I see this theory dragged out and dusted off ad nauseum but has anyone actually strived to test it? This is the failing of modern paranormal "investigations"; theories have become tantamount to gospel. Someone in a book or on a TV program or on a website says "X" and his theory propogates, trickling down unquestioned among investigators world-wide. Each one assumes that someone down the line must have done the research - otherwise it wouldn't be on TV, right? - and therefore it is perfectly okay to pass this on as fact.

... the word "theory" used several times and the word "fact" not used once. So... it's still just a theory.

Regardless of semantics, the intent is still there. Batteries are needed because ghosts drain batteries. But how do we know this? The batteries on my digital camera are draining all the time because: 1) flashes take up a lot of energy 2) as do lcd screens 3) and batteries don't hold a charge as well when they get older. It has nothing to do with being in a ghost-ridden locale. It has everything to do with usage, temperature, age, and the chemical composition of batteries. These are known factors because camera engineers, battery manufacturers, photographers, and scores of others have tested their theories and been able to reproduce their results. My question remains: Who has done the research and testing on this theory? If someone says the bank that you go to just burned up with all your money inside, do you simply take their word for it? No, you investigate the matter. That's my point. Stop saying this is such because someone said so and start investigating it. Apply the rigors of the scientific method to the observable and be the "investigators" you claim to be. Stop waving around digital gadgets without either context or clue and behave like scientists.

"Yes, in some instances, it might just be the equipment." I see what you're saying.

I've witnessed investigations and have talked about theories and tactics with investigators -and this is one of those theories I come across a lot. I'm certainly not trying to push it as fact.

I do think its highly unfair of you to say "... waving around digital gadgets without either context or clue..." - while at the same time I can't completely blame you, especially if your perception of paranormal investigative technique & theory comes primarily from the media.

Most professional investigators try quite hard to rule out the paranormal rather than jump right to it when something like this happens. At the same time, there are plenty who will blame the paranormal every time for a dead battery.

Plus, television shows have to edit out most of the research, the parts of the investigations where nothing is happening (hours and hours and hours), the days on top of days of going through video footage, watching every frame - listening to voice recordings over and over to ensure nothing is missed, reviewing personal experiences, going through notes, history of location, family issues and the list goes on and on. One night's investigation in a home might take two weeks (give or take) to investigate outside of that home - all the work that comes before and after is enormous and quite tedious when compared with what actually gets shown on television. The scientific method gets used quite a lot, trust me. But it doesn't make good television - unless you want to watch a two-week long episode.

It's also not uncommon for an investigative team to go back to a location if something seemed to happen the first time - just to try and recreate whatever happened the first time or disprove it - under various conditions that were present or were not present the first time. Again, you just don't ever get to see these parts.