Plurk paste

PREFACE
A Tour of Silicon Valley with Jacques Vallee
“These are the hills of Silicon Valley. There are many secrets in this valley.” Jacques Vallee maneuvers his car expertly through the daunting San Francisco Bay Area traffic, darting this way and that. Large trucks and small cars barrel toward us on the winding roads, and crashes are narrowly evaded. Every twenty minutes I lift my shoulders, which are stuck to the back of the car seat, and try to shake out the tension.
Jacques, father of the modern study of UFOs and an early visionary of the internet, is giving me and my colleague, Robbie Graham, a personal tour of his favorite geolocation, Silicon Valley. We drive by places that loom large in the history of “the Valley.” He recalls the early days of the technology revolution: “They were on fire and purely democratic. Pure scientists, fueled by discovery.” Jacques’s credentials are intimidating. As an astronomer, he helped NASA create the first detailed map of Mars. As a computer scientist with a PhD from Northwestern University, he was one of the early engineers of ARPANET, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, a precursor of the internet. He is also a successful venture capitalist, funding startups of innovative technologies that have changed the daily lives of millions of people. He is a prolific author. He is probably most famous for being a consultant to Steven Spielberg on the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). The scientist character in the movie, played by French actor François Truffaut, is based on Jacques. Jacques has perhaps done more for the field of ufology than anyone else in its short history, and yet he calls the study of UFOs his hobby.
This is the orthodox history of Jacques’s life and work. His unorthodox history is equally interesting. He worked with scientists affiliated with the Stanford Research Institute, now SRI International, an independent, nonprofit research institute in Menlo Park. The group’s activities are largely unknown to the public, but declassified documents from the 1970s and 1980s indicate that it was a research site for the extraordinary. Jacques did his early work on the internet under a program that, as Jeffrey Kripal writes, was probably called “Augmentation of the Human Intellect.” This research was happening at the same time and in the same place as studies of remote viewing, precognition, and extrasensory perception. These esoteric skills were studied under a classified program called The Stargate Project, funded by the US military in partnership with the SRI. The hope was that the skills and talents of people who were naturally psychic could be developed and harnessed for the purposes of gathering intelligence. In the course of this research, the psychic viewers reportedly uncovered unintended and surprising targets, like UFOs. The participants in the program also reported that they could travel through space, to the moon, and to other planets, like Mars. In other words, the program allegedly developed, intentionally or not, psychic cosmonauts.
Perhaps unknown to Jacques and the researchers of the SRI, psychic travel had long been reported. Psychic cosmonauts like the eighteenthcentury philosopher/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg crop up throughout the history of religions. Swedenborg claimed that, with the assistance of an angel, he had visited Mercury, Mars, Venus, and the moon. He claimed to have spoken to beings on those planets and he published his experiences in a book, Life on Other Planets (1758). The activities of the cosmonauts of the SRI may have resembled the interstellar adventures of Swedenborg, but their goals could not have been more different. They hoped to operationalize the knowledge they acquired about terrestrial targets; remote viewing was one of many methods of attempted data collection. These efforts to create human portals to other planets were taking place under the same auspices and at the same time as technologies of connectivity like the internet.
As we spun down the highway, I recognized the neighborhoods of my childhood, but I saw them now through Jacques’s eyes. The streets, the smell of the eucalyptus trees, parks, schools, cafes—all looked new to me, shining with the allure of mystery. As much as I wanted to, I never got up the nerve to ask Jacques exactly what he meant by the secrets of Silicon Valley. But on that drive I caught a glimpse into the exciting ideology and philosophy behind the revolution—its zeitgeist.
If Jacques were an essay, he would be “The Question Concerning Technology” by the philosopher Martin Heidegger. This essay, dubbed impenetrable by many readers, nevertheless offers several intriguing observations about the relationship between humans and technology. As Heidegger saw it, humans do not understand the essence of technology.
Instead, they are blinded by it and view it simply as an instrument. The interpretation of technology as pure instrumentality was wrong, he said.
The Greek temple, for the Greeks, housed the gods, and as such it was a sacred “frame.” Similarly, the medieval cathedral embodied and housed the presence of God for medieval Europeans. Heidegger suggested that the human relationship with technology is religiouslike, that it is possible for us to have a noninstrumental relationship with technology and engage fully with what it really is: a saving power. Jacques Vallee is fully aware of the revolution that is technology. Although he most likely never read Heidegger’s essay, Jacques’s depiction of Silicon Valley as the home of the new resonates with Heidegger’s vision of technology as bringing to birth a new era of human experience, a new epoch.
The symbol for this new epoch is the UFO. Carl Jung called the UFO a technological angel. This is a book about UFOs and technology, but also about a group of people who believe anomalous technology functions as creative inspiration. I found these people. In the 1970s, when Jacques consulted on Close Encounters, he encouraged Spielberg to portray the more complex version of the story, that is, that the phenomenon is complex and might not be extraterrestrial at all. But Spielberg went with the simple story, the one everybody would understand. He said, “This is Hollywood.” This book does not tell the simple story, but I believe it is a story anyone can understand. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to those who helped me in the process of writing this book, which has been an adventure from the beginning. More than an adventure, the research has brought me into a deep relationship with the forces that motivated me, as a child and young adult, to study religion.
I am indebted to Jeffrey Kripal and Michael Murphy for supporting my effort to explore religion and technology. Jeff has been a great mentor to many scholars whose work seeks to grapple with religious experience, and his integrity and courage have innovated the study of religion in groundbreaking ways. His work continues to be an inspiration to me.
I would like to thank my editor, Cynthia Read, whose suggestions and book recommendations were always serendipitous and relevant. Early on in my research Cynthia suggested I read Dr. George M. Young’s The Russian Cosmists: The Esoteric Futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and His Followers. I received the book as I was researching the history of the American space program, and as I interviewed scientists whose intimate relationships with rockets and satellites could have been the content for the next chapter in Dr.
Young’s book. Dr. Young’s work on the esoteric traditions of the Russian space program was so relevant to my work that my title, American Cosmic, is an homage to his brilliant book.
I am indebted to Christopher Bledsoe and his wife, Yvonne, and to the whole Bledsoe family. Their kindness and hospitality allowed me a peek into the blessings and hardships that an experience can produce on a person and his or her family members. I wish to thank Chad Hayes and Carey Hayes, whom I worked with as a religion consultant for The Conjuring franchise. They were open to my academic proclivities and allowed me to view the making of a media production about the supernatural from the inside.
Whitley Strieber’s work and friendship helped me understand aspects of the phenomenon that are not easily understood. Whitley’s brilliant commentaries, insights, help, and moral support were instrumental in helping me finish the book manuscript. I would like to thank my colleagues Brenda Denzler, who donated her library of UFO-related materials to me, and Dr. David Halperin, whose inspiring work on the topic of UFOs is brilliant and helped me think through my own work. I am grateful to Rey Hernandez and to astronaut Edgar Mitchell for their insights and helpfulness with my section on quantum physics and Rey’s experience.
Nancy Mullis and Kary Mullis were both kind, very helpful, and deeply insightful. I wish to thank them for their friendship. Tanya Luhrmann’s work and comments were very helpful and always brilliant.
I would like to thank Jacques Vallee, whose work and insights permeate this book. My thanks to him cannot be overstated, as his ideas about the phenomenon and technology have proved to be prescient. I owe so much to my anonymous friends, Tyler D. and James. They possess a burning desire to know the mystery, and I was infected with their enthusiasm.
I am indebted to researchers Scott Browne, Allison Kruse, and David Stinnett. Scott’s Facebook page, In the Field, provides a forum for serious videographers to vet their captures, and Scott, to his credit, has kept the forum free from the vitriol that accompanies much discussion within ufology. I owe thanks to my friend Robbie Graham, who early in my research helped me think through a lot of the theoretical aspects of the phenomenon, and to Greg Bishop, whose own work on the topic helped me to understand the climate of the research. George Hansen’s work was instrumental in helping me understand the “trickster” element of the phenomenon. Dr. Patty Turrisi, my colleague and friend, provided moral support and helpful comments. Dr. Dean Radin’s work, and his comments, were helpful and always fascinating. I met many virtual but nonetheless real friends during this research, including David Metcalfe, whose insights into digital technology have been instrumental to putting together several helpful pieces of the puzzle. Christopher Laursen has been a wonderful conversation partner throughout the experience. My students have inspired me with their intelligence and bravery. They include Jose Herrera, Steve Nunez, Lauryn Justice, Bryan Hendershot, Eugene O’Dea, and so many others. My student Alex Karas was instrumental in helping me as a research assistant, and I am especially thankful for his help.
I want to thank my wonderful family, especially my little brother. As latchkey kids we used to sit in our living room with the neighbor kids watching rerun episodes of the Twilight Zone, never anticipating that one day, we would wake up in an actual episode. AMERICAN COSMIC INTRODUCTION
When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
—FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
AS I FINISH WRITING THIS INTRODUCTION, the television series 60 Minutes has just aired an interview with billionaire Robert Bigelow, of Bigelow Aerospace. Bigelow founded his company, which specializes in manufactured space equipment, mostly with his own funding in 1998. Due to the reliability and safety of Bigelow Aerospace’s equipment, NASA and other space companies use Bigelow’s space habitats and other equipment in their explorations and experiments in space. In the interview, Bigelow boldly claimed that aliens, or nonhuman intelligences, are interacting with humans, and have been for a long time.
“Is it risky for you to say in public that you believe in UFOs and aliens?” asked interviewer Lara Logan. “You don’t worry that some people will say, ‘Did you hear that guy? He sounds like he’s crazy’?” “I don’t give a damn. I don’t care,” Bigelow replied. “It’s not going to make a difference. It’s not going to change the reality of what I know.”1 I was not surprised by Bigelow’s statements. They are typical of the many scientist-believers I have met since I began my research in 2012.
Since that time, I have come to know millionaires and billionaires and successful innovative scientists who believe in and study the phenomenon.
This was the first of several surprising revelations about the UFO phenomenon. People like Stephen Hawking are wrong when they state, as Hawking did in his 2008 TED Talk, “I am discounting reports of UFOs.
Why would they appear to only cranks and weirdos?”2 The lie has been that belief in UFOs is associated with those on the “fringe”—“cranks and weirdos,” in Hawking’s words. The truth is just the opposite.
This book is about contemporary religion, using as a case study the phenomenon known as the UFO. It is also about technology. These may seem like completely unrelated topics, but they are intimately connected.
They are connected because social and economic infrastructures shape the ways in which people practice religions. A historical and uncontroversial example is the impact of the printing press on the Christian tradition. The mass production of Bibles in the common languages of the people soon gave rise to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone, according to which scripture is the only reliable and necessary guide for Christian faith and practice—a foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation. As technologies shift infrastructures, religious practices and habits are changed.
Beyond documenting how technological infrastructure shapes religious practices and beliefs, the UFO is considered by believers to be advanced technology. Like the Spiritualists of the nineteenth century, believers see technology as a portal or a frequency shift that allows humans to connect to other minds, human or extraterrestrial, as well as to places outside of the current understanding of space-time.3 Therefore, not only is the technological infrastructure the basis for widespread belief in UFOs, through media technologies and other mechanisms, but also technology itself is a sacred medium, as well as the sacred object, of this new religiosity. Conversely, within certain theological circles, technology, especially the internet, has been characterized as “the Beast,” the antiChrist. Technology in these contexts is not secular but infused with theological meaning.
A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE FOR AN ACADEMIC
This book is about how technology informs a widespread and growing religiosity focused on UFOs, but it is also a story. It is partly the story of my own participation in a group of scientists and academics who study the phenomenon anonymously (except for me, of course). The participants are anonymous because of the stigma that is often associated with UFOs and belief in them, but also because there were classified government programs in which the phenomenon was studied, necessitating secrecy among the participants. To offset any conspiratorial interpretations of this book, I will clarify that I am not “read in” to any government program to study the phenomenon, I was never privy to any classified information of which I am aware, nor am I part of an official or nonofficial disclosure of UFOs to the American public.
I began my study of UFO cultures in January 2012. I proceeded in the conventional way in that I conducted an ethnography of a variety of believers and delved into research into UFOs and ufology, a branch of research devoted to the topic. I was lucky to inherit an extensive library of resources about UFOs and reports of contactees/experiencers from Dr.
Brenda Denzler, whose own book, The Lure of the Edge, informed my study. The library included her own research, as well as the research of ufologists and organizations like MUFON (the Mutual UFO Network) and CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies) and the works of other academics and researchers studying the phenomenon. I read the works of Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, John Keel, Budd Hopkins, and John Mack, as well as those of people who theorize the phenomenon academically, such as Jeffrey Kripal, Whitley Strieber, Debbora Battaglia, Greg Eghigian, Carole Cusack, Susan Lepsetter, and David Halperin.
Not long after I began, I quickly surmised that there is a parallel research tradition within the field of the study of the phenomenon, and that there always has been. There are public ufologists who are known for their work, there are a few academics who write about the topic, and then there is an “Invisible College,” as Allen Hynek called it and of which Jacques Vallee wrote—a group of scientists, academics, and others who will never make their work public, or at least not for a long time, although the results of their investigations impact society in many ways. Halfway through my research I made the decision to write about this group, for a couple of reasons. First, they receive no recognition or press, yet rumors about them spawn folklore and traditions that constitute the UFO narrative. Second, frankly, this was the group whose work and members I became best acquainted with, and whose stories I found most fascinating. I had to muster courage to write about this group because its members are anonymous, and what I observed of their work places me in the odd position of almost confirming a myth.
This is not the preferred position of the academic author of books about religion. It is usually the place occupied by authors of theology. In the end, however, I chose the path of writing a book that conveys what I consider the most interesting, and challenging, aspects about the topic.
The parallel tradition of ufology is not known to the uninitiated, but it is well known within the culture of ufologists. Some scientists, such as astronomer Massimo Teodorani and physicist Eric Davis, have confirmed its existence. Teodorani writes:
I have been quite heavily involved in the so called “ufo” stuff for at least 25 years, in research that is parallel to more canonic studies of physics and astronomy. I know that some anomalies do exist and I stress the importance of studying this problem scientifically, especially when measurement instruments are used. For many years I have been studying the problem behind totally closed doors.4
Davis has also noted this aspect of the study of UFOs. “UFOs are real phenomena,” he writes. “They are artificial objects under intelligent control. They’re definitely craft of a supremely advanced technology.” He goes on to say that most of what academics and scientists know about the phenomenon is secret, and will probably remain so. “There are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic techniques and methodology. But they won’t come out and publicize that because they fear it. Not the subject —they fear the backlash from their professional colleagues.” He notes that one tradition of study requires secrecy, as it is related to the military: “It’s the domain of military science. The fact that [unknown] craft are flying around Earth is not a subject for science—it is a subject for intelligence gathering collection and analysis.”5 There are a number of players in this story. For the most part, they fall into one of two categories: there are those who engage with and interact with what they believe are nonhuman intelligences, perhaps extraterrestrial or even interdimensional. The people in this category who are featured in this book are the scientists to whom Davis refers. They agreed to be included on condition that they remain anonymous. The second category consists of those who interpret, spin, produce, and market the story of UFO events to the general public. Members of the first category are silent about their research, while members of the second category are very vocal about information they have received second-, third-, or even fourth-hand. Often they even make up stories or derive their information from hoaxes.
The second of the surprising revelations is that even as some respected scientists believe in the phenomenon associated with UFOs and make discoveries about it, what is ultimately marketed to the public about the phenomenon barely resembles these scientists’ findings. Belief in the phenomenon is at an all-time high—even among successful, high-profile people like Bigelow. Among those who report sightings are former US president Jimmy Carter and legions of other credible witnesses, including the trained observers of the US Air Force, pilots, commercial pilots, police officers, US Army personnel, and millions of civilians who were certainly not out looking for UFOs.6 Different polls record varying levels of belief in UFOs, but all indicate that it is pervasive. A 2008 Scripps poll showed that more than 50 percent of Americans believe in extraterrestrial life. Seventyfour percent of people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are believers.7 In 2012, in connection with marketing their UFO-themed programming, National Geographic conducted an informal poll of Americans about their belief in UFOs. They randomly sampled 1,114 individuals over the age of eighteen and found that 36 percent believed UFOs exist and, more significantly, 77 percent believed that there are signs suggesting that aliens have been to Earth in the past. Although not a formal poll, the results concur with professional polls such as the Harris Poll conducted in 2009, which found that 32 percent of Americans believe in UFOs.
I began my own research into aerial phenomena after I finished a book on the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. The project was a multiyear study in which I examined many primary sources of European Catholic history, found mostly in obscure archives, of anecdotes about souls from purgatory.
These sources dated from 1300 to 1880. In them I found a lot of other unexpected things, such as reports of orbs of light, flames that penetrated walls, luminous beings, forms of conscious light, spinning suns, and disclike aerial objects. I wasn’t sure how to theorize these reports, and I left them out of my book. Yet I wondered about them. I wondered aloud one morning while drinking coffee with a friend.
“These reports remind me of a Steven Spielberg film. You know, lots of shining aerial phenomena, luminous beings, transformed lives,” he said.
I summarily dismissed his comparison. The next day, he found an ad for a local conference about UFOs and extraterrestrials taking place the following weekend. He suggested that I attend.
The conference featured speakers who were experiencers, people who have sighted UFOs or believe they have seen extraterrestrials. They described some of the same things I had observed in my research in Catholic history—shining aerial discs, flames, and orbs—and especially how these experiences transformed their lives. The experiencers interpreted these as spiritual or religious events. They either fractured their traditional religious belief systems or, more commonly, caused them to reinterpret their traditions through a biblical–UFO framework in which they viewed biblical and historical religious events as UFO events. Ezekiel’s wheel is the prime example of how scripture is used in this context. Many religious practitioners view the strange spinning aerial contraption witnessed by the biblical prophet Ezekiel as a UFO. The television show Ancient Aliens offers a similar interpretive slant. This way of looking at anomalous ancient aerial phenomena is not restricted to experiencers but is common, especially among youth such as my students.8 Could the orbs of the past, once interpreted as souls from purgatory, still be around? Are they currently being interpreted as UFOs? This question was not so mind-bending. I could still fit this data into my academic training, interpreting orbs as social constructions based on an externally generated unknown event, or some type of perennial mystical experience interpreted through each era’s reigning cultural framework.
The challenge began when I met the meta-experiencers, the scientists who studied the experiencers and the phenomenon. It confounded the academic categories I had been using thus far in my work. The new research compelled me to think in novel ways to understand this group and their research. Additionally, the charisma and conviction of the scientistbelievers were difficult to discount—at least for me. As a scholar of religion I am trained not to weigh in, one way or the other, on the truth or falseness of believers’ claims. When looking at the documentation of the proliferation of a belief, there is no need to consider whether the belief is justified or not if one is just analyzing its social effects and influence. My association with the scientists brought about something that Harvard UFO researcher John Mack called an “epistemological shock,” that is, a shock to my fundamental understanding of the world and the universe.
The shock to my epistemological frameworks, or to what I believed to be true, occurred on two levels. The first is obvious. Several of the most wellregarded scientists in the world believe in nonhuman intelligence that originated in space. The second level of epistemological shock was galling.
Rumors of the findings of these scientists inspired hoaxes, disinformation, media, and documentaries based on bogus information that purported to inform the public about UFO events and created UFO narratives and mythologies. I watched several of these unfold in real time. It was hard to remain aloof when confronted by what I knew to be misinformation, some created as disinformation, some created for the sole reason that it sells. I was so embedded in the research, on the one level of observing the scientists and on another level of being involved with the producers of media content, that it was impossible to be neutral. It was at this point that I felt myself fall headlong into Nietzsche’s abyss, stare into it, and see it grin mockingly back at me.
METHOD
In one sense, I feel as if I have been studying this phenomenon my whole life, but I didn’t call it UFO research; I called it religious studies. Scholars of religion are well suited to study this topic because religious studies is not a religion, but a set of methods for studying religious phenomena. With a few exceptions, scholars of religion do not assess the truth claims of religious practitioners. The metaphysical truth and the objective truth of the phenomena are bracketed so that one can focus on the social effects, which are incontestably very real. This strategy is helpful in the study of the phenomenon of UFOs and was advocated by Jacques Vallee in a 1979 address to the special political committee of the United Nations organization. He told the committee that “the belief in space visitors is independent of the physical reality of the UFO phenomenon.” Significantly, Vallee himself believes in the reality of the UFO phenomenon but understands that the formation of mass belief in it does not depend on its objective reality.
9
A NEW RELIGIOUS FORM
It is an understatement to say that in 2012, as soon as my research focus shifted, so did my life. When I began to focus on modern reports of UFO sightings and events, I was immediately immersed in a world where the religious impulse was alive and the formation of a new, unique form of religion was in process. I was observing it as it happened. Carl Jung put it well. Referring to the modern phenomenon of flying saucers, he wrote, “We have here a golden opportunity of seeing how a legend is formed.”10 The cast of characters who showed up, unannounced and unexpected, surprised me. They included television producers, experiencers and their entourages of agents affiliated with the government, and even actors whose names are known in every household. After my initial shock, I began to understand these individuals from the perspective of the history of religions.
In a sense, they were the same cast of characters who appear at the birth of every major religious tradition, although today they have different names and job descriptions. In the first century CE they would be called scribes and redactors, but today they are agents of information, like screenwriters, television producers, and authors. I observed the dynamic genesis of a global belief system. I began to record the mechanisms by which people believe and practice, and how they believe and practice. The producers, actors, government agents, and even myself were all part of the process of the formation of belief, and perhaps even pawns in this process.
HOW IS IT RELIGIOUS? THE CONTACT EVENT
One of the scientists with whom I worked, whose methodology is primarily “nuts and bolts” in that he uses scientific analysis on what he believes to be artifacts or physical parts of potential “crafts,” asked me why UFO events are often linked to religion. This is a fair question. One answer lies in the fact that the history of religion is, among other things, a record of perceived contact with supernatural beings, many of which descend from the skies as beings of light, or on light, or amid light. This is one of the reasons scholars of religion are comfortable examining modern reports of UFO events.
Jeffrey Kripal, working with author Whitely Strieber, articulates this well.
In his work he has sought to reveal “how the modern experience of the alien coming down from the sky can be compared to the ancient experience of the god descending from the heavens.”11 These “contact events,” the perceived interface between the human and the intelligent nonhuman being from the sky, spawn beliefs and interpretations. These beliefs and interpretations develop into communities of belief, or faith communities. Kripal notes, “Some of the remembered effects of these fantastic states of mind have been taken up by extremely elaborate social, political, and artistic processes and have been fashioned by communities into mythical, ritual, and institutional complexes that have fundamentally changed human history. We call these ‘religions.’ ”12 Similar to religions, institutions appropriate, cultivate, and sometimes intervene in the interpretations of a UFO event. These institutions vary and range from religious institutions to governments to clubs or groups, and, today, to social media groups.
THE FORMATION OF BELIEF COMMUNITIES
In the history of religions, a contact event is followed by a series of interpretations, and these are usually followed by the creation of institutions. Such interpretive communities are often called religions or religious denominations. Institutions have a stake in how the original contact event is interpreted. A familiar example is the communities of interpretation that surround the religion of Christianity, of which there are thousands.
A recent example of how a contact event spawns a community of belief, and how institutions monitor belief, is the American-based religion of the Nation of Islam. One of the Nation’s early leaders was Elijah Robert Poole, who adopted the name Elijah Muhammad. Poole believed that UFOs would come to Earth and bring salvation to his community of believers and punish others who were not believers. The US government was interested in Poole and his followers, and the FBI established a file on him and his community.
Within the history of many traditional religions, institutions, including governments, have been involved in monitoring and often forming and shaping the interpretations of the contact event. This fact is becoming less controversial and suggestive of conspiracy to UFO believers, and the focus is shifting now to how institutions monitor, and sometimes actively shape, the interpretations of contact events. Perceived contacts with nonhuman intelligences are powerful events with unpredictable social effects.
THE CREATION OF BELIEF AND PRACTICES: A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONTACT EVENT
In analyzing the contact event and the subsequent interpretations of it, one needs to keep a few things in mind. First, a contact event is not automatically a religious event, and the spotting of an unidentified aerial object is not automatically a UFO event. These experiences become religious events, or UFO events, through an interpretive process.13 The interpretative process goes through stages of shaping and sometimes active intervention before it is solidified as a religious event, a UFO event, or both. The various types of belief in UFOs can be traced as cultural processes that develop both spontaneously and intentionally within layers of popular culture and through purposive institutional involvement.
TECHNOLOGY AND NEW FORMS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Scholars of religion were not the first to suggest that the flying saucer was the symbol of a new, global belief system. Carl Jung announced it in his little book, published in the 1950s, Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. Writing in the late 1960s, Jacques Vallee argued, in Passport to Magonia, that similar patterns could be observed in folklore, religious traditions, and modern UFO events. Scholars of the history of the flying saucer usually date its emergence to the beginning of the Cold War and pilot Kenneth Arnold’s sighting of nine, flat, saucerlike discs over Mount Rainier in 1947. Vallee argues, however, that the phenomenon has been around for thousands of years, perhaps more. He is right. Yet the ubiquitous cultural framework for understanding them as the modern UFO did indeed begin around 1947.
Since the 1960s, scholars of religion have made significant progress in identifying the mechanisms of religious belief, including how social infrastructures inspire new religious movements. Interpretation of UFOs as connected to religion or religious traditions constitutes a significant cultural development. New religious movements such as the Nation of Islam, Scientology, and Jediism incorporate the UFO narrative into older religious traditions and scriptures.14 Popular television programs like Ancient Aliens provide viewers with interpretive strategies that encourage them to view religious visions of the past through the lens of the modern UFO narrative, turning medieval angels into aliens, for example. What was once a belief localized within small pockets or groups of believers under the umbrella term “UFO religions” is now a widespread worldview that is supercharged by the digital infrastructure that spreads messages and beliefs “virally.” The infrastructure of technology has spawned new forms of religion and religiosity, and belief in UFOs has emerged as one such new form of religious belief. REAL OR IMAGINARY?
The media’s representation of the phenomenon often adds some violence to the original event that motivated the belief. Some may understandably ask, “Is it real, or is it imaginary?” It is important to remember that the events themselves pale in comparison to the reality of the social effects. This is a shame. The closer one gets to those engaged in the study of the phenomenon, the more one begins to fathom the complex nature of these events that come to be interpreted as religious, mystical, sacred, or pertaining to UFOs, and the deep commitments of the people who experience them. Each of the scientists with whom I engaged was passionately obsessed with his research, but none of them would ever offer conclusions as to what the phenomenon was or where it came from. The suggestion that the phenomenon is the basis for a new form of religion elicited sneers and disgust. To them, the phenomenon was too sacred to become religious dogma.
It was also, in their opinion, too sacred to be entrusted to the media.
Because of my dual research focus, on occasion I became a reluctant bridge between the scientists and media professionals. On one occasion a videographer, working for a well-known production company, contacted one of the scientists and asked him for a two-sentence quote. At first the scientist was confused, wondering how the videographer had acquired his contact information. He then correctly traced it back to me. In a phone call to me he registered his disgust.
“There is a lot of arrogance in the assumption that I am supposed to condense twenty years of research into the most profound topic in human history into a two-sentence sound bite to be broadcast out to the public so they can consume it with their TV dinner. No thanks,” he said.
Interchanges like this, which I witnessed often, reveal the chasm between those engaged in studying the phenomenon and the media representations of it. Ironically, however, it is precisely media representations that create and sustain UFO belief. Is it real, or is it imaginary? What follows suggests that it is both.