When the Paranormal Gets Personal: Investigating a Location Where Staff Are Being Targeted

When we get a call saying employees are afraid to come to work, that's when I know an investigation can't wait. It's one thing to have guests report strange experiences — it's another when the people who spend the most time in a location, the ones who know every creak and quirk of the building, start saying something is specifically coming after them. That's the case that brought my team out for this investigation, and I'll be honest with you: what we documented here gave even me reason to pause.

I've been doing this long enough to know that when staff members are being affected, you have to approach the investigation differently. These aren't first-time visitors who got spooked by shadows. These are people with routines, people who know what's normal in their environment. When they start reporting that activity seems to follow them — that it escalates when certain individuals are present — that tells me something more specific is happening, and my job is to figure out what that something actually is before I ever use the word 'paranormal.'

The first thing we always do is sit down with the people experiencing the activity. I need to hear their accounts in their own words, and more importantly, I'm listening for consistency. Are multiple people reporting the same type of experience independently? Are there patterns — certain areas of the building, certain times of day, certain individuals who seem to draw more activity than others? In this case, the answer to all of those questions was yes, and that consistency is actually what makes an investigation credible. Coordinated fabrication is harder than people think, and these individuals didn't strike me as people with anything to gain from making this up. They were rattled, and that matters.

Once we had the witness accounts mapped out, we set up our equipment with a specific strategy in mind. Rather than doing a blanket sweep of the entire location, we concentrated our resources on the areas and circumstances the staff had identified as most active. If something is targeting specific people, I want to recreate those conditions as closely as possible. We ran baseline readings throughout the building — EMF, temperature, air pressure — because you cannot claim something is anomalous if you don't know what normal looks like in that space first. What we found during baseline was actually telling in itself: there were some environmental factors worth noting, including some elevated EMF readings near workstations where staff spend significant time. Prolonged exposure to elevated EMF fields has been scientifically linked to feelings of unease, paranoia, and even the sensation of being watched. I always put that on the table as a possible explanation and I did so here.

During the active investigation, however, we documented experiences and some corresponding equipment responses that the EMF explanation alone doesn't fully account for. There were moments during the investigation where responses seemed to correlate with specific individuals being present in a room — which aligns directly with what the staff had been reporting. I don't jump to conclusions. Correlation is not causation, and I'll say that every time. But when your witnesses describe a pattern, and your investigation captures data that mirrors that pattern, you owe it to those people to acknowledge what you're seeing. My team doesn't chase ghosts — we document evidence, rule out the explainable, and report honestly on what remains. What remained here was enough to take seriously.

I came into this investigation, like every investigation, looking for the rational explanation first — and I found some pieces of one, but not the whole picture. The staff at this location deserve answers, and while I can offer them some environmental context that may be contributing to their experiences, I can't in good conscience tell them it explains everything we documented. The case remains open in my mind, and that's not something I say lightly.