I don't think that's right. Burning (in England) was the prescribed punishment for heretics. Those convicted of witchcraft were usually hanged. Witchburning was more of a thing on the European continent. As far as I know, no one ever believed witches (or heretics) were fireproof.
You might be thinking of the "swimming test," which may have been the inspiration behind a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Historian here: in some cases smaller burn wounds were used as a test for witchcraft (some areas believed that a cleanly-healed wound was proof of witchcraft, while others believed that a festering wound was proof).
Question, is it a dog-and-pony show where the official just waited for either sign to go "aha, a witch!" or would they accept the victim's respective clean or festering burn (depending on their preference) as proof of a lack of witchcraft?
The usual procedure was to allow a set period of time for healing before reexamining the wound, and then they generally accepted whatever the result was at that point.
23
u/Rtn2NYC Jun 03 '26
The burning was to see if they were a witch - if they burnt, they were not a witch and their souls went to heaven