Туринская Плащаница

Comments

1. Hi John, and Marco, and other readers,

   I do not currently intend to write a book and am not in the process of doing so. I agree with John that a lot more work needs to be done on this woefully under-researched artefact before a truly convincing evidence-based account can be developed. More people have studied the moon under a microscope than have studied the Shroud, and the dreadfully misnamed “Summary of STURP’s Conclusions” is belied by the battery of questions the STuRP team hoped to answer during some further researches proposed in 1984.

   As for the blood, I don’t find it convincing as flows from wounds, but John does. I see the blood from a chest wound as a collecion of overlapping zig-zags, John sees a seeping mass. How can this difference of opinion be distilled into a difference of fact? What evidence is there either way? All there is, on the medieval side, is the simulation work of Garlaschelli and Borrini, which many people think is flawed, but on the authenticist side there is nothing at all. A promised investigation by John Jackson does not appear to have occurred, or if it did it hasn’t been published. Apart from that it’s all “seems to be” this and “would do” that, and as I said earlier, I think my “would” is as good as anybody else’s.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

2. John, if I expressed the hope (which, for reasons that escape me, seems to have annoyed you so much) that Hugh will write a book, it is precisely because I recognize that he has expertise in chemistry and physics that I do not possess. I see no reason why I should express opinions on matters about which I have no expertise whatsoever. I know very well that this happens regularly in the field of Shroud studies, but I do not share this practice. Everyone should stick to what they are trained to do.

3. Hi Marco,

   Thanks for that comment. Just as I expected. Vagaries, all vagaries.
   You might want to consider putting a new academic credential on your CV: “M.E.,” for Master of Evasion.

   John Loken

4. Hi, John,
   I simply have very strong doubts about all the scientific claims made within the field of Shroud studies, because, even when they come from qualified individuals, they still do not have the status of scientifically verified facts.
   There is a problem that escapes most people: quite apart from the flaws inherent in the peer-review system, and quite apart from the varying quality of academic journals, the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, even a prestigious one, does not mean that it constitutes an established fact accepted by the scientific community, as many people seem to think.
   Publication is merely the prerequisite for a debate to potentially begin and for the results to be confirmed by independent studies. This is a stage that, in the field of Shroud studies, has been reached in very few cases, for reasons that everyone knows. Much ado about nothing.

5. Hugh, you seem to really love that word “sigmoid” together with “squiggles.” I agree: they are both really cool words. I’ll try to find opportunities to use them myself on occasion. Thanks!

   But you may be obsessing over them both. Personally I don’t see so many odd “squiggles” (rhymes with “giggles” to make them sound ridiculous?) on the Turin Shroud image. The side wound blood is rather a seeping mass. The blood from the feet is blotchy and its flows seem quite normal. The “3” or “epsilon” bloodstain on the forehead has long been recognized as consistent with wrinkles of agony on a forehead such as we all see almost every day on people in movies including documentary films, the blood there on the Shroud having been deflected slightly by each of his brow furrows. The meandering flow or flows on the arms I’ve already explained in my previous comment here. And the several little rivulets in the hair seem normal enough for blood left behind if a crown of thorns was suddenly pulled off his head, with his hair already somewhat matted down by sweat, dust, and perhaps some previous blood which had since dried.

   Your word “sigmoid” apparently indicates the form of a c or an s. But surely you don’t think that blood always flows from a body in straight lines, like that seen on so many of the 14th century paintings of Jesus, which are not very realistic at all.

   Thanks for the correction on the Latin words of Bishop d’Arcy as translated by Thurston. And yet I might say that in French the word “artifice” can definitely carry the meaning of deception, and the word “subtle” can also have a sense of shady, secret, or discreet. One wonders whether a Latin text written in 1390, at the end of the Middle Ages, might also have intended such negative meanings with those words. We may need a real expert in the transition from Latin to French in order to settle that question, if even possible today. And even if any connotation of deception can be completely ruled out of those words, the question remains whether d’Arcis felt that an artist/artisan was complicit in the “fraud” he claimed.

   Your turn.

   John L.

6. Hi Marco,

   It’s good to have another voice in this discussion. Yes, Hugh might like to compile a whole book presenting his Shroud thoughts. But I would not advise his doing so just yet, until many of the topics he has blogged about have been more thoroughly examined by others both inside and outside the Shroud field.

   When or if he does produce a book, I might well review it, certainly both pro and con and also in spots neutrally, to the extent of about fifty pages. (Or please read my dozens and dozens of comments here over the past three years; and please remember that all of Hugh’s blogposts from 2019 through 2022 were posted with bare minimum comments time windows of merely three days, which few people even knew of, and which therefore generated extremely few comments for those first four years, whether pro or con.)

   Marco, let me put the following three Shroud blood questions, the first two of which Hugh has not yet answered, directly to you now. His blogpost comments box expires tomorrow, I believe, so you will need to be quick.

   1) Do you believe in Hugh’s scenario involving blood (or whatever liquid you choose to imagine) having been dribbled onto the Shroud cloth from above in order to create the bloodstains or “bloodstains” on it?

   2) Do you believe in Hugh’s other scenario involving such blood/other liquid having been added “later,” perhaps even years or decades later, to the body image on the cloth?

   3) If I recall right, Marco, you have stated before, here on Hugh’s blog, in comments on an earlier blogpost, that you do not believe or at least strongly doubt that the reddish stains on the Turin Shroud cloth are actually blood. Could you just confirm or deny that here and now? Thanks.

   I still say that much more experimentation needs to be done – and also can be done, easily, even without access to the Shroud itself. But being no scientist nor having such connections, I can’t do it myself. Sorry.

   John Loken

7. Hi, Hugh,
   When are you going to publish your own book on the Shroud? Because you know you have to publish it, right? Together with Nicolotti’s, they would be the much needed cornerstones of serious Shroud studies.

8. Hi John,

   As far as I know the only published research on the blood-flows is indeed by Luigi Garlaschelli and Matteo Borrini, a lecturer in forensic anthropology at Liverpool John Moore’s University with particular expertise in the identification of long-dead human remains. John Jackson was going to carry out some experiments of his own to counter their paper and was due to present his findings at the AAFS conference in 2019, but whether he did or not I don’t know – nothing has been published on them. Everything else is just speculation. Every other demonstration of the blood flows presented on modern “forensically accurate” statues and diagrams has been achieved by… painting the blood on in little sigmoid squiggles.

   But the sword cuts both ways. Relying on translations very much depends on the translator, and Herbert Thurston was notoriously overanxious to discredit the Shroud. The Latin of the memorandum is much milder than he suggests. “Cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man,” certainly has connotations of the underhand in English, but “pannum artificiose depictum in quo subtili modo depicta erat duplex effigies unius hominis” does not. “Artificiose” and “Subtili” are the critical words, the one meaning skilfully and the other meaning finely or delicately. Neither has any connotation of deviousness when used in other medieval contexts, as you can check with the ‘Dictionary of Medieval Latin’ at https://logeion.uchicago.edu.

   Best wishes,
   Hugh

9. Hi again Hugh,

   Thanks for keeping this discussion rolling. We only have several hours or perhaps a day left before the comments box closes, so I’m writing this quickly.

   I would beg forgiveness for having mistakenly written “confessed” in quotation marks, but that passage in Bishop d’Arcy’s Memo has been presented that way by others in the past, and I’m all alone here now, as almost always on your blog, trying to respond to your rapid-fire skeptical blogposts. All those wonderful researchers out there who don’t lift a finger to help and instead just enjoy the party. Oh well.

   Anyway, I see your point, but I don’t fully agree – in fact only half agree with you at most. D’Arcy’s opening sentences about the Lirey Shroud include “a certain cloth cunningly painted,” “a clever sleight of hand,” “how the said cloth had been cunningly painted,” and “the truth being attested by the artist who painted it.”

   That rather sounds to me like he is blaming the artist, along with the dean of the Lirey church whom he mentions as well, for the “fraud” as he also calls it. D’Arcy offers no indication of the artist’s innocence, such as that he was misled or fooled, or that he created it nobly for another venue such as a great cathedral somewhere else in France. So it seems to me that our divergent interpretations are about equally valid, though I lean toward the “guilty artist” interpretation, as do so many others in the field. And of course most of us authenticity-leaning researchers think there was probably no such artist or artisan at all. That doesn’t necessarily mean that d’Arcy was lying. Perhaps an overeager assistant of his misrepresented the case to him. Such things happen all the time in politics, business, and religion, of course.

   On the blood question, you write, “nobody experimenting with blood substitutes has found it realistic either.” But who is the “nobody” here and how many of them have there ever been? Are you thinking only of Garlaschelli of several years ago, an entrenched Shroud skeptic all along? And on the other side, those seeing the blood flows as highly realistic include numerous pathologists, coroners, battlefield surgeons, etc., who together handled thousands of real cases involving bloody bodies over the course of their careers, mostly well before they ever wrote their Shroud books or articles.

   As for the apparently separated blood “squiggles” on the forearms, the meanderings make perfect sense, as I wrote earlier here. The few very short places where the flows seem disconnected could well be due to the blood there having sufficiently dried that it did not transfer to the cloth, or to the lay of the cloth. Very probably one or more of the blood/body experts noted above has already explained it well one way or another in their writings.

   You then write, “I don’t think that any blood would flow down the arms from a crucified man.” Apparently you are thinking of the nail/spike plugging the holes so well that no blood could escape. That makes some sense, too. But let us remember that 1st century Roman nails were very large, basically little spikes, and also that the victim in question is known to have endured several hours on the cross, hours during which his body undoubtedly often twitched and thrashed in horrible pain, causing movements that would have widened the initial nail/spike holes, thus very likely letting some blood trickle out.

   You don’t address the question of your scenario involving blood (or whatever other liquid you imagine) being dribbled onto the cloth from above. Nor the question of your scenario involving such blood/other liquid being added “later” to the image. I seem to recall from your previous writings elsewhere that you suggested this “later” addition took place some years or even decades later. But I may be mistaken about that. Please correct me if I am.

   We certainly both agree that many more experiments should be done in regard to some of these blood questions. It’s too bad there are so many lazy bums in the field, doing nothing except promoting their next podcast or church group presentation, etc. I’ll definitely never accuse You of being lazy, Hugh.

   John L.

10. Hi John,

    Thanks for your comment. I think you’re reading things into the d”Arcis memorandum which aren’t there. D’Arcis never mentions a “forger,” actual or otherwise. He simply says that Bishop Henry had discovered the man who had created the Shroud. As I have often said, I don’t think this man was a forger creating a fake Shroud. He was a monastic craftsman creating a liturgical appurtenance. There is nothing to suggest that he was “a criminal of sorts and thus notorious to some degree.” If he had been, perhaps the bishop woud have been more specific or more condemnatory. D’Arcis most certainly did not write that “it was deliberately created as a fake shroud of Jesus.” All his opprobrium falls on those who had appropriated it for nefarious ends, not on its creator. There is absolutely no discrepancy between my scenario and the memorandum.

    As for the blood, I’m afraid I don’t find it realistic, and nobody experimenting with blood substitutes has found it realistic either. Its succession of little sigmoid squiggles looks like somebody making little sigmoid squiggles, not a flow from the wrist wound. We are endlessly being told what “would” happen, by people who actually have no idea at all. I don’t think that any blood would flow down the arms from a crucified man, or in little sigmoid squiggles down his hair or in little sigmoid squiggles down his chest, and I think my “would” is as good as anybody else’s.

    In my reply to Michael I didn’t even mention the Byzantine documentation; but you’re right that I have said simply that I didn’t find it credible recently. I can’t quite remember to whom, but I think it was to someone who has already read my extremely detailed review of almost every alleged reference to the Shroud in the past – most often in ‘The Markwardt Hypotheses” 1 to 5 – and I don’t want to go over everything in the same detail every time someone says they think they know better.

    I wish I could agree with your last paragraph, but I fear that pretty well all the leading authenticists have shot their own fox. It’s just possible that a team of art conservators might be allowed to analyse the Shroud a little further, but I don’t think that anyone who has publicly proclaimed that it must be authentic will be allowed anywhere near it.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

11. Hi Hugh,

    Regarding your comment here of August 20, replying to Michael Arata, it’s very good to see your more or less complete medieval Shroud creation theory set down in writing. Thanks for that (and thanks to Michael for prompting you in such detail). Your summary was not too long or sprawling, either. I’d suggest that every reader of your blog print it out and keep it handy for future reference, maybe even framed on a wall.

    So often in the past you as a skeptic have critiqued weaknesses in the claims of Shroud authenticists, with varying degrees of success – sometimes right on target, in my view. You’ve generally done a fine job of exposing the flagrant excesses of certain authenticists. I stand with you on that point and have often backed you up, in detail too, despite the hostility which I’ve experienced from them, here and elsewhere.

    As for your own, medieval Shroud creation scenario, however, now clearly stated in detail, it all still seems to me quite a stretch, not only improbable but even – please pardon me – bordering on absurd, despite the great confidence with which you assert it.

    To cite a few examples: You mention the case of the many anonymous artisans who labored on medieval cathedrals, but Bishop d’Arcy in 1389 claimed that the Lirey Shroud “artist” was an actual forger who had “confessed” to having “cunningly” created a fake shroud of Jesus, so he would have been a criminal of sorts and thus notorious to some degree and probably or very possibly easy to name or otherwise identify, at least there in the region of Champagne. Moreover, d’Arcy wrote that it was deliberately created as a fake shroud of Jesus, while you have written on the contrary that it was originally an honest and innocent liturgical prop for an Easter ritual. That is a serious discrepancy. Who is right? Or could both of you perhaps be wrong?

    Your scenario of an artist/artisan “dribbling” blood onto the cloth from some inches or centimeters above it seems also far-fetched. Was that ever demonstrably done in the Middle Ages? And with half-dry blood that did not then form big red blotches when soaking into the cloth, as fully liquid would have? And why the strange delay in time, with the blood or “blood” as you say added only (years or decades) later?

    You also write that the blood “trickles” down the (fore)arms are “rather unconvincing.” Yet they are perfectly realistic when one realizes, as many Shroud researchers have long realized, that Jesus on the cross must have periodically leaned to each side so as to relieve even slightly the acute pain or cramps in either arm. In doing so, each forearm would have been vertical, not diagonal, for some minutes, allowing the blood to trickle from the hand/wrist wounds down his forearms. As for the meandering shapes, that would be due to the dust, the dirt, his sweat, his muscles, and his trembling in pain.

    As an aside, I also can’t fathom your sweeping dismissal of all the documentary passages from the Byzantine period which could – at least some of them – be clues to a long, bloody cloth with a mysterious true image of Jesus on it – improbable though such an image might seem. The image need not have been created supernaturally, either. Nature has its wonders, many still unknown. You have at times acknowledged this possibility.

    In any case, we can all hope and even trust that the future will soon bring new information to light about the Shroud, whether pro or con or somewhere in between.

    John Loken

12. I find it difficult to believe that three senior clerics of the Greek Orthodox Church would want to trick people into thinking that an authentic miracle is fake, rather as I find it difficult to believe, as some authenticitsts seem to, that Cardinal Ballestrero wanted to trick people into thinking the authentic Shroud was medieval, secretly swapping samples while the cameras were turned off. Perhaps I’m too trusting….

    I agree that Christian miracles are events which tend to increase faith in Christianity, just as miracles recognised by followers of other religions increase faith in theirs, but your second category is only one type of such an event, and a very rare one at that. Almost all recognised miracles are instances of spontaneous remission of pathological disorders or remarkable coincidences, which naturally occur without human intervention. They are recognised not because of the physical nature of the event, but the context in which it occurs.

    Claims of events which are truly outside the laws of science as we understand them put the claimant in the unfortunate position of having to try to prove a negative, which is notoriously difficult, and your argument, so often reiterated, of “it hasn’t been done so it can’t be done,” is wholly inadequate to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. In many respects it certainly has been done, and in others, better characterisation of what, exactly, the image is would enable even better reproduction.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

13. Hi, John,

    You mention those clever clerics, again, tricking us. Indeed, there is deception going on with the clerics in question. But, what, precisely, is the deception? Is the deception the claimed miracle? Or, is the deception consisting of trying to trick people into thinking that an authentic miracle is fake?

    I think that with proposed miracles, there are two main questions that one must ask when trying to figure out if they are legitimate or not: (1) is there a religious context that this supposed miracle is occurring in, and (2) can this claimed miracle be reproduced (with all of its relevant features) through the sole effort of mere humans?

    I think that true miracles are capable of being understood to be such by way of their being incapable of being able to be fully reproduced by mere humans and our efforts that are limited by the laws of nature.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

14. Since first learning a few years ago about the Easter Saturday “Holy Fire” phenomenon in Jerusalem, I’ve been fascinated by it – but also very skeptical, indeed always sensing it was bogus, with no miracle involved. Still, I’ve admired the ingenuity of the Greek clerics who invented such a rite. The Greeks have a long tradition of experimenting with fire, of course, starting in their Byzantine period (“Greek fire” as a weapon of war).

    Now and then I’ve tried to find information about the “Holy Fire,” but never got far in my brief searches. In the Turin Shroud field, Prof. Giulio Fanti has been a big promoter of its miraculous origin. But he’s also often written about Satan, the Devil, Hell and other quaint (or not so quaint) concepts that I don’t find persuasive. Pappas has followed him both on the “Holy Fire” path and on those other “fiery” notions. In my case, being agnostic helps my judgment. But even many Christian supernaturalists in the Shroud field have probably not considered the Holy Fire miraculous.

    And now your August 12 blogpost (with a little help from Marco C. and those videos) clarifies the Holy Fire situation greatly and answers the whole question. Ah, those clever clerics, tricking us again. Thanks for writing a blogpost on it, Hugh. (But the cryptic Cyrillic lettering of your title may discourage some readers from reading the rest. Oh well. Part prankster yourself, right?)

    John L.

15. Hi Teddi,

    That’s fine. If, after reviewing all the evidence, you decide that for you, a physical miracle has occurred, no one ought to deny you your right to that opinion. As long as others have an equal right to a different opinion. The Greek Orthodox Church, in the form of the Jerusalem Patriarchy, has a different opinion. The Greek Orthodox Bishop who has lit, and still lights, the Holy Fire every Easter Saturday, has a different opinion, and the Greek Government, in the form of the Court of First Instance in Athens, has a different opinion.

    The legend that the Holy Fire stays hot for 33 minutes is very common and widespread. That window has recently begun to shrink more and more (firstly to 10-15 minutes, and now even to two or three) as it has become increasingly obvious that there’s nothing special about it.

    Of the three videos I referenced, The Book of James seems to me the least authoritative. ‘James’ does not explain who he is or his mission, and he’s only posted nine videos, the last one three years ago. The other two are significantly different, by Christians, one Orthodox, one Catholic, both avowedly proselytising for Christianity.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

16. Hi, Hugh,

    Thanks for posting those three videos. I had already seen Cameron Bertuzzi’s video on Capturing Catholicism, but I had not seen the one by the Book of James. The guy from the Book of James keeps mentioning that his tests were done within 33 minutes–yet, many have said that the Holy Fire only is different from a real fire within the first couple of minutes–so, like the first 3 minutes or so. Then, it starts gradually heating up. The Book of James guy wasn’t even able to get into the church during the Holy Saturday ceremony–so, undoubtedly, by the time his bundle of candles were lit, it was after 3 minutes. Again, he kept thinking he had 33 minutes–but that is incorrect.

    Regarding that Greek psychiatrist who took that video recording of that orb of light in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, I really don’t think that he can be mistaken regarding what he saw. We all know what camera flashes look like–those don’t appear to be camera flashes. Also, light peeking through certain areas doesn’t seem to explain things, either. Have you read that Greek psychiatrist’s detailed testimony about what happened? I don’t see how he could be mistaken regarding the things he said he witnessed with a whole crowd there, also. The man became a priest afterwards (he had been thinking about it before seeing the Holy Fire for himself, but given what he witnessed there, that cinched the deal.)

    Best regards,

    Teddi

17. Hi Michael,

    Your question strikes many others too, so you are not alone. Let me break it into two parts, quoting selectively from your post to focus on them.

    “Who created this? … this was a time when written records existed and correspondence was common. Also this area of France was not very large or heavily populated. The number of artists and craftsmen who lived in that place at that time cannot be a large number, and their names should be available.”

    Try Googling images of medieval and renaissance cathedrals. They were vast administrative centres employing hundreds of craftsmen. Detailed records were kept of who was commssioned to do what, how much he was paid, and the cost of his materials. Their West Fronts and other porticoes are covered with thousands of statues, their windows crammed with stained glass. But almost nothing of any of the paperwork survives. We have almost no names of anybody associated with almost every one of the artistic wonders of Medieval Europe. The fragmentary records that do survive show us how detailed the whole corpus was when it was created, like a handful of pieces of a ten-thousand piece jigsaw can show us the style of the whole, but nothing of the details of any of the other pieces. It would be an astonishing piece of luck to know the name of single jobbing craftman working on a minor trapping for a religious ceremony in one such institution.

    That’s part one. Now…

    “There are no known methods (past or present) that could create the shroud … This artist or craftsman had access to expensive cloth, knew how to use acids on linens so as to discolor only the front and not the back of the cloth, used real blood that seeped through the fibres in a way that was different from the discolorations, had pretty good understanding of the injuries to a crucified person, and one that was nailed to a cross, etc.”

    Like many people (you are far from alone!), you are working backwards from the relic as we find it today, rather than thinking from the medieval point of view, and you are making some conditions which are either trivial or not established. Lets look at them one by one.

    “access to expensive cloth.” Are you imagining the nineteenth century romantic image of a poor artist, living hand to mouth in a miserable garret, desperately trying to sell his meagre efforts to fund his absinthe habit? My image of the artist is a craftsman working for one of the richest institutions in the country, a great medieval abbey or cathedral, for whom the expense of such a cloth would be trivial.

    “knew how to use acids on linens so as to discolor only the front.” I doubt if he knew anything of the sort. He mixed paint following his own education and experience, very similarly to the instructions given in the various manuals of the time, such as Cennino Cennini’s Libro dell’ Arte. Water mixed with egg-yolk and pigment, with acid and/or salt to keep it from going off. I think he dabbed this onto a cloth draped over a bas relief, but Cennini explains how to paint double-sided flags – each side discoloured only on the front.
    (I might ask whether you have ever tried painting? Does your paint soak through to the other side? Try it. I think you’ll be surprised.)

    “used real blood that seeped through the fibres in a way that was different from the discolorations.” I personally don’t think that the artist used blood at all. It seems to be a later addition. But if he did, and he dripped drops of liquid blood onto the cloth, it is much more prone to wick through to the other side than dabbed, or even gently applied, paint.
    (And even blood, let alone paint, does not penetrate more than a few fibres into each thread.)

    “had pretty good understanding of the injuries to a crucified person.” Not at all. He had no knowledge of crucifixion other than biblical tradition, and copied it. As I say, I don’t think the original craftsman applied the blood, but whoever did apply it dribbled it in a rather unconvincing way in some places, such as the trickles down the arms and over the tresses of hair.

    “the shroud cannot be recreated in whole by any known modern technology.” I think it can, and quite easily. Unfortunately we do not know enough about its essential characteristics to know exactly what to work towards. Could you bake an exact replica of a fruitcake from a photograph and a spoonful of crumbs? The pseudo-negative effect, the 3D effect and the superficiality effect are all easy to manage. The exact part played by pigment, protein and acid less so, not because it is intrinsically difficult, but because a) scientific observations differ regarding the nature of the Shroud image, b) we don’t know what the effect of age and temperature has had, and c) reverse engineering – unmixing – a mixture so altered from its original composition is largely a matter of trial and error and extremely time-consuming.

    I hope that helps, but please feel free to comment further if you like!

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

18. Hi Teddi,

    I can’t agree that the opposite of “telling the truth” is “lying.” There are lots of reasons why people caught up in the religious fervour of an occasion come to sincerely believe things which didn’t objectively happen. I have watched countless videos of the ceremony now, and seen no instances of candles lighting spontaneously in the absence of any other flame nearby. It is not generally known, I think, that the Holy Flame emerges from windows in the side of the Edicule before the Archbishop comes out of the front, and the runners carrying those torches somertimes light a few others on their way out of the concourse. This might explain why some people think candles have lit spontaneously. No lightning has been observed. The famous split pillar is not in the Holy Sepulchre; it is not even in the rotunda. It is outside the main entrance to the whole church, about 30m away from the sepulchre.

    As we know, the “Catholic Church” has no “official stance” on the authenticity of the Shroud. Remarkably, it has no “official stance” on any alleged miracles, apart, I suppose, from the healing miracles that help to autheticate the canonisation of saints.

    And I have responded to the “it hasn’t been done so it can’t done” argument many times, so I won’t reiterate the case here (or see my reply to Michael). Suffice it to say that I don’t think it holds water.

    Finally, there are three (at least) worthwhile videos researching the Holy Fire phenomenon in the light of its recent repudiation.

    From Apostolic Orthodoxy, “Exposing the Holy Fire” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6cowtwedvU)
    From Capturing Catholicism and Capturing Christianity, “Orthodoxy’s ‘Greatest’ Miracle is a Lie” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1LZun4WpkA&t=1487s)
    From Book of James, “A Real Miracle? Holy Fire of Jerusalem Investigated” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhZbHG_APaA&t=10s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fq3-LTAd0)

    The first is firmly based on Orthodox faith. The “orbs of light” are reviewed from about 1:33.00 in, about five minutes from the end.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

19. Hi, Hugh,

    Do you think that this Greek psychiatrist–now priest–is lying about what he (and a crowd) observed and what he videotaped? http://www.holyfire.org/eng/svid_p_Stylianakis.htm

    He’s either lying or telling the Truth.

    What about people who have observed their bundles of candles spontaneously being lit prior to a flame coming in contact with it? What about the lightning that has been observed–inside and outside of the Church? What about the account of the pillar that split and the Holy Fire that was reported to emerge from the split–to light the Patriarch’s candle when he was being barred from going into the Church to perform the ceremony? What about how people have observed that the temperature of the fire feels quite different early on (in the first few minutes) versus after it?

    I believe that we have a situation where there are some of these so-called witnesses who have participated in one way or the other to the Holy Fire ceremony who are lying and some who are telling the Truth. The Holy Flame adjacent miracles help point to where the Truth is.

    Additionally, let’s just think about the Catholic Church’s official stance on the Holy Shroud. This could, quite easily, cause people to think that it is fake. In fact, my own cousin (an agnostic) once said to me something to the effect that the Catholic Church knows that the Shroud is fake, that’s why they don’t proclaim it to be authentic. That’s a fair argument, but for it to win, one has to demonstrate that the images on the Shroud could have been produced through a natural or artistic method (while demonstrating the numerous characteristics that the blood and body images exhibit.) And, well, that still cannot be done. And, I believe that this is what separates a miracle from a non-miracle.

    If you are aware of better footage (than the one which I think I’ve already appended here in the comment section earlier on in our discussions) of the orb of light, I’d be very interested in seeing it.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

20. Hi Teddi,

    I’m not sure what needs to be explained. The “some people” who “claim that fraud exists” includes Archbishop Theophanes, who has been and still is present at the ceremony, in a sworn statement, published online, and the admission by another Archbishop and the sacristan who lights the fire, in evidence submitted to a court of law, also published online, that the the fire is lit with matches or a lighter. No evidence was produced in court defending any of the alleged miracuous aspects of the Holy Fire, such as its lack of heat.

    In spite of the enthusiasm of the participants at the time, the fact is that anybody with a bunch of tapers can simulate exactly the same effect as the holy fire, and evidence that the flame is actually cold is completely lacking.

    The very out-of-focus video allegedly showing an orb of fire bobbing through the crowd at head height is very obviously one of the candles which is lit through the side wall of the Edicule before the Patriarc emerges, and carried at speed through the crowd and upstairs to the upper balconies. Subsequent videos showing exactly that in much better focus are easy to find online.

    I’m afraid that that is enough for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to remove any reference to physical miracles from their website, although they do claim, and I see no reason to disagree with them, that the fire becomes Holy as part of the ceremony, rather in the way the Eucharist is transubstantiated during the mass.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

21. I have enjoyed reading these posts and appreciate all of the effort that you have put into this. I am not close to understanding the facts and science as well as you do, but one question always strikes me: who created this? One of the main arguments for authenticity is that there are no known methods (past or present) that could create the shroud. So who made it and how? The shroud was significant enough that the Pope wrote about it a few times. It clearly made a splash back then. And this was a time when written records existed and correspondence was common. Also this area of France was not very large or heavily populated. The number of artists and craftsmen who lived in that place at that time cannot be a large number, and their names should be available. Additionally, which one of these artisans/craftsmen created other works in this area at this time that demonstrated that they had the talent and equipment available to make the shroud? It does not seem like that should be hard to find that out. Why, after all this time, has no one identified that artist who was capable of creating this shroud. This artist or craftsman had access to expensive cloth, knew how to use acids on linens so as to discolor only the front and not the back of the cloth, used real blood that seeped through the fibres in a way that was different from the discolorations, had pretty good understanding of the injuries to a crucified person, and one that was nailed to a cross, etc. If, as I mentioned above, the shroud cannot be recreated in whole by any known modern technology, how was it created in the middle ages?

22. Hi, Hugh,

    I would like to make what should be an obvious statement that just because some people claim that fraud exists doesn’t make it so. The proof is in the pudding–and that requires explaining how the Holy Fire behaves differently from normal fire in the first few minutes–but then, afterwards, behaves like normal fire. And, there are the various miracles which have been connected/adjacent to the Holy Fire situation–the column that split, the orb of light that rotated around the Edicule that the crowd witnessed (I think that was in 1994.) So, despite what “admissions” the Orthodox archbishop of Jerusalem made, these things still defy explanation (as would be expected with a miracle.) So, until these things can be explained, these occurrences–which occur in an important context–really should be appreciated as miracles unless credible evidence that can explain and reproduce these things is shown.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

23. Hi Marco,

    There is an extensive review of the Holy Fire at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6cowtwedvU&t=3971s. Blurry footage of the event from 30 years ago is no longer as impressive as it once was, since literally hundreds of phone cameras now film the event every year. If there was anything scientifically anomalous going on, we can be certain it would have been championed to the hilt. In this case, absence of evidence is very good evidence of absence. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe that rather few people were allowed into the church this year for security reasons, and would not be surprised if that situation continues.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

24. Archbishop Isidoros (Elias Fakitsas) is still today (2026) the Elder Sacristan of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (https://www.salvationprayer.eu/2026/04/15/jerusalem-patriarchates-second-resurrection-2026-vespers-of-love-at-the-church-of-the-holy-sepulchre/ ). In the well-known 2022 interview with journalist Alikakos (which I linked in my previous message), he admitted to placing the so-called “sleepless candle” inside the Sepulchre and lighting it before the patriarch’s official entrance during the afternoon ceremony. In a context like this, continuing to entertain the idea of a miraculous ignition is simply untenable. Regarding the fire mentioned by Dr. Stylianakis, it should be considered that before the patriarch emerges from the Sepulchre, torches are lit near the side portholes of the Sepulchre, and these lit torches are then carried up to the upper level. Naturally, someone standing far away would only see a fire that appears to move on its own. Images here (minute 5):https://youtu.be/U2fq3-LTAd0?si=gpaSGxKTES_y0QB7

25. Two first-hand accounts by the same person of strange goings-on with regard to the Holy Fire on Holy Saturday in Jerusalem–the psychiatrist turned Orthodox priest:
    http://www.holyfire.org/eng/svid_p_Stylianakis.htm

26. Video footage from Dr. Antonios Stylianakis (a psychiatrist) who then became a priest after this.
    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW_VdeDE0A5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

    I’ll post his narrative of what he witnessed in my next comment.

27. Hi Teddi,

    It’s not true that I shaved off my beard for this experiment, but I agree that you have a point. My beard having now grown back, I’ve added another video to the post showing exactly the same phenomenon. The ‘cold flame’ of the Holy Fire is no different from what anybody can do for themselves at home.

    The fact that the Holy Fire is generated by a match or lighter was considered “proved beyond reasonable doubt” in 2024, and the fact that the website of the Patriarchy of Jerusalem no longer uses the word miracle to describe its appearance are extremely significant to any discussion of the Holy Fire whether any particular person agrees with them or not. Any video made in the last two years defending the literal miracle without even mentioning Dmitris Alikakos demonstrates either extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

    Best wishes,
    Hugh

28. Hi everyone.
    In this 2022 interview, Archbishop Isidorus rather awkwardly admits how the ritual staging works, in which he plays a leading role: he is the one who brings the fire into the tomb before the “miracle” (particularly interesting from the 8-minute mark onward). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N–IvVLT9M8 English subtitles can be turned on.

29. Hi, Hugh,

    In this video, this gentleman puts his beard in the flame of the Holy Fire—and the flame is most definitely there long enough to catch on fire. Obviously, the beard that you had previously had—but which you had shaved off for your experiment—demonstrates that you knew what would happen if you did that experiment with a beard.
    https://youtu.be/4kZu87tyqJ4

    Yes, I have read that if one moves skin very quickly through a flame it won’t (supposedly) catch fire (but I’m not going to put that to the test), because it takes some time for the skin to react, but that is not the case with hair as my experiment ptoves. And, again, people can do that experiment (tge one I did) very safely at home over a stainless steel sink or something like that.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

30. This is a must-see documentary about the Holy Fire. There are a couple of parts of this documentary where the audio cuts out, but there are subtitles, so it is still easy to follow along. There is, also, video footage of that 1994 event that I mentioned in my prior comment about that orb of light that was flying around and circling the Holy Sepulcher on Holy Saturday and lit that candle–in front of the huge crowd (and as testified to by Geron Nektarion in the first video that I have linked to (in my first comment for this blogpost.)

    Also, the primary host on this documentary, below, is Dr. Hani Ashamalla, M.B., B.Ch., M.D.. After seeing that documentary, I was curious as to who he is–he is one of the top doctors in New York who is a radiation oncologist in Brooklyn. He is, also, Chairman of Radiation Oncology at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, and he has over four decades of experience in this area. He is, also, a clinical professor of radiation oncology at Weill Cornell Medicine.
    https://youtu.be/YmaWMBSHY18?si=re4cdAAKRvLJ6mIT

    Also, please note that the second video which I attached (with Evangelos Nikitopoulos and Craig Truglia) discuss that glowing orb of light that was circling the Holy Sepulcher on Holy Saturday.

    And, it is important to note that, unlike some claims by skeptics and others who say that the Holy Fire is reputed to remain a “cold fire” or harmless for about an hour–the more reputable people say that it is only for a matter of minutes (many say less than 10), and then, it starts to warm up.

    Best regards,

    Teddi

31. A very interesting discussion about the Holy Fire. https://www.youtube.com/live/IiQZJHyTM1U?si=IpoHUXD7rShEVUpC

32. Hi, Hugh,

    Very interestingly, several days ago, I somehow came across (without seeking Holy Fire matters) some Catholic podcasters who were attacking the Holy Fire as a fraud. If you’ll pardon the pun, that “lit a fire under me.” I strongly suspect that different sort of “holy fire” was lit under me by the Holy Spirit in awareness of this very attack that you have just made against the Holy Fire. So, I am st the ready with having already performed my own simple experiment last Sunday with regular fire and (1) a single strand of my own hair and (2) a cluster of about 7 strands of my own hair. I encourage everyone reading this to try this for themselves.

    My findings: I very quickly passed the cluster of hairs through the regular fire from a lighter. They caught on fire—with a visible flame—and I immediately dropped the hairs into the wet stainless steel kitchen sink beneath me. When I repeated the experiment with just a single strand of hair, the hair just instantly burned off with no visible flame, because it was all so quick. Again, people should try my experiment at home.

    Hugh, I noticed that you shaved your beard off for your fire experiment. That was a very wise decision as you would, undoubtedly, now have had no beard AND third degree burns.

    Here is a great eyewitness testimony concerning another matter regarding the Holy Fire—an orb of light that circled around the Holy Sepulcher and then lit a previously unlit candle in a hanging vigil lamp that was the center vigil lamp among three that were hanging right outside of the Holy Sepulcher after the Patriarch exited with the Holy Fire on Holy Saturday.
    https://youtu.be/LxdbsUgvzrs
    I shall send some other important links for people to see in just a moment.

    Best regards,

    Teddi