The G-Word

An old article I found from 2006 which I made reference to in an earlier blog post:
............................

Do you believe in ghosts? Now wait a moment before you answer that question. Take a moment to consider carefully your response, as it seems in this more spiritually aware era this once simplest of questions has now become a loaded debate on semantics.

As someone who regularly enjoys the challenge thrown down by the ‘paranormal’ and being one to sit on that sceptical fence observing both sides of a debate, I am often privileged enough to meet many people who either believe, disbelieve or share my sceptical viewpoint. However, when I deliberately ask this question in it’s most basic of forms, I am often astounded by the amount of contemplation that goes into the delivery of an often overly complex answer.
What ever happened to a simple yes or no? Have we perhaps gone beyond the point where a ghost is simply the spectral appearance of a person who has passed over or the ominous misty representation of a human form?
Indeed, the ubiquitous response seems to be, when asked this simple question; ‘it depends on what you mean by ghost’ or more disappointing still; ‘I don’t like the word ghost’.
I have even attended talks by self proclaimed experts in the field of paranormal investigation whose response to any question relating to the word ghost is to look at his colleagues with a knowing wink and a nod as if to say ‘looks like we have another one’ before adopting a condescending tone and replying in the most monosyllabic infant school teacher style.

Pick up a dictionary, look up the word ghost and it would seem quite simple, we are talking about a disembodied human spirit. But ask a spiritualist or a believer and you may be subjected to definitions, distinctions and designations. Often, I am left none the wiser after I have asked the question than before.
Perhaps I am old fashioned in my view that there is a degree of affectedness involved when it comes to ghosts. I sometimes feel that I have perhaps incurred the frustration of my interviewees or discussion partner when I ask them if they believe in ghosts. They roll their eyes and tell me they have been asked this many times before and that I should perhaps clarify what I mean by the word ‘ghosts’. I get the impression the word ‘ghost’ is no longer fashionable.
In fairness, when you hit the Net for information on ghosts, there are no shortage of lists defining a variety of apparitions and manifestations. You can almost abandon the word ghost in favour of slightly more spiritually in-vogue options. Psychic entities, elementals, astral echoes, non-sentient apparitions, light anomalies, wraiths, resident spirits, sentient and non-sentient astral beings. Some of these terms have been in circulation for decades, often coined by some of the worlds most famous and respected psychical researchers, whereas others appear to have materialised more recently, perhaps occasionally owing their existence as much to the Internet. The alternatives to ‘ghost’ are so plentiful it is no wonder that there is confusion over a simple question.

I wonder if perhaps the word ghost has served its purpose as a generic term and no longer has much relevance given the degree of savvy displayed by the paranormally enthusiastic masses. Worse still, as I remember those exasperated expressions on the faces of those whom I have interviewed, has it become a naughty word? A spiritual reference taboo? Should I now refer to it as the ‘G-Word’?
No one ghost hunts anymore. Instead they paranormal investigate and why not? After all, our interest in the paranormal will inevitably evolve and so it should. But it can feel as though ghost enthusiasts have grown up into scientists, parapsychologists and inducted amateurs and today’s novice is being gradually squeezed out of serious paranormal debate as though they don’t belong in the new, more advanced, spiritual arena. The G-Word represents something lost in the melee to achieve a new height of legitimacy for the subject. It is a word that has been abandoned even as a generic expression in favour of terms more becoming of the 21^st Century.
Whilst I worry that this is perhaps alienating the next generation of Harry Prices, Maurice Grosses, Ciaran O’Keeffes and even Yvette Fieldings, yesterdays ghost enthusiasts who have earned their stripes in paranormal lore, I cannot say that the categorizing of ghostly phenomena is without its merits.
The Enfield poltergeist in the late 1970s, for example, is hardly comparable to classic hauntings such as the ‘non-sentient apparitions’ of the Roman soldiers at Chester and York or the airborne ‘sentient spirits’ allegedly of flight deck crewmembers from the 1972 Eastern Airlines flight 401 disaster. Three very unique and separate apparent cases that are famously different. But, for all their differences, are they not still ghosts?
Sure, the poltergeist is often said to be person related, more of a telekinetic manifestation rather than the return of a deceased individual and they are still credited by some to be the most common form of demon but they certainly have been considered to be spirits in more than one documented case. Given this ambiguity surely there is room for the poltergeist underneath the ghost umbrella.

The eagerness for ghosts to be categorized, whilst commendable when coupled with serious and unbiased study on the subject, may be eroding the appeal of ghosts and the paranormal. The G-Word is the pull for many who begin their study of the supernatural, the hook that reels them in, hence my dismay at the instant cheapening of the term when I see those rolling eyes and endure the frustrated sighs.
In a nutshell, is the draw of the paranormal at risk by the refusal by some of those in the know to cater for those who are less so?

The word ghost is at risk of being lost and whilst this may not seem like much, perhaps with the loss of the word goes the innocence that has appealed to ghost enthusiasts for countless generations. Ghosts have been fun to talk about in the flickering glow of a fireplace or beneath the howl of the wind on a winters night and they have fascinated people old and young for so long. The potential damage of an elitist attitude and over reliance on specifics is that the ‘magic’ will be lost.
By now you may have realised that the debate is much greater than just one word. To speak to some spiritual aficionado there is all too often some sort of test that follows the asking about the G-Word. It can feel as though one has to pass a knowledge trial before you can be allowed into ‘the club’. If you fail you can expect a series of grunts and sighs and deliberately vague answers designed to end the conversation as soon as possible though there is still some hope you will find someone who would thoroughly enjoy the opportunity to exult their knowledge upon a rookie in the field.

But if I were to be so bold as to answer my own curiosity I would have to say of course the word ghost still has its place and it certainly shouldn’t be treated as an overly simplified term used only by the annoyingly unacquainted. It is still a strong term with more implications than specifics such as sentient entities, stone tape recordings or elementals. Its appeal is more basic and exciting and more widespread and we should savour the word before delving into the types of ghost and the specifics of an increasingly academic field. We should find that balance between in-depth study and enjoying the subject in its simplest form the way we did when we were kids.
Finally, simply out of a concept of preservation and for the benefit of those at the beginning of their supernatural journey, be it sceptical or with conviction, we, myself as a sceptic included, are duty bound to preserve the right to ask the question… do you believe in ghosts?

Psychic Sleuths? Press Delete!

In October 1898 in Lebanon, New Hampshire, housewife Nellie Titus suffered a series of recurring dreams in the wake of the mysterious disappearance of 16 year old Bertha Huse from a neighbouring township. In the face of considerable scepticism from all of those she confided in, including her husband, she begged the authorities to search an area of the Mascoma River which had already been repeatedly searched by a diver previously. So certain was she that this section of water was the watery grave of young Miss Huse she even joined the diver at the rivers edge when he begrudgingly obliged.

She claimed that she had been drawn to this location by visitations by Bertha whilst she slept and her dreams where in fact visions bestowed upon her by the desperate soul of the child. As you may have guessed they did indeed find the remains of Bertha Huse and as a result the reluctant Mrs Titus was regarded with everything from suspicion to astonishment to great acclaim.

Claims of psychic detection are nothing new but real cases of successful location of a missing person or body are extremely rare and even then they tend to be lavishly embellished by the reporting medium. It is of course common knowledge that police forces have used mediums in the past with varying degrees but predominantly limited success. But this is not because of their belief in the paranormal but instead a more grounded hope that perhaps a naturally gifted person may be capable of doing something that some behavioural profilers spend a lifetime learning to achieve in giving detailed and dependable insight into a crime and often the perpetrator.

With this in mind it never fails to make my skin crawl when I learn of yet another medium offering their visions up when a news story breaks of a missing person. From the Lindbergh baby to the heart-aching case of April Jones, it is inevitable that there will be those who, for genuine reasons or for self promotion, will involve themselves and their psychic ability very publicly in the case.

These days the outlet for many such claims seems to be online where a throng of mediums seem to have emerged. Recently I took to removing several posts and eventually the posters themselves from my Facebook thanks to a surge of peculiar messages regarding the fate of little April Jones and regarding the renewed search for the remains of little Ben Needham who disappeared from a holiday home on the Greek Island of Kos in 1991. 

I have befriended many mediums and psychics in my work, even as a sceptic, and as such I enjoy seeing their updates on my timeline now and again but during the search for Ben Needham one post in particular disturbed me more than most.

The post from this particular female medium read: ‘I had visions of red in connection to the whereabouts of Ben Needham and now I see on the news the police [specialist search team] are wearing red!’

There was a clamour of likes and complimentary comments beneath her post which all made me cringe violently. A tenuous (and ultimately wrong) link at best I thought, especially since only a very small number of the Greek police officers were wearing bright red overalls and I had to ask myself why would anyone put that on Facebook?

Would it help in finding Ben? Was it a message of hope for the Needham family? Would it have any positive effect at all? No.

To me it appeared vitriolic. A “look at me” request as the author seeks to be perceived as somehow linked to a headline case among their own Facebook followers. A silly claim that need never be shared for it served no real purpose other than to jump on little Ben’s bandwagon. If I were even more cynical I would suggest it served almost as a promotional tool to gain more readings and even though that’s not what I actually think, had Ben been found I do wonder what retrospective claims would have been made then!

In all I have recently removed five mediums who all began posting their psychic connections about missing children including April Jones to moors murder victim Keith Bennett. Their visions tend to suspiciously coincide with media interest and frankly I don’t want to see useless and grossly inappropriate comments on my Facebook timeline that involve the disappearance or death of someone else’s child and I imagine the parents of these poor kids would shudder at the thought of such self aggrandising messages circulating out there. Such comments come across as clumsily disrespectful as best or boastful at worst.

The world has moved on a great deal since the days when Nellie Titus could point to a river and say ‘there’, effectively influencing the course of an official search. The ubiquitous psychics of today stand so little chance of recreating the extraordinary exploits of Mrs Titus they should perhaps consider what real purpose spreading such a comment truly serves. If it won’t bring someone’s loved one home then perhaps they should simply press delete on this one.

The Egos and the G-Word

I am a lucky chap, all in all. My full time job is to work in a field that I have been fascinated by since I was five years of age. I get to take groups around reputedly haunted buildings and treat them to my sceptical ramblings countered by my colleagues more paranormal explanations. I get to conduct private research from the revenue this provides and I get to write it up online and in some magazines from time to time! I am a lucky chap.

But I often worry about how long this can last. When will the rug will be pulled out from beneath my feet by some over enthusiastic ego tripper? And if there is one thing I have found no shortage of it is egos! Whilst I suppose it takes some ego to forge a living in the paranormal industry (and believe me that’s exactly what it is and has been for a very long time; an industry) the worst part is that these over-inflated egos are not from sceptics or cynics but they are colleagues, psychics and counterparts! People who believe a decade or more of ‘research’ or communing with spirit makes them an expert and they appoint themselves as some sort of overseer of all others who dare to enter the realm of the paranormal. They see themselves as bouncers at the doors of the supernatural club administering some sort of test or review and fail it at your peril!

These people often see themselves as leaders and guardians of the subject matter, dictating the way a subject is seen and treated. They demand others fall in line. But my question is, how do we know the line is going in the right direction? What if these un-elected and un-screened self-styled gurus are simply dragging their line on an ego trip with no real purpose other than the sensation of importance and elevation?

A few years back I wrote an article for a magazine entitled The G-Word about a prevailing attitude among long term researchers toward anyone who had a casual interest in ghosts. They treated the question ‘do you believe in ghosts?’ with a contemptuous snort and looked down their nose at the unfortunate who dared ask this dreaded question replying only ‘it depends on what you mean by ‘ghost’ before prattling into a list of types of entities and attempting the use of pseudo-scientific schlock which in reality hold no basis in fact as no one yet has actually proven the existence of ghosts in order to pigeonhole them so particularly.

My concern then, as it is now, is that such egos threaten the essence of the paranormal that most of us grew up with and draws so many new faces to the subject. It is fun! OK it seems a strange and inappropriate conclusion to draw given that ghosts are reportedly dead people but the mystery of it all, the ghost stories we were told as kids and the shiver we feel whilst checking out darkened corners of a haunted hotel are all... well... fun! 

But when egos emerge and begin to sap the enjoyment then they also begin to swamp the subject and it becomes more open to ridicule than ever and the flames of cynicism are fanned with each egotistical claim that one thought or belief is wrong compared to their own. The cynics wouldn't need to attack the subject matter as the egos and their 'my opinion is fact' claims would tear it down from the inside! 

Personally I fully intend to enjoy my work and I hope it is a career that will last until my dying day and in the meantime I would love to find some answers and maybe change my view from sceptic to believer.

In the meantime I shall endure the sneers of the egotists, the jibes of the cynics and I shall keep my eye out. Not for a ‘non-sentient entity’ and not for a ‘residual presence’. I will keep my eye out for a good old fashioned ghost… but until then I remain your Disappointed Sceptic.