Borley Rectory centennial—has paranormal activity changed in the century since 1923?

This is something I've been thinking about as we approach the centennial of the Borley Rectory initial haunting reports (first documented incidents in June 1923, now owned by different people, site now archaeologically protected). It's arguably the most famous 'haunted house' in British paranormal history - the 'most haunted' in its day, anyway.

But here's my question: if it was genuinely haunted then, is it still? Has the activity diminished? Changed character? The rectory was demolished in 1944, so we don't have continuous documentation. But the land itself remains, and there are some residential properties in the immediate area.

Anyone with knowledge of recent paranormal reports from the Borley area? I'm working on a long-term analysis of whether haunting intensity changes with time, whether hauntings 'move on', whether they're tied to specific structures or to place itself. Borley would be an ideal case study because we have such detailed historical documentation.

Borley is genuinely fascinating from a paranormal history perspective. Most of the documented activity was pre-1940s, concentrated around the actual rectory building. Since demolition, reports have been much more scattered and less intense. Could suggest hauntings are tied to structures, or could just be less-detailed documentation in modern era. Worth investigating properly.

I visited Borley in 2019 and felt absolutely nothing. The site is quite ordinary these days - farmland, not particularly atmospheric. Whether that's because the haunting dissipated or because I just wasn't sensitive to it, I couldn't say. But it's striking how quiet it is compared to the historical accounts.

Are hauntings tied to specific structures or to place itself?

This is the crucial question. My intuition is that hauntings are tied to traumatic events rather than locations per se, so once the structure associated with the trauma is gone, the energy might dissipate. Borley fits that model - intense activity while the building existed, then quieter. Though there's also the theory that demolition might have 'freed' spirits rather than trapped them further.

The problem with Borley is that the original documentation is controversial. Some paranormal researchers argue the investigator (Harry Price) exaggerated or even fabricated reports. Modern accounts should be treated as a separate dataset from historical ones. But yeah, modern Borley is remarkably quiet compared to its reputation suggests it should be.

I'm genuinely interested in your analysis. As a data set, Borley is perfect because we have baseline documentation spanning decades, then a structural change (demolition), then modern era reports. If you're mapping this properly, I'd be keen to collaborate or at least follow your progress. This kind of rigorous analysis is what the subject desperately needs.

Borley's haunting was almost certainly exaggerated by local folklore and the investigator's own biases. Not to say nothing happened, but the '60 phenomena a day' claims are almost certainly inflated. Still, as a historical case study of how paranormal reputations develop and persist, it's invaluable.