Talk:Our Lady of Akita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Irrelevant information[edit]

I also deleted the section about the earthquake. It is in no way related to the topic and the text doesn't even make any attempt to relate it. paigeoliver on — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section about the March 2011 earthquake for NPOV. It appears to be an attempt to link the earthquake to the prophecies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markyw (talkcontribs) 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am once again deleting the section about the March 2011 earthquake. It has no more relevance to this article than the fact that Akita is known for inago, a sweet teriyaki-like dish made of grasshoppers cooked in sake, or that Akita is the original home of the Akita dog (Akita inu), the famously loyal dog of Hachiko fame. It would be more suited to the Akita Prefecture stub. History2007 is simply trying to create the impression that the statue prophesied the earthquake. It did not.--Markyw (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is certainly "your opinion". However, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO you should not delete referenced text until you have discussed it and obtained consensus for doing so. We obviously disagree, but you should leave the "status quo" while discussions proceed. Hence I will restore it and then we can discuss. Do not revert again while discussions take place. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I see no connection between the shrine and the 2011 Earthquake & Tsunami. I move to delete the section. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the Catholic News Service and USA Today articles[edit]

The deletion of those sources was suggested by Markyw based on the assessment that they are not relevant to this page. So let us ask the questions:

  • Are these two sources WP:RS sources? I think it is clear that these are both WP:RS sources since they are both widely used in Wikipedia.
  • Do these sources mention the "subject this article"? Yes, both sources mention the reported apparition on which this page is based. There is no dispute that both sources mention the apparition.
  • Can and should WP:RS sources that mention the topic of an article be mentioned in the article? Absolutely. Per WP:TPA we can/should explore "every aspect" that relates to the topic. WP:TPA specifically states that an article can and should "Acknowledge and explore all aspects of the subject". Hence this aspect of the subject can and should be explored.

Therefore, any claim that these sources "do not relate to the article" is not valid. Moreover teh current article text does not claim any implication between the two events, but simply reports an aspect that was reported in the press.

Furthermore, any claim that this material should move to the page on Akita is not viable, given that the news articles have a specifically "religious tone" and pertain to a religious page, not a page about the municipality. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Vatican approval[edit]

Oct 13, I double checked the EWTN source, and as of Nov 2011 they have added a note that they do not think Ratzinger approved it, but that Ito's approval still stands at the local bishop level. I changed the templates so Akita does not show as a Vatican approved item. However, "" is absolutely not a WP:RS source and can not be used, even when it is quoting 30 days. So please find other sources, else we will just have to use the updated EWTN statement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have since referenced Miracle Hunter, which gives more information on the matter.Oct13 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry. Miracle Hunter is an absolute no-no. It is totally non-WP:RS, run by who knows... and full f other errors. Your initial information resulted in my rechecking EWTN and they had changed their position in Nov 2011, but these other sites are not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
What errors are on the site? Oct13 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In case you're interested, this combox includes a discussion of Akita's status (approved or condemned). Oct13 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Those are all non-WP:RS sites. So their discussions can not be used in Wikipedia. So what is clear is that based on EWTN, the only approval is from Ito, and not Ratzinger. History2007 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What errors are on Miracle Hunter? As for it being non-WP: I disagree. It includes two Church letters, which I referenced. I'm reverting the changes as such. Oct13 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is beginning to be a a waste of time. I have been aware of that site for several years. Just ask yourself the question:

  • Who operates Any clue from the website? None.
"Michael O'Neill, creator of, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None.
To give one example: The Church letters I have been referring to all along. Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RS page states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

It then says:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors. is a website operated by a group of "unknown people". It is not a WP:RS website. You can waste a day on WP:RSN and ask, or take my word for it. I do know the rules. It is NOT WP:RS. Period. History2007 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's it, I'm getting an admin. Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you have attracted my attention by inappropriately attempting to get admins involved in this content dispute. Therefore I, as a non-admin but concerned editor, remind you, Oct13, that you need to review the policy WP:RS and understand what self-published sources are and those with no discernible editorial oversight. These are not considered reliable sources for the claims you are trying to make. We will continue to remove your claims until you can cite reliable secondary sources such as news articles. Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oct13, I think you have good intentions, but may be somewhat new to the issues. In general, WP:ANI actions are needed when there are major issues, not these types of reference related items, as Elizium correctly pointed out. However, I would encourage you to not to get discouraged, but just get to know WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Truth and the specific noticeboards such as WP:RSN which deal with specific issues - that was why I suggested that board first. In any case, please do continue to look for sources, and add material to various articles, per WP:V. Your initial suggestion did result in my rechecking EWTN and correcting things based on that. And I would also encourage you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and get involved in various topics, given that as stated here we do need more active editors. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


To quote:

" is a tertiary site, presenting a collection of letters with secondary sources cited. In the instance of Akita, a letter from Bishop Ito is cited to Fukushima, Francis Mutsuo. Akita: Mother of God as CoRedemptrix. Modern Miracles of Holy Eucharist, Publishing Company (July 1997); a letter from the Apostlic Nuncio in Tokyo is cited to Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610. These sources themselves should be verified and vetted as WP:RS or non-RS as the case may be. It cannot be permitted to use directly, as it lacks editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)"

From: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct13 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is irrelevant and doesn't comply to wikipedia standards[edit]

"Facts" and referenced only with books by christian apologetic authors and not one scientific paper reviewed by peers, in other words: the Vatican approved the "miracle" but it doesn't mean that the scientific community approves this "miracle". Approved by the Vatican means what it means nothing else, it doesn't mean in any way that the "tears" are really tears, it only means that FOR cathiolics ONLY , they are considerted genuine tears and ONLY for catholics. This whole article is ridden with apologetic sentences and fake truths which do not comply with a neutral tone. It's like saying "Jesus resurrected" and putting a ref which would be a quote from the bible or from a tome of medieval theology. Putting such a ref would legitimate the belief amongst the religious community who considers it real but such litterary references do not prove in any way whatsoever the scientific reality of the matter, thus in absence of scientific proof there is NOTHING WRONG in writing "claimed" or "alleged" ion front of the word "tears" in the case of this article. Just wake up and keep a NON RELIGIOUS and NEUTRAL tone on wikipedia, guys. Enough bullshit with refs that do not prove anything but just relate the fact that the Vatican approved a given "miracle" and that the catholic community thus believes in it, ALONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that there are significant neutrality problems, but disagree that the article itself is problematic. More balance is needed. Flagging NPOV.

RealityApologist (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: Missing prophecy?[edit]

The Fatima article links here regarding supposedly shared visions of internal corruption of the church. If something is missing, we should at least acknowledge that; if some claim the page's current content are the entirety of the message & others claim there is more, we should at least acknowledge that.  — LlywelynII 18:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


This page seems like a significant POV problem. Attributions of miracles are reported as undisputed fact several times, which itself seems suspect. In addition, the majority of references are to a single source of very questionable neutrality. No opposing view points are presented, even for obviously controversial statements.

RealityApologist (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, there's nothing supporting the claim that statues cried on national television except for a Catholic religious source. I saw a similar problem on the article Stigmata, which I tried to make more nuetral. A lot of these "miracles" articles really need to be looked at though. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Also agree, and happy its not just me. I had to double check I was reading a WP article, and not one of the many Christian websites reporting miracles. This was because this article does not even contain one sentence casting doubt on this alleged miracle, i.e. that there has been no scientific validation, or verification, etc, or any critics voices to balance this. (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to add scientific evidence and correct uncited false information. When I add information confirmed as accurate from multiple from reliable sources, it disappears. I consulted a Wiki expert and he recommended that I make a comment on this talk page. There was a formal 11 year investigation and independent scientific evidence to support the Our Lady of Akita miracles. Rev. Teiji Yasuda explains in Akita: The Messages and Tears of Mary that the tears and blood from the statue were tested and analyzed by the University of Akita Department of Forensic Medicine. Professor Sagisaka, who led the team, confirmed in writing that the tears were of human discharge. The statements from non-Catholics and Catholics confirming witnessing the miracles were videotaped as part of the historical record and are made available in the 2015 documentary Akita and the Fatima Secret. Large numbers witnessed the phenomenon including dignitaries from Akita who were Buddhist. One example is Caisson Makudo, a member of the Japanese Parliament and Akita’s city council. He witnessed the tears with the Buddhist mayor of Akita. He reported: "One day when I took the mayor there we were present when a residue showed tears had just fallen. There was a tear drop here and around here. I asked the mayor to come and see. I can say I saw tears that day. They did not roll down, they were more like drops. Drops here, and here as well." Akita is about much more than a statue with tears and blood. The miraculous events included Sister Agnes Sasagawa receiving messages from the Blessed Virgin to help people amend their lives. As a published author I this topic , I I have various reliable sources for the above but know they are explained in the book approved by Bishop Ito with the title "Akita: The Tears and Messages of Mary." Please write or call me at 530-554-7061 if anyone needs help finding reliable sources for the Our Lady of Akita miracles. Ddionisi (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)David Dionisi, President of the Teach Peace FoundationDdionisi (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ddionisi: The problem is you keep citing sources published by your Foundation, which is a clear Conflict of Interest, see WP:COI, as well as what appears to be a similar organization (101 Foundation). Neither of these sources look to be reliable Sro23 (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
From David Dionisi: I feel it is important to add that the 101 Foundation is a 30+ year non-profit formed to provide accurate information about Our Lady of Akita. The name 101 Foundation comes from the number of times the statue of the Blessed Virgin in Akita cried. I have no conflict of interest with this organization but do lead the Teach Peace Foundation. The Teach Peace Foundation is a 10+ year non-profit focused on promoting the truth about Our Lady of Akita and Our Lady of Fatima as Our Lady is the solution for world peace. This non-profit organization and the 101 Foundation have proven track records of expertise with published books and films on Our Lady of Akita. How you can cite internet articles and incorrect translations written by people who have never even spoken with Sister Agnes Sasagawa as more reliable should prompt you to think. Is the claim that any of the internet articles you are citing really more reliable than the actual first-hand witnesses to the miracles, the person who was entrusted with the authority to authenticate the miracles, the real organizations working for decades to help people know the truth and the published experts in Japan (e.g., my work not able to be shown on Wiki due to the claim of conflict of interest). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddionisi (talkcontribs) 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
From David Dionisi: I am happy to provide sources that are separate from the foundation that I lead. I just made edits to the page so that this conflict of interest issue is addressed which I find funny in a way since so much of the comments made are by anonyomous people. My work on Akita is published by in Japan by a Catholic Publishing Company and does add value to the Wiki page but again I can and have cited other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddionisi (talkcontribs) 23:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a WP:COI. Ddionisi (talk · contribs) wrote that he is David Dionisi. 2602:301:77b0:67f0:ad60:11f6:fb73:a6f (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added Defeating the Brotherhood of Death by David Dionisi and Ddionisi cited Dionisi in the article.
There may also be a WP:WEIGHT problem.
Dionisi wrote in his book, Defeating the Brotherhood of Death (I am citing this flash based edition), about the pronoun used in translations of Genesis 3:15 (pp 33–34). Dionisi only compares the Latin Vulgate and English 1899 Douay-Rheims American Edition translations but not the 2011 [1] which uses plural pronouns.
Dionisi also wrote that "prophesies of Our Lady of Fatima and Daniel communicate that an evil person will seek to rule the world in the time before God's kingdom on earth is established. This person will appear when what Jesus and prophets in the Bible called the 'abomination of desolation' is in the holy place" (p. 180).
Dionisi uses those biblical prophesies as a premise to support a conclusion (p. 180–181) that the 1990 sculpture "Sphere within a Sphere" by Arnaldo Pomodoro, a 4m sphere,[2] is an "abomination of desolation". This seems like a WP:fringe to me.
Dionisi then claims that this "Sphere abomination was prophesized at Fatima in 1917 and confirmed in Akita in 1973" (p. 180) and that the sculpture is "made from a wizard, or male witch, shows a new world emerging after tormenting and corroding Christianity." It "communicates the mystery of iniquity, as explained in Catholic Cathechism 675, is being unveiled and third world war will tear the earth apart" (p. 181).
According to that Cathechism paragraph, "the 'mystery of iniquity' [is] in the form of a religious deception" and not in a form of a sculpture.
Moreover, Dionisi writes that "this sculpture [...] at the Vatican confirms Catholic priest Rev. Gabriele Amorth's statement that the reach of Satan is greater than people realize" (pp. 181–182). Dionisi cites a 2010 interview of Amorth in an endnote (n. 614 on p. 316) to support this. Dionisi's sweeping generalisation is unsupported in the source he cited since the interview does not mention any art or symbols.[3]
There are other logically faulty arguments in Defeating the Brotherhood of Death, but I will not create a wall of text to point them out. Better sources should be used. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────From David Dionisi: BoBoMisiu is making incorrect claims and citing information that is separate from information on this page. Returning to the subject of the Wiki Our Lady of Akita page, there is still much incorrect information with the biggest being it tries to claim a statement by a Church official repudiates the official pastoral letter by Bishop Ito. This is simply not true and the rules for authentication are: According to the norms, the local bishop should set up a commission of experts, including theologians, canonists, psychologists and doctors, to help him determine the facts, the mental, moral and spiritual wholesomeness and seriousness of the visionary, and whether the message and testimony are free from theological and doctrinal error. A bishop can come to one of three conclusions: He can determine the apparition to be true and worthy of belief; he can say it is not true, which leaves open the possibility for an appeal; or he can say that at the moment he doesn't know and needs more help. In the last scenario, the investigation is brought to the country's bishops' conference. If that body cannot come to a conclusion, the matter is turned over to the pope, who delegates the doctrinal congregation to step in and give advice or appoint others to investigate. (Source: The Vatican and online in a 2012 National Catholic Reporter article at

The fact that none of the Wiki editors can ever cite an official Catholic Church document repudiating Bishop Ito's Pastoral Letter, is proof the page is communicating false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddionisi (talkcontribs) 23:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ddionisi: Ito's letter is cited 11 times.[4] Ito wrote in that letter: "I authorize, throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter." No one has repudiated ito's letter, but the case remains under examination by the Holy See – there is no Holy See approval. Ito's letter has no effect outside the Diocese of Niigata. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
From David Dionisi to anonymous: There are so many mistakes in this Wiki article that I can only hope other experts come to your aid and will certainly increase my knowledge of how to use Wiki to communicate effectively using this resource which has the potential to help a lot of people. Regarding your comment, please note that I previously wrote to Wiki that the is not the version Bishop Ito approved. The fundamental problem, resulting in misleading information, is Wiki editors are trusting magazine articles and altered Internet versions of original documents instead of the original documents. Even the magazine articles cited are not the original articles excerpts purported on an Internet page. The bottom line is the Vatican does not need to authenticate a miracle, a local bishop has full authority to do this. Proof of this has been sent multiple times citing the actual Vatican Marian approval documents. Most important of all, any editor promoting false information can rapidly learn the truth by listening to the key people, especially Bishop Ito. The truth of his having full authority is explained in his own words in his 1990 video testimony. There has never been an official document to repudiate the 1984 Pastoral Letter and it would be good if Wiki editors promoted accurate information instead of promoting confusion. It is too bad Wiki cannot use the actual words of Bishop Ito, Sister Sasagawa, and Rev. Yasuda which are communicated in the Akita and the Fatima Secret documentary and has to rely on Internet articles falsely reporting to communicate what they said or attempting to repudiate the official position of the Catholic Church. If anyone wishes the original documents and video files, they should contact me at 530-554-7061. May the peace of Our Lord be with you.Ddionisi (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)David DionisiDdionisi (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ddionisi: Please try to understand: on Wikipedia, what's more important is verifiability, not truth. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Take a look at WP:VNT, WP:OR and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Sro23 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ddionisi: The Marian Institute at the University of Dayton, which offers graduate level Mariology courses,[5] is a WP:RELIABLE source for a translation. It seems to be the same text found in Haffert's translation of Yasuda's Akita: The tears and message of Mary (pp. 190–199) – which, according to Haffert, Ito "personally read this English translation [and] approved" in 1989 (dedication). Ito's original letter was written in Japanese, nevertheless, I do not doubt that Ito meant what is translated as:
"In 1976, I asked the archbishop of Tokyo for the creation of a commission of inquiry. This first commission declared that it was not in a position to prove the supernatural events of Akita."[6]
In my opinion, Ito demonstrated a lack of the cardinal virtue of prudence when he ignored the 1976 commission and "recognize[d] the supernatural character of a series of mysterious events concerning the statue" in 1984.[7] According to The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism, the Akita apparition is a message of avertive apocalypticism. Avertive "prophecies and associated beliefs are expressions of Catholic folk tradition, originating apart from the approval of the institutional Roman Catholic Church" (p. 70).
Dionisi wrote, in Defeating the Brotherhood of Death, that "former Philippine ambassador [...], Howard Dee, said '[...] Ito was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima and [...] Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same'," in a November 1998 edition of Inside the Vatican magazine (pp. 34, 231, 235, 265 n. 97). Dee's opinion about Ito's personal belief is included in three places (pp. 34, 231, 235). Yet Ito's letter is not even mentioned in the book.
Ddionisi: in your opinion, which English translation of Ito's 1984 letter is a better English translation than the one on the Marian Institute website? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC); modified 22:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Haffert 1989 translation of Yasuda 1987[edit]

Akita: the tears and message of Mary written by Teiji Yasuda in 1987 and translated by John Haffert in 1989 seems to be at least approved by Bishop Emeritus John Shojiro Ito. According to Yasuda (p. 1), the Japanese edition was published with the approval of Bishop Francis Keiichi Sato (circa 1987, while bishop of Niigata), but according to Haffert (dedication), the English edition was published with the approval of Ito (in 1989, after his 1985 retirement). Haffert wrote (p. 140) that "Ito asked for the translation of this book." It is not WP:INDEPENDENT but "closely affiliated with the subject" since the author includes his own account of the case and the publisher operates tours to apparition sites like Garabandal,[8] which was declared non constat by the local bishop five decades ago.

Haffert noted in his 1989 translation of Yasuda 1987 that the book is a "first person account," i.e. mostly a WP:PRIMARY source, of the events (pp. 6–7). Yasuda includes little information about the results of the 1976 commission which according to Ito (p. 191), "declared that it was not in a position to prove the supernatural events of Akita" or the 1981 commission. Nevertheless, Yasuda includes some content that could improve the article:

  • Yasuda wrote (p. 165) that "the tears had stopped completely from the moment when the commission of inquiry was begun."
  • After two years, the 1976 "commission decided not to recognize the supernatural character of the events," but Yasuda did not know "the content of the study" (p. 165).
  • According to Yasuda, the 1976 commission based its decision on an examination of Sasagawa's journal (p. 166).
  • Yasuda wrote that in May 1976 some visitors to the convent "had the suspicion that there was some kind of fakery inside the statue" (p. 149).
  • Ito thought that Yasuda was influencing the case. Yasuda wrote that after he published his account of the May 1976 events, Ito wrote to him that "This kind of information risks provoking misunderstandings. Since a commission of inquiry has been charged to study the matter, keep silence until the conclusions are published" (p. 165).
  • While Haffert wrote: "Bleeding from the hand of a wooden statue is obviously a miracle" (p. 57), Yasuda stateds that "the blood was examined it was found to belong to group B, and the sweat and tears belonged to group AB. Now it is unthinkable and scientifically impossible that the same person belong to different groups" (p. 133). Sasagawa is group B, according to Yasuda (p.133). Yasuda brought samples of what he said he collected in August 1981 for testing which, circa November 1981, Karou Sagisaka reported as group O liquids (pp. 174–175). Yasuda wrote that Sagisaka's "analysis is the only authentic scientific proof which we have kept with regard to the tears of the statue" (p. 175). Yasuda did not mention what his own group is. He then used faulty logic to conclude that finding three different groups shows an act of God (p. 176). He did not explore the possibility that three people conspired in a pious fraud. Nevertheless, the 1981 commission said, in Yasuda's words, that it "cannot consider the tears of the statue as a determining sign or a miracle" (p. 177).
  • The hearing improvement noticed during Sasagawa's 1982 hearing examination was not certified as a "miraculous cure" by the hospital (p. 182). Yasuda wrote that Sasagawa's hearing, circa 1987, "is completely normal" (p. 183).
  • "The theologian of the first commission" said Sasagawa was hallucinating (p. 184). Ito "had asked a priest who was well known for research in Mariology to cooperate in an inquiry. This priest came in person to Yuzawadai where he had interviews with the sisters" (p. 157) but Yasuda does not name this priest. Yasuda wrote that the unnamed priest said "that since" Sasagawa "was a psychopath from birth she had already manifested ectoplasmic powers before being converted to Christianity and that these powers had resurfaced after her conversion" (p. 159). The unnamed priest said Sasagawa was "a 'special psychopathic case' characterized by a disassociation, the visions which she said to have seen of the guardian angel being only a manifestation of her double personality of which she herself was the dupe" and that "her spiritual director used her for writing articles in the media and accumulating benefices" (pp. 159 160). "One must realize that this account rather minimizes the reality," Yasuda wrote (p. 162). Yasuda wrote that doctors did not speak "openly about mental illness themselves and persistently told [Sasagawa] that she was normal, while in the report sent to the canonical commission they refer to a specific case of hysteria" (p. 162).
According to Yasuda, 1976 commission speculated that Sasagawa "had, by an ectoplasmic power, transferred both her blood and tears to the statue" (p. 133). This might be a translation problem from Japanese into English of the term ectoplasmic (ectoplasm (paranormal)), or a red herring since it is a 19th century explanation rather than a 20th century explanation used in an investigation.

I'm looking for consensus about how to use this source.

I know the claim that Sasagawa is a hallucinating psychopath requires much better sourcing but it would explain much about her behavior. Yasuda's description of Sasagawa's 16 years of paralysis (c. 1949–1965) is translated as "a paralysis of the central nervous system" (p. 8). I cannot find better sources for this.

The discrepancies about the statue and 1976 allegations of deception seem reasonable to include. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Type of hearing loss[edit]

@Ddionisi: a page from A pilgrimage of prayer – Akita: the scenery of Yuzawadai is seen in Dave Dionisi's YouTube video "Akita and the Fatima Secret". The few seconds provide insight into her diagnosis:

"One day in March 1973, one of our secularly-active sisters working in Myoko Parish, Sister 'S' suddenly lost her hearing. The doctor at the Niigata Rosai (Workers' Compensation) Hospital diagnosed her as suffering from 'auditory nerve paralysis due to excessive fatigue' and she was called back to the Motherhouse."in video at 00:15:02–00:15:08

All I can find is a partial citation:

? [A pilgrimage of prayer – Akita: the scenery of Yuzawadai] (in Japanese and English). 

Can you provide a better citation and more information about her physical partial disability certification when Sasagawa experienced hearing loss in her left ear prior to 1973. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)