Published Papers
In August 2025, my research exploring the relationship between kinetic energy, static electricity, and specific frequency ranges of electromagnetic radiation as measurable environmental indicators during anomalous reports was presented at the Paranormal Research Symposium in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, hosted by the Association of Paranormal Study and later published in their annual journal.
While the paper was not formally peer-reviewed, it outlines a structured experimental framework, defined physical parameters, and mathematical relationships that can be independently tested and replicated. The goal of this work is not to confirm supernatural explanations, but to establish measurable variables that can be tracked in tandem during reported phenomena.
This research is ongoing. Readers are encouraged to examine the methodology, run their own experiments, challenge the assumptions, and contribute to refining the framework.
Work & Research
Disclaimer: The information set forth is how I personally investigate and navigate the world of the paranormal. My goal isn't necessarily to "hunt ghosts" but rather to further the field of research by introducing new, science based, and more critical, methods and tools to produce better data while still objectively acknowledging the VERY spiritual and energetic roots of the paranormal
With an inquisitive mind and a lifelong need to understand how things function, I’ve always found grounding and solace in building, fixing, and figuring things out. From an early age, I connected with hands-on problem solving. Some of my earliest memories involve taking apart an old IBM computer with my dad, simply to see how it worked.
As I grew older, that instinct followed me everywhere. In high school, while my late mother struggled with mental illness, I learned to fix what I could. Plumbing. Electrical work. Anything practical that needed attention. Later, it was rebuilding the carburetor on my first motorcycle. I became, and remain, the person people call when something needs to be built, repaired, or understood.
Although my formative years didn’t lead directly to formal training in engineering, building and development have always been central to my life. That practice never stopped. It simply evolved.
Now, in my late thirties, I’ve returned to academia and am pursuing a STEM degree at Youngstown State University, focusing on physics, astronomy, and mathematics. In the meantime, I continue to engage with the three things that have always driven my work: building and creating, exploring the unknown, and inviting others to learn alongside me.
Personal Practice
I’ve often spoken about the importance of understanding when personal spiritual beliefs belong outside an investigation, and when it may be appropriate to let them exist alongside it.
Practices such as conjuring, spirit boards, cleansing rituals, ceremonies, and other active interventions can directly influence a space. While I don’t inherently disagree with these practices, they introduce variables that are subjective, difficult to isolate, and heavily dependent on belief and interpretation rather than measurable change.
There are also techniques commonly used in paranormal investigation that I view as especially vulnerable to operator influence or trust-based interpretation. Pendulums, dowsing rods, unmonitored Estes sessions, and reliance on psychic or mediumistic input often prioritize expectation over documentation. Without recording, cross-referencing, or environmental context, these methods offer little in the way of usable data. They become experiences rather than evidence.
For me, there is a clear boundary between personal occult practice and investigative integrity.
I do engage in protective and preparatory practices such as wearing amulets, carrying crystals, cleansing myself and my equipment before and after a location, or seeking directional insight through divination or intuitive guidance. These practices are personal. They are not treated as factual instruments, nor are they used to draw conclusions about a space, an event, or a presence.
The balance between mysticism and methodology is delicate, and in my experience, it is far more often disrupted than maintained. Paranormal investigation exists in the realm of the supernatural by definition. Expecting our current electrical devices, which are extremely limited when viewed through the lens of modern physics, to identify, define, or explain something we cannot even quantify is an unrealistic expectation.
I would not ask a psychic to accurately predict next weekend’s weather. In the same way, I don’t expect a proximity sensor, EMF meter, K-II, or sweep radio to confirm the presence of a ghost, much less identify intent, intelligence, or identity. These tools often respond to environmental stimuli. Interpreting them as communicative without a measurable framework is speculation, not investigation.
Until we have a clear, testable understanding of what “spirit energy” even represents in physical terms, exploration must acknowledge its own limitations. Blending mysticism with mechanical or electrical systems can be a valid way to explore the unknown, but only when handled with restraint, documentation, and intellectual honesty. Because that balance is difficult to maintain, it is rarely achieved with consistency.​​
Studying the atmosphere over the haunting
There are plenty of explorers focused on capturing the next piece of communication-based “evidence” in the paranormal. Communication has long been the central pursuit of the paranormal community. The desire to speak to the dead, to know their stories, to be acknowledged or recognized, is deeply human. I understand the appeal. I’ve had my own personal experiences as well.
But communication, in its simplest form, doesn’t hold much weight in my work.
There are many reasons for that, including the possibility that what we label as “spirits” may not be deceased humans at all. Rather than focusing on that debate, I’m more interested in the underlying mechanics of the experience itself. What happens when we believe we are encountering a phenomenon? What changes occur in the human body, within the atmosphere of a space, or in the surrounding environment? Why do people report shadows, movement, static sensations in the air, or sudden temperature shifts? Are these meaningful environmental changes, or are they coincidental effects shaped by expectation and interpretation once we believe communication is taking place?
When the goal of communication is removed, especially communication framed through distinctly human tools like voice, sound, and touch, the focus can shift. Instead of seeking responses, we can observe whether a space changes at all. We can document patterns, inconsistencies, or the absence of change just as carefully as we document anomalies.
If the only data presented is a word or phrase coming through a radio sweep, a beeping device, a flashing light, or a figure on a screen, without controls, environmental context, theoretical grounding, or follow-up experimentation, then the conclusion stops far too early. In those cases, my response is not dismissal, but encouragement. There is more to explore. More to measure. More to question.
For me, the value lies not in being answered, but in understanding what changes when we believe we are being answered.
The world of the paranormal is always evolving. When I use terms like science-based, scientific method, objectivity, or physics, it isn’t to inflate a field that I’m fully aware is largely subjective. Working within the paranormal requires at least some openness to the idea that there may be something to discover in the first place.
One of the most common labels in this space is skeptic. Healthy skepticism is important. Necessary, even. But investigations rooted entirely in doubt can influence outcomes just as strongly as unquestioned belief. Expectation shapes observation, regardless of which direction it leans.
I often jokingly refer to myself as the “killjoy” of an investigation. I enjoy debunking. I enjoy recreating results. I enjoy finding the mundane explanation first. But I don’t conduct experiments with the goal of disproving experiences, nor do I enter them looking to validate a belief. I approach them as an impartial observer, collecting data, documenting behavior, and allowing conclusions to form after the fact.
My work exists in that uncomfortable middle space. Curious, but critical. Open, but grounded. I build and develop equipment from a place of skepticism, while still acknowledging the value of intuition, symbolism, and personal practice.
In short, I don’t investigate as a believer or a debunker. I investigate as an observer.
Yes, that probably makes me a skeptical witch. Sometimes oxymorons are ironically intentional. ; )
Development
Current Studies
Exploring the Foundations of Perception
