Ghost monk in Souvigny

[Analis]

A classic case of a ghost in France.
In 1955, Mrs V. and her two sons Gaston (30 years old) and Jean (20 years old) had moved into an old 16th century abbay called the Prieuré (house of the Prieur, the name given to the leader of the benedictine religious community that had inhabited it until the French Revolution), in the small town of Souvigny, in the département (administrative district) of Allier. While it is today part of the administrative region of Auvergne, it was not of the homonymous historical region. Instead it was at the core of the old Bourbonnais. There are buried the first dukes of Bourbon, whose descendants were destined to rule France, Spain and Naples.
http://www.ville-souvigny.com/
http://www.communes.com/auvergne/allier/souvigny_03210/

The town has a reputation for supernatural events. A wild hunt is said to be encountered between Souvigny and Ferrières-en-Sichon. But what the V.s had to go through was previously unmentioned in local history, although the previous tenants may have faced similar phenomena.

For years, they would reportedly live an extraordinary ghost story. They moved in on 6 July, and only four days later began a series of various ghostly phenomena that would plague them for years, featuring prominently apparitions of the specter of a monk. Some of these phenomena were of the kind frequently met in hauntings, like raps, shadowy entities, feeling of cold air, animal reactions. But besides, they also bore very atypical features, notably long interactions between the percipients and the ghosts, the monk asking notably them to perform an action to free him, a kind of behaviour typical of past centuries, but very rare in the 20th century ; and even more extraordinarily, physical harmth to a witness who had touched an apparition.

This case is reported in various books. At the time of the sightings, local papers (and later national ones like France Dimanche, 7 May 1959) had heard of the V.'s troubles, and their articles (printing the witnesses' full name) brought unwitted attention from many onlookers. Mrs V. then decided to meet parapsychologist Robert TOCQUET, from the Institut Métapsychique and told him her story. He was one the most influent parapsychologists in France, and had authored a number of books. As a member of the old Charles Richet's school, he was rather sceptic of literal interpretations of ghosts as visitors from beyond. His discomfort with the story transpires from the article he wrote in Historia Spécial n°364 bis Fantômes et Maisons Hantées, 1977 (it seems it is directly drawn from a chapter from his 1963 book, Le bilan du Surnaturel), based on Mrs V.'s diaries and notes. Nonetheless I used it as the main reference, as it is the most complete account I found and at least is not tainted with enthusiasm.
Mrs V.'s notes ended in 1961, it seems she didn't contact Tocquet anymore later. So that we don't know if the haunting carried on later, although it is usually assumed that it ended at this date. Usually, only incomplete transcripts are found on the net. But a complete one can be found here :
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/casar/Souvigny.htm

Also :
http://mystereetparanormal.unblog.fr/20 ... -souvigny/ (front photo of the Prieuré)
http://www.paranormal-fr.net/forum/les- ... 22042.html (includes one of the photos, inconclusive as with every photo of ghosts).

MRS V.'S FANTASTIC ADVENTURE

This extraordinary haunting, whose story I owe to Mrs V. who agreed to give me her notes written daily, at the same time that the phenomena took place, and who attempted on my behalf some risky experiments, took place in a great house from the XVIIth Century, "Le Prieuré", in Souvigny, that was once the home of the Prieur of Souvigny, head of a religious community that was dispossessed during the Revolution (Souvigny is a small town in the Allier, where are the graves of the first Dukes of Bourbon. This Prieuré had been rebuilt in the 16th century by Dom Chollet, at the location of an older prieuré).
Mrs V.having moved to this kind of country house on 6 July 1955 with his two sons (respectively twenty and thirty years old, and who I will call Jean and Gaston like their mother does in her notes), four days later, a ghost manifested in her bedroom, that had been the Prieur's bedroom.

"What happened", she writes, "from this night of 10 July 1955, when, for the first time, I saw a blurred shadow, made of an opaque fog, which seemed to cover a light in its midst, gliding into my room ?
This shadow, of human shape, was wearing a long robe and a cape and its head was covered under a hood. Frightened, I sat on my bed, my back sticked against the wall, my throat dry. I was icy, but nonetheless I was sweeting. I tried to rise up, to call, but no sound could come out of my throat : I was paralyzed with an indescribable terror right where I was.
The shadow came to the front of the chimney then s'agenouilla and I heard the sound made by its ankles when they touched the parquet floor. It bowed down three times, its hands clasped in prayer. After having remained kneeled for a long time, it bowed down again three times, rose up slowly and went to the door leading to a small private room located at the feet of an alcove. A few seconds took place, then I heard clearly what looked like the fall of a body on the tiled floor of the small room.
I couldn't describe how upset I was, my heart was beating wildly, my blood was rushing to my temples. But, hopefully, the sun finally came, allowing me to go to the park : everything was so quiet on this dazzling summer morning that I asked myself if I hadn't dreamed, if I hadn't fallen victim to a nightmare or an hallucination."

Mrs V. became more and more convinced that it was an hallucinatory dream because in the following weeks, no unusual phenomenon happened in the Prieuré.

"I was reproaching myself heavily to have lost control of myself," reports Mrs V., "when, one night, the door of my room opened, allowing for the same shape that had so much terrorized me the first time to come into the room. Despite all my resolutions, I was grasped with fear, a fear that was paralyzing me. The shape did exactely what it had done the first time I had seen it, bowed in front of the chimney, and after staying there a long time, went away this time via the same way it had come.
Once again, I lacked any courage to react. But I couldn't doubt anymore : certainly, a human shape was sometimes coming to pray in front of the chimney in the room of the Prieur. Facing the obvious, I was asking myself if this shape hadn't come every day while I was sleeping and well before we had inhabited this house. Was it what was called a ghost, a specter ? In any case, it didn't look like at all to ghosts I had seen drawn in some magazines (skeletons covered with a sheet). No ! This shape looked like the figure of a very old monk !"

Again, a number of weeks go by and Mrs V. is coming to regret not to have tried to talk to the ghostly apparition and, unconsciously, she wishes to see it again.
......

To be continued...

 

[Analis]

continued

......
"One night", she writes, "when I had just switched the light off and had laid down in my bed, I saw suddenly the door of my room opening slowly and the shadow of the monk coming towards me. He seemed old, this poor monk, and a strong smell of mould, that grabbed my throat, came with him. As usual, he bowed after he had come slowly near the chimney. Strongly frightened, I heard him craying and I saw that his shoulders were shaken by sobs. Then, bending down completely, he hurt three times the ground. Each time, a bizarre and indescribable voice, that seemed to come from far away, rose and told : "O God, have mercy for me, have mercy, O God, forgive me, Jesus."
These minutes were inexpressible. I had been so much worried not to see the ghost again that I believe I became less afraid of him. And since I had heard a kind of voice, I took the resolution to speak to him. I sat on my bed, and when I moved, he turned his head and didn't seem to pay attention to me. After a quite long time, he rose up, stopped in front of my bed and said to me :
-What are you doing here, why are you here ? Nobody has the right to disturb the calm of this house that was built by religious people for religious people and for the greater glory of God.
I was very upset, I was covered with an icy sweat, but I answered :
-And you, Father, why are you here ? Are you a normal being ? Why are you coming in this house to pray ?
-My poor child, he answered, I have been praying here for centuries and I will never pray enough to erase my sins, the pains I am responsible of and the crimes I allowed to be comitted in the name of God and the religion.
Sometimes, he was falling on his knees, and was whimpering ; this was harrowing. I'd have liked to console him, to do something to help him, but I was paralyzed with fear. He was becoming more calm, he was praying in Latin, and then, suddenly, was rising up, his arms up, telling :
-I'm suffering, O God, I am suffering ! Men want to surpass God and are going to the abyss. The terrestrial globe will shatter, Europa, Asia and Africa will be flooded. Only the southern part of America will remain above water.
At this very time he asked me :
-Did you give something to drink to the prisoner ?
-Which prisoner and where is he ?
-In the dungeon near the refectory of the monastery.
He related to me the long and unpleasant story of a man who had died of hunger, thirst and cold in this dungeon. He told me he was full of remorse to have allowed and facilitated this martyr because of his cowardice. Sometimes, he was bowing down while begging : "My God, forgive me ! Jesus, have mercy !"
This was also this very night he asked me :
-Why are you letting the statue of Our-Lady-of-the-Torch among the rubble and the wastes ?
-Father, I've never seen this statue you are mentioning !
-It is located around the oratory. Search it and you'll find pieces of her. Despite that she was beheaded, mutilated, put her back in her place in the alcove of the oratory. There, for centuries, people had been coming to honour her and to implore her on days of marian festivities. She healed a great number of people. Give her back her right place and her cult she was honoured with until she was slaughtered by vandals.
I promised him to look for this statue, and to put it in its niche if I found it. The monk genuflected and went away.
I remain amazed for a long time, without will and exhausted, but me too I started to sob, asking myself what this crackling and distant voice could be. Were was it coming from ? Where was I ? Among the living or among the dead ? My mind was upside down, I was completely crushed, unable to think."

Until then, Mrs V. had spoken to no-one of these apparitions and she had to use a feeble pretext to ask her two sons to verify it there couldn't be a kind of reduit in the numerous underground passages under the Prieuré. Indeed, they found quickly a reduit looking like a dungeon along the walls of the chapel. It seemed that the monk had told the truth. Later it would be revealed that what he had said to her about the statue of the Virgin was true.
For eleven consecutive nights the ghost appears and Mrs V. starts to be accustomed with him. But one night fear grasps her again.

"I was trying to bring my two dogs with me into my room, but they didn't want to come into it by themselves. I had to force them, their fur was bristling and my female dog Djebelle started to howl. I opened the door and they both fled barking. This surprized me and I was stricken with panic again. This same evening, the ghost came into my room and went away as usual."

However, a number of facts would soon catch the attention of Mrs V.'s two sons. First, their mother's exhaustion, her look of concern and her loss of weight. Then her decision to leave the Prieur's room, despite that it was nice and very big, to settle in another, less comfortable room. And finally, and mainly, a series of unexplainable noises.
......

To be continued

 

[AsamiYamazaki]

So obviously there are some French people who believe in ghosts!

 

[Analis]

Yes, of course. There are less French than British to believe in ghosts, but there are believers and ghost-hunters. Hauntings are probably less reported, but there is no evidence that they are less common than in other countries. Like everywhere it seems, cases are on the decrease, but there is no shortage of them. Camille Flammarion, and more recently people like Daniel Réju and illusionist André Sanlaville, collected many stories. Former gendarmerie major Emile Tizané had written three books on poltergeist cases, some he had personnaly investigated.
French psychic research is dominated by Richet's metapsychist school, whose Tocquet was an influent member, and ghost-hunters are not immune to its influence. French parapsychologists tend to label any ghost case as display of 'power of the mind', recordings of the past... It explains why Tocquet was uneasy with this case, as it clearly isn't an example of recording or retrocognition, but a story of active ghosts.

Back to the story :

......
"The day before yesterday evening," she notes, "as I had went to bed at 9 pm and that the house had become silent as usual, I heard heavy sounds and asked myself where they originated. Around 11 pm they became more frequent and more violent. Facing their persistence and their strenght, Jean and Gaston got out of bed and bursted into my room. They asked me what was happening. I answered them I didn't know. Violent and heavy, they seemed to come from the second floor. My sons went to this floor, inspected everywhere, but could find nothing abnormal. Suspecting that they were caused by a badly locked window or door, despite that there was absolutely no wind this night, they verified everywhere that they were all closed. They even went to the roof space to check if no animal had taken refuge there. Nothing was visible, and nonetheless the sounds were persisting. This time, my two uncredulous sons (who believed nor in God, nor in the Devil, nor in the supernatural) were very puzzled. But I refrained myself to tell them what had happened in the Prieur's room. The following day, my two sons, more and more perplexed, again went to search with great care every corner of every room and cupboard, but couldn't find anything suspicious.
On more than one occasion, in the following nights, the same violent and heavy sounds were heard, remaining unexplainable, and despite an extensive search, Jean and Gaston couldn't find where they originated from. They supposed all matter of things, they thought that maybe someone was coming into the subterranean tunnels, notably because recently the local newspaper was redacting articles about the discovery of a treasure that had been made while digging the underground basements of a property in B..
But just then, one morning at ten past six, a big loud blow, followed by another very strong one, shook the door of the cupboard located between the corridor and the restroom. My two dogs, who since the early cold days were sleeping on a divan in a room, were deeply frightened. The male, called Zam jumped on the top of my bed, literaly imprisoning me under my blankets. The big beast, usually so fearless, was trembling with his whole body. The female was howling in a frightening way. I rose up hurridly, I didn't dare to switch the lights on nor to open the door leading to the corridor where the cupboard was. The night was very dark, it was very cold, I was paralyzed with fear and I didn't dare to go to the door communicating with the restroom and my sons' room. It was only around eight o'clock that I could tell Jean what had happened, when he came to say good morning to me. He said that he had heard a heavy noise and the female dog howling, but that he had not taken much notice of them, since these kinds of sounds had become rather usual.
The following day, around ten o'clock, as Jean had gone to the town and that I was talking with Gaston, big sounds erupted suddenly on the second floor. Gaston jumped towards the door and went the stair up hurridly, but once more he could see nothing."

At this moment, a new fact took place. While the mysterious sounds were still happening, the yougest of Mrs V.'s two sons, Jean, who had no suspicion of the existence of the ghostly manifestations her mother had experienced, told one evening after he had come back from the town where he had been shopping : "That's funny, I was under a feeling of being followed. I looked back, yet I saw nothing."
A few days later, he says the same thing again, and adds : "While I looked back, I was under the impression that something black was floating near me." Mrs V. answered in a semi-playful, semi-serious way : "Maybe this is a ghost ?" Jean answers : "What are you saying, they don't exist !"
For some time, the Prieuré became calm again, until the day when in the morning a ghost appeared to Mrs V., a ghost who didn't seem to be the old monk.

"I was frozen," she writes, "while the shadow was coming very slowly, stretching its arms. I was afraid and couldn't feel my legs anymore. I was trying to shout, but only a husky noise came from my throat ; I was moving back, leaning on the door that closed itself. The shdow came nearer again and I felt its icy hand touching mine, the I heard a husky voice demanding me : "Go away, go away, this house is not yours ; it was stolen from the religious who inhabited it."
Then the shadow moved back and leaned on the chemney.
This time I couldn't find the strenght to usher a word. This shadow was not of the old monk's who was coming usually. It was tall, large and did not wear the same clothes. It was looking like a bishop as I could clearly discern a mitre and a chasuble.

This ghost issues to Mrs V. a number of general prophecies, it seems that at least some of them came true. For example, this one : "France, under the guidance of a great Frenchman, following great troubles, will live an era of revival and renewed influence.""
But being shaken as much as she could stand, the following day, Mrs V. has a bout of jaundice and needs to take to her bed. Physically weakened and morally depressed, she takes to decision to tell the whole story to her sons. At the same time, her two daughters are coming to the Prieuré to spend a few days of holiday.
But Mrs V. bumps into her two sons' incredulity, who keep to repeat to her : "You had a dream. There are no such things as ghosts". Her two daughters have no definitive opinion, but badly impressed by their mother's weightloss, they are feeling that something unusual took place in the Prieuré. In any case, everyone agrees for the two sons to sleep in the Prieur's room, while Mrs V. will sleep in an adjacent room and her two dogs on cushions in this same room.
For a few days nothing abnormal happens.
......

to be continued......

 

[norton51]

The bits where the ghost apparently talks sound like hypnagogia.

 

[AsamiYamazaki]

Thanks Analis - I'm really enjoying this. It's just interesting as another board member (jimv?) had experience that suggested few French people believe in ghosts. I spoke to friends from Quebec who confirmed that French Canadians at least definitely have less of a preoccupation with ghosts than the English (although you can still go on ghost tours of Old Montreal).

 

[Analis]

Thanks Analis - I'm really enjoying this. It's just interesting as another board member (jimv?) had experience that suggested few French people believe in ghosts. I spoke to friends from Quebec who confirmed that French Canadians at least definitely have less of a preoccupation with ghosts than the English (although you can still go on ghost tours of Old Montreal).

French Canadians and French are really different people. French are certainly less interested in ghosts. For example, although there are some local traditions, I don't know of any ghost tours, not even in Brittany or Normandy. The local museum of Souvigny mentions the ghost monk, but to my knowledge there is no local attraction based on him.

The bits where the ghost apparently talks sound like hypnagogia.

Yes, the first thought that springs to mind, when faced with a story of a ghost encounter in a bedroom by someone who is going to fall asleep, is hypnagogic dream. But it can't be reduced to that. Other parts of the story can't be accounted with hypnagogic or hypnopompic dreams, including ones when the ghost talked. Besides, if Mrs V. was to be believed, the existence of a dungeon and a statue could be verified.
Or do you mean that she was a psychic, and had that her powers had unconsciously created the apparition and projected her knowledge on him ?


continued

......

"But one night," relates Mrs V., "Gaston, who had been listening for a while a strange noise, reminiscent of a typewriter or a rotary press, or rather the tick-tock of a Morse alphabet, rose up, tried to wake his brother for him to hear too the sounds. But Jean was in a deep sleep, he woke up only for a few seconds and got back to sleep. For my part, I rose up and began to listen. A kind of clicking could indeed be distincly heard and was indeniably coming from inside the wall, in the corner of the chimney. However, no room could be leaning onto this place, as behind it was the front of the house.
Many times these sounds started again to be heard. Jean, who heard them too, was becoming angry and was asking constantly : "What is happening there !" In April, blows that were stronger than before could be heard from inside the walls, waking all of us, and despite all our attempts, it was impossible to find their source."

Infuriated by this din, Mrs V. is thinking to call the police, but when she visits her two daughters in Paris, they advise her to rather seek advice from a "professor" in occult sciences. This man, whose name is not mentioned in Mrs V.'s notes, gives explanations that don't satisfy her, although they were quite right in our opinion. Back to Souvigny, Mrs V. speaks of her troubles with a neighbour, who answers her : "You raised a question that many people here considered. I have to tell you that before you came, about one year ago, the house you are currently renting was inhabited and had been rented for three years. The tenants were likely visited by a specter like you are, because they left the Prieuré in a hurry. Moreover, your presence caused much displeasure among the heirs and the managers of the property. Wouldn't the persistent sounds that plague you be caused by someone who wants to frigthen you in order to force you to leave the Prieuré, like this was probably the case with the previous tenants ? You should be aware that with today's scientific gadgets, perhaps it is possible to create a kind of ghost."
"All this", Mrs V. notes, "did not help me much. I could see that my sons, along with other people, didn't believe in ghosts but were rather of the opinion that it was a huge hoax comitted with a precise intent. However, I knew what I had seen with certainty and I was hoping that my sons would witness one day the apparition, since they were sleeping in the room of the Prieur."
It was indeed bound to happen. First, Jean, the yougest son, spots an imprecise human shape at the window of the Prieur's room, one evening when he was coming back from town. Later, one morning, when Mrs V. and her son Gaston were having breakfast together, they see Jean coming towards them, deathly pale and breathless, crying : "Come quick, quick, quick, I have just seen the ghost, he crossed the hall and went to the library !"
All three of them go quickly to this room, but can find nothing unusual. But they note a strange fact : their dogs refuse to go into it. Jean explains that he saw the shadow crossing calmly the hall towards the library. "You can have no idea of how I felt", he adds. "I hurriedly ran to warn you."
Mrs V. writes : "I can't conceal how happy I am. My incredulous son Jean saw the ghost himself. I am relieved because he used to scoff me so often. I write immediately to my daughters to inform them of this great victory."
Now, Jean doesn't doubt the existence of the ghost anymore as he took the decision to photograph him. But many weeks go by before the apparition comes back.
"We were living quietly," Mrs V. goes on, "when one night, Jean and I (Gaston was not in the Prieuré) we were woken by our howling dogs. They were truly mad, jumping from one bed to another, crushing us under their weight. Jean cried :What's happening ?" I was much distressed, wore a dressing gown and rose up. Although I was trembling with my whole body I went into Jean's room, i.e. the Prieur's room. Then I saw the ghost kneeling in front of the chimney and murmuring prayers. I pointed my torchlight towards Jean's bed and I saw my son standing upright, his mouth wide open and his eyes wide open. The dogs had taken refuge in front of the window and were moaning."

Then the ghost started to speak and took place an extraordinary talk, involving the three protagonist of this strange scene, relating to books and parchments. The ghost then vanished. But Jean was left aghast. "I had feeling", Mrs V. wrote, "that he had become mad.
-Where are we, he was asking, what happened ?
-But nothing we are not used to, my poor son !
The following day, Jean was livid and was remaining silent. I told him :
-You see, we forgot to take to photo of him.
-I agree I was upset, he admitted, but the next time it will be different."

For two days after this apparition, Jean did not utter twenty words. He who usually couldn't stay long in our house, did not leave it and spent most of those two days in an armchair at the corner of the chimney. Sometimes, he was seemingly sleeping, sometimes he was holding his head with his two hands. At the end of the second day, I asked him what was wrong. He answered me :
-I'm afraid I am becoming mad. What happened ? What is happening ? How could you stand in such an atmosphere for months ?
-I could stand because I admitted what cannot be denied, while you, you are stubborn, you refuse to admit that such things may happen. However you have to acknowledge that whatever you believe they appear and you are powerless.
......

to be continued......

 

[norton51]

Yes, the first thought that springs to mind, when faced with a story of a ghost encounter in a bedroom by someone who is going to fall asleep, is hypnagogic dream. But it can't be reduced to that. Other parts of the story can't be accounted with hypnagogic or hypnopompic dreams, including ones when the ghost talked. Besides, if Mrs V. was to be believed, the existence of a dungeon and a statue could be verified.

Different parts of a haunting experience can have different causes. Once someone is convinced they are being haunted, they are more likely to notice odd things that they might ignore otherwise. Similarly, if they have a hypnagogic experience, the particular imagery involved may well involve the haunting since they will be thinking about it a lot, just as we often dream about events that concern us during our waking hours.

 

[Analis]

Different parts of a haunting experience can have different causes. Once someone is convinced they are being haunted, they are more likely to notice odd things that they might ignore otherwise. Similarly, if they have a hypnagogic experience, the particular imagery involved may well involve the haunting since they will be thinking about it a lot, just as we often dream about events that concern us during our waking hours.

Again, do you mean that they can somehow project their unconscious thoughts or their fantasies ? There are two problems with this theory as a global explanation.
As for Mrs V., we have no indication that she was prone to believe she was living in a haunted house. According to her notes, she tried her best to convince herself that it was all a dream. Her sons were not of the kind to be impressed because their mother said she had encountered a ghost. On the contrary, they were very reluctant to believe what they were considering as nonsense.
In the foreword he had written for his Historia article, Tocquet had suggested something in the same line than you ; he supposed that Mrs V. might have been influenced by the atmosphere of the old monastery, and then telepathically led her relatives to see and hear things. Some parapsychologists like this kind of speculation, but in this case it seems far fetched. Besides, there is no indication that she was a psychic (and this explanation would suppose she was quite powerful !). Her accounts do not discuss her previous personal life, leaving us with many unanswered questions. Although the fact that she was completely surprized by the events does not support that she had had previous unusual experiences. And that her two sons were straight materialists suggests that nor they nor their family, including their mother, had any personal history of paranormal events.


continued...

......
Then they decide that Jean will spend two weeks in Paris to recover, then he will come back to the Prieuré to replace Gaston, and later to be replaced by him and so on.... As a consequence, Mrs V. was sometimes alone in the Prieuré, sometimes with one of her two sons. She also used to go to Paris occasionally. Now that Jean has fully recovered, he is very determined to find the source of the apparitions. Again he probes the walls, the panelling, the chapel and tries to determine if it would be possible to create a more or less blurred figure with the help of some device, or a voice using a carefully concealed microphone. But once again, he can find nothing suspicious and his theories look completely unwarranted. After a few weeks with no notable event, a few intruiging facts happen : at first the discovery of a part of the statue of the Virgin Mary at the place designed by the ghost, and then, it seems, a new manifestation of him.
A young man, K., who had come to rest for a few days to the Prieuré and was in the Prieur's room, is found one night sitting on the lawn. Whan asked why he left his room, he answers at first that it was too hot, then (when told that it is rather cold) that he is afraid because, as he states, "I have seen a ghost three times ; I followed him to the stairs and I saw him going down to the landing where it vanished into thin air."
Being not aware of the previous apparitions, he asks on the following day to be authorized to work free the slab where he had seen three times the ghost vanish. But all he can find is the masonry work below the stairs. The following days are quiet, but, on 28 October 1956 morning, Jean, who was alone in the Prieuré, phones his mother who is at this time in Paris : "Come back immediately, I've met the ghost again, and this morning I could have a photo of him. I don't know if it is of a good quality, because I was irritated by what the apparition had told me. Come back quick, because I feel like I am becoming mad."
Back to Souvigny, Mrs V. finds indeed her son prostrate. She sends him back to Paris, later Jean comes back and leaves again a few times, then she remains alone in the Prieuré. Nothing more had happened until 12 January 1957 "when suddenly," she relates, "I saw the ghost standing on the last treads of the stair." In the long talk that followed, Mrs V. was reproached not to have fully rebuilt the statue of Our-Lady-of-the-Torch. "Find her," told the ghost, " and when done, pray to her much for me. She only could free me from my torments..." A few time later, Mrs V., walking near the base of the stair leading to the terrace, just happens to bump into a stone protuding from the ground. Immediately, she feels that it is the missing part of the statue. With much care, she digs the stone up and sees that it is the body of a Jesus as a child with a piece of drapery. They fit perfectly with the other parts of the statue : Our-Lady-of-the-Torch is fully rebuilt and put on the Prieur's chimney with foliage and luminaries. The following months are quiet, then the ghost appears again, gives explanations relating to the history of the Prieuré, along with a few prophecies. Notably, he says that severe floods would happen, which was revealed to be true.
More months go by, during which the ghost appears sometimes, when in July 1959, thanks to M. J. C., manager of a magazine and a talented journalist, I'm coming into relation with Mrs V., who informs me of what happened in the Prieuré. Unfortunately, my professional responsabilities don't allow me to go to Souvigny at this time, and as Mrs V. doesn't want the word that the Prieuré is haunted to spread, I just suggest her vividly to photograph the apparition, and, if she can, to touch it. She would have the opportunity to comply with the first request on 26 October 1959.

"It was on afternoon," she writes. "I was going out of a junk room, and when I was the least expecting to meet him, I was facing the ghost who was probably coming from the stair. I had the feeling he was looking the ground. This was the first time I was seeing him in full sunlight. I wasn't afraid at all and I could scrutinize his figure. He was looking like a thick light grey mist and was completely still. At this time, my dogs irrupted and reamin for an instant motionless, then moved back howling ; Jean, who was working in the wine cellar at the base of the stair, guessing immediatly what was taking place, took a camera that was hanging on a nearby door, walked up slowly, and could have shots of the specter. He turned over, and went towards the Prieur's room, in a manner I would call with majesty. I followed him closely, but when I crossed the cormer of the small corridor leading to this room, he had vanished.
They gave me [to Tocquet] the film : I developped it, and could have two photos of the ghost, one of three quarters profile and the other of the back. They are relatively clear and in any case much less blurred than the photo taken on 18 October 1956 that shows only a kind of greyish streak, a completely shapeless and barely visible figure.
......

to be continued...

 

[norton51]

Again, do you mean that they can somehow project their unconscious thoughts or their fantasies ? There are two problems with this theory as a global explanation.
As for Mrs V., we have no indication that she was prone to believe she was living in a haunted house. According to her notes, she tried her best to convince herself that it was all a dream. Her sons were not of the kind to be impressed because their mother said she had encountered a ghost. On the contrary, they were very reluctant to believe what they were considering as nonsense.

It is not a question of belief. Many people who claim not to have believed in ghosts still see them. However, when many such cases are investigated it turns out that the 'ghost' was something else (quite normal!) mistaken for a human figure. This suggests that most people still unconsciously accept the possibility of ghosts even if consciously they don't believe in them and, further, that it can directly affect their experiences. Thus, whether the witness wanted to believe or not makes no difference to the content of a hypnagogic experience.

In the foreword he had written for his Historia article, Tocquet had suggested something in the same line than you ; he supposed that Mrs V. might have been influenced by the atmosphere of the old monastery, and then telepathically led her relatives to see and hear things. Some parapsychologists like this kind of speculation, but in this case it seems far fetched. Besides, there is no indication that she was a psychic (and this explanation would suppose she was quite powerful !). Her accounts do not discuss her previous personal life, leaving us with many unanswered questions. Although the fact that she was completely surprized by the events does not support that she had had previous unusual experiences. And that her two sons were straight materialists suggests that nor they nor their family, including their mother, had any personal history of paranormal events.

My theory does not require any psychic ability or telepathy. Certainly, research has shown that people are more likely to report apparent paranormal experiences in places that appear spooky than elsewhere.

 

[Analogue Boy]

An excellent contribution Analis. Yes it was me that brought up the subject of no french ghosts and I expect that there'll be loads of stories flooding out now to prove me wrong...which is great.

I maintain that ghosts are not as deep rooted in the French Psyche as they are here in the UK although I think they may be quite partial to visitations by the BVM. And there's certainly a marian whiff about that ghost monk story.

 

[Analis]

It is not a question of belief. Many people who claim not to have believed in ghosts still see them. However, when many such cases are investigated it turns out that the 'ghost' was something else (quite normal!) mistaken for a human figure. This suggests that most people still unconsciously accept the possibility of ghosts even if consciously they don't believe in them and, further, that it can directly affect their experiences. Thus, whether the witness wanted to believe or not makes no difference to the content of a hypnagogic experience.

Their lack of belief doesn't prevent them from dreaming of a ghost ; but it would certainly influence their interpretation, in a sceptic way.
And here, it was not a matter of imprecise and short-duration visions. There was no ambiguity with the sightings, they were of human figures, sometimes detailed for a long duration. It the witnesses were sincere, this does not allow for misinterpretation.

My theory does not require any psychic ability or telepathy.

Well, at least to account for this instance of haunting, your theory should require this...

Certainly, research has shown that people are more likely to report apparent paranormal experiences in places that appear spooky than elsewhere.

That's the usual lot with such stories : for example, when they saw the ghost out of any hypnagogical context, fully visible, and could talk to him, sometimes together, they may have been mad, deluded or liars, but mistaken they were not.

And there's certainly a marian whiff about that ghost monk story.

If you refer to the prophecies, they are indeed reminiscent of marian apparitions, as well as of alien contactees. It is an unusual feature in hauntings, but paranormal areas frequently overlap.


continued...

......
The second part of the program could be complied with a few weeks later.
"It was towards end of November," reports Mrs V., "one night around ten past two in the morning, while I was coming back from Moulins where I had took my son Gaston to the train of half past one, that I lived the most distressing event in my life. I was yet not thinking to the ghost at all, I had just left my son and I was unhappy.
I had left behind me Jean, who was taking our car into the garage, when, while I was opening the door, I spotted the ghost standing on the small landing, at the very place where he had appeared to me one year earlier, when I had been frozen with terror. This time, I resolutely walked up the stair, and, after the ghost had uttered a few words, I closed my eyes and I plunged my hands horizontally into the figure at belt's height. I felt immediatelly a very violent schock at the same place on my body. Then, an icy cold grasped me and made me suffocate, while the figure was dissolving in front of me. Jean, who had witnessed the scene from below, astounded, was shouting : "Poor mother, what did you do ?"
I had to lean onto his arm to go back to my room. Immediately after, my hands began to swell and to burn me acutely, like if they were burns caused by cold. I had to plunge my hands into warm water Jean was bringing to me. Slowly, the pains decreased ; I went to bed shattered, and I could fall asleep. The following morning, I couldn't move my fingers at all, so much my hands had swelt, and with much care, Jean had to saw my two rings. For at least two months, my hands remained swellt, and strange small parrallel burns, looking like scratches, were visible on them. Since then, my skin on my hands and forearms has remained badly damaged : it is very thick.
Very often, the parts of my body that went through the ghost are still aching violently. However I have no regret to have done this, because for a long time I had wished to know if under this fog there was a skeleton. I could feel that there was nothing of the sort and that the ghost was made of a kind of icy and slightly viscous vapor."
I would add that around one month after this event, I could notice, when Mrs V. had come to Paris for a short time, that her hands were indeed bearing marks of burns and that her wrists were somewhat swellt.
Just after I asked two of my colleagues from the Institut Métapsychique International, Mr O. and Mr M., to go to Souvigny and to spend at least one night in the Prieur's room. They imediately moved to the place, and during their second night there, they heard some 'tickings' and a kind of whiplash from the midst of the room. "They meant", according to Mrs V., "that the monk was there, very close, but he was not visible." Unfortunately, because of their professional obligations, my two colleagues had to leave Souvigny after only two days, which was certainly not long enough. "I think", adds Mrs V., "that had they remained for a longer time, we would have seen the old monk. I was disappointed, but what could I do ?"
One of Mrs V.'s sons, Gaston, reported to my colleague Mr M. that one day he had emptied his rifle on the monk but the latter had not reacted (this fact is not mentioned in Mrs V.'s notes). Mr M. could see the marks of buckshots left in the wall in front of which the apparition stood.
At last, once again, and maybe the last one, the monk would appear to Mrs V..
"It was on the last sunday of March 1960", she relates. "I was alone in the Prieuré, when, suddenly, my two dogs were bristling their fur while Djeballe was beginning to howl and to slaver. I was looking around me : nothing was visible. I locked the dogs and I went to the hall. They were not wrong : the ghost was there on the small landing, rising his handless stumps of arms and begging : "Free me from the collar shackle." I came a few feet closer to him and told him :
-Father, what should I do ?
-I died, he asnwered me, without help from religion. I was killed here, a few feet from where I had cowardly let a man to be tortured and killed. My hands were cut and I was buried with other religious men between the church and the buildings... I am praying you to sign me with the cross, and to spray me with holy water."
To my confusion, I had to admit that I had none under my hand, but I could go to look for some. I went immediately to get the small cross that is on the chemney, but when I came back, the monk had vanished. I haven't seen him anymore for more than one year."

So, end Mrs V.'s notes, who is entirely accountable for them, and that we simply submit to our readers' opinion, without any comments. Will they include an addenda that could allow us to have a full understanding of the phenomena they report ? Only time will tell.


Robert TOCQUET
Historia Spécial 364 bis Fantômes et Maisons Hantées, p.36-46.
Le Bilan du Surnaturel, p.166-180.

 

[norton51]

Their lack of belief doesn't prevent them from dreaming of a ghost ; but it would certainly influence their interpretation, in a sceptic way.

Not at all. Many people have fantastuic dreams all the time, maybe influenced by movies or computer games. It does not mean that wjenm they are awake they believe these things but when asleep, or in a hypnagogic state which consists of part dream, part reality, they are not in control of the content.

And here, it was not a matter of imprecise and short-duration visions. There was no ambiguity with the sightings, they were of human figures, sometimes detailed for a long duration. It the witnesses were sincere, this does not allow for misinterpretation.

Hypnagogic experiences can last for a long time and can contain lots of detail, as can misperception which occurs when people are fully awake. It is not a question of sincerity. The plain fact is that human witnesses have been demonstrated many times to be very poor at accurately recollecting events, even when they are questioned directly afterwards! Witnesses sincerely believe what they report but it does not always correspond with what actually happened, particularly in stressful situations.

Well, at least to account for this instance of haunting, your theory should require this...

Perhaps you could explain where it requires telepathy, please.

That's the usual lot with such stories : for example, when they saw the ghost out of any hypnagogical context, fully visible, and could talk to him, sometimes together, they may have been mad, deluded or liars, but mistaken they were not.

Please refer to my answer above about witness reliability.

This case is undoubtedly intertesting. However, it was never investigated and relies entirely on witness recall which is known to be unreliable. As such, it is a good story.

 

[Analis]

Their lack of belief doesn't prevent them from dreaming of a ghost ; but it would certainly influence their interpretation, in a sceptic way.

Not at all. Many people have fantastic dreams all the time, maybe influenced by movies or computer games. It does not mean that wjenm they are awake they believe these things but when asleep, or in a hypnagogic state which consists of part dream, part reality, they are not in control of the content.

This is not relevant to my assertion. Certainly, their beliefs would be an obstacle for them to interpret their dreams as true events. Moreover, as you say, people make the distinction between dream and reality. If they can't anymore, they fall into the insane category. If the facts were reported as alleged, there is not indication of insanity from any of the witnesses. If Mrs V. had really been deluded, her down-to-earth sons would have likely reacted differently.

And here, it was not a matter of imprecise and short-duration visions. There was no ambiguity with the sightings, they were of human figures, sometimes detailed for a long duration. It the witnesses were sincere, this does not allow for misinterpretation.

Hypnagogic experiences can last for a long time and can contain lots of detail, as can misperception which occurs when people are fully awake. It is not a question of sincerity. The plain fact is that human witnesses have been demonstrated many times to be very poor at accurately recollecting events, even when they are questioned directly afterwards! Witnesses sincerely believe what they report but it does not always correspond with what actually happened, particularly in stressful situations.

Recently, I answered the usual "witnesses are unreliable" arguments here :
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=90
or four years ago here :
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... y&start=60

Sociopsychological explanations usually can't make the distinction between what is really observed and taught in psychology of the perception and their assertions that people can perceived with no object everything in every context, a pseudo-scientific assertion. Misperceptions relate to poor or fugitive visions, or lack of attention. People who concentrate on an object or an event have a good recollection of them, and are not in a misperception/misidentification condition. Here, socio-psychological mechanisms simply don't account for the alleged facts.
And I don't believe in collective hallucinations, except in the case of telepathy. Folie à deux is a serious psychopathology, emerging in very specific conditions, and there is no sign here that these conditions were met.

That answers your two following remarks.

This case is undoubtedly intertesting. However, it was never investigated and relies entirely on witness recall which is known to be unreliable. As such, it is a good story.

In fact, it was investigated, but too poorly indeed. Due to lack of time and, I suspect, personal reluctance towards this kind of haunting. Tocquest's account of Mrs V.'s notes is certainly very incomplete. However, the parapsychologists met the witnesses and had talks with them, although I'd have liked to have a more complete account of them.

 

[Analis]

Tocquet's intro to his contribution to Historia special issue :

There is no proof that the V. family did not make up these human figures haunting a monastery in Souvigny and we are strongly led to suspect this story. Yet, we do not feel to have a right to rule out that Mrs V., who was at the epicenter of these phenomena, was sincere. Why would she have made up such a story out of thin air ? Maybe some paranormal faculties, adding to an interest in the history of her mansion, were the cause of her repeated visions, and telepathically led her relatives into a right atmosphere of haunting.

Was it a hoax ? It would be easy to believe that it was because the tale is really extraordinary ; it seems to come right out of the pages of an Anne Radcliffe' novel. This kind of story, about a specter with a request relating to unfinished business, was common in old ghost lore, but is very unusual in XIXth and XXth centuries. But there is no suggestion that they had any motive to make up this story. No evidence that they were after money or to have their names in the papers. On the contrary they seemed to flee the spotlights, wished to remain anonymous and were worried by the mediatic attention.

Otherwise, there is little independant confirmation or material evidence. Of the witnesses, only one did not come from the V. family. It doesn't seem any investigator met him. The two parapsychologists heard unexplained noises, but they could stay only two days, which was certainly too short by their own acknowledgment. The buckshots in a wall are not proof. The photos are not conclusive.
Except for the burn marks on Mrs V.'s hands. They were the only material evidence that it might have been real. It is unlikely that she had inflicted them on herself, and Tocquet could independently assess their existence. In any case, they were certainly an unusual features of ghost stories. I don't remember I read anything similar elsewhere (ironically, in an extraordinary coincidence, I watched a similar account from a former satanist in a documentary friday evening). Sensations of cold are not unusual in hauntings and other paranormal events, but usually, when someone comes in contact with an apparition, they feel nothing.

Could Tocquet have been an accomplice ? It is unlikely. Nobody accused him, and obviously he was not trying to promote this story. His discomfort transpires from his account. He was a firm metapsychist, in a line with Charles Richet, who supported that all parapsychic phenomena come from the human brain. He tried to point Mrs V. as the main percipient, an involutary agent in his opinion. But this story of a ghost acting independently and having long talks with the witnesses didn't square well with his opinions. Except if we suppose Mrs V.'s psychic gifts and turmoil were strong enough to create a kind of independant tulpa ?

If they didn't make it up, could have they been the victims of a fraud ? If we suppose they told the truth, it is really unlikely. Such a machination would have been complex. A David Copperfield may perform all matters of illusions on stage, in an uncontrolled environment this is an all different story. Whole machineries would be needed, similar to those in the Disneyland haunted house. Mrs V.'s sons were determined to find such machinery and probed every nook and cranny of the mansion, to no avail.
In my opinion, this case remains a mystery.

 

[norton51]

this is not relevant to my assertion. Certainly, their beliefs would be an obstacle for them to interpret their dreams as true events. Moreover, as you say, people make the distinction between dream and reality. If they can't anymore, they fall into the insane category. If the facts were reported as alleged, there is not indication of insanity from any of the witnesses. If Mrs V. had really been deluded, her down-to-earth sons would have likely reacted differently.

During hypnagogic episodes, the witness does NOT usually differentiate between what is real and what is not, just as during any normal dream. Afterwards, the experience may be recalled as perfectly true. because of the real elements incorporated within the experience. Hypnagogic, and other REM intrusion states, can happen to anyone at any time. They are not in any way an indicator of any mental disorder. See http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/N ... ences.html for more on such 'near sleep experiences'.

Recently, I answered the usual "witnesses are unreliable" arguments here :
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=90
or four years ago here :
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... y&start=60

Are you aware of recent work on misperception (see
http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/M ... ption.html) or witness memory (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Memory.html) or studies of witness recall (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/PDF%20page ... esses.html)?

I have used used links from the same website because it brings together much of the work relevant to paranormal research which is scattered across hundreds of scientific papers.

Studies have shown that witness testimony is best extracted with cognitive interviewing techniques but even then it is still hugely reliable. We are not like video recorders, what we perceive is directly affected by our experiences and beliefs. Cognitive interviewing techniques were not invented in the 1950s and, even today, are used by very few paranormal investigators.

Sociopsychological explanations usually can't make the distinction between what is really observed and taught in psychology of the perception and their assertions that people can perceived with no object everything in every context, a pseudo-scientific assertion. Misperceptions relate to poor or fugitive visions, or lack of attention. People who concentrate on an object or an event have a good recollection of them, and are not in a misperception/misidentification condition. Here, socio-psychological mechanisms simply don't account for the alleged facts.

I am not talking about sociopsychology but am concerned with the way neurosocience has made huge strides in understanding perception, and misperception, in the last few years (see some of the links I gave above). This is not pseudoscience but hard science, completely reproducible and widely accepted by the scientific community.

And I don't believe in collective hallucinations, except in the case of telepathy. Folie à deux is a serious psychopathology, emerging in very specific conditions, and there is no sign here that these conditions were met.

There is certainly collective misperception. Even without it, witnesses frequently discuss unusual incidents after the event and unconsciously produce a 'consensus' version which they subsequently believe to be the truth. This kind of thing can be picked up cognitive interviewing techniques.

In fact, it was investigated, but too poorly indeed. Due to lack of time and, I suspect, personal reluctance towards this kind of haunting. Tocquest's account of Mrs V.'s notes is certainly very incomplete. However, the parapsychologists met the witnesses and had talks with them, although I'd have liked to have a more complete account of them.

What I mean by an investigation is formal interviewing, with cognitive techniques, of all witnesses separately as soon as possible after the event, followed by a full survey of the site where the events took place to look for possible natural explanations and finally, if felt relevant, possibly a vigil. The first two stages are the most important and should be conducted rigorously to the highest standards. Most ghost cases, when investigated in this thorough way based on sound scientific principles, are shown to have natural explanations.

The alleged activity in this case does not fit well with evidence from many well-investigated cases from subsequent decades. An interesting example of the exception proving the rule.

 

[Analis]

During hypnagogic episodes, the witness does NOT usually differentiate between what is real and what is not, just as during any normal dream. Afterwards, the experience may be recalled as perfectly true. because of the real elements incorporated within the experience. Hypnagogic, and other REM intrusion states, can happen to anyone at any time. They are not in any way an indicator of any mental disorder. See http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/N ... ences.html for more on such 'near sleep experiences'.

Yes, these near sleep experiences are the product of normal borderline states and are not in themselves indicative of a disorder. But when someone can't distinguish them anymore from reality is indicative of evolution towards a pathological state.

Are you aware of recent work on misperception (see
http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/M ... ption.html) or witness memory (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Memory.html) or studies of witness recall (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/PDF%20page ... esses.html)?

I have used used links from the same website because it brings together much of the work relevant to paranormal research which is scattered across hundreds of scientific papers.

......
I am not talking about sociopsychology but am concerned with the way neurosocience has made huge strides in understanding perception, and misperception, in the last few years (see some of the links I gave above). This is not pseudoscience but hard science, completely reproducible and widely accepted by the scientific community.

Nothing here contradicts what I exposed ; if you want another link relating to the dangers of memory :
http://ufonil.blogspot.com/2010/09/ufos ... drome.html

The brain tries to fill blanks, memory is easy to influence. This is the core of what is wrongly called 'misperception' (in fact faulty cognitive and memory reconstruction). Data comes notably from studies in psychology of perception drawn from judiciary reconstructions. They reveal that it doesn't work as debunkers expect. Notably, that people who focus on something tend to have its picture printed in their mind, even if they were surprized or in the case of a very short-duration sighting.
This recollection can be altered or influenced, but it centers mainly on details that were not or only poorly observed. There is a whole world between remembering a wrong colour for a briefcase, adding buttocks to a jacket or misremembering the size of somebody and the generation of a whole new scenario, involving non-existent characters or events. This is why I called that rightly a perception without object, not the bad registering of a real object or event.

And I don't believe in collective hallucinations, except in the case of telepathy. Folie à deux is a serious psychopathology, emerging in very specific conditions, and there is no sign here that these conditions were met.

There is certainly collective misperception. Even without it, witnesses frequently discuss unusual incidents after the event and unconsciously produce a 'consensus' version which they subsequently believe to be the truth. This kind of thing can be picked up cognitive interviewing techniques.

Collective misperception leads to various and disparate accounts. There is no evidence that the witnesses were living in a background suited for them to mutually influence themselves and feed and reinforce their fantaisies. It was rather the contrary, hardcore rationalists who were trying their to best to convince their peers (and themselves) that there was nothing unusual. For all these reasons, I don't think a psychosocial hypothesis (with or without neurological ground) begins to explain this case.

Studies have shown that witness testimony is best extracted with cognitive interviewing techniques but even then it is still hugely reliable. We are not like video recorders, what we perceive is directly affected by our experiences and beliefs. Cognitive interviewing techniques were not invented in the 1950s and, even today, are used by very few paranormal investigators.

......
What I mean by an investigation is formal interviewing, with cognitive techniques, of all witnesses separately as soon as possible after the event, followed by a full survey of the site where the events took place to look for possible natural explanations and finally, if felt relevant, possibly a vigil. The first two stages are the most important and should be conducted rigorously to the highest standards.

Unfortunately that's true, there's no evidence that they conducted any such study. Although that's also true of most research in any area.

The alleged activity in this case does not fit well with evidence from many well-investigated cases from subsequent decades. An interesting example of the exception proving the rule.

It is indeed very atypical. I agree that most ghost stories (I mean there visual apparitions) are consistent with explanations based on impregnation, "recording" or retrocognition. It is one of the few exceptions.

 

[norton51]

Yes, these near sleep experiences are the product of normal borderline states and are not in themselves indicative of a disorder. But when someone can't distinguish them anymore from reality is indicative of evolution towards a pathological state.

Most people have just one or two hypnagogic experiences in their lifetimes, which is perfectly normal, and a few of these people interpret what they see as paranormal. Many ghost sightings set in bedrooms can be explained in this way.

Nothing here contradicts what I exposed ; if you want another link relating to the dangers of memory :
http://ufonil.blogspot.com/2010/09/ufos ... drome.html

The brain tries to fill blanks, memory is easy to influence. This is the core of what is wrongly called 'misperception' (in fact faulty cognitive and memory reconstruction). Data comes notably from studies in psychology of perception drawn from judiciary reconstructions. They reveal that it doesn't work as debunkers expect. Notably, that people who focus on something tend to have its picture printed in their mind, even if they were surprized or in the case of a very short-duration sighting.
This recollection can be altered or influenced, but it centers mainly on details that were not or only poorly observed. There is a whole world between remembering a wrong colour for a briefcase, adding buttocks to a jacket or misremembering the size of somebody and the generation of a whole new scenario, involving non-existent characters or events. This is why I called that rightly a perception without object, not the bad registering of a real object or event.

Memory alteration, mostly confabulation, is quite different to misperception! This is a very important point!

In fact, we all misperceive all the time but few people ever notice it. The 'view in our heads' is made up partly of current sensory input, old sensory input and some bits inserted purely from visual memory (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/V ... tions.html) Those 'inserted' bits are of objects not seen well, such as in peripheral vision or things seen only briefly (the brain handles scenes as a collection of objects rather than a continuous picture like a TV image). Effectively, our brains guess at what a poorly-seen object might be and insert a generic version of that object from memory. This all happens BEFORE we are even consciously aware of the image, so it is presented as perfectly real.

When general viewing conditions are poor, liike in low light, fog etc, the percentage of such 'guessed objects' increases and may become persistent. It is, thus, perfectly possible for someone to misperceive a tree as a human figure for a prolonged period of time in low light. What is more, fictitious details may be added, like clothes, facial expression and so on, all invented by our brains (most likely when recalling rather that at the time of perception). All of this is seen as absolutely real and happens BEFORE long term memory even comes into the picture. It is important not to confuse misperception, which alters a perception in real time, and confabulation, which alters later memories of that perception.

There are lots of other problems with perception, like change blindness. It has also been shown that perception varies between cultures. How you see the world can literally depend on your previous experiences of it. Certainly, we do not see a literal represtation of the world but rather a best guess reconstruction produced by our brains. I may, quite literally, see the world in a different way to you. Indeed, I have experienced this many times on ghost vigils, where low light is highly conducive to misperception. Several people can all provide contradictory accounts of the same quite major event on a vigil and each one of them is wrong, as independent monitoring later shows.

The brain does not 'fill in blanks' so much as try to provide a 'correct' view of the world, using its own experience. So a witness may see something that is not literally real at the very time of perception but still think it completely true. Then confabulation can alter that memory with every retelling. Cognitive interviewing can help with confabulation, to some extent, but makes no difference whatsoever to the original (mis)perception.

It is for such reasons that I regard witness testimony as no more than a rough guide to what happened at a particular time. A thorough site survey often reveals that witness accounts could not possibly have happened as described, which is one reason why they are vital. In paranormal cases, I treat witness testimonyt as indicative but not conclusive. Reconstructions of reported events on site often reveals likely natural causes in many cases.

Collective misperception leads to various and disparate accounts. There is no evidence that the witnesses were living in a background suited for them to mutually influence themselves and feed and reinforce their fantaisies. It was rather the contrary, hardcore rationalists who were trying their to best to convince their peers (and themselves) that there was nothing unusual. For all these reasons, I don't think a psychosocial hypothesis (with or without neurological ground) begins to explain this case.

Studies show that multiple witnesses influence each other merely by discussing what they've witnessed. Yes, collective misperceptions will be different but when accounts agree too closely, it is highly indicative of unconscious collusion.

I do not pay too much attention, any more, to what people believe, or otherwise, about the partanormal. In my experience it makes little difference to what is reported. Many people claim to have been 'skeptical' before an experience but afterwards totally believe. Such an unlikely transformation calls into serious question whether they were really 'skeptical' in the first place. More likely, they had never given the matter much thought and skepticism is merely a 'default' condition they assume, in much the way that many people vaguely believe in a god without seriously studying any religion.

Unfortunately that's true, there's no evidence that they conducted any such study. Although that's also true of most research in any area. It is indeed very atypical. I agree that most ghost stories (I mean there visual apparitions) are consistent with explanations based on impregnation, "recording" or retrocognition. It is one of the few exceptions

I am reluctant to take ANY case material before around the 1960s as serious evidence of anything paranormal. Quite simply, the serious problems with witness testimony were not known then. It is interesting to note that the 'weirdness' of such cases has tended to decline over recent decades as investigation methods have improved. Have ghosts really changed or are we simply getting closer to reality?

With this particular case, there is nothing like enough vital detail to come to any worthwhile conclusion. However, the fact that some vital elements, like the initial bedroom episode, have clear possible natural explanations like hypnagogia, suggests that later elements may well too have yeilded to natural explanations, had the case been investigated to current standards.

 

[Analis]

Memory alteration, mostly confabulation, is quite different to misperception! This is a very important point!

In fact, we all misperceive all the time but few people ever notice it. The 'view in our heads' is made up partly of current sensory input, old sensory input and some bits inserted purely from visual memory (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/V ... tions.html) Those 'inserted' bits are of objects not seen well, such as in peripheral vision or things seen only briefly (the brain handles scenes as a collection of objects rather than a continuous picture like a TV image). Effectively, our brains guess at what a poorly-seen object might be and insert a generic version of that object from memory. This all happens BEFORE we are even consciously aware of the image, so it is presented as perfectly real.

When general viewing conditions are poor, liike in low light, fog etc, the percentage of such 'guessed objects' increases and may become persistent. It is, thus, perfectly possible for someone to misperceive a tree as a human figure for a prolonged period of time in low light. What is more, fictitious details may be added, like clothes, facial expression and so on, all invented by our brains (most likely when recalling rather that at the time of perception). All of this is seen as absolutely real and happens BEFORE long term memory even comes into the picture. It is important not to confuse misperception, which alters a perception in real time, and confabulation, which alters later memories of that perception.

I agree with this statement. That's why I had written cognitive AND memory reconstruction. But the neurological mechanisms involved are similar, and all tend to produce a consistent vision of the world. Research indeed evidences that the brain can't focus on a whole landscape, it is physically not built for that. It 'paints' whole parts of the environment permanently, as it doesn't like to let blanks. This phenomenon helps to understand how events like road accidents happen, or how a stone seen from the corner of the eye can look like a wolf. But if misperception can be made easier by bad observational conditions or common optical illusions, research clearly evidences that focus is synonymous with an improvement in sighting. This is apparent in all cases of 'misperception' I have reviewed. They equal in fact mostly with misinterpretation ; the physical description itself is not much affected, only minor details are sometimes added, always in bad conditions, and can all be tied to an amount of will to believe.
In the case of Souvigny, if we believe the reports, many sightings did not take place in bad conditions ; sometimes, they happened in full sunlight.

Studies show that multiple witnesses influence each other merely by discussing what they've witnessed. Yes, collective misperceptions will be different but when accounts agree too closely, it is highly indicative of unconscious collusion.

I do not pay too much attention, any more, to what people believe, or otherwise, about the partanormal. In my experience it makes little difference to what is reported. Many people claim to have been 'skeptical' before an experience but afterwards totally believe. Such an unlikely transformation calls into serious question whether they were really 'skeptical' in the first place. More likely, they had never given the matter much thought and skepticism is merely a 'default' condition they assume, in much the way that many people vaguely believe in a god without seriously studying any religion.

Belief and expectation are certainly an important factor, both in misperception and unconscious collusion (this is one of the main teachings of the Westmisnter experiment). Now, if people change their beliefs after an ancounter, one may wonder if they were open-minded before, yes ; but there is another distinct possibility, that they genuinely experienced a life-shattering paranormal event.

When we come to this instance, the picture we have of the witnesses is definitely not of open-minded characters, or of people who unconsciously accepted a remote possibility for the existence of the paranormal. And not of people who influenced themselves to produce a consistent story. If the account is accurate, on the contrary, they kept on refusing to acknowledge the mere possibility they had experienced a ghostly encounter for long. They may rightly be called stubborn. There is no evidence of confabulation here.

I am reluctant to take ANY case material before around the 1960s as serious evidence of anything paranormal.

The same could be said of any research based on human testimonies and recollections. But historical works before the 60s are still taken into account. Researchers were more aware of problems with witnesses than you believe, as were police and lawyers. Even pop psychology knew them. There have been always been difficulties with the will to ignore them, there still are and will still be, but that's another story.

It is interesting to note that the 'weirdness' of such cases has tended to decline over recent decades as investigation methods have improved. Have ghosts really changed or are we simply getting closer to reality?

It may be both. I have discussed elsewhere that paranormal phenomena tend to be evasive, and to become less speactacualr when scrutated.

With this particular case, there is nothing like enough vital detail to come to any worthwhile conclusion.

There isn't. And I don't support a spiritualist interpretation, for example. There was however physical evidence, that leads to a conclusion that there was more than mere imagination.

Additionnally, there is no indication that the V.s tried to verify the historical claims of the ghost. Not that it would be an easy task. Every event is not registered in archives.

 

[norton51]

I agree with this statement. That's why I had written cognitive AND memory reconstruction. But the neurological mechanisms involved are similar, and all tend to produce a consistent vision of the world. Research indeed evidences that the brain can't focus on a whole landscape, it is physically not built for that. It 'paints' whole parts of the environment permanently, as it doesn't like to let blanks. This phenomenon helps to understand how events like road accidents happen, or how a stone seen from the corner of the eye can look like a wolf. But if misperception can be made easier by bad observational conditions or common optical illusions, research clearly evidences that focus is synonymous with an improvement in sighting. This is apparent in all cases of 'misperception' I have reviewed. They equal in fact mostly with misinterpretation ; the physical description itself is not much affected, only minor details are sometimes added, always in bad conditions, and can all be tied to an amount of will to believe.

By 'focus', do you mean 'attention'? Don't forget that change blindness experiments demonstrate dramatically that huge changes in the central vision of an observer can be missed if their attention is momentarily diverted, even in excellent observing conditions. Experiments with witnesses, like the gorilla video, show that it is not just minor details that can be missed.

It is also worth considering, here, the concept of the xenonormal. If someone sees something they don't recognise, even in plain view, they may literally 'see' what their brain understands it to be instead. This is obvious from optical illusions. And while optical illusions are artificial constructions, a similar effect can rarely happen in everyday perception. It explains, for instance, how people can see the planet Venus as a UFO, complete with portals and landing gear!

In the case of Souvigny, if we believe the reports, many sightings did not take place in bad conditions ; sometimes, they happened in full sunlight.

But we need more information on these incidents. This is why a site survey and attempted reconstruction would provide vital evidence. It might be found, as I mentioned before, that if you tried to reconstruct the report on site that it could not possibly have happened as described. I have come across this many times. When away from the original scene, witnesses often confabulate away inconsistencies which might otherwise throw into doubt what they report. This is a particular problem once they have decide what they think they saw, whether consciously or otherwise. For instance, if you ask a witness about some detail that might disprove they'd seen a real ghost, you may find they suddenly 'remember' something that rules out that possibility, even though they never mentioned it before!

I do not claim that misperception is responsible for everything reported in this case. There is one obvious incident where a hypnagogic state could easily account what is reported. Many of the minor incidents may be accounted for by misperception, once the witnesses became sensitized to the idea something strange was going on and started to misinterpret otherwise normal events - this is common in haunting cases.

Belief and expectation are certainly an important factor, both in misperception and unconscious collusion (this is one of the main teachings of the Westmisnter experiment). Now, if people change their beliefs after an ancounter, one may wonder if they were open-minded before, yes ; but there is another distinct possibility, that they genuinely experienced a life-shattering paranormal event.

Yes, that's a possibility but witnesses can also change their mind if they BELIEVE they've witnessed a paranormal event even when investigation shows it was not. My point is that being skeptical prior to witnessing an apparently paranormal event does not, in my experience of decades of paranormal investigation, make someone any more likely to report it accurately.

When we come to this instance, the picture we have of the witnesses is definitely not of open-minded characters, or of people who unconsciously accepted a remote possibility for the existence of the paranormal. And not of people who influenced themselves to produce a consistent story. If the account is accurate, on the contrary, they kept on refusing to acknowledge the mere possibility they had experienced a ghostly encounter for long. They may rightly be called stubborn.

See my remarks above. You can't know what they unconsciously believed or disbelieved, particularly if you haven't interviewed them yourself! Misperception, near sleep experiences and so on can happen to anyone, irrespective of prior belief. People wth a strong belief in the paranormal may be more likely to report such incidents but nobody is immune from them.

There is no evidence of confabulation here.

How would you detect confabulation from a report like this? Whenever a story is retold there is likely to be at least some minor confabulation and over time it can become major. The whole point of confabulation is that it seeks, unconsciously, to make sense of an account. Only when this leads to obvious contradiction and absurdity does it become obvious. At a more subtle level you could only check it by doing a proper investigation, including cognitive interviewing and a full site survey.

The same could be said of any research based on human testimonies and recollections. But historical works before the 60s are still taken into account. Researchers were more aware of problems with witnesses than you believe, as were police and lawyers. Even pop psychology knew them. There have been always been difficulties with the will to ignore them, there still are and will still be, but that's another story.

Obviously material based on human testimony has always been innaccurate. I'm sure that much oral history is indeed riddled with errors but it usually only provides 'human interest' to historical events that are well documented from other evidence. In contrast, many old paranormal cases rely entirely on poorly collected witness testimony with no other supporting evidence.

While psychologists may have known for a long time that witness evidence is unreliable, it is only comparitively recently that research provided the tools to recover more accurate information from interviews.

It may be both. I have discussed elsewhere that paranormal phenomena tend to be evasive, and to become less speactacualr when scrutated.

Yes I'm aware of that theory, that the closer you examine the paranormal, the more it evades you. Over the years I've been studying this subject, however, I have come to realise that phenomena tend to be 'over dramatised' in witness reports. Seemingly irrefutable paranormal phenomena can still have natural explanations simply because they were exaggerated in the first place. Again, site examination has proved vital in demonstrating this.

It can often be amazing when you see the site of a supposed paranormal event for the first time, after interviewing a witness, and realise straight away that they were, in fact, describing a very simple, natural visual effect that they simply did not recognise or understand. If you just looked at the witness testimony this would never be apparent.

There isn't. And I don't support a spiritualist interpretation, for example. There was however physical evidence, that leads to a conclusion that there was more than mere imagination. Additionnally, there is no indication that the V.s tried to verify the historical claims of the ghost. Not that it would be an easy task. Every event is not registered in archives.

I did not say it was imagination. I have yet to investigate a case where I have concluded that it was imagination. There is ALWAYS something, in my experience, that prompts someone to report a case, whether objective or a purely subjective experience (like hallucination or miscerception).

Quite simply, this case was never investigated to a level where we can draw any conclusion. Therefore, I don't see it as providing any evidence for anything.

 

[norton51]

By the way, nice chat! It's so good to talk to someone serious about ghost research!

 

[Analis]

By 'focus', do you mean 'attention'? Don't forget that change blindness experiments demonstrate dramatically that huge changes in the central vision of an observer can be missed if their attention is momentarily diverted, even in excellent observing conditions. Experiments with witnesses, like the gorilla video, show that it is not just minor details that can be missed.

Yes, I meant attention. If I understand well, these experience show that details are omitted if attention is diverted.

It is also worth considering, here, the concept of the xenonormal. If someone sees something they don't recognise, even in plain view, they may literally 'see' what their brain understands it to be instead. This is obvious from optical illusions. And while optical illusions are artificial constructions, a similar effect can rarely happen in everyday perception. It explains, for instance, how people can see the planet Venus as a UFO, complete with portals and landing gear!

Optical illusions are a major factor in misidentification ; the moon "following" a car being a classic. But I don't know of any instance in which a witness saw Venus with a landing gear. Maybe, if he really wanted to believe.

We are saying more or less the same things since a few posts. I will issue here my final word.

Many of the minor incidents may be accounted for by misperception, once the witnesses became sensitized to the idea something strange was going on and started to misinterpret otherwise normal events - this is common in haunting cases.

It may be true of some of the minor events. But the major events are another story. And

But we need more information on these incidents. This is why a site survey and attempted reconstruction would provide vital evidence.
......

You can't know what they unconsciously believed or disbelieved, particularly if you haven't interviewed them yourself! Misperception, near sleep experiences and so on can happen to anyone, irrespective of prior belief. People wth a strong belief in the paranormal may be more likely to report such incidents but nobody is immune from them.

......

How would you detect confabulation from a report like this?

:

If the personnalities of the witnesses were like it was reported, I believe that it rules out confabulation. But yes it is true that our only source of information on them is again Mrs V.'s diaries. Again, the lack of investigation is the major disappointment in this story. We have no evidence that the metapsychists tried to interview their neighbours and their relatives. There is no indication that there was any follow-up after the manifestations seemingly ended. We don't even know what they were told when two of them came to the mansion. My personal speculation is that they didn't like what they would find, because they saw that they had no reason to question the reliability of the witnesses. They didn't like ghost stories, so they prefered to let the case to rest. I insist, this is just speculation. But Tocquet made clear on several occasions that he was a 'modern' parapsychologist, and didn't hold in high esteem spiritualist interpretations, and even less involvment of more obscure entities. As far as I know, that was the Institut's general position.

In the end, I suppose that many would conclude that it was just an elaborate fantaisy. I admit that the story is so extraordinary that I would share this opinion, despite the lack of any apparent motive for a fraud, if it were not for the burn marks.

 

[norton51]

Just answering some points ...

Optical illusions are a major factor in misidentification ; the moon "following" a car being a classic. But I don't know of any instance in which a witness saw Venus with a landing gear. Maybe, if he really wanted to believe.

But that's my point. Even people who claim they were skeptics before such a sighting can see Venus 'with landing gear'. Our conscious minds may believe one thing but the unconscious bits may think another! It is easy to deomstrate the difference with psychological experiments.

If the personnalities of the witnesses were like it was reported, I believe that it rules out confabulation.

I disagree with this. To put it bluntly, research has shown that EVERYONE confabulates, it is just that most people only do it to a minor degree. Every time anyone retells their favourite true anecdote, there's a high chance they will introduce at least one 'new' detail! Thus you cannot rule out confabulation, you can only try to detect it with suitable interviewing techniques. Without using such techniques all you do is hope the level of confabulation was low.

But yes it is true that our only source of information on them is again Mrs V.'s diaries. Again, the lack of investigation is the major disappointment in this story. We have no evidence that the metapsychists tried to interview their neighbours and their relatives. There is no indication that there was any follow-up after the manifestations seemingly ended. We don't even know what they were told when two of them came to the mansion. My personal speculation is that they didn't like what they would find, because they saw that they had no reason to question the reliability of the witnesses. They didn't like ghost stories, so they prefered to let the case to rest. I insist, this is just speculation. But Tocquet made clear on several occasions that he was a 'modern' parapsychologist, and didn't hold in high esteem spiritualist interpretations, and even less involvment of more obscure entities. As far as I know, that was the Institut's general position.

In the end, I suppose that many would conclude that it was just an elaborate fantaisy. I admit that the story is so extraordinary that I would share this opinion, despite the lack of any apparent motive for a fraud, if it were not for the burn marks.

Physical 'traces', like burn marks, can be as problematic as witness testimony. All you have is a 'trace' and a few hypotheses as to how it could have arisen. With marks on people there is always the problem that they might by psychosomatic. But this is a whole different discussion.

If you get the impression that I think all paranormal investigation is useless, you'd be wrong. Cognitive interviewing can detect and eliminate most confabulation, though not misperception. Site investigation and recreating the reported events can go some way to eliminating misperception, though such techniques are still under development. If events are ongoing then active investigation, like installing (with witness permission obviously) webcams in suitable locations, can be a powerful technique. It's also possible to investigate specific reports, like the presence of 'cold spots', using instruments.

If a case is investigated from a neutral point of view (neither believing nor disbelieving), using scientific methods like thise outlined above, a lot can be learned. The problem with old cases is that few, if any, of these techniques were used as they simply weren't available at the time. Sadly, this means we must discount much of the evidence from such cases.