What Were Anneliese Michel'S Reported Symptoms Before Death?

Anna Ecklund and Anneliese Michel are two names that often come up in discussions about real-life cases of alleged demonic possession, but their stories are vastly different in context and outcome. Anna Ecklund's case dates back to the early 20th century, specifically the 1920s, and is one of the most documented exorcisms in Catholic history. She was said to have been possessed for decades, with priests noting extreme physical contortions, aversion to holy objects, and speaking in multiple languages she couldn't possibly know. What makes Anna's case stand out is the sheer duration of her ordeal and the fact that her exorcism was considered partially successful—she survived but continued to suffer from spiritual unrest. Anneliese Michel, on the other hand, became infamous in the 1970s due to her tragic death during an attempted exorcism. Her story inspired movies like 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose.' Unlike Anna, Anneliese's possession was relatively short-lived but intensely dramatic, with recordings of her growling voices and self-harm becoming focal points of the case. The biggest difference lies in the aftermath: Anneliese died of malnutrition and exhaustion after months of exorcisms, leading to legal trials for the priests and her parents. While both cases are harrowing, Anneliese's story raises more ethical debates about the intersection of mental health and religious intervention. Personally, I find Anneliese's case particularly haunting because of those eerie audio recordings—they stick with you long after you hear them.

I've dug into this story more times than I'd like to admit, partly because it sits at the odd intersection of law, medicine, and religion. The case of Anneliese Michel—whose death after repeated exorcisms in 1976 led to the conviction of her parents and two priests for negligent homicide in 1978—opened a lot of eyes about how spiritual practices interact with secular legal duties. What I find most striking is how the trial made clear that rites like exorcisms aren't outside the law. Courts treated the events as a matter of criminal responsibility: if someone is harmed or dies because others neglected medical care or acted recklessly, those people can be prosecuted. That principle hasn’t been overturned; rather, it has been echoed in later rulings and public debates, especially where religious rituals cause physical harm. On the practical side, the Michel case pushed many church leaders to tighten internal rules. Dioceses in various countries increasingly expect medical and psychiatric evaluations before blessing or permitting exorcisms, and bishops often require a formal mandate for anyone to act as an exorcist. It also filtered into popular culture—films like 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' (which I watched on a rainy night and then immediately Googled the real story) played a role in reminding people that belief and law can clash in tragic ways.

I just finished 'Under the Skin' by Michel Faber, and that ending left me stunned. Isserley, the alien protagonist, spends the book picking up hitchhikers for her species’ meat industry, but her perspective shifts as she interacts with humans. The climax is brutal—she’s attacked by one of her victims, a man she previously spared. Her injuries leave her helpless, and her own kind abandons her to die in the Scottish countryside. The coldness of her species contrasts sharply with her growing empathy, making her fate tragic. Faber doesn’t spoon-feed the message, but it’s clear: exploitation cycles back, and even predators become prey. The bleakness stuck with me for days. What’s haunting is how Isserley’s arc mirrors humanity’s own moral contradictions. We see her wistfully admiring landscapes she’ll never belong to, and her death feels like a twisted poetic justice. The book doesn’t offer redemption, just a raw, unflinching look at isolation and consequence.

I’ve always been fascinated by the darker, more surreal side of storytelling, and Michel Faber’s 'Under the Skin' is a perfect example of that. From what I’ve gathered, Faber was inspired by the alienation and brutality of modern society, particularly how people treat those they consider 'other.' The novel’s eerie premise—an alien posing as a woman to prey on hitchhikers—reflects themes of exploitation and dehumanization. Faber has mentioned being influenced by his own experiences as an immigrant, which added layers of isolation and observation to the narrative. The Scottish Highlands’ bleak landscape also plays a role, mirroring the protagonist’s cold, calculating nature. It’s a story that sticks with you, not just for its horror but for its sharp commentary on humanity.

Watching the film felt like being pulled into two different movies at once: a courtroom drama and a horror show. I got drawn in by the way 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' compresses and dramatizes Anneliese Michel’s long ordeal—those months of small, grim details become a handful of intense, cinematic exorcism scenes. In reality, Anneliese underwent 67 documented exorcism sessions over almost a year; the film condenses that into fewer, more visually shocking rituals with levitation, guttural voices, and explosive gestures to make the supernatural feel immediate. Cinematically, the movie leans hard on sound design, editing, and isolated close-ups to sell the possession as visceral and terrifying. The real case had lots of medical, psychiatric, and familial complexity—epilepsy, depression, and malnutrition all played documented roles—but the film often tilts toward the demonic explanation, especially in scenes crafted to terrify. It also reframes the aftermath as a legal battle, which is true in spirit but simplified: the priests’ convictions and the medical culpability are compressed into testimony and dramatic reveals. I appreciated how the film uses ambiguity—framing scenes through witness testimony and flashback—so you never get a purely documentary take. Still, if you want the nuts-and-bolts truth about what happened to Anneliese, her case files and court records are much grimmer and messier than the horror-movie moments suggest.

I dug into this a while back because dark true-crime cases pull me in like a moth to a weirdly morbid porch light. What I found is that the raw, full 'original footage' of Anneliese Michel’s exorcisms isn’t something you can just stream on demand—most intact recordings are legally and ethically restricted and were handled by the priests, the family, and later the courts. Short clips and alleged leaked tapes pop up on video sites from time to time, but their provenance is often murky and they can be edited or misattributed. If you want something reliable, start with reputable archives and broadcasters. German regional broadcasters and archives (think public TV archives) sometimes license documentary footage; diocesan archives in Bavaria and the local court files hold the official records and may control access to primary materials. Expect language hurdles (it’s German), possible fees, and ethical review if you’re asking for sensitive material. Also, check well-sourced documentaries and academic books that cite or include excerpts: they offer context that raw footage alone won’t give. Personally, I prefer watching a carefully made documentary after a long day rather than hunting down grainy bootlegs—context matters, and this case touches on real people who suffered.

I was poring over an old news clipping in a dusty bookstore when I first dug into Anneliese Michel’s case, and the way her family reacted has stuck with me ever since. Her parents, Josef and Anna, were devout Catholics from a rural town in Bavaria, and at first their response followed what many families would do: they sought medical help. Records show Anneliese was seen by neurologists and psychiatrists, treated for epilepsy and what doctors later described as psychosis, and prescribed medications. From my reading, the family wasn't dismissive of science at the outset — they took her to hospitals and specialists, trying to make sense of seizures and behavioral changes that terrified them. As things progressed and treatments didn’t seem to help, their faith took a more central role. They became convinced she was possessed and brought priests to their home. Two priests—Father Arnold Renz and Father Ernst Alt—conducted a series of intensive exorcism rites, reported to be around 67 sessions over about ten months. The family allowed the rituals and followed the priests’ guidance; friends and neighbors described them as exhausted, desperate, and absolutely certain they were doing the right thing spiritually. When Anneliese died of malnutrition and dehydration in 1976, Josef and Anna, along with the priests, were prosecuted and later convicted of negligent homicide. That trial exposed deep tensions between medical practice, religion, and personal conviction in 1970s Germany — and in the quiet hours I spent tracing those events, I kept thinking about how fear, love, and belief can push people down paths they never imagined taking.

I still get a little unsettled when I think about how a religious ritual turned into a court case. The short of it is that Anneliese Michel died after months of exorcism sessions and the people who led those sessions were held criminally responsible because her death wasn’t judged a mysterious act of God — it was judged the result of neglect. Anneliese had a documented history of epilepsy and possible psychiatric illness, and during 1975–1976 her family and two priests performed repeated exorcisms instead of providing continuous medical care. When she died of malnutrition and dehydration, the state stepped in and charged the priests and her parents with criminal neglect or negligent homicide. What pushed the story into the courtroom was tangible evidence: medical records that showed a lack of proper treatment, an autopsy pointing to starvation and dehydration as causes of death, and taped exorcism sessions that made it clear she had been isolated and deprived of food and medical attention for long stretches. In court the defense leaned on religious conviction and belief in demonic possession, while prosecutors emphasized duty of care and that religious belief does not allow you to withhold basic medical treatment from someone who is clearly suffering. I watched a dramatized take on this in 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose' and then wound up reading articles and case notes, which made the human side hit harder. It’s not a clean morality tale—there are questions about mental illness, faith, and cultural context—but legally the trial answered whether faith-based actions can cross the line into criminal neglect, and the verdict made clear they can. Looking back, I feel a mix of sadness and curiosity about how similar tensions play out today between faith, medicine, and responsibility.