Yahweh
30th December 2003, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Can you all help me please?
The best I can do so far are:
1. Why do the wounds differ in appearance from one stigmatic to another?
2. Why do most stigmatics have wounds on their palms when it has been shown that crucifications could really only work if the nail was hammered through the wrist?
Can you all help me with more? I want to go into this thing prepared.
Thanks!
Skepdic.com - Stigmata (http://www.skepdic.com/stigmata.html):
St. Francis of Assisi (1182 - 1226), devoted to imitate Christ in all ways, apparently inflicted himself with wounds and perpetuated the first stigmatic fraud. There have been several hundred others since, including Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560) of Spain (who admitted her fraud when she became seriously ill) and Therese Neumann of Bavaria (1898-1962).
...
Self-inflicted wounds are common among people with certain kinds of brain disorders. Claiming that the wounds are miraculous is rare and is more likely due to excessive religiosity than to a diseased brain, though both could be at work in some cases.
The likelihood that the wounds are psychosomatic (psychogenic purpuras), manifested by tortured souls, seems less likely than hoaxing in most cases. There are two main reasons for believing the stigmata are usually self-inflicted, rather than psychosomatic or miraculous. One, no stigmatic ever manifests these wounds from start to finish in the presence of others. Only when they are unwatched do they start to bleed. (There is one apparent exception to this rule: Catia Rivas. Rivas is know today as a fraud, here is some information (http://www.skepdic.com/rivas.html)) And two, Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" is that when an alleged miracle occurs we ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed? Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not miracles but pious frauds. All 32 or so recorded cases of stigmata have been Roman Catholics and all but four of those cases were women. No case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century,* when the crucified Jesus became a standard icon of Christianity in the west. Reasonableness seems to require the non-miraculous explanation.
One of the latest to be added to the list of alleged stigmatics is Audrey Santo, a child who has been in a coma since 1987 when she was three years old. What kind of people are inspired by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her? Joe Nickell thinks he has the answer.
<blockquote>People seem to hunger for some tangible religious experience, and wherever there is such profound want there is the opportunity for what may be called "pious fraud." Money is rarely the primary motive, the usual impetus being to seemingly triumph over adversity, renew the faith of believers, and confound the doubters.</blockquote>
People also don't want to think God would allow purposeless and gratuitous pain. They like to feel important and please those with power over them. What could be more special than being chosen to suffer the Savior's wounds and torments? What could please God more than being a living proof of God's existence? Well, being honest and truthful might be a good start.
I hope that is helpful.