The author is a religious expert who studies the religious and has branched into studying UFOlogists since there is a real crossover between both sets of people. Both sets of people want to believe in unseen (or at least unverified) things hoped for and want to believe that the truth is out there in some form thus placing meaning not within the person but outside of them.
The author frames our meaning by how we interpret our world through our experience, physical evidence and the social milieu we find ourselves currently dwelling in, thereby laying the ontological (it’s a word she uses multiple times) foundation for our being.
The author mentions St. Teresa of Avila in the text. She tells a story from St. Teresa’s diary to illustrate her point, but I’ll tell another story to make a similar point the author was making. St. Teresa saw a mystical entity and knew it was blue, but wasn’t sure if it was of the Devil or Holy, but ultimately decided it must be from Jesus. She had a false dichotomous framing ‘either of God or the devil’, never quite realizing that there were other just as real and probable alternatives available (it could have been Ahura Mazda, Buddha, an alien from a another galaxy, a psychotic break from reality, a time traveler, or maybe just something she ate the night before such as an ‘undigested piece of meat’). The point is she simplistically interpreted the meaning of the experience within the social milieu of her world’s ontological paradigm.
UFOlogist do the exact same thing. They’ll connect the dots in such a way that they will quarantine off any data (physical, or experiential) in such a way that they won’t admit to a cognitive dissonance when conflicting data might come in. The author points out something I didn’t know, to many UFOlogist the UFO itself is not what is important itself, but they (the UFO) could just be a phenomenon that is a portal to or for something else as would be angels to believers in angels.
How we understand the world goes into how we give meaning to the perceptions we have from the world and that gets filtered through our culture (our social milieu).
The author made one slight error that I want to point out. She said ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ the movie was based on a book. The screenplay and the book were written concurrently and the movie and the book were based on an elaboration of a short story by Clark on AI (check Wiki for more elaboration). I know that is a picayune error, but it relates to how the author describes the world of UFOs since she is saying that UFOs are a phenomenon that exist not in and of themselves but are a thing beyond themselves (at least some of the people she quotes in the book would tend to agree with that). It would be analogous to St. Thomas Aquinas viz a viz Duns Scotus and the belief in Angels and whether or not if they are sui generis (unique) and if they act independently of a higher power. The author does quote Aquinas multiple times, and just for those who are interested he would say they are of a ‘species’ and do have intellect of their own but would always act in concordance with God’s will at least after the ‘fall of man’, contrasted with Duns Scotus who would make each Angel an individual species (therefore sui generis) and would give them free will through their own agency but also would act in concordance to God’s plan. (The scholastics never argued trivialities such as ‘the number of angels on a head of a pin’, but they did get at meaningful distinctions such as ‘thatness’ v. ‘whatness’, or substance v. accident, and ultimately this author is getting at those kind of distinctions with her perception v. reality framing).
The UFOlogist of today can replace the word ‘flying saucer’ or ‘non human intelligence from another planet’ with how the scholastics from the middles ages or religious believers would use the word ‘angel’ from the past or believed in the Saints or divine intervention through Mary or in the prophets and a very similar ontology would result.
Chapter Nine had a good story on Ray and his sick dog and how it was miraculously healed. The order of the perception of reality for Ray goes that he first believes a Catholic Angel healed his dog, then aliens in UFOs did, then beings independent of flying saucers from another galaxy or dimension did, then to a near death experience explains it due to quantum consciousness connections through entanglement, and all the way up to an awful History Channel documentary show that had a special on Ray being attacked by angels thus creating a new perception of reality leading to the ‘medium as the massage (message)’ (McLuhan was quoted multiple times elsewhere in this book, but unfortunately that quote wasn’t used).
This book is written well and was easy to digest. In general, UFOlogist would not be offended by it, and Christians would not be offended by it. Though, I’m neither, I wasn’t offended either since I suspected that the connection between the two existed and I wanted to have it explained to me by a religious studies expert. I think the author makes a very good case that UFOlogist can be thought of as a modern day religion and she connects the dots showing that the modern day sub-genre of UFOlogists appear as rational in their beliefs as were the Christians of 1650 or the religious people of today. For either a classical religious person or a UFOlogist person, the special pleading that would be required for defending their own beliefs could just as easily apply towards the other’s belief. Both of them have similar ontological foundations albeit with radically different worldviews resulting, but each providing them a made up meaning to life lying outside of them resulting from falsely wanting to believe in a truth that must be out there.