Talk:Stigmata

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Christianity: Catholicism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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Historical references such as Herbert Thurston's The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism (1952), William A. Hammond's On Certain Conditions of Nervous Derangement [1] attribute stigmata to either a 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 [2] HealthyGirl (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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." HealthyGirl (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Vorbee (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vorbee (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Filippof (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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'

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

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. Jeppiz (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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? T bonham (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian stigmatic

In this edit, @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. --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 400 stigmatics known to history. Why do we believe she is in the 25 most notable of them? --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual threshold is "having an own article". She does that. The Banner talk 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lennyjamin (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous reporting?

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? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]