Letters to Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett Regarding Luz de María
Letters to Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett Regarding Luz de María
Felipe Pérez Martí
April 19, 2026.
Dear everyone,
This document presents the evidence of the steps I took to respectfully urge the editors of Countdown to the Kingdom (CDTK), Daniel O’Connor and Mark Mallett, to speak directly with Luz de María de Bonilla in order to clarify and correct the serious errors in their public assessment of her prophecies.
The initial defense I sent them is available here:
https://www.quehacer.wiki/wiki/Defense_of_Luz_de_Mar%C3%ADa_against_Countdown_to_the_Kingdom
As they did not respond or engage in the requested fraternal dialogue, I was eventually forced to make my observations public. In that document I conclude, with sorrow, that Countdown to the Kingdom is unfortunately serving the designs of the evil one by sowing confusion and division, and I urgently call them to correct their course.
That final public document can be read here:
I sent all the letters by email, in private, in a thread titled: “Defending Luz de Maria”. The first one, dated April 11, 2026, is the following:
First Letter, dated April 11:
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):
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.
I attach the whole document. (The attachment contained the document in which I rebuked the criticisms of CDTK to Luz de María, with the link above.)
In God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, through Our Mother Mary Most Holy,
Felipe
Second letter, dated April 13:
Dear Daniel and Mark.
Regarding accusations against Luz de Maria which are not in your document, I wrote this in response:
Best and blessings,
In Jesus and Mary,
Felipe
Third letter, dated April 14:
Dear Daniel and Mark,
I have not received any response from you.
My request remains simple and direct: please speak personally with Luz de María de Bonilla to clarify the issues raised in your statement.
Are you willing to do this? It is a basic step of fraternal charity and the path clearly indicated by Our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17.
Please remember that we are speaking about two of the most important prophetic voices of these times: Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María de Bonilla. Your decision to publicly disqualify them, without first engaging in a direct and private conversation, gives the impression that you are positioning yourselves above them — almost as if you were competing with the very messengers God has sent.
Recall what happened when the mother of James and John asked Jesus for the first places for her sons (Mt 20:20-28). The other apostles became indignant, and Jesus had to correct them all: “Whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mt 20:27-28).
In your case, it is even more serious. It is not simply wanting to be first; it is effectively excluding two of the main prophetic voices while keeping others. Of the Twelve Apostles, it would be as if you decided to stay and to set aside all the rest of them and only keep the seventy lesser disciples.
You have your own timeline of the end times. Fr. Michel and Luz de María also have theirs. Does this mean you consider your discernment superior to theirs? Did God the Father assign you this role instead of them?
As we all know, this impasse is only one example of the much larger spiritual battle unfolding in these apocalyptic times — the battle between God and the evil one. By refusing to speak directly with Luz de María and by publicly removing or disqualifying two of the most significant messengers Heaven has sent, you risk placing yourselves on the wrong side of that conflict.
Let me repeat what I wrote in the document: “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.”
This is my final fraternal call before proceeding to the next step with witnesses, as indicated by Our Lord.
I remain available for a direct and charitable conversation.
Best regards and blessings,
in Jesus and Mary,
Felipe Pérez Martí
Fourth and last letter, dated April 16:
Dear Daniel and Mark,
As I promised, I am now proceeding to the second stage of the path indicated by Our Lord in Matthew 18:15-17. I am formally asking you, in the presence of witnesses, to correct the public disqualifications you have made against Luz de María de Bonilla.
Some of the people I invited as witnesses — those who were already involved in the previous situation with Fr. Michel Rodrigue — have declined to participate visibly. I have therefore omitted their names and will simply inform them of this message and of any reply you may give. Several expressed that they believe it is no longer worthwhile and that “everyone has their own opinion and has moved on.”
I respect their decision, but I cannot do the same. This is not a matter on which we can simply “agree to disagree.” We are dealing with the credibility of two of the most important prophetic voices that Heaven has raised up in these decisive times. The responsibility involved is immense.
When a platform that has done so much good in spreading prophetic messages publicly removes or disqualifies two of the most significant messengers without first engaging in a proper, fraternal, and private conversation, it causes serious confusion and division among the faithful.
As far as I know (and I may be mistaken), both Christine Watkins and Peter Bannister distanced themselves from CDTK for reasons closely related to this kind of approach.
I also wish to point out something quite extraordinary — and, to my knowledge, unique in the history of private revelations. As explained publicly by Xavier Ayral: Fr. Michel Rodrigue has received messages from Heaven affirming that Luz de María is an authentic messenger. Luz de María has likewise received confirmation from Heaven regarding the authenticity of Fr. Michel’s mission. This mutual confirmation between two major prophetic voices is highly unusual. While there have been some cases in the Middle Ages and the modern era in which mystics spoke positively of one another, I am not aware of such clear and explicit mutual affirmations of authenticity. In contemporary times this is even rarer. Most visionaries operate in parallel — often by explicit request from God — without directly referring to each other, and tensions sometimes arise between groups of their followers. Furthermore, Fr. Michel is the only one, by Heaven’s explicit will, who has served as a “puzzle solver,” speaking with messengers from Garabandal, Medjugorje, and others, helping to bring greater coherence to the overall prophetic picture of our times. In my opinion, he is the principal apostle-prophet of these end times.
When such a strong mutual confirmation occurs, it should be seen as a special grace from God to strengthen His instruments during times of intense spiritual attack and division. It is as if Heaven were saying: “These are Mine — and I confirm one through the other.”
In my opinion, this is powerful additional evidence that Fr. Michel and Luz de María are not only authentic, but among the main prophets God has raised up for these end times. They provide some of the strongest and most detailed messages about the Warning, the Tribulation, the Refuges, and the coming Era of Peace.
True prophets have always been heavily attacked, just as Jesus foretold: “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you…” (Mt 5:11). These attacks come both from outside the Church and from within.
Again, In matters of this gravity, we cannot simply “agree to disagree.” What is needed is real dialogue and an honest exchange of ideas. In fact, some form of conflict-resolution mechanism is necessary to minimize the divisions that will inevitably arise among the faithful and within the Church as a whole in these times of confusion and lies instigated by the evil one.
That is why I am proceeding to the second stage with witnesses. I have already informed them of all my previous messages to you. I will wait one or two more days for your reply.
All I am asking is that you speak directly and privately with Luz de María (and, if possible, also with Fr. Michel, so that I may withdraw my public statements regarding his case as well). The rest I leave in the hands of God. I am convinced that this simple act of fraternal dialogue can bring about the unity and clarity we so urgently need in these times.
I remain fully available for that conversation.
Best regards and blessings,
in Jesus and Mary,
Felipe Pérez Martí
Final remarks
I kept the witnesses informed throughout the process. In fact, I began doing so from the very first communications with Daniel and Mark. These were the same witnesses who had accompanied me during the earlier case with Fr. Michel Rodrigue, when I also followed the steps outlined in Matthew 18:15–17.
In hindsight, I realize I should have waited until the final stage before informing them. However, since Countdown to the Kingdom had already published a public critique of Luz de María that had remained on their website for a considerable time, I considered it appropriate to keep the witnesses updated on my initial response to that public statement. The subsequent letters were largely procedural.
If Daniel and Mark felt that this was inappropriate or that they were treated unfairly, I sincerely apologize. That was never my intention.
Of course, the entire situation can still be resolved peacefully and charitably. The simplest and best solution would be for CDTK to engage in direct, fraternal dialogue with both Fr. Michel Rodrigue and Luz de María de Bonilla. Following that conversation, they could issue a public apology and correct their previous statements accordingly.
Best and blessings,
Yours,
In God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit,
through Our Mother Mary Most Holy,
Felipe Pérez Martí
