Scientific testing on a wide variety of Eucharistic miracles consistently shows human flesh with blood group AB

Catholic doctrine has always held that, upon consecration at Mass, Christ becomes truly and substantially present in the bread and wine on the altar.
Over the centuries, however, there have been numerous reports of consecrated Hosts literally turning to physical flesh and blood.

One such miracle happened in 8th Century Lanciano, where a priest who was doubting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist saw the bread and wine transform into human flesh and blood as he said the words of consecration.

Over 1,200 years later, that flesh has not decomposed and is still preserved at the Church of San Francesco in the Italian town. Odoardo Linoli, a professor of anatomy, conducted a scientific analysis in 1971 and concluded the flesh was human cardiac tissue of blood group AB. The blood was still fresh, yet contained no trace of preservatives.

The AB blood group, which is relatively uncommon, does indeed keep appearing in reported miracles.

In 1996, a woman approached a priest in a Buenos Aires parish to say she had found a desecrated Host in a candleholder at the back of the church. When the priest put the Host in a glass of water to dissolve, as is specified in canon law, it appeared to turn into a piece of bloody flesh.

Three years later, after the flesh had not decomposed, a certain Bishop Jorge Bergoglio sent a sample for testing in California. The results came back that the blood was group AB, and was indeed human.

Another sample was later to Dr Zugiba of Columbia University, a renowned cardiologist, who concluded the tissue was a fragment of heart muscle that had “been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest”.

A later analysis of the results from the Buenos Aires miracle and that of the Lanciano miracle over a millennium earlier, found the tissue samples had the same DNA.

Meanwhile, tests in the mid-1990s on a third miracle, the Corporal of Bolsena (13th century), also found that traces of blood were group AB, the same result as tests on blood specks on the Shroud of Turin among others.
Of course, this could all just be a massive coincidence, or Dan Brown-style Church conspiracy to plant fresh blood and tissue samples on miracles across the world just before they are tested, but the chances are remote.

As the Church celebrates the feast of Corpus Christi, Catholics should remember this key doctrine of the faith – scientifically verified, it seems.

12 Comments

  • Ed Lim says:

    Tom, I’d been to Lanciano and went to see the old Host in the Church. When I was taking a picture, the Host was pulsating right before my eyes.

  • Ed Lim says:

    Tom, I’d been to Lanciano and went to see the old Host in the Church. When I was taking a picture, the Host was pulsating right before my eyes.

  • Shilo Stigen says:

    Tom, I found the original scientific report on Lanciano here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/2j2j8qalrmcrlb4/Lanciano+Article+16-45-35.pdf
    I had to download it, but it worked, and although the original article is in Italian, there’s an English summary on Page 20 of the PDF (Page 672 of the Journal).
    This article was footnote #4 on Wikipedia’s article “Miracle of Lanciano.” That article has other helpful info for your research, too.
    When I searched for “Linoli O[Author]” in PubMed, it came back with 48 articles published by him, covering various disciplines, so he seems legit to me as a scientist.
    Is this the sort of info you were looking for, Tom?

    • Shilo Stigen says:

      Thanks for the reply, Tom. I agree that “Most illustrious scientist” may be an awkward description of Dr. Linoli, but 48 articles in PubMed is pretty good in my book. I for one don’t have any articles in PubMed 🙂
      In regards to the Buenos Aires miracle scientist (the above article said Zugiba, but I found it elsewhere as Zugibe), here’s a link to Dr. Frederick Zugibe’s PubMed articles (I searched “Zugibe FT [Author]): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zugibe++FT+%5BAuthor%5D
      Dr. Zugibe has 49 PubMed articles where he is listed as an Author, and his articles appear to focus on forensics and autopsies, so he seemed well-qualified to examine a specimen which may be human flesh.
      I actually read the Patheos article you just linked to before I posted yesterday. I also happened to notice (today) that James Engel’s comment on the Patheos article is very similar to mine. It was at the top when I organized them by Best, it had 24 upvotes. That was not my intention, I didn’t even notice it until I looked at the comments for the first time today.
      Tom, I agree that many purported miracles may be fully explained by natural causes, but I disagree that ALL purported miracles may be full explained by natural causes. Do you believe that God exists, Tom, and if you do, do you believe that God is able to perform miracles?

  • Shilo Stigen says:

    Tom, I may have had a previous reply disallowed because it had links, so I have to tell you what I did versus giving you links.
    I found the original 1971 article on Lanciano from Dr. Odoardo Linoli by clicking on footnote #4 on Wikipedia’s article “Miracle of Lanciano.” It was a 22-page PDF download, and although it was mostly in Italian, there’s a few images and graphs, and Page 20 of the PDF (Page 672 of the Journal) had an English summary. It seemed to match what the above article said about Lanciano.
    I also went to PubMed and searched “O Linoli[Author],” and he appeared to have 48 articles to his name, covering a variety of topics over several decades, so he appears to be a legit scientist to me.
    Finally, if you find the website for the National Catholic Register and Search “Bleeding Host Phenomenon,” the first article that comes up from Dec 11 2015 has some helpful info, in my opinion. The Register article talks mostly about the Buenos Aires miracle mentioned above, but it also talks about some purported Eucharistic miracles that were actually ruled out as having natural explanation.
    Is this the sort of info you were looking for, Tom?

  • Blaine says:

    Yes, the Church is ridiculous & teaches nothing but superstitious nonsense yet some are so drawn to it that I see their names commenting on every article I read. Truly amazing, maybe even a miracle.

  • Shilo Stigen says:

    Tom, I’m not sure where Catholic Say will put this comment, but thank you for your gracious reply. I’m sorry about the loss of your mother and the pain that it caused you. I can tell that you went to great lengths in wrestling with questions on life/death/soul/brain, and although I have different conclusions on those topics, I admire your honesty.
    Based on your consideration of the Maryknoll Brotherhood, and the story you shared about your mom, you seem like a compassionate person. How do you account for compassion now that you seemed to have eliminated the possibility of a personal God from your worldview?

  • Blaine says:

    Yes, the Church is ridiculous & teaches nothing but superstitious nonsense yet some are so drawn to it that I see their names commenting on every article I read. Truly amazing, maybe even a miracle.

  • Shilo Stigen says:

    Tom, I’m not sure where Catholic Say will put this comment, but thank you for your gracious reply. I’m sorry about the loss of your mother and the pain that it caused you. I can tell that you went to great lengths in wrestling with questions on life/death/soul/brain, and although I have different conclusions on those topics, I admire your honesty.
    Based on your consideration of the Maryknoll Brotherhood, and the story you shared about your mom, you seem like a compassionate person. How do you account for compassion now that you seemed to have eliminated the possibility of a personal God from your worldview?

    • Shilo Stigen says:

      Hi Tom! Sorry for the slow reply. I’ve read many of your links and done some thinking. I agree with you that people with a greater tendency towards compassion may be naturally more likely to survive and bear children who also tend towards compassion, but I also believe that it is more reasonable to believe that God created nature to function as such, than to believe that this “pro-compassion” function of nature was merely accidental.
      Regarding Darwin’s quote, “those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring,” I looked at the LA Times Zuckerman article, and I found one significant problem with it:
      I compared the least and most religious countries listed by Zuckerman by going to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?year_high_desc=false. The least religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 1.7 (Range 1.2-2.0), whereas the most religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 3.3 (Range 1.8-5.7).
      Furthermore, a brief look at http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/ also shows that the least religious countries are far less restrictive about abortion laws than the most religious countries.
      I acknowledge that other factors brought up by Zuckerman may favor less religious societies, but how can you claim that religion is harmful and detrimental to society when more religious countries have nearly twice as many children than less religious ones?

    • Shilo Stigen says:

      Hi Tom! My last comment is stuck in moderation again, but I’m sorry for the slow reply. I’ve read many of your links and done some thinking. I agree with you that people with a greater tendency towards compassion may be naturally more likely to survive and bear children who also tend towards compassion, but I also propose that it is more reasonable to believe that God created nature to function as such, than to believe that this “pro-compassion” function of nature was merely accidental.
      Regarding Darwin’s quote, “those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring,” I looked at the LA Times Zuckerman article, and I found one significant problem with it:
      I compared the least and most religious countries listed by Zuckerman by going to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?year_high_desc=false. The least religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 1.7 (Range 1.2-2.0), whereas the most religious countries had a 2015 per-woman fertility rate of 3.3 (Range 1.8-5.7). I had to make a spreadsheet to compile the data, but it’s easy to find for individual countries on Zuckerman’s list by just searching for their names on the World Bank website (ex. Ctrl+F, then “Sweden”)
      I acknowledge that other factors brought up by Zuckerman may favor less religious societies, but how can you claim that religion is harmful and detrimental to society when more religious countries have nearly twice as many children than less religious ones?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply