STIGMATA AND PHYSIOLOGICAL AND OTHER PHENOMENA OF MYSTICISM. In honour of Father Herbert H. Thurston, S A New Horizons Review. Copyrightt New Horizons Research Foundation March 1987. INTRODUCTION Stigmata are "wounds", marks or points of bleeding which simulate the injuries of Christ. Stigmatics (i.e. recipients of sitgmata) can develop marks corresponding to any or all of the piercing of hands and feet, the "ferita" or lance-wound in the side, the bruise on the shoulder from the weight of the cross, chafing of wrists or ankles, weals of scourging and a coronet on the brow (crown of thorns). Allied to the stigmata is the "token of espousal" or mystic ring, a modification of the skin or flesh of the ring-finger of the right hand (appropriate to a nun's "betrothal", and if healing miracles are omitted, the curious phenomena reported variously of some mystics may be listed as follows. Physiologically expressed phenomena include stigmatisation, incendium amoria ("flames of love"), incombustibility, fragrance, bodily elongation, inedia (ability to survive without food). Physiological peculiarities alleged of the mystic's mortal remains comrpise the ability to bleed, incorruptibility and absence of rigor mortis. Levitation, irradiance, telekinesis and "miracles of abundance" are classified as physical phenomena, but for convenience are also discussed, though briefly. Except incidentally, we shall not discuss phenomena which appear to be mental occurrences akin to telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, or "astral projection" as encountered in secular parapsychology. The status of the evidence. It is difficult to reject all the alleged physiological and physical phenomena as frauds or fictious. Admittedly we can have little confidence in many of the reports, particularly concerning the elder saints where hagiographers have been over- zealous. Saint Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) was canonized on the basis of 873 miracles, surpassing Moses, Elijah, and Jesus combined. Of this saint it is said that preaching one day in the open he stopped a passing funeral procession and temporarily revived the corpse to bear witness as to the truth of what he was sayingl (Some ecclesiastical wags said that an even greater miracle was his persuading the women of Liguria to abandon their especially ornate head-dresses). The position has improved of late as a result of modern critical hagiography and the principles established by Pope Benedict XIV (1675-1758), who stressed that nothing should be ascribed to the supernatural if a natural explanation is possible. Extraordinary phenomena (other than posthumous miracles of healing) are not nowadays required in proof of holiness of life, which diminishes the motive for ascribing wonders to the virtuous departed. The tests of evidence in this field are the same as those in psychical research or in historical studies. As with George Washington's cherry tree, eye witness depositions are preferred to hearsay evidence, and should be recorded soon after the event, with circumstantial detail. The value of depositions made at processes for beatification or canonization is sometimes but not usually reduced by the lapse of time between the death of the candidate and the enquiry. Many of the hearings of the Congregation of Rites concerning the beatification or canonization of holy persons are extremely detailed and include affidavits made by very responsible people and have to be treated with considerable respect. The title Venerable can be conferred^in recognition of the cult of a departed person which has grown up in his diocese. The title Beatus or Beata ("The Blessed"), if approved, will be binding on the whole church, but is only bestowed by the Pope himself after extensive hearings by the Congregation of Rites. Canonization is the award of the title Sanctus or Sancta ("Holy"), bestowed similarly. In modern times this is only done after another longish interval subsequent to the beatification of the deceased. Typical intervals after death are thirty years for beatification and at least fifty for canonization, though there are exceptions, such as the early canonization of the "little Theresa", Saint Theresa of Lisieux whose book, published posthumously, gained early and widespread popularity, so that the supporters of her'cause'had both popular support and a good supply of funds (mecessary for the work of investogation, finding witnesses, and sending them to Rome). Interpretation and Categorization. There is however one difficulty in the way of reliable interpretation, in contradistinction as to determination of authenticity. This is the shortage of data of a comparative type from other religions, although it is known that there are groups with mystical traditions within Islam, in India, and possibly in the Orthodox Christian churches. Unfortunately little is known of their phenomena. Few data exist in the Protestant world, because Protestants, it seems, are less given to mysticism. Almost all the available material worthy of study occurs in the Roman Catholic sphere. Non-Catholic students (including the present writers) have to overcome a lofty barrier of initial sceptism? partly scientific doubt, and partly a legacy of the Lutheran reaction against the contemplative life and the cult of saints. But it is wrong to suppose that intelligent Catholics (to whom we are indebted for searching factual and critical studies) have all been gullible. Even in the thirteenth century, many ecclesiastical authorities would bear heavily on mystics suspected of fraud or love of notoriety. (Generally speaking it is easier for Roman Catholic mystics to have their honesty accepted after death than while they are living. Similarly the Vatican, although for some centuries disapproving of political democracy, has in the matter of sanctity a tendency to accept the maxim Vox populi, vox dei, and to recognise the holiness of those deceased religious for whom the masses "vote with their feet", as evidenced by the numbers of pilgrims to the shrines in question. Thus it must be admitted that possibly all hearings before the Congregation of Rites are not of equal rigor. None-the-less we feel that the majority of these'processes' have to be taken seriously in regard to the truthfulness and objectivity of the witnesses). Returning to the problem of interpretation we should say that we, the authors^operate ourselves within the system of categorization of strange occurrences sketched in our companion paper (Miracles and Healing Miracles). We characterize a phenomenon as "probably normal" if on balance, after considering the evidence and comparing it with parallel phenomena in other fields of enquiry, it seems that there is a reasonable prima facie case for regarding that type of phenomenon as generated by normal causes even if these and their modus operandi are not as yet fully known or understood. We use the term paranormal to refer to phenomena which, if they did not occur, in a religious context would be immediately classified as "parapsychological" or as falling within the sphere of "psychic research". Such happenings are poltergeist type events such as befell Padre Pio Forgione in his early years and the Cure' of Ars during most of his life, also the "reading of hearts", i.e. knowledge of people's thoughts and feelings as exhibited by both the priests we have mentioned, and which in a secular sphere we would call telepathy or "psychic sensitivity", "in the present essay we do not in fact have reason to assign phenomena to other presumptive categories such as the "supernatural". Of course we do not claim any finality of judgement. Unlike many groups extant today we do not claim our verdicts to be other than provisional, temporary, and unendowed with unfa nihility. (En passant it is worth saying that it is not only the Papacy that claims infallibility but certain self-called "humanist" groups, such as PSICOP that are not only more dogmatic than the Vatican but are more far-reaching in their claims). We should also say that interpretations of religious phenomena do not cast aspersions on the sincerity or genuine religious dedication of the persons concerned. To all of them we could say, like Kipling, that, in certain respects at least, "You're a better man than I am". Mystical prayer. Many of the problems connected with an intellectual acceptance of the objective reality of the phenomena of mysticism may be alleviated by the recognition that mysticism involves psychological and behavioural tendencies which are far removed from the world of everyday life in which most of us "live and move and have our being". In the present context "mysticism" means "mystical prayer" ("contemplation"). It is not given to most people to graduate from ordinary prayer to any or all of the three stages of mystical prayer. At the first level the mystic concentrates his mind (by conscious effort) on divine themes. If the state of "full union" supervenes, the mystic enjoys a sense of divine presence, but is still capable of voluntary withdrawal, unless the state of "rapture" or "ecstasy" has been attained. Ecstasy iis, broadly speaking, a kind of trance in which the mind is cut off from the environment unless aroused by some dramatic intervention such as a blow, or an imperative command. Sometimes when overtaken by ecstasy the mystic continues in automatic fashion with his present occupation, which may be preaching or saying Massl . The ecstatic has visions of divine persons, or instead, may merely experience a sense of bliss and unity with the Divine. Attempts have been made to equate ecstasy with other forms of trance; hysterical catalepsy, somnambulism, hypnotism, the meduimistic trance, or drug-induced states; but it is unsafe to suppose that these conditions are identical to one another or to ecstasy. However, as pointed out by St. Theresa of Avila (1515-82) who attempted to distinguish between "natural" and mystic ecstasies, a hysterical trance can be confused with ecstasy. Religious mystics normally interpret ecstasy in terms of real contact with God.