How is the Holy Fire lit? Summary – Conclusions

Research Chronicle

🔑 Key Research Findings

• The Patriarchate of Jerusalem withdrew the word “miracle” from its official texts (2018).
• Archbishop Isidore (Sacristan) revealed that the lamp is lit with a lighter.
• The ceremony includes another lamp, as a “safety mechanism”, which he lights himself.
• The court decisions of 2024 confirmed the accuracy of the testimonies.

On April 12, 2018, the Chief Secretariat of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem informed me that the Patriarchate does not use the word “miracle” in its official texts. On the same day, I sent them the official posted text, concerning the Holy Fire, which contained the critical word. From that moment, the process of changing the text began.

On June 23, 2018, the Patriarchate withdrew the word “miracle” regarding the Holy Fire. The old text was replaced with a completely different description of the ceremony that did not mention a miracle.

A few days later, Patriarch Theophilos III himself, in a private meeting I had with him, clearly stated: “There is no miracle.” Nevertheless, he did not clearly answer the question “how the Holy Fire is lit”.

This was followed by the photographing of the “Unsleeping Lamp” -for the first time in its storage area- and the confirmation that it is placed unlit inside the Holy Sepulchre.

The logical impasse gave way to a revelation that no one had imagined and has not been recorded to this day: for about 150 years, every Holy Saturday, the oil lamp above the Tomb of Jesus is lit by the sacristan’s hand with a lighter (or with a flint in the years before the lighter). In fact, a second one is also lit.” Σαν «ασφαλιστική δικλίδα», όπως παραδέχθηκε ο σκευοφύλακας του Παναγίου Τάφου αρχιεπίσκοπος Ισίδωρος.

That is, the first lamp is not placed lit and then extinguished by some… divine intervention (only to be relit shortly after), but enters unlit and is lit at the same moment by human hand. The exact same thing happens with the second lamp.

The difference lies in the “detail”

This very revelation – a “detail most people are unaware of” (he meant within the Brotherhood), as Isidore described it – was what shocked the Patriarchate. It was not only the fact that the patriarch lights his candles from an already lit lamp, a revelation that shocked many believers, but that this lamp enters unlit and is lit inside the Holy Sepulchre, on the burial slab, with a lighter.

The difference (entering with a lit lamp – entering with an unlit lamp and lighting it in front of the Tomb) may seem insignificant, as it does not change the essence of the absence of a miracle, but at the level of religious ritual, it is significant and even more shocking, as it points to a secular “magic” trick, which, with various variations, has been maintained for over a thousand years.

In 2018, when I was researching the phenomenon, I did not realize this difference. I later understood – after the lawsuits and legal actions to make Isidore’s video disappear – recalling a phrase from Aristarchus, when I announced to him that I would reveal the truth (which he didn’t know exactly): “Beware! There is a truth that can shake us and a truth that can flatten us.”

The myth of the “Tomb sealed with sealing wax until the patriarch enters”

From the moment the sacristan exits until the Patriarch enters, no one enters the Holy Edicule. The door is closed with a ribbon. Conversely, the so-called “sealing” of the Tomb, which occurs quite some time before the sacristan enters, is a misleading term. The soft wax spread on the door, and its subsequent sealing with stamps by the Muslim doorkeeper of the Church of the Resurrection, is an act symbolizing “So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard” (Matthew 27:66).
Watch the video.

In numerous media outlets, we read that “The Tomb is sealed with sealing wax and its wooden doors open only when the Greek Patriarch arrives to enter the Tomb.”

This is false, and it is proven by the fact that the sealing wax is removed for the sacristan with the lamp to enter, not the patriarch. Thus, as soon as the Patriarch enters the Holy Sepulchre, he has – demonstrably – two lit lamps in front of him. Here, we no longer assume or speculate. There is no doubt as to where the Holy Fire is lit. Beyond the historical testimony of Archbishop Isidore, the video showing the light from the lit lamp, at the moment the Patriarch enters, is also irrefutable evidence.
Watch the documentary video.

In addition to the revealing testimonies of a current and a former sacristan – Isidore and Nikephoros – the words of the Archbishops of the Holy Sepulchre, Aristarchus, Cornelius, and Theophanes, confirmed the natural origin of the Holy Fire.

The 7 Stages of the Ceremony (according to testimonies)

Therefore, the stages of the Holy Fire ceremony, according to the testimonies of its protagonists and audiovisual material, are the following seven:

• Placement, early in the morning, of a red glass lamp in the Holy Sepulchre by the eldest of the guards.
• Sealing the door of the Holy Edicule with soft wax, and stamps upon it by the doorkeeper of the Church, in remembrance of: “sealing the stone and setting a guard” (Matthew 27:66)
• Removal of the wax. Subsequently, the Sacristan and Abbot of the Church of the Resurrection enters and places an unlit lamp in the Holy Sepulchre. Then, this lamp and the red glass lamp are lit. Closing the door with a ribbon.
• Procession of the Patriarch and hierarchs, three times around the Holy Edicule.
• Entry of the Patriarch and the Armenian priest into the Holy Sepulchre. (In recent years, a representative of the Israeli police also enters)
• Prayer of the Patriarch and the Armenian priest in front of the Holy Sepulchre. Subsequently, the flame is taken from one of the two lit lamps.
• Distribution of the Holy Fire first from the two openings, right (by the Orthodox Patriarch) and left (by the Armenian priest) of the Edicule. Subsequently, the Patriarch and Armenian priest exit, and the Holy Fire is distributed to the faithful in front of the Edicule.

The Logic of the Two Lamps – Safety Mechanism

The existence of two lamps is a practically perfect – because safe – mechanism for producing a “miracle”. It almost eliminates the possibility of something going wrong. One lamp might go out. Two lamps – within a period of about 45 minutes, from the moment they are lit until the Patriarch enters the Holy Sepulchre – is almost impossible.

We do not know exactly when the two lamps began to be placed. There are no written testimonies. Both previous Patriarchs and sacristans who are no longer alive took the secret with them. However, there are two points regarding the dating of the main lamp’s ritual that we should consider.

The first is the sacristan’s testimony, which mentions the construction of the lamp around the mid-19th century. The second, and perhaps more important, is Miliara’s reference in 1934. The blessed archimandrite was born in 1865 and settled in Jerusalem at the age of fifteen, i.e., in 1880. It is therefore obvious that when he speaks of the existence of a “lamp” in the chapter “Description of the contemporary Holy Fire ceremony,” he is not referring to the years of his study’s writing, but to a tradition he found alive when he arrived in the Holy Land. Thus, we can reasonably assume that the sacristan’s lamp appears in the ritual before 1880. And before the presence of this specific lamp in the ritual, how was the Holy Fire lit? We can make assumptions, but we cannot answer the question with certainty, as skeptical travelers who left written testimonies in the early centuries (mainly Arabs) suspected and described a complex method of lighting the flame with boxes, ropes, and special substances, all of which together created spontaneous combustion. Only one at that time, Ibn al-Jawzi (+1256), simply spoke of a hidden lamp in a marble crypt. Six centuries later, Bishop Porphyrius supported the exact same thing (a hidden lamp), as we will see next. We cannot rule out anything for that era. However, a place resembling a marble crypt still exists today in the Holy Sepulchre, and there is no source explaining its purpose.

“No one dares to tell the truth”

The reference, in the prologue of my book, by Stavros Zoumboulakis, president of the Supervisory Board of the National Library of Greece, is of crucial importance:

“Nikephoros Theotokis receives from Eleutherios Michael the Larisian the question: ‘Is the light appearing in the God-receiving Tomb of the Savior on the Lord’s Day of Pascha true or a fabrication?'” In his answer (January 23, 1775), after initially clarifying that what he is about to say he knows as an eyewitness to leading men of the Church of Jerusalem, he is absolutely clear about what is truly happening and why this truth is being concealed:

What happens in our days, I will tell you, which I have heard from the leading men of that place, who are very trustworthy and worthy of all respect and reverence, some of whom have fallen asleep in the Lord, while others are still living. It does not descend from heaven, nor does it spring forth from the tomb, but the hierarch appointed to this ministry, having entered the so-called Edicule, strikes the flint and produces fire above the life-giving Tomb, then, having lit the lamps previously rubbed in the Tomb, he exits holding them and transmits the light as sanctified by the contact and touch of the Holy Sepulchre. And the common people believe that light sprang forth from the tomb, but no one dares to tell them otherwise, being afraid of suffering something terrible. As you see, therefore, it is not a fabrication, for they neither invent nor construct anything at all, nor do those presiding there conceal what happens when asked privately, but being unable to cure the perception of the common people, they remain silent out of economy; for such a perception causes no harm. (K. I. Dyovouniotis, “Nikephoros Theotokis”, reprint from the journal Nea Sion, Holy Community of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem 1913, p. 15.)

Modern Greek rendition:
“But I will also tell you what happens in our days, what I have heard from the leading men of that place, who are extremely trustworthy and worthy of all respect and reverence, some of whom have fallen asleep in the Lord, while others are still alive. The Holy Fire does not descend from heaven nor does it spring forth from the Tomb, but the hierarch appointed to this ministry enters the so-called Edicule, lights a fire with his flint above the life-giving Tomb, and then lights the lamps, which were previously rubbed, exits holding them and transmits the light, which has been sanctified by contact and touch with the Holy Sepulchre. And the common people believe that light springs forth from the Tomb, but no one dares to contradict them, because everyone fears suffering something terrible. As you see, therefore, there is no deception, nor do they invent or construct anything, nor do those residing there conceal what happens if asked privately, but they remain silent out of economy, because they cannot correct the perception of the common people. Besides, this perception causes no harm.”

And Zoumboulakis continues: “The technique of lighting the Holy Fire may be different today, but everything else has remained the same: the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre knows the truth, they say it privately but do not confess it publicly, either because they are afraid or because they cannot correct the opinion of the many (the phrase ‘common people’ does not have the derogatory meaning we attribute to it today), since, after all, such an opinion does not cause them spiritual harm.”

This was in 1775. If we are to take anything from the above testimony of the Archbishop of the southern provinces of the Russian Empire – beyond, of course, the revelation that the Holy Fire is lit with a flint – it is the emphasis on the fear of publicly revealing the truth and that what happens is not a deception, but what the common people want to hear. However, “when asked privately,” they tell the truth. Do they really tell it? – and how many?

“They will tear us to pieces if they find out”

Even more revealing is the written testimony of Bishop Porphyrius, founder of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem in 1847. Citing his conversation with the patriarchal chaplain, Bishop Dionysius of Philadelphia (later Metropolitan of Bethlehem), where the latter revealed to him that due to the stratagem (“a lamp hidden behind a movable marble icon”) of lighting the Holy Fire, they almost exposed themselves to Ibrahim, Pasha of Egypt (known from the Greek Revolution), Porphyrius writes:

“After recounting all this, the metropolitan added that the cessation of our pious falsehood is expected only from God. As He knows and can, so He will guide and calm the peoples who now believe in the miracle of the Holy Saturday light. We cannot even begin this change in thought, because they will tear us to pieces in front of the very chapel of the Holy Sepulchre.” (The Book of My Existence. Petersburg, 1896. Volume 3. Pages 299-301)

Everything indicates that everyone – or almost everyone – knows. This is what I understood and what can be inferred from the testimonies. The “initiated” can be divided into four main categories: Those who, even though they know, insist on speaking of a miracle. Those who avoid any discussion on the matter or describe it with ambiguities and half-truths. Those who share the secret – on a personal level – if they perceive that you can handle it. Finally, the very few who state it publicly. As for the “detail,” this seven-sealed secret, very few know it.

It is worth noting that with this “trick,” not only is the smooth process of lighting the Holy Fire ensured, but also, in addition, each Patriarch maintains a certain distance from the “impious act,” as he is not the direct perpetrator. He is not present, he does not light his candles himself with his lighter, as many “light-fighters” and skeptics mistakenly assume. This “role” has been assigned, for centuries, to a person beyond all suspicion. To the sacristan in office. Theotokis also states: “the hierarch appointed to this ministry.”

It is indicative that when he approaches the Holy Edicule and stands there for a few minutes with the lamp in his hands, before subsequently entering the Holy Sepulchre, very few pay attention to him. If we carefully watch the scene on television, he passes almost unnoticed.

Why does he go unnoticed?

It is a fact that in recent decades, when television channels cover the Holy Fire ceremony, when the moment arrived for the sacristan to approach the Holy Sepulchre with the lamp in his hands and stand for about five minutes in front of the Edicule, no journalist or theologian commented on his presence. Many times the camera – despite the crowd of believers around him – clearly recorded him, but no mention was made, nor did anyone question the reason for his presence. The same applied to the faithful inside the church. Rarely did we see a persistent gaze fall upon him in any shot.

This fact can be explained as follows: He is a high priest among many others. In his hands, he does not hold anything that appears to have a flame (a lit lamp). The object he holds looks ‘strange’ but does not arouse suspicion. However, the most important thing is that the faithful are there for one reason only: to see the patriarch emerge with the torches lit. That is, to witness the miracle. Everything else is irrelevant.

On the other hand, journalists do not feel the need to investigate or even question the phenomenon of the sacristan’s presence. The day is joyous, and nothing should spoil the narrative. The theologians, some of whom are aware, overlook it for the same reason.

Thus, the sacristan enters unnoticed, and exits and departs just as unnoticed, even if the ‘object’ is no longer in his hands.

But let us assume that a skeptic decides not only to observe him but also to satisfy his tormenting curiosity at that moment by opening the cover of the oil lamp—an extreme case, which has never happened—what would he see? An unlit oil lamp. And curiosity would meet a logical impasse. Τραυματική εμπειρία για ορθολογιστή.

Simple and ingenious.

This is precisely where the cleverness of the trick lies, which has two main characteristics: First, it is simple in conception and execution by a person who is not a protagonist in the Ceremony. And second, precisely because it is simple, it has managed to direct the suspicions of skeptics towards two erroneous assumptions, sometimes certainties: that the oil lamp is brought in lit or that it is brought in unlit and the Patriarch lights it with a lighter. Of course, these latter two options are also simple, but they involve enormous risk. The first option carries the risk of someone opening the cover while the sacristan waits outside the Holy Edicule. The sight of the flame, live, would constitute a huge scandal. The second could be catastrophic if the Armenian decided to record the scene with a camera or camcorder. But now he cannot do it. Or, more accurately, he has no reason to do it. Ας δούμε γιατί.

The position of the Armenians.

Many claim that the Armenian priest who enters the Holy Edicule, along with the Greek patriarch, and has the opportunity to see the lit lamp above the Holy Sepulchre, could have, over so many years, revealed the stratagem, given the rivalry between the two communities. When I raised the issue with Archbishop Theophanes, I received the following answer: ‘But they have been doing it for years now, wherever they go. They say exactly what they see, that is, that the Holy Fire is lit from the lamp. If they saw a miracle, they would not remain Monophysites. They would become Orthodox. The fact that they do not see a miracle leads to the obvious: that they know and accept, for centuries now, how the Holy Fire is lit.’

Theophanes is right. Both Greeks and Russians (as well as other Orthodox peoples) are unaware that the Armenians revealed the secret many years ago, and others who know do not believe them. The most provocative revelation—but not the first—which caused a storm of reactions, occurred in 2018. Ο Αρμένιος ιερέας Σαμουήλ Αγκογιάν, που ήταν παρών τρείς φορές στην τελετή αφής μέσα στον Πανάγιο Τάφο, δεν είδε, όπως είπε, φλόγα να βγαίνει από τον Τάφο, αλλά είδε ένα καντήλι αναμμένο και από εκεί άναψε τα κεριά του ο πατριάρχης.
Let’s watch the video:

The Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem may be silent, but in 2014, in the official newspaper (p. 4) of the Armenian Church in Russia, theologian David Beknazaryan, a representative of the Church, wrote: ‘We do not bring down fire from heaven, but we remember the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true Light. We light fire from the lamp on the slab of the Holy Sepulchre as a source of Light and bring this Light as a symbol of the Risen Savior to the faithful people. There is no miracle here. It is merely a liturgical festive ceremony. It is an ordinary natural fire, which the Greek archimandrite [sacristan] lights in two lamps in the most ordinary way‘ (here the text stored in digital format).

A few days before Easter 2024, on April 21, ‘Lousan’ (as the Armenian priest who enters the Holy Sepulchre with the Greek Orthodox patriarch is called, as the Armenians affirm – the word means ‘he who brings the light’) Archimandrite Aspet Balyan, stated: ‘It is true that there are two lit lamps there. From there, the Patriarch and I light our candles’ (source here).

Complementing Theophanes’ thought, we would say that the already lit lamp above the Holy Sepulchre is the only way that does not provoke and, crucially, does not reveal the ‘detail’ that the sacristan carries out shortly before. And after all, not only the Armenians but also the representatives of other denominations know that there is no other way for the Holy Fire to ’emerge.’

“Everyone knows”

Equally unfounded is the claim that ‘the Jews would debunk the miracle of the Holy Fire if they could.’ Here, the answer is much simpler: they have no desire to debunk a phenomenon around which their city’s economy revolves and relies. And let’s not forget that inside the Holy Edicule, on Holy Saturday, in recent years, the head of the Israeli police of the Old City also enters. And he sees everything. If he saw a miracle, he would not remain Jewish. And if he wanted to cause harm, he would record the scene with his mobile phone and leak it to the media.

When, during my research, I asked the Chief Secretary of the Patriarchate, Archbishop Aristarchos, ‘How many and which denominations here in Jerusalem know that it is not a miracle?’, he replied as follows: ‘Everyone knows.’
But all Orthodox Churches outside Jerusalem also know and remain silent (such as the Church of Greece). Only the Russian Orthodox Church—while knowing, as Archbishop Theophanes assured me—speaks publicly about a miracle. That is, in the case of Russia, we have conscious falsehood. The words of Metropolitan Gregory of Leningrad and Novgorod (+1955) to the theologians of Leningrad are revealing: ‘I know that this [miracle] is just a legend! But do not touch pious legends, otherwise faith itself will fall!’

The Stance of the Church of Greece

The Church of Greece has not officially taken a stance on the ‘miracle of the Holy Fire.’ However, after the truth was revealed by the Abbot of the Holy Sepulchre, Archbishop Isidore, and on the occasion of the restrictive measures due to the pandemic that led to the decision not to distribute the Holy Fire from Jerusalem to the churches, Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece, in an interview on April 4, 2020, made a historic statement: ‘In the past, before what happens today for the reception of the Holy Fire, they would take the light from the lamp of the Holy Altar,’ and he added, emphasizing: ‘Therefore, there is no first-class and second-class Holy Fire.’

It was the first statement by a head of the Church of Greece who, while not formally stating how the Holy Fire is lit in Jerusalem, essentially did so by deconstructing the claim of ‘Uncreated Light’ (a miracle).

A few days earlier, Metropolitan Anthimos of Alexandroupolis had made a similar statement: ‘Let us never forget that the Holy Fire is the same light that every simple priest brings forth every Holy Saturday evening from behind the Holy Altar, saying the same words that are spoken in the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. […] It is exactly the same Light.’

After this statement by Anthimos, I contacted him to find out if he intended to go a step further by clearly stating the truth. He replied that ‘it is still early, this needs to happen gradually’ and continued: ‘However, if you hear a theologian speaking of “uncreated light” in Jerusalem, know that they have no idea about theology.’

Around mid-February 2022, I contacted the press representative of the Standing Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan Timotheos of Thessaliotis, to find out if the Church of Greece could take a stance on the matter.
On February 25, 2022, he called me back, after speaking with the Chief Secretary of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Aristarchos, as he pointed out, and told me that ‘it is very difficult to tell the truth to the faithful.’

Reaction of the Moscow Patriarchate to my acquittal

The news of my acquittal was published in several Russian media outlets, with the state news agency TASS as the original source, which presented it without comment under the title: ‘Athens Court Acquits Journalist Who Wrote Book on Holy Fire.’

It is noteworthy that, a few days later, the Moscow Patriarchate felt the need to publicly comment on the decision of the Greek Justice system. The head of the Synodal Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Evfimy, speaking to the state news agency TASS, referring to ‘the reports in the Greek media about the acquittal by the court of journalist Dimitris Alikakos, who wrote about the origin of the Holy Fire “from a lighter”,’ stated:

‘To take these reports seriously is somewhat strange for an Orthodox person, because it is an attempt to desecrate not merely a great ancient tradition, but essentially a mystery. In the Greek tradition, what happens on Holy Saturday in the Holy Sepulchre is called the “Mystery of the Holy Fire” or the “Mystery of the Manifestation of Light.” I believe that such reports will in no way be able to overshadow the joy of Easter for those who have personally experienced the grace of the descent of this holy light.’

According to TASS, Metropolitan Evfimy ‘expressed doubt that this “deception,” if it were indeed such, could have for centuries gathered such an enormous number of pilgrims in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, ready to stand for several hours awaiting the Holy Fire.’

Subsequently, the Agency quoted a statement from another representative of the Russian Orthodox Church:
‘For us, it is sufficient that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem officially protested against all these reports, while the decision taken by the secular court of Athens is its internal affair. However, we remember that Greece recently adopted, for example, a law legalizing same-sex marriages, so there is nothing strange in all this—these are phenomena of the same order. We may regret it, but it should not surprise us.’

Finally, the popular Russian news website gazeta.ru made extensive reference to my acquittal in an article titled: ‘Archbishop Isidore and the Lighter: The Mystery of the Holy Fire Revealed.’

The website’s article ironically concludes as follows:
‘There is also a legend: the year the Holy Fire does not descend, the Antichrist will come, and the end times will begin before the End of the World.
Well, thanks to journalist Dimitris Alikakos, we now know: the Light will surely descend‘ [bold letters are theirs]

Fierce clash of hierarchs in Jerusalem.

On Easter Sunday 2023, a serious verbal incident occurred during the preparation of the ‘Procession of Love’ between Archbishop Hesychios of Capitolias and Archbishop Theophanes of Gerasa, prompted by the former’s appearance on a television channel during the lighting of the Holy Fire.

Theophanes accused Hesychios of ‘lack of theological knowledge’ and ‘concealment of the truth’ regarding the method of lighting.

‘You don’t know what you’re saying when you appear on television, and most importantly, you’re not telling the truth about the lamp from which, as we all know, the Holy Fire is lit.’

Hesychios reacted by saying, ‘No one can forbid me from saying what I want.’

According to reports, the two archbishops exchanged harsh words. Other hierarchs of the Patriarchate were present at the incident and tried to calm things down. ‘Calm down, this is not the day to talk about these things.’

Theophanes reacted: ‘We keep saying “this is not the day.” When will that day finally come?’

At some point, Patriarch Theophilos also arrived. Theophanes informed him about Hesychios’s ‘unacceptable appearance’ on television, but he did not take a stance, clearly indicating that he did not wish to pursue the matter further.

It should be noted that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem had already deleted every reference to the word ‘miracle’ on its official website regarding the Holy Fire ceremony.

A few days later, on April 20, after the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchate, during coffee, Theophanes stood up and, addressing the Patriarch (Hesychios was sitting next to him) in the presence of other members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, said the following words:

‘A few days ago, I was excessively harsh and severe towards the Most Reverend Hesychios regarding the matter of the Holy Fire—you know the issue. I want to apologize. I apologize for the way I expressed myself, but not for the substance.’ Patriarch Theophilos rose from his seat, embraced Archbishop Theophanes, and kissed him.

The ‘Gift’ of the Pandemic

On Holy Saturday 2020, the entry of the faithful into the Church of the Resurrection was prohibited by the Israeli authorities due to the pandemic. Viewers worldwide who watched the Holy Fire ceremony witnessed an unprecedented sight.

As viewers awaited the Patriarch to emerge from the Holy Sepulchre to transmit the Holy Fire, and at the moment this happened, we all saw that nothing supernatural occurred. Neither ‘flashes’ nor ‘lightning’ nor ‘luminous spheres.’ Nothing.

Even Archimandrite Antonios Stylianakis, who in a video he shot in 1994, claimed to see ‘flashes and lightning’ and a ‘luminous sphere passing over people’s heads’—a claim that, as we will see, was debunked by both the sacristan of the Holy Sepulchre, Archbishop Isidore, and my research team—in 2020 awkwardly watched the footage as he saw no ‘spectacular things.’ His inability to explain the easily explainable, or to explain it in the way you will hear, is the definition of religious fanaticism.

This was the first ‘gift’ of that day. As there were no people inside the Church, we all saw that nothing supernatural happened. In fact, the monks of the Church were not inclined to even open the dome window to let in the sun’s rays when the patriarch emerged, as they do every year to create the impression that supernatural phenomena are occurring in the church.

The second ‘gift’ preceded it and, arguably, was more significant than the first. Millions of faithful saw the most important part of the ceremony, which concerns the investigation, namely the ritual of the sacristan of the Holy Sepulchre entering with the lamp.

In short, millions of faithful saw the ceremony ‘naked,’ without the emotional charge of human presence, a fact that helped many accept the truth revealed by Isidore, both about how the Holy Fire is lit and about the absence of ‘flashes,’ ‘lightning,’ and lamps that ‘light themselves.’

Why has the secret not been leaked for so many centuries?

One of the reasons, as we said, that the sacristan goes unnoticed is the crowd of people inside the Church of the Resurrection on that day.

And how is it possible that the secret has not been leaked for so many centuries? This particular question is logical and interesting to investigate. In summary, we could say the following: A clergyman who has been in the Holy Shrines since his early adolescence does not have the same understanding of the words ‘lie’ and ‘deception’ as a layman, especially a rationalist, who uses these terms. For some, yes, it is a ‘burden’ they want to shake off. For most members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, however, it is a ‘tradition,’ or rather a ‘myth’ that must endure as long as possible, because this strengthens the faith of ordinary people and, of course, solidifies the dominance of their presence there, especially that of the current Greek Orthodox patriarch. A distorted perception? Irrational? Perhaps. But this is also one of the reasons why the secret has not been leaked for so many centuries.

The same perception permeates a large part of other forms of power. From politics to the media, as we mentioned at the beginning. I am almost certain that a few decades ago, finding and documenting the truth would have been even easier, as people were far less distrustful and suspicious of journalists or researchers, cameras, and tape recorders than they are today. But no one ever attempted such an investigation, and if they did, they did not make it public.

The last factor—no less significant—affecting the clergy’s silence is a large segment of the ‘faithful.’ Archbishop Cornelius’s words are revealing: “They don’t want the truth! This type of believer does not want the truth.” Here, we enter the… ‘scorched zone.’ That is, the issue touches the very foundation. One of its ‘flaws’ is this: many believers insist that Cornelius (the one who produced it, that is), who went to Jerusalem at 13 and stayed there until the end of his life, does not know how the Holy Fire emerges, while those who visited once for 4-5 days do. In other words, we are dealing with the absurdity of a patient insisting they know more than the doctor, and a builder more than the civil engineer.

However, regarding the Holy Fire, the situation moves beyond the comical and becomes dramatic. The Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood, beyond their own rigidities, are afraid, as we have seen. It would not be an exaggeration to say that some fear the wave of ignorance and fanaticism from the faithful when the latter are confronted with the truth. Let us recall Theotokis’s words again: “no one dares to speak against him, fearing some terrible suffering,” and those of the Metropolitan of Bethlehem to Porphyrios: “they will tear us to pieces in front of the very Chapel of the Holy Sepulchre.”

Archbishop Aristarchos’s words—”things should have been done differently long ago. Now it’s too late”—constitute an honest conclusion, but also a bitter realization of resignation. Knowing the elder closely, I dare say that every word he spoke to me carried the character of an apology and contrition: “I cannot bear this burden.” With the lawsuits and complaints against me, he did exactly that and more. Not only did he refuse to bear the burden, but he angrily shook off even the slightest responsibility he had for Isidore’s revelation of the truth.

However, I believe that those who invoke the “wrath of the faithful” as an argument for protecting the secret and perpetuating the falsehood are exaggerating—perhaps it is also a convenient alibi. Experience has shown, in numerous cases, that the deceived remain silent as they are unable to accept that they were gullible and naive.

Finally, I judge that the non-disclosure of the secret should also be sought not so much in its robust protection by the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood, but in the inability of ‘enlighteners’ and ‘progressives’ to practically distinguish between faith and religious fanaticism. That is, by combating the latter at its root and source, wherever it appears. We will inevitably be led to bitter conclusions that touch upon the contradictions and malformations of the modern Greek formation, which I do not wish to address, as they are extraneous to the present investigation and, moreover, I do not feel qualified.

Based on the above, and without any false modesty, I do not feel that in my quest I had any particular research virtues as my ally. What I will not shy away from admitting, however, is that I held a persistent belief that all ‘unexplained’ phenomena can be explained. And what cannot be explained today, can be tomorrow. And for what fails ‘tomorrow,’ it is man’s duty to persevere again and again, with the ‘weapons’ of observation, experimentation, and documentation.

The Significance of the Court Rulings

The main accusation in the complaints and lawsuits filed by the Chief Secretary of the Patriarchate and the Sacristan of the Holy Sepulchre was that, while they told me the truth about how the Holy Fire is lit, I distorted-altered their testimonies and added words they never spoke—thus slandering them and insulting the institution of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. My acquittal from this charge yields significant conclusions that not only touch upon the essence of the case but absolutely documented that the Holy Fire is lit by the hand of the current sacristan. Let us see why.

With their court rulings, the judges rejected the claim that I distorted the words of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood. Specifically regarding Isidore’s historical testimony, which was the reason for the legal dispute, the judges ruled that I accurately conveyed the words he spoke to me (and indeed with his consent).

This point is of crucial importance. If Isidore had told the truth, and I had distorted his testimony, then my guilt would have been expected, and my research entirely unreliable.

However, there is an argument here with which one can separate the trials from the substance of the case. The core of the argument is that the courts did not investigate or concern themselves with whether the Holy Fire is lit miraculously or not. This is partly true (a court decision in 2026—the latest—did, as we saw, delve into the substance of the matter. The Single-Member Court of First Instance of Athens, after “thoroughly reviewing the evidence,” concluded that the lighting of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem “is the result of human intervention”).

However, the court decision on the lawsuit against me, which Isidore lost, states the following: “The subject of the present trial is whether the first defendant, in the context of his journalistic activity, misrepresented the views of the plaintiff [Isidore], whether the first defendant knowingly falsely attributed views to the plaintiff that were neither expressed nor supported by him, and whether, in this way, the first defendant ultimately defamed the plaintiff. That is, the subject of the present trial is not whether the views of the plaintiff or the first defendant are true, but whether the first defendant faithfully conveyed the views that the plaintiff expressed to him. It is noted that any alteration of the views expressed by the plaintiff to the first defendant is examined as an essential element of the tortious act in question and under examination here.”

In short, this particular court—which ultimately rejected Isidore’s lawsuit—clarified that the essential issue to be investigated was not how the Holy Fire is lit, but whether I faithfully conveyed Isidore’s positions, namely that he himself lights the Holy Fire with a lighter for the Patriarch to find it lit. And the court, both civil and criminal, ruled that I conveyed them faithfully.

Note the specific excerpt from the reasoning of the court Decision:

“It emerges that it is true the fact stated by the first defendant on page 75 of the book that in a discussion with the second complainant, in July 2018, the latter admitted that the lighting of the lamp in the Holy Sepulchre on Holy Saturday is done by him naturally, that is, with a lighter”

Thus, the only remaining line of defense—a flimsy one, as we shall see—for the miracle’s supporters is to overlook the court decision of 2026 and simultaneously accuse Isidore of unreliability. The essence of this claim (unreliability) contains a very serious reproach against Isidore: that he is a common liar, a betrayer of faith and Orthodoxy, as he falsely disputed the “miracle of miracles.”

But did Isidore lie?

Let us overlook the fact that he had no reason to lie, and let us assume he did. On such an important matter, with an 11-century history, for which tens of thousands of people from all over the world flock to Jerusalem every year, what would have been the reasonable reaction of the Patriarch and the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood itself?

It is more than certain that if Isidore had disputed the “miracle of miracles” with falsehoods, he would not have been able to remain in Jerusalem. Before the Patriarch could act, the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood themselves would have shown him the door (as they did—for another reason—with Patriarch Irenaios).

However, the exact opposite happened here. Not only did he suffer no repercussions—he remained Sacristan and Abbot of the Holy Sepulchre—but “the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem under the Presidency of His Beatitude our Father and Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos”:

A. on 2019-09-25 “Appointed as Vice-President of the Ecclesiastical Court of First Instance the Most Reverend Archbishop of Hierapolis, Isidore” (here is the decision), and

B. on 2020-09-07 “Appointed the Elder Sacristan of the Holy Sepulchre, the Most Reverend Archbishop of Hierapolis, Isidore, as a member of the Holy and Sacred Synod” (here is the decision)

The two aforementioned events—especially his appointment to the Holy Synod, approximately one and a half years after his testimony was made public—combined with his retention of the highly honorable position of Sacristan and Abbot of the Holy Sepulchre, attest and confirm that no proceedings were initiated against him. Therefore, he told the truth!

Exactly the same truth that the blessed Metropolitan Cornelius and Archbishop Theophanes spoke, and no one harmed them. Indeed, as we saw, Theophanes even went so far as to give sworn testimony that no miracle exists. No one dared to harm him. The reason is simple, and I will repeat it: because everyone knew the truth.

However, it must be noted here that both his retention of the position and, primarily, his appointment to the Holy Synod should not be interpreted as a reward for what he did. As I know very well, this was the result of Aristarchos’s pressure on the Patriarch to psychologically support his spiritual son, as two members of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood confess in their testimony, at that time “he was in a bad psychological state… he had withdrawn into himself,” and they explain the reason.

Yes, everything indicates that Isidore was terrified. And Aristarchus was enraged. Archbishop Nikephoros Theotokis foresaw the former’s reaction with the words, “fearing to suffer something terrible”.

The Historical Significance of Aristarchos’s Testimony

In the criminal trial, beyond my unanimous acquittal on all charges, the testimony of the Chief Secretary of the Patriarchate constitutes a historical document. In it, although ‘fortified’ (his own word) behind the claim of ‘confession,’ which he invoked to avoid revealing our conversations—and especially what he himself revealed to me—at two points in his testimony, he ‘broke’ and admitted that no miracle exists as understood by the ordinary believer. At the first point, he thus likened the ceremony of the Holy Fire to the ceremonies of the Blessing of Waters and Holy Unction. He said: “For example, when we speak of the ceremony of Holy Unction, will you tell me if it is a miracle? I will tell you, the miracle is included within the ceremony; what will you tell me about that? When we speak of the ceremony of the Blessing of Waters, the minor Blessing of Waters or the Great Blessing of Waters, and you ask me if it is a miracle? Well, what will I answer to that, the word ceremony says it all, and we don’t need to investigate.”

To his statement, which concluded with a question, “the miracle is included within the ceremony; what will you tell me about that?”, the answer is easy, and of course, he knew it better than anyone else in the courtroom. The blessing of waters, for example, is a matter of faith. Whether you believe they are sanctified (a miracle in theological terms) or not, the water is there. The same applies to the olive oil in Holy Unction. The same applies to the bread and wine in the Divine Liturgy. None of these fall from the sky.

The second point of the testimony is even more revealing. To the most crucial question, regarding how the Holy Fire is lit, “Can you confirm with your hand on the Gospel that this is a miracle?” he could have answered with a resounding “YES,” potentially putting the defense in a difficult position. However, he did not. Instead, he replied:

“It depends on how we define a miracle. As a member of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood who has lived there for 60 years, I see the miracle… Where do I see it? I see it in the thousands of people who crowd there, in the thousands of people who await with anticipation, faith, and joy in the hope that the reception of the Holy Fire gives them.”

To the most important question, which is on the lips of millions of people seeking the truth, he answered that, yes, he sees a miracle, but where? “In the thousands of people who crowd there.”
With this answer, he unintentionally became another Isidore. And indeed, he became the first member of the Holy Sepulchre Brotherhood who, in a courtroom, essentially publicly disavowed the miracle of the Holy Fire’s lighting.

After the historical testimonies of Isidore, Cornelius, and Theophanes, another recorded denial of the miracle was unexpectedly added. This time, from Isidore’s spiritual father.

Epilogue

Justice ruled that in my book I accurately recorded everything Isidore told me. At the same time, as we saw, the court decision on Aristarchus’s lawsuit ruled, after “thoroughly reviewing the evidence,” that the lighting of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem “is proven to be the result of human intervention.”

With its stance and decisions, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, on the one hand, protected Isidore, and on the other hand, some tried to harm me for accurately conveying his words.

I found the answer to this paradox in the angry words of the Guardian of the Holy Sepulchre, Monk Chrysanthos, when I visited Jerusalem after the book’s publication: “What you did, to reveal the secret, was not your business. It was ours.”

I did not answer him. A few months later, I learned something I did not know: that in the works of foreign historians, the “miracle of the Holy Fire” is referred to as Greek fraud, and elsewhere as “perhaps the most offensive fraud in the world“.

Now I would answer him:
Yes, it was our job, we Greeks, to restore the truth.
And at the same time, to apologize for deceiving so many faithful for so many centuries.

END