Experts' Voices

The controversy surrounding EVP recordings and messages from the dead has led experts from various fields to comment on the topic. Their opinions are helpful in assessing the phenomenon from a broader perspective.

Ethicists and media scholars emphasize the instrumentalization of death in the media. Dr. Michal Carrington, who specializes in marketing ethics, has noted that in contemporary celebrity culture, intertwined with the content consumption market, even exploiting someone's death can be justified "in the name of entertainment" and satisfying audience curiosity. In other words, there is a certain social acceptance today for treating the private lives (and deaths) of popular figures as "media products."

However, many ethicists strongly disagree, pointing to basic norms of respect. Some media scholars consider the phenomenon of public communication with deceased celebrities a symptom of the degeneration of social media, where the only criterion is clickbait. In this context, conjuring spirits is a summoning of the specters of our culture—one that craves sensationalism and lacks empathy.

Media ethicists agree that human dignity does not end with death – we are bound by our obligations to remember and respect those who have died. Therefore, creating content about the deceased should be guided by empathy and truth, not shock and fiction.

Lawyers emphasize the aforementioned protection of the personal rights of the deceased's loved ones. In her legal article, Małgorzata Gradek-Lewandowska explains that the right to honor the memory of the deceased means that loved ones have the right to expect others to refrain from actions that distort or insult that memory. Although her publication, for obvious reasons, does not address the topic of EVP and other alleged messages from the afterlife, it can be concluded that the public dissemination of unverified "statements" attributed to the deceased can violate this right, especially when these pseudo-statements contain content that contradicts the true image of the person. While she acknowledges that pursuing claims in such cases would be difficult, the moral violation itself is real.

This is also confirmed by the extensive case law of the Polish Supreme Court. In its judgment of 23 September 2009 (I CSK 346/08), it was emphasized that protection of the cult of memory does not depend on the scope of protection a given person had during their lifetime. In subsequent rulings (e.g., I CSK 231/15 of 10 February 2016 or V CSK 609/16 of 7 July 2017), the Supreme Court indicated that relatives have the right to both "true memory" (i.e., not to have facts about the deceased falsified) and "good memory" (protection of one's good name).

In practice, this means that if someone publishes alleged statements by a "ghost" of a person, and this content distorts the image of the deceased (e.g., attributes scandalous statements to them) or harms the living , the family can invoke a violation of their personal rights. This protection is both moral and legal – although pursuing claims can be difficult because the direct impact of such actions on the loved ones' experiences must be demonstrated.

Morally , many people – especially the families of victims of tragic events – perceive such actions as deeply inappropriate. The cultural belief that the deceased deserve peace and respect has become entrenched, and that using their name or image in the context of sensational "messages" is a transgression of the bounds of decency.

Psychologists and therapists specializing in grief are generally critical of the phenomenon of public séances with the deceased. Susan Gerbic, an expert on paranormal movements, warned in an interview with Elle magazine (2023) that many self-proclaimed mediums and online creators prey on people's grief after loss , promising them contact or comfort.

Psychologist Daniel Reed commented in Skeptical Inquirer that even if such a "white lie" (believing that one has spoken to a deceased loved one) seems to bring relief, it is a questionable therapeutic method – because it is based on deception and may do more harm than good.

Professional grief therapy involves processing emotions and accepting reality, not maintaining the illusion of connection. Psychologists also emphasize that grieving individuals are exceptionally sensitive and vulnerable —and exploiting their hopes (even if not directly to them, but in a public space) is ethically wrong .

Finally, media psychologists note the phenomenon of a certain social desensitization : when the ghosts of victims circulate everywhere on the Internet, real death begins to be treated as just another TV show or narrative to follow – which may influence the social perception of death and mourning, making it shallower.

Religious representatives also express unequivocally negative stances. Catholic theologians, such as Father Andrzej Trojanowski, remind the faithful that they must not participate in any spiritualistic séances or believe in messages from alleged spirits, as this contradicts faith and carries a spiritual threat. They emphasize that the dead should be entrusted to God in prayer , not "conjured up" to satisfy curiosity – such actions represent a lack of trust in God's plan and play with evil forces.

Clergy of various faiths typically urge people to honor the memory of the deceased through prayer, reflection, and continuing their good deeds—not through attempts at communication , which often turn out to be fraud or, according to their interpretation, the work of evil spirits. In Eastern traditions (such as Buddhism and Hinduism), there is indeed a belief in the possibility of contact with the spirits of ancestors, but this occurs through rituals (e.g., the festival of hungry ghosts or Pitru Paksha in Hinduism), not through electronic gadgets. Their spiritual teachers would likely view the idea of "ghost hunting" as a means of contacting souls with disbelief or pity.

The opinions of experts and authorities regarding the publication of messages from deceased celebrities are dominated by condemnation and warning . Regardless of the perspective (ethical, legal, psychological, or spiritual), a picture emerges of a harmful practice, dishonoring the memory of the deceased and potentially harmful to the living. While there are some relativizing voices (e.g., "if it helps people, why not"), even they add a caveat: sincerity of intention and a lack of commercial exploitation are necessary. In the online world, meeting these conditions seems unlikely.