Measuring the Invisible: What a “Weird Light” Reveals About Consciousness and Leadership

On my desk, there is a strange lamp.

At first glance, it looks like a design object. But it is quietly doing something unusual: it is measuring the invisible.

Inside this lamp, beneath the light and glass, sits a high-quality coin flipper. In fact, there are two of them. They produce streams of zeros and ones in a genuinely random way, thousands of times per second.

Under normal conditions, that stream should remain random. Over time, you expect roughly 50% zeros and 50% ones.

What this device does is watch for moments when that no longer holds true.

When it detects a statistically significant deviation from randomness, the light changes colour, brightness, and pattern. In simple terms: it glows when there is order where there should be randomness.

The question is:
What is creating that order?

From randomness to an “ordering principle”

If you flip a coin 1,000 times, you expect something like 500 heads, 500 tails. You might get 520/480, or 530/470. That’s still within normal variation.

But if you get 800 heads and 200 tails, you know something is wrong. The coin, or the process, is no longer random.

Our device does this kind of analysis continuously. It looks for moments when the stream of zeros and ones is far too structured to be explained by chance alone.

Whenever that happens, it signals:

• Different colours indicate different analytical channels where order shows up.
• Different brightness levels reflect the intensity of the deviation.
• When activity crosses certain thresholds, the lamp begins to spin colours or flash.

We don’t yet fully know what each pattern means. But we know this much:

Something in the environment is creating order in a system designed to be random.

We call that something an ordering principle.

And the working hypothesis is simple and provocative:

That ordering principle is consciousness.

Early experiments: Tantra, football, and hospice

To move beyond speculation, we’ve been running experiments in very different environments.

1. Structured rituals: Tantra seminars

In certain seminars, particularly in Tantric settings, the rituals follow a specific, repeatable structure.

That makes them ideal test beds.

When we place the device in the room during a ritual and record data over time, we see clear peaks at particular moments.

• The ritual schedule is known (what happens when).
• The data shows when deviations from randomness occur.
• We can map those peaks back to specific phases in the ritual.

We still don’t know exactly what is happening in the field. But we do know:

Certain shared practices correlate with measurable, non-random effects.

2. Collective emotion: Football stadiums

In collaboration with Northampton University and the National Football League in the UK, we placed the device in football stadiums during matches.

Again, we ran the analysis and matched the time-stamped peaks to the game events:

• Goals
• Penalties
• Fouls
• Moments when the entire stadium collectively holds its breath

What we see is a repeated pattern:

Large, synchronized emotional reactions in the crowd tend to coincide with spikes in the data.

Is it proof of anything final? No.

Is it evidence that collective emotion and field order are connected? Very likely.

3. Threshold moments: Hospice and intensive care

We also ran measurements in hospice and intensive care units, focusing on the end-of-life process.

The device recorded data around patients’ final hours. Later, we compared the peaks in the data to the official medical records.

Over and over, we found spikes at specific points that aligned with what doctors identified as the moment of death.

We do not yet know what is actually happening at that level. But it is hard to escape the conclusion:

Something significant is occurring in the field when a life begins and ends.

Why this challenges the materialist worldview

For decades, mainstream science has largely treated consciousness as a by-product of the brain: a passive observer, not an active player.

The working worldview has been:

• Matter is primary.
• Consciousness is an emergent property of complex matter.
• Only physical variables can cause physical effects.

The anomalies we’re seeing are difficult to fit into that frame.

We are measuring:

• Order emerging in supposedly random systems
• At times that correlate with:
  • Shared emotional events
  • Structured rituals
  • Threshold experiences like death

These measurements are not based on belief or preference. They are based on statistics.

Once you have robust data, the phenomena can no longer be dismissed as imagination or wishful thinking. You have to account for them.

That is where things get interesting for all of us, not just for scientists.

Because when you start including consciousness as a foundational ingredient in your model of reality, everything from ethics to leadership becomes a different conversation.

Fingers and the hand: a different identity

One metaphor that has helped me make sense of this is simple:

Imagine a hand.

• Each finger is an individual person: separate, distinct, with its own shape and role.
• The hand is the underlying consciousness: one field, one organism, expressing itself in many forms.

If you only see the fingers, the world looks like this:

• “You are you, I am me.”
• “What happens to you is separate from what happens to me.”
• Hurting you may be regrettable, but it has nothing to do with me.

If you see the hand, the picture changes:

• The fingers are not separate entities.
• They are differentiated expressions of the same underlying reality.

From that perspective:

It would be absurd for one finger to try to destroy another. They are part of the same hand.

In our bodies, we take this for granted.
Our liver does not declare war on our lungs. Each organ plays its role in service of the whole.

Our current global behaviour often looks like the opposite:

• Systems attacking other systems
• Groups turning against each other
• Short-term, self-interested moves that ultimately damage the larger whole

From the finger-only perspective, this almost makes sense.
From the hand perspective, it is self-harm.

Worldview → ethics → leadership

This is where the weird light connects directly to leadership.

Our behaviour is not random. It flows from our worldview:

• If you deeply believe we are separate, it is easier to justify selfishness.
• If you deeply know we are expressions of one field, your motivation changes.

You do not need a moral lecture to stop you from harming others if you truly experience them as part of yourself.

This is not philosophy for its own sake. It is practical ethics with real consequences:

• How you run your company
• How you treat your team
• How you respond to conflict
• How you make strategic decisions

The weird light is a catalyst. It doesn’t tell you what to believe. It forces you to ask:

“If this is real, if consciousness actually orders matter, what does that say about who I am, and how I should act?”

Those are leadership questions.

The need for contrast

Of course, if we are all part of one hand, a natural question arises:

Why is there so much conflict, suffering, and division?

One answer I find plausible is about contrast.

We recognize anything — heat, colour, emotion — through contrast:

• You cannot feel hot if you have never felt cold.
• You cannot see white without black.
• You cannot truly appreciate peace without knowing war.
• You cannot understand love without ever encountering fear.

If there is a larger consciousness seeking to experience itself, contrast becomes necessary.

To know itself as love, it must also create the possibility of fear.
To know itself as peace, it must also allow war.

From the perspective of the whole, contrast is a tool for self-knowledge.
From the perspective of the individual “finger,” it is real and often painful.

This doesn’t excuse harm.
But it does reframe our reality as a learning environment, not just a random accident.

Technology as a catalyst for evolution

Practically, our work is moving in two directions:

1. Foundational science

   • Provide a standard, robust instrument (“weirdoscope”) to universities and research teams.
   • Enable serious, repeatable research into consciousness, intention, and field effects.

2. Applied technology

   • Miniaturize the core as a “Weird Unit”, similar to “Intel Inside”.
   • Embed it in different devices and applications:
     • Lamps and home objects
     • Apps that show field fluctuations in real time
     • Future interfaces that might allow us to interact with technology via intention, without physical implants

We are at the steam-engine stage of this technology:

• We know something works.
• We don’t yet know all the ways it can be used.
• But we can sense that the implications go beyond gadgets.

At the deepest level, our intention is not to build a unicorn company (even if the business potential is significant). It is to:

• Give science a new instrument.
• Give society a new mirror.
• Support an identity shift from isolated individuals to expressions of one field.

What this means for you as a leader

You don’t need a weird light on your desk to start working with these ideas.

Here are a few questions you can sit with now:

1. What do you really believe about reality?

   • Is consciousness an accident, or is it fundamental?
   • Are you a “finger”, or part of a “hand”?

2. How does that belief show up in your leadership?

   • In how you treat people under pressure
   • In how you think about competitors
   • In how you describe “us” and “them”

3. Where do you see “order where there should be randomness” in your own life?

   • Coincidences that are hard to ignore
   • Moments of collective flow in teams
   • Times when intention seemed to shape outcome

4. What identity are you leading from?

   • The identity of a separate self trying to win?
   • Or the identity of a part of a larger consciousness, responsible for more than your own corner?

You don’t have to adopt my answers.

But if the data we’re seeing holds up, the question will not be whether to update our worldview, but how quickly — and how gracefully — we can do it.

And that, in many ways, is the real work of leadership in our time.

(This post was inspired by a Conscious Conversation with a dear friend & professional colleague on 27th November 2024.)