If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone

 

A PHOTOGRAPHIC CASE AGAINST PADRE PIO'S STIGMATA BEING A MIRACLE NOT A FRAUD

 

St Padre Pio claimed that God gave him the miracle of the stigmata

 

But there is only his word for it that there was anything strange about the marks.

 

There is no evidence at all that he had fissures.  The doctors who had a good look said the marks were superficial and only one doctor thought - he said thought - that there were holes say in the hands.

 

Pio was about scabs not wounds.

 

The side wound was confirmed by all to be skin deep.

  

 

There were no real holes in the hands!

 

 

See close up!

 

The picture below is excellent for you can see through the blood crusts and where you would expect to see a hole there is none.  The definition of the crust in the palm is too remarkable to happen by accident.  He deliberately stained his hands with iodine and blood.

 

 

The Changing Wounds!
 

 

If the friar exposing his hands in 1918 shows scabs as large as thumbprints which makes us wonder why they were so much bigger years later. And why did he never consent to having the wounds snapped extremely close up?

 

Pio bends his hand and shows no sign of pain though a hole allegedly goes through his hand!  He even bends the hand!!
 

  
Pio’s hand wounds should correspond to a nail going in at the palm and coming out the back and with the nail entering far below the fingers and sticking to the centre just like you have the wounds on most crucifixes. They should be in line.
 
The 1918 photo shows his wounds in the centre of the back of his hands.
 
But a photo from decades later of the Stigmatised Right Hand shows that the wound in this hand didn’t open in the palm where it should have for a man that had nail wounds as if he were crucified.
 

See Pio's right hand below.
 

 

 

There is no evidence of a wound below.  Why does he never get blood on his fingers or thumb?  It looks like dried blood mixed with something.

 

 

The pic below admittedly does show what seems to be a hole.  But it could also be dye!  Where was it when the other photographs were taken?

 

 

The palm below shows no perforation and the blood is scattered.  And where are the drops of blood?  Why did Pio never drip?
 

 

The picture of Pio blessing the host show that the wound did not open in the palm where you would expect.
 

 
 
 
The wound opens very off-centre near the thumb. The circle of encrusted blood sits like a big coin in the palm in line with the first two fingers meaning that the nail would have penetrated in line with where the two fingers meet. The position is totally wrong and the wound is far too near where the fingers begin. Stigmata that must move around the hand is suspect. Doctors make mistakes but the eye does not in this case.

 

Here is a later photo.

 

 

 

There was just too much encrusted blood which is indicative of a hoax – especially when Pio cleaned the wounds every day. 

 

 

 

In the picture below, Pio proves he was a liar when he said he avoided showing his wounds and did not like the attention they got.  Here he is showing blood marks that are too tidy for to be real.  Showing no holes.  Showing blood that is too uninform in colour and everything.  Or is it "blood"?  Why is Pio who presumably would not have wanted blood dripping into the chalice or getting onto his fingers and thumbs and thus staining the communion wafers so sure that this will not happen?  The answer is that he was not really bleeding in his palms. He deliberately put blood taken from elsewhere and put it on his hands and let it dry.  That is a classic stigmatic trick.

 

 

 At his last mass Pio's scabs were gone.  His skin was immaculate when he died.

 

 

 

 

Anybody could claim stigmata and claim they just vanish just when somebody is about to take a professional look!!

 

Pio's socks and shirt provide interesting evidence.
 
Pio's bloodstained socks look they were badly engineered to make it look like his feet bled. Had there been a wound on the top of the foot and in the sole we would expect to see a huge patch of blood where the sock touched this area.. But instead of that we see light blood smears all over the socks. The socks look like what you would expect had somebody been wearing them after pinpricking all over their feet. They actually look more like a case where someone mixes blood with water and splashes it all on. And why white socks? Those socks were intended by Pio to be found and displayed.
 

 
 
Pio claimed to carry the scourge marks of Jesus. These wounds were never examined by a medical professional so we should be sceptical. If God does miracles and is behind science as well then he will not do a miracle that he has not organised a scientific assessment of. To disagree is to admit that science and Catholicism are incompatible. It would be to say Catholicism is indeed superstition. His shirt is depicted below. Jesus would have had most of the wounds on the shoulder blades and suffered a brutal scourging but this shirt does not show signs of a severe scourging.
 
The stains look contrived. They look like the blood just came out and stopped and seeped. They seem to have happened for no purpose but for display. Real blood stains are darker where the blood emerges. Then there will be a lighter effusion of blood taking up a bigger area.
 

 

 


The evidence we can see from photographs overrides the theories of believers that the marks were miracles.  They were not.