Tiffany Twisted: moving story of a rock singer turning from occultism to Christianity

[PotteringPondering]

Moving story of a young London rock singer. She got drawn into the occult and nearly died, but then found Christian faith. Might be encouraging to anybody feeling lost and broken, or out of their depth in dodgy occult practices.

Yes, it's an overtly Christian article, but more human interest than 'preachy'.

www.flaneurnotes.com/post/tiffany-twisted-a-tale-of-rock-redemption

So she went from rom one supernatural to another. And both of these supernaturals are entwined. It's a lot easier just to drop the supernatural I reckon.

There are no angels and demons. And if someone is seeing them, then surely that goes to the medical side ?

Thank you for sharing that. A very interesting bio.

She’s having visions and hearing voices… has anyone considered that Hettie might have undiagnosed schizophrenia?

Well, that begs lots of questions! Clearly Spiritualists (and others) do believe in spirit guides and angelic beings. And Christians (and some other faiths) do believe in angels and demons – some literally, some more as symbols.

Yes, Hetti in the story went from believing in one set of supernatural beliefs to another. But she was convinced in both cases there was something real out there. She says it felt like 'something else' wanted her dead.

When you say 'there are no angels and demons', that itself is a faith position.

Quote "When you say 'there are no angels and demons', that itself is a faith position."

No. It's really an evidence position. There is zero evidence for them,

Re begging a lot of questions. For sure, but what questions. Some people might ask why is one supernatural true, but others not ? But that would not be my question.

@RedTagAlan

There's no scientific evidence for them, no. But there is experiential evidence and anecdotal evidence.

I'm an occultist and so mix in occult circles. There are occultists who seek out interaction with demons as well as angels (as well numerous other spiritual entities) and incorporate it into our practices (magical or otherwise.)

Occultists who practice Goetic magic look to engage with demons to achieve their desires.

@RedTagAlan

If someone is an occultist, they naturally believe that such entities exist. Seeing these entities and engaging with them are experiences that we want to have, and we undertake spells and rituals with the intention of interacting with such entities.

So if an occultists sees a demon, or other entity, after performing a ritual to ensure just that, they're certainly not going to see a doctor. We actively seek out communication and experiences with these entities and we see our experiences as real.

I said medical side, not doctor. Me being pedantic, Because if I had said doctor, I thing that would be into insult territory. Or something like that. Some sort of 'ism anyway. I can't explain it well. How about this -

The post above re questions comes into it. Because when your good self or your friends set off to speak to angels or demons, you are actively doing so. It is something you want to do. But the article the OP linked does not go into this, in terms of were the voices in the singer's head sought out, Is there a religious upbringing in play, talking in tongues at an evangelical church etc, or totally secular, then voices in her head, telling her to do things. I am sure you agree these 2 things can come from different reasons. The former is cultural I suppose, the latter medical.

If you or your friends think/claim to hear demons while you do a ceremony, no great shakes, because you want to. But someone, for want of a better example, hearing a voice telling them to "push", on a crowded subway platform, very different.

Do you see what I mean?

And of course, there is a follow on. Because if there is something medical behind hearing voices, then are some religions taking advantage? It's like if a member of my family were to say they have started to hear voices, is it off to the doctor to find out why, or off to the church to celebrate "the gift". For my family it would likely be the former, because we live in a place with no cultural inputs of God, angels or demons. Think Buddhism.

Thanks for stimulating and respectful engagement, everybody. I find the Tiffany Twisted story moving partly because it's the story of a seriously messed up young woman finding peace.

For what it's worth, I'm a Christian and take the idea of the demonic and angelic seriously. Not all the medieval red tights, horns and pitchforks cartoony stuff. But as something that needs to be factored into my worldview: yes.

CS Lewis's Screwtape Letters (written as a series of letters from a senior devil to a junior tempter still learning his craft) is satirical, but insightful.

Sorry @SorcererGaheris . I did not tag you in my reply to you above. But I was replying to you my last post above.

I watched Song of Bernadette recently. The 1943 film. And I found it interesting because it defo leans to the " it is true" side, but not to the extent of being "Vatican Propaganda". There is still space for doubt, if you see what I mean. It's a good film. In the end, in the film and in life, the Vatican accepted the story over the phrase " I am the immaculate conception".

I am atheist, And that phrase is not evidence for me. And it is the same with this singer in a way. Bernadette was from a devout family, in a devout area of a devout country. The religion is all around. In the case of the singer, we do not know to what extent, but it is there culturally. So even if she had been atheist and found God, it's still meh.

Now, if the story was about a singer who was from a totally non Christian place, lets say some part of China or Mongolia, and she said she suddenly felt God, the Christian God, and started singing about him, that would be rather different.

@RedTagAlan

I am atheist, And that phrase is not evidence for me.

Regarding evidence generally (I'm not referring to the specific example you gave above, just evidence as a general thing) - I think it's important to have an understanding that there are multiple forms of evidence, and while some may not be credible or reliable in your eyes, that still doesn't negate them as a form of evidence in their own right.

Anecdotal data is defined as a form of evidence by society. It's the reason the term 'anecdotal evidence' exists in the first place; because society collectively defines and recognises it as a form of evidence.

In the legal system, anecdotal evidence is accepted as a form of evidence - just not a particularly strong form in itself, and it's not enough, by itself, to build the case for convicting someone. But victim and witness testimonies are still accepted as evidence, and anecdotal evidence is what victim and witness testimonies amount to.

So rather than saying that there is "no evidence" for any particular spiritual entities, I think that a more accurate statement would be for you to say "there is no credible or reliable evidence" - because that would be your entirely valid subjective assessment of the anecdotal evidence.

A blanket statement of "no evidence" contradicts the fact that anecdotal accounts have been accepted and defined by society as a form of evidence.

Lets apply the Sagan standard. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

If I am a witness in court, and I say " I saw that man steal a television from the house next door.". That is not extraordinary. But actually, it would likely be inadmissible. Because how would I be in a position to actually see him steal it and know he was stealing it. Instead of, you know, picking it up for repair.

If I said " I saw that man leave the house next door carrying a television. and a television is reported stolen, then there is a case. Is there signs of forced entry, is there another witness who bought the television from the accused, or was the television found in the accuseds house. None of that is extraordinary, and the defence can chip away at each bit of evidence. But there is something physical. The television. Missing, or recovered elsewhere. But the TV is not where it should be.

Now take a case of historic nature (for want of a better example sorry). For sure, it can be a they said, they said thing. But before it even makes it to court, actual facts have to be established. For example, were they all there at the time. And once these facts are established, then it comes down to credibility of people giving statements.

Again, this is not extraordinary. And in both of these examples, there are facts that need to be proven.

Now the supernatural. That fits the Sagan Standard. Because it is an extraordinary claim. Therefore, extraordinary evidence is needed.

Yet over 10s of thousands of years, with millions of different Gods and spirits, and literately into the billions of hours spent looking for factual evidence, none has been shown.

Where is the evidence ? The most basic evidence, without even getting into the extraordinary part.

And here is the thing. With millions of different Gods and spirits running around for billions of years, there should be something.

And now we apply Occam's razor. What is the most likely conclusion.

We can throw in "God of the gaps" too. At one time people thought Gods made the wind blow. Now we know how wind works.

@RedTagAlan

Lets apply the Sagan standard. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Personally, I don't adhere to that standard in my own personal assessment. You can, of course, but it's not a universal standard that everyone applies to their own judgement.

Personally, I take the word 'extraordinary' out - I don't view purported experiences with deities and spirits as particularly extraordinary anyway, such reports are par for the course in the occult, witchcraft and pagan communities.

So my personal approach to the question of whether or not I think it is more likely than not - or less likely than not - that such things exist, is to look at what is available to me - my own experiences, and the testimonies of people in my communities, some of whom I know personally. I view the evidence of my own experiences - as well as reported experiences of others - as reliable and credible.

I don't expect non-theists and non-occultists to have the same assessment of anecdotal evidence, but assessing such things is a unique and subjective stance that individuals take, and individuals will apply their own reasoning and standards. Yours does not have to match mine and mine does not have to match yours. You approach and assessment is valid for you, my approach and assessment is valid for me.

That is not extraordinary. But actually, it would likely be inadmissible.

It might not be admissible, but it would still be understood to be a form of evidence. It just perhaps wouldn't be judged of a high enough standard to be accepted in court.

Now the supernatural. That fits the Sagan Standard. Because it is an extraordinary claim. Therefore, extraordinary evidence is needed.

For you, maybe, but not for everyone. Your standards and assessments are not universal ones that everyone else is beholden to follow. You require more than anecdotal evidence. I don't. Therefore, your rejection of the existence of gods and spirits is valid and acceptable. But I maintain that my belief in the existence of gods and spirits (based upon my own experiences and the experiences of other people) is also valid and acceptable.

Where is the evidence ? The most basic evidence, without even getting into the extraordinary part.

The most basic evidence is the anecdotal reports and accounts that people give of their experiences. If you spent time in occult and pagan circles (both offline and online) you'd get exposed to a ton of anecdotal evidence. It wouldn't be your idea of credible or convincing evidence - its doesn't have to be - but it's not too hard to find anecdotal accounts of experiences.

Taking a different angle on anecdotal evidence.

I am sure you would agree with me when I say that part of the reason for tightening of evidence in law came from the witch trials. Take the King James 6 of Scotland Berwick witch Trials of 1590. All anecdotal evidence. And so it was for the next 200 years or so. Thousands of people found guilty and executed. Until one day, people started to say " This aint right".

And you a, a self proclaimed witch, are insisting that anecdotal evidence be accepted.

Are you sure you are going the right direction here ?

@RedTagAlan

And you a, a self proclaimed witch, are insisting that anecdotal evidence be accepted.

It should be (and is indeed accepted by society) as a form of evidence, yes.

However, when it comes to the law it should not be enough (by itself) to secure a conviction.

Also, when it comes to determining our own philosophical beliefs about whether or not spirits and spirit worlds exist, we do not have to be quite so stringent. High standards are required in the legal system because a person's liberty (perhaps life, if the death penalty is in place) is on the line if they get it wrong.

I have concluded for myself that I think it's more likely than not that many gods, goddesses and other spirits exist, based upon my own experiences and the testimonies of other people who share their experiences. If we should ultimately all happen to be mistaken about the nature of our experiences, there are no negative consequences for us.

@RedTagAlan

If you or your friends think/claim to hear demons while you do a ceremony, no great shakes, because you want to. But someone, for want of a better example, hearing a voice telling them to "push", on a crowded subway platform, very different.

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I see the difference here - that's what I was trying to point out. Whether or not someone would seek medical advice after seeing/hearing what appeared to be spirit beings of some kind, depends on the context in how it manifests as well as the individual's own underlying worldview.

If a person's worldview includes the existence of spirits as a likelihood, or even just includes them as a possibility, then it is understandable that they might not instantly look for a medical opinion. Because they will be open to the possibility that what happened may have been an actual encounter of some kind.

If occultists and witches have experiences because we are actively seeking out contact with spirits, angels, demons, etc, then yes, as you agree - no reason why we would seek medical advice, as these experiences are not only what we want, they are what we are expecting if we've done the rituals correctly.

If occultists and witches are doing the rituals for contact correctly, then generally, such experiences will be controlled, as in occurring at the practitioner's direction/discretion. They wouldn't happen uncontrollably or willy-nilly, and once the practitioner has closed the ritual and space, there shouldn't be any further intrusion. This makes such experiences (whatever someone thinks they are) different from actual psychotic breaks, as usually someone suffering from psychosis is at the mercy and whims of the psychosis. They are not able to choose and control when/how they have such experiences.

If someone with no belief in anything spiritual at all had some sort of experience, then yes, I would expect their first thought would be that it was their imagination/mind playing tricks on them. I wouldn't expect them to necessarily look to a medical explanation straight away (though they might, depending on the nature of the experience.)

But whether or not someone looks for a medical opinion (or whether they even should do) is highly dependent upon that individual's worldview and the particular circumstances of their experience and the way in which it manifests.

In Morgan Daimler's blog post about her own belief in fairies (as well as her own reported experiences with them) she makes a similar point

Irish-American Witchcraft: Do I Believe In Fairies? | Irish-American Witchcraft: Do I Believe In Fairies?

"As much as we like to believe that there is an absolute reality out there that we are seeing, from a human point of view we live in a consensus reality. This is something acknowledged in psychology, where a diagnosis is supposed to take into account a person’s cultural background and the beliefs considered normative in that culture. In other words it’s not considered delusional to believe in fairies if you come from a culture that believes in them, because that belief informs your reality."

Is there any you do not believe in ? Any that do not meet your evidence level ?

@RedTagAlan
**
If you or your friends think/claim to hear demons while you do a ceremony, no great shakes, because you want to. But someone, for want of a better example, hearing a voice telling them to "push", on a crowded subway platform, very different.
Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I see the difference here - that's what I was trying to point out. Whether or not someone would seek medical advice after seeing/hearing what appeared to be spirit beings of some kind, depends on the context in how it manifests as well as the individual's own underlying worldview.

If a person's worldview includes the existence of spirits as a likelihood, or even just includes them as a possibility, then it is understandable that they might not instantly look for a medical opinion. Because they will be open to the possibility that what happened may have been an actual encounter of some kind.

If occultists and witches have experiences because we are actively seeking out contact with spirits, angels, demons, etc, then yes, as you agree - no reason why we would seek medical advice, as these experiences are not only what we want, they are what we are expecting if we've done the rituals correctly.

If occultists and witches are doing the rituals for contact correctly, then generally, such experiences will be controlled, as in occurring at the practitioner's direction/discretion. They wouldn't happen uncontrollably or willy-nilly, and once the practitioner has closed the ritual and space, there shouldn't be any further intrusion. This makes such experiences (whatever someone thinks they are) different from actual psychotic breaks, as usually someone suffering from psychosis is at the mercy and whims of the psychosis. They are not able to choose and control when/how they have such experiences.

If someone with no belief in anything spiritual at all had some sort of experience, then yes, I would expect their first thought would be that it was their imagination/mind playing tricks on them. I wouldn't expect them to necessarily look to a medical explanation straight away (though they might, depending on the nature of the experience.)

But whether or not someone looks for a medical opinion (or whether they even should do) is highly dependent upon that individual's worldview and the particular circumstances of their experience and the way in which it manifests.
In Morgan Daimler's blog post about her own belief in fairies (as well as her own reported experiences with them) she makes a similar point

Irish-American Witchcraft: Do I Believe In Fairies? | Irish-American Witchcraft: Do I Believe In Fairies?

"As much as we like to believe that there is an absolute reality out there that we are seeing, from a human point of view we live in a consensus reality. This is something acknowledged in psychology, where a diagnosis is supposed to take into account a person’s cultural background and the beliefs considered normative in that culture. In other words it’s not considered delusional to believe in fairies if you come from a culture that believes in them, because that belief informs your reality."

Is there any you do not believe in ? Any that do not meet your evidence level ? Or do you believe every claim you hear or read ?

I believe that the vast majority of people who report experiences believe that those experiences are exactly what they think they are - e.g. most people are giving what they view as an accurate assessment of what they experienced.

I think it should be said that when occultists make claims/statements about our experiences, we are (generally) making claims about what we believe we have encountered, rather than making a statement/claim of certain fact. (We don't always specify that in our accounts, but that's because they're usually shared amongst others in our communities, who have similarities in their worldview and understand the nuance of what we are saying.)

For example, I believe that deities and other spirits exist, but I don't claim that they exist as a fact. Because as much as I think their existence is more likely than their non-existence, I recognise that their existence is not a proven fact or certainty. Therefore, my claims are that I believe in these entities and that I have had experiences which I personally assess/interpret/understand as being experiences with deities/spirits.

With people who have been long-time occultists, witches and pagans, I see no reason to question their assessment of their own experiences. If they've had experiences and have come to the conclusion that they were most likely with deities and/or spirits of other kinds, then I generally accept their assessment. Some of these people are experts in these fields; others are not necessarily 'experts' but are still long-time practitioners with lots of experiences. Unless there is some reason for me to question their overall mental stability (such as if someone was having frequent bouts of psychosis) then I would accept their evaluation of what they have experienced as being likely to be accurate.

If someone with no exposure or interest in occultism all of a sudden reported seeing entities such as deities or other spirits - I would not dismiss the possibility that they are seeing such entities, but I would probably take a more neutral view than if they are already an occultist of some sort. Whereas with occultists and witches, I take the more positive view (I think they are likely to be correct in their evaluation of their experiences), I would take a maybe/maybe not perspective in this second scenario.

If someone with no interest in occultism, as well as issues with psychosis, reported experiences with entities, I would lean more towards that probably being a symptom of their condition rather than what I would see as a potentially genuine connection with spirits. I wouldn't initially completely write off the possibility that they could have had an encounter with some sort of spirit, but in the absence of anything further to go on, and in the context of such an individual being known to experience psychosis, I would not personally take their initial reports as reliable evidence.

Can we take the psychosis part out if ok. Just to simplify things.

Lets take The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Someone says they interact with that. Believe or not ?

I mean a medium or occultist who might not be aware of what it is. If you see what I mean. I am just trying to narrow your answers down. Not trying to catch you out.

@RedTagAlan

I gave some view on the FSM in an earlier thread, but it was a little while ago now. So I should probably preface this by saying

I understand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up by non-theists as a parody. However, there is a concept in occult/spiritual circles that totally invented entities can take on an independent reality of their own. (I'm not saying that all occultists and spiritually-minded people believe this, views are diverse, but the concept of definitely made-up/fictitious entities becoming independently real is a concept that exists.) It is perhaps easiest explained in the concept of the tulpa.

The idea is that such an entity has the potential to develop individual conscious awareness and exist, as some sort of spirit entity, independently of the person/persons who created it.

I view the Flying Spaghetti Monster as potentially/possibly being such an entity - one that has possibly become a real, independent spirit in its own right.

So if a pagan or occultist shared a first-time experience with an entity that fit the description of the FSM, I'd consider the possibility that it could be the FSM as an independent spirit, or perhaps as another spirit adopting the guise of the FSM, or perhaps it could be only a concoction of their own mind. For a first-time experience of this kind, I don't think I would make a commitment to either possibility. I think I'd need to hear of further experiences to decide which way I personally leant.

If a non-theist mockingly claimed to have experienced the FSM as some kind of 'gotcha', I'd interpret that as a falsehood (this has been done a couple of times to me online, and it's clear from context and tone that they're not serious about their experience.)

So basically, you are giving humans God powers here. That humans can invent spirits etc that do not exist anywhere, and through the will of humans, individually or collectively, these invented things come into existence.

That begs the question then. that If humans have these powers, why invent Gods/ entities.

As I posted, I did not mention the flying spaghetti monster as a gotcha, but your answer is certainly surprising to me.

This does seem a bit flat earth though. I have debated many "flerths" online, and they try not to concede anything. Instead they just go deeper and deeper, and it causes them more problems with things that make no sense at all. They add to the complexity of their model, and it ends up looking like a mass of chopped up spaghetti, with more loose ends than can be counted.

And I can see why you won't concede that there are Gods/ spirits that you don't believe in, because that opens a big crack. But with what you posted above, I think you are making your model just more brittle. A tap with a wee hammer, and it shatters.

So here is my wee hammer. As I asked above. If humans can create entities, why do they need to invent them ? And we can expand that to evidence too. Because there is no study that shows prayer works. Yet if humans have to power to create the entity they pray to, to the point where that entity becomes real, then why not cut out the middle bit and just use their minds instead of praying? Because, over thousands of years of praying, someone would have noticed there is no need for the middle man/entities.

@RedTagAlan

So basically, you are giving humans God powers here.

I think it's more complicated than that. I'm not necessarily convinced that a purely/deliberately created entity becomes an autonomous spirit in its own right merely through the "will" or mental energy of humans. I think that maybe plays a part in helping it along, but I think it's far from the sole cause.

I also would not agree that I am giving humans "God powers". As I see it, a single human (or a small group of humans) could direct some sort of collective will/energy at something, and by itself, it wouldn't be exceptionally strong. Thought and will alone do not accomplish much; they can certainly be part of a process, and they help, but they are a component rather than the entirety.

If humans have these powers, why invent Gods/ entities.

Most humans aren't actively intentionally inventing deities and spirits. Even if one goes with the idea that all deities/entities are non-existent, what happens with most humans is that they are having experiences which they are interpreting as being with some sort of non-corporeal entity; they are not wilfully engaging in purposeful act of invention/creation.

Also, I'm not sure which powers you are referring to here? I don't think anything I've said has stated that humans have abilities that are equal to/equivalent to gods, goddesses and other spirits; if that's what you're taking from what I wrote, then I would say you're misconstruing what I meant. In occult and pagan thought, it's accepted that deities (as well as other entities, such as fairies) have greater power than humans. I never said that humans have anything like such powers and abilities of these entities; I simply said that I believe it is possible for a wilfully-imagined entity to, in time, become an independent and autonomous entity in its own right. None of that is meant to imply that humans have powers and abilities on a level with gods and goddesses.

And I can see why you won't concede that there are Gods/ spirits that you don't believe in

The reason is because there aren't any that I don't believe in. It's not a matter of conceding anything; it's just a fact that I actively believe in the existence of all of them in some form. That is a factual statement about the nature of my personal beliefs.

Pagan polytheism accepts the existence of all gods and goddesses; that's it's very nature. I wouldn't identify as such if I doubted or denied the existence of any gods and goddesses.

And since part of the worldview of occultists, witches (and many pagans) is that the spirit world is diverse, with a great many entities of different types, it doesn't make sense to disbelieve in any of them. People report experiences with all sorts of entities; I accept their assessment of their experiences (as well as my assessment of my own experiences.)

Polytheism (in particular pagan polytheism) and occultism are founded on belief in deities and spirits of all kinds.

As I posted, I did not mention the flying spaghetti monster as a gotcha

I understand that, but some people do, and I was using that as an example of when I would not take such a person's reported experience seriously - if they are quite obviously being sarcastic. But if someone gives a sincere account of something they've experienced and gives me their interpretation of their experience, I accept the validity of their interpretation, unless there is a reason for me to doubt/question their interpretation.

Yet if humans have to power to create the entity they pray to, to the point where that entity becomes real, then why not cut out the middle bit and just use their minds instead of praying?

Well, again, most humans are not actively intentionally creating entities; they are having experiences which they interpret as being with some sort of deity/deities or other spirits. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of humans probably do not give any credence to the idea that a purely invented entity could become an autonomous spirit. In my experience, it's very much a minority viewpoint, held in certain aspects of Eastern mysticism and some corners of occultism.

So firstly, the idea that an entity created by humans could become an autonomous spirit is not a concept that would occur to the majority of people. It's not like this is an exceptionally common practice or viewpoint.

then why not cut out the middle bit and just use their minds instead of praying?

Are you more or less saying "If humans have powers in equal measure to gods and spirits, then why don't they use their own abilities instead of turning to gods and spirits?"

If so, then I would say again that I never said - or meant to imply - that humans have powers/abilities that are the equal of deities and other entities. Perhaps that was your perception of what I wrote earlier, but that was not what I was saying. Occult and pagan thought does not view humans as having equal powers and abilities to deities and spirits. The understanding is that deities and spirits have abilities that we we do not have as well as abilities that we share, but theirs are of a stronger measure. As spirits, they are also not bound by time and space in the same way that we are; humans have certain limitations that non-corporeal entities don't. (The same is true in reverse; humans can interact with the world of physical matter better than a lot of spirits.)

Simply put, in occult and pagan thought, deities as well as certain other spirits have greater power and influence and can help us (humans) achieve what we would not be able to accomplish with our minds alone.