Ancient Mysteries - The Vatican Archives, Angels & the Government Email That Changed Everything

Episode Date: September 29, 2026

What happens when centuries-old Vatican records begin attracting the attention of people connected to the aerospace world?Diana Walsh Pasulka is a professor of religious studies who spent years studying extraordinary accounts preserved in historical archives — from reports of angels and mystical encounters to sworn testimony describing events that witnesses struggled to explain.Then something unexpected happened.Around 2015–2016, emails began arriving at her university address from aerospace companies, contractors and individuals connected to programs they could not openly identify. They weren't asking for her published research. They wanted the original material — archival references, primary documents, witness testimony and the sources hidden behind her footnotes. Why were they interested?In this documentary, we follow Pasulka's journey through religious history, the Vatican archives, centuries-old reports of unexplained phenomena, modern UFO culture and the surprising connections between ancient testimony and the people studying unusual aerial phenomena today.The story includes Vatican archive research, Joseph of Cupertino, María de Ágreda, historical accounts of extraordinary encounters, aerospace researchers and the mysterious emails that connected two worlds that seemingly had nothing to do with each other.Were centuries-old religious accounts simply products of their time — or could some of them contain observations worth examining with modern eyes?This documentary explores the evidence, competing explanations and unanswered questions without assuming that extraordinary claims are automatically true.Watch to the end and decide what the evidence means for yourself.🔔 Subscribe for more documentaries about hidden history, unexplained phenomena, science, religion and mysteries buried in the archives.

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. New from Nespresso. blend wellness into your coffee routine with the coffee plus range infused with functional benefits. Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins, like coffee plus B12 to help support immune function, and coffee plus B6 to keep your day moving. Or go with the flow and choose ginseng delight. Our new double espresso with ginseng extract.

Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you. Discover coffee plus on espresso.com. Hey there, truth seekers. Diana Walsh Pusulka is a professor of religious studies who refuses to walk into a house if somebody tells her it is cursed. Won't do it. But put a blindfold on her, drive her into the New Mexico Desert with a man who has government clearance, and hand her a shovel?

She is in. Her threat detection needs an update. This is a woman who read sworn testimony in the secret archive of the Vatican. Thousands of signatures from the 1600s. Real people swearing under oath that they watch. a monk float off the ground. Her new book, The Others, just hit the New York Times bestseller list, and her claim is uncomfortable. A new religion is forming around UFOs right now, and somebody is already writing its Bible. Why do Angel encounters from the 1500 sound exactly like

like modern UFO reports? And why did aerospace contractors start emailing a religion professor for her files? Hit that like button and drop a comment with the city you're watching from. Let's go. So before we get anywhere near flying monks or desert digs, we have to fix a misunderstanding that follows Pesulka into basically every conversation she has ever had at dinner party. When people hear Professor of Religious Studies, their brain hears something like priest with tenure. They picture a person who will gently steer the conversation toward their personal salvation somewhere between the appetizers and dessert.

That is not the job. It is not even close to the job. And the difference between what people think she does and what she actually does, turns out to be the single most important thing in this entire story, because it is the reason a woman with no belief in aliens ended up as the most quoted academic in a field full of people who very much do believe in aliens. Here is where it gets funny. She has almost exactly the training people imagine. She did her graduate work alongside people who went on to become priests and nuns. Same classroom, same reading lists, same dead languages, same eye-watering piles

of church history that would put a caffeinated grad student flat on the floor. If you lined up her transcript next to a theologian's transcript, you would struggle to tell them apart. She has the base, she has the toolkit. She can read the documents in the original and know what a 17th century Italian scribe meant when he abbreviated a word in a way that makes no sense to anyone born after the invention of the fork. What she does not have, by her own description, is the sense that she was walking the path seriously enough to be a theologian, and that is the fork in the road. Theology is done from inside. A theologian starts with a commitment and reasons outward from it. The question on the table is

what does this tradition teach, and how should it be understood, and the person asking is a member of the household. Religious studies works from outside. The question is what do people actually do, what do they report, what do they build, what do they burn, what do they write down at three in the morning when something has just happened to them that they cannot explain. It is closer to anthropology, wearing a very old Tweed jacket. The cleanest way to explain the difference is sports. A the ologian is a player. A religious study scholar is the person in the press box with a clipboard, counting how many times the ball went in the net who is not allowed to care which team wins and would be professionally embarrassed to be caught cheering. Except in this case, the games have been

going for 5,000 years. The rulebooks contradict each other, several of the teams, believe the other teams are staffed entirely by demons, and the person with the clipboard has to describe all of it without ever writing down whether the referee exists. That last part is the thing nobody outside academia understands. Religious studies does not advertise. It does not sell Christianity, it does not sell Buddhism, it does not sell belief in UFOs. The discipline has a formal move, and the move is bracketing. You take the truth claim, you put it in a box, you set the box on a shelf, and you leave it there while you

you work. Not because the question is unimportant, but because the moment you answer it, you stop being able to see the thing you came to study. Somebody says an angel appeared in their bedroom. The theologian asks whether that is consistent with doctrine. The debunker asks what medication they were on. The religious studies scholar asks what happened next. Who did they tell? Did anyone believe them? Did they quit their job? Did their village build something? Did their family get rich or ruined? Did anyone write it down? And if so, did they write it down? in a form that other people copied for the next 400 years, which sounds cold until you realise it is the only method that lets you take everyone seriously at once.

If your rule is that true reports get studied and false ones get laughed at, you have just made yourself the arbiter of the entire supernatural, which is a slightly ambitious job description for someone whose main workplace hazard is paper cuts. Bracketing lets you sit with a Franciscan mystic and a Silicon Valley engineer and a woman in a Spanish mountain village and treat all three accounts as data about human beings, which they unambiguously are, regardless of what else they may or may not be.

And this is exactly why the aerospace people eventually came knocking, though we will get there. A believer would have told them what they wanted to hear. A debunker would have refused to open the file. The person with the clipboard just kept counting, and it turned out the count was the valuable thing. Now, given that toolkit, most scholars go find a nice safe corner.

reformation printing practices, the economics of monastic land ownership. Perfectly good careers. No one bothers you. You retire with a modest pension and a shelf of books three people have read. Pesulka went in a different direction almost immediately, and her early specialisation was, essentially, the weird stuff. Not weird as an insult. Weird in the technical sense, meaning events in the historical record that the record itself flags as anomalous. Contacts with angels, apparitions. People who are not so. People who are who reported dying and coming back. The cases that get a footnote and a shrug in most histories, because the historian does not know what to do with a document in which 40 named people swear

under oath that something impossible happened in front of them on a Tuesday. That is the crack she went through. Because those documents exist in enormous numbers, and almost nobody reads them. Historians tend to skip them, since the events described did not happen in any way a history department can process. Theologians read the approved ones and ignore the rest. Scientists do not read archives, and honestly why would they? So you end up with these vast fields of testimony, sitting there completely unworked, like an abandoned orchard nobody has picked in three centuries. She also spent time teaching at the Museum of Death and Dying in Brooklyn,

which is a sentence that ends most small talk instantly. But think about how strange it is that such a place has to exist as a museum in the first place. Death is the only universal human experience with 100% participation rate and modern culture handles it by putting it in a building at the edge of town, staffed by professionals, behind a door nobody wants to walk through. Every culture and history built elaborate public machinery for the end of life. We built a website where you can compare earn prices, so a museum where people actually go and look at how humans have handled mortality

is less morbid curiosity shop and more remedial education for an entire. civilisation that quietly dropped the subject and hoped nobody would notice. For a scholar though, it is a laboratory, because death is where every religious system shows its real architecture. Anyone can be vague about the divine. Nobody gets to be vague about what happens when your grandmother stops breathing. That is where the doctrines get specific, where the rituals get expensive, where the fear gets honest, and where the accounts of people who claim to have gone and come back, start piling up in ways that are genuinely hard to explain to away. Then there is the other half of her working life, and this one deserves real attention,

because it is a fact about the world that most people have never once considered. The archives, not the internet, the actual physical paper and vellum mile after mile archives that hold the memory of the human race. We all walk around with this quiet assumption that everything is online. If it matters, you can search it. If you cannot search it, it probably does not exist or was not important. That belief feels reasonable and is spectacularly wrong. What is online is a thin skim off the top of what humans have written down. There are millions upon millions of pages in archives around the world that have never been digitized, never been photographed, and in a startling number of cases never even been properly catalogued. Manuscripts in languages

that may be 200 living people read. Legal proceedings, testimonies, letters, ship logs, court transcripts from trials nobody has thought about since the people involved died, and that is just paper. Push further back and you get petroglyphs on rock faces in places with no road, recording something, meaning something for people we cannot ask. Your search engine is a flashlight with a very narrow beam pointed into a warehouse the size of a country. What it shows you is real. What it shows you is also almost nothing. And here is the part that makes this current instead of merely interesting. Every language model on earth learned from the digitised layer. That is the whole training diet. So an artificial intelligence, no matter how impressive, inherits precisely the

same blind spot as your search bar, only with more confidence and better grammar. Ask it about a 17th century canonisation proceeding, and it will give you a smooth, plausible, well-organised answer, assembled from the small percentage of the material that happened to get scanned. It cannot tell you what is in the boxes nobody opened. It does not know those boxes exist. Nothing in its training ever mentioned them, because the people who could mention them are a few hundred specialists who mostly write for each other, which gives archive scholars a strange kind of superpower right now. They are among the last professionals whose core skill is retrieving information that literally cannot be retrieved any other way. Everyone else is competing with a machine that has read the whole

internet. Pesulka is competing with a machine that has not read the thing she reads, and cannot not, because it is sitting in a room in Italy under lock and key with a temperature control system and a person who decides who gets in. That gap is the reason this whole story exists. If the documents she went looking for had been scanned and posted online in 1998, she would have been one more person with an interesting hobby. Because they were not, she became the only person in the room who had actually seen them, and it turned out there were people in that room who were extremely interested in what she had seen, for reasons that had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with what those old accounts were describing.

So that is the profession. Not a believer, not a skeptic, a person with the training of a theologian, the neutrality of an anthropologist, and access to a paper world that the digital one has never touched. Hold that in your head, because everything that follows depends on it. Her first real publication as a young professor was not about angels or archives at all. It was about children. Specifically, near-death experiences of children in the 19th century. which she found were not scattered curiosities but an entire literary genre, one that was enormously

popular in its time, and has since fallen so completely out of memory that most people are astonished to learn it ever existed. Understanding why it existed means understanding what the 1800s were actually like, and it was not the soft focus world of bonnets and pianos in the parlour. Child mortality was catastrophic. Depending on the city and the decade, a meaningful percentage of children did not reach their fifth birthday. Families expected to bury some of their kids the way we expect to replace a phone, not because they cared less, which is a nasty modern myth, but because the odds were brutal and everyone knew it,

diphtheria, cholera, scarlet fever, typhoid, tuberculosis, and a medical establishment whose best available treatment for most of it was confidence and to lance it. So the culture built machinery around it, the same way every culture does. Morning clothes with rules so specific they came in stages, jewellery woven from the hair of the dead, which sounds ghoulish now, and was then simply the equivalent of keeping a photo in your wallet. Post-mortem photography, because the only picture some families ever had of a child was taken after death, and if you think that is grim,

consider that the alternative was having no image of your kid at all, and, crucially for our story, a publishing industry. Grief was a market. Books, pamphlets, magazine columns, church periodicals, all producing consolation literature for parents who had just walked out of a bedroom for the last time. Inside that market sat the genre Pesulka went digging into. Two flavours, roughly. The first was the account of a child who died, or was pronounced dead, and came back and then described where they had been. The second, in some way stranger, was the deathbed account. A child dying, not returning, who in their final hours begin speaking to people in the room who are not there, describing them, naming them, delivering messages from relatives who had died

long before the child was born, and whom nobody had discussed in front of them. Now, the obvious objection is right there, and it is a good one. These were published in religious context by publishers with an agenda, for an audience that wanted comfort. Of course, a Victorian pamphlet about a dying child ends with angels and a reunion. That is the product. Nobody sold many copies of the pamphlet where the child says something confusing and then nothing happens. Pazulka knows this. She's a scholar of exactly this kind of text, and she's not naive about the incentives

of somebody trying to move units in 1873, but the reason the material stayed interesting after the discount was the detail about small children, because the standard explanation for why these accounts look similar is cultural preparation. You were raised on images of gates and light and a bearded figure, you go into cardiac arrest, your brain assembles the show from the props it already has.

Fine. Reasonable. Except a four-year-old has not had time to be prepared by anything. A four-year-old has not sat through years of sermons, has not absorbed the imagery, does not know the theology, and in a lot of cases, cannot yet describe a bicycle accurately. Visit BetMDMDM Casino and check out the newest exclusive, the Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly,

19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Okay, when I sell my business, I want the best tax and investment advice. I want to help my kids, and I want to give back to the community.

Ooh, then it's the vague. of a lifetime. I wonder if my out of office has a forever center. An IG Private Wealth Advisor creates the clarity you need with plans that harmonize your business, your family, and your dreams. Get financial advice that puts you at the center. Find your advisor at IGPrivatewealth.com. And what the little ones reported turned out to be, broadly, the same shape as what everyone

else reported. Different vocabulary, obviously. A child does not say luminous entity. A child says a nice man made of light, or a lady who glowed, or my grandma who I never met was there and she had the same nose as you. But the structure underneath is not noticeably different from the adult version. That does not prove anything about the afterlife, and Pesolka does not claim it does. The box stays on the shelf.

What it does is complicate the tidiest explanation, and complicating tidy explanations is basically the entire job description of a good scholar. Then she followed the genre backward, which is a little bit of a good scholar. where it stops being a Victorian curiosity and becomes something much older and much more unsettling. Because these accounts do not start in the 19th century. They do not start in the medieval period either. The earliest full version we have in the Western record is in Plato. The Republic ends with the story of a soldier named Err killed in battle, whose body was collected with the other dead and did not decay. Twelve days later, laid out on the funeral pyre, he revives and describes where he went.

judgment, a place where souls are sorted, a vision of the structure of the cosmos, instructions of a sort about how the whole system works, that is roughly two and a half thousand years ago. Written by the man who is arguably the foundation stone of Western philosophy included at the climax of his most important work, not as a joke and not as a footnote. And modern people who have had cardiac arrests in hospitals in 2019 describe a recognizably related experience. Two and a half millennia, an entirely different civilization, a completely different set of gods, no shared media, no shared vocabulary, and the report rhymes. Once you know to look, the pattern shows up with an almost irritating regularity, and it has three main pieces.

Piece one is the guide. Almost nobody makes the trip alone. There is a figure who meets you and conducts you, and the identity of that figure is the part that changes with the culture, which is exactly what you would expect. In a Christian account it is Jesus, or an angel, or a saint. In a Greek account, it is a divine messenger. In other traditions, it is an ancestor, a deity, an animal, a stranger who seems to have been waiting specifically for you. Very often it is described simply as a being made of light, with no name attached, which is the version that shows up in modern hospital reports with almost boring frequency. The costume changes. The role does not. Somebody is always there to walk you through, and they usually know things about you that you've

never told anyone. Piece two is the life review, and of all the elements, this is the one that keeps scholars awake, because it is oddly specific and it is not the obvious thing to invent. If you are making up an afterlife, you would probably go with a courtroom, a judge, a ledger, a verdict. Instead, again and again, what people describe is a replay. Your life presented back to you, frequently described as simultaneous rather than sequential, which is already a strange thing for an untrained person to try to articulate. And the sting in the tale is that in a large number of accounts across wildly separate cultures, you do not merely watch,

you experience the events from the other side, you feel what the person you humiliated felt, you feel the relief of the person you helped without thinking about it. The punishment, if you want to call it that, is comprehension, which is a genuinely peculiar idea to arrive at independently in dozens of places. It is also, if you sit with it for a second, a much more frightening concept than fire, and considerably harder to dismiss as wishful thinking, since nobody comforting a grieving family would naturally invent a mechanism

whose main feature is that you get to feel every cruel thing you ever did in high definition. Piece three is judgment, and here the imagery gets spectacular. The Egyptian version is the one everybody is half seen on a lot. a museum wall, without knowing what they were looking at. The heart of the dead is placed on a scale and weighed against a single feather, the feather of truth, not against a mountain of sin, not against a book of rules, a feather. If the heart is heavier, it gets eaten on the spot by a creature assembled from the least reassuring parts of a crocodile, a lion, and a hippopotamus, and that is the end of you permanently. If it balances, you proceed to Osiris and the good outcome.

the strictest customs inspection ever devised, run by staff with absolutely no interest in your explanation, and the acceptable weight limit for a lifetime of behaviour is one feather. Then the medieval material picks up the same three-part structure and industrialises it. There is a whole body of other-world journey literature from that period, accounts of people who went, toured the regions of the dead, saw who was where and why, and came back with a report. They follow the format so faithfully that you can practically diagram them. A person collapses or dies. A guide arrives. There is a tour, usually with commentary. There is a viewing of their own conduct, and then there is a return. Always with instructions. Always with a message for the living that boils down to some

version of change how you are behaving, because I have seen the filing system, and it is more thorough than you think. Those medieval accounts were not fringe entertainment either. They were copied, translated, spread across Europe, preached from, and used to shape how millions of people understood the geography

of the next world, which had enormous consequences for how the church would later organise that geography and eventually for what it decided to quietly stop talking about. But that is a different chapter.

The point Pesolka takes from the whole sweep of it is careful and worth getting exactly right because it is the hinge for everything that comes later in this story. She is not arguing

that the these accounts prove there is an afterlife. She is not arguing that they prove there is not. That is the box on the shelf, and it stays there. What she is arguing is that we have a stable, structured, cross-cultural, multi-millennial body of human testimony that keeps producing the same architecture in populations that had no way to coordinate, and that this is itself a fact about the world that requires an explanation. Something is generating the pattern. The candidates for what that something has happened to be wildly different from one another, but every serious candidate has to account for the same shape,

and the skeptical candidates are real ones. The dying brain does dramatic things. Oxygen deprivation produces tunnel vision and euphoria, which is documented in fighter pilots pulling high G-forces, who black out and come back reporting floating sensations and pleasant confusion, though notably not detailed conversations with deceased relatives. Certain compounds produce experiences with structural similarities. Temporal lobe activity can generate the sense of a presence in the room,

which is a fact anyone who has been very ill and very alone at 4 in the morning may already suspect. All of it is legitimate, all of it explains parts, and honestly if the whole thing turns out to be neurochemistry, it remains one of the strangest facts about the human nervous system, that it comes preloaded with a specific screenplay it runs at the end. What none of the explanations handle gracefully is the durability of the details across groups that were not talking to each other, and the small children, and the persistent business of dying people describing relatives they were never told about. That is not proof of anything.

It is a stubborn residue, and stubborn residue is what scholars live on. There is one more thing this early work gave her, and it is the thing that matters most for where the story goes. It gave her a trained eye for a specific kind of document. She learned what a genuine testimony collection looks like, how the language of an eyewitness account differs from the language of a copied literary formula, how an editor changes a text and where the seams show, and how to recognise when a group of people in a particular decade suddenly starts describing the same unusual thing in the same unusual words. That skill is neutral, it does not care what the unusual thing is, it works on Victorian deathbeds, on Greek soldiers, on funeral pires,

on medieval visionaries, and as it turned out several decades later, on stacks of sworn 17th century testimony about a monk who would not stay on the ground, which is where we are going next. Her first book was about purgatory, which if you are under 40 and were raised Catholic may land as a slightly baffling sentence, because there is a decent chance nobody ever explained the thing to you in the first place, and that gap, that specific whole in the education of an entire generation is not an accident. It is the result of a decision made in a specific decade by specific people for reasons that had almost nothing to do with theology and almost everything to do with what we would now call brand management. Start with what purgatory actually is, because pop culture has

mangled it into a kind of celestial waiting lounge with bad magazines. In Catholic teaching, it is not a third destination and it is not a second chance. Everyone in purgatory is going to heaven, the outcome is settled. What is happening is a process of purification, the burning off of the residue of a life, before a soul can stand in the presence of something perfect. The logic is that you do not walk into the throne room straight from the parking lot covered in the mess of 80 years of being a person. You get cleaned up first, and the cleaning is described as painful, but it is a hopeful pain, which is a genuinely unusual thing for a religious system to promise, since most of them prefer their pain to come with a permanent contract. The idea took centuries to harden into doctrine.

Early Christians prayed for their dead, which already implies a belief that the dead can still be helped, otherwise you're just talking to a wall in an expensive robe. Over time, that instinct got formalized, argued over, defined at councils, and eventually became a fixed teaching of the church. And once you have a doctrine that says the living can shorten the process for the dead, you have created something with enormous gravitational pull on human behaviour. Because now love has a lever, your mother is in there, there is something you can do about it, what would you not do? The answer, historically, was almost anything.

Masses said for named souls. Endowments left in wills to pay for those masses in perpetuity. Entire side chapels built and staffed for the sole purpose of praying for one wealthy family's dead relatives forever, which is a level of estate planning that makes a moment. modern trust fund look casual, and this is where the system produced its most notorious failure mode, because when spiritual benefit meets human institutions with operating costs, somebody eventually starts writing receipts. The indulgence trade got so aggressive in certain regions that a German monk with a talent for pamphlets took serious issue with it, and the resulting argument split Western

Christianity permanently. Whatever else you want to say about purgatory, it is one of the few doctrines with a direct causal line to a continent-wide reorganization of politics, war and literacy. Not a bad career for an idea about laundry. The church itself cleaned up the abuses and kept the teaching, and for the next 400 years, purgatory was simply part of the furniture of Catholic life, which brings us to Pesulka's favourite piece of evidence, and it is the kind of evidence you can walk into on a Tuesday afternoon without asking anyone's permission. Buildings. Go into a Catholic church built before roughly 1960, and you will find architecture designed around the dead. Side altars, chapels dedicated to the souls being purified, racks of candles that exist

specifically so you can light one for a person by name. Memorial plaques, crypts, spaces with an obvious functional purpose, which is that people came here to work on behalf of somebody who could no longer work on their own behalf. The floor plan is a theology you can walk through in shoes. Now go into a Catholic church built in the 1970s or 80s. Carpet, a wide-open room, chairs arranged for maximum sight lines, bright, friendly, welcoming, and utterly without a corner that means anything for the dead. The building simply has no organ for that function anymore, because the people commissioning it no longer thought that function was a priority. Architects do not invent the priorities. They just pour concrete around whatever the client believes, and then the belief sits there in physical form for a

century afterward, long after everyone has forgotten they believed it. So, what happened in between? The Second Vatican Council, 1962 to 1965. An enormous, genuinely well-intentioned effort to make the church legible to the modern world. Mass in local languages instead of Latin, the priest facing the congregation, a huge amount of thoughtful reform. And running underneath the official documents was a mood, a reading of the room, and the reading was this. The fire and fear material is driving people away. Post-war Europe and America had had a bracing amount of actual hell recently, and were not in the market for more. The emphasis on damnation and punishment felt like a hard sell in a culture pivoting toward optimism, prosperity and appliances.

So the emphasis moved. Seminarians were trained toward mercy, community, love, presence. Not away from the doctrine, notice. Nobody voted purgatory out of existence because that is not how doctrine works and would have caused a crisis roughly 12 times larger than the one they were trying to avoid. The teaching stands. It is in the catechism right now. You can look it up. What changed was that priests stopped bringing it up. Homilies stopped featuring it. The visual and architectural language quietly dropped it, and within one generation the doctrine went from central to invisible. That is not a repeal. That is a rebrand. is still on the shelf, it just got moved to the bottom row in the back, with the label facing the

wall, and the sales team was gently encouraged to talk about something else. Naturally, no press release was issued because you do not issue a press release announcing that you have stopped mentioning something, and the outcome is one of the funniest, strangest, strangest results in modern religious history. Pesulka teaches college students. She has young Catholics in her classes, raised in the church, confirmed, weekly attendance, the whole deal, and when purgatory comes up, they look at her the way you look at a co-worker who mentions a company policy from before you were hired. They have never heard of it. Some of them are annoyed, in that specific way people get when they discover their own tradition has a basement nobody showed them. They did not reject the

teaching. They were never handed it. You cannot lose your faith in something you were never told existed. Meanwhile, from the other direction, the letters arrive. Traditionalist Catholics who very much did receive the teaching, who watched it get sidelined in real time, and who have opinions about that which they are eager to share at length with a professor who has just gone on a podcast. And you can understand the frustration, honestly. From where they sit, an institution that spent 2,000 years insisting it does not chase fashion, suddenly checked the mood of the 1960s and adjusted its messaging, which is exactly the accusation the church spent centuries denying. But the genuinely surprising development is the third group, and it is the one nobody in 1965

saw coming. Because there is now a noticeable countercurrent among the youngest Catholics, people in their late teens and 20s who are actively going back for the material their parents' generation buried, Latin mass attendance climbing, veils reappearing, fasting practices that had been optional to the point of extinction being taken up voluntarily by people who could not be less obligated, devotions that had been considered embarrassingly old-fashioned for 50 years coming back into circulation among people who found them on the internet rather than in a parish. Which looks like a paradox until you think about the incentives. If you grow up inside a culture that has optimized everything for comfort, frictionlessness,

and personalisation, and then someone offers you a spiritual practice that is also comfortable, frictionless and personalised, you have been offered nothing. It is one more soft option in an environment already drowning in soft options, Whereas an ancient right in a dead language that demands you show up, be quiet, fast beforehand, and participate in something that predates your grandparents by a thousand years is at minimum not the same as everything else. The 1960s reformers correctly identified that severity was unpopular. What they could not have predicted is that in a world engineered to remove all difficulty,

difficulty itself becomes the scarce and desirable product, which sets up the perfect illustration of the whole pattern, and it is sitting on a shelf in most houses, unread past the first third. Dante. Everybody knows the Inferno. It is in the movies. It is in video games. It is in every heavy metal album cover ever committed to vinyl.

Nine Circles. Custom-designed punishments. Real historical people the poet personally disliked getting the worst of it, which incidentally makes the poem history's most elaborate act of literary revenge. He put his political enemies in hell, by name, in a war. work he knew would be read forever. If you have ever wanted to sub-tweet somebody permanently, Dante got there in 1320 and nobody has topped it since. But the inferno is one-third of the thing. There are two more books. And almost nobody reads them, which is genuinely a shame,

because that is where the poem stops being a horror tour and becomes something much more interesting. Pergatorio is a mountain. That detail alone should tell you everything. Hell goes down, into a pit, narrowing toward the frozen bottom. Pergatory goes up. It is a climb. It is the only place in the entire poem where time still means anything, because it is the only region where change is possible, and the souls on that mountain are not despairing.

They are working. They talk to Dante about their progress. They ask him to pass messages to the living. It is the one section of the afterlife with a functioning postal service and a sense of momentum, and unsurprisingly it has produced approximately zero video. games, because there is no market for a title where you slowly become a better person over an extended period with no boss fight. Then Paradiso, which is the part where the medieval poet gets

weird in a way people do not expect. Because Dante does not describe heaven as a garden with harp music. He describes it as cosmology, spheres, orbits, celestial mechanics, light behaving in ways he keeps admitting his language cannot handle. He builds the highest reality out of stars and motion and geometry, and at the centre of it, he puts a point of light so intense that the entire structure of the universe turns around it, and the poet's memory fails at exactly the moment he sees the thing he came to see. A man in the early 1300s, working with the astronomy available to him, reaching for the biggest and strangest thing he can imagine, and arriving at a description of the divine that reads like a physics lecture given by someone having the best day of their life,

and who takes him through it. This is the detail, Pusulka loves, and it connects directly to the pattern we already established about how these journeys are structured. The guide for the first two-thirds of the trip is Virgil, a Roman poet, a pagan, dead 13 centuries before Dante was born, who by the poem's own rules cannot enter heaven because he was born too early to be Christian, and gets housed in a comfortable, dignified, permanently melancholy corner of hell with the other virtuous pagans. So the most important Christian poem ever written hands the tour to a man its own theology cannot save, treats him with enormous tenderness,

and has the pilgrim weep when he has to leave. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and Game Sense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak. to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. What does a sunny getaway with Air Canada sound like?

Sunny Jamaica moves to its own rhythm. Rio comes alive long after the sun goes down. Philippines slows everything down. And just when you think you've heard it all, there's Sunny Lima.

However you imagine your sunny escape, Air Canada can take you there. Book hot fairs and vacation packages today. Nice travels. Then the guide changes to Beatrice, a woman Dante had barely spoken to in real life and who died young, and she takes him the rest of the way up. That is not a small thing structurally. The most Christian poem in Europe, arriving independently at the same architecture as accounts from cultures that had never heard of it. A guide arrives, the guide knows the route, the traveller sees the whole system laid out and understands his own life inside it, and he comes back with a report for the living. Dante was not writing a near-death account. He was writing an epic, but the

epic is built on the same skeleton, because that skeleton was already deep in the culture, arriving from every direction at once, and had been for a very long time. Which brings us to the strangest branch of this whole family tree, and one that has almost nothing to do with churches and quite a lot to do with rockets, because there is a line of thinking that starts in 19, 19th century Russia, runs through a Jesuit paleontologist in the trenches of the First World War, and ends up in the mouths of technology executives in California who have absolutely no idea whose ideas they are repeating. If you have ever heard someone talk about the singularity, or uploading consciousness, or humanity waking up as a single planetary mind,

you have heard a secularized version of a theology written by people who would find the current version, both familiar and a bit thin. It starts with a librarian. Nikolai Fedorov worked in Moscow, lived in near total poverty by choice, gave most of his salary away, owned almost nothing, and refused to be photographed. He published almost nothing in his lifetime, and the idea he was quietly assembling in that library is, without exaggeration, one of the most audacious propositions any human being has ever committed to paper. Federov's position was that death is not a fact to be accepted, it is a problem to be solved, not spiritually, not metaphor. historically, technically, and not just future death, which would be the modest version, he argued that humanity's actual moral obligation, the common task that ought to unify the

entire species and override every other project, is the physical resurrection of every human being who has ever died. All of them, every ancestor, back to the beginning, reassembled by the descendants who owe them their existence. His reasoning was fundamentally about debt. You did not make yourself. Every atom of you and every idea in your head was handed to you by people who are now gone and who died so that you could exist. Building a nice life on top of that inheritance and simply not thinking about the people underneath is, to Fedorov, moral cowardice on a civilizational scale. He thought progress that leaves the dead dead is not progress. It is just the living enjoying the loot. And then he followed the logic to its conclusion with the seriousness that borders on comedy,

because he identified the obvious practical objection immediately. If you resurrect everyone who has ever lived, where exactly are you putting them? Earth is not zoned for that. And so, entirely straight-faced, he concluded that humanity must colonize space, because we will need the room, space exploration as a housing solution for the resurrected dead, which is the single greatest justification for a space program ever devised, and puts every modern mission statement about inspiring the next generation to shame. Now here is where it stops being an eccentric footnote.

Because that idea landed on the young Konstantinzokovsky, who was the man who worked out the mathematics of rocket propulsion, that made spaceflight possible in the first place. He became the theoretical grandfather of Soviet rocketry, and the people who came after him built the machines that put the first satellite and the first human into orbit. There is a direct intellectual chain from a poor Moscow librarian arguing about our obligations to our great-grandparents

to metal actually leaving the atmosphere, The whole loose movement around these ideas gets called Russian Cosmism, and it produced some spectacular characters. There was a doctor and revolutionary theorist convinced that mutual blood transfusion could rejuvenate the body and physically bind humanity into one organism, who tested it extensively on himself and eventually died from a transfusion he had performed on his own body, which is unfortunately the most on-brand ending available to that particular research program. There was also serious, rigorous science in the mix, including foundational work on the biosphere as a single planetary system, work that holds up perfectly well today and quietly

introduced the term that becomes important in about two paragraphs, and the idea did not stay in the 19th century either. There are Russian billionaires who have funded projects openly aimed at exactly this, moving human personality off biological hardware, with target dates announced for around the 2040s, which means the roadmap for a technology conference in Silicon Valley and the roadmap of a Moscow librarian who refused to sit for a photograph are, at the level of ambition, effectively the same document. The librarian at least had the decency to be honest that he was describing a religion, which brings us to the man who is the true hinge of this whole story, and whose life reads like it was written by somebody who was showing off. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

was two things that are not supposed to fit in one person. He was a Jesuit priest. He was a Jesuit He was also a working paleontologist, a serious one, out in the field with a hammer, involved in significant fossil excavations. So his job was digging up evidence for the deep history of life on earth, while belonging to an institution that had spent the preceding decades being extremely tense about exactly that subject. Naturally, this went smoothly for him, and caused no problems whatsoever, which is a sentence I would like you to read with as much irony as you can physically generate. Then came the First World War, and this is where the whole thing turns. Tailhard served at the front, and not as a chaplain safely behind the lines. He worked as a stretcher-bearer,

which meant going out into the churned mud under fire to carry wounded men back over and over for years. He was decorated for it. He was in some of the worst fighting Europe has ever produced, at an age when most people are still figuring out their careers, doing the single most dangerous non-combat job available. And what he took away from it was not what you would expect. He came out of that experience saying he had seen the soul of humanity. Not a metaphor in his telling. In the middle of the industrialized slaughter of a generation, hauling broken men out of the mud, he became convinced that he was witnessing something collective, something that was not the sum of the individuals present, and that humanity was in the process of becoming a single thing.

which is either the most profound response to trench warfare on record, or a fairly understandable reaction to spending four years in an environment that would break most people permanently, and Tailhard would probably have said those two options are not mutually exclusive. Out of that came the two ideas he is remembered for. The first is the noosphere, a term shared with the biosphere researchers in that same intellectual current. The idea is layers. The planet has a geological layer of rock.

On top of that, a living layer, the biosphere, and on top of that, emerging and thickening as human beings connect to each other, a layer of thought. A shared membrane of mind wrapped around the earth, made of communication, culture and knowledge, growing denser as we get better at linking up. He was writing this decades before anybody built a computer network. He described an interconnected film of human thought encircling the globe, growing more integrated over time, in which the individual. remains an individual, but the whole starts behaving as a system in its own right. Read that description to somebody who has never heard the word teal hard and ask them to guess what it is, and they will say the internet because it is the internet. He did not predict a technology. He described a shape, and then a few decades later engineers went and built the shape without

any idea that a Jesuit had already sketched it while covered in the dust of ancient bones. The second idea is the Omega Point, which is where he goes fully off the map. He argued that this convergence has a direction and a destination, that the whole process of evolution is running toward a final state of maximum complexity and maximum consciousness, and that this end point is not a byproduct of the process, but the thing pulling it forward from the future, evolution with a target, complexity with an appointment to keep. His superiors were, let us say, not enthusiastic. The response from the church was elegant in its bluntness. He was permitted to be a scientist. The rockwork fine. Dig, publish, present at conferences, no problem. What he was not permitted to do was

publish the visionary material, no books on the New Sphere, no theological speculation for a general audience. He was moved abroad for extended stretches, which had the convenient effect of putting a great deal of geography between his ideas and the people in Europe who might have found them exciting, and he obeyed. That is the part modern readers struggle with most, because our instinct is that a suppressed genius should slam the door and go publish anyway. Tealhard did not. He had taken vows and he kept them, which meant watching the central work of his life sit unpublished in a drawer for decades while he wrote about fossils. He circulated the manuscripts privately among friends,

which was technically within the rules, in the same way that a group chat is technically not a broadcast, and he waited. Then there is the ending, which is so tidy that if it appeared in a novel, an editor would flag it as too convenient. Hailhard had said for years that he hoped to die on the day of the resurrection. On Easter Sunday, 1955, at a gathering in New York, he collapsed and died. His friends had the manuscripts. Because of how his estate was arranged, the material that had been blocked during his life could be published after it, and it was, almost immediately, and it hit the culture like a

bag of hammers. Within a few years, the church issued a formal warning about the works, cautioning readers about ambiguities and errors in them, which, if you know anything about publishing is roughly the most effective promotional campaign available. Nothing moves a book like an official document announcing that people should be careful with it. And then, slowly, the temperature changed. The warning was never quite the same as a condemnation. Later authorities spoke about him with increasing warmth, and eventually popes were quoting the man whose visionary writing had been forbidden while he was alive to defend it. He got his rehabilitation. He was simply not around for it,

which is a pattern the history of ideas repeats with such consistency that you could set a clock by it. So look at what has now assembled, an Orthodox librarian arguing that we are morally obligated to defeat death and physically resurrect everyone who has ever lived. A rocket theorist who took that seriously enough to work out the mathematics of getting off the planet. A Jesuit paleontologist describing a planetary layer of shared thought converging on a final state of total consciousness. Not one of these people was doing science fiction. They all thought they were describing reality, and they all came out of explicitly religious frameworks. Now open any technology conference keynote

from the last 15 years, merging human consciousness with machines, extending life indefinitely and eventually reversing death, building a global network that becomes something like a mind, reaching a point of convergence beyond which everything changes, getting humanity onto other planets as a species-level imperative, same doctrines, different vocabulary. The theology has been sanded down, the god has been swapped out for an engineering timeline, and the practitioners will tell you sincerely that they are being rigorously secular, but the structure is inherited, and it is inherited from people who are entirely open about what they were doing. Which is the observation Pesulka keeps returning to, and it is the reason none of this is a digression. When belief stops calling itself belief,

It does not evaporate. It gets a rebrand, moves to a new building, and hires better designers, and that is exactly what happens next, on a much larger scale, in the sky. Everybody wants to talk about what is inside the Vatican Archive. Almost nobody talks about how a person physically gets in there, which is a shame, because the process is a genuinely bizarre mix of medieval security theatre, brutal academic gatekeeping, and the kind of paperwork that makes renewing a passport feel like a spa day. And in Pesulka's case, the whole thing started, as the best things in academia usually do, with somebody needing a ride from the airport.

She got asked to collect a visitor. The visitor was Brother Guy, and if you do not know who runs the Vatican Observatory, that sentence has already produced one of two reactions. Either you nodded along, or you stopped and re-read the phrase Vatican Observatory, and wondered whether it was a typo. It is not a typo. The Holy See owns telescopes. Plural.

It employs working astronomers who publish in peer-reviewed journals about asteroids and stellar evolution and meteorites, and it has been doing this, officially and on the record, for well over a century. The institution was formally established in the 1890s under Pope Leo the 13th, and the motivation was not subtle. The church had spent the 1800s absorbing a reputation as the natural enemy of science, an image problem it had earned in at least one very famous case, and then compounded by handling the fallout with all the public relations grace of a man arguing with a smoke alarm. So the response was to build an observatory, staff it with priests who were also credentialed scientists, and let the results speak. It is possibly the only rebranding campaign in history conducted primarily through star charts.

Then Rome did what every growing city does and drowned the night in electric light, which is fatal for astronomy. So the operation moved out to Castel Gandolfo, in the hills, southeast of the city, where the popes have kept a summer residence for centuries. Picture it properly, a palace overlooking a volcanic lake, formal gardens and on the roof, domes, astronomers working above the papal apartments. Downstairs, one of the more significant meteorite collections on the planet, which means the Vatican is quietly holding a large amount of physical material that came from other worlds, and was collected by people in religious orders. Eventually even the Italian sky got too bright, so they built a second facility in Arizona, on a mountain, which is how you

end up with Jesuit astronomers in the American Southwest, doing infrared observations and occasionally having to explain to hikers that, no, this is not a joke. Brother Guy runs it. He is a Jesuit brother with a serious background in planetary science, an American, and by every account a man who is fully aware of how funny his own job title sounds and leans into it hard. This is a person whose professional life involves both meteorites and vows, and who has to sit through the same three questions at every dinner party for the rest of his life. So Pusulka picks him up, and they end up on a porch near the ocean drinking sweet tea, which is the most disarmingly ordinary setting imaginable for a conversation that reroutes somebody's entire career. They talk, she explains what she works on,

and he says, more or less casually, that anything with a space angle tends to make its way to him eventually. The correspondence, the reports, the strange leholt. the material people do not know where else to send. It collects in Castel Gandolfo because there is nowhere more obvious to put it, and then the line that changes everything. Come out, stay as long as you need, that is the actual mechanism, and it is worth pausing on because it demolishes the fantasy version. In the fantasy, you crack a code, discover a secret, and get smuggled through a hidden door by a sympathetic Monsignia at midnight. In reality, you are a credentialed academic who was polite to a visiting scientist and offered to drive,

and the door opens because a person who already has access decided you were worth vouching for. Access is social. It always has been. Every archive on earth runs on a mixture of formal rules and somebody knowing somebody, and anyone who tells you otherwise has never tried to get into one. But the invitation is only the beginning, because the formal rules are still waiting for you, and they are not flexible. First, credentials. You need a doctor. in a relevant field, not a general interest in history, not a book contract, not a large audience, a completed research degree in something that plausibly requires the material, plus documentation from an institution confirming that you are who you say you are,

and that your work is what you say it is. This filters out roughly 99% of everyone who has ever wanted to walk in, and unsurprisingly it filters out precisely the enthusiast most convinced that they alone know what is hidden down there. Second, justification. You cannot simply be curious. You have to demonstrate that your research actually needs these specific documents, which means demonstrating that you already know a great deal about what those documents are before you have ever seen them. It is a wonderfully circular requirement. To get permission to look, you must first prove you do not need to look around. Third, and this is the part that breaks people's mental model completely. You cannot browse.

There is no wandering. You do not walk down a row running your finger, along the spines. This is the single biggest misunderstanding about archives generally, and the Vatican version is the extreme case, because the shelving down there runs for tens of kilometres, not tens of metres, kilometres. Mile after mile of material stacked in a climate-controlled underground facility, most of it uncatalogued in any way a modern person would recognise as a catalogue. So what happens instead is that you submit a request in advance, naming the item, and somebody retrieves it and brings it to you. Which means the entire success of your trip depends on your ability to correctly guess the identity of a document you have never seen,

sometimes based on a reference in a footnote written in 1890 by a scholar citing a shelf mark that may have been reorganised twice since. Get it wrong and you have burned a day. Get it wrong three times and you have burned a week of a trip you flew across an ocean for and can only afford to make once. Which is why there are entire books about how to work in there, actual published guides, written by scholars, whose subject is not what is in the archive but how to function inside it, how the collections are divided, what the abbreviations mean, how to read the handwriting of a particular period, which is its own specialist discipline, because scribes use contractions and shorthand that are simply illegible to a modern reader without training. There are people whose whole professional

expertise is the ability to look at a 16th century page and tell you what it says. You do not walk in with high school Latin and a bright attitude. You walk in with years of preparation and you still get humbled. And then there is the correspondence, which is the detail that brings the whole enterprise crashing back down to Earth in the most delightful way. Because the emails have to be written in Italian, and Pesulka handled that the way every human being on this planet handles it, which is by running her request through Google Translate and hoping for the best. There is something perfect about that. The 2000-year-old institution with the underground vault and the armed guards, and the way you make an appointment is by pasting your sentence into a free

browser tool and trusting the machine not to have accidentally asked for a sandwich instead of a canonization file. Then you arrive, and the atmosphere changes immediately because the security is real and it is not decorative. The first thing she noticed was armed guards, and her honest read on them was military. Not ceremonial figures in fancy costumes, actual serious personnel with weapons standing where you enter. That reaction is worth explaining, because there is a whole layer of confusion built into what people think Vatican Security looks like. The famous ones are the Swiss Guard, and the popular image of them is roughly a novelty item. Puffy striped uniforms, halberds, a very photogenic tourist attraction, which is a spectacular case of history being flattened into a

postcard, because the reason they exist and the reason they are still trusted is a genuinely grim story. The Corps dates from the early 1500s when Swiss soldiers were the most feared professional infantry in Europe and everyone with money wanted to hire them. In 1527, during the sack of Rome, an army descended on the city and the guard was massively outnumbered. The overwhelming majority of them died on the spot holding the line so the Pope could be moved to safety through a fortified passage. Not most of a bad day, most of the unit, killed in a single morning, doing exactly the the job they had been hired for. Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive.

The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario.

Okay, when I sell my business, I want the best tax and investment advice. I want to help my kids, and I want to give back to the community. Ooh, then it's the vacation of a lifetime. I wonder if my out of office has a forever setting. An IG Private Wealth advisor creates the clarity you need with plans that harmonize your business, your family, and your dreams. Get financial advice that puts you at the center. Find your advisor at IDPrivatewealth.com.

New recruits are sworn in on the anniversary of that fight, which is the kind of institutional memory most organizations could not manage for an event from last quarter. To join, you still have to be a Swiss citizen, Catholic, male, unmarried, and you must have completed Swiss military training, along with a set of requirements around age and height. It is a functioning security force staffed by people with real training who happened to also own a spectacular outfit.

And speaking of that outfit, the persistent claim that Michelangelo designed it is entirely false. The current uniform was designed in the early 20th century by a commander drawing on Renaissance painting, which means it is essentially a period costume inspired by art, which somehow makes it better, anyway. Once you're past the people with weapons, the journey inward gets peculiar,

because the pathway is old. There was an elevator and it creaked, which is such a small detail and such a good one, because it punctures the entire imagined aesthetic. Everyone pictures the vault as either a Gothic crypt with torches or a gleaming steel facility with retinal scanners and a countdown timer. What it actually is, in the getting-there phase, is an old building with old infrastructure,

and you ride down in a lift that sounds every one of its years and makes you briefly reconsider your commitment to scholarship, then stairs going down. Because the modern storage is underground, A large portion of the collection sits in a reinforced facility built beneath the courtyard, added in the 1980s, with the environmental controls that paper and parchment require. Temperature and humidity have to be held stable, because the enemy of a document is not really fire or theft. It is a slow swing in conditions repeated over decades, until the material quietly destroys itself.

So under the ancient stonework there is a very unromantic piece of engineering doing the actual preservation, which is true of basically every great archive and is never in the movies, and then the reading room, which is beautiful. This is the payoff, and it does not disappoint. A proper room, in the old sense, with the kind of proportions and light that make people involuntarily lower their voices, long tables, assigned seats, and silence. The specific dense silence of a place where 20 people are all concentrating extremely hard

on something almost nobody else on earth cares about. Gloves. You handle certain materials. with gloves, and you follow the rules exactly, because the rules are not negotiable, and the staff have seen every possible way a document can be damaged by an enthusiastic idiot. Pencils only, nothing that can leak, no leaning on the pages, no tracing, no laying anything on top of the material. The document you are touching may be the only copy that has ever existed of testimony given by people whose names appear nowhere else in the historical record.

Spill a coffee, and you have not made a mess. You have deleted. a piece of the past permanently. There is a psychological effect to this that scholars describe over and over, and it is not what you would expect. You spend months preparing, you fly to another country, you go through security, you descend into the building, you put on gloves, and then somebody sets a box in front of you and walks away, and you are alone with the thing, and it is just paper. Ordinary handwriting, ink from a specific afternoon, somebody's signature with a slight wobble, because the pen caught. The gap between the theatrical difficulty of getting there and the plainness of what is finally in your hands is enormous, and it hits everyone. But the strangest moment

of the whole trip involved a person who was not supposed to be there at all. She had a companion with her, and when they reached the point where credentials get checked, she expected the obvious outcome, which was that he would be politely stopped and asked to wait somewhere with a view. He was not a scholar in her field. He had no research application on file. By the plain reading of the rules, this was a man about to spend several hours looking at a fountain. Instead, he produced his own clearances, not academic ones, a different category of authorization entirely, the kind associated with government work rather than universities. And the guards checked, and the check was not a phone call to somebody's supervisor,

and a long wait and a form. His face simply appeared on their screen. Already there. Already in whatever system they were looking at, already associated with whatever. level of access that system records, which is the moment the whole picture rotates about 30 degrees. Because two things are now simultaneously true. This is an academic institution with academic rules that are enforced strictly enough that legitimate scholars get turned away for having the wrong specialisation. And it is also a sovereign state, with the security relationships of a sovereign

state, plugged into arrangements that most researchers will never see the edge of. Both realities operate in the same building at the same time, and if you only knew about the first one, you would have a completely wrong model of the place. Then the door opened for him too, and they both went in. That detail is the seam. Everything up to it is a story about an eccentric and difficult library. Everything after it is a story about who else is interested in what is in that library, and why a person with unusual credentials would consider it worth his time

to accompany a religious studies professor into a basement in Rome to look at documents about events that officially never happened. And that question has an answer that eventually shows up on her university email. but not yet. The stakes of that are easy to miss. In a media environment where every extraordinary claim arrives with no provenance, wrapped in three layers of anonymous sourcing, this is the rarest thing available, material with an unbroken chain of custody going back centuries, held by an institution with an obsessive interest in its own records, generated at a time when the people producing it had no concept of the phenomena we now argue about, and preserved by a bureaucracy that has never

once in its history considered throwing anything away. Whatever the documents described, nobody wrote them to fool us. They did not know we were coming. And what she went down there to read was a stack of sworn testimony about a monk who kept leaving the ground, which is where this gets seriously difficult to explain. There were two files she wanted, and both of them concerned people who, according to an alarming number of witnesses, did not reliably stay on the floor. The first is a Spanish nun named Maria de Jesus de Agriada, and her story starts with a family decision so extreme it deserves its own segment. Her parents had a house in a small town in northern Spain. Her mother became convinced the entire family should enter religious life, and rather than doing this in the normal

manner by sending the children somewhere, they converted their actual home into a convent. The mother and the daughters stayed inside as nuns. The father and the sons went off to a monastery. The building where the family had eaten dinner became a cloister, and the teenage daughter who had grown up in those rooms now lived in them under vows and never left again, which is one way to avoid moving costs, and also a fairly aggressive answer to the question of what to do with the property. She was about 16 when this happened. She eventually became the abbess, and she stayed inside that building for the rest of her life. That last detail matters enormously, because within a few years she began reporting that she had been going places, not in a vague, contemplative sense. She described being carried by angels across an ocean to a landscape she had never seen and could not have visited where she spoke with people whose existence was barely known in Europe. She said this happened repeatedly, not once as a peak experience, but over and over across roughly three years in the early 1620s, with the total number of trips running into the hundreds. The nuns in the convent reported finding her in states where she appeared to be absent from her own body,

and in some accounts she was found off the ground, which was already causing internal conversations of the sort that convents do not enjoy having. What she described seeing on the way is the detail that stops modern readers cold. She wrote about looking down and seeing the world as a sphere, small beneath her, turning. Now the sphericity of the earth was not news

to an educated European in the 1620s, so nobody should oversell that part. But the specific experience she is describing, the perspective of being fun, far enough away to watch the whole thing rotate is not a normal thing to invent in 1622. That is a viewpoint nobody would have for another 340 years, until a camera on a spacecraft finally produced it, and the image rearranged how the entire species thought about itself. She got there first with what she claimed was assisted transport. The destination was the

American Southwest, and this is where the story stops being one woman's interior life, and starts leaving marks in other people's paperwork. Because in that same period, Franciscan missionaries working in what is now New Mexico and Texas began encountering something they could not account for. They would arrive among the Homano people expecting the standard grinding first contact process, and instead they were met by groups who already knew the basic content of Christianity and who were specifically requesting priests, not tolerating them, requesting them, and asking for the sacraments by name, which is not a thing you ask for if you have never heard of them.

Naturally the missionaries wanted to know who had done the groundwork, and the answer they got was that a woman had come, a young woman in blue who taught them, who spoke to them in a way they understood, and who told them to go and ask for the men in the robes. Here is where the visual detail locks in. The order Maria belonged to wore a habit that included a blue mantle. In the south-west she becomes known as the Lady in Blue, and the name outlives every European institution involved and survives in regional folklore for centuries. which is not the normal fate of an administrative anecdote.

The senior Franciscan in the region, Freo Alonso de Benavides, took this seriously enough to write it up in an official report to the Crown, which is a meaningful act, because official reports to the Crown were read by people with a power to end your career if you filled them with nonsense. And then he did the thing that turns this from a legend into something much more awkward. He went to Spain and interviewed her in person in 1631 in her convent, and she knew things.

She described the territory. She described the people, the customs, details of the landscape. She reportedly identified missionaries she should have had no way of recognising. And among the specific details in the mix is a description of a man with one eye, a detail that also shows up independently on the Spanish side from someone who is physically there, which is the kind of small, ugly, useless particular that legends do not normally bother to include. Grand fabrications tend to feature glory and light. They rarely feature the guy who only has one eye because that detail does nothing for the story. Now, the sceptical case is strong and should be stated properly, because Pesulka would state it herself.

The missionaries had an enormous professional incentive to report supernatural success to their superiors and to the king. Funding, prestige, and the entire justification of their mission depended on results. Interviews conducted through interpreters across a colossal cultural gap are famously prone to producing whatever the interviewer wanted to hear, especially when the interviewer arrives already primed with a story. Christianity had been in the broader region long enough that information could have travelled through trade networks by routes nobody bothered to trace, and Benevides, having heard the tale in America,

went to Spain and interviewed her with the answer already in his head, which is not exactly a controlled experiment. All of that is real, and it does not fully account for the independent details, which is why the case has never quite died. What happened to her afterward is its own study in institutional nervousness. She became, improbably, one of the most politically significant women in Spain because the king began writing to her. Philip IV corresponded with this cloistered nun for over 20 years,

hundreds of letters, asking for advice on governing an empire that was busily coming apart in his hands. A woman who legally could not leave her building was one of the most consistent advisers to the most powerful monarch in Europe, which is either a beautiful story about the recognition of wisdom or a grim indication of how the rest of his advisory staff was performing. She also wrote an enormous mystical work

about the life of the Virgin Mary, and here the machinery bites. She was ordered at one point to destroy her writings and did. She rewrote them later. The Inquisition investigated her, questioned her at length, and she came through it, which was not a guaranteed outcome and required a considerable amount of steadiness,

for a person being interrogated about whether her inner life was heretical. And regarding the flights, she got noticeably quieter with age, distancing herself from the accounts, expressing uncertainty about what had actually happened, which, given the environment, tells you approximately nothing about whether she believed it. When the institution that can end you starts asking pointed questions about your travel history,

developing a sudden fog around the details is not a confession, it is a survival strategy. Then there is the second file, and it is the heavier one, both intellectually and literally. Joseph of Cupertino was born in 1603 in a shed. Not poetically. His family had lost the house to creditors, and his mother gave birth in the outbuilding,

which sets the tone for what follows. By every account he was a difficult child in the specific sense of being considered slow. He was known around town by a nickname referring to his habit of standing with his mouth open, staring at nothing, apparently absent. Modern people reading the descriptions tend to reach for various diagnoses, and it is possible they are right, but the practical effect

at the time was that everybody agreed he was not the sharp one. He wanted to enter religious life. Religious life kept declining. He was rejected by one order, accepted and then dismissed by another for general uselessness, and finally landed with the Franciscans as a servant working with the animals. This is the equivalent of applying for a job at a company, being turned down twice, and then being allowed to hang around and clean the parking lot. And by all accounts he was genuinely happy about it, which tells you something about the man. Then he was gradually moved toward ordination,

and the story of how he passed the examinations is the funniest piece of luck in the history of the church. He was, being frank, not equipped for a Latin theological exam, he had essentially mastered one passage of scripture and could speak well on it. When the examiner opened the book, the passage he was asked about was that one. Later, when the group he was in was being tested, the examining official was sufficiently impressed by the first few candidates that he passed the entire batch without questioning the

rest, and Joseph was in the rest. So he is ordained, largely by a sequence of coincidences, and then the thing starts. He would enter ecstatic states, and they were triggered by remarkably ordinary things, a piece of music, a name spoken aloud, an image, the mention of something holy in casual conversation. He would give a cry, a sort of shriek that people described consistently and found extremely unsettling, and then he would go rigid and unresponsive, and, according to the witnesses, leave the floor, not a hop, not a moment of enthusiasm at a religious gathering that later got exaggerated. The reports describe him remaining aloft, sometimes for extended periods, sometimes across distances, in front of crowds, in ordinary daylight, in buildings full of

who had come to see whether the rumors were true, and people tried to stop it. That is one of the details that gives the accounts their strange texture. Other friars would grab at his robe to pull him down, which is not the behavior of people participate. Visit BetMDM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close, to you. Peace contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. New from Nespresso. Blend wellness into your coffee routine with a coffee plus range, infused with functional benefits. Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins, like coffee plus B-12 to help support immune function, and coffee plus B6 to keep your day moving. Or go with the flow and choose ginseng delight.

Our new double espresso with ginseng extract. Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you. Discover Coffee Plus on espresso.com. ...in a devotional performance. It is the behavior of people who found the whole business embarrassing, disruptive, and dangerous, and who very much wanted the ceremony to proceed on schedule

without their colleague ending up near the ceiling again in front of visiting dignitaries, because that is the thing modern world. audiences get backward. The church did not celebrate this. The church tried to contain it. Joseph was investigated by the Inquisition, moved from house to house, isolated, and for long stretches forbidden from saying mass publicly, from attending choir, from taking part in the ordinary shared life of his community. He was effectively placed in storage, shuffled between remote locations, kept away from crowds, for decades. Think about the management logic there.

An institution built on the claim that the miraculous is real, acquires an actual, functioning, extremely public miracle, and its immediate response is to hide it in the countryside and hope it stops. Which sounds cynical until you understand the position they were in. Uncontrolled supernatural phenomena in the 1600s were a genuine. If it is genuine, you have a management problem. If it is not genuine, you have a fraud scandal. If it is neither, you have something worse. and it was the era when a wrong answer to that question could end with people in serious trouble, so caution was not cowardice, it was policy, and he complied. Every account agrees on his obedience. He was moved, silenced, restricted, and he accepted all of it without complaint,

which is either sanctity or the resignation of a man who had long since concluded that his own body was not taking instructions from him anyway. The witness list is where the case becomes hard to wave away. This was not a phenomenon reported by three farmers in a village with no other entertainment. It was witnessed by senior clergy, including a Pope who had him brought in for examination. It was witnessed by a visiting Protestant nobleman from Germany, a man with every possible reason to be unimpressed by Catholic marvels, who went away converted, which is a substantial change of position for a European prince and not a decision one makes for the atmosphere.

It was witnessed by ambassadors, doctors and administrators, people with careers and reputations who are going to have to explain themselves later. Which brings us to the object that Pazulka actually went to work with, and it is worth understanding what it physically is. Canonisation files are not devotional literature. They are legal proceedings. When the church investigates a candidate for sainthood, it runs something structurally close to a trial. Witnesses are deposed under oath.

There are formal questions, there is cross-examination, and there is an official whose entire assigned job is to attack the case to find the natural explanation, the inconsistency, the motive to lie, the medical cause. That role is where the popular phrase about playing devil's advocate comes from, and it was not a figure of speech, it was a salaried position with a filing requirement. So the document produced is an adversarial record, compiled by an organisation with a strong institutional interest in not embarrassing itself by elevating a fraud in a period when its enemies were watching closely and would have loved nothing more than a debunked saint. Pesulka has a digital copy of Joseph's file. Printed out it stands

over a metre tall, a stack of paper taller than a large dog, consisting of formal testimony about one man and the question of whether he could remain in the air. And it is not in a language you can just read. It is Latin and 17th century Italian in period handwriting, with contractions and legal formulas that require specialist training. Getting it into usable English took a team. Multiple people with irrelevant skills working through it, which is the unglamorous reality of this kind of research, and the reason so little of this material has ever been examined. It is not hidden. It is just expensive and slow and boring in a way that no funding body has ever been excited about, and it sits there, technically available and practically untouched,

which as we established is the condition of most of the human record. What is inside is the part that changes the conversation, thousands of signatures, not a summary saying that many people agreed, names, individual names, attached to individual statements, with the person's status recorded next to them, their role, their position in the community, clergy, nobles, physicians, officials, ordinary townspeople, each one formally attesting to what they saw with their own eyes,

and every one of those names was written by somebody taking a real risk. That is the piece people miss. We instinctively read a saint's file as a promotional document produced by an enthusiastic fan club. But this testimony was given in an environment with an active inquisitorial apparatus that was very interested in unusual spiritual claims, and had a broad definition of what counted as suspicious. Reporting that you had personally observed a man defy gravity was not a safe, socially rewarded act. It put you on a list. It invited follow-up questions about your own beliefs,

your own practices, and the company you kept. Enthusiasm for the miraculous was precisely the trait that got people investigated. So the incentive structure runs backward from what you would assume. Lying to be part of something exciting would have been a spectacularly bad trade, Silence was free, signing was not, and this is the exact point where the religious studies method earns its keep, because Pesulka is not standing there arguing that a friar in the 1600s could fly. That question stays in the box.

The claim she makes is narrower and much harder to dismiss, and it is this. We possess a large, legally structured, adversarially tested body of sworn testimony from named individuals of varying social ranks, who had a personal cost for testifying, and no obvious benefit, all describing the same physically impossible event, recorded by an institution that was actively trying to make the case fail. Something produced that document, and whatever your explanation is, it has to be big enough to cover thousands of signatures. The available options are all uncomfortable in their own way.

Perhaps it happened. Perhaps a very large number of people experienced a shared perceptual event, which is its own remarkable claim about human minds and gets no easier to explain by calling it mass hysteria and moving on. Perhaps an entire regional culture participated in a fabrication of extraordinary scale, coordinated well enough to survive hostile cross-examination, for the benefit of a man that most of the institution appeared to find inconvenient. Every one of those requires you to believe something strange.

You do not get an ordinary option. And Joseph was not alone in this. That is the discovery that pushed her out of the case study business and into pattern hunting, because when you start reading the files at volume, the same peculiar details begin surfacing in accounts, separated by centuries and languages, from people who could not possibly have read each other's paperwork. The move from individual cases to a pattern is the moment this work stops being biography

and turns into something closer to forensics, and it only happens when you have read enough files that the details begin to rhyme against your will. Take Teresa of Avila, who is one of the most consequent, figures in the history of Christian spirituality, and who spent a good portion of her life extremely annoyed at her own body. She was a Carmelite reformer in 16th century Spain. She founded convents across the country against sustained institutional resistance, and she was nobody's idea of a fragile mystic drifting around a cloister. She argued with bishops, she managed budgets, she dealt with builders, which in any century is the true test of a saint. She also, according to her own account

and the women around her left the ground. What makes her testimony so useful is that she hated it. She describes trying to resist, pressing herself down, asking the other nuns to hold her when it started. She prayed for the thing to stop, on the grounds that it was attracting precisely the kind of attention that got a woman in Spain in that century, a long and unpleasant series of interviews. She was not building a brand. She was trying to run an order without becoming a scandal, and her body kept filing objections. Her writing carried. that pressure in every paragraph. She wrote under instruction from confessors, which means her work was produced for supervisors who had the power to end her, and it shows. The constant self-deprecation,

the insistence on her own ignorance, the endless invitations for learned men to correct her, the careful hedging around anything that might read as a woman claiming direct authority, modern readers sometimes take that for humility. It is partly humility and substantially armor, and her texts were edited. has handled the manuscripts, made changes, controlled circulation, and in places removed material. This is a problem running through the entire body of evidence, and it has to be said plainly. We're almost never reading the raw account. We're reading it after it passed through people whose job was to make it acceptable. Anything that survived did so because somebody signed off on it,

which makes the surviving oddities more interesting, not less. The obvious thing to cut is whatever sounds ridiculous, and the ridiculous part is still in there. Here is the one that made Pesulka sit up because it turns up in her case, and in the Cupertino file and in others, and nobody would think to invent it. People who touched the person went up too, not people gripping them, which you could at least picture. Incidental contact. Somebody in reach, rising as well without holding on, as though whatever was suspending the central figure extended outward a certain distance and simply included anyone standing inside it. That is a physically specific claim. It describes a field rather than a force applied to one object, and it is exactly the sort of detail a fabricator leaves out,

because it complicates the story and adds nothing to the drama. If you are inventing a saint, you have them rise in glory surrounded by light. You do not add the part where Brother Anselmo, who was walking past with a bucket, also went up half a meter and had opinions about it. Once you have that hook, other features cluster around it with unknown, nerve inconsistency, across centuries and languages, rigidity, total unresponsiveness to the surroundings, and an insensitivity to pain that witnesses established using methods that would end several careers today, because the standard verification procedure was to hurt the person and watch

for a reaction. They used needles, they held flames against the skin, they shouted, shook them, and did everything short of an air horn. There was no response during the state, and afterward there were often marks the person had not felt, which is grim, and also, in an awful way, methodologically serious. These were not credulous people accepting whatever was in front of them. They were running the only test available with the equipment on hand, which was a candle and a complete absence of squeamishness. Peer review in the 1600s meant setting a colleague slightly on fire and taking notes. The phrase Pesalka uses for the whole cluster came from Arthur C. Clarke, who suggested thinking of it as private gravity. That is a beautiful piece of naming, because it does something religious

vocabulary cannot. Levitation is a loaded word carrying theology and stage magic in equal measure. Private gravity is a description with no claim attached. Something around this body appears to be operating on different terms than the room it is standing in. The person who pushed her to take the pattern seriously was Michael Murphy, who co-founded. the Eslin Institute on the California coast in the early 1960s. Eslin has a reputation, and that reputation is mostly hot springs, cliffside views, and the entire human potential movement conducted with a minimum of clothing. Fair enough. But Murphy did something nobody else was doing, which was to systematically collect documented cases of human beings performing outside the

accepted range, drawn from every tradition and every field, without deciding in advance what they meant. His way in was athletes. Specifically, the accounts athletes give of the states they fall into during exceptional performance, which are genuinely strange once you read them instead of nodding along. Time slowing to a crawl. The ball or the target appearing enormous, watching yourself from outside your own body, knowing what is about to happen before it happens. Total effortlessness at the exact moment of maximum effort. Nearly every professional has a version of this story and almost none of them tell it publicly, because there is no way to say it that does not sound unhinged, and the post-game interview format is not built for phenomenology. Murphy's point was that if

you delete the vocabulary, the descriptions of what happens to a friar and ecstasy, a yogi deep in practice and a sprinter in the best race of their life, have an uncomfortable structural overlap, not the interpretations, which are wildly incompatible, the reports of the state itself, and the physical anomalies show up everywhere too. The Indian In yogic literature has a whole technical vocabulary for them, treats them as predictable by-products of advanced practice, and, in a detail that deserves to be framed and hung in every ashram gift shop, regards them as a distraction to be ignored rather than an achievement to brag about. Sufi accounts have their versions, so do Buddhist ones, different cosmologies, mutually exclusive

theologies, no shared source, and the same catalogue of effects. That does not prove the effects are real. It does mean whatever is generating the reports is not a quirk of Catholicism. The obvious objection is that all of this is old, badly documented and safely dead, and that nobody needs to take seriously a claim from 1650, when every witness has been unavailable for comment for four centuries. So consider a village in northern Spain in the 1960s. San Sebastian de Garabandal sat up in the mountains of Cantabria, and calling it remote in 1961 undersells the situation. There was not a very important. no proper road. You arrived on a track. Electricity was minimal, television did not exist there,

and daily life was closer to the 1400s than to the decade it was technically occupying. While the rest of the world watched astronauts on the news and argued about rock music, this village was doing subsistence farming at altitude with mules. Four girls, all around 11 or 12, reported seeing an angel and then a woman. What followed over the next four years produced one of the strangest bodies of evidence in the modern history of the subject. largely because it happened often enough, in front of enough people, for long enough, that it actually got documented. The states came on suddenly, and the girls entered them simultaneously from separate parts of the village,

which is oddity number one. Then came the walking. They moved through the place at speed, backward, over rough stone and broken ground, heads tilted back and eyes upward, not looking where they were going, never falling, never hitting the walls of a village whose paths would put a sober adult down in broad daylight. They went up the hill, at a pace fit adults could not match, which was tested repeatedly by fit adults who had come specifically to test it,

and who arrived at the top winded and irritated. They became extremely heavy. This is the detail that got the most attention, because it was attempted so many times. When a girl was in the state, grown men could not lift her. Strong men, several at once, in front of crowds, and then, minutes later,

the same child could be picked up by another child, which is the private gravity pattern appearing from the opposite direction, 400 years and one country away from a friar who kept going up. They were tested with the modern version of the candle. People pushed pins into them, people held burning matches against their skin, and shone powerful flashlight straight into their open eyes at close range. Nothing. No flinch, no blink, no reported sensation,

and because this is a decade with cameras, people filmed it. and the footage exists and you can watch it, which is a sentence unavailable for anything in the 1600s. Then there is the business with the objects, which is the part that bothers people most. Visitors brought rosaries and religious items to be blessed, often in crowds, often after dark. The girls in the state took the items and handed them back, and each one went to its correct owner, in a crowd, of strangers, in the dark, repeatedly, in front of people watching specifically for a mistake, None of which proves what caused it. Conventional explanations exist, and the serious ones involve dissociative states,

group dynamics among children under enormous social pressure, and the well-documented capacity of the human nervous system to do startling things under the right conditions. All of that deserves a hearing. But here is what Pesulka keeps circling back to, and it has nothing to do with the physical effects. What did the apparition actually want? Because this is where the payoff belongs.

Four girls at the centre of an international sensation, visitors arriving from other countries, priests and doctors and journalists filling a village that had never had a tourist, and the entity in question could ask for anything, build something, found an order, announce a revelation, name a chosen nation, provide a date for the end of the world,

which is always popular and reliably drives engagement. The request was, fast one day a week, pray, and stop treating each other badly, that is the whole program. The transmission from the extraordinary is a set of instructions your grandmother could deliver over a sandwich. It is so anticlimactic that it is genuinely hard to fit into a fraud model because a child inventing this for attention writes better material than that.

Kids understand what a good story requires. Nobody spends four years under international scrutiny to deliver a message about being decent and skipping a meal on Fridays. And the institutional response which deserves stating plainly rather than letting the story run off with itself was not enthusiasm. The local bishops were unconvinced, the investigations were unfavourable, and Garibandal has never received church approval. People who love this case tend to leave that out, and it should not be left out, because the way the church sorts these things is the next piece of the puzzle, and it is far more interesting than most people assume. The system has three possible verdicts, and only one of them is a yes. A commission can find that the

the supernatural character is established. It can find that it is not established, which is not a rejection, but a permanent shrug, meaning we looked and could not conclude, or it can find that the supernatural character is definitively absent, which is the formal way of saying this did not happen, and everyone should go home. Approval is spectacularly rare. Out of the enormous number of reported apparitions in the modern period, the ones with full approval could be listed on a single page. The default posture is no for entirely practical reasons. An approved apparition creates a pilgrimage site, which creates crowds, money, local politics, and a permanent liability.

If it collapses later, the embarrassment is public and forever. So the commissions are built to be hard to satisfy. They examine the visionaries psychologically. They check whether anyone is profiting. They test the content against existing doctrine, and any message containing new theology is dead before lunch. and they watch the long-term behaviour of everyone involved, because the traditional test is whether the thing produced anything good over time

or just produced a scene, which brings us to the one that made it through, and it is the most heavily witnessed event in the entire category, Fatima, Portugal, 1917. And it does not begin with a lady. It begins the year before, with three shepherd children reporting an angel who appeared several times and prepared them,

which is a structural detail worth flagging since the same sequence shows up elsewhere. First, a preparatory figure, then the main event. From May 1917, the woman appeared on the 13th of each month at the same spot, which is already unusual, because it introduces a schedule. Most reported apparitions are spontaneous. This one had appointments and an announce final date, which meant the crowds could grow month over month,

and they did, from a handful of relatives to tens of thousands of people walking across the countryside to stand in a field. Discover Coffee Plus on Nespresso.com. Hear that? It's your money calling. It wants a promotion. Elevate your savings with the Scotia high-interest savings account. Always earn high regular interest rates that grow the more you save and invest.

Conditions apply. Visit scotiabank.com slash h-I-SA to learn more. Scotia Bank. You're richer than you think. The children entered altered states during the encounters, unresponsive to everyone around them, and the reports include the peculiar detail that animals in the area behaved as though affected as well, which does nothing for the fraud hypothesis and which nobody needed to include. The local priest reacted with alarm rather than delight, and his working theory was that the source might be demonic,

which tells you exactly how a rural Portuguese parish priest in 1917 assessed an unscheduled miracle in his jurisdiction. Then the civil authorities got involved, and this is where it turns genuinely ugly, because the country had a strongly anti-clerical government at the time, and the local administrator had no patience for religious spectacle. He took the children into custody. He separated them, he interrogated them, and by the accounts threatened to have them boiled in oil if they did not admit they had made it up. These were children under ten.

They did not recant. Their own families were not much gentler. neighborhood pressure was intense. The mother of the eldest was convinced her daughter was lying and disgracing the family, and she applied the discipline of the period, which was not soft. Every authority figure in these children's lives, civil and religious and domestic, was pushing hard in the same direction, and the children did not move. Then, October 13th, crowd estimates run from 70,000 to 100,000, standing in a field in torrential rain, in mud, most of them having arrived on foot, many fully expecting to be humiliated. Journalists were present from the secular press, and their

motives were not devotional. They came to write the comedy piece about superstitious peasants waiting in the rain for nothing. That was the assignment. What they filed instead were descriptions of the sun doing things the sun does not do, spinning, changing colour, appearing to descend toward the crowd. Some people saw it, some saw nothing, and the accounts are not uniform which is worth admitting honestly. And then the widely reported detail. And then the widely reported detail that people who had stood in heavy rain for hours found their soaked clothing suddenly dry, along with the ground under them. The scientific explanations exist and are reasonable. Staring at the sun produces optical effects, retinal artefacts and after images, and a crowd primed for a miracle

all staring at the same point in the sky will generate correlated reports. Unusual atmospheric conditions can do peculiar things, but the residue is the same as always. The crowd is the crowd-size, the announced date, the presence of hostile witnesses filing hostile copy about something they had not planned to describe, and the drying, which is not an optical illusion. The church took 13 years to approve it, which is the institutional equivalent of proceeding with extreme caution, and then there are the secrets, where Fatima stops being a religious event and becomes a decades-long study in institutional anxiety. The children reported receiving three pieces of information. Two were eventually written down and released by the surviving visionary, and neither

was comforting. One was a vision of the fate of souls, the other concerned war, and a specific country and consequences, and it was published at a moment in the 20th century when that content read as extremely pointed. The third was different. The instruction, as reported, was that it should be opened in 1960. That year arrives, the world is waiting, and the Pope of the day read it. and declined to publish, with the reason given being essentially that it applied to a later period, which is a magnificent piece of administrative phrasing for a document half of Europe is holding its breath about. Subsequent popes read it, subsequent popes said nothing. The text sat in an office for another 40 years while an entire cottage industry grew up around guessing at its contents.

It was released in 2000, with an interpretation attached, a vision of a bishop in white falling under gunfire, understood as pointing to the assassination attempt on John Paul II in 1981, and a great many people did not buy it, not because they had a better theory, but because of the mismatch in scale. The argument runs like this. This is the text that kept four popes silent for four decades, that arrived with a date attached, that was judged too sensitive for 1960. And the resolution is a symbolic image of an event that had already happened 19 years before publication, and that everyone alive remembered watching on television. The explanation is not impossible.

It is simply smaller than the silence that preceded it, and when the payoff is smaller than the build-up, human beings do not conclude that the build-up was excessive. They conclude that something is missing. Whether they are correct is unknowable, which is precisely why the theory will outlive all of us. That is the approved end of the spectrum. Now the other end, because the condemned cases are where this gets truly strange.

Netsida, Wisconsin, in the 1950s. A farmwoman reported apparitions, word spread, and it grew fast, with crowds arriving in numbers, a small rural community was in no way equipped to absorb. Tens of thousands of people, at points reportedly approaching 100,000, in a place with dirt roads and no infrastructure whatsoever. The diocese investigated and came down against it hard,

and when the operation carried on regardless, the church escalated to formal sanctions. The site kept running anyway, built its own organisation, and drifted steadily away from anything recognisably Catholic. Then Bayside, New York, from 1970, which follows a similar arc with a distinctly urban flavour. Apparitions reported in a park, enormous crowds, all-night vigils in a residential neighbourhood, and neighbours who developed extremely strong feelings about the parking situation. The diocese condemned it. The movement continued without approval, because at that point,

point, approval had stopped being the point. And the reason these cases get rejected is nearly always the content, not the phenomenon. In both, the messages evolved in a specific and telling direction. They started with prayer and repentance, and progressed to naming names, specific criticism of specific church leaders, assertions about who was corrupt, who was illegitimate, and who was going to hell. An institution will tolerate a remarkable amount of unexplained light in the sky, but the moment your apparition starts issuing performance reviews of the hierarchy, the investigation concludes with impressive efficiency. That is the cynical reading, and it is a legitimate one. It is also not the whole picture, since the doctrinal filter is a long-standing test and not something improvised

for the occasion. But here is what Pazulka's team found in the original Nassida material, and it is the detail that makes this entire chapter matter for everything ahead. In the primary resources sitting alongside the apparition accounts, there are descriptions of visitors, men, arriving in dark cars, driving up with the headlights switched off, wearing dark suits, not local, not identified, not attached to any agency anyone could name, and their message was not theological, their message was that this needed to stop and that she needed to be quiet. Now hold that image next to the decade it comes from, because in exactly the same period, on the other side of the culture, in a completely separate literature with no connection

to Catholic Apparition Reports. Witnesses to unusual objects in the sky began describing precisely the same thing. Unidentified men, dark suits, dark cars, instructions to stop talking. The figure became so standardized in that literature that it eventually became a movie franchise, which has permanently destroyed anyone's ability

to discuss the original reports with a straight face. Two separate phenomena, two separate populations, no shared vocabulary, no reason to be reading each other's material, and both start reporting the same specific character in the same specific decade. There are two ways to read that. Reading one is that something real was operating in both spaces and behaving consistently, which is the exciting interpretation. Reading two is that mid-century American culture generated a stock image of the figure who arrives to enforce silence, and that people reaching for words to describe an intimidating encounter

reached for the same available picture, which explains the convergence without requiring anybody to be lying. Pesulka does not pick. That is the discipline, and by now it should be familiar. What she does is register the overlap as a fact about the record, because it is the first hard seam between the two bodies of material she works with, and it is not a seam anyone constructed on purpose. And it turns out she was not the only person who had noticed that the old religious documents and the modern sky reports were describing the same things in the same words. Other people had noticed. Those people had budgets, and eventually one of them found her university email address. The email came later. The thing that made the email possible was a list,

and the list started as a completely ordinary piece of academic housekeeping. She had been collecting cases from the 1500s through the 1700s, in which Catholics reported seeing something in the sky they could not identify, and then explained it within the framework available to them. Lights moving in formation, objects that hovered and departed at impossible speed, shapes that appeared over towns and were seen by hundreds of people at once, written up in local chronicles by clerks who had no particular reason to lie about the weather, and the interpretation that kept appearing was that these were souls undergoing purification, appearing to the living to request prayers, which, in the framework of the time, is not a wild leap. If your cosmology says

the dead can be helped and that they sometimes make contact to ask for help, and something inexplicable shows up over the church at dusk you file it under the category you have. Everybody does this. We do it too. We just have different filing cabinets, and ours currently say drone, weather balloon, and Chinese surveillance. So she's sitting with a friend over coffee, talking through the list, describing what these documents say, and the friend interrupts with an observation that lands like a dropped plate. Those are scenes from Spielberg movies, and she had to admit it. Not the specific plots, obviously. The visual grammar. Lights arranged in the sky over a rural landscape, a group of people standing in a field looking up, the object that hovers

and then goes, the witness who cannot explain it afterward and is not believed. She had been reading, in 300-year-old handwriting, the storyboard of blockbusters made in her own lifetime, and she had not noticed because she had been reading each document as a piece of religious history rather than as a description of an event. That is the specific kind of shock that only hits specialists. You have to know the material extremely well to be unable to see it, because expertise means you already know what category everything belongs in, and knowing the category is exactly what stops you noticing that the contents do not match the label. And then, in the way that these stories are always slightly too neat, there was a Mufon meeting happening that same week

near where she lived. For anyone who has not encountered it, Mufon is the mutual UFO network, founded at the end of the 1960s, and it is one of the more genuinely strange institutions in American life. It has volunteer field investigators. It has report forms. It has a case management structure and training materials and regional directors. What it does not have is money, which means the reality of a Mufon meeting is folding chairs in a rented room, a projector somebody brought from home, coffee that has been sitting in the pot since the previous administration, and a room full of people ranging from retired engineers with binders to individuals whose theories

require you to stand near the exit. She went, and what got her was not the theories. It was the paperwork, because these people were taking witness statements, and the witness statements were structurally identical to the ones she had spent her career reading, not similar in mood, the same shape. A person going about ordinary business, an unexpected encounter with something that does not fit. A period of altered awareness, sometimes with paralysis, sometimes with a sense of being outside normal time. A figure or figures who communicate often without speaking aloud, a message that turns out to be underwhelming and moralistic, a return to normal life, and then, universally, the hard part, telling people and being disbelieved, and paying a social

price that is severe enough that most witnesses eventually stop mentioning it at all. That last element is the one that connected everything. Because as we saw with the signatures in the canonisation file, testimony that costs the witness something is a different category of evidence from testimony that pays. Nobody was getting rich in that rented room. Most of them had lost friends over this. Several had lost jobs. And they kept filing reports into a volunteer system that has no power to do anything with them,

which is either the behaviour of people with a compulsion or the behaviour of people who saw something. It shook her. it did not convert her. And the difference between those two outcomes is the entire reason the story goes anywhere interesting, because a convert would have stopped being useful to anyone at that exact moment. Then, around 2015 and 2016, the email started arriving at her university address. Her institutional address, which is public, because every academic on earth has their contact information posted on a departmental page so students can pester them about grades.

What was not normal was who was writing. The addresses belong to aerospace companies, real ones, contractors, and alongside those were individuals whose descriptions of themselves were smooth in a specific way that experienced people learn to recognize where every sentence is technically informative and the total information conveyed is zero. Consultants for programs they could not name. Advisors to organizations they described in the passive voice. Credentials that were absolutely real and completely unverifiable. and what they wanted was the strange part. They did not want her publications.

Her publications were already available. That is the whole point of publishing, a fact which somehow surprises people constantly. They wanted the underlying material, the sources, the archival references, the primary documents behind the footnotes, the specific shelf marks,

the raw testimony before she had processed it into an argument, and she gave it to them, not out of naivety, out of professional reflex, because that is what scholars do, do. Somebody asks for your sources and you send them because the entire system runs on other people being able to check your work. The instinct to share your data is so deeply trained into academic life that refusing feels like an accusation. So she answered the emails like a normal colleague,

and it took a while for the actual situation to become clear. They were not reading these documents as literature. That is the sentence that reorganises the whole story. To her, a 17th century account of lights over a village was a source about how people in that period understood their world. It was evidence about belief. The question of what was physically in the sky was in the box on the shelf, permanently by design. To them, it was an incident report, a field observation filed by a trained observer from a location and date describing an event. They were reading it the way an analyst reads a stack of old sensor logs, which is to say for content, with the assumption that the observer saw something and described it as well as their vocabulary allowed,

and once you see the logic, it is uncomfortably sensible. If you work for an organisation that believes there is a real physical phenomenon of long duration, then your biggest problem is that your data set only goes back to roughly 1947. That is nothing. You cannot establish a pattern from that, but there is a body of testimony going back centuries, gathered by an institution obsessed with documentation, collected under legal procedures with penalties for lying, describing unexplained aerial events with times and locations and named witnesses, sitting in archives that nobody has systematically read, which makes a professor of religious studies with a Vatican reader's card the single most

valuable consultant available, not because she believes anything, precisely because she does not, and because she can read the handwriting. It is one of the great accidental job descriptions of the century. Somewhere in a building with a security desk, a research team's most useful long baseline data source turned out to be paperwork about dead friars, which is roughly when Tyler entered the picture. Tyler is not his name, and before anyone gets excited, the pseudonym is not a spy novel flourish. It is a requirement of her profession. Research involving human beings in an academic setting runs through institutional review, and the confidentiality of informants is not optional. Anthropologists have used pseudonyms for their subjects for a century. If you interview someone

whose employment could be endangered by being named, you anonymise them, you document the arrangement with your institution, and you do not get to make an exception because your audience is curious. So the man in this story has a false name, for the same reason a village in an ethnography has a false name, which is considerably more boring than what everyone assumes and also considerably more binding. What he is, by his own description, is somebody who works in the aerospace world at a level where the interesting things happen and the paperwork does not, and he took an interest in her material. Her response was to keep him at a distance for two years. Two years. That is the detail nobody expects, and it is the most impressive thing in this section, because the natural

human response to a mysterious insider taking an interest in your work is to lean in immediately, and the natural writer's response is to start the book that afternoon. She did neither. She kept talking, kept observing, kept declining to draw conclusions, and spent two years watching what he did rather than listening to what he said, which is either extraordinary discipline or extraordinary caution, and in this environment those are the same thing. She also did the smartest thing available to anyone in a situation like this, which is that she brought in a second opinion.

She had lunch with Geoffrey Cripple, a scholar of religion, who works on precisely this territory, the borderland where anomalous experience and religious history overlap, and who has spent his career being professionally comfortable in rooms that make other academics itch. And the value of that lunch is worth spelling out, because it is a methodological move rather than a social one. When you are being approached by someone with unverifiable credentials and access to information you cannot check, your own judgment is compromised by definition. You are inside the situation. What you need is. is a colleague with the same training and no emotional investment, sitting across the table,

watching the same person, and forming an independent read. It is the intellectual version of never signing anything without a second pair of eyes. Every person who has ever been successfully manipulated by an insider with a story had one thing in common, which is that they did it alone. Then there is the moment on the street. They are walking outside, somewhere windy, and Tyler tells her that he is carrying recording equipment, on his person, multiple devices, that the conversation they are having and presumably the conversations they had been having existed on a recording somewhere. Sit with the layers of that for a second because it is genuinely elegant. First, the obvious reading, he is under surveillance obligations. In certain jobs, contact with outsiders gets logged,

and the logging is not a personal choice. If that is the case, he was not confessing, he was disclosing, which is the professional courtesy equivalent of telling someone the meeting is being minuted. Second reading, he chose to tell her. He did not have to, which means the disclosure itself was an act with a purpose. Telling somebody they are being recorded changes what they say next permanently, and everybody involved knows that. Third reading, and this is the one that makes the whole encounter unsolvable. Telling somebody you are covered in recording equipment while standing on a windy street is a spectacular way to establish that you are a serious person from a serious world. It is a credential you cannot check, delivered in a form that discourages checking. Whether

or not it was true, it did work, in the sense that it is the kind of detail that lands in a listener's memory and stays there, and she recorded all three readings, which is the correct professional response, and also the most frustrating one for anybody who wants an answer, which brings in the frame that organizes everything after this, and it came from Jacques Vallet. Valle is the elder statesmen of the entire field, and probably the only person in it with an unimpeachable technical resume, trained as an astronomer, then a computer scientist, involved in the early network computing world that eventually became the internet, later a venture capitalist. He is also the man who, decades ago, pointed out that modern encounter reports have the same

structure as European folklore about fairy encounters, which was an unwelcome observation for everyone in every camp, and has aged extremely well. He is the closest thing this subject passed to a person whose skepticism is genuinely load-bearing, and his advice to her was blunt, believe nothing, and specifically, if they show you a body, do not believe it. Which is the single most useful sentence anybody has produced about this entire domain, and it works because it is not skepticism about the phenomenon. It is skepticism about the presentation. Valley's position, developed over decades, is that a significant portion of what reaches the public in this area has been shaped, and that the shaping is not always done by the same people

for the same reasons. There is a documented history of official disinformation in this space, some of it defensible as counterintelligence, some of it just habit, and a person who wants you to believe something will happily show you a spectacular, emotionally overwhelming, apparently physical proof. That is the oldest technique on the list. The bigger the reveal, the more you should ask who arrange the lighting. So the working posture becomes, take the documents seriously, take the witnesses seriously, and take absolutely nothing at face value from anyone who wants you to see something. Which is exactly the posture she brought to the desert. The invitation was to a site in the high desert of New Mexico, and the terms were not negotiable.

And her decision process is the most sensible part of the whole episode, because she agreed to go on one condition, which was that Gary Nolan was going too. Nolan is a Stanford immunologist, a genuinely serious scientist with a long list of publications, patents and companies behind him. And the relevant fact is that he has laboratory access, not enthusiasm, not credentials on a website, actual instruments in an actual building where material can be tested by people whose careers depend on getting analyses right. That condition is the whole methodology in one move. Because the difference between an anecdote and a data point is whether the object ends up in a lab.

Anyone can be taken somewhere and shown something and come back with a story. A story is worth nothing. A sample that goes into a mass spectrometer is worth something, regardless of the result, because it produces a number that other people can argue about. So they go, and the trip immediately becomes theatrical. Blindfolds, actual blindfolds, worn in the vehicle, so that the route could not be reconstructed, and then 45 minutes on a rocky road,

which if you have never been on one is not a scenic drive but a sustained assault on the human spine, made significantly worse by not being able to see the bumps coming. At the destination, the practical gear comes out, and this is the detail that grounds the whole thing in reality. Snake boots, because this is the high desert, and the local wildlife has strong opinions about visitors, and metal detectors that had been calibrated specifically for the mineral composition of that ground, which is a genuinely technical detail that people who have never used a detector will skip past. Soil chemistry ruins detection. If you do not tune for the local conditions, you get a machine that screams constantly at nothing

and finds you a bottle cap. Somebody had done real preparatory work here, and the first thing she notices on arrival is that it looks like a television show. Specifically, the visual language of every American conspiracy drama of the 1990s. Scrubland, distant masers, that particular. quality of light, which is a funny observation, and also a slightly sinister one, because you have to ask which direction the resemblance runs. Did the location get chosen because it looks like the story, or does the story look like this because everyone making television in that era was

drawing on the same landscape? Then there is the ground itself, and this is the detail that nearly did not survive into print. The site was covered in rusty fragments, a carpet of small metal crumbs scattered across the area. And when she asked, Tyler gave her an explanation that is so specific and so strange that it does not sound like something anyone would improvise. He said that in the 1950s tin cans had been deliberately shredded and scattered over the site in order to defeat exactly what she was standing there holding. Metal detectors. Fill the ground with junk metal and any amateur who comes out with a machine gets thousands of false signals and goes home after two hours with a bag of rust and a sunburn.

It is, if true, a beautiful piece of low technology security, not a fence, not a guard, just noise. You do not have to stop people from searching if you can make searching worthless. And when the manuscript went to Oxford University Press, an editor wanted to cut that passage on the reasonable grounds that it read as nonsense, which it does on first pass. It sounds like a strange throwaway detail that adds nothing to the argument. Pesulka fought to keep it, and her reasoning is the intellectual core of the entire book.

Because whether or not the story about the Cairns is true, the fact that this is the explanation she was given is a fact. It happened. It is part of the record of what she was told, by whom, in what setting, in what sequence. Cutting it because it sounds implausible would mean editing the data to make the account tidier, which is exactly the failure mode she spends her professional life documenting in other people's archives. Everything she was shown and told is evidence, and the odd bits are frequently the most informative, because they are the parts nobody would have designed. As for what they actually found, the reported material is a set of small fragments, described as thin plates with an iridescent surface, and the comparison she uses

is the skin of a toad, which is a wonderfully unglomerous description, and immediately more convincing than anything involving the word gleaming. The samples went into laboratory analysis and the reported result concerned isotope ratios. Here is what that means in plain terms. Most elements come in several versions differing by the number of neutrons and they occur in nature in stable, predictable proportions. Those proportions are essentially a background constant. If you find a material whose isotope ratios are significantly off from the natural distribution, then something changed them and the list of things that are essentially a background constant. that can change them is short. Certain industrial processes, nuclear reactions, or an origin somewhere

with a different history than this solar system. Nolan's reported reaction to one of the analyses was that it could not have been made in this universe, which is an enormous statement, and in fairness to him, the kind of thing a person says out loud in the moment rather than in a paper. And here is where honesty is required, because this is the part where a lot of storytellers stop. Isotope separation is a thing humans do. We built an entire industry around it in the 1940s, and we are quite good at it. Manufactured materials with deliberately altered isotope ratios exist, they have commercial and research applications, and they are not cheap, but they are also not miraculous.

Nothing from these samples has gone through the normal process of independent replication and peer-reviewed publication that would settle the question, the analyses have been contested, and the chain of custody on material that was collected in a location you were driven to blindfolded is, from a scientific standpoint catastrophic. You cannot rule out that a sample was placed. You cannot even establish where it came from, because you are not allowed to know where you were, which everyone involved is aware of,

and it does not make the trip pointless, because the most informative thing that happened was not the digging. It was the airport. On the way back at the security checkpoint Nolan is pulled aside, and the specific detail that makes this scene interesting is that the alarm that sounded was not the standard one, a different tone. He is taken to a room. He is dealt with, at length, in the manner of a person who has triggered something, the ordinary screening equipment does not normally trigger.

Meanwhile, Tyler does not go through the checkpoint at all. He goes around it, by some route available to him, and is waiting calmly on the other side, with a bottle of water for everyone else to finish. Now think about what that sequence actually demonstrates because it is not what it first appears. The obvious read is that the material set off of an alarm because it was extraordinary, which is the exciting interpretation and the one the scene is clearly constructed to produce. But look at Tyler. He walked around security, which means there existed in that airport, on that day, a route by which the material could have exited quietly with no alarm, no room, and no story. The quiet option was available and was demonstrated to be

available in front of her by the person who arranged the trip. So the noisy version was not necessary. It was chosen, which means the entire airport sequence functions as a demonstration. Its content is not the analysis of a sample. Its content is a message, and the message is that this material is significant enough to trigger systems, and that the person who brought you here operates outside the systems that apply to you. That is theatre. Extremely effective theatre, performed for an audience of two, one of whom is a scientist and one of whom writes books. And this is the moment Pursulka does the thing that makes her work.

listening to, because she writes it down exactly that way. She does not present it as proof. She presents it as a performance, and she says plainly that everything she experienced on that trip is consistent with a carefully prepared program of disinformation, that she may have been walked through a constructed experience from beginning to end, the blindfolds, the pre-tuned equipment, the story about the cans, the samples, the alarm, every element of it could be staging. And then she says the thing that makes the whole book work, that would also be data. Because remember what she's actually studying. She's not studying whether the fragments are from elsewhere.

She's studying the formation of a new religious framework in real time. And if a group of people with resources and access are constructing experiences designed to produce belief in credible witnesses who will then publish, that is not a failure of her research. That is her research, arriving in person and offering to drive. Every religion in history has had this layer. Somebody decides what gets shown, to whom, in what order, with what framing. The difference is that normally we only get to examine it centuries later, through documents,

after everyone involved is dead and the choices have hardened into tradition, and nobody remembers that they were choices. Here it is happening in the present, with witnesses who can be interviewed and equipment that can be photographed and a professor of religious studies sitting in the passenger seat, wearing a blindfold and taking notes on the process. She got to watch someone building the shrine, and the question that leaves hanging is the one that runs through the rest of this.

If belief is being shaped deliberately, by people with budgets, using experiences engineered for credible witnesses, then the interesting question is no longer whether there is something in the sky. The interesting question is what the people doing the shaping want us to become.