The Japanese manga author Tatsuki Ryo claimed to predict several events like the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the COVID19 pandemic, the deaths of Princess Diana and Freddy Mercury as well as some not yet happened disasters like a looming outbreak of Mount Fuji. These events supposedly happen after specific time intervals (15 days, 15 years etc) after prophetic dreams. Her predictions can be found in her 1999 comic "The Future As I See It" (私が見た未来 in Japanese) and are described on various websites, e.g.:



https://oyakudachi2525.com/2021/04/07/watashigamitamirai/ (in Japanese, Google Translation)

Several of her predictions "came true" before the publication date of said manga and I don't know whether they had been published in other media previously. I also don't have a copy or translation of the actual manga (save for some excerpts in the above links) so it's difficult to assess the predictions' accuracy solely based on secondary sources.

How many of her predictions were actually correct? Has she made more predictions elsewhere?

As this is my first question on this site, please let me know how I can improve any issues with phrasing etc.

  • 3
    I predict somebody will post an answer. I also predict nobody will post an answer. Either way, one of my predictions will come true. Aug 6 at 9:08
  • 1
    I only had a glance at the Vanbun article up to the point where I read about the flexible prediction time frame based on 5-year intervals. Let's take the volcano eruption as an example (by the way, would any volcanic eruption other than Mt. Fuji count?): if the dream happened in 1991, basically any eruption in a year that ends either in xxx1 or xxx6 can be interpreted to fulfill the prophetic dream – so an accuracy of 20 percent is guaranteed. That's convenient for a prophet.
    – Schmuddi
    Aug 7 at 10:02
  • 1
    Jerome - Your prediction has come true!! Spooky!
    – Stilez
    Aug 7 at 13:39

The complete lack of specifics in these "predictions" are masked by the giving of dates.

Let's take one example..

"There will be a huge catastrophe in March 2011"

Well, yes. Now here is Wikipedias list of events tagged as "natural disasters in 2011". That's natural disasters only, it overlooks terrorism, industrial and other kinds, which are too numerous for Wikipedia to list individually.

Now let's also factor in, some basic statistics,sorry for the maths, I'll keep it brief. Suppose there are N "disasters" in the whole of 2011. How big does N have to be, before there is more than a 50% chance of a "disaster" specifically happening in March 2011? The answer mathematically is

1 - (11/12)N > 0.5

Or solving this equation, N >= 7.966.

In other words, if there are only 8 "disasters" or "catastrophes" in 2011, the odds are more than 50/50 that one disaster/catastrophe will occur in March 2011. Wikipedia suggests that there are more disasters a year than it can count.

We can label any sizeable disaster we choose, as a "huge catastrophe", or any sizeable disaster between say, February and April 2011 as "very close to March 2011" as well, if we need to, and claim she "must" have seen it.

I'm completely unimpressed as a result. It looks like I could name virtually any future month and say theres a "huge catastrophe" and if needed I'm close enough on scale (close enough to "huge"?) or time (close enough to that month?),and it's virtually guaranteed that there will be some event that someone can argue "must" have been the one I "foresaw". Spooky, eh?

Actually, let's take a second example too...

"around 2020, an unknown virus will appear, reaching its peak in April; it will then vanish"

Let's consider this as an example of what I was saying above, about how people say "its close enough so I must have 'foreseen' it". A novel virus did appear, although in 2019 not 2020 it hit the world stage in 2020. It didn't "reach it's peak" in April, and didn't "then vanish", but we can conveniently choose to ignore those. Wow! Did she somehow foresee it?

Err. No. Not likely.

Novel (previously unknown/new) virii emerge all the time. Heres a partial list of some examples, all serious and lethal, and the dates of first known occurrence, as examples of how often a "new virus" appears - and these are only from among the serious, lethal, new virii......

  • Spanish Flu (1918)
  • H2N2 ("Asian Flu", 1957)
  • Marburg virus (1967)
  • Lassa (1969)
  • H3N2 ("Hong Kong Flu", 1968)
  • Ebola virus (1976)
  • HIV (discovered 1981,virus reported 1984, now known 1959 or earlier)
  • Ravn virus (1987)
  • Taï Forest (1994)
  • H1N1 ("Swine Flu", 2001)
  • SARS (2002)
  • Bundibugyo (2007)
  • Lujo (2008)
  • MERS (2012)
  • H7N9 (2013)
  • SARS-Cov-2 (2019)

Others also emerged as "new virii" (or new to science) but didnt cause a big or lethal outbreak, such as London1_novel CoV/2012

So yeah. Colour me not very impressed again. "Around" any time, depending how "around" you want to be", a new virus emerges. And those are only the lethal ones. So thats hardly stunning foresight. What do we know about this "foreseen virus"? Just 2 statements, both clearly not realised: that this virus would "peak in April" and "then vanish". Spooky accuracy again! Well,no. Fail, really.

In other words one statement that could hardly fail to come true, or had very reasonable chances of it (depending how "around" you want to be), and two incorrect statements.

As so often the case with scams, pseudoscience, "mind reading", "fortune telling", and wishful thinking....

The lack of detail is telling. A totally not hard to foresee "catastrophe" but no specifics. A totally not hard to foresee "virus" but no specifics.

If she had posted up a specific eruption or tsunami, or whatever, or the town of Wuhan, or told us the world would go into lockdown over it, or that it would have pangolins as a natural reservoir (or whatever), or some specific convincer (such as that masks would be a worldwide cultural change for the duration, even in countries they were never previously widely worn, or that Brazil's president would deny a virus' seriousness in 2020-21 and have protests), I'd be a little more curious. But as so often, no.

  • Great answer. It's interesting that Sylvia Browne also predicted in a later book that "a virus will appear in 2020 and then vanish". I wonder if this Japanese writer simply copied from Browne.
    – Avery
    Aug 7 at 13:35
  • Additionally, both Tatsuki and Browne predicted that the virus will return in 2030.
    – Avery
    Aug 7 at 13:40
  • Not at all surprising. I predict Ebola and Influenza will return too. They never actually went away, of course, and we can be confident most of the other human virii haven't gone away either. So if they get it wrong about the virus vanishing, we shouldn't be very surprised to see them back periodically either... And of course any amount of "come back" (even 1 case) anywhere around that year (2027 -2033 or whatever i decide?) of any virus from 2020ish will be enough for me to claim it did. Nor did she ever stated which virus she "foresaw", so we are free to presume SARS-Cov-2 or... well, any.
    – Stilez
    Aug 7 at 14:02
  • While this is a solid answer in general, I don't think it addresses the (Japanese) context enough. I doubt you could label "any sizeable disaster" as the predicted huge catastrophe in 2011, other than the Tohoku earthquake (which is the dominant even in recent history). With that in mind, I would've liked someone with the source material to comment on the other predictions like the death of Princess Diana which was supposedly published five years before it happened. Aug 9 at 1:59
  • I don't think so. For example, if she had said there would be a "big catastrophe" around the end of 2004, people would not have hesitated to say she "foresaw" the huge 2004 Indian tsunami. If she'd lived earlier and said a "big catastrophe" around 1986, people would not have hesitated to say she "foresaw" Chernobyl. "Around" April 1985 and Mt St Helens (even though it was March 1985 and USA). Its a "huge" cognitive fallacy to reinterpret what people say in light of hindsight, to fit what people want it to fit, and people * will * do that. So we must accept a wider frame, as well.
    – Stilez
    Aug 9 at 8:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .