There really is no limit to the amount of sewage that is produced about the subject matter of Rennes-le-Château when you read this tommyrot. It's not even worth commenting upon without the need of a sick-bag. Even Immanuel Velikovsky wasn't as bad as this!

“In many books devoted to the affairs of Rennes-le-Château and Rennes-les-Bains the authors state their goal(s) and envisage their revelation... And, very quickly, this preamble is forgotten in the course of their drifts and lucubrations.”

We've come across this dreadful cancer in the course of our studies about those inventing rubbish about Rennes-le-Château for approximately 70 years. It's called talking seriously about nonsense. Rennes-le-Château acts as a magnet for it and it is not even worth commenting upon. Several warehouses of books alone can be filled with it.

The Maurice Leblanc “connection” is surely as bad as the very worst of them. Long may such rubbish act as a deterrent against people visiting Rennes-le-Château. The believers in Rennes-le-Château “mysteries” have absolutely no choice at all except to bathe in such extreme swill and coprophilia.

It was ultimately Philippe de Chérisey who was responsible for this insanity after claiming the “treasure” of Rennes-le-Château was to be found in Maurice Leblanc’s novel “The Countess of Cagliostro: Strong In Virtue, Of the kings of Bohemia, The treasure of the kings of France, The seven branched-candlestick” (its full title, first published in 1924); leading to the later exploitation of unconnected coincidences by authors with fertile – and uncritical – imaginations. They plainly did not understand when something is best left in the form of a story book novel, and not “historical fact”.