yes of course there are other pointsof view.i only mentioned DAVID and SEAN because they are the only books I knew about.I will try to get hold of the one Jenny suggested. Ireally dont wish to be a cynic .But I am like a dog with a bone . I am fascinated. I would sincerely love to see a real authentic vampire.I would be chuffed to bits in fact.
It's very tricky to get a hold of independent material that doesn't
have an affinity with Dave or the other bloke. Even the book Jenny mentioned, was published by Dave's BPOS and he knows its author, personally.
And if my source is correct, concerning Jenny's identity...hoo boy.
I can suggest you read "The Highgate Vampire: Grave-Robbing and Rumor Panic" chapter in Bill Ellis' Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media
(2000), if you're interested in an outside source. Maybe even Matthew Beresford's chapter on the Highgate Vampire in From Demons to Dracula: The Creation of the Modern Vampire Myth
(2008). You should be able to get copies of these books from your library, or by interlibrary loan.
That said, there's an obvious supernatural bias going on here, in terms of favouring one variety of supernatural over the other. If vampires are too ludicrous to swallow, then why are "psychic entities with vampirelike characteristics" so easy to digest?
There's also a danger, in that wanting to believe too
much, we cling to the wrong kind of people, if their writings and such, are somehow in sync with this desire. That's the snakeoil analogy I've been making.
It's not that I don't believe in the supernatural, myself. And my bias is, that they're of a Christian variety. That said, I know how hard it is to "validate" supernatural occurrences, due to frequent fakery and other natural explanations.
But, from a scientific, "rational" viewpoint, it's kinda silly to dismiss one supernatural variation over another, as they neither one are scientifically "valid", if you catch my drift. Rousseau
pointed this out when he wrote:
If there is in this world a well-attested account, it is that of the vampires. Nothing is lacking: official reports, affidavits of well-known people, of surgeons, of priests, of magistrates; the judicial proof is most complete. And with all that, who is there who believes in vampires?
In terms of cynicism, though, I've got no qualm with giving the benefit of the doubt. If I'm cynical about it, then you'd know there's a wealth of material to show why!
I'm more than happy for people to reach their own conclusions, though. I'm only going on what I know and what my own experiences have taught me about this case.