Very deep question Amadeus. You found a great issue which many didn't see: the problem of spatiality of sensation. Many just presuppose they are mere qualitative. But this is an assumption presumably false.

If you think sensation can not be spatial, i.e. they are just intensive, then the possibility of anticipate them somehow would be a creation, since they could occur otherwise just because of interaction with real, indipendently existing objects.

By 'intensive' I Mean: they have a qualitative degree in a scale of your perception which is higher than 0, comprehended in that scale, and not above a certain maximum in that scale).

If you think sensation may be spatial, then it is possible, somehow, that by determining space you are determining at least a scale through which sensation would be articulated.

Of course, if this is ever to be, does not mean that you can anticipate something specific, but only a degree of sensation.

Well, if the sages are right that "all is one", then every thought is another little pebble tossed in to the global pond, sending ripples out in all directions.

Replying more to the title than to the OP: That’s how insults work; you produce thoughts of another’s pain that you don’t feel yourself, then act by hurling the insult (words being thoughts themselves in many a sense)—that then produces the other’s pain, if one’s successful.

Core issue here is intentionality. If one imagines some hurt without any intention of the hurt affecting some other … well, I haven’t read of any spiritual or metaphysical take where this is interpreted as in any way being, in and of itself, a cause for anyone else’s pain. And I've read my fair share.

may be felt by something else — Amadeus

Something else such as?

I don´t think our thoughts can generate emotions in someone else; because we always need the colaboration of an environment, including the "receptor" of the communication himself to make it happen. But if other agents are included, then it is no longer "our" thought", but the thought of a whole system, receptor included as an active participant. Unless we are a free god who is outside the Universe but can affect a receptor: then I guess such entity could be called the cause of individual feelings. Otherwise, we do not cause thoughts or feelings stricto sensu, not even our own.

What do you think? — Amadeus

I think there's a difference between reports or statements we are conscious of and states or conditions which we conform to.
Although, sometimes due to our impulsiveness, it is possible to mix them up.
Also, sometimes, we can deliberately choose to designate an undesirable state/condition to register solely as a report e.g. when we're in mourning, it is possible, through great determination, to disregard the grief, not often in the long-term, but usually for the sake of others, perhaps, our children when we want to spare them from the burden of our sadness or show them that it's possible to let go of theirs.
It's also possible to deliberately generate and conform to the necessary states/conditions derived from a report/statement.

Much about our minds and consciousness is complex while the greater part is still unknown.