Talk:Spirit possession/Archive 1

Archive 1

I wonder whether...

I wonder whether the external link to http://spcdc.saint-mike.org/help.asp is appropriate. Look likes a scam or the like to me. --Edcolins 12:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've contacted the monk who runs the non-profit group and it is not a scam. Dwain July 6, 2005 03:10 (UTC)

If it is a scam do you think anyone would admit they are scamming? Henry123ifa (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge and re-direct of channeling to this page is incorrect

I strongly disagree with the merge between channeling and spiritual possession. They are very distinct subjects. Andries 17:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree channeling (or chanelling, two L's?) is different to spiritual possession. They are both connected to the Divine, but the first, for example, can take the form writing for the Spirit and the second can take the form of being possessed by a spirit for a short time frame, whether that be a deceased love one, Abraham, Jesus etc etc --nirvana2013 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge and re-direct of channeling to this page is incorrect

I agree entirely with the above comment and am concerned to see a primarily Judeo-Christian stance adopted that defies even an anthropological point of view. It is an uncomfortable partnering. Chanelling may actually be the same or similar mechanism as spiritual possession but terminologically is used for different circumstances. Generally, but not always, channeling is benign and can also be purely of impersonal vibrations rather than personal manifestations

But"" should there not be some connection / redirection / merge with the article on Channelling / Channeling (mediumistic User:unregistered 4:57, 1 November 2005 (GMT).

Large edit was aimed at grammar, style, form issues.

Yeah, I like to edit grammar in my spare time.

It was not my intention to tilt the POV (or NPOV) of the article one way or another.

After my edit, I think the last three paragraphs of the first section are basically just trivia. They are on the subject, but I don't think they are essential. I will leave it for someone else to delete them or not, since I don't like to simply remove things without a trace.

Thanks.

Much of what has been said about denomic possession is only skimming the surface on a scientific point of view. it is explained much more logically and clearly in Dr M. Scott Pecks book people of the Lie: The Hope Of Healing. i would like to add some of he's theorys later when i ahve finished my research.

I edited some of the text to remove repetitive nomenclature. I also added some refs. TimRey 17:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I took the liberty of adding the reference to M. Scott Peck to the main text since it is the principle “scientific” support for the notion of spirit possession. TimRey 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

This page needs a bit of work done on it. The definition of this entry needs more (credible) resources and clarity brought to it. Above all, the term "Spiritual" needs to be somewhat defined. Which I do not think anyone can truly state what that is.

The Halloween depiction of ghosts and goblins needs to be removed. Though, as the Exorcist is referenced, the movie does show possession in its most rigid sense - involuntary.

Also, voluntary communication with spirits occurs at a few levels. Channeling is not possession. Possession is dominance over an individual. Channeling is a mutual act.

I will come back to this later...

ds

We can distinguish between “channeling” when the medium is merely conveying information being received in thoughts or feelings, versus “trance channeling” when the personality of the spirit largely or completely takes over the body of the medium (displacing the personality of the medium). The latter is temporary possession. TimRey 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Possession in many cultures is entirely voluntary, especially in shamanic religions. ---MRD

Spirit possession in "Abrahamic religions"

Judaism, being the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, believe in possitive spirit possession of various types. While 'possession' by Ruach HaKodesh or Sar HaTorah is written about in various texts, true spirit possession by human souls in beneficial ways exists in Judaism. The class of spirit possessors known as Ibburim fit this bill. They are the souls of Tzaddikim, most often, who possess an individual to teach them. There is also the case of the Maggidim, who are angelic teachers and have been argued to be a form of possession at times. And finally there is the case of the Leverite Marriage, of which it is believed by some that the spirit of the deceased husband enters his brother during this act. Reference Between Worlds by Chajes for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.20.134 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

This page pretends that spirit possession actually exists.

Possession cases have no proof in science. They are part of belief systems that contradict science.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net has proposed that Subliminal Distraction is the source of dissociative mental events that are perceived as possession.

L K Tucker 72.152.19.162 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net http://visionandpsychosis.net/Demon_Spirit_Possession.htm

This page dosn't validate or invalidate spirit possesion, rather just show what the beliefs are and how they manifest in popular culture. for many people spirit possession is real, just like for many people the cosmic crunch is real.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because something has no proof in science does not mean it does not exist - look at life - is that scientifically proven? (There is no 'outside' to test it from) - if wiki only had what was scientifically proven then there wouldnt be much, would there?! 'Thought' again, does not exist. I'm unable to touch it, therefore it cannot be. (Just because you dont believe in something doesnt mean that you should try to suppress it in others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicalThinking (talk • contribs) 11:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think this page does need a rewrite. That's not because of what is written, but because it has no sources. I'm going to go through soon and take out the uncited stuff, and people can put anything back they wish with a source. Though there are sources at the end of the article, they need to be matched to the text, with page numbers if the text is to be kept.

Some of the things in here are also rather POV, such as the lead which calls it supernatural and superstition without a citation.

Alternately, I can put citation requests, but the result will probably be the same in the end. It's better to start fresh. There are plenty of sources around. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I took out nearly everything which was uncited. The article can be restored, but the sources should be matched to the text when this is done. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other references to spiritual possession in video gaming.

There were other games that used the art of possession even before Geist. The most notable of them was Messiah, a PC game by Shiny where you control a little cherub sent by God to earth who was ble to possess living creatures in order to stop Satan himself. There's also Omikron: The Nomad Soul which is more geared towards reincarnation but a possession spell can be obtained.

The oldest game that I know of to use the concept was Jaleco's arcade game Avenging Spirit/Phantasm released in 1991. In it the protagonist is killed by a wruthless gang and kidnapped his girlfriend. His girlfriend's father who was a scientist invented a machine and brought you back as a ghost. You had the abilty of possession to try to stop the gang and save your girlfriend.--Mgbenz (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit possession in other cultures?

It would be nice to see a mention in this article of spirit possession in other cultures, religions, etc. The one that comes to mind is voudou, in which possession by a loa (really a god, not a spirit) is an important aspect of religious practice.

Or is possession by a god the same thing as possession by a spirit? God-possession is an ancient belief as well - there's even an old Germanic word for it, gudigaz (an etymological ancestor to "giddy").

- Prestonmarkstone (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Watseka Wonder

Reference the "Watseka Wonder", i.e. Lurancy Vennum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.213.143 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just noting that the section of this article that addresses Christianity is clearly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.14.107 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The information about Christianity in this article is entirely false. Historic Christianity does NOT believe that angels have bodies. Angels & demons are the same, immaterial creatures. They are spirits, immortal, and without bodies. Demons are merely those who rebelled and were cast from Heaven. In Christian belief, demons can possess individuals who open themselves to such by participation in overtly occult practices. There are more minor levels of demonic interference, such as oppression. One can open himself to minor demonic interference by engaging in practices that interfere with one's capacity for full human reason, such as heavy drug use. Habitual serious (mortal) sin could also open oneself to demonic activity. There is an enormous body of work on this subject available. I do not have the time to research and cite it properly. Angels and Demons by Peter Kreeft is an excellent place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MotherGinger (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Scientific materialism

I added some material here because it was lacking. I felt some examples to why science might reject this phenomenon were necessary, along with where this information could be found. PremoVeritas (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Religious Possessions vs Non Volunteer Spirit Possession

I think the whole article needs to be recategorized/reorganized. People are mixing religious forms of possession (often voluntarily) such as mediumistic Tang-ki cults found in Singapore (which is usually benign in nature) where dieties are invited into the participant's body to the more baleful & involuntarily forms of spirit possession (like as in the move "The Exorcist").

Henry123ifa (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dune has spiritual possession?

Does the Dune series contain any spiritual possession? The existence of "spirits" is never mentioned of in the series, except by the Fremen in some cases. The state when someone who is an "Abomination" refers to being possessed by an ancestor, the memories in this case pass through the cells of the person in question, not through any "spirits".--Darthanakin 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think straying into the realm of fictional possession is a topic so large as to be prohibitively difficult to handle exhaustively on a general wiki page. It would work as a section on "Dune", itself. For this page, it might make sense to have one small "fictional references" section with a paragraph noting the popularity of "possession" in fantasy stories -- especially if someone has statistical data to relate on the topic. Bjond (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Science, encyclopedic?

quoting:

"Science does recognize that "possession" exists, but only in the sense that some people occasionally behave in a way that fits the expected behavior of a possessed people. However, in spite of many attempts, it has not been able to find any reproducible proof of the existence of "spiritual beings"; therefore, it finds much easier to explain such altered mental state by natural causes"

"Science" is being refered to as a person in this paragraph. Apart from the linguistic issue, I mean, what is the paragraph trying to state? Who's claiming the claims? The 'majority' of scientics? A certain conference? There truely seems to be some entity here, "it has not been able to find" etc, who is this entity? what is it trying to prove or disprove?

"I think they mean science as a synechdoche, not as some conspiracy. So yes, the science community at large are being refered to."

This article needs substantial improvement to be encyclopedic. The theory/belief needs to be clearly explained with these explanations sourced. The content needs to be sourced and reflect scholarly research on the subject not a collection of unsourced statements that don't indicate the nature of various proposed explanations of events. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Seems like there was an old suggestion to merge Body hopping into Spirit possession from February 2011. I personally know nothing about these two articles; I'm just doing cleanup since there was a {{Mergeto}} template on Body hopping to Spirit possession, so I put down the corresponding {{Mergefrom}} template on Spirit possession. Discuss and decide ... so this discussion can conclude. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems Body hopping is about a fictional ability of fictional creatures. I have doubts about its notability. —Kenfyre (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think keeping fictional references out of this article is a very good idea. OTH, if there's data about a people where this is a cultural belief, that would be interesting. Bjond (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam rewrite?

On reading the page, I noted the Islam section has a serious lack of scholarly rigor and instead reads like religious doctrine. I'm mentioning this here in the hope that someone knowledgeable on the topic might be motivated to rewrite the section. The current section is rather useless -- even the two references in it simply refer to what seems to be an "Islamic Dear Abbey" site that gives religious advice. It's jarringly out out of place in a wiki page. Bjond (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree Brainape (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is a mess. I repeatedly states that spirit possession occurs when there has been no substantiation that this is a factual occurrence rather than a particular belief. Those editors who hold the belief that spirit possession is a factual occurrence please note that this must be substantiated by reliable sources and each claim of spirit possession occurring (in this or that location or group) requires a reliable source that explicitly states what is to be stated in a WP article. As above the entire Islam section is completely unencyclopedic with only clearly non reliable sources. Please also note that religious texts are not reliable sources for WP. Unless significant changes are made and or sources added I will remove the unsourced material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A few comments. First, it probably should be clearly stated in the lead that this topic is a matter of belief, not fact. I also tend to think that discussing the topic from primarily the apparent historical, perhaps starting with Shamanism and other early traditions, would make most sense. There is also probably more room due to the development of Spiritism. I have copied the article to my computer and will be offering more substantial comments in the next few days, I hope. John Carter (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that this article presents the reader with scientific and anthropological explanations makes it very clear that the phenomenon is not empirically verified. Nonetheless, it is a factual occurrence that people enter states in which they believe themselves to be possessed by spirits, and I think that the distinction is made very clear in the article's wording. I understand your objections to the Islamic section and I agree that it should be edited, but what specific sources do you take issue with? Asarelah (talk)

Guessing that the question about Islam is to User:Bjond in the section above, I will let that editor answer that directly, but I can at least try to check some of the better reference sources on the broad topics of pseudoscience, occult/parapsychology, and religion in general, maybe in some cases in particular where reference sources on those subjects discuss the matter at length. However, given the word I received a bit earlier today, it now might be Sunday at best before I can go and and consult such sources because at this point it looks like it will be Saturday at the earliest before the medics finish all the wonderful invasive procedures and sampling and all the other things they seem so intent on doing to for me. I very sincerely hope to get some information back next week. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)