A ghost, eye pain, and a triangle mark in the caller’s pupil
A caller on Art Bell’s guest line says that a “seductive ghost” they had described earlier appeared to them and vanished when they stepped toward her. The caller says they felt a sharp pain in their left eye at that moment. The caller reports that years later, in the early 1960s, an ophthalmologist found a geometric mark in that pupil. The caller says the triangular mark was still there roughly fifty years later, including after LASIK surgery. They believe the mark came from the being passing through their eye as she left.
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 2003.mp3”, starting at 1:47:12). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
The caller does not give their name or location in this part of the broadcast. The caller says they had earlier sent the host a story about a “seductive ghost,” and here they finish it. According to the caller, she appeared to them, they took [quote withheld] and she vanished (“she poofed, vanished”). Right afterward, the caller reports, they felt a “very sharp pain” in their left eye, and then they went back to bed. The caller says that years later, in the early 1960s, they developed an eye problem and had to get glasses, so they went to an ophthalmologist. The caller says the doctor noticed [quote withheld] in the caller’s left pupil, said the doctor had never seen anything like it in a child before, and asked how the caller got it. The caller says they were hesitant to explain the incident. The caller states that fifty years later they still have the mark, which they describe as a triangle in their left pupil. About four years before the broadcast the caller had LASIK surgery, and an ophthalmologist again looked closely at the triangle and wanted to know what it was. The caller concludes that [quote withheld] and adds, [quote withheld] The host thanks the caller and tells the audience this is a physical thing that happened to someone.
Reported events, in order
- 0:22
The caller says she appeared to them, they approached her, taking a step or two, and she vanished.
- 0:26
The caller reports a very sharp pain in their left eye right afterward.
- 0:32
The caller says they went back to bed.
- 0:37
Years later, in the early 1960s, the caller says they developed an eye problem and had to get glasses, so they saw an ophthalmologist.
- 0:42
The caller says the ophthalmologist noticed a strange geometric mark in the caller’s left pupil and said they had never seen anything like it in a child.
- 0:52
The caller says they were hesitant to explain how they got the mark.
- 1:02
The caller states that fifty years later they still have the mark of “this particular ghost” in their pupil, in the form of a triangle.
- 1:18
The caller says they had LASIK surgery about four years earlier and that an ophthalmologist again looked closely at the triangle on their left pupil.
- 1:31
The caller offers their own view: that when she exited her dimension she apparently went through their eye and left a mark.
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· 0:22
The figure the caller calls the seductive ghost appeared to them and vanished when they stepped toward her.
- observation· 0:26
The caller felt a very sharp pain in their left eye right after she vanished.
- observation· 0:42
An ophthalmologist noticed a strange geometric mark in the caller’s left pupil and told the caller of never having seen anything like it in a child.
- observation· 1:02
The caller reports that about fifty years later the mark they attribute to the ghost is still in their pupil.
- observation· 1:24
After LASIK surgery about four years earlier, the caller says an ophthalmologist again examined the triangle on their left pupil.
- interpretation· 1:31
Their view is that the being’s exit from her dimension passed through their eye and left the mark.
- host statement· 2:03
The host states the eye mark is a real thing people can examine and see.
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.
This is a brief but consistent firsthand story. Its central physical claim, a mark in the caller’s own pupil, could be checked in principle. But the encounter itself is described only in outline, and the link between the two is openly the caller’s own inference (“apparently”). The mark also has an obvious ordinary explanation as a natural eye feature.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand description of the experience: [quote withheld] and [quote withheld]
- Concrete specifics that could be checked in principle: the left pupil, a triangle, an examination in the early 1960s, and LASIK about four years before the broadcast.
- The sequence is orderly and consistent through the retelling, with no shifts in detail.
- No date, place, or name for the encounter itself. The host’s question about a [quote withheld] is the only other detail about it.
- No second witness to the ghost speaks on air, and the doctors’ remarks are reported, not presented.
- The link between the encounter and the mark is openly hedged: [quote withheld]
- The earlier “seductive ghost” story, said to have been sent in before, is not in this part of the broadcast.
- The caller’s age and the exact year of the encounter are not stated, only “years” before the early 1960s.
- 0:22
- 0:26
- 0:42
- 1:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): The component scores are my judgment: source proximity about 18 (firsthand but thin on the encounter itself), specificity about 11, internal consistency about 14, alternative explanations about 8 (a natural eye feature fits easily), calibration about 9 (some hedging with “apparently”). No judgments about the caller’s mind or manner are used.
A physical mark is claimed to exist in the caller’s own eye and to have been seen by at least two ophthalmologists decades apart. That places this above pure assertion. But no record, image, or document is produced, and no one other than the caller speaks on air about it.
Evidence for and against
- A claim of a lasting physical mark in a specific place: [quote withheld]
- Specifics that could be checked in principle: an eye examination in the early 1960s, a comment attributed to a doctor, and LASIK about four years before the broadcast.
- No medical record, photograph, or measurement is presented or described as examined on air.
- No ophthalmologist or other witness speaks on air. The doctors’ remarks come only from the caller.
- It is not stated whether the eye was ever shown to or examined by anyone connected with the broadcast.
- The wording of the doctor’s remark ([quote withheld]) comes from the automatic transcript and may be imprecise.
- 1:24
- 2:03
What the model inferred (not said on air): The range of 11 to 25 covers claimed witnesses and specifics that could be checked but were not. The range of 26 to 40 covers physical evidence (including marks) that is claimed but not examined. Because a mark on the caller’s own body is claimed to have been seen by professionals, I placed the score at 28, near the bottom of the upper range. No outside check was done.
The story centers on an intrusion into the body, a ghost vanishing and leaving a lasting mark in an eye. That is unsettling. But the telling is short and mostly clinical (doctors, LASIK, examinations), with no lasting threat or escalation.
Evidence for and against
- Pain at the moment of the vanishing: [quote withheld]
- A permanent mark blamed on the being: [quote withheld]
- The being is described as physically passing through the caller’s eye.
- The encounter is summed up in a few words, with no vivid description of the figure.
- The caller closes by saying they do not dwell on it: [quote withheld]
- The look and mood of the original encounter are not in this part of the broadcast, so the full emotional picture of the story is unavailable.
- 0:26
- 1:02
What the model inferred (not said on air): I judged the story, not whether it is true. The intrusion into the body and a permanent mark push it above a mild eerie encounter. The lack of threat, harm, or escalation keeps it below truly frightening.
The vanishing figure is familiar. But the claimed lasting result, a triangular mark in the pupil reportedly noticed by two ophthalmologists decades apart, is an unusual combination for this kind of story. The published score compared with the rest of the archive is provisional under the pilot weighting.
Evidence for and against
- A described physical mark tied to the ghost: [quote withheld]
- The mark is said to last roughly fifty years and to survive LASIK.
- The ghost itself ([quote withheld]) is a stock ghost-story theme.
- Little detail is given about the figure (only “seductive ghost” and “she”), so it is unclear how distinctive the original encounter was.
- 1:16
- 1:31
What the model inferred (not said on air): My originality score is set at 70 (a familiar setup with one strongly distinctive detail). The comparison with the rest of the archive is given less weight in this pilot, so the published value should be treated as provisional.
Scoring confidence 0.60 · analysis confidence 0.65 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s brief firsthand story; A claim that ophthalmologists saw the mark in the early 1960s and again after LASIK. No record, image, or document produced; No witness on air to back it up. The originality score blends the model's score (70) 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 pupil mark is a natural eye feature that was already there (for example, a pigmented spot on the iris or pupil, or a leftover bit of membrane). It was noticed by chance at an examination and later linked, looking back, to the earlier experience. · The caller describes a fixed geometric mark in the left pupil that they say a doctor had [quote withheld] and that has lasted for roughly fifty years.
- The sharp eye pain at the time of the reported encounter was an ordinary, brief eye sensation (dryness, an eyelash, a headache symptom) from the same period. It was later linked in memory to the disappearance and to the mark. · [quote withheld] is reported right after the vanishing, while the mark itself is noticed only “years” later at an eye examination.
- The later “scrutiny” of the mark came around the LASIK assessment and treatment, so imaging or changes after surgery could have drawn attention to the mark or changed its look. · The caller says they had [quote withheld] and that afterward [quote withheld]
What stands out
The center of the story is not the ghost, which is described only in outline. It is a lasting triangular mark in the caller’s pupil that they say two ophthalmologists noticed decades apart. A vanishing figure linked to a specific, lasting physical mark in the eye is uncommon.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.