Talk:Aura (paranormal)/Archive 1

Aura explanation
-		 -	The aura means nothing more than the living being's electromagnetic field. It's presence has been proven long ago. The only problem is: there is no technology to measure it. -		 -	Everything has an aura, even objects, since a material is both of nature: atomic and electromagnetic. Like photons. -		 -	People, who can see auras, describe it as a mixture of colors.

1. The existance of Aura in this sense has not been proved

2. Any electromagnetic field that the body is caperble of producing is detecterble using are current technology

3.the claim that everything has Aura is not backed by evidence. Also can the person claiming explain neutrons?

4.Some people who cliam to see Auras describe them as only being one colourGeni 10:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, isn't aura also the latin word for air?

More occult information welcome?

I understand the reasoning for taking out the above text, and agree with it. I think the criticism of James Randi should also be taken out of this page. If needed it could be added to a page on Randi, if one exists. My question, though, is this. I am one of those people that can see auras. I would like to add to the article some effects that I see which are also supported by other sources, such as multiple aura colors, auras around objects near a person but not in physical contact with them and various aura interconnections and after-image effects. It should be made clear that there is no scientific foundation for these observations, but it should be reported nonetheless. Also, in researching auras for my own reasons, I have run across information that may be helpful to others, such as aura color attributions, methods for learning to view auras, and their possible connection to what occultists term the "etheric body". However, I am new to wikipedia and don't know the conventions here. --Godshatter 08:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone with no official standing or connection with Wikipedia policy-making, I'm going to put in my two cents. I don't think you should describe your own experiences here&mdash;that's the ultimate "POV" material.  If you want to share on the Web what you have to say about auras, you could make your own Web site.  Then I think an "external link" with an NPOV title such as "Discussion of auras by a person who claims to see them" would be appropriate for Wikipedia.  Incidentally, I also think you should claim Randi's prize. :-)  &mdash;JerryFriedman 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I will look for some references to the phenomena I've seen in the books I have, and add it if I can cite a source for it.  I also think the wording about Randi's prize needs to be reworked a bit.  If people can see auras around inanimate objects (as I can at times), then the test proposed in the article may not work.  Also, the tone is more POV than NPOV.  I would love to make a million-plus by winning the prize, but I'd hate to lose it on a test that made too many invalid assumptions. --Godshatter 21:18, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Synesthesia
Is there any reason I shouldn't move the sentences about Liszt's, Beethoven's, and Schubert's synesthesia to synesthesia? &mdash;JerryFriedman 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

_____________________

The information is useful in both places (aura and synesthesia). The reference to musicians seeing colors while hearing music needs to remain in the aura section because it is one of the most common ways that non-psychic professionals will typically go on record as saying they are seeing colors. These colors appear in the form of auras, and they also typically accompany other sensory stimuli, so this reference indeed belongs both in the aura section and in the synesthesia section. &mdash;Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Do the colors really appear in the form of auras? Mine don't&mdash;they appear in my "mind's eye" like things that I imagine, not around physical objects the way auras are described.  But of course other synesthetes' experiences might be different from mine.  If you have a reference to people who said they saw auras somehow (around the instruments?) instead of just saying that a certain note or timbre has a certain color, putting that in the article would make sense to me.  Otherwise, I think the connection between synesthesia and auras needs to be explained.


 * (to answer the above)Seeing colors in the minds eye, would represent absorbed energy into oneself, whereas a person actually seeing colors, is seeing things which are outside of them. A person able to see inner colors, is in touch with themself. A person able to see the energy pattern of the world around them, is attuned to their environment(higher stage of enmeshment, if one imagines a wire mesh, as the energy grid).


 * One of the links in the article, Auras in the "Skeptic's dictionary", ends with a speculation that at least some people who see auras may actually be experiencing synesthesia, seeing their knowledge about a person or object in another form. Is that the connection?  &mdash;JerryFriedman 18:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Auras are frequently seen in the mind's eye, and are often seen in a variety of different ways through what is known as high sense perception. High sense perception is the term coined by Dr. Shafica Karagula, and mentioned in Karagula's book "Breakthrough to Creativity." It describes the way information is often perceived by some sensitive people, including medical intuitives. Just as there are many ways that everyone sees auras, there also appear to be a number of different ways that people experience synesthesia, including some people seeing colors at the same time as they are experiencing a different sense. The connection between auras and synesthesia is thus based on the way that additional information is experienced by certain people. &mdash;Cynthia_Sue_Larson 08:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers. I tried to incorporate this information in a logical order and an NPOV way.  I leave it to you to correct anything I misunderstood (if I did, no offense, I was just editing boldly), and to decide whether to add Breakthrough to Creativity to the references section.  I really think, though, that this article needs only one example of synesthesia, if that.  &mdash;JerryFriedman 17:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll also leave it to you, or to anyone who knows, to correct the spelling of "dycanide" or "dicynanin". The y's are in different places.  &mdash;JerryFriedman 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a beautiful job with your recent edits to the aura and synesthesia pages. They are both quite improved! I've just checked the spelling for "dicyanin" and will see the spelling is checked. &mdash;Cynthia_Sue_Larson 06:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm glad it worked out to be useful.  &mdash;JerryFriedman 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean up
I've cleaned up this article. I've taken out many references - entries in References that do not correspond to anything in Notes should not be there. For the sake of argument, I shall include them here anyway.

-- Xxglennxx (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 'Testing' section
I'm going to remove the section on testing, and my rationale is as follows. Firstly, the test was a televised event, hardly making it a controlled scientific experiment. Secondly, it is the test of one individual, so has little validity, unless huge generalisations are made. Finally, and most importantly, the amount of participants used was 5. Since this is such a low amount to test on, it renders the findings irrelevant. This would be true if he got all 5 correct or none correct, it just isn't scientific, and as he got 2 correct, the article is claiming a 40% success rate for him! If anybody has any objections, please state them here. Valyard (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reson for removal, but for copyediting. Verbal chat
 * The reasons for removal were given in my above post. The tests were unreliable to the degree that any result is invalid. Put simply, would you support the inclusion if all had been identified correctly? Valyard (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the text to reflect your concerns, but we cannot remove WP:RS information just because we don't like it. Please suggest alternative wordings. Please do not remove the section without getting consensus, as your bold edit has been reverted. Verbal chat  22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with verbal. Verifiability, not truth is what matters on Wikipedia. The validity of the testing is irrelevant. All that matters is that it was reported in reliable sources; therefore we report it in the article. If you can find other reliable sources that criticize the testing, then we can report that too. It isn't appropriate to delete the whole section just because you disagree with with the design and conclusions of the test. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Valyard, please discuss your edits here. I have removed your addition as it is not supported by a reliable source. Verbal chat  11:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The addition I made was to balance the view given in the other 'tests'. If you read the source, you will see that it is neutral, and is open to the possibility that it may be a visual issue, rather than a paranormal one. I will write this into my changes to reflect this. The tests follow scientific method, and imho, are more reliable than the TV tests, as more control was used. Valyard (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be removed as the source does not meet our criteria. Please read WP:RS. The source is a fringe website. Verbal chat  11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the main focus of the site is body language etc, it doesn't promote fringe views. I feel there is a double standard here. A less reliable test is being preferred over a better one because it is disliked. I note again, the website makes no assumptions as to the origin of the visual phenomena Valyard (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no double standard. A less reliable test is not being preferred over a better one. Rather, a less reliable source is being rejected. If you haven't done so, have a look at the official policies, in particular Verifiability and Reliable sources. Truth doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Verifiability does. And sources must be considered reliable, not fringe sites, forum sites, blogs, self-published sites, etc., regardless of how 'neutral' they may appear. Your and my opinions on these tests are irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OS, OR and "Fringe"
User Verbal has reverted removal of two synopses of articles on medical conditions that make no reference to any form of "aura" - apparently on the grounds that he "believes" that in the case of "fringe" articles, sources need not say what they are represented as saying. These citations are used to support a further revert; they apparently are held by Verbal in some way to provide reliable sources showing that Carroll's "Skeptical Dictionary" represents the views of other skeptics beside Carroll, which view has no source. Further, the last sentence of the lede, referring to eye burn is entirely unsourced and refers to another use of the word "aura". The entire paragraph is entirely unsatisfactory as it stands, since it goes beyond what Carroll himself has said, but uses unsatisfactory cites to suggest that his is a "standard" skeptical POV supported by medical science - which is untrue. In the absence of the addition of further citations, and support of the allegation re the use of quotes in these circumstances, the para must be amended to make it clear what Carroll believes, and that no other person is represented as believing the same. Redheylin (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Aura technology?
Should there be a section covering technology which purport to see one's aura, like Innervision and WinAura and AuraCam devices? And not just pointing out they exist and how they work, but also where one site admits "(it) does not photograph the actual Aura"? Maybe it could be part of the "Testing" section? -- 71.141.213.182 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * InnerVision
 * WinAura and AuraCam

Testing?
Recognition of auras has NEVER been scientifically tested. The cited 'tests' do not meet scientific criteria. No natural world hypothesis was forwarded, no thought was given to reproducibility and no meaningful data was gathered. How can a scientist pass or fail someone on not recognising something they can't even detect?

These 'scientific tests' represent junk science and this section should be removed.

Logan Tanner (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we seriously keeping this!? If we agree that these tests are not scientific then it would seem by definition it is non-NPOV and ORIGINAL RESEARCH.


 * Perhaps we could find a poll or something reflecting the current strong disbelief and/or perceived invisibility of the alleged phenomenon at hand instead of this?


 * Also this article seems to have a materialistic bent as well. I think it would be useful to state the analytical uniqueness of this paranormal phenomena since it is the only one where nature herself is alleged to speak, and is therefore subject to potential objective verification with the right hypothesis, instead of it being all on man and his subjective experiences.


 * Logan Tanner (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The section "Testing" doesn't state that auras have come under scientific scrutiny, just "tests." I agree that the given citations do not hold up to scientific criteria, and agree that it could have been written in by an editor who had bias towards the article, or, as you state, original research. I'm for hiding the section until there's better scientific evaluation of auras. Xxglennxx (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the tests in question demonstrate the failure of the claimants more than adequately. Saying that they weren't "scientific" tests is beside the point: aura recognition has never been demonstrated and here are at least two particular widely publicised examples of people who made the false claim, were tested, and failed. Why on earth would we ever want to remove this material from the article? --TS 02:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The tests did adequately show the failure of the two claimants to prove the hypothesis "humans, having much different auras to mannequins, can detect auras from behind opaque partitions" on the days they were tested but this "sideshow", for lack of a better word, has nothing to do with the aura itself since that wasn't tested - only the claimants were.


 * If we must have these 'tests' on wikipedia keep them to the individual claimants pages as past history. Attempting to pass these things off as evidence, either for or against the paranormal, is however a clear violation of the NPOV policy here and should be dealt with accordingly.


 * Logan Tanner (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing here that justifies (the poorly executed attempt at) removing the section. Verbal chat  09:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a researcher and I did experiments on subtle energies. I created a model which explains subtle energies through pure physics and biophysics. My research was scientifically published and it is available for free as an open access paper at google scholar. You may read my published paper and use it as a reference to enhance the wiki article. ofcourse you are welcome if you need my help with any explanations. This is a link for my paper http://www.soeagra.com/iaast/iaastsept2012/2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waelfouda (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing this, most people who read auras for money are full of bs and if they are tested they will surely fail. unless you have any better research on testing I'd suggest that you save everyone the pain and just remove it. If you don't then at least take homeboys suggestion and use his research.Jagsfan555 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More extensive research
You should delve deeper into the history and origins of auras. There are many other Pagan religions {Wicca, druidism, etc.} that believe in auras and being able to see them through extensive meditation. If you are going to write an article about religious matters such as this then you cant leave any one religion out of the mix, its just wrong to do so.Jagsfan555 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Auras not always "psychic"
Auras aren't always treated like psychic voodoo. Some people claim they can be seen by looking at someone's physical appearance, what they look like, how they stand, how they position themselves, their facial expressions, etc. and can tell various traits about a person as part of a natural-born gift. I'd be interested to know more about that and whether any research has been done to prove or disprove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.166.74 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Auras in religious traditions and iconography (specifically Christianity)
This article discusses auras and similar concepts in a number of religions and spiritual traditions. Can the Christian concepts of halos and Aureola considered "auras"? (And if so, should they be discussed here?) This article describes the Persian farr as an aura, while the Halo article describes them as halos. If both are correct, that would implies Christian-style halos could be as well. The description and depiction of aureola seems even more similar to that of auras (and the names are presumably related). I had a quick Google search for "Halos and auras" and found a few Nea Agey sites saying they are similar but distinct things, and a Christian site saying (I paraphrase) "They're totally different because halos are real and auras are un-Biblical New Age nonsense". Would it be worth someone investigating further to see what various parties (believers in one and/or the other, sceptics, comparative religion studies, etc) say about them, and putting that in here? Iapetus (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Aura (paranormal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120215806/http://www.parapsych.org:80/glossary_a_d.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_a_d.html
 * Added tag to https://dlib.stanford.edu:6521/text1/dd-ill/human-aura.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101421/http://www.shroud.it/DAMON.PDF to http://www.shroud.it/DAMON.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Low-content article
There's not much here on the historical origin of auras or their role in ancient beliefs. It scrapes the surface, but it lacks substance. They're obviously bull, but I'd like to see some more research done on where they came from and what the historical explanations for them were. This may or may not be because I am writing historical fiction. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more focus on historical origins and their role in belief systems. You know, the kind of content I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. The article seems dramatically off-topic.24.223.163.67 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of the specific occult "technologies" turn out to have been invented by Theosophy (see their page for details of investigations into their frauds). In the 19th and early 20th Century, the middle class started to grow in India, and they adopted a lot of things from the British, and in fact, many of the Hindu organizations of the time absorbed a lot of Theosophy.

A good example is "akashic records" which was invented by Theosophy, and is found in no Hindu scriptures, but can be found in post-Theosophy Hindu texts.

So, I was hoping that this aura page would have more information on ancient beliefs in auras, and so I echo the request for more historical information. 162.205.217.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

See my talk section on auras of face & body for a very brief history of auras - these types of articles & sections tend to be stystematically debunked, removed & deleted by a certain group of Wikipedians as pseudoscience, despite significant scientific evidence to the contrary as well as being part of the writings of the Greek philosophers, whose works are not decried as "bunk" but are considered to be the highest form of intellectual learning Isobel Chaveh (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Isobel Chaveh (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Auras of the Face and the Body
Perhaps a section could be added discussing the once-visibly seen aura of the human body. Obviously many different peoples of the world could at one time see this aura. The fact that it is no longer seen except by those with synthenesia might be explained by scientifically known atmospheric changes over the millenia. The ancient Greek and Egyptian concepts of the sun is a link in understanding these changes.

Every ancient culture in the world has religious writings and artwork depicting humans surrounded by a visible aura. In the Bible it is referred to as the "glory" or the "splendor" of the Elohim, the Hebrew gods; in Zoastrianism, the "farr" is the glory or splendor of Ahura Mazda; in Christianity it is referred to as a halo, mandorla or aureola of saints; in Hinduism the sushil is a colored aura that surrounds deities; Jesus shone with aural light in his Transfiguration, this concept is often referred to as a "shining" in Negro spirituals.

Today, these earliest concepts of visibly-seen emotion in the aura are stll evident in such common expressions as "the waters of the face", "radiant with joy", "green with envy", "purple with rage", "yellow-bellied", "black-hearted", "red-faced", "feelin' blue", "white with fear". Isobel Chaveh (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Iranian farr
I guess that this is more in line with halo (iconography) than aura... — Paleo  Neonate  — 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed for now with clear edit summary in case we want it back. — Paleo  Neonate  — 01:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup
A full rewrite was suggested, I cleaned up the article a bit but more work is definitely needed. — Paleo  Neonate  — 01:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Karlpoppery for rewriting substantial parts of the article. — Paleo  Neonate  — 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

rp vs sfn
Opening this discussion. Comments welcome, thanks — Paleo  Neonate  — 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If I understand, sfn is a more common way to do this, keeping the notes outside of the text while allowing to refer to pages (and automatically combining duplicates). Rp is an alternative way that may be used when sfn would cause an abnormally high number of footnotes despite automatic combining. While rp permits to refer to pages, when used with blue links, part of the reference appears in the text (page numbers) while the source link is required to know which source they point to. Sfn allows to keep it all outside of the main text without loss of information. — Paleo  Neonate  — 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also want to request that the I.P. address making these changes would start leaving edit summaries to explain what they are doing. Thank you for your work, but it's confusing at times. Also, please consider creating an account. KarlPopper y (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My changes were reverted again, without communication. This seems to be disruptive.  I'm now reading on what should be done...  —  Paleo  Neonate  — 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection requested, will see... —  Paleo  Neonate  — 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Either method is acceptable per the MOS. In this case I think the sfn presents a cleaner References section for the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, as well as your cleanup, I agree with your recent changes. — Paleo  Neonate  - 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)