QueHacer.wiki

Defense of Luz de María against Countdown to the Kingdom

Fraternal Call for Correction, Applying Mt 18:15-17

Felipe Pérez Martí

April 11, 2026

Introduction

Dear Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett, editors of Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK):

Just as I made a fraternal call to correct errors of prophetic analysis in the case of Fr. Michel Rodrigue, I now do the same regarding Luz de María de Bonilla. On that occasion, since I did not receive the necessary corrections, I was obliged to publish the detected flaws, following the final step outlined in the Gospel: public correction (Mt 18:15-17). The result of that effort can be read here (in English; I am pending its translation into Spanish):

https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Defending_Fr._Michel_Rodrigue_from_Countdown_to_the_Kingdom%E2%80%99s_Disqualifications

In the case of Luz de María, you have published a statement criticizing some of her prophecies and personal attitudes, without having fully complied with the evangelical requirement of speaking with her first. That statement can be read here:

https://www.countdowntothekingdom.com/statement-on-luz-de-maria/

After carefully analyzing your arguments, I do not find sufficient grounds to condemn any of the prophecies mentioned, nor do I consider the personal issues raised to be reason to question her character as a true prophetess.

That is why I have decided to respond in a detailed and fraternal manner. I begin this call privately, as corresponds to the spirit of Mt 18:15-17. If there is no correction, I will proceed according to the steps prescribed by Our Lord: first with witnesses and, in the final instance, publicly.

My intention is to support God’s work in relation to His prophetic messages in these decisive times, and the prophets He has chosen for this purpose. In particular, I wish to help resolve problems of interpretation among the faithful and among those who spread prophecies, which generate division and confusion — something typical of the evil one’s attacks against God’s work.

In this case, as with Fr. Michel, I am convinced that the most appropriate course is for you to speak personally with Luz de María to clarify the doubts and resolve the issues. She does not speak English, but translators are available who can facilitate mutual and fraternal understanding. I am confident that Xavier Ayral, who works with Luz de María to spread her messages, can carry out this task. Since Spanish is my native language (I am from Venezuela), I also offer to be present to help with mediation if necessary.

To encourage this dialogue, I find it necessary to point out that the CDTK document contains several significant weaknesses in its discernment: an excessively literal reading of the messages, a uniform application of criteria that ignores that God speaks to each soul according to its vocation and spiritual moment, and a clear double standard when comparing the treatment given to Luz de María with that applied to other visionaries.

In the following sections I analyze in detail your main objections: the call not to travel, the case of Hurricane Raphael, the message about the contagious respiratory illness, the warnings about solar emanations, the condemnation of nuclear energy, the alleged live visions, the blessed grapes, and the concerns about her website and possible past associations.

My intention is not to declare that all of Luz de María’s messages are of supernatural origin — that decision belongs exclusively to the Church. What I do defend is a more humble, broad, and faithful discernment in keeping with Catholic tradition: one that recognizes the personalized action of the Holy Spirit, the mitigating power of collective prayer, the conditionality of many prophecies, and the real apocalyptic context in which we live.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten us all to seek the truth with charity and the fear of God. I now proceed to consider each of the points addressed.

1. “Do Not Travel” and the Call to Avoid Large Gatherings

One of the most insistent points made by Countdown to the Kingdom is the criticism of Luz de María’s warnings not to travel and to avoid large crowds. For this reason I dedicate more time to it. Similarly, the last section, on UFOs, false mystics, and heterodox content, requires greater length. The most cited message on this first point is the one from November 5, 2024, attributed to the Blessed Virgin:

“Children of Mine, I call you not to travel at this time. Obey, little children, obey, unless you are returning to your homes. My little children: OBEY, THIS MOTHER. OBEY. Do not despise My calls. I do not cause you fear, but I warn you so that you may change spiritually and take the necessary measures in the face of all that is to come.”

The exhortation to “obey” is repeated with emphasis. In a later interview, Luz confirmed that the instruction referred to the present (“at this time”), that is, from November 2024 onward.

CDTK points out that, more than seven months later, there has been no widespread danger in traveling, and that these warnings have caused many people to cancel family plans, pilgrimages, and important Church events, including the 2025 Jubilee and the National Eucharistic Congress in the United States. They also mention later messages such as the one from June 18, 2025 (“the disease is in your midst. Protect yourselves, do not gather in crowds”) and the one from March 27, 2024 (“avoid large crowds… because terror is taking hold of the nations”).

Analysis and Response

This criticism from CDTK starts from an understandable premise, but it makes a fundamental error: it assumes that God speaks in His prophetic messages in the same way to all people, ignoring that the Lord addresses each soul according to its vocation, its spiritual state, and the concrete needs of its path — particularly of conversion — in these times that are undoubtedly apocalyptic. The heavenly calls seek to increase conversion more and more and to prepare souls for what is coming, especially for the purification that involves the Warning.

Let us remember the Gospel: Jesus said to Peter “come” and called him to walk on the water in the midst of the storm (Mt 14:28-29), while He indicated to the other apostles that they should remain in the boat. It was not a contradiction: it was the same Lord giving different instructions according to the mission, the grace, and the particular call of each one at that moment. This evangelical example illustrates a broader reality: in Sacred Scripture, especially in the New Testament, the faithful have always received the same texts, but each one receives and applies them according to their personal situation, their spiritual needs, and the moment they are living. The Fathers of the Church and the saints have taught that the Word of God is living and effective (Heb 4:12), and that the Holy Spirit makes it resonate personally in the heart of each believer. The same occurs with private revelations. God does not speak to everyone in an identical way nor with the same level of demand at every moment. To some He calls for greater prudence at a certain time; to others He invites them to go out with courage to evangelize or to pilgrimage. To pretend that a general message must be applied in the same way to all the faithful is to reduce the action of the Holy Spirit to a uniform manual.

Luz de María’s warnings (“do not travel at this time”, “avoid large crowds”) must be understood in this context. They are not an absolute and permanent prohibition for the whole Church, but a call to supernatural prudence in times of growing instability (wars that many of us already consider the beginning of the Third World War, diseases, terrorism, social unrest). Traveling in this context, especially to affected areas or near conflicts (as recently occurred with airspace closures in Venezuela, the Gulf of Mexico — today called the Gulf of the U.S. by some — and the Caribbean), carries real risks that did not exist in “normal” times. That some people have canceled pilgrimages or family gatherings out of excessive fear is not the fault of the message, but of a literal interpretation and lack of personal discernment.

In fact, the opposite case is not mentioned: many people have traveled when perhaps they should not have according to their own personal call. Some took advantage of the Jubilee to spend a large part of their savings on a trip to the Vatican and a tour of Europe (including Medjugorje, Fatima and Lourdes), when they could have obtained the same plenary indulgences and graces in their local cathedral and used the money saved for the needy — who have increased considerably due to unemployment and the crisis. Others have traveled for social boasting, pure tourism, or to seek human relationships that were not always aligned with God’s will (looking for a partner, business, etc.).

The local alternative would have been more fruitful for many: a retreat in their diocese, acts of charity with the money saved, greater intimacy with God through frequent visits to the Blessed Sacrament, daily Mass instead of only on Sundays, taking the Eucharist to the sick, visiting prisons or caring for the homeless. Something similar applies to the National Eucharistic Congress: not all who attended necessarily responded to a uniform call from God; some may have done so for spiritual tourism or mixed motives, while others would have made better use of that time and resources in their own parish or in nearby works of mercy.

It is not that the Jubilee held in the Vatican or the Eucharistic Congress were bad from the point of view of the heavenly call through Luz de María. But we should not judge them as if we were not in a different context from the “normal” times of the past.

Furthermore, CDTK does not take into account that massive events like this also carry a real risk of contagion of diseases, including new or unknown ones, just as the messages from Heaven warn. Criticizing heavenly prudence while promoting attendance at concentrations of tens of thousands of people reveals an incomplete vision of discernment.

Beyond the technical causes, these types of incidents oblige us to look at the spiritual dimension of the problem. When ideological criteria (such as “diversity, equity and inclusion” or DEI policies) are prioritized over competence, experience, and the real safety of people, a disorder is being introduced, on purpose, that opens the door to evil. The devil does not need to cause every accident directly; it is enough for him to promote a culture of pride and lies that sacrifices truth and prudence in the name of human agendas.

As Jesus says, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (Jn 10:10). In this sense, the inclusion of underqualified personnel for ideological reasons, instead of merit, can be seen as a manifestation of the evil side of the spiritual conflict we are living. The risk of accidents through this path of incompetence must also be seen as part of that spiritual conflict: the devil seeks more accidents, greater chaos, and less socio-economic efficiency. However, the prayer, fasting, and conversion of those who heard the message from Heaven — and who, instead of traveling, chose to remain in prayer and works of mercy — have contributed to mitigating possible disasters.

True obedience does not consist in blindly obeying a website nor in rejecting every heavenly warning for fear of seeming exaggerated. It is to discern with humility, prayer, and the fear of God, always seeking the balance between trust in Providence and the supernatural prudence that Heaven asks of us at every moment of our lives.

God does not call us to live with paralyzing fear, but neither with reckless imprudence. To some He calls to walk on the waters (Peter); to others, to remain in the boat in the midst of the storm. Both responses can be obedient, according to the particular will that the Lord has for each soul. We must not box God into these messages. One is not omniscient as He is. The prophetic messages alluded to, therefore, cannot be disqualified by narrow and limited judgments.

Criticism of CDTK’s Double Standard

It is especially striking —and highly revealing— that Countdown to the Kingdom demands of Luz de María a level of precision and “safety” that it does not demand of other voices it promotes.

For years they published and defended messages from other alleged seers containing very concrete eschatological details and strong calls to prepare refuges and face tribulation. Detailed timelines and warnings about the coming trials, the Warning, and the need for radical preparation have been published without accusations of fostering “irrational fear” or a “bunker mentality.”

Yet when Luz de María issues a maternal call to prudence in the face of real and growing risks —armed conflicts, airspace closures, rising air fatalities, and health threats— they immediately accuse her of generating “irrational fear.”

This double standard is not only inconsistent; it reveals a biased and restrictive approach that, rather than seeking equitable discernment, appears aimed at selectively disqualifying a messenger who, by Heaven’s decision, has a particularly prominent role in these apocalyptic times, especially in urgent calls to conversion and in the revelation of certain secrets at moments determined by God.

2. Hurricane Raphael and Other “Problematic” Prophecies

2.1 The Case of Hurricane Raphael (November 2024)

Countdown to the Kingdom mentions as one of its main concerns the message of November 5, 2024, in which the Blessed Virgin supposedly refers to Hurricane Raphael with these words:

“Like a monster opposed to the good, what men have named Hurricane Raphael — this specter of evil — came to destroy, not to heal. This hurricane came to cause destruction and disease over the whole Earth.”

CDTK comments:

“Several readers were perplexed by the claim that a hurricane could cause ‘destruction and disease over the whole Earth.’ We wondered the same. As expected, there is no evidence that Hurricane Raphael caused any such widespread chaos, nor is it clear how such a scenario could even have been plausible. We reached out to Luz shortly after the hurricane fizzled out. Her response appears in the footnote (suffice it to say, it did not ease our concerns).”

My comments: 

First, Hurricane Raphael was a real and destructive event. It rapidly intensified into a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds of up to 185 km/h. It made landfall in Artemisa Province, Cuba, on November 6, 2024 — one day after the message — causing a total blackout across the entire island (the second in less than a month), the destruction of more than 2,800 homes in Artemisa alone, severe damage to hospitals, schools, and over 13,000 hectares of crops, as well as flooding and landslides. Economic damages in Cuba were estimated at around $1.08 billion, with the regional total exceeding $1.35 billion. At least 8 deaths were reported, and hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated. Although it did not reach the level of global catastrophe initially described, it could have been far worse, and its effects extended through flooding and climatic disruptions in Central America and the Caribbean.

Luz de María later explained that the prayers of thousands of faithful significantly mitigated the hurricane’s force and that part of its remnants dispersed, continuing as a pattern of systems that cause havoc in different regions. She also interpreted the name “Raphael” — the Archangel God uses to heal the body, mind, soul, and even social and natural realities — as being used in a blasphemous manner. She suggested that certain elites, through “misused science,” may have manipulated the climate, and that Satan, through his human instruments, was mocking God by giving the name of the healing Archangel to an instrument of destruction. In this way, an attempt was being made to convince people that evil comes from God rather than from the devil.

In these apocalyptic times, a constant battle is being waged between good and evil that encompasses all dimensions of existence: the natural, the socio-political, and above all, the spiritual.

On one side stands good: the faithful who pray, intercede, offer sacrifices, and trust in divine mercy. This collective prayer possesses real power, capable of mitigating evils and changing the course of events, as Sacred Scripture teaches (see Jonah 3:10).

But there is a crucial detail that has not been taken into account: God Himself, through His healing Archangel whose name had been blasphemed by the instruments of evil, used that very Archangel to dismantle the destructive power that had initially been prepared. The affront was a direct challenge to God, and He responded with wisdom and power, turning the blasphemy into an occasion of victory. In this way, the evil one and his human instruments were frustrated, once again demonstrating that no mockery against Heaven goes unanswered by divine response. On the other side stands evil: the elites who act as instruments of the devil, seeking to manipulate creation itself (including the climate) and mocking God through sacred symbols. Using the name of the Archangel Raphael — the healer — for a destructive phenomenon is no small detail; it is a spiritual mockery that seeks to invert the divine order: to present evil as if it came from God rather than from its true author.

It is important to place this prophecy within this broader spiritual battle, as developed in the article “When Will the Immaculate Heart of Mary Triumph?” Today it is scientifically recognized that human beings can influence the climate through techniques such as cloud seeding with silver iodide and larger-scale geoengineering projects. In this context, natural phenomena such as hurricanes can be interpreted not only as isolated meteorological events, but as part of a deep spiritual confrontation.

Many readers and the editors of Countdown to the Kingdom themselves do not seem to give sufficient consideration to this integrated triple dimension: the natural (the physical effects of the hurricane), the socio-political (the vulnerability of countries and the possible actions of local and global elites), and above all, the spiritual (prayer as a powerful weapon, divine mercy that responds to supplication, and the conditionality of many prophecies in the face of the attempts of evil).

As occurred in the case of Fr. Michel Rodrigue, CDTK tends to apply an excessively literal criterion, without giving sufficient weight to the power of collective prayer or to the possibility that God may modify the course of events in response to the intercession of His people. Prophetic language often uses strong and symbolic imagery to awaken urgent conversion, not to provide exact scientific forecasts.

Far from being a flaw, this integral vision — which unites the visible with the invisible — is consistent with the Church’s teaching on the end times and with Our Lady’s constant call to prayer and penance as powerful weapons in the spiritual battle we are living.

Conclusion on the Case of Hurricane Raphael

My conclusion is that Countdown to the Kingdom’s criticism of Luz de María is not justified. It is not legitimate to box God in or limit His way of acting when discerning a prophecy. To interpret the words of Our Blessed Mother according to our own human criteria — demanding literal and exact fulfillment according to our logic — without considering all the elements at play (natural, social, political, and above all, spiritual) leads to incomplete and unjust discernment. The interpretation offered by Luz de María, although it may seem surprising at first glance, gains coherence when placed in a broader context: the constant battle between good and evil that is waged in every sphere of creation, the real power of collective prayer to mitigate evils, the conditionality of many prophecies, and the possibility that dark forces may use human instruments to mock what is sacred.

God is not obliged to act according to our mental schemes or the expectations of any particular group. He often speaks with strong and symbolic images precisely to awaken a deep conversion, not to satisfy our scientific curiosity or our demand for literal precision. The Lord addresses real human beings, with their limitations, fears, and concrete motivations. His goal is not to give us exact meteorological forecasts, but to touch hearts and bring about real change in those who receive the message.

Only God knows in depth what each soul needs at every moment. In fact, the matter is even more complex: each person has idiosyncratic (very personal) needs. Nevertheless, God sends a single message for all. How do we know that this general message does not touch each person in the best possible way? How do we know that not sending it, or sending it “more precisely,” according to the criterion of CDTK and a subset of its readers (those who complain) with respect to what actually occurred (in order to prove that the messenger truly comes from God) is the most appropriate? Do we know more about optimized messages than God Himself? To pretend to know better than He what others “should hear,” or to box His action within our own schemes and expectations, reveals more a certain spiritual pride than true prudence, as can be deduced from all that has been said. This is something I notice throughout all the sections analyzed, and I will record it as such each time.

This attitude may even arise with good intention, but it forgets that God speaks through His chosen messengers, not necessarily through those we would have chosen or who self-designate as authorized interpreters. It is therefore necessary to maintain an attitude of openness and humility when discerning prophecies, learning from the way God Himself has acted throughout history.

In this sense, the integral vision proposed by Luz de María — which unites the visible with the invisible, the natural with the spiritual — is much more consistent with the Church’s teaching on the end times and with the way Our Lady has been calling her children throughout history: with urgency, with powerful symbols, and with a constant call to prayer and conversion.

2.2 The Message about the Contagious Respiratory Illness (August 18, 2019)

Another point highlighted by Countdown to the Kingdom as concerning is the message attributed to St. Michael the Archangel on August 18, 2019, which states:

“DO NOT DISMISS MY WORDS, SO THAT YOU DO NOT SUFFER UNNECESSARILY. When you hear of a strongly contagious respiratory illness, do not expose yourselves in crowds, or in places where you have to share several hours with your brothers and sisters, for example in airplanes and collective means of transport. Wait patiently for the said disease to abate. People of God, be obedient and be patient, so that with due discernment and given My calls, you are cautious in undertaking trips that are not a priority.”

CDTK notes that these exhortations sound “familiarly” similar to the measures imposed by secular authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic that began a few months later: “stay home,” “avoid crowds,” “wait patiently,” “obey.”

They contrast this message with one given at Medjugorje in 2021 (which has a Nihil Obstat), in which the Virgin says: “…who prays is not afraid of the future… [he] feels the freedom of the children of God, and in joy of heart, serves for the good of his brother-man. Because God is love and freedom, therefore, little children, when they want to put you in bonds and to use you, it is not from God.”

Analysis and Response

It is understandable that this message raises questions. However, before drawing hasty conclusions, it is necessary to look at the facts clearly.

First, warnings about contagious diseases and recommendations of prudence are not new in the history of private revelations or in the tradition of the Church. During plagues, cholera, or deadly flus, saints and spiritual directors always recommended reasonable precautionary measures. These fully align with basic medical principles: respiratory viruses are transmitted by droplets in the air, so maintaining prudent distance, washing hands frequently, and avoiding unnecessary crowds are logical and responsible measures.

Second, Luz de María’s message does not order churches to close, sacraments to be suspended, Mass to be prohibited, or families to be separated, as actually happened during the pandemic. It simply recommends basic prudence in the face of a highly contagious respiratory illness. This prudence (avoiding non-essential travel and large gatherings when there is a clear risk) is consistent with common sense and with the virtue of prudence itself.

The real tragedy was not the recommendation of caution, but the fanatical and politicized way in which the pandemic was handled. It became an ideological confrontation between “right” and “left.” While some refused to wear masks even near strangers, others wore them even when driving alone. Both the right and the left were manipulated by the same dark side. When the confrontation is reduced to partisan politics, the true spiritual battle is lost from view.

A Pharisee can speak a truth, even if he is hypocritical or guilty (see Mt 23:2-3). If a sanitary measure is reasonable from a medical point of view —such as the correct use of masks or social distancing— it should not be rejected simply because it comes from someone we dislike. Likewise, honest doctors needed to be listened to and effective treatments that the elites rejected, such as ivermectin and other early protocols that proved effective, should have been used. Rejecting the truth simply because of who says it is a childish and dangerous attitude.

Third, the contrast with Medjugorje is not as absolute as CDTK claims. Medjugorje denounces the “chains” imposed by men when they go against God’s will. But the same Virgin has repeatedly called for obedience to legitimate authorities when they do not contradict divine law. Prudence and freedom are not enemies; they can and should coexist.

Finally, and this is decisive: God sees the entire future. In August 2019, no one was publicly talking about a global pandemic. That Heaven warned in advance about a highly contagious respiratory illness that would require prudence is a clear act of mercy to prepare His people. The most serious thing is that CDTK does not even recognize that this was a real prophecy. Few people had this information in August 2019. The message was fulfilled: a highly contagious respiratory illness appeared that affected the entire world and required precisely measures of prudence. Instead of valuing this timely warning from Heaven, CDTK prefers to focus on the supposed “similarity” with the secular discourse to disqualify the message. This is building a straw man: ignoring what actually happened and attacking what was never said.

The real question is not whether the message “sounds similar” to what governments said, but whether its spirit and purpose coincide. Luz de María’s message calls for obedience to God, discernment, and patience. The secular discourse imposed blind obedience to the State, fear, and the suspension of fundamental rights, including religious ones. They are two radically different obediences.

2.3 Should We Avoid the Sun? The Warnings about Solar Emanations

Another aspect that Countdown to the Kingdom presents as problematic is Luz de María’s repeated warnings about the dangers of exposing oneself to the sun. CDTK cites several messages, including:

“…the Sun emits its vibration with greater force and alters man’s psyche, as if it were contagious for those human beings who are weak in spirit.” (September 20, 2018)

“The rays of the Sun will bring man a new disease in his psyche and in his skin. I have called you not to expose yourselves to the sun, it is sick.” (March 15, 2018)

“My people, the Sun is emitting dangerous emanations toward the Earth; do not expose yourselves to the Sun, unknown diseases produced by the Sun are appearing.” (September 10, 2017)

A reader of CDTK expressed his concern: he could not imagine keeping his eight children locked up at home all summer, but neither did he want to disobey Our Lady. CDTK acknowledges some benefits of moderate sun exposure, but states that there is no evidence that the sun is more harmful today than it was nine years ago.

Analysis and Response

This criticism from CDTK is especially weak and reveals an unjustified minimization of a clear heavenly warning, despite the available scientific evidence.

We are living through Solar Cycle 25, which has turned out to be much more active than initially predicted. Between 2024 and 2026, numerous X-class flares and coronal mass ejections have been recorded, causing intense geomagnetic storms that have affected communications, satellites, and power grids. Science confirms that solar activity has increased significantly and that these emanations can influence the human psyche (increasing restlessness, stress, and nervous alterations) and the body (somatic effects on the skin and nervous system). Luz de María has been transmitting for years that these emanations affect not only the body but especially the psyche and spirit, provoking restlessness, emotional alterations, and greater vulnerability in people who are weak in faith. God, who knows the human being He created perfectly, warns through her about effects that current science has not yet fully recorded. To disqualify the message because “science has not confirmed it” constitutes a form of intellectual and spiritual pride: God knows more than scientists and more than CDTK.

The most serious thing is that Countdown to the Kingdom deliberately minimizes this heavenly warning, using it to reinforce their narrative that Luz de María generates “irrational fear” and a “bunker mentality.” Instead of recognizing that Heaven is preparing Its people for times of greater cosmic and spiritual agitation — and that this information anticipated what science has later confirmed — CDTK prefers to ironize about children locked up at home and reduce everything to a superficial debate about vitamin D3. Nor do they recognize that this prophecy has been fulfilled in its essence, something few messengers had announced with such clarity.

True prudence does not consist in ignoring Our Lady’s words for fear of seeming exaggerated, but in listening with humility to a warning that combines the somatic (skin, nervous system), the psychic (restlessness, stress), and the spiritual (weakness of spirit in the face of the emanations).

Furthermore, those of us who receive prophecies are not called only to receive, but also to contribute. It is time for conversion, not for constant complaints or for demanding that God give us everything “ready-made” and adapted to our comforts. In the case of the reader with eight children, it is possible that the message was not asking him to lock them up all summer, but inviting the family to a deeper discernment: how to live prudence, trust, and conversion in the midst of an increasingly agitated world? Complaining about everything and wanting Heaven to adjust exactly to our preferences reveals an immature attitude that hinders true spiritual growth.

God does not call us to live with paralyzing fear, but neither with reckless imprudence. Luz de María’s warning is a maternal and timely call to protect both body and soul at a time when the sun is showing itself more restless and variable. Ignoring it or ridiculing it, as CDTK does, is a serious error of discernment.

2.4 The Condemnation of Nuclear Energy

One of the points most criticized by Countdown to the Kingdom is the strong condemnation that Luz de María’s messages make of nuclear energy. They refer not only to nuclear weapons, but to nuclear energy itself for civilian use, including nuclear power plants. Some examples: “The Earth will groan and the water of the seas will lash at it, penetrating the coasts of various nations; nuclear energy is the Herod of this generation. The earth vibrates at one end and the other.”

(Blessed Virgin Mary to Luz de María, March 1, 2017)

“Nuclear energy will be the greatest real danger that man has created and that the Sun can detonate.”

(Blessed Virgin Mary to Luz de María, June 23, 2013)

“…there is no greater evil at this moment than the creation of nuclear energy.”

(Blessed Virgin Mary to Luz de María, July 26, 2013)

“The use of nuclear energy by science is the great desolation of My Heart.”

(Our Lord Jesus Christ to Luz de María, October 14, 2015)

CDTK points out that the Catholic Church has condemned nuclear weapons, but has never condemned peaceful nuclear energy. On the contrary, several popes, including Benedict XVI, have supported its safe and peaceful use. They therefore argue that there is a tension between Luz de María’s messages and the Church’s moral position.

Analysis and Response

This criticism from CDTK is understandable from a strictly doctrinal point of view, but it is incomplete, reductive, and ultimately dangerous.

First, it is true that the Church has not issued a magisterial condemnation against civilian nuclear energy. However, private revelations do not aim to repeat what the Magisterium already teaches, but to warn about concrete and future dangers that the hierarchy has not yet addressed with the urgency that the times require. Luz de María is not making an abstract theological dissertation on the morality of nuclear fission; she is warning about the existential risk that this technology represents in the end times: massive accidents, terrorism, war, or provoked detonations that could destroy much of creation.

Second, the history of the Church shows that it has taken time to pronounce on some real dangers. When atomic weapons appeared, many theologians and bishops took time to condemn them with the force that the Magisterium later acquired. Private revelations can act as an “early warning” precisely in those gaps.

Third, CDTK gravely minimizes the apocalyptic context in which these messages are framed. If we take into account that this is a real battle between Satan and his demons against God, the most logical thing is to think that the evil one will use every means at his disposal to attack humanity, the Creator’s most precious work. Nuclear power plants are not bombs, but it is enough to imagine what would happen if several of them suffered a fate similar to Chernobyl or worse, especially in the midst of a Third World War. The disaster would be of unimaginable proportions. It is precisely what the devil is waiting for when the opportunity arises. And that opportunity is quite close, as CDTK itself recognizes that we are in apocalyptic times. Underestimating the enemy is a grave mistake. God is warning us about this through Luz de María. No one has done it with this clarity and force. Instead of criticizing it, it should be recognized.

When Luz de María calls nuclear energy “the Herod of this generation,” “the Cain of this generation,” or even associates it with “Satan,” she is not speaking of a plant that functions correctly under strict controls. She is warning about a technology created by man that, in the hands of human pride and under the direct influence of the evil one, can become — and undoubtedly will become — one of the instruments of a desolation never before seen, together with nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological bombs. The phrase “there is no greater evil” must be understood in the context of the end times, not as an absolute theological statement outside that framework.

Finally, it is legitimate to ask: why does CDTK demand perfect coincidence between private revelations and the current position of the Magisterium, when they themselves accept other messages that go beyond what is officially taught? This double standard reveals an excessively literal and restrictive approach that shows an unacceptable bias against a heavenly messenger in whom, until now, we have found no doctrinal problems, nor have her confessors and spiritual directors found any — who are theologians and review her messages with great care before they are published.

True obedience to the Church does not consist in rejecting every heavenly warning that has not yet been ratified by Rome, but in discerning with humility, prudence, and the fear of God. Nuclear energy represents a real, growing, and potentially gigantic danger in a world that is increasingly unstable and subjugated by Satan through the ruling elites. Ignoring the strong warnings from Heaven on this subject, simply because “the Church has not yet condemned it,” would be a grave spiritual imprudence and, potentially, catastrophic. It would serve, it must be said clearly given the gravity of the matter, the wrong side of this final conflict.

2.5 The Name of the Antichrist: “Alex”

On August 24, 2024, Luz de María stated that she was allowed to reveal the second of five secrets she had received. In her commentary, she described the following:

“And on that hill was Our Blessed Mother with St. Michael the Archangel at her side. Our Blessed Mother presents a man to me and says to me: he is the one who comes to scourge humanity, the one who comes from a place located between three continents; raised and educated in his own country, he has managed to become influential abroad. His name is Alex, but he will be known by another name. This is the Antichrist.” (Commentary by Luz de María, August 24, 2024)

This announcement generated a wave of speculation on the internet. CDTK adopts a posture of great caution and cites St. Irenaeus of Lyon to warn about the danger of presuming to know the name of the Antichrist, since it could lead to deception if the true Antichrist bears another name. They also cite St. Hannibal Maria di Francia, recalling that private revelations are not Scripture and that treating them as dogmas is imprudent.

Analysis and Response

CDTK’s call for prudence is legitimate in principle. St. Irenaeus rightly warns that speculating about the exact name of the Antichrist can be dangerous. However, CDTK uses this point not only to ask for caution, but to sow systematic distrust toward Luz de María, presenting the revelation of the name “Alex” as a grave risk that could “put the faithful to sleep” and cause them to fail in resisting the true Antichrist. This reaction is disproportionate and once again reveals an excessively restrictive and biased approach.

First, Luz de María did not present “Alex” as a dogma nor did she invite a public hunt for individuals. She revealed it as part of a secret, in a context of spiritual preparation, and has always insisted that discernment must be done with prayer and obedience to the Church. It is not a concrete and definitive identification to be disseminated in a sensationalist manner.

Second, the fact that a messenger receives a specific name or detail is not unprecedented. Several visionaries with ecclesiastical recognition have received concrete details about events or persons. The problem is not in receiving the information from Heaven, but in the misuse that may be made of it. Attributing to Luz de María the anticipated guilt for possible abuses is unjust and dishonest.

Third, and this is the most serious: CDTK applies here a very evident double standard. They accept and disseminate messages from other visionaries that contain strong eschatological details and concrete warnings, but when Luz de María gives a concrete name (with the explicit clarification that he will be known by another name), they immediately turn it into a reason for grave suspicion and potential danger to souls. This creates the impression that they are looking for reasons to disqualify her rather than to discern with equity and humility.

As I noted in my previous article titled “Is Alexander Soros the Antichrist?” (see reference below), the revelation of the name “Alex” should be taken seriously, but without falling into hasty speculations or definitive identifications. Heaven does not give us this information so that we become detectives, but so that we may be alert and spiritually prepared.

True prudence does not consist in rejecting beforehand any concrete detail that comes from Heaven, but in receiving it with humility, keeping it in the heart, discerning it with the Church, and avoiding both sensationalist speculation and systematic skepticism that disqualifies faithful messengers in advance.

God can reveal whatever He considers opportune to His servants. To disqualify a message simply because it includes a concrete name is too narrow and dangerous a criterion, especially when that name comes accompanied by the warning that he will be known by another.

Reference:

https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Is_Alexander_Soros_the_Antichrist%3F

3. Live Visions? Luz de María’s Live Broadcasts

In recent months, a YouTube search shows that Luz de María apparently has visions during interviews and podcasts broadcast live. CDTK recognizes that God can manifest Himself whenever He wishes, but points out that in these live broadcasts the usual discernment and supervision of a spiritual director that her own website claims to have is not being applied. According to them, this has generated some problems.

One example mentioned is a statement (or its translation) during a live broadcast in which Luz de María seemed to suggest that someone who accepted the “mark of the beast” under pressure could be protected. CDTK considered this statement “spiritually dangerous,” since the Apocalypse is clear in stating that those who take the mark of the beast are condemned to the lake of fire (Rev 14:9). They responded with the article “Can You Be Saved if You Take the Mark?”, defending a very strict position. Curiously, six days later, on March 14, 2025, a message attributed to St. Michael the Archangel seemed to clarify the point, stating that the mark cannot be taken voluntarily.

In another later interview, Luz apparently begins to have an apparition of Christ. At one point, she imparts a blessing with her hand “in the person of Christ” (instead of blessing herself). CDTK points out that only a priest acts in persona Christi and can impart such a blessing, and qualifies this as an example of the dangers of live broadcasts.

Analysis and Response

On taking the mark of the beast under pressure

It is understandable that CDTK is concerned, but their reaction was excessively rigid and lacking in mercy. According to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mortal sin requires full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857-1859). When there is grave coercion — such as a threat of death, torture, or harm to the family — free consent is considerably reduced or disappears completely (CCC 1754).

A clear example is rape: the forced person does not commit the sin of fornication because there is no free consent. Likewise, if someone is subjected to extreme pressure to receive the mark of the beast, only God can judge the real degree of guilt in his heart. Not all of us are martyrs with the same fortitude; not all of us have the same grace at the moment of trial. Therefore, to state absolutely that whoever yields under coercion is necessarily condemned is a position that does not leave sufficient room for divine mercy. Jesus Himself warned us: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged” (Mt 7:1).

The later message from St. Michael, by insisting that the mark cannot be taken “voluntarily,” does not contradict the previous statement but clarifies it: if one voluntarily chooses hell, one goes to damnation. If there are grave attenuating factors (it is not fully voluntary), God takes that into account.

In summary: Catholic doctrine is neither laxity (“it doesn’t matter, God understands”) nor the implacable rigorism of CDTK, which seems to attribute to itself the judgment that belongs only to God. It is a balance between the seriousness of the act (the mark implies adoration of the Antichrist) and God’s mercy toward human weakness under extreme coercion. Only God knows the heart of each person and is the only just judge.

Furthermore, each person will be presented with two clear options: to choose God (with His mark of the cross on the forehead) or to choose the devil (with the mark of the beast). Before those two options, each one will choose according to the state of his soul. But there is something key: whoever chooses God will not necessarily go directly to heaven; some will need purification in purgatory. That is the difference: that the sin is not mortal, leading to eternal death. This will be especially clear in the refuges, the new arks of Noah before the deluge of fire. How could a soul that does not go to hell if it dies, but to purgatory, be excluded from the new arks and die in the deluge of fire? The most logical thing is that they will be saved, but will need purification while in the ark. That purification will very probably be very rapid, because there will be many miracles of healing (not only of the body, but also of the mind and soul, as is logical). But it will be purification nonetheless.

On the blessing “in the person of Christ”

This criticism from CDTK mixes valid observations with an excessively suspicious and negative interpretation. It is true that live broadcasts present challenges for discernment. When a visionary receives messages or visions in public and in real time, it is more difficult to apply the usual filter of a spiritual director. However, CDTK uses these incidents to generate general distrust toward Luz de María’s entire mission.

The incident of the blessing “in the person of Christ” is an understandable error in a moment of ecstasy or vision. Luz is not a priest and cannot act in persona Christi to impart sacramental blessings. At that moment, she made the sign of the cross on her own initiative, in parallel to the blessing that Jesus was performing, not as a priestess or usurping priestly functions, but as a layperson, with good will, accompanying the action of Christ. Qualifying this as a “grave danger” of live broadcasts seems exaggerated. In practically all the messages, Jesus, Our Blessed Mother, God the Father, St. Michael, and other heavenly figures send blessings to the listeners through Luz de María. Must she be a priest to transmit a blessing that comes from Heaven? If that were the case, almost no prophet would be acceptable. It is clearly a transmission of the divine blessing, not a deliberate attempt to usurp the priesthood.

The most concerning thing about this section of CDTK is the general tone: they turn isolated and explainable incidents into “evidence” that something is wrong with Luz de María’s mission. They ignore that the great mystics of history (St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross, St. Faustina, etc.) also had moments of public or semi-public ecstasy in which they could commit human errors in the eyes of those not equipped to interpret correctly what was happening. The fact that Luz has visions during live interviews does not prove that they are false; it proves that she is human and that discernment must be constant, both on the part of the visionary and of the listeners.

God can manifest Himself whenever and however He wishes. The problem is not that Luz has visions live, but how that experience is managed and discerned publicly. Instead of accompanying this phenomenon with prudence and calling for mature discernment, CDTK uses it as another reason to set aside Luz de María’s messages.

True prudence does not consist in rejecting everything that occurs in public or live, but in demanding serious, constant, and humble discernment, both on the part of the visionary and of those who accompany her and of the Church.

4. Blessed Grapes and Medicinal Remedies

In several of Luz de María’s messages, the faithful are recommended to preserve “blessed grapes.” In some cases it is even insisted that “we need them.” They are to be kept in brandy “for times of scarcity.” According to a document that was on her site and supposed instructions given by “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” other grapes can be blessed simply by rubbing a grape blessed by a priest over other grapes while saying: “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen.”

CDTK questions this practice, arguing that it does not conform to Catholic theology on blessings. Unlike holy water or salt, which receive a specific blessing to be used as sacramentals, blessed objects do not transfer their blessing simply by physical contact. They cite the book of Haggai (2:11-12) to support their position.

They also point out that the only other alleged apparition that spoke of “blessed grapes” was that of San Damiano (Italy, 1960s and 1970s), which received a strong official condemnation from the local bishop that is still in force. The fact that Luz de María cites this condemned apparition causes them concern, as it could be interpreted as an indirect confirmation.

Luz de María has also recommended the “Good Samaritan Oil” (known as “thieves’ oil”). CDTK acknowledges that Scripture, ancient medicine, and current science support the benefits of certain essential oils, but they express concern about the emergence of an almost superstitious mentality among some readers: the idea that with “blessed grapes” or a certain oil they will never go hungry or get sick. They insist that these remedies are natural aids from God’s creation, not sacraments or magic amulets, and that their effectiveness has limits.

Finally, they cite the words of Jesus: “Which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” (Mt 6:27), and a recent message from Medjugorje (with Nihil Obstat) that invites us to live with hope, peace, and joy.

Analysis and Response

This criticism from CDTK touches on a legitimate point that deserves to be discerned carefully: the risk that some practical recommendations may become superstitious or almost magical attitudes among the faithful. That danger exists and must be corrected with clarity.

However, CDTK exaggerates and simplifies the matter by presenting these recommendations as something inherently problematic or close to superstition.

First, the recommendation to preserve blessed grapes or to use natural remedies (such as Good Samaritan Oil) is not new in Catholic tradition. St. Hildegard of Bingen, a Doctor of the Church, wrote extensively about the medicinal use of plants, herbs, and oils as providential aids given by God. St. Charbel Makhlouf is famous for the miraculous oil that exuded from his body after his death. St. Raphael the Archangel, in the book of Tobit, indicates the use of parts of a fish as a remedy. Throughout the centuries, the saints have recommended the prudent use of blessed natural means, always in union with prayer and trust in God, never as substitutes for faith.

It is important to clarify that these remedies are not presented as sacraments or as infallible guarantees of survival, but as ordinary means that God can bless and use for the good of His children. Luz de María has never taught that blessed grapes or oils are infallible or substitutes for trust in God.

Second, the fact that a grape blessed by a priest is used to bless others by physical contact may raise legitimate theological questions. The Church clearly distinguishes between sacramentals and relics, and not every contact automatically transfers a blessing. However, even if the grape does not remain “blessed” in the strict sense, it can be used as an object of faith to invoke the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (see Mt 14:13-21 and Mt 15:32-39). In this case, through a miracle of bodily nourishment from a single grape, especially in times of famine. Jesus Himself taught us: “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mk 11:24). Faith moves mountains (Mt 17:20). Why question this direct teaching of the Lord?

Third, the association with San Damiano is a particularly weak point in the criticism. Although that apparition was condemned by the local bishop, the mere mention of a similar remedy does not automatically imply that Luz de María shares all the errors or problems of San Damiano. It would be unjust and fallacious to disqualify an entire work because of an isolated reference.

The most concerning thing about this section of CDTK is that they turn a practical recommendation — intended to help in times of scarcity — into supposed proof that Luz de María fosters superstition or a “bunker mentality.” They ignore that the messages themselves constantly insist on trust in God, prayer, and the sacraments as the main thing. Reducing everything to a debate about whether the blessed grapes “work” or not is to lose sight of the complete spiritual context. What “works” is faith, not objects. Something similar occurs with sacred images: one must not confuse idolatry with devotion.

True prudence consists in receiving these recommendations with common sense and discernment: using them as secondary aids, never as substitutes for faith, prayer, and divine Providence. Neither superstition nor total rejection. Balance and humility.

God can inspire natural means to help His children in difficult times. It is logical, for God is a Father who treats His children as such, especially when they are in special danger, as in these apocalyptic times in which the prophecies announce famines and cataclysms. To suppose the opposite is not to believe that God acts as a Father with us when we invoke Him with faith.

To disqualify them beforehand or to exaggerate their importance is to fall into extremes that Heaven itself does not propose.

5. The “Revelaciones Marianas” Website and the Promotion of False Mystics, UFOs, and Heterodox Content

CDTK devotes a significant part of its statement to questioning Luz de María’s official website, Revelaciones Marianas, and its alleged past association with Giorgio Bongiovanni and other heterodox content.

1. What CDTK claims and what can be verified

CDTK claims the following:

• The Revelaciones Marianas website promoted heterodox content for years, including Bertha Dudde and especially Giorgio Bongiovanni, a ufologist who presents himself as the reincarnation of a Fatima visionary and the prophet Elijah, and who promotes “extraterrestrials” as saviors of humanity.

• Luz de María appeared alongside Bongiovanni at conferences (2011-2012) and her website hosted messages from both for several years (at least from 2009 to 2013).

• During that period the site contained explicit statements about “beings from the Universe,” “visits from evolved beings,” and that traditional Catholic art represented UFOs.

• Recently, representatives of Luz (a YouTube channel) have responded to these questions with slander and legal threats against those who raise them, including Countdown to the Kingdom itself.

Verification (based on Internet Archive and public sources):

All of the above is objectively correct. Screenshots of the site from 2009 to 2013 confirm that messages from Luz de María were published alongside those of Bertha Dudde and Giorgio Bongiovanni. There are YouTube videos of 2011-2012 conferences in which Luz de María appears with Bongiovanni, congratulates him on the anniversary of his stigmata, and speaks of spiritual unity. The site contained texts that spoke of “beings from the Universe,” “visits from evolved beings,” and that Pope John XXIII had had contact with them (content that was gradually removed after 2011-2020). The podcaster representing Luz has publicly threatened legal action against those who mention the past association with Bongiovanni.

2. Important context about Giorgio Bongiovanni

• He proclaims himself a recipient of stigmata and the “reincarnation” of biblical figures.

• He openly promotes the arrival of “extraterrestrials” as saviors of humanity.

• In his magazine and website he states that “the angels of yesterday are the extraterrestrials of today.”

• His teachings contradict fundamental Catholic dogmas (reincarnation, salvation through beings from other planets, etc.).

3. Analysis

Strong points of CDTK’s criticism:

• It is an objective and documented fact that for several years Luz de María’s official platform hosted and promoted content that is clearly heterodox and contrary to the Catholic faith.

• The public association with Bongiovanni (photographs, joint conferences, messages hosted together) is real and verifiable.

• The recent legal threats against those who raise these questions are problematic and contrary to the spirit of humility and meekness that Jesus taught us: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Mt 5:5) and “Do not resist the evildoer” (Mt 5:39).

Weak or nuancable points:

• They do not present conclusive proof that Luz de María currently shares Bongiovanni’s beliefs.

• She has publicly clarified that the association was involuntary, that she did not know his errors at the time, and that she later distanced herself from him.

• The fact that the site gradually removed the problematic content after 2011-2020 indicates, at least apparently, a correction.

Initial Assessment

This is one of the most serious criticisms from CDTK against Luz de María. It is not a minor detail: for years her official platform disseminated ideas contrary to the Catholic faith alongside her own messages. It is understandable that this generated, at first, a significant red flag that any serious defender must address with total honesty.

However, once Luz de María has clarified that it was a past error and an involuntary confusion, and that those contents are not part of the messages she receives, that red flag should not be maintained. The burden of proof lies with the one questioning her. CDTK has not produced it. And again, a Christian must proceed by giving the benefit of the doubt and the right to defense (Mt 18:15-17). CDTK has not done so in this case, but has limited itself to criticizing from the outside, without presuming innocence.

At the same time, it would be absurd to suppose that this proves that Luz de María is a false prophetess. The messages that could be considered problematic a priori are those in which Christ and St. Michael the Archangel speak of “life in the universe.”

Christ’s message (“the universe is full of life”) can reasonably be interpreted as a reference to the angels (non-material living beings) and the heavenly choirs that guard creation, and not necessarily to material beings from other planets. Luz herself says she does not know what kind of life it refers to, but that if Christ affirms it, it must be true.

In fact, Catholic tradition teaches that among the nine heavenly choirs, especially those of the second hierarchy (Dominations, Virtues, and Powers), the custody and governance of the cosmic order is attributed (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Celestial Hierarchy; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 108). In addition, Sacred Scripture and tradition teach that there is a spiritual battle between good angels and demons in the “heavenly places” (Eph 6:12), where demons try to disturb the order of creation and the angels defend it.

For its part, the message from St. Michael the Archangel (“Man will discover life in the depths of the Earth…”) may refer to human tribes isolated from civilization (such as certain indigenous communities in the Amazon who live completely disconnected), and not necessarily to extraterrestrials.

Conclusion

The past association with Bongiovanni and the heterodox content of the site are serious facts that require a clear, humble, and transparent explanation from Luz de María and her representatives. Although I personally consider that it is not optimal for an apostle to respond with legal threats, Luz de María has clarified these points. CDTK therefore cannot use this to disqualify her. Of course, it also does not disqualify her mission or the messages received.

The optimal thing, as responsible and charitable Christians, is to proceed according to the teaching of Jesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Mt 18:15-17. I have not observed that CDTK has done so in this case. Instead, they have chosen to criticize from the outside, without giving the benefit of the doubt or the right to defense. That, in itself, is a grave failure of discernment.

General Conclusion

After carefully analyzing each of the objections presented by Countdown to the Kingdom against the messages of Luz de María de Bonilla, I reach a clear and firm conclusion: their criticisms are not sufficiently grounded and reveal, in several points, a restrictive, excessively literal, and biased approach.

Throughout the previous sections I have shown that CDTK tends to interpret the messages in a rigid and uniform way, without giving due weight to the personalized action of the Holy Spirit, the conditionality of many prophecies, the real and mitigating power of collective prayer, or the triple dimension (natural, socio-political, and spiritual) of events in these apocalyptic times.

Likewise, a worrying double standard is evident: a level of precision and “safety” is demanded of Luz de María that is not applied with equal rigor to other messengers whose warnings also contain strong details about tribulation, refuges, and coming trials. This inconsistency seriously weakens the credibility of their discernment.

None of the objections analyzed justifies withdrawing or disqualifying Luz de María’s mission. On the contrary, in several cases her warnings have proven timely and consistent with the context of growing global instability we are experiencing: wars, airspace closures, health risks, social unrest, and increasingly intense climatic phenomena.

I do not intend to declare here that all of Luz de María’s messages are of supernatural origin. That decision belongs exclusively to the Holy Mother Church. What I do affirm with conviction, after a serious and prolonged analysis, is that I have not found sufficient reasons to reject them. Many of CDTK’s criticisms seem to be based more on human expectations, excessive literalism, and hasty judgments than on a discernment truly open to the mysterious and sovereign action of God.

It is especially serious that CDTK has publicly disqualified three of the most important prophetic messengers of our time — Luz de María de Bonilla, Fr. Michel Rodrigue, and Gisella Cardia — without first exhausting the fraternal path of private correction that Jesus Himself commanded us (Mt 18:15-17). This attitude contributes to division and confusion among the faithful, precisely at the moment when we most need unity, prayer, and mature discernment.

For all the above, and exercising my right and duty as a Catholic layman to discern private revelations according to the Catechism (n. 67), my personal verdict is clear: Luz de María de Bonilla is a true prophetess and one of the most important of these final times, together with Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Gisella Cardia.

I make a respectful but firm call to you, as well as to all who spread prophecies, to greater humility and breadth of heart in discernment. Let us not fall into the pride of believing we can box in God’s action according to our limited schemes. Let us remember that the evil one always mixes truth with error in order to confuse and divide: he uses the greater part of his hook with authentic bait, in order to better catch the unwary. The 90% of what he says may be true, but that remaining 10% is so serious that it determines the character of the entire message and can lead to damnation.

Precisely for this reason, when a site that has disseminated many authentic messages decides to remove or disqualify two of the most significant messengers of these times —Luz de María de Bonilla and Fr. Michel Rodrigue— a serious concern arises. My warning is fraternal: that Countdown to the Kingdom does not unwittingly become an instrument that favors the division and confusion the evil one seeks. On the contrary, I invite you to return to the path of humble and balanced discernment, so that you may continue to be a useful instrument of God in the dissemination of prophecies for these apocalyptic times.

Our duty is to seek the truth with charity, humility, fear of God, and filial obedience to the Church. Let us also remember that the main weapon with which St. Michael the Archangel defeated Lucifer was precisely humility (recognizing that all strength resides only in God), in contrast to the enemy’s pride, who believed he knew more than God Himself.

May the Holy Spirit grant us all the humility necessary to discern rightly, the charity not to judge hastily, and the courage to live what we already know God asks of us today: deep conversion, constant prayer, frequent sacraments, fasting, works of mercy, and total trust in Divine Providence.

In God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,

through Our Mother Mary Most Holy,

Felipe Pérez Martí

April 11, 2026