Fraud : Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

THIS IS A BOMBSHELL REVELATION ! [Ed. This news was reported a week ago by Dr. Peter Chojnowski, Blog “RadTrad Thomist”, on August 01, 2018, but has so far had little impact on the Catholic media.]

Fraud : Facial Recognition Technology With 2,400 Picture Comparisons Shows Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

Dr. Peter Chojnowski reports:

Sister Lucy I: Missing
Sister Lucy II: Impostor

I can now release the overall results of the facial recognition tests that have been performed using the most up to date technology available analyzed by the most sophisticated software technicians and organized and analyzed by an expert investigator.

“The only thing similar was the habit” were the words I just heard from the investigator in our phone conversation about the result. More specifics on the technicalities of the result will follow this initial announcement.

On advice, I will not yet reveal the names of the investigators, the names of the companies involved, or the names of the programs being used. They are the best. They are all working on a comprehensive and definite report on the results and this will be released in the coming weeks. I want to avoid any interference in the investigation. After the final facial recognition report is complete, the second phase of the investigation will be launched which will be finding out the identity of the Imposter and finding out what happened to our dear Sister Lucy dos Santos.

More soon.…/fraud-facial-re…


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Fraud : Sister Lucy I (Pre-1958) and Sister Lucy II (Post-1958) are Definitely NOT the Same Person.

  1. Mary Salmond says:

    Definite difference in the teeth, also. Thanks.


  2. John says:

    Hardly a bombshell revelation until the claim is given a credible source.

    They look alike to me apart from a dental job.


  3. There are several videos on the net re the 2 Lucias. Although one of the better videos is from a sedevancant source, if you can tune out the ‘sede ramble’, it does contains good evidence. There are several other documentary style videos not from sedevacantists. I suggest watching and listening to all to become aware of all evidence presented. Ditto for 2 Paul VI’s.


  4. alohalady14 says:

    I definitely believe there was a FAKE St Lucia, and. FAKE Pope Paul VI. The evidence on the internet is just too overwhelming. They say the real Pope Pail VI suffered greatly.


  5. Gertrude says:

    I do not believe that Sister Lucy who, in another life I met in the 60’s is any other than the Lucy who met with Our Blessed Lady at the Cova da Iria. I do wish these conspiracy theories would stop and prayers focused on the message of Fatima.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. ” I do not believe that Sister Lucy who, in another life I met in the 60’s is any other than the Lucy who met with Our Blessed Lady at the Cova da Iria. ”

    I am not so sure that Pope John Paul II agreed with your impression of the Sr. Lucia of the 1960’s.
    By the way, in the 1980’s the Sr. Lucia of the 1960’s said that Our Lady was satisfied with the way the consecration to Russia had been done. There are many who question this alleged information from Our Lady of Fatima per the 1960’s Sister Lucia.


  7. kathleen says:

    This is a fascinating and puzzling enigma, but it now raises a mountain of following questions…
    1. Did Sister Lucy change convents at this time? If not, surely her Carmelite sisters would have immediately noticed the change and reported it? It’s not impossible that a few sisters could have been bribed or threatened to keep quiet about the imposter (for the sake of the Church or some other wild excuse) but not, surely, an entire convent of holy Carmelite nuns who had given their entire lives to God?
    2. Did Sister Lucy ever receive visits from her family? Even if they were not allowed to see her except behind a grail, wouldn’t they have noticed that her voice was different, or her entire manner of expressing herself?
    3. Did Sister Lucy change doctor, confessor, dentist, etcetera, at this time? If not they would all have been accessories to the plot, something very sinister (but not impossible) to imagine.

    However, even to my non-professional eye there do indeed appear to be some very marked differences in the photos between the young Sister Lucy and the older post-1958 Sister Lucy. Whilst it is true that the bad state of her teeth could have been fixed by a good dental job, that could not completely change the shape of her mouth. Pre-1958 Sr. Lucy had a straight upper lip and a notably sagging lower lip, but the post-1958 Sr Lucy photos show her with a totally straight lower lip and a slightly curved upper lip. There are many other strange dissimilar details in her facial features between the two periods, but this (to me) is the most striking.

    In conclusion, I can only add that it is VERY OBVIOUS how our Holy Mother Church, infiltrated by the enemies of Christ, would have greatly desired to replace the real Sister Lucy with a conformist imposter!


  8. Correction…I meant to say Pope John XXIII, but come to thin of it,I would not be surprised if Pope John Paul became suspicious of the 1960’s Lucia especially after her behavior after receiving communion from him in one of the videos.


  9. Reply to Kathleen:
    Sr. Lucia changed religious orders, and convents and cities, after an illness. She was also cut off from
    visitation by her former spiritual director. The quickest over all coverage of these events is on a Sedevacantist site maintained by a religious brother, which is easily found on the net , but which I will not name here.


  10. kathleen says:

    Maureen, thank you. That would certainly explain why none of the sisters at her new convent, or her spiritual director, etc. would have been aware of the changeover. The very idea of such a tremendously evil plan being staged to hide the full revelation of the Third Secret, and all its far reaching implications, should make all faithful Catholics shake in their shoes. (Did not St Padre Pio have visions of the takeover of the Church by Satan at this time, thus devoting all his remaining years to continual prayer and supplications to God? He knew!)

    I shall look up that Sedevacantist source you refer to. You have given the necessary clues to find it.


  11. The Raven says:

    Sorry, but these photos are the same person. She´s had her teeth fixed, but the stuff about her lips is just wrong – look at the photos again.

    And as for sedevacantists, why would any faithful Catholic even consider looking at their material? They are all cranks and no less heterodox than Protestants of any given persuasion (including the Quivering Brethren, Muggletonians, Adamites and Anabaptists).


  12. “And as for sedevacantists, why would any faithful Catholic even consider looking at their material? They are all cranks and no less heterodox than Protestants of any given persuasion (including the Quivering Brethren, Muggletonians, Adamites and Anabaptists).”

    It can be a grave mistake to refuse to evaluate objective data simply because of the faulty reasoning of the messenger on a different topic. The evidence about Sr. Lucia can be also found on various sites that are not sedevacantist, and various Catholics , traditional and otherwise believe there were 2. The video by the sedevacant religious brother presents a good bit of the evidence in one place that one would otherwise have to spent hours watching various videos to assemble. These other sites will most probably show up when the search is begun , some videos concentrate on just one or 2 bits of evidence whereas the sedevacantist brother mentions quite a few in one video. Recall that is was a Protestant lawyer from New Jersey , not a Catholic Biblical scholar who discovered the most indisputable evidence for the truth about what the star of Bethlehem actually was. This is a very interesting video that I would recommend and it was recommended to me over 20 years ago by a faithful Catholic Monsignor and Biblical Scholar.


  13. kathleen says:

    @ Mrs Maureen Avila

    Good reasoning. Just because someone is a Sedevacantist or a Protestant does not automatically imply they cannot reveal the truth on certain matters. (You just have to use your IQ to cut out the wayward rambling.)

    I found the site, Maureen, and listened to the long video (with rather a lot of sedevacantist slandering to block out) and the information relating to the theory of how the switchover of an imposter Sr Lucy replacing the true one would have been orchestrated in 1958. I certainly found these parts very plausible, but for the present, and until hard evidence is found to prove them, it can only stand as “a theory”. The sedevacantist monk also included many interesting facts on the bizarre words and behaviour of the (possible) imposter Sr Lucy that make it hard to reconcile this nun with the saintly nun and visionary who saw and spoke to Our Lady.

    However, what I find most convincing is the detailed and objective investigation by a large group of experts from all walks of life in the study of the physiognomy of the “two Sr Lucy’s”, pre and post 1958. Except for a slight ethnical similarity, there are numerous differences that really do appear to prove that these are two entirely different women!!

    “Faithful” Catholics should not be afraid to defend the truth, even if it means facing up to the hard reality that the Devil, our powerful adversary, is among us in the One True Church.


  14. “However, what I find most convincing is the detailed and objective investigation by a large group of experts from all walks of life in the study of the physiognomy of the “two Sr Lucy’s”, pre and post 1958. Except for a slight ethnical similarity, there are numerous differences that really do appear to prove that these are two entirely different women!!”

    Answer to Kathleen: The physical evidence presented for the 2 Paul VI’s is even more compelling than for Lucia, especially the ear differences in numerous photos which are used to establish identity and ,at least at the time that the differing photos were taken, were impossible to replicate by plastic surgery. More videos seem to be out there from various sources on the Paul VI theory ,than for Sr. Lucia.


  15. The Raven says:

    Ladies “objective data” means something that can be objectively proved and verified.

    The material offered is just a collection of people’s subjective opinions, the very antithesis of objectivity.

    Because it relies so very heavily on opinion, the credentials of the people holding those opinions are in point and are also important. If you are essentially asking me to trust the judgement of a person, I need to be sure that their judgement is reliable!

    If that person holds manifestly erroneous opinions, like sede vacantism, then it is fair to disregard (I) their opinions themselves and (ii) their presentation of other data.

    Could you possibly doubt that sedevacantist websites would escape listing in the Index if the pre-conciliar regime was still in force?


  16. kathleen says:

    @ The Raven

    AFAICS the only “sedevacantist” is the monk Mrs Maureen Avila pointed us to! That is because he is the one who first started the ball rolling by speaking (via video) and writing extensively about the noticeable differences between the facial features and behaviour of the pre 1958 Sr Lucy (i.e., the real one) and the suspected imposter Sr Lucy after that date. Whereas the other websites, including the one linked to in the article, and that have taken up the investigation by dedicating much time and money to discover the truth, are indeed ultra-conservative, yes, but not sedevacantist sites.

    The numerous investigators and experts Dr. Peter Chojnowski employed to study this mystery were wholly objective and unbiased, not any old “people”. According to him they were doing a job, nothing more, and would have nothing to gain by giving a false verdict in their conclusion.


  17. The Raven says:

    Kathleen, I am very sorry, but we have a bunch of claims without anything to back them up: no details of which labs, which technology or anything to give this story any weight.

    All we have is a sede making a frankly stupid claim.

    The fact that this claim was repeated on an orthodox website proves nothing (it’s repeated here for goodness sake!).


  18. kathleen says:

    @ The Raven

    Permit me to repeat: the only sedevacantist site* is the one coming from some obscure monastery Maureen refers to (but did not name, and nor shall I) that appears to be the first to come out publicly with the announcement of the fraud. This possible diabolical plan to replace the holy visionary with a typical ‘spirit-of-Vatican2’ nun was given sufficient credibility by other conservative Catholics, devotees of Fatima (but not sedevacantist themselves) who were already more than suspicious by the extraordinary changes in appearance and demeanour of the post 1958 Sister Lucy.
    * Members of the SSPX are not sedevacantist. The SSPX does not say that the post V2 popes are not true popes, only that they bow to varying degrees of Modernism.

    You say:
    “we have a bunch of claims without anything to back them up: no details of which labs, which technology or anything to give this story any weight.”

    Well, I presume you listened to that powerful interview with Fr Malachi Martin and posted here by our team-mate following this post? Even within the Vatican walls of the 1990s, “where Satan walked the corridors vested in cardinals’ and bishops’ robes”, orthodox, traditional bishops (i.e., true Catholic clergy) had to tread lightly and keep quiet, so great was the danger of retribution if they dared to speak out against the Modernist onslaught being waged against the Church.
    It is therefore understandable that the identity of these many experts who have come to the same startling conclusion, that the pre-1958 Sr Lucy and the post-1958 Sr Lucy ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON, would have to be kept hidden. The revenge of the Freemasons in the Vatican, and the “useful idiots” obeying them, would know no limits if they discovered who they were! Many are now worried for the brave Dr Chojnowski who initiated this dangerous investigation.

    Not only is every detail of Sr Lucy’s physiognomy different (something totally impossible without extensive plastic surgery, and even then, well ….) but ALSO her writing, her expressions, her demeanour and, especially, her behaviour, all radically changed after 1958 from the serious, timid pre 1958 Sister Lucy on the rare occasions she was seen and photographed.

    Finally, and whatever diverse opinion we may hold on this matter, our sole desire should be to get to the bottom of this mystery. I welcome the steps taken to discover the truth whatever the final result may be. (An examination of the DNA of the post-1958 Sr Lucy with the close relatives of pre-1958 Sister Lucy de Santos should reveal it…. But this will not, of course, be made easy to achieve!)

    If the real Sister Lucy was indeed replaced with an imposter ‘nun’ a couple of years before Our Lady told her the real Third Secret had to be revealed (i.e. in 1960), it was clearly because there were those WHO DID NOT WANT IT TO BE KNOWN! They were hellbent on their Freemason path of crippling the true Catholic Church to form their One World Order church (Universalism) and this was a danger to their plans they were not going to permit.


  19. The Raven says:

    Kathleen, the origin of this story is with the sede site (and it’s pretty obvious which bunch of cranks you’re talking about).

    That it’s been picked up by orthodox sites is no surprise: people are desperate to validate their prejudices. In the past this would have gained no traction at all because the originating site would be on the Index and good Catholics would refuse to read it.

    Now we have the absurd spectacle of “traditionalist” websites taking advantage of the VII laxness to read and link to this stuff.

    And all the justifications for not revealing the nature of the investigation undertaken or the identities of the people doing the research sound like garbage: these guys are sedevacantists, the Vatican has no hold over them.

    You keep making the claim that the person in the photos is different. Why? From where I’m sat the evidence of my own eyes shows me that these photos are all of the same person! She’s had her teeth done, but beyond that it’s the same face – same nosr, same cheeks, same eyes and same lips.

    Haven’t you considered that this theory might have an infernal origin? Or at least be nothing more than the vanity of men?


  20. kathleen says:

    @ The Raven

    Dr Peter Chojnowski of the RadTradThomist site that we link to is not a sedevacantist. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?

    You may see the same woman in the photos – okay, that’s your own opinion – but I see two completely different women… yes, even allowing for a dental job (if there was one) and the passage of time.
    Similar nose, but dissimilar nostrils. Different eyes. Different eyebrows. Totally different cheeks, mouth, lips, and very especially the chin! (Even if it were the only contradictory feature, the profile of the sloping inward chin of pre-1958 Sr Lucy, and the big jutting out chin of the post-1958 Sr Lucy is astonishing!)
    Different expression and bearing. And, according to the experts, different handwriting.

    ”Haven’t you considered that this theory might have an infernal origin? Or at least be nothing more than the vanity of men?

    At first I did. No one wants to be taken for a ride. But the photos and videos of Sr Lucy are there; they are not fakes.

    Might it not be the other way round?

    Haven’t you considered the possibility that the inferno’s inmates, so well embedded in the Vatican, have fooled millions of Catholics by planting a grinning, fake, PC and ‘spirit of V2’ conformist imposter to replace the meek, serene and devout real Sister Lucy?

    I only want the truth to be known, whichever of the two theories finally proves to be the right one.


  21. The Raven says:


    I am truly sorry, but this is a ridiculous theory.

    The first link is bad enough, but the second site linked to, Tradition in Action, is particularly risible, claiming changes in the face that simply aren’t there or can be accounted for by aging and (I suspect) the replacement of her teeth with dentures.

    As for the sede link, you told me in one of your comments that “he started the ball rolling”. I took that to mean that this nonsense is the poisoned fruit of that particular rotten tree.

    And I don’t see any evidence of “experts” or money being spent – all I see is some shady amateurs squinting at photos and telling themselves that their pet theory is right.

    And what is “brave” or “dangerous” about this garbage? Dr Chojnowski is not a cleric and doesn’t seem to hold a teaching post at a Catholic institution; are you expecting albino monks to jump him?

    All I can see is a chap with a large “donate” button on his website.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Fille du Fleuve says:

    This is a 50 year old claim (I’m 57, but I’ve seen archives). It keeps cropping up on the internet. If they are truly doing facial recognition using tested software, then I hope they’re using photos taken from the same angle. I’ll tell you, my teeth don’t look like they did in 2014. When the tech asked, “Same length?” I thought she meant same length as my natural teeth. I’ve had to have so much reconstructive work done on my teeth that it totally altered my appearance. People used to recognize me even if they hadn’t seen me since childhood, but after the dental reconstruction people didn’t recognize me after not seeing me for only a few months. My nose is growing, because noses grow. Looking at photos of my grandparents when they were teens, young adults, middle aged, and elderly really shows that the nose changes shape with age — from straight to bulbous. We get old, we look different. And you can’t say bone structure doesn’t change, because people who lose bone mass through osteoporosis of the jaw (which I suffer, thus the dental reconstruction) have a drastically altered appearance with age. I’m not even sure the first picture is of Sr. Lucia, because it doesn’t look like others I’ve seen of her in her younger years. It is, quite frankly, a “tinfoil hat” type of conspiracy claim …. and why? What purpose does it serve? Fatima is APPROVED by the Church! Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for the conversion of sinners and of the world!


  23. kathleen says:

    @ The Raven

    I’m getting very weary of this dispute. As I’ve said before, I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that you see the same woman (Sister Lucy de Santos) in the photographs, but why is it so troubling to you that there are very many Catholics (me included) who do not? I repeat: even though I see here two entirely different ‘Sister Lucys’ (both in physical appearance and in attitude) I only want the truth to be known and if this information that “these are two different women” is proven to be a lie, I will of course accept it.

    However, seeing how very many enemies of Christ have successfully infiltrated the Church hierarchy, fully aware of their power, their evil plans and their determination to let nothing stand in their way (even plotting to get their man on the Chair of Saint Peter to facilitate the downfall of the True Church) I would say it is more than likely that they would have to remove the real Sister Lucy who would have insisted the Third Secret of Fatima be revealed in 1960. This was not done, as we all know. Could it have been because the REAL Third Secret was a warning to do with their very own diabolical attack on Church Magisterial teaching via the horrors inflicted on the Church at and after Vatican Two? Malachi Martin (who had read the full Third Secret) certainly suggests this is the case.

    As for the sede link, you told me in one of your comments that “he started the ball rolling”.

    Correct. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day!
    IOW, you can forget all the other slanderings (“poisoned fruit”) the sedevacantist monk makes; on this possible fraud of the 2 Lucys he is right, and gives the photographical evidence to show why.
    That this was soon after taken up by those who are not sedevacantists, and brought forward to organise a more thorough investigation by carefully chosen experts, is all we need to know.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.


  24. kathleen says:

    @ Fille de Fleuve

    Thanks for giving us your opinion, even though I would question whether our physiognomy really does change as much as you affirm.
    Yes, hair thins, wrinkles appear and skin starts sagging, etcetera, but I have never heard anyone affirm that bone structure alters. If osteoporosis makes bones shrink somewhat, how can the massive square jaw of the post-1958 Sr Lucy have grown so big? To say nothing of her much larger jutting out chin from the sloping inwards chin of the pre-1958 photos!

    A little anecdote…. not long ago my sisters and I were sorting out the boxes of old photos stored in our mother’s house after her death. We came across one amazing photo of our granny (who was probably about 18 to 20 months old at the time) posing with our great granny, her mother, who was pregnant and smiling down at her little daughter. Although we had only known our granny when she was old (she died in her 70s when we were still children) and here she was so very young, we gasped and laughed to see how clearly we could recognise her face!
    That’s not always the case of course, some people’s appearance changes a lot over the years, but there are certain genetic and distinctive attributes that never change without the help of science and surgery, e.g., in the case of Michael Jackson.

    A lot of ink has been spilt in comparing the different physical appearance of Sr Lucy over time before and after 1958, but what (to me) gives even more credibility to a fraudulent switch of women here is the total change of expression, personality and behaviour between the two ‘Sr Lucys’.


    Nobody has asked why it would have been necessary to kill Sr Lucy and replace her with an imposter. Interesting that!
    But there is no need to ask ‘why’, is there?


  25. mmvc says:

    With all the corruption that has emerged from the highest levels in the Vatican over the years, this story of two Sister Lucys no longer seems implausible or even shocking. These days reality often seems stranger than fiction. But as Kathleen said, time will tell. Thorough investigations have already helped rake up all sorts of muck, so good for Dr Peter Chojnowski. Let his work continue.


  26. “Nobody has asked why it would have been necessary to kill Sr Lucy and replace her with an imposter. Interesting that!
    But there is no need to ask ‘why’, is there?

    Strange, I have never even thought of the Lucia 1 dying from anything other than illness since it seems she was ill the before her Priest, spiritual director was informed that he could no longer visit her. Come to think of it, the illness could have been deliberately inflicted. I suppose I am not a well -schooled conspiracy theorist. Lucia was not very old, so I supposed they just took advantage of the moment when she became ill, and worked quickly to replace her. Real conspirators are much more foresighted and calculating than this, so it seems likely they found it necessary to control the time of death and transition by external means. I always found it strange that the Blessed mother mentioned 2 possible dates for the opening of the third secret. Now it seems to make more sense, since the murder would depend upon a conscious choice of some person or persons in the future, whereas a natural death would not.


  27. Josephine Harkay says:

    There are quite a few problems with the two Sister Lucys theory which seemingly cannot be resolved. 1) Let’s say the original Sr. Lucy had her teeth done and after she entered the Carmelites, in 1967 she looked like the very attractive sister in the second photo above. But, in 1967 she was already 60 years old and the sister in the second photo looks very much younger. Did they retouch every wrinkle and shadow in the 60-year old woman’s face? 2) When you compare the second Sr. Lucy’s pretty teeth with the teeth of the third aging Sr. Lucy (not shown), those two sets of teeth are also totally different. The latter’s teeth look like smallish original teeth, not a second set of unattractive dentures. So, logically, the first two Sister Lucys could be the same person, but that person is not identical with the third Sr. Lucy who died in 2005 and will soon be declared a Saint. I did a lot of research on the Internet and came to the conclusion that the third Sr. Lucy must be the real one since she had a beautiful, holy death, calling on Jesus, Mary, and the little shepherds to take her to heaven before she drew her last breath. No dying impostor would fake something like that! And the biggest proof: her blood sister Maria looks very much much like the old Sr. Lucy; the family resemblance is obvious. Here is the mystery: can a person having an oval face and receding chin till 39 and develop later on a projecting chin and a square shaped face, besides having had three different sets of teeth in a lifetime?


  28. Josephine Harkay says:

    I am now absolutely convinced that there was only one Sr. Lucy of Fatima. 1) The young Sr. Lucy in the St. Dorothea order was skinny and had bad teeth which were all pulled and replaced by dentures before 1947 (documented). In all her pictures before 1947 she usually looks somewhat sad because she always wanted to join the Carmelites but was obliged to enter the other order. 2) She finally entered the Carmelites in 1948, a contemplative order, where her complexion lightened because she spent fewer hours outdoors. She also began to put on weight (in old age she was quite heavy) which slowly changed the contours of her face. As I mentioned before, in old age she looked very much like her sister Maria with a square face, strong chin, and thin lips that were curving downwards. The teeth in her old-age photos look like normal teeth, but, obviously, once dentures, always dentures. I found a fully smiling photo of her where she was perhaps 70 years old, and her teeth were a bit shorter than the original pretty dentures. The only logical explanation is that her upper gums were swollen, covering part of the dentures, and dentures do wear off too. And that was only progressing as she got even older till the swollen gums covered almost half of her dentures. (I tried to find out if perhaps she got a second set of dentures some twenty years later that may have looked different, but found no documentation.) It is true that she behaved a bit strange when she received Holy Communion from Pope John Paul II, but old people frequently become a bit childish. Also, there could not have been an impostor Sr. Lucy living in that Carmelite convent for 57 years. She carried out a wide correspondence with many-many people about her visions, her spiritual life, etc. No impostor could have simulated such genuine authenticity.


  29. fernanda antonia ho says:

    I truly believe that there was an impostor Sr Lucia. I say this out of pure innocence. The relics of St. Anthony were brought to Vancouver, BC, Canada a few years ago and I remember looking at the picture of the “fake” Sr Lucia. I was overcome with fear and could not look at her. I did not understand my feelings at the time; I did not understand why. Later, as I was researching the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima for an event, I stumbled upon information about an impostor Sr. Lucia. I even came across a death roll in one of the convents; I have now saved it to my laptop. It clearly states that the real Sr. Lucia passed away decades ago. Perhaps the “fake” Sr Lucia’s remains should be dug up to see if the body has or has not decomposed? I firmly believe that the true Sr. Lucia is a saint and as such her body would not decompose – but where is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. When they found two bodies under a basement in a Vatican building in Rome recently, Lucia and
    Paul VI Immediately came to mind; but if you found a record of Luicia’s death in her convent, then would she not have been buried in a convent graveyard near her sisters in religion?


  31. Fernanda A Ho says:

    Hi Maureen: go to Carmelite sisters record of deaths and look at number 265 – there is a Maria Lucia do Coracao Imaculado (Maria Lucia de Jesus Rosa dos Santos) born in 1907 in Fatima, died in 1949? typo? 1959? (In English Maria Lucia of the Immaculate Heart)


  32. Hello Fernanda: Someone a few years older than I said that Lucia 1’s death was written about in the media and a number of Catholic nuns, now deceased, knew about it; then somehow the reports of Lucia’s death were denied and reprints of the original reports were not available. The date of death of Sister Lucia 1 could possibly be a deliberate misrepresentation if it is false, or the date may be neither, but 1959 seems more likely. That would be near the beginning of the papacy of Pope John XXIII, who did not seem to take Lucia 2 very seriously.


  33. kathleen says:

    How interesting Maureen!

    The evidence towards a possible plot to substitute a conforming-with-V2-ideology, fake Sister Lucy for the real one is mounting, thanks to modern technology. The latest appears to be a close study of the handwriting of the two Sister Lucys. The blog of Dr Peter Chojnowski announced the result HERE: Announcement 2019: Sworn Declaration from Handwriting Analyst Demonstrates that Sister Lucy II was Imposter. Vatican-Released Third Secret text Proven to be Authentic and Consistent with Memoirs of Sister Lucy I.

    (I’m going to get more hassle coming my way for this comment, but all I want is for the truth of this puzzle of the two very different women called: “Sister Lucy I, i.e. pre 1959, and Sister Lucy II, i.e. post 1959”, to be clarified. The implications of an imposter Sister Lucy taking the place of the real saintly Fatima visionary are IMMENSE and will have unprecedented consequences.)


  34. fernanda antonia ho says:

    As I said, I have saved the death roll to my laptop. I don’t think I should copy and paste it here (it is pretty risky), but if Kathleen and/or Maureen would like me to share it, feel free to contact me.


  35. Fernanda A Ho says:

    Hi One and All: I found an “updated” version of moniales defunctae no. 9; the original version was changed! I have the original version! Also, there is an article (all in Portuguese) about the imposter Sr Lucy. Again, if Kathleen and/or Maureen would like to connect with me directly, please feel free to do so.


  36. Fernanda A Ho says:

    Hi One and All: things are getting more interesting as to the roll of deaths; I never noticed it before, but having taken a closer look, Sr Lucy’s original death entry looks like a copy job or cut and paste job . The original date of death as quoted in the original entry was 1949, but it looks like it was copied to the 2004-2005 page; the entry does not align with the others on the page and the typing; furthermore, the words on the first line have shifted – they are not the same as the original entry. My opinion is that the original entry was definitely tempered with!


  37. The Raven says:

    So let’s sum this up:

    • Fernanda has a copy of a document that might be real (although she’s casting doubt on that), might relate to somebody with a similar name and definitely cites the wrong year of death to support the theory;
    • Kathleen has a link to a blog that is asking for money for a team of “experts” who are working tirelessly to confirm his preconceived conclusion/ support his livelihood analyse samples of handwriting (presumably the analysis of photos has been given up as a bad job);
    • Kathleen’s link also contains the admission that the text of the third secret is authentic (I thought I’d remind you of that, as you seem to have elided it).

    I’m not sure how us sceptics about this theory are going to survive being red-pilled like this. (Yes, this is sarcasm).


Comments are closed.