Several years ago, I wrote about an experiment that was conducted in the 1970s, in which a group of people came up with an imaginary figure they tried to paranormally conjure. And they seemed to get some paranormal results, including some caught on video. It's been referred to as the Philip Experiment. To find out more about it, read the post linked above and this article. You could argue that the entity conjured in the experiment was a demon, a deceased human, or some kind of being we don't know about rather than a manifestation of the paranormal capacities of the group doing the conjuring. Maybe some kind of independent spirit - a demon, a deceased human, or whoever else - was acting as if he was the fictional Philip.
Whatever scenario you think is the most likely in that particular case, what I want to focus on here is the concept of paranormal phenomena from living humans being mistaken for something else. My earlier post discussed a caller to Greg Koukl's podcast who reported that his parents were interpreting some alleged paranormal events as manifestations of their deceased daughter. But what if one or both of the parents were producing the phenomena, which they then misinterpreted as coming from their daughter?
That kind of situation is worth considering not just because it has some significant plausibility in the abstract, but also because it seems to better explain some of the details of historical cases. Paranormal phenomena often seem trivial, fragmentary, nonsensical, or problematic in some other way that would be better explained as manifestations of the subconscious of a living human, for example, rather than as something that comes from a source like a demon or a deceased human. It may seem unlikely that a demon or ghost would want to keep levitating a particular object or would only be manifesting a portion of a body when it's visible rather than manifesting an entire body, for example. It's sometimes suggested that perhaps ghosts have difficulty communicating and doing other things they want to do at times, that their abilities fluctuate depending on various factors involved, and so on. Those are possibilities that should be considered. But it's also possible that the apparent weaknesses in the phenomena come from the fact that the agent producing the phenomena is so weak and, at least at times, isn't even conscious or fully conscious of producing the phenomena. Given how much less living humans would generally know about the paranormal than deceased humans and demons would, how much less experience living humans have had in such contexts, and so on, living humans seem to in some ways offer a better explanation of the weaknesses of much of what we see in paranormal contexts.
Tony Cornell wrote what I'll be quoting below about one of the poltergeist cases he investigated. An exorcism was done on the house by a local vicar, and the phenomena temporarily stopped, but came back the next year. Another exorcism was done. That one only kept the phenomena away for a day. The vicar contacted Cornell, who then went to the house:
Mrs M. [the wife and mother of the household], in fact, was so nervous that ADC [Cornell] felt it incumbent upon him to attempt to dispel the phenomena. He explained that no-one has ever been seriously hurt by a poltergeist, and that often the people involved are themselves in some unknown way responsible for the happenings. He then promised to get rid of the poltergeist. He collected some mysterious-looking odds and ends from his car, and went into one of the bedrooms, saying 'Whatever happens while I am in there, no matter what you hear, you must not come in'. It was the bedroom in which the wallpaper incident had taken place. Neither Mr nor Mrs M. would go into it. ADC sat inside smoking a cigarette. After fifteen minutes he emerged, with his jacket off and his tie pulled down, and dramatically stated that it would not come back. All were impressed. Mrs M. went into the bedroom – for the first time in weeks – with ADC, and said that it felt quite different. A few days later the vicar wrote confirming that there had been no further trouble.
All remained quiet thereafter for about three months. But on 2 March 1968 Mr M. rang ADC, who was away for a few days, to say that 'it' had started up again. On 6 March he rang again, and contacted ADC, who arranged to pay another visit on 10 March. The day before the visit ADC received yet another phone call from Mr M., who said that they were going to leave the bungalow. 'You (ADC) said when you were here that you would take it away with you. You did not do so. Please come and take it away with you. Do not say it will not come back. Take it away with you.'...
ADC took a slightly tougher line during this visit, saying that he would not 'exorcize' the spook again, but would talk through the matter with Mr and Mrs M. to see if they were causing it unconsciously. He explained that some people try to relate the occurrence of poltergeist phenomena to the emotional state of some person or persons present at the scene of the happenings. He then discussed at length the possible emotional causes of the poltergeist activities that they, the M.s, were experiencing. Did they have serious rows? At first they both denied it. But eventually it came out that they did have rows, especially over Mrs M.s suspicions that Mr. M. might be seeing other women. Furthermore about seventy-five per cent of the poltergeist phenomena occurred during the period of silent hostility that such rows produced....
ADC left the bungalow about 10.30 p.m. [after further paranormal activity seems to have occurred], saying that he would take 'the thing' away with him. It has never returned.
(Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell, Poltergeists [United States: White Crow Books, 2017], approximate Kindle locations 5160, 5196, 5218)
You can read the context surrounding Gauld and Cornell's comments above to find out more about the paranormal events reported in the case, the behavior of the witnesses involved, etc. It seems likely to have been a genuine case.
So, why would the phenomena seem to correspond with the psychology of the husband and wife and temporarily go away both in response to genuine exorcisms and in response to Cornell's fabricated exorcism and go away without coming back in response to Cornell's more psychological approach accompanied by the claim that he would take the poltergeist away? And what should we make of the potential psychological explanation of the poltergeist that Cornell proposed?
The common thread, behind all of the timing of the events, the exorcisms, and Cornell's more psychological approach, seems to be the psychology of the family experiencing the poltergeist. Their psychology could be affected by a genuine exorcism, a fake one, or a more psychological approach by somebody like Cornell. The best explanation for this case seems to be that there was no independent spirit involved, whether a demon, a deceased human, or whoever else. Rather, one or more members of the family created the poltergeist. I don't think that's the best explanation for every poltergeist, but it is for some. It's an explanatory option worth considering, among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment