The Hodgson Report

The Theosophical Society was part of a huge fraudulent system worked by Madame Blavatsky with the assistance of the Coulombs and several other confederates.

The Coulombs assert that a certain saucer was, according to agreement between Madame Blavatsky and Madame Coulomb, to be "accidentally" broken and the pieces placed in the Shrine, arrangements being made for the substitution, through the secret back of the Shrine, of another similar saucer, unbroken, in lieu of the broken pieces.

Now, it is not disputed that the so-called "saucer phenomenon" did occur in the presence of General Morgan. The only question is whether it was pre-arranged, and if so, how it was performed. Here is General Morgan's own account of it, published in the Supplement to the Theosophist for December, 1883.

In the month of August, having occasion to come to Madras in the absence of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, I visited the headquarters of the Theosophical Society to see a wonderful painting of the Mahatma Koot Hoomi kept there in a Shrine and daily attended to by the Chelas. On arrival at the house I was told that the lady, Madame Coulomb, who had charge of the keys of the Shrine, was absent, so I awaited her return. She came home in about an hour, and we proceeded up stairs to open the Shrine and inspect the picture. Madame Coulomb advanced quickly to unlock the double doors of the hanging cupboard, and hurriedly threw them open. In so doing she had failed to observe that a china tray inside was on the edge of the Shrine and leaning against one of the doors, and when they were opened, down fell the china tray, smashed to pieces on the hard chunam floor. Whilst Madame Coulomb was wringing her hands and lamenting this unfortunate accident to a valuable article of Madame Blavatsky's, and her husband was on his knees collecting the dibris, I remarked it would be necessary to obtain some china cement and thus try to restore the fragments. Thereupon M. Coulomb was dispatched for the same. The broken pieces were carefully collected and placed, tied in a cloth, within the Shrine, and the doors locked. Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar, the joint Recording Secretary of the Society, was opposite the Shrine, seated on a chair, about 10 feet away from it, when, after some conversation, an idea occurred to me to which I immediately gave expression.

I remarked that if the Brothers considered it of sufficient importance, they would easily restore the broken article; if not, they would leave it to the culprits to do so, the best way they could. Five minutes had scarcely elapsed after this remark when Mr. Damodar, who during this time seemed wrapped in a reverie exclaimed, "I think there is an answer." The doors were opened, and sure enough, a small note was found on the shelf of the Shrine-on opening which we read "To the small audience present. Madame Coulomb has occasion to assure herself that the devil is neither so black nor so wicked as he is generally represented; the mischief is easily repaired."

On opening the cloth the china tray was found to be whole and perfect; not a trace of the breakage to be found on it! I at once wrote across the note, stating that I was present when the tray was broken and immediately restored, dated and signed it, so there should be no mistake in the matter. It may be here observed that Madame Coulomb believes that the many things of a wonderful nature that occur at the headquarters, may be the work of the devil hence the playful remark of the Mahatma who came to her rescue.

It will be seen that there is nothing in this account inconsistent with Madame Coulomb's assertion. Moreover, it is a very suspicious circumstance that the china tray should have been "leaning against one of the doors." This is not the position naturally assumed by a saucer put into a cupboard in the ordinary way through the doors.

The whole "saucer" found in the Shrine was shown to me at Adyar at my request. I examined it carefully, and I also examined carefully the broken pieces of the saucer which Madame Coulomb exhibited as those for which the whole saucer had been substituted. The two "saucers" manifestly formed a pair. The incident happened in August, 1883. Madame Coulomb alleged that she purchased the pair of so-called "saucers" at a shopi in Madras for 2 rupees 8 annas each. On inquiry I found that "two porcelain pin trays" (words which properly describe the so-called "saucers") were purchased at this shop by cash sale on July 3 rd, 1883, and that Madame Coulomb had made purchases at the shop on that date. If taken as referring to this purchase there was one slight inaccuracy in Madame Coulomb's account; inasmuch as she said the "trays" cost 2 rupees 8 annas each, instead of 2 rupees 8 annas the pair.

 

COLONEL OLCOTT'S FLOWER VASES.

A window which had originally been in the north wall of the Occult Room was transformed into a cupboard with a secret double back allowing objects to be placed within from the adjoining outside passage. This double back was one of the "trap doors" discovered at the time of the expulsion of the Coulombs. Colonel Olcott informed me that one day in 1883, when he was in the Occult Room with Madame Blavatsky, a vase appeared in this cupboard-empty just before-as a gift to Colonel Olcott from one of the Mahatmas. Colonel Olcott apparently wished to duplicate this vase if possible, and made mesmeric passes before the closed door of the cupboard. On re-opening the cupboard a second vase was there, the facsimile of the first.

Madame Coulomb declared that she bought these vases at a shop in Madras, and that they were placed in the cupboard through the double back from outside the Occult Room.

The shop where the vases had actually been obtained was, she said, Hassam's, though they were purchased through M. Faciole and Co., Popham's Broadway, Madras. I saw M. Faciole, who remembered accompanying Madame Coulomb to Hassam and Co.; and the Chinese manager at Hassam's, whom I also saw, showed me a pair of vases somewhat similar, as he alleged, to the two pairs purchased by Madame Coulomb. I afterwards requested Colonel Olcott to show me the vases, when he found to his surprise that they were not in his bungalow, and he was unable to tell me when they had disappeared. He sent a few words of inquiry concerning them to Madame Blavatsky, to the main bungalow, about 40 yards distant, and in the meantime gave me a description, which, as far as it went, in shape, height, and style of ornamentation, exactly tallied with the description of the vases Madame Coulomb had purchased at Hassam's.

Madame Blavatsky herself then joined us, and after stormily denying that she had taken the vases, alleged that, after Colonel Olcott had received them from the Mahatma, Madame Coulomb had tried to obtain vases like them, but had failed; that Madame Coulomb had purchased one pair of vases afterwards, and that these differed in shape, &c., from those received by Colonel Olcott. Madame Blavatsky then proceeded to sketch roughly the vases Colonel Olcott had received, and the sketch differed greatly from the description Colonel Olcott had just given. Moreover, the pair of vases which Madame Blavatsky said had been brought to her by Madame Coulomb had also disappeared as mysteriously as Colonel Olcott's. The only mention of the vases I could find in the books at Hassam's occurred in connection with their payment by M. Faciole and Co., shortly after the date on which Colonel Olcott received them.

Under the date of May 25th (1883) occurs the following entry in the daybook of M. Faciole and Co.:

 

                                    (Rupees)

 

1 Pair Flower Vase      ...         ...         7

1 Pair      "        "          ...         ...         6.

 

These items appear in the account to Madame Coulomb, but have been struck out. Madame Coulomb's explanation of this is that she wished them not to appear in the bill rendered to headquarters, and she therefore paid cash for them.

Another entry, under date May 25th, occurs in the receipt-book of M. Faciole and Co.: -Received from Assam and Co.

 

                        (Rupees)

 

1 Pair Chapan Flower Vase    7  I sent to Mrs. E. Coulomb

1 Pair   "        "        "              6

 

Madame Coulomb therefore purchased the vases on May 25th; Colonel Olcott received them on May 26th.

 

Extract from Colonel Olott's Diary.

"May 26th. Fine phenomenon. Got pair of tortoiseshell and lacquer vases with flowers in a cabinet a moment before empty."

It will be seen that in order to explain the "saucer phenomenon" by ordinary human agency, we require to suppose that there was a secret opening at the back of the Shrine. It was important, therefore, to ascertain what ground there was for this supposition, apart from the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters, in which its existence is clearly implied. I now proceed to give the result of my investigations in this direction.

 

THE SHRINE

On my arrival at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society, on December 18th, 1884, I was informed by Mr. Damodar that he could not allow me to inspect the so-called Occult Room or the Shrine until the return of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky. Colonel Olcott had left the headquarters some days previously in order to meet Madame Blavatsky at Ceylon on her return from Europe. Two days later Madame Blavatsky had reached Adyar, and I again requested permission to examine the Shrine. Madame Blavatsky professed ignorance on the subject, saying she had been unable to discover what had been done with the Shrine. Mr. Damodar and Dr. Hartmann both denied having any knowledge of it, and it was only after repeated and urgent requests to be told what had happened that I learnt from the halting account given by Mr. Damodar and Dr. Hartmann that the Shrine had been moved from the Occult Room (see Plan) into Mr. Damodar's room at about midday of September 20th, that on the following morning, at 9 o'clock, they found the Shrine had been taken away, and they had not seen it since. They threw out suggestions implying that the Coulombs or the missionaries might have stolen it.

Moreover, the Occult Room, when I first received permission to inspect it, had been considerably altered; its walls were covered with fresh plaster, and I was informed by Mr. Damodar that all traces of the alleged "machinations" of the Coulombs in connection with the Shrine had been obliterated. This was not true, for the bricked frame and the aperture into the recess still existed. However, under the circumstances it was impossible for me to test the accuracy of much of the description given by Theosophists of the Occult Room and the Shrine at the time of the "exposure" by the Coulombs. But by analysing and comparing the evidence given by various witnesses, I was able to put together the following history of the Shrine and its surroundings.

On December l9th, 1882, Adyar became the headquarters of the Theosophical Society. One large upper room of the main bungalow was used by Madame Blavatsky (see Plan). The Occult Room was built later, against the west side of Madame Blavatsky's room.

The north window on this side was removed, and a layer of bricks and plaster covered the aperture on the side of the Occult Room-a recess about 15 in. deep being left on the east side. The south window was transformed into a doorway leading from Madame Blavatsky's room into the Occult Room. Madame Blavatsky's large room was divided into two by curtains and a screen; that adjoining the Occult Room being used by Madame Blavatsky as her bedroom, and at the end of 1883 as her dining-room also.... Measurements of my own show the positions, the Occult Room being about 2 ft. lower than Madame Blavatsky's room. The general entrance to the Occult Room was through Madame Blavatsky's sitting-room. The Shrine, as I gather from comparing the accounts of different Theosophists, was a wooden cupboard between 3 ft. and 4 ft. in width and height, and I ft. or 15 in. in depth, with a drawer below the cupboard portion, and with corner brackets. The Shrine was made with three sliding panels at the back. It was placed against that portion of the wall in the Occult Room where the north window of Madame Blavatsky's room had previously existed (see Plan), covering most of that portion, a most unfortunate position to choose for it if there was no fraudulent intention. It rested below on a plank or shelf, but its chief support consisted of two thick iron wires which were attached to two hooks near the ceiling. A certain space round the Shrine was enclosed by muslin curtains, which were drawn aside from the front when any one wished to approach the Shrine. These curtains were about 7 ft. high on the sides, but on the wall behind the Shrine extended nearly to the ceiling.

The wall immediately behind the Shrine was covered by white glazed calico, tacked to the wall. Two widths of the calico met in a vertical line passing behind the centre of the Shrine. The remaining part of the walls of the Occult Room was covered with red-and-white striped calico tacked to the wall. The upper part of the Shrine was as close to the wall itself as the muslin and calico behind it would allow. The lower part of the Shrine was near to the wall, at a distance from it differently estimated by different witnesses, but which must have been somewhere between 1/4 in. and "12 in., and was probably very little, if at all, more than 1/, in. The Shrine and its appurtenances were fixed in February or March, 1883. Shortly afterwards a four-panelled wooden boarding was placed in Madame Blavatsky's room, at the back of the recess. For some time an almirah (cupboard) stood in front of this recess. The exact dates of the placing of the boarding almirah and of the removal of the almirah I have not been able to ascertain. The almirah, and afterwards the recess, were used by Madame Blavatsky as a closet for hanging clothes. The above is put together from the statements of Theosophic witnesses.

M. Coulomb states that he removed the Shrine just after it was originally placed against the wall, sawed the middle panel in two, and attached a piece of leather behind to serve as a handle, so that the top portion could be easily pulled up. The junction between the two halves of the panel was, he says, hidden from those looking at the inside of the Shrine, by a mirror which just covered it. Behind this sliding panel a hole was made in the wall. A sliding panel was also made in the wardrobe which stood in front of the recess in Madame Blavatsky's bedroom, and one of the panels of the teak-wood boarding was also made to slide about 10 inches, so that easy communication existed between Madame Blavatsky's bedroom and the Shrine. The panels in the wardrobe and in the teak-wood door were shown by M. Coulomb to the Board of Control when he gave up the keys of Madame Blavatsky's rooms in May, 1884.

The hole in the wall, he said, had been blocked up in January, before Madame Blavatsky departed for Europe. He states also that the two portions of the middle panel of the Shrine were replaced by a new single panel, and that these changes were made at the request of Madame Blavatsky, who was afraid that some examination might be made of the Shrine during her absence in Europe. M. Coulomb's statement as to the half panel cannot of course be verified, and must be taken for what it is worth. What evidence there is in support of his other statements will be seen from the remainder of my narrative, derived from other sources.

At the end of October or beginning of November, 1883, Madame Blavatsky, in consequence of a doubt expressed by Mr. G---concerning the panelled boarding connected with the Shrine, ordered it to be removed, and the front part of the recess, that towards Madame Blavatsky's bedroom, to be blocked up. The panelled boarding was placed on the outside of the north-east opening into Madame Blavatsky's drawing-room, and formed the back of a shelf, and there it was certainly found to have a sliding panel in it when examined by the Theosophists in May, 1884. A wooden frame of about 8 ft. by 4 ft. was made, with cross-pieces, so as to fit the front of the recess. A single layer of half-size bricks was placed in this frame, and the front then covered with plaster, so that it was flush with the adjoining wall. The hollow left in the wall between Madame Blavatsky's room and the Occult Room, was about I ft. deep. The whole wall was then papered over, the work being completed about the middle of December, 1883, or perhaps several days later. Directly afterwards a sideboard, about 3 ft. high and 34 in. wide, was placed close against the bricked frame forming part of the papered wall. It covered the lowest north partition of the frame, and it was found on the expulsion of the Coulombs in May, 1884, that the bricks from this partition had been taken out, so that there was communication through the sideboard (in the back of which was a hinged panel) with the hollow space. M. Coulomb states that he removed the bricks as soon as the sideboard was in position in December, 1883. However this may be, the sideboard remained there during the time of the anniversary celebration in 1883; and Shrine-phenomena, which were in abeyance during these alterations, began again immediately after their completion. They ceased altogether, with two exceptions to be afterwards dealt with, about or shortly before the middle of January, 1884. On May 17th or 18th, M. Coulomb gave up the keys, and the various contrivances for trickery were investigated. The sliding panel in the almirah, the sliding panel in the boarding, the hinged panel at the back of the sideboard, the opening behind it where the bricks had been removed, and the hollow space of the recess were all inspected. Mr. St. George Lane-Fox then examined the west side of the party wall behind the Shrine, but was unable at that time to find any traces of the hole which, according to M. Coulomb, had previously existed between the hollow space and the Shrine.

He also examined the sideboard, and found that he could discover no signs from without of the aperture which led into the hollow space, showing that this aperture would remain undetected unless examination of the sideboard were made from within. The Theosophists contended that the structures for trickery revealed by the Coulombs, who had had exclusive charge of Madame Blavatsky's rooms during her absence, had been made after she had left; that they had never been and could not be used in the production of phenomena  that the hollow space and the aperture leading to it were too small to be utilised in any connection with the Shrine, and moreover that Mr. Coulomb's work was interrupted before he had time to make a hole through the wall between the hollow space and the Shrine itself.

To establish these points, the Theosophical Board of Control sent round a circular inquiry in August, 1884, to various Theosophists who had been at headquarters, requesting them to state what they knew of the condition of the Shrine, adjoining walls, &c., prior to and after the expulsion of the Coulombs. I was allowed by Dr. Hartmann to read the packet of replies to this inquiry. I also questioned in detail all the important witnesses who professed to have made an examination of the Shrine and its surroundings;-the result being that if we except Madame Blavatsky and the Coulombs, Madame Blavatsky's native servant Babula, and Colonel Olcott there is no evidence to show that any person ever removed the Shrine from the wall or saw it removed from the wall after it was first placed there, until the expulsion of the Coulombs; that, therefore, no careful examination could ever have been made of the back of the Shrine or of the wall in immediate juxtaposition. Further, that no such examination was ever made of the east side of the party-wall as would have sufficed to discover the sliding panels and apertures. I must add that the testimony offered appeared to me to be characterised by much mal-observation, sometimes implying a ludicrous lack of ordinary intelligence, and much equivocation sometimes amounting to absolute dishonesty.

The ultimate fate of the Shrine, according to a statement made by Dr. Hartmann to Mr. and Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, Mr. Hume, and myself, was as follows. After the expulsion of the Coulombs, Mr. Judge, an American Theosophist, then residing at the headquarters of the Society, was desirous of examining the Shrine. Mr. Damodar, who possessed the keys of the Occult Room, avoided this examination several times on one pretext or another; but, eventually, a party of Theosophists proceeded to the inspection of the Shrine. The Shrine was removed from the wall and its doors were opened. Mr. T. Vigiaraghava Charloo, (commonly called Ananda) a Theosophist residing in an official position at the headquarters, struck the back of the Shrine with his hand, exclaiming, "You see, the back is quite solid," when, to the surprise of most of those who were present, the middle panel of the Shrine flew up. It seemed undesirable to some of the witnesses of this phenomenon that the discovery should be made public, and they resolved accordingly to destroy the Shrine. To do this they considered that the Shrine must be surreptitiously removed, but such removal was inconvenient from the Occult Room. The Shrine was therefore first removed openly to Mr. Damodar's room, and, on the following night, was thence removed secretly by three Theosophists, concealed in the compound, afterwards broken up, and the fragments burned piecemeal during the following week. Dr. Hartmann had only retained two portions of the back of the Shrine, which he had enveloped in brown paper and kept carefully concealed in his room, substantial pieces of cedar wood, black-lacked. It was of such wood, according to a previous statement of M. Coulomb, that the back of the Shrine was made.

Dr. Hartmann has since furnished me with a statement in writing which is of interest as affording evidence respecting the hole between the recess and the Shrine. That this hole had manifestly existed and had been blocked up, I had been assured by another Theosophist who is particularly observant, and who discovered its traces independently of Dr. Hartmann. The following is an extract from Dr. Hartmann's written account: At what time the hole in the wall was made is as much a mystery to me as it is to you; but from a consideration of all the circumstances as laid down in my pamphlet, I came to the conclusion, and am still of the opinion, that they were made by M. Coulomb after H. P Blavatsky went to Europe, and I am now inclined to believe that M. Coulomb made them to ingratiate himself with Madame Blavatsky to facilitate her supposed tricks. All the traps are too clumsy, and it would tax the utmost credulity to believe that such phenomena as I know of could have been made by their means. In fact I do not know of a single phenomena [sic] that happened in my presence where they would have been of the slightest use.

Of the existence of a movable back to the Shrine and a filled-up aperture in the wall, none of us knew anything, and although superficial examinations were made, they divulged nothing; because to make a thorough examination, it would have been necessary to take the Shrine down, and we were prevented from doing this by the superstitious awe with which Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar regarded the Shrine, and who looked upon every European who dared to touch or handle the sacred" Shrine as a desecration.

At about the time when Major-General Morgan sent his invitation to Mr. Patterson to come to headquarters, that examination was made, and it was found that the back of the Shrine could be removed, and on moistening the wall behind the Shrine with a wet cloth, it was found that an aperture had existed, which had been plastered up.

Why these discoveries should have thrown any discredit on Madame Blavatsky I cannot see, because they as well as the other traps were the work of M. Coulomb, and there was no indication whatever that H. P Blavatsky knew anything of their existence, and moreover the testimonials of such as claimed to have examined the Shrine went to show that they were of recent origin.

Nevertheless, I must confess that it seemed to me that if at that inopportune moment this new discovery, to which I then alluded in the papers (see Madras Mai-, would have been made public, it would have had a bad effect on the public mind. If I had been here as a delegate of the Society for Psychical Research, or as a detective of the missionaries, I would, perhaps, not have hesitated to state the exact nature of the new discovery; but in my position I had to look out for the interests of Madame Blavatsky, and I did not, therefore, consider it prudent to speak of this discovery; neither was I authorised to do so, neither did I (as I then stated) feel justified in letting the enemies of H. P Blavatsky invade her private rooms without her consent.

A gentleman who was present, and who shared my opinions, was of the opinion that the Shrine had been too much desecrated to be of any more use, and he burned the Shrine in my presence ... I never told Colonel Olcott nor Madame Blavatsky, nor any one else at headquarters up to that time, what had become of the Shrine. But when you and Mr. Hume, besides a lot of other absurd theories, also asserted your conviction, that Madame Blavatsky had sent her servant, Baboola, for the purpose of doing away with the Shrine, and that he had done so by her orders, 1 thought it about time to show you that even a member of the Society for Psychical Research may err in his judgment.

We learn from Dr. Hartmann that any thorough examination of the Shrine was prevented by the "superstitious awe" with which Mr. Damodar regarded it. Dr. Hartmann's assertion is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Lane-Fox, who has also very emphatically expressed to me his conviction that no examination of the Shrine by native witnesses can be considered as of the smallest value, in consequence of the exceeding reverence in which it was universally held. But it will be observed that in one part of his account Dr. Hartmann appears to lay some stress on "the testimonials of such as claimed to have examined the Shrine." Dr. Hartmann himself, indeed, was one of those "who claimed to have examined the Shrine" before the exposure; he gave me, on different occasions, accounts of his examinations, and these accounts, besides being inconsistent with one another, are inconsistent with his final statements,-as he at once cheerfully admitted, retracting all his previous utterances on the subject.

The above is part 2 of the first major internet publication of the famous "Rapport of the Committee Appointed to Investigate Phenomena Connected with the Theosophical Society" also called the Hodgson Report, of which currently a feature movie is in production to hit the movie theater boxes later in 2003.
 

P1  Search For Astral Projection: The Investigation

P3 The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky

P4 The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky  
 

For updates click homepage here
 

July 23, 2003

 

 

 

 

shopify analytics