Text of Video Above
The First Committee on the visionaries of Medjugorje concluded that:1) The apparitions are neither dream nor hallucination;
2) Ecstasy appears as a state where ordinary physical perceptions are suspended;
3) Ecstasy is not pathological;
4) [ Ecstasy ] is an subjective perception. This perception is more real than the one from the ordinary world;
5) Ecstasy moves the visionaries into a timezone " sui generis ", that is, different from the timezone " of the wristwatches ";
6) Calling ecstasy with other labels ( hallucination, unconscious emerging, ..) means nothing and contradicts scientific objectivity;
7) The negative character of the exams during ecstasy and the coherent reactions of the seers prompt the hypothesis of a spiritual ( and real ) communication between person and person;
8) Catholic theology underlines the particular character of this phenomena.
The Second Committee concluded with certainty that:
1) the seers of Medjugorje, during the apparitions, were in a state of consciousness corresponding to what the catholic mystical theology defines as “ecstasy”; that in this state, they had....
2) the complete loss of explored sensibility (blindness, deafness, dolorific anaesthesia, course and fine tactile anaesthesia);
3) the loss of contact with environment, and
4) very obvious sympathetic hyperactivity (cardiac, respiratory and emotional activation)
The Third Committee on the visionaries of Medjugorje concluded that:
1) the seers enjoy optimal psychophysical health;
2) the seers do not simulate their experience;
3) that ecstasy is not a psychopathologic event and that after 18 years of daily apparitions it has not provoked any damage to the psychophysical health of the seers;
4) that the ecstasies/apparitions observed in Capiago Intimiano in the 1998 were characterized by the same psychophysiology observed in Medjugorje in 1985;
5) that such psychophysiology is the same that has been observed in other ecstatics/seers, therefore so that ecstasy is one state of conscience physiological and not pathological;
6) that, also having obtained with the experiments of hypnosis a result never obtained in the previous experiments (plethysmogram verysimilar to the one of spontaneous ecstasy), still we have no proof that ecstasies and hypnosis are the same thing.