View source for Talk:Stigmata

{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=low}}
}}

{{Archive box|
# [[/Archive 1]]
# [[/Archive 2]]
}}

==Article is being improved with references==

Historical references such as [[Herbert Thurston]]'s ''The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism'' (1952), [[William A. Hammond]]'s ''On Certain Conditions of Nervous Derangement'' [https://archive.org/details/oncertainconditi00hamm] attribute stigmata to either a [[Hysteria|hysterical]] or fraudulent (conscious/unconscious deception) origin. This is supported by recent scholary sources such as [[Leonard Zusne]]'s ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking'' (1989) and
Cristina Mazzoni's. ''Saint Hysteria: Neurosis, Mysticism, and Gender in European Culture'' (1996).

Some cases of stigmatics who performed conscious trickery are discussed by [[Joe Nickell]], ''Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures'', 1993. See also his 2004 article in the Skeptical Inquirer [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stigmata_of_lilian_bernas] [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

==[[Francis of Assisi]]==

The stigmata of [[Francis of Assisi]] may actually be explained by [[leprosy]]. This paper discusses it Schazlein, Joanne; Sulmasy, Daniel P. (1987). ''The Diagnosis of St. Francis: Evidence for Leprosy. Franciscan Studies'' 47: 181-217.

According to the authors on page 185: "We may summarize the case history of St. Francis as that of a medieval Italian male of probably poor nutritional status with a history of prolonged and intimate exposure to leprosy... In his last two years he developed ulcerated wounds of both hands and  feet, six months of anasarca (total body swelling), inanition, and wasting, punctuated by a single episode of hematemesis (vomiting blood), terminating in the expiration of the patient at the age of 44." [[User:HealthyGirl|HealthyGirl]] ([[User talk:HealthyGirl|talk]]) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

==Stigmata is a term which anyone can use==
This article says that the term "stigmata" is a "a term used by members of the Catholic faith" but anyone can use the term, whether Roman Catholic or not. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 09:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. In other encyclopedias it is not characterized as a uniquely Catholic term.  [[User:Serenesage|Serenesage]] ([[User talk:Serenesage|talk]]) 01:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

==Saint Francis of Assissi==
This article says that Saint Assissi is the first recorded case of stigmata in history, but should it not say "first undisputed case"? The quotation from Galatians given in this article gives evidence that Saint Paul might have borne stigmata. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
=== Saint Ansbert (who is the first one? can he be 2 guys?)===
And what about Saint Ansbert? The article says that both he and Saint Francis are “the first recorded stigmatic in Christian history”; which couldn’t be, ''per la contradizion che nol consente'', to put the case in [[Dante]]’s words.  --[[User:Filippof|Filippof]] ([[User talk:Filippof|talk]]) 07:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

== Scientific research ==

The Scientific research section needs a more neutral tone. Too many sources attempt to refute the phenomenon itself. Even it's Further information section is an article with criticizing tone. It should at least cite other scientific investigations that led to inconclusive results as well. Or at least cite instances where the stigmata could not be proven as a deception.

Otherwise, the section might as well be renamed 'Criticism of the stigmata'

[[User:Harmoonie|Harmoonie]] ([[User talk:Harmoonie|talk]]) 03:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

:More neutral in what way? Have you read [[WP:NPOV]]? We do '''not''' strive for neutrality, but for accuracy. If 99 sources say A and one say B, we do not attempt to be neutral between the two. We say A. That is exactly what [[WP:NPOV]] says. So if most scientific research on stigmata refutes it, then there is nothing wrong in this section. Only if there's a substantial body of published research (in credited academic journals) saying something else is there a problem here. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 17:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

== Inaccurate location of stigmata ==

Most stigmata seem to be in positions which are inaccurate locations for the actual placement of nails in Roman crucifixions.  

The nails were actually driven through the wrist, between the 2 bones of the forearm -- not in the palms of the hands.  (Nails in the palms would have pulled out -- the bone structure there is not sturdy enough to stand up to the weight of the body.)  And the feet were each nailed separately to the sides of the vertical bar -- not nailed together through the front (top) of the foot.  

But stigmata seem to most often appear in the palms of the hands, or the tops of the feet.  This matches where they are commonly shown in paintings & crucifix statues that people see, but is not a historically correct location.  

Is this something that should be noted in the article? [[User:T bonham|T bonham]] ([[User talk:T bonham|talk]]) 07:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

==Indian stigmatic==

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stigmata&diff=921741800&oldid=921705149 this edit], {{ping|Shijoyjames}} added a mention of Mariam Thresia Chiramel, claiming that she is the first "nun saint from India" stigmatic. First of all, there is no source for the "first" claim. Second, unless we plan to include a long list of firsts, this is giving undue attention to one particular stigmatic. Surely we are not going to have the first Polish Benedictine stigmatic, the first Korean teenage female stigmatic, the first Nigerian lay male stigmatic, etc. etc. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
PS What evidence do we have that she even belongs in the "Notable Stigmatics" section? After all, there have been about [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/oct/14/research.science 400 stigmatics known to history]. Why do we believe she is in the 25 most notable of them? --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 18:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:The usual threshold is "having an own article". She does that. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::[[:Category:Stigmatics]] includes 54 stigmatics, but the "Notable Stigmatics" section only includes 25, so the threshold is presumably higher than merely having an article. There is no need for this article to become a List article, including all stigmatics who have articles. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 22:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

==Apparent contradiction==
The introduction states "A high percentage (perhaps over 80%) of all stigmatics are women." But then the Scientific Research section talks of the stigmatics being "predominantly men", with a ratio of 7:1 that became 5:4 in the late 19th century. If it's still 5:4 in favor of men (and the article doesn't say otherwise), then how do we explain the data about the stigmatics being for the 80% women? This contradiction should be explained better and possibly commented upon. And at the very least the introduction should corroborate that statement by adding that it was the complete opposite for the majority of history. [[User:Kumagoro-42|Kumagoro-42]] ([[User talk:Kumagoro-42|talk]]) 14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

:There is no real contradiction - the Scientific Research section was simply incorrect. In "Stigmata: A Medieval Mystery In A Modern Age", Ted Harrison clearly states that women outnumber men, with the '7 to 1' ratio appearing on page 10. Most likely, someone mixed up the order of the ratio and others built upon it. I've fixed this. 
:It could also be worth moving the section to the "Stigmata and Gender" section. [[User:Lennyjamin|Lennyjamin]] ([[User talk:Lennyjamin|talk]]) 04:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

== Posthumous reporting? ==
{{tq|some mystics like Francis of Assisi and father Pio of Petralcina reported a spontaneous regression and closure of their stigmata in the days following their death}}

What? They died, their stigmata closed, and they reported that themselves, despite being dead? Is that really what that Italian source says? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

== Early Cases of Stigmata: Leo IX and the First Crusade ==

Two additional examples of stigmata predating St. Francis would be Pope Leo IX. His Wikipedia biography includes him being born covered with red crosses, which some have interpreted as stigmata. 

Another example is discussed in this scholarly article here. Apparently there are accounts of crusader's bodies bearing a kind of stigmata on the First Crusade.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/abs/stigmata-on-the-first-crusade/9DAF1FAAF611D1666A59C0748849FCE9

Thus there are at least two other possible examples of stigmata before St. Francis, occuring in the 11th century. [[Special:Contributions/2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1|2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1]] ([[User talk:2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1|talk]]) 01:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

== Possible Stigmata of St. Patrick ==

St. Secundus, in a hymn on St. Patrick writes: "In his righteous flesh he bears the stigmata of Christ; in His Cross alone, his sole comfort, he glories." (Maelruain and Elizabeth Dowling, Lorrha-Stowe Missal and the Hours of Bangor, 2008, p. 68). 

According to Christopher Dowling, "...the term stigmata is used in the original text. This hymn is the only source on the life of St. Patrick which suggests stigmata, but it is contemporary, and should not be translated 'marks.'" (Ibid. p. 67)

Now, it should be noted that this is not a scholarly source but, I think, a publication of a religious group.

Nevertheless, the Irish Archaeological Society also translated the hymn and the relevant portion reads: "he was humble in spirit and in body, and in his flesh bore the stigmata of Christ" (Patrick Francis Moran, Essays on the Origin, Doctrines, and Discipline of the Early Irish Church, 1864, p. 90).

It seems clear enough that St. Secundus' hymn mentions the stigmata of St. Patrick as something which afflicted his body, but the exact nature of what is meant is not described. While Catholic apologetics sources sometimes cite this, it is likely that the stigmata referred to here refer to bodily afflictions suffered at the hands of the pagans, or Ascetical Labors. [[Special:Contributions/2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1|2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1]] ([[User talk:2601:201:897E:FD90:DCC9:105F:67BC:69D1|talk]]) 02:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)