Agree that the evidence for St. Joseph of Cupertino's levitation is overwhelming, but why opt for a miraculous explanation as opposed to say a parapsychological one?
Hi Ethan, thank you for your comment! Good question. I originally planned to have a section on the parapsychological account, but removed it. To be honest, I don’t know of anyone who has proposed it besides Grosso (and now you, I suppose). I am just very skeptical that there is foundational evidence for such a thing as the parapsychological. It is also very strange that Joseph seems to be an unwilling participant in these levitations, not an agent moving through higher dimensional space or something like that. Lastly, the fact this is occurring in a specifically religious context is, at least in my view, an evidential chip towards a miraculous view over a parapsychological one. I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on this, and if you have a compelling enough reason, I can do a follow up article on the parapsychological account.
Funnily enough, Carlos Eire says he was emailed by someone who claimed to do remote viewing for the CIA after he published They Flew. The remote viewer claimed that there were parallels between what he was doing and what Catholic mystics who claimed to experience bilocation reported. Eire seems to believe that the CIA’s remote viewers were genuinely psychic, and suggests that something similar to what they were doing could be happening with Catholic miracles.
i mean the two are not incompatible. Maybe psychic powers are given to us by god to allow for mystical experiences. Maybe god can miraculously let someone access this latent ability in mystical states
Yes that is fair, although if these things can be accessed apart from God (e.g. by CIA experiments), that seems to bring into doubt the validity of these things being miraculous. Vindicatory miracles especially require that only God could have performed the miracle.
I mean, miraculously access it without having to develop it. Kind of like speaking tongues without learning them. So he’s not causing him to levitate per se, but causing his soul to access a power it naturally has without developing that ability naturally. I mean, if angels can manipulate matter and we have rational, intellectual souls, maybe we can do something similar to angels under the right conditions?
I had the same thought as Ethan—a parapsychological explanation seems like a possibility (though I am no expert).
The advantage of positing a parapsychological mechanism is that it doesn’t require intention like a miracle does. Think of the difference between a tree falling due to wind vs. someone cutting it down with a chainsaw. If it falls because of a person’s actions, we can ask investigatory questions about why (and expect answers). On the other hand, if it was just wind that knocked the tree over, we would expect to find fewer particular reasons since wind is an impersonal force. (Of course God’s sovereignty allows him to use forces of nature.) If this is a miracle, we can ask questions like why did God do this or why did God do this **in this way**? Taking the evidence for levitation as strong, it seems unusual at first glance that the levitation experience appears more in kin with getting blown around by a kind of (supernatural) wind than something like walking on water. The shrieking too seems suggesting of some unknown force (an impersonal force like supernatural gravity) acting on him.
That Joseph was an unwilling subject of levitation actually gives me the opposite impression from yours. What I would expect from a miracle is that either its purpose is (somewhat) clear or the subject has some degree of control. For the first, I’d point to something like the tongues of fire at Pentecost (marker of the entrance of the Spirit), healing of those touched by the apostle’s shadows, or turning the water into wine, where we see a purpose accomplished by the miracles. For the second, I think the pattern of the miraculous we see in scripture leans more on the ‘miracle-worker’ side of things than ‘unwilling conduit of power.’ E.g. Elijah/Elisha, Daniel, apostles, etc. The scriptural witness also teaches us to expect orderliness in the working of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:32-33). All of those things incline me to believe there’s plausibly some other mechanism for Joseph’s levitation than straight direct miracle.
While there is the religious context, I don’t think that’s determinative in the same way that a miraculous healing in Jesus’s name would be because (from what I understand from the article) it seems to be linked to some type of ecstasy/devotion rather than something distinctively Christian. Since there are other religions that claim levitation miracles, it seems at least possible that there’s a common, intensely religious aspect that affects something.
I enjoyed your article, you did a good job of pulling together a large amount of material and presented a compelling argument! I’m interested in your thoughts on this!
First and foremost, thank you for your kind words. I put a lot of work into the article and I've been very pleased with the positive reception!
I have lots of thoughts, but I'll restrict myself to disputing two of the points you raised in reverse order.
1) "it seems to be linked to some type of ecstasy/devotion rather than something distinctively Christian." This seems to miss key features of Joseph's life and the miracles themselves. Note that when the inquest calls Joseph to account for his levitations, his charges are dropped on account of his holiness, that is, his devotion to Christ. Furthermore, I do not make a grand deal of this in the article, but many of Joseph's miracles center around his pious devotion to Our Lady, certainly a Christian distinctive. Lastly, think of the miracle with Johann Frederick. Not only is Joseph levitating, but there are miracles occurring to the Eucharist, a Jesus-centered devotion. I would recommend going back through the biography and levitations and just looking for Christian aspects within them, I think there's a lot there (and a lot I left out!).
2) "That Joseph was an unwilling subject of levitation actually gives me the opposite impression from yours. What I would expect from a miracle is that either its purpose is (somewhat) clear or the subject has some degree of control." It is certainly true that many miracles we witness in the Bible are done with intent. But oddly enough, two of the examples you gave are not done with the intent of the agents. During Pentacost, the Holy Spirit comes down on the Apostles as a violent wind, coming to rest on them. This does not seem to imply the Apostles were willing it directly (though they may participate in it). The same is true for when Peter speaks in tongues. Notice also that as the apostles pass over people with their shadows, it is not the apostles willing that the shadows will heal, but God giving miracles as a sign of their authority. Similarly, I think that God had intent for the miracles Joseph performed, such as converting Johann Frederick. There are also miracles which seem to be performed with Joseph's intent, such as the healing of the mad man.
I think those are good points. I do not have a strong view on the plausibility of parapsychology but I have the vague sense that it could be sort of a wild card in these miracle discussions. It would be interesting to explore more thoroughly the evidence for it and what sorts of phenomena it could plausibly account for if so. It seems as though we have some evidence (though I haven't looked into how strong it is and I know it is contested) for rainbow body phenomena in eastern contexts that Catholics will not want to say is miraculous and thus might have to explain by appealing to parapsychology.
I have also considered doing an analysis of these other levitation claims from non Catholic contexts. Of course, we as Catholics have no trouble making appeals to the demonic, especially when it pertains to the Hindus.
True, though I suppose the applicability of demons will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. It won't be as easy if some of the people associated with this phenomena just unambiguously pass the fruits test.
That a 16th century estatic threw his body in the air or got up on his toes in bouts of fervor is SIGNIFICANTLY more plausible than this person, randomly, was the only person to have been given the miraculous power to fly in human history.
Especially since the accounts that affirm are more along the lines of "this was confirmation God's favor with him. Witnesses saw it" than "OMG this man actually FLEW! OMG!" which would be the response if the accounts were literally accurate.
Actually, the witnesses (especially those of the Inquest), seem to say the opposite. It is not the levitations which validate Joseph as having God’s favor with him, but his own personal holiness.
Getting up on your toes and throwing your body into the air is simply not consistent with the accounts we have. I am not sure how much of my recounting you read, but I include reports in there which the “jumping” and “toe raising” explanations simply can’t account for. Furthermore, Joseph’s own health issues seem to obviously preclude high impact jumping, which we know he did incredibly frequently.
Which supports my point! You see in the literature accounts of supernatural "miracles" almost being a routine occurrence in this time period. That it's his holiness that makes him stand out and folks not literally making him the most popular figure in Western Europe because "OMG this man can fly across rooms", demonstrates he wasn't really flying about.
Respectfully, you come off as unfamiliar with the historical data. Joseph's levitations DID receive the kinds of reactions you are talking about. This can be shown in two ways. First, the spread of his popularity only makes sense on the view that people thought he was levitating. If he was simply a really holy guy, it doesn't make sense why people are basically digging into his cell trying to watch him float. Second of all, the witnesses describe the kind of "WOW" reaction you are describing. See the weeping of Johann Friedrich or the fainting of the wife of the Spanish ambassador. People don't faint at personal holiness.
The point I made in my original comment is that the levitations in and of themselves do not validate Joseph as a saint in the mind of his contemporaries, it is his personal holiness and his levitations jointly that validate him. Furthermore, you present the witness accounts as at least second hand, when we know that we have firsthand testimony from doctors, ambassadors, dukes, and other well educated high class people who met/knew Joseph.
Such reactions are common for people in the midst of estatics; look at the multitudes who faint or weep at various Pentacostal revivals. If people saw someone LITERALLY flying, especially back then, multitudes would've bowed down and worshipped him and he would've become an immediate icon with thousands of followers. But what we see instead is he was more of a sideshow curiosity and often considered to be kind of a nuisance; not the reaction one who could fly would be receiving.
This story is well attested amongst the biographies I source from, and clearly comes from firsthand testimony of the ambassador, his wife, and the rest of the party who were present.
This is a good point. It has been a while since I have done this research, but I seem to remember one of the sources recording it as being attested by those present. Either I misremembered or they misstated. I will correct that. Thanks!
Also, keep in mind that there may be more witnesses who were deposed at other areas, since there were unique interrogations in Assisi, Rome, etc. Just a possibility.
I’m sorry but I really think you are misreading this quote
“Note the use of the word bounding plus the fact that olive trees are typically of low height (described as “short” and “squat” [“Olive” 2017]). Remember too that Joseph was practiced in kneeling for long hours. Besides, bounding upward was one thing, but after coming out of his supposed rapture he had to have help getting down! So the other priest fetched a ladder for the catlike friar.”
Nickell isn't saying that Joseph climbed the tree and then people thought he was flying but is saying that once he jumped up into the tree he needed help climbing back down (which implies he can't fly back down). I don't think he is saying what you claim he is saying.
Nickell is making two separate claims. The first is that Joseph could have bounded up the tree at a speed to convince the other friar that he flew up there. This is why nickell spends time describing the height of the tree. Nickell also thinks it is weird that Joseph needed help down, but it is clear that Joseph was not the agent causing his levitations. Joseph would enter ecstasy before flight, so if the ecstasy ended he would not levitate again.
Is bounding the same thing as climbing? You are saying he claimed Joseph climbed the tree but Nickell never said that. Bounding is more consistent with jumping not climbing.
Also just another note. If you think Nickell claimed that Joseph climbed the tree very fast because Nickell highlighted the word "bounding" than that means that the eyewitness account claimed that Joseph climbed the tree very fast because they were the ones who used the word bounding. All Nickell was doing there was highlighting something the eyewitness himself said and your entire interpretation of Nickell claiming that hinges on that word apparently (obviously I don't think it means climbing and it is describing Joseph going from the ground to the tree branch but nothing in Nickell's description indicates he thinks it means something else).
I have read that article many times and until I read your characterization I read it as him jumping up into the tree (like running and jumping before making the last bigger jump to fly up to the tree branch from the ground). Now even if we go with a different interpretation and it means bounding up the tree that doesn't mean "climbing" it would mean jumping up branches or something. Jumping is part of the definition of bounding and that is not climbing. And keep in mind that Nickell did not come up with this language he is simply highlighting the language used in the eyewitness account he is referring to. So it seems incredibly uncharitable to go from that to claim that he was saying that Joseph climbed a tree very fast just based on the word bounding that isn't even a word he came up with to describe what was happening. And you yourself just admitted you don't know what bounding means here. So I would recommend not making this pretty uncharitable claim about Nickell. It seems like a complete strawman either way.
Sorry but after the Fatima thing you'll have to forgive me for withholding my credulity until Scott Alexander can thoroughly obliterate this with a comprehensive takedown.
"I hope this post doesn’t inspire another round of “miracle believers TOTALLY DEVASTATED by IRREFUTABLE debunking”. I don’t think we have devastated the miracle believers. We have, at best, mildly irritated them. If we are lucky, we have posited a very tenuous, skeletal draft of a materialist explanation of Fatima that does not immediately collapse upon the slightest exposure to the data"- Scott Alexander
From the small amount of research on levitation: whether its Siddhi’s, Sufi’s, Catholic saints or D.D Home they always seem to be associated with mysticism and some kind of spiritual ecstacy. Why not just view them as paranormal events even in the case of Cupertino caused by his intense spirituality. Even when his levitating caused conversions it does not mean its vindicatory since its not neccecarily caused by God. We dont have any examples of God causing levitations in scripture, in fact in early Christianity levitation was something associated with pagans and magicians. In Acts of Peter Simon Magus falls to his death whilst levitating after a prayer from st Peter.
“We don’t have any examples of God causing levitations in scripture”
The ascension and assumptions of Elijah and Enoch? The assumption of Mary? I would take Joseph’s levitations to be microcosms of assumption, something further representing his detachment from material pleasures. I am skeptical of other levitation claims inasmuch as I do not know if they have comparable documentation.
Ascensions and assumptions are vastly different, you can read levitations as mini-assumptions but I think Cupertino's ecstatic levitations fit the tropes of those of other religions better. D.D Home has similar documentation, can be dismissed as demonic but can also be used as a paranormal explanation for your miracles.
Just from a brief perusing of Home's Wikipedia page, it seems like there is good documentation of him being fraudulent. Also, he is communing with the dead in séances, which would increase the prior probability of demonic activity. His mother is a seer as well. Lastly, the character of the levitations are different. They are occurring in dark spaces, with lots of witness priming. Cupertino's levitations are not of this character. They are happening outside, in well lit churches, in front of skeptical witnesses. There also don't appear to be any recorded flights. Also, by the time of Home, we are encountering difficulties where we have new inventions (like theater wire) which would enable him to do trickery. Upon examination, Christian ministers are concluding he is demonically possessed. Seems just very non-comparable.
Read Arthur T's post on him: he did some levitations that seem impossible to explain. Yes, he also did fraudulent activity but it is theoretically possible for amystic who used to earn money doing shows and frauds to come upon paranormal powers. I agree it is not entirely analagous to Cupertino: we need to find someone with better moral fruits for that but considering how many similar tropes his levitations have to other religions im pretty confident something can be found. Its just that Catholics document their miracles better like always
nicely written!
Thank you!
Agree that the evidence for St. Joseph of Cupertino's levitation is overwhelming, but why opt for a miraculous explanation as opposed to say a parapsychological one?
Hi Ethan, thank you for your comment! Good question. I originally planned to have a section on the parapsychological account, but removed it. To be honest, I don’t know of anyone who has proposed it besides Grosso (and now you, I suppose). I am just very skeptical that there is foundational evidence for such a thing as the parapsychological. It is also very strange that Joseph seems to be an unwilling participant in these levitations, not an agent moving through higher dimensional space or something like that. Lastly, the fact this is occurring in a specifically religious context is, at least in my view, an evidential chip towards a miraculous view over a parapsychological one. I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on this, and if you have a compelling enough reason, I can do a follow up article on the parapsychological account.
Funnily enough, Carlos Eire says he was emailed by someone who claimed to do remote viewing for the CIA after he published They Flew. The remote viewer claimed that there were parallels between what he was doing and what Catholic mystics who claimed to experience bilocation reported. Eire seems to believe that the CIA’s remote viewers were genuinely psychic, and suggests that something similar to what they were doing could be happening with Catholic miracles.
He said this near the end of this interview:
https://youtu.be/Dm-xlAHM7Xc?is=4ZBJ8XjU11KJDK_B
i mean the two are not incompatible. Maybe psychic powers are given to us by god to allow for mystical experiences. Maybe god can miraculously let someone access this latent ability in mystical states
Yes that is fair, although if these things can be accessed apart from God (e.g. by CIA experiments), that seems to bring into doubt the validity of these things being miraculous. Vindicatory miracles especially require that only God could have performed the miracle.
I mean, miraculously access it without having to develop it. Kind of like speaking tongues without learning them. So he’s not causing him to levitate per se, but causing his soul to access a power it naturally has without developing that ability naturally. I mean, if angels can manipulate matter and we have rational, intellectual souls, maybe we can do something similar to angels under the right conditions?
That's very interesting, thank you
I had the same thought as Ethan—a parapsychological explanation seems like a possibility (though I am no expert).
The advantage of positing a parapsychological mechanism is that it doesn’t require intention like a miracle does. Think of the difference between a tree falling due to wind vs. someone cutting it down with a chainsaw. If it falls because of a person’s actions, we can ask investigatory questions about why (and expect answers). On the other hand, if it was just wind that knocked the tree over, we would expect to find fewer particular reasons since wind is an impersonal force. (Of course God’s sovereignty allows him to use forces of nature.) If this is a miracle, we can ask questions like why did God do this or why did God do this **in this way**? Taking the evidence for levitation as strong, it seems unusual at first glance that the levitation experience appears more in kin with getting blown around by a kind of (supernatural) wind than something like walking on water. The shrieking too seems suggesting of some unknown force (an impersonal force like supernatural gravity) acting on him.
That Joseph was an unwilling subject of levitation actually gives me the opposite impression from yours. What I would expect from a miracle is that either its purpose is (somewhat) clear or the subject has some degree of control. For the first, I’d point to something like the tongues of fire at Pentecost (marker of the entrance of the Spirit), healing of those touched by the apostle’s shadows, or turning the water into wine, where we see a purpose accomplished by the miracles. For the second, I think the pattern of the miraculous we see in scripture leans more on the ‘miracle-worker’ side of things than ‘unwilling conduit of power.’ E.g. Elijah/Elisha, Daniel, apostles, etc. The scriptural witness also teaches us to expect orderliness in the working of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:32-33). All of those things incline me to believe there’s plausibly some other mechanism for Joseph’s levitation than straight direct miracle.
While there is the religious context, I don’t think that’s determinative in the same way that a miraculous healing in Jesus’s name would be because (from what I understand from the article) it seems to be linked to some type of ecstasy/devotion rather than something distinctively Christian. Since there are other religions that claim levitation miracles, it seems at least possible that there’s a common, intensely religious aspect that affects something.
I enjoyed your article, you did a good job of pulling together a large amount of material and presented a compelling argument! I’m interested in your thoughts on this!
First and foremost, thank you for your kind words. I put a lot of work into the article and I've been very pleased with the positive reception!
I have lots of thoughts, but I'll restrict myself to disputing two of the points you raised in reverse order.
1) "it seems to be linked to some type of ecstasy/devotion rather than something distinctively Christian." This seems to miss key features of Joseph's life and the miracles themselves. Note that when the inquest calls Joseph to account for his levitations, his charges are dropped on account of his holiness, that is, his devotion to Christ. Furthermore, I do not make a grand deal of this in the article, but many of Joseph's miracles center around his pious devotion to Our Lady, certainly a Christian distinctive. Lastly, think of the miracle with Johann Frederick. Not only is Joseph levitating, but there are miracles occurring to the Eucharist, a Jesus-centered devotion. I would recommend going back through the biography and levitations and just looking for Christian aspects within them, I think there's a lot there (and a lot I left out!).
2) "That Joseph was an unwilling subject of levitation actually gives me the opposite impression from yours. What I would expect from a miracle is that either its purpose is (somewhat) clear or the subject has some degree of control." It is certainly true that many miracles we witness in the Bible are done with intent. But oddly enough, two of the examples you gave are not done with the intent of the agents. During Pentacost, the Holy Spirit comes down on the Apostles as a violent wind, coming to rest on them. This does not seem to imply the Apostles were willing it directly (though they may participate in it). The same is true for when Peter speaks in tongues. Notice also that as the apostles pass over people with their shadows, it is not the apostles willing that the shadows will heal, but God giving miracles as a sign of their authority. Similarly, I think that God had intent for the miracles Joseph performed, such as converting Johann Frederick. There are also miracles which seem to be performed with Joseph's intent, such as the healing of the mad man.
Hope this helps!
You're not my Michael M are you?
Lol I don’t believe so
I think those are good points. I do not have a strong view on the plausibility of parapsychology but I have the vague sense that it could be sort of a wild card in these miracle discussions. It would be interesting to explore more thoroughly the evidence for it and what sorts of phenomena it could plausibly account for if so. It seems as though we have some evidence (though I haven't looked into how strong it is and I know it is contested) for rainbow body phenomena in eastern contexts that Catholics will not want to say is miraculous and thus might have to explain by appealing to parapsychology.
I have also considered doing an analysis of these other levitation claims from non Catholic contexts. Of course, we as Catholics have no trouble making appeals to the demonic, especially when it pertains to the Hindus.
True, though I suppose the applicability of demons will have to be assessed on a case by case basis. It won't be as easy if some of the people associated with this phenomena just unambiguously pass the fruits test.
I think actually that Lydia McGrew has some videos on rainbow body. I haven't watched any of it but maybe it's at least a good start
That a 16th century estatic threw his body in the air or got up on his toes in bouts of fervor is SIGNIFICANTLY more plausible than this person, randomly, was the only person to have been given the miraculous power to fly in human history.
Especially since the accounts that affirm are more along the lines of "this was confirmation God's favor with him. Witnesses saw it" than "OMG this man actually FLEW! OMG!" which would be the response if the accounts were literally accurate.
Actually, the witnesses (especially those of the Inquest), seem to say the opposite. It is not the levitations which validate Joseph as having God’s favor with him, but his own personal holiness.
Getting up on your toes and throwing your body into the air is simply not consistent with the accounts we have. I am not sure how much of my recounting you read, but I include reports in there which the “jumping” and “toe raising” explanations simply can’t account for. Furthermore, Joseph’s own health issues seem to obviously preclude high impact jumping, which we know he did incredibly frequently.
Which supports my point! You see in the literature accounts of supernatural "miracles" almost being a routine occurrence in this time period. That it's his holiness that makes him stand out and folks not literally making him the most popular figure in Western Europe because "OMG this man can fly across rooms", demonstrates he wasn't really flying about.
Respectfully, you come off as unfamiliar with the historical data. Joseph's levitations DID receive the kinds of reactions you are talking about. This can be shown in two ways. First, the spread of his popularity only makes sense on the view that people thought he was levitating. If he was simply a really holy guy, it doesn't make sense why people are basically digging into his cell trying to watch him float. Second of all, the witnesses describe the kind of "WOW" reaction you are describing. See the weeping of Johann Friedrich or the fainting of the wife of the Spanish ambassador. People don't faint at personal holiness.
The point I made in my original comment is that the levitations in and of themselves do not validate Joseph as a saint in the mind of his contemporaries, it is his personal holiness and his levitations jointly that validate him. Furthermore, you present the witness accounts as at least second hand, when we know that we have firsthand testimony from doctors, ambassadors, dukes, and other well educated high class people who met/knew Joseph.
Such reactions are common for people in the midst of estatics; look at the multitudes who faint or weep at various Pentacostal revivals. If people saw someone LITERALLY flying, especially back then, multitudes would've bowed down and worshipped him and he would've become an immediate icon with thousands of followers. But what we see instead is he was more of a sideshow curiosity and often considered to be kind of a nuisance; not the reaction one who could fly would be receiving.
This story is well attested amongst the biographies I source from, and clearly comes from firsthand testimony of the ambassador, his wife, and the rest of the party who were present.
This seems to come from two witnesses, 1.32 and 1.33 in https://substack.com/@sophiaintheshell/p-210663015, but the ambassador himself died in 1647, see https://pares.cultura.gob.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/autoridad/47245, while the beatification proceedings started in 1664.
This is a good point. It has been a while since I have done this research, but I seem to remember one of the sources recording it as being attested by those present. Either I misremembered or they misstated. I will correct that. Thanks!
Also, keep in mind that there may be more witnesses who were deposed at other areas, since there were unique interrogations in Assisi, Rome, etc. Just a possibility.
I’m sorry but I really think you are misreading this quote
“Note the use of the word bounding plus the fact that olive trees are typically of low height (described as “short” and “squat” [“Olive” 2017]). Remember too that Joseph was practiced in kneeling for long hours. Besides, bounding upward was one thing, but after coming out of his supposed rapture he had to have help getting down! So the other priest fetched a ladder for the catlike friar.”
Nickell isn't saying that Joseph climbed the tree and then people thought he was flying but is saying that once he jumped up into the tree he needed help climbing back down (which implies he can't fly back down). I don't think he is saying what you claim he is saying.
Nickell is making two separate claims. The first is that Joseph could have bounded up the tree at a speed to convince the other friar that he flew up there. This is why nickell spends time describing the height of the tree. Nickell also thinks it is weird that Joseph needed help down, but it is clear that Joseph was not the agent causing his levitations. Joseph would enter ecstasy before flight, so if the ecstasy ended he would not levitate again.
Is bounding the same thing as climbing? You are saying he claimed Joseph climbed the tree but Nickell never said that. Bounding is more consistent with jumping not climbing.
Also, under your interpretation, is Nickell saying that Joseph jumped on to a branch and did no climbing at all?
It isn’t exactly clear to me what bounding means. Either way the explanation clearly fails.
Also just another note. If you think Nickell claimed that Joseph climbed the tree very fast because Nickell highlighted the word "bounding" than that means that the eyewitness account claimed that Joseph climbed the tree very fast because they were the ones who used the word bounding. All Nickell was doing there was highlighting something the eyewitness himself said and your entire interpretation of Nickell claiming that hinges on that word apparently (obviously I don't think it means climbing and it is describing Joseph going from the ground to the tree branch but nothing in Nickell's description indicates he thinks it means something else).
I have read that article many times and until I read your characterization I read it as him jumping up into the tree (like running and jumping before making the last bigger jump to fly up to the tree branch from the ground). Now even if we go with a different interpretation and it means bounding up the tree that doesn't mean "climbing" it would mean jumping up branches or something. Jumping is part of the definition of bounding and that is not climbing. And keep in mind that Nickell did not come up with this language he is simply highlighting the language used in the eyewitness account he is referring to. So it seems incredibly uncharitable to go from that to claim that he was saying that Joseph climbed a tree very fast just based on the word bounding that isn't even a word he came up with to describe what was happening. And you yourself just admitted you don't know what bounding means here. So I would recommend not making this pretty uncharitable claim about Nickell. It seems like a complete strawman either way.
Sorry but after the Fatima thing you'll have to forgive me for withholding my credulity until Scott Alexander can thoroughly obliterate this with a comprehensive takedown.
"I hope this post doesn’t inspire another round of “miracle believers TOTALLY DEVASTATED by IRREFUTABLE debunking”. I don’t think we have devastated the miracle believers. We have, at best, mildly irritated them. If we are lucky, we have posited a very tenuous, skeletal draft of a materialist explanation of Fatima that does not immediately collapse upon the slightest exposure to the data"- Scott Alexander
From the small amount of research on levitation: whether its Siddhi’s, Sufi’s, Catholic saints or D.D Home they always seem to be associated with mysticism and some kind of spiritual ecstacy. Why not just view them as paranormal events even in the case of Cupertino caused by his intense spirituality. Even when his levitating caused conversions it does not mean its vindicatory since its not neccecarily caused by God. We dont have any examples of God causing levitations in scripture, in fact in early Christianity levitation was something associated with pagans and magicians. In Acts of Peter Simon Magus falls to his death whilst levitating after a prayer from st Peter.
“We don’t have any examples of God causing levitations in scripture”
The ascension and assumptions of Elijah and Enoch? The assumption of Mary? I would take Joseph’s levitations to be microcosms of assumption, something further representing his detachment from material pleasures. I am skeptical of other levitation claims inasmuch as I do not know if they have comparable documentation.
Ascensions and assumptions are vastly different, you can read levitations as mini-assumptions but I think Cupertino's ecstatic levitations fit the tropes of those of other religions better. D.D Home has similar documentation, can be dismissed as demonic but can also be used as a paranormal explanation for your miracles.
Just from a brief perusing of Home's Wikipedia page, it seems like there is good documentation of him being fraudulent. Also, he is communing with the dead in séances, which would increase the prior probability of demonic activity. His mother is a seer as well. Lastly, the character of the levitations are different. They are occurring in dark spaces, with lots of witness priming. Cupertino's levitations are not of this character. They are happening outside, in well lit churches, in front of skeptical witnesses. There also don't appear to be any recorded flights. Also, by the time of Home, we are encountering difficulties where we have new inventions (like theater wire) which would enable him to do trickery. Upon examination, Christian ministers are concluding he is demonically possessed. Seems just very non-comparable.
Read Arthur T's post on him: he did some levitations that seem impossible to explain. Yes, he also did fraudulent activity but it is theoretically possible for amystic who used to earn money doing shows and frauds to come upon paranormal powers. I agree it is not entirely analagous to Cupertino: we need to find someone with better moral fruits for that but considering how many similar tropes his levitations have to other religions im pretty confident something can be found. Its just that Catholics document their miracles better like always