Posts by bluemason3

Hypnotic regression 🤦 🤦 🤦

Actually, more like non-hypnotic regression 🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦

wearyowl29 said:Wow... you were all believing that right up until the Second Council in Constantinople back in 553.
Then, suddenly, everyone changed their minds...

So, if a Christian dies and makes it to Heaven—provided they had a last-second conversion—they just spend eternity playing the harp and staring at Jesus while He leads the angelic choir. Sounds lovely, doesn't it?

Maybe spend a little more time practicing your musical notes and a little less time studying the Bible.

Not quite. That sounds like one of those skewed, forced interpretations you see floating around New Age circles.

1 - We aren't talking about reincarnation here, but rather the preexistence of the soul (I assume you're referring to the views held by Origen and his supporters which were rejected at the council; people often mistakenly lump this up with New Age reincarnation, which is just wrong))

2 - Christians weren't a monolith believing this before then. You had certain Christian authors holding that position (a view that existed in the Greek world long before Christianity), while others denied it entirely. The council eventually ruled that the latter group was right. It wasn't some universally accepted Christian doctrine leading up to the council.

Beyond that, Protestants—depending on the denomination—don't necessarily accept the authority of that council (acceptance varies among the various pre-schismatic groups), so there's no rule saying Pat has to buy into it either. I don't know the Protestant world intimately, but my sense is that Baptists and similar strict Sola Scriptura types stick to the Jerusalem standard (or at least align with it informally, though I'm not sure how formal that alignment actually is)) and tend to view later councils as being too influenced by politics.

Zachary Cox69 said:Quincy:

elektrokon

Quincy:

Look, going back to what I was saying—are we saying a person is justified before God (the Father) by their actions rather than just sucking up and saying "Lord, Lord"?

We’re definitely on the same page there. If someone keeps chanting "Lord, Lord" but they're actually a bad person doing evil things, that "Lord" talk doesn't mean a thing. Personally, I’d say it takes both good works and calling on the "Lord" to save a person. As James the Apostle put it in his letter, "Faith without works is dead."

Quincy:

Does that mean faith in Him isn't the main point, and a moral life is the primary criteria instead?

No—Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Quincy:

From your perspective, can an atheist make it into the kingdom of heaven?

They can't. Even though some Popes have suggested otherwise (since they've said it).
Back to James again:
"Otherwise, someone might say, 'You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'
James 2:19: You believe that there is one God? Good! Even the demons believe—and shudder.
James 2:20: Do you want to know, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless?"
So, it’s not just faith alone, nor is it just works alone. Protestants sort of muddied the waters there. Their founding motto was "Sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura."
I think Martin Luther even wanted to pull James's letter out of the New Testament because James places such a heavy emphasis on works. Works *have* to be the result of faith.
Quincy:

I need you to answer all three questions. Don't just quote stuff—I've already read all that.

Well, I have to quote—I guess I’m a "sola scriptura" kind of believer, haha. As Christians, we should think according to God, not our own whims. What God communicated through His prophets and apostles is what matters. That said, "sola gratia" is also right, because we are saved by God's grace; you can't earn salvation through works.

Naturally, having no brain at all seems to be a prerequisite here.😁

It’s a heavy question, regardless of how old you are. I once dealt with a young patient in a truly dire situation. It was obvious there was no way out, and they were just suffering through unbearable pain—even attempting suicide while in the hospital. At that point, the doctors were essentially just prolonging the agony.

On the flip side, abandoning the "life at all costs" principle opens up a massive Pandora's box of gray areas. You run into issues with potential manipulation and endless lawsuits from grieving families. Even if a patient expresses their wishes clearly, those decisions can always be contested by claiming they weren't in the right headspace or that their statements were coerced.

What if we used a notarized advance directive specifically against resuscitation and life support in clearly defined scenarios? Something signed well in advance while the person is fully lucid, perhaps paired with a final verbal confirmation at the hospital bed if possible? 🤔

lonestag15 said:Is it actually scientific to claim that psychosis is the direct cause-and-effect result of Kundalini rising across a massive group of people?

Total practitioners — number of people who got sick within that group — percentage

100,000 people — number of cases — percentage

Then compare those percentages.

...honestly, I don't even know if that's a valid way to run a study...

Basically, just doing that without accounting for things like genetic predisposition, life stress levels, family history, diagnoses, etc... etc.

It would be hard to prove a cause-effect Quote link to "Kundalini rising" that way.

At best, you'd point toward a somewhat realistic possibility of a correlation between a specific practice and psychotic disorders, then suggest further research.

Even establishing a correlation is difficult to do with certainty, let alone causation.

To put it simply—in your example, we would try to create two sufficiently large groups with similar profiles (using something like stratified random sampling or whatever is appropriate), apply appropriate statistical tests based on the sample size and the calculated probability that something occurred by chance, and determine the threshold for whether the pattern in the dataset is likely accidental (usually 5% or 1%). From there, we'd conclude whether there's enough reason to suspect a correlation greater than chance at that 5/1% threshold, and thus decide whether to recommend further study. Of course, it’s desirable to have certain safeguards (single-blind or double-blind procedures) between the stages or actors in the experiment to prevent unconscious subjective influence on the data analysis.
Then, several scientists in the same field (usually three) review everything to critically evaluate the methodology and hunt for potential holes.
After publication, ideally, the work is further investigated, with the experiment repeated using the same or improved methodologies and parameters.

Moving from that single experiment to a definitive (or rather, highly probable—nothing is ever truly definitive) establishment of a correlation takes quite a while, let alone proving causation. And such an experiment wouldn't even be able to identify the actual mechanisms of action.

Because

1) We easily and without research conclude that psychotic episodes happen much more frequently than in a control group (but what does "much more" actually mean? It's a very subjective and imprecise statement))

- That's an assumption, not scientific proof.

2) We easily jump to the conclusion that it's caused by Kundalini rising.

- That's obvious bias and subjective interpretation, not scientific proof.

lonestag15 said:But his findings actually line up with other studies... I can't give you specific names right now... but any random YouTube video about brain waves and how they tie into meditation will back up what he was writing years ago... at this point, it's practically common knowledge.

So, I get where you're coming from regarding the fake credentials and the pseudo-science nonsense... but the stuff he did with the measurements? That part is spot on...

Even if it is "psychosis triggered by Kundalini," I don't see the problem... cause and effect... there has to be some kind of link between the practice and the results if it's happening to so many people (meaning, there's a repeatable pattern here)...

The bottom line is that something concrete is actually happening during that practice... that's no longer just a matter of belief or ideology...

His rambling, lacking any real research, probably lines up perfectly with the pseudo-scientific nonsense peddled by other frauds out there.

I could be wrong, but we’re going to need some actual evidence to back that up.

I’m not entirely sure where we’ve landed on this specific topic, but it isn't exactly a controversial point that meditation—or honestly, pretty much any consistent activity—alters brain activity.

I get what you're saying about those fake credentials and all that pseudoscience nonsense. But honestly, when it comes to the actual measurements he was taking? That part was spot on.

If anything actually worked.

If people want to claim psychosis is triggered by Kundalini rising, honestly, I don't see the big deal. It’s fine by me.

The whole debate over raising Kundalini really boils down to that one specific issue. 😁

lonestag15 said:I went ahead and drafted that Bhovian atomic model for you—mostly because it serves as a perfect example of how "official" theories often fall apart under scrutiny... regardless of how the kids end up perceiving the concept. For them, it’ll just be little clouds where there's a higher or lower chance of finding an electron... which basically means those rigid, precise electronic orbits are getting tossed out the window in every interpretation, no matter what grade level they're in.

So, look—to me, "official science" is just the stuff you pick up through formal institutions... like what they drill into you in a university lecture hall. But unofficial science? That’s the deep dive you have to take entirely on your own. Since everyone isn't coming from the same academic background, we aren't all going to be on the same page regarding the second part... though I guess if you all went to the same Ivy League school, you might actually get it...

So where exactly are people supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime—you know, while we’re all just waiting around for the education system to actually catch up and create new majors? I mean, it’s not like this stuff can be widely available to everyone until it finally makes its way into the official university curricula...

And what if you’ve got more than one authority figure digging into the exact same topic?...

You really think that guy didn't apply basic scientific principles just because he has a PhD?

Oh, so we could just go, "Hey, ask the patient what they were doing before the psychosis hit and then draw a conclusion from that"?
And compare that to how other psychiatrists actually conduct research...
Would anyone consider that a legitimate scientific approach?

Whether you call it "psychosis triggered by rising Kundalini" or "Kundalini syndrome"... whatever... it doesn't matter...

If this is happening to a massive number of patients, does that prove Kundalini is real?

Apple fell.
Apple fell.
Apple fell.
...Is there some force behind why the Apple fell?
Do you need a measurement to conclude that gravity exists?

Quote:>

bluemason3 says: Example?

For instance, when talking about brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two... and it looks like you did the same to player number one (that Indian guy)... and honestly, I couldn't pull another name out of a hat if I tried. I'm not even looking it up online (though it's definitely out there).

An interesting example from the fringes of electrical engineering would be the effect of electromagnetic fields on human perception, specifically how those fields can induce "paranormal" experiences.

Well, damn... you just nuked his entire life's work, haha.

Look, I don't really care about all that murky "chakra" nonsense—what matters to me is the bottom line: "he proved increased brain activity via EEG" and the shift in brain wave frequencies...

So yeah, look at these two guys—they both reach the exact same conclusions... any third party could easily step into a lab and prove the same thing...
Plus, I've been looking into this stuff outside of their specific scope and ended up reaching the same conclusions myself...

You can't just make up EEG data.

I can't, but I assume it follows the logic of increased electrical activity as measured by an EEG.

Cause and effect

I don't know, give that Indian guy a call and ask him yourself... haha...

I mean, yeah, jerking off triggers a dopamine spike, but it tanks your levels in the long run... just like how supposedly "raising Kundalini" spikes your dopamine... but evidence? Please... everyone's got an opinion...

At the end of the day, the practice speaks for itself anyway...

You won't exactly be deep-diving into the Bhorov model during your time at university. So, if that's the case, why is it considered "official" when the school is a state-funded institution?

I'm not entirely sure if an elementary schooler could wrap their head around models based on Islamic field theory.

It’s not like nothing here qualifies as "official science," and it's certainly not true that more advanced models fall under the "unofficial" category. Quite the opposite, actually.

To me, "official science" is just whatever they feed you in a classroom or through formal institutions. It’s the standardized curriculum everyone gets taught at the same time. On the other hand, unofficial knowledge? That’s stuff you have to go out and hunt for on your own. Not everyone is going to stumble upon that through a degree; you really have to seek it out yourself.

There’s a distinction between official institutions and unofficial ones, and it's worth looking at what that actually means. Take universities, for example: you have accredited schools and then you have the unaccredited ones. But research institutes are a different story entirely—they can be completely independent, private initiatives.

The whole point of using the scientific method is that everyone should end up at the same destination. That’s the idea—to establish something with actual precision and objectivity.

If you aren't using this kind of methodology, you aren't actually doing science. The idea of "unofficial science" is a nonsense phrase that doesn't hold any water.

So, where is everyone supposed to pick up this knowledge in the meantime? Not exactly easy to find while we wait for new academic tracks to actually get approved. It’s hard to make anything truly accessible to the public until it finally makes its way into official school curriculums.

You'll pick things up wherever they actually matter. In school, certain topics naturally overlap anyway. You can study the exact same concepts in neurology, physiology, psychology, or ethology—knowledge isn't some set of silos locked away in specific departments. 🤷

Educational levels exist for a reason. You aren't going to pick up surgical techniques or advanced scientific breakthroughs during elementary school, and you aren't ever going to reach that level of expertise there.

What if you have multiple authorities all digging into the exact same subject?

Authorities don't mean much. What actually matters is the research.

Every single study goes through the peer-review gauntlet first, then faces the slow grind of follow-up research and constant verification. Eventually, everything settles into whatever the evidence actually points toward.

Do you really think that even with a PhD, he managed to ignore those basic scientific principles?

Which guy, that Indian fellow? I haven't seen his work.
It's not like we haven't seen questionable PhDs around here in the States. I can't claim a paper is bad without reading it, nor can I assume it's good just because there's a doctorate attached. If it were from Harward, I might be more inclined to trust the credibility, but having seen how things operate in India, I’m skeptical.

So, could you just say, "ask the patient what they did before the psychosis and conclude that was the trigger"?
And then compare it to research by other psychiatrists...
Would that even count as a respectable scientific approach?

It isn't science because the sample size is tiny, the circumstances aren't controlled, and the conclusions rely on the subjective assessment of a patient.

Regardless, the issue isn't whether spiritual practices can trigger psychosis; the issue is using the term "kundalini" if that implies unverifiable, unconfirmable mystical religious elements and models. So, it's not about "psychosis triggered by spiritual practice," it's about "awakening kundalini."

If this happened to a large number of patients, wouldn't that prove kundalini is real?

No.

The apple fell.
The apple fell.
The apple fell.
...is there some force causing the apple to fall?
Do we need some kind of measurement to conclude gravity exists?

Sure, but that force could be gravity, or it could be that the Gods blew on the apple.
Just because a phenomenon exists doesn't mean every model describing it is equally good or accurate.

For example, regarding measurements of brain changes resulting from meditation, you discredited player number two (Stojanovica)... and it looks like you've sidelined player number one (this Indian guy) too... and off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else to pull out of a hat. I'm not even going to bother searching online (though I'm sure they're out there).

It's not about the players; it's about the papers.

An interesting edge case in electrical engineering would be the influence of electromagnetic fields on human perception and inducing "paranormal" experiences through those fields.

That's not up for debate, but it says nothing about kundalini.

Besides, that falls under medical rather than technical territory.

Look, I don't care about vague terms like chakras and such; all that matters to me is the conclusion—that he proved increased brain activity via EEG and changes in brain wave frequencies...

A conclusion only makes sense if the methodology makes sense. I participated in some research on medical yoga in India while working at an institute dedicated to it, attended conferences, and read their published proceedings—it's incredibly poor science. I'd go as far as calling it pseudoscience. It's so bad that, compared to everything else I've seen since returning to America, American science looks like the gold standard of the world.😬

It’s such a circus over there that I don't trust a single thing without double-checking it myself. Don't get me wrong—they have top-tier scientists and engineers, but the oversight is terrible. With this much corruption and cutting corners, you can't just take someone's formal credentials at face value.

So here they are, both of them coming to the exact same conclusions... apparently some third party can just step back into a lab and prove it easily enough...
I've been digging into the subject matter beyond just those two guys, and I ended up reaching the same conclusions too...

But where is the actual research? Where are the peer-reviewed papers in serious journals (ideally Q1)? It doesn't matter what conclusions they toss around on the internet or in casual reading; that isn't science. Anyone can write whatever nonsense they want in a book, but you can't just publish whatever you feel like in a legitimate academic journal.

You can't just make up EEG data.

Why not?

Paul Rogers94 said:Exactly.
I played it safe with Crowley... A)
So, neonmarlin39 was the one quoting that quote... B)
And then I gave my response—whatever that was...

Where's the catch? 🤔

A: X is science
B: X isn't science
A: X is science
B: X isn't science

C: science doesn't matter
B: okay, but I'm responding to A's claim about whether X is science; nobody is actually debating the importance of science here
C: science means nothing to me, why are you implying... this thing... whatever

It's a non sequitur. 🤷

Paul Rogers94 said:He was responding directly to my quote of Crowley—which I had used while replying to lonestag15

You’ve got the timeline of this debate right.

1) lonestag15 was talking about scientific proof.

2) I countered him on that specific point.

3) neonmarlin39 then countered me.

4) And now you've jumped in to defend Crowley.

Paul Rogers94 said:lonestag15 might be, but personally—I never, ever appeal to science or faith. When I run into someone obsessed with "strict science," it drives me insane. I can’t wrap my head around why anyone thinks they can lecture me on whether something is scientifically valid or not. It’s like some religious fanatic trying to convert me—it kills the conversation, ruins the flow, and feels like pure tyranny over total nonsense. I’m just not playing that game, and I don't get why that's so hard to grasp. But then again, dogmatists from any camp struggle to realize that some people simply don't care. I once got into a massive blowout with my HOA president—told him exactly where he could shove it and demanded he stop talking to me because he kept trying to recruit me into some cult led by Zlatko Sudac. No matter how polite I tried to be, I couldn't make him understand that I couldn't give a damn about his little sect or his faith. It's the same deal with you "scientists"—you're actually somewhat rational compared to others, but look, let's just have some inspired banter. Don't hit me with ideologies of any kind. I don't know if I've made it clear enough how much I despise being suffocated by scientific dogma or any other brand of tyranny... 🕺

I'm still not sure who you think you're arguing with.

You've jumped into a debate with lonestag15, focusing on his reliance on science as if his point appeared out of thin air. You're essentially fighting your own projections here.

Furthermore, you can't really claim to be "neither for faith nor for science."

Those are basically the two ways to look at things. When observing a phenomenon, you either describe it using a model based on unproven claims (faith) or through exact evidence (science). You could also choose to be uninterested and not describe it at all, but then you wouldn't be participating in the discussion in the first place.

There isn't really a third option, other than perhaps skepticism toward unprovable phenomena—which, honestly, is pretty close to a scientific approach anyway.

Paul Rogers94 said:Take a closer look. 🙂

Here is the thread:

lonestag15 said:Just because it hasn't hit the mainstream scientific consensus yet doesn't mean there isn't actual research out there—it just means the studies are too recent to be officially "recognized" by the establishment. It’s a timing thing, really. Do yourself a favor, look it up online, and actually educate yourself on the topic...

Look, just because some method for measuring brain waves hasn't been officially sanctioned by the FDA doesn't mean the data isn't real. Someone actually sat down, did the work, and pulled legitimate readings from the measurements... Just because it isn't "official" doesn't automatically make it wrong...

People have already started throwing around the whole "kundalini symptoms" thing lately—but honestly? Psychiatrists have been well aware of those exact same signs for ages... just like the gurus have.

Look, just because all the theories being tossed around right now aren't considered "official science" doesn't mean they're wrong... it just means they haven't been vetted yet. And honestly, if we decide that anything labeled "pseudoscience" is automatically garbage, we might as well just pack up the lab coats and stop researching new fields altogether—because, let’s be real, everything starts out looking like pseudoscience until it isn't...

You’re 100% wrong about this...
Honestly, I’m pretty much done with this whole debate—I want to wrap this thing up right now... Going off to dig through books or scour the internet just feels like a massive waste of my energy. This entire conversation is honestly going nowhere... Just go learn about the subject on your own, because arguing this with anyone is just a drain on my time. Not that I’m trying to shade you personally or anything—it’s just pointless to keep clashing like this. It’s literally a waste of breath... You're better off actually studying the topic from people who have actual legitimacy—you know, folks who have written 200-page books on the matter...

And yeah, raising Kundalini falls right into that category.

Who even said dopamine was the most important part of the whole hormonal system? Don't put words in my mouth. You asked why I kept bringing up dopamine, so I answered you because its role is huge when it comes to developing mental illness...

My "personal theory" plus the experiences of millions of people plus actual gurus who warn about these exact issues... and you just dismiss all of that in one single sentence—which, honestly, you probably haven't even practiced long enough to know, because if you had, you'd get it...

If you actually bothered to learn anything about what I'm talking about, you'd wrap your head around it in five minutes... well, five minutes just to read it, really...

So, bottom line: go pick up some books, hit the internet, and actually educate yourself...

...I don't have the energy to go back and forth like this forever if you aren't willing to actually study the subject...

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this topic. I've laid out the theory, the evidence, and the subjective experiences... whether you want to take something from it or not, I don't know... I'd suggest one more time that you maybe reread what's already been written...

bluemason3 said:What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

neonmarlin39 said:It’s pretty straightforward. When you see a scientific paper published in a legit peer-reviewed journal, it means it’s passed some basic level of scrutiny—or at least started the process. You can't just scribble something down, call it "science," and claim it's proven. I mean, sure, you see people try that move every now and then, but they usually get figured out pretty fast when nobody takes them seriously.

Paul Rogers94 said:Trying to examine spirituality through a scientific lens is like having some professional geographer attempt to analyze Gooliver's travels from a strictly academic standpoint...

Aleister Crowley

neonmarlin39 said:That’s fair, I guess, but you can't really play both sides of the fence—you can't claim science and hard data back to back when talking about this stuff.

At the end of the day, we're physical, mental, and spiritual beings all rolled into one. It's not like these are three separate silos that don't touch. Plus, the physical and mental side—which includes things like hormones—is definitely right in the wheelhouse of actual science.

Paul Rogers94 said:Where did you get the idea I’d ever try to hide behind science—or, God forbid, religion?

I have zero respect for scientific dogma or the whole materialist worldview, just like I have no patience for religious dogma or any other kind of rigid belief system.

Frankly, I'm repelled by any sort of "scientific" or religious mindset... both are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to being narrow-minded and trapped in a limited perspective.

bluemason3 said:Electron used science to back his points, and he was called out for it. You just jumped into the middle of that argument and now you're strawmanning him.😛

Paul Rogers94 said:I don't see why it matters whether something is labeled scientific or pseudoscientific... frankly, I couldn't care less if people consider Jung, Raman, Maharajah, or anyone else to be "science" or not. Those labels mean nothing to me.

The only reason you care about those labels is to see if they fit within your own dogmatic worldview.

That "scientific" worldview—which just happens to be the dominant one right now—is every bit as tyrannical as any other dogmatic ideology.

It’s the same old story: Catholics preach humility and poverty while acting like arrogant nationalists living in luxury, just as scientists claim objectivity and ethical rigor while actually serving politics, money, the military-industrial complex, and corporate interests. They push a version of reality where they get to decide what's true just to maintain control. It's all just about power and dominance...

I’m not quite sure what "scientific worldview" is supposed to mean.

Science is really just a collection of methods—the best and most successful tools we currently have for objectively determining reality based on observed phenomena.

I don't see how the pursuit of objective truth through evidence and rigorous peer review (essentially filtering ideas through a dialectical process of exact verification) could ever be considered dogmatic.
By definition, dogmatism is a blind, unshakeable faith in something that isn't tested or proven. Science sits on the complete opposite side of that coin.

As for how much weight we should give science when tackling broader philosophical questions, that's an epistemological issue. There are plenty of scientists who are believers (I mentioned the Dickensian example earlier); good science doesn't inherently require a materialist or reductionist worldview.

However, if you embrace strict epistemological standards that reject unverifiable and unproven sources of thought, you inevitably end up with a certain level of general skepticism.

Paul Rogers94 said:I don't see why it matters whether something is labeled scientific or pseudoscientific... frankly, I couldn't care less if people consider Jung, Raman, Maharajah, or anyone else to be "science" or not. Those labels mean nothing to me.

The only reason you care about those labels is to see if they fit within your own dogmatic worldview.

That "scientific" worldview—which just happens to be the dominant one right now—is every bit as tyrannical as any other dogmatic ideology.

It’s the same old story: Catholics preach humility and poverty while acting like arrogant nationalists living in luxury, just as scientists claim objectivity and ethical rigor while actually serving politics, money, the military-industrial complex, and corporate interests. They push a version of reality where they get to decide what's true just to maintain control. It's all just about power and dominance...

Good grief, it’s the exact same situation as that thread with Pat, the woman, D... something.

Alternative: It’s been scientifically proven.

Skeptic: But X doesn't even meet the basic requirements of scientific methodology. Since science is defined by its methodology, X simply can't be considered science.

Alternative: honestly, who even cares about science?

🤷

Electron keeps hiding behind science, yet you counter him by bringing up Jung. Then, you have the nerve to claim that we aren't being "scientific" enough—as if that somehow means science doesn't matter anymore. 🤔

Your arguments are all over the place. It’s pure chaos. 🤷

Paul Rogers94 said:Where did you get the idea I’d ever try to hide behind science—or, God forbid, religion?

I have zero respect for scientific dogma or the whole materialist worldview, just like I have no patience for religious dogma or any other kind of rigid belief system.

Frankly, I'm repelled by any sort of "scientific" or religious mindset... both are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to being narrow-minded and trapped in a limited perspective.

Electron used science to back his points, and he was called out for it. You just jumped into the middle of that argument and now you're strawmanning him.😛

Paul Rogers94 said:Carl Gustav Jung interview on Kundalini

kundalini Carl Jung's The Psychology of kundalini Yoga



These apologists for scientific methodology and the materialistic paradigm don't think Jung is "scientific" enough

The Materialist paradigm isn't really relevant here, and let's be honest, Jung definitely isn't "scientific" by modern standards.

Take Djokovic, for example. He’s a man of faith, so his worldview isn't Materialist, yet everything he does in medicine follows strict scientific protocols.

What Jung was doing wasn't based on exact scientific methodology; it was more about speculative theoretical musing. It sits much closer to philosophy and theology than to hard science.

lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?

Just your typical pseudo-science fraud, by the way.

Classic fake doctorate and phony academic credentials. He doesn't hold an electrical engineering PhD from any accredited university.

That’s how these alternative scammers usually play it. One fraud sets up some LLC or association and calls it the "XYZ College" or "XYZ Academy" (usually something nonsense like quantum medicine or energy healing), then they charge fees for useless, often mail-in courses just to hand out a "doctorate."

It’s about as legitimate as if I drew my own diploma in Photoshop and printed it at home. There's zero scientific weight here; it's a total lie.

You see the same thing in Russia too—they set up some private club and call it an "Academy," because nobody can stop you from using that name. People join and brag about being members of the Russian Academy, conveniently forgetting it's just some guy's private hobby with no connection to actual science or the state-run academies.

Honestly, just reading the first three minutes of his bio makes it obvious he's a pseudo-scientific charlatan with intentionally lazy "qualifications." I'm fairly certain there is absolutely no real scientific foundation for anything he claims.

Are you questioning the reality of rising kundalini?

Of course I am. The experience itself isn't in question—I've witnessed it firsthand, secondhand, and thirdhand—but his labeling it as "kundalini" instead of psychosis or something similar is what's questionable.
Right now, there's no reason to accept "kundalini theory" as anything more than "demonic possession theory." Both are models built on faith and superstition, especially when these phenomena can be explained by much more basic psychological mechanisms and diagnoses.

lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...

Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...

So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...

Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...

PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma

The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...

So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...

I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...

As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha

If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)

Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...

So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?

Education isn't one-size-fits-all. Obviously, you aren't going to teach the same curriculum to a third grader that you'd give to someone finishing a postdoc in physics. It's just common sense.

Kids can't grasp the basics yet. They really need to master fundamental skills first. At this stage, it’s far more important for them to wrap their heads around calculus and how it actually applies to physics than to get bogged down by complex questions that are way over their heads.

There are plenty of things tucked away in school textbooks that don't actually have any scientific consensus behind them. That isn't even a real criterion for what we call "official science."

Honestly, that term doesn't even exist. The whole phrase just doesn't make much sense to begin with.

Whether it's officially recognized or still flying under the radar, those studies don't really fit into any of the existing categories.

There’s plenty of research out there that crosses lines, where different fields overlap and blur. Trying to force everything into one strict category doesn't really mean much anyway.

I wish there were some kind of oversight committee deciding what actually makes the cut for official reading lists and what doesn't.

There’s no official handbook on this, and no oversight committee to call. Science isn't some centralized hierarchy built on someone else's authority.

The only research worth any serious consideration comes from highly qualified experts—people who are actually putting their reputations on the line when they speak up.

That’s basically the definition of science. It isn't about having a specific set of credentials on paper—even if we all know that matters in the real world—but rather about the quality of the research, the methodology used, and the actual results you get.

Psychiatrists will likely never touch the phrase "kundalini syndrome" in their official diagnoses, even if they recognize those exact symptoms in their patients.

No psychiatrist is actually going to touch this, and here’s why.

That isn't listed as an actual diagnosis in either of the two main diagnostic manuals. That doesn't mean it isn't real, of course. Manuals aren't science itself; they’re just a set of agreed-upon standards that shift from one generation to the next. But for purely administrative reasons, an official report can only list what's actually written in the book.

As far as I know, there isn't anything in current scientific research or even at the absolute cutting edge of science that actually points to the existence of Kundalini syndrome.

You could certainly use that term to describe a phenomenon similar to psychosis triggered by spiritual practices. However, it shouldn't imply that Kundalini is an objective reality or a proven "energy model" for what’s happening. As of right now, there just isn't any scientific basis to back that up.

Plenty of people have actually conducted solid research here...

An example?

Electrical engineering fields conduct all sorts of studies on these fringe areas.

Any examples?

Doctorate "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
(power spectrum analysis of electroencephalogram)
Prof. Bhushan Sharma

I haven't found the paper myself, so I can't really comment on it. That said, the guy clearly leans heavily into guru-style pseudoscience. Besides, scientific standards in India tend to be pretty loose in these specific niches. I wouldn't take anything too seriously unless the work is published in Q1 or at least Q2 international peer-reviewed journals.

Regarding Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica, the only accurate measurement data is in his books. His website used to exist about ten years ago, but now it's gone... boo... nothing left.

Random claims made in books are irrelevant. You need published papers with precise methodologies that others can actually scrutinize, review, and replicate to verify.
Just because someone plays scientist and uses technical jargon doesn't make the writing scientific (on the contrary, it's often pseudoscientific—or necessarily so, if it isn't based on actual research and peer-reviewed publications, but is instead just making things up as they go and inventing data on the fly)

I started with piezoelectricity and how it amplifies brain activity... I understand this field of science... it's one of the concrete phenomena in those Eastern practices (due to vibrations and spinal stretching).

Can you point me toward a specific study that experimentally proves how spinal stretching via piezoelectricity affects brain activity?

Plus, how does that link back to Kundalini? Eating chocolate or masturbating probably changes brain activity too. A common confirmation bias among spiritualists is declaring any change resulting from a practice to be something magical and "super-uber" without any proof of its actual significance or importance.

What exactly do you mean by "official" versus "unofficial," or "recognized" versus "unrecognized"?
There isn't some "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in the scientific community that gets to decide what's allowed.
If someone conducts solid research, publishes it in a reputable journal, and—if possible—has their findings verified by independent teams, then they have a scientific argument. If not, they don't. It’s pretty straightforward. 🤷

The way you're defining pseudoscience is off. Pseudoscience isn't just some "cutting-edge" field where people are testing unproven hypotheses. Real pseudoscience is using "expert-sounding" jargon to create an illusion of legitimacy while completely ignoring, or actively avoiding, actual scientific methodology.

I highly doubt those doctors just brushed off your allergic reactions and told you everything was fine when you clearly aren't.

Look, there’s no reason to disregard what you're feeling. But if you don't weigh your own experience against established medical science—or worse, if you ignore the data entirely and decide your personal perception is the ultimate yardstick for everything else—you're heading down a bad path.😳

mistybison said:I disagree. 😁

Even though we share many similarities, everyone is ultimately unique. For example, a doctor might claim strawberries are healthy, but if you happen to be allergic to them, your personal experience carries far more weight than any scientific study.

A lot of harm has been caused by medical professionals who hold narrow, rigid views and refuse to account for the specific needs of an individual organism.

When offering suggestions or advice, we must remember that what works perfectly for me could be quite harmful to someone else.

That’s debatable. Without knowing what an allergy actually is, without testing to find out exactly what you're reacting to, or having treatment on hand if things go south after you eat something... you're just guessing.

More importantly, there's no basis for applying your own experience to others. You aren't a large enough sample size, the variables aren't controlled, and your own perception isn't objective enough. If that were the case, we wouldn't need science to uncover the causes of diseases; a thousand years ago, people would have already figured out it was bacteria rather than ghosts or shamans.