St Padre Pio claimed that God gave him the miracle of the stigmata
But there is only his word for it that there was anything strange about the marks.
The marks were not seen coming or going. It is useless to show wounds and blood. That shows there is something being hidden. Another stigmatic was supervised and never caught out. She was a suspicious character. Imagine what Pio who was never checked on like her would have gotten away with! Pio was definitely lying that he didn't want his wounds photographed. He did and made sure to "accidentally" expose them.
Here is a citation from Joe Nickell.
There is no evidence at all that he had fissures. The doctors who had a good look said the marks were superficial and only one doctor thought - he said thought - that there were holes say in the hands.
Pio was about scabs not wounds.
The side wound was confirmed by all to be skin deep.
There were no real holes in the hands!
See close up!
The picture below is excellent for you can see through the blood crusts and where you would expect to see a hole there is none. The definition of the crust in the palm is too remarkable to happen by accident. He deliberately stained his hands with iodine and blood.
The Changing Wounds!
If the friar exposing his hands in 1918 shows scabs as large as thumbprints which makes us wonder why they were so much bigger years later. And why did he never consent to having the wounds snapped extremely close up?
Pio bends his hand and shows no sign of pain though a hole allegedly goes through his hand! He even bends the hand!!
Look at his hand wounds. Theyshould correspond to a nail going in at the palm and coming out the back and
with the nail entering far below the fingers and sticking to the centre just
like you have the wounds on most crucifixes. They should be in line.The 1918 photo shows his wounds in the centre of the back of his hands. But a photo from decades later of the Stigmatised Right Hand shows that the wound in this hand did not open in the palm where it should have for a man that had nail wounds as if he were crucified.
See Pio's right hand below.
There is no evidence of a wound below. Why does he never get blood on his fingers or thumb? It looks like dried blood mixed with something.
The pic below admittedly does show what seems to be a hole. But it could also be dye! Where was it when the other photographs were taken?
The palm below shows no perforation and the blood is scattered. And where are the drops of blood? Why did Pio never drip?
The picture of Pio blessing the host show that the wound did not open in the palm where you would expect.
