Paranormal Investigation: Live

I’m feeling rather frustrated and annoyed and it’s all because of an advert I just saw on LivingTV. It was for a program called ‘Paranormal Investigation: Live’ in which, the trailer says, two paranormal research teams – “one using spiritual methods & one science” will investigate one of England’s most haunted locations to see “what proof they can uncover” on “the most haunted night of the year”.

The above is what I could decipher from a commercial that contained many dramatic shots of the teams in question, scary looking horror story figures and lighting effects.

By the way, paranormal investigation and research has nothing to do with dramatic lighting, dark clothing and spooky looking figures. That’s just bullshit television production (but sadly you would get that impression looking at a cross sample of British paranormal research teams, their websites and investigation photos…) anyway, I digress.

There are several points I want to make about this upcoming show. Lets call them part psychic prediction, part me moaning and pointing out the obvious that many have probably missed.

1) Flawed methods

One of the teams will be using “spiritual methods” and the other “science”. I would imagine the spiritual methods will include séances, automatic writing, table tipping, dowsing, Ouija board, glass divination and the like.

The “science” may actually be them basing their time at the location around a scientific model of investigation. This is television though, so I doubt it. They’ll probably have some gadgets that they will claim show certain things that can be linked to ghosts being present. They’ll debunk a few things, “that was probably the wind”, “that was an illusion”, but they’ll still present it as using science, and by doing so will paint themselves as being experts and authoritative and knowledgeable. This means that when something happens that they cannot explain it’s more likely that viewers will more readily accept that the occurrence is paranormal “because they’re scientific and they’ve tried everything to explain it.”

Both of these methods of investigation will be wrong.

2) The cost of “balance”

If the “science” team do use a proper methodology then that will be great, but by introducing the “spiritualist methods team” into the equation the television show is presenting them as having equal footing and relevance.

They don’t.

I am very much against television shows that use woo ideas to balance out a situation or story to please the audience. Putting a scientist up against a homeopath for the case of balance is ridiculous, putting a dangerous anti-vaccination proponent against a doctor is awful, and so is putting (widely debunked and nonsensical) spiritualist methods on an equal footing with scientific methods of research as though both deserve the same respect and consideration.

They don’t.

3) Most haunted night. Give me a break.

Seriously, there is nothing spiritually significant about Halloween. Ghosts don’t get stronger on Halloween night, there is nothing to suggest this apart from folklore, superstition and religious mutterings. Nothing. So shut up about it already!

3) Most haunted location, my arse!

There are probably some strange and spooky stories attached to the location in question, but that doesn’t automatically mean it is haunted.

Too many people make the assumption that because something unexplained has happened it means that it is paranormal and thus they are haunted. There are so many leaps of logic in these assumptions that it hurts my head.

I hate to come across as being cynical, but these sorts of paranormal television shows always claim that the location they are visiting is one of the most haunted in the country, and there is no way that many locations can be classed as one of the most haunted in the country.

It would mean a phenomenal amount of locations have a hell of a lot of anomalous phenomena taking place. If they do, they’re certainly not reporting them all for proper examination, so their claims to be “the most haunted” is based purely on anecdotes and hearsay.

There is hardly ever any consideration into rational explanations that may have caused the odd occurrences at the locations in question.

No, instead, a handful of odd occurrences that haven’t been properly explored and have been labeled as ghosts (which isn’t really an explanation, if you think about it…) have captured the imagination of many.

The stories will have spread, people will have had their own similar experiences because they were influenced by what they have heard.

If you go looking for a ghost, it’s very likely you are going to encounter one, but it’s more likely it’s simply a product of your own mind and your expectations.

This is how a ghost story grows, this is how a building becomes “one of the country’s most haunted”, this is folklore in action.

4) Searching for proof and introducing biases.

The thing that bothers me the most about the trailer I saw was the claim that the two teams will be aiming to see “what proof they can uncover”.

This is the worst thing a paranormal researcher can do. Entering a location with the aim of proving there is a ghost or something as equally paranormal is a bad research method no matter if you use “spiritualist methods” or “science”.

Everything one does when searching for proof of the ghost/s will be biased because you’ve already reached a conclusion and will (often unknowingly) squish your findings so that they fit with that conclusion.

I predict that the two teams will both experience things that they cannot explain, they will try to rationalise them, but because they’ve already reached the conclusion that the place has ghosts there, they will come to the conclusion that the occurrences were paranormal in nature.

This in itself is a leap of logic because the idea that just because you cannot explain something makes it paranormal assumes that you know everything there is to know everything.

All in all, I very much doubt I will be watching this show because if I develop the need to watch a program with people pretending to investigate a supposed paranormally active location while getting scared I will pop on ‘Ghostwatch’ by Steven Volk.  It’s more entertaining, there are bits that still scare me and it has the balls to admit that it’s not real.

It’s a shame the producers who keep churning out pathetic paranormal “reality” shows that are like a cheap re-enactment of ‘Ghostwatch’ wont do the same.

Before I close this blog post, I should point out that it is worth reading more about ‘Paranormal Investigation: Live’ over at in this great article.

Bloody paranormal reality television shows…

About Hayley Stevens 448 Articles
Hayley is a ghost geek and started to blog in 2007. She uses scientific scepticism to investigate weird stuff and writes about it here while also speaking publicly about how to hunt ghosts as a skeptic.

77 Comments on Paranormal Investigation: Live

    • I agree wholeheartedly!

      I’ve had experiences that cannot be explained – certainly NOT by TV programmes that cover only the sensational.

    • hi, I agree with you. I’ve had tons of paranormal experiences which were also witnessed by others when they occurred. I’ve captured many figures on film, as well. But these shows are so boring. When they really get something, then I’ll be interested.

    • the worst example of so called reality paranormal tv shows is called paranormal state. its “star” claims to work with a research team. everything is supposed to be done in real time. really? we cant see the ghosts. and he is always narrating and now they are “audiotuning” ghost voices. so called hauntings, but so fake mediums.

    • So many people are going on about this TV programme on Living TV…..I don’t have access to this channel – because I refuse to pay for TV I don’t really want.

      What I HAVE had, though, is access to some really haunted premises.

      My husband & son have worked in some places where things have happened that would scare most people into never going back. Indeed, some staff have fled, never to return……

  1. Well, I’ll just say this: you, clearly, wouldn’t be a proper choice to test ghost claims, because you seem to be biased the opposite way, by thinking that these things clearly are not true.

    So, your concerns one-by-one:

    1) I suspect that the science side will use the “traditional” parabolic antenna, thermometers, and video cameras to look around, which do have some minor scientific associations with them. I suspect that they’ll get some readings with those that match, but would agree that that won’t be enough to prove anything. But it’s hard to see what other methods science could use. You may have gone through this before, but do you have suggestions on how to improve the methods?

    2) For ghosts, there is a paranormal element to them, and those are suggested methods for contacting them. In this instance, I think it’d be hard for an unbiased or even skeptical proponent to object to them being given a shot, and then unloading the skepticism after we see what they provide. Which is what I’d recommend for the science side as well.

    3) Most haunted night and most haunted location both do derive only from folklore. But if you were really interested in seeing if the folklore was correct, why wouldn’t you pick the night and the locations that the folklore says are the best? Isn’t that just giving the folklore the best possible conditions you can? Yes, since this is television, it’s also played up for drama, but playing to folklore’s rules while testing it seems only fair.

    4) Bluntly, I’m not that concerned about what they conclude from their findings. I can judge that myself, and we can certainly do that ourselves if it’s presented fairly. And, again, we have to be careful not to bias the other way; if it’s bad to go in trying to prove true, it’s just as bad to go in trying to prove false. The best is to go in just trying to see what happens.

    Caveat: I have an interest in the paranormal and would love to investigate it, but don’t have the time and resources. I believe that it is possible that ghosts exist but am skeptical about claims that someone has seen one.

    • you, clearly, wouldn’t be a proper choice to test ghost claims, because you seem to be biased the opposite way, by thinking that these things clearly are not true.

      Well I do test ghost claims, and I don’t claim to hold all the answers. I have experienced things I cannot explain, but what I do know is nonsense when I see it, and I know how to process information and spot pseudo-science and logical fallacies, and programmes like the one I have written about thrive on such things.

      I’ll respond to your points by using the number of each:

      1) On the website for the show (and The link provided) it shows they will be using EMF meters, EVP (electronic voice phenomena) and other such techniques that are described as scientific, but aren’t.

      To improve a scientific method one must take the claim being made (to use an example I have come across in my research, “every night we hear loud bangs coming from the pub cellar that we cannot recreate”) you then need to replicate the conditions of the experience and see if you can rule out each possible logical explanation, and if you can’t rule one out it’s likely that’s the cause. In the case of the bangs in the cellar, it was passers-by walking across a metal door used for getting beer barrel deliveries into the cellar.

      Pieces of equipment take the measurements they were designed to take, there is no piece of equipment out there that definitely detects ghosts. Introducing pieces of equipment that might detect a ghost or a cold spot or similar ideas that are linked to ghosts simply add more confusion to the equation.

      2) These techniques have been scientifically proven not to work. Ouija boards, table tipping & glass divination are products of the ideomotor response, and things like the EMF ghost theory and EVP have been shown to be pseudo-scientific. You can read more details of each at

      3) Investigating on Halloween “just in case” the folklore is right is a waste of time. The best time to investigate is at the same time of the day the occurrence has been witnessed. Halloween has no effect on anything. If we all went around doing things “just in case” the idea were right, we would be wearing tin-foil hats!

    • Well, I’ll admit that I missed that you did do investigations because, well, I followed a blind link. So, sorry about that.

      My limited reading on the topic is that those things were associated more strongly with places where ghost sightings were made than otherwise. Does it prove the existence of ghosts? Probably not. But it may well indicate the existence of something that helps create ghost sightings, which is fairly interesting in and of itself. I do think that they should do investigation on whether there are alternate explanations. Note that at the source on EMFs, I find the EIF interesting because it could, indeed, create experiences and something that could do that might be measured.

      As for your last point: if you’re trying to test for ghosts, you’re trying to test folklore to a large extent. I agree that tests should be run when the appearances normally occur (and, oddly, meant to SAY that, but somehow missed it [grin]). But if the experiences are general and folklore also says that ghosts should be more prevalent on Hallowe’en, I’d do Hallowe’en. If the claim is that they’ll always occur, then they should occur on Hallowe’en, too. And if they don’t always occur (and we don’t know when they occur), then the additional folklore of Hallowe’en should make it more prominent. Either way, there’s no harm, no foul and it does make for more drama, which I’ll admit is not what an investigation should strive for but is important to a TV show …

      Finally, as to the non-scientific methods … if one of them came up with something that couldn’t be explained by what you referenced — or, at least, not without major handwaving — then I might reconsider whether or not they could work …

  2. This is my favorite topic of all time…I think what you see on television is just a planned set up TV effects and its not the real thing. I believe if you want to experience it you have to see in in person or feel it. Awesome post I really enjoyed it!

    • Thanks. I agree with you that television cannot be trusted, but also at the same time we can’t always trust something that we see or hear because our brains and our memory can fool us lots. However, yes, in person research is much more trustworthy.

      Thank you for visiting 😀

    • It’s true that our brains can deceive us,.

      I once had a, ‘De ja Veue,’ experience – only to learn from my (late) Mum that this was in a place that she, my Dad & I had actually visited that place when I was about two years old……

      What cannot be explained however, are the images I’ve received from being in a place I can be SURE I haven’t ever visited – having checked with Mum and everyone I could think of – and those images I’ve received from handling objects – from pieces of jewellery, to bits of masonry. Even, sometimes, when touching a person.

      It’s an, ‘ability,’ that I came to learn is known as psychometry.

      It would happen quite unbidden and often caused upset.

      One memorably awful occasion occured at a party, when someone bandied it about that I had this ability……

      I was badgered to,’ read,’ people. I didn’t want to do it, but, after much badgering, I took the hand of a young woman……

      I, ‘saw,’ images of violence and rape, of this young woman being battered and forced into sex.

      She pulled away from me and wouldn’t even so much as look at me for the rest of the evening.

      It all fell apart when her husband cornered me on the landing of the house in which the party was being held, told me I’d embarrassed him by what I’d said.

      He then tried to persuade me to go into a bedroom with him…..!
      When I refused, he stomped down the stairs, while I went to the toilet. When I returned to the party downstairs, the hostess flew at me, demanding what I thought I’d been doing, trying to get her friend’s husband into bed…..!

      Meanwhile, his wife was trying to avoid looking at me, because she knew that what I’d seen when holding her hand had been the truth.

      The host and hostess of the party threw me out of the house – literally – leaving me in an area that I didn’t know and I walked for nearly an hour till I found a working phone box and was able to call for a taxi.

      I learned, after that night, to control my psychometric ability, thoiugh it took much effort to stop the images coming unbidden.

      Mind you, I did twice save lives – or at least prevent serious injury – when the ability gave me images of accidents when I hugged certain people.

      First time, it was my then-fiance; he called at my house on the eway home from work, to confirm arrangements to meet with freinds that evenoing. He said he had to get some petrol and was going to the nearest petrol station.
      It’s next to a very tricky traffic island, where the exit from the station is right into the traffic stream coming off the island from three directions.

      I, ‘saw,’ clearly as my fiance hugged me, his car being hit by a jack-knifing juggernaut.

      I told him what I’d seen, but he was sceptical……

      When he came to picj me up later that evening, he was pale and shaken. He said that he narrowly avoided having his car side-swiped by a jack-knifing juggernaut as he came out of the petrol station.

      A few weeks later, we were in our club, when the landlord said he had to go to a meeting. He’d had his car serviced, just got it back that day. As he tok my hand, on his departure, I, ‘saw,’ his car skidding into another car.

      I begged him to drive around the car park of the club, to test his brakes before going onto the road. He laughed, but my fiance advised him to listen to me…..

      He drove his car around the car park at the back of the club several times, testing the gears – and then tested the brakes. They FAILED and he hit the wall!

      He was really shaken, telling me that had I not insisted on him doing that test drive around the car park, he would have gotten into an accident.

      Needless to say, he took his car back to the garage next morning – and when it was thoroughly checked, it was discovered that there waas a nick in the brake fluid line……

      All of this is to say that, staged TV programmes apart, there ARE things that science CANNOT explain……

  3. Hello Hayley, Congrats on the fresh pressed. I agree with the so called Reality Shows issue. All flash and insulting to most. And you are right. Halloween is no different a night than any other. There is one thing I do believe…a womans intuition. Sometimes we are aware of things, to which, others have no clue. Liked your post a great deal.

  4. You bandy about terms such as,’ most haunted.’

    My husband has responsibility for several heritage sites in his job remit, two of which have had many paranormal occurences attributed to them. The most recent, at one of the sites is on-going.

    Nothign like thias will EVER make the press or TV – because no-one who’s experienced the events will talk about them for fear of being made redundant.

  5. Hello Haley. Excellent post!

    As an evolutionist, I often find it funny how far many people will go to try and prove their perspective of their experiences. It is as though the experience has no value if people don’t believe them. I find myself wanting to whack them upside the head and telling them that experience is the foundation of understanding and the rationalization of their experiences is irrelevant. What really matters is whether or not they can take their understanding of their experiences and use it to increase their survivability.

    Having many crazy experiences myself, it is my opinion that the next step in the evolution of our consciousness will not be made by the person who best explains the phenomenon, but by the first person who utilizes it…. with the proof of their perspective being the deeds of their life.

    Anyway, have a nice day.

  6. This year Halloween is on a Sunday. Does that mean only holy ghosts are coming out this year?

    I have to admit I am a sucker for those ghost shows that ‘explore’ a house or public area noted for hauntings. But I appreciate your thoughts on the topic. Congrats on being freshly pressed.

  7. While I always appreciate good skepticism, I really don’t think it’s called for in this case.

    It’s called science fiction. If these “investigators” were actually scientifically rigorous, the show wouldn’t be very interesting, would it? The fact they call it live television and purport experimental methodology is only used to deepen the experience and draw viewers into the program. I don’t think the intent is to fool viewers, it’s more of an implied concoction. It’s in the same vein as the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast, except they don’t choose to add any disclaimer because it’s doubtful anyone will take it as real.

    It’s more fun the more believable they make it, but if it were too believable they would discredit themselves!

    See the problem there? I think if you take off your reason glasses and allow yourself to be brought into their reality (where these methods actually work), it could be enjoyable.

    • True, but many people do. We can be sure of this because of the effect similar shows (such as Most Haunted and Ghost Hunters) have had on paranormal research teams who mimic their investigation methods to match those they see on screen because the methods on screen are promoted as correct.

      With a television audience comes responsibility to not mislead people into what is factual and what isn’t. Misleading people about the paranormal can be dangerous to peoples mental health.

  8. I’m terribly intrigued by the paranormal. I watch all the “ghost hunting” shows and giggle. Because all you get is “WHAT WAS THAT!” moments. Nothing really concrete. You either have the strictly go in there and debunk things or you have the over the top yell at ghosts people. I’ve always liked ghost stories, I have a couple of my own. But on TV it lacks something.
    I think around Halloween all these stories and shows just automatically go to the forefront for obvious reasons. The paranormal activity doesn’t escalate around this time of year, it just gets shoved up to our faces more often.
    Anyway just a random person commenting. Now to check out the rest of your posts!

  9. Personally, I don’t believe in ghosts. Demons, yes, ghosts, no.

    One of the things that amuses me with the paranormal hauntings is that most seem to be quite recent and a lot of it seems to be based upon how “known” it is. When people forget about the ghosts, they just seem to disappear.

    In theory there should be ghosts of cavemen and Celts, Estruscans, Scythians, etc. You get the point. Ghosts of nobility continue to hang around because stories kept getting repeated and stuck into history. No written history or people who forget about the stories and hauntings, and the ghosts just magically disappear. I guess they finally found peace after all of their descendants and relatives stopped being scared of them.

    I’ve never experienced anything paranormal. There is however supposedly a haunting in my family’s past. Some cousins of a great-grandmother were murdered with a family they were visiting. The case is unsolved nearly a century later. Supposedly the house is haunted by a demon or the soul of the murderer. Uh huh.

    If there are hauntings, real ones, I think they are done by demons playing on the fears and imaginations of people. A game to toy with you.

    • How would the idea of demons be less acceptable than ghosts? A ghost is supposed to be a soul, a spirit. Demons are supposed to be spirits.

      Furthermore, you just state you’re an atheist, yet you’re effectively grading the silliness of a religious concept. Sounds like doubt, even if you don’t realize it or agree. Your statement is illogical and incongruous with atheism. A consistent, logical response would have been that you don’t believe in either demons or ghosts since you do not believe in the spirit world or the hereafter and thus both are silly concepts on an equal footing.

    • I don’t believe in god, demons OR ghosts.
      I use skepticism in all aspects of life, to deal with ALL claims I come across, and if there is no evidence then I don’t hold a belief.

      Ghosts are “supposed” to be spirits. There is no proof to back that up, just as there is no proof to back up the idea demons exist.

      Don’t come onto my blog and tell my I am being illogical because I believe in ghosts but not demons when that isn’t the case at all.

    • I believe in demons as well. I even had experiences with a demon, I still do until this day people shoudn’t be saying demons dont exist when they do. And its no laughing matter either

    • How do you know it was a demon and not god messing with you?

      I mean wouldn’t he have to be quite petty and malicious to create demons in the first place?

  10. I actually don’t believe in such, but still there have been many serious stories.

    India does have many superstitious people and they have their own ways to deal with them.

    I admire your article and information shared. Thank you.

  11. Great post Hayley, you are a hoot and make some great points. At the end of the day, folks are going to believe what they believe – either out of conviction in a personal experience (ala those who claim to have ‘experienced’ stuff) or out of laziness to search for the truth (i.e. wouldn’t it be cool of there were REALLY ghosts? that would mean I have a shot at being one!) Anyway, an enjoyable read, thank you – and congrats on being Freshly Pressed!

  12. It’s rather annoying actually. I mean who was time to watch that kind of stuff. Get a job, or a book. Well worth the time. I mean we all have times of wanting to relax and watch a TV show, but seriously come on.

    What I love is that people watch the main “host” of the show and then their like “did you hear that?” im like yeah! I can hear the camera crew throwing rocks or shaking a chair… its not paranormal its paranoid viewing.

  13. Hayley,

    Very enjoyable post. I do love scepticism. Especially directed towards ghost stories, particularly the type that Living TV love to push.

    Their definition of science is probably extremely loose. They could never employ the work of real science in a show like that or it would destroy the premise and these shows wouldn’t be broadcast again. They try to ‘prove’ the existence of the paranormal to keep the believers hooked so they’ll keep watching. I don’t watch them and it’s probably clear I don’t ‘believe’ but until I hear that they’ve actually scientifically proven something on a show like this I’m not the faintest bit interested.

    I read an article from David Mitchell recently. You may have also read it. Apparently 38% of Brits believe in ghosts. So I can only conclude that the remaining 62% are either sceptics like us, or simply couldn’t care enough to apply thought to the situation at all.

    Shows like this don’t bother me until I really concentrate on them, at which time they begin to really annoy me. It just seems as if they’re peddling fiction to a gullible mass audience. Which is a pretty offensive viewpoint, but hey it’s my opinion. If you don’t believe, I’m not sure anything can happen to make you feel otherwise.

    Like I said, nice post.


  14. That and “Ghost Hunters”. Are you kidding me?

    I believe there are spirits living amongst us, but only a chosen few can “feel” their presence. Monitors, detectors and all the bs is just that…bs.

    I can’t believe shows like this are still on tv for their 3rd or 4th season. Are there THAT many gullible people???

    • Although I don’t agree with you that “a certain few” people can sense ghosts/spirits, I do agree that the television shows have long run their course. Thank you for visiting my blog 🙂

  15. I feel that most of the Ghost shows are fake.
    Not that I don’t believe in Ghosts, yeah there are other life forms on this planet, but the shows are just not the way to show them, the shows are fake.

  16. Hayley,

    The world would be such a wonderful place if there are more rationalists like you, lighting a flame of knowledge and logic in the darkness of ignorance and stupidity – the essential by-products of religion. Great article!

  17. Ghost research is about explaining recurrent paranormal reports from a specific location. What TV shows do instead is to go to a reputedly haunted location and look for unusual readings or recordings. You can get ‘unusual’ (but not inexplicable) readings from EMF meters in any location, not just haunted places. Similarly, you can record voice-like sounds (EVP) anywhere you like. It would be interesting if, unknown to the TV crew, such a show ‘investigated’ somewhere with no known haunting reports.

  18. I have always had a problem with these shows that try to “prove the existence of spirits”, etc. Anytime you see a show like that, they have plenty of “did you hear that” or “did you see that” dialog in them. Of COURSE they provide proof, otherwise no one would watch the shows. It seems to me that these shows encourage an attitude of where there is no proof, provide your own.

    Tyler F. Long
    Dunwoody Norcross GA

  19. “There’s something strange…in you neighborhood…who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters!!” LOL
    who knows, Hayley, your attic or closet or unde the floorboards may be the next “most haunted location…” Do you hear it? That beating heart?…thump-thump, thump-thump…

  20. I find it very bizarre that a skeptic is working as a paranormal researcher???? :S. What happens if you find over whelming “evidence” that suggests other wise??. Would it change your mind??? or are you stead fast in your skeptic.

    • Do you even know what skepticism is? Obviously not.
      Skepticism isn’t a non-belief in something. Both believers and non-believers can use skepticism.
      It’s just a method of processing information and the evidence (or lack of) that backs that information up.

      If I found evidence that suggested something unknown (aka. paranormal) was afoot, I would submit it for peer review and see what came of that.

      I’m always willing to change my mind. Skeptics have open minds, they just require evidence before they believe in something. The idea that only believers in something can research it is wrong, and a closeminded approach to any sort of research.

  21. One comment that always annoys me is, ‘There must be a rational explanation.’

    WHY must everything be explained away in the cold, hard light of rationality?

    I’ve had experiences that I don’t believe CAN be rationalised.

    And, on a purely personal note, I don’t WANT to live in a world that can be rationalised at every turn.

    I NEED a little mystery and uncertainty, things to fire my imagination and keep me from stagnating.

    • I didn’t say that I hate reality. I live it every day!
      All I was trying to say is that, in the face of a grim reality, it’s good to have SOMETHING that can’t be explained away.

      Whether that is the creature that may inhabit Loch Ness, or UFOs, ghosts, ESP – whatever……I don’t want everything in life to be, ‘rationalised.’

      The greatest literature, drama etc would never have been conceived without the degree of mystery that fires imagination……

  22. If this is ‘one of England’s most haunted locations’ then how easy is it going to be for the team using ‘spiritual’ methods to simply google the location, then come up with names, dates, locations etc on the night in question. After all, isn’t this what Derek did?

  23. Interesting post,I’d just like to point out one thing

    “3) Most haunted night. Give me a break.
    Seriously, there is nothing spiritually significant about Halloween. Ghosts don’t get stronger on Halloween night, there is nothing to suggest this apart from folklore, superstition and religious mutterings. Nothing. So shut up about it already!”

    Nothing spiritually significant to you personally,perhaps,but for thosands of people in this country Samhain(as it’s called by many)IS significant,it would have been better to word this as a personal rather than a sweeping statement….this doesn’t come across as “sceptical” so much as “anti”………….just a thought.
    Intersting talk last night btw!

    • Hello, I’m glad you enjoyed the talk, thank you.
      I know Samhain is significant to some due to their personal beliefs but there really is no evidence to suggest that the night is spiritually significant. Also, as for that being a personal belief of mine – it is, but this is also my personal blog where I write about my beliefs and ideas.

      I’m not “anti” Halloween or spirituallity or Samhain, I just find it irritating when people attach ideas to dates as being significant when, in this developed world of ours, they are anything but.

  24. What strikes me about the posts is that there seems to be a clear divide between those who believe in the paranormal and those who are totally sceptical.

    I can’t explain the strange experiences I’ve had – and on occasion, continue to have – nor do I WANT to explain them.

    A little mystery in an otherwise dull existence is desirable……

3 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Paranormal Investigation: Live « --
  2. Paranormal Investigation!!! | Trust Active
  3. If Cox is a “nobber” then so am I « Hayley Stevens

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger