THE ARGUMENT THAT THE VISIONARIES AT MEDJUGORJE RESPONDED TO THE VISION SIMULTANEOUSLY INDICATING THAT THEY ARE SEEING SOMETHING
Has the Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady, Queen of Peace been appearing in Medjugorje in the former Yugoslavia since 1981? Six young people have reported these visions and have been subjected to tests. Let us present what Hector Avalos says on the subject.
From Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry by Hector Avalos.
Is Group Simultaneity Always Evidence of an Objective
Experience?
Aside from the supposed lack of pathology in the visionaries, Laurentin and
Joyeux cite the simultaneity of their key movements during the supposed
apparitions as evidence for the objectivity of their experiences. For example,
they point to the convergence of their gaze as confirmed by video recording made
face-on to the visionaries during the ecstasy and the simultaneous raising of
their eyes and heads as the apparition disappears upwards.
I have studied Joyeux's report and have looked at the videotape of two separate
events that show such alleged simultaneous behavior. My examination
reveals nothing so extraordinary as to demand a supernatural explanation.
Joyeux and other writers often make statements that may mislead the reader into
thinking that the whole group exhibits simultaneous behavior that, at most,
occurs in only part of the group. For example, they report administering an
electro-oculogram to Ivan and Marija on December 28, 1984. The movement of the
eyeballs of both youngsters reportedly showed simultaneity to the second in the
cessation of movement at the beginning of the ecstasy and again, simultaneity to
the second in the return of movement at the end of the ecstasy. But in a Paris
Match interview, Joyeux generalizes this result to the visionaries as a whole
("des voyants"). In his translation of this interview Father M. O'Carroll makes
the generalization even more emphatic by saying that "all the visionaries" had
such simultaneity.
Likewise, sometimes the ecstasy that is taken to be evidence of a real
apparition experience is not as uniform as might first appear. For
example, regarding the youngsters' supposed disconnection from the world during
their ecstasy, Joyeux says that "disconnection is not total; rather it is
partial and variable."
More important, the supposed vision experiences have a regular schedule and
duration that may result, with or without sinister collusion, in simultaneous
behavior. Laurentin and Joyeux themselves note the regularity of the behavior,
for they divide the experiences into three phases: contemplation or
conversation; prayer with the apparition; and contemplation or conversation.
Insofar as duration is concerned, Laurentin and Joyeux themselves note that "no
apparition has lasted for more than one or two minutes since the end of 1983."
This is important because they made their measurements of simultaneity in 1984,
when the duration of each event was quite short and predictable. In fact, they
report recording the precise duration of only five ecstasies, with each one
lasting sixty-five to eighty-five seconds.
The schedule for the start of the ecstasy is certainly familiar to Laurentin and
Joyeux, who themselves say: "Since the end of 1983, ecstasy begins before they
have finished the first Our Father." They also note, following an earlier
study of Dr. Lucia Capello, that: Their voices become audible at the same time,
on the third word of the Our Father, the apparition having recited the first
two. This phenomenon militates against the theory of a prior agreement and
cannot be put down to natural causes. Even without a sinister conspiracy, the
regular schedule noted by Laurentin and Joyeux clearly is sufficient to produce
the type of simultaneity they find so unnatural. Indeed, beginning to pray
audibly with the third word of the Our Father is as good a cue as beginning to
pray audibly with the first word. It is, of course, poor science to represent as
a verifiable fact the belief that the apparition recites the first two words.
Likewise, the convergence of the gaze is usually toward the front of the room
when the visions take place within a church. Even Laurentin and Joyeux observe:
"The visionaries' gaze converges on the same well-located spot." Again, gazing
at a well-known location is something that may be learned and conditioned
naturally, thus producing the simultaneity reported.
In one videotape recording the experience of visionaries Jacob and Marija, I
observed that after assembling at the front of the room to begin the supposed
encounter with Mary, Jacob began to gaze upward as he crossed himself. About one
second later Marija did the same. Aside from the fact that the supposed
apparition takes place at the same time in the schedule, both children had
peripheral vision and could observe each other gaze upward.
The kneeling, which even Joyeux admits is not perfectly synchronized, occurs at
the end of the recitation of the Our Father, which in turn is usually recited
after the initial crossing. Another videotape shows that the near simultaneous
kneeling by five of the visionaries also occurs at the end of the initial Our
Father. A visual cue to kneel is not even necessary here because the end of the
audible prayer could be a sufficient cue. Such simultaneity in kneeling can even
be achieved without visual cues in multiple locations if the worshippers are all
listening to the recitation of the Our Father on a radio.
Although near-simultaneous behavior is considered an indication of an
"objective" experience for Joyeux, non-simultaneous behavior does not appear to
be evidence for a "subjective" experience. Laurentin and Joyeux report,
"The visionaries had independent conversations and even had different
conversations simultaneously at times." They use an unverifiable phenomenon to
explain the variable conversations--namely the possible use of different
channels of supernatural communication by the Virgin. However, each informant
may be constructing his or her own imaginary dialogue. Furthermore, the type of
coherence that they cite in the apparition reports can also derive from the
common imagery and forms of speech that are stereotypical in the Marian
subculture.
Joyeux wasted a unique opportunity to design experiments that would have
provided more of a challenge to skeptics on the issue of simultaneity. Indeed,
his experimental design was quite careless. For example, since even
Joyeux repeatedly claims that normal vision or hearing is not necessary to
perceive the apparitions, each of the visionaries could have been blindfolded
before they assembled at the front of the room. Earphones that render any
external sound inaudible could have been placed upon them. Yet, there were no
reported attempts to cover their ears or eyes throughout an event.
Partitions could have been placed between the visionaries to exclude the
possibility of cues from air disturbances produced by body movements (e.g.,
kneeling). A more rigorous experimenter might have spun all the visionaries
around and pointed them in different directions within the partitions. If those
visionaries truly had a special ability that was not based on normal hearing or
seeing, then we would expect them to have all heard the apparition calling them
from the same spot at the same time. We would expect that each of the children
initially pointed in different directions would turn simultaneously toward the
same direction even if blindfolded. If a recorded version of the Our Father were
recited to each visionary at different times through the earphones, we would
still expect them to ignore the voice on the earphones and kneel in synchrony
with the supposed actions of the apparition.
Insofar as experimental design is concerned, the exaggerated claims of Joyeux
are most apparent in the "screening test" he discusses. What Joyeux
describes as a "screening test" and a "screen" actually refers to the brief
placement of a postcard-size object in front of Marija and Ivanka. It does not
block out peripheral vision. Note how Joyeux interprets the brief visual
screening test: a screen which is held up does not block out the perception of
the apparition. Again Joyeux assumes a priori the existence of the supernatural
object that the youngsters claim to perceive. What Joyeux actually observed is
that the gaze of two visionaries remained fixed when a postcard-size card was
placed in front of them. Such a fixed gaze does not constitute proof for the
existence of an object at the point in space where the visionaries are looking
because one can observe that during prayer many worshippers in Christian and
non-Christian religions gaze upward at what they believe to be heaven even when
temple walls or other screening objects are interposed.
However, even if rigorous visual and auditory blocking procedures were used,
they could not eliminate the possibility of a learned simultaneity after 1983
when the whole schedule became very regular and lasted one to two minutes. In
sum, the simultaneity cited by Laurentin and Joyeux, even if genuine, is not
extraordinary, and it does not constitute evidence for the objectivity of the
experience at all, especially in light of poor experimental design.