Talk:Astral projection/Archive 1

Horrible article
I've made this and  as this article a) is badly written and b) quotes biased sources as verbatim fact. Ceejayoz 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Probable copyvio
Astral Travel section removed: apparently lifted straight from here. Tearlach 22:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: NPOV
I don't see any instances of one paradigm as "verbatim fact," if you ask me, so I for one am against the "complete rewrite" of this (majority of) neutral information, some of which I contributed to.
 * The article, at the very least, needs a criticisms section. As is, it presents a lot of very disputed and anti-science concepts as near-factual. As a side note, please sign your entries using four tildes ( ~ ) — ceejayoz &#9733; 20:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

proof
Hi, Can someone post some links to prove that atral projection exists? It would help. Without any proof this article looks a little mad if you get what I mean.


 * In my opinion, there are no proofs, it's only a known phenomena which does not seem to be definitely linked to an illness (i.e. not associated with schizophrenia psychosis). The experience happens to some individuals without any known reason and their personal beleif system only seems to affect their own interpretations of it. Reading my own lines, it reminds me of the alien abduction phenomena, which might have more in common than we suspect with astral projection :)
 * I don't think the article seems mad personally, but I agree it's controversial like many psychology (and para-psychology) related topics. --66.11.179.30 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Half of this article discusses astral projection as though it is undisputed fact. I think it should receive a neutrality dispute tag until it's been cleaned up. Jredwards 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but then again the article in wikipedia starts by saying it is a controversial interpretation... Bragador 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I set out to discover if AP was a real phenomena some years ago, and after having read many accounts from regular APers I concluded that the only way to know for sure if it was real or not was to learn to do it myself. After a month of following readily availible training instructions I projected for the first time, and a year later I started doing so regularly. Today I still don't have a proper repeatable technique, but I do find that I can usually project about once a week on average. Repeatability is important for scientific experimentation, but I have proven to myself that the phenomena does indeed exist. Mine is however just one account amongst many. If you like me demand undisputable proof, you might want to try learning this for yourself. - Setting about doing this is what separates the agnostic from the sceptic. --Nosforit 62.72.248.134 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Supernatural phenomenon are based on personal experiences so there can't be any proof that they exist and it is not possible to prove that they doesn't exist. I had some experiences but not very bright and it is my own personal experience. Igor Skoglund

Astral Body
I've researched the subject out of curiosity for many years yet I never believed that people who astral project put their counsciousness in an astral body. I thought the proponents were saying it was all about your counsciousness leaving the body, and the other "astral" body was in fact just a visualisation made from your imagination. Care to discuss ?Bragador 00:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I found the question interesting but can't answer them scientifically I thought I would just share some of my own subjective sensations about it:
 * Having experienced two distinct types of similar experiences, the disembodiment sensation is indeed only observed as a sensation, but I couldn't by any means come up with any scientific data proving that this actually happens. Consciousness being used to feel focused from a certain point of view might be what causes the body sensation.
 * In some of my personal experiences (especially astral ones which aren't happening on the physical plane, more on a mental plane), sometimes I actually didn't feel I had a body, while at other occasions I felt having a fluid body which easily could change shape, so it really seems subjective more than anything else... As for the apparently popular silver cord, it's interesting that I never could observe such a link, and I tend to believe that it is also highly subjective.  In this kind of experience the environment also doesn't feel as stable as the physical one, and interestingly the perception is expanded over that of the eyes (i.e. virtual 360 degrees view is common for some reason, also it's possible to get a view of our perceived body shape as seen from the outside).
 * As for etheral experiences which are definitely more intense and stable, I feel like if I am in my physical body which I can't change shape, and this accompanies most physical sensations (these experiences can include elements of gravity, magnetism, high molecule-like vibrations rate, even velocity, and although levitation works and physical objects can be penetrated there is a sensation of resistence or wind of sorts, and I can't effect voluntary changes in the surroundings). Since these seem to happen in the actual physical reality (this kind of experience is often refered as real-time projection), but that there is no popular scientific data to corroborate it, I'm really unsure of what's exactly happening, the physical sensations could still be subjective, although the projector does not experience it as virtual...
 * So the questions you raised are very adequate and interesting, and there's no evidence to back any of the "body" theory other than personal subjective experience. If this matters, my own experiences were always spontaneous, although I remember previously trying to trigger them using various means, it was impossible for me to project at will (anxieties caused by vibration sensations and perception of the four heart valves perceived as my heartrate caused me to stop the experience all the time).  My experiences usually occur in the morning on the weekends when I decide to sleep an hour or two over what I'm used to (I have theories why such times raise the odds of a projection, but won't get into these now).  --66.11.179.30 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Research
The research section needs to be cleaned up. The book reference should be at the bottom with the other references and less emphasis on Robert monroe should be put. Make an article on him instead and put a link. Also we need more scientific and serious studies on this. I know remote viewing is more studied by science since there is interesting empirical evidence but we I'm sure a couple of scientific papers have been written. As Gary Shwartz done anything on that subject or not ?Bragador 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Adjectives in Wikipedia
(copy pasted so that everyone could discuss)

I've reverted your change to astral projection as there is certainly no policy against adjectives on Wikipedia. Hell, the first sentence of today's featured article uses "important". — ceejayoz talk .com 04:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted it back since the adjective "controversial" tends to remove the neutrality of the current article. Bragador 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also about the fact that there is no policy against it. I'll remind you that articles must adopt the neutral point of view. I invite you to read any good encyclopedia or dictionary to notice that no adjectives are used unless absolutely necessary since it tends to change the ideas of the reader. The fact that something is controversial or not is a conclusion that the reader must get by himself. This is something they teach in every introductory science class. Afterall, isn't everything controversial ? I also checked today's article and it doesn't contain it in the article, only on the main page of wiki for the short description.Bragador 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, that there is a controversy is a state of fact. Wikipedia's neutrality policy isn't an idiocy pact, either - see pseudoscience, for example. Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific. Here are some selected quotes off other Wikipedia articles that use controversial in their text.  If you revert again, I'll have to open a RfC.
 * Full disclosure - The issue of full disclosure is controversial, but not new: locksmiths were discussing full disclosure over a century ago.
 * List of controversial non-fiction books
 * Scientology controversy
 * Controversial science
 * Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a controversial New York Times bestselling book by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, which was published in 1982 by Dell (ISBN 055212138). The book followed on from a BBC TV documentary. The Messianic Legacy is the 1987 sequel to Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
 * Yasukuni Shrine - Yasukuni Shrine (literally "peaceful nation shrine") is a controversial Shinto shrine located in Tokyo, Japan dedicated to the spirits of soldiers who died fighting on behalf of the Japanese emperor.
 * And those are all right off the first page of Google results. I can quote the rest of the 300,000 uses if you like.  Now, are you going to go through and fix them all, or will you finally admit that there's obviously a precedent of use of the word on Wikipedia? — ceejayoz talk  [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again it depends of the context. If you think I said nobody must use the word "controversial", then you got me wrong. I said nobody should use it unless it is absolutely necessary since it tends to influence the reader's opinion depending on how you insert it in a sentence. In the current case, since we can do without the word "controversial", I don't understand why you really want to point out a useless fact. Even more to make it a link. Bragador 16:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" in this case is not a judgement on Astral projection, it is a statment on the current consensus of general opinion in this matter. As such it states fact. I don't think the NPOV policy should be invoked to suppress a fact just because it might affect a readers opinion. DV8 2XL 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC placed on Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. "Controversial" means essentially "marked by controversy" and "controversy" is defined as "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." In this context, I think it is accurate to state that astral projection is controversial, and that omitting the word influences the reader's opinion to a non-neutral POV by passively implying that there is no debate about the concept. Edwardian 20:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - omission is potentially just as POV as a blatant opinion. In this case, use of 'controversial' seems reasonable. -ericg &#9992; 20:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am also responding from the RfC. The use of "controversial" is prosaic in context, and I think reasonable and appropriate given the status of the subject.  The word is used exactly once (granted, that use is prominent in the introduction, though it is nowhere harped upon) and I think places no undue burden on the topic that wouldn't be present in any balanced presentation of the subject (which, BTW, this article emphatically is not).  It would be helpful in the extreme as well if the article were better sourced overall; while I'm here, I'll see if I can clean up a bit. --Kgf0 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So the word shall stay. I humbly bow down. But then I strongly suggest we explain WHY the subject is controversial.Bragador 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can certainly get behind that. Thanks. — ceejayoz talk  [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts and Weasel words
A lot of claims are not backed by people but only by "specialists, proponents, etc.". When i read it, I see opinions here and there that are not linked to any sources. There are no references at the end of the page (only external links that go here and there) and this make this article not valid. We'll have to work on that people ! Right at the start with the drugs there is a problem since not reference is given !Bragador 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The language is better now, I've removed the tag. Of course it still needs much improvement in the way of specific references. ··gracefool |&#9786; 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it got better and you are right it needs specific references. These sentences still contain weasel words : Bragador 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some travellers claim to leave their mortal body and "float", and be able to travel to a destination by thought. If the traveller visits somewhere that other people are involved in daily life, the traveller is unable to contact those people and can only observe.
 * In some instances, astral projectors have described details of the outside world whilst in projection that they could not have known beforehand, known as remote viewing.
 * Some projectors claim that during an astral voyage, communication with other projectors or spirits is possible.
 * [...]laboratory experiments have shown that a sleeping person can be aware that [...]
 * Many projectors, clairvoyants and spiritualists describe the seventh, or crown chakra as a golden bowl, which is said to shatter at death, especially in a rare form of death caused by a kundalini surge.

I decided to clean the text. Such vague comments should not be in an article so see the "cleaning" discussion for more info at the end of the discusison page. Bragador 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article does not make any actual citations, so the bulk of it is opinion and point of view.  This article should be completely redone, or merged or deleted. solstice

Cleaning unsourced text
Please clarify the bold parts and cite sources for :
 * Some projectors claim that during an astral voyage, communication with other projectors or spirits is possible. Pets have been said to react in a frightened manner when encountering a projector, and some people claim to have seen an astrally projecting person's spirit as a colored beam or shot of light darting around the room. (See also ghost.)

In some instances, astral projectors have described details of the outside world whilst in projection that they could not have known beforehand, known as remote viewing. In remote viewing, however, the viewer does not leave his or her body, but claims to see remote sites by other means. Note that this was in the "other types of projection" chapter and since it is specified that nobody actually projects, it seems to be a useless comment. Bragador 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to anecdotal evidence, laboratory experiments have shown that a sleeping person can be aware that they are dreaming (often referred to as lucid dreaming), and some of these subjects claim to have had out-of-body experiences. Modern science generally interprets this as a purely physiological occurrence within the human body, explained by subconscious ideas that have been inflated by an imaginative retelling. Astral projectors find their firsthand experiences compelling enough to validate the dualism of body and spirit, and believe they have visited another world.
 * Many projectors, clairvoyants and spiritualists describe the seventh, or crown chakra as a golden bowl, which is said to shatter at death, especially in a rare form of death caused by a kundalini surge.
 * This cord mainly appears to a novice projector as assurance they will not become lost. However, even experienced projectors find it useful, claiming it is a fast way to return to the body. Some claim the silver cord can be severed during life, as a rare form of suicide or naturally by death, and that when this happens, one returns to the astral plane as one of eight phases of death, ending either in one's shard of spirit being returned to God or by rebirth.
 * Another popular term to refer to this kind of OOBE consists of "etheral projection" as opposed to "astral projection". People who claim to have experienced both say they can clearly observe the distinction between these two states. Some claim that the sensations of real-time projection are usually as vivid as the ones of the physical body, which can be a source of serious anxiety when it unexpectedly happens. Sensations of strong vibrations in the whole body can also accompany this experience.
 * Some travellers claim to leave their mortal body and "float", and be able to travel to a destination by thought. If the traveller visits somewhere that other people are involved in daily life, the traveller is unable to contact those people and can only observe. The traveller claims to return to their body by "wishing to return", whereupon they descend into their body smoothly until finally the back of the head jolts back into position after some vibration.
 * Remote viewing
 * So this is it folks. If anyone wants to put back any of this, they need to specify WHO says what specifically and make sure there is a credible source. Note that the article is already a mess since what is in the article can't always be easily linked to their source, except for the bible part which is really explicit to its sources.

Bragador 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One line was from myself, although it was altered (more common grammar was replaced by "claim", etc, like it was done to a number of sentences of the article by someone who probably thought that OOBEs are a myth). That line was the one about "etheral projection", and this is from personal experience followed by a few years of personal research on the subject (reading books) in an attempt to relate myself to some of the others and find terms to classify two forms of distinct experiences which I could differenciate.
 * Some people want to relate to books as a reliable source. From my experience, half of the books I found on the subject either seemed to be written for money by an author claiming to know about it, and putting together a bunch of references and of pseudoscientific theories or mysticism.  Some others seemed to be written by people who experienced it themselves who describe their own experiments as they can.  In both cases, all you'll find are still personal views and interpretations of some phenomenon which a number of people live but is hard to describe.  At least, some people and groups have agreed on a few terms, such as the difference between "etheral" and "astral" projection.  Some others will use other terms to describe the same thing, but it appears that most authors made up the terms themselves, so you'll find a lot of controversy when attempting to classify those experiences properly.
 * What do you know about the phenomenon, other than varying claims and descriptions from all over the world by people of different beliefs? Other than the few scientific (or at least, scientific attempts) of Monroe and a few other institutes who merely allowed to establish a link between a few brain wave or resonance patterns and a particular dream-like state of mind observed by experiencers?  The only other scientific data I know attempts to link this phenomenon with a few other frightening states which some people live (i.e. some being sightings).
 * I wouldn't be so prone to discount most of the available information, which are invididual testimonials filtered through an attempt to intellectualize the phenomenon.

--66.11.179.30 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point and feel you are right. On the other hand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it tries to get all the knowledge in the world in one place except for original research and personnal opinions... So sadly your own experience doesn't count unless you publish a book and cite it as a source while mentionning it is the author's opinion. It's the only "loophole" I can think of. Also, if many groups have different opinions, it is still interesting to write them down in seperate sections while mentioning their publications or, if you really need to, their website. The main goal of wikipedia is to be able to track down each written sentence to a published work afterall... Bragador 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know astral projection, find this man "Sapphire"
There are so mistakes and assumption in this section, I do not even know where to begin. There is only one man presently a live person and true master of astral projection.

You can invite him over to write over here, he wrote lots of books including the best selling Successful Astral Projection to the Space and Universe. You just google Sapphire/astral projection, and you will find him. His articles are all over the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147590 (talk • contribs).


 * What a load of crap. -999 (Talk) 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Sapphires books are very poorly written and full of disinformation. (May 1, 2007)

Awaiting sources
This section cite Bible verse, but does not cite where the interpretation of those verses is from... Most likely original research... -999 (Talk) 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Astral projection and the Bible
The Bible describes people as being "in the spirit" while receiving prophecy (eg., , Revelation , , , ). Many biblical scholars attribute this to being in a dream-like state or trance. The terminology of the mystical model of astral projection is also found in :


 * "Remember [your Creator] &mdash; before the silver cord is severed,
 * or the golden bowl is broken;
 * before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
 * or the wheel broken at the well,
 * and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
 * and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2Cor 12:2-3, KJV), Paul of Tarsus makes a direct reference to the existence of an "out of the body" state:


 * "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
 * And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)"

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1Cor 15:40-41, KJV) Paul introduces comparisons and metaphorical images that seem as a clear reference to the existence of different subtle bodies in the human constitution:


 * "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
 * There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."

Similar conceptions were employed by mediaeval alchemists in their treatises related to the Great Work, and can be also found, by those who are more perceptive or aware to the esoteric teachings, in the Rosicrucian literature known as "Western Wisdom Teachings".

What's this doing on Wikipedia???
This doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It might get some people into the subject if they happen to find it (e.g. Random article), and I, for one, don't want that to happen. This is just wrong! If the writers want to burn in Hell, that's fine. But I don't want people, especially kids who use Wikipedia, to know what this is. -XD375 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Go away, you stupid person. Huwie 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not stupid. It actually says that this is witchcraft, right in the bible. Here is a forum post. Read it:

-FROM HERE ON I DID NOT WRITE. IT IS A COPY OF A POST I SAW IN A FORUM-

Hello everyone, i'm not going to take course in October for Christian purposes. It's been fun, but i see the truth now.

In the book of Samuel, Saul seeks Samuel after he dies through a medium (todays version of a clairvoyant séance). Anyway, the clairvoyant managed to summon Samuel back from the dead. However he was a bit miffed about being disturbed from his sleep. 1 Samuel 28:11 (read about it)

There are a few instances that took place in the book of Acts: 8:39-40 39. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40. But Philip found himself at Azotus; and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities, until he came to Caesarea. There were also numerous examples from Jesus visiting on a mountain with Moses and some angels, while the disciples sat there gasping. Then finally Jesus leaving his body at the cross and coming back 3 days later to only leave again to be with his Father in Heaven. Also, angels escorted some of the disciples out of the local jails without anyone ever seeing them- isn’t that a neat trick. Ok, now that you have seen these examples in the Bible, lets see what God said about practicing such things: Deut 18: 9. "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10. "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11. or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12. "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. 13. "You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. Now wait a moment! Why is the Lord condoning these practices in the Old Testament and yet it is being practiced with some of the Bible characters you ask? Simple, you have to put it into context to properly understand God's laws. God told Moses he did not want his people to even associate with witches and those who practice such things as astral traveling (spiritist) and yet Saul did it? Yes, but Saul was also very disobedient to God’s law and he ended getting the shaft (literally) in the end.

Then what about the disciples and Jesus? Who can question this? Jesus and the disciples only did this through the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Acts 8 and as mentioned in Mark 16:

19. So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Ok, my point is this. God created the physical and spiritual realms, but not really for us to be wondering around in. The astral planes are really meant for his angels to use. Of course, the devil and his angels are also using the astral planes and that can be a bad encounter with one of his cohorts (demons). There are those who insist on going out there and wandering around looking for fun stuff to do, but sooner or later, they will run into some problems and may not have anyone to help. Happens more than you think. After all, who is watching out for your unattended body if your spirit man is out wandering around? What happens if you run into a demon with strong powers that wants to sever your cord and inhabit your body? What about spirits that may follow you back to your body and hang around to torment you? What happens if your body won’t let you back in or dies while your out wondering around? Books and people who encourage these practices don’t really discuss this much, do they? Because these points don’t sell books. You say, Ok, I will just cast them all out in the NAME OF JESUS! This only works if your where God wants you to be. If your not obeying his Word, your not under His protection.

This is why God does not like his people practicing such things. To call this a gift is incorrect because God has placed a spirit in each one of us, that is quite capable of Astral traveling. But He has put us in our bodies for one purpose. To use our body to fulfill God’s plans while we are here on earth! Not to be wandering around the spirit world. Unless it is under the direct supervision of the Holy Spirit, this should not be practiced. To answer your first question about going to hell, I will let the Word of God speak for itself: Rev 21:

5. And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." 6. And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7. "He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8. "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [will be] in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." 9. And one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here, I shall show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

Astral traveling would fall under a form of sorcery as most of the New Age Practices. Interestingly enough, notice the last verse mentions that John is doing a little astral-time travel himself, but ONLY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND JESUS, WHO IS REVEALING THESE THINGS TO HIM IN THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS. He is not just out there wandering around by himself without any divine supervision asking Jesus questions.

And that is my new view on the topic of astral projection. Goodbye everyone. Turn to Jesus while you can.

-THIS IS THE END OF THAT POST-

It is true, Astral travel is wrong. Now quit calling people stupid. I don't call you stupid, do I? XD375 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disregarded pretty much everything you said there - you see, I don't believe a single word in the bible. Now, a more pertinent question has arisen - your statement "it is true, Astral travel is wrong," which appears to be based on what the bible says, makes me wonder what you are doing on Wikipedia?  Did you know that this is an encyclopedia?  Yet you think information about something which not only might be true, but you yourself  even admit may be true, should be removed?  I have news for you, friend.  Some people don't believe in the bible, and some people will always have viewpoints that oppose your own.  I suggest you do some growing up and learn to live with that knowledge. Huwie 07:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether intentional or not, XD375 seems to have taken on the role of a troll. This page is for the discussion of the article not a debate on the validity of biblical statements; Wikipedia's policy on this has already been clearly defined. Having said that we should also try to maintain the civility policies and not resort to personal attacks. The best approach on both sides is to simply ignore trolling and personal attacks. Best wishes - Solar 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that stuff, and I added to it to show what I wrote and what I didn't. I am not intentionally trolling, and I understand what Solar is saying, so I'll stop. I'll save discussion on this topic for places like Gnosticweb.


 * I also want to add what I've thought might be the possibility of what that was actually talking about. I think it might not be talking about the Astral, but maybe just Heaven itself.


 * I realize it is a person's opinion on which way they want to go in life, and even I haven't decided whether I actually want to stop, or look into it some more. Whenever I realize I'm dreaming, I always have this urge to leave the dream, and go someplace else. I become more lucid in my dreams the more I think about Astral travelling... XD375 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia deals in Facts, not Truth, to quote the third Indiana Jones film. If you're looking for Truth, there are some fine philosophical and/or religious institutions, worldwide, for just that purpose. --Chr.K. 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Astral travel is can be VERY DANGEROUS please if you are interested in it and wish to try it do your research!!! most major cities have New Age shops that can either give you the material nessesary or put you in contact with someone that can help you. If you can't do that look it up on the web. Thank you and don't be afraid to explore;) Just do it as safely as possible!!!

No Sources, or Citation. Delete or Merge This Article.

 * Recently, the etheric projection article has been nominated a second time for deletion, which had brought me to an interesting observation about both of the OBE related pages. This article does not cite its sources, as to how or why "astral" as a term has anything to do with outer body travel.  All I see are many arbitrary assumtions, without any evidence to indicate that "astral projection" is even a valid ideology, aside from New Age hogwash.
 * This article should either be removed, or merged with a general "OBE" entitled article. There are no sources stating that "astral" relates to a semi-physical state, and so, it is incorrect to assume that OBE of the mundane nature are astral travels at all.


 * Astral projection is a widely used term within the western occult, esoteric and hermetic schools of thought, as well as within more contemporary literature often described with the blanket term 'new age'. Astral Projection is also used in the titles of countless books in this area, which on its own would make the term notable. A simple search on any online bookshop or any search engine will show how widely used the term is. New age subjects will be included in Wikipedia as they are notable cultural concepts. The article needs work but deletion is not an option as the subject is too notable, merging would also not help. The article should simply be taged for sources and accuracy. Best wishes - Solar 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think merging in the least would be best-- there can be headings for all the names of psychic projection, and their various distinctions, if any. You can have all kinds of books with a name, but this article contains no explanations of the link between a psychic event and "astral".  From what I can tell, people simply chose an arbitrary label without a logical reason.  Parapsychologists and other researchers do not even use this phrase, during experiments; they usually say something like "exteriorization", physical "disassociation" or "externalization". solstice

Model Section
I re-added the mystical model section with some sources. The majority of books hold the view that the astral planes are somehow external to the body, and one projects consciousness in an energy body to experience them. The etheric body for the RTZ zone and the astral body for the astral planes. In his book Astral Dynamics, Robert Bruce extended on this by claiming each plane requires a subtler body to be projected from a prior energy body. The mystical model more concerns a view of creation containing the source (of everything) at the 'centre', and increasingly dense vibration eminating from this until the physical solidifies from it. The planes in-between the source and the physical are the various astral, mental etc planes. As this idea seems to be the prevalent one currently, I feel it’s important that it is represented in some form. I can go through my library and produce more sources if required. MisterJingo 04:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are required to supply sources, actually. So, please do.  This page should be as factual as possible, but so far a lot of it is heresay and speculation.  Otherwise, the additions will be removed, sorry.solstice 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources sited, and when I have time I will go through my library of AP literature and take sources from all books which adhere to these ideas. MisterJingo 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Coming back to this article after many months I notice a lot was deleted with no specific reason given. I am happy for something to be flagged up due to it not quoting sufficient references (this can be fixed and should be discussed), but it seems some of the deletions are based on a users own philosophies of this subject and so they remove ideas they do not like. Also, 2 links were deleted yesterday and the reason given was they were not high in Google rankings. Can someone please link me to a wiki article which states only certain ranked sites can be linked. The site in question does currently have a low user number (it's growing), but does have thousands of page views per month (see forum stats). The site is also growing as a repository of AP articles and should remain as a link for those who wish to explore this area imo. MisterJingo 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. There was no stat counter that I could see, so I had to base the site's relavance on two things: community participation, and search engine ranking.  The latter being more signigicant, because it shows that the website is in fact popular.solstice 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible rewrite?
I've been looking at other wikipedia pages concerning OBEs and I think this article might need a rewrite. Astral projection is a specific kind of projection (notably to the astral planes). So shouldn't this article deal exclusively with that? The OBE article goes into detail regarding the different kinds of projection (astral, etheric, VR etc). Surely this article should document just the information available on astral projection alone. Etheric projection is not AP, AP on the whole is considered an inner journey, or a place reached through inward visualisation usually utilising various visualisations, trance states, or even the bodies natural mechanisms of sleep. It seems many have contributed in the light of taking AP as projection - where this should surely be left to the OBE article? Perhaps mention could be made to how the AP is reached, but leave it at that? Opinions? Ideas? MisterJingo 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! There was an etheric projection page, but it was deleted (unfairly), despite there are facts to support it as being distinct from astral projection.  You are correct, and I am glad someone sees that-- the EP discussion page had actually concluded it should even be kept, but all the evidence was ignored.  Since the "commity" completely ignored those facts, I have since done what I could to include them in the AP page.
 * I think that if They want just one article, then it should be merged in a big "OBE" page, then each kind of projection can be discussed in the correct context (see the above section on deletion). solstice 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I agree that we should have more than one side to any OBE article. However, recent comments made on this page and others like it have been opinionated and dogmatic. For example, "an OBE is a hallucination and there is no scietific evidence" is a belief, because there are numerous scientific investigations, yielding positive evidence (weak and strong). It is also dogmatic to say that investigations into the OBE phenomenon are "pseudoscience" when there are many respectable scientists who conduct objective experiments-- science is not a belief system, and so arguements need not be based on belief.

What should be said, is perhaps a view on the alternative explanations, based on the evidence. For example, there is no conclusion as to whether or not an OBE (astral or etheric) is an authentic "externalization" or even proof of life after death. One might say that an OBE may be psychical in nature, but might only be some vivid clairvoyant experience, which does not actually imply "exiting" the body.

Another side to this, in the cases of alleged OBE under the influence of drugs, or can not be physically validated might be hallucinations. There is nothing wrong with this arguement, as long as it addresses specific examples, rather than making general assumptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.179.7.201 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I think the criticism section needs to be refined. Firstly, the paragraph regarding no reason being given why the astral body is the vehicle of projection while subtler bodies exist. There are large amounts of material out there concerning this, firstly ethric projection usually concerns OBE (or in the phasing model, a real time projection i.e. a locale 'spatially' close to physical and so resembeling it resembling), and astral projection usually concerns an inner journey, The body name is simply gained from the area of exploration (i.e. astral body in the astral planes).
 * Secondly, what is the criticism section supposed to be criticising? Currently it seems to be criticising the definition of terms used on the AP sphere, wouldn't it be more prudent to actually criticise the validity of the AP experience in regards to it being an hallucination or having a greater reality than creative visualisation? Currently this section seem's a bit vague and undefined. MisterJingo 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Astral and etheric projction deserve two seperate arguements, however this page does not permit that in a manner than it easy to follow, unless you lump the two together. There appears to be no scientific evidence to support astral projection being an actual OBE (by that name), however every source that I came across is compatible with the concept of etheric projection-- Charles Tart and Harvey J. Irwin for example have shown this. Every study confirms that OBE are all in the Physical realm, or there is more than one kind, assuming visiting fantastical/surreal places is even a valid state of existence.solstice 10:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One main criticism that lacks in this section is that the experiences of Astral Projection are scientifically explained as Sleep Paralysis, which is a biochemical state and not a spiritual one. Sleep Paralysis, as put in the 'see also'-section, is a state where one wakes up, but the parts of the brain responsible for REM are still active, along with other neurological processes that paralyze the human body.  In nearly all cases the person either fully wakes up after a short period, or completely regresses back into full REM sleep (usually dreaming about a realistisch bedroom scenario, also known as false awakenings).   There are personal ways to determine the dreamnature of obe experiences, based on the fact that the events of Sleep Paralysis are based on an internal source (aka the brain), where those in astral projection are based externally.

That means that if one were to observe a digital watch or this very article during an out-of-the-body experience, it would remain stable.... if Astral Projection were real. But even Robert A. Monroe was never able to actually read the lettersigns during his attempts to prove Astral Projection existed. The reason for this, is that Astral Projection is in fact just a very convincing "dream" of living outside of the body. But the source of this world is completely generated by one's own mind. The watch is as unstable as it would in a dream. Monroe's lettersigns were as unstable as they would be in dreams.

The scientific explanation for Astral Projections as mere side effects of Sleep Paralysis cannot be ignored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.193.161.141 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Any Article Criticism Based on Fact
I don't see how people can dispute the factuality of this when, as I have understood Astral Projection and OOBE's, everyone either experiences it differently or not at all. For that matter, some people don't even believe or even humor the possibility of a such a realm or the possibilities of other planes of existence, especially those who are extremely closed minded. Therefore, is it even possible to dispute any factual relevancy of this article when it is technically all opinion? Is it even possible to write an article which could have a general consensus when literally everyone has different opinions about the topic? Just some food for though.... Evilgohan2 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The same can be said of topics on a variety of paranormal or religious articles. This phenomenon (err...I don't know what else to call it) is well-documented and relevant enough to have its own encyclopedia entry. You cannot really have objective, scientific facts when dealing with these types of things related to occultism, religion, or the paranormal. Does that mean that only things that conform to the scientific method should be included in Wikipedia? Of course not. The very fact that you are questioning this as if it were an acknowledged, scientific event makes me wary of your intentions of creating such a topic. And just because there is no physical facts related to the subject does not mean that it is "merely opinions." If that were so, then the same could be said of thousands of Wikipedia pages related to the paranormal, religious, occultist, theoretical, abstract, etc. The factuality being referred to here, I believe is of a well-cited or at least published answer from related books or documentation. Personal experience or as some would deem it,"quackery," is all we really have to go with here for such an event. But to dismiss that as "opinions" does not do justice to the fact that this is an encyclopedia article to a fairly well-established event in an epistemological and historical context. The great kawa 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eckankar
Is Eckankar important enough for mention in the lead? Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so as the religion was the dreamchild of Paul Twitchell and has no historical basis as Paul claims. Even though Eckancar's teachings refer to Soul Travel, they offer little practical how-to advice and therefore fall into the realm of conjecture regardless of their maps of heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.92.194.106 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Improving the definition of Astral Projection
I propose that something be done about improving the definition of Astral Projection to find a way forward rather than indulge in endless edit wars. Despite Svetovid's views of the subject I do believe that the subject matter of Astral Projection has a legitimate place in Wikipedia as those who are familiar with the subject know that there is a body of literature that concerns the subject-a literature that deals with descriptions and techniques that can be practised by anyone who wishes to explore the subject. Whether something leaves the body or whether there exist other realms of being in which the mind can travel to-is something of which sceptics such as Svetovid claim there is no scientific evidence for. However, I do not personally think that the study of conciousness and the experiences of conciousness is beyond some sort of systematic investigation that could be considered 'scientific'. However, much of the literature of Astral Projection is of an 'occult' nature and so, I will suggest that the interpretation of astral Projection be defined as an 'occult' interpretation of the OBE or experiences which suggest some sort of OBE experience. Given this-I believe that the insistence on scientific or sceptical models becomes less relevant to the article. Whereas, a physiological explanation of the OBE experience might be appropriate for the OBE article, I would stress that the subject of Astral Projection is something that goes beyond the mere experience of an OBE and so should not be subject to the sort of critical angle that Svetovid seems to be taking. It would also mean that the tag that Svetovid seems to insist be paced at the top of the article could be removed unless of course the facts that Svetovid dispute are more to do with the accuracy of reporting on the occult interpretation rather than on the sceptical interpretation of the OBE experience. However, I think that this is probably unlikely to be the case. --Godfinger 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The tag is of no importance to me- I don't really care about them.  I've had extensive experience in this area of Wikipedia, and no one yet has found a way to prevent what has happened here- certainly not by tweaking the content.  How about using "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an paranormal or occult interpretation of an out-of-body experience achieved either..."  The word paranormal does more to define the thing.  It could also be used instead of "occult," because I think it may have less cult-like connotations than occult does.  Thoughts? —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe 'paranormal' is a better description.. I thought about that myself. Or possibly something like " Astral Projection is a paranormal or occult interpretation" . I'm not really fussed-if you think 'paranormal' is better then I would be happy with that. I just think we need to find something that is acceptable for the Wikipedia-and I certainly think a better definition would help.--Godfinger 11:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording from 'Occult' to 'Paranormal' interpretation as I think it is a more accurate description anyway.--Godfinger 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Astral Projection
I think this article would benefit enormously if a section on the history of Astral Projection were included. There is a brief but uncited suggestion of the ancient roots of this subject but if anyone can put together a section on it's history-that not only includes references to ancient knowledge but something of the findings of such investigators as Muldoon and Monroe and any other writers of note (I know Monroe has already been mentioned but he could be included in the history too) -I think would it be a useful addition to this article. I could try do it myself when I have the time but I think such a section would enhance the value of this article --Godfinger 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be really great. I don't have the sources to do it, and although I've read Monroe I'm not familiar enough to really do a history. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I came across a recently published book that included a chapter on the history of Astral Projection.I can't remember the author's name but he had a sort of Monroe approach to the subject. I'm kicking myself for not buying it but at least it had some references to develop the subject so I'll look out for it .I'm pretty busy at the moment but i'll try and put something together when I can-but as you know it is a question of getting the sources together.--Godfinger 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool (-: —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism in this article
This article is about Astral projection. As such, it is clearly stated "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an interpretation of an out-of-body experience". Thus, this article is about some people's beliefs. Though it touches on science to some small degree, it is almost solely about the beliefs some people have about the non-controversial perception of going out of body. There are claims being made, but they are only from the perspective of the article's title. We are obligated to touch on criticism only to the extent that claims are being made that astral projection is more than a belief. Since such claims are barely touched on in the article, there is little obligation to include skepticism.

The ONLY objective claim covered in the article is "Dr. Charles Tart tentatively concluded that etheric projection may have objective validity." This is not enough excuse for major coverage of skepticism. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Godfinger and others now will be confused for they obviously believe it's real.--Svetovid 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made no statements as to what I personally believe regarding whether something leaves the body or not. I just believe that Svetoid's additions were inappropriate, and I had an issue with his statements about scientific method that is all.I simply believed the tone was inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Godfinger 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive..."--Svetovid 17:40, 26

August 2007 (UTC)

We have to keep the tone encyclopedic. Other encyclopedias don't sound that way. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The passage made the tone of the article seem amateurish . It is clear to me that Svetoid actually knows very little about the subject itself and simply wants to use the quote to mock the subject by insinuation. It is not appropriate. --Godfinger 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides which, there are some responsible skeptics who don't take that tone. We shouldn't tar all skeptics by making them seem amateurish attack dogs. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. In the interest of balance and neutrality, scepticism has it's legitimate place when it's done appropriately.--Godfinger 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you use the term sceptics and scepticism like it was some random opinion. It's science and scientists who see people who think they actually travel somewhere as childish and that's a very polite term. This article also fails to strictly differentiate from the beginning between people who are aware that it's just a kind of mind trick used as an interesting experience or relaxation and people who actually think they have a mind and that this mind can travel.--Svetovid 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Scientific skepticism makes no mention of being a reference to "some random opinion". spazure  (contribs) (review) 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote that Svetovid seems so keen to include is not a scientific statement in any sense but an opinion.It reports no scientifc facts as such but merely expresses the opinion of one person who thinks that people who believe in astral projection are somehow childish. It is in fact an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It is unfortunate that such a cheap rhetorical device is being attempted to be used here in the name of reason and truth.--Godfinger 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny how you and people similar to you stick to using logic (pointing out logical fallacies) in times it suits you and ignore it otherwise. It's not an opinion of one person but a suggestion of a professional and reputable organization. It's not an ad-hominem; believing in irrational, illogical and improvable is childish to say the least.--Svetovid 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you quoted a statement that reported something along the lines that a scientific experiment showed no empirical evidence that something leaves the body, rather than an opinion that people who believe such things are childish then I think it would be more acceptable-but the idea that people who believe in such things are childish is certainly debatable and is no more relevant than to say ,include in the atheism article that people are atheists because they are people who don't want to believe in God because they want to keep having on wild sex and getting drunk-an argument that has no doubt been put forward by some fundamentalist christians and muslims. Some of them no doubt belong to reputable organisations.But I'm, sure we would both agree that it would not be appropriate for the article--Godfinger 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had several experiences of astral projection in the past, all of which were far more realistic than my current experience of sitting here and typing on my keyboard. If it were rational to doubt my astral projection experiences, then it also must be rational to doubt my entire life. I don't tell people that they should believe me without experiencing it themselves, and I don't tell people that they should ignore scientific skepticism. However, it angers me that people like Svetovid would use an encyclopedic article to condemn people like me as "childish". Is it childish for me NOT to doubt every experience I've ever had?

Is there a larger article about skepticism and subjective experience anywhere? It seems to me that this is a pretty common problem. The content of one's subjective experience cannot be proved or disproved with current technology. The only evidence for these experiences is that there seems to be many who have experienced them. It is also impossible to prove or disprove whether one's subjective experience has any basis in some kind of reality. A great example of this is the story of the guy who dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so realistic that when he woke, he didn't know if he was a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. If one experiences traveling to another realm, outside of this known universe, how could it be proved or disproved? There is the possibility of those who've had these experiences coroberating them with one another, however a skeptic could say that they've all just read the same book. Do we really need to talk about all of this within the context of this article? I don't think so. There should be an outside article about the difficulty in proving subjective thought that can be linked to.

Now if there is a theory of astral projection with a basis in the brain, it should be expanded. But why call it a skeptic model? Is this the official term in the literature? If one believes the experience is confined to the brain/mind, that is not skepticism of belief, but belief itself. A skeptic would question all the models, including the so called skeptic model. Brandon1001 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Any real objections not based on editors' POV?
So far there has been none. All editors opposing the statement have obvious bias and cannot state a single objective reason why a stance of a professional organization cannot be in the article, especially while opinions of random charlatans are accepted.--Svetovid 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's one: stop edit warring. At this point, you are a vandal. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only vandalism would be opposing well sourced and appropriate edit based on your personal opinion.--Svetovid 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not an option, please follow the Resolving disputes Policy to handle this dispute. Dreadstar †  02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, do that. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the opening paragraph of this article-that Astral Projection is an interpretation of an OBE experience is sufficient to justify the inclusion of much of the material in this article. Astral Projection is a TYlegitimate object of study in it's own right, and it has been written about in a substantial body of literature devoted to the subject. I therefore believe that the subject matter in this article genuinely reflects what is known about ' Astral Projection' as opposed to a strictly physiological interpretation of the OBE experience which I believe is more relevant to the OBE article than to the Astral Projection article. Svetovid's edits are quite clearly disruptive as they reflect a personal and dismissive opinion of this particular subject. An approach which does not add any value to an article on Astral Projection as such. I believe that the material presented in this article is an accurate and factual account of what is known about 'Astral Projection' as opposed to the more specific 'OBE' experience discussed elsewhere.The opinions of the editors of this article are no more biased than the opinions of those who believe in the Big Bang Theory or who contribute to articles on Iceland or Islam. It is not the place of editors to belittle a subject just because they don't believe in it.--Godfinger 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does not make claims except to portray an interpretation of the OBE. This is not an article which deals with proof, and therefore it also does not deal with skepticism to any great extent, any more than religion articles do. Nor do we bash the POVs we write about. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only skepticism needed IMO is the line that is already there which states that the only evidence of astral projection is in testimonials, nothing more needs to be said. Anton H 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for proving my statement that your only argument is your personal opinion.--Svetovid 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that all of the links were to sites dealing with skepticism. I don't condemn the inclusion of these links, but I'm appalled that non-skeptical links are omitted. As a rational person AND one who has experienced astral projection, I would like to see links to sites that are open to astral projection, but without a bias towards religion or "new age". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Astral projection is real.
Astral projection is real. It happens to everyone, even if they aren't aware of it. I have had it happen to me, and I don't care what some people think some guy in a white coat who observes and experiments with physical things thinks about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanParis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha, I rest my case.--Svetovid 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very glad to hear it. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it exists, since in lucid dreaming everything can happened. Allah, God, Jesus all exist there, and you can see them for "real". But you won't create a page on wikipedia saying "The big spaghetti monster exists, I saw it in my lucid dreaming!". Astral projection is just a cool way to move in a (lucid) dreaming. There is nothing paranormal, it's just a part of a dream. This is not at all the way it is presented in the article.

Shouldn't Dreaming be a Sub-Topic like Phasing is on the Astral Projection. I didn't see anything about Dreaming. When people dream, we do travel to another plane in a way. We go to the Dreaming Plane (Excuse this terrible term) to dream. It may be something our brain does to us, but it is in an out of body experience. I've also had a wierd out of body experience, which I would call Astral Projection, but I wouldn't write it as a fact, cos it's a mass hallucination and My Word isn't enough evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Monroe Institute
Editor Martin insists on inclusion of external link to the Monroe Institute because it's a source used several times in the article. This is an unsatisfactory reasons since using this institute as a source is controversial. And despite the official label of a nonprofit organization, their commercial efforts are obvious through the promotion of their products on Wikipedia in the MI article.--Svetovid 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's notable not because it's used as a source -is it?- but because it was founded by one of the main sources. What the other article does isn't relevant to this one.  However, I don't see any special reason to keep it, either, so have your way, unless other editors feel differently. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert Monroe was arguably the most important figure concerning astral projection, whether or not you agree with his views. I can see nothing in your argument that justifies the removal of the link to the Monroe Institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that somebody has once again removed the link. I won't add it again until this dispute is resolved. This time, the argument given for it its removal was that it wasn't relevant to our readership. If Robert Monroe or his research aren't relevant, then I suppose none of the links are relevant. Either we should reinsert the link to the Monroe Institute, or we should remove all of the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.119.179 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have internal links to Monroe Institute and Robert Monroe; why do we need to link to the external one? How does that help us? El_C 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the rules on links, but I think there is nothing wrong with a link to the institute, since it is founded by, as mentioned, maybe the most important figure in astral projection. On the other hand, it is internally linked.  Consider this, and I'll support the majority. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will concede that the internal link might be sufficient. How is this situation normally treated in other articles?