Divination Practices: Palmistry – Distrust Issues

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2002

The authors discuss two reasons for their distrust of palmistry: conflicting theories and subjectivism. How can anyone really take palmistry seriously when there are multiple “meanings” to each aspect, and when the individual reader’s interpretation of the same characteristic differs so drastically?

Divination Practices: Palmistry, Distrust Issues

In the following we will briefly discuss two chief reasons for our distrust of palmistry.

Conflicting theories

First, as previously noted, palmistry is not a science but a dubious method based on conflicting data. Different theories conflict with one another (e.g., ancient vs. modern; modern vs. more modern), and different schools of interpretation also conflict with one another.^[1] That a general agreement exists among some palmists is hardly suffi­cient criteria for the practice to be classified as a legitimate science. This is not enough to sift out highly complex variables that supposedly reveal not only a person’s true character but his future as well. If the charts found in palmistry texts (indicating the different features of the hand) don’t always agree, how can the prognostications be considered reliable? If the delineation of the mounts don’t always agree, and a “minor” line in one book may be designated a “major” line in another book, how can their influence be accurate? Even the number of hand “types” varies.^[2]

After reading a dozen books and articles on palmistry, we agree with associate professor of anthropology Michael Alan Park: “There appear to be a number of different versions of the art that claim to be the ‘real’ palmistry. The versions differ in the number of characteris­tics observed, in the kinds of characteristics observed, in details concerning the classifica­tion, nomenclature, and nature of those characteristics, and in the meaning attributed to different expressions of the characteristics.”^[3]

Of course, one finds the same situation in astrology and other forms of divination, which is why palmists, like astrologers, insist that a novice adhere to one system only. In a leading text we find the following admonition:

Finally, when you will have decided to take this book as your Guide to Palmistry, attach yourself to it with a will, until you have mastered its contents from cover to cover. While performing this task do not open any other work on the subject; listen to no other teacher. This safeguard against a “confusion of tongues” applies just as truly to any book and any teacher you may choose instead of the present ones. There can be but one commander, when a fortress is to be stormed; but one initiator at a time into the realms of such a delicate science as Modern Orthodox Palmistry.^[4]

Or, put more delicately, “all palmistry, and medical palmistry in particular is still in a transi­tional state. New insights and data are daily being added to the main body of experimental knowledge already compiled.”^[5] Another standard text states that besides the 14 main lines “there are, in the majority of hands, a certain number of minor lines, almost infinite in their variety and seeming to defy all orderly classification and logical reading.”^[6] This is one obvious explanation for the different theories and interpretations found in palmistry.

Palmists disagree among themselves so much that one leading proponent has thrown out the vast majority of palmist authorities throughout history, retaining only two authorities as credible.^[7] Another argues that divination by the lines in the hands is itself fraudulent because the success in palmistry is not based upon occult intuition but biological fact!^[8]

Subjectivism

Palmistry also endures the Achilles’ heel of all forms of divination: an entrenched subjectivism. As one practitioner confesses, “Undeniably… the palmist makes value judgments based in part upon subjective reactions….”^[9] For example, the palmist, like the astrologer, must not evaluate just any single indicator of the hand; all indicators must be carefully assessed and balanced to provide a “general picture.” But what if over 100 “indicators” exist? The problem is that this undermines any semblance of credibility be­cause no two palmists will ever agree on even 20 indicators, let alone 100. This means the same person will receive different readings from different palmists. As one text explains:

Accurate readings depend upon carefully correlating a number of diverse and often contradictory indications to provide an integrated picture. Such a task is far from simple; to do it well and with dependable expertise will require considerable experience. Viewed superficially, for example, signs found in the right hand may present testimony that is just the opposite of that found in the left hand. There may even be markings which negate each other in the same hand.^[10]

To illustrate the problem further, the above citation from a text on medical palmistry includes this disclaimer: “Even when analysis and the balancing of all factors point over­whelmingly to the presence of some pathology, it is unwise, and it is legally foolhardy, to tell a subject unequivocally that he has or is likely to have in the future a certain disease.”^[11]

Can we imagine this being true in the medical profession? Would a medical doctor reject “overwhelming evidence” and fail to inform his patient of the disease he almost certainly knows is present? Of course not. And so we are told, “The art of medical palmistry itself is enormously complex and requires years of study and experience before the analyst can claim any degree of expertise.”^[12]

Such disclaimers in palmistry are due to more than mere legal repercussions; most practitioners know they cannot ultimately trust their own ‘’science” when it comes to vital issues. Thus in the more “responsible” texts, we may find statements like: “Despite the claims of many palmists that they can virtually pinpoint the date of a given [future] event or pathological episode by consulting this ‘palmary clock’ [certain palm indications], it has been my own observation that dead-center precision is not possible. Even close approxi­mation requires a considerable period of study and experience.”^[13] And, “In traditional palmistry, certain areas of the palm have been singled out as the sites where signs indicat­ing accidents of a specific kind are likely to be found…. A great deal of research remains before we have sufficient trustworthy evidence upon which to base firm conclusions regard­ing accidents as shown by special marks in the hand.” 14^[14]

The subjective nature of palmistry leads to the general and ambiguous characteristics of many of its prognostications. For example, “A certain amount of agreement exists among palmists that, generally, a clearly marked cross on the mount of Mars beneath that of Jupi­ter denotes a person who is likely to become involved in acts of violence and, if there are supporting signs, to be seriously injured or killed during impetuous clash [sic] with opposing forces.”^[15] Such predictions are as useless as the failures are rationalized. Thus only “a certain amount of agreement” exists concerning this prediction, and it is only “generally” true after all. Therefore, lack of corroboration is not, finally, damaging to palmistry. The person was only “likely” to become involved in violence. Furthermore, only if certain “sup­porting” signs are present is the person who is involved in “acts of violence” likely to be seriously injured or killed.

In the end, if palmists disagree because their charts, classifications, theories, and meth­ods of interpretation disagree, then it would seem that palmistry has no more credibility than phrenology, the nineteenth-century study of character traits by the contours of the skull. In fact, when phrenology was in vogue, we find many palmists of the era declaring that the credibility of palmistry was equal to that of phrenology! “Phrenology needs no defender…. [It’s success is a] reassuring omen as to what awaits, within a few short years, orthodox, honest, accurate Palmistry…. The scientific world has finally given a verdict… in favor of the verity of Phrenology, both in theory and in practice…. We are glad to assist in its triumph by demonstrating how accurately Palmistic markings ‘dovetail’… with Phreno­logical revelations.”^[16]

The errors one discovers in modern palmistry know no limit. For example, “The Lifeline will be found on all hands.”^[17] But this is not true, for it is not found on John Weldon’s hands. In addition, palmistry “indicators” refer to theories that we can know are false from biblical revelation, such as the concepts of karma and past lives.^[18] Biblically speaking, just as alleged karmic “indications” are false, other imagined “signs” in the hand must also be false, such as the one allegedly showing “the union of the person with the higher self.”^[19]

Another falsehood is the notion that “palmar creases” supposedly “break down” at the moment of death because the brain signals, which allegedly maintain them, have now ceased. But a check with a local medical examiner’s office will prove this to be false.^[20] The so-called “murderer’s hand” is another falsehood, which is the idea that a particular kind of hand indicates a brutal murderer.^[21] The alleged medical correspondences seen in palmis­try are also false.^[22]

And all palmists sooner or later run into hands that they simply cannot read, as illus­trated in this illuminating advice given to novice practitioners: “If you run into a confusing hand, it is wise to ask what questions the person wants answered…. Then concentrate on answering the questions. A storehouse of tactful remarks is part of your preparation for palm-reading.”^[23]

(to be continued)

Notes

1. ↑ Gopi Aria, Palmistry for the New Age (Long Beach, CA: Morningland, 1977), pp. 98,101,104; Mary Anderson, Palmistry (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: Aquarian Press, 1977), pp. 38,29,35.
2. ↑ Martin Steinbach, Medical Palmistry: Health and Character in the Hands (Secaucus, NJ: University Books, 1975), p. 38; Compte C. de Saint-Germain, The Practice of Palmistry (New York: Samuel Weiser, 1977, rpt. of 1897 edition), pp. 30, 56; Joyce Wilson, The Complete Book of Palmistry (New York: Bantam, 1978), pp. 19, 75; Paul C. Cooper, “Yoga for the Special Child,” Yoga Jour­nal, November/December 1984, p. 42.
3. ↑ Michael Alan Park, “Palmistry: Science or Hand-Jive?” The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1982-83, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 22-23.
4. ↑ de Saint-Germain, The Practice of Palmistry, p. 11.
5. ↑ Steinbach, Medical Palmistry, p. XI.
6. ↑ de Saint-Germain, The Practice of Palmistry, p. 172, emphasis added.
7. ↑ Ibid., p. 12.
8. ↑ Michael Alan Park, “Palmistry: Science or Hand-Jive?” p. 24.
9. ↑ Steinbach, Medical Palmistry, p. XI.
10. ↑ Ibid., p. 20.
11. ↑ Ibid., p. 21.
12. ↑ Ibid., p. 19.
13. ↑ Ibid., p. 94.
14. ↑ Ibid., p. 159.
15. ↑ Ibid., p. 162.
16. ↑ de Saint-Germain, The Practice of Palmistry, p. 357.
17. ↑ Mary Anderson, Palmistry, p. 42.
18. ↑ Joyce Wilson, The Complete Book of Palmistry, p. 134.
19. ↑ Gopi Aria, Palmistry for the New Age, p. 270.
20. ↑ Michael Alan Park, “Palmistry: Science or Hand-Hive?”, p. 31.
21. ↑ de Saint-Germain, The Practice of Palmistry, pp. 68-69.
22. ↑ Steinbach, Medical Palmistry, p. 162; Martini, Palmistry (Baltimore, MD: I & M Ottenheimer, 1929), pp. 98-100.
23. ↑ Joyce Wilson, The Complete Book of Palmistry, p. 17.