The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I know there are alot of vew points on this subject, so in your mind what does/ does not make somone a vampire?

As many as you may have seen, there is no such thing as a list of various things that determine if you are a vampyre or not. It is born with you- no matter who your parents are.
The soul is reincarnated, not the body.

You awaken and from that time forward, you will need a certain level of some type of energy source (other than normal food) or you will get very, very ill.

vampchica4 i think you are wrong or just misunderstanding the true essence of a vampyre,in fact i do believe it is possible to make a list that will seperate the role players from the lifegoers

as many who think because they like to bite and or like the site or even the taste of blood think they are vampyres but in fact one can do and like these things and still be mundane

i believe it is a good idea to seperate fact from fiction and myth and by todays standards there are many.

I don't know what distinctly seperates the real from the wannabe's. All I know is my own experiences which, even though I'm very skeptical as to anyone being a real vampire, I can't deny what I've gone through and am still going through. I do need to feed off others in some way and when I don't, like I'm being forced to right now, I do start to get very sick and hungry and regular food doesn't help. Sometimes it actually makes it worse. So even if fact and fiction have become blurred, I can't deny what I am, even if I want to.

My input simply is this,

Wannabe's simply claim to be hundred of years old.

True vamps know not to yap their trap.

While the true vampire by description is too broad a term in this day and age, there are certain characteristics could describe any individual as vampire in their own right.

An old journal entry of mine seems to sum it up in a nutshell, though it is quite the read, really.

Information pertaining to real vampires

Within the article, the individual could gain a perspective on some of the traits that could involve vampirism in the long run.

But, while there is no definitive description, again since it is too broad of a term and "paths" vary according to the individual... Paths which include "strigoii" (black veil philosophies), viral implimenting (conspiracy theory, of course), path of the "awakened" (speculated, of course)... Awakened simply meaning coming to terms with what the individual thinks they are by form of vampiric "puberty" so to speak, etc.

All those who dwell within the boundaries of this subject, or who have been in the last 20 or so years have drawn their own conclusion as to what makes them true vampire. Therefore, all descriptive relations are privvy to speculation as well as debate.

I agree with both SoulShroude and TCP.

I agree with SoulShroude in that the description of a Vampyre is indeed broad and the characteristics would depend on the individual.

I agree with TCP in that true Vampyres will not say they are and wannabes will say they are no matter wat anyone says.

Not entirely true. True vampires come out with it when they need to but only to certain people who they can trust. It's how we find eachother. I myself came out only to close friends (some of who are real, others who are fake) and to this site so I could find others.

~Seraconnor~ States: "Not entirely true. True vampires come out with it when they need to but only to certain people who they can trust. It's how we find eachother. I myself came out only to close friends (some of who are real, others who are fake) and to this site so I could find others."

I beg to differ... The vampire does not nessessarily come out to those of whom it can "trust", this seems to be a condescending factor if even a factor at all. There is no "trust" factor, as this is a "mundane" term (pardon the choice of word). The vampire does not need to trust anyone to give them an admittance of what they are. They are predators plain and simple. If they choose to "come out" to anyone, then so be it. But it really has nothing to do with trust. What are they afraid of, being outcasted? Hunted? Give me a break. There are no "hunters" out there, and unfortunately, those who would be outcasted are already there to begin with as they outcast themselves out of choice.

Trust is not how a vampire finds another vampire, the proper term is called "pinging" if you believe in such an attribute. Something like a highlander does when another highlander is in close proximity (Remembering Highlander the series as an analogy). All vampires by instinct know how to communicate with one another, so this explanation is really not nessessary. Just goes to show who is from who is not. Frankly, I am tired of explaining myself every other month... But unfortunately, this is the way that it has to be. So many who really do not understand the instinctual aspects of it all. Most unfortunate.

Those who think they should "come out" of anything, must have psychologically impaired problems. Fear is a relative factor, if a factor at all. We could really care less if we "come out" or not. What benefit of others is there to gain, really? Nothing I can think of, since no one can be "turned", absolutely absurd to think this way. Understand, that we really do not care either way. Just goes to show how misunderstood the scope of it all is and those who would think themselves a vampire and understand absolutely nothing about it. But try and try again, for what? A place within society? Again, give me a break. It is a social protocal for the selfish. Just be who you are and quit trying to be what you will never become.

Not all of us are predators you know. And not all of us have mastered an instictual communication with eachother. I myself try to fight what I am so that I don't become a predator who feeds just to feed. You accept what you are and live it to the fullest. Thats good for you if it works. Not everyone is so privalaged. Some of us have to fit in to where we are to get where we want. Believe me, if I could be myself without hiding I would... and to willingly become a predator just doesn't seem right. I preyed unwillingly on the one I loved and remember how seeing her fear at the time made her taste that much better. But the pain we both went through is not worth it in my opinion.

~Seraconnor~ Yours sound as though you are trying a "pity me" sob story, no offense. I see it all the time with other attention seeking go getters. Not that this implies to you.

The vampire by its very nature is a predator. This is my point. No matter what the vampire does, or where it goes. It is always feeding, whether using the stereotypes of "sang" (blood), or "psi" (energy). Regardless of types of "feeding" ways, they are all virtually the same anywho. Though other ways are applicable and to pertain to true vampires in the long run more so then the usual "sang" and "psi" characteristics that have been deemed as vampiric in nature from those who would take the term to newer levels.

You may wish to invoke or denie your characteristics, this is your choice in the long run, but it is predatorial instinct regardless the tenacity to think any differantly. You feed on a 24/7 basis, this is what the vampire is and does. Whether you realize it or not. From emotions, drama, interaction, food, blood, intimacy. These are all ways of feeding. Hell, even reading a book feeds the mind. Which is why vampirism is such a broad scope of a term, subjective to aesthetics and or semantics.

It is not called being privilaged at all. It is called being who you are as a vampire if this is what you so choose. To deny your own identity and or instincts is to denie the very escence of who you are. I choose to relate to my being and live with it. Denying it is to deny everything that one stands for. Be it a patriot for the Nation of your choice, or dying for your cause. It is all the same, just a differant approach.

Self confidence could be related to the true definition of what the vampire means in the long run. Think about that.

I have but your opinion and mine just aren't gonna match. But that's expected when are experiences are different.

don't mind soulshroud hun he likes the attention lol

now what i believe what seperates the true modern day vampyre from the couch vampyre is that it's all in the soul searching,what i mean by that if you ask a vampyre about thier path you will soon discover that they have not just chosen the title or to just learn about it but have honestly saught it out with theory and with real life experiences,the path of a kindred can be long and neverending and well usually for those that role play or that would like to think they are something just because it's cool you will find out they do not soul search and in fact that vampirism doesnt exist once they log off and for the true living vampyre it is a part of their everyday life,it is what makes them up as a complete being with thier vast inteeligence.

Now that's something I can agree with.

LMFAO! M.M.F is right but we all have our views on who and what we are and should agree to disagree even if at times it gets hard and you have to send someone to shut them up..
there are many views on this and not one of us has all the right answers. so your best bet is to study and find what makes you feel right for your self

Simply the belief that you are a Vampyre. Being a Christain, Catholic, Buddist, ect... simply requires that you believe you are one, it does not change your physical characteristics. The state of being a Vampyre needs no other action other than "belief".

I believe all are vampires if I like it or not its not my choice the air I breath is a vampire the ground I walk on is a vampire I could go on and on but you get the point In my heart a vampire is A-Z so all you have said is vampire even if your wrong about who or what true real vampires are its all a vampire so love all as you would a perfect vampire and all will grow thankyou and bless you all

If -- as evidenced by so many of the preceding posts -- being a "true vampire" is simply personal preening, opinion and belief, then what's the point of trying to define the term?

Laundry lists of supposed traits and characteristics together with mountains of "belief," while self serving and self affirming perhaps, do little to help us actually define and understand the true "Vampire" of history... either then or now.

To find the "true vampire"... one must take the time and invest the effort into the necessary study of the original accounts if one is to attempt identifying exactly what was and, perhaps, still is... the "True Vampire" of history.


- Upir'

Very well stated ~Upir~, but who in their right mind aside from the select few would venture down a research area that would prove their "paths" false in the long run. They would not want that, now would they?

Perhaps the better and more relevant question should be, who in their right mind would either attempt to define or claim to actually be a "vampire" without first embarking on exactly such a journey of sincere and objective research and discovery? And how is it that one can pre-determine all such paths "false" without having actually ventured down those paths, himself?

As one of those "select few" (right mind or not) who has so ventured for over a decade, I can only state that while almost all paths are indeed false... yet one path in particular is most certainly not and satisfies down to the most minute detail the actual evidences of history and not fiction.


- Upir'

The first thing to be taken in account is the definition of a true vampyre or the issue is moot. Unless, we are discussing the same belief of a true vampire our ideologies branch out to wide and become distorted.

funny thing about being Vampyric, is the fact that we all have different views on where we all began, and to state a FACT no one has all the right answers point blank! and no just to believe you are doesn't make you a Vampyre. The FICTIONAL VAMPIRE of folklore is just that! study all you want fact of the matter is they are still FICTION.

So by your definition LordOfNoctemAeternus all religions are ficticious as well because they are determined by mear belief that you are a Christian, Buddist, ect... There are many things that occur in life that are beyond our comprehension at this time and with time we change our beliefs.

LNA - Only someone who has so studied could claim to know that all such is nothing but fiction. As I have studied and researched this quite extensively... well, let's just say our opinions differ greatly, shall we?

On one point, however, we do agree: believing yourself to be a vampire most certainly does not make you one.


- Upir'

The perception or belief of what you are defines who you are by the actions you take by that belief. My example is Richard Trenton Chase and countless others. Richard was a true life vampire as defined by society because he simply believed he was a vampyre.

Jim Jones and David Koresh believed and acted as though they were the reincarnation of "Jesus Christ." The "Heaven's Gate" cult believed and acted as though they were going to the "mother ship" when they committed suicide. Psychopathic murderers like Richard Trenton Chase and countless others believe all sorts of twisted and deluded things and act horrifically as a result of same.

Does their belief alone make them ALL what they believed themselves to be? Is belief alone ... truth?


- Upir'

Yes. Ask the victim's families if they believed he thought he was a vampyre?

Whether the victims' families believed him an actual "vampire" or not (and there is no evidence that they did) would not make him one.

Those who believed Koresh and Jones to be Jesus Christ did not make either man Jesus Christ, either. And, contrariwise, those who believed Galileo Galilei to be a demon-possessed heretic did not invalidate the fact... the indisputable truth... that we do indeed reside on a planet in a heliocentric solar system.

Belief does not somehow magically transform fiction into fact, fantasy into reality... no matter how much one might wish to believe that it does.


- Upir'

You state things as fact, when the truth is, it is just your biased belief. The aformentioned men could of been the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, I doubt you have met Jesus and know who he truely is as a person. Reality is based on how we perceive things to be, not necessarily how they are...

Yet, it was reality for those who died, thus history.

And they were dead wrong... that is also history.

to me what makes a vamprie is :

you have to live off blood
some one who is dead in a way
some one who can also live off of some ones life force

what does not make a vampire is more easr for me to say then what is a vampire


says oine day i am a vampire
stero types holly wood vampires
kills aniamls or children
sleeps in a coffin

better yet the question should be what doesnt make you a vampyre instead of it being what does,then seperate those human traits from vampirism and that my friend is what makes a vampyre

Alright, to support ~Upir's~ theory, and ~LordofNoctem's...

Let us say that a self proclaimed vampire were to exist and had limited "attributes" that seemed to be "above" normal, in that the attributes were physically excelled at all levels. From the senses to a certain amount of strength that may come from high testosterone or serotonin that would make the individual into some sort of "super human" so to speak.

That this "Human Living Vampire" were to exist, or several hundred of them, within the world as we know it. But, though extensive medical research on that or those individuals, could not draw any accurate conclusions or deemed as inconclusive due to no proper or adequette research for cross examination or reference could be administered because there at this time, is no real scientific evidence and or proof that said "vampiric" elements exist on the physical level.

Though this vampire has not died just yet, and thus had not been "resurrected" in the sense that it is not yet "undead", could actually have said unnamed attributes such as an "indigo child" or other "special" individual(s).

Who is to say that there are not those designated few that do have those "special" qualities that could make them "above" the normal on the physical level, or metaphysical level.

This debate could go on and on. But without the proper evidence of any sort of "Human Living Vampire" save for Don Henries "testing" conclusions, or rather inconclusive paperwork... Then we would simply be pit farting on a snare drum and tooting our own horns. Thus creating a self dilussional claim that would assist the world in continued mockery of those that proclaim themselves as vamp(y)re.

I am sure with validated evidence, part of those who do claim to be would have less mockery on their hands through the professional community. Unfortunately at this time, this is not the case. Fantasy will just have to live on until such time when the true individuals could co-exist without any type of mockery against them on the professional level. As well, society would quit telling them to "grow up" already. Nothing like being a little differant in a world that still remains close minded to the unorthodox, or arcane mind set. Physical limitations are the factor of bias and jealiousy in the long run.

Nothing like killing or disliking someone who is differant based on your own belief system. Yes, the dark ages are still within society, just in its own way.

Proof or not, some of us are the way we are because we are, not because we have to or want to be. We just are. Live with us, or move on to someone else for the sake of mockery.

But still, those who would self confess, did put themselves into the lime light. So where does the fault lay? The self confessed, or the judges of the self confessed?

I would say there are two or more kinds of vamps, the ones that I do know are Sanguine Vampires, like me, and Psi-Vamps. For Sanguine Vampires or blood vampires, each and every one of us are different, some are stronger than others. You see, we Sanguinarians dont necessarily need blood to live, but we need it to keep our bodies strong the best we can. The stronger a Sanguinarian is, the more healthy they can stay without blood. For Psi-Vamps I dont know except they feed off of emotional energy and energy around them.

So, as per ~Upir's~ conclusion as far as the essence of what the "true vampire" needs for its salvation to continue, would not be considered a "blood/sanguine" appetite, but more so based on a "psi" like atmosphere when thinking about an intimacy factor and how one feeds during such "intimate times."

I am not quite sure if it was Bram Stoker who initiated the blood drinking from his novel, or if the blood drinking factor came before or after the fact. But the misrepresentation that "blood" is the life is the best misconception of all time. Most modern day enthusiasts, this including those of whom follow a set or sets of paths dedicated to the vampiric qualities and or traits, would follow along this path of bloodletting misconception (Don Henrie included).

Elizabeth Bathory was named the Blood Countess because she bathed in blood. As she thought that blood itself was a sort of wrinkle remover/stretch mark remover such as that of the coco butter method. Though we do not see any modern day "vamp(y)res using the blood bathing method for their skin, now do we? Ah yes, to exfoliate in blood... HA!

While it remains to be seen that the sang/psi vampire is a true anecdote for the vampire... It still has yet to be scientifically proven that blood does help in the survival of the vampire itself. As far as normal conclusion would go, theories abound here.. Energy would be the most conclusive evidence to date as to what keeps vampire fed.

Where this energy comes from could be anyones guess. Whether or not blood has that nessessary energy remains to be seen, or whether one could live off of blood alone (Without vomitting mind you).

So in a bit of a conclusion on this theory, intimacy could be a subscribed connotation as to how the vampire could survive? Hmm...

"I know there are alot of vew points on this subject, so in your mind what does/ does not make somone a vampire?"

Pain, definitely.. Among other qualities, of course... *shrugz*

my belief is,when you get a cut, do yousuck the blood to get it to stop bleeding,? do you grab a rag to cover it up,or do you run and grab a band aid.

me personally the type of work i do i always am getting cuts, so i tend to suck my own blood.

SoulShroude has raised one of the first key questions to truly investigating what might be true vampirism: I am not quite sure if it was Bram Stoker who initiated the blood drinking from his novel, or if the blood drinking factor came before or after the fact.

Excellent question, indeed! When did the whole association with blood drinking and vampires get started?!

If blood drinking is not truly associated with the historical vampire, than we would naturally expect to find this trait coming long after the term "vampire" and its original characteristics described. And indeed, this is exactly the case.

In all the non-fiction books written by actual Slavic researchers at the Doctorate level (if curious, see a list of such at my profile), it is well documented that it was not until people began digging up corpses beginning about in the 17th Century (far predating Stoker) of those superstitiously believed to be "vampires" that the whole notion of blood drinking began. Yet vampires were believed in throughout Slavic lands far earlier than that. Yet it wasn't until about the 1600s that the whole idea of vampires as re-animated corpses began and, thus, the notion that digging them up became all the rage.

As these ignorant peasants did not understand what decomposition was all about, they saw these corpses supposedly bloated with what appeared to be ... blood. Of course, as Dr. Paul Barber minutely details in his wonderful book Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality, what these superstitious people were actually observing was a natural part of decomposition that liquifies the internal organs into a dark, viscous, bloody-looking liquid... that kinda, sorta resembled thick blood. Thus, these ignorant villagers asked themselves the obvious question: "How did these corpses become so full of blood?" Their logical conclusion... they must have ingested it, of course!

Hence, the trait of blood drinking began.

So... here's the next major question to ask (consider this carefully): If blood drinking was not the foundational trait of the vampire... then what was? Why were these people digging up corpses to begin with if vampire "attacks" had nothing to do with blood drinking?

Of course... it's when you start asking these sorts of questions that the real investigation, the real Vampire "hunting," truly begins into exactly who and what the Slavic "Vampire" actually was.


- Upir'

(Just a little aside here to all the "sanguines" out there: Now that you know the historical reality of just exactly how the blood-drinking myth got started, you might wish to consider this the next time you find yourself drinking your thimble-sized serving of blood thinking you are the very epitome of the "vampire."

With every drop you drink, you are ... in fact ... agreeing with and participating in the ignorance and foolishness of those original uneducated peasants who so ridiclously believed the decomposing corpses they dug up were actually filled with blood.)

;)

Although the blood drinking is not needed, It does help in a sense that it carries the energy that helps a vampire body stay strong. Thus once being fed that energy through blood enough times, a psicological dependency on blood developes. I know this not as belief but as what I'm actually going through. Although I do not need blood to live, the cost of being used to getting the specific form of energy I need from blood as left me weaker physicaly and mentaly. Thus making blood a drug of sorts for sanguine vampires, it makes the body stronger and includes it's own stage of witdrawal.

A true Vampire will never tell you, if you are a non-follower, about themselves. A true Vampire is not a wan-to-be, just like in a movie or a TV series. A true Vampire keep the secret of the societies for ever and will not discuss any subject with no members.

Perhaps... perhaps not. While I certainly agree that they would probably not openly declare themselves as such to the world at large, yet who are we to say that they might not choose to point in the right direction those interested in the topic?


- Upir'

I do not even want to touch the subject in to detail because I know there will be many feuds. To be blunt, the people that know that it's not like Hollywood. When you hear someone say they turn in to bats and have no reflection, send them to the loony bin.

XTCRAVER, "the loony bin", you mean the crazy house? but, who are those in the "loony land"? people whose emotions were not capable to handle a situation of paranormal activity. Like I said before, a true vampire is not crazy or belongs in a loony land, just look from the inside out and you will understand. The ideology of Vampirism has existed for many centuries, before you were born, and many people are aware of this existence. For the "routine" people, like you, is just a legend that only exist to scare children or produce some money for some Hollywood producer.

To be very blunt, in order to be classified as a vampire, you need to consume psi energy and/or blood from an outside source to sustain your health. The rest are just symptoms that hint at the condition, rather than the core essence of the condition itself.

Slavic vampires were not the first vampyres.

~Pandorazel~ how do you base your conclusion off of your last post? Claiming that the vampire needs to survive off of energy/blood?

As we have already come to a conclusion that the true vampire may not need blood to survive, but rather it was theorized from one of ~Upir's~ posts that it could have been mistaken for the act of decomposition, what with the bleeding from the mouth during the transition scenerio.

The question posed, is: If the vampire does not need to feed from the blood, then what method of feeding would be established to prolong the vampires survival?

As well, ~Doru~, what proof do you have that your glyphs are vampiric as well as what makes you draw a conclusion that the true vampire was not slavic in origin?

Doru -

Actually... they are. Plesae follow me on this:

It was the popularity of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" as a fictional blood-sucking vampire that began the "vampire" craze that had eveyone believing that the Slavic vampire was a blood-sucking, fang-wielding, daylight-fearing revenant... when, in fact, the Slavic vampire was not a blood drinker.

Then... with this entirely fictional definition of the vampire firmly in place... people began scouring all of history looking for any creature that might fit any aspect of this entirely fictional definition... and, of course, they found them given that almost all mythological "monsters" are to some extent blood-thirsty, generally have fangs, and tend rise from the grave and run about all boogedy-boogedy at night!

The problem is, of course, that NONE of this matched at all who and what the actual historical Slavic vampire was ... given that Stoker's vampire was pure fiction.

Hence all these other monsters found in other cultures are NOT vampires given that Stoker's "vampire" was NOT fact but instead... fiction.


Again, the Slavic vampire was not a blood-drinker. Thus any ancient monsters who might have also drank blood or eaten flesh are NOT vampires.

And, again, as already proven, the first usage of the word "vampire," itself, referred to an orthodox Christian priest (?!?!?), the very anti-thesis of the fictional definition of that which we, today, would consider a vampire. Why? Because... yet again... the modern definition of the vampire is basely NOT on historical fact but, instead, pure... fiction.

The Slavic vampire was known universally throughout Slavic lands for possessing one universal trait: "insatiable sexual capacity." (My profile provides the proof of this together with all the hyperlinks to the primary source material.)

Now... if you care to find other ancient males in possession of this same "physiologically impossible" (Masters & Johnson, "On Human Loving") trait, as I have, then we can have an actual discussion about true vampires.


- Upir'

Thank you, SoulShroude, for asking PandoraZel the same question I was also wondering. Of course, all this public confusion is to be expected when fiction is regarded as fact... and fact is, frankly, ignored.

If we are to seek the "True Vampire" of history, ought we not to seek out the original historical facts rather than popular fiction?

Just wondering. ;)

We know that the true vampire has an insatiable appetite when it comes to intimacy, this does not confer about how the vampire survives, as what nutritional detail makes it possible for the vampires survival if not the blood?

I am sure that intimacy is a huge factor in the vampires physiology, but this could not be proven as a nutritional suppliment or diet for the vampires physical well being.

That is, unless the "psi" characteristics remain true that the energy from such intimacy could be accounted for on a metaphysical level and thus proving that "intimate" energies make it possible for the vampire to survive.

It still does not answer the question about how the vampires survives physically.

Oh... I wished to clarify that not only was the original Slavic vampire not a blood-drinker, he also did not have fangs nor did he fear daylight. In fact, the original Slavic accounts speak of entire villages of "vampires" living as quite mortal families all working and playing ... in the daylight (*gasp!*) and with no "attacks" occurring at all. Nevertheless, rather like the Jews during the Holocaust, many were slaughtered for simply being... vampires (as documented in "Vampires of the Slavs" by Dr. Jan Perkowski).

Kinda flies in the face of Stoker-esque vampires as well as all the ancient myths and legends of bloodthirsty ghosts, ghoulies and demons. When actually examined... they really have next to nothing in common with the actual historical Slavic Vampire.


- Upir'

I was going to cover that area, but we seem to be more concentrated on the true vampires diet.

Of course we are aware of the fact that the true vampire does not have fangs, nor travels at night because they are not privvy to the sunlight. Nor sleep in coffins, though the connotation of death from this could be assertainable in the long run (Props to Stoker).

If we were to cover all grounds as to what the true vampire actually was, we would have to start from the beginning. which in my perspective, would be the diet of the vampire that keeps them sustained on the physical level.

So, in light of your research ~Upir~, the slavic vampires would be traced back to the ancient decendants of the Annunaki, which could have ancestoral traits with the Egyptian heirarchy?

If intimacy is the nutritional factor, then why would Bram Stoker not advocate this in with his novel and why would society denie this as a regular approach to vamprisim rather then blood feeding, as per the Bram Stoker approach. Intimacy in my perspectives seems more provacative then blood feeding. But this is just me.

The question I think now, could be... What is the relationship between intimacy and the blood factor? Why did Bram Stoker denie this as a possibility in his novel? Is there a relationship between the two as they pertain to the true vampire?

Yes indeed... the Anunnaki (Sons of the Heavenly Prince) of Sumer, which are synonymous with the Shemsu Hor (Family or Companions of Horus) of Egypt and the later stories of the Bene ha Elohim (Sons of God... or as they were later falsely accused, "Fallen Angels"), are indeed the first generation of those later vilified and demonized as "Vampires" in the Christian Era. After all, it was in Pauline Christianity (Christianity as defined and established by the "Apostle" Paul) that sexuality was, itself, demonized and vilified as inherently evil... and women with it, of course. Thus, all who possessed "insatiable" "carnal lust" (Malleus Maleficarum, Question Six) were... by very definition... the epitome of evil. For this reason witches and "vampires" were vilified as they were (evil, blood-thirsty, ruled by Satan, etc.) and were hunted down and slaughtered.

As for Stoker... actually many have commented at length on how metaphorically sensual his "Dracula" is. Yet as Stoker never went to Romania, never attempted to meet or converse with the few remaining "Vampires" in the region by that time, it is next to impossible that he would have known... nor even guessed at... the truth. Additionally, Stoker seemed to have his own issues with sexuality, as exhibited in this revealing quote of his:

"A close analysis will show that the only emotions which in the long run harm are those arising from sex impulses, and when we have realized this, we have put a finger on the actual point of danger."

- Bram Stoker, author of Dracula
"The Censorship of Fiction";
The Nineteenth Century and After; September 1908;
(Quoted in "Bram Stoker"; Barbara Belford, 1996, p.312.)


And finally, as regards the vampire diet... I was not attempting to imply that vampires live only on sex for food. They, as mortal (perhaps long-lived) beings, eat and enjoy food and drink just as much as all Humans... and need to eat, as well.


- Upir'

Yes indeed... the Anunnaki (Sons of the Heavenly Prince) of Sumer, which are synonymous with the Shemsu Hor (Family or Companions of Horus) of Egypt and the later stories of the Bene ha Elohim (Sons of God... or as they were later falsely accused, "Fallen Angels"), are indeed the first generation of those later vilified and demonized as "Vampires" in the Christian Era. After all, it was in Pauline Christianity (Christianity as defined and established by the "Apostle" Paul) that sexuality was, itself, demonized and vilified as inherently evil... and women with it, of course. Thus, all who possessed "insatiable" "carnal lust" (Malleus Maleficarum, Question Six) were... by very definition... the epitome of evil. For this reason witches and "vampires" were vilified as they were (evil, blood-thirsty, ruled by Satan, etc.) and were hunted down and slaughtered.

As for Stoker... actually many have commented at length on how metaphorically sensual his "Dracula" is. Yet as Stoker never went to Romania, never attempted to meet or converse with the few remaining "Vampires" in the region by that time, it is next to impossible that he would have known... nor even guessed at... the truth. Additionally, Stoker seemed to have his own issues with sexuality, as exhibited in this revealing quote of his:

"A close analysis will show that the only emotions which in the long run harm are those arising from sex impulses, and when we have realized this, we have put a finger on the actual point of danger."

- Bram Stoker, author of Dracula
"The Censorship of Fiction";
The Nineteenth Century and After; September 1908;
(Quoted in "Bram Stoker"; Barbara Belford, 1996, p.312.)


And finally, as regards the vampire diet... I was not attempting to imply that vampires live only on sex for food. They, as mortal (perhaps long-lived) beings, eat and enjoy food and drink just as much as all Humans... and need to eat, as well.


- Upir'

~Upir~, I do realize that intimacy is NOT food for the true vampire, but we do need to realize that the majority of those who would walk the path of the vampire, could choose to make the assumption that intimacy would be considered as food. Which is why I brought it up as per the "psi" distinction and the reference thereof.

If the vampire were considered as a mortal with a life expectancy that was higher then the average individual IE Moses living for hundreds of years (not nessessarily establishing him as vampiric, mind you; references herein are speculation of course) and the regular individual these days living to the ripe old age of let us say 85 years.

Would we consider that if the Annunaki (sons of the heavenly prince) of Sumer, no matter how the individual got the entitlement of "heavenly prince", I will leave this up to speculation; as referenced within the confines of conspiracy theory and Terrestial beings.. Could have their age factor due to their terrestial counter part(s)? Legend of a god race coming from the other planets or terrestial heavens

Or could this be an aspect of a differant dimension rather then a space transit? As in, the Annunaki or True Vampire descended from another dimension and thus are a completely seperate entity from the human race?

How this ties in with the true vampire is simple. As per ~Upir's~ collective works surrounding the Slavic descendants of the Annunaki, one could draw a conclusion that the true vampire was in fact a race of mortal beings that simply needed a nutritional source other then blood to sustain themselves and thus were capable of long lasting intimate relations with the mortal individuals throughout the world. Thus creating a distinctive off spring that comes into play called the "nephilim" hybrids known as vampires.

Something to think about.

Simply put, in my opinion, the blood drinking aspect was created by Stoker as a metaphore for the exchange of bodily fluids during intercourse. It certainly makes sense considering his own issues with sexuality, and also that at that particular time it may have been considered a bit too taboo to put out a novel based on a sexual predator of such nature as the "vampire."

that would be teling

belief in the life in which you potray

so i see alot of ppl stating that your own understaning is kee? i tend to think tat if someone clames to be1000 years old needs a trip to the funny farm lol!

Well, if you're looking for proof, I know a few local vampires very well in my area, and from what I've seen, they fall ill both physically and mentally (tuberculosis and manic depression, etc.) if they don't consume blood. It's been a consistent theme they've displayed throughout my personal experiences, so I'm fairly sure that it's something solid to base opinions on, and isn't mere coincidence.
Because blood travels throughout the body and into its deepest crevasses, I think it's safe to say it contains at least some measure of life force.

vampyre.. and Vampire are beening used inconsistantly.. Chase has been called a Vampire Killer.. then Doro says he believed he was "a vampyre" a hersay. I seek a definitive summation of Vampyre. Ryu States vampires are fictional.. Doro implies that to believe "as in a faith" is enough.. Doro what does belief make one? a Vampire? Or Vampyre.

markus666- I believe she was saying that Hollywood has made many purpose mistakes in order to make money.
Everyone knows that Hollywood made stuff up.
Next time, please read the entire message opposed to the first two words before calling someone out.

truely i have been thinking alot on this subject and in essence i believe as a culture and as a society there are alot of misunderstandings and misconceptions as to what is a true vampyre,well honestly what i see today is that those who practice a form of vampirism have gotten a bit off track or perhaps even broadened thier perception of being a vampire with such practices as associated with witchcraft,psychic studies as well as adding even spirituality and religion into vampirism.
now this i find to be more pagan and spiritual than vampire related,now days you will even find that the vampyre houses are more like witches covens in the fact that they use ceremonies,dedications,incantations and magickal rights,i think this is just paganism growing and expanding and yes even changing in it;s own evolution and not true vampirism at all.
i also believe many have used vampirism as a platform for a business or even as a form of free advertizement in a way to sell thier products for their own monetary gain,such individuals who have done this are father sebastiaan and michelle belanger,truely it is sad that these such kinds of individuals have decieved the less knowledgable and easily pursuaded individuals who are only looking for a proper form or training and kinship in the vampire community,but it is these kind that profit with the use of thier imagination and entertainment to get a fan base while filling thier own pockets with gain such as publicity,fame and money.
now i believe true vampirism has nothing to do with spirituality other than the fact of the belief in reincarnation which is the modern day form of immortality,i believe vampirism is the satisfaction of ones own urges and desires to receive pleasure in many ways and i do believe blood feeding to be part of it as well,as well as the use of aesthetics such as the way one dresses and acts and upholds ones own self to the believe of being a true vampire
now these are my stated opinions and honestly i do believe in such things as vampires but i do not believe in the heretics and chaos of role playing that is so much relevent in todays societies and cultures of vampires

After being absent for the last couple of days, I have notice now that many of the questions brought up by both ~Upir~, ~Dabbler~, myself and a few others have remained unanswered.

~Upirs's~ questions regarding: "I don't know why diet should play such a key role in this discussion. There is nothing in the original accounts that makes food a defining characteristic."

The only reason why I remained so adament regarding the "need to feed" or diet of the true vampire is because those who would deem themselves vamp(y)ric would call themselves "sang," "psi," and or "hybrid, the act of both sang and psi." Without even a mention of caps for fangs, clothing style or persona differances. The diet in my view seems to be one of, if not the main factor in regards to the vampire in general.

Those who would allude to being vampire/vamp(y)ric on this site still have yet to add their own viewpoints regarding this topic, which in turn would keep them in question in regards to their core convictions.

As far as those questions which would allude to the true vampires not speaking the truth in regards to not wishing for the public to "know the truth," could have a proper conjecture such as:

Since we have succeeded somewhat in staying off of the "I am vampire because I drink blood" route as well as the "I am vampire because I believe in certain paths such as the Strigoii way," "I am vampire because I have experienced an "awakening" of sorts. Thus, have ventured down a path that has a factual depiction to it IE ~Upir's~ enlightening posts.

We could safely estimate that if one were to call themselves true vampire, what other probable identity challenges could we execute when it comes to the identifying factor(s) of the vampire? These being, how the vampire actually lives, its personality and other variables that would identify a true vampire? Without suspected connotations of anything in the realm of the "HLV" (Human Living Vampire) department.

As well, I think we are well beyond the point of any speculated responses such as: "A true Vampire will never tell you, if you are a non-follower, about themselves. A true Vampire is not a wan-to-be, just like in a movie or a TV series. A true Vampire keep the secret of the societies for ever and will not discuss any subject with no members." as per ~Markus666's~ post.

What makes the individual suggest that any "true" vampire would not help in suggesting what ever "secrets" they keep from society, if in fact they would actually "exist"? Why would any of them not wish to help those who would endeavor in seeking out the truth of it all? I would think that any of those who would speculate that any true vampire who would not assume to help anyone else who maintains a professional atmosphere, to be deemed as close minded about suitable facts in the long run.

How's about those questions answered from the previous posts? A bit of curiousity may bring forth new and exciting answers.

Sorry, sorry, I tried. I did. I tried to muddle through this, and saw some very intelligently said things, but...


Anyone, ANYONE, who claims to be a supernatural being is a liar, or mentally disturbed (read:challenged.).

There's yer seperation.

Supernatural vampires do not exist. Period. Not one scrap of evidence exists for them. Not one. And strangely enough, anytime we see a 'vampire' on tv, they are usually the FIRST to say that they are not supernatural.

As for people who like to drink blood and dress in black? More power to ya, it's a favorite activity of mine as well. But yer not a vampire.

Don't EVEN get me started on 'psi' vampires. Please. This thread would burn down from the sheer anger of my reply.

And for people who like to label themselves vampires, just because they drink blood, dress in black, come out at night? See previous post about mentally disturbed.

Ahem.

Challenged.

Yer a Goth. Not a vampire.

And I LOVE the concept of 'Awakening'. Yer just REALIZING you like the taste of blood. Yer not waking up to some magical part of your nature. Let me re-interate for clarity.

SUPERNATURAL. STUFF. DOES. NOT. EXIST.

Now, the standard disclaimer.

Bring me proof, get an incredibly humbled apology. Otherwise...yer pissin' in the breeze, and the only one standing downwind is you.

dude take that shit to your journal that is flaming don't shit on others way of life get off your high horse

TheScybermonk,heres a clue and some good advice when you don't know what your talking about it is best to keep silent of such ignorant statements,we all may be different but least show some common respect.

As far as the other posts aside from ~Cybermonks~ derogatory instigation, there really is no need to respond to it either mailiciously, nor molevolently. It just fuels the fire. Just ignore it and continue with the threads with your own perspectives rather then lashing out in conjecture to one individuals tenacious intent.

Perhaps insteed of reacting to the threads of others with token.. "I agree with that post", and "That is so rude." Mr. Ryu would freshen the thread with something with relative substance. as ids now, I know what gets his goat. So vampyres are easily insulted? I feel Cybers post is on topic, it tells more of what is clearly not vampiric, now about what is. Mr. Ryu.. the floor is yours.

I too have to agree with TheScybermonk, and feel that it is on topic even if it doesn't mesh with what some of the other posters in this thread believe. Vampires are a creation of society to deal with what is unknown, feared or even admired or coveted. If you have some sort of documented proof that you're a supernatural being...then cool, I too appologize for offending anyone. Somehow I highly doubt that anyone here can bring such forth though.

Oh and the clitche phrase "I vant to suck yer blood," does not qualify as documented spoken word proof.

Scybermonk's histrionics aside, I share his disdain for anyone claiming to be supernatural. Of course I also don't see its relevance to the course this forum topic has taken. There have been many intriguing and important points made by many here, none of which have championed the notion of "true vampires" being... supernatural.


- Upir'

Sould evidence not be reasonable, I would except a well presented summary by those who seek to convince me of their professed idenity. an essay would suffice, no digest letters though, we all know when we are reading pip.

Soulshroude -

Thank you for your many respectful and generous comments on posts made by myself and others. It is so very rare to find those for whom a search for the possibility of historical truths re: the Vampire of history matters more than modern "orthodoxy." And, in furthering that search, I hope you will permit me to point out that, as I explained in an earlier post, the notion of "Vampires" as blooddrinkers was solely the result of digging up corpses believed to be vampires and thinking them full of blood... then making the incredibly ignorant leap in logic of concluding the corpses must have drunk the blood.

My purpose in this brief summary is to point out that prior to this incredibly unfortunate and entirely erroneous conclusion by Rennaisance-era Slavic peasants... a vampire's diet was no more a characteristic of the historical vampire than was the later fictional trait of his supposedly "sparkling" in sunlight (a la "Twilight"). In both cases... the trait is entirely made and completely false.

True Vampires were not known for what they ate... but for how superhumanly (not supernaturally) they ... loved.


- Upir'

i may or may have not said this before but truely what i see as being traits of a true vampire is ones own indulgences in the pleasures and desires that please them,i believe true vampirism to be a form of hedonism where one lets go of his/her own inhibitions and frees themselves of restraints that would usually keep them as "normal" i believe true vampiism does not envolve religion or any concepts of witchcraft such as the use of religious ceremonies,true vampires may believe in immortality through reincarnation through spirit but i do not believe that any other spirituality would be connected with it.
if you act a certian way,live a certian way and consider yourself a vampire then that is fine,personaly i would not worry or even be concerned what others think,because most of the time their opinions don't matter only yours does,just don't fall into the traps of the mundane.

Take note here folk, Upir compells me to conviction. Yes I am skeptic of many things. However what makes me a cynical is the consistant vaguery,whimsical idealism, and lack of summation. Here in Upirs post, we have both represented articulatly. The existing standard for me to be compelled to even consider anothers bid at "true vampire" claims.

If I remember correctly, both Crowley as well as Anton Lavey remarked on the vampiric qualities that you just implied ~Mastermindedfate~.

Lavey put that within his Satanic Bible if I remember correctly, or an assumption of the same area. Where the traditional satanist was a hedonist from the get go and the philosophy thereof was to live life to the fullest because the individual only lives once.

The Satanist apparently does not believe in reincarnation, thus having that furvor for longevity. Thus the relationship between the mentality of the vampire and the presentation thereof on the physical level.

In reply to the first post,

"I know there are a lot of view points on this subject, so in your mind what does/doesn't make someone a vampire?"

My Answer:

If all you can do is take energy, then chances are you can't take energy.

If you understand the energy and can take it properly, you should be able to

1. Never Get Sick
2. Be Capable Of having Out Of Body Experiences
3. Cause Changes In Your Surroundings such as Telekinesis, Pyrokinesis, Levitation
4. Understand How Reality Really Works And Why It Acts The Way It Does

Note: There is never any need to tell anyone, if they figure it out, then they figure it out. Chances are, even after they are face to face with all the facts, they will still deny their own intuition.

My profile on this site is anonymous, so I can speak here openly about what I know.

I have my own viewpoints about those that call themselves vampires. I think it's a name that should seriously be researched before deciding that this is what you really are. As far as the need to feed goes, well that's about every creature on the Earth. Does that mean we're all vampires? In a sense, yes. We all have to survive by consumption of some kind. I would get ill too if i did without some source of energy for a while.

I know that at times people feel a hightened sense, or rush of energy and it gives you a "high" feeling. This is regarding the Psi's. Some people use this ability like a drug and somewhere down the road feel as if they "need" to tap into this type of energy a lot or they wouldn't feel the same. It's no different than someone coming down from speed pretty much.

None of these things define us a vampire. It is learned abilities that we can either control or it can control us.

I have met quite a few people that call themselves vampyr but what if they are wrong? So far i havent read or found anything to remotely sway my opinion of anyone at all being vampiric.

All i have seen are those that follow either the "black veil" or those that don't. How do we know these people that create these websites for others aren't misleading the masses into defining themselves as such?

I think everything should be questioned, analyzed and peeled apart for accuracy medically, mentally and emotionally and try to find the FACTS.

The only true vampire that I have ever seen personally was during a dream with a very great impression left behind. So i wouldn't discredit the psychics just yet....

i think everyone posting or reading here needs to go to
www.vampirewebsite.com yeah i know sounds generic but its a really informitive site on a delicate subject

I have to agree with Upir and Dab on this because I feel one of the problems with this discussion is always the same.So many of those who claim to be REAL VAMPIRES very rarely follow through with anything close to evidence other than their word,being offended or just outright hostility..Not only that but we have a person right here in our midst who shares post after post, information and as a result of ALOT of hard research,much evidence to back that information up as to what a vampire in fact,just might be.Instead,these so called Vamps carry on about how much more of this and that they are,when truth is,they arent above or beyond normal human variables.So,what that tells me is that perhaps some of the best evidence or comprehensible findings we have come across, are being totally ignored.
Bottom line is I just feel that too many attributes are being seen as a sign of true Vampirism that just dont fit
while the attributes that could possibly proove vamps exsist are being discarded.

PsiVamp? What about those who get those same rushes and all the other things you speak of who arent Vampires?

You all know what your forgetting, is the means by which one became such "creatures".

Virgins who die before death.

Unbaptized (xtian or catholic)

and my personal favorite. Wizards and witches were supposed to be the ones who turned into "vampires" upon death.



all of this whose a sang, whose a psi. If you want a true vampire, then they will be able to do both of those. Not one, not the other, They will be able to sustain themselves, and their way of life regardless of the shit that life throws at them. Through illness, plague, death, their will is the unconquered one, that surmounts even the greatest of spiritual tribulations to continue living.

But of that, why does one want to continue this stretch of life? Isnt it good that we die? it reminds us to live in the moment that we have a finite time to accomplish the work. Focus on the work, not the road one takes to get there, and you will have a lot less of this "soul searching" that has sprung up from the industrial revolution, taking people out of the fields, giving them time to ask the reasons about what is the measure of a man, what is the meaning to life. Who am I? put pressure of life, and you will have one that will live in the moment, to live day by day. Everyone reading this forum post will grow older, will die in some fashion, change will occur and evolution will happen.

These are the things that make us living. Take that away and you have the stagnate death of eternity. To change and grow old, is a gift we are given. To search out for those things which prolong it. Is to forget that the gift was given.

Trish Telesco said to me one night, "The secret to life, is actually living it." Its just a matter of us being those who will find our own path and our own measure of who we are along that path.

Stop the belly aching over one type of vampire psi or sang. If you cant do both, and more then you have no rights to the titles. Earn um, then well talk.

Another definition of vampire is: Extorsionist, or one who grafts of other. I would add usually with out intent to contribute. Why anyone would celibrate themselves as such a person makes me seriously suspect psycosis.

Oceanne.....same effect i'm guessing. Basically i was adding input based on past experiences between myself and others and having felt these things personally. I am not claiming to be anything other than human unlike some others who would claim to be more.

You are correct that there are those that can do much of these things that do NOT call themselves vampiric , but say....energy workers.

Nice post Infernal.As always you give us insight.

Im not sure I would go so far as to say extortionist Dab,but you have given me something to think about.as always.

PsiV..nice answer,but what then makes the Vampire different than the energy worker?

Thank you Oceanne,

Perhaps a machete to this intellectual thicket....

If you have an energy worker (knows how to do their thing) and you have a vampire awakening (unknown as to how they do their thing) The Vampire acts as the parasite because it hasn't learned how to develop, or develop itself to greater points.

Hmmm,that makes some sense Infernal,but then,what about those who already have ..em, awakened? And already know their Vampy stuff?What makes them a vampire as opposed to being just an energy worker?

heh, thats the problem Ive been running across.

Never been able to figure that one out. Other then their attachment to labels, and archetypes.

Wow...you guys are really taking all the fun out of this.

Archtypes, stereotypes and mundane terms are what seperates the poseurs and want-to-be's from the facts at hand, as well as poor attitudes, easily offended emotional individuals and let us not forget, the rather ignorant individuals that would argue their point and completely ingore the fallacy of their logic that has been manipulated into them from fictional characters from day one.

Occeane one of the definitions of vampire is extorionist, parasite.. etc. Basically those who drain the sources of others, often using guile, and pretense. This is a "vampiric action" it does not make the person a Crypto-humanoid.. it does make them scum of society. yet I find that those who proclaim to be vampires in some cryptic sense, are bent on portraying themselves as harmless, and free from social stigma associated with being a sinkhole to society.. often even inciting others so as to satisfy their imagined "energy feast". Universally known as ...drum roll.... Dramatic Instigation..

With many who identify as vampire, it is common that once one some what subscribes to their pitch, they up the fringe ante..

I understand alot of what ppl are saying with that said if draing energy or "feeding" from energy does not make you a vamp(y)ier then it beggs the question what does make somone a vamp(y)ier?

This thread has been automatically closed for length.