Finbar — I appreciated your interview and the tone you brought to the conversation. It’s clear you’re genuinely interested in getting to the truth, and that’s precisely why I’m writing this.
Having now read both the European and U.S. editions of Dr. Raphael Cormack’s book, I felt it was important to share a documented counterpoint directly. I previously posted the following open letter on what appeared to be his public Facebook page. It was removed the next day. I am reposting it here for the record, in the hope that you might take a moment to read it:
"Greetings, Dr. Cormack.
I purchased both editions of your book — the European edition and the U.S. edition — read them carefully, and publicly critiqued your methodology.
No author relishes criticism. Nevertheless, I must offer one directly.
Your book is not flawed because you reject Doctor Dahesh’s prophetic claims. Whether one believes he was a prophet is a matter of conscience. If your conclusion were simply that he was a fraud, that would be a philosophical position — one I would respect, even while disagreeing.
The problem lies elsewhere.
You assert that he embezzled money and exploited women. Those are not metaphysical conclusions. They are accusations of moral and criminal misconduct.
And in making them, you either omitted exculpatory evidence that materially complicates your narrative, or you were unaware that such evidence exists.
When I first encountered your claim that Doctor Dahesh embezzled funds from a widow, I was deeply troubled. I believed the accusation to be false — but I did not immediately know how to demonstrate that it was false.
Then I remembered a 700-page volume Doctor Dahesh gifted me in 1980 — a book I largely ignored in my youth. Decades later, that volume became indispensable. It contains notarized documents, signed petitions, sworn statements, legal correspondence, and contemporaneous testimony that directly challenge the embezzlement narrative.
Facsimiles of these documents are publicly available at DivineMagic.tv. A structured presentation of the volume commonly referred to as The Expelled Traitor is accessible via ExpelledTraitor.com.
Among the materials you will find are the promissory notes signed by Nasri (Victor) Kattan acknowledging his debt to Doctor Dahesh, as well as letters written by his mother, Farida Kattan — letters markedly contrite in tone and sharply at odds with the later public accusations.
In those letters, she warns Doctor Dahesh about her son’s intentions and about the influence of Abd al-Raheem al-Shareef upon him.
Additional documents show that she was not the author of the accusations later published in her name. The record further reflects that she ultimately filed a petition that resulted in her son’s arrest and in a signed confession addressing the false claims made against Doctor Dahesh.
These are not peripheral details. They go to the core of the embezzlement narrative.
That is why I am addressing you openly.
I believe in Doctor Dahesh. I will not pretend otherwise. And yes, I care deeply about how his legacy is treated. But my rebuttal does not rest on belief or sentiment. It rests on documents — notarized statements, sworn testimony, legal filings, contemporaneous correspondence — that materially complicate the narrative you presented.
Debunking prophecy is one thing. Asserting financial crimes requires a higher evidentiary threshold.
You relied heavily on the account of Youssef Malak — not Malik. Yet you appear not to have interviewed living Daheshists, nor even adversarial critics who might have provided methodological balance. That absence is striking.
This is not about faith. It is about intellectual discipline.
You hold a PhD from a prestigious institution. The standard of inquiry should reflect that distinction.
I have examined these materials in detail in Divine Magic: The Doctor Dahesh Chronicles, where the documentary record is presented systematically and transparently.
If we are serious about historical rigor, then the documents deserve engagement — not omission.
I trust you will extend the professional courtesy of allowing this critique to remain visible and, more importantly, of examining the evidentiary record in good faith."
