For years, I have been fascinated in the evolution of cryptozoological thought. There are clear fractures happening in the field, but I don't really see a ton of discussion about it in public. Yet, I have had plenty of personal conversations with a variety of researchers about the changes. So, I decided it would be valuable to the field to ask a variety of researchers, all with different approaches and expertise, the same five questions about the field today. Hopefully, the differences in answers will be valuable information on the diversity of thought in the field.
My last interview was with the Cryptopunkologist: Kenney Irish. You can read it here. For my third entry, I interviewed Sharon A. Hill.
Sharon A. Hill is a geologist with an EdM in Science and the Public. She did her thesis work on the rise of amateur paranormal investigation groups and how they attempt to use science, which was later expanded and published as Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers (2017, McFarland). She continues to study paranormal topics in popular culture and anomalous natural phenomena, particularly relating to animals and geology. She has written for Fortean Times and Skeptical Inquirer as well as published in scholarly journals. Her current projects are SpookyGeology.com and SharonAHill.com.
1. What is cryptozoology as you see it?
Sharon: My most accurate description is that cryptozoology is a social phenomenon where legendary and rumored animals are studied and/or appreciated. Cryptozoology spans such different levels of interests - from serious study to an aesthetic. The current views of cryptids in modern discourse and media has extended the bounds to include all kinds of pop culture “creatures” and strange beings that range from animal to human-like and hybrids in between, with a heavy dose of fantasy and supernatural ideas.
Cryptozoology is not driven by scientific discourse but by personal stories used in producing media products and by personalities on TV, the internet, podcasts, and at conventions who sell these stories. I don’t believe this was the original intent of the field that was initially set back in the early 1980s. Only a very few now stick to the idea that it’s a scientific subfield of zoology - an outdated view that is untenable in light of the massive popularity of the subject. Those that aim to research cryptids are almost entirely non-scientists who pursue mysteries and hold a belief that unknown animals exist that match these legendary descriptions. Any scientific spin is contrived because it’s not viewed favorably by science. And, recall at its inception, cryptozoology was started as an effort to defy “mainstream” science and find animals that were “hidden” or denied. So, it’s unsurprising that the field never got its bearings.
If I were to be wishful, though, I would like the field of cryptozoology to be a multidisciplinary area - using history, art, linguistics, folklore, cultural and religious studies, anthropology, wildlife biology, psychology, and sociology - to examine claims and beliefs of unusual animals that people say exist. The best scholarship in cryptozoology does this, which is useful and fascinating. Attempting to prove the existence of a mystery animal is almost certainly a futile goal.
2. Where do you think cryptozoology is headed in the next few years?
Sharon: I’d guess that cryptozoology will continue to be shaped and changed by the media machines. Cryptids - as very interesting and flexible things - will filter more into pop culture. There is a growing interest in “cryptids” as an aesthetic - called “cryptidcore” - where stylized cryptids are used throughout one’s lifestyle. Popularized by the internet, people into cryptidcore romanticize cryptids, and embrace the weird, dark, and mysterious aspects of fantasy and legendary creatures. Link - https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Cryptidcore.
Some self-styled cryptozoologists admit their interest is an escape from the every-day world. It’s exciting to entertain ideas that cryptids may exist and they can be the ones to discover them. Perhaps cryptidcore is a cuter, more consumer-oriented way to do that.
Cryptozoology long escaped the bounds to which the ISC tried to hold it. While the zoological takes are nonstarters anymore, I think we’ll see more historical, anthropological, and folklore takes on cryptid origins and popularity.
The subject thrives in any modern medium so I’m sure it will continue to grow in popularity for many years. More fantastic and paranormal elements will surface. For example, we should note the growth in crypto-fiction, cryptids as movie topics, and the very fan-oriented, non-technical cryptid conventions with plenty of merch and movie screenings. People love the idea of monsters and we enjoy talking about weird animals and scary encounters. That will continue in these new forms and forms yet to evolve.
3. Who do you think (living or deceased) has had the biggest impact on the state of cryptozoology in today's world?
Sharon: The key to that question is “today’s world”. While Heuvelmans was there at the start, his influence is fading because today’s participants are too young to remember the 70s and 80s. They learn from internet sources and not so much from reading the older books or going back to the source ideas.
I would say the greatest impact was from those who capitalized on the media, and who built a popular reputation - Doug Hajicek of Monster Quest and Loren Coleman, for example. Scholars of the paranormal will say John Keel because he placed reports of mysterious creatures clearly outside of zoology and made them “strange”. The Keelian resurgence is on. We see his influence today in the paranormal descriptions of dogman, Bigfoot coming out of portals, bulletproof wolves of Skinwalker ranch, and, of course, the popularity of Mothman.
I would honestly say, however, that it’s not a person who had the biggest impact, but a thing - the internet has turbo-charged cryptozoology in modern culture beginning with the chupacabra, through to the rake and the dogman. Bigfoot and other cryptids were reinvented and are all over - more popular than ever.
4. What, if any, have been cryptozoology's biggest contributions to modern science?
Sharon: It is telling that cryptozoologists’ best examples of cryptid contributions have come long before the term was coined. Very few examples come after, and those are weak. The big prizes - hairy hominids, lake monsters, bizarre-looking beasts - were never attained. I say there are, as of now, no contributions from cryptozoology regarding discovery of mystery animals. Others, who define the field very broadly, will say differently and will tout modern new species announcements as contributions. It’s incorrect to credit modern new species finds to cryptozoological methodology because they were done via application of existing, established zoological techniques. I think it is specious to call cryptozoology a special subfield of zoology when so few self-styled cryptozoologists are zoologists and the consensus of zoologists do not apply the term to their work.
Looking back at 50 years of cryptozoological research, there remains only anecdotes and eyewitness accounts, footprints or ambiguous traces, and blurry visuals. The technology is monumentally more sophisticated but the evidence for cryptids remains no better and the predictions for finding them have all, so far, failed.
I do not, however, think the field is useless or that it has to remain unscientific or pseudoscientific. Many who are interested in cryptozoology are fascinated by animals and interested in wildlife and habitat conservation. It is great fun and worthwhile to put out game cameras or collect other data to document wildlife. I have heard more Bigfooters and lake creature enthusiasts talk about citizen science, which is a valuable thing. Science enthusiasm is really encouraging to see. However, science doesn’t happen via one person. It must be organized and run by people who are knowledgable about research methods, data collection, and analysis. That is, amateur contributions should be provided to the experts who then pull it together and publish. It’s a process and a team effort. That’s still how science works to produce reliable knowledge. Aimless amateur expeditions are a waste. A YouTube video of your FLIR recordings, casts of footprints, rampant speculation, or more questionable pictures won’t contribute anything meaningful to society.
5. Why do you think that paranormal and ufological subjects have been gaining traction within the field of cryptozoology?
Sharon: There are many reasons for this. One is, as I previous mentioned, the internet, that makes it easy for anyone with a fringe idea to find support and promote it in this limitless marketplace of ideas. Related to that, there has been a breakdown of the structure of expertise. Anyone can call themselves an expert with the poorest of credentials. There is a lack of critical thinking applied to what appears to be factual information. We assume that if we see it on the news, it must have some truth to it. But, mostly there are two main reasons that play heavily into the paranormal trend of cryptozoology.
Paranormal claims are undergoing a resurgence for complex sociological reasons since 2000. This is happening in ufology for similar but additional reasons (such as conspiracies based on government distrust and technological fears). So, generally, belief in weird things is more popular and that has bled over into cryptids. There is plenty of oxygen in the paranormal community to feed new and fun ideas about strange creatures these days.
I think the specific reason that modern cryptozoology has been lost to paranormal and supernatural thinking is the need for people to sustain their beliefs. I’ve previously called cryptids “paranormal” because I argue they don’t behave like normal animals or they would have been discovered by now. Instead they have supranormal characteristics such as hiding, not leaving a discernible biological signal, surviving in small population numbers, and “powers” to stun, cause fear, use psychic communication or to just disappear instantly. They also have been successful at evading photography and video recording. Many people describe cryptids in very non-biological terms (lizard man, dog man, etc.) When that is what the witnesses describe, science fails entirely to address these aspects. So, there is a stark choice to make - the animals are zoological/the witness was mistaken, or the witness was correct/creatures are paranormal. Psychology research repeatedly demonstrated that people have a very hard time rejecting their beliefs, especially if they were formed from experiences, therefore, they adopt fantastical explanations for them.
We have a multitude of modern examples of this human trait hitting us in the face every day. Any strange idea will find support and get attention. There is a disturbing modern feedback mechanism that pushes views towards the extreme ends. Through media, these extreme views are normalized. Cryptids travel through inter-dimensional portals, or are conjured, or are of non-earthly origin. These concepts are obviously appealing to many these days. They want the world to be enchanted. They want magical mystery creatures to be real. It will take a major reset to change this trajectory since it affects many cultural frames, including cryptozoology.
