TWO Astounding (Miraculous?) Photographs Taken at the same Eucharistic Adoration Chapel

CAM03662-1[Don't miss this March 2014 update regarding a THIRD photograph.]

[FIFTH UPDATE (11/29/2013 8:30)]: To be clear, I am not claiming that these photos are miraculous; I’m asking the question and trying to discern myself. However, you can watch the interview of the lady who took the first photograph. The reporter says she saw the picture on the lady’s iPhone. The lady says she did nothing to alter the picture and that the light source was not visible to the naked eye. Also, I did nothing to alter either picture, although as I said earlier, I did change the format to JPG. You are free to comment that the photos are faked, but I go on record saying they were *not* faked by me, and that I am not aware of any fakery. If I were, I would say so. That is the truth. Nobody should need something like this in order to believe in Christ or the True Miracle of the Eucharist!]

[FOURTH UPDATE (11/23/2013 11:53)]: WGN TV in Chicago has a news video on this story, which you can see here! The story says that the original photo below was taken last Friday, not Sunday.

[THIRD UPDATE (11/23/2013 11:12)]: So, I said the first photo I posted wasn’t the only one. This is remarkable: A second photograph, taken with a different camera by a different person:

IMG_6300

Below, the original photo posted to this blog taken at the Adoration Chapel at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish in Glenview, Illinois. My source said that this wasn’t the only photo, and found another one, above. 

MiracleACOLPH

[SECOND UPDATE (11/20/2013 22:20)]: The photo was taken this past Sunday (11/17), using a cell phone camera. It seems that this isn’t the first time a picture’s been taken at this Adoration Chapel showing something like this; there’s already some talk among the Chicago Catholics in the know and the person who took this picture went to check it out.]

Look at the pews; the light does not appear to extend to the floor; it’s almost floating. Also, look at how bright the monstrance is — it’s not clear that the monstrance is reflecting the light in the picture; it’s almost as though the monstrance is part of the same light source.

Fortunately, it’s well above my pay grade to opine on whether this photograph is truly miraculous, but I do believe in miracles, and I believe in many of the approved Eucharistic Miracles. Just today, my son asked me if priests always believe that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord. I told him it doesn’t actually matter if the priest believes. Reality is not determined by belief. But it brought to mind the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy:

In the Eighth Century, a monk of the order of St. Basil experienced serious doubt while saying mass. He asked God to send him a sign that would help him believe in the Real Presence. At the time of consecration, the host turned into live tissue, and the contents of the chalice became fresh blood. The relics were retained, and can still be viewed today if you visit the church in Italy.

In 1981, scientists from the University of Siena examined the relics, and determined that the flesh and blood was human, the flesh was heart tissue (in section: myocardium, endocardium, the vagus nerve, and left ventricle), both the flesh and blood were the same blood type (AB, the same blood type on the fibers of the Shroud of Turin). Also, the fact that both the blood and tissue were preserved and intact after twelve centuries is in itself an extraordinary phenomenon.

The Eucharist is a Miracle, and yet we frequently think of going to Mass in terms of obligation; it’s not! Jesus invites us and asks us to receive Him. We can be a source of encouragement to one another not by reminding and nagging about the obligation, but by joyfully accepting the graces poured out in the Sacrament and asking God to make us evidence of the good of the Eucharist for the world. Mass is a joy. Attending mass makes it possible to be Catholic.

[Don't miss this March 2014 update regarding a THIRD photograph.]

[Get Updates on Facebook from Quartermaster of the Barque]
About these ads

117 thoughts on “TWO Astounding (Miraculous?) Photographs Taken at the same Eucharistic Adoration Chapel

  1. I’m voting fake.
    Lets look at the second picture with the monstrance. At the bottom of the bright spot it covers part of the front pew rail. (see front rail in first picture) there is also a gap between the bright white (BW) and the altar leg then it picks up again in the back.
    I’m guessing that’s a glass candle holder on the left side matching the one on the right. It has a round bite out of it that looks a lot like a photoshop brush. The BW covers the candle holder and does not shine through it. (you can see the candle through the other one)
    Also the BW takes out part of the altar top. (follow the front edge from right to left) Also the BW under the altar cuts into the bottom of the hanging altar cloth. Then on the right back corner, you also see a BW.
    The light on the stem of the monstrance does not match the light on the base. And whats that thing between the monstrance and the BW?
    Then the rays across the pews… under the left one, the pew is dark. Then the pew has glare, then the next ray then the pew still has a lot of glare then the rays from under the altar making the glare on the pews darker. So, glare on the pew tops except where the rays are?
    In the first picture, there are 2 indents in the head (?) area. If you look closely at the top one you can see 2 darker areas in the white. Also, the top area has stray color. Also the BW does not reach the altar leg even though it should. And again, the top front edge of the altar is lit up, and the wall in the background under the altar. The fold of the altar cloth doesn’t look quite right.
    The first looks like they had a spot light shining on the altar. The candle stick, flowers, altar top and the wall behind the altar are lit up. The part between the BW and altar leg is not the color of the wall as it is in the bottom picture, it looks to be cloned from the floor color. The rest is most likely erased to create the look.
    Remember, it looks good and bright on the screen, that’s because all the color has been erased and the bright light of your monitor makes it seem to glow. It helps if you save the picture to your computer and open it in a photo viewer and magnify it. The bigger it is, the more the defects show.
    Well, that’s my two cents worth.

    • no ur wrong the photo was taken at different angle in the second one which makes the pew look a little different. Even Thomas doubted so u may have to wait and see with ur own eyes…

    • I appreciate the detialed analysis. That being said, you are applying natural world physics to a (potentially) super natural photograph. From the start you are comparing apples to oranges.

  2. It is interesting reading all the responses. I am a PhD scientist/engineer and devout Catholic so I have expertise and appreciation for both the value of the scientific method and faith-based beliefs. It is interesting to note that the modern Church approaches miracles by rigourous scientific examination. Only after all prosaic explanations can be ruled out would an event be considered miraculous by the Church today. Many choose to believe that the photos are miraculous without the need for further facts. That is OK too. Sometimes, events occur that may have a prosaic explanation, nevertheless, they hold deep meaning for an individual or individuals. Such events could be considered personally miraculous because of the context, timing, and relevance to an individual’s situation. This has indeed even happened to me on occasion. Who can argue that such meaning is not intended to be a grace from God for an individual even when a prosaic explanation is available? Therefore, we must not be so quick to judge others and the meaningful impact certain events may have, even if they don’t appear so extraordinary to others. Having said that, we should also be clear about the difference between the facts and our belief about the facts. Without a rigorous examination of the original photos, little can be determined from them from a fact-based standpoint. I have asked to obtain the original photos so that I could conduct a rigorous examination of them but have recieved no response. Therefore, everyone should understand that with limited facts as they stand currently, not much can be scientifically determined independant of the claims of the photographers about whether the photos are manipulated or not. So further conjecture on whether the photos have been faked or not is essentially pointless. Additionally, I would encourage everyone to not disparage others. If these photos help the faith of others or reminds them of the sacredness of the Eucharist, then that is also a wonderful thing. God bless you all!

  3. It looks like the silhouette of Our lady of La Salette with the Blessed Mother’s head bowed while crying tears of sadness as her lovely hands cover her face.

  4. I find it all interesting for sure, but do we know if the two pictures were supposedly taken on the same day?? I haven’t seen any reference to the fact that there are several items on the alter in the second picture that do not appear in the first picture. Also, whatever is draped over the first pew in the second picture does not appear in the first picture. Just an observation.

      • Thank you. I will add that even though they were not taken at the same time, and knowing there are quite a few dis- believers out there, I have never been one to dismiss the likelihood of a ” miracle “. We were raised as Catholics, and where some of the teachings leave room for skepticism, by and large I do believe that if an event causes someone to re-affirm his faith, or strengthens his faith, then who are we to take that away by trying to criticize the event. There’s plenty of room for all to either believe or not, agree to disagree and hold our own opinions. Merry Christmas.

  5. If you look at both silhouettes, they are EXACTLY the same, especially the front part where the “hands”, “face” and “head” are. These were taken on two separate days. The angle of the “stooped body” is the exact angle. It is obviously not an image of Our Lady. Sorry.

  6. I am not saying true or fake. However, commenting on the statement that the image is the same, no, I have done a lot of sculpting in the past, and if you compare both pictures again and again with some speed, you will find that they are not the same.

  7. I am a devout Catholic and very much believe in miraculous events such as the Eucharist becoming flesh and Marian apparitions. I’m not a scientist, but my opinion would be that these are not real. They look too doctored to me. I know many of you have said that we shouldn’t question these things as long as it deepens ones faith. My concern would be that if this is proven to not be true, it paints a negative picture of the church and distracts from the true miracles that occur. I hope I am wrong in that these pictures are real. Dishonesty is not a fruitful way to evangelize!

  8. I respect other peoples view points things like this do happen on occasion i believe it to be real as i am a devout christian and what a lovely photo of mary bless her and peace be upon her she is dearly loved. The question of fact or fake is pointless the impression of Gods love is all that matters and Mary like Elijah and Christ Jesus to visits the earth sometimes. From a scientific point of view there is more to this earth than you realize in Christ holds the truth of the descendants of mankind. not the ape. but from somehwhere not to far away from earth itself.

  9. Just some comments from a Catholic with a science/engineering background, who has read a great deal about Fatima and Guadalupe as well as the reported apparitions in Medjugorje. I am struck by the difference in these two images: the one with the monstance on the altar seems to show the ‘luminous person’ (presumably the Virgin Mary) bowing before a similarly luminous smaller monstrance, slightly behind the physical monstrance and on what seems to be its own stand or table. But in the other photo, she appears to be giving homage to her Son in the large rectangular tabernacle on the larger altar in the background. I have enlarged or zoomed-in on my monitor screen for a more detailed look, and that is how it seems to me.
    I note also that in many apparitions (Fatima, also Lourdes, I think, and others) the Blessed Mother has appeared as a luminous, floating figure in the beginning stages of those events.

  10. Pingback: Is this a THIRD Miraculous Photograph at Our Lady of Perpetual Help? | Quartermaster of the Barque

  11. Pingback: Is this a THIRD Miraculous Photograph at Our Lady of Perpetual Help? | suzannetony

Comment on this Post

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s