![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysengrinRead it here, with pictures. A scanned postcard of the painting found on the internet was carefully examined, and an additional figure was determined to have originally been standing just left of Christ and subsequently erased. Professor Julio Napolitani's reconstructions looks, well, like a Pooka to me (though the reconstruction seems to just be pareidolia and the texture of the wall "The Last Supper" is painted on).
I have no idea if this is serious (or at least the author is) or a spoof - it's pretty over-the-top. In particular, there's no Gospel of Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi (13 codices dating from around 390AD), though it does partially exist in another Egyptian codex. "Parahistorical" is another clue that the author is likely pulling our leg and not actually out-of-touch.
No, I don't think there's a figure there, much less a conspiracy to hide the feline love-child of Mary Magalene and Jesus Christ. (EDIT: or that there is such a love-child. Sheesh, how y'all can twist things.)
Conclusion
Taking the results of this exercise into account and using established parahistorical reasoning methods, it is determined that while da Vinci may have intended to cryptically convey knowledge relating to the existence of a Holy blood-line resulting from the union of Mary Magdalene and Christ, the presence of the cat-like creature standing immediately to the right of and touching Christ, indicates that this, now erased figure, held a position of greater significance than that of the others at the table.
Further, while evidence for this conclusion is provided by the suppression of any reference in Biblical texts to marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene or of any cat-like creature resulting from the union, apocryphal texts, specifically the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Nag Hammadi) contain references to "corruption of the body", which suggest that such a creature was central to biblical events and, while apparently reviled by many of the apostles, enjoyed the particular affection of Mary Magdalene.
I have no idea if this is serious (or at least the author is) or a spoof - it's pretty over-the-top. In particular, there's no Gospel of Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi (13 codices dating from around 390AD), though it does partially exist in another Egyptian codex. "Parahistorical" is another clue that the author is likely pulling our leg and not actually out-of-touch.
No, I don't think there's a figure there, much less a conspiracy to hide the feline love-child of Mary Magalene and Jesus Christ. (EDIT: or that there is such a love-child. Sheesh, how y'all can twist things.)
