Mr. Podmore explains that only two candles and the fire gave light on one occasion, and that ‘possibly’ Home’s hands were protected by some ‘non-conducting substance.’  He does not explain how this substance was put on Lord Crawford’s hands, nor tell us what this valuable substance may be.  None is known to science, though it seems to be known to Fijians, Tongans, Klings, and Bulgarians, who walk through fire unhurt.

It is not necessary to believe Sir W. Crookes’s assertions that he saw Home perform the fire-tricks, for we can fall back on the lack of light (only two candles and the fire-light), as also on the law of hallucination caused by excitement.  But it is necessary to believe this distinguished authority’s statement about his ignorance of ’some non-conducting substance:’ 

‘Schoolboys’ books and mediaeval tales describe how this can be done with alum and other ingredients.  It is possible that the skin may be so hardened and thickened by such preparations that superficial charring might take place without the pain becoming great; but the surface of the skin would certainly suffer severely.  After Home had recovered from the trance, I examined his hand with care to see if there were any signs of burning or of previous preparation.  I could detect no trace or injury to the skin, which was soft and delicate, like a woman’s.  Neither were there signs of any preparation having been previously applied.  I have often seen conjurers and others handle red-hot coals and iron, but there were always palpable signs of burning.’[11]

In September 1897 a crew of passengers went from New Zealand to see the Fijian rites, which, as reported in the ‘Fiji Times,’ corresponded exactly with the description published by Mr. Basil Thomson, himself a witness.  The interesting point, historically, is the combination in Home of all the repertoire of the possessed men in Iamblichus.  We certainly cannot get rid of the fire-trick by aid of a hypothetical ‘non-conducting substance.’  Till the ‘substance’ is tested experimentally it is not a vera causa.  We might as well say ‘spirits’ at once.  Both that ‘substance’ and those ‘spirits’ are equally ‘in the air.’  Yet Mr. Podmore’s ‘explanations’ (not satisfactory to himself) are conceived so thoroughly in the spirit of popular science—­one of them casually discovering a new psychological law, a second contradicting the facts it seeks to account for, a third generously inventing an unknown substance—­that they ought to be welcomed by reviewers and lecturers.

It seems wiser to admit our ignorance and suspend our belief.

Here closes the futile chapter of explanations.  Fraud is a vera causa, but an hypothesis difficult of application when it is admitted that the effects could not be caused by ordinary mechanical means.  Hallucination, through excitement, is a vera causa, but its remarkable uniformity, as described by witnesses from different lands and ages, knowing nothing of each other, makes us hesitate to accept a sweeping hypothesis of hallucination.  The case for it is not confirmed, when we have the same reports from witnesses certainly not excited.