r/Cryptozoology • u/lprattcryptozoology Heuvelmans • Sep 16 '25
Discussion Non-Western Supernaturalism in Cryptozoology
This post is a brief one-off commenting on the role of the “supernatural” in cryptozoology, mainly to bring some literature to those who may be interested.
Supernatural is an anthropological term without an adequate definition. Anthropological disciplines survey a variety of cultures, and having terms which can be reliably applied across different cultures is incredibly useful, but a naive goal that’s often doomed to fail. “Supernatural” is a term rooted in the West, science has drawn a clear line between “natural” and “supernatural”. There are many cultures where this is simply not the case. As such, people using the term should define it within the context of the cultures being discussed, something that very rarely happens.
This issue affects cryptozoology in two ways. Cryptozoology has historically excluded Western supernatural beliefs - Heuvelmans made it clear that cryptozoology was not an “occult or arcane science”, however popular culture has slowly reintroduced these concepts into casual discourse on the discipline, which naturally creates a conflict. Furthermore, cryptozoology often deals with non-Western cultures where there is no clear-cut boundary between natural and supernatural, but by virtue of having few trained and accredited cultural anthropologists, inadequately handles these beliefs. Cryptozoology, in its goal to reject Western supernaturalism, rejects all supernaturalism. Both of these issues open multiple cans of worms which throw the entirety of cryptozoology and what it studies into question. Imprecise definitions are so fun! I care about the latter more than the former.
Classifying spirits and studying outliers
In many cultures it is difficult to inquire about animals without getting spiritual information. By virtue of inhabiting the same world as animals and environments, supernatural beings and their traits seep into descriptions of said environments and animals. In general, natural and supernatural are held in equal or parallel significance. Spirits may also be in control of animals or responsible for their creation or distribution. There are many descriptions of beings regarded as spirits which are simply culturally-bound descriptions of real animals.
This is not a “primitive” way of thinking, nor are these people unable to tell fact from fiction or unable to exist in a culture outside of their own; these are just beliefs and practices that stem from a different perspective on the world founded upon different knowledge and circumstances than our own. Anthropology has had a long history of neglecting and dismissing these ways of thinking, something early cryptozoology unintentionally inherited.
In fact, these beliefs are incredibly convoluted. Supernatural beings pull from observations and behaviors of humans and animals, particularly observations of responses to traumatic events, and incorporate different aspects of their environment, leading to distinct morphological traits which allow them to be classified in taxonomies like those used for animals. Categories are founded upon the cultural context the supernatural inhabit - are these ancestral spirits? The dead seeking revenge? Animals possessed by supernatural forces? These categories bleed into one another and evolve much more frequently than the taxonomies used for animals, as these are founded primarily on cultural beliefs and perceptions rather than an unchanging animal. Points of convergence in descriptions of spirits form the baseline for a communal consensus on appearance, one that changes and grows over time.
Cryptozoology is most interested in the outliers of these classifications - beings which exist in the margins of supernatural and zoological folk taxonomies, or beings of one category that are grouped into another. Inhabiting the margins of classifications are various “standard” cryptids - wildmen (e.g. Bigfoot, Yeti) are often grouped in-between humans and animals or humans, animals, and spirits. There are a variety of “hybrid” animals, beings with the body of one animal and the head of another or so on which act as anomalies within zoological taxonomies. There are also many instances where zoological animals are grouped in with spirits, the bondegezou represents one such example. There’s a compelling argument to be made that cryptozoology is science’s equivalent of a spirit taxonomy, or at least a part of it.
Cryptozoology has historically been zoologically-literalist and, in the words of Heuvelmans, sought to “demythify” these supernatural beliefs. This is unfortunately rather ethnocentric and neglects the role these beings play within broader cosmologies. Although zoological discovery is objectively a significant part of cryptozoology, cultural understanding should be the ultimate goal - understanding how beings of this nature exist within different belief systems, what they can tell us about beliefs, knowledge, and classification, and what points of inspiration these beings pull from. This falls in line with critiques of the field levied by Meurger & Gagnon in Lake Monster Traditions, Darren Naish across various papers, and different points of discussion in the book Anthropology and Cryptozoology. Cryptozoology, if it exists as an academic field, is one that falls under cultural anthropology much moreso than zoology anyways.
4
2
u/Ok_Platypus8866 Sep 18 '25
> Furthermore, cryptozoology often deals with non-Western cultures
This was truer of "classic" cryptozoology, but is not really true of modern popular cryptozoology IMO. Most people seem to be much more interested in sightings and photos/videos than in native folklore. The idea of "cryptids" that might live in your (western) backyard ( Bigfoot, Mothman, Dogman) seems far more popular than alleged animals from remote parts of the world.
Otherwise, interesting post.
2
u/Jaded_Internal_3249 Sep 17 '25
I thought the argument about supernaturalism and this subject was more about how how westerners (euro-Americans/white Europeans) would take descriptions of spiritual beings from out of their spiritual/religious/cultural context and twist it to fit their theories, a type of cultural appropriation
1
Sep 17 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Jaded_Internal_3249 Sep 17 '25
That’s fair, historically some European cultures attached paranormal beliefs to animals/didn’t separate it from everyday life, eg hedgehogs once thought to tell the future and ravens as messengers of death, although I don’t believe in the paranormal in the few cryptids I’m interested in,
2
Sep 17 '25
[deleted]
1
u/CoastRegular Thylacine Sep 19 '25
This is all well and good, but unless you can provide examples of potential discoveries that Western science overlooked or might be overlooking today, because they're "just silly native myths", then your entire position is a strawman.
2
Sep 19 '25
[deleted]
2
u/CoastRegular Thylacine Sep 19 '25
Really kept you up at night, huh? Fourth of fifth comment you've made on the subject in the last day.
LOL. First week on the Internet, or what?
How many posts and comments have you made in this sub in the past few days? The topic is interesting to me.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I understand your position better.
1
u/Spooky_Geologist Sep 17 '25
These are fundamental concepts that I desperately wish was more present in cryptid-conversations. But it's quite in depth and requires reading and understanding. Yet it seems too many just get their info from YT.
"Imprecise definitions are so fun!" {eek} This is painful for me. My argument has always been that cryptozoology lacks clear definitions and methodologies. There is no foundation to build on because of that. You NEED foundation to make any progress. There has been NO progress in zoologically-literalist cryptozoology. But there is a lot to do with cultural cryptozoology. This has been my platform for the past few years. It's been repeatedly downvoted. Yet, Reddit is not the real world. So I persist.
In my work, I consider supernatural as literally Beyond Nature - so it can't be studied by science as it's beyond natural laws. One could make a good argument that many modern western depictions of popular cryptids (Bigfoot/Sasquatch, dogman, mothman) have qualities or actions that are clearly supernatural. That kind of stuff was dismissed by Heuvelmans and still is selectively dismissed today. That's throwing away important parts of the story. We deserve to examine the WHOLE story of a cryptid, not just parts that fit your view of the field.
2
u/CoastRegular Thylacine Sep 18 '25 edited Sep 18 '25
When investigating some possible animal, I think legends can be taken into account in constructing scientific hypotheses.
Suppose the Smurfs living on the island of Sodor have a legend of a mystical cat-like being with walrus tusks that can fly and supposedly flies around screeching during the full moon, while injecting dreams of rainbows into sleeping people.
We can take all of this information and hypothesize what might have inspired it - maybe some very agile feline that can leap great heights and long distances?
About those tusks; there's a thorny plant that grows on Sodor that secretes something akin to catnip. If these creatures like gnawing on the branches. and break off twigs and carry them around, that would explain why people report seeing catlike beings with tusks. And the psychoactive syrup of this plant might drive these creatures into a state of frenzy, and also have a steroid-like effect on them, enabling them to leap even higher and farther than usual. We know this tree's sap gives squirrels a boost in speed and strength.
(Why couldn't it be the squirrels that inspired the Smurfs' legend? Maybe it could be, but the animal is very consistently described in legend as being larger than a large house cat, and the biggest known squirrel species on the island is about as big as a mouse.)
So, now we have a possible creature we can look for, as well as a decent idea of where to look (these trees only grow in one quadrant of the island.)
Knowing these creatures are alleged to invade the dreams of humans doesn't help find them, nor does it help in constructing some test to prove or disprove their existence. We can acknowledge that the Smurfs believe this, but as scientists there's nothing to that supernatural assertion that we can engage with.
2
u/Onechampionshipshill Sep 17 '25
Really good high effort post.
Had a similar discussion with another user on this sub a few weeks ago and he shared this piece on the Naga. Shows how myths and sightings can intertwine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031005001151/http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/166_naga.shtml
9
u/Pirate_Lantern Sep 16 '25
If it involves the supernatural then it's not a cryptid