Appeals are still made in 2015 that a TEMPLE ROND existed at Rennes-les-Bains. The only TEMPLE ROND that existed in the vicinity of Rennes-les-Bains was in the fertile imagination of Pierre Plantard, the originator of the claim. No archaelogical body in France will endorse the existence of a TEMPLE ROND at Rennes-les-Bains. The subject matter falls into the category of pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology that belongs to romantic literature found in the Mind, Body and Spirit department.

Pierre Jarnac published the Dubosc correspondence and archives in relation to the activities of Jean Louis Dubosc in Rennes-les-Bains between 1782-1789 in the July 2002 issue of Bulletin Pégase No 1, Hors Série “Le Dossier Dubosc”

The Dubosc archives do not contain a single reference to any TEMPLE ROND.

Stéphanie Buttegeg tried very hard to force the issue that Plantard's claims were based on some sort of historical evidence by stating, “Everything suggests that there is a dark secret lurking in the bowels of Rennes-les-Bains! But is it a simple gold mineral deposit, a former monetary deposit of a sacred or historical treasure of an ancient temple?” – but conceded: “in the official documents there is no trace of this temple.”

There is a big difference between caves holding exhausted mineral deposits and the TEMPLE ROND mentioned in Plantard's 1989-1990 issues of “Vaincre”. Furthermore the source of Plantard's TEMPLE ROND at Mont Blanchefort in the 1989-1990 issues of “Vaincre” was an obvious transposition of the TEMPLE ROND contained in Plantard's earlier wartime issue of “Vaincre” Number 5, dated 21 January 1943, page 3 – transposed over Plantard's revised and rebooted version of his 1989 Priory of Sion (a later extension of his “Agartha” beliefs). And if Stéphanie Buttegeg did not mention any of this in her Les Mines Légendaires Antiques de Rennes-les-Bains (2013), it was only because she was unaware of this information at the time.

Appeals to non-existent documents that are nothing more than rumours and claims – like for example the “Maraval document” – that cannot be touched or seen – is not scientific or archaeological research – and again it needs to be repeated that archaeological bodies would find such appeals totally laughable and absurd. This also applies in relation to non-existent “stones” that most likely originated with Pierre Plantard during his early visits to Rennes-le-Château during the 1960s (and which Plantard later even denied existed during the 1990s when he revised and rebooted his Priory of Sion mythology) – “stones” that were allegedly inscribed “P. S. Prae-Cum.” Substantial public appeals were made to locate this “stone” during the 1960s without any success (and we wonder why!).

Appeals to rumours as to what Abbé Mazieres may or may not have claimed can also be described as unscientific and can never be taken seriously by any archaeological body.

Finally, making appeals to the story of Ignace Paris (mistakenly called a “legend”) – a story that originated with Noël Corbu during the mid-1950s – only avoids the fact that Corbu was unable to substantiate his story about Ignace Paris.

Philippe Maury
Believer in the treasure of Rennes-le-Château