Poltergeist Cases

A poltergeist takes its name from the German poltern (to crash or bang) and geist (spirit or ghost). The word describes a cluster of repeated physical disturbances that seem tied to a specific person or place: objects moving on their own, unexplained knocking sounds, electrical problems, and sometimes small fires or puddles of water with no clear source.^[1] Unlike a typical haunting, which is tied to a location, poltergeist activity tends to follow a particular person. It comes in episodes and usually stops on its own within weeks to a few months.^[2] The subject sits at the crossroads of case research, psychokinesis theory, and clinical psychology. That makes it one of the most studied and most disputed areas in parapsychology.

Key findings

In a survey of 116 poltergeist cases from 1612 to 1974, parapsychologist William Roll found that 92 cases (79%) appeared linked to one specific person, called the “agent” or “focus person.”^[3]
In cases where an agent was identified, 41% of disturbances happened at the same time as changes or problems in the home or family that may have affected that person.^[4]
In Roll’s sample, 62% of agents aged 18 or under were living away from their natural parents when disturbances began. This points to family disruption as a possible contributing factor.^[5]
A landmark study of 500 poltergeist cases by Alan Gauld and Tony Cornell found that small objects moving was the most common effect (64%), followed by rapping sounds (48%) and large objects moving (36%).^[6]
Most poltergeist outbreaks last between two weeks and two months. Disturbances tend to fade quickly over time.^[7]
In the same 500-case study, fraud was detected in only 41 cases (about 8%). The majority of reports had no confirmed normal explanation.^[8]
Apparitions appear in a notable share of poltergeist cases. Gauld and Cornell found a human phantasm reported in 29% of their sample, overlapping with apparitions and crisis apparitions research.^[6]

Overview

Poltergeist cases are defined by physical events. Witnesses report objects moving or being thrown with no one touching them. They hear knocking or banging with no clear source. Electrical equipment acts up. In more dramatic cases, small fires break out or puddles of water appear from nowhere.^[9] What sets a poltergeist apart from a standard haunting is how it develops. Activity often starts small, with minor knocks or misplaced objects. It can build to furniture shifting or objects flying across a room. Then it fades, sometimes suddenly, over days to months.^[7]

A pattern that shows up repeatedly in serious case collections is a focal person. This is usually a young person, often a teenager, near whom the events tend to happen. Disturbances often start when this person is under psychological stress at home or in family life.^[10] In 1958, parapsychologists J. Gaither Pratt and William Roll gave this pattern a name: recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis, or RSPK. The idea is that physical effects arise repeatedly and unpredictably around a living person rather than a fixed place.^[11] Under this model, the agent is not acting on purpose. The disturbances are thought to come from unconscious psychological processes, not deliberate effort. That makes poltergeist cases different in concept from lab studies of macro-PK, even though both use the same theoretical language.

Poltergeist cases are reported across many cultures and time periods. They should not be confused with the dramatic versions shown in films. Real case reports describe something closer to mischievous disorder than supernatural catastrophe: a misplaced hammer, bottles uncapping themselves, drawers pulled open, small objects arcing through the air.^[12] Some cases also involve apparent telepathy-like communications or voices. The line between poltergeist activity and haunt phenomena can blur when the same location produces both repeated disturbances and apparitional experiences.

Historical background

Reports of poltergeist-like activity go back at least to the first century CE. Documented European cases build steadily from the medieval period onward.^[13] A 1526 French case centered on an eighteen-year-old nun in a Lyons monastery. It included communicative rapping sounds and the apparition of a human figure, features still recognizable in modern case reports.^[14] Until the twentieth century, people widely blamed such disturbances on demonic or spiritual forces. The modern tradition of investigating these cases only began with organized psychical research in the late nineteenth century.

William Barrett’s 1911 survey of recent outbreaks was an early landmark. He noted that poltergeist activity was “usually, though not invariably, associated with the presence of a child or young person.”^[15] In the 1930s and 1940s, psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor brought a clinical perspective to the subject. In his investigation of the Thornton Heath case, he argued that deep psychological conflict could produce what he called a “poltergeist psychosis.” This view was hard to test scientifically, but it drew attention to the link between the agent’s inner life and the outward disturbances.^[16]

The modern era of systematic poltergeist research is dominated by William Roll. From the late 1950s through the 1980s, he conducted on-site investigations across the United States. These included the Seaford (Long Island), Miami, Indianapolis, and Columbus cases. He built the largest single-researcher body of field data on the subject.^[17] His 1972 book The Poltergeist and his 1977 survey of 116 historical cases remain key references. Working separately, British researchers Alan Gauld and Tony Cornell assembled and analyzed 500 cases from SPR archives. Their work gives the most detailed statistical picture of poltergeist phenomena available.^[6] A notable European case is the 1967 Rosenheim case in Germany. Electrical disturbances at a law office, including strange phone calls and moving objects, were witnessed and documented by investigators including physicists. Activity appeared centered on a 19-year-old secretary.^[18]

The agent profile across case collections

Roll’s 1977 survey produced a consistent picture of who the agent tends to be. Of agents aged 18 or under, 62% were living away from their natural parents when disturbances began. That rate is far higher than normal patterns of adolescent independence would predict.^[5] This held true in two well-documented European cases: the Sauchie poltergeist in Scotland and the Bremen poltergeist. Across the full sample, 41% of cases involved changes or problems in the home or family that may have affected the agent.^[4] This points to stress and domestic instability as contextual factors, whatever mechanism might explain the physical events. Parapsychologist D. Scott Rogo further suggested that in some cases the psychological distress was spread across the whole household rather than concentrated in one person. That raises the possibility of collective rather than individual dynamics.

Theoretical models

The leading parapsychological model treats poltergeist activity as a large-scale, involuntary form of psychokinesis (mind influencing matter) coming from a living person. Under the RSPK hypothesis, the agent unconsciously channels repressed tension or emotional conflict into physical effects in the surrounding environment.^[19] This fits the pattern seen in the data. Activity centers on a stressed person, tends to start during periods of disruption, and often fades once the underlying situation changes or is addressed. Investigators have noted a practical implication: simply explaining to a presumed agent that these outbreaks may represent a subconscious release of tension can sometimes be enough to stop the disturbances.^[20]

A minority view, associated with Ian Stevenson among others, holds that not all poltergeist cases can be explained by a living agent. Some may involve influences from a deceased person, especially in cases featuring communications or apparitions that seem to convey verifiable information.^[21] Gauld and Cornell concluded that, for a subset of their 500 cases, this discarnate entity hypothesis deserved serious consideration rather than dismissal.^[22] The overlap between poltergeist activity and physical mediumship phenomena is also notable. Similar object movements and rapping effects appear in séance settings. Some researchers wonder whether the two represent the same underlying process in different social contexts.

Psychoanalytic approaches, developed especially by Fodor and Carrington, treat the poltergeist as a projection of unconscious psychological conflict. Fodor called it a “bundle of projected repressions.” This framework shaped early clinical approaches to case investigation. However, it is hard to refute with evidence, and it does not address whether any genuinely unexplained physical effects actually occur.^[16]

Skeptical critiques

Critique 1: Fraud by the focal person or household members

Several high-profile poltergeist cases have included episodes of detected fraud. In Roll’s own case collection, some focal persons or relatives were found to have faked one or more events.^[8]

Parapsychologists themselves distinguish between two kinds of fraud. “Total fraud” means everything was faked from the start. “Imitative fraud” means a genuine agent later begins consciously reproducing effects that were initially spontaneous. They argue that imitative fraud does not necessarily invalidate earlier observations made before the faking began.^[23]

Evidence strength: Fraud is confirmed in about 8% of the largest case collection. It is a real concern but does not account for the majority of reports.

Critique 2: Psychological misinterpretation driven by expectation

Researchers Lange and Houran argue that knowing a place is associated with strange events can prime people to misread ordinary environmental stimuli as paranormal. Lab work suggested that people in “haunted” contexts reported more anomalous experiences than control participants, with no change in objective conditions.^[24]

Critics of this account point out that it struggles to explain cases where multiple independent witnesses report the same physical events. It also does not fit the person-centered patterns documented across large case collections.^[25]

Evidence strength: Expectation effects are real and well-documented in psychology. But they do not fully account for corroborated multi-witness reports or the consistent agent profile across collections.

Critique 3: Environmental causes such as vibration, air currents, or infrasound

Environmental explanations, including underground water movement causing vibration, unusual air currents, electromagnetic anomalies, or infrasound, have been proposed for specific cases.^[26]

These explanations have not provided a general account of poltergeist phenomena. The RSPK mechanism itself has no established physical basis, and mainstream science does not accept it as a valid explanation.^[26]

Evidence strength: Environmental factors may explain isolated incidents. No single environmental cause has been shown to account for the full range of reported effects across many cases.

References

Wikipedia contributors. “Poltergeist.” Wikipedia. Accessed 26 March 2026. The term derives from German poltern (to crash or bang) and geist (spirit or ghost).
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (pp. 382–413). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. As cited in: Irwin, H. J. & Watt, C. A., An Introduction to Parapsychology, 5th edn. McFarland, 2007, pp. describing typical outbreak duration of two weeks to two months.
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (pp. 382–413). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Survey of 116 cases (1612–1974); agent identified in 92 cases (79%).
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (p. 403). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Of agent-identified cases, 41% involved changes or problems in the home or family.
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (p. 402). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Among agents aged 18 or under, 62% were living away from natural parents at outbreak onset.
Gauld, A. & Cornell, T. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Analysis of 500 SPR poltergeist cases; frequency of reported phenomena and apparitions.
Irwin, H. J. & Watt, C. A. An Introduction to Parapsychology, 5th edn. McFarland, 2007. Most poltergeist disturbances exhibit recurrent events that tend to diminish rapidly; outbreaks usually last between two weeks and two months.
Gauld, A. & Cornell, T. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 243. Fraud detected in 41 of 500 cases (approximately 8%).
Roll, W. G. (1972). The Poltergeist. New York: New American Library. Overview of characteristic phenomena including object movements, sounds, electrical disturbances, fires, and water.
Roll, W. G. (1977). Poltergeists. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Parapsychology (p. 403). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Phenomena tend to begin during periods of stress or family change affecting the agent.
Pratt, J. G. & Roll, W. G. (1958). The Seaford disturbances. Journal of Parapsychology, 22, 79–124. Coinage of the term recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK).
Roll, W. G. (1972). The Poltergeist. New York: New American Library, p. 12. Description of typical object-movement phenomena contrasted with cinematic depictions.
EBSCO Research Starters. “Poltergeist (ghostlore).” Historical references to poltergeist-like activities date back to as early as 856 CE in Germany.
Gauld, A. & Cornell, T. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1526 Lyons monastery case centered on Anthoinette de Grollée, featuring communicative rapping and apparitions.
Barrett, W. F. (1911). Poltergeists, old and new. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 15, 377–412, p. 410.
Carrington, H. & Fodor, N. (1951). Haunted People: Story of the Poltergeist Down the Centuries. New York: Dutton. Also: Fodor, N. (1948). New Approaches to Dream Interpretation. New York: Citadel. Psychoanalytic interpretation of poltergeist as projected psychosexual conflict.
Roll, W. G. (1972). The Poltergeist. New York: New American Library. Overview of six key investigations 1958–1968: Seaford, Newark, Indianapolis, Clayton, Miami, Olive Hill.
Bender, H. (1974). Modern poltergeist research. In J. Beloff (Ed.), New Directions in Parapsychology. London: Elek Science. Rosenheim case 1967, investigation by Hans Bender; activity centered on 19-year-old secretary Annemarie Schneider.
Williams, B. J. & Ventola, A. (2011). Poltergeist phenomena: A primer on parapsychological research and perspectives. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. RSPK hypothesis: agent unconsciously generates anomalous physical effects via repressed psychological conflict.
Irwin, H. J. & Watt, C. A. An Introduction to Parapsychology, 5th edn. McFarland, 2007. Noting that explaining RSPK as subconscious displacement to a presumed agent can be sufficient to dissipate disturbances.
Stevenson, I. (1972). Are poltergeists living or are they dead? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 66, 233–252. Conclusion: “Neither always. Some poltergeists are living and others are dead.”
Gauld, A. & Cornell, T. (1979). Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Conclusion that the discarnate entity hypothesis warrants further exploration in a subset of cases.
Cox, W. E. (1961). Note on some experiments with Uri Geller. As cited in Williams & Ventola (2011). Distinction between imitative fraud and total fraud in poltergeist investigation.
Lange, R. & Houran, J. (1998). Delusions of the paranormal: A reformulation of the notion of paranormal belief. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186, 637–645. Contextual priming and misattribution of ambiguous stimuli in poltergeist-like settings.
Irwin, H. J. & Watt, C. A. An Introduction to Parapsychology, 5th edn. McFarland, 2007. Misinterpretation theory would require supplementing with substantial misreporting to account for corroborative multi-witness testimony; does not fit person-centered patterns.
Roll, W. G. (2007). Cited in: Psi Encyclopedia (SPR internal article). RSPK has no established physical basis and is not accepted by mainstream science.