Stigmata

[BlueMit11]

In response to http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_237.html :

The question isn’t whether the stigmata are self-inflicted. Of course they’re self-inflicted. Even if I were disposed to believe in divine intervention, the variety in the appearance and location of the wounds on different stigmatics argues strongly that this is a matter of, how shall I say, human handiwork. In some cases the wounds have duplicated those of Jesus as depicted at the stigmatic’s local church.

So ever-objective Cecil is already ruling out a possibility before we begin? Doesn’t sound very characteristic of ya, Cec. The reason he gives to support this seems to be “since some are obviously fake or psychosomatic, they’re all obviously fake or psychosomatic.” Did I find the logical fallacy of hasty generalization in the Bug Guy’s column? I’d agree, if you find someone whose wounds seem to look a lot like the ones at their parish, you probably ought to rule them out. But does that mean rule out the rest? Even if all but one are quite obviously fake or psychosomatic, does that mean the one is? For the rest of my argument, I will focus on St. Padre Pio, who Cecil seems to mention in passing, and who seems to contradict a lot of what he says. Compare these quotes quotes, the first one from Cecil’s stigmata article, the ones following from Padre Pio:

Stigmatics are often tormented souls

I have no adequate words by which to thank the Lord for his goodness.

The bitterness of the trial is sweetened by the balm of God’s goodness and mercy.

I sleep with a smile of sweet beatitude on my lips and a perfectly tranquil countenance.

Jesus makes us so happy on earth, what will heaven be like?

True, Pio suffered, but he was far from a tormented soul. Cecil’s over-simplification of this martyrdom does not adequately describe him. Padre Pio’s motivations for faking the stigmata would be curious, as he was very embarassed by them and would rarely take his gloves off except for mass. It is claimed that he suffered the invisible stigmata for years before it became visible, something which caused him great annoyance because it drew people’s attention to him.

What Cecil also fails to overlook is the various medical investigations into Pio’s stigmata-none of which turned anything up. After the first examination, Dr. Luigi Romanelli’s conclusions were “that the wounds are not superficial, the blood is arterial…with no bleeding points.” He sums up by saying, “I saw Padre Pio five times in the course of fifteen months. I found some modifications, but I have nothing which enables me to make an authoritative classification of these wounds.” Next, Professor A. Bignami came in with seemingly the same attitude as our beloved Cecil and, decided that the wounds were “probably attributable to unconscious suggestion.” However, the professor also admitted that there was nothing in Pio that would classify him as a typical neurotic. Doctor G. Festa of Rome, after a meticulous examination, found numerious errors in Bignami’s report and ruled the wounds genuine.

Cecil does not mention the lage amount of blood loss that Pio sustained everyday, but somehow lived through. Neither does he mention that, shortly after Pio’s death, the wounds just disapeared without even leaving a scar. While I enjoy all of Cecil’s columns, this one seems to have a deficit in the area of deep investigation, and, dare I say logic. Hopefully no one will take this criticism of our great leader personally.

[Chronos]

Stigmatics are often tormented souls

Note that word “often”, there? Citing a single counterexample does not disprove a claim of “often”. Got information on any of the other stigmatics?

Cecil does not mention the lage amount of blood loss that Pio sustained everyday, but somehow lived through.

Neither have you. Just how much was it? Are we talking an ounce a day, a pint, a gallon? It really wouldn’t take very much to make his hands look like a gorey mess.

And what the heck are invisible stigmata? Blood is pretty visible, and if they’re not bleeding, well, what are they doing?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Also, please note that when Cecil says, “Of course they’re self-inflicted”, he’s basing this judgement on all past cases where examination has been permitted. You’re quite correct, of course, that you can’t prove a negative. You say that there is a pink-and-purple striped zebra; I say that it’s not true, because all zebras that have been examined to date are black-and-white. You say, that doesn’t negate the existence of one pink-and-purple zebra that you just haven’t seen. Logically, you’re quite correct. But practically speaking, it’s up to you to find a pink-and-purple zebra rather than up to me to “prove” that there isn’t one.

Cecil is thus justified (as always) in extrapolating from known cases.

[BlueMit11]

Got information on any of the other stigmatics?

As Cecil points out, there was Francis of Assissi. He doesn’t seem to say why there should be a judgement one way or another on Francis’ stigmata, other than possibly basing it off of known cases today, but if that was the first case that we know of, it should be important to look at if one would like to disprove them all. My reasoning behind that is that if Francis case were not genuine, then all subsequent cases would most likely be fakes because it would seem they are imitating a fake. If, however, it was genuine, then all subsequent cases would be either fake, human-originated stigmatas, or from the same source as Francis’. For clarification, when I say fake, I mean either consciously self-inflicted or resulting psychosomatically. Anyway, my point with the OP was to concentrate just on one case–in my opinion the one that could be most strongly argued–because if one case is proven (though I won’t kid myself into thinking I can conclusively “prove” anything on here, just shed some more light on it) then that makes it at least a possibility in other cases.

Note that word “often”, there? Citing a single counterexample does not disprove a claim of “often”

No, but it does raise doubt as to why Pio’s motivations, conscious or otherwise. Cecil does not address anything other than the tortured soul aspect, so this case is still unexplained.

Neither have you. Just how much was it? Are we talking an ounce a day, a pint, a gallon? It really wouldn’t take very much to make his hands look like a gorey mess.

According to Padre Pio: The Stigmatist by Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty, he lost a cupt of blood a day from the wound on his left side. Also, the previously mentioned Dr. Festa applied a handkerchief to his side and, after ten hours, it and another cloth which Pio applies were completely saturated in blood.

And what the heck are invisible stigmata? Blood is pretty visible, and if they’re not bleeding, well, what are they doing?

Well, as one might guess, the stigmata were pretty painful. Pio could not close his hands all the way (it was thought–though, due to the sensitivity of the region, tests could not be humanely done–the the stigmata went all the way through), and it was difficult for him to walk down stairs even when turning around and descending backwards. The invisible stigmata consisted only of the pain that one would have from such wounds, the visible stigmata was the manifestation of those wounds that Pio had for thirty-five years and supposedly attained after praying in front of a crucifix.

Also, please note that when Cecil says, “Of course they’re self-inflicted”, he’s basing this judgement on all past cases where examination has been permitted

He doesn’t seem to be basing on anything on the investigations on Pio. Or at least if he has and determined them bunk, why did he not address it in his column? Again, it just seems that there are some unanswered questions and unexplored regions on this stigmata thing that Cecil did not touch on. Maybe he had a good reason, but I would thing that if he wanted to settle all questionability on the matter, he would address it more thoroughly.

Also, I forgot to cite my information in the OP. All of that comes from one of the more recent biographies of Pio, Padre Pio–The Wonder Worker, a compilation of things written about Pio and compiled by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

[paperbackwriter]

@BlueMit11

According to Padre Pio: The Stigmatist by Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty, he lost a cupt of blood a day from the wound on his left side. Also, the previously mentioned Dr. Festa applied a handkerchief to his side and, after ten hours, it and another cloth which Pio applies were completely saturated in blood.

This is not a lot of blood.

The bleeding through two cloths in ten hours is a meaningless measure, first of all. What size cloths, how saturated, how absorbant was the material? None of this is specified. Unless they did before-and-after mass measurements, we have noting here.

Additionally, even small amounts of blood appear to be huge losses when “measured” in this way. As an EMT, I saw much greater apparent loss of blood, even large spreading pools of it, so much so that an observer would be convinced that the person had lost a significant portion of their blood. Yet these patients did not require any transfusion or other blood products to replace their losses.

An average volunteer blood donation is a pint, or twice what was claimed for the only measured wound. Most of this is plasma, which is replaced within a day, quicker if you are adequately hydrated. The white blood cells and red blood cells take longer, which is why the Red Cross has time limits, but the loss is not hazardous. Padre Pio would have been at a higher risk of infections and anemia, but no miraculous explanation is required to explain his survival of the loss of the amounts observed.

[Chronos]

I also note that I’ve managed to saturate a handkerchief with blood just from a nosebleed, and in considerably less than ten hours. Aside from being slightly grossed out, I felt fine during and after, not even slightly lightheaded. Provided that his diet was balanced and he kept himself well-hydrated, I don’t imagine that soaking a couple of handkerchiefs a day would have been serious trouble for Pio.

Meanwhile, you’re undermining some of your own arguments. If Pio got the bleeding stigmata after a specific prayer, then it’s hard to argue that he didn’t want them. By mst accounts, God answers prayers. Even if he didn’t specifically want them, he would have to have wanted to be able to show the world the glory of God, or to understand the pain Jesus went through, or something else which would lead to the stigmata as an answer to his prayer. But any of these desires could also be the root of a psychosomatic origin. And as for pain without any physical cause, I don’t think there’s any definition of psychosomatic by which that wouldn’t qualify.

Finally, one must ask why any of this matters. Faith so strong that a person would desire (consciously or not) the stigmata is rather remarkable, and faith so strong as to psychosomatically induce them is even more so. Jesus tells us that a person with strong enough faith could order a tree to uproot itself and throw itself into the sea, and if that happened, then I suppose one might call that a psychosomatic uprooting. But I would be no less impressed. Assuming, of course, that Pio’s wounds were not an outright fraud (a point which I will not argue), then the faith required to generate them would be nothing short of miraculous. What matters it, what sort of miracle it was?

[BlueMit11]

The bleeding through two cloths in ten hours is a meaningless measure, first of all. What size cloths, how saturated, how absorbant was the material? None of this is specified. Unless they did before-and-after mass measurements, we have noting here.

Hmm…good point. It doesn’t describe how large the cloths were. But at least we do know that he sustained continual bleeding. The people around the monastery supplied him with new cloths continually. After a certain amount, the exact measurement of blood would be a trivial pursuit in determining its genuineness, I would think. One other thing to consider, though…

Provided that his diet was balanced and he kept himself well-hydrated, I don’t imagine that soaking a couple of handkerchiefs a day would have been serious trouble for Pio.

Pio ate only once a day-- only enough to sustain a small child–and received communion. It’s worth mentioning (though I said I would focus on Pio, so take this or leave it) that Theresa Neumann, a supposed stigmatist in the 1920’s was nourished by the blessed sacrament, as was Louise Lateau for twelve years, and a few other saints.

Meanwhile, you’re undermining some of your own arguments. If Pio got the bleeding stigmata after a specific prayer, then it’s hard to argue that he didn’t want them. By mst accounts, God answers prayers. Even if he didn’t specifically want them, he would have to have wanted to be able to show the world the glory of God, or to understand the pain Jesus went through, or something else which would lead to the stigmata as an answer to his prayer. But any of these desires could also be the root of a psychosomatic origin. And as for pain without any physical cause, I don’t think there’s any definition of psychosomatic by which that wouldn’t qualify.

You’re making the mistake I made when I first read about Pio. Most normal people who have a certain amount of faith would, as you said, like to show their stigmata to the world for God’s glory if they received them. And, yes, I do believe Pio wanted his stigmata. The reason he wanted it, though, was so he could suffer with Christ, not so he could show it off for whatever reason. He “didn’t mind” (for lack of a better phrase) the invisible stigmata, because he was humbly suffering with Jesus. I have never read anywhere, though, that he prayed for the stigmata, either visible or invisible. I think it is seen more as more God’s idea than his.

While this may not argue against the psychosomatic idea, it is interesting to note, too, that Pio’s wounds neither healed nor got worse until his death. Scientifically they should have done one or the other, and even after rigorous application of the treatment prescribed, the wounds remained.

Finally, one must ask why any of this matters. Faith so strong that a person would desire (consciously or not) the stigmata is rather remarkable, and faith so strong as to psychosomatically induce them is even more so. Jesus tells us that a person with strong enough faith could order a tree to uproot itself and throw itself into the sea, and if that happened, then I suppose one might call that a psychosomatic uprooting. But I would be no less impressed. Assuming, of course, that Pio’s wounds were not an outright fraud (a point which I will not argue), then the faith required to generate them would be nothing short of miraculous. What matters it, what sort of miracle it was?

I tend to agree with the thought that God works through processes instead of just arbitrarily breaking his own scientific rules. I guess my only objection to this explanation, however, would be that in the case of a psychosomatically induced stigmata, it is done by the power of the person. In what I would call a genuine stigmata, it is God’s power by which the stigmata occurs. A tenet of Christianity (and something which is found in various quotes by Padre Pio) is that we should be relying on God’s power and not our own. Pio described the wounds as given to him by God, so if what you propose is true, he was either telling an untruth, or in some roundabout way the psychosomatic cause was just God’s way of doing things.

[paperbackwriter]

@BlueMit11

While this may not argue against the psychosomatic idea, it is interesting to note, too, that Pio’s wounds neither healed nor got worse until his death. Scientifically they should have done one or the other, and even after rigorous application of the treatment prescribed, the wounds remained.

Not true. I have seen diabetic wounds do exactly this. These qualities of the wounds as you’ve described them do not require a miraculous explanation.

[aruvqan]

@paperbackwriter

This is not a lot of blood.

The bleeding through two cloths in ten hours is a meaningless measure, first of all. What size cloths, how saturated, how absorbant was the material? None of this is specified. Unless they did before-and-after mass measurements, we have noting here.

Additionally, even small amounts of blood appear to be huge losses when “measured” in this way. As an EMT, I saw much greater apparent loss of blood, even large spreading pools of it, so much so that an observer would be convinced that the person had lost a significant portion of their blood.

ROTFLMAO. Wimp. I can fill a 16 gram super tampon and put a significant amount into an overnight pad in ONE HOUR on my menstrual period. Not counting the volume caught up in any clots. And I can do this for 7-10 days.

Not entirely apples and oranges, since I lose blood volume every month, I am in the same danger of anemia though the navy docs seem to ignore my complaints that it is a tad excessive amountwise. They would probably tell Pio to quit showing off and clean up the bloody footprints

[jimpatro]

I am wondering about the wounds depicted on the Shroud of Turin as compared to stigmata. More specifically wrist wounds as compared to palm wounds. Can this be reconciled?

[paperbackwriter]

Shroud of Turin has wrist wounds. Most crufixes had/have palm wounds. Stigmatics have reported both.

aruvqan, are you saying I’m a wimp, or Pio was? In either event, I was just trying to convey that blood in pools or on bandages or cloths often appears to be vast amounts, when in reality it is rather minor. Hence the reports of Pio’s blood loss are insignificant. I think your reports reinforce that. OTOH, your body builds up that amount of blood over the course of nearly a month, so it is not directly comparable.

[BlueMit11]

@paperbackwriter

Not true. I have seen diabetic wounds do exactly this. These qualities of the wounds as you’ve described them do not require a miraculous explanation.

Alright, I’ll buy that. Like I said, I’m not going to be able to conclusively prove anything–I’m just raising questions that I don’t feel were addressed very well by the column. But they do require some sort of explanation. Thus far, one hasn’t been given. The psychosomatic one is still on the table, yes, but I’ve already addressed it in a previous post.

@jimpatro

I am wondering about the wounds depicted on the Shroud of Turin as compared to stigmata. More specifically wrist wounds as compared to palm wounds. Can this be reconciled?

I’d say it could be. The point of the stigmata isn’t necessarily to serve as an exact historic recreation of Christ’s wounds. It is a manifestation of how one perceived Christ’s wounds to be. Now before we take this the wrong way and think that I’m saying the manifestation is based solely on perception, let me give my reasoning on this: if a stigmatist only understood Christ’s wounds to be on the hands, and they received pain or even bleeding on their wrists, they’d wonder what the hell was going on. In order for them to understand that, yes, this is stigmata, the wounds would have to appear on their hands. This does not discredit God’s work. He works on our level so that we understand him.

[jimpatro]

It would seem like the inconsistency would foster more confusion than understanding.

[BlueMit11]

@jimpatro

It would seem like the inconsistency would foster more confusion than understanding.

If it really is an inconsistency…

@Cecil

In short, we have no idea how Jesus was crucified, other than the fact that they nailed him somewhere.

…then it would cause confusion among us, today. Not among the one receiving the stigmata or among those of that time period, when everyone thought the crucifixion occured in the hands.

[MM12]

Hi, I’m new. Here’s my two cents worth…

As we all know, the Church has tried to cover up the truth to the best of their ability. The “Stigmata” thing is a cover-up for an actual occurence in People that were split in two originally, a million years ago or so. The Royalty that came to EArth (Ancient Astronauts, Gods, Goddesses) were Split-Aparts, for various reasons, but mostly because originally we were un-sexed, and the splitting process made for a balance in those that would rule not only the planet we came from, Nibiru, but then later when coming to EArth. I do believe this only occured in the Royalty. Others, when given a physical body could choose which sex they wanted to be, one or the other. This is of course taking into account we are all Immortal Souls and it is us that has been here since Ancient Times.

So, originally, Stigmata was an event that when one Split-Apart had an injury, or anything that happened to them physically, it would manifest in the other Half.

The main characters in the Bible are these original Royal Family members, therefore they are Split-Aparts. Therefore, if one is injured, the other will manifest the injury. This is what the Church wanted to cover-up, for if people knew about this, it would bring up more questions and we would find out more than they want us to know. So the only one that would have manifested the Stigmata of the Crucifixion would have been the female Split-Apart of the Spirit “God” that was in the physical body that was called “Jesus.” That wasn’t his real name at the time btw.

How do I know? I have this kind of stigmata. Emotions are also felt in the other Half. Thoughts come through, etc. Childbirth for example is quite painful in the other half.

As far as Pablo Pio’s case, I would surmise that he is the reincarnated Soul that lived as “Jesus.” The Spirit of “God” was in “Jesus” for the drama that ensued that we know as the Jesus story. And Pablo is subconsciously unable to get away from that one lifetime wherein he was the physical vehicle for “God’s” spirit to reside in and was known as “Jesus.”

Stigmata of the wrists and hands of others are probably psychosomatic manifestations in those that subconsciously either feel great compassion for “Jesus” by either being there at the time and subconsciously remembering, or were those that were instrumental in crucifying him and are trying to cleanse their subconscious guilt.

[paperbackwriter]

Let me be the first to welcome you to the message board, MM12.

That’s an interesting, if perhaps idiosyncratic, theory for stigmata. It is not inherently more or less logical than the explanation offered by the RCC. IOW, what you propose as yet has nothing to promote it ahead of the explanation you claim is a coverup. Do you have anything to support this idea?

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@MM12

… the planet we came from, Nibiru …

Is this where the city name Nairobi came from? This could be evidence that humanity originated in the African continent.

[MM12]

Hi Arnold.
You know, those mines in South Africa are 100,000 years old according to carbon dating, which means give or take 40%, means 140,000 years possibly, or more. And I seriously doubt our ancestors dropped out of the trees to dig mines a mile deep in the Earth to mine gold.

The connection of sounds, in deciphering Sumerian, the “N” meant basically King, Queen, Ruler. “I” means war, war-like. “U” means sustenance, like crops, food. B, R,and O escape me and my notes are buried, but the words are similar, and Enki was thrown into exile in the mines in Africa when his brother took Atlantis away and Enki threatened him and we hear the story as Lucifer thrown from Heaven. And Enki was the Prince of the King of Nibiru. So, it’s possible there is a connection in the two names. I thought Nairobi was a country.

And as far as Eve found in Africa, the Sumerians wrote that Enki created Adam, and the purpose was for the mines. So the Hybrid that Adam was between Homo-erectus and Elohim DNA was for slave labor. They said there were 14 birth goddesses cranking out the children of Adam which made them 75% Elohim DNA, and then the Sons of God looked upon the daughters, begat Mighty Men of Old, and the genetics became refined with succeeding generations of pretty people having babies. Adam’s first generation were mongoloids, explaining why we don’t have babies by relatives today, it makes the homo-erectus genes more dominant.

However, before People lived in Africa, they lived in Atlantis, but that was destroyed, Plato said so, the hole is in the Bermuda Triangle I do believe, the rocks by Bimini deserve attention, and the Sargasso Sea is pretty strange. And before the Princes came to Earth living in Atlantis, the Exiles were sent by Nibiru to Earth and they lived in Mu, Lemuria, which is now a big hole in the Pacific in the middle of the Ring of Fire. The heads of Easter Island theirs as is the Stone Temple under water by Japan. They are the Giants mentioned in Genesis. The Mayan Calendar says Ages ended with Fire and Flood. So to use the term “original” we go back to the Pacific Ocean. And before that, there is said to have been another Race, the Reptilian one.

And I’m not making this up, most of this is mankind’s original findings collected in the book, “The 12th Planet” by Sitchin, with a Bibliography a few pages long, that I checked out, and then copied the Sumerian dictionary by hand to get a general feel to check the translations. The same stories are told in other diverse, destroyed ancient cultures. Anyway, they said Nibiru is where People came from, the Nephilim, “who fell from the sky.” And we look at the Plains of Nazca, the Pyramids, Cuzco Wall, etc. etc. and it makes sense. The evidence is libraries deep.

And Plato who spoke of Atlantis also spoke of Split-Aparts. As did the Butcher’s Wife, and her Grandmother. What more proof do you want? Plato, Grandma and a blonde Demi. As well as poets and lovers through the centuries. And me right here, right now. I’ve written books on this stuff, i have government surveillance because of what i know. I’ve experienced it. What have you got, against the Split Apart Stigmata Theory?

And as for this being the case for Pablo Pio, I don’t know, it’s just an educated guess. It would explain it. For me anyway. Either he is the reincarnation of, or has subconscious memories that plague him. I’ve seen people manifest physical body ailments from the subconscious. Happens all the time. Just because we don’t see things doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

And it’s “idiosyncratic” of what?

What I have to support my “theory” is a lifetime of experiencing it. I believe me.
And it doesn’t really matter one way or another whose “theory” is correct, it doesn’t change the world one bit. We were just discussing.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, MM12, we’re glad you’re here.

You might want to take a look at the various forums and descriptions. This thread should be focused on Cecil’s column “What’s the deal with stigmata?”. I know that we sometimes run off-topic, but I’m trying to put some brakes on that. Your post, while interesting, really belongs elsewhere. You might look in the forum called “Great Debates”, where you’ll find several threads about the African origin of human beans, Atlantis, and related bric-a-brac.
And be prepared, you’ll find that prevalent attitude here won’t agree with you, some perhaps harshly. But welcome!

[paperbackwriter]

@MM12

And I’m not making this up, most of this is mankind’s original findings collected in the book, “The 12th Planet” by Sitchin, with a Bibliography a few pages long, that I checked out, and then copied the Sumerian dictionary by hand to get a general feel to check the translations. The same stories are told in other diverse, destroyed ancient cultures. Anyway, they said Nibiru is where People came from, the Nephilim, “who fell from the sky.” And we look at the Plains of Nazca, the Pyramids, Cuzco Wall, etc. etc. and it makes sense. The evidence is libraries deep.

Sitchin is considered a pseudo-scientist by nearly every other Sumerian scholar. Sitchin it turn claims that every other Sumerian scholar is wrong, and he is the only person to correctly read the ancient Sumerian texts. I don’t have enough experience with Sumerian texts and translation to challenge him, but many who do consider his translations and astronomy ludicrous.

@MM12

And it’s “idiosyncratic” of what?

What I have to support my “theory” is a lifetime of experiencing it. I believe me.

Well, I personally would like to see more evidence than your own personal beliefs. What you are doing is making an appeal to faith, which is inherently untestable, and unscientific. There is no reason to take your faith as more correct or substantial than Padre Pio’s.

The thrust of most of this discussion has been trying to determine if the manifestation of stigmata is explainable by natural phenomena or if it requires a supernatural agent. The discussion of one form of supernatural explanation versus another is an unresolvable debate.