Paranormal News This Week: Haunted Tower, Curse Claims, Glowing UFO and Nessie
The KASE Weekly | 16 September 2026 | Reporting window: 8-14 September
A tower with a ghost story is getting a new future, a psychic's alleged curse-removal fees have become a court dispute, and a glowing object over Argentina is asking more questions than the video can answer. Back in Scotland, another visitor has added a photograph to the Loch Ness mystery.
Welcome to The KASE Weekly, paranormal headlines broken down for you each week.
This is a week of new reporting about things that did not necessarily happen last week. That distinction matters. The housing award is new. The lawsuit concerns earlier dealings. The Mendoza footage reportedly dates from May, and the Nessie sighting from August. We have kept those dates visible rather than giving old events a new birthday.
There is plenty here to investigate. There is also a difference between a documented development, an allegation, a witness's interpretation and a supernatural explanation. None becomes the next simply because the headline is good.
New homes for a tower with an old ghost story
Merle Hay Tower in Des Moines could be getting new residents. Its alleged older residents are already part of the local folklore.
On 10 September, the Iowa Finance Authority announced that the Merle Hay Plaza and Apartments proposal had won its housing innovation competition. The plan would convert the vacant tower into affordable homes for people aged 55 and over. The award represents up to approximately $14 million in federal housing tax credits over ten years, not a cash payment of that amount on the day. The homes are proposed, not already occupied. Read the official award announcement.
The haunting claims are older. A longstanding paranormal directory records stories of a nun carrying an infant, unexplained footsteps and a lift said to travel without passengers. Those are accounts attached to the location, not findings from a controlled investigation. Read the recorded folklore.
There is a genuine historical connection to a religious building. Local historian Dave Elbert describes the monastery that occupied the site before the shopping centre. That does not establish the more lurid rumours attached to it. A documented monastery and an alleged apparition are separate claims requiring different evidence. Read the historical background, published 30 April 2025.
What would we check?
Before treating an apparently empty lift as paranormal evidence, we would want its operating mode, maintenance history and call records. For footsteps, we would want the building's occupancy, sound transmission and mechanical systems checked at the relevant time. These are proposed checks, not explanations established for these particular accounts.
A reported figure needs its own timeline. Who saw it? Where were they standing? What was the lighting like? Had they already heard the legend? Separate witnesses should be asked separately, before their recollections become a shared version of the story.
A renovation could offer a useful opportunity to document the building and compare conditions before and after the work. That is an investigative possibility, not an investigation we can claim has happened.
The KASE take
This is a real change in the future of a reportedly haunted location, not a fresh discovery of ghosts. The housing announcement is verifiable. The haunting remains folklore and testimony.
The lift may have questions to answer, but it has not yet been interviewed.
A claimed curse and a disputed $78,500
A New Jersey civil lawsuit has brought alleged payments for spiritual cleansing into public scrutiny.
Daily Voice reported on 8 September that Marisol Meza was suing Holly Stanley and associated defendants over alleged payments totalling $78,500 following her husband's death. Its account says the suit was filed in Bergen County on 2 September. Meza alleges that consultations developed into increasingly expensive rituals and warnings about a curse. These are allegations, not findings by a court. Read Cecilia Levine's report.
Stanley's response belongs beside that allegation. USA TODAY Network reporting, carried by the NY Daily Record on 8 September, quotes her lawyer David Altieri rejecting the lawsuit's merits and saying his client would respond. Read the report including the lawyer's denial.
Daily Voice also reports that Stanley supplied agreements bearing Meza's name and apparent signature. They describe the services as speculative or for entertainment, and include final-sale or no-refund language. One records receipt of $71,500. That individual receipt is not the same figure as the total alleged in the lawsuit.
What does this establish?
The reporting describes a dispute over money, representations and conduct. It does not establish that a curse existed, that a spirit required treatment or that fraud has been proved. Nor should KASE interpret an entertainment disclaimer as deciding the legal outcome.
The case is included because it was reported during this week's window, not because all the alleged dealings happened then. We are relying on the attributed reporting for the allegations and response, rather than presenting ourselves as having adjudicated the case or independently authenticated the agreements.
There is a wider question worth asking without deciding this dispute: how could a client independently test a claim that an unseen danger requires another payment? If the same person diagnoses the danger, sells the remedy and decides whether the remedy worked, an outside check becomes especially important.
That is a problem of accountability. It is not a reason to ridicule spiritual belief, and certainly not a reason to mock someone who is grieving.
The KASE take
Claimed supernatural authority should not be a shortcut around scrutiny. Equally, an accusation should not become a verdict in our telling of it.
We can take the reported concerns seriously, include the denial fairly and leave the legal findings to the legal process. The unresolved part here is a disputed course of conduct, not evidence that anyone has demonstrated a curse.
The glowing object over Mendoza: May footage, September reporting
The clip from Mendoza, Argentina, is worth a look. Its timeline needs to come with it.
Coast to Coast AM covered the footage on 9 September and reported that it was filmed in May. An earlier Elonce article is dated 7 September. We are including the September coverage, not claiming that a new object appeared over Mendoza last week. Read the 9 September coverage.
Elonce describes a recording made by young people near Acceso Sur and J.J. Paso, in the car park of a night-time venue. The light was reportedly noticed when they reviewed the phone footage, rather than during filming. The article links the material to Grupo IAAC, Investigadores de Anomalías Aéreas de Cuyo, and an appearance by filmer Thiago Benítez on the Oíd Mortales stream. Read the earlier Argentine report.
The report is notably more cautious than the phrase “flying saucer” might suggest. It says conventional explanations remain under consideration and that the recording alone does not establish the object's distance, height or speed.
What would make the video more useful?
First, the original phone file and the complete sequence. Then the exact date and time, camera model, viewpoint and direction. We would want to compare the apparent movement with camera movement and with fixed objects in the scene.
Without a reliable distance, apparent size is not physical size. Without physical distance travelled and a usable time interval, an impressive-looking streak is not a measured speed. Those are the measurements we would need before making claims about extraordinary performance.
Possible ordinary explanations should be tested against the recording, not thrown at it as a list that supposedly solves everything. Equally, slowing a clip until a bright shape resembles a disc does not establish that a disc-shaped craft was present.
The KASE take
A video can be interesting even when its strongest conclusion is that identification remains unresolved.
There is no need to pretend the footage is new, and no need to dismiss it simply because it is older than the article. Preserve the timeline, find the original and investigate what the recording actually supports. “Unidentified” is a useful description. It is not an origin story.
A German visitor adds another Nessie photograph
The fourth story takes us back to Loch Ness, where a new round of reporting concerns an older observation.
On 8 September, Coast to Coast AM covered German visitor Felix Tiekemeier's account, describing it as the year's fourteenth in-person report accepted by the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register. The register's current total is also 14. Read the September report.
The register dates the sighting itself to 21 August at 11:58. Tiekemeier reported a dark shape near the surface, apparently with a head, visible for about 20 seconds. He estimated its length at roughly six metres and its distance at roughly 300 metres, and took a photograph. Those measurements are his estimates, not dimensions independently established by the image. Read the register entry and view the photograph.
What does “officially recognised” mean here?
It means the account has been accepted by that sightings register. It does not mean a government agency has authenticated an unknown animal or that the photograph establishes a new species.
Our next questions would concern the precise viewpoint, original image metadata, any photographs immediately before and afterwards, water conditions and nearby boat movements. We would also want to know how the distance estimate was made. If that estimate changes substantially, the size estimate may change with it.
The image and testimony should be considered together, but neither should silently supply detail missing from the other. A witness's impression of a head is an important part of the account. It is not automatically a feature that every reader can independently resolve in the photograph.
The KASE take
This is an additional documented sighting report, not an additional confirmed monster. Fourteen entries tell us about reporting activity. They do not establish fourteen encounters with the same animal.
Nessie remains very good at generating questions. A register entry gives investigators somewhere to start, not permission to skip to the answer.
What this week tells us
These four stories offer different things: a verifiable development at a supposedly haunted site, competing accounts in a civil dispute, an under-documented light on video and an ambiguous photograph with a named witness.
The distinction is not there to drain the mystery out of the week. It tells us where to look next. A maintenance record cannot decide a lawsuit. A signed agreement cannot identify a light in the sky. A sighting total cannot supply the scale missing from a photograph.
Which would you investigate first: the tower's reported activity, the Mendoza recording or the Loch Ness photograph? And what single piece of evidence would most change your view?
The KASE Files podcast lands every Tuesday. The KASE Weekly follows every Wednesday with an evidence-led look at the strangest headlines.