Skip to content
portalecm Search

A real-life case · Sri Lanka, 1992

Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case

Chatura Karunaratne was three years old when he began saying that in another life he was attacked while riding in a truck through the forest. A Sri Lankan newspaper published what he said in June 1992. Weeks later, a man read the article and recognized his son in it, a soldier who died in 1986.

It is the first in our top 5 reincarnation cases. It has something that is almost never there. What the boy said appeared in a national newspaper before anyone knew who he was talking about. Journalists who belonged to neither family wrote it, and the articles are dated. Afterward, a psychologist checked, one by one, everything the boy had said. We tell it step by step and then look at what can be checked. If you only want the evidence, skip straight to what can be checked. Did Chatura remember the life of a soldier he never met?

Step 1

Around 1992 · Chatura is three years old · Told by his mother

A three-year-old says that in another life he was shot

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “A three-year-old says that in another life he was shot”

Chatura Karunaratne was born on April 20, 1989, in Metiyagane, a countryside area in the Kurunegala district of Sri Lanka. His father was a clerk at a bus company, and his mother was a nurse at a traditional medicine hospital.

According to his mother, he began talking about another life at age three. He said he was shot in two places and taken to the hospital in a helicopter. He said his other parents lived near Narammala, a town in the same area. According to her, the only name from that life that he gave was the name of that town. And he said his mother in Narammala was not thin like his mother now, but fat.

His mother says Chatura got scared every time he heard a helicopter. He was afraid of the other children’s balls, because he thought they could be bombs. He often talked about army trucks, camps, and soldiers.

Chatura has two birthmarks by his left ear, one on the jaw and one on the neck. He has another on the inside of one arm. His mother said the boy pointed to the two on the neck and said they were where he was shot. She said this in November 1992, when they already knew the other family. Neither the articles nor the notes from June mention the birthmarks.

His family looked in Narammala for the person the boy was talking about and found no one.

Step 2

June 7, 1992 · Published by the newspaper “Divaina”

A national newspaper publishes what the boy says

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “A national newspaper publishes what the boy says”

M. D. Banda, a local journalist, heard about the case from his wife. He went to see the boy with the village head and sent a report to “Divaina.” It is a newspaper from Colombo, the capital, sold all over the country. On June 7, 1992, “Divaina” published a shortened version of that report.

The article lists 14 things Chatura said. He lived in a town near Narammala, in a pink house with a tile roof. Nearby there was a hut with a thatched roof and, inside it, a small shop. Near the house there was a lake, and turtles lived in the lake. He was riding in a truck through the forest when a group of people shot at him and hit him in the neck. And his family had a tractor.

The article put on record what the boy said. What was missing was whether any person fit what he described.

Step 3

June 12 to 14, 1992 · Told by two journalists and an assistant of the psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson

They take him to Narammala to look for his house, and find no one

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “They take him to Narammala to look for his house, and find no one”

On June 12, Tissa Jayawardane visited the family and wrote down what the mother said. He worked with Erlendur Haraldsson, a psychologist at the University of Iceland who studied reincarnation cases in Sri Lanka. According to Tissa’s notes, the boy said that in that other life he was called Suduputha.

Around those days, Banda returned with Nandasena Suriyarachchi, another “Divaina” journalist. They took the boy to Narammala, where he said he could find his house. They found no one whose life fit what he said.

On June 14, “Divaina” published a second article, with 29 things the boy said. Many were already in the first one. This time, Chatura said he had been a soldier and that a helicopter took him and others to the doctor. He talked about a parrot that could talk, which his mother in that other life fed. And he gave names. His father was called Perera, his mother Mangalika, and his sister Kumari.

Twenty-five kilometers from Chatura’s house, a man had heard about the first article.

Step 4

Late June 1992 · Told by M. P. Martin, the soldier’s father

A dead soldier’s father reads the article and recognizes his son

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “A dead soldier’s father reads the article and recognizes his son”

M. P. Martin was a retired farmer and bricklayer from Henegedara, a village near Narammala. In a shop, he heard neighbors talking about the June 7 article. He got the newspaper and read it.

He thought of his son Dayananda. He was a soldier and had died in April 1986, after an explosion. The family then lived in a house with a tile roof. Next to it, in a thatched hut, Martin had built him a shop, and Dayananda sold groceries and sweets there. Nearby there was a small lake. According to Martin, turtles lived in that lake.

Martin didn’t want to go alone and went with the head of his village. Chatura’s house was 25 kilometers by road from his, in the opposite direction from Narammala, the town the boy named. The next day he came back with his wife. Martin and his wife became convinced that the boy was talking about their son. About two weeks had passed since the first article.

The two families say they didn’t know each other before.

In early July, a journalist took Chatura to Dayananda’s parents’ house.

Step 5

Early July 1992 · Told by “Divaina” in a third article, from July 5

Chatura visits Dayananda’s house, according to the newspaper

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “Chatura visits Dayananda’s house, according to the newspaper”

Nandasena Suriyarachchi took the boy, who was three, to Dayananda’s parents’ house. According to the newspaper, they welcomed him like a son. The mother brought out some of Dayananda’s old clothes. The boy complained that only his long trousers were left of his clothes, and that they were torn and someone else had worn them.

She asked him if he remembered the house. According to the newspaper, Chatura said he hadn’t lived in that house but in another one. That was true. The family had recently moved to a new house on the same land, and the old house was about a hundred meters away. In the old house, an elderly woman asked him if he remembered her. Chatura looked at her for a while and said she was his grandmother. Dayananda had lived longer with his grandmother than with his parents.

Inside the old house, according to the newspaper, Chatura said they now had electric light. When Dayananda was alive, they didn’t have it. He saw the shop’s scale hanging on the wall and asked if they no longer had the shop. The shop had been torn down. He also recognized Gamini in the crowd, a friend and brother-in-law of Dayananda.

The journalists asked Martin about the tractor. Martin said Dayananda planned to buy him a tractor at an army auction, but died first.

All this happened when the two families already knew each other. So it doesn’t count among what the boy said before they met.

In November, Haraldsson began checking everything.

Step 6

1992 to 1999 · Told by Erlendur Haraldsson and the army documents

A psychologist compares what the boy said with the soldier’s life

Illustration from Chatura Karunaratne’s reincarnation case: “A psychologist compares what the boy said with the soldier’s life”

Haraldsson interviewed the two families in November 1992 and came back four times, until 1999. He saw the tile-roofed house and the lake, a quarter of an hour’s walk away. The turtles are reported by Dayananda’s father. With the help of a general, he obtained the army papers on Dayananda.

According to those papers, on April 15, 1986, Dayananda was on a patrol of two army trucks. A mine blew up one of the trucks. Dayananda was found unconscious next to the overturned truck. A helicopter took him to a hospital, and he died three days later in Colombo without waking up. According to Haraldsson, the report implies there was no clash with the enemy.

The report doesn’t say where he was wounded. It says no wounds could be seen on the outside. His parents say he had bandages on his head, his neck, and his left ear, and that’s how he appears in a photo from his funeral. No autopsy was found.

Haraldsson put together what the two articles and his assistant’s notes recorded, from before Martin appeared. Not counting repeats, there were 33 things. He checked them one by one. Sixteen fit Dayananda’s life, 15 don’t, and 2 others couldn’t be checked. All the names fail. According to Haraldsson, in Sri Lankan cases it is almost normal for the names to fail.

The question from the beginning remains. Did Chatura remember Dayananda’s life?

What does the evidence say?

What can be checked

We ask every case the same five questions. They help us find out whether what the child said was written down before the other person was found, and whether that can be shown. Here we ask them about what Chatura said about the soldier Dayananda.

4 of 5
  • Yes
  • Unconfirmed
  • No data
  1. Was what Chatura Karunaratne said written down before the family of the soldier Dayananda was found?Yes. The newspaper “Divaina” published what Chatura said on June 7 and 14, 1992. Journalists who belonged to neither family wrote it. Dayananda’s father came forward in late June, after reading the first article.
  2. Is the date of the articles that published what Chatura Karunaratne said known?Yes. “Divaina” published them on June 7 and 14, 1992. The psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson reproduces what each one records, sentence by sentence. We have not seen the original clippings.
  3. Are there documents on the life and death of the soldier Dayananda?Yes. Haraldsson obtained from the Sri Lankan army Dayananda’s data sheet and the May 1986 military report on his death. According to those papers, a mine overturned his truck on April 15, 1986, and he died three days later. No autopsy was found.
  4. Does anyone outside Dayananda’s family confirm what Chatura Karunaratne said?The army confirms part of it, and part is reported only by Dayananda’s family. The army papers confirm that he was a soldier, that he was in a truck, and that he was taken by helicopter. Haraldsson saw the tile-roofed house and the lake with his own eyes. The turtles, the shop, and the neck wound are reported only by the family. To check what only the family reports, we would need a medical report on the wound and village witnesses who were not family.
  5. Can it be ruled out that Chatura Karunaratne heard about the soldier Dayananda before 1992?No one has found how Chatura could have heard about Dayananda, but it can’t be fully ruled out, because it was not investigated in depth. The two families say they didn’t know each other, and they lived 25 kilometers apart. The journalists and the boy’s family searched Narammala, the town he named, and found no one. No one checked whether the families had acquaintances in common.

Why we ask each question

When did each thing happen?

This is what was written down before Dayananda’s family appeared, and what came after:

  • April 15, 1986. A mine overturns Dayananda’s truck. He dies on April 18. The army papers say so.
  • April 20, 1989. Chatura is born.
  • June 7, 1992. First “Divaina” article, with 14 things the boy said.
  • June 12, 1992. Tissa Jayawardane writes down 17 things the mother says.
  • June 14, 1992. Second “Divaina” article, with 29 things. The journalists search Narammala and find no one.
  • Late June 1992. M. P. Martin reads the first article and recognizes his son.
  • July 5, 1992. Third “Divaina” article, about the visit to Dayananda’s house.
  • November 1992. Haraldsson’s first visit. The mother tells him about the birthmarks.

What is hard to explain

  • What the boy said was published before anyone knew who he was talking about. Haraldsson says that avoids what spoils most cases. When it is written down after meeting the other family, what fails gets forgotten and what fits gets added.
  • The University of Virginia holds the largest archive of cases of children who talk about another life. According to Haraldsson, only 1.5% of those cases have what the child said written down before anyone was found.
  • Nine things appear in all three June records, the two articles and the notes from Haraldsson’s assistant. Of those nine, seven fit. Among them are the hut with the shop, the lake with turtles, the truck through the forest, and the neck. The helicopter appears in two of the three records and also fits.
  • The army papers don’t depend on the family. They confirm that Dayananda was a soldier, that he was in a truck, and that he was taken by helicopter.
  • Dayananda’s family lived 25 kilometers from Chatura’s, in the opposite direction from the town the boy named. The journalists searched there with the boy and found no one.
  • Haraldsson concludes that those nine things and the birthmarks seem to go beyond chance.

What remains unresolved

  • Almost half of what the boy said fails. All the names fail. He said he was shot, and it was a mine. He said his family had a tractor, and they didn’t have one.
  • Martin came forward because the first article fit his son. That article gets 10 of its 14 things right. Of the things that weren’t in it, 17 could be checked, and 6 fit. No one has calculated how many families of dead soldiers would have believed they recognized their son in that same article.
  • Haraldsson thinks the boy kept adding things because he was asked so much. The first article gets 71% of what it records right, and the second, 52%. The notes from Haraldsson’s assistant get 47% right. Counting everything the boy said, Haraldsson thinks chance explains it better than a memory of another life.
  • The neck wound is not proven. The army report saw no wounds on the outside, and there is no autopsy. The neck bandages are reported by the parents and appear in a photo.
  • The birthmarks were reported by the mother when she already knew the other family. And the boy only linked the birthmark on the arm to Dayananda after learning that Dayananda had broken an arm.
  • The shop and the turtles are reported by Dayananda’s family, who recognized their son when they read the newspaper. Haraldsson saw the house and the lake, but they were already in the article Martin read.
  • That an ordinary explanation is possible doesn’t mean it explains the case. With these data, it can’t be shown that Chatura remembered Dayananda’s life. Nor can it be shown that it was all chance.

Frequently asked questions

Who is Chatura Karunaratne?

Chatura Karunaratne was born in Sri Lanka in 1989. At age three, he began talking about another life, in which he was a soldier who died when his truck was attacked. A national newspaper published what he said in June 1992. The psychologist Erlendur Haraldsson studied the case and published it in 2000.

Who was Dayananda, the soldier Chatura Karunaratne was linked to?

M. P. Dayananda was a Sri Lankan army soldier, born in 1964 near Narammala. Before joining the army, he sold groceries in a shop next to his parents’ house. A mine overturned his truck on April 15, 1986, and he died three days later in Colombo.

Has the Chatura Karunaratne case been proven?

No. What the boy said was published before Dayananda’s family was found, and part of it fits the army papers. But almost half of what he said fails, and all the names fail. Here we explain what can be checked.

What did Erlendur Haraldsson conclude about the Chatura Karunaratne case?

Haraldsson concluded that two things seem to go beyond chance. One is the nine things the boy repeated in the two June 1992 articles and in his assistant’s notes. The other is his birthmarks. He also wrote that, counting everything the boy said, chance explains the case better than a memory of another life.

Where this story comes from

The study

  • Erlendur Haraldsson (2000), “Birthmarks and claims of previous-life memories: II. The case of Chatura Karunaratne,” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64, pages 82 to 92. It reproduces what “Divaina” published on June 7 and 14, 1992, sentence by sentence

Learn more

  • Reincarnation: the cases we have studiedRead
  • Reincarnation: the top 5 people who remember past livesRead

Our archive

  • Our reading of Haraldsson’s article, and the scoring against our five criteria, as of November 10, 2026

Keep reading

See all reincarnation cases

Reincarnation: The top 5 people who remember past lives

We asked them the same five questions as this story. A 32-page PDF, free in your inbox.

To start: