Telepathy and Ghost Hunting

Telepathy and ghost hunting – Can one affect the other?

It might.

That doesn’t mean it does, but I think we need to keep an open mind.

Apparently, I’m not the only one to consider this.

If, like me, you’re studying ghost hunting academically, Peter Underwood’s research should be part of that.

In the 1986 edition of his book, The Ghost Hunter’s Guide, Underwood talked about telepathy in ghost investigations.

I agree with him: Both can be factors in ghost hunting.

Consider two aspects of telepathy.

• One is in the past.
• The other is in the present.

So, where is the telepathic impression coming from?

• It could be from the site’s representative or caretaker, who knows the history of the site and its ghosts.
• Perhaps you’re picking up the thoughts of a team member who’d researched the site’s history beforehand.
• If strong enough residual energy lingers at the site, you may be perceiving an impression from it.
• Or, you could be receiving information from an actual ghost.

(Of course, there are other possibilities, including a parallel reality impressing an identity or event into your thoughts.)

I’m not sure if we can ever be certain that what we perceive, mentally, is actually coming from a ghost.

At best, it’s difficult to discern where those impressions originated.

My approach and filters

I’m a history buff. It’s one reason I love haunted places: Most have unusually rich histories.

Both the physical location – and the ambience –  convey a sense of the past better than many of their non-haunted counterparts.

So, I research the site and its ghosts before my first visit to the location.

Of course, I understand team members’ reluctance to study the site’s history ahead of time.

They want to arrive as “blank slates” so they feel reasonably certain that what they perceive isn’t just wishful thinking.

My standard is different.

After thoroughly researching a haunted site, my challenge to the ghosts is: Tell me something I don’t already know.

I still can’t fully rule out telepathy, especially if our guide or the property caretaker has done more extensive research than I have.

But when I receive an impression that’s almost a contradiction of the site’s (or the ghost’s) documented history… that’s when I become really interested.

And, after the investigation, I’ll research even more deeply, following any leads that might support the extra insights I now have.

This is an added layer of evidence, and I think it’s vital to ghost hunting.

Then, if it’s true, proof will be found in history.

I’m looking for evidence, one way or the other.

If the alternate or additional information seems credible, that will go a long way towards convincing me that yes, the site really is haunted.

If I can’t find anything to support the impression, perhaps it’s someone else’s fictional view of the ghost or haunted place.

Maybe I’ve merely tuned into their wishful thinking.

Yes, I approach most ghost investigations as a skeptic.

I still believe in ghosts, and that something unexplained may be going on at almost every site that’s described as “haunted.”

Nevertheless, I think it’s important for serious researchers to keep telepathy in mind (no pun intended).

Double-check history to see if your impressions may have come directly from a ghost.

It might open new and fascinating doors to ghost hunting!