Hello, 

Dion Fortune, in her book Psychic Self-Defense, talks about non-human contact, and she explores the experience of being taken over psychologically and physically by a psychic attack. Do others have recommendations for other readings on the topic of non-human control or possession?

I don't have any books on the topic, but you might find these two episodes of the Guru Viking podcast relevant.

https://youtu.be/4D7O58nJ87o?si=e4xkIhe-PvE3g9FI - A guy named Mattias Daly discusses his personal experiences with something he generally frames as possession and the various traditions he looked into for help. Quite a story regardless of one's ontological perspectives about posession.

https://youtu.be/N6W27LjOEOM?si=g8mrEeHWbGn8guc1 - A guy named Duncan Barford discusses a bit about Mattias' experiences and his own similar ones. Duncan frames his experiences within the context of Kundalini awakening; though I think both of them are a bit careful with ontological frames which is nice imo.

Uncertain. No way to , and I repeat, no way, to verify if our experience of any kind is actually "real". 

I agree; uncertain.

Knowing the difference between experiences and the frames we place on them seems impotant in weird territories like this. 

Regarding whether an experience is "real", if the entity communicates information that you can verify but would have no normal way of knowing, and if the entity shows initiative, is working for it's own purposes, and works through multiple experiencers who have no contact or knowledge of each other, then those types of things tend to support the contention that entity is "real".  The history of scientific controversies shows that the best explanation for evidence is just an opinion - some people would not accept any evidence as proof of something - that is their right- it is human nature - sometimes it is correct. "Proof" like a mathematical proof is really an emotion a feeling - it can be wrong.
 

If someone is worried about defending from a psychic attack, they can try to pray for protection from God, their spirit guides, their guardian angel, or the flying spaghetti monster and ask, "please watch over me and protect me so that only the highest and best forces can influence me". Benevolent spiritual entities are not obsessed with titles and doctrine. 

If you are in contact with an entity, try to maintain a polite and friendly attitude even if you think they are malevolent. The vast majority of "evil spirits" are just human spirits who are lost and confused and so attached to the earth life or so attached to materalist beliefs that they don't accept they are dead. The best way to help them, and get them to stop pestering you, is to explain they are dead and they need to move on. Taking a confrontational attitude is less likely to result in their taking your advice.

Also very important, if you are trying to make contact  you should only do it if you are doing it for the benefit of others. Like attracts like, you will attract entitiles like youself. If you want to help others you will attract entities that want to help you. If you are doing it as a joke you will attrack entities that will play jokes on you. If you are doing it for selfish reasons you will attract entities that will use you for their selfish purposes and not help you with yours.

If anyone is interested I have described my experiences with entities here:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/psi_experience

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-is-it-like-to-communicate-with.html

This PhD thesis provides some philosophical background on what it means for a paranormal experience to be "real".
Are Near-Death Experiences Veridical? A Philosophical Inquiry
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/7895/

The take home lesson, in my opinion, from that thesis is that materialists assume their point of view is a kind of preferred frame of reference and that the burden of proof is on the other side of the debate - however there is no philosophical basis for that assumption. In a debate materialists have the same burden of proof they demand from people defending other points of view.

I like this advice Jim !!

"Knowing the difference between experiences and the frames we place on them seems important in weird territories like this."

I meant in ANY case, as in ANY experience, knowing or not knowing, frames or no frames There is NO WAY we can get outside of our perception/awareness/awakeness bubble to verify any of THIS! Real or Not-Real ... none of it can be verified to be real/not-real. If you find a way please do PM me!  

And to muddy up things a bit more my mind gets daily far more into non-Human realms than the Human realm, so ... not sure what to tell you  

 "The take home lesson, in my opinion, from that thesis is that materialists assume their point of view is a kind of preferred frame of reference and that the burden of proof is on the other side of the debate - however there is no philosophical basis for that assumption. In a debate materialists have the same burden of proof they demand from people defending other points of view."

I argee! I come from a background where the word spiritual was a code word for nonsense or overactive imagination. Materialism was accepted as the true frame of reference and it was simply a matter of filling in every gap with an appropriate scientific explanation. 

These days, after the meditation experiences, insight experiences (which admittedly are not yet as deep as some others here), and my understanding of computation/abstraction (big part of my job), I cannot cling to that old frame as true and final. In fact, Daniel Ingram pointed out in a podcast, if you take an extreme materialistic, everything is just information processing in brains, you end up at idealism. All things are equally real or not as they are all abstract and bound by the limitations of the information processing system they are run on. There's a side-bar here where we can use pragmatism as some kind of mechanism to establish the degree to which the abstractions/thoughts in the system reflect an external reality, but we cannot absolutely prove the existence of that external reality from the simulation. It appears closer to say that pragmatism is about consistently checking that the rules of the simulation are still consistent while being open to when they appear to change. Anyways...

This, and other frames of comparison, now present themselves to me in a similar manner to the wave-particle duality. I am not a physicist, but the conclusion I draw from that concept, and Kurt Godel's work on systems of reasoning (a.k.a. frames), is that frames can present unique and useful insights or practical outcomes yet be contradictory; nor are they generally able to prove their validity logically from within.

In terms of the kinds of stuff in this discussion (things which are too "woowoo" for the materialist but risk dangerous reification for those with a thin veil), I find two frames useful in particular for my own preferences/background:

One frame is that everything really does have a mundane explanation. Entities are just aspects of the mind that appear external. Psychic powers are the result of upgrades in perception which people can get either randomly or with deliberate practice. It is not actually divine energy that randomly started pouring out of the top of my head one day; it is just some energetic quality of the nervous system and its perception of itself. 

The other frame, which is more informed by my understanding abstractions (or what people think of as Jungian Archetypes) and idealism, allows for a more open set of phenomena and planes. Abstract can influence concrete, and concrete influences abstract. They might exist on separate planes but it is certain that they have affects on each other. If it ends up being like the programs I write, abstraction is a spectrum of information density/detail, so we could speculate entities (or things like archetypes) as being more abstract beings and us as being more concrete. The rules in this frame are trickier than the mundane one and too woowoo for most friends I discuss this with who had a similar background to me. But there is something there which is every bit as real as the mundane for me.

To balance that all out, a frame from one of the Thai Forest Theravada teachers I used to listen to sits at the top level for me (which also is what I Dusko is saying I believe): It is all uncertain.

Don't cling too tightly to any frame. I like that; it helps to keep my overly-analitycal mapping/pattern/defining sub-system from taking over too much... which it was inclined to do for most of my life. It also makes me less of a dick when I talk to people who have frames which are not congruent to my own. I don't need to defend them and I can try on different frames without having to cling to them.