Chapter 11: Interpreting Your Findings — from Online Courses by Thomas Cooney
“I felt a demon” is not evidence. I have watched teams announce a demonic presence within fifteen minutes of arrival with no phenomena—then refuse to re-enter a basement after a claimed touch. That behavior damages the whole field. Father Gabriele Amorth, long the chief exorcist of Rome, wrote that certainty often comes only deep into formal rites. If exorcists move carefully, hobbyists should not diagnose from vibes.
Rule out the ordinary
Slamming doors can be drafts. Creaks can be houses settling. Your job is to try to break your own case. Outside experts will. One avoidable false positive can erase years of reputation. Only after mundane causes are strained do you treat a spirit hypothesis as working theory—and even then, you are rarely 100% sure.
Human vs. inhuman in the gray zone
Most activity could be produced by a human spirit. Inhuman cases often hide behind that ambiguity. Localized knocks from one wall spot have often looked human in my experience; knocks that seem to come from everywhere and nowhere raise more concern—but that is a soft signal, not a law. Sample sizes for true demonic cases are thankfully small.
Look at intent: random motion versus aimed throws; injury versus near-misses; desecration versus mere contact with religious items. Some investigators use holy water during active phenomena—if activity stops cold, they weight an inhuman hypothesis more heavily. Treat such tests as data points, not theater.
Touch force matters. Light hair-pulls from behind, in one of my cases, read as human attention-seeking. On two cases, exhausted clients asked the presence for a night of peace—and received it. That kind of response is incompatible with the classic demonic profile. Another client told an annoying presence, in blunt terms, to go away—and it did. Again, not demonic behavior as I understand it.
Slow down. Attack your evidence. Ask, every time: Could a human spirit—or a living person—have done this?