I'll use abbreviations to refer to some sources I'll be citing a lot. Travis Dumsday's The Marian Apparitions At Zeitoun (Yonkers, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2024) will be referred to with the abbreviation MAZ. The numbers that follow will refer to approximate Kindle locations in the book. I'll refer to Jerome Palmer's Our Lady Returns To Egypt (San Bernardino, California: Culligan Publications, Inc., 1969) with OLR. The accompanying numbers will be page references.
When we're evaluating the source behind something supernatural, we look for both strengths and weaknesses. Both have implications for the nature of the entity involved. My focus in this post is on weaknesses, which are often overlooked or underestimated. Even where there's not enough information to determine whether something that could be a weakness probably is one, there's some significance in the potential for the presence of weakness. With apparitions in general, not just Marian apparitions, we look for weaknesses like fragmentation. You only see a face or legs without the upper body, for example. Another kind of weakness is the diminishment of activity over time, such as a poltergeist that becomes less and less active until it eventually goes away. Mediums will sometimes grow weaker as a seance goes on. Or you sometimes see a whole category of paranormal phenomena diminish under certain circumstances. See Stephen Braude's comments quoted here on the decline of mediumship in the twentieth century, for example.
Over a decade ago, Eric Ouellet (pronounced "Willit"), a paranormal researcher, wrote several articles about Zeitoun. There's a passage in one of those articles that brings up several examples of what I'm focused on in this post. I think English isn't Ouellet's primary language, but you can tell what he's getting at:
Several witnesses underlined that apparition disappeared as if it turns off slowly the dimmer of a lamp [6], while in other situations it rose in the sky to disappear [7]. In some occasions it was perceived as if the wind was blow through it and that her “veil” was moving in the wind [8], while it appeared to be flat and only 2-dimensional in another occasion [9]. At times, the apparition was motionless and described as statue like [10], but it appeared that it was moving more often than not [11] but as if floating without using “its feet” [12]. It was “making gestures” with her “head”, and her “hands” in particular [13].
The actual shape appeared to have also varied from something like squarish form which was construed as the Virgin sitting and holding the infant Jesus [14], while in most cases it seemed to be closer to either a vertical rectangle or a vertically elongated lozenge with a circle at the top, which sometime seen in full, and other times only in “half-figure” [15]. Many claimed to be able to distinguish a face, eyes, and mouth [16], and even resembling representations seen in religious icons [17]. Yet, others noted that there was a light but they could not distinguish anything particular [18].
He provides some photos of the Zeitoun phenomena in his articles, both the most impressive photos, which get the most attention, and others that are of a lesser nature. The photographic evidence, like the testimonial evidence, reflects how inconsistent the phenomena were.
We need to be careful in identifying something as a weakness. For example, the Zeitoun apparitions often started in one form, then transformed into another. So, a light that didn't look like Mary or even like any human could have taken on a much more impressive form sometime after a photo was taken or after the point at which a particular witness saw the object in question. Or think of Ouellet's reference to an apparition slowly fading. A slow fade could reflect weakness, but it could also be something done intentionally by a source who had the power to appear in full force without fading if it had wanted to. Maybe the fading was done deliberately to communicate to the audience that the apparition would be going away soon.
Still, even if something is just potentially a weakness, that potential has some significance. The more the source behind Zeitoun is open to being interpreted as being weaker than we'd expect Mary to be, the more plausible a non-Marian interpretation becomes. And just because a potential weakness could be interpreted as not being a weakness, it doesn't follow that the interpretation not involving a weakness is the best one.
We also need to be careful about appeals to Biblical (and other) parallels. The fragmentary apparitions at Zeitoun could be compared to the fragmentary appearance of a hand in Daniel 5:5, for instance. But the fragmentary nature of the Daniel 5 entity makes a lot of sense in its context. Hands are closely associated with writing, and a body associated with such a large hand couldn't be seen within the environment in which the hand appeared. What would be the comparable reasons for the fragmentary nature of some of the Zeitoun appearances? A citation of the fact that both Daniel 5 and Zeitoun involve fragmentary entities has to be accompanied by a discussion of other relevant factors, like what I've just mentioned. Similarly, it's normal for somebody to not be able to see apparently incorporeal entities like the ones in 2 Kings 6:17. Furthermore, those entities weren't there to make a public appearance, as Mary allegedly was doing in the Zeitoun context. The terrain around Saul and his travel companions on the Road to Damascus and other prosaic factors could easily explain why their perceptions of Jesus differed to some extent. We'd need similar reasons for why Zeitoun witnesses sometimes reported seeing something different than what other witnesses reported. Any appeal to 2 Kings 6 or the Acts accounts of the Road to Damascus has to be accompanied by an argument that the Zeitoun circumstances are comparable. We also need to keep the cumulative effect in mind. Given the large number and variety of actual or potential weaknesses in the Zeitoun phenomena, finding one alleged parallel in one Biblical context, another supposed parallel in some other Biblical context, and so on doesn't provide a parallel for so many actual or potential weaknesses in one paranormal case that only lasted about three years. I don't know of any comparable Biblical context that involves as much or more weakness than what we see in Zeitoun.
When you read the testimony of the Zeitoun witnesses, it's striking how often they refer to the apparitions having the sort of characteristics I've been referring to. "Sometimes the Virgin Mary appeared in full form, while on other occasions, only the Virgin’s bust, surrounded by a glorious halo of shining light, appeared." (MAZ, 753) "After a while, the apparition gradually began to become less clearly visible, and then it disappeared completely." (MAZ, 1665) "I could see in faint outline the erect white, statue-like figure (the outline of the head was not clear)." (MAZ, 1698) "Nagi then saw her silhouette in a kneeling position at the front of the dome. I did not see her." (MAZ, 1719) "She was moving as if looking to the crowds and blessing them, then turning very slowly to another angle to do the same with a little bit bowing to the people." (MAZ, 1729) "Suddenly the dark dome was lighted by a light that appeared from the deep part of the top of the dome inside, started as a candle that increased in size and brightness, coming down like a rounded ball and then shaped like St Mary in half-shape. This stayed for about 1 minute. Other appearances continued showing almost every 10 minutes in exactly the same manner....I kept looking deeply to differentiate any features like nose, hands, etc., but I couldn’t as she was not well defined but hazy." (MAZ, 1754) "I was very happy to see her . . . because there were many people around me who didn’t: there were some who saw her and some who didn’t, yet we were all there together" (MAZ, 1868) "Sometimes, among people grouped together in the same place, some saw her, and others didn’t." (MAZ, 1924) "The first time, I saw the Holy Virgin as a nun. A half-statue form. She was wearing a white robe. The second time, I saw the full statue, between the domes." (MAZ, 1932) "She appeared larger than natural size...She stood for as much as two or three hours in the same spot." (OLR, 26) "She moves very slowly....very slowly it moved [a sphere of light that transformed into Mary]" (OLR, 28).
That reference to a sphere of light brings up another aspect of the case that should be discussed. In a post earlier this year, I wrote about the involvement of orbs in paranormal contexts. Orbs were widely reported at Zeitoun. And the orbs had qualities similar to what we see in other paranormal cases, namely that they hovered and were luminous.
Another aspect of Zeitoun that resembles what we see in other paranormal cases is what happened with efforts to film the phenomena. It's often difficult to film certain types of paranormal activity. That takes on a variety of forms. Sometimes, paranormal events won't happen when a camera is operating. Or camera equipment will be interfered with in some way, sometimes even to the point that the equipment malfunctions in one way or another. Or it will seem that filming has been done successfully, but when the photograph or video is viewed later on, what was captured on film is different than what the person doing the filming expected. Furthermore, the same paranormal source that avoids being filmed on some occasions does get filmed on other occasions, typically or always with no apparent reason why filming was unsuccessful one time and successful at another point. It's less difficult to think of potential reasons why a lesser paranormal source (e.g., a living human, a deceased human, a demon) would behave that way than to explain why a source like God or Mary would carry on in that manner. Travis Dumsday quotes another Zeitoun researcher commenting on filming issues in the Zeitoun case:
"Second, and more importantly, Brune notes that many attempted to photograph the phenomena, only to find later on that nothing had shown up on the film: 'Once the news spread, many other photographers, sent by newspapers and magazines, planted themselves in front of the church. They took hundreds and hundreds of photographs. But, upon development, nothing appeared.'" (MAZ, 4141)
Go here to see Dumsday discussing these issues in an interview. He notes how these filming issues in the Zeitoun case parallel what we see in other paranormal cases. For those who are interested in potential reasons why a paranormal source of a lesser nature might behave in the manner under consideration, see the section titled "Concealment" here. You can go directly to the first sentence of the section by doing a Ctrl F search for "conceal its activities".
The article I just linked is about the Enfield Poltergeist. And that section on concealment is also relevant to some other parts of the Zeitoun case. Two aspects of Zeitoun that stand out as unusual are the distance the apparitions would normally keep from observers and the lack of verbal communication by the apparitions in public contexts. On the distance issue, an early report from Coptic officials referred to how Mary appeared "on and in the domes of the church" (OLR, 40), as if the apparitions would usually be around the top of the church. And I get the impression from other sources that the top of the church is where the apparitions usually happened during the case as a whole. Some private appearances of Mary were reported, though, that seem to have involved less distance and some verbal communication. For example, Dumsday quotes Ronald Bullivant:
"We were taken to the house of one of the leading Muslims in the district adjacent to the church. He was a devout Muslim, a 'Hadji'—one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca—and in the beginning he was antagonistic and attacked the pilgrims who had to pass close to his house. He would throw stones at them and call on the police to have them arrested. He says our Lady appeared to him and asked him why he behaved in this way. She begged him not to continue in this fashion and commanded him to paint the sign of the cross on his house. Although remaining a practicing Muslim, he is now convinced of the authenticity of the visions, and we saw the forty huge white crosses which he has painted all round the walls of his house." (MAZ, 1014)
Given factors like the change in that Muslim's behavior and the difficulties involved in painting crosses on your house in an Islamic country, the man seems likely to have been sincere. Go here to watch a segment in a documentary that discusses another private appearance of Mary in the Zeitoun context that also involved being at less of a distance and some verbal communication.
The nature of both of these private encounters seems to make more sense if a source other than Mary was involved. In the first episode, the apparition that was supposed to be Mary was willing to verbally communicate, yet made comments that are less significant than what I'd expect from Mary under such circumstances. The Muslim man remained a Muslim, and painting a large number of crosses on your house doesn't seem to rise to the level of significance that would justify a visit from Mary. There's some value in changing the man's bad behavior, such as getting him to stop throwing stones at the Zeitoun pilgrims. But the low significance of what the apparition tried to accomplish seems to make more sense coming from a source other than Mary. In the second episode cited above, the healing has a lot of value, but bringing out a knife in front of the woman and healing her through a painful process (assuming the documentary is accurately representing what happened) is, once again, a scenario that seems more likely to have come from a lesser source than Mary. Notice, too, that the second episode, like the first one, involves producing crosses (through blood rather than paint). That connection between the two episodes adds to the likelihood that they occurred.
My main concern at this point, though, is with how the larger distance and lack of verbal communication in the public apparitions contrasts to the smaller distance and presence of verbal communication in some private apparitions. There may be factors involved like what I discuss in my Enfield article linked above. It could be that the source behind Zeitoun sometimes performed at a higher level in some contexts (visuals) at the cost of performing at a lower level in other contexts (keeping more of a distance, not communicating verbally). The presence of crowds may have forced it to make such tradeoffs that wouldn't have to be made, or at least sometimes wouldn't have to be made, in a setting with fewer people around. Again, you can read my Enfield article cited above for further discussion of the relevant principles. Just as distance and the number of people involved seem to have been significant factors in how well the entity behind Enfield performed, including whether and how well it communicated verbally, the same could be true of Zeitoun. Enfield isn't Zeitoun, but there's some overlap, and something like what happened in the Enfield case seems to be a promising explanation for what we see with Zeitoun.
I don't know much about the other entities that appeared with Mary, but I want to make some brief observations about the birds that accompanied her on some occasions. Multiple witnesses reported that the birds' wings didn't flap. Jerome Palmer cited a couple of witnesses who reported that the birds cast no shadow (OLR, 32). Dumsday cited another witness who referred to how the birds made no sound (MAZ, 1738). Apparently, people didn't hear the flapping of wings, chirping, or any other sort of noise that we sometimes hear from birds. There's not much to go by in the sources I've seen, partly because witnesses would understandably be more focused on the woman in the apparitions than other entities, but there's some reason to think the birds, like the woman, often gave indications of operating at a lower rather than higher level.
No comments:
Post a Comment