Seriously: we're looking at a translation. You are insisting that she says what the text presented to us does not say. I am saying that we should look at the text as it is. And I did not rely ONLY on parsing the high points of the sentence. (There was a time when "parsing" was not a bad word; it was what we did in Latin class.) I also looked at the next sentence.
It seems to me the burden is on you. You have to look through the English to the Polish (good luck with that!) and/or explain why the translator chose to say she saw the light when St. Faustina said (according to your theory) that she saw the Father.
If nothing else, Occam's razor makes your construction unlikely. When we look a the data we have, we do not see an express claim that she saw the Father. So what other data can we find that indicates that she did not mean what she actually said? If there is none, then why not go with the actual meaning of the words?
That is the published translation , because she is a "saint" I can assume the church took as much time with that translation as it did with scripture..
So I can be confident it is an accurate translation right?
That is what we are to judge the spirit of by the word of God. Anybody can claim they had a vision, but if that vision starts telling them things that are unscriptural, you have to question the source.