Jesus in Toast? Mary in a Grilled Cheese? A Christmas Song With 184 Birds?

Jesus in Toast? Mary in a Grilled Cheese? A Christmas Song With 184 Birds?

Church of the Undead

Jesus in Toast? Mary in a Grilled Cheese? A Christmas Song With 184 Birds?

That viral claim about “The 12 Days of Christmas” being a secret Catholic catechism turns out to be the perfect example of how our brains can trick us into seeing faith where none was planted. From a $28,000 grilled cheese sandwich bearing the Virgin Mary’s face to ghost hunters hearing spirit voices in radio static, we’re wired to find meaningful patterns everywhere — even when those patterns don’t exist. What does this mean for believers trying to discern genuine revelation from the stories we tell ourselves?

Listen to “Jesus in Toast? Mary in a Grilled Cheese? A Christmas Song With 184 Birds?” on Spreaker.

There’s a piece of Christmas trivia that gets passed around every December like fruitcake nobody actually ordered. It sounds profound. It feels meaningful. And it’s almost certainly not true. We’re going to dig into a beloved holiday song, a persistent myth about hidden Christian meaning, and what it all reveals about the human brain’s desperate hunger to find patterns — even when those patterns don’t exist. Along the way, we’ll discover something uncomfortable about ourselves and our faith, and maybe learn how to tell the difference between genuine divine revelation and the stories we tell ourselves. We’ll also talk about grilled cheese sandwiches, ghost voices, and why someone paid twenty-eight thousand dollars for a decade-old sandwich. Trust me, it all connects.


AN AVIARY WITH A SIDE OF MATH ANXIETY

Let’s start with the song itself, because honestly, “The 12 Days of Christmas” is one of the strangest pieces of holiday music ever written. If you actually sit down and listen to the lyrics — really listen — it sounds less like a romantic gesture and more like someone having a manic episode at a pet store.

Out of the twelve gifts mentioned, seven of them are birds. A partridge in a pear tree. Two turtle doves. Three French hens. Four calling birds — which were originally called “colly birds,” old English for blackbirds, so someone along the way apparently thought “calling birds” sounded less like we were gifting someone a flock of crows. (Or would that be a murder of crows? Anyway…) Six geese a-laying. Seven swans a-swimming.

That’s twenty-three birds by day seven alone.

If we add them all up the traditional cumulative way — because the song keeps giving those same gifts over and over, day after day — we end up with one hundred eighty-four birds by the end of the song. One hundred eighty-four birds. That’s not a Christmas gift. That’s an ecological disaster. Someone’s homeowner’s association would have shut this down by day three.

No mammals show up until day eight when those maids show up milking some sort of animal. Apparently cows, pigs, and sheep took one look at this song and said, “Nah, we’re sitting this one out.” Smart animals.

So why all the birds? A few reasons, none of them involving ornithological madness. Probably.

In medieval England, fancy birds meant wealth. Swans especially were bougie — and I mean that literally. In England, the Crown technically owned all mute swans, and you needed a special license to keep them. (Not mute as in “not able to speak”, but the white swans with the orange bills that are most common in Britain and tend to be less noisy than the other swans.) Owning swans meant you were either royalty or extremely annoying at dinner parties. Probably both.

These birds weren’t pets — they were dinner. Christmas was feast season, and birds were practical gifts. If someone gave you six geese-a-laying, you weren’t putting them in a pond and naming them. You were feeding your family for a month with roast goose and scrambled eggs.

Also, birds already carried strong Christian symbolism — peace, the soul, purity, sacrifice. The dove representing the Holy Spirit. The pelican as a symbol of Christ, piercing its own breast to feed its young. Birds were metaphor-ready before metaphors were cool. (Oh, and that pelican thing has no basis in scientific fact – but it was a great story to spread around for… reasons.)

But here’s the thing about the song structure: it’s a memory game. The piling-on chaos isn’t accidental. It’s meant to be ridiculous, cumulative, and hard to remember. The earliest printed version of this song appears in 1780 in a children’s book called “Mirth Without Mischief” — not exactly a title suggesting deep theological meaning. The song was listed as a Twelfth Night “memory-and-forfeits” game. The song leader would recite a verse, each player had to repeat what came before, and if you messed up, you lost a token or had to perform some silly task.

Your drunk uncle forgetting the ten-lords-a-leaping and having to kiss the nearest spinster as a forfeit isn’t exactly how most of us picture clandestine religious education.

THE MYTH THAT WON’T DIE

Now, there’s a claim that gets shared every Christmas season — on social media, in church bulletins, sometimes even from pulpits. It shows up in email forwards from well-meaning relatives. It gets posted on Facebook with those little candle emojis. It sounds ancient and wise and secretly profound.

The claim goes like this (and take notes, because you’ll be quizzed on this sometime at a future holiday party, I’m sure): each gift in “The 12 Days of Christmas” secretly represents a core Christian belief. The partridge in the pear tree equals Jesus Christ, because a partridge will sacrifice itself to protect its young. The two turtle doves represent the Old and New Testaments. The three French hens are faith, hope, and charity. The four calling birds are the four Gospels. The five gold rings are the first five books of the Old Testament — the Pentateuch. Six geese a-laying represent the six days of creation. Seven swans a-swimming are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Eight maids a-milking are the eight Beatitudes. Nine ladies dancing are the nine fruits of the Spirit. Ten lords a-leaping are the Ten Commandments. Eleven pipers piping are the eleven faithful apostles — Judas excluded. And twelve drummers drumming represent the twelve points of the Apostles’ Creed.

The story says this code was supposedly used to teach Catholic doctrine during times when Catholicism was illegal in England. English Catholics, persecuted from 1558 to 1829, supposedly created this song to teach their children the faith without getting arrested, executed, or having their lands confiscated. It sounds spooky. It sounds clever. It sounds like something out of a historical thriller.

It sounds completely unsupported by evidence.

WHERE DID THIS MYTH COME FROM?

Here’s what historians have actually been able to trace.

The “secret Catholic catechism” theory doesn’t appear anywhere in historical records until the twentieth century. Not the sixteenth century. Not the seventeenth. Not even the nineteenth. The twentieth.

The first known appearance of this theory was in 1979, when a Canadian teacher and hymnologist named Hugh D. McKellar published a short article called “How to Decode the Twelve Days of Christmas.” McKellar suggested — suggested, mind you, not proved — that the song’s lyrics might have been used to teach children about important parts of Christian thinking.

Three years later, in 1982, a Catholic priest named Father Hal Stockert picked up McKellar’s idea and ran with it. He wrote an essay called “Origin of ‘The Twelve Days of Christmas’: An Underground Catechism,” in which he went into great detail about the persecution of Catholics in England, including vivid descriptions of being hanged, drawn, and quartered.

The essay sat relatively unnoticed for about a decade. Then, in 1992, another priest named Father James Gilhooley published an article with the absolutely delicious, conspiracy-flavored title: “Those Wily Jesuits: If You Think ‘The Twelve Days of Christmas’ Is Just a Song, Think Again.” It appeared in the Catholic magazine Our Sunday Visitor.

And then came the internet.

In 1995, Father Stockert posted his essay online. And in the early days of email forwards — back when your aunt sent you chain letters promising bad luck if you didn’t forward to ten friends — Stockert’s article started showing up in inboxes everywhere. It spread like wildfire through church email lists and Catholic bulletin boards and eventually onto Facebook and Instagram and everywhere else.

But there was a problem – for the padre at least. When people started asking Father Stockert for his sources, he claimed he had learned about the symbolism by reading old letters from Irish priests, mostly Jesuits, writing back to their motherhouse in France. These letters supposedly mentioned the song as an aside while discussing other matters.

When he was asked to share these primary documents, Stockert said the letters had been destroyed in a flood. And his original research notes? On a floppy disk so old that no computer could read it anymore.

A flood and an unreadable floppy disk. That’s the foundation upon which this entire theory rests.

WHY HISTORIANS ROLL THEIR EYES

Beyond the convenient destruction of all supporting evidence, there are several serious problems with the “secret catechism” theory.

First, there are no primary sources. None. Zero. No manuscripts, no letters, no sermons, no lesson plans from the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth centuries mention anything about this song being used for religious instruction. The theory doesn’t appear until 1979 — over four hundred years after it supposedly began.

Second, Catholic teaching was never actually banned in a way that required this kind of workaround. Yes, Catholics faced persecution in England. Yes, it was illegal to practice Catholicism openly during certain periods. But Catholics already had catechisms. Books existed. They had the Douai-Rheims Bible, translated specifically for English-speaking Catholics. They had the penny catechism. They had priests who taught in secret, smuggled in from continental Europe.

This wasn’t Fahrenheit 451 with swans. Catholics didn’t need a pop song to remember basic doctrine.

Third — and this is the big one — almost none of the supposed symbolic meanings would have distinguished Catholics from Anglicans. The National Catholic Register, a publication not known for being hostile to Catholic tradition, has pointed out this glaring problem. Both Catholics and Anglicans believed in the Old and New Testaments. Both believed in faith, hope, and charity. Both accepted the four Gospels, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the fruits of the Spirit.

If English Catholics needed a secret code to teach their children, why would they encode beliefs that Protestants also held? It would be like creating a secret handshake to identify yourself as someone who believes the sky is blue.

Here’s what a real “underground catechism” would need to encode: the authority of the Pope. The seven sacraments — not just baptism and communion, which Anglicans also practiced, but confirmation, confession, marriage, holy orders, and last rites. Transubstantiation — the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. Purgatory. The intercession of saints. The veneration of Mary.

These were the beliefs that could get you killed. These were the doctrines that distinguished Catholics from Protestants. And not a single one of them appears in the supposed “code.”

As the National Catholic Register put it: Interpreted as an underground catechism, “The 12 Days of Christmas” is a double failure. Not only does it pointlessly encode beliefs that were entirely uncontroversial, it ignores virtually all the beliefs that one would actually want to encode for covert catechesis.

Fourth, the symbolic connections don’t actually make sense as memory aids. How exactly do “eight maids a-milking” remind you of the eight Beatitudes? What do “nine ladies dancing” have to do with the nine fruits of the Spirit? Is there anything about “lords a-leaping” that naturally brings the Ten Commandments to mind? The whole point of a mnemonic device is that the symbol helps you remember the concept. These symbols are completely arbitrary.

Fifth, as a Christmas song, “The 12 Days of Christmas” would only be sung for a few weeks out of the year. If this were really how Catholics taught their children the faith, what did they use for the other eleven months? Where are all the other “catechism songs” for Easter, Pentecost, and ordinary time?

The bottom line is that the notion that “The 12 Days of Christmas” was written as an underground catechism, or even interpreted and used as one during anti-Catholic persecutions in England, just isn’t plausible. The more persuasive explanation is that the interpretations have been rather arbitrarily hung on the song lyrics after the fact — much as medieval allegorists were able to find whatever meaning they sought in the imagery of Scripture.

WHY WE WANT IT TO BE TRUE

So why does this myth keep spreading among Christians?

Because we love hidden meaning.

Especially religious meaning.

Especially at Christmas.

It feels profound. It sounds clever. It makes us feel like insiders who know the secret history that the rest of the world has forgotten. And once someone hears it, they repeat it like it’s ancient wisdom passed down by monks whispering in candlelight.

In reality, someone in the 1970s said, “Hey, what if the birds meant Jesus?” And everyone nodded politely.

But this tendency — this urge to see our faith reflected in ordinary objects and ancient songs and celebrity quotes and cloud formations and grilled cheese sandwiches — this is actually one of those uncomfortable human truths we’d rather not look at too closely.

Because the monster in this story might be us holding a Sharpie, drawing meaning onto things that never had it.

THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE

There’s a scientific term for what we’re describing here: apophenia. It’s the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things.

The term was coined in 1958 by a German psychiatrist named Klaus Conrad. He was studying the early stages of schizophrenia and noticed that his patients were developing what he called “unmotivated seeing of connections” accompanied by “a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.” The word comes from the Greek “apophaínein,” meaning “to show” or “to make known.”

Conrad was describing something pathological — the way a person developing psychosis might see threatening patterns everywhere, believing that random events are secretly messages directed at them personally. But scientists have since recognized that apophenia isn’t just a symptom of mental illness. It’s a normal feature of human cognition. We all do it. Some of us just do it more than others.

Our brains are pattern-making machines, and they’re actually a little too good at it. We spot patterns fast, even when they aren’t real. This tendency is sometimes called “patternicity” — the brain’s default setting to find structure and organization in chaos and randomness.

Here’s why this matters from an ancestral standpoint: If our ancestors saw a “face” in the bushes and ran, they lived. If they stopped to say, “Eh, probably nothing,” and that face turned out to be a lion, they became lunch. Over hundreds or thousands of generations, natural selection favored the brains that erred on the side of seeing patterns — even false patterns — over brains that missed genuine threats.

So now we see Jesus in toast. Demons in drywall cracks. Political opinions in celebrity quotes taken wildly out of context. The Man in the Moon. Faces on the surface of Mars.

Congratulations — our survival software is running in an era where it has no business being this paranoid. The lions are gone, but our brains are still scanning the bushes.

PAREIDOLIA: WHEN WE SEE THINGS THAT AREN’T THERE

Pareidolia is a specific type of apophenia that involves visual perception. It’s when we see faces, figures, or meaningful images in random stimuli — like clouds, wood grain, or burnt toast.

From birth, humans show a fascination with faces that continues throughout our lives. Babies’ blurry vision excludes distant objects while the faces of parents and caregivers are thrust into constant view. We all become face experts, training our brains to recognize and interpret facial features with incredible speed and accuracy.

Brain scans have shown that when we look at a face, a specific part of the brain called the fusiform face area lights up. Here’s the remarkable finding: the fusiform face area also lights up when we experience face pareidolia. Our brains literally process imaginary faces in toast the same way they process real human faces.

As developmental psychologist Kang Lee from the University of Toronto explains, face pareidolia affects the parts of our brain that are responsive to real faces. If we experience this phenomenon, nothing is wrong with our brains. It’s actually proof that our visual processing system is working exactly as designed.

The problem is when we assign supernatural significance to what is essentially a hardware feature.

THE TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR GRILLED CHEESE

Let’s talk about that grilled cheese sandwich.

In 1994, a woman named Diana Duyser of Hollywood, Florida, was making herself a grilled cheese sandwich. Nothing fancy — no butter, no oil, just bread and cheese on a skillet. She took a bite, looked down, and staring back at her from the toasting pattern was what she perceived as the face of the Virgin Mary.

Duyser didn’t eat the rest of the sandwich. Instead, she placed it in a clear plastic box, surrounded it with cotton balls, and kept it enshrined on her nightstand. For ten years.

In 2004, she put it up for auction on eBay. The online casino GoldenPalace.com — known for publicity stunts — purchased the decade-old sandwich for twenty-eight thousand dollars. That’s roughly the average annual salary of a medical receptionist in New Jersey, paid for a piece of old bread with char marks that vaguely resembled a woman’s face.

For the record, skeptical investigator Joe Nickell actually examined the sandwich under magnification. He observed that the surface had a spotty, heat-blistered appearance, and the spots making up the “eyes,” “nose,” and “mouth” were similar to spots elsewhere on the toasted bread. It was random blistering that happened to align in a face-like pattern.

Also worth noting: when other skeptics looked at the sandwich, nobody thought it looked like the Virgin Mary. Some suggested Greta Garbo. Others said Marlene Dietrich. One person thought it looked like the actress from a 1920s film.

Here’s the thing about Jesus and Mary appearances in pareidolia: both figures predate photography by about eighteen hundred years. We don’t know what they actually looked like. We only know their faces through religious iconography — paintings and sculptures made centuries after they lived. So when our brains look for a match, they’re matching against artistic representations, not actual faces. The “Virgin Mary” in the grilled cheese looks like artistic depictions of Mary because that’s the template in our cultural memory. It’s a match to a match to a match.

The grilled cheese Madonna isn’t even the most famous example. Religious images have been spotted in:

A pretzel that sold for $10,600 because it supposedly resembled the Virgin Mary.

A cinnamon bun at a Nashville coffee shop that bore what some perceived as the likeness of Mother Teresa. It became known as the “Nun on a Bun” and was displayed in a glass case until it was stolen in 2005.

A pattern of mold in a bathroom shower that someone called “Shower Jesus” and sold for $1,999.

The rear end of a three-year-old terrier. Yes, someone saw Jesus in a dog’s backside. I am not making this up.

A frying pan with burnt bacon that revealed what the owner interpreted as the face of Christ — discovered after he fell asleep cooking and woke to a smoke-filled room.

A wooden fence post near the cliffs in the Sydney suburb of Coogee, Australia, that became known as “Our Lady of the Fence Post.”

A chocolate factory in Fountain Valley, California.

A rock in Ghana.

An underpass in Chicago.

A lump of firewood in Janesville, Wisconsin.

A pizza pan in Houston, Texas.

And during the 2019 fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, some observers claimed to see Jesus in the flames. Because apparently even infernos that destroy irreplaceable medieval architecture are just another canvas for pareidolia.

AUDITORY PAREIDOLIA: WHEN NOISE LEARNS TO TALK

Visual pareidolia gets most of the attention, but our ears do the same thing. It’s called auditory pareidolia, and it’s the engine behind one of the most popular tools in ghost hunting: Electronic Voice Phenomena, or EVP.

EVP is the practice of recording audio — usually in supposedly haunted locations — and then listening for voices that weren’t audible to human ears during the recording. Enthusiasts claim these voices are communications from spirits of the dead.

The phenomenon has a surprisingly specific history. The first purported EVP recording was made in 1959 by a Swedish opera singer, painter, and film producer named Friedrich Jürgenson. He was recording the sounds of birds singing in a forest. When he played the tape back, he heard what he interpreted as a female voice saying, “Friedrich, you are being watched. Friedel, my little Friedel, can you hear me?” He believed it was the voice of his dead mother.

Jürgenson spent the next several years recording more voices and published two books: “Voices From the Universe” and “Radio Contact with the Dead.” His work attracted the attention of a Latvian psychologist named Konstantīns Raudive, who was initially skeptical but became a true believer after trying the technique himself. Raudive claimed to have recorded his own deceased mother’s voice. He went on to collect and analyze over one hundred thousand EVP recordings and published his research in a 1971 book called “Breakthrough: An Amazing Experiment in Electronic Communication with the Dead.”

For a while, people called the phenomenon “Raudive Voices.”

In 2002, an EVP enthusiast named Frank Sumption created a device he called “Frank’s Box” or the “Ghost Box.” It’s described as a combination white noise generator and AM radio receiver modified to sweep back and forth through the AM band, selecting split-second snippets of sound. Sumption claimed he received his design instructions from the spirit world.

Critics point out that since the device relies on radio noise, any meaningful response a user gets is purely coincidental — or simply the result of auditory pareidolia. Paranormal researcher Ben Radford has called Frank’s Box “a modern version of the Ouija board… also known as the ‘broken radio.'”

Here’s what scientists actually observe about EVP recordings:

They’re almost always in the listener’s native language. If EVP were really communications from spirits, we’d expect to occasionally hear messages in languages the researcher doesn’t understand. Instead, English-speaking ghost hunters hear English. Spanish-speaking investigators hear Spanish. This is exactly what we’d predict if the brain were imposing familiar patterns on random noise.

The “voices” typically only become audible after someone tells you what to listen for. Before the suggestion: static. After the suggestion: “Did it just say ‘get out’?” It’s the same reason you can’t unhear song lyrics once you’ve read them. The sound didn’t change. Your perception did.

The messages are brief, garbled, and almost never contain useful or complex information. Ghosts, apparently, are terrible conversationalists. If spirits really could communicate through electronic devices, you’d think they could manage a complete sentence now and then.

One writer aptly described EVP as “an auditory inkblot test” — a blank slate upon which the listener can project any interpretation. Sound artist Joe Banks coined the term “Rorschach Audio” to describe this phenomenon, and the Rorschach Audio Project presents EVP as a product of radio interference combined with auditory pareidolia.

Research has shown that paranormal believers are more susceptible to EVP than skeptics. In studies where participants listened to recordings of white noise, those who believed in ghosts were significantly more likely to report hearing voices. When researchers told participants that they were studying “purported ghost voices” rather than “voices in noisy environments,” the priming dramatically increased reports of hearing voices in meaningless static.

The technological trappings of ghost hunting can lend a gloss of objectivity. We assume that because a machine recorded something, the evidence must be objective. But the machine just captures audio. The critical step — interpreting what the sounds mean — is entirely subjective. And subjective interpretation is exactly where apophenia thrives.

RELIGIOUS VISIONS: SAME BRAIN, DIFFERENT SOFTWARE

This same tendency shows up in religious visions and experiences. It’s a more sensitive topic, because we’re talking about deeply personal, often profound experiences. But we need to be honest about how the brain works.

Religious visions often occur during specific states that loosen the brain’s normal filters:

Extreme stress or grief. Sleep deprivation. Fasting. Illness or fever. Sensory deprivation. Intense prayer or meditation.

These states don’t cause people to hallucinate, exactly. But they do lower the threshold for perception. The brain becomes more willing to interpret ambiguous stimuli as meaningful.

The raw experience might be very real: light, a voice, a presence, a feeling of overwhelming certainty. But the interpretation comes afterward. And the interpretation is shaped by culture, by religious tradition, by expectation.

A Christian in crisis sees Christ. A Hindu sees Vishnu or Shiva. A medieval European peasant sees the Virgin Mary. A modern UFO experiencer sees a grey-skinned being with a clipboard and a butt probe.

Same brain. Different cultural software.

This doesn’t mean every religious experience is “just in your head.” It means the brain is the interface through which we experience everything — including, potentially, the divine. But it also means we need humility about our interpretations. Even if something genuinely supernatural exists, apophenia guarantees we’ll misinterpret most of it.

Skeptics say, “It’s all in your head.”

Believers say, “It’s all supernatural.”

Reality probably says, “You’re both overconfident.”

THE FEEDBACK LOOP FROM HELL

We expect something unusual. We experience something ambiguous. We interpret it through our existing beliefs. That interpretation strengthens the belief. And future ambiguity gets interpreted faster and harder.

That’s how one shadow becomes “activity.” One EVP becomes “intelligent communication.” One vision becomes doctrine. One burn pattern on toast becomes a $28,000 shrine.

Belief sharpens perception — and blinds it.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias: the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs. Once we believe something, our brain becomes a PR firm for that belief. We notice evidence that supports it and dismiss or rationalize evidence that contradicts it.

In an experimental study using a picture of plain linen cloth, researchers tested how suggestion affected perception. Participants who had been told there could possibly be visible words in the cloth collectively saw two religious words. Those told the cloth was of some religious importance saw twelve religious words. Those who were told it was of religious importance and given suggestions of possible religious words to look for saw thirty-seven religious words.

This is exactly why so many objects have supposedly been found on the Shroud of Turin — plant species, coins, insects, all manner of details. Once the cloth was deemed to have the imprint of Jesus, pattern-seeking went into overdrive. Am I saying the Shroud of Turin is NOT the burial cloth of Jesus? No – but I am saying that believing that to be the case will certainly infect your interpretations of what you find from it.

THE DANGERS FOR BELIEVERS

This is where we need to have an honest conversation with ourselves as Christians.

Apophenia isn’t just a problem for ghost hunters seeing shadows in abandoned asylums. It’s a problem for us. When we don’t account for our brain’s pattern-seeking tendencies, every coincidence becomes confirmation. Every feeling becomes revelation. Every ambiguous situation becomes a sign from God.

And that’s not investigation. That’s not discernment. That’s storytelling.

The Bible itself warns us about this tendency — repeatedly and emphatically.

Jeremiah 17:9 tells us, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” Our own hearts can deceive us. Our own minds can trick us into seeing what we want to see.

Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” We can be absolutely convinced we’re on the right path and be completely wrong. The road can feel right and still lead to destruction.

Proverbs 14:15 adds, “The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.” Notice the contrast: simplicity that accepts everything versus prudence that thinks carefully.

First John 4:1 instructs us, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Notice that John doesn’t say, “Trust your feelings.” He doesn’t say, “If it feels like God, it must be God.” He says test. Examine. Verify.

Matthew 7:15 warns, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” False teaching doesn’t announce itself with a warning label. It comes disguised as something trustworthy.

Second Timothy 4:3-4 provides one of the most sobering warnings in Scripture: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables.”

Fables. Like, say, the fable that “The 12 Days of Christmas” was a secret Catholic catechism.

Acts 20:29-30 records Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”

Colossians 2:8 cautions, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.”

Hebrews 5:14 tells us that “solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” Notice that discernment is something we train. It’s not automatic. It requires practice, discipline, constant use.

First Thessalonians 5:21 commands us to “test all things; hold fast what is good.” All things. Not just the things that seem suspicious. Everything.

THE GRILLED CHEESE PROBLEM

Here’s the thing — and this is where we need to be really honest with ourselves.

We can appreciate symbolism without claiming intent. We can enjoy meaning without insisting it was planted. We can hold our faith without turning coincidence into confirmation.

In other words, we can enjoy the grilled cheese without starting a church around it.

And let’s be honest — if God were going to leave us a message, He’d probably pick something more durable than Wonder Bread. Something with a longer shelf life than a ham sandwich.

The danger zone isn’t in finding meaning. Humans are meaning-making creatures. That’s part of what makes us creative, artistic, capable of language and story and culture. The same mental machinery that sees Jesus in toast also lets us write poetry and compose music and create beauty from chaos. Apophenia is a double-edged sword, not a defect.

The danger zone is when we say, “This must mean what I believe it means, and if you don’t see it, you’re blind.”

That’s when curiosity turns into ideology. That’s when toast becomes doctrine. That’s when confirmation bias becomes bulletproof and no evidence to the contrary can penetrate.

WHAT REAL FAITH LOOKS LIKE

So what’s the alternative? How do we hold genuine faith in a brain that’s constantly trying to manufacture false patterns?

First, we ground ourselves in Scripture. Not in feelings. Not in signs. Not in patterns we think we see in random events. Scripture is our foundation. Psalm 119:105 says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” We don’t need to decode hidden messages in medieval party songs when we have the actual revealed Word of God.

John 8:31 records Jesus saying, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.” The test of discipleship isn’t mystical experiences or perceived signs. It’s faithfulness to what has actually been revealed.

Second, we embrace humility. First Corinthians 8:2 reminds us, “If anyone thinks they know anything, they do not yet know as they ought to know.” We hold our interpretations loosely. We acknowledge that we might be wrong. We stay teachable.

James 1:5 promises, “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” Asking for wisdom implies we don’t already have all the answers. Humility is a prerequisite.

Third, we test everything. First Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to “test all things and hold fast to what is good.” That means not accepting every claim that sounds spiritual or meaningful. It means asking questions. It means doing research. It means being willing to say, “That’s a nice story, but it’s not actually true.”

The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were commended because they “received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” They didn’t just accept teaching because it came from an apostle. They checked it against Scripture.

Fourth, we value truth over comfort. John 8:32 says, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Notice it doesn’t say comfortable stories will set us free. It doesn’t say patterns that confirm our beliefs will set us free. The truth sets us free — even when that truth is inconvenient or disappointing.

Fifth, we cultivate genuine discernment. Philippians 1:9-10 records Paul’s prayer: “That your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best.” Discernment comes from growing in knowledge and insight, not from following hunches.

THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD

Here’s the beautiful irony in all of this.

Apophenia — this same tendency that makes us see Jesus in toast and hidden codes in Christmas carols — is also the engine behind art. Behind storytelling. Behind mythology. Behind creativity itself.

It’s how humans turn randomness into narrative. It’s how we see constellations in scattered stars. It’s how we find meaning in a chaotic universe.

Without it, we’d have no gods. But we’d also have no stories to tell around the fire. No parables. No metaphors. No poetry.

The same mental tool that sees God in a sandwich also lets Salvador Dalí create paintings where faces emerge from groups of figures, where reality bends and meaning multiplies. Dalí deliberately played with pareidolia — his famous painting “Slave Market with a Disappearing Bust of Voltaire” shows a group of characters when viewed up close, but Voltaire’s face when viewed from a distance.

The key is learning to wield this sword wisely.

Romans 12:2 tells us, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Notice Paul talks about the renewal of our minds. Our brains need to be trained. Our pattern-seeking needs to be disciplined. We need to learn the difference between genuine divine revelation and the stories we tell ourselves.

A CHRISTMAS WORTH CELEBRATING

So when someone shares that post about “The 12 Days of Christmas” being a secret code for Christian doctrine, we can smile kindly and gently correct them.

We don’t need manufactured meaning. We have the real thing.

We don’t need hidden codes in silly songs about too many birds. We have the Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — telling us plainly about a Savior born in Bethlehem.

We don’t need to find Jesus in toast or turtle doves. We have His own words, His own promises, His own presence through the Holy Spirit.

Luke 2:10-11 gives us the Christmas message without any decoding required. The angel said to the shepherds, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

No hidden meaning. No secret symbolism. No code words. Just the truth, announced plainly, to ordinary working people in a field in the middle of the night.

That’s the real miracle of Christmas. Not that God hid Himself in puzzles for us to decode, but that He revealed Himself clearly for all to see. Emmanuel — God with us. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

And that’s worth celebrating more than one hundred eighty-four birds could ever represent.

CONCLUSION

Our brains will keep seeing patterns. That’s what they do. It’s the hardware we’re running. The fire will always be more interesting when someone swears they saw something move in the dark.

But as believers, we’re called to something better than chasing shadows and decoding party songs. We’re called to truth. To discernment. To testing the spirits. To grounding ourselves in the solid rock of God’s Word rather than the shifting sands of our own pattern-seeking minds.

So let’s enjoy “The 12 Days of Christmas” for what it is — a ridiculous, cumulative, impossible-to-remember song about giving someone an absurd number of birds and a troupe of dancing entertainers.

And let’s save our faith for the things that actually deserve it.

The real hidden treasure isn’t in a medieval carol. It’s not in a grilled cheese sandwich or a water stain or a piece of burnt toast. It’s in a manger in Bethlehem, announced by angels, confirmed by Scripture, and available to anyone who asks.

No decoding required.

REFERENCES

NOTE: Some of this content may have been created with assistance from AI tools, but it has been reviewed, edited, narrated, produced, and approved by Darren Marlar, creator and host of Weird Darkness — who, despite popular conspiracy theories, is NOT an AI voice.

Views: 29