The term "endogenic" is fairly new, and it's a community-based term. Like the difference between "multiple personality disorder" and/or "multiple" or "the dissociated system" and various ways the professionals refer to clients or study subjects, versus "plural" which is a community-driven term, we cannot look for studies on "endogenic systems" in the psychology literature.
So what is it that psychology calls "endogenic" experiences, and why is it so difficult to make the connection back to the research & literature?
Frankly, many folk with endogenic experiences never end up in a research study, or in a therapists' office, and rarely hang out in DID support groups, etc. They may, however, end up in say a Hearing Voices support group, or other spaces where their experiences of plurality are accepted without confrontation.
In more open-ended/boundary-less spaces such as Twitter, there's more confrontation between DID systems and endogenic systems, a lot of fake-claiming of endogenic systems, and shitposting about "not proven" by research etc. And these claims against endogenic systems are untrue. This is setting aside that, since presence of trauma before plurality is not a diagnostic point of difference, endogenic systems can also be DID-diagnosed and need therapy. Belief or subjective perceptions of how your headmates came about is not a diagnostic criteria at all.
The book The Plural Self came out in 1999, we (Crisses) got a copy of it shortly after. When folk started using the term "plural" around us more (circa 2017) it was packed in a container in storage and we had forgotten we owned it. When we finally got housing in 2020, we found it again and took a better look at it (yes, we collect research materials we don't have the time to read cover-to-cover, and we still haven't read it cover-to-cover). That's where we found some of the hints for other terminology to look for various plural experiences under such as "subpersonalities" and "polypsychism". We had already heard of "self-pluralism" which is likely how we found the book in the first place.
If someone says "there is no research" they're incorrect. This is a page to help with emotional labor of endogenic folk who keep hearing this excuse to fake claim them.
You will need to find these articles or books via a research library, online research account, research librarian (who can email you a copy), interlibrary loan, potentially Google Scholar or Google Books, or other resources. You might find them with a web search with "pdf" -- but due to copyright constraints we cannot supply these articles — but we can point you to the titles and relevant search terms when these apply.
Plurality is a more patient-centered approach to what has historically been referred to as dissociative identities. This is not the same as the DSM-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not. A plural system is a collection of all the alters present. With some people these alters might come and go, whereas with others they are static and waiting to be discovered.
When working with plurality, it is necessary for clinicians to be open and transparent with patients about their decision making regarding gender-affirming treatments. Plural people need treatment and assessments just as any patient would. They also may need access to gender-affirming treatments. Approach plural people with a sense of humility and curiosity. Discuss with them what gender means for each of the alters present and whether there will be a shared decision making when pursuing treatment options available.
Clinicians should communicate closely with each other if they are part of a team treating a plural person. All mental health professionals involved should be aware of plurality when it is present so that an appropriate evaluation can take place. These evaluations may need to happen over time so the clinicians can look for the three major hallmarks of someone who can provide consent for treatment: insistency, consistency, and persistency.

Look for terms like polypsychism, subpersonalities, ego states (which is extremely broad!), self-pluralism, etc.
This is from a few searches, there are many more resources. The easiest ones to find would be the ones in the references lists for these articles & books.
Please feel free to comment with or use the contact form to submit more resources to add to this page if you come across more documentation, research, studies, discussions etc. whether in current psychology/psychiatry (preferred) or reasonably credible philosophy or historical references.
There's actually a lot of "obvious plurality" in Jung's teachings. Anima/animus, shadow self, archetypes, etc. But how "plural" was Jung?
Note, he never used the word "plural" (which makes a lot of sense as he was Swiss anyway). As always, Jung was dealing with a pluralphobic world, in which folk (almost always women) with demonstrable plurality were deemed hysterical, and folk with DID had the hysterical dissociative subtype. For Jung, being a student of psychology and male helped him discuss his observations, experiences and conversations as intellectual pursuits and not be lumped into the patient cohort and deemed mad for it. It would make sense if he carefully dressed up his experiences with a protective veil to ensure he was not thought "too" out there.
Unfortunately we're limited by people's translations of Jung's original words. When a translation is "heavily edited" one wonders what choices the translators made — what did they exclude? When a word has connotations or multiple meanings in the original language, which English gloss did they choose — did they represent the intent of the original work, or did they massage it with their own biases and interpretations? A translation is always biased this way. As I don't read the original language nor have access to the original text — I could not say what was really said, and whether anyone massaged Jung's prolific work with a heavy hand and plural bias.
Even so, there's a lot out there to find — this is a preliminary sample of some of the tip-offs that strongly suggest if not prove Carl Jung was having experiences of plurality for many years, if not life.
Jung is certainly not a perfect plural role-model, in addition to the above he had what may have been an early attempt at polyamory — his established partner resisted him having another lover for a time but then the implication was this settled into something more amiable later. Was he a womanizer or a plural with a second love-interest? We may never know. Even contemporary plurals struggle with issues around divergent attractions and how to balance non-monogamy in a primarily monogamous society.
Other controversies would be the predominant ideas of the time around believing victims which his mentor Freud had started out with before caving to pressure to disbelieve victims and change his entire philosophy around trauma to basically blame the victim. Jung was mentored within this patriarchal mindset and of course it colors all of his works going forward.
Normal Dimensions Of Multiple Personality Without Amnesia (Kunzendorf et al, 1998-1999, Imagination, Cognition & Personality) Full text available at link. Their hypothesis is that plurality is a normal human experience (of some people, not all) and exists before trauma, and that DID is traumatized plurality.
This study specifically created an instrument to test whether someone experienced identity changes and/or amnesias across different areas of their life and whether it would pass the bar of disordered or not. Their discussion section mentions "In post experiment conversations with persons who report Multiple Self Identity and Multiple Self-Control, but no Recall Amnesia/Source Amnesia, all such persons insisted that they truly become different selves in different situations. When specifically queried, they also insisted that this reported shifting of their personality was not a result of semantic interpretation and was not the same as the shifting of their emotion." and other lovely tidbits worth reading.
We're not the only folk in the community attempting to pull together references/research on Endogenic folks. Here's others.