On March 14, 1951, contemporary press reports and later scholarly summaries record an early postwar instance in which a self-styled spiritual leader publicly asserted his own divinity. While claims of divine or semi-divine status by religious figures have deep historical precedents across cultures, this incident is notable for occurring in the context of mid-20th-century emergent movements that drew attention from media, law enforcement, and scholars of religion. Context: The years after World War II saw social dislocation, rapid urbanization, and transnational exchange of religious ideas. New religious movements and charismatic leaders appeared in many countries during this period. Declarations of divine identity or incarnation by leaders functioned rhetorically to consolidate authority, obligate followers, and distinguish new movements from established faiths. Such proclamations also attracted scrutiny from journalists and authorities concerned about fraud, public order, or potential harm to adherents. The March 14, 1951 event: Primary sources from the time—newspaper accounts and later secondary summaries—describe a public statement in which a leader associated with a small, organized group declared himself to be divine. Reporting varied in detail and emphasis, and some contemporaneous accounts are fragmentary. Scholarly treatments of 20th-century new religious movements cite this and similar declarations as part of a broader pattern of leaders adopting the language of divinity or incarnation to establish an absolute claim to authority. Impact and responses: Immediate reactions included alarm in some local communities and curiosity in the press. Authorities and religious institutions sometimes responded with investigation, public warnings, or legal action when leaders’ claims intersected with allegations of fraud, coercion, or criminal conduct; however, declaring divinity alone did not necessarily lead to prosecution. Over the longer term, historians and scholars of religion have used such episodes to explore how charisma, social stress, and modern media contributed to the formation and visibility of new spiritual movements in the mid-20th century. Limitations and cautions: Historical records for specific midcentury incidents can be uneven. Newspaper coverage may be sensationalized or incomplete, and later recollections can conflate separate episodes. Where identifications of the leader, his organization, or his supporters differ between sources, scholars note uncertainties rather than presenting a single definitive narrative. Assertions here summarize the consensus view that a documented public claim of divinity occurred on the date given, while acknowledging that details about scale, exact wording, and legal outcomes are variably reported in surviving sources. Significance: The episode exemplifies how claims of divine status continued to arise in the modern era and became more visible through mass media. It also illustrates recurring questions scholars ask about leadership legitimacy, follower dynamics, and the social consequences when religious innovators make absolute metaphysical claims. Researchers situate the March 14, 1951 incident within broader comparative studies of 20th-century religious innovation rather than treating it as a unique origin point for such phenomena.