Miracle claims abound, not only at any of various holy shrines but indeed anywhere a religious issue may arise. Here we consider such claims as they apply specifically to photographs and offer a Miracle Photograph Identification Chart.

What Is a Miracle?

Before turning to the subject of miracle photos, we must first consider the meaning of the word miracle. In Latin the word is miraculum, from mirari, “to wonder at.” The term has various definitions; dictionaries tend to describe a miracle as something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature.

However, this is most unsatisfactory because it depends not on positive evidence for some event but on its being inexplicable. Such a claim is therefore based on a logical fallacy called arguing from ignorance, that is, from a lack of knowledge. We cannot insist that we don’t know what caused something and then conclude that therefore we do know it was due to “a miracle from God.” One cannot explain one mystery by invoking another.

We have taken a different approach, avoiding putting the proverbial cart before the horse. That is, we have refused to decide, antecedent to inquiry, whether or not a miracle could exist. We thus try to avoid the approach of “believers” and “debunkers” who may start with a desired or expected answer and work backward to the evidence, picking and choosing. We have rather determined, in our work, to investigate specific cases, trying to uncover the best evidence and let it lead to the most likely solution using established principles of scientific inquiry (see Nickell 2013, 13–16).

‘Angel’ versus ‘Spirit’

Not surprisingly perhaps, a supposed “miracle” photograph may have much in common with a “ghost” photo (the subject of a previous joint effort [Nickell and Biddle 2020]). Indeed, because each is essentially defined by the beholder, who gives a name to the anomaly in question (say, “angel” vs. “spirit”) or to the context (such as “sacred site” vs. “haunted house”), a photo anomaly in one category may be interpreted differently in another.

It is important to note that the earliest practical photographs—daguerreotypes (from 1839), followed by ambrotypes (beginning in 1855), and the misnamed “tintypes” (from 1856)—failed to record any paranormal entities. Then came glass-plate negatives (about 1859), making double imaging possible, and “ghosts” seemed at last ready to materialize and pose before the camera—if that were possible.

Boston photographer William H. Mumler is credited with the discovery. In recycling his glass plates, he began to notice faint extra images—soon determined to have been caused by the failure to thoroughly clean off the previous images. These yielded dim, ghostlike faces or figures in the resulting photographs. Because Spiritualism had become all the rage, Mumler soon began to advertise himself as a spirit photographer. In 1862, he released what he claimed was “the first true photograph of a soul that has passed over” (Mumler 1862; Nickell 1994; for the photograph, see Manseau 2017, 12). (Another Mumler “spirit” photograph—as an engraving from the May 8, 1869, Harper’s Weekly—is shown in Figure 1.)

Photographing ‘Miracles’

At the end of 1889, George Eastman combined his Kodak camera with the development of celluloid roll film to launch the era of popular snapshot photography (Nickell 1994, 25). Now people were clicking shutters everywhere, and all types of anomalies were beginning to appear in their pictures. If the context was religious, then the anomaly—say a faint figure in a church interior—could be interpreted as, for example, the apparition of a saint.

Such figures may be easily caused accidentally. One way that could occur lies in the long exposure needed for the relatively slow film used for dark interiors. With the camera set on a tripod, the photographer would open the lens, then bide his time elsewhere. If someone should walk in and linger for a bit, maybe saying a prayer at the altar, he is likely to be immortalized by the resulting faint image in the photograph as some holy figure, angel, or spirit (Cohen 1984, 250–251; Nickell 1994, 158; Biddle 2007, 43–53). (See our Figure 2.) Another way that effect may be created is with a simple double exposure—either accidental or deliberate (Willin 2008, 24–25). (See our Figure 3.)

Most of today’s paranormal images are produced by modern filmless or digital cameras that began to be common by the mid-1990s. Some of the standbys in “ghost” photographs that may also be responsible for “miracle” photos are the following: so-called “orbs” (caused by droplets of moisture or specks of dust floating in the air, from which the flash rebounds); orb-like effects known as lens flares; the camera-strap effect (and other rebounding of the flash—from fingers, jewelry, hair, and so on, including mist, frosty breath, and cigarette smoke); and still other effects given in our previous “ghost” chart (Nickell and Biddle 2020).

An especially dramatic “miracle” effect consists of light streaks that tend to look mysterious indeed. Occurring usually at night, the effect is of one or more lines of light that run parallel while tracing a zigzag course. What happens is that multiple points of light become lines of light due to a long exposure and movement of the camera. (See Figures 4a and 4b.) Again, as with all such effects, including the familiar “orbs” (Figure 5), what distinguishes the “miracle” from the “ghost” effect is the religious context.

‘Golden Door’ and Other Effects

Just how much the religious setting plays a role is perhaps best illustrated by a particular effect known as the “golden door.” It was especially common at religious sites in the 1990s, although (for reasons that will soon become clear) “miracle” photos of this type only happened with the use of a Polaroid OneStep camera (a fact codiscovered by Georgia Skeptics members Dale Heatherington and Anson Kennedy).

The effect is an arched door shape filled with golden light that occurred whenever the snapshot was made with the camera pointed directly at the sun—or at any very bright light, such as a halogen lamp. Pilgrims visiting Marian apparition sites brought their OneStep cameras in hopes of photographing the phenomenon, believed by many to be the doorway to heaven mentioned in the Bible (Revelation 4:1). In fact, it is simply a picture of the Polaroid OneStep’s own aperture—that is, the doorway into the camera (Nickell 2013, 45, 48). (See Figures 6a and 6b.)

Other photographed “miracles” were touted on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries that aired October 27, 1995, titled “Kentucky Visions.” The show consulted Joe Nickell about the photos, taken at a recent Virgin Mary sighting at a hillside spot in central Kentucky. The photos were taken by a Sunday school teacher who visited the site with eight girls from her class. A producer sent Nickell color photocopies of the pictures to study in advance of the filming. Not surprisingly, one of the photos was of the previously mentioned “golden door,” making clear what type of camera had been used—a fact investigators are not always told.

Of the Sunday school teacher’s other photographs, two are worth mentioning. One was a phenomenon that was being termed “angel wings.” Experimentation proved it was due to light leakage into the Polaroid film pack. Such a pack can be accidentally “riffled” by the thumb on the pack’s insertion into the camera, as determined by experimentation. (See experimental photo made by Joe Nickell in Figures 7a and 7b.)

Experimentation also provided an explanation for the remaining effect, which, apparently, was quite rare. It consisted of a slightly blurry chart superimposed on one picture. At first look, it appeared to have resulted from a double exposure, although a Polaroid OneStep camera should not ordinarily permit that to occur. However, the process of experimentation led to the discovery that a chart was printed on the underside of the topmost card of the film pack (which was meant to protect the pack from light leakage).

A first theory in the experimentation process was that the printed chart had been heavily inked and that that ink had simply offset directly onto the surface of what would be the first photo. However, very careful examination of a successful replication showed that it was not transferred ink but instead a photo of the chart.

What actually happened was that—as with the “angel wings”—light had leaked in between the printed card and (in this instance) the first potential photograph. The light then bounced off the white card and onto the light-sensitized surface of the photo-to-be, thus making an exposure of a portion of the chart. In this way, that image was superimposed on the first photograph from that pack—a type of double exposure after all.

Still Other Effects

Among other potential “miracle” effects is the phenomenon of reflections: an image may be reflected by glass or another shiny surface. This represents a simple way for a transparent “extra”—a face or figure—to be transposed into a scene, whether accidentally or deliberately. Some possible/probable examples are given in The Paranormal Caught on Film (Willin 2008, 30–31, 72–73, 118–119, 138–139).

An especially important source of images in photos—interpretable as ghosts, angels, or whatever—are perceived pictures called simulacra. These offer evidence of the human ability, termed pareidolia, to interpret essentially random patterns—such as ink blots or pictures in clouds—as recognizable images. The most famous example is the face of the man in the moon (Nickell 2013, 52).

In photographs, simulacra are typically searched for (by miracle hopefuls) in the random forms of shadow patterns and mottled areas where blotches may be especially interpretable as facial features. Willin (2008, 64) acknowledges the “vast store of possibilities” for simulacra that include “cloud formations, trees, rocks, wood, flower petals,” and so on. He adds, “Religious imagery appears frequently, with the Virgin Mary and Jesus topping the bill, so to speak. As our brains try to make sense of our surroundings it is to be expected that we seek to translate everything we perceive into known images.” Successes can mean more “snapshot ‘miracles.’”

Hocus-Focus

Finally, we turn from the many accidental effects in photos to various means of deliberately faking an image. Therefore, because “angel” shots are so popular, Willin (2008, 36) urges that we be “very careful with the authenticity” of such photographs.

The same caution should apply to all claimed “ghost” and “miracle” photos. Willin (2007, 127) goes on to say, “In recent years the advent of digital cameras, cameras on mobile phones, the ease of photo-manipulation, and the Internet have vastly proliferated the number of anomalous photographs that crop up, but also make it harder to believe that they are genuine.”

There are even “ghost apps” from smartphones as well as various photoshopping techniques that allow one to cause mischief. No doubt there are even possibilities yet to be devised.

*     *    *

As with our previous treatise on “ghost” photos (Nickell and Biddle 2020), we must note again that such an overview cannot anticipate all possibilities of “miracle” snapshots. Also, we must again observe that with all such “paranormal” pictures we may not know, with any certainty, important aspects of their creation. As these examples should demonstrate, once again, in a given example of some anomaly the least likely explanation is that it represents some supernatural occurrence—if we understand that we live in a real, natural world.

References

Biddle, Kenneth. 2007. Orbs or Dust? A Practical Guide to False-Positive Evidence. N.p.: Paranormal Investigators and Research Association.

Cohen, Daniel. 1984. The Encyclopedia of Ghosts. New York, NY: Dorset Press.

Haining, Peter. 1987. Ghosts: The Illustrated History. Secaucus, NJ: Chartwell.

Manseau, Peter. 2017. The Apparitionists: A Tale of Phantoms, Fraud, Photography, and the Man Who Captured Lincoln’s Ghost. Boston, MA: Haughton Mifflin Harcourts.

Mumler, William H. 1862. Quoted in Haining 1987.

Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 146–159.

———. 2013. The Science of Miracles: Investigating the Incredible. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Nickell, Joe, and Kenny Biddle. 2020. So you have a ghost in your photo. Skeptical Inquirer 44(4) (July/August): 39–43.

Willin, Melvyn. 2007. Ghosts Caught on Film. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles.

———. 2008. The Paranormal Caught on Film. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles.