Research source

M. Paul Bourget (who is not superstitious), after consulting Mrs. Piper, concludes

Date of account: Published 1898
Source: The Making of Religion
Reference: The Making of Religion · selected passage 192
Rights: public_domain
Language: English
Record updated: 2026-08-24

Record summary

They are, like the easy Epicurean Gods, nihil indiga nostri

Published source text

Read the available text below. Archive transcriptions may contain OCR errors; later context is labelled separately. A recorded claim is not a finding that it happened.

Source passage

Source text · mention only

They are, like the easy Epicurean Gods, _nihil indiga nostri_. Not being ghosts, they crave no food from men, and receive no sacrifice, as do ghosts, or gods developed out of ghosts, or gods to whom the ghost-ritual has been transferred. For this very reason, apparently, they seem to be spoken of by Mr. Grant Allen as 'gods to talk about, not gods to adore; mythological conceptions rather than religious beings.'[6] All this is rather hard on the lowest savages. If they sacrifice to a god, then the god is a hungry ghost; if they don't, then the god is 'a god to talk about, not to adore,' Luckily, the facts of the Bora ritual and the instruction given there prove that Mungan-nganr and other names _are_ gods to adore, by ethical conformity to their will and by solemn ceremony, not merely gods to talk about.

Historical context

Contextual commentary · mention only

This comes from historical psychical research. Methods, witness handling and standards of evidence differ from present-day research and should be assessed from the cited passage and edition.

Modern context

Contextual commentary · mention only

The passage can support a history of claims and recurring descriptions. It does not establish a paranormal mechanism, and competing psychological, social and physical explanations remain relevant.

Investigate related details with Anomaly Graph’s account-based search, or read how matching and provenance work.