Last month, we live-streamed one of our most iconic ghost hunts yet: an investigation at the State House, where Brienna “volunteered” to do a solo while handcuffed to a haunted bathtub.

In this special episode of Paranormal Lens, we break down the entire chaotic investigation and the experience behind it, which we just turned into a 20-minute short film "Beware The Haunted Bathtubs!" - now streaming on PARAFlixx: https://paraflixx.vhx.tv/beware-the-haunted-bathtubs-paraflixx-paranormal-plus

Best. Episode. Yet.

It only took 42 episodes, but we finally struck the balance between raw conversation, creepy paranormal theories with haunting implications, as well as a fair share of fun moments (including several callbacks to previous episodes.... cheese layers anyone?) Plus: at the end of the episode, one co-host reveals this very conversation might just change the way they view the paranormal forever.

What kind of topic can elicit such a reaction, you ask?

Mimics.

That's right, on this episode of Paranormal Lens we're talking about one of the most terrifying topics in the field. More specifically, we're breaking down and analyzing the relationship mimic encounters have with time. Past, present, and future. The Dweller on the Threshold also comes up a great deal, because of course it does.

This is an episode you don't want to miss.

GEMINI SUMMARY: This episode of Paranormal Lens serves as a deep dive into the phenomenon of mimics and their haunting relationship with time, residual energy, and the concept of the self. The hosts analyze their past experiences, questioning if these entities are singular beings or manifestations of their own consciousness interacting across time.

Key Discussion Points:

The Nature of Mimics: The hosts share personal encounters where their voices—and even their physical appearance (as in Angela's 70-year-old doppelganger)—were mimicked (3:46, 8:14, 11:03). They discuss the "uncanny valley" aspect of these voices, which often sound like the hosts but feel fundamentally "wrong" (12:23).

Time and Residual Hauntings: A major theory explored is that mimics may be manifestations of residual energy from different points in time—past, present, or future (13:54, 15:59). The hosts suggest that their process of creating non-linear films might be contributing to their frequent encounters with out-of-time phenomena (17:46-18:32).

The Dweller on the Threshold: The hosts tie these experiences to the Dweller on the Threshold (the shadow self), suggesting that the fear and insecurity associated with this concept can manifest as terrifying doppelgangers (21:23-22:06).

Shift in Perspective: The conversation leads the hosts to re-evaluate their beliefs about hauntings, moving away from the idea of "intelligent hauntings" toward the possibility that much of the paranormal activity they encounter is purely residual (31:32-31:49, 32:27).

This "ribbit-ing" episode of Paranormal Lens is not only timely... it's tipsy! Join us as we drink margaritas and talk about the BREAKING cryptozoology news: lawmakers in Ohio of all places are actively pushing to become the first state with an "official" cryptid, the Loveland Frogman. That's how the episode begins, at least. Drinks + Paranormal Lens = tangents! For an episode that starts off discussing the Frogman, and if it should be America's first "Official State Cryptid," we somehow end up talking about how Bigfoot may or may not be the Antichrist. You can't make this up...

Link to the Loveland Frogman article:

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ohio-lawmaker-seeks-to-name-loveland-frogman-as-state-cryptid-amid-growing-fame-jean-schmidt-state-representative-april-22-little-miami-river

Link to the Bigfoot article:

https://thedebrief.org/new-legislation-aims-to-make-legendary-humanlike-creature-californias-official-cryptid/

On this electric episode of Paranormal Lens: we capture lightning in a bottle, as we have a candid conversation about thunderstorms and the paranormal. Can storms really increase paranormal activity? Does water retain spiritual energy? And... hold up, did Ben really just say he saw an alien in a mirror?

All that and more from your trusted paranormal news source, AccuWeather! Wait, no. I meant to type Paranormal Lens. Definitely Paranormal Lens. Please do not get your paranormal news from AccuWeather…

GEMINI Summary: This episode of Paranormal Lens explores whether thunderstorms and flowing water can trigger an increase in paranormal activity. The hosts critique an AccuWeather article that suggests these weather events are proven catalysts for spiritual manifestations, arguing that such claims lack scientific or factual basis (1:20-3:30).

Key takeaways from the discussion:

The Impact of Weather on Perception: The hosts emphasize that severe weather can physically and psychologically alter an investigator's environment. Factors like darkness, noise, wind, and the body's natural adrenaline response can make one more susceptible to feeling or seeing things that aren't there (9:42-10:10, 20:10-21:30).

Anecdotal Evidence: The hosts share personal experiences, including a terrifying encounter during a tornado warning where one host claims to have seen a blue, big-headed alien in a mirror (10:40-12:00) and an instance at Maple Hill Cemetery where an approaching storm seemed to shift the energy of the area (13:10-14:05).

The "Water Energy" Theory: They discuss the common belief in the paranormal community that water acts as a conduit for spiritual energy (16:15-16:50), similar to the "Stone Tape Theory," though they remain skeptical about whether these links can be definitively proven (28:15-29:10).

Conclusion: While they agree that storms might provide rare opportunities—such as lightning illuminating a shadow figure (25:25-25:50)—they conclude that there is no solid evidence to establish a direct causal link between weather and hauntings. They advocate for more anecdotal data to better understand these potential correlations (32:50-33:45).

On this exciting new episode of Paranormal Lens: We always talk about how, as a ghost hunting group, our 3 core members don't agree on anything. And how that's actually a GOOD thing. EVERYTHING in the paranormal is nuanced, and there's rarely a simple yes or no answer to many of the common questions we get asked.

So in this episode, we're proving it!

We’ve gathered a series of deceptively simple “yes or no” questions, covering everything from classic definitions and popular theories to the ultimate question: do we even believe in ghosts? There’s just one rule… the episode doesn’t end until all three of us can agree on something!

What starts as a straightforward exercise quickly unravels into debates, contradictions, and some unexpected moments of unified clarity.

And we invite YOU to play along with us: How many of these questions can you answer with a simple yes or no? And do you agree with any of our takes? Let us know in the comments!

Part 2 of our discussion asking if there are ANY risks in simply watching paranormal investigations, whether live-streamed or pre-recorded? Can something truly cross the threshold from screen to home, or is that fear rooted in suggestion and atmosphere? In this episode we turn to TikTok specifically, and the hoards of people that impulsively comment "sorry" and/or "I claim no negativity from this post" on anything even vaguely paranormal-related on the platform. Why do they do this? What are all these people on TikTok "sorry" for? And how do we respond?

We also react to a very well made and articulately stated TikTok by Paranormal Teej regarding all the "sorry" comments. Go give her a follow at https://www.tiktok.com/@paranormalteej

On this thought-provoking episode of Paranormal Lens: the team dives into a question sparked by their recent experiments with TikTok Lives: is there ANY real risk in simply watching paranormal investigations, whether live-streamed or pre-recorded? Can something truly cross the threshold from screen to home, or is that fear rooted in suggestion and atmosphere? The conversation pushes beyond the viewer experience and turns inward, asking a more uncomfortable question for creators themselves: does producing paranormal content come with a responsibility? From the ethics of broadcasting rituals and incantations to whether content advisories or even censorship should play a role, this episode explores the blurred line between entertainment, belief, and unintended consequences.

GEMINI Summary: This episode of Paranormal Lens explores the question of whether there are genuine risks to viewers when watching paranormal investigations, particularly those involving live-streaming or the potential for triggering hauntings. The team debates the boundary between entertainment, belief, and the ethics of content creation.

Key Discussion Points:

The Risk of Viewing (4:00 - 18:06): The team discusses if watching investigations can invite spirits into a viewer's home. They debate whether this is a genuine supernatural risk or if it stems from the viewer's psychological state, heightened awareness, or the power of collective intent during live broadcasts.

Live vs. Pre-recorded Content (19:00 - 20:25): There is a debate about whether live-streamed investigations carry more risk than pre-recorded videos, with some suggesting that live intent creates a more active "energetic" environment.

The Ethics of Rituals and Incantations (21:30 - 30:00): A significant portion of the episode focuses on whether creators have a responsibility to censor or warn viewers about rituals and incantations shown on screen. The team questions where to draw the line—is simply asking "is anyone there?" the same as performing a ritual?

Potential for Content Advisories (26:00 - 27:00): The hosts jokingly (but thoughtfully) propose a rating system for paranormal content, similar to movie ratings, to alert viewers about the presence of specific practices like EVP sessions or rituals.

Technology and The Paranormal (34:25 - 38:00): The team reflects on the "static on the TV" trope and the use of spirit boxes (which scan radio frequencies), contemplating if these tools themselves could facilitate unintended connections or simply be sources of coincidence.

This is a rare, completely off-the-cuff and unplanned episode of Paranormal Lens. While prepping for a totally different episode, we got the longest, most specific and frantic Instagram DM ever on our main Crossroads of Curiosities page. It was from a frightened homeowner begging for us to come and rid an alleged "demon" from their home, that was scratching her children and attacking her husband. Unlike most paranormal groups out there though, we don't take on residential cases. And in this raw conversation, we explain why. We discuss all of our concerns regarding residential cases, ranging from the ethical to the psychological.

GEMINI Summary: This episode of Paranormal Lens features hosts Ben, Angela, and Brienna discussing why their team maintains a strict policy against taking on residential paranormal cases (1:17-1:26). The discussion was sparked by an intense, frantic message from a homeowner requesting help with a situation they believed to be demonic (0:53-1:03).

Key reasons for their policy include:

Lack of Expertise and Qualifications: The team emphasizes that they are not "paranormal experts." They highlight that there is no such thing as an expert in this field and warn against those who claim otherwise to gain money or attention (0:01-0:13, 20:14-20:51).

Ethical and Safety Concerns: The hosts discuss the risks of entering a stranger's home, citing safety concerns for themselves—especially as young adults—and the potential for encountering volatile situations that require professional mental health or environmental help rather than paranormal investigation (18:14-19:42).

The "Quick Fix" Fallacy: They argue that it is misleading and unethical to promise families a resolution, such as "cleansing" a home or "sending a spirit to the light," after only a single night of investigation. They believe such claims are often deceptive or based on misinterpretations of data (12:14-13:11, 16:14-17:14).

Nuanced Perspectives: The hosts reject the idea that all haunting activity is inherently "demonic" or "evil," suggesting that much of it may be misunderstood, psychological, or simply environmental in nature (3:06-3:40, 11:36-11:53).

Ultimately, the team explains that when they do receive these requests, they politely decline and suggest that individuals seek help from local resources that align with their personal beliefs or professional psychological support (7:29-8:02, 25:52-26:42).