Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, the son of Tsar Nicholas II, suffered from a disease called hemophilia. Hemophilia is an inherited disorder in which the blood does not clot properly, a life-threatening condition that can lead to internal bleeding, organ damage, and death, especially before the development of modern treatments.1 The Tsarevich’s illness was kept a state secret to avoid public outcry and potential harm to the heir. It is a known fact that even certain nobles were trying to harm the Tsarevich, which meant that only a few trusted people could know about his condition.2 Rasputin first became involved in the care of Tsarevich Alexei around 1906, miraculously helping to heal his condition and often leaving doctors perplexed on how he did it. This led several of Rasputin’s supporters to cite his apparent gift of healing3 as proof of his holiness. After all, it is quite a compelling argument for a semi-literate peasant from Siberia to effectively heal and save the Tsarevich’s life several times when the best doctors in the Empire couldn’t. Conversely, Rasputin’s detractors within the Church4 have allied themselves with secular historians to explain away Rasputin’s gift of healing, stating that it was fundamentally nothing other than ignorant luck.

Subscribe now

The idea that Grigory Rasputin was healing Tsarevich Alexei by preventing the use of aspirin5 for his condition has been repeatedly asserted, to the point that it has become the prevailing theory. The theory is as follows:

Aspirin, being a blood thinner, would most definitely be a terrible prescription for someone suffering from hemophilia as it promotes bleeding. This was not known to doctors at the time, who decided to prescribe it to Alexei for its pain-relieving properties. Rasputin, however, being distrustful of all medicine, told the doctors to leave Alexei alone, indirectly stopping the prescription of aspirin and improving Alexei’s condition. Hence, it is not due to miraculous powers of healing that Alexei was healed; Rasputin was simply ignorant and got lucky by unknowingly stopping the prescription of a harmful drug.

This theory has been popularized by respected historians like Hélène Carrère d’Encausse,6 Helen Rappaport7 and even top Rasputin biographer Sergei Fomin.8 Consequently, popular commentators have repeated the “aspirin theory” ad nauseam, baselessly asserting it as fact. When asked about the origin of such a theory, these individuals will cite “conventional wisdom,” noting the unclear primary source trail behind it. This idea, however, faces several issues that make it fundamentally a weak theory.

For starters, even if one were to concede that the healing of Alexei occurred due to the cessation of aspirin, this would not be incompatible with Rasputin’s gift of healing. In fact, it could be argued that Rasputin possessed both clairvoyance and healing, which allowed him to perceive that something was wrong in the Tsarevich’s prescription and put a stop to it.9

However, this concession does not need to be made. When tracing the origins of the “aspirin theory,” one is always led back to one name: Pierre Gilliard. Pierre Gilliard was the Romanov children’s French language tutor, and his memoirs were compiled in a book titled Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. Allegedly, the idea that Alexei was being prescribed aspirin originated with him,10 yet no such quote appears in his memoirs. One is left wondering about this idea that many seem to believe in, yet few can identify the origin of.

Finally, we have come to the conclusion that the theory did not originate with Gilliard himself, but with his biographer Daniel Girardin.11 Girardin wrote Le Précepteur des Romanov: Le destin russe de Pierre Gilliard, where a quote from Chapter IV outlines perfectly the creation of this theory. Girardin writes, “It's highly likely that Alexei was taking aspirin, a drug with a pronounced therapeutic effect. This versatile Swiss remedy, introduced in 1858, also acts as a painkiller. However, it wasn't yet known that aspirin thins the blood and is contraindicated for hemophilia. From the very beginning, Rasputin insisted on stopping all medications. It may have had a positive effect on the course of the disease for reasons far removed from mysticism. Stopping aspirin led to an improvement in Alexei's condition.”

That is essentially the basis of the theory, historical speculation by the French tutor’s biographer. We believe that through this work, the “aspirin theory” entered Rasputin historiography. This may be why it is so hard, perhaps impossible, to find any reference to aspirin in books about Rasputin before 2005. Yet there is one, and this may be the true origin of the theory: Diarmuid Jeffreys’ Aspirin: The Remarkable Story of a Wonder Drug, published in 2004.12 Jeffreys writes that “It’s very likely that to ease the pain the imperial doctors prescribed [aspirin].”13 Once again, the language used is one of likelihood and speculation, not certainty.

It is not our intent to attribute malice to the aforementioned authors. However, there is a problem with promoting a theory that is based on no primary evidence whatsoever as fact. As explained by the reputable Romanov biographer George Hawkins,14 “One thing which could be noted - over the last few years I have seen it alleged that Rasputin got the Doctors to stop giving Tsesarevich Alexei aspirin. However, I have never come across a primary sourced piece of evidence that shows he was ever administered this. It is just asserted, and no sources are ever cited. We do know from diaries and letters though that he was administered morphine for pain now and then.”15

Helen Rappaport16 kindly responded to our inquiry about the “aspirin theory” which she posits in The Romanov Sisters,17 confirming our interpretation once again.

Dear Alex

Thank you for your email. In my book I say that Rasputin did not approve of Alexey being given aspirin, the implication being to warn against it being administered. It is possible that he said this in response to finding out that they had indeed given him aspirin. But I do not know of any source confirming this one way or the other. Nicholas and Alexandra, as we know, were highly resistant to any intervention with drugs, such as morphine, which had only been given to Alexey on very rare occasions when his pain was severe. But, as George says, there is no hard evidence of aspirin being actually given to Alexey. But perhaps the possibility had been discussed with Rasputin by N&A??18

To be clear, we do not oppose such a theory in principle, as it is entirely compatible with Rasputin’s gift of clairvoyance. In fact, it would not be the first time that Rasputin stopped the administration of harmful drugs to the Tsarevich.19 Rather, we find the theory unconvincing given the remarkable lack of evidence. As it stands, there is no primary-source evidence available to demonstrate that Alexei was ever administered aspirin. If any were to appear, we would gladly welcome it, but as of now it is still historical speculation.

What we strongly oppose, however, is the trivialization of Rasputin’s gifts by reducing them to mere chance.

So, is there any proof that Rasputin healed Alexei through miraculous means?

The truth of the matter is that no doctor in the Russian Empire knew how to treat Alexei for his disease, yet Rasputin, through his prayers, managed to save his life multiple times. The Tsarina was convinced that Rasputin possessed a miraculous gift of healing which he faithfully used to save her son.20

There may be no better example of this than the famous Spala incident. In October, 1912, Alexei suffered an accident which left him bed-ridden and in need of surgery, which was virtually impossible due to his hemophiliac condition. Doctors did not know what to do and his condition continued to deteriorate, his temperature rising by the hour. Alexei, sure that he would die, asked the Tsarina, “When I am dead, it will not hurt anymore, will it, Mama?”21 Then, on October 22, Grigory Rasputin sent a telegram to the Tsarina, saying: “God has seen your tears and heard your prayers. Grieve no more. Your son will live.”22 The next day, the Tsarevich’s temperature fell and his condition continued improving until he was completely healthy again.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of Nicholas II, would testify the following: “An hour later, my nephew was out of danger. Later that year, I met Professor Fedorov, who told me that the healing was completely inexplicable from a medical standpoint. Rasputin definitely possessed the gift of healing. There is no doubt about it. I saw these results with my own eyes, more than once. I also know that the most renowned doctors of the time were forced to admit it.”23

This stands as one of the most compelling examples explored in our articles and forms a strong argument for Grigory Rasputin’s gift of healing. This question should be considered on the basis of events, experiences, and observations recorded by holy people and contemporaries, rather than on historical speculation developed a century later and lacking primary-source evidence.

“Tsarevich Alexey would have been dead within a very few years if Rasputin's genius had been lacking.”24

Dr. Elizabeth Judas

Subscribe now

Hieromonk Macarius (Markish), 2003

A common argument against Grigory Rasputin’s holiness, particularly among certain Orthodox Christians,2 is the fact that Saint Martyr Elizabeth Feodorovna despised him. Saint Elizabeth was Tsarina Saint Alexandra’s sister, and she always held suspicions about the strannik’s character. The idea is that Rasputin must have surely been evil if someone as holy as Saint Elizabeth hated him. Is this really enough to indict him of immorality, or is there perhaps more to the story?

Before we begin, I would like to remind our followers that they can support the Rasputin Archive here. We work hard to keep all content free and all donations help acquire research materials for this project. Donations will grant access to the Rasputin Archive Virtual Library, which includes rare books like the 4-volume series The Last Tsar by S.S. Oldenburg, My Father by Maria Rasputina, and Rasputin’s own book My Pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Elizabeth Feodorovna (1864-1918), born Princess Elizabeth of Hesse and by Rhine, was Tsarina Alexandra’s older sister. She married Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1884 and converted to Orthodoxy in 1891, taking the name Elizabeth Feodorovna. She was criticized for this by her German family, yet she practiced her Orthodox faith devoutly throughout her life until her martyrdom in 1918. Her husband was assassinated by a socialist terrorist in 1905, after which she became a nun and founded the Russian Orthodox convent of Martha and Mary. She continued devoutly following Orthodox Christianity until her martyrdom at the hands of the Bolsheviks in 1918, for which she is remembered as Saint Martyr Elizabeth Feodorovna in the Orthodox Church.

The subject of the article, however, is not her holy and devout life and death, but her relationship to the holy peasant Grigory Efimovich Rasputin. Elizabeth, unfortunately, became one of Rasputin’s most ardent detractors, despite the fact that they never met in person. The cause of these feelings and the nuances in their relationship must be explored, lest we fall into the ignorant view of condemning Rasputin for a saint’s negative opinion.

What did Saint Elizabeth think of Rasputin?

Rasputin arrived in Saint Petersburg in 1904 and met the Romanovs in 1905. They started regularly meeting around 1906. His life up to this point has been explored thoroughly in the WWN Aether Hour Episode 103. Here, I join Conrad Franz and Dmitriy Kalyagin in the most exhaustive analysis of the early life of Grigory Rasputin in the English language. This is a must-watch for all our followers.

However, in 1907, allegations arose about Rasputin’s alleged sectarian activities. He became associated with the Khlysts, a sect that engaged in ecstatic rituals and degenerate behavior, including — allegedly — self-flagellation and orgies.3 This was a common accusation that Rasputin faced throughout his life. Several investigations were launched against him, all of which failed to prove that he was anything other than a canonical and genuine Orthodox Christian.4 However, these allegations tarnished Rasputin’s reputation until the end of his life, never being able to rid himself of the slander completely.

At this point in time, Elizabeth was living in Moscow at the Martha and Mary Convent she had just founded. Rasputin, conversely, was moving from Saint Petersburg to his native village of Pokrovskoye for questioning. This slander influenced many spiritually immature individuals who unfortunately believed the allegations and utilized them against Rasputin. One of these individuals was Blessed Theophan (Bystrov). It may seem outlandish to call Bishop Theophan “spiritually immature,” yet these are not our words but those of Hegumen Seraphim (Kuznetsov). Bishop Theophan, initially one of Rasputin’s closest friends, became suspicious of him due to the slanderous allegations of the Tobolsk investigation of 1907-1908. However, he maintained a good relationship with Rasputin until 1909, when he received a false confession from a woman. This '“confession” depicted Rasputin as a dangerous sexual deviant. The confession turned out to be false, which evoked great criticism from Hegumen Seraphim (Kuznetsov), as Theophan decided to break the confessional seal to tell the Tsarina about Rasputin’s alleged misdeeds. In Seraphim’s words, “[Theophan (Bystrov)] accused Grigory Rasputin of indecent behavior after a woman’s confession. Here, Bishop Theophan demonstrated his spiritual inexperience by taking the woman’s word for it, which later turned out to be a fabrication.”5

Bishop Theophan was a spiritual mentor to Elizabeth Feodorovna and perhaps the main influence behind her hatred of Rasputin, a man she had not met and would never meet in person.6 Here, Saint Elizabeth believed her spiritual mentor’s errors and became prejudiced against Rasputin. Historian Igor Evsin has written extensively on how Theophan and Elizabeth were misled to oppose Rasputin.7

Elizabeth and Theophan were also influenced by newspaper articles framed as “confessions” by women who had allegedly been wronged by Rasputin. One of these articles was titled “Grigory Rasputin and Mystical Debauchery,” written by Martyr Mikhail Novoselov. Saint Mikhail was an ardent anti-Rasputinite, which led him to write slanderous and salacious articles against him. In fact, these articles were so graphic in nature that the Tsarist government had to confiscate them under the anti-pornography laws of the Russian Empire.8 It was a grave spiritual mistake for Theophan and Elizabeth to be influenced by pornographic articles written by another holy man who allowed allegations about Rasputin to influence his perception of the truth.9 Novoselov was also a friend of Alexander Guchkov, a subversive politician who threatened to strangle the Tsar if he did not abdicate in 1917.10 Freemason11 Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who hated Rasputin due to his anti-war stance,12 also influenced Saint Elizabeth by showing her forged reports of Rasputin’s lascivious behavior.13

Saint Elizabeth sent letters to the Tsar and Tsarina urging them to stay away from Grigory Rasputin, who she considered an impostor and a degenerate.14 She also falsely accused him of being a Khlyst.15 By her own admission, however, she had never met Rasputin in person and only heard rumors and read about him in the newspapers.16 The Romanovs, knowing Rasputin personally, did not heed Elizabeth’s insensible warnings. Saint Elizabeth, on her part, waged a propaganda campaign against Rasputin with the help of her friends Alexander Samarin17 and Saint Mikhail Novoselov, among others. Saint Elizabeth encouraged Novoselov’s pornographic and slanderous articles, as they confirmed her prejudice against Rasputin.18 It is important to consider, likewise, that Samarin was a corrupt character and friend of the Freemason Nikolai Nikolaevich, who despised Rasputin and eventually betrayed the Tsar.19 Samarin vehemently opposed the canonization of Saint John of Tobolsk, something that was only achieved thanks to a friend and alleged protégé of Rasputin, Bishop Varnava (Nakropin).20 How surprising is it that such corrupt and pernicious characters would give wrong information about Rasputin to Saint Elizabeth?

Elizabeth continued this slanderous attack against Rasputin all the way until his martyrdom in 1916. In consideration of all theories, it is likely that Rasputin was killed by Felix Yusupov with the help of Vladimir Purishkevich and Dmitry Pavlovich.21 Saint Elizabeth’s role in the murder of Rasputin is very unfortunate, as it could be argued that she was indirectly complicit and directly knowledgeable of the crime that was going to take place.

Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, cousin of Tsar Nicholas II, was raised by Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and Saint Elizabeth Feodorovna after the death of his mother and banishment of his father.22 Saint Elizabeth was also friends with Zinaida Yusupova, Felix’s mother. The tragedy in the martyrdom of Rasputin, for Saint Elizabeth, is that she already knew that the murder was going to occur and who would commit it. On the night of the murder, she sent a letter to the Tsar and two telegrams, one to Dmitry Pavlovich and the other to Zinaida Yusupova. The letter to Tsar Nicholas II asked him not to punish Yusupov and Pavlovich, instead suggesting that he consider the murder a “duel” and “an act of patriotism.”23 His response to all those that petitioned for leniency against the murderers was simple: “No one has the right to commit murder.”24 Likewise, the two telegrams congratulated Dmitry and Yusupov for their “patriotic act.” and said that they were in her prayers.25 It’s striking to see that “inside the shelter of the Convent of the Holy Trinity and of St. Seraphim (in the village of Diveyevo), recognized as amongst Russia’s holiest places because it holds the relics of one of Russia’s most venerated saints, St. Seraphim Sarovskii, Ella was on her knees in prayer seeking God to ‘protect’ the murderers.”26 The date and content of these telegrams also demonstrated that Elizabeth knew beforehand that Rasputin would be murdered, and rather than try to stop it, she encouraged and congratulated the perpetrators. This made her an accomplice in the murder of Grigory Rasputin. All of these messages were intercepted by the Okhrana, and copies were given to the Tsar and Tsarina, who were horrified to see Elizabeth’s complicity in the murder of their peasant friend.27 These shameful telegrams destroyed the Tsarina, who “cried bitterly and inconsolably, and [Vyrubova] could do nothing to calm her down.”28 Elizabeth’s messages were very incriminating. In fact, Yusupov himself admitted that Elizabeth’s “telegrams had severely compromised us.”29

Was she right?

Evidently not. Her sources of information were incredibly corrupt, and her spiritual immaturity led her to support one of the gravest sins, murder. How can this be reconciled with her sainthood? We must understand that Saint Elizabeth was not a perfect person and made many grave mistakes during her life. One of these, for example, was declaring her loyalty and support for the liberal Provisional Government after the forced abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.30 On the matter of her religious life, Saint Elizabeth would write, “I try to find a way and will make mistakes.”31 Even she did not believe herself to be infallible, yet Rasputin’s detractors demand that we accept her “testimony” as fact. Her case, however, is different from the other haters of the holy peasant. Subversives like Yusupov, Dzhunkovsky, Rodzianko, Tyutcheva, and Guchkov despised a specific person, Grigory Rasputin. Elizabeth, on the other hand, hated “a phantom, a non-existent mirage, an obsession,” as she did not know the true Rasputin.32 An excellent article on the reconciliation between her human mistakes and holy martyrdom has been written by Hieromonk Macarius (Markish).33 Was she sinning by slandering Rasputin? Yes, there is no doubt about it. In fact, it could be argued that she was an accomplice in his martyrdom. However, she faced her own martyrdom with profound faith, for which she was forgiven by God and reconciled with the holy peasant in heaven. In the words of Grigory Rasputin, "Yes, it is a sin! But the Lord is merciful!"34

When our first article, The True Religion of Grigory Rasputin was published in September, 2025, Davis challenged our thesis, citing Saint Elizabeth Feodorovna’s negative opinion on Rasputin. This was followed by a quick and thorough refutation of his argument on our part, which he obstinately disregarded, saying he would rather stick with Saint Elizabeth.2 Davis insisted that our historical investigation about the real Grigory Rasputin was flawed, yet seemed to be ignorant on the subject matter months ago. On January 6, 2026, however, he published an extensive article on Grigory Rasputin, presenting himself as an expert on this character of Russian history. In fact, this article is — in his view — so authoritative that it ought to be considered “the final word on the matter”.3 This seems to be quite an unfortunate statement for those who continue to seek historical and spiritual truth, yet if the article is of such great quality, perhaps all previous historiography could be discarded. Regrettably, this is not the case, as the article is historically flawed. Hence, it will not be considered the final word on the matter by those of us who have dedicated years to exploring the life of Grigory Rasputin.

For this refutation, Davis’ article will be extensively quoted, identifiable by a black vertical bar on the left side of the screen. All of the text in the article has been quoted, every single sentence. Before addressing the arguments, the structure of the article must be considered. Davis does not use footnotes and hardly references the sources he uses for many of his claims. In the spirit of truth, I have found, shared, and debunked or contextualized the sources he failed to cite, as well as our own sources which I believe to be more historically reliable. After analyzing his quote selection, I believe that Davis has only read Douglas Smith’s book Rasputin: Faith, Power, and the Twilight of the Romanovs. While it is undeniably a historically rich book, it fails in many aspects, and anybody who wishes to have the final word on the matter of Rasputin must read more than just the introductory book on his life. With that in mind, let us explore the article and see what it gets right and wrong.

Was Rasputin a Saint?

Most of the “black myths” surrounding Gregory Rasputin are utter lies. He was not a sorcerer; he was not a Khlyst; he did not have an affair with the Tsaritsa. However, credible evidence from Orthodox bishops and contemporaries reveals him as a drunken womanizer, an influence-peddler who deceived the Royal Martyrs. Rasputin caused untold damage to the monarchy, which is why the Russian Orthodox Church has (correctly) refused to canonize him.

As I previously stated, Davis seems to be parroting his understanding of Smith’s book rather than engaging in objective historical analysis. His whole article could very well be re-written as a book review and would spare us the trouble of refuting him. Alas, he wished to call us out without naming us, and we had to respond.

Davis gets the “black myths” about Rasputin correct. He was not a Khlyst,4 a sorcerer, and most definitely did not have an affair with the Tsarina.5 However, he goes on to claim that “credible evidence from Orthodox bishops and contemporaries reveals him as a drunken womanizer, an influence-peddler who deceived the Royal Martyrs.” What that evidence is, we have yet to find out. At least Davis has dropped the facade of objectivity and will go on to slander Grigory Rasputin, stating that the ROC “correctly refused to canonize him.” This “refusal” comes from a corrupt commission which will be further analyzed throughout my response and can’t be considered binding or truthful in any way.

Recently, some Orthodox “influencers” (including friends of the UOJ) have become vocal apologists for Gregory Rasputin. A few are even calling for his canonization as a saint!

By Orthodox “influencers,” Davis probably means Anthony Westgate,6 James Delingpole,7 Dmitry and Conrad from WWN8, and of course myself, Rasputin Archive. It is unfortunate (perhaps even cowardly) to call us out and not name us. Perhaps if Davis’ readers had access to our work, they would critically analyze the existing historiography and make up their own minds.

A few are even calling for his canonization as a saint!

This is not that controversial. After Rasputin’s death, Tsarina Alexandra had a small book printed out titled “A New Martyr” in his honor.9 Tsarevich Saint Alexei said “There was a saint, Grigory Efimovich, but he was killed.”10 At the time of their martyrdom, each of the Romanov daughters “wore around her neck an amulet bearing Rasputin’s picture and a prayer by the peasant ‘holy man’.”11 Tsar Nicholas died wearing a cross gifted to him by Rasputin.12 Elder Nikolay Guryanov said that “Grigory is holy and a great Martyr before the Lord. His icons are needed; people have prayed before them, are praying, and will pray, and weep, as I do, weeping and praying before this image.”13 Veneration of Rasputin began right after his martyrdom in 1916 among the Romanovs and his close followers. This extended into the 1920s, where followers of Rasputin painted/wrote Icons such as the one below.

Nowadays, the veneration of Rasputin persists despite attempts to censor it, particularly in Russia among clergymen and followers of Tsar Nicholas II.14

The Rasputinists claim that Rasputin was slandered by jealous courtiers and Bolshevik agitators. He was not the cause of the Russian Revolution. On the contrary: he was the only man who could have saved the Autocracy. Instead, he became a sort of protomartyr, his death foreshadowing those of St. Nicholas, St. Alexandra, and their children.

But are they right? Let’s look at the facts.

Not to be pedantic, but the correct term is Rasputinite.15 In any case, it is correct that those who advocate for the historical rehabilitation of Rasputin claim that he was not the cause of the Russian Revolution. In fact, it was slander against Rasputin that led both directly and indirectly to the dissolution of the Monarchy.16 Davis proceeds to state “Let’s look at the facts,” once again framing this as an objective historical endeavor, which it is not. Throughout this response, it will be shown that rather than sticking to the facts, Davis allows anti-Rasputin and anti-Tsarist propaganda to form the basis of his article.

Before moving on to Davis’ first section on Rasputin, I would like to quickly point out something concerning. Davis, as has already been shown, is acutely aware of the work done by Rasputin Archive and others in the historical exploration and rehabilitation of Grigory Rasputin, the Romanovs’ friend. In fact, his whole reason for writing the article was the trend of “Orthodox ‘influencers’ (including friends of the UOJ) [becoming] vocal apologists for Gregory Rasputin.” This would suggest that Davis is familiar with the information shared by those apologists, meaning he has listened to the podcasts and read the articles, perhaps even engaged with some book recommendations shared by us.17 However, as I went through the article, I noticed that many of his objections were actually already answered in our published material, including articles and videos. This means that he is either dishonestly presenting information while knowing the answer, or actually did not engage with the material he is critiquing and is arguing from a position of prejudice against Rasputin. Both alternatives are concerning. Having said that, let’s head over to Davis’ first section on Rasputin.

The Rasputin Affair

First, we must first consider the nature of Rasputin’s supposed crimes.

Historians have ruled out the more heinous allegations that have been leveled against him over the years. Rasputin did not practice black magic. He was not a Khlyst. He did not hold orgies with young nuns. He certainly did not have an affair with the Tsaritsa. Rasputin’s apologists are correct to dismiss these charges as Bolshevik propaganda.

This is mostly correct, however a small change could be made towards the end. The truth is that these were in fact examples of aristocratic propaganda leveled against Rasputin that the Bolsheviks later adopted to delegitimize Tsarist Russia.18

However, there are four credible accusations that may be leveled against Rasputin:

1. Drunkenness. Rasputin was said to be overly fond of vodka.

2. Womanizing. He was widely accused of taking sexual advantage of his followers.

3. Peddling influence. Some contemporaries accuse Rasputin of profiting from his access to the Romanovs. Specifically, he’s said to have secured posts for his “friends,” both in the Church and the State, in exchange for money and/or sexual favors.

4. Political meddling. Rasputin was widely blamed for some of St. Nicholas’s most disastrous policy decisions.

5. Religious charlatanism. Rasputin may not have been the great holy man that he claimed to be.

These are the accusations brought out against Rasputin. Davis claims there are four credible accusations but lists five. We won’t address them for now, first let’s see what he writes about each of them.

Now, to be clear: I’m not saying that Rasputin is guilty of these crimes. (Not at this stage, anyway.) I’m saying that these accusations will prove more difficult for Rasputin’s apologists to dismiss, as they are leveled by more credible sources and supported by more hard evidence.

So, how do we decide whether or not such allegations are true? Let’s consider the credibility of our witnesses.

One would think that he would analyze each allegation carefully and in numerical order to prove his point, as we are doing in this response. Instead, however, he vaguely mentions some of these allegations as he writes, with shallow analysis and no source citations. This is not serious historiography. Why even mention the allegations if you won’t address them seriously?

Rasputin’s critics and defenders face a certain difficulty in this regard. The following points are all true:

• Rasputin was loved by a number of holy men and women, including the Royal Martyrs.

• Rasputin was hated by a number of holy men and women, including St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, St. Benjamin of Petrograd, and St. Mardarije Uskokovic.

• Rasputin was adored by disturbed and evil people like Olga Lokhtina.

• Rasputin was despised by disturbed and evil people like Sergei Trufanov.

This is why I find it problematic when an individual like Davis — who is largely ignorant on the subject matter — declares himself the ultimate authority or “the final word on the matter.” Davis is listing names he read on Douglas Smith’s book without knowing the historical context behind them other than Smith’s incomplete analysis.19

Let’s explore each point in order.

Rasputin was loved by a number of holy men and women, including the Royal Martyrs.

This is true. Some of these holy men and women include Saint John of Kronstadt, Elder Nikolay Guryanov, Saint Augustine (Pyatnitsky), Mother Maria of Helsinki (Anna Vyrubova), Tsar Saint Nicholas II, Tsarina Saint Alexandra, Saint Olga, Saint Tatiana, Saint Maria, Saint Anastasia, and of course Tsarevich Saint Alexei.20

Rasputin was hated by a number of holy men and women, including St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, St. Benjamin of Petrograd, and St. Mardarije Uskokovic.

This is exaggerated. Some holy men were deluded into believing lies against Rasputin, yet this proves nothing about Rasputin’s true character.

Saint Elizabeth, for example, is a favorite among anti-Rasputinites for her intense dislike of the strannik. In fact, Saint Elizabeth disliked Rasputin so fervently that she congratulated Dmitri Pavlovich and Felix Yusupov on carrying out his murder.21 However, what is not usually mentioned is the fact that Saint Elizabeth never met Rasputin in person.22 Her opinion of Rasputin was based on scandalous articles she read on the newspapers and rumors spread by those close to her. For example, Theophan, Bishop of Poltava (who Davis mentions about twenty times throughout his article) became one of those slanderers who misled Saint Elizabeth. Theophan himself was misled by a false confession from a woman. This '“confession” depicted Rasputin as a dangerous sexual deviant. The confession turned out to be false, which evoked great criticism from Hegumen Seraphim (Kuznetsov), as Theophan decided to break the confessional seal to tell the Tsarina about Rasputin’s alleged misdeeds. In Seraphim’s words, “[Theophan (Bystrov)] accused Grigory Rasputin of indecent behavior after a woman’s confession. Here, Bishop Theophan demonstrated his spiritual inexperience by taking the woman’s word for it, which later turned out to be a fabrication.”23 However, Saint Elizabeth believed her spiritual mentor’s errors and became prejudiced against a man she never met. Elizabeth and Theophan were also influenced by newspaper articles framed as “confessions” by women who had allegedly been wronged by Rasputin. One of these articles was titled “Grigory Rasputin and Mystical Debauchery,” written by Martyr Mikhail Novoselov. Saint Mikhail was an ardent anti-Rasputinite, which led him to write slanderous and salacious articles against him. In fact, these articles were so graphic in nature that the Tsarist government had to confiscate them under the anti-pornography laws of the Russian Empire.24 It was a grave spiritual mistake for Theophan and Elizabeth to be influenced by pornographic articles written by another holy man who allowed allegations about Rasputin to influence his perception of the truth.25 Freemason26 Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who hated Rasputin due to his anti-war stance,27 also influenced Saint Elizabeth by showing her forged reports of Rasputin’s lascivious behavior.28

It is very unfair to claim that Saint Benjamin (Kazansky) hated Rasputin. The only record I could find of this allegation is from Vladimir Moss’ The Russian Golgotha where Moss claims that Saint Benjamin “[spoke] out openly against Rasputin.”29 I wouldn’t be surprised if Saint Benjamin at some point in his life criticized Rasputin, but there seems to be insufficient evidence to claim hatred.

In the past, I have argued against the idea that Saint Mardarije hated Rasputin based on the unreliability of Stepan Beletsky’s testimony regarding their relationship.30 However, with the release of Mardarije’s memoirs Incomprehensible Russia, I do believe he disliked Rasputin.31 This was probably due to two reasons:

1. Rasputin was anti-war. Saint Mardarije was a panslavist who supported war with Germany to free the Slavs from the German yoke. This led to a direct conflict with Rasputin, who preferred to avoid a disastrous war. However, Mardarije states in his memoirs that he spoke negatively about Rasputin before they even met, which suggests unjustified prejudice.32 Mardarije held the belief that Rasputin wanted vengeance, while the truth is that Rasputin simply found him somewhat suspicious since Mardarije enjoyed frequenting high-class gatherings and had strong political opinions.33

2. Rasputin was an enemy of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. This Freemason Grand Duke despised Rasputin but was actually friends with Saint Mardarije.34 Hence, in support of Grand Duke Nikolai, Mardarije waged a smear campaign against Rasputin. It’s interesting to note that Saint Mardarije’s memoirs were only recently discovered and heavily edited.35 In Chapter XXV, Mardarije cites an alleged telegram sent by Grand Duke Nikolai, threatening to hang Rasputin for asking to pray with and bless the troops. According to historian Sergey Fomin, this phrase was probably never uttered by the Grand Duke but was just a rumor circulated (perhaps by British Ambassador George Buchanan) to give Nikolai Nikolaevich legitimacy as a brave anti-Rasputinite.36 This theory seems to be in accordance with Military Priest Georgy Shavelsky’s memoirs.37 Either Saint Mardarije wasn’t immune to the propaganda of the time,38 or his memoirs have been maliciously edited. We think it’s probably the former, as was the case for many well-intentioned people at the time, but the latter possibility is nonetheless concerning.

Rasputin was adored by disturbed and evil people like Olga Lokhtina.

It is fair to claim that Lokhtina became disturbed and even crazy for some time. To claim she was evil, on the other hand, is incredibly unfair and ignorant. Since Davis does not tell the reader anything about Lokhtina other than her being “evil” (she is not mentioned again in the article) we will briefly provide historical context. Olga Lokhtina was one of Rasputin’s female followers who was introduced to him by Archbishop Theophan.39 She became one of his most loyal supporters after Rasputin healed her of Neurasthenia Gastrica, just another example of his gift of healing.40 However, to Rasputin’s dismay, in 1911 she was influenced by Iliodor41 into acting like a “Fool for Christ.”42 Being aware of Iliodor’s corruption, Rasputin prohibited this completely, but Lokhtina did not heed his advice and became completely irrational.43 Under Iliodor’s advice, she was forced to abandon her family and act like a fool, which caused her relatives to start avoiding her. In fact, the only person who did not turn away from her was Grigory Rasputin, preventing her from becoming a complete social outcast.44 Grigory continued helping the unstable Lokhtina for years, until an episode when she gravely insulted Rasputin’s wife Paraskeva, which caused Lokhtina and Rasputin to separate.45 In a fit of madness and desperation, she went to see Iliodor at the Florishchev Hermitage, where she was simply turned away due to her “insanity.” She lived with Elder Macarius at the Verkhoturye Monastery for a while in a state of hopelessness, until receiving news of the assassination attempt on Rasputin in 1914. After learning of Iliodor’s involvement in this plot, she recovered completely and became spiritually sound, bitterly regretting her actions against Rasputin. In 1916, Rasputin visited the Verkhoturye Monastery and found Olga Lokhtina “carrying firewood for him (Macarius), cleaning his cell, praying incessantly, dressed all in white, with icons on her chest.”46 In 1917, she was arrested by the Provisional Government and questioned about her relationship with Grigory Rasputin as part of an official state investigation. The Provisional Government profoundly despised Rasputin and even had his body burned months after his death.47 Despite this prejudice and the fact that her life depended on it, Lokhtina defended Rasputin during the investigation, stating that he was an Elder of God. In her own words, "I have experienced the power of his sanctity on myself, so for me now everything is closed."48 Her fate after this is unknown. To conclude, she could hardly be called an “evil” woman, and her disturbance was not caused by Rasputin but by his enemies.

It must be noted that Davis only mentions Iliodor’s name twice in his whole article.

Rasputin was despised by disturbed and evil people like Sergei Trufanov.

Very true. In fact, we have written a whole article on Rasputin’s greatest enemy, the Apostate Sergey Trufanov. We recommend reading it, as Davis provides no historical context for this notorious character in Russian history.49

So, for every quote about Rasputin’s great sanctity, there’s an equally weighty quote about his depravity. For every madman who said he was God, there’s one who said he was the Devil.

This is a dishonest way to frame the views people held of Rasputin. The idea that Iliodor’s testimony is equivalent to that of Anna Vyrubova,50 for example, is preposterous. Not all quotes are equally weighty.

At the same time, we may note one consistent pattern.

The early-20th century Russian elite had a spiritually adventurous streak. Many were involved in spiritualism, theosophy, and other such un-Christian practices. For many others, a sincere Orthodoxy was mixed with a weakness for pseudo-mysticism and other forms of quackery. Unfortunately, the Tsaritsa was an example of the latter, as evidenced by her early friendship with the French occultist Nizier Anthelme Philippe.

Davis is now trying to convince us that the Tsarina was spiritually weak and naive. For this asinine allegation, he cites the Tsarina’s friendship with Nizier Anthelme Philippe. Describing him as an “occultist” is an incredibly unfair characterization of a humble and devout Catholic man. Historian Sergey Fomin investigated the character of Nizier Anthelme Philippe and concluded that he, like Rasputin, was slandered by jealous aristocrats.51 I personally interviewed Father Andrew Phillips, author of the book A Life for the Tsar: Gregory Efimovich Rasputin-Novy. Fr. Andrew thoroughly explained the historical truth about Nizier Anthelme Philippe, which I will include in the footnotes.52 According to the Orthodox Monk Thomas (Фома Бэттс), Philippe condemned hypnotism and magic due to his Christian faith.53 In fact, he said that to be healed one should ask God and urged people to keep Christ’s commandments.54 Regardless of any shortcomings he may have had, Philippe was undoubtedly a well-intentioned Christian and not an occultist or charlatan.

Davis succeeds in slandering the Tsarina as spiritually immature and a devout Catholic man as an occultist quack.

Rasputin’s supporters tended to be drawn from the ranks of these “adventurers.”

Davis borrows the word “adventurer” from page 42 of Smith’s book, his only source of information.55 This is probably a reference to the Russian word “авантюрист” literally translating to “adventurer” but also meaning “chancer” or “conman.”

Meanwhile, the more traditionally Orthodox elements of society tended overwhelmingly to oppose him. Indeed, as we shall see, the political fallout regarding Rasputin was by far the worst in conservative circles.

This is a baseless assertion which Davis fails to prove in his article. No evidence cited at all.

Having said that, let’s consider the evidence from Rasputin’s life.

Some of his contemporaries claimed that the young Rasputin was a drunk, a womanizer, and a thief. Subsequent historians have taken this more or less for granted. Many have even bought into the idea that his surname was actually a nickname: a play on the Russian rasputni, meaning “degenerate.”

None of this is true, however. Rasputin’s family acquired their name when they moved to Siberia, and there’s no evidence that it reflected on their low moral character. Moreover, the young Gregory had no major run-ins with the authorities.

All of this is true, no objections here. Rasputin’s name actually derived from the word rasputiye, which means crossroads, and was given to those who lived “at the parting of the roads,”56 “which provided access to either Tyumen to the west or to Tobolsk in the northeast.”57

All credible sources suggest that Rasputin began his life as an ordinary peasant, marrying and having children at a young age. Then, quite suddenly, he embraced the life of a “wanderer,” like the narrator of Way of the Pilgrim. He gained a reputation for his magnetic personality, his earthy preaching, and his piercing insight into the human condition.

This is also correct and has been explored thoroughly in our article The True Religion of Grigory Rasputin.58

Still, there were early signs that Rasputin might wander off the difficult path:

1. He effectively abandoned his family to become a “pilgrim.”

He did not abandon his family. While he did go on several pilgrimages that would keep him away from home (sometimes for years) during the 1890s, he would always return back to Pokrovskoye to be with his family. Friends of Rasputin in the village would help the family with whatever they needed while Rasputin heeded his calling as a pilgrim, and his wife was proud that her husband was “the elect of God.”59 After discovering his duty to serve the Tsar, he abandoned his wanderings and spent long periods of time in Saint Petersburg. He saw his family often and ensured their safety and survival. They all outlived him, as their time together was cut short by his brutal martyrdom in 1916.

2. He never submitted to the authority of a spiritual father. Indeed, he was constantly at odds with several bishops of the Orthodox Church.

This is not true. Rasputin’s spiritual father was Elder Macarius of Verkhoturye.60 As for his conflict with “several bishops” (who aren’t named), the truth is that some priests liked him and some didn’t.

3. He had a habit of stroking and kissing his female acolytes.

This is presented with some sort of sexual connotation, but it was just Grigory Rasputin’s way of greeting people. He held people’s hands while talking about spirituality and sometimes kissed them as a greeting, always in an appropriate manner. Some people accused him of acting inappropriately towards women and investigations were launched, all of which failed to prove these scandalous allegations.61 All his female followers confirmed this in their depositions.62

So, knowing what we know about Rasputin’s early life, he definitely would seem vulnerable to the sins of which he is accused: pride, lust, etc.

What do you know about Rasputin’s early life? How can you so confidently declare that Rasputin would seem vulnerable to the sins of pride and lust?

What we actually know about Rasputin’s early life is that he was an Orthodox Christian, baptized one day after his birth and named after Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

Rasputin was described as having a gift of healing during his youth, which he would exercise to heal humans and animals in the village.63 In 1912, he spoke of his youth to a reporter from the Novoye Vremya newspaper: “In summer in my village, when it was warm and sunny and birds sang Edenic songs, I walked down the path and didn’t dare to walk in the middle of it. I dreamed about God, my soul was willing afar. I was crying and didn’t understand the meaning of my tears. When I got older, I often talked to my friends about God, about nature, about birds. I believed in good and kind things and often listened to old men about the lives of the saints, about great deeds, about the terrible and merciful Tsar. So my youth went in a kind of contemplation, in a dream, and then when life touched me, I hid in the corner and prayed secretly. I was unsatisfied and sad.”64 Clearly, Grigory Rasputin’s youth was marked by ardent zeal in the Russian Orthodox Faith, and signs of his gift of healing started to show. Davis doesn’t care to mention that, however. Instead, he moves on to the following section.

Rasputin and the Romanovs

Russia in the 20th century was awash with wanderers and startsy like Rasputin. What set him apart? What brought him to the Romanovs’ attention?

Rasputin represented the profound connection between the common Russian man and the monarchy, which angered the jealous aristocrat usurpers.

Many say that Rasputin healed Tsarevich Alexei’s hemophilia. That’s entirely wrong, however. St. Alexei was never healed of his hemophilia. At most, Rasputin was able to curb his worst “bleeding spells.” That in itself is noteworthy: when saints heal a disease, they actually heal it. They take the illness away. I’m not aware of any who merely offered temporary relief for symptoms.

Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians details that some people may be given “gifts of healing” (in plural).65 That is to say, not all gifts of healing are the same, nor do they manifest equally in all people. It is true that Alexei was never truly healed of his hemophilia, but perhaps it was God’s providence to allow Alexei to survive in order to accompany his family to their martyrdom, faithfully bearing the cross of his disease. Indeed, it is undeniable that without Rasputin, Alexei would have died way before 1918. It is also important to note that Rasputin did heal many people completely, such as Anna Vyrubova, who almost died in a train accident in 1915. While the doctors believed she “was a hopeless case,”66 Rasputin said “She will live” and so she did.67 He also healed Olga Lokhtina, as we already mentioned, as well as Lili Dehn’s son of a high fever.68 Historian Igor Evsin has compiled several miracles attributed to Rasputin in his book “Grigory Rasputin. Insights, Prophecies, Miracles” (Григорий Распутин. Прозрения, пророчества, чудеса). These include the miraculous healing of sick people, prophecies about the future, and several myrrh-streaming icons69 of Grigory Rasputin.70

Indeed, shortly after he met the Romanovs, Rasputin "prophesied" that Alexei would be cured of his hemophilia when he was thirteen years old. Of course, it was in his thirteenth year that St. Alexei was martyred by the Bolsheviks.

I am not aware of this prophecy, nor have I found any credible record of it. Alleged prophecies by Grigory Rasputin should always be analyzed with skepticism, as many come from the corrupt “memoirs” of Aron Simanovich.71

In any event, it does appear that Rasputin was able to stop Alexei’s bleeding spells. However, this could easily be explained by the fact that he prevented the Tsarevich from receiving aspirin. In the early 20th century, Bayer marketed their new drug as a “cure-all.” The Romanovs’ doctors tried using it to treat Alexei’s hemophilia; what they didn’t know is that aspirin is a blood thinner. Rasputin told the Tsarina not to let physicians “bother” Alexei; in this sense, he stopped them from administering an anticoagulant to a hemophiliac. That would explain why the boy’s condition seemed to improve when Rasputin entered their life.

Stress severely exacerbates hemophilia as well. Rasputin was known to have a calming effect on Alexei—indeed, on all children. However, there is no reason to attribute this healing power to supernatural causes. Even more “scientific“ theories (e.g., that Rasputin studied hypnotism) are unnecessary. When a little boy is sick, he naturally turns to his mother for comfort. St. Alexei’s bleeding spells made St. Alexandra extremely distraught, however, and St. Nicholas found it difficult to console either of them. Rasputin may have been the one calm, reassuring presence in Alexei’s little world.

So, there’s no reason to attribute any supernatural origin to Rasputin’s “healing powers.”

Rasputin’s effect on Tsarevich Alexei can’t be reduced to personal speculation about Rasputin’s medical recommendations. The truth is that no doctor in the Russian Empire knew how to treat Alexei for his disease, yet Rasputin, through his prayers, managed to save his life multiple times. In October, 1912, Alexei suffered an incident which left him bed-ridden and in need of surgery, which was virtually impossible due to his hemophiliac condition. Doctors did not know what to do and his condition continued deteriorating, his temperature rising by the hour. Alexei, sure that he would die, asked the Tsarina, “When I am dead, it will not hurt anymore, will it, Mama?”72 Then, on October 22, Grigory Rasputin sent a telegram to the Tsarina, saying: “God has seen your tears and heard your prayers. Grieve no more. Your son will live.”73 The next day, the Tsarevich’s temperature fell and his condition continued improving until he was completely healthy again. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of Nicholas II, would testify the following: “An hour later, my nephew was out of danger. Later that year, I met Professor Fedorov, who told me that the healing was completely inexplicable from a medical standpoint. Rasputin definitely possessed the gift of healing. There is no doubt about it. I saw these results with my own eyes, more than once. I also know that the most renowned doctors of the time were forced to admit it.”74

Similarly, Rasputin’s divine gifts permitted him to realize when the Tsarevich was in danger. For example, at one point a strange powder was administered to Alexei by Saint Anna Demidova as part of his treatment. This powder was secretly given to Anna by a member of the Imperial Family who said that it had healing powers and came from the Holy land. Anna believed that the powder was helping Alexei, since he would often go to sleep after it was applied. Rasputin, however, sensed that something was wrong and asked to analyze the powder, which turned out to be poison. This discovery was kept secret to avoid any more schemes against Alexei, but the Romanovs became suspicious of their extended family.75

It’s worth noting that St. Nicholas apparently admitted to having doubts about Rasputin and yet allowed his influence over the Tsaritsa to grow unchecked.

This is a common belief, even among supporters of the Tsar. However, there is absolutely no credible evidence for the idea that Nicholas did not like Rasputin, while there is overwhelming evidence proving the opposite.

Consider the following anecdote by Maria Bok, the daughter of Pyotr Arkadievich Stolypin, who served as prime minister from 1906 until his assassination in 1911. Stolypin was deeply suspicious of Rasputin and urged the Tsar to banish him from the Palace. “I agree with you, Pyotr Arkadievich,” St. Nicholas replied, “but better ten Rasputins than one of the empress’s hysterical fits.”

This is not an authentic quote. For starters, the Tsarina’s “hysteria” was an anti-Tsarist aristocratic myth that began among A.V. Bogdanovich and other decadent socialites.76 Those who knew the Tsarina personally, including Vladimir Sukhomlinov,77 Elizaveta Ersberg,78 and Sergey Kryzhanovsky, among others,79 attest that she had a stable character and warm personality. The idea that her husband thought any different is preposterous. We have their correspondence and diaries. The confusion comes from Maria von Bock’s memoirs, published in New York in 1953.80 This was more than 30 years after the revolution and consists of her quoting her father quoting the Tsar. The actual problem lies, however, in the fact that historians have discovered where this quote came from originally, and it was not from the Tsar’s mouth. The source from which von Bock took this phrase and attributed it to her father is a tabloid exposé published shortly after the February Revolution titled: "Better a Hundred Rasputins Than One Hysteria."81 This phrase was widely circulated, thus constituting trivial political folklore rather than true history. It is known that Tsar Nicholas died wearing a cross gifted to him by Rasputin.82 Likewise, while in exile in Tobolsk, Nicholas asked Dr. Vladimir Derevenko to secretly bring him a little box containing “the most valuable thing for them.” Putting his life at risk, Dr. Derevenko granted the Tsar’s wish. When giving the box to the Tsar the Doctor asked about what was inside, thinking it contained valuable jewels. “This is the most valuable thing for us – the letters from Grigory”, responded the Tsar.83 It is absurd to think that this same Tsar actually hated Rasputin and considered his wife to be hysterical.

On another occasion, Stolypin is said to have presented the Tsar with a dossier chronicling Rasputin’s many moral infractions. Nicholas essentially told the Prime Minister to mind his own business: “I know, Pyotr Arkadievich, that you are sincerely devoted to me. Perhaps everything you say is true. But I ask that you never again speak to me about Rasputin. In any event, there is nothing I can do.”

Once again, another inauthentic quote fabricated by an enemy of the Russian throne. This time, it’s the subversive Vasily Gurko and his book Tsar and Tsarina.84

Vasily Gurko was part of the traitor Generals to the Tsar,85 rejecting his order to send troops to Saint Petersburg in order to prevent unrest in 1917.86 According to historian Pyotr Multatuli,87 Gurko was one of the orchestrators of the February Revolution.88 Clearly, Gurko’s objective in fabricating this quote was to portray Tsar Nicholas II in a negative light, perpetuating the myth that he was a weak and incapable ruler. It is important to note that this source is a third-party citing a conversation not recorded anywhere and does not align with the Tsar’s character and attitude towards Rasputin.

This conversation allegedly occurred in 1911. In June of the same year, Tsar Nicholas wrote in his diary, “After dinner, we had the joy of seeing Grigory upon his return from Jerusalem and Mount Athos.”89 These are clearly contradictory statements. So, who is more credible? Tsar Nicholas in his own words, or the testimony of an anti-Tsarist subversive who — according to the most prominent Nicholas II biographer — was one of the masterminds behind the February Revolution?

Many have looked at this evidence and concluded that Nicholas was simply weak-willed. That’s not true, however. Rather, it seems the Tsar had a difficult time making up his mind about Rasputin. At one point, he supposedly told a courtier that Rasputin “is just a good, religious, simple-minded Russian. When I am in trouble, I like to have a talk with him and invariably feel at peace with myself afterwards.”

Davis only thinks that the Tsar was undecided on Rasputin because he is sharing fake quotes. This quote, however, is real and comes from the actual correspondence of Nicholas and Alexandra.90 For this, Davis seems to be almost directly quoting Orlando Figes.91 This quote from Nicholas II clearly contradicts the other fabricated statements.

The trouble is that Rasputin came to be seen as the power behind the Romanovs’ throne. It was known that Alexandra urged her husband to follow Rasputin’s advice on an absurd range of subjects, from food and transportation policy to land reform to military strategy.

The idea that Rasputin gave advice to the Tsar on everything is exaggerated. However, it is true that Rasputin sometimes gave the Tsar advice beyond matters of faith. In fact, Oleg Platonov analyzed Rasputin’s military and political advice and found it to be quite successful when implemented.92

Whether Nicholas ever took this advice is debatable.

This is not debatable at all. The idea that Rasputin had much political influence was created by the enemies of the Tsar to portray him as a weak ruler.

“Historian S. S. Oldenburg93 specifically traced how Rasputin’s political advice was actually implemented. The results were as follows:94

Rasputin (6 April 1915) advised the Sovereign not to travel to Galicia until the end of the war. The trip nevertheless took place.

Rasputin (17 April 1915) advised against convening the State Duma. The Duma was convened.

Rasputin advised (15 November 1915) that an offensive should be launched “near Riga.” Needless to say, no such offensive occurred.

On the contrary, Rasputin (15 and 29 November 1915) urged that the State Duma be convened: “Everyone now wishes to work; it is necessary to show them a little trust.” The convocation of the Duma was postponed until February.

Rasputin pleaded (12 October 1916) to “put an end to the useless bloodshed” of the attacks in the Kovel sector. In this matter he coincided with very broad circles, including figures of the so-called “Bloc.” Nevertheless, these appeals once again had no effect whatsoever on military operations.

Rasputin “proposed” Count Tatishchev for Minister of Finance (19 December 1915), General Ivanov for Minister of War (29 January 1916), and Engineer Valuev for Minister of Communications (10 November 1916). The Sovereign simply ignored these “proposals.” He did not even respond to them to the Empress. Incidentally, General N. I. Ivanov was dismissed from his post as Commander of the Southwestern Front around the same time.

Rasputin requested that Samarin not be appointed (16 June 1915) and that Markov not be appointed (23 May 1916). These requests were likewise ignored by the Sovereign.

Rasputin suggested Prince Obolensky as deputy minister to Protopopov and expressed dislike for Kurlov; in practice, it was Kurlov who was appointed.

As Oldenburg notes, all of these recommendations were silently rejected by the Sovereign, who did not wish to hurt the Empress’s feelings. At times, however, a certain irritation broke through. “The opinions of our Friend about people are sometimes very strange, as you yourself know” (9 November 1916).”95

Clearly, despite having strong political opinions, Rasputin did not have much political influence at all. Even those who opposed Rasputin, such as lady-in-waiting Sophie Buxhoeveden, stated that “Rasputine [sic] was not the political power pulling the strings of a political game in which Ministers were his pawns.”96

What’s more important is that he was widely seen as being under Rasputin’s spell, and the Tsar did nothing to dispel those rumors. On the contrary, he often forbade officials to criticize the man in his presence. On several occasions, St. Nicholas even removed Rasputin’s detractors from important posts. For instance, Alexander Samarin was dismissed from the post as Procurator of the Holy Synod after just three months in office, for the crime of criticizing Rasputin (more on this in a moment).

Indeed, he should have reprimanded a holy man — regardless of his innocence — to be on good terms with corrupt subversives.

Alexander Samarin was removed for questioning the Tsar’s authority, not for “criticizing Rasputin.” This corrupt character was friends with the Freemason Nikolai Nikolaevich, who despised Rasputin and eventually betrayed the Tsar.97 Samarin vehemently opposed the canonization of Saint John of Tobolsk, something that was only achieved thanks to a friend and alleged protégé of Rasputin, Bishop Varnava (Nakropin).98 According to historian Anatoly Stepanov, Samarin was removed for interfering in matters that concerned only the Tsar (for example, whether he should receive Rasputin or not, whether he should be friends with him or not).99 This was not a decision for Samarin to make but the Tsar, and his constant questioning of the Tsar’s authority and ability to govern led to his removal.

In fact, when Samarin accused the Tsar of letting an unworthy and evil person (Rasputin) near him and his family, Nicholas calmly replied, “Don't you recognize that Her Majesty and I are people of faith? How, then, could we possibly allow near ourselves a person such as the one you depict Rasputin to be? After all, we are not children."100

So, it’s not true that St. Nicholas tolerated Rasputin because he was afraid to stand up to his wife.

Correct.

It seems the Tsar himself was at least partly convinced of Rasputin’s holiness.

He was convinced enough to die wearing a cross gifted to him by Rasputin and claim that his letters were his most valuable possession.

In any event, he was entirely convinced that any damage Rasputin might do to his reputation was worth the comfort it brought to his wife and son—a tragic miscalculation.

Why would Tsar Nicholas betray one of the few people in the Russian Empire truly loyal to him? This once again is an absurd assertion. And with that unfair statement, Davis moves on to the next section of his article.

Rasputin and the Church

Now we’ll ask whether the attacks on Rasputin’s character are credible.

First, however, we should consider what the burden of proof would look like. Put it this way: Men who abuse positions of religious authority generally don’t abuse all of their followers. That’s an easy way to get caught. Rather, they target a handful of especially devoted and/or vulnerable acolytes.

So, it’s not enough for the Rasputinists to prove that their man had a wholesome relationship with Prince X or Countess Y. Any significant evidence that Rasputin abused his followers would be sufficient to prove that he was a fraud. And, to be sure, the evidence against him is fairly overwhelming.

Here, Davis claims that it would be fair to call Rasputin a fraud if he abused his followers, stating that the evidence for this is overwhelming. As you will see, he will go on to talk about Theophan and Hermogenes, yet the matter of abuse will not be brought up at all (other than a vague allegation). So much for the overwhelming evidence…

The most damning testimony comes from the many Orthodox clerics who initially allied themselves to Rasputin but then turned against him, in particular Bp. Theophan (Bystrov) of Poltava and Bp. Hermogen (Dolganyov) of Tobolsk.

Their testimony is in no way “damning,” but it is true that they were initially friends and later became enemies.

It should be noted that, like many Orthodox clerics, Theophan and Hermogen were predisposed to like Rasputin. The clergy had become alarmed by the popularity of Western occultists among the Russian elite, the Romanovs’ own “Master Philippe” being a prime example. These bishops saw Rasputin as an authentically Russian, genuinely Orthodox alternative. They hoped to find a true staretz to guide the the [sic] Tsar and Tsaritsa back to traditional Orthodox spirituality. They placed all of their hopes in Rasputin—a decision that both men would regret for the rest of their lives.

We have already responded to the Monsieur Philippe slander. Grigory Rasputin was authentically Russian and Orthodox. Theophan was misled and allegedly repented for betraying Rasputin during the emigration in France.101 It is known that Hermogenes repented for his own betrayal, blaming Iliodor the Apostate for manipulating him.102

Theophan was one of Rasputin’s very first supporters. The two even lived together for a time in St. Petersburg. Theophan offered Rasputin entrée among the pious Russian elites. Rasputin, meanwhile, secured Theophan a position as the Romanovs’ private confessor.

There is no historical proof whatsoever to suggest that Rasputin secured Theophan a position as the Romanovs’ private confessor. If he became their confessor around 1905 (as is usually suggested), then Rasputin had no influence at all to make this happen.

Before long, however, Theophan began to worry about Rasputin’s odd behavior. He was especially disturbed by the Siberian staretz's his [sic] habit of kissing and caressing his female followers, and of accompanying them to bath houses.

These were allegations brought out against Rasputin during the 1907 investigation. Rasputin rejected all these accusations103 and no damning proof was ever found. Rasputin would be investigated several other times in the future. All the investigations failed to prove any immorality on his part.104 In Bishop Alexei’s words, Rasputin was unequivocally “an Orthodox Christian” with “spiritual leanings (who) sought the truth of Christianity.” Most importantly, he would confess that suggestions of Rasputin’s impropriety were inspired by “all the enemies of the Throne of the Russian Tsar and His August Family.”105

In 1905, Theophan made a pilgrimage to the monastery in Sarov. He spent a whole night praying in the cell of St. Seraphim, praying for his friend. When he emerged the next morning, Theophan said to the monks: “Rasputin is on the false path.”

Davis here gets the dates wrong, as he misread pages 145-146 of Smith’s book (where he gets the narrative for this story).106 This actually happened in 1909, after Theophan’s trip with Rasputin to Verkhoturye. Theophan’s statement about Rasputin being on “the false path” had to do with his view that Rasputin’s life was too luxurious as he had a piano and bentwood “Viennese’” chairs, not for sexual immorality.107 It must be noted that Rasputin’s life was not very luxurious, and he donated most gifts he received to the Church.108 Theophan likely exaggerated his 1917 testimony, as by then he was convinced that Rasputin was evil.

When he returned to St. Petersburg, he confronted Rasputin about his inappropriate behavior. According to Theophan’s testimony, Rasputin promised to stop. Theophan forgave him and moved on, assuming that Rasputin was simply an ignorant peasant, unaware of the scandal his behavior would cause.

But Rasputin didn’t stop. So, Theophan and another bishop, Met. Benjamin (Fedchenkov) of Saratov, confronted him a second time, accusing him of “spiritual delusion” and threatening to publicly denounce him if he did not repent. Reportedly, Rasputin broke down in tears and vowed once again to change his ways.

In fact, Rasputin humbly begged for forgiveness for offending his accusers (despite having done no wrong)109, yet they had already made up their minds against him. It is worth noting that this whole charade was over Rasputin living in Saint Petersburg and meeting with the Romanovs, not due to alleged sexual immorality.110 The Tsarina defended Rasputin, which led to a final break between Theophan and Grigory. Metropolitan Benjamin despised Rasputin and promoted falsified documents that accused Rasputin of sexual immorality. He repented for this in emigration.111 Additionally, it is important to consider that, often, testimony was fabricated by the Extraordinary Investigatory Commission (ChSK) in order to slander Rasputin and the Romanovs.112 However, we do not even have access to Theophan’s deposition, only “fragments of texts, cut and truncated by E.S. Radzinsky.”113 Hence, this source has been double-edited and is unreliable. It is possible that Theophan himself embellished his testimony by omitting certain details of his relationship with Rasputin, such as the fact that he broke the seal of confession to tell the Tsarina about Rasputin’s “misdeeds.” These misdeeds originated in a false confession which Theophan heard and believed, for which he was rebuked by Hegumen Seraphim (Kuznetsov).114 It is also possible that he invented the stories of Rasputin’s impropriety with women (if he even testified to them), as they contradict Vyrubova’s testimony and all the facts that the Extraordinary Investigatory Commission managed to find.115 There is also the more sinister possibility, as we already mentioned, that all of this testimony was fabricated by the Commission. In any case, Theophan’s testimony as cited by Radzinsky116 is completely unreliable and can’t be used to condemn Rasputin.

He didn’t. And so, at last, Theophan requested an audience with the Sovereign. He and his colleagues in the Holy Synod prepared a comprehensive dossier on Rasputin’s offenses, which he intended to present to St. Nicholas. When he arrived at the Palace, however, he was met by St. Alexandra and her friend Anna Vyrubova, a fellow disciple of Rasputin. Rasputin had outmaneuvered him.

Here, Davis omits certain details. For example, the reason for the audience was to reveal the false confession Theophan heard. However, this act made the Tsarina lose faith in Theophan, as he had broken the seal of confession to spread false accusations against a holy man.117 Theophan’s testimony regarding this episode is laughable, framing it as a debate between the Empress and himself, with Theophan “clearly” coming out victorious. Theophan claimed that he had refuted all of the Tsarina’s arguments, and that these were probably given to her by Rasputin. The idea that Rasputin (who could hardly read and write properly) taught the Russian Empress to speak, and, what's more, to argue with the most learned Bishop of Russia is preposterous.118 It does, however, reveal Theophan’s resentment with Rasputin, even though he only had himself to blame for breaking the seal of confession and losing the Tsarina’s trust.

Theophan next appealed to Met. Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg. Theophan and Anthony passed their dossier to Sergei Lukyanov, then-Procurator of the Holy Synod. Lukyanov, in turn, passed the dossier to Prime Minister Solypin; Solypin then made his brave yet fruitless intervention with the Tsar.

We already explained that this “dossier” was nothing other than false written “confession” documents, invented personal confessions, false reports, and media defamation.119 Davis frames this as a “brave” intervention, when in fact it was just slander. Would Davis accept Rodzianko’s 1912 dossier about Rasputin as truthful as well? What about Dzhunkovsky’s in 1915?120 Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), for the record, was a virulent anti-Rasputinite who allowed the Church press to disseminate secular articles slandering Rasputin. When Rasputin attempted to explain himself, Anthony refused to meet him. He shared his malicious report with the Tsar, who did not believe him as it was well-known gossip. Anthony became so angry that he had a nervous breakdown and died.121

Shortly after their failed coup, Theophan was dismissed as the Romanovs’ confessor and banished to Ashtrakan. (As an aside: Lukyvanov was also dismissed as Procurator. Remember that his successor, Alexander Samarin, was also fired for daring to criticize Rasputin.)

Theophan was appointed to Astrakhan in 1912, two years after the incident with the Tsarina. In fact, he was promoted as the Bishop at the Simferopol and Tavricheskaya Eparchy in the Crimea in 1910.122 So much for Rasputin’s influence. Lukyanov was removed by the Tsar for being an incompetent subversive,123 not due to Rasputin’s influence (who wasn’t even in Russia at the time).124

After the Revolution, Theophan was nearly driven mad by guilt. He was convinced that, by introducing Rasputin to the Royal Family, he was directly responsible for the Russian Revolution.

It is true that Theophan felt guilt for what happened to the Romanovs. However, this guilt was caused by the fact that he unknowingly helped the enemies of the Russian throne come to power. Likewise, Hermogenes, who will be mentioned by Davis in a second, repented for slandering Rasputin before his death. This was recorded by Maria Rasputina’s husband, Boris Soloviev.125

Next we have Bp. Hermogen. Like Theophan, he befriended Rasputin shortly after the latter’s arrival in Petersburg. However, they had a falling out in 1911. Hermogen presented Rasputin with a catalogue of his misdeeds and demanded his repentance. Rasputin told the Tsar, who likewise ordered that Hermogen be banished to a monastery in Siberia.

Unfortunately, one of Hermogen’s allies—a corrupt monk named Ilyador—responded by leaking a letter that the Tsaritsa had written to Rasputin, expressing her desire to kiss his hands, etc. It was all perfectly innocent; again, no mainstream historian really believes that Rasputin and the Tsaritsa had an affair. Nevertheless, it was taken out of context by scandal-mongers and anti-royalists. As a result, St. Nicholas barred the press from publishing any material that was critical of Rasputin.

A complete study of Hermogenes and his relationship with Rasputin has been published on our website under the title A Russian Judas: The Apostasy of Hieromonk Iliodor. Therefore, we will simply copy and paste what has already been written previously about this topic. Perhaps before calling us out, Davis could have read the article, as his objections on Hermogenes have all been addressed.

For context, Iliodor (Sergey Trufanov) was a monk friend of both Rasputin and Hermogenes. He later started slandering Rasputin due to his megalomania or jealousy, and ended up apostatizing from the faith.126 Iliodor managed to fool Rasputin and Hermogenes into thinking he was a holy man, when in fact he was a blasphemous heretic who despised the foundations of the Orthodox Church and Jesus Christ.127 Convinced that Rasputin was the devil incarnate, or perhaps attempting to paint him as such, Iliodor stole letters from Rasputin’s house sent by the Tsarina.128 He would later creatively edit and leak them to the press and the Duma, insinuating the existence of a scandalous relationship between Rasputin and the Tsarina. In fact, the myth of “Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen” originated from none other than the apostate and traitor Sergey Trufanov. In 1911, Iliodor forced himself upon a woman during confession, attempting to violate her.129 When discovered, the cunning Iliodor quickly reversed the roles and accused the woman, named Madame L., of attempting to seduce him. In the spirit of Potiphar’s wife, Iliodor had the woman declared insane and attempted to have her exorcised, avoiding all responsibility. However, her family denounced Iliodor and made a complaint to the Holy Synod.130 When Rasputin found out, he was outraged and refused to associate with Iliodor anymore, already having suspicions about his former friend’s true character. Bishop Hermogenes and Iliodor invited him for a get-together on Vasilyevsky Island, apparently under the guise of mending their friendship. It must be mentioned that by now, Hermogenes thought Rasputin was a degenerate due to his alleged relationship with the Tsarina, a myth triggered by nonе other than their common “friend” Iliodor and his stolen fabricated letters.131 Iliodor had turned Hermogenes against Rasputin, instilling anger and hatred in him.132 The objective of this reunion was to extract a confession out of Rasputin regarding his alleged sexual crimes. At the reunion, Rasputin was surprised to see Iliodor standing defiantly in front of him. Mitya Kozelsky — a fraudster and crippled heretic who was responsible for spreading propaganda about Rasputin’s alleged scandalous affairs — was also there among other individuals, including priests, writers, and merchants.133 Hermogenes first asked Rasputin to defend Iliodor before the Tsar. Rasputin refused and told them exactly what he thought of Iliodor. The conspirators, seeing that they had no use for Rasputin, decided to dispose of him. Hermogenes began to beat up Rasputin, accusing him of heresy and immorality. Iliodor started attacking Rasputin while Mitya fell into an epileptic fit. A couple other witnesses also joined in the violence. Hermogenes and Iliodor attempted to choke Rasputin, but someone knocked on the door of the room, after which the assailants quickly fled.134 Grigory Rasputin managed to escape and told the Tsar that Hermogenes and Iliodor had tried to murder him. For this, Hermogenes was banished to Smolensk, while Iliodor was confined in the Florishchev Hermitage. Later, Hermogenes realized that Iliodor deceived him, stating: “I did not see that, like Satan who tempted Christ, this truly despicable creature, Iliodor, was circling around me, instilling hatred, stubbornness, and malice in me!”135

The testimonies of Bp. Theophan and Bp. Hermogen (now St. Hermogen the Newmartyr) is important for three reasons.

1. As we said, both men were initially friendly with Rasputin. They were not mere clericalists who resented being upstaged by a layman. On the contrary: they admired his simple, rustic spirituality. Also, Rasputin helped to advance their careers; they had nothing to gain from turning on him—at least, not in worldly terms. Theophan and Hermogen were at least sincere in their belief that Rasputin was a deviant and acted selflessly.

Nobody is arguing that they had something to gain. Rather, they were misled by evil individuals who often did have a lot to gain from the downfall of Rasputin and the Romanovs. Hermogenes and Theophan were undoubtedly sincere in their belief that Rasputin was evil, yet this was due to their pride and spiritual immaturity rather than a correct understanding of Rasputin’s character, as they would both end up admitting later on in their lives.

2. Theophan and Hermogen—along with Benjamin, Anthony, and other members of the Holy Synod—provided actual lists of Rasputin’s (supposed) crimes, both of which included drunkenness and adultery. Moreover, these lists were prepared by men who would conceivably have access to such information. They were not the vodka-fueled ramblings of bored aristocrats.

Leaving aside Davis’ use of ambiguous language when accusing Rasputin of drunkenness and adultery, we must note that these lists were made up of forged police reports and scandalous newspaper articles. These allegations have been thoroughly refuted by Russian historians.136

3. It shows that, quite early in Rasputin’s career, the Tsar placed a de facto ban on any criticism of his wife’s favorite. Church leaders simply were not allowed to voice their concerns about the Siberian staretz. Even if they were brave enough to speak out, how could they spread their warning without help from the press?

After the 1905 revolution, the Russian press was essentially free to publish whatever it wanted. The idea that there was a statewide ban on any publications about Rasputin is self-refuting: your own sources contain examples of media campaigns against Rasputin, such as the case of Saint Elizabeth and Met. Anthony Vadkovsky.

Church leaders did voice their concerns about Rasputin, and were disciplined if their complaints became inappropriate. Additionally, why are you presupposing that Rasputin was someone worthy of criticism and that freedom of the press is a virtue? I don’t believe you would hold criticism of Nicholas II to the same standard (nor should you). However, you claim that preventing unjust criticism of the Tsar’s friend is somehow an example of him banning “criticism of his wife’s favorite.” This despicable statement alone should make any Orthodox Christian disavow your article.

How many people could they tell by word of mouth before the Okhrana came knocking?

The Okhrana was fabricating the reports. What are you even arguing here?

This is the irony of the anti-Rasputin case. Most of the accusations that Rasputin’s contemporaries hurled at him was sensationalist nonsense. Yet this doesn’t prove that Rasputin was an angel. The truth about Rasputin never came out because the relevant authorities—i.e., the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church—were prevented from speaking out by St. Nicholas himself.

There were three investigations into the history, character, and activities of Rasputin during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II. We have all the documents, including accusations, testimonies, and conclusions available. In addition to that, we have dozens of testimonies from Rasputin’s contemporaries attesting to his life of service and holiness, and also several negative testimonies. All the archival material is available for historians to study, including investigations, memoirs, newspaper articles, and letters. Davis is basically claiming that Nicholas II burned the Library of Alexandria down and this is why we will never know the truth about Rasputin. Maybe read more than 1 (ONE!) book about Rasputin before claiming that the Tsar censored everything and everyone.

With this shameful conclusion to his third section, Davis moves on to the last one. This might be the worst one yet.

Conservatives for Rasputin?

This is why, as many historians have pointed out, the major poilitical [sic] fallout of the Rasputin affair occurred mainly on the political Right. For instance, in 1910, the Moscow Gazette—an ultraconservative newspaper—called for the Holy Synod and its Chief Procurator to investigate this wandering peasant. “The personality of Gregory Rasputin must be brought to light,” it declared, “and this seduction must be stopped.”

Utilizing the Moskovskiye Vedomosti (Moscow News/Gazette) as a source on Rasputin is comical. This is the newspaper that published Mikhail Novoselov’s slanderous and salacious articles against Rasputin. These articles were so graphic in nature that the Tsarist government had to confiscate them under the anti-pornography laws of the Russian Empire.137 These articles called Rasputin a “khlyst” and “sex maniac.”138 We know that he was neither, yet since the Moscow Gazette called itself “conservative” we must listen to whatever slander it published. This is the same narrative that politicians like Guchkov and Purishkevich used to subvert Tsar Nicholas II. They were both considered “ultraconservatives,” yet the former said that he would strangle Nicholas II if he did not abdicate,139 while the latter murdered Rasputin and then collaborated with the Provisional Government.140

Of course, the Synod tried to investigate Rasputin but was prevented by order of the Tsar. Not one but two Procurators tried to have him censored; however, they were removed by order of the Tsar. And the Gazette couldn’t publish a follow-up, also by order of the Tsar.

This was in 1910. Rasputin was investigated in 1907, 1909, and 1912. Nobody stopped them, and they proved nothing other than Rasputin’s innocence.141 We already explained that the Procurators were removed for incompetence.

And the Gazette couldn’t publish a follow-up, also by order of the Tsar.

Novoselov did publish a follow-up in 1912 titled Grigorii Rasputin and Mystical Debauchery,142 but instead of going to the Gazette, he went to Guchkov since his brother owned the Golos Moskvy (Voice of Moscow) newspaper.143 This article was not censored. Guchkov began to attack Rasputin at the Duma, putting unnecessary pressure on Nicholas II.144 This is the same Guchkov that despised the Tsar and wanted to strangle him.

Five years later, Lev Tikhomirov—the Gazette’s editor—wrote in his diary:

“People say that the Emperor has been warned to his face that Rasputin is destroying the Dynasty. He replies: “Oh, that’s silly nonsense; his importance is greatly exaggerated.” An utterly incomprehensible point of view. For this is in fact where the destruction comes from, the wild exaggerations. What really matters is not what sort of influence Grishka has on the Emperor, but what sort of influence the people think he has. This is precisely what is undermining the authority of the Tsar and the Dynasty.”

Rasputin was derisively called “Grishka” by his detractors. This quote is interesting, as Tikhomirov himself states that what really matters is the public perception of Rasputin’s influence. The question, in this case, is who helped create the incorrect perception of Rasputin’s ubiquitous influence in Russia. The answer, clearly, is the subversive press, which he led as editor of the Gazette. It must be noted that Tikhomirov also wrote: “There is no tsar, and no one wants one…”145

Similar feelings of bewilderment swept through the Church, the army, the court, and other royalist bastions. Again, we can’t emphasize this point enough: It was the most conservative elements of Russian society who feared that Rasputin would bring down the monarchy. And, tragically, they were proven right.

Baseless assertions. This is just referenced because I stated that all of the article would be included in the response, even if it lacked substance. No proof at all has been shown that Rasputin brought down the Russian monarchy. If anything, this only helped emphasize the role of the press in subverting the Russian Empire.

Why, then, are so many Orthodox eager to defend him?

Because now we know that, despite malicious slander, he was a good and holy man. You obviously have a different theory, though, so please enlighten us.

The truth is that Rasputin’s apologists tend to be young men who converted to Orthodoxy in the last couple of years.

Ironically, Davis himself is a young man who converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism in 2024. Conversely, the author and founder of the Rasputin Archive (myself) is a cradle Orthodox Christian. Davis’ point is self-refuting. Fortunately, it is nonsensical, as both Cradles and Converts can and do venerate Rasputin.

No doubt they’re perfectly sincere. They might simply assume that the accusations against Rasputin were fabricated by the Bolsheviks. And, as we said, some of them were!

As we already explained, most of the accusations actually came from the aristocracy and the press, not the Bolsheviks.

Yet if we lay aside the polemics—communist and royalist, Leftist and Rightist—we can’t avoid the conclusion that Rasputin was a fraud and a deviant.

We have proven quite the opposite throughout this response.

It may be hard to believe that two holy people like Sts. Nicholas and Alexandra would be taken in by this huckster. Then again, the Devil is a master of lies and deceit. Christ Himself warned that Antichrists will come with “great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

What even is the argument here? Your claim necessitates that we believe the Romanovs were less discerning than the modern gossip writers you use as sources of information.

Even then, if these young men want to base their whole understanding of history on vibes, they should know that the Orthodox conservatives of the early 20th century were on the anti-Rasputin side, with a few notable (and tragic) exceptions.

Nobody is basing anything on “vibes.” This is quite ironic coming from someone who wrote a whole article about a person after reading a single book.

What “Orthodox Conservatives” are you even talking about? The deceived,146 or the subversives?147 Take your pick.

In closing, I will point out that, in 2001, Patriarch Alexei II (of blessed memory) was asked about the possibility of canonizing Rasputin. “This is madness!” he replied. “What believer would want to stay in a Church that equally venerates murderers and martyrs, lechers and saints?”

This is true and has been addressed in our article The Case for the Canonization of Grigory Rasputin. Patriarch Alexy was simply wrong in this case. This was said by him in response to repeated calls for the canonization of Rasputin, which led to a meeting in October, 2004. Here, the Commission on the Glorification of Saints of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church discussed several questions of faith and veneration. The results were, among other things, the rejection of any sort of canonization for Grigory Rasputin.

Nevertheless, in 2004, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church charged Met. Juvenaly (Poyarkov) of Krutitsy with leading a commission to investigate Rasputin’s cause for canonization. Met. Juvenaly correctly advised the Synod against moving forward with his cause, citing the overwhelming evidence of Rasputin’s degeneracy.

This is the Commission referenced in the previous paragraph. Unfortunately, this is often enough for skeptics and anti-Rasputin critics to reject his canonization, yet such ideas only stem from ignorance and lack of research. As part of this commission, a report was submitted by Metropolitan Juvenaly (Poyarkov) regarding the life of Grigory Rasputin. For this report, rather than consulting credible historical sources, the Metropolitan used liberal and Bolshevik sources that slander not only Rasputin but also the Tsar and his family. His two main sources were the book “The Holy Devil” by the anti-Christian apostate Sergey Trufanov (Iliodor), and the fictional memoirs of Vera Zhukovskaya, who never personally knew Rasputin and cited atheist sources of information as part of her work.148 This is “the overwhelming evidence of Rasputin’s degeneracy” that Davis mentions. This report also states that Rasputin was killed by people “sincerely devoted to the Tsar” which we know to be blatantly false.149 In writing this report, Metropolitan Juvenaly not only displayed extreme ignorance and irresponsibility, but also found himself disagreeing with modern Orthodox Christian historiography in favor of liberal and Bolshevik sources. This Orthodox historiography includes the work of Metropolitan John (Snychov) of St. Petersburg, who supported Rasputin. Rather than representing the Church’s authoritative opinion, Juvenaly’s negligent report represented historical ignorance and envy against Metropolitan John and other supporters of Rasputin. This report also knowingly concealed objective archival sources that exonerated Rasputin from the accusations of his slanderers, choosing instead to “repeat slanderous rumors orchestrated by the enemies of Russian Orthodoxy and the Monarchy to undermine the Tsar’s authority.”150 It is no wonder that “radio stations hostile to Russia — the BBC, the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, and Deutsche Welle — unanimously endorsed Juvenaly’s report ‘as an attempt by the healthy forces of the Russian Church to repel reactionaries and obscurantists.’” Juvenaly also condemns the very principle of Monarchy and Autocracy. In his report, he contrasts Orthodoxy and Monarchy, condemning the principle of “unlimited power”.151 He says that the supporters of Rasputin “glorify not Christians who have acquired the Holy Spirit, but the principle of unlimited political power”152 a pejorative reference to the system of monarchy, suggesting that being a monarchist is immoral.

Oleg Platonov, a prominent Russian historian who has studied all the archival sources related to Grigory Rasputin’s life, has provided a long and detailed refutation of Metropolitan Juvenaly’s report, which unfortunately influenced the results of this liberal commission. In summary, the singular opinions of some Church liberals must not influence the Orthodox faithful into ceasing veneration of a holy man such as Grigory Efimovich Rasputin.

Let this be the final word on the matter. And let’s all find a better hill to die on.

This simply cannot be the “final word on the matter.” How prideful can one be to declare himself the absolute authority on a topic he has hardly researched? Historical debate and exploration is fruitful, slander and ignorance is pernicious. The Rasputin Archive project is one of historical truth against the myths that have maligned a holy man for more than a century. These myths were created to destroy the Tsar, discredit the Church, and justify a catastrophe that ended the lives of millions of faithful Orthodox Christians. We will not stop with the historical rehabilitation of Rasputin. What better hill is there to die on?

2

Beginnings

Iliodor, named Sergey Trufanov, was born in 1880 in a small Cossack village near the Don river. At age fifteen, he entered the theological seminary, graduating five years later and moving to Saint Petersburg. He was ordained a Hieromonk in 1903 and graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1905, where he became acquainted with the subversive spy-priest George Gapon.2 George Gapon orchestrated the 1905 Revolution against the Tsar. Iliodor briefly met Grigory Rasputin in 1904, when the strannik complimented him on his method of prayer.3 However, their friendship really flourished around five years later, when Rasputin interceded to stop Iliodor’s transfer from his monastery in Tsaritsyn to Minsk. At that moment, Iliodor stated that “Had any one suggested that I should prostrate myself at Gregory’s feet and kiss them, I should have done so without stopping to think.”4 Grigory and Iliodor became good friends, often talking about religious matters and the importance of the Orthodox faith. Rasputin — perhaps naively or accurately at the time — considered Iliodor to be a devout man of God. In 1914, after an assassination attempt against him incited by Iliodor, Rasputin would painfully recall:“I lived with him amicably and shared my impressions with him.”5 In 1908, Rasputin joined his old friend Bishop—now Saint—Hermogenes Dolganyov, who was already a friend of Iliodor as well. The three became close and met in 1909 to discuss their faith and love for God. Hermogenes was very fond of Rasputin, who he considered to be a man of God and faithful Orthodox Christian. In Hermogenes’ own words: “This is a servant of God. You would be sinning if you even mentally condemned him.”6 Rasputin himself described Hermogenes as a “good bishop [with] a righteous spirit.”7

Photograph from 1908 depicting Rasputin, Hermogenes, and Iliodor. Hermogenes wrote, “The Lord is my enlightenment,” Grigory, “Our life in Christ is by God’s providence,” and Iliodor limited himself to writing his name.8

Meanwhile, Iliodor continued to be Rasputin’s friend, yet early signs of wicked disgust started to show in him. Describing his friend Iliodor would recall that “Gregory was dressed in a cheap, greasy, gray coat… His pockets were inflated like those of a beggar… The hair on the saint’s head was roughly combed in one direction; his beard looked like a piece of sheepskin pasted to his face to complete its repulsive ugliness. His hands were pock-marked and unclean, and there was much dirt under his long and somewhat turned-in nails. His entire body emitted an indeterminate, disagreeable smell.”9 Such disdain for a peasant’s humble lifestyle revealed Iliodor’s true character. Following Hermogenes’ orders, Iliodor and Rasputin would visit several homes in Tsaritsyn, helping the poor and needy.10 Iliodor led a monastery in the center of Tsaritsyn, where he acted like a demagogue and provocateur.11 In November 1909, Rasputin and Iliodor went to Pokrovskoye, the former’s homeland, by train. This episode would be mentioned in Iliodor’s scandalous memoirs, where he would creatively invent lascivious stories about the peasant to sell more books and destroy his reputation.12 At Pokrovskoye, Iliodor stayed with Rasputin in his home, which was adorned with icons and crosses.13 Iliodor would visit Rasputin in his village in 1909, 1910, and 1911.

Grigory Rasputin

Falling-out

It was probably in these latter years that Iliodor began to harbor ill feelings towards Rasputin, perhaps due to his megalomania or jealousy. This also coincided with a massive propaganda campaign against Rasputin from the nobility, press, and evil or misinformed church hierarchs. Here the true character of Iliodor must be analyzed, lest anyone believe that his views on Rasputin were justified. Iliodor was a megalomaniac political activist and careerist, who was incredibly eloquent and devious. He managed to fool Rasputin and Hermogenes into thinking he was a holy man, when in fact he was a blasphemous heretic who despised the foundations of the Orthodox Church and Jesus Christ.14 Convinced that Rasputin was the devil incarnate, or perhaps attempting to paint him as such, Iliodor stole letters from Rasputin’s house sent by the Tsarina.1516 He would later creatively edit and leak them to the press and the Duma, insinuating the existence of a scandalous relationship between Rasputin and the Tsarina. In fact, the myth of “Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen” originated from none other than the apostate and traitor Sergey Trufanov. In 1911, Iliodor forced himself upon a woman during confession, attempting to violate her.17 When discovered, the cunning Iliodor quickly reversed the roles and accused the woman, named Madame L., of attempting to seduce him. In the spirit of Potiphar’s wife, Iliodor had the woman declared insane and attempted to have her exorcised, avoiding all responsibility. However, her family denounced Iliodor and made a complaint to the Holy Synod.18 When Rasputin found out, he was outraged and refused to associate with Iliodor anymore, already having suspicions about his former friend’s true character. Bishop Hermogenes and Iliodor invited him for a get-together on Vasilyevsky Island, apparently under the guise of mending their friendship. It must be mentioned that by now, Hermogenes thought Rasputin was a degenerate due to his alleged relationship with the Tsarina, a myth triggered by nonе other than their common “friend” Iliodor and his stolen fabricated letters.19 Iliodor had turned Hermogenes against Rasputin, instilling anger and hatred in him.20 The objective of this reunion was to extract a confession out of Rasputin regarding his alleged sexual crimes. At the reunion, Rasputin was surprised to see Iliodor standing defiantly in front of him. Mitya Kozelsky — a fraudster and crippled heretic who was responsible for spreading propaganda about Rasputin’s alleged scandalous affairs — was also there among other individuals, including priests, writers, and merchants.2122 Hermogenes first asked Rasputin to defend Iliodor before the Tsar to avoid his condemnation, yet he refused and in fact told them exactly what he thought of Iliodor. The conspirators, seeing that they had no use for Rasputin, decided to dispose of him. Hermogenes began to beat up Rasputin, accusing him of heresy and immorality. Iliodor started attacking Rasputin while Mitya fell into an epileptic fit. A couple other witnesses also joined in the violence. Hermogenes and Iliodor attempted to choke Rasputin, but someone knocked on the door of the room, after which the assailants quickly fled.2324 Grigory Rasputin managed to escape and told the Tsar that Hermogenes and Iliodor had tried to murder him. For this, Hermogenes was banished to Smolensk, while Iliodor was confined in the Florishchev Hermitage.

Apostasy

Iliodor lived in the Florishchev Hermitage but soon grew tired of this confinement. Unable to bear a more than deserved punishment, he decided to quit his monastic vows in 1912. Almost theatrically, he wrote a letter to the Holy Synod stating: “I renounce your God. I renounce your faith. I renounce your Church” and signed it with his blood. Iliodor presents this apostasy quite proudly in his autobiography.25 In response, the Church defrocked him. Iliodor, who always attempted to give the impression of a holy man, turned out to be spiritually dead and morally rotten. Apparently, after this apostasy, Rasputin wrote to the Tsar and Tsarina in fear and worry, stating, “Darling Papa and Mama: Iliodor is a horrible devil. A renegade. An accursed one. He must be declared insane. Doctors must be called, or he will prove a calamity. He dances to the devil’s pipes.”26 This would prove to be correct, as Iliodor would later plan a failed assassination attempt on Rasputin in 1914 through a follower of his named Khioniya Guseva. Towards the end of his life, he would become a Baptist who preached that Christ is not God but a simple man born of a simple woman, and that he never rose from the dead.27

1914 Assassination Attempt

In January 1914, the police received information from Ivan Sinitsyn, a former disciple of Iliodor, who stated that Iliodor had begun to plan a “number of terrorist acts” to end Rasputin’s life. Sinitsyn submitted multiple letters written by Iliodor, which revealed that a woman named Khioniya Guseva received a large sum of money. On February 2nd, Sinitsyn contacted the police saying that Iliodor had threatened to murder him for his betrayal. Ivan Sinitsyn died mysteriously after eating fish that same day.28 Another member of Iliodor’s conspiracy later submitted a deposition, stating that he urged them to “gather money to organize Rasputin’s murder.” The police ignored the information.29 A couple of weeks before Germany declared war on Russia, Rasputin was attacked by a stranger in front of his home. It’s a well-known fact that Rasputin was against Russian involvement in WW1 and actively advised the Tsar against it.30 However, during the most important moments, he wasn’t available to advise the Tsar due to his injuries and limited himself to sending telegrams from the hospital, asking him not to engage in the war.31 The attacker was a thirty-three year old woman from Tsaritsyn who stabbed him with a dagger she had concealed under her skirt. Wounding Rasputin in the abdomen, she lunged again to murder him. Fortunately, a stranger who saw what was going on intervened and tackled Guseva to the ground. She was taken to a police station where she quickly confessed her crime, claiming that she tried to murder Rasputin because he was the “antichrist.”32 She was deemed to be suffering from insanity due to late-stage syphilis and emotional scarring after Iliodor’s expulsion from Tsaritsyn. Rasputin was severely wounded and the prognosis was not good. However, due to a combination of quick medical attention and prayer, he made it through. In the words of Bishop Varnava of Tobolsk: “The Lord God will save His faithful servant.”33

Among Guseva’s belongings, letters bearing a signature and a similar writing style to Iliodor’s were found. A note received by Rasputin was presented during the investigation, signed by a man named “Uznik” (prisoner) inferring Iliodor in the Hermitage. This note read: “I am the winner in this battle, and not you, Grigory! … I am telling you… I – am your nemesis!”34 Before he could be questioned, Iliodor quickly fled his home in a car owned by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, another anti-Rasputin warmonger and megalomaniac.35 Eventually, the Tyumen Court declared that Iliodor was guilty of inciting murder. By this time, however, Trufanov had already escaped to Norway through the Finnish border dressed as a woman with the help of Maxim Gorky.36 Decades later, Iliodor would confess to the crime in his book Martha of Stalingrad.37 Khioniya Guseva would later be freed by the Kerensky Government and either her or her sister tried to assassinate Patriarch Saint Tikhon in a similar way.3839

Khioniya Guseva, Iliodor’s pawn in the attempted murder of Rasputin

Conclusion

Eventually, Iliodor escaped Russia and went to America, where he would act in scandalous movies about Rasputin as himself.40 He published his book about Rasputin in America as well, for which he was handsomely rewarded by the Metropolitan Journal in New York.41 After the October revolution, the Bolsheviks published his book as well, demonstrating once again that Rasputin was despised by aristocrats and revolutionaries alike. In the early 1920s, he offered his support to Lenin in building communism, which Lenin promptly ignored. Iliodor saw that he had no future in Russia, and moved definitively to New York. There, he spread stories about how he had been embraced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia, how he had visited the Romanovs at Ipatiev during Easter in 1918, and how he was actually presented with the head of Tsar Martyr Nicholas II in a glass jar by none other than Khioniya Guseva.42 Throughout the rest of his life, Iliodor was involved in several get-rich-quick schemes, most of which failed. He lost most of his money in the Crash of 1929 and afterwards lost a lawsuit to René Füllöp-Miller.43 His final days were spent working as an impoverished janitor in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Tower in New York City, a fitting end for such a wicked man.44 The story of Iliodor is incredibly important because of the extent to which he could manipulate people around him. Iliodor was so eloquent and cunning that he managed to fool holy men like Saint Hermogenes into despising Rasputin. Hermogenes eventually realized that Iliodor deceived him, stating: “I did not see that, like Satan who tempted Christ, this truly despicable creature, Iliodor, was circling around me, instilling hatred, stubbornness, and malice in me!”45 It has been suggested by historians46 that the two eventually reconciled, yet not much information is available about this. Ultimately, however, Hermogenes recognized his error in trusting the subversive Iliodor, for which he repented bitterly until the day of his martyrdom. Despite this, many Church hierarchs continue to slander Grigory Efimovich Rasputin with information extracted from these types of individuals. It is unfortunate, for example, that Iliodor’s memoirs were the principal source used by Metropolitan Juvenaly in his libelous report for the Commission on the Glorification of Saints of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2004.47

Such is the story of the man who became, perhaps, Rasputin’s greatest enemy — an apostate, a liar, and a traitor. Like Judas, who saw holiness in Christ our Lord and still decided to betray Him, Iliodor destroyed his only true friend for the sake of his megalomaniac desires for power and fame. And like Judas, who despondently suffered the consequences of his betrayal, may Sergey Trufanov the Apostate enjoy his reward where he rightfully belongs.48

Sergey Trufanov, 1913

The Orthodox Criteria for Canonization

Let us start by looking at what is necessary for one to be considered a Saint in the Church. The criteria for Sainthood in the Orthodox Church could be reduced to four attributes:6

1) Holy Baptism

2) An Orthodox mindset

3) A virtuous life

4) Miracles

If Grigory Rasputin fulfills these criteria, we must then consider the possibility of his canonization.

Holy Baptism

Grigory Rasputin was born on January 9, 1869 and baptized one day after his birth, on January 10, as an Orthodox Christian. He was named after Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

Page from the 1869 Pokrovskoye Church Register.

An Orthodox Mindset

Grigory Rasputin never strayed away from traditional Orthodox Christian beliefs. His house was filled with Icons and he prayed constantly,7 also going on several pilgrimages to Orthodox monasteries.8 He was unjustly accused of being a sectarian heretic and a degenerate. These accusations have been thoroughly refuted in my article “The True Religion of Grigory Rasputin.” Official Church investigations followed, which never managed to prove anything evil about him. In fact, the only thing they demonstrated, in Bishop Alexei’s words, was that Rasputin was “an Orthodox Christian” with “spiritual leanings (who) sought the truth of Christianity.”9 Each of the four investigations against Rasputin led to the same conclusion: Rasputin was a devout Orthodox Christian with no ties to any heretical sects.10

A Virtuous Life

The statement that Rasputin lived a virtuous life is perhaps the most scandalous assertion for those who still believe that he was a degenerate sexual deviant who managed to demonically influence the Romanovs. This view has no historical basis whatsoever and is only supported by inaccurate and false liberal and Bolshevik historiography. The truth is that Grigory Rasputin lived a life of faith, helping the poor and the needy with everything he had. During the investigations against him, it was revealed that Rasputin would donate every gift and donation he received to the Church.11 He got married through the Orthodox Church and baptized all his children Orthodox Christians.12 His main role throughout his 47 years of life was serving as a spiritual advisor and friend to the Romanovs, protecting them through the Grace of God. Tsarevich Alexei was healed several times by his miraculous power of healing, which represented a virtuous life of service. His death was also virtuous and noble, as he was martyred due to his religious convictions and loyalty.

According to Kosorotov, Rasputin’s Autopsy Report showed clear signs of prolonged torture, his body and genitals gruesomely disfigured by his murderers.13 These observations led historians to suggest that Rasputin, like Andrei, and later the Tsar and his family, was subjected to a ritual murder by the enemies of Orthodoxy.14

Miracles

Miracles can either be performed by a person in their physical life or after reposing in the Lord. Fundamentally, we of course understand that all of these miracles are God working through his Saints. Rasputin has several attested miracles both in physical life and after his martyrdom. During his life, he displayed miraculous healing powers in treating Tsarevich Alexei for hemophilia. No doctor in the Russian Empire knew how to treat Alexei for his disease, yet Rasputin, through his prayers, managed to save his life multiple times. In October, 1912, Alexei suffered an incident which left him bed-ridden and in need of surgery, which was virtually impossible due to his hemophiliac condition. Doctors did not know what to do and his condition continued deteriorating, his temperature rising by the hour. Then, on October 22, Grigory Rasputin sent a telegram to the Tsarina, saying: “God has seen your tears and heard your prayers. Grieve no more. Your son will live.”15 The next day, the Tsarevich’s temperature fell and his condition continued improving until he was completely healthy again. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of Nicholas II, would testify the following: “An hour later, my nephew was out of danger. Later that year, I met Professor Fedorov, who told me that the healing was completely inexplicable from a medical standpoint. Rasputin definitely possessed the gift of healing. There is no doubt about it. I saw these results with my own eyes, more than once. I also know that the most renowned doctors of the time were forced to admit it.”16 In summary, Grigory Rasputin displayed several miraculous gifts during his lifetime. As for miracles after his martyrdom, several have already been experienced by Orthodox faithful. Historian Igor Evsin has compiled several miracles attributed to Rasputin in his book “Grigory Rasputin. Insights, Prophecies, Miracles” (Григорий Распутин. Прозрения, пророчества, чудеса). These include the miraculous healing of sick people, prophecies about the future, and several myrrh-streaming icons17 of Grigory Rasputin.18

Myrrh-Streaming icon of Nikolay Guryanov holding an Orthodox Cross and a small icon of Grigory Rasputin and Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich

What about popular veneration?

Popular veneration is usually a fifth unspoken requirement for canonization. Dissenters may argue that this would exclude Rasputin from canonization, based on the premise that there is no popular veneration of Rasputin among the Orthodox faithful. However, this argument is untenable. For starters, veneration of Grigory Rasputin can be observed among several Orthodox Christians, specifically in Russia. His image is closely connected to that of Tsar Nicholas II, which has led people to venerating his friend Grigory as well.19 While it may not be as widespread as skeptics rigorously demand, it is nevertheless growing, and should not be used as a pretext to oppose the canonization of a holy man of God. After the Romanovs were canonized in 1981 by ROCOR, it took 19 more years for the Moscow Patriarchate to acknowledge this with an official canonization. How widespread was the veneration of the Romanovs in comparison to the liberal and Bolshevik slander against them? What about their physician Eugene Botkin who was canonized in 2016, almost 100 years after his martyrdom? There was clearly no widespread or popular veneration for him (although it was present, like in Rasputin’s case). However, church hierarchs correctly discerned that for popular veneration to grow, an official church canonization might be necessary. In Grigory Rasputin’s case, however, Church hierarchs believe the slander against him, coming from liberal and Bolshevik sources, and suppress veneration of the Strannik. How will there ever be popular and widespread veneration for a man who even Church hierarchs continue to slander? If the faithful are told by their bishops and priests that Rasputin is a fraud, how could widespread veneration ever emerge? This makes public veneration almost impossible, nothing short of miraculous in fact.

The Commission on the Glorification of Saints of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church

In October, 2004, the Commission on the Glorification of Saints of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church held a meeting to discuss several questions of faith and veneration. The results were, among other things, the rejection of any sort of canonization for Grigory Rasputin. In Patriarch Alexy’s words, “there is no reason to raise the question of the canonization of Grigory Rasputin, whose dubious morality and promiscuity cast a shadow on the august family of the future Royal Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II and his family.” This is often enough for skeptics and anti-Rasputin critics to reject his canonization, yet such ideas only stem from ignorance and lack of research.

As part of this commission, a report was submitted by Metropolitan Juvenaly Poyarkov regarding the life of Grigory Rasputin. For this report, rather than consulting credible historical sources, the Metropolitan used liberal and Bolshevik sources that slander not only Rasputin but also the Tsar and his family. His two main sources were the book “The Holy Devil” by the anti-Christian apostate Sergei Trufanov (Iliodor), and the fictional memoirs of Vera Zhukovskaya, who never personally knew Rasputin and cited atheist sources of information as part of her work.20 This report also states that Rasputin was killed by people “sincerely devoted to the Tsar” which we know to be blatantly false.21 In writing this report, Metropolitan Juvenaly not only displayed extreme ignorance and irresponsibility, but also found himself disagreeing with modern Orthodox Christian historiography in favor of liberal and Bolshevik sources. This Orthodox historiography includes the work of Metropolitan John (Snychov) of St. Petersburg, who supported Rasputin. Rather than representing the Church’s authoritative opinion, Juvenaly’s negligent report represented historical ignorance and envy against Metropolitan John and other supporters of Rasputin. This report also knowingly concealed objective archival sources that exonerated Rasputin from the accusations of his slanderers, choosing instead to “repeat slanderous rumors orchestrated by the enemies of Russian Orthodoxy and the Monarchy to undermine the Tsar’s authority.”22 It is no wonder that “radio stations hostile to Russia — the BBC, the Voice of America and Israel, Radio Liberty, and Deutsche Welle — unanimously endorsed Juvenaly’s report ‘as an attempt by the healthy forces of the Russian Church to repel reactionaries and obscurantists.’” Oleg Platonov, a prominent Russian historian who has studied all the archival sources related to Grigory Rasputin’s life and work, has provided a long and detailed refutation of Metropolitan Juvenaly’s report, which unfortunately influenced the results of this liberal commission.23 In summary, the singular opinions of some Church liberals must not influence the Orthodox faithful into ceasing veneration of a holy man such as Grigory Efimovich Rasputin.

Orthodox Christians Who Venerated Rasputin

I plan to dedicate a future article to discussing the relationship between Rasputin and his contemporaries, who would later become Saints of the Orthodox Church. This section is meant to serve as a quick overview rather than a detailed analysis, with the intent of demonstrating that in the eyes of many canonized and uncanonized Saints, Rasputin deserved the same honor.

For starters, the Romanovs undeniably considered Grigory Rasputin to be a Christian martyr and Saint. While Saints are not infallible, their opinions must be held in high regard due to their holiness. Having established that the Romanovs did indeed live holy and faithful lives, we should also consider that they were the closest people to Rasputin and knew him better than any of us ever will.

Rasputin was loved by the Romanov Family until their deaths in 1918. At the time of their martyrdom, each of the Romanov daughters “wore around her neck an amulet bearing Rasputin’s picture and a prayer by the peasant ‘holy man’.” Tsarevich Alexei said: “There was a saint, Grigory Efimovich, but he was killed.” Alexei was the closest to Rasputin, and his reaction to Rasputin’s murder was heart-wrenching. “Vyrubova wrote: ‘The Tsar and the Tsarina decided not to tell him about Rasputin’s murder at once but when they finally did, Alexei Nikolaevich burst into tears hiding his head in his arms’.” The Tsarina stated that he was a martyr, and had a small book printed out titled “A New Martyr.” Rasputin died wearing a cross with the words “Save and Protect” and a bracelet with the letter N (for Nicholas) together with the Imperial two-headed eagle. Likewise, Tsar Nicholas died wearing a cross gifted to him by Rasputin.24

If they remained confident of his sainthood and holiness up until the moment of their martyrdom, then who are we to question their judgement? Furthermore, why must we stand in agreement with the Church liberals and their corrupted historiography in opposition to the Romanov Royal Martyrs?

Saints who regarded Rasputin as a holy man and a saint include: Saint John of Kronstadt, Saint Nikolay Guryanov, Saint Augustine (Pyatnitsky), Tsar Saint Nicholas II, Tsarina Saint Alexandra, Saint Olga, Saint Tatiana, Saint Maria, Saint Anastasia, and of course Tsarevich Saint Alexei. As for the Saints who opposed Rasputin, they will be explored on a case-by-case basis in the future. For now, it suffices to say that they were often ignorant or misled by slander coming from satanic individuals (like Trufanov).

Conclusion

Let’s summarize the facts. It is clear that Rasputin meets the Orthodox criteria for canonization, having: An Orthodox Baptism, an Orthodox mindset, a virtuous life, and miracles. Despite suppression from anti-Tsarist actors (even in the Church), the veneration of Rasputin is growing. It is also clear that the 2004 Church Commission is neither binding nor correct in its assessment of the historical and theological facts regarding Grigory Rasputin’s life. Metropolitan Juvenaly’s report is an insult to Orthodox Christians and should be dismissed as liberal meddling in Church affairs, rather than considered the opinion of the Orthodox Church. Finally, several prominent Orthodox Christians venerated Rasputin,25 including the Romanov Royal Family, which should allow us to venerate him in good conscience and hope for his canonization. Father Seraphim Rose actually stated that “In the Orthodox Church it is by no means discouraged to pray to ‘uncanonized’ saints. Actually, canonization only grants official status to what already exists unofficially.” Saint Grigory the New, pray for us!

“Grigory is holy and a great Martyr before the Lord. His icons are needed; people have prayed before them, are praying, and will pray, and weep, as I do, weeping and praying before this image.”

Elder Nikolay Guryanov

Within Orthodox Christianity, the Tsar and his family have been historically rehabilitated into Sainthood. This was achieved despite heavy opposition, even from Church hierarchs themselves.

This has unfortunately not been the case for probably the most slandered man in Russian history, Grigory Rasputin.

People, even Orthodox Christians, viscerally react to mentions of Rasputin’s name with negativity and hatred. After all, most of what they have heard are descriptions of this man’s purported degenerate lifestyle, quasi-satanic influence on the Emperor, and subversion of the Russian Empire. Little do they know that all of these rumors are untrue and unfounded, purely devised to bring down the Tsarist Monarchy. Historians such as Oleg Platonov, Alexander Bokhanov, Igor Evsin, Tatiana Mironova, Margarita Nelipa, and Sergey Fomin, among others, have initiated a project of historical rehabilitation, hoping that, just like with the Tsar, the truth will prevail and Rasputin will be vindicated. The “X” account @RasputinArchive contains rare information about Rasputin, accessible in the English language. This Substack is an extension of that account and is managed by the same person.

The story of Grigory Rasputin could well be written in several books, thousands of pages may not suffice. However, for this article I have chosen to focus on a specific aspect of the “Holy Peasant’s” life: his faith.

Beginnings

Rasputin was born on January 9, 1869 and baptized one day after his birth, on January 10, as an Orthodox Christian. He was named after Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

Page from the 1869 Pokrovskoye Church Register.

He was born in the Siberian village of Pokrovskoye, which was made up of 172 households. It also offered a small school, post office, police headquarters, and its own Orthodox Church. Despite unproven accusations, Grigory’s upbringing was a deeply religious and family-oriented one. He would help his family tend the animals and would load goods on boats and carts to make a living. He also matured in the Church, observing the holy days and Lenten periods, which he found more appealing than tending his father’s animals.1 He distinguished himself by reading passages from the Bible and discussing spiritual matters with others. As for the accusations that he was a delinquent or horse-thief, these were raised in 1915 and soon retracted after Rasputin sent the journalist who created them a telegram demanding proof of such crimes.2 Rasputin was described as having a gift of healing during his youth, which he would exercise to heal humans and animals in the village.3 In 1912, he spoke of his youth to a reporter from the Novoye Vremya newspaper: “In summer in my village, when it was warm and sunny and birds sang Edenic songs, I walked down the path and didn’t dare to walk in the middle of it. I dreamed about God, my soul was willing afar. I was crying and didn’t understand the meaning of my tears. When I got older, I often talked to my friends about God, about nature, about birds. I believed in good and kind things and often listened to old men about the lives of the saints, about great deeds, about the terrible and merciful Tsar. So my youth went in a kind of contemplation, in a dream, and then when life touched me, I hid in the corner and prayed secretly. I was unsatisfied and sad.”4 Clearly, Grigory Rasputin’s youth was marked by ardent zeal in the Russian Orthodox Faith, and signs of his gift of healing started to show. On February 22, 1887, Rasputin married Paraskeva (Praskovya) Fyodorovna Dubrovina through the Orthodox Church.5

Grigory and Paraskeva met when they were each partaking their own pilgrimages at the Abalak Znamensky Monastery. They got married and lived in a two-story house that Rasputin purchased in Pokrovskoye. They had seven children, three of which survived into adulthood. All of them were baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.6 In 1892, after Rasputin turned 23, he felt the calling to become a Strannik, which was a word used to describe rural religious wanderers of the Orthodox faith. A Strannik wasn’t ordained within the church but was considered to be a very wise teacher and follower of Orthodox Christianity. It must be noted that Nicholas II always described Rasputin as a Strannik. He visited several monasteries in Russia, including the Saint Nikolayevsky Monastery to venerate the relics of Saint Simeon Verkhotursky. Rasputin would later gift the Royal Family an icon of this Saint, which they would carry to their martyrdom in the Ipatiev House in 1918.7 Rasputin continued his pilgrimage through Valaam, Odessa, and Kiev.8 In 1893, he would go on to visit Mount Athos in Greece, and then Jerusalem (1911), which would inspire his book My Pilgrimage to Jerusalem.9 In 1904, he decided to visit Saint Petersburg to meet with Father (now Saint) John of Kronstadt, who was considered the spiritual leader of Russia and standing “high above the rest of the clergy”.10 Saint John would say this about Rasputin: “God granted you many gifts to help people, be my right hand.”11 Later on at mass, Saint John would say: “Among us is one who is more worthy, more deserving, to be the first to receive the Holy Mysteries. Here he is, a humble pilgrim, standing among you!”12 Rasputin stepped up to the ikonostasis, took communion, and actually blessed Saint John!1314 He would also go on to describe Rasputin as an “elect of God.”15 In 1905, Rasputin would meet the Romanov Royal Family, marking the beginning of a spiritual relationship that would last 11 years until Rasputin’s murder in 1916 at the hands of the transvestite occultist Felix Yusupov.16

Rasputin’s renown would grow as Russian society became aware of his strong Orthodox faith and his ability to express it despite being a semi-literate peasant from Siberia. This led to him meeting Bishops Theophan of Poltava and Hermogenes of Tobolsk, who would become his best friends, and later, his greatest adversaries. Theophan’s change of heart was due to evil influence in the form of a false confession by a woman, which led him to break the seal of confession and report this alleged crime to the Tsarina.17 The woman’s confession turned out to be a fabrication,18 but the damage to Rasputin’s reputation from one of his closest friends had already been done, for which Theophan would later bitterly repent during the emigration in France.19 Hermogenes, similarly, was influenced by an evil subversive named Sergey Trufanov, also known as Hieromonk Iliodor. Iliodor had personal issues with Rasputin and tried to murder him multiple times. Iliodor and Hermogenes beat up Rasputin and attempted to choke him, for which Hermogenes was banished to Smolensk, while Iliodor was confined in the Florishchev Hermitage. This didn’t sit well with Iliodor, who grew tired of the confinement and decided to quit his monastic vows. Almost theatrically, he wrote a letter to the Holy Synod stating: “I renounce your God. I renounce your faith. I renounce your Church” and signed it with his blood. Iliodor presents this apostasy proudly in his autobiography.20 It is important to note that Iliodor, along with Mitya Kozelsky, were the ones responsible for starting and disseminating the unfounded rumors about Rasputin having an inappropriate relationship with the Empress. This was a lie that the two men fabricated by maliciously altering correspondence between the Empress and Rasputin, stolen by Iliodor from Rasputin’s house in Pokrovskoye.21 “Hermogenes eventually realized that he had been deceived by Iliodor, comparing him to Satan and calling him a “despicable creature” who “instilled hatred, stubbornness, and malice” in him.22 Hermogenes would eventually be martyred by the Bolsheviks and drowned in the Tura River in front of Pokrovskoye, Rasputin’s village.23

ST. PETERSBURG. Grigory Rasputin, Bishop Hermogenes and the apostate Iliodor, 1908.

A Khlyst?

Having observed Rasputin’s strong Orthodox faith despite the slander and harm exercised against him, we must now turn to the accusations of heresy and his relation to the Khlyst sect.

To start with some historical context, in 17th century Russia a degenerate pseudo-Christian sect was founded called the “Khlysts.” This sect engaged in ecstatic rituals and degenerate behavior, including — allegedly — self-flagellation and orgies.24 While they remained very fringe and isolated, their beliefs gained notoriety as the Russian Church began to fight such heresies.25 During the beginning of the 20th century, Grigory Rasputin was accused of belonging to that sect of ecstatic cultists, for which he was subjected to several investigations.

The First Investigation

When Rasputin returned to Pokrovskoye in May 1907, he learned that the village priest had undergone questioning and that church officials had raided his home. This was due to an allegation that Rasputin belonged to the Khlyst sect and was spreading the cult’s dogma in the village. Such allegations led to a secret investigation by the Russian Orthodox Church, set into motion by anti-Rasputin Bishop Antony (Karzhavin) of Tobolsk.26 This investigation involved:

1. The inspection of the Rasputin household.

2. The questioning of family members and their visitors.

3. The questioning of Pokrovskoye residents and the clergy.27

Rasputin was accused of participating in Khlyst rituals, singing Khlyst songs, and behaving inappropriately towards women. During questioning, the truth of this matter was revealed.

Grigory Rasputin’s father, Efim, declared that their guests from different parts of Russia only came to sing traditional Orthodox prayers and read the Bible.28 Paraskeva likewise confirmed that Rasputin was away from home for most of the year, and that the guests that visited their home on festival days sang spiritual songs and read the Bible.29 A witness stated that guests wanted to learn from Rasputin’s lifestyle and spiritual teachings.30 Another witness stated that he heard Orthodox prayers coming from Rasputin’s house and that he did not behave inappropriately with his female guests.31 Rasputin was deeply troubled by the gossip against him, and said that such accusations were “not right” while also disproving the ridiculous claims that he went to the bathhouses with women and engaged in inappropriate behavior with them.32 On a more personal note, Rasputin, as a pious Christian man, was emotionally hurt by all these accusations. He stated: “It is hard to live with all these wrongful accusations. God, they write horrible things! Give me patience and seal the lips of the enemies! Or grant me Your help and the eternal happiness of Your bliss.”33 Rather than defend himself against an endless barrage of slander, he showed humility and prayed to God for his acquittal. It soon became clear from the questioning that there was absolutely no evidence of Rasputin engaging in any Khlyst or degenerate behavior. In fact, the investigation only demonstrated that Grigory Rasputin and his family were faithful Orthodox Christians, having decorated all of the rooms in their house with icons, for example.34 It must be noted that during this whole charade, several members of the clergy jumped to Rasputin’s defense.35 One of them was Father, now Saint, Augustine (Pyatnitsky), who would be martyred by the Bolsheviks on Mochalny Island in 1918.36 In the end, the investigation exposed the malicious intent of those who were jealous of Rasputin’s piety and spirituality, and established him as a true Christian. However, the accusation that he was a degenerate cult member was the first step in destroying his reputation.

The Rasputin family home.

The Second Investigation

Not much can be said of this secret investigation, as rather than an organized inquiry, it was a special favor requested by the Empress. In 1908, after the First Investigation had been finalized, Tsarina Alexandra would ask Theophan to travel to Siberia and find the truth about Rasputin. Whether the Empress was truly doubting Rasputin or not is unknown. Theophan examined the documents from the First Investigation (Tobolsk Inquiry) and failed to find anything of interest. He confidently assured the Empress that Rasputin was a real and faithful Orthodox Christian.37

The Third Investigation

In 1912, Alexei (Molchanov), the newly appointed Bishop of Tobolsk and Siberia, traveled to Pokrovskoye to meet Rasputin and discuss issues regarding his life and faith. For starters, the idea that Rasputin belonged to the Khlyst sect was rejected due to lack of evidence, repudiated statements, and proof that Rasputin was an Orthodox Christian.38 Bishop Alexei stated that Rasputin was unequivocally “an Orthodox Christian” with “spiritual leanings (who) sought the truth of Christianity.” Most importantly, he would confess that suggestions of Rasputin’s impropriety were inspired by “all the enemies of the Throne of the Russian Tsar and His August Family.”39 Bishop Alexei’s investigation also discovered that Grigory Rasputin, despite receiving numerous donations, never kept any of them. All gifts and money were donated to the local Church. The investigation documents refer to Rasputin as “that Christian Grigorii Efimovich-Novy.”40 The official conclusion of the investigation established that Grigory Rasputin was without a doubt an Orthodox Christian who held no heretical views, belonged to no degenerate cults, and did not behave inappropriately towards anyone.41

The Fourth Investigation

In 1917, the year after Rasputin’s assassination, a new investigator opened the Tobolsk Ecclesiastical Consistory File. Professor Ilya Gromoglasov examined the documents to see if he could find proof of Rasputin’t Khlyst connections. It suffices to say that he found absolutely nothing suggesting anything different than what the previous investigations concluded: namely that Rasputin was a devout Orthodox Christian with no ties to heretical sects.42

Death

While much has already been written about Rasputin’s assassination43, some points should be extracted to illustrate his faith and loyalty to Christ and the Tsar. For starters, Rasputin’s most notorious murderer, Felix Yusupov, recalls shooting Rasputin as he was contemplating a crucifix.44 While historians consider Yusupov’s memoirs to be dramatized and mostly inaccurate45, it’s interesting to consider that even his biggest enemies recognized his faith, and murdered him for it. Rasputin, for the record, knew Felix Yusupov because he was treating him for homosexuality.46 The expert appointed for Rasputin’s autopsy was Professor Dmitry Kosorotov, who had previously worked as a forensic expert during the ritual murder investigation of 12-year-old Andrei Yushchinsky by a Jewish man named Menahem Mendel Beilis.47 According to Kosorotov, Rasputin’s Autopsy Report showed clear signs of prolonged torture, his body and genitals gruesomely disfigured by his murderers.48 These observations led historians to suggest that Rasputin, like Andrei, and later the Tsar and his family, was subjected to a ritual murder by the enemies of Orthodoxy. The spiritual significance of Rasputin’s martyrdom was undeniable. Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna would later tell Yusupov that she was visited by abbesses of many monasteries telling insane stories from the night of Rasputin’s murder: “During the night services, the priests experienced fits of madness, blaspheming and emitting inhuman cries; the nuns ran into corners, screaming like madmen and lifting their skirts with obscene movements.”49 Rasputin’s body was found in the Neva River, hands and legs tied. However, his hands had somehow managed to become free and make the sign of the cross, which is how his body was found.

Rasputin received an Orthodox Christian funeral, attended only by the Tsar, the Tsarina, the Romanov children, Anna Vyrubova, and several other people close to Rasputin. In 1917, a few months after his murder and shortly after Nicholas “abdicated”, Rasputin’s body was exhumed during Lent and burned. This was ordered by the freemason and head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky. This burning had a blasphemous character. It represented a second, devilish funeral, where the Christian burial ceremony was denied and cancelled. The following inscriptions in German (remember Heine’s poem at Ipatiev?) were found at the place where his body was burned: “Hier ist der Hund begraben.” (The dog is buried here.) (This is who is behind it all). As French Ambassador to the Russian Empire Maurice Paléologue would claim, “Those who wrote that sinister epilogue have precursors in the Italian Middle Ages.” Historian Sergei Fomin would sharply remark that they also had successors in Yekaterinburg in 1918.50 Ultimately, Rasputin had been a human sacrifice for the creation of a new degenerate and anti-Christian Russia. After all, the following was written in Russian newspapers about the sacrilegious burning of Rasputin’s body: “The ashes were scattered in the field and covered with snow. When spring comes, the water will wash away the ashes and dirt and maybe new green sprouts will erase Rasputin’s name from our memory”.51

Conclusion

Rasputin was loved by the Romanov Family until their deaths in 1918. At the time of their martyrdom, each of the Romanov daughters “wore around her neck an amulet bearing Rasputin’s picture and a prayer by the peasant ‘holy man’.”52 Tsarevich Alexei said: “There was a saint, Grigory Efimovich, but he was killed.”53 Alexei was the closest to Rasputin, and his reaction to Rasputin’s murder was heart-wrenching. “Vyrubova wrote: ‘The Tsar and the Tsarina decided not to tell him about Rasputin’s murder at once but when they finally did, Alexei Nikolaevich burst into tears hiding his head in his arms’.”54 The Tsarina stated that he was a martyr, and had a small book printed out titled “A New Martyr.”55 Rasputin died wearing a cross with the words “Save and Protect” and a bracelet with the letter N (for Nicholas) together with the Imperial two-headed eagle.56 Likewise, Tsar Nicholas died wearing a cross gifted to him by Rasputin.57

The verdict is clear: Rasputin was a devout Orthodox Christian who was martyred for never betraying his faith or the Tsar.

“I fight for the Tsar, the Faith and the Fatherland. While I am alive no harm shall ruin them, but if I perish, so shall they.”

Grigory Rasputin-Novy

While being transported from their place of detention in Tobolsk to their martyrdom in Ekaterinburg, more than one year after Rasputin’s death, the Romanovs stopped in Pokrovskoye for a change of horses.

Nicholas: “In Pokrovskoye village there was a changeover, [we] stood a long time right across Grigory’s house and saw all his family staring through the window.”

Alexandra: “Around 12 [we] arrived in Pokrovskoye, changed horses. We stood for a long time in front of the house of our Friend. Saw his family and friends watching from the windows.”58

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna’s drawing of Grigory Rasputin’s house and yard, 1918.