Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PJPSYCO · 04-21-2005, 01:53 PM

I was wondering if anyone knew of a resource that deals with the improperly crucified stigmatics.

Stigmatics seem to get it in the palm which from what I've read is no longer accepted as the crucifixion point by even scolarly beleivers.
I was wondering if they are just rejected, allways accepted, or only accepted if right? If apologetics are used what are they?

I will concede that palm stigmatics may only be accepted by those who haven't heard about the correction or are suffering from cognative dissonance.

Toto · 04-21-2005, 02:36 PM

Skeptic's Dictionary: Stigmata is a good place to start.

Joe Nickell is an investigator for CSICOP who looks into religious hoaxes like these. You can search for his work on www.csicop.org and find articles like this:

Quote:

When Bernas presented herself to the audience at Navy Hall-manifesting stigmata-Nickell immediately noticed that the wounds ceased flowing and dried quickly, "consistent," says Nickell, "with their having been inflicted just before she came out." On closer examination of the stigmata on Bernas's hands, he noticed that the wounds were superficial. "I noticed that the actual wound looked like a small slit, but surrounding that was a larger red area," Nickell reports. "[T]his appeared to have been deliberately formed of blood in order to simulate the appearance of a larger wound, like one formed by a Roman nail."

Nickell found the absence of wounds on Bernas' palms and soles highly suspicious. "A sham stigmatist might well avoid those areas which would be subjected to additional pain-and made more difficult to heal-whenever one walked or grasped something," he says.

Nickell, who has tested techniques of faking stigmata on himself, concluded that the stigmata he observed on Bernas were consistent with faked wounds. He also questions her other claims, such as miraculously manifesting crowns of thorns appearing on her head.

Nickell attributes the stigmata phenomenon to pious fraud, noting proven examples such as 16th century stigmatic Magdalena de la Cruz, who confessed that she had faked her wounds, and more recently Gigliola Giorgini, convicted by an Italian court for fraud in 1984.

I'm not sure if this answers your question

The Inquisitor · 04-21-2005, 07:20 PM

In my experience, most Christians--atleast the Catholics--did not take such claims very seriously, except for the fringe groups that see miracles in everything, such as rusted rosarys being golden

PJPSYCO · 04-21-2005, 08:05 PM

Most information seems to be of the sceptic side saying they are hoaxes, and the beleiving side saying miracles. So, I suspect it is as polarised as I think, and therein no one has bothered to explain the discrepancy. I'm suspecting fringe only myself.

Thanks for the CSICOP link, I didn't have that one bookmarked.

04-21-2005, 01:53 PM	#1
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	Stigmata vs Crucifixion I was wondering if anyone knew of a resource that deals with the improperly crucified stigmatics. Stigmatics seem to get it in the palm which from what I've read is no longer accepted as the crucifixion point by even scolarly beleivers. I was wondering if they are just rejected, allways accepted, or only accepted if right? If apologetics are used what are they? I will concede that palm stigmatics may only be accepted by those who haven't heard about the correction or are suffering from cognative dissonance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2005, 07:20 PM	#3
The Inquisitor Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 70	In my experience, most Christians--atleast the Catholics--did not take such claims very seriously, except for the fringe groups that see miracles in everything, such as rusted rosarys being golden

04-21-2005, 08:05 PM	#4
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	Most information seems to be of the sceptic side saying they are hoaxes, and the beleiving side saying miracles. So, I suspect it is as polarised as I think, and therein no one has bothered to explain the discrepancy. I'm suspecting fringe only myself. Thanks for the CSICOP link, I didn't have that one bookmarked.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.