So, what caused St. Pio's stigmata?

>>1601947

Very likely he did them himself, with acid.

During his lifetime there were lots of priests who doubted him. Some produced testimonies and documents exposing him. Everyone was silenced by the Vatican, since the Church under John Paul II turned into mass production of saints.

>>1601947
Just your usual papist lies, bullshit and hoaxes.

Wouldn't be the first time a religious nutjob mutilated himself.

>>1601947

The fapping of his or a child's benis.

>>1601947
corrosive chemicals and lots of porco dio

>>1602043
It started long before John Paul II in fact, but by then they had run out of historically significant figures to canonize so they had to scrap the bottom of the barrel.

File: 21061497c5d7766med (1).jpg (26KB, 334x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 334x500px

It´s still common in Italy and Spain

File: (2).jpg (37KB, 326x506px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 326x506px

If he had really used carbolic acid to create his wounds, wouldn't he be poisoned to all fuck?

>Since phenol is absorbed through the skin relatively quickly, systemic poisoning can occur in addition to the local caustic burns.[28] Resorptive poisoning by a large quantity of phenol can occur even with only a small area of skin, rapidly leading to paralysis of the central nervous system and a severe drop in body temperature.
>Phenol and its vapors are corrosive to the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract.[41] Its corrosive effect on skin and mucous membranes is due to a protein-degenerating effect.[28] Repeated or prolonged skin contact with phenol may cause dermatitis, or even second and third-degree burns.[42] Inhalation of phenol vapor may cause lung edema.[41] The substance may cause harmful effects on the central nervous system and heart, resulting in dysrhythmia, seizures, and coma.[43] The kidneys may be affected as well. Long-term or repeated exposure of the substance may have harmful effects on the liver and kidneys.[4]

Padre Pio did have some recorded medical issues apparently, including bronchitis, a large kidney stone, inguinal hernia, gastritis, inflammation, pleurisy, rhinitis/otitis etc.
I don't know enough about these issues to know if they indicate the toxic effects of carbolic acid.

It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this, because if there was strong evidence pointing to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his stigmata it would have big implications. If it is illegitimate, then it calls into question the canonisation process of the Church, which is considered infallible iirc.

>>1602689
Well I don't know much, but what I do know is that people, and Jesus, got nailed through the space of Destot.

The space of Destot is the anatomical wrist. What is commonly known as the wrist is actually the anatomical forearm.

Both laymen and clergy have reported stigmata in the Latin Church. If I remember correctly no Orthodox or other churches have reported. But non-Christians have reported stigmata, an example would be Buddhists.

Most stigmatics are women. No stigmata cases prior to 13th century.

Padre Pio had this stigmata for 50 years. Reportedly, non-biased investigations were conducted and described "unexplainable".

File: I-happen-to-be-a-sage-on-this-topic.jpg (25KB, 339x479px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 339x479px

>So, what caused St. Pio's stigmata?

It is very likely that he used carbolic acid to create the appearance of stigmata. A researcher was able to find correspondence between Pio and a drug-store caretaker asking for carbolic acid - not simply asking for it, but demanding secrecy and discretion, and asking that it be delivered urgently. Very suspicious.

Of note is that during his lifetime, Pio was always considered a troublemaker: he was known for being a compulsive liar, who enjoyed fabricating complex and intricate lies to for his entertainment, and for breaking his vows of celibacy by having sex with women quite regularly. Only when the Church realized it could be advantageous for them to canonize him did they make a saint out of the deluded man and try to hide the earlier contempt and disbelief they'd had for him.

To believe that his stigmata was of supernatural origin is superstitious garbage. You do realize stigmata was only first recorded in the 13th century CE, right? That means there were 1200 years after Christ's supposed resurrection that no one reported anything close to it until some zealous and half-starved deluded man in Assisi began telling people he had this 'stigmata'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/padre-pio-faked-his-stigmata-with-acid-397811.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=2047151

tl'dr: his stigmata was caused by applications of either carbolic or nitric acid, and his "odour of sanctity" was very likely cologne, and he did this because he had a known tendency to string people along with lies for his amusement.

>>1603408
It is not unusual for Church authorities to suppress and hide even those who are considered to be saintly. They don't like drawing attention to possible cults of personality. Just about every saint biography has a story of a suspicious bishop forbidding them from doing something.

I'm interested in knowing more about his apparent bad behaviour, like lying and breaking his vows of celibacy. I hadn't heard those accusations before.

>>1603483
>I'm interested in knowing more about his apparent bad behaviour, like lying and breaking his vows of celibacy. I hadn't heard those accusations before.

See the links. Also, Wikipedia.

>>1603550
>>1603550
>A liberal atheist britcuck site
>Some nigger site hosted in south apefreaka which is ruled by an anti-white black communist atheist regime
>A bolshewiki whose admins are literal despotic SJW's censoring any articles they disagree with

I'm not even a christian but those are some shit-tier sources you got there m8

>>1603408
>carbolic acid
http://www.sanpadrepio.com/StigmataTruth.htm

Satan

>>1602043
>self inflicted with acid

Didn't they heal and leave no scarring near the time of death?

>>1604073
>Prautist

>>1603710
>Buzzwords: the post

Why should I take someone who so ardently believes in superstitious fairy-tales seriously.