Subscribe to Listverse
Throughout the years the Roman Catholic Church has found the bodies of some of their saints to be incorrupt. When this happens, the body is often put on display (quite often they are put inside a Church altar with a glass front). This is a list of the most famous incorrupt saints. You can read a much more indepth article with a photo and video gallery of incorrupt corpses here.
1. Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, Died 1879 [Wikipedia]
St Bernadette was born Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes, France. From February to July 1858, she reported eighteen apparitions of “a Lady.” Despite initial skepticism from the Roman Catholic Church, these claims were eventually declared to be worthy of belief after a canonical investigation. After her death, Bernadette’s body remained “incorruptible”, and the shrine at Lourdes went on to become a major site for pilgrimage, attracting millions of Catholics each year.
2. Saint John Vianney, Died 1859 [Wikipedia]
St. Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney (May 8, 1786 – August 4, 1859) was a French parish priest who became a Catholic saint and the patron saint of parish priests. He is often referred to, even in English, as the “Curé d’Ars” (the parish priest of the village of Ars). He became famous internationally for his priestly and pastoral work in his parish due to the radical spiritual transformation of the community and its surroundings.
3. Saint Teresa Margaret, Died 1770
n March 19, 1934, Pope Pius XI entered Blessed Teresa Margaret of the Sacred Heart in the register of saints. In Germany, the new saint is virtually unknown outside of the Carmelite Order. Her life was quiet and hidden. She died on March 7, 1770 at the age of 22, and of this short lifespan, she spent five years in the Carmelite monastery in Florence. She performed no brilliant, attention-getting deeds, nor did her reputation reach the wider world. She spent her life living quietly and with virtue.
4. Saint Vincent de Paul, Died 1660 [Wikipedia]
Saint Vincent de Paul studied humanities at Dax with the Cordeliers and he graduated in theology at Toulouse. Vincent de Paul was ordained in 1600, remaining in Toulouse until he went to Marseille for an inheritance. On his way back from Marseille, he was taken captive by Turkish pirates to Tunis, and sold into slavery. After converting his owner to Christianity, Vincent de Paul was freed in 1607. Vincent returned to France and served as priest in a parish near Paris. n 1705 the Superior-General of the Lazarists requested that the process of his canonization might be instituted. On August 13, 1729, Vincent was declared Blessed by Benedict XIII, and canonized by Clement XII on June 16, 1737. In 1885 Leo XIII gave him as patron to the Sisters of Charity.
5. Saint Silvan Died circa 350
There is little known about Saint Silvan except that he was martyred (killed for his faith). Considering his body is over 1,600 years old, it is remarkably preserved.
6. Saint Veronica Giuliani, Died 1727 [Wikipedia]
Saint Veronica Giuliani (Veronica de Julianis) (1660-July 9, 1727) was an Italian mystic. She was born at Mercatello in the Duchy of Urbino. Her parents, Francesco Giuliana and Benedetta Mancini, were both of gentle birth. In baptism she was named Ursula. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, she showed signs of sanctity from an early age. Her legend states that she was only eighteen months old, she uttered her first words to upbraid a shopman who was serving a false measure of oil, saying distinctly: “Do justice, God sees you.”
7. Saint Zita, Died 1272 [Wikipedia]
Saint Zita (c. 1212 – 27 April 1272) is the patron saint of maids and domestic servants. She is also appealed to in order to help find lost keys. Zita often said to others that devotion is false if slothful. She considered her work as an employment assigned her by God, and as part of her penance, and obeyed her master and mistress in all things as being placed over her by God. She always rose several hours before the rest of the family and employed in prayer a considerable part of the time which others gave to sleep.
8. Saint John Bosco, Died 1888 [Wikipedia]
Saint Don Bosco, born Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco, and known in English as John Bosco (August 16, 1815 – January 31, 1888), was an Italian Catholic priest, educator and recognized pedagogue, who put into practice the dogma of his religion, employing teaching methods based on love rather than punishment. He placed his works under the protection of Francis de Sales; thus his followers styled themselves the Salesian Society. He is the only Saint with the title “Father and Teacher of Youth”.
9. Blessed Pope Piux IX, Died 1878 [Wikipedia]
Pope Pius IX (May 13, 1792 – February 7, 1878), born Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, reigned as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church from his election in June 16, 1846, until his death more than 31 years later in 1878. Pius IX was elected as the candidate of the liberal and moderate wings on the College of Cardinals, following the pontificate of arch-conservative Pope Gregory XVI. Initially sympathetic to democratic and modernizing reforms in Italy and in the Church, Pius became increasingly conservative after he was deposed as the temporal ruler of the Papal States in the events that followed the Revolutions of 1848.
10. Blessed Pope John XXIII, Died 1963 [Wikipedia]
Pope John XXIII (Latin: Ioannes PP. XXIII; Italian: Giovanni XXIII), born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (November 25, 1881 – June 3, 1963), was elected as the 261st Pope of the Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican City on October 28, 1958. He called the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) but did not live to see it to completion, dying on June 3, 1963, two months after the completion of his final encyclical, Pacem in Terris. He was beatified on September 3, 2000, along with Pope Pius IX, the first popes since Pope St. Pius X to receive this honour.
You can read a much more indepth article with a photo and video gallery of incorrupt corpses here.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:25 pm
wow cool don’t know what else to say
August 21st, 2007 at 11:16 pm
from Wikipedia: “…although the body of Pope John XXIII remains in a remarkably intact state, after its discovery, Church officials quickly pointed out that the pope’s body had been embalmed and that there was a lack of oxygen in his sealed triple coffin, lest the public mistakenly fall under the impression that John’s body had been incorrupt due to supernatural reasons.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
i fell kind of dumb asking but,whats an incorrupt body.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:21 am
James, I wondered the same thing.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 am
James, Emily, incorruptables are exactly what they sound like – their bodies don’t corrupt or decompose. To believers, it’s a sign of god’s grace.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
that’s really something
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 am
so are those pictures what their bodies actually look like right now? I always thought that they had just naturally mummified. I thought that they would all look like #7. St. Zida?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
rope: it is true that John XXIII was embalmed – I think he was the first Pope to be embalmed in fact. But I think his body has been in the open air for over a year now with no effect so it is probably that he is incorrupt. Time will tell for sure. It is important to note that most people who are buried are embalmed – it doesn’t stop the corruption of the body, it just slows it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
Sandra: that is what they look like now – which makes the 1,600 year old one even more incredible. And St Bernadette is incredible too. You can go to the Churches that the bodies are in and see them anytime.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 am
lol and to think im catholic school educated ,they didnt teach us this , or maybe it was one of the days i wagged or spent in the head nun’s office
Truly amazing and interesting.thx
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Asta: you are welcome! I think this sort of thing is much more widely known in Europe as most of the Saint’s above are from there. It would certainly make an interesting basis for a European tour!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Ok someone’s got to say it :
“I see dead people.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Andre: haha – well done
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Wow, that’s amazing, I hadn’t heard of this phenomon. Being largely skeptical of the church by nature, what are the arguements against it?
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Kelsi: there aren’t any really – I guess sceptics would just say that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens occasionally.
BTW everyone: excuse the funny ordering of the comments – I changed the timezone of the site today – all should be well by the end of the day.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
# 5 is insane…I’ve seen the first one, but never knew there were more like it. Great list!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Dan: yeah – you can even see the wound that killed him. How incredible is that.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The photo of St. Bernadette is a bit misleading. From the Wikipedia article:
“A precise imprint of the face was molded so that the firm of Pierre Imans in Paris could make a light wax mask based on the imprints and on some genuine photos. This was common practice for relics in France, as it was feared that although the body was mummified, the blackish tinge to the face and the sunken eyes and nose would make an unpleasant impression on the public. Imprints of the hands were also taken for the presentation of the body.”
Though I do agree that it is an amazing phenomenon. I’m surprised that I’d never heard of it before.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Marcy: that is true – though it is only a light wax film used in the same way makeup would but much longer lasting.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I was going to mention the wax look of St. Bernadette. Dont you think thats a bit vain of the church to keep the living beauty intact in such a way? Who’s to say what sort of decay underneath would have occured by now. #4 has a similiar waxen look. I notice they are all sealed too. Anyway I’m not debunking, considering the age of the saint’s remains.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
christian: I think that it is considered a miracle regardless, but as so many people flock to see the bodies, they are on constant display and need protection from the light and air – incorruptibility does not protect against air-born funguses for example. The wax serves this purpose. They are definitely not corrupting underneath – if so – the smell would give it away.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I can’t get over how they are so well kept, especailly the one that is 1600 years old.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
These are a little creepy. But I would love to actually see them, not for faith based reasons, but just because they’re so odd. I’ve never heard of this before, but it seems like a really strange practice.
/Throughout the years the Roman Catholic Church has found the bodies of some of their saints to be incorrupt./
But how are the bodies found to incorrupt?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Briarrose1: I agree – amazing.
B: In the cases of the older ones, it is sometimes discovered when the bodies must be moved to a different place for protection. In modern cases the Church routinely opens coffins of people that have had miraculous lives 50 years after their death. It is not a case of finding by mistake and making the person a saint, but rather checking to see whether a saintly person has also been protected from corruption in death. The case of St Bernadette was interesting – not only did she not corrupt, but her body after death exuded the smell of roses for a long time. I am not sure if it still does.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:53 am
whoa… i’d love to see some of these in person.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Gr8flDdFn: It is probably not hard to organize if you are going on holiday to Europe.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I didn’t drop by Mao’s tomb in Tianenmen square, but I heard Mao is laying there looking a lot like a wax figure… which could actually be the case a-la ripley’s believe it or not.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Kelsey: he was preserved intentionally to preserve the memory of the revolution. I am sure that left to nature, he would have rotted quite promptly!
August 26th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Amazing that so many of you accept this without question.
Discovery channel had a show a while back where scientists checked these bodies. While the church did not allow all of them to be checked the ones that were checked were found to be preserved and/or waxed.
Discouraging that supposedly educated folks are ready to discard physics and common sense and accept the mystical so readily.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Bob: The Church does not allow things considered sacred to be played around with – it is not a conspiracy – it is devotion. The fact remains, these bodies were dug up 50 years after their deaths and found to be incorrupt. It seems more unusual and unscientific to me that you would presume that there is a big conspiracy to trick people in to believing. You might enjoy the top 10 top conspiracies post.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I don’t believe I mentioned conspiracy at all.
My focus is on the blind obediance to dogma that so many religious people have.
The church has fostered ignorance for centuries.
It’s very simple when you have so many gullible followers. When people get too curious all investigation is stopped in the name of preserving the sanctity of the faith.
Ask questions damn it! Why shoudn’t your belief
stand up against strong investigation.
Ah yes, it may qualify as a sin if you ask the wrong questions.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Bob: it is not sinful to ask questions
The conspiracy that I was claiming you adhere to is the one that organised religions try to intentionally deceive people. I find it hard to believe that every person in a position of power in an organised religion is trying to trick people for their own gain. Surely there must be some who are acting for what they believe to be the good of the people?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:20 am
JF: Thats why I fancy myself as a humanist.
Bob: I have faith 1: That gravity will keep me on the ground.
2: That Modern Religion is just a bunch of tripe.
3: That there is something Greater than me.
No matter how much any of these things Prove later on to be false, I still have Faith enough to believe them. Science can’t understand it, I can’t rationalize it. It’s not a sin to ask 1: Why I fall 2: Why they fall or 3: How high you can fall from.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Crimanon: I wouldn’t really consider myself to be a humanist – but it is good that you have an idea of who you are and what you believe – and better that you are so confident in those beliefs!
August 29th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I agree with you Bob S. -All believers will always try to ignore the purposes of science, even more when its about something that may prove their beliefs are wrong.
Crimanon i don’t really understand why would you believe in something after is proven false, i don’t think is a very good thing to hold on something that is wrong, maybe you cannot rationalize it, but to find the truth you gotta find whats false first.
jfrater is true that religion nowadays is loosing the power it used to have time ago, i can say that many people have change their minds towards religion during the last century, maybe because science has shown us many answers that religion used to barely explain or simply deny…
August 29th, 2007 at 1:26 am
…Science is based in facts, religion is based in faith. i’m just wondering where i can find the truth!!
August 29th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Anyway the mummies are cool!!
August 29th, 2007 at 1:38 am
hhloguin: thanks for your comments. You should note that these aren’t mummies btw, a mummy is a body preserved by embalming and drying, these bodies are not dried or embalmed which puts them in a different category
August 29th, 2007 at 2:09 am
hholguin: 1: Gravity is false, means nothing, doesn’t really exist. Something is keeping me on the ground.
2: Modern religion is Fact. Ok, glad I believe in something, Bigger than me.
3: GOD IS DEAD… but if religion is True then ??? can’t be, and I’m still right.
I’m getting a real kick out of this. Do you actually believe me Pious? Do you find my thoughts Christian? Even if God is dead, arn’t there still things in this Universe that are greater than us??? Move into Intellegent Design… We were put here by aliens. XENU the Terrible deposited Our souls here so that we may inhabit this….Crap, I hate them!!!!!! I read Quantum Physics for fun. Give me the Ultimate Equation, and then I’ll tell you Gods home address.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:26 am
We can’t handle the truth.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:49 am
“The truth is out there”…
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I know that religion “was” the only source that mankind had to socialize and organize communities thousands of years ago, when philosophers were trying to find answers for their questions, and knowledge was very poor. At that time they couldn’t find any answers but “God”, for any question God was the answer. At that time fear of God helped to control man’s primitive instincts and it was completely worthy.
Today we have learn the lesson, now we have answers. Today God is not giving anymore answers, also instead of socialize and organize communities it is destroying and dividing the world, is like hundreds of different religions fighting each other, i guess is not doing any good anymore.
Crimanon: i know God’s home address, but i don’t go visit anymore. I know there is greater things than us in the Universe, but we should worry about us not them, i think they don’t even care about us, maybe we still way too primitive to find the answer. i think the Ultimate Equation could be: ( Man -God + Knowledge = Truth ) I would like to recommend you to read “Thus Spake Zarathustra”by Friedrich Nietzsche, its a great book, great philosopher, it will open your mind a little further.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Fascinating stuff. It should be noted, though, that this phenomenon isn’t limited to the Catholic religion.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
im glad someone has finally talked about incorrupts! im amazed by it, too. im catholic, but i dont base my entire faith on this, though I do believe it to be a miracle, and quite interesting. the only incorrupt i know to be in the USA is Mother Cabrini in NYC. i long to go to europe and dedicate an entire trip to seeing them all. it’s just interesting to me. i’ve been planning a trip also to view 1st class relics in europe. and sample all the food! so much to see with so little money!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:11 am
melissa: I know what you mean – I had a lovely holiday to Venice earlier this year and the religious artefacts and the food is outstanding. It would be well worth your while making the trip sometime.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Melissa: I too am amazed with incorrupts, also I am Catholic. St. Bernadette was my patron when I was confirmed. I would love to go visit her someday, and have long thought about a trip to see so many amazing places. Someday…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Well I am a skeptic by nature but I will say this, having been to Croatia, I can say that ST. Silvan moves me. I can’t stand modern organized religion and I don’t mean to offend anyone when I say that. It’s just that too many bad people have taken what should have been good practices and turned them into something useful to them. I can’t accept that God would have wanted it that way. On the other hand I do believe that there are good people out there who are working for the common good. I would love to debunk the incorruptibles and I think I have a pretty hardened heart but seeing St. Silvan…. it’s hard to put into words. That doesn’t mean that I have converted to catholicism. I am not religious, but I can say that I believe that there is a God. Anyone who has spent time in war zones will tell you. You feel God and you hope for a better future. Whether you want to mock me or not, I could care less. I believe it, that’s enough for me.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Inuyoukai8: thanks for the comment – it is very nice to hear from someone that has been an eye-witness to one of these incorruptibles.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
This is a cool phenomenon but I don’t believe the theory behind this… God’s truth is based on God’s word (the Bible) and there are no mention that if your body does not decompose that you are considered a saint…
What the bible teaches is that God judges the heart… Saints are people who gave there lives to do God’s will, who were willing to serve others…
September 24th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Jason: These people are saints for the reason you mention – the incorruptibility is not why they were made saints. Also, don’t forget that the majority of Christians in the world (Catholic and Orthodox) do not believe that the Bible alone is the sole Word of God. Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) is a concept from the 1500’s.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
i think the process to preserve the body is called “saponification”. basically the body reacts to the environment and turns the tissues into soap.
anybody would like to have a shower with Ste Bernadette Soubirou??
October 7th, 2007 at 11:23 am
wow…thats…weird and cool at the same time
I thought that little girl…i have no idea what her name is or anything [[which isnt helpful at all lol]]
but she was on ripleys believe it or not she died when she was around 3 and a half and they brought her body to that place where they examine it and she was like one of the first people that they did the embalming thing on…
a looooooong time ago. and sinced then her body still looks real [[like al the other ones on this list]]
well this list is still cool
October 29th, 2007 at 7:51 am
i wish to have a vacation in europe someday to see the bodies…i hope they can come out with more list too…
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I’m sorry if what I say is redundant as I have not taken the time to read through all the comments…
according to friends of mine who have visited Assisi in Italy, the body of St. Francis is incorrupt as well and was never embalmed – he just looks like he is laying there asleep. I have not managed to find much information on the net concerning this. Does anyone know if it is true?
December 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Jeeze, none of these guys died happy, did they? They carried their ‘eh’ into eternity.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Dear Friends,
I have seen about Saint Bernadette of Lourdes in ‘…Quest’ program at starworld, That led me here. In India there are saints(Hindu) who are in Samadhi. I came to know that, ’samadhi’ is not death, but a state a sleep. At any time these people can walk up from their sleep(?). One samadhi at ’sreerangam’ in Trichy, (Tamilnadu District) has growing hair and nails(?). In Hinduism, about different types of samadhi is written in their Holy books. It is very rare to see in physical world as it is considered as a part of secret science of Hinduism practiced by great saints only. I am also came to know that such saints are living in the caves of himalaya. It will be great helpful to me if any body post the details regarding this topics
January 1st, 2008 at 2:26 am
Saint with Jeans: The biggest problem here is that the saints do not dispel doubts about their abilities by revealing themselves and allowing their abilities to be tested. We’ll all continue to wonder.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Hmmmm, well yes, I’m a big believer that this is ultimately a natural phenomena. Spooky and slightly creepy, yet fascinating.
Food for thought for nonbelievers, “I bet no one’s yet to witness a high riding criminal to have been discovered incorruptible.”
January 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
This is really interesting to me, for some morbid reason. How can something hundreds of years old look that good? Fascinating and mind boggling.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:38 am
it`s so great but believable if you get GOD everything is possible (From IRAN)
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Sister Bernadette died in 1879, her body had to be exhumed at different times and each the body was in perfect condition! Finally they built this glass cofin and she is on “display” see story and pics at link. Visit this site and read the full story, the wax is a very thin coat as she slightly yellowed after one of the times she was exhumed prob due to pollution so they wanted to protect her. They said a surgeon who last inspected her was amazed that her liver was in perfect condition….your liver dies immediately and deteriorates(sp) If you have seen someone even who has been embalmed they always have a little yellow…like someone with liver failure. This amazes me. I dont even think they embalmed people way back then anyway, havent you ever heard that people many times were buried alive and even strung bells so they could pull the string if they woke up! I apparently had a great great grandmother that had this happen and she woke up during her funeral…lol. CRAZY just thought some of u might enjoy this link, it gives more details and thought it was really neat..this was on the travel channel awhile back
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/lourdes/incorrupt.html
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I call shenanigans. Unless the corpses are re-dressed every couple of decades the fabric would have rotted away long ago.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Jordan: they probably are redressed – the incorruptibility is about their bodies – not their garments
February 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Although there are natural occurrences by which bodies do not decompose through the contents of minerals and the qualities of certain soils, the incorruptibles are really amazing because they aren’t subjected to the contents of those soils. They can’t be explained by medical science. I hear they freak people out who see them in person because they can tell they aren’t wax and they aren’t being preserved with chemicals.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Looking at the casket of Pope John XXIII,the body is almost non observable because of all the bronze vines wending their way across the glass.I wonder if those items are blocking the view for reasons other than for design.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 am
This is still one of my favorite lists here. I believe in science, but damn if there are some things in our world that are hard to explain.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The wax that has been mentioned was put on recently when the Nuns that took care of St.Bernadette’s body used some kind of liquid to clean her. It caused part of her skin to discolor, so to preserve what she looked to begin with wax/ makeup ( which is commonly used today in funneral hms) was applied. Her clothes also are changed when needed, this means she is completely movible.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I can’t explain it because I know nothing about decomposition, but I’m fairly certain that ’science’ (that single entity people are always talking about) can come up with a number of explanations, and certainly narrow it down if allowed to scientifically test the bodies. ‘Scientists are at a loss to explain it!’ is always an excuse made by the un-scientific. Scientists would say ‘Give me half a chance and I’ll try’.
Amazing images, anyway. I might have to look more up, because I’m morbid.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
One question for the skeptics is, if you think that the “incorruptibles” are likely due to unexplained rare natural phenomena, then isn’t it interesting that so many of these “rare occurrences” just happen to be saints. Remember these individuals were not declared saints because their bodies were incorrupt, but because of their good lives & deeds!
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I’m really not a good Catholic but I will defend The Church When it’s being grossly misunderstood such as in the case of Science and Religion.She sees that God wrote 2 books,nature and Scripture,and those 2 books can never contradict each other because they both come from the Same author,who is Truth itself.Truth cannot contradict truth.We need Science to ask Questions that we don’t understand,it is like a gift from God that aids us in knowing the world around us.Religion does not contradict Science and before you say Evolution that’s a theory not a discovery.But where the Problem arises is when Peolpe believe Science is infallible when it’s not as it always correcting itself!and to Bob,The Church is millitant when It comes to miracles and The Cannonisation Of Saints,It uses Science to explain what’s going on and to give answers,but when It can’t that’s when we have a Miracle on our hands since Science can’t answer a question about God,who’s outside the Universe!
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Bob The Church just doesn’t say ‘oh Wow we found an Incorrupt body of a holy Person let’s Venerate It’,It has to ask questions,just like you and me.You said they were found to be Preserved and/or waxed as Most Peolple are when they die especially In The Catholic Cultres,where the Body will lie at Wake for up to 3/4 days,but don’t confuse that with that with the removal of all internal Organs so that The body can be ’stuffed’for want of a better word,but even that can only last so long,some of these bodies are hundreds of years Old!
April 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Yes these are well preserved bodies and yes it’s amazing but it’s a natural process that has caused this to happen not the work of God. If it was truly the work of God that caused these bodies to be so well preserved why do they show signs of decay (see number 7 especially), why do some of them have wax masks. Surely your God could preserve these bodies abosolutely perfectly. Surely your God could make these bodies, by his magical powers, to look exactly the same as when they were alive. Think about it!!
May 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Does anyone know if a picture exists of the two little children who were companions of Sr. Lucia? I read that they died young and were exumed and found to be incruppt.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Thanks for for the info. I will wire this to more Christians at http://www.Christian-forum.net
June 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The related article that appears on this page is well worth a look:
http://www.nhne.com/misc/incorruptibles.html
Turns out that for some of the incorrupt bodies, human intervention was involved. Nonetheless, a facinating topic. Many more references can by found by doing a web search for
Incorruptibles
or
Incorrupt bodies saints
Related Topics:
Grave Wax (WARNING VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES):
http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm
Also see: http://adipocere.homestead.com/
The Mummies of Palermo:
http://members.tripod.com/~Motomom/index-3.html
June 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Linely, Hmm you seem somewhat disturbed by this topic. Did you read Francesco’s post.”The Church just doesn’t say ‘oh Wow we found an Incorrupt body of a holy Person let’s Venerate It’,It has to ask questions,just like you and me.You said they were found to be Preserved and/or waxed as Most Peolple are when they die especially In The Catholic Cultres,where the Body will lie at Wake for up to 3/4 days,but don’t confuse that with that with the removal of all internal Organs so that The body can be ’stuffed’for want of a better word,but even that can only last so long,some of these bodies are hundreds of years Old!
I would venture to say that you can’t just dismiss some type of spiritual or mysticle influence out of hand.
GOD BLESS
June 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
see more pics
July 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Forgive me if I didn’t see this in someone else’s post, but it is also my understanding that a true incorruptible is also limber…as if they are just sleeping. Has anyone else heard that?
July 14th, 2008 at 9:10 am
jeez…they look like they might wake up any moment. *shiver
July 14th, 2008 at 11:40 am
How come the japanese Virgin Mary is japanese?
July 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
St Bernadette is “all wax and wishful thinking”, a tribute to Victorian sentimentality. A greater saint than she, Therese of Lisieux (“The Little Flower”) was entirely corrupt after death (she died in 1897); only a few of her bones survive in her reliquiary. The Catholic Church should leave the buried dead where they belong. The spirits of those saints are now in Heaven.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
See, now I can accept that, “scribe”,
but at the same time
the natural mumification of a body, doesn’t help the image of the miraculous …which means my thoughts are having difficulty with any altercations and the underlining reasoning behind later choices made, in order to maintain an agreeable outer surface. The darkened leather skin is what I would expect from a dead body even if it has retained its form and recognition…and I think it vain (still…i’m sorry) in applying makeup or wax.. I don’t think it’s wrong, but it changes and puts truth in an askewed light. Which, again, isn’t wrong entirely,
then again saint Ziti is what I would be fine with, but i understand how it wouldn’t be good PR for every church out there with Incorrupt corpses on show.
Incorrupt means what? by decay? by pure mind and body?
Are the fluids drained?
July 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Saint Zita
July 16th, 2008 at 3:38 am
wow that was amazing…really really amazing…
thanks jamie
July 16th, 2008 at 6:41 am
I don’t believe until there is conclusive scientific evidence. i’m sorry but i simply do not believe it is possible to stop the process of nature.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Thanks, very interesting.
One critical note though: this list gives the impression that only the bodies of Catholic saints are or can be incorrubtile. This is not so. Why not include saints that were not necessarily Catholic or even Christian ?
July 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
@Royce nr86.
Well, the conclusive scientific eveidence is available in abundance. Are you afraid that your view of life is unsustainable if you accept that these things exist and happen ?
By the way, I wouldn’t call this ’stopping the process of nature’. Nature is what is, and as such it never stops. Why not be open to the idea that we simply haven’t begun to understand nature and the relationship between concsiousness and matter ?
All the best.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:08 am
FYI
(Beautiful pictures of his body exist)
On March 7, 1952, Paramahansa Yogananda entered mahasamadhi, a God-illumined master’s conscious exit from the body at the time of physical death. His passing was marked by an extraordinary phenomenon. A notarized statement signed by the Director of Forest Lawn Memorial-Park testified: “No physical disintegration was visible in his body even twenty days after death….This state of perfect preservation of a body is, so far as we know from mortuary annals, an unparalleled one….Yogananda’s body was apparently in a phenomenal state of immutability.”
July 19th, 2008 at 6:11 am
53 Pam
The place to go then is Italy. There are bodies of saints in many churches. Recommended: Bologna, Assisi, Lucca.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
This is spectacular! My 14 yr old asked “why?” It’s definately a sign from God my love! How can people refuse to believe when such obvious evidence exists?!
July 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Hey! i have been to see st bernadette over 4 times and it’s awsome! when she was first exhumed 30 years after burial, her clothes were DAMP and her rosary had RUSTED AND TURNED GREEN! This proves that the body was not burried in any special conditions. I have also seen Catherine Laboure and saint Vincent de Paul….I’d recommend it to anyone…it’s amazing!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Incorruptable means that a person is exatly in the same physical state as when he/she dies; no loss of skin tissue or elasticity for that matter “WITHOUT EMBALMING” Most of these have been embalmed and yet signs of wear are showing on them. These are clearly HUMAN INTERVENTIONS!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
In regards to the earlier comment: “…isn’t it interesting that so many of these “rare occurrences” just happen to be saints”, it’s not common practice to go around digging up the general populous to see if they’re decaying or not. If it were, perhaps we would find this phenomenon in other, regular people as well?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I would like to add another incorrupt corpse to the list: St. Olaf of Norway. King of Norway from 1015 to 1028, killed in battle, and enshrined in Nidaros Cathedral. He was canonized in 1164 by Pope Alexander III and is now the patron saint of Norway. His shrine was a major pilgrimage site for Scandinavian countries until the reformation, when the shrine was removed and taken to Copenhagen to be melted down into coins. Olaf’s body was buried in an unmarked grave on the grounds to try to dissuade the worship of saints in Norway.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
It always seems funny to me that the Catholics would exhume bodies to see if a person has rotted (though I know not all the listed Saints were proven as incorruptible this way). I believe that the Roman Inquisition was during the 1500’s and thus was a hayday of supernatural hysteria. Wouldn’t a preserved corpse mean something negative, such as a ghoul or witch? It’s not like the clergy were above being called out to the pyres.
All in all, this thing is right up my ally. I’m a wannabe hagiophile
August 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
this iight but freaky but kool- i learned bout dis in history 2 days ago-im in da 7th grade
August 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
For those who belive in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice!
August 19th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I also have seen St bernadettes body, AMAZING. Also I have been to Lourdes, a truly humbling and woundrous place.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Its faith at work
September 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
it’s wonderful..truly, faith moves in mysterious ways
September 14th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Yep, Stalin and Lenin must be saints as well. They didn’t rot either. Oh yeah, and all those extremely well-preserved Egyptian mummies. I’m sorry, I can’t see how any of this has to do with supernatural power, but it is still wonderfully cool to see bodies that are hundreds of years old so ‘fresh’.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am
@Matt
See comment 87.
It is actually pretty easy to establish the difference between a body, any body, that’s been embalmed or preserved, and the incorrupt body of a saint. Easy, that is, if one is sensitive to the quality of energy of places, things, people.
If you are open to the idea that there is a world of experience and knowledge as yet unknown to you, you have a good chance of discovering it. If not, no chance.
Do yo know that many people travel long distances to meditate in certain places because of the energy ? (Like the tomb of St Francis in Italy) The average atheist will think: ‘Yeah, losers, spacecases and fanatical believers.’ In fact, intelligent, succesful, openminded people. The only difference between them and those atheists is that sensitivity. (OK, chances are they are healthier and happier as well).
All the best.
Peter
September 15th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Hi Peter,
I am more than open to experience and knowledge yet unknown to me, in fact, I believe that constant learning is the key to a fulfilling life. However, just because I do not know the mysteries of our world and the universe doesn’t mean I need to make the unnecessary leap that something ’supernatural’ is out there. True, these bodies (barring a few that have admittedly been preserved) are in remarkable condition. Proof of an afterlife, proof of ‘God’, proof of saints? No. It is proof of nothing other than the fact that we have not yet discovered the real reason these bodies are preserved so well.
I happen to be an atheist, a very happy one at that. I just really object to labeling phenomena that we do not understand yet as proof of anything supernatural. I think that doing so really limits the scope of human curiosity and progress. I understand your point though, and I agree that certain atheists can be extremely judgmental and arrogant (usually ones that are atheists for the wrong reasons). I just think that labeling the unknown and mysterious as ’supernatural’ does more harm than good. Cheers for your response.
All the best.
Matt
September 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Matt,
As you can see in comment 87, I agree with you about the label ’supernatural’. And of course a preserved body is no proof of God or an afterlife, let alone of my particulair interpretation of the bible being the only correct one.
There is a problem though in what you write. It’s in the word ‘we’. If you mean ‘we the people that believe everything can be reduced to matter, however tiny pieces of it, because matter equals reality’ than by definition no proof of anything beyond 3 dimensions could ever be found.
If we rephrase the question ‘does God exist’ as follows: is consciousness a product of matter or is matter a manifestition of (energy, which is a manifestation of) consciousness ? than scientific research is very strongly indicating that the latter is the case.
And so the relationship ’sinful human being – grey haired man in the sky’ becomes ‘individual consciousness with limited awareness of self – infinite consciousness’.
This relationship is something that can be experienced and even ‘known’, but not with the mind that can only function in time and 3 dimensions.
Reading both ancient and modern spiritual texts in this light, suddenly vaque and obscure passages and notions, and indeed strange phenomena like preserved bodies, take on new meaning.
This, discovering one’s individual relationship with the whole, is what religion is. The rest, original sin and hell, organisations etc., is invented by human need and fear.
I hope this doesn’t make religion sound like a hobby. It is a journey we all make and the only thing that really matters. In your words: continuous learning.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Hi Peter,
I’m still a bit confused by your argument. I’m not really sure what you mean by matter being a manifestation of energy THEREFORE consciousness? I think it’s a big leap to deduce that due to consciousness being a manifestation of energy, then an infinite consciousness must exist, and to be honest I’m a bit perplexed by that argument.
I also don’t agree that evaluating your relationship to the ‘whole’ indicates religion. I contemplate my relationship to the universe daily. Why am I here? What is my purpose? So on and so forth. However, just because I am conscious and am able to ask these metaphysical questions does not mean that a super-consciousness lie dormant throughout the universe waiting to be discovered. It simply means I have evolved to the point of cognition, sentience and self-awareness and am able to rationalize my relationship to the universe.
If you could explain your first argument a bit more clearly I’d appreciate it, as I actually find it pretty fascinating, I’m just a bit confused as to what you really mean?
Cheers
Matt
September 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi Matt,
Sorry I wasn’t more clear. It’s not easy to condense these rather vast notions into a few paragraphs.
Nice that you’re interested. Sometimes I wonder why am I writing this. It feels more meaningful knowing someone in the universe is actually thinking about what I write. I appreciate that.
I didn’t mean that consciousness is a manifestation of energy, but the other way round. We know that matter is only a condensed form of energy. What happens on the material plane has its blueprint on the energylevel. First a person’s energy/lifeforce/resistance weakens, and later he bcomes physically ill. A piece of art first exists as an idea, than energy (work) transforms it into a material thing.
The question remains: does matter (braincells), however subtle or condensed, produce consciousness ? Or is consciousness the sine qua non, the source, the causal factor in life / the universe ? Energy can be seen as the bridge between the two. This has its parallel in the subtle body, where the chakras (whose actual existence has been proven with modern equipment) function as the bridge between the psychological (consciousness) and the physical (matter).
So what I am saying is that science clearly leans toward the nodion that consciousness (or ’something immaterial’) is producing material effects and not vice versa.
A few examples of indications: DNA can be changed by emotions and strong intentions. A randomised computerprogram can be directed with the mind. Telepathy as a phenomenon is gemerally accepted, in Holland even by the unofficial ’skeptics union’.
What does this have to do with religion ? OK. Knowing that the whole thing, the universe and everything in it, is connected. And knowing that time exist only when the mind is operating, the question is: can I be aware of a connection between ‘my’ consciousness and the consciousnes of the whole ?
I put that question opposite the old question ‘Is there a man in the sky ?’ Obviously, if God is something outside of me, there can be no connection.
Religion comes from re-ligare, to re-connect. So religion is not about believing this or that or folowing a set of rules. It is about this relationship.
You say you contemplate your relationship with the universe. That is great and more that can be said of most people. You’ll agree with me though that knowing you love your wife is very different from actually feeling the love for her flow through you. What I mean is: the mind can have ideas about oneself and the universe and life, but it cannot really know anything. Not like you know that certain music is good for you, or that the presence of certain people uplifts you, or that your sister will not be hapy with her new boyfriend.
As a child I thought the saints I heard about in church had been very good people, kind, giving to the poor and not hurting their siblings etc. Now I understand that they were (and are) people that live in the awareness of their connection with the whole, or rather with the course of the whole. That which people call God.
Before I write a book, let me quote Thomas of Aquino. When he was already a famous scholar and writer, he had some spiritual experiences. His publisher asked him to hurry up with the book he was supposedly writing, and Thomas told him: all I have written before has in my eyes no more value than straw.
I’m actualy not sure this was clearer than last time (:
September 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hi Peter
Thanks for clearing up your argument, however I still disagree. I lean strongly towards the ‘matter creates consciousness’ side of the argument. I also don’t agree about your definition of ‘energy’. What type of energy do you mean? Kinetic? electro-magnetic? Strong/weak nuclear? True, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. But that is vastly different to the view that energy is an all binding ‘life force’ that influences chakra/ telepathy and illness! Also, a few of the examples that you quote I am strongly skeptical of e.g. DNA being changed by thought alone, Telepathy being real, etc.
Thanks for clearing your argument up, I still don’t agree, but it certainly is a fascinating world-view, so thanks for sharing:)
Regards,
Matt
September 16th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Hi Matt,
OK, so I was clearer, thanks.
I don’t understand how come you bring in ‘agreeing’. The scientific evidence of telepathy is overwhelming. Also the power of prayer, or rather focussed attention plus intention, has been demonstrated over and over again in large scale tests. The subtle body in and around the prysical body can be measured. The effectiveness of acupuncture, based on this, is not in dispute anymore (safe among diehard, usually elderly traditional doctors. Too old to change their mind) Water has been shown to have some sort of memory. Plants have been shown to have an emotional life. Who was that guy that was able to open his garagadoor from hundreds of miles away by thinking of a plant in his house ? (connected to a measuring device, connected to the door)
This is not a worldview, this is the reality you ad I live in. Now, experiencing the quality of energy of people, plants etc., being able to influence a randomised program, this is not the same as contact with the divine of course. But it helps to be open to that.
The thing is: once one has had sex, all theories about it become sort of obsolete. Once on ehas been in deep meditation, thought becomes a very relative thing. Once one knows love, what can one say to those that ‘don’t believe in it’ ?
I’ll never forget the first time I felt the energy of a flower. I realised that until then I had never experienced the inside of living cratures.
Likewise, a taste of the divine, whatever it is and whatever ideas one can have about it, leaves one changed forever.
So be warned, there is no turning back.
If you want to read: Einstein of course, Shelldrake, Zukav. CNN report on acupuncture. University of Vienna (mid 90’s) on chakras. I remember reports of research on prayer in journals of Self Realisation Fellowship, of Ananda, of Ecolonie in France. The TH organisation has bookcases full of studies on the effect of meditation on the environment.
Excellent combination of spirituality and common sense: The Path by Donald Wwalters. Check out heartmath.org, many studies. I believe the DNA study was done by them also. Bringing back to mind the research into memory, showing it is not in the brain.
Etc etc etc etc.
As some scientist recently said: the materialist notion of life will prove to be a footnote in history; something that a part of the world believed in for a while.
Disclaimer: I don’t believe in UFO abduction, nor in global conspiracies.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
PS Check out the list about twins also. There’s been quite a bit of research done on twins, showing clearly that there exists between some of them a telepathic, or in any case non material, connection.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Peter,
The vast majority of mainstream scientists totally reject Telepathy. Yes, some parapsychologists claim that tests produce significant data, however, parapsychology is yet another pseudoscience, along with racial theory, phrenology, intelligent design and so on. There is no ‘abundance’ of evidence for telepathy, nor has it been confirmed in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. Just because you might have read some research by a fringe scientist does not mean that it has been accepted or verified by mainstream science. It is a falsehood, and if you do some proper research into parapsychology you will see that the experiments are highly questionable, produce no significant statistical data and are totally rejected by proper scientists.
The power of prayer has been experimented on in large scale tests, with absolutely no indication that it has any effect upon the prayer subjects. I don’t know what the hell you mean by saying ‘water has memory’ and plants have an ‘emotional life’. That is nonsense and it is kind of embarrassing to read it.
I think you have a very skewed view of what energy actually is. It isn’t a life force, all-binding chakra, or any of those vague, highly questionable opinions.
It is kind of acceptable that you list your sources, but they are not academic sources in the true sense. Refer me to a proper scientific journal. One which is peer reviewed, critically analyzed and sanctioned by a university or legitimate think-tank. Of course, Einstein and the University of Vienna are academic, but it still isn’t enough. One or two examples that you have read does not make a subject true, nor scientific.
My main argument is this. Just because one or two scientists/pseudo-scientific journals/parapsychologists/authors or whatever say that something along the lines of Telepathy, ESP, Telekinesis exists does NOT make it scientifically acceptable! It has to be verified by mainstream science, it has to have experiments that can be replicated and performed without bias and in a controlled environment (something parapsychology completely lacks), then the statistics have to be compiled and the results published. Sorry to sound aggressive, but when I read something like you just wrote about water having a memory and plants having emotions, it does not make any sense whatsoever.
Matt
September 17th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Hi Matt,
Your classifying the things I wrote about under ‘parapsychology’ shows you are totally out of touch with them and with cutting edge science. I think untill you actually read and experience what I’m writing about, you’ll be a believer.
I mean, are you seriously saying that, for instance, acupuncture is nonsense ?
Like a well known Dutch professor remarked recently: just like most human beings, also scientist simply ignore data that don’t suit them.
I do appreciate your desire to accept only what’s been tested. Well, I’d say, test it.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Peter,
Unfortunately, Telepathy comes under the blanket of parapsychology. I never disputed acupuncture, as I do not know enough about it to make a comment. I have however, studied many areas of parapsychology and understand the arguments that relegate them fields to the level of pseudo-science. I didn’t classify your water/memory and plant life having emotions under any scientific heading because they are so ridiculous they cannot even be compared with anything approaching science.
Cutting edge science comprises experiments such as the large hadron collider, sending space probes to the edge of our solar system and astro-physicists that try to explain things such as super-massive black holes and the possible existence of ‘dark matter’. Cutting edge science does not cover the pseudo-scientific realms of telepathy, chakra, life force or any other mumbo-jumbo. I am not out of touch with ‘cutting edge science’. I would rather argue that you are out of touch with what true, testable, observable science actually is. It’s certainly not the ‘theory’ (i.e. complete nonsense) of water having memory hahaha.
Matt
September 17th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Oh yeah, and that guy you wrote about who moved the garage door with his mind? That is an example of Telekinesis, which, along with Telepathy, forms the one of the major branches of parapsychology. Do some research and you will see that the majority of what you are talking about is parapsychology, whether you recognize it or not.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Matt,
Too bad you cannot even comtemplate the notion you may be way behind times. Laughing doesn’t make your arguments any more convincing. You admit you don’t know much or anything about acupuncture yet you seem to feel comfortable labelling chakras mumbo jumbo. ?????????????
Study the work of Nobel prize winner Bose, study Shelldrake (heard of him ?), study Tolle, study and then study some more and then let’s talk some more.
BTW No, the experiment with the plant was not telekinesis but telepathy.
I’m sorry Matt, I’m sure you are a nice guy, but the way you dimiss things you clearly don’t know anything about makes you a believer in my opnion.
All the best.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Peter,
Seeing as I haven’t studied enough, care to explain how exactly water has memory? Or how a plant has emotions? I seem to be so ignorant that I really need you to explain these things to me.
See the difference between my answers and your is I give reasons for my disagreements. I fully explained why I reject parapsychological (telekinesis, ESP, etc) fields based on their inability to conduct repeatable, stable, unbiased and fully controlled tests in environments suited to scientific standards, AND STILL produce results. This is my complete argument.
In none of your last 3 posts have you offered me any explanations of the things that you are claiming are ’scientific’. Note the first pre-requisite of believing in something. The burden of proof is on YOU. Please, explain these things to me. I’m not asking for an essay, just a few paragraphs to outline your notion that water has memory. Then a couple more sentences to explain your stance on plants having memory. Then, PLEASE, explain to me how (the mechanics, not the philosophy) a man can open a garage door through a plant, which is being controlled through his mind.
You accuse me of dismissing things. You have dismissed my arguments by not even bothering to acknowledge them. So, one more time, please explain your water/memory and plant/emotion theory.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Oh, and as for studying certain peoples opinions, have a go at studying Paul Thagard. His argument’s center around the reasons why parapsychology is a psuedo-science. Have a look at James Randi for fun, even though he is only a magician and not an academic. Try on Paul Kurtz and Churchland. They have extremely strong arguments regarding how parapsychology is a pseudo-science.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:30 am
# 5 looks like a Michelangelo painting.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Matt,
This is the point. You still think in terms of objects being seperate, and objective tests being possible. While the central issue of the very cutting edge physics that you mentioned (you seem to forget that that is only one field in which the edge can be cutting) is that there is no such thing as seperation. The decision to test this or that already influences the outcome.
Which, BTW, is not the main reason why those silly tests with zenith cards didn’t used to yield much. The researchers had no clue about the connection between brainwaves and the occurence of telepathy and ESP.
I thought it was commonly known that tests showed that plants tend to grow away for rockmusic and toward classical music. Apparently not. The oscillograph of Bose showes plants reactions to various stimuli. The way the guy in an airplane was able to open the garagedoor using the plant’s reaction to his thinking of it, was by letting the meter that moved when registrering the plant’s reaction close a circuit.
I don’t see why the burden of proof in on me Matt. You know, 40 years ago books about auras were considered dangerous and evil. 30 years ago people that read them were weird. 20 years ago it was hard to get 3 people in a yogaclass to feel energy with their hands. 10 years ago a major shift became noticable. Now I give yogaworkshops at popfestivals, and pretty much ALL particpants can feel energy. Meditation and yoga are taught at universities, used in hospitals and recommended (+ practised) by doctors all over the place.
You must be thinking the world is going mad.
The burden of explaining that all these people are deluded weirdos that are experiencing things that don’t exist, that it is not true that businessman that meditate are more succesful, that galvanic skin resitence is not an indicator of quality of health, etc etc etc etc (read books for the etceteras) is on you.
O yes, about water. Or rather, in general about the limitations of a purely chemical approach to matter. There is water and there is water. Both are h2o, same temperature etc. Why is water 1 so mcuh healther than water 2 ? Because 1 has been running through a lemniscat shaped (not sure of the word in English) pipe and 2 ‘remembers’ a straigh pipe.
There is air 1 and air 2. Chemically the same. As NASA dicovered, there can yet be a major difference between the two. The difference is in the energy.
Last thing. I guess you don’t believe that there are presently hundreds of people, perhaps thousands by now, that live without eating ? Once you know a person like that, all theories about why that is not possible are suddenly meaningless, believe me.
As I hope you are beginning to understand, this is very far removed from your parapsychology.
Let me leave you with a simple question: when you think of your right hand for a minute, what is it that makes it feel warmer, bigger, more alive (these are the usual reactions) than the left hand ? What is the tingling that you feel ?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
PS Next week I have an interview with an artist who creates pictures by influencing a randomised computer program with his mind. I guess according to you this is not possible ?
read http://www.iebele.nl/pdf/2008_Artikel_Pulchri_Abel_web_UK.pdf
and think again.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Peter,
Sorry, I don’t want to debate with you anymore. Of course the burden of proof is on you, YOU are the one who is claiming that these things are true, even though mainstream science doesn’t accept them. Therefore, it is up to YOU to back-up your claims and prove them. If you can’t understand that, then there is no point talking.
I don’t think the world is going mad. I think the world is getting more business-savvy. Yoga, Homeopathy, Magnetic healing, they are all run by very clever people who exploit the vulnerable by telling them that this ‘cutting edge, new age science’ will help solve all their problems! That is why all this new age pseudoscience is on the rise.
People living without eating? Another stupid claim backed-up by absolutely no evidence. As for the person who can move a computer program with his mind? I totally accept! I have seen that done and performed by quadriplegics in a controlled environment. However it is not due to some weird telepathy. The computer program is simply calibrated to interpret certain brain-waves with mouse movements. Pretty amazing stuff but nothing to do with telepathy.
As for Yoga and meditation being taught. I absolutely agree with that! But not for the reasons you do. I do not think it has anything to do with a weird, vague ‘energy field’. It is used to relieve stress and tension through purely physical means. Just because someone feels better because they believe that yoga is helping them DOES NOT MEAN that this is due to some strange energy. It is like a placebo.
Oh, and as for the water memory. I did some research and the results didn’t surprise me except for one. An Irish scientist did somehow manage to duplicate the effects of homeopathy. Now before you foam at the mouth, no other scientist since has been able to reproduce her results, and she herself has no idea how it happened. Most likely an anomaly or something wrong with the methodology. Perhaps the best evidence that homeopathy is bullshit is the fact that in every single large scale test performed, absolutely no evidence has been found that homeopathic remedies work more than placebos.
This will be my final post on this matter. I can’t argue with someone about the intricacies of scientific pursuits when they keep making outlandish claims about people living without eating (unless of course they are hooked up to a drip with all vital nutrients being injected into them).
Good talking, but you need to come to grips with what proper science is all about, and stop throwing around vague terms like ‘energy’. What TYPE of energy?!
Matt
September 18th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Matt,
That’s OK. We don’t agree about on who the burden of proof is.
However, if you are not even willing to check out the pooof I supply, you give the impression of not being open to any other reality than the one in your own mind.
The link I gave leads to the rational explantion of the experiments conducted by an artist in collaboration with the university of Amsterdam. No, it’s not quadruplegics whose brains are hooked up, it’s pure and simple mind over matter. With pictures and all.
The placobo effect ? That’s the word that always appears when defencents of the materialistic worldview have run out of arguments. They don’t have any explanation for this placebo effect; it’s just a word. Like luck or fate.
Measured variations in GSR, also placebo I guess ?
(How does the placebo effect work with animals ?)
There are researched and documented cases of people living without eating. You’re not going to read them, but for those who are open to the possibility: google for instance Therese Neumann, sungazing, living on light, ‘Autobiography of a yogi’.
The times they are achanging Matt, and you’re not noticing.
That’s OK, no hard feelings. I wish you all the best.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Hi Peter,
Yeah it was good chatting. I realize now that you have a certain set of beliefs that you obviously are not going to stop believing in. That’s cool, I just get irked when people try to pass these beliefs off as science.
Your article didn’t give me any evidence. The author threw around claims that didn’t have any sources or even footnotes, so I can have no opinion of the article. Again, come back to me when the ‘mind over matter’ artwork has been peer-reviewed and appears in a scientific journal and I’ll be more than happy to debate it with you. A two page blurb by a fan of the artist is not proof of anything. I also have a massive problem with people quoting Einstein, of all people, TOTALLY out of context. Read the opening chapters of Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’, and you will understand exactly what Einstein means when he uses the terms religion, spiritualism, mystery and awe. Also, the article doesn’t explain anything whatsoever. He doesn’t even give a brief overview of how his computer program works! I think a more rational explanation for his art is that he is creating them through totally normal methods then telling people that he creates them with his mind. He isn’t even an academic! An artist who is lying in order to sell his product and promote himself is a much more believable scenario than a visionary artist who can control things with his mind, even though that flies in the face of every conceivable facet of modern science. A self promoting artist lying, or possessing an ability that would, in essence, re-write all laws of the universe? I know which one I’m choosing.
I’ll end with this. I can respect your beliefs. If I abused you for believing in Yogi’s, life force, spiritual energy, telepathy and telekinesis I would be abusing about 3/4 of the worlds population as well. But do not try and pass your beliefs off as science. Yes, some of the stuff you quote and read sounds scientific, but just because it uses vague terms and long words doesn’t make it so.
Oh, and as for the times they are achanging? Not really. People believed in all this stuff thousands of years ago. It wasn’t proven then, and it isn’t proven now, no matter how much pseudo-scientific rhetoric you throw at me.
Regards,
Matt
September 18th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Hey Matt,
I thought you weren’t going to write anymore ?
I never quoted Einstein, but I will now: intuition is the main thing.
The problem, your problem, here is: the 3D mind can by definition never grasp what intuition is.
Correct, already thousands of years ago people had a grasp of the subtle body. The times are changing in the sense that now ‘outer’ science, having developed sensitive enough instruments, meets and generally confirms the ‘inner’ science.
Let me get this straight:
- the fact that yoga and meditation were laughed at 25 yearts ago and are now taught at universities and recommended by doctors, cannot have anything to do with their intrinsic value, it must be because people want to make money, right ?
- An artist, conducting experiments under supervision of the Amsterdam university, must be lying if the results run against your ideas about the world, right ?
- the beneficial effects of subtle treatments and therapies cannot be the effect of their inherent value, but must be the result of some unexplained (but no doubt explainable within a 3D frame someday in the future) proces called placebo, right ?
- you consider me to be a simpleminded believer in mumbo jumbo who has no idea of what real science is, right ?
- You think that because I practise meditation I can have no idea of string theory or chaos theory or tipping point, right ?
Sure Matt.
Hey man, what have you got to lose by opening up to things you used to think are impossible ?
You might ask: what have you got to lose by considering the idea that all these things I write about are illusions ?
The difference here is: I have and I did believe that. But I studied and investigated and experienced, and that has given me a, imho, deeper and expanded view. It doesn’t make me a better person than you, but it does mean that I know from both knowledge and experience what I’m talking about.
OK, this was my last post on this. Let’s meet again in a year and see where we are.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Sorry, one more post:P
Peter,
You think that I have an agenda, that I really don’t want to believe in telepathy, telekinesis, mind over matter and all that stuff. Holy crap, I would love it if that was real! Seriously, it would make my day if I picked up the paper, and there was an article on Harvard University confirming that telepathy was true by using testable, repeatable methods. Just think of all the opportunities that knowing that this stuff actually existed would open!
Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened yet. As I said before, when one of the things that you believe in has been throughly investigated and shown to produce repeatable results in a test environment by a number of unbiased and impartial scientists I will give it my full attention.
What I am not going to do, is accept things that are currently rejected by mainstream science because some guy on the internet points me to a few dubious articles (written not by an impartial observer, but the artist himself!!!!), and provides me with a few anecdotes that have no sources or basis in hard fact.
One more time. When experiments are set up, that can be;
1. Repeated with results, not just one test that produces a strange result and then never happens again
2. Conducted not by the practitioners of these strange fields, but by impartial scientists
3. Consitantly produces data that can be verified and tested again and again
4. Monitored by numerous leading institutions for validity
then I will give it my full attention and ‘open up my mind’ (even though it is already open to logical discourse).
I will leave you will one quote, then I promise not to write any more lol.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Carl Sagan.
So far, these fields you talk about have provided no extraordinary evidence whatsoever, which is why they are rejected by science.
See you in a year, hopefully you can point me to some great sources that prove the existence of telekinesis, telepathy etc.
Matt
September 18th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Ok, I’m breaking my promise haha
I just couldn’t help counter-arguing some of your points.
1. In regards to Yoga and Meditation. As I said before, I think that these things can be greatly beneficial and I applaud hospitals for using them. However, they are not supernatural! Yoga relaxes your body through purely physical means. It stretches muscles, de-stresses you and improves blood flow. Of course this is an oversimplification, but it doesn’t mean that some cosmic energy field is influencing you! Same with meditation. Purely mental. Just because concentrating and clearing your mind makes you feel better does not mean it is supernatural. Is hypnosis supernatural? No. Highly entertaining and even beneficial in some cases, but not supernatural.
2. Yes, I still maintain that the artist is lying. You would have a point in attacking me for denying or not acknowledging proof of mind over matter, but you haven’t provided me ANY proof! The article you sent me, was, in fact, totally and utterly useless. For pete’s sake, it was WRITTEN BY THE ARTIST!! Of course he isn’t going to be objective!!! And as for it being sanctioned by the University of Amsterdam, I’m guessing that this university has different faculties, am I correct? Is it being sanctioned by the science department, philosophy department, fine art department? Again, provide a little tangible proof and I’ll believe it.
3. Going back to homeopathy. The placebo effect is based on the power of suggestion. If you were to say, conduct an experiment that tested the strength of a particularly strong aspirin, the conductors of the test would be able to measure the effects of the drug, through both scientific testing and how the patient feels. Homeopathy has never been able to do that. It is twaddle.
4. No, I don’t consider you to be simpleminded. You have beliefs that I don’t share, but that doesn’t make you stupid. However, when you send me, or refer me, to articles like the ‘mind over matter’ one, you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what a verifiable, peer-reviewed, credible source actually is. When you quote people like Sheldrake, who’s theories have been met with hostility by the vast majority of scientists, or tell me that people can live only on sunlight, when tests have shown without a shadow of a doubt that this is totally impossible, you leave the impression that you take everything you read at total face value. One of the leading advocates of ‘living on sunlight’ actually lives in my state in Australia. She underwent an experiment. She went for ten days without food or water. At the end of the ten days, she was completely dehydrated, her pupils were dilated, she was talking incoherently, her heart rate was twice that it should be and her kidneys were starting to fail. The test was stopped for fear she might die. And this is one of the leading advocate of living on sunlight! She has since refused any other tests, and she has admitted that she has food in her house, claiming it is only ‘for her husband’. Her name is Jasmuheen (Ellen Greve).
4. I’ve already explained why I accept meditation, and I see no conflict between you doing that and knowing about string theory etc. However, just because you understand one thing, does not mean that your beliefs in another subject are logical or infallibly.
Perhaps the strongest argument as to why I don’t believe these things is the most simple one. Go on television, go out in public, go to an Ivy League university, and prove it. One thing about people who practice all this stuff is that they know how to sell their craft. Yoga, meditation, homeopathy, psychic reading, they are all multi-million dollar industries. Why then, has no psychic simply won the lottery? Why then, has none of them gone onto make millions of dollars by showcasing their craft publically? Why is it that every known psychic who has appeared in public been proven to by lying? (Uri Gellar for example). Why has no-one who practices telekinesis simply gone on television and moved a chair with their mind? Why has no one claimed James Randi’s million dollars?
BECAUSE THEY CAN’T. These things would be soooooo easy to prove. Just as gravity can be proven by dropping an object towards the ground, why can’t a telekinetic just go into the middle of Times Square and throw a basketball at the coca-cola sign with his mind?
What have I got to lose by opening my mind and accepting these things? My money for one!! I have never seen an advertisement or promotion ANYWHERE for psychics, telepathics, telekinetics, homeopathy etc that are offering their services for free.
You seem to have read a lot on all this stuff. Good for you. Just because I read a lot on leprechauns or ghosts doesn’t make them real. I find proper science more fascinating and stranger that moving things with your mind.
Matt
September 19th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Matt,
I guess we are alike in that we can’t help ourselves. (:
And not even thinking ‘that asshole should admit that…’ but more like ‘the poor guy doesn’t realize…’
OK, here goes:
1 I have several times stated there is no such thing as supernatural. Yet you keep accuming me of making claims about supernatural processes. Why ?
2 You are telling me that yoga is flexing your muscles etc. Well, I have practised it for over 20 years, so allow me to assess that you have no clue whatsoever about yoga.
3 I have the exact same understanding as you have about double blind, repeatable tests.
4 you have failed to understand what I wrote about the illusion of ‘objective’ science. Quantumphysics was the end of that idea.
5 You fail to understand the connection between brainwaves and the occurence of telepathy.
6 Check out the list about twins and tell me how a test like the one that describes the one reacting to the other’s experiences could possibly be repeated? It’s not possible. The next day, or second, the person is already changed.
7 This is why these demands that non 3D phenomena be proved within a 3D test situation, are silly.
8 I don’t go to psychics and I suggest you don’t. The fact that you keep throwing in the things I write about with Uri Geller type of stuff, shows you are totally out of touch.
9 This is not to say I have never heard people say things they must have picked up through some kind of mental or telepathic connection. Many times, and often by sincere, intelligent and fun people. I don’t go for that kind of information however, because it rarely comes from high levels and usually is tainted by the person supplying it.
10 Shelldrake may have opponents (showing the same kind of emotional stress as fanatical religious people), but the point here is that he DOES back up his theories with tests that are up to scientific scrutiny. That’s why some materialists are so uncomfortable with him and his work.
11 The placebo effect. Please explain to me how it works. It was shown, for instance, that people that trust their physician recover from churgery faster than those that do not.
Please explain where in the body this trust is, what is its chemical formula, and how exactly does this stuff affect the healing process ?
12 I’m sure there are liers and deceivers that make claims about supernatural powers and what not.
However, to state that all of the millions of people that have reported experiences in which some kind of non material process was involved must have been either liers, deceivers of very naive, isn’t that a bit much ?
The artist wrote about his art in I think a reasonable way. He sounded like a nice and sincere guy on the phone. I have a friend who is a well kown and respected Dutch journalist who knows this artist. O yeah, he’s a nice guy, he said about him.
Of course, a person that seems a nice guy could still be a liar. But usually people that seem nice seem nice because they are in fact nice.
13 You seem to be op the opinion that unless a person comes to Harvard to let himself be tested in a lab by scientists that are convinced 3D thinkers and show in double blind repeated tests that they can perform miracles, the things I write about must be considered to be of the order of leprechouns.
Well, it’s not going to happen. In the meantime, energy is for many people like you and me a totally integrated aspect of everyday life.
14 I’ll give you one example. I could give hundreds, and millions of people could give hundreds. Adding up to hunderds of millions.
Last year an American singer was staying with us (I organized her tour). We, me and my wife, showed her some nice places in Holland. We looked around an old town and by chance walked in to a garden next to a church. It was a nondecript place, some deckchairs, a bicycle here and there, some shrubs and flowers.
Within seconds I felt this deep beautiful energy invading me (it’s difficult to describe the experience of feeling energy to someone that doesn’t know it). I closed my eyes for a few minutes. When I opened them, I looked for and at the other two. My wife was in tears and our guest was meditating on one of the chairs. Later we shared what we had felt.
This is not at all an uncommon thing, and all of the millions of people that are somewhat sensitive to energy will recognise these sorts of experiences.
Now you tell me Matt: am I lying or deceiving or fantasizing here ? And the other two were also pretending or lying ? People that talk about the incredible energy of certain places are making this up, lying, suffering from mass hallucination or something ?
Couldn’t it be Matt, that you have simply not been in contact with certain aspects of life and with experiences that are subtle but nonetheless real ? That don’t fit in a 3D box ?
Do you think I am interested in travelling to Harvard to ‘prove’ in a clinic that I can feel energy ? The idea is laughable to me. Would yo go somewhere to show in a double blind test that you have arms ?
Once you have these kind of experiences, many (not all) spiritual texts of different times and cultures, stories about saints and miracles, become recognisable and start to make sense. I claim that without knowledge of yoga it is impossible to understand the bible, for instance.
OK, must get to work. Have a nice day.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:01 am
PS check this out: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
September 19th, 2008 at 3:10 am
The Mind-Matter Unification Project was established by Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. In 1973, Josephson was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics……….
sounds pretty mainstream
September 19th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Hi Peter,
I’m trying to make this my last post, but it has been good debating with you. We may disagree about A LOT of things, but at least we have the opportunity to argue each other in this type of setting:)
Basically my argument relates to the quote I left you with. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Psi, telepathy, all-binding energy, mind over matter and all the rest have produced very little results. These results are FAR from extraordinary. Critics have pointed out flaws in methodology and interpretation of statistics as just a few of the ways in which the results are flawed.
A great number of things that you talk about are not science, but philosophy. That is fine! Mind/Soul duality is a philosophical notion, obviously one that you interpret quite literally, however modern science has equivocally rejected this, specifically neuroscience, as it cannot be physically measured.
As for the website, I’ve read some of the material on there and still remain unconvinced. Yes, they are journals. Yes, the articles have been published. But again, the source is the key. Parapsychology (it’s journals, and it’s academic institutes) has largely been cut from academic ties, and many of the experiments and tests that have been conducted have been found to have flaws and errors in their methodology. Again, I point you to some of my previous sources that argue very convincingly that parapsychology is pseudo-science, and cannot be considered to be on the same academic level as mainstream science. Also, what I have noticed in all of these tests, is what is called the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. Basically, that results that seem statistically improbably are interpreted as being telepathic or telekinetic. Just because we do not know what has caused the deviation in the results (for example, if someone who was thinking about red cards on the computer program found that the results showed the red card was picked more times) does not mean that telekinesis is involved. Absence of explanation does not mean proof of the parapsychological.
What I have noticed in your responses is that you consistently reject the notion of testing some of the things you claim are not existent in the ‘3D mind’ because they cannot be tested. There is a reason that they cannot be tested. Because they are metaphysical. It is philosophy. And once something cannot be tested, it cannot be science.
I can’t comment on your experience because I wasn’t there, so I’m not going to go into that. Obviously you felt something that you interpreted as energy. If I was in that same situation, I would most likely interpret something very different. However, I can’t agree or disagree with something you experienced, obviously.
What the problem is with all these claims, relates back to the quote by Carl Sagan. If one makes a claim that will fundamentally change the laws of physics is incomprehensible ways, and change the way in which every scientist on earth views the world, then they better be able to put their money where their mouth is. They simply haven’t. The few results that parapsychological experiments have produced are too ambiguous to be considered extraordinary. Maybe this will change in the future, and if it does, I’ll be more than happy to explore this fascinating field. Until then, I shall remain skeptical of phenomena that cannot be replicated under controlled conditions, in the absence of the practitioners, whilst all the time being rejected by modern science.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Matt,
That’s right, at least we’re not fighting.
I try to make this my last post too. But no promises (:
1 the following things have not been proven to exist:
love, compassion, ehtics, intuition, sense of humor.
The difficulty with experiments under controlled circumstances I have explained.
2 I have raised several relevant questions that you don’t answer
3 was the claim that the earth orbits the sun an extraordinary claim ? Or was it just that most people couldn’t imagine it to be so ?
4 you turn the experience I described into a one time, individual thing. I clearly wrote that this kind of thing is nothing out of the ordinary for me or many people all over the world.
Remember the rule that the most likely explanation is usually the correct one ? Is there anything that proves or even just suggests that there can be no such thing as quality of energy in a certain place or around a certain person ?
5 one black swan proves that not all swans are white. One proof of telepathy (like the one described in the twin list on this site) shows that the possibility of it exists.
6 why is it that I am not at all shaken or surprised when someone I have never met tells me things about myself that are intimate and unknown to anyone (and true). Is it really because I have wrong ideas about life ?
(As I said, I don’t care much for psychics, even though some no doubt are better and more honest people than you or me)
7 just to make it 7
September 19th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Peter,
Another response, I know, but I think I’ve finally figured out why we disagree on so many things:) For me, proof that something exists (scientifically, not philosophically. Difference between compassion, ethics, love etc are that they are mental concepts. I know you postulate that mind and matter are one, however I’ve explained why I don’t think this is so), yeah, proof that something exists has to be extremely strong for me to accept it. I’m not saying it has to be absolute, as that is an abstract concept that really means nothing. We can never know for absolute certain ‘the truth’, but science can explain is as close as possible. So yeah, for me to accept something, I need a level of confirmation that is extremely well supported by the best and brightest people that humanity has to offer.
However, and this is not an attack on you, you have experienced things that have shaped your beliefs greatly. Of course I can’t comment on the validity of them and all that, but am I accurate in stating that your experience of certain phenomena contributes greatly to your acceptance of things such as telepathy, telekinesis, ESP and all that?
The difference between you and me is that I have never experienced anything ‘paranormal’. Of course, I have loved, felt great energy, experienced all the highs and lows of human emotion, but I do not connect these things with cosmic energy or parapsycological occurrences. I attribute them to the human brain.
Anyway, I think the main reason we disagree on so many things is that because I have never attributed my feelings to cosmic energy, I do not accept parapsychological events as true fact, unless they can produce extremely strong evidence that verifies them. Some of the research and experiments you directed me to show interesting results, but I am not convinced that they are any indication of telepathy, telekinesis, homeopathy etc etc. I attribute the results to either;
1. Methodological errors
2. Bad interpretation of results
3. ‘God of the gaps’ arguments (if we can’t explain the results, it MUST be because of paranormal phenomena)
4. Plain fraud
I know you’ll disagree, but I think because of our conflicting definitions of science, and our experiences with the world (and how we interpret these), this is the fundamental reason we can’t seem to see eye-to-eye.
So yeah, it has been great chatting, but I can’t see us ever agreeing about the subjects we are constantly arguing about lol. Have a good day at work!
Regards,
Matt
September 19th, 2008 at 6:59 am
On further investigation, number 4 ought not to be included here: it’s a wax figure.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/library/gallery/incorrupt.htm#Silvan
His bones and heart were placed inside, but it’s a wax figure, all the same.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Hi Fee,
Yeah someone posted a link above that outlines how these ‘incorruptible’ corpses have actually been actively preserved, through wax, cleansing etc etc. Apparently according to the link, the Catholic Church even removed the necessity of being incorruptible to be a saint due to all the preservation involved.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I have a comment for Christian. You might be very observant to say that #4 has a waxen look. While it doesn’t mention it here, I read elsewhere that St Vincent de Paul’s heart didn’t decompose and the heart was placed in a wax figure of his body. If that’s right, what you are looking at is wax.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Hi Matt,
Admit it, you missed me, right ? (:
I interviewed that artist. He turned out to be a humble, intelligent and, ost importantly, sincere man. The motivation for his experiments was curiosity. He read these claims about mind over matter and wanted to know if they were true.
Interestingly, what he told me about his state of mind during the moments of producing his images, reminded me very much of the ‘flow’ that athletes talk about, as ell as meditation. Also intersting was that he said that the most remarkable results came during the first few attempts after a period of preparation.
Anyway. The issue is really: can all phenomena, reported by millions throughout the centuries, that seem to contradict the material worldview, someday be explained within the limits of that view ? Or do we need to expand those limits and accept that the distinction between mind and matter is ultimately an illusion ?
I say the latter is the case, and scientist like Sheldrake are the pioneers that pave the way to a deeper understanding of life/the universe. May you live long enouhg to see history decidedly moving in this direction.
Check out this slideshow, that says it clearly and eloquently. http://www.peterrussell.com/ScgShow/sld038.php
All the best.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hi Peter,
Good on you for interviewing the artist. He probably is a nice bloke. Can’t say you have convinced me yet.
I know what you mean about the shifting worldviews being influenced by anomalies that current science cannot explain. Thomas Kuhn proposed this idea for explaining how scientific knowledge is not a cumulative process, but is influenced by paradigm shifts and the way we view the world. The difference is that you are saying that a paradigm shift (the way we view the world and the universe) is inevitable because current science cannot explain the anomalies of ESP, ‘energy’, telekinesis and so on and so forth. I understand that your point is that current scientific methods cannot prove all these strange phenomena, and to understand them we have to change scientific methodology. I totally disagree with that though, and I believe that no anomaly has been presented or proven that would justify a stringent change in the way we view the universe yet. Again, and I am sounding repetitive, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and just because millions of people believe in this stuff doesn’t mean it is actually true. 500 years ago people believed the earth was flat. Didn’t make it true. The mind is a fascinating thing that science cannot fully explain yet. That does not mean that because we are ignorant of its intricacies we should make the leap that we can read other peoples minds, move objects, feel energy blah blah blah.
I checked out that slide-show and dismissed it straight away. A bunch of vague quotes that are most likely taken out of context do not prove or illuminate anything to me. Furthermore, I don’t take things like that seriously when right next to the slide-show is a store that is selling merchandise for high prices! The slide-show is a marketing method, wake up! Please, in future, if you are going to refer me to a source that is supposed to change my opinions and prove something to me, do not direct me to some guys personal website where he is selling a bunch of over-priced products. It’s dumb.
Matt
October 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
all of them just a wax, if they are not wax figure, they are embalmed. they just look like a wax figure. that’s it.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I was listening to Wayne Dyer’s There’s a spiritual solution to every problem audio book and he talked about St. Bernadette so I checked it out.. I”m amazed on St. Bernadette.. She died in 1879 yet she looks like she’s sleeping in 2008.. That’s really amazing.. I’m stunned
October 14th, 2008 at 3:10 am
St Bernadette has a waxen face, and waxen hands. It’s a piece of artifice as far as I can see. The report on the opening of her coffin which can be found on one of the websites, clearly states that her body had deteriorated, and that it was stiff, which contradicts some of the information on this list of 10. Seeing that many of the “incorruptible” corpses are actually waxworks, and the level of deceit which has been incorporated in the presentation of these “corpses”, it seems odd indeed that a christian church should support the continued appearance that these are miraculously preserved when they have clearlyspent considerable time and money in preserving or artificially creating them.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:18 am
@Matt,
As my teacher used to say: ‘We are all a little bit crazy, but we don’t notice it. Because people mix with others that have the same kind of crazyness.’ In private conversations he somethimes added: the thing is: I know what kind of crazyness you have, but you don’t know what kind of crazyness I have.
I can’t say that to you. I can say that I see you don’t understand where I’m coming from. You seem to not have been exposed to people, experiences and knowledge that I have. That doesn’t make me better or wiser. I can’t help feeling better informed though.
About scientific research: no, I don’t say the method should change. we should just be aware of the limits of it. Consider this: if love or trust have an effect on people, on their physical recovery for instance, how are you going to repeat an experiment ? ‘Now, make sure you love that person exactly as much as last week, OK ?’
To the control groep: ‘Now, you must pretend to love the person, but make sure you don’t, OK ?’
BTW, I’m sorry you believe love is something in the brain.
about proof: it only takes one black swan to proof that not all swans are white. I say there have been milions of black swans throughout the centuries. Some of them can be read about and seen in these lists. Check out the twins, Therese Neumann, the phenomena in Cairo. I don’t care much for predictions, but who can deny that Nostradamus did predict certain events ?
Somehow you feel inclined to consider al these events and all the people involved, inclusing Nobel price winners, unconvincing, dudes, deceivers and liers. You say that artist is probabky a nice bloke. The question is: is he lying ? Are all these peope lying ? Are the millions of people that can feel energy and confirm each others experiences deceiving themselves or lying for some hard to fathom reason ? Will acupuncture be discredited after having been scrutinised and opposed and grudgingly accepted ? Edgar Cayce, a deceiving dude ?
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. The idea that only matter exists and that humans have no access to a realm beyong 3 dimensions and linear time, is an extraordinary one that is relatively young, flies in the face of human experience, goes against what the overwhelming majority of us believe, is already being abandoned by top scientists and for which there is not a shred of evidence found ever.
Coming back to an earlier question: no, my views are not the result of my experiences. Rather, when I allowed myself to accept unseen things as possibly real, I could make sense of earlier experiences and opened the door to fascinating knowledge and an understanding of life and other people untill then blocked by my own mind.
Being right or wrong or winning the argument doesn’t matter to me, and I don’t believe you care much about that either. If I have sown any seeds of the thought ‘maybe I’m missing out on something’, I’m happy though. For no other reason than wishing you the best.
Peter
October 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Have you ever noticed the oldest bodies are all “missing” now? Why were these bodies never dispayed before the 1900’s?
It’s pretty obvious that the church is a power, money hungry entity. Some of these corpses even look like wax…I mean common… The newer ones could EASILY be preserved using current scientific knowledge. But I guess if you believe in talking snakes, that evolution isn’t real, and that all of God’s creatures were created perfect…(dispite the fact that millions are extinct), then I’m not suprised to know people believe this. If faith makes you a better person, I’m all for it. But don’t pull these gimicks to make your religion look superior…it’s tasteless, and easily explained.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:27 am
I’ve actually seen some of these in person during a trip to Italy and they look quite fake.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
@ straight chemist: are you implying the catholic church does not think evolution is “real”? because that is blatantly false.
just check your facts next time. and catholics do not believe all creatures were “created perfect” (for more reference see: HUMAN BEINGS). furthermore, how would the perfection of a creature ensure its immunity to extinction?
October 25th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I heard some churches get actors and actresses to play the corpses.
October 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Hey Peter,
The Scientific method does have limits, that is the beauty of it! It is the best way of learning about the world without resorting to superstition and blind faith. The stuff that you talk about and postulate exists borders on the metaphysical; not only can it not be tested, but it consists of abstract concepts such as love and trust, which of course are not physical phenomena. Why are you sorry that I believe love is just ’something in the brain’? That kind of attitude is pretty condescending, plus you make the assumption that love is less majestic or inspiring due to it being a product of our brain! I think love, trust and all our other feelings are even more awe-inspiring due to the very fact that that come from our brain! Millions of years of evolution and natural selection blessed us with an organ that can contemplate it’s own existence, love other things more than itself and comprehend complex notions. That is infinitely more impressive than saying love is part of some weird, magic, all powerful cosmic energy field! Yes, love is a product of our most beautiful organ, the brain. This fact is so much more impressive and worthy of study than believing that a vague, unproven, cosmic energy force is the ultimate source of love. By the way, why do you equate love with an absolute? I’m sure the love I have for my parents is a lot different than the love I have for my iMac:)
I accept that opening up your mind to things that are unseen certainly does help to interpret and explain the world better. That does not mean that they are real or can be proven. If I believed that a 60 foot invisible space-worm influence every single aspect of the cosmos, and everything that happens or is going to happen is a result of it’s will, then the world would be SOOOOO much easy to explain and understand! Doesn’t make it true though!
As for your constant assertion that because millions of people can feel energy, contact spirits and so on, proving that this stuff exists, please stop. I am not calling these people liars, but just as ancient civilizations thought that the sun was a god because they could see it and believed it, the fact that people feel energy doesn’t mean it is true. Self-delusion is a much more powerful force than cosmic influence. Yes, millions of people believe this stuff, and they have for millions of years. IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE! Again, I am not saying they are devious liars, I am saying that the things they believe based on things they can see and feel doesn’t mean that they are true, they may just be misguided. The fact is that psychology, physics, psychiatry and all the other wonderful fields of the sciences offer far more satisfactory explanations for phenomena such as mass-hysteria, ‘energy’ (still don’t know what you mean by that), ghosts, yogi’s and all the other mystical stuff than attributing it to new-age religious belief.
I know we aren’t going to agree, as you already know by now that I am a skeptic and that I will not accept mass-belief, vague websites, apocryphal tales and hearsay as evidence of anything. I also know by reading some more of your posts on here that you subscribe to beliefs in ‘energy’, metaphysical notions and abstract concepts such as love and trust being indicative of physical phenomena we can’t yet explain. That doesn’t mean that I don’t thoroughly enjoy debating this stuff with you though! Anyway, write back soon!
Matt
November 1st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
oh these stuffs are soooooooo cool!!!im intrested in these stuff even if im a grade 1 student!but…….that’s not all…..it’s like …..cool!!!i think you really see it in that place.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
It is said that St. Bernadette opens her eyes sometimes to people when they are viewing her anyone heard about this?
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Tis Amazing. I’d like to point out that many believers within the church DO NOT believe Pope John 23 was actually a true pope but a mason. The Masons have long been infultrating the church and it’s known that there has been Popes throughout the churchs long history who’s focus was not God’s, but man. I am a traditional Catholic and I would die for the church, I am not blashpheming, I am protecting my church by detailing what I think is the truth. The fact that Pope John 23rd’s body was potentially altered and embalmed causes a couple problems. One for the non-believer they cry foul and say SEE! It’s baloney they are fake! In the case of Pope John 23 they could be right but it casts doubts on those true warriers of Christ who’s body’s were not embalmed or altered. Secondly, if his body is corrupting and the others are not, what does that tell you? Saint Bernadette is so beautiful and looks like she is sleeping. Why did they close up John Paul 2? Maybe because he trampled the churches history, made all religions the same and watered down the church like it’s never been watered down before and perhaps has not found favor with God? God have mercy on me if I’m wrong, but based on my research I don’t think so.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
@Ryan,
you say you are a traditional catholic but you feel free to assume that you know better who finds favor with God than the head of the catholic church ? It puzzles me.
You would die for the church ? Why ? It’s only an organisation. FYI: the time that people needed an organisation to tell them what is true and what is not, is most definitely over.
I am raised as a catholic and, as opposed to many of my peers, still see a lot of good in the church. Yet, I might die for love and truth, never for an organisation or beliefs.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
@ Ryan and Peter
What you both have failed to see or have not stated, is that the Church ( the Catholic Church ) is Christ himself. “Catholic” means Universal so you could say “Universal Christ” thereby meaning Christ and the belief in Him and His teachings are for all Men and Unchanging. I would not state that the Church is an “organization”, because I would not call Christ an “organization”. I do however disagree with you Peter about organized Religion, if there was ever a time when you could see the need for The Truth, I believe it is now! The lineage of the Catholic Church can be traced back to Peter (the 1st POPE). The Chair of Peter, which is held by Benedict XVI today, is the Vicar of Christ. Ryan, I have been a Catholic my entire life and have never heard anything about John 23rd being a Mason. In fact to be a member of a Secret Society, is not allowed due to the fact that the Masons are in irreconcilable opposition to the Church (Christ) and His teachings. I am sure that this falsehood stems from a lack of understanding of Vatican II and the bitterness in the people’s hearts that opposed it. I find comfort in the fact that you both have such strong beliefs and are drawn to the Truth, that is a gift from God. It has been said that no one could disagree with what the Church actually teaches, only what they think the Church teaches. The Catholic Faith has such beauty behind its Beliefs and Truths, and I would hope that if the day came where I was called to give my Life for my Church, my Christ, I would have the strength and the courage to do so.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
@dette78
While myself and Peter disagree on many MANY things (admit it Peter, we do:P lol), it is exactly because of people like yourself that I’d much rather debate Peter endlessly than engage with you. The arrogant assumption that organized religion has a monopoly on ‘the truth’, and your assertion that the Church is not an organization is both offensive and misinformed. The Catholic Church is basically the epitome of a dictatorial, multi-national organization. With the added bonus of no taxes! In fact, since you bring up lineages and history, if you’d care to look back over the centuries, you would find that some of the most heinous, corrupt and manipulating people have been Popes. The Borgia Popes are perhaps some of the most nauseating people in European history.
I think that Christ’s reputation would be helped infinitely more by asserting that the Catholic Church has absolutely NOTHING to do with him! I certainly would not want to be associated with an organization that has, throughout history, conducted itself in a way totally against pretty much all of Christ’s teachings, purely for social, political and economic power.
Matt
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
@Dette78,
Thanks for your view on the Church. May I take one line from it, tell a true story and ask a question ?
The line is: ‘It has been said that no one could disagree with what the Church actually teaches, only what they think the Church teaches.’
The true story, that happened to a Irish friend of mine, who is still alive: When she was 14, she was at a boarding school for girls, run by nuns. One day in the chapel, she say the mother of a student sitting by herself, crying. She knew that the woman had given birth to a baby that died witin hours. My friend asked ‘Are you crying becasue your baby has gone to limbo ?’ Limbo, as you may know, was the place where childeren went that died un-baptised. This was the official doctrine of the Church. My friend was overcome with sympathy and suddenly had an intuitive insight that, as she experienced it, was given her. ‘You don’t need to cry’ she told the woman. ‘Your child is with God. There is no limbo.’ The woman believed her and was comforted. Unfortunately, she was so happy she told her family the ‘news’ about limbo. The next day my friend was severely punished (including brutally beaten), for daring to speak out against the truth, the official doctrine of the Church.
As you may know, in the 1960’s, the doctrine of limbo was oficialy abandoned.
The question is: who was right, my friend or the Church ? Whose wisdom came more directly from God, the Church’s or hers ?
Interesting
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 am
Matt, I was and still am planning to come back to you. I’m waiting for some interesting information. Greetings.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
@ matt
I am sorry I offended you, I was under the impression this was a disscussion board. You are right about the Church’s faults… we have had many and if you remember the Holy Father himself John Paul II (During the Jubilee Year)came out to the Masses to offer an apology for all the sins of the Church and its representives. When you have people involved with anything … it is flawed, unfortunately.
@ Peter
I can certainly see where there have been problems with the “People” in the Church. That story saddens me.
My husband and I both lost our younger brothers in less than a year, they both died in the month of October; one on the 24th and then the following October, on the 7th. I have also been pregnant 11 times but I only have 6 children living and 1 of my children had a twin, we have had great sorrow. The Teaching I believe your refering to is Purgatory and the Church stills holds it, its one that is very close to my heart.
If you would want to look it up in the Catholic Catechism, it starts on page 268. I have learned that it is not taught about as offen as it should be.
Now, to answer your question, I believe her(your friend) words of comfort came out of empathy and true charity, which stems from God… the action taken against her was wrong, however I (with what I have stated) think that her statements, though loving were false. At that time (1960’s )the Church was going through many changes as far as trying to reach out to it’s members, Vatican II. There is such goodness behind it but unfortunately the teaching was morphed, we didn’t have the communication that we have today, info was spread very differently..(which was the problem for centuries) and there are many things that some of the representives of the Church have implimented, that they are still trying to undo today.
Going back to your story of your friend, there are two forms of Baptism, 1 of desire (water)and 1 of blood (such as in the early Church Marytrs).The Church has no definitive stance on where children go who are not baptized but we are to entrust them to Gods Great Mercy.
My ~personal~ belief on this is when a parent or the family would desire it for a child, God sees that. I also believe that when a baby is lost in the womb (no matter what the instance)there is a baptism of blood.
@Peter and Matt
I don’t think that organized religion has a monopoly on ‘the truth’, again I stated that the Church is Christ and Christ is “Truth”, as a Christian I believe the Church is more than its members and its tax status, for reasons of law and state we follow guide lines because we are in the world but Christ himself also obeyed the laws of His time. The Church is natural, as well as Supernatural.
Thank You Peter for giving me the chance to offer my thoughts.
I wanted to say to both of you that I am so sorry for what members of the Church have done to you, your family and your friends, too many times people can call them self Christians and not act very Christ like. I struggle myself…and for that I am truely sorry.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Hi Dette78,
I think I should apologize for my pretty harsh response. I was a bit wound up and, being an atheist, when I read constantly that religion is the only thing that offers ‘The Truth’, I get pretty annoyed. But that still doesn’t excuse my rudeness, so I say sorry.
Getting back to the Church though, it is precisely organized religion that I have a problem with. Don’t mistake this with annoyance at a belief in God, as I think they are two separate things. I cannot really get annoyed at anyone believing in God, because that is a personal faith that, even though I don’t share, I can respect. However, I believe organized religion to be a needless bureaucracy that actually interferes in the true message of belief. Plus, considering organized religion is pretty much the driving force behind all religious crimes, not belief in God itself, I would choose not to be a part of it. I just think that a massive group mentality leads to schisms amongst people that are extremely hard to close, especially when each group is convinced of their own righteousness.
Dette, you don’t have to apologize to me for anything the Church did, because the Church hasn’t done anything to me! I appreciate the apology though:) I simply do not agree with organized religion, especially one that has done an unbelievable amount of harm in the past and recently.
@ Peter,
I’m looking forward to your upcoming argument:)
December 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Dette,
Thank you for your sincere and personal response. You have endeared yourself to many readers, is my guess.
I am sorry you had so much sorrow to deal with and applaud you for doing it in a spiritual and positive way.
Like Matt, I have not personally suffered at the hands of the church. Other than the struggle that most of my peers went through, that of trying to keep believing things that we were taught and used to believe, but failing. Most of my generation (I am 52) left the church.
About limbo: I know the doctrine of purgatory. ( I believe it is a somewhat simplistic representation of what many call the astral world). However, it is not the same as limbo. If you find an old Cathechism, you will find it there. Is used to be officially true, and was later abondoned. Like there many saints taken off the official list, for the simple reason that they probably never existed.
So I don’t see how my friend was wrong in any way. She was right and the church was wrong, as simple as that. Put differently: in that instant she knew better than the pope what Christ means.
I would agree with you that a spiritual organisation is more than the outer legal structure, and is both material and spiritual. (I’m not so keen on the word supernatural) I also believe that the church is a valid channel for truth and love. We probably have to disagree about the question whether it is the only spiritual organisation that is a channel for divine love.
I remain puzzled about the meaning of ‘the body of Christ’. If we agree that the church makes mistakes, that things that were held as eternal truths were in fact illusions and fabrications, that some of its supposedly unfallible and saintly leaders were in fact criminals, that many priests and bisshops have taken out their struggle with sexuality on others, male, female, adult and child, that many saints were initially persecuted, ridiculed and hidden from view by the church, etc etc., then what does it mean, ‘the body of Christ’ ?
What I wonder is: to what extent does your personal relationship with God / Jesus depend on ideas as this ? The thing is: people will always disagree about ideas. Isn’t that why Jesus talked about living waters and the kingdom being within ? I say that none of these things – books, organisations, beliefs, dogma’s etc. – are ultimitely necessary for the establishment of a personal connection with God. They can help, and that’s why they exist.
All the best.
Peter
December 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
but for the fact that milieu. So have!
December 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I saw St. Silvan at the Church of St. Blaise in Dubrovnik, Croatia in October 2007. I took a photograph and looked at him closely, not really knowing at the time about incorruptible saints. This is an amazing thing to see..almost doesn’t look real until you know what it is.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I’m very impressed with these Incorruptibles. Cynics, this is what a mummy looks like.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/177404675_95b45b409b.jpg?v=1151547648
January 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
As a Christian and a critical thinker, it staggers me that the Catholic church still holds on to this ridiculous idea.
To get a different view of this story, check out http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4126 .
You’ll find that St Bernadette, like many others, are not displayed honestly. For her, and many, many others, they actually use a mask over her face, since her face is actually quite old and mummified.
For others, they literally display effigies of the saint with the real remains often stored beneath the display case.
The Catholic church documents all of this in its own records, but when they display the effigies or representations of their so called incorruptible corpses, they don’t label them as such, so that the viewing public is simply allowed to assume they are seeing the real, preserved bodies of saints. They are not. You are looking at artists representations of these bodies and nothing more.
Once again, don’t believe me. Don’t believe everything you read, but look at things from many different standpoints and make an informed decision.
For another, more scientifically viable take on this, I again urge you to check out Skeptoid.com at the link above.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@AD(J)
I did check out the site you mentioned and posted this on it:
‘Some people seem to have the view that there is science, wich is a matter of truth and is versus isn’t, and nonsense.
I talked to a professor the other day. She said two important things: 1 science is not about truth but about how we explain something at this moment. It is changing all the time. People that think science is about truth, miss the point. 2 many scientists have themselves a believer’s attitude.
Example she gave (out of 1000 she could give, she said): a talk was given by a doctor who had studied near death experiences. His approach was totally rational and scientific. During the break a collegue, known to be proud of his rationality, asked ‘do you seriously believe this stuff ?’
There is no doubt that the church puts itself in a difficult position and will compromise the truth to hide it. Also there is no doubt that for many things that the church or anybody else claims are of a supernatural order, there is a natural explanation.
However. Take it from a skeptical and I believe intelligent person that if you state there is nothing special or, if you like, holy or beyond the usual about any of these corpses, you are dead wrong. And missing the oil in the olive.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
@Matt,
Now that I’m back here, it’s high time I come back to our discussion.
Without looking back: First of all, you accused me of patronising you by being sorry you think love is something in the head rather than the heart. You know…you’re right.
I’m sorry. I felt genuinely sorry, but it was wrong to put it that way. Also, I realised later that however you or I believe we experience something, it doesn’t necessarily say much about the value and validity of it.
I have the link I was waiting for:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html
Whatever the explanation, I believe it shows on a major scale and in a scientific setting what that artist I talked with shows in a personal and les scientific way: there can be a connection between consciousness and a number generator. How to explain it is another matter, but the reality is there.
Now, something I realised you misinterpreted is this: I have several times refered to things that have been thought or practised or understood in a certain way for centuries and all over the world. I didn’t mean that this is in any way proof of those things. What I meant is: if something is hard to explain by present scientific methods, what’s wrong with looking at constants throughout the ages for clues ?
Case in point: the same heart I connected with love. All over the world, in all times, people have pointed at their heart when refering to themelves. Now if it were true that consciousness, love and all emotions are in fact happening in the brain, why would everybody including you point at their heart ? Why not their, err, liver ? Their left wrist ? Their groin ? (Would be easiest) Or, of course, their head ?
What is it about the heart that makes this so ?
I say it is because of the heartchakra. Which has, as I said before, been proven to exist. Which countless people have experienced.
I say putting all these things together – personal experience of countless people today, scientific tests, historic and cultual consistency – makes it more rational to say ‘probably there is something there’ than to say ‘unless you prove by double blind tests that you feel love in your heart, it must be considered a nonsensical idea’.
Belgium’s ex-queen had surgery today. Under hypnosis, as dotors feared anaesthesia would be too much for her. What is it that went from the hypnotherapist to her that changed her physical state ? How far is this from emotional contact with a plant ? I say it’s very cose.
OK, back to work Peter.
All the best.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Peter,
That’s a great point you make, and I do agree with your logic and your ideas, but none of it addresses a single fact about the truth or falsity of these incorruptible corpse claims.
It’s like if I had said “UFO’s don’t exist” and you responded by saying “People can be rational and still believe in things that science can’t explain.” While that may be true, it adds nothing to the virility of a UFO claim. You have simply brought up a red herring and said, “Look over here, ignore the man behind the curtain.”
Likewise, the real, empirical, scientific facts of these incorruptibles are a matter of public record. These bodies are “literally” represented with effigies, not actual, incorruptible corpses. They amount to nothing more than an artists rendering of a historical saint. Nothing more. The real bodies are usually stored underneath the effigy or somewhere near it, but not on public display.
Think of it this way: If I lay a pile of monopoly money in front of you and say, “This is a million dollars, I’m rich!” it may well be a million dollars in Monopoly money, but if I try to deposit it at the bank they’ll laugh me out the front door. It’s fake money.
For the Catholic church to say that they display the ‘real’ bodies of long dead saints instead of effigies is a lie.
There are a lot of great things about the Catholic church, but this isn’t one of them.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Hey Peter,
Long time no speak!
I checked out that Global Consciousness Project website, did a bit of research on it, and, surprise surprise, I’m still not convinced. It does show potential, and some of the results are interesting, but I’d still need it to be further verified in order to accept it. Again, I hate to sound repetitive, but the project is hypothesizing and extremely incredible phenomena (mass consciousness, psychic ability), therefore, I need incredible proof. I don’t believe that has been provided yet.
About your heart argument. Simply put, I believe the reason people point to their heart is that it is the physical manifestation of mortality. You can feel it, you can hear it, if you look at your chest closely you can see it moving, and without it you can’t live. I don’t think it has anything to do with chakra or energy, I think it is due to the heart being the most recognizable organ for the above reasons. It pumps blood, our one life giving fluid, and is also a deep red, indicative of passion and fire. It is simply a symbol of everything humans find valuable; life, passion, sincerity. That is why people point to it.
That argument is that same as saying that penises and vaginas are evil incarnate simply because people throughout the ages have commonly associated the genitals with decadence and lust. There must be a dark, evil, horrible energy lurking in our groins because people throughout history (especially in the areas of the 3 major religions in the world) have viewed genitals as embarrassing, dirty and decadent!
Hypnotherapy is well understood too. It doesn’t involved ‘transmitting’ energy from one person to another. It involves the power of persuasion and willingness to believe. Hypnotherapy I accept, it is a proven phenomenon. I don’t accept the explanation that it is in any way psychic, energy transferring or spiritual. I accept that it is a psychological response based on the power of suggestion and the skill of the hypnotist. Again, provide sources that prove it is psychic, not natural.
I’ve talked about the plant thing before. Just because a living organism responds to stimuli doesn’t mean it has psychic ability or energy transfer or emotions. Yet again, you’re claiming plants have emotions; provide sources and proof.
All the best,
Matt
January 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
There are other phenomenons that are associated with the corruptibles as well. These amazing feats include lack of rigor mortis, an sweet fragrant smell coming from the incoruptibles bodies, scenes of bleeding far after passing, some bodies have become warm long after death, and highly rare movement of limbs long after death as well, which also have been heavily associated with blessings. Some even say there have been extremely rare cases of talking as well.
For those who beleive, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t, no explanation will suffice.
God Bless!
February 11th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Happy Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, Bernadette!
February 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Annie:
I don’t believe, but what makes you think that no explanation would suffice for me? You know what would change my mind? If someone set up a video camera and actually recorded one of the corpses rise up and speak. That would change my mind in an instant. It would also change my mind if somebody put a stethoscope on the chest of one of these corpses and recorded a heartbeat. The only thing I DON’T accept is people telling me to believe based on things OTHER people have told them! Why is it that you only rely on hearsay, rumor and what friends of friends of friends tell you in regards to these corpses? An explanation for me would suffice if it was supported by EVIDENCE! You know, evidence, the very basis of rationality?
I guess you sum up your position by basically saying you believe anything without any kind of evidence, proof or explanation. Fair enough, that’s your choice. But don’t say that just because people don’t believe these corpses are ’special’ there will NEVER be an explanation you could provide that would change their mind, because there obviously is. Just provide tangible proof of it, and I will believe!
Matt
February 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Hey Matt,
‘I know this guy’ I thought, while reading your reaction to Annie.
While I agree with you that more than mere belief is needed in order to accept something as valid or real or true, you keep making what in my mind is a mistake. Rationality is fine, but it is limited. The mind cannot grasp what is outside of time and 3 dimensions. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing beyond time, or that we cannot know anything about it.
Coming back to your reply to my message: it wasn’t my intention to present the theories – about the 9/11 – random program connection – as truth. I merely wanted to present to you one of the many examples of things that are inexplicable within a purely materialistic context. Leaving the theories on that website aside, how do you account for these obvious though puzzling connections between random computer programs and events happening in the world ?
About the heart and pointing at it: I was surprised at your explanation. Not becasue it is nonsense, but becasue it is so ….unscientific. Coming from you! I mean, there is a connection between computers and events and some intelligent peope come up with explanations that fit the bill, even though they are not proven. You dismiss them. And then you come up with a theory about why people point at their heart that is well, not very strong at best. Not only totally unproven, but in fact never heard of. You think the question hasn’t been asked before ?
Look, here I am, giving various clues that together imho quite strongly suggest that people are intuitively aware of subtle realities, and have been through the ages, and THAT is why they point at their heart. I have told you I know the sensation of love (or whatever it is) streaming through the heart. Many people do. (Why would the heart be the symbol of love, if love is in fact in the brain?) I have referred to the research into chakras done at the Vienna university. I have mentioned spiritual texts of different ages saying the same thing about these issues. And while it is a scientific rule that, all other variables being equal, one should consider the most obvious explanation for any issue the correct one, you chose to instead think up some well, not very convincing (why not the brain ? more important than the heart for stying alive) theory.
WHY?
If you don’t mind me saying so: you really do seem to have a strong resistance to the possibilty of the existence of more subtle realities. To the notion that people might indeed actually be able to experience them and to know things more certain than the mind could ever do.
And why do you have this resistance ? Well, that is a question for you to answer. My guess would be that you are a deeply sincere person that wants to know the truth, and at the same time wants to stay in control. These things do not go together. Surrender is the key.
I’m sure there will come a day when you remember our discussion. (Sorry for preaching.)
About genitals: it is not true at all that throughout the ages sex has been considerd evil etc. Not even in all of the judaic/christian/muslim tradition. Read the Old testament or the poems of Rumi and Omar Khayyam.
Again: there is no dividing line between psychic and natural.
I have tried to explain to you that within a limited context one can never prove anything that is less limited. Is is like apple and fruit. Or like my teacher said: an intelligent man can succesfully pretend to be stupid, but the other way round doesn’t work. (I’not referring to you of course)
2 AM. Time for bed. All the best Matt.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
PS About plants: definition of the word emotion aside: I have told you before about the research into plant’s reactions to music. About Bose’s research.
The Dutch university in Wageningen is considered to be the top in agricultural and biological research. They have started to accept, because they can no longer deny, the notion of water having some kind of memory; of Steiner’s calender for sowing and reaping being valid, and similar phenomena. Another research centre has found that food that is being microwaved gets destroyed on a subtle level.
These things are not psychic or supernatural or weird. They are real. The limited 3D view of the world is falling apart fast. It’s happening all around you, and if you are open to it you’ll see it.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Hey Peter,
I’ve already been over these things before, and my explanation before was not un-scientific. Mundane and boring, but nonetheless, it was valid. In case you haven’t noticed, humans use symbolism in a whole variety of ways. They use the image of the sun as embodying life and goodness; they use a torch to symbolize knowledge; they use a sickle to represent workers (at least the Soviet Union did haha). See my point? The heart is merely a symbol based on it’s unique characteristics; it’s movement, it’s shape, it’s sheer importance. I’m not sure how you can call that un-scientific. It is a logical explanation to a phenomenon that doesn’t involve un-proven pseudo-scientific vernacular (‘energy’, psychic love, etc etc).
I have no idea what you mean about subtle realities, and I’m sure if I press you for an explanation it won’t really make sense. Again, subtle realities and all that other stuff are things you may believe in, but not me, and I see absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
In reference to you suggestion that I ’submit’…submit to what!? Accepting things without evidence? My friend, a few hundred years ago European society went through a beautiful era. It was the era when people began to reject the notion of accepting things based on ‘gut feeling’ and superstition. It was the era of scientific discovery and rationality. It was, in my opinion, the most glorious period of human intellectual development that hasn’t quite been matched since. It was called the Enlightenment. Now forgive me for being, as you say, ‘resistant’ to giving up all the wonderful qualities the Enlightenment brought forth (rationality, reliance on evidence, strong debate, belief based on proof etc etc), but it is going to take a hell of a lot more than somebody saying I need to ’submit’ to ’subtle realities’ and accept things that can’t be tested because they are ‘3d’ before I give up on Enlightenment values.
Basically, I want to sum up my position. You believe in psychic energy, chakras, subtle realities and so on. Fine. I don’t. You know why? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! Simply put, absolutely no compelling evidence!!! Sure, you point me to a few, a VERY few dubious sources of semi-proof, but guess what? Fringe pseudo-science isn’t proof of anything! Back when people studied phrenology (study of human skull shape and personality), there were reams and volumes and masses of so-called ‘evidence’. To not believe in phrenology in many circles was deemed ridiculous. Guess what? It fell apart when scientists discovered more about the human brain. And exactly the same is happening with parapsychology. It once flourished, and had many centers in world-renowned universities. Now it is limited to around less than five. They had exactly the same evidence in 1920 that they have now. All I’m begging for is a bit of evidence!!!!!!! Just a tiny bit!! A little, tiny, minuscule bit of scientific evidence!!! A source that isn’t fringe science, but mainstream, academic, proper, robust and reliable. A source that is accepted not by a few weird pseudo-scientists like Sheldrake, but accepted my the vast, VAST majority of mainstream scientists. But when I ask for that, you give me some crap about having to throw away my rationality in order to ’submit’ to a subtle reality! What?!
For every study you point me to that ‘proves’ psychic ability, water having memory, etc etc, I can point you to one hundred more that debunk it. For every ’scientist’ that advocates these strange ideas, I can point to one thousand more that debunk it. I know it’s a romantic idea, believing in something that the vast majority of people reject. It makes you a bit of a rebel, and gives you the special feeling that you know something hardly anyone else knows! I’m not like that. I accept what I have evidence for, and until the scientific method stops working and we genuinely have to abandon reason and rationality, I will continue to be skeptical of all things that I have no evidence for.
I think that’s all I have to say, and it’s been great talking to you.
All the best, Peter.
Matt
February 17th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Matt,
OK, like you, I give up. You don’t address what I’m saying, possibly because you don’t understand it. Which is nobody’s fault, I’m sure we both did our best. Somehow you seem to believe that you are more rational than I am. Wel, maybe so, maybe you just don’t realise that I understand everything you say because I’ve been there.
Let’s talk again after you took a seriuous course in meditation. Life starts where thought ends. That doesn’t mean the mind isn’t a beautiful instrument. But…well, just learn to meditate deeply and you’ll understand.
Btw, I didn’t write ’submit’, I wrote ’surrender’. To what ? That’s the point. If you know to what, it’s not surrender anymore.
All the best,
Peter
February 18th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Hey Peter,
You’re right. I don’t understand it. And I’m in a way proud that I don’t understand the stuff you talk about like ‘energy’, chakra’s, psychic energy and plants having emotions. I’m proud that I don’t understand them because they are all theories that try to explain phenomena that haven’t been proven, and in your own admission can’t be by our most powerful tool of understanding; science. And if I was to understand them, then I would be basing every ounce of that understanding on a premise that hasn’t been verified, which I would find completely senseless. To best explain my pride in this, it would be like understanding reams and reams and reams of the most detailed intricacies of Star Trek in order to try to argue that it is, in fact, scientific truth that Captain Picard exists. No matter how detailed these things you point to are, they are all based on a premise which is not, nor can be, verified. That’s why I’m proud of not taking them particularly seriously. I don’t have to read learned philosophies on the details of silk and clothing to realize that the emperor is, in fact, naked.
I meditate differently to you. I sit quietly in a room and think. Just think. And that opens up more worlds to me than an invisible and incomprehensible energy ever could.
I will never surrender my reason. I will never surrender my rationality. I will never do this because doing so would be a return to the dark ages of myth and superstition. I’m not sure if you notice, but gradually as I read through your responses, you are beginning to sound more and more like a fundamentalist religious preacher than a rational person. Constantly telling me rationality is not very useful. Telling me I’ll never experience wonderful things because I don’t ’surrender’. Accusing me of being narrow minded.
Just for the record, life doesn’t start where thought ends. Life starts when thought becomes clear, and Enlightenment values such as rationality and reason are tools to think more clearly than anyone before us. Enjoy your life.
Matt
February 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
St. Vincent De Paul’s “incorrupt body” is actually made entirely of wax, although it does contain his bones. Supposedly he was found to be incorrupt while being moved to another resting place, which subsequently flooded and caused him to decay. Hence the wax…hmmm….seems a bit of desperation to maintain appearances.
And of course this distracts from the great central truths of the Christian faith: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. Soli Deo gloria!
February 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Matt,
‘I meditate differently to you. I sit quietly in a room and think. Just think. And that opens up more worlds to me than an invisible and incomprehensible energy ever could.’
Well, that last sentence shows that you are, without realising it, basically a believer. I mean, you make a statement about something you admit have no knowledge or exprience of. Isn’t that how orthodox christions discredit all other religions?
Secondly, I think too, you know. In fact, in my last novel, my alter ego scolds people for not taking the trouble to practise the art of, and see the beauty of, just sitting and thinking for hours.
So I both meditate and think. And you only think. Which is fine. But to then try to teach me about thought, meditation and life doesn’t make much sense. Not to my rational mind anyway.
‘Constantly telling me rationality is not very useful.’
I have never said anything like that. I have only pointed out that thought is by nature limited and unable to grasp truth. Ridiculous and unscientific ? Allow me to mention that some minor physicists agree with me here. Albert Einstein and Nobelprize winner David Bohm. (check out his conversations about thought with Krishnamurti. Fascinating. Guess who’s the teacher ?)
I don’t think you are narrow minded and haven’t said so. I do think you are not aware that science has moved on and that everywhere in the world the concept of energy exchange and energy carrying information is being accepted and used. Even in institutions that fought these notions tooth and nail. (Which makes me guess that you don’t live in a big city in the US)
All this certainly doesn’t mean that in my opinion you don’t know love and beauty or are in any way less than me or the baker. We have different experiences and outlooks, but probably would get along fine in analogue life.
BTW: I’ll give you 100 bucks for one single research (meeting scientific criteria) that shows chakras do not exist. And 250 bucks for a megastudy that shows acupuncture (as you know based on our energysystem) is not effective.
All the best.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hey Peter,
I realize I was a bit angry in that last post, so I apologize. I didn’t mean to accuse you of being a fundamentalist zealot or anything, I was just a bit wound up. I always get a bit over-enthusiastic when debating things like this. Sorry to be such an idiot:)
Anyway, back to the topic. I have consulted the mecca of objective truth (Wikipedia haha, just out of sheer laziness than anything else) and found a few juicy articles that support my position, and are academic, scientific and reliable.
In regards to ‘energy’, chakras and life force: http://www.sram.org/0301/bioenergetic-fields.html
In regards to acupuncture:
White, P, Lewith, G, Prescott, P, Conway, J. Acupuncture versus Placebo for the Treatment of Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 141 Issue 12: Pages 911-919, 2004
In regards to energy healers and so forth:
Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA Volume 279 Issue 13:Pages 1005-1010, 1998
I realize these articles aren’t concrete proof of non-existence. What they do though, especially the first one, is outline some of the philosophical difficulties that people such as yourself have in actually proving their claims. This is a quote from the first article, basically the authors conclusion:
“Much of alternative medicine is based on claims that violate well-established scientific principles. Those that require the existence of a bioenergetic field, whether therapeutic touch or acupuncture, should be asked to meet the same criteria as anyone else who claims a phenomenon, the existence of which goes beyond established science. They have an enormous burden of proof, and it is time that society laid it on their thin shoulders”.
He also mentions in the article that as science can detect energy packets that are unbelievably small, and STILL cannot detect anything in the human body in the form of ‘life energy’ and the like, the chances of it existing necessitate a complete overhaul of physics in general.
I am actually a bit impartial to acupuncture. As it is a physical procedure it is hard to do double blind tests and the like. However I still think it can be effective, not for the reasons you postulate however. I have said this in previous posts, and I agree that acupuncture, meditation and hypnotherapy are useful tools in modern medicine. I just think their results are based on more mundane things such as body chemistry and the placebo effect rather than altering ‘energy’ and stuff. I’m of the opinion that if a treatment works, be it alternate medicine or not, and it enhances the quality of life of the patient and brings them happiness, then by all means it should definitely be used. However, I draw the line at using alternative therapy when parts of it are proven to be useless, and charlatans posing as doctors con people out of massive amounts of money by telling them that alternative medicine has a ‘miracle cure’.
…can I have my 100 bucks now please:D
All the best,
Matt
February 27th, 2009 at 3:45 am
wtf u guys sure are cool.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hi Matt,
They, well some, say that the quality most pleasing to God is humility. You must have pleased Her a lot in your life. Seriously, I appreciate your willingless to evaluate your own words and deeds.
Do you get your 100 bucks ? Hm, not yet.
The thing is that we seem to continue to live on different worlds, in spite of our efforts to bridge them. To me it feel like I am coming ot the doctor with a serious pain, and the doctor says sorry Peter, unless you proof to me in a way that satisfies my criteria for proof that you are in fact suffering, I remain of the opinion that you don’t.
About the scientific article of the ‘mythbuster website’. What can I say? If you could hear my mind after reading a few paragraphs, you would hear this word over and over again: ‘the ignorance; the ignorance’. Only occasionally mixed with ‘arrogance’ and ’stupidity’. Of course this doesn’t proof that these people are ignorant. It means I just don’t know where to begin.
You know, Gary Zukov wrote years ago that the scientist of the future would have to be people that investigate the inner as well as the outer world. Otherwise they would not be able to advance. I have given you the names of a few of these new kind of scientist. They live in a different world than the ghostbusters, who are on the wrong side of history but don’t realise it.
I’d like to stay with these simple things: I have told you the story of how I enterd a garden with two others, and without realising that the others did so too, noticed this beautiful energy in the place and went into a brief meditation. Looking up after perhaps 5 minutes, I saw my wife crying and the other friend meditating.
I’ll tell you one more story. I gave a talk in a rehab centre for therapists and doctors. I talked about how in my opinion in some cases the phantom pain that people with an amputated limb feel, is not a matter of nerves but a matter of energy. Mentioning that it seems that the body’s blueprint otr whatever one wants to call it, needs time to adjust to the physical reality. Sort of like the cutleaf effect observed by Russion scientist using Kirlian photography. At that point I felt a wave of energy going through me, so I asked ‘Is everbody all right ? Somebody has a strong emotional reaction to this.’ At which a woman raised her arm. Her only one.
This is one of thousands of instances of me experiencing other people’s emotions. Live or over the phone; it doesn’t make any difference.
Now, am I lying, am I a freak or is this a capacity that everybody has ? I say the latter. I my case it is well developed, and that no doubt has to to with me being a paraplegic. But I know quite a few other people that are sensitive in this way, and I used to teach other paraplegics succesfully how to develop this capacity.
What I’m saying is: I don’t need to proof anything. I have given you many examples of connections between people and people, people and plants (of course the same applies to animals) end even people and places or things. Either these connections in fact do not exist and then you would have an impossible task explaining why milions of sincere people like you and me would report them, or you would have a hard time explaining them within the frame of purely materialistic thinking. Which is illustrated by your reaction to the example I gave, of the artist making art by mentally influencing a random number generator. Your reply was that he may be insincere. And when I gave you the link to a scientifically sound project showing the same relationship but on a major scale, you say that the attempt at an explanation doesn’t convince you. Without supplying an alternative explanation.
And so here we are: you want to me to prove my claims in a way that satisfies you, which is impossible. And I ask you to give an explanation for certain objective phenomena and human experiences within your worldview. Which is also impossible.
The man who has inspired me most, and who you could read about here http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/path/37.html
used to say: ‘In this world, we are all a little bit crazy. But we don’t notice, because people with the same kind of crazines mix with each other.’ Sometimes adding: the thing is, you don’t know what kind of craziness I have, but I do know your craziness.
Let’s agree about this: we are both intelligent, sincere people, with a love for truth. (and many vices as well, no doubt)
PS I realise I didn’t react to the article about acupuncture. The title put me off. It is entirely possible that for that specific neckproblem acupuncture soent score better than placebo. The thing is, and I’ve mentioned this before, the use of the word placebo suggests that scientist have any clue abot how that works. Which they don’t.
The first article correctly states that Chinese medicine is based on Chi. It fails to mention, let alone explain, that this method based on a non-existent Chi performs almost as good as western medicine in more acute cases, and clearly better in more chronic cases.
OK, time for bed in Holland. All the best Matt.
Peter
March 1st, 2009 at 3:38 am
Hey Peter,
Cheers for accepting my apology:)
As for the ‘mythbusters’ site, I assume you mean the scientifically peer-reviewed, endorsed by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health website? Victor J. Stenger, apart from being a thoroughly educated man of high regard (a massive step away from people like Sheldrake) outlined a very strong argument for burden of proof.
I still don’t think you get it. Simply put, you are advocating things that, if true, would change the face of modern science in massive ways. Yet you don’t want to adhere to the same criterion as every other field of science in proving your claims? See, the burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you, and you keep ignoring that point which isn’t weak or stupid, but the foundation of accepting phenomena. You are basically saying that you believe this stuff because you have experienced it, but instead of adhering to the overwhelmingly strong method of rigorous scientific inquiry that has lead to some of the greatest discoveries in human history (Special relativity, Evolution, Germ Theory, Chemistry) in order to prove it, you argue that the method has to change, not the belief. That is pretty sad.
In regards to all your personal anecdotes and examples of millions of people who experience ‘energy’ (which you STILL haven’t defined in any meaningful way i.e, kinetic, electro-magnetic, radiant etc etc), it wouldn’t matter if 100% of all people on Earth believed it. It doesn’t make one iota of difference to what is true. NO MATTER how many people believe, it has no consequence on truth whatsoever, so please stop telling me that a phenomenon is more credible due to the number of people who believe it.
As for the phantom limb explanation, I find the transmission of electrical impulses which cannot reach their final destination (the end of an arm) more credible than asserting an ‘energy blueprint’ has anything to do with it.
I realize that you are an intelligent person, no doubt about it. I get the overwhelming impression, though, that your belief in all this stuff leads to you slavishly accepting ANY source of information that agrees with your position. I have pointed you to 3 sources of highly credible research. You dismiss the first one as ignorant and call it a ‘mythbuster website’. You don’t even bother to read one based on the title. These are not the actions of someone who can tell the difference between a credible source and a weak one. I can only remember how many dubious sources of information you have pointed me too (personal websites, first hand experiences, artists). I accept that the global research program of consciousness is mildly credible, however there are still MASSIVE objections by the majority of scientists as to the methodology and interpretation of results. That is why I still long for a proper explanation of their data, not just accept it out of hand because some fringe scientists say it is acceptable.
I’ve outlined my acceptance of some acupuncture. I realize it can be useful. However, based on the fact that there are so many more theories as to how acupuncture works (altering body chemistry and pain receptors), I am more willing to accept them as explanations than that of an invisible and undetectable energy flowing through our bodies that can be influence by a bloody tiny needle!
Anyways, time for bed in Australia!
Regards,
Matt
March 1st, 2009 at 6:53 am
Good morning Matt,
OK, Australia. I hope you are not near any fires.
I have never anywhere suggested that the number of people that believe in something has any value. So why do you say this ?
I have pointed out that millions of people thoughout the ages have reported experiences that are consistent, credible because of the credibility of the reporters (hey, I know there are spacecases and gullable believers out there too; I don’t count them) and for which there simply are no explanations whithin a 3D view of the world.
Sorry for calling the learned people ghostbusters. Is is because of two things: one is that I see that that is their intention, and more importantly, I see that they have no clue what they are talking about. That is to say, from their perspective I understand them, no problem. But they lack insight and experience, and so it’s like Michael Phelps talking like he’s an expert on tennis or something. A swimmer wouldn’t necessarily notice his ignorance, but a tennisplayer knows after 3 paragraphs.
No, it is not my experiences that led me to ‘believe’. I am a critical person by nature and an independent thinker, and I just had no choice but to accept the reality of ….. whatever you want to call it. The reality that we are connected.
I have pointed out that some Nobelprize winners in physics are on my side. How much higher you want to go ?
BTW Sheldrake uses scientifically sound methods. So the fact that he has theories – and in fact proves them – about some field that we are all part of, shoudn’t, by your own criteria, be a reason for discrediting him.
The thing is: at least he comes up with credible theories that would supply a foundation for beginning to understand phenomena that have been reported, again, by millions of sincere intelligent people.
You may prefer to believe that amputees feel pain because of nerve endings etc (and I’m sure in many cases this is so). The point is that I tell you a story and you decide not to address it because there are only two options, both of which are uncomfortable: one is that I am decieving you (for God knows what reason), and the other is that you have no explanation.
And this is the thing. There are scientists that realise that the explanation ‘they are all crooks, decievers and victims of fraud’ simply isn’t adequate. And so they leave the trodden paths, still adhering to scientific criteria as much as possible. This has been the pattern of progress always, and you’ll see that the generation of scientific naysayers will die out.
Again: why don’t you put things to the test and learn to meditate ? It will change your view, there is no doubt about it. Once you experience that being on alpha level regularly makes you more intuitive, that the number so times you read peoples mind goes up, the number ot times that you and someone close to you have the same thoughts at the same time goes up, etc., you’ll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are connected and that this connection can be experienced in many ways.
It has enriched my life and the life of millions of others, so why not ? It so happens that I am interested in science and understanding, but I don’t need them to validate what is my daily reality. If I were the only one living this reality I would not make claims about it. But I’m not; my view is supported by the experience of farmers, doctors, coaches, nurses and religious people of all sorts. If you want to maintain the view that we are each and all naive believers or something, so be it. It’s your loss, not mine.
If we go on much longer, we should start looking for a publisher
All the best.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hey Peter,
Luckily I’m not near the bush fires. I live in Sydney so I’m quite a way away from them, guess you’re safe in Holland too:P
Just on your last paragraph, I don’t think you’re naive or stupid. Far from it. It’s obvious you’re well read on the subject and have experienced things that seem totally real to you. And I can’t dispute that. All I can say is that I’ve never, nor do I think I WILL ever, experience anything paranormal because that would be like asking me to believe that 2+2 = 5. I would have to reevaluate everything I believe, which I don’t think I can do.
I think the best way to sum up my position is that I view skepticism as an extremely useful tool for stregnthening (am I spelling that right?) my beliefs. I will not believe something until it passes my own skeptical test, but when it does, bingo! My belief is soooo much stronger because it has survived, as Descartes put it, the “test of skeptical fire”. Imagine owning a car that, although it looks absolutely breathtaking and sublime, had NEVER passed any safety tests before it was released. I take it for a spin one day and bang! I crash it, and because it is weak, it is destroyed. However, if I wait for a car that isn’t appealing, doesn’t look good, drives like absolute crap, is extremely boring and mundane, but has passed every safety test known to man and I crash it, it will not be destroyed. That is pretty much the best way I can explain how, before I accept something as fact, it must be tested and tested and tested and tested before I believe it, which ultimately makes it more robust in the end.
I honestly don’t have anything against the things that you believe in. On the contrary, I find some of them (not all of them) beneficial to humanity. Meditation, acupuncture, yoga, all these things are good for people! What I cannot accept is the underlying explanations for them (energy, life force, reading minds, psychic powers etc etc). However, I could NEVER EVER claim that these things DEFINITELY DO NOT exist. That is one of the things no one should ever do. But they have not passed any of the skeptical tests that I require to believe in them (acceptance by the scientific community, hard evidence, peer reviewed publications, physical proof, underlying theories that are predictive). This doesn’t mean that I will never believe, and honestly, I would be absolutely thrilled if in a few years time psychic ability was proven to be correct, or if meditation and acupuncture really could cure illnesses that modern medicine can’t. I honestly would be, because it would make life so much more interesting and fun! However, until they pass the test of skeptical fire, they will never be strong enough to warrant my belief.
I hope that explains my position. I’m not hostile to these things. I’m hostile to accepting them until they have been subject to, and thoroughly passed, all skeptical tests thrown at them. Only then can they be truly strong beliefs.
All the best,
Matt
PS. If you manage to find a publisher, make sure you cut me in on the profits:P
March 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
The photo of St. Silvan isn’t real – it’s a carved effigy that they put on top of a box that supposedly contains his incorrupt remains. His remains are not actually on display at all, which is very disappointing.
St. Bernadette’s face is also entirely wax. They make it sound like there’s only a thin layer of wax that you can see her real face through, but it’s an entire, opaque wax mask, and her hands are fake wax replicas. her ‘real’ face looks pretty mummified (which doesn’t mean that it was artificially mummified – just that she isn’t as spectacularly well-preserved as she appears to be).
March 5th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I recently read the book The Mummy Congress : Science, Obsession, and the Everlasting Dead by Heather Pringle. Incorruptibles were mentioned in the book together with other kind of preserved bodies. Go read it, if you are interested.
I am sure the fact that St Bernadette is currently wearing a wax mask does not weaken the real faithful believers. As in the case of St Clare, although her body is no longer considered as incorrupt, her following is still strong because of what she represents to the believers.
Personally, I feel that it is important not to beleieve everything that others dish out to you. Real faith is not blind faith.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Matt
I was and still am going to come back to your last post.
Now I just want to copy something that I posted somewhere else that you might find interesting.
Greetings, Peter
418 Seque,
You are totally wrong here. Astral projection, out of body perception, telepathy, whatever you wnat to call it, has indeed been shown to exist many times. I intentionally don’t use the word ‘proven’. The problem with proving is that it needs to happen within a context that makes proving impossible.
Suppose you want to show that loving someone increases te likelyhood of having the same thought at the same time. OK, you show it. Now, here comes segue or any skeptic, and says: well that could be a fluke. So now we try it again, and you have to love each other exactly as much as last time, OK ? Otherwise we break a fundamental scientific rule.
You see the probem ? The same goes for telepathy, that as a rule occurs when the brain is functioning on alpha level. How are you going to make your subject’s brain do that ? Shout RELAX!! ?
To think that the millons of people that have witnessed and/or experienced telepathy, astral projection etc. were all crooks or idiots or both, isn’t that stretching it a lot ?
BTW: there are in fact studies that fit your requirements. Check out for instance cardiologist Pim van Lommel’s study into near death experiences and out of body sensory awareness, published in The Lancet in 2001. Totally factual and totally destroying all materialistic explanations. Supported by similar studies in the UK and the US. His book will be published worldwide next year. Brace yourself.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hey Peter,
Just read and did a bit of elementary research on Pim van Lommel’s studies and his research. It is indeed facinating. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with Spirits and Consciousness. So people claim to experience things when they are clinically brain dead. And? Even if you could totally rule out every material event going on in the brain at the time of death how in the hell is that proof of anything else? Take this example:
I claim to know that there is an invisible pink unicorn that is undectable by modern science living in my brain and it is responsible for NDE’s. I do tests, like Dr van Lommel, and rule out any explanation for brain activity and chemistry being responsible for NDE’s. That does not prove the existence of my unicorn, all it does is rule out the contribution of the specific factors originally claimed to be responsible (brain activity, electrical impulses).
It is also extremely important to note that identical, exact replications of NDE’s AND Out-of-Body experiences have been successfully reproduced by stimulating the frontal lobe of the brain with electrical impulses, using Ketamine and other hallucinatory anaestectics and so forth.
Can’t you see that although Dr van Lommel has ruled out (so he says, there is still a lot more research to be done) certain brain activity being responsible for NDE’s, that is not proof of ANYTHING other than we DO NOT KNOW what causes NDE’s YET? You can’t throw in an explanation that has no basis in fact (spirits, external consciousness, telepathy, reading minds) in order to fill in a gap left by our lack of knowledge of a subject. That is what people did when, as they couldn’t explain stars, asserted that they were tears in the sky through which heaven was shining through.
We cannot fill in the gaps of human knowledge with theories that have no basis in evidence. The lack of an explanation is NOT evidence for a certain phenomena! It simply means we do not know the natural reason for it yet.
Oh, and I forgot to reply to one of your points made earlier, in regards to Victor Stenger and him being a ‘ghostbuster’. You reason that he knows nothing of the subject and therefore has no credibility in discussing it. Victor Stenger is a physicist. ANY mention of Energy and the transmission of information through this Energy is COMPLETELY in Stenger’s field. Physicists more than anyone are an authority on the different kinds of Energies that exist in our Universe. So don’t assert that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, because when it comes to different kinds of Energy, he is an authority. Plus you STILL haven’t explained to me what kind of Energy you claim inhabits the human body!!!
PLEASE, what kind of Energy is it? Kinetic, electro-magnetic, what?! Please have an answer for me next time, because if you have to gall to say Stenger doesn’t know what he is talking about, then you yourself must explain what it is he doesn’t understand.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Hi Matt,
well, you beat me to it. I’ll still come back to your previous post. Later though, because my wife has put a limit on the time I can spend on that guy in Australia.
OK, here we go.
‘But I fail to see how this has anything to do with Spirits and Consciousness.’
Somehow, although I have indicated repaetedly that I’m not into spirits and mediums etc., you insist on putting me in that category. Anyway, to answer the question: with spirits ? Nothing. I don’t know why you bring them up. I didn’t.
With consciousness ? Possibly everything. I come back to that later.
What you have missed is that I refered to Van Lommel’s study in relation to out of body experiences. Many patients without basic physical functions later report these. They describe their own body being worked on, and sometimes seeing and hearing things they couldn’t possibly see and hear. Van Lommel (I attended a talk he gave) shows pictures of little children that are stunning and pretty much impossible to interprete in any other way.
About the unicorn: you are totally right here, and I totally agree and always have.
You may forget one thing though: the assumption that matter equals reality and that conscuousness is a function of the brain, is as unproven and as much an assumption as the notion that consciousness equals reality and matter is a manifestation of it. For what it’s worth: Van Lommel admitted he used to adhere to the first and gradually and somewhat grudgingly has accepted that the truth is the latter.
If I were to insits that you prove that matter = reality, you couldn’t.
Now we come to a very important point. You forbid me to say that Victor Stenger doesn’t know what he’s talking about. OK, I won’t say it. I’ll just illustrate my position. You say:
‘It is also extremely important to note that identical, exact replications of NDE’s AND Out-of-Body experiences have been successfully reproduced by stimulating the frontal lobe of the brain with electrical impulses, using Ketamine and other hallucinatory anaestectics and so forth.’
This is exactly what I mean when I write that someone, I won’t mention names, doesn’t know what she (hehe) is talking about. ‘Been succesfully reproduced’. If you realised the following:
- a NDE is a very intense experience
- it takes years to get over it
- many that had them fall into serious depressions
- 50% (and we’re talking about older people here generally) end up divorced
- their life and attitude and worldview is forever changed
wouldn’t you agree that scientists that try to reproduce NDE’s are either 100% immoral or THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT ?
About energy. I don’t know Matt. Give me another word, I don’t care. I am simply saying that we are connected, that this can be observed and experienced and to some extent proven (by definiton not conclusively within a frame that excludes the possibility), and try to put things in words.
The thing is: I know. I mean, I’m an ignorant rather useless middle aged guy. But I know what made Thomas Aquinus say, when he was already a famous scholar and writer, to his publisher who insisted he finish some book he was working on: ‘After what I’ve been shown, I consider all my work untill now to be of the value of straw.’ I know why Einstein said that the rational mind should be the servant of the intuitive mind.
Many people know. And you are teling them: unless you prove to me the reality of your experiences and understanding of life within MY worldview, I must conclude you are misguided.
Well, I can’t. I can point at many researches and reports that together hint at the connectedness I talk about. There are theories that seem quite coherent and valid. However, none of them can be considered conclusive within a materialistic frame. They never can and never will.
Yet, Matt, I know I’m not misguided. My conclusions and theories and words may not be exactly correct, but my knowing is deeper than that of the mind.
Coming back to Van Lommel: he said that his conclusion is that consciousness is fundamental, and that our brain is merely an interface. And he said that there is nothing in the world that contradicts this theory. And this man is your typical rational doctor; not a medium or voodoopriest.
OK, time for bed. greetings
Peter
March 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Hey Peter,
I know we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing I don’t want to do is get you in trouble with your wife;) I’m not that mean!
In regards to the Neurologists who do experiments in order to gauge OBE’s and NDE’s, I would not say they are immoral in the slightest and I assert that they know what they are talking about. You’re argument about immorality hinges on the factor of voluntary involvement. I’m assuming these people weren’t kidnapped in the middle of the night and forced to undergo scary scientific experiments on their brains. I’m assuming they are volunteers who were financially reimbursed for their time, or did it for free. They would have been told of the risks (under law, in Australia anyway). Therefore the neurosurgeons, in my opinion, conducted valid scientific research with the express consent of the patient. I cannot find anything immoral about that.
About ‘misguidedness’: Do I think you’re misguided? Hell yeah! Do you think I’m misguided? Hell yeah! Do priests think atheists are misguided? Yup! Do Muslims think Christians are misguided? Yup! Do those who believe in the Evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium think those biologists who accept a gradual process of Evolution are misguided? You bet. Everyone who holds an opinion thinks that others are misguided. That is a good thing! How boring would intellectual inquiry be if everyone agreed with each other? It would suck! It would be unproductive and redundant. The important thing is not to deny that everyone thinks everyone else who holds a differing argument is misguided, but to address those people in a polite and respectful way. Debate is the lifeblood of intellectual discourse, and without it, we will still be living in the stone ages. So yes, we both think each of us is misguided, but that’s a good thing! If we were sat here swearing and abusing each other it would be ridiculous, but we’re not, we’re having a normal debate in order to explain each others position.
I know that you hold beliefs that I don’t share. I’m not debating you because of that. The whole reason I started arguing with you in the first place is because you asserted that science MUST change in order to accommodate other peoples personal beliefs about ‘energy’, consciousness, astral projection etc etc. I’m simply arguing that the paradigm must not shift yet (not saying it never will), because the anomalies that dictate when a paradigm shift must occur have not been shown to exist yet.
I think you’re last paragraph sums up your position. Due to your fervent belief in this stuff, you have reached the conclusion that you KNOW it is true. You KNOW that science can’t prove it therefore science must change, not your belief. You KNOW that millions of people feel the same things as you, therefore it is more credible than double-blind tests and repeatability. See, I don’t claim to know ANYTHING of the afterlife. Yes, I’m an atheist, but I don’t claim to know that there isn’t a God; I just think it’s highly unlikely. If God were proven to exist tomorrow I would accept it without restraint, not reject it. I believe things based on evidence, and if the evidence changes, my belief changes. My beliefs are not concrete and static; they rely firmly on evidence, and for me, no matter how strong my belief is, the evidence NEVER is rejected, my belief is.
Oh, and about Victor Stenger, I never forbade you to say he doesn’t know what he is talking about. That would be pretty fascistic of me, wouldn’t it:) I’m just saying that if you’re going to make the claim that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, then you have the obligation to explain exactly what it is he doesn’t understand and prove him wrong. I don’t think you can take on Victor Stenger just yet, and I sure as hell can’t because I’m a complete mathematical incompetent! I can respect his knowledge, however, and give him my support based on his strict adherence to evidence and reason.
I’m not sure if Van Lommel is a neurosurgeon, I just thought he was a cardiologist. Is he an expert in the field of neurology? If he is, by all means he is entitled to make radical conclusions about matter relating to the brain. If not, I suspect he may be a bit out of his field. But again, I don’t know which one he is, maybe you could enlighten me?
Anyway, gotta do some work in the land of Oz!
Regards,
Matt
March 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Matt: Thanks for the heads up! Quite entertaining, I must say. Peter is nothing if not persistent, and apparently well read in his own strange way.
Peter: Sorry, dear, but I am *not* wrong. Go back to the Creationism list and read my reply to Tarrentella re: my reply to Mark. It bears directly on this conversation, and might give you a clue as to why some of these “mind reading” events happen between people in love.
Have fun boys!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Hey Segue,
Me and Peter have been having this discussion for months! At first, if I’m being totally honest, I thought he was a complete nutter. But through our conversations I’ve come to respect and actually like him, and quite enjoy our debates, even though we very rarely have anything to agree upon. I have had my eyes opened to some things in a few respects, the most important being that, particularly in the Netherlands, there has been a bit of research done on this stuff. I have disputed this research on the grounds of its credibility, but I still have to confess I had no idea before our chats that this stuff was even being talked about.
I’m sure if you give Peter a chance you will be able to see that although he believes in stuff that you and I don’t believe in, he warrants our respect for being extremely well-read and educated in the subject matter. It’s refreshing to have a debate with someone who has a completely different worldview from us, and is actually able to back-up and justify his beliefs, as opposed to the usual Creationist cretins we have on Listverse who simply put their fingers in their ears and cry “Evolution is just a theory!” I just hope Peter has gotten a little bit out of our conversations in regards to skepticism as I have out of his.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Matt, if you vouch for Peter’s honesty in his beliefs, diametrically opposed to ours though they may be, I am quite willing to give him a listen. As I said above, he seems to be well-read in his own way, which means he’s intelligent, if only we could get him to read our side of the fence I do believe he’d make a formidable companion.
I’m impressed that he never resorts to name-calling, but comes back at you with his own brand of “facts”. That’s refreshing.
I hope he went over to the Creationism list and read my post to Tarrentella, it addresses directly part of the discussion here, why two people, deeply in love, can appear to have a psychic connection.
Anyway, I should get back to bed.
Thank you, Matt, for drawing my attention to this discussion!
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Ladies first Matt.
Segue,
The point of the example I gave was not, if you read carefully, to address the issue of mindreading. The issue was this: some questions and theories lend themselves to the standard repeated double blind test approach, and others don’t. Research into consciousness, love, telepathy etc. is of the latter kind.
And so the problem with ‘It has never been proven’ is that the desired research/proof is of a nature that is smaller in scope than the thing researched. If, indeed, it exists. Which is what we’re trying to establish.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 am
Matt,
First of all, I appreciate your validating my status as a poster in your reaction to Segue. My wife gave me extra time becasue of it.
And yes I do find our exchange interesting. That book may yet be
There’s lot to catch up on. Let me start with this:
‘In regards to the Neurologists who do experiments in order to gauge OBE’s and NDE’s, I would not say they are immoral in the slightest and I assert that they know what they are talking about. You’re argument about immorality hinges on the factor of voluntary involvement.’
I think this comes back to our basic disagreement. To you, and these neurologists, ‘consciousness’ is just a word for functions of the brain. And so, these NDEs that people have, must be something happening in the brain. (And so Van Lommel has to be a neurologist if he wants to do research into consciousness, according to you) Since they make sure the brain itself is not in any way negatively effected by their tests, there doesn’t seem to be much for the neurologists to warn potential guinee pigs about. And so people are willing to be game. Even for free, as you suggest.
Now consider the results of proper research. A NDE is a lifechanging experience. Many of the ones that have one, fall into depression, sometimes for years. Most need forms of psychotheray. Now depression is a serious condition Matt. For years. How attractive is that ? What sane person would accept that ? What about the costs involved ? Who pays for them ?
Furthermore, in almost all cases there is a social effect: estrangement from friends and relatives. Half of the people with a NDE seperate in the years after it. The outlook on life is forever changed.
And you’re saying that people are willing to be a guinee pig for this, even for free ????? You can’t be serious.
Obviously, it is like this. Either
1 these guinee pigs have some kind of experience with lights etc. but no lasting effects of the tests. In which case we’re not talking about NDE and the results have therefore no place in a discussion about NDE.
Or:
2 the guinee pigs in fact do show the effects mentioned above. In which case they (and certainly their health insurence company) would sue the doctors blind. There would be worldwide publicity and the government would step in immediately.
The public outcry etc. being absent, we must conclude that we are dealing with option #1 here. And so, until you show me that the guinee pigs did have genuine NDEs including the after effects, I consider the research you mention dealt with.
About science: I never said that the scientific approach of tests being repeatable, double blind, control groups. etc is in itself wrong. Not at all. The issue is: is that approach applicable to all areas of research ? Is it scientific to claim that unless something is proven in this way, it must be considered non-existent, not true, a hoax, a lie, an illusion ?
You say that no anomalies have been found (it should take only one, rith ?) that warrant a shift in paradigm. I say they have. It may be that I am more gullible in my beliefs than you; it may be that I am more aware than you of emperic and scientific evidence of events that do not fit the ‘matter is all there is’ bill.
This is the qustion, right ?
About ‘knowing’. I don’t claim to know in the sense you use the word in. I am interested in science but not a scientist.
What I mean is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not rational and yet valid. It’s like this:
You have a scientist that has studied water for 11 years. And you have Ian Thorpe, that has studied it for 1 years and spend 4 years of his life in water. Could he not say to the scientist: ‘I know water in a way that you have no clue about’ ?
Similarly I can say that I know what made Thomas of Aquino say that he considered all he had written to be of no more value than straw. That is to say, what kind of experience made him say it. Probably those that had an NDE would claim the same. To take the position that these claims have no value because they cannot be proven, is closing the door to that which people desperately seek.
Which brings me to something you wrote earlier.
‘This doesn’t mean that I will never believe, and honestly, I would be absolutely thrilled if in a few years time psychic ability was proven to be correct, or if meditation and acupuncture really could cure illnesses that modern medicine can’t. I honestly would be, because it would make life so much more interesting and fun! However, until they pass the test of skeptical fire, they will never be strong enough to warrant my belief.’
What I wonder is, if you have a desire that life is actually bigger and deeper than the confinements of a materialistic worldview, why have you never tried to find out by other means than reading and thinking ? For even if next week you read about solid proof of telepathy, or if you saw someone levitating before your eyes, you would still have no idea what Thomas Aquinus or NDE survivors or saints or that guy in Holland talk about.
While I totally understand what you say about things being more solid if they have been tested, I still would ask: what if life requires me to take the first step ? How can we ever know the new if we demand that first it be proven in terms of the old ?
Are you afraid that you’ll become like the people that happily, blindly and often fanatically believe in whatever they were told or appealed to their fancy, thus divorcing themselves from reality ?
I know life can be lived in fantasy. And you are right that there are many experiences that are the result of fantasies and have no connection with real life. If you look back on our discussion though, you will see that I do make this connection. Like, I not only felt a srong energy during a talk, I said it out loud to an audence that I certainly did not want to think of me as a spacecase. The one-armed woman that acknowledged the strong emotion was hers, confirmed that my awareness of it was not the result of a fantasy. The artist that makes art by connecting with a randomised number generator makes that conection, in line with the worldwide experiment that you find interesting. And there are millions and millions more of these connections, if you only look. They all don’t ‘prove’, but strongly suggest that of the two theories
1 consciousnes is a function of matter and has no reality of its own
2 matter is a manifestation of consciousness and has no reality of its own
# 2 is the correct one.
Yet again, longer than planned.
Good morning, have a great day.
Peter
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 am
Hi Peter/Matt
Fascinating discussion. Peter, I am curious to know why you consider telekinesis and telepathy outside the realm of researchable science. If just one person who claims to have either ability were prepared to prove it, it could be tested and verified. The fact they refuse suggests they are charlatans.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest because something can’t be disproven it must be true. Occam’s razor would suggest that there is a materialistic answer to phenomena that are not yet understood.
What do you mean by a 3d world? Science accepts the universe is not 3d. It is not intuitive, but relies on complicated maths. That I cannot visualise it, does not make it scientifically false. The same applies to energy/life force, it could still be proven even though it is counter-intuitive, however the hypothesis is without basis and so cannot be considered a theory.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:41 am
Biscuit,
My wife gave me 5 minutes….
1 It is not at all true that all persons claiming these abilities refuse to be tested. Are you seriously claiming that none of the people that believe they have and/or are believed to have ‘paranormal powers’ (I don’t like the word) were and are sincere ? It must be becasue you have never met any of them.
There was a Dutch paragnost Gerard Croiset, whom no one, including the most skeptic of scientists, would accuse of being a charlatan, The police often consulted him. There’s probably stuff in him on the web.
Anyway, why ? Because these things are not tricks and depend on subtle equilibriums. Obviously, if I can run the 100 meters in 10 flat, I can run them within 11 anytime, and so I can easily prove I have the ability to do this.
Now consider this: a test is done in which some guy shows the ability to guess correctly what another person is drawing. Next month he is invited to show his ability again, and now there is no conclusive result. In accordance with the demand that tests be repeatable, the conclusion is that he is ability is unproven and hence non-existent. The reality could be that his mood was different, his wife was angry with him; anything to speed up his brainwaves and reduce his ability.
2 Yes, that is a fallacy, obviously. We agree on that. Why do you mention it?
3 Scientists accept 11 dimensions, or was it 13 ? However, this means nothing untill we have some clue of what those other dimensions are and how they interrelate with matter. The reality is that as yet the world is divided in the two capms I mentioned.
How do you explain without bringing energy or consciousness into the equation the fact that some people can feel another person’s emotions without seeing them or being near them ?
I mean, I don’t care about the words, but I do care about the reality of a phenomenon reality being denied becasue it cannot be proven in a way that doesn’t acknowledge the possibility in the fist place.
Out of time, but she went to the toilet: I remember a test that was done on Gerard Croiset, in which he waved his hands outside a container and changed what was in it in some amzing way. The scientist doing the reserach said: this will shake the foundation of how we view the world. Well, the research and the results are out there, like many other remarkable results of tests, and it didn’t shake many convictions. Like a prominent Dutch professor says: scientists are like people. What doesn’t suit them, they simply disbelieve.
Was Occam a happy person ?
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Peter
I have met some of them, and they failed to show me they could read my mind. My personal experience is not the issue though, I have never been to Australia, I know it exists.
Saying that they can’t reproduce it, because of other factors, so it still might be true, doesn’t work i’m afraid. Your analogy of a sprinter; the sprinter wouldn’t be able to run sub 11 seconds if he had an injury, but after that injury had healed, and he had trained to full fitness again, the experiment would be repeatable.
Put 1000 telepathic’s in an experiment where they have to state which picture a person is looking at out of 1000 cards. Repeat this 100’s of times per person. Each time with a random choice of picture. Do the same with a control group. A simple, cheap, reproducible experiment. This could prove people could read each others minds. You are much better read at this subject than I, so why can’t they prove telepathy exists?
There are mathematical reasoning’s to suggest an 11 dimension universe, or an unknown number of Branes. That it has no practical application does not make it mean nothing, it is a foundation to build upon. There is as yet no evidence to support an energy/life force situation. Granted it might be true, but as it’s unlikely, and has no evidence, science does not subscribe to it.
I am interested in the Chakra. Could you post a link to the evidence you mentioned of it please? I have had a quick Google, and have not found anything scientific (I’m not saying there isn’t something, just that I haven’t found it).
I am sure many scientists would be loathe to adopt an idea that goes against their beliefs, but science as a whole does, and has changed its theories many times in the past. The improvement in the sciences has meant that many modern theories can still, if disproved, produce astonishingly accurate predictions. It is not true that what doesn’t suit them is always rejected.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Hey Peter, how’s it going?
I’m not saying that it is a necessity for Van Pimmel to be a Neurologist, I’m just saying that I would prefer him to be an expert in a particular field before I take his opinion about that subject as extremely credible. However, like I said, his input and the quality of it is not solely based on qualifications. I just think his experiments and results don’t prove anything other than some particular people experience certain sensations (around 15% of people) when they are unconscious. It is interesting to note that also around 15% of people who have suffered cardiac arrest have extremely elevated blood pressure during and after the episode. Again, this is just one mundane explanation that needs to be explored before jumping to an all-existing cosmic-consciousness as a theory, as it could explain how blood drains slower from the brain which leads to still functioning if not detectable neurons, hence, NDE’s.
Whether or not the experiments are immoral or moral (still moral I would argue, due to the importance I place on human autonomy, making their own choices and such), it still doesn’t alter the fact that these seemingly unexplainable cosmic phenomena (NDE’s) can be easily produced by humans. This suggests to me a strong material explanation.
In regards to science not being only one way of gaining knowledge, ‘knowing things’ if you will, I completely agree. I could not in all good conscience ask someone to ‘prove’ to me they love their wife or husband, or if they could ‘prove’ that a certain food tastes good to them, and so on and so forth. These things rely on metaphysical concepts that, by that very definition, cannot be explored by physical experiments. However, there is a big difference to what you are claiming.
You are claiming that these phenomena (reading minds, telekinesis, homeopathy, ‘energy’) cannot be explored by our current materialistic science. The problem is that these phenomena ARE physical, they ARE within the bounds of testing, and they ARE linked to the materialistic paradigm. Once you claim that a phenomena like telekinesis or homeopathy works, you enter that phenomena into the realm of the physical, therefore obligating it to be tested.
What I see time and time again in your posts is that you kind of flip-flop between deriding ‘materialistic’ science and endorsing it. One week you will say that current science cannot prove mind reading, telekinesis or homeopathy, the next week you will point me to a scientific article that you claim proves it. One week you will say science needs to change in order to better understand these things, the next you will point me to someone like Van Pimmel in order to try and convince me that NDE’s have been ’scientifically proven’. Which one is it Peter? You either have to tell me exactly which phenomena CAN be tested by science and then point me to experiments which prove it, or you have to tell me that in NO WAY can current science claim to test it, and then explain exactly why that is.
If I may quote something in regards to homeopathy (of which I am still unsure of it’s merits, could be positive [providing pain relief], or negative [being used when modern medicine is more useful]:
“As homeopathy has great trouble in showing any effect above placebo in trials, homeopaths will often state something like this quote from the Society of Homeopaths:
“It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.”
This is known as special pleading – a hallmark of pseudoscientific reasoning. In science, if something cannot pass a properly controlled trial the logical conclusion is that it doesn’t work. With homeopathy (and other alternative medicines) the supporters tend to start with with the conclusion (i.e. homeopathy works) and when it fails in properly controlled trials they conclude that homeopathy works but properly controlled trials are not the way to prove it!
In reality, homeopathy is ideally suited to Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as the remedies can be given in pill form. Homeopaths say that each remedy needs to be individually tailored to the patient so it cannot be tested in RCTs, but in reality, this merely adds a level of complexity to the trial design. It can still be done.” – UK Skeptics.
I know the website isn’t impartial, but it does outline the kind of stuff you constantly keep saying. Along the lines of ‘I believe that this phenomena exists, and if I cannot find proof of it, then it is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD that must change, NOT the belief’.
I think I’ve covered that. I just want to talk about experiencing things. I know that my senses can easily deceive me. My eyes, my ears, my nose and my fingers are not infallible; if I see a lovely, inviting Oasis in the desert, in my desperation for a drink I will willingly believe that it exists. It is most likely, however, a mirage. It is the same with feeling ‘energy’ and reading minds and so forth. If I go out into the world HELLBENT on experiencing these things, I most likely will! But they will not be real; they will be illusions, merely my senses fooling me due to my irrational desire to believe something for which there is NO EVIDENCE. That is why, when we talk of the physical, before I believe something I need proof. All the things you claim, as Biscuit eloquently put it, ARE testable by current science. It’s just that every test put forth by reputable, objective researchers has returned negative results. That is why I don’t believe in these things yet, even though if I tried hard enough I could probably convince myself that it did exist. This wouldn’t be knowledge; it would be pure self-delusion. I am not saying YOU are deluded, I just think that your extreme desire to believe in this stuff leads you to accepting it based on pure experience, which as I’ve explained can be easily corrupted by our 5 senses.
Let me know what you think, and If you could provide me with a list of which specific phenomena CAN be tested by current science (after which you must then provide proof), and then phenomena which would necessitate a complete shift in the current paradigm (after which you need to explain to me why). I don’t think it’s helpful to keep telling me that current materialistic scientific methods cannot be used to prove your claims, and then pointing me to fringe scientists (Sheldrake, Chopra etc) saying that they have proved it using that very same method!
Cheers,
Matt
March 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
i’ve heard the corpses ae decaying. what skin you can see is a wax cover. the sweet smell from them is embalming fluid. dont know if thats true, but to me seems more realistic.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Don’t believe everything you’re told. Many of these are wax masks, including St. Bernadette. See this link and than make up your own mind http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4126#
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 am
The Bible is not the word of God.It is written by devoted Christians many years after Jesus.
The Incorruptible phenomenon is a natural phenomenon.
Please note the two ways clearly shown here how religion and science confront strange matters.
People can choose !
You can follow religion or science as you can choose how much do you want to be informed about the world around you.
More information doesn’t necessarily guarantees survival for the human genus.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 am
mehdi: I think you will find the Jews offended by your statement that the Bible was written by Christians many years after Christ – the old testament goes back to Moses. As for the new testament, it is clearly accepted by historians to have been written in the 1st century AD – max 90 AD (for Apocalypse) which means the youngest book of the Bible was written 57 years after Jesus died.
This is not speaking as a matter of faith – you will find all the authentic writings of the early Church fathers (Clement, etc.) quote from what we now call the New Testament.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The bible we have today in all the thousands of denominations came from the Catholic church, and was assembled by Catholic saints. For 1500 years the bible was made known by the priest giving his homily and quoting the bible. There wasn’t a printing press until much later. Now all these christian denominations say they are bible based- but why don’t they stop and think where it came from? These incorrupt saints are living testaments for the power of the Eucharist. Why God chose some and not others to be incorrupt is his deal, sometimes we are not to ask questions, but are to just trust and surrender to the higher authority, he created the universe after all. Also, not mentioned, are the 100’s of Eucharistic miracles where the host turned into living, bleeding flesh, or a pulsating heart. Modern science has proved these are real, hundreds have witnessed and testified to these miracles over the centuries.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hi Matt,
I wrote to you on the wrong list. http://listverse.com/bizarre/top-10-unsolved-mysteries/#comments
May 9th, 2009 at 6:51 am
when i was in italy i saw an incorrupt corpse. it was in a cathedral in florence (i think it was) behind a gold gate so you couldnt see much of it but you could tell it was a woman. has anyone else seen anything like this?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I saw a picture of St. Bernadette months ago and on a whim decided to search for other incorrupt saints. I think all of them are rather unnerving. If the figures on display are actor, actresses, or copies, then it would be very disappointing for churches to be lying.
Human beings are far from perfect and the past is past.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Interesting stuff but?
Quotes from Brian Dunning very shortened.
St Bernadette has had her features recreated in wax.
St Silvan is a sculped effigy with the remains in a box below said effegy.
I do not know but the link was of interest.
One thing fore sure St Silvan sure looks pretty lifelike, real I mean, if an effegy it is something else.
Link.
skeptoid.com/episodes/4126
May 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
It is the natural human state to decompose and go back to the earth when dead. So I would probably reverse the logic and say these bodies are corrupted in some way rather than saying they are incorrupt. The terms “corrupt/incorrupt” are quite one-sided, though, lending a “good vs. evil” connotation to it all. I would probably use the term “anomalous” instead. It seems a bit selfish to keep the bodies entombed, albeit “incorrupt”, instead of letting them go back to the earth from which they came. Sure, they are a symbol for others to look at, but the dead deserve their peace and chance to be reborn.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
There is only one truth…
There is only one death…
Nobody can defeat death….
until…..
Price was paid by the one who can pay the price…
he said …
“I am life and resurrection”
He could have saved his dear friend Lazarus (brother of Mary Magdalene and Martha) because he was prior informed that Lazarus was sick. Though it was painful for him… he came 3 days after Lazarus was dead. It is clearly mentioned that Lazarus was decomposing …. He said…. Lazarus… come out…
Body’s destiny is sin.
Wisdom and knowledge is entirely different and have different course.
Knowledge is science… but Wisdom is greater than Science….
A man is born in his fullness…. that is childhood…. he looses his innocence to judge this world… to judge right and wrong….
Some succeed…. some do not…
Some think that this world is of no use… when he compares it to the world beyond…
Nobody can explain this..
U feel it .
That is why it was said…
Those who are poor are the blessed ones..
Those who are poor in their soul are the blessed oness..
etc….
The answer is Jesus himself…
Only the needy will understand….
I am a totally scientific guy….
Think who made… science…
June 24th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Those who have faith will believe and those who don’t have faith will never believe. The Eastern orthodox Catholic Church has always had some Saints who are uncorrupt and others who are corrupt.
The bodies of these Holy Saints give off sweet smelling oils which have healing powers, this was always the case in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The truth is not something the truth is someone Jesus the Christ is the truth.
How can we provide proof that God Exists, any proof to the non believer won’t be good enough. Look at creation, nothing was left to chance, God dosen’t throw the dice.
The earth is at the perfect distance from the sun to provide us with heat & light and to allow plants to grow- Just an accident- the air we breath has just the correct amount of oxygen to support our life-another accident- we are protcted from harmful rays from outerspace-accident-a little closer to the sun and we would burn, a little farther away and we would freeze- you got it-accident. your Heart beats around 103,000 times per day need any more proof. God is a mystery, his thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not ours. I am sorry for all who have been hurt in anyway, I pray that you find your way home very soon, God seeks you and loves you.
Michael
June 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
JF: here is another incorrupt corpse. Her name was Frances Xavier Cabrini. The church is located in my neighborhood, I always found it fascinating whenever I went. Here’s some background info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Xavier_Cabrini
photo: http://www.overcomeproblems.com/images/StCabrini.jpg
June 29th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Don’t believe everything that you are fed. No corpse will be preserved in any higher frequency than another based on the duty of their lives. Instead look for material reasons beyond such preservation. Human intervention being the most likely in these cases to the numerous and well-known situations in which preservation can and continues to occur to any number of deceased.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
From “The Incorruptibles” by Joan Carroll Cruz:
Preserved bodies found in countries around the world can be divided into three classifications: the deliberately preserved, the accidentally preserved, and the incorruptibles. Specimens of the accidentally or naturally preserved were found even before Egyptian Pharoah times, when the art of embalming originated, producing for the first time the deliberately treated mummies which have survived for as many as three thousand years. The incorruptibles, however, have existed only since early Christian days. Their preservations since that time have challenged the opinions of skeptics and contradicted and defied the laws of nature, all to the dismay of many examining physicians and the admiration of succeeding generations
The more carefully we consider the preservation of the incorruptibles, the more baffling does the subject become, for their conservation seems to be neither dependent on the manner of burial nor on the temperature or place of interment. Nor were they adversely affected by extended delays between the time of death and their burials, by moisture in the tombs, by rough handling, by frequent transferences, by covering with quicklime, or by their proximity to decaying corpses. The greater majority were never embalmed or treated in any manner, yet most were found lifelike, flexible, and sweetly scented many years after death, in sharp contrast to the specimens of the other two classifications above, who without exception were found stiff, discolored, and skeletal. The mystery of their preservations is further compounded by the observance of blood and clear oils–which have proceeded from a number of these holy relics–a phenomenon which again, needless to say, was never recorded with regard to the deliberately or accidentally preserved.
In order for the reader to appreciate fully the truly phenomenal, highly mysterious, and in most cases, absolutely miraculous aspects of the incorruptibles, it is of the utmost importance that we examine, however briefly, the methods employed in the deliberate preservation of human bodies from ancient times to our modern day, and the conditions favoring the accidental or natural preservation of human remains. Final consideration will be given to the incorruptibles, with an analysis of their attending prodigies.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
I have been to Lourdes and to Never where Bernadettes body is, it is an amazing and wondrful site.
All I can say is “to those who believe, no explanation is nessesary, to those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
all this grate miracles proves us that loving and serving God is all worth it.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I just think I’m gonna start to dig out all of my relatives, to see if I find an incorrputed corpse among them!!! Hehehehe
Then, put him/her in the living room!!! Hahaha
August 25th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
St. Bernadette looks like she could wake up and start walking and talking any time.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
does the incorruptibility of the saint extend to their clothing? Or does someone actually touch the saint to change their cloths?
September 9th, 2009 at 7:46 am
wow, this is amazing… the man dead in 350 is incredible! i mean, it’s the medieval ages, and his body and face are incorrupted.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Are those relics real? Truly it is a miracle!
September 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Have you read anything about St. Francis Xavier? When he died, they packed his body in lime. It was used as an acid to speed the decomposition so they could carry the bones from China(?) to India. It did not work. That was 500 years ago and his body is still there.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If necrophilia was legal Saint Bernadette of Lourdes would be top of my list.
High Five!