Unravelling The Universe

Ben Sinclair's Unravelling The Universe is a good YouTube channel to follow on paranormal issues. He's done interviews with some of the biggest names in the field: Bruce Greyson, Stanley Krippner, Gregory Shushan, etc. There's a lot of valuable material on a lot of subjects.

Religious And Occultic Aspects Of The Enfield Poltergeist

In a conversation in 1978, Margaret Hodgson told Guy Playfair that she'd seen an apparition in the context of using a Ouija board a few years earlier, apparently in 1974, and that she'd recently seen the same apparition in the context of the Enfield case. See the relevant section of my post here for more about what Margaret and her sister reported regarding their use of a Ouija board leading up to what's typically considered the poltergeist's onset in August of 1977. Margaret's experience in 1974 could be identified as the start of the poltergeist instead, depending on what standards you apply. And both the use of a Ouija board leading up to late August of 1977 and the girls' impression that their Ouija board use was connected to the poltergeist make it relevant to an evaluation of the case. But it doesn't get discussed much.

There are many other aspects of the case that are of an occultic or religious nature that have likewise been neglected. More research needs to be done on the subject, but I want to provide an overview of what I know at this point. Some of what I'll be citing comes from Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's Enfield tapes. I'll make reference to them by using "MG" to designate a tape from Grosse's collection and "GP" to designate one from Playfair's. MG32A is Grosse's tape 32A, GP41B is Playfair's 41B, etc.

The Tempter as shapeshifter

1. One of the oddities of Gen 3 is how the Tempter is introduced with so little exposition or backstory, as if the original audience would be familiar with a character like the Tempter. The name of the Tempter is a pun or triple entendre, so it has a dual identity. There's the image it projects and then there's its true identity. This suggests the Tempter is an entity in the tradition of shapeshifters. Agents that alternate between identities. Agents that may appear to be animals but that's not their true identity or original identity. Conversely, agents that appear to be human, but they've undergone a transformation. 

2. The tradition of shapeshifters is ethnographically quite diverse. Two standard academic monographs are Montague Summers, The Werewolf in Lore and Legend (Dover 2003 reprint) and Sabine Baring-Gould, The Book of Werewolves (2002 Blackmask Online). There's also American Indian folklore about skinwalkers and totemic animal spirits among Plains Indians, desert southwestern tribes, as well as Algonquian tribes (e.g. Manitou). cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ae_Xw8IlW8

3. Shapeshifters are naturally impossible, but within the worldview of Christian supernaturalism and pagan witchcraft, they may be realistic. It's necessary to sift evidence for shapeshifters from different phenomena:

i) Orphaned feral children misidentified as werewolves

ii) Lycanthropy as a psychotic condition (e.g. Dan 4). 

iii) People who aspire to be animals (e.g. (Berserkers). They may aspire to be possessed by an animal spirit or actually be transformed into an animal. That, however, is a kind of playacting. 

iv) Distinguishing folkloric shapeshifters from literary and cinematic shapeshifters. 

4. The role of magic also requires sifting:

i) Witchcraft spawns lots of mythology and legend that have no basis in fact. Ingrown folklore that's passed on. 

ii) Defamatory accusations of witchcraft. 

iii) Conversely, cultivating a reputation for witchcraft can have propaganda value by making the individual an object to be feared and placated. 

iv) A distinction between having the ability to be shapeshift and the ability to hex others: S. Augustine declared, in his De Civitate Dei, that he knew an old woman who was said to turn men into asses by her enchantments. Sabine Baring-Gould, The Book of Werewolves (5).

5. It may not be coincidental that shapeshifters are often associated with the desert. That's the case in American Indian folklore, and it has biblical parallels. Consider the ambiguous references in Isa 13:21 & 34:14. And the further fact that the Devil tempted Jesus in the desert. 

6. Of even greater potential interest is whether Lev 16:8 and 17:7 allude to goat demons in the desert. Occultic shapeshifters.

This might resonant with to the original audience for Gen 3, because the Israelites were living in the desert at the time Genesis was written. So even though Gen 3 recounts an incident that happened millennia before, the idea of a malevolent shapeshifter may well be a recognizable entity in their experience. 

This also explains the fluid identity of the Tempter, not only in Gen 3 but Rev 12 and 20. An evil spirit (fallen angel) with an animal name and reptilian imagery or symbolism. 

Is Mephistopheles your bookie?

When I in high school I planned to go to college. I found my dream school and couldn't wait to start. There was just one problem: college is expensive. I had no way of paying for it and there was no chance that I was about to take out $200K worth of loans. I was stuck, and so I prayed to God. Please help me! Wouldn't you know it, right around that time my dad got a new job that paid a little bit more than the last one. Even more than that the job was at a local university in the same system  so they were willing to pay tuition exchange, taking care of more than three quarters of my expenses just like that.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABVO8d8Uveo&t=35s

On the one hand there's a lot written about the problem of unanswered prayer. On the other hand there are lots of Christians with personal anecdotes about dramatic answers to prayer.

But there's a third, neglected category. God is not the only supernatural agent. Although God is incomparably the most powerful, he's not the only agent who can intervene and arrange for certain things to happen. Evil spirits have power. Some witchdoctors acquire supernatural power in league with evil spirits. 

This in turn becomes the stuff of fiction. In some cases this involves a conscious pact with the devil (The legend of Faust; Rosemary's Baby). In other cases the ambitious individual may not know until it's too late what he's gotten into (The Devil's Advocate). In some cases we need to evaluate a successful answer to prayer, not merely by whether it works, but who they prayed to and the goal. Casey is a Franciscan friar. A winsome, charismatic spokesman for Catholicism. But if Catholicism is a delusive sect that leads people astray, then perhaps that was a genuine answer to prayer, but God wasn't the agent who made the necessary arrangements. Presumably, Casey prayed to Mary, but what if Mary doesn't answer prayers. 

This doesn't require a conscious Faustian bargain. Mormons imagine that their prayers are Christian prayers. It's possible to be immersed in the occult without knowing it. The devil has many aliases and front organizations. Although his power is finite, he does have the power to pull strings and make certain things happen. 

Breaking the spell

Because freewill theists often confuse Calvinism with fatalism, I've discussed the difference on a number of occasions. In Classical literature, Creon and Oedipus are paradigm examples. Although it's a bit cheesy, Final Destination 1 (2000) is a convenient illustration. 

But is fatalism real, and is there a way to successfully cheat fate? Cosmic fatalism is incompatible with the sovereignty of God. However, witchcraft has a fatalistic streak. By that I mean, hexing somebody. Suppose you come under a curse. Can you cheat fate?

I don't think that's a hypothetical or isolated case. For instance, witchcraft is common in cultures that practice animism, polytheism, and ancestor worship. 

I'm not talking about folks who merely practice occult rituals, but those who gain actual occult power through the practice of sorcery. 

Within the realm of witchcraft, fatalism may be a real phenomenon. If you've been hexed, you may be doomed.

There is, however, a way to break the spell. Christian missionaries have always engaged in "power evangelism". If a pagan converts to Christianity, then he's not doomed. That's a way to cheat fate. That liberates the convert from occult bondage, although there may be some lingering, residual effects. You've transferred allegiance from a lesser, malevolent power to a greater, benevolent power. 

Modern-day occultism

https://boneofbones.com/2019/10/10/the-starbucks-logo-upside-down-looks-like-baphomet-modern-day-occultism/

https://boneofbones.com/2019/10/17/the-starbucks-logo-upside-down-looks-like-baphomet-modern-day-occultism-qa-part-2/

Shapeshifters

1. What's the basis for shapeshifters in pagan mythology and folklore? Are they purely figments of the imagination, which undergo further embellishment, or do they have analogues in reality? 

The werewolf character is the best known example, popularized by Hollywood, but I believe that's a part of some American Indian lore. Not sure how widespread that is, and whether that reflects independent traditions or cultural diffusion.

Is that just a legend, or does witchcraft enable practitioners to become animals? If so, do they retain human intelligence in that condition, or have animal psychology? 

2. This isn't confined to mythology and folklore. The cherubim in Ezekiel's theophanies are tetramorphs. Is that physical, or an optical or telepathic illusion?

What about the hybrid monsters in Daniel's visions? Are those merely artificial symbolic constructs? Or is there something analogous in reality that gave rise to the imagery? 

3. In some narratives, angels seem to have the ability to materialize, dematerialize, or even assume the form of human males. How deep does that go? Complete internal anatomy?

An alternative interpretation might be that angels don't have the power to assume human form; rather, they have the power to possess human bodies. If demons can do it, why not angels? Perhaps some descriptions involve angels taking possession of human males as temporary vehicles to perform a particular mission, then releasing the host after the mission is completed. 

4. On a natural level, the closest thing to metamorphosis might be male sexual arousal, which involves a degree of physical and psychological transformation, although nothing like shapeshifters. Human beings are composite entities: ensouled animal bodies. Male sexual arousal taps into something wild and primal. And that doesn't require an evolutionary explanation.

5. A more clear-cut example is the snake magic in Exodus, where the staff of Moses becomes a snake and vice versa. The Egyptian sorcerers are able to duplicate that feat. There is a naturalistic explanation for what the Egyptians sorcerers do, but for reasons I've stated elsewhere, I find that unconvincing. 

Christianity and the paranormal

I'd like to piggyback on a post by Jason Engwer:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/10/evangelical-neglect-of-paranormal.html

Many Christians are very skittish about the paranormal. But it's important for Christian philosophers, apologists, theologians, and pastors to be informed about the paranormal:

1. If Christianity is true, and paranormal phenomena exist, then the existence of the paranormal is consistent with the truth of Christianity. In that event, we should be able to integrate the paranormal into a Christian worldview. That doesn't necessary mean we condone the paranormal. Depends on the example. To take a comparison, the occult is consistent with the truth of Christianity. And we need to be able to explain how the occult fits into a Christian worldview.

2. If people, whether Christians or unbelievers, experience the paranormal, but pastors, apologists, and theologians have no answers, then that drives Christians and unbelievers into the arms of New Age quack and swindlers in search of explanations. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when the paranormal is co-opted by charlatans and unbelievers because Christians vacated that field of investigation. 

3. According to the standard paradigm of naturalism, the universe is a closed system and everything is composed of matter and energy. But many kinds of paranormal phenomena are incompatible with naturalism. So paranormal phenomena render a service to Christian apologetics and evangelism by eliminating naturalism from consideration.

4. Now it's possible for an atheist to believe in the paranormal. He can redefine naturalism. Stephen Braude, who's a leading paranormal philosopher and researcher, is irreligious. 

If, however, you concede that minds can act apart from brains and bodies, then that removes a barrier to Christian theism. That opens the door to God, souls, angels, demons, and miracles. 

5. The "paranormal" is an umbrella for a miscellany of phenomena. It's useful to do some sifting and sorting so that we can distinguish the hooey from verifiable phenomena.

6. Many people are atheists because they never experience anything that's out of keeping with naturalism. Never experience anything that can't be explained in mundane terms. At least from their philosophically untutored perspective. 

Yet there are many people who have uncanny experiences that suddenly open a window to whole different realm of reality they never suspected. Something they scoffed at until it happened to them. They were atheists because the Bible describes a world which has no analogy to their humdrum existence. Until, that is, something happens which peels away the wallpaper of naturalism and exposes another dimension of reality that dovetails with the biblical worldview. At once, what was so incredible in Scripture becomes realistic. 

So paranormal experience can be a bridge to the Christian faith. Pastors need to be able to walk them the rest of the way across the bridge.

I'm not suggesting that people should cultivate paranormal experience. In many cases it befell them unbidden. In other cases they were experimenting with the occult, and tapped into something real. That's dangerous and terrifying, but God can redirect it. If Satan exists, God exists. If witchcraft is real, miracles are real. These are two sides of good and evil. 

Evangelical Neglect Of The Paranormal

Steve linked to a video by Jon Topping about paranormal issues. I've addressed these subjects many times before. You can find an overview here. That overview discusses some Biblical evidence for ghosts that Topping doesn't interact with, among other subjects.

What I want to focus on here is some comments Topping made about paranormal research. Start watching (here) at the point where there's about 6:30 left in the video. He makes the broad comment that "anything to do with the occult" is prohibited. He goes on to say that "we should have nothing to do with that" in reference to practices like speaking to a ghost or using a Ouija board. He then cites academics who have come out of the occult, people who do a lot of research in other contexts, saying that we shouldn't even do research on matters pertaining to the occult. We shouldn't even "touch" them. We shouldn't allow them to have "a place" in our lives.

I've already addressed why we should study the paranormal, including what's often labeled as "the occult". (The ambiguity of so much of the terminology involved in these contexts is problematic.) I think the article I just linked is largely sufficient to answer Topping's comments, but I want to supplement it.

The spirit realm

I have a few quibbles with some of what Jon Topping says, but this is a generally helpful presentation:

https://www.facebook.com/p2c.students/videos/2404980893052016/

Yes, Virginia, there is a real devil

Here's a personal anecdote (which I post with permission) by a long-time Tblog reader who was into the occult prior to his Christian conversion: 

Just before being saved, I was attending prayer meetings with this group of charismatic roman catholics (this isn't the weird part, believe it or not). One night one of the priests was speaking and his voice kind of faded out as this very oppressive, palpable darkness filled the room. It wasn't so much a lack of light as it was an unbearable sense of evil. After a while, I could clearly make out the sound of cloven hooves stalking around nearby. When I was saved that night, I had a vision of sorts - one in which I saw two paths, at one end was Satan and at the other was the Lord. I went towards Christ and I was immediately filled with the realization that everything in Scripture was true. All the stories about David, everything about the Apostles, I knew that the whole thing was true from the first page to the last. 

With regard to the sound of hooves, I know that this is a popular cliche and that if Satan has any physical form at all then maybe he doesn't actually have goat horns and hooves etc. But who knows, he might be willing to use that form in order to fulfill expectations. As for the vision, I sometimes wonder if that was really the result of my imagination or not. Jesus looked kind of the same way that you see him in paintings. Satan looked like a being cloaked in smoky, shadowy darkness. Perhaps if it was a real vision, I would be more sure of it.

Satan casting out Satan

1. Reports like this raise questions regarding the status of non-Christian or occult exorcism:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/devils-of-manhattan/

This issue crops up, not only in reference to Catholic exorcists, but also cult members and witchdoctors. (By non-Christian, I'm not necessarily including Jewish exorcists. God might well honor exorcisms performed by Jews in OT and Second Temple Judaism.)  

2. I assume the standard Christian objection to the possibility of non-Christian/occult exorcism is this:

25 Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered (Mt 12:25-29). 

3. Although I haven't done a survey, I presume many readers think what he says precludes occult exorcism. If their interpretation is correct, then we must summarily discount all reported cases of occult exorcism, however well-documented. 

4. Consider a different interpretation: Christ is using a tu quoque argument. Posing a dilemma for his accusers. Whichever way they answer they will lose the argument. Reinforcing this interpretation is the fact that v27 takes the explicit form of a tu quoque argument. On that interpretation, Jesus isn't ruling out occult exorcism, but responding to his accusers on their own grounds and putting them on the defensive–without endorsing the assumptions of the argument. A tu quoque argument is a kind of ad hominem argument or argument from analogy–where the speaker temporarily adopts the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument. 

5. Assuming that leaves open the possibility of (successful) occult exorcism, what might be the motivation? One can imagine the dark side using occult exorcism as a tactic to delude the masses into following a false religion. The demon cooperates with the exorcist because that lends credibility to the false religion. So that wouldn't be a case of the dark side working at cross purposes. Rather, it collaborates with human representatives of a false religion to lead people astray. 

6. Here's another possible motivation. I guessing that many Christians think the dark side has a militaristic command structure with Satan at the top. Demons take orders from Satan and his lieutenants. The dark side is a unified "army of darkness". 

Perhaps, though, the dark side is more like rival crime families. The fact that they all hate God doesn't mean they like each other. Indeed, given the psychology of evil, demons may well detest each other. They hate everything. Maybe the dark side is riven with turf wars and competing power centers. 

Or it might be like a military dictatorship where betrayal is the mechanism of promotion. Subordinates collude to frag their commanding officers and take their place.  On both comparisons, the dark side is both united and disunited. United in common opposition to God and the good, but disunited insofar as they jockey for dominance among each other. 

7. Apropos (6), maybe some demons are more powerful than others. Maybe some angels are more powerful than others, by divine creation, and when they fall they retain the power disparity. If so, perhaps the most powerful demons are bullies who like to push around weaker demons. In that respect, a stronger demon might overpower a weaker demon and expel him from a demoniac just to throw his weight around. 

This is all speculation, but it's consistent with the phenomenon of occult exorcism. It proposes different backstories to explain the phenomenon. Although they go beyond revelation, they have a starting-point in revelation. A possible inference. 

8. What Christ says has specific reference to the demonic realm, but it may be the case that humans can be possessed by the souls of the damned as well as demons. If so, that falls outside the immediate purview of Christ's statement. 

9. Another issue is whether there are follow-up studies on occult exorcism. Is it permanent? Witchcraft can be effective, but there's a catch. It replaces one thing with something worse. Occult healing or exorcism is a curse in disguise.  

10. A possible objection to the alternate interpretation (4) is that if Christ's riposte is merely a tu quoque argument, then he failed to directly refute the allegation. So where does that leave the allegation?

Assuming the alternate explanation is true, perhaps he resorted to a tu quoque argument because a direct refutation would be too complex to articulate in that setting. But if his answer leaves the allegation hanging out there, is there a way to refute it?

i) From a tactical or strategic standpoint, one can understand how the dark side might play along with exorcism if that promotes an evil religion, steering people away from God and redirecting them into the hands of Satan. If, however, the Christian faith has the opposite effect, then the Jewish allegation is counterproductive. The Christian faith is liberating people from depravity and occult bondage.

ii) That allows us to differentiate purer forms of Christianity (e.g. evangelicalism) from more adulterated forms (e.g. Catholicism) or cults (e.g. Mormonism) or paganism (e.g. witchdoctors). So the success of exorcism in divergent religious contexts has different, but consistent explanations.   

iii) In addition, Christianity has a special relationship to Judaism that's lacking in paganism or even Islam. If Christianity is false, then God has allowed a false religion to completely obscure the true alternative (rabbinic Judaism), as the perceived successor to Judaism. In that case, rabbinic Judaism is like a candle at high noon. You can barely see it because the overwhelming brightness of the alternative all but drowns it out. Moreover, Muhammad wasn't an exorcist or wonder-worker, so there's no comparison at that level. 

Myth and magic in The Chronicles of Narnia

1. Especially with the popularity of the Harry Potter books and movies (although that fad may have waned), the role of magic in The Chronicles of Narnia is somewhat controversial. (Mind you, I haven't read the Harry Potter books.) In addition, the role of magic in The Chronicles of Narnia intersects with the role of myth. 

2. Consider stock characters from Greek mythology (e.g. satyrs, centaurs, minotaurs, dyads, naiads, Baucchus, Silenus). That's a lazy creative shortcut. These creatures belong to a different fictional world history. They are products of Greek mythology. They belong to the fictional universe of our own world. It would be preferable for Lewis to invent characters that reflect the implied world history of Narnia. 

Lewis might counter that in the world of the story, what's mythical in our world may be real in another world. In principle, that's a legitimate approach for a fantasy writer to take. Even so, there needs to be a consistent backstory to explain their existence in another world. They can't just be abducted from our world, then stuck into another world. These creatures arise in a polytheist or animist context. 

3. That said, this isn't entirely ad hoc on Lewis's part. He may well include these characters to illustrate his view that in divine providence, pagan mythology is a preparation for the Gospel. 

Of course, that sympathetic outlook is at variance with how the Bible views pagan mythology, but my immediate point is that from Lewis's perspective, this isn't just a creative shortcut but a matter of principle–even if his principle is misguided. A considered judgment on his part. 

The relation between (2)  & (3) exposes a point of tension in Lewis. He sacrifices artistic consistency at this juncture to illustrate myth becoming fact. 

4. In defense of Lewis, consider the character of Tumnus. When a satyr is the first character Lucy encounters, this shows Lucy, as well as the reader, not only that the wardrobe is a portal to another world, but a different kind of world. If what she discovered was an alternate Oxfordshire or parallel London, where everything belongs to the same kind of world, then that wouldn't have the same effect. Making Lucy meet a satyr on first contact is an economical way for Lewis to show the reader that Narnia is truly out of this world. In a way, he makes the same point with talking animals, but the satyr adds an exotic visual touch. 

5. In the world of Narnia, magic isn't equivalent to witchcraft. What is magic in our world is natural in Narnia. It's a different kind of world with different laws. 

The White Witch is no exception, because she's an intruder from another world. Her kind of magic wasn't native to Narnia. Rather, witchcraft is like an invasive species. 

And, of course, the world of Narnia has a Christian subtext lacking in the Harry Potter novels. So it's not comparable in that respect. 

6. In fairness to Lewis, we should judge the novels by the standards of children's literature. They don't have and can't have the same literary sophistication as adult novels like Until We Have Faces or Perelandra. 

In addition, Lewis was learning the ropes when he began the series. Honing his craft as a fiction writer. Moreover, he was breaking new ground in the genre. So they have a certain experimental charm that would be lost if he wrote them after gaining greater experience in the art and craft of fictional narration. 

On donkeys and divination

I've often commented on the "talking donkey" episode in Numbers because it's a favorite target of atheists. I'd like to make another observation. As Kenneth Way documents in his groundbreaking monograph on the significance of donkey's in the ancient Near East (Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol), donkeys were, among other things, objects of divination. And Balaam is a diviner. At least his career trades on his reputation as a diviner. He might be a charlatan or the real deal. In that context, I doubt the role of the donkey is coincidental. God makes an object of divination rebuke the diviner. So there's divine irony in how God cuts Balaam down to size. That's a nuance modern readers will miss since we don't associate donkeys with divination.

Bell, Book, and Candle updated

Patrick Chan and I have updated the bibliography for this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/bell-book-candle.html

In addition, he fixed the dead links on the old post.

The Night Hag

Concerns regarding sleep disorders in Hmong immigrants in the US emerged when an astonishingly high mortality rate of Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome (SUNDS) was documented in Hmong men.

In 1981, an unusual new condition came to the attention of the medical community: based on mortality reports first appearing in 1977, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued an international note that Southeast Asian refugees, primarily Hmong, to the US were dying in their sleep (Centers for Disease Control, 1981). What made this occurrence unusual was, not only the circumstances of the nocturnal deaths, but the fact that the victims were young men, previously in good health. Reports of these cases increased over the following six years; a mortality rate of 92/100,000 showed these Hmong men were dying at a rate equivalent to the leading five causes of death for American-born men of the same age range.

In contrast to the novelty of SUNDS to Western science in 1981, Hmong and other South–East Asian populations have long feared the personal experience epitomized by SUNDS. Culture-specific names have been given to this experience; Hmong refer to the terrifying nighttime occurrence of the crushing spirit on their chest as dab tsog (Adler, 1995; Bliatout, 1982; Fukuda, Miyasity, Inugami, & Ishihara, 1987; Holtan et al., 1984). Victims of visits from this spirit report that dab tsog sat on their chest with crushing force, making it impossible to move and “took their breath”. Although parallels are drawn between SUNDS and the dab tsog experience, the high fatality of the medical syndrome of SUNDS differs from that of dab tsog: historical and ethnographic reports indicate that the experience of dab tsog is not rare or fatal, and is often experienced repeatedly by the victims (Adler, 1995, 2011). Thus, the cultural pattern, collective knowledge and universal description of dab tsog suggest a prevalent bio-psychosocial condition of which only a limited number of cases results in a SUNDS fatality. In a study of 118 Hmong in California, 58% reported at least one experience of the dab tsog visit; in-depth interviews clearly indicated widespread fear, stress, and dread of sleep abnormalities in the Hmong population (Adler, 1994).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616878/

Victims discovered in the night terrors are unarousable, and in the few successfully aroused patients, terrifying dreams were often experienced.40 In addition, frequent experiences of “dab tsog (frightening night spirit pressing on chest),” nightmares, sleep paralysis, and hypnogogic hallucinations still exist in Hmong after immigrating to the United States for decades, probably putting Hmong at high risk for SUNDS.41 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866328/

Sea-monsters

I've written a lot about how the Tempter in Gen 3 was probably meant to trigger associations with ophiomancy and ophiolatry. But crocodiles may be a related motif in the Pentateuch. 

There's the identity of the "sea-monsters" in Gen 1:21. Some commentators think that's mythological. But it's arguably demythologizing crocodiles. The original audience didn't have our extensive knowledge of marine life, so we have to ask what that would mean to them. I think Nile crocodiles are the best candidate. (Which doesn't exclude other marine life.) 

Scripture doesn't seem to have a technical term for crocodiles. Ezk 29:3-4 is the most explicit reference, with its crocodilian imagery. There it symbolizes Pharaoh. Cf. D. Bock The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48 (Eerdmans 1998), 134-37; H. Hummel, Ezekiel 21-48 (Concordia 2007), 885-87.  

On traditional authorship, refugees from Egypt comprised the original audience for the Pentateuch. They'd be painfully familiar with the Nile crocodile, a notorious predator. In addition, crocodiles frequented the Crocodile river (Nahal Taninim, Wadi az-Zarqa) near Caesarea and Mt. Carmel. Down by the Delta, the Nile might have the occasional Bull shark, but crocodiles were ubiquitous. 

Not only were Nile crocodiles a constant menace to anyone who ventured into the river or river bank, they might also be nocturnal predators. Imagine a crocodile snatching a sleeper from a nearby mud hut. Or suppose you have to leave your hut in the middle of the night to answer the call of nature, with a crocodile lying in wait. Years ago I watched a nature show about saltwater crocodile that snatched a camper from her tent, even though they camped out about a mile from the beach. 

This may play into the emblematic significance and psychological resonance of light and dark, day and night in Gen 1. Many invisible dangers lurk under cover of darkness. 

In the confrontation with the Egyptian sorcerers (Exod 7), even though the context probably refers to cobras (Exod 4), the choice of wording (tannin) may be designed to evoke crocodiles. The narrator is using a double entendre. Cf. T. D. Alexander, Exodus (IVP 2017), 158-61. D. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus (Kregel 2014), 272-73n3; V. Hamilton, Exodus (Baker 2011), 116-20; Pnina Galpaz-Feller, "Egyptological Motifs in the Sign of the Serpent (Ex 4:2-5; 7:8-14)," BMik 171 (2002), 322-335.

Just as ancient Egypt had snake-gods, it also had a crocodile god (Sobek). So Gen 1:21 and Exod 7 are ways to naturalize and demote a creature Egyptians deified.  

On a related note, who named the Tempter in Gen 3–Adam or the narrator? If the narrator, then that may play on later, occultic associations with venomous snakes in the world of the Exodus. 

The Fakers

1. I recently read The Fakers: Exploding the Myths of the Supernatural (Fleming Revell 1980), by Dan Korem and Paul Meier. 

It's similar to secular debunking books except that it was written by two Christians. At the time, Korem was a magician while Meier is a big name in Christian counseling. It has a foreword by Josh McDowell.  

I used to own one or more books by Meier. (I may still have them in a box somewhere.) I was bothered by his cookie-cutter approach. As I recall, he has a classification system adapted from depth psychology, and he pigeonholes people according to that formulaic taxonomy. He also has a rather mechanical view abnormal psychology, like there's a recipe book. 

In this book, Meier frequently appeals to his extensive professional experience with patients ("thousands of patients"). However, the book was published in 1980. I assume the manuscript was submitted for publication no later than 1979. Meier graduated from Duke University in 1975. So wasn't his professional experience pretty limited at the time of writing?

I'm also somewhat dubious about his coauthor. More recently, Korem produced this profiling system:

https://medium.com/@dvsdv_55178/new-releases-the-art-of-profiling-reading-people-right-the-first-time-by-dan-korem-237828f06949

That looks really flaky to me. It raises the specter of one charlatan denouncing other charlatans. 

2. One aim of the book is to debunk popular candidates for the paranormal like dowsing, the pendulum, Ouija board, automatic writing, table tilting/rapping, firewalking, psychic surgery, necromancy, and fortune-telling (e.g. psychics, cartomancy). 

i) I'm happy to stipulate that some of this is flimflam. If I were making a case for the paranormal, I wouldn't cite some of those as evidence.

ii) However, the authors fail to distinguish between necromancy and apparitions of the dead. There's a difference between initiating contact with the dead and the dead initiating contact. I think there's credible evidence for grief apparitions and crisis apparitions. That doesn't involve a medium.

iii) I think the authors miss the point about the Ouija board. The question at issue isn't so much if that's a way to discover the future but whether people who play with Ouija boards sometimes open a door to the dark side which they can't close. 

iv) Although fortune-telling in the pop culture is bunk, that doesn't mean there's no evidence for precognition. 

v) Psychic surgery might well be a good candidate for sleight of hand. However, I find the studies of Sidney Greenfield on occult healing intriguing, so I don't rule it out tout court:

https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/research/polanyi/docs/conference-2014-papers/Greenfield%20Sydney%20Montreal%202014.pdf

3. One of their targets is the Lutheran exorcist Kurt Koch. The allegation is that Koch was hoodwinked because he's unfamiliar with how magicians fool viewers. I think there's some validity to that criticism. If someone like Koch had training as a magician, he'd be better equipped to spot the tricks of the trade. Some candidates for the paranormal may well be legerdemain. 

However, the authors only interact with a handful of Koch's voluminous case studies. That's hardly representative. Moreover, Koch is by no means the only source of information on the paranormal and the occult, although he was a very prominent figure at the time of writing. 

4. The authors lean on the work of debunkers like Milbourne Christopher. However, he was a member of CSICOP, founded by Paul Kurtz. That's an organization of militant atheists committed to naturalism. They rule out the paranormal and supernatural a priori because they think the physical universe is all there is, and that's a closed system. Another example is D. H. Rawcliffe. 

This doesn't mean secular debunkers can't expose charlatans. It's a target rich environment. 

5. The authors are skittish on demonic possession. They affirm it in principle, but are dismissive in practice. However, I've read psychiatrists who refer some of their patients to exorcists, after ruling out natural causes. Meier's experience isn't representative. 

6. A basic problem with the book is a double standard, where they accept biblical reports without question, but default to naturalistic explanations for extrabiblical reports about similar phenomena. When it comes to extrabiblical reports, they explain that away by appeal to coincidence, chicanery, the law of large numbers, psychosomatic illness. But that's an artificial dichotomy which smacks of special pleading. It's the same way secular debunkers automatically discount all healing miracles, answered prayers, premonitory dreams, &c.

In the case of Meier, no one is disputing that some people experience hallucinations. Those are easy to call. The real test are hard cases which resist or defy naturalistic explanations. 

The worlds of spirits

In the year of his death, Richard Baxter, a preeminent Puritan, published The Certainty of the Worlds of Spirits. As he explains:

When God first awakened me, to think with preparing seriousness of my condition after death, I had not any observed doubts of the reality of spirits, or the immortality of the soul, or the truth of the gospel…But when God had given me peace of conscience, Satan assaulted me with those worse temptations…I still saw that to be an atheist was to be mad. But I found that my faith of supernatural revelation must be more than a believing man, and that if it had not a firm foundation and rooting, even sure evidence of verity, surely apprehended, it was not like to do those great works that faith had to do, and to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil, and to make my death to be safe and comfortable. Therefore I found that all confirming helps were useful…And finding that almost all the atheists, Sadducces and infidels, did seem to profess, that were they but sure of the reality of the apparitions and operations of spirits, it would cure them, I thought this the most fruitable helped for them...  (Preface).

I confess, very many cheats of pretended possessions have been discovered, which hath made some weak, injudicious men think that all are such. Two sorts of persons have oft been found deceivers: (i) persons prepared and trained up purposely by Papist priests to honor their exorcisms; (ii) Lustful, rank girls and young widows, that plot for some amorous, precacious design, or have imaginations conquered by lust. 

Tis hard to know by their words or signs when it is a devil, and when a human soul that appeareth…we are not fully certain whether these aerial regions have not a third sort of wights, that are neither angels (good or fall) nor souls of men, but those called fairies and goblins… (chap. 1).

It's a mixed bag. I think a few of his examples are just ecclesiastical legends (e.g. incubi and succubi, blood-sucking imps, the devil's familiars). Some may reflect ignorance of botany which undergoes legendary embellishment (e.g. Glastonbury thorn).

Likewise, the primitive state of 17C medicine invites misdiagnosis in some cases. And some folk medical treatments aggravate the condition. For instance, some cases might have a natural explanation (e.g. gallstones, kidney stones). By the same token, some people might have undiagnosable conditions, by 17C standards, that result in mental illness. 

He cites reports of grain falling from the sky (chap 10). Perhaps that has a natural explanation. 

They don't understand the nature of lightning. He also mentions a case of ball-lightning (chap. 8). From what I've read, that remains a mysterious phenomenon.  

He mentions the case of a maid who was hexed by having a pin thrust in her thigh. It's well-documented, and more examples like that might demonstrate malicious spells, but he only gives one example. 

He mentions a few cases of xenoglossy. That would be evidence for spirit-possession, but his examples aren't well-documented. 

More impressive are cases of people spitting up pins, needles, knives, shards of glass. There may be natural explanations why some people are motivated to swallow sharp objections. In some cases it might be staged, although that's a very hazardous hoax. And there are ways to detect imposture.

What's harder to explain naturalistically is how they could swallow and cough up such objects without incurring fatal internal bleeding. And these aren't single incidents, but repeated. 

Likewise, objects levitating and flying in a room have no natural explanation. 

I find his collection of anecdotes is quite uneven. That reflects his limited access to relevant reports. I think modern scientific knowledge renders some of his examples dubious. Conversely, modern science and telecommunications cast a far wider net, so the available evidence for miracles and occult phenomena is much greater than Baxter had at his disposal. 

With those caveats in mind, I'll quote what struck me as the more uncanny examples: 

Witch lights

You will not fear the terror of the night,

    nor the arrow that flies by day,

(Ps 91:5)

The sun shall not strike you by day,

    nor the moon by night.

(Ps 121:6)

These are rather obscure allusions. Ross offers a naturalistic interpretation. He thinks they refer to surprise attacks at night. A military assault or invasion.

By contrast, Goldingay presents evidence that Ps 91:5 may have its background in nocturnal demons, although he's noncommittal on that interpretation. And Ps 121:6 might be a comparable metaphor. 

On a possibly related note is the disputed identity of Azazel in Lev 16 (cf. Lev 17:17). Michael Heiser defends a supernatural interpretation:

http://drmsh.com/day-atonement-leviticus-16-goat-azazel/

There is, though, the danger of anachronism when we use later traditions to interpret earlier texts.

But let's assume for argument's sake that these have supernatural referents. That's a reasonable, albeit inconclusive identification. 

I thought about these biblical passages when reading this:

https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/08/the-mysterious-flying-witch-lights-of-aru/

Now, I'd like to have more corroboration. And this raises a similar issue. Assuming the reports are accurate, are these mysterious lights natural, but unexplained phenomena–or occultic entities? 

Is this the kind of thing that the biblical passages are alluding to? Since we don't live in the ancient Near East, we don't have the same experience or frame of reference. But given the proliferation of witchcraft in the ancient Near East, would there be analogous phenomena? 

In that regard it might be instructive to do a cross-cultural study of witchcraft in American Indian tribes. Are there similar reported phenomena?

Finally, you can see how this luminous phenomena, if genuine, might feed into ufology, where secular observers reinterpret their experience in reference to categories supplied by scifi movies.