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