Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2012, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2012 09:01 AM by Malleus.)
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
He is kind of dead now, Morondog. Technically, as a saint, he supposedly still performs miracles, though. But I have another question to add. Did they also count the cases when he did pray and they didn't heal? He is a saint, right? His rate of success should be 100% now more than ever. I want to see 1000 people getting healed now by praying to him. I want to see amputees growing back limbs and I will pay more attention (it never ever happened in all recorded history). I will also accept cancer or AIDS patients, but his rate of success needs to be higher than 50%.

Anecdotal evidence starting with "a girl" "a man" "a child" is not reliable for an obvious reason: other religions have similar examples. Every supernatural claim, related or not to a god, has the same kind of claims. Your parents can't possibly support all of them because many are conflicting. Pick one they do not support and bring equal claims they make and ask them why they doubt such examples. Standards of evidence are there for a reason. People have to meet them or shut up.
I have seen modern faith healers claiming miraculous healing on camera. The disadvantage is that we live in the age of information and people were able to find out that the healing had happened the old-fashioned way: through successful surgery followed by professional physiotherapy. He did not just happen to walk after a prayer. He had come to church in a wheel chair for no good reason and voila! he's healed. They have to understand why you need to doubt stuff like this and to reject it unless it can be independently verified. Hundreds of people could honestly say that a man got up from a wheelchair in front of their eyes right during a prayer for him to regain the ability to walk. The same ability to walk that he had regained already through medical science. It doesn't make it a miracle, but a hoax.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Malleus's post
24-01-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
Besides which if God's willing to provide evidence like this that he exists, nice hard concrete medically verifiable evidence, and he's prepared to write a book, and he's still doing this stuff today, then WHY can't he just say hello like any normal deity would? For an omnipotent being he's *really* shy. I mean he goes so far as to be invisible - he *really* doesn't want to be found. Can't resist the odd healing or earthquake though... and really attracted to men in robes with strong opinions about sex and who shouldn't have it (everyone).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
24-01-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
(24-01-2012 07:11 AM)iakhovas Wrote:  Ok so we are able to explain the stigmata, but how about the dozens of healing administered to many patients? Blind girl without her eye pupils managed to see after visiting him, some actress praying for her lover to survive, some guy with crippled leg walking after visiting him and so forth. there are many cases like this reported in many books/biographies.

Id say besides the fact that the body could regenerate by itself it had to be just made up in a nice looking story to convince his followers hes a wonderman.Any thoughts on that?

Logic 101 : The fact that "a" follows "b", does not prove "a" was the cause of "b".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-11-2012, 03:29 PM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
Pio was a stigmatic
miracle-working monk who died in 1968 and who canonised by Pope John Paul II.



Pio claimed that Jesus gave him a copy of the
five wounds of the crucifixion. In 1923,
Rome declared
that nothing supernatural had been proven about the marks. This is very important for less was known
then about magic tricks and chemicals that keep wounds open and the power of
the mind than is known now. The wounds
then could have seemed supernatural indeed - more than they would nowadays - for the same reason that the cures
for smallpox would have seemed miraculous to many. This shows that the Church did find
indications of possible fakery.



In the pro-Pio book,
Padre Pio
Under Investigation,
Francesco Castelli states that a Monsignor Rossi
(in 1921) examined Pio's stigmata and found no wounds in the palms even though there
was a scab of blood in each palm. He found two white button like marks
on the feet but no blood or wounds there. Rossi described the marks
not as wounds but as the effusion of blood - like blood getting out through
skin. This book admits that Pio was ordering carbolic acid but says
without proof that he needed it to sterilise needles.


The book says that Rossi found no lesions but yet Pio
told him that his hands were very sore. Why would they be sore when
there were no wounds but only scabs?




This book says that in order the doctors who examined
the alleged wounds were
Doctor Romanelli in 1919. Asserted there was a
side wound "lacerated" and "linear". Stated that
he thought the wounds in the hands went right through.

Professor Bignami in 1919. Asserted there was no side
wound. Denied there were any deep fissures.

Doctor Festa in 1919. He contradicted Romanelli
who said the wounds in the hands went right through. Asserted there
was no side wound. Denied there were nay deep fissures.

Doctor Festa conducted a second examination in 1920.

Doctor Festa conducted a third examination in 1925.

Festa regarded the marks
as supernatural. He reached this opinion merely from the fact that they were perfumed. He obviously just took Pio's word for it that no
cologne had been applied!

Its uncertain that
Pio ever really had wounds.



Nobody ever said he could press on each
side of the hand "wound" and get his fingers to touch one another through the
alleged wound. Doctor Romanelli said he had the
impression that the hand wounds were through the hands but he admitted it was
only an impression. He tried but assumed that
his fingers would meet if he tried harder. But he was afraid to for it
gave Pio great
pain (page 14, The Stigmata and Modern Science). The priest was crying and struggling and
wincing with the alleged pain enough as it was so would the examination have been done right? Romanelli is the weak leg that the pro-Pio devotees have to stand on.



How convenient that Pio was not put under
anaesthesia for examination of the wounds.
That shows that neither Pio or those who organised the tests were very
particular though they did a bit to look particular. Pio was not
seriously interested in having the wounds cured for as far as he was concerned
he knew how to handle them. Pio wanted
the appearance of being verified as a true stigmatist. And Pio was able to undergo two operations
without anaesthetic which is a phenomenon known as auto-anaesthesia (page 89,
The Bleeding Mind)– many people with trained minds are - which makes his
behaviour very suspicious. It looks as
if he wanted to use the pain as an excuse for getting the tests rushed and to
prevent anything suspicious being found.
It paid off.


Pio’s Provincial said he would testify on
oath that he could see through Pio’s hand wounds (page 68, The Bleeding Mind). But no doctor ever could so that is
worthless. A piece of a mirror in the
middle of the encrusted blood could be used to give the impression that the
hand could be seen through just like a magician could do it.


Reason bids us believe the doctors who said
the wounds were superficial for that would explain why they were not septic –
as can carbolic acid which some thought Pio was using on the wounds.
Superficial wounds would explain why
there was not a mark on Pio when he died.
When there is conflict of testimony the testimony that is closest to a
rational or simplest interpretation has to be preferred. And in this case we have disposed of
Romanelli’s reliability – remember when we refute his testimony that is all we
need to do for he was the only one that was nearly any good - so we can be
confident that Pio’s wounds were superficial and that naturally he exaggerated
the pain from them to avoid detection and so he was consciously deceiving.


It is absurd to think that the wounds would
change so much as from superficial to complete perforations if they were
miraculous. They might change if they
were natural.


Pio was certainly dodgy and has recently
been exposed for surreptitiously sending for chemicals amid great secrecy
as if he needed them to make his wounds. Pio himself claimed that he
only insisted on secrecy so that those delivering the chemicals to him would not
know they were carrying such dangerous materials! What kind of excuse was
that?

If Pio's stigmata was
dubious, how can we be confident in the other miracles ascribed to him?

Pio was famous for the miracle of perfume
which surrounded him. One thing is for sure when a person has a nice smell that
is supposedly a miracle you can be sure that it is not. No sensible God would do such a mundane and
easily duplicated miracle.


Pio drew attention for his alleged (and
unsubstantiated for he was alone when they happened) nocturnal battles with
demons who used to hit him. Demons would
not have drawn attention to him unless they had some secret pact with him for
if God was with him they could not hope to win.
They would have been promoting him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PatrickHGormley's post
18-11-2012, 12:48 AM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
Welcome to TTA, PatrickHGormley Smile Wonderful, knowledgeable post to kick off with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2012, 01:11 AM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
(23-01-2012 01:43 PM)iakhovas Wrote:  
(23-01-2012 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  He is a fraud - Google is your friend. e.g. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

I found this CSI (lol) page already and read the material, I was wondering if this is considered valid. There are so many books, biographies etc with doctors witnessing strange phenomena with medical evidences of his condition and so on. I cant just compare one biography with this report stating that it is more accurate and probably true.
Firstly, personal accounts that cannot be verified do not count very well for evidence. Even in court, hearsay things or personal accounts with no alibi and no further evidence can be dismissed. If you wouldn't hold a person to it in a court of law, why the hell would you hold a person to it when it comes to things important in life like... important issues of morality, supernatural accounts, etc?

Example:
Quote:I saw a ghost once. Do you believe me? Well you should because I have a PHD and I'm super smart. Also, I can tell you that things about the account seemed very likely because I'm able to talk about medicine stuff. Therefore, since I'm able to talk on the subject, i'm reputable. You should believe me! I'm credible!

This kind of stuff comes up a lot.

If a doctor comes across something that is unexplained, it should remain just that... unexplained. To assert something they cannot prove is nothing more than a leap, that is faulty logic. Despite whether or not they have a PHD, experience in the field, etc. Unexplained is unexplained. It is no more credible than someone working for the airforce seeing a UFO (unidentified flying object) and instead of calling it unidentified, asserting it is aliens.


This is where logic is important.

As others have mentioned, it's a fraudulent account, but either way, I wanted to touch on the subject of evidence, personal accounts, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
24-06-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: Padre Pio - Fraud or not?
(17-11-2012 03:29 PM)PatrickHGormley Wrote:  Pio was a stigmatic
miracle-working monk who died in 1968 and who canonised by Pope John Paul II.



Pio claimed that Jesus gave him a copy of the
five wounds of the crucifixion. In 1923,
Rome declared
that nothing supernatural had been proven about the marks. This is very important for less was known
then about magic tricks and chemicals that keep wounds open and the power of
the mind than is known now. The wounds
then could have seemed supernatural indeed - more than they would nowadays - for the same reason that the cures
for smallpox would have seemed miraculous to many. This shows that the Church did find
indications of possible fakery.




That is a "good " post on the surface but it is very misleading and you have errors in many of your "facts".

I was of the persuasion that Padre Pio was/is a fraud. I did extensive readings on him both pro and con. Many of my books are from Italy and some from his most ardent attackers including left wing type parties in Italy who totally despise Padre Pio. The problem with Padre Pio is the more you research him the more questions remain. I can write an encyclopedia on pro/con but what I am left with is these unanswered questions:

1) The number one con of the wounds are that they are self inflicted. They have the carbolic acid theory. Padre Pio tells people he ordered in secrecy because he and fellow priests were not allowed to administer Spanish Flue shots. Many other priests also ordered chemicals/medications in secrecy or obtained them via black market. It only becomes a big deal with Padre Pio for obvious reasons. Many con people point to the acid in secrecy theory but this was done country wide in Italy and was not unique to the priests at his home.

2) Anyone who mentions that the wounds were done with carbolic acid should replicate this on video and post it on youtube. Padre Pio had NO scarring or remaining wounds once his wounds healed. It turns out I was burned by a very small amount of carbolic acid when I worked at an old age home. I received the burns on my right hand across the knuckles. I received immediate medical attention in a first world hospital. No blood was ever drawn on these wounds. I didn't bleed. After 15 years I still have heavy scarring on my hands. I can't imagine self inflicting wounds with this nasty acid for 40+ years and leaving no scarring. If I did this 2-3 more times my hands would be a disaster zone. If his wounds were self inflicted then he found a novel way to do it. It wasn't acid. And if it was someone could easily replicate it. I propose you try it and tape and see how that goes.

3) Padre Pio never claimed any miracles or claimed he was super natural. His own words deflect the super natural abilities attributed to him. He states nothing is done by him, he prays and if people are cured so be it. He admitted freely his followers would often exaggerate or misunderstand what was happening. It's not like he was a self promoter or profited from anything. In fact the claims made by others caused him heavy problems as he was hated by many in the Vatican and political parties.

4) He was heavily investigated and monitored including listening devices placed in his living areas and confessionals. With so many detractors and so much surveillance no concrete evidence of fraud exist. So if he is a fraud he is a very intelligent person and most people who met him would describe him as "simple" and uneducated.

5) Many of the people who studied him cam to the conclusion that he is a psychopath but no one actually would describe him as having psychopathic tendencies or behaviors. Everyone who met him said he was normal and although eccentric (ie. barely eating, staying up for days at a time etc.) he was described as humble, agreeable and totally disinterested in the cult of personality that built up around him.

These are just a few conclusions I came out with. It's not like he wasn't heavily investigated. He was investigated by his own people who were hell bent on proving he was a fraud. No one has ever provided concrete conclusions. The carbolic acid theory is hog wash and if true can easily be replicated so I say do it and see how that goes.


I am on the fence about this guy. If he is a fraud he is an incredibly intelligent and ahead of our time fraud. No one can explain his wounds and the explanation for them doesn't stand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: