Nell grew up in a family that spoke openly about paranormal experiences. In fact, her childhood home was allegedly haunted along with the two adjacent houses. She later explained how UFOs would also be frequently seen in the neighborhood, with many residents gathering together to watch them at night. However, the number of anomalous events that Nell reported during her Childhood and Teenage years was low. Table 2 presents an aggregated history of Nell’s encounter experiences starting in childhood, with one exceptionally memorable event involving her toy doll that reportedly “came to life and snarled at her.”

Although Nell never claimed to have imaginary companions (IC), her doll and some other toys appeared to be “personified objects.” Social scientists subsume this behavior under the IC rubric (Moriguchi and Todo, 2018), and both personified objects and traditional ICs have been linked to ghostly episodes or encounter experiences in childhood (Young, 2018; Laythe et al., 2021b; Little et al., 2021). Nell continued to have multiple encounter experiences throughout her teenage years and early adulthood. Overall, these early encounters tended to occur when she was alone. As examples, she talked about how “something” would sit on the bed towards her legs and stroke them, whereas many other times she would hear a male voice call out her name in a thick whisper from the stereo speakers.

Table 2 shows that Nell’s anomalous experiences increased in frequency during Young Adulthood and then grew exponentially in later Adulthood. The central events in this case began in 2011 at “Residence A.” This was the first of the family’s five residences (“A to E”) due to successive moves in an attempt to escape the presumed paranormal activity. Nell explained the beginning of the family’s past 10-year saga this way:

As documented in more detail in a later section (cf. Table 6), subsequent anomalies experienced by Nell and her family included near daily occurrences of apparitions, sensed presences, negative feelings, threatening tactile sensations, unusual odors, and object displacements. They also claimed that their security camera recordings would often show “phantom voices and figures.” The family members reportedly experienced these and other anomalies both when they were alone and together. A marked upsurge in Nell’s encounters is attributable to the period “Post-Residence A.” This might suggest the presence of strong context effects, such as attentional or confirmation biases (Lange and Houran, 2001a). Experiences in Post-Residence A largely involved O phenomena that contrasted with her Childhood and Teenage accounts which were a mixture of S/O anomalies, and her Young Adult-Residence A experiences of mainly S events. Nell’s Childhood and Teenage experiences happened alone, her Young Adult and Adult-Residence A occurred both alone and with others, and the Post-Residence A experiences mainly occurred in the presence of others. Regarding proximity, most of Nell’s experiences during her Childhood and Teenage years reportedly happened within her personal space, whereas her Young Adulthood and Adulthood (Residence A and Post-Residence A) experiences occurred variously within and outside her personal space. Finally, Nell’s anxiety–fear was reportedly highest (“very anxious/scary”) during her Childhood and Teenage years, while the levels during her Young and Later Adulthood time periods were associated only “somewhat” with anxiety–fear.

On 31 May 2021, the first author was contacted by the Director of the “Paranormal Phenomena Research and Investigation” team after searching for names of “clinical parapsychologists” on the Parapsychological Association website. This group was working with “a female from Texas who was looking for assistance with a haunting situation” and they concluded from their initial evaluation that the case required a researcher with counseling expertise because it involved “a small amount of anomalous activity” combined with pronounced “psycho-social factors” (personal communication to J. Houran). The first author then enlisted the assistance of the second author, who is a forensic psychologist and Director of the Institute for the Study of Religious and Anomalous Experience (ISRAE)—a registered not-for-profit dedicated to academic research and public education.

The authors accepted the referral after first determining that the circumstances likely did not involve a mental disorder with religious themes, as well as gaining approval from the afflicted family for the arrangement. The outline and goals for this study were subsequently approved by Ethics Committee at ISRAE to guarantee compliance with ethical guidelines proposed for this subject area (Baker and O’Keeffe, 2007), including informed consent in writing by each family member pertinent to data collection and its subsequent use for research and reporting purposes (Gavey and Braun, 1997). The family’s participation was entirely voluntary, involved no financial compensation, and could be stopped at any point. We evaluated and synthesized material from three sources: (a) records provided by the three family members who constituted the primary and secondary percipients in this case, (b) copies of findings and conclusions from a prior investigation by the independent group noted above, and (c) clinical, historical, psychometric, and environmental data that we collected first-hand as outlined below.

Laythe et al.’s (2021a, 2022) five presumed features of HP-S were clearly specified prior to the data collection and analysis. Similar to pre-registered studies, this tactic aimed to control for undisclosed flexibility that can lead to revisionist or false discoveries (Nosek et al., 2018). Qualitative studies are popular in the psychological literature on anomalous experiences (e.g., Childs and Murray, 2010; Drinkwater et al., 2013; Eaton, 2019), but some researchers may dismiss such findings as anecdotal information in the absence of rigorous scientific controls and numerical data. In contrast, quantitative research minimizes subjectivity in favor of objectivity by deductively forming a hypothesis derived from theory. Controlled, objective testing and experimentation ultimately supports or rejects the hypotheses under consideration. For these reasons, we adopted a mixed methods approach that primarily used quantitative analyses supplemented with qualitative insights as appropriate.

We further structured our study using the five-step Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) framework (Sackett et al., 1996; Guyatt et al., 2000; Straus et al., 2011). This involves (a) converting information needed into answerable clinical questions; (b) tracking down best evidence for answering the questions; (c) critically appraising the evidence for validity, impact, and applicability; (d) integrating the evidence into clinical decision-making; and (e) assessing the prior steps to improve future efforts. Accordingly, we administered planned and unplanned measures at different points of our study depending on the theoretical or clinical direction the case took. The tasks or assessments that we used were intentionally divvied over time so not to overwhelm the afflicted family. Overall, we spent approximately six months working with the family in research and therapeutic contexts.

After making the initial introductions and obtaining informed consent, we asked the three family members to complete psychometric measures #1–6 described below prior to the authors’ in-person visits to the family’s residence. As explained in a later section, we administered assessment #7 post-hoc to clarify pertinent background information in this case. All measures were administered online. Next, we separately asked Nell to prepare a chronological log of her most memorable encounter experiences from childhood to present-day. This might seem an infeasible or incredulous task, but she was quite confident in her memory of these past and ongoing events. The instructions for this exercise requested that she include the following six details for each of the major anomalous experiences that she could readily recall: (a) Time Period (“Childhood, Teenager, Young Adult, Adult-Residence A, Adult- Post-Residence A”), (b) Anomalous Event (selected from items 1-32 on the Survey of Strange Events), (c) Setting (anomalous event experienced “alone or with others”), (d) Context (“notable negative emotions, stress, or dis-ease at the time of the anomalous experience; notable positive emotions, stress, or dis-ease at the time of the anomalous experience; or no notable emotions, stress, or di-ease at the time of the anomalous experience”), (e) Proximity (anomalous events occurred “inside or outside her personal space”), and (f) Anxiety/Fear level perceived during each anomalous event (i.e., “very anxious/scared, somewhat anxious/scared, a little anxious/scared, or not at all anxious/scared”). This “event diary” exercise was likewise completed online. Finally, we conducted two separate and extended visits with the family over the course of three, non-consecutive days. These particular interactions aimed to (a) cross-check or clarify their previous responses to the questionnaires, (b) observe their family dynamics, (c) personally assess audio and video “evidence” of the haunting activity that the family had assembled over recent months, and (d) collect environmental readings of physical variables that might contribute to some or all of the family’s anomalous experiences (cf. Dagnall et al., 2020; Jawer et al., 2020).

Specifically, New Age Philosophy (NAP) (11 items, Rasch reliability = 0.90) seems related to a greater sense of control over interpersonal and external events (e.g., “Some individuals are able to levitate (lift) objects through mental forces”), whereas Traditional Paranormal Beliefs (TPB) (5 items, Rasch reliability = 0.74) seem more culturally-transmitted and beneficial in maintaining social control via a belief in magic, determinism, and a mechanistic view of the world (e.g., “Through the use of formulas and incantations, it is possible to cast spells on persons“). Several studies support the construct validities of these two subscales (Houran et al., 2000, 2001; Houran and Lange, 2001c), which both have a mean of 25 (SD = 5).

Rasch scaled scores range from 22.3 (=raw score of 0) to 90.9 (=raw score of 32), with a mean of 50, SD = 10, and a Rasch reliability = 0.87. Higher scores correspond to a greater number and intensity of anomalies that define a percipient’s experience. Supporting the SSE’s content and predictive validities, Houran et al. (2019b) further found that the phenomenology of “spontaneous” accounts (i.e., ostensibly “sincere and unprimed”) differed significantly from “control” narratives from “primed conditions, fantasy scenarios, or deliberate fabrication.” Follow-up studies with the SSE also support its value for thematic analyses of qualitative reports (O’Keeffe et al., 2019; Lange et al., 2020; Laythe et al., 2021b; Little et al., 2021).

Respondents answer a series of questions, indicating how much the situation described in each applies to them, using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).” Example questions are: “Are you easily affected by other people’s moods?”, “Do you find loud noises uncomfortable?”, and “Are you aware of subtle changes in your surroundings?” The scale gives a total value, which is used to create a dichotomous variable representing two groups (low vs high sensitivity), but the total value has also been used as a continuous variable in some research (e.g., Jagiellowicz et al., 2011). Several studies support the tool’s reliability and content validity (Aron and Aron, 1997; Smolewska et al., 2006).

There are no published psychometric data on the STCE—only descriptive information (e.g., Irwin, 1992; Thalbourne et al., 2003; Dorahy et al., 2004)—and research on the prevalence and adulthood sequelae of childhood trauma has been criticized for the use of assessment instruments with unknown psychometric properties (Scher et al., 2001). Nevertheless, the STCE seemed the best instrument for our purpose as it covers perhaps the broadest range of traumatic events of any of the available childhood trauma questionnaires.

Haunt-type occurrences always involve the risk of fraud for various motivations (Roll, 1977; Nickell, 2001), but we neither have evidence of deliberate deceit nor do we suspect a factitious component here. Indeed, an evaluation of key patterns in Nell’s anomalous experiences using the Decision-Tree Process in Houran et al. (2019b, p. 180) indicated that this case can be classified with 90% accuracy as a “non-illicit episode.” This means that the events addressed in this paper are likely not to be explicitly fraudulent. However, this heuristic does not clarify whether the case is genuinely spontaneous versus rooted in active priming or pure imagination.

As the family became increasingly comfortable during our interactions, they started to elaborate on their psychosocial and medical histories, anomalous experiences, and the quality of their familial relationships. These spontaneous and sporadic disclosures indicated that Nell almost certainly minimized or omitted some of the information on the questionnaires in an attempt at impression management. This is a response bias that reflects the tendency for individuals to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others, such as over-reporting “good or desirable” behavior or under-reporting “bad or undesirable” behavior. Thus, it poses serious problems when conducting research with self-reported information that pertains to unusual, atypical, or “unlikely” experiences, or in response to demand characteristics (Merckelbach et al., 2017). Specifically, it appeared that Nell wanted to emphasize the intense and mysterious nature of her experiences while not coming across as “crazy” (for discussions of this issue, see Roxburgh and Evenden, 2016a,b). Our initial findings and interpretations therefore often required re-examination and synthesis beyond the data originally collected with the questionnaires.

Transliminality is currently described as “a hypersensitivity to psychological material originating in (a) the unconscious, and/or (b) the external environment” (Thalbourne and Maltby, 2008, p. 1618). This perceptual-personality variable thus parallels and correlates with Hartmann’s (1991) mental boundary construct (Houran et al., 2003a), as well as involves Aron and Aron’s (1997) concept of sensory processing sensitivity. Note that Transliminality ostensibly acts as both a state and trait variable (Evans et al., 2019), meaning its effects can fluctuate with variations in an individual’s situational context. High transliminals show lower psychophysiological thresholds or neurological gating across various settings, but those with low-to-average levels are expected to show an increased frequency or intensity of such perceptions primarily under conditions of strong sensory or emotional stimulation (Lange et al., 2000b,2019; Evans et al., 2019). In practice, the preceding patterns suggest that high transliminals tend to facilitate or generate their altered or anomalous experiences, whereas low-to-average transliminals often require external catalysts for such effects.

Nell scored one standard deviation above the mean on the RTS, whereas Rod and Jill had slightly above-average scores (see Table 3). Consistent with the transliminal model (Laythe et al., 2018; Ventola et al., 2019), the family’s RTS scores showed a moderate correlation [r(13) = 0.36, p = 0.17] with their respective SSE scores across Residences A–E. This suggests that the family’s anomalous experiences are, in part, linked to high trait levels of Transliminality. Additionally, we discuss below how ongoing disruptions in the family’s biopsychosocial environment likely bolstered their thin boundary functioning. Thus, both state and trait Transliminality are potential factors in this case.

Moreover, replicating prior research (Laythe et al., 2018, 2021a), Table 3 clearly implicates Paranormal Belief in the family’s anomalous experiences. Notably, each family member scored above-average on both the TPB and NAP varieties of PB, although TPB showed generally stronger levels and Nell was highest on both belief types. This implies that the entire family had strong foundational levels of Paranormal Belief that included both “internalized and externalized” supernatural forces but with an emphasis on external or autonomous agents. However, the family members’ respective SSE scores across Residences A–E, correlated r(13) = 0.47, p = 0.07 with NAP and r(13) = 0.02 (p = 0.94) with TPB. This skew towards NAP is due to the daughter’s patterns; the role of TPB becomes evident [r(8) = 0.69, p = 0.03] when scores for Nell and Rod are considered by themselves as the sole occupants of Residences A–E.

“Dis-ease” refers to a non-pathological alteration in waking experience, i.e., an individual’s state of “ease” becomes notably imbalanced or disrupted. Studies suggest that anomalous experiences attributed to ghosts or poltergeists are often idioms of distress or broader dis-ease (e.g., Rogo, 1982; Houran et al., 2002a; Ventola et al., 2019). This pattern likewise applies to religious stigmata phenomena (Kechichian et al., 2018), and we should similarly note that Drinkwater and colleagues have found that percipients’ interpretations of paranormal experiences are significantly mediated by their perceived anxiety (Drinkwater et al., 2013, 2017). However, dis-ease does not always entail “distress” (or negative emotions or stressors, e.g., abuse or injury, death of a family member, or financial problems) but also can mean “eustress” (or positive emotions or stressors, e.g., marriage, starting a new job, or buying a new home). Some stressors can be positive or negative depending on a host of factors, e.g., holiday seasons or the birth of a child. We refer readers to Ventola et al. (2019, pp. 146–157) for a discussion of these nuances in ghostly episodes.

Using Nell’s retrospective log, which included all of her individual accounts of experiences across the five residences (n = 267 entries), there was a negative correlation [r(265) = −0.25, p < 0.001] between the number of Nell’s anomalous experiences across her life periods and the general presence of eustress or distress, perhaps demonstrating a normalization of the phenomena by Nell over time (but see below). Yet, the presence of dis-ease did have a small and negative association [r(265) = -0.22, p < 0.001) with Nell’s categories of S/O experience throughout her life, i.e., distress or eustress tended to coincide with subjective rather than objective phenomena. These findings largely undermine the idea of dis-ease as either a necessary or consistent catalyst in this case. However, a number of other patterns suggest that this variable had indeed played an active and important role here.

To begin, recall that the patterns in Table 2 imply that dis-ease coincided with some of Nell’s anomalous experiences as a Young Adult (around a third of the time) and then again as an Adult primarily at Residence A (where some source of stress was reportedly a prominent factor), and to lesser extent across Residences B–E. In these select instances ostensibly linked to dis-ease, the Young Adult period mostly referenced eustress, Residence A showed a balance of eustress and distress, whereas Residences B–E tended towards distress. That is, for some reason, Nell’s anomalous experiences have become increasingly connected with the presence of distress.

Next, it is difficult to rectify some of Nell’s questionnaire responses against her subsequent verbal reports. For example, Nell claimed to have “no notable stress, emotions, or situations” during Childhood (cf. Table 2), even though during later interviews she detailed a string of impressionable, if not influential, events that she experienced in relatively rapid succession at three years old. In fact, Nell reportedly remembers these quite vividly, i.e., (a) she witnessed along with her mother and grandparents a gruesome accidental death in May 1968 that was documented in the local newspaper, (b) the following June her grandfather died of natural causes, and (c) in July of the same year she turned four years old (i.e., a self-reported example of potential eustress). We suspected that events like this produced sustained dis-ease in Nell; an idea we sought to verify with the STCE measure (see section “Method,” #7).

However, her STCE score of “8” was unremarkable and overall indicated a relatively low level of childhood trauma that in more extreme forms otherwise predict dissociation-schizotypy related phenomena (Irwin, 1992, 1996; Lawrence et al., 1995; Giesbrecht et al., 2007; Gibson et al., 2019). Of course, Nell’s score might also reflect impression management or even repression of unreported events. Dis-ease was reportedly associated with anomalous experiences during Young Adult (around a third of the time) and Residence A, where notable dis-ease was allegedly a prominent factor. Consistent with this interpretation, there was a small but positive correlation [r(265) = 0.11, p = 0.40] between the presence of dis-ease and the intensity of Nell’s haunt-type perceptions (i.e., SSE item logits) across her life periods.

Finally, Nell’s struggle with ongoing bouts of dis-ease featured prominently in her personal myth or illness narrative. During our visits and other interactions, she often talked about her life being constantly filled with distress from personal disappointments or medical challenges. This was such a frequent theme in her conversations with us that we asked her to list the most noteworthy examples. Clinical details are omitted here in the interest of confidentiality, but Table 4 suggests that the most frequent dis-ease events (as judged most memorable by Nell) occurred during the periods of Childhood and Adult Post-Residence A. In about 17% of Nell’s listed events, the dis-ease referenced perceptions that we know she deemed as “ghostly”. But most often her distress represented biopsychosocial variables that apparently lacked a paranormal context (83% of the listed events). Taken altogether, the role of dis-ease in this case is reasonably confirmed albeit the actual prevalence or strength of its influence is unresolved.

The HP-S model implies that encounter-prone individuals perceive a spectrum of S/O symptoms over time as opposed to having isolated occurrences or a limited range of perceptions (Houran et al., 2019b). This contradicts the idea that percipients merely perceive (or have experienced) a single anomaly, such as “sensing a presence,” “hearing a physical knocking,” or “seeing a ghost.” Moreover, the HP-S concept contends that the detection of anomalous (or ambiguous) stimuli spreads within and across individuals similar to a contagious illness due to expectancy effects or Baader-Meinhof illusions. That is, transliminal perceptions can promote perceptual or confirmation biases as percipients search for additional evidence of their attributions, interpretations, or general beliefs. Several studies have correspondingly found temporal patterns in symptom perception that implicate psychological contagion or memetic-type processes in ghostly episodes (e.g., Houran and Lange, 1996; Lange and Houran, 2001a,b; Laythe et al., 2017; Drinkwater et al., 2019; Langston and Hubbard, 2019; Tashjian et al., 2022).

Consistent with expectations, this case contained a diverse set of S/O anomalies that were perceived over time. Table 5 shows that 11 (or 69%) out of the family’s set of 16 collective experiences across Residences A–E (including Residence F for daughter Jill) showed above-average “haunt intensity” (or perceptual depth) per Houran et al.’s (2019b) norms. Nell especially noted a wide array of encounter experiences throughout her life, starting with a haunted childhood home in which she had a frightening IC-type experience. Another striking event that occurred in her Adulthood (i.e., Spring of 2021) strongly paralleled reports of “alien abductions” (see e.g., Mack, 1994). Particularly, Nell went to bed fairly early (still daylight), dozed off, and suddenly felt as if she awoke to a dark room with soft lights in the walls. She was lying on a very cold, silver-colored metal table, with a bright white light shining on her. Nell was reportedly immobile apart from being able to move her eyes. Overhead she then saw a pencil-thin light about six inches from her face. The table would slide back-and-forth several times under this light while she laid there. She neither saw, heard, nor smelled anything or anyone, and the duration of the experience was unknown.

From 2011 to 2021 alone, Nell has perceived sensed presences, non-descript visual forms, alive-looking apparitions, mystical-type beings, and folklore-type beings. There was also an event at Residence A that was reminiscent of a MIB encounter, as well as aspects of newly recognized types of encounter experiences like “group- (or gang) stalking” (Lange et al., 2019; O’Keeffe et al., 2019). These patterns challenge the idea that encounter experiences constitute separate phenomena with different sources or mechanisms (e.g., Gauld and Cornell, 1979; Solfvin and Williams, 2021). Moreover, themes of negativity, threat, and persecution have dominated Nell’s S/O experiences to the extent that she has often doubted her own sanity akin to self–imposed gaslighting (for discussions of related themes in encounter experiences, see Drinkwater et al., 2019; O’Keeffe et al., 2019; Lange et al., 2020).

Regarding the other aspect of Feature 3; however, a lack of data suitable for time series analyses made it infeasible to directly assess contagion or memetic processes affecting the family (see Houran and Lange, 1996; Lange and Houran, 2001a,b; Drinkwater et al., 2019). We can nonetheless still test some broad patterns that might indirectly suggest the influence of psychological contagion, namely whether the family has (i) SSE scores that increase sequentially across Residences A–E, (ii) positive correlations among their SSE scores (i.e., similar perceptual depth of haunt experiences), (iii) similar strength and direction of successive variations in their SSE scores across Residences A–E, and (iv) positive correlations among the SSE items that they specifically endorsed (i.e., perceptual congruence in their experiences).

The HP-S model recognizes psychological contagion as a measurable concept that presumably involves the instigation of successive (episodic) experiences due to expectancy effects on individuals or across a group of people. But we must underscore that in many cases, such as mass psychogenic illness (Sapkota, 2017), the exact mechanisms of contagion are not fully understood. As our study seeks to map the reported signs and symptoms in haunt-type episodes, it is notable that contagion (as a sharing or commonality of experiences or symptoms) is present not only across multiple residences, but between percipients. However, it is currently unclear the extent to which “congruence of experiences” derives purely from the influence of cuing or priming.

Analysis of Table 5’s underlying data found that the idea of contagion had mixed support per hypothesized patterns (i)–(iv) noted above. Pattern (i) was generally confirmed, although pattern (ii) instead showed opposite effects, i.e., Nell had a near zero correlation with Rod [r(3) = 0.02] but a moderately strong inverse correlation with Jill [r(3) = −63, p = 0.26], Rod and Jill likewise showed a small negative correlation [r(3) = −0.15, p = 0.81]. Thus, the family tended to show near-zero to opposite congruence in their respective haunt intensities across the successive residences. But Nell and Jill’s experiences certainly had a conspicuous connection that remains to be clarified. Next, pattern (iii) likewise tended to show opposite effects to expectations. Fluctuations in Nell’s SSE scores across the five residences had a low to moderate negative correlation with Rod’s SSE fluctuations [r(2) = −0.36, p = 0.63] and an even stronger negative correlation with Jill’s SSE fluctuations [r(2) = −0.96, p = 0.04]. However, the variability of Rod and Jill’s SSE scores across the successive residences were positively correlated [r(2) = 0.17, p = 0.82].

While SSE scores varied across the percipients, Table 6 supports hypothesized pattern (iv) by clearly highlighting 12 separate SSE items that were both experienced by all percipients and across all five residences (See Table 6, italics). These items included four commonly-witnessed phenomena (i.e., “cold area, breeze, non-descript visual forms, and negative feelings”), four less common items (i.e., “obvious apparition, alive looking apparition, positive feelings, and recordings of unrecognizable sounds”), and four rarely-endorsed items (i.e., “object breakage, object levitation, partial or full possession, and seeing mythical-type beings”). Thus, approximately 37.5% of potential SSE items were consistently perceived both across multiple locations and between all experients in this case.

The putative contagion pattern that emerges from Tables 5, 6 is complex. On the one hand, Nell showed a general increase in the number of encounter experiences over her life, and she and Rod both had broad but slight increases in perceived haunt intensities across the sequential residences. These trends are arguably consistent with contagion at the experient level. However, the family had negative to near-zero correlations among the perceptual depth and contents of their experiences across the sequential residences, and the daughter’s SSE scores generally decreased over time. However, other qualitative information suggests that contagion or memetic effects were involved but primarily confined to individual family members.

Similar to studies showing cuing–priming effects in paranormal contexts (Houran and Lange, 1996; Laythe et al., 2017; Houran et al., 2020), Nell and Jill both independently reported a flurry of S/O experiences during the two-week time period preceding our in-person visits. Specifically, Nell claimed that their computers would “act up” when they attempted to email us information. She remarked that, “Believe it or not this stuff happens when trying to send photos or videos pertaining to this nightmare.” Nell would also occasionally report that “things are increasing,” “new types of things are happening,” and “this thing is really putting up a fight.” The daughter similarly reported increased sleep disturbances, sensed presences, and inexplicable sounds at her own home (Residence F).

Despite a lack of temporal sync between the occurrence of events, Nell and Jill’s inverse relationship suggests that one or the other, at a specific time, was more likely to report anomalous experiences. Table 6 further implies that specific S/O perceptions were contagious, albeit not necessarily at the same time for each percipient. It is evident that, if we examine these anomalous experiences solely from a contagion perspective, reporting of one particular feature of the SSE by a family member was followed by others also reporting it. The combined findings from Tables 5, 6 arguably suggest the presence of contagion–memetic processes in this case, although the timing of these perceptions seemed to vary as a function of the interpersonal relationships between Nell, Rod, and Jill.

Quali-quantitative observations affirmed this recognition pattern. Table 2 showed that PB was a strong and ready variable to contextualize the family’s apparent transliminal experiences. Particularly, both Nell and Rod showed above-average levels of PB, although they scored consistently higher on TPB than NAP. It would be expected therefore that they would interpret their anomalous experiences in terms of external agency, such as dogmatic, religious-oriented concepts or forces. This was confirmed during our in-person visits whereby each room in Nell’s house was found to be heavily decorated with different forms of Christian iconography. She also reported experiencing “positive” meaningful coincidences (e.g., repeatedly seeing the number “22” in everyday situations) that she interpreted as the presence or influence of “angels.” This religiosity carried over from her childhood and young adulthood, where she felt like a “martyr” due to the many sacrifices or burdens she endured for others. In short, Nell construed the prevalence of dis-ease in her life as directly linked to the conviction of her religious faith.

It thus made sense that Nell and Rod attributed the S/O phenomena to a “a malicious entity that is trying to terrorize her [Nell] because she is so religious.” In fact, Nell specifically identified the persecutory spirit as “Beelzebub”—a name used by some Abrahamic religions for a major demon or even Satan. More to this point, Nell stated that one tactic that would often would temporarily halt her anomalous experiences would be to play the “Pie Jesu Domine” dona eis (est) requiem by vocalist Charlotte Church. Later in the paper we discuss at length more evidence supporting Feature 4, as Nell’s strong TPB hindered our intervention strategy for the family (see “Clinical Complications During the Investigation”). Conversely, Jill’s higher NAP versus TPB score suggests a stronger belief or influence of internal agency, such as one’s own “psychic” ability. This agreed with Jill’s self-description as “an extremely protective mother of her children in the face of the paranormal activity.” She accordingly considered herself strong or empowered enough to manage whatever was causing her anomalous experiences.

Threat (and agency) detection (Freeman et al., 2002; Gaynor et al., 2013; Brett et al., 2014; Jelić and Fich, 2018; Coelho et al., 2021; Tashjian et al., 2022)—or Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device (HADD, see e.g., Barrett, 2000, 2004; Atran, 2002; Guthrie, 2013)—likely influences HP-S in several ways that we have discussed previously (Drinkwater et al., 2021; Laythe et al., 2021a). First, anomalies might be judged as more or less frightening depending on their degree of spontaneity. Increasingly anxious or fearful reactions are likely when anomalous perceptions occur unexpectedly. An accompanying decline in overall mental health might also occur with individuals who have a strong “need for control” (Langer and Rodin, 1976; Leotti et al., 2010). That said, other studies suggest that a low “desirability for control” is associated with poorer reactions (Burger and Cooper, 1979).

Next, there is the degree to which percipients interpret specific S/O anomalies as inherently threatening due to their nature, e.g., the more physical the events, the more dangerous they might seem. Finally, we expect that the more proximal the anomalies are to one’s personal space, the more intense or prevalent the corresponding interpretations of anxiety, fear, threat, or persecution. Personal space is the region surrounding individuals that they regard as their psychological territory and physical domain. Most people value their personal space and feel discomfort, anger, or anxiety when this space is encroached (Welsch et al., 2019). Thin boundary functioning is further expected to facilitate threat (agency) detection in that Transliminality arguably supports predictive coding (Evans et al., 2019), which Anderson (2019) has argued can effectively account for HADD-related behavior.

Given her strong level of TPB, Nell profiled unsurprisingly as having a low desirability for control (cf. Table 3). These trends clearly align to a personal ideology that emphasizes an external locus of control regarding life events. The anxiety–fear levels coinciding with Nell’s anomalous experiences were only somewhat acerbated by ongoing or precursor stress as suggested by a very low but significant Spearman correlation [rho(265) = 0.10 p = 0.03] between Nell’s anxiety–fear levels and concurrent dis-ease in her life. Further, her anxiety-fear levels showed a similar relationship [rho(265) = 0.16, p = 0.003] in accordance with the intensity of specific S/O anomalies (measured by their Rasch logit values, cf. Houran et al., 2019b, p. 173). In other words, the more “intense” the anomalous events were in a psychometric sense, the more anxiety-fear Nell tended to experience. Table 7 further shows that anxiety–fear levels have small but consistent relationships with anomalies that occurred (a) inside her personal space, (b) when she was alone, and (c) involved subjective (psychological) experiences versus objective (physical) events (cf. Table 2).