UAP Globe
Strongly Disputed

OVNI de Campo Largo: The Parana Lights Mayk Leao Filmed on 31 May 2026

Itambezinho, Campo Largo, Parana (Curitiba metropolitan region)  ·  31 May 2026  ·  Nocturnal lights / viral video · Brazil

A frame from the middle of Mayk Leao's original Instagram reel of 31 May 2026, cropped to the horizon and brightened. Sunset colour is still in the sky, and at this point the object has not yet bloomed into a single mass: the light source reads as a short horizontal run of separate white points sitting below the ridge silhouette against the dark wooded slope, with another isolated point on the same ridge line at the right of frame.
A frame from the middle of Mayk Leao's original Instagram reel of 31 May 2026, cropped to the horizon and brightened. Sunset colour is still in the sky, and at this point the object has not yet bloomed into a single mass: the light source reads as a short horizontal run of separate white points sitting below the ridge silhouette against the dark wooded slope, with another isolated point on the same ridge line at the right of frame. (Frame from the original reel posted by Mayk Leao (@mayk.leao) on 31 May 2026, crop and brightness adjustment by UAP Globe.)

For about a week in June 2026 the biggest UFO story in Brazil was a row of white lights above a treeline in rural Parana, filmed from a veranda by an animal rescue influencer named Mayk Leao. The Air Force said its radars saw nothing, the intelligence agency said a document circulating in his name was not theirs, and a YouTuber drove to the property and phoned the owner of the lights.

What did witnesses see at Itambezinho?

On the evening of Sunday 31 May 2026 a row of white lights appeared above the treeline near a small farm at Itambezinho. The farm belongs to Mayk Leao, a Campo Largo animal rescue influencer, who filmed the lights from his veranda and told his followers he had just seen a gigantic alien craft.

Campo Largo sits in the metropolitan region of Curitiba, and Itambezinho is rural, wooded and thinly populated. Leao described two encounters on the same day. In the afternoon, he said, something large passed low over the house making a crackling or clicking noise, which he compared to an insect or to fingers snapping. In the evening he filmed a formation of lights he placed over a stretch of closed forest above a river. In his own words to Gazeta do Povo, it was not an aeroplane and not a drone, it was very big, and it had many coloured lights.

He also described the surrounding circumstances that made the night feel wrong to him. The animals on the property were agitated. There are no close neighbours. The electric fence near where the horses are kept had come down, and he could not say what had knocked it over, only that something had crossed the pasture and gone into the trees. While he was trying to repair the fence he heard the noises he later attributed to the object. Interviewed by RPC he estimated the lights stayed put for a long time, saying that his own story sequence covered about twenty minutes of it and that he believed the total was between twenty and forty minutes, and he drew a sketch of what he thought had passed over the house.

What the recording itself shows is more specific than the description, and it is the reason this page exists. The original Instagram reel is a compilation of about two minutes and forty nine seconds at 720 by 1280, and the sky footage occupies roughly the middle minute of it. Two frames from that stretch settle most of the argument between them.

In the earlier frame there is still a broad band of sunset colour along the horizon, and the light source resolves into five or six discrete white points strung out in a roughly horizontal line, with a brighter blob at the left end of the line. Those points do not float against the bright sky. They sit below the ridge silhouette, against the dark wooded slope, and a further separate point of light is visible on the same ridge line well over to the right of frame. A little later in the same segment, with the sky now much darker and the phone zoomed further in, the identical group has stopped resolving into points at all and has become a single saturated elongated mass with soft blooming edges. That is a sensor and compression effect rather than a change in the object, and it is exactly the transformation that turned a line of lamps into a gigantic craft for several million viewers.

The conditions were as good as they get for seeing a long way. The Curitiba airport station reported CAVOK, meaning no significant cloud and unrestricted visibility, from 19:00 local through the evening, at 14 degrees with a dewpoint of 13. The sunset colour still visible in the earlier frame places that part of the recording close to civil twilight, which the United States Naval Observatory puts at sunset 17:36 and end of civil twilight 18:01 for this location on that date.

More footage and images of this sighting

The sky segment of the original reel, an excerpt of 43 seconds from the middle of the post Mayk Leao published on 31 May 2026. It runs from the part still lit by sunset colour, where the source resolves into separate points on the ridge, into the darker, more heavily zoomed part where they merge into one bright mass.
The same light source at two moments of the original reel, both crops enlarged by the same method. On the left, with sunset colour still in the sky, it resolves into five or six separate white points strung along a line below the ridge silhouette. On the right, a little later with the sky darker and the phone zoomed further in, the identical group has bloomed into one saturated elongated mass with no internal structure. The change is in the camera and the ambient light, not in the object.
The same light source at two moments of the original reel, both crops enlarged by the same method. On the left, with sunset colour still in the sky, it resolves into five or six separate white points strung along a line below the ridge silhouette. On the right, a little later with the sky darker and the phone zoomed further in, the identical group has bloomed into one saturated elongated mass with no internal structure. The change is in the camera and the ambient light, not in the object.
Henrique Pereira of the channel Na Lata Driver setting out his case that the lights come from a camping ground near the property. Included per the method: the strongest counter claim, presented as a claim.
Pereira's follow up, filmed at the location, in which he telephones the man who says he owns the camping ground and films the lights being switched off during the call.

What is the official explanation?

Two Brazilian federal bodies commented, and neither of them confirmed anything.

The Forca Aerea Brasileira answered through the Departamento de Controle do Espaco Aereo, the body that actually runs Brazilian airspace surveillance. Its note, given to the press on 2 June and reproduced identically by Band, Gazeta do Povo and ND Mais, reads that on 31 May no object was identified by the air defence radars or reported by local airports with information about unknown objects, and that control of the airspace took place within normality. Read carefully, that is a statement about radar returns and airport reports, not a verdict on what a phone camera recorded from a veranda, and it does not need to be stretched into one. A cluster of lamps on a neighbouring ridge is not something an air defence radar would ever be expected to detect.

The Agencia Brasileira de Inteligencia commented for a different reason. Leao had published what he presented as a summons from the agency, a document headed Comunicado Oficial de Atendimento numero 402/2026-DPIE/ABIN, in which a person identifying himself as an agent asked for a meeting to discuss the case and, in the document's own phrasing, to assure his constitutional rights as a Brazilian citizen and advise him about any approaches from international intelligence agencies. The message claimed to come from a personal profile and supplied a functional registration number and instructions for verifying it on the agency portal. ABIN told ND Mais plainly that it had not contacted the influencer and did not recognise the authenticity of the document circulating on social media. So the single most dramatic element of the story, a national intelligence service taking an interest, is disowned by that service.

A third official involvement is real but points elsewhere. The Policia Civil do Parana opened enquiries after Leao reported threats and possible trespass on his property, and after he posted that one of his goats, Margarida, had been found dead. In a preliminary examination the veterinarians attached to the responsible station found no indication of a crime in the animal's death.

No Brazilian agency has offered any explanation of what the footage shows, and none is obliged to. The absence of an official narrative is why this case is not filed as resolved by authority. What weight it carries comes from civilians.

What did the witnesses think it was?

The witness body here is unusually lopsided. There is one primary witness who is also the sole source of the imagery, and then a set of named third parties who went to the site afterwards and reached the opposite conclusion.

Mayk Leao produced animal rescue content before any of this. His account went from roughly 40,000 followers to more than 560,000 within about three days of the first video, as Gazeta do Povo reported on 3 June, and past two million within the week. The first video passed 450,000 likes, 10,000 shares and close to 20,000 comments. He has been consistent in public about what he says he saw, he swore to it on national television, and he has never retracted it. Those points are recorded here because a witness who does not walk his account back deserves to have that said, whatever the surrounding evidence.

The surrounding evidence includes commercial upside that has to be stated rather than insinuated. He opened a crowdfunding page which he said was to help with the monthly costs of 280 rescued animals, asking for 1,200 reais, and the fact checking outlet Aos Fatos recorded that it had taken 76,000 reais by 15 June. He began carrying alien themed advertising, including for a television series and a fast food promotion, during the same period. Fake profiles impersonating him also appeared and ran betting adverts, which is a harm done to him rather than by him. None of this establishes that the video is staged. All of it establishes a motive that an honest file has to weigh.

The named counter witness is Henrique Pereira, who runs the YouTube channel Na Lata Driver. On the evening of Saturday 6 June he drove to Itambezinho and filmed from the road in front of Leao's house, timestamping himself on camera at 19:03. He used the phone's zoom to pick out the distant light source and said that the property producing it is a camping ground that has always been there for anyone to see, adding that more than three million people had been deceived.

He then did the thing that raises this above an opinion. In a second video, filmed on the property where the original footage was made and with a woman he identifies as Leao's mother present, he telephoned a man who introduced himself as the owner of the camping ground while continuing to film the lights. The man agreed to switch them off. His words were that he would turn off the lights of the chacara, that the woman there should be told this is a camping ground, and that he has had those lights installed for at least five years, and that nobody is putting lights up to promote himself. His wife added that Leao already knew the place, saying that Mayk is a thoroughly decent person, that he had been there as a customer and knows their camping ground, and that campers come every weekend. On the recording the lights then go out in stages. As they do, the woman identified as Leao's mother says in the background that it really is from the chacara, that it simply had not shown up like this to them, and that it is indeed theirs.

Leao contested this the following day, on 7 June, live on the SBT programme Domingo Legal. His objection is specific and is reproduced here in full rather than summarised away. He said the videos ignore further lights to the left and to the right of the ones being demonstrated, that everyone was now trying to monetise the case, that he already knew the camping ground and could not expose it, and that the light shown by the YouTuber differs from his in scale and position. His exact phrasing was that the image there is much smaller than what he recorded, that a comparative scale of the two lights should be made, and that what he saw was straight, and that what passed over his house was straight. He also said he felt he was being thrown to the dogs by people producing content at his expense.

One further strand collapsed under checking rather than under testimony. Satellite coordinates circulated as proof that other objects had been seen in Parana, and Google Earth at those coordinates does show two odd shapes in forest. Aos Fatos established that the imagery dates from 2023 and was captured near Rio Branco do Sul, more than 30 kilometres from where Leao lives, and noted that the area is a ballooning centre, which would account for at least one of the shapes. Separately, sharpened versions of the original still began circulating, produced with the help of generative tools, and those derivatives are not evidence of anything about the original.

Is the OVNI de Campo Largo: The Parana Lights Mayk Leao Filmed on 31 May 2026 real? The two-pass assessment

Pass one, how this could be entirely ordinary.

It very probably is, and the strongest argument is not the YouTuber's demonstration but the footage itself, which can be checked by anyone who downloads the original post. While there is still sunset light in the sky, the object resolves into separate white points arranged along a line, and those points lie below the ridge silhouette, on the dark ground rather than in the air above it. A second isolated light sits on the same ridge line further along. Once the sky darkens and the digital zoom increases, the same points saturate the sensor and merge into a single glowing elongated shape with no internal structure. That progression runs the wrong way for an object and the right way for fixed lamps at distance: a real craft does not become less resolved as the ambient light falls and the camera moves closer in on it, but a row of small bright sources against a dark background does exactly that in a phone camera.

The independent on site work then supplies what the frames cannot. A named person went to the location, identified the source as a camping ground, telephoned its owner, and filmed the lights going out in stages while the call was live. The owner stated the installation predates the sighting by about five years and his wife stated that Leao had visited as a customer. The witness's own mother, standing on the property where the original video was shot, said on camera that the lights were the neighbouring chacara's. That is a method shown demonstration by civilians, not an official pronouncement, which is the only kind of demonstration that can carry weight here.

The ordinary reading also explains the parts of the account that sound least ordinary. Clicking or crackling in woodland at dusk in rural Parana is not a puzzle. Livestock unsettled at nightfall is not a puzzle. A downed electric fence on a rural property is not a puzzle, and Leao himself first assumed a wild animal, telling reporters he thought it might be a jaguar. The duration is the strongest tell of all: a light that stays in essentially the same place for twenty to forty minutes is behaving like something bolted down, and the account of it eventually going out is behaviour proper to a switch.

The two federal statements fit the ordinary reading without being needed by it. Air defence radar would not see lamps on a ridge, so the Air Force finding nothing is expected rather than probative. The intelligence agency contact, which was the element that made the story feel official, is disowned as a document the agency does not recognise, which removes the case's only apparent institutional endorsement.

One ephemeris note belongs here because it is often the answer in cases like this and is not the answer in this one. The Moon was exactly full on 31 May 2026, one hundred per cent illuminated, and it rose at 17:41 local, five minutes after sunset. That means the sky was bright all night and any observer had a large brilliant object low in the east, but it does not explain a stationary horizontal row of separate white points on a wooded ridge, and this file does not pretend that it does.

Pass two, what remains if the witness is describing something real.

What survives is narrower than the coverage implied, and it is not the famous video. The afternoon event has no imagery at all. If something large did pass low over the house in daylight making a mechanical noise, nothing recorded it and nothing can now test it, and the Air Force statement is not evidence either way about a low object beneath radar coverage. It stands as an uncorroborated first person account and cannot be raised above that.

Leao's specific objection to the demonstration is also not answered in full and should not be pretended away. He says there were additional lights to the left and right that the YouTuber's videos do not address, and that the light shown differs in scale and position from what he filmed. Nothing published resolves that comparison quantitatively. What can be said is that the frames examined here show more than one light source on that ridge line, which is consistent with a scattered rural installation and undercuts rather than supports the objection.

The case is filed as Strongly Disputed rather than resolved. An independent, named, method showing demonstration exists and is serious, the physical behaviour of the light source in the original footage points the same way, and the archive says so plainly. It stops short of the harshest verdict because the demonstration was made by a content creator rather than by a technical investigation, because no measurement was ever published comparing the demonstrated lights against the filmed ones, because the witness contests it in specific terms and has never recanted, and because no Brazilian authority has examined the footage at all. The surrounding circus, the impersonation accounts, the crowdfunding, the threats, the dead goat and the police enquiry, is evidence about what a viral event does to a person. It is not evidence about what was in the sky, and it is kept separate here for that reason.

Sources

More cases from this region: UFO sightings in Brazil

Related cases

← PreviousThe Green Light Seen Across South Korea: UFO, Missile or Meteor on 7 September 2026