Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (part 5)

After a long and overdue return to this case, the qualitative description of the actual apparitions is discussed in this post.

General Description

One obvious aspect about the apparitions is that there was a fairly wide variety of descriptions and “behaviors” reported by the witnesses.

 

The apparitions seemed to have all occurred near the Church, but not necessarily at the same exact spot. As previously noted, the first one was seen on the roof near the base of the dome. It was also seen in the courtyard between trees [1], while in other occasions it was seen in mid-air above the main dome [2]. It is interesting to note that after a number of days of apparitions, the public utilities cut the power in the neighborhood, at first to deflect a hoax, and then to help having a better view, as well surrounding trees were cut on the third night so people could see better [3].  

 

The most common colors were blue and white, but some noted also green and pink [4], and others saw a reddish light [5]. These are important elements to define the nature of the apparition, as the traditional colors associated with the Marian worship is blue and white, but also red (although more common in older and Eastern iconography).
 

 

Several witnesses underlined that apparition disappeared as if it turns off slowly the dimmer of a lamp [6], while in other situations it rose in the sky to disappear [7]. In some occasions it was perceived as if the wind was blow through it and that her “veil” was moving in the wind [8], while it appeared to be flat and only 2-dimensional in another occasion [9]. At times, the apparition was motionless and described as statue like [10], but it appeared that it was moving more often than not [11] but as if floating without using “its feet” [12]. It was “making gestures” with her “head”, and her “hands” in particular [13].

  

Picture taken 13 April 1968, and reproduced in

a book written in Arabic by Risk, according to Zaki (p. 14).

 

Picture by Ali Ibrahim, found in Palmer (p. 54)

The actual shape appeared to have also varied from something like squarish form which was construed as the Virgin sitting and holding the infant Jesus [14], while in most cases it seemed to be closer to either a vertical rectangle or a vertically elongated lozenge with a circle at the top, which sometime seen in full, and other times only in “half-figure” [15]. Many claimed to be able to distinguish a face, eyes, and mouth [16], and even resembling representations seen in religious icons [17]. Yet, others noted that there was a light but they could not distinguish anything particular [18].

Picture found in Palmer without a source (p. 45).

Zaki could not find the source (p. 9).

 

As one would expect, it is normal to have variations in descriptions provided by eye-witnesses, but in general in tends to be relatively consistent. This certainly adds some degree of confidence about the common and ongoing source of the event. However, one important question remains as to whether the witnesses projected into their experience their own beliefs and interpreted the events as being an apparition of the Virgin Mary. This is a difficult question to assess properly, but there are some elements that could provide a few leads in this regard.

 

The Crowd

As discussed in a previous post, the crowd became at one point very large, certainly in the thousands of people. Witnesses’ accounts are quite interesting in their comments about other people present. There was a lot of emotional energy displayed during these events. Some noted that people were screaming at the apparition [19], and in Kamell and al.’s survey the crowd was described as either excited or hysterical (45%), and in prayerful devotion (38%) [20].

To add to the very intense atmosphere, some witnesses saw “miracles” such as paralyzed people walking and other people beyond cured on the spot [21]. This is in line with the investigation conducted by medical doctors on the behalf of the Coptic Church which found several unexplainable cases of people being cure of illnesses. About a dozen of them are described in some detail in Palmer [22].  

In such an atmosphere, which mixes religious devotion and amazement, the probabilities that many people projected their belief into what they saw seem quite high. Non-believers like Nelson, as already noted, did saw an intense light, but could not translate what they saw into the “Virgin Mary”. Yet, the original witnessed were Muslim workers, and they thought that a woman was about to commit suicide by jumping from the Church’s roof.

A combination of factors can be invoked to reinforce what was discussed on this blog in previous posts about “prior plausibility structure”. Zeitoun is known in the Coptic tradition as a place where the Virgin rested during the escape to Egypt, and there is an old tree associated with this tradition in Zeitoun. Then, the apparitions were centered on a Church, dedicated to Saint Mary. There were “miracles” seen by witnesses, and there is no doubt that the word about such event spread very quickly. The main colors were blue and white, and sometimes red, the traditional colors associated with the Marian iconography. Finally, the shape of the apparition was construed even by no believers as the one of a woman.

 

One could also think that it is an example of one seeing what one wants to see (also known as pareidolia). The social context combined with the key characteristics of the apparition could lead to make such a conclusion about pareidolia. However, if the context is certainly social in nature, pareidolia is an explanation that remains firmly in the world of individual psychology. Given the widespread assessment by witnesses that the apparition had a human shape, the pareidolia explanation is relatively weak.

However, this does not mean that no pareidolia occurred during the Zeitoun events. One case that was reported only by a few witnesses is a light construed as being the Virgin with the infant Jesus. The picture below is described as being “Real photo of the Virgin kneeling and praying, while carrying the Child Jesus Christ in Her lap. […] Photographed by Mr. Wagih Rizk at 3:15 am on Saturday, May 25, 1968” [23]. Although the picture is somewhat blurry, it seems to be a stretch of imagination to describe this as being anything specific.

Photographic controversies

Could the “physical evidence” help us here? Like with most UFO and paranormal-related pictures, they actually tend to murk the water more than they help, as they create controversies about what they are. The fault, unfortunately, is usually on the believers, who do not care to provide the rest of the information necessary to assess the source of the photography. A picture is not a fact; it is an artefact that has a complete social and technical context, which cannot be severed from the actual image; otherwise it becomes meaningless colors on a piece of paper. The story of Zeitoun is no different in this regard.

There is a famous picture where the “Virgin” is seen in great detail, but it is actually an enhanced picture with drawing done over it by an Egyptian doctor who witnessed of the event. This was not intended to be a hoax, but rather a “better” representation of what he saw, as noted in picture caption seen below (unfortunately I could not find the actual source of book where the picture and caption are taken from).

 Picture found at http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

This brought some sceptic websites to declare the picture a fraud, but in fact the original is actually genuine. The same picture is found in Palmer [24], published in 1969, so it was taken either in 1968 or 1969, by Ali Ibrahim, and one can observe that the picture is much more blurry, as noted in Kamell et al.’s photographic analysis [25].

 

From Kamell et al., p. 231

The other picture that has created some controversies is the one taken by Fawzy Mansur sometime in 1968 [26], and was analyzed in detail by Kamell et al. They found no particular fault with the picture that would betray its authenticity, but double exposure could not be ruled out either [27]. However, its semi-transparent nature is in direct contradiction with the opaque look found in other pictures, as well as the description given by almost all eye witnesses. “Too good to be true” is probably a more sensible attitude regarding this particular picture.

From Kamell et al, p. 224.

In the end, it remains difficult to assess what people saw from the point of view of the “physical evidence”. The fact that some pictures were “improved” like the “doves”, as discussed in a previous post, and some of the apparitions does not invalidate the case. As Fodor Nandor noted many years ago about studying poltergeists, there is often a mixture of genuine anomalies and make belief, as the anomaly can awake some powerful and uncontrollable feelings inside people [28].

One other useful source of information is through comparison to similar event. The more recent event of December 2009 in Warraq, also near Cairo can help us to have a better sense of what happen.

Apparition in Warraq

The apparition in Warraq was much shorter in duration when compared to the ones in Zeitoun. It was covered by the Egyptian press, and there are many phonecam videos available on Youtube. The case is not without controversies either, but it was declared to be a genuine supernatural phenomenon by the Coptic Church. Without assessing whether there was any socially relevant anomaly that occurred in Warraq, what is interesting is that it provides some points of comparison to visualize what people in Zeitoun saw more than 40 years ago, as well as what kind of atmosphere was happening then.

 

If one looks at the videos on Youtube, the images are blurry but one can easily construe what is being seen as an apparition of the Virgin. As well, the atmosphere was also intense, people shouting, singing, cars horning, etc. It was definitely a social event, even if this might be a hoax. From this perspective, it reinforces the notion that UFO and paranormal events cannot be studied solely from the point of view of individual psychology, or solely from the individual level by parapsychologists.

 

In light of all the factual information available on Zeitoun, it is not possible to determine the nature of the events. The geomagnetism has certainly played a role as enabling forces, but when one looks at the detail level of the apparitions there too many things lining up for geo-physics to explain everything. Those who claim that geo-physics can explain all the Zeitoun events have not enough facts to support such explanation, and it comes down to be a matter of belief. Those who see a form of divine intervention are obviously making this assessment based on their beliefs, but to stay there is to stay beyond the realm of a reasoned discussion. In order to go beyond the belief systems of the both the sceptics and the believers, a reasoned explanation needs to be attempted to shed, hopefully, some more light on this intriguing case.  

 

Having now looked at the Zeitoun case and the available facts and information, the next post will be proposing to look at the events using the Model of Pragmatic Information developed by the parapsychologist Walter von Lucadou, which is one of the rare parapsychological analytical tools integrating the sociological dimension.  

 

 

Notes:

[1] Palmer, p. 13.

[2] Palmer, pp. 21-23.

[3] Nil, p. 49.

[4] Nil, p. 62.

[5] Palmer, p.32.

[6] Palmer, pp. 21-23; Nil, p. 50.

[7] Palmer, pp. 13-14; Nil, p. 54.

[8] Palmer, p. 15;

[9] Palmer, pp. 13-14.

[10] Nil, p. 43 and 62.

[11] Palmer, p. 13.

[12] Palmer, p. 15.

[13] Nil, pp. 50, 68-70, 72.

[14] Nil, p. 43-44.

[15] Nil, pp. 41, 63.

[16] Palmer, pp. 21-23; Nil, pp. 53-54, 57.

[17] Nil, pp. 43-44.

[18] Nil, p. 42; Zaki, p. 12; Nelson, Cynthia. (1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview 16(9): 5-11.

[19] Nil, pp. 41, 43, 50, 53.

[20] Kamell et al., p. 284.

[21] Nil, pp. 41, 43, 68-70.

[22] Palmer, pp. 44-50.

[23] From http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

[23] Palmer, p. 14.

[24] Kamell et al., p. 231.

[26] Kamell et al., p. 225.

[27] Kamell et al., p. 230.

[28] Fodor, Nandor. (1959). The Haunted Mind. New York: Helix Press.

New perspectives on the notion of collective unconscious

Dear all,

I am re-wrapping my head around the Zeitoun case, but here is something new.

Thank you for your patience.

 

The sociologist Susan Greenwood (1990) noted twenty years ago that Émile Durkheim’s concept of “collective consciousness” and Carl Jung’s notion of “collective unconscious” are very similar in their explanatory structure, and draw from a common origin in the writings of the early 20^th century French anthropologist Lévy-Bruhl. The psychologist Harry Hunt (2012) came to the same conclusion in a recently published article (without referencing Greenwood’s paper in any shape or form).

What makes Hunt’s paper particularly interesting is that his paper was based on the recently discovered Jung’s Red Book, a journal where Jung wrote his most inner thought about various aspects of his research and therapeutic practice. This additional confirmation that the notions of collective consciousness and collective unconscious are closely related constitutes an important argument in support of the parasociological project.

Most parapsychologists agree that psi-related phenomena are somehow linked to unconscious processes. By extension, a fundamental premise of parasociology is that social psi phenomena should be linked to collective unconscious processes. For this reason, Jung’s research on what he termed the “collective unconscious” is of primary interest in parasociology. Yet, Jung was less than clear on what he meant by collective unconscious. This was, in many ways, because he was addressing a topic that could easily be turned into ridicule by the scientific establishment of his time. Having now the benefit of his inner thoughts from the Red Book, many ambiguities in his writings can be resolved.

 

The first ambiguities that Hunt attacks is whether the collective unconscious is something based in our biology (genetically hard wired) or something based in common human experience (and thus being collectively shared through culture and language). Jung tended to propose a biological explanation but it was mainly because biological reductionism was very much the dominant flavor in academic circles in his days, but he could see also a cultural version of it too. In light of modern advances in neuroscience, it appears that it is a bit of both, and Jung’s ambivalence was actually warranted. The human brain is hard wired to grasp the surrounding environment by using some fundamental mental structures. As Hunt notes, “in cognitive psychology, Lakoff and Johnson (1999) have similarly identified cross-modal ‘image schemas’ (container, path, centre, force, etc.) that not only underlie all thought, but seem necessary as the inner form of fully adult feeling – as differentiated senses of anger as ‘heated’, ‘streamed’, ‘boiling’, ‘exploding’ (see also Knox, 2004). These metaphors, already exteriorized in nature, will also be broadly cross-cultural, but independent of any specifically phylogenetic or ancestral mind” (2012, 79). And later he adds that “Jung’s collective unconscious most directly defines a kind of symbolic cognition” (Hunt 2012, 80).

 

In other words, the collective unconscious is collective because, on one hand the human brain is wired to think in certain ways, while on the other hand there a number basic common human experience (hot and cold, wet and dry, male and female, etc.) that provide fundamental metaphors for our thinking. Culture, then, builds on those basic wiring and common experience to deal with the particular situation of a given community (hence explaining the great degree of variation between cultures).

As Hunt underlines, “in socio-cultural terms it is comparable to Durkheim’s (1912) concept of ‘collective consciousness’, which he understands as most apparent in the ‘collective representations’ of myth, ritual, and religion. This idea of a ‘collective consciousness’ takes on a cross-cultural component once we add in the largely unconscious roots of archetypical imagination in Lakoff and Johnson’s ‘image schemas’ – as also embedded within the expressive patterns of physical and animate nature, and so continuously available as exteriorized sources of metaphor” (2012, 80).

 

The sociological concept of collective consciousness can be easily re-defined as the external (or observable) dimension of the collective unconscious. For instance, in most cultures major aspects of reality are gendered, but not in the same way—in patriarchal societies the moon is oftentimes construed as feminine because it is the reflection of the sun (the male principle), yet in a few societies the moon is represented as a male concept because it is at night that warriors get ready for battle and having moonlight is critical. Either way, the moon is assigned a gender, as a common and deeply wired way of relating to reality.

This brings us to the Jungian notion of archetype, the fundamental building blocks of the collective unconscious, according to Jung. Archetypes are deeply internalized in the unconscious, and they are “idea-and-feeling forms” (i.e. ways of thinking with an emotional value) that become strongly associated with a natural form or object; e.g. light is good because this allows us to live; we tend to have special positive rituals about the sun and sunlight--like going in vacation to sunny places in the middle of winter...). To put it differently, archetypes are special nodes of the human mind that we all share in way or another, thus making the collective unconscious that will be seen in various myths and social practices. To take another example, one well-known archetype is the magician (also known as the wise man). It is this idea-feeling we have when we meet someone more knowledgeable than us. It is based on our brain wiring of quantity thinking (i.e. more or less knowledge) and on a common childhood experience of meeting an adult who by definition is more knowledgeable (well, one hopes so!).

 

One can see the direct link between archetypes and common recurrent themes found in collective representations such as myths and rituals (e.g. god is often represented as an older man in the Western world). Once again, the psychologist Jung and the sociologist Durkheim are treading on the same waters. As Hunt put it, “as with Jung, fully developed mythological thinking is not a simple handover from childhood animism, but is itself metacognitive. It is an expressive cognition of underlying cognitive processes, but here on the grounds of cognitive psychology and sociology” (2012, 84). In other words, our collective imagination and representations are the visible expressions of our collective notions deeply buried in the unconscious.  

Archetypes, even if they are lived at the individual level, are in fact showing us that we tend to thinking and feel in very similar ways at the unconscious level. As Hunt wrote, “in the modern West, with our extreme individualism, inevitably shared by Jung himself, we tend to miss the socially collective nature of ostensibly individual states of high imaginative absorption and numinous imagery” (2012, 88). As an interesting empirical support for this notion, Hunt (2012, 90) notes Beradt research on ordinary German night dreams during the mid-1930, which were pointing towards impending disasters on Nazism and the Second World War. One could go further and say that the entire field of anthropology is based on the notion of understanding how myths are constructed, shared, and how the regulate the life of pre-modern societies. Similarly, research in marketing is very much based on seeking the archetype that would support the sales of a particular product. The empirical evidence to support the collective nature of archetypes is overwhelming, and one could say that without the collective unconscious and archetypes, society and especially large complex modern societies would simply not be possible.

This brings us to the interesting notion that archetypes can be activated also at the collective level, not just at the individual one. For Jung, when an archetype is activated (it becomes present in our consciousness through dreams, visions, or just ideas popping-up in one’s mind) , it means that something unconscious is bothering us and the archetype can be used as a clue for the clinical psychologist to help the patient.

But Jung ventured a bit further, and this where his research become particularly useful for the parasociological project, in stating that in some situation an archetype can activated in an externalized way through synchronicities (meaningful coincidences) or paranormal phenomena. This essentially means that one’s unconscious is using external means to get attention about a problem. This was explored by parapsychologists at the individual level (and it is one of the main explanations proposed for poltergeists events or RSPKs). With respect to the usefulness of Jung’s notions, now better understood through his insights described in the Red Book, there is no logical reason to reject the possibility of collectively activated archetypes being also exteriorized through collective synchronicities and paranormal phenomena.

One important dimension of collective archetypal activation is the issue of time. For spontaneous paranormal (or psi) cases, the same unconscious problem would require to bother many people at the same time. In this regard, I found an interesting article by Tim Edensor (2006) that speaks to both deeply held and shared beliefs (archetypes) and time. Here is a somewhat long quote that sums up well the gist of his argument.

 

“Part of the way in which rituals and habits cited above ‘enable the nation to be thinkable, inhabitable, communicable and therefore governable’ (Mercer, 1992: 27), is through synchronization, the simultaneous participation of millions of people in timetabled routines. Zeruvabel (1981) asserts that synchronization is a fundamental principle of social organization which usually eludes analysis, overlooked because of its familiarity. Repetition is surely essential to identity, for without recurrent experiences there would be no consistency given to experience, no temporal framework within which to make sense of the world. As I have already mentioned, the state synchronizes much nation-wide practices, regulating the time spent at school, work and the release of exam results, governing drinking hours, and so on. But in addition to this official temporal framework for everyday living, national synchronicity is achieved through temporal customs about when and where specific social practices should occur.” (Edensor 2006, 534)

As well, if modern societies are more complex than pre-modern ones, this does not mean that they not have means to share myths at the same time, and thus allow archetypes to be activated. As Edensor notes from other researchers: “Moores describes this mediatized timetabling as the ‘domestication of national standard time (1988: 67), and Silverstone highlights how television schedules organize household routines through which time ‘is felt, lived and secured’, producing repetitive viewing experiences embedded in the times of biography and the life-cycle, and in the time of institutions and societies themselves’ (1994:20). In this way, television links ‘the national public into the private lives of its citizens, through the creation of both sacred and quotidian moments of national communion’ (Morley, 2000: 107)” (Edensor 2006, 535).

Now, with the advent of the Internet and satellite television, time is spent in a less homogeneous way, as a greater amount of content can be viewed on a wider timeframe. But standard time routines have not changed that much (Edensor 2006, 541-542). This idea supports my argument that the UFO phenomenon might be in declined because we are less synchronized as societies (post-modern) than during the "television era", mostly occurring in North American from the late 1940s to late 1990s.

Nevertheless, this issue of temporality of collective action, combined with the greater similarity of thought and feeling found in what has been termed the collective unconscious create the necessary conditions for social psi to be possible.

 

References

Edensor, Tim. (2006). “Reconsidering national temporalities: Institutional times, everyday routines, serial spaces and synchronicities”. European Journal of Social Theory 9(4): 525-545.

Greenwood, Susan F. (1990). “Émile Durkheim and C.G. Jung: Structuring a transpersonal sociology of religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(4): 482-495.

Hunt, Harry T. (2012). “A collective unconscious reconsidered: Jung’s archetypal imagination in the light of contemporary psychology and social science”. Journal of Analytical Psychology 57(1): 76-98.

Jung, Carl G. (2009). The Red Book. (Edited by S. Shamdasani). New York: W.W. Norton.

Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row.

Storm, Lance. (1999). “Synchronicity, causality, and acausality”. Journal of Parapsychology 63(3): 247-269.

Dear all,

I am still alive, and the parasociology project is still going on.

I am going through a number of personal challenges right now, and I was not able to pay due attention to the parasociological project.

But I am getting closer to end of the tunnel and should resume posting soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Eric Ouellet

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (part 4)

This post continues the analysis of the qualitative dimension of El-Zeitoun events of 1968-1971.

The Clouds and Smell of Incense

The New York Times article of 5 May 1968, one of the few mainstream newspaper outside Egypt publishing on the events, noted that “on three other recent occasions the apparition was seen and each time was preceded by the appearance of shining white clouds shaped like doves” [1]. This short comment is instructive, as it shows that the “light birds” were also understood as being clouds by some witnesses. But there was another phenomenon involving clouds where the entire sky above the church was covered with clouds, and it was also accompanied by a smell of incense.

Palmer reported that "one should, perhaps, include as 'lights' the mysterious clouds that are sometimes seen to hover high above the church even when the rest of the sky is cloudless. On one night, Bishop Gregorius stated, there poured from the sealed stained-glass windows of the high dome, such clouds of incense that it would take 'millions' of censers to produce a like quantity. The incense cloud settled over the throng standing around the church" [2]. Bayless adds a few more details in noting that “he [Bishop Gregorius] describes the appearance of clouds of deep reddish incense which billowed in huge quantities. It rose to a height of 30 to 60 feet and was clearly visible above and around the church against a colorless sky” [3].

Zaki described that “sometimes clouds like a thick fog would roll in towards the church as if they were being channeled down the streets in all directions to completely cover the church. They seemed to absorb the incense and its fragrance and carry it to the crowd of people and spread it over them like a canopy… The sky above would turn to a deep reddish-purple…” [4]. She also added that this it was a pleasant fragrance [5].

Michel Nil interviewed Father Boutros, the parish priest of Zeitoun, in 1978. He noted that there was at various occasions clouds accompanied with thunder and a smell of incense [6]. Finally, in an interview in 1980, a witness (Mona Mikhael) told Bayless that “other times we used to see clouds of incense. First, you would see a type of white cloud and it would cover all the church, all the area surrounding the church from above. […] I never smelled anything like it in all my life. It was a very, very beautiful odor. The cloud remained for 10 or 15 minutes and disappeared” [7].

This unusual phenomenon remains difficult to explain, but it is not unprecedented. For instance, during the 1906 earthquake of Valparaiso in Chile, “other spectators saw red-violet patches in the sky during the earthquake” [8], which can be linked to the “violet low-level oscillation of air molecules or the emission of ignited gases from fissures in the ground during earthquakes” [9]. Such events seem also to have common characteristics with what has been termed “electrochemical glow discharge”. As Devereux mentioned in his research on earthlights and seismic activity, “through various electrochemical reactions the expulsion of considerable amounts of gas into the air (bubbling through groundwater or out of fissure in the ground) accompanied by pungent chlorine or sulphurous smells could be caused. Such smells have been noted by witnesses involved with earthquakes, ball lightning and UFOs” [10]. (For specific examples, please see UFO Evidence).

We have here another indication that seismic activity might have contributed to the overall events at Zeitoun. The production of large quantities of gas, and the red-violet color associated with such clouds point in that direction. Yet, the issue of a pleasant smell of incense instead of the foul odor of chlorine or sulfur remains problematic. It is particularly problematic in that incense is, by definition, a substance void of sulfur.

Some might argue that given the euphoric state of the witnesses, who were also believers, their capacity to judge smell was impaired, and they projected a more consistent religious meaning to the smell they experienced. This may be so, but there were many other people (non-believers) who would have reported something else. In fact, a smell of sulfur or chlorine might have caused a panic in the crowd. Others may invoke phantosmia (olfactory hallucination) and parosmia (distorted sense of smell), but these conditions are usually linked to head injury and respiratory infections. This explanation would require that Egypt was undergoing an epidemic of such health conditions, something that is quite improbable.

Another possibility would be that all those who reported on the Zeitoun events have censured their reports about unpleasant smell, because it would not point towards a divine event. Yet, as there are no data pointing in such direction, one has to look somewhere else.

It is clear that religious experiences are at times associated with “smell of holiness”. In the Roman Catholic world, one pays attention to “the sign of ‘sweet odor,’ a phenomenon in which the body or the tomb of a saint emits a sweet odor. In the Old Testament, a sweet-smelling odor was a metaphor used to indicate a person pleasing to God and holy in His eyes. Usually, the odor is unique and cannot be compared to any known perfume. Cardinal Lambertini posited that while a human body may not smell bad, it is highly unlikely, especially in the case of a dead body, for it to smell sweet. Therefore, any odor of sweetness would have to be induced by a supernatural power and be classified as miraculous” [11]. This is certainly a good description of what the believers in Zeitoun were thinking, even if it was not about the body of a saint. This explanation, however, is beyond rational proof.

Lastly, there is the possibility of a collectively shared clairalience psi experience (acquiring information through smell outside normal means). It would be tantamount to Warcollier’s famous studies of collective telepathic experiences through “contagion” [12]. But there is very little research on the topic beyond compilations of anecdotal accounts. So, in the end the jury is still out, but the smell of fragrance is definitely one of the anomalous dimensions of the Zeitoun events that seismic activity cannot account for.

Phosphorescent-like luminosity

Another common qualitative description was some sort of glowing aura or phosphorescent-like luminosity in the sky and around the church. Palmer reported that "the large dome atop the church is sometimes illuminated by the heavenly lights, and on one occasion, as described by Bishop Samuel, the light which poured out from beneath one of the smaller domes gradually covered the entire church in light" [13]. Michel Nil, from his 1978 interviews, was told by Ragaï Louis that he saw the church illuminated from above as if it was from a fluorescent light [14], while Victor Fakhri described the same phenomenon as a phosphorous light on the church’s wall and dome [15]. As well, witness Sami Goubran described a very strong light, as if it was “a million of watts,” emanating from the church and lightening up the entire neighbourhood [16]. Bayless was told by the witness Mona Mikhael that “another time…like the sky was open. A very, very wide kind of light. Not very radiant” [17].

Yet again, this type of phenomenon is associated with seismic activities. Devereux noted that “streamers and aurorae-like displays across the sky, balls of light, glows in the atmosphere, sparkles of light on hillsides, ‘slow’ lightning – and occur in association with, but by no means all, earthquakes. They appear before, during and after quake activity, and sometimes at distances of tens of miles from the epicentre of such seismicity” [18].

The issue is becoming a familiar one. Indeed the witnesses’ descriptions reinforce the notion that the events of Zeitoun were enabled by seismic activity, but they can hardly explain why such luminosity was centered on the church for an extended period of time.

Scintillating lights, “stars”, and other precursors to the apparition

As it was already mentioned before, the main apparition was oftentimes preceded by sparklingly lights. As Palmer noted, "the light have been described by spectators as 'a circle of bright spotlights' on one occasion; as 'falling stars' on another occasion, and even as a 'shower of diamonds of light' swirling in the path of Our Lady's movements. A brilliant crown, all of lights, has been seen over the figure of Our Lady, giving her a majestic and glorious appearance" [19]. Zaki witnesses a similar phenomenon, as she wrote that “on my fifth night at about 4:15 a.m. I saw four yellow flashes or flames covering the front of the church. Following this about 4.30 Virgin Mary appeared ‘full figure’”[20]. She added in a different text, “again I saw a flash of yellowish-orange light shape like a big flame and covering the whole front of the church and lasting about five seconds. It was repeated twice (four times in all)…” [21]. Hilda Goubran told Michel Nil in 1978 that at the time of the apparitions there was stars and pigeons associated with the apparitions [22]. Anzy Morid  told Bayless in a 1981 interview that he saw “sparkling lights” prior to the apparition in April 1968 [23].

Once more, Devereux in his study of light phenomenon associated with seismic activity quotes a report from the 1872 edition of Nature that his reminiscent of Zaki’s observations: “[…] following the great earthquake shock of a Californian earthquake recent to 1872, two witnesses observed ‘sheets of flame on the rocky sides of the Inuyo Mountains’ about half a mile from the Eclipse Mines. ‘These flames, observed in several places,’ the report continue, ‘waved to and fro, apparently clear of the ground, like vast torches. They continued for only a few minutes” [24]. Further, he quote a report from a 1902 paper in Nature discussing “flickering flashes” associated with eruption of Mont Pelee [25].

There are other analogous phenomena associated with the pre-apparitional phase that could be highlighted. For instance, Therese Gadallah told Michel Nil that she saw a large red ball transforming itself into the Virgin made of white light [26], and Vivian Goubran made the same observation about a red ball [27]. The Nature article of 1902 about Mont Pelee eruption also noted a large red ball in the sky [28]. A number of witnesses also described the pre-apparition phase as being a shining column of light transforming itself into the Virgin [29]. Similarly, rays and beams of light were also noticed with seismic activities [30].

The description by witnesses of the events surrounding pre-apparitional moments are quite diverse in nature, but they all have counterparts in descriptions of light-related phenomena associated with seismic and earth activities. These represent further indications that there is a valid correlation between earthquakes in Egypt noted by Persinger and the Zeitoun events. But this also raises additional questions about why such a vast array of earth-based phenomena, which tend to occur separately in one off events, are concentrated geographically and qualitatively around that church in Cairo’s suburbs? Clearly, geology and physics do not have any sound answer to offer for such improbable combination of events.

The next post, moving away from the earthquake-light phenomena nexus, will look into the apparitions as described by the witnesses.

Notes for Part 4

[1] New York Times. (1968) “Visions Of Virgin Reported In Cairo”, New York Times, Sunday, May 5.

[2] Palmer, J. (1969). Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ., p. 12.

[3] Bayless, Raymond. (1981). "Marian Apparitions at Zeitun, Cairo," Journal of the Southern California Society for Psychical Research, p. 10.

[4] Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi, p. 12.

[5] Idem.

[6] Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Ed. Tequi, p. 72.

[7] Bayless, pp. 27-28.

[8] Devereux, Paul. (1989). Earth Lights Revelation. London: Blandford, p. 22.

[9] Devereux, p. 24.

[10] Devereux, p. 51.

[11] Rev. William Saunders. (2006). “The Question of Incorruptibility”. Arlington Catholic Herald, [reproduced online at http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0839.htm], access 28 November 2011.

[12] Warcollier, R. (1928). L’accord télépathique. Revue métapsychique, 4, 286-306; and Warcollier, R. (1962). La contagion mentale au groupe télépathique. Revue métapsychique, (sole issue of 1962), 37-43.

[13] Palmer, p. 12.

[14] Nil, p. 43.

[15] Nil, p. 85.

[16] Nil, p. 76.

[17] Bayless, p. 27.

[18] Devereux, p. 19.

[19] Palmer, p. 12.

[20] Zaki, p. 7.

[21] Zaki quoted in Johnston, Francis. (1980). Zeitoun (1968-1971): When Millions Saw Mary. Chulmleigh, England: Augustine Pub, p. 21.

[22] Nil, p. 83.

[23] Bayless, p. 29.

[24] Devereux, p. 21.

[25] Devereux, p. 24.

[26] Nil, p. 78.

[27] Nil, p. 80.

[28] Devereux, p. 24.

[29] See Bayless, p. 24; Kamel, Youssef G., John P. Jackson & Rebecca Jackson. (1996). A Lady of Light Appears in Egypt. Colorado Springs: St. Mark's Avenue Press, p. 77, 79.

[30] Devereux, p. 24.

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (Part 3)

The events of Zeitoun - the qualitative view

As discussed in the previous post, it is difficult to depict an accurate picture of the events of Zeitoun in terms of their objective scope and magnitude. However, the existing written material provides a relatively rich corpus describing the qualitative dimension of the events. Although this corpus was essentially created by believers, it is significant enough to offer important points of reference for anyone interested in analyzing the events, even from a non-religious perspective. However, to be able to use this material properly, the non-religious perspective needs first to be put in its proper perspective.

The most significant criticism put forward against the religious interpretation of the events was the article published by Persinger and Derr, which attributes the anomalous activities to geomagnetism, in light of the tectonic strain theory [1]. Persinger and Derr were able to establish a relatively significant correlation between seismic activities in the region and the events in Zeitoun.

This criticism is important as it provides an important clue to understand what happened in Zeitoun, but it is far from being enough to close the case, as a pseudo-sceptic article written by Bartholomew and Goode implies [2]. Persinger and Derr’s article is problematic on a number of levels. First, as discussed in the previous post, the exact number and dates of occurrence for the apparitions at Zeitoun are not known, and hence their correlation analysis could only be done with a very incomplete dataset. Second, as Persinger admits, the tectonic strain theory cannot account for specific anomalous occurrences, but only for clusters of occurrences [3]. Last, but not least is how one can account for a geomagnetic phenomenon happening nearly one hundred times, at the same place, over a three year period, and only at night? Any answer to this question is clearly beyond the tectonic strain theory.

If the religious interpretation of events is not satisfying for those who are not taking a religious approach, it is also clear that a pseudo-sceptic interpretation where the tectonic strain theory is stretch beyond its explanatory power is not warranted either.

What can be proposed, however, is that geomagnetism provides an important enabling condition for the phenomenon to occur, but it is not sufficient in itself to fully explain the phenomenon. As discussed previously on this blog, electromagnetism and geomagnetism oftentimes tend to be associated with UFO and psi events [4]. It is in this context that the qualitative descriptions of the events of Zeitoun are useful, as they point towards the notion that geomagnetism was indeed involved, but that “something else” needs to be included in the explanation. That “something  else” might actually be what has been discussed on this blob, and elsewhere, as a “social psi” effect [5]. But first, let’s look at the qualitative data.

There are six main qualitative aspects than can be identified about the Zeitoun events: (a) the so-called light “birds”, (b) the smell of incense, (c) the clouds, (d) phosphorescent-like luminosity, (e) the scintillating lights or “stars”, and (f) the main luminescent object (i.e. the apparition).

The light “birds”

Many witnesses reported that there were luminous objects that traveled through the sky of Zeitoun [6], which were at first construed as “birds” but were clearly not birds. Their actual nature remains unknown to this day. They were described as follow:

"Another phenomenon witnessed by the spectators is the appearance of bird-like creatures before, during, and after the apparitions, and sometimes on nights when there is no apparition at all. These creatures in some ways resemble doves. They are larger than doves; they are larger even than pigeons. Whence they come or whither they go no one can determine. It is known, says the keeper of the Cairo zoo, that pigeons do not fly at night. But these can hardly be any kind of natural bird.

First of all they fly much too rapidly. They fly without ever moving their wings. (Only one spectator interviewed thought he saw one bird flap its wings.) They seem to glide before, into, and around the apparitions. They never come to rest on the roof or trees, and on some occasions have been seen to disintegrate in the sky like wisps of cloud.

Varying in number on different nights, they have appeared singly, in twos, threes, and larger groups. Always in some kind of formation, the creatures fly in triangle, sometimes in the formation of a cross. Once twelve of them flew six abreast in two rows.

Not only are these birds spotless white; they themselves emit light. They are like electrically illuminated birds which can be seen both in the brilliant light of the apparition and in the darkness of the sky above the apparition. They disappear as mysteriously as they appear and without sound of any kind."[7]

Another description is from Bishop Gregorius on the apparitions that took place between 27 April and 15 May 1968:

“Before the apparitions took place some birds that look like pigeons--I don't know what they are--appear in different formations. Sometimes two appear on the dome just as if they had come out of it. However, the dome is closed; the windows do not open. They might be seen flying eastward, then wheeling about and flying to the west, and while one watches them, they suddenly disappear. […]

They do not flap their wings; they glide. In a flash they appeared; and disappear the same way. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They stay quite near and are close to the church when they vanish. Whatever formation they take, they keep. Sometimes as many as seven of them fly in the formation of a cross. They appear and disappear in this formation. They fly very swiftly. They are not light on one side, but are completely lighted. One does not see feathers at all--just something  lighted. They are radiating creatures, larger in size than a dove or a pigeon. Sometimes as one of them flies lower, it gets larger and larger. People realize these are not pigeons." [8]

Lastly, let’s mention that there is a famous photograph of these “birds” taken by Wagih Risk (shown below). However, the photograph was analyzed in detail by Vern Miller of the Brooks Institute of Photography of Santa Barbara, California in the 1990s, and it became clear that although it was a genuine picture of the phenomenon, the individual object’s shape is likely to have been altered to look like “birds” [9].

In themselves, these objects seem unexplainable, but if one keeps in mind that in April and May 1968 there was significant seismologic activity in Egypt [10], then a different picture emerges. Strange lights in formation have been noted in the Idu Peninsula (Japan) during the earthquakes of November 1930 and in 1957 during an earthquake in Leicestershire, England [11]. It is interesting to note that some of the early UFO sightings involving some sort of “flight formations” have an earthquake dimension as well. The famous Lubbock sighting of 25 August 1951, in northern Texas, were interpreted by some as being “birds”[12], and there was some significant seismic activity in the area in June of the same year [13]. The famous Washington D.C. sightings of 19-20 July 1952, where UFOs in formation were observed on radar screen, occurred just one day before a major earthquake in California with a magnitude of 7.6 [14]. Another case is the one of a pilot who saw seven objects in formation while flying between New Zealand and Australia on 13 January 1965 [15], which occurred at the same time of a wave of earthquakes in New Zealand [16]. More recently, UFO flight formations were reported in Chile on 12 and 25 September 2011 [17]; there was also a 5.9 earthquake near the coast of Chile on 14 September 2011, and another one of 5.6 magnitude on 28 September  2011 [18].

Lastly, we can compare the “flight formations” of Zeitoun to the description of the famous UFO sighting of Kenneth Arnold of 24 June 1947. As Devereux noted,

 “a brilliant flash of light occurred, centered on an area where Arnold saw nine bright lights. These traveled in an undulating fashion between (in all) three peaks of the Cascade mountains, hugging the terrain, frequently giving off brilliant blue-white flashes, usually preceding a change of motion. As Arnold obtained a closer view of them, the lights showed themselves to be generally discoid in shape, though with variations which may have been due to shape-changing characteristics, or difficulty of definition at long distances on Arnold’s part. The light varied in intensity, and maintained a rough formation. […] The location where the incident took place also speaks volumes. The Cascades Mountains are located directly on a tectonic plate margin.” [19]

A number of preliminary remarks need to be made here, before going further. It is clear that the science of earth-generated luminous objects is still in its infancy. Persinger proposed what he called the “tectonic strain theory” to explain the presence of luminous objects in the sky, as discussed above. The tectonic strain theory allows for objects to be seen far away from the epicenter of a seismic event, and it can happen a few days before or after such event. On the other hand, Devereux and his earthlight theory can only account for light near a geological fault. Both theories are based on different assumptions, and so they are not mutually exclusive but both have a limited empirical base to support themselves.

From a qualitative standpoint, the so-called “birds“ flying in formation share interesting resemblances with UFO events that occurred in space or time where geomagnetism seems to be more active than normal. This does not mean in any way or fashion that those “birds” should be considered as coming from outer space. Quite to the contrary, it points to a common enabling set of conditions that is generated from the Earth.

Yet, as stated above, both the tectonic strain theory and the earth light theory cannot account for the concentrated nature of the Zeitoun events. To have “birds” flying in formation at the exact same place for months is beyond pure geophysics. As well, why luminous lights would travel in formation is also beyond the explanatory power of these two theories.

The study of the qualitative dimension will be continued in the next post. 

Notes for part 3

[1] As proposed by Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr. (1989). “Geophysical variables and behavior: LIV. Zeitoun (Egypt) apparitions of the Virgin Mary as tectonic strain-induced luminosities”. Perception and Motor Skills 68(1): 123-128.

[2] Bartholomew, Robert E. and Erich Goode. (2000). “Mass delusions: prominent cases over the last 5 centuries”. Skeptical Inquirer 24(3). [On line at http://www.skeptically.org/skepticism/id11.html], accessed 17 Aug 2011.

[3] Persinger, Michael A. (1985). “Geophysical variables and behavior: XXVI. A response to Rutkowski's critique of the tectonic strain hypothesis for UFO phenomena”. Perception and Motor Skills 60(2): 575-582.

[4] For a substantive discussion on this issue, please refer to “The Materiality of UFOs” on Internet at: http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20090308225/Ufological-Information/The-Materiality-Of-UFOs.html

[5] Ouellet, Eric. (2011). “Social Psi and Parasociology”. Australian Journal of Parapsychology 11(1): 73-88.

[6] Among others see Palmer, Jerome. (1969). Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ.; Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Ed. Tequi; Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi.

[7] Palmer, pp. 12-13.

[8] Palmer, pp. 24-26.

[9] Kamel, Youssef G., John P. Jackson & Rebecca Jackson. (1996). A Lady of Light Appears in Egypt. Colorado Springs: St. Mark's Avenue Press, p. 223.

[10] See  Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr.

[11] Devereux, Paul. (1989). Earth Lights Revelation. London: Blandford, pp. 22.

[12] Clark, Jerome. (1988). "The Lubbock Lights", in The UFO Book. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, pp. 342-350.

[13] Northrop, Stuart A. and Allan R. Sanford. (1972). “Earthquakes of Northeastern New Mexico

and the Texas Panhandle”. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 23:  148-160.

[14] See Housner, G.W. (1953). “Analysis of the Taft accelerogram of the earthquake of 21 July 1952”. Office of Naval Research, 5^th Technical Report (N6 onr-244). Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, p. 16.

[15] See http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/content/1965---Pilots-Sight-%E2%80%98V-shaped%E2%80%99-UFO-Formation/83.aspx

[16] Gibowicz, S. J. (1974). “Two earthquake swarms on the Kermadec Ridge”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 17(4): 913-927.

[17] See http://onlysecrecy.com/videos/latest-ufo-videos/ufo-sighted-over-santiago-chile-25th-sep-2011/4316/

[18] From a query on IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions of Seismology) at http://www.iris.edu/data/.

[19] Devereux, p. 54.