by Joe Nickell
Illness is another frequent characteristic. René Biot, in his The Enigma of the Stigmata (1962, 57), exclaims with wonder at “how many stigmatics have been bedridden!” He notes that St. Lidwina (d. 1433) had so many alleged illnesses that she was “a sort of pathological museum,” indeed a “museum of horrors.” Similarly, Therese Neumann experienced alternate bouts of convulsions, blindness, deafness, mutism, paralysis, and so on—effects that appear to have been due to hysterical hypochondria or, more likely, outright fakery, since the alleged conditions evaded diagnosis (Rogo 1982, 65–66; Nickell 1993, 227–28). Given such cases, one researcher noted the parallels between stigmata and Münchausen's syndrome, an emotional disorder involving feigned or inflicted illness (Schnabel 1993).
Still other stigmatics—like St. Veronica Giuliani (ca. 1640–1727), Victoire Claire (ca. 1808–1883), along with numerous others—often lapsed into states of ecstasy (that is, apparent trance states arising out of religious fervor). Following St. Francis, who supposedly received his stigmata during a vision of Jesus’ crucifixion, came several emulators, including Passitea Crogi, who, on Palm Sunday 1589, fell into an ecstasy and later described a vision of Christ bruised and bleeding. Other vision-delivered stigmata were claimed by Johann Jetzer, Therese Neumann (1898–1962), and James Bruse.
A great number of stigmatics were blessed, allegedly, with other supernatural phenomena, including the powers of prophecy and healing, levitation, bilocation (supposedly being in two places simultaneously), and inedia (the alleged ability to forgo nourishment). As an example of the latter, Angela of Foligno (1250–1309) reportedly went without food for twelve years. After death, the bodies of a few stigmatics were discovered to be “incorruptible” (that is, able to withstand decay). Also vials of blood preserved from the stigmatic wounds of Passitea Crogi purportedly reliquify on occasion (Wilson 1988, 131–48). Needless to say, perhaps, such claims are unproved and may be attributed to folklore, misperceptions and misunderstandings born of superstition, and pious fraud (Nickell 1993).
PROVEN FRAUDS
That many stigmatics were fakes is well established. For example, Magdalena de la Cruz, having become ill in 1543 and fearful of dying a sinner, confessed that her stigmata, inedia, and other phenomena were deliberate deceptions. Another, Maria de la Visitacion, known as the “holy nun of Lisbon,” was accused by a sister nun who saw her painting a fake wound onto her hand. Although initially defended by doctors in 1587, she was brought before the Inquisition, whereupon her wounds were scrubbed and the coloration washed off, revealing “unblemished flesh” beneath (Wilson 1988, 26).
Another fake was Palma Maria Matarelli, who not only exhibited the stigmata but also “miraculously” produced Communion wafers on her tongue. Pope Pius IX privately branded her a fraud, stating that he had the proof in his desk drawer and adding, “She has befooled a whole crowd of pious and credulous souls” (quoted in Wilson 1988, 42). A more public condemnation awaited Gigliola Giorgini (b. 1933): discredited by church authorities, in 1984 she was convicted of fraud by an Italian court (Wilson 1988, 42, 147).
The authenticity of some stigmata may be questioned in light of the mystic's character. For example, Teresa Helena Higginson (1844–1905), an English stigmatic, was dismissed as a teacher on accusations of theft, drunkenness, and unseemly conduct. And Berthe Mrazek, a Brussels-born circus performer turned stigmatic, was first regarded seriously, but doubts came in 1924 when she was arrested for fraud and committed to an insane asylum (Nickell 1993, 223). Still other stigmatics must be viewed in light of their propensity for self-punishment and self-mutilation. These include the thirteenth-century masochist Lukardis of Oberweimar, who, before exhibiting the stigmata, “had the habit of driving her fingernails into her palms” (Wilson 1988, 132)!
Circumstances surrounding the twentieth century's two best-known stigmatics—Therese Neumann and Padre Pío (both mentioned previously)—raise further doubts about the genuineness of the phenomenon. For example, a Professor Martini conducted a surveillance of Therese Neumann and observed that blood would flow from her wounds only on those occasions when he was persuaded to leave the room, as if something “needed to be hidden from observation.” He added: “It was for the same reason that I disliked her frequent manipulations behind the raised [bed] coverings” (Similar suspicions also accompanied her professed demonstration of inedia) (Wilson 1988, 53, 114–15).
Many Catholic scholars have expressed skepticism about the genuineness of stigmata. One was a neuro-psychiatrist who had personally observed thirty stigmatization cases and in none of them “was able to eliminate, absolutely and decisively, every kind of artificial action” (quoted in Biot 1962, 102–103). Although attributing most instances to suggestion rather than hoaxing, Herbert Thurston (1952, 100) found “no satisfactory case of stigmatization since St. Francis of Assisi.”
Thurston and others defend Francis on grounds of his piety and character; however, his single-minded desire to imitate Jesus, his “immense capacity for self-sacrifice,” and the fact that “he was a son of the church to the marrow of his bones” (Coulson 1958, 188) may have led him to foster a pious deception—something that many others have clearly been unable to resist.
A MODERN CASE
The Fox television network's 1999 special Signs from God heralded the Bolivian miracle claimant Katya Rivas, whose repertoire included not only stigmata, but also the production of an unusual “delta state” on an EEG, automatic writing in languages she allegedly did not know, and multicolored “glitter” on a print of the Image of Guadalupe in her home. (For a review see Nickell 1999.) The show was hosted by Australian journalist Michael Willesee, who, during an airplane accident in 1998, had “re-embraced his Roman Catholic faith in an instant conversion” (Randi 1999).
Rivas claimed she received a message from Jesus telling her that while she would not produce stigmata as hoped on Good Friday (the day Christians commemorate Jesus’ crucifixion), patience would be rewarded. A later message announced that full stigmata would take place on the day following Corpus Christi (a Catholic festival honoring the Eucharist or Lord's Supper). The night before the stigmata were to appear, Rivas gave a sample of her blood as a control, since there was speculation that the blood from her stigmatic wounds might not be hers exclusively.
Come the appointed time, unsuspecting viewers were treated to what had all the signs of a staged event. Rivas was abed, in a fashion reminiscent of Therese Neumann, and the covers provided ample concealment if trickery were involved. No doctor was in attendance. Michael Willesee made a cursory examination of Rivas's hands and feet, and referred to scars from previous stigmata. These were seen on her feet, but it was unclear whether there were prior marks on her hands also. (This is significant in light of developments, as we shall see.)
During real or pretended suffering, Rivas exhibited, first, prick-like marks and bleeding on the forehead (as from a crown of thorns)—though apparently not on the sides or back of the head, suggesting the marks were only for show. Then there was (possibly) a pink mark on the left palm, followed by a tiny cross on the back of the hand that was initially without blood. Later there were bloody “wounds” on both sides of the hands and feet. Willesee used swabs to obtain samples of the blood for analysis. No side wound or other crucifixion markings ever appeared. At the end of the experience—or demonstration—Rivas displayed paroxysms of a death-like agony imitative of Jesus’ crucifixion.
Rivas's wounds were never seen in the act of spontaneously issuing. Instead, they were shown in incremental shots after each appearance—just as they would if self-inflicted during periods of concealment. Among other suspicious elements were the mismatching of “entrance” and “exit” wounds, those on the left foot being far out of alignment. Also, those on the palms and soles of the feet were, as far as could be seen, only smears of blood.
Moreover, such wounds as could be distinguished did not resemble puncture wounds. Instead, they consisted of multiple cuts, including the cross on the back
of the left hand (figure 46.1) and an array of slashes atop each foot. The latter are curiously in pairs (see figure 46.2), as if produced by a two-pronged implement, like the sharp-cornered, calyx-like ring Katya Rivas wore during the event.
Supposedly only twenty-four hours later, the camera recorded Willesee inspecting Rivas's wounds. Apparently those on the palms and soles had vanished completely (but were not specifically shown) and the markings that remained were seemingly in an advanced state of healing. Willesee treated this as remarkable, although another interpretation is that the vanishing of some “wounds” indicated they were never there in the first place and that most or all of the markings were old cuts from previously faked stigmata.
A genuine element of the affair was the blood itself, which was shown by DNA analysis to be Katya Rivas's. Unfortunately for the miracle-mongering journalist Willesee—who made much of the possibility that it might be Christ's blood in whole or in part—it proved to be Rivas's alone.
When I was asked to appear on a television documentary on stigmata and to discuss the Katya Rivas case, I decided to experiment beforehand by inflicting wounds on myself. I used a sharp blade to cut a cross on the back of my left hand. This shallow, superficial wound yielded enough blood to produce the effect of a larger wound (figure 46.3) and even (by transfer) create a “wound” on the palm (figure 46.4). The next day the latter had of course vanished and the cross had begun to heal. There are certain medicinal preparations one can apply to allegedly promote healing and, as I found, cosmetic creams that through their hiding power can seemingly advance the healing or eliminate the wound entirely.1
My examination of the video showing Katya Rivas's alleged stigmatization, and the simple experiments I performed, persuaded me that not only could her stigmata not be authenticated, but, indeed—like other instances of the alleged phenomenon throughout history—they cannot be distinguished from a pious hoax.
Of the twentieth century's two most famous stigmatics (those who experience the supposedly supernatural wounds of Jesus), both Therese Neumann and Padre Pío were suspected of fraud, but Pío went on to sainthood and was canonized in 2002. In April 2008 his body was exhumed and put on display in a church crypt in San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, a move that both attracted throngs of the credulous and provoked outrage among some Pío devotees. It also renewed questions about the genuineness of the stigmata and other phenomena associated with Pío.
A CAPUCHIN FRIAR
Born Francesco Forgione on May 25, 1887, in the town of Pietrelcina, Pío grew up surrounded by superstitious beliefs and practices. His mother took him soon after birth to a fortune-teller to have his horoscope cast and at the age of two to a witch who attempted to cure an intestinal disorder by holding him upside down and chanting spells. As a boy he was tormented by nighttime “monsters,” and he conversed with Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and his guardian angel. He also had other mystical experiences (Ruffin 1982, 21–23, 79) that today are associated with a fantasy-prone personality.1 He was “frequently ill and emotionally disturbed” and claimed he was often physically attacked by evil spirits (Wilson 1988, 88, 144).
In 1903 he entered the Order of Friars Minor, Capuchin—a conservative Catholic order that traces its origin to St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226), the first stigmatic. The new initiate was called Fra (“Brother”) Pío (“Pious”), after the sixteenth-century pope, St. Pius V (Ruffin 1982, 35, 39). Pío continued to hear voices and experience visions, and in 1910 he began to experience the stigmata just after being ordained a priest.
As Padre Pío continued to exhibit the phenomenon, he began to attract a cult following. It was said he could look into people's souls and, without them saying a word, know their sins. He could also allegedly experience “bilocation” (the ability to be in two places at the same time), emit an “odor of sanctity,” tell the future, and effect miraculous cures (Wilkinson 2008; Rogo 1982, 98–100). Village hucksters sold his credulous disciples alleged Pío relics in the form of swatches of cloth daubed with chicken blood (Ruffin 1982, 153).
The local clergy accused Padre Pío's friary of putting him on display in order to make money. They expressed skepticism about his purported gifts and suggested the stigmata were faked.
THE PHENOMENA
The claims of Padre Pío's mystical abilities are unproven, consisting of anecdotal evidence—a major source being the aptly named Tales of Padre Pío (McCaffery 1978). Pío's touted psychic abilities seem no better substantiated than the discredited claims of the typical fortuneteller or medium see Nickell 2001, 122–27, 197–99). Many of his “bilocations” are analogous to Elvis Presley sightings, while some are—at best—consistent with hallucinations (such as one reported during a migraine attack or others occurring when the experiencer was near sleep or in some other altered state [McCaffery 1978, 24–36]). The reputed “odor of sanctity,” said Pío's accusers, “was the result of self-administered eau-de-cologne” (“Pío of Pietrelcina” 2008).
As to Pío's miraculous healings, they—like other such claims (Nickell 2001, 202–205)—are not based on positive evidence of the miraculous. Instead, the occurrences are merely held to be “medically inexplicable,” so claimants are engaging in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance (drawing a conclusion based on a lack of knowledge). Faith-healing claims often have alternative explanations, including misdiagnosis, psychosomatic conditions, spontaneous remissions, prior medical treatment, and other effects, including the body's own healing ability. Cases are complicated by poor investigation and even outright hoaxing. One man's claim of instant healing of a leg wound by Padre Pío, for example, was bogus; his doctor attested it “had, in fact, been healed for six months or more” (Ruffin 1982, 159).
But it is Pío's stigmata that have made him famous. Unfortunately, some examining physicians believed his lesions were superficial, but their inspections were made difficult by Pío's acting as if the wounds were exceedingly painful. Also, they were supposedly covered by “thick crusts” of blood. One distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was an absence of “any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass.” Another concluded that the side “wound” had not penetrated the skin at all (Ruffin 1982, 147–48). Some thought Pío inflicted the wounds with acid or kept them open by continually drenching them in iodine (Ruffin 1982, 149–50; Moore 2007; Wilkinson 2008).
Nevertheless, some of the faithful were so intent on defending Pío that they made incredible claims. One was the insistence that the hand lesions, which skeptics thought were superficial injuries, were through-and-through wounds—“so much so,” insisted Pío's devoted family physician, that one could see light through them.” Of course, this is nonsense in view of authentic wounds in general and Pío's thickly blood-crusted ones in particular (Ruffin 1982, 146–47).
There were other problems with the “wounds,” including their location. Only the Gospel of John (19:34) mentions the lance wound in Jesus’ side, and John fails to specify which side. The side wound of St. Francis was on the right, whereas Padre Pío's was on the left. Also, witnesses described his side wound as in the shape of a cross; in other words, it had a stylized rather than realistic (lance-produced) form (Ruffin 1982, 145, 147).2 Moreover, his wounds were in the hands rather than the wrists (some anatomists argue that nailed hands could not support the body of a crucified person and would tear away). When asked about this, Pío replied casually, “Oh it would be too much to have them exactly as they were in the case of Christ” (Ruffin 1982, 145, 150). (One is reminded of Therese Neumann, whose “nail wounds” shifted from round to rectangular over time, presumably as she learned the true shape of Roman nails [Nickell 2001, 278].) Moreover, Padre Pío lacked wounds on the forehead (as from a crown of thorns [John 19:2]).
For years Pío wore fingerless gloves on his hands, perpetually concealing his wounds (Ruffin 1982, 148). His supporters regard this as an act of pious modesty. However, another interpretation is that t
he concealment was a shrewd strategy that eliminated the need for him to maintain his wounds. Before his death, frail, weary, with “rheumy eyes seemingly fixed on another world,” Padre Pío celebrated Mass. According to Ruffin (1982, 305), “For the first time in anyone's memory, he did not attempt to hide his hands at any point in the service. To the amazement of everyone there, there was no trace of any wound.” At his death on September 23, 1968, his skin was unblemished.
So, were Padre Pío's phenomena genuine? Many other stigmatics—like Magdalena de la Cruz in 1543—confessed to faking stigmata. Maria de la Visitacion, the “holy nun of Lisbon,” was caught painting fake wounds on her hands in 1587. Pope Pius IX himself privately branded Palma Maria Matarelli (1825–1888) as a fraud, insisting that “she has befooled a whole crowd of pious and credulous souls.” Suspiciously, under surveillance, Therese Neumann (1898–1962) produced actual blood flows only when the phenomenon was “hidden from observation.” And as recently as 1984, stigmatic Gigliola Giorgini was convicted of fraud by an Italian court (Wilson 1988, 26–27, 42, 53, 147).
Even a defender of Padre Pío's stigmata, C. Bernard Ruffin (1982, 145), admits, “For every genuine stigmatic, whether holy or hysterical, saintly or satanic, there are at least two whose wounds are self-inflicted.” Catholic scholar Herbert Thurston (1952, 100) found no acceptable case after St. Francis of Assisi. Thurston believed the phenomenon was due to suggestion, but Padre Pío himself responded to such theorizers: “Go out to the fields and look very closely at a bull. Concentrate on him with all your might. Do this and see if horns grow on your head!” (quoted in Ruffin 1982, 150). As for St. Francis, his extraordinary zeal to imitate Jesus may have led him to engage in a pious deception (Nickell 2001, 276–83).