Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Stigmata" in English language version.
Last modified:
Poche ore dopo, alla morte erano completamente scomparse, senza lasciare segno di sé.
First of all we have the striking fact that not a single case of stigmatization was heard of before the beginning of the thirteenth century. No sooner, however, was the extraordinary phenomenon which marked the last days of St. Francis published throughout the world, than other unquestionable cases of stigmata began to occur even among people who were much lower than St. Francis in religious stature, and have continued to occur without intermission ever since.
In May 1919, Dr Luigi Romanelli, a chief surgeon at Barletta public hospital, said that the wounds were real and could only be caused by supernatural power. But in July 1919, Dr Amico Bignami, professor of pathology at the University of Rome, posited both a psychological and fraudulent explanation for Padre Pio's wounds. Romanelli viewed Padre Pio as a saintly intercessor; in fact he drew his conclusion during a pilgrimage/visit to see the Capuchin in San Giovanni Rotondo. Bignami, on the other hand, made his assessment in his official capacity on behalf of the Capuchin order to investigate the authenticity of the wounds. Luzzato in assessing these two hypotheses made it clear where he stood on the matter by identifying Bignami as a trustworthy witness: 'An evaluation of the stigmata by Bignami was certain to be reliable, especially because the professor was well known for his freethinking beliefs...
As to Padre Pio, the local Roman Catholic clergy accused his friary of putting him on display in order to make money. Certainly a cult grew up around him, and village hucksters sold his credulous disciples alleged relics in the form of pieces of cloth daubed with chicken blood. Some physicians believed his wounds superficial, but the determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by "thick crusts" of supposed blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of "any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass." Indeed, he concluded that the side "wound" had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his "wounds" concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin.
What I infer is that the example of St. Francis created what I have called the "crucifixion complex." Once it had been brought home to contemplatives that it was possible to be physically conformed to the sufferings of Christ by bearing His wound-marks in the hands, feet and side, then the idea of this form of union with their Divine Master took shape in the minds of many. It became in fact a pious obsession; so much so that in a few exceptionally sensitive individuals the idea conceived in the mind was realized in the flesh.
Indeed, I feel that hoaxing—the proven explanation in numerous cases—provides the most credible overall solution to the mystery of stigmata. [...] it would appear entirely compatible with a desire to foster a pious hoax—one that would, to Francis's mind, promote the example of Christ to others.
How, then to explain this phenomenon? Fraud certainly figures in some cases. [...] Aside from cases of outright fraud, which may well form the majority of all cases, the appearance of stigmata appears to be an essentially psychological condition whose manifestations are determined by the cultural expectations of the stigmatics themselves. A large number of sufferers seem to have displayed abundant evidence of low self-esteem, health problems, or a tendency toward self-mutilation—a potent mix when combined with exposure to the pervasive iconography of centuries of Christian tradition. It has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that many have inflicted the five wounds on themselves,
