Sr. Lucy of Fatima and the Woman who Replaced Her: The ‘Sister Lucy Truth’ Project Explained

The ‘Sister Lucy Truth’ project explained

Sr. Lucia of Fatima and the Woman who Replaced Her

For years the Thomist philosopher Dr. Peter Chojnowski (aka “RadTrad Thomist”) has been busy gathering data for professional evaluation by accredited and recognized scientific experts to determine the truth regarding the rumors and corresponding circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Fatima seer Sister Lucia dos Santos, to whom Our Lady appeared in 1917, was replaced by an impostor some time after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

To that end, Chojnowski even established a tax-exempt non-profit organization called Sister Lucy Truth in 2017. The results that have been obtained since are nothing short of phenomenal. The continually-updated Sister Lucy Truth web site has made all findings available, and then some:

• The Scientific Evidence
• Who are the Experts?
• The Contradictions
• Photo Galleries
• The Indictment
• Objections and Replies
• Fatima Fraud: Our Case for an Impostor Sister Lucy (Summary Presentation)

Every single professional consulted to give an objective evaluation of the data reached the same conclusion: Sr. Lucy before 1960 and Sr. Lucy after 1960 are two different people. The scientists’ verdict is unanimous! As explained on the Sister Lucy Truth site:

The scientists and experts commissioned also have public, professional reputations on the line. Further, they are not personally invested in the results. All of them were given this material for analysis without any explanation of the desired results. They were simply asked to analyze and deliver the conclusions based on their own expertise or technological equipment. They all independently came to the same conclusion: there are two individuals.

The most critical response, however, is that we received results that we did not expect or want, such as in the iPRoBe Lab or the handwriting analysis of the Third Secret. If we had simply paid off these experts [as some critics have cynically claimed], then all the results should be in our favor. The fact that not everything lines up as we had hoped or expected is a further proof of their objectivity.

(“Objections and Responses”, n. 7)

Despite this clear case, strangely enough, very few people who call themselves traditional Catholics and big promoters of Our Lady of Fatima have shown any interest in this project or its findings. Although professing their love for the One who said “the truth shall make you free” (Jn 8:32), many are inexplicably not interested in the truth concerning that matter at all.

Not that we should necessarily expect everyone to agree that Sr. Lucy was definitely replaced by an impostor — although the evidence in that regard is overwhelming –, but one should be able to expect that everyone will at least consider the evidence presented to be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt concerning the whole matter, thus warranting an unbiased investigation. Instead, it gets quickly dismissed as not worthy of consideration, as in: “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

Considering how much importance they attach to Fatima otherwise, and especially the controversy surrounding the Third Secret, one would think that they have every motivation to find out whether the real Fatima seer was replaced with an impostor at some point. If, as they apparently think, this is all a big “nothingburger”, then shouldn’t they be interested in establishing that beyond reasonable doubt — if for no other reason than to shut up those “wackadoodles”?

Of course the consequences of a post-Vatican II impostor of the real Fatima seer are significant. For one thing, all the many things Sister Lucy supposedly did and said after the council — such as the famous “diabolical disorientation” remark — must then be rejected as false, that is, as not actually having come from the woman to whom Our Lady appeared at Fatima. However, if we are not willing to embrace truth when we dislike its consequences, how are we different from the Pharisees of old who stubbornly resisted the known truth?

Sister Lucy Truth has now released a new video that briefly introduces Fatima and the findings of the Sr. Lucy investigation:

In the interests of fairness and truth, we also want to call people’s attention to the fact that Chojnowski’s Sister Lucy Truth project has its critics, and that’s perfectly fine. One such critic is Lauri Brown, but even she does not at all dispute that the post-Vatican II “Sr. Lucy” is an impostor. Rather, she believes that Chojnowski’s investigation is flawed, and she advances the thesis that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced in 1948 and that there is more fakery going on than a post-Vatican II impostor:

• Some Questions about “Sister Lucy Truth” (Dies Illi)

It is not our intention to evaluate Brown’s objections here, only to make people aware of their existence so they can make up their own minds.

When one’s true goal is the unfeigned discovery truth, one must seek out and weigh all evidence dispassionately. Initial findings lead to a hypothesis, and further confirmation of these findings lead to a theory. Such a theory, however, must always remain open to new evidence and therefore allow itself to be challenged and even refuted. After all, falsifiability is the hallmark of all empirico-scientific inquiry.

Chojnowski ought to be commended for his approach to the controversy. Instead of leaving alleged evidence in the realm of endless speculation by untrained but opinionated internet users, he actually wanted to settle the matter definitively and got to work so that the world could have serious, credible, and verifiable results: He commissioned experts in their respective fields to give their professional and objective assessments of the data available.

The evidence collected, then, is as certain as empirical evidence of its kind is going to get. What else is one trying to get to the truth of the matter supposed to do? Obtain the ultimate piece of evidence by means of a DNA test? Fair enough, but for that to happen, a blood relative of the Fatima seer would have to volunteer a DNA sample. If anyone can help in that regard, please contact Sister Lucy Truth. Chojnowski would definitely welcome such a test because it would definitively silence all doubters and naysayers.

For those not familiar, we have published several posts on the “Two Sister Lucys” over the years, such as the following:

• New Evidence: Two Sister Lucys of Fatima (2013)
• Facial Recognition Experts prove Novus Ordo Vatican’s “Sister Lucy of Fatima” was an Impostor (2018)
• The Real and the False Sister Lucy of Fatima: The Scientific Evidence is here! (2019)
• Major TV Network to air Documentary on Vatican’s “Sister Lucy” Imposture (2020)

That there should have been an impostor Lucia dos Santos is not difficult to fathom if we look at what the Modernists and Masons have accomplished since the death of Pope Pius XII. It is most likely that the true Third Secret of Fatima (perhaps this text?) Our Lady revealed to the children in 1917 announces in some fashion the impending subversion of the Church, the calling of a false ecumenical council, the destruction of the Catholic Mass, and with it the emergence of this strange new ecclesiastical structure we call the Novus Ordo Church. For that reason alone, it would have been of the greatest importance for the anti-Catholic revolutionaries in the Catholic hierarchy to find a way to “deal with” Sr. Lucy of Fatima.

Do we not owe it to Our Lady at least to try to find out?

Image source: video screenshot (modified)
License: fair use