'Creating Hauntings': An Ethical Problem?

     Many paranormal investigation teams rely on approaching owners of public buildings to request permission to do research. Most paranormal researchers will have seen it happen; an investigation team goes into a building with no reputation for hauntings. Reasons can vary but often involve some personal fascination with the site or the site being, for some reason, perceived as impressive. Investigators have even been quoted as saying something like 'you don't know if it is haunted until you look - you might discover a brand new haunting'


     My mind had not much explored this idea until a great venue was presented to the 11th Hour team as part of a possible haunted fundraiser event. There was just one drawback, there was no talk of the building being haunted. There was a perception that it 'must be' because of the history of the building, but there were no witnesses or even any stories. The people that worked in the building were requested to keep its ear to the ground for almost a year about any possible tales. When nothing emerged, it became clear, ethically, that it would be wrong to investigate the site, not to mention, hold a 'paranormal fundraiser there.'


     As the great Maurice Townsend once said, "there is a tendency to find what you're looking for in the paranormal". Most seasoned researchers will acknowledge that if you put people into a building where they expect to see a ghost they will experience a variety of phenomena - cold spots, knocking, light anomalies - that are easily explained naturally by misattribution and expectation.


     So what if you send an investigation team into a building with no haunting reports? It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest they will continue to have these 'spooky' experiences that are easily explained. In a normal investigation case this presents an ethical problem, but rigorous assessment of the 'evidence' and careful debrief with clients can overcome many such problems.


    But coming back to a 'non-haunted' building, is analysis and debriefing enough to overcome an even greater ethical barrier? Once a building gains a haunting reputation it is hard to shake off. An investigation team going into a site and experiencing 'naturally explainable events can lead to the assumption from the outside world that the building is, in fact, haunted.'


     Without naming names, many researchers are aware of certain 'paranormal hotspots' that only seem to become haunted after TV crews have had a look around. Investigation teams can 'create' the perception of hauntings in exactly the same way; the profound ethical problems created by such investigations are strikingly both obvious and unacceptable.

The Prizes of Science and Skepticism

     I often hear of paranormal groups debating whether they should, quite literally, give up the ghost because they cannot find supposedly haunted locations to investigate without incurring a hefty fee. Some of these  teams patiently make the most of what's available in a manner that is completely above board. Others engage in the ethically dubious alternative of spending time in locations with no history of alleged paranormal activity.


     Worryingly, another type of group seems to exist. These are the people who contact a location, be refused entry--or cheap admission--and then resort to making libelous or slanderous attacks on the owners. Very often, these comments are personal insults delivered in the pathetic, knee-jerk style of a sulking child. However, on a few occasions I've seen accusations leveled that the property owner is someone who would be "scared" by what the group would find. Perhaps the individuals who make these statements may actually have a point, although, it's one they themselves would do well to consider.


     Large swathes of the general public know next to nothing about the pseudo-scientific nature of investigation methods employed by many teams. The owner of the 'haunted location' may really think EVP experiments, using a Ouija Board, or Spiritual parlor games will deliver objective, factual results that are beyond question. In such cases, it is possible that the property owner really is genuinely concerned, if not terrified, at the prospect of an investigation because of what might happen after it's done(for they don't get to leave). Investigators should consider that their evening's fieldwork and 'entertainment for some' may equate to someone else's misery and sleepless nights if that certain team doesn't know what the hell their doing.


     Of course, there are other perfectly valid reasons for refusing investigators access to a location. I've personally encountered owners who are sick and tired of being bothered by the mass of desperate teams to 'uncover' whatever they perceive to be lurking in the rooms and hallways of a dwelling. This can cause great distress in instances where an individual, family or business have been worried by the findings or conduct of those who previously investigated the site.


     Other reportedly haunted locations lack recent reports of ghostly activity and may owe their reputations to folklore or hoaxes. I think it is little wonder why the property owners in these examples may have a desire to throw open their doors to (often uninsured) strangers hunting for something that either disappeared a long, long time ago, or was never there in the first place.


     Investigators will also complain that some venues only allow access at a high monetary price. Whilst this article is not about the ethics of pricing, those unhappy with this situation should consider three reasonable explanations. First, the high price may have been deliberately set as some kind of deterrent. Secondly, it may be more cost efficient for a certain location to irregularly open its doors to those prepared to meet the fee, as opposed to accommodating a steady stream of investigators as a much lower price.  And thirdly, maybe the said location donates some of its money to an organization or charity to help out the local community.


     So, before getting in a huff at another location that is an enticing venue, consider if the gates are being kept locked for a good reason or why the price is so high. Issues of belief, trust, fear, privacy and cost effectiveness are all perfectly valid motivations to deny access to a property. As members of the investigative community, we should accept that 'no' means just that, it is not an invitation to deliver outlandish criticism against something that you may not even know about. The more aggressive we are to location owners, the more likely they are to keep their doors closed for good.