In June 1918 several newspapers and later retellings circulated a dramatic account that a man had been struck by lightning seven times and survived. Reporting on lightning injuries in the early 20th century often combined eyewitness statements, sensational headlines, and limited medical verification; as a result, precise facts about this particular claim are uncertain. Contemporary newspaper reports varied. Some regional papers printed brief dispatches mentioning a man struck repeatedly by lightning during a storm; others amplified the number of strikes or added vivid details. At that time, wire services, local correspondents, and reprints between papers could propagate errors or embellishments without the rigorous source verification expected today. Medical understanding of lightning injury in 1918 was incomplete compared with modern knowledge. Survivors of lightning strikes can experience a range of outcomes—from minor burns and temporary neurological symptoms to fatal cardiac arrest—depending on factors such as the current path, grounding, and immediate medical care. Multiple nonfatal strikes on the same individual are extremely rare but not impossible, particularly if a person remained in a location repeatedly exposed to storms (for example, outdoors in open terrain or near tall objects) and if the reports conflated separate incidents or included exaggeration. Modern severe-weather researchers and lightning safety organizations note that human accounts from the past should be treated cautiously unless corroborated by medical records, contemporaneous hospital documentation, or well-documented eyewitness testimony. For the 1918 case, I could not locate definitive hospital records or identified primary-source documentation that firmly establishes the identity of the man, the exact date beyond June 1918, or medical follow-up. Secondary retellings over the decades have preserved the headline claim but offer inconsistent details. Historians of weather and medical history use such episodes to illustrate both the public fascination with extreme events and the limits of early 20th-century reporting. Lightning fatalities and injuries were more commonly reported in local newspapers because storms had immediate local impact and because sensational human-interest stories drew readers. That context helps explain why dramatic claims—like multiple strikes on a single person—entered the public record even when verification was thin. In summary: the claim that a man survived seven lightning strikes in June 1918 appears in period newspapers and later retellings, but lacks clear, corroborated primary-source documentation. The episode highlights the era’s reporting practices and the need for cautious interpretation of extraordinary historical claims about weather-related survival.