From Michael Sudduth:
I concur with your point about the authenticity of psychic phenomena.
Anyone who believes that all psychic phenomena can be adequately explained by fraud is clearly mistaken. D.D. Home's physical mediumship, cannot be adequately explained in this manner. Nor can the mental mediumship of Piper and Leonard.
On the former, see Stephen Braude, Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science. On the latter, see Alan Gauld, Mediumship and Survival. David Ray Griffin's book Philosophy, Parapsychology, and Spirituality presents a pretty good argument against the fraud hypothesis. For a more recent examination of potentially fraudulent vs. authentic cases, see Braude's forthcoming book, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations (University of Chicago). I've read some of the chapter drafts. It's a good contribution to Braude's already extensive collection of contributions to parapsychological inquiry and survival of death.
Let me add, though, that I don't accept the "demonic hypothesis" as adequate to explain all the cases either. I find this approach, the common Christian one, to be largely based on a misunderstanding of what psychic phenomena are. Indeed, depending on whether psi-functioning can be naturalized or not, attributing such events to demonic agency would be akin to attributing airflight to necromancy. Christians need to develop more intellectual responsibility, especially since they tend to demand it of others with respect to understanding Christianity.
Since I have recently discussed this extensively on the H.H. Price Society group, interested parties may read my posts there, including my own encounters with the paranormal, which will eventually find their way into a more developed written form.
See especially these posts: 1, 2, 3, 4.
On my view, there are many cases of psychic phenomena that cannot be explained by the usual suspects (e.g., fraud, malobservation) or the demonic agency hypothesis. These phenomena must provide evidence for human cognitive functioning and causal powers beyond what can
presently be explained by scientific models of the world OR they provide evidence of the post-postmortem survival of some aspect of the human person. The latter would of course entail the former, but since the converse isn't true, it's best to distinguish between these two hypotheses.
I'm presently teaching a course that goes into considerable detail about the concept and evidences of survival. In addition to various handouts, there is an archive of some of the best on-line materials on the question of survival and related issues.