About thirty minutes into his September 11 appearance on the Area52 podcast, actor Thomas Jane told host Chris Ramsay about a blood sample. A Bolivian medic, he said, had stitched up a tall, hairless, blond stranger during the 2019 wildfires, kept the bloody gauze, and later had it tested. “It turns out that the DNA is completely human,” Jane said, “but it's female.” Then: “It was immortal. The blood cells on the gauze didn't decay, they didn't turn black.” He called it “the most fascinating case and maybe the most consequential case” in the book he is writing. The episode had about 1.5 million YouTube views as of October 10, according to the video's public counter.
The medic is real and has told his story on camera many times since 2022. His name is Paul Parada, and the Spanish author J.J. Benítez has investigated his case. We went back through Parada's own interviews, Benítez's broadcast statements and the podcasts that carried the case, and found four differing public accounts of the lab results, plus an earlier microscope check by Parada himself that found the blood “completamente normal,” completely normal. We found no report or public statement from any of the laboratories named.
-
Parada says he treats an injured, telepathic stranger at a first-aid hut near San Juan de Taperas during the Chiquitania fires and keeps the bloody gauze.
-
First known interview. Parada says he examined the dried blood under a microscope and found it normal, “nada extraterrestre.” A DNA test was too expensive.
-
Benítez says two labs have reported: the blood was a woman's and “belongs to no human race.”
-
Benítez publishes Están aquí, which includes the case.
-
Thomas Jane: the DNA is “completely human,” female, and the blood “didn't decay.”
-
Host Pavel Ibarra, who first brought the case to Jane, says his conviction is “pretty low” and the results are “mostly human DNA.”
The Story Jane Told
The core of the account has stayed largely steady. Parada describes himself as an emergency doctor and volunteer firefighter from Santa Cruz, Bolivia. “Soy médico, pero mi especialidad es emergencias,” he told the Bolivian broadcaster Unitel in September 2022 (“I'm a doctor, but my specialty is emergencies”). In September 2019, during the Chiquitania fires, he was running an improvised first-aid post when, he says, a tall man in a one-piece blue suit came out of the dark with a deep cut on his forearm. Parada says the suit was spotless despite the bleeding, and that the man answered his questions without speaking, telling him in his mind that a puma cub had bitten him. Parada closed the wound with stitches over about forty minutes, noticed the man had no body hair, and then, he says, followed him outside to a dark disc hovering over the trees with two small beings beneath it.
The 2019 fires were real: by September 15, Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza counted 4,129,390 hectares burned across Bolivia, more than three million of them in Santa Cruz department, Correo del Sur reported. The encounter itself rests on Parada's word, and some details shift between tellings: the two small beings are “verde pálido,” pale green, in the 2022 Unitel account and gray in a July 2026 Red Uno report, and Benítez has described them as robots. Jane added details we could not find anywhere else, including that Parada was fired from his job after going public. (Jane refers to him as “Peralta.”)
Four Accounts of One Set of Results
Before any lab was involved, Parada looked for himself. In his earliest known interview, with the Argentine host Jorge Luis Sucksdorf of La Huella Ovni on August 23, 2022, he said he took the two cleanest gauze samples, stained the dried blood and looked at it under a microscope. His verdict, from the broadcast: “completamente normal… nada extraterrestre, nada fuera de lo común” (“completely normal… nothing extraterrestrial, nothing out of the ordinary”). A stained smear under a microscope cannot test DNA or species, so this was a limited check. He said he had looked into DNA testing abroad, since Bolivia has no forensic lab that does it, but that at around $4,000 it would be money spent “en vano,” in vain.
The first account of the lab results comes from Benítez, the Spanish journalist and author, who took up the case and the gauze. On September 20, 2025, he told the YouTube program La Señal that he had received results from two laboratories, which he named as the University of Santiago de Compostela and a private lab in Madrid. “Uno, era una mujer, no era un hombre,” he said (“One, it was a woman, not a man”). “Segundo, no pertenece a ninguna raza humana ni a ningún animal… de la Tierra” (“Second, it belongs to no human race nor to any animal… from Earth”). He added that the blood belonged to no blood group as far as he remembered and that a microorganism appeared to prevent the cells from oxidizing, which would mean “no envejecería nunca,” it would never age. He said that last point was still “por confirmar,” unconfirmed, pending three more labs. His book Están aquí followed on October 29, 2025.
The second is Jane's, a year later: “completely human,” female, “no male chromosomes,” and blood that stayed “fresh.” Jane's “completely human” and Benítez's “no human race” cannot both describe the same results. A third account arrived the next day. Pavel Ibarra, host of the Psicoactivo podcast and the person Jane credits with bringing him the case, said on September 12 that Parada had shown him some of the results and that his wife, whom he described as a scientist, read them: “it's mostly human DNA, but some of it was inconclusive.”
The fourth comes from the closest thing to a document anyone has shown, a set of blurry report fragments that a YouTuber, Bal Hatase, who describes himself as a nuclear physicist, displayed and analyzed on September 16. The fragments describe a standard forensic DNA kit, Promega's PowerPlex 21, and a sex marker reading of X only. Hatase said that when he ran the visible values through forensic genetics software the profile was “perfectamente compatible con un humano,” perfectly compatible with a human, with one unusual value, and he called the “no human race” framing “amarillismo,” sensationalism. He is an independent commentator working from partial images, and his is the only reading we found that engaged with the numbers.
What the Biology Says
A woman's DNA from a man. A sample showing only X-chromosome markers is what a female profile looks like, and the simplest way for a female profile to appear on gauze is for a woman's DNA to be on the gauze. By Parada's account the samples sat with him for years, were handled for microscopy, and passed through other hands before reaching a lab. Forensic research has shown repeatedly that people transfer DNA to objects they handle, which is why chain of custody matters. Contamination would more often produce a mixed profile, so it fits best if little of the stranger's own DNA survived on the gauze. If the profile really is the stranger's, there is also a known human condition in which people with two X chromosomes develop as male: 46,XX testicular difference of sex development, which MedlinePlus says affects “approximately 1 in 20,000 individuals with a male appearance.”
Blood that never ages. Dried blood changes color on a well-studied schedule, from red through brown to nearly black, as hemoglobin oxidizes. Researchers are developing methods that use that shift to estimate a stain's age, and have measured it changing over days to weeks, with temperature and humidity affecting the pace. A stain that did not change would be remarkable and measurable. The only public sources for it are Jane's retelling and Benítez's description of a microorganism he said was still unconfirmed. No lab result showing it has been published.
“No human race.” Forensic DNA kits compare a profile against population databases. An unusual allele can make a profile rare without making it nonhuman, and Hatase's one flagged value could be that kind of rarity. A claim that blood belongs to no human and no animal on Earth would need sequencing, published data and independent replication. None has appeared.
Where the Case Stands Among Its Own Researchers
Some of the strongest doubts come from the podcaster who carried the case to Jane. On the same September 12 episode, Ibarra said: “my conviction on this case is pretty low.” He said that pretty much every researcher who had taken it seriously on the La Señal side “does not take Paul Parada seriously anymore,” that “they feel like he plagiarized a lot of the documents that he showed,” and that La Señal's Fernando Silva “is now convinced that this guy was not telling the truth.” He described the case as “almost completely dismissed by South American researchers” and said Benítez had made no recent statement. Those are Ibarra's characterizations of other people's views; we have not heard from Silva directly, and the plagiarism concern has not been documented publicly.
Jane's own retelling acknowledged that something had gone quiet. “Somehow all of that has sort of gotten brushed under the rug,” he said on Area52. “Peralta stopped coming out. He stopped talking.” Parada was in fact still giving interviews in 2026, including to Mexican broadcaster Jaime Maussan in March.
On the same episode Jane also described, for the first time publicly, a night in 2011 when he says three glowing geometric shapes came through his ceiling, waited what felt like an hour and a half for his consent, and passed through him. “I know what happened to me,” he said. That account is his, and there is nothing to test it against. The blood case is different, because it comes with physical evidence and named laboratories, and those can be checked.
What This Doesn't Prove
A Physical Sample With No Published Result
1. We found no public statement or report from any named lab. Nothing has appeared from the University of Santiago de Compostela or the others, and the only document images are partial fragments shown on YouTube. Every description of the results reaches the public through someone other than the lab.
2. The descriptions contradict each other. Benítez's “no human race” cannot be squared with the other three accounts, and Jane's “completely human” goes further than Ibarra's “mostly human… some inconclusive.”
3. Chain of custody is unknown. By Parada's own account the gauze stayed with him for years and was prepared for microscopy before any DNA lab saw it. A female profile on a sample with that history needs contamination ruled out before it means anything.
4. The witness's own first check found nothing unusual. Parada's 2022 microscope check, limited as it was, found the blood normal. The extraordinary claims appeared only after the samples went to labs, and only through secondhand descriptions of what those labs found.
What to Watch Next
- The lab reports themselves. Benítez named the University of Santiago de Compostela. A statement or full report from any named lab would carry more weight than any secondhand account.
- The three pending analyses. Benítez said results from three more labs were outstanding in September 2025. He has not said publicly what they found.
- Jane's book. He says it covers the case in detail. We found no publisher listing yet; when it appears, its sourcing for the blood claims will be worth reading closely.
- An independent sample. Parada has said he kept more gauze. Testing by a lab with no prior involvement, with the results published, would be the strongest evidence either way.
Where It Stands
A Bolivian man who describes himself as an emergency doctor has told a largely consistent story since 2022 about treating a strange patient during the 2019 fires. The blood that would make it the most consequential case Thomas Jane knows of has been described four different ways by four different people, none of them a lab, and his own microscope check found it normal.
The case is unverified. Ibarra, who brought it to Jane, now says his conviction is low and that other researchers have dropped it, while Benítez has not publicly updated his claims. Until a named lab publishes a full report that someone independently repeats, the “immortal blood” remains unverified.
Thomas Jane's retelling, from about 20:30.
Parada's first interview (Spanish), including the microscope result near 23:50.
Bolivian TV report (Spanish).
J.J. Benítez on the lab results (Spanish), from about 27:10.
Pavel Ibarra's update, from about 31:50.
Analysis of the report fragments (Spanish).
Sources: Area52 with Chris Ramsay, ep. 101, Thomas Jane (September 11, 2026) · La Huella Ovni, Jorge Luis Sucksdorf interview with Paul Parada (August 23, 2022) · Unitel (September 6, 2022) · Red Uno (July 2026) · La Señal, interview with J.J. Benítez (September 20, 2025) · Editorial Planeta, Están aquí (October 29, 2025) · Psicoactivo, Pavel Ibarra (September 12, 2026) · Bal Hatase, report-fragment analysis (September 16, 2026) · Correo del Sur, FAN fire figures (September 19, 2019) · NASA Earth Observatory, “A River of Smoke” (2019) · MedlinePlus Genetics, 46,XX testicular difference of sex development · Hanson & Ballantyne, bloodstain age and the hemoglobin Soret band (PLoS One, 2010) · Sessa et al., touch DNA and handling time (Scientific Reports, 2019). Quotes from video programs are transcribed from the broadcasts' captions and checked against their timestamps; Spanish quotes are translated by TruthCapsuleTV.