The Paranormal in the Bible and in Old Norse Literature—Superstition?

Journal of Parapsychology, The, Fall, 2003 by Lisa Schwebel

Even if one were willing to overlook the lack of attribution and the anything-and-everything gets included style (and the racism, "Mao Zedung, the red god of the yellow ones" [p. 105]), in the absence of any analysis or interpretation, the pile-up of examples quickly becomes tedious. Kvastad considers St. Paul's experience on the way to Damascus as, alternatively, a poltergeist outbreak, a UFO encounter, and a near-death experience. The one thing he does not consider is that it is in the first instance a "conversion" experience, and without that the rest is of little significance. Kvastad thinks that once something is labeled or named it can be dismissed. Thus, for example, when he says that the Book of Revelation "stems from an NDE" (p. 255), that is all he says. One wants to respond, 'You want to make something of that? Please?' Unfortunately, Kvastad doesn't. After he attributes the resurrection appearances to poltergeists, and calls Jesus a levitating ghost (p. 144), he's finished with the topic. One wants to ask him, 'And, so?' What difference, if any, does this make to Christian claims about the resurrection or Jesus?

Kvastad claims that the "apocalypse has NDE traits" (p. 254), when it ought to occur to him that NDEs may rather draw their imagery from apocalyptic accounts. He fails to see this entirely when it comes to UFO accounts, holding that Ezekiel's vision of the "heavenly throne" resembles a UFO sighting (p. 319). Rather, the reverse is more likely to be true: UFO sightings resemble biblical visions. It is a shame that by reducing one of the most significant visions of the Bible--which gave rise to its own distinct mystical tradition in Merkavah or 'Chariot' mysticism--to a UFO sighting, Kvastad plays right into the hands of those who dismiss parapsychology and any value it might have for religion. (3)

When it comes to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, Kvastad makes errors that cast doubt on the validity of the rest of his claims. Three of them are particularly egregious:

1) In arguing that Jesus was precognitive he says: "it is only when details are mentioned that are difficult to know in a normal way that we should suspect precognition," and gives as an example here Jesus' predicting in Luke that the Jews would be exiled. He claims this is precognitive because "the notion that the Jews would be dispersed in Jesus' time was so bizarre that no one in Jesus' time would have accepted it" (p. 90). This is where some background reading on the Bible would have come in handy: at the time of Jesus the majority of Jews already lived in the diaspora.

2) He states that the relationship between the two texts "is much like prophecy and its fulfillment" (p. 82). This is an unconscious faith statement which requires imposing onto and reading into the Hebrew Bible connections that are not written in the text itself: one can read the Hebrew Bible from cover to cover and not find in it any mention of Jesus. To state this as fact as Kvastad does is wrong and irresponsible.