The Age of the Evil Ghost
How paranormal media turned uncertainty into a villain and sold it back to us
Somewhere along the way, the ghost stopped being a question and started being a threat.
Not a presence.
Not a trace.
Not a maybe.
An enemy.
In contemporary paranormal television, ghost tours, podcasts, and viral clips, the default assumption is often no longer that something strange might be happening, but that something malevolent already is. The room isn’t just cold; it’s hostile. The building isn’t just old; it’s dangerous. The dead aren’t confused or lingering; they are angry, predatory, and watching.
This shift didn’t happen because we suddenly uncovered stronger evidence for the paranormal. It happened because evil is much easier to work with than uncertainty.
If you look back at older ghost stories - folklore, early “true haunting” accounts, even the first wave of modern investigations - ghosts were often ambiguous. They were echoes, shades, repetitions, glitches in place and time and memory. They could be frightening, sure, but they were not always framed as actively malicious. The task was to endure them, accommodate them, or try to understand them, not to defeat them. The haunting was, in a sense, an unresolved question: something that sat at the edge of explanation and refused to move.
By contrast, much of today’s paranormal media approaches hauntings as confrontations. The language has hardened. Locations are not simply haunted; they are dangerous. Spirits are not merely restless; they are aggressive. Investigators do not enter spaces to observe; they enter to challenge. Torches, cameras, and EMF meters are presented not only as tools, but as a kind of armour. In this sense, curiosity is rebranded as bravery, and fear itself is quietly treated as confirmation that something dark must be present.
The ghost, in this modern framing, is no longer an echo. It is an opponent. And that transformation reflects wider habits in how we tell stories about risk, harm, and otherness.
Uncertainty is uncomfortable. It requires patience, humility, and a willingness to sit with “I don’t know”. Evil, by contrast, offers immediate relief. It supplies motive where none is obvious. It gives shape to randomness and tells us what to feel and who to blame. From a psychological perspective, this is highly appealing. Humans are pattern-seeking creatures with finely tuned threat-detection systems. When something feels uncanny - a noise in an empty corridor, a sensation of being watched, a moment of disorientation - our brains instinctively search for cause and agency. An evil presence provides both in a single move.
Label a place or a presence evil and several things are achieved at once. Fear is validated: feeling uneasy becomes evidence of an external threat, not a reflection of mood or context. Responsibility is displaced: if a location is dangerous by nature, then provoking it or mishandling the story becomes less of an ethical problem. Failure is excused: if the entity is malevolent, then inconclusive results can be reframed as “it was too strong” or “it was a trickster” rather than “our methods were limited”. The label does a great deal of quiet psychological work because it explains fear without requiring us to think too deeply about why we are afraid, or what else might be going on.
There is also a practical dimension. Paranormal tourism and media do not sit outside ordinary economic pressures. They operate in the same attention-driven environment as everything else, where escalation is rewarded and nuance quietly disappears. “Nothing happened” does not sell tickets. “Something strange, but unclear” rarely goes viral. “Some mundane explanations remain” does not sustain a television series. Evil, however, is marketable. Evil ghosts justify higher stakes, late-night live broadcasts, special access tours, and premium pricing. They transform historical sites into attractions with built-in drama and they allow experiences to be packaged, intensified and repeated.
None of this requires individual bad faith. It doesn’t demand that anyone secretly disbelieves what they are doing, it simply requires structural incentives that favour fear over ambiguity. When stories about dark forces outperform slow, inconclusive investigation, those stories become the template. When audiences reward confrontation, confrontation becomes the norm. The problem is not that people enjoy being scared - there is nothing new or inherently wrong about that - the problem is what happens to history, ethics, and basic empathy when fear has to be constantly escalated in order to hold attention.
Calling a place evil is not a neutral act. Haunted locations are rarely abstract spaces. They are homes, hospitals, prisons, workhouses, schools. They are sites of real human experience - poverty, illness, abuse, confinement, exploitation, injustice, violence. When we declare these places inherently malevolent, we risk flattening those histories into aesthetic and atmosphere. Trauma becomes a mood, injustice becomes lore, and the past becomes a monster.
The language of evil allows us to skip harder questions:
Who lived here?
What was done to them?
Under what systems, and in whose interests?
Did they die without justice?
Evil replaces social and political context with supernatural intent. The building did not fail people; the ghost is bad. The institution did not harm anyone; the place is cursed. In this way, the evil ghost functions as a moral shortcut because it lets us engage with sites of suffering without having to dwell on the human decisions that produced that suffering in the first place. It absolves us of the responsibility for having fun on someone’s literal grave.
Once you notice this, certain moments in paranormal media take on a different tone entirely. One example that has stayed with me for a very long time comes from an early live broadcast of Most Haunted, filmed on Pendle Hill in Lancashire. The Pendle Witches case is a real historical episode involving real people, several of them women accused of witchcraft and executed in the seventeenth century. Whatever one believes about ghosts, these were not fictional characters, but human beings tried and put to death by the state.
During the show, ex-Blue Peter presenter Yvette Fielding accuses the dead women of torturing people, and at one point shouts at the presumed ghost of one of the executed women, challenges her to do something and calls her a “bitch”.
It was said in the now-familiar style of confrontational ghost hunting: direct, provocative, part of the attempt to elicit a response. The brave ghost hunter venturing into a supernatural hellhole, where evil entities wait in the shadows to attack the living. Pioneers, in other words.
The broadcast moved on. For many viewers, it probably registered as just another dramatic beat in a live Halloween event. But I remember watching it and feeling a jolt of discomfort. What does it mean to stand in a place linked to real executions, invoke the alleged ghost of an accused woman, and then, on live television, insult her in those terms? What does it mean to do so from a position backed by production, by an established brand, by an audience primed to see the location - and by extension its former inhabitants - as dangerous? (Let’s not dwell on the fact the women accused of witchcraft in Lancashire likely never stepped foot on that hill in the first place…)
That moment did not tell me anything about whether ghosts exist. It did, however, highlight how easily the language of evil and malevolent spirits can strip away context. An individual once caught up in a web of accusation, fear, injustice, and state-powered prosecution was reframed, in an instant, as a kind of character: a troublesome presence to be challenged, talked over, and dismissed.
It made my fucking blood boil.
Whenever I hear people now speak confidently about evil locations, malevolent entities, or “real” dark hauntings, I often find myself thinking back to that broadcast from Pendle Hill. Not because it proves or disproves anything about the supernatural, but because it illustrates something revealing about the living: how quickly we can grant ourselves permission to speak about the dead as though they are fair game for whatever story we want to tell.
There is also something striking about the way so-called evil ghosts are treated more generally. They are not simply observed; they are challenged. Provoked. Instructed to perform on cue. Ghost hunters demand signs, knocks, words, physical sensations - any kind of measurable reaction - often couched in the language of confrontation: “Show yourself”, “Do something”, “Prove you’re here”.
This is not the posture of open curiosity. It is the posture of control and of contempt.
Framing the paranormal as adversarial mirrors other cultural anxieties: fear of losing authority, fear of the unseen, fear of not being in charge of the narrative. An evil ghost is something you can fight, even if only theatrically. Ambiguity is harder to stage. It does not lend itself to clear hero and villain roles. It does not resolve neatly at the end of an episode. By turning the unknown into an enemy, paranormal media reassure us that chaos can still be confronted - if only with the right kit, the right bravado, the right show format.
In the end, the current fascination with evil ghosts may tell us less about the dead than it does about the living. We inhabit a world where institutions feel fragile, expertise is contested, and information is overwhelming. Under those conditions, clear villains are attractive. They offer a kind of moral clarity: here is the bad thing; here is where we put our fear. Evil ghosts fit that role neatly. They allow us to externalise unease, to experience fear in a controlled way, to flirt with danger while being reassured that someone - usually the person with the torch and the earpiece - is still in charge.
Evil ghosts allow us to look away from more mundane and more uncomfortable realities. It is easier to talk about a cursed building than to examine who was imprisoned there and why. It is easier to blame a malevolent presence for a sense of dread than to consider environmental factors, personal history, or the suggestive power of a well-told story. The ghosts in these narratives are, in many ways, mirrors held up to our own preoccupations: with punishment, with transgression, with the desire to turn diffuse unease into something with a name and a motive.
None of this requires us to dismiss paranormal experiences altogether. One does not have to be a believer to acknowledge that people sometimes have vivid, unsettling, and meaningful encounters in particular places. Skepticism does not demand contempt just as curiosity does not require credulity. What it does suggest is that we have choices about the stories we tell around those experiences. We can treat haunted locations as battlegrounds, or as archives. We can insist that every strange feeling points to an enemy, or we can allow that some things may remain unresolved. We can prioritise spectacle, or we can prioritise care - for the living, and for the dead who once lived in those spaces. For the truth, in other words.
Ghosts do not need to be evil to be interesting and ambiguity does not need a villain in order to carry weight. The popularity of evil ghosts is not, at its core, a supernatural question but a psychological and cultural one. It speaks to our discomfort with not knowing, with unfinished histories, with emotions that don’t fit neatly into categories of good and bad.
We don’t need ghosts to be malevolent.
We need the world to make sense - and when it doesn’t, we reach for stories that promise it will, even if those stories flatten people into monsters and places into something we feel entitled to shout at. The more we rely on evil to tidy up our uncertainty, the less space we leave for asking what our ghosts - real, imagined or somewhere in between - might genuinely be trying to tell us.