SCIENCE AND DEMONIC POSSESSION
By Mark Donovan
Throughout history the discussion concerning the reality of demonic possession has been seriously considered by the theological and lay community, while being considered mythological by the hardcore scientific community. Embarking on a lengthy writing project concerning scientific evaluation of this perplexing phenomena, I have discovered scientists equally interested in the reality of possession. There are even proposals on the table to include possession states and altered states of consciousness in the hallowed Diagnostic and Statistics Manual- the clinical bible used world wide by all clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. Unfortunately, scientists who are at least willing to accept the possibility of genuine possession, let alone acknowledge it, are in the vast minority within the scientific community. Some scientists, including many parapsychologists, are still scrambling for sensible, psychosomatic explanations fro a phenomenon that blatantly defies natural law. The demonologist and theologian, on the other hand, are not dismayed because his or her acceptance of the reality of possession is not dependant on whether or not the phenomenon can be proven through scientific method. The true scientist is bound by philosophical necessity to adhere to the strict precepts of modern science. This ideology is based completely on the notion that all of reality is predictable, quantifiable and able to be shown with controlled laboratory methods. Especially characteristic is that science has only the five sense with which to observe. Although some scientists now concede the existence of a sixth sense, recognition of human psychic ability by the scientific community has been decades in the making. With this in mind, we must thoughtfully ask, can scientists legitimately address the issue of possession, and if so, can scientific data be helpful in adding to the current state of knowledge of possession?
As a student of theology and science, I answer a resounding YES! We must, however, revise our notion of what science is. Science is regarded as the most objective form of thinking we humans have. How can we be truly scientific if we dismiss the possibility of possession, especially considering the hoards of the evidence. As scientists, we must consider EVERY possibility when attempting to explain and define. Many psychologist, therapists, etc. who have been exposed to a possession situation, have , for fear of jeopardizing their reputations, failed to voice their gut feelings, when in fact what they have done is to allow subjective reasoning to impede the pursuit of true wisdom. This attitude is preventing the progress we need in understanding possession. As scientist, we must be open to all possibilities in order to be truly objective. Even if we suspect a conclusion to a problem set before us, we still must be truly scientific and consider all conceivable options for explanation. Imagine a cultured, advanced society where spirituality is understood the same was biology is understood. The very essence and fabric of our temporal existences would be completely different. And so begins the journey
Published 1995
The Official Journal of the New England Society for Psychic Research, Volume 1, issue 4
Spirit Possesion as Diagnostic Category
by Mark Donovan
It has long been postulated within the international psychiatric community that cases of alleged spirit possession resembled what is in North America considered Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formerly Multiple Personality Disorder. With the DSM-IV renaming MPD as DID also came a new Dissociative Disorder for consideration, Trance/Possession Disorder, which distinguishes possession from DID. It is the intention of this paper to discuss the possible benefits and limitations of this new category and the indigenous confusion brought about by scientific evaluation of an alleged supernatural phenomenon.
Cases of alleged possession have persisted cross culturally throughout history, and indeed, still persist within the modern world (Crabtree, 1985). As understanding of dissociation broadened, so too came the idea that the phenomenon of possession was in fact a previously unrecognized, culturally different expression of DID (Putnam, 1989). This premature conclusion has since been demonstrated to be inappropriate and is exemplified in the formation of a new dissociative category, designed to address the uniqueness of possession (Cardena, 1992).
Historically, cases of possession are plentiful from every culture. It is clear that the phenomenon of possession has always existed. It is the mechanistic nature of the phenomenon that is currently being addressed by the psychiatric community. Keep in mind that the true scientific approach does not attempt to define the causation of the disorder, but simply to identify and address the mechanisms of the disorder (Crabtree, 1993). It would seem sensible, at least peripherally, to associate possession with DID. Clinically, DID gained identification and understanding first, and, based on the seemingly clear similarities between what is known about DID and what is observed in possession cases, that we should naturally be drawn to the easy conclusion of equality of the two disorders (Coons, 1993; Fraser, 1993; McCormick & Goff, 1992). Careful analysis, however must lead us to a different conclusion.
It should be noted that several religious organizations who may or may not deal with dissociative disorders make a determined effort to keep cases of possession brought to their attention away from the eyes of public scrutiny (Martin, 1976; Vogel 1935; Allen, 1993). This tendency would indicate the possible existence of a sub-group of possession patients who, because of religious intervention, never are allowed scientific evaluation. The above scenario is particularly true of possession cases in North America and other advanced cultures, where the discussion of possession has been, until recently, left out of the scientific arena. It is frequently claimed that statistically, possession cases are less numerous in technologically advanced societies than in more primitive ones (Bourguignon, 1973). Given the secrecy which many religious groups surround their exorcistic practices, and the until recent lack of diagnostic attention, it is not hard to understand that the above statistic may be skewed.
Herein lies one problem of classifying possession as a psychological disorder. Cross-cultural possession phenomenology varies greatly, such variances may exist within a single culture. Bourguigon conducted a cross-cultural study of 488 societies in which evidence was found of possession in 52% (Bourguigon, 1976). Within these cultures may exist vastly different forms of possession, so different, that a single catch all category is insufficient to accurately describe the phenomenon. This problem begs for a more systematic approach for developing finer conceptual distinctions (Rosik, 1993). It is oversimplification to assume that possession is the same cross culturally, differentiated only by particular local mythologies and tradition (Cardena, 1992).
First, a distinction must be made as to the notions of pathological possession and non pathological possession. In many cultures, possession is a normal, integral part of that cultures religiosity. In Central and South America, for example, spirit healing is practiced. In this form of possession, the healer is allegedly possessed by the spirit of a deity or deceased healer and is then empowered to heal, reportedly with positive results (Naegeli Osjord, 1988). This form of possession is by definition, non pathological in that it does not disrupt ordinary functioning of the individual to the point of significant distress, and is therefore not quantifiable as a disorder. Pathological possession does, however cause great disruption and distress in the life of the one afflicted and is therefore be considered as a disorder (Crabtree, 1993; Lewis Fernandez, 1992; Leavitt, 1993). Crabtree (1985, 1993) has gone further with this analysis to distinguish demonic possession from non demonic pathological possession.
In the non demonic form, in which the patient feels to have been invaded by a deceased human spirit, phenomenology is minimal and treatment is often successful at displacing the entity. On the other hand, demon possession almost invariably exhibits unusual and bizarre phenomenology. Frequently, these phenomena defy reason and are thus labeled paranormal (Crabtree, 1993).
It has long been observed that some alleged sufferers of DID exhibit certain commonalties of symptoms which fit the general conception of pathological possession (McCormick & Goff, 1992; Leavitt, 1993; Fraser, 1993; Bowman, 1993). Certainly these patients would be diagnosed with DID rather than possession since the diagnostic criteria distinguishing DID from possession is relatively new and because of the apparent hesitancy exhibited by many therapists to accept a diagnostic category for possession. The diagnostic criteria set forth in DSM IV for Possession Disorder is as follows:
A (2) possession trance, a single or episodic alteration in the state of consciousness characterized by the replacement of customary sense of personal identity by a new identity. This is attributed to the influence of a spirit, power, deity, or other person, as evidenced by one (or more) of the following:
(a) stereotyped and culturally determined behaviors or movements that are experienced as being controlled by the possessing agent
(b) full or partial amnesia for the event
B. The trance or possession trance state is not accepted as a normal part of a collective cultural or religious practice.
C. The trance or possession trance state causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. The trance or possession trance state does not occur exclusively during the course of a Psychotic disorder (including Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features and Brief Psychotic Disorder) or Dissociative Identity Disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition (APA,1994).
The above criteria are for the proposed category of Dissociative Trance Disorder, which is divided into two categories: trance and possession. It category is still listed as Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, but with the latest edition, Possession/Trance Disorder has been included in appendix B, Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study (APA, 1994). The criteria are the same for both Trance and Possession, save that the criteria for possession demands partial or full loss of embodied identity and amnesia. The trance diagnosis may include alteration but not replacement of embodied identity and, does not require amnesia for diagnosis (APA, 1994). These intense differences seem to indicate a need for separate categories, but the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) has already incorporated a Trance/Possession category prior to DSM IV and the DSM IV task force felt a similar category would help bring about international cultural congruence (Cardena, 1992). Despite the obvious benefits of international diagnostic similarity, the differences between Trance and Possession need to be considered more closely in the future, as the dual categorization smells of convenience rather than empirical knowledge.
As to the similarity between DID and possession, change in identity seems to be the only real commonality (Cardena, 1992; Lewis Fernandez, 1992). . It is this similarity that gives possession the appearance of DID, and is also the key diagnostic criteria for classifying possession as a Dissociative Disorder. Beyond this similarity, however, there is little congruity. There are remarkable differences in personal etiology and behavioral manifestations. It has been demonstrated that DID has its eitological roots in childhood physical/and or sexual abuse (Putnam, 1989). No such data exists for possession etiology, possibly due to the lack of research on possession, but, nonetheless it is decidedly more difficult to argue that possession and DID are equal when considering the course of the disorders. DID tends to begin in childhood and is chronic, continuing throughout the lifespan (Kluft, 1991), whereas the course of possession tends to be acute or subacute (Lewis Fernandez, 1992). These key differences in symptomology are significant enough to warrant a separate classification of DID and possession. And, more importantly, future study of possession should reflect this distinction (Cardenza, 1994).
As in DID, there is a partial or complete loss of embodied identity, however, particular to possession is the diagnostic stipulation that the subject attributes the replacement alter personality as an external agent. The diagnostic language for DID makes no mention of attributes, which is synonymous with believes or conviction, but simply states the existence within the person of two or more distinct personalities (APA, 1994). Here is the first problem with categorizing an allegedly supernatural event as a psychological disorder. On one pole, the diagnosis for DID admits to the objective reality of a personality distinct and separate from the host. On the other end, the diagnosis for possession only admits to a series of symptoms attributed or believed to be caused by an external entity. If this were simply the case, it would seem that possession should not deserve its own diagnostic category, but rather would be best understood in the context of psychosis, or schizophrenia. Certainly, the APA could not translate the criteria for DID to possession with the existence within the person of disembodied entity, or spirit or demon, but the current criteria is certainly in great need of clarification (Crabtree, 1993). As to phenomenology, the classic stereotyped behavior of possession is a matter of inquiry. While many possession behaviors are similar in expression to those behaviors observed in DID, there remains a set of behaviors that seem to be exclusively related to possession (Cardena, 1993). There are alleged manifestations of bizarre phenomena, such as glossolailia (the ability to speak and converse in a language unknown to the patient), abnormal displays of strength, an obscene dislike of anything considered sacred (Osjord, 1988; Peck, 1983; Martin, 1976; Allen, 1993; Goodman, 1981; Akolkar, 1992). Goodman (1981) has reported that an analysis of the vocalizations of current cases of possession throughout the world shows a distinctive vocal pattern. The above symptoms continually turn up in case studies, but rarely make it into the scientific literature, although an intensive study of these phenomena is sorely needed (Crabtree, 1985; Peck, 1983), but as mentioned, may be blocked by religious secrecy.
One of the most pervasive aspects of the proposed category is the fact that systematic, scientific study of possession is virtually absent from the literature. The vast majority of possession studies are anthropological and theological, not psychological. This does not detract from the benefits of anthropological and theological research, but the psychiatric community is attempting to define a psychological disorder without the benefit of psychological research (Rosik, 1993). In doing so, there is great danger for misinformation. There is also the vehement attempt to explain the phenomenon of possession solely along psychological lines. This approach assumes a great deal, especially when we consider the lack of empirical data. There have been a few attempts at systematic research, which should be praised, albeit the results and conclusions exemplify the above problems (Rosik, 1993).
Fraser conducted a study of seven diagnosed DID patients who, prior to coming under his care, had been subjected to exorcism rituals. He found that all seven had suffered negative effects directly as the result of the exorcistic therapies (Fraser, 1993). Bowman (1993) conducted a similar study with similar results. The problem with this kind of approach is that it assumes entirely to much. First, it has been established that DID and possession are not the same disorder, so it would follow that employing exorcistic tactics on an individual with DID would probably demonstrate poor results. There is no data for employing exorcism on diagnosed possession patients, at least not systematic research data. It must be noted, that because of some of the behavioral similarities between DID and possession, a lay misdiagnosis seems inevitable. Without diagnostic criteria showing the differences between DID and possession, how could a minister or priest conceivably even know there is any difference between the two? Fraser and Bowman assume the fallacy that DID equals possession, and this assumption taints both of their reports. What is really being reported on are the effects of exorcistic rituals on individuals with DID, not possession. The inappropriate diagnosis of possession was made by untrained ministers, priests, etc., and the ensuing exorcisms were performed by the same. Fraser and Bowman are to be applauded in that they issue a series of warnings to potential exorcists. In a possible case of possession, it is crucial to rule out the possibility of DID, for subjecting a genuine DID sufferer to the rigors of an exorcism will no doubt do more harm than good (Bowman, 1993; Fraser, 1993). The key misassumption is that virtually all cases of alleged possession are really DID.
There is also great fault as to the differences in the exorcism rituals themselves. There is a complete lack of standardization of ritual because the religious backgrounds of the exorcists are varied. Finally, the researchers (Fraser, 1993) methods of extrapolating the memories of exorcism from his subjects is worth mentioning. Patient suggestibility and conformity to the therapists expectations has been an area of great debate, and since Frasers methodology employs these questionable tactics, his conclusions are necessarily subject to scrutiny and debate (Roskik, 1994). To maintain a positive note, Fraser and Bowman should be commended for attempting to do a systematic study of exorcistic practices and the results, for this is an area long overdue for serious scientific inquiry.
Despite the faults of the above study, it makes an important point: that research is needed. With the new diagnostic criteria in hand, researchers can now begin to approach the mysteries of possession with systematic methodologies. It must be noted here, however, that future studies must not be engaged without the benefit of an open dialogue between the psychiatric and theological communities (Peck, 1985). If cultural belief systems do play a role in possession, then clearly this dialogue is not only helpful, but essential. To date, there have been no serious scientific inquiries into the apparently differing expressions of possession within certain North American religious denominational frameworks. For example, Roman Catholicism offers a perfect opportunity for further scientific inquiry. Catholic exorcisms are never conducted without intensive investigation. Only after complete medical and psychiatric evaluation demonstrates no explainable causation according to current scientific understanding is an exorcism considered by Church officials. The Church, in fact, makes every effort to avoid resorting to exorcism. When an exorcism is conducted, every effort is made to maintain absolute secrecy. This attitude is understandable, given the tabloid atmosphere of our culture, but this secretive attitude also impedes any possibility for scientific study. Clearly the psychiatric community could benefit greatly by opening a dialogue with the Catholic Church, but the attitude of the scientists must be flavored with an air of understanding and not haughty dismissal of the beliefs held for centuries by the Church (Rosik, 1993). Martin (1976) in his eloquent display of five cases of Catholic possession elaborates what is held by many to be the most accurate depiction of possession case studies within Catholicism. He goes to great lengths to maintain the anonymity of the individuals in question. This is clearly for the sake of protecting the individuals privacy, most of whom in the work are still living, and incidentally, asymptomatic. It must be clarified that their are vastly different notions as to the nature of possession within the religious framework of North America, and that individual cases of alleged possession may or may not truly reflect the diagnostic criteria currently adopted by the APA (Martin, 1995; Coons, 1993; Begelman, 1993).
Boston:Most Catholics in poll fault Law's performance 6 more priests removed on allegations of abuse Fr. Malachi Martin on Exorcism The Devil and Father Kunz An Easter tale about murder, the Catholic Church, and the strange paths of good and evil-- by Chuck Nowlen Hell to pay: A boom in paganism is creating new work for the Church: Rod Williams witnesses a terrifying exorcism in Tuscany An Introduction to the Sexual Underworld within the Church Harboring Catholic priests who are sexual predators Archdiocese Agrees to Report Past Sex Abuse Allegations VAMPIRE MURDERESS REVEALS BRITISH LINK THAMES TORSO WAS HUMAN SACRAFICE NIGERIAN CULT LINKED TO CHILD'S BODY Exorcist 'pastor' jailed for six years on manslaughter CATHOLIC COLLEGE HIRES WITCH ACLU action lands Satan on Inglis meeting agenda Satanism Is Practiced in Vatican! The Truth About Medjugorje |
