Stigmatic Sorcery
Index- Click to Navigate:
LOUISE LATEAU AND HER STIGMATA
ST PADRE PIO
WITH THE MITS OFF
STIGMATA
Jesus Christ supposedly bore five wounds after his crucifixion. Padre Pio, St Gemma Galgani, St Catherine
of
The Church only accepted the wounds of St Catherine and St Francis of
The suggestion of some that there might be people who have unusual
levels of electricity in their bodies that enable them to subconsciously and
sometimes consciously produce the wounds through suggestion is odd because
you would expect some of these people to have been able to program their
bodies to live to 200. If you can open
wounds in your hands by desiring the wounds then you should be able to change
the breakdown rate of your body or slow it down dramatically.
Science has verified that some people under extreme stress and fear for
their lives can sweat blood like Jesus allegedly did in the
All stigmatists, however, may be frauds. What is sure and certain is that the very
fact that they claim to have these wounds means we should regard the wounds
has having nothing do with calling us to obey the Church. They are not signs and it is a mistake to
allege that they are. The fact that a
person of dubious morals, Jesus, is glorified by the stigmata is a clear
warning signal and the fact that the crucifixion is more an assumption than a
fact yells just as loud.
LOUISE LATEAU AND HER STIGMATA
Louise Lateau
(1850-83) was a Belgian woman who suffered from abscesses following an
accident and bleeding in the throat. The
Bleeding Mind has been consulted for this examination of her claims.
In 1869, Louise
began to manifest the stigmata. She is
important for she was thoroughly investigated by the medical science of the
time. The doctors who examined her
said that it seemed that she was not a fraud (page 39). She had blisters on the front and back of
her hands which bled (page 37). They
put leather gloves on the hands to see if the wounds would bleed without her
being able to pierce them. It was
found to be possible that she was hitting her gloved hands against something
to break the skin inside the gloves so a new test was created. One arm was sealed inside a glass cylinder. One end was sealed round her upper arm and
the other had a mesh to let the air in but which was considered too fine to
let any sharp instrument in. Louise
might have put oil on her arm to prevent the adhesive from sticking to her so
that she could get her arm out without damaging the seals and the delicate
adhesive. Escapologists tense their
muscles when they are subjected to something the same and the item is
tightened around the expanded muscles so when the muscles relax the leg or
arm or body can be freed. The wound
that appeared in the apparatus was made of small clots suggesting she found
some way to jab herself with a thorn or needle that was palmed before she put
her arm in. It was found that Louise
bled under bandages but pinpricks of blood were on the bandages that may have
been indications that she had been able to stab her hands with a pin (Ref Joe
Nickell, Investigative Files). So if
her hand was in or out she could have faked her stigmata.
Louise claimed
that she did not eat or drink in seven years and her doctor, Doctor Imbert,
who lived too far away was unable to check on her well enough (The
Bleeding Mind, page 114). What was
the cupboard full of fruit and bread doing in her room if she didn’t
eat? If she lied about her inedia then
she probably faked her stigmata. Her weight
went up and down like an elevator when she was supposedly no longer eating
(page 143).
Imbert
testified to the reality of the miracles relating to the stigmatist, Palma
Materelli, but Pius IX had the evidence of her tricks and how she performed them
in his desk in the
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism says that she never had any real flesh wounds but just
bleeding (page 55).
ST PADRE PIO WITH THE MITS OFF
St Padre Pio
was an Italian Franciscan who got the visible stigmata in 1918 after having
pains in his hands and feet and side on and off since 1915. He was supposed to have the power to read
minds and be in two places at the one time.
His blood was perfumed and he was thought to have made the wounds
himself and kept them open with carbolic acid and used eau-de-cologne for the
allegedly miraculous fragrance.
Carbolic acid does not cause wounds but burns but could certainly be
useful to prevent infection and avoid the need to keep re-inflicting the
wounds.
An Archbishop
thought that and astonishingly, even a pro-Pio booklet confesses that there
was a smell of carbolic acid from the wounds at times (Who is Padre Pio?
page 15). The Archbishop, Pasquale
Gagliardi, was found out to have engaged in illegal activities but that does
not mean he lied about the stench.
Pope John Paul II was an accessory to paedophilia for having done
nothing about it and Pio’s supporters believe all he says about Pio who he
canonised and they damn the Archbishop though his evil was nothing compared
to that of the pope. The Archbishop
had no need to falsely accuse Pio of having a carbolic smell in his wounds as
if to suggest carbolic was being used to make the wounds for at that time it
was popularly believed that autosuggestion and hypnosis could produce the
wounds and it would have been safer for the Archbishop to use that line. Not only could an accusation of physically
making the wounds end up being exposed as just a smear but he would have had
more hope of winning over Pio’s fans had he taken the safe road.
The Archbishop
was not the only one saying that about the smell.
In 1923,
Pio even took
on healing treatments for the wounds (page 9, Who is Padre Pio? page
7, The Bleeding Mind). This
indicates that Pio did not see them as a miracle. To look for a cure would be like defying
God who may have originated the wounds.
His supporters suppose he just took the treatments to convince the
sceptics that the wounds were real and miraculous but that would not stop
them being sceptical for he could have kept them open with acidic
solutions. What Pio was really up to
was this: he was trying to persuade people that he did not make the wounds
himself and accordingly wanted to get them cured. Pio with his masochistic penances and the
absence of infection in the wounds could not seriously expect us to believe
that he really wanted a cure. I repeat
Pio was giving a false impression of himself and his wounds. He was being very manipulative.
When Pio’s
health deteriorated in old age the wounds began to fade probably because he
could no longer fake them or no longer wanted to.
Doctor George
Festa in 1919 found Pio had a scar on his breast that was not a wound but
from which there were some drops of blood issuing. Professor Bignami found superficial wounds
on his breast and hands and feet. Both
doctors agreed that there were no deep fissures (page 100, The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism). Pio’s
stigmata is unsatisfactory. There is
nothing remarkable about it (page 100, The Physical Phenomena of
Mysticism).
The doctors do
not agree on whether or not fingers could meet through the hand wounds. A Dr Romanelli could not get his fingers through
because it caused too much pain but he said that feeling the fissures
suggested that there was a void between them (The Bleeding Mind, page
68). But he could not penetrate them
for there was what appeared to be a thin membrane across the fissure (The
Stigmata and Modern Science, page 14).
He only thought it was a membrane for he could not see or feel through
it so was it a blister or just the skin?
Real stigmata would not have a membrane for Jesus had open holes. If Pio had been using chemicals to make the
wounds then it is clear we are not talking about ordinary hands here and so
the chemicals might have affected the skin in such a way that the hands
seemed very soft or perhaps a blister was created thus creating the illusion
of a void for there is no sense easier to fool than touch. The doctor would have been very excited by
Pio and might have imagined things – it is very very easy to delude your
sense of touch. For example, you can
imagine a ghost touching the back of your neck if you think you are in a
haunted house and it will seem real.
The doctor did
describe his belief that there was a fissure as being an impression for he
said he got the impression of a void (page 7, The Bleeding Mind). He further underlined this by saying he
could not feel properly for a complete fissure for Padre Pio found the
examination which entailed trying to insert fingers into the wounds very
painful. The doctor stated that he
could not tell if the wounds on each side of the hand were joined. All he could tell was that there was a
wound on each side of the hand he examined and each wound was deep but could
not be sure.
Romanelli’s
testimony was used in the canonisation process to prove that Pio did not
knowingly make fake stigmata. It
should not have been for Romanelli was being totally biased when he said he
was certain Pio’s wounds were not superficial but deep when he himself
admitted he could not prove it! The
attempted finger penetration would have been done very quickly for the sake
of the pain so a mistake could have been made.
Nobody ever
said he could press on each side of the wound and get his fingers to touch
one another through the wound.
Romanelli tried but assumed that his fingers would meet if he tried
harder but was afraid to for Pio was in great pain (page 14, The Stigmata
and Modern Science). But with the
priest crying and struggling and wincing with the alleged pain would it have
been done right? There is no doubt
that the testimony of Romanelli is the only one that is worth examining for
it is detailed and though not great it is the best of a bad lot. He is the leg that the pro-Pio devotees
have to stand on.
How convenient that Pio was not
put under anaesthesia for examination of the wounds. That shows that neither Pio or those who
organised the tests were very particular though they did their best to look
particular and that Pio was not seriously interested in having the wounds
cured for as far as he was concerned he knew how to handle them. Pio wanted the appearance of being verified
as a true stigmatist. And Pio was able
to undergo two operations without anaesthetic which is a phenomenon known as
auto-anaesthesia (page 89, The Bleeding Mind) – many people with
trained minds are - which makes his behaviour very suspicious. It looks as if he wanted to use the pain as
an excuse for getting the tests rushed and to prevent anything suspicious
being found. It paid off.
Pio’s
Provincial said he would testify on oath that he could see through Pio’s hand
wounds (page 68, The Bleeding Mind).
But no doctor ever could so that is worthless. A piece of a mirror in the middle of the
encrusted blood could be used to give the impression that the hand could be
seen through just like a magician could do it.
Some physicians believed Pio's wounds were superficial. The determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by "thick crusts" of what was thought to be blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of "any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass." Indeed, he concluded that the side "wound" had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his "wounds" concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin (Ruffin 1982, 146-154, 305). Reason bids us believe the doctors who said the wounds were superficial for that would explain why they were not septic – as can carbolic acid! It would explain why there was not a mark on Pio when he died. When there is conflict of testimony the testimony that is closest to a rational or simplest interpretation has to be preferred. We are surer that there were no blemishes on Pio when he died than we are that he had deep wounds when he was alive.
And in this case, we have disposed of Romanelli’s reliability.
Remember when we try to refute his testimony, that is all we really need to do
to succeed. After all, his was
the only one that was nearly any good. So we can be confident that Pio’s
wounds were superficial and that naturally he exaggerated the pain from them
to avoid detection and so he was consciously deceiving.
It is absurd to
think that the wounds would change so much as from superficial to complete
perforations if they were miraculous.
They might change if they were natural.
Pio told a
couple of young girls to listen to their father who warned them that kissing
his hand would lead to infection (Who is Padre Pio? page 37). This is
a denial of the supernatural nature of the marks and that they never turned
septic though this immunity to disease is boasted by the followers of Pio to
prove that he had miracle stigmata.
Pio was indicating then that there were times the wounds turned septic
that only he knew about. When Pio lied
to the girls and when he knew fine well that loads of people do dirty things
with no harmful effects and that the risk was nothing it shows he did not
like anybody seeing his wounds too closely at least at that particular time. The wounds would naturally look more
convincing at some times rather than others and especially if he was making
them himself.
Pio lost a
cupful of blood every day from all the wounds and especially the side-wound (Padre
Pio, page 6). Yet his hand wounds
were caked in blood, which is strange considering that he cleaned them with
iodine. They didn’t bleed that much so
the caking in blood was just something he deliberately produced for one of
his accidentally-on-purpose exposures of the hand wounds. It has got to be for the caking is
avoidable. He could have used bandages
to soak up the blood. He wanted the
mess.
A
well-distributed photo of 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.
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. The
photos are in the booklet, Who is Padre Pio?
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.
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.
Pio did often
hide his stigmata but that could have been for fear he would be found
out. It is easier to fake if you find
an excuse for not making your handiwork visible all the time. Perhaps they were not exposed because they
had healed! And Pio complained that he
would get too much attention if he bared them but one thing is certain this
may have got him peace to live his daily life but it made the outside world
adore him more than he ever thought possible.
And there is no doubt that when God does a miracle as many people as
possible or bearable should see it.
The hiding shows that Pio knew more than he was letting on. Pio being more open about the wounds would
not mean he was an egostistic exhibitionist.
Of course he could be but there would be no reason to accuse him of
being one. His being open would mean
he was sincere.
If Pio was
really serious about hiding his wounds, an allegation that supporters use to argue
that he did not make them himself for if he had he would have been keen to
show them, then why did give this message to a doctor who believed that Pio
developed his wounds by contemplating the crucifix: “Tell that doctor to
stare at a cow and see if horns grow on his head” (www.rense.com/general26/padrepio.htm). Now this statement tells us three
things. One that Pio wanted his wounds
to be recognised as a miracle which belied his saying they embarrassed him
and that he wanted to hide them. When
he wanted that to happen and was afraid to put them on display too much that
indicates fraud. Two that Pio knew
fine well that the doctor meant that there must be something unique about Pio
if his wounds were not self-inflicted that enabled him to develop them by
contemplating the cross. Pio was
misrepresenting the doctor for his own benefit which again belied his claim
that he wanted no attention. Three
that Pio knew the doctor did not mean looking at something was enough. What the doctor meant was that the crucifix
was used as a focus to help Pio put himself under the skin of Christ and feel
his pain as if he was going through what Christ went through which induced
the wounds. Pio knew doctors are not
so silly as to think that looking at a cross would make wounds. Again he misrepresented the doctor for his
own ends.
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism speaks of Pio’s wounds being seen by several people on
different occasions (page 99).
Even if Pio was
faking his wounds it was in his best interest to hide the wounds most of the
time for it got him the best of both worlds.
But as you can see from this photograph Pio did reveal his wounds when
it suited him and he knew that it was enough to show them a few times and
there was no need for them to be made available to view all the time.
Pio could have
been one of these strange people who enjoy making themselves bleed and suffer
that way. Pio would not admit to that
and there is no reason to think he didn’t have a disorder like that.
Despite Pio’s
hiding his wounds he let some “accidental” exposures of the hand wounds
happen. This usually happened when he
elevated his arms during Mass and his vestments slipped back. Why would Pio wear mits that left the
fingers exposed most of the time when saying Mass and when he had to elevate
his arms and not all the time? He knew
that cranks would say that he was so humble that he wanted to hide the wounds
and that they would surmise that this proved he didn’t make them
himself. He knew how hard people were
trying to get a glimpse of the wounds and better still a photograph and he
didn’t take enough precautions. Many of
the faithful alleged that they could see light through the wounds in hands when
he lifted up the host during the
All
saints-to-be have followers who cook up ridiculous miracle stories about them
and there were a lot about Pio. He
never condemned these stories so it would be no mystery if he faked his own
stigmata. He claimed that he was
attacked often at night by demons in his cell and they fought. Demons would harm him more discreetly than
that. A man who declares that
unverifiable miracles happen is not to be trusted. There was nobody there to verify the
attacks and who saw them happening.
Pio was
reportedly beaten by demons at nighttime.
When demons gave him bruises why couldn’t they give him the
stigmata? Why did they make so much
noise that others near Pio’s cell heard them?
Why were they so keen to make him look like a target of evil
spirits? They would only do that if he
was one of their followers. It was all
just a performance if demons were involved at all. Or perhaps Pio was the performer!
Demons would
not come up from Hell to kick the door and shake Pio’s bed when he could do
that himself. Nobody can prove that
Pio was not doing these poltergeist stunts himself for he was alone in the
room. No God would let miracles happen
that one could create oneself for if he would do that then we should believe
in miracle-workers who accomplish feats that any magician can do easily. Pio was not the miracle man he had people
thinking he was.
It is
interesting that Pio who acted so determined to hide his stigmata did not gag
himself to stop shouting at the demons and screaming so that nobody would
know what was going on. He was
conniving and manipulative. The fact
that suspicion regarding the source of the wounds hangs over him shows that
the faithful are dallying with demons for risks like that should not be taken
for God says he comes first.
In 1964, Pio shouted out in his cell one evening at
The Church has
made no declaration on the authenticity of the miracles allegedly surrounding
Pio or even his supposed stigmata excepting the two healing miracles that
were required for the canonisation. One
miracle was the cure of a woman with lung disease and the other was of a
Italian boy who was in a coma with meningitis. That medicine is full of anomalies like
that and doctor’s despairing predictions are sometimes disproved is
conveniently forgotten.
Father Gino
Burresi is someone alive today who makes exactly the same claims as Pio. Yet it is known that this man is not a
saint. And charges of sexual abuse
have been made against him and the
John Paul II
declared Pio a saint. Pio never
should have been canonised. He was
just the kind of man that wanted to bring people back to the days when
unconditional obedience and self-degradation under the heels of bishops and
engaging in physical torture was an essential part of being a Christian. That the man hasn’t caused too much evil is
down to the fact that believers are weak in faith not down to any good
influence from him.
ST GEMMA GALGANI
Gemma Galgani
was born in
Gemma’s thoughts
and feelings were all for Jesus (Gemma of Lucca, page 45). Gemma had a liking for being physically
abused for once when her brother was angry for he could not get to the
theatre she tried to calm him down and he struck her. The nuns asked her about her black eye and
she told them she deserved it (page 67).
She seemed to enjoy ill treatment (page 71). This makes me find it unsurprising that she
soon developed the stigmata. She
permitted Mgr Volpi to come one Friday to witness her having the stigmata and
said they would not appear unless he came alone. She did not want a doctor to accompany
him. She was afraid of the doctor
because he would be able to tell better than the priest if she were
faking. She changed her mind later for
when the doctor and the priest arrived she was bleeding and the doctor
watched her for a few moments and washed her head and her hands. With the blood off the wounds were no
longer visible. If blood is put on
artistically it can look as if there is a wound. The doctor actually stated that he was sure
she was making herself bleed with needles.
Her excuse for there having been no wounds was that the Mgr had
brought a doctor against her wishes
(pages 74-75). She admitted
that she was a greater sinner than her immoral brother (page 92). A faker could say that. The Mgr had doubts about her (page
107). And a Father Gaetano who was
bitterly opposed to her washed her wounds and began to believe and
repented. The blood flowed when she
was in ecstasy and when it was washed off there was no bleeding for a moment
and then it started. This is
strange. Was she cut inside the mouth
and spitting the blood?
She was once
found lying in blood as if she had been scourged and the marks were found to
match the scourges on her crucifix (page 143, The Bleeding Mind). The fact that she was alone when she got
the marks and that they matched a mere image suggest she may have injured
herself in a fit of hysteria. Fr
Germano said that the wounds were sometimes apparently superficial and he
said they were deep at other times and passed through the hand but admitted
that he was not sure of this (The Bleeding Mind, page
67). This shows how prejudiced he was
in her favour and he was determined to make assumptions about her without
proof. She went into ecstasy
frequently during her stigmata and that was his chance to see if he could get
his fingers through for she was shut off from what went on around her. When the scabs came off there were no marks
and he attributed this to the wounds closing when the bleeding ceased. He said that the fissure would appear under
the skin and it would burst and there would be no marks later (The Bleeding
Mind, page 66). Did she use
some kind of dye to make it seem that she was wounded under the skin?
One final thought, psychic surgeons claim to be able to put their hands
into the body and pull out tumours and fix hernias and there is blood and
organs pulled out but when the surgery is over there is no evidence that
there was ever an incision. They charge
a fortune for their work. Many people
claim to have checked them out and found no evidence of fraud. Magicians can duplicate all their feats
with clever trickery and sleight of hand – it’s an illusion. Some use fake thumb extensions which
contain the blood and the steak which they pretend to pull out of the
patient. You would expect the people
“operated” on by the psychic surgeons to know by the feeling around their
bellies or wherever than something was going on and that it was not
supernatural. But this never
happens. Many imagine they have felt
the hands going into the body – people can imagine things like that, its
autosuggestion. You can get people who
swear that psychic surgeons who were caught cheating were not frauds. We know that they would have to be frauds
for if you can make your hands open a body through a magical cut that
magically disappears you should be able to lay your hands on the belly and
simply make the tumour or whatever vanish without the blood and gore. You have a miracle that is in essence
harder to fake than stigmata and still fakery is taking place. You have a miracle that is seen happening
unlike stigmata in which it is mostly the results of the miracle, the wounds,
that are seen. With psychic surgery
you think you see actual penetration of the body by the hands or medical
instruments and yet no mark is left after the surgery. That is far better than stigmata. Like stigmatists there have been psychic
surgeons who were lucky enough never to have got caught. We know they can’t all be real. Some of those who were never caught
cheating have been found to have claimed to have remove tumours that were
subsequently found in hospitals never to have been removed at all. Stigmatists have undoubtedly encouraged
believers in psychic surgeons for when people hear of stigmata and believe in
it they take them as evidence that psychic surgeons can do strange things
too. Psychic surgery is the cruellest
con out there and nobody would accept stigmata and encourage it unless they were
chummy with the Devil.
Gemma once was
instructed in the convent she joined by her confessor not to talk to Jesus or
to entertain the apparition until he permitted her (Gemma of Lucca,
page 133). She did so. Jesus still appeared though. Would the Son of God appear to a woman to
try and induce her to do something against her conscience? She was lying or she was mad or her Jesus
was a Devil. This should have told
both of them that something that was sinful to tolerate was going on and
neither of them cared. Gemma had the
symptoms of demonic possession (page 188).
Jesus said that if a man is delivered from a demon and does not live
in holiness it will come back if it finds nowhere better to go. This implies that possession is a sign that
a person has handed themselves over to the powers of darkness. Galgani does not fit Deuteronomy 18 as a
true prophet of God for when God says a prophet who speaks anything that is
not from God is a fake and to be ignored it follows that anybody who might be
in communion with demons should get the same treatment.
She died in
1903.
OTHER DUBIOUS
STIGMATISTS
Jane Hunt – An
Anglican Stigmatist. An embarrassment
to the Roman Church which boasts that it is the only religion that has real
miracles. Her stigmata is far more
impressive than that of Padre Pio but she is a fraud if Roman Catholicism is
the true faith.
St Francis of
Francis imposed severe fasts on himself when he was very unwell and yet
his behaviour was apparently sanctioned by God in the stigmata! It is certain that the canonisation that
took place two years after his death is not worth the paper it is written
on. The Roman Catholic stigmata
critic, Fr Herbert Thurston SJ examined all the stigmatics since St Francis and
curiously concluded that St Francis was the only case that was satisfactory
though that did not mean he thought he was the only true stigmatist. He felt that since Francis was undeniably
holy that he couldn’t have faked. But
to anybody who does not believe in the miracle it would seem that the
existence of the stigmata was proof that he was not as holy as he made
everybody think. Holiness has nothing
to do with proving the miracle.
Sor Maria de la Visitacon – a stigmatist Dominican nun who was found to be authentic by the
Church investigation and even the physicians declared her to be genuine in
1587 after she was caught painting on the wounds. Later the Inquisition armed with soap and
water soon proved the accusation. Her
side wound was an inch long which would lead some ignorant people to argue
that when it was such a pathetic effort she didn’t inflict it herself so it
must have been real - they always find some bizarre excuse for
believing. Moreover, when she was a
fake despite all the authentication what does that say about the other
stigmatics?
Anne Catherine Emmerich – a stigmatised Augustinian German nun who reported many revelations full of
absurd statements and anachronisms.
She saw the apostles decked out in vestments! Vestments came in in the
Christian faith centuries later as imitations of the day to day clothing of
the apostles. The apostles never wore vestments.
The message is the important thing and when she could not manage to
get it right her stigmata did not come from God. Too many revelations is a bad sign for God
calls his people to live by faith not sight.
Domenica Lazzari – A
stigmatist known for a mask of blood that caked over her face and who could
not bear sunlight or anything too loud and her senses were extremely and
unusually fine-tuned and used to take convulsions in which she hit her chest
so hard it was a wonder she didn’t break the rib cage. She was regarded by investigators as
authentic because visitors were allowed into her bedroom where she lay
paralysed at any time and because her sister who lived with her wanted no
money and was a simple woman. That
kind of evidence is not good enough.
There have been millions of supernatural frauds who acted humble and
unmaterialistic. She claimed that her
senses were so strong that even faint noises from several yards away caused
her great discomfort – claims like that are a big help to getting people out
of the way and to distract them for fear of annoying her so that she could
perform her tricks.
Marie-Julie Jahenny- had
stigmata on her breast which she revealed a bit too eagerly for comfort. God would not organise a miracle that would
cause such immodesty. Catholics hold
that she fell away from the faith (page 30, The Stigmata and Modern
Science).
Bertha Mrazek –
after an allegedly miraculous cure this lady who had training in trickery at
a circus manifested the stigmata.
Believers thought she did not fake the stigmata because the wounds in
the palm were slits while at the back there was just a pinprick for a faker
would have consistent and more flamboyant wounds (so we should believe people
who have the side wound on their backsides then should we?). Arch-sceptic Fr Herbert Thurston believed
she was not inflicting them on herself.
The lady was later found out to have obtained money by deception,
committed adultery and had a lovechild, and to have been insane. She suffered from hysteria which many
researchers believe gives some unusual people the power to make themselves
bleed just by desire.
Teresa Neumann –
this stigmatist was known to bleed only when Professor Martini the person
doing the investigating was out of the room (page 52, The Bleeding Mind). She made movements that were so unnecessary
and bizarre that he was not impressed by her and thought she might have been
doing conjuring tricks to make herself bleed.
When she was allegedly not eating thanks to another miracle there was
plenty of medical evidence that she was during the period when she was not
watched round the clock (page 115, The Bleeding Mind). There is nothing anybody can do to lift
these suspicions now. She may have
faked her stigmata when she apparently faked the living without food miracle.
You can get information on more stigmatists and their spurious wonders
in my online book, Saints from Hell.
STIGMATA REPLICATED?
Elizabeth K was born in 1902 and was a lady of tremendously vivid
imagination and who suffered from hysteria.
Stigmata and tears of blood were induced in
A hoax has been
suspected all because of one photo allegedly showing the subject bleeding
from outside the eyes while Lechler the psychiatrist was claiming that the
blood came from inside the eyelids. So
the problem is that the eyes look too clear for somebody that was bleeding
from inside the lids. But if there was
a little blood it would soon have been wiped by the tears which would have
moved the blood from the two corners of the eye down the face. We see this in the photograph and we must
remember that when the picture was taken, Elizabeth had been bleeding before
Lechler got around to taking the photograph (page 95, The Bleeding Mind)
so the eye bleeding might have just stopped so that her eyes looked clean but
the lids were still stained with blood.
View the photo.
If Lechler had
been hoaxing he would not have made the mistake of photographing a woman who
had just plastered blood around her eyelids.
It has been complained that the witnesses were just Lutheran
deaconesses and that Lechler admitted he could not always prove that
Elizabeth K’s
stigmata is nothing compared to that of the people we have been reading
about. The wounds were not very
impressive which indicates that she did not inflict them herself for she
would have made them look more than just a few pinpricks. But they are real and show that suggestion
has a part to play in causing stigmata.
Perhaps, had she had the right triggers in her brain and nervous
system that only a few seem to have she would have been able to produce
wounds to match theirs.
With Elizabeth K
we also have Eve from the Three Faces of Eve who was able to produce
burn marks just by reliving her experience of being abused under hypnosis and
we have Mook from Hamburg who took wounds on his head like the crown of
thorns but only when he took heart attacks (page 23, The Stigmata and
Modern Science). Some have thought
Mook may have been somebody the Devil was experimenting with which is
nonsense. The Devil has miracle power
and he does not need to test it.
The stigmatists
were all extremely emotional people except in the cases of obvious
fraud. It would not be unfair to say
they are all hysterical or emotionally unbalanced and Bourru, Burot, Charcot
and Bourneville were known to have had a little success in making wounds
appear by suggestion on their hysterical patients (page 15, The Stigmata
and Modern Science).
Some people with
emotional disorders have been found to exhibit inexplicable bruising swelling
and bleeding through the skin a condition known in medical journals as
psychogenic purpura. There is plenty
of stigmata that has not been invested with religious significance. Autoerythrocyte sensitization a disorder
that makes people reject their own blood can be an explanation for many
stigmatist cases.
In 1989 Giorgio
Bongiovanni went to
Professor Oscar
Ratnoff found a woman who bled from the hair follicles on her thigh. No wound caused this but it goes some way
to show that stigmata may be a skin disease caused by the combination of body
and mind (page 1333, The X Factor, Issue 48, Marshall Cavendish, 1998.
From http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Stigmata.html
There have been non-miraculous instances of stigmata. It is an unusual phenomenon but not a
miracle.
“The majority of claimants seem to be displaying a psychosomatic
response to their religious fervour. That the body can will itself to produce
such marks has evidence outside of the realm of stigmata claims and has even
been put to the test. A Swedish girl known as Maria was badly beaten up when
she was 23; after that time she would, every few weeks, produce bleeding from
head, ear and eyelids. A doctor examining her concluded that she could produce
bleeding at will, from no visible wounds, when she picked arguments with
other patients and reached a certain emotional state.”
“Research seems, however, to have identified a mechanism by which the
body can, in certain extreme emotions, manifest strange markings, producing a
truly extraordinary, and highly visible, mystery phenomenon.”
“The marks appear naturally, as a psychosomatic response to religious
fervour. This is the most favoured theory with modern researchers. It has
been tested and it has parallels outside of the claims of the stigmata. The condition is known as psychogenic
purpura (spontaneous haemorrhaging with no obvious cause). It is rare, but
there are several cases of people who produce on themselves the evidence of
some previous trauma. In one case a woman who had been abused during
childhood manifested the spontaneous appearance of her bruise marks during
psychotherapy. British psychiatrist Robert Moody reported the case of an army
officer whom he had treated for stress disorders and sleepwalking. During
these times the officer produced the marks on his body of ropes where he had
been tied up earlier. Moody photographed these wounds and saw them bleed. In
the field of UFO and 'close encounter' research, there is the well documented
case of Barney Hill who believed that he was kidnapped by aliens and
subjected to a medical examination. Reliving the experience years later under
hypnosis, he manifested a ring of warts around his genitals, corresponding to
where he believed devices had been attached during the 'abduction'. In fact
many people who claim to have undergone 'alien abductions' display marks on
their bodies, and bleeding, from wounds they believe were inflicted by
medical examination by aliens. Many other people who have been in close
proximity to UFOs manifest a variety of marks. Some may be attributable to
the object, for example, chest wounds received by Stephen Michalak in
Some modern stigmatists do automatic writing, a spiritualistic
phenomenon forbidden by the Church and the Bible.
”Heather's writings were channelled while she was in trance; she never
remembered the writing, only the beginning as she reached for her pencil and
the end when she 'came round'. But a few people were witness to the
extraordinary speed of her writing; several pages filled in minutes. One
witness said she watched Heather's hand moving at 'abnormal speed'.”
Her stigmata then
if real would be evidence that spiritualism is true if the foolish simplistic
religious reasoning that miracles are proof for the religion they happen in
are true.
From http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Stigmata.html
CONCLUSION
Most cases of stigmata carry indications of
wilful fraud. When they are not caught
out we still know they are frauds because God and the Devil are certainly not
to blame. The stigmata convey an evil
message. Normality says nobody in
their sane senses would seek or desire the gift of the stigmata. Theology says they would and that those who
do not want the stigmata are the crazy ones for God’s blessings are the
sanest things anybody could every go after.
BOOKS CONSULTED
Arthur C Clarke’s World of Strange Powers, John Fairley and Simon
Welfare, Collins, London, 1984
Chapter 7 of this book explores evidence that willpower can make bodily
changes when it is strongly enough exercised by some people. Breasts have been increased in size by
mindpower and the research of Dr Albert Mason and Professor Oscar Ratnoff
verifying that non-religious stigmata happens is detailed in this book. A girl Maria K could make herself bleed
from the ears and eyes and the head just by making herself very angry
according to a study undertaken by Dr Magnus Huss. The fact that Teresa Neumann was doing
erratic things and making strange unnecessary motions under her bedclothes
before her wounds appeared is mentioned – was she making the wounds then?
The Bleeding Mind, Ian Wilson, Paladin,
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books,
The Stigmata and Modern Science, Rev Charles Carty, TAN,
Who is Padre Pio? Fathers Rumble
and Carty, TAN,
From Fasting Saints to Anorexic Girls, Walter Vandereycken and Ron van
Deth, Athlone Press,
Criteria for Discerning
Apparitions, Mons Peric, Bishop of Mostar, available from Militia Immaculatae
Trust, 35 New Bond Street, Leicester
Gemma of Lucca, Benedict Williamson, Alexander-Ouseley Limited, 1932
Counterfeit Miracles, BB Warfield, The Banner of Truth Trust,
The Book of
Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline,
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Marian Conspiracy, Graham Phillips, Pan Books, London, 2001
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism, Herbert Thurston SJ, H Regnery Co,
The
Supernatural A-Z, James Randi, Headline Books,
(Note: This
book in the entry for Stigmata observes that the claims made for people like
the alleged stigmatist Teresa Neumann with their miraculous bleeding and
living on communion wafers cannot be verified for they were never observed 24
hours a day every day. Fr Siwek, an
investigator of Neumann wrote that he had grave doubts about her miracles. To me, no God is going to bother doing all
these miracles when the miracle worker is not going to be watched all the
time.)
THE WEB
The lies and the fake stigmata of Katya Rivas are exposed. Many physicians are stated to have
concluded that there was no sign of penetration when Padre Pio’s wounds were
carefully examined and that the alleged pain and the thick crusts were used
by Pio as an excuse to prevent any in depth examination. More importantly we read that Pio was
examined by a top pathologist who was sent by the
Teresa Neumann’s stigmata changed from round wounds to square ones
seemingly when she found out that the Romans would have used square nails on
Jesus.
www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/4_24/63693003/print.jhtml
Joe Nickell who saw the tapes of Rivas bleeding from her stigmata was able to
duplicate her stigmata through trickery and was also able to show how wounds
like hers could be cosmetically covered up to make it look like they had
miraculously healed. The Baptist
stigmatist Cloretta Robinson is said to have been declared by doctors almost
certainly not to have been faking even though the doctors had to be away
before any wounds appeared! It is
known that wounds that have dried up can be made to bleed again by an
application of hydrogen peroxide.
http://skeptically.org/skeptics/index.html
Thursday, 06
September 2007