yes, clairvoyance is using the mental consciousness without the aid of the much coarser sense consciousnesses to see sense objects (the lower schools predictably disagree a little bit -- different presentations of pramana)
i dont know much about out-of-body experiences as experienced by nonmeditators. it could be just that they are having invalid cognitions by a messing up of the sense organs, of external conditions, etc. for skilled meditators its a very clear, practical, methodical thing.Extra-bodily States in Buddhism
As I see it, clairvoyance can be done with the gross mind or subtle mind. With the subtle mind, though, there is no being who can read minds; that's impossible because there is no connection.
1) Clairvoyance through gross mind:
People don't know that there are extraordinary ways in which they can be mindful of their surroundings. Like being Sherlock Holmes. You see their shoes, clothes, body language, etc., and you already know a wealth of information about them. So much so that they can be shocked by how much you know. "Cold reading" psychics and fortune-tellers often rely on this, too. It also applies to people who are proficient with understanding and training animals. This is psychic ability dependent on mind-and-body.
2) Clairvoyance through subtle mind:
In the subtle mind, there is no self-thinking, no asking and knowing, no subtle and gross, no using and not using clairvoyance. What is uttered is the clairvoyance for that moment. So it's not you who is clairvoyant; it is some other higher being or non-being that is using clairvoyance through you. You can't play with it or use it for personal gain, unless that is something that was meant to be.
An out-of-body experience is like a dream. Life itself is also like a dream. In the waking world, there is stability, but in the dream world there is less stability, because there are no rupas to hold things in place. A single thought can easily cause dramatic change. You could say therefore that the waking world is more of a dream than the dream world, because in the dream world, the impermanent and impersonal nature of things is more obvious, but in the waking world, there is more of an illusion of self in things, of objects which endure for a given interval. In the waking world too, a single thought can cause dramatic change but the change is not obvious to an ordinary mind because they see only the objects of self and not the mind. In this sense, all cognitions are invalid. Because cognition is seeing an abiding self in objects, yet they are impermanent and notself. A cognition of what is impermanent and notself is the only valid cognition.