The literature of the question shows that the miraculous mental performances of somnambulists were hardly ever submitted to real scientific control. Such control is often quite out, of the question - as, for instance, when a medium describes what it looks like on the moon or the planet Mars. That credulous spiritualists should believe such statements is not to be wondered at. But it is not to be denied that people occasionally exhibit somewhat greater capability in hypnosis than when they are awake. But even if this is the case, it can be explained by the special characteristics of hypnosis which have just been mentioned, more particularly the greater freedom of movement, the increased power of memory, and hyperesthesia of the organs of sense. We can likewise trace to hypermnesia those cases in which a medium makes a speech which he would be incapable of delivering if he were awake; he remembers things that are completely forgotten in the waking state. I may here refer the reader to what I said about this on page 126 et seq.

There is no credible case on record in which a medium has been proved to have delivered a speech which he had not learned beforehand.

There are, in this connection, many other phenomena that can be explained by hypnosis. Of these I may mention the assertion that fakirs and ecstatics do not bleed when pricked with a needle. Lloyd Tuckey says he has observed the same thing in the case of deeply-hypnotized subjects (cf, p. 107).

In the foregoing paragraphs I have purposely discussed some phenomena which belong to the domain of spiritualism, but which hypnosis explains in the simplest manner. It used to be assumed that mediums simulated a state of trance on the ground that no such state really existed, but hypnotism has shown this assumption to be erroneous, though it must certainly be admitted that a state of trance is very often simulated. The foregoing remarks ought also to show that hypnotism has contributed in many other ways to the refutation of spiritualism. And it ought not to be considered a mere matter of chance that spiritualists, and more particularly mediums and their accomplices, find critical investigators the most unpleasant experimenters they have to deal with - people who should be kept away from spiritualistic siances at any cost. Mediums know quite well that a man who understands hypnotism and is also a critical observer - there are people who understand hypnotism and yet suffer from the same auto-suggestions as spiritualists - is best able to detect those sources of error which have to be considered.

I will now make brief mention of another phenomenon which has been wrongly interpreted and ascribed to fraud, because it did not appear easily explainable - I refer to the bleeding of the skin, which has played a part in the mysteries of the Catholic Church. It is reported of stigmatics that they exhibit bleeding of the skin in places that correspond to the wounds of Christ. It was first observed in Francis of Assisi. Bournet, who gives a detailed account of the case, asserts that the assumption that the phenomenon was the result of heightened imaginative power was first put forward by Jacobus de Voragine in the thirteenth century. As time went on, the number of stigmatics increased very considerably. According to Imbert-Gourbeyre, there had been one hundred and forty-five stigmatics up to 1873, in which year, he adds, eight were still alive. The best-known case of modern times is that of Louise Lateau, of Bois d'Haine, near Mons, who was much talked of in 1868. The anatomical process in her case was rather a complicated one (Virchow, Lefebvre). Blisters first appeared, and after they burst there was bleeding from the corium (true skin) without any visible injury. In the descriptions given of other stigmatics, we also find very complicated processes described as stigmatization.

In the case of the stigmatic of Gendringen, described by Welscher in 1844, the bleeding was preceded by the formation of blisters. Delboeuf and others believe that the phenomena of stigmatization were due to auto-suggestion. Louise Lateau directed her attention continually to those parts of her body which she knew corresponded to the wounds of Christ, and the anatomical lesions resulted from this strain of attention, just as they did from external suggestion in other cases. Virchow thought that fraud or miracle were the only alternatives; but it must be added that Louise Lateau was supposed to have refused all nourishment. Warlomont decided, after personal investigation, that fraud was impossible. It must be admitted that no exact investigation, such as science demands, was undertaken in the case of Lateau, and my own examination of other such cases has never revealed one which had been submitted to the unbiassed investigation of true science. At the same time, it must be admitted that the mechanical production of such hemorrhages is within the limits of possibility.

On the other hand, if we take the results of modern hypnotic research into consideration, it cannot be denied that the bleeding might have been the result of auto-suggestion, as pointed out above, but even then we should have to remember that the ecstasy of the stigmatic bears a great likeness to hypnosis - both states are possibly identical (Mantegazza). Nevertheless, the auto-suggestive interpretation must be considered justified. And Nussbaum thinks it does not run counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church if we consider that the pious maidens who became stigmatics were so deeply embued with the impression that they felt the pains and exhibited the five wounds of the Saviour, that real drops of blood oozed through their skin.

The Catholic clergy, many of whom, like Sancha Hervas, condemn hypnotism altogether, object to the identification of stigmatization with bleeding from the skin. Meric asserts that the stigmatics, so far from being in an abnormal state, were quite awake. But apart from the fact that this would not traverse the assumption that auto-suggestion produced the bleeding, Meric's supposition is undoubtedly wrong. It is perfectly clear from the descriptions given by various stigmatics that their state was abnormal. As far as Louise Lateau is concerned, she was in a state closely related to hypnosis; that is, if we take it for granted there was no fraud in the case. There was even some rapport, for Lateau, like a hypnotic, spoke to certain persons only. Other objections to the explanation afforded by suggestion are also unwarranted. Gombault considers stigmatization a supernatural (priter-naturel) process. He is opposed to Surbled, who, like himself, did not admit the psychical origin of stigmatization, but, nevertheless, thought that although a scientific explanation is still wanting, the future may well be expected to supply one.