Michael Grosso interview on Skeptiko about Joseph of Cupertino and his levitations

[PainKiller]

Alex Tsakiris on Skeptiko recently did an interesting interview with parapsychologist Michael Grosso.

Grosso is the author of a recent book "The Man Who Could Fly: St. Joseph of Copertino and the Mystery of Levitation" published in 2015. So far this book has received glowing reviews from paranormal believers, but it has not been reviewed academically or by skeptics.

As by the title, the book is about the Christian mystic Joseph of Cupertino and his alleged 'levitations'.

Grosso believes that Cupertino really did levitate. Here is what he says in his interview with Alex:

Michael Grosso: The documents show that Joseph frequently levitated while he was saying mass, just hovering a couple of inches off the ground. I think the most spectacular case I came across was on a Christmas Eve when he dragged in a bunch of shepherds who had their drums and musical instruments. He got them to make merry and he got so carried away he levitated half way up to the peak of the tower of the church. So that may’ve been as much as 31 or 51 feet. I’m not sure exactly. Doesn’t matter. It was high.

I think it is irrational that Grosso really believes Cupertino levitated 30 feet into the air from just reading some old 'historical' records from witnesses. But we live in a day and age where people will believe in anything, no matter how irrational or magical.

Grosso claims to have read through all the historical documents, read through all the eyewitness accounts and his conclusion is that Cupertino's levitations were real and they cannot be explained by trickery.

Of course eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially in in relation to extraordinary claims (Wiseman et al. 1995).

But I will ask has anyone read Grosso's book? This is probably unlikely as it has only been recently published, so I recommend checking out his interview on Skeptiko entitled "Can we believe eyewitnesses… did this 17th century monk levitate?".

Any opinions. Thanks.


Notes

Wiseman, R., Smith, M and Wiseman, J. (1995). "Eyewitness Testimony and the Paranormal". Skeptical Inquirer, November/December, 29-32.

 

[PainKiller]

It appears Grosso is not alone in endorsing Cupertino.

Here is what Dean Radin has written:

Then there is levitation, of which there are between two hundred and three hundred historical cases in the descriptions of the saints, including Saint Joseph of Cupertino (1603-1663). Saint Joseph was observed to levitate by thousands of witnesses, usually, in broad daylight, over a period of thirty-five years. Reports can be found in witnesses' private diaries and in depositions provided under oath, including 150 eyewitness reports from popes, kings, and princesses. Purely secular cases of levitation also exist, including the Scottish medium Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886). Like Saint Joseph, Home was observed to levitate in daylight by dozens of prominent witnesses. Not a single case of fraud was ever discovered.

Dean Radin. (2013). Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities. Deepak Chopra Publisher. p. 62.

As it currently stands I have not looked into Joseph of Cupertino (yet), but Daniel Dunglas Home was a fraud. There is no evidence he levitated in broad daylight.

According to skeptical writer Joseph McCabe:

Sir Athur tells us that "there are altogether on record some fifty or sixty cases of levitation on the part of Home"... [However] no reliable witness, giving us a precise account of the circumstances, has ever claimed that he saw Home off the ground and clear of all furniture... The whole of these recorded miracles reek with evidence of charlatanry. The lights were always put out, and Home in nearly all cases said that he was rising, and then told them that he was floating about various parts of the room.

Joseph McCabe. (1920). Is Spiritualism Based On Fraud? The Evidence Given by Sir A. C. Doyle and Others Drastically Examined. London: Watts & Co. pp. 50-51

 

[fuelair]

Alex Tsakiris on Skeptiko recently did an interesting interview with parapsychologist Michael Grosso.

Grosso is the author of a recent book "The Man Who Could Fly: St. Joseph of Copertino and the Mystery of Levitation" published in 2015. So far this book has received glowing reviews from paranormal believers, but it has not been reviewed academically or by skeptics.

As by the title, the book is about the Christian mystic Joseph of Cupertino and his alleged 'levitations'.

Grosso believes that Cupertino really did levitate. Here is what he says in his interview with Alex:



I think it is irrational that Grosso really believes Cupertino levitated 30 feet into the air from just reading some old 'historical' records from witnesses. But we live in a day and age where people will believe in anything, no matter how irrational or magical.

Grosso claims to have read through all the historical documents, read through all the eyewitness accounts and his conclusion is that Cupertino's levitations were real and they cannot be explained by trickery.

Of course eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially in in relation to extraordinary claims (Wiseman et al. 1995).

But I will ask has anyone read Grosso's book? This is probably unlikely as it has only been recently published, so I recommend checking out his interview on Skeptiko entitled "Can we believe eyewitnesses… did this 17th century monk levitate?".

Any opinions. Thanks.


Notes

Wiseman, R., Smith, M and Wiseman, J. (1995). "Eyewitness Testimony and the Paranormal". Skeptical Inquirer, November/December, 29-32.

My opinion, with no offense to anyone who knows this is crap just from the topic, is that this is crap.

 

[fuelair]

It appears Grosso is not alone in endorsing Cupertino.

Here is what Dean Radin has written:



Dean Radin. (2013). Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities. Deepak Chopra Publisher. p. 62.

As it currently stands I have not looked into Joseph of Cupertino (yet), but Daniel Dunglas Home was a fraud. There is no evidence he levitated in broad daylight.

According to skeptical writer Joseph McCabe:



Joseph McCabe. (1920). Is Spiritualism Based On Fraud? The Evidence Given by Sir A. C. Doyle and Others Drastically Examined. London: Watts & Co. pp. 50-51

Fortunately, this is also. And regardless of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle was dumb enough to be taken in by two young girls and camera tricks. His acceptance is worth nothing.

 

[fuelair]

I hope others pitch in!!!!!

 

[PainKiller]

My opinion, with no offense to anyone who knows this is crap just from the topic, is that this is crap.

Yes I know the claim that a man can levitate 30 feet into the air is nonsensical. But many people back in the day believed it. Obviously people throughout history have been duped by many things especially in older times when superstitions were widespread. But from a historical perspective this is not a crap topic. It is worth looking into. It is a topic that has unfortunately been neglected by skeptics.

Daniel Dunglas Home's 'levitations' have been debunked in the skeptical literature and by professional magicians, for example (Maskelyne, 1886; McCabe, 1920; Mulholland, 1938; Pearsall, 1972; Hall, 1984; Booth, 1986).

But the skeptical literature on Cupertino is almost empty. I found one piece in the skeptical inquirer that attempted to debunk the levitations of Cupertino and other saints (Stein, 1989). It is by the late Gordon Stein, he noted that:

Perhaps the most famous levitating saint was Joseph of Cupertino (1603-1663). There are supposedly forty recorded instances of Joseph levitating, including one time during which he flew up to the altar of the church from the pews, landing among the burning candles, and was badly burned. Joseph's most impressive reported levitation was the time he supposedly flew 70 yards from a doorway to the top of a 36-foot-high cross that his group of friars was constructing. He then lifted the cross into the air and flew with it to the site to which it was to be moved.

Stein goes on to dispute such occurrences, and finds flaws in the witness accounts. But I cannot get full access to this article, only a preview online. It would be lovely to have full access, perhaps someone can help.


Notes

John Booth. (1986). Psychic Paradoxes. Prometheus Books.
Trevor Hall. (1984). The Enigma of Daniel Home: Medium or Fraud? Prometheus Books.
John Nevil Maskelyne. (1876). Modern Spiritualism: A Short Account of its Rise and Progress, with Some Exposures of So-Called Spirit Media.
Joseph McCabe. (1920). Is Spiritualism Based On Fraud? The Evidence Given by Sir A. C. Doyle and Others Drastically Examined. London: Watts & Co.
John Mulholland. (1938). Beware Familiar Spirits. C. Scribner's Sons.
Ronald Pearsall. (1972). The Table-Rappers. Book Club Associates.
Gordon Stein. (1989). The Levitation of the Lore. Skeptical inquirer 13: 277-288.

 

[Pixel42]

Fortunately, this is also. And regardless of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle was dumb enough to be taken in by two young girls and camera tricks. His acceptance is worth nothing.

There weren't even any camera tricks. The girls simply drew pictures of fairies, placed/hung them in a woodland setting, and took perfectly normal photographs of them.

 

[PainKiller]

This thread probably won't interest many people as it is dealing with historical matters that not many people are interested in.

I have decided to purchase Grosso's book. The first thing I am going to do is obviously properly read through it and check out his sources. I will see what flaws I can find.

I also want to compare Grosso's book to the information of the historian Robert Bartlett.

Bartlett is the author of a scholarly book Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation which contains information on Cupertino.

It would be interesting to see how Grosso a parapsychologist compares with a professional historian.

I have ordered both books. I will report back on this when I have read these books.

 

[PainKiller]

Managed to find a source that has some skeptical information.

One of the most astonishing claims of levitation concerns Saint Joseph of Cupertino, called "the flying monk". Father Smith stated that: "St. Joseph appears to have been a gymnast," citing "certain natural feats performed by St. Joseph which parallel levitation." for example, sometimes standing on tiptoe for long periods. Father Smith added:

"This opens up the possibility that at least in some of the alleged cases of levitation (many of which did, it can be noted, originate from a leap, and not from a prone or simple standing or kneeling position) the witnesses mistook a leap of a very agile man for levitation."

The original records of inquiry that led to St. Joseph's canonization are no longer available for study according to Father Smith. Skeptics say reports of St. Joseph's levitations may be attributed to the gross exaggeration of biographies published more than a century after his death.

Saint Teresa Avila offers another example of claimed levitation. Although it is said that she levitated in view of multiple witnesses the source of such claim is her own autobiography which existed only in a manuscript that was long kept from the view of outsiders.

Miracles by Charles Raymond Dillon, pp. 224-225.

Robert D. Smith. (1965). Comparative Miracles. B. Herder Book Company.

 

[catsmate]

There weren't even any camera tricks. The girls simply drew pictures of fairies, placed/hung them in a woodland setting, and took perfectly normal photographs of them.

I think they cut them from children's books and mounted the "fairies" on card before taking the photos.

Doyle also believed that Harry Houdini possessed supernatural powers, something that deeply annoyed Houdini and contributed to the termination of their friendship.

 

[Mackenberg]

This thread probably won't interest many people as it is dealing with historical matters that not many people are interested in.

For what it's worth, I have a strong interest in the history of pseudoscience and skepticism, especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm fairly new to the online Skeptic community, though - am I right in assuming that most people here are much more interested in contemporary controversies?

 

[fagin]

...

I have decided to purchase Grosso's book. The first thing I am going to do is obviously properly read through it and check out his sources. I will see what flaws I can find.

...

I have ordered both books. I will report back on this when I have read these books.

Your choice, obviously, but I wouldn't want to help his bank balance to read about what can be no more than some 17th century anecdotes.

 

[PainKiller]

For what it's worth, I have a strong interest in the history of pseudoscience and skepticism, especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm fairly new to the online Skeptic community, though - am I right in assuming that most people here are much more interested in contemporary controversies?

Same here, I collect a lot of old books on conjuring, quackery, fraudulent spiritualist mediums, frauds, anomalies, mysteries etc. The old cases are more interesting.

I am a newbie here and can't judge an entire forum from a few posts because I appreciate this forum but it looks to me like most users are interested in modern cases, i.e. bigfoot mania, and I do not see many people listing references here to books or documents just modern internet websites. Daniel Loxton in the past has raised issues about modern skeptics ignoring old cases or not aware of their existence. I think it is true.

 

[Mackenberg]

Same here, I collect a lot of old books on conjuring, quackery, fraudulent spiritualist mediums, frauds, anomalies, mysteries etc. The old cases are more interesting.

I am a newbie here and can't judge an entire forum from a few posts because I appreciate this forum but it looks to me like most users are interested in modern cases, i.e. bigfoot mania, and I do not see many people listing references here to books or documents just modern internet websites. Daniel Loxton in the past has raised issues about modern skeptics ignoring old cases or not aware of their existence. I think it is true.

We seem to be of a like mind - I know the Loxton essay you're referring to. My take is, history includes everything that ever happened up until now - there's a lot of interesting and useful stuff in there.

 

[Steve001]

Same here, I collect a lot of old books on conjuring, quackery, fraudulent spiritualist mediums, frauds, anomalies, mysteries etc. The old cases are more interesting.

I am a newbie here and can't judge an entire forum from a few posts because I appreciate this forum but it looks to me like most users are interested in modern cases, i.e. bigfoot mania, and I do not see many people listing references here to books or documents just modern internet websites. Daniel Loxton in the past has raised issues about modern skeptics ignoring old cases or not aware of their existence. I think it is true.

Stating the obvious, the problem with such an old claim is it's an old claim, several centuries old and there's no possible way to investigate what actually transpired unless there are contemporary critiques; for that reason alone it's not worth any present day skeptics time to be a critic. In short the past is the past.

 

[Mackenberg]

Stating the obvious, the problem with such an old claim is it's an old claim, several centuries old and there's no possible way to investigate what actually transpired unless there are contemporary critiques; for that reason alone it's not worth any present day skeptics time to be a critic. In short the past is the past.

Just a different perspective, I guess. I learn a huge amount that's applicable to the present day from studying past cases, especially in terms of past debunkings that were thoroughly documented at the time via books, detailed articles, etc.

 

[Stuart]

My opinion, with no offense to anyone who knows this is crap just from the topic, is that this is crap.

Chimed in with "seconded"

What strikes me as odd too, the the height of the alleged levitation; it's quite specific "31 to 51 feet". This doesn't equate to an even number of metres (I haven't tried rods or perches though)

 

[fuelair]

For what it's worth, I have a strong interest in the history of pseudoscience and skepticism, especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries. I'm fairly new to the online Skeptic community, though - am I right in assuming that most people here are much more interested in contemporary controversies?

Technically yes, but to approximately cover this and by knowing the old is important: Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it (or, at least try to).

 

[PainKiller]

Grosso himself online in a small article has attempted to address criticisms of Cupertino, one is the criticism that these claims are too old, here what Grosso has written:

Some might automatically dismiss these claims about Joseph because they are too old. More broadly, there is much suspicion among academics these days concerning the uses of historical knowledge. There are good reasons to be on guard against deception; but you have to take things case by case. In my view, the historical case for Joseph’s levitation is as strong as one could hope for in dealing with such a rare phenomenon as levitation. If evidence is good, it remains good no matter how old it gets; facts are timeless entities. If we threw out the evidence for a case as strong as that of Joseph’s levitations, we’d have to throw out a good part of history. While many historical claims are in doubt because of scant, weak, and insufficient evidence, the story of Joseph’s levitations provides an abundance of documentation whose cumulative impact is very difficult to evade.

Grosso cited in supplemental web material for Empirical Challenges to Theory Construction. Edward F. Kelly, Chapter 1, Beyond Physicalism, Edward F. Kelly, Adam Crabtree, and Paul Marshall (Eds.). Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Grosso also rejects the idea of fraud:

We are not being suspicious enough. Perhaps Joseph was a closet hypnotist who cunningly caused thousands of people to hallucinate that he was levitating for about thirty-five years. The trouble with an idea like this is that it was part of Joseph’s nature to be obedient to absurd, zenlike extremes, and that any attempt on his part to deceive the flock would promptly have been noticed and stopped, with unfortunate results for him. Joseph had the temperament of a hermit and no taste at all for power or fame. The fact is that his “power” to levitate made much of his life miserable.

But he ignores other possible naturalistic explanations.

One thing I have noticed is that Grosso does not mention the fact that Cupertino ate and baked black bread (rye bread for example has been a suggestion for ergot poisoning was very widespread in medieval times). The ingredients of this bread included hallucinogenic mushrooms. Historian Robert Bartlett in Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation, invokes this hypothesis to explain Cupertino's levitations, this may well have been a case of delusion.

Grosso does not appear to have covered this objection in his book. I will explore Cupertino and his use of black bread in further detail in future posts.

 

[PainKiller]

On amazon I decided to check out Grosso's book in preview format. His entire bibliography is available at the back of the book to read. About 90% of his sources are credulous paranormal or parapsychology books. Out of all of his references I couldn't find a single skeptical source. Not many academic works by historians were cited either.

For example Stein's piece in the skeptical inquirer is not cited by Grosso, neither is Robert D. Smiths book Comparative Miracles which is a critical look at Cupertino and other saints. Robert Bartlett's scholarly book is not mentioned either.

Over the years I have read hundreds if not thousands of paranormal books written by believers, it seems to be the same thing every time. They never cite or mention the skeptical literature. Is this due to ignorance, or is it because they just do not spend the time to look? Confirmation bias at its finest.

Unfortunately this shows no sign of change amongst believers in the paranormal community. Disappointing.

 

[PainKiller]

Your choice, obviously, but I wouldn't want to help his bank balance to read about what can be no more than some 17th century anecdotes.

After further investigation I would have to agree.

Firstly Grosso's book is deliberately over-priced ranging from $30 - $50, but more importantly as listed above, the book is not objective or balanced, 90% of his bibliography consists of paranormal books or parapsychology papers written by believers. This is very biased. He does not cite scholarly historic works written by academics or balanced researchers or any of the skeptical literature. It appears there is more skeptical literature on Cupertino than I first assumed, there is absolutely no reason why Grosso should have ignored these publications.

Grosso also seems to endorse fraudulent mediums such as Eusapia Palladino and Daniel Dunglas Home and other bogus psychics as genuine. Like Cupertino he provides none of the skeptical literature on these individuals. I admit I am disappointed. I see that he has no credibility whatsoever now. This book will only appeal to believers.

Another disturbing factor is that various chapters in his Grosso's book are set up to undermine scientific 'materialism'. This guy appears to be agenda driven. This is not a scholarly volume.

I see the book has been endorsed by extreme fringe proponents such as Deepak Chopra and Larry Dossey and other proponents of 'spiritual' medicine. They seem to be endorsing the book to promote the belief that mind can influence matter. This is agenda driven propaganda, not neutral historic research.

This thread will probably die down until I revive it. I have ordered Robert Bartlett's book which is a real piece of scholarship written by an expert in the field. I will report back on his take on Cupertino in a week or so. Thanks for all your comments.

 

[Lucian]

This thread probably won't interest many people as it is dealing with historical matters that not many people are interested in.

I have decided to purchase Grosso's book. The first thing I am going to do is obviously properly read through it and check out his sources. I will see what flaws I can find.

I also want to compare Grosso's book to the information of the historian Robert Bartlett.

Bartlett is the author of a scholarly book Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation which contains information on Cupertino.

It would be interesting to see how Grosso a parapsychologist compares with a professional historian.

I have ordered both books. I will report back on this when I have read these books.

Bartlett doesn't discuss Joseph of Cupertino.

 

[PainKiller]

Bartlett doesn't discuss Joseph of Cupertino.

Why do you say this? The evidence indicates that Barlett does discuss Joseph of Cupertino.

According to this book review, he does:

Joseph was also a maker of “black bread” – baked from adulterated substances, including hallucinogenic mushrooms. Here, perhaps, lay the key to his levitations. After sampling his own loaves he evidently believed he was taking off – as did those who partook of his high-octane bake-offs. His feast day is on September 18 and his skeleton is preserved at Osimo, near Ancona in Italy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5cb80b84-5b75-11e3-848e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz47mKFUcO2


And this skeptic website:

In relation to Joseph, he may have hallucinated his flights and levitations. Perhaps the truth was he could jump no higher or better than anybody else but his drug induced state made him think he was levitating and staying in the air a while.

Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation, by Robert Bartlett, Princeton records how Joseph, like many others in medieval times, baked the notorious black bread. The ingredients included hallucinogenic mushrooms. He and presumably the witnesses to his levitations ate this bread.

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/levitation.html

 

[Lucian]

Why do you say this? The evidence indicates that Barlett does discuss Joseph of Cupertino.

According to this book review, he does:



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5cb80b84-5b75-11e3-848e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz47mKFUcO2


And this skeptic website:




http://www.miraclesceptic.com/levitation.html

I have the book on Kindle. I haven't read it yet, but Joseph is not in the index. When I search for him, there are no results. Nor are there any results for "black bread," and, although the word "mushrooming" appears, Bartlett is talking about the growth of towns during the lifetime of St. Francis of Assisi, not hallucinogens. You'll notice that in the review, the information about Joseph and black bread comes from the reviewer's reminiscences of his Catholic childhood ("Among the many saints competing for my Catholic boyhood devotion was St Joseph of Cupertino...."); he doesn't say the information comes from the book. It doesn't. The reviewer doesn't even mention the book until the fifth paragraph.

 

[PainKiller]

On that skeptic website I linked to it said

Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation, by Robert Bartlett, Princeton records how Joseph, like many others in medieval times, baked the notorious black bread. The ingredients included hallucinogenic mushrooms. He and presumably the witnesses to his levitations ate this bread.

Do you think this is an error? Weird that the book review also mentioned black bread. Perhaps the skeptic website read that review? And has been mistaken? I guess the only way to solve this is for me to read the book in physical format, it's over 700 pages long so will be a mission.

I have looked on amazon and you are correct, Joseph of Cupertino is not in the index. I have ordered the book and won't have it for a few days. I will have to investigate this. Very disappointing if this book does not actually contain what I thought it does! Where else then can I find information on the black bread hypothesis. There seems to be no other books that mention it in relation to Joseph.

I am currently reading a small book called Science and the Occult by Arthur E. Klein, he discusses the hypothesis of ergot poisoning from rye bread as a possible explanation for cases of 'demonic' possession or witchcraft. Ergotism apparently can cause convulsive symptoms and hallucinations. It's certainly an interesting idea in relation to the alleged 'levitations' of Joseph Cupertino. I want to follow this up it will be real disappointing if indeed an error has been made.

If that is the case then I guess we are left with Robert D. Smith's book Comparative Miracles. I have still been unable to get Gordon Stein's article.

 

[Lucian]

On that skeptic website I linked to it said



Do you think this is an error? Weird that the book review also mentioned black bread. Perhaps the skeptic website read that review? And has been mistaken? I guess the only way to solve this is for me to read the book in physical format, it's over 700 pages long so will be a mission.

I have looked on amazon and you are correct, Joseph of Cupertino is not in the index. I have ordered the book and won't have it for a few days. I will have to investigate this. Very disappointing if this book does not actually contain what I thought it does! Where else then can I find information on the black bread hypothesis. There seems to be no other books that mention it in relation to Joseph.

I am currently reading a small book called Science and the Occult by Arthur E. Klein, he discusses the hypothesis of ergot poisoning from rye bread as a possible explanation for cases of 'demonic' possession or witchcraft. Ergotism apparently can cause convulsive symptoms and hallucinations. It's certainly an interesting idea in relation to the alleged 'levitations' of Joseph Cupertino. I want to follow this up it will be real disappointing if indeed an error has been made.

If that is the case then I guess we are left with Robert D. Smith's book Comparative Miracles. I have still been unable to get Gordon Stein's article.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the website got the information from the review: the wording is quite similar.

 

[Steve001]

Just a different perspective, I guess. I learn a huge amount that's applicable to the present day from studying past cases, especially in terms of past debunkings that were thoroughly documented at the time via books, detailed articles, etc.

What I am saying is it's not worth the time to argue with anyone over something that supposedly happened centuries ago.

 

[Mackenberg]

What I am saying is it's not worth the time to argue with anyone over something that supposedly happened centuries ago.

I understand and note that while arguing is sometimes necessary and even fun, the same applies to learning.

 

[Steve001]

I understand and note that while arguing is sometimes necessary and even fun, the same applies to learning.

My response was to the specific observation painkiller noted why skeptical persons don't engage others over this story and the more general one why skeptics focus on modern paranormal and supernatural claims.

 

[PainKiller]

Yes, I'm pretty sure the website got the information from the review: the wording is quite similar.

I have managed to sort this issue out.

The statement that Joseph baked black bread is correct, but it comes from an academic writer John Cornwell, not Bartlett.

John Cornwell was the one who had written the review for Bartlett's book.

But as you correctly pointed out the first four paragraphs were not a review of the book but his own opinions.

Barlett does not mention Joseph in his book, but on two pages he does refer to levitations in relation to other saints.

John Cornwell in his book The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession mentions the black bread as a possible explanation for the levitations briefly on one page.

I like Cornwell, he appears to be an independent thinker and decent researcher. He wrote a controversial book called Hitler's Pope.

I will see what else I can dig up.

 

[PainKiller]

What I am saying is it's not worth the time to argue with anyone over something that supposedly happened centuries ago.

My response was to the specific observation painkiller noted why skeptical persons don't engage others over this story and the more general one why skeptics focus on modern paranormal and supernatural claims.

Whilst I disagree with Grosso on practically everything, I would agree with him on one point:

If evidence is good, it remains good no matter how old it gets; facts are timeless entities.

Of course in this case it is unclear what the 'facts' exactly are, skeptics do not believe the evidence is good for St. Josephs levitations but believers like Grosso do. But like he says, facts are timeless entities. And sometimes with proper research, it is possible to reveal what the facts were in such historical cases. That probably won't be the outcome with this, but that is what makes history so interesting and we can try our best, someone has to. I honestly do not believe it is a waste of time researching this subject or cases similar to it. It is fun doing this.

But think about how many skeptics have spent their time putting holes in the 'levitations' of Daniel Dunglas Home.

Despite what believers may claim, the skeptical literature on Home is extensive.

On skeptiko one believer who defended Cupertino, recently wrote:

Daniel Dunglas Home was tested in a tightly controlled conditions. The detailed reports by William Crooks are available on Dean Radin's evidence page.

If you think he was a fraud, please describe some specific tricks he might use in such restained situation. As for now, even professional and highly skeptical stage magicians were unable to present an adequate scenario of his supposed trickery...

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...did-this-17th-century-monk-levitate-312.3228/

This claim is completely false. Many possible adequate suggestions have been put forward by professional magicians to explain Home's trickery (see post 6 by me on this thread, 4th May 2016, 07:46 PM). The skeptical literature is even recorded on mainstream websites, one click away on the internet such as Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home

As I explain in my previous posts, there is a tendency amongst believers to ignore certain literature on these cases. Basically anything negative is ignored. These are the people who call us skeptical researchers narrow-minded but at least some of us acknowledge all of the literature. I am yet to come across an open-minded paranormal believer.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

In searching for the root of the myth of St. Joseph’s levitations, we seem to have begun unravelling the origin of the myth of St. Joseph’s hallucinogenic black bread! I can find no references to Joseph baking or eating black bread other than those directly related to Cornwell.

What is this medieval black bread made with magic mushrooms that would cause these hallucinations? It is rye bread. The cause of any hallucinations was not mushrooms baked into the bread, but rather fungus. Rye is susceptible to infection of ergot fungus. This can occur if the grain or bread becomes old and damp. Eating rye bread made with contaminated grain leads to ergotism, also known as St. Anthony’s Fire. This was a common occurrence in the Middle Ages. This can cause hallucinations. It can also cause gangrene, loss of limbs, seizures, and even death. People did not eat contaminated black bread on purpose, except in cases where it was used medicinally such as to hasten childbirth or inducing an abortion. So people were not likely hanging around eating bad rye bread and hallucinating that Joseph was flying.

But did Joseph bake and eat such bread? I can find no historical records saying he did. And it isn’t likely. Joseph couldn’t clear a table without breaking the dishes. It would take him hours or days to simply fetch a pail of water. He was inept at nearly everything. It is doubtful that he was even capable of baking bread, and certainly would not have been assigned such a task. He was usually relegated to washing down a mule.

Not only is there no record of Joseph eating black bread, but the historical record is quite the opposite. Books from the 1800s, citing Italian references from the mid-1700s, retell the story that for five years Joseph ate no bread. "For five years he ate no bread, but lived upon dried fruits and vegetables. During the fasts he only ate a little on Thursdays and Sundays, but meat never passed his lips." (St. Joseph of Curpentino, Emily Mary Shapcote, 1877). (This has morphed into more recent accounts that claim he ate no meat, but lived on bread and fruits. Or that for five years he ate nothing at all but the Eucharist. Add breatharianism to Joseph’s miracles of levitation, fortune telling, raising sheep from the dead, healing, commanding animals, clairvoyance, bilocation, imperviousness to fire, and viewing and smelling the aura of sin. Oh, how the stories grow!)

So how does Cornwell connect Joseph with this black bread? It appears to be an error of translation. There is a story that Joseph was mocked at his attempts to serve dinner because he could not even tell the difference between the white and wheat bread. The bread is sometimes referred to as “light” and “dark” bread. In Ernest Hello’s “Physionomies de saints” (1875) he tells the story: “Il servait du pain noir au lieu de pain blanc ; on le grondait.” In his English version he translates this literally: “He would serve out black bread for white…”

As I can find no other reference to Joseph and black bread, this is likely Cornwell’s source. From serving black bread, it is added that Joseph not only ate it himself, but also baked it. Cornwell no doubt then researches medieval “black bread” and finds it is rye bread that, when made with infested grain, causes ergotism, which can cause hallucinations. Cornwell then supposes that all black bread had this effect and that people were eating such bread on purpose. The ergot fungus is replaced with psilocybin mushrooms. In Cornwell’s review of Bartlett’s “Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?” he presents his black bread theory, which he intends to use in his upcoming book “The Dark Box.” Cornwell’s theory gets confused with being that of Bartlett, which is then repeated.

We go from an old story about a dunce who serves wheat bread instead of white bread, to a bibliographical citation of a Princeton scholar that Joseph baked and served a mysterious medieval “black bread” made with psychedelic mushrooms that caused mass hallucinations. Oh, how the stories grow!

 

[PainKiller]

So how does Cornwell connect Joseph with this black bread? It appears to be an error of translation.

No it isn't an error. Cornell who I have spoken to claims to have discovered sources that document that St. Joseph ate black bread, and was involved with it. I may receive these soon.

Here is one that I found myself:

Although incessantly absorbed in prayer, his outward appearance betokened nothing but stupidity, and the opinion which it suggested was confirmed by his conduct. If sent to assist in the refectory he would give the religious black bread instead of white, or break the plates and throw down the dishes, so that he was perpetually seen in penance with the fragments round his shoulders; if sent to fetch water he fared no better, for he would entirely forget the duty assigned to him, and remain by the well absorbed in prayer.

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Life_of_Saint_of_Assist_1000632304/441

The Life of Saint of Assist: Sketch of the Franciscan Order. London: Forgotten Books. (Original work published 1867).

I can find no historical records saying he did. And it isn’t likely.

Well I believe you are wrong, we have references already linking St. Joseph to rye bread. On further investigation, there are sources that document St. Joseph making or at a minimum eating rye bread (semantics issue black bread or rye bread, both the same thing), I will list these shortly..

Joseph couldn’t clear a table without breaking the dishes. It would take him hours or days to simply fetch a pail of water. He was inept at nearly everything. It is doubtful that he was even capable of baking bread, and certainly would not have been assigned such a task. He was usually relegated to washing down a mule.

This appears to be taken from Angelo Pastrovicchi's biography of St. Joseph. The full quote:

The path of the novice was beset with difficulties. He was employed in the kitchen and refectory, but displayed a woeful lack of ability. At times he could not distinguish wheat bread from rye bread, often he broke dishes by letting them fall, upset pots in putting wood on the fire and committed other blunders of a similar nature.

So he worked in a kitchen and refectory. This comment just backs up the skeptic argument. As for the other information St. Joseph was obviously a delusional moron, or as you say dunce. Just more evidence he is unreliable.

 

[PainKiller]

As for mass hallucinations. I am not arguing a group of people sat around eating rye bread hallucinating at the same time, that St. Joseph levitated. lol.

I am saying St. Joseph himself was delusional. It is obvious he consumed this rye bread. He probably did hallucinate and believe he had magical powers.

As explained in post 9 on this thread, (5th May 2016, 02:55 AM):

"Skeptics say reports of St. Joseph's levitations may be attributed to the gross exaggeration of biographies published more than a century."

For example Angelo Pastrovicchi's biography of St. Joseph was written in the 18th century (in 1743), years after Joseph had died.

Michael Grosso's book consists of unreliable paranormal and parapsychology books mostly published in the 20th century. He also relies on Angelo Pastrovicchi's statements without questioning them.

Gross exaggeration from later sources, self-delusion from St. Joseph (probably consuming rye bread), unreliable eyewitness testimony. There is nothing in favour for these supposed levitations.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

No it isn't an error. Cornell who I have spoken to claims to have discovered sources that document that St. Joseph ate black bread, and was involved with it. I may receive these soon.

Here is one that I found myself:

That does not say Joseph ate black bread. It says he gave black bread instead of white. There are many tellings of the story where “black bread” is instead called “wheat” or “brown” or “dark” bread. It would require going back to the original (Italian) sources and an appropriate interpretation to know exactly what type of bread was being referred to. It is possible that it was in reference to rye bread, which was known as “black bread.”

However, this distinction, even if true, is irrelevant. Black bread was not inherently, nor even generally, hallucinogenic. Accounts of Joseph levitating span many years. This account about bread says that he ONCE served black bread in mistake of white bread, for which he was mocked. He was surely then assigned another task, as he had been so many times before when he proved inept. In fact, the historical accounts are that he was assigned to washing a mule—certainly not to baking bread when he could not even distinguish types for serving, let alone baking.

The proposition that Joseph ate and served black bread is surely founded on this translation of “black bread” that, whether actually means rye bread or not, is in reference to a single incident of failure, indicating that Joseph was unlikely to repeat it, and was certainly not concerning rye bread made from ergot infested rye. The idea that Joseph was routinely baking and serving bad rye bread that caused mass hallucinations of his alleged levitations is wholly unfounded and absurd.

Well I believe you are wrong, we have references already linking St. Joseph to rye bread. On further investigation, there are sources that document St. Joseph making or at a minimum eating rye bread (semantics issue black bread or rye bread, both the same thing), I will list these shortly..

I will look forward for your citations that Joseph ate black/rye bread. It doesn’t begin to substantiate the theory, but I certainly would be interested in seeing them.

This appears to be taken from Angelo Pastrovicchi's biography of St. Joseph. The full quote:

I took it from a number of sources, mostly books from the 1800s.

So he worked in a kitchen and refectory. This comment just backs up the skeptic argument. As for the other information St. Joseph was obviously a delusional moron, or as you say dunce. Just more evidence he is unreliable.

I don’t know what the “skeptic argument” is. I’m a skeptic. That means looking at the evidence and going wherever it leads.

There is not convincing evidence that Joseph levitated, or performed any of the other paranormal acts attributed to him.

There is not convincing evidence that Joseph baked, ate, and served psychedelic black bread that caused mass hallucinations that account for those stories. The evidence is quite convincing that such stories are a recent development, unfounded in and contradictory to historical fact, and even absurd in their premise.

The evidence very strongly indicates that the idea of hallucinogenic black bread traces back exactly as I described. This shows that even in this enlightened age, and even with all data being recorded, and even with all the resources of the Internet, and even with a skeptic seeking to debunk a myth, the twists and turns of information can lead from an old, simple folktale to an accepted implausible truth attributed to a reliable historian.

Imagine what happened hundreds of years ago when there was no Internet, no television, no radio, no newspapers. False myths propagate far more easily and convincingly than we would like to admit.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

As for mass hallucinations. I am not arguing a group of people sat around eating rye bread hallucinating at the same time, that St. Joseph levitated. lol.

But there are many, many accounts of his levitation, and apparently many documents indicating that he had many followers. So many that he was brought before the Inquisition, and attracted attention from the Pope. He wasn’t some crazy guy who wrote an insane autobiography that later became a best seller. He was, by all accounts, famous in his own time.

To say that Joseph was merely fooling himself does not address the issue. How were his followers fooled? Or, to go down a more obscure path, how was it that the legends of him were perpetuated with accounts of his many followers?

Joseph being delusional does not account for that historical record. That requires someone, or more likely many people, being delusional. That is surely the case. But to sufficiently account for that (as I think I have done with the black bread myth, with links to actual recorded data, despite opposition) would be nearly impossible.

We can speculate. But the stories surrounding Joseph are so various and obviously convoluted, that it seems differentiating the truth from the fiction may prove impossible.

 

[Lucian]

In searching for the root of the myth of St. Joseph’s levitations, we seem to have begun unravelling the origin of the myth of St. Joseph’s hallucinogenic black bread! I can find no references to Joseph baking or eating black bread other than those directly related to Cornwell.

What is this medieval black bread made with magic mushrooms that would cause these hallucinations? It is rye bread. The cause of any hallucinations was not mushrooms baked into the bread, but rather fungus. Rye is susceptible to infection of ergot fungus. This can occur if the grain or bread becomes old and damp. Eating rye bread made with contaminated grain leads to ergotism, also known as St. Anthony’s Fire. This was a common occurrence in the Middle Ages. This can cause hallucinations. It can also cause gangrene, loss of limbs, seizures, and even death. People did not eat contaminated black bread on purpose, except in cases where it was used medicinally such as to hasten childbirth or inducing an abortion. So people were not likely hanging around eating bad rye bread and hallucinating that Joseph was flying.

But did Joseph bake and eat such bread? I can find no historical records saying he did. And it isn’t likely. Joseph couldn’t clear a table without breaking the dishes. It would take him hours or days to simply fetch a pail of water. He was inept at nearly everything. It is doubtful that he was even capable of baking bread, and certainly would not have been assigned such a task. He was usually relegated to washing down a mule.

Not only is there no record of Joseph eating black bread, but the historical record is quite the opposite. Books from the 1800s, citing Italian references from the mid-1700s, retell the story that for five years Joseph ate no bread. "For five years he ate no bread, but lived upon dried fruits and vegetables. During the fasts he only ate a little on Thursdays and Sundays, but meat never passed his lips." (St. Joseph of Curpentino, Emily Mary Shapcote, 1877). (This has morphed into more recent accounts that claim he ate no meat, but lived on bread and fruits. Or that for five years he ate nothing at all but the Eucharist. Add breatharianism to Joseph’s miracles of levitation, fortune telling, raising sheep from the dead, healing, commanding animals, clairvoyance, bilocation, imperviousness to fire, and viewing and smelling the aura of sin. Oh, how the stories grow!)

So how does Cornwell connect Joseph with this black bread? It appears to be an error of translation. There is a story that Joseph was mocked at his attempts to serve dinner because he could not even tell the difference between the white and wheat bread. The bread is sometimes referred to as “light” and “dark” bread. In Ernest Hello’s “Physionomies de saints” (1875) he tells the story: “Il servait du pain noir au lieu de pain blanc ; on le grondait.” In his English version he translates this literally: “He would serve out black bread for white…”

As I can find no other reference to Joseph and black bread, this is likely Cornwell’s source. From serving black bread, it is added that Joseph not only ate it himself, but also baked it. Cornwell no doubt then researches medieval “black bread” and finds it is rye bread that, when made with infested grain, causes ergotism, which can cause hallucinations. Cornwell then supposes that all black bread had this effect and that people were eating such bread on purpose. The ergot fungus is replaced with psilocybin mushrooms. In Cornwell’s review of Bartlett’s “Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?” he presents his black bread theory, which he intends to use in his upcoming book “The Dark Box.” Cornwell’s theory gets confused with being that of Bartlett, which is then repeated.

We go from an old story about a dunce who serves wheat bread instead of white bread, to a bibliographical citation of a Princeton scholar that Joseph baked and served a mysterious medieval “black bread” made with psychedelic mushrooms that caused mass hallucinations. Oh, how the stories grow!

I agree that the "black bread" argument seems weak. Ergotism and hallucinogenic mushrooms frequently get blamed for strange events: how did Norse warriors achieve the berserker rage? Magic mushrooms. What explains the Salem witch lunacy? Ergotism. They provide nice sciencey-sounding answers. The only problem is that there is often a lack of evidence, and the evidence that does exist usually doesn't fit with the symptoms of magic mushrooms or ergot poisoning. And the idea of black bread made with mushrooms seems to invoke both ergotism and hallucinogenic mushrooms. It's a bit much.

 

[Lucian]

Painkiller: you might be interested in another book written by Robert Bartlett, The Hanged Man: A Story of Miracle, Memory, and Colonialism in the Middle Ages. It doesn't have anything to do with levitation of Joseph of Cupertino, but it does look in depth at one miracle that was presented in the canonization hearings for a medieval saint, Thomas of Cantilupe (he resurrected a hanged man). There happens to be a lot of documentation on this case: there are the witness statements taken during the hearing. This hearing took place long after the "miracle," and there are massive discrepancies between the witness statements. In addition, there is an account that was recorded shortly after the supposed miracle at Hereford Cathedral, whence many of the witnesses had gone in thanksgiving. That account is used to check the statements made many years later during the canonization hearing. It gives an idea of how miracle stories can develop.

 

[PainKiller]

How were his followers fooled?

Well this is a very important question.

Here is what Michael Grosso has written:

The records show at least 150 sworn depositions of witnesses of high credentials: cardinals, bishops, surgeons, craftsmen, princes and princesses who personally lived by his word, popes, inquisitors, and countless variety of ordinary citizens and pilgrims. There are letters, diaries and biographies written by his superiors while living with him. Arcangelo di Rosmi recorded 70 incidents of levitation; and then decided it was enough. Streams of inexplicable events surrounded the black-bearded friar. Driven by malicious curiosity, even Joseph’s inquisitors observed him in ecstatic levitation during Mass. Their objection to him was not the fact that he levitated; they were concerned with where the power was coming from, God or the Devil?"

https://rhinemagazine.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/why-levitation-by-michael-grosso/

So what is your explanation for this? Did he really manage to fool 150 people? Or is it there has been gross exaggeration.

The problem that I have with Grosso's statement is where did we find the "150 sworn depositions of witnesses of high credentials", in what historical records? Where can we locate these records such as diaries and letters etc?

I look at Grosso's book and hardly any old historical literature is cited. Most of his evidence seems to be second or third hand or written a century or much later after St. Joseph had died.

Update

See below, Grosso does have an appendix with the historical literature cited for those who knew St. Joseph whilst he was alive. I will investigate this. But the sources seem very few.

 

[PainKiller]

In Grosso's book is a small appendix at the back which apparently lists the eyewitness accounts from the historical literature who personally knew St. Joseph and testified to his levitations. I will type this out shortly and investigate these sources.