Ouija board at age nine and a claimed decades-long demonic affliction
A first-time caller from Denver warns Art Bell’s audience that using a Ouija board let a “satanic spirit” enter them at age nine. They say the affliction lasted from age nine to age fifty-four. They credit an exorcist, Dr. Ken Olson, whom they associate with the Maury Povich show, with releasing the spirit. The call is a warning rather than a story, and the host closes it with his own caution that Ouija boards open “a conduit.”
This clip comes from the source recording. AI chose where it starts and ends, so it may start or end a little early or late. The word-for-word transcript is not published. You can hear the source recording on the Internet Archive (file “Ghost to Ghost 1993.mp3”, starting at 55:43). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller, who says only [quote withheld] opens by warning that a Ouija board is [quote withheld] The caller states that this [quote withheld] and that they were affected [quote withheld] which they describe as [quote withheld] The caller names Dr. Ken Olson as the person who appeared on the Maury Povich show and who [quote withheld] The caller calls Olson [quote withheld] and [quote withheld] The caller repeats that listeners should leave Ouija boards alone and not let anyone touch or play with them. Without someone like Olson, they say, it [quote withheld] The caller says nothing about what they experienced during those years beyond these descriptions, and the host asks no follow-up questions about the events. Art Bell thanks the caller and acknowledges the warning. He then tells listeners himself that Ouija boards “are bizarre things” that seem to open [quote withheld]
Reported events, in order
- 0:04
The caller, on the first-time caller line, says they are calling from Denver.
- 0:18
The caller states that a Ouija board is an entrance for a satanic spirit to enter the body.
- 0:14
They say the experience began when they were nine years old.
- 0:20
They name Dr. Ken Olson as someone who was on the Maury Povich show.
- 0:32
They say Olson released the demonic spirit, and describe Olson as an exorcist and an instrument of God.
- 0:36
They say it happened to them from age nine through age fifty-four, which they call the worst type of satanic deprivation.
- 0:50
They warn listeners not to let anyone touch or play with a Ouija board.
- 1:12
They say that without someone like Dr. Ken Olson it can cause the worst nightmares and the worst type of life.
- 1:38
The host thanks the caller and adds his own caution that Ouija boards open a channel or conduit.
Claims
Each claim is labeled as something the person telling the story noticed (observation), what they made of it (interpretation), something others told them (hearsay), or something the host said (host statement).
- observation· 0:14
The caller says they used a Ouija board and that something happened to them starting when they were nine years old.
- interpretation· 0:20
The caller says a Ouija board is an entrance for a satanic spirit to enter a person’s body.
- hearsay· 0:32
The caller says Dr. Ken Olson released the demonic spirit from them. This is an event they attribute to someone else.
- observation· 0:36
The caller says the affliction lasted from age nine through age fifty-four.
- interpretation· 0:36
The caller describes the decades-long experience as the worst type of satanic deprivation that could enter a human body.
- interpretation· 1:12
The caller says that without an exorcist like Olson, involvement with a Ouija board can cause the worst nightmares and the worst type of life.
- host statement· 1:55
The host asserts that Ouija boards open a channel or conduit for unwanted things.
Scores, with reasons
An AI model gave these scores using a fixed set of scoring rules (scoring-v1). They are editorial judgments and rough guides, not the odds that anything paranormal happened. How scoring works.
The call is firsthand but extremely thin. The caller claims personal experience across decades yet describes no events, only labels and a warning. They give some details that could be checked (ages, city, named exorcist, a television program). But they do not address any ordinary explanation, and their claims escalate without any hedging.
Evidence for and against
- The claim is framed as personal experience from age nine to age fifty-four ([quote withheld]).
- The caller gives specific details that could be checked: a city, two ages, a named exorcist, and a television program.
- No description of any actual event, sequence, or sensory detail. The call is advice rather than a story.
- No consideration of ordinary explanations for the reported nightmares and difficulties.
- Claims are stated at maximum strength ([quote withheld]).
- The labels showing who is speaking switch between the host and the caller on several lines, so it is uncertain who said some sentences.
- Several lines are marked as smoothed speech and are partly unintelligible.
- 0:14
- 0:36
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores are my judgment from this part of the broadcast only: firsthand but brief, few specific events, no contradictions in what little is said, poor handling of alternative explanations, and no hedging about how certain they are.
Nothing that can be checked is offered beyond the caller’s word. The caller does name an exorcist and a television appearance, which could in principle be checked. No witness speaks on air, and no document, recording, or physical evidence is described.
Evidence for and against
- A named person (Dr. Ken Olson) and a named television program are given, both checkable in theory.
- No document, recording, photograph, or physical trace is claimed to exist.
- No second witness is mentioned or speaks on air. The story rests only on the caller’s statement.
- No outside check was done.
- The name as transcribed, and the show name, may be wrong, which affects whether they can be checked.
- 0:32
What the model inferred (not said on air): The 11 to 25 range reflects details that could be checked but never were. No claimed object and no second witness on air keep it out of higher ranges.
The content is unsettling in the abstract: a spirit said to enter a child’s body, decades of affliction, an exorcism, and recurring nightmares. But it is told as a warning with no scene-setting, which limits the sustained dread a listener would feel.
Evidence for and against
- A child is said to have been entered by a spirit and afflicted for decades.
- The caller calls it [quote withheld]
- The caller warns of [quote withheld]
- No encounter, threat, physical contact, or escalation is described.
- The call ends with the host’s calm warning rather than an ominous unresolved image.
- The two longest lines are marked as smoothed speech, so some of the warning’s content is uncertain.
- 0:20
- 1:12
What the model inferred (not said on air): The creepiness rating is about the story’s content for a listener, not about whether the story is true or the caller’s state of mind.
The story follows a stock pattern in this genre: a Ouija board leads to possession, and an exorcist resolves it. The only moderately distinctive parts are the claimed span from age nine to age fifty-four and the naming of the exorcist through a specific television appearance.
Evidence for and against
- A claimed span from age nine to fifty-four is an unusually long duration.
- The exorcist is identified by name and by a television appearance.
- The Ouija board, the satanic spirit, and the exorcist are all common motifs.
- No unique event or unusual combination of details is described.
- How new this story is compared with the rest of the archive cannot be judged from one call. This score is only the model’s estimate.
- 0:10
What the model inferred (not said on air): I scored the story against familiar ghost-story motifs rather than against this archive, since no comparison with the archive is available here.
Scoring confidence 0.45 · analysis confidence 0.60 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand account (a spoken warning without a described event); A named person and a television appearance, mentioned but not examined; The host’s own comments on Ouija boards. The originality score blends the model's score (35) with how rare the story's details are across the archive. This method is still provisional.
Ordinary explanations to consider
These are possibilities only. None is a finding about what happened.
- The reported nightmares and disturbed years could come from ordinary childhood sleep problems or ongoing life difficulties. The caller links them to the Ouija board by the order of events, not by any mechanism they describe. · The only concrete symptom the caller describes is [quote withheld] The caller describes no other strange event.
- Cultural expectations of the Ouija board as a frightening game could shape how a childhood episode and later difficulties are remembered and explained. · The caller calls the Ouija board itself “an entrance,” and the host separately calls it a “conduit.” Both link the object to later experience without describing an event.
What stands out
The call is almost entirely a warning rather than a story. The caller says nothing about what they experienced between the ages of nine and fifty-four. The caller credits their release entirely to a named exorcist, whom they identify by a television appearance.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.