Let me begin with a confession: I honestly don’t know what to make of the “miracle of the sun” that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, and that was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000 people (although a few people in the crowd saw nothing) and also by people who were more than 10 kilometers away from Fatima at the time, as well as by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. On the other hand, no astronomical observatory recorded anything unusual at the time.
Rather than endorsing a particular point of view, I have decided to lay the facts before my readers, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Here are some good links, to get you started.
Neutral accounts of the visions and the “solar miracle” at Fatima:
Our Lady of Fatima (Wikipedia article: describes the visions leading up to the solar miracle). Generally balanced.
Miracle of the Sun (Wikipedia article). Discusses critical explanations of the miracle, and points out that people both in Fatima and the nearby town of Alburitel were expecting some kind of solar phenomenon to occur on October 13, 1917: some had even brought along special viewing glasses. Also, the solar miracle on October 13 was preceded by some bizarre celestial phenomena witnessed by bystanders at the preceding vision on September 13, including “a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground.” In short: the “solar miracle” of October 13, 1917 didn’t come entirely as a bolt from the blue.
The Fatima Prophecies by Stephen Wagner, Paranormal Phenomena Expert. Updated April 10, 2016.
Catholic, pro-miracle accounts:
Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John Haffert. Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1961. John M. Haffert is a co-founder of the Blue Army of Fatima. He interviewed dozens of witnesses of the solar miracle at Fatima, and carefully records their testimonies in his book.
The True Story of Fatima by Fr. John de Marchi. St. Paul, Minnesota: Catechetical Guild Educational Society, 1956. Fr. de Marchi is an acknowledged expert on Fatima, whose account is based on the testimony of the seers, members of their families, and other acquaintances.
The Sixth Apparition of Our Lady. A short article containing eyewitness recollections, from the EWTN Website Celebrating 100 years of Fatima. (Very well-produced and easy to navigate.)
The Apparitions at Fatima. A short account of the visions and the solar miracle.
Catholic attempts to rebut skeptical debunkings of the solar miracle at Fatima:
Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics by Mark Mallett, a Canadian Catholic evangelist and former TV reporter. The author’s tone is irenic, and he evaluates the evidence fairly. His blog is well worth having a look at.
Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima by Matthew Archbold. National Catholic Register. Blog article. March 27, 2011. Rather polemical and sarcastic in tone.
Why the solar miracle couldn’t have been a hallucination:
Richard Dawkins And The Miracle Of Sun by Donal Anthony Foley. The Wanderer, Saturday, November 5, 2016. Makes the telling point that it was seen by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about the visions.
A Catholic account by a scientist-priest who thinks that the “miracle” was a natural meteorological phenomenon, but that the coincidence between the timing of this natural event and the vision can only have a supernatural explanation:
Miracle of the Sun and an Air Lens (Theory of Father Jaki) by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Blog article. “Fr Jaki suggests that an ‘air lens’ of ice crystals formed above the Cova in Portugual. This lens would explain how the sun ‘danced’ at Fatima, but not over the whole earth. Thus, it was a local phenomenon that was seen at the Cova, and by others who were not present with the three children of Fatima within a 40 mile radius.” An air lens would also explain how the muddy and wet ground at the site of the apparitions suddenly dried up, after the miracle.
God and the Sun at Fatima by Fr. Stanley Jaki. Real View Books, 1999. Reviewed by Martin Kottmeyer. See also the attached footnote by Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal, who argues that on the contrary, it was a UFO.
A Catholic, “anti-miracle” account by a scientist who thinks it was an optical illusion:
Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun by Professor Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic Univeristy of Louvain, Belgium. Paper given at the International Forum in Porto, “Science, Religion and Conscience,” October 23-25, 2003. Excerpt:
“So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983). They have been described by many witnesses and from their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
“· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of the solar disc is still apparent…
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they change in the course of time…
· The sun begins to ‘dance’. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats. It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance…
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is ‘normal’ again: its luminosity is too strong to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be repeated in the same way…
“…It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature.
“…Dr. J.B. Walz, a university professor of theology, collected over 70 eye-witness reports of the ‘miracle of the sun’ that occurred in Heroldsbach [an ecclesiastically condemned apparition – VJT] on December 8, 1949. These documents disclose some individual differences in perception, including the fact that one person saw the sun approaching and receding three times, while most witnesses saw this only two times! The ‘coloured spheres’ that were usually perceived after the breathtaking ‘dance of the sun’ are simply after-images, but they were not recognized as such, since the context of these observations suggested a prodigious interpretation.
“…The general conclusion is that apparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind’s brain. The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. This is possible, since our brain allows for ‘dissociation’ and for ‘switching’ from one type of behaviour to another.”
Meessen’s own explanation of the miracle as an optical illusion is based on experiments which he performed on himself, while looking at the sun under carefully controlled conditions (so as not to damage his eyes). However, I should point out that Meessen’s exposure to the sun’s optical effects was fairly short in duration (30 seconds), whereas the solar miracle at Fatima lasted far longer (over 10 minutes) and didn’t damage any of the spectators’ eyes.
Catholic blogger Mark Mallett also points out: “Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.”
However, Meessen does a good job of debunking the “UFO hypothesis”: he points out that had it been a UFO covering the sun, it could not have been seen 40 kilometers away. Also, at least some witnesses would have reported seeing a “partial eclipse,” but none ever did.
A paranormal explanation of the solar miracle at Fatima:
The First Alien Contact And UFO Sighting Of The 20th Century by Tob Williams. Blog article. April 10, 2011. Updated June 18, 2016.
The Fatima UFO hypothesis by Lon Strickler. February 11, 2012.
https://www.paranormalnews.com/article.aspx?id=1562
“Live Science” debunking of the solar miracle:
The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun by Benjamin Radford. May 2, 2013. Ascribes the miracle to “an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God,” which, “if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Also suggests that mass hysteria and pareidolia can explain some features of the visions.
Skeptic Benjamin Radford on the Fátima Miracle by Dr. Stacy Trasancos. A response to Radford’s debunking. Points out that plenty of dispassionate observers at Fatima also reported seeing the sun move. Promotes Fr. Stanley L. Jaki’s carefully researched book on Fatima. Acknowledges that there may be a scientific explanation for what happened with the sun that day, but argues that this doesn’t explain the timing of the event, and why it coincided with the visions.
Virulently anti-Fatima accounts:
Solar Miracle of Fatima and
Fraud at Fatima. The author places too much reliance on discredited sources, such as Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident by Portuguese UFOlogist Joachim Fernandes (critically reviewed here by Edmund Grant). The author also tries to argue, unconvincingly, that only half the people at Fatima actually witnessed the miracle, whereas in fact there were only a few people who saw nothing. See Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima, Real View Books, pp. 170–171, 232, 272. The author is right in pointing out, however, that Lucia’s own published account of her visions at Fatima is highly retrospective (being written over 20 years after the event) and contains a lot of added material. Also, the seers didn’t all see the same thing: Lucia, for instance, saw Our Lady’s lips move while she was speaking, while Francisco (who saw Our Lady but never heard her speak), didn’t see Our Lady’s lips moving – a point acknowledged by Fr. de Marchi (see above). Finally, some of the prophecies associated with Fatima turned out to be false.
My own take:
Given the evidence that the solar miracle was witnessed by passing sailors and also seen at several different locations within a 40-kilometer radius of Fatima, I cannot simply dismiss it as a hallucination. Professor Meessen’s arguments (discussed above) appear to rule out the possibility that it was a UFO. The theory that it was an optical illusion founders on the fact that nobody reported any damage to their eyes, subsequent to the miracle. The hypothesis that it was a natural, local meteorological phenomenon sounds promising, but the fortuitous timing of the “miracle” (which coincided with the seers’ visions) would still point to supernatural intervention of some sort. Finally, if it was really a miracle, then one has to ask: what, exactly, was the miracle? After all, no law of Nature was broken: no-one seriously suggests that the Sun actually hurtled towards the Earth, as witnesses reported. The notion of God messing with people’s senses sounds pretty strange, too: why would He do that? On the other hand, the testimony of 70,000 witnesses is very impressive, and the event clearly meant something … but what? Beats me.
Over to you.
I understand the question. You just don’t like the answer.
What is being asked by you is that everyone here accept your unsupported claims. That’s not going to happen.
I’ve answered your question repeatedly, as have others here. It’s time for you to support your claims or retract them.
I think that when one makes claims about reality at a site called The Skeptical Zone, one should expect to have to support those claims with evidence and reason.
Please do so.
The trouble with revelation is that it requires justification.
Epistemologically, there is no difference between claiming a basis of revelation and saying that you listen to the voices in your head. Neither one guarantees truth at all.
And neither has give us science. The old slog of learning by comparing and contrasting huge amounts of information, and of recognizing that one has been wrong again and again while learning from that, is evidently the way to know things. “Revelation” seems to only result in smugness and lack of curiosity.
Glen Davidson
geeze
FMM–How do you know stuff?
Patrick—Observation
FMM—-How do you know that observation is the way to know stuff?
Patrick—It works
FMM—How do you know that “it works” is the way to know stuff?
Patrick—-I already answered that
FMM——Really where?
Patrick—–Stop making claims
😉
peace
Is that really your answer to the question I asked?
really?
peace
Countdown to “smugness and lack of curiosity” being labeled a “worldview” in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . . .
Inaccurate to the point of dishonesty.
Reality is the final arbiter. This has been explained to you by numerous people, several doing a better job than me. You don’t like the answer, but it has been provided. Please stop stating otherwise.
How do you know that?
On that I would strongly disagree.
Science is simply a method that we use to receive revelation.
peace
Yes. I’m trying to keep my responses to you as succinct as possible because you use every opportunity to ask questions rather than support your claims.
Please stop it and start participating here in line with the goals of the site.
How do you know that? ————–
How is it possible that you still not understand what is being discussed? It’s like you are being willfully obtuse
Yet you offer no alternative so we can compare your impressions with mine.
Why is that?
peace
Asked and answered.
I’m done playing your games. Support your claims, retract them, or demonstrate yourself to be lacking in integrity.
no,
What is being asked is that you take the time to examine your own presuppositions and show how they are coherent, consistent and sufficient to do the job you require of them.
You seem to be unable to do that. Why do you think that is?
peace
where? A link or a quote would be nice.
peace
All the while you refuse to do the same, always asking questions, never supporting your claims.
I’m done playing your childish game until you start demonstrating the intellectual integrity to support your claims with evidence and reason.
woof!
I disagree. I think if you keep it up enough times it will cease to hurt. It’s like you’re counting swans and concluding all swans must be white.
Should we just assume that we all share the same reality, or should you be required to support that claim.
In my reality, God exists.
You share the same reality as I.
Therefore, God exists in your reality too.
Is that what you mean?
Can we just stipulate that I lack integrity and move on from there?
First, this remark assumes that everyone has presuppositions. But too is a presupposition –it is being presupposed that everyone has presuppositions. That claim is itself one big assumptions, being neither the conclusion of an argument or supported by evidence.
Second, this remark assumes that the presuppostionalist has got a hold of the right test for presuppositions. But this too is nowhere in evidence. Surely at no point in any of these discussions has FMM ever told us how he thinks our presuppositions ought to be examined (and of course he is sure that we must have presuppositions, because everyone does — right?).
I’m surprised at this. I thought you would have realized by now that the whole point of presuppositionalism is that both evidence and argument are deemed completely irrelevant. That’s precisely the explicit point of the entire position. Van Til makes that perfectly clear.
You know, I actually thought of that while I was writing that comment and decided “Nah, no one would be that pedantic.”
I do realize that, in large part due to some references you provided. Thank you for aiding me in adding knowledge of questionable utility. 😉
My point is that presuppositionalism as we see it practiced here is at best intellectual laziness combined with fear and at worst dishonesty wrapped in smug condescension. It deserves to be challenged, not coddled.
It deserves to be ignored. Especially after the fifth round or so.
You’re not wrong. The problem with ignoring it is that silence can be taken as assent. I’ll try to find a happy medium where I’m not too much a part of the problem.
Mung, to Patrick:
Yes.
Having suffered that ignominy, I can confirm that being ignored is the worst fate on the internet.
FMM tries to claim as much. People get bored at the repetition and sheer lack of substance, and disengage, then he’s claiming that he won.
I guess successful perception and successful creation from the knowledge thus gathered just isn’t good enough for FMM. Lack of success via revelation, along with unbreakable circularity, is good enough.
Learning comes from not “knowing the answers” already. “How do you know that?” is answered in various ways, none of which involves FMM’s canned response. And, actually, ignoring FMM altogether isn’t best, as it is that sort of circularity that the successes of skepticism and science counter.
Glen Davidson
Whereas in real life it can be the best fate
Hmmmm. I just realized that “ignored” is kind of like “atheist” in that it’s not just the absence of notice, just as atheism isn’t simply the absence of belief in a deity (various mumblings and hollerings to the contrary around here, notwithstanding). If it were just that lacuna, we might be offended at being ignored by our carpets and the infesting dust mites.
Takes, you know, some ability to “nore.”
I agree it is definitely a presupposition of mine.
However it can easily be shown to be invalid/incorrect if you can justify knowledge with out resorting to some sort of axiom/ presupposition.
That is the point of the “how do you know?” questions.
Can you do that?
Not at all. I don’t assume my test is the right one
Just because the ability to justify knowledge is important to me does not mean it’s the correct test. It only means that it’s important to me.
That is the point of my asking “why should I care?” once we determine that there is no way to distinguish what you claim as knowledge from mere opinion. If there is some better test it should surface in your answer.
As you can see. I’ve thought about this a lot and my approach here is not just some game I like to play.
There is a goal and a purpose behind it.
I’m examining my presuppositions while asking you to examine yours. It’s a win win.
peace
I would not say irrelevant more like insufficient.
Peace
If knowledge does not require certainty, insufficient in what way?
Insufficient to persuade or convince also insufficient for knowledge.
Evidence and argument are just data. Data requires context and interpretation.
Data in the wrong context or with the wrong interpretation is not knowledge it’s noise or worse.
peace
I wonder if you’ve noted that you have those insufficiencies yourself. Around here, anyhow.
Oh Definitely.
I think I expressed on multiple occasions that I’m not trying to convince anyone here.
That is one reason why I find the “you are making a claim” charge to be so puzzling,
If my efforts were sufficient to convince or persuade someone or endow them with knowledge what would be the purpose of the Holy Spirit or revelation?
peace
Is the Holy Spirit better than you at persuading people and endowing them with knowledge?
If not, you’re justified in trying to give HS a hand here.
If so, why not do something more productive in another venue?
Time to choose?
He does not need my help. That’s not how it works
Oh I think I have been very productive here.
The important thing is to know what your job is.
choose what?
peace
How the hell did I miss out on his declarations of victory?
But you probably think you’re right, and I certainly would not wish to disabuse you of that notion, so good day.
Don’t mind me. Just pretend that there’s not a ready-made response. Ignore what follows:
How do you know which perceptions are successful?
And “successful creation from the knowledge thus gathered” makes no sense.
FMM should change his name to TarBaby. 🙂
Those which found you something to eat, if you are still alive. But nothing’s perfect
How do you know that success is measured in this way?
It’s like manna from heaven it just keeps coming 😉
peace
quote:
“Brer Rabbit keep on axin’ ’im, en de Tar-Baby, she keep on sayin’ nothin’, twel present’y Brer Rabbit draw back wid his fis’, he did, en blip he tuck ’er side er de head. Right dar’s whar he broke his merlasses jug. His fis’ stuck, en he can’t pull loose. De tar hilt ’im. But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
end quote:
😉
now that is funny I don’t care who you are
peace
FMM has indeed been enormously successful at being annoying and distracting.
But not at anything else.
Too many people here tinking dey is de fox. But de fox, he is silent. He lay low.
true dat
😉
peace
There is no need to be annoyed or distracted.
All you need to do is answer the question or acknowledge that you have no answer. It shouldn’t take 30 seconds of your time.
Just know that your continued lack of an answer reinforces the now unavoidable conclusion that you have no justification for knowledge that does not include God.
But Tar-Baby, she stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
peace
More on Tar-Baby’s armaments and strategy
quote:
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
(2Co 10:4-5)
end quote:
There it is in black and white written 2 thousand years ago, long before Kant and Quine,….. imagine that
peace
keiths:
fifth:
I (and a bunch of others) have been trying to get you to think rigorously about epistemology for months. You don’t appear to be capable of it. Hence the dog/calculus comment.
Your ‘epistemology’ can’t survive this simple question:
And no, I’m not talking about certainty.
once again, For probably the 20th time.
The answer is ———wait for it ——–revelation.
You verify revelation with revelation.
If you want to verify that your wife has really revealed that she loves you. You simply look for more revelation from her.
simple is it not?
peace