Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Facing the Mark of the Beast (Part II)

August 30th, 2020, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Foreword: This is a long post, I admit. But there is a certain unity and integrity between the various parts, since five different but compatible strategies are being considered for a complex subject, but also one for which much is unknown at this time, but should be included in planning. The reader may want to scroll first the entire post, looking at the titles in red, for some orientation to the subject.

Recently we noted the parallels between the Bible’s mentions of the ‘mark of the beast’, and certain medical doctors’ advocating mandatory vaccination (with a mark on the forehead or right hand) of virtually the entire population, with no allowance for religious or moral exemption, and with strict and difficult punishments for refusal. See prior post in the matter of doctors’ statement:

There certainly is a great desire on the part of the ‘left’ to be able to wield control over the bodies of their dissenters. And, now it seems, their souls as well. The following includes five potential strategies and background to consider as we work our way through a very dangerous time.

I. The Biblical basis for the mark of the beast 

If one wonders where those doctors got the idea to mark the right hand and/or forehead of someone as an indelible information symbol of their having been vaccinated against COVID, the answer is in that last book of the New Testament, Revelation, which is also called the Apocalypse.  That prior post listed the references (12 verses in 5 chapters:  Revelation 13:15-18; 14:9-13; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) mentioning the “mark of the beast.” No other book in the bible mentions the mark of the beast. That doesn’t mean God is planting the seeds of such abomination for the doctors to find. Rather, He is all knowing and what was written in prophecy two millennia ago may well be coming realized in our time, encouraging us by verifying the excellence, truth and accuracy of the Holy Word, which breakaway priests like Luther wanted to remove from the Bible, perhaps because it seemed so unlikely or difficult for them to imagine?

Notice the particular language of Revelation regarding the mark of the beast in that prior post. The language is one of worshiping (or acting as worshiping) the beast and being MARKED on the right hand or the forehead as choosing the beast. In another passage the mention is “RECEIVES OR HAD RECEIVED a mark” or “HAS” the mark. Yet another passage mentions people who “BORE” the mark. The triumphant people “HAD NOT RECEIVED a mark on their foreheads or their hands.” From Revelation it does not appear that someone will receive the mark without his or her consent, i.e. not by being operated on or mutilated against one’s will, but that choosing the mark rather than death, albeit under great pressure and even deception, is still a person’s CHOICE, even if perhaps their prior sins make them weaker and more susceptible to the evil one. Apparently the recipient makes a CHOICE, God or the beast. How ironic that an eternal decision might come down to the very language which has so misdirected souls — “my body; my CHOICE.”  And how appropriate that those who touted their CHOICE of sin such as abortion should now have to make their final CHOICE for God or the beast!


II. The medical establishment’s support of the beast

It is also appropriate that the part of today’s medical establishment, which defends and administers abortion, should appear as an ally of the beast!  In 2012 an article coming from England reported a decision to refuse a doctor’s license to anyone who had not participated in the OB-GYN rotation, and actually committed abortion as part of their training.

But there is no deception in Christ’s having warned us that we cannot serve two masters. And as I look at some of the violent upheavals in our world today, especially the satanic forces which are seemingly unleashed, it becomes increasingly believable that people can reach such a dire point — of choosing the beast over God. It points out, too, that it is foolish to wait for the moment to arrive and then begin to commit ourselves to what might well be a call to martyrdom. One of the requirements for such preparation is prayer, prayer and more prayer. And then, being in Christ’s words in Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” These words not only refer to abortion, but also to other abominations in which many parts of the medical system participate and support themselves, including transgender surgery, forbidding psychological counseling on same-sex sins, sterilization and euthanasia.  That so much of the medical establishment would seek to vaccinate God’s people into the mark of the beast is really not such a surprise after all, is it? St. Luke, pray for us!


III. Five strategies to consider / evaluate /use:

A number of strategies could be implemented to oppose and/or to delay , but first we never forget what medical doctors have revealed about their strategies and the similarity of their ‘rules’ to the mark of the beast. If we always begin with the mark of the beast  in mind, with our highest priority — souls, we won’t be on the wrong track.  Here are five areas for strategic concentration:

  • Fear the mark of the beast. And share the fear with others. We lose momentum when we hesitate and dither about the issues, or become subdivided in our priorities. Given the punishing words of the doctors involved in pushing a vaccine, measured against the prophecy of the Book of Revelation, makes it hardly a stretch to see the verification mark on forehead and/or right hand as being the fearsome mark(s) of the beast. So I am not going to write a thesis here to convince anyone who can’t see the connection. But the similarity to end-times prophecy is startling, and for those who have ears to hear, fear of the mark of the beast should not be left out; it should be part of righteous discernment since it has been given to us by God. It is
  • front and center, because it is of concern for our own souls as well. We might wonder why accepting the mark of the beast isn’t being treated as more of a secret by the forces of evil, to keep us less prepared. What I believe is that when Satan is involved in unleashing his plans, he can’t help but brag about how he thinks he is beating God Himself! Whether leading pride parades, burning down cities, pushing the drug culture and so much more, it is all about pride, his hatred of God, and of wresting souls into the flames. It is one of the signs of who is behind events as they unroll.
  • Re-examine, lobby and implement the anti-malarial strategy for widespread treatment. Let’s begin with an obvious statement of which we may have lost sight. Remember! A vaccine is NOT a treatment; it is supposed to be a preventative. And it puts a lot of the eggs into one basket if we are not simultaneously looking for and pursuing treatment. If the vaccine fails or kills many or needs frequent updating behind the infection curve, it may never catch up to the next variation. The Chinese are not stupid. One should expect they have built into the virus a number of surprises. What we know we have available is the antimalarial, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with antibiotic, which has had good results both when the COVID is early stage and when such medicine is a last resort.
  • Mysteriously, scientific articles quickly appeared denouncing the antimalarial which has been on the market for nearly half a century. Why? One suspects it is because the antimalarial was widely available (especially in more sub-tropical areas), inexpensive, stable and trusted by doctors. Apparently it can be used multiple times, and as a pre-infection booster and has application to similar respiratory viruses, thus hopefully to the application for the biological warfare likely to be released in the future. A new wave of COVID may well drive people to seeking the chloroquine and derivatives, as seemingly much less risky than a relatively untested vaccine with beastly side effects.
  • It seems essential to keep pushing the antimalarial treatment strategy, so that people will realize a vaccine isn’t their only alternative, and not be dragged into compromising themselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves with NO TREATMENT and just an ineffective vaccine, sowing for the grim reaper all over the world.
  • This past week some Republican members of the US Senate wisely demanded the FDA stop fighting against the chloroquines. Why? In June it was reported that the FDA actually took the antimalarial off the market, stranding people who need it for other purposes, like arthritis. One can only imagine the desperation of the vaccine producers and those who are funding the dream vaccine, to find themselves competing against a now unpatented half-century old effective product.
  • See here:
  • If the FDA doesn’t let the antimalarial back onto the market, which prescriptive use has been within easy use of family doctors for years, there will surely open a black market here and outside the US. I can imagine efforts to stockpile, and to hold the antimalarial hostage during sieges from Wuhan. Lobbying for access to the antimalarial will be absolutely necessary, with much attention on the real agenda of the vaccinists. It may also be worth seeking the antimalarial in advance through medical channels or foreign sourcing to have it available in case we are denied out of deference to the big money vaccine. I can totally understand why people especially at risk would like to have the antimalarial in their medicine cabinets.
  • Although the famed Lancet Medical Magazine renounced the article it published against the antimalarial, and issued a correction in their false reporting, admitting their publishing false data, nevertheless the articles are still available on line, misleading those searching for information into believing those false reports. Why was it opposed when clearly that drug has been in use for decades in the general dispensary, without the dangers touted? Is it not because the profit margin, reduced by lack of patent coverage, lacks profits anywhere near a vaccine and its ‘marker’ system? It seems to be about money, first and foremost. See retraction here:
  • The antimalarial story would not be complete without mentioning the personal initiative shown by President Trump. I also must personally take this opportunity to say that President Trump’s choice to take that drug at his own risk (and under his doctor’s oversight) was heroic and self sacrificing, placing himself in God’s hands, yet all he aroused was anger from his opponents! Indeed, he entered the fray, when impeded by the drug blockade, with the heart of a first responder. And it is because he was so successful and without apparently experiencing any side effects, that the Lancet medical journal had to retract and apologize for having printed a lie, a scam. Again, I believe that deep money is behind the vaccine impetus and its attacking the anti-malarial treatment, in order to allow people no choice.
  • Be reasonably critical of the many unknowns associated with rushing a vaccine to market. If drug development were following its normal course, it would be a few more years before testing had been completed, contraindications identified, modifications made for optimization, and choosing the best of the vaccines available, with great and probable safety risks averted. Instead, the drug blockade crows over how fast they have developed a vaccine! That should be a warning, not a point of pride, not an implication of success. Once the first person receives the first ‘dose’ there may be side effects, deliberate or not, that cannot be reversed, and there may be no going back for those recipients. Likely those first doses will be administered in parts of Africa where the people are not infrequently victimized as “guinea pigs,” often with devastating results, and begging the serious and relevant moral issues.
  • Part of the strategy must be delay, until more is known and alternatives are offered. Delay at a minimum means keeping options open as long as possible. Even if a vaccine is effective, how long before it fades in effectiveness? What are the odds of re-infection? Of chasing a mutating virus? How many and how often would doses be required? What are those side effects? Where is a development protocol to try to avoid abortive ingredients? And what is the relative weighting of each such goal? Rather, it sounds a bit like whatever engineered vaccine is available will be the framework of the goals, rather than the other way around. Publicity around all these unanswered questions for the opponents of the vaccine scenario, is a sound strategy. Remember, many of those with much to gain have been also associated with the desire for 80% population reduction. Why give them another chance? Some of the questions which seem to be ignored in rushing a vaccine to market are the very ones those opposed to antimalarials complain have to be tested first and only used in small and very controlled protocols.
  • Urge rapid clarification of whether or not a vaccine program can be effective. Is a vaccine program the way to go when we don’t even know if the virus itself creates immunity, let alone does a vaccine create immunity? Right now there is beginning to be identified reinfection of individuals who had COVID-19 earlier this year. Is it a fluke or the onset of a new wave of infection? Or does it simply demonstrate that this is a virus that does not lend itself to producing immunity after infection, so what good is a vaccine? If there can be no immunity even for those who recovered from the virus, any vaccine program will likely be a total waste. Or has COVID-19 morphed so that immunity becomes a meaningless concept?
  • This is a very serious question for scientific and public discussion – how long (if at all) does immunity last? This is why unreasonable acceleration of vaccine development may lead nowhere, except to a beast marker. Think about it – there are many ways drugs can be tested, but time doesn’t come in a bottle. Only prolonged testing can lead to a reasonable understanding of how long immunity can last, if indeed immunity is produced. Here’s an update on skipping standards on the COVID vaccine:
  • If the virus does creates immunity, consider deliberately getting the virus and not needing the vaccine or mark of the beast. This concept was described here for measles, from the 1950’s when no vaccine had been developed: It certainly is not without risk, but since the mark of the beast is about eternal punishment, perhaps dying from the virus is not as frightening. How long does immunity last? Would you have to do this every year or just once? Can the virus be moderated to a low level with an anti-malarial for safety and still register immunity? Would civil authorities bother testing or honoring testing that had been done to bypass the vaccine and the mark of the beast? It is not all about risk either. It may create a pool of people who refuse the vaccine, can no longer buy or sell or receive medical treatment, but would create a community taking care of each other, as in the early Church when Rome administered similar penalties, including burning as a living torch. Implementing such a strategy will depend somewhat on what we learn about immunity, but the rush to market for the vaccine may keep us from knowing much for a while, hence the recommendation for a delay strategy.
  • Launch a protest on moral and religious grounds if a pro-life vaccine is not developed but an abortive lines vaccine is–  (revised).  There is a momentum right now, especially as the political campaigns shed light on the evils of abortion, to oppose any development which seems to depend on abortion. The prominent and heroic work of Daleiden and Merritt also remains on appeal. While still on appeal in the courts, there may well be hope for a deferral to delay a vaccine too, at least for safety sake or to repudiate use of baby parts that may be involved in the research. Legal action may also force release of documents which are ‘company confidential’ at this point, but show deliberate choice of an abortive cell line as discriminating against people of faith who choose not to use abortion-based vaccines, or to use work based on dissection and sale of baby parts.
  • Unfortunately, this approach (demanding a vaccine free of abortive lines) will likely have to be implemented without much Vatican support, which, since around 2005, has been weaker it seems against the  issue of using abortive lines in vaccines. Nevertheless, there is still a popular window which might be exploited, through which protests might be made for a COVID vaccine which totally avoids any abortion linkage. Since vaccines such as for rubella had used abortive lines, the Church’s position had often seemed that such use was a kind of cooperation with the evil of abortion. (In my opinion it was also a pretty disgusting thought to vaccinate one’s child ‘using’ another child’s death in the womb, the child of a mother who chooses abortion.) There was apparently (at that time) an effective non-abortive-line vaccine in Japan, but not cleared in the US, so most parents had little recourse. Parents had invoked their own conscientious objection to reject vaccines from abortive lines on grounds of their religion or morals, and based on serious health matters as well. Linkages such as to autism is frequently denied by some scientists but, nevertheless, parental concern has been persistent. Now, after a pandemic, conscience doesn’t seem to carry as much weight, and the ‘doctors’ recently cited have tried to exclude such excuses, as has government. The Church’s role in openly challenging the use of abortive cell lines also seems diminished, but resistance is still worth considering as a delay strategy by demanding (and suing for) a vaccine which does not use abortive lines.

In a  related matter, the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) was totally dismantled by Pope Francis in 2016 and reassembled with all new members about a year later. Many of those unceremoniously dismissed were connected to PAL’s founder, Pope St. John Paul II. Now under the leadership of Abp. Paglia, who is himself of no small concern to those who follow closely, perhaps the best we can hope for at this point is ignoring PAL’s work in the future. In these matters, the Vatican seems unlikely to have much interest in or support for a protest in favor of using non-abortive lines in a COVID vaccine. Note: the foregoing comment appeared in this post about 30 hours before LifeSiteNews presented the following article:


IV. Emphasize the “moral objection” 

It is somewhat more practical and opportunistic to simply emphasize resistance as “moral objection” when the term fits the situation, and to avoid making an issue seemingly based only on personal opinion or specific religious teaching or practice, if possible. More emphasis on morality and not just religiosity, regardless of “why” one seeks to be moral, and even what it means to be moral, has merit for attracting a wider base of resistance against mandatory vaccination, and more cooperation. This point is NOT about minimizing the religious aspect, but rather as welcoming even those who do not identify with a religion, even those who are atheists or agnostics, to aspects of the vaccination resistance based on their own moral values, and to form a coalition, to avoid division and yet remain true to the objective. We experienced much of this type cooperation during the 2012 religious freedom program called for by the USCCB.

This explanation is offered because language is important, and often shapes the argument. For example, framing abortion as a woman’s health issue, and framing LGBT as a civil rights issue, advanced both “causes” without even addressing the real moral questions. So, too, we can expect the still-emerging assisted suicide issue to be framed as patriotic, and about “human dignity.” The vaccination issue will break some ground for assisted suicide as ‘patriotic.’ This is an especially relevant concern in a culture hurtling toward an objective of as much as 80% population reduction. For example, rarely is the word ‘murder’ spoken from the pulpit about abortion, and not speaking precisely and courageously has cost many babies their lives. The ‘mark of the beast’ may not be relevant to an agnostic who has never read the bible, but is a subject of great import for Catholics and many other Christians.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t minimize how God can turn hearts!

Thank you to all who lent assistance in the technical matters referenced above. I apologize for any misstatements which might have occurred on my part.



One Response to “Facing the Mark of the Beast (Part II)”

  1. Diane Harris says:

    A problem has been reported with leaving comments on CF.
    Be assured that commenting has NOT been deliberately turned off.
    Your comments are always welcome.
    We are actively seeking to identify and fix the issue as soon as possible.
    We apologize for the inconvenience.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-