OCCULT VIEW

When we consider the vampire, what is the first thing that comes to our mind?  I guess it depends on how old we are.  If we are old or fans of the old, then it is Bela Lugosi’s Dracula.  If we are a tween, then Twilight.  In between, maybe the Hammer Studio’s grand Christopher Lee or perhaps Ann Rice’s creations.  The vampire has held an enduring fascination as a literary character. 

I find it interesting how the vampire theme has remained relatively consistent, within a margin of error.  Early versions were magical shape shifters; current versions are more naturalistic.  The variations themselves are interesting.  Today’s vampire is not as supernatural as he used to be.   The idea of a vampire being able to turn into a bat has disappeared in the current mythology.  The idea of the animated dead is a stretch, but still within the realm of suspended disbelief for a movie theatre.  The idea that an animated corpse can also transform into a bat or wolf, within a small fraction of their body mass?  That is frankly beyond our ability to suspend disbelief.  That is the old Dark Shadows/Bela Lugosi stuff.

What else has gone away?  Remember when vampires couldn’t see their reflection in the mirror?  That is gone.  Now crosses don’t repel much (being a more secular society).   Some vampires can still sort of fly, but even that has gone by the wayside (now they just move fast!).  Today the classic vampire is immortal, needs blood symbolizing sexuality, is inhumanly strong and fast…a current view of modern wish fulfillment.   A far cry from the first, more truthful version of the vampire of popular culture…Nosferatu.  Nosferatu is a silent black and white German Expressionist movie about Count Orlok, which was an unauthorized take on Bram Stroker’s Dracula. 

This Nosferatu was not a sexual being at all…unlike Lugosi’s Dracula.  This Nosferatu had a rat like appearance…horrible.  Bald head, rat teeth…this vampire did not offer immortality to his victims, only death.   He symbolized the very real problem of the plague back in that day when people had memories of such plagues.

I suggested the Nosferatu was  a more “truthful” version of the vampire then modern depictions of vampirism.  As if there is any shred of truthfulness to vampirism.  Which is the point I will make.  Vampirism is not only a literary creation.  It is not only folklore and superstition.  There just might be more to the vampire then we can imagine.  In my next post I will offer a theory (an occult/spiritualist viewpoint) to the genuine nature of vampirism.  Why can’t vampires see their reflection in a mirror?  How can true vampires can shift their shape?  Can sunlight destroy a vampire?  Why does a stake in the heart kill a vampire?  If vampires are actuallyy real, why are they so rare nowadays?  I have the answers.

Seems like a silly topic.  Yet, there really is a real spiritualist viewpoint that vampiries are real.  The bottom line is, if you believe in the possibilty of ghosts, you may believe in the possiblity of vampires.  The details in my next post.