This is a textbook example of getting carried away with irrational fascination, and letting one’s beliefs drift along lines defined by no more than a disorienting attempt to jam defunct terminology into a new situation. It’s reminiscent of when notable academics profess their ‘belief in God’ by reference to plausibly scientifically defensible positions concerning possible alien intelligences, potential future singularity states, etc. That’s not what they meant by “God”!
Why call it “superstition”? Why refer to this as an instance of you updating on anything? You now believe in haunted houses? Really? Tell me, why did you write this post as you did? What would this post have looked like if you did nothing but describe the events that you witnessed? For one, it probably wouldn’t have been nearly as fun to write. Nor would it have seemed as on-topic for this forum as it currently does.
You claim you don’t believe in supernatural events. You say you believe the house is “haunted”, but as no more than a description of these seemingly bizarre occurrences that have yet to be explained. But if you take this seriously, you should be able to rewrite this whole post as just that—a mere description of the events. If by “haunted”, you only mean what happened, then there’s no reason why you couldn’t just rewrite it without that word. If all I mean by “TV” is “television”, then I should be able to replace all instances of the first word with the second, and retain my meaning completely.
But then where’s the update? What did you change your mind about? Where’s the insight? All that’s left is a catalog of strange things that happened in your old house. All the interesting philosophy vanishes, and the responses devolve into nothing more engaging than suggestions about what may be going on, or action that may be taken. Gaslighting, EMFs, sleepwalking, a gas leak, etc. Perhaps you should set up some cameras, or get the place inspected. Or maybe you should just get the hell out of there and forget about the whole thing.
I’ve always just thought it was a matter of cold climates requiring more technology for people to survive and prosper, so you end up with comparatively technical populations in these cold climates.