Umbilicus in History and Its Religious Background

  • Mohamed Fahmy


The umbilical cord is a very intricate device, a very complex affair indeed, but it is as a piece of string compared to the complexity of the silver cord. The ‘belly button’ has been the cause of tremendous theological debate for centuries; specifically, the question that has led to such scholarly reflection: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?. Five hundred years ago, when the matter was most heated, painters of Adam’s navel had different choices: many took a cowardly path, blocking the view with a fig leaf or some other artist’s ploy; some left off the dab of paint which would have represented a navel; and others gave him a navel; Raphael did and Michelangelo.

However, in 1944, the controversy arose again, within the halls of congress, a subcommittee of the House Military Committee chaired by Congressman Durham of North Carolina refused authorization of a 30-page booklet for American soldiers. The booklet, The Races of Man, contained an illustration depicting Adam and Eve with navels.

The navel is the locus, the centrepiece of the human body. It’s the communal scar of humanhood, the sole button on your birthday suit. Japanese spiritualist Hogen Fukunaga writes, ‘The navel is the core of everything about the person’. So the umbilicus had a lot of impaction in the human spirits, abnormal energy and polarity.


Adam and Eve umbilicus Omphalos argument Umbilicism Silver cord Navel battle Folks and Art 


  1. 1.
    Al Maxey (Creation Magazine, June, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browne T. Pseudodoxia epidemica, vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1964.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gosse PH. Evolution (biology). In: Omphalos: an attempt to untie the geological knot. London: J. Van Voorst; 1857. p. 376.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jason H. Collins. Silent risk issues about the human umbilical cord, 2nd Edition, 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Longrigg J. Greek rational medicine: philosophy and medicine from Alcmaeon to the Alexandrians. London: Psychology Press; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geza Roheim A. Revised and expanded version of one of the author’s first psychoanalytic studies, this was originally published in Hungarian: Az filet fonala (The Thread of Life).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ethnographia; 1916. Novack AH, Mueller B, Ochs H. Umbilical cord separation in the normal newborn. Am J Dis Child. 1988;142(2): 220–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruyt: Het Wezen van het Heidendom te Posso. (The Essence of Posso Paganism). Medizinische Nederlander Zend. Gen., 1903, XLVIII, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Groot JJM. Les Fêtes-annuellement celébrées à Emoui. Annales Musée Gamete. 1886;II:476.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grube W. Religion und Kultus der Chinesen. Leipzig: Verlag von Rudolf Haupt; 1910. p. 168.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Opler ME. Childhood and youth in Jicarilla apache society. Los Angeles: Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund; 1945. p. 5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iona Miller: Schumann resonance, psychophysical regulation & psi (part I). J Conscious Explor Res. 4(6): 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burger B. Esoteric anatomy: the body as consciousness. Chapter 8, North Atlantic Books llO. Box l2327 Berkeley, California; 2012.
  14. 14.
    Smed JA. Out-of-body experience studies. The Monroe Institute; 2013.
  15. 15.
    Blackmore S. Out-of-body experience. In: Gregory RL, editor. The oxford companion to the mind. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Fahmy
    • 1
  1. 1.Pediatric SurgeryAl Azher University Pediatric SurgeryCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations