The majority of popular cryptozoological material harkens back to that same old template—telling stories. On May 19, 2011, on Boing Boing (www.boingboing.net), a popular Internet blog that points out cool and interesting stuff on the web, Maggie Koerth-Baker wrote about a new feature from Popular Science that highlights the magazine’s archives. She linked to a gallery of articles labeled “PopSci’s Brief Foray Into Pseudo­science” (available at http://is.gd/2bnQoV). One article from 1952 described a Yeti-seeking adventure about which Koerth-Baker noted, “It’s easy to see the writer getting so caught up in the excitement of the hunt that he stopped questioning whether there was really anything to hunt for” (www.boingboing.net/2011/05/19/hunting-the-yeti-wit.html). The 1952 article states, “The [Abom­in­able] Snowman definitely exists.” Koerth-Baker’s brief quip that this look back in time is a “kick in the pants” seems directed at the fact that although Popular Science was once so certain that the Yeti exists, we still have no Abominable Snow­man to show off.

Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo, a leading cryptozoogical-themed website, took exception to Koerth-Baker’s use of the word pseudoscience in reference to cryptozoology (see www.webcitation.org/5yxUGuhIp). It would appear that Boing Boing cocreator David Pescovitz also thought Koerth-Baker was being derogatory. In the first comment after Koerth-Baker’s post, Pescovitz says that “opinions on such matters vary among [Boing Boing’s] contributors.” Pescovitz has often written about cryptozoological topics, in­cluding Coleman’s cryptozoological museum in Maine, in a favorable light.

But hang on: Koerth-Baker used Popular Science’s own title for the feature when she mentioned pseudoscience. She was just the messenger; Popular Science itself, not Boing Boing, presented the collection as howlers from its own archives. Coleman chose to criticize Koerth-Baker for participating in “transgressions . . . beyond the pale.” He continued, “It does get troubling that even well-meaning people can so blindly slam an entire group of scientifically, skeptically-minded folks with demeaning categorizations that have little or no foundation in fact.”

I took exception to Coleman’s opinion piece. I’ve examined the “science” of cryptozoology and paranormal topics. Let’s talk a bit about homegrown expertise and the use of the word pseudoscience in describing cryptozoology to see if the field is, in fact, scientific and skeptically minded.

Cryptozoologists have a classic love-hate relationship with the scientific community. This field has a history of interest from credentialed scientists, including anthropologists, zoologists, and wildlife biologists. (For more on this in the context of Bigfoot research specifically, see Brian Regal’s book Searching for Sasquatch.—Ed.) Yet the majority of cryptozoology enthusiasts are amateurs without formal science training. They follow Cryptomundo, watch television documentaries, read the literature, and maybe even participate in research groups.

Years ago, I shared an interesting local story with Coleman. He passed it on to an e-mail list, identifying me as “Cryptozool­ogist Sharon Hill.” I was appalled; I didn’t call myself that. I learned quickly that anyone can call him- or herself a cryptozoologist. You need no special qualifications or training, just an interest in and knowledge of the jargon (and, most importantly, reverence for the self-appointed experts). Cole­man laughed off my objections by telling me that I didn’t understand his sense of humor.

Not to disparage the Cryptomundo site, but my comments on various posts there have frequently been deleted and in some cases altered because they were critical of Coleman’s assertions. On this latest topic, Coleman did include one of my comments that linked to my website. However, he added a link in the comment directing readers to a skeptical site, clearly showing his audience (some of whom often refer to skeptics as “scoftics”) where my affiliations re­side. The crypto community is warm and welcoming to professionals who are sympathetic, but its members show blatant disdain for scientists and investigators critical of their claims.

I actually have scientific training and a degree in a scientific field; I have done lab work, field work, and research. However, I would not feel comfortable calling myself a cryptozoologist for several reasons. Although I’ve enjoyed wildlife biology and zoology since I learned to read, I’m not a trained specialist in these subjects, and I’m not devoted to studying these fields. I would rather earn such a label and respect through good work.

One can’t get away with self-labeling his or her expertise in science. A scientist in our society is assumed to have at least specialized training and a degree in a scientific field. Many people hold scientists to an even higher standard, expecting them to be currently working in the field and actively conducting research, producing data, and publishing studies. But it is the education and training of a scientist that is the most critical piece. It requires practice to learn how to think scientifically. It takes effort to put together careful research results, and science is a special culture that has rules. The norms of science—how you are expected to conduct your work—are strict, which gives science its high credibility.

Calling a field “pseudoscience” will un­doubtedly yield controversy. The word colors the accumulated knowledge of the field as well as its participants, but it is also used to de­scribe the process of work. A subjective line can be drawn between science and pseudoscience depending on which criteria you use (collectively referred to as the “demarcation problem”). “Pseudo­science” is clearly a pejorative term meant to set one area outside the establishment or to judge it as inferior to genuine science. No one deliberately calls him- or herself a pseudoscientist. I prefer another term for pseudoscientific en­deavors: “sham inquiry.” Cryptozoology typically qualifies.

“Sham inquiry” is about the process of pseudoscientific inquiry and why the results of that process are inferior to scientific in­quiry. Amateur investigation most often fails to reach the high bar of science for a variety of reasons. The methods of amateur investigation groups sound scientific, look scientific, and can fool a lot of people into thinking they are scientific, but there are clear arguments for why they are not.

The primary problem, and the point that Koerth-Baker nailed with her comment, is that by and large cryptozoologists assume that a mystery creature is out there for them to find. They begin with a bias: They are advocates. They are not testing a hypothesis but instead seeking evidence to support their position. The answer is already in their head. (The same can be said for most ghost hunters and UFO investigators.) They also begin with the wrong question. Instead of asking, “What happened?” they ask, “Is it a cryptid?” They have immediately narrowed the possible solutions.

Certainly some are worse than others. I ad­mire several so-called cryptozoologists who have really great insights and conduct science-based reporting. My two favorite blogs are Darren Naish’s Tetropod Zoology (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology) and Karl Shuker’s Shuker Nature (www.karlshuker.blogspot.com/). My favorite podcast, Monster Talk (www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/), brings in genuine scientists to talk about cryptozoological phenomena.

What I don’t admire is when the basic ideals of science are ignored: good scholarship in research, quality data collection and documentation, proper publication, skepticism, and open criticism. Instead, the bulk of popular cryptozoology is a jumble of the same poor-quality evidence, a ton of hype, rampant speculation, and unfounded assumptions—even conspiracy theories and, too often, paranormal explanations.

Amateurs and nonscientists can do science, and cryptozoology could be a science. However, I don’t see that occurring often. It takes a lot of effort to do proper investigation, which requires resources and a dedication to science and truth that the average cryptid enthusiast does not have.

I want the quality of standards to im­prove and for the field to resolve itself into a rational examination of people’s sightings and reports of strange incidents. You can’t get there by following the same paths as the past cryptozoologists Coleman often cites. Any website claiming to be scientific ought to deliver a proper examination of claims, thorough investigation, rational literature, and well-thought-out responses to criticism. A good cryptozoology news and information site will have all this without resorting to hype in order to increase ad revenue. Excellent re­search is already out there, such as that done by Daniel Loxton, Michael Dennett, Benjamin Radford, Blake Smith, Joe Nickell, and David Daegling. I find critical, detailed, careful, objective evaluation of these curious crypto questions far more satisfying than those hyped-up adventure stories or breaking-news claims of evidence (which almost always end up fizzling out). I finally found the satisfying examination of cryptids I was looking for all along from authors with a more skeptical approach.

My wish is for the field of cryptozoology to continue to get better. Much good work has come out in the past few years, and more is to come. I’m excited for these new voices to raise the discussion to a higher quality level and examine the field from a more enlightened perspective. Raise the bar. No more pseudoscience!

Occhino has conducted psychic readings for clients in Bay Shore on Long Island since the 1990s. After she established a devoted following, her first book, Beyond These Four Walls, was published in 2004 and was followed by Sign of the Dove in 2006. That same year, her daily radio show Angels on Call debuted on December 11. Each show consisted of personal readings based on a different theme, such as “Medical Mon­days” for “listeners’ current and future health” (quoted from Occhino’s SiriusXM webpage, which has since been taken down). Occhino is not a medical doctor, lacks formal credentials in medicine, and, according to her now-defunct radio show biography, “didn’t take college courses.” Rather, she claims that when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1992, it heightened her psychic senses. A promotional sample highlighting Occhino’s “medical readings” in­cluded a caller telling Occhino, “You are right on the money.” After the caller de­scribes headache afflictions, there is this exchange:

Occhino: It’s like I got pains in my eyes.

Caller: Okay. Do you see anything in my stomach?

Occhino: Hold up. No, no. I gotta work my way down because what we think [sic] the minor things may be symptoms of other things.

Caller: Okay.

Occhino: Okay? So you may be getting headaches from the acid or bile in your stomach or whatever. You know what I mean?

Caller: Uh-huh.

Occhino: This could all be connected. So I just gotta work my way down. Now when I work my way [sic] into your in­testines.

Caller: Uh-huh.

Occhino: To the middle of your intestines. They’re long. In the middle it makes me feel, like there’s maybe some acid burn out. (Pause)

Caller: Uh-huh.

Occhino: It makes me feel like. (Pause) Have you ever been treated for duodenal ulcers or bleeding ulcers?

Caller: Yes.

Occhino: Okay because that’s what I’m seeing like little scabs.

Caller: Yep.

Occhino: In the lining of your intes­tines.

Caller: Yep.

Occhino: Have you checked? I would check. If I were you I would check. I would bring up to my doctor diverticulitis.

Caller: Yep. I have that.

This exchange, which has since been re­moved from Sirius’s website, is revealing. First, it is only when the caller directs Occhino to a part of the body that is troubling her that Occhino focuses on the stomach region and claims the affliction is an ulcer. According to the National Institutes of Health website, “abdominal discomfort is the most common symptom of both duodenal and gastric ulcers” (National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse 2010). Furthermore, Occhino asked, “Have you ever been treated for duodenal ulcers or bleeding ulcers?” That is very different from concluding that the caller’s current problem is a specific ulcer. Since twenty-five million people will suffer from an ulcer at some point, it is not unreasonable to assume that an older woman (as the caller’s voice seemed to indicate) with abdominal pain might have had an ulcer at one time. Once Occhino was correct, the rest of the show was built from this “hit.” Next, Occhino tells the caller she has diverticulitis, which Occhino tells the caller “can come with ulcers.” Furthermore, the National Insti­tutes of Health maintains that “diverticulitis is very common. It is found in more than half of Americans over age 60” (“Diver­ticulitis” 2010). Thus there is a 50 percent chance the caller will have this affliction after the age of sixty. Finally, Occhino offers other possible issues that are spun off from the ulcer “hit” before concluding with vague, noncommittal advice, telling the listener to get better by “calming down.”

Beyond “Medical Mondays,” Occhino is happy to mention her involvement in high-profile crime cases. A 2006 Newsday article claims she “may have helped crack the case of the disappearance of Patrick McNeill Jr.” (Dowdy 2006). There is no evidence or in­formation in the paper about what she predicted. Instead, the actual details about McNeill’s disappearance are that McNeill was drinking at a bar with friends and went to meet a girl. He was never heard from again. His body was discovered two months later after being spotted “floating near the 65th Street Pier” and was picked up “by an Army Corps of Engineers boat” (Cooper 1997). An autopsy revealed he had drowned with a “moderate amount of alcohol in his blood” (“Autopsy Shows a Fordham Student Drowned” 1997). It is unclear how Occhino was even involved with the McNeill affair, much less how she “broke” the case.

Occhino also claims to have “weighed in on local cases,” including the 1992 Katie Beers kidnapping and the 1999 disappearance of Katherine Kolodziej (Dowdy 2006). The Beers kidnapping ended when John Esposito told police Beers was “hidden in an elaborate chamber under his Bay Shore bungalow” (Blumenthal 1993). Thus, there is no proof the case was solved by psychic means; rather Esposito told police Beers’s location. In addition, Newsday also re­ported in 1999 that Occhino “said she had identified” Kolodziej’s murderer, who “was already on the police’s short list of suspects” (Dowdy 1999). Despite a police officer saying “We [have] got some very good leads,” the more than decade-old case remains unsolved. Occhino’s psychic insight was therefore not helpful enough to solve the case in the intervening decade.

In 2007, fresh from the celebrity of her radio show, Occhino used her “gift” to gaze into the celebrity world. She told the New York Post that Lindsay Lohan is “going to be blackballed and working in a 7-Eleven on Long Island” (Fleming 2007). While it is not much of a stretch to say a person with a drug problem might be “blackballed,” Lohan entered rehab in Southern California and has not worked at a 7-Eleven on Long Island. Occhino also said Mario Batali, a TV chef, must lose weight or will “have a heart attack within three years.” It does not take psychic power to advise that an overweight middle-aged man should lose weight or he’ll have health problems. The chef lost thirty-five pounds in 2010, but Occhino failed to predict his current business problems and the cancellation of his show.

In another failed prediction, Occhino asserted Whitney Houston would “be back and bigger than ever. . . . She will do a movie and win an Academy award.” Occhino further said, “She’ll work with Mel Gibson.” This prediction again fails on all counts as Houston has neither starred in a recent movie with Gibson nor won the award for a new project. Furthermore, no date was given, which hedges the possibility that the prediction may come true at some point the future. Houston’s 2009 tour suffered from trouble, and in 2010 Gibson faced public-relations problems in a custody fight with Oksana Grigorieva. Occhino then made a prediction that Star Jones would “never get divorced.” After three years of marriage, Jones filed for divorce from Al Reynolds in March 2008. Despite these abysmal predictions, Occhino’s star continued to rise.

In 2006, Occhino’s fee was $300 for an hour-long reading from her Long Island home or her Manhattan apartment on the Upper West Side (Padgett 2006). Two years later, she re­leased her third book, Awakened Instincts, coauthored with her daughter Jacqueline Sul­livan. Despite the fact that fortune-telling is illegal (except for “entertainment” purposes) in New York State, Occhino has built a following in New York and now conducts seminars and readings throughout the United States. In 2010, Atlas Media Corporation gave Occhino a one-hour television show on Syfy. The show premiered on July 15 and chronicled Occhino raising a family, even trying to find her daughter a husband, while coming into contact with people who were seemingly impressed with her psychic abilities. The reaction from the press was immediately negative. Newsday, the largest Long Island newspaper, graded the show a C–, explaining, “The producers slice, dice, nip and tuck hours of daily-life footage into lickety-split montages, and still nothing feels remotely fresh or real” (Werts 2010). The New York Post explained why “Mary knows worst” by saying the show “can’t de­cide if it’s a reality show about a Long Island family that is ripe for ridicule, or a show about a woman who was born with a gift that is no laughing matter.” A few weeks later, in the midst of poor ratings, Syfy cancelled the show. As Rob Vaux, of Mania.com, asked: “Did you see that coming, psychic lady?” (Vaux 2010).

Occhino uses her “involvement” in police cases to further her psychic career while failing to offer independent empirical proof of psychic abilities. Her biography cites an unpublished “test” by Gary Schwartz as validation for psychic powers. In fact, Schwartz’s educational credentials and affiliations are featured prominently in Occhino’s current biography, but the bio neglects her own education and the long history of criticisms about Schwartz’s methods and tests (“About Mary Occhino” 2010). She offered “virtual MRIs” to callers on her show without any medical education, which is potentially dangerous if people accept her claims without seeking proper medical diagnoses. In late December 2010, Occhino announced she would not “renew” her radio contract with SiriusXM, effectively ending her radio show in its current format. But her failed predictions and the end of her shows have not hurt her business. Occhino’s books, business, and seminars continue to attract desperate people, and her store, Mary O’s Celestial Whispers in Center Moriches, New York, remains in business. But does Mary know best? When it comes to her psychic predictions, it appears not.

References

About Mary Occhino. 2010. Available online at http://celestialwhispers.com/about/.

Autopsy shows a Fordham student drowned. 1997. New York Times (April 17).

Blumenthal, Ralph. 1993. The Katie Beers case; mystery surrounds suspect and underground chamber. New York Times (January 15).

Comeback Whitney hits a flat note Down Under. 2010. AFP (February 23).

Cooper, Michael. 1997. Body of missing Fordham Student is found off pier. New York Times (April 8).

Diverticulitis (encyclopedia entry). 2010. Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia. Available online at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000257.htm.

Dowdy, Zachary. 1999. When all else fails, try a sixth sense. Newsday (October 6).

———. 2006. Seeking by sixth sense: Court TV profiles Bay Shore psychic who has more than stars in her eyes when helping in police work. Newsday (April 25).

Fleming, Kirsten. 2007. Divine secrets—Psychic Mary Occhino predicts the fates of the ultra-famous. New York Post (February 8).

Ghost host: At home with a real Long Island psychic. 2010. New York Post (July 15).

National Digestive Diseases Information Clearing­house. 2010. H. pylori and peptic ulcers. Available online at http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/.

Padgett, Tania. 2006. Paranormal packs halls, sells books and floods airwaves. San Francisco Chronicle (June 18).

Shaffer, Ryan. 2010. Entertainment, fakery, and ambiguity: Examining the ‘Fortune Telling Law’ in New York State. Skeptical Inquirer (March/April).

Vaux, Rob. 2010. The TV wasteland continues. Mania.com (August 8). Available at http://www.mania.com/tv-wasteland-continues_article_124555.html.

Werts, Diane. 2010. LI psychic should know better on ‘Mary Knows Best.’ Newsday (July 15).

A poll in September 2008 showed interest in the celestial beings reaching a new level. Conducted by the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion, the poll of 1,700 respondents yielded 55 percent an­swering in the affirmative to the statement, “I was protected from harm by a guardian angel” (Stark 2008, 57). Christopher Bader, director of the Baylor survey, which also covered a number of other religious issues, found that response “the big shocker” in the report. He ex­plained: “If you ask whether people believe in guardian angels, a lot of people will say, ‘sure.’ But this is different. It’s experiential. It means that lots of Americans are having these lived supernatural experiences” (quoted in Van Biema 2008).

But are these experiences really supernatural? Or are they only natural, the result of misperceptions and even misreporting? A look into the phenomenon of claimed guardian-angel encounters is illuminating.

Angel Guardians

Perhaps the earliest depiction of an angelic being, or a precursor of angels, is a winged figure on an ancient Sumerian stele. The entity is pouring the water of life from a jar into the king’s cup. Other precursors may be the giant, winged, supernatural beings—part animal, part human—that guarded the temples of ancient Assyria, thus perhaps serving as models for the concept that angels are protectors. The word angel derives from the Greek angelos, “messenger”; however, in biblical accounts, the entities not only fulfilled the role of messengers (e.g., Matt. 1:20) but also were avengers (2 Sam. 24:16), protectors (Ps. 91:11), rescuers (Dan. 6:22), and more (Burn­ham 1990, 81–82; Larue 1990, 57–61; Guiley 1991, 20).

Figure 1. Guardian angel depicted in a late nineteenth-century print (author’s collection).

In modern times, angels have been seen primarily as guardians (figure 1). “Angels represent God’s personal care for each one of us,” observes Father Andrew Greeley, a priest turned sociologist-novelist (qtd. in Wood­ward et al. 1993). This “new angelology”—the belief in personal guardian angels—is manifested not only in books but in angel focus groups and workshops, as well as angel bric-a-brac, posters, greeting cards, and so on. Ac­cord­ing to Newsweek: “It may be kitsch, but there’s more to the current angel obsession than the Hallmarking of America. Like the search for extraterrestrials, the belief in angels implies that we are not alone in the universe—that someone up there likes me” (Woodward et al. 1993).

Personal encounters with angels—related as inspirational stories—fill the books on angels. One such account appears in Graham’s book (1975, 2–3). It tells of a little girl who fetches a doctor to help her ailing mother. After caring for the woman, the doctor learns that her daughter died a month before, and in the closet hangs the little girl’s coat; “It was warm and dry and could not possibly have been out in the wintry night.”

Investigating the account, I discovered that it is a very old tale, circulated in various forms, with conflicting details (Nickell 1995, 153–55). Noted folklorist Jan Brun­vand (2000, 123–36) followed up on the tale (with some assistance from me) and demonstrated that it derived from a story told by S. Weir Mitchell (1829–1914), a physician and writer of prose fiction. Mitchell himself referred to it as “an early [illegible] ghost tale of [mine ?]”—a seemingly tacit admission that the narrative was pure fiction (Nickell 2011).

Encounters

Most of the currently popular angel stories are personal narratives. Among these are tales of “mysterious stranger angels,” ordinary-looking people who “appear suddenly when they are needed, and disappear just as suddenly when their job is done” (Guiley 1993, 65).

This genre includes the “roadside rescue” story, which one source admits “happens so often that it is almost a cliché in angel lore.” Essentially, “In the roadside rescue, the mysterious stranger arrives to help the motorist stranded on a lonely road at night, or who is injured in an accident in an isolated spot. Or, human beings arrive just in the nick of time” (Guiley 1993, 66). One such testimonial has come from Jane M. Howard, an “angel channeler and author.” According to Guiley (1993, 66):

One night, the gas pedal in Janie’s car became stuck, and she ran off the freeway near Baltimore. She stopped the car by throwing the transmission into park. It would not restart, and she began to panic. It was ten P.M. and she was miles from the nearest exit. She prayed to the angels for help, and within minutes, a van pulled up, carrying a man and a woman.

The woman rolled down her window and told Janie not to be frightened, for they were Christians. Even so, many people would have been wary of strangers at night. But the angels gave Janie assurances, and she accepted a ride to a gas station. She discovered that the couple lived in a town near hers, and knew her family. They pulled off to help Janie, they said, because they had a daughter, and they hoped that if their daughter ever was in distress, she, too, would be aided.

Notwithstanding such mundane occurrences, often the intervention is described so as to leave little doubt that it must have been a supernatural event. One such narrative tells of a woman’s visit to an electronics store and a young man who helped her son with some technical knowledge. The woman stated (in Guiley 1993, 65):

I was just dumbfounded. The young man wished us a nice day and left the store. A couple of seconds later, I rushed out the door to thank him, but he was gone. He literally disappeared. The store is in the middle of the block, so you would still be able to see someone walking down the sidewalk. Obviously, this was not an ordinary human. I still get chills about it.

However, we must ask: Was it really only “a couple of seconds later” or could it have been several seconds—long enough for the man to have entered a waiting car or stepped into an adjacent store?

Then there are the bedside angelic encounters, such as a story told by a Louis­ville woman in Burnham’s A Book of Angels (1990, 275–76). One of the woman’s good friends had died but seemed to linger as a “presence.” Moreover, she says,

Twice I have awakened from sleep to see something mystical. I sat up in bed to convince myself I was not dreaming.

To the right of me, hovering about five feet from the floor, was a bright mass of energy, a yellow and orange ball about six inches in diameter. I closed my eyes and reopened them. I even pinched myself to make sure I was really seeing what was be­fore my eyes, and there it remained until I fell asleep again.

I was frightened. About a year later, the same thing happened under the same circumstances. However, this time I asked questions subconsciously and they were answered. They were all in reference to my friend who had left this world. And the overall summation was, I was not to fear or worry, because I was being watched over. His protection, caring, and love were continuing, though his physical being was gone.

One immediately recognizes in this account the unmistakable characteristics of a “waking dream”—a very realistic-seeming hallucination that occurs in the state between full wakefulness and sleep. Waking dreams are responsible for countless supposed visitations by angels, as well as by ghosts, extraterrestrials, demons, and other otherworldly entities that lurk in the subconscious mind (Nickell 1995, 41, 46, 117, 131, 157, 209, 214; Baker 1995, 278).

In still other cases the percipient may simply be a classic fantasizer (Nickell 1995, 40–41, 57). Children are especially well known for engaging in fantasies. Consider, for example, this anecdote related by Sophy Burnham (1990, 4):

Once my mother saw an angel. She was five years old at the time, just a little girl in her nightie, getting ready for bed, when she looked up and saw an angel standing in the bedroom door.

“Auntie!” She pointed at the figure. “Look!” but her beloved auntie could not see.

“Go to sleep, child,” she said. “There’s nothing there.” I don’t know what her angel looked like. When I asked her, my mother’s face took on a dreamy and exalted look, simultaneously nostalgic and alight. She used words like brilliance or radiance, and I have the impression of many colors. But I have no idea what she saw.

As indicated by the aunt’s inability to see it, the angel obviously resulted from a child’s imagination and is no more credible than an eyewitness account of Santa Claus, a leprechaun, or an elf.

Stress can even produce angels in crisis situations. As psychologist Robert A. Baker observes, there is a “well-known psychological fact that human beings, when subjected to extreme fear and stress, frequently hallucinate. These hallucinations, in many in­stances, take the form of helpers, aides, guides, assistants, et al., playing the role of Savior.” Adds Baker, “If the hallucinator also has religious leanings it is easy to understand how such a ‘helper’ is converted into one of the heavenly host, i.e., a guardian angel” (qtd. in Nickell 1995, 157–58).

Then there are stories that appear to fall into the category of urban legends. One of these features the Angel of Mons that supposedly came to the aid of British soldiers at that Belgian battlefield during World War I. Folklorist David Clarke, for his The Angel of Mons: Phantom Soldiers and Ghostly Guard­ians, exhaustively investigated the story, finding it had been inspired by a fictional tale “at a time when the British people were desperate for news of a miracle” (2004, 241). Appearing in the London Evening News of September 29, 1914, “The Bow­men” by Arthur Machen dramatized the British routing of the Germans in symbolic terms of St. George and “his Agincourt bowmen.” Many read the story as true, prompting rumors of eyewitness accounts. Concludes Clarke (2004, 246):

In 1914, Britain was an imperial nation with a long tradition of success in combat that was sustained by belief in divine intervention. At Mons, the cream of the British Army narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of the Germans during the first month of the war. Many believed it was a miracle, and Arthur Machen’s story provided a perfect conduit for the creation and transmission of a reassuring modern legend that was based upon ancient precedents. His literary skills gave the story a resonance and power that would sustain it long beyond his lifetime. It was a legend that had an important and positive function during the war, sustaining hope, boosting patriotic optimism and shoring up faltering faith during the dark days of the Somme, Passchendaele and all the other disastrous battles that almost exterminated a generation of young men. Today the Angel of Mons remains one of the undying icons of that war and lives on as a symbol of the loss of innocence that was the legacy it left upon the British psyche. This legend re-emerged for a brief spell during the national crisis of 1940, at Dunkirk and during the Battle of Britain. Maybe one day the angels will be needed again.

The concept of guardian angels, notes one writer (Willin 2008, 37), “was given a huge impetus” by the publication of Machen’s tale.

Photographing Angels

Thus far we have considered personal ac­counts of angels acting as guardians; however, if such accounts represent only what serious researchers disparage as “anecdotal evidence,” then what about photographic evidence—photos offered to support claims of angelic encounters? Unfortunately, the evidence is at best unconvincing, usually easily explainable. Many touted examples, for instance, are nothing more than simulacra, images perceived by the mind’s tendency to “recognize” common shapes in random patterns, like seeing pictures in inkblots, clouds, woodgrain patterns, and the like (Nickell 2007, 18).

Such images may also be faked. Consider the “Cloud Angel” photo circulated by Betty Malz, author of Angels Watching Over Me and other books. The picture Malz (1993) was kind enough to send me was accompanied by a brief narrative telling how a honeymooning couple had taken the photo from the window of their airplane. They had undergone severe turbulence that provoked them to pray for safety, whereupon the turbulence soon subsided and later the angel-shaped cloud appeared in one of their photos. It turns out, however, that the same picture has a long history—touted variously as an image of Christ taken during Hurricane Hugo (“Experts” 1990) and a “ghostly ap­parition” taken in 1971 by an “ordained spiritual minister” (Holzer 1993). Suspi­ciously, the cloud lacks the three-dimensional qualities of genuine cloud photographs as determined by a computer imaging expert (Nickell 2001, 200–03).

Much more recently, a few “angel” photos were included in the book The Para­normal Caught on Film by Melvyn Willin (2008, 36–37, 42–43, 46–47, 62–63). Alas, however, these range from the poorly documented to the suspiciously anonymous and are attributable to a variety of a photographic anomalies including reflections, simulacra, and other factors, as well as outright fakery.

As these narrative and photograph examples demonstrate, to many people guardian angels offer comfort in difficult times, while to others they are confirmation of deeply held religious or New Age beliefs. However, the evidence for their existence appears as ethereal, elusive, and doubtful as the alleged entities themselves.

Acknowledgments

As always, I appreciate the assistance of Timothy Binga, director of the Center for Inquiry Libraries.

References

Baker, Robert A. Afterward to Nickell 1995, 275–85.

Brunvand, Jan Harold. 2000. The Truth Never Stands in the Way of a Good Story! Chicago: University of Illinois.

Burnham, Sophy. 1990. A Book of Angels. New York: Ballantine Books.

CNN “Headline News.” 1993. CNN/Time/Newsweek poll cited December 18.

Clarke, David. 2004. The Angel of Mons: Phantom Soldiers and Ghostly Guardians. Chichester, Eng­land: John Wiley & Sons.

Experts call “Hugo Christ” photo fake. 1990. Charle­ston, South Carolina, Evening Post (April 12).

Graham, Billy. 1975. Angels: God’s Secret Agents. Gar­den City, New York: Doubleday.

Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. 1991. Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experience. New York: Harper­Collins.

———. 1993. A radiance of angels. Fate (December): 60–68.

Holzer, Hans. 1993. America’s Restless Ghosts. Stamford, Connecticut: Longmeadow Press.

Larue, Gerald A. 1990. The Supernatural, the Occult and the Bible. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

Malz, Betty. 1993. Photograph and letter to Joe Nickell, March 17.

Nickell, Joe. 1995. Entities: Angels, Spirits, Demons, and Other Alien Beings. Amherst, New York: Prome­theus Books. (A portion of the material for this article was taken from this source.)

———. 2001. Real-Life X-files. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

———. 2007. Adventures in Paranormal Investigation. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

———. 2011. The Doctor’s ghostly visitor: Tracking ‘The Girl in the Snow.’ Skeptical Briefs 21(2) (Summer): 5–7.

Stark, Rodney. 2008. What Americans Really Believe: New Findings from the Baylor Surveys of Religion. With Christopher Bader, et al. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press.

Van Biema, David. 2008. Guardian angels are here, say most Americans. Available online at www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1842179,00.html; accessed September 19, 2008.

Willin, Melvyn. 2008. The Paranormal Caught on Film. Cincinnati, Ohio: David & Charles.

Woodward, Kenneth L., et al. 1993. Angels. Newsweek (December 27): 54.