Why did Bernadette not go back to the grotto on a few different days?

bastasch, I'll just make some comments (in purple) after various points in your post of 1/20/17, reproduced in its entirety herewith (including its citations from my prior post, also reproduced here in italics)....

while your assessment of the reasons for the nature of such divine appearances may be in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations

Well, thanks - and while I do think my assessment accurately echoes what typically happens with apparitions in the Catholic tradition, in actuality, it is not in keeping with Christian teachings and interpretations - it is in fact opposed to such interpretations, as I mentioned:

1. The original experience is archetypal and undomesticated. It does not fit into traditional religious categories.

2. The original experience is of beings who do not fit into classic Christian theology - the beings are not originally described as Mary or saints, but rather as earth elementals, or celestial dwellers - Bernadette called her entity "aquerra" - a local name for earth spirit. Only later, through external social prodding, did the sprite become "the Immaculate Conception" and then the full-fledged Catholic "Queen of Heaven". The same thing happened with Lucia of Fatima - her "little lady" was anything but the Catholic Mary, until that is, Lucia's vision underwent Church revision in order to produce a domesticated "Mary" fit for popular worship.

3. The experience is typically subjected to ecclesiastical/theological interrogation, the result of which is a "safe", domesticated modification of the original experience, in which it is carefully crafted to conform to standard (in this case, Marian) theological doctrine. The original wild, undomesticated, "Pagan" experience is traded in for a typical Marian apparition complete with the expected admonitions to pray, build a chapel, and be devout because "My Son is already much offended" by human sinfulness.

In none of these three points is my assessment - or the historical facts involved - supportive of, or in keeping with, Christian/Catholic teaching. In fact, it utterly contradicts the "domesticated" doctrines of standard Christianity.

Understood and essentially agree.

Surely the divine figure who would pick such individuals would know the strength of their faith; why then must this be tested in such abasing ways?

I don't see any of the original apparitions as being tests of faith - they're just revelations from "the other shore". "Faith" - as "Christian" - faith only enters in as a subtext after it has been decided by "authorities" that the revelation is "officially" Mary, a saint, an angel, Jesus, or some other figure defined as divine or semi-divine by said "authority".

I have a difficult time with the notion that a percipient's faith is being tested while at the same time s/he is being graced and even immersed in a transcendent experience. Experience trumps faith, i.e., if you know something you do not need to believe in it or its properties. If you experience a divine manifestation, you don't need to have faith in it, any more than you need to have faith that honey is sweet once you've tasted it.

This is my point: I don't understand what I see as the purposelessness of such "tests", or better, the humiliation (at best) or endangering (at worst) of the mortal upon whom such a visitation is bestowed. But in my view if you receive a divine manifestation and are a person of faith this fact should presumably be known to the divine figure that manifests itself, thereby in all logic obviating the need for asking the visitee to "prove" his faith or devotion by acts that would be degrading, insulting or risky. Why would any God or His messengers require such manifestations of "faith", especially from one whom they must know is faithful, and are not such demands demeaning of that faith itself? On the other hand, if such a manifestation appeared to a non-believer, it would seem that in order to instill faith where none has existed commanding pointless acts that serve no purpose save to demonstrate blind obedience would backfire and result in precisely the opposite reaction.

no one can know how God works or speak for Him

The authentic percipients of whom I am aware do not claim to possess (false) knowledge about the Divine's inner processes, but of course they do claim a right and a duty to communicate as best they can the content of their individual revelations - especially when they believe that the Divine wishes them to do so. That's just the religious version of free speech. And they realize that the content of their message will be subject to stern analysis by both secular and ecclesiastical authority, as indeed happened with Bernadette and Lucia. It is seldom an easy thing for percipients - especially very young ones - to do: Bernadette and Lucia were subjected to frightening interrogations by both state officials and clergy, as well as rejection and punishment by their respective families.

I was referring not necessarily to anyone depicted in this film (or for that matter The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima), whether in real life or in the movie, but to those "professional" purveyors of religion who see faith as a means of milking the public for millions and building temporal shrines to themselves under the guise of honoring the Lord...and others, such as those conservative politicians who routinely invoke God and announce they've been forgiven whenever they're caught committing adultery, theft and the like, a Get Out of Jail Free card evidently denied liberal politicians, who may just not be quite as cynical as their vociferously "religious" brethren.

To your comment that the young, such as Bernadette or Lucia, "realize" they and their message will be subject to stern analysis and frightening interrogation, I disagree. I'm sure such simple folk, especially the young, would have no such thoughts or realization ahead of time. Part of their being tested is being subjected to such harsh skepticism and the stress and even terror it brings, which clearly would not manifest itself to such a degree had they understood ahead of time what carrying these messages would entail for their lives.

That phrase ["parlor game"] was used specifically and quite plainly in connection with the nature of the acts that divine figures appearing to someone seem to insist their chosen ones perform

Sorry if I misinterpreted the target of your meaning. But I have to return to my point that, simply because Bernadette claimed that a direct command from the Lady was for her to eat grass, does not mean that it actually came from the Lady. It may have come from Bernadette's own unconscious reaction to the experience. It certainly seems an odd thing to do, but even viewed in terms of abjection and humiliation, it is not much. After all, the Lady could have asked Bernadette to roll around in the mud and then relieve herself on the ground or to strip off her clothing and flagellate herself. In any case, I see the grass-eating as a minor glitch in the overall apparition. Iirc, Bernadette's own testimony does not mention that she herself experienced embarrassment, humiliation, or indignation over having performed the act.

Moreover, in none of the several New Testament and Hebrew Bible texts I cited in the previous post are any biblical figures humiliatingly manipulated. They are not humbled by God; rather, their already extant humbleness makes them attractive to the Divine. God did not humble or sordidly degrade the great Hebrew propehts, or Mary, Joseph, Moses or David. You seem to see a large number of instances of God cruelly humliating his human contacts, but in the very important, pertinent examples I cited, such degradation is wholly absent. Which to me makes your fixation on Bernadette's grass-eating seem a bit of an overstatement, especially in view of the fact that you provided only that one example of divine "degredation".

Again, understood, but Bernadette's own reactions are actually irrelevant. The fundamental issue is (also, again), why would a divine apparition demand such behavior in the first place? What purpose is served? Is this not a cruel, gratuitous demand, even if the targeted one is willing, even eager, to uncomplainingly comply?

But to me asking questions and attempting to understand and assess such claimed things as the miracles of Lourdes is not only legitimate and above criticism, it's making use of man's God-given power to think, to learn and to reason.

Right...but of course I never criticised you or anyone for asking these questions.

I didn't say you had...but many do, especially those who blindly accept miracles and other allegedly divine manifestations and subtly or overtly denounce or look down upon (with most un-Christian officiousness) those who do ask questions or look upon such claims with skepticism.

it shakes my belief in the kind of divine entity who would demand such things, especially of poor, humble and uneducated persons who, bluntly, would know no better.

But I think that your criterion of abasement and humiliation actually hinges on the principle that such people would have to know better. Otherwise grass-eating or self-flagellation would not have the power to degrade them. That is, they would have to already know that such behavior is inappropriate in order for them to feel revolted by, and ashamed of, it.

Perhaps, but I think any divine being would him/herself know precisely what kinds of actions these were and not seek to demean someone, regardless of whether that person sees or understands such demands. In fact, I would argue that requiring such things of a more simple-minded individual is among the most un-Christian acts anyone, including a divine figure, could commit. To put it in the vernacular, why don't they pick on someone their own size?

For believers who want to accept such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary

It does come down to ideology. One might just as well say that for unbelievers who want to reject such things uncritically, no explanation is necessary because they already "know" that the whole subject is nonsense.

Exactly.

A nonmaterialist/transcendentalist ideally keeps his/her mind open to the possibility of such events, although s/he is not compelled to accept any of them as authentic. A materialist/non-transcendentalist is ideally obliged to reject such events as impossible from the get-go, because they are "not allowed" by the matter-only structure of the world as conceived by them...

Speaking personally, I find elements of each personality within myself, at least to the point of keeping an open mind. Neither blind, unthinking acceptance, nor obtuse, out-of-hand rejection, suits me. But each "side" is trapped in their own mental or emotional prison, which is not conducive to a broad, fair or objective examination or discussion of such matters.

Good talking with you.