Fifty-one reported appearances — of Christ, of his mother, of angels, of saints — from the first century to the twenty-first. Not arranged devotionally. Arranged so that three things sit next to each other: where it happened, what was said, and what was going on there at the time.
The third column is the one nobody supplies, and it is the one that turns a list into an argument. It is also the one we are furthest from finishing, and this page shows you exactly where the gaps are rather than filling them with plausible history.
Drag to pan, scroll or pinch to zoom, click a point to open its entry. Where several sit on one spot the marker carries a count — zoom in and they separate. Coastlines and borders are Natural Earth 1:110m, public domain, held as a static file here rather than fetched from a tile service. That is a world-scale dataset: it will show you that a point is in the Pyrenees, not which street it is on.
Counted from the entries where the seers are named. Not an argument — a tally.
The objection is that they all say the same thing. That is testable, so here it is tested — the asks are tagged from a fixed vocabulary and counted. The answer turns out to be partly, and mostly since 1800.
Each bar runs from the first recorded appearance of that ask to the last. The marks are the individual entries.
Seven claims, each labeled by how well the link holds. The labels are the point of the section; the claims are secondary to them.
This is the layer where a page like this normally goes wrong, because it is exactly where post-hoc pattern-fitting lives. So every claim carries one of four labels, and the labels do the arguing:
One claim on this page is established. One is unfulfilled. If that ratio looks unimpressive, that is the honest shape of the material, and a page that showed you a column of confident hits would be telling you less.
Computed from the entries that carry a decree with a date. Not an assertion — arithmetic.
Click any row. Sort by any column. This is where a skeptic works.
| Year | What | Who appeared | Where | Standing | Context |
|---|
Not one entry on this page carries a decree of the Holy See declaring an apparition supernatural — and that is not a gap in our research. Every positive judgment here was made by a local ordinary: the Bishop of Leiria for Fatima, of Tarbes for Lourdes, of Gap for Laus, of Green Bay for Champion. That is how the Church assigns the competence. Five entries used to read simply approved on this page, and every one of those labels turned out to rest on an act that approved something adjacent — a Mass and Office for Guadalupe in 1754, a liturgical celebration for the Sacred Heart in 1765, a nullity verdict and a canonization for Joan. Real acts, and none of them a ruling that the events happened.
So each entry now carries two facts instead of one, because they are not the same fact. What was judged about the events, and what was granted to the devotion. A permitted devotion is not evidence that the apparition behind it was approved — and Amsterdam is the proof: the devotion is permitted, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judged the phenomenon constat de non supernaturalitate in 1974, with Paul VI approving that judgment. It sat on this page as "contested" until it was checked.
Filter to what has been formally judged and see what survives. That is the point of the filter, and it is a real test rather than a gesture: a good deal of what is on this page has never been ruled on either way, and some of it has been ruled against. If the pattern only appears when the unexamined material is included, it is not a pattern.
Where the standing has a name and a date, we give both. Twelve entries do. Others are widely described as approved and we have not been able to name the decree — those say so, and you should discount them accordingly until we can.
Who it happens to is a tally, not a thesis. The seer figures are counts over a named field with a fixed set of tags, so you can check them. If the pattern were not there, the numbers would say so.
The context column is now complete — 46 of 46. It was filled slowly and against the temptation to invent, and getting there cost entries: the research that closed the last gaps also found rows whose underlying event would not survive being asked why then, and those were removed rather than furnished with plausible history. The standing labels are explained here.
Sequence is not causation. Several entries carry a what came next line. That is ordering and nothing more: what follows an apparition is not thereby caused by it, and no historical method can close that gap. The consecration of 1984 preceded the Soviet collapse; saying so is a date, and saying more would be a claim we cannot support. The sequence is still worth seeing.
Predictions are labeled by how well the link holds, in four grades, and one of them is unfulfilled. Garabandal announced a worldwide warning and a miracle; sixty years on, neither has happened, and it is on the page for that reason. A page that listed only the hits would be worth less than this one.
Fifteen entries in our own source were wrong and are corrected here, each with the correction recorded on the entry and visible under Date note — wrong years, a vision credited to an angel that the text does not call one, a cloak vision filed under the wrong city and half a century late, and a witness count no source supports. Seven entries were removed outright, every one for the same reason: the row asserted an event the record would not carry. A duplicate; a person not in the apparition tradition; a relic translation filed as an apparition; a pilgrimage tradition with no apparition in it; two dates that belong to no findable event; and an approval mistaken for an apparition, which was also corrupting the approval-lag chart.