“Living for the Dead” on Hulu – Why it Matters to Me

To be honest, I’d almost given up on ghost hunting TV shows. Even some of the shows that I’d liked (kinda-sorta) when they first aired… Too many have become self-parodies.

And, to be even more blunt, some of the cast who’ve signed deals for their own shows…? They have my sympathy. Often, between the “unscripted” directions they’re given and how the shows are edited… yikes.

But, as a fan of “Queer Eye,” I couldn’t not take a peek at “Living for the Dead,” just in case it was different. I wanted to see what kind of spin those producers might bring to ghost hunting.

I was astonished. In a good way.

As I see it, there are two kinds of ghost hunting.

One variety is what you see most often on TV: People (mostly men) portrayed as “everyday guys,” go looking for ghosts. They rely heavily on ghost hunting equipment, and seem unprepared for anything truly startling.

I understand how that appeals to the viewing audience. Anyone watching the show might think, “Cool! I can do that, too!”

And so they do.

And then they’re disappointed.

Or find themselves in a dangerous situation, physically or spiritually.

Or both. (Deep sigh.)

The other kind of ghost hunting is what I do: I visit sites with interesting histories and the potential for ghostly energy, perhaps intriguing “residual energy,” if not actual ghosts.

People like me rely on their senses (five or six), and only use ghost hunting equipment to check for anomalies that might explain the “weird vibes” of the site.

High EMF from bad wiring in a building…?  That can make anyone uneasy.

Add some infrasound, and people can have a genuinely terrifying experience.

People like me aspire to a rich experience at each “haunted” site, feeling a connection with history.

That’s the opposite of the “Dude, run!” version of ghost hunting, where people seem to want “a good scare.”

… Of course, those two different kinds of ghost hunting aren’t always distinct. There can be plenty of overlap in that Venn diagram.


Here’s my review, as a YouTube video. (I apologize for the audio quality. With seasonal allergies, my voice isn’t as reliable or consistent as I’d like, but I wanted to share this review as quickly as possible.)

And, if you’ve watched that TV series, I hope you’ll share your opinions in comments, below. (I’ll admit to watching a couple of the episodes twice. When they’re good – or fun, or both – they’re definitely worth a second glance.0

2 thoughts on ““Living for the Dead” on Hulu – Why it Matters to Me”

  1. Perhaps residue of intense emotions are what we call ghosts. But can residues talk and answer questions? I would like to hear what Mozart or Shelley or Lord Byron have to say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *