Coin apports are a specialised form of ‘apport’ phenomena in which coins are said to appear without an obvious normal source or cause. This article centres on a recent Mexico City case and sets it against more general historical examples of apports, highlighting both the evidential interest of such reports and the methodological problems they pose for researchers.
- A recent Mexico City case is among the most closely documented modern coin-apport investigations, with 42 events recorded during a year-long inquiry.
- Historical reports involving Indridi Indridason and Lajos Pap suggest that object apports long predate the Mexico case, though control conditions varied sharply.
- Apport research remains methodologically difficult: Surveillance can strengthen documentation, but spontaneity, privacy constraints, and the possibility of fraud remain central problems.
Contents
Introduction
Apports are a type of materialisation phenomena that involve the alleged paranormal appearance of physical objects. The term derives from the French apporter meaning ‘to bring’.1Nahm (2019). Apport cases have been reported across cultures and historical periods. Objects range from small items like coins to living creatures. Most traditional cases occurred during séances, but recent reports have emerged involving non-mediumistic individuals.2D’León et al. (2025).
Coin apports represent a specific subset of apport phenomena. Coins appear spontaneously in locations where no conventional source exists. Often the coins arrive in mint condition and sometimes include rare specimens that appear statistically improbable.3D’León et al. (2025). The most extensively documented modern coin apport case involved a couple near Mexico City, investigated by Ramsés D’León, Alfredo Silva, and Alex A. Álvarez from Unidad Parapsicológica de Investigación, Difusión y Enseñanza (UPIDE) after referral from the Rhine Research Center, in 2021 and 2022.4D’León et al. (2025). The team performed their investigation in two phases –the first what they term a ‘methodological approach’ to on-site research; the second, consultations with mediums in hopes of better understanding the psychological dynamics involved.
Phase 1: Methodological Approach
Background
‘HM’ was in his late 50s, whilst his wife ‘LS’ was aged 45 at the time. Neither identified as a medium or practiced spiritualist activities.5D’León et al. (2025). Between June 2021 and July 2022, D’León, Silva and Álvarez documented 42 apport events in their home. In 2012, HM had sustained a mild brain injury which affected the frontal and temporal lobes. Neurological testing showed normal functions, however. Psychological assessments identified depressive episodes and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, but nothing more serious.6D’León et al. (2025).
Methodology
The investigation used a cooperative enquiry strategy in which HM and LS participated as active researchers rather than as passive subjects. The potential for bias was reduced by the use of six high-definition surveillance cameras that were installed throughout the home. The cameras created overlapping fields of view in locations where phenomena occurred most frequently to maximize observing conditions. Cameras were connected to local computers and cloud-based systems of memory storage.7D’León et al. (2025).
Several apport events were captured on video. Coins appeared suddenly within camera view, with no visible delivery mechanism apparent. In the most compelling cases, coins appeared to materialize in midair. The characteristic sound of a coin falling on a hard surface was also heard 1.5 to 2 seconds before the object became visible there.8D’León et al. (2025).
Numismatic Analysis
The apported coins displayed distinctive characteristics, with most appearing to be in mint condition. Numismatic analysis revealed a statistically significant overrepresentation of Mexican 20-peso commemorative coins (p < 0.001). These coins represent only 0.51% of all coins in circulation in Mexico. They constituted a disproportionate percentage of apported specimens, however.9D’León et al. (2025).
The other coins originated from multiple countries HM and LS had visited and included Indian rupees, Colombian pesos, and euros. Czech crowns also appeared, although neither HM nor LS had traveled to the Czech Republic.10D’León et al. (2025).
D’León, Silva and Álvarez proposed that the patterns might hold psychological symbolism. HM had maintained a childhood coin collection, but the family had experienced significant financial stress prior to the phenomena. The appearance of rare commemorative coins might reflect unconscious psychokinetic processes, the researchers speculated.11D’León et al. (2025).
Technical Challenges
The investigation encountered technical challenges. Camera disconnections occurred with increasing frequency after October 2021, sometimes when neither HM nor LS present. Video analysis confirmed no visible entity approached the camera connections before transmission ceased. Beyond coins, other objects sometimes appeared. These included plant materials, paper pieces with incomprehensible text, and a Pope Francis medal.12D’León et al. (2025).
Conclusions
The researchers concluded that evidence strongly argued against intentional fraud. The investigation highlighted possible unconscious psychokinetic influences, such as associated with many poltergeist outbreaks, which likewise tend to be associated with emotional and psychological states. HM’s history of brain injury was considered potentially relevant. The study emphasized methodological rigour and interdisciplinary approaches.13D’León et al. (2025).
Phase 2: Mediumistic Approach
After several months of work in the home of HM and LS, D’León, Silva and Álvarez had reached the limits of what they could learn from their methodological approach and decided to come at the case in a different way. They wanted to try to answer questions that HM and LS persistently raised, but to which their techniques were not suited to supply answers. One question was, Why were these phenomena happening around them? Were they chosen and so were they special in some meaningful way? Were there messages that they should be heeding, or actions they should be undertaking?
Consequently, the investigators designed a second study, involving mediums. They consulted three mediums – one of whom was certified by the Windbridge Research Center – and one channeler, none of whom had had prior acquaintance with HM and LS or knew nothing about the apports. After an initial series of sessions in which D’León explained the process to the practitioners, they were introduced to HM, LS and available members of the research team in internet interviews. The published report says:
One of the mediums heard the word “Santería” (in Spanish), which is an African American religion derived from Yoruba, even though she had never heard it before, nor knew what it meant. Another medium said that LS wasn’t answering the call for her Yoruba-related roots.
All three mediums agreed that there was a non-human consciousness linked to the phenomena, and two mentioned it wasn’t ill intended. Two of them said that both HM and LS were co-creators of the strange phenomena happening at their house.
One medium mentioned that LS was the main “force” or “fuel” of the phenomena, while the other two agreed that HM was the trigger, which might be backed up by instances in which an apport case is linked to his emotional states.14D’León et al. (2025), 212-13.
Unfortunately, HM and LS chose not to proceed to a second round of interviews and did not want the channeler to visit them at home to try to make contact with the purported discarnate entity involved. The mediumistic phase of investigation thus came to a less than satisfactory conclusion.
Historical Cases
This section presents other apport phenomena to compare with the experience of HM and LS.
Indridi Indridason (1883–1912)
Indridi Indridason was an Icelandic physical medium who produced phenomena comparable to DD Home although he remained relatively unknown outside Iceland due to geographic isolation and language barriers.15Haraldsson (2018). Indridason’s mediumship developed around 1904 when he was working as a printer’s apprentice in Reykjavik and was invited to participate in a table-tilting experiment. The table reacted violently while he was there.16Haraldsson (2018).
An Experimental Society was formed to investigate phenomena connected to Indidi. Membership included prominent residents such as Björn Jónsson, who later became Iceland’s prime minister.17Haraldsson (2018). Between 1904 and 1909, the society documented numerous phenomena.18Haraldsson (2018).
Apports constituted one category among Indridason’s diverse phenomena. Witnesses reported that stones “rained” into rooms. Small bells materialized and rang spontaneously.19Haraldsson (2018). Many events occurred in well-lit conditions. This was not typical for séances. Researchers have noted this as significant.20Haraldsson (2018).
Gudmundur Hannesson subjected Indridi to close scrutiny. Hannesson was a sceptical physician who later became professor of medicine at the University of Iceland. He could not detect fraud with Indridi and concluded that ‘the phenomena are unquestionable realities’.21Hannesson (1924).
In 1909, Indridi contracted typhoid fever, from which he never fully recovered. He died of tuberculosis on 31 August 1912, when he was 28 years old.22Haraldsson (2018).
Lajos Pap (1928–38)
The Hungarian medium Lajos Pap (1883–1941) produced spectacular apport phenomena. Elemér Chengery Pap, who created a “Metapsychical Laboratory” for studying physical mediums, investigated him between 1928 and 1938 in Budapest. Changery Pap’s research summary ranks among the largest parapsychology monographs written by a single investigator.23Nahm (2019).
Lajos Pap allegedly apported an extraordinary variety of objects. These included liquids, snow, plants, living insects, and vertebrates up to sparrow hawk size.24Nahm (2019). On August 26, 1933, documented apports occurred in a locked room. The medium’s hands were held by sitters. Apports included seven pebbles, sixteen living locusts, twelve living butterflies, and two goldfish. A butterfly was photographed immediately after materialization.25Nahm (2019).
Chengery Pap developed elaborate controls including searching the medium and using special robes with luminous stripes to catch suspicious movements. He also employed a green lamp for examination.26Nahm (2019). Apported objects were displayed in an ‘apport museum’ that was destroyed during the communist regime after the second World War.27Nahm (2019).
The scientific reception to Chengery Pap’s research was largely unfavourable. Nandor Fodor conducted experimental sittings in 1935 at the International Institute for Psychical Research in London. The proceedings revealed significant methodological loopholes.28Nahm (2019). Theodore Besterman attended séances in 1928, concluding the phenomena were fraudulent.29Nahm (2019). Recent analysis by Michael Nahm concludes that although Chengery Pap’s approach contained substantial flaws, the authenticity of Lajos Pap’s phenomena remains questionable.30Nahm (2019).
Methodological Challenges
Apport phenomena present extraordinary methodological challenges to investigators. Their spontaneous nature makes systematic study difficult and replications under controlled conditions remains elusive.31Braude (2019). Historical cases occurred in séance contexts where darkness was required, which prevented direct observation during crucial moments.32Braude (2019).
Modern surveillance offers new possibilities. The Mexico City case demonstrated both potential and limitations. Cameras can document object appearances. Unexplained disconnections create gaps, however. Privacy considerations limit surveillance extent.33D’León et al. (2025).
Fraud remains a persistent concern. Historical exposures showed mediums concealing objects in body cavities. Victorian gentlemen were socially constrained from thorough searches of female mediums, as Neurologist Terence Hines has noted this.34Hines (2003). Heinrich Melzer was caught in 1926. Small stones were attached behind his ears using flesh-colored tape.35Hines (2003).
The Mexico City investigation of HM and LS addressed fraud through convergent evidence. Numismatic analysis revealed patterns difficult to stage. Statistical overrepresentation of rare coins would require selective acquisition. Coins from unvisited countries posed logistical challenges. Video documentation strengthened the case against trickery.36D’León et al. (2025).
Psychological and neurological factors require consideration in evaluating cases of this kind. The Mexico City case involved an individual with documented brain injury, which raises questions about relationships between neurological anomalies and psi phenomena. Does brain trauma facilitate unconscious PK? Do psychological stresses trigger apport events? 37D’León et al. (2025).These questions remain unanswered but there are experiments by Morris Freedman that show certain neurological deficits associated with PK influence on random systems under controlled conditions.38Freedman et al. (2018).
Contemporary Status
Systematic investigation of apport phenomena remains rare. Most parapsychological research has shifted sway from field investigations toward laboratory-based micro-PK studies which offer better experimental control but sacrifice ecological validity and the dramatic character of macro-PK events.39Braude (2019).
The Mexico City case published in 2025 represents one of the most rigorous apport field investigations in recent decades. The study employed cooperative inquiry methodology that treated participants as active collaborators rather than passive subjects.40D’León et al. (2025). Future research faces challenges balancing rigour with spontaneous events. Observational parapsychology can complement experimental work, although it can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration that integrates parapsychology, psychology, neurology, and environmental sciences.41D’León et al. (2025).
Michael Duggan
Works Cited
Braude, S. (2019). Review of the book JOTT: When Things Disappear and Come Back or Relocate—and Why It Really Happens by M. R. Barrington. Journal of Scientific Exploration 33/1, 128-31.
D’León, R., Silva, A., & Álvarez, A. (2025). Investigating coin-based apports: A methodological approach to non-mediumistic recurrent physical anomalies. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 89/4, 193-224.
Freedman, M., Binns, M., Comishen, M., Strother, S., Chen, R., Cusimano, M.D., Black, S.E., & Alain, C. (2018). Mind-matter interactions and the brain: A pilot EEG study. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration.
Hannesson, G. (1924). Remarkable phenomena in Iceland. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 18, 239-72.
Haraldsson, E. (2018). Indridi Indridason (medium). Psi Encyclopedia. [Web page, last updated 8 February 2026.]
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2nd ed.) Amherst, New York, USA: Prometheus Books.
Nahm, M. (2019). Out of thin air? Apport studies performed between 1928 and 1938 by Elemér Chengery Pap. Journal of Scientific Exploration 33/4, 683-737.