I have dropped the domain historiesmysteriesandstrangeness.com and reverted back to the original domain of histmyst.blogspot.com. However, you will also be able to reach the site via historiesmysteriesandstrangeness.guvna.net or just simply hms.guvna.net.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Jeane Dixon and the Final Pope

I came across an article today regarding one of Jeane Dixon's prophecies that allegedly alludes to the rise of the anti-Christ. For those not familiar with Dixon, she was an American psychic and astrologer who is famous for predicting the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and is also famous for providing psychic and astrological advice to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan (and maybe some others in between them). Although she made many accurate predictions over the years, she also got some wrong too. Her excuse though was the information she received wasn't necessarily wrong, but she had interpreted it wrong. What caught my eye in that article though was a prophecy she had regarding the Papacy. The article quotes her as saying:

"During this century one pope will suffer bodily harm. Another will be assassinated. The assassination will be the final blow to the office of the Holy See. This pope will be the same one who will be chosen in the not too distant future but whose election will not be approved by the Roman clergy. His influence, however, will be such that he will win out over the objections of his opponents. While this pope will be the last one ever to reign as singular head of the Church, the beginnings of this change will occur with one of his predecessors who will give far-reaching powers to his cardinals. These same cardinals will use their powers to replace him with one more to their liking."

That quote reminded me of my recent posting titled The Prophecy of Saint Malachy. It regards Saint Malachy's prediction of who the final person on the throne at the Vatican would be (as well as vague predictions regarding the various popes that would rule during the years leading up to the final Catholic leader). This particular prediction of Jeane Dixon's reminded me of this prophecy. She says that during this century one pope would suffer bodily harm. Considering she published that prediction in the 1970's, that would mean the prediction regards a pope that reigned during the 70's, 80's, or 90's. This would appear to be a reference to Pope John Paul II, who was wounded in an assassination attempt by Mehmet Ali Agca in 1981. Her prediction then says that another pope will be assassinated. What's interesting about that is it says that the assassination will be the final blow to the office of the Holy See (the Pope) and that this particular Pope would be in charge, but that his election would not be approved by the Roman clergy. This sounds very similar to what Saint Malachy said about Peter the Roman. Saint Malachy said that Peter the Roman would be on the throne at the Vatican, but he doesn't explicitly state that Peter the Roman would be elected Pope. So if you compare Saint Malachy's prophecy to Jeane Dixon's, it appears Jeane Dixon may be predicting the assassination of Peter the Roman (Although there is a slight possibility her prediction of a papal assassination is a reference to John Paul I. John Paul I's death after only 33 days in office was said to probably have been a heart attack, but there was no autopsy done, so no one knows for sure. There are conspiracy theories that claim he was actually assassinated. Nevertheless, judging by the context of Jeane Dixon's prediction, I don't think she was making reference to John Paul I, but I thought I would at least point that out.)

So it seems we may have yet another reference to the final pope. I have to wonder though, did Jeane Dixon merely read Saint Malachy's prophecy and adapt it into her own prediction? Or is what she predicted a legitimate prophecy of her own? Judging by her long history of psychic and astrological predictions, it may very well be a legitimate prophecy of hers. We may never really know for sure though. The only thing we can do now is wait and see if her prediction is accurate.


  1. Jeanne Dixon? She inspired mathematician John Allen Paulos to argue that belief in prophecy occurs when “relatively few correct predictions are heralded and therefore widely remembered, while the much more numerous incorrect predictions are conveniently forgotten or de-emphasized" He called this the Jeanne Dixon effect.

    On the morning of 5 February 1962, Jeane had a vision of Joseph, Queen Nefertiti and Akhenaten. The Egyptian royal couple carried a baby wrapped in rags and then the scene changed; the infant had become a man with a cross in the air above him that “dripped over the earth”. People of every race and religion surrounded him “in worshipful adoration."
    Dixon believed that a descendant of the Egyptian royal couple was born that day to poor parents in the Middle East and that the “Child of the East” would unite mankind under a new form of Christianity before the end of the century.

    That particular prophecy didn't work out too well for Jeanne.

    She also reportedly advised FDR to side with the Nazis against the Communists.
    Advice the US evidently followed when they later instituted Paperclip & smuggled out all those Nazi war criminals.

    She attributed 60s social unrest to Communists, preferring to conveniently overlook the sins of her own country. Maybe she had ethereal blinders on her second sight powers.

    Dixon, the eternally enlightened rabid right winger also saw, during one vision, Negroes “being pushed by an underground force [Communists]” to seek “equal powers and jobs before they have the intellect­ual capacity and understanding to accept equal responsibility.”

    All in all, I'd say Jeanne was as much showman as seer. In other words, don't sell all your possessions and then climb a mountain in apocalyptic anticipation, you might find yourself waiting a loooooooooooooong time for the end to actually show up.

    1. I think that she misinterpreted the prophecy about "Negroes" - she thought that it pertained to black people in the US, when in fact it had to do with AFRICANS whose countries were gaining independence from their colonial rulers before their citizens were ready to rule themselves.

  2. Well I did point out at the beginning of the posting that she had made errors...and had an excuse for those errors too. Whether or not you believe her excuse is a legitimate one or not is a matter of opinion I suppose. Prior to writing this posting, I didn't know a whole lot about Jeane Dixon besides the fact that she was a presidential psychic and had made some famous predictions that came true. My reason for writing this posting was because I came across a prediction of hers that seemed to be related to a prediction I had written about in another posting.

    Thanks for the information though.

  3. Peter the Roman has endured numerous attacks.

  4. Pope Francis will dismantle the papacy inch by inch while the world
    and neo Catholics "cheer" his humility--which he wears on his sleeve.
    He will destroy the papacy in the name of Modernism. He is the Walter Gropius of the Catholic Church.

  5. Jeanne Dixon was a fraud. Her so-called prediction of JFK's assassination appeared in the Sunday supplement, Parade, on May 13, 1956, and read as follows:

    "As for the 1960 election Mrs. Dixon thinks it will be dominated by labor and won by a Democrat. But he will be assassinated or die in office 'though not necessarily in his first term.'"

    Less equivocal than most "psychic" predictions, but really just a lucky guess which grew in the retelling.

    But here's the real problem--in 1960, she forecast that Kennedy would not win the coming election. Yes, that's right. Although she is credited with predicting his assassination because of her 1956 statement, her 1960 one is routinely ignored by those who perpetuate this myth. And unlike her previous one, it couldn't be more specific: She predicted clearly that "John F. Kennedy would fail to win the presidency."

    Well, if he wasn't going to win, how could she have predicted that he would be assassinated in office?

    The answer: She didn't. Instead she made a lot of vague predictions, some of which contradicted each other, and then relied on people to only remember those which could somehow be worked into a claimed "hit" with 20/20 hindsight while forgetting the far-more-numerous misses. This same technique is used all over the globe today. And people still fall for it. P.T. Barnum would be proud.

    from "The Straight Dope"

    1. I, for one, grew up skeptical of all psychic phenomena, and only began to consider the possibility that some psychic phenomena may be legit sometime either in my late teens or early twenties when I started to come across evidence of such that I found compelling. Today, I still don't visit psychics, and, although I realize there are a lot of frauds who do cold readings, I do feel that there are some people who do have a sixth sense.

      The Straight Dope tends to do some good research, but I also think has an obvious bias towards a materialistic worldview and automatically assumes any psychic phenomena is a fraud and is going to find a way to write it as a fraud regardless. What I don't get about people with this worldview is why they want to hold psychics to such a high standard? They (you?) seem to expect 100% accuracy all the time? Why do they expect perfection? Does every NBA player make every basket? Does every meteorologist get every weather report right? If meteorologists were held to the same standard psychics are, they'd be considered frauds.

      As for your 1956 example there, it sounds pretty darn accurate and it doesn't sound vague. As for the 1960 one, is it even a psychic prediction? Or is it just something she said? I don't know the context, but that's a very specific statement for someone who you claim makes such vague predictions. Just because a psychic says something doesn't mean everything they ever say is one of their 'psychic' predictions. Could it just be a statement she made based on a logical prediction? Perhaps she saw some early poll results and thought it unlikely? Maybe she talked to a lot of people who were opposed to him and thought that reflected the national sentiment? Even if it was a 'psychic' statement that she made and she was wrong, again, why such a high standard? Is she a fraud simply because she isn't right about everything 100% of the time?

      Whether or not she is a fraud is debatable. She did manage to convince a lot of people of her legitimacy though, including powerful, educated people. I'm really not convinced one way or the other, and this one example doesn't really change that.