IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags stigmata

Reply
Old 27th February 2005, 01:38 PM   #1
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
What you think of stigmata?

Stigmata refers to the bleeding wounds found on the hands, feet, chest and sometimes other parts of the body. Now it seems to me that since many of these people who develop stigmata have been under close surveillance, and indeed, on a few occasions, observers have watched the bleeding develop before their very eyes, it would be reasonable to exclude artifactual wounding in the great majority of cases.

It was originally supposed that stigmata was a result of a special grace bestowed on saints or saintlike persons. But it now seems much more reasonable to suppose that the bleeding is psychosomatic in origin (I won't bother arguing that it is not a special grace bestowed upon them given that the vast majority of people on here will probably agree with me about that!)

Now it seems to me that this phenomenon is of the exact same type as certain other related phenomena. For example, to quote Ian Stevenson (the world's leading researcher of apparent past life memories in children):

Quote:

A mother sometimes develops imitated or "sympathetic" at the same location as a child has a pain say from a toothache. Sometimes the imitated effects go beyond pain and include visible changes in the tissues affected. For example, one mother watching her little son at play saw a heavy window sash fall on his hand and crush three of his fingers. She immediately felt severe pain in the same fingers that had been injured in her son; and afterward her fingers became swollen and inflamed so that pus developed in them and had to be evacuated.

Where Reincarnation And Biology Intersect p 15 Ian Stevenson.
And also from the same book:

Quote:

Between about 1880 and 1930 a large number of experiments were conducted to study the induction of blisters on the skin of hypnotised subjects. To indicate the proposed site for the blister, the hypnotist will sometimes touch the subject at the place with some object, usually a cold one. The subject was told, or led to believe, that he or she was being burned. Many subjects responded with the blister at indicated site, as if they had been burned.
Now it seems to me that what we have here is precisely the same type of paranormal phenomenon. It seems that a strong belief by the mind can induce actual physical effects on the surface of the skin such as wounds or blisters etc.

Are people in agreement with me that we are basically talking about the same phenomenon here? Do people believe that this phenomenon actually occurs? Comments please.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 01:43 PM   #2
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Re: What you think of stigmata?

Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Stigmata refers to the bleeding wounds found on the hands, feet, chest and sometimes other parts of the body. Now it seems to me that since many of these people who develop stigmata have been under close surveillance, and indeed, on a few occasions, observers have watched the bleeding develop before their very eyes, it would be reasonable to exclude artifactual wounding in the great majority of cases.
Why? People don't lie?

Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For example, to quote Ian Stevenson (the world's leading researcher of apparent past life memories in children):
Ian, you don't want to go there...

Book Review - Ian Stevenson: "Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation"

The Apparent Belief System of Ian Stevenson
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:14 PM   #3
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Re: Re: What you think of stigmata?

Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why? People don't lie?
Yes people lie, but it is unreasonable to suppose everyone is lying here. As I say, stigmata seems to be the same type of phenomenon as blisters being produced under hypnosis and "sympathetic pains". Are you denying them all??


Quote:
RichardR is a sKeptic who posts on here. Most unbiased people who have read Stevenson's books think that he is very objective and has provided compelling evidence. REgardless, I shall decide for myself by reading his books, not by a sKeptic deciding for me. I don't wish to discuss reincarnation anyway.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:17 PM   #4
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes people lie, but it is unreasonable to suppose everyone is lying here. As I say, stigmata seems to be the same type of phenomenon as blisters being produced under hypnosis and "sympathetic pains". Are you denying them all??
No, I am saying that until we have found a way of distinguishing between the liars and the truth-tellers, we cannot know anything about such cases.

How do you suggest we do that?

Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
RichardR is a sKeptic who posts on here. Most unbiased people who have read Stevenson's books think that he is very objective and has provided compelling evidence. REgardless, I shall decide for myself by reading his books, not by a sKeptic deciding for me. I don't wish to discuss reincarnation anyway.
That's fine. You brought up Stevenson, you brought up past lives experiences, you prepare to be challenged.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:27 PM   #5
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,665
Quote:
For example, one mother watching her little son at play saw a heavy window sash fall on his hand and crush three of his fingers. She immediately felt severe pain in the same fingers that had been injured in her son; and afterward her fingers became swollen and inflamed so that pus developed in them and had to be evacuated.

Where Reincarnation And Biology Intersect p 15 Ian Stevenson.
Does Stevenson provide any more information to back this story up?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:31 PM   #6
Goshawk
Graduate Poster
 
Goshawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
As I say, stigmata seems to be the same type of phenomenon as blisters being produced under hypnosis
Yes, exactly--they're bothl in the category of "things that nobody has ever videotaped actually happening."

If I saw genuine real-time video of stigmata (or of hypnosis-induced blisters, for that matter) I'd believe in them.

As it is, isn't it funny that with so many people owning cheap video cams nowadays, that we still don't have any video footage of stigmata? We've got tornados on video, we've got floods on video, we've got earthquakes and blizzards and police beatings and bridge collapses all on video, we've even got the World Trade Center and the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt on video-- but so far not a single person with a videocam who knows someone who's experiencing mysterious bleeding wounds on his hands and feet has ever rushed home and grabbed his Sony and rushed back and started filming. Why is that?

Quote:
Are you denying them all??
Just the ones that aren't supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Ian. Is that or is that not about the millionth time you've heard someone say that?
Goshawk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:48 PM   #7
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I am saying that until we have found a way of distinguishing between the liars and the truth-tellers, we cannot know anything about such cases.

How do you suggest we do that?
This is absurd. We can say that about anything. Suppose you'd never had toothache in your life. You therefore don't really know if it exists because people might be lying. But even acknowledging this possibility it would be extremely unreasonable to suppose that toothache doesn't exist!

So Claus, what is your position? That it is reasonable to suppose stigmata occurs, although you do not know it occurs with incorrigible certitude? If so . .well obviously! But this fails to address the question of my post; namely whether we are talking about the same basic phenomenon here in stigmata, blisters induced under hypnosis, and sympathetic pains.


Quote:
That's fine. You brought up Stevenson, you brought up past lives experiences, you prepare to be challenged.
Huh?? But I am obliged to say who the author is for anyone I quote!
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:57 PM   #8
El Greco
Summer worshipper
 
El Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 16,667
There are a lot of sick bastards out there but the fact that they hurt themselves instead of others and their claiming that goddidit makes them more believable ? How ?

AFAIAC this is akin to Munchausen's Syndrome (by Proxy, where Proxy=God )

From DiMaio Forensic Pathology:

Quote:
Forensic pathologists are familiar with a much more lethal version of this entity in which the individual, again virtually always the mother, repeatedly smothers the child into unconsciousness. Children are then either resuscitated by the parent or brought to an emergency room in a semi-moribund state, with a history of apnea, cyanosis, and losing consciousness. This continues to recur until the children are admitted to the hospital. After admission, the children are worked up extensively, with no abnormal findings. Usually, these children never have these episodes of apnea and cyanosis while in the hospital. If they do, a careful history reveals that the parents who have witnessed these attacks outside the hospital are alone with the children in the hospital room at the time the attack occurs. After discharge from the hospital, the “attacks” continue until either the diagnosis is made or the children killed.
Such mothers have been known to be absolutely convincing and many doctors actually believe that the infant died of SIDS since the findings are often the same. There are people out there who smother their own kids for no reason; I don't see why there shouldn't be others unstable enough to prick themselves repeatedly.
__________________
"Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht

El Greco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 02:59 PM   #9
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo
Does Stevenson provide any more information to back this story up?
This book I am quoting to use Ian Stevenson's words "introduces and condenses a much longer one entitled "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects" That work is a medical monograph with extensive documentation, references, numerous tables, and many footnotes. This book has none of these. I have written it to satisfy the needs of readers who wish to understand the essential content of the larger work without troubling themselves over details".

So yes he does, but I don't have them. But sympathetic pains are common. And besides, it seems to me to be unreasonable to accept that hypnosis can produce blisters and the state of one's mind can produce bleeding wounds, but, on the other hand, to a prior reject sympathetic pains.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:05 PM   #10
Vortex
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 151
Have any evidence that stigmata isn't produced by anything other than fakery, Ian? Anecdotes won't do. Has anyone won Randi's Challenge yet by demonstrating stigmata? Why do you think that is?
Vortex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:18 PM   #11
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Goshawk
Yes, exactly--they're bothl in the category of "things that nobody has ever videotaped actually happening."
Good, so you agree with me that they stand or fall together.

Quote:

If I saw genuine real-time video of stigmata (or of hypnosis-induced blisters, for that matter) I'd believe in them.
I think this will be difficult for stigmata since it is inherently unpredictable. I agree with you about the hypnosis induced blisters though. If there is indeed no video of this phenomenon than this seems strange.

Ian Stevenson says this about hypnosis induced blisters:

"I believe that the evidence is strong enough to convince all but the most resolute skeptics that the phenomenon is genuine".

It looks like most people here are resolute skeptics, as if I didn't know that!

Tell me, do you agree that hypnosis greatly lubricates, so to speak, the psychophysiological processes of the body?


Quote:

As it is, isn't it funny that with so many people owning cheap video cams nowadays, that we still don't have any video footage of stigmata? We've got tornados on video, we've got floods on video, we've got earthquakes and blizzards and police beatings and bridge collapses all on video, we've even got the World Trade Center and the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt on video-- but so far not a single person with a videocam who knows someone who's experiencing mysterious bleeding wounds on his hands and feet has ever rushed home and grabbed his Sony and rushed back and started filming. Why is that?
Are you able to back this assertion up that there is no video evidence whatsoever?

Quote:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Ian. Is that or is that not about the millionth time you've heard someone say that?
But obviously I disagree that these are extraordinary claims. In what way are they extraordinary?
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:20 PM   #12
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by El Greco
I don't see why there shouldn't be others unstable enough to prick themselves repeatedly.
As I said, the evidence very strongly suggests that this is not so.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:32 PM   #13
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Vortex
Have any evidence that stigmata isn't produced by anything other than fakery, Ian? Anecdotes won't do. Has anyone won Randi's Challenge yet by demonstrating stigmata? Why do you think that is?
They would be the very last people in the world to apply for the challenge. To quote Stevenson:

"These people are fully absorbed in the life and death of Jesus and determined to be as much like him as they possibly can. It is difficult for the ordinary person to understand the intense identification with Jesus that some of them have achieved. In doing so, their concentration on his wounds act to produce similar lesions in themselves".
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:55 PM   #14
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,665
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So yes he does, but I don't have them.
Or at least you think he does.
Quote:
But sympathetic pains are common.
I'm not questioning the "sympathetic pain" part of the anecdote. It's the physical symptoms, i.e. swelling and (especially) pus formation that I would question.
Quote:
And besides, it seems to me to be unreasonable to accept that hypnosis can produce blisters and the state of one's mind can produce bleeding wounds, but, on the other hand, to a prior reject sympathetic pains.
I think you've got the cart before the horse here. Pain can have psychological origins as well as physical. I suspect that most of the posters in this thread would accept the idea that observing an injury to someone else, especially a close relative or friend, would have a powerful psychological effect and possibly produce empathic sensations (not just injury/pain, in fact; if I mention fleas, for example, it will probably make at least some of the people reading this post feel itchy). On the other hand, people do seem to be asking for better evidence for your assertions that states of mind or hypnosis can produce physical injuries.

There's a significant difference between pain, which is a subjective phenomenon (it is usually a symptom of a physical injury or condition, but often has a psychological component) and actual objectively observable physical symptoms, like blisters or stigmata.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 03:57 PM   #15
Vortex
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They would be the very last people in the world to apply for the challenge.
Not even one? LOL.
Quote:
To quote Stevenson:

"These people are fully absorbed in the life and death of Jesus and determined to be as much like him as they possibly can. It is difficult for the ordinary person to understand the intense identification with Jesus that some of them have achieved. In doing so, their concentration on his wounds act to produce similar lesions in themselves".
Ahhh, that must be it then... their intense identification with Jesus is just too much for them to want to pick up a measly million dollars that would help to feed the poor. Sounds much akin to the excuses used by "psychics". Too funny.
Vortex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:06 PM   #16
Vortex
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I said, the evidence very strongly suggests that this is not so.
Which evidence? You mean the anecdotal kind presented in a book... by Stevenson no less?
Vortex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 04:38 PM   #17
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Re: What you think of stigmata?

Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... Now it seems to me that since many of these people who develop stigmata have been under close surveillance, and indeed, on a few occasions, observers have watched the bleeding develop before their very eyes, it would be reasonable to exclude artifactual wounding in the great majority of cases...
Typical attention solicitation and you johns bit.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:18 PM   #18
Goshawk
Graduate Poster
 
Goshawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Are you able to back this assertion up that there is no video evidence whatsoever?
Ummmmmm...

[long thoughtful pause]

Ian?

You're the one making the claim here--that means that you're the one who has to produce evidence of your claim.

Not me.

See?

It's not my job to prove that there's no video of stigmata or hypnosis-induced blisters--that's already self-evident. It's like saying there's no video of Michael Jackson molesting a zebra. I don't have to produce "evidence" that something doesn't exist. You have to produce evidence that something does exist.

It's your job to produce some video OF stigmata or hypnosis-induced blisters.


Quote:
In what way are they extraordinary?
Ummmmmmm...

[another long thoughtful pause]

Ian?

Because...they're not ordinary things that ordinarily happen to ordinary people? Because neither you nor I nor Jeff Corey nor Claus nor Randi nor the girl behind the counter at McDonalds can produce either blisters or bleeding wounds on our hands and feet simply by thinking about it? And because this is not an ordinary talent of ordinary people, we term it "extraordinary"?

That's "the way in which they are extraordinary".

Quote:
do you agree that hypnosis greatly lubricates, so to speak, the psychophysiological processes of the body?
Dunno. What do you mean by that? "Lubricates"? Hanh?
Goshawk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:23 PM   #19
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo
Or at least you think he does.
We have absolutely no reason to suppose he does not provide all the references. I would have ordered that book instead of this condensed version, but the damn thing is 3500 pages long and I couldn't imagine my local library getting hold of it any time soon. But why don't you get hold of it and check out all the references?

Quote:

I'm not questioning the "sympathetic pain" part of the anecdote. It's the physical symptoms, i.e. swelling and (especially) pus formation that I would question. I think you've got the cart before the horse here. Pain can have psychological origins as well as physical. I suspect that most of the posters in this thread would accept the idea that observing an injury to someone else, especially a close relative or friend, would have a powerful psychological effect and possibly produce empathic sensations (not just injury/pain, in fact; if I mention fleas, for example, it will probably make at least some of the people reading this post feel itchy). On the other hand, people do seem to be asking for better evidence for your assertions that states of mind or hypnosis can produce physical injuries. There's a significant difference between pain, which is a subjective phenomenon (it is usually a symptom of a physical injury or condition, but often has a psychological component) and actual objectively observable physical symptoms, like blisters or stigmata.
I ask you what I asked Goshawk and we'll take it from there:

Do you agree that hypnosis greatly lubricates, so to speak, the psychophysiological processes of the body?

Anyway, read all these for a kick off.
  • Ullman & Dudek, 1960, "On the psyche and warts: II. Hypnotic suggestion and warts," Psychosomatic Medicine, 22:68-76
  • Rulison, 1942, "Warts, A statistical study of nine hundred and twenty one cases," Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology, 46:66-81.
  • Asher, 1956, "Respectable Hypnosis," British Medical Journal, 1: 309-312
  • R.F.Q. Johnson and T.X. Barber, 1976, "Hypnotic suggestions for blister formation: Subjective and physiological effects," American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18: 172-181.
  • Mason, 1955, "Icthyosis and hypnosis," British Medical Journal, 2: 57-58.
  • M. Ullman, 1947, "Herpes Simplex and second degree burn induced under hypnosis, American Journal of Psychiatry, 103: 828-830.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:25 PM   #20
Chocolate Chip
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 581
Apparently, the first known cases of stigmata were reported in 1222, an englishman named Stephen Langton and St Francis of Assissi. Why weren't there any cases before this time? Believers in Christ were around before the 1200's, obviously. Would it not be safe to assume that if there were any cases of "stigmata" before the 1200's, that they would have been reported and recorded as well? But there seems to be nothing of the sort.
from:
http://de.essortment.com/historyofstigm_rerf.htm
Quote:
The first recorded case of these wounds was in the year 1222, by a man named Stephen Langton of England. St. Francis of Assissi, a famous follower of Jesus, experienced wounds in 1224.
There are cases of fraudulent stigmata:
from:
http://skepdic.com/stigmata.html
Quote:
There have been several hundred others since, including Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560) of Spain (who admitted her fraud when she became seriously ill)
Could it be possible through the power of suggestion as stated previously. A more unlikely explanation would be psychosomatic. Something similar to this:
from:http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/SupernatStigmata90.htm
Quote:
One possible answer to this question was provided in an experiment described by V. Finne (1927) in "The Word as a Physiological and Therapeutic Factor.""Subject M., 35 years old, easily suggestible, was put up into a state of suggested sleep after which a copper coin was applied to the inner side of her left forearm with the suggestion that it was a burning- hot metal disk; as a result the subject sustained a heavy burn and felt acute pain." After awakening she was continuously watched by one of the physicians, a member of the conference. According to the record of observation, twenty-five minutes after the aforesaid suggestion and upon awa-kening, the skin was red at the point of the "bum", fifty-five minutes later, a swelling was observed; two and one half hours later a white spot appeared in the centre of the "burned" spot, and three and one half hours later a blister formed. Under deep hypnosis a suggestion to the effect of "burning" makes a second degree burn on that spot on the body of the subject where the hypnotist or operator wanted it to occur. "
Most likely explanation would be fraud as it is the simplest, whether intentional or by someone mentally disturbed.
Less likely but more plausible than a "miracle" would be a psychosomatic reason. Although I know of no stigmatic being put under observation or study by qualified doctors/scientists.
__________________
SkepticalCommunity ROCKS !!
Chocolate Chip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:32 PM   #21
Goshawk
Graduate Poster
 
Goshawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,451
Ian, warts are completely different from stigmata and hypnotic induction of blisters. I myself at age 9 had a wart on my right middle finger removed by my grandpa, who tied a string around the finger, then took the string off, and together we buried it with great ceremony in the backyard, with him telling me that the string would take my wart with it.

And a number of months later I noticed my wart was gone, but I wasn't surprised, because I already knew that my grandpa could fix anything.

Stop trying to weasel out of your original topic and attempting to change the subject to something not *quite* so woo.


Quote:
I think this will be difficult for stigmata since it is inherently unpredictable.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm
Quote:
...At twenty-two [Marie de Moerl] received the stigmata. On Thursday evening and Friday these stigmata shed very clear blood, drop by drop, becoming dry on the other days.
Goshawk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:41 PM   #22
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Not too many people know about this, but I think it's about time that it be told.
I was born with two heads, but my uncle Ferd tied one off and it dried up and fell off.
Uncle Ferd swore 'twas true.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 05:48 PM   #23
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Goshawk

II
quote:Are you able to back this assertion up that there is no video evidence whatsoever?

Goshawk
Ummmmmm...

[long thoughtful pause]

Ian?

You're the one making the claim here--that means that you're the one who has to produce evidence of your claim.
Excuse me? I have made no claim. I respectfully suggest you reread my opening post. I asked if stigmata, blisters being produced under hypnosis, and sympathetic pains (and their effects) are really the same phenomenon at heart. Since when is asking questions making a claim?

You, however, have made a claim. I take it that you're unable to back it up?

Quote:

It's not my job to prove that there's no video of stigmata or hypnosis-induced blisters--that's already self-evident.
LMAO!! And yet sKeptics deny that they decide a priori that no paranormal phenomena exists {shakes head sadly}

Quote:


It's like saying there's no video of Michael Jackson molesting a zebra. I don't have to produce "evidence" that something doesn't exist. You have to produce evidence that something does exist.
But it's a priori unlikely that such a MJ video exists. Actually I'm in agreement. I mean since stigmata is inherently unpredictable, and uncommon, it's very easy to imagine there is no video evidence. Still, you must justify your assertions.

Quote:
II
In what way are they extraordinary?


Goshawk
Ummmmmmm...

[another long thoughtful pause]

Ian?

Because...they're not ordinary things that ordinarily happen to ordinary people? Because neither you nor I nor Jeff Corey nor Claus nor Randi nor the girl behind the counter at McDonalds can produce either blisters or bleeding wounds on our hands and feet simply by thinking about it? And because this is not an ordinary talent of ordinary people, we term it "extraordinary"?
I think you're getting confused between a rare phenomenon and an extraordinary one. A rare phenomenon need not be extraordinary.

Quote:
do you agree that hypnosis greatly lubricates, so to speak, the psychophysiological processes of the body?

Goshawk

Dunno. What do you mean by that? "Lubricates"? Hanh?
Makes it easier for psychophysiological processes to take place.

Answer the question
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:00 PM   #24
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
Apparently, the first known cases of stigmata were reported in 1222, an englishman named Stephen Langton and St Francis of Assissi. Why weren't there any cases before this time? Believers in Christ were around before the 1200's, obviously. Would it not be safe to assume that if there were any cases of "stigmata" before the 1200's, that they would have been reported and recorded as well? But there seems to be nothing of the sort.
from:
http://de.essortment.com/historyofstigm_rerf.htm

There are cases of fraudulent stigmata:
from:
http://skepdic.com/stigmata.html

Could it be possible through the power of suggestion as stated previously. A more unlikely explanation would be psychosomatic. Something similar to this:
from:http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/SupernatStigmata90.htm

Most likely explanation would be fraud as it is the simplest, whether intentional or by someone mentally disturbed.
Less likely but more plausible than a "miracle" would be a psychosomatic reason. Although I know of no stigmatic being put under observation or study by qualified doctors/scientists.
No one is suggesting it is a miracle. I'm arguing that stigmata is psychosomatic. Now I'm in agreement that since this phenomenon is less than a thousand years old I would normally view it with suspicion. I'm always saying that I view with great suspicion any alleged paranormal phenomenon that is not universal. But by linking it to blister formation under hypnosis it becomes vastly more reasonable to believe in it (unless you reject blister formation under hypnosis as well!).

Fraud does indeed occur, but Ian Stevenson tells us they only amount to a few instances and in that in the great majority of cases we can be confident that the wounds are not deliberately inflicted.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:03 PM   #25
DangerousBeliefs
Graduate Poster
 
DangerousBeliefs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,299
Like demons and spirits, stigmata appears to have receded from humanity for the most part.

One could say that it's because we're less godly today but I perfer to believe it's a lot harder to get away with such trickery. After all, a modern stigmata is really going to have to be bleeding THEIR blood in order for us to believe them.

The very very rare real stigmata (has there been a proven real stigmata to date?) can easily be explained not by divine powers but by the wonders of the human body. Extra-ordinary people can do extraordinary things with their bodies.

So, just a side show item really.
__________________
Posting and you...
DangerousBeliefs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:05 PM   #26
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Goshawk
Ian, warts are completely different from stigmata and hypnotic induction of blisters. I myself at age 9 had a wart on my right middle finger removed by my grandpa, who tied a string around the finger, then took the string off, and together we buried it with great ceremony in the backyard, with him telling me that the string would take my wart with it.

And a number of months later I noticed my wart was gone, but I wasn't surprised, because I already knew that my grandpa could fix anything.
I don't understand how they're different from blisters. Besides, most of those references don't refer to warts.


Quote:

Stop trying to weasel out of your original topic and attempting to change the subject to something not *quite* so woo.
I'm saying that stigmata is a psychosomatic effect and not a special grace bestowed on saints or saintlike persons. That makes me sceptical. Admittedly it doesn't make me sKeptical though
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:08 PM   #27
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
{sighs}

It doesn't seem that many of you have actually read my opening post. I do not claim that it is a special grace bestowed on saints or saintlike persons.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:12 PM   #28
DangerousBeliefs
Graduate Poster
 
DangerousBeliefs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{sighs}

It doesn't seem that many of you have actually read my opening post. I do not claim that it is a special grace bestowed on saints or saintlike persons.
No, I read it. I'm still researching... I can't find a stigmata which was actually tested and found to be actually bleeding their own blood... in fact, the more I look, the more it looks like virtually all of them were probably frauds.
__________________
Posting and you...
DangerousBeliefs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:21 PM   #29
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Stigma, singular. Stigmata, plural.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:28 PM   #30
DangerousBeliefs
Graduate Poster
 
DangerousBeliefs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,299
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Stigma, singular. Stigmata, plural.
And two or more bleeding sores makes a .....
__________________
Posting and you...
DangerousBeliefs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:32 PM   #31
Chocolate Chip
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No one is suggesting it is a miracle. I'm arguing that stigmata is psychosomatic. Now I'm in agreement that since this phenomenon is less than a thousand years old I would normally view it with suspicion. I'm always saying that I view with great suspicion any alleged paranormal phenomenon that is not universal. But by linking it to blister formation under hypnosis it becomes vastly more reasonable to believe in it (unless you reject blister formation under hypnosis as well!).

Fraud does indeed occur, but Ian Stevenson tells us they only amount to a few instances and in that in the great majority of cases we can be confident that the wounds are not deliberately inflicted.
I didn't say you suggested this was a miracle. You asked if we believed that this could be caused psychosomatically. I answered that it might be possible, although I am not aware of any stigamtics under any observation that reproduced this effect. I say it may be possible because of the above experiment that I quoted in my previous post. Although the differences are that a wound was caused while under hypnosis and was "suggested", as stigmatics are neither under hypnosis nor the wounds were suggested by another person. I think on the most part it was fraud, either by someone knowingly, but also mentally or even emotionally disturbed. You state that the majority of cases, claimed by Stevenson, were observed to not be fraud. You understand that I would like to see some proof of this as I cannot find any quote you mentioned by him in this thread regarding this not being fraud on the most part, and how Stevenson is able to substantiate this view. I say that a psychsomatic cause is not outside the realm of pssibility, but Occam's Razor tells me that it is most likely fraud.
__________________
SkepticalCommunity ROCKS !!
Chocolate Chip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:44 PM   #32
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
I didn't say you suggested this was a miracle. You asked if we believed that this could be caused psychosomatically. I answered that it might be possible, although I am not aware of any stigamtics under any observation that reproduced this effect. I say it may be possible because of the above experiment that I quoted in my previous post. Although the differences are that a wound was caused while under hypnosis and was "suggested", as stigmatics are neither under hypnosis nor the wounds were suggested by another person.
The suggestion just puts you in a certain state of mind! Hypnosis merely makes psychophysiological processes occur more easily. And I quoted Ian Stevenson:

"These people are fully absorbed in the life and death of Jesus and determined to be as much like him as they possibly can. It is difficult for the ordinary person to understand the intense identification with Jesus that some of them have achieved. In doing so, their concentration on his wounds act to produce similar lesions in themselves".

If ones expectations can produce blisters under hypnosis, then such intense identification with Jesus makes it plausible that ones body can also produc stigmata. The cases are very similar. It seems a bit inconsistent to suppose one of them might be true, but to reject the other.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 06:47 PM   #33
Chocolate Chip
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If ones expectations can produce blisters under hypnosis, then such intense identification with Jesus makes it plausible that ones body can also produc stigmata. The cases are very similar. It seems a bit inconsistent to suppose one of them might be true, but to reject the other.
I did not reject the other, I just said that it's not outside the realm of possibility, but fraud is the more likely explanation.
__________________
SkepticalCommunity ROCKS !!
Chocolate Chip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 07:05 PM   #34
Interesting Ian
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,675
Quote:
Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
I did not reject the other, I just said that it's not outside the realm of possibility, but fraud is the more likely explanation.
What I'm saying is that if one is true, it is likely that the other is true also.
Interesting Ian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 07:13 PM   #35
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What I'm saying is that if one is true, it is likely that the other is true also.
OK, I give up. Explain how that's likely true. What are the odds? And what is your claim?
I don't have an elephant.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2005, 10:38 PM   #36
Vortex
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Fraud does indeed occur, but Ian Stevenson tells us they only amount to a few instances and in that in the great majority of cases we can be confident that the wounds are not deliberately inflicted.
Ahem. Do you not see how this works? Ian Stevenson tells us? Where is the corroborative evidence? Hell, *I* could write a cheese book about blah claiming that "only a few instances of lah are not deliberately inflicted". Why cannot you see how this works, Ian?
Vortex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 12:39 AM   #37
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,180
I don't believe any doctor today would deny the reality of psychosomatically induced effects on the human body. It follows that some stigmata reports could well be explained by this.

I cannot understand why there is so much criticism of II's postulations, it all seems perfectly reasonable good science to me, and certainly not within the realms of the paranormal.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 01:06 AM   #38
Vortex
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally posted by Explorer
I cannot understand why there is so much criticism of II's postulations, it all seems perfectly reasonable good science to me, and certainly not within the realms of the paranormal.
When you can provide a video of stigmata in action please post it. Thanks.
Vortex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 01:35 AM   #39
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Ian,

In the case of stigmata, how do you suggest we find a way of distinguishing between the liars and the truth-tellers?

There's no videos available. We have to trust some people, but distrust others.

So, how do we distinguish?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2005, 02:24 AM   #40
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 23,788
Quote:
Originally posted by Explorer
I don't believe any doctor today would deny the reality of psychosomatically induced effects on the human body. It follows that some stigmata reports could well be explained by this.

I cannot understand why there is so much criticism of II's postulations, it all seems perfectly reasonable good science to me, and certainly not within the realms of the paranormal.
Psychosomatic effects are known to cause rashes, feever, and general stress symptoms (duh). They are NOT known to cause bleeding wounds.

Read your own sentence "I cannot understand why there is so much criticism of II's postulations, it all seems perfectly reasonable good science to me," again. Postulations <---> science?

Do you know what the word "science" means?

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.