A replication study of an earlier study by Storm and Thalbourne (2001; N = 84) was conducted to test the hypothesis that totally blind people compensate for their vision-impairment by developing superior psi ability compared to sighted people. Participants were required to describe a concealed line drawing, and then rank four pictures (1 target plus 3 decoys) from ‘most likely’ (rank #1) to be the target picture in the envelope to ‘least likely’ (rank #4). The concealed picture was removed from its envelope and assigned its corresponding rank number. Previously, Storm and Thalbourne (2001) found an above chance success-rate of 28% (where MCE = 25%) for the totally blind (n = 18), which was superior (not significantly) to the hit-rate of 26% for the rest of the sample (i.e., sighted and partially blind participants combined; n = 66). In the replication study (N = 76), the same procedure was followed, but only totally blind and sighted participants were used. The totally blind group and the sighted group both scored at the same below-chance hit-rate of 21% (p = .45, z = -0.51, p = .695). There was no evidence that psi compensates for blindness. When the dataset from the present study was combined with Storm and Thalbourne’s (2001) dataset (total N = 160), the totally blind group (n = 56) and the sighted group (n = 80) both scored below chance, P = 23% (p = .47, z = -0.38, p = .648), and the sighted/partially-sighted group combined (n = 104) also scored below chance, P = 20% hit-rate (p = .43, z = -1.17, p = .879). Again, psi compensation was not found in the blind group. It was concluded that if there is compensation for blindness, it might work in ways other than paranormal. It is also possible that blind people may prefer targets that are not of a visual nature.