Geometric Revelation: An Interview with Henry Lincoln
By Tracy Twyman
Henry Lincoln began his career as an actor, but turned to
screenwriting early on, pumping out hundreds of dramatic scripts
for television. But he was especially adept at writing scripts
for historical documentaries, such as Nostradamus,
The Tomb of Akhehnaton, and The Man in the Iron
Mask, which he wrote for BBC Chronicle. It was
for this very program that Lincoln wrote his first documentary
about Rennes-le-Chateau, France: 1972’s The Lost
Treasure of Jerusalem...?, which set him off on a quest
that has consumed the rest of his life to date: the pursuit
of the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau.
It is the story of a poor parish priest, Berenger Sauniere,
stationed in a tiny hilltop village in Southern France, whose
alleged discovery of a set of encoded parchments inside his
church purportedly lead to him gaining immense wealth from
a source as yet unknown. Said to have been discovered in the
late 1800s, the parchments supposedly contained, encoded within
them, secrets of a historical and theological nature - secrets
which threatened the very foundation of the Catholic Church.
Sauniere is believed to have in turn encoded these secrets
into the bizarre renovations he commissioned for his church,
which stands today as a testament to the forbidden knowledge
he had allegedly gained. The priest is said to have died a
heretic, and was denied Final Unction on his deathbed.
Lincoln’s investigation of this strange enigma (detailed
in Lincoln’s subsequent books, and throughout every
issue of Dagobert’s Revenge Magazine) lead
to the production of two follow-up documentaries for BBC
Chronicle: The Priest the Painter and the
Devil in 1974, and The Shadow of the Templars
in 1979. Then in 1982, Lincoln and two co-authors, Michael
Baigent and Richard Leigh, published the international bestseller,
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, followed in 1986
by another international bestseller, The Messianic Legacy.
In both of these books, the authors laid the groundwork for
a theory: that the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau, and the secret
encoded within Sauniere’s parchments, pertained to a
sacred bloodline. This was the bloodline of the Merovingian
kings of France, who, according to the theory, were the blood
descendants of Jesus Christ. In this version of the story,
Christ had not died on the cross, but lived on to father a
royal dynasty in France with his wife, Mary Magdalen. This,
then, was Sauniere’s secret, and this secret was apparently
being preserved and passed down through the ages by a shadowy
secret society called the Priory of Sion, a group shrouded
in the mystique of conspiracy and the occult. Describing themselves
as both “Catholic Traditionalists” and “a
Hermetic Freemasonry”, the Priory of Sion had the air
of an elite mystical order with unorthodox political aspirations
and friends in high places. It boasted a pedigree dating back
to the Middle Ages, and purported to have once been the parent
organization of the notorious Knights Templar. The Priory
publicly proclaimed its allegiance to the surviving remnants
of the Merovingian bloodline, and its then-Grand Master, Pierre
Plantard, proclaimed himself the world’s most direct
descendant of the last Merovingian king, Dagobert II.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy
presented a totally new perspective on Christianity, earning
the authors international fame, and not a little controversy.
Rennes-le-Chateau became a Mecca for treasure seekers, convinced
that the source of Sauniere’s wealth was something that
he discovered hidden underground somewhere in the surrounding
environs. After all, the encoded message of one of Sauniere’s
parchments did say, “To Dagobert II, king, and to Sion
belongs this treasure ...” But Henry Lincoln
was convinced that he had already discovered the real treasure
of Rennes-le-Chateau back in 1979. It was an almost mathematically
perfect pentagram, shaped out of the five mountain peaks which
surround Rennes-le-Chateau. And this perfectly mathematical
geometry, Lincoln soon learned, could be found throughout
the Aude Valley surrounding the village, indicated by churches,
chateaux, and other important monuments. Lincoln was able
to graph out onto a map a network of pentagrams and hexagrams,
laid out upon a grid pattern, all perfectly geometric and
made with even measurements of something called the “Megalithic
Yard.” As the name denotes, this was the measurement
used by our ancient ancestors when creating megalithic monuments
like Stonehenge. Obviously, this geometry had been put there
by someone quite deliberately, and at least originally, by
someone in the remote past. Lincoln embarked upon a journey
to thoroughly explore these mysteries, which has so far resulted
in two books, The Holy Place and Key to the Sacred
Pattern, as well as two video documentaries, The
Secret: Investigating the Rennes-le-Chateau Mystery with Henry
Lincoln, and Henry Lincoln’s Guide to Rennes-le-Chateau
and the Aude Valley, both distributed by Illuminated
Word. A new book released last year, The Templars’
Secret Island, was co-written by Erling Haagensen, and
pertains to a similar pattern of geometry found on the Danish
island of Bornholm.
DR: Your opinion is that the geometry of the landscape is
the most important thing about Rennes-le-Chateau, right?
HL: It is the only thing which is demonstrable and provable.
DR: How do you think the geometry got there? Was it a human
agent, or a natural formation?
HL: What are you trying to say?
DR: I’m just asking, “Who put it there and for
HL: It’s actually a lot more of a complex question
than you realize. It would appear that at some point in the
remote past - and we don’t know when that is, but probably
a time which saw the construction of the great megaliths like
Stonehenge and Carnac. Sometime ‘round about then somebody
noticed the configuration in the mountains, which are natural.
So having been aware that you have this pentagonal structure
in the mountains, this automatically endows the place with
what one would label “holiness.” It is “As
above, so below.” It is the mirror on Earth of the goddess
in the heavens. It is a sacred place. Once that had been noticed,
then the additional geometry was structured around it. So
the original thing was a natural placement of five - or actually
six - mountain peaks which formed a near-perfect pentagon.
Now I have a qualification about the natural quality of the
mountains, because one of my ways of approach is to ask the
sort of questions which the normal academic mind will not
approach. I am inclined to look with the eyes of a child.
Not in a childish way, but with the eyes of a child, and look
for simplicity. And one of the questions to be asked about
this extraordinary phenomenon of mountains in a perfect geometric
form is apparently stupid. Is it possible that somebody could
have built the mountains? Now, most people wouldn’t
even consider the question. It does seem stupid, doesn’t
DR: I don’t think so.
HL: How would you answer that question?
DR: I would just say that the odds of that happening naturally
are so astronomical. I mean, it’s like believing that
Mt. Rushmore is natural, or something.
HL: So you are now saying that there has to be some “supernormal
agency” at work?
DR: I’m saying that it didn’t just happen by
itself. It was consciously created.
HL: Well, following the way that most people would interpret
that language (1), what I would say is absolutely not. Nothing
that we are confronting with Rennes-le-Chateau and its associated
phenomena is anything other than within the capabilities of
normal intelligent human beings. Homo sapiens, nothing else.
You have a near-perfect configuration of mountains. It is
not beyond the capability of homo sapiens actually to construct
an artificial high point in order to perfect the geometry.
You only have to look at the size of Silbury Hill, for instance,
which we all know is man-made, or the Great Pyramid. So it
is possible that the actual high spots which indicate the
pentagon of mountains could have been refined, as it were,
though I think that the original mountains in their natural
state were already sufficiently close for it to be astronomically
unlikely to have originated by chance. But it did. Then around
that natural formation, people began to construct a geometric
layout. A thousand years later, perhaps, we eventually come
to that later period, in the 12th century, when the geometry
is now being laid out in the Baltic. And there it is very
consciously done, and with much, much more precision. It’s
a development of what was begun at Rennes-le-Chateau and is
now extended at Bornholm. Have you read The Secret Island?
In there I am talking about absolute accuracy. Because at
Rennes-le-Chateau we are not talking about absolute accuracy.
I used words like “exact” in The Holy Place
and Key to the Sacred Pattern in an unscientific
way. When you come to The Secret Island, we are being
much more exact, because we are not measuring lines on a map
anymore, which is what we were doing in the early days. You
know, on a map, even with the finest line I can draw I’m
still covering ten meters on the ground. An intersection of
two lines could be anything up to almost 20 meters. Consequently
we are not talking about anything anywhere near perfection.
But now we’ve gone beyond that. I’ll give you
one of my favorite sentences about it. I’m talking about
a piece of geometry which they’d laid out on Bornholm,
which is a circle defined in the English measure, and it is
56 English miles in circumference. Now, I had to say, of course,
it isn’t absolutely accurate.
DR: How far off is it?
HL: “The discrepancy”, I wrote on the page, “however,
over 56 miles, is slightly less than the diameter of this
full stop.” That is exact. Now we are not guessing anymore.
We have exact coordinates with which we are working. We did
not choose the coordinates. The Danish Bureau of Land Surveying
chose certain places as trig points. We have those points
fixed to the millimeter. And they chose all the fifteen churches
on the island. So those people who accuse us of choosing the
structures which suit our argument and ignoring the ones that
don’t are talking gibberish. There are fifteen churches,
and we use them all. Four of them are circular, so you measure
to the exact center of the circle. And that is what the Danish
Government Bureau of Land Surveying did. They measured to
the cross upon the top of the church, which is over the exact
geometric center. They were not looking for accuracy. They
were merely fixing points. When we did the measurement mathematically
using the coordinates - I won’t give you names, because
they would be useless, but there were churches A, B, and C.
The geometry implied that the distance from church A to B
should be the same as the distance from church A to C. The
discrepancy over seven English miles is actually just over
four and a half inches. But we have to remember that when
the trig points were chosen, they were not looking for the
accuracy of the measure, they were just measuring to a point
on the cross. If I had said to them, “Will you move
two inches either way on each cross”, you would have
had zero discrepancy. So there is no discrepancy in the geometry
as laid out in the 12th century. Now academic historians tell
us that we did not have the capability to do this. And my
response to this is that it is a very feeble argument to say
that it cannot be, if you use that argument against the statement
“it is.” So the mere fact that they did it demonstrates
the capability, and that is why the geometry of Rennes-le-Chateau
and Bornholm is an important discovery: because it sheds a
new light on the capabilities of our ancestors.
DR: So in order for all of this geometry to be laid out,
it would have to take place over several centuries, or thousands
of years, right?
HL: No, in Bornholm (is dislike speculating, but...) it would
have been done in a matter of a few years, ten or fifteen
DR: Well, I’m just saying that if the same sort of
geometry is laid out in all these different places...
HL: They’re using the same measurement system, and
they’re separating the churches by the same distances.
Therefore we are talking about a body of hidden knowledge.
This moves into a contentious area in which people like to
get into mumbo jumbo, and I don’t. It would unquestionably
have been considered dangerous knowledge over a thousand years
ago. You’ll have to remember that Galileo was shown
torture instruments when he insisted that the Earth went around
the Sun. It was dangerous knowledge. And consequently, this
knowledge, which has been handed down over the generations,
was always kept as privileged information, solis sacerdotibus
- only for the initiated. They were perfectly capable of laying
out the geometry a thousand years ago, and I can demonstrate
how. They would have laid out the Bornholm geometry in a matter
of a few years, though it’s been a sacred placed since
megalithic times. There are over a thousand standing stones
on the island, and the churches incorporate many of them into
their actual structure. So churches, as is the case in general,
have been superimposed on previously sacred sites. In the
sixth century a bishop was saying to his flock, “Will
you please cease performing pagan practices at sacred groves,
rocks, and places where three track ways meet?” And
these we find in the geometry. The churches now use the original
pagan sacred sites, so the church has preserved what it was
attempting to obliterate.
DR: So the people who built these things in the Middle Ages
were perpetuating a cult from Megalithic times?
HL: No, not a cult. That immediately colors the language.
It’s knowledge. You can’t call mathematics or
microbiology a cult. It’s scientific knowledge, which
needs to be handed down. You’ll have to remember, they
didn’t have books they didn’t have libraries,
they didn’t have universities. You have to teach in
some way and preserve the information. That’s why Bornholm,
I suspect, was used. It was laid out as a teaching aid. We’re
talking about the work of homo sapiens., nothing more nor
less. What we don’t know, necessarily, is their reasons
for doing it, although I do have my ideas.
DR: Well, that’s what I was about to get to next. What
are your ideas?
HL: When you ask me for a hypothesis, you’re asking
me to make a guess. And I say, your guess is as good as mine.
DR: But you wouldn’t be this interested in it if you
didn’t have some idea, right?
HL: Well, of course, it’s inevitable when you’ve
been researching a subject for about 20 or 30 years. You do
have ideas. But they are only ideas, and my ideas have no
validity whatsoever. They’re just my guesses. They’re
informed guesses, but they are only my guesses. There are
too many people in my sort of position who go around telling
people what is the truth. I don’t. I know nothing but
DR: You’ve said before that in Rennes-le-Chateau, for
instance, and in the surrounding area, the geometry forms
a sort of temple.
HL: Because the pentagon of mountains is the mirror on Earth
of the goddess in the heavens, it is therefore a sacred place.
Now we must not impose our 20th century attitudes on what
our ancestors thought. I once was discussing a particular
aspect of this with a Danish academic, and he said it was
rubbish. And I said, “But it doesn’t matter whether
you think it’s rubbish. They didn’t.” And
that’s what matters, because their actions were affected
by their beliefs, and consequently we must take seriously
what they thought. We can’t say, “It’s rubbish.”
We must say, “They thought it wasn’t, and therefore
their actions need to be considered in relation to that belief.”
Therefore we must take their beliefs seriously, or we will
never understand what they were trying to do. So for them,
the pentacle was looked upon, as Professor Cornford said,
with little less than awe and reverence. It was a magical
figure. And it mirrored on Earth the goddess in the heavens.
The movements of Venus, “As above, so below”,
consequently defined a pentacle on the Earth in the form of
mountains. This made it a sacred place. Venus was equated
with the Magdalen. Rennes-le-Chateau’s church is dedicated
to the Magdalen.
DR: You found all of these Golden Mean proportions in the
landscape around Rennes-le-Chateau -
HL: Inevitable, because you are dealing with a pentagon.
You cannot separate the pentagon from the golden section.
The pentagon is essentially a golden section figure. That’s
why it’s sacred. That’s why it’s the divine
DR: Have you found any Fibonacci spirals in the landscape?
HL: Well, inevitably, again, if you are dealing with the
pentagon, you are dealing with the Fibonacci series. You can’t
avoid it. They are interlocked.
DR: I just wondered, for instance, if churches were laid
out in that particular shape.
HL: There are churches laid out in pentagonal form, hexagonal
form, and so on. You can’t avoid eventually coming across
the Fibonacci series, particularly when you’re dealing
with the pentagon.
DR: Have you compared the geometry of Rennes-le-Chateau
to the geometry of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem?
HL: I’m beginning to look at the Temple Mount, and
there are unquestionable similarities. They are using the
same measure in Jerusalem. It works there, and interestingly
enough, the distance from Bornholm to Rennes-le-Chateau to
Jerusalem gives you an isosceles triangle in round English
miles. That’s really quite spectacular. So there is
inevitably work to be done, both in Jerusalem and in Egypt
DR: So if you can find the same geometry, and demonstrate
that it was there thousands of years ago too, in all of these
places all over the world, that indicates that the civilization
which did this was a global civilization, right?
HL: There was a body of knowledge which was widely disseminated.
I’m sure we’ll find it in China too. I haven’t
looked. It’s time that the academic world removed its
blinkers. Fortunately its now beginning to do that, and people
are beginning to research these things. I suspect we will
now find evidence of a knowledge which was widely disseminated
around the globe at some point in the remote past. I can’t
go any further than that, but I’ve opened the door.
I’m getting old. It’s time that the next generation
took over. I’ve opened the door. Go through it. There
DR: Do you think that all of this stuff would have come out
if you hadn’t written about it?
HL: I don’t know. I suppose that somebody would have
stumbled upon it before. The knowledge is there. The knowledge
has been there. It certainly was there in the 1100s when Bornholm
was laid out, and I suspect that it was still there at the
beginning of the 20th century when Sauniere was doing his
constructions. There are certain things to indicate that he
must have been aware of the geometric structure in the landscape,
but it’s not proof. There are just indications because
of the placement of some of his structures. They conform to
the geometry in a way that’s highly unlikely to be coincidental.
So if that knowledge is around, one can understand why it
might have been kept as privileged information in the Middle
Ages, but it’s a little more difficult to understand
why it still is in the 20th and 21st centuries. I suspect
that there are people who know a great deal more about it
than I do, because I’ve just been laboring quietly and
trying to drag it into the light. I don’t know why the
information remains “secret.” My response to that
questions probably denotes less about my knowledge and more
about my ignorance.
DR: So, are you not interested at all in talking about the
Priory of Sion?
HL: The Priory of Sion I know nothing whatsoever about. It
is purely hearsay. We don’t know whether it ever existed
in the form which Mr. Plantard suggested, or not. We only
have their words for it
.DR: But didn’t these people - Pierre Plantard and
some of the others - give you information that was very useful
DR: No? None?
HL: Nothing that would have contributed towards where I’ve
DR: Gerard de Sede - was he involved with them?
HL: His reliability is made fairly clear by the fact that
he offered to sell me the treasure discovered by Berenger
DR: For how much?
Hl: We didn’t get around to discussing that. Have you
not read the account to that in Key to the Sacred Pattern?
DR: I have, but honestly, it’s been a couple of years.
HL: Yeah, well then you should re-read it. It’s quite
amusing. Especially as he’s been wheeled out as one
of the experts. Re-read what I have to say. It’s only
about two or three pages in Key to the Sacred Pattern.
And I reproduce his letter. It’s quite funny. I ignored
it. You see, this also demonstrates my attitude. When I received
the letter - “Dear Mr. Lincoln, I’ve just heard
you’re making your second film, so I’m offering
you pictures of the treasure” - most people would begin
to slaver at the chops and jump up and down with excitement.
I merely sent him a letter saying “Tell me more.”
And so he told me more in a letter which I received a week
later saying he was offering me sound film of the treasure
discovered by Berenger Sauniere. He gave me a telephone number
to call him to arrange the selling of the film to the BBC.
And I merely filed it into a pocket, because I knew that it
was a fake. So since I’ve exposed him in the perpetration
of fraud, I pay no attention to anything he says. He’s
merely repeating what he’s been told, and I have underlined
that many times in Key to the Sacred Pattern. The
information he was giving me was quite often distorted, because
he was merely passing on what he had been told.
DR: By who? By the Priory?
HL: I don’t know who the Priory are. By M. Plantard,
probably. I can be slightly more definitive in using that
name because I know that the illustrations which were provided
for me by Gerard de Sede all had the name “Plantard”
in purple rubber stamp on the back. And that was the first
time I had encountered the name “Plantard.” So
I know that Plantard was the source for De Sede’s information.
DR: Well, didn’t they give you some information about
HL: No, I found the geometry! It was when M. Plantard, at
my very first meeting with him, said to me, “The parchments
were fakes, and they were faked by Cherisey”, who was
seated right next to me. My response was to say, “No,
M. Plantard”, which was not the response he expected.
Because I had already found the pentagon in the parchment,
and therefore I knew that there was a lot more to that document
then had so far been talked about. So I found the geometry
in the parchment. I then found the geometry in the Poussin
painting. Then I went to Christopher Cornford, who is the
professor at the Royal College of Arts who did the geometric
analysis, and he established that the geometry was pentagonal.
And then, on Christopher Cornford’s advice, I looked
at the landscape. I then discovered the pentagon of mountains.
So all of the pentagonal geometry was an original discovery
by me. It did not come from the Priory. When I suggested to
M. Plantard that the secret was in some sense geometric, he
was hesitant about it. I got this on film. I did this quite
deliberately. I asked him the question about the geometry,
and I said, “It is pentagonal.” It threw him completely.
He wasn’t expecting that question, and he said, “I
can’t talk to you about that.”
DR: So did he seem surprised because it was the first time
that he had heard of it, or was he surprised that you had
figured it out?
HL: I asked myself the same question. Was he surprised because
I’d discovered it, or was he surprised because he didn’t
know it was there? “I don’t know”, is the
answer to that question.
DR: So they told you that the parchments were a fake, and
you knew that that they weren’t, or that there was definitely
HL: It depends on what you mean by “fake.” The
word going around is that they had been concocted for a ten
minute television program. Having found the depth and the
subtlety of the geometry concealed within the parchment, I
knew that there was no way that they had been concocted for
a ten minute television program. Added to which, I had talked
to British Intelligence, who had examined the cipher, and
said it was the most complex cipher they’d ever seen.
It would have taken months of work to prepare, and it was
utterly unbreakable. So I knew that the parchments had a lot
more to them than that. That doesn’t mean to say that,
as some people insist, they were concocted in the 1950s. It
doesn’t matter a damn whether they were concocted in
the 1950s. We don’t know when they were concocted. What
matters is the content.
DR: Is there anything that would convince you that it would
be worthwhile to excavate the ground beneath Rennes-le-Chateau?
Is there any possible evidence that could come along and change
your mind about that?
HL: No. I can’t think of anything that would be worth
excavating. If you want a chest full of golden jewels, that’s
ultimately banal. It’s of no interest whatsoever. It
doesn’t teach us anything. What we have is a greater
treasure, which is a body of secret knowledge. And you can’t
dig that up out of the ground.
DR: Do you ever talk to Baigent and Leigh anymore?
No. We have nothing to talk about anymore. We finished with
The Messianic Legacy, which was the exploration of
all that historical background of the secret society business,
which was becoming more speculative. The publishers wanted
a third book, to which I said, “I have nothing more
to say on the subject.” So Baigent and Leigh wrote The
Temple and the Lodge, and I essentially retired from
it at that stage, but sat down and pondered. It was at this
point that I realized that the geometry was really all there
was that was tangible. So I turned my attention to it again,
and we’ve had another ten or twenty years of work since
then. But that’s down my own line. Baigent and Leigh
know nothing of Rennes-le-Chateau as such. Richard Leigh,
to my knowledge, has never even visited the village. I took
Baigent down there once or twice so we could take photographs,
but I don’t know if he’s ever been back. So about
the village and the geometry they know nothing, and therefore
I have no cause to speak to them at all.
DR: Have you talked to Plantard, Gerard de Sede, or any of
those people since The Messianic Legacy?
HL: I was in touch with M. Plantard for a few years following.
He used to write to me reasonably often, but I didn’t
always reply because I was pursuing this new line of research
to which I knew he could not contribute. The Priory of Sion
and all its works are of no use to me whatsoever in these
new lines of research. And so essentially I just turned my
back on it. There’s only so much one person can do.
DR: I was wondering why, when you guys were writing Holy
Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy,
you didn’t go very much into some of the things that
were mentioned in the magazine Vaincre. There were
a lot of articles in there about underground cities, the hollow
earth, and Atlantis. You guys just sort of brushed over it.
HL: There isn’t very much in there on those sort of
subjects, and in any case, that moves into the realms of pure
speculation, wishful thinking and fantasy. And I have no interest
DR: Well, sure, I didn’t expect you to think that
these articles pertained to Rennes-le-Chateau especially,
but I just thought that they demonstrated what the modern
Priory of Sion was all about. When I read those articles,
I thought, “Gosh, I would have written an entire chapter
HL: Well, there were a lot of other chapters to be written
in the book. I think that perhaps, if we’d had nothing
better to do, and Baigent and Leigh had wanted to research
it, we would’ve pursued it. I personally have no interest
DR: If you were to go back and redo Holy Blood, Holy
Grail, or The Messianic Legacy, or any of your
other books, is there anything that you would change, or that
you regret doing?
HL: No, one should never regret what one’s done. But
the value of my earlier work is purely historical. One can
look back and see how the research developed over the years,
and how the ideas have changed. People say to me, “You
said something in this book which you contradicted in a later
book.” I say, “It would be very surprising if
I didn’t.” Because research goes on, and ideas
that you have inevitably change after ten, or fifteen, or
twenty years more research. It would be ludicrous if they
didn’t. So, yeah, none of that earlier material is of
any significance as far as I’m concerned now.
DR: If you’re a nonfiction writer, people will always
attack you for changing your mind about something, even over
a period of years. It means that you were either wrong all
along, or you’re wrong now.
HL: Well, if you’re not going to change your mind then
you might as well not start. New evidence inevitably affects
the way you think. New evidence must, otherwise what’s
the point of looking for it? You can’t know everything
from the beginning, otherwise what’s the point of doing
DR: You recently gave a speech to the Sauniere Society. I
was told that you were going there to convince them to stop
HL: There are people who want to know much more about it,
and I think, “Yes, please, get on with it. Do the research.
I don’t want to do it. You do it.”
DR: I see. I thought you were trying to get people not to
look into it anymore.
HL: Oh, no no. Good heavens, it’s not my place to tell
people what to do and what not to do. I’m just a writer.
DR: I’m sure you’ve always had this skeptical
mind, but was there one thing that happened in the course
of your research that turned you from the sort of “Messianic
Legacy research” to the geometry, and caused you
to ignore everything else? Was there one thing that changed
your mind and made you decide that you weren’t going
to look into the other stuff anymore?
HL: Yes, I suppose, but it wasn’t really one thing.
As I’ve said, when we finished The Messianic Legacy,
I didn’t want to do any more. The others went on and
did The Temple and the Lodge. I went back just to
wrap up my files, finish with it all. And I sat down and said
to myself, “What do I really know about this story after
twenty years of research? Not guessing, but what do I know?”
And when I began to jot down the demonstrable and provable
facts, they came down to pentagons associated with the landscape.
That was all I knew, and that’s what made me decide
to look at it more carefully. And so, having realized that
I had stumbled upon something which needed explaining, I have
now devoted the last how many years to researching that. And
I’ve been making one discovery after another. Here I
will make an arrogant statement: In all of the books which
have been written about Rennes-le-Chateau, and all of the
speculation around it, there have been only two discoveries
which were not made by me. Both of them were to do with the
geometry stemming from the work which I have done. One was
the geometry discovered by David Wood, and the other was the
geometry discovered by Erling Haagensen, which he did independently
on Bornholm. But apart from that, all the rest is speculation.
The only genuine discoveries have come out of my research,
David Wood’s, and Erling Haagensen’s.
DR: So are you planning on writing any more books or doing
any more videos.
HL: I don’t know. Probably. I’ve got more material.
Inevitably there are more discoveries - a great deal more
since the last book. And people had better read The Secret
Island. It’s not so easy to read as Key to
the Sacred Pattern, but it will give you precision of
geometry. And if you’ve got a good mathematician around,
you’ll be able to confirm it from the coordinates which
we quote in the book.
I was 17 years old when I first read Holy Blood, Holy
Grail, co-authored by Henry Lincoln and based on a hypothesis
largely of his device. I soon moved on to The Messianic
Legacy, and then later his solo books The Holy Place
and The Key to the Sacred Pattern. Those books, and
the first two in particular, changed my life, and I have devoted
it largely to the study of these subjects ever since. It has
been the most worthwhile pursuit I have ever engaged in, and
I feel that I owe a great debt to Mr. Lincoln for paving the
way. Needless to say, I was very excited to conduct this interview
Nonetheless, there are a few points which Lincoln made that
I cannot let pass without comment. First of all, I find it
incongruous that a man with such a brilliant and logical mind
would believe that “pure chance” brought these
mountains into near-perfect geometric shape. Even he admits
that this configuration is, “astronomically unlikely
to have originated by chance.” So why is chance, then,
a more logical explanation than some form of human agency
having, essentially, built the mountains? A key part of Lincoln’s
theory states that ancient man possessed much greater mathematical
and technical ability than historians credit him with. And
we know from the megaliths and cyclopean monuments built by
our ancestors that they were capable of amazing feats of architectural
construction, some of which have yet to be explained by modern
science. Why is it so unlikely, then, for these mountains
to have been placed in this configuration by these ancient
technical wizards? Taking the position that the mountains
were arranged by chance only serves to make the theory less
interesting. It does not, in my opinion, make the theory any
Another point on which Lincoln and I part is his blanket dismissal
of the Priory of Sion as a source of valuable information,
and in fact his complete repudiation of the contents of Holy
Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy -
the two books that made him an international celebrity and
brought the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau to public light.
While I don’t pretend to know for a fact whether or
not the modern Priory of Sion really does possess the ancient
pedigree or political connections that it has boasted of,
I do think that they must be the bearers of some genuine secret
pertaining to Rennes-le-Chateau. After all, they were the
keepers of the parchments in which Lincoln first discovered
the geometry that he later applied to the landscape of Rennes-le-Chateau
- the only aspect of the mystery which Lincoln considers to
have any value. Whether they concocted it themselves or whether
they had been preserving it since Sauniere’s time, the
fact remains that they were the possessors of these documents.
Furthermore, I cannot ignore the inner logic of the theories
presented in the “Prieuré documents” discussed
in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which largely formed the
basis for the hypothesis presented in that book. The theories
linking the Merovingian bloodline with the Judaic line of
Christ and King David, and linking the Merovingians’
descendants with the Knights Templar, the Ordre de Sion, the
Rosicrucians, the Compagnie du Saint - Sacrement, the Heiron
du Val d’Or, the Freemasons, the French Resistance,
and the modern Priory of Sion - these theories are too logical
and well-argued to ignore. I think that the authors of Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, prompted by the material published
by the modern Priory of Sion, properly identified a cult of
heretical Christianity, linked with various secret hermetic
societies throughout the centuries, and linked politically
with the same influential European families throughout the
centuries. They clearly established at least one facet of
what the cult believed: that certain European noble bloodlines
were derived from Christ, King David, and the patriarchs of
the Bible. They also clearly established the connection between
this cult and the region of Southern France surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau.
Whether or not the Merovingians were actually descendants
of Christ, we still have evidence indicating that many powerful
people throughout history have believed this, and have apparently
dedicated themselves to the furtherance of a sort of “Merovingian
ideal.” The Priory of Sion has claimed to be the common
thread behind all of this, and in my opinion, there is as
much corroboration for the existence of the Priory of Sion
in history as there is for many other groups, people and events
accepted as real by historians. What’s more, they apparently
do know something. If the Priory’s own literature
is to be believed, their secrets originated not with Christ,
but in the antediluvian world. It just so happens that this
is where our own research of the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau
had lead us.
But Henry Lincoln wants no part of this, and I can respect
that. He has made more than his share of amazing discoveries,
and has built a solid reputation that he no doubt wishes to
maintain. He is, in fact, grandfather to an entire field of
research. And the things which he has discovered may someday
lead to a revolution in the way historians perceive ancient
man. For me, Henry Lincoln has blazed a trail, and it is my
hope that I, and other researchers like me, will be able to
take this study much, much further within our lifetimes. After
all, Henry Lincoln himself said, “It’s time for
the next generation to take over. I’ve opened the door.
Go through it.”
(1) In this instance, Lincoln misinterpreted my point. I was
suggesting not a supernatural agent, but a human agent performing
acts not normally thought of as humanly possible, like moving