Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Chris45]

What is Stigmata?

http://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html

Good question!!!

In 1998, respected journalist Mike Willesee presented a controversial 2-hour TV program called "Signs From God", a documentary purporting to test faith with science. http://www.youtube.com/user/pesaminotili?feature=watch

He made a video "A Plea To Humanity" http://www.apleatohumanity.com/plea.htm

The Stigmata of Katya Rivas. True or false?

Mike Willesee made his first trip to Bolivia in July 1998. He went back in Holy Week of April 1999 bringing with him his own film crew to record the story for the Fox Network Television Program. He was hoping that Katya would have the stigmata on Good Friday of that week and that he would be able to film it. The day before Good Friday, Katya said to Mr Willesee that she had had a message from Jesus saying that she would not have the stigmata the next day but that she would have it on the Friday following the Feast of Corpus Christi (which would make it Friday, 4th June 1999, some two months away) and that he could return then and film what happens.

We returned on 3rd June and we were given unrestricted freedom to film. We began filming her on the evening of the 3rd and then through the next day.

At 12 noon, on 4thJune, at the exact time and date that Katya predicted the stigmata would occur, we saw and filmed small red dots appear on her palms and her feet. These marks then slowly opened up to form somewhat circular and deep severe wounds which began to shed blood.

There was a symmetry to the way the wounds appeared and developed in both hands and both feet. They all began at the same time and progressed as bleeding wounds at the same rate. While wounds appeared on her hands and feet, wounds began to appear on her forehead.

The wounds on the forehead appeared one after another across the forehead as we watched. These wounds looked as if they had been caused by something sharp, small and pointed. There were perhaps 20 or so. On her left cheek there appeared a swelling and a heavy bruise mark, of the sort that one sees when someone has been given a hard punch to the face.

Throughout all this Katya was seen to suffer the pains of the wounds she had. As the time approached 3 pm she began to suffer from difficulty in breathing and what seemed like a congestion in her lungs. At about 3.10 pm, all the pain subsided, and her injuries began to heal.

By the next morning the injuries she had to her body had completely healed. (The medical opinion is that the wounds like she had should have taken at least 4 to 6 weeks to heal).

There were at least 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata that day. Not only was there Mike Willesee and myself, but Greg Barbara, (an Australian 60 Minutes cameraman), his sound recorder, Ralph Steele, Neuropsychophysiologist, Dr Ricardo Castanon, and other people.

Since the broadcast of the Fox program, there have been some journalists and critics who have gone to print to publish what they suggest was the case, namely that Katya inflicted those wounds on herself, or they were inflicted on her by someone else and that Mike Willesee had been duped by some clever fraud to think otherwise.

It is interesting that not one of those journalists or critics has asked to see the raw footage of what was professionally filmed of what actually happened. Nor have they sought to speak to or interview any of the 9 witnesses who saw what happened.

What he witnessed was enough to drastically change his thinking, as he revealed to ABC journalist Geraldine Doogue. http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s802380.htm

 

[bellenuit]

I haven't watched the documentary yet, but did some research. This is an interesting article I found (it is better to read at the URL, as there are links from there to supporting articles that don't get reproduced in my cut and paste:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk9.html#stigmata

July 28, 1999. Fox (Alien) Network's "Signs From God: Science Tests Faith" should have been called "Dollar Signs: Fox Tests Gullibility."

Giselle Fernandez and Michael Willesee took viewers on an uncritical tour through exotic places like Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Monterrey, Mexico, to "scientifically" examine an uneducated woman who writes books in Greek and Latin, dictated to her by Jesus, and who is filmed while apparently undergoing a stigmata; weeping and bleeding statues; and rose petals with "miraculous" images of Jesus and Mary. The show was truly a worthy follow-up to Fox's presentation of the Alien Autopsy and Miracles and Visions films of a few years ago. (I especially liked the authentic touch of having a commercial for a film called "Stigmata.")

The program was mostly a rehash of "For All Humanity," a film produced several years ago by Ron Tesoriero, an Australian lawyer, about Catalina "Catia" Rivas, the bleeding statue of Cochambamba, and Nancy Fowler, a nurse who started having visions in 1985 and began causing traffic jams near Conyers Hill in Georgia when word got out that the the Virgin Mary was appearing there on the 13th of the month. (The 13th is special for Maryvisions since she allegedly appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal, on the 13th of May, 1917.) One hoped that some mention would be made of Our Lady of Watsonville or of the "victim soul" of Audrey Santo, but Willesee dumped the Tesoriero segment on Fowler and only added one on Mexican rose petals impressed with medals.

The program's credibility depends heavily upon the reputations of Fox and Willesee. Fernandez does not pretend to be anything more than the host, even if a gushing and fulsome one. Fox has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted. Thus, the credibility of the program rests with Willesee. Who is he?

Willesee is introduced by Fernandez as an "internationally respected journalist" and declares that it is "an honor to work alongside" him. She proclaims that he is renowned for his "skepticism and investigative abilities." That should soon change. He is not much of a skeptic, even though his reporting on such topics as psychic ability, dowsing, and acupuncture earned him the 1987 Responsibility in Journalism Award from CSICOP. (He is a respected broadcaster in Australia.) The program demonstrates that he is not much of an investigator. His honesty might be questioned as well, based on the fact that he does not mention Tesoriero or his work by name, though Willesee's program is largely a rip-off of the lawyer's documentary on "scientifically inexplicable happenings." Willesee only says that "a lawyer" got him interested in the subject and states that his own film was "seven years in the making." The bulk of "Signs from God," however, revisits Tesoriero's work on Catia (identified as "Katya" by Fox), including interviews with the same "experts", such as Dr. Ricardo Castoñan, a Bolivian psychologist who claims he's investigated many miraculous claims and found that most of them were authentic. The credits for the program state that Michael Willesee Sr. is the executive producer and that he wrote the program with Brian Brown. Mike Jr. is listed as a supervising producer and Jo Willasee is listed as doing research. Tesoriero is listed as one of the "segment producers." That is the only recognition he is given.

Willesee was an Australian television broadcaster who did a Current Affairs program for some thirty years before quitting. He found God and returned to the Catholicism of his youth (though he's been divorced twice) due to his belief that God intervened and saved him from dying in a plane crash in 1998. In 1997, he was listed as one of the top 200 richest men in Australia by Business Review Weekly. Things got even better in 1998. After making a few dollars in radio and real estate investments, he turned to film making. His first film was on "primitive tribes."

Willasee's critical skills were revealed early with his comment on the main proof that Jesus dictates books on theology in Greek to "Katya" Rivas: she has the "imprimatur" of the local bishop. Maybe he doesn't know what an imprimatur is. It is not a seal of approval that a miraculous claim has been authenticated. The imprimatur indicates only that the material is doctrinally sound, not heresy, according to an official censor. Later, he asserts that he believes that blood from a "bleeding" statue of Jesus, which was determined by a scientific lab test to be the blood of a human female, was that of the Virgin Mary! Even Fernandez balked at that speculation. (He also had a CAT scan done of the "bleeding weeping" statue, but for what reason one can only guess.) When two scientists reproduced holy images on rose petals by pressing holy medals into the petals, Willasee commented that they didn't "completely answer" the question of whether the Monterrey, Mexico, petals were authentic. He also claims that since the Mexican rose petals were not for sale, there was no possible motive for deceit. Hence, he believes God is involved in their production. This naive notion that if money is not a motive, the probability that the "miracle" is authentic increases, was stated at the top of the program by Willasee. (He also is impressed if the claimant does not have a "cult" following and is humble.) He seem completely oblivious to the possibility of pious fraud or mental disorders that might motivate a person to deceive for Jesus.)

Finally, Willasee's objectivity, skepticism, and critical skills should be questioned if only because the film is so one-sidedly Catholic. Not only do his alleged miracles that science can't explain only involve Catholics, his experts are Catholics, including the one expert he brings in as a skeptic, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, editor of "The Catholic Answer."

Nevertheless, even a pious though uncritical investigator who thinks he is doing God's work might stumble upon a true miracle. Does Willasee's film demonstrate anything of interest to those looking for a miracle? To me, the only miracle is that anyone takes his work seriously.

The program made it clear at both the beginning and the end that there is some connection between natural disasters and claims of apparitions of Jesus and Mary. I can understand the dramatic effect of trying to connect apparent apparitions with doomsday prophecies and the spate of bad weather we've had on this planet during the last decade. It is easy to get people to think of weather and natural disasters in terms of human time, rather than geologic time. Comparisons of one decade with another or even one century with another are, however, misleading. Which assumption do you prefer: an All-Good God created the world in such a way that floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tidal waves, etc., would be a regular feature of life on earth; or, an All-Good God created the world as a benign place but intentionally destroys us on a regular basis to remind us to stop sinning? I think both views are absurd. Even more absurd, however, is the belief that God picks obscure people to reveal special messages to us, such as "repent" and "Remember: I came to save you."

The film itself does not provide anything of interest except as a lesson in how not to do a scientific investigation of such matters. For example, the main proof that the voices Katya hears (giving her theology lessons in Spanish, Greek and Latin) and the images she sees are not delusions or hallucinations or lies is that when she was given an EEG she produced measurable delta waves while awake. (Delta waves usually occur only during sleep.) If this segment was authentic, all it proves is that Katya has an abnormal brain. Where is the Rosetta stone that declares that God speaks in delta waves? (Note: the film was edited to make it appear that Katya and the doctor performing the EEG [who, for some reason, was in another room behind a soundproof glassed enclosure] were communicating telepathically. We have Mr. Willesee's word that there was telepathic communication regarding whether Katya has epilepsy.*)

The segment of the film likely to persuade uncritical viewers that they have witnessed a miracle is the stigmata segment. Some effort went into priming the viewer by stating that the Catholic Church had authenticated some twelve cases of stigmata, including St. Francis of Assisi and Padre Pio. Without belaboring the point, Katya dictated the conditions for the event (telling everyone that Jesus was dictating when and where it would happen). The film showed her before, during and after the event. At the start, she has scars, but no bleeding wounds on her hands and feet. During the film she starts to show scratches on her face and hands, then bleeding from slashes, not punctures, from her hands and feet. A blood sample is taken and proves to be almost certainly her own blood. Willesee indicates that he expected the blood to be Jesus's! He asserts "there's no way" [the wounds] were self-inflicted."

How thorough was this investigation? First, the film clearly shows that Katya has a rosary with a holy medal wrapped around her left hand and a white cloth clutched in her right hand. On each hand, she is wearing a ring with a protruding setting. Her first wounds are some scratches on her right temple. These are declared by an observer priest to be "consistent" with the crown of thorns wounds of Jesus. Her largest facial wound, however, was on her left cheek. Is this a new wound that Jesus had, that no one knew about until now? Could she have cut herself with her rings, fingernails, toenails, rosary, something concealed in the white cloth? Of course. Did the investigator make sure she had no sharp objects available to her? No. Did they use several cameras, focusing on her hands and feet at all times, to detect any self-mutilation? No. The cameras focused almost exclusively on her agonizing face and the agonized faces of those watching her suffer. Did they try to duplicate her wounds by using only rings, finger and toe nails, and a rosary? No. Did they even try to duplicate a single scratch using such primitive implements? No. Did they identify any medications Rivas takes and whether she took her meds that day? (Does she take blood thinners, diuretics, etc.?) What kind of investigation was this? If this was the "thorough expert analysis" promised us by Fernandez at the top of the show, then new meaning has been given to that expression. The only thing Willasee did that was remotely scientific was to have the blood tested. The results of that test? Well, they are consistent with self-mutilation. Where I come from self-mutilation is a symptom of a mental disorder. That does not mean that Rivas does not suffer real agony. Her suffering is most likely authentic, unlike the investigation of Michael Willasee.

(Note: Two Australian readers responded and both claim that Willesee left his current affairs program under less than honorable circumstances. They say he appeared on TV appearing to be drunk; Willesee claims he was on medication and was tired and emotional. Matt Crowe described the scene this way:

[Willesee] appeared one day looking very dazed. In between stories he was slurring, mumbling and giggling. Then it all became too much and he burst into uncontrollable laughter for several minutes. He kept trying to compose himself but it was no good. At one stage he had almost fallen off his chair.

Andrew Dare put it this way:

[Willesee] claimed to have taken some medicine, but the fact that he was on air, slurry, giggling and almost falling over ruined his credibility. That show was going downhill anyway into the "We put a suit in to be dry-cleaned with $50 in the pocket and 9/10 drycleaners took the money" and "New diet pills - do they really work - our scientific tests (i.e. they hire a guy in a lab coat with a clipboard) prove it" sort of stories.

Mr. Willesee is probably still giggling and falling off his chair at how gullible Americans are and at how ready the Fox Alien Network is to take advantage of that fact.

further reading:

Nickell, Joe. Looking For A Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions and Healing Cures (Prometheus Books: Buffalo,N.Y., 1993).

James Randi on the Fox fiasco
CSICOP Response to Fox's Signs From God: Science Tests Faith
reader comments

One reader, Ermanno D'Annunzio of Adelaide, South Australia, thought the above critique was incomplete. He wanted to know how I could explain the "colored crystals" that appeared on a floor painting. I don't know why I should try to explain it, since Willesee didn't offer any explanation himself. We were told that the glitter miraculously appeared on a print of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Nevertheless, anybody can put glitter on a print. Nothing miraculous about that. Mr. D'Annunzio wants to know how pictures can cry and how a tear got on a print of the Virgin Mary that was under glass. There are many ways to make statues or prints appear to cry, none of them too miraculous. For example, you can surreptitiously dab, squirt or spray water or salt water on the object. We'll never know what method was used in this case because Willesee didn't follow anything resembling a scientific method to investigate the matter. We were asked to take it on faith, on the word of a person who says it's true. Finally, Mr. D'Annunzio is puzzled by how quickly the alleged stigmatic's wounds healed. Since we only have the word of Willesee that the after pictures were taken the day after the wounds appeared, we don't have a very reliable source for this claim. But even if he isn't lying, there is nothing miraculous about wounds healing quickly, especially if they are superficial wounds (mere scratches). Wounds can appear to be worse than they are in some people because they are taking medications that thin the blood. A tiny cut can emit a quantity of blood that indicates a larger wound. Also, makeup can do wonders to hide scratches, marks, blemishes and other signs of our humanity.

26 Dec 2000 (Fox Network re-ran the program just before Christmas, complete with "live" on screen during the showing!)

Re: your attempt to disprove the story of Katya Rivas aired on Fox.

Just wondering if you have actually looked at or read the writings of this woman? What do you make of a woman with a high school education writing things like this? In these languages etc. ? Her writings are located at www.greatcrusade.org. What is your explanation for this? So far, we really haven't seen hard core proof from you that any of this didn't occur. The public is not stupid. We all realize that there are elaborate hoaxes out there but the point of faith is believing in what we can see right?

reply: I took at look at the writing posted at the site you mention and found nothing unusual about them coming from a woman with a high school education. Anyone raised Catholic who has heard priestly devotees of Mary preach would be familiar with the messages of her "writings".

You are right. The public is not stupid, but the public's faith can be easily manipulated by a pious fraud with accomplices like Giselle Fernandez and Michael Willesee.

update June 27, 2001. Rivas has been accused of plagiarizing her "messages" from God, taking them from José H. Prado Flores book Formacion de pedicadores (Training preachers), published six years before Catia's "messages." See Funk 21.

 

[bellenuit]

One of the links from the previous article:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk21.html#rivas

June 22, 2001. Two years ago, in a review of a Fox network pseudo-documentary, I suggested that the alleged stigmatic Catalina ("Catia" or "Katya") Rivas was either deranged or a pious fraud or both. Now she is accused of being a plagiarist. Catia claims she gets messages from God and these have been published, causing amazement among her followers that such an illiterate woman could write such literate prose. Guadalajaran writer José H. Prado Flores claims Katya's messages are photocopies of his book Formacion de pedicadores (Training preachers), published six years before Catia's "messages." She was scheduled to speak in Guadalajara a couple of weeks ago, but the show was cancelled by Juan Cardenal Sandoval Iñiguez, the bishop of Guadalajara, after Prado Flores and a friend showed the bishop his work and the book Catia was claiming to have written from divine inspiration.

Unrepentant, Catia has accused Prado Flores of stealing her visions. (Perhaps he dipped into the Akashic record!)

Well, at least that is the story of Prado Flores, a Catholic writer who described himself in an e-mail to me as "a writer of books oriented to forming leaders in the Catholic Church."

 

[bellenuit]

I've skipped through the docu, watching bits here and there and then watched in its entirety the part where the stigmata appear.

A few general observations I would make. Firstly it's Fox, probably the most unreliable network in the US when it comes to presenting the truth. It is also a network that panders to the Christian Right in a big way. It's also a typically lead the audience on for an horrendous amount of time before getting to the meaty bits - but then there is ad revenue to consider.

Regarding the actual stigmata segment, many sceptics have pointed out that considering all the expense they went to to produce the docu, they actually omit what everyone wants to see. The actual stigmata appearing from nothing or from just minor wounds. They just cut between stigmata that are already in progress and not once showed, for instance, the skin breaking to produce the cut on her right forehead and the one on her left cheek. Apparently when confronted about this, the producer said it would have made the video too long. As someone posted on another forum: "The problem is, that someone DID catch a plane to Bolivia and also brought a camera crew. Yet, he didn't show the wounds appearing from nowhere. The whole, 'It woud be hours of video' is incorrect. Have you ever seen those videos of a flower blooming? Its quite straight forward to speed up a video."

There is also, as many others pointed out, the number of sharp objects she had in her hands (rings, rosaries with crucifixes) that could cause self inflicted wounds. A proper scientific study, as the docu claims to be, would never allow that. Additionally, I believe (I didn't get to this part but read it elsewhere) that the blood tests showed it to be hers (or a female) rather than that of Jesus. She said that it would be that of Jesus and since she claims to talk to him on a regular basis, then one would assume she would know. Being her own blood would be consistent with self inflicted wounds.

I think the other link that showed her writings to be plagiarised throws doubt on the whole story. The fact that no proper scientific study was done, other than what Fox and Willesee regard as scientific, gives me no reason so far to accept the claims as true. The docu had all the hallmarks of typical tabloid journalism that tries to lead you to a conclusion that they want you to believe.

I personally will await something more convincing before I would accept her claims.

 

[Chris45]

This is an interesting article I found

I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but any fool can be an armchair skeptic and pour scorn on the people involved in making a documentary and ask a few questions and then dismiss the entire work as a hoax. I didn't like his scornful language and I didn't find his critique at all useful.

I note this comment from apleatohumanity.com:

By the next morning the injuries she had to her body had completely healed. (The medical opinion is that the wounds like she had should have taken at least 4 to 6 weeks to heal).

There were at least 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata that day. Not only was there Mike Willesee and myself, but Greg Barbara, (an Australian 60 Minutes cameraman), his sound recorder, Ralph Steele, Neuropsychophysiologist, Dr Ricardo Castanon, and other people.

Since the broadcast of the Fox program, there have been some journalists and critics who have gone to print to publish what they suggest was the case, namely that Katya inflicted those wounds on herself, or they were inflicted on her by someone else and that Mike Willesee had been duped by some clever fraud to think otherwise.

It is interesting that not one of those journalists or critics has asked to see the raw footage of what was professionally filmed of what actually happened. Nor have they sought to speak to or interview any of the 9 witnesses who saw what happened.

Also what these critics have conveniently failed to consider, is that if they believe Katya or someone else somehow inflicted these severe wounds on her without the camera or the witnesses noticing, how did she make those wounds heal completely overnight as they did?

It's very easy to cast doubts, but if these skeptics could prove that the stigmata phenomenon was faked, and get off their backsides and demonstrate exactly how it was done, I'd be more interested.

If it's faked, there must be some illusionists out there who know every trick in the book and could explain precisely how it was faked, and accurately duplicate the trick like they do with exposing the tricks that have been created by the world's best magicians in "Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed".

They could even make their own documentary and sell it to one of Fox's rivals.

 

[bellenuit]

It's very easy to cast doubts, but if these skeptics could prove that the stigmata phenomenon was faked, and get off their backsides and demonstrate exactly how it was done, I'd be more interested.

Well James Randi is a sceptic who does it all the time. He is renowned for exposing Uri Geller, the famous spoon bender (of the 70s) and tele-evangelist Peter Popoff, plus innumerable psychics. His foundation has a long standing $1M prize (on offer for decades now) for any psychic / faith healer etc. who will prove their art is not fraudulent under proper scientific lab conditions. It has yet to be won. Many of the more publicly famous healers and psychics have on TV said they will accept the challenge, but invariable subsequently find an excuse not to attend when they do not have a camera fronting them

I haven't found anything on Randi exposing Stigmata, but this is a famous one of his exposing psychic surgery, a phenomena that seems to only occur in The Philippines.




This is him doing a short expose on Gellar, but there are lots more on YouTube if you search their names.



To me the obvious giveaway as mentioned by many is the fact that they do not show the bleeding commencing, they only show it in progress.

It is interesting that not one of those journalists or critics has asked to see the raw footage of what was professionally filmed of what actually happened.

Well, we have only their word to take for that and as I believe they are part of this fraud, their word means little IMO. If the raw footage shows something that proves the bleeding started spontaneously, then why don't they put the footage on YouTube. Any documentary that omits the most crucial part of their proof, with just a feeble explanation as to why they didn't show it, is highly suspect.

You have asked for sceptics to show how they could have faked the stigmata. You have already seen Randi expose the psychic healers, with the cameras on him all the time, so it hardly takes much imagination to see how the lady could simply scratch her forehead and cheek with her ring or rosary parts, particularly when that action was off camera.

Then there are the plagiarised texts. I didn't watch the full video (too long), but did they actually show her at any stage composing something original in Greek or Latin or was it just after the fact claims.

It really comes down to to whom to give the benefit of the doubt. Have seen such quackery exposed innumerable times, I certainly take the side of the sceptics.

 

[bellenuit]

Also what these critics have conveniently failed to consider, is that if they believe Katya or someone else somehow inflicted these severe wounds on her without the camera or the witnesses noticing, how did she make those wounds heal completely overnight as they did?

This could partly explain how she did it....

More recently, Fox Television showed a documentary featuring a woman named Katia Rivas in South America, who exhibited stigmata, and they actually filmed her undergoing the stigmata on cue.

But she was writhing around under bedcovers in ways that I felt suggested she might be inflicting her own wounds. The wounds were discrete, linear, slash-like marks; whereas, if they were the wounds of Christ they should be puncture wounds.

She also had scars from previous bouts that made the back of her hand look crisscrossed with marks as if from a series of cuts. In Skeptical Inquirer magazine I reproduced some of her wounds on myself, by cutting myself, showing that you can produce a small cross on the back of your hand. It was actually a very superficial cut, but you can get quite a bit of blood from that. Then you can transfer it, say, by pressing your thumb against the wound and turning your hand over and pressing your thumb against your palm. You now have a splotch of blood on the front and back of your hand that looks like a through-and-through wound.

Later, as was the case with Katia Rivas, the palm wound will be "miraculously" healed, because, of course, it was never there. And the superficial wound on the back of the hand will already begin to heal the next day. In studying her wounds, for example, I noticed that the wound on top of her foot was far out of alignment with the wound on the bottom of her foot. These kinds of anomalies make one suspicious that these are probably self-inflicted wounds.

http://www.semperficatholic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4508

 

[bellenuit]

Farce-of-the-Week via Fox-TV

But the big feature of this ninety-minute fiasco, was the production of "stigmata" on the hands and feet of Señora Rivas, as she lay abed for three and one-half hours, after announcing that she would exhibit the wounds of Christ -- a common claim among saintly folks. While Willesee ran on about how closely they were watching the woman, which was obviously a hollow claim, since she tossed and turned and was embraced and tended to by family all the way through the process, we were shown intermittent glimpses of her face, as well as her hands and feet. At one point, a small cross shaped mark appeared at one of the critical points, looking very much like the results of shallow incisions. These could of course have easily been inflicted by the woman herself. When these tiny wounds began to produce blood, Willesee piously dabbed up minute samples using Q-tips. These were subsequently presented to their forensic expert, and to the great disappointment of the hosts, were identified as being of human female origin. The forensic expert was rather cut off in mid-opinion, just as very interesting things might have been pronounced about the samples. Please note: a doctor was not called in, nor was any present. The family and several priests were there, along with Michael Willesee, as if that were sufficient expertise for them to employ in this unremarkable demonstration.

It is interesting to note that at one point, they got carried away in a zeal of scientific exuberance, and actually had their representative in Bolivia place a few rose petals, live on camera, into the pages of a Bible. This was to discover whether or not a mysterious representation of a divine figure would show up when the petals were later examined. We never found out whether magical forces had performed this feat, because they never went back to it. Gee! I wonder if it worked?

Much was made of the fact that several religious statuettes in the Rivas household were dripping tears and blood, presumably originating from Jesus Christ. Well, the blood tests proved negative in that respect, but still the mystery remained about how the liquids got there in the first place. Now, I don't think you have to be an intellectual giant to come up with a solution to this problem. Of course, the Fox TV people opted to send one of the figures to a prestigious laboratory and have it CAT-scanned. As usual, the emphasis was placed upon super- technology, and not upon simple expert examination. The CAT-scan, not to my surprise, revealed no "mechanism" whatsoever that could have produced the two liquids. But when I was visited here at the JREF offices in Florida by a video crew who were preparing an item for local television, I was able to cause a statute -- one that they purchased and brought with them -- to weep uncontrollably at will. I simply squirted the figure surreptitiously, and the liquid ran down the face and arms quite convincingly. At that same session, I caused "holy oil" (actually Mazola) to appear between the glass of a picture frame and the picture inside. It was done by simple trickery, and looked just as good as any of the miracles shown on the Fox TV presentation. No, better.

I can only brand this shameful farce as the most obvious hoax since the "Alien Autopsy" was given to us, and please note that this, too, was the product of Fox TV. It appears that the American public never tires of nonsense, and so long as that hunger persists, Fox Television will be there to supply it.

Finally, I direct your attention to the examination of Señora Rivas's "stigmata" the day after she had been "afflicted with the wounds of Christ." Here, as if we needed it, was the definitive evidence that the Señora was perpetrating a blatant hoax on us. The extreme close-up video shots we were offered clearly showed a series of tiny incisions, not any sort of a puncture wound that we might expect if we were viewing a genuine phenomenon. This woman was showing us self-inflicted cuts and any medically informed person could have testified to that fact. But we were not offered the privilege of such expert assistance because that would have evaporated this miracle, as it would have done to all the other farces that we were shown.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip...PERIENCE/ch3-Farce-of-the-Week via Fox-TV.pdf

 

[Chris45]

I haven't found anything on Randi exposing Stigmata, but this is a famous one of his exposing psychic surgery, a phenomena that seems to only occur in The Philippines.

Yes, and I'm a bit skeptical that Graham Norton really executed famous young Daniel Radcliffe under the guillotine on QI a couple of years ago, but you never know to what lengths these TV stations will go to get ratings, even the BBC!



Why on Earth you bring Uri Geller and Filipino psychic surgery into the discussion is beyond me. I thought we were discussing Willesee's stigmata documentary.

In Skeptical Inquirer magazine I reproduced some of her wounds on myself, by cutting myself, showing that you can produce a small cross on the back of your hand. It was actually a very superficial cut, but you can get quite a bit of blood from that. Then you can transfer it, say, by pressing your thumb against the wound and turning your hand over and pressing your thumb against your palm. You now have a splotch of blood on the front and back of your hand that looks like a through-and-through wound.

Later, as was the case with Katia Rivas, the palm wound will be "miraculously" healed, because, of course, it was never there. And the superficial wound on the back of the hand will already begin to heal the next day. In studying her wounds, for example, I noticed that the wound on top of her foot was far out of alignment with the wound on the bottom of her foot. These kinds of anomalies make one suspicious that these are probably self-inflicted wounds.

According to Ron Tesoriero, amongst the 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata was Dr. Ricardo Castanon, a professor of Neuropsychophysiology at the Catholic University of Bolivia, formerly a professor in different State Universities in Italy and Germany, and author of many books and scientific articles on the brain, stress and the nervous system. You can read a bit about him here: http://the-anointed-one.com/BBU84/biblicalstupidity/science.htm

I find it inconceivable that none of them, especially Dr. Castanon, would pick up on a simple trick like the one described above.

And do you really believe that Mike Willesee would throw away his hard earned credibility and reputation on such an obvious hoax?

These skeptics are so pathetic, they're laughable.

I suppose they'll also suggest that there was a secret compartment under the bed with a hidden doctor or someone creating the wounds and that they used lasers to magically heal the wounds overnight. You know it's really amazing what they can do with lasers these days!

 

[bellenuit]

Yes, and I'm a bit skeptical that Graham Norton really executed famous young Daniel Radcliffe under the guillotine on QI a couple of years ago, but you never know to what lengths these TV stations will go to get ratings, even the BBC!



Why on Earth you bring Uri Geller and Filipino psychic surgery into the discussion is beyond me. I thought we were discussing Willesee's stigmata documentary.



According to Ron Tesoriero, amongst the 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata was Dr. Ricardo Castanon, a professor of Neuropsychophysiology at the Catholic University of Bolivia, formerly a professor in different State Universities in Italy and Germany, and author of many books and scientific articles on the brain, stress and the nervous system. You can read a bit about him here: http://the-anointed-one.com/BBU84/biblicalstupidity/science.htm

I find it inconceivable that none of them, especially Dr. Castanon, would pick up on a simple trick like the one described above.

And do you really believe that Mike Willesee would throw away his hard earned credibility and reputation on such an obvious hoax?

These skeptics are so pathetic, they're laughable.

I suppose they'll also suggest that there was a secret compartment under the bed with a hidden doctor or someone creating the wounds and that they used lasers to magically heal the wounds overnight. You know it's really amazing what they can do with lasers these days!

The reason I showed the video of Randi is because you asked why the sceptics don't demonstrate how the lady could do what she claims had been done to her. Doing what she did was so trivial, given the cameras were never on her relevant parts at the critical times, I assumed you would too find it trivial when you saw how Randi could expose how another type of religious fraud could be done, even though it was far more complex to do and all the time under the gaze of the camera.

Don't be impressed by names. Dr. Ricardo Castanon was also taken in by the texts that supposedly were direct from Jesus, unaware they were plagiarised. He is also hardly an unbiased observer since he is in the business of religious phenomena and makes his money from such claims.

When it comes to integrity, Fox has none. As for Mike Willesee, he has nothing to lose by this program and a lot to gain. It doesn't matter that the program may have been rigged by him and his crew, no one will be able to prove otherwise. He had a chance to show the stigmata forming under the view of the camera and didn't do it. There is absolutely no excuse for why that wasn't shown and still has not been shown. No matter what sceptics come up with there will always be believers who will believe no matter what, so being regarded as a fake by one group in society hardly matters in the integrity stakes if the majority simply accept what is fed up to them.

Carl Sagan said: extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. This program made extraordinary claims regarding Rivas but failed miserably to provide video evidence of the actual stigmata happening despite the resources spent producing the program. One is constantly being led on by Willesee to accept what HE is saying as being what is happening, yet they could simply have shown her hands and feet and face constantly for the first few minutes of the stigmata forming that would not have required the viewer to take his word. He confirms in the docu that he was there "watching the wounds spring from nothing". Did we see that? No.

Then there are some other issues, in addition to those raised in previous posts. We are told the wounds cleared by the next day. One of the previous posts showed how a sceptic was able to create a lot of blood by making a very superficial wound and use that same blood to create an apparent wound elsewhere on his body. The latter was able to be washed off immediately and the former cleared the next day. But my question would be.... if the wounds formed spontaneously, why didn't they disappear spontaneously? Why did they need a day? The answer is quite clear. While you can make a superficial wound appear spontaneously (by scratching yourself with a ring say), that same wound cannot be cleared spontaneously. It requires time. And BTW, did they check that the wounds had gone. They just looked at her hands and feet but didn't, for instance, use a wet cloth to wipe any concealing makeup that might have been applied.

The other thing is that although the program claimed to be a scientific investigation it was most certainly not. We have the lack of critical video footage; the subject being allowed to wear instruments that could be used to self-inflict a wound (since Jesus had indicated that he would cause the stigmata that day and time, then these would not have been needed, would they?); the superficial checking that the wounds had gone next day; the lack of credible sceptics (Willasee apparently is to be accepted as one sceptic, even though he has a vested interest in the docu, the other being a catholic priest who was interviewed after the event); no testing for blood thinners which could have been taken hours before the event and would contribute to a lot of blood from just minor cuts (I am on them and know the effect of just nicking myself shaving); the subject being cradled and closely surrounded by relatives; the dramatic effect of the priest praying (again not necessary as Jesus said it would happen); etc, etc

This was a program made by several people and associates that have a vested interest in having the stigmata appear genuine.

As a sceptic, my starting point is show me the evidence and I will believe the claim if I deem such evidence credible. I check to see if it could be done fraudulently. I look at those involved and check if they have a vested interest in the claims appearing to be true. I look at plausibility - what is more likely - a supernatural event has occurred or a hoax has been perpetrated by all or a few of those involved. There is nothing in that video that would give me a reason to accept the claims made and my opinion is that it is a fraud, perpetrated by Willasee, a few of his relatives who are also involved in the production, Rivas herself (we know she faked the texts) and perhaps a few of the others present. They all have a strong motivation to make the stigmata appear to be true. I don't know what Fox's involvement is, they just seek to maximise their audience, so probably thought Willasee's docu to be something that would do that. It is interesting that the interview by the Fox presenter of Wilasee didn't raise any issues similar to what the sceptics found suspect. Of course it is in their interest not to cast doubt on Willasee's video, so that's probably why.

However thanks for the link as I will be curious to see how that story evolves.

What I do find interesting though is that since much of the criticism directed at that video is valid (though you most likely disagree with that statement) and the docu is clearly in the style of tabloid journalism (which doesn't prove it wrong but doesn't give it much credibility) why hasn't the Catholic Church subjected Rivas to a proper scientific study that would prove the Stigmata are real? 15 years is a long time to leave people in suspense, particularly when it has the potential to bring a lot of people back to the fold or even attract new believers. I suspect the smart ones in the RC are on the sceptics side.

 

[bellenuit]

A more recent update on Katya Rivas (from Catholic Planet) .....

In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, the messages and claimed private revelation to Catalina Rivas, a.k.a. Katya or Catia, (http://www.greatcrusade.org) are false and are not from Heaven. A list of reasons and examples follows.

more......

http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false54.htm

Some other interesting stuff from another Jesus and Mary visionary (it is not just the atheists that are sceptics) ....

Fowler says that soon after what she says was her final vision of Mary last October -- an event that drew more than 300,000 to her farmhouse -- the Hughes began working with Catalina Rivas, a Bolivian woman who claims to have visions of Jesus Christ. She also claims to have experienced stigmata, or spontaneous bleeding from the palms, while visiting the ''Holy Hill'' in Conyers, about 35 miles east of Atlanta. Fowler says she has never believed Rivas was genuine, and has doubts about why the Hughes have started following her.

''It just makes me think they want to keep the commercialization going even more,'' Fowler says.

http://onlineathens.com/stories/090599/new_0905990011.shtml

 

[Ruby]

Bellenuit, I'm with you. I just want to add two comments:- 1. ALL cases of stigmata and spontaneous bleeding of holy statues are eventually proven to be hoaxes or to have a mundane explanation, and 2. Mike Willasee has been around for a long time and has shown himself on many occasions to have doubtful credibility. Ho hum.... there is always something around to fool the gullible.

 

[Chris45]

As I said earlier, I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but from what I could see, Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal and if she had been cutting herself it would surely have been quite obvious to all around her and there would be no documentary. If they were going to fake something surely they could come up with something a bit more imaginative than that. Even 15 yrs ago, video manipulation would have allowed for something much more impressive.

There have been many attempted hoaxes and magic tricks over the years, including the ridiculous images of Jesus or Mary on pieces of toast, etc, and they've all been exposed as such fairly quickly. If the stigmata phenomenon was all a hoax as the skeptics claim, it should be quite easy to create a convincing reenactment, like Randi did with the Filipino psychic surgery. Why has this not been done?

As I also said earlier, any fool can be an armchair skeptic and dismiss everything as a hoax. Some fools even believe the moon landing never occurred and it was all an elaborate Hollywood stunt. I must confess I'm one of the gullible ones who believe that the landings did occur.

No one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt. That's not what faith is all about.

If Jesus came back to Earth and I snapped a selfie of us with our arms around each other's shoulders and posted it here, you'd all scream "FAKE!!!", "PHOTOSHOP!!!"

If God appeared in the sky in some unmistakable form, from horizon to horizon, you'd all just dismiss it as a clever laser trick.

If you are a committed atheist and skeptic, then nothing will change your mind because every paranormal event will have an alternative explanation, no matter how weak or pathetic, and you will be happy to embrace such explanations because they support your position. But, until such time that it's proven to be a hoax, I will hold the view that the stigmata could be true and maintain an open mind. I haven't bothered to read all of the other stuff about texts and statues etc. but if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult.

I believe the old saying (based on Jeremiah 5:21, I think) holds true, "There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear".

 

[Ruby]

................if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult..........

It works the other way round, Chris. If people staging these elaborate hoaxes want to be believed, they need to prove it. Those of us who know it is a stunt, or product of a deluded mind, don't need proof.

 

[burglar]

... a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult ...

What I heard (and believe to be true):

A nail in the palm would not hold the weight
and would rip the flesh and tendons.

You cannot convince me to do a reenactment. :

 

[Chris45]

If people staging these elaborate hoaxes want to be believed, they need to prove it.

Ruby, as I said, no one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt to convince committed atheists, and you've made your position about God very clear.

As Robert Ripley said, "Believe It or Not!" and you have been given the free will to make your choice.

Blaise Pascal was not a fool and I've read enough in the last few month's to convince me that his wager is definitely worth taking. If I'm wrong I will have lost nothing, but if you're wrong, ... well I wouldn't like to be going where I think you'll be going.

I'm certainly not trying to convert you because I think that would be an exercise in futility but, just out of interest, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

 

[Chris45]

What I heard (and believe to be true):

A nail in the palm would not hold the weight and would rip the flesh and tendons.

You cannot convince me to do a reenactment. :

We're not talking about actual crucifixions, but are you sure about that?

http://www.ba.no/nyheter/urix/article1529247.ece

 

[lindsayf]

I suppose this conversation crystalises again the stark difference between the faithful and the skeptic.
How such a silly hoax steeped in vested interests could be considered some kind of proof of the hand of god is an amazing leap of......and a worrying suspension of the critical faculties.
but then such leaps occur with the slightest of nudges if the leaper has already leapt.

 

[bellenuit]

As I said earlier, I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but from what I could see, Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal and if she had been cutting herself it would surely have been quite obvious to all around her and there would be no documentary.

Come on Chris. There is no way you can say that. Her hands, feet and head were not visible at all times throughout the ordeal. They panned to the priest several times and she was completely out of the picture. There were close ups of her face where you couldn't see either her hands or feet. I don't intend to review that segment to give more examples as you know it is simply untrue that Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal.

If they were going to fake something surely they could come up with something a bit more imaginative than that.

They obviously didn't need to. People fell for it in droves.

If the stigmata phenomenon was all a hoax as the skeptics claim, it should be quite easy to create a convincing reenactment, like Randi did with the Filipino psychic surgery. Why has this not been done?

Why bother. If the type of audience that Fox attracts can't see through that video, then nothing will convince them. And how about this simple re-enactment. She scratches her forehead and it starts bleeding. This is off-camera but in full view of those around her. The camera pans to her forehead and Willisee states the scratch has appeared out of nowhere. Would you accept that is a re-enactment of part of the fraud? Of course not, because you are starting from the assumption that those around her are not part of the fraud. They couldn't be, could they? Why, what motivation do they have?

As I also said earlier, any fool can be an armchair skeptic and dismiss everything as a hoax.

They have raised many valid points, none of which you have addressed, because I suspect you really want to believe. I don't want to go over again, but some that come to mind; the blood test was that of a female, not Jesus, though Willasee made the ridiculous statement that Jesus must have had female blood because Jesus had no earthly father; why didn't the wounds spontaneously disappear; why were the wounds on the hands and feet only superficial rather than fully penetrating which would be the case if it were an authentic reliving of the crucifiction; etc.

But the one huge point that you have avoided over and over is: Why didn't they show the actual stigmata spontaneously appearing, as they claimed occurred. There were 10 different wounds that supposedly spontaneously started bleeding, but NONE were shown. They have said that no sceptic has asked to see the raw footage. This implies they have it, but didn't include because of the length of time it would have added to the show (not withstanding they spent a lot of time showing the priest praying - something completely irrelevant to the proceedings). That would have been the most convincing footage, yet the didn't include it.

If Jesus came back to Earth and I snapped a selfie of us with our arms around each other's shoulders and posted it here, you'd all scream "FAKE!!!", "PHOTOSHOP!!!"

Every rational person would, if all that is offered is a photo. Would you not??? That says a lot about you if you would accept such a photo without demanding further proof.

If God appeared in the sky in some unmistakable form, from horizon to horizon, you'd all just dismiss it as a clever laser trick.

If you are a committed atheist and skeptic, then nothing will change your mind because every paranormal event will have an alternative explanation, no matter how weak or pathetic, and you will be happy to embrace such explanations because they support your position.

A complete misunderstanding of atheists and sceptics.

but if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult

If you are asking sceptics to re-enact the video, that is trivial as per my example above and would not require a Randi. You simply inflict the wounds off camera. However you would never accept that as you assume that those who were involved were not part of the hoax.

I believe the old saying (based on Jeremiah 5:21, I think) holds true, "There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear".

That works both ways Chris. You don't want to see and hear the points made by the sceptics. However, when it comes to statues, stigmata, faith healers etc., history is on the side of those who use reason rather than blind belief.

 

[Ruby]

Ruby, as I said, no one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt to convince committed atheists, and you've made your position about God very clear.

As Robert Ripley said, "Believe It or Not!" and you have been given the free will to make your choice.

Blaise Pascal was not a fool and I've read enough in the last few month's to convince me that his wager is definitely worth taking. If I'm wrong I will have lost nothing, but if you're wrong, ... well I wouldn't like to be going where I think you'll be going.

I'm certainly not trying to convert you because I think that would be an exercise in futility but, just out of interest, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?

This is not a discussion about the existence of God, but about the veracity or otherwise of stigmata