The Stigmata of Thérèse Neumann (1926-1962)

Thérèse Neumann was born in Konnersreuth, in the Bavarian Upper Palatinate, on 8 April 1898^[8][9], the eldest of a large Catholic peasant family. A robust young girl — Boniface calls her "the most vigorous in the country" — she worked as a farm servant and dreamed of becoming a missionary religious. On 10 March 1918, while carrying heavy buckets of water to put out the fire of a neighbouring farm, she seriously injured her back; there followed a long period of paralysis, blindness and suffering, until recoveries reported in 1923 and 1925, attributed to the intercession of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux^[10][11].

Boniface distinguishes her youth, her illnesses and recoveries, then the mystical phenomena. These periods overlap: the first stigmata date back to March 1926, while his chronology of the recoveries ends on 19 November of the same year.^[12]

For the complete biography — childhood, recoveries, the circle of resistance to Nazism formed around her^[13], death and the current state of her cause for beatification, whose opening was announced on 13 February 2005^[14] — see Servant of God Thérèse Neumann. For the second great phenomenon of Konnersreuth, the reported absence of all food, see The Inedia of Thérèse Neumann.

A strong religious formation, but no technical script

A classic objection explains the stigmata by religious suggestion: a very pious child, fed on the narrative of the Passion, would have ended up re-enacting it on her own body. Boniface does indeed describe a robust but very sensitive child to the narrative of the Passion, and quotes her reading: Story of a Soul, the Introduction to the Devout Life, Goffine's liturgical book, a life of Saint Notburga and Die Marterblume von Rosenhain^[15]. He specifies, however, that the two principal spiritual influences pointed towards abandonment and simplicity, not towards the search for an extraordinary experience:

"It is important, in this connection, to remember that it was principally the spirit of two French mystics — Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus, as taught by parish priest Naber — which guided and developed the piety of Thérèse Neumann throughout her adolescence." — Ennemond Boniface, Thérèse Neumann, la crucifiée de Konnersreuth devant l'histoire et la science, P. Lethielleux, 1979, pp. 102–103^[16]

This reading establishes Thérèse's familiarity with the Passion and Catholic spirituality. It documents her religious milieu; it does not constitute an experiment demonstrating how a conviction would produce the lesions described by the doctors.

Contrary to the image of a stigmatisation received all at once, the Boniface file gives a precise and progressive chronology, wound by wound, over nearly three years:

Boniface thus summarises the trait common to the permanent marks:

"Her permanent stigmata (which she had not received simultaneously, but successively) had three traits in common: all were imposed on her suddenly, in the course of a vision of the Passion, and on a Friday." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 192-193^[23]

The permanent and temporary locations

Boniface gives elsewhere a synthetic description of all the marks, permanent and temporary:

"In her constant state, Thérèse Neumann bore, indelible in her flesh, the stigmata of the nails, on the dorsal and inner surfaces of the hands and feet, that of the lance thrust, at the level of the fourth costal cartilage, quite close to the sternum, on the left side, and those (eight in number) of the crown of thorns, situated in a circle, on the head, in the middle of the scalp." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 191-192^[24]

"In addition, on certain days of the year, corresponding liturgically to Christic events, she received other stigmata, of variable persistence and, principally, that of the carrying of the Cross, on the right shoulder, of the falls, on both knees, and of the scourging, over the whole body." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 191-192^[25]

Boniface counts eight marks on the scalp, but adds in a note: "Or nine; I never knew". His description therefore gives eight or nine marks, and not a definitive anatomical count.^[26]

An autobiographical letter confirms this mapping from a first-hand source. Writing to Professor Wutz during Lent 1937, Thérèse Neumann herself lists the areas that bleed:

"Fridays are like those of last year: my head, my shoulders, my heart, my hands, my feet and my knees bleed." — Thérèse Neumann, letter to Professor Wutz of 22 February 1937, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 295^[27]

The wound in the side: bleeding of a different kind

Boniface distinguishes materially the first wound — that in the side — from the others, by its manner of bleeding:

"In fact, the blood began to flow abundantly, and since then, this stigma did not bleed, like the others, by a slow and continuous flow, by a kind of oozing of the blood forcing its way through the tissues, but by sudden and abundant jets, which escaped violently from the wound […]." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 192^[28]

Boniface thus describes a contrast between the jets of the wound in the side and the oozing of the other marks; he provides no measured flow rate.^[29]

What Boniface observes directly in 1955

The most precise testimony on the material appearance of the wounds is that of Boniface himself, who met Thérèse on 6 July 1955 and describes his own limits of observation before giving the detail:

"I neither measured them, of course, nor examined them with a magnifying glass, but simply looked at them attentively, as one might look at a ring worn by the person one is speaking to." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 195-196^[30]

"On the back of the hands and right in the centre, they gave the impression of a small rectangle of black sticking-plaster, which might have been stuck on the skin, appreciably less long than half a 50-centime postage stamp." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 195-196^[31]

"On the inside of the hands, they were much smaller and oval in shape, about the size of a large lentil, cut in two, difficult moreover to observe, since they were situated in the very fold formed by the crossing of the two principal lines of the hand." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 195-196^[32]

That same day, Boniface notes a concrete detail which anchors the scene in reality rather than in edifying narrative alone: "Having hurt herself while working on the dorsal stigma of her right hand, Thérèse had quite simply applied a small piece of pink sticking-plaster, which covered about half of it"^[33].

Visible outside Friday

The permanent wounds were not visible only on Fridays, during ecstasy. A named witness, in Albert-Paul Remisch's account, reports a scene of presentation outside any ecstatic context: Abbess Maria Benedicta Spiegel simply asks Thérèse to show her hands, and she "did so with the air of someone showing a broken arm and seeming rather annoyed at her misfortune"^[34]. This is a presentation in a parlour, not a medical examination, but it attests that the marks were visible outside an ecstasy.

A protective film observed with a magnifying glass

The most precise medical fact concerning the texture of the wounds comes from an observation attributed to two doctors, transmitted through a chain of quotation that must be flagged: Boniface reports an analysis by Jean Lhermitte of Mgr Teodorowicz's work, which itself quotes Ewald and Seidl:

"The stigmata of Thérèse are, moreover, protected wounds, for Ewald and his colleague Dr Seidl were able to observe with a magnifying glass not only a very thin epidermal covering at the periphery of the wound, but they were even able to recognise beneath the scab a very thin epithelial film." — Analysis by Jean Lhermitte of Mgr Teodorowicz's work, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 342^[35]

This observation, despite the second-hand chain through which it reaches the reader, directly completes the descriptions of the 1927 control set out below: it places the debate on precise ground — the existence, between bleedings, of a very fine film of skin rather than of a maintained open wound.

Why the medical descriptions diverge

Boniface explicitly warns of a possible confusion between contradictory observations and observations merely separated in time:

"Various authors have agreed in saying that Thérèse's stigmata changed in appearance and even in shape over the years. That is what explains the variants among the many descriptions made of them, notably by Doctors Ewald, Van Der Elst, Louis, Witry, etc." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 195^[36]

The date and the observed surface of the hand therefore matter in the comparison: the dorsal crust described by Martini in 1928 and the small palmar mark seen by Boniface in 1955 designate neither the same moment nor the same surface.^[37][38]

Permanent pain and functional consequences

The permanent wounds were not only visible: according to Boniface, they remained constantly painful.

"The permanent stigmata were constantly very painful and it took Thérèse a very long time to get used to them […] and gradually to manage to use her hands, despite this shooting pain." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 196^[39]

"To enable Thérèse to walk more or less normally, special shoes had to be made for her." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 196^[40]

The reported pain thus affected ordinary actions — walking and working with her hands — outside the ecstasies themselves.^[41]

Tears of blood and ophthalmological examinations

One of the most spectacular features of the file concerns the tears of blood, of which Boniface reports that they are said to have left no detectable lesional trace:

"Indeed, none of the many medical examinations carried out made it possible to detect the slightest microscopic erosion of the conjunctivae or eyelids of Thérèse, which, once washed, the painful ecstasy being over, were intact, normal." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 197^[42]

Boniface attaches to this general assertion neither the date of an examination nor the name of an ophthalmologist. More circumstantial descriptions appear in the ocular observations of Gerlich, Ewald and Froelich, examined below.^{[43][44][45][46]}

A repetitive liturgical structure

Boniface describes an extremely regular periodicity of the ecstasies, aligned with the liturgical cycle:

"Almost every Thursday, around midnight (except during joyful liturgical seasons, for example the octaves of Christmas and Easter), Thérèse Neumann was rapt in ecstasy and witnessed the Passion of Christ, which unfolded before her eyes in 35 to 50 fragmentary visions, broken by pauses or rests." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 197-198^[47]

The ecstasy, begun on Thursday around midnight, thus extended until about one o'clock on Friday afternoon. This structure explains the repeated presence, each week except for liturgical exceptions, of the same audience of witnesses, with an intensification during Lent and Holy Week — of which the most detailed account, that of the thirtieth anniversary of the stigmata on 30 March 1956, is examined below.

The distribution of the blood, direct observation

Boniface states that he personally attended four painful ecstasies. His most materially useful description distinguishes several areas of the body within a single episode:

"Two heavy streams of blood, of the very width of the eyes, come down from the closed eyelids, along the livid cheeks and around the chin […]." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 200-202^[48]

"Despite the thick gauze pads placed on the stigma of the heart, the nightdress, on the left side, shows a large red stain, ringed with pink." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 200-202^[49]

"No trace of blood on the hands or on the forehead. The stigmata of the crown of thorns are indeed situated on the head, amid the hair." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 200-202^[50]

In this scene, blood is visible at the eyes and on the garment at the level of the side, but absent from the hands and forehead. Not all the marks therefore bleed simultaneously during the ecstasy described by Boniface.^[51]

A named witness gives a dated and localised observation, with a reservation to be flagged explicitly. Baron Erwein von Aretin, present on 8 July 1927, describes:

"Thérèse Neumann's feet were uncovered and could be seen reacting painfully to the hammer blows of the crucifixion. Soon there formed on one of the stigmata a nascent drop of dark blood which grew and grew until it detached itself from the wound." — Erwein von Aretin, testimony of 8 July 1927, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 81^[52]

Von Aretin adds that the drop is said to have flowed towards the toes rather than towards the ankle, against gravity. This is his visual interpretation of the trajectory, without any associated measurement of inclination or recording.^[53]

The alleged insensitivity during ecstasy

The same witness asserts a profound alteration of sensitivity during the ecstatic episode: "All sensitivity has vanished from the body. The stigmata, otherwise very painful to the touch, can be pressed at will […]"^[54]. An experiment reported by Boniface — speaking, in his own terms, of "unscrupulous doctors" — points in the same direction, with a concrete detail:

"These unscrupulous doctors had had the idea of directing, during the ecstasy, onto her closed eyes, the rays of a powerful projector, in order to observe her reactions […]. Unfortunately, she abruptly opened her eyelids wide and fixed the dazzling beam […]. At the pause she was asked, at once, whether she had not seen a great light: 'No, she answered, Jesus is dead and the sky has darkened.'" — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 200^[55]

Neither the name of the doctors, nor the power of the projector, nor a recording of the pupillary reaction appears in this passage: the anecdote illustrates the internal logic of the ecstasy — Thérèse's answer remains consistent with the scene she says she is experiencing, rather than with an immediate external stimulus — without constituting a controlled experiment in the modern sense.

A final element concerns Thérèse's resistance to verbal suggestion during the pauses of the ecstasy, when an observer tried to catch her out on the course of the scene she said she saw:

"That is why, when, to catch her out, she is told, for example, that she is repeating badly the words of this or that person, she insists, persists and sharply corrects her interlocutor: 'No, you misheard what he said,' or 'Did you not look, then, when he did this?'" — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 203-204^[56]

This occasional resistance to a suggested correction is not equivalent to a psychiatric protocol of suggestibility; it only documents that Thérèse did not automatically conform to the prompts offered during the intermediate state.

In 1927, the bishopric of Regensburg commissioned Dr Otto Seidl — the very man who, seven years earlier, had signed a certificate of "grave hysteria with blindness and partial paralysis"^[57] — to direct a continuous fifteen-day observation, whose primary object was the inedia but whose protocol also covered the stigmata. The written instructions to the four Franciscan nurses of Mallersdorf included specific directions concerning the bleeding:

"Of the blood emitted on Friday, samples spread on perfectly clean slides shall be taken. Likewise, samples shall be taken, on any other day of the week, of blood from an incision in the lobe of the ear, the haemoglobin content of this blood being determined at the same time." — Directions for the July 1927 control, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 181-182^[58]

"On the Fridays of observation, the compresses placed on the wound of the heart, as well as the head veils used on those days, shall be removed and kept. Photographs shall be taken of the stigmata and also, as far as possible, of some ecstasies." — Directions for the July 1927 control, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 181-182^[59]

Boniface indicates that the blood collected at the stigmata and that taken from the left earlobe were compared at the end of the control: "the blood which flowed from her stigmata and that taken from the left earlobe were submitted to analysis: which revealed no sign of abstinence"^[60]. This conclusion concerns the signs of abstinence from food. It gives neither blood group nor individual identification of the samples.

A favourable judgement from a declared adversary

The most significant testimony on the reliability of the apparatus comes, according to Boniface, from a doctor whom he himself presents as opposed to the mystical interpretation of the case — Dr Ewald:

"The four Sisters of Mallersdorf made an extraordinarily good impression on me; they had been skilfully chosen; from the medical point of view they left nothing to be desired. They certainly could not have been duped... neither the ecstasies nor the sight of the blood made them lose their heads; they stood there, impassive, camera in hand." — Dr Ewald, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 183-184^[61]

"As far as I have had knowledge of their official report, it was objective, unassailable and bore witness to the soundest criticism." — Dr Ewald, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 183-184^[62]

Ewald here praises the competence of the nurses and the part of the official report of which he took cognisance. This favourable appreciation of the control does not amount to adherence to a supernatural origin of the phenomena.^[63]

The critical fact most often invoked against the authenticity of the stigmata is neither a journalistic article nor a late polemic: it is a contemporary medical observation, left incomplete on one precise point. Boniface first corrects its nature and date, often confused in the legend of the file:

"In fact, there was never a report, but merely notes taken by Dr Martini in the course of an examination which Bishop Buchberger had asked him to carry out, to check the bleeding of Thérèse Neumann's stigmata. It was […] Dr Deutsch who gathered his notes together and presented them, in the form of a report, in his pamphlet against Archbishop Teodorowicz." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 389^[64]

"It was ten years earlier, on 22 and 23 March 1928, that it took place, lasting a few hours, spread, with considerable intermittences, over a single half-day." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 392–393^[65]

Boniface thus attributes to Deutsch the formatting and dissemination of Martini's notes. This history of transmission does not remove their critical content: Martini describes lesions and an intermittent observation, then discusses the hypothesis of simulation.^[66][67]

What Martini actually describes

Martini does not deny the existence of the lesions. On the contrary, he gives a detailed morphological description of them:

"The wounds of the hands present as dark-red crusts, of the size of a ten-pfennig coin, yet not as completely dry crusts, but their surface would rather recall the configuration of a raspberry. The edge of these crusts is shiny and a little moist. All around, over a width of about half a centimetre, a halo of slightly shiny skin […]." — Dr Martini, notes of 22-23 March 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 391^[68]

This critical observation describes exactly the type of wound — crust, peripheral halo, moisture at the edge — which other witnesses favourable to the file likewise describe elsewhere. The disagreement therefore does not concern the existence of the lesion, but one precise point: Martini states that he never saw, during his short observation, the moment when the blood actually came out of the skin.

The hypothesis formulated, and the caution accompanying it

Martini distinguishes what he did not observe from the hypothesis he considers:

"Whence it results: 1°) that I could find no proof of the spontaneous coming of blood out of the skin..." — Dr Martini, notes of 22-23 March 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 400^[69]

"I am myself by no means convinced that this is so; my reasoning is only meant to convey that, for psychological reasons, the possibility of a pious fraud must not be excluded." — Dr Martini, notes of 22-23 March 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 401-402^[70]

Martini did not catch the beginning of the bleeding and considers manipulation motivated by the desire to preserve a religious reputation. He specifies, however, that this explanation remains, for him, a possibility and not an established fraud.^[71][72]

What Martini's observation does not cover

A frequent confusion deserves to be dispelled before examining the counter-observations: Martini's examination covered half a day and a limited object, not the whole file.

"It must first be noted that the Martini observation bore on none of the essential phenomena of Thérèse Neumann, such as the perpetual fast, the stigmata considered in themselves, the ecstasies, the visions, xenoglossia, the prophetic gift, the ecstatic communions… etc." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 398^[73]

Boniface specifies that "Professor Martini's intermittent observation, which stretched over half a day, bore only on the general behaviour of Thérèse Neumann, in the course of a bleeding ecstasy, and, more particularly, on the process of the stigmatic bleeding"^[74]. Even an entirely negative observation on this precise point would not suffice, by itself, to decide the whole file of the stigmata — any more than it suffices to decide that of the inedia, whose distinct protocol is treated in the dedicated article.

The accounts of Gerlich, Ewald, Witry and Froelich concern different durations, parts of the body and dates. Comparing them makes it possible to distinguish the presence of blood, its flow, and the very beginning of bleeding.

Fritz Gerlich, at twenty-five centimetres

The journalist Fritz Gerlich describes two distinct observations: the bleeding of the eyes during his stay of 22–25 September 1927, then that of the hands during the night of 5 to 6 April 1928. In his German account, the first belongs to the narrative of his 1927 visits, published as early as 6 November of that year. His testimony specifies the distance and the lighting:^[75]

"At 12:40, during the vision of the second prayer, blood came out of her eyes in the form of a thin trickle, beneath the eyelashes and the lower eyelid […]. At 12:51, during the vision of the third prayer, a drop of fresh red blood flowed down the cheeks coming from inside the eyes. I had observed the phenomenon by lighting the face, with an electric lamp, which I held, in my left hand, at a distance of about 25 centimetres, while my eyes were at approximately the same distance from her eyes." — Fritz Gerlich, observation of September 1927, translation quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 407^[76]

Boniface specifies that the time "12:40" designates, in this account, forty minutes past midnight on a twelve-hour dial watch — a necessary clarification so as not to date the observation in broad daylight. His observation of the left hand belongs, for its part, to Good Friday 1928:

"During the seventeenth vision, […] the stigma on the back of the left hand began to bleed. At the edge of the wrist the surface of the skin began to tear as the following drawing, which I made at once, tries to show […]. In the bleeding part a sort of blister could be remarked […]. The blood was dark red." — Fritz Gerlich, observation of Good Friday 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 408^[77]

The handkerchief used to collect the bloody tears was examined on 31 October 1927 at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University of Munich by Professor Merkel and Privatdozent Walcher. Gerlich reports their conclusion: the stains came from human blood.^[78] This result identifies the nature of the liquid collected; it establishes neither its blood group nor its individual origin.

Professor Ewald, seven observations

The psychiatrist Gottfried Ewald (1888–1963) published his study in 1927 in the Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift, 74, no. 46, pp. 1981–1992.^[79] Boniface presents him as an adversary of the supernatural interpretation. The seven observations he reproduces on pages 474–475 come via the book of Dr Josef Klosa, who quotes Ewald's report; they bring together personal findings and those of other doctors, without constituting seven distinct visits.^[80][81]

"1°) Examinations under the microscope made it possible to establish that in Thérèse Neumann it is indeed a flow of blood. 2°) A spontaneous beginning of the bleeding was established incontestably by several doctors, partly with a magnifying glass. 3°) The quantity of the bleeding is such that it could hardly have been produced artificially without recognisable scars having appeared, given the so frequent repetition of the bleeding (for example at the conjunctiva)." — Professor Gottfried Ewald, report on the 1927 control, quoted by Josef Klosa then by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 474^[82]

The continuation of the same synthesis adds a sero-sanguineous fluid difficult to obtain artificially at the wound of the heart, an absence of suppuration, a somatic transformation of the stigmata of the hands during ecstasy, and the judgement that a fourteen-day surveillance made unnoticed artificial wounds improbable^[83]. Boniface quotes elsewhere, in a shorter extract from the same Ewald file, a similar formula:

"The spontaneous beginning of the bleeding was observed by several doctors in an irrefutable manner, even with a magnifying glass. The quantity of blood could hardly come from artificial intervention." — Professor Gottfried Ewald, Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, no. 46, 1927, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 408^[84]

Witry and Froelich

Dr Witry describes an ecstasy in which the tears of blood precede by several hours the opening of the thoracic dressing:

"From the eyes and on the edge of the lower conjunctivae, the blood has already been flowing slowly, for hours, in two streams about 2 cm wide. It is fresh blood of a geranium red and it flows down the neck, to the chest." — Dr Witry, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 409^[85]

"The stigma of the heart, which was covered by a thick layer of gauze, beneath the nightdress, soaked the dressing and the garment with blood […]. The red bloodstain on the nightdress was the size of a man's hand." — Dr Witry, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 409^[86]

Dr Froelich, for his part, claims five hours of continuous observation on 15 April 1943:

"I myself was, on 15 April 1943, for five hours, at the bedside of Thérèse Neumann, and I can, from my own observations, confirm that fresh blood flowed, constantly, from the stigmata." — Dr Froelich, Konnersreuth aujourd'hui — Point de vue d'un médecin (1950), quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 409-410^[87]

Johannes Maria Hœcht reports, in a declaration of 25 October 1957, that Froelich had confirmed to him that he had seen the beginning of the spontaneous ocular bleeding. This transmitted testimony completes that of the continuous flow; it concerns precisely the moment which Martini had not observed.^[88]

A material objection against simulation

Dr Rudolf Hynek, quoted by Boniface, formulates an objection of a material order against the hypothesis of blood applied from a receptacle:

"An experienced surgeon cannot be given the illusion of bleeding. Blood coagulates shortly after leaving the vessels and, when one has observed the uninterrupted flow of blood for a few minutes, it is impossible to think that it comes from a fraud." — Dr Rudolf Hynek, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 403^[89]

This argument targets the hypothesis of a prolonged flow simulated from a prepared receptacle of blood. It does not demonstrate the impossibility of all fraud.

Professor Urban's report, translated in Psyché in March 1954, rests on his visit of 12 and 13 October 1944. He distinguishes the stigmata from lesions he had encountered in simulators in Vienna and during the war:^[90]

"There is no question of anything of the sort as regards the stigmata of Thérèse Neumann, for they present two capital differences: they do not heal, but neither do they suppurate, although they are in no way disinfected; on the other hand, they reveal no trace of voluntary wounds." — Professor Hubert Urban, "What I saw at Konnersreuth", Psyché, no. 89, March 1954, p. 178, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 416^[91]

Urban also answers precisely the hypothesis of chromhidrosis — a rare dermatological condition producing coloured perspiration — by comparing it with a case he knows personally:

"It is likewise false to seek to explain the true bloody sweat of Thérèse Neumann by the term 'Chromohydrosis'. One of my colleagues in Vienna has had this peculiarity for years. But it has a totally different character, it looks like very diluted red ink […] in Thérèse Neumann, it is, without possible dispute, blood." — Professor Hubert Urban, Psyché, no. 89, March 1954, p. 179, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 416-417^[92]

Urban concludes:

"To tell the truth, this is quite another plane of which medicine (at least today) has no knowledge. That is why this discipline can in this case explain nothing but merely describe." — Professor Hubert Urban, Psyché, no. 89, March 1954, pp. 181-182, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 417-418^[93]

The scope of this judgement remains that of a two-day visit. Urban himself calls for new hospital examinations and a medical commission bringing together specialists of differing views.^[94]

The following observations are distinguished by their duration, their object and their transmission.

Photographs of the wounds, stained cloths and blood analyses constitute three categories of exhibits. Boniface describes certain objects seen at Naber's and Wutz's and reproduces two photographic plates; the analyses answer the question of the nature of the blood collected.

What Boniface saw himself in 1955

During his interview of 6 July 1955 with parish priest Naber, Boniface describes a precise material collection:

"In the course of this interview, parish priest Naber showed me striking photos (in unique copies) of Resl's bleeding ecstasies, taken by one of her brothers, and very moving pieces of linen (nightdress, garment, head veil and pillowcase) all impregnated with the blood shed by the stigmatised woman, during the ecstasy of the last Good Friday." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 37^[106]

"I was very impressed, in particular by this […] gauze pad, which had been placed on the wound in the side, and containing an enormous clot of coagulated blood […]." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 37^[107]

The same type of collection is described by Albert-Paul Remisch as early as 1931, at Professor Franz Wutz's, who is said to have built up "a veritable museum of cloths and various garments, bloodied during the Friday ecstasies"^[108], as well as photographs of the feet "which the visitors of Konnersreuth never see"^[109]. The same passage describes a white veil bearing eight stains distributed in three groups, which Wutz connected with three moments of the Passion, specifying that in other years the stains were wider and merged^[110]. A project to film the end of an ecstasy, costed at 3,000 marks in 1932, was never realised for lack of funding^[111].

A published iconography, but little documented

Boniface's book includes two unpaginated photographic plates. The second shows notably an open palm, with a dark area in the centre of the hand. This still view informs on the appearance of the mark, but does not show the beginning of bleeding.^[112]

The first plate shows Thérèse after her recoveries, among flowers and animals, at work, as well as several witnesses. Dark marks are visible on the backs of the hands in several prints.^[113]

The final list of illustrations distributes the credits among Boniface, Anni Spiegel, J.-M. Hœcht, Johannes Augermayr, the Löwenhag-Marktredwitz house, the Theresianum and "Photos X" mentions. These collective credits do not indicate the date of each shot.^[114]

The archives gathered by Johannes Steiner

In 1979, Boniface credits the publisher and biographer Johannes Steiner with gathering the journals, notes and archives of parish priest Naber, Fritz Gerlich and Ferdinand Neumann. He mentions there photographic documentation and tape recordings. This indication concerns the regrouping of the collections at the time of his book.^[115]

Objection 1 — "No observer ever really saw the blood come out of the skin"

This objection is formulated with particular sharpness by Father Josef Hanauer, in a critical work published in 1972:

"Thérèse tore off her skin and […] 'they' then made the wounds thus existing bleed artificially." — Josef Hanauer, Konnersreuth als Testfall, Manz, Munich, 1972, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 445^[116]

"Not a single observer can testify to the flow of blood out of any wound. Only a few claim to have seen the formation of tears of blood." — Josef Hanauer, Konnersreuth als Testfall, Manz, Munich, 1972, p. 94, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 447^[117]

Documentary answer: Hanauer's objection, taken in its strongest formulation, runs directly into the dated and named observations gathered above. Gerlich pinpoints to the minute the beginning of the bleeding of the eyes in September 1927, observed at 25 centimetres, then that of the left hand in the night of 5 to 6 April 1928^[118][119]. Dr Seidl in turn records, in his own report, a minute-by-minute chronology of two nights of observation in July 1927:

"In the night of Thursday 14 to Friday 15-7-1927, in the evening, at 11:43: ecstasy: all at once, quite spontaneously, blood flows out of the left eye, at once used for an analysis […]. Immediately afterwards, blood likewise comes out of the right eye. 12:10: ecstasy: blood flows in greater quantity from both eyes. Duration: 2 minutes. 12:32: the wound of the heart likewise begins to bleed […]." — Dr Otto Seidl, report to the Ordinary of Regensburg, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 447-448^[120]

The record of the night of 21 to 22 July 1927 bears a discrepancy: the mention "11:47" precedes that of "11:27" for the beginning of the bleeding of the side. These printed times prevent a reliable reconstruction of the order of events of that second night; they do not affect the times of the 14–15 July record quoted above.^[121] Beside the Seidl report, Professor Pabstmann describes a progressive opening of the mark of the hand:

"As for her stigmata, I observed them several times from Thursday until Friday afternoon without interruption. I even saw the scar, at first intact and closed by a very thin skin on the back of the hand, then the skin burst and the blood could come out of the wound." — Professor Pabstmann, quoted in Friedrich von Lama and Lavrot, Chronique de Konnersreuth, année 1929, Mulhouse, 1929, p. 17, quotation reproduced by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 514^[122]

Hanauer's absolute assertion — "not a single observer" — thus runs into accounts which describe precisely the passage from closed skin to bleeding. Their value must be weighed witness by witness: the Ewald extract taken up by Klosa remains one and the same testimony, even though quoted in several works.^[123][124]

Objection 2 — "Suggestion or hysteria suffices to produce similar marks"

Elisabeth K.: duration of the lesions and quality of the surveillance

This objection rests on publications attributing the appearance of skin lesions to suggestion. The case most often invoked is that of Elisabeth K., patient of Dr Alfred Lechler^[125], director of the psychiatric clinic of Elbingerode:

"Thus, notably, there was an attempt to compare with the stigmata of Thérèse Neumann certain alterations of the skin, presenting as superficial wounds, which Dr Alfred Leschler […] had succeeded in making appear and disappear, by suggestion, after four years of work under hypnosis, on the hands, feet and side of one of his subjects, an unfortunate neuropath, with a past heavy with accidents, Elisabeth K..." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 334^[126]

Documentary answer: three elements directly limit the scope of this comparison. First, Boniface notes that "Dr Leschler acknowledged, in his book, that the surveillance of Elisabeth K... could not have been sufficient, so that he could not rule out the possibility of deceptive manipulations by his medium"^[127]. Then, the neurologist Jean Lhermitte, in an analysis taken up by Boniface, severely qualifies the result obtained:

"But what poor stigmata: a few epidermal fissures, microscopic suffusions of the eyelids which ceased as soon as the suggestion ended. At the third session, Elisabeth showed on her forehead a few haemorrhagic points, but 48 hours later all trace of the so-called stigmata had vanished." — Jean Lhermitte, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 336^[128]

Babinski: an experiment without skin lesion

A controlled and negative experiment completes the file. The neurologist Joseph Babinski reports having attempted, on a highly suggestible hysterical patient, to reproduce a skin lesion by pure suggestion:

"I sought to reproduce by suggestion cutaneous troubles, which would be very simple, if certain hypnotists are to be believed, and I never succeeded." — Joseph Babinski, Œuvre scientifique. Recueil des principaux travaux, Masson et Cie, 1934, p. 480, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 337^[129]

After suggesting a burn and immobilising the limb under surveillance for forty-eight hours: "I observed on the region under experiment neither the slightest epidermal raising, nor even the slightest redness"^[130]. Babinski also sets out his interpretation of the lesions attributed to hysteria: they "result from the application of an irritant substance, the introduction under the skin of a foreign body, the constriction of a limb by a ligature or some other artifice"^[131] — that is, from a material act, not from mere mental suggestion. This judgement belongs to his historical conception of hysteria; it does not diagnose Thérèse Neumann.

Lhermitte: producing a redness is not enough

Lhermitte formulates the difficulty which remains even granting the hypothesis of lesions produced by suggestion:

"Even had cutaneous ecchymoses been reproduced by pure suggestion, there would remain to be realised symmetrical ecchymoses leading to lasting wounds, resistant to infection for as long as they persist and slow to heal." — Jean Lhermitte, "The medical problem of stigmatisation", Études Carmélitaines, October 1936, p. 71, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 340-341^[132]

The gap concerns the duration, recurrence and appearance of the wounds: the brief marks of Elisabeth K., Babinski's negative experiment and the lasting lesions described in Thérèse Neumann are not three equivalent reproductions of one and the same phenomenon.^{[133][134][135]}

The psychiatrist Hubert Urban, questioned in June 1958 after meeting Thérèse in her family setting, formulates a favourable personal opinion:

"She, I affirm, is incapable of fabricating her phenomena, whether from the psychic or from the patho-physiological point of view." — Professor Hubert Urban, interview of June 1958, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 355-356^[136]

The morphological criteria of his 1954 report — absence of suppuration and of traces of voluntary wounds — are set out above, in the material objection to simulation.^[137]

Objection 3 — "The family refused controls because it had something to hide"

After the 1927 control, no new continuous and protocolled observation of the same type was carried out, despite repeated requests — a fact which critics of the file regularly invoke as a sign of concealment.

Documentary answer: the available documents strongly qualify this reading. According to parish priest Naber, Thérèse herself is said to have personally accepted a proposal of examination in a clinic formulated by the Holy Office; it was her father who opposed it:

"After a few moments Thérèse came and explained to her father with the greatest tranquillity of soul that Rome wanted her to be examined, that she had declared herself in agreement and had signed. Then her father flew into a passion, explaining that it was not going to happen like that." — Parish priest Joseph Naber, letter reproduced by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 490-492^[138]

Naber specifies that the father is then said to have declared himself ready to discuss under conditions, but that these conditions were ultimately not accepted; a second letter from the Holy Office, in a different tone, is then said merely to have invited the diocesan bishop to propose a new examination, without formally ordering him to do so^[139]. For the complete detail of this episode and of the subsequent requests for a second hospital control — notably that proposed by Professor Hubert Urban in his report on his 1944 visit, translated in 1954 — see The Inedia of Thérèse Neumann, where this objection is treated in detail concerning the fast, in the same documentary terms.

Finally, the 1927 manifesto of the Bavarian bishops must be situated exactly, as it is often misinterpreted in one direction or the other:

"By this decision they in no way intended to take a position on the subject of Konnersreuth." — Manifesto of the Bavarian bishops assembled at Freising in 1927, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 493-494^[140]

This formula forbids two equally false readings: presenting the 1927 measure, which limited and regulated visits, as an implicit condemnation of the stigmata; or on the contrary reading into it a recognition. It was a pastoral prudence, distinct from a medical or theological judgement on the authenticity of the phenomenon.

Two visits by a Franciscan doctor

The Franciscan Agostino Gemelli, doctor and rector of the Catholic University of Milan, is said to have come twice to Konnersreuth in 1928:

"It was in these conditions that the famous Franciscan came twice to Konnersreuth, on 23 March and 6 April 1928, assisted by the Jesuit Father Bleyenstein. He inquired at his leisure and insisted on attending the painful ecstasy of Good Friday." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 502^[141]

Boniface reproduces a summary by Bishop Waitz attributing to Gemelli the absence of signs of hysteria and a favourable appreciation of the mystical states. The attribution thus passes via Waitz; it is not a direct quotation from Gemelli's report.^[142]

The diocesan Relatio of 12 October 1928

The most important ecclesial document in the file is a Relatio — an official report — kept in the central archives of the bishopric of Regensburg, composed on the order of Bishop Michael Buchberger and corrected in his own hand:

"This is a 'Relatio' (official report) on Thérèse Neumann, existing in the central archives of the bishopric of Regensburg. This report had been composed on the order of Bishop Buchberger and corrected by his hand. It is dated 12 October 1928 […]. It exists in three forms: as a handwritten Latin text, a typewritten Latin text and a German translation, likewise typewritten. Each of the three texts bears the bishop's handwritten signature." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 507^[143]

Boniface gives extracts from the German translation while flagging the differences from the Latin. The report brings together favourable medical assessments, then explicitly reserves the definitive judgement.^[144][145]

"The doctor observed no sign of hysteria […]. The same doctor who treated her throughout her illness and who knows best her physical and psychic constitution absolutely excludes all fraud and all falsehood in her conduct. He considers the stigmata to be real and believes that the extraordinary manifestations cannot be explained in a purely natural manner." — Relatio of the diocese of Regensburg, 12 October 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 508^[146]

"Father Gemelli, rector of the Catholic University of Milan […] affirmed that the stigmata were not artificial and were not produced by mere suggestion […] and that no tendency to hysteria could be observed." — Relatio of the diocese of Regensburg, 12 October 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 508-509^[147]

The same document concludes, however, with an express call for prudence, which must govern the reading of all that precedes:

"However, judgement cannot yet be passed definitively and, even now, extreme prudence [and] extreme restraint are necessary." — Relatio of the diocese of Regensburg, 12 October 1928, quoted by Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., p. 509^[148]

The variants concern several assessments. The sentence attributing to the attending doctor the absence of signs of hysteria is missing in the Latin; the one attributing to him an explanation going beyond natural causes is crossed out in the typewritten Latin. Concerning Gemelli, the mention of the absence of hysterical tendency appears in the Latin manuscript, but is likewise crossed out in the typewritten text.^[149][150]

The Passion at the centre: the testimony of Titus Brandsma

In his homily delivered at Konnersreuth on 18 September 2022, Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer takes up the spiritual judgement of Saint Titus Brandsma, expressed before doctors at Utrecht on 9 November 1929. Brandsma presents Thérèse as a living reminder of the Passion, without attributing any new revelation to her:

"She proclaims to the whole world the Passion of the Lord." — Saint Titus Brandsma, address of 9 November 1929, quoted by Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer^[151]

This reception underlines the Christian meaning of Thérèse's testimony; it does not replace the medical examination of the wounds nor the judgement of the cause for beatification.

A final point deserves to be treated separately, for it is often quoted out of context. Boniface puts forward an order of magnitude for the weekly blood losses:

"The doctors estimated that she lost about half a litre of blood during the painful ecstasies of ordinary Fridays and much more during those of the Fridays of Lent." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 241-242^[152]

Boniface reports a medical estimate without naming the doctors or giving the method of calculation. The half-litre cannot therefore be equated with a measurement obtained by weighing the cloths or with a weekly clinical series.^[153]

The fame of Konnersreuth quickly went beyond the family circle. Boniface reports crowd figures from the very first years: "the enormous rushes of the first years (3,000 to 5,000 persons a day, cars for kilometres!) were, albeit with great difficulty, stopped by the religious authority"^[154], before a more regulated access in small groups was organised, with "a hundred persons […] waiting their turn to go up, in groups of ten at a time"^[155].

The most detailed account of one particular Friday concerns the thirtieth anniversary of the stigmata, on 30 March 1956:

"Well before eight o'clock, the Neumann house was besieged by a compact crowd estimated at 7 or 8,000 persons […]." — Ennemond Boniface, op. cit., pp. 131–132^[156]

On that day, Naber announced bleeding "less considerable" than usual, except for that of the heart; Boniface adds that "the face of the ecstatic was flooded with tears of blood and her stigmata, without bleeding as abundantly as usual, nevertheless let enough blood ooze out for the sight to be dramatically impressive"^[157]. This testimony shows a real variation of intensity from one year to another — a detail which contradicts the image of a phenomenon always identical with itself, and confirms on the contrary the variability already noted concerning the morphology of the wounds.

The official notice of the diocese of Regensburg presents the mystical phenomena of Thérèse Neumann as facts to be examined in the beatification procedure. It recalls the stigmata, her life of prayer and her service of the sick, without publishing a definitive judgement on the supernatural origin of the wounds.^[158] The opening of a cause authorises the inquiry; it constitutes neither a beatification nor a medical approval of the phenomena.

The diocesan announcement of the opening of the cause is dated 13 February 2005, after the Roman nihil obstat of 21 January 2005 (protocol 2613-1/04). The official acts also reproduce an episcopal decree of 19 March 2004: the decree and the public announcement are therefore two distinct steps.^[159] The diocese still uses the title of Servant of God in a publication of 29 April 2025.^[160]

The medical documents gathered by Boniface do not demonstrate fraud. Martini's negative observation in March 1928 confronts positive observations earlier and later: those of Seidl and Ewald in 1927, of Gerlich in September 1927 and April 1928, then of Froelich and Urban. Their convergence concerns the reality of the blood, the lesions and certain beginnings of bleeding; their interpretations of the origin of these facts differ.^{[161][162][163][164][165][166]}

Thérèse's spiritual orientation appears in a conversation of July 1931 reported by Albert-Paul Remisch. Questioned about a book project concerning her, she asks that Christ be served by telling the truth:

"So not many stories. But the truth, nothing but the truth to serve Him. That is what can be most pleasing to me. I do not count." — Thérèse Neumann, words reported by Albert-Paul Remisch, reproduced by Boniface, p. 33^[167]

Devotion thus relates to the suffering Christ and to charity lived out. Ecclesial discernment keeps together the examination of the phenomena and that of the person, without making adherence to the stigmata a condition of the Catholic faith.

The file of Thérèse Neumann's stigmata rests on a precise chronology — six stages of appearance between 5 March 1926 and 29 March 1929 —, on a coherent anatomical mapping, on a fifteen-day medical control which detected no fraud, and on a series of positive, named and dated observations, by doctors and witnesses who were not all won over in advance to the cause. It also includes a real objection, that of Professor Martini in March 1928, honestly formulated by its own author as a prudent hypothesis rather than as a proof.

The observations gathered establish a file of durably studied lesions and bleeding, without providing a unanimously received medical explanation. The convergence of the testimonies does not turn their authors into a single commission: a look through a magnifying glass, an analysis of a cloth, a two-day visit and a fifteen-day surveillance answer different questions. The Christian meaning of the stigmata remains the reminder of the Passion of Christ, which the diocesan notice associates with prayer and the service of the sick.^{[168][169][170][171]}

• Servant of God Thérèse Neumann — complete biography and current state of the cause for beatification.
• The Inedia of Thérèse Neumann — the abstinence from food and the medical controls.
• The Stigmata of Padre Pio — the medical examinations of the wounds of the canonised Capuchin.
• The Stigmata of Louise Lateau — another 19th-century medical file, with comparable objections.
• The Stigmatics — historical and theological panorama of the phenomenon of stigmatisation.
• Discernment of Supernatural Phenomena — general Catholic criteria of evaluation.