What do you think?
Rate this book
They Flew: A History of the Impossible
An award-winning historian’s examination of impossible events at the dawn of modernity and of their enduring significance
Accounts of seemingly impossible phenomena abounded in the early modern era—tales of levitation, bilocation, and witchcraft—even as skepticism, atheism, and empirical science were starting to supplant religious belief in the paranormal. In this book, Carlos Eire explores how a culture increasingly devoted to scientific thinking grappled with events deemed impossible by its leading intellectuals.
Eire observes how levitating saints and flying witches were as essential a component of early modern life as the religious turmoil of the age, and as much a part of history as Newton’s scientific discoveries. Relying on an array of firsthand accounts, and focusing on exceptionally impossible cases involving levitation, bilocation, witchcraft, and demonic possession, Eire challenges established assumptions about the redrawing of boundaries between the natural and supernatural that marked the transition to modernity.
Using as his case studies stories about St. Teresa of Avila, St. Joseph of Cupertino, the Venerable María de Ágreda, and three disgraced nuns, Eire challenges readers to imagine a world animated by a different understanding of reality and of the supernatural’s relationship with the natural world. The questions he explores—such as why and how “impossibility” is determined by cultural contexts, and whether there is more to reality than meets the eye or can be observed by science—have resonance and lessons for our time.
Accounts of seemingly impossible phenomena abounded in the early modern era—tales of levitation, bilocation, and witchcraft—even as skepticism, atheism, and empirical science were starting to supplant religious belief in the paranormal. In this book, Carlos Eire explores how a culture increasingly devoted to scientific thinking grappled with events deemed impossible by its leading intellectuals.
Eire observes how levitating saints and flying witches were as essential a component of early modern life as the religious turmoil of the age, and as much a part of history as Newton’s scientific discoveries. Relying on an array of firsthand accounts, and focusing on exceptionally impossible cases involving levitation, bilocation, witchcraft, and demonic possession, Eire challenges established assumptions about the redrawing of boundaries between the natural and supernatural that marked the transition to modernity.
Using as his case studies stories about St. Teresa of Avila, St. Joseph of Cupertino, the Venerable María de Ágreda, and three disgraced nuns, Eire challenges readers to imagine a world animated by a different understanding of reality and of the supernatural’s relationship with the natural world. The questions he explores—such as why and how “impossibility” is determined by cultural contexts, and whether there is more to reality than meets the eye or can be observed by science—have resonance and lessons for our time.
512 pages, Hardcover
First published September 26, 2023
About the author
Carlos M.N. Eire
9 books42 followersAuthor also writes under Carlos Eire
A scholar of the social, intellectual, religious, and cultural history of late medieval and early modern Europe, Carlos Eire is the T. Lawrason Riggs Professor of History & Religious Studies at Yale University. He received his PhD from Yale in 1979, and taught at St. John’s University in Minnesota and the University of Virginia before joining the Yale faculty in 1996.
A scholar of the social, intellectual, religious, and cultural history of late medieval and early modern Europe, Carlos Eire is the T. Lawrason Riggs Professor of History & Religious Studies at Yale University. He received his PhD from Yale in 1979, and taught at St. John’s University in Minnesota and the University of Virginia before joining the Yale faculty in 1996.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews
August 3, 2024
GOD this book was so fun. there are so many tangents in here but they build up perfectly and you can tell there's a real sense of humour about the whole thing not that he isn't taking it seriously because there's nothing more serious than a joke but just approaching everything with a certain lightness. bc obviously none of this is about getting at whether any of this actually happened it's way more interesting to figure out why people believed it. or continue to believe it. lots of 'god forbid women do anything' moments which is perhaps to be expected with a book covering this period of history but what can you do. the council of trent continue to be vibe killers but i believe women personally
April 30, 2024
Excellent Exploration of Levitation, Bilocation and Other Extreme States
This is the best book to cover the remarkable physical effects of early modern religious hysteria that I have read. As the title avers, they flew. But how—and why?
This is the best book to cover the remarkable physical effects of early modern religious hysteria that I have read. As the title avers, they flew. But how—and why?
December 21, 2025
Exquisite. Eire’s invitation to re-think how we engage in the study of pre-Enlightenment accounts of religious miracles is somewhere between a piece of history and one of theology. Its academic credentials are clear, but it also involves some personal reflections. Like any good piece of history, it’ll provoke debate rather than broad agreement. One of “They Flew’s” most thought-provoking points comes from its reflections on the ways in which Protestantism fundamentally redefined western concepts of the metaphysical and supernatural activity. I enjoyed this piece by piece, or section by section, over a few months - jotting down ideas and questions as I went. I think had more questions by the time I finished this book than when I began, but that may the point. A fascinating, richly complex piece of religious history.
June 11, 2024
A fascinating book. I'm familiar with Carlos Eire from his memoirs, but this was my first foray into his scholarly work (aka "books with footnotes"). He deals with the phenomena of flight and translocation in saints' lives and related accounts (including some discussion of demon possession, witchcraft, etc) from the perspective of a non-skeptic. That is, he invites us to set aside our modern assumption that such things simply can't be and engage thoughtfully with first-hand accounts.
I found this to be a bit of a mental tightrope walk. As a Christian, I embrace the reality of a spiritual realm; as a Modern, I find it almost impossible not to look for the man behind the curtain. What's more, I'm a Presbyterian, and many of these miracles were used polemically by the Catholic church against the Protestant Reformation. I think I wanted Eire to come to a definitive conclusion - did Teresa REALLY fly?! But he seems content to leave us in the realm of mystery. While a bit disorienting, I enjoyed the opportunity to inhabit an earlier worldview.
I found this to be a bit of a mental tightrope walk. As a Christian, I embrace the reality of a spiritual realm; as a Modern, I find it almost impossible not to look for the man behind the curtain. What's more, I'm a Presbyterian, and many of these miracles were used polemically by the Catholic church against the Protestant Reformation. I think I wanted Eire to come to a definitive conclusion - did Teresa REALLY fly?! But he seems content to leave us in the realm of mystery. While a bit disorienting, I enjoyed the opportunity to inhabit an earlier worldview.
March 18, 2024
A powerful critique of the “dogmatic materialism” that tends to dominate within the historiography on early modern Europe by exploring the plasticity of supernatural phenomena.
October 29, 2025
Throughout history, there are multiple well-attested reports of truly miraculous events, levitations, bilocations, healings, and more. This book discusses these miracles and who (allegedly) performed them, focusing on the early modern period in the Catholic Church, focusing on bilocations (being in two places at the same time) and levitations.
These miracles were a double-edged sword for the Catholic Church in the early modern period. On one hand, they happened almost exclusively within the Catholic Church and were an effective polemical weapon against the Protestant Reformers, who had no miracles of their own. These events were seen as proof that God had given the Catholic Church His favor. On the other hand, the Church was wary of “bad” miracles, either total frauds or those genuinely performed through magic or demonic powers. As such, the Catholic Church was skeptical of people who reportedly performed miracles and often closely investigated and monitored them.
The book first discusses people whose miracles were eventually supported by the Catholic Church, Saint Teresa of Ávila, Saint Joseph of Cupertino, and Mary of Ágreda. Then, it turns to figures who were exposed as frauds or believed to be in league with the devil. There’s substantial detail about eyewitness accounts and how outsiders, both educated and laypeople, understood these miracles. In the case of Teresa of Ávila, this includes first-person accounts of her own levitations.
The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, took a more negative view of miracles. They believed that supernatural events did happen; however, they were never from God. God had ceased issuing spiritual gifts after Biblical times, so only the devil could perform supernatural acts. The prevalence of these miracles in the Catholic Church was thus proof, in their view, that it was in league with the devil.Witch hunts were a common feature of the early modern age for both Protestants and Catholics. Evidentiary standards were loosened, torture was employed, and roughly 50,000–60,000 people (largely women) were executed across Europe.
Of course, the million-dollar question: did they fly? Did these miracles actually happen? Many historians rule out the possibility that these events could have ever occurred. Although they analyze the social and political contexts surrounding them, the events are dismissed per se by virtue of being supernatural. Other historians simply bracket the question, refusing to consider whether these events really happened, deeming it outside the realm of proper historical research.
Carlos Eire ultimately refuses to answer the question. He does, however, point out that the eyewitness testimony supporting these events is overwhelming and that there was near-unanimous belief in the supernatural for most of history, across all cultures. It’s difficult to integrate that into modern historical thinking. Too much credibility can lead to a gullible view of history, yet too much incredulity cuts against the eyewitness testimony and widespread belief of the past. In the epilogue, Eire argues for a “postsecular” approach to history, one that asks historians to suspend their disbelief (funny) and take the miraculous as serious part of the human experience.
Maybe 4.3 stars! This could be a bit repetitive at times, but it’s a very interesting book. Very excited to see Carlos Eire speak at UChicago later today.
Quotes
Miracles, it could be said, are not just puzzling for historians but also immensely frustrating. The further one goes back in time, the more difficult it becomes not to bump into them, or into their preternatural demonic counterparts. The testimonies are simply there in the historical record, cluttering it up abundantly, and their existence cannot be denied. But ironically, it is ultimately impossible to prove that what is claimed in these testimonies happened exactly as recorded. Beyond the realm of faith, the evidence can seem insufficient despite its sheer volume. Hence the frustration.
So it was at the dawn of modernity. Two very different kinds of levitation coexisted in 1787, a mere twenty years after the canonization of Joseph of Cupertino: a super natural or preternatural one rarely seen and limited to folk who surrendered their wills either to God or the devil and another purely natural, readily visible to thousands and available to anyone with access to the proper equipment. These two forms of levitation were based on conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable conceptions of reality and of what is deemed possible and impossible. They were also based on different belief systems: an older one that included God, a super natural realm, and levitating saints and which kept shrinking and losing influence as time passed, and a newer one that had little or no need for God, the super natural, or miracles and which kept expanding and gaining an ever-widening influence.
These miracles were a double-edged sword for the Catholic Church in the early modern period. On one hand, they happened almost exclusively within the Catholic Church and were an effective polemical weapon against the Protestant Reformers, who had no miracles of their own. These events were seen as proof that God had given the Catholic Church His favor. On the other hand, the Church was wary of “bad” miracles, either total frauds or those genuinely performed through magic or demonic powers. As such, the Catholic Church was skeptical of people who reportedly performed miracles and often closely investigated and monitored them.
The book first discusses people whose miracles were eventually supported by the Catholic Church, Saint Teresa of Ávila, Saint Joseph of Cupertino, and Mary of Ágreda. Then, it turns to figures who were exposed as frauds or believed to be in league with the devil. There’s substantial detail about eyewitness accounts and how outsiders, both educated and laypeople, understood these miracles. In the case of Teresa of Ávila, this includes first-person accounts of her own levitations.
The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, took a more negative view of miracles. They believed that supernatural events did happen; however, they were never from God. God had ceased issuing spiritual gifts after Biblical times, so only the devil could perform supernatural acts. The prevalence of these miracles in the Catholic Church was thus proof, in their view, that it was in league with the devil.Witch hunts were a common feature of the early modern age for both Protestants and Catholics. Evidentiary standards were loosened, torture was employed, and roughly 50,000–60,000 people (largely women) were executed across Europe.
Of course, the million-dollar question: did they fly? Did these miracles actually happen? Many historians rule out the possibility that these events could have ever occurred. Although they analyze the social and political contexts surrounding them, the events are dismissed per se by virtue of being supernatural. Other historians simply bracket the question, refusing to consider whether these events really happened, deeming it outside the realm of proper historical research.
Carlos Eire ultimately refuses to answer the question. He does, however, point out that the eyewitness testimony supporting these events is overwhelming and that there was near-unanimous belief in the supernatural for most of history, across all cultures. It’s difficult to integrate that into modern historical thinking. Too much credibility can lead to a gullible view of history, yet too much incredulity cuts against the eyewitness testimony and widespread belief of the past. In the epilogue, Eire argues for a “postsecular” approach to history, one that asks historians to suspend their disbelief (funny) and take the miraculous as serious part of the human experience.
Maybe 4.3 stars! This could be a bit repetitive at times, but it’s a very interesting book. Very excited to see Carlos Eire speak at UChicago later today.
Quotes
Miracles, it could be said, are not just puzzling for historians but also immensely frustrating. The further one goes back in time, the more difficult it becomes not to bump into them, or into their preternatural demonic counterparts. The testimonies are simply there in the historical record, cluttering it up abundantly, and their existence cannot be denied. But ironically, it is ultimately impossible to prove that what is claimed in these testimonies happened exactly as recorded. Beyond the realm of faith, the evidence can seem insufficient despite its sheer volume. Hence the frustration.
So it was at the dawn of modernity. Two very different kinds of levitation coexisted in 1787, a mere twenty years after the canonization of Joseph of Cupertino: a super natural or preternatural one rarely seen and limited to folk who surrendered their wills either to God or the devil and another purely natural, readily visible to thousands and available to anyone with access to the proper equipment. These two forms of levitation were based on conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable conceptions of reality and of what is deemed possible and impossible. They were also based on different belief systems: an older one that included God, a super natural realm, and levitating saints and which kept shrinking and losing influence as time passed, and a newer one that had little or no need for God, the super natural, or miracles and which kept expanding and gaining an ever-widening influence.
May 9, 2024
The book was very, very interesting and well-written. As a Protestant, I must confess that I tended to be quite sympathetic to the Reformer's claims that many of these miracles may have been infernal in origin. Dr. Eire did a good job showing that this interpretation was not a complete freak in the history of the Church, as almost all of the saints touched on in the book were first investigated for suspected demonic meddling when they started manifesting their levitation, bilocation, or whatever other signs and wonders their story entails. Due to this bifurcation of interpretation on the events chronicled in the book, I found the final chapter of the book, focusing on the Devil, to be the most compelling and have written a small rumination on the ideas that that final chapter churned up within my mind.
------------------------------------------------
I have respect for the Devil (but not sympathy).
Such a distinction is needed to understand one of the more enigmatic statements in the Bible found in the book of Jude:
"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you.' But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion." Jude 1:9-11
The Devil is a powerful, devastatingly cunning foe and history gives us plenty of examples of well-meaning saints whose bloody attempts to root out the fiend should give us pause whenever we come up with yet another plan to oppose him in our own strength. Jude links this “blasphemous judgment” on the Devil with people who “walk in the way of Cain.” What does this mean? Cain was warned by God that sin (and the Devil) were crouching at his door, waiting to pounce. God explicitly (and omnisciently) warned him of the trap that had been set for him. But the only way to escape from the trap was to turn away from the mesmerizing, soothing resentment he nursed against his brother and amend his own ways, rather than reflexively putting his younger brother in his place. The "way of Cain" could serve as a shorthand for all the perversions dreamt up by the seed of the Serpent, but in its simplest reference is nothing more than trying to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye while a log obstructs your own.
The final chapter of this book, focusing on the medieval concept of the Devil and his schemes, provides a helpful lens through which to view all the preceding chapters. The theological and judicial contortions that Medieval Protestants and Catholics put themselves through in an attempt to root out the Devil from their midst drive home one truth captured by the Jude passage quoted above: It is truly blasphemous to think that any human could foil or oppose the plans of the Devil: who is the Lord’s own executioner, who himself will one day be dethroned and executed–by the Lord himself. As the Devil can never truly stymie any intention of the Lord, attempts to oppose him in one’s own strength are blasphemous hubris. But one must ask, if blasphemy is treason against the Holy– how could judgment against the Devil be blasphemous? Primarily, it is blasphemy against the Lord, the only Judge of the world, and the only one with the power to curb(stomp) the Devil. “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4a). And the Devil will fall, certainly,
Reading Dr. Eire’s catalog of the various ways in which Protestants and Catholics attempted to counter the works of the Devil in their midst, it is impossible to escape the irony that their efforts frequently look like murderous persecution of fellow believers in Christ. Rene Girard would have something to say about this (Google: Rene Girard scapegoating). Honestly, all of the various mass-movements aimed at rooting out the Devil reminded me of nothing more than the purity tests endemic to the various Communist movements, or incidentally, the purity tests of the various anti-Communist movements (red scare and all that). Once again, Girard would like a word (Google Girard mimetic rivalry).
One aspect to reading this book that puzzled and pleased me to no end was trying to figure out exactly what the Author’s personal view on his subject matter is. From the bit of biographical information I know about the author, my assumption is that he is a Conservative Catholic, or at least sympathetic to that position. Normally, I prefer reading authors who wear there hearts on their sleeve. That way it’s easier to assess any slant they may have on the topic. However, Dr. Eire’s attempts to remain “objective” about something that is likely near and dear to his heart actually made for a more complexly satisfying read than a passionate polemic. Dr. Eire holds a knife to his throat at the king's table! (Prov. 23:1-2) And what's more, he does all of that while refusing to be "cool-shamed" by academics who outright reject the possibility of the supernatural and the preternatural.
------------------------------------------------
I have respect for the Devil (but not sympathy).
Such a distinction is needed to understand one of the more enigmatic statements in the Bible found in the book of Jude:
"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you.' But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion." Jude 1:9-11
The Devil is a powerful, devastatingly cunning foe and history gives us plenty of examples of well-meaning saints whose bloody attempts to root out the fiend should give us pause whenever we come up with yet another plan to oppose him in our own strength. Jude links this “blasphemous judgment” on the Devil with people who “walk in the way of Cain.” What does this mean? Cain was warned by God that sin (and the Devil) were crouching at his door, waiting to pounce. God explicitly (and omnisciently) warned him of the trap that had been set for him. But the only way to escape from the trap was to turn away from the mesmerizing, soothing resentment he nursed against his brother and amend his own ways, rather than reflexively putting his younger brother in his place. The "way of Cain" could serve as a shorthand for all the perversions dreamt up by the seed of the Serpent, but in its simplest reference is nothing more than trying to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye while a log obstructs your own.
The final chapter of this book, focusing on the medieval concept of the Devil and his schemes, provides a helpful lens through which to view all the preceding chapters. The theological and judicial contortions that Medieval Protestants and Catholics put themselves through in an attempt to root out the Devil from their midst drive home one truth captured by the Jude passage quoted above: It is truly blasphemous to think that any human could foil or oppose the plans of the Devil: who is the Lord’s own executioner, who himself will one day be dethroned and executed–by the Lord himself. As the Devil can never truly stymie any intention of the Lord, attempts to oppose him in one’s own strength are blasphemous hubris. But one must ask, if blasphemy is treason against the Holy– how could judgment against the Devil be blasphemous? Primarily, it is blasphemy against the Lord, the only Judge of the world, and the only one with the power to curb(stomp) the Devil. “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls” (Rom. 14:4a). And the Devil will fall, certainly,
Reading Dr. Eire’s catalog of the various ways in which Protestants and Catholics attempted to counter the works of the Devil in their midst, it is impossible to escape the irony that their efforts frequently look like murderous persecution of fellow believers in Christ. Rene Girard would have something to say about this (Google: Rene Girard scapegoating). Honestly, all of the various mass-movements aimed at rooting out the Devil reminded me of nothing more than the purity tests endemic to the various Communist movements, or incidentally, the purity tests of the various anti-Communist movements (red scare and all that). Once again, Girard would like a word (Google Girard mimetic rivalry).
One aspect to reading this book that puzzled and pleased me to no end was trying to figure out exactly what the Author’s personal view on his subject matter is. From the bit of biographical information I know about the author, my assumption is that he is a Conservative Catholic, or at least sympathetic to that position. Normally, I prefer reading authors who wear there hearts on their sleeve. That way it’s easier to assess any slant they may have on the topic. However, Dr. Eire’s attempts to remain “objective” about something that is likely near and dear to his heart actually made for a more complexly satisfying read than a passionate polemic. Dr. Eire holds a knife to his throat at the king's table! (Prov. 23:1-2) And what's more, he does all of that while refusing to be "cool-shamed" by academics who outright reject the possibility of the supernatural and the preternatural.
August 3, 2025
"Properly speaking, miracles are works done by God outside the order usually observed in things."
–Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III, 101.1
This quote is how Carlos Eire chooses to begin Part Two of his stellar "They Flew," and it gets right to the heart of the issues at hand. After an introduction which explains key terms and notes obvious issues with the historical study of impossibilities, Eire coyly invites his reader to be skeptical of skepticism, and to refrain, at least temporarily, from psychologizing or dismissing these miraculous accounts. Throughout early modern Europe, there are countless testimonies about holy people levitating or flying (the focus of Part One), with less (but still plenty) claiming that saints appeared in two locations at the same time (Part Two). Teresa of Avila is no doubt the most famous person who receives close treatment, though the sections on Joseph of Cupertino and María de Ágreda are also great.
In Eire's framework, there are three explanations for allegedly miraculous events: 1) they are real and good, having their cause in God; 2) they are false, faked by a person or persons for fame, wealth, or another motivation; 3) they are real and evil, having their cause in the devil or demonic forces. Part Three, entitled "Malevolent," covers the Protestant and Catholic responses to these latter two options, providing an excellently thorough survey of Inquisitional activity as well as Lutheran and Reformed demonic investigations. Throughout the book but especially in this third section, Eire accentuates the differences in theology that rippled across the fractures of Western Christianity, with both the miraculous and devilish having a polemical edge for Protestants and Catholics alike. Eire, a devout Catholic, makes the fair assertion that the first explanation of miracles was not available to the magisterial Protestants due to their advocacy of cessationism. The overwhelming response, then, was that these events were demonic and testified to the great evils of Rome whose Pope was the Antichrist himself. Like all Protestants influenced by ecumenical rapprochement, I find this polemical vitriol horribly sad - I also find it tired and boring.
This is a lively and well-researched book that I'm sure I will return to in my amateur study of early modern Europe. I don't know if it's because I'd like to be a little more holy and a little less disenchanted, and I'm sure that my irredeemably contrarian nature has something to do with it, but I'm inclined to agree with Eire: the punctuation that follows "They Flew" should not be a question mark, but an exclamation point!
–Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III, 101.1
This quote is how Carlos Eire chooses to begin Part Two of his stellar "They Flew," and it gets right to the heart of the issues at hand. After an introduction which explains key terms and notes obvious issues with the historical study of impossibilities, Eire coyly invites his reader to be skeptical of skepticism, and to refrain, at least temporarily, from psychologizing or dismissing these miraculous accounts. Throughout early modern Europe, there are countless testimonies about holy people levitating or flying (the focus of Part One), with less (but still plenty) claiming that saints appeared in two locations at the same time (Part Two). Teresa of Avila is no doubt the most famous person who receives close treatment, though the sections on Joseph of Cupertino and María de Ágreda are also great.
In Eire's framework, there are three explanations for allegedly miraculous events: 1) they are real and good, having their cause in God; 2) they are false, faked by a person or persons for fame, wealth, or another motivation; 3) they are real and evil, having their cause in the devil or demonic forces. Part Three, entitled "Malevolent," covers the Protestant and Catholic responses to these latter two options, providing an excellently thorough survey of Inquisitional activity as well as Lutheran and Reformed demonic investigations. Throughout the book but especially in this third section, Eire accentuates the differences in theology that rippled across the fractures of Western Christianity, with both the miraculous and devilish having a polemical edge for Protestants and Catholics alike. Eire, a devout Catholic, makes the fair assertion that the first explanation of miracles was not available to the magisterial Protestants due to their advocacy of cessationism. The overwhelming response, then, was that these events were demonic and testified to the great evils of Rome whose Pope was the Antichrist himself. Like all Protestants influenced by ecumenical rapprochement, I find this polemical vitriol horribly sad - I also find it tired and boring.
This is a lively and well-researched book that I'm sure I will return to in my amateur study of early modern Europe. I don't know if it's because I'd like to be a little more holy and a little less disenchanted, and I'm sure that my irredeemably contrarian nature has something to do with it, but I'm inclined to agree with Eire: the punctuation that follows "They Flew" should not be a question mark, but an exclamation point!
July 2, 2024
Fantastic book on levitation that's actually just a tacit defense for Catholicism vs Protestantism. Very well done.
September 6, 2025
It's an exploration of the seemingly impossible, if one holds to a materialist worldview, from a genuine and studied scholarly approach. It's meant to unsettle our rational senses, but the real strength is that it does so by grounding us in it. The data is there, and we have to wrestle with it, like it or not.
What is that data? Occurances of levitation, bilocation and witchcraft . What this book is really concerned with is exploring how the birth of modernity, the very grounds for the West's percieved rejection of this kind of phenomena, grappled with the reality of this evidence. That is where the book is at its most tantalizing and evocative.
There is also a compelling subtext that looks at the association with these things and religious belief, finding in that connection some interesting notes about the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. After all, Western Christianity is birthed in the same soil as modernity, which is a historical observation that often gets swept under the rug when it comes to certain necessary critiques of its theology. The fact that one of these shared qualities is an enduring skepticism of like-minded "spiritual" experiences is worth a book all its own.
What is that data? Occurances of levitation, bilocation and witchcraft . What this book is really concerned with is exploring how the birth of modernity, the very grounds for the West's percieved rejection of this kind of phenomena, grappled with the reality of this evidence. That is where the book is at its most tantalizing and evocative.
There is also a compelling subtext that looks at the association with these things and religious belief, finding in that connection some interesting notes about the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism. After all, Western Christianity is birthed in the same soil as modernity, which is a historical observation that often gets swept under the rug when it comes to certain necessary critiques of its theology. The fact that one of these shared qualities is an enduring skepticism of like-minded "spiritual" experiences is worth a book all its own.
September 15, 2025
This was a fun holiday read, tracing the history of the “impossible” with a focus on levitation and bilocation. Interestingly, reports of both phenomena increased at the same time as empirical thinking was gaining dominance in the West.
The book focuses on 3 key figures from the 16th and 17th century Catholic Church, tracking their reception both in Rome and among emergent Protestantism. (Joseph of Cupertino was my highlight!) Eire helpfully highlights the similarities (acceptance of the supernatural) and differences (evidence of saintliness v evidence of demonic power) in interpretations.
While unnecessarily repetitive at times, I particularly enjoyed the final chapters on the Devil and the focus on the epistemic revolution birthed by the Protestant Reformation. I was challenged to consider how dogmatic materialism has influenced my own Protestant assumptions regarding the impossible and how this shapes my reading of Scripture.
So did they really fly? Eire argues that to deny the possibility may be as fraught with difficulty as affirming it, and so readers are challenged to consider the basis of their own skepticism.
The book focuses on 3 key figures from the 16th and 17th century Catholic Church, tracking their reception both in Rome and among emergent Protestantism. (Joseph of Cupertino was my highlight!) Eire helpfully highlights the similarities (acceptance of the supernatural) and differences (evidence of saintliness v evidence of demonic power) in interpretations.
While unnecessarily repetitive at times, I particularly enjoyed the final chapters on the Devil and the focus on the epistemic revolution birthed by the Protestant Reformation. I was challenged to consider how dogmatic materialism has influenced my own Protestant assumptions regarding the impossible and how this shapes my reading of Scripture.
So did they really fly? Eire argues that to deny the possibility may be as fraught with difficulty as affirming it, and so readers are challenged to consider the basis of their own skepticism.
March 8, 2024
This book was a wonderful recounting of the historical time periods and cultures. Eire also did a great job expressing the perspectives of the different actors and institutions in a grounded way. On the whole, a great read.
Going into this book I was nervous because he makes a few small comments at the beginning that made me aware that he is a believer in these events. That isn't necessarily a problem as long as he can recount and analyze the historical events impartially... Which I believe he did (until the epilogue). I don't personally believe or disbelieve in levitation but being a scholar of religious studies I've seen a lot of academic work where the writer starts out sane and then goes off the rails (I'm looking at you D.W Palsulka). However, what he does is what I think more historians need to be doing-- analyzing their own position and relationship to the material and clearly stating that to the reader in a space that won't bias the material.
When he started talking about Kripal I just facepalmed like of course he likes Kripal. I have no idea what the rest of his work reads like but I'm curious to find out.
Going into this book I was nervous because he makes a few small comments at the beginning that made me aware that he is a believer in these events. That isn't necessarily a problem as long as he can recount and analyze the historical events impartially... Which I believe he did (until the epilogue). I don't personally believe or disbelieve in levitation but being a scholar of religious studies I've seen a lot of academic work where the writer starts out sane and then goes off the rails (I'm looking at you D.W Palsulka). However, what he does is what I think more historians need to be doing-- analyzing their own position and relationship to the material and clearly stating that to the reader in a space that won't bias the material.
When he started talking about Kripal I just facepalmed like of course he likes Kripal. I have no idea what the rest of his work reads like but I'm curious to find out.
April 15, 2024
The shift from the medieval to the modern world is never an easy line, and whose to say that our modern and rational worldview is axiomatically "correct." Carlos Eire provides a masterful account of "impossible" events, divine and demonic (sometimes depending on who you ask), right as the world begin the shift from medieval to modern. The most intriguing part of this book though is his decision to undermine the very term "impossible" as a construct of modern epistimology. What if belief in the impossible isn't and shouldn't be improbable? Belief is a powerful thing, more powerful than our modern zeitgeist and its worldview. Belief is why I dare to agree with Eire's final words unironically, "They flew!"
April 23, 2025
For Catholics, levitation = ultra godly (proof to be sainted).
For protestants, levitation = diabolical (of the devil)
but they both believed that it really did happen!
so what should historians think?
I liked his stories and lots of primary sources, but his argument was very caveated and repetitive which made it hard to follow. Basically, if someone DID fly, why aren't historians interested? The testimony makes it as hard to disprove as to prove, so why are we so sure it didn't happen?
definitely recommend reading a shorter version (or maybe a podcast of his argument?) when or if it comes out so we can chat! but this book, probably not worth it sorry.
p.s.
Martin Luther's advice on demons: "Fart at them!'
For protestants, levitation = diabolical (of the devil)
but they both believed that it really did happen!
so what should historians think?
I liked his stories and lots of primary sources, but his argument was very caveated and repetitive which made it hard to follow. Basically, if someone DID fly, why aren't historians interested? The testimony makes it as hard to disprove as to prove, so why are we so sure it didn't happen?
definitely recommend reading a shorter version (or maybe a podcast of his argument?) when or if it comes out so we can chat! but this book, probably not worth it sorry.
p.s.
Martin Luther's advice on demons: "Fart at them!'
Read
May 5, 2025A fantastic collection of primarily Catholic stories of levitation, bilocation, withcraft, interrogation and validation, on one hand, and fraud, on the other. It spends a lot of time diving into some of the most notable levitators, Teresa of Avila and Joseph of Cupertino. I was especially interested in how they both saw their own miracles--they both kind of shunned them and were at times embarrassed by or resistant to them happening, which helped bolster their validity in others' eyes. Those who bragged about their miracles were usually found out as frauds.
I loved these stories, and they really do raise difficult questions about how so many people could witness and believe such seemingly impossible acts, yet I wasn't at all convinced by the book's "argument" that neutrally documenting how these were perceived and written about has anything to say about the nature of metaphysical reality. People also believed the sun revolved around the Earth, but that doesn't change or put into question what we know to be true. Most of the book, to be fair, eschews any kind of theoretical interpretation, and at the end, multiple approaches are suggested, including a traditional social-scientific approach that looks at social facts while bracketing metaphysical questions. Other approaches are suggested "beyond" that, including this "study of the impossible" approach that has become fashionable in certain parts of religious studies. Maybe there is something to be said for those, but the historical facts presented here would've benefitted, I think, from a more fully committed social-scientific approach rather than this "what if"-ism. Its perfectly fine for history to stick to history--wildly gesturing beyond that hurts its case more than helps, I think.
I loved these stories, and they really do raise difficult questions about how so many people could witness and believe such seemingly impossible acts, yet I wasn't at all convinced by the book's "argument" that neutrally documenting how these were perceived and written about has anything to say about the nature of metaphysical reality. People also believed the sun revolved around the Earth, but that doesn't change or put into question what we know to be true. Most of the book, to be fair, eschews any kind of theoretical interpretation, and at the end, multiple approaches are suggested, including a traditional social-scientific approach that looks at social facts while bracketing metaphysical questions. Other approaches are suggested "beyond" that, including this "study of the impossible" approach that has become fashionable in certain parts of religious studies. Maybe there is something to be said for those, but the historical facts presented here would've benefitted, I think, from a more fully committed social-scientific approach rather than this "what if"-ism. Its perfectly fine for history to stick to history--wildly gesturing beyond that hurts its case more than helps, I think.
May 30, 2025
“They Did Not Fly: In How Many Ways Can You Make the Same Statement Using the Academic Register?
This book could be the basis of an excellent Atlantic Magazine type article if the author would explore the one point he skirts assiduously; the felt need of witnesses to be consistent with the prevailing view. With the Inquisition on your back, who dared to say that the Emperor had no clothes?
Other missed opportunities include the process by which the Church and parishioners transitioned from ready willingness to believe in miracles to total skepticism. In today’s world, what are people’s beliefs about miracles, and how are these associated with their educational levels, ethnic culture, and nationalities?
I would have wanted to know what current mental health professionals and neurologies have to say about the saints’ clinical pictures. So many interesting possibilities.
I understand that the author is suggesting that our worldviews are as rigid as those of people in the early modern era and that the world would benefit from more flexibility than we currently practice. But, redundancy is tiresome and insulting and if the writing is clear and straightforward, there is no need for it. Which brings me to a question I often ask myself lately. Where are the editors of yesteryears who did not let authors ramble to their heart’s content?
This book could be the basis of an excellent Atlantic Magazine type article if the author would explore the one point he skirts assiduously; the felt need of witnesses to be consistent with the prevailing view. With the Inquisition on your back, who dared to say that the Emperor had no clothes?
Other missed opportunities include the process by which the Church and parishioners transitioned from ready willingness to believe in miracles to total skepticism. In today’s world, what are people’s beliefs about miracles, and how are these associated with their educational levels, ethnic culture, and nationalities?
I would have wanted to know what current mental health professionals and neurologies have to say about the saints’ clinical pictures. So many interesting possibilities.
I understand that the author is suggesting that our worldviews are as rigid as those of people in the early modern era and that the world would benefit from more flexibility than we currently practice. But, redundancy is tiresome and insulting and if the writing is clear and straightforward, there is no need for it. Which brings me to a question I often ask myself lately. Where are the editors of yesteryears who did not let authors ramble to their heart’s content?
December 18, 2024
Such a valuable and readable exploration into what has been deemed impossible in modern secularism. It definitely challenges the binaries (modern/premodern, religious/secular, natural/supernatural, etc.) that dominate our current landscape since those binaries may not be as descriptively effective as they claim to be.
very-soon
June 15, 2026This was recommended by a friend for me, but I thought my husband would like it even more. I got it as a possible Christmas gift for him but then had other things to give him... Now he has so many other books to read he doesn't want any more books. Guess I will just have to read it myself. 😉
June 11, 2024
Honestly this ripped
November 2, 2025
these girlies would have been running pro ana tumblr in 2013..i never felt closer to catholicism
Read
July 15, 2025A book about levitation and bilocation among Catholic saints, as well as a meditation on how history changes openness to, and enactment of, the impossible. The things left unsaid make its mystery shine.
August 30, 2024
Very interesting read.
October 4, 2025
het is een vreemde wereld
June 29, 2026
Fascinating history of the inexplicable!
January 1, 2026
This book's thesis reminded me of a long blog post I read recently about the Fátima Sun Miracle. That post (by a sceptical atheist) argued in favour of taking miraculous claims seriously, and at least allowing the possibility that they may have a supernatural explanation. "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it" (Flannery O'Connor line used as one of this book's epigraphs.) Eire (who teaches religious history at Yale) is not definitely saying that these miracles did happen; just annoyed at the typical academic practice of taking for granted that they didn't, and jump ahead to analysing the results of people's belief.
Flying is far from the only type of miracle, the list is:
When María Lobo de Meneses, the Nun of Lisbon, turned out to be a huge fraud, Fray Luis de Granada wrote a pamphlet postmortem:
(Another fun fact about María is that she blessed the Spanish Armada, which was a factor in the increased scrutiny on her miracles.)
Eire also seems to think the whole phenomenon of witch-hunting was a big and tragic mistake, and I couldn't quite figure out why he doesn't extend the same suspension of judgement here. Hunting witches was one of the few issues that Catholics and Protestants were equally excited about. Luther spoke a lot about the devil - sometimes in surprisingly, uh, earthy terms:
Eire's thesis is thus: the historical record is full of these stories. We can neither prove nor disprove them. Catholics believe they are manifestations of the divine; Protestants believe they are demonic; atheists believe they are lies or delusions. We shouldn't just dismiss them, but should be agnostic - suspending our disbelief just as Joseph of Cupertino was suspended in the air. Radical credulity and radical scepticism are equally bad, and we should remain open to the possibility that the supernatural exists.
My own take - even as someone who is religious and, I think, unusually inclined to take seriously odd beliefs - is that there isn't such a strong reason to believe them. Claims made by lots of people have turned out to be false; there are even examples of it in this book. I thought that part 3 really resolved this question: after all, there turn out to have been people who experienced miracles that were witnessed by vast numbers of independent observers, that actually turned out to be fake, so doesn't that explain the others as well? The more parsimonious explanation is that none of this ever happened, and we can move on.
But - to put on the disinterested-sceptic-social-scientist hat he so dislikes - what does this book say about our time, and theirs? We are experiencing something of an unravelling of the Enlightenment consensus and its whig history. There is growing interest in previously rejected ideas: scientific racism, mercantilism, anti-vaccination…all that was old is new again. Why shouldn't holy levitation be next?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard an otherwise admired colleague say something like, "Well, it does not really matter if Joseph of Cupertino flew up into the tree after a scream, or if Teresa of Ávila floated off the floor as her sisters piled on top of her to avoid a social embarrassment. What matters is how the popular belief in such presumed levitations was disciplined, controlled, and maintained by the church and later constructed as sanctity and as a saint…Really? I want to pull my hair out in such moments…A super-pious Italian man ecstatically flies into a tree and has to be retrieved with a ladder, or a raptured Spanish nun cannot keep herself on the floor in front of some visiting noblewomen, and these physical events do not matter to you? Uh, excuse me, if either of those things actually happened (and our historical records suggest strongly that they did), such anomalous events change pretty much everything we thought we knew about human consciousness and its relationship to physics, gravity, and material reality. Either single event would fundamentally change our entire order of knowledge. And you don’t care? Don’t you find that disinterest just a little bit perverse?I'll return to this in a bit, but first some background on the flying. There are some technical distinctions between different types: "relocation, bilocation, multilocation and transvection". The learned professor is beyond reproach on his own turf, but I did spot a small slip-up when he ventured into an area I know something about In a passage on "Jewish antecedents", he refers to Habakkuk's transvection to Babylon in Daniel 14:36. But this passage is extracanonical to Jews, stemming from the Septuagint (which I guess arguably has Jewish origins, but became associated with nascent Christianity very early on).
Flying is far from the only type of miracle, the list is:
• Visible ecstasies, raptures, and trances: When the body enters a cataleptic state and becomes rigid, insensible, and oblivious to its surroundings.The bulk of the book is detailed profiles of three miracle-experiencing saints: Teresa of Ávila, Joseph of Cupertino, and María de Ágreda. A third part relates to those whose miracle claims were rejected, either because they were faking, or because their miracles were done by demons or the Devil himself. (Protestants believed that miracles ended in Biblical times, and that modern supernatural manifestations were possible but only by devils, witches, etc.)
• Levitation: When the body rises up in the air, hovers, or flies.
• Weightlessness: When the body displays a total or nearly total absence of weight during trances and levitations or after death.
• Transvection: When the body is transported through the air from one location to another in some indeterminate measure of time.
• Mystical transport or teleportation: When the body transverses physical space instantaneously, moving from one place to another without any time having elapsed, sometimes over great distances.
• Bilocation: When the body is present in two places simultaneously.
• Stigmatization: When the body acquires the five wounds of the crucified Christ or other wounds inflicted during his passion.
• Luminous irradiance: When the body glows brightly.
• Supernatural hyperosmia: A heightened sense of smell that allows the mystic to detect the sins of others.
• Supernatural inedia: The ability to survive without any food or with very little food at all.
• Supernatural insomnia: The ability to survive without much, if any, sleep.
• Visible demonic molestations: Physical attacks by demons that wound the body.
• Odor of sanctity: When the body emits a unique and immensely pleasant smell.
• Supernatural incorruption: When the corpse of a saint does not decompose but remains unnaturally intact for many years, decades, or centuries.
• Supernatural oozing, or myroblitism: When the corpse of a saint discharges a pleasant-smelling oily substance capable of performing healing miracles directly or through cloths dipped in it.
When María Lobo de Meneses, the Nun of Lisbon, turned out to be a huge fraud, Fray Luis de Granada wrote a pamphlet postmortem:
Ultimately, then, a key lesson to be learned in this case was that God does not allow frauds to go undetected and that the Inquisition was a perfect instrument guided by His hand.Hmm.
(Another fun fact about María is that she blessed the Spanish Armada, which was a factor in the increased scrutiny on her miracles.)
Eire also seems to think the whole phenomenon of witch-hunting was a big and tragic mistake, and I couldn't quite figure out why he doesn't extend the same suspension of judgement here. Hunting witches was one of the few issues that Catholics and Protestants were equally excited about. Luther spoke a lot about the devil - sometimes in surprisingly, uh, earthy terms:
"The devil seeks me out when I am at home in bed," Luther said, "and I always have one or two devils waiting to pounce on me. They are smart devils. If they can’t overwhelm my heart, they grab my head and plague me there, and when that proves useless, I show them my a**, for that’s where they belong. Taunts such as "Lick my a**" and "Eat my s***" were hurled at the devil by Luther with abandon. Flatulence topped all this scatology, much like frosting on some cake from hell. Once, after farting loudly, he said: "Take this, devil! Here is a crozier for you; go to Rome and give it to your idol! [the Pope]"(A scatological tendency present also in Mozart; perhaps it's a German thing?) In response, the Counter-reformation Church hardened the criteria for canonisation, including creating a "devil's advocate" sceptic who would question the veracity of the miracles.
Sometimes, theological issues and farts are intertwined. "Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there, itching to argue with me," he boasted, pointing out that the arguing often involved his central doctrine of salvation by faith alone. "I have come to this conclusion," he added. "When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I chase him away with a fart." And whenever his conscience was troubled by particular sins, he would say: "Hey, devil, I just s*** in my pants too; have you added that to your list of sins yet?" Luther elaborated on this approach of his: "Tonight when I woke up the devil came, wanting to argue with me, objecting and throwing it up to me that I was a sinner. So, I said to him: Tell me something new, devil! I already know that very well; as always, I have committed many real and true sins…but all these sins are no longer mine, instead they’ve been taken by Christ…If this isn’t enough for you, devil, I just happened to s*** and p*ss: wipe your mouth with that and take a big bite!"
Eire's thesis is thus: the historical record is full of these stories. We can neither prove nor disprove them. Catholics believe they are manifestations of the divine; Protestants believe they are demonic; atheists believe they are lies or delusions. We shouldn't just dismiss them, but should be agnostic - suspending our disbelief just as Joseph of Cupertino was suspended in the air. Radical credulity and radical scepticism are equally bad, and we should remain open to the possibility that the supernatural exists.
My own take - even as someone who is religious and, I think, unusually inclined to take seriously odd beliefs - is that there isn't such a strong reason to believe them. Claims made by lots of people have turned out to be false; there are even examples of it in this book. I thought that part 3 really resolved this question: after all, there turn out to have been people who experienced miracles that were witnessed by vast numbers of independent observers, that actually turned out to be fake, so doesn't that explain the others as well? The more parsimonious explanation is that none of this ever happened, and we can move on.
But - to put on the disinterested-sceptic-social-scientist hat he so dislikes - what does this book say about our time, and theirs? We are experiencing something of an unravelling of the Enlightenment consensus and its whig history. There is growing interest in previously rejected ideas: scientific racism, mercantilism, anti-vaccination…all that was old is new again. Why shouldn't holy levitation be next?
December 9, 2024
I listened to this book a few weeks after reading Rod Dreher’s thought-provoking new book, Living in Wonder. Both books present some challenges to Protestant readers as they take aim at various aspects of modern metaphysical assumptions which, of the three major branches of Christianity, are most embedded within the children of the Reformation. Carlos Eire takes as his subject the levitation of medieval Catholic monks and nuns, prodigiously attested to by copious historical records. I was not aware of this phenomenon before. The book is a serious intellectual and historical treatment of a subject that would be treated as ridiculous by many.
The book traces the historical records of levitation from antiquity to the modern age. It shows up consistently throughout those many centuries in a number of different religious and pagan contexts, though it reaches its apogee in the medieval period within certain Catholic circles.
The book focuses in on three specific people for whom levitations and other similar miracles were common and widely attested: St. Teresa of Avila, St. Joseph of Cupertino, and the Venerable María de Ágreda. The overall picture that emerges is one where, despite budgeting for exaggeration and embellishment by hagiographers and admirers, it’s hard to deny that something truly remarkable happened with these people. The volume and variety of witnesses makes it very difficult to explain away.
The strangeness of the topic and the solidity of the evidence offers a direct challenge to our absorbed habits of skepticism and our confidence in the stable laws of nature. We come away with nagging questions. Just what happened, exactly? And how does it make sense within our understanding of reality? The book navigates this challenge carefully, letting the weight of the evidence land on the reader gradually, leaving the uncomfortable questions to nag at our modern minds.
The book includes a substantial and helpful treatment of medieval and early-modern views about the devil, witchcraft, and demons.
I was fascinated to learn that the topic of miraculous levitations became a proxy for the battle between the Roman Catholic church and the new fledgling but energetic Protestant churches, with both treating the phenomenon as real but Protestants largely attributing it to the power of the devil. Thus the rather fascinating phenomenon was reduced to one facet of a high-stakes battle between entrenched religious groups; a battle that not infrequently resulted in torture and death.
The fact that Protestant denunciations of Catholic miracles occurred in this fraught context gives me pause. I don’t think I agree with the esteemed Reformers in this matter, but I can understand how there was a strong impulse to circle the wagons. For their part, Catholic apologists argued forcefully that these miracles were nothing less than a divine seal of approval and approbation on the entire Roman Catholic institution; God’s ‘amen’ to their claim to be the One True Church. Thus there was a powerful partisan incentive, aside from the normal human proclivity, for Catholic chroniclers to exaggerate and inflate the accounts of the miraculous in their midst. This helps me understand why the debate about these kinds of preternatural or supernatural events played out the way they did in the wake of the Reformation.
With a bit of historical distance, and a warming of relations between good-faith members of Catholicism and Protestantism, it seems like a good time to revisit this issue. Here is a sketch of my own still-forming view of this. Levitations can be faked rather easily, especially if they occur indoors, but this cannot explain most of the historical record. The phenomenon is, at least part of the time, real. The physical body somehow is able to suspend the force of gravity, or to be unaffected by it, during a state of spiritual ecstasy. This porous barrier between the physical and the spiritual was the default worldview within medieval Catholicism, though it was considerably hardened within Protestantism, in part as a reaction against Catholic fixation on these and similar topics, and then fully cemented by the time of the enlightenment (which was really the enshrining of the new dogma of mechanistic, reductive materialism).
Within premodern cultures and in certain spiritualist and occult traditions even today, this separation does not exist in the same way, and testimonies of such “impossible” feats regularly trickle out, though hard evidence that would be amenable to scientific analysis is almost never produced. The fact that the real phenomenon was mostly located within certain Catholic institutions like monasteries and convents does not, for me, serve to underwrite the whole of Catholicism. Far from it. But neither do I dismiss it as merely a trick of the devil to deceive the masses. We should leave room for demonic trickery and preternatural manipulations, such as the testimony of one tortured soul in the book who eventually confessed to making a pact with two demons, resulting in her ability to manifest, among other things, inexplicable levitations—I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible. But if it’s not all demonic, and if I don’t buy what the pro-Roman Catholic apologists were selling, then we need some other framework to fit this into.
And so for me the conclusion is that these weird things did and do happen. They happened for a variety of reasons, perhaps divine and angelic, or demonic and devilish, or maybe even some other source besides that remains mysterious to us. God, in his perpetual purpose to confound the proud and the worldly-wise, perhaps scattered such manifestations among the Catholics in such a way as to frustrate the excesses of the Protestants. The injunction to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) applies to individuals. For Catholics to dismiss Protestants because of their lack of miracles (something which is not true today, if it ever was) is just as misguided as Protestants lumping all Catholic miracles together and denouncing them as demonic. In both of these approaches I see an all-too-human pride in one’s institution, one’s group. “You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?” (1 Cor. 3:3:).
If I have taken anything away from my reading of church history, it’s that God does not play favourites with his children. There is enough shameful wreckage in each and every human grouping of Christians to keep us humble, and enough goodness and grace to rightly celebrate. We do well to keep this in mind even as we hold our Biblical, theological, and historical convictions firmly.
Carlos Eire has produced a book that feels very much suited to our moment of metaphysical re-evaluation. Although I struggled and skimmed through some parts of it—the accounts of levitations all blur together after a while—I enjoyed this book and the way it made me wrestle through this fascinating historical thread running from the medieval world well into our modern age.
The central question—they flew?—rests uneasily on the modern mind. Can we really believe they flew without losing all the goods modernity has bequeathed on us? Can we believe it without reverting to a medieval worldview that, if enchanted, also tended to be marked by ignorance and superstition? Can we really believe they flew and still remain well equipped to live and lead in the twenty-first century? My answer to all these questions is yes.
We must let go of reductive materialism and the hold it has on our minds. By this I mean broadening our view of reality in order for it to accord with the way the world really is. In fact, I’ve become convinced that letting go of reductive materialism is going to be a necessary step if we are to hold on to the goods of the modern age; if we are to avoid the ditch of scientism and the ditch of superstition; if we are to have the perceptual tools and the wisdom to navigate the challenges of the twenty-first century—an age when, if my intuition is right, we will see the return of the old gods and every strange being and phenomenon we so eagerly ignored during the age of reason.
In other words, we may well need categories for things even stranger than floating nuns and flying friars.
The book traces the historical records of levitation from antiquity to the modern age. It shows up consistently throughout those many centuries in a number of different religious and pagan contexts, though it reaches its apogee in the medieval period within certain Catholic circles.
The book focuses in on three specific people for whom levitations and other similar miracles were common and widely attested: St. Teresa of Avila, St. Joseph of Cupertino, and the Venerable María de Ágreda. The overall picture that emerges is one where, despite budgeting for exaggeration and embellishment by hagiographers and admirers, it’s hard to deny that something truly remarkable happened with these people. The volume and variety of witnesses makes it very difficult to explain away.
The strangeness of the topic and the solidity of the evidence offers a direct challenge to our absorbed habits of skepticism and our confidence in the stable laws of nature. We come away with nagging questions. Just what happened, exactly? And how does it make sense within our understanding of reality? The book navigates this challenge carefully, letting the weight of the evidence land on the reader gradually, leaving the uncomfortable questions to nag at our modern minds.
The book includes a substantial and helpful treatment of medieval and early-modern views about the devil, witchcraft, and demons.
I was fascinated to learn that the topic of miraculous levitations became a proxy for the battle between the Roman Catholic church and the new fledgling but energetic Protestant churches, with both treating the phenomenon as real but Protestants largely attributing it to the power of the devil. Thus the rather fascinating phenomenon was reduced to one facet of a high-stakes battle between entrenched religious groups; a battle that not infrequently resulted in torture and death.
The fact that Protestant denunciations of Catholic miracles occurred in this fraught context gives me pause. I don’t think I agree with the esteemed Reformers in this matter, but I can understand how there was a strong impulse to circle the wagons. For their part, Catholic apologists argued forcefully that these miracles were nothing less than a divine seal of approval and approbation on the entire Roman Catholic institution; God’s ‘amen’ to their claim to be the One True Church. Thus there was a powerful partisan incentive, aside from the normal human proclivity, for Catholic chroniclers to exaggerate and inflate the accounts of the miraculous in their midst. This helps me understand why the debate about these kinds of preternatural or supernatural events played out the way they did in the wake of the Reformation.
With a bit of historical distance, and a warming of relations between good-faith members of Catholicism and Protestantism, it seems like a good time to revisit this issue. Here is a sketch of my own still-forming view of this. Levitations can be faked rather easily, especially if they occur indoors, but this cannot explain most of the historical record. The phenomenon is, at least part of the time, real. The physical body somehow is able to suspend the force of gravity, or to be unaffected by it, during a state of spiritual ecstasy. This porous barrier between the physical and the spiritual was the default worldview within medieval Catholicism, though it was considerably hardened within Protestantism, in part as a reaction against Catholic fixation on these and similar topics, and then fully cemented by the time of the enlightenment (which was really the enshrining of the new dogma of mechanistic, reductive materialism).
Within premodern cultures and in certain spiritualist and occult traditions even today, this separation does not exist in the same way, and testimonies of such “impossible” feats regularly trickle out, though hard evidence that would be amenable to scientific analysis is almost never produced. The fact that the real phenomenon was mostly located within certain Catholic institutions like monasteries and convents does not, for me, serve to underwrite the whole of Catholicism. Far from it. But neither do I dismiss it as merely a trick of the devil to deceive the masses. We should leave room for demonic trickery and preternatural manipulations, such as the testimony of one tortured soul in the book who eventually confessed to making a pact with two demons, resulting in her ability to manifest, among other things, inexplicable levitations—I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible. But if it’s not all demonic, and if I don’t buy what the pro-Roman Catholic apologists were selling, then we need some other framework to fit this into.
And so for me the conclusion is that these weird things did and do happen. They happened for a variety of reasons, perhaps divine and angelic, or demonic and devilish, or maybe even some other source besides that remains mysterious to us. God, in his perpetual purpose to confound the proud and the worldly-wise, perhaps scattered such manifestations among the Catholics in such a way as to frustrate the excesses of the Protestants. The injunction to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) applies to individuals. For Catholics to dismiss Protestants because of their lack of miracles (something which is not true today, if it ever was) is just as misguided as Protestants lumping all Catholic miracles together and denouncing them as demonic. In both of these approaches I see an all-too-human pride in one’s institution, one’s group. “You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?” (1 Cor. 3:3:).
If I have taken anything away from my reading of church history, it’s that God does not play favourites with his children. There is enough shameful wreckage in each and every human grouping of Christians to keep us humble, and enough goodness and grace to rightly celebrate. We do well to keep this in mind even as we hold our Biblical, theological, and historical convictions firmly.
Carlos Eire has produced a book that feels very much suited to our moment of metaphysical re-evaluation. Although I struggled and skimmed through some parts of it—the accounts of levitations all blur together after a while—I enjoyed this book and the way it made me wrestle through this fascinating historical thread running from the medieval world well into our modern age.
The central question—they flew?—rests uneasily on the modern mind. Can we really believe they flew without losing all the goods modernity has bequeathed on us? Can we believe it without reverting to a medieval worldview that, if enchanted, also tended to be marked by ignorance and superstition? Can we really believe they flew and still remain well equipped to live and lead in the twenty-first century? My answer to all these questions is yes.
We must let go of reductive materialism and the hold it has on our minds. By this I mean broadening our view of reality in order for it to accord with the way the world really is. In fact, I’ve become convinced that letting go of reductive materialism is going to be a necessary step if we are to hold on to the goods of the modern age; if we are to avoid the ditch of scientism and the ditch of superstition; if we are to have the perceptual tools and the wisdom to navigate the challenges of the twenty-first century—an age when, if my intuition is right, we will see the return of the old gods and every strange being and phenomenon we so eagerly ignored during the age of reason.
In other words, we may well need categories for things even stranger than floating nuns and flying friars.
August 8, 2025
just kind of unbelievably bad. im on board for the argument that what is "true" and "real" is historically and socially contingent, but there are limits to that. Eire ignores them. instead, he tongue-in-cheek argues that catholic miracles--flight, bilocation, etc--did actually happen, and it is our dogmatic (post)secularism that refuses to acknowledge said miracles. just dumb as fuck. throughout the whole book, Eire's writing is tinged with this ironic, tongue cheeky quality, which i guess he sees as a writing style, but is obviously a facade for the deep intellectual insecurity of his work.
and there is a deep, intellectual insecurity to his work. he relies on "eye witness accounts," which are really hagiographies written against the backdrop of the spanish inquisition, so of course they would confirm the miracles. not exactly strong evidence. no time is spent on possible explanations for the flights, bilocations, etc., except for one sentence that said Teresa of Avila is believed to have had epilepsy. rather, Eire just finger-wags and doubles down that the demand for "explanations" is (post)secular dogma. this is particularly funny, and rhetorically ineffective, because he dedicates part of his book to people who did fake miracles, which begs the question, how do we know everyone else didn't fake them too? Eire refuses to touch that question with a ten foot pole.
so we're left with an intellectually weak, if not entirely dishonest, book that gives a limited history of a few miracle workers and fraudsters. im not sure why you'd ever read this, unless you're a catholic wanting "historiography" that confirms your beliefs.
and there is a deep, intellectual insecurity to his work. he relies on "eye witness accounts," which are really hagiographies written against the backdrop of the spanish inquisition, so of course they would confirm the miracles. not exactly strong evidence. no time is spent on possible explanations for the flights, bilocations, etc., except for one sentence that said Teresa of Avila is believed to have had epilepsy. rather, Eire just finger-wags and doubles down that the demand for "explanations" is (post)secular dogma. this is particularly funny, and rhetorically ineffective, because he dedicates part of his book to people who did fake miracles, which begs the question, how do we know everyone else didn't fake them too? Eire refuses to touch that question with a ten foot pole.
so we're left with an intellectually weak, if not entirely dishonest, book that gives a limited history of a few miracle workers and fraudsters. im not sure why you'd ever read this, unless you're a catholic wanting "historiography" that confirms your beliefs.
March 9, 2025
What a fascinating and highly specific slice of history! And right in my wheelhouse. In They Flew: A History of the Impossible, historian Carlos Eire focuses on the stories of saints (or candidates for sainthood) in the late Middle Ages and into the 17th century who were reported to levitate or bilocate (appear in multiple places at one time), along with a host of other paranormal signs of God's favor. As Eire goes to great lengths to explain (there's much repetition in this book), it doesn't fully matter whether these events are true, or literal - we are left with stories of people who flew, and that in itself is interesting and an important component of human history. I agree, but it felt like Eire bent so far backwards to remain neutral (presumably not to offend an audience that believes in levitation and bilocation, stigmata, demon possession, automatic writing, prophecy, incorruptibility...) that he was practically floating himself.
There are many individuals mentioned, but the three primary figures are St. Teresa of Avila (known for her religious ecstasies (quite likely the result of temporal epilepsy) who I knew the most about going in, thanks to the famous Bernini statue), Mary of Jesus of Ágreda (who in addition to levitating and writing a much-contested work of theology (The Mystical City of God) was said to mystically travel from her monastery in Spain to the New World, where she appeared to native Texans and New Mexicans as the "Lady in Blue"), and St. Joseph of Cupertino. I'll focus on Joseph for a moment, because the stories of his levitations made me realize where I'd point my time machine if I had one. He was said to not only float within the space of the church - where he would apparently lose mass during mass - but also float outdoors, to heights at which people could barely see him. His church levitations were not only frequent, but inspired pilgrimages of believers who came in great numbers and attested to his feats. He was able to repeat this not only for skeptics who sought to disprove his abilities - the Inquisition often played the odd role of debunker in order to weed out attention-seekers and demoniacs - but even flew to the satisfaction of Pope Urban VIII, who asked to see the levitation himself.
As an investigator of paranormal abilities, I wanted nothing more than to witness the events in question. I would often think in terms of mental conditions that might produce the described behavior, or how I might pull off some of the feats described if I were accomplishing them as trickery. Some of the levitators were said to rise just a few inches off the ground, and I thought how that could easily be done with robes covering support structures such as poles coming from the ground or a nearby wall, or trick shoes. Indeed, there is a chapter on tricksters who were caught, and these were the types of methods they used. There was a sister Maria who used sticks hidden under her skirts and thick shoes, and whose stigmata (marks of Christ's wounds) were rubbed off and revealed as paint by the Inquisition. She didn't think they would rub so hard, as her cries of pain had dissuaded other investigators from exposing her. Magdalena de la Cruz was similarly exposed as a fraud, after failed prophecies and after passing off a pregnancy as divinely "implanted". With Joseph of Cupertino, we can only speculate based on clues. One interesting note was that his levitations were preceded by a large shout and a leap, which suggests that either he was covering the sound of a mechanical assist, or simply exerting a gymnastic effort that was enough to impress audiences of the 1600s as indistinguishable from flying. Wires in dim lighting are another possibility, but harder to pull off. We all know that one very non-supernatural human ability is to sweeten stories with each retelling, which I can say for sure is a factor at play in all of these stories.
In later chapters, Eire devotes space to later levitators and stories of demon possession, witchcraft, witch hunts, Protestant hijinks, and more modern levitators and bilocators (I was surprised to learn just how common a miracle bilocation was, given that I'd really only heard of it as an eastern phenomenon in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda). These chapters are dense and interesting, and I feel that if they had been expanded and the prior chapters contracted, the book might have felt more balanced and evenly engaging, but there were fascinating pieces of information all throughout. I've certainly come away with some new regular vocabulary: thaumaturge (a magician or worker of miracles), aethrobat (one who flies or levitates), and charism (a spiritual gift, and a direct sibling of charisma). And I'd never heard that "hocus pocus" may just be a corruption of the Latin "Hoc est corpus meum": "this is my body" from the Catholic eucharist ceremony. Also, the more I learn about Martin Luther, the more repulsive I find him to be. He apparently had a fixation on defecation and farts, and believed they were a means of rebuking the devil. Quotes from Luther: "I chase him away with a fart" (said of demonic presences), and "If this isn’t enough for you, devil, I just happened to shit and piss: wipe your mouth with that and take a big bite!" and "Hey Devil, I just shit in my pants, too. Have you added that to your list of sins yet?"
Eire is right that these stories are an important part of human history, whether the supernatural exists or not. I was left with the impression that otherworldly claims themselves follow trends and fads that tie them to their eras. Many of the "miracles" passed off as acts of God sound laughable to modern ears. This is a great collection of those stories.
There are many individuals mentioned, but the three primary figures are St. Teresa of Avila (known for her religious ecstasies (quite likely the result of temporal epilepsy) who I knew the most about going in, thanks to the famous Bernini statue), Mary of Jesus of Ágreda (who in addition to levitating and writing a much-contested work of theology (The Mystical City of God) was said to mystically travel from her monastery in Spain to the New World, where she appeared to native Texans and New Mexicans as the "Lady in Blue"), and St. Joseph of Cupertino. I'll focus on Joseph for a moment, because the stories of his levitations made me realize where I'd point my time machine if I had one. He was said to not only float within the space of the church - where he would apparently lose mass during mass - but also float outdoors, to heights at which people could barely see him. His church levitations were not only frequent, but inspired pilgrimages of believers who came in great numbers and attested to his feats. He was able to repeat this not only for skeptics who sought to disprove his abilities - the Inquisition often played the odd role of debunker in order to weed out attention-seekers and demoniacs - but even flew to the satisfaction of Pope Urban VIII, who asked to see the levitation himself.
As an investigator of paranormal abilities, I wanted nothing more than to witness the events in question. I would often think in terms of mental conditions that might produce the described behavior, or how I might pull off some of the feats described if I were accomplishing them as trickery. Some of the levitators were said to rise just a few inches off the ground, and I thought how that could easily be done with robes covering support structures such as poles coming from the ground or a nearby wall, or trick shoes. Indeed, there is a chapter on tricksters who were caught, and these were the types of methods they used. There was a sister Maria who used sticks hidden under her skirts and thick shoes, and whose stigmata (marks of Christ's wounds) were rubbed off and revealed as paint by the Inquisition. She didn't think they would rub so hard, as her cries of pain had dissuaded other investigators from exposing her. Magdalena de la Cruz was similarly exposed as a fraud, after failed prophecies and after passing off a pregnancy as divinely "implanted". With Joseph of Cupertino, we can only speculate based on clues. One interesting note was that his levitations were preceded by a large shout and a leap, which suggests that either he was covering the sound of a mechanical assist, or simply exerting a gymnastic effort that was enough to impress audiences of the 1600s as indistinguishable from flying. Wires in dim lighting are another possibility, but harder to pull off. We all know that one very non-supernatural human ability is to sweeten stories with each retelling, which I can say for sure is a factor at play in all of these stories.
In later chapters, Eire devotes space to later levitators and stories of demon possession, witchcraft, witch hunts, Protestant hijinks, and more modern levitators and bilocators (I was surprised to learn just how common a miracle bilocation was, given that I'd really only heard of it as an eastern phenomenon in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda). These chapters are dense and interesting, and I feel that if they had been expanded and the prior chapters contracted, the book might have felt more balanced and evenly engaging, but there were fascinating pieces of information all throughout. I've certainly come away with some new regular vocabulary: thaumaturge (a magician or worker of miracles), aethrobat (one who flies or levitates), and charism (a spiritual gift, and a direct sibling of charisma). And I'd never heard that "hocus pocus" may just be a corruption of the Latin "Hoc est corpus meum": "this is my body" from the Catholic eucharist ceremony. Also, the more I learn about Martin Luther, the more repulsive I find him to be. He apparently had a fixation on defecation and farts, and believed they were a means of rebuking the devil. Quotes from Luther: "I chase him away with a fart" (said of demonic presences), and "If this isn’t enough for you, devil, I just happened to shit and piss: wipe your mouth with that and take a big bite!" and "Hey Devil, I just shit in my pants, too. Have you added that to your list of sins yet?"
Eire is right that these stories are an important part of human history, whether the supernatural exists or not. I was left with the impression that otherworldly claims themselves follow trends and fads that tie them to their eras. Many of the "miracles" passed off as acts of God sound laughable to modern ears. This is a great collection of those stories.
May 24, 2026
The only good pages in this book are the few in which historical accounts are narrated. The other 500 pages of this book are repetitions of the names of a handful of Spaniards and Italians, and masturbation about how important and iconoclastic it is to write a book about something we consider impossible. The bravery to wake us from our dogmatic slumber.
Dr. Eire would be glad to know that I am receptive to justification by testimony. I can't know any claims about history, any scientific experiment I didn't conduct, or anything about other people's thoughts without relying on testimony. But testimony is just one part of the picture. This book abuses testimony. You have to consider if the narrated events seem likely on prior (or, the coherent whole) information, if the testimony is mistaken or confused, if the speaker might have reason to lie or embellish, and so on. The accounts Dr. Eire relies on are hagiographies, and he calls them as much. Particular atheists try to explain gospel miracles like Jesus walking on water with people having mis-appearances of reality. Those giving the accounts did not realize that Jesus was stepping on stones, or he was in the shallows, etc. The much better explanation is that no such thing happened, the miracles were accretions. It's hard to imagine a claim I could give to Dr. Eire which by his lights he should not suspend judgement on, so long as I told him he was transforming the post-modern into the post-post-modern by doing so.
As another 1-star-reviewer points out, given the claims about justification by testimony in the first section, we ought to accept the claims he himself denies of third section on the (kindly, ancillary) topic of witchcraft. That witchcraft and witches and demonic pacts are real. Following the reasoning of the first section, it rapidly becomes uncertain why Dr. Eire is a Catholic. If he wants us to suspend judgement on (or even assert the truth of, "They Flew." and, "They Flew!") the levitations, why shouldn't he at least also suspend judgment on the testimony of the Witnesses of the Golden Plates inscribed with the Book of Mormon, not to mention those who claim to have seen the Angel Moroni? Why are the Catholic claims in his history of levitation particularly worthwhile? History makes clear that people of all sorts of traditions claimed to witness levitation all the time. Why not believe these are equally significant? Why not suspend judgement on Instagram reels explaining how dragons used to live on Earth and they will soon return from the other side of the Antarctic ice wall? There is a tremendous amount of testimony to that effect on social media.
Dr. Eire is not very fond of protestants. One reason he dislikes protestants is that they believe in the cessation of miracles at the end of the apostolic age. They take God out of the world and our lives. The first issue most people should come to on hearing about this book is that people don't levitate anymore. In fact, we all carry around handheld digital cameras all the time everywhere. If levitation happened, it would be on video, let alone if it was as commonplace for humans to levitate as Dr. Eire suggests. He at times tries to frame levitation as so commonplace in the past that it is akin to this saying, that we know what battles kings fought in, but not what they ate for breakfast. Commonplace trivialities are not recorded into the annals. Surely he doesn't want to argue that levitation is still so commonplace or expected, that it is not noteworthy enough to video. So the consequence of his view is cessation qua levitation, or any other miracle vulnerable to photography. Protestants view the first century as a past age as full of particularly holy people who God proved himself through, Dr. Eire has just moved that past age up a millennium and a half or so.
Dr. Eire purports to take us to post-post-modern, but really the logic at play is just pre-modern. He wants to suggest that he is post-rational, maybe even the truest Humean of all, but his reasoning is pre-rational. There are testimonial accounts of levitation, what explains this? That people really flew. How did they fly? Well God did it.
Unfortunately this is not a history book. It's not even a book of apologetics, because apologists respect their opponents enough to understand that they expect to hear reasons, arguments even, as to why someone believes the things they do. Here is where Dr. Eire would smugly declare, "There's the Rub, as Hamlet would say." (ASIDE: "There's the Rub, as Hamlet would say." Is a real quote from the book, I'm not making this up. Saying "There's the rub," is already invoking Hamlet. You don't need to tell me it's a reference to Hamlet. I bring this up because this book feels extremely unedited both structurally, and at the line level. Multiply and vary that peculiar sentence alongside the diversion this parenthetical took you down 10,000 times and you will have a sense for what it is like to read this book. He actually even reuses There's the Rub later in the book. I suspect he invokes Hamlet because it is a story of someone seeing and believing something "impossible"). This Post-Cartesian-Baconian valuing of reason and evidence is the dogmatic slumber he wants to rouse us from. Well, it didn't work. He wants to show you some Catholics who he believes are particularly interesting, or spiritually important, because he believes that the truth of these claims would confirm the truth of Catholicism. It's not question begging, it's self-righteous foot stamping
Dr. Eire would be glad to know that I am receptive to justification by testimony. I can't know any claims about history, any scientific experiment I didn't conduct, or anything about other people's thoughts without relying on testimony. But testimony is just one part of the picture. This book abuses testimony. You have to consider if the narrated events seem likely on prior (or, the coherent whole) information, if the testimony is mistaken or confused, if the speaker might have reason to lie or embellish, and so on. The accounts Dr. Eire relies on are hagiographies, and he calls them as much. Particular atheists try to explain gospel miracles like Jesus walking on water with people having mis-appearances of reality. Those giving the accounts did not realize that Jesus was stepping on stones, or he was in the shallows, etc. The much better explanation is that no such thing happened, the miracles were accretions. It's hard to imagine a claim I could give to Dr. Eire which by his lights he should not suspend judgement on, so long as I told him he was transforming the post-modern into the post-post-modern by doing so.
As another 1-star-reviewer points out, given the claims about justification by testimony in the first section, we ought to accept the claims he himself denies of third section on the (kindly, ancillary) topic of witchcraft. That witchcraft and witches and demonic pacts are real. Following the reasoning of the first section, it rapidly becomes uncertain why Dr. Eire is a Catholic. If he wants us to suspend judgement on (or even assert the truth of, "They Flew." and, "They Flew!") the levitations, why shouldn't he at least also suspend judgment on the testimony of the Witnesses of the Golden Plates inscribed with the Book of Mormon, not to mention those who claim to have seen the Angel Moroni? Why are the Catholic claims in his history of levitation particularly worthwhile? History makes clear that people of all sorts of traditions claimed to witness levitation all the time. Why not believe these are equally significant? Why not suspend judgement on Instagram reels explaining how dragons used to live on Earth and they will soon return from the other side of the Antarctic ice wall? There is a tremendous amount of testimony to that effect on social media.
Dr. Eire is not very fond of protestants. One reason he dislikes protestants is that they believe in the cessation of miracles at the end of the apostolic age. They take God out of the world and our lives. The first issue most people should come to on hearing about this book is that people don't levitate anymore. In fact, we all carry around handheld digital cameras all the time everywhere. If levitation happened, it would be on video, let alone if it was as commonplace for humans to levitate as Dr. Eire suggests. He at times tries to frame levitation as so commonplace in the past that it is akin to this saying, that we know what battles kings fought in, but not what they ate for breakfast. Commonplace trivialities are not recorded into the annals. Surely he doesn't want to argue that levitation is still so commonplace or expected, that it is not noteworthy enough to video. So the consequence of his view is cessation qua levitation, or any other miracle vulnerable to photography. Protestants view the first century as a past age as full of particularly holy people who God proved himself through, Dr. Eire has just moved that past age up a millennium and a half or so.
Dr. Eire purports to take us to post-post-modern, but really the logic at play is just pre-modern. He wants to suggest that he is post-rational, maybe even the truest Humean of all, but his reasoning is pre-rational. There are testimonial accounts of levitation, what explains this? That people really flew. How did they fly? Well God did it.
Unfortunately this is not a history book. It's not even a book of apologetics, because apologists respect their opponents enough to understand that they expect to hear reasons, arguments even, as to why someone believes the things they do. Here is where Dr. Eire would smugly declare, "There's the Rub, as Hamlet would say." (ASIDE: "There's the Rub, as Hamlet would say." Is a real quote from the book, I'm not making this up. Saying "There's the rub," is already invoking Hamlet. You don't need to tell me it's a reference to Hamlet. I bring this up because this book feels extremely unedited both structurally, and at the line level. Multiply and vary that peculiar sentence alongside the diversion this parenthetical took you down 10,000 times and you will have a sense for what it is like to read this book. He actually even reuses There's the Rub later in the book. I suspect he invokes Hamlet because it is a story of someone seeing and believing something "impossible"). This Post-Cartesian-Baconian valuing of reason and evidence is the dogmatic slumber he wants to rouse us from. Well, it didn't work. He wants to show you some Catholics who he believes are particularly interesting, or spiritually important, because he believes that the truth of these claims would confirm the truth of Catholicism. It's not question begging, it's self-righteous foot stamping
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews