Aha! Ghosts exist, there is an ethereal realm beyond the material, and our brains are essentially radios that intercept our souls (which are radio waves), and upon death those waves can bounce away, extant outside the confines of the radio that had intercepted them.
Source: Trust me bro.
The only thing this book actually makes a case for is the fact that no genuine evidence for ghosts exists, unless you willingly believe in contradictory, biased, unscientific information. I hadn't hoped to open this review with an anecdote about my own expectations, but when you name your book "A Case for (something)," I assume you're genuinely going to make a case for it. Instead, what this book actually is, is an incessant ramble of somewhat related but wholly unprovable information about the typical paranormal schtick -- personalities (psychosis, hallucinations, the power of suggestion -- call this example A), orbs (dust), demons (example A), spirit mediums (grifters, example A), spirit guides (example A), and pages upon pages of speculation about the universe with no genuine scientific backing whatsoever. He admits parapsychology is not taken seriously, and admits much of the book is speculation, but simply admitting does nothing.
Even as an atheist, I don't worship science, because it's a creation of man and is ever growing, evolving, and developing; thus, it is flawed. There is actually a fine example of this in the book, regarding how leeches and bloodletting used to be common medical practices due to the ill-informed idea of "poisoned blood," and how today it's seen as ridiculous. Modern examples of this, which I will not get into here, are certainly abound in today's science, and I wouldn't claim to assume we know everything about death and the universe. But instead of referring to actual scientific studies to make a case for the possibility of life after death, the author just speculates about it, using either a sparing reference to already illogical information (such as other sources in parapsychology), or just makes things up on the spot.
More interesting is the author's continual contradiction with himself. He calls himself a Christian, but then talks on and on about wooey spiritualism that no actual Christian would bother with at best, or ever dare consider at worst. Furthermore, he goes on a bit of a diatribe about the existence of Hell, Satan, and demons, and how they couldn't possibly be real if God is all knowing and all loving. What strikes me as strange is that his reasoning is, of course, sound; obviously none of this DOES exist, and that (among other examples) is the exact talking point atheists use to criticize religion in the first place. So, in entertaining this, he admits either partial ignorance or partial refusal of his own doctrine. Cherry-picking is of course is not unusual for Christians, or people of any other faith, but I found it quite interesting that he even bothers calling himself a Christian at all if he so obviously rejects what is a necessary and primary facet of the belief. He cites the Bible often, too, so I don't think he hasn't read the thing. He, like many, just picks what he wants to believe and sticks with that, while filling in the gaps with his own speculation. Needless to say, this is not the approach one should use to make a case for anything. When did ghosts appear in our evolutionary history? The Cambrian period? When we developed agriculture? As he said later in the book about the power of the mind, are they simply a product of our imaginations? Can I get one to make me a sandwich?
This book probably deserves one star, but for a great deal of it I was entertained by his mental gymnastics, and fascinated by his philosophies, so I won't bother giving it a hate-score. I obviously can't recommend it, for the most part it's just a waste of time, but I learned some interesting things about what Danelek believes, at least, and in my profession that counts for something.