Talk:Astral projection/Archive 4

Astral sex
Certain New Age writers have claimed that astral projection could lead to astral sex. Again, it is unclear what exactly this means. ADM (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source. We can ignore it.Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys ought to read Mouni Sadhu's "The Tarot" for the ultimate "occult paranoia" account of astral sex, possession, incubi, succubi, egregors, vampires and other lower astral entities - it is hilarious. Slightly more sober is Dion Fortune's "Psychic Self-Defence".


 * Yogis used to believe that creatures called "apsaras" haunted them in the appearance of ravishing maidens in order to consume their libido-energy. Since Freud this phenomenon has been subject to a less complex psychological theory, albeit one that a user of the terminology might still dub "astral". Redheylin (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't ought to read anything I don't care to; if you can find a reliable source discussing beliefs of astral sex then it could be included. As it is some random webpage by nobody of note doesn't cut it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mouni Sadhu IS notable, gawdelpus, and my comments were for the better information of the editor above - I am not encouraging an account of "astral sex" on the present page, and certainly gave no hint that the cited material should be included. I have not attempted to include any new material of any sort. Just, I have spent some time a while ago repairing this page after the ravages of POV editors clearly committed to an unreadable page, and now I am preventing further editors of like mind from the same boring and ignorant behaviour. Redheylin (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The burden - Artists interpretation
Verbal, you have reverted on the grounds that "the burden is on those adding material". I have not added material, you have removed material that has been present for a long time - a picture, on the grounds that it is "awful". You have refused an invitation to discuss this personal view with other editors here. Anything to say about this? Redheylin (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is awful. Please provide an WP:RS that it is a picture of astral projection. We do our readers no favours by including badly made "interpretations". The burden is on those adding or restoring the material after it has been removed or otherwise challenged. Verbal chat  13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal - first you have not "challenged" - in fact, you have demanded that others seek consensus while refusing to do so yourself - and only now, after the event, have come here to justify the edit-warring of which you accused others. You removed the material without consultation or valid reason and now demand, regardless of consensus, that someone convince you that "this picture is not awful". Your only explanation is that the picture is "awful" - you have repeated that three times. I want you to now to point to the wiki rules about "awful pictures" and demonstrate you found an editorial consensus that the picture was "awful". And I want a policy quote to show that, when an editor makes any changes to a page, particularly unilateral destructive changes on subject areas on which that editor has, as you have, a long history of POV editing, there is no "burden" on that editor to justify changes but rather a "burden" on any other editor to justify reversion - a "burden" that you yourself have not shouldered when reverting others on this very page. Chapter and verse please. You are an administrator, and I think there is a case that you have misused administrative powers in this edit-war incident. Redheylin (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was asked by to comment here.  I haven't seen the possibly or possibly not awful picture in question so I really have nothing constructive to add.  All I could say is that you could not have a photograph of astral projection as it is either an invisible spiritual event or it is a fantasy.  Either way nothing material to take a picture of.  Pursuant to that any picture included would have to be an artists' interpretation.  I don't know how Wikipedia policy stands on that matter but would read any related policies if anyone would care to provide them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal is not an administrator. And clearly no administrative 'powers' have been used here. You can see the picture, a painting, by looking at an earlier version. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On purely aesthetic grounds that is a pretty awful shop-job of a picture. I still don't know how Wikipedia's policies would stand on the matter.  Certainly I don't personally like it and so if it's a matter of generating consensus on removing or keeping it I'd say remove but this is entirely because I personally find the image to be exceptionally ugly. Then again; I REALLY like Soutine so my taste in art may be considered unreliable.Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting on my view of the picture's quality. I take the view, though, that I should illustrate where possible and that, failing consensus and preferably a better picture, there is no policy reason for one editor repeatedly and unilaterally to remove it on the grounds of perceived "awfulness". The pic has been up for a long time withoput complaint. Verbal has used repeated reverts, particularly in the context of answering and upholding an accusation of edit war - it is itself edit warring - and is stating that his repeated reverts are to the status quo, which is is untrue. I do not perceive improvements to the page. I do not see consensual editing. I do see an ongoing pattern of muscling into "fringe" edit-wars, usually initiated by "anti-fringers". He is not an admin? Then I am sorry to have misled, and thank goodness. Redheylin (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Otherwhere: A Field Guide to Nonphysical Reality for the Out-of-Body Traveler", Kurt Leland describes part of one projection thus: "it was as if I had stepped into a living version of The Garden of Earthly Delights" (p158-160). He counts as an RS, here's Leland being consulted as an expert for an independent publication .  Wiki has lots of detail images of this clear-cut depiction of non-physical realms already uploaded and ready for inclusion, let's use one.  I find the top quarters of the left and middle panels particularly representative, though this is of course entirely subjective.  K2709 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sincere Question, no sarcasm intended What is Leland's expertise that counts him as an RS? Or is this based on being published in enlightennext alone being given a side-bar comment to an article in enlghtennext that provides information on a study that provides a likely materialist basis for ObEs?Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I refer to him as an RS because there is objective evidence that he is Relied upon as a Source of OBE-or-is-it-AP information. This is the spirit of RS, although sadly the letter of RS seems likely to ensure the article remains unimproved.  K2709 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The term OOBE is a neutral one, used by researchers in (para)psychology to investigate cases where there is a subjective sense of being out-of-the-body, particularly to ascertain whether this experience is "veridical" - that is, can give a factual account. The term "Astral Projection", though often used for OOBE, is a religio-philosophical one that depends upon a world-description that includes an Astral body and an Astral plane. Although the term originated with Greek philosophers, it now describes similar assertions in, eg, Chinese and Indian literature.


 * Failing clear confirmation of the veridicality of OOBE, ALL "astral" experiences are a subjective assessment of a subjective experience couched in the terms of a certain philosophy. No study of anecdotal accounts therefore can be accounted any more objectively "reliable" than the anecdotes themselves. But there is no necessity for this any more than, if I edit the page Odin, I should be asked to prove that Odin exists or else have the page trashed. The OOBE page must stick to clear accounts of published reports. The present page must make it clear that it is dealing with a common type of belief or spiritual account, some aspects of which are studied by OOBE research. End of story. Redheylin (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the lede to make clear the difference in scope between the present page and OOBE and to delineate the terms of reference of the idea of the astral body and plane. I hope the result will enable the reader to recognise the nature of the ideas in question without any sense that they are in any way recommended to accept these ideas - particularly as in any way "scientific". New pic. Further citations could be inserted and wikilinks checked. Old pic can go further down. Redheylin (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

how to avoid edit wars
Ryan Paris, while your edits are far from extreme, in view of recent circumstances I'd suggest you and others submit any suggested improvements here first. Obvious attempts to slant the article in favour of the "astral" hypothesis may lead to complementary attempts to slant it away. This often leads to a disjointed, fuzzy article, particularly as it is often rooted in unclear language and unsourced additions. For example, it is not strictly accurate to distinguish "astral" from "materialism" since many commentators hold that it IS a subtle material. Similarly, it may not be thought "spiritual" since Proclus is quoted in the article as conceiving the astral body as the vessel or vehicle of the spirit. "Spiritual" and "Material" form a dualist cosmology, while the astral is inherently "something in between". Since your changes were undiscussed and unsourced I reverted to a version which (I modestly mention) has met with the approval of editors of both viewpoints - a consensus I barely thought possible. Thanks for your understanding. Redheylin (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering...
In an effort to preempt yet another counterproductive science/pseudoscience battle, for anyone who may be interested, here is some reasoning behind my restoration of this version of the article:


 * "Astral projection (or astral travel') is an esoteric experience following the intent to separate one's spirit, consciousness, or astral body from one's physical body, and thereby to travel outside the physical body." The earlier wording says that AP is a type of OBE. The dictionary says that the two are distinct. Also, to deem something an "experience" is neither to affirm nor to deny that thing as an empirically objective reality. The dictionary is not, by any stretch of the imagination, saying that astral projection literally "happens". Experience is, by definition, subjective. If one person experiences hunger or pain or fear or a dream or a mirage or a vision or "voices inside the head", that does not mean that you or I or anyone else necessarily shares the experience. The operative word in the definition, as per the dictionary itself, is intent. Astral projection is an experience that follows the intent to experience mind-body dualism in the extreme. Even if that experience can be "explained away" in psychological or other terms, the experience per se, as a subjective state, is "real" vis-à-vis the experiencer.
 * P.S. Like the word "experience", "intent" also is subjective. For example, an attachment therapist may intend to use rebirthing therapy in order to induce regression. The therapist might have no real-world basis for this intention. The therapist might be out of their mind, and might even end up causing physical death rather than psychological rebirth--it's happened. But, whatever happens as a result of this "therapy", it follows the intent to achieve a certain aim, just as whatever astral projection does or doesn't entail comes, by definition, after the intent to sever mind from body. Even if the intention is misguided and the experience misinterpreted, the intention and experience must exist in order to be guided or interpreted in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "...even seeing one's body from outside or above. It may be reported in the form of an apparitional experience, an apparent encounter with a doppelgänger..." Here is a good reason to be careful with mass reverts. "Ones" is grammatically incorrect; it takes an apostrophe. "Doppelgänger" takes an umlaut. And an apparitional experience is, by definition, apparent--i.e., a matter of appearance. All of these words are etymological relatives.


 * "According to skeptics, the subjective nature of the experience permits explanations that do not rely on the existence of an 'astral' body and plane. Critics also feel that there is little beyond anecdotal evidence to support the idea that people can actually 'leave the body'". Because these ideas come emphatically from skeptics (refer to the names of the publications), they should be attributed explicitly to skeptics. The due-weight and fringe-theory guidelines frequently are over-applied. Essentially, a Wikipedia article should not give the impression that an idea lying on the "fringes" of science is closer to the center of the scholarly fabric than it really is. That is what the spirit of these guidelines is. These rules do not mean that Wikipedia articles simply take empiricism for granted, especially when a non-empiricist approach constitutes a majority or a significant minority of overall positions. While astral projection and the like may be on the fringes of science, it is relatively central to some relatively common non-scientific perspectives. So, although it certainly is appropriate to mention that scientists place things like this on the extreme outer boundaries (which is, don't forget, what "fringes" literally are--hence the "fabric" metaphor above), it is not appropriate to suggest that anyone with half a brain places the idea on the outer boundaries of truth. What this distinction amounts to, in practice, is simply attributing competing views to those who actually express these views.

For whatever it may be worth, I'll provide a bit of self-disclosure: I have edited articles on multiple topics that fall into the realm of science-pseudoscience debates. My own background is scientific--primarily in the social sciences, but with reasonable competence in natural science, especially biology. My intention is not to conflate science with non-science, nor is it to advocate opinions that run counter to my own education or to the aims of WP. My approach here is neither positivist nor antipositivist, but rather pacifist: The antipathy between "academic" and "popular" methodology is interesting in its own right, but it easily overwhelms the quiet dispassion of the encyclopedic voice. My hope is to calm down both sides of the battle at least long enough to allow that encylopedic voice to get in its own two cents' worth in an encyclopedia. I invite suggestions to help improve articles' wording in the name of encyclopedic writing, while suggesting at the same time that it is in the name of encyclopedic writing that an encyclopedia must emphatically be written. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said, though I must disagree with some edits. First, the experience is often unintentional. Second, please cite for "one's" (cf "hers"). Third, what is "THE dictionary"? Redheylin (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By "the dictionary", I'm referring to this one--the first source in the article. My understanding is that "astral projection" implies some sort of subjective intent. I'm reminded of "projecting the voice" or "projecting an image"--there's a willful effort to cast something (like a metaphorical "projectile") out from one's personal space. In contrast, an out-of-body experience would not have to be deliberate; e.g., people typically don't want to have near-death experiences. As for "one's", I think we might be reading something differently. I was just saying that the blanket revert introduced a grammatical error: It removed a possessive apostrophe where one was needed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please justify your proposed changes individually with RS, and address the other concerns raised. I'd also like to see some further input from interested editors. Verbal chat  20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm finding Cosmic Latte's changes generally worthwhile, and BullRangifer's sweeping reverts of both good and disputed in a single edit unhelpful. Though the role of intent isn't universal (Muldoon did citeably describe dread of repeating a terrifying projection as causative for example), the correlation is good enough to solve more opening line problems than it creates, and accurate representation of the source material should at least be attempted. K2709 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm rather sure that I just did these things. The dictionary definition of astral projection is the first source in the article. As far as I am aware, my version is considerably more consistent with that definition than the prior opening line. As for why this seems to be so, I gave an explanation in the first of my bulleted comments above. Another line in the article is sourced to the Skeptic's Dictionary. So it would make sense (would it not?) to indicate that the perspective put forth in that line is a skeptical perspective. The word "skeptic" is, after all, in the name of the source. So far, all of my changes have been based on the sources. And I assume that one does not need a citation to be sure that words like "apparition" and "apparent" are related (but if you would like one anyway, then here and here you go); that "doppelgänger" has a funny-looking "a"; or that the English language uses "'s" to indicate possessive nouns. If, rather, the main problem with my changes is that not enough people can find enough problems with my changes (if it's something else, I would like to know what), then...well, I'm honoured. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made all the changes I feel are justified by the text above and my own looking into the matter. Verbal chat  21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The dictionary you cite does give an example sentence to the effect; "astral projection differs from OOBE", but it gives this sentence as an example of usage, not a definition. Next to it, left bar, under "related searches", there is "how to astrally project". I clicked on it and the search brought up "Lucid dreaming is the correct term for 'consciously dreaming', and is one form of astral projection. For some people this can happen by chance....".


 * So while you say "My understanding is that "astral projection" implies some sort of subjective intent" and Verbal says "I feel.. justified by.. my own looking into the matter", this IS OR and the dic is not necessarily giving a mainstream definition. I agree that a reversion is uncivil in these circumstances: none of us would like it. On the other hand, having put this article right, I'm not going to watch one side adding linkspam while the other puts the article higgledy-piggledy (and on my talk page you'll find that my last work with a "skeptic" editor resulted in his writing;"You have done a fine job of improving the lead of astral projection") So I watch it to keep it legible. I have to point out there has been no dispute since and that, though you both hold views in good faith, we are now dealing with disruption by POV-pushing in the lede, which is exactly what you said you did not want, Cosmic L - "My hope is to calm down both sides of the battle": there wasn't one. There is a view that such a distinction should be made, perhaps, so that should be volunteered in the article but not necessarily adopted without considering whether that gives the distinction undue weight. On the other hand it is demonstrable that the phrase "astral projection" derives from the idea that there is an "astral body and plane", whereas "OOBE" was originated by PSI researchers to avoid assuming this, which is what the lede originally said. I suppose we need first to determine what authorities observe the distinction and what do not. Any ideas on how to proceed? K2709, what problems do you perceive with the old version, I'd hoped to have pleased everybody! Redheylin (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't fret! I'm not unpleased, it's all minor stuff.  Apart from the first, all these apply to the alternative version too.
 * "interpretation": AP is predominantly an activity, a pursuit, not an interpretation. Maybe the weird flavour of "Prayer is a spiritual interpretation of a form of thought that assumes a deity" captures the essence of my discomfort here.  Use of "the term" AP "alludes to" an interpretation, but the experiential dimension of AP is a more central thing to convey.
 * "esoteric": I don't mind this word myself, but others find it provocative from time to time, resulting in more heat than light.
 * "an astral body": Precisely one additional body is implied here. One per plane is also a very well established idea, and zero bodies (disembodied consciousness) are also commonly experienced.
 * "outside [the physical body]": The concept of insideness doesn't have any well defined meaning in this context. A physical body has physical space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t), but who knows even what dimensionality astral objects have, or if the concept of continuum even applies, let alone how all that maps onto limited physical space.  K2709 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea of "interpretation" is that "everybody agrees people have subjective OOBEs and some people (since the Neoplatonists) explain this in terms of an "astral body and plane", which is conceived of a a distinct, heavenly substance and abode of the stars; this is an "interpretation" of the experience. "OOBE", as far as I know, arose to avoid this assumption in PSI studies, to find a neutral descriptor, not to distinguish between the intentional and the unintentional. I certainly think a lot of those philosophers would call the afterdeath journey "astral travel", and this is hardly voluntary, nor are a lot of visions, such as when St Paul speaks of "a man caught up into the third heaven" - it's a mystical accident. I think its fair to say that a lot of these ideas were taken up by Renaissance magi but have rather been abandoned in science of late except among such as the Golden Dawn and the Theosophers: you also have such ideas in Indian and Chinese thought of course: I think its fair to call these things "esoteric", but I am open to suggestions.


 * "an astral body": Precisely one additional body is implied here. One per plane is also a very well established idea, and zero bodies (disembodied consciousness) are also commonly experienced.


 * The idea of a difference between roaming round the real world and subtle worlds is pretty well advertised, I think, and the corollary is that there's some even higher body of reason, consciousness, etc. As long as that's clear - but it's still an "esoteric interpretation" in that nobody detects any objective energy movement.


 * The concept of insideness doesn't have any well defined meaning in this context. A physical body has physical space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t), but who knows even what dimensionality astral objects have, or if the concept of continuum even applies.....


 * Indeed, well, if you can find a source that says that, let's stick it in. Redheylin (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cosmic Latte, thanks for adding the umlaut. Please demonstrate need for possessive apostrophe, I'm interested. While the words "appeared" and "apparent" are derived from the same root, in the present context I can see nothing wrong with saying that a vision "appeared to appear" in stressing the subjectivity of this, though it might be more elegant to avoid it by using different synonyms such as "seemed to appear" (IE: magical persons can appear and disappear, and that is what appeared to happen at that moment). Redheylin (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase that needs the possessive apostrophe is "...even seeing one's body from outside or above". The earlier version was "...even seeing ones body from outside or above" (no apostrophe in "ones"). The word needs an apostrophe because the word is in the possessive case, just like "John's" or "Jane's" or (as in the article I just linked to) "child's". The body of John is John's body. The body of a child is a child's body. The body of "one" would be "one's" body. The phrase, "ones body", with no apostrophe, has no meaning at all, except perhaps for a body that somehow can be characterized adjectively by multiple instances of the number one. The German language allows for some apostrophe-free constructions, such as "Johns body", but even German doesn't permit the literal equivalent of an apostrophe-free "ones" (i.e., the German "man" never becomes "mans"). By comparison, English does allow for the indefinite "one" to take a possessive "s", but by no means without the possessive apostrophe, which in conjunction (and only in conjunction) with the "s" creates the standard form of the English possessive case. (I've gone into this much detail because a statement on your user page suggested to me that, even though your English strikes me as quite natural, you're not actually a native English speaker. If this is the case, I hope my explanation has helped to clarify things. If not, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding.) And I agree with the rest of your statement about, e.g., "appearing to appear" (the lines I quoted in my earlier, bulleted statements are the lines as I had rendered them, not as they had been before my changes). Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See . It appears that the form "one's" is indeed the accepted one, though there's a certain amount of dissent and controversy. Your explanation is wrong, though, as I noted above, since possessive pronouns do not take apostrophes ("the dog hurt its leg"). In fact, it seems nobody can advance a reason for the usage (perhaps it's a contraction of "one man his"?) but still it is the one more usually considered correct. Redheylin (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no controversy, really--only confusion. "Its" doesn't take an apostrophe for the same reason that "his", "her", and "their" don't take an apostrophe: The "s" in "its" is as much a part of the basic word as the "s" is in "his" or as the "r" is in "her". Using "it's" as a possessive would therefore look as odd as using "hi's" or even "he'r" as possessives. This was not always the case, however; "it's" used to be the possessive form. Just as only some reptiles gained winged appendages, only one possessive term ("its") appears to have lost its apostrophic appendage: "It's" and "one's" did not evolve in parallel. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The "s" in "its" is as much a part of the basic word as the "s" is in "his"" This is circular reasoning! "One's" is the accepted form but as a pronoun it is an anomaly: "The ONLY personal possessive pronoun with an apostrophe is "one's". The words "his", "its", "whose", "their" do NOT contain apostrophes. Nor do words like "hers", "ours", "yours", "theirs" (Would you say "mi'ne"?)." It's the accepted form, it was right to alter it, but lovers of logical grammar understandably disagree and web-discussions can find no reason. It must be a late addition to the canon of pronouns. Redheylin (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose that "one's" does act a bit more like a noun than like the pronoun it really is. Although I'm not sure if there's anything better than a circular reason for this--after all, the English language isn't known to be as logical as it ought to be. But it would be nice... :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Improvement
I am proposing to add an article in the external links about how to do Astral Projection : http://www.psionicsonline.net/mind-and-body/articles/58-astral-projection-your-first-steps

Please consider this for submission?

-metalforever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.228.14 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation request deleted
I think this is poor form. I'm not intending disruption, I am genuinely interested in sources dating the origin of projection-related thought, I do genuinely suspect the material is being presented non-neutrally and I do genuinely question the motives for removal. I'm not impressed. K2709 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's poor form to put a tag half way through a sentence that ends with a citation! Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the man says, it's cited. Verbal chat  21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * K2709, what's more neutral about the phrase "descriptions of such experiences are found in" rather than "the idea is rooted in"? Maybe I'm missing something, but the "rooted" version more or less describes the cited author's observation (that various religions have the soul leaving the body and going on some kind of journey), so what's the fuss? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments.
 * It isn't cited though, it's only referenced, poorly. The slapdash reference contents suggest similar inattention to detail in the wording.  "Rooted in" (the most relevant place to add the tag) means "arises from", "originates from", "depends upon" and little else, branding the concept of projection as derivative, something based primarily on third party exposure.  Left as is, that is opinion that is not attributed as such.  That's my side of the fuss anyway. K2709 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "the idea is paralleled in (various religions)" could be a better choice of phrasing, considering the source cited. But it sounds like you're saying that astral travel derives or arises from something other than varied religious beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think K2709 is trying to imply that astral travel was the cause of those religious experiences rather than the other way around. Which is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources.  Changing a referenced statement to reverse the arrow of causality though is not appropriate.  Do we have a precise quote from the source? Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean the idea that the world's various religious beliefs derive from lost traditions (e.g. astral travel) of ancient adepts? Yeah, that would definitely need a source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the "paralleled" version is great, it's very neutral. I'm not looking for a reversal of causality, I just think phrases like "Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert" (Rev 17:3) are the Bible itself claiming prior art, if you see what I mean.  K2709 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I don't. And I think we shoul steer as close to the cited text as possibly so again I ask if anyone has a quote. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "rooted" was selected by me, not Miller, and I am sorry if it appears "slapdash". But note; the article, quite properly, aims to make one thing clear; that the idea of "astral travel/body/plane" originates with the neo-Platonist Proclus, who is drawing on the idea that the "seven heavens" (of the stars, hence "astral") are intermediate between the material world and the soul world, and that this "astral" body and world are of a different and more subtle substance than the physical. It is this IDEA of the astral, this terminology, that is "rooted" in the common human idea of the soul's journey, and that has been elaborated by Proclus. There is no intent to suggest that the PHENOMENON is derived purely from literary sources, but that the idea and the terminology of AP, as distinct from OOBE, begins in (and does not merely "parallel") a fundamental world wide belief that has been elaborated by western mystical philosophy, thus giving rise to the TERM or IDEA "astral projection". If you'd like to find a way to make this clearer, please do. Redheylin (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My choice of wording was itself slapdash as I had next to no time available for a reply, apologies. Looking at the article, it appears that the only reference to Proclus currently is buried inside a reference line so maybe this is a good place to mention him.  How does this sound?
 * "These concepts of the astral are attributed to Proclus, and are exemplified in common worldwide religious accounts..."
 * As a side note, it appears that his teacher Syrianus may also have had some hand in the matter, but this probably clutters the introduction unnecessarily. K2709 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Give the old man the weight you think he deserves: his "neoplatonic" ideas certainly influenced the mediaeval accounts that gave us the terminology. Plato before him and Dante after spoke about the same concepts (in the context of the afterlife journey) but Proclus originated the terminology. They are not "exempified by", these are philosophers discussing ideas that are already found in religion world-wide, but world-wide religions do not give Platonic examples. Hence the word "rooted" - it could be "based" or "drawn from", but Proclus is giving philosophical terminology to a common religious concept. There's more under Astral body, Astral plane and Myth of Er but these pages do not get the same attention. The Dream of Scipio is interesting as it presents the same ideas as a dream-vision, not associated with NDE. Redheylin (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is sound logic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Syrianus could be a later edit, but the terminological / conceptual split alone seems tricky enough to be getting on with for now. We seem to agree on what meanings should be presented, the issue is more a matter of finding words that express their scopes correctly. How about just:

"The terminology of the astral originates with Proclus. The theme of astral travel is exemplified in common worldwide religious accounts..." K2709 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what improvement you're looking for, what you feel to be missing or wrongly weighted - so I'm at a loss to make suggestions! However the above has lost the suggestion that Proclus is trying to explain phenomena such as ghosts, NDEs and OOBEs that appear in ancient religions.


 * The lower and higher "oxema" (astral vehicle) mentioned in the source you quote is treated of under astral body and corresponds roughly to the Theosophical "etheric and astral", that is; OOBing around the physical plane is a "lower or etheric vehicle" thing, whereas true "astral" travel takes place in imaginal and spiritual worlds. Redheylin (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The improvement I'm seeking is reduction of accidental readings of unintended meanings. Currently, "The idea of" in "The idea of astral travel" is overloaded to breaking point attempting to express an entire semantic network of neoplatonic scholarship.  A reader unfamiliar with the subject can realistically only guess which idea or complex subset thereof is supposed to be "rooted in" religious texts, it just isn't adequately defined.  I think "This whole weird business" is an entirely probable default meaning to assume, making "The whole thing grew out of religious texts" an unintentionally likely reading.  K2709 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One reason for this is that the OOBE page also exists, so that the present page ought to disambiguate itself by dealing with occult philosophy and leaving the scientific discussion to the other page as the one is an "occult" term and the other a "scientific" term for (more or less) the same thing. A note to this effect was recently removed from the lede, which is a mistake in my view. Please also bear in mind that the lede is meant to summarise the following text and provide useful links rather than trying to cover everything from start to end. Finally, I do not myself find the information that Plato, Cicero and Proclus wrote tracts about the phenomenon, and that it comes up in almost every religion, (the lede does not say "texts") leaves me with "a default impression of weirdness", but perhaps you can source a stand-alone sentence that makes clear the frequency of such experiences (which are common enough, I'd have thought, to obviate your concerns for the innocent reader!) Redheylin (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with a lot of what you're saying and appreciate your patience, but all these invisible currents are steering me further and further away from the local change I was intending, and towards more involved changes that I can't really spare enough time for at the moment. I'll ponder all this in the background for an unknowable length of time and see if any pragmatic solution emerges.  K2709 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your discussion. While I've given a good deal of thought to the content of the "astral" articles and strongly recommend a "philosophical" approach that shows the thinking behind the term, I've no wish to suggest that the matter is purely literary or else a religious belief without foundation. I intend to expand the "around the world" content and hope this will help while looking forward to your further thoughts. Redheylin (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cutpaste from my user page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astral_projection&oldid=313410790#A_mental_projection_of_an_artificial_World


 * You can say so - if it seems to you that sources are poor then there is this page and there are the relevant tags, and I shall see what I can do. If you remove information without consultation, knowing that there are active editors to work on the page, then I am going to assume you are uncivilly bent on destablising and damaging the page because of your personal NNPOV, and not seriously concerned with its improvement - because you yourself could check for better references if you chose. Redheylin (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a deleted part: (Sorry, I don't speek good english) --88.247.171.132 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An astral projection is a mental projection of an artificial World. And so a world is loaded into the mind in the form of electrical signals. In this way an astral projection is like a computer generated dream world: Comparison:

First: Location in mind finding for data transfer.


 * Morpheus: The pill you took is part of a trace program. It's designed to disrupt your input/output carrier signal so we can pinpoint your location.

After: Scenario loading.


 * Morpheus: This is the construct. It's our loading program. We can load anything from clothing, to equipment, weapons, training simulations, anything we need.
 * Neo: Right now we're inside a computer program?
 * Morpheus: Is it really so hard to believe? Your clothes are different. The plugs in your arms and head are gone. Your hair is changed. Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection of your digital self.
 * Neo: This...this isn't real?
 * Morpheus: What is real. How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. (...)


 * Morpheus: (...) What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this.
 * Neo: No. I don't believe it. It's not possible.
 * Morpheus: I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth. (!)
 * Neo: Stop. Let me out. Let me out. I want out.

quoted from: http://www.ix625.com/matrixscript.html

--81.214.110.130 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

--88.247.171.132 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading Section
Reverted the further reading section, as the book that was removed seems quite relevent and is listed a bestseller in its genre 12 Grammar Wizard (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Grammar Wizard beat me to the revert. Here's a reference I meant to put  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt reltub (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of the "Neutral point of view" policy
In the introductory paragraph, this line,

"There is little beyond anecdotal evidence to support the idea that people can actually "leave the body"."

which is taken from an online "skeptics' dictionary" is clearly not neutral; indeed any time one references a "skeptics' dictionary" it can be assumed to be non-neutral, because the very nature of such sites is for people to rant against things they wish to debunk. This is not scholarly work. The above-mentioned line, due to its biased tone, and any additional lines like it, should be removed.

^ http://www.skepdic.com/astralpr.html Skeptic's Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll, article on Astral Projection, retrieved August 24, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanbei85 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly agree. Remove this, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.212.56 (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The NPOV policy refers to editorial motivation, not actual content. We use biased and critical sources all the time, and NPOV requires that we include such criticism. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is, however, an inadequate source, lacking authority. A serious study would be welcome. Redheylin (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles here include "studies" when available, and if you have any they'd be very welcome. They ALSO include reception, reactions, and opinions. This is a response from a very notable skeptical source we often use here. It's perfectly good for what it does. That's all. Considering this is a fringe subject, the WP:FRINGE guideline applies. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah...like Doonesbury is a serious source for political and economic philosophy, you mean? Well, I took a good look at Google scholar....... well, so I tried the wikipedia article The_Skeptic's_Dictionary but even that could only manage a couple of newspaper reviews. It's tagged as lacking references!! Very notable? Bee..c...au..se.. because it's all over wikipedia, right? Wonder who put it there? Anyhow. WP:Fringe. I DID search that page for "reception", "reactions", and "opinions" - but the first two did not appear. The last did: it said "ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts". And it said "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." Any unreliable critiques only "if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts". Which is not the case here: we are talking Plato, St. Paul and a load more religious, spiritual and anecdotal texts, only one of which - Blavatsky - is mentioned by Carroll. He does not know much. So I guess what you mean is; "I myself want to promote this website"? If so, I am sure you are doing so in good faith, but it's nowhere in policy: this is just some unqualified, self-published guy having a laugh. Redheylin (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I too have issues with the source quality here. There is a reader comments link underneath Carroll's skimpy two-paragrapher.  In reply to a sincere, complimentary and larger request for comment, the best reply Carroll's expertise can support is "Usually, Ryan, I have some thoughts on just about any issue people bring up, but I'm afraid your thoughts have left me speechless.  I wish you well."  Busted.  These aren't the words of an RS authority on a subject.  He's just paraphrased a few sentences from three dated general purpose texts to fill a hole in another.
 * Out-of-body_experience has some higher quality references that could serve as replacements. The desirability of including skeptical material in articles about belief systems is in any case pretty dubious though.  If Christianity, Wicca etc. contained warnings like "Scientists have found no objective evidence for the reality of the Kingdom of God" (...Summerland etc.) it would reek of proselytizing.  I don't get a different impression here.  K2709 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * err... sorry for butting in... are kanbei85 and 69.243.212.56 even exist ? i can't discuss about this matter on their talk page. it's start sounding like a troll for me.Ald™ ▀Ous™ 12:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Childhood's End
Any idea if the OBE by the children in Childhood's End (1953) is an example of astral projection in fiction? Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
There is little to no coverage of scientific attempts to explain astral projection and the article is written as fact. 67.172.237.125 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize previous discussion, this is an article about a set of beliefs. Details of scientific study of the out of body state can be found in Out of body experience however.  I'll remove the tag as being down to misunderstanding - possibly some more explicit wording is in order to prevent it reccuring though. K2709 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

that is only because we know only what they want us to know. they dont want us to have the knowledge to attain a higher consciousness. they want to keep us mindless sheep. im sure there have been maany scientific studies into astral projection, but thats not to say just because the information is out there doesnt mean they are going to make it public knowledge. thats the type of ancient knowledge that they suppress and devour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.172.64 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is they? Austinenator (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

They is me. I am the one trying to suppress your efforts to reach higher consciousness. I am succeeding too, and you are powerless to stop me. (insert bwahahaha laugh).

Biased lead / irrelevance of science
The last two sentences of the current lead ("There is no ... to the contrary.) bear no relevance to the topic. Science deals, inherently, with testable phenomena, and non-physical phenomena are not testable. The lead makes it seem that science may or may not verify the claims that astral projection relies on, and that further research may provide elucidations. In other words: it falsely implies astral projection to be a subject of science, which it is not (again, by the very nature of science).

Regardless of whether or not the statements are true, they have no place in the article for the sole reason that (as I have shown above) they are irrelevant. Not only are they erraneous, but also, perhaps more importantly, do they hurt the perceived view of astral projection by - albeit subtly - portraying it negatively. It comes off as if it tries to alert the reader that there is something wrong with astral projection by presenting the views of a discipline that is not related to the subject, and, by placing these statements in the lead, it overexaggerates the significance of these claims. Such a blatant bias is unacceptable. I propose that the two sentences be removed from the lead, as well as the first paragraph of the section on scientific reception (which is but a repetition of these sentences) be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antithesisx (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Our objective as Wikipedians is not to present a subject in a positive or negative manner, but to present relevant material about the subject that appears in reliable secondary sources. This material is certainly relevant. The definition of astral projection includes an "interpretation of out-of-body experience", and one must use the brain to make that interpretation. Consequently, the brain can be studied and tested, and there are various branches in science devoted to the study of the brain, consciousness, perception, etc. -Location (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you name one branch of science that deals with consciousness and that get taken seriously by scientists outside that field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.169.88 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cognitive science. It's also a topic of research in psychology, neuropsychology, and neuroscience. Do you also want me to name one branch of science that deals with the brain and that gets taken seriously by scientists outside that field? -Location (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cognitive science doesn't deal with consciousness qua consciousness, inasmuch as there are no testable theories (which also turn out not to be obviously flawed) to deal with certain aspects of consciousness within the body of cognitive science. Cognitive science is essentially the research project spawned by functionalism, which likens the mind to a computer--on this view, the mind is the software run by the brain, which is a very complex computer of a certain kind. But no one has proposed any bottom-up theories for how qualitative experience may come about as the result of just so much neural processing which also achieve anything like consensus within the field. There may be no scientific evidence for astral projection, but then, there's no obvious way to test for the existence of an astral body.

What concerns me about this discussion is that skeptics seem to want, on the one hand, to endorse the epistemic standard of science, and on the other, treat the body of science as metaphysically delimiting. That is, if there's no scientific evidence for it, skeptics seem to say, it must not be real. But the justification for that belief rests on the epistemic standard of science, which in no way endorses that very claim--where is the scientific evidence that only what science says exists is what exists? I propose adding something to the effect that astral projection is, like many other proposed phenomena, simply not testable at our present level of understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.203.106 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The first comment says "non-physical phenomena are not testable" - that's crazy. It is definitely testable. The fact is that it's failed, and supporters want it to pass, so the argument is made. If you're here to argue against science you might as well leave before you get banned for violating FRINGE. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ask a neuroscientist. Experiential phenomena are barely understood by scientific standards. The science of consciousness stands on much shakier ground than normal neuroscience. Consciousness does not lend itself to objective quantification. What this user is expressing isn't fringe. In fact it is something you will hear from scientists. Freud spent his life trying to legitimize psychology as a pure science, but the fact is much of the field depends more on qualitative than quantitative data. Even in clinical psych. Threatening that a user may be banned seems like an inappropriate response to a sensible disagreement. An attempt to shut him down instead of engage him. And describing it as having failed the test of verifiability does not make it pseudoscience. Especially if it predates science and does not present itself as scientific. We still haven't found a photon or a gravitron yet. Science used to rely on caloric heat theory until the paragdigm shifted. It wasn't abandoned because they couldn't find the mysterious caloric particle; it was abandoned when they found a better explanation that worked. And to represent astral projection practitioners as a singular unit with a singular goal is a gross misrepresentation. (for the record: I don't care about AP per se, and I am largely a rationalist, but I hate to see 'rationalism' used to dismiss things we don't fully understand)(talk) 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief. If you're a rationalist it's weird to see you defend a fringe topic like this. That's not what a rationalist does. See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV in general for how Wikipedia treats it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I have found many photons. For a gravitron, try the county fair.  Neither is relevant here; it amounts to the argument that, if we don't know everything, then we must not know anything.  --Amble (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a gross oversimplification. I'm not defending a subject and I have no opinions on the subject. I merely chafe at poor verbiage from people who would fill anthropological subjects with ill-fitting scientific language. Rationalism doesn't consist in misapplying the label pseudoscience. Consciousness is an incredibly complex subject that is hard to turn into quantifiable data. Pure science needs numbers, and most forms of psych don't meet that standard. Neuropsychology comes closer but is also a young field. Using the scientific method makes psychology scientific but not necessarily a science. This is a mainstream understanding of psychology. One you will hear from psyhologists themselves as well as rationalists, some of whom would deem psychology a pseudoscience. Pick up a Routledge guide and learn how one writes about non-scientific subjects, because it is not simply throwing condescending labels on anything that doesn't fit into a certain Weltanschauung. You need to think more like an anthropologist on an article like this. We don't call reincarnation a pseudoscience, we call the scientists who try to prove it pseudoscientists. It's only when imposing a pure rationalism onto a non-rational practice that we encounter these clashing ideologies. We don't fill up the article on Christianity with rationalist perspectives as prevalent as they are. We don't use the bible to define Judaism or Buddhism. So why write about this from a scientific voice? It is not always the same thing as an encyclopedic voice. The scientific voice belongs mostly to a section on 'scientific understanding' or 'mechanism'. And for the record: I am not against the word appearing in the lead, as long as it is phrased correctly (though the same idea can be expressed without the implicit condescension it brings). It is only in trying to explain it as scientific that we encounter pseudoscience. Outside of that it doesn't claim to be a science. It's not astral projectology.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It can't avoid being called pseudoscience when that's what the reliable sources say. Fringe topics try to find dodges all the time. Reincarnation is also a pseudoscience. Articles about Christianity SHOULD be from a rational, historical view... but the true believers there have taken the articles over. That's their problem, not an excuse to let the true believers in other topics take theirs over too. All your talking about what should and shouldn't be here is original research of your own thoughts. That's also prohibited here. Have you read WP:FRINGE yet? That is official, and gives you an idea of how Wikipedia really should work. DreamGuy (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the term "astral projection" originated in theosophical circles in the late 1800's and has from the start been consistently been presented as a scientific topic within a broader range of scientific research into spiritual or occult practices . This doesn't support your idea that claims about astral projection are non-scientific rather than pseudoscientific.
 * The rest of what you wrote doesn't seem to be related to the topic at all. You're welcome to clarify why it is that you think photons can't be detected, and what that has to do with anything. --Amble (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the term developed there but as a term for a phenomenon they observed. Everything the theosophists did they tried to explain with science. The lack of hermeneutical understanding here is baffling. The practice predates the name. It is simply a modern name for out of body experiences where one feels they are traveling through space without their body. It is something that happens frequently in a number of shamanic and tantric traditions. In that context it is not presented as science. And if you read carefully, you might notice I said we can't see photons. Observing their impact is completely different. But that was a silly point that you continue to come back to. No one has truly addressed the lack of quotable citation. and : "Reincarnation is also a pseudoscience. Articles about Christianity SHOULD be from a rational, historical view... but the true believers there have taken the articles over." Do you not see that you are soapboxing here? Those do not meet the dictionary definition of pseudoscience, which you might look up by-the-way. I am not a proponent or practitioner of AP in any way. I have literally never tried it. I am a graduate student studying ancient yogic practices and I know how to write about these subjects without POV. I just recognize poorly written biased dreck. You might pick up a Routledge guide, AP style guide or anything on how to write in a balanced voice. It is not encyclopedic voice to write about all non-scientific subjects from a critical view. We write with NPOV. It's amusing that you want to play Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher here, but that is not how other encyclopedias are written. You have a clear agenda that you're not even trying to hide and that doesn't belong here. We don't write with an agenda; we represent a balanced perspective. Find the reputable etic quote that says "astral projection is pseudoscience". Or even an emic quote that says AP is a science. That would be a start.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I did read carefully, I know that you did not in fact write that we can't "see" photons. You wrote that we have never found one.  I agree with you that either one is a silly thing to say.  Thank you for acknowledging that the people who developed and popularized astral projection promoted it as scientific.  --Amble (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Knowing they exist from inference is not the same as seeing a photon which is what I clearly mean by having found one. If you can't observe it directly it isn't 'found'. It's simply part of the working paradigm. We observe an effect attributable to the theoretical presence of photons. Just like a soul and an astral plane are theoretical explanations for certain experiences that occur in the mind (though not an effective scientific paradigm for its mechanism). But really this is a stupid point (stupid to debate it, not stupid to use it as an example). I didn't come here to argue about photons. It was one small example that you are using as the basis for personal attacks now while not addressing my points.
 * I obviously do not in any way "acknowledge that the people who developed and popularized astral projection promoted it as scientific". Not even all theosophists did. They simply started its scientific promotion (in a time when we knew much less about the mind). This modern movement that coined the neologism 'astral projection' for what was already a siddhi in yogic literature call ūtkrana (leaving the body at will) began the pseudoscientific chapter of astral projection's history. No source says they began the practice. Their developmental contributions to it are negligible. They co-opted it and elaborated on it, like they did with kundalini and reincarnation and everything else they tainted. This is why none of these reliable source defines it as a pseudoscience. Like all things soul, it's just pseudoscience to try to prove its objective existence. If there was anything verifiable about your argument you would save us all a lot of time and find a quote to support it.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I no longer can tell what exactly you're trying to say about photons. I can see them, I have found many of them, I can detect them in various ways.  You may as well call a banana a theoretical construct as a photon.  If you just want to say that there are preexisting non-scientific traditions that predate the pseudoscientific version called astral projection, that suggests these traditions should not be covered under the heading of astral projection in the first place. --Amble (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. Who cares about photons. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between a theoretical particle and one we can measure, but it's clearly a distraction and all you want to talk about. Anything to say on the issues instead of trying attack your opponent? All I'm saying is you do not have a source that makes the distinction of "is a pseudoscience" instead of describing its empirical study as pseudoscientific. I'm only debating verifiability. Not trying to defend anything. Just pointing out bad writing, which was already removed. Do you have any evidence, or do you just want to play ad hominem all day? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)