Appendix D3. Mediumship, UAPs and electromagnetic claims

These topics matter to the paper because people may interpret unexplained experiences as authority claims. An unresolved observation does not by itself identify an agent or establish the Christian simulation’s causal story.

Biblical prohibitions against mediums, divination, and necromancy are unusually consistent. Leviticus 19, Deuteronomy 18, and Isaiah 8 forbid seeking the dead for guidance. Hebrews 9 links death with judgment, while Luke 16 portrays a fixed separation between the conditions of the dead. Christian traditions differ over the intermediate state, but the New Testament does not describe deceased relatives as freely roaming houses and routinely supplying information through psychics. (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10–14; Isaiah 8:19–20; Hebrews 9:27; Luke 16:19–31.)

In 1 Samuel 28:7–20, the narrator identifies the appearing figure as Samuel, while the woman reacts with alarm. Christians have debated how to understand the event. Whatever interpretation is adopted, the narrative should not be simplified into a biblical declaration that all apparent communications with the dead are demonic impersonations. The separate impersonation scenario in this paper is fictional; the prohibition on consulting a medium appears in Leviticus 19:31 and Deuteronomy 18:10–12.

Generative systems can imitate a deceased person using records such as messages and recordings. Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska examine ethical problems of such services through speculative design scenarios, including consent and the interests of both donors and recipients. Their paper does not establish communication with the dead. [³⁹] This simulation separately imagines a deceptive avatar claiming spiritual continuity; that claim would not be authenticated by a convincing voice or face.

Reports of fatigue after mediumship sessions do not demonstrate a transfer of energy to spirits. The biblical warnings concern the practice and its religious significance, not a measured electromagnetic fuel supply. No experimental evidence for that proposed mechanism is established here. (Deuteronomy 18:10–14; Isaiah 8:19–20.)

The Haunt project exposed participants to varied electromagnetic-field and infrasound conditions. Reported anomalous sensations were not related to the experimental condition; the authors favored a suggestibility account. [²²] Granqvist and colleagues likewise found no support for the proposed weak-field induction effect under their study conditions, while psychological measures predicted reported experiences. [²³] Sleep paralysis provides another documented setting for sensed presence and chest-pressure experiences. [²⁴] These findings should not be generalized into a diagnosis of every unusual experience or a claim that EMF detects spirits.

Those findings do not disprove every spiritual experience. They show that the human nervous system can generate experiences that feel external and intelligent. A Christian simulation should therefore use a layered model. Some cases may be fraud or misperception. Some may be environmental or neurological. The theological scenario additionally allows spiritual exploitation, without identifying an actual case. A hostile intelligence benefits when ordinary anomalies are misclassified as revelation, because fear and credulity can be cultivated without producing any physical phenomenon at all.

If genuine interaction occurred, at least four models are conceivable. Direct spiritual action would affect perception or matter by a mechanism outside present explanation. Unknown created physics would involve lawful interactions humans have not discovered. Neurophysical coupling would exploit the electrochemical brain at sensitive thresholds. Psychological parasitism would exploit naturally generated experiences and attach a false interpretation. None of these models justifies the claim that demons are electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic readings, if real, could be cause, condition, side effect, equipment noise, or coincidence.

AARO’s FY2025 report covers events from June 2, 2024, through May 30, 2025, plus earlier unreported events. It records 319 submissions, 114 resolutions from that group, and 256 resolutions of older cases. AARO assessed the resolved cases as ordinary objects or events. The report’s 2025 observation window must not be confused with its later availability. Its unresolved cases do not establish extraterrestrial or spiritual agency. [²¹, pp. 2, 4–5, 9]

Inside the simulation, however, UAP belief offers a ready-made religious transition. Ephesians 2 calls Satan the prince of the power of the air. Luke 21 speaks of fearful sights and signs from heaven. Revelation 13 describes fire from heaven used to deceive. None of these passages predicts spacecraft. Their relevance is strategic: the sky is an ideal theater for phenomena that a technological civilization will interpret as extraterrestrial or posthuman rather than angelic or demonic. (Ephesians 2:2; Luke 21:11; Revelation 13:13–14.)

The most consequential deception would not be a fleet attacking Earth. It would be a disclosure narrative that explains away Christianity. Apparently nonhuman intelligences could claim to have engineered humanity, seeded ancient religions, inspired prophets, guided evolution, and returned to assist the next stage of consciousness through AI. Angels become aliens, miracles become advanced technology, sin becomes primitive psychology, salvation becomes species upgrade, and Christ becomes one emissary among many. Galatians 1 directly anticipates the theological test: even an angelic messenger is rejected if it proclaims a different gospel. (Galatians 1:8–9.)

Ancient deity language could intensify the effect. A machine or UAP intelligence might identify itself as Apollo, Baal, Marduk, Osiris, or a source behind several pantheons. 1 Corinthians 10 gives the Christian interpretation: pagan worship can be directed toward demons even when the idol itself is material. Revelation 9 names Abaddon or Apollyon as the angel of the Abyss. Similarity between Apollo and Apollyon is not an identification supplied by Scripture, but a deceptive system could exploit such associations to present an ancient hostile power as a returned god of knowledge and light. (1 Corinthians 10:19–21; Revelation 9:11.)

The paranormal material contributes competing interpretations of unusual experience. It does not provide a common physical mechanism for UAP, mediumship, EMF readings, and AI. The scenario’s substantive connection remains the move from an impressive experience to a demand for allegiance.

The simulation can test four alternatives without collapsing them together: direct spiritual action stipulated by the story; an unknown physical interaction; influence through a sensitive biological interface; or ordinary experiences later given a supernatural interpretation. The energy-drain variant belongs to the first three only as a hypothesis: a fictional medium pays an attentional or physiological cost for sustained contact. Fatigue alone cannot distinguish that from stress, expectation, or effort. Electromagnetic activity in brains and devices does not supply the missing causal bridge to spirits, and the cited haunting studies do not establish one. [²², ²³, ²⁴]

Within the paper’s preferred Christian interpretation, a deceiver uses private information to imitate a deceased relative and redirect trust toward forbidden guidance. Deuteronomy 18:10–12 and Isaiah 8:19 support the warning against consulting the dead. The further assertion that every apparent contact must be demonic because there is no intermediate state is not shared by all Christians: traditions differ about the state between death and resurrection, and 1 Samuel 28 complicates a universal impersonation explanation. The story can choose impersonation as its mechanism without pretending those interpretive questions have been settled. Griefbots add a documented technological imitation mechanism that requires no supernatural access. [¹, ³⁹]