Well, if you know me in real life (or have followed my career for very long), you know that anything involving curses, demons, or anything that sounds genuinely frightening… I’ll stay far away. I’m involved in ghost hunting for the history, the science, and the quirky (but fascinating) experiences.
But, I’m linking to that for more intrepid researchers who have fewer scruples (or perhaps phobias) about potentially dangerous entities.
(And yes, I’m far more enthusiastic about Craco and similar towns. Visiting them could be delightful fun.)
On the other hand, I’m not sure Florida’s dome homes are worth investigating. I’d need to study the history of the location. The home structures were used so briefly, they’re probably not haunted.
I’m not sure the history of the Danish lighthouse suggests that it’s haunted, but something about the energy of a historic site that was being consumed by Nature… I’d investigate it, anyway. (But, I’d dig into its history – no pun intended – before going there.)
It’s been moved to safety, but I think it’s still abandoned.
Michigan’s Central Station has already been used as a “haunted house” attraction at Halloween. But… yes, I’d be tempted to investigate it, anyway. I mean, really, most of those old stations are haunted (or so it seems). Add layers of residual energy from the Halloween events…? That could be a fun location to visit, with permission, before or after the renovations are completed.
You may have noticed that Hollow Hill has gone through several changes in the past month or so. We’ve been testing different designs, different navigation, and so on.
Long-term, I plan to update my websites’ older articles (and then restore those I’d removed from sites) and help each site’s visitors find exactly what they’re looking for.
First, I’m working on focus. Each site has a different purpose.
What’s where, site-by-site
This site (FionaBroome.com) is partly a blog, but mostly focuses on my books.
HollowHill.com is returning to its original goal: to make ghost hunting more accessible to new and aspiring investigators. So, we’ve condensed the categories and tags, and I’ve been updating older articles and republishing them.
If you subscribe to that site’s updates via Feedburner, I apologize for their software thinking I’m adding entirely new articles. (I will, in the future… but not yet.)
Ghosts101.com is for curiosity seekers. It features answers to just a few most-asked questions, usually related to ghosts and what viewers see on TV.
Frankly, only a few questions seemed to interest people, year after year, and my answers haven’t changed much. (For those with more curiosity, I updated my related book and it’s back in Kindle.)
Hallowfields.com is a far larger project that needs more content, cross-linking, more handouts, more videos, and so on. I’ll be working on that as time permits.
FaerieMagick.com and MandelaEffect.com are also “as time permits” projects. Both will steer firmly towards academic research. Each started out as a hobby site and… well, it shows.
I’m also working on an index to the Mandela Effect “major memories comments” books, so people will know which memories were most reported in which books.
GhostHunting.news is my new home for news-related articles from this site and from Hollow Hill.
I’ll add more quirky, paranormal-ish articles as I find them.
As of yesterday, that site has just one new article, so we could test curation software.
When new articles are available at any of my sites, I’ll post links at social media (Facebook and Twitter, for now).
Another website is in progress, and it will have a far narrower focus related to ghosts and haunted places. I’d like to launch that before Halloween, but I can’t make promises.
Also, due to a ridiculous level of spam comments – which software doesn’t seem to keep ahead of – I’ve temporarily disabled commenting on all of my sites.
(The recent week when I had to skim over 3,600 spam comments at HollowHill.com and found only two or three legit comments…? That’s when I decided: enough is enough.)
Late in 2019, I was working on a larger project that – due to Covid risks (I’m fine, but we respect stay-at-home advice) – had to be paused. That’s okay. I wasn’t entirely certain the project was well-planned. Later in 2020, it may be back on my calendar, or it may not.
However, I’d like to create more videos for my YouTube channel. I’m not sure if I’ll have time for that in 2020, but I’ll try.
Is Your House Haunted?
Earlier this year, I’d rushed a fresh edition of Is Your House Haunted? to answer questions of panicky people – suddenly in their homes for extended periods – who feared they were in danger from ghosts.
First, I wanted readers to understand that it’s probably not “all in your mind.” I take ghost reports very seriously.
It’s important to realize that something is going on, but also, it’s probably not a ghost.
I wanted to explain why some sites only seem weird, scary, and haunted.
(The short list: Infrasound, old/bad wiring, noisy plumbing, tilting foundations and uneven carpentry, and the occasional carbon monoxide issue.)
Now that fewer people are panicking, I can improve my book.
So, after reorganizing my websites, that book is next on my list of projects.
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…?
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.)
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.