This article does not claim that Af Klimt, or indeed anyone, had or has supernatural powers. It merely describes that they and others held such beliefs. Any ot

This article does not claim that Af Klimt, or indeed anyone, had or has supernatural powers. It merely describes that they and others held such beliefs. Any other reading requires performing cartwheels with language to foster a gross misreading of a single sentence fragment, one that even by your own admission is open to multiple interpretations (Catholic indeed), and it’s an interpretation that is not supported by any of the rest of the text. That final tirade explains why, I guess: this is some personally motivated attack on an individual. The only takeaway I have from this exchange is “be careful with phrasing in published articles, lest some hostile crank try to make it sound like you claimed something unintended”. > The point was the journalist says Af Klint is clairvoyant, or doesn't want to write "self-proclaimed clairvoyant", possibly out of fear of damaging Af Klint's image. It’s entirely possible they did write more explicit words to such effect, and the author or a sub-editor trimmed it for length as simply unnecessary. As the most banal explanation, Occam’s razor once again applies, and this seems more likely than allegations of intentional disinformation. Looking past the weak attempt at slandering a journalist - a profession hardly short of far more deserving targets, when it comes to questionable claims - there is an actual interesting question to be asked, and that’s the extent to which their beliefs drove artistic output. Sadly I will not likely be in London for the Tate Modern exhibition to find out.