might be somewhat unexciting and therefore both the psychic and the animal might fatigue rather quickly. I would set it up differently.

Also, there are some problems that can happen in laboratory testing. People being tested can become nervous, get performance anxiety and not do well. And if the tester is very negative, psychics have a hard time performing. I am not sure how to compensate for those two variables, but they have been observed in experiments in this field.

It is to be expected that many people will be skeptical of the ability to communicate intuitively, through the use of mental projections of thoughts, feelings, and pictures. This is something we are taught is impossible. However, within the last few decades there has been significant research proving that such abilities exist.

There are also many researchers, primarily physicists, who are working to uncover the explanation for how such abilities might be possible, including Alain Aspect (physicist, University of Paris), David Bohm (physicist, University of London), and Karl Pribram (neurophysiologist, Stanford University). The fact that these researchers have been largely ignored does not negate their work. It simply shows that scientists can be resistant to change and challenging new ideas just like anyone else.

It is not fair, as some skeptics claim, to say that there is no proof of intuitive ability. There is ample proof and these people have painstakingly provided it. Moreover, their experiments were repeatable and verifiable. One of Rupert Sheldrake’s detractors even redid his experiment and got the same statistically significant results.

Within the field of animal communication specifically, proof comes most often in the form of anecdotal evidence such as information the communicator receives from the animal that can then be verified by the animal’s person. Anecdotal data is used all the time in medical research on people, for example in studies of painkillers or other such subjective inquiries where peoples’ responses are collected as data.

I believe that verified anecdotal data from animal communicators is just as valid as statistical data, especially when the communicator works at a distance, neither seeing nor interacting with the animal, and when the data is unique and could not have been logically surmised.

It is however, critical to verify and test intuitive data and maintain some objectivity about it. Just because someone feels something does not mean it is true. There should be a ‘wait and see attitude’ if the data cannot be immediately verified.

It is the irony and challenge of working intuitively that one must be nonjudgmental and nonanalytical in order to receive intuitively. Yet judgment and critical thinking are then required to adequately interpret and utilize the intuitive data received.

Some practitioners, both human psychics and animal communicators, do not treat unproven intuitive data with enough healthy skepticism. Even the best intuitives know they are not always accurate, so there is always that margin of error to be taken into account.

However, the overall effectiveness and usefulness of animal communication is being proven every day by its growing popularity with the consumer. People receive enormous assistance from this process. If that were not the case, the field would not be expanding as it is.

Carol Gurney:
Without a doubt, modern science, with its stringent protocol, has made immense contributions to the health and welfare of our society. Many people depend on science to create the reality in which they live. For instance, my parents would only go to a western physician for their health care and only do what their physician recommended. For most people this is entirely reasonable. Others have chosen alternative approaches and still others have integrated the two. We have a choice in how we want to pursue our health and ultimately live our lives.

Today, science would like us to believe that it is the standard by which reality is validated. However, science and its stringent testing protocol are not infallible. With improved testing methods, research supplies us with new theories which sometimes contradict existing ones.

For many years science claimed that animals could not see color. In The Journal of American Veterinary Medicine Association Scientific Reports: Leading Edge of Medicine—A Review the ability of dogs to distinguish color has been the subject of several studies with often conflicting results. Many early behavioral studies indicated either that dogs lacked color vision, or that if they could discriminate hue, it was without importance to dogs; form and brightness were more important. Many of these early studies, however, were poorly controlled, and more recent, well-controlled studies have clearly documented that dogs possess and use color

Animal communicators have known that animals do recognize color and respond to it. They did not apply scientific protocol to discover this and yet they knew and have been working with this color knowledge in spite of and before the latest results of this now accurate scientific data.

A client whose horse arrived from Russia called me to consult on the case. When the person took the horse to one of the top hospitals in California, the veterinarian was very interested in listening to what the horse had communicated. At the end of listening to my recorded session, he said that everything the horse communicated could be scientifically proven through the x-rays and testing the hospital administered. How do we, as animal communicators, obtain this information without the use of scientific testing methods?

We use a form of telepathy to gather information about an animal. The word telepathy is derived from the Greek terms tele (“distant”) and pathe (“occurrence” or “feeling”). Most common telepathy occurs spontaneously in cases of crisis in which a family member or friend has been injured or killed. The receiver becomes aware through thought fragments, vague feelings, dreams, visions or simply knowing that their loved one is in danger or has died. Brain research has shown that telepathy can be induced in the dream state or what is commonly known as the theta state. Electroencephalogram monitoring during this testing also showed that the brain waves of the recipient changed to match those of the sender. It has also been found that telepathy is closely connected to emotional states of both the sender and receiver.

It is then not so surprising that there is little published scientific data to support telepathic communication. Science is based on objective testing, often in sterile environments and with no connection between the two subjects being tested. Sometimes the subject is even tested by a random number generating machine. Science prides itself on hard facts, the opposite of heartfelt feelings. With this in mind, it would almost appear that science, as a tool for validating telepathic animal communication is inappropriate.

Perhaps we are ready, as a species to live in balance and harmony with our two brains. The left analytical side which strives to explain the world through science and the right intuitive side which chooses to feel life naturally.

Dawn Hayman:
There are two types of knowledge: intellectual, coming from the mind, and intuitive, coming from the heart. Both types of knowledge are equally valid and important to our understanding of life itself. Neither can exist without the other. When in balance, they enhance one another. The mental intellect has developed incredibly advanced ways to prove, measure, and determine the validity of many things perceived to be in our physical realm. The heart intuitiveness determines validity through feelings, emotions, and understandings that may not be measurable physically. Sometimes we just “know” something to be true because it FEELS true. Sometimes we know something to be true because we can measure it, replicate the outcome, and announce that it is fact.

There are many things about our daily existence that we can not “prove” to be true or “real” yet we all have experienced them. Love is a great example. How can we scientifically prove that love exists? How can we measure it? Yet, I think it is fair to say that most of us have experienced it and felt it. Indeed, we see that we actually need love to survive and develop correctly as functional human beings.

The field of animal communication is based more on the intuitive form of knowledge. Just like love, it can be experienced, but not necessarily measured. Animal communication is a counseling profession. Through telepathic communication, an animal communicator can help people find their own connection and communication with their own animals. The animal communicator is simply a facilitator in the process.

Animals are non-judgmental, trustworthy, and love unconditionally. Can we prove any of those things? Not scientifically. Those of us with animals know those statements to be true. Animals connect with us heart to heart. Through that heart/intuitive connection, communication takes place. The “proof” of this communication can be seen through changes in the animal’s behavior, health, and even changes in their entire human family as well.

Animal communication is not about finding out what color the dog’s water bowl is or what their favorite toy looks like. Animal communication is about relationships. It is about the relationship that the animal experiences with other animals, with their human friends, and with life itself. Just as importantly though, it is also about the person’s relationship with their own self, with other humans, and with the world.

I have had much feedback from clients saying that not only did their whole relationship with their animals change after a consultation, but they found that their human relationships were impacted too. Witnessing people’s lives open up to connecting with their intuitive knowledge has been “proof” to me that animal communication works in immeasurable ways.

Knowledge of the heart cannot be measured. It is experienced. To be loved unconditionally and accepted without judgment is one of the most healing things we can experience. To be a facilitator of this process for people and their animals is incredibly rewarding and humbling. The goal for me, as an animal communicator, is to help people find their intuitive connection to their animals, all living things, and the world around them. It is not my goal to have them depend on me for their answers. In fact, it is not about giving them answers at all, but it is to help them find insight. We all have our own answers and our own “proof” within us. We need to acknowledge that intuitive knowledge within us and connect with our hearts. Then, what can be measured is the outcome.