Rennes-le-Chateau Mystery Update

An update on the conspiracies linked to the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery.


1 Bloodline:

 It is possible Jesus was married, possibly to Mary Magdalene and that they had children. The Roman Catholic Church has chosen to accept an alternative version as it fits better with the theology of Christianity, especially the belief that Jesus was divine. But there is no conclusive evidence to support either possibility. The Gnostic Gospels, discarded at the Council of Nicea, indicate that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ favourite disciple.  Perhaps the Vatican does possess some secret evidence of a marriage, but I think it unlikely that they have managed to keep it secret for 2,000 years.

If Jesus did have children then why would they be special? Would they possess some extraordinary DNA? By now his descendants would number hundreds of thousands and would probably be impossible to trace. The Vatican evidently tries to discourage any debate but I don’t detect a major conspiracy.

The ‘Bloodline’ theme was not introduced into the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery until the intervention of Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh, who made it a key element of the mystery.


2. Knights Templar:

Although they had a presence in the wider area around Rennes-le-Chateau, there is no evidence that they were complicit in a conspiracy. Blanchefort was not the seat of Bertrand, Grand Master of the Order and thus removes a major plank in the Rennes mystery conspiracy. In parallel with the Cathars who adopted the Manichaeian theology of Dualism, the Templars have been accused of becoming infected by Islam. No doubt some Templars were seduced by the Middle Eastern culture and its religion, but there is no evidence to suggest that this was wide-spread or influenced the leadership. They did jealously protect their independence and having lost their possessions and mission in the Holy Land, there is a persuasive case that they sought to establish an independent sovereign state in Catalonia under the titular head of James, King of Aragon. The most likely explanation for their persecution is based on jealousy and greed for their wealth by the French king, possibly encouraged by the leadership of their rivals, the Knights Hospitallers who did profit from their downfall.


3. Treasure:

I have demonstrated in Web of Gold that there is a sound basis for a belief in a significant treasure, or sacred artefacts, buried somewhere in the region. There is no concrete evidence to support this but enough circumstantial evidence to have persuaded people throughout the centuries. The apparent (mainly exaggerated) wealth of the Abbe Sauniere, and his means of acquiring it, has helped to reignite this belief over the past 40 years.


4. Abbe  Sauniere:

He certainly acted in some strange ways and his domain is not that expected of a country priest. He was definitely a monarchist and could well have been involved in an underground monarchist network. If he did then he did not shy away from the local limelight and didn’t seem concerned about fostering suspicion.  He seems rather to have enjoyed the role of village aristocrat, in place of his former neighbours, the Hautpouls. He appears to have had a connection with Martinism and the worlds of esoteric Christianity and the occult. He was evidently an entrepreneur and may have been involved in several profitable ventures. We will probably never know the whole truth.

The source of Sauniere’s wealth has been a subject of continuous debate especially as he clouded his activities in secrecy. The more sceptical researchers have advanced the theory that Sauniere indulged in the trafficking of Masses. That is, the saying of an excessive number of Masses for money. The following facts, however, cast doubt on the credibility of this explanation.


From Rene Descadellias: Mythology of Treasure of Rennes-le-Château:


  1. The accusation against Sauniere for Traficking in Masses was not upheld by the Vatican. (P40)
  2. Bishop Beausejour lifted the sentence on Sauniere, imposed in Dec 1911, but did not publicise it as he didn’t want Sauniere to resume his position as priest of Rennes-le-Château. (P40) See below*
  3. Sauniere was a good and charitable man, much liked by his villagers (p42)
  4. Descadeillas offers a reason for his trouble with the bishop: that the traffick in Masses alone had not brought in sufficient sums for Sauniere to have created his domain and to have lived as he did. There had to be another source of his income. (p42)
  5. Sauniere himself wrote that he had received donations from people who wished to remain anonymous. He could not therefore reveal the complete source of his income. (p42/43)
  6. It is known that his brother, a Jesuit priest, solicited donations for him – he had connections with the aristocracy.

7.   Sauniere did write directly to religious communities throughout France and Europe requesting funds to rebuild his ancient church and to build a retirement home for priests, but many of his subsequent receipts were given as donations.


      The Vatican response would tend to support the probability that his receipt for the "saying of Masses" was not beyond permissible limits (Sauniere does confirm that he gave some of these requests to his neighbouring colleagues) and that the remaining receipts were genuine donations for works that Sauniere could account for.



From Dominique Dubois: Rennes-le-Château, L’Occultisme et Les Societes Secretes


* Bishop Beausejour having failed to secure a judgement against Sauniere for “trafficking in Masses”, exhorted one of his colleagues to find something with which to condemn Sauniere. (p91) (This would appear to have been motivated by Sauniere’s attitude and apparent disobedience to his Bishop)


A note written by Sauniere in his private Memoire claims that the specific accusation of trafficking in Masses in such quantities was unsustainable as the details mentioned would have been impossible.

He would have to have received requests for about 150,000 masses.


The existing lists allegedly proving this wholesale traffick, are in fact lists of all his correspondence, sent and received, containing references to “Demands for Masses”, “the Sending of Masses”, General letters. They are far from conclusive.

One must ask the following questions:-

1. How could he have persuaded so many people from all over Europe to send him money to say Masses. Why did they not use a local priest or one that they knew personally? What did Sauniere write, in his advertisements, that was so effective and persuasive? It is said that some of these advertisements survive but I have not been able to find any.


2. If Sauniere was indulging in activities contrary to Cannon Law, why did he keep such meticulous notes that could incriminate him? Either he would have found a coded way of maintaining records or he would have destroyed them as soon after their usefulness as possible. The only conclusion can be that Sauniere did not consider these records to be incriminating.


3. Why did a colleague of his write a letter, in 1910, supporting his actions and absolving him of any immorality or illegality regarding the sources of his income. Furthermore, he endorses Sauniere’s decision not to reveal the sources. It is not clear from this letter whether the source was through donations or a treasure find, but it cannot have been trafficking in Masses.


4. If he was guilty, why did he not admit to this earlier on and suffer the probably more lenient consequences rather that suffer the emotional ravages of a prolonged battle with the Bishop that resulted in his poor health? Sauniere himself comments on the toll that this dispute had on him.


One can only conclude that he may well have taken full advantage of the rules governing the saying of Masses – even passing on the excess to his colleagues. This may have not been in the true spirit of the rules but was not illegal. Bishop Beausejour was leading a personal campaign against Sauniere – possibly due to their political differences. Sauniere was aware that whatever he did, he would never satisfy the demands of Beausejour, except to resign from Rennes-le-Chateau.


One thing is certain – he was not a member or had any connection to the Priory of Sion - simply because the PoS was not founded until 39 years after his death.


5. Priory of Sion:

The Priory of Sion is synonymous with Pierre Plantard. Despite all that has been written in recent years, the only Priory of Sion of any significance within this investigation is that initially founded by Plantard in 1956 that eventually evolved into the Priory promoted primarily by Plantard, De Cherisey and Gerard de Sede..

A fairly accurate image of them can be gleaned from the infamous Dossier Secretes and other documents emanating from the Priory and its representatives. Any account of their history must be taken with caution as there is little independent verifiable evidence to support their claims.  

Their origins and history are alternately supported and denied by ex-Priory members or those close to them  – they appear to continue to re-invent themselves.

 Their motives and agendas can likewise be glimpsed from Priory’s publications and correspondence.

These demonstrate some common elements such as: Tradition, Monarchism, Hierarchical society, Catholic but also support for Islam, anti-Zionist (not anti-semitic). Tendency towards Atlanticism and esoteric Christianity, Age of Aquarius;  Pro-European and anti-American culture (Republican neo-cons). Political support for the New Right philosophy with Synarchist tendencies. – a social programme administered by a self-appointed elite.

See also interview by Gino Sandri.