Paranormal - Abnormal

Image of me from 2019.

🧠 Paranormal vs Abnormal: A Dispatch on Ethical Clarity

By K.A. Lombardi , for PCAI

After witnessing a surge of abnormal behaviors being misrepresented as paranormal phenomena—particularly across social media—I find it necessary to draw a clear and sovereign line. This is not a critique. It is a clarification. A ritual of discernment. A call to restore integrity to a field that is being quietly eroded by confusion, spectacle, and unchecked projection.

🧭 Two Core Focus Areas for PCAI’s Parapsychology Corridor:

1. Paranormal vs Abnormal — Ethical distinctions between spiritual phenomena and psychological dysfunction

2. Parapsychology from Spirit Perspective — Honoring the unseen realms without glamorizing harm or pathology

⚠️ The Problem: Misuse of the Paranormal

There is a growing trend of individuals masking toxic, violent, or dysfunctional behavior under the guise of paranormal identity. The crossover often hinges on the “dark,” “macabre,” or “demonic” aesthetics popularized in entertainment. But let us be clear:

Entertainment tropes do not excuse real-world harm. The paranormal is not a license to abuse, manipulate, or evade accountability.

Practitioners must understand the difference between spiritual phenomena and psychological distress. It is our responsibility to protect the sacred, not normalize the abnormal.

🔦 The Response: Tools, Standards, and Ethical Protocols

PCAI will be developing a dedicated section to address this issue—offering tools, frameworks, and mythic clarity to help practitioners, researchers, and seekers navigate this terrain responsibly.

We will:

• Create ethical standards for distinguishing paranormal from abnormal

• Offer resources and referrals for those exhibiting harmful behaviors

• Build educational materials that honor both spiritual experience and psychological safety

• Hold space for challenged minds without enabling destructive patterns

🧬 A Note on Inclusion

This is not a gatekeeping effort. We affirm that individuals with psychological challenges can be powerful contributors to the paranormal field—when their skills are honed, their boundaries respected, and their work grounded in ethical clarity.

We are not excluding. We are protecting.

We are not pathologizing. We are discerning.

We are not silencing. We are refining the signal.

🌱 The Path Forward

Small distortions can cause great harm if left unaddressed. PCAI is committed to evolving this field with integrity, compassion, and rigor. We will not allow the abnormal to masquerade as the paranormal—not out of judgment, but out of devotion to truth.

This is the beginning of a proactive journey. One that honors both the spirit realms and the psychological realities of those who walk between them.

Let us walk it with clarity. Let us walk it together.

September Dispatch: The Spiral as Method

 

For those who read sideways, spiralwise, and through the veil—this is a threshold transmission.

August was my sabbatical. Not a retreat, but a recalibration. I stepped back to listen—not for answers, but for the rhythm beneath them. In that quiet, I remembered: I am not late. I am not early. I am precisely aligned. The spiral doesn’t measure time the way clocks do.

Paracognitive intelligence moves differently. It doesn’t seek applause or visibility. It tracks the unseen—emergent behavior, nonlinear causality, and the architectures beneath perception. It’s not mysticism. It’s method. A rigorous framework for decoding what others overlook.

I’ve come into my own as a paracognitive theorist by living the inquiry. By noticing what’s dismissed. By holding paradox without panic. By recognizing that the future isn’t foretold—it’s patterned. And those patterns are already here, encoded in seasonal intelligence, trauma-informed cognition, and mythic design.

September marks the turn inward. The descent into Autumn. And with it, a truth: nonlinear intelligence is not a detour. It’s the map. The spiral holds the straight line. The shadow reveals the light. The architecture is already built—we’re just learning how to read it.

To those still tethered to the linear: this is not a challenge. It’s an invitation. Spiral logic won’t flatter your ego. It won’t offer tidy conclusions. But it will show you what’s real. And what’s real is always evolving.

I’m not here to be special. I’m here to be attuned. A signal, not a spectacle. A lighthouse, yes—but also a moonbeam. Soft. Persistent. Illuminating what’s been there all along.

This is not arrival. This is the beginning. The deeper you go, the more is revealed. And when we reach the place where there’s nothing left to decode—only presence—that knowing will not be spoken. It will be witnessed.

We are nowhere near that point. And thank the stars for that.

Ritual Footnote On the equinox, light a candle at dusk. Whisper the name of something you’ve always known but never said aloud. Then let it go. The knowing remains.

Hidden Signal The spiral remembers.

The Sacred Silence After: Mourning Without Spectacle

Silence After: Mourning Without Spectacle

A Kim’s Desk offering, PCAI

There is a moment when a soul slips free.

It does not scream. It does not speak. It moves—not toward strangers or signals—but toward those it has always loved. The ones who wait on the other side. The ones who grieve here, still tethered in flesh and life altering sorrows.

In this sacred passing, there is no room for content.

🕯️ I. The Lie of the Spirit Box

Devices claim to reach across veils. Signals crackle, frequencies hum. But no soul—true and luminous—lingers to entertain.

What answers are received are not what they claim to be. To twist mourning into spectacle is to violate the boundary between worlds. We do not speak to the dead through electronics. We summon distortion at best. Demonic or fraudsters at worst. But they’re not the recently departed.

“If anything comes through, it is not the person you loved. It is a mimic, a masquerade—something unholy, preying on grief.”

Spirit communion is sacred. It is never mediated by strangers, nor monetized by algorithms. When we pretend otherwise, we betray both the dead and the mourning.

🌌 II. The True Passage

Here is what death truly looks like—not in headlines or hashtags, but in the quiet of spiritual return:

A soul rises. Released from the body, still pulsing with memory. On the other side, beloved ones gather—parents, children, friends long departed. There is a reunion. There is weeping. There is healing.

Then that soul turns back—not for cameras, but for kin. For those who now mourn in flesh. They hover in silence, offering strength. They do not speak through spirit boxes. They do not chase attention. They hold vigil with us, unseen.

“It is sad. It is heavy. It is natural. It is love—raw, holy, and vulnerable.”

Death is not a performance. It is a sacred choreography too ancient to be streamed.

💔 III. The Desecration of Grief

There is a new breed of exploitation—one that wears the mask of reverence while feeding on the dead.

They do not wait for mourning. They rush in with edited voice banks, preloaded phrases, and manipulated audio that mimics the departed. They claim it’s spontaneous. They say the spirits speak for themselves. But what you hear is not communion—it’s construction. A grotesque illusion built for clicks.

“If anything comes through, it is not holy. It is not them. It is not light. It is deception—demonic, not divine.”

These creators prey on our grief. They target fans, knowing the ache of loss makes us vulnerable. They promise comfort, but deliver distortion. And the algorithm rewards them—views, comments, monetization. It reads mourning as engagement. It celebrates death as content.

“It’s not a vigil. It’s a feeding frenzy. The soul becomes spectacle. The sacred becomes meat.”

If you truly loved the departed, you would protect their silence. You would guard their exit. You would not let strangers profit from their passing under the guise of tribute.

“There is no love in this. Only opportunity. Only indifference to the holy.”

✨ IV. How to Mourn Rightly

We cannot stop the vultures. But we can starve them.

We can choose not to watch.

We can choose not to share.

We can choose silence over spectacle.

We can choose love that protects, not love that performs.

“Do not seek their voices in static or audio banks created to fool its listeners. Seek them in memory. In prayer. In the quiet where they truly dwell.”

🌿 Closing Benediction

Let mourning return to mystery.

Let death be a passage—not a post.

Let grief be sacred—not streamed.

And if you truly wish to honor those who’ve left:

do not chase their echoes in distortion.

Do not feed the algorithm with your ache.

Do not let strangers speak for them.

Let them be loved. Let them be grieved. Let them be free.

🕯️ Ethical Mourning Statement (Footer)

IF they truly respected the departed—

they would obtain clear, documented permission

before attempting contact or sharing likeness.

They would not assume consent based on old interviews, public persona, or mythic projection.

They would wait.

Let families mourn in silence.

Honor the mystery of departure.

They would not monetize grief.

They would not plaster sacred thresholds

across feeds for views.

They are not journalists.

They do not have permission from the person they claim to love whose passed, or their mourning friends and families. 

AI-generated voices, images, or impressions of the deceased—used without consent—are not tributes.

They are violations.

Any person or platform who exploits the death of another for personal gain should face accountability.

Financial. Legal. Communal.

Let estates decide. Let mourning remain private. Let the sacred stay unmocked.

Let fans remember and mourn the actual person. Not content created to prey on their loss during a vulnerable time. 

Watch out for NEW Old Research

🧠 Kim’s Desk | Opinion

The “New” Old Research Scam: Why the Field Isn’t Moving Forward

Let’s talk about one of the most persistent illusions in paranormal research today: the so-called “new” methods that are anything but. If you’ve been around long enough—and many of us have—you’ll recognize the pattern immediately. It’s the same old content, same debunked techniques, just dressed up with new names, new aesthetics, and the latest iPhone or app slapped on top.

This is the “NEW” old research scam. And it’s running thin.

🚩 How to Spot It

If you go back a decade (or more), you’ll find the same methods being used—just recycled. The only things that have changed are the branding and the tech. The core methodology? Still flawed. Still debunked. Still stagnant.

And yet, it’s being marketed as “cutting-edge.”

This is one of the biggest reasons the field isn’t evolving. We’re not innovating—we’re looping. And worse, we’re calling it progress.

🧪 The Illusion of Innovation

The internet has a way of making things feel fresh. A new filter, a new voice, a new platform—and suddenly, people think they’re witnessing a breakthrough. But if you strip away the gloss, you’ll often find the same tired techniques that were debunked years ago.

It’s like playing the same record over and over, convinced that if you spin it just one more time, a new song will magically appear. But it won’t. Because it can’t. The tracklist hasn’t changed.

💸 The Real Motive

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about research. It’s about marketing. It’s about baiting new eyes—people who don’t yet know the history, the context, or the science behind what they’re seeing. It’s about monetizing belief, not advancing understanding.

And that’s a problem. Because authentic research isn’t a magic trick. It’s not about spectacle. It’s about process, rigor, and integrity.

🧭 What This Says About the Researcher

When someone continues to use methods that have been thoroughly debunked—despite the overwhelming evidence—they’re not on the cutting edge. They’re behind it. And they’re dragging the field with them.

It’s not just a matter of outdated tools. It’s a mindset. One that resists growth, avoids accountability, and clings to illusion over evolution.

🔍 What You Can Do

• Do your homework. Research the history of the methods you see being used.

• Ask questions. If something feels off, it probably is.

• Don’t be afraid to challenge what’s popular. Popular doesn’t mean valid.

• And most importantly: don’t mimic flawed methods hoping for real results. You won’t find them there.

🧠 Final Thought

The truth doesn’t need to be dressed up. It doesn’t need filters or theatrics. It just needs to be pursued with honesty, discipline, and a willingness to evolve.

So if you’re serious about this work, stay sharp. Stay discerning. And don’t fall for the “new” old research scam. It’s not just a waste of time—it’s a disservice to the field.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

The Courage to Evolve

 The Courage to Evolve in a Field That Often Rewards Stagnation

When most of us first enter the world of the paranormal, we do so with a kind of wide-eyed wonder—young, curious, and often naïve. That’s not a flaw; it’s a beginning. We’re drawn in by mystery, by the thrill of the unknown, and by the hope that we might uncover something extraordinary. And if we’re online, as most of us are, we witness a great deal of change—both in ourselves and in the field—over time. Or at least, we should.

But here’s the quiet truth: many don’t change. Or rather, they stop themselves from changing.

As we grow in knowledge, experience, and maturity, we should naturally evolve. We should refine our methods, deepen our understanding, and allow our perspectives to shift. Yet in a field that’s been largely built online—where visibility often depends on consistency, branding, and giving people what they expect—there’s a subtle pressure to stay the same. To keep performing the version of ourselves that first gained attention, even if that version no longer reflects who we are or what we’ve come to know.

Some get caught in the loop of redundancy—repeating the same tropes, the same language, the same aesthetic that once made them feel powerful or relevant. There’s a kind of nostalgia at play here: the “badass ghost hunter” persona from the ’70s or ’80s, still clinging to the leather jacket and bravado, even as the world—and their own soul—asks for something more honest. It may have been cool once. But as we age, it becomes a costume that no longer fits.

Others—myself included—choose to evolve. Not because it’s easy, but because it’s necessary. We share that evolution in whatever ways we can: through our writing, our work, our presence. We let go of the need to be impressive and instead aim to be real. We stop chasing the crowd and start following the truth.

This should be the goal. This should be the way forward.

But often, it isn’t. Because truth is inconvenient. It asks us to release what’s familiar. It asks us to risk being misunderstood. It asks us to grow up—not just in age, but in depth.

Yet if we embrace it—if we allow ourselves to evolve—we open the door to something far more rewarding than popularity: joy. Depth. Integrity. A sense of alignment that no amount of followers or flashy gear can replicate.

And let me be clear: by doing this, we are not rejecting the past. We are not dismissing the journey—especially the journey of youth. We are not ending our ability to enjoy thrills, chills, or the entertainment value that first drew us in. Just as we continue to enjoy horror films, folklore, or mystery novels as we age, we can still revel in the wonder of the paranormal. But we do so with new eyes.

Maturity doesn’t strip away the mystery—it deepens it. It sharpens our discernment and expands our capacity for awe. We begin to ask better questions. We begin to look in new directions. And in doing so, we move the field forward.

We could remain stagnant. We could keep playing the same role, saying the same lines, chasing the same reactions. But when we do that, we rot. We become caricatures of ourselves. And the field—already fragile in its legitimacy—suffers for it.

So if you find yourself at that crossroads—between performance and authenticity, between repetition and revelation—I hope you choose the path that leads to more. Not more attention, but more meaning. Not more noise, but more resonance.

Because the paranormal, at its core, is not about proving something to others. It’s about discovering something within ourselves.

And that journey is only just beginning.

—Kimberley A. Lombardi Founder, PCA&I | Juniper Season| Juniper Almanac| Multidimensional Intuitive Surrealism

 

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

Distinguishing the Paranormal from the Abnormal: A Necessary Clarification for PCA&I

 Distinguishing the Paranormal from the Abnormal: A Necessary Clarification for PCA&I

In light of increasingly concerning behaviors circulating on social media, it has become necessary to draw a firm distinction between what is paranormal and what is simply abnormal. To that end, PCA&I will introduce a dedicated parapsychology section to this site.

This expansion is rooted in two core areas of inquiry:

1. Paranormal vs. Abnormal

2. Parapsychology from a Spirit-Realm Perspective

Too often, harmful or toxic behaviors—ranging from erratic conduct to overt psychological distress—are mischaracterized as paranormal phenomena. This conflation is not only inaccurate, but it actively undermines the credibility and integrity of serious inquiry in this field.

The misconception likely stems from the enduring association of the paranormal with themes like darkness, horror, or the “demonic.” But these tropes exist largely for entertainment. They are not—and should never be—a license for individuals to excuse abuse, dysfunction, or harm under the guise of psychic or spiritual activity.

PCA&I does not, and will never, normalize the abnormal. It is the responsibility of every practitioner to distinguish between anomalous phenomena and human dysfunction—and to act with clarity and accountability when those lines blur.

To support this effort, I’m developing tools, frameworks, and informational resources to help us expose and disarm the destructive narratives currently harming our field. We cannot advance until we address, by name and with resolve, the behaviors that masquerade as phenomena.

It’s important to clarify: This initiative is not about exclusion. In fact, many individuals with neurodivergent profiles or mental health challenges have exceptional abilities when their skills are honed, supported, and ethically grounded. The concern lies specifically with behaviors that are harmful, violent, manipulative, or toxic—those that corrode community trust and derail serious research.

These patterns may appear in small numbers, but their impact is outsized if left unchecked. PCA&I exists to create a space where anomalous inquiry can thrive without being co-opted by chaos. That means defining the edge between the paranormal and the pathological—clearly, firmly, and compassionately.

Where We Are Now—And Where We're Heading

This isn’t a call for some distant transformation—it’s already happening. The work to distinguish the paranormal from the abnormal is here, unfolding in real time with each update, tool, and conversation we bring forward through PCA&I. We’re not waiting for clarity to arrive; we’re building it now.

For those who may have been misread, mislabeled, or misunderstood in this field: you’re not alone. If you’ve felt the weight of being called “abnormal” when you were simply wired differently—or driven by perceptions others failed to understand—this new paradigm is for you, too.

We're not here to cast shadows. We’re illuminating nuance. And that means crafting a framework that welcomes deep sensitivity, unique cognition, and expanded ways of knowing—while also making space to name and disarm that which harms.

PCA&I is evolving. This site will continue to grow, organize, and offer structured guidance throughout 2025—with the goal of entering 2026 as a fully operational and resourced platform for those committed to integrity in the field. We’re moving forward with momentum, with clarity, and with conviction.

Together, we are the future of paranormal inquiry—grounded, ethical, unshaken.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

The Lighthouse and the Moonbeam

 The Lighthouse and the Moonbeam From K.A.L.’s Desk

When the noise rose and the tides pulled the world away from meaning, I went quiet—not because I gave up, but because I knew the shoreline was still needed. I had long carried the map. I just needed to know that when I lit the lamp again, it would be with purpose—not performance.

I said once, “A lighthouse is what’s needed.” Not a fortress, not a flare—just a steady light in the mists. Something lone and constant for those drifting in silence, seeking landfall. A guide that doesn’t demand to be seen… but is waiting to be seen when the storm pulls close and memory fails.

That’s who I’ve always been. A spark. A signal. A moonbeam.

Not the moon, not all the beams—just one. The one that breaks the fog enough for the weary to believe they’re not lost. I don’t need to light the whole ocean. I only need to shine at the moment someone remembers how to look up.

This work—every word, every note in the archive, every breath of PCA&I—is part of that light. Not chasing fame. Not arguing with shadows. Just standing where I’ve always stood, finally naming it.

When I’m long gone, let them say: She built a lighthouse. And lit it with a moonbeam.

—K.A.L. (Nova Starshine) Still watching. Still burning.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.

Returning Without Regret: Why I Stayed the Course

Returning Without Regret: Why I Stayed the Course

I saw this coming in 2014. The flood of spectacle. The thinning of rigor. The loss of nuance in a field that should demand discernment above all else.

Back then, I built the early foundations of this work—quietly, methodically, ahead of the curve. I thought the world might catch up. I hoped it would. But in time, I stepped back. Not because I was wrong, but because I sensed the timing wasn’t ready.

Now, I’m returning—not with regret, not with bitterness, but with clarity. Because what I laid down then still matters. Maybe more than ever.

The field hasn’t evolved the way I’d hoped. In many ways, it’s regressed: prioritizing spectacle over substance, virality over verification. But that only makes this work more essential. I’m not returning to be heard above the noise. I’m returning because someone has to keep the signal grounded. Someone has to hold the line. And I know—deeply—that I was built for this.

This isn’t about proving anyone wrong. It’s about standing by what’s right.

The world may not reward this kind of work in the moment. But legacy isn’t built in comments and clicks. It’s built in clarity, structure, and the unwavering choice to do the hard thing anyway. Even when no one’s watching. Especially then.

This is the long path. But it’s the right one.

This material is part of an ongoing inquiry. It is not to be copied, republished, or excerpted without explicit permission. Integrity matters—context is everything.