Haunting Questions and Theoretical Answers

Get excited: We're finally tackling why ghosts wear clothes.

I'm not a parapsychologist or even a dedicated ghost hunter. I'm just a person with a lifelong interest in high strangeness who has read extensively on the subject and had many odd experiences. I try to keep an open mind without being too credulous and walk that fine line between unquestioned belief and utter skepticism. I think it's wrong to dismiss everything paranormal out of hand but also a mistake to believe everything squirrely thing you read online. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, though perhaps closer to the squirrely side than the skeptics would ever admit.

Anyway, here's a random ghostly Q&A:

What are the different types of hauntings?

There are at least four types: Intelligent, residual, poltergeist, and inhuman hauntings. Intelligent hauntings involve a formerly living spirit that reacts to its surroundings and current circumstances. It may communicate or answer questions and seems to have thought and some form of self-awareness. A residual haunting is closer to a "recording" of an event that repeats itself where it occurred but has no awareness of anyone or anything around it. (Think battlefield ghosts, for instance.) Poltergeist hauntings are characterized by many moving objects and lots of unexplained sounds. As I mentioned briefly in my last post, these disturbances are believed to be unconsciously generated by living humans, usually children or teenagers. (To be fair, some of these cases are hoaxes perpetrated by children and teenagers.) Finally, inhuman hauntings involve entities that have never been living humans. Although many ghost investigators label all these hauntings demonic, I think the reality is more complicated. (More on that below.)

Why do ghosts wear clothes?

This is one of those weird questions I've heard repeatedly. I mean, why would you ask that? Do you expect ghosts to be naked? I guess the short answer is that plenty of "ghosts" don't seem to wear clothes after all, which isn't to say that they're nude, but that we perceive them as shadows or white mists. But those rare apparitions that seem very solid and human generally do wear clothes. Why? We don't know exactly, but I have a couple of theories. First, if you're seeing a "recording" of a past event, you're seeing the impression of what actually happened there -- so unless the scene occurred in the nude (haunted bordellos happen!), you'll see ghosts wearing clothes. If you're encountering an entity with self-awareness (like the remnant of a once-living person), it may be projecting itself into your consciousness the way it sees itself. So I ask you: Do you always see yourself nude when you imagine yourself? Or do you see yourself in your regular, everyday clothes? So whether a haunting involves a static recording of past events or a form of consciousness that survives death, you'll probably see clothes.

Is everything faked on televised ghost-hunting shows?

No, not everything is faked -- but some things definitely are. Even when anomalies are captured on television shows, it's hard to analyze them as a viewer, as the editing will always influence how you see them. Ghost-hunting in real life is tedious and time-consuming -- and completely fruitless most of the time. No one would watch a real ghost hunt on TV. This isn't to say that every paranormal investigator on television is insincere, but everything you see has been edited to present a compelling narrative, whether it occurred that way or not. Understanding this doesn't diminish my enjoyment of these shows, but it makes me look at televised "evidence" with a jaded eye. 

Why aren't there ghosts everywhere all the time?

Short answer: I think they probably are everywhere, but we can't all sense them. Even those of us who are sensitive aren't tuned in 24/7. We'd go crazy. (...er? Crazier.) But I also think that some places have geological properties that make them more likely to "record" experiences (as in the stone tape theory or "place memory") or have properties that make sensitive people more sensitive (like high EMF or being near a large body of water).

What about demons?

Okay, we have to talk about this. There are self-styled demonologists out there, as well as a handful of officially church-sanctioned demonologists (virtually always Catholic) who are unordained laypeople working in the area of ghost investigation and demonic infestation. I think some are overzealous cranks, a handful are grifters looking for publicity, and a few are sincere and doing good work. It's hard to deny that some hauntings are genuinely negative and involve entities that attempt to harm or even possess people. You may think it's pretty wild for a non-religious person like me to admit these things, but I've seen a lot in my weird life. It would be narrow-minded to ignore these things because I don't practice Christianity, as there are demons or demon-like creatures in every culture worldwide. Still, even in our (supposedly) secular American culture, most people confronted with a negative haunting will approach a church of some kind for help. Even I would go straight to the Catholic church if I thought I had a demon, as they have the most established framework for dealing with them. There are literal procedures you must follow to obtain an officially sanctioned exorcism or even a minor rite of exorcism for a dwelling, including an investigation by a church-sanctioned paranormal team (I've met members of a team from our local diocese), a complete physical and psychological examination, and capture of specific evidence. (Also, fun fact: Plenty of protestant ministers simply won't believe you.) But I digress! Yes, I think demons are real. I also think they're very rare. However, other nonhuman entities may contribute to persistent or negative hauntings, including djinn, nature spirits, minor deities, interdimensional entities, and things we don't even have names for. So, in my opinion, they're not all demons, even some of the truly frightening things people encounter ("More things in heaven and earth…"). But some of them are.

Why isn't there definitive proof of life after death?

For one thing, we can't agree on what that proof would look like. Most people who have encountered a haunting, especially an intelligent one, firmly believe that some form of our consciousness goes on after our deaths. But most of that, I must admit, is vibe-based and not "hard proof." No one has ever gotten an authentic copy of The Handbook for the Recently Deceased, you know? I will say this: There are so many anomalies out there. There are plenty of unusual photographs and strange audio recordings. They're not all Photoshop and pareidolia. (Some are, though!) Many people have personal experiences that are difficult to explain. No one will ever convince a hardline skeptic, even if someone manages to capture a spirit in a containment unit like a literal Ghostbuster.

You can't take ghosts into a lab for a double-blind study, and even the paranormal things that can be studied in a lab (like various forms of psychic ability) don't get funding. People who want to investigate paranormal phenomena in a rigorous scientific way can't do that in an academic setting, and skeptics would accuse them of faking their data even if they could. Ultimately, you can't give anyone proof because it's experiential. And if it's experiential, it's not really science, is it? But if you have personally experienced high strangeness, you tend to believe other people when they tell you sincerely about their experiences. You already know such things are possible, even if you don't have recordings to "prove" it. In the end, it's a matter of belief. But if 67% of Americans believe they've had a paranormal encounter of one kind or another, that's a lot of people to dismiss out of hand. These experiences aren't rare; we don't discuss them for fear of being labeled crazy.

To sum up, the paranormal is a complicated mishmash of theories and conjecture. Don't be like me and spend your life down that rabbit hole! Go outside and touch grass. Non-haunted grass. You know what I mean.

(23/42)