Talk:Exorcism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exorcism related deaths

it should be noted that none of the deaths due to exorcism's listed were performed by Catholic priests. Suppafly 01:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Links to ebay

I removed a couple links because they pointed only to pages of items for sale on ebay, they did not point to a source document of any sort.
JesseG 02:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lacks a skeptical viewpoint

This article seems incomplete as it lacks a clear explanation and relies heavily on obscure citations and futile digressions; overall it lacks a critical skeptical analysis.

The article needn't have a skeptical analysis. This is not an article to force an argument, this is not to enforce a point of view. Skepticism belongs in the article of Skepticism.--NWalterstorf 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't need skeptical viewpoints...go to the forum for that. This is to present exorcisms as something that is TRUE, and not something that is debated. Make a "Skeptics of exorcism" page for that haha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.34.210 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC). --IzzTEK

Not really...The article can, and should, include a section titled "criticisms of exorcism", which certainly should not be a different article as such. Almost everything in Wikipedia has such a section, and this one certainly should. That would incorporate the sceptiks' views. And no, this page is not supposed to show exorcism as TRUE or FALSE, but merely to provide information on the subject. That is what an encyclopeadia does.--198.37.16.160 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the opinion that the article should also include skeptical viewpoints.

Jewish Exorcisms

I find the section on Jewish exorcisms odd... it mentions "Gehenna (a Hebrew term very loosely translated as "hell", literally the valley outside Jeruselem where the city's garbage and dead bodies were burned. The word later came to mean "the valley of dead")" This seems strange to me, for, IIRC, Judaism forbids cremation. Can anyone shed any more light on this? aubrey 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Link Removed

http://www.trosch.org/chu/exorcism.htm Exorcisms in the Catholic Church

I removed this from the list of external links after perusing trosch.org and discovering it is not an authoritative resource for "rites" of exorcism, as the entry seemed to suggest. It appears that trosch.org is intended as a soapbox for its webmaster's personal interpretation of Catholic doctrine -- in fact, it contains such radical (even from the most conservative Catholic perspective) articles as an outright condemnation of Florida for executing a man who "protected innocent children" by killing an abortion doctor. This hardly seems like an appropriate resource for those who wish to learn Catholic doctrine, dogma, or liturgy, and therefore it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia to include it as an external reference.

Molinero 03:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

-edited my own word choice Molinero

I checked out your concern...'Gehenna' is a word tracing to Greek, ultimately from Hebrew גי(א)-הינום Gêhinnôm (also Gei ben-Hinnom (Hebrew: גיא בן הינום) meaning the Valley of Hinnom, first mentioned in Joshua 15:8. Originally it referred to a garbage dump in a deep narrow valley right outside the walls of Jerusalem (in modern-day Israel) where fires were kept burning to consume the refuse and keep down the stench. It is also the location where bodies of executed criminals, or individuals denied a proper burial, would be dumped. Today, "Gehenna" is often used as a synonym for Hell. This should explain more about the burning bodies. If you read it you will find that they burned criminals or people that were not properly buryed.

Section Removed

I have removed the following part of this article due to it's obvious biased point of view - this is an encyclopedia, not a religious reference book  ;)

I have maintained the removed portion below to allow other users to edit it in such a way as to remove all POV issues or to allow an editor with a dissenting opinion a chance to return the piece to this article.

--Jim Binford 19:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Jimbinford ---

This article will try to demarcate between exorcism (or the knowledge of it) and spirituality.

First, it is very important to define and illustrate how exorcism is carried out in the Muslim world.

The techniques used in different parts of the Muslim world differ. Although there do exist specific 'ilm' or knowledge that is acquired for the purpose of exorcism, many exorcists are in fact wholly unaware of that 'ilm'. They are in contact with some extraordinary beings that, through the agency of the exorcists, extract the evil spirits from ailing patients. It is not known what those beings are. What is sure is that people who are in contact with such beings believe themselves to have achieved the 'Way to God'. This is the point of contention.

This erroneous belief is triggered by the seemingly tremendous power the exorcists feels to have just by being associated with those beings. In fact, once the contact is established, the exorcist can tell everything about anybody, near or far, living or dead. Not only that, the exorcist can even tell what the person sitting next to him is thinking. He can even influence the behaviour and thinking of the individual. For example, once a young boy of 15 escaped from his house to make money far away. The exorcist despatched his 'contacts' to incite fear in the boy's mind such that he found it impossible to remain far away from home any further. By inciting strong feelings in the individual, it is possible to manipulate their behaviour. Such powers are acquired rather quickly by the exorcist, usually within 1 to 3 years. Ordinary people are easily impressed by such a show of power and authority, not excluding the exorcist himself. However, the 'Way to God' is a wholly different affair. This is called mysticism and although mystics have the power to extract evil spirits by a mere glance, they do not make use of their power but very rarely. This is because their purpose is God-realization and not to make of themselves superhumans or centres of attraction and authority among ordinary mortals.

---

Shouldn't there be a section discussing Skeptical views of Exorcism?

!!! THIS IS A LEXICA NOT SOME PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS SPELLBOOK CRAP! I DEMAND THAT THERE BE CREATED SOME SCEPTICAL VIEWS AT THE TOP: YOUNGSTERS CANNOT CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE EXIST NO SUCH THINGS AS DEMONS OR SPIRITS!

No, you just want to enforce a view point on the article. This isn't an article arguing a certain viewpoint, this is an objective article; adding a skeptical view would be entirely useless. Also, capitalizing every letter, saying "youngsters", mentioning your own PoV, using multiple exclamation points and not even signing your name to your post greatly reduce your credibility.--NWalterstorf 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?

I question this subject under Exorcism-related deaths:

"A five-year-old girl in 1997 in the Bronx, New York, died after being administered ammonia, vinegar, and olive oil, and then gagged and bound with duct tape."

How is this exorcism-related? Unless someone can find additional information that show that this death had to do with an exorcism, I believe this should be removed. --Marco Passarani 08:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It sounds more like some Voodoo trial than anything to do with exorcism. 82.23.202.5 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Personality Disorder

Is it possible that many cases which are believed to be demonic possesions are actually cases of Multiple Personality Disorder? After all, those with MPD may act like animals that growl or jump between a kind personality and an abusive one, or they may learn something such as an old language like Latin in one language and not know how to speak it in the other language. Pehaps what we have believed to be a spiritual possesion is actually two personalties in one person.

they may learn something such as an old language like Latin in one language and not know how to speak it in the other language - My brain hurts trying to figure out what you mean by that. As for your hypothesis, I believe it is addressed by the mention of mental illness being mistaken for demonic possession in the article yEvb0 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)yEvb0

I'm sorry I wasn't specific (and I didn't sign my comment), but I meant to say people who have MPD can learn extremely difficult skills to master in one personality and not know how to perform it in a different personality. For example, in one of their personalities, the person knows how to speak Latin, but in the other personality, they do not know what Latin is, since the personalities do not share a common memory, and the person doesn't remember "blacking out" and changing personalities. Also, some personalities can be antisocial while others are charismatic, and sometimes the personalities take the form of an animal. This may be why certain exorcism cases have documented that a person is posseses unlearned language knowledge, because their normal personality does not remember learning it, or why the person makes growling noises, because the personality is one of an animal. A good example of this is in the novel "Fight Club", where one personality is a nihilist that knows how to make bombs out of household objects while the other personality is a quiet, depressed white collar worker. While this is not a true example of MPD, it is an incident that occurs in patients that have been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. --67.184.163.248 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid

I'm familiar with Dissociative Identity Disorder (as it is currently called). I think you said "language" in your comment when you said "personality" (i.e. "learned Latin in one personality (not language)" or "one personality learned Latin"). Sorry for the confusion. In any case, it's probably best not to speculate too much about hypothetical incidents of exorcism possibly resulting from DID, but it might be fair if you wanted to mention DID (or schizophrenia, or others) as an example of a mental illness that could contribute to the perceptioin of a demonic possession. yEvb0 16:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)yEvb0

Removed copyrighted content

Text copied from http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7078.asp was removed and cleared from the edit history. - Evil saltine 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Exorcism of places

The article on ghost links to here, but this article appears to concern itself solely with exorcisms of people. Aren't places (e.g. haunted houses) exorcised as well? --Shantavira 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The one Episcopal Church exorcism I know of was of a house. Mangoe 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and exorcisms

The section on Islam and exorcisms is long and confusing, but I know nothing about the subject so am leaving it alone. Maybe a seperate page could be made, and just a paragraph summary left on this main page by someone in the know?Maeve 14:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • I removed the information that was copy-and-pasted on amulets, since it was POV, in violation of copyright, and added two pages but had very little to do with the article. I also re-divided the sections ~JMPowers

recent conversion from Template: bibleref to Template: bibleverse

as a result of the recent template conversion, multiple verse listings no longer work, for example:

Matthew 12:23,28

only returns Matthew 12:23

compare to:

Matthew 12:23,28

I believe i have corrected all of them, if there are any problems you can correct them yourself or connact me on my userpage. Jon513 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a page dealing with how to exorcise houses or places.

Exorcism in ordinary rites

The article needs to address the exorcism built into some baptismal rites. Mangoe 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

how can this stuff be real?

How can demonic possession be real?If it were the case,then wouldn't the so called "demon(s)" just kill off anyone who stood between it and it's victim?Or better yet,use the possessed person to do all sorts of things rather then let itself be strapped to a bed the whole time. I thought demons had powers.So how can it seem so easy to stop the "demon(s)" wheather it;s on the cases we read or in the movies we saw? This whole thing has probably been their since the whole concept of a supernatural world existed since humans learnt how to talk.

Let me assure you none of this is for real.Emily rose getting exorcised on Halloween.Yes quite dramatic.When she could have been taken to church or hospital and been exorcized during the daylight.And the demons seemed quite powerless to harm anyone beyond Emily rather than move a few glasses and bang a few doors. I think the whole idea of possession and exorcism is just dumb.

And isnt THE P-FILES on top of the page a copyright violation of The X-Files title?74.98.241.189 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

No, the devil does not have authority over death. One of the devils aims is to get people to deny Christ, even if that means denying a demonic force then his work is done in your life. He'll then use you to get others to doubt a spiritual world, or a higher being etc...

Demons have got great powers and it's not easy to stop them at all. A demon will answer to one thing only, the name of Jesus. That does not mean it's a case of simply stating the name of Jesus and poof the demon is gone. This was shown when the disciples could not cast out the demon from the sick boy who then had a fit in front of Jesus. They tried first time nothing happened, so their belief wavered and they gave up rather than getting a deeper belief. (See the post below for my talk subject on this in relation to the wiki text).

Watch this video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/435147/demons_and_ghosts_i_believed_after_seeing_this

You may simply think that this is video editing and I can't deny that possibility. However, I'm a Christian and after seeing that video, within a minute everything in the house changed. I was in my room and doors started random slamming around the house, I confessed the name of Jesus and commanded the spirit to leave in his name. Instead a force came into my room and stayed there, I was paralysed with fear, if somebody was to ask me what I was afraid of I wouldn't have a clue. But I kid you not I was scared stupid. Just before I watched the video I had invited my friend around, and as soon as the bell rang the fear left, but the presence in the room did not. When he came up to my room, he doesn't know if to believe in this sort of thing yet commented that something felt bad about my room. Again, your choice to believe it or not, but how would I benefit if you believed it or didn't? In retrospect you could argue because I'm a Christian I shouldn't have been afraid at all, and if you were to argue that, I'd fully agree with you...

Please consider the comments section of that video on Metacafe where the special effects used in its production are discussed. Please also note the videos of magical tricks that the same director has put online on this site, earning quite a lot of money from fooling people.

"And the demons seemed quite powerless to harm anyone"

Not at all. They can exert more control in the natural world than they can the spiritual world because we are more focused on natural things than we are spiritual things.

"Let me assure you none of this is for real."

What do you base your assurance on?

82.23.202.5 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched that video. In my opinion, I thought it was quite obviously faked, with the use of strings to shift objects. The heavy breathing sounds were exactly the same ones that amatuer star wars filmakers will use when attempting to sound like darth vader. feel free to believe in demons if you want, and im not saying that they cannot possibly exist, but that video was extremely dodgy. Oh, and its now been 7 minutes since i watched it, and no presence has entered my room. As to how you would benefit, why bring that up at all unless you had something to hide? Perhaps you are the director, wishing to get more 'views' of your movie. And according to biblical scripture, demons must possess a human body. They cannot move outside of one...i know theres a better term for that but i cant think of what it is.Dezza91 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone feel that the Discovery Channel's series "A Haunting" deserves to be mentioned? After all, several (sometimes successful) exorcisms are mentioned in the series. As described by the Discovery Channel itself, A Haunting is a series "chronicling the terrifying true stories of the paranormal".WasAPasserBy 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Certain spirits cast out by fasting and prayer.

I'm assuming that the people who are editing this and so quoting the bible are Christians, or at least believe in the supernatural. So, I'm sorry, but I take issue with this:

"But the efficacy of this delegated power was conditional, as we see from the fact that the Apostles themselves were not always successful in their exorcisms: certain kinds of spirits, as Christ explained, could only be cast out by prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:15,17:20; Mark 9:27-28; Luke 9:40)."

In short terms, if naming the name of Christ is not enough for a demon to be cast out, then what on earth is prayer and fasting going to do? We will never come up against anything that the name of Jesus cannot overcome, no matter what it is. It is made quite clear in the following quote:

14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,

15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.

16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.

17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017:14-21;&version=9;

Jesus replied to the disciples question about their inability to cast out the demon with 'Because of your unbelief'! Not because you didn't pray or fast before you tried to cast him out, but because of your unbelief. What Jesus was talking about in verse 21 is how to get rid of that unbelief, NOT the demon.

To doubt that Jesus' name does not have the power, then you might as well go the whole trip and doubt the divinity and the crucifixion. That's not to say we don't need faith, because we do. But no action we do (prayer, fasting, singing or dancing) can add to the power that is in name of Jesus. 82.23.202.5 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Charm of Pibechis

Why isn't there any mention of the charm of Pibechis (Πιβήχεως δόκιμον), from the Greek magical papyri (PGM iv.3007ff)? This is a spell Πρὸς δαιμονιαζομένους, for those possessed by demons, and employs much of the language which would also be used by Christians (ὁρκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν Ἑβραίων Ἰησοῦ·; I adjure you by the god of the Hebrews Jesus). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.14.229 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Islam and exorcisms

The Quranic verse from Al-Baqara is wrong. It does not refer to possesion, but to Usury. Sermed 08:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Water?

The section on Protestantism has a reference to holy water. AFAIK, no major protestant denomination outside Anglicanism uses holy water of any sort. We might want to preface this accordingly.

I deleted that section because of a lack of a reference, and that it depicted urban legend rather than an actuall rite. if there is a reference, it can be added again, however I havn't ever come across any reference to sprinkeling of holy water to determine the nature of a person.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know the Roman Catholic denomination uses holy water regularly in general. Not sure about Anglicans.

Exorcism in Buddhism

What about the concept and practice of exorcism in Buddhism? The Vajrayana school claims to be able to deal with demon possessions...anyone know anything about it? Le Anh-Huy 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian Exorcism

This section is very annoying because of all the external links, Bible verses, etcetera. I know the Bible verses are necessary but could we at least have them in a references section or something?

The reference about Tanacu was wrong. Is prove now that the death of the nun was doctor's opera (a wrong cure - six time the maximum allowed dose of adrenalin). Also was no crucification, and the women was on she's bed, not... on the wall (?!?). The father is not charged with murder, but neglect, and this only to not charge the police and other stuff for abuse. They arested the priest without no evidences, and accuse him on media, who build the case. Now is clear that it was an abuse, but in Romania police never pay for abuse. So thy accuse the priest for other things, just to seems that is guilty for something, no matter what. But this is no exorcism, but coruption.

I deleted the section about baptists, because it lacked any citations and seemed to project an individuals point of view, rather than a policy of the Sothern Baptists. this is the section I deleted

Southern Baptists would disagree with the Roman Catholic rite of exorcism entirely, particularly because of the end of the rite which states: "The priest may repeat the exorcism at his discretion". Southern Baptists suspect rituals and claim that they are unbiblical and claim that the Bible comes to their support...assuming Catholics do not pray to God...that God alone has the power to "exorcise" Satan and He may delegate this power to his children. In the New Testament, it states that if you "resist the devil he will flee from you". (James 4:7) God is considered - as in Catholicism - the only true exorcist and his children merely his obedient tools in which to use. Therefore God has ultimate power and control, which in the Southern Baptist interpretation eliminates the need for multiple attempts of an exorcism.

Coffeepusher (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have actually done reserch on christian exorcisms, and am in the prossess of editing this section with referenced material. I will probably cut a section on Deliverance ministries, because although they fall under the catigory of exorcism, they are a different "demon" all together, and follow a suptily different theologyCoffeepusher (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Extensive Edits

It appears that no one is really monitoring this page, since the last edit befor mine was sometime in september 2007. I am going to be doing some extensive edits, and am probably not going to be discussing them beforehand since it would digress into me posting to myself. I will post the reasons for major changes to the format, but all otherwise I will just make edit summary's. this is to say, that if you are interested in this page, just let me know so I don't step on your toes.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific explanation ?

Is there any attempt at scientific explanation to Exorcism ? apparently from wikipedia and other sources, it seems that Exorcism exist in many cultures and religions, and that it has been practiced for many years. Many religions also have strict rules on when to use exorcism. From this I would like to conclude that Exorcism has been met with some success in narrow circumstances, and while there is not overwhelming statistical evidence there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence of successful exorcisms, to conclude that Exorcism sometimes works. This Raises the Question: does a rare mental defect/disease/disorder exists that will force the subject to act in such a way that it appears as Demonic possession AND where exorcism would aide in recovery or temporary retreat of the disease ? Multiple personality disorder has been suggested, but under what circumstances would Exorcism help ? This is not a critique of Exorcism, I am all for its use when it helps, I do not want to remove the religious aspect of the exorcism which is an important part of healing process of the subject. But I would like to investigate and discuss other explanations for the observed behaviors :-) Jesper Jurcenoks 20:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be a section with a scientific explanation. Use these sources: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1436854 http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050830_emilyrose.html http://science.howstuffworks.com/exorcism5.htm http://skepdic.com/exorcism.html Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

although I like your contribution, I am a little sceptical of using a "How stuff works" article as a source. Can you find another source with the same information? it seems to me that it is out there somewhere.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the section and added one more source.

Another sources that could be used: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web3/Bromwell.html http://www.fortea.us/english/psiquiatria/psiquiatria.htm I will try to expand the article when I'll have some time ;) Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

those give some good information, however they don't fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sourcing WP:SOURCE. after examining them they appear to be an undergraduate paper, and a website with...well I can't figure out who is responsable for it. but the paper does have some sourcing, and mabie there is a peer reviewed journal in there that you can use(there should be, I have never writen a paper without good source material somewhere). also, I have access to quite a few databaces (I am currently in college...and hope to never leave) so if you have somthing spacific you are looking for, just let me know and I can see if there are any journals that you can use. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found some reliable journals through Google scholar. I've also copied some text from the demonic possession article. Now the scientific explanation section makes more sense. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Malachi Martin

an explination to the editors: One resource I have been using is Hostage to the Devil. I understand that it is very contriversial in its presentation of actuall exorcisms, I agree that the accounts are made up and have not used it as such, rather I use it for information on the ritual and history of exorcisms of which he is an expert, and has been recognised for that by many people in the exorcism relm. However I use fr. Gabriele Amorth when I can for that information. it should also be noted that this book has leaked into penicostal exorcism rituals as a great sourcebook, so if it is to be cited for those perposes I see no problems.Coffeepusher 18:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Exorcism is fake

It's rarely done when there aren't cameras around.63.227.6.37 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK how does this relate to the page, or do you just want to discuss exorcisms themselves...and what is your source. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

DATABASE OF EXORCISTS

I was hoping that my site, a blog, L'Epee De Dieu (Http://epeededieu.blogspot.com/), might be considered and added as a link on the Exorcism page. A database of Exorcists around the world is needed, and the one I am compiling is in progress. Please take a look at what I'm doing and think it worthy. Those who are in need have very little access to true help. I spent a week in Rome trying to find an exorcist, and finally, by luck, was referred to one, who has now referred me to another. I am hoping to build a full and real database, usable by all, and with concrete information for exorcists in all countries. I would appreciate being a part of this page, and thank you for taking the time to consider it...Rebecca Tacosa Gray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyagray9 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

if you find exorcists from sources that we can use in wikipeida then you are welcome to edit the page and give the origional referance. However, blogs arn't admisable and links to them are considered WP:SPAM, the reason is that they are less reliable than other sources. what you are proposing is a noble goal, however wikipeida dosn't have the means to reliably validate sources such as yours which is the reason that we only allow information that comes from reliable sources and don't allow origional reserch. please don't consider this a condemnation of your work, it is only intended to be a clarification of our policies.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Careless Post Without References Whatsoever

The "Exorcism-related deaths" section is in my opinion extremely biased, and has no apparent references whatsoever. I'm not trying to say that the content is false, but it is extremely pointed against the Christian faiths and is worded so as to provoke instability and idioticy towards Christians.

Whoever added that content should strongly consider adding a little thought and research/referencing to their highly opinionated & biased "exorcism-related deaths" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.241.112 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS exorcisms?

Apparently, a phrase involving exorcisms and the LDS church was removed from the article some time ago by an anonymous user; I wish to know why was it deleted? Should we put it back? I leave it to you to answer.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good day for exorcists

The Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2008 reversed a $300,000 jury award versus the North Texas Pentecostal church Pleasant Glade Assembly of God (over injuries Laura Schubert,17, suffered in a 1996 exorcism conducted by members thereof). She stated that "she was cut and bruised and later experienced hallucinations, was pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism." Justice David Medina, ponente, held "that finding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs. The 'laying of hands' and the presence of demons are part of the church's belief system and accepted as such by its adherents. These practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity. They are thus to be expected and are accepted by those in the church." But Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a dissenting opinion, ruled that the "sweeping immunity is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the Constitution's protections for religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."ap.google.com, Texas high court rules exorcism protected by lawchron.com, Court reverses judgment against church in exorcisms--Florentino floro (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with my link

Please tell me what is wrong with the link to my website www.exorcism.de. I am an Austrian catholic priest and have a link to the German version of this site(www.exorzismus.net) on the German Wikipedia since years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatherChristian (talk • contribs) 08:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Exorcism

I don't know much (well, anything!) about Sikh exorcism, but I did at least try to tidy up the English in the paragraph about it. I'm not sure it makes complete sense, but I tried to keep as much of the original as possible, while making it more understandable. I think that a number of the non-English words should be defined, especially where there is no link to an article, but as I don't understand the language, I thought it best to leave it to someone else to do. Snorgle (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Christ's actions in contradistinction to exorcism

Technically the actions of Jesus and the other disciples in the Gospels, as well as those of Paul in Acts, were not "exorcism", but the Greek εκβαλλω, usually translated as "cast out". Variants of the Greek εξορκιζω are used on 2 occasions in the N.T., once ascribed to the high priest during his interrogation of Jesus, and once referring to the 7 sons of Sceva in Acts who were apparently trying to ritually expel a demon. I know that R.B. Thieme Jr. and I'm pretty sure L.S. Chafer made a doctrinal distinction of this. The Catholic Church also seems to share the same view, that the actions of Christ and His contemporaries were not exorcism proper. I'll post more once I've got sources. Krazychris81 (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

my question is, if the modern day use which this article is talking about is created/inspired using those bible verses which Jesus and his disciples "cast out" demons rather than using the high priests actions as the foundation...are we just mixing semantics?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone please add scholarly reference to Buddhist exorcism, which occurs more commonly than Christian exorcism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Exorcisms on homosexuals

It would be interesting if there could be information added somewhere on the controversial use of exorcism in the context of therapeutic attempts to cure people from homosexuality. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am sure that it is going on, I am not sure if it is prevalent enough to justify addition to the article. Note that your sources provide two different outlooks upon this case. The video is an exorcism of a “demon of homosexuality,” while the other source states that Homosexuality causes demons. The second makes no distinction between regular sin and homosexuality and is covered in the article in that “sin=invitation to demons.” The first video would not qualify as a reliable source, and I am not sure if the practice is notable enough to justify inclusion. In my research I haven’t found any group that specifically targets homosexual demons, if they do target demons of sin (a-la pigs in the parlor) it is more of a blanket condemnation rather than exclusively homosexual. The ex-gay movement may be one place you can look, however they usually go for behavior therapy rather than healing. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add info on homosexuality and exorcisms. There are some academic papers on it: [3], [4] and there may be more if we do some digging. Also this from Exodus International. This recent case created a stack of news and internet activity. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed your edit for two reasons. My understanding is you are trying to make a case that exorcisms are used to cure Homosexuality. However your news article that generated a lot of interests stated that "this was the first time that exorcisms were used to cure homosexuality." The Exodus international article stated that "if homosexuality is caused by demons, then exorcism is the cure" however the rest of the article proposed a different solution, and Exodus international does not opperate under the assumption that Demons are the cause. The combination of these two sources is close to WP:SYNTH and if you want to make the case you will have to come up with a group that spacifically targets homosexual demons, rather than the groups that target demons in general and some happen to be homosexual (which was the case of your news article). take note that for groups that follow Frank and Ida mae Hammond's theology (as quoted in your Exodus international article) Demons of homosexuality are just one of 12 spacific demons in the grouping of Sexual impurity, and Sexual Impurity is grouping #48 of 53...and I would rather not hunt down each instance of all the...hundreds or thousands of different demons that are being exorcised by these groups.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-read my statement, and realized that I sounded harsh which was not my intention. unfortunatly CMC is less than adiquate for providing the suptle neuances neccisary to create a good discussion. My research has led me to believe that Homosexuality and demon possesion only occurs in isolated pockets and has yet to create any consistant theology or practices. I may very well be wrong, so if there is a significant factor that I am missing than please let me know. what I am saying is that I did not mean to shut down any dialoge in the last comment, and I am hoping it didn't stear you away from this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that, in all ignorance of sound science, there are some religiously inclined people who misguidedly use exorcisms to in an attempt remove homosexuality. There is enough material out there to have at least a small subsection on the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

notable exorcisms

This section has become a dumping ground for every exorcism that receives press coverage, with little regard as to wither there was several secondary sources that mention it or not. Personally I would like to remove the entire section, but at least we need to have some standards as to what is notable or not. what are other peoples thoughts?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely if an exorcism has an article about it, it is by definition notable? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Exorcisms have been done for 2000 years (approx)...thats a freakin large article. so WP:NOTE states that "generally it is preferred that there are multiple reliable sources" so that may answer your question. While I am not trying to enforce "rules" I think it is a good suggestion that there be many sources that makes mention of the exorcism that span a period of time in order to 1. establish credibility as well as notability and 2. demonstrate that the event in question shaped public understanding of exorcisms helping to create knowledge for the topic.

I think that this section as it stands has become a trivia section which mucks up the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian exorcisms have been done for about that long, because of course that's about how long Christianity has existed. Exorcisms in other belief systems may have been done for much longer (in the case of ancient Oriental beliefs) or shorter (in the case of newer religions.) -moritheil^Talk 10:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exorcism in Asian cultures

I'm a little shocked to find that there is only one sentence on "exorcism in oriental cultures," and it isn't even a generalized statement. Is there a separate article that deals with exorcism outside of Christianity, or have we just not gotten around to it? -moritheil^Talk 10:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

it is a little hard to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR when a culture does not use the word exorcism or have the same practices as what is traditionally called exorcism.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Exorcism in Zen

Look, this section is absolute garbage, and there's no point in keeping it around unless someone can replace all those pointless ellipses with actual content, which is very unlikely to happen. 124.169.135.145 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 124...the content in this section does not make sense and is unencyclopedic at best.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Exorcism video.

I added a video of a real exorcism at the link section but it was removed?? It was both instructional and showed a real live exorcism. Should videos not be added to wikipedia articles? Please help? Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humilityisfine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly it didn't add anything to the page other than being more than a little "Hollywood" (explaining the strapping in process rather than the ritual itself, the girl hamming it up for the camera...hell you try and strap me in a chair against my will, and I will scream, swear, spit, bite, threaten your family, piss myself, etc.). reading about exorcisms pre-"the exorcist" paints a different picture of how they occurred...and more than one priest has gone on record saying that people who think they need exorcisms ham a lot without demonstrating "superhuman strength" "a knowledge of things they couldn't know" "speaking in unknown languages".Coffeepusher (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So you removed it because your personal opinion is that the phenomenon of Exorcism does not exist or that they played before the camera? Unless you have evidence for these claims, you should not make them since they can be regarded as slander. This is a page where personal opinions should not be offered as I have learned thus far. A video showing a real exorcism is perfectly fine since that is what this wiki is all about. It does not have to present how the whole exorcism process is made even though this video shows practically all the steps or routines the priest uses in the ritual. An exorcism can vary in length from a mere word by the priest to several exorcisms. Exorcism is defined differently by different persons. Agreed? He explained alot more than the strapping process also. So what was the specific problem with the video or should I talk with another admin who won´t add personal opinions to the mix? Peace!Humilityisfine (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 83.252.166.128 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I said that I study exorcism and this video doesn't add anything to the article other than showing some girl getting strapped down and shouted at. How does this video inform the viewer in regards to exorcism from an encyclopedic point of view, because I believe that it only satisfies voyeuristic rather than intellectual/informational desires and fails to prove that it is actually an exorcism that we are watching. again no "superhuman strength" "knowledge of things unknown" or knowledge of unknown languages"...the garb suggests that it is a Greek orthodox (illuminated Icons, general garb), possibly clandestine which could disregard those things but then would need to provide different proof of possession, and those are the signs that identify a possessed person vs. a non possessed person. additionally you are not supposed to "beat" the person...that goes against the exorcism ritual as mandated by the Greek orthodox church. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ps. I didn't remove it, I just agreed that it should be removed. you will have to convince both of us of its worth if you want it on this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, exorcism has no precise definition where the person must show supernatural signs as you mention. You are not the judge of what an exorcism is. It is defined differently by different persons. The video is very educational and who did remove it if you didnt do it? Any specific church's views is irrelevant, different people do exorcism differently. Peace Humilityisfine (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

you didn't answer the question. does it present information outside of a voyeuristic indulgence. Wikipedia are not collections of links, they are encyclopedia articles which provide information on a topic. and while different people do exorcisms differently...the Orthodox Church does have a specific ritual with certain qualifications and while no information exists about who is in this video, they do possess the trappings of the orthodox church yet they are not preforming the correct ritual. and yes, that church does have a definition of demon possession which must display those signs.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

look, I didn't realize you where a new user. let me explain my point better. while we do use external links you should read WP:EL and pay attention to the WP:YT while I don't see a conflict in that section itself the video is not identifies on youtube as anything other than stating it is "a real life exorcism" which makes it one of a dozen of video's with that claim. this makes me question its reliability so I look further to find anything that may prove that this is a real life exorcism. things I would look for "what theology is being applied and what denomination is doing the exorcism" organized churches have very specific doctrine regarding exorcisms yet I don't recognize the ritual being preformed (and I have read quite a bit regarding different exorcism rituals) yet they are from the orthodox church, but don't appear to be following strict doctrine. with all this I can't verify its reliability as a source, and can't figure out what this will add to the encyclopedia other than claiming that a single unverifiable video is a exorcism ritual based on the word of the video poster alone.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I ask again... Who did remove the link if you did not do so, and where can I check this here on wiki directly when a person removes my addition or contact him or her so I know in the future who to contact directly instead of speaking with another person than the one who made the removal. Again which church is irrelevant or what any separate theology speaks about anything. Where can I see or contact the person?? I cannot log in now to my account strangely enough, can you help me? Ahh, had some trouble with my login, fixed now. Peace!Humilityisfine (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)83.252.166.128 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the video link initially for reasons enumerated by Coffeepusher. Following a limited discussion on my talk page, I see that there was already a discussion here as well. I personally am pretty reluctant to include any YouTube video except under certain circumstances of verifibility amongst other criteria. If the video in question espoused by the APA or something, I would have a different stance. I'm glad that we have new editors trying to be helpful here, but I just don't think the link is that good. :( Falcon8765 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excorcisms are made by priests, not psychologists. You are not the judge of what an exorcism is. Your personal stance should be removed and your personal views likewise. You would allow a video of APA but not a video when a priest who is the real Exorcist does the exorcism and describes how he makes an exorcism? That is called bias. Who should I contact to get this solved since you won't listen to reason or WIKI rules? Peace!Humilityisfine (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And who do I contact to have a judge committe watch over this case directly.Humilityisfine (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to make a reference to the psychology of exorcism, but rather the notion of a reliable source. You are correct in that I am indeed not a judge of what is and is not an exorcism and my personal views on the subject have no place in an encyclopedic article. However, regardless of my person views on exorcism, I just don't think the link is terribly appropriate for the same reason dozens of videos of whatever aren't on any popular article. It opens up a can of worms where everyone with a video about X wants it on the page. I for one, don't want to arbitrate the worthiness of Youtube video X by user X over Youtube video Y by user Y. If you so desire, you can solicit a WP:RFC from a third-party who is not involved. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is the specific problems with the video. An article about the phenomenon of exorcism is most suitable to show a real exorcism, that is just common sense. There is even instruction and not just some voyeuristic video as the other suggested. Let's follow WIKI rules here when we make reversions please. You seem to dislike the idea of a video of the ritual of exorcism and seem to make up your own rules which I cannot find in the WIKI rules? The X Y video has nothing to do with this issue. Again, I hope we can settle this. PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The video has no listed copyright information, advertises some random website, and isn't verifiable in any way. As I stated before, if the video was from a reliable source, I wouldn't have a problem with it's inclusion as it would indeed be demonstrative of the article's topic. For clarification purposes, the guidelines that would relate to this are at WP:EL. My Video X and Y argument is the underlying logic of most of the link guidelines. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide which or what organization is allowable? When we are dealing with such topics which is about the "supernatural" in nature, there is no oranization with exclusive rights. What do you mean with verifiable? A video dont need any copyright information. PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the video be fine without the logo? Is that the problem? PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please answer the question with what you mean by verifiable and what kind of copyright info you mean. Most videos have those logos on them, must there never be a logo in the video anywhere if for not xyzvideo as the info told? Not even in the end for it to be accepted? Peace83.252.166.128 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable as in what the video depicts isn't a hoax and has third-party information regarding it. Copyright information as in who, if anyone, owns the rights to the video - copyrighted video links aren't appropriate. Having a logo doesn't exclude all useful video links from inclusion, but it usually indicates that the video in question is copyrighted. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to improve the article, but this particular link just isn't great. If you can find a video depicting an exorcism that is of higher quality and less ambiguity, I would be happy to see it included in the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean with higher quality and less ambiguity? How can anyone know if it is a hoax or not? What do you mean by third party info and must I find a video that has it? Peace!

we mean that on wikipedia we run by WP:RS rules, and everything in the encyclopedia must come from a recognizable source that can be determined as reliable. the only thing we know about this video is that the uploadeder and people on the video say it is an exorcism...but we don't know who they are, what their cradentals are, or even if they are actually affiliated to any religion (there is nothing to prove this isn't just a hoax). so if you want to find a good video, find something where we can source where it came from (not youtube, but actual credits of who produced the video and who are in the video) and why they are experts in exorcisms.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

copyright

Must there be a Creative Commons link or icon on a page for me to quote from it? Is this info enough for me to use their material? "All material on this website are free copyright as long as you provide our website and as long as money is not charged." Im unsure if this is enough for me to use their material? Please help. Peace!Humilityisfine (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Humilityisfine (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.166.128 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about, would you be able to give the link? the policies on copyright information and wikipedia is on WP:COPY which should give you the information you need, however remember that the link must also follow WP:RS guidelines as well. Once you provide the link I will be happy to take a look at the page and let you know what I thinkCoffeepusher (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, all im trying to find out is if the creative commons logo must be on a website for me to quote from it or if I can quote from their site when they allow me to do so in their own words without having the CC logo? Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.166.128 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

you don't have to have the creative commons logo on the page to quote from it, but we prefer to have paraphrase with citation rather than a quote when possible (it is less risky in the copyright violations) read the WP:COPY which will tell you what sources you are allowed to useCoffeepusher (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But sometimes it might be necessary to quote directly, and is this not ok when the website allows this? And can you quote from a text which dont show who the author is? Many texts are old and dont have the authors presented? Peace and thanks for the help so farHumilityisfine (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also thought that the biggest opinion should come first in the article and this is the Christian one, Why is this order not followed?Humilityisfine (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Christian opinion is the "biggest" one? I'm sure that it is from your viewpoint but that does not mean the article should coincide with that. Beach drifter (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

well from the looks of the article that is the view with the most history and information, if you would like to beef up some of the other research, be my guest.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Christian Perspective in the opening section.

This is a religion blind article, that is to say that it covers all practices of all religions, the opening section should not focus on christian beliefs. I'll be moving the christianity focused paragraph to the appropriate section (just moving not changing or deleting) so as to not give a misleading appearance to the article. Nefariousski (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this article needs a good lead. What an interesting little subject. I have a book on Chinese and Buddhist exorcism rituals. It is indeed interesting. Later, I would like to add information from it, and also try to formulate a lead for the article if no one beats me to it. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Etymology of the word

The English word "exorcise" comes from the Greek "exorkhizo" and means "to put under oath." This is very different from "to abjure" which means "to renounce by an oath." In exorcism it is the one being exorcised that makes the oath instead of the exorcist renouncing by oath. The word in Greek doesn't necessarily indicate a spiritual entity but rather the idea of "making someone swear." It is related to "orkhizo" which is to beg or command. Adding the "ex" which means "out of" brings the idea that you actually get something out of what you are doing which would be the oath in question. The Greek word "exorkhisteis" though usually means one who performs exhorcisms on sprits." --Ben joiner-- —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Proof

I have removed a sentence from the Methodism section: "A combination of these things has been proven to be effective." The reference given was a link to a sermon.

I did not think a sermon from 2006 constituted a reasonable level of proof.

I am also not too happy with the rest of the paragraph. Again with the reference being a single sermon, does not seem up to the quality I would expect Wikipedia to require. JoshJGordon (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Physical methods of exorcism?

A while ago, I came across a book titled "Exorcism", but I don't remember its author for anyone interested in digging this up for me and everyone else. It briefly mentioned a method of exorcising demons from bodies by literally beating up the body to hope to drive the demon out of the body. It also had a little story along with it where a passer by sees somebody being beaten, and asking if it was the proper way to exorcise the demon. How did the people respond? They told the passer by that it is the most obvious way to drive a demon away.

Of course, this was a long time ago, and I was interested in looking into the subject a bit further and went to wikipedia, but this article only covers the more well-known method of calling for god's power to exorcise the demon.

Are physical methods of exorcism this obscure? 71.197.233.168 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not come across any reliable sources or established religious practices which condone this methodology. even in the sociological studies I have read, the most violent act seen was "screaming the demons out" (which was too obscure to include in this article according to WP:WEIGHT). IF this is practiced it is really obscure, and I have a feeling it was included to sell the book through sensationalizing rather than to observe an established doctrine.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Skeptics section

Shouldn't there be a section that goes more in depth about what skeptics would say is behind possessions and exorcism?-August, 16 2006

No, there shouldn't be a section about what "skeptics say is behind possessions and exorcisms". This article should be neutrally written, without any arguments for either side. I like how this article is presently set up, with some cleaning up here and there, mainly in the Protestant section. This article should lay out what exorcism is, not what certain individuals' opinons on the subject are. How exorcism is viewed and performed by different religions is what this article should be about. Please keep the annoying arrogance of the so-called "skeptics" away.

Is it annoying and arrogant because you don't agree with it? No, it is not a neutrally written article, it gives arguments for one side and not another. This article should have a skeptics section. All it would do would be to report what certain skeptics have claimed is behind exorcism. It doesn't have to be a large section, just enough to give an idea of what skeptics would say. I think that makes for a more balanced, interesting article.-November 5, 2006

To the idiot that wrote the paragraph immediately above this one: THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE ARGUMENTS. THEY ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTATIONS ABOUT A GIVEN SUBJECT. If you read any article in an encyclopedia (which, I am assuming, Wikipedia is supposed to be "encyclopedic"), they present what is, in essence, an extended definition on a given subject. Arguments are NOT included; what IS included are the facts associated with a particular subject. What a certain religion BELIEVES about a exorcism, for example, is a fact' whether exorcism actually occurs, however, is different. This should not be included.

The UFO article has an "explanations and opinions" section, which deals with skeptical views of what UFO's are. The Bigfoot article has a skeptics section. A similar section for this article was all I was asking for you. You clearly aren't familiar with wikipedia if you are suggesting that a skeptics section is not appropriate in this article, when such sections exist for many other articles. I don't see how giving a "presentation" of skeptical views on exorcism distracts from the definition or facts about exorcism. But thank you for the ad hominem remark. See you again next year.-8/09/07

There should be a robust criticism section and skeptical research should be prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott M Peck

It is disappointing that what could be a very well researched article relies on a Christian fundamentalist and pop-psychologist to justify this obvious superstitious practice on unfortunate people who are preyed upon by religious zealots. Scott M Peck, clearly a religious zealot, is an expert on selling books and portraying himself as the only person who really knows anything about anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"obvious superstitious practice"...so sure of our point of view aren't weCoffeepusher (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he is, since he has all the evidence on his side.SuperAtheist (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ah yes WP:TRUTH...not a pragmatist I see.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fix link

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about editing, but I would like to point out that this link: ^ Friedrich Zuendel. "The Awakening: One Man's Battle With Darkness". The Plough. http://www.plough.com/ebooks/pdfs/Awakening.pdf. Retrieved 2009–09–23. Is no longer correct. It should go here: http://www.plough.com/ebooks/awakening.html for all versions available on line, or if you just want to link to the .pdf the new link is: http://data.plough.com/ebooks/Awakening.pdf We put it on a CDN for faster downloading. Thanks! Carole Plough Publishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.66.122 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Integrating gallery into text

There seems to be little reason for a gallery on this topic. Inserting some of the images into to the body of the text would improve the presentation of the topic greatly. Thoughts? aprock (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikepedia. I do not have time to reasearch and contribute to the Exorcism article. I edited the "Buddhism" paragraphs because they are dreadful - badly written and inaccurate. My edit was removed because (like the original paragraphs) it was unsourced. Fair enough, but it would be better to remove the section all together than leave the one I first found. A D Wilding (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific" view?

the 'scientific view' section should be renamed 'psychiatric view'. i expected it to be about scientific experiments or theories, instead it's mainly about the DSM-IV.

Psychologicaloric (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

More Sources Needed

It would be good to include the use of exorcism from other cultures and religions (besides those already mentioned). Various animist/pagan/shamanic cultures practice exorcism as well. Exorcism is found in Korean shamanism for instance. Exorcism is also found in Thai animism and folk Buddhism. Various native cultures in North America believe in it as well. Among West Coast native peoples ( Tsimshian,Tlingit et. I think Inuit used them as well) they have "Spirit Catcher"(made from bone) to recover lost souls but to also exorcise bad spirits. There is also certain folk beliefs in Chinese culture about ghost possession and how the person can be exorcised by slipping red chopsticks between the fingers and squeezing them together. Then of course theres numerous cultures in Africa that should be looked into regarding exorcism. My studies on anthropology is limited and my books are all in boxes right now.

If anyone has more info please contribute. It would be great.

Henry123ifa (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Improper

The article is written with a biased slant towards the practice's validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.55.97 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Invoke ELSHADDAI , is the we Israelis perform the exorcism in Israel and the diaspora. We leav no records to avoid persecution. And must form a minyah.

Psalm 91

1 Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High

   will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. ELSHADDAI

2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,

   my God, in whom I trust.”

3 Surely he will save you

   from the fowler’s snare
   and from the deadly pestilence.

4 He will cover you with his feathers,

   and under his wings you will find refuge;
   his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night,

   nor the arrow that flies by day,

6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,

   nor the plague that destroys at midday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side,

   ten thousand at your right hand,
   but it will not come near you.

8 You will only observe with your eyes

   and see the punishment of the wicked.

9 If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”

   and you make the Most High your dwelling,

10 no harm will overtake you,

   no disaster will come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you

   to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands,

   so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

13 You will tread on the lion and the cobra;

   you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 “Because he[b] loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;

   I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

15 He will call on me, and I will answer him;

   I will be with him in trouble,
   I will deliver him and honor him.

16 With long life I will satisfy him

   and show him my salvation.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.9.73 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 

RULEs to Observe.

You may perform exorcism on shaabat, if it a matter of live.

You must have a minyah of 10

You must take the ritual bath

You wear the shawl, hold on to the fringes.

Anoint each self with olive oil.

Anoint the sick...you could feel the vibration that will manifest in a variety of way, it will start to attach all the five senses of your being. Dont get distracted. Distraction is the EVILS Trick to break you ties with Elshaddai. Is all the mind game.

Recite Psalm 10, 20. 91...as you reach the end to psalm 20 you will see a reaction....you got to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.9.73 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Details of Exorcism

I decided to reveal a little bit on the way we Israelite perform exorcism. with the simple explanation in my best.Also Now get your basic knowledge correct ,on the term "JEW", that there is no such thing as a JEW, so there is no such thing as a Jewish Exorcism.

The term "jew" were the creation of the Nazi Regime which became fashionable and found it way into the world of vocabulary. For correction sake, we are Israelite, the Children of Yisrael, the house of Jacob.The Nazi itself were an EVIL Force that murdered above 6 million Children of Yisrael.And the Evils of Nazi regime is in itself a EVIL POSSESSION on a Mega Level, that the world stood silence.It is a mass possession of evil over the body, mind of the Germans then. Such evil still exist and we rule as a corrupt mind of evil forces that is a crime against humanity, the very establishment of the Creation of Good Forces.

Now to the issue of the possession and exorcism.

There are many records of the manifestation of Evil Forces in the Hebrew Torah and our Rabbinical Talmud ( both the Israeli Talmud and the Hammurabi ). There in contains a hotchpot of text which you'll have read. These are just records of that explains the existence of another world on its own. The realm of the Asiah,Yetzirah,Briah and the Atziluth.

To understand these deeper you got to observe the The tree of life, in the Torah. Read carefully in bereshit ( genesis ), the book would reveal two trees ( the tree of life and another tree of knowledge ).

The significant s of these trees. particularly the tree of life is the secret code of the Life and the Light within. There in. it is a hidden code ,to understand the existence of Holiness of the Creator, the GOOD and the other opposite sight, which is the BAD/Evil. G-d is LIGHT, there for LIGHT is Good and G-d is good.The opposite of LIGHT is Darkness. So where did the darkness come from ? The answer is there was darkness and even darkness is a holi darkness, with out the presents of the evil forces. Generally many always get the idea that darkness is unholi, therefore its evil.That is a wrong idea.

G-d existed outside darkness on "ITS OWN" and G-d/IT is light that subdued darkness. We are not talking about the sun and the light. We are looking at the ORIGINAL LIGHT, the LIGHT that subdued the darkness. Ii is such an existence,and it is along this Consciousness, that we see the existence of the Evils that tries to subdue the light of the Soul.( now we are aware of the Rebellion in Heaven , where the point the angel of light fell by pride and its beauty). The rebellion happened in heaven not on earth. The Possession is the continues effect of evil subduing the earth by the extension of the rebellion from the heaven by the fallen angels into the mind of living beings and beast too. Take note that even animals could be possessed, we have records of these. In fact any living source could be possessed by evil. eg,a house, a dwelling place, a ship, a garden, a tree or anything for the matter, an object a material, etc. So it not merely the human being the concern here, it also any objects, substance or even an imagery. When you give effect to certain believes, such believes become alife and take control and possession of the mind and react favorably become a reality of EVIL forces. That is how witch craft works by spells

Your/The Soul is part of the SuperSoul of the Craetor, which is send into the body at the formation period in the womb. The Soul resides in the body and takes a shape and become a baby out into the world. So if you place a child in the dark, the soul in that child still glows in the dark, as darkness is there on its own. But there is also the existence of evil forces that play on the soul harboring and lingering among the darkness trying to dominate the body and the mind that is within the body of the child/person/adult insitu. When the power of evil enters the body it stay s there and starts the demonic oppression of the body, to the mind and the whole being.That is called the possession.

When a possession occurs or takes effect the spirits of demonic oppression ( it has many levels) sets in takes place as evil forces ( the opposite of G-d ) dwells into the body of a person and take possession of the body and the mind.

The Soul cannot be dissolved or abrogated by evil, because the Soul belongs to the CREATOR- Elokim Echad. We are humans and we cannot perform these ritual with El Shaadai, we are no way equal to El Shadaai. But our Soul is equal and forms the SuperSoul of G-d Alone.

As such we invoke the ElShaddai, we wear the Shawl and hold on to the fringes. ( there is a big mystery behind the act of donning the shawl).

We are covered by the the power of god and it is in that abode of cover and security we perform the exorcism . We delve into the many levels of the consciousness/ realm. When we do that we get into the tree of life, travel deeper into the spiritual realm.

We move through the supernal s and hit on to the level of consciousness of the Kerubim. BVen Elohim,Elohim,Malachim,Seraphim and Chasmalim. As such we delve into the mind of Gabriel,Raphael,Haniel,Michael.Khamael and the Tzadkiel. We neuter the nature of evil that posses the body mind of the possessed in this way, it all a communication and the act of tikkun olam, here to repair the mind, body and the injured soul and sever the dominion of the fallen light in the darkness. You get the help of a multifarious angel of G-d, to smash the fallen light- energy.

That is a little i share with you'll. I am afraid to teach this topic. We have been persecuted in so many ways and it has never stopped. As such we dont leave records, so we do not have many records of exorcism and it is very rare to see the children of Yisrael attacked by possession.

However, there has been few cases, and these are found in the Tanach straight.e.g We have our King Saul consulting a necromancer- where the impersonating spirit manifest like Prophet Samuel ( but not the prophet )into the body of the necromancer and mediating like the Prophet Samuel. You see, the children of Yisrael were scattered around the world, so we have records of exorcism coming out of many places, in Europe, America, Asia and africa,etc....but mostly this possession happens to persons outside, very rare within our community. The wise thing to do is to see if there are any organic causes, seeking medical diagnosis and even mental illness assessment first before exorcism.

Most possession occurs when you invite or touch things that carries the dark fallen lights and its negative energies.

Thank you.

Shalom

Note: I put this passages in good faith and I seek your understanding in not, persecuting or harassing me in any way by any person, persons or institutions of authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.9.73 (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 

More details..

Note: I put this passages in good faith and I seek your understanding in not, persecuting or harassing me in any way by any person, persons or institutions of authority.

There is this common understanding and acceptance that Faith is at work all the time and it is Faith that will bring us through, for this is the value system in our Judaic Believe System. In our Tradition of Orthodox Judaism , faith like love, i sin constant fluctuation. So we shockle as we exercise our faith in davening, It is a like Davidic Dancing. You may love some one but not deeply, but not the same awy all the time. That is an example of constance fluctuation of faith in a certain trying time in ones life. Where is G-d in all these event of fluctuating time. Is G-d absent ? Is it in this absence that the possession takes place. Yes, it is when human soul goes wandering into places that give them the temporary shelter. It is in these times that the evil takes domain. You open the doors to evil through TEMPTATIONS over thought, things and events that contains evil forces. e.g in talisment, in a ritual, in a gathering with the heathens. So where is G-d during the sucession of all these dangerous exploration. And when things go wrong, we alway ask , G-d where are you G-d?. Why do you hide Yourself in time of trrouble ? These are the question that plants the DOUBTS over G-d and SOVERGNITY of the CREATOR. Althought the mind seeks for G-d to deliver from the abormination of possession but the THOUGHT are bombarded with the darkness while the fallen light sparkels . Remember in a possession the mind is the battle grown, that need the salvation. It is through G-d Alone we will find confidence. Everyting that happens is approved and controlled by G-d ( we daven that such temptation are not placed on us, so spare ud G-d, is our pettion everyday an dmoment of time ). And that is the clear message in Psalm 10. G-d knows the transgressors and trouble makers of the darkness of the chief angel of the fallen light. It is G-d LIGHT that will subdue the fallen light. It is in the mean time , a short time the fallen light attackes, but without victory, because G-s is the Awesome.

The day of reckoning comes and will deliver the person from the oppressive possession and G-d hears our petitions. There is , G-d the Judge and there is judgement over Evils. In fact they lost the battle long ago, in the mean time the merely cause constant fluctuation , playing the fool with your passionate intensity in searching for an immediate answer in things that is far away from G-d. In a possession many things happen and such trauma extents to every loop corners of a family and their beloved. The possession shakes all the minds involved i n the exorcism.You gonna be infuriated when you see the power of sucess of some worst of their character exalted, for even dark fallen lights are capable to do such such temporary miracles , just to confuse your mind and subdue FAITH.

Please read Psalm 10, associated with the great Job an allusion of how nasty things may turn when Evil Forces get the 'Yes" form G-d. But YOUR SOUL BELONGS TO G-D.

These is an example of demonic oppression but the Level,of possession in Job is the highest level in it hierarchy of the Fallen Light.

Remember, My Father in Judaism Left a Message,and now I share with you, That G-d hears the yearning humble. So please remember Psalm 10 in all exorcism, for the G-d heals and recovers the humble.Even after performing the exorcise successfully, please watch out, for it is the exorcist that the FALLEN LIGHT would ATTACK.Exorcist are warned to keep away form material wealth in any form, pecuniary or otherwise, for it is through these the FALLEN LIGHT would try to attack, again and again. Be Cautious !

Invoke, Psalm 20 and Psalm 92.

Know them by hard or read it aloud again throught out the exocism, till the Fallen Light starts speaking and telling you its name, place of origin and its plan.

G-d glory is above Heaven, and the Fallen Angel knows that, and tell them to return to their place of prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.77.135 (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Superstitious?

"Superstitious" is pejorative, this article is biased. The religions that practice exorcism don't call it "superstitious"; most are against superstition.Josebarbosa (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Medicine says there is no such thing as demonic possession. Exorcism is a phony treatment for a misdiagnosed problem. That's why it is a superstition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

psychosurgery

I have changed and edited the citations, to my knowledge any statement after a cited source should be from that source until an additional source is added. Everything should be good now thanks for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubym123 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Added the last exorcism part ii

it is the sequel to the last exorcism and is related to the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearjunpp (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Psychosurgery

Psychosurgery is completely unrelated to exorcism, which is a religious ceremony. Its inclusion in the article is laughable. It is being removed unless somebody cares to back up its inclusion with solid sources. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to obtain consensus for its removal and that means actually discussing with the community. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the section in question should be removed based on your assertion that it's completely irrelevant. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The paper referenced, "Neurosurgical exorcism" does not even use the word exorcism outside of its title. Consensus does not override broader policy, such as need for verifiability. Please see WP:CONLIMITED.46.7.236.155 (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also see WP:3RR. The references cited clearly point to the notability and relevance of the section in my opinion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar article

Is the exorcist article really needed? Would be easier if all the information was on one article. Goblin Face (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing Goblin Face, redirect then? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary content fork. If there is anything not already covered in this article then merge it. Otherwise, I'd just redirect it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead change

User:Steeletrap, not everything unscientific or merely scientific is pseudoscience, this concept predates any science thus it becomes nonsensical to recognize it as pseudoscience, just stop using your personal opinion for changing its definition. Instead try finding some reliable citations that have explicitly explained that how it is pseudoscience. Though much better if you find sources that are relevant to Excorcism. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a scholarly RS. However, none was needed. The theory of exorcism is pseudo-scientific because (unlike, say theology) it makes claims about the cause of mental states: namely, that demonic possession is real and leads to bad mental states. This is an empirical claim that has been debunked by modern mainstream psychiatry and psychology. Steeletrap (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See also The Demon-Haunted World by the late Professor Carl Sagan of the University of Chicago, a world-renowned scientist. Steeletrap (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That book[5] is no where stating that exorcism "is a pseudoscience" or even close to it, it only gives 1 page of description about Exorcism which is 80% similar to this page. Just making a blind search on Google books and throwing a book title(of Sagan) that is irrelevant to this subject is clearly unhelpful. Since you are making a Wikipedia:POINT, also violating Wikipedia:OR, misinterpreting citation and sticking to your original research rather than providing a valid citation that would explicitly describe how it is pseudoscience, I would call Dougweller and John Carter that what they have to say about this kind of misinterpretation. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I have pinged the Fringe Theories Noticeboard about this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I had thought about it, but I just informed wikiprojects/boards like Christianity and Religion first. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. My own first reaction is that trying to label exorcism as pseudoscience is a stretch. And it's not something that I think should be done without consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The source implicitly labels exorcism a pseudoscience by listing it as an entry in the encyclopedia of pseudoscience.

Please realize that I am not saying that religion is pseudoscience per se. However, religious inspired empirical claims are pseudoscientific. If I said that praying to Poseidon caused tidal shifts, that's a pseudoscientific claim, even if also religious.

Exorcism differs from theology in that it makes claims about cause-and-effect in the material world. Exorcists assert that (some) people act the way the do because they are possessed by demons. This is an empirical claim; and it is a pseudoscientific one. It is distinct from most theological or religious claims. Steeletrap (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No it is not enough, that book no where says that it is pseudoscience, if we go by your original research then we will have to call just: everything as pseudoscience that has been mentioned in that book, including psychiatry and science itself. Apart from your nonsensical ideas, can you provide a single citation that would confirm your Wikipedia:POINT? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

pseudoscience

How important is science or pseudoscience with regard to this topic? I submit that science has little (or no) pertinence other than to assert that exorcism is not based in reality. Accordingly, adding any description of exorcism as being scientific or pseudoscientific is tangential to the topic and is best confined to a section or footnote. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We can add in footnote, but only if some citation makes any claims about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO exorcism and religion in general is pure bunk (albeit, potent bunk). Still, I can't see any WP editing rationale that justifies adding such a descriptive (e.g., "pseudoscientific") to the lede. Williams, who was mentioned by Steeletrap, is now a Further reading item. So I suggest that Williams be used WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and added as a reference. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a religious belief, putting pseudoscience is misleading. Scientific medical diagnosis puts it down to dissociation, schizophrenia etc. I will expand the article, here's some references:

• Tajima-Pozo, K., Zambrano-Enriquez, D., de Anta, L., Moron, M., Carrasco, J., Lopez-Ibor, J., & Diaz-Marsa, M. (2011). Practicing exorcism in schizophrenia. Case Reports.
• The Devil Inside: Psychotherapy, Exorcism and Demonic Possession by Stephen Diamond.
• Demonic possessions and mental illness: discussion of selected cases in late medieval hagiographical literature
• Possession syndrome at high altitude ( 4575 m/15000 ft ).
• Dissociation and symptoms of culture-bound syndromes in North America: a preliminary study
• Belief in demons and exorcism in psychiatric patients in Switzerland

Goblin Face (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Have at it. I recommend adding to the Scientific view section only, with a passing reference in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What it will be? I actually came here to read about the history of Exorcism because I have some idea about it. I just thought of resolving other dispute first. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we seriously saying that no religiously motivated claims can be pseudoscientific? THis is political correctness at its worst. Steeletrap (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not these claims are. These are pre-science and they have later helped scientific theories to develop. Exorcism dates back to Indus Valley Civilization, and it started from 3300 BCE, while psychiatry was already evident from 500 BCE in Indian subcontinent and later other regions of the world. That's why it is historical revisionism when you are calling it pseudoscience. It is also known that these theories have evolved throughout these centuries. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

After some consideration I believe that we cannot reasonably apply the term pseudoscience to exorcism because the practitioners as far as I am aware have never laid any claim to science to explain or defend the act. Biblical creationism does not become pseudoscience until its proponents claim that it can be proven by scientific methodology. By adopting the radically expansionist interpretation of pseudoscience offered up by Steeletrap we would have to apply the term to all manner of hitherto purely religious beliefs and practices. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that Holy Communion is miraculously transformed into the ACTUAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. By Steeletrap's definition this must be a form of pseudoscience. What about the Muslim belief in the physical ascension of the Prophet Mohamed into heaven,or the very similar belief by Christians about Christ? Sorry, but this proposed interpretation does not comport with what I understand to be pseudoscience, and I believe it runs counter to established consensus on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The only reason we don't consider religious beliefs that entail empirical theories about cause and effect in the real world not to be pseudoscientific, is because it is politically incorrect to do so, given the status of Christianity in our society. Alchemy is considered pseudoscientific even though many forms of it have religious origins; I expect both of you would be arguing it wasn't pseudoscientific if it were tied to some "mainstream" (read: Western) religious doctrine. There is no principled epistemic reason not to label exorcism pseudoscience. Steeletrap (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If one concept is considered as pseudoscientific, doesn't means that any other unrelated one would be considered as the same. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion between editors not focused on article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many times I have to tell you that we don't want to hear your pseudohistorical revisionism because this is not the right place for your gossiping and soapboxing. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Steeletrap you need to check your anti-religious AGENDA at the door and confine yourself to policy and guidelines. To the extent that Alchemy claims to be scientific, it is pseudoscience. No such claims are made on the part of exorcists. Your attempt to revise the definition in order to suit your openly declared prejudice is grossly inappropriate. And I am frankly disturbed that you may not understand this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I'm anti-religion now? Quit making unfounded assumptions. How would you feel if I called you a "faith-head"? Or: "a man who believes himself to be in possession of a magic book"?Steeletrap (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Not really unfounded, if someone look at your comments. It is okay that you have clarified that you are not anti-religion, but you haven't clarified that why you are righting great wrongs. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This paper is probably the best on the topic William Trethowan. (1976). "Exorcism: A Psychiatric Viewpoint". Journal of Medical Ethics 2: 127-137. It goes into history and cites old cases. I am feeling lazy I can't be bothered to cite examples from it. If anyone else wants to obviously, then great. I put it in the further reading section. Regards all. Goblin Face (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While there are some people who practice a pseudoscientific version of psychiatry which incorporates elements from exorcism theology, Exorcism itself does not claim to be any part of a scientific discipline. It isn't "political correctness" but rather an understanding of what pseudoscientific means, a "fake science" which necessitates that scientific claims are being made. The above article is a scientific evaluation of exorcisms, not exorcisms appeal to scientific validity. No one is making the claim that exorcisms are a valid scientific school of thought.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

for clarification please see the wikipedia page Pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." To claim it is pseudoscience, I would need to see a notable practitioner claim that it is scientific in nature.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher. Exorcism is a religious practice, and therefore is not a pseudoscience. Pseudosciences are things like cold fusion, or free energy that purport to be science based subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am myself unaware of any cases where exorcism is used in a "scientific" way. I know the current practice in the Catholic Church is that regular psychological practices are always or almost always required before this step is taken, and only if the results of those practices are ineffective in a particularly relevant way. If anyone else is aware of sources indicating that it is used in the West as a form of real therapy, and I suppose some reference works on psychology might cover that, then there might be some basis for making such a statement. However, if as I think is generally the case, exorcism is regarded first and foremost as some form of "spiritual practice" of some sort, then I think that there would be much less reason for the prominent inclusion of the word. This is not to say that it might not easily bear inclusion in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience or some spinout article of that article. In what is called more primitive societies, it might be the case that it is used more quickly, but in a lot of cases much of those cultures is based on ideas which are not scientific, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to list religion collectively or individually as a pseudoscience. I know also that there are at least a few reference works related to Science and religion, and think it would make a lot of sense to develop content related to the intersection of those topics, but that is another matter. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a Religious practice, nothing else. It is indeed know as a the current practice in the Catholic Church. As far as I know they didn't tried to put a scientific claim on it. It is a religious belief, putting pseudoscience is misleading, as editor above stated. Hafspajen (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, maybe, somewhere, I have seen some sources indicating that in cases of some form of religious aberrant psychology, the form of exorcism is used as a means of psychological healing. Basically, people who have some sort of psychological aberration causing them to think they are possessed get exorcised to permit them to believe the demons they are thought to be falsely thinking possess them are removed. But in such cases, it isn't necessarily really anything like what might be called formal exorcism that is performed. Even in those cases, however, it isn't necessarily really "pseudoscientific," as it is using a practice in the belief that the subject believes it to be effect, and is ultimately a form of the placebo effect. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine only religious people who go to the priest - it is not advertised in hospitals, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding what John Carter is describing is a pseudoscience, but from the perspective that it is a psudo-psychology not scientific exorcisms. We have a few examples inside the body of the article, but those examples are very specific strains of psychology and exorcisms and not an example of religious psycology or exorcisms as a whole.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the material relating to "demonomania" seems to describe it right now fairly accurately, and such usage is not at all the standard usage of the rite. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but I want to add my input. Exorcisms are mystical meaning they don't have scientific/empirical/etc. basis. Because of a recent discussion over on the Wikiprojet:Occult I propose that not only should exorcisms be considered mystical, but "magical".--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 14:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Modern-day" Roman Catholic View of Exorcisms

I changed (and reverted) the Roman Catholic section to note that the Rite of Exorcism was renewed in January of 2000, as the previous versions impressed that the practice of exorcism is outdated in the Church. Quite the contrary - though advances in the sciences have aided in the differentiation between demonic possession and mental illness, as Roman Catholics are aware, it indeed remains a recognized and accepted practice of the Church. For a better flow in the article, I also moved the historical information regarding the position of exorcist.

Also, the Second Vatican Council should be capitalized; it is a title, such as the Council of Trent.

17:17, 26 August 2005

The article mentions that, often, it is necessary to perform weekly exorcisms over a number of years to remove especially entrenched demons. It would be good to know how much money the Catholic church expects to receive for each application of the exorcism ritual. John Paul Parks (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't cost anything, just as it wouldn't cost anything to have a priest give you the last rites, or to hear you in confession, or anything else. It's part of a priest's duties. It's also extremely rare. BillsYourUncle (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exorcism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206103358/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Examples

The New Zealand case of a "Makutu lifting" should not be included. This was a family suffering from a combination of poor education, low intelligence, mental illness and superstitution. There was no proper basis for any suspicion of demonic possession. What they called a makutu lifting was simply torture. Please remove this "example of an exorcism".

This could also be a good example: http://internationalschoolofexorcism.org/; you can take classes on exorcism and become a certified exorcist. I came across this info by watching a video of the establisher of that school perform an exorcist with commentary by penguinz0 at YouTube. Citations related to schools that teach exorcism:[6][7] --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cultural References

The cultural references section should be severely shortened or removed. Its got a listitus problem. Not every bit of pop culture that has a exorcism needs to be included. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exorcism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011193554/http://cathnews.com/news/510/72.php to http://www.cathnews.com/news/510/72.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224103059/http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20081007-An-Evening-with-an-Exorcist.html to http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20081007-An-Evening-with-an-Exorcist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108032631/http://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/work_of_the_diocese/chaplaincy_deliverance.php to http://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/work_of_the_diocese/chaplaincy_deliverance.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exorcism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904034054/http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-asian-muslims-giving-up-western-meds-for-islamic-exorcisms-treatments/ to http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-asian-muslims-giving-up-western-meds-for-islamic-exorcisms-treatments/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

UK

So we have a white secular liberal source criticising West African practices from a position of assumed cultural superiority? And this troubles no one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.229 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source that backs up your opinion about this news org? Otherwise, this is only OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.19.227 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk: Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if the above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The Goya painting is NOT an exorcism

San Francisco de Borja y el moribundo impenitente is NOT a painting of an exorcism.

He is convincing the about to die of CONFESSING AND EMBRACING CHRIST. The demons are AWAITING for his soul. He is NOT possesed.

--91.242.158.148 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the part criticism under Christianity be a whole new section?

I have writen that part and want to know your opinion. VScode fanboy (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)