Poltergeists

Poltergeist phenomena are commonly defined, in Parapsychology, as ‘displays of energy that induce movement of objects which are ordinarily held in place by inertia and gravity’. It is a word derived from German, meaning, literally, ‘noisy spirit’ (you'll often find books referring to poltern – noisy, geist – spirit) and phenomena can also include loud noises, the appearance of water, apports and asports, and even spontaneous fires. If you look further into the German derivation of the word you'll get a more accurate picture – poltern actually means 'crash about' and is often used to refer to a “child playing in the other room and generally crashing about”, geist, also has a better translation as 'mind' or 'intellect' aswell as 'spirit' and 'ghost'. Some would argue that the very nature of poltergeist implies some sort of intellect. Parapsychologists also refer to poltergeist as recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis or RSPK. The reason for this is recognition of potential causes of the phenomena as being more to do with living people in a location rather than spirits. William Roll, the parapsychologist most well-known for researching poltergeist cases (mentioned in my 1st article for Silent Voices), feels that poltergeist events reflect psychological tension between a central person involved in the case and others, including, perhaps, investigators.

The idea that poltergeist activity is centered solely around a young girl, often a teenager, has been aided, in no small part, due to a popular film from 1982. In this film a family are plagued by the movement of household objects (e.g. kitchen chairs) and apparitions, before being confronted with an apparent door ‘to the other side’. The implication is that the activity is focused around Carol Anne, the youngest daughter in the family. Though there is commonly held belief that pubescent girls are the catalyst for such events, the origin for it comes from late 19th century psychical researchers. Households in the late 19th century would have been comprised of large families with children undoubtedly being members. It is no surprise also that when rowdy, undetermined disturbances such as banging and flying objects occurred, the clear culprits would be youngsters with uncontrollable energy and prankish tendencies. Indeed, poltergeist research is plagued by discovery of fraud and trickery.

The most famous example of this controversy surrounding poltergeist occurred in March 1983. Tina Resch, aged 14, had been the centre of disturbances in her home in Columbus, Ohio. Activity included the regular movement of small household objects and larger objects (e.g. mattresses, dressers etc). The phenomena were also recorded in a lab (the Spring Creek Institute in the US) by Dr. Baumann and William Roll. They had brought Tina into the lab with the intention of replicating the phenomena. She was hypnotised in order to evoke the bodily sensations associated with the events in her home. Objects used as targets included a 12 inch socket wrench which moved 18 feet passed the two experimenters and Tina. All in all there were 21 movements of objects when Tina was under observation, of which eight came from a specially prepared ‘target’ table. In addition to this compelling evidence from the lab, Roll had also investigated the case at Tina’s home in the previous year and declared it to be authentic. Reports were given of ‘flying’ telephones, swinging lamps and a multitude of loud noises. The controversy surrounding this case comes from the media interest. In one incident a camera from a TV crew was inadvertently left running and captured Tina cheating by pulling over a lamp whilst unobserved. Also, investigation of the case by the contentious figure, James Randi, showed that the majority of occurrences were press inventions or highly exaggerated descriptions of natural events. The case has a tragic end; Tina Resch was propelled into a downward spiral that led to an abusive marriage, a divorce, and the birth of a child -- all before her twentieth birthday. Three years later she was charged with that child’s murder, and she is currently serving a life sentence for a crime as controversial, mysterious, and complex as the accused herself -- a crime she maintains she did not commit.

With such amazing, compelling and verified cases, why is ‘frustrating’ as I indicated earlier? The main reason is that the majority of evidence comes from eyewitness accounts and researchers who have been unable to put in the appropriate controls to prevent fraud. In the same way that magicians should be consulted when examining claims of psychic/mediumship ability, they should also be consulted for poltergeist claims. You’d understand my concern if you ever had the opportunity to see great magicians perform tricks of levitating objects, electrical disturbances or spontaneous fires. It’s then that you realise that only when a poltergeist case is investigated and the phenomena captured on film and the possibility of magic, or fraud, or an environmental cause (e.g. open window!), has been prevented could you then say, it must be paranormal. Ultimately, the decision about poltergeists rests with you, though perhaps you should hold off on your decision until you hear more about The Enfield Poltergeist...next time.

References
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. New York: Prometheus Books.
Roll, W. (1976). The Poltergeist. London: Wyndham Publications Ltd.

© Ciaran O'Keeffe 2011
www.theparapsychologist.com
www.theschoolofparapsychology.org