I was listening to Brother Bugnolo and he spilled some good info regarding Prevost, and so I dug into this story and found out to be true

Prevost's grandather was actuallly one Salvatore Giovanni Riggitano, a Sicilian immigrant.  So why did this Rigatoni change his name?  Simple.  He was in fact having an adulterous affair, and his wife brought legal charges against him, which led to his arrest.  So Rigatoni here fled and tried to evade justice by changing his name, to John (from Giovanni) Prevost.  Prevost was actually the maiden name of the mother of the woman with who he was committing adultery and whom he later "married", this Suzanne Fontaine (Fontaine was her name, that of her father, whiel her mother's maiden name was Prevost).

Consequently, the very name Prevost was conceived in adultery, and then the subsequent Prevost line derives from adultery.

How interesting it is that one of Bergoglio's first "Magisterial" heresies was in fact Amoris Laetitia, the justification of adultery.

Brother Bugnolo also explained that Prevosts were tied to Chicago mafia, including Marcinkus.  Prevost also has publicly praised Bernardin even while actual Catholics avoid mention of his name due to his sordid predations on young seminarians (in Satanic contexts) ... and then went into Prevost's extensive record of having covered up sɛҳuąƖ predation throughout his career.

Bugnolo predicted an American, likely Prevost, before the Nonclave ... because it's actually American Catholics who are trying to keep the Vatican afloat financially (their finances are evidently a total disaster) ... so the hope was that they get some money from America if they put Prevost out there.

Bugnolo also says that Prevost was chosen right after Alex Soros visited Bergoglio ... suggesting that Soros told him who the next pope would be.

While not all of it can be verified, it does sound rather plausible, and the whole Riggitano -> Prevost (adultery) angle can be and has been verified.

No, there is evidence that Rama clung to his father's Traditionalism (see above).

I haven't listened to this, but here's an interview of Fr(?) Dr Coomaraswamy on Art Bell, specifically regarding his relationship with Fr. Martin, that sounds like it might be interesting.

So ... I've got serious problems with his credibility here, either that or of Fr. Martin.  If you see this interview (linked below) with Fr.(?) Coomaraswamy on Art Bell's show, he relates that Fr. Martin told him a completely different story about how he had allegedly read the Third Secret.  According to Coomaraswamy, Fr. Martin told him that he had been riding in a car with John XXIII, when the latter directly gave him the Third Secret, after having sworn him to silence about it.  Now, according to Marro, Fr. Martin said it was Cardinal Bea who gave him the Secret, after having left a meeting behind closed doors during which heating argument could be overheard.  So, which one was it?  Both really can't be true, since if Fr. Martin had already read the Third Secret from John XXIII, he could have just said to Cardinal Bea, "oh, I've alredy seen this, from John XXIII".

We have only a few options here.  Either Fr(?) Coomaraswamy was lying, or Marro is lying, or Fr. Martin was lying, and unable to keep his lies straight.  I don't think Coomaraswamy would lie, as he has always been regarded as a man of high character, even if I don't agree with all his positions.  So in my mind either Marro is making all this up to sell a book, or Fr. Martin was lying.  Now, if this was some story from Fr. Martin, why had he not told this to other people with whom he was close?  Fr. Martin was known to have had a very close relationship with Coomaraswamy, but this is the first time I had heard of Marro, and how is it that he's evidently the ONLY one to whom Fr. Martin would have told this story?  And some of Marro's story seems nonsensical.  Between that and this never having come out over all these many years ... I am highly suspect that this book is largely fictional (like many of Fr. Martin's books) and just a ploy to make money ... and it appears to be working.

 I can't imagine how someone could know what the third secret says and not publish it.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that second charge?  Otherwise, it would constitute calumny. 

I posted this on X in respose to Lifesite's post about the book and interview with Marro:
How come that nobody in the Traditional movement has ever heard of this Marro character before, or that Fr. Martin had never told some of these stories to anyone else with whom he had been in close association, and that it's just coming out now, many decades later?

It's hard for me to conclude anything other than that Marro made it all up, or made most of it up, in order to make money by seeling his book ... and it appears to be working.