The first patients with the 2019-nCoV coronavirus in Russia made the old question popular: is it possible to get infected through the sacrament? The figures of the Russian Orthodox Church are categorical: this is impossible for religious reasons. If we turn to the scientific literature, we will see less unambiguous conclusions. Russian biologists have even hypothesized that religion is a means of spreading parasites (which include viruses). Like toxoplasmosis can control the behavior of people, so microbes can "control" them, making them prone to religion. Western researchers, to put it mildly, doubt such ideas. Let's try to figure out why and who, in fact, is right.
Not so long ago, RIA Novosti polled a number of priests about whether it is possible to contract the coronavirus through the sacrament. Of course, while in Russia only visiting Chinese are sick with it, but the situation may change, so the question makes sense. The verdict of the respondents was simple: “There is no danger of infection from communion from one cup. It cannot be, because in the bowl there is not just bread and wine, but Christ himself."
As we understand, such an answer does not make sense for the non-religious part of the population. Therefore, it is worth studying the issue based on the scientific data on the topic accumulated to date. Can Christian ritual contribute to the transmission of the coronavirus?
Communion and infections
The essence of the sacrament is that the believer is given a small piece of bread and a little wine from a common dish (the details vary for different denominations). In most branches of Christianity, they are taken from one bowl, brought to each participant in the process. Naturally, since the end of the 19th century, the scientific world began to wonder whether this procedure was dangerous. Could it be that disease-causing microorganisms can be transmitted from one person to another in this way?
The sacrament bowl may contain antimicrobial silver. But, as studies show, neither wine nor wine prevents the survival of some bacteria and virus capsids inside the vessel.
In 1888, in one of the medical journals, the term "poisoned" (in terms of contamination) a sacrament bowl even appeared - any was considered this, since, as the doctors of that time assumed, all of them, logically, should have created a risk of disease.
Promotional video:
The situation was fueled by the fact that the center of the fight against the "poisoned sacrament" was the United States, where banal racism also spoke in favor of refusing a single chalice for the sacrament: the same bowl.
In the scientific community, it is believed that the most likely to transfer infection through the chalice with the participle are viruses that cause the common cold. Contrary to the name, colds are not directly related to cold: 95% of colds are caused by viruses, 5% by bacteria.
Doubts about the danger of transmission of infection with the participle are extremely persistent in the mass consciousness, therefore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States (CDC, the most important state body in this area of US life) was already in 1998, solidly tired of such public requests. To put an end to them once and for all, a short text was published in the American Journal of Infection Control summarizing everything known at that time about the possibilities of such a transfer. Its authors were quite unambiguous:
The CDC did not have any empirical data on cases of transmission of infections in this way, which was emphasized in the material. Its authors noted that the results of comparing the statistics of infectious diseases for 681 communeers did not show a higher frequency of infections in them than among those who did not go to church.
This is a rather cryptic conclusion. The fact is that other works that analyzed the presence of different types of microbes in the sacrament bowl more than once found potentially dangerous organisms there. The wine and silver in the bowl alone do not have sufficient antimicrobial properties to kill them. Therefore, the reason why the transmission of infections through the sacrament utensils has never been noted by anyone is intriguing.
The possible answer here lies in the fact that, in fact, there is no clear understanding of exactly which risk factors promote - or suppress - the spread of a number of infectious diseases. No one really knows why colds are more common in winter than in summer (especially since in the tropics this is often not the case at all), the same is the case with pneumonia (such as those caused by the 2019nCoV coronavirus).
Another possible answer is related to the fact that many of the most "infectious" viruses and bacteria actually evolved to be transmitted by airborne droplets, and not at all by the "wine and bread" route. The environment of the sacrament bowl is not very much like water droplets in the air. Therefore, it is likely that, against the background of many hours of daily stay in public places (work, shops, and so on), an insignificant amount of contact with microbes in the sacrament simply does not create noticeable risks.
Recall: coronavirus has a "infectiousness" (base reproduction number) below three, that is, the capsid of this virus is not easy to survive outside of a person: it is transmitted from one to another at the level of viruses that cause colds and flu - or even slightly worse.
If scientists have not been able to identify the difference in incidence for "common" viruses, then the coronavirus should behave the same way. In other words, do not pass with the sacrament.
What about the fact that religion serves the spread of parasites?
In 2015, a group of Russian scientists, among whom was the famous biologist and popularizer of science Alexander Panchin, published an article “Midichlorians: a hypothesis of biomemes. Is there no microbial influence in religious rituals? " According to her, some organisms could gain an advantage if they forced people-carriers to perform certain rituals that facilitate the transfer of microbes, and the authors speak of parasitic organisms - some "midichlorians". Those, hypothetically, live either in our brain, or in the intestines.
In 2015, a group of Russian scientists, among whom was the famous biologist and popularizer of science Alexander Panchin, published an article “Midichlorians: a hypothesis of biomemes. Is there no microbial influence in religious rituals? " According to her, some organisms could gain an advantage if they forced people-carriers to perform certain rituals that facilitate the transfer of microbes, and the authors speak of parasitic organisms - some "midichlorians". Those, hypothetically, live either in our brain, or in the intestines.
The release of Panchin's work with coauthors caused a lot of ironic comments in the West. One American media wrote: "All this makes sense only as long as you evaluate the adherents of religion as passive zombies."
According to this hypothesis, societies with improved sanitation should show less participation in religious rituals. In this scheme, religion acts as a "cultural meme", and it is precisely its promotion among people, according to Panchin's hypothesis, that parasites are engaged in.
The logic, at first glance, is sound. It is known, for example, that a significant part of people are infected with the causative agent of toxoplasmosis: for example, in Moscow, one in four of them. These people are prone to more risky decisions than the rest: among them the percentage of businessmen is higher, almost twice as many people are involved in road accidents, and so on.
It is possible that there is a link between toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia: it is diagnosed in every 300th in Russia, but toxoplasmosis among schizophrenics for the same Moscow is as much as 40%, that is, significantly more than in the population as a whole. There are studies showing that it is toxoplasmosis that can be the cause of some cases of schizophrenia.
Toxoplasmosis affects in a similar way not only humans, but also other non-felines: mice infected with it are insensitive to the smell of cats and are not afraid of it, leading a more risky lifestyle. Why shouldn't other microbes influence people's behavior to force them to gather in groups for prayers, increasing the risk of spreading the parasite microbe?
Brunickel Cave in France, the remains of a Neanderthal circle of stalagmites, in the center of which animal bones were burned. Judging by it, religious rituals already existed 176 thousand years ago.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to test such a hypothesis in practice. First, there are few non-religious societies on the planet, so a “control group” where religions would not exist is simply difficult to find. Wherever European travelers sailed, they always came across people who already had religious beliefs and rituals, including those that forced them to come together. It turns out that if "midichlorians" do exist, then they are absolutely universal and characteristic of all human communities.
Second, societies where conventional religion has been supplanted have similar secular institutions that require regular meetings and a collective pastime. That is, even if religious practices were interrupted there, the transfer of bacteria on its own would not end.
Humanity has a long history of viewing other people's disliked behavior as a disease. In the West, more than a million people have undergone "treatment for homosexuality." New times - new scapegoats. If earlier gays were considered sick, now the turn comes to the religious part of the population.
The question arises: then why do microbes promote religion? Why not consider them as the goal of promoting, for example, agriculture or urban lifestyles? Fortunately, both of these sharply increase the efficiency of the spread of parasites (among hunter-gatherers, epidemics are practically unknown). Why do Panchin et al. Believe that the "midi-chlorians" they propose are responsible only for our religion, and not for civilization as a whole?
Third point: the authors of the hypothesis believe that as the level of sanitation rises, religiosity in society should fall. However, this is clearly not the case: many sects in developed countries (for example, the Amish) show life expectancy (and the frequency of death from infections) the same as that of ordinary Americans. Despite the fact that the Amish sanitation level is noticeably lower: most do not even have a regular water closet, and many do not even have hot tap water.
Moreover, due to the peculiarities of modern lifestyles, the Amish share of Americans doubles every 25 years. American demographers have already jokingly calculated when this religious minority will become the majority of the US population. All jokes, but so far this scenario is fully realized. It turns out, despite the victory of sanitation in modern society, the share of pure sectarians in it can grow, not decrease.
Finally, the authors of the hypothesis believe that if they are right, then religiosity decreases in people after certain courses of treatment for infectious diseases. It is impossible even to criticize this thesis: not a single precedent of this kind is known.
But, as we know from objective reality, infectious diseases in the modern world often occur in China, the vast majority of whose population does not participate in religious meetings (thanks to the CCP) in principle and, among other things, is characterized by a fairly high level of hygiene.
What about the fact that churches are being closed in China?
Okay, the reader might say, everything is clear with Panchin. But what about the fact that not so many Christian churches in China suspend their activities during the epidemic?
There are many churches in China, mostly Catholic, and some of them have already suspended services.
The situation here is quite simple. An ordinary clergyman does not read the American Journal of Infection Control and has never heard of experiments with the sacrament (otherwise they would certainly be used in sermons). Closing their temples, the ministers of various churches in China proceed from their universal ideas, which are not much different from the ideas of people from the street.
This is not the first time that scientific ideas, falsely perceived by the masses, lead to the abandonment of some kind of harmless activity. For example, at the beginning of the 16th century, syphilis was brought to Europe, which killed millions of people. The local population, thanks to printing, quickly became familiar with the most modern medical theories of that time ("the hypothesis of miasms"). According to them, the disease entered a person through the pores, which, according to doctors of that time, expanded when washed.
Well, the Europeans of that time decided, it means that washing is harmful. Until the 19th century, Western Europeans did not bathe, and those who did it (for example, Russians) were mercilessly criticized by Western travelers, perceiving them as barbarians. The astonishing effect of this misconception is well described in Western European literature.
From a practical point of view, there was no point in not washing. The situation is approximately the same with the closure of churches: modern people spend much more time in shopping centers than in churches, and there are no serious reasons to fear infection there.
Author: Alexander Berezin