I’ve asked and been asked many times over the years about demons and exorcisms. It seems to be a topic many are interested in and one which many know nothing beyond, possibly, what Hollywood has had to say on the matter. This blog is primarily about the scientific study of phenomena we call paranormal. The fact is that if you think there is little scientific research on ESP and ghosts, you’ll find there is even less about demons and exorcisms.

There is a lot out there on anomalous cognition. A bit less on healing by unexplained means. There is a LOT of information from unscientific sources of highly variable quality on ghosts and hauntings. If you want to study demons? Good luck.

To date, the best sources on demons and exorcisms all come from the Roman Catholic Church. While most religions have teachings on negative entities and how to get rid of them, the Catholic Church is known to have devoted a lot of good minds to the topic and the results show.

The Catholic requirements to denote a need for an exorcism are clear, concise, and well written. Talking about a quality of the priest to perform the exorcism, the old Rituale Romanum, their handbook on their rituals, the requirements are put forth:

3. Especially, he should not believe too readily that a person is possessed by an evil spirit; but he ought to ascertain the signs by which a person possessed can be distinguished from one who is suffering from some illness, especially one of a psychological nature.[1] Signs of possession may be the following: ability to speak with some facility in a strange tongue or to understand it when spoken by another; the faculty of divulging future and hidden events; display of powers which are beyond the subject’s age and natural condition; and various other indications which, when taken together as a whole, build up the evidence.

From the “Rituale Romanum” 1964 Edition in English

Clearly, they make a distinction between possession and mental illness, a distinction not always made by less respectable people.

The rite itself was changed in 1999 and more recently, bishops are no longer required to get explicit permission from Rome, but these requirements are effectively unchanged. The revisions actually make it even more clear that all physical, mental, and psychological conditions must be ruled out before the rite is to be performed. The new rite has come under some criticism.

In the 25+ years I’ve studied the paranormal and occult, I have not once, personally witnessed anything I would consider clear proof of demons, let alone a possession needing an exorcism. At one point, I had contacts within the Catholic Church who informed me that exorcisms for demonic possession were extremely rare. At the time, there were less than a dozen full time exorcists in the entire Catholic Church. Recent news about more and more priests being trained and qualified as exorcists has come out, but I’ve heard nothing about the priests who do this full time. The newest rules now allow bishops to authorize exorcisms without the intercession of Rome, and so they need people who can properly perform the rite.

I have personally witnessed hauntings, ghosts, full-bodied apparitions, nature spirits, trance possession, precognition, micro-psychokinesis, spells, etc. But demons? Hardly. I’ve experienced what some would call “negative entities” who’s origin I don’t claim to know, but they never have been able to show me much power beyond making people freaked out. They were always easy enough to shoo away by anyone with sufficient ability, whether natural or trained.

So, beware of people who see demons in every shadow. Are they out there? Something certainly is, but so are ebola, giant squids, worm holes etc. They’re all pretty exceptional things in the world.

Would I like to study a real demon? Sure. Bring it on. I’ll call in the specialists if needed.

The title here refers to this: http://scifake.com/?p=914

The equipment I use, I know how to use properly and I use it to rule out explainable things while trying to learn more about those I cannot explain.

In talking with a fellow investigator from P.E.A.S.E. this evening, we touched upon the idea of paying to investigate.

While we could both see the point from the point of view of someone owning a purportedly haunted location, neither one of us felt all that comfortable paying.  Charging?  Ok.  It’s your home or business or whatever.  These are hard times, and if you need the money, you’re perfectly free to charge people to come on to your property for whatever reason you want to allow.  As seasoned investigators, though, we don’t feel right being your customers.

So I wonder, who goes to these things?  And the answer I keep returning to the idea that those who pay for these events are new to the field or are looking to be entertained.  I’m in search of answers, not entertainment.  I have no compunction to bump elbows with stars, psychic or not.  I’ve met stars, paranormal and otherwise and their fame means nothing to me.  Their skills, knowledge, and personality – those I admire, but fame?  Who cares?  I’m certainly not paying to participate in an investigation, no matter who I’ll be working with.  I invest enough of my time, energy, and frankly, money into my investigations, that paying on top of all that is pretty much out of the question.  In one case a team I was working with was expected to investigate a location, but the date was not determined… and then a more commercial “investigation” was done in the place.  I can’t wait to see what we find… and report back to you all my results.

As for expensive equipment, yes, I own an EMF meter a couple digital cameras,, a really good sound recorder, and a slew of flashlights.  I neither own nor really want a K2 meter.  It’s nothing more than a conveniently designed EMF meter with an LED readout.  My $30 Cell Sensor works just fine, thanks.  It’s also got a readable level meter where I can see the EMF strength in miligauss.  Half the investigators out there couldn’t tell you the difference between a miligauss and a nanotesla, let alone use their EMF meter or IR thermometer correctly.  If they’re buying $7-9000 thermal imaging systems, I have no reason to believe they’ll use them any better.  None of these things are “ghost detectors” yet each has its place in an investigation.  Yes, even the IR thermometer.

Why investigate ghosts when they have never been scientifically proven? Because they’re there.  And because we know almost nothing about what they are, their properties, origins, etc.  Reports of ghosts have come from all cultures in all times through history.  Whether they are really spirits of the departed or figments of our imaginations, they do exist and deserve study.  Even in a recession.

(tip of the hat to @GhostHunterBlog)

I first got an inkling that entertainment might be a problem back in the mid 1990′s when a certain well known web site for ghost investigation suddenly became a site for paid membership. Not long later they were selling more books, online courses, and ghost hunting gear than anyone else online at the time.

Around the same time, I finally got around to reading the book that the movie, “The Exorcist” was based on. I would later get a better report on the actual case.

Not long later, I read more about the facts behind the case of the Amityville Horror and how that was blown out of proportion for a hit movie.

Now, to be fair, the case behind The Exorcist was a real one. Real things happened. But Amityville, and now, it seems “A Haunting in Connecticut” were made up almost whole cloth.

I was really hoping there was something behind the Conn. case, because one of the investigators involved is a friend of a friend. Alas, it seems to have started as a book deal between some of the people involved.

This greatly saddens me, as it does a great disservice to those of us trying to investigate these things rationally. It ends up not being science, but rather pure entertainment claiming to be based on a true story.

One REAL, world famous case is that of the “Christmas Ghost” at Hampton Court Palace in December 2003. As is typical of real cases, it didn’t get a lot of press except when it was happening. It seems that for a number of days, a door alarm would sound at one set of fire doors. When security went to investigate, the doors were once again closed and no one was around. This at first looked like it might be bad wiring or some other electrical fault. To test this, the security people aimed a camera at the doors in hopes to see what was going on. Around December 18 or 19, the camera caught the doors opening and someone closing them. The person looks to be dressed in 16th century clothing. No one in the area was dressed as such at the time. Other security cameras showed no one coming or going from that area at the time. You can see the video here and a frame by frame analysis here. The case was mostly dismissed because the figure didn’t look very ghostly. That still doesn’t explain who the person was or how they avoided all the internal cameras. A subsequent “investigation” which had absolutely nothing at all to do with this incident showed there was no correlation between visitors’ feelings of a presence and the supposedly haunted areas of Hampton Court Palace. Thus, the whole incident was neatly swept under the carpet and left as a historical anomaly.

I give this as one example of a sighting with good, hard evidence that got NO proper follow-up investigation. It is typical of a real “ghost” anomaly in that the ghost seems solid and real, but appears and disappears without a trace. It is typical of what is called an “intelligent haunting” in that the apparition seems to interact with normal reality rather than what is called a “residual haunting” where the apparition seems more like an echo, disconnected from this world. These terms of course, are only working terms as we haven’t proven anything, but they accurately describe what is observed.

Most real hauntings go un-investigated. Most of what you see from Hollywood is presented not for documentary evidence, but purely for entertainment. Lately, I have come to be very wary of any investigator who seems out to entertain. It makes me question the motives involved, and as the Amityville and Connecticut cases show, also make me question what really happened.

Parapsychologist, JJ Lumsden has posted a (very) brief tutorial on how to run your own micro-Psychokinesis experiments.  Of course, this leaves the question of where one might obtain a random number generator…