Caller says they are possessed by three named ghosts they summoned
A caller on the “Wild Card Line” tells Art Bell they are possessed by three ghosts whom they summoned themselves and who, the caller says, told the caller their identities. The caller names them as Carlos Castaneda, [name withheld], and [name withheld], calls them evil predators, and says they want to kill rather than exorcise them. The host suggests the caller see an exorcist. No outcome is reported.
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 2007.mp3”, starting at 2:31:04). Is this you, or someone you know? Ask for a correction or removal.
The story as told
A caller reached on the “Wild Card Line” tells the host that their problem is that they are [quote withheld] The caller says they know who the ghosts are, that the ghosts are famous people, and that the ghosts told them. The transcript of that exchange is partly garbled and partly attributed to the host, who restates that the caller called three famous ghosts to themselves and that this was a mistake. The caller says the ghosts are evil and says they know how to kill them. Asked whether they mean exorcism, they say they want to “kill their ghost.” The caller gives the ghosts’ names as Carlos Castaneda, [name withheld], and [name withheld]. Asked why they made contact, they say one of the ghosts was famous for his books and promised to help everybody who tried to approach him and go into the other world. But they turned out to be predators who were tricking everybody. The host replies, [quote withheld] No location, date, method of summoning, or outcome is stated, and no other witness is mentioned. The caller does not say they have acted on their stated intention.
Reported events, in order
- 0:05
The caller states they are possessed by three ghosts.
- 0:12
They say they know who the ghosts are and that the ghosts are famous people.
- 0:19
They say the ghosts told them their identities and that they called them (partly garbled, with the labels showing who is speaking mixed).
- 0:49
They say they want to kill their ghost rather than exorcise them.
- 0:58
The caller names them: Carlos Castaneda, [name withheld], and [name withheld].
- 1:22
They say one was famous for his books and promised to help people who approached him to go into the other world, but that they were predators.
- 1:33
They say the ghosts were tricking everybody.
- 1:35
The host suggests the caller see an exorcist. The call ends with no reported action or outcome.
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· 0:05
The caller says they are possessed by three ghosts.
- observation· 0:12
They say the ghosts are people they can identify, and famous ones.
- observation· 0:19
They say the ghosts told them their identities (line partly garbled).
- interpretation· 0:49
They say they want to kill the ghosts rather than have them exorcised.
- observation· 0:58
The caller names the three ghosts as Carlos Castaneda, [name withheld], and [name withheld].
- interpretation· 1:22
They say they made contact because one of the ghosts was famous for his books and promised to help people who tried to approach him and go into the other world.
- interpretation· 1:29
The caller concludes the ghosts are predators who tricked people.
- host statement· 0:21
The host states the caller called three famous ghosts to themselves and calls it a mistake. The same line also carries what appear to be the caller’s words, so who said it is uncertain.
- host statement· 1:35
The host advises the caller to see an exorcist.
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 firsthand but very brief claim about the caller’s own condition, with named ghosts but no date, place, method, or circumstances. The thread is minimally consistent, no ordinary explanation is addressed, and the caller does not separate what they perceived from what they concluded.
Evidence for and against
- Firsthand framing throughout: [quote withheld]
- Three specific names given: [quote withheld]
- The caller gives a reason for contact: [quote withheld]
- No when, where, how, or what happened afterward is stated anywhere in the call.
- Several lines are assigned to the wrong speaker between host and caller, so the thread of the story is hard to fix.
- An experience driven by expectation after a self-started attempt at contact fits readily and is not addressed.
- No distinction is drawn between what the caller perceived and their conclusions (“they were predators”).
- Whether “[name withheld]” and other names are accurately transcribed.
- Whether some quoted assertions are the caller’s or the host’s restatement.
- 0:05
- 0:58
What the model inferred (not said on air): Component scoring: source closeness 15 (firsthand but minimal detail), specificity 5 (three names, no circumstances), internal consistency 10 (the basic thread survives mixed attribution, no contradictions detectable), alternative explanations 4 (suggestion or expectation fits easily), calibration of claims 3 (no acknowledged uncertainty, and the claims escalate to lethal intent). No cap applies. The story is short but can be assessed.
Nothing beyond the caller’s word exists in the transcript: no documentation, no examined evidence, no second on-air witness. The named people can be checked in principle, which places the story in the [quote withheld] range.
Evidence for and against
- Three personal names are supplied.
- A stated source of the contact material is described: [quote withheld]
- No photograph, recording, document, or physical trace is mentioned.
- No witness speaks on air. The host’s replies are prompts and a suggestion, not backing.
- No outside check was done or recorded.
- The names are given only by the caller and are not confirmed by anyone else on air.
- “[name withheld]” is uncertain in the transcript.
- 0:58
- 1:35
What the model inferred (not said on air): The placement is mine: checkable specifics (names) with no checking done, and no claimed physical evidence. The hard cap of 50 for transcript-only material is respected.
The content involves claimed possession by hostile ghosts and a stated intent to “kill” ghosts, which is mildly unsettling. But the story is abstract and very short, with no sensory detail, no intrusion into a described safe space, and no reported harm.
Evidence for and against
- [quote withheld]
- [quote withheld]
- [quote withheld]
- No scene, no physical contact, no described sensory experience.
- No threat to a named person and no escalation across the call.
- The tone and framing of the exchange cannot be relied on. Only the stated content is scored.
- 0:05
- 0:49
What the model inferred (not said on air): Placed between the “mildly eerie” (30) level and “genuinely unsettling” (50): ill will is claimed but never dramatized or detailed.
A familiar possession story is combined with an unusual set of details: three named ghosts presented as famous authors of an other-world practice, and a stated wish to destroy rather than exorcise them.
Evidence for and against
- [quote withheld]
- [quote withheld]
- [quote withheld]
- Possession by summoned ghosts is itself a stock ghost-story element.
- No further development beyond the naming and the stated intent.
- How rare the story is compared with the rest of the archive cannot be estimated from a single story. The published value depends on how story motifs are spread across the archive.
- 0:12
- 0:49
What the model inferred (not said on air): The model score is set at 55 (familiar setup, distinctive combination of details). It is provisional and subject to weighting for how rare the story is in the archive.
Scoring confidence 0.35 · analysis confidence 0.40 · checked against outside sources: no · evidence available: The caller’s firsthand story (live call, about 90 seconds); No claimed photograph, recording, document, or physical trace; No on-air second witness. The originality score blends the model's score (55) 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.
- An experience driven by expectation or suggestion, following a deliberate, self-started attempt at contact. The caller says they called the ghosts to themselves and that the ghosts responded by telling them who they were. · “told me” and the host’s restatement [quote withheld]
- The identities and the “other world” framing are drawn from material the caller says they read, since the caller describes one ghost as famous for his books and as promising help to those who approach him. · [quote withheld]
What stands out
A claimed possession is attributed here not to anonymous spirits but to three specifically named people, presented as famous authors of a book-based other-world practice. The caller’s stated remedy is to “kill” the ghosts rather than to exorcise them. The whole story lasts about ninety seconds and contains no setting, date, method, or outcome.
Related stories
Matched by shared recurring details, categories, and wording.