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.
But how you can know anything if God doesn’t exist???? Answer us that, smarty-pants!
Well, he did lie to Abraham when he told him that he wanted him to sacrifice his son. But he did have a good reason. He wanted to test Abraham to make sure that his fear of god was sufficient. What a sick, sadistic bastard.
Yikes!
You guys are scaring me!!
Then we better not tell you about Santa
Since God makes us know things by…what was that?
Oh yeah, poof.
The same way life gets CSI, so we’ve achieved poof consilience!
Glen Davidson
What, that he’s fat?
Glen Davidson
That completely disingenuous. You start from the premise that anything God does is by definition good. But let’s see….
How about that time God ordered the mass killing of children….what did your investigations turn up? What were the sufficient reasons you discovered that absolved God of any impropriety in this case?
Did the slaughter of infants even raise an eyebrow with you?
Were they good Christian infants? If not, no harm, no foul.
Just catching up on threads after being away. Wasn’t going to comment, but…
Up thread there was a great parody regarding “Total Cancer” (H/T to Woodbine).
Here’s the thing…I really don’t think Fifth’s statement above is totally far off and I think Woodbine’s parody highlights what I think should be the proper Christian response.
We don’t know what happens after death (I could care less what any particular religious person claims; folks may well believe what will occur, but not a single person who exists or has ever existed actually knows.) As such, it’s completely possible that suffering has some grand, wonderful point. I find it completely implausible, but it is possible.
Here’s the thing that gets me though: Devout Christians (to say nothing of other of other devout theists) do not behave in alignment with their beliefs. If Christians were really consist, they’d praise EVERTHING.
Promotion at work: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Recovered from pneumonia: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Got and died from cancer: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Hooked on heroine: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Son comes out as gay: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Had four abortions: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Admitted to having an affair with the babysitter: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
Entire town destroyed by tornado: “PRAISE THE LORD!”
So that’s the issue I have with Fifth’s proclamations on the subject; there just don’t appear to be any good examples of Christians like Fifth really demonstrating that they believe what they preach.
What’s the difference between “sufficient reason” and “for the best” if this god of yours = “Truth” and “good”?
Silly…that he has Type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol.
…Oh…wait…was I not supposed to type that…?
Who said you can’t question your wife’s acts? It’s ok to question God’s acts as well
quote:
Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression?
(Psa 44:24)
and
Why, O LORD, do you stand far away? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
(Psa 10:1)
etc etc
What you should not do is fail to trust her until you have
good reason for doing so
peace
you know that is not the case 😉
peace
Could you?
More importantly can you think of a reason God would have to lie?
From my perspective there is no reason God would have to lie. If did not want someone to know the truth for some reason all he would have to do is withhold revelation.
That’s because revelation is the only way we can know anything.
peace
I do not start from that premise so the rest of your comment is beside the point
Why does that follow? Just because God could have a reason to allow evil it does not follow that evil is good.
peace
How do you know that?
Let me guess! Is it by revelation?
It’s all about perspective
A surgeon might have sufficient reason to miss his son’s birth so that he can perform a life saving operation, But I’m not sure his wife would think his absence was “for the best.”
peace
Mostly It’s a tentative conclusion based on the fact that no one has been able to offer a coherent justification for knowledge that does not include revelation.
That challenge is still open if you what to give it a go/
Do you?
peace
Really? No-one in the World ever? I think the only way we learn anything of the World we live in is through our sensory inputs. I also have grave doubts that “revelation” has any additional meaning to “either somebody told you or you made it up”.
See above. Will that do?
dazz,
There is a difference questioning the reason for a particular act and judging the character of a particular individual
surely even you can see that
peace
no one that I’m aware of
How do you know this?
Hint you might want to take your time on this one and try to think a little deeply
peace
Revelation is pretty strait forward
Reveal–Make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others:
from here
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reveal
We reveal stuff to others all the time.
For instance right now I think you are revealing to me that you haven’t thought much about your foundation for knowledge.
peace
Right. I’d have more respect for “skeptics” who admit they cannot know anything.
People tend to judge the character of a individuals based on their acts, you know.
You are actually making my point for me. You can only know what comes in through your senses. By experimenting with the World yourself or learning from the experience of others. If that’s all you mean by “revelation”, then fine.
I would suggest anyone capable of posting comments on this blog must know something (unless you want to play word games with “know”). I’ve yet to come across a fellow skeptic who thought he had the answers to everything.
yes that is because we have a decent handle on all the possible reasons a person might have for doing what they did.
quote:
don’t judge a man till you’ve walked a mile in his shoes
end quote:
anonymous
This sort of thing is not possible when we are speaking about God
peace
Of course we all know stuff. That is not the question.
The question is how do you know if God does not exist?
peace
So let’s say my hypothetical wife nurse decides to let all those patients die in extreme pain. She refuses to reveal her reasons to do it. Now you don’t have a handle on all the possible reasons she might have had to do it.
She’s off the hook! Praise the lawd
Once again how do you know this?
Did you senses tell you that you could trust your senses?
That seems to be a bit circular don’t you think?
How do you know they are sufficient for this task?
You still are not thinking deeply
peace
Oh, the irony!
Off the hook with who? With the authorities she would not be
But I would trust my wife I know her pretty well and she is not the kind of person who would cause unnecessary pain.
I might try and stop her from treating patients because I felt that she was being irrational but I would trust that she thought she was doing what was right.
peace
Is it? I rather think it isn’t. You are convinced in the idea of your god, I guess. If it makes you happy, then why do you need to concern yourself whether I happen to think it’s delusional nonsense.
My argument is circular in that it begins and ends on the only being up to the task by definition.
Yours on the other hand begins and ends on something that is often wrong and always mercurial. Namely yourself.
peace
I’m not concerned at all. Except for the sake of verifying your claim to have knowledge with out revelation.
You are the one who brought it up.
If you now want retract or withdraw I’m fine with that.
That is usually what happens at some point
peace
Exactly so!
But I’m not making an argument. I’m not trying to convince anyone over the idea of gods (per se). I’m simply saying that the whole idea of gods is delusional nonsense, in my view. Where it’s harmless and doesn’t lead to genocide and so on, then let it be. I’m all for everyone’s right to their own thoughts and beliefs.
You have yet to tell me what you mean by “revelation”. As far as I can tell, you appear to agree with me that you can only know about the World via your sensory inputs.
I suspect what usually happens is that your interlocutors lose interest.
sure you are, you just said.
quote:
You can only know what comes in through your senses. By experimenting with the World yourself or learning from the experience of others.
end quote:
That is an argument unless it is just an unsupported claim. Is it just an unsupported claim?
peace
So you can see why I am under the impression that no justification for knowledge is available with out revelation.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s my opinion. I’m not interested in convincing anyone else that they should also hold it. Everyone is entitled to their own.
As I keep repeating (and that might be why others lose interest, too) until you flesh out “revelation” your statement holds no meaning.
I provided the dictionary definition. what else could you possibly want?
peace
Your own definition if it’s no trouble.
Everyone has an opinion. I like bar-b-que ribs.
I thought you were claiming to be able to know something with out revelation.
peace
What do you mean by “revelation”?
I’m not the kind of guy who needs to make up his own definitions.
Words have meanings and I’m happy to yield to the dictionary on this one.
peace
So supply the dictionary quote you agree with.