Interdisciplinarity in Contemporary UAP Studies

Consciousness, Esotericism, and the “Empirical Weird” in an Emerging Field

“We are trying to bring disciplines together to bear on the issue, and trying to create a shared descriptive vocabulary. The weird is something experienced, and this should be honored.” 

— Dr. Michael Cifone, Co-Founder and Director, Society for UAP Studies

In early December, scholars from across Europe and North America convened in Erlangen, Germany—both in person and online—for the second annual Society for UAP Studies (SUAPS) Conference, a symposium dedicated to advancing interdisciplinary research into Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena (UAP). Hosted at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, the conference marked a significant step in SUAPS’ mission to develop a rigorous academic framework for a subject long marginalized by stigma, disciplinary fragmentation, and methodological uncertainty.

This year’s theme—“Interdisciplinarity in Contemporary UAP Studies”—signaled a deliberate shift away from narrow debates about craft identification or extraterrestrial hypotheses, toward deeper questions of epistemology, ontology, and human experience. Over three days of keynote lectures, plenary sessions, and closed workshops, participants explored how anomalous phenomena challenge existing scientific categories, and how the humanities and social sciences might contribute meaningfully to UAP research.

Defining the “Empirical Weird”

SUAPS Director Dr. Michael Cifone introduced the concept of the “empirical weird” as a way of addressing the growing body of witness testimony, historical documentation, and sensor data that resists easy classification within classical scientific models. While conventional science relies on repeatability, controlled conditions, and stable variables, UAP reports frequently involve subjective experience, ambiguity, and phenomena that appear responsive to observation itself.

Rather than dismissing these qualities as disqualifying, SUAPS argues they must be confronted directly. Doing so requires new language, shared definitions, and collaboration across disciplines that do not typically intersect—physics and philosophy, psychology and folklore, intelligence studies and phenomenology.

The opening roundtable, “Consciousness Studies, Esotericism, and UAP,” set the tone for the conference. Co-hosted by Dr. Adam Dodd and Dr. Cifone, the session addressed what Dodd described as phenomena that appear to cross the traditional divide between matter and meaning. Historian of esotericism Dr. Aaron French posed foundational questions: 

What constitutes empirical experience? 

Do UFOs resist empirical categories by their very nature?

French also noted that the sensationalism of early ufology—and the cultural stigma surrounding “UFO cults”—continues to shape academic reluctance. Even influential writers such as John Keel, he argued, contributed to both insight and marginalization. Cifone emphasized that while conventional scientific tools are being applied to UAP research, “the phenomenon appears to exceed the purview of classical science.”

Experience as Data

A recurring theme throughout the symposium was the status of experience itself as data. SUAPS Research Programs Director Peter Sforza asked bluntly, “What counts as real, and what counts as data?” To what extent, participants debated, should subjective experience—particularly in cases involving close encounters or abductions—be treated as legitimate evidence?

Dr. Dodd argued that “weirdness” often emerges not from the phenomenon, but from the classificatory systems used to contain it. Drawing an analogy to early microscopy, he noted that researchers once struggled to describe microorganisms to audiences who had never seen them. Similarly, modern sensor systems have detected UAP before they are visually observed, challenging assumptions about perception and instrumentation.

International perspectives further complicated the discussion. Russian academic Dr. Anna Tessemann observed that parapsychology was not considered marginal in the former Soviet Union, where researchers pursued anomalous effects without rigid distinctions between the possible and the observable. She also noted that state-sponsored “legends” were sometimes constructed from witness testimony to obscure classified programs—an inversion of how disinformation is often framed in Western discourse.

Historian of Chinese medicine Dr. Marta Hanson suggested that anomalous phenomena have historically served as productive material for intellectual inquiry, while longtime UFO researcher Dr. Benda Denzler cautioned that the field must continually assess whether it is advancing discovery or drifting toward fringe speculation.

Workshops: Ontology, Stigma, and Method

Closed-session workshops allowed SUAPS members to engage more deeply with methodological and institutional challenges. In the Humanities and Social Sciences tracks, participants examined how researchers themselves are implicated in the phenomena they study.

Independent researcher Brian Sentes argued that UAP research is inherently reflexive, likening the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) to a search for humanity’s own cognitive limits. Advisory Council member Edoardo Russo suggested that while stigma has diminished externally, researchers may still internalize a sense of marginalization that shapes the field’s self-image.

Discussions also addressed the prospect of government disclosure. Communications Director David Metcalfe cautioned that any disclosure must be evaluated in light of institutional motivations, referencing scholarship by Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka on how media narratives can construct collective memory that diverges from historical reality. Other participants emphasized the importance of maintaining objectivity while acknowledging the profound personal effects UAP encounters can have on witnesses.

Keynotes and Plenary Sessions

The conference featured a wide range of keynote and plenary presentations, reflecting SUAPS’ interdisciplinary scope.

Sociologist Dr. Steve Fuller opened with “Thinking About the Unthinkable, UAP-Style,” arguing that UAP discourse forces a reevaluation of what it means to be human. He revisited Cold War concepts such as “precipatory governance,” which examined how societies might respond to destabilizing revelations. Fuller suggested that public acknowledgment of nonhuman intelligence could have cascading implications for debates about animal rights, artificial intelligence, and collective versus individual notions of personhood.

In a joint plenary, Drs. Michael Glawson and Courtney Bower presented “From Something Less Than Science to Something More,” proposing a hybrid methodology that combines natural science with analytical tools used by the intelligence community. Glawson emphasized that data collection without guiding theory is insufficient, while Bower explored the hypothesis that self-replicating probes—often referred to as von Neumann probes—could account for certain UAP characteristics.

Emeritus Professor Dr. Michael Zimmerman addressed the decline in reported alien abductions since the early 1990s, drawing connections between abduction narratives, Cold War nuclear anxiety, and existential psychology. Referencing the work of Dr. John Mack, Zimmerman suggested that many abductees’ experiences mirror profound confrontations with mortality, and that social dismissal may serve as a defense against unsettling implications.

Abduction Research and the Problem of Standardization

One of the most sustained discussions centered on the abduction or “experiencer” phenomenon. Veteran researcher Douwe Bosga, who worked with J. Allen Hynek’s Center for UFO Studies, and data specialist Jorren Bosga highlighted the lack of standardized methodologies in abduction research. Despite evidence that experiencers do not differ significantly from the general population psychologically, the absence of agreed-upon definitions and protocols has hindered academic engagement.

Participants debated whether abductees could be included as research partners rather than passive subjects—a proposal that raised concerns about objectivity but found support in comparative studies of divination and participatory research models. Legal scholar Klaus Diehle added a jurisprudential perspective, noting that consent fundamentally alters the legal meaning of “abduction,” further complicating terminology.

Humanities, Social Sciences, and Cultural Context

Later sessions examined how culture, folklore, and media shape UAP reporting and interpretation. Finnish doctoral candidate Krystel Ruutma presented research on the stigmatization of military pilot sightings, emphasizing the role of tacit knowledge and media narratives. Dr. Kimberly Engels discussed phenomenology, drawing on Edmund Husserl’s assertion that human experience constitutes valid scientific data—even while acknowledging the reconstructive nature of memory.

French researcher Michaël Vaillant outlined GEIPAN’s data classification system, designed to reduce subjectivity in evaluating sighting reports, while clarifying that such systems are not suited to claims of direct contact.

Evening keynotes included Professor Rom Westrum, who defended the physical reality of abduction events and introduced concepts such as “pluralistic ignorance,” where shared experiences go unreported due to social isolation.

Physics, Folklore, and the More-Than-Human

The final day featured presentations that bridged physics, history, and philosophy. Astrophysicist Dr. Massimo Teodorani proposed plasma-based models for UAP behavior, citing self-organizing plasma structures observed in Norway’s Hessdalen Valley. Researcher Rainer Haseitl detailed ongoing sensor deployments in the region, long described by Hynek as a “UFO laboratory.”

Associate Professor Tiina Mahlamäki traced the history of UFO research in Finland, illustrating how spiritual interpretation and speculative excess have periodically undermined academic credibility.

The closing lecture, delivered by Dr. Adam Dodd, synthesized many of the conference’s themes. In “UFOs as More-Than-Human Media,” Dodd argued against rigid separations between observer, phenomenon, and interpretation. Drawing on film, indigenous ontologies, and media theory, he suggested that UAP encounters function as co-constitutive events—emergent interactions rather than one-way transmissions.

A Field in Formation

As the conference concluded, participants reflected on the significance of SUAPS’ approach. Rather than advancing a single explanatory model, the Society is focused on methodological self-examination, disciplinary integration, and the development of shared conceptual tools.

By foregrounding experience, uncertainty, and reflexivity, SUAPS is helping to transform UAP studies from a fragmented collection of inquiries into a maturing academic field—one increasingly capable of addressing phenomena that challenge the limits of current knowledge.

In doing so, the Society is not only reframing the UAP debate, but modeling how scholarship itself can evolve when confronted with the genuinely unknown.