Late at night on Christmas Eve 1885, in the small farming town of Seneca, Illinois, a woman named Matilda Rooney burst into flames. She was alone in her kitchen when it happened. The fire quickly incinerated her entire body except her feet. The incident also claimed the life of her husband, Patrick, who was found suffocated from the fumes in another room of the house.
The tragedy left investigators baffled. There was no reason to suspect foul play. The Rooneys had been relaxing and drinking whiskey that evening. A farmhand who had spent a few hours with them hadn’t noticed anything out of the ordinary. Furthermore, no source of ignition could be found for the blaze. Although the flames had been intense enough to reduce Matilda Rooney to ashes and a few fragments of bone, they had not spread to the rest of the room. The fire seemed to have started in her body and stayed confined to her body.
It appeared that the Rooneys had fallen victim to the rare and enigmatic phenomenon of spontaneous human combustion.
Spontaneous human combustion is a mystery with an impressive literary pedigree. Herman Melville and Nikolay Gogol used it to dispatch characters in their novels Redburn and Dead Souls, respectively. But the most notorious case in fiction is Bleak House by Charles Dickens, where the sleazy alcoholic junk merchant Mr. Krook ends up as a heap of ashes on the floor and “a dark, greasy coating on the walls and ceiling.” In the preface to the book edition of Bleak House, written after the novel had already been published in serial form, Dickens defended his use of spontaneous combustion against accusations of implausibility, citing several famous cases and the judgments of eminent medical doctors that such a thing was indeed possible. “I shall not abandon the facts,” he concludes with typical Dickensian panache, “until there shall have been a considerable Spontaneous Combustion of the testimony on which human occurrences are usually received.”
Descriptions of spontaneous human combustion date back to the 17th century, with a large number of cases recorded in the 19th century and a handful in the 20th and 21st centuries. Altogether, there are a few hundred recorded possible cases. Although the scientific support for spontaneous human combustion was weaker than Dickens stated, it was a widely discussed phenomenon in his time. The public largely accepted it as a reality on moral grounds. The victims were often alcoholic and overweight, and more were female than male, so there was a general perception that it was a kind of retribution for a debauched lifestyle. This idea was reinforced by lurid newspaper accounts of suspected cases. It made intuitive sense, after all, that a body saturated with a flammable substance—alcohol—would become flammable.
Now for the important question: Is spontaneous human combustion real? Is the possibility of suddenly bursting into flames one more thing for us all to worry about?
The answer is almost certainly no. None of the proposed scientific explanations for how a body would spontaneously burst into flames have held up to scrutiny. Some of the early proposed mechanisms rely on outdated medical ideas, such as the notion that an ignition could be the result of an imbalance of the bodily humors. The Victorian explanation that alcohol rendered the body flammable doesn’t work either, seeing that the concentrations of alcohol in even the most intoxicated people are much too low and that an external source of ignition would be required.
In the 20th century, forensic scientists noticed the “wick effect” in which clothing worn by a victim can soak up melted fat, acting like the wick in a candle and creating conditions for a body to smolder for an extended period of time. Experiments have shown that this effect can produce many of the unusual characteristics associated with spontaneous human combustion, such as the complete or nearly complete incineration of the body and the lack of fire damage to the victim’s surroundings. The likely explanation for suspected cases of spontaneous human combustion, then, is that there is an external source of ignition—a match, a cigarette, an electrical spark—that sets off the wick effect, but the evidence of it is destroyed by the fire. Although alcohol doesn’t make the body more flammable, severe inebriation or other forms of impairment may be a factor in some of these deaths since the victim may be unable to react to a slowly developing fire.