Fiona Broome

Today, yet another news story portrayed the Mandela Effect as a conspiracy. (And – until they corrected their mistake – made it seem like one of my videos said things about Georgia O’Keeffe that I’ve never said.)

I’m about to rant, and I’ve said a lot of this before but, apparently, either people don’t know me, don’t listen to me, or what I say doesn’t convey well in text.

Here’s the recording of this article, and yes, it’s says “ghost hunting podcast” when it’s not, but it’s a busy day and I want to clarify this point as quickly as possible… so here it is.

The Mandela Effect is Not a Conspiracy Theory

In this four-minute podcast, Fiona replies to recent articles claiming the Mandela Effect is a conspiracy theory. And yes, it’s a rant, and it has nothing to do with ghost hunting. (Sorry about that.)

From the very beginning, back in 2009, I’ve tried to make it clear that – in my opinion – the Mandela Effect is not a conspiracy.

It’s something quirky. It’s a little bit sci-fi. Mostly, it’s baffling.

I believe that people’s alternate memories can be explained in a variety of ways. I’ve talked about that many times in the past, but if you’re new to the Mandela Effect, the top three on the list are:

• News reporting errors
• Simple mistakes
• And – for fun – perhaps parallel realities, which is where this wanders into sci-fi.

The Oxford Dictionary tells me that a conspiracy is “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”

I had never taken seriously the idea that the Mandela Effect is part of a secret plan by anyone.

In addition, I don’t see how it’s unlawful.

The only harm could come from people who take it too seriously, or become unreasonably introspective, questioning all of their memories. When the latter happens, I always encourage people to speak with a professional in memory studies or the mental health field.

Back in 2009, when our conversations about the Mandala Effect started, the topic was fun. There was a lot of “wow, this is pretty weird,” when total strangers seemed to share almost identical memories that did not fit recorded history.

I’m sorry that whimsy does not convey well in text.

After a few years, the Mandela Effect went viral. I couldn’t keep up with all of the reports, pranks, spoofs, and trolling. (The latter is a side of the Internet that I find deeply disappointing, but I guess that’s human nature.)

A few years ago, I stepped back from the Mandela Effect website. Oh, it’s still online, most of the time. But there wasn’t a lot more that I could say.

The topic was in the wild, and others seem to be having fun with that – or not -and that was out of my control.

At this point, I’m having difficulty keeping the original Mandela Effect site online. Traffic spikes would require a level of website hosting at a cost that I just can’t justify.

Besides, plenty of other websites now document every possible addition to the Mandela Effect, and they seem to be having fun doing so.

Yes, people have suggested that I could put advertising on the site, but I find that abhorrent. I will not commercialize the Mandela Effect with jarring advertisements that have nothing to do with the topic and serve only to annoy website visitors.

So, I’ll admit that I’m a little bit irked when I’m misrepresented, and people are sent to the Mandela Effect website expecting some juicy conspiracies.

Instead, visitors will find about 8 – 10 years of light banter and whimsical speculation… and the occasional stunned visitor who stumbles onto a lot of memories he (or she) is now questioning.

Oh, I take people’s memories seriously. I never want it to seem as if I’m laughing up my sleeve when people report sincere alternative memories, and their theories about the Mandela Effect. I’m always interested in a fresh viewpoint on the subject.

But I do want made it clear that, from the very beginning, I have rejected conspiracy theories. I don’t believe that there is one unified explanation for the Mandela Effect.

And I certainly don’t think it is evidence of a secret plan by a group to do something harmful. In my opinion, it is not a conspiracy.

I hope that answers people’s questions, and I really hope journalists stop trying to turn the Mandela Effect into something sinister, when it all started out as a fun, engaging conversation… and a bit of a mystery.

Often, after standing in a cold, damp, miserable site for two hours – with  nothing paranormal happening – I think, “there must be a better way to do this.”

But I keep standing there, waiting, because all the evidence suggests the site really is haunted… perhaps dramatically so.

And usually, if I keep waiting, the bone-chilling tedium was worthwhile. If I thoroughly research a site before visiting it, and confirm that it is a likely paranormal site, there’s an 80% chance the site is haunted. Or something paranormal is going on, even if it’s not “ghostly.”

The problem is, ghost hunting can be like waiting at a street corner for hours, hoping to see a green, 1964 Ford Mustang. And your only evidence is that – over the past 20 years – lots of people mentioned seeing one pass that street corner.

Whether you actually see a ’64 Mustang – or think you do – may depend on how long you stand there.

Patience. That’s all.

Are There Better Options?

In paranormal research, I think we need to expand our horizons. Explore offbeat theories that might lead us to something useful.

I mean, really, we’re already delving into topics many people consider too “out there” to take seriously. Why not go all-in, and see where the fringes take us?

Start with speculation, test it, follow-up with brainstorming, and extract the most promising elements.  Amplify those to see what happens. Repeat.

But where can we find fresh speculation? Where are the fringes?

Well… that leads to an article I read. It connected art with a sort-of paranormal headspace.

Art as a Path to the Paranormal

Are you ready to go way out on a limb, into speculation…?

Here’s the link that started today’s “what if?” musings: Susan Hiller, Conjurer of Paranormal Activity Through Conceptual Art, Has Died at 78.

In that article, I learned:

“Hiller eschewed the term ‘conceptual art’, saying she preferred the word ‘paraconceptual’ to describe her practice, given her interest in the supernatural.”

Later in that article, writer Alex Greenberger explained,

“it often seemed as though Hiller wanted to transport her viewers to another dimension or headspace by cinematic or aural means.”

That’s an extraordinary approach.

Would it work? Maybe. I have no idea. I’m not sure whether her goal was more than slightly shifting viewers’ headspace.

Then, I was more intrigued when I read a related article in The Guardian, where Hiller said,

“All my work deals with ghosts.”

Many creatives have expressed something similar as a figurative reference.

I’d love to know how literally Hiller meant that, and how it fits with specific art installations.

EVPs from 1971

In that same article, I read,

“She worked with the experiments of Latvian psychologist Konstantīns Raudive, who believed that tape recorders left in soundproofed rooms could pick up the voices of the dead – including Winston Churchill and James Joyce.”

In the past, I’d read about Raudive, but hadn’t followed-up to learn more.

Today, I found a YouTube video of his 1971 EVP recordings. I didn’t realize anyone was working with EVP, that long ago.  Not this seriously, anyway. (It’s a 5-minute video, and the recording quality is scratchy, but the voices are intriguing.)

What Are We, and What Are Ghosts?

Here’s another point I’m pondering: Hiller said,

“You know, we are pixels; we’re light.”

That reminded me of one of Vivek Narain’s comments on a recent trends article. He mentioned holograms, and – as usual – suggested several unique ways of looking at paranormal activity.

To me, his observations resonate with Hiller’s “we are pixels” explanation. It was interesting synchronicity.

I’m not sure if anyone else follows the connections I see between Hiller’s concepts, experimental work by Raudive, Vivek’s comments, and my research which spans many apparently distinct fields of study.

(I say “apparently distinct” because I’m not certain they’re truly separate, except in how we categorize the phenomena and explain it to ourselves. I don’t mean to sound flippant when I say, “We’re making this up as we go along,” but that’s how it seems, most of the time.)

Question Everything

I believe we need to explore how, when, and where we encounter paranormal activity. We should always question whether there are better research techniques.

After all, standing around in a “haunted” site, waiting for something to happen… it may not be the most productive use of our time.

I’m not sure how far out on a limb we should go, with research techniques. Do we go more electronic, or back to “old school” ghost hunting methods? What about creating environments – as Hiller and Raudive did – that might be more conducive to paranormal activity?

Today, I have no answers to this. Not even a clue.

But, I applaud Hiller’s work and hope to see some if it in real life, in the near future. I might try some EVP recordings around it. And, I’d be intrigued if her installations resonates – no pun intended – with how we feel immediately before and during a paranormal encounter.

Maybe there is an access point to those experiences. I’m not sure we can deliberately create it, or if it would be safe to try to.

For now, the Hiller story and the Raudive recordings are the kinds of breadcrumbs I watch for.

Nonsense or an Invitation?

If this seems like nonsense, that’s fine. I grew up in the halls of MIT. I spent countless happy hours, playing with strobes and other toys in Doc Edgerton’s lab. That was my childhood context, and – even now – it’s part of who I am.

So, I sometimes geek-out on innovative approaches to research. For me, nothing is too “out there” to consider. (Whether I take it seriously is another matter…)

But, if anything in this makes sense to you, or you can put more of this puzzle together, I’m interested in your theories. Sometimes the “what if?” questions lead to the most fascinating answers.

Does ESP affect paranormal research?

It’s a question I’ve discussed with several people in relation to multiple topics, but especially ghost hunting.

Here’s a quote that may be relevant:

“Comments by Captain Ed Mitchell, the American astronaut, during a radio interview in January 1973, helped to strengthen the growing interest in psychokinesis. He told listeners of experiments in which metal had been fractured by this mental process. ‘It’s an ability that can be trainable,’ he said.”

[from “Ghost Hunting, A Practical Guide” by Andrew Green]

Mr. Green also believed psychokinesis has a connection to hauntings. Describing poltergeists, he said:

“This phenomenon, one of the most publicized and so often misunderstood, is comparatively easy to establish as nothing more than psychokinesis (sometimes referred to as telekinesis), though exactly how this operates is not yet fully known.”

Poltergeists – Psychokinesis (PK) or PK Plus an Entity?

Many 20th-century ghost hunters believed that a living person was the source (or nexus) of the energy. But, was it that person’s subconscious wish to make the noises or move the objects? Or, was some kind of entity involved, as well?

In my opinion, the latter is more likely, but I’m not sure how we could prove that.

In history, one of the most famous poltergeist cases involved the Fox sisters. Many associate them with the founding of the 19th-century Spiritualist movement.

No matter what the truth about the apparent activity around the Fox girls, their home had a long history of poltergeist activity. That’s why few tenants stayed there, even before the Fox family moved in.

Testing the ESP/Psychokinesis Connection

In The Ghost Hunter’s Guide, 20th-century paranormal researcher Peter Underwood wrote about testing during a ghost hunt.

“I have found it useful to have with me a pack or two of Zener cards to test the possible ESP of the nexus of the poltergeist and other occupants of the house.”

That’s an interesting thought, but I’m not sure what it would prove, one way or the other.

I would like to see if – during ghost hunts – psychics test differently than they do in not-haunted locations. Again, it probably wouldn’t prove anything, but it might be intriguing.

If the results were much better at the haunted location, something at the location – perhaps ghosts or paranormal energy – could be a factor.

Psychokinesis and Conjuring Up Philip

It’s important to consider the effects of ESP and psychokinesis (PK) in the Philip case, as well. Could all of that phenomena be attributed to ESP and PK?  We may never know.

The following YouTube video is the tip of the iceberg, in terms of the full Philip experiment. (If you can find – or borrow – a copy of the book, it’s essential reading for serious paranormal investigators.)

(If that video doesn’t appear automatically, here’s a link – https://youtu.be/X2lGPT2J1cc)

Many questions come to mind.

• How much poltergeist activity might be psychokinesis (PK) instead of ghosts?
• If poltergeist activity is a two-part phenomenon – the spirit and the (living) energy source – does it matter whether PK is involved?
• If an historian is on-site during an investigation, how many psychics’ (and others’) “impressions” are actually mind-reading or ESP?
• In famous cases such as the Amityville Horror house, how much of the disturbance was contributed to, by the residents?

The ESP/ghosts/psychokinesis/poltergeists knot is difficult to untangle. I don’t know how we’d even begin to separate these kinds of activity.

I’m interested in your thoughts about this topic, and any way we could distinguish paranormal activity from psychokinetic abilities.

Different things can spark an interest in paranormal research.

For many people, it started with a childhood interest in ghost stories, or an experience that – as adults – they still wonder about: was it really a ghost?

That’s why they go looking for ghosts, or evidence that proves (or disproves) their existence.

But, now and then, someone asks me if ghost hunters live in haunted houses, or even attract ghosts.

People want to know if we “take ghosts home,” or feel uncomfortable if we move into a house… and later find out it’s haunted.

Attracting or Repelling Ghosts

I’m not sure how many ghost hunters attract ghosts. On my New Hampshire team, one person – the one we called “ghostbait” – certainly attracted them.

If he was part of an investigation and the site was haunted, weird things would happen. It was almost guaranteed.

Of course, this is a chicken-or-the-egg question: Did “ghostbait” attract ghosts because he was a ghost hunter, or did he become a ghost hunter because he naturally attracted ghosts?

At the other extreme, we sometimes included a friend who described himself as a “walking banishing ritual.”  If he was within a dozen feet of an anomaly, ghostly activity would halt.

The tragedy was, that latter friend was eager to encounter ghosts, and it rarely happened when he was there.

So, I’m confident that some people attract (and others repel) ghosts, naturally. In both cases, these people didn’t actively do anything to affect the ghosts.

Can one develop those qualities? I have no idea.

It’s possible that some experienced ghost hunters seem to attract ghosts, when they’re merely more observant. After a few dozen investigations, they know exactly what to look for, if the site is haunted.

• That could be a sense of where the ghosts are, at a particular location.
• It could be something they detect with their five (or six) senses.
• Or, it could be a personal reaction – a “gut feeling” – that the site is haunted.

Living with Ghosts

Some – not many – ghost hunters live in haunted houses. Usually, they’re happy to share the space with a benign spirit who once lived there.

Some paranormal researchers aren’t so happy about that discovery.

In a January 2019 article, “This Paranormal Reporter Didn’t Find Her Next Story… It Found HER,” the reporter’s reaction surprised me. She said:

“[T]his is the kind of thing I ask for when out in the field,” she writes, “but sitting in my own living room, I’d rather not experience the unexplained.”

She finally called out to whomever it was, asking them to stop bothering her… and immediately, they stopped.

All seemed normal again until she went to bed. Once the lights were out, the noise returned… but this time it was coming from the living room. Something — or someone — was walking through the house.

Disturbed by the unseen intrusion, Roncace nevertheless does not want to know what’s causing it.

However, Ms. Roncace is a reporter.  At the time she wrote about her haunted house, perhaps she hadn’t investigated intensely haunted places.

I understand not wanting to live with a ghost. It can be unsettling… no pun intended.

But, as a homeowner, I’d definitely want to know more about the ghost – who’s causing that walking noise, and why.

At the very least, it might help me become a better paranormal researcher.

Choosing a Haunted House

I’m okay with ghosts. They don’t scare me. I’m interested in their history, and if there’s anything I can do to help spirits “cross over.”

If they’re merely visiting, or keeping watch over the house – or those in it – that’s fine with me.

(I often joke that ghosts are great roommates – they don’t take my food from the refrigerator, and they never leave the toilet seat up.)

So far, I’ve lived in three haunted houses. Only one had an annoying ghost; we remodeled the house, and he left.

But, if I were house-hunting, I probably wouldn’t ask a realtor to show me haunted houses.

If I were, here’s what I’d look for:

• A house with a documented history that supports its ghost stories. Let’s say the ghost is supposed be to haunted by one of King Henry VIII’s mistresses. I’d be certain the house – or at least the land it’s on – had a documented connection to that woman & her family.
• Ghostly phenomena that aren’t entirely poltergeists.  Otherwise, when the previous tenants moved, they may have taken the poltergeist with them.
• A price that’s a little (or a lot) lower than the estimated value of the house. Most people think of a ghost as a “defect,” so the house should sell for less than it would without the ghosts.
• No malicious or sinister phenomena. No history of Ouija board use in the house, or rituals (however well-intended) that might summon a dangerous entity.
• No history of extreme mental illness among recent residents. You don’t want them returning – in living form or as ghosts – if they were deeply disturbed. (And then there’s the question of what triggered the illness, and if the house’s spirits were involved.)

Other Considerations

Some paranormal researchers choose homes based on their eerie reputations or locations.

For example, some UFO enthusiasts want to live near where UFOs are regularly reported.

On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever met a cryptozoologist who wanted to live in a “triangle,” like the Bridgewater Triangle or the Bennington Triangle.

And I don’t know anyone who’s chosen to live near a Hum or a Mystery Boom.

So, if you’re looking for a haunted house to live in, be sure the sellers understand the difference between hauntings and other paranormal phenomena… unless you’re okay with Bigfoot howling outside your window.

What Makes a House “Suddenly” Haunted?

Can a not-haunted house suddenly become haunted? Maybe.

Ms. Roncace, the paranormal reporter, had lived in her home for nearly 20 years without evidence of ghosts.

So, why did a ghost suddenly show up? Had she attracted one, or brought one home from a haunted site?

It’s unlikely a ghost followed her home. It’s rare for a ghost to leave the site that he or she haunts. Hardly any ghosts follow people.

It’s possible that something concerned the ghost enough to make his (or her) presence known.  A good example is Ms. Roncace’s story about the ghost knocking on Ms. Roncace’s dresser, when her daughter was ill.

Also, poltergeist activity could explain the noises in the kitchen. The movie she was watching, The Omen, could have been a trigger.

The footsteps she heard might have been more poltergeist activity, or something different.

More likely, it’s a residual energy haunting. That phenomena was likely to stop after a week or two, or even sooner.

It’s possible that Ms. Roncace attracted a ghost… but that’s unlikely.  Most ghosts are trapped – or choose to stay – in the primary location where they haunt.

And, if you’re a ghost hunter, it’s an asset if you can attract ghosts at haunted locations. Unless, of course, ghosts frighten you. In that case, it’s best to find another hobby.

Almost all of my paranormal research starts with “what if…?”

I’ll bet your interest in ghosts, etc., began the same way:

• What was that thing I heard/saw? And what if ghosts are real?
• Everyone says that house/battlefield/cemetery is haunted. What if they’re right?
• Ghosts can’t be real. I won’t believe in them. But what if something really is going on, at that “haunted” site?

My “what if…?” questions seem to multiply, like wire coat hangers in the basement wardrobe. Or dust bunnies under the sofa.

This morning was no exception. I had an idea for a new Hollow Hill article.

It was going to be about one particular archetype in ghost hunting.

I started to research the idea, based on a series of related, haunted places in the U.S. and the U.K.

Within minutes, I realized this topic is too big for an article. It’s a book. (Like I don’t already have a dozen books to update & re-release… right?)

So, I’m sitting here, printing pages & pages of information about repeating patterns in this kind of research.

And I’m editing Thursday’s article for Hollow Hill. In it, I’m speculating about a possible light effects connection with ghostly activity. (It’s another “what if…?” question, but – in this case – I didn’t think of it, myself. I just amplified it to include other, similar anomalies.)

I’ll put aside the book idea from this morning’s research. My next editing-and-updating project must be my “Is Your House Haunted?” book.

Why? Well, there’s no way I can reply to all the emails from people asking if their homes are haunted. And, frankly, most probably aren’t… but some sound like they are.

My book will help people rule out unusual (but normal) reasons a house can just seem haunted.

Trending: Hill House

I think most of this concern relates to the “The Haunting of Hill House” TV series on Netflix.

That show is an interesting revision based on Shirley Jackson’s wonderful book, and what may be my favorite “haunted house” movie of all time, “The Haunting” (1963).

Here’s a YouTube video from the original movie, featuring one scene.

If that YouTube video doesn't show on this page, see it at https://youtu.be/bQxyaI74v7U

That 1963 movie is a powerful example of a terrifying paranormal investigation. (It also inspired Disney’s “Haunted Mansion” attraction.)

No, most ghost hunts and vigils aren’t even close to that dramatic, but many can be just as scary… in more subtle ways.

Likewise, the Netflix “Hill House” series isn’t realistic. The tropes in it are fun, and it includes a few good scares, but that’s not what happens in haunted houses.

Hill House and Sleep Paralysis

At least half of the latest emails in my in-box sound like sleep paralysis.

That is, the person thinks he (or she) has woken up – or didn’t fall asleep yet – and has been visited by a disturbing figure (usually a scary looking ghost). The victim usually feels paralyzed, cold, or numb… and terrified.

The incident can seem to last forever, but – in actual fact – it’s usually just a few minutes.

And then, the person is left with a sense of horror, a racing pulse, and pumping adrenaline. Sleep is difficult to resume, if the person can get back to sleep at all.

The problem is, it can seem a lot like the ghost at the foot of the bed (or over the bed) in shows like Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House.

And that’s why people write to me.

They want to know what if it’s real? What if it happens again?

The Benefits of “What if…?”

It’s easy to brush off people’s concerns, saying “you have an over-active imagination.”

I won’t do that.

I’ll point to reasonable, scientific explanations, and let the person decide if that’s the answer. (Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t.)

More important: I believe the “what if…?” impulse is a healthy one. It keeps us interested in the world around us – seen and unseen.

Usually, those questions leads to simple, fact-based answers. The person sighs with relief. What they experienced was normal, not paranormal.

But, sometimes that’s just the beginning, and further research leads “down the rabbit hole,” as in Alice in Wonderland.

Either way, it’s important to keep your critical thinking skills engaged.

And, in my case, it’s even more important to stay focused on my current projects. They include updating my websites and my books. That will keep me busy for much of 2019.

But, I’ll confess that this morning’s research – and the connections I discovered, among iconic haunted houses – sings a siren song. I’m always intrigued by “what if…?” questions.

So far, I’m resisting temptation.

Tonight’s radio show was so much fun, I want to thank everyone involved.

George Noory was a gracious host, and his extensive background in paranormal topics made the two hours practically fly. (I’m glad I had a chance to vote for him at the National Radio Hall of Fame, shortly before polling closed tonight.)

Thanks also to the many listeners who called into the show with fascinating questions and insights. (Also, I’m grateful to those who were in the audience, nodding in agreement and contributing such positive energy to the evening. Everything about the show really felt right.)

Of course, the show ran smoothly from start to finish, due to the high level of professionalism of the Coast to Coast AM staff, including Lisa, Stephanie, and Tom. I appreciate how easy they made… well, everything connected with the show.

If there’s such a thing as a perfect radio show for people in my research field, I think Coast to Coast AM is it.

I’m still smiling, and glad I had a chance to be on such a respected radio show. It was a wonderful experience.

Thanks so very much!

(Coast to Coast AM subscribers can hear the replay almost immediately. In addition, Coast to Coast AM shows are available at YouTube, about three weeks after they initially aired.)