This is interesting for a couple of reasons.  One is just that a kind of an out of left field confirmation of a psychic perception, and two because well obviously DaVinci didn't know Mary Magdalene in person and so how the hey did he know what she looked like.  

 Goes to show that unusually imaginative and creative people are often unusually psychically sensitive as well.  

 Anyways, here is the article both in link and in typed form.  Btw, how come we rarely or never find these kind of hard confirmations and verifications (there have been quite a few notable ones with Cayce's work) with say "psychics" like Jane Roberts???

http://knol.google.com/k/edgar-cayce/edgar-cayces-da-vinci-painting-found/2jpovtg0qy5vm/15?domain=knol.google.com&locale=en#

 "Edgar Cayce’s Da Vinci Painting Found
by John Van Auken for the A.R.E.
Ann Jaffin, a longtime A.R.E. member, writer, area-team helper, and personal friend, sent me this fascinating news about Cayce’s reading on the image of Mary Magdalene and a newly discovered portrait that Cayce mentioned. Most people believed that Da Vinci never painted a picture of Mary Magdalene, but Cayce’s readings claimed he did, and that it was a good representation of her. Cayce also tells a very different story of Mary Magdalene than The Da Vinci Code book and movie.

Contents

lessmore
SharePrint

Ann Jaffin, a longtime A.R.E. member, writer, area-team helper, and personal friend, sent me this fascinating news about Cayce’s reading on the image of Mary Magdalene and a newly discovered portrait that Cayce mentioned. Most people believed that Da Vinci never painted a picture of Mary Magdalene, but Cayce’s readings claimed he did, and that it was a good representation of her. Cayce also tells a very different story of Mary Magdalene than The Da Vinci Code book and movie.

“Our study group recently found another hit for Cayce related to Mary Magdalene. Since Cayce said Da Vinci painted her and a report in the A.R.E. file says that the National Gallery of Art said there was no such painting, someone Googled and found a BBC report from last October that two unknown Da Vinci paintings had turned up in a private Swiss collection. One of them was a painting of Mary Magdalene!”

Ann also sent the web site link to this newly discovered painting that Cayce mentioned: http://news.bbc.co.uk/.

See a photo of this painting along with this article. Da Vinci’s Mary Magdalene has reddish hair and fair skin with a slight olive tone (see Cayce reading below, noting that she was a beautiful blend of Jewish and Grecian parents). In Da Vinci’s portrait, Mary is in a red dress or cape. It was common practice to paint her with bare breasts and often holding a skull. Da Vinci reveals the breasts but removes the skull.

Here’s Edgar Cayce’s reading on her appearance.

“Q: Please describe the personal appearance of the body [of Mary Magdalene] at that time.

“A: This is well drawn by Da Vinci, as well as in that by Blum [Blaum?] – The Magdalene. A body five feet four inches (5’4”) in height, weight a hundred and twenty-one (121) pounds in the general. Hair almost red. The eyes were blue. The features were those impelled both from the Grecian and Jewish ancestry.” (295-8)

According to Cayce’s readings, the soul that was Mary Magdalene (#295 in the Cayce files) began her incarnations in this world as the princess Amliea in Atlantis, with a talent for maintaining the life force in physical bodies through magnetic treatments, presumably using the famed Atlantean crystal. In one case, she actually purified a friend’s body of possession-like influences. As a result of being highborn and talented, she experienced the pomp and ceremony that came with such. But according to the Sleeping Prophet’s reading, she did not handle the recognition well, becoming discontented with the people to the point that she began acting against them and their ways, taking names and holding grudges. She had the magic within her to channel the higher forces into the Earth realms yet a personality that tended toward contention and strife against any who opposed her.
In her second major incarnation, men were now ruling, unlike Atlantean times when women ruled. She was the temple musician Islta in Egypt during the time of the high priest Ra Ta (an incarnation of Edgar Cayce’s soul). When the high priest was banished for his misdeeds, she counseled Pharaoh to reinstate the priest for the sake of the higher good for all. Once Ra Ta was restored, she continued her temple musician duties, which again allowed her to channel the Creative Forces to improve the vibrations in human bodies and minds. The sleeping Cayce said that many of her compositions will be recovered when the “yet uncovered” pyramids are found.

In the Egyptian incarnation, she developed a distrust of men. Also, her sense of discontent with this world and most people increased.


The next significant incarnation was as Mary Magdalene. Cayce’s reading of the Akashic Record says that she did indeed become a courtesan in the Roman courts and a harlot among the men of her people. Cayce’s readings also identify her as the Mary who was the sister of Martha and Lazarus and the woman who, caught in adultery and condemned to be stoned, was let go by Jesus’ statement: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Cayce says that she was 22 when Jesus raised her brother from the tomb, causing many changes within her. Cayce goes on to explain that she and others found it strange to share life with her recently deceased brother, who once again lived among them. When she was 23, the readings state that “Christ cleansed her from seven devils: avarice, hate, self-indulgence, and those of the kindred selfishnesses; hopelessness and blas-phemy.”

She joined with Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the disciple John’s household, which also included Elois (sister of the Mary that was the mother of John and James). There were also many visits from several of the dis-ciples. Sadly, Martha, Lazarus, and James “the Lesser” (John’s brother) had all been killed in the first wave of Roman crackdowns on followers of Jesus Christ. Cayce’s readings say that the officials felt that Lazarus had to be killed because he was a walking reminder of Christ’s miracles.

Cayce says that, like her brother, Mary Magdalene became a kind of “monument, as a memorial, to the activity of the Christ life upon the life of a soul” in this world because she had been a “sinner” and was purified and energized to a new way of thinking and acting. Her presence was a blessing to many, including Romans who had known her before and after the cleansing.

This little household lived in John’s summer home on Lake Gennesaret, but the increasing crackdowns forced them to move north to Ephesus, and there they remained until their deaths.

When asked if Mary Magdalene had been Jesus’ lover, Cayce clearly replied that she had not. Jesus wanted to be, and was, “her savior,” not her lover. But this lover idea is sure selling a lot of books and resulted in a major motion picture.

The idea of that the progeny of Mary Magdalene and Jesus are living today fits nicely within our grow-ing interest in the genetic code and its impact on future generations. Blood lines have always been a fascination for humans. But, as exciting as it may be to think that Jesus’s heirs may be living quietly in Europe, it is not true according to Cayce’s reading of the Akashic records.

After her life as Mary Magdalene, her next major incarnation picked up on her royal birth in Atlantis. This time she was the daughter of the last of the Louises, Louis XVI of France. Again she was facing mounting contention from the people ruled by her family. When Louis resigned and the rebellion began, she escaped the fate of the rest of her family by fleeing with great stealth to Austria and changing her name to Marie Augusta.

In her soul’s next incarnation, she joined with Edgar Cayce’s little band of visionaries to help build the Association for Research and Enlightenment. Her name was Mildred Davis. Her special healing talents were once again apparent, as the “sleeping” Cayce selected her to be among the seven initial members of the Glad Helpers Prayer Group. Edgar Cayce once had a dream about her in which she announced to everyone in the group that she was going to foretell what the next Cayce reading would say!

In this incarnation, the readings said that she needed to overcome her mistrust of men and her conten-tious spirit against people with different opinions. He also encouraged her to hold on to her deep understanding of the importance of not condemning self, which Jesus planted in her when  he said, “Neither do I condemn thee.”

Hi Jason,

Thank you!  I love mysteries. Whatever the most recent story, it keeps us focused on some very interesting people at the least!

The current BBC link has no mention of the painting tho.  I'll seek out their archives unless you have another link around?

Bets

Hi again,

here's a link with a view of the painting:

http://edgarcayce.gaia.com/blog/2008/7/mary_magdalene_edgar_cayces_da_vinci_painting

I think it's a forgery, or maybe a poor web reproduction.  The strong contrast of shadows around the hand and drapes and the vividness of the red is not da Vinc's softer style. Also the hand structure and torso are unlike da Vinci's ideal type that always show up in his female figures.
IMO  :)

Bets

Yes, looks a bit painted part-by-part and not with Leonardo's view for the whole; indeed, especially the right hand is almost outlined. However, I'm not an expert. On wikipedia I found this comment:

"Recently attributed as a Leonardo by Carlo Pedretti. Previously regarded as the work of Giampietrino who painted a number of similar Magdalenes.[6] Carlo Pedretti's attribution of this painting is not accepted by other scholars, eg Carlo Bertelli, (former director of the Brera Art Gallery in Milan), who said this painting is not by Leonardo and that the subject could be a Lucretia with the knife removed.[7]"

I found almost nothing about this subject with google in a brief research, which is indicating that not many experts attribute the painting as a Leonardo I think.

Spooky

betson wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:58am:

Hi Jason, Thank you!  I love mysteries. Whatever the most recent story, it keeps us focused on some very interesting people at the least! The current BBC link has no mention of the painting tho.  I'll seek out their archives unless you have another link around? Bets

 Hi Bets, the names Justin btw.  

 Yes, the BBC link does work.  I probably should have left a note about this, but you have to click on the original link (the 1st one to the Cayce article) and go to that article, and then when you click on that link in there, it takes to the BBC article.  

 Btw, according to the Cayce readings, quite a bit of what is normally attributed to DaVinci was actually made by his main pupil.  

  Now, I don't know much about art at all, but i would imagine that the BBC would do a lot of check up and research before they said that this or that painting was done by this or that artist, but who knows?  Perhaps they didn't?

direct link.   It is a somewhat old article, some 3 years, so perhaps the authenticity has been contested since then, dunno.  


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4344512.stm

Ah yes, the untypical things could be explained that way. If we only could be certain...

Thanks for your work here on the board Justin (btw  :) )

Spooky

 Thanks Spooky, lately i actually try not to come here too often, cause i feel i don't have a lot to contribute to the original intention of Bruce regarding this board has having to do primarily with actual experience.  

I don't want to be a side tracking influence despite the fact that i like this place/space and if i could be said to "fit in" anywhere, well this would probably come closest so far in my life.  

 Thank you for the kind words, intentions, and feelings.