About.com’s paranormal section has a short article covering some paranormal stuff that Michael Jackson is allegedly into. There are a couple semi-interesting things in it, but nothing too awesome. Seems that Jackson is also involved with tv psychic Uri Geller who came to popularity in the 70’s. Also, there’s some connection to Sylvester Stallone’s mom, who is apparently a psychic. And he also claims to be in contact with the ghost of Liberace who he communicates with regular and who gave Jackson special ghostly permission to re-record one of his songs.

The article never really takes off though. In my opinion, because it never tackles the much bigger weirder issues that seem to be going on with Jackson. For me, if you’re going to get into looking at MJ from this perspective, you absolutely have to start looking at the idea of archetypal possession. I mean, Jackson actually said, “I am Peter Pan,” in that interview he had with that Martin Bashir dude. I don’t think he’s just whistling dixie here. I think he actually thinks he’s Peter Pan.

I mean, look at his life. His home is called Neverland. He invites children there to basically frolic and romp around. During his own childhood, he was super famous, and forced into all kinds of responsibilities and situations which are unusual for a kid. I’m not just saying of course he’s going to be messed up. I’m saying, it may even be beyond that. The idea of archetypal possession is that your conscious personality can become overwhelmed by what is normally a subconscious content latent in the human psyche.

Just so, “archetypal possession” is like that — the conscious mind is set aside (or falls into a fugue state) and the unconscious archetype comes forth and freely expresses itself, essentially overwhelming the conscious mind.

What happens to the ego (or the ordinary consciousness) in these cases? Quite often the ego is pushed to a place apart, where it sits and enjoys the spectacle of being invaded by a “power”. The ego will suffer greatly, for having allowed itself to be “ridden” by an archetype…but for the moment there may be a feeling of superiority — and thus “inflation”.

The figure of Peter Pan is a straight-over-the-plate example of the archetype which Jung called “Puer Aeternus” or “Eternal Youth.” Here’s a good description of what the puer aeternus is all about:

The archetype of the Puer Aeternus is one of the most potent influences on the expression of spiritual aspiration. The spirit of Puer is uplifting, soaring into realms of divine inspiration and optimism full of visions, ideals, creative ideas and dreams. Puer brings us into contact with the transpersonal numinous side of our nature and can seem like a spark of light that flashes into the world through its visions. Notable prophets, creative geniuses and visionaries throughout history have almost certainly been influenced by this archetype. Often their genius appears when they are very young, like Mozart, but sadly many of them die young. The Puer desire is to transcend the mundanity of worldly life and be free to devote everything to the creative and spiritual vision which is considered life’s blood. Puer dominated young people often seem possessed by an almost sublime if somewhat ungrounded and dreamy spiritual quality. They are often very sensitive and artistic but do not easily cope with the demands of the world. They may be drawn to earthy partners in relationship to help ground them or gravitate towards spiritual centres, which are often full of young Puer dominated individuals. Their search is for a safe environment that will parent them and provide a support for their aspirations.

My favorite psychologist and one of Jung’s students, Marie Louise Von Franz, has a book about the puer aeternus archetype for anybody who’s interested. Anyway, it seems to me that if you’re going to understand Michael Jackson, you have to understand this archetype, and what happens to people who totally devote their lives to an archetypal vision like that. Everything else immediately falls into place after that. As such, I personally find it very unlikely that he has molested any kids, but who the hell knows. I’m not trying to say he’s not nuts. I’m just trying to give a possibility for what kind of nuts he is, because nobody ever seems to really delve into it at all.