From a scientific viewpoint there is nothing to discuss, beyond possible hallucinatory (i.e. not real) experiences often caused by contaminated food – e.g. ergot on rye.

I don’t think anyone of sound mind and body is likely to be bothered by tulpas, ghosts or egregores.

You may have read about similar ideas in books dating from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but I can assure you that those books never mention Tibet or Tulpas.

Oh and LanceFoster – You are stating things that are gone over very well in early theosophical writings. Specifically the thought forms taking on a life of their own if you will and running off.

Reality is based on perception.

Another type of individual thoughtform intentionally created by an individual is a servitor; in this case, it is a thoughtform created by a magician through ritual to accomplish a particular task or guard a location, treasure, etc.

There are also inadvertently-created thoughtforms. One example is Clive Barker’s “Candyman.” I would think that many urban legends have become inadvertent thoughtforms. One thing that magicians caution when creating a thoughtform/servitor/etc. is to put a limit on the lifespan of such a thing, say a year, etc. If you don’t put a limit on such things, they become unruly and begin to develop a rudimentary independent existence and do things on their own (like “Candyman”).

Egregores are group-created thoughtforms, generally made over long periods of time. Egregores can be created intentionally or unintentionally. I wouldn’t doubt that the Jersey Devil is a sort of egregore, or evil clowns or madgassers or Men In Black. I wouldn’t doubt that the chupacabras (whatever the original source/inspiration) is becoming/has become an egregore. “Curious Encounters” seems to indicate that the Loch Ness monster might be some kind of egregore as well.

It may be possible that certain cryptids are actually thoughtforms- or manifestations of the cryptids. It may also be possible that entities “clothe” themselves in available thoughtforms, the way hermit crabs hide in the shells of other marine creatures.

That is not to say there are no “real” biological Sasquatches or Lake Monsters. My own intuition is that, as with UFOs/mystery lights/etc., that several phenomenon are conflated into one label.

A UFO might be a misidentified plane, star, satellite, earth light (piezoelectricity), ball lightning, meteor, optical illusion. But it may also be some sort of experimental aircraft or technology, or a hoax. Or it might be trooping fairies, an extraterrestrial ship, intradimensional entity, thoughtform/shell, or God knows what. ALL lumped together as UFO, properly, since all UFO means anyways is “Unidentified Flying Object.”

It doesn’t necessarily HAVE to EITHER be a biological ape-man OR a hoax/delusion etc. There are other options. Maybe 5% of sightings are of some undiscovered biological anthropoid, while 95% can explained in other ways. But it can’t be dismissed. Meldrum has made too many good points as far as I can see.

The scientific method can PROVE nothing. It can only eliminate alternative explanations through MULTIPLE working hypotheses. It is not healthy to invest in either Choice A or B; it might be Choice H or Choice R. And while laboratory science with its controlled conditions and repeatable experiments has a higher status and verifiability in the scientific community than field science, field sciences (like geology) are also scientific, IF proper scientific method based on deductive reasoning, etc. is followed.

Science is the best we have to understand material reality. If there are realities that are not material, science may not be the suitable tool. Of course materialists deny anything outside the material is “real.” Most phenomena can be explained though conventional means, but not all.

Who knows? The only thing that seems true is the deeper you go into this stuff, the curiouser and curiouser “reality” becomes.

Oh, who knows, but it’s all interesting. The world as we know it is expanding. On the other hand, that doesn’t really help cryptozoology–or apply. We’re focused…or should be on the here and now and what IS tromping around our world.

Personally, I have no interest in chasing phantoms that I can’t anticipate…or at least actual creatures that are localized in a country or an area or a lake or whatever.

Still, I don’t have a problem thinking about these topics:) I’m just glad the fact that I may give creative form to a shark in my bathtub doesn’t mean I have to worry about it:)