Our Lady of Zeitoun Need Debunking

shawnfrye

New Member
Post presented statements without appropriate links.
I recently made a thread about Our Lady of Assuit. It was my first ever post and I can't thank you guys enough for the feedback. Now, I want to talk about Our Lady of Zeitoun.

Most of the info provided comes from the Wikipedia page on Our Lady of Zeitoun.

Some comes from Travis Dumsday's book on the matter.

Our Lady of Zeitoun was a reported mass Marian apparition that took place in the Zeitoun suburb of Cairo, Egypt. The first apparition was seen by two Muslim bus mechanics, who claimed to see a woman on top of Saint Mary's Coptic Church. One mechanic believed the woman was about to attempt suicide and called the police. A crowd soon gathered and the police asserted that the sighting was merely a reflection of the street lights; a church custodian suggested it was Mary.

The figure began reappearing, sometimes weekly, for about 3 years (1968-1971). Tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people gathered per night to witness the phenomenon. John Jackson interviewed 111 Egyptian Christians who witnessed the apparition, and 90% of them claimed to see a human with a definite shape. Witnesses also claimed to have seen the figure walking, kneeling, blessing the crowd, holding various objects, etc. Other anomalous phenomena occurred; for instance, some witnesses claimed to have seen luminous dove-like objects and unusual cloud phenomena.

There were also several reported healings. A medical commission was set up to investigate these. For example, one of the aforementioned bus mechanics had a gangrenous finger that was supposed to be amputated. When he went to the hospital where his finger was unwrapped, he discovered that the finger was healed. There was also a woman who had serious paralysis in her left leg and could only walk with the help of a stick. When she saw the apparition, she prayed for help and shortly after, she could walk on both legs just fine. Doctors previously found her leg to be incurable but were amazed at its new condition. Furthermore, a medical doctor had a hernia and prayed for a miraculous cure when he saw the apparition. When he arrived home, he had no more hernia. These healings were found in Pearl Zaki's book "Before Our Eyes: The Virgin Mary, Zeitun, Egypt 1968 and 1969."

We do have a secular account given by a professor of anthropology, Cynthia Nelson. She claimed to see intermittent flashes of light and a glow of ambiguous shape through some palm trees. She said the source of the lights was a mystery since the streetlights had been disconnected for several days. I think Nelson's account is ambiguous and weakens my confidence in this being a miracle.

There are photographs of the phenomena, yet they are inconsistent.

There's a photo that shows the figure as being translucent:
IMG_2229.jpeg


But other photos and eyewitness testimony show the figure as being bright and opaque:
IMG_2230.jpeg


IMG_2228.jpeg


There were also luminous dove-like figures in the sky:
IMG_2227.jpeg


IMG_2226.jpeg


IMG_2225.jpeg


Some skeptics have criticized the photos as being poor quality, and I have to agree. There's also no videography or photos on the roof of the church. Nelson noted that photos of the apparition were being sold in the marketplace, which could add an incentive for forgery.

Some have offered a tectonic strain theory to explain the phenomena. They posit that strange lights can appear after earthquakes. Zeitoun did indeed experience tectonic activity prior to the apparitions. The issue is, there isn't a plausible explanation as to why the lights were fixed on the church and not anywhere else.

Could this have been a technological hoax? Some holographic technology was invented before these events took place. But even holograms today are stationary, yet eyewitnesses claim to have seen this figure perform various movements. Perhaps there was some unknown technology used that had this ability? Another issue is that the Egyptian government shut off the power within a 15-mile radius, yet the figure still appeared. Perhaps the source was powered by generators? I also think that most projectors would have streak lights, and the photos don't have that.

The lack of solid photographic evidence, the ambiguous account from our only secular source, and the fact that several people couldn't even identify a human-like figure, weakens by confidence in this being a miracle. But I challenge anyone to provide a plausible explanation for the source of the lights. I think any explanation needs to account for the brightness of the lights, the lights appearing in the sky, the documentation for the miracles, and the fact that the majority of people claimed to see a human-like figure.
 
I think religious "miracles", whether based on reality or misidentification or hoaxes, are probably outside the scope of this forum. We deal more with science-based subject matter.

I'll disagree with you a bit here. While we can't "debunk" a religious experience, we can look at the purported evidence for various occurrences and see what we can come up with. In @shawnfrye other thread, Sitrec was used to show a supposed miraculous light was likely just the moon. So, there is some value in what people here can do, even with supposed religious encounters.

Having said that, this one seems much more anecdotal and vague, with really obscure photos. It's time to cook pizza for dinner here on the west coast, so I'll have to look into it tomorrow.
 
Could this have been a technological hoax? Some holographic technology was invented before these events took place.

The photographs look like early 20th century hoax photographs of ghosts and ectoplasm. The BVM is less distinct than the Cottingley fairies.
No holograms needed, just a darkroom.

Another issue is that the Egyptian government shut off the power within a 15-mile radius
Evidence for this? -From reliable sources, not eccentric blogs or You Tube channels.

Why would the Egyptian government arbitrarily choose a 15-mile (= 24.14 km) radius? Egypt uses metric measurements.

I've cobbled together a very approximate picture of a 15-mile radius circle centred on the Virgin Mary's Coptic Church, Zeitoun.

cairo4.jpg


I do not believe for one minute the Egyptian government would shut down the power for all of Cairo because of a reported Marian apparition.
Nor should anyone else.
I realise some You Tube posts and blogs claim that this happened, while presenting no evidence. If some people believe them, well, that's a shame.
Cairo is not a village.

The Wikipedia article Our Lady of Zeitoun, quoting a book called When Millions Saw Mary, says
External Quote:
No device was found within a radius of fifteen miles capable of projecting the image...
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

This is equally ridiculous. The Egyptian authorities methodically searched the entire Cairo region looking for projectors?
It would be on a similar scale to searching New York or London. It would require a mass lockdown. It is not a realistic proposition.
The Egyptian government had more important concerns in the year following their defeat in the Six-Day War.

The politeness policy limits what I would like to say about these absurd claims of 15-mile radius blackouts/ searches.
 
Last edited:
We do have a secular account given by a professor of anthropology, Cynthia Nelson. She claimed to see intermittent flashes of light and a glow of ambiguous shape through some palm trees. She said the source of the lights was a mystery since the streetlights had been disconnected for several days. I think Nelson's account is ambiguous and weakens my confidence in this being a miracle.
Got a source for that? All I can find from her is this:
External Quote:
In the early days of April, 1968, ten months after the Six-Day War, in a district some fifteen miles north of Cairo there occurred an event that for several months became the focus of attention not only for thousands of Egyptians of different religions and social backgrounds but also hundreds of foreigners, members of the international press, resident scholars and diplomats, representatives of Western Christianity and the perennial tourists. This event, known locally as the Apparition of Zeitoun, involves the alleged multiple appearances of the Virgin Mary on the dome of a Coptic Christian church in the district of Zeitoun. The Copts are an Egyptian Christian minority who are descendants of the original Egyptian population at the time of the Arab conquest in the seventh century and who were never converted to Islam.
Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Worldview , Volume 16 , Issue 9 , September 1973 , pp. 5 - 11
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0084255900019951
-- https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...n-of-zeitoun/790CA1806EB0C929371244686C0F2178

That's a "there are claims", not an "I saw". Full article unavailable, alas, but it might be findable via some anthro connections if it's really worth digging into this sub-Cottingly-fairies-quality hysteria.
 
The Blessed Virgin Mary in the photo has a halo.

Our_Lady_of_Zeitun.jpg


This might be how some believers might imagine her, and it reflects how she has often been portrayed (along with other religious figures) in art.
But halos are a convention of devotional art.

External Quote:
The halo was incorporated into Early Christian art sometime in the 4th century with the earliest iconic images of Christ, initially the only figure shown with one (together with his symbol, the Lamb of God).
Wikipedia, Halo (religious iconography), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(religious_iconography)

There is no mention of halos in the Bible (although Moses and Jesus are described as having shining faces at specific times).
 
Last edited:
A little site housekeeping here. Tl,dr: how to use EX and sources.

@shawnfrye we have a number of practices here we use when talking about various claims. You'll note your Opening Post (OP) now has been tagged as:

"! Post presented statements without appropriate links"

If you are unclear on how to use some of the tools here, there are some guidelines linked below. The most basic and important concepts are using the "EXternal content" (EX) tool and the "NO Click Policy".

The "No Click Policy" means one should not say there is some information in something like a Wikipedia article, and then just expect the reader to go find that information. The burden is on the poster to share the pertinent information AND the source for that information.

When one does provide the relevant information, it is not paraphrased, but copied directly and highlighted as a quote from the source using the EX tool. That way all the readers can see it's not the poster speaking, but a quote from a source.

So, when you posted this:

Most of the info provided comes from the Wikipedia page on Our Lady of Zeitoun.

It is violation of the "No Click Policy" and provides no relevant information to the readers. Around here we quote the source and use the EX tool to show we are quoting, not paraphrasing, and we provided the source. It should look something like this as I copy and paste some relevant information from the Wikipedia article here in my post:


The patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos VI appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate the matter, directed by Bishop Gregorios, bishop of postgraduate studies, Coptic culture and scientific research.[2] On 4 May Pope Kyrillos VI issued an official statement confirming the apparitions.[3] Soon afterward, Egypt's Ministry of Tourism also issued a validation of the sightings, and began printing pamphlets.[4]



Having copied a quote, I then highlight it and then click on the External content tool. The bold arrow in a box in the upper left, like this:

Screenshot 2026-07-22 8.54.57 AM.png


Now my quote is in the box showing it's a quote, with the source:

External Quote:

The patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos VI appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate the matter, directed by Bishop Gregorios, bishop of postgraduate studies, Coptic culture and scientific research.[2] On 4 May Pope Kyrillos VI issued an official statement confirming the apparitions.[3] Soon afterward, Egypt's Ministry of Tourism also issued a validation of the sightings, and began printing pamphlets.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

I have shared important information in a quote and I'm not asking readers to go find this information. I may use bold or underline to highlight something in my quote of particular interest. If so, we tell the readers the bold or emphasis is ours. For example, repeating the above steps, but now adding some bold, my quote might look like this (my bold):

External Quote:

The patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Pope Kyrillos VI appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate the matter, directed by Bishop Gregorios, bishop of postgraduate studies, Coptic culture and scientific research.[2] On 4 May Pope Kyrillos VI issued an official statement confirming the apparitions.[3] Soon afterward, Egypt's Ministry of Tourism also issued a validation of the sightings, and began printing pamphlets.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

I think the fact that the Ministry of Tourism is issuing validations may indicate this is about tourist dollars as much as it is about miraculous apparitions. The quote above, with bold, highlights my argument.

You go on to list a couple of books on the subject and then proceed with what appears to be a paraphrasing of various sources. Books can be tough, but one should always try to include as many direct quotes as possible, again, using the External Content tool as above. One may have to get a Kindle version or type out the direct quote.

Sometimes we do offer an overview of a claim, that may be drawn from various sources as something of a staring point. But when we do, we make it very clear that's what we're doing and then go on to provide evidence for the claims. So, I might say something like: "Here is an overview of this claim, the timeline and other aspects of it so were all on the same page to start our discussion." But again, this would be followed up with actual quotes and sources.

Any questions, feel free to Private Message (PM) me by hovering over my avatar, the picture of the street signs, and you'll see an option to "send direct message".

Links to posting Guidelines. They are found under the "Info" tab at the top of the froum:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-link-policy.5158/

https://www.metabunk.org/forums/how-to.42/
 
Since I violated the posting guidelines I decided to repost this.

Our Lady of Zeitoun was a mass Marian apparition that allegedly occurred in the Zeitoun district of Cairo, during a period of about 3 years starting in 1968.

Here are some photos;
IMG_2229.jpeg


IMG_2230.jpeg


IMG_2228.jpeg


Some photos show luminous dove-like figures:
IMG_2227.jpeg

IMG_2226.jpeg

IMG_2225.jpeg


The photos seem to be inconsistent. The first photo I provided shows a translucent figure, and the two after that show an opaque figure. Some of them might be illustrations.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the only secular account we have access to:

External Quote:
The only secular, and English-language account of the events was provided by Cynthia Nelson, a professor of anthropology at the American University in Cairo. She visited the church site on several occasions over a period of 5 months, including 15 April 1968, another week later near the end of April, and on 1 June 1968. Despite reports of regular appearances of the Virgin Mary, Nelson did not see anything that could be identified clearly as such. Instead she only saw a few "intermittent flashes of light" that she considered to be headlights, and later a glow of ambiguous shape shining through palm trees. "But", she admitted, "the source of the light was a mystery, for the streetlights had been disconnected all around the church for several days."
Could this have been a technological hoax? I think this is the naturalist's best shot. Some holographic technology was invented before these events took place. But I think that most projectors would have streak lights, and the photos don't have that.

I challenge anyone to provide a plausible explanation for the source of the lights.
 
I challenge anyone to provide a plausible explanation for the source of the lights.
"Challenge"? That's not how thing works. What's your claim about those lights? What do you think they are?

For me, they're just light blobs in terrible photographs, coming from any of the numerous possible mundane sources of light which abound everywhere (just as at Aitun), plus the outright possibility of darkroom or other photographic tricks (just as at Aitun). I'm pretty content with that explanation. If you think they're not mundane lights nor tricks, it's up to you to try to prove that.
 
Could this have been a technological hoax? I think this is the naturalist's best shot. Some holographic technology was invented before these events took place. But I think that most projectors would have streak lights, and the photos don't have that.

Once again, as in your other thread about Assuit, you're getting way ahead of everything. First, are you referring to the photos or to Nelson's report of the lights? In either event, there is no need to invoke some "holographic technology". The photos you presented, possibly aside from the first one, are universally of very poor quality. The first thing to note is they are all Black & White (B&W). Is this because of your source, which you don't provide, or are they all originally in B&W?

One would think that if these apparitions began in 1968 and supposedly continued for 3 years, there would have been some color photographs. Even if Zeitoun was considered an impoverished area, there was supposedly large numbers of people showing up from out of town. Surely someone had the ability to take a color photo. The technology for normal people had been around for 30+ years:

External Quote:
In 1935, American Eastman Kodak introduced the first modern "integral tripack" color film and called it Kodachrome,
External Quote:

In 1936, the German Agfa followed with their own integral tripack film, Agfacolor Neu,
External Quote:

Instant color film was introduced by Polaroid in 1963.
External Quote:

By 1960, color was much more common but still tended to be reserved for travel photos and special occasions. Color film and color prints cost several times as much as black-and-white, and taking color snapshots in deep shade or indoors required flashbulbs—an inconvenience and an additional expense. By 1970, prices were dropping, film sensitivity had improved, electronic flash units were replacing flashbulbs, and color had become the norm for snapshot-taking in most families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography

Now color was harder to use in dark conditions and required the use of flash bulbs, which may explain some of the supposed lights. There is also an advantage to using B&W, in that it can be done in one's own darkroom (my bold):

External Quote:

Black-and-white film continued to be used by some photographers who preferred it for aesthetic reasons or who wanted to take pictures by existing light in low-light conditions, which was still difficult to do with color film. They usually did their own developing and printing.
How widespread this practice was in Egypt in the late '60s, I don't know, but going back to Ms. Nelson:

External Quote:

In Cynthia Nelson's report, she noted that many photos and pictures of the apparition were being sold in the marketplace, which could add a financial incentive for forgery.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun

If people wanted to buy photos of the apparition, there will be people to provide photos of the apparition. This is easier if one can produce the photos in their own darkroom. Going back to the wiki article, it describes the photos as more like illustrations:

External Quote:

Photos of the event are numerous, though sometimes inconsistent. Most of the photos are blurry or of poor quality, though some do seem to show the Virgin Mary regardless. Some of them are either illustrations over a less detailed photo, or a complete illustration, depending on the source of the image.[10][11]
Going to footnote #10 above takes us to this clear illustration:

1784755538817.png

https://zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/cwdata/zeitun200212.html?i=1

While footnote #11 takes us to a Parasociology blog post of some sort, that provides what is believed to be the original photo that was then illustrated over to create the one above:

1784755922284.png

https://parasociology.blogspot.com/2013/04/marian-apparitions-at-el-zeitoun-and.html

The photo provided in the OP has some problems of its own:

1784756031204.png


Note that the sky is dark, yet the church and the people in the foreground are fully illuminated. Almost as if they were out in the sun. This could suggest a simple mask style double exposure either in camera, or in a darkroom. A regular photo of the church and people was used and then the glowing figure was added on, along with some supposed illumination to fuzzy up the transition.

As for the other photos:

1784756333404.png
1784756374164.png


1784756443861.png
1784756473286.png

1784756513703.png


These could be anything. Only the 1 shows something recognizable, the church. The rest are just blobs of light. Many of them are so full of noise and grain, they may be extreme close ups of larger images. Some of them just look like scratches in the film emulsion. Again, for something that supposedly carried on for 3 years, this photographic evidence is largely worthless.

And there is certainly no need to invoke a "holographic projector" or anything similar.
 

Trending content

Back
Top