The Bangs sisters’ Chicago sittings offered two striking promises: messages appearing inside sealed envelopes and portraits forming without an artist visibly painting them. Visitors brought questions about deceased relatives and sometimes photographs from which a likeness might be produced. The surviving reports are unusually useful because investigators recorded both the arrangements and their disagreements. Some believed they had witnessed communication from the dead. Others described opportunities for ordinary deception and compared the portrait effect with conjuring.
This case follows particular reported sittings in 1909 and 1911, rather than treating every story about the sisters as one interchangeable demonstration. Hereward Carrington’s later account, Vice-Admiral W. Usborne Moore’s contemporary report and their published correspondence describe different visits and different standards of evidence. None provides an independently monitored recording of a portrait’s production. Their contrasting accounts nevertheless preserve much more detail than a simple assertion that mysterious pictures appeared.
The claims and the equipment
Moore’s March 1911 report distinguishes a portrait test from a separate proposed letter test. For the portraits, two canvases were placed upright together near a window. A picture was expected to develop on an inward-facing surface, visible as changing tones and features. The position of the canvases, the direction of illumination and who could handle or leave them became important parts of the dispute.
The writing claim was different. A letter and spare paper could be enclosed in an envelope and placed between slates, with ink provided nearby. The claimed result was a written reply inside the envelope. As Moore subsequently stressed, this was not simply chalk writing appearing on a slate. Confusing the two makes it harder to understand either the alleged phenomenon or the proposed methods of deception.
Carrington’s account of June 1909
Carrington dated his Chicago writing sitting to Saturday, 26 June 1909. In his 1913 book he described using invented names for himself and his mother. A returned message addressed those names. He reported handling and movements around the covered slates, marks suggesting they had been forced apart, and an envelope he considered tampered with. He interpreted the sitting as fraudulent. These are his attributed observations and conclusions, not a surviving independent examination of the objects.
He linked the procedure to an earlier published exposure involving a concealed mirror. His own account says he did not use that method of observation. The distinction matters: his interpretation combined suspicious details he reported seeing with a mechanism described elsewhere. It should not be rewritten as though he personally watched every step of an envelope passing into another room.
For the portraits, Carrington recorded an important failure: no picture appeared during his sittings on 26 and 27 June. He therefore initially withheld a definite explanation of a portrait he had not seen produced. His unsuccessful visits cannot themselves demonstrate how a successful picture was made.
Moore changes the conditions
Moore described arriving at the sisters’ Chicago house on 28 January 1911. He openly stated that he already trusted the phenomena he had seen in 1909. He asked permission to alter the usual arrangements and direct the proceedings. According to his account, the sisters agreed, while warning that the changed conditions might prevent success. His prior confidence is part of the record, just as Carrington’s suspicion is part of his.
Moore said he inspected the room and table and sealed the window sashes with labels. He selected two canvases from a larger group stored elsewhere at the property, marked them with identifying words, his initials and the date, and placed them together on the table. He initially occupied a position normally taken by one of the sisters. Lizzie Bangs held the canvases on one side while he held them on the other; May sat in the visitor’s position.
The first day did not produce a finished portrait. Moore described changing colours and transient appearances which he associated with familiar people. The sisters supplied interpretations and messages, but the apparent beginnings faded. When the sitting ended, he took the canvases to his hotel and said they were locked away. This reported overnight custody is a specific feature of his test, rather than an assumption that all materials remained with the mediums.
The following evening
Moore returned with the canvases on Sunday, 29 January. He reported checking the window seals and initially repeating the altered seating. Again there were changes in the canvases’ appearance, while May repeatedly moved around. Later she resumed her usual place and Moore moved to the visitor’s chair. The conditions therefore changed during the session; it was not one fixed arrangement maintained throughout.
As daylight disappeared, the observers introduced artificial illumination. Moore wrote that the canvas seemed blank when the room was first lit. A portable light was then placed behind the canvases, and he reported the portrait developing between about 6.05 and 6.20 p.m. The sequence makes illumination an essential part of the observation. It does not establish that light caused the effect, but it prevents the event from being described simply as a painting watched under constant daylight conditions.
The reported result was initially imperfect. Moore noticed a mark at the neck, rubbing near the top and an unfinished background. The picture was covered, the lights extinguished and the party went downstairs for about an hour. On returning, he said the defects had disappeared and the background had improved. Further finishing was promised after he took the canvases away. He did not inspect the picture again until London on 9 March, when he found the expected mottling.
These details impose limits on what his report can show. The hour away from the covered picture was an interval without his continuous observation. The later journey also separates the last Chicago inspection from the London inspection. Moore considered the episode convincing, but his confidence cannot supply observations for those gaps. Equally, identifying a gap is not evidence that a particular person performed a particular concealed action during it.
The argument in Light
The magazine Light printed competing letters on 13 May 1911. Carrington challenged Moore’s interpretation and corrected his own description of the room: the disputed opening was beneath a door, rather than a slit cut into it. He also clarified a reference to a wooden division between window panes. Such corrections belong in the account; omitting them would make his initial wording appear more secure than he subsequently claimed.
Carrington further argued that David P. Abbott had reproduced the portrait effect by conjuring. His letter described a comparable visual result and treated that resemblance as a reason to doubt supernatural production. A reproducible illusion can challenge an argument that an effect is impossible by ordinary means. Resemblance alone, however, cannot identify which method was used at a sitting the investigator did not observe producing a picture.
Moore questioned whether Carrington had actually visited the house and repeated the sisters’ denial. He also supplied a letter from I. K. Funk, dated 18 April 1911. Funk confirmed asking Carrington to investigate, defended his own favourable experiences and objected to the use of a false identity. His commissioning of an investigation was not personal eyewitness confirmation of Carrington’s attendance. These letters document a disagreement; their appearance in the same magazine does not resolve it.
What the record establishes
The documents establish that named investigators reported Chicago sittings, described equipment and procedures, and publicly disputed their significance. They do not establish communication from deceased people. Carrington’s failed portrait sittings, Moore’s favourable report and a conjurer’s reproduction also answer different questions. Combining them into one decisive experiment would conceal the differences that make the case historically useful.
The sources allow a careful chronology without requiring acceptance of every participant’s explanation. They show why custody, lighting, handling, interruptions and accurate descriptions of apparatus matter when assessing a claim. The case remains a history of contested evidence, rather than a verified demonstration of a spirit creating a portrait.
Location and source limits
The map pin is an approximate Chicago locality reference, derived from the U.S. Census city gazetteer and rounded for area context. It does not identify an exact séance room, historic house or present private address. The contemporary accounts establish Chicago as the venue city; the pin is not a surveyed incident position or a visitor destination.
The source trail includes Carrington’s complete relevant 1913 chapter, Moore’s complete published portrait-test report and the relevant May 1911 correspondence. Earlier investigations mentioned by those writers and the original objects have not been independently examined here. The sources’ claims about those earlier investigations are therefore kept separate from the accounts directly inspected for this case.
Sources and related reading
Hereward Carrington, Personal Experiences in Spiritualism (London: T. Werner Laurie, 1913), printed pages 76–94. Complete relevant chapter read, including his stated limits on the unsuccessful portrait sittings. Original scan page 77 visually checked: 26 June 1909. The archive filename misleadingly contains 1884; the book edition is 1913.
W. Usborne Moore, Test Sittings with the Bangs Sisters, Light, 25 March 1911, pages 139–140. Complete portrait-test report read through its conclusion. Chicago sittings 28–29 January 1911. The subsequent proposed writing test is not reported in this particular article.
The Bangs Sisters and Fraud, Light, 13 May 1911, pages 226–227. Complete relevant Carrington letter, Moore response and reproduced I. K. Funk letter of 18 April 1911 read. Correspondents’ claims are distinguished from independent findings.
Light of Truth Album (Columbus, Ohio: Light of Truth Publishing Company, 1897), portrait page 57 and biography page II. Title, original portrait and relevant brief biographical entry inspected. Anonymous historic photograph visually matched to the Commons crop; the album’s promotional claims do not authenticate the later séances.
Wikimedia Commons: Lizzie and May Bangs. File page, publication source, unidentified photographer and public-domain statement checked. Existing crop of the portrait published in 1897; original album page inspected. Public-domain image used for article and directory thumbnails.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 Gazetteer, Illinois places. Chicago city reference 41.837045, −87.684939, rounded to 41.837, −87.685 for this approximate locality pin. No private residential address or exact séance-room position inferred.
Related case: Adele Brise’s reported visions and the early written account. Another spiritual case distinguishing attributed experience, contemporary source history and later recognition.