Priest and exorcist in Nashville says Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” concept could be “cursed,” amid renewed debate over on-screen occult themes

Steven Spielberg’s alien-themed film “Disclosure Day” has drawn renewed attention from a Roman Catholic priest and exorcist in Tennessee, after Father Dan Reehil suggested that some movies could be treated as “cursed,” according to a report published June 13 by the New York Post and published online June 14. Reehil’s comments focused on what he characterized as the spiritual risk of certain occult or supernatural portrayals, and he singled out the Spielberg title as an example of media that, in his view, could carry harmful effects beyond entertainment.

Father Dan Reehil is described by the New York Post as a Roman Catholic priest and exorcist with the Diocese of Nashville. In his remarks, he discussed the idea of “cursed” media in connection with the motion picture “Disclosure Day,” a project tied to a major Hollywood production and described in the report alongside imagery associated with the film’s promotional materials. The report did not describe any official church action or formal diocesan policy in connection with the comments.

The New York Post coverage also framed the priest’s statements as part of a broader cultural conversation about supernatural themes in mainstream media, including how parents and faith communities may interpret frightening or occult imagery. Reehil’s comments, as described in the report, were not presented as court testimony or a decision by any public authority, and the article did not cite any regulatory response to the remarks.

As film releases and marketing campaigns for large productions proceed, the dispute largely appears to be a matter of public discussion and belief within religious circles, rather than a dispute carried through a governmental process. The New York Post article does not indicate that any distributor, studio, or platform has announced a change to “Disclosure Day” marketing, content, or release plans in response to Reehil’s comments.

For audiences, the immediate practical question is whether the priest’s remarks alter how viewers, especially families, weigh the film’s themes as the release approaches. The report’s emphasis is on the religious interpretation of media content rather than on allegations of fraud, safety hazards, or production misconduct. No additional details were provided in the report about any specific scenes or creative decisions behind the “cursed” characterization.

Because the reporting centers on a priest’s personal statements and interpretation, this episode does not appear to establish a legally enforceable standard for film content or spiritual risk. Still, it highlights how high-profile cultural announcements can intersect with institutional religious perspectives, and it may add to pressure on studios to anticipate broader audience reactions tied to faith and community concerns.

The next developments will likely depend on whether other church officials, media critics, or representatives for the production and distribution respond publicly to Reehil’s comments, and whether any additional reporting clarifies what, if anything, he meant by “cursed” in terms of existing church teaching or practice. In the meantime, viewers and families will continue to rely on standard film ratings and content descriptions as the most widely shared, formal guidance for release decisions.

Sources reporting on cultural controversy typically evolve through additional interviews or clarifications. If more documentation emerges from the diocese or from film studio representatives, it could affect how the remarks are understood, including whether they reflect private theological commentary or a broader institutional position. Any such follow-up would also likely determine whether the topic shifts from public debate to specific steps by distributors or faith leaders.