Faced with the proliferation of false clairvoyants, fraudulent practices and general inaction, INAD is sounding the alarm.
It is no longer a question of regulating a market, but of protecting people and saving a profession threatened by abuse. The world of clairvoyance is going through a deep crisis, which few dare to face. Behind meteoric digital growth, questionable practices are spreading: self-proclaimed psychics, uncontrolled platforms, anxiety-provoking speeches amplified on social networks. While the image is modernized, the abuses are becoming more professional. Everyone knows. And almost everyone is silent. The rare voices that are raised, serious, committed practitioners, are drowned out by the din of charlatans, sellers of miracles, merchants of illusory promises. We exploit distress, solitude, misery. And it becomes almost banal.
On the ground, the consequences are serious. Vulnerable people are being tricked by sellers of supposedly guaranteed “hidden work” for thousands, even hundreds of thousands of euros. Ruined, isolated, they wall themselves in silence, hoping to forget. But this silence, as human as it is, protects the impostors. What alarms us is that these abuses are no longer shocking. Scandal becomes normal. Inaction sets in. Even honest practitioners often prefer to stay in the background, out of fear or weariness. But their silence, in the end, allows abuse to take hold. Let us be clear: we are not calling into question belief, nor the right to consult. What we denounce is a system that thrives on human fragility, disguised as spirituality, and driven by impunity.
INAD has been leading this fight for years, with limited resources, often without support. But without relay or concrete support, we will not be able to continue indefinitely. We say it bluntly: if nothing changes, INAD will eventually withdraw. And we will then have to accept that the “miracle workers” and the merchants of illusions alone occupy the field. Perhaps others, with more support, will one day take up the torch. But in the meantime, there will be no one left to seriously defend this profession. Institutions must take up the subject. Platforms have responsibility for the content they host. The media can no longer be content with discussing excesses on the margins: they must question a phenomenon that has become structural. As for professionals, it is time to speak, to take responsibility, to defend what can still be defended. Because yes, clairvoyance has a meaning, sometimes vital. It can represent a last link, a last hope for those who no longer have any other reference point. But this requires sincere, honest and supervised practice.
Today, it is no longer just a question of regulating a profession a little. It is about protecting people, saving the profession, and preventing the future of clairvoyance from being left to the loudest, but least honest.
Share your point of view in a respectful and constructive spirit.