Ed & Lorraine Warren

[A Jay]

Wanted to get people's insight into Ed and Lorraine Warren after a recent viewing of the first two Conjuring movies led to some not so pleasant discoveries.

Prior to seeing the films I'd known the Warrens only by reputation and hadn't watched any of their interviews, read any of their books, or any other supplemental material.

So after the movies, which are great, I wanted to know what was fact and fiction about the films and came across some rather sordid details which bring up some questions about the credibility of the couple as well as the nature of their characters.

First, the author of the book The Demonologist, billed as the true tales of Ed and Lorraine, as part of a lawsuit against the studios who produced the films claimed that he wrote the book believing the stories were true only to later claim he discovered they were falsities and so the book being therefore fiction meant he should've have been part of the movie deal. Obviously, such a financial incentive undermines the credibility of the claim but the fact that it was made in the first place, I think, says something nonetheless about Mr. Brittle. The lawsuit did reach a settlement, but I couldn't find anything that would clarify if the settlement meant Mr. Brittle was lying about the Warrens lying or if he was standing behind what he said but that he was no longer seeking money from the studios. That's the first thing.

The second is that Ed told one of the original investigators at the Enfield house, Guy Lyon Playfair, that he could help Guy make a lot of money from the case and Guy thought to himself that Ed could "sod off" because that's not why he was there. Also, Guy said he didn't like Ed, didn't like his attitude, and wanted him out of the way immediately. The topic of Ed specifically is at the 26:36 minute mark.

The third is that Ed claims that he was the only non-priest to be recognized by the Vatican as a demonologist, though I can find nothing to officially support this. Whether or not the church recognized him officially would have no impact on his abilities or knowledge base, but since he's making the claim I'd expect him to back it up with something more than "trust me bro" for someone in this line of work.

The fourth is the Amityville house. In one interview Ed claims that the worst things you could have imagined and more happened in that house. However, there's credibility issues with a person involved in the case saying that the story was fabricated over a few bottles of wine after the Lutz family left because they couldn't afford the house. Moreover, in the Playfair interview I already mentioned at the 29:12 minute mark they talk about Amityville and Playfair said that the case had been thoroughly debunked for his satisfaction and the interviewer said that the Warrens were really only there for a seance after the Lutz family had already left so it's a bit much for him to say much about what happened there. These are details that I've not investigated myself but find them credible enough to at least post here for now.

Finally, there's the testimony of Judith Penney who claimed to have had a 40-year long sexual relationship with Ed with Lorraine's knowledge that started when she was 15 when Ed was her school bus driver, that Penney got pregnant, that Lorraine convinced her to get an abortion to prevent a scandal, and that Ed was physically abusive towards Lorraine. Ed and Lorraine's daughter says she never saw anything like this but seeing as she lived with Lorraine's mother I'm not sure just how privy to a sordid private life she would have been. Although, considering who was involved in getting this confession from Judith after Ed had passed away could lend some credence to the Warren's daughter saying Judith was being manipulated.

It's possible to make almost anyone look like a horrible person by taking details out of context but there's enough separate yet overlapping situations and motivations here that I don't think it's taking things out of context to suggest that the Warrens were at the very least exaggerating their claims if not outright making stuff up and in either case doing so for money and clout.

Does anyone know of any further sordid details that would confirm these findings or any context that would call these findings into question?

 

[Laura]

I searched the forum and there were half a dozen mentions of them, or so, none of which gave any insight. I never asked the Cs about them either.

The story about them sounds off-putting, but we have to remember how MSM handles anything that might contribute to an understanding of the occult. Yeah, they may not have lived perfect lives, but it may not have been as bad as it is made to sound. At the same time, it also does look like they embellished stuff or even made stuff up. That doesn't mean they weren't involved in some serious, legitimate activities, they may have just wanted to exaggerate in order to make people realize how real some of that stuff is. They may have convinced themselves it was done righteously. After all, who would want to make a movie about run-of-the-mill spirit release therapy.

Yeah, pretty sure demons exist and they can be scary, but it's mostly psychological or psychic. Cases that go beyond that are pretty rare. But then, as things are heating up on the BBM, it could become more common.

I've read stories about some really great mediums who really had psychic abilities who, when they were tired, or tired of being harassed, would fake stuff. They couldn't always produce phenomena on demand and I guess they found it hard to admit that, "well, tonight, nothing is happening". But the evidence that they DID produce extraordinary phenomena on many occasions, is pretty solid IMHO.

This topic HAS to be debunked by the materialists by whatever means necessary.

 

[Ennio]

Had read at least a few of the above claims previously and couldn't find much else that was definitive for me, though some of it sure sounds damning. By the same token, if even half of their stories and interactions with the truly hair-raising stuff is true, and they were sincerely trying to bring awareness of these phenomena - more than the desire to make a buck, then it wouldn't surprise me to learn that at least some of the above is part of a concerted effort to diminish their reputations. Hard to know for sure though without more information.

 

[A Jay]

As I understand it, free will must be preserved and there can never be incontrovertible proof that cannot be ignored for this type of phenomena. A way that such a preservation of free will might manifest is in credibility issues arising from either false claims or actually less than perfectly lived lives.

I kept this in mind when doing my reading and searching. It's just that there were enough questionable instances to put me in the camp of skeptic regarding them specifically.

I know that that doesn't mean the whole phenomena is hogwash or that everything they did or were involved with was all lies, but not everyone has the ability to separate the particular from the general.

 

[Alana]

The story about them sounds off-putting, but we have to remember how MSM handles anything that might contribute to an understanding of the occult. Yeah, they may not have lived perfect lives, but it may not have been as bad as it is made to sound. At the same time, it also does look like they embellished stuff or even made stuff up. That doesn't mean they weren't involved in some serious, legitimate activities, they may have just wanted to exaggerate in order to make people realize how real some of that stuff is. They may have convinced themselves it was done righteously. After all, who would want to make a movie about run-of-the-mill spirit release therapy.

Yeah, pretty sure demons exist and they can be scary, but it's mostly psychological or psychic. Cases that go beyond that are pretty rare. But then, as things are heating up on the BBM, it could become more common.

I've read stories about some really great mediums who really had psychic abilities who, when they were tired, or tired of being harassed, would fake stuff. They couldn't always produce phenomena on demand and I guess they found it hard to admit that, "well, tonight, nothing is happening". But the evidence that they DID produce extraordinary phenomena on many occasions, is pretty solid IMHO.

This topic HAS to be debunked by the materialists by whatever means necessary.

That's close to what I was thinking regarding this case: In our world, it is often hard to prove or disprove such type of paranormal claims, but what is certain is that the materialist-based status quo would do its best to suppress this info or tarnish the names of those who try to educate the rest of us.

I liked the way they were presented in the movies, at least the first one: this archetypal-like couple, joined by love and faith and their knowledge of these phenomena, to battle against evil supernatural forces, save the humans attacked, and spread the knowledge. If nothing else, it's an inspiring story. But they are humans and there would inevitably be aspects of their lives that don't hold up to this "archetypal" image. On the other hand, it would be pretty bad to take advandage of people who are already in a vulnerable situation. So I would be interested to know too if they were total frauds, or small frauds, and if something other than faith, love and knowledge was their motivating factor. As a subject, it has my vote as a question for the Cs.

 

[Moine]

Contemporary trappings, tend to yield contemporary interpretations. Since technology has introduced the possibility of inexpensively drafted/published books, along with other novelties that are peculiarly effective at trapping the public at large's imagination, there is usually little impetus to listen to reason or caution -- unless of course what you experienced was 100% real.

To a scientifically curious audience -- from my more youthful days when I spent late nights watching a whole range of televised "Paranormal Investigative" series (because there was nothing else that was rather genuine at the time) -- modern technology and intrepid souls have otherwise thoroughly documented the presence/operation of things that are not continually evident in the course of one's modern life. Ultraviolet/infrared cameras have indeed documented partial 3d manifestations of these things, usually in the orbs/shadows that give you quite the scare. Sensitive audio equipment, thermometers, magnetometers, EMF readers, and a whole host of other potential toys have been readily used to document these sorts of phenomena, and they do impart physical, environmental effects when they want to, to the detriment of anyone in the situation.

Furthermore, eye-witness testimony should not be taken lightly. From thought-forms emerging within once's center of awareness, to conscious visual apparitions (that are usually visible within the non-focused band of rod cells within your peripheral vision -- those cells do pickup quite a bit more iirc), to 3d/4d interactions that are usually portrayed in a range between benign to malevolent intentions, to even more capable "psychics" who easily perceive these things clearly in the mental realms, paranormal phenomena is usually taken to be a childish endeavor of foolishness -- unless of course it starts to affect your private life in say your domicile, or even your workplace (should you work the late hours).

But these things are nothing new. Irving Finkel has quite a lot to say regarding this curious genre, evidenced in surviving clay tablets and stories from Ancient Mesopotamia. These things are basically as old as civilization itself, and of course we have only few surviving records on pretty much anything that comes before the the innovation of the Gutenberg press in the Western world.

And to a more medieval, and discerning audience, you could easily pull up a copy of the Malleus Maleficarum and take a gander at how seriously rife with spiritual and mental chaos the medieval mind was stricken by the severity of this phenomena. To me, things haven't changed, especially with how little 3rd density humanity has only so many things that are effective with dealing with these sorts of 4d phenomena. I'd recommend parsing back to older transcripts, notably Session 4 July 2015, Session 22 October 2022, and Session 13 May 2023, regarding these demon things.

The Malleus Maleficarum, written in 1487 by Heinrich Kramer and Yakob Springer is best known as a cornerstone of early modern demonology and witch hunting ideology. Its legacy owes much to its legal and theological arguments justifying the persecution of witches as a diabolical sect of heretics. However, this infamous text also preserves something less obvious but historically valuable. A sustained engagement with contemporary debates about astrology and astral causality from the viewpoint of a university educated Dominican friar and inquisitor. In particular, part one question five addresses the question whether witchcraft can be attributed to the influence of celestial bodies. While Kramer aka Henrikus Institur ultimately rejects any theory that ascribes moral or spiritual causality to the stars, the care with which he lays out his arguments against astral determinism shows us just how prominent astrological thought was in the late 15th century.

The Malleus Maleficarum, despite its blood soaked history and its virulently polemical tone, offers historians a unique view into the intellectual boundaries of astrology in the late medieval and early modern periods. Its rejection of astral determinism is not a wholesale dismissal of astrology, but a theologically motivated effort to delineate which aspects of celestial theory could be assimilated into Catholic orthodoxy and which could not. In doing so, the author shows how the language of natural philosophy, demonic agency, and moral responsibility converged around the question of astral influence in the period immediately preceding the burning times.

The central concern of part one question 5 is articulated as follows. Is it in any way a Catholic opinion to hold that the origin and growth of witchcraft proceed from the influence of the celestial bodies? What comes after is not a brief dismissal, but a detailed account of various theories of astral causation, many of which were widely accepted in both learned and popular contexts. Kramer begins by noting the appeal of attributing sin, including the sin of witchcraft, to the wickedness of human nature itself. This, of course, aligns with St. Augustine's teaching that sin arises from free will. Kramer paraphrases him as such. The cause of a man's depravity lies in his own will, whether he sins at his own or at another s suggestion. The devil cannot destroy free will. for this would militate against liberty.

This Augustinian framework enshrining the indomitable nature of the will establishes the theological backdrop against which astral explanations are weighed. Kramer then turns to what is evidently a well-known position that the stars can influence or even determine human behavior. He writes, "If the stars were not the cause of human actions, both good and bad, astrologers would not so frequently foretell the truth about the results of wars and other human acts. Therefore, they are in some way a cause. In other words, the fact that astrology has some predictive power seems to support the idea that celestial bodies exert causal force over human events." Kramer extends this argument by noting that demonic activity itself appears to follow celestial rhythms. For example, he says that lunatics are more afflicted by demons during certain lunar phases and that necromancers, practitioners of necromancia, spiritual or demonic magic, perform rituals at astrologically opportune moments. Quote, "Certain men who are called lunatics are molested by devils more at one time than at another. Necromancers observe certain constellations for the invoking of devils, which they would not do unless they knew that those devils were subject to the stars." Now, say what you will about Kramer's view of astral spirits and intelligences being devils. What's notable here is how he reveals that astrology was not a marginal belief, but a natural philosophical framework capable of explaining not just natural or political events, but even the activity of demons.

The specific reference to necromancers observing constellations reflects a technical magical practice, a learned ritual tradition derived from Arabic and Latin sources like Pseudo al-Kindi’s On Stellar Rays and the Picatrix which involve planetary hours, astrological elections and the drawing down of spirits into talismanic images. In Kramer's reading, these rituals don't succeed because of the stars themselves, but because demons act in ways designed to appear naturalistic, thereby deceiving both practitioner and victim.

Now, the theological problem posed by astral determinism is made clear in Kramer's response. To assert that the stars necessarily cause human behavior is to undermine the core doctrines of sin, merit, and grace. As Kramer puts it, he who argues that everything of necessity proceeds from the stars takes away all merit and in consequence all blame. Also, he takes away grace and therefore glory. Astral determinism then is not just an error. It's a heresy because it eliminates human accountability and makes divine judgment unintelligible. Really, anything that undermines any aspect of the penitential cycle administered by the church is heresy.

And that of course is the very thing that all Dominican inquisitors are sworn to root out and destroy. It's the reason St. Dominic founded the order in the first place. Now despite all this, the Malleus does not condemn astrology in all its forms. Instead, its author articulates a classic distinction drawn from earlier scholastic sources between necessary and contingent forms of astral influence.
There are two ways, Kramer says, in which it can be understood that men's characters can be caused by the stars, either completely and of necessity, or by disposition and contingency. The first is false and heretical, but the second, the idea that celestial bodies can incline human temperaments, is acceptable and perfectly natural, provided it doesn't eliminate the possibility of free will. This distinction draws on Galenic humoral theory and Aristotelian natural philosophy as practiced throughout the universities of the high and late middle ages.

Kramer explains that the stars may affect the humors and the humors in turn shape personality.
The choleric are wrathful, the sanguine are kindly, the melancholy are envious, and the phlegmatic are slothful. But this is not absolute for the soul is master of its body especially when it is helped by grace. In this formulation, astrology is given a place within the grand order of natural causes but only as a remote influence on the body. For the Dominican, it is the rational soul, not the stars, that govern moral action, including whether or not a person chooses to engage in witchcraft. To illustrate the point, Kramer cites an anecdote from Augustine's City of God in which two twin brothers fall ill and recover simultaneously. An astrologer explains the coincidence by reference to their identical horoscopes. A physician attributes it to their shared humoral makeup. Kramer sides with the physician. The physician's answer was better since he adduced the more powerful and immediate cause. This example reinforces the hierarchy of causes that governs this section of the Malleus. Astrology may be useful in explaining broad patterns in bodily disposition, but it cannot account for individual moral behavior which depends on free will and grace.

Now, the question of astral causality also touches on the interpretation of celestial portance. The author turns to the topic of comets which were long considered harbingers of disaster, especially the deaths of kings. Kramer presents two views. First, he quotes John of Damascus who held that comets are temporary signs created by God for specific occasions. Comets are not of the stars which were created in the beginning but are made for a particular occasion and then dissolved by divine command. According to this view, comets are not part of the natural order but inserted by divine will as signs. The second view attributed to unnamed philosophers is that comets are natural phenomena, vapors ignited in the upper air. This model explains the association between comets and death not through fate but through physiology.

Because the rich tend to consume hot and dry foods and comets are hot and dry in nature, their appearance correlates with outbreaks of illness that disproportionately affect the wealthy.
Now Kramer doesn't take sides in this debate. Instead, he uses both models to underscore his main point. Whatever the mechanism, comets do not cause events like the death of a king. They may signal divine intention or indicate changing environmental conditions, but they do not compel human fate. Kramer writes, "From this we see that the stars have no influence over free will or consequently over the malice and character of men." In part two, chapter 5, the discussion of celestial influence resumes. Now, in the context of what demons can and cannot do, Kramer describes six kinds of harm that witches acting in concert with demons can inflict on human beings.
Seducing them into illicit love, stirring up hatred, causing impotence or full-on phallus removal, inducing illness, taking life, and depriving the mind of reason. These are not imaginary effects. The Malleus treats them as real and serious, but it insists that such harms do not come from the stars.

Quote, "Saving the influence of the stars, the devils can by their natural power in every way cause real defects and infirmities by their natural spiritual power, which is superior to any bodily power.
However, even demons have their limits." The author argues that devils cannot alter the stars. And he offers three reasons. One, the stars are physically located above the sphere where demons operate, that is in the circle of air. Two, the stars are governed by good angels. And three, the structure of the universe would be compromised if demons could alter celestial movements. Kramer writes, "Those changes which were miraculously caused in the Old and New Testament were done by God through the good angels. But in all other matters, with God's permission, the devils can work their spells." So here for our Inquisitor, demonic agency is real, but it's bounded. Devils cannot interfere with celestial order. They can only mimic or exploit it. If they choose to attack during a full moon or under certain planetary alignments, it's to create the illusion that the stars are responsible. A kind of grand deception, as you'd expect, from the hosts of the Lord of Lies.

This misdirection then leads people to trust in astrology rather than God, and to mistake sin for fate.
At stake in all this is more than an abstract metaphysical dispute. For Kramer and his fellow inquisitors, the real danger of astrology, especially in its deterministic forms, is that it undermines the sacramental economy of salvation. If sin is caused by the stars, then confession is unnecessary, penance is meaningless, and divine justice collapses. As guardians of that system, Dominicans were bound not only to suppress heresy, but to preserve the integrity of moral causality itself. To clarify his position, Kramer outlines a three-fold division of causes that govern human beings. Three things are to be considered in man which are directed by three celestial causes, namely the act of the will, the act of the intellect, and the act of the body. The first is governed directly and solely by God, the second by an angel, and the third by a celestial body.
This hierarchy places the stars at the bottom of the causal chain governing only the body. The intellect is influenced by angels, and the will, where moral decisions are made, is ruled directly by God. This tripartite model mirrors the standard Thomic cosmology, widely accepted in late medieval thought in which concentric celestial spheres are moved by separate angelic intelligences that the very summit of which is the imperian heaven of God and his higher angels. Any attempt to invert this order or to treat the stars as the highest power in human affairs amounts to idolatry. The author even links this belief to the ancient goddess Fortune who quote mocks human affairs in a haphazard and fortuitous manner.

Conclusion.

The Malleus Maleficarum is by no means a treatise on astrology, but as a demonological manual, it offers a remarkably detailed account of how astrology was thought to work by a late medieval Dominican inquisitor. And not surprisingly, Kramer's ideas are not far off from what we find in other polemical works against astrology from the same time period. I'm thinking chiefly here about Savona's account in the triumph of the cross, though in both cases the influence of St. Thomas Aquinas looms large. In their effort to defend free will, moral responsibility, and divine justice, members of the Dominican order confronted a range of astrological beliefs. Some widely accepted, others clearly heterodox. They distinguished between acceptable theories of natural inclination and heretical doctrines of astral necessity. They acknowledged that astrologers frequently predict events correctly, that necromancers use the stars, and that the movement of celestial bodies has real effects on bodies and temperaments. But they drew a clear line. The stars may incline, but they do not compel. They allowed for celestial influence to affect the body, but not the soul. They allowed astrology to serve natural philosophy, but not to explain sin or salvation.
In the end, the real enemy in this is not the stars, but the idea that they can relieve us of responsibility for our choices. No planet or constellation can make a witch. Only the will, corrupted by sin and tempted by the devil, can do that.

This careful boundary drawing reveals a great deal about the place of astrology in late medieval thought. Kramer is not rejecting astrology altogether. He is rather policing its boundaries, accepting its place in natural philosophy, but denying its relevance to the moral and spiritual life. This balancing act reflects a broader effort typical of the 15th century to reconcile the inheritance of Greco Arabic science with Christian theology. And in trying to do so, the Malleus becomes a valuable historical source not just for witch hunting but for the intellectual history of astrology at the end of the Middle Ages as well.

As to the veracity of the Warren's information? Well it's certainly accessible to a modern audience. You guys do say around here, knowledge and awareness protects, right? Yet, I haven't read that book of their myself. For anyone that has, does that book ring with a sense of sensationalism of "Hey, this is what we documented here, and that is what happened over there" that tenders nothing useful to any audience, or does it proffer more profound spiritual implications to the audience's soul, perhaps even pulling the veil off a little bit regarding how the 4th density reality operates on humans stuck in 3rd density? However there's more tried and true philosophical and natural inquiries, relating to these topics, that have unfortunately fallen out of fashion, and unfortunately are thoroughly inaccessible to a modern audience.

Anyways, to me, their background/story seems nothing extraordinary -- Roman Catholics; fallible and entangled within worldly affairs when they were alive.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Just one tiny anecdote. Paul Eno, whose work I quoted a bunch in the Substack articles, mentions the Warrens a couple times in his book. He doesn't say anything bad about them that I remember, but the thing that he did say is kind of telling: He says that the only useful thing he learned from them was surrounding oneself in white light. The implication being that they didn't have much else useful to pass on to him.

 

[Mr.Cyan]

Interesting timing that you are looking into this Ajay.

I recall a couple of weeks ago there was this in the news :

Lead Investigator For Psychic Society Dies While Touring With Ed And Lorraine Warren's Infamous Annabelle Doll​

Lead Investigator For Psychic Society Dies While Touring With Ed And Lorraine Warren's Infamous Annabelle Doll

A paranormal investigator died in the possession of the original Annabelle doll.

www.yahoo.com

Im also on the fence on this one. Until your post, i had not read anything bad about them, but honestly would not be surprised. I did read the "Demonologist" - and i have similar views to Alana regarding the movies. I too think that it will be a good question for the C's.

 

[Soluna]

I have watched a number of interviews and videos about this couple and their work. The impressions they have left me with are that there is probably some truth to their encounters and experiences, peppered in among the stories - but that their beliefs probably coloured their perception of events, and probably their expectations contributed to outcomes. Even those with good intentions can be misled and in turn mislead.

Tony Spera has a number of interesting videos on YouTube about them, he was a personal friend of theirs - they definitely seem to place significance on and advocate for people to protect themselves and not to mess with the paranormal or "invite things in", which seems more helpful than many others instructions on "how to" contact dangerous entities!

So in my opinion, they seem to have some decent basics despite whatever personal problems may be true.

 

[lilies]

Just one tiny anecdote. Paul Eno, whose work I quoted a bunch in the Substack articles, mentions the Warrens a couple times in his book. He doesn't say anything bad about them that I remember, but the thing that he did say is kind of telling: He says that the only useful thing he learned from them was surrounding oneself in white light. The implication being that they didn't have much else useful to pass on to him.

That's impossible if the Warrens were legit! Famous exorcist Father Malachi Martin, PhD. routinely gave extremely useful advice to families and ordained nuns on how to protect themselves during his numerous radio show appearances and in his many books! Lots of excellent data he gave, based on the objective reality of the phenomenon, from a real exorcist, who actually fought real demons!

Your tidbit therefore is an important telltale sign, I think. So it may be that the excellent Hollywood actors - amazing Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren and Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren - may have been the only true performances in this story, in the first movie titled: The Conjuring (2013).

But if the Warrens are legit:, e.g they encountered such demons as the movie dramatizes, then IMO

it constitutes an alien invasion.

Simply because such evil spirits of non-human origin - coming from alien planets (3rdD) or straight from Hell (5thD) - may possess human bodies, therefore taking over the lives of humans. Alien takeover = invasion. Father Malachi Martin warns that the most dangerous - INCURABLE - form of demonic possession is PERFECT POSSESSION, where the human host willingly fully accepts the demon. Therefore I think latter constitutes as an alien invasion. In the first movie Lorraine clearly is so frightened when sensing the demon that she exclaims:
- That thing wasn't human!

If the Warrens' story is true, then all kinds of 'dead dude' xenomorph citizens from alien planets have been drawn to Earth - insane, perceived as "demons" - and they have been violently feeding on people here.

 

[mkrnhr]

I don't know much about the Warrens, I recently saw a video by the "why files" (with the talking fish) about them. The impression I have is that even if they weren't scammed by the entities, or the clients, or by their own wishful thinking, for them everything paranormal is demons. Demons do indeed exist and manifest but not all hauntings are due to demons. Sometimes it's just poltergeists, earthbound spirits, aliens, or stray cats.

 

[Alejo]

Just one tiny anecdote. Paul Eno, whose work I quoted a bunch in the Substack articles, mentions the Warrens a couple times in his book. He doesn't say anything bad about them that I remember, but the thing that he did say is kind of telling: He says that the only useful thing he learned from them was surrounding oneself in white light. The implication being that they didn't have much else useful to pass on to him.

I was about to say that, the only other place where I have read about them being mentioned was on Paul Eno's work. But the mentions are not memorable, however he does feel compelled enough about their notoriety to mention them in his Amazon bio.

I would be interesting to ask the C's about them.

On the one hand, I can think that well, I would not be surprised if they turned out to be frauds, human being who fell in love with their own legend and thus fell prey to fabricating stuff, on top of a questionable character.

On the other, well.. if they were legit, then beyond association, one way to ride their coattails would be to spread rumors about them since they can't defend themselves any longer.

 

[A Jay]

So would the right question be: What were the main motivations for Ed & Lorraine Warren's involvement with the paranormal?

Interesting timing that you are looking into this Ajay.

I recall a couple of weeks ago there was this in the news :

...

Im also on the fence on this one. Until your post, i had not read anything bad about them, but honestly would not be surprised. I did read the "Demonologist" - and i have similar views to Alana regarding the movies. I too think that it will be a good question for the C's.

Wasn't really a coincidence because the reason for watching the movies was the discussions that followed that news event and how some hadn't seen the films before.

Like you, I didn't remember hearing anything bad about them but when I did a search on X for the Warrens it brought up a couple of the points I covered, though it was mainly repeating the accusation by Judith Penney.

Speaking of Annabelle, though, one of the facts used against the Warrens is the Annabelle doll came into existence years after The Twilight Zone aired an episode called "Living Doll" where a doll tortures and kills a father whose wife is named Annabelle.

We know that social contagion is a thing but it's also not a stretch to see the skeptic's point of view here.

On the other, well.. if they were legit, then beyond association, one way to ride their coattails would be to spread rumors about them since they can't defend themselves any longer.

A lot came out regarding the Warrens while they were active decades ago but as Laura said the MSM has to debunk this phenomena and so much has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The only new information to come out since then was Judith Penney's accusations which came out when Lorraine was 87 and The Hollywood Reporter wrote its articles on the alleged affair when she was 90. That would be a good time to kick her, so to speak.

Not that that was the motivation. Capitalizing on the hype surrounding a very successful franchise to sell gossip is just what Hollywood tabloids do.

 

[Alejo]

The only new information to come out since then was Judith Penney's accusations which came out when Lorraine was 87 and The Hollywood Reporter wrote its articles on the alleged affair when she was 90. That would be a good time to kick her, so to speak.

So, perhaps the question could be centered on the accusations by Judith Penny, and follow up from there. Another one could be about the Amityville property.

 

[A Jay]

I thought about asking those kinds of questions but realized that I was just hoping to use the answers to infer their motivations and thought it better to just ask what their motivations were.

Once their main motivations are understood I think we'll be able to answer most questions regarding specific cases ourselves, but we'll likely still have questions about Judith's allegations and those can be asked about separately.