Abstract
Sundararajan and Kim (2014) claimed that Thomas Müntzer was a false mystic based on criteria that they believed characterize authentic mystics, such as preferring transcendence over immanence. They selected Müntzer as a false mystic, compared to so-called authentic mystics, due to his not, at least in their evaluation, meeting their criteria, as well as based on their historical interpretation of his life. Their rejection of Müntzer's authenticity as a mystic is challenged by contradictory historical evidence and concerns about the validity of the criteria they used to classify mystics as either false or authentic. It is not claimed that Müntzer is either authentic or false as a mystic, but only that classifying him as false is unconvincing, based on available evidence.