Interview with a Vampirologist
Questions were posed
in 2002 by David McNamee for the student-based journal Cry Wolf in
the last
interview given by Bishop Manchester on the subject of vampires for a publication.
Bishop Manchester, can you explain your distrust of the press? You
refuse to accept invitations for press interviews and a large proportion of
your website is dedicated to attacking various journalists and writers. Your
recent appearance on James Whale’s radio talk show was also the scene of a
certain friction. Surely your work would almost certainly involve using the
media to warn people of the dangers of the occult, yet you appear extremely
reluctant to engage in any media activity.
In point of fact, a tiny
percentage of those I "attack" are properly accredited
journalists. Fewer even still are journalists of a calibre that merits
them being recognised beyond their particular cabal, eg a
specialist magazine that has an obvious bias, eg evinces
a pro-Left-hand Path agenda. The majority of those whom
I "attack" are either malefic occultists and/or
apologists of Satanism who are often themselves engaged in aspects of
diabolism.
Because the James Whale
Show, transmitted 20.02.02, is now the subject of a
Broadcasting Standards Commission enquiry [the
BSC upheld Bishop Manchester's complaint against James Whale] I am prevented on commenting further about it, save to
reiterate that sympathy and support expressed by listeners in my
favour has been overwhelming. Most are in agreement that any
"friction" was generated by the presenter himself.
The broadcasting media is a
useful means by which to draw folk's attention to occult and supernatural
danger, and I have regularly engaged over more than three decades in doing
precisely that on major networks. The print media is not, in my experience
and for the most part, at all trustworthy, accurate, reliable,
honest, fair, or worthwhile. The standard of those in newspaper journalism,
moreover, seems to have steadily declined over the years.
Their remit is clearly to satisfy their editor. His remit is to satisfy
his publisher whose remit, in turn, is to satisfy himself and/or shareholders.
Truth and fair play seldom enter into it. Sales and profits are the main
consideration. Hence they sensationalise and distort a great deal in
the process. Even supposedly liberal and fair-minded newspapers like The Guardian get it wrong and are guilty of
misrepresenting the facts when it suits them.
However, for someone who is
"extremely reluctant to engage in any media activity," I have certainly
made a great number of personal appearances on radio and television over the
last three and a half decades, plus all the film documentaries and programme
consultation work I have done. Your comment is therefore not entirely true.
What is your take on the current resurgence in public interest in vampirism? Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the recent Anne Rice film adaptation Queen of The Damned are both very much of the moment and very popular. Do you watch such films and shows yourself? Is their portrayal of vampire hunting at all accurate?
The interest in vampirism and the
growth of a subculture over the last twenty years is largely due to the
promotion of occultism and the malign supernatural throughout the media,
particularly the cinematic and television media. The vampire archetype is the
antithesis of the Christian archetype, but has more and more been portrayed in
a kinder and more sympathetic light. This is at odds with reality and all we
know about such predatory wraiths.
The Buffy the Vampire Slayer television
series and Anne Rice novels might be popular, but they are light years removed
from the real thing. I would only watch such as these were I to be asked to
comment on them, or review them. I have commented on Buffy, for example,
for the BBC and also for The Universe (Roman Catholic publication). Pulp
fiction of the sort produced by Anne Rice is something I did once attempt
to digest ~ only to find it to be virtually
indigestable from the onset. I personally find the attraction of
her novels a reflection of the decadence into which society generally has
slipped. They are certainly not a morality tale such as Dracula (1897).
How does your position within the Church sit with your involvement in pursuing the occult? What is the Church’s current stance on the existence of vampires etc, and has Church policy ever clashed with your views as an exorcist and vampire hunter?
I do not "pursue" the
occult. I have for many years investigated the claims of the occult and
individual occultists. See my works From Satan To Christ and The Vampire Hunter's Handbook for a broader
understanding of my personal involvement, which led to the present-day outreach
ministry to those in cults and the occult.
My "involvement" with the occult is not so very different to
that of many other Christian authors, both lay and clergy, who are involved in
researching, investigating and writing about the occult, eg the
Reverend Kevin Logan. My precursor was the Rt Rev Montague Summers, himself, of course, a
pre-eminent vampirologist of his day.
The traditional wing of
the Catholic Church, plus most Eastern Orthodox Churches, continue to
endorse the existence of vampires. Those on the modernist and liberal wing of
various church denominations have "clashed" with my views, but these
would probably not endorse the existence of a personal God and a personal
Devil, etc.
Do vampires exist in the world today? If so, what form do they take? Is it possible that vampires could operate as members of society? Do they operate in covens or networks? What kind of activity would make you suspect that a vampire could be in operation? Have you ever suspected an individual of being a vampire and been proved wrong? How would you “spot” a vampire?
Vampires exist now as they ever
did, and their "form" is still the same as ever. It is not absolutely
impossible that "a vampire could operate" as a member of society, but
it is extremely improbable. They certainly do not "operate in covens
or networks," yet vampiroids, their human counterpart, ie living
persons who emulate what they believe a vampire lifestyle to
be, sometimes do form covens or networks when they seek to spread their
subculture.
The kind of activity that leads
to suspicions of a demonological kind being aroused are examplified in my work The Highgate Vampire, and are far too
complex for me to here identify what they might be. I have investigated people
who considered themselves to be under the fatal malignancy of vampirism and
have shown them to be mistaken, but I have not yet wrongly identified an
individual as being either (a) a vampire, and/or (b) under vampire
attack.
How much of what has been written about vampires is accurate? Can someone become a vampire by being bitten by one? Do they take the form of men and women who have fangs and who turn to dust in sunlight? Do they drink human blood? Can they change form etc?
These are sensitive issues and
not ones that can be dealt with adequately here. If we are talking about scholarly
works, such as those of past times, eg Calmet, van Dalen,
Harenberg, Hertel, Ricaut, Rohl, Summers, Underwood, Varma, etc, then,
yes, much of what they have written is accurate. If we are discussing
contemporary authors, eg Ashley, Bunson, Hough, Konstantinos,
Riccardo, Slemen, etc, then an immensely less accurate portrait
emerges.
There is a contaminating factor in the blood when drawn
in a vampire attack if continued to the point of the victim's expiry. Yet by no
means will all victims who die automatically themselves become contaminated by
the demonic agent, causing them to not rest undisturbed. The vampire, of
course, does quaff human blood. This is what distinguishes it from
other demonic entities. And they can and do metamorphose into other shapes
and forms.
How do you kill or ward off a vampire? You mention that you did away with the Highgate Vampire with a stake through the heart. Is this the only way a vampire can be killed? Have you dealt, physically, with any vampires other than the ghoul encountered at Highgate Cemetery?
Vampires, like all supernatural
evil, are repelled by Christian images and holy objects, eg a blessed
crucifix, but they cannot be destroyed, ie "killed." Exorcism
casts them out. The corporeal host will return to its natural state when the
demonic entity has fled. Cremation is the most effective method of dealing with
contagions, but impalation has proven to be as efficacious in recent
times as it was in the past. I would remind anyone considering this remedy that
the Anglo Saxon law that permitted such impalations was repealed in 1832.
Needless to say, I have encountered and exorcised more than the prime source of
the Highgate contagion. Anyone reading my book The Highgate Vampire would discover that more
than one vampire was exorcised in that case alone. To be absolutely correct, a
vampire is not a "ghoul." A ghoul preys on the dead. A vampire preys
on the living.
Have you ever been investigated by the police over your claims to having slain a vampire? Having produced photos of a corpse which you claim was the remains of a vampire, did anyone accuse you of murder?
I have not "slain" a
vampire and have therefore not been the subject of any police enquiry. The
police, in fact, have been most helpful and sympathetic; especially in the
early days of the Highgate case. Only rather asinine reporters and interviewers
have made any suggestion of "murder." How can you "murder"
a manifestation of supernatural evil? Once it is explained and the notion of
what a vampire is and is not has been established, even a feather-fool and
lobcock must grasp the point that the expulsion is of an evil spirit ~ not a
pulsating, living person.
What concrete evidence do you have to prove the existence of vampires? Do you have anything to support your claims beyond any conceivable doubt? How do you propose to convince people of the existence of such things? Indeed, is this your intention?
It is not my intention, nor
is it my purpose, to prove anything. People cannot be "convinced" if
they do not want to be. Nothing I can say or produce would ever convince a
sceptic. Likewise, those who are convinced require no proof from me. I am in
the business of researching, investigating and exorcising ~ not proving and
convincing. Two thousand years after Jesus Christ, most folk remain unconvinced
of His bodily resurrection. Even some clergy are not convinced. How, then, will
I be able to convince anyone of an unholy parody of that
resurrection, ie a vampire?
How seriously would you take someone who claimed (as some do) to
be a vampire?
Not the least bit seriously.
Vampires do not make claims. They operate in a totally different manner
altogether.
Are vampires as such actually “evil”? Are they creations of the Devil? How is a vampire created? Where do they come from?
Vampires are evil and, with
Satan (aka the Devil), rebelled against God prior to becoming fallen.
They were cast out by God, and plague our world when (a) invited, or (b) a
vulnerable link or open portal is found for them to enter. These spirit
creatures were formed in the very beginning, but have since fallen and seek to
contaminate mankind through using demonic supernatural powers. They can be
expelled, however, and that is where exorcism comes in.
Could you explain why you chose to write a fictional story about vampires in the form of your “sequel” to Dracula, the novel Carmel? Does this not make you to an extent guilty of fuelling what you may describe as an unhealthy interest or fetishisation of vampires? How exactly does one go about writing a “sequel” to what is widely regarded as a classic text?
Carmel, as
explained on its rear cover, is fiction rooted in fact. Bram Stoker drew on
vampire folklore and factual references for his novel, Dracula, which, though
a classic, nonetheless left some questions unanswered and a
number of ends untied. One or two critical observers have drawn parallels
between the Highgate case and Stoker's Dracula, which automatically
stimulated me to employ the Highgate case as the foundation for Carmel. Far from "fuelling" what
might be described as "an unhealthy interest," my own novel, and
sequel of sorts, seeks to remind those who glamourise the cult of the
vampire that this phenomenon is wrapped up, bound and absorbed with the
Devil and diabolism. Like Stoker's masterpiece, I have hopefully produced a
morality tale that draws upon real people and events to describe a crusade
against the Devil. Can the same be said of Anne Rice and her books? The
"unhealthy interest" in vampires already exists, I fear. My work only
serves to remind the reader of its dangers.
In many of the pictures on your website which show you hunting vampires in cemeteries clad in Victorian-type clothing and holding full candelabras you could be accused of romanticising or perhaps overplaying the rôle somewhat. How would you respond to claims which suggest that you romanticise the vampire myth as much as the ‘vampiroids’ and vampire societies which you disapprove of so vehemently?
My "disapproval" is
not of folk who wish to enjoy Gothic literature, art, and theatre ~ even
if this involves their entering into the spirit of the occasion by donning what
they construe to be authentic garb. My "disapproval," as such, hinges
on those who by their behaviour do harm to themselves and to others. Such as
these I identify in my concise vampirological guide (The Vampire Hunter's Handbook). Examples of
ultra-vampiroids would be the cases of Manuel and Daniel Ruda in Germany, and Roderick
Ferrell in the USA. Ultra-vampiroidism is no freak display of
neo-Gothicism or decadent and dark Romanticism. In essence it is indubitably
anti-Gothic and anti-Romantic.
Most observers appreciate that
presentation determines whether people actually bother to read a book,
or read what is on a website. Thus I do not take the
academic approach of presenting dry scholarship with portraits in sober apparel.
This would only serve to deter folk from proceeding ~ and the very persons who
need to read the information simply do not bother. They have exceptionally
short attention spans, as I am sure you are aware. I am a Romantic, descended
from a long line of Romantics, and am unashamedly so. T E Lawrence was a
Romantic. That does not make him any less plausible when we read
about his autobiographical adventures in Arabia. The fact is that
hardly anyone nowadays believes in the existence of vampires, so being myself, ie
"hunting vampires in Victorian-type clothing and holding full
candelabras," makes little, if any, difference to what people
might think of me or the supernatural phenomenon I pursue. The bottom line
is that I feel more comfortable with antediluvian places,
furnishings, objects, attire, etc, and have always done so. I am
merely being true to myself. That is all.
In your work have you ever been the subject of any kind of act of censorship or disinformation? If so, then why do you think this was?
Throughout the three and a half
decades that I have engaged in providing material I have constantly faced
censorship, distortion, ridicule, hostility, often resulting in a plethora of
disinformation about both the subject matter and indeed me. Contempt prior to
examination marks the modern world, which, I suspect, has the collective
imagination of a gnat. There are other aspects that I mention in my
vampirological guide where I raise suspicions about government working groups
and intelligence agencies undermining evidence of unexplained phenomena.
Have any threats of injury or harm ever been made to you over information you possess or information you have attempted to make public?
I have been advised not to
attempt to provide an answer to this question. There is a current criminal
investigation for a pending case to be brought before the Director of Public
Prosecutions. It is of the kind to which you allude. [That investigation resulted
in an arrest, but the source of the problem still remains. Bishop Manchester
ceased making media appearances in July 2002, and no longer gives interviews to
anyone. His privacy is now paramount.]
How did you originally become involved in exorcisms? What was your first experience with the supernatural?
I entered the minor order of the
Exorcistate in April 1973. However, my first experience with the supernatural
goes back to childhood and is included in my unpublished memoir Stray Ghosts. It is touched on in The Highgate Vampire, and, even more so, in my
book Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know. My very first
experience with vampirism, needless to say, was the Highgate Vampire
case, which first came to my attention in early 1967.
What are you working on at the moment and what are your plans for the future regarding your work hunting the supernatural?
When time allows, ie
infrequently, I shall continue to give talks to groups within churches and
colleges. Innumerable projects concerning the combat of Luciferic demonry in
all its multifarious manifestations are invariably on the agenda. Mostly I
pursue the ministry for which I have been chosen. But who knows?