The Weeping Madonna of Civitavecchia: Male Blood of an Untested Source
The story
Skip to the verdict ↓An Italian statue of the Virgin Mary reported to weep blood in 1995 was investigated by forensic scientists; the blood was typed as male, the statue's owner refused DNA testing, and a subsequent Italian trial established a church custodian had applied blood to a different statue using his own blood.
In February 1995, a small plaster Madonna statuette in the home of Fabio Gregori in Civitavecchia, Italy, was reported by approximately 60 witnesses to have wept blood on multiple occasions. The statue, bought as a souvenir at the Medjugorje shrine in Bosnia, was only 16 inches tall. News of the phenomenon spread rapidly, drawing pilgrims and international attention.
The local bishop, Girolamo Grillo, had the statue removed to his residence for safekeeping and notified police, who had the blood substance tested. Results established it was human blood typed as male. When investigators requested DNA samples from Fabio Gregori and the male members of his household to determine whether the blood originated from within the family, the family declined.
The diocesan commission appointed to investigate included no chemist, physician, or scientist, only theologians. It concluded there was no evidence of fraud but made no positive finding of supernatural activity. Chemist Luigi Garlaschelli at the University of Pavia demonstrated that capillary attraction through a fault in the glaze of a porous plaster statue can draw internal moisture to the surface, producing apparent 'weeping' without any external intervention.
In 2008 a related Italian criminal case concerned the Civitavecchia statue: church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo was tried for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary. Forensic experts matched the blood's DNA to Di Costanzo's own saliva sample. The Civitavecchia case itself was never formally resolved by civil authorities.
Too thin a record to say either way.
Reviewer Notes
Miracles Jar weighs each claim two ways — how extraordinary it would be, and how strong the evidence is.
Assessed by Miracles Jar AI
The blood was human and male — inconsistent with a Marian origin — but its source was never tested (the family declined). A separate DNA-match conviction involved a DIFFERENT statue and cannot be transferred here; capillary 'weeping' is a demonstrated possibility, not a finding for this object. The record can neither confirm nor refute it.
The verdict: the blood was human and male but its source was never tested; the case can be neither confirmed nor refuted — Unproven, not disproven.
The blood was typed as human and male during the police investigation. Male human blood is inconsistent with a supernatural Marian origin, but does not by itself prove deliberate human application.
Statue owner Fabio Gregori and his male relatives declined DNA testing, so the source was never established — an absence of verification, not proof of guilt.
A 2008 trial convicted Vincenzo Di Costanzo of applying his own blood to a DIFFERENT weeping statue (DNA-matched to his saliva). That is an adjacent precedent, not evidence about the Civitavecchia statue, and cannot be transferred to it.
Luigi Garlaschelli demonstrated capillary 'weeping' is physically possible in porous glazed statues — a plausible mechanism, not a finding for this object.
With the source untested and no positive proof either way, the record cannot carry the claim.
Evidence ledger — what the verdict rests on
Forensic blood typing confirmed the substance was human blood, typed as male — inconsistent with a supernatural origin via a female holy figure
Established during police investigation after bishop called authorities
Statue owner and male family members refused DNA testing when requested by investigators
Refusal noted by investigators; not itself proof but consistent with guilt
In a 2008 Italian trial, a church custodian's DNA was matched to blood on a similar weeping statue, establishing a precedent for human application
Vincenzo Di Costanzo convicted; forensic match via saliva sample
Capillary action through faulty glaze on porous plaster statues demonstrated as a natural mechanism for apparent weeping
Demonstrated by chemist Luigi Garlaschelli, University of Pavia
What would raise the meter: Adversarial scrutiny with real power to expose deception — hostile investigators, controlled conditions — coming back clean would raise the evidence bar.
What would lower it: A confession, an exposed method, or a documented financial motive would drive the evidence bar toward zero.
How we weigh every claim — the full method, deductions and all →
The natural explanation
The leading natural account for this case is deception: hoaxes, cold reading & stagecraft. Read what it explains — and where it stops.
The same wonder, across traditions
This claim is one of many that make the same assertion across faiths. See it side by side in Images That Weep, Bleed, and Stir.
Sources
Tagged by proximity to the event. Primary sources are direct or contemporaneous; tertiary are downstream retellings.
- 1.Secondaryother
"Madonna of Civitavecchia — Wikipedia", 2024· no public link
Documents blood typing, DNA refusal, and commission findings
- 2.Primarynews
"Church custodian on trial in Italy for weeping statue hoax — Catholic News Agency", 2008· no public link
Reports forensic DNA match in Vincenzo Di Costanzo trial
- 3.Secondaryother
"Science or miracles? Why weeping religious statues cry — FlipScience", 2021· no public link
Describes Garlaschelli's capillary-action mechanism for porous statues
Cases like this
Nearest on the map — similar in how miraculous they’d be, and how strong the evidence is.