Content uploaded by James Houran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Houran on Jul 06, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Anomalistics
Volume 23 (2023), pp. 77–102
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
J H, B L, C L, D J. H
Abstract – e grounded theory of Haunted People Syndrome (HP-S) contends that spontaneous
‘ghostly episodes’ recurrently experienced by certain people are an interactionist phenomenon
involving heightened somatic-sensory sensitivities which are stirred by dis-ease states, contextual-
ized with paranormal belief, and reinforced via perceptual contagion and threat-agency detection.
A historical report of a poltergeist-like outbreak that was touted in a non-psi journal was used to
test the applicability of this psychological model. Two independent and blinded raters used the
Survey of Strange Events (SSE: Houran et al., 2019b) to map the anomalous phenomena in the case,
as well as a Recognition Pattern Checklist to assess for contextual variables that the HP-S model
links to the features and dynamics of sustained haunt-type anomalies. High inter-rater agreement
on the raters’ scores suggested that the available details of this case corresponded to (a) an occur-
1 James Houran (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1725-582X) has a Master’s in Clinical Psychology from
the University of Illinois at Springeld (USA) and a Doctorate in Psychology from the University
of Adelaide (Australia). He serves as Research Director at Integrated Knowledge Systems (IKS) in
the USA, Research Professor at the Instituto Politecnico de Gestao e Tecnologia (ISLA) in Portugal,
editorial board member of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, special consultant for the
Australian Journal of Parapsychology, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientic Exploration.
Address correspondence to the rst author: jim_houran@yahoo.com
Brian Laythe (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9081-2253) is the Founder/Director of the Institute for
the Study of Religious and Anomalous Experience (I.S.R.A.E.) and Managing Partner of Iudicium,
a forensic psychology consultancy. He obtained his Master’s and Doctorate degrees in Experimen-
tal Psychology from the University of New Hampshire. Laythe is also the lead author of Ghosted!
Exploring the Haunting Reality of Paranormal Encounters and co-host of the “Practical Parapsychol-
ogy” podcast.
Cindy Little is a researcher with the Institute for the Study of Religious and Anomalous Experience
(I.S.R.A.E.). She also teaches parapsychology courses on Udemy and at Baylor University’s Educational
Psychology Department, where she obtained her Doctorate in Educational Psychology. Her professional
interests include eld research of haunt phenomena and citizen science applications to paranormal
research.
Damien J. Houran is an independent researcher and social science student currently based in Texas.
His primary interests are in the iconography and symbolism found in traditional tattooing ceremonies
and the application of ritual practices to art. He is also an Eagle Scout and actively involved with agri-
culture and permaculture.
http://dx.doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2023.77
78
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
rence with above-average ‘haunt intensity’ compared to published norms, and (b) 100% ‘agree-
ment’ on the ostensible presence of all ve proposed recognition patterns of HP-S. Furthermore,
a review of this episode’s general structure using an SSE based Decision-Tree process cautioned
against a purely parapsychological interpretation of some or all the reported anomalies. is basic
analysis serves as a practical primer for using the SSE tool and HP-S model to guide future inves-
tigations of ghostly episodes by professional parapsychologists and citizen scientists alike.
Keywords: case study – citizen science – haunted people syndrome – interactionism – liminality
Überdenken einer geisterhaen Episode aus der älteren Literatur
Zusammenfassung2 – Die Grounded eory des Haunted-People-Syndroms (HP-S) geht davon aus,
dass spontane „geisterhae Episoden“, die von bestimmten Menschen immer wieder erlebt werden,
ein interaktionistisches Phänomen darstellen, das erhöhte somatisch-sensorische Empndlichkeiten
beinhaltet, die durch Krankheitszustände ausgelöst, mit paranormalen Überzeugungen kontextua-
lisiert und durch perzeptuelle Ansteckung und das Verspüren einer Bedrohung verstärkt werden.
Die Anwendbarkeit dieses psychologischen Modells wurde anhand eines historischen Berichts über
einen poltergeistähnlichen Ausbruch geprü, der in einer nicht-parapsychologischen Zeitschri
veröentlicht wurde. Zwei unabhängige und verblindete Rater verwendeten den Survey of Strange
Events (SSE: Houran et al., 2019b), um die anomalen Phänomene in dem Fall zu erfassen, sowie eine
Recognition Pattern Checklist, um kontextuelle Variablen zu bewerten, die das HP-S-Modell mit
den Merkmalen und der Dynamik anhaltender spukartiger Anomalien verbindet. Die hohe Über-
einstimmung zwischen den Ratern bei den Bewertungen deutet darauf hin, dass die verfügbaren
Details dieses Falles (a) einem Ereignis mit überdurchschnittlicher „Spukintensität“ im Vergleich zu
den veröentlichten Normwerten und (b) einer 100 %igen „Übereinstimmung“ bezüglich des oen-
sichtlichen Vorhandenseins aller fünf vorgeschlagenen Erkennungsmuster von HP-S entsprechen.
Darüber hinaus warnte eine Überprüfung der allgemeinen Struktur dieser Episode unter Verwen-
dung eines SSE-basierten Entscheidungsbaum-Prozesses vor einer rein parapsychologischen Inter-
pretation einiger oder aller berichteten Anomalien. Diese grundlegende Analyse dient als praktischer
Leitfaden für die Verwendung des SSE-Tools und des HP-S-Modells, um zukünige Untersuchun-
gen von Geisterepisoden durch professionelle Parapsychologen und Laienwissenschaler gleicher-
maßen anzuleiten.
Schlüsselbegrie: Fallstudie – Laienwissenscha – Haunted-People-Syndrom – Interaktionismus
– Liminalität
2 Eine erweiterte deutsche Zusammenfassung bendet sich am Ende des Artikels.
79
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
Introduction
Reports of so-called haunt and poltergeist episodes are familiar in the parapsychological
literature, but case studies and commentaries also appear occasionally in non-psi journals (e. g.,
Dagnall et al., 2020; Persinger & Koren, 2001; Wiseman et al., 2003; for a discussion of main-
stream research in this domain, see Houran, 2022). For example, in Studies: An Irish Quarterly
Review3 essayist Herbert urston (1935) discussed a rst-hand account of a prepubescent boy
in India who was the focus of apparent ‘paranormal’ activity replete with lengthy quotes from
the participants of the story and outlining their terrifying encounters with poltergeist-like phe-
nomena. e Indian boy’s adoptive parents were both scholars – something urston pointed
out to further legitimize the story – and other academics visited and evidently took notes on
the case. urston ultimately concluded that he had no reason to doubt the veracity of these
reported paranormal encounters.
For context, urston was a prominent member of the Society of Psychical Research and a
Jesuit scholar with a passion for macro-psi including ghostly outbreaks. He contributed many
essays to the Studies journal, but his most important publications arguably include the post-
humously published treatises, e Physical Phenomena of Mysticism (1952) and Ghosts and
Poltergeists (1954). Note too that urston’s (1935) essay and related others were reprinted in
his 1954 book (see Chapters 13 and 18). is spontaneous case that so impressed urston has
been dubbed the ‘Poona Poltergeist’— an anomalous episode involving a variety of phenomena
that were originally documented in three reports by Price and Kohn (1930a, 1930b, 1930c). e
famous investigator Harry Price4 added a short introduction and listed himself as rst author,
though Kohn primarily authored the bulk of these articles which recounted her personal obser-
vations.
Ms. H. Kohn, sister of the boy’s adoptive mother, resided with the family while the anoma-
lous events were actively occurring. She sent copies of her case notes to urston with a letter
that stated “I took especial care to avoid even the slightest exaggeration or inaccuracy, and the
events were always recorded immediately aer their occurrence” (urston, 1935, p. 88). Our
Method section summarizes more details about this case, but Kohn’s notes indicated that some
people framed the disturbances within a Spiritist or survival-context because the aicted boy’s
family had a ‘paranormal’ history and the associated phenomena involved seeing and com-
3 Published since 1912, this quarterly journal by the Irish Jesuits examines Irish social, political, cultural
and economic issues in the light of Christian values and explores the Irish dimension in literature,
history, philosophy and religion.
4 Interested readers can learn about this controversial gure at:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/harry-price
80
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
municating with apparitions of the deceased, as well as hearing inexplicable noises. urston
obviously preferred not to mention these aspects, presumably because he was highly critical
of Spiritism. He instead emphasized the physical anomalies in his selective portrayal of the
case. erefore, the source material is vital reading to fully appreciate the reported anomalies,
attending circumstances, and varying interpretations.
‘Haunted People Syndrome’ – A Phenomenological Perspective
We collectively denote ‘ghosts, poltergeists, and haunted houses’ as ghostly episodes in this paper
following a phenomenological perspective (Houran et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2021). To clarify, ‘pol-
tergeist disturbances’ are clusters of unusual psychological or ‘subjective’ experiences (S, e. g.,
apparitions, sensed presences, hearing voices, and unusual somatic or emotional manifesta-
tions) and physical or ‘objective’ events (O, e. g., apparent object movements, malfunctioning
electrical or mechanical equipment, and inexplicable percussive sounds like raps or knocks),
which focus on the presence of certain people (for a recent discussion, see Ventola et al., 2019).
Similar S/O anomalies that apparently persist at particular locations are called ‘hauntings’
(Houran & Lange, 2001). Researchers traditionally dierentiate haunts and poltergeists, but
some research indicates that the S/O anomalies characterizing each type of occurrence reliably
form a probabilistic and unidimensional factor, i. e., a literal ‘Haunt Hierarchy’ (Houran et al.,
2019a, 2019b). Moreover, people with ‘thin or permeable’ mental boundaries (as measured by
variables like Transliminality and Paranormal Belief) are most likely to perceive or report these
interconnected anomalies (Houran et al., 2002; Kumar & Pekala, 2001; Laythe et al., 2018).
e fact that we are ostensibly dealing with an ordered set of ‘signs or symptoms’ in people
of a distinct perceptual-personality prole arguably suggests the existence of a core ‘encoun-
ter’ phenomenon which resembles a biomedical syndrome (Laythe et al., 2021a). is bold
interpretation does not mean to pathologize focus persons or other witnesses, although it is
well-documented that episodes oen coincide with ‘dis-ease,’ or circumstances in which an
individual’s natural state of ‘ease’ becomes notably disrupted or imbalanced (Rogo, 1982; Roll,
1977; Ventola et al., 2019). Instead, the term ‘syndrome’ merely refers to a “… recognizable com-
plex of symptoms and physical ndings which indicate a specic condition for which a direct
cause is not necessarily understood” (Calvo et al., 2003, p. 802; cf. British Medical Association,
2018).
Accordingly, Laythe et al.’s (2021a, 2022) theory of Haunted People Syndrome (HP-S) inte-
grated a considerable amount of psychometric and phenomenological research to describe
ghostly episodes that are recurrently manifesting to specic people as an interactionist phe-
nomenon involving heightened somatic-sensory sensitivities which are acerbated by dis-ease
81
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
states, contextualized with paranormal belief, and reinforced with perceptual contagion and
threat-agency detection. In short, the HP-S model equates the psychology of these spontaneous
experiences to some of the fundamental mechanisms that stoke outbreaks of mass (contagious)
psychogenic illness or autohypnotic phenomena (cf. Lange & Houran, 2001a; Lifshitz et al.,
2019; Ross & Joshi, 1992). Recent survey and retrospective coding research (Lange et al., 2020;
Laythe et al., 2018; Ventola et al., 2019), including studies of modern cases (Houran et al., 2022;
Houran & Laythe, 2022; Jawer, 2010; Laythe et al., 2021c; O’Keee et al., 2019), lends credence
to key components of this framework. However, it is unclear whether putative HP-S might be a
contemporary phenomenon driven by popular media or cultural forces (Hill et al., 2018, 2019;
Waskul & Eaton, 2018) or whether the model also helps to contextualize historic accounts like
the Poona Poltergeist. Spontaneous ghostly episodes no doubt involve many complexities and
nuances, so we simply oer our approach as one competing perspective to other prevailing
views on this controversial topic.
The Present Study
is opportunistic research does not canvass the academic literature or online public forums for
an assortment of spontaneous cases to analyze relative to the HP-S model. Rather, we decided
only to scrutinize Price and Kohn’s (1930a, 1930b, 1930c) reports aer an initial inspection of
urston (1935) summary indicated that this ghostly episode might serve well as an ‘illustrative
case study.’ ese are descriptive studies that depict one or more circumstances of an event to
explain the situation. More specically, Hayes et al. (2015) noted that this type of case study is
used to “describe a situation or a phenomenon, what is happening with it, and why it is happen-
ing” (p. 8). In doing so, the present exercise also eectively demonstrates the rationale and use
of several fresh approaches and related tools for professionally-trained researchers and citizen
scientists in parapsychology to support cumulative model-building and theory formation in
this domain (cf. Hill et al., 2019; Houran et al., 2022; Laythe et al., 2022, pp. 162–164).
Retrospective case studies are not particularly robust research designs due to their inherent
limitations (Talari & Goyal, 2020), but they can be useful for examining the predictive validity
of new theories on existing datasets. is is very important given the rarity of ‘authentic and
active’ ghostly episodes that are available to investigators for real-time data collection and test-
ing of competing hypotheses. us, we conducted a content analysis of this historical episode
to augment our prior studies of haunt-type narratives (e. g., Houran & Laythe, 2022; Houran
et al., 2022; Lange et al., 2020; Laythe et al., 2021a; Little et al., 2021; O’Keee et al., 2019). is
research accordingly explored whether the contents and contextual details in the available case
reports align to the ve recognition patterns of HP-S as outlined by Laythe et al. (2021a, 2022).
82
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Specically, two coders independently assessed this historical ghostly episode for clear indi-
cations that: (a) Transliminality was the foundation for percipients’ anomalous experiences,
reinforced by Belief in the Paranormal; (b) ‘Dis-ease’ (or psychological dissonance) was a cat-
alyst for the onset of anomalous experiences; (c) Recurrent anomalous experiences exhibited
temporal patterns (or ‘urries’) suggestive of psychological contagion; (d) Attributions for the
anomalous experiences aligned to the percipient’s biopsychosocial context; and (e) Anxiety
levels of the percipients related to the nature, proximity, and spontaneity of the anomalous
experiences. We further sought to corroborate contagious processes in this case by testing for
statistical snowballing eects in the temporal patterns of the S/O anomalies chronicled in Price
and Kohn (1930a, 1930b, 1930c). Finally, we outline the practical implications of our results for
future research by professional scientists and amateur investigators in this domain.
Method
‘Poona Poltergeist’ Case Summary
Price and Kohn’s original reports (collectively comprising 28 pages) should be consulted for
more details on this ghostly episode, but readers might appreciate a case synopsis to better
frame our study. e disturbances occurred in Poona, India and principally focused on an
eight-year-old boy named Damodar Bapat, who was adopted in May of 1923 by Dr. and Mrs.
Ketkar aer the suicide of his mother and passing of his father some years later. Damodar
was separated from his 18-year-old brother Ramkrishna Bapat, who also reported poltergeist
phenomena until the end of his adolescence, stopping aer puberty.
Ms. H. Kohn had contacted Harry Price aer the publication of the Eleonore Zugun polter-
geist case (cf. Price, 1926, 1927a, 1927b) due to its surprising similarity to what she and her sister’s
family were experiencing, and in aspirations to relieve the young boy of his phenomenon. e
family did not claim to be spiritualist or interested in the paranormal, but with the repeated fall-
ing of objects, malicious throwing, and overall abundance of object displacements they openly
began to reconsider the possibility of a ‘spirit.’ ey hired many dierent people with dierent
beliefs and philosophies to visit and help the boy and a variety of responses ensured. Mediums
largely claimed that the hostile actions were caused by either the rst son of his second wife,
Lakshman, who died at about 9-years-old, or to the rst wife herself in vengeance of remarriage.
Exorcists suggested more evil and sinister forces such as ‘demons.’
Regardless of the proposed origins of the anomalies, nothing worked as a reliable deterrent,
i. e., neither the use of amulets, rituals, nor prayers, although the last of these was most eective
according to Kohn. She kept very extensive records of day-to-day occurrences and who was
83
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
around to observe them aside from the boy, who happened to be asleep a large portion of the
time. Her diary references the disappearance and movement of objects in plain sight, inexplicable
feelings the focus boy had before S/O anomalies occurred, and how the phenomena reacted
to serious attempts at exorcism and the like. ere are also entries of apparitions appearing to
others beside the boy and coins miraculously falling from the air, all which Kohn noted with
times, dates, and settings.
Raters
Inter-rater reliability is the level of agreement between two or more raters or judges
(Hallgren, 2012). Additional raters do not change how oen (or the degree to which) raters
agree. Inter-rater reliability is instead aected by the skill of the raters (relative to the di-
culty of the task) and the degree to which raters are making the same assessment, i. e., if raters
understand the task or observed information in the same way. us, we used only two raters for
pragmatic reasons. is approach allowed us to establish condence estimates for the ratings
used in our analyses, while simultaneously cross-checking whether our coding materials could
be eectively used by disparate investigators. Note that our two volunteer coders had some
prior research experience but came from markedly dierent backgrounds: (a) one person was
a Ph. D.-level parapsychologist with multiple publications, and (b) the other individual was a
college student who actively supports and practices citizen science eorts.
Measures
1. Survey of Strange Events (SSE: Houran et al., 2019b). is is a 32-item, ‘true/false’ Rasch
(1960/1980) scaled measure of the overall ‘haunt intensity’ (or perceptual depth) of a
ghostly account or narrative via a checklist of anomalous experiences inherent to these
episodes. e SSE’s Rasch item hierarchy represents the probabilistic ordering of S/O
events according to their endorsement rates but rescaled into a metric called ‘logits.’
Higher logit values denote higher positions (or greater diculty) on the Rasch scale
(Bond & Fox, 2015). More information about the conceptual background and psycho-
metric development of this instrument is provided by Houran et al. (2019a, 2019b, 2021).
Rasch scaled scores range from 22.3 (= raw score of 0) to 90.9 (= raw score of 32), with
a mean of 50 and SD = 10, and Rasch reliability = 0.87. Higher scores correspond to a
greater number and perceptual intensity of anomalies that dene a percipient’s cumula-
tive experience of a ghostly episode. Supporting the SSE’s construct and predictive valid-
ities, Houran et al. (2019b) found that the phenomenology of ‘spontaneous’ accounts
(i. e., ‘ostensibly sincere and unprimed’) diered signicantly from control narratives
84
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
from ‘primed conditions, fantasy scenarios, or deliberate fabrication.’ at is, sponta-
neous ghostly episodes have a specic sequence (or Rasch model) of S/O anomalies that
is distinct from the details of narratives associated with other contexts.
2. HP-S Recognition Patterns Checklist. is study-specic template was used to guide
the raters’ content analyses of the contextual aspects of the urston’s (1935) haunt
account. It outlines the ve recognition patterns of HP-S via seven specic questions
that are rated on four-point Likert scales anchored by “Strongly Disagree” (scored ‘0’)
to “Strongly Agree” (scored ‘3’). Raw ordinal scores range from ‘0’ to ‘21,’ with higher
scores indicating a greater likelihood of the respective HP-S recognition patterns being
present. e Appendix gives the full template so that readers can understand the exact
wordings of the items. Note that this coding sheet also refers to the Revised Translimi-
nality Scale (RTS: Lange, albourne et al., 2000) and the Rasch version (Lange, Irwin &
Houran, 2000) of Tobacyk’s (1988, 2004) Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS). us,
we also provided copies of these two instruments to the coders as critical supplementary
information. e Recognition Pattern Checklist is only a tactical worksheet, so no psy-
chometric properties are reported here.
Procedure
is study constituted a review of published, historic material only. e two coders, each
blinded to our hypotheses, were given copies of the (a) urston (1935) essay, (b) Price and
Kohn’s (1930a, 1930b, 1930c) case reports; (c) SSE measure, (d) HP-S Recognition Patterns
Checklist, and (e) the RTS and Rasch-RPBS questionnaires. ey worked independently to
code the phenomenology of the case by documenting the presence of specic S/O anomalies via
SSE ratings, as well as any obvious contextual variables associated with the onset or report of those
anomalies via the HP-S Recognition Patterns Checklist (supported by the two belief-boundary
measures noted above). us, each rater returned two completed forms (cf. Tables 1 and 2).
Understand that we did not instruct the raters to ll out the RTS and Rasch-RPBS mea-
sures on behalf of the ostensible focus person or other experients in this case. Rather, their
task only involved looking at this case for suggestive signs of Transliminality or PB using the
standardized questionnaires above as guides to help recognize relevant types of cognitions
or perceptions referenced in the accounts. We also set no minimum criteria for the raters to
use when assessing for Transliminality or PB. at is, raters could “Agree or Strongly Agree”
that either perceptual-personality variable was present irrespective of how many items on the
RTS or Rasch-RPBS they thought applied to the focus person or other experients. is relaxed
approach was deemed best overall for our purposes, although it is a limitation and future work
85
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
might strive for greater structure or precision. For instance, the simplest solution would be for
the focus person or experient(s) to complete appropriate psychometric measures for themselves
and then use standardized cut-o scores to estimate the inuences of Transliminality or PB (see
e. g., Houran & Laythe, 2022). We were, however, unable to use this tactic here for obvious reasons.
Finally, we should note another important nuance in the protocol. Our study began simply
with a content analysis of urston’s (1935) essay, but a helpful peer reviewer recognized the
case and directed us to the Price and Kohn (1930a, 1930b, 1930c) material. Gerhard Mayer
subsequently provided copies of these case reports, which provided an invaluable richness of
contextual details. Also included was Ms. Kohn’s ‘event diary’ that chronicled the temporal pat-
terns of the S/O anomalies. e raters, each blinded to the other’s work, carefully reviewed this
additional material, as well as reassessed their original ratings from the earlier content analysis
of urston (1935). We used a single-blind approach because this exercise neither aimed to
explore the retest reliability of the SSE or HP-S tools, nor could we ensure that the raters did
not keep copies of their prior work or not recognize the new material as relating to urston’s
summary. erefore, we treated the raters’ analysis of the essay as a pilot exercise, whereas their
analysis of Price and Kohn’s detailed case reports constituted the main study. is approach
seemed more like an actual eld investigation in which researchers might collect or discover
new information over time. e two raters then delivered their nal ratings for our processing
and analysis.
Results
Preliminaries
e Cohen’s (1960) kappa (ĸ) measure of inter-rater reliability for the SSE’s categorical items
was 0.61 (p < .001). A similar estimate is unavailable for the ratings on the HP-S Recognition
Patterns Checklist due to a constant, i. e., the citizen scientist rated all HP-S patterns as ‘3’ (see
Table 2). us, we can only report a simple 71% congruence between the raters on these latter
variables (cf. Hallgren, 2012). e results nonetheless suggest substantial agreement between
the raters on the available details of the present case in terms of its micro-phenomenology (i. e.,
contents and structure of the anomalous experiences) and macro-phenomenology (i. e., con-
ditions associated with the onset of the anomalous experiences) (Laythe et al., 2021a, p. 198).
Moreover, these outcomes likewise indicate that citizen scientists can be helpful contributors to
data collection or evaluation in some types of anomalistics research.
86
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Micro-Phenomenology of the S/O Anomalies
Table 1 documents the anomalous phenomena in Price and Kohn’s (1930a, 1930b, 1930c) case
reports per the averaged SSE ratings of the two independent coders who collectively functioned
as an expert panel (Bertens et al., 2013). Both raters gave the case the same raw score of ‘19’
(meaning each found evidence for 19 distinct types of S/O anomalies), which translates to an
SSE scaled score of ‘59.6’ (standard error of estimate = 2.8). ough the raters agreed on the
overall ‘haunt intensity’, we should note that they disagreed on the occurrence of six anomalies
(SSE items #1, 5, 9, 13, 19, and 29). Specically, each rater indicated the presence of three S/O
anomalies that the other rater did not. Omitting these disputed events from the present inven-
tory (i. e., re-scoring the case with a raw score of ‘13’ vs. ‘19’) gives a revised ‘conservative’ SSE
score of 59.6 (standard error of estimate = 2.6). Either outcome gives a haunt intensity for this
case that is above-average per the published norm for ‘Spontaneous’ episodes (i. e., ostensibly
sincere and unprimed, M = 51.7) and places it closer to the average SSE score indicative of nar-
ratives told under a ‘Primed’ condition (i. e., settings with strong expectancy-suggestion eects,
M = 52.3) (Houran et al., 2019b, p. 176).
e potential nature of this case can further be inferred or cross-checked by evaluating
its broad structure of S/O anomalies via a Decision-Tree Process in Houran et al. (2019b, p.
180). Based on current benchmarks, this classication heuristic indicated that these features
predict with 87% accuracy an ‘Illicit’ or intentionally deceitful narrative. is outcome implies
that the Poona Poltergeist should be interpreted with great caution, as the case (a) showed an
overall ‘perceptual intensity’ that was considerably stronger than the norms for a genuinely
spontaneous episode, and (b) proled as likely ‘at-risk’ for containing some deliberately falsi-
ed anomalies or witness accounts. However, our results do not clarify any source(s) for these
presumed aberrations and so we cast no aspersions here.
Survey of Strange Events (SSE)
Parapsy-
chologist
Ratings
Citizen
Scientist
Ratings
Averaged
Ratings*
1. I saw with my naked eye a non-descript visual image, like
fog, shadow or unusual light 0 1 0.5
2. I saw with my naked eye an “obvious” ghost or apparition –
a misty or translucent image with a human form 1 1 1
3. I saw with my naked eye an “un-obvious” ghost or appari-
tion – a human form that looked like a living person 1 1 1
4. I smelled a mysterious odor that was pleasant 1 1 1
5. I smelled a mysterious odor that was unpleasant 0 1 0.5
87
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
6. I heard mysterious sounds that could be recognized or
identied, such as ghostly voices or music (with or without
singing)
1 1 1
7. I heard on an audio recorder mysterious sounds that could
be recognized or identied, such as ghostly voices or music
(with or without singing)
000
8. I heard on an audio recorder mysterious “mechanical” or
non-descript noises, such as tapping, knocking, rattling,
banging, crashing, footsteps or the sound of opening/clos-
ing doors or drawers
000
9. I had a positive feeling for no obvious reason, like happiness,
love, joy, or peace 100.5
10. I had a negative feeling for no obvious reason, like anger,
sadness, panic, or danger 111
11. I felt odd sensations in my body, such as dizziness, tingling,
electrical shock, or nausea (sick in my stomach) 111
12. I had a mysterious taste in my mouth 000
13. I felt guided, controlled or possessed by an outside force 100.5
14. I saw beings of divine or evil origin, such as angels or
demons 000
15. I saw folklore-type beings that were not human, such as
elves, fairies, or other types of “little people” 000
16. I communicated with the dead or other outside force 111
17. I had the mysterious feeling of being watched, or in the pres-
ence of an invisible being or force 111
18. I had a sense of déjà vu, like something was strangely famil-
iar to me about my thoughts, feelings or surroundings 000
19. I felt a mysterious area of cold 100.5
20. I felt a mysterious area of heat 000
21. I experienced objects disappear or reappear around me 111
22. I saw objects moving on their own across a surface or falling 111
23. I saw objects ying or oating in midair 111
24. Electrical or mechanical appliances or equipment func-
tioned improperly or not at all, including ickering lights,
power surges or batteries “going dead” in electronic devices
(e. g., camera, phone, etc.)
111
25. Pictures from my camera or mobile device captured unu-
sual images, shapes, distortions or eects 000
88
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
26. Plumbing equipment or systems (faucets, disposal, toilet)
functioned improperly or not at all 000
27. I saw objects breaking (or discovered them broken), like
shattered or cracked glass, mirrors or housewares 111
28. I heard mysterious “mechanical” or non-descript noises,
such as tapping, knocking, rattling, banging, crashing, foot-
steps or the sound of opening/closing doors or drawers
111
29. I felt a breeze or a rush of wind or air, like something invisi-
ble was moving near me 010.5
30. Fires have started mysteriously 000
31. I was mysteriously touched in a non-threatening manner,
like a tap, touch or light pressure on my body 111
32. I was mysteriously touched in a threatening manner, such as a
cut, bite, scratch, shove, burn or strong pressure on my body 111
*Note: True = 1, False = 0
Table 1. Summary Ratings on the Micro-Phenomenology (SSE Patterns) of the Poona Poltergeist.
Macro-Phenomenology of the S/O Anomalies
Table 2 compares the contextual details of the case against the features of HP-S via the aver-
aged raters’ scores on the HP-S Recognition Patterns Checklist. e raters found reasonable
evidence for all seven aspects of the ve general themes but with some caveats. e raters
“strongly agreed” that ve (or 60%) of seven aspects of the HP-S recognition patterns were
present, whereas they simply “agreed” about the remaining two (or 40%) HP-S components.
e highest-rated aspects of the model involved (a) the report of diverse S/O anomalies that was
consistent with a ‘Haunt Hierarchy’ of events, (b) percipients’ anxiety levels aligned to princi-
ples of conventional threat (and agency) detection, and (c) the presence of dis-ease associated
with the onset of S/O anomalies. However, Transliminality and PB were rated relatively lower
with respect to the onset or interpretation of the events. e lack of germane information about
these perceptual-personality variables in the case reports (Price & Kohn, 1930a, 1930b, 1930c)
is not wholly surprising and speaks to the need for researchers to routinely assess and docu-
ment the psychometric proles of ‘focus persons’ or ‘key witnesses’ as part of investigations. On
the other hand, this latter outcome might suggest that the relaxed protocol used here to assess
Transliminality or PB did not elicit overinated scores.
89
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
HP-S Recognition Pattern Corresponding Attitudes or Behaviors
Parapsy-
chologist
Ratings
Citizen
Scientist
Ratings
Average
Ratings*
Transliminality (i.e., permeable
mental boundaries) is the
foundation for percipients’
anomalous experiences, rein-
forced by Paranormal Belief.
1. Does the witness/ focus person report experiences consistent with
items from the Revised Transliminality Scale?
2. Does the witness/ focus person report attitudes or beliefs consist-
ent with items from the Rasch-Revised Paranormal Belief Scale?
2
2
3
3
2.5
2.5
Dis-ease (or psychological
dissonance) as a catalyst
for the onset of anomalous
experiences.
3. Does the witness/ focus person report circumstances of notable
distress (negative stress) or eustress (positive stress) immediately
prior to the onset of the anomalous experiences?
is includes personality traits or individual dierences linked
to ‘dis-ease,’ such as Imagination/ Magical inking/ Fanta-
sy-Proneness, Rebellious Attitude/ Impulsivity/ Aggression/ Hos-
tility, Somatic Complaints/ Anxiety/ Irritability, Low Self-Esteem/
Self-Concept or Ego-weakness/ Insecurity, Unhappiness/ Shame/
Jealousy, Dissociative Tendencies/ Temporal Lobe Lability, and
Introversion.
3 3 3
Recurrent anomalous
experiences that exhibit
temporal patterns suggestive of
perceptual or social contagion.
4. Does the witness/ focus person report an ongoing array of diverse
S/O anomalies per the Survey of Strange Events?
5. Does the perception of S/O anomalies clearly occur in “urries,”
especially when a group of percipients is involved?
3
3
3
3
3
3
Attributions for the anomalous
experiences align to the percipi-
ent’s biopsychosocial context.
6. Does the witness/ focus person interpret the S/O anomalies in
a way that is consistent with his/her religious or cultural belief
system(s)?
3 3 3
Anxiety levels of the percipients
relate to the nature, proximity,
and spontaneity of the anoma-
lous experiences.
7. Does the witness/ focus person report greater intensity of fear or
anxiety when the S/O anomalies occur (a) suddenly or without
warning, (b) within the person’s personal space, and/or (c) involve
more tangible or physical anomalies?
3 3 3
*Note: Strongly Disagree = 0; Disagree = 1; Agree = 2; Strongly Agree = 3
Table 2. Summary Ratings on the Macro-Phenomenology (HP-S Recognition Patterns)
of the Poona Poltergeist.
90
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Supplemental Time Series Analysis of the S/O Anomalies
To corroborate the raters’ endorsement of HP-S Recognition Pattern #3 (‘Perceptual Contagion’) in
this spontaneous case, we asked the Ph. D.-level rater to prepare a spreadsheet that documented
the chronology (i. e., dates and times) of the S/O anomalies reported in Price and Kohn (1930a,
1930b, 1930c). is raw dataset5 was used for a time series analysis of the events in line with past
eorts (Houran & Lange, 1996; Lange & Houran, 2001a, 2001b; Romer, 2013) that include a more
recent study whereby this same rater performed a similar task (Houran et al., 2022).
By way of explanation, some evidence suggests that the temporal patterns of anomalous
events in ghostly episodes are predictably structured rather than randomly distributed (for a
discussion see Houran et al., 2019a). e HP-S model largely explains these ndings in terms of
self-sustaining perceptual or attentional biases. Specically, we hypothesize that expectancy-sug-
gestion eects – bolstered by principles of threat-agency detection – stoke ‘waves or urries’
of successive S/O perceptions much like the spread of an infectious disease (Houran & Lange,
1996) or a meme that goes ‘viral’ across social media (cf. Hill et al., 2018). is contagion
hypothesis can be empirically tested to an extent by examining whether the inter-event times
(IETs) between successive S/O anomalies exhibit a snowballing-type eect in which an initial
state of small signicance builds upon itself to become larger. Testing for wave-like or curvature
patterns, however, requires that anomalous events are recoded and modied in two ways. First,
we organized the anomalous events within each month into ve temporally-sequential time
periods in order to create a constant by which multiple months of data could be examined.
Second, due to the highly varying nature of the frequency of anomalous reports, the data were
further converted by subtracting the initial number of anomalous accounts (i. e., period ‘0’)
from the remainder of each monthly ve period data set (i. e., periods ‘1,2,3, and 4’). is pro-
cedure creates a constant across months where each subsequent period represents only the
increase or decrease of reported anomalous accounts across time periods within each month,
and further, level-sets all monthly data at a constant of ‘0’ for analysis.
In essence, we converted the time series data in Price and Kohn (1930a, 1930b, 1930c) to a for-
mat that assessed only increases or decreases of S/O anomalies reported across each time period,
for all monthly accounts, allowing us to collapse month and aggregate the data overall across
our analyzed time periods. Figure 1 shows an initial mapping of the resulting data. e correla-
tion between time periods and S/O phenomena was not signicant (r = -03, n. s.). Subsequently,
a linear regression between time periods and anomalous event frequency was conducted, which
5 e raw dataset is provided as Supplemental Material to our report:
https://www.anomalistik.de/Images/pdf/zfa/supp_mat/PoonaCaseTimeIntervalData.xlsx
https://www.anomalistik.de/Images/pdf/zfa/supp_mat/SSE-ANALYSIS-2.csv
91
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
was also non-signicant
(β = -.03 = p = .86 explained
R2 = .001). is base linear
regression was then applied
as a testing model for nonlin-
ear relationships, conducted
by both squaring and cub-
ing the adjusted anomalous
phenomena accounts and
comparing both separately
against the linear model.
Results of comparing a linear
prediction against a curve
prediction for sequential
time periods and anoma-
lous phenomena did not
produce signicant change
in the variance explained
from a linear model (β = -.21
p = .38; R2 = -.02, F change
from linear model = .76,
p = .38). Further comparison of the linear model against a nonlinear wave model was also not
signicant (β = -.14, p = .60, R2 = -.04, F change from linear model = .268 p = .60). us, in the
Poona Poltergeist case, increases and decreases in anomalous phenomena across standardized
time periods, while approaching a wave-like curvature, does not signicantly depict either a
linear, curved, or wave relationship in time, when being examined within a month-to-month
period of time.
We must interpret these outcomes with caution and nuance. Particularly, the lack of pro-
nounced curvature in Figure 1 might merely reect a small sample of quite noisy data. It could
also be that multiple forces controlled the timing of the dierent periods of S/O anomalies. For
instance, the onset of some occurrences could have derived from mechanisms underpinning
genuinely ‘spontaneous’ ghostly episodes, whereas other incidents might have been spurred by
‘constructed’ variables, such as fraud by person or persons unknown (Roll, 1977) or the degree
of social or behavioral ‘structure’ attending certain anomalies (Lange & Houran, 2001b). ese
or other possibilities are not mutually exclusive, so all we can say is that the quantitative results
are non-conclusive for the hypothesis of perceptual contagion in this case.
Figure 1. Nonlinear Plot of Standardized Time Periods and Variation
of S/O Anomalies.
92
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Implications for Planned Studies of Ghostly Episodes
e current exercise oers professional researchers and citizen scientists alike a primer for using
both the SSE and HP-S model to guide preliminary case studies or eldwork investigations
in this domain. Environmental meters are certainly synonymous with ghost-hunting in the
popular culture (Hill et al., 2019), but psychometric instruments and inventories of contextual
data are equally important given that ghostly episodes presumably involve environment-person
bidirectional inuences or processes (Ironside & Woott, 2022; Laythe et al., 2021a, 2022).
What the general public thus regards as haunt investigations can mean various things and
comprise distinct but connected tasks requiring dierent skills. is circumstance aords great
opportunities for productive partnerships between professional researchers and citizen scien-
tists. For instance, Laythe et al. (2022, pp. 154–155) outlined three basic types of investigations:
(a) Case documentations, i. e., benchmarking the physical attributes of locations, psychological
backgrounds of experients, and the S/O anomalies reported at a target location; (b) Exploratory
inspections, i. e., a planned or systematic site survey in an attempt to document S/O anomalies in
real-time at the target location; and (c) Hypothesis-testing, i. e., an empirical examination or test of
one or more suspected causes or correlates of the S/O events reported at the target location.
Step 1.
Task – Complete personal introductions and research explanations with percipients (Baker & O‘ Keee, 2007)
Goal – To build rapport and normalize the percipients‘ anomalous experiences.
Step 2.
Task – Obtain informed consent from all percipients willing to share information (Little, 2021).
Goal – To establish expectations for realistic outcomes and use of their collected information.
Step 3.
Task – Administer percipients the measures of key psychological and contextual variables (Laythe et al., 2021a).
Goal – To document the S/O anomalies reported in the case along with their associated context
(HP-S Recognition Patterns Checklist).
Step 4.
Task – Score the SSE at the case-level to determine if the intensity is average or above-average, and then
use the Decision-Tree process to estimate the likelihood of the case being deceitful (Houran et al., 2019b).
Goal – To vet percipients’ reports for consistency and/or overt signs of deliberate deceit prior to expending
resources on further study.
Step 5. *Professionally-trained scientists ideally become involved at this point
Task – Conduct an ‘Exploratory Inspection’ or ‘Hypothesis-Testing’ – especially if the case has average or
above-average intensity and an apparently low risk of deliberate deceit (Laythe et al., 2022).
Goal – To explore the nature or source(s) of the S/O anomalies under more controlled conditions.
Tab le 3. Recommended steps for basic and ‘citizen scientist’ investigations of ghostly episodes.
93
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
Table 3 shows how these investigation types (or tasks) can work together as ve integrated
steps of a holistic process to purposefully study the range of potential variables and inuences
in specic ghostly episodes. Fortunately, ‘citizen scientists’ can be equipped and trained to con-
duct Case Documentations and Exploratory Inspections using, in part, the questionnaire tools
described here. is term refers to non-professional researchers who actively participate in
academic studies to help generate new knowledge and information (Ceccaroni & Piera, 2017).
Crowdsourcing preliminary or benchmark data via the dedication of amateur ‘ghost-hunting’
groups can help us to clarify, rene, or extend the HP-S model over time (for a discussion, see
Laythe et al., 2022). Indeed, our study illustrates that the SSE is suitably readable and diverse to
accurately code the micro-phenomenology of haunt-related accounts. But the macro-phenom-
enology of cases is considerably more dicult to map in the absence of detailed and targeted
information about the circumstances attending the onset or cessation of a ghostly episode.
is is where the HP-S model and Recognition Patterns Checklist (cf. Table 3) can guide
all researchers. us, citizen scientists can eectively conduct preliminary research to identify
cases that seemingly (a) are legitimately spontaneous or unprimed, (b) have higher SSE scores
(i. e., ideally above the mean of 50) indicating a greater variety and intensity of S/O anomalies,
and (c) involve percipients and target locations that are amenable to more a thorough, eldwork
investigation. ese vetted cases would arguably have stronger evidential value for professional
scientists who could subsequently conduct Hypothesis-Testing at the target location or setting
(see e. g., Houran & Laythe, 2022; Laythe & Houran, 2019; Wiseman et al., 2003). In this way, we
should eventually determine to what extent the HP-S model generalizes across dierent ghostly
episodes, as well as discern better the extent to which conventional psychological or physical
principles mesh with putative psi-related mechanisms (cf. Dixon et al., 2018; Huesmann &
Schriever, 2022; Ventola et al., 2019).
It is reasonable to ask whether the proposed vetting system in Table 3 would have recom-
mended a thorough eld investigation of the anomalies reported in the Poona Poltergeist (Price
& Kohn, 1930a, 1930b, 1930c). ‘Case documentation’ procedures on the available details clearly
indicate that this episode would have been a high priority candidate for more or better data
collection via an ‘Exploratory Inspection,’ and, if feasible, ‘Hypothesis Testing’ by professional
scientists. But our results from Houran et al.’s (2019b) Decision-Tree process also underscore
the need for extreme caution and skepticism in approaching a case with the characteristics
shown here. To be sure, the suspicion is that the source(s) of some or all the reported S/O
anomalies might not align to a parapsychological perspective—a concern that extends across
many poltergeist-like accounts (Roll, 1977). Detailed and informed scrutiny at the time by a
cross-disciplinary team might have oered the best opportunity for rmer conclusions in this
respect.
94
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
General Discussion
urston’s original essay—which sparked the present study—underscores that academics have
historically been intrigued by ghostly episodes and sometimes express their curiosity outside
the circles of frontier science. Of course, the same can be said for many other examples of ‘high
strangeness’ (Houran & Bauer, 2022). e three reports on this case (Price & Kohn, 1930a,
1930b, 1930c) aorded a reasonably detailed content analysis and interpretation, but it is doubt-
ful that we know all the relevant facts or information. urston (1935) indeed indicated that
Ms. Kohn’s event diary was not the only one kept. Specically, a person named ‘J. D. Jenkins’
was apparently a medical professional who was invited to give his expert opinion of the case.
He had personally witnessed remarkable phenomena during his evaluation and indicated that
“…many thousands of other instances are recorded in a day-to-day diary of events which I kept
from June 1928 to January 1930. Most of them were published in e Times of India and in
e Statesman” (pp. 86–87). Likewise, our Decision-Tree assessment of the case’s broad pattern
suggested that there was probably more to the nature of these disturbances than we currently
understand.
e present results and conclusions could therefore change slightly or substantially with the
availability of new insights or data. Of course, the results of any and all case analyses, percipient
surveys, or eldwork studies might vary somewhat with the method used to map details of
the episodes or percipient accounts (see e. g., Gauld & Cornell, 1979; Houran et al., 2019b;
Huesmann & Schriever, 2022; Neppe, 2011). We note here that the SSE measure closely parallels
Huesmann and Schriever’s (2022) eorts at classifying the contents and phenomenology of
‘poltergeist’ outbreaks, i. e., presumed manifestations of recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis
(RSPK) (Roll, 1977). But future research should aim to bridge these two inventories as their
psychometric foundations dier along with some of their associated ndings, such as a diver-
gence on the factor structure of S/O haunt-type anomalies.
Nonetheless, the main question remains as to whether the Poona Poltergeist was a historic
example of putative HP-S. Our content and quantitative analyses certainly found evidence for
most aspects of this model. at is, the case details consistently armed predictions by Laythe
et al. (2021a, 2022) about the phenomenology of ghostly episodes that recurrently manifest to
certain people. is analysis therefore joins other case studies that ostensibly support an inter-
actionist view of these altered-anomalous experiences but also underline the need for more
research to corroborate or rene the apparent components of HP-S (Houran & Laythe, 2022;
Houran et al., 2022; Ironside & Woot, 2022; Lange et al., 2020; O’Keee et al., 2019). It is
important for additional studies to include quali-quantitative analyses of entire spontaneous
case collections to avoid the criticism of potential publication bias involving only single case
reports favorable to HP-S (i. e., the le drawer problem, see Fanelli, 2012). But taken altogether,
95
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
increasing evidence suggests that principles of conventional psychophysiology and environ-
mental psychology fundamentally inuence some of the features and dynamics of ghostly epi-
sodes, irrespective of the potential roles of putative psi or discarnate agency. ese occurrences
can therefore be described, at the very least, as exceptional human experiences at the intersec-
tion of belief- and boundary-functioning (Lange & Houran, 2001a; Laythe et al., 2018, 2021a).
However, we stress that the current iteration of the HP-S concept neither negates nor
requires the ontological reality of parapsychological mechanisms. In fact, there is intriguing
evidence that the model’s central variable of Transliminality facilitates putative psi in addition
to standard processes related to imagination or somatization (Ventola et al., 2019, pp. 157–160).
We thus contend that dogmatic dichotomies of ‘paranormal vs skeptical’ approaches to case
studies or eldwork investigations are counterproductive and misguided. Rather, our interac-
tionist model implies that ghostly episodes are a tangled ball of metaphorical yarn that require
cross-disciplinary and participatory team science to eectively tease apart. is approach can,
and frankly should, include adversarial collaborations between researchers with dierent ide-
ologies and complementary methods. e psi literature includes several such partnerships that
can serve as inspiration and templates for new studies (e. g., Kekecs et al., 2023; Laythe & Hou-
ran, 2022; LeBel et al., 2022; Parnia et al., 2022; Schlitz et al., 2006). ere are also many readily
available sources on tactics and user-friendly technologies for eldwork in this domain (e. g.,
Auerbach, 2003; Laythe et al., 2021b; Parsons, 2018, 2021).
But hi-tech equipment or sophisticated research designs are not required for citizen scien-
tists or professional researchers to contribute meaningful information to growing databases of
big data on these occurrences. To be sure, almost anyone can use the four primary and no-cost
tools outlined in this paper to help document or vet spontaneous cases for further and more
detailed study, i. e., (a) the SSE, (b) HP-S Recognition Checklist, (c) RTS, and (d) Rasch-RPBS.
e Institute for the Study of Religious and Anomalous Experience (I.S.R.A.E.) is also devel-
oping a mobile application to easily collect this information as a complement to environmen-
tal measurements in eldwork studies (cf. Laythe et al., 2021b). Irrespective of their potential
parapsychological nature, the S/O anomalies considered here almost certainly involve “the right
people in the right settings” (Laythe et al., 2018, p. 210). Accordingly, we advise all eldwork
researchers to be aware of the interactionist HP-S model and focus their eorts on collecting
fundamental data that will better elucidate the contents, context, and catalysts of ghostly epi-
sodes from this and other important perspectives (e. g., Houran & Lange, 2001; Maher, 2015;
McCue, 2002).
96
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Acknowledgements
is study was part of a larger project on interactionism, liminality, and anomalous experiences
supported by the BIAL Foundation (bursary #006-2022) for which we express our appreciation.
anks also to Neil Dagnall for his assistance with this research, as well as two anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier dra. Finally, Gerhard Mayer and the
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene e. V. (IGPP) kindly provided sup-
port and copies of important case material for our review and analysis.
References
Auerbach, L. (2003). Ghost-hunting: How to investigate the paranormal. Ronin Publishing.
Baker, I., & O’Keee, C. (2007). Ethical guidelines for the investigation of haunting experiences. Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, 71, 216–229.
Bertens, L. C. M., Broekhuizen, B. D. L., Naaktgeboren, C. A., Rutten, F. H., Hoes, A. W., van Mourik, Y.,
Moons, K. G. M., & Reitsmaet, J. B. (2013). Use of expert panels to dene the reference standard in
diagnostic research: A systematic review of published methods and reporting. PLoS Medicine, 10,
Article e1001531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001531
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human
sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
British Medical Association (2018). BMA illustrated medical dictionary (4th ed.). DK Publishing.
Calvo, F., Karras, B. T., Phillips, R., Kimball, A. M., & Wolf, F. (2003). Diagnoses, syndromes, and diseases:
A knowledge representation problem. American Medical Informatics Association, AMIA 2003 Annual
Symposium Proceedings, p. 802.
Ceccaroni, L., & Piera, J. (Eds.) (2017). Analyzing the role of citizen science in modern research. IGI Global/
Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0962-2
Cohen, J. (1960). A coecient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keee, C., Ventola, A., Laythe, B., Jawer, M. A., Massullo, B., Caputo, G. B.,
& Houran, J. (2020). ings that go bump in the literature: An environmental appraisal of “haunted
houses.” Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01328
Dixon, J., Storm, L., & Houran, J. (2018). Exploring ostensible poltergeist vs. haunt phenomena via a
reassessment of spontaneous case data. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 7–22.
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics,
90, 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
Gauld, A., & Cornell, A. D. (1979). Poltergeists. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
97
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
Hallgren K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial.
Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
Hayes, R., Kyer, B., & Weber, E. (2015). e case study cookbook. Worcester, Polytechnic Institute. https://
digital.wpi.edu/downloads/3484zh540
Hill, S. A., O’Keee, C., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., Ventola, A., & Houran, J. (2018).
“Meme-spirited”: I. A VAPUS model for understanding the prevalence and potency of ghost narra-
tives. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 18, 117–152.
Hill, S. A., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keee, C., Ventola, A., & Houran, J. (2019).
“Meme-spirited”: II. Illustrations of the VAPUS model for ghost narratives. Australian Journal of
Parapsychology, 19, 5–43.
Houran, J. (2022). “Haunted house” research in the mainstream. Parascientica, 1, 4–14. https://www.ppri.
net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PARASCIENTIFICA-ISSUE-1-SEPT-2022.pdf
Houran, J., & Bauer, H. H. (2022). ‘Fringe science’—A tautology, not pariah. Journal of Scientic Exploration,
36, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.31275/20222527
Houran, J., Kumar, V. K., albourne, M. A., & Lavertue, N. E. (2002). Haunted by somatic tendencies:
Spirit infestation as psychogenic illness. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5, 119–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670210141061
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1996). Diary of events in a thoroughly unhaunted house. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 83, 499–502. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.2.499
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (Eds). (2001). Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives. McFarland
& Co.
Houran, J., Lange, R., Laythe, B., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & O’Keee, C. (2019b). Quantifying the
phenomenology of ghostly episodes – Part II: A Rasch model of spontaneous accounts. Journal of
Parapsychology, 83, 168–192. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2019.01.03
Houran, J., & Laythe, B. (2022). Case study of recognition patterns in haunted people syndrome. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, Article 879163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.879163
Houran, J., Laythe, B., Lange, R., Dagnall, N., O’Keee, C., & Drinkwater, K. (2021). Ghostly episodes
in modern psychometric perspective. Mindeld: Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association, 13(2),
30–40.
Houran, J., Laythe, B., O’Keee, C., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & Lange, R. (2019a). Quantifying the
phenomenology of ghostly episodes – Part I: Need for a standard operationalization. Journal of Para-
psychology, 83, 25–46. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2019.01.03
Houran, J., Little, C., Laythe, B., & Ritson, D. W. (2022). Uncharted features and dynamics of the South
Shields poltergeist. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 86, 129–165.
Huesmann, M., & Schriever, F. (2022). Wanted: e poltergeist. Description and discussion of a collection of
54 RSPK reports of the years 1947–1986, kept at the Freiburg Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology
and Mental Health. Journal of Anomalistics, 22, 76–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2022.76
98
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Ironside, R., & Woott, R. (2022). Making sense of the paranormal: e interactional construction of unex-
plained experiences. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88407-9
Jawer, M. (2010). Feeling psychic: How emotion may shape anomalous experience. Noeti c Now, 1. Accessed
at: http://www.emotionalgateway.com/links/FeelingPsychic-2010articleforNoeticNow.pdf
Kekecs, Z., Pal, B., Szaszi, B., Szecsi, P., Zrubka, M., et al. (2023). Raising the value of research studies
in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: e transparent psi project.
Royal Society Open Science, 10, Article 191375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191375
Kumar, V. K., & Pekala, R. J. (2001). Relation of hypnosis-related attitudes and behaviors to paranormal
belief and experience: A technical review. In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.), Hauntings and poltergeists:
Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 260–279). McFarland & Co.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2001a). Ambiguous stimuli brought to life: e psychological dynamics of haunt-
ings and poltergeists. In J. Houran & R. Lange (Eds.), Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 280–306). McFarland & Co.
Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2001b). Power laws and autoregressive catastrophes: the dynamic properties of
poltergeist episodes. Technical report to the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene
(IGPP), Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
Lange, R., Houran, J., Sheridan, L., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., O’Keee, C., & Laythe, B. (2020).
Haunted people syndrome revisited: Empirical parallels between subjective paranormal epi-
sodes and putative accounts of group-stalking. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 23, 532–549.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1767552
Lange, R., Irwin, H. J., & Houran, J. (2000). Top-down purication of Tobacyk’s revised paranormal belief
scale. Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 131–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00183-X
Lange, R., albourne, M. A., Houran, J., & Storm, L. (2000). e revised transliminality scale: Reliability and
validity data from a Rasch top-down purication procedure. Consciousness & Cognition, 9, 591–617.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0472
Laythe, B., & Houran, J. (2019). Concomitant object movements and EMF-spikes at a purported haunt.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 83, 212–229.
Laythe, B., & Houran, J. (2022). Adversarial collaboration on a Drake-S equation for the survival question.
Journal of Scientic Exploration, 36, 130–160. https://doi.org/10.31275/20222357
Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., & Drinkwater, K. (2021a). Conceptual and clinical implications of a
“haunted people syndrome.” Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 8, 195–214.
https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000251
Laythe, B., Houran, J., Lange, R., & Boussoara, M. A. (2021b). A ‘multi-event sensor app’ (MESA 3.0) for
environmental studies of exceptional human experiences. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 21,
128–162.
Laythe, B., Houran, J., Dagnall, N., Drinkwater, K., & O’Keee, C. (2022). Ghosted! Exploring the haunting
reality of paranormal encounters. McFarland & Co.
99
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
Laythe, B., Houran, J., & Little, C. (2021c). e ghostly character of childhood imaginary companions:
An empirical study of online accounts. Journal of Parapsychology, 85, 54–74. http://doi.org/10.30891/
jopar.2021.01.07
Laythe, B., Houran, J., & Ventola, A. (2018). A split-sample psychometric study of haunters. Journal of the
Society for Psychical Research, 82, 193–218.
LeBel, E., Augustine, K., & Rock, A. J. (2022). Beyond the BICS essay contest: Envisioning a more rigorous
preregistered survival study. Journal of Scientic Exploration, 36, 436–447.
https://doi.org/10.31275/20222691
Lifshitz, M., van Elk, M., & Luhrmann, T. M. (2019). Absorption and spiritual experience: A review of
evidence and potential mechanisms. Consciousness and Cognition, 73, Article 102760.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.05.008
Little, C. (2021). e basics of informed consent. Mindeld: Bulletin of the Parapsychological Association,
13(2), 27–29.
Little, C., Laythe, B., & Houran, J. (2021). Quali-quantitative comparison of childhood imaginary com-
panions and ghostly episodes. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 85, 1–30.
Maher, M. (2015). Ghosts and poltergeists: An eternal enigma. In E. Cardeña, J. Palmer & D.
Marcussion-Clavertz (Eds.), Parapsychology: A handbook for the 21st century (pp. 327–340).
McFarland & Co.
McCue, P. A. (2002). eories of haunting: A critical overview. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research,
60, 1–21.
Neppe, V. M. (2011). Ensuring homogeneous data collection for present and future research on possible
psi phenomena by detailing subjective descriptions, using the multiaxial A to Z SEATTLE classication.
NeuroQuantology, 9, 84–105. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2011.9.1.392
O’Keee, C., Houran, J., Houran, D. J., Drinkwater, K., Dagnall, N., & Laythe, B. (2019). e Dr. John Hall
story: A case study of putative “haunted people syndrome.” Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 22,
910–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2019.1674795
Parnia, S., Post, S. G., Lee, M. T., Lyubomirsky, S., Aufderheide, T. P., Deakin, C. D., Greyson, B., Long,
J., Gonzales, A. M., Huppert, E. L., Dickinson, A., Mayer, S., Locicero, B., Levin, J., Bossis, A.,
Worthington, E., Fenwick, P., & Shirazi, T. K. (2022). Guidelines and standards for the study of death
and recalled experiences of death – A multidisciplinary consensus statement and proposed future direc-
tions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1511, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14740
Parsons, S. T. (2018). Guidance notes for investigators of spontaneous cases, apparitions, hauntings, polter-
geists and similar phenomena, new edition. Society for Psychical Research.
Parsons, S. T. (2021). Using equipment: Guidance notes for investigators of ghosts, hauntings, poltergeists and
similar phenomena. Society for Psychical Research.
Persinger, M. A., & Koren, S. A. (2001). Experiences of spiritual visitation and impregnation: Potential
induction by frequency-modulated transients from an adjacent clock. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92,
35–36. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.92.1.35
100
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Price, H. (1926). Some account of the poltergeist phenomena of Eleonore Zugun. Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research, 20, 449–471.
Price, H. (1927a). A report on the telekinetic and other phenomena witnessed through Eleonore Zugun.
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 21, 10–51.
Price, H. (1927b). A report on the telekinetic and other phenomena witnessed through Eleonore Zugun.
Proceedings of the National Laboratory of Psychical Research, 1, 1–49.
Price, H., & Kohn, H. (1930a). An Indian poltergeist. Psychic Studies – Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 25, 122–130.
Price, H., & Kohn, H. (1930b). An Indian poltergeist. Psychic Studies – Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 25, 180–186.
Price, H., & Kohn, H. (1930c). An Indian poltergeist. Psychic Studies – Journal of the American Society for
Psychical Research, 25, 221–232.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish
Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword and aerword by B. D.
Wright. University of Chicago Press.
Rogo, D. S. (1982). e poltergeist and family dynamics. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51,
233–237.
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology (pp. 382–413). Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Romer, C. J. (2013). Re-investigating un-haunted houses. “And sometimes he’s so nameless” weblog. Accessed
6 April 2023 at: https://jerome23.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/re-investigating-un-haunted-houses/
Ross, C. A., & Joshi, S. (1992). Paranormal experiences in the general population. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 180, 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199206000-00004
Schlitz, M. J., Wiseman, R., Watt, C., & Radin, D. (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent
collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 313–322.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X80704
Talari, K., & Goyal, M. (2020). Retrospective studies – Utilities and caveats. Journal of the Royal College of
Physicians of Edinburgh, 50, 398–402. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2020.4
urston, H. (1935). Poltergeists: A problem for the materialist. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 24(93),
85–95.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30097161?mag=poltergeist-haunts-scholars-1935&seq=1 [Accessed 16 May 2022]
urston, H. (1952). e physical phenomena of mysticism. Burns Oates. [2013 reprinted version from
White Crow Books].
urston, H. (1954). Ghosts and poltergeists. Henry Regnery Co. [2010 reprinted version from Kessinger
Publishing].
Tobacyk, J. J. (1988). A revised paranormal belief scale. Unpublished manuscript. Louisiana Tech University.
101
Rethinking a Ghostly Episode in the Legacy Literature
Tobacyk, J. J. (2004). e revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies,
23, 94–98. https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94
Ventola, A., Houran, J., Laythe, B., Storm, L., Parra, A., Dixon, J., & Kruth, J. G. (2019). A transliminal
‘dis-ease’ model of poltergeist ‘agents.’ Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 83, 144–171.
Waskul, D., & Eaton, M. (Eds.) (2018). e supernatural in society, culture and history. Temple University Press.
Wiseman, R., Watt, C., Stevens, P., Greening, E., & O’Keee, C. (2003). An investigation into alleged
‘hauntings.’ British Journal of Psychology, 94, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661886
Überdenken einer geisterhaen Episode aus der älteren Literatur
Erweiterte Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund: Laythe et al.‘s (2021a, 2022) Grounded eory des Haunted-People-Syndroms
(HP-S) geht davon aus, dass spontane „geisterhae Episoden“, die von bestimmten Menschen
immer wieder erlebt werden, ein interaktionistisches Phänomen darstellen, das erhöhte
somatisch-sensorische Empndlichkeiten beinhaltet, die durch Krankheitszustände ausgelöst
werden und zu außergewöhnlichen Erfahrungen führen, die mit paranormalen Überzeugun-
gen kontextualisiert und durch perzeptuelle Ansteckung und das Verspüren einer Bedrohung
verstärkt werden. Mit anderen Worten, es wird angenommen, dass Ausbrüche von „Erschei-
nungen, Spuk oder Poltergeistern“ durch dieselben grundlegenden Mechanismen begünstigt
werden, die auch autohypnotischen Phänomenen und (ansteckenden) psychogenen Massen-
erkrankungen zugrunde liegen.
Fragestellung: Die Anwendbarkeit dieses psychologischen Modells wurde anhand eines
historischen Berichts über einen poltergeistähnlichen Ausbruch geprü, der in einer nicht-
para psychologischen Zeitschri veröentlicht wurde.
Methode: Unsere Studie umfasste in erster Linie eine inhaltliche Analyse der ursprünglichen
Fallberichte (Price & Kohn, 1930a, 1930b, 1930c), die jedoch durch eine quantitative Zeit-
reihenanalyse der in den Aufzeichnungen festgehaltenen anomalen Ereignisse ergänzt wurde.
Zunächst verwendeten ein experimentell verblindeter Parapsychologe und ein Laienwissenscha-
ler unabhängig voneinander den Survey of Strange Events (SSE: Houran et al., 2019b), um die
anomalen Phänomene in dem Fall zu kartieren (d. h. seine Mikro-Phänomenologie), sowie eine
Recognition Pattern Checklist, um kontextuelle Variablen zu bewerten, die das HP-S-Modell
mit den Merkmalen und der Dynamik anhaltender spuktypischer Anomalien verbindet (d. h.
seine Makro-Phänomenologie). Die Zeitreihe war dann eine separate Gegenprüfung für die
vermutete Rolle der psychischen Ansteckung, eines von fünf Erkennungsmustern von HP-S.
102
James Houran, Brian Laythe, Cindy Little, Damien J. Houran
Ergebnisse: Die hohe Übereinstimmung zwischen den Ratern bei der Inhaltsanalyse deutet dar-
auf hin, dass die verfügbaren Details dieses Falles (a) einem Ereignis mit überdurchschnittlicher
„Spukintensität“ im Vergleich zu den veröentlichten Normwerten und (b) einer 100%igen
„Übereinstimmung“ bezüglich des oensichtlichen Vorhandenseins aller fünf vorgeschlagenen
Erkennungsmuster von HP-S entsprechen. Eine Überprüfung der allgemeinen Struktur dieser
Episode mit Hilfe eines auf der SSE basierenden Entscheidungsbaumverfahrens sprach jedoch
gegen die Interpretation, dass einige oder alle gemeldeten Anomalien rein „spontan“ auraten,
d. h. aufrichtig und unvorbereitet bzw. nicht präpariert waren. Die Zeitreihenanalyse deutete
ebenfalls darauf hin, dass das Aureten der anomalen Ereignisse eine leichte Krümmung auf-
wies, aber dieser augenscheinliche Schneeballeekt war statistisch nicht signikant und daher
als zusätzlicher Beweis für eine psychologische Ansteckung unzureichend.
Schlussfolgerungen: Die veröentlichten Details dieses Falles wurden als in hohem Maße
übereinstimmend mit den Grundsätzen von HP-S beurteilt, was zur wachsenden Evidenz für
das Modell von Laythe et al. beiträgt. Mehrere kontroverse Aspekte der anomalen Störungen
verhinderten jedoch eindeutige Schlussfolgerungen über ihre letztendliche Natur. Wir erörtern
diese Studie im Sinne einer praktischen Anleitung für die Verwendung des SSE-Tools und des
HP-S-Modells anhand eines fünfstugen Prozesses, um künige Untersuchungen von Geister-
erscheinungen durch professionelle Parapsycholog:innen und Laienwissenschaler:innen
gleichermaßen anzuleiten.
