Ya I've seen some celebrities with whom it makes no sense like Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel, both of them constantly call out evil stuff. I think the photographers knowingly or unknowingly get some to do these signs. However, I do believe many actors are doing it purposely

Keep I'm mind it's not just the photos. There's also the bruises.

Why the same thing over and over though. I understand there is only so many ways an eye can be covered but why the same gimmick artists HATE gimmicks. I get the artist will stomach stuff for money but there seems to be so much of it. As well it seems to most often be covered in the same ways a hand covering it. Yes there are pictures of feathers and random junk being used but the majority of those people also have a picture of a hand covering it.

Other people could be copying it as well without knowing the meaning but I suspect the photographer or editor knows the meaning and is coaching them in to it.

Lady Gaga deliberately covered her eye when someone said "oh my God". When you know you know.

I do understand your idea but I wonder that it falls apart at the cool and unique because it's no longer unique, if it ever was, and I think there's more evidence to argue it is a calling card. My theory is that evil must give full disclosure so this idea of people 'branding' themselves to be part of a collective adds up. I don't think God's in the practice of letting people get fooled accidently, no, they know a choice is taking place when dealing with evil. (Just a theory, I've been wrong before)
edit: also the evidence amounts to more than a photo for most of these folks, it's not just a photo, it's lifestyle choices, multiple photos or other 'calling cards' and you can take this argument out of hollywood too if itis profitable; gangs, tribes, cults, they all do symbolism.

ffs the “satanic alien/demon child-eating occultist cabal network" is the dark side, the great awakening is the light, you know as per the “light versus darkness” dualism thats been manifesting for like thousands of years with unimpeachable historic precedence.

OP's is a pretty stupid take.

Not everyone has a feel for numbers, but a single second's reflection should give at least a feeling for the unlikelyhood of the incredible frequency of this one single, unusual pose.

Maybe OP could continue her I-don't-like-it-so-it-cannot-be claims by claiming that, in the mass opinon-forming media only, there are more head-resting-in-hands poses (common IRL) that there are covering one eye poses (rare IRL)