Spontaneous Human Combustion: The Fire Within

You'll love Crimes A Reddit, a new crime house original with Sabrina, Diana Roga and Lexus

Linklitter.

“Every week, one host brings real true crime stories from Reddit while the other reacts”

completely blind. No prep, no spoilers, then they swap. It's a feeling of sending your group chat a thread at 2 a.m. that starts with "you have to see this." Except Sabrina and Lexus are in the chat with you.

While Crimes A Reddit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or subscribe at Crimes A Reddit Podcast on YouTube, this is rewind. Picture a small living room. There's an armchair in the corner with a pile of grey, greasy ash on top of the burned out seat cushion.

Sitting on a carpet beside it, there's a single human foot, still wearing a slipper.

Clearly, there was a powerful deadly fire here, but somehow it didn't spread.

The walls are barely smudge, the curtains are fine, there's a stack of newspapers a few feet away that didn't even brown at the edges. This exact scene has been turning out for almost 300 years. It can't a person really catch fire from the inside, with no warning.

“Or is there always an answer we're just not seeing?”

People have been debating it for centuries, and not that long ago, a corner decided that something many consider to be pseudoscience is very, very real. I'm Dr. Herdey-bot and this is Hidden History, a rewind original powered by pay studios. On this show, works for us on the most mysterious events from history that have yet to be fully explained.

Examining all the different theories from science to the supernatural and everything in between. From vascularizations and doomsday prophecies to paranormal experiences and unexplained phenomena, I'm looking at it all, and I want you to join me. Before we begin, I'd love it if you could rate, review, and follow Hidden History, your support allows our community to grow, and for other people to discover the show.

We're also on YouTube with full video that brings each episode to life just search @HiddenHistoryPod and subscribe. Today's episode is all about spontaneous human combustion, the idea that a human body can suddenly burst into flames with no outside source or fire. For three centuries, there have been stories of people being burned almost to nothing,

in rooms that barely show a scorch mark. So is this a real phenomenon that science can't yet explain? Is it an ordinary fire that just looks impossible? Or is it a myth we built ourselves and have been telling ever since?

“To understand why this idea has haunted people for so long, you have to picture the world”

it was born into. For most of human history, fire was everywhere. People cooked over open hearts, read by candlelight, and fell asleep next to a growing fireplace. And for thousands of years, nobody actually understood how fire worked from a scientific perspective.

So imagine you're living in the 1600s and you walk into a room and find a person reduced to ash and grease. The bed they were lying on is barely cinched. It doesn't look like an accident. It doesn't look like murder.

It looks like the body simply decided to burn itself from the inside. And across all these early cases, the descriptions kept lining up in the same unsettling way. The torso and head gone cooked down to ash. But the hands, the feet, the lower legs, were often left behind, weirdly intact.

A greasy set coated the walls, a sweet, smoky smell lingered in the air, and the room itself was almost untouched.

Sometimes, but only sometimes, there was a candle or a hearth nearby, but not always.

This pattern, this signature, came to define spontaneous human combustion or SHC. Just the reason a few hundred separate deaths spread across multiple centuries ever got grouped together into one phenomenon in the first place. Now, when did it start? Honestly, nobody agrees.

Some point to a Danish anatomist named Thomas Bartolin, who records strange burning deaths in the mid-1600s. Others go back even further to old stories, some set as far back as the 1500s, like a night named Palonus Vortius, who was said to have down some strong wine and then burst into

Those earliest hails are almost certainly more legend than history, but they can tell you

how old this idea is.

“The case that really changed everything, though, happened in a courtroom.”

In 725, in the French City of Reams, an in-keeper named Jean-Malais found his wife burned almost to nothing in the kitchen of their tavern, while the wooden furniture right to beside her body was barely scorched. Jean was probably accused of murdering her, and he might have hanged for it, except for a surgeon in Claude Nicholas Lecaque, who'd go on to become one of the most famous

physicians in France. Lecaque made the case that no one had killed her at all. He argued that she died by spontaneous combustion, and Jean-Malais was acquitted. Think about what that means. By the early 1700s, quote, "The human body can burst into flames on his own, wasn't

just a spooky rumor.

“It was something that could be argued in a courtroom, and accepted as a cause of death."”

And then came the case that became the blueprint. In 1731, in the Italian town, a chasena, a 62-year-old noble woman named Countess Cornilla de Bonde, went to bed one night. The next morning her made open the door to something horrific. About four feet from the bed sat a heap of ash, two legs from the knee down, stockings

still on, and lying between them, the count is a skull, the back of it, and the chin burned away. The rest of her was simply gone. It graced the house melanches so it coated the windows and the walls, but the bed itself was barely touched, and on the floor sat a small oil lamp covered in ash, and completely

empty of oil. A local clergyman named Giuseppe Bianchini wrote up the whole grizzly scene in careful detail, and his account with the 18th century equivalent of viral.

“They travelled all the way to London, to the Royal Society, the most important scientific”

body in the world at the time. And in 1746, a fellow of that society named Paul Rowley translated the Countess's case for the Society's official journal. In doing so, he gave the phenomenon the name we still used today, spontaneous human combustion. A few years later, in 1763, a French doctor named Jonas DuPont gathered up every case

he could find the melatrial included into one of the first real case books on the subject.

So by the middle of the 1700s, this wasn't French. It had a courtroom acquittal behind it, a meticulous case study, a growing catalog of victims, and a name handed down by the cutting edge of science itself, and the cases were just getting started. Over the next 100 years, the reports kept coming in, and as more and more cases piled up, physicians and writers started looking for the thing they all had in common, the cuts.

They thought they'd found it, and the answer they landed on tells you less about how S.H.C. potentially works, and more about the people who came up with this theory. By the mid 1800s, it kind of profiled as taking shape in medical literature. They said the typical S.H.C. victim was an older woman. She was usually overweight, and crucially, she was almost always a heavy drinker.

The theory practically wrote itself. All that alcohol had soaked into her body and made her flammable. She was essentially a human lamp waiting for a spark. But I need to call it out. This isn't really a scientific conclusion. It's a moral one. This was the era of the temperance movement, a massive social campaign against alcohol,

and spontaneous human combustion fit that campaign perfectly. It became a cautionary tale. Drink too much, and God, or chemistry, take your pick, will literally set you on fire from the inside.

Notice too, who the victims almost always were. Not powerful men, but poor, older woman,

often described as women of low character. The story wasn't just about how the fire worked. It was about who deserved it. And here's the twist. Even as the public fell in love with this idea, the actual science was quietly turning against it. A German chemist named Ustis von Liebig, one of the founders of modern organic chemistry, decided to actually test the alcohol theory. He took animal tissue soaked in alcohol

and tried to make it burn the way the legend said a drunkard would. It didn't work. The human body is mostly water. You can't drink enough to turn yourself into a candle.

for spontaneous human combustion have been more or less debunked by serious science.

“The public did not care even a little bit. And that's because, around the same time,”

the most famous storyteller in the world pour some literary gasoline on the fire. In 1852, Charles Dickens started publishing his novel, Bleak House, in monthly installments like episodes of a TV show, which they did a lot back then. And in one of those installments, he killed off a character, a nasty drunken old shopkeeper named Crook. Not exactly subtle. And the way he died, spontaneous human combustion. Crook is simply found as a scorched patch

and a pile of ash in his own shop. For Dickens, it was a perfect symbol. Bleak House is all about a corrupt legal system that slowly consumes everyone it touches. So man who draws from the inside until he bursts into flame, chefs kiss, thematically. But not everyone was impressed. A writer and critic named George Henry Lewis, who happened to be a friend of Dickens and who knew

his science, read that chapter, and basically lost it. He fired off a public column attacking

the whole thing. Calling spontaneous human combustion, it quote vulgar error. A superstition with no place in serious fiction, because he said it simply cannot happen. Dickens wasn't about to back

“down though. Remember, he's mid novel, so he had the perfect weapon, the next installment.”

He wrote a scene where a corner investigates Crook's death and mocks the very idea that the man could have died any other way. Then, when Bleak House came out as a full book, Dickens added a preface where he insisted he'd done his homework that he knew of around 30 real cases, including Cornelia Dabondi. The two of them went back and forth for the better part of a year. Now history has pretty firmly sided with Louis here, but I want to point out why Dickens was wrong,

because it's the exact same problem we're still wrestling with today. Dickens was signing eye witness stories. That included old reports and dramatic accounts. He genuinely couldn't see the

“difference between those and a controlled experiment like LeBix. To Dickens, birdie colorful anecdotes”

felt like overwhelming proof. So here's where we stand. By the late 1800s, serious science had

basically closed the case. The alcohol theory was dead. The whole thing was in the words of George

Henry Louis, if vulgar error. So in the century that followed the century of Forensics and foreign investigators and the FBI, the spontaneous human combustion produced its most famous, most genuinely baffling cases of all. I first met Koneta when I started reaching out to women in prison. For years, I thought I knew why she killed a man. But the more I dug in, the more I realized that nothing was quite so simple.

What she buried is available now on the bin. Search for what she buried wherever you get your podcast to start listening today. Subscribeers to the bin, you can listen to all episodes, all at once, at free. The 20th century should have been the end of the story. This is the era of fire science, of forensic pathology, of crime labs and trained arts and investigators.

As spontaneous human combustion was going to be conclusively debunked, this was the time. Instead, this is one of it came even murkier than ever. July 2nd, 1951, St. Petersburg, Florida. A 67-year-old woman named Mary Research had been seen the night before, sitting in a big, comfortable armchair in her apartment, in her night-down, smoking a cigarette. She taken a couple of sleeping pills. That this morning, her land lady went to deliver a telegram,

and found the door knob strangely hot to touch. She got help, they forced the door open, and inside, they found almost nothing left of Mary Research. The chair was gone. Mary was gone.

still in its lipper. And yet the rest of the apartment was bizarrely fine. There was so a pie near

“the ceiling, but a stack of newspapers nearby had an ignited. Candles across the room hadn't”

even fully melted. The press went wild. They called her the "cynder" woman. To everyone following the news, it looked exactly like spontaneous human combustion. But here's the detail

that always gets left out of the spooky retellings. The FBI investigated this case, and they did

not conclude that Mary Research spontaneously combusted. Their explanation was that her cigarette has set her night-down a light while the sleeping pills at her deeply asleep. And that once she caught fire, her own body fat had kept the flames going for hours. So the single most famous case in the history of spontaneous human combustion was officially ruled not spontaneous combustion. But hold on to this, because we'll come back to it. If Mary Research is the most famous case,

“this next one is the most haunting image. December 5, 1966. Countess Port, Pennsylvania.”

A 92-year-old retired physician named Dr. John Irving Bentley lived alone in a two-story house. He used a walker to get around. He smoked a pipe. That morning, a gas company meter reader named Don Gosnell let himself in to check the meter. He had permission because the doctor's mobility was so limited. Down in the basement, Gosnell noticed something strange. A sweet spelling, light blue smoke, and a neat little pile of ash on the floor. When he looked

up, he saw a hole burned clean through the ceiling above him. He went upstairs, and in the bathroom he found what was left of Dr. Bentley. There was a hole burned through the floor. And at the edge of it, the lower half of one leg, the foot still in its slipper. The rest of the doctor had fallen as ash in the basement below. His walker stood right there beside the hole barely touched. The paint on the bathtub a couple of feet away hadn't even blistered. Officially,

this one was ruled an accident. The theory being that the elderly doctor dropped a hot ember from his pipe onto his robe and was simply too frail to react in time. But that photograph, the hole in the floor with the slipper's leg beside it became for a lot of people, the defining image of spontaneous human combustion. The thing that just looks impossible. And it wasn't only in America. In Ireland, the cases kept coming to. In 1970, an 89-year-old widow named Margaret Hogan

was found burned almost completely away in her Dublin home. While a television 12 feet from her chair had melted. But the rest of the room was nearly untouched. And then there's a case that made it

even more confusing. Because in this instance, someone finally saw it in content warning here

“that the details are pretty disturbing, but I'm only giving you the details you need to know.”

In 1982, in North London, a 61-year-old woman named Jean Safin, Jean E. to her family, was sitting in the kitchen with her elderly father, Jack. Jean E. had a developmental disability. She lived with her parents her whole life and was by every account deeply loved. According to her father, that day, he saw a flash of light out of the corner of his eye. He turned it as Jean E. if she'd seen it too, and found his daughter on fire. The flames were

around her upper body, her face, and her hands. And the thing that breaks my heart about his account is that he said she didn't scream, and she didn't move. She just sat there, perfectly still, with her hands and her lap. Jack and his son-in-law beat the flames out with water. They burned their own hands doing it. But Jean E's injuries were too severe, and she died a little over a week later. The skeptical explanation is that a spark or ember from her father's

pipe had landed on her clothing. But there was no clear source, anyone could point to with certainty. In every means, one of the most genuinely unsettling cases on record, which brings us

finally to the present day. To the case that shouldn't have been able to happen the way it was reported.

December 2010, County Galway, Ireland. A 76-year-old man named Michael Ferdee was found dead on the floor of his living room. His body almost completely burned away. He was lying near the fireplace. But the fireplace was not lit. There was a whole burn in the floor beneath him and scorching on the ceiling above. And everything else in the room was essentially undamaged. Investigators searched for

did something almost no modern coroner ever does. After a full investigation, he formally concluded

“it was in his own words, spontaneous human combustion for which there is no adequate explanation.”

It's believed to be the first time an Irish coroner ever officially used those words. So that's a

question we're left with. In the 21st century with modern forensics, a coroner looked at the evidence and wrote down the one thing science says can't happen. Was he right? There are three big ways to answer that. Let's take them one at a time. I want to start with what most fire scientists will tell you, which is basically there's no such thing as spontaneous human combustion. That being said, there is a real well understood, genuinely creepy process called the wick effect. Here's the idea,

and the analogy is right there in the name. Think about a candle. It's a wick on the inside surrounded

by wax, which is fuel for the flame. You light the wick and the heat melts the wax,

“which gets drawn up into the wick and keeps it burning, slow and steady for hours. Now flip that.”

The wick effect says a human body can become an inside out candle. Your body fat is the wax, the fuel, and your clothes are the wick. It needs a starting spark, a drop cigarette, an ember from a pipe, any kind of stray flame. That little fire charge a patch of clothing and ruptures the skin underneath and the fat starts to melt. That melted fat soaks into the burning clothing exactly like wax into a wick. And now if you've got a small intense fire that can burn for

hours feeding on the body's own fat. It explains so much about these cases. Why is the torso

destroyed but the hands and feet survive? Because that's where your body fat is. Lots in the torso very little in the feet. Why is a room barely torched? Because the flames are small and low, and fire mostly burns upward, not outward. So the sit collects near the ceiling. While a newspaper a few feet away stays cool. And that greasy film on the walls, that's just the rendered fat condensing. To test this theory, a frezzess scientist named John DeHon, ran an experiment for a

BBC science program. He took a dead pig chosen because pig fat is a lot like human fat, wrapped in a blanket act as the wick, and lit it with a small amount of gasoline as the drop cigarette. The pig burned for about 5 hours. The fire at the wick reached around 800 degrees Celsius, roughly 1500 Fahrenheit. But the room around it stayed comparatively cool. And by the end, the pig's torso and even some of his bones were reduced to ash.

While his feet were barely touched, it was almost exactly the scene from 100 spontaneous combustion cases. Now this isn't just one dramatic demo. Two investigators, Joe Nichol and John Fisher did a huge two and a half year study of around birdy alleged cases. They found something telling. In case after case, there was a plausible source of fire nearby. A candle, a fireplace, a cigarette, something like that. It just had been quietly left out of the dramatic retellings.

They also found that the victims were very often elderly or in firm or intoxicated. In other words, people who once a fire started couldn't get up, couldn't react, or save themselves.

“And remember Mary research strangely shrunk in skull. There's even science for that. A”

researcher named Angie Christianson found that older, more brittle bone, the kind affected by osteoporosis, burns and fragments far more easily than healthy bone, which fits because so many of these victims were elderly. And let's circle back to the alcohol part of it. It has nothing to do with the person's morality. But a brish biologist named Brian J. Ford proposed that the body might sometimes make itself more flammable through a process called ketosis, which can happen with heavy drinking,

diabetes, or with extreme low carb dieting. Ketosis produces a chemical called acetone, which is extremely flammable. Ford even sewed pork tissue in acetone and showed it can burn down to ash surprisingly fast. It's a fascinating idea, but I'll be honest about his limits. To get his tissue to burn like that, Ford had to soak it in acetone, concentrations far beyond what a living body would ever realistically produce. So most scientists see it as an interesting footnote

to the wick effect, not a replacement for it. For the vast majority of cases, the human

needs hours, which is hard to square with the cases people describe as fast, like genie saffins. And it needs an ignition source, which, in a couple of cases like microfarades, nobody ever actually found, which means we need to look at other possibilities. Now for a completely different kind of explanation, what of the most interesting thing about spontaneous human combustion isn't the fire at all. What if it's us? One very argues that

spontaneous human combustion is less a medical phenomenon than a story. One that humans society's

built and kept retelling because it did something for us. We already saw the first piece of this.

“Remember the temperase era? The way S.H.C. became the perfect anti-drinking parable. The fat”

drunk old woman who burns from within was a perfect stand-in for the larger message about morality. The second piece is Charles Dickens. When the most beloved writer of the age put spontaneous human combustion in a novel, and then went to war defending it, he gave the idea enormous cultural weight. It may have been fiction, but it made the concept "beal real." But the third piece is the sharpest, and it comes straight from those skeptical investigators, Nickel and Fisher.

Remember what they found? That the no possible source of fire detail, the thing that makes these cases feel supernatural, was over and over simply removed from the story. The fire was there. Somebody just didn't mention it, because a version without it is a better story. And once you see that, you start to see it everywhere. There was nothing in the room that could have started a fire, and it sounds like a fact. But a lot of the time is a choice, but what to include and what to leave out.

Even that astonishing Michael Ferry verdict, read through this lens, looks a little different. A corner saying, quote, spontaneous combustion, no adequate explanation, might really be saying something much more ordinary and much more honest. We could not determine exactly what happened here. That's not a supernatural conclusion. That's the admirable humble limit of one investigation, albeit one that used a very dramatic phrase. And there's a harder

“edge than this theory too, that I think we have to face. Fire is sometimes used to hide things,”

some desks that got filed as possible as one teen's combustion were very likely something else. A suicide or homicide were someone used fire to cover their tracks, an initial source that just

never got found. The assembly truth is that spontaneous combustion can become a label where you

reach for precisely because the real answer is too disturbing or too sad to look at directly. So this possibility doesn't explain the chemistry of a single fire. What it explains is something maybe more important. Why this idea refuses to die no matter how many times science varies it. But it has a weakness too. It's all just a story we tell is a power of idea, but it can become its own lazy catch-all. Because there really are a handful of cases where the candle wasn't there,

where the fireplace was cold, where someone watched it happen. So what do we do with those?

Okay, this is the part where we open the door to the strange. And I want to do it the way we always

“do. With genuine curiosity and joy and honesty at the same time. Because here's the thing.”

The wick effect is brilliant, but it has those two requirements, a source of ignition and a lot of time. And in a small number of cases, one or both of those just aren't there. Michael Fairity with no accelerant and an unlit fire. Jeannie Safin who's father described a sudden flash and fast flames. That little space where the conventional explanation doesn't quite fit, that's where the what if lives. So what if? In a rare few cases, the fire really does start inside.

One of the more grounded versions of this points to ball lightning. A real genuinely weird, still not fully understood phenomenon where a glowing sphere of energy appears usually during storms. Some researchers have wondered whether something like that could be an exotic, external ignition source, or just not counting for. It's speculative, but ball lightning itself is real, which is more than you can say for most paranormal explanations. Then things get bigger. The best

who spent decades collecting cases for his book, a Blake's. Arnold proposed that there might be

“a previously undiscovered subatomic particle. He called it a piratron. That could very rarely”

strike a person and trigger a tiny chain reaction inside the body. And it has to be fair here and give you the skeptical response, which is blunt. There is no evidence such a particle exists. And the idea runs hard against what we actually know about cells and physics. But it's a real example of how far people have reached to explain these fires. There are older, stranger framings, too. A riter named Michael Harrison argued that spontaneous human combustion belonged with

poltergeist phenomena. That the same mysterious energy people associate with hauntings might under the right conditions, turn inward and ignite a person. You'll also find people connecting it to the idea of an internal life energy or fire drawn from various spiritual traditions. There's no hard evidence for any of it, but it speaks to a very old human intuition that there's a kind of fire inside us and maybe just maybe it can get up. And it's worth saying,

a handful of people have even claimed to survive something like this, to have suddenly inexplicably burned and lived. Their accounts are deeply contested, but to believers, they're proof the phenomenon

“is real and just isn't always fatal. So why does the idea endure when the evidence is so thin?”

I think it's because it feels that exact hole the other two leave behind. The wick effect explains almost everything and almost is a very uncomfortable place to live. But I owe you the strongest argument against all of this, and it's a good one. The science writer Benjamin Radford put it simply. There are 8 billion people on earth. If human beings could genuinely spontaneously burst into flames, why does it essentially never happen where we can see it? Why is no one

combusting on a pack subway or in a stadium or live on camera? A real bodily process should show up constantly. Instead, it only ever seems to happen to people who were alone. In a room that, when you look closely, usually had a flame in it, extraordinary claims in ordinary rooms.

And here's what I keep coming back to. Look at who these people almost always were.

Elderly, often frail, frequently living alone, sometimes drinking. And in case after case, not found for hours or even a full day, because there was no one there to find them. And the real explanation, the wick effect, is when you actually say it out loud, unbearably sad, a person alone drops a cigarette. There's no one to help, and they burn slowly for hours. While the world, a few feet away, says completely undisturbed.

I think that might be the real reason this myth refuses to die, because, quote, "She was struck by a mysterious cause of fire is in a strange way, an easier story to tell than an old woman died alone, and nobody noticed until the next day." This spontaneous human combustion turns a lonely ordinary death into something cosmic, something chosen. Something that means a

“little more than it did. Maybe we cling to it because the truth is just too sad.”

And maybe the most human thing in this whole story isn't the fire at all. It's a refusal to let an ordinary death stay ordinary. Okay, so what do I actually think? I'll be honest with you. I love the fire within. There is a real part of me that wants there to be some undiscovered for or some spark we can't get measured. But I'm a scientist, and I have to follow the evidence.

And the evidence here is not close. The wick effect plus an overlook source of ignition, plus a person who could react, that combination explains the overwhelming majority of these cases. We can demonstrate it. We've watched it happen to that pig in real time. And on the other side, there's not a single verify case, not one at 300 years of a human body igniting with no external source, observed under any kind of controlled condition. The one thing that would actually

prove spontaneous human combustion has simply never been documented. So that's where I land.

It isn't spontaneous. It's a slow, tragic, profoundly ordinary fire that only looks impossible. But, and I mean this. I'm not going to stand here and tell you we've explained away every single

the detail-state genuinely strict. I can't personally solve those for you today. What I can't say

is that the category doesn't require us to invent a new force of nature, even if a couple of

“individual cases keep their secrets. Because here's a thing I really believe. Unexplained is not”

the same word as supernatural. Sometimes unexplained just means the candle burned out before anyone got there to see it. Okay, before I get out of here, let's play our favorite game. What if it happened now? Imagine a suspected spontaneous combustion case in 2026. And honestly, in a lot of ways,

the mystery wouldn't survive that afternoon. We've got smoke detectors with time stamps,

doorbell cameras and smart home sensors, logging temperature and motion. Fire marshals who know the wick effect cold, it can spot a slow-fat fuel burn in five minutes. The there was no possible

“source claim that power this myth for centuries gets a lot harder to make when there's a sensor”

log telling you exactly when the spoke started. But here's a flipside and it's a part that generally worries me. Because we also live in the perfect world for a myth like this to explode.

Picture it, one grainy phone photo of a scorched hair and an untouched newspaper. A thermal image

somebody misreads. A caption that says the rest of the room was untouched. Explain that. And before a single fire investigator has finished the paperwork, that wick effect death is raising around the planet as undeniable proof of spontaneous human combustion. They debunking when it comes gets a fraction of the views. So we have better tools than ever to find the truth. And a culture that's better than ever as scrolling right past it. Which if you think about it is the exact same fight,

Dickens and Louis were having an 1853 anecdote versus evidence. A great story versus a boring fact. We're still having it just in the comments section instead of a literary magazine. And maybe that's the real lesson as spontaneous human combustion. Some mysteries don't ever really get solved. They just get a new way to argue about them. Thanks so much for joining me for this episode of Hidden History.

I'm Dr. Kruini, but join me next time as we explore another unbelievable story from the past. What did you think about spontaneous human combustion? Are you skeptic or do you believe in the fire within? Let me know. And if you enjoyed the episode, be sure to rate, review, and follow hidden history wherever you're listening. So we can keep building this community together. Thanks for listening and we'll see you at the next episode.

“Are you the type to fall down an internet rabbit hole and not come up for hours?”

You'll love Crimes a Reddit a new crime house original with Sabrina, Diana Roga, and Alexis Linklitter. Every week one host brings real true crime stories from Reddit while the other reacts completely blind. No prep, no spoilers, then they swap. It's a feeling of sending your group chat a thread at 2 a.m. that starts with you half to see this. Is that Sabrina and Alexis are in the chat with you? Follow Crimes a Reddit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify or subscribe

at Crimes a Reddit pod on YouTube.