By the way, I wouldn't call myself an atheist.

How do atheists explain the Italian friar Francesco Forgione's scars? (Forgione is more commonly known as Padre Pio, who was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 1999. I provide this information so that others can determine which person I am referring to.)

Claims attempting to explain stigmatic phenomena could range from claims that they are fake (Hollywood-esque fake wound effects), to claims that they are nonexistent (noone really saw them, everybody who said so lied or hallucinated) or real, but not supernaturally inflicted (one of the most common claims about Pio).

But I read in an AI summary (I know, it might be totally hallucinated. I doubt it. I think someone likely claimed it at some time), but cannot fully confirm, that Forgione was examined by a doctor, and the scars are described in a manner that, if he's telling the truth, or knows what he's talking about, do not match one of the common biological claim about the scars, that they were a skin irritation aggravated by the constant application of iodine to the wounds by Pio himself, which is often said to explain their alleged spontaneous disappearance upon his death. Or the claim that they were a scar created by deliberate action of Forgione himself, through the use of carbolic acid. He admitted that there was a time when he procured carbolic acid from a pharmacist, but claimed it was for a different purpose (a practical joke, actually).

Anyway, I haven't found the description of the wounds I was looking for, so I'm not sure it's true or not. I'm not sure the AI summary was the only place I found it, though. The claim, I believe, involved that the doctor found that the wounds were still bleeding, a significant amount of blood that doesn't seem biologically plausible with natural rules of physiology being in play, especially if the "spontaneous rash that got worse through Pio's innocent but misguided application of iodine to his wounds in an attempt to sterilize them" theory..

What are the actual testimonies of those who examined Pio, including that one I mentioned, if applicable? And what are their implications for the debate about miracles and evidence? Hitchens famously stated, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." But the people who claimed to have seen Pio's wounds claimed to have seen evidence, so, the famous razor might not apply here. I mean, I suppose some would say, "But I didn't see it!" I've never seen the corpses in autopsies, but that doesn't mean I discount all forensic claims about a corpse unless I actually see the body or photographic evidence of the body. I don't need to witness the exhumation of Lincoln's corpse to believe a bullet went through the back of his skull and into the brain, rendering him unconscious almost instantly, though he didn't die for some time after that, but wouldn't have died that night if he hadn't been shot. That is plausible to me. I usually accept it, though I'm having trouble with it now because of that desire to stretch skepticism to its limit that rises up in me when I think about these epistemological issues. There's probably some scientists or doctors out there who have studied his death, basing it on reports of his death from his doctors, from morticians, or some kind of examination of the corpse (though I've never heard of his body being exhumed. It may all be based on contemporary accounts), and additionally informed by what we know about the human anatomy and how the brain works, and ballistics, now. So, if a doctor who is actually familiar with the relevant human anatomy presents their own testimony, that testimony might itself be epistemologically acceptable "evidence", that stands up to Hitchens' razor.

I'm moderately afraid of being mocked, and having no one be willing to seriously engage me because I admitted I haven't found the source, and my most persuasive one for me was AI-generated. Please, somebody, engage with this post differently than that.