A recent article on the website of a Romanian news aggregator claims that prayer protects against psychotronic attacks because it “raises the brain’s operating frequencies”. The article is a prime example of an editorial genre that proliferates precisely because of the absurdity of its claims, not in spite of them.
Narratives about psychotronic attacks have a persuasive advantage over other conspiracy theories in that they invoke real physical phenomena. It is true that radiofrequency fields can cause thermal damage at high intensities. The microwave auditory effect, first described by physicist Allan Frey in 1962, demonstrates that pulsed waves can generate auditory sensations, such as clicks or buzzing, through the thermal expansion of brain tissue. Focused ultrasound is being studied as a method of non-invasive brain stimulation, and international guidelines from the ICNIRP regulate exposure to electromagnetic fields to protect people from their proven thermal effects. Leaping from this to a conspiracy theory, however, requires abandoning the perspective of someone who acknowledges real physical effects at high intensities, adopting instead the posture of someone convinced that another person is controlling their thoughts from a distance. Unfortunately, many are willing to make this shift.
While there are systems for brain stimulation or recording, those used in practice involve sensors placed on the scalp or in the immediate vicinity of the head, or bulky equipment and controlled environments, as in the case of MEG or fMRI. The brain’s electrical signals are measured in microvolts, which are units of measurement several orders of magnitude below the electromagnetic noise of an ordinary room. Claims that these signals can be read or induced remotely, through walls, without instruments, and without leaving any physical traces simply run up against the fundamental constraints of physics. There is also an enormous difference between producing an auditory click in a laboratory and implanting a coherent voice remotely into someone’s mind.
How did we get here?
The etymology of the term itself is worth exploring, as the history of a word can sometimes reveal more than its current definitions. The term “psychotroniques” was coined in 1955 by the French researcher Fernand Clerc, who wanted to replace the term “parapsychology” with something that sounded more scientific. It remained relatively unknown in the West, but was adopted and formalised in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, where researchers were investigating telepathy and psychokinesis under semi-official supervision.
A declassified CIA document from 1975 which mapped Soviet terminology for internal use associated “psychotronics” with hypnosis, telepathy, and psychokinesis, fields that have consistently been treated with scepticism by the scientific community. This is the lineage of the term that is currently used to describe certain advanced secret weapons. It originated in parapsychology, circulated during the Cold War, and has been reinvented in the era of social media to describe real suffering with diverse causes.
Moscow and the lesson of collective humiliation
The oldest case cited in support of psychotronics as a real state weapon is the “Moscow Signal”. Between 1953 and 1976, the Soviet Union directed microwave radiation at the US Embassy in Moscow, fuelling decades of speculation about the existence of mind-control weapons. An epidemiological study commissioned by the US State Department and led by Abraham Lilienfeld of Johns Hopkins University compared the health of almost 4,000 diplomatic staff members in Moscow with that of similar groups at other Eastern European embassies. The conclusion was that there were no differences in mortality or morbidity rates, and there was no evidence that exposure to microwaves had caused any adverse health effects. Based on the data, the idea that the Soviets were pointing a weapon at the embassy was a fascinating but unfounded hypothesis.
However, things turned out rather differently for several dozen American and Canadian diplomats stationed in Cuba a few decades later.
Havana Syndrome
This phenomenon, which began in 2016, saw several dozen diplomatic staff members in Cuba report alarming neurological symptoms, including hearing loss, dizziness, severe headaches, and cognitive impairment. The cases subsequently multiplied in embassies around the world. For seven years, the issue fuelled sensationalist headlines and debates in the US Congress.
In 2023, five US intelligence agencies published the results of several investigations into these symptoms and concluded that it was “very unlikely” that the symptoms had been caused by a weapon or an external adversary, a conclusion that was reaffirmed in January 2025. Experts concluded that “Havana Syndrome” was a socially constructed category, comprising pre-existing medical conditions, stress reactions, and environmental factors, all grouped under a single label.
Medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew, co-author of the book Havana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria, described the mechanism in detail. He emphasised the role of highly skilled staff who, under intense stress, reported symptoms that spread to the wider community through social contagion. The victims were genuinely suffering and their suffering was real, but the cause was different from what had been suspected. This, in fact, is the pattern of most episodes of mass illness documented throughout history: the suffering is authentic, but the search for an external culprit is precisely what prevents healing.
Who benefits from this narrative?
Individual psychology explains why a person comes to believe they are under attack. But the ecology of these narratives also has a social and economic dimension that deserves direct examination.
Researchers who have analysed online communities created by people who considered themselves targeted individuals describe these communities as having a persecutory belief system with its own vocabulary and a framework of interpretation that transforms mundane or ambiguous events into evidence of coordinated harassment. In these systems, every symptom receives an explanation, every coincidence becomes evidence supporting the conspiracy, and any sceptical doctor is considered an accomplice.
US federal courts, which periodically hear complaints alleging the use of directed energy weapons and remote mind control, have consistently dismissed these claims as “paranoid conclusions unsupported by any factual statements.” However, once a person enters such a belief system, they have access to a complete and coherent explanation for everything that happens to them. And this very characteristic—the fact that it accounts for everything—stabilises the system and makes it extremely difficult to abandon. Furthermore, the conspiracy is reinforced by the fact that any contrary evidence is assimilated as a reason to delve deeper into the narrative.
Added to these elements is the very structure of our communication systems. Digital platforms were built on a well-documented asymmetry of attention. We know today that negative information captures attention more effectively than neutral information, and the message “you’re in danger and someone wants to control you” spreads far more rapidly than any article about vitamin D deficiency. Fear rewards the algorithm. And the person who is genuinely suffering and searching for answers unwittingly becomes the content.
Nocebo: when belief brings about the very thing we fear
Psychologist Barry Schwartz observed in The Paradox of Choice that an overabundance of narratives produces anxiety rather than freedom. This anxiety, generated by the sheer multitude of options, has allowed a lesser-known opposing phenomenon to flourish—even less familiar than the famous placebo effect—the nocebo effect.
The nocebo phenomenon is well documented in medical literature. Derived from the Latin nocebo (“I will harm”), this effect describes the onset of real physical symptoms as a result of anticipating harm. While the placebo effect helps people feel better through the belief that a treatment works, the nocebo effect operates in reverse: it makes a person feel worse through the belief that something is harming them, even when that something is absent or entirely harmless.
Studies cited by Mayo Clinic Press describe healthy participants who were exposed to a fictitious radiofrequency stimulus and told that an electric current was passing through their heads. The result was a real, measurable headache produced by the brain in the complete absence of any actual physical stimulus. The same mechanism explains why people who are convinced they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields report headaches and fatigue even when the surrounding devices are switched off, a conclusion confirmed by multiple controlled studies.
The World Health Organization notes that self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not fall under any recognised medical syndrome and recommends clinical evaluation for other conditions that may be generating these symptoms.
A meta-analysis published in 2024 showed that the nocebo effect can be triggered by verbal suggestions, previous negative experiences, and even by observing other people’s symptoms, for example, within online groups. The brain can replicate other people’s symptoms when someone reads testimonies from alleged victims of invisible attacks. This means not only that the suffering is real, but also that the very source of the suffering may be the process of searching for a source.
Who is vulnerable, and why?
An understanding of psychotronic narratives is incomplete without an honest look at the people for whom these narratives become a frame of reference. We might assume that vulnerability to persecutory beliefs is a character flaw, but studies show it is, rather, a psychological response to a combination of identifiable factors. And this is good news, because it means that this vulnerability can be reduced.
Somewhat unexpectedly, research has shown that something as easily overlooked as sleep plays a significant role. Poor sleep quality substantially increases susceptibility to conspiracy theories through the depression and anxiety it generates. Participants with poor sleep quality accepted conspiracy narratives more readily than those who were well-rested. And the mechanism appears to work in both directions—on the one hand, poor sleep amplifies paranoia, and on the other, paranoia disrupts sleep, creating what researchers call the “conspiracy cycle.”
Social isolation is another documented risk factor. A study published in Social Science and Medicine showed that personality traits associated with paranoia and schizotypy, combined with social isolation and stress, significantly increase the likelihood of adopting conspiracy beliefs. People without social support networks are more vulnerable not because they are less intelligent, but because they lack natural conversations with trusted individuals who offer different perspectives. This absence leaves the field wide open to any roughly coherent narrative.
Several researchers have also identified the role played by acute or chronic stress: traumatic life events, grief, job loss, or a serious illness can serve as entry points into persecutory narratives. The American Psychiatric Association notes that paranoid-type symptoms often emerge during periods of transition or crisis, and that early identification significantly reduces the severity of the condition’s progression.
Warning signs
The line between legitimate scepticism (for example, concern about the risks of electromagnetic radiation) and persecutory distress (being convinced that you are the target of a coordinated attack) is not always apparent to the person experiencing symptoms that warrant medical evaluation. For that reason, it is worth describing from an outside perspective. The American Psychiatric Association identifies several signs that warrant a psychiatric evaluation, regardless of the specific content of the beliefs:
- The conviction that you are personally targeted by an entity (the government, an organisation, neighbours) that is coordinating actions against you;
- Interpreting neutral events (a car parked in front of the house, a passerby’s cough, or an internet outage) as evidence of persecution;
- Gradual isolation from family and friends, justified by the fear that they might be infiltrators, or that you would endanger them by involving them;
- Difficulty sleeping, concentrating, or functioning in daily life due to the monitoring of perceived threats;
- The feeling that physical symptoms (headaches, tinnitus, fatigue) are caused by an invisible external source.
None of these signs alone constitute a diagnosis. Many may arise in perfectly justified contexts. But the combination of several such signs, especially in the context of significant distress and social withdrawal, warrants bringing to a doctor’s attention, rather than being explained and resolved online.
Perhaps the most important clinical point is that persecutory delusional disorder, one of the conditions in which narratives involving “psychotronic attacks” may arise, responds to treatment. The prognosis varies: nearly half of patients may respond well to treatment, while others experience only partial symptom relief or minimal change. A medical evaluation could help the person suffering gain access to support that is truly effective.
What can you do if you are affected?
If you recognise yourself in the descriptions above, the first step is not to dismiss all your concerns, but to subject them to a basic reality check. Here are some helpful questions to ask yourself:
Is there evidence independent of your own experience? A solid conviction can be verified by others or leave detectable physical traces. If no one else observes what you perceive as obvious, that is worth taking into account. It is a first relevant piece of information.
How much time do you spend each day thinking about the threat or documenting it? If the answer is “hours,” that is a sign that you are concretely affected by suffering, regardless of its source.
Have you reduced contact with people close to you because of your concerns? Isolation is both a risk factor and a symptom, and in both cases it makes the situation worse.
If your answers worry you, the most protective thing you can do is speak with a family doctor or a psychiatrist. Their goal will not be to convince you that you are wrong, but to assess whether there are treatable medical causes for the distress you are experiencing. Precisely because the suffering is real, it deserves to be investigated with the most appropriate tools.
If someone close to you recognises themselves in these descriptions
Clinical guidelines consistently state that directly challenging or dismissing persecutory beliefs typically produces the opposite effect. The person feels invalidated, and their paranoia toward the person they are speaking with increases.
What works better:
Stay connected. Isolation is one of the most significant factors that perpetuate and deepen suffering. Your constant presence, without becoming either a believer in their paranoid ideas or their adversary, matters more than any argument.
Talk about symptoms, not causes. The person may be open to discussing the fact that they are not sleeping well, that they are exhausted, or that they have headaches. These are entry points toward medical care that do not directly challenge their beliefs.
Propose medical help as a resource for managing symptoms. Telling the affected person that they need help for delusional ideas will, in all likelihood, be perceived as an insult. The person who is suffering will respond differently, however, to your sincere concern that they are not sleeping well and are exhausted and that a doctor could help with these symptoms.
Do not fuel or label the conspiracy. Asking for more details, searching together for supposed evidence, or showing fascination with the narrative only reinforces the system.
The American Psychiatric Association and mental health organisations such as NAMI offer specific resources for families, including educational programs that significantly improve your capacity to support a loved one without making the situation worse.
Immunisation through information
Understanding how manipulation and disinformation techniques work in advance makes you significantly more resistant to them. Seven randomised controlled trials involving over 29,000 participants and published in Science Advances confirmed that exposure to a low dose of manipulative tactics (such as exaggerated emotional language, false dichotomies, scapegoating and appeals to fear) reduces susceptibility to subsequent disinformation.
Applied to psychotronic narratives, the mechanism works as follows: when you know that there exists a vocabulary intentionally designed to make a narrative extremely difficult to refute with evidence (since any contrary evidence will be assimilated as an argument in favour of the conspiracy) and that an online community built around the conspiracy will immediately offer confirmation and a sense of belonging, you are better equipped to recognise these dynamics when you encounter them and less likely to be caught up in them.
The literature has already documented several concrete practices that can help immunise us against persecutory conspiracies:
Diversify your sources of information. Research on conspiracy beliefs shows how echo chambers (environments in which a person encounters only similar opinions to their own) are a major factor in reinforcing persecutory beliefs. Deliberately exposing yourself to multiple perspectives, including opposing views, maintains cognitive flexibility.
Approach any community that offers you an explanation for everything with caution. A belief system that claims to have the answer to every question and automatically labels any outside sceptic as “part of the system” is, by its very nature, impossible to correct and therefore dangerous.
Prioritise sleep and reduce chronic stress. Improving sleep quality and reducing depression are effective interventions for lowering susceptibility to conspiracy theories which is, in some respects, more effective than direct factual corrections.
Maintain real, face-to-face relationships. Offline social connections represent the most consistent protective factor identified in the literature on psychological resilience. They provide the reality check that no online community can replace.
Help in times of suffering
This article is not intended to invalidate anyone’s experience of suffering. People who believe they are experiencing a psychotronic attack often suffer deeply, and this suffering is real, even if its causes are different from what they imagine. This is precisely why the most important thing for someone who recognises themselves, or a loved one, in these descriptions is to seek specialised help.
Help is available, it works, and it has nothing to do with being convinced that you are wrong; it is about regaining your peace of mind.
If you are in Europe and need mental health support, you can call 116 123—the EU/EEA’s shared emotional support helpline number, which connects you to a crisis service in whichever country you are currently in. The line is free, confidential, and available around the clock. You can also visit findahelpline.com to find verified local services for your specific country. As always, your family doctor can refer you to a psychiatrist or mental health specialist.
