Talk:Stigmata/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Source number 2

This whole article sounded like it was presenting religion and pseudoscience as fact. I don't have to time fix, but I would like to at least point out that the second citation is hardly a credible source. 137.229.82.20 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

reverted vandalism in the "Scepticism" section...random mention of some magician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.199.42 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie versus Reality

Okay, so a lot of the stuff written in this entry is either 1) entirely fallacious or 2) simply the details of popular accounts of stigmata (yes, like the movie). This whole A..AB..ABC.. okay, that's non-sense. I've never heard such a thing used as a characterization of "real" stigmata versus hoaxes.

Padre Pio's wounds supposedly smelled of roses, not of jasmine; the scent of roses is generally attributed to Mary. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that the blood coming from stigma is the Blood of Christ. anyone that would suggest such a thing is probably saying it from complete speculation; in fact, even that suggestion would be considered blasphemous by the Catholic Church, which /does/ admit to the existence of stigmata.

Anyway, I thought I would try to correct some of this stuff.. but finding something accurate to cite that isn't pro/con the "reality" of stigmata is hard to do.

What does it matter !?!?!?

does it really matter whether or not stigmata is real so much as it is nice to see that some people believe so deeply and care so much about their beliefs that they would worship the concept of the death of the "saviour"...I am not a christian and I still like the idea of being able to connect to the higher powers on such a spiritual level...even as a none christian I hold a great respect to the concept of stigmata

lol then you're a moron

I hold a great respect to the concept of knowledge, and I would like to know the truth 67.177.250.167 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just your own personal belief. Cookingbythebook (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrists

I have heard on television that "real" stigmata occurs on the wrists, not palms, and that is how they can sometimes tell which are faked. Has anyone else heard this or could verify it?

jw

There is obviously still a lot of debate on this subject. I can't cite a specific source since this is just a vague memory, but I'm pretty sure that a study was done where some researchers used very recently deceased cadavers to show that if an average person was nailed by the hands, their body weight would likely cause the hands to tear, and the person would fall from the cross (their feet also becoming torn when the body slumps down), but nailing them up by the wrists would work. Since there's no data to accurately declare how much Jesus weighed at the supposed crucifixion, this study (if it even occurred) is not to be taken as any sort of absolute conclusion, but personally I think that it was most likely that in those times they would have nailed the wrists if they did discover that it was more reliable to do it that way.

Now, the matter of whether or not a person, centuries after the original incident, would experience stigmata in the hands or the wrists, this is still a big question mark. For the purpose of this discussion, let's say for the moment that stigmata is indeed real, and leave the debate for other sections. If a person is taught their whole lives, based on modern artwork and references, that the crucifixion wounds were inflicted in the hands, and then that person experienced the stigmata with wounds in the wrists, there's a good chance this stigmatic would question the validity, and perhaps even think it was from Satan rather than God. As such, even if the original stigmata wounds were in the wrists, it would make sense for a stigmatic's spontaneous wounds to appear in the hands instead. You could say that God (who is apparently responsible for the occurrence) needs the stigmatic to believe that what is happening to them is real, so the detail of where the original wound occurred is irrelevant for that moment.

For the record, I experienced the stigmata myself, about 11 years ago, only once. It occurred in the palms of both my hands, but nowhere else, and only during a period of deep meditation. The wounds left no scars, and I did not experience pain. I am no longer a Christian today, I am a pagan, but I still remember this happening to me, and I still believe it was real. Back then, one could say that it served to me as evidence that God was very real in my life. Today, it serves as evidence that deity (God) is real, and there's a lot of things in this world we don't understand (and many miracles or magickal happenings that skeptics will always dismiss).

- Ugliness Man 10:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Church only recognizes two cases of stigmata in all their history, Francis of Asissi and Padre Pio. And Padre Pio is not confirmed, Pope Benedict has said that they were real, but that is not an official declaration. National Geographic did an experiment and if the feet are attached, then enough pressure is releived from the hands and nailing through the wrists is not necessary. As the Romans used several techniques to crucify, and no one knows which method was used on Jesus, to me the discussion is rather moot. But there is scientific evidence that it could have been done either way.

Wrists or hands? I know of a case of manifestation (as St. Catherine of Siena experienced) where the individual in question has a background in science and is of the school of thought, based on the archaeology, that very likely the nails in the crucifixion of Jesus were through the wrists - and yet this person experiences the stigmata in the hands and feet. -KN -

- - - -

I changed several things on this because of a mixture of reasons.

1) There was uneccesary repetition that I found unuseful and so deleted. I rephrased the sentances because some of them caused really bad flow.

2) Deleted first person language.

3) Added requests for citations.

4) Deleted "traditional art, however, often presents the opposite view" as the discussion is on the stigmata, not Christian art. Using it once in the beginning was informitive, but enough. It almost sounds like its railing on this article.

5) Changed some grammatical errors.

6) Deleted "as the ankles are nailed to the side of the cross producing little strain on the wrists"-- just source it. If they want details, they can look it up. Keep to the topic.

7) A "study" is just that, a study, so refer to it as fact, especially when you're not sourcing it.

It should be noted however, that many stigmatics have wounds piercing the palms of their hands as is common in our conception of Christ hanging on the cross and is visible in much of Christian imagery. However, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been suspended on the cross by his hands - it would have been a physical impossibility for the hands to support the entire weight of the body without breaking through the fragile bones in the human hand. In actuality, Christ's arms would have to have been nailed to the cross by his wrists in order to be able to support the weight. In fact, it has been proven in several studies that the hands would be unable to support the necessary weight, so many advocate the wrist theory; traditional art, however, often presents the opposite view.

to

It should be noted, however, that many stigmatics have wounds piercing the palms of their hands, and this may be associate with the common conception of Christ hanging on the cross (this is visible in much of Christian imagery{{Not verified}}). Many studies have suggested, however, that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been suspended on the cross by his hands - it would have been a physical impossibility for the hands to support the entire weight of the body without breaking through the fragile bones in the human hand{{Not verified}}. These studies further suggest that Christ's arms would have to have been nailed to the cross by his wrists in order to be able to support the weight.

I hope this is helpful.

(Bjford 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

The article is biased.

This article is entirely based on bias in fact the author wrote "in my opinion" this is not good practice, and while I would edit it myself, I have much more work to do at this point in time and stigmata is not my level of expertise, therefore I would either like people to help me find sources to make this article much better and less innacurate or if they could edit it to atleast be unbiased.

Zimopia 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)zimopia.

First of all, I don't see the phrase "in my opinion" anywhere in the article (I did a simple text search on the word "opinion" and turned up nil). Second, the opening section of the article states: "Some contend that stigmata are miraculous, while others argue they are hoaxes or can be explained medically." This is the very definition of NPOV, some say this, other say that, and we're not telling you what to believe. Point the specific statements that you believe are "biased", and maybe something productive can come of it, but as it stands, your run-on sentence is little more than incoherent babbling about something that doesn't even seem to be there. If, however, you're talking about the talk page that you're reading right now, then of course it's biased. It's a discussion, people are presenting their perspectives. Talk pages are always loaded with opinions and bias, which is sometimes necessary to create a consensus about what belongs in the main article.

I do, however, agree that some editing is necessary, as the headlines of the Popular culture section and sub-sections have been shifted around with some odd results... I'll try to fix that up ASAP. Done! - Ugliness Man 16:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people claim the earth is flat, but that isn't a valid point of view. You're not entitled to put garbage in just because a bunch of people believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.83.245 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I just want to point out that the section at the bottom, under "performing arts" sounds enough like propaganda to be removed, IMHO. It's almost verbatim from the ellusionist website, and all claims about the effect are unsubstantiated, as there has been no release of the effect being performed, only reaction shots. I'd cut it myself, but I don't want to take too much responsibility without getting a username. As an aside, the last bit about the "venerable stigmatist" should be either moved or cut entirely; it doesn't fit at the end. ~Anonymous for now~ 12:42 AM April 19, 2006

I removed the content referred to above. It did look like an almost exact copy from an external website. As well, it addressed an illusion called stigmata, not the actual phenomenon that is under discussion here, so it really didn't fit on the page. I also deleted the reference to Carlos Bancroft III, as I could find no evidence elsewhere that he had stigmata or, in fact, even existed. Eron 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph complete rubbish? **reverted**

This paragraph strikes me as wrong in every concievable way, from sense to fact to grammar:

"Stigmatas are more commonly known for "the bleeding of the eyes" , but these eyes are not from a human, but from a statue. statues of Mary and even Jesus himself have been known to bleed from the eyes. these bizzare and eary events has been recongized by the Catholic church and is label "stigmata", a event that has no proof of being fake or real. some call them miracles others call them a sign of the apocalyse. But most believe it is a event that happens after the father of the clergy dies. The blood runs for 7 days after each death of the Churchs latest Priest. They happen all over the world from South America to Europe, The blood runs from our lords eyes. Is it real? and what does it mean?"

Also POV seems terrible. "Our Lord" doesn't seem like an encyclopedia term for God. I have reverted this paragraph out.

--Shockeroo 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A muddle over the first female stigmatee

In the History section we say that

The first reported cases of stigmata, in a Flemish nun and a young Englishman, occurred in the early 13th century.

And then

The first woman reported to have received stigmata was the Blessed Christina von Stommeln

But according to our article on Christina von Stommeln she was born in 1242 and stigmatized at the age of fifteen. So one of these statements must be wonky. I’ll stick a {{fact}} template against both occurrences of ‘first’ as a request for clarification. Actually, though, the first statement is particularly in need of being sourced, in as much as it’s simultaneously assertive (the first) and vague (no names mentioned). —Ian Spackman 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the 1200s was in fact the 13th century (just as the 1900s were the 20th century), so if it's the dates you're concerned about, I think use of the word "early" is at issue more than the numbers (if she was born in 1242, she would have been 15 in 1257, so "mid-13th century) would make sense if a qualifier is needed at all). - Ugliness Man 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the muddle may be between first reported or rumoured cases, and first well-documented cases. I don't remember the exact references, but I think the Flemish nun and young Englishmen were both believed (or at least suspected) of being fradulent. St. Francis was the first case accepted as genuine by the church, and Christina the first woman. I think that can be made more clear in the text. - Eron ^Talk 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph in "Skepticism"

This paragraph is full of weasel words and lacks citations. Furthermore, as a general comment on this article, it contains far too much focus on popular culture references to stigmata, compared to its actual facts on the phenomenon.--Undegaussable 15:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the pop culture aspect is given a little too much coverage, keep in mind that an article on something in any way "paranormal" would be adversely effected by any attempt to stick to "actual facts", since speculation, skepticism and difference of opinion are inherently a part of discussing the subject. Just my two cents. - Ugliness Man 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Book quoted at the end of the Movie (Stigmata)

Anyone know the book title/author that is referenced at the end of the movie? Something about James I believe? 216.2.193.1 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit referring to ancient language

I removed this text:

'some also have been known to speek the lauange that jesus used in his day'

as it is unreferenced and the meaning is unclear. Is this suggesting that some stigmatics revert to speaking ancient Aramaic, or is another language meant here? Please support this assertion with references if reinserting the text. Thanks, Colonel Tom 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

another WTF...

This little gem was added by an anonymous user on May 9, quickly removed, then added back about at [14:04, 16 May 2007 199.198.254.100]. Does it really have any business being in the article?:

The causes of stigmata are the subject of considerable debate. Some contend that they are miraculous, while others argue they are hoaxes or can be explained medically. Shirley V. Wilson of Rouyn, Noranda experienced this as a child but believes it was the result of brain washing from her srict catholic upbringing

Stigmata are primarily associated with the Roman Catholic faith. Many reported

I strongly suspect "Shirley V. Wilson" to be the anonymous user who added this fascinating tidbit. Perhaps original research applies? Certainly this isn't "verifiable." Not to mention the spelling/punctuation errors, and that I had to google "Rouyn, Noranda" to get any clear idea of where it is (probably it refers to Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, Canada). I may be overthinking this.

At any rate, a wikipedia article hardly seems the appropriate forum to air one's bad memories and personal hangups. Still being an anonymous user myself (and not as familiar as I should be with wikipedia guidelines), I am hesitant to remove this myself but thought I would bring it up. Oddly enough, nearly all of this user's edits are legitimate grammar and spelling fixes. Apologies if this comment is inappropriate in any way.

-meursalt 24.116.114.143 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know who added it, but it's certainly not referenced or verified. As no response has been made to your above comment in 2 days, I think it's perfectly appropriate to be bold & remove it. I've done so. Colonel Tom 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph from the "Skepticism" section:

- It should be noted, however, that many stigmatics have wounds piercing the palms of their hands, which may be associated with the common conception of Christ hanging on the cross (this is visible in much of Christian imagery). Many studies have suggested, however, that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been suspended on the cross by his hands - it would have been a physical impossibility for the hands to support the entire weight of the body without breaking through the fragile bones in the human hand. These studies further suggest that Christ's arms would have to have been nailed to the cross by his wrists in order to be able to support the weight. A new study and documentary called "Quest for Truth: The Crucifixion" on the National Geographic Channel has shown that a person can be suspended by the wrists. However, the study also claims the palms are a likely place for the nails to be driven, as it would cause the maximum amount of pain and trauma, and the victim would be tied to the cross to support the weight. [1]

Because, though it was sourced that at least one study had advanced that crucifixions must necessarily have involved nails passing through the wrists, there isn't a source provided for the particular application of this argument to stigmata, and this paragraph particularly seemed to be passing into the realms of original research - see WP:SYNTH. All the salient points in this paragraph are actually made elsewhere in the section; but this paragraph appeared to be advancing an argument rather than explaining a position. I hope you can see my point. Wikipedia policies are clear that we need not only to source that arguments have been made about where the nails must have passed in historical crucifixions, but that these arguments have specifically been employed to express skepticism about stigmata.

The removal is a bit of a 'blunt instrument' at the moment - I'll try to work the single source given back into the remaining text. TSP 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

location of 'not'

What was significant was that early stigmatics were not predominatly women, but that they were non-ordained.

You've just said they are! 7 to 1 female to male! I think what is meant is:

What was significant was NOT that early stigmatics were predominatly women, but that they were non-ordained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.104.37 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

There is an episode of My Name is Earl that could be included. It is in the First Season. While building an ostridge pen, Earl shoots a nail gun though his hand. Catalina says "Now do it to the other hand - I want to take you to my church and see all the old ladies cry."

duzbin (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia Section Clean-Up

I've tagged the trivia section for clean up. Virtually none of it is relevant to the subject. Unless anyone has a substantial argument why a piece of trivia belongs in the article, and can integrate it into the text, I think almost all of it should be deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical

I've heard of stigmata used in a medical context, should that be included as a section or maybe form a separate article, such as Stigmata (medicine)? - cyclosarin (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have heard of stigmata as characteristic features of a medical condition. For instance, people with fetal alcohol syndrome have particular facial features that are called stigmata. There needs to be a disambiguation page that deals with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

stig·ma (stgm) n. pl. stig·mas or stig·ma·ta (stg-mät, -mt, stgm-) 1. Visible evidence of a disease. 2. A spot or blemish on the skin. 3. A bleeding spot on the skin considered as a manifestation of conversion disorder. 4. The orange pigmented eyespot of certain chlorophyll-bearing protozoa, such as Euglena viridis. It serves as a light filter by absorbing certain wavelengths. 5. A mark of shame or discredit. 6. Follicular stigma.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stigmata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

False claim? "The majority of reported stigmatics are female."

I checked the source listed for this claim, and this claim does not appear to be supported by the source. The most that article has to offer the claim is "Dr. Imbert counts 321 stigmatics in whom there is every reason to believe in a Divine action. He believes that others would be found by consulting the libraries of Germany, Spain, and Italy. In this list there are 41 men."

This is not sufficient: The claim refers to ALL reported stigmatics, and this article mentions only one list, and the author of this list himself states that other stigmatics may be found by consulting other reports.

I think this claim should be removed, but the source kept and hopefully used for something else.

Yes? No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say no. There are only about 500 cases of stigmata accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as genuine. If we accept Dr. Imbert's list, then even if every stigmatic not on his list is male, the majority will still be female. In any case, that reference is the only one we have that seems to have any sort of statistical information and it shows that an overwhelming majority of the sample are female. - Eron^Talk 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should expand the discussion about possible natural causes of stigmata. This stigmata article discusses several possibilities that aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia article. For example, an alternate personality could temporarily take over and create the stigmata, and the main personality wouldn't know how it happened. There are also various ways to create fake stigmata, such as applying acid to the skin, or simply painting marks onto the skin. I think these possibilities should be included in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.44.97 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded claim, religious dismissal

The claim

"The causes of stigmata may vary from case to case, but are invariably either self-inflicted wounds, or are a purely psychosomatic response.[1] "

1. Has no evidence supporting it -Reference 1 is missing / incomplete- 2. Clearly dismisses the religious viewpoint for the cause of the stigmata.

I think it needs to be removed.

The reference is there, and as for point two, there are no verifiable claims of actual, real stigmata (as opposed to a psychosomatic response or self-inflicted wounds). The medical community's consensus is exactly as stated. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV concern

The presentation of the experiences of St. Francis, especially the appearance of the six-winged angel, as factual is not NPOV. That section should be introduced with text like "According to the account in..." or something similar. NoJoy (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section. This is a general article on stigmata. The St. Francis of Assisi article covers the details of his stigmata. - Eron^Talk 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd contribution box at the top of the page

I removed this from the top of the page:

--68.188.28.252 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)]] wounds of Jesus. The term originates from the line at the end of Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians where he says, "I bear on my body the stígmata of Jesus" - stigmata is the plural of the Greek word στίγμα, stígma, a mark or brand such as might have been used for identification of an animal or slave. An individual bearing stigmata is referred to as a stigmatic.

Kaotac (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have replaced the first part of the first sentence with their signature. I've restored the original opening sentence. - Eron^Talk 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic renderings

I don't suppose anyone has the knowledge to add a section on paintings of people receiving the stigmata. I'm thinking particularly of the many depictions of St Francis of Assisi, perhaps as a starting point. 82.4.241.23 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was me, without realising I'd not logged in. iPhil (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not true

No case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century. Paul himself claimed in a couple of the letters that he was a stigmatic? From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

WTF with this topic's title

"According to the Catholic Encyclopedia" starts off the "Scientific Research" topic? Mixing two point of views which mix as well as oil and water in one seemingly stupid manner...doing something like this would make sense if the church accepted the theory of evolution haha.Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic church officially accepted the theory of evolution some time ago. However, the paragraph in question had nothing to do with the section heading (and I think it is rare that we should use a hundred year old encyclopaedia for a source anyway), so I've delted it.