EN | NL | FR
Current Wings Quest 130
Rainbow Connection

Sun-gazing

Post new topic Reply to topic

Author  Message 
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Tue 23 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

GreenDragon wrote:
Research is a fickle thing, it's not all that is needed to understand something. There is a lot of false data, misinterpreted graphs and faulty reasoning out there. To the layman that sort of thing is not obvious and there can be very convincing arguments made, that are entirely without merit. For example there was a politician who tried to have water banned, because there was a site made as a joke using a scientific handle for it.


Very good point. The connotations of nice, natural sounding names versus technical, scientific sounding names only clouds this kind of debate further. I think people in general are given to think that anything with the label 'natural' stuck to it is automatically better than something artificial...

"Water?"

"Why yes! Great stuff, this water!"

"Dihydrogen monoxide?"

"Huh? What kind of chemicals are you trying to make me drink, Mr Scientist??"

I'll say a little more about the natural/artificial dichotomy in a bit...

Shakanah wrote:
Wow you are the cloudy sky aren't you. Nice to meet you anyway. I'm afraid I might rain on your parade but I hope I don't offend you, its not my intention.

I know there is no science to sungazing that can validate its efficacy but the results really do speak for themselves, which is testimonial enough for me to do what I do. You have a right to your opinion, and fear, of the sun and I respect that, as we all have the right to free choice and thinking.


It’s nice to meet you too Shakanah. And welcome to the forums by the way smile
Don’t worry, you won’t offend me with anything you say. And for my part I’m not out to offend anyone either. I’d just like to keep others (and myself as well) thinking. It can be helpful when you’re trying to come to the truth about anything to have a skeptic included in the discussion. And when it comes to something like this, where I think there is an amount of risk involved, it’s best to be certain that everyone is clear on all the information at hand so that they can make good decisions. I’m sure this is one thing you and I agree on.

Quote:

I understand your concerns for others about the promotion of safe sungazing, but I don't think something as natural as staring at the source that keeps you alive and healthy, could be contrasted in the same picture as "dangerous drugs."
However, you are correct in that it must be done safely and carefully.


I’m not sure myself whether sun gazing is as dangerous, or even if it’s the same sort of ‘dangerous’ as certain drugs, if you see what I mean. But I just thought I’d raise the point: we don’t allow discussion about drugs on the forums because if someone were to go and try them, and hurt themselves, then we might share some responsibility for that. I would just hate for someone to damage their vision because of something they read here as well, that’s all I’m getting at. In any case, I’m glad we agree that whatever someone does, it should be done safely.

Quote:
If your reasons for being such a hardcase on sungazing are sincere, I do have to wonder why it would seem that you haven't researched data yourself on the sun? I am an avid researcher and spend quite a number of hours a day sifting through scientific research data on natural health and recently on sungazing. I've read as much information as I can get my hands on about the sun and actually just finished reading a book on high doses of vitamin D (which we get naturally from the sun) and how it is curing cancers, Diabetes, and Multiple Schlerosis. Curing? Yes apparently so according to the scientific research in the book. I am very open minded and don't like to put limitations on my beliefs as I know we are capable of much more than we currently recognize.


As it happens, I know a little bit about the sun. I wouldn't have made the claims in this thread that I have if I did not have some evidence to back them up, after all. In fact I’ve always been an astronomy geek. I loved to learn about stars and planets, even when I was a child. I’ve even had the chance to study a little bit about astronomy in university, and I did pretty well in those classes. So, the sun being a star, I’d say I know at least enough about how stars work to hold my own in a topic like this. Of course I like to keep reading and learning more as well, and I realize that we still have a lot to learn. In fact, that’s what keeps me interested in science, the very fact that we know so little. Of course I’d be happy to read through some of the links you provided below anytime. But as for the reasons I’m skeptical about sun gazing, and about alternative medicine in general, I’ll say a little bit more about that below.

Quote:
You don't believe in alternative medicine? Are you aware of the dangers of taking prescription medications? They are now listed as the number one cause of accidental death in the world. Each chemically composed tablet contains within it a symptomatic relief and the cause for another complaint. There are dangers hidden within the very scent of mainstream medications that you should probably become more aware of if you intend to use these as method of healing.
I have seen alternative medicine provide more healing and relief than I could ever hope to attribute to convential treatments, but each to their own. I wish you well.


Believe me, I’m well aware of how dangerous prescription medications are. After all, that’s why doctors have to have a license to prescribe them, and pharmacists to dispense them. And that’s also why both of these kinds of professionals have to spend years educating themselves on the uses and effects of different medications. I think all of this makes it pretty obvious that, if used improperly (even doctors can make mistakes when prescribing medicine, after all, they’re only human) prescription medicine can be nasty. But when it comes to western medicine, I have a similar opinion to what Churchill said about democracy…that is, western medicine may be the worst form of medicine there is, except for all the other ones.

Now I don’t want to carry this thread too far off-topic, so if you like we could talk about alternative medicine in another thread. I’m sure we’d have a pretty stimulating discussion! For now, I’ll just say a little more and then get back on track. The fact is, western medicine works. There are some very sad cases that probably could have been helped by western medicine, but weren’t. I’m thinking of Andy Kaufmann, the performance artist, who was diagnosed with lung cancer. He used all kinds of alternative treatment to no avail. Western medicine might not have saved his life, as he did have a pretty aggressive kind of cancer…but it may have given him a fighting chance. Another example is Steve Jobs, who went for months without any treatment on his pancreatic cancer, opting for alternative treatments instead, which didn’t work. His life might have been saved had he chosen to intervene earlier with more conventional treatment. Finally, if western medicine were practised more, and better, in developing parts of the world, we could increase the average lifespan of these populations to a huge degree. The thing is these areas are where more traditional medicine is practised the most. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to use alternative medicine per se, as long as you are getting some kind of treatments that work…but opting for only alternative medicine when we have affective treatments available in western medicine can be awfully wasteful. Now I hope I don’t sound like accusing you of this, because it sounds like you’re taking a both/and approach to medicine…but I just think it would be a shame for anyone to pick something that has no medical value just because it’s "natural" or "alternative," when we have treatments that we know work. Anyway, back to the topic…

Quote:

There are so many benefits we can gain from the sun, when we utilize it in a balanced way. Slapping sunscreens on as soon as we go outside, not only prevents vitamin D from being produced by the skin, but the chemical agents in the sunscreen, react with the heat and produce dangerous carcinogenics that are absorbed into the body and which themselves have been shown to cause melanoma and the accumluation of dangerous toxins in the liver. Sunglasses also stop the beneficial light wave frequencies that prevent depression, SAD, and anxiety. So as you can see, we need to be cautious of much more than avoiding and hiding from the sun. There is so much evidence now to suggest that we should actually spend time in the sun without protection, especially now that the suns production of vitamin D (which is now becoming recognized as a superhormone that directly impacts the immune system) has been scientifically proven to cure 17 different types of cancer.


I agree with you, that is, that the sun can be beneficial. But we still have to take precautions in light of damage to the ozone layer, etc. Heck, I think people should go outside more and get their helping of vitamin D as well! But needless to say this is much safer than staring straight into the sun. So by all means, spend some time outside…if you don’t want to wear sunscreen, spend your time in the shade or wear proper clothing on days with a high UV index (although I think people should still wear sunscreen). You’ll get no arguments from me on the benefits of going outside and being active, getting fresh air and sunshine and so on.

But on that note, isn't sun gazing not only dangerous, but completely unnecessary? Why gaze directly at something that can blind you when you can simply spend a few hours outside? That’s another one of the odd things about sun gazing, to me at least…that there are less dangerous ways to get the same benefits that sun gazing advocates talk about. Why not do that instead of risking damage to your eyes? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Quote:

I'll finish with this statement. We are natural beings, that thrive on natural elements and our innate healing potential is capable of healing everything when we remove obstruction and allow it to do its job. The methods we choose to use to remove obstruction, is where our God given choice lies.
Be well


I might be straying a little off-topic again. If so, I apologize…we could certainly talk about this more in a discussion about alternative medicine too. Anyhow, this is just a quick word about the sort of ‘naturalism’ that's been brought up a few times now. It’s true that a lot of illnesses that are rampant now occurred much less frequently before we became so industrialized and so consumerist. The fact is, we buy and use a lot of things we don’t need to and which aren’t good for us. But it's a trade-off, and I for one rather like having computers, electricity, and things like that. But those things aside, we have to be careful about how much power we attribute to ‘natural’ medicine or our natural immune system. After all many illnesses are also natural. My body has a natural capacity to heal injuries or to fight off certain diseases, but a lot of those diseases are natural too…viruses, bacteria, and so on. Just think about how certain diseases have been nearly wiped out thanks to vaccines. Or, how illnesses that were deadly just a few centuries ago can now be treated with simple antibiotics. My point is here is that we should try to avoid a ‘natural vs. technological’ sort of mindset when it comes to medicine, because this is a false dichotomy. Our modern world and the lifestyle that goes with it can be bad for us sometimes…but in a lot of cases, the medicine that goes with it is great! Same goes for natural things…getting out and getting some sun, like we’ve been talking about here, is fantastic…it’s perfectly natural. The hemlock that killed Socrates was also perfectly natural.

You seem like you’ve really given all this a great deal of thought, and that’s wonderful. When I rain on people’s parades I’m only doing so, so that they have something else to think about. I hope that whoever reads this thread takes what each of us has had to say into consideration, because I do think you’ve raised some good points. And of course, if you’re up for a chat about alternative medicine, maybe we can start another topic on it? In the meant time, stay well smile


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Hi Green Dragon,

Nice to meet you.

Quote:
The problem with 'results' like those you refer to is that they are unreliable, insufficiently tested and anecdotal. There is the well-known placebo effect for a start. Not to mention people might cite it as a reason for feeling more energetic when they at the same time as starting it, took up walking / working out, for example
.

You're right, the only tests involved are personal testimonials, mine included and can not be counted as double blind placebos, however, if it leads one into a positive experience, surely it can only be viewed as a working example, after all, the only thing missing, is the scientist to run and publish consecutive testing and results.

Quote:
Proven by whom? What research did they do? I don't want to come across as that annoying guy who pins people to the details, but you are making a scientific claim here, without citing your source.


Once again, you're right. I don't have any evidence to back up the claim that the UV rays are low enough to be safe at sunrise/sunset. I haven't been able to track any down either, probably because mainstream publications refuse to believe anything other than the current indoctrination that the sun is bad for us at all times. I apologize for citing something without evidence.

Quote:
Horse manure is used to fertilize the plants we eat, it therefore helps keep us healthy and alive. I don't think that means eating or staring at it will produce any form of benefit. Just being natural doesn't mean it's a good idea to stare at it, or consume it.


On the contrary, quantum physics would have you believe otherwise. Giving energy to fecal matter may increase its potency, not that I would suggest spending time doing this to find out. I think our time is much better spent with our attention on living matter, such as nature, the sun included. There is much we have yet to learn by keeping an open mind to all possibility.

Quote:
Research is a fickle thing, it's not all that is needed to understand something. There is a lot of false data, misinterpreted graphs and faulty reasoning out there. To the layman that sort of thing is not obvious and there can be very convincing arguments made, that are entirely without merit. For example there was a politician who tried to have water banned, because there was a site made as a joke using a scientific handle for it.


How very true. I have read quite a few accounts on the latest pharmaceutical law suits that are currently running, where research was falsified, or misleading. This in itself is enough to distrust research findings on everything. Unfortunately, if we revert to this level of thinking, we have no measurement to guide our beliefs, and therefore must be reduced to trusting our............instinct. woo

Quote:
There seems to be a constant background chatter about supposed cures for terminal illnesses. I'm a little sceptical at this point and certainly wouldn't jump into taking supplements, altering my behaviour or citing it as a reason to stare at the sun.


I have a passion for alternative healing, I guess it comes through in my communication. grin

Quote:
It's prudent to be sceptical of alternative medication. Some of them may have some basis in reality, others might be placebo. The thing about it is, you don't have to be qualified to make claims about 'alternative medicine.' to prescribe traditional medications, you have to study the human body for many years. As well as be registered, approved and reviewed by a medical council.
There is a reason that when somebody gets seriously injured they go to a hospital and not an alternative medicine clinic. I'm not trying to run alternative medicine down, but it simply isn't in the same league as traditional medicine and healing techniques. There shouldn't really be a question of how much faith you have in traditional medicine. To deny that traditional medicine has proven itself or try to undermine it suggesting 'alternative' medicine as a more proven alternative is simply dishonest. Traditional medicine is not perfect, nothing is, hence why there are many thousands of people focused on improving it, like with all scientific fields.


With alternative medicine, claims are forbidden, even with double blind placebo testing. Now there's something wrong with that picture. I'm not sure where you are from, but in Australia, naturapaths have to study almost as long as doctors, as well as being registered, approved and reviewed by a council.
I'm not completely against conventional treatment either. I believe there is a place for both, once the pharmaceuticals greedy hands are surgically removed from the motives of modern medicine.
I have been studying natural therapies for over 12 years now. I have read countless testimonials and even created some of my own using natural therapies in the place of conventional ones. A couple of examples include reversing diagnosed Bipolar in my youngest daughter, using a natural chiropractic technique I developed myself to take the pressure off the nerves at the base of the skull that control mood, or putting a man into full remission for his inoperable tumor, when he refused chemotherapy, or there's the young man who suffered from Bells Palsy, doctors diagnosis was that he would never recover, and yet using just my intention and my hands, he was healed completely within a week. That's a few of the things I can say about my own experience with natural medicines and healing.
While the pharmaceutical companies sponsor doctors, we will never find cures for our worst diseases, there is too much money to be made from illness. Would you consent to having chemotherapy if you knew that it only had a 2% success rate? Or would you consider a natural product such as Artemisinin that has a 100% success rate against breast cancer and is now showing the same results with other cancers? Like I said, there is much to be learnt if you have an open mind.

Quote:
This is anecdotal evidence. We have anecdotal evidence which conflicts with itself in other areas, it's good to be sceptical of anything anecdotal and understandable to refuse to accept it at all.


I'm sorry that you feel so skeptical and distrusting of so many things. sadblauw

Concerning sunscreens and vitamin D you said:
Quote:
You again also cite no credible research for your scientific claim, so for me it stays the opinion of another person on the internet catagory for now.


Please read the information in the links below to see all the cited research about sunscreens and vitamin D. Maybe my format confused you. Should I have put it in directly after I make claims? I'm fairly new to forum guidelines.

Quote:
Light wave frequencies? Is this still scientific, or are you speaking metaphysically now?


Once again, please read the links below.

Quote:
Just a quick read of the wikipedia article on Vitamin D is enough to show that what you are putting forwards as a growing consensus, is at best on shaky ground. Let alone being a scientifically proven cure for 17 types of cancer.


Again, the links below will offer all the research data to confirm this.

[quote]To be honest what you say seems self-defeating, we are natural beings I agree. Therefore what tools we create, derived from the natural world around us are inherently natural as well.[quote]

I would agree, but some are self destructive and others life affirming. Judgement of each must inevitably come down to one's own intuitive beliefs. wink


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Hey Shaper,

Thank you for your warm welcome.

One of the reasons I was drawn to forums is to keep ideas flowing and people thinking so we have something in common, even if it isn't sungazing. Lol.
And yes, I do agree, having all the information on something you're trying is always the best way to ascertain good decision making, and safety.

Quote:
In fact I’ve always been an astronomy geek.


I too have an interest in the stars and planetary alignments, not as passionate as natural health or quantum physics but still an interest.

Quote:
The fact is, western medicine works. There are some very sad cases that probably could have been helped by western medicine, but weren’t. I’m thinking of Andy Kaufmann, the performance artist, who was diagnosed with lung cancer. He used all kinds of alternative treatment to no avail. Western medicine might not have saved his life, as he did have a pretty aggressive kind of cancer…but it may have given him a fighting chance. Another example is Steve Jobs, who went for months without any treatment on his pancreatic cancer, opting for alternative treatments instead, which didn’t work. His life might have been saved had he chosen to intervene earlier with more conventional treatment. Finally, if western medicine were practised more, and better, in developing parts of the world, we could increase the average lifespan of these populations to a huge degree. The thing is these areas are where more traditional medicine is practised the most. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to use alternative medicine per se, as long as you are getting some kind of treatments that work…but opting for only alternative medicine when we have affective treatments available in western medicine can be awfully wasteful. Now I hope I don’t sound like accusing you of this, because it sounds like you’re taking a both/and approach to medicine…but I just think it would be a shame for anyone to pick something that has no medical value just because it’s "natural" or "alternative," when we have treatments that we know work. Anyway, back to the topic…


I would love to discuss natural/alternative therapies with you on another thread but I'm not sure how you go about starting one. Lol. I'm reasonably new to forums. I only ever used them a couple of times and they're all different. I'm still finding my way around this one.
I used to believe in western medicine a long time ago. I still believe that it has a place in our lives and who would be without our hospitals and surgeons. In some eastern countries, doctors only get paid when their clients are well, if the clients get sick, they don't get paid. In western cultures, the doctors only get paid, when their clients are sick. There is no profit in health. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my previous post in answer to Green Dragon, the pharmaceuticals intentions are not for our optimal well being, and this is who our doctors are sponsored by. Apparently, medications are made by guessing which chemical should go with another and then a strain of living tissue is introduced, and testing begins with these combinations and others until they reach a significant result. The following research and trials are quite often incomplete, and sometimes corrupted to make sure the medications make profit. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are quite a number of current law suits against pharmaceutical companies, some for defrauding research data to promote their drugs. I know it seems prudent to think that western treatments for cancer could help to save someones life, but the truth is, that chemotherapy has been proven to only have a 2% success rate and in research studies, it was only ever proven to work against 11 types of cancer, and these were rare. When patients choose chemo, they are warned that it will only increase their life by up to five years. People use this choice because we have been conditioned to believe that what a doctor says is for our optimal well being, and because we are uninformed of other choices. I've watched so many people I know die of cancer in the last year because they all chose chemotherapy. Each one came to me when it was too late for me to help them. If we were educated to empower ourselves with the knowledge we need to heal ourselves, we would have a much better chance of survival. As far as the natural treatments for cancer go, there are specific protocols that need to be followed and if you're unaware of these, you won't beat it no matter what you do. Anyway, back to topic.

Quote:
But on that note, isn't sun gazing not only dangerous, but completely unnecessary? Why gaze directly at something that can blind you when you can simply spend a few hours outside? That’s another one of the odd things about sun gazing, to me at least…that there are less dangerous ways to get the same benefits that sun gazing advocates talk about. Why not do that instead of risking damage to your eyes? It just doesn't make any sense to me.


Being in the sun without clothing or sunscreens produces enormous benefits through just the vitamin D production, and that's putting all other benefits aside. Sungazing, has its own benefits. The light that enters the eye decalicifies the Pineal Gland and causes it to produce and store the energy taken in through the lens of the eye. This energy is transported into every cell in the body, where it gets grounded in and builds its own charge, until eventually you become a solar powered being. Now I can't give you any scientific research data on this, this is only the explanation given to explain how the suns energy works in the body by those who have proven it to work. An indian man name HRM, volunteered himself as a research subject to prove that man could live on sunlight. He was under 24 hour supervision 3 times, the first being 211 days, the second 411 days and the third being 130 days. Each time he survived only on sun energy and water. He had numerous tests run on him and he was found to be in perfect health in spite of his lengthened fasts. He has eaten 7 meals in 12 years. Because of his example, thousands of people all over the world (and none have gone blind), have copied his recommendations and become solar beings. I, myself am noticing less and less interest in food and quite often it just doesn't even occur to me now to eat. I feel satisfied already. Why, you might ask, would I want to become solar powered? I do have reasons. My initial motivation was because of numerous allergic reactions to foods and chemicals being added to foods that have been contributing to my health problems. Now, I feel so much more empowered in myself knowing that I can live without being controlled by my appetite or need for food. There are so many things in our food to keep us sick, and I can escape all of that.

Quote:
But it's a trade-off, and I for one rather like having computers, electricity, and things like that. But those things aside, we have to be careful about how much power we attribute to ‘natural’ medicine or our natural immune system. After all many illnesses are also natural. My body has a natural capacity to heal injuries or to fight off certain diseases, but a lot of those diseases are natural too…viruses, bacteria, and so on. Just think about how certain diseases have been nearly wiped out thanks to vaccines......My point is here is that we should try to avoid a ‘natural vs. technological’ sort of mindset when it comes to medicine, because this is a false dichotomy. Our modern world and the lifestyle that goes with it can be bad for us sometimes…but in a lot of cases, the medicine that goes with it is great! Same goes for natural things…getting out and getting some sun, like we’ve been talking about here, is fantastic…it’s perfectly natural.


I love computers too and I love my researching and reading on the computer, however, like many other people who don't even know its happening to them, the electromagnetic frequencies affect us in negative ways. I have to limit my time on the computer each day and sometimes spread it out because it can completely incapacitate me. Its a little like a vampire that sucks all the energy out of me leaving me with severe chronic fatigue. Lol. If they put in the smart metres which have already bugun, for every household in Australia, I'm pretty much done for. Technology isn't always good for us.
I wish I could agree with you on vaccines but that's an entirely new topic for debate. I will say though, that one of the major law suits currently running is because data was falsified on vaccines to cover up the dangers so that they could be manufactured for profit. And others are now being proven to be completely ineffective at all. Dr Joseph Mercola publishes all the latest information on his site.
I agree, where would we be without antibiotics.
I also agree, this isn't about taking sides. There are uses and conveniences in both natural and conventional treatments. If only they would work together and promote one another.

Quote:
I hope that whoever reads this thread takes what each of us has had to say into consideration


I too hope that our words might help others to make more informed decisions. Thanks for chatting with me, its been stimulating. When I work it out, I might even start up a thread on natural therapies and we can continue the debate there. Lol. smile


back to top
30
Chat Mods
Posts: 1444
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Last Visit: 26 Jul 2017
LD count: 13
Location: Hunting...
 
PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Quote:
You're right, the only tests involved are personal testimonials, mine included and can not be counted as double blind placebos, however, if it leads one into a positive experience, surely it can only be viewed as a working example, after all, the only thing missing, is the scientist to run and publish consecutive testing and results.


This is where I disagree strongly. I consider myself to be spiritual, but I understand fully that science is a quest for truth not a quest to find what feels good or feels right.

Quote:
I apologize for citing something without evidence.


Thanks and respect to you for retracting it, it takes strength of character to do that.

Quote:
On the contrary, quantum physics would have you believe otherwise. Giving energy to fecal matter may increase its potency, not that I would suggest spending time doing this to find out. I think our time is much better spent with our attention on living matter, such as nature, the sun included. There is much we have yet to learn by keeping an open mind to all possibility.


I'm not sure I agree fully here. A new-age type philosophy (Perhaps something like the works James Redfield produced) would have us believe that giving energy to plants or manure would yield results. Quantum mechanics hints that the world responds to being observed in ways we previously would have dismissed. I am far more interested in the new-age type philosophy than might appear from my apparent pro-science stance. I am just extremely opposed to anything which seeks to undermine or invalidate science. Either directly by attacking it, or indirectly by claiming it says something which it doesn't. Quantum mechanics does open the door a bit more for spiritual ideas, but it doesn't back them or state them yet to the best of my knowledge.

Quote:
How very true. I have read quite a few accounts on the latest pharmaceutical law suits that are currently running, where research was falsified, or misleading. This in itself is enough to distrust research findings on everything. Unfortunately, if we revert to this level of thinking, we have no measurement to guide our beliefs, and therefore must be reduced to trusting our............instinct. woo


This isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that it's a tall order to assert a layman is capable of distinguishing the difference unaided by training or a scientific background. We have to understand our own limitations as non-scientific folk if such a term can be used. We also have to understand that a Geneticists opinion on Quantum mechanics is not necessarily any more informed than ours. We have to be careful that we listen to those who know what they are talking about. That is another reason why peer-review is such a critical part of the scientific process.

Quote:
I have a passion for alternative healing, I guess it comes through in my communication. grin


It does. smile I am really quite positive towards it, I just see it as strictly supplemental and in need of a healthy dose of scrutiny.

Quote:
With alternative medicine, claims are forbidden, even with double blind placebo testing. Now there's something wrong with that picture. I'm not sure where you are from, but in Australia, naturapaths have to study almost as long as doctors, as well as being registered, approved and reviewed by a council.
I'm not completely against conventional treatment either. I believe there is a place for both, once the pharmaceuticals greedy hands are surgically removed from the motives of modern medicine.


There are many questionable issues when it comes to funding with medical research. I'm personally of the opinion such things should be publicly funded and publicly owned. I find it obscene that it's considered a good idea to patent medicines so that the sick have to pay considerably more for the treatment at the benefit of pharmacy companies, on the unchecked promise to put more money into research. Such a life critical things should be funded publicly. I would be very pro having money I pay in taxes spent researching the best possible cures, for the cheapest cost. For the benefit of all humanity. We don't need proxy pharmaceutical companies in the mix who are out for a profit. Why should the sick pay for pharmacy profits and partially some new research when we can all pay for research directly and cut out the middle-man.

Quote:
I have been studying natural therapies for over 12 years now. I have read countless testimonials and even created some of my own using natural therapies in the place of conventional ones. A couple of examples include reversing diagnosed Bipolar in my youngest daughter, using a natural chiropractic technique I developed myself to take the pressure off the nerves at the base of the skull that control mood, or putting a man into full remission for his inoperable tumor, when he refused chemotherapy, or there's the young man who suffered from Bells Palsy, doctors diagnosis was that he would never recover, and yet using just my intention and my hands, he was healed completely within a week. That's a few of the things I can say about my own experience with natural medicines and healing.
While the pharmaceutical companies sponsor doctors, we will never find cures for our worst diseases, there is too much money to be made from illness. Would you consent to having chemotherapy if you knew that it only had a 2% success rate? Or would you consider a natural product such as Artemisinin that has a 100% success rate against breast cancer and is now showing the same results with other cancers? Like I said, there is much to be learnt if you have an open mind.


There are many anecdotal stories about people seeing visions which prove god. Various gods, which conflict. Not to run you down, but there is a good reason that courts do not accept hearsay as evidence, and why science refuses to take it seriously.

Quote:
I'm sorry that you feel so skeptical and distrusting of so many things. sadblauw

I am very sceptical about what can enter the scientific domain. It's proven usefulness as a tool is beyond reproach. That doesn't mean I reject everything just because I'm sceptical, or it having no credibility in the scientific domain means I label it rubbish. I do feel that to take science and say that is all there is, everything else is rubbish, is equivalent to religious belief. It's a defensible logical position, but has no evidential backing. This for me is where somebody goes from being rational, to being irrational. By without giving any leeway denies everything outside the realms of scientific study. Science is constantly growing and evolving, to say it can never have something within it, is exceedingly arrogant.

Quote:
Please read the information in the links below to see all the cited research about sunscreens and vitamin D. Maybe my format confused you. Should I have put it in directly after I make claims? I'm fairly new to forum guidelines.


There aren't any forum guidelines for how to present yourself above maintaining respect. To clarify my perspective; it's both our responsibility to try and understand one another and I'm equally responsible if we have a misunderstanding.

I didn't see anything in your quoted links which referred to Vitamin D. As for the sunscreen thing, I can believe it may have harmful effects, but since I've experienced sunburn for myself, and the carcinogenic claims are decidedly American oriented, not for all sunscreen even by the articles own admission and backed by no cited evidence, I dismiss them.

The bottom link you post appears broken, even after manually pasting it into the bar to recover from the auto-space inserted to preserve the layout. (n.b You can use the bbcode tags [ url=#url goes here#]Text to be a link[ /url] to make a link and avoid it being mutilated if it's too long.

The second one up, immediately read as sensationalist and I stopped reading when they cited the Daily Mail as a source, when the daily mail have knowingly and repeatedly published false information about reports by the met office. Maybe what they cite in this case is right, but it doesn't bode well for me that they check their sources well. The video I cite here also highlights the problem with people believing false reports. Youtube Video by Potholer54

Quote:
Once again, please read the links below.


I find nothing regarding Vitamin D in your links, although one is broken and two link to just searches, not sure what you expect us to do there. Of the other two, I explained above why I dismiss one of them. The other seems to make more unsupported assertions. Whilst colours might have an effect on mood, I find it hard to accept that it miraculously cures things like cancer and the only reason it hasn't been heard of is because an American association banned it in America. This seems a typical conspiracy theorist tactic to me. What about Europe?

Quote:
I would agree, but some are self destructive and others life affirming. Judgement of each must inevitably come down to one's own intuitive beliefs. wink


I don't feel this is entirely true, if I want to know if I can eat a certain type of plant, I don't rely on my own intuitive feel. I search online and find out what it is, what it contains and if its toxic. Scientific research might be muddied by those who misinterpret it, or misrepresent it, but it works. It's possible for scientists to find out what the plant is, and tell me what it will likely do if I eat it. Its in the interests of those who support alternative medicines to imply science is inaccurate, unsure and as much a coin-toss as the alternative treatments, that is simply untrue. When you don't have to wade through the muddy water of misleading reports, it can be very precise and informative.

Quote:
Being in the sun without clothing or sunscreens produces enormous benefits through just the vitamin D production, and that's putting all other benefits aside. Sungazing, has its own benefits. The light that enters the eye decalicifies the Pineal Gland and causes it to produce and store the energy taken in through the lens of the eye.


Woah, hold on there. I have to say "what?" here. How exactly light that enters through your eye can have an affect on a gland in the centre of your brain is a bit of a mind-bender to start with. Let alone that you can make such precise explanations of how the pineal gland functions without citing any form of backing. Calcification also seems to be a rare syndrome and not a normal state of being.

Quote:
This energy is transported into every cell in the body, where it gets grounded in and builds its own charge, until eventually you become a solar powered being.

A solar powered being? To be honest it feels a bit like we just went off the deep end here. It's an incredible claim that you can get enough energy through your eyes to power an entire human body. Not to mention all the minerals you'd need. Where do those come from, do we convert energy into matter internally somehow for it? if so that would be difficult to imagine. We can actually calculate how much energy it would take to create 1 gram of something using E=MC². You would be multiplying the mass by the speed of light squared.



Current LD goal(s): Become a Dragon! RAWR!
back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Wed 24 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shakanah wrote:

One of the reasons I was drawn to forums is to keep ideas flowing and people thinking so we have something in common, even if it isn't sungazing. Lol.
And yes, I do agree, having all the information on something you're trying is always the best way to ascertain good decision making, and safety.


I’m glad we’re on the same page, whether it comes to sun gazing or alternative medicine. Anyhow, I’m going to reply to the sun gazing stuff from here on out. I’d love to continue talking about alternative medicine but I’m going to start a proper thread about that so that we can stay on topic here. If you don’t mind, I’ll just quote from this thread to start things off once I begin the other thread. Anyway, back to sun gazing…

Quote:

I too have an interest in the stars and planetary alignments, not as passionate as natural health or quantum physics but still an interest.


It sounds to me like we could be talking about two different things here, which might be why there is some disagreement about sun gazing, and also why we seem to be approaching it from such different perspectives. When I say ‘astronomy’ I mean the study of the stars, yes, but the scientific study of the stars. For example, what are stars made of? What are their lifespans like? How do they behave, physically speaking? Those sorts of things. When you mentioned planetary alignments, it made me wonder if you’re actually talking about astrology, not astronomy. This stuff used to be a part of astronomy, but now scientists don’t think that the planets or stars influence our lives that way. I think they’re correct. But I don’t want to start yet another debate on astrology, so for now I’ll just re-iterate that the knowledge I have about stars and planets, while it isn’t up to par with a professional astronomer, is about the physical nature of these things. But even if you wanted to talk about metaphysical properties of stars, I think we’d probably disagree as well (I love astronomy, but what I’m actually studying at the moment is philosophy, so I like to get metaphysical every now and then). Anyway my point is that when I make claims like “sun gazing is dangerous,” I’m basing that on the sort of knowledge I mentioned just now; knowledge about the physical properties of stars, etc.

Quote:

Being in the sun without clothing or sunscreens produces enormous benefits through just the vitamin D production, and that's putting all other benefits aside. Sungazing, has its own benefits. The light that enters the eye decalicifies the Pineal Gland and causes it to produce and store the energy taken in through the lens of the eye. This energy is transported into every cell in the body, where it gets grounded in and builds its own charge, until eventually you become a solar powered being.


I’m with GreenDragon on this sort of thing. Right now, you’re making a claim about the nature of objects and their properties. Those claims are subject to science because we can go out into the world, observe how things are, do some experiments, and see if the way things are matches up to the way we think they are. Not only that, a claim like we become “solar powered” beings already contradicts a number of things that we know about the sun, about energy, about the human body, and all of that knowledge was arrived at the way I just mentioned: by observing the world, forming a hypothesis about some aspect of it, and then testing that hypothesis very carefully. I’m no physicist, but I do know that we can’t run on sunlight. There are lifeforms that can…they’re plants of course. But we humans just didn’t evolve this way, and there’s a lot of evidence to back up what I’m claiming when I say this.

Quote:

Now I can't give you any scientific research data on this, this is only the explanation given to explain how the suns energy works in the body by those who have proven it to work.


This is the problem we keep running into. You’re making claims about how things are without proper justification for those claims. The problem with that is people can claim anything, but it doesn’t mean that it’s true. I could claim that there’s a gremlin in my computer. That might even explain a few things, such as why my computer isn’t working properly today. But unless I justify this claim with evidence, it’s meaningless. It also runs counter to explanations for my computer running more slowly which are more plausible, e.g., I haven’t run my anti-virus program in a long time, or, my computer is getting old and I need a new one, and so on.

I can give you examples of scientific, peer reviewed studies that contain the evidence that staring at the sun is bad for your eyes. But to start things off, have a look at this article which is about someone who damaged his vision by sun gazing.

Now this type of evidence here…

Quote:

An indian man name HRM, volunteered himself as a research subject to prove that man could live on sunlight. He was under 24 hour supervision 3 times, the first being 211 days, the second 411 days and the third being 130 days. Each time he survived only on sun energy and water. He had numerous tests run on him and he was found to be in perfect health in spite of his lengthened fasts. He has eaten 7 meals in 12 years. Because of his example, thousands of people all over the world (and none have gone blind), have copied his recommendations and become solar beings.



...just how rigorous were these 'tests'?

I’m going to play the skeptic again and ask, when was this study done? Which scientists ran this experiment? Can you direct me to the study so that I can read it myself? I have also heard of similar studies as this but they’ve all turned out to be fraudulent when I’ve looked into them further. And the fact is this sort of thing happens in other areas of science too, not just areas where ‘new age’ or ‘supernatural’ sort of claims are at issue. Science is a human endeavor after all so it isn’t perfect. That’s why it has such rigorous standards, which when unfulfilled, mean that we can’t go and say that a claim like “this man can survive only on sunlight” is true. I’m not just skeptical of sun gazing and neither are other scientists…in fact it’s their job to be skeptical of every hypothesis that they test.
Besides, scientists aren’t really a bunch of old grinches who don’t see any wonder in life or the universe. So if a study like this were to be done, and it really proved that something like this was possible, scientists would be the first ones to tell the world, “Hey, this is amazing! Have you all heard about this incredible thing?” But as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

One last thing I’d like to say about something you said to GreenDragon (emphasis added)…

Quote:

I haven't been able to track any [evidence] down either, probably because mainstream publications refuse to believe anything other than the current indoctrination that the sun is bad for us at all times. I apologize for citing something without evidence.


This just isn’t how science works. I’m glad that you realize that to make a claim, there has to be evidence. Even my claim, “There is a computer on my desk,” requires evidence to justify it. In this case, the evidence is something as simple as the fact that I’m typing on it and communicating with you. Someone else could also come and visit me, and confirm that there is indeed a computer here. Of course in science the standards are a bit more rigorous than this, but you get the idea. But any claim about the state of the world has to be justified by evidence, or it doesn’t count as knowledge…it’s just words.

The thing is, scientists don’t “refuse to believe” something unless there is no evidence. If there’s no evidence, then there’s no reason to believe a claim! And the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. As for the sun being bad for us at all times, scientists know this isn’t true, and they don’t claim that it is actually bad everywhere, all the time. What they do claim is that looking directly at the sun will damage one’s vision, that too much UV radiation can damage the skin, and so on. But again, they aren’t “indoctrinated” into believing this, instead the reason they believe it is because there is evidence that these things are true.

As for the rest, as I was saying, we can continue talking about alternative medicine in another thread. But for now I will say that the same line of thought that I’ve been applying here applies to the claims people make about alternative medicine…so, perhaps we won’t agree about much, but I hope that I’ll be able to show you why I’m thinking the way I am, and how I have reached some of the conclusions that I have.


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Green Dragon wrote:

Quote:
This is where I disagree strongly. I consider myself to be spiritual, but I understand fully that science is a quest for truth not a quest to find what feels good or feels right.


Science is a quest for truth but even science is based on the monitoring of experience and an open mind. All I’m saying here is that we observe our own experiences and make judgments and decisions based on them. Years ago, people were put to death if they contended with the so called “fact” that the world was flat.

Quote:
Quantum mechanics hints that the world responds to being observed in ways we previously would have dismissed......Quantum mechanics does open the door a bit more for spiritual ideas, but it doesn't back them or state them yet to the best of my knowledge.


Have you heard of Epigenetics? It is being labelled as the “new science.” Dr Bruce Lipton is a Cell Biologist who has been working on the study of DNA for over 25 years and has found through his research, that DNA is malleable, it is in fact programmed by our environment rather than being set in stone as predetermined. He wrote a book called “The Biology of Belief”, one of my favourites and well worth the read.

Quote:
There are many questionable issues when it comes to funding with medical research. I'm personally of the opinion such things should be publicly funded and publicly owned. I find it obscene that it's considered a good idea to patent medicines so that the sick have to pay considerably more for the treatment at the benefit of pharmacy companies, on the unchecked promise to put more money into research. Such a life critical things should be funded publicly. I would be very pro having money I pay in taxes spent researching the best possible cures, for the cheapest cost. For the benefit of all humanity. We don't need proxy pharmaceutical companies in the mix who are out for a profit. Why should the sick pay for pharmacy profits and partially some new research when we can all pay for research directly and cut out the middle-man.


I totally agree and I like your idea of “publically funded and publically owned.”

Quote:
I didn't see anything in your quoted links which referred to Vitamin D. As for the sunscreen thing, I can believe it may have harmful effects, but since I've experienced sunburn for myself, and the carcinogenic claims are decidedly American oriented, not for all sunscreen even by the articles own admission and backed by no cited evidence, I dismiss them.


Upon checking the links I previously posted, I apologize for not doing this sooner. Rather than trying to repost the list of articles I originally attempted to post, I have individually selected some that might be appropriate.

This link will give you a list of dangerous chemicals added to sunscreens so you can check your own to see if its safe. If you can’t eat it, its not advisable to put it on your skin. The skin is the largest organ in the body and it absorbs whatever we apply to it and sends it directly into the bloodstream: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 08/07/01/four-out-of-f ive-sunscreens-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health.aspx

Quote:
The bottom link you post appears broken, even after manually pasting it into the bar to recover from the auto-space inserted to preserve the layout. (n.b You can use the bbcode tags [ url=#url goes here#]Text to be a link[ /url] to make a link and avoid it being mutilated if it's too long.


I’m not really sure how to do this so I’m hoping the links I’ve used this time work.

Quote:
The second one up, immediately read as sensationalist and I stopped reading when they cited the Daily Mail as a source, when the daily mail have knowingly and repeatedly published false information about reports by the met office. Maybe what they cite in this case is right, but it doesn't bode well for me that they check their sources well. The video I cite here also highlights the problem with people believing false reports. Youtube Video by Potholer54


Hhmm....understandable why you wouldn't trust that source.

Quote:
I find nothing regarding Vitamin D in your links, although one is broken and two link to just searches, not sure what you expect us to do there.


New links for vitamin D:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 12/09/29/sun-exposure- vitamin-d-production-benefits.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 08/01/01/experts-start ing-to-agree-more-vitamin-d-is-better.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 08/01/26/scientists-ad mit-sun-exposure-benefits-outweigh-risks.aspx

The links I’m providing are from Dr Joseph Mercolas website. He is a respected Physician himself and promotes a lot of information and the latest research on many topics, vitamin D and safe sun exposure included. He is highly respected and admired and I haven’t read any reports of misleading information. I trust what he says and promotes, I hope you can too.

Since we were originally discussing sungazing in the light of my experience and understanding, I will conclude with this link. I hope it answers most of your questions about sungazing:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 09/01/08/feasting-on-s unshine.aspx


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Just checked the links again after posting and I think the problem is happening then.

Maybe the links are too long to post so I'm not sure how else to do it. Sorry.


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shaper wrote:

Quote:
It sounds to me like we could be talking about two different things here, which might be why there is some disagreement about sun gazing, and also why we seem to be approaching it from such different perspectives. When I say ‘astronomy’ I mean the study of the stars, yes, but the scientific study of the stars. For example, what are stars made of? What are their lifespans like? How do they behave, physically speaking? Those sorts of things. When you mentioned planetary alignments, it made me wonder if you’re actually talking about astrology, not astronomy. This stuff used to be a part of astronomy, but now scientists don’t think that the planets or stars influence our lives that way. I think they’re correct. But I don’t want to start yet another debate on astrology, so for now I’ll just re-iterate that the knowledge I have about stars and planets, while it isn’t up to par with a professional astronomer, is about the physical nature of these things. But even if you wanted to talk about metaphysical properties of stars, I think we’d probably disagree as well (I love astronomy, but what I’m actually studying at the moment is philosophy, so I like to get metaphysical every now and then). Anyway my point is that when I make claims like “sun gazing is dangerous,” I’m basing that on the sort of knowledge I mentioned just now; knowledge about the physical properties of stars, etc.


You might be right here. When you define it like that I'm not sure what my interests come under. Lol. I do a bit of reading on the Mayan predictions and planetary alignments and their affects on us so I guess that must come under astrology.
We could have some good discussions about metaphysical topics too.

Quote:
I can give you examples of scientific, peer reviewed studies that contain the evidence that staring at the sun is bad for your eyes. But to start things off, have a look at this article which is about someone who damaged his vision by sun gazing.


I know about Mason Dwinell. I bought a copy of Eat the Sun. Yes in the video the eye test says that he had some damage to the retina and this indeed did throw him off track with sungazing, understandably. However, in spite of the damage, Mason recognized that the other benefits of sungazing were so overwhelmingly evident, that he decided to complete the program.

Quote:
I’m with GreenDragon on this sort of thing. Right now, you’re making a claim about the nature of objects and their properties. Those claims are subject to science because we can go out into the world, observe how things are, do some experiments, and see if the way things are matches up to the way we think they are. Not only that, a claim like we become “solar powered” beings already contradicts a number of things that we know about the sun, about energy, about the human body, and all of that knowledge was arrived at the way I just mentioned: by observing the world, forming a hypothesis about some aspect of it, and then testing that hypothesis very carefully. I’m no physicist, but I do know that we can’t run on sunlight. There are lifeforms that can…they’re plants of course. But we humans just didn’t evolve this way, and there’s a lot of evidence to back up what I’m claiming when I say this.


Quote:
Now this type of evidence here…
An indian man name HRM, volunteered himself as a research subject to prove that man could live on sunlight. He was under 24 hour supervision 3 times, the first being 211 days, the second 411 days and the third being 130 days. Each time he survived only on sun energy and water. He had numerous tests run on him and he was found to be in perfect health in spite of his lengthened fasts. He has eaten 7 meals in 12 years. Because of his example, thousands of people all over the world (and none have gone blind), have copied his recommendations and become solar beings......I’m going to play the skeptic again and ask, when was this study done? Which scientists ran this experiment? Can you direct me to the study so that I can read it myself? I have also heard of similar studies as this but they’ve all turned out to be fraudulent when I’ve looked into them further. And the fact is this sort of thing happens in other areas of science too, not just areas where ‘new age’ or ‘supernatural’ sort of claims are at issue. Science is a human endeavor after all so it isn’t perfect. That’s why it has such rigorous standards, which when unfulfilled, mean that we can’t go and say that a claim like “this man can survive only on sunlight” is true.


Feasting on sunshine

I just realized how to post a link on here. Phew!!! I do hope it works this way.

I hope this article answers your questions on sungazing. smile


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
Reposting links for Green Dragon
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Green Dragon,

I am reposting the links I posted above. Sorry for any inconvenience, I just realized how to do it.
Sun exposure and vitamin D production

Experts starting to agree more vitamin D is better

Scientists admit sun exposure benefits outweight risks

Hope they work this time.


back to top
30
Chat Mods
Posts: 1444
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Last Visit: 26 Jul 2017
LD count: 13
Location: Hunting...
 
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shakanah wrote:
Science is a quest for truth but even science is based on the monitoring of experience and an open mind. All I’m saying here is that we observe our own experiences and make judgments and decisions based on them. Years ago, people were put to death if they contended with the so called “fact” that the world was flat.


I don't really see what relevance what you are saying has to what I said here. Science is based on empirical data, not the gut feelings of scientists involved, or at least it shouldn't be. It's true that those gut feelings might help them figure out where to look for certain things, or devise tests to test a theory formed from gut feelings, but it's not a source of data. I'm also not suggesting anything in regards to those who deviate from the current ideas, merely saying to claim scientific validity it has to actually be scientifically valid.

Quote:
Dr Bruce Lipton is a Cell Biologist who has been working on the study of DNA for over 25 years and has found through his research, that DNA is malleable, it is in fact programmed by our environment rather than being set in stone as predetermined. He wrote a book called “The Biology of Belief”, one of my favourites and well worth the read.


Whilst wikipedia might not be the best scientific source in the world, it doesn't seem to agree with you.

Wikipedia wrote:
These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[2]


Wikipedia's source being This article as well as a peer reviewed paper which has been cited over 100 times. Regrettably though I have to rely on others having checked the citation as I can't get access to the paper. What you discuss is interesting, I agree, it doesn't however appear to be exactly what you said though.

Quote:
This link will give you a list of dangerous chemicals added to sunscreens so you can check your own to see if its safe. If you can’t eat it, its not advisable to put it on your skin. The skin is the largest organ in the body and it absorbs whatever we apply to it and sends it directly into the bloodstream: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 08/07/01/four-out-of-f ive-sunscreens-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health.aspx


I have to be honest, I rarely use sunscreen. In fact I don't think I've used any in the past 7-8 years. I've been fortunate enough to inherit a relatively high natural UV tolerance for my geographical location due to having distant relatives who came from very hot climates. I also don't live in America, I live in Europe. So much of the article doesn't apply to me anyway since it's talking about American sunscreens. The only time I use sunscreen is when I go to a hotter climate like Spain.

Quote:
New links for vitamin D:


Reading through the articles. I can see that the author is writing with a strong slant. He doesn't seem to be flat out misreporting facts, he is however being careful with what details he discusses. Repeatedly discussing why Vitamin D is wonderful and using cases where people are likely to be deficient to promote it. Nobody is making the argument that being Vitamin D deficient is good or even ok. Those who live in Northern latitudes do need to be aware of their Vitamin D intake, just like those who have dark skin and live in less sunny climates or those who turn vegetarian do.

I'd also note that sunlight driven Vitamin D production actually has nothing to do with sun-gazing. It's discussion here is doing exactly the same as what the person in your quoted article is doing. The retina does not produce Vitamin D like our skin does when exposed to sunlight. It being discussed alongside sun-gazing produces an emotional response in the reader which leads to misappropriation of positive thoughts to it. Basically, we talk about how good sunlight is because it gives us Vitamin D, we then make the internal decision that sunlight is good and healthy. So looking at the healthy and good sun couldn't be bad could it? As emotional beings we have a problem isolating the positive feel we have and looking at it objectively, our opinions are coloured by it. Sunlight on your skin might have good effects, that does not mean sunlight in your eye is automatically good. It's like saying all about how we need water to survive, that a massive percentage of us is made of it and it keeps our bodies clean and free from pathogens on a page which advocates breathing it in. We all know how harmful that could be, the two do not connect in reality, but they do emotionally if they are put together in this way.

Quote:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/20 09/01/08/feasting-on-sunshine.aspx


He does make a convincing argument, but he does it from an emotional standpoint. What he has is personal viewpoint dressed up as science and that can be very dangerous. He's at least honest enough to state there is currently no scientific evidence to support anything he discusses in the article, but he quickly undermines any doubt by saying how eager the practitioners are to have it tested and proven. Implying that its a new discovery that hasn't seen the light of day to mainstream scientists. I'm not convinced of that, especially when he discusses the tests done on HRM. If the results are so obviously testable as, not requiring food to survive and the practitioners so eager to prove it. I would expect them to be tested much more readily. There are plenty of scientists out there who would give something like this the time of day, there's plenty out there investigating the paranormal for example.

When he discusses the statistical analysis used to establish the safety. The data being quoted is being used in a disturbing way. There is a big difference between the amount of people looking at the sun and the time they look at it for, during an eclipse and during non-eclipse times. Yet the conclusion is drawn that the number of injuries from looking at the sun should be a million times more because the sun is fully visible for longer. This is invalid reasoning and ignores the fact the number of people looking at the sun changes very dramatically between the two. Statistics are well known for being a field where you can make the data say near enough anything with the right 'interpretation'

I have to say that I do feel (no science here I'd like to point out) that we have a good deal of natural cycles which may be regulated by exposure to sunlight. I have actually tried a sort of sun-gazing of my own. I stood in the sunlight on a bright sunny day, facing the sun, with my eyes closed. The wind was strong and clear and it was a wonderful feeling. I was left feeling great as a result of it. My sleep patterns became strongly defined for the next day or so. Although that says little as I have found I can manipulate my sleep patterns with my intention. Including waking up at precise times at will and making myself feel sleepy at specific times using intent. I may advocate science as a wonderful way to understand the world, but I don't only find delight in the scientific.

What I object to with many of the posts in the topic, is the certainty with which far-out unsubstantiated claims are being made, and the readily apparent anti-science anti-conventional-medicine mentality running through it. We have people who are ill-equipped to make the determination, advising others that it's a good idea to do something potentially harmful for reasons which as far as I can see, are shaky. I'm not against the spiritual experience, I embrace it.

I just don't support spiritual exploration at the expense of scientific research and advancement. Given it's history at pulling us out of the dark ages, I think it deserves the respect, resources and space to take us as far as it can go. At least as long as the end result of where we are going is reversible. If we are really also seeking truth through spirituality like what seems to be claimed, and not just egotistical comfort of nice chemicals we get when we think we understand something, we should welcome the extra data from science and accept that our beliefs may be wrong. It's already fundamental to science that it accepts its subject to revision based on evidence. I believe in science as much as I believe in the spiritual. I don't want to see either attacked and undermined.

When it comes to which should take precedent for determining the safety of sun-gazing, I'd have to say it's always going to be the individual's choice. Personally I choose to explore other places for my 'spiritual happy' and steer away from it because of the very real danger to my vision. I have a tendency to side with empiricism more than gut feeling when it comes to how physical bodies (my eye and the sun) interact. It might become a little more hazy for me when it gets to things like diet, but the interaction between the sun and the eye, at least on a physical level, seems pretty simple. The retina sustains damage from looking at the sun, and we can't be sure about how much it sustains even during the proposed 'safe times'



Current LD goal(s): Become a Dragon! RAWR!
back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Fri 26 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shakanah wrote:
You might be right here. When you define it like that I'm not sure what my interests come under. Lol. I do a bit of reading on the Mayan predictions and planetary alignments and their affects on us so I guess that must come under astrology.
We could have some good discussions about metaphysical topics too.


It sounds like astrology, yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but that stuff probably isn't real either. Of course I'm sure it would still give us a lot to talk about. There are probably some other threads here already about the Mayan calender for example. And if you'd like to talk about metaphysics, we could head on over to the Philosopher's Cloud.

Quote:

I know about Mason Dwinell. I bought a copy of Eat the Sun. Yes in the video the eye test says that he had some damage to the retina and this indeed did throw him off track with sungazing, understandably. However, in spite of the damage, Mason recognized that the other benefits of sungazing were so overwhelmingly evident, that he decided to complete the program.


I'm not quite sure I understand...
If you've seen the video (I haven't, I just came across the article about it), how do you reconcile the fact that he damaged his vision with the sun gazing being a good idea? Do you think that the medical tests on his eyes were wrong? Or do you agree with Mr Dinwell, that the benefits of sun gazing outweigh the costs? (Like, for example, not being able to see properly). If it's the second thing, we're back at square one: all of the benefits of sun gazing are alleged benefits; as we've been discussing, there is no reason to think it works other than that some people seem to feel that it does, and those people are the ones who already believe that it works, without any hard evidence. In fact there is good evidence that sun gazing can damage your vision, but again, that evidence is overlooked by people who simply believe the benefits outweigh the costs.

Doesn't that kind of reasoning seem circular to you?

Quote:

I just realized how to post a link on here. Phew!!! I do hope it works this way.

I hope this article answers your questions on sungazing.


My laptop is running out of batteries as I type. Rest assured, I will read this and address it in my next post smile


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

I previously wrote:
Quote:
Dr Bruce Lipton is a Cell Biologist who has been working on the study of DNA for over 25 years and has found through his research, that DNA is malleable, it is in fact programmed by our environment rather than being set in stone as predetermined. He wrote a book called “The Biology of Belief”, one of my favourites and well worth the read.


Green Dragon replied:

Quote:
Whilst wikipedia might not be the best scientific source in the world, it doesn't seem to agree with you.


Not to discount Wikipedia, I think they, as with most schools and educational facilities, base their findings on Newtonian Science. Epigentics has been labelled, "The New Science" and as far as I know, has not yet been incorporated into old material. This however, does not dismiss its findings and accuracy.
There's a short video source here with Dr Lipton explaining a little about his findings:
Dr Bruce Lipton - DNA programming

Gregg Braden is another favourite scientist of mine. He quotes some studies done on the maleability of DNA and how it is affected and changed through emotion:
Gregg Braden on DNA

Quote:
I'd also note that sunlight driven Vitamin D production actually has nothing to do with sun-gazing. It's discussion here is doing exactly the same as what the person in your quoted article is doing. The retina does not produce Vitamin D like our skin does when exposed to sunlight. It being discussed alongside sun-gazing produces an emotional response in the reader which leads to misappropriation of positive thoughts to it. Basically, we talk about how good sunlight is because it gives us Vitamin D, we then make the internal decision that sunlight is good and healthy. So looking at the healthy and good sun couldn't be bad could it? As emotional beings we have a problem isolating the positive feel we have and looking at it objectively, our opinions are coloured by it. Sunlight on your skin might have good effects, that does not mean sunlight in your eye is automatically good.


Somehow I managed to get sidetracked talking about the sun which led to discussion on vitamin D. We have gone off track a bit. I was aware that sungazing doesn't produce vitamin D and that this isn't what is responsible for the energy store being produced by it. The sun does have many benefits, when used appropriately. Yours and my perspective of "appropriate" will have to differ for now on the topic of sungazing. It seems irrelevant that I should try to convince you to do something you are not comfortable with. I originally posted my experience as I was hoping to discuss the topic of sungazing with others who had completed or were in the process of completing the HRM program, and although the discussion has been very interesting, I think we've stated our positions as far as sungazing goes. The discussion has been enjoyable. Thank you for participating Green Dragon. smile


back to top
Shakanah
Novice dreamer
Novice dreamer
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last Visit: 29 Oct 2012
 
PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shaper wrote:
Quote:
It sounds like astrology, yeah. Don't take this the wrong way, but that stuff probably isn't real either. Of course I'm sure it would still give us a lot to talk about. There are probably some other threads here already about the Mayan calender for example. And if you'd like to talk about metaphysics, we could head on over to the [url=http://ld4all.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31]Philo sopher's Cloud.[/url
]

Ah probability is what makes life so interesting. I will take a look at the Philosophers Cloud.

Quote:
I'm not quite sure I understand...
If you've seen the video (I haven't, I just came across the article about it), how do you reconcile the fact that he damaged his vision with the sun gazing being a good idea? Do you think that the medical tests on his eyes were wrong? Or do you agree with Mr Dinwell, that the benefits of sun gazing outweigh the costs? (Like, for example, not being able to see properly). If it's the second thing, we're back at square one: all of the benefits of sun gazing are alleged benefits; as we've been discussing, there is no reason to think it works other than that some people seem to feel that it does, and those people are the ones who already believe that it works, without any hard evidence. In fact there is good evidence that sun gazing can damage your vision, but again, that evidence is overlooked by people who simply believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Doesn't that kind of reasoning seem circular to you?


Yes that kind of reasoning does sound circular to me. Unfortunately, its not really my reasoning but it does seem like we're going round in circles on the topic of sungazing. I feel that my own personal experience validates my reasoning. I would have stopped sungazing a long time ago if I hadn't seen the benefits in it. They are there and they do make it all worth it. Like I mentioned to Green Dragon, I didn't post my experience to try to convince those who weren't interested that it was a good thing, I had hoped to talk to others who were doing it so we could share our findings. There are thousands who are/and have sungazed and completed the program without damage. Because one person has damaged his eyes, does not discount the many who haven't. It is strange though, that the "alleged" benefits are all similar in nature. Having studied Hypnotherapy, I am aware of the inherent power of the subconscious mind to affect belief, and I have considered that these similarities in benefit could be a by product of these beliefs, however, I can hardly justify this as a possibility when faced with material that shows people surviving on sunlight and water without food. There has to be something more to it that has not been considered.


back to top
Shaper
Lord of Dreams
LD4all addict
33
Posts: 3980
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Last Visit: 19 Jun 2015
LD count: Many
Location: Quebec, Canada
 
PostPosted: Sun 28 Oct, 2012  Reply with quote

Shakanah wrote:

I feel that my own personal experience validates my reasoning. I would have stopped sungazing a long time ago if I hadn't seen the benefits in it. They are there and they do make it all worth it. Like I mentioned to Green Dragon, I didn't post my experience to try to convince those who weren't interested that it was a good thing, I had hoped to talk to others who were doing it so we could share our findings.


There's nothing wrong with wanting to share your findings of course, or even trying to convince other people that sun gazing works. For my part, I would need more evidence that it works because I'm a skeptic. I realize that my personal experience has lead me to err in the past, and can in the future. I need something more rigorous to make sure that I don't get things wrong, to make sure I know which thoughts and sense impressions are reliable, and so on. So, I have an epistemology -- a 'theory of knowledge,' that is, what knowledge is, how I 'know' something, etc -- and a whole bunch of different methods to test what I think is true -- some are more scientific and some are more philosophical. I need these things, because I've been wrong in the past. I would be perfectly willing to grant that sun gazing is good for you if I thought the evidence, beyond people's personal testimony, was there, but so far I haven't seen it. In fact, as I've said many times, there is evidence to the contrary that I think should cause anyone to think twice about doing this. However, we've probably reached an impasse here...I'm not out to make you stop sun gazing, but I continue to hope that everyone reading this takes what you and I and GreenDragon have said about it, and makes an informed decision.

Quote:

There are thousands who are/and have sungazed and completed the program without damage. Because one person has damaged his eyes, does not discount the many who haven't.


I'm not trying to sound harsh, but who are these people? I agree if you're saying that thousands of people say that they have not damaged their eyes. But if all of these people were given a medical examination, do you think there's a possibility that some further damage might be revealed?

Quote:

It is strange though, that the "alleged" benefits are all similar in nature. Having studied Hypnotherapy, I am aware of the inherent power of the subconscious mind to affect belief, and I have considered that these similarities in benefit could be a by product of these beliefs, however, I can hardly justify this as a possibility when faced with material that shows people surviving on sunlight and water without food. There has to be something more to it that has not been considered.


But in the very article on HRM you directed me to, it says this:

Dr. Mercola wrote:

Other reports are not so glowing.

In 2003, when trying to confirm reports that NASA had invited HRM for study[xvii], Jan Steinar Haugland[xviii] received a response from NASA spokesperson Dolores Beasley saying she had no idea why reports had claimed that NASA had invited Manek. She went on to say that they have no record of his being involved with them. She also checked all offices doing related research at centers such as Johnson, Marshall, and Ames.

Doctors who were supposedly wowed by HRM’s performance in the United States seem less than eager to publicly express their praise.

The third “observed” fast lasting 130 days was supposedly performed in Philadelphia, PA, under the direction of Dr. Andrew Newberg[xix] and Dr. George Brainard[xx]. However, contact with Dr. Newberg apparently revealed that Manek was only studied for “brain scans of meditation” at the University of Pennsylvania, not for his ability to fast indefinitely.


So it almost starts to look as though HRM himself hasn't been as closely examined as some sun gazers think he has. In the first case, it looks as though a study was never done. In the second, that he was being studied for something completely different from sun gazing. That leaves the study that was done by the doctors in India, which I would of course have to read for myself. But one other thing Dr. Mercola writes in his article struck me:

Quote:
Currently, there exists no solid scientific proof that sun gazing actually works in the manner that the “sun gazing gurus” claim, nor is there solid proof to the contrary.


Let's grant that this is true, that means we have to be agnostic about the benefits of sun gazing and how they might work, if they even work at all. But that still leaves the danger of staring at the sun to contend with. To me, it just isn't worth the risk. I know people will continue to do it, but my advice to anyone reading this thread is to think about this. If there's no proof for or against it's health benefits, but lots of evidence that just staring at the sun is bad for your vision, then why not get the benefits of sunlight in a much safer way? Spending time outside is great, or sun gazing of the sort that GreenDragon mentioned, with your eyes closed, might also be good for you. And, they have the benefit of being very safe.


back to top
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

print  

All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB
LD4all ~ spreading the art and knowledge of lucid dreaming online since 1996 ~