To answer this question, this article proposes a case study of the Zeitoun apparitions and proposes a parasociological analysis, similar to the analysis done of UFO waves, to assess whether the notion of social psi could be a useful one to look into SRA of the Marian type. First, an overall description of events and an assessment of their anomalistic nature are proposed. Then, the events are analyzed using the Model of Pragmatic Information to assess if the general notion psi can inform the unfolding of events. Finally, a parasociological analysis is done based on the five basic methodological criteria described in a previous post.

[1] In a previous post, I used the expression Socially Ostentatious Anomalies, but after suggestions from colleagues, the expression Socially Relevant Anomalies is more accurate, and will be used from now on.

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2011/08/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and.html

The data issue

The events that occurred in Zeitoun, Egypt, are now over 40 years old. This makes it an historical case. Although many witnesses should still be alive today, they could be quite hard to find (and it would certainly be costly to try to find them out). Furthermore, as shown by the field investigation conducted by Michel Nil [1] in 1978, only 10 years after the events, many witnesses could not remember some key details such as the dates that the anomaly occurred. Hence, conducting a field investigation, at this point in time, would be of dubious value, and so focussing on existing material remains the most sensible option.

The written data is, surprisingly, also difficult to find. Although there are many Internet sites that discuss the events, they are taking their information pretty much from the same source; an Internet site maintained by a group of believers linked to the Coptic Orthodox Church at www.zeitun-eg.org.  Like in the case of UFO websites, many unsubstantiated claims are uncritically carried from one website to the next. The case in point is the alleged visit to St. Mary’s Church in Zeitoun by the then Egyptian president Nasser [2]. According to Michel Nil, there are also few publications in Arabic about the Zeitoun events, and most of them are relatively short brochures [3]. The situation of publications in other languages is not much better [4].

In this context, the literature in English and French on the topic can be considered as a representative source of data for this study. After reviewing this literature it appears that there are only few substantive original sources that document the events: (a) the English version of the report from the Coptic Church investigation [5], (b) Jerome Palmer’s 1969 book Our Lady returns to Egypt [6], Francis Johnston’s When Millions Saw Mary [7], and (d) Pearl Zaki’s Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969 [8]. It is to be noted that these texts were produced by believers, and that their intent was less about providing a detailed documentation of the events, and more about “proving” that the phenomenon was indeed a manifestation of the Virgin Mary. But it is also important to note that the notion of “proof” for these believers has a somewhat different meaning that in the scientific context.

The events occurred in an Arabic-speaking country, making the collection of data quite difficult for most researchers who are not fluent in Arabic. But more important, the events occurred in the context of Orthodox Christianity, not Roman Catholicism, and most researchers in Marian studies are either priest in the Catholic Church or at least grew-up in a Catholic environment. If one acknowledges that the Virgin was indeed paying substantive attention to the Orthodox Church, then the Roman Catholic claim of being the “only true religion” can be indirectly challenged. Furthermore, these apparitions were not “typical”, in that they were no communication between the entity and one or a few young people (usually teenage girls). In fact, there was no obvious message communicated in Zeitoun. These factors are likely to make the events “less interesting” for those who are working within the “normal” frames of reference found in Marian studies, something that Michel Nil also noted [9]. A parallel can be made with UFO research where a great deal of writing can be found on a very thin case like Roswell, while a very well documented and fascinating case like the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1990 is essentially ignored outside the French-speaking world. Clearly, what makes an anomaly worth of interest is very much dependent on social and cultural factors rather than the intrinsic “objective” qualities of the phenomenon.

Lastly, let’s note that there is at least one advantage of doing a research on an historical case many years after the fact: there is another and much more recent case that can be used for comparison purpose. On 11 December 2009, in a neighbourhood of Giza (not far from Cairo) a similar apparition occurred and it was filmed in color. It is usually referred to as the “Lady of Warraq”, and the film is easily accessible on the Internet [10].  What is found in that film (made from a cell phone camera) matches a number of pictures taken during the Zeitoun events as well as many descriptions that were transcribed in a various written sources. More on this particular event in a later post.

The events of Zeitoun – the quantitative view

Among the surprises I had researching this case is that there is no complete list of apparitions. The Coptic Church investigation identified 27 apparitions during the period of 2 April 1968 to 4 May 1968, with a number of nights having more than one apparition occurring [11]. Other sources noted that there was a decline in the number of apparitions throughout 1968 to one or two a week [12].  The frequency went down to once a month by early 1970, according to Johnston [13]. However, based on Zaki’s research, between 21 August 1969 and 11 June 1971 there were 17 apparitions [14]. According to Johnston, the last apparition occurred on 29 May 1971 [15].

In light of this rather sketchy data, if one makes a count there should have been over 90 apparitions, although the period going from mid-1968 to mid 1969 had to be extrapolated based on qualitative comments [16].

The Count:

2 April - 4 May 1968: 27

5 May - Mid-1969: 50 (?)

Mid-1969-mid 1971: 17

Approximate total:  94 apparitions

I had to build from scratch a list of apparitions using information found in the various documents consulted. I have only 34 apparitions that I can link to a specific source, roughly 36% of the estimated total.

Another issue about this count is what is actually meant by “apparition”. The phenomenon was not consistent in its visible characteristics. It ranged from the “full-blow” apparition to only a subset of it. For instance, Johnston states that the phenomenon was:

"generally preceded by mysterious lights, flashing and scintillating silently over the church like a canopy of shooting stars. One witness described them as a 'shower of diamonds made of light'. [...] Minutes later, formations of luminous doves would appear and fly around the floodlit church. Eyewitnesses described them as 'strange bird-like creatures made of light' which flew with astonishing swiftness without moving their wings. They always maintained a definite formation and disappeared suddenly like melted snowflakes. Shortly after, a blinding explosion of light would engulf the church roof. As it dwindled, it shaped itself into the brilliant form of Our Lady. Invariably, she would be seen in a long white robe and veil of bluish-white light [17].

Zaki met a nun who counted 17 “apparitions” for the period between mid-1969 to mid-1971, while she also counted luminous birds on 24 nights, and lights, stars and other luminous phenomena on 85 nights for that same period [18].This illustrates quite well that the count is very much dependent on how the various witnesses defined the notion of “apparition”. Hence, the above count should be taken as an illustration more than as a reliable count.

It is also interesting to note, even if one should not be surprised by it, that the number of witnesses followed the general pattern of the apparitions. There were only a few witnesses the first day, as it was a completely unexpected event. It eventually grew to a very large gathering. Nil interviewed a witness stating that there were about 100 people on the night of 13 April 1968 [19]. Nelson estimated that there was between 1,000 and 1,500 people on 15 April 1968 [20]. After that the phenomenon was discussed for the first time in the mainstream press, through the 23 April 1968 article in the Arabic-language newspaper Watani , the crowd grew significantly. The Bishop Athanasius estimated that there were 100,000 people on the night of 29/30 April [21]. It finally reached an estimated 250,000 nightly onlookers after a few weeks, according to Johnston [22]. By the end of 1968, it was estimated that the crowed was down to 10,000 people nightly [23]. By June 1971, there were only a handful of people according to Zaki [24]. It should be noted that it is notoriously difficult to estimate properly the size of a crowd, especially at night, and the higher figure might have been over-estimated. However, this provides a good illustration that not only the phenomenon was a very public event, but also the interest in the phenomenon can be correlated directly with its intensity. Graphically, with the limited information available, the apparitions and crowd pattern for the entire 3-year period would have approximately the following shape:

Note that the crowd numbers are in increments of 10,000 people, and the time line in 3-months increment starting in February 1968 and ending in August 1971. Also, the apparent crowd decline preceding the apparition decline is only a product of the limited information available, and it should not be inferred from this graph.

From a quantitative view of the Zeitoun events, there are two additional observations that can be made with a fair degree certainty. First, the events seemed to have been very intense at the beginning (during April and May 1968), but started to decline sometime after the official investigation ended and the phenomenon was declared authentic by the Coptic Church on 5 May 1968. Second, the phenomenon was resilient enough to last for 3 years, with a declining cycle of occurrences and intensity.

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2011/10/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and.html

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”

(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. 

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2011/10/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and_31.html

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].

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.

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2011/12/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and.html

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]. 

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]

.

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.

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).

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].

 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.

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.

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.  

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2013/04/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and.html

The Zeitoun events from the perspective of the MPI (part 6)

After reviewing the evidence available on the apparitions at Zeitoun in previous posts, this text is proposing an analysis based on the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) developed by the parapsychologist Walter von Lucadou [1]. The MPI has been used on this blog at numerous occasions to analyze other large scale paranormal events (or socially relevant anomalies (SRA)), such as the 1952 UFO wave over Washington D.C. Because of these previous presentations of the MPI, only a brief recapitulation of the model will be provided here. For more details, please refer to this particular post and this one.

Introduction: Back to the MPI

The MPI has been originally developed to study poltergeists, better-known as Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis (RSPK) in parapsychology. Von Lucadou, based on his extensive empirical research on RSPK, noted over time that RSPKs tend to unfold according to a general pattern, and therefore it is possible to predict how a RSPK would start, peak and disappear.

Most scientific parapsychologists consider that poltergeists are actually uncontrollable psychokinetic (PK) forces (or energy) produced by someone in a family, or a small and close knit group, who has deep but unexpressed psychological challenges. It is oftentimes a teenager, but not always, and the reasons for such over-representation of teenagers are not well understood at this time [2]. The extension of the MPI to large scale events (such as the Zeitoun apparitions) is based on the assumption that collective psychokinetic is the fundamental element behind the anomaly.

According to the MPI, a RSPK evolves in 4 phases: (1) Surprise, slow start when only a few notice something really strange and unusual; (2) Displacement, ramping up and peaking when many start to notice but start to believe that the phenomenon is caused some sort of non-human entity; (3) Decline, when sceptical observers arrive, as they do not believe in the non-human entity explanation and have a more rigorous look at paranormal events; and (4) Cover-up and Disappearance, when official authorities get involved and declare the phenomenon to be a hoax or a fraud.

In each phase, there is a particular set of people who seem to play a more preponderant role. In the surprise phase, there are a few people who experience something completely unexpected with strong emotions, which are called the “focus person and his/her immediate environment”; (2) during the displacement phase, other people (who are called the “naïve observers”); joined the first experiencers but these new people tend to displace the meaning of what is occurring by fixing the explanation on the activities of some powerful non-human entity; (3) then during the decline, people called the “sceptical observers”, usually made of professionals and well-educated people, enter the fray and challenge directly the supernatural explanation provided by the naïve observers; finally in the cover-up, society through the “authorities” steps in to quell the public disturbance caused by the events.

From the point of view of the MPI, the people around the phenomenon and what they believe to be true are key parts of the RSPK process. It is why the naïve observers are very important in reinforcing the belief in the supernatural origin of the phenomenon, so are the sceptical observers and the authorities in making it disappear.

Phase 1: The very short ambiguous start

The events of Zeitoun started with the surprise of a few non-Christians (the public transit workers) and Christians (women walking in the street at the same moment). These people were afraid that someone would commit suicide, and they were quite worried, enough to call the police. On the other hand, some Christian women were completely excited and rejoiced to see what the construed as the Virgin Mary. In spite of the diverging explanations, for all these people there was no doubt in their mind that there was indeed someone on the Church’s roof. During the surprise phase, like in a typical RSPK, the first few experiencers already hypothesized a supernatural explanation for what was seen without being fully certain about it. Notably, the Church priests were not present to confirm what was seen at the time of the first apparition.

The gathering of people at the Zeitoun site took a few days to become major public event. The word of mouth process brought an increasing number of people from the neighborhood, not too sure what to think. As well, the first witnesses did not report all the other strange phenomena noted later, such as the “birds”, the smoke, the scent, etc. From that point of view, this fits generally well the description proposed by the MPI of an RSPK, where the phenomenon grows in intensity and diversifies itself in the later displacement phase.

As noted before, the focus person in the case of SRA is difficult to find. In a typical family RSPK, the individual who has unexpressed psychological challenges can be identified fairly easily, as the disturbances, usually, only occur in his or her presence. In the case of a collective PK, who might be the focus person is much less clear.

However, there are a few clues available. The MPI proposes that the use of psi effect (PK) is to convey a message (hence the notion of “Pragmatic Information”), which in the case of a typical RSPK would be about the psychological distress of the focus person. Such messages tend be symbolic, comparable to night dream symbolism produce by the unconscious part of the mind.

At this point in the analysis, let’s take note that the very first people who saw the phenomenon were Muslim people, part of the Egyptian broader public service, who were all thinking that they observed someone “near the abyss”. There is an implicit possible symbolic message here; more on this below. Furthermore, in the case of Zeitoun, like in most typical RSPK events, the symbolic message seemed to have been missed completely by the people in the surrounding environment, namely the Muslim workers and Christian women. 

Phase 2: Rise and peak through displacement

In the days that followed the first apparition, the crowd started to gather in greater numbers around the Church. In the MPI language, the naïve observers arrived in mass to the site. If there was any doubt about the Marian nature of the phenomenon, they were quickly set aside by the intense religious fervour and the growing intensity of the apparitions. New phenomena started to be seen such as the “birds”, miraculous healing, smoke, scent, and movements of the apparition beyond the roof. During the first few first weeks, the interpretation was fully displaced towards a supernatural explanation. Even some of the original public transit workers were absorbed into the naïve observer crowd after experiencing what they construed as miraculous healings.

Phase 4: No cover-up just growing indifference

The disappearance of the phenomenon appears to be in conjunction with the shrinking size of the crowd, which of course had a feedback and self-reinforcing effect of creating a phenomenon less interesting to attend to. In the case of Zeitoun, given that the authorities were fully on side with the supernatural explanation, the quelling effect of formally branding the phenomenon as a fraud or a hoax simply did not happened. Hence, from the MPI perspective it was rather growing indifference that slowly “killed” the phenomenon. In other words, the anomaly ceased to be socially relevant but without the “slandering” interventions of powerful social actors (i.e., the authorities).

Who were the focus persons?

As discussed in a previous post, and in this post, people, symbolism, geography and dates can help us identifying possible candidates for a focus person. As stated above, the first to see the anomaly were Muslim public workers and Christian women. From this point of view, the message, or pragmatic information, might have been directed towards the Muslim people who were closer to the government of the time (socialist, nationalist and not particularly religious), and to the Christian minority of Egypt. The symbolism of being “near the abyss” seems to be a serious warning that people were close to getting into a very serious problem. The location, Cairo, is the seat of Egyptian government, but it is also the largest city in the country, so geography is information more equivocal as to where the focus persons could be.

However, the dates seem to be particularly relevant. The events in Zeitoun started on 2 April 1968. What happened in Egypt, at the same time, that might cause a serious collective upset but that could not be fully expressed by other normal means? This is of course open to interpretation, but later in April 1968 the Egyptian government liberated over one thousand jailed radical Islamists, members of the Muslim Brotherhood [3], including Ayman al-Zawahiri who will become later on the no.2 and now no. 1 leader of Al-Queda [4]. The Brotherhood eventually organized the assassination of Egyptian president Anwer El-Sadat in 1980. More recently, they stole away the original spirit of the Arab Spring of 2010. They got one of them elected as president (Morsi). They are suspected of orchestrating, or at least informally encouraging, repression against the Coptic Christian minority. And they got the Egyptian military worried enough about the future of their country to organize a coup to remove the Islamist president Morsi, and redraft the new constitution against the Islamists.

Could the knowledge, or precognition, about the liberation of over 1,000 members of the Brotherhood in 1968 created a strong collective feeling of throwing Egypt into the abyss? Certainly the notion that these people were dangerous already existed in Egypt in the 1960s. Could there be some people in the Egyptian national security apparatus in 1968, who were aware and extremely anxious of the government’s plan to provide an amnesty to members of the Brotherhood, but unable to speak up? This seems probable. Could they be the focus persons? Impossible to tell for sure, but they seem to be likely candidates. 

Conclusion

There is little doubt that geophysical activities in Egypt in 1968 contributed to create the enabling conditions for very unusual events to be perceived. Many of the phenomena described by the witnesses can be explained through various theories and models found in geology, even if some models remain incomplete, such as the tectonic strain theory. Yet, on its own geological explanations of all the events once they are taken together and looked at from a more granular perspective cannot reasonably account for what happened. To stick to a purely geological explanation, one would need to invoke a long list of geological coincidences never seen before and dismiss condescendingly all the witnesses as unreliable. This is an unreasonable perspective that is based on a belief that a purely naturalistic explanation somehow exists but cannot be proven. The religious explanation is no different from the geological one, as it is based on a theological corpus from which a belief in Marian apparitions can be supported but not proven. It is a matter of belief.

From a parasociological standpoint, the events in Zeitoun were socially relevant anomalies. Some of such anomalies resist naturalistic explanations, and yet there were certain geophysical enabling conditions at play, as well as pre-existing beliefs in Marian apparitions, which contributed to perceiving anomalies. Such context points towards the possibility that collective psi effects occurred in Egypt in 1968 and later on, where geology and religion played an important support role.  

The events in Zeitoun, if there were psi effects involved, could be described as psychokinesis. The selection of the MPI to study the events as a collective form of RSPK was justified. The analysis of the Zeitoun apparitions using the MPI provided a different interpretation to what happened. This explanation is neither religious nor naturalistic, and yet does not require a belief system. The final explanation, or at least an explanation that would satisfy almost everyone, is likely to be never found. But clearly, the choice is wider that just geology or religion.

From a parasociological and parapsychological perspective, the fact that the events did not unfold as a typical RSPK is not an invalidation of the MPI. What happened is rather that the institutional conditions (Church authorities versus regular police or health authorities) were different in the Zeitoun, and can be explained easily in terms sociological differences between different societies. Incorporating such different institutional contexts into the analysis shows in fact that the MPI’s capacity to predict RSPK is preserved and even enhanced. If the authorities jump early in support of a supernatural explanation, this is not without consequences.

One can just wonder if the American military authorities had supported the extra-terrestrial hypothesis (ETH) in the 1940s and 1950s how the UFO phenomenon would have evolved over time. In fact, it might have died earlier because this would have de-energized the combative naïve observers (ETH ufologists), as they would have had no conspiracy to uncover. The naturally occurring growth of indifference, over time, would have done the rest in making the phenomenon disappear.

Source: https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-zeitoun-events-from-perspective-of.html

Le 2 avril 1968, une heure et demie après le coucher du soleil, l'attention des mécaniciens et des chauffeurs qui se trouvaient dans le garage, fut attirée par des bruits et des mouvements dans la rue. Ils virent alors, sur le dôme central de l'église, une femme habillée de vêtements blancs, la main posée sur la croix dominant ce dôme. Les mécaniciens et les chauffeurs, tous musulmans, ont raconté en détail ce qu'ils ont vu.