The Conjuring House: What the Legal Developments Mean for the Future of One of America's Most Infamous Haunted Locations
“The reputation of a location is never evidence of a haunting — and that standard doesn't change just because Hollywood made a movie about it. The truth is always more interesting than the myth.”
— Jason Hawes
The Conjuring House has been making headlines again — and this time, it's not because of what's happening inside the walls. There have been significant legal developments surrounding the property, and with so much misinformation circulating online, I felt it was time to sit down and talk through everything directly with the community. Here's where things actually stand.
I've been in this field for a long time, and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that rumors travel faster than facts — especially when a location carries as much cultural weight as the Conjuring House in Harrisville, Rhode Island. Over the past several weeks, I've been fielding the same questions over and over: Is this finally over? What happens to the house now? What does this mean for investigations going forward? I wanted to address all of it head-on, because the community deserves straight answers, not speculation.
First, let me be clear about something: my approach to the Conjuring House — like every location I've ever investigated — has always been rooted in skepticism. Before I ever entertain a paranormal explanation, I want to exhaust every rational one. That doesn't change because a property has a famous name attached to it or because a Hollywood film was made about what allegedly happened there. The reputation of a location is never evidence of a haunting. What matters is what we can document, test, and verify. That's been my standard since the early days of TAPS, and it isn't changing now.
The legal situation surrounding the property is something I've been watching closely, and I want to be honest — some of what's been reported and shared online has been misleading or flat-out wrong. I'm not going to pile on or point fingers, but I do think it's important that people in this community get accurate information rather than sensationalized takes designed to generate clicks. The details of what has unfolded legally have real implications for who has access to the property, what investigations can take place there, and what the long-term future of the house looks like. These aren't small questions, and they deserve serious, thoughtful discussion rather than hot takes.
What I can tell you is this: the Conjuring House is not going away, and interest in it — from investigators, historians, and the general public — isn't going away either. Whatever the outcome of these legal matters, the location will continue to be a focal point for the paranormal community. My concern, as always, is that it's treated with integrity. Too many famous haunted locations get turned into entertainment spectacles that compromise genuine investigation. I've always believed that if something real is happening in a place, the best way to understand it is through disciplined, evidence-based work — not theatrics. That's the standard I'd want applied to the Conjuring House regardless of who's involved or what the legal landscape looks like moving forward.
There's a lot still to be determined about the future of the Conjuring House, and I'll continue to follow the situation and keep this community informed as things develop. What I know for certain is that the truth — whatever it turns out to be — is always more interesting than the myth. Stay skeptical, stay curious, and I'll see you in the next one.