Exorcists & Creationists

Last night the Discovery Channel premiered “The Exorcist Files.” When initially announced, the show was touted as a partnership between Discovery and the Vatican:

“The Vatican is an extraordinarily hard place to get access to, but we explained we’re not going to try to tell people what to think,” says Discovery president and GM Clark Bunting. Bunting says the investigators believe a demon can inhabit an inanimate object (like a home) or a person. The network executive says he was initially skeptical when first meeting the team but was won over after more than three hours of talks. “The work these folks do, and their conviction in their beliefs, make for fascinating stories,” Bunting says.

Bunting wins today’s credulous award. Only three hours of listening and he’s game for stories. This would be a good time to recall Nietzsche: “A very popular error: having the courage of one’s convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one’s convictions.”

So I watched the show, which apparently was not blessed by the Vatican but which also did not oppose it. First impression: if a shaman rather than a Catholic priest were telling these kinds of stories, most would consider the shaman a “primitive” and naive storyteller who believes in all kinds of fantastic magic. When Catholic priests say the same things, it is considered “religious.”

Second impression: everyone kept talking about evidence that supports the stories but no evidence was ever presented. Go figure. There is no scientific or empirical evidence; these events were not witnessed by independent third-parties. This is always the case with this kind of pabulum: only believers see, hear, feel, smell, or experience these things. The show’s producer speaks to the issue: “It is a show about faith. There’s no empirical way to prove this stuff but science can’t explain everything.” He’s right — anatomists can’t explain this:

For those interested in the cultural and religious patterning of exorcism rituals, underlying etiology, and psychosomatic efficacy, this post has more information.

Over at Slate, Jeremy Stahl interviews Lawrence Wright for his piece on conspiracy theorists. Wright’s comments sound familiar: “I spent a lot of time trying to reason with various people who had these kinds of perspectives. And it was very frustrating. There was absolutely no way to argue with them because they rejected any kind of factual evidence. What they call facts aren’t typically facts. They sound like facts.” This is why I stopped arguing with creationists more than a decade ago.

Finally, we have the seemingly bizarre (but which should have been expected) news that the Catholic anti-Semite Mel Gibson is doing a film on second century BCE hero of Jewish nationalism Judah Maccabee. Over at The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg comments:

I’m working on a biography of Judah Maccabee…and so it was brought to my attention that Gibson is preoccupied with the subject. (My preoccupation is simple: Judah Maccabee led the first revolt for religious freedom in recorded history, and he is without parallel as a guerrilla fighter and as a man of faith).

A few years ago, I was having dinner with Christopher Hitchens, who had recently launched an excoriating attack on Judah Maccabee in his book, God is Not Great (Hitchens blames Judah Maccabee for, essentially, his success — the Maccabean revolt helped preserve, against the force and power of Greek culture, what Hitchens might call jealous-God Judaism, and thus paved the way for the birth of Christianity, which Hitch, as I’m sure you know, regrets).

This exchange places too much emphasis on Western monotheism and ignores the massive history of Mesopotamian religions that preceded (and profoundly influenced) this tradition. Maccabee did not lead the first revolt for religious freedom and while tribal nationalism can be a matter of faith, we needn’t buy the biblical myth that Maccabee was fighting for Yahweh. It is of course a time honored tradition to cloak earthly goals in the mantle of faith. While I doubt that Gibson’s movie will explore Maccabee’s mundane motivations, let’s hope that Goldberg’s book does.


Did you like this? Share it:

27 thoughts on “Exorcists & Creationists

  1. Bob Cranmer

    If you’d like to come to my house and see some “evidence” I’d be happy to accommodate you.
    Testimony as to things that happened are admissible in court as evidence, but that same testimony isn’t enough for you?

  2. Cris Post author

    Of course I would be interested in evaluating evidence you might have. I would first like to know what kind of evidence it would be. Do you care to elaborate?

    As an attorney, I can tell you that if a witness on the stand said the spirits did something, they wouldn’t be taken seriously. Mere testimony is not enough and, depending on context, is the least valuable or reliable form of evidence.

    I could, for instance, testify that I did something bad because the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared to me and told me to do it. While this may be admissible evidence because it speaks to my sanity, it is not the kind of evidence on which we can rely to establish the truth.

  3. Bob Cranmer

    Well Chris, as you know, providing evidence well after the fact is always questionable, and how can it be proved other than by my testimony as to what happened. I can show you a crucifix bent in half, wallpaper and a shirt stained with what appears to be blood, and other such first-hand primary evidence, along with my testimony as a credible witness. Discovery only scratched the surface of the story of what happened to me and my family. I’m not sure what I’d have to gain by it, but I’d be happy to, since I agreed to be part of the documentary. Also, the credibility of a witness does certainly make a difference.

  4. Cris Post author

    In your first comment, you extended an invitation to your home. It was my understanding, based on the show, that everything in the home was now fine. Is that the case or is there something still wrong? If there are still “happenings,” then I would like to visit.

    I also recall a comment about the apparent “blood” that was sent to a lab for testing. What kind of test was done? To which lab was it sent? Did they identify the substance? Can I see the lab report?

    I don’t recall anything about a bent crucifix. But unless someone was filming while the crucifix was bent, a picture of a bent crucifix wouldn’t prove much.

    If we accepted testimony such as yours simply because you are credible (and I don’t doubt you are), where would the line of demarcation be for similar kinds of testimony related to spirits, manitous, demons, devils, gods, forces, ghosts, genies, ghouls, mana, and anything else that can’t be empirically verified but which can be imagined (or manufactured)? If testimony is the low bar for admissible evidence and establishing truth, then what we have is a free for all — we have to accept everything that anyone says and it is all “true” by way of testimony. Do you see the problem with this?

    I find it exceedingly curious, and suspect, that stories similar to yours are widespread, yet there has been no credible filming of such incidents. In a day and age when video is ubiquitous, one might think that we would have some credible film of these things happening. Or some credible film of Catholic priests doing their thing. But we don’t. Why is that?

    Finally, what role do you think your religious faith has played in your experience and remembrance of these things? If you were not a Christian, but instead were a Native American, do you think it would have been the same? If you had a shaman visit rather than a priest, would this have made a difference?

  5. Bob Cranmer


    It’s interesting that people go to jail every day solely upon first-person testimony and primary witnesses, of which there are more than just a few in this case.

    As I pointed out in my previous post the entire story certainly wasn’t covered in the twenty minutes of the Discovery documentary. In fact, to verify that “something odd” was going on in the house the church had in excess of ten scientific researchers “graduate students” and a staff Psychologist (Adam Blai) spend two weekends here in 2005 with all of the scientific equipment they could muster and they in fact did conclude that there were “unexplained” odd happenings in the house. They decided not to return a third time due to concerns for their own safety.

    I was in fact “a Christian” when this activity in the house rose to a level that I no longer considered to be benevolent but overtly malevolent, but I was not a practicing Catholic, I was a Protestant. I never had been involved with “any” paranormal groups, had no interest in the subject whatsoever and simply wanted to find a way to stop the activity. I obviously had seen the movies, so I took the one course of action I knew was available – I approached the Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh, then Bishop Donald Wuerl, who is now Cardinal Wuerl, of Washington D.C.

    The case was addressed in a very business-like manner and I believed that the team of priest assembled would come to the house, do whatever they do, and it would be over. Unfortunately it didn’t work that way and we were faced with a process that lasted almost two years.

    At one point an expert, Fr. James Lebar (now deceased) was flown in from the New York diocese (2006). Believe me, this is something that I never wanted to be involved with and certainly don’t want to have to deal with again.
    When I was asked if the story could be used for the Discovery show I agreed simply to make the case that this did in fact happen, we were terrorized by it, and “ghost hunting” is not something to be toyed with as some sort of interesting hobby.

    As to the lab test of the blood-like substance, yes I do have the report that came back from the lab. At the time I worked for an engineering firm that did environmental remediation and tests were done on a regular basis. I submitted some of dried liquid as a matter of course without any background, simply requesting them to tell me what it was. The report came back as “inconclusive”, as they said that they didn’t know what it was but human skin cells were found in it. I kept a thorough journal of the daily activities we experienced, but at the time I was more concerned with dealing with trying to live in the house rather than treating it like some type of scientific experiment.

    I’ll never forget one evening when I had a close friend of mine (an attorney) come to the house while the priests were here. He walked in the door and said jokingly a quote from the movie “Ghost-Busters” “We came, we saw, and we kicked ass”.

    Later that evening, he turned to me with a look of amazement and fear and said “this is really happening, this is true.”

    Believe me Chris, I’m no alien abduction kook, I’m just as educated and intelligent as you appear to be. This isn’t something I wanted to be involved with and I didn’t make it up. It happened. Call it whatever you like, but it happened, not once, not for a week or two, but over an extended period of time. I called upon the only people who seemed to know what to do, and in the end it has seemed to work.

    But unfortunately, since the show aired, a few things have occurred, not at a level near what went on in the past, but a priest from the Vatican will pay us a visit next month. You have every right to be a skeptic and I don’t blame you at all, it’s nuts. I’ll be the first to agree with you, but the fact remains that it did in fact happen. Also understand that I’m not looking for fame, I’ve been on television and in the paper enough professionally in my life. I’ve met and had discussions with presidents and prime ministers from Clinton and Bush to Thacher and Bhutto.

    I’ll never convince you via posts on your blog, nor will I flatter myself that I could ever attempt to do so. But something something happened that was very real. Call it whatever you like, but it wasn’t “in our heads”.

    By the way, had I known a “shaman” at the time (I don’t believe they’re in the yellow pages :), and if he would have told me he could have stopped it, he certainly would have been free to do a dance in the living room, shaking a stick.
    Best regards.

  6. In Pittsburgh

    I tend to agree with Cris, I won’t be rude, but it does seen that Bob Cranmer shut you down so to speak. And your private response, bolsters that sentiment. But having said that, why the disbelief? I have stood in front of this house, and I have felt a feeling of dread, so personally I believe Cranmer. But even if I didn’t believe him, why protest? To each his own – it’s a big wide mysterious world.

  7. Cris Post author

    If it appears that I was “shut down,” then so be it. I’m not interested in winning or losing arguments.

    If you have read this blog with any consistency for the past 2.5 years, you would know that I’m not hostile to super-empirical claims and am not anti-religious. I explore all these issues in good faith and with an open mind.

    It’s just that I begin my inquiry from a materialist or empirical perspective, and proceed from there as a starting point (not an ending point which ends any further conversation). I’m a naturalist skeptic but this doesn’t make me a militant materialist or evangelical atheist. I’m looking for some evidence that skeptics might accept. Bob told me he would contact me if and when such evidence might be available (or occurring) so that I could experience or sense it first hand. I’m still waiting for his call. If it comes, I’ll be on the first plane to Pittsburgh.

    Bob and I discussed the alleged evidence from previous encounters, and it really didn’t amount to any kind of empirical evidence or something that raised questions in my mind. I would love to find or have such evidence.

    I will say, however, that Bob is an honorable man and I really enjoyed talking with him. I hope to meet him someday.

  8. John

    “Bob and I discussed the alleged evidence from previous encounters, and it really didn’t amount to any kind of empirical evidence or something that raised questions in my mind. I would love to find or have such evidence. ”

    So, presuming the claims concerning what was observed by Cranmer were accurate (at least how they were perceived by him), it doesn’t raise any questions in your mind?? Do you have a materialist (or the more current appellation physicalist) explanation for the observed phenomena? Parenthetically, metaphysical concepts by definition cannot ultimately be proven or disproven by mechanical science (although I understand your perspective to be that you only begin with a material analysis).

  9. Cris Post author

    The problem was that after talking to him, I could not presume that his observations were accurate. I was intrigued by the case because there was supposed to be evidence gathered by competent and disinterested observers. When I probed this evidence, it was not very satisfying. But given Bob’s sincerity, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and asked if I could visit in the future when anything was occurring.

    As for your question, the observed phenomena haven’t been verified or established in a way that would pass muster in either a court of law or scientific journal. Given this lack of foundation, I cannot speculate about what might have caused those observations.

  10. John

    I have problems doubting his credibility – he was a highly elected/high profile official in a major County and had little to gain for fabricating such an outlandish story. If anything, it had a significant potential to ruin his reputation.

    ” [T]he observed phenomena haven’t been verified or established in a way that would pass muster in either a court of law or scientific journal” The observed phenomena, presuming they occurred as observed by Cranmer, by definition could not be established so as to be admissible in a court of law or published in a scientific journal. This notion rest on the false premise that a metaphysical concept or event is somehow falsifiable by mechanical science/emperical experiment.

  11. Cris Post author

    The credibility of the observer has nothing to do with whether the observations can be measured or verified in a manner that would pass muster as evidence in a court of law, or as data in a scientific setting.

    I’m not interested in metaphysical allegations or observations. There are infinite numbers of these and we can either agree that they are all true or none of them are true.

    I know credible people who claim to have seen Jesus, demons, and angels. I know other credible people who claim they have seen water sprites and bush gnomes. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m a naturalist who does not, a priori, rule out the possibility that our instruments are too primitive to capture these “things,” or that we’ve just never been lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time with the right kinds of observers and equipment. While I find this doubtful, I will at least consider it.

    If you want to commence your argument with something that by definition is unprovable, then this discussion has ended.

    Until proven otherwise, I will treat metaphysical observations and allegations for what they appear to be: thought constructs.

  12. John

    “Until proven otherwise, I will treat metaphysical observations and allegations for what they appear to be: thought constructs. ” Since the proof you seek is through a purely mechanical and falsifiable scientific process admissible in a Court proceeding, you will never get beyond the notion of metaphysical notions as thought constructs. Yet even mathematics is a thought construct which cannot be strictly proven. A physical basis for consciousness has also not been proven and most materialist addressing the issue have fallen back on a type of metaphysical monism. In fact, reductionism/physicalism has no adequate explanation for the proposition that all information can be reduced to matter or random interactions of matter (in particular the seemingly infinite complexity of the information systems contained in the human genome; the more progress that is made in understanding it the less likely that it becomes that it resulted from some random material process).

  13. Bob Cranmer

    Hi Chris,
    I just visited this site since the last time we spoke. You may want to talk to me again.

  14. Cris Post author

    Hi Bob — I hope you are well. Good to hear from you. I’ve not kept your contact information so could you please shoot me an email? It is “crisorigins” at “gmail.com”

  15. Rose

    Totally enjoyed the one sided, exciting banter, between you and Mr. Cranmer. Thank you. It would have been great with a visual..but since I have only seen Bob thru various interviews etc, I must also say he wins my vote in the handsome dept as well as intelligence. Too bad you’re not single Bob. It that changes drop me a line. Rosie at: crazybone3570@gmail.com
    Ps, loved the bit on The Exorcist files too. :-)

  16. SherryD.

    W0W — my thoughts are with this family ~ and I pray you’ve finally found peace! I grew up in this area … and have faithfully watched Ryan Buell & his “PRS” team on “Paranormal State” since the beginning ! Never would I dare doubt a person who had the misfortune of living thru such a thing!
    I do have *one*question ~ …Who the ℏℰℓℓ *are-you-people* who *dare* question the validity of something so unnatural, that this family personally witnessed and lived through — [likely for a long time!] — and while the world, we live in today is to quick to be judgmental- did you even for a moment stop, & consider . . . what thoughts and *words* would be cast about — towards someone coming forth with *their* nightmare, such αṡ this — it must have been living ℏℰℓℓ right here on Earth! — I know Ryan B. & his team ~respond to only the “worst of the worst” cases~ so for them to not only ‘get involved’ but do it with their hearts (& most likely αℓℓ their strength!) but, to openly discuss it… (the interview in People Magazine *and* the “meeting” / “lectures” / “personal stories”) that αℓℓ took place in May, 2012 —*plus* the fact that he, and the team, they, too were willing to *open themselves up* sharing their most personal stories (likely in front of people they hadn’t even met before) … and for what? For they, have their reputations out there — just like “Bob” or anyone else, for that matter, who *chose* to *come forward* *confront* such personal attacks on their own lives~each and every one of them…& αℓℓ others choosing to do so— *they—all* have *not a thing to gain* … and *everything to lose* … But they do so because either they are *in need* of outside assistance… *or* …they are trying to reach out to others — (in need ~ or simply to say ~ ‘Hey — *you* are not alone!…..this *is* a real problem… *and* we’ll help you in any աat that we can!’

    Seems to me, the *real Losers* are >Chris< and anybody else with doubt here! Yous should be *ashamed* of yourself / yourselves!!

  17. Richard

    I don’t fault skeptics: doubt is certainly possible. But I don’t fault those who accept this testimony. I have heard similar from people of intelligence and education whose integrity I have every reason to respect. To me, yea or nay are both rational positions, though either may be wrong.


  18. Tim Roxbury

    Being a Paranormal researcher myself since early 2008 and now the Founder of my own paranormal research team and a producer/host on http://ztalkradio.com based out of Madison, Wisconsin. I interviewed and talked with numerous individuals and families both in the field on my show. This phenomena i
    s very real and affects people who have experienced it in a big way and in some cases changed their lives. If anyone would like to listen to “Supernatural Realm” Fridays at 6pm eastern I would invite everyone to do so.

  19. MMMMM

    It’s fairly evident that you are not comprehending anything either sides are saying. How did you *get* on a *computer*? How *long* did *it* take *you* to write *all* of that *comment*?!?!!! And how did you escape your high chair and ‘tard wrangler?

    It’s hilarious that people even begin to think this is real when there has never been *any* sort of proof or evidence of it existing besides anecdotes from the thousands of years people have been making these claims. *Nothing*. All you have to go on is the word of someone who believes in these things anyway, so a confirmation bias. Absolutely ridiculous. It’s something to be said of the people that believe these things.. quite in tune with the people who believe in and take literally some aspects of Christianity and religion in general. AKA, wackjobs.

  20. Cris Post author

    Tim, I think it is fascinating that you are a paranormal researcher. Perhaps you can invite me for an investigation or two?

    I’m always open to investigations and would very much welcome empirical evidence that these sorts of thing are real and can be verified to exist by those who might be skeptical.

    In fact, when Bob Cranmer and I first started talking, I asked if I could visit him in Pittsburgh when something was happening. Bob is a gracious man and said I could come, but there apparently has been no further activity, so I have not been invited and have not visited.

    Here’s my point and it has always been my point: I am willing, ready, and able to go anywhere to investigate these kinds of claims. I’m not a believer but I’m also not a militant skeptic. If there is something to these claims, then I want to be there — as an independent outsider — to assess them.

    If there is something to them, it’s fine by me. But I find it quite curious that the only people who ever “verify” these kinds of thing are already confirmed believers in the existence of ghosts, spirits, gods, demons, and all those supernatural things.

    Does one need to believe in them ahead of time to measure or empirically gauge their alleged existence?

  21. Anonymous

    so if you went there and something happend to you that means its true because you seen it

  22. Cris Post author

    No. It means if I went there and “something happened” I would report, in empirical and scientific detail, what happened and I would immediately assemble a team of independent experts to gather data. The data issue is critical, and it’s my understanding that no empirical or scientific data has been gathered from “happenings” at the Cranmer home. It’s also critical that this data be gathered, and assessed, by people having no personal or religious involvement in the matter. In other words, I would follow ordinary scientific procedures and use scientific methods.

    I’ll give an example. Bob claims that some sort of “substance” has oozed out of walls and/or a lamp. He has even shown me pictures of this “substance.” This substance should have been scientifically sampled; before it was sampled, the wall and/or lamp should have also been investigated to determine where the substance might have come from and how it might have formed. Alternate possibilities and causes should have been investigated, and systematically assessed. Then the sample of the substance should have gone to an independent chemical laboratory that maintains data sample integrity. A portion of the sample should have been reserved for later testing, perhaps by another laboratory. The kinds of tests performed and the methods/results should then be produced in a report.

    None of this has ever been done, so all we have are some pictures taken by Bob. He told me the “stuff” has been tested, but I’ve never seen a lab report which details what procedures were used, what tests were done, and what the results were. I asked for the report but it was not produced.

    I will say that the pictures were underwhelming and that I’ve seen similar “substances” not only on the walls of my very old home, but also in other peoples’ homes. Old homes, old materials (i.e., wood, nails, paint, plaster, insulation, wires, copper, steel, etc.), moisture, heat, cold, humidity, condensation and other ordinary things interacting with one another often result in chemical reactions and oozing materials. This is neither a big deal nor a big mystery.

  23. beth

    perhaps none of us have a right to voice our comments or disbelief about what Bob and his family went through. certainly none of US lived there during this dismal time. Rather than question him, be glad you weren’t the one in his shoes. I get the impression folks think this was a made up story. I personally have better things to do rather than conjure up a story of this magnitude just for shits and giggles. Despite my questionable belief, I feel Bob is telling the truth. I am sorry for what he went through but enlightened that he shared it with us.

  24. Cris Post author

    We certainly do have that right, and perhaps even the obligation, especially given that Bob has been making the media rounds with this message: “You should believe me. This is real.”

    If he wants to make this (Christian religious) claim to a wide audience, then he should expect people who don’t share his beliefs in devils, demons, gods, or ghouls to question his story.

    This is especially so when a good portion of his supernatural story entails natural claims. The “supernatural” may be amenable to feelings such as your own, but when “natural” claims are made, then things need to be put to proof.

  25. Steven

    From a simple observation: It has been many years since these occurrences have allegedly taken place. And while some may point to a monetary gain as a motivation to concoct a story ( writing a book )
    When you look at the totality of the circumstances, there seems to be a greater risk of damage to Mr. Cranmers reputation, not to mention his privacy as a whole. He certainly did not have to speak about what he claims happened to his family. But he has come forward, risking great ridicule, to tell his story.

    As far as seeking out those in the academic and scientific world to come in to Mr. Cranmers home to investigate, that sounds good on paper. Actually getting it done is another story entirely, especially when people investigating the claim are not even remotely open to the possibility of Demonic Infestation. And why is it important for those investigating to have an open mind you might ask ? Skeptics have a way of explaining away the rational truth – or ignoring it all together. For science to work, you need to be willing to accept what is before you, and many will dismiss what they see, or hear, because they refuse to believe.

    Science does not have all the answers.

    I used to be a staunch skeptic when it came to haunted houses. Then I came across a book written by Tahir Shah, called – The Caliph’s house – A year in Casablanca

    That book changed my entire outlook on Demonic Infestation.

  26. Bob Cranmer

    ” I’ll give an example. Bob claims that some sort of “substance” has oozed out of walls and/or a lamp. He has even shown me pictures of this “substance.” This substance should have been scientifically sampled; before it was sampled, the wall and/or lamp should have also been investigated to determine where the substance might have come from and how it might have formed. Alternate possibilities and causes should have been investigated, and systematically assessed. Then the sample of the substance should have gone to an independent chemical laboratory that maintains data sample integrity. A portion of the sample should have been reserved for later testing, perhaps by another laboratory. The kinds of tests performed and the methods/results should then be produced in a report.

    None of this has ever been done, so all we have are some pictures taken by Bob. He told me the “stuff” has been tested, but I’ve never seen a lab report which details what procedures were used, what tests were done, and what the results were. I asked for the report but it was not produced.”

    Update: Well Chris, I’ve had it analyzed twice, the second most recent at one of the top labs in the country. The substance obviously wasn’t real blood, but it had an odd combination of carbohydrates and a sulphuric substance, and they had no idea how it was formed or applied, – certainly it did not occur naturally.

  27. Bernard

    Mr. Campbell:
    You might consider looking at the world with a wider perspective. There are 7 levels of consciousness of which the physical is the densest and most prevalent for our physical senses. Most of the dark spirit activity is in the Astral and beyond. Trying to measure light with a microphone or gravity with a microscope won’t get you any answers. There is an enormous amount of literature on all things beyond the physical. You might begin with Tragott Konstantin Oesterreich who wrote 9 books on related subjects of which 5 or 6 are translated into English. I recommend Possession, Demonical and Other, Among Primitive Races, In Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times. ISBN 0-8065-0436-6
    Oesterreich covers a long history of well documented cases of spirit possession.
    Your might also look at Robert Munroe with his books on Astral Travel and his experiments with electronically inducing astral travel and the scientific work in that regard.
    Also Dr. Brian Weiss, Many Lives, Many Masters and his common sense in allowing a patient to self regress herself and she was able to resolve most/all of her emotional and physical issues and relationships with the significant people in her lives.

    The best method of discovering spirit attachment or activity is not through technology that does NOT measure Astral or dimensions beyond, but to find a good clairvoyant or medium who has spirit guides of good and god who can investigate and that the Master guides can gather up the negative or benign spirits and take to an appropriate place in the spirit world.

    There are many lifetimes of study that are possible, these are just a few highlights. The solution to the problem for Bob Cranmer, would be help from a guided medium or clairvoyant to be able to clearly identify the negative spirits and for the spirits to be taken to the light.

    best regards

Leave a Reply