Abbé Boudet is boring – no matter how much people think there's something “special” about his book “La Vraie langue celtique et le cromleck de Rennes-les-Bains” (1886). It's rather like being interested in Sasquatch and thinking there is something special about Dr Jeffrey Meldrum who died recently, whose “researches” amounted to nothing to normal and everyday people.

Throughout history, there have been many studies, interpretations, or theories that are considered eccentric, fringe, or “goofy” by mainstream scholarship. These often stem from attempts to find hidden meanings (like numerology or code-breaking) rather than established linguistics.

Fabre d'Olivet, “The Hebraic Tongue Restored: And The True Meaning of The Hebrew Words Re-Established and Proved by Their Radical Analysis” was published in English in 1921. In essence, its worth isn't primarily linguistic accuracy but its profound impact as a spiritual key, making it invaluable to esotericists and mystics interested in hidden knowledge. D'Olivet believed Hebrew embodied the primal language of humanity, containing profound philosophical truths lost in translation, a concept highly valued by occultists like Eliphas Levi and G.R.S. Mead. Even though Fabre d'Olivet was born in the Languedoc in 1767 – he did not mention Rennes-le-Château even once. Yet people strongly believe and take for granted that the “mystery” existed for centuries before Saunière's birth in Montazels in 1852.

The deciding factor for taking Boudet seriously and becoming addicted to his highly-questionable language “theory” would not exist without the conspiracy theories belonging to Abbé Saunière and Rennes-le-Château in the first place, as begun by Noël Corbu as recently as the mid-1950s (that is, some 70 years ago).

Belief in silly or pseudohistorical books is driven by a combination of emotional satisfaction, cognitive biases, and a desire for simple explanations in a complex world. Pseudohistory often presents as a compelling narrative – a “good story” – that promises hidden knowledge, making it more appealing than the rigorous, nuanced, and often dry findings of academic history. Successful pseudohistory often mimics the look and feel of real academic work, featuring footnotes, bibliographies, and an authoritative tone that can deceive casual readers. Finally, a significant factor is a lack of trust in established institutions, scientists, and historians.