< Back

How long does serious training as a medium actually take?

Q: How long does serious training as a medium actually take?

Years, not weekends. Pascal Voggenhuber trained for over eight years in the English spiritualist tradition, and his own courses run five to seven years. Weekend certificates give an introduction, not competence.

The market offers spiritual training at almost every length: a weekend workshop, a two-week intensive, a certificate after a short course. Anyone comparing these options needs a reference point for what serious training actually involves.

Eight years, then five to seven for his own students

Pascal Voggenhuber trained in the classical English spiritualist tradition, including time in England. His own training ran more than eight years. The courses he later taught run between five and seven years. He contrasts this directly with two- or three-week courses, and he is clear that the difference is not marketing.

Method, repetition, selection

Part of the difference is method. In the English tradition he encountered, students received no handouts and no workbooks. Everything had to be worked out and written down by the student. When he began teaching in Switzerland, students immediately asked where the printed material was. He describes the underlying mentality as the real gap: one culture expected students to invest heavily in their own development, another expected the course fee to deliver a result by the final day.

Part of it is repetition. A single exercise might be trained for years. His argument is that a weekend seminar can only run an exercise once or twice, after which participants conclude they cannot do it. His response is that they have simply not done it enough times yet.

And part of it is selection. In the setting where he trained, access was not open. You needed to know someone already in a circle, you were allowed to observe, and you were assessed before being permitted to continue. He compares it to drama school, where hundreds audition for a handful of places. He notes that this has changed and that today anyone can book a course, and he sees genuine value in that openness. But he does not pretend the two paths produce the same depth.

The criterion he rates above all of it

When selecting students, he did not look primarily at talent. He looked at psychological stability. Someone highly emotional, he says, will break under the work. That is a screening question the length of a course cannot substitute for.

Key takeaways

Ask how long the programme runs and how much of it is repeated practice.
Ask whether the school screens applicants at all.
Treat short courses as an introduction, not an education.
Stability matters more than talent, by the teacher's own criterion.