• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Kloptdatwel?

  • Home
  • Onderwerpen
    • (Bij)Geloof
    • Columns
    • Complottheorieën
    • Factchecking
    • Gezondheid
    • Hoax
    • Humor
    • K-d-Weetjes
    • New Age
    • Paranormaal
    • Pseudowetenschap
    • Reclame Code Commissie
    • Skepticisme
    • Skeptics in the Pub
    • Skeptische TV
    • UFO
    • Wetenschap
    • Overig
  • Skeptisch Chatten
  • Werkstuk?
  • Contact
  • Over Kloptdatwel.nl
    • Activiteiten agenda
    • Colofon – (copyright info)
    • Gedragsregels van Kloptdatwel
    • Kloptdatwel in de media
    • Interessante Links
    • Over het Bol.com Partnerprogramma en andere affiliate programma’s.
    • Social media & Twitter
    • Nieuwsbrief
    • Privacybeleid
    • Skeptisch Chatten
      • Skeptisch Chatten (archief 1)
      • Skeptisch Chatten (archief 2)
      • Skeptisch Chatten (archief 3)
      • Skeptisch Chatten (archief 4)
You are here: Home / English translations / Sense and Nonsense about the Sign of the Cross

Sense and Nonsense about the Sign of the Cross

20 August 2016 by Martin Bier 1 Comment

NL-flagWhile I was spending my summer in Poland, someone brought an interesting blog article to my attention. It has now been scientifically proven that making the sign of the cross over an amount of water significantly diminishes the amount of bacterial pathogens in that water. Is the making of the sign of the cross a matter of antibacterial hygiene just as much as it is a matter of piety?

Searching on the internet it soon became apparent that several Polish blogs had reported about this in the past few years. Evidently this is the kind of “novelty” that one needs to fall back on during the slow news season.

The earliest source that I could initially find for all of this was a release from the Russian press agency Interfax. There do not appear to be any articles in any scientific journals. But the physicist behind all of this, Angelina Malakhovskaya, reports about her findings in a book: “How do the Healing Properties of Holy Water, Eastern-Orthodox Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Manifest Themselves?”

The cover of the work that started it all. The name of the author Angelina Malakhovskaya is at the top. The title and the subtitle are About the Secrets of Holy Water and How do the Healing Properties of Holy Water, Eastern-Orthodox Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Manifest Themselves?, respectively. In the parentheses, it reads From the Series: The scientific affirmation of the existence of God, the truth of Eastern Orthodox faith, and the healing powers of the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is published in 2005 in St. Petersburg.
The cover of the work that started it all. The name of the author Angelina Malakhovskaya is at the top. The title and the subtitle are About the Secrets of Holy Water and How do the Healing Properties of Holy Water, Eastern-Orthodox Prayer and the Sign of the Cross Manifest Themselves?, respectively. In the parentheses, it reads From the Series: The scientific affirmation of the existence of God, the truth of Eastern Orthodox faith, and the healing powers of the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is published in 2005 in St. Petersburg.

According to this last webpage Angelina Malakhovskaya was affiliated with the Laboratory for Medical-Biological Technology of the Scientific Research Institute for Industrial and Maritime Medicine in Saint Petersburg. This particular lab no longer exists, but a quick glance at webarchive reveals that their focus was on vague subjects like bioresonance and quantum physiotherapy. It also appears that Angelina is a member of the Alliance of Eastern Orthodox Scientists in Russia.

Antiseptic and Murky

Angelina and her co-workers took water from a well, from a pond, and from a river. Making the sign of the cross would decrease the number of bacterial pathogens by a factor of 7, 10, 100, or 1000. However, if the sign of the cross was made by an infidel, the effect is about 10% less.

The sign of the cross is associated with “The Light.” That’s why also optical properties of water were altered after the sign of the cross is made. The claim is a bit bizarre: over a small range in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, the optical density of the water increases. When an ordinary believer makes the sign, it’s an increase by a factor of 1½. However, in case the sign is made by a cleric, the effect is enhanced and the factor is 2½.

The term “optical density” is just as unusual as it is vague. The term is sometimes used for the refractive index and sometimes for the absorption coefficient. The index of refraction describes how a ray of light changes direction when it goes from one medium to another. It’s why lenses work and it’s standard high school physics. The absorption coefficient indicates what fraction of the light is absorbed by a material when a ray of that light goes through one meter of that material. It is common practice in physics to put the index of refraction and the absorption coefficient together is one so-called complex number.

After some searching I discovered that Angelina’s magic interval in the ultraviolet spectrum runs from a wavelength of 200 nm to a wavelength of 240 nm. The symbol “nm” stands for nanometer. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter. Visible light covers the interval from 400 nm (purple light) to 700 nm (red light). Ultraviolet light has a smaller wavelength than visible light.

The factor of 2½ sounds impressive, but it is not that significant if by “optical density” Angelina means “absorption coefficient.” For light with a wavelength of 200 nm the absorption coefficient is about one. The increase by a factor of 2½ means that a centimeter of water passes 97.5% of the light instead of 99%.

In case “optical density” as used by Angelina refers to “index of refraction,” it would mean that this index increases in value from 1.4 (the “normal” value that is given in the literature) to 3.5 after a sign of the cross by a cleric. The index of refraction of a medium also indicates by what factor the speed of light slows down when it enters that medium from the air. The 2½ therefore means that the speed of light in water would slow down with a factor 3.5 instead of 1.4.

Finally, from a religious perspective it is bizarre that the sign of the cross increases the index of refraction and/or the absorption coefficient. Suppose that the optical density means the absorption coefficient. An increasing absorption of light implies that the cross does not have an illuminating effect, but, instead, makes matters darker and more murky. If the optical density is the index of refraction, then the factor of 2½ means that, after the sign of the cross, “The Light” propagates and spreads with a speed that is a factor of 2½ lower.

Which Sign of the Cross?

In many of the articles and blogs we are told that Angelina’s research also shows that it is important that the sign of the cross is made correctly. A wrong gesture or a carelessly made sign of the cross would have no effect.

In catholic and protestant churches the sign of the cross is generally made with an open right hand. The left shoulder is touched before the right shoulder is touched.
In catholic and protestant churches the sign of the cross is generally made with an open right hand. The left shoulder is touched before the right shoulder is touched.

Here we are running into some intra-Christian controversy. As shown in the illustrations, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church make the sign of the cross in very different ways.

On a Serbian blog of 2008 it is emphasized how Malakhovskaya’s effects only occur when the Eastern Orthodox sequence is carefully followed. If it is only the Eastern Orthodox sign of the cross that has miraculous effects, then the Catholic gestures have to be without any effect. It is peculiar that the Catholic Polish blogosphere has completely overlooked this problem.

 

In the Eastern Orthodox ritual the pinky and the ringfinger of the right hand are folded to the inside. Next, the sign of the cross is made with the thumb, the index finger, and the middle finger. The right shoulder is touched before the left shoulder.
In the Eastern Orthodox ritual the pinky and the ringfinger of the right hand are folded to the inside. Next, the sign of the cross is made with the thumb, the index finger, and the middle finger. The right shoulder is touched before the left shoulder.

About Angelina and her “Book”

Googling the name “Angela Malakhovskaya,” I ran into tens of pages with articles about the scientifically researched effects of the sign of the cross. The articles were in Polish, English, Romanian, Hungarian, and Serbo-Croatian. Trying other transcriptions of the name (Malahovska, Malahovskaja, Malakhovskaja) led to similar results. What I did not find were scientific articles on which Angelina Malakhovskaya was an author or co-author. That is a bit odd for someone who works, or worked, at a scientific institute. I would also have loved to have a look at that book. I was actually ready to order it. But, unfortunately, my googling on the book’s title led to no results.

One does not have to be a pathological skeptic to get suspicious at that point.

Anna Ochab-Marcinek maintains a blog “being a young physicist”. She had written about Angelina’s findings and their proliferation outside Russia. The Russian language uses a Cyrillic alphabet. Therefore Russian websites don’t pop up when one googles with Latin letters. But with Anna’s help I found some Russian websites that shed light on the situation.

In 2010 Grigori Tarashevich wrote a very critical article “Can Eastern Orthodoxy Kill Bacteria?” The subtitle leaves no doubt about Grigori’s conclusion “The author of a spectacular discovery turns out to be a fraud.” He actually called the head of the laboratory where Angelina was supposed to have worked. At the end of the article we read: I managed to get the cell phone number of the head of the laboratory where Angelina worked according to the press. He was actually vacationing in the Tver region at that moment, but he did not mind making a roaming call and he was willing to comment on the unique research of his employee: – What? Angelina Malakhovaskaya? She never worked at our place. But she presented herself everywhere as a member of our lab. She only brings shame to our institute. I know her. She is a very pushy lady. She did some research, but she never got anywhere. Water is an interesting subject, but what Malakhovskaya says, that has nothing to do with science. You know, I got the impression that she … well, I really don’t have the right to say anything about it. After all, I am not a psychiatrist.    

On a 2013 blog by the “tech-nomad” I found a number of scanned pages from Angelina’s book. It was here that I ultimately found out that the magic range in the ultraviolet spectrum was between 200 nm and 240 nm. And here it also became immediately clear why the book had been so hard to find on the internet. It’s nothing more than a stenciled leaflet. There is an actual YouTube video where Angelina reads from her leaflet and provides further explanation.

The Nature of a Miracle

 Angelina’s work is food for thought for those who are philosophically inclined. The title of the aforementioned YouTube video is A Drop of Holy Water Creates a Miracle. Also on the scanned pages, I found the Russian word for “miracle.”

In the 18th century the Scottish philosopher David Hume tried to describe what, from a scientific perspective, exactly constitutes a miracle. A miracle has to involve a violation of laws of nature. If that’s not the case we are simply dealing with everyday reality.

A rock that is falling down is the usual and predictable state of affairs. A rock that should fall down, but, instead, keeps floating without any apparent reason – that would be a miracle. However, suppose you find conditions under which the rock always stays afloat. In that case the state of floating is reproducible. Floating is then no longer miraculous. In that case it would actually be a miracle if the rock falls down under conditions in which it should be floating.

Angelina Malakhovskaya pretends to have discovered a reproducible effect. The word “miracle” should in that situation no longer be used.

As a matter of fact, there should not be a place at all in science for the word “miracle.”

A Fifth Column

Angelina’s research is of a certain kind. A few years ago I ran into an Algerian study that showed how healthier poultry results if chickens are slaughtered while Islamic prayer is recited. It all feels like a merger of religious fervor and bad science. Angelina is a lot like Gladyshev in the famous satire by Vladimir Voinovich “The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin.” The impassioned Gladyshev is intent on crossbreeding tomato and potato plants in order to come to a hybrid that grows tomatoes on top and potatoes at the bottom.

Also from Angelina Malakhovskaya’s booklet. A picture of the author and a description of some of her accomplishments.
Also from Angelina Malakhovskaya’s booklet. A picture of the author and a description of some of her accomplishments.

Angelina, the Algerian research group, and the Catholic Polish bloggers – all of them most certainly operate under the assumption that their published findings will inspire their reading audience to new piousness. But there is good ground to fear that the happy marriage between science and religion that they think they are achieving is a failure from the outset.

Religious ritual consists for a large part of inconveniences, risks, and sacrifices without a rational explanation about any possible benefit. Circumcision, prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, tithing, etc. – these are investments in the company called “God”; investments that are made in the assumption that they will lead to favorable treatment by a supernatural entity. It’s precisely through following a ritual that has no logically reasoned usefulness that one expresses belief in a higher power – a power that is not of this world. With her assertion that making the sign of the cross is something like brushing one’s teeth, i.e. a simple investment in one’s health, Angelina undermines the faith in an influenceable superhuman power. If the making of the sign of the cross is merely a matter of daily hygiene, then nothing has to be “believed” and sacrificed anymore. God may then just as well not exist anymore.

Hollowing out faith from the inside – that’s actually what Angelina, the Algerian researchers, and the Catholic Polish bloggers are doing. Without being aware of it, they are a fifth column for the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

Steun Kloptdatwel

Sense and Nonsense about the Sign of the Cross 3Waardeer je dit artikel? Je kunt onze site steunen met een financiële bijdrage. Dat waarderen wij dan weer! Een donatie kun je doen via dit betaalverzoek (of klik op de afbeelding hiernaast).

NB de rekening staat op naam van Maarten Koller, formeel eigenaar van deze site.

« Previous Entry
Reclame voor geschud water
Next Entry »
Wijziging in commentaarsysteem

Filed Under: English translations Tagged With: geloof, pseudowetenschap, religie

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Constantia Oomen says

    21 August 2016 at 01:46

    Very good to have this in English as well. It would be terrific if everything on kloptdatwel.nl would be available in Dutch and English. ?

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Primary Sidebar

Steun ons via:
Een aankoopbol.com Partner (meer info)
Of een donatie

Schrijf je in voor de nieuwsbrief!

Skeptic RSS feed

  • Skepsis
  • SKEPP
  • SBM
European Skeptics Congress 2022 vindt plaats in september te Wenen
15 May 2022 - Pepijn van Erp

  Het tweejaarlijks georganiseerde congres van de koepel van Europese skeptische organisaties ECSO zal komende keer plaatvinden in Wenen, van 8 t/m 11 september. Een uitgelezen moment om actieve skeptici te onmoeten en te horen waar die zich zoal mee bezighouden in hun landen. Zeker nu het het weer het eerste congres is na het ... Meer lezen Het bericht European Skeptics Congress 2022 vindt plaats in september te Wenen verscheen eerst op Skepsis Blog. [...]

Gauquelin’s Mars Effect
9 March 2022 - Jan Willem Nienhuys
Gauquelin’s Mars Effect

For Dutch version click on flag.   The Mars Effect kept skeptics quite busy for quite some time. One of the amazing things is how easily all kinds of skeptics were fooled and how quickly they launched themselves into investigations without examining properly the source of this effect. Rereading the original articles doesn’t lessen this ... Meer lezen Het bericht Gauquelin’s Mars Effect verscheen eerst op Skepsis Blog. [...]

Skepter 35.1 – themanummer over reuk
26 February 2022 - Pepijn van Erp
Skepter 35.1 – themanummer over reuk

Ruikt de mens wel echt zo slecht als wordt beweerd? Wat is er voor bewijs voor de werkzaamheid van aromatherapie? Welke rol spelen feromonen in ons liefdesleven? Maar we keken ook de documentaires over Jomanda en verdiepten ons in het verband tussen complotdenken en populisme. Het bericht Skepter 35.1 – themanummer over reuk verscheen eerst op Skepsis Blog. [...]

De onzin in HR is nog lang niet dood - Het artikel dat u drie jaar lang niet mocht lezen...
9 May 2022 - Paul De Belder
De onzin in HR is nog lang niet dood - Het artikel dat u drie jaar lang niet mocht lezen...

Twee jaar geleden (maart 2016) gaf Patrick een TED talk over de onzin in human resources. Ondanks het duidelijke succes bij een Human Resources (HR) publiek is daarmee de onzin duidelijk de wereld nog niet uit.  We bespreken in dit artikel één recent én een langlopend voorbeeld van wat je allemaal kunt aantreffen in de HR-wereld, of zakenwereld tout court. Enkele jaren geleden schreef Patrick een kritisch artikel over het Carl Van De Velde Instituut (CVI). Carl Van de Velde (52) leidt het instituut dat naar hem is vernoemd en is naar eigen zeggen een self-made man die zonder hogere studies zich opwerpt als coach of goeroe van mensen die – tsja, snel rijk willen worden… [...]

Sapiens – Een beeldverhaal – Een misleidende verweving van wetenschappelijke feiten en fantasierijke interpretaties
17 May 2022 - Paul De Belder

Fictieve wetenschappers Harari brengt enkele (relatief) nieuwe wetenschappelijke inzichten. We waren niet uniek. Nog niet zo lang geleden leefden we samen met andere moderne mensensoorten, zoals de Neanderthalers en de Denisovamens. De Neanderthaler werd in het verleden schromelijk onderschat, maar blijkt nu erg slim te zijn geweest, met grote survivalskills. Enkel Sapiens overleefde en veroverde de hele wereld. Dat hebben we te danken aan onze taal en het vermogen om mythen en verhalen te creëren die collectieve intelligentie, sociale samenhang en grote samenlevingen mogelijk maakten. Het leidde ook tot grote variëteit in gezins- en samenlevingsvormen en culturele gewoonten. Maar Sapiens ontpopte zich ook tot een intercontinentale seriemoordenaar van andere diersoorten. Harari brengt die inzichten door vier personages als wetenschapper op… [...]

‘Dokter Google is een kwakzalver’
11 May 2022 - tayson

De voorbije twee jaar werden we overspoeld met desinformatie over corona en covid. Nu we in de staart van de pandemie lijken te zitten, is het hopelijk voor iedereen duidelijk dat het virus niet mee surft met de elektromagnetische stralen uit onze smartphone, covid niet onvruchtbaar maakt (tijdens de pandemie werden meer kinderen geboren) en de coronavaccins geen microchips bevatten die onze handel en wandel in kaart brengen. [...]

Big Success for Anti-obesity Drug
24 May 2022 - Harriet Hall

When I saw this headline on an article in The Week magazine, I was impressed. Diet and exercise, when combined with existing obesity drugs, typically result in only a 10% weight loss; this new drug produced a 22.5% weight loss, or about 52 pounds. That sounds fantastic, but my enthusiasm quickly abated as I learned more. In the first place, it was […] The post Big Success for Anti-obesity Drug first appeared on Science-Based Medicine. [...]

The ABIM vs. medical misinformation: Better late than never?
23 May 2022 - David Gorski

Last week, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial by the President of ABIM discussing how the board certification can be taken away from diplomates who spread medical misinformation. Is this too little, too late? The post The ABIM vs. medical misinformation: Better late than never? first appeared on Science-Based Medicine. [...]

Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and COVID
22 May 2022 - Jonathan Howard

Healthcare workers are leaving medicine after coming under attack due to the type of disinformation spread by Objectivists. That's ironic. The post Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and COVID first appeared on Science-Based Medicine. [...]

Recente reacties

  • Renate1 on De linke weekendbijlage (21-2022)En dan krijgen we weer de nodige maffe reacties van warhoofden, bijvoorbeeld over het feit dat de dader een verward
  • Wilma S. on De linke weekendbijlage (21-2022)@Renate1 Ach ja, ik word wel eens doodmoe van dit soort kromme redenaties. Cynische reactie van Chris Klomp n.a.v. een
  • Renate1 on De linke weekendbijlage (21-2022)Ach ja, ik word wel eens doodmoe van dit soort kromme redenaties. En dan wordt er weer geroepen dat een
  • Wilma S. on De linke weekendbijlage (21-2022)@Renate1 Veranderen zal er ook nu niets, want volgens de Republikeinen is het beste middel tegen wapengeweld meer wapens, want
  • Renate1 on De linke weekendbijlage (21-2022)Het gaat mijn verstand ook te boven. Veranderen zal er ook nu niets, want volgens de Republikeinen is het beste

Archief Kloptdatwel.nl

Copyright © 2022 · Metro Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in