Talk:Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano

Untitled
I don't know how that WHO section keeps popping back up, but there is absolutely no evidence that I am aware of that it ever happened. Aside from the fact that there is no Higher Council of the WHO, the citation provided is invalid -- it references the study in 1971, which obviously can't be supporting evidence for the existence of a study ABOUT the 1971 study. If anyone wants to put that section back in, please provide some additional details in the talk page if the means for verification is too cumbersome to put inline. Unknown (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out this link; this source will be able to provide citation for all of these unverified claims made in the article:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.103.103 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association cannot be a good source for these claims. They show no sources at all. Fringe ideas like these require better sources by far. 216.232.219.242 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Far better reference for this subject: [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown (talk • contribs) 05:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The link given above does not work anymore. However I found the following link which is a PDF of the original Italian report: [Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74. Links[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)]]

I'm not quite sure why the above link was removed. It would be helpful if someone could tell me why this link is considered "unreliable/unverifiable", given that it was published in a medical journal. 129.120.41.191 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A PDF scan of the original article in the 1971 Italian journal can be found at: RICERCHE ISTOLOGICHE, IMMUNOLOGICHE E BIOCHIME SULLA CARNE E SUL SANGUE DEL MIRACOLO EUCHARISTICO DI LANCIANO (VII secolo) (archived here). Firstrock (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any way to figure out how old the 'flesh and blood' currently there is? I don't know, pictures or something from the early 1900s so one could see if it really is the same, and not being replaced every so often? And how long 'could' this kind of stuff last in said condition, without embalming fluids or any so-called miracles? This is something I would like to see added, if possible. And why have no tests been done in the last thirty years? Masternachos (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * During the 1971 investigation the vax seals found on the vessels were broken off. Those seals were from 1886, made by archbishop Francesco Petrarca. Clandestine replacement of items is not quite possible, because the relics have always been constantly visible to the public. 91.83.4.187 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I couldn't say for sure, if I had to guess, it is that the Catholic Church is waiting until tests can be run without touching the flesh and blood there (seeing how fast technology advances, it would be no stretch to assume that, at some point in the future, tests can be run that way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiberg (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Miracle of Lanciano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/tableofcontents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with this article: WP:Fringe
This article has giant problems with WP: Fringe. All the sources used are pro-Catholic appologist sources. None are peer-reviewed. Some leave out pertinent information that goes against their view. I doubt the reliability of most of them. Mainstream scholarship has ignored this topic completely (not like the shroud of Turin). This article should either be a stub (with only the traditional account maybe sourced by better sources if they can be found) or redirected (or very selectively merged) to the Eucharistic miracle article. Or severely cut back.

sources: 1 "Wabasha church hosts display depicting 160 Vatican-approved Eucharistic miracles"Winona Daily News : I haven't read this one. It is probably fine and only used for the uncontroversial fact that it is Vatican-approved.

2 Saunders, William (7 September 2000). "The Miracle of Lanciano". Arlington Catholic Herald – via Catholic Education Resource Center.: This is clearly a pro-Catholic appologist website. It mentions the miracle of the weights after the event "each individual globule weighed the same as the other individual ones (although different in size) or as all five together or as any other combination." and in 1574. But it doesn't mention that in 1886 and in 1970 this didn't happen (this comes from Misure di massa nel 1574 del Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano by Constantino Sigismondi in Gerbertus which is unreliable but following the criterion of embarrassement this info is probably correct). It is based for the rest on Lignoli and Bertelli. Lignoli claims that the blood is AB, comes from the heart, is without preservatives, is just like fresh blood. This source should be removed.

3 Sigismondi, Constantino (2016). "Misure di massa nel 1574 del Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano" (PDF). Gerbertus (in Italian). 9: 21–6. Retrieved 21 April 2019. Il sangue diviso in cinque parti dissuguali che tanto pesano tutte unite, quanto ciascuna separata. Gerbertus: This is clearly a pro-Catholic appologist research article. It is not cited by anyone else. It is not peer reviewed (I think). The publisher is also Sigismondi Constantino, the author. It is not a prestigous journal. It is mostly written in Italian but you can get a good translation using DeepL. It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). It cites the Italian wikipedia (that is just funny). The author has also written about the star of Bethlehem. This source should be removed.

4 "Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano". Zenit. 5 May 2005.: Pro-Catholic appologist source. Just repeats Linoli. Says "His findings have stirred interest in the scientific world." Linoli also says: "the blood group is the same as that of the man of the holy Shroud of Turin, and it is particular because it has the characteristics of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East regions." Zenit claims "In 1973, the Higher Council of the World Health Organization (WHO) appointed a scientific commission to verify the Italian doctor’s conclusions. The work was carried out over 15 months with a total of 500 examinations. The conclusions of all the researches confirmed what had been stated and published in Italy.The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.

5 Linoli, O. (September 1971). "Histological, Immunological and Biochemical Research on the Flesh and Blood of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (7th century)" (PDF). Quad Sclavo Diagn. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 October 2020. Retrieved 7 October 2020. This is the most important one. Never been cited. It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.

6 "The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano". Archived from the original on 31 August 2006. Retrieved 30 December 2016.: is from the Eucharistic Miracle Home page. Pro-Catholic appologist. This source should be removed.

7 Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.

8 Lillie, Barry (26 March 2012). "Take a Faith Break in Lanciano". Italy Magazine. Retrieved 21 April 2019.: just a tourist website, not a high quality source. Should ideally be replaced with a better one but isn't urgent.

9 Pope John Paul II (4 October 2004), Letter of John Paul II to Archbishop Carlo Ghidelli of Lanciano-Ortona (Italy), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, retrieved 21 April 2019: good source for what it is used for: JP2 visited.

10 "Santuario del Miracolo Eucharistico". Retrieved 21 April 2019.: website of the church (?) or of a group with a devotion to this miracle. Used to cite a footnote that there is a photograph from when JP2 (when not yet pope) visited. This footnote can be removed as irrelevant. I would be in favour of removal.

--2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the footnote about the fotograph. 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:A4F8:FCE8:CB19:C05 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Linoli paper has a pubweight of 0.75 less than the average paper. 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:A4F8:FCE8:CB19:C05 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:4837:BCE9:2368:75E8 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The WHO study
I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud. Cardiologist Franco Serafini read the study in Lanciano and discovered that it was actually about Egyptian mummies. The only pages talking about the miracle were the first and the last, both of them most likely having been added by someone else.

Here is a book talking about this and here is an interview with Franco Serafini where he mentions what happened.

I also emailed the Church where the supposed miracle took place and they responded that, after some doctors took a look at the study, the document could no longer be considered legitimate. LimitatedlySilvery (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have the source that says the WHO study was a fraud? Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Catholic fundamentalist views of this Wikipedia user can be viewed in the article on Padre Pio and in the associated discussion page. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book and the interview I cited. Another thing that points to the study being a fraud is that the monks deleted all references to the WHO study not that long ago. LimitatedlySilvery (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

LimitatedlySilvery After what you have put together here, all passages based on these dubious sources should be deleted immediately. The whole article looks like fundamantlistic catholic propaganda to me.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Fake list has to be deleted
1.	The samples tested were free of any foreign agents normally used in the preservation of human flesh. 2.	The Flesh is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood. 3.	Flesh and Blood belong to the human species. 4.	The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the human heart. 5.	The Blood was type “AB” positive, characteristic of a man who was born and lived in the Middle East region. 6.	Even though the coagulated blood samples were of five different and irregular shapes and sizes, they all proved to be of the same weight. 7.	In the Blood was found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood. 8.	In the Blood these were also found chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and calcium. 9.	The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which was left in their natural state for over twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.[14][15]

The entire list is copied word for word (without attribution) from the ridiculous internet article of a Catholic website: "This Is My Body-This Is My Blood - Catholic Journal". Retrieved 4 December 2022.

For the purpose of pseudo-scientific validation, the Linoli study is cited (in several footnotes), but not once with the citation of the page! Thus, these sources are unscientifically executed and worthless. I plead for deleting the entire passage, because here it is pretended that encyclopedic knowledge is available, where in reality a collection of unverified statements from a fundamentalist Catholic point of view was compiled here.

„The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which was left in their natural state for over twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.“

This statement is particularly striking, since the age of the sample is not certain and would have to be examined scientifically. No natural scientist would therefore make such a statement, unless he followed just his religious beliefs in it.

The article contains large parts of catholic propaganda.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"Scientific tests" - a joke
"archive.ph". archive.ph. Retrieved 4 December 2022.

This is a souce, giving no name of teh author, but telling the reader a „p. c.“.

It is „published“ only in the Internet, the dubious site is called „Acheomisteri i quaderni di Atlandide“ – Sommething like „Archaeomysteries the notebooks of Atlandide“

No useful source

I delete now the complete passage on „Scientific tests“ because the whole passage is a fraud using not a single useful source. The passage delivers simply fundamentalsit cathohlic propaganda and fringe theory. Mr. bobby (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You cannot remove trusted sources like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a source, it is a list of sources, some of which are trusted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone is not able to give page numbers for citations, then he can post the collaboration here. Several users have noted that only ridiculous source atlases have been used here. If rafaelosornio, a known Catholic fundamentalist user, posts this again, I will report him. Mr. bobby (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I managed to get my hands on a scan of the study. The page talking about the flesh are 661-674 (2-23 if looking at the pages of the pdf itself). LimitatedlySilvery (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to delete all passages which are sourced with the following fake sources

 * http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf


 * The Miracle of Lanciano". Arlington Catholic Herald – via Catholic Education Resource Center.:


 * Sigismondi, Constantino (2016). "Misure di massa nel 1574 del Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano" (PDF). Gerbertus (in Italian). 9: 21–6. Retrieved 21 April 2019.


 * "The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano". Archived from the original on 31 August 2006.


 * Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.


 * Lillie, Barry (26 March 2012). "Take a Faith Break in Lanciano". Italy Magazine. Retrieved 21 April 2019.: just a tourist website, not a high quality source. Should ideally be replaced with a better one but isn't urgent.


 * Pope John Paul II (4 October 2004), Letter of John Paul II to Archbishop Carlo Ghidelli of Lanciano-Ortona (Italy), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, retrieved 21 April 2019: good source for what it is used for: JP2 visited.


 * "Santuario del Miracolo Eucharistico". Retrieved 21 April 2019.: website of the church (?) or of a group with a devotion to this miracle. Used to cite a footnote that there is a photograph from when JP2 (when not yet pope) visited. This footnote can be removed as irrelevant. I would be in favour of removal.


 * This Is My Body-This Is My Blood - Catholic Journal". Retrieved 4 December 2022.

"archive.ph". archive.ph. Retrieved 4 December 2022.

Are there arguments against this action? Mr. bobby (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The admins deleted information with reliable citations from books
I translated the text from Italian Wikipedia and edited this article adding new reliable citations from books and journals, but the admins deleted all of the content even though they have reliable sources. The current Article consists only of reliable details only Exanx777 (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A completely illegitimate procedure! In addition, a copyright violation: under your name you put here the work of other users. Furthermore a misleading of the reader, because the work of the italian WP-users is not comprehensible here at all! In addition, this work does not seem to be clean: quotes are constantly posted without specifying the exact location (page number). With the indication of 2 sources, one can mix then blithely, where something stands and produce so evidence artificially.

I will, if I find time, everything that is unproven or speculative, delete again.

Summa: It does not matter at all what was examined there: The first reports are written 700 years after the alleged event. And an age check of the material does not exist either. Therefore all conclusions from tissue examinations are irrelevant or fake (equal weight of blood clots). Such nonsense is posted in an encyclopedia again. I ask the admins to intervene here.Mr. bobby (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano" (PDF). 2020 is  a source written by a devout believer in divine miracles and therefor is not adaquate to be used in such an article. The article was not printed and surely is a part of catholic propaganda. In my opinion it cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia-article.Mr. bobby (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Franco Serafini is not a reliable source
A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles - Franco Serafini - Google Books

This book is also published by Sophia Institue Press, not a reliable source on science.

Everything sourced to this source should be deleted. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:FCDD:815F:9000:2B30 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just because the book is published by a Catholic publishing company doesn't mean that it's not reliable. That's like saying we should never trust books published by skeptic publishers because they have a clear bias against religion!
 * Moreover, the block of text you deleted is actually corroborated by other sources, Serafini is simply summarising what happened. LimitatedlySilvery (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources is determined on an individual basis. If Sophia Institute press regularly embraces pious fraud, it is not reliable.
 * BTW, "Science behind miracles" does not make any sense. See here. Miracles are just an excuse for failure to succeed at science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you know that they "regularly embrace pious fraud"? They just seem like any old Catholic publishing company that publishes normal catholic stuff.
 * But even if one were to grant that they often publish scientifically or philosophically weak stuff, this doesn't mean that they ONLY publish that. In this case, even if everything else in his book was wrong, Serafini gave a satisfactory summary of how the alleged miracle was tested.
 * Also, regarding what you said about miracles, even if one were to grant that miracles are impossible, this doesn't make Serafini's book false in its entirety. He might still provide a good summary of what happened and a good overview of naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations of the event. LimitatedlySilvery (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I said "If". Wikipedia cannot accept normal catholic stuff as fact, only with attribution.
 * this doesn't mean that they ONLY publish that and doesn't make Serafini's book false in its entirety "Reliable" is not defined as "contains some things that are not false". It means "one can rely on it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia can accept Catholic sources, and no one is saying that the supposed miracle is a fact, they are just saying what the source is saying. Serious L (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This not about "Catholic sources", it is about a source that spreads WP:FRINGE ideas. There is a buttload of those out there, and Wikipedia only talks about them if a reliable secondary source talks about them first. We are not scanning the literary output of every person in the world so we can add to Wikipedia article "person X thinks that Y". See WP:SECONDARY. -Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot say that Serafini Book is wrong. I read it and is very fascinating book about religion and science of authentic eucharistic miracles. If the miracles are true then the evolution theory is wrong. Doctor Serafini in Italy is doing conferences about this subject with scientific proofs and evidences of the scientists that studies the relics. 80.117.226.63 (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If Doctor Serafini are saying the truth and i believed yes the christian catholic church is right and Darwin evolution theory is false. 80.117.226.63 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You know what is a fringe theory? Evolution that is not science because it cannot beeing see scientifically, Serafini is saying the truth with eucharistic miracles like Sokolka in Poland, the relic can be see still today unless the evolution of the first unsolved cell..... 79.33.220.155 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Kinda seems off-topic. You can deny evolution if you like, but that doesn't make Serafini's source any more or less credible. Unknown (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Doctor Serafini is telling the truth 95.245.193.176 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on a book is irrelevant. Stupid books are sold and consumed by lots of people who believe them because of their own ignorance. That does not make the books less stupid. Read the "WP" pages links above. Those are the rules here. If you don't like them, that is your problem.
 * Also, the Vatican accepts evolution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * According Darwin own theory for falsifield his evolution if could be demostrated a complex organ being formed without any sort of evolution process my theory is fake and doctor Serafini reported the analysis of this reliques.... 95.245.193.176 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm this Ip. I have made a request by the wp:rsn about the use of Franco Serafini in this article. And at the same time of the Linoli article that is at the root of this and previous discussions. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:658E:332A:F320:38F9 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe everything Dr. Franco Serafini says should be attributed, for example "according to Dr. Franco Serafini..." Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)