What's this "Midnight Game" malarkey in the "Real Life" section? As far as I can tell, it should be in "Other", if on this page at all.

Would Jim Carrey's Yes Man count, maybe to a lesser degree. While it may not be a literal example, the seminar certainly preaches such. Maybe a subversion?

Part about quantum mechanics in real life. I don't want to go editting other people's postings as I'm not familiar with the system or rules on that sort've thing. But the double slit experiment isn't a case of this trope.

In order to "observe" anything something has to be either emitted or absorbed in order to get a readding. In the case of an electron you are essentially "poking" it, causing it's waveform to collapse which fundamentally changes the outcome of the experiment, to conclude the universe in any way changes to suddenly exists simply because it is observed is more a form of solipsitic thinking

From the article:

• In one vampire movie (anyone who knows the title, feel free to add it), a yuppie was able to repel a vampire using his wallet, thanks to his faith in the almighty dollar.

I tried to track this down, and I can't much of anything on it. It appears to be largely anecdotal.

The annotations on Terry Pratchett's Carpe Jugulum (page 91) mentions such a movie, and the proximity of the above example to the Carpe Jugulum example suggests that they were both added at once. For posterity: "This has produced some interesting interpretations of what a 'holy symbol' could be — one film shows a yuppie repelling a vampire with his wallet."

From JustBugsMe/AnitaBlake: ... There is mention in the books of a yuppie warding off a vampire... with his wallet (because he worships/has faith in/whatever the power of the almighty dollar).

I couldn't find any other mention of this on the internet, but if it's as small of a tidbit in the books as is suggested here, I'm not surprised that that text isn't on the internet.

This post mentions a similar tale, but it is referenced as a short story here. The poster, Marlitharn, elaborates further in this post.  ^{Post One}

^{I recall reading a short story, the title and author of which I will probably remember 2 seconds after hitting "submit", which featured a thoroughly modern vampire. Instead of hunting his victims, he utilized a mass mailing technique, sending out cards informing his intended meals that "A vampire will be calling on such and such a date at such and such a time. Please remove all religious symbols and mirrors." His victims, expecting a creative kind of new salesman, complied. Anyway, the victim the story focuses on is a well-to-do executive type who, after realizing what's going on, tries the old crucifix trick. No dice. In a panic, he pulls out his wallet and tries to bribe the advancing vampire, throwing twenties and fifties at him, babbling and pleading. And guess what? The cash repels the bloodsucker, who flees shrieking through the window.}

 ^{Post Two}

^{I read a short story in which a vampire calls on a pair of uber-Yuppies in their upper Manhattan penthouse. When the he-Yuppie realizes that death is quickly approaching with sharp pointy fangs, he first tries to brandish a small cross his wife is wearing. The vamp laughs and keeps coming, and the guy panics and starts pulling cash out of his wallet and throwing it at the vamp, screaming, "Take it all! Just leave us alone!" The cash banished the vampire.}

The short story version is vaguely mentioned here.

From [1]: - Repelled/harmed by religious symbols. This appears to be a subject of great debate. A very prevalent belief, is the symbol itself is useless unless the wielder possesses a strong faith in the efficacy of the symbol, as a despoiler of evil. As such, the symbol is just the vehicle for the faith of its holder, and the actual symbol need not be religious. There is a movie in which a yuppie dispels a vampire by holding up his wallet! Apparently, his faith in money was enough that he could harm the vampire. Again, it was the faith and not the symbol that mattered.

From the article:

One question that never seems to be asked: Why does the universe work that way if most people believe that it doesn't? (In fairness, Jesus wasn't advocating the power of belief as such, but describing a response that God would have to one's belief.  ^*

^{Furthermore, Jesus explained that the believer needed to ask for things "in Jesus' name." Names were connected to someone's character, not in the sense that someone's name pre-determined his or her future, but rather that someone had a duty to take good care of it. In short, one is asking, "what would Jesus really want to give me?" instead of saying, "If I believe, Jesus will give me lots of money"}

)

[end quote; emphasis original, but now removed from the article by yours truly]

What's with all the Christian theology all of a sudden? Why is it here? Isn't this an article about a fiction trope?

I'm guessing the Jesus quote atop the page primed one or two Christian tropers to feel their religion and the way they practice it was being criticised, and this seemed the right place for a rebuttal. If that's the case, I'd suggest taking both the rebuttal and the quote somewhere else (or just out) so that this can be a proper TV Tropes article with no digression as to how much or little sense Christianity's particular usage of the trope makes.