As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness and help spot demonic possession
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
However there is a deeper issue implicit in the subject, regardless of its actual scientific merit. It provokes a question about what makes it necessary to try explaining things that have no explanation.
That's a common and universal human trait. With very few exceptions, humans insist on "explaining" things no matter what, ordinarily people won't tolerate indeterminacy. It's a rare person who accepts "I don't know". But of course not knowing is reality, look at anything close enough and it looks fuzzy. Examined at sufficient level of detail, everything is ambiguous.
When patients present with unusual (to the interviewer) ideas, perceptions or feelings, quite likely it will defy classification geared toward frequent, typical events. In that instance the response to "what is going on with me?" should be "I don't know" when one doesn't know. Resorting to "explanatory" mythologies, including psychoanalytic theory, or occultism, only obscures reality. Far better to skip "explaining" given the impossibility of avoiding unavoidable uncertainty.
We can and should say what we observe of phenomena and their related similarities and differences. That set of observations is the valuable basis of what we know and can act on. There are limits to knowledge, particularly that asking "why?" does not terminate. It takes courage to face that the only answer we'll ever get is that there is no answer.
After reading "A new way to be mad" and a bit of Ian Hacking's other work, I had wondered if demonic possession might be similar to "mad travel" and multiple personality disorder, diagnosable psychological conditions that seem to have disappeared.
Just because, after a bunch of other crap, you do this one thing, and the patient suddenly gets better does not mean you caused their improvement. It also does not mean what you did won't have long term effects, which you cannot predict.
Imagine someone thinks they are possessed but really aren't. Won't an exorcism strengthen the belief that they can be possessed? And couldn't that lead to a stronger imaginary possession in the future? You might have just traded some temporary peace for a more severe lifelong problem, but shortsightedly just looking at the immediate effects and assumed you discovered something novel.
Giving form and substance to the delusions of a mentally ill person just seems rather ill-concieved.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-victoria-clim...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_Climbi%C3%A...
> In his diary, Manning described Climbié as Satan, and said that no matter how hard he hit her, she did not cry or show signs that she was hurt.
[...]
> From then on, Kouao kept Climbié away from hospitals, turning instead to churches. Kouao said to the pastors that she was the mother and that demons were inside Climbié. The pastor at the Mission Ensemble Pour Christ, Pascal Orome, offered prayers for Climbié to cast out the devil, and thought that her injuries were due to demonic possession.[4][51] On another occasion, Kouao took Climbié to a church run by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, where the pastor, Alvaro Lima, suspected she was being abused, although he took no action. He said in the inquiry that Climbié told him that Satan had told her to burn herself. The pastor did not believe her, but he still believed that a person could be possessed.[52]
However, the role and attitude of the author seems ultimately helpful to his patients. If he can screen the suffers of diagnosable and treatable mental illnesses from the hard to explain cases, he can get proper treatment for the former group. By not denying the existence of demonic possession, he remains in the good graces of religious leaders, who are likely to bring him patients who otherwise would receive no psychiatric evaluation.
However, leaving the later group in the hands of exorcists is questionably moral. But if honestly, as he claims, there are cases where "the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause" then I guess there is little else he can do.
Of course, writing a click-bait article about diagnosing demonic possession is unprofessional of both Gallagher and the Washington Post.
> As I see it, the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical accounts with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/27/...
That is a an interesting point. Far fetched idea, I can see maybe the author understanding and using this tactic in a way to get to patients who otherwise might be harmed. He will publicly proclaim his belief in such things, in order to be sure to get referals and calls from the clergy.
Wonder though how it gets ballanced by his colegues not accepting of what he does and basically end up ridiculed or ostracized by that community.
I wish we could all just get to a point where we answer "I don't know" with "We'll find out" instead of "<Popular mythology>!"
As for the hidden knowledge claims, the author should have consulted James Randi, who during his career, always managed to boil such fantastic claims down to sometimes ingenious and sometimes hilariously simple techniques used by the "practitioner". AFAIK, he never lost his $1 million bet.
That is correct, he never lost- however, "These demons, being fallen angels, are sentient and are hardly likely to allow themselves to be recorded. That's how they sow so much confusion and doubt."
This is identical to the invisible dragon in my garage. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1243908/Spooky-m...
That said, all videos could be fake, so it does not matter if we actually got one of something real. Who would believe it aside from the guy who took the video?
But it never involves speaking fluently in a real human language unknown to the speaker, which is what this guy is claiming.
The public interest in "possession" seems to be rising linearly with the practitioners of exorcism. This doctor seems to condemn exorcists of different faiths though - the horrific re-birth deaths that are a throwback to "if she dies, then she wasn't a witch, so it's ok because her soul is good" - without producing any evidence that non-catholic exorcism has a greater success rate.
As an aside, there's is a whole slew of similar click bait medical articles on WaPo, which seems really out of character for an established news source...
Beyond The Hills -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2258281/
It is inspired by a real life story of a young nun who ended up crucified and killed due to "excorcism" performed on her:
(I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people
I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of
their exorcisms.)
As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational.
Questions about how a scientifically trained physician can believe
“such outdated and unscientific nonsense,” as I’ve been asked,
have a simple answer. I honestly weigh the evidence.
I have been told simplistically that levitation defies the
laws of gravity, and, well, of course it does! We are not dealing
here with purely material reality, but with the spiritual realm.
Physician, heal thyself.
It would be the most incredible discovery ever if there was proof of spirits outside our world or life after death. But sadly, all attempts to this point have not turned out to be reputable.
Even more that he lends his word as a scientist and man of principle to a practice that has done incalculable harm to the mentally ill for centuries.
I don't think he is: rather, he's point out the failure of the debunkers to make a sound argument against something which he's not seen. I think that his position is, 'I have not seen levitation, but others say they have,' not 'levitation exists.'
> I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia.
Physicists at CERN talk about the lengths they go to to prevent cognitive bias. It'd be great of other people stopped thinking "I'm a person of science, thus less open to these biases than other people."
> That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder.
Why is he talking about someone's medical status to other people? In England he's committed an offence.
> So I was inclined to skepticism. But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training.
> This was not psychosis;
This bit is fine. "I'm a doctor who specialises in mental illness. This doesn't match any mental illness I've seen before, and isn't in my diagnostic manual".
> it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed.
This bit? FFS.
Why's it any more terrifying that a religious dualist person has that power than an atheist materialist? Atheist psychiatrists in the Soviet Union were responsible for quite a few involuntary committals of folks whose 'madness' was wanting freedom.
> Why is he talking about someone's medical status to other people? In England he's committed an offence.
A cleric cannot consult with a psychiatrist in England?
> > This was not psychosis;
> This bit is fine. "I'm a doctor who specialises in mental illness. This doesn't match any mental illness I've seen before, and isn't in my diagnostic manual".
> > it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed.
> This bit? FFS.
'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' He definitely needs to make sure that he takes appropriate precautions against cold readers (who are quite talented at winkling out details without one realising). As he notes, ' I technically do not make my own "diagnosis" of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.'
About themselves; about generalities; but most certainly not about a third person. Are you saying that US doctors share medical details of people with their clerics?
'Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.' It's the last sentence in the second paragraph.
And, as a matter of fact, I don't see any names of either psychological or spiritual patients in that article, although perhaps I've missed one.
> In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess.
[...]
> That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder.
> For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work.
He sees 200 people over 25 years. He sees those people because clergy refer people to him. He gives information back to those clergy - "this person has mental illness", or "this person is possessed".
Is he providing treatment to them? If so he's abusing their privacy. Is he merely researching them? Let's see the ethics committee approval that allows a researcher to label people as demonically possessed.
(Note here he leaves no room for "not possessed and not ill".)
Priests, lawyers, physicians, surgeons & psychiatrists are all members of a professional class, who presumably may refer their clients to one another & may consult with one another as appropriate.
After reading this article, I'm contemplating authoring a book on demonic code. Because, if I can't fix it, I could at least get rich writing.
PS: This message is approved by the deamon possessing the code.
In short, my experiences have taught me that some people are not wired for religion. Perhaps some of those disinterested folk find it more advantageous to say "possessed by demons" than "not otherwise specified."
Going from that to asserting that said beings are literal demons sent by Satan to corrupt mankind seems like a stretch, and makes me question this guy's objectivity (even) more than I might otherwise. Even assuming all his accounts are literally true, the existence of people with paranormal abilities and psychotic symptoms shows only that paranormal abilities exist and may be correlated with psychosis.
If nothing else, the stereotypical "possessed" behavior is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect a literal hell-demon to do. If the Devil was real and wanted to tear down God and religion, he'd make the possessed act like reasonable, well-spoken atheists, not this mumbo-jumbo routine that seems calculated to scare people into going to church.
What makes you think that Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins aren't possessed? Maybe the symptoms of possession are really symptoms of a trapped soul trying to break free of its gaoler: in the case of folks like Harris & Dawkins, they don't want to break free, while in the case of some poor sap he does.
I don't know that it's actually the case, but it's an explanation. Another, of course, is that folks who want attention seek it out in the language they are familiar with: demonic possession for Christians, running amok for Malays, school shootings for suburban American teenagers.
I cannot disprove the possibility, but I also can't see any plausible evidence for it, so by Occam's razor it seems unlikely.
I agree that it does make a good Just So Story, if one is seeking ways to explain the observable world in terms of Catholic theology.
That psychiatrist ought to know that feeling. Here is to hoping that none of us ever do.
Mods: wtf
And any engineer talking about possibility of "demonic posession" seriously must have his diploma cancelled as well.
For what reason ? Because the phenomenon is referred to as demonic posession and you don't BELIEVE in that ? First there is no way to prove that demonic posession doesn't exist, so your judgment is based on a pure belief. Second we must make a clear separation between the facts and their interpretation. Your reaction is obviously motivated by the reject of the interpretation. There are a priori many other possible interpretations of the facts. No one could have tested the validity of the interpretation because the existence and properties of demons is still UNKNOWN and this means there is no way we can test if anything could be a daemon manifestation or is not a daemon manifestation.
What you request is censoring and by that you prone obscurantism. That is anti-scientific and it would be a regression.
In face of such report or data, the only valid attitude should be to first verify as much as possible the reality of facts. we should leave on the side the interpretation of the facts in this step to avoid falling in a confirmation bias.
My feeling is that referring to these facts as demonic posession was a strategic mistake of the author. But that, in itself, can't justify to ban this person of any psychiatric activity.
To conclude I would say that scientific rationality and objectivity is apparently is a poor state.
There are established processes in place to create a new psychiatric diagnosis. This doctor is ignoring those processes.
And he is specifically excluding demonic possession from mental illness; that's the point of his article.
From my current understanding, he distinguish the cases of so called "demonic possession" from mental illnessess because the patient show, apparently, so called paranormal capacity he personnally witnessed. This begs for further investigation and verification WITHOUT confirmation bias in one way or the other.
The difficulty here is that demonic possession refers to cultural knowledge which could strongly influence interpretation of the facts. It is thus to be verified if such cultural influence could have tainted the study. For now calling theses cases "demonic possession" doesn't prove the existence of a bias, but I consider it a bad scientific strategy because steps should have been taken to move the question into a more neutral space of knowledge to avoid any bias in one way or the other.
He's not reporting these cases. He hasn't written any case studies for his proposed new illness. He hasn't written any peer-reviewed articles about his proposed new "demonic possession" illness.
He has said that a small number of these people do not have a mental illness, and he's sent those people back to religious groups.
Regarding peer review article, it's not always easy. Referees need a way to verify the seriousness of the study and, when possible, the validity of the result. This is not always possible. This doesn't imply the study wasn't serious or the study is invalid. Also, when the article's topic address very controversial subjects, no peer or editor may want to expose his credibility. This again doesn't tell us anything on the quality or validity of the study.
In the newspaper article there is evidence of the awareness by the psychiatrist of such types of problem. As a last resort, publishing a book is the best strategy to get the info out and accessible to all.
Regarding your last sentence you assume that the religious groups would harm the patient. This is yet an unproven claim. But I agree that this do happen in some case. I won't call that back into question. But currently I don't know if this was the case. I would support an investigation (without confirmation bias) that would verify how the psychiatrists ensured that the patient was in good hands in the religious group. Apparently the psychiatrist is very conscious of his mission to help people. These types of cases are apparently beyond his competence to help or heal them. He can only check if these cases fit the currently known mental desease frames.
Testing medication on them as some psychiatrists might have done would be much more irresponsible then leaving them to people who are known to be able to help them (without beheading or burning them).
But I agree this is a questionable point. My opinion on all that is that a scientific study is urgent, I mean real scientists.
It's not about censorship, it's about ability to pass a simplest reality check. I don't want to have any doctors or engineers around me who don't pass this check.
In the years 1400 the existence of the american continents was not yet known because it simply was beyond the horizon of our planet exploration. These are huge continents with humans living on it that we ignored they existed but they existed. Today we know that dark matter [https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter] exist and that visible matter that is the only matter we studied until now accounts for only 5% of matter of the universe (current estimate). We currently don't know the nature and properties of dark matter. All we know is that it interacts with the gravitational force on visible matter and that is how we discovered its exitence. So, in theory, there is plenty of room in this unknown space that COULD support the existence of ghosts, spirits or whatever else.
We do have an extensive scientific model of the world in which we live, but it is still limited. What strikes me is that so few people seam aware of the horizon of our perception. I suspect it is due to our educative program that focus on transmitting things we know to students and forget to learn about the limit of our knowledge. This gives the false impression to young students that we nearly know everything and that there are only a few small black spots left.
"My hobby: extrapolating."
We aren't living in 1400 anymore. Show me the facts - and I'll believe you. And if all your argumentation is based on mental gymnastics only, then you don't have a place in science or technology.
Prove me wrong on anything and I will be glad to reconsider my actual understanding of things. My goal is getting closer to the truth without making errors. Rejecting hypothesis whose validity is UNKNOWN is taking a risk of making an error. And this is what I don't want.
You know nothing about rationality, objectivity and logic.
And the fact that you're trying to silence me by downvoting doesn't make your "arguments" look better at all. So much for your argument against "censorship".
> Prove me wrong on anything
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luwcg4ArMF1r6yihbo1_500.jp...
The HN title reads "As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. And sometimes, demonic possession." This suggests (via linguistic ellipsis) that the psychiatrist diagnoses demonic possession. However, he explicitly does not.
> I technically do not make my own “diagnosis” of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.
This is an interesting distinction. Of course it would be ridiculous, backwards, and unscientific for a medical professional to 'diagnose' someone with demonic possession. But to admit that the symptoms are outside the scope of modern psychiatry seems a more reasonable reaction.
I agree, although his decision to then turn those people over to the care of a Catholic cleric seems rather arbitrary.