ue..." (Bondeson 14). Scientists that are less prone to believe in SHC are often against such paranormal explanations. Some often say that "...mechanisms through which any of these might work are unexplained" (Mysteries 91). Even author Mark Benecke said, "I will restrict my observations to the facts as given by expert sources because the speculations on cases of alleged SHC in popular articles are, in my opinion, nonscientific" (Benecke 48). A scientific explanation for SHC is often referred to as the "candle," "wick," or "multiple wick effect." This idea "...is that the cause of fire is smoking, and the victim is often old and disabled or drunk and therefore unable to respond quickly enough when the fire starts" (Cohen 196). "It has been argued that the victims suffer a 2nd or 3rd degree burn on a small area of their body [often fires started from cigarettes], shock sets in, [and] the victim falls unconscious" (Spontaneous). After falling unconscious, the fat begins to melt and it is drawn into the clothing. This can then support the fire for hours as the body is consumed. Mark Benecke associated alcohol and SHC by saying:The preponderance of alcoholics among historical victims, although not among twentieth- century ones, remains a mystery. It is very unlikely that their bodies were really more combustible. Instead, a drunken individual is prone to be more clumsy with fire, and might be too befuddled, drowsy, or even unconscious to escape. (Bondeson 17-18)This scientific explanation for alleged SHC and why drunkards may be more prone to combusting. SHC supporters often cite cases that are often very old and do not include whether or not the victim drank or smoked. There have been various experiments that have been used to show how SHC might start. Animals have been soaked in alcohol for extended periods of time, then set on fire to see what would happen. "The skin blazed up fiercely, charring some outer layers f...
