Key Takeaways
Businessman Richard M. Silanskas Jr. has admitted to sending religious messages to 91-year-old investor O. Gene Bicknell while posing as a fictional nun named “Sister Catherine.”
Bicknell alleges the messages were part of a scheme designed to convince him that God wanted him to invest more than $60 million in the planned American Heartland Theme Park.
Silanskas admits authoring and sending the messages but says Bicknell pressured him to continue the communications and that he feared for his safety.
The lawsuit remains a civil case involving allegations including fraud, conspiracy, deceit, and unjust enrichment. No court has ruled that all of Bicknell’s allegations are true.
Did a Businessman Really Pretend to Be God to Fund a Theme Park?
A bizarre lawsuit over a failed Oklahoma theme park has taken a new turn after businessman Richard M. Silanskas Jr. admitted that he sent an elderly investor messages presented as divine guidance and emails attributed to a fictional nun.
The admission comes in an ongoing federal lawsuit filed by O. Gene Bicknell, a 91-year-old businessman and former Pizza Hut franchise magnate. Bicknell alleges that he was manipulated into investing more than $60 million in the proposed American Heartland Theme Park in Vinita, Oklahoma.
According to court filings, Silanskas acknowledged during a June deposition that he authored and sent religious communications known as “Today’s Word,” along with messages attributed to a supposed nun named “Sister Catherine.” Bicknell alleges that the messages were designed to make him believe God wanted him to continue financing the project.
Who Is “Sister Catherine”?
According to the lawsuit, Bicknell received numerous emails from accounts appearing to belong to “Sister Catherine,” a purported nun who offered religious guidance about the theme park project.
But Sister Catherine did not exist.
Silanskas has now acknowledged that he was behind the messages. Some communications were labeled “Today’s Word” and allegedly presented directions about the project as though they reflected God’s wishes.
Bicknell’s lawsuit alleges that the religious messaging exploited his deeply held Christian faith and encouraged him both to put additional money into American Heartland and to grant Silanskas and business partner Larry Wilhite substantial ownership in the project.
Silanskas has offered a different explanation for why he continued the deception. During his deposition, he reportedly said Bicknell demanded further communications from Sister Catherine and that he feared Bicknell might harm him or his family.
Those competing explanations remain part of an unresolved civil dispute.
How Much Money Was Invested in American Heartland?
Bicknell alleges that he invested more than $60 million in the American Heartland project.
The planned development was announced in 2023 as a large Americana-themed destination in Vinita, Oklahoma, with promoters saying it could eventually include a 125-acre theme park and resort complex.
The project was promoted as a major economic development that could attract millions of visitors, but those plans ultimately collapsed. Bicknell alleges that little was built despite the tens of millions of dollars he provided.
His July 2025 lawsuit names Silanskas, Wilhite, and theme park designer Stephen Hedrick as defendants.
Attorneys for Wilhite and Hedrick have sought to distance their clients from the religious messages. Wilhite’s attorneys say he did not know Silanskas was behind them, while Hedrick’s attorney says her client had nothing to do with the “Today’s Word” or Sister Catherine communications.
What Charges Does Silanskas Face?
This is an important distinction: Silanskas is not currently facing criminal “charges” in this lawsuit.
Bicknell filed a civil lawsuit alleging fraud, deceit, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other wrongdoing.
The original complaint also asserted claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO.
RICO can be used in both criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits, but this case is civil.
The RICO portion has also become more complicated since the lawsuit was originally filed. In May 2026, a federal judge dismissed Bicknell’s RICO claims against Wilhite without prejudice, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege the required pattern of racketeering activity. The court allowed Bicknell’s other claims against Wilhite to continue.
That makes it misleading to describe the lawsuit simply as involving “two RICO charges.”
The broader fraud litigation remains active, and Silanskas’s recent admissions concerning the religious messages have become part of the continuing discovery dispute.
Why Did Silanskas Admit Sending the Religious Messages?
The admission emerged as Bicknell’s attorneys sought access to additional electronic records.
In an August court filing supporting a motion to compel, Bicknell’s attorneys sought Silanskas’s cell phone records, Google accounts, and other electronic materials related to the dispute.
Silanskas had previously fought subpoenas involving Google and Yahoo accounts. Earlier in 2026, the court rejected several of those efforts and ordered discovery to proceed.
According to recent reporting, Silanskas acknowledged during a June deposition that he authored and sent the “Today’s Word” and Sister Catherine messages. Bicknell’s attorneys also allege that Silanskas had previously denied or withheld information about his role in the communications.
The admission establishes who sent at least some of the disputed messages. It does not, by itself, resolve the broader allegations against every defendant or determine whether all of Bicknell’s fraud claims will ultimately succeed.
Is It Illegal to Impersonate a Nun or Other Clergy Member?
There is no single nationwide law that makes every act of pretending to be clergy illegal.
Whether it becomes unlawful depends largely on what the person does while using the false identity.
For example, Alabama has an unusually specific statute making it a misdemeanor to fraudulently pretend in public, through clothing or outward appearance, to be a minister, nun, priest, rabbi, or other clergy member. A violation can carry up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $500, or both.
But that law does not mean simply dressing as a nun or priest for Halloween is automatically illegal. The statute specifically requires fraudulent pretense.
In many cases, impersonating a religious figure becomes legally significant because it is part of another alleged offense, such as fraud, identity theft, or a scheme to obtain money.
That distinction is particularly relevant to Bicknell’s lawsuit. The central issue is not merely that Silanskas pretended to be a nun. Bicknell alleges that the false religious identity and supposed messages from God were deliberately used to influence his financial decisions.
Why Does Religion Matter in This Lawsuit?
What makes the case unusual is the alleged use of religious faith as the mechanism of financial persuasion.
Bicknell claims the defendants knew that his Christian beliefs were deeply important to him and that the supposed divine messages were crafted to exploit that trust.
The lawsuit therefore raises a broader issue common to religious fraud cases: spiritual authority can create an unusually powerful form of trust, particularly when someone believes advice is coming from clergy or even from God.
Religious belief itself is not on trial in the case. Instead, the legal question is whether religious language and fabricated identities were knowingly used as part of a fraudulent scheme.
What Happens Next?
As of September 14, 2026, Bicknell v. Silanskas remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Silanskas’s admission that he authored and sent the religious messages resolves one factual mystery that had surrounded the case, but many of the larger allegations remain contested.
No court has yet issued a final ruling finding the defendants liable for the alleged scheme, and attorneys for Wilhite and Hedrick deny that their clients participated in Silanskas’s religious impersonation.
For now, the case remains an extraordinary example of how allegations of fraud, business investment, and religious trust can become intertwined.
