3 Easy Mistakes Beginners Make on Their First Ghost Hunt

Your first ghost hunt should be fun. It should be exciting. And, it should be something memorable (in a good way) so you’ll participate in future ghost hunts.

But, some mistakes are easy to make, and they can spoil your experience. Here are a few you can avoid.

3 easy ghost hunting mistakes1) Expecting it to be as exciting as what you see on TV

On TV, it can look like something weird happens every 15 minutes or so. In real life, I consider an investigation successful if we encounter one really interesting anomaly during any two- or three-hour visit.

2) Expecting drama, just like on TV

Sometimes, dramatic things do happen during a ghost investigation.

  • Someone sees an apparition, or captures a shadow person in a photo.
  • Or, you record some astonishing, clear EVP, even if it’s just one word.
  • Or, someone is touched by invisible hands or (rarely) hit, slapped, or scratched. (Note: It’s important to be sure that’s real, and not some joker in your group, taking advantage of the dark setting.)
  • Or… a door slams while you’re watching it, and no one is nearby, or an object flies across the room with no human contact, and so on.

During most paranormal investigations, the subtle things are the ones that seem the most disturbing… and sometimes very personal.

For me, the eeriest was hearing my mother’s voice – her distinct tone, accent, and phrasing – say a single line through a “Frank’s Box.” Just that once. And, the person with the box was on a balcony about 20 feet away from me, and had no way of knowing that my mother had died about three weeks before that.

If I hadn’t been listening closely, I would have missed what she said, which was directed at me, personally.

The rest of the investigation was merely average. A few odd noises. A few orb photos. Something that might have been EVP, or it might not.

But for me, that one, strange moment made it a successful investigation.

I’m glad someone else was using a Frank’s Box. I’m also glad I wasn’t focused on any ghost hunting tools. All I was doing was listening and observing, and that’s why I heard that faint, distant message.

Since Mum didn’t use my name, the researcher wouldn’t have known the voice was speaking to me.

It’s why I so often insist that people use their five (or six) senses, primarily, and rely less on ghost hunting equipment. (Yes, it could be argued that the voice came through a Frank’s Box. But without that device, in that quiet setting, I think my mother would have found some other way to communicate with me, if she needed to. For me, the key element was: I was listening to every sound.)

3) Investigating without a plan

I understand that some ghost researchers prefer not to know anything about the site – and its ghosts – ahead of time. They feel as if the investigation is more credible when they start with no expectations. Then, the power of suggestion cannot be a factor.

I prefer to research everything about the site, its ghosts, and their history. That way, I know exactly where I’ll get the best results, and I’ll have a list of possible triggers to use, to prompt paranormal activity.

No matter which approach you choose, it’s always good to have some kind of plan. Here are some suggestions.

  • Who will be with you, and transportation arrangements. (Also know the best route to the site, where to park, when the site is open/closed, any fees, etc.)
  • Who’s bringing what kind of skills and ghost hunting equipment. You can specialize in one area (ghost photos, EVP, temperature anomalies, and so on), so you have multiple confirmations of anomalies. Or, you can be sure to cover every possible kind of phenomena, and see if there’s a correlation between, say, EVP and EMF surges.
  • A Plan B, similar to what I suggest when you’re planning your Halloween investigations.

And… One mistake beginners make after their first ghost hunt

Whether it was a good experience or a bad one, too many beginners decide that their one ghost hunt was “all it is.”

I strongly recommend either going on a second (and third) ghost hunt, or revisiting the first site to debunk what you encounter (or confirming that the place really is haunted).

If your only previous experiences have been watching ghost hunting on TV, and hearing others talk about their investigations, you may be ill-prepared for what really happens at haunted sites.

From my experience at ghost hunting events, here’s what I see among many first-time ghost hunters:

  • 80% of first-time ghost hunters are looking for a “good scare.” (See my article about why a good scare is a bad idea.) If that’s their only interest, and they’re at actively haunted sites (or have vivid imaginations), there’s a good chance they’ll find the good scare they’re looking for.
  • 20% of first-time ghost hunters are looking for something specific. The majority are sincerely interested in this kind of research. They want to know if ghosts are real, and if some sites really are haunted. Or, they’ve encountered something odd in the past, and they think it was a ghost. So, they want to compare that with other known, “real” hauntings, and see if whatever-it-was really was a ghost.
  • Within that 20%, a small percent of first-time ghost hunters are driven by the need to confirm something about a loved one who’s passed. That’s a topic for another article, but – for now – I can say that most don’t find the answers they’re looking for. The best, usual outcome is the realization that something continues after death. And, for a one-time experience on a single ghost investigation… maybe that’s all they needed.

Whatever your reason for giving ghost hunting a test-drive, I hope you’ll have an interesting time (if not a fun one), and become a serious researcher. We need more serious researchers, and more consistent results, to gain a better understanding of this strange – and sometimes baffling – field.

6 thoughts on “3 Easy Mistakes Beginners Make on Their First Ghost Hunt”

  1. “I won’t consider it to be a legitimate ghost hunt until I start weeping blood”,seriously,the afterlife factor has become somewhat suspect.What with quantum immortality,simulation and….the researches on NDE being inconclusive.Infact during ME yrs i was actively engaged with Dr Penny Sartori and at the fag end of her blog she responded to my query that the truth of afterlife may be found only after actual death of the seeker.i am inclined towards believing that physics, rather than metaphysics,may give the answer,after all we owe that much to ME and related discussions.The many planes of existence propounded by theosophists and spiritualists and spiritists,has always appeared a corny and morose concept to me,we aren’t that special by any stretch of imagination,at best we are good hedonists and at worst we are wretched vicious hedonists.And you have still not responded to that history dot com article on lindbergh baby,and i thought it was a shocking scoop.

    1. Hello, Vivek! My personal theory is that the majority of “ghost” encounters are actually encounters with a parallel reality (one of many/multiple/infinite realities) where the person is alive & well, and enjoying (or not) where they are. While I’m fairly confident that there are notable exceptions – people who, for one reason or another, choose not to “cross over” to whatever’s next – I think physics will explain much of what we consider “paranormal.”

      The Lindberg baby story… remind me with a link to the story, so I can comment. (It’s probably something I meant to read or reply to, and got swept up in some urgent project. I apologize.)

      In haste, Fiona

  2. I would add to all of that: don’t expect to get good results unless you hit some dumb luck or unless you’re willing to stick with it and keep coming back over and over again. (and, even then, you might still fail) I read that some of the older physical mediumship stuff (like Eusapia Palladino, for one example) was better than most of the new stuff because they were willing to keep at it. I read that they, sometimes, sat around for hours doing stuff like chanting, only to not be successful, many times. (but, other times, they were VERY successful)

  3. Of course Fiona,i was aware of your thin brane theory when i wrote the comment.So it’s physics with you as well,that’s being consistent and true to oneself.But then we have to disregard/discard the thesophical concepts even if temporarily,and that’s what i wanted to elicit from you.Regarding lindbergh baby,i had connected the crime with the lewis carroll story in ‘Dawn’,the one discrepency was that lindbergh baby was found 4.5 miles away, as per wikipedia and all other sites,by a stray trucker,as against the oysters of lewis carrol story being killed 1 mile away.The history dot com article is somewhat surreal when it says the baby was found 1 mile away by dedicated searchers,and this makes the ‘Dawn’ article a stunning piece of revelation http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/body-of-lindbergh-baby-found

Leave a Reply

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