Podcasting the Paranormal: How True‑Crime Shows Handle Exorcism — and What They Leave Out

Introduction: Why exorcism stories thrive in podcasting

Long‑form audio and serialized true‑crime formats have become a natural home for exorcism narratives: the intimate voice, cinematic sound design, and episodic structure all amplify mystery, testimony, and atmosphere. Several high‑profile series—from clergy‑hosted shows focused on deliverance to mainstream true‑crime podcasts that devote episodes to historic possession cases—have pushed exorcism stories into public conversation.

That attention brings both opportunity and risk. Recent episodes and programs have driven interest in rare or misunderstood cases, but they have also sparked controversy when hosts blur advocacy, spectacle, and reporting — sometimes with real‑world consequences for subjects, witnesses, and communities. A 2024–2025 controversy involving a well‑known exorcism podcaster illustrates how quickly reputation, pastoral authority, and criminal allegations can intersect.

What podcasts often emphasize — and why that matters

True‑crime and paranormal podcasts typically foreground three elements: compelling eyewitness testimony, dramatic sound design, and an explanatory frame supplied by a host (expert, believer, or both). Those choices make strong audio storytelling but can also skew how listeners interpret events:

• Testimony over triage: First‑person accounts are powerful, but they’re not the same as corroborated evidence—especially in events that overlap with mental health and neurological phenomena.
• Sensational audio: Editing, music, and pacing heighten emotion; the effect can be immersive but may prioritize engagement over nuance.
• Authority bias: When a host is a clergy figure, exorcist, or charismatic investigator, listeners can conflate pastoral experience with clinical competence.

These tendencies have broader consequences: they shape public perception, influence help‑seeking behavior, and alter how institutions respond. Media critics and journalism scholars warn that the attention economy encourages sensationalism in true‑crime content — an issue podcasts must manage deliberately.

What many shows miss: clinical, legal and cultural context

When coverage stops at narrative drama, crucial context is lost. Responsible reporting on alleged possession requires three areas of expertise that podcast storytelling often downplays:

1. Clinical differential diagnosis. Many behaviors attributed to possession — sleep paralysis, psychosis, seizure disorders, or substance effects — are medical conditions that require clinical assessment. Scholarship and practitioner guides recommend ruling out medical and psychiatric causes before invoking ritual deliverance.
2. Religious and institutional protocol. The Catholic Church and other faith traditions have formal procedures, training programs, and growing institutional responses to demand for exorcisms — and those structures matter when evaluating claims or follow‑ups. Recent conferences and training efforts reflect a measurable institutional engagement with alleged possession cases.
3. Consent, safeguarding and legal risk. Several documentary and podcast episodes document cases where deliverance rituals escalated into abuse or criminal investigations. Reporting that glosses over consent, age, or legal consequences can re‑traumatize survivors and obscure accountability. Examples exist across recent audio and broadcast productions.

Practical guidance: better practices for podcasters and listeners

Podcasts can treat exorcism cases ethically and usefully. Below are practical steps both creators and listeners should expect.

For podcasters

• Use multidisciplinary sources: include clinicians, canonically authorized clergy, and independent investigators rather than relying solely on single eyewitnesses or partisan hosts.
• Document verification: explain what records, medical notes, or third‑party corroboration were sought and what remains unverified.
• Prioritize consent and safeguarding: redact identifying details when subjects cannot consent, and flag when a case involves minors, vulnerable adults, or ongoing legal matters.
• Include trigger warnings and resource lists for listeners who may be affected by the content.

For listeners

• Listen critically: recognize that audio drama choices are editorial decisions, not neutral evidence.
• Seek expert perspectives: if you want to understand whether phenomena could be medical, neurological, or psychiatric, consult clinical literature or reputable health services.
• Respect boundaries: avoid doxxing, amateur investigations, or attempts to contact vulnerable subjects that could cause harm.

Audio producers who adopt these practices can keep the genre’s capacity to illuminate unusual cases while minimizing harm and misinformation. Scholarly and journalistic critiques of the true‑crime boom highlight why these standards matter.

Conclusion: Toward more informed, accountable coverage

Exorcism stories will continue to attract listeners — they touch on fear, faith, and the limits of explanation. That popularity imposes responsibilities: producers should avoid conflating belief with proof, center consent and safety, and make space for medical, legal, and cultural expertise. Listeners can demand the same: transparency about sources, respect for victims, and clear separation between advocacy and reporting. When done well, podcasting can illuminate the human and institutional dimensions of alleged possession without turning suffering into spectacle.

For creators aiming to improve standards, consider formal editorial checklists, advisory panels that include clinicians and canon lawyers, and ongoing training in trauma‑informed interviewing. The conversation between faith communities, medicine, and media is still evolving — but better reporting will help protect people and clarify what exorcism claims actually mean in real life.