Valentine Greatrakes 'The Stroker'
It happened — and nature accounts for it.
The account
Irish faith healer Valentine Greatrakes toured England in 1666, reportedly curing scrofula, epilepsy, and other conditions by stroking; his practice was observed and partially endorsed by Royal Society fellows including Robert Boyle.
Read the full account →Collapse the account ↑
Valentine Greatrakes (1629-1683) was a Protestant Irish gentleman who in 1662 became convinced he had a divine gift of healing. He first treated scrofula (the King's Evil), a condition traditionally cured by the royal touch, then expanded to other ailments. His method involved vigorous stroking of the affected limb or area, moving pain along the body and eventually out through the extremities. Word spread rapidly and by 1666 he was invited to England, where he treated hundreds at Raglan Castle, the home of Lord and Lady Conway, and then in London.
Lady Anne Conway was herself severely ill with intractable headaches, and Henry More (her philosopher friend) arranged Greatrakes's visit. Greatrakes failed to cure Lady Conway. The circle of Cambridge Platonists and natural philosophers who witnessed his London demonstrations included Robert Boyle, John Wilkins (founder of the Royal Society), and the physician Thomas Sydenham.
Boyle observed that some of the cures seemed genuine, that he could not explain them by ordinary mechanism, but that he did not rule out natural causes: the effects of strong manual pressure, warmth, the mental state of patients, or unknown properties of the nervous system. His letters to Lady Conway preserve this careful equivocation. Sydenham was more skeptical, and documented failures during the London tour were noted by pamphlet-writers hostile to Greatrakes.
Healing scrofula by touch was the exclusive prerogative of the monarch, and Greatrakes's success touched on the mystique of Charles II's restoration regime. Henry Stubbe's pamphlet defense of Greatrakes argued his cures rivaled the apostles — a claim that provoked immediate backlash.
Greatrakes published a memoir, A Brief Account of Mr. Valentine Greatrakes (1666), addressed to Robert Boyle, with 53 appended testimonials from named witnesses.
Reviewer Notes
We weigh a claim on two things, kept separate from the story above.
Assessed by Miracles Jar AI
Contemporary documentation is unusually strong; Boyle's partial endorsement is significant; natural explanations (suggestion, touch, psychosomatic effect) are sufficient and preferred.
This is one of the most epistemically interesting healing cases in the pre-modern period because of the quality and standing of its contemporary witnesses. Robert Boyle, Henry More, John Wilkins, Thomas Sydenham, and other prominent natural philosophers witnessed healings and attested to some cures. Greatrakes himself published a memoir with 53 appended testimonials from named witnesses — stronger than anonymous accounts.
The Conway connection drew the witnessing circle together. Lady Conway's illness prompted Henry More to arrange Greatrakes's visit; the failed cure was itself witnessed by men who were among the most careful observers of 17th-century England. Boyle's response was cautious and instructive: he accepted some cures as genuine but remained explicitly open to natural explanations including warmth, friction, and expectation effects. That the most careful observer among the witnesses refused to commit to the miraculous interpretation is itself part of the evidentiary record.
Documented failures matter here. Greatrakes failed to cure several patients during his London tour, including cases witnessed by skeptical physicians. Thomas Sydenham, the leading physician of the era, was skeptical. Documented failures are rare in miracle claims and suggest a mechanism with variable efficacy rather than a supernatural one.
The political dimension shaped how the controversy played out. Henry Stubbe's claim that Greatrakes resembled the apostles provoked immediate backlash. The dispute touched on the boundary between natural philosophy and the sacred mystique of royal touch — Charles II still practiced the royal touch for scrofula, and Greatrakes, an Irish commoner, was performing similar cures without royal warrant. A pamphlet war followed, and Parliament was petitioned.
The consensus modern view invokes the interaction of suggestion, therapeutic touch, and the self-limiting nature of many conditions Greatrakes treated. Natural explanations are sufficient and preferred. The evidence for some genuine therapeutic effects is stronger than for most pre-modern miracle claims, but the weight of documented failures and Sydenham's skepticism holds the case well short of the supernatural.
The verdict: contemporary documentation is unusually strong; Boyle's partial endorsement is significant; natural explanations (suggestion, touch, psychosomatic effect) are sufficient and preferred.
Evidence ledger — what the verdict rests on
Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, Henry More, and other Fellows of the Royal Society personally witnessed and attested to cures
These were not credulous observers; their endorsement of some cures carries genuine weight
53 signed testimonials from named witnesses appended to Greatrakes's published Brief Account
Named-witness testimony is stronger than anonymous accounts
Documented failures: Greatrakes failed to cure several patients during his London tour, including cases witnessed by skeptical physicians
Documented failures are rare in miracle claims and suggest a non-miraculous mechanism with variable efficacy
Boyle explicitly considered natural mechanisms (warmth, friction, mental effect) as possible explanations alongside divine action
The most careful observer among the witnesses refused to commit to the miraculous interpretation
What would raise this score: Documented recurrence in cases with no expectancy pathway — or records ruling out functional overlay — would raise the meter.
What would lower it: Evidence of symptom relapse, revised diagnosis, or undisclosed treatment would lower the evidence bar.
How this works
We keep two questions apart on purpose — so a thin record can’t make an impossible thing look proven, and a strong record can’t dress up an ordinary one as a miracle. First: Could nature explain it? (taking the account as true for the moment.) The question is whether nature could produce this at all — assuming, for the moment, the events are true as described. Second: is there real evidence it happened? A claim only stands out when both hold up — and we never call anything certain either way. How ratings work →
The natural explanation
The leading natural account for this case is expectation, suggestion & the placebo response. Read what it explains — and where it stops.
Sources
Tagged by proximity to the event. Primary sources are direct or contemporaneous; tertiary are downstream retellings.
- 1.Primarytestimony
Valentine Greatrakes, "A Brief Account of Mr. Valentine Greatrakes", 1666· no public link
Greatrakes's own memoir addressed to Robert Boyle; includes 53 appended testimonials from named witnesses
- 2.Primarytestimony
Robert Boyle, "Robert Boyle's correspondence (letters to Lady Conway and others)", 1666· no public link
Boyle's letters describe his observations; he found some cures credible but considered natural explanations alongside divine ones
- 3.Secondaryacademic
Peter Elmer, "The Miraculous Conformist: Valentine Greatrakes, the Body Politic, and the Politics of Healing in Restoration Britain", 2013· no public link
Oxford University Press; comprehensive modern scholarly analysis of the documentary record and political context
Cases like this
Nearest on the map — similar in how miraculous they’d be, and how strong the evidence is.