Talk:Jasmuheen

New publication: Critical evaluation of Jasmuheen case
Dear article editors/authors,

I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6).

I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.

You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.

Best regards,

Marcus H. Mast

Marcus H. Mast (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, looks like a good paper its a shame you went for that journal. Unfortunately the journal is a bit dodgy. The Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing is an alternative medicine and paranormal journal. It is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and most scientists don't take the journal seriously. Have a look at WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@User:Psychologist Guy: When you publish on such a controversial issue, you will find it practically impossible to get your article published in a mainstream journal. Certain topics are basically banned. I suggest you give it a try ;). Explore journal isn't dodgy. It's open-minded. It is a proper scientific outlet for topics outside of the mainstream. The best you can aim for as an author writing on this. Think about it. What would you do as an author? Publish a book instead? Then everyone would go "Oh, it's not peer-reviewed!" Not publish at all? If that's where we're at, then goodbye knowledge. Marcus H. Mast (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to promote your paper as advertisement on different talk pages, which you now do on another . Unfortunately Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing fails WP:RS and that is why it is not used on any articles on Wikipedia. It's basically a pseudoscience journal and its editorial team consist of a faith healer Larry Dossey and a man who thinks magic (people can levitate) is real Dean Radin. It seems the Explore journal likes magical thinking even publishing a paper claiming the Brazilian medium Chico Xavier was genuine (!). Crazy. This seems to be a journal working as an apologist for the paranormal. It reminds me of creation "scientists" trying to get their creationism published. I look forward to reading your review but the journal is not a reliable science journal by Wikipedia standards or any scientist for that matter. Others may disagree of course but there is nothing else I can add here. But useful information about Jasmuheen can be found in Tucker, S. D. (2018). Quacks!: Dodgy Doctors and Foolish Fads Throughout History. Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-7181-9, so yes books are a good source of information. I will get round to adding this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Inedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out the article on the relevant pages as it relates to their content. I think that's an appropriate thing to do and not "spamming". Other than that, I'm not here to argue or discuss. You think what you think and do what you want to do with this information. Marcus H. Mast (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)