Talk:Sungazing/Archive 1

Orphaned remarks from 2006
If this article survives AfD it's badly in need of NPOV balance. Most medical authorities agree it's extremely dangerous to stare directly at the sun. It can cause (at least partial) blindness. Durova 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It survived. I agree with you and it does state exactly what you say, that most believe you can go blind. At this point I am not sure what else it needs to balance. I am not an expert in this topic, I hope others will help. Perhaps someone can add documented cases of going blind from non-eclipse observation?--Mmmsnouts 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed material
I removed the following material from the article, as it isn't really applicable to the subject and is better covered at sun. Plus, the Galileo suggestion is unsourced.


 * Another reason for looking directly or gazing at the sun but not necessarily termed sungazing, is the observation of solar phenomenom such as a green flash or sunspots. Some astronomers claim it is safe to look directly at the sun for this purpose especially around sunset and sunrise.  Research indicates while there are a few cases of temorary injury to the eye, most if not all serious injury to the eye occurs if one looks at the sun during a solar eclipse or with a telescope.  The story of Galileo going blind from observation of the sun is probably the most well known case of eye injury due to solar observation.  However, a review of historical evidence indicates that this is probably a myth and Galileo's blindness likely had nothing to do with the sun.


 * Wait a minute here... all the proponents of sungazing say you should do it at dawn or dusk, just like the astronomers say is a safe time to do it THROUGH A TELESCOPE, which is probably worse than naked-eye viewing. Doesn't this negate all the "dangers" outlined in the article? Guypersonson (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "serious injury to the eye occurs if one looks at the sun ... with a telescope." 217.155.35.160 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

- squibix  (talk)  15:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What?
"Sun Yoga, Surya Yoga and Solar Yoga, is the practice of staring directly at the sun to receive "nourishment" from it." What the hell is that?
 * I know it sounds weird to people of another religion. This is their belief. I'm not a sungazer nor do I plan to be one either but this is their belief probably originating back to the old times before God or around that time.


 * And although I don't recommend it, we should all respect people's beliefs. I doubt there's alot of these types of people anymore.


 * Perhaps the confusion with the word "nourishment" is similar to the Native Americans' use of the word "medicine." Perhaps they mean some kind of spiritual nourishment, instead of the physical food-like nourishment that everyone seems to assume. Guypersonson (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

humans produce carbon dioxide
I believe the statement since photosynthesis requires the constant intake of carbon dioxide, any organism which cannot breathe carbon dioxide cannot photosynthesize; as humans do not breathe carbon dioxide, humans are further incapable of photosynthesis. is false, since human beings produce carbon dioxide as a by-product of our processing of oxygen, and exhale it with every breath.


 * The word breathe is obviously used in this context to mean Aerobic respiration, which requires oxygen in order to generate energy. The statement is trying to distinguish between Aerobic respiration and Photorespiration in terms that the layperson will understand.

Wikipedia editors are way too mild when handling quackery
This is a hoax in its purest form. Not only this does not work, this is VERY dangerous. It indeed causes damage to the retina. I wonder why is our body trying to defend from bright light by narrowing its pupils, clenching its eyelids, and producing lots of tears? Gee, I wonder. Maybe to avoid damage to the best sensory organ it has? Indeed, one can numb his senses with anaesthetisc and drugs and then stare at the Sun, which will cause a permanent and heavy damage.

This is not controversial, this is a complete hoax. God only knows how many stupid people read this and tried to do it and damaged their vision? It doesn't take a lot to damage the sensitive retina and even the slightest impairment is a big and unpleasant trouble.

Wikipedia should promote health. You can not have a "neutral point of view" on health. You have to protect it. So stand up for yourself and start eliminating bull*hit wherever you encounter it.

I mean, look at yourselves, you are questioning eye damage! Hello?! If someone starts a cult where people jump into volcanoes while drinking cyanide solutions, you would question the health risks of such procedures? Come on!

Endimion17, 6 November 2006, 20:53 (UTC)

It is quackery there is no doubt about that. But it is not a wikipedia hoax, there are actually people who believe this to be true. A well known reference to the practice, was a woman appearing on Wife Swap which aired in the UK some time ago. 13:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Not only this does not work'...How do you know??? Have you tried it? Brian 9/April 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk • contribs) 23:09, April 8, 2007


 * It does not cause damage to the retinas, as far as I can tell... been doing it for a while. Actually the quackery exists in continuing to insist that it's bad for your health in the face of numerous folks who have done this for years who maintain undamaged vision. Another, related, form of quackery evident here is the reluctance of modern Western society to accept anything that hasn't been accepted by science, even if it's been proven to be true. Guypersonson (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The original poster has obviously never sun gazed and knows nothing about it. If you are sun gazing and experience any of the symptoms described in this post you are supposed to stop immediately as the sun is too bright. This can happen sometimes from glare off the water for instance. Sungazers actually rely on their bodies natural defenses and listen to them - if you are sun gazing and the brightness is making you in any way uncomfortable, stop. If you are doing it properly - the first or last hour of the day - this rarely happens.

Sun gazed
The Scientific viewpoint that Sun gazed keeps replacing the real viewpoint with is unreferenced waffle and Original Research and therefore has no place on wikipedia

"Photon-energy to electricity, can be made by many different processes."

I believe there is only one proceses known to science Photovoltaics The only other way light can be converted to Energy Not electricity is Photosynthesis.

"Electricity can then be used to power other chemical processes."

Prehaps you mean Electrolysis? again nothing to do with human biology.

"The human body is able to change its metabolic processes in many amazing ways (simple empirical support!)."

The human metabolic process is well known to science and does not involve either Photosynthesis or Electricity

"Like: adoptation to many different toxins (see: vaccination), or when fasting: toxins are released into the bloodstream in order to be eliminated."

Toxins are removed from the body during Fasting, but if one intends to fast they must realise that they must supply thier body with Nutrients after the fasting period is over. There is no purpose to stare at the sun during your fasting period.

"So if science can localize a proccess that utilizes the energy of photoreceptors"

Photoreceptors detect light, they do not utilize it.

"to perform metabolic processes that allow recycling of the waste-products of metabolic processes -- then we have an explanation."

What utter waffle

"Scientific Background" is botched
While I'm not going to venture a guess as to the validity of sungazing (okay, I'll probably guess "totally false" ;)), the "scientific background" section is so extremely botched that it would seem to lend credance to sungazing for the simple fact that its critics don't seem to understand basic biology!

"one of the most evident is that all known photosynthetic organisms must be green, because photosynthesis cannot function without large amounts of the pigment chlorophyll which gives plants their green color" This is wrong, as can be seen in Red algae, and the Photosynthesis page. Not all photosynthesizers need to be green, or even use chlorophyll. In fact, for photosynthesis to work, all you really need in theory is a way of harnessing the photoelectric effect to fuel a electron transport chain.

"Likewise, since photosynthesis requires the constant intake of carbon dioxide, any organism which cannot breathe and process carbon dioxide cannot photosynthesize; as humans do not breathe and process carbon dioxide, humans are further incapable of photosynthesis". This is also very wrong. Plants, for instance, need Oxygen in the air to provide the fuel for respiration, in addition to carbon dioxide. They do not exclusively "breath" carbon dioxide. By the same token, it would not be inconceivable for a human to breath predominately oxygen for use in respiration, but also utilize carbon dioxide for other processes. One would need to measure the gas intake and exhalation of a sungazer, in addition to their metabolic rate, to make any claims about what the sungazer is or is not breathing.

Also, you do not carbon dioxide to photosynthesize in general. Carbon dioxide is a part of the modern photosynthetic metabolic pathway, but it is not clear that it is required. Primitive photosynthesizers used sulfur from hydrogen sulfide instead of oxygen from water as the electron donors. Other photosynthesizers used amino acids. Making the claim that sungazers cannot utilize photosynthesis because they are not green or breath carbon dioxide is largely a straw man fallacy.

Last, I would propose the following somewhat plausible position that would explain where sungazers derive energy from. The pigments in the eye that allow us to see use the photoelectric effect in a similar manner that chlorophyll uses it to produce energy. It would not be unimaginable that sungazers are somehow changing the primary function of the eye from converting light to sensory signals to converting light to fueling an electron chain.

What I think would be a far more credible position to take is to decredit sungazing based on the amount of surface area that a plant would need using conventional photosynthesis to support a grown human man for a day using only the light received in an hour. I would then compare this to either the sungazer's retinal surface area, or the surface area of their entire body (depending on what you're imagining the source of the energy is), and demonstrate the differences in efficiency between the imaginary plant that supports a single grown man, and the sungazer.

I would imagine the calculations would show that sungazing would have to be tens or hundreds of times as efficient as the hypothetical plant, which would be far more convincing evidence that sungazing doesn't work than saying that humans aren't green ;)

--Numsgil 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You think the current scientific background is badly writtern? you should have seen the utter waffle that was there before, which was trying to provide a credible explaination for the practice. If you want to give a better explaination then why not just edit the article, but be careful not to add any original research or new ideas, which you might be if you start making caculations based on surface area for example.
 * --Giles Bathgate 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know only enough to know that the current section isn't right. I tried googling for legitimate scientific analysis of sungazing but didn't turn up much.  In the end I think you could probably show some theraputic value to it, (getting up early, hiking somewhere, looking at the sunrise for a few minutes.  Can't be all bad ;)) if not a miracle elixer.  I don't think I'd be able to do a scientific analysis of sungazing justice.  I would probably recommend removing the science section if a better replacement can't be found.  --Numsgil 05:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And then just type FORMAT c:\ All your problems will go away if you delete them. --Giles Bathgate 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All I know is that, in addition to being wrong the current paragraph constitutes original research, since there isn't a citation in the whole thing except a supposed citation for the fact that humans are not well adapted at being autotrophs (in reality, this citation is a broken link, so I cannot either confirm or deny it. But the title of the citation "A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution", would seem to indicate an article about the evolution of omnivores from herbivores in our past, which is not the same thing).  The whole section is wrong, no matter how you slice it.  It either needs to be improved (read: not wrong), or removed.  I have the expertise for only one of those actions.


 * While I'm on the subject, I keep finding references to a study done by NASA on the Indian Sungazer, but I can't find any primary, or even secondary sources. That study would probably provide a good citation if it can be found.  --Numsgil 22:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased viewpoint
Ok that last comment go me nowhere other than I was in a trolling mood that day. Anyway, There is no Scientific or Medical background for this article, and therefore concern that the article is biased towards crediting the practice rather than providing equal viewpoints both crediting and discrediting it. Well, I think someone should write a genuine scientific background section. then we can remove the biased tag. --Giles Bathgate 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. Like I stated above, there was supposedly a study done that was linked with NASA somehow.  I find tons of offhand references to it, but I can't find any primary sources.  If someone could dig that up, I'm sure it would provide the sort of references needed to write a proper paragraph.  I can't find it online, so I think it must exist in physical print somewhere.  Not sure how to start looking, or what to look for, though.  --Numsgil 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came across this article. Sadly, it's true that some people do claim to practice this.  The article looks o.k. at the mo though because it is full of 'citation neededs' and explains at the top that any science is lackingMerkinsmum 01:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sungazing is done by many but they are all experimenting
I have been sungazing for several years and personally know a number of other sungazers either in person or through one of several Internet newsgroups dedicated to the subject. Those who dismiss it as a hoax are wrong. Sungazers are serious about their practice and continue to do it for varied reasons. Those reasons include specific benefits derived which are different for each person. Some of the more common benefits reported by those who sungaze include reduced appetite, improved sleep, and a more robust immune system. There is a class of subjective benefits that hard to put into words such as a feeling of well being, connection with nature, a feeling of spritual enlightenment, and a sense that this is the right thing to do.

There are some extremely important points that need to be raised. Of the dozens or even hundreds of sungazers I know, there is not a single one who will try to convince you to do this. We do it for various reasons but we do not cross the line and sell or encourage the practice. If you think it is dangerous or stupid, no one will try to tell you otherwise. On the flip side, if you are part of the tiny minority that is curious enough to wish to learn more, or wish to take the first baby steps toward becoming a sungazer, we would be happy to provide all the information you wish.

All sungazers are keenly aware there is a total lack of scientifically rigorous research on this subject. There is no authority to tell us it is OK. We are experimenters exploring uncharted territory. We all understand everything we do is at our own risk, and therefore we have to practice the utmost care to avoid retinal damage.

Although the term sungazing refers to one act - looking at the sun - it is actually part of a family of practices that work together. The most closely related practice is sunbathing, which is somewhat automatic. Gentle sunbathing done near sunrise and sunset is known to naturally build Vitamin D. It is beyond the scope of this short article but suffice it so say there are tremendous well-established health benefits to getting more Vitamin D as long as you are careful not to overdue it and get sunburn. Since sungazers often do it barefoot on bare earth, there is a grounding effect that some feel has the same function as ingesting antioxidants. Immersing yourself in the bright light of the outdoors is well known to stimulate the production of serotonin, an effective mood enhancer that combats seasonal affective disorder. Proponents of full spectrum lighting add more benefits that come as a natural byproduct of sungazing. The reduced appetite reported by many sungazers leads naturally to weight loss which is widely accepted to improve health. If sungazers feel emboldened to engage in occasional temporary fasting, this brings on a detoxification effect that leads to still other areas of improved health. Taking a break from our hectic, stressful lives to be alone with nature has its own set of benefits.

I can say without hesitation that I enjoy sungazing and get benefits from it although I can't prove it. Furthermore, I have no desire to prove it. If you think it is dangerous, I will not argue with you. If you think sungazing and the related practices are a hoax (devoid of benefits), I will tell you point blank you are talking out of utter ignorance and you are wrong. BigBlue42 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very curious about the risk of retinal damage. While certainly I assume there's a temporary off color disk when you blink, caused by exhausted cones in the eye, most reading I've done has indicated that looking at the sun has no negative effects on longterm eye health.  There might even be positive aspects, given the sharp visual acuity of many scientists in centuries past who did sunspot studies.  Obviously, this flies in the face of what mothers have been telling us since time began :)  Given the people you've talked to, do you have any second hand reports of people whos eye sight has been verifiably damaged by sungazing?  I'm just not finding any anecdotal evidence to back up the idea that looking at the sun harms the eye.  --Numsgil 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any danger, provided you are outdoors in the open, while sungazing. Your eyes will automatically contract, water, and close in response to excessive light. However, this automatic response can be defeated if you look out of a window or through binoculars or a telescope. That's also why it's dangerous to look at an eclipse. The predominant dark causes your eyes to dilate too much and risk damage. If you are going to sungaze, I think it's best to be standing in the open, with as little clothing as possible. Don't sit in the shade and look out at the sun. Don't look out of a window. You must go outside and stand in the open, so your eyes respond to the light correctly. Otherwise, there's an increasing risk of damage to the eye. I have tried this and not suffered any permanent damage, but did experience head-aches after looking through trees at the sun, while walking. If you are going to look at the sun, do so out in an open area with no shade in sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.77.27 (talk • contribs) 05:00, April 9, 2007


 * Sungazing is to be performed at dawn and dusk. The intensity of the light is much lower at those times. Don't stare at the sun at noon in high summer, it'll hurt you. But a short time during sunrise or sunset is fine. The astronomers cited above in the "removed material" section on this talk page even agree.Guypersonson (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sungazing Article Rewrite
First, a brief description of my sungazing experience. I learned about sungazing in December 2005. I did a deal of research about it, and everything I found out indicated that it was a real thing--ie, that sungazing could work and help alter a person’s physiology so that s/he no longer needs to eat, and perhaps other things as well. I didn't know for sure if that would be true, but I began sungazing as recommended on Hira Ratan Manek's Solar Healing Center, starting at 10 seconds. I'd always been told not to look at the sun by my mom and others, so I had a twinge of fear, but encountered no problems. I worked my way up to over 10 minutes of sungazing at a time, and I still experienced no problems.

Then about a year ago, on August 9, 2006, I got impatient. I hadn't had any problems with sungazing, but on the other hand I'd been sungazing for about three months consistently and I wasn't feeling hugely benefited for it. So I went out and sungazed for a little over an hour. One could say that I got what I wished for: I noticed a definite change. I found that I now had a visual artifact in my central vision. This wasn't blindness. Sit still and stare at a light bulb for a minute, then look away. You'll notice that there's still a bright spot. That's what it looked like, except brighter. And, it's lasted more than a year now--the visual artifact still remains, but I hardly notice it. Even soon after I got it I didn't notice it that much. Only under certain circumstances does it become apparent. The artifact has improved somewhat since I got it though, some of the damage to my cones and rods having been repaired, I assume.

I didn’t want to aggravate the damage through further sungazing, but on the other hand I certainly wanted to continue sungazing the full nine months. I emailed HRM about it, and he recommended that I slow down a bit and start sungazing with my eyes closed, and work my way up to where I could sungaze with my eyes open again. However, I’ve busy since and haven’t had the time. I expect that at some point in the future I’ll take his suggestion and start sungazing with my eyes closed, and work from there.

In the meantime, I’ve kept up a bit on this Wikipedia article. I’m relatively new to Wikipedia, but I’ve decided to partially rewrite the article and clean it up a little. I believe that sungazing is a real thing, but I also recognize the importance of unbiased points of view in places such as Wikipedia. This is a place where people go to learn, and having accurate information, and hearing both sides of the story, is important.

After doing some Google searching, I’m having trouble finding source material though.

First, I can find the site for Space Daily and some others citing that NASA did research on HRM. They in turn cite something called “DHA” as the source. Perhaps the “D” stands for “Delhi,” but I can’t find anything that claims to be DHA and has the original article. Wikipedia does list a number of DHA’s though. The most promising in my view is the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs, now the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. I then searched Google for strings from the article on Space Daily. Some more sites came up, but they just linked back to Space Daily or Space Travel, which both seem to be operated by the same organization.

Someone then wrote in the Wikipedia article, “reports that prominent sungazer Hira Ratan Manek submitted to NASA for scientific monitoring turned out to be false when representatives of the American space agency denied any involvement with him.” I followed that link to Secular Blasphemy, which included text from an article, and a link to the source, Mid-Day.com. Unfortunately, that source’s domain no longer exists. Once again I searched Google for strings from the article on Secular Blasphemy. Some more sites came up, but they also linked to Mid-Day.com.

After that, I decided to focus on simply writing the article. I did attach a citation to the "Cultural Background" section though, and took off the tag for that.

At this point I’ve removed the “unablanced-section” and “Missing information” tags on the article. The first request was to “Help improve the article by adding more information and sources on points of view that may be neglected.” I believe I’ve done that sufficiently. The second said, “There is no Scientific or Medical background for this article, and therefore concern that the article is biased towards crediting the practice rather than providing equal viewpoints both crediting and discrediting it.” Wikipedia pages commonly have a “Criticisms” section, so I added one for sungazing and included some of the criticisms I’ve found here and at other places around the internet, also giving answers to those criticisms.

I invite others to make further criticisms of sungazing. I also invite others to make further defenses of sungazing. I invite everyone who’s written on this talk page to approach the subject of sungazing with a more open mind. I was disappointed by what I saw here in some people’s attitudes toward sungazing. I urge you all to approach new possibilities with open minds, particularly the writer of the post entitled “Wikipedia editors are way too mild when handling quackery.” Sir, your comments seem too heavily based on emotions, and you rely on specific facts that could effectively be non-sequiturs to the greater argument. You make the bold proclamation, “This is a hoax in its purest form.” You base this proclamation, from what I can tell, completely off the statement, “I wonder why is our body trying to defend from bright light by narrowing its pupils, clenching its eyelids, and producing lots of tears? Gee, I wonder. Maybe to avoid damage to the best sensory organ it has? Indeed, one can numb his senses with anaesthetisc and drugs and then stare at the Sun, which will cause a permanent and heavy damage.” This is true, of course, but it seems you are too focused on this one point to recognize the possibility of a greater truth in the matter. Consider what I wrote in the article as the response to such an argument:

A body that is unaccustomed to physical exercise naturally responds to it with negative feedback. This is typically in the form of pains and aches and other “complaints.” If a doctor were to examine cells and tissues in a body that has recently undergone strenuous physical exercise he might assume, based on the acute and limited damage to those cells and tissues, that the physical exercise is harmful to the patient. This view would be a gross misrepresentation of the matter however, much like seeing the forest only for individual trees. The human body has great recuperative abilities, and limited damage such as that incurred through physical exercise is generally temporary (except when caution is not exercised properly). The fact that the eyes, like the rest of the body, recoil in their own form of complaint when first seeing the bright light of the sun is not necessarily proof that sungazing is harmful. Those who practice sungazing on a regular basis find that their eyes soon adjust to it. In general, only at the commencement of a sungazing session do they experience any negative issues.

I cannot claim to be an expert on sungazing, medicine, science, electronics, or other fields pertinent to this subject, but it does not take expertise to have an open mind. It saddens me that this sort of thing goes on at Wikipedia and other places. I urge you all to take the viewpoint that new things you read might be true, rather than immediately discounting them as falsehoods and latching onto an argument or two that support your view. Similarly, I urge you all to not believe in something simply because one or two arguments, or facts, support it. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Like many other subjects, sungazing has been neither proved nor disproved. My belief is that it is true, but that belief certainly hasn’t been validated by organized science up to this point. Since I further expected that science wouldn’t get around to doing the matter justice anytime soon, I decided to test it out myself. Remember that we each possess that ability of experimentation. The greater scientific community doesn’t have to prove something to make it true.

I believe that’s all. I don’t mean to lecture, but I hope that people recognize that progress in science and medicine is dependent on people willing to try new things and explore new options and possibilities; pure, baseless skepticism has largely hindered scientific and medical progress, on the other hand. Iconian 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably what needs to be added here is that The practice entails looking at the rising or setting sun one time per day only during the safe hours. No harm will come to your eyes during the morning and evening safe hours. The safe hours are anytime within 1-hour window after sunrise or anytime within the 1-hr window before sunset. It is scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt that during these times, one is free from UV and IR rays exposure, which is harmful to your eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Path of the Angels (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Large content removal - pov - refimprove
While I support most of the removal I looked at (and there was A LOT that I did not), I do think it skewed the article from the PoV before (sungazing is controversial - and that needed a citation) to (sungazing is dangerous - and that needs a copy of a citation or a new one) - just for example.

I would agree that the article needs a very nearly complete rewrite, as I see it.

I have added 2 article flags, refimprove and PoV, to reflect what I personally see as the state both before and after the edits. I do think it is better for the bulk of the cuts. Way too much chatter about a (please forgive me) fringe topic in the encyclopedia. - Sinneed (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (copied from the NPOV noticeboard, not a direct response to the above comment):
 * I drastically edited the article from this version to this version because it promoted a fringe topic and gave undue weight to a rather dangerous practice. Additionally, the article was mostly sourced to citations like Hira Ratan Manek's DVD and commercial website, as well as other self-published sources. Large swaths of text were original research attempting to link sungazing to mainstream Yoga practices (is a "postural mistake" really equivalent to permanent eye damage?). Any, yes, there were HOWTO issues. See my edit summaries for specifics. The large bulk of medical literature I've been able to find indicates that sungazing is a form of self-harm that has repeatedly been shown to cause solar retinopathy and can lead to permanent macular damage. The original form of the article explicitly stated that sungazing was safe and minimized the mainstream medical view that it is quite harmful.
 * I concur that the article needs work. I'm happy to talk about adding material back into the article, but it must be based on reliable sources.  Sites like some random guy's website fail WP:RS.  Additionally the medical references I gathered above are peer-reviewed, reliable sources and I will incorporate them into the article.  Skinwalker (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Skinwalker, sorry for not notifying you about posting my concerns here. i do agree that the original sungazing page was somewhat "puffed up" with links to commercial websites etc... but sungazing is a practise, and from alot of accounts avery old one. The results are secondary (ie. not having to eat etc...) as in any practise. I have known yoga teachers (not students) who have broken collar bones form headstands, pulled leg muscles (which was still felt 8 years later) doing simple(?) leg stretches in the triangle pose. My only concern is that if the practise of sungazing is not elaborated on, with the guideline and rules ie. sungazing during very low UV levels, "safe times" to sun gaze, and for how long etc.... then the practise does not unfold as a (if adhered to properly) legitimate and, by many accounts, an uplifting spiritual practise. As far how to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana has certain "how to " guidelines in practising Yogic asanas. Considering the importance of proper and safe guidelines for sungazing i think it important to to refer to the basic guidelines/practise rules in order to clarify that sungazing is not a bunch of people staring into a noon day sun. this may also help anyone else looking into the subject of sungazing on wikipedia to know that. Everyone i know who sungazes has never reported a problem, only because it has to been done with strict adherence to the "rules". the HRM DVD is a sungazer talking about sungazing. There is alot of information on the DVD (i think someone has posted it to youtube if you are interested) Again i'm focusing on the practise, not the desired results... and if practised correctly (also if discussed in proper terms) the practise is legitimate and deserves to be presented as such.

J929 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The information presented now clearly shows the scientific and medical consensus that this is a dangerous practice. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any good citations that sungazing is a very old practice. Please show me some verifiable sources that it is.  I reiterate my position about the relative hazards of Yoga vs. sungazing - I don't see any reason to consider why a pulled leg muscle is comparable to permanent macular damage.  The asanas article is well-sourced and unlikely to lead to injury if emulated.  There is not a substantial consensus of medical sources that say performing asanas can lead to severe injury.  There is for sungazing, as I linked above.  Ultimately I think it's a little silly to suggest that "basic guidelines/practise" be described in this article without a very good source for such a dangerous pastime.  "Everyone you know who sungazes" and the "HRM DVD" just don't meet this standard.  Skinwalker (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunworshipping has been in practsie for a long time. With temples in Konark and other places around the world... Many cultures view the sun as a diety. etc... one source states..
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20070311123655/http://members.aol.com/zoticus/bathlib/helios/
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity

"The Sun (Surya) has been a popular deity in India since the Vedic period. The following passage occurs in a prayer to him in the Rig Veda:

“Aloft his beams now bring the good,

Who knows all creatures that are born,

That all may look upon the Sun.

Athwart in darkness gazing up, to him the higher light,

We now have soared to Surya-

The god among gods, the highest height.”" http://www.solarevents.com/articles/sun-worship/konarak-sun-temple/

These texts (Rig Veda is an ancient text Vedic text) talk of "gazing up" and "all may look upon the Sun". it is realistic to think sunworshippers practised what we call today, Sungazing in some form or another.

In relation to yoga, both are seen as spiritual practises. Both are practised for beneficial reasons. I dont believe anyone practises sungazing (or any other practise) with anything other than high ideals and postive hopes for the benefits. Since both are practises, the corelation i'm making is that injuries can be sustained from improper adherance to guidleines or common slips or mistakes.

to say it is a dangerous practise is falicious. Are there any accounts of how many people sungaze? if not, then no percentage of problems associated with sungazing can be established. ie if 10 people per year say the have problems with their eyes due to sungazng, with sungazing population of 10 million, only 0.000001% of people report problems. if the sungazing community is 10000, then .001% of sungazers experience problems. without any statistics it is impossible to say it is a dangerous practise. which alone is original research. based on probabilities of unknown numbers of people practising sungazing. there is no basis for that statemnet.

source 1, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19188195?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum it says problems arised during sungazing. The study is about "the potential hazardousness of sungazing during methylphenidate therapy." nothing is said about healthy eyes or "methylphenidate free " sungazing. it adds no information about when the child was sungazing or if it was being done correctly. considering he ADHd, one of its common known behaviors in not to follow instructions properly or to daze off while someone is talking to them.

Source 2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1209815?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  the poeple studied stared at teh sun for an hour.

Sungazing safety guidliens
 * A. a very gradual increase of sungazing starting at 10 seconds (someone staring at the sun for an hour is NOT sungazing)
 * B. considering if the patients started sungazing exactly when the sun rose, for one hour, then they would catch the "safe" one hour time for sunrise sungazing. BUT sungazers are supposed to go up to only 45 minute maximum! no one prescribes sungazing for more than that. So if the patienst started sungazing 15 minutes after sunrise, then they would stray into being out of a "safe" time and also excessive sungazing (over 45 minutes). this is not sungazing (with "safety guidelines and rules")

Source 3, http://bjo.bmj.com/content/57/4/270.citation leads to this artcile (and note the title) "Solar retinopathy from sun-gazing under the influence of LSD" How does this validly support any claims? Pateints under the influence of LSD report pupil dilation. Sunlight in the eyes constricts the size of the pupil, a natural body protection. i dont see how this source relates to a "safe" practise? or even the article.

Source 4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9805443?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum this article does show some concern for the practise yet what was the practise? what were patients doing? with no common reference to what "sungazing" they were doing, it can be problematic.

Source 5, http://wap.medjugorje.ws/en/articles/medjugorje-maculopathy/ " Their intent is to re-create the "miracle of the sun," an apparitional experince in which unusual religious artifacts or clues can be superimposed on the sun." this is NOT sungazing, it is staring at the sun with a plate ("a black disc") in front of your face. (much like an eclipse, which no one seems to recommend) all reports stated they looked at the sun at 3 and 4 pm for twenty minutes for the first time (one report says the person looked in to the mid day sun for 45 minutes! to recreate the miracle... -- this is not "sungazing" the practise, this is staring at an afternoon day sun.. i have already stated a slow gradual beginning in time spent sun gazing) i would like to again note the numbers, "Today pilgrims by the thousands visit Medjugorje" yet only four people have complained about eye problems, in how many years, since 1981.

The only real conclusion arrived at is if excessive ultraviolet radiation penetrate the eye, there will be reprocusions. How does this relate to a practise with safety guidelines? i thought the medical journals would show something concrete, but sungazing while on LSD doesnt scream a corelation to healthy people practising low UV level sungazing.

considering the poor sourcing of your view, i think too much weight has been given to calling this practise "dangerous". and that then only reflects a view. i dont think anyone is arguing that staring into a noon day sun will be ok. i dont think your sources are in order and the only fact reportable is that large amounts of UV radiantion can be bad for the eye. (no clarification on what "sungazing" was for the patients)

where will one get refrences for the practise (not dangers etc...) if not from a sungazing instruction DVD? theoretically then nothing can be said about the practsie. the DVD is sourced for its practise guidelines not "reported benefits"

as it is, i think the current revision reflects your opinion, and the sources only try to support it.

J929 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sun worship has of course been widely practiced. That is not at question.  Your views on sungazing's connection to yoga and their relative safety are interesting but remain totally unsourced and are original research.
 * I reject your characterization of the medical sources. One by one, using your numbering:
 * Quoting from source 1, "The present case highlights long term retinal findings in solar retinopathy, their differential diagnosis and the potential hazardousness of sungazing during methylphenidate therapy." The subject sungazed.  He showed solar retinopathy consistent with staring at the sun.  Retinopathy is not a known side effect of methylphenidate.  This is an appropriate source to demonstrate eye damage caused by sungazing.
 * Source 2 shows that lasting eye damage can occur after "minimal subjective visual impairment". Your views on safety guidelines, again, remain unsourced.  Also see No True Scotsman, which underpins many of your assertions.
 * Source 3 shows that eye damage results from sungazing. Again, solar retinopathy is not a side effect of LSD.  What motivates patients to sungaze is immaterial in describing the damage that results from the practice.
 * Your assertion that "demographically over 200 million US citizens sungaze" is completely unsupported by source 4. 60% of solar retinopathy patients, a cohort that does not encompass the entire population of the US, report sungazing.
 * Your arguments against source 5 reflect, again, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Please show me a source that differentiates between "'sungazing' the practise, (and) staring at an afternoon day sun".  This source clearly demonstrates that people who sungaze for religious and/or spiritual reasons suffer eye damage.
 * I invite you to seek further review at WP:RS/N or perhaps an appropriate Wikiproject on yoga, alternative medicine, or religion - they may be able to find better sources talking about "safe" ways to sungaze. Until these sources are evaluated the article cannot make the statements you've been advocating for.  Skinwalker (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the RS board...

"That all may look upon the Sun.

Athwart in darkness gazing up, to him the higher light" states gazing up in refrence to the sun. The Rig Veda is ancient.

i've offered the HRM DVD as a source for the practise, if you do not accpet that how can one say anything about the practise. i have maintained that sungazing is a practise from the beginning, with guidelines and limits. if someone's actions fall out of those limits, is it not "sungazing, a practise".

Swami Sivananda (a yogi) has advocated sungazing with reference to yoga.

"The Sun: Sun-bath in the morning sun for 10 to 20 minutes supplies us with much energy and purifies the body" http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/books/es12.htm notice he talks about the morning sun. he doesnt say go out in mid day. hence it is a practise (with guidleines) without allowing sources to document the practise the artcile becomes open for your opinion that anything dealing with staring, lookning etc... at the sun (at any time, for how ever long) is called 'sungazing'.

two of the sources you provided have some relevant information, the rest simply state some one stared at the sun for an hour at 3 pm. what does that have to do with the "practise" of sungazing? i would like to ask you to show me sources saying that staring at the sun at noon is called "sungazing" (as opposed to "recreating a miracle")

J929 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Swami Sivananda, in the source you cite, does not say to look into the sun. Quoth the Swami:
 * "'The Sun: Sun-bath in the morning sun for 10 to 20 minutes supplies us with much energy and purifies the body. Work in the open air outside is good but it is not possible for all when in this age of machines, most of the work goes on in mills, factories and offices. In old times there were open air schools. Most people were living in huts or houses which had roofs of tiles. In the olden times living was more natural. Now it has become most artificial. Nowadays house-problem has become very acute and most people have to live in crowded houses which are neither airy nor sunny. Surya Namaskars done in the open air are very useful to health.'"
 * Nothing about sungazing. Skinwalker (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

the practise of sungazing does include the same practise, sunbathing in low UV levels. there is more to "sungazing" than staring the sun for an hour at 3 pm.

J929 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I Posted large amounts of content....
Defending sungazing, an criticizing the neutrality of the article, however when I read it more carefully and saw it was a topic of controversy, I felt compelled to delete it. Oh well no harm done; I just need to point out, regarding the "eye damage" part, is that the scientific evidence does not mention what time of the day the people were looking at the sun. When the UV index is below 2, its perfectly safe, it won't cause blindness or anything.

The article needs to point what time of day said people looked at the sun because time of day DOES matter. The article is written, like the sun is bad for you at ANY time of the day, even when the UV index is below 2. The practice of sungazing should probably answer to a scientific study though; have one group that does it, another group that does not do it, and after only 1 month of sungazing, by which point any damage done (if any) would be reversible, test and see what group is healthier.

Dismissing it as quackery though, right off the bat, is like not letting a teenager onto a high school's varsity basketball team without first letting them even try out. Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't sportsmanship and fair play demand a "lets see what you got" proof, before you judge someone's athletic skill? At my own high school, the coaches were real douchebags; I always overheard people complain, how they did not even let them try out at all, they just looked at them and said "sorry, but you're not in varsity." they would not let them shoot, dribble, the coaches did not bother to even look at the skills first. I am seeing similar unfairness both in the article, and the comments section; you are all acting like coaches, who won't even let someone show what they have first. If a person can't dribble, pass and shoot worth a damn, hey, fine, they are not cut out for basketball, at least you bothered to see what they had, but to just look at someone and say "sorry, you can't play" that's just messed up man.

I'm seeing a lot of "douchebag coaches" here. Just making a common sense point, jumping to conclusions about something or someone, without letting them prove themselves first, is not cool. If you want people to hate you, if you want few if any friends, if you want to be seen as an arrogant piece of crap and a worthless snob, by all means, look at someone and say "oh, he sucks at video games," without seeing any proof. Again my high school, had a lot of asshole coaches.

Quackery and charlatanery needs to be exposed, but if you are going to expose it, please do so using history, and fair science, by fair science I mean as to why sungazing would be beneficial. I need to point out that sungazing WAS practiced in ancient times, all over the world. Indeed, the statues on Easter Island, the famous Moai, seem to sungaze. Modern science dismisses too much, and tests too little, hence, much beneficial ancient knowledge is lost. For god's sake don't be "douchebag coaches."

67.148.120.94 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

i agree the article should point out relevant parts of the practise in order to differiantate it from staring at the sun at 3 pm without any previous experience.

"safe times" are one of the precautions mentioned by every sungazing technique.

otherwise it appears as "quackery".

J929 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said that. Several times.  Please do inform us if you ever find a reliable source for your assertions about the safety of sungazing.  Until then we are at an impasse.  Skinwalker (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific studies
Sungazing needs heavy editing per WP:REDFLAG: If a person is tested by NASA and found to survive 130 days without any food, we would expect to hear a lot of news about it, and scientists would be receiving research grants to study the amazing phenomenon. Instead, the only information available consists of totally unreliable sources and forums repeating the core claim (or denouncing it). There is no verification apart from one spacedaily puff piece which relies on an unspecified "report" in the Hindustan Times newspaper. This is not an acceptable source for an extraordinary claim, and all mention of NASA should be removed from the article (which is about sungazing and not about claims made by one individual). The archive of "We have no record of Manek: NASA" at mid-day.com is here, which (by WP:REDFLAG) is the source Wikipedia should rely on (and since this article is not about some controversy, there should be no mention of the NASA claim in this article).

I recommend simply deleting the second paragraph of the section because a section on scientific studies cannot quote completely unsupported claims made by someone with no scientific qualifications on their self-published web site. The current paragraph would only be suitable in an article about "claims made on a web site". Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a fringe theory. I don't think anyone is going to be terribly misled by the fringe source.  Other than tossing the content, how could it be updated so that you would not object to its inclusion?-  Sinneed  09:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manek claims on his website should be sufficient for most of it, but I agree that the NASA bit can go unless a better source turns up. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is no scientific evidence that sungazing provides health benefits." - wp:OR - This needs a source, in the purest sense. While I believe it, if it needs to be in the article, we need to ref to a learned source that says that there is no scientific...etc.- Sinneed  21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The laws of physics and biology as we know it make it impossible for sungazing to provide nourishment. I think "There is no scientific evidence that sungazing provides health benefits." is probably ok per wp:fringe, wp:weight and wp:IAR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Neutrality
The comment with the neutrality was removed today, which reminded me the flag was still there. I support removal of the flag. If there are no objections, I will pull it.- Sinneed  19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still object to removing the neutrality tag. The article has improved substantially, largely due to your efforts.  However, I am opposed to any statement in the article that instructs people on "safe ways" or "proponents' ways" of sungazing.  The sentence in the lede, "Proponents suggest sungazing within an hour[3] or 2 hours[4] of sunrise or sunset" needs to go.  It violates WP:NOTHOWTO and is sourced to completely unreliable sources (namely, integrativehealthcare.net and HRM).  If that sentence is removed, I will support removing the tag.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the not-how-to argument convincing, but I don't see how it has anything to do with POV.- Sinneed  04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Our mommies have already told us that staring at the sun is dangerous. This article is supposed to be about the practice of sungazing. It's certainly reasonable to include a disclaimer or dangers section, but the present article has shifted from the fringe POV to fear-mongering. To put things into perspective: most of us would suffer less damage from looking at the sun for a couple of minutes than from playing pro football for the same duration. Should every-other sentence in football also be a warning or a citation of injuries that "have been reported"? Perhaps the neutrality flag should be a permanent part of this article. Maghnus (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at this with fresh eyes after a few months, I see some merit again to that concern, as I had before. I have dropped some of the duplication, and moved Hira out of the lead, it seems to me to be a bit advertisingish for him.  Left him in the body.  Dropped the studies section, it seemed entirely redundant.  The lead now has 2 sentences, each representing the chunk in the body. The "hammering" is, I think, reduced.-  Sinneed  20:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SteadyHealth Blog
I killed this, as it was in the lead, suggesting possibly it might be used in the body. However, it is a blog. Anyone can post anything, and once it has "enough" votes (3 appears to be enough), it is published as "news". This won't make it as wp:RS. So, please don't add it to the body, after all.- Sinneed  19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned new section
How disappointing. Most of the article that I wrote in 2007 remained until September 2009, when Skinwalker basically scrapped most of it. I of course did expect that a lot of it would be modified, but it's unfortunate that it has been so greatly trimmed. I tried to give a very balance perspective on the subject but it seems that recent editing is almost entirly one-sided and does not do the subject justice. It is unfortunate that knowledge is increasingly being edited, such that "fringe" points of view are simply silenced through omission.

I already did a fair amount of work to put together a previous version of the sungazing page. I doubt I will do so again, and I'm not going to roll back to my version since it has its own flaws, so I would not be surprised if the page remains unbalanced into the forseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconian (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a balanced version of this article. With wp:FRINGE topics it is very hard.-  Sinneed  03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

how to
relevant information to distinguish the "practise" (as the article itself calls it) doesnt mean it is a 'how to'. safety precautions taken by sungazers is not a 'how to'...

for 'how to' check out these articles and the information presented... more "how to" than safety precautions....


 * Five_Tibetan_Rites
 * Vipassanā

(first, we practice tranquility; then we practice insight; and then we bring the two together... etc)
 * Hatha_yoga

(description or how to? -- Hatha yoga attempts to balance mind and body via physical postures or "asanas", purification practices, controlled breathing, and the calming of the mind through relaxation and meditation--?

sungazing is practised in low level UV. that is a fact, not a 'how to'... J929 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a wp:RS that says so. We have 2 unqualified websites that suggest it be done then... not defining it.-  Sinneed  16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If these are the best sites available, I will be happy to take them to wp:RSN to seek community support for including them.- Sinneed  16:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps best to remove mention of low UV while sites haven't been accepted as WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the content, as I have removed it previously, but I myself am not taking it out again immediately, as a gesture of respect to the opinions of the editor who so-strenuously objected to my removal.- Sinneed  17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How was UV measured during sungazing?Autarch (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, what is the relevance? Even accepting the UV as lower, is that better?-  Sinneed  17:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent due to complexity) Neither of these 2 sites (they are copies of one another, largely) define sungazing. They do explain how to gaze at the sun "safely" according to the sites... but the sites also specifically say that the practice was developed by trial and error of 1 man, and that sungazing has been going on since long before. "After working on this method for 3 years, he was able to re-discover the secrets of sun gazing. During his study, he was mainly inspired from the teachings of Lord Mahavir of Jains, who was also practicing this method two thousand and six hundred years ago. Other inspirations for sungazing came from ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Native Americans." from the Solar Healing Center link. "After working on this method for 3 years, he was able to re-discover the secrets of sun gazing. During his study, he was mainly inspired from the teachings of Lord Mahavir of Jains, who was also practicing this method two thousand and six hundred years ago. Other inspirations for sungazing came from ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Native Americans." from the INTEGRATIVE HEALTH CARE link.

Since the ancients had no knowledge of ultraviolet, defining sungazing in terms of low UV is certainly not appropriate. If there is text that defines sungazing, please quote it. All I can find is "how to" instructions for this single individual's method... and specific declaration that this is self-taught, trial-and-error by a single individual, with that individual's personal assurances that no harm will come and good results will.- Sinneed  21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sinneed's analysis. This topic has in fact been discussed multiple times at WP:RSN, each time yielding a consensus that J929's sources are unreliable.  Skinwalker (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, glad I didn't open a new issue. Dropped the content.  When "what is sungazing" content is sourced to generally wp:reliable sources it should be included.-  Sinneed  23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hira Ratan Manek
This paragraph was trimmed - it seemed to breach WP:UNDUE.Autarch (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ddf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.221.253 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?
The issues raised here regarding article neutrality seem to have been addressed at some point in the last year. Would anybody object were I to remove the neutrality tag? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. Skinwalker (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Necessity of bates information
In perfect sight without glasses bates disproves any damage of eyesight by sunlight in exquisite detail and is absolutely essential to include =- rather than tearing all perspectives apart include all perspectives including bates study -  sungazing has nothing to do with 1 hour of sunrise or sunset many do it at  noon - vast information needed about historical sungazers and modern day  ideas - bates method can be contrasted but it is one of the best studies on the non danger of sunlight -  the book is mandatory reading material. --- previous version is bare and dry and malnourished and has essentially no useful information except on one side - combine all previous entries with new entries and fuse to show both spectrum, bates book is necessary reading material for any one thinking light is harmful for eyes,   person writing entry must be a novice or not even practice sungazing in which case is not an expert on sungazing -  does not even include any historical references to any of the sungazers of human history, or HRM or etc -  * summary * fuse Bates study disproving sunlight damage with whatever other studies exist, the bates work is very important - it is not not true just because someone that hasn't  investigated it says so.

bates conducted methodology both on animals and humans to disprove the notion that sunlight is dangerous explaining what it DOES to the eyes and how that can be corrected. this is necessary information and must be paired with the other information and given equal space while the wording can become more objective if need be it cannot be removed. saying sunlight is dangerous when its been proven not to be is not good - research it more - fuse perspectives - be  objective as possible -  -- IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE WE NEED MORE EXPERIMENTS DONE we need to investigate without bias everything Bates did and so bates has a counter balance, A STRONG one  to a lot of absurd claims against his findings. as he has done the work with real people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun40pineapplekrishna (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NOT DANGEROUS
I have looked many many many times for long periods of time, and i have the same vision now as before The "RESEARCH" you point to in references, that says that it is "DANGEROUS" says the following ''Abstract Retinal damage caused by direct exposure to the sun's rays is well recognized by the ophthalmic community. Although functional ability in solar retinopathy is usually regained within weeks, some suffer long-term visual impairment. Anatomic damage to the retina, even in those who regain full vision, is permanent. We describe 2 cases of solar retinopathy, 1 of which remained with permanent loss of vision. The role of medical education in preventing damage from solar retinal hazards is stressed.'' ONE CASE OF PERMANENT LOSS OF VISION. does this mean that BILLIONS of BILLIONS of humans and other species are doing a dangerous thing??

I think not! So Change this article, or I will do it. please remove all parts implying that sungazing is "dangerous" OR change it to "MAY BE dangerous", OR KEEP IT, IF and only IF you see fit that one single recorded case in the references overweighs the truth of that most of 7 billions of humans live in daylight and many of them look into the sun, for different periods of time, for different reasons, every day of every year since we had eyes

You are obligated to prove that it is dangerous, if you claim it to be so. And by wiki standards you have to prove it with referenced research.

And trying to put guidelines like "look between this and this many minutes or seconds at the sun" like doctors do with medicine ?? PLEASE..... 78.188.203.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Please do not use Wikipedia to post personal opinions (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX). Articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and any changes need to be based on such sources. Per WP:REDFLAG, it is up to anyone claiming that it is safe to stare at the sun to produce multiple highly reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources themselves say it is dangerous, yes, but they do not provide the statistical proof for it. When writing articles here on wikipedia, are you supposed to evaluate the data of the sources, or copy paste the evaluation of sources that have no proof of statistical danger? Most people regain their normal eyesight, so how can this be translated into DANGEROUS and not CAN BE DANGEROUS ? BTW I may have misread the sources, but i could not find the reason for the declaration of this being dangerous, where is the statistics proving the claim on this article that says "sungazing is dangerous"? CARS kill humans and animals all the time, do you see a sentence in the article for cars saying DRIVING CARS IS DANGEROUS ? and there are statistics proving that cars are dangerous.. 85.101.222.106 (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:TPG. This page is to discuss improvements to the article that are based on policies (see WP:5P for an overview), and should not be used merely to post personal opinions on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * please stop repeating like a broken record, my personal opinion is irrelevant, where is YOUR proof that sungazing is dangerous? 88.233.114.208 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP is not about proving truth or falsehood,(Which WP cannot assess) it is about what is or is not contained in the wp:reliable sources (which does not mean the sources are CORRECT, only that they meet the guidelines). The article is cited to sources that appear to meet the guidelines.  If you hope to add content, I would encourage you to focus on the content you want to add to the article, and finding sources that will meet the RS guideline that support it.  Otherwise, there is very little chance of your content remaining part of the project.Shajure (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "most eye professionals advise..."
I'm removing the sentence "Most eye care professionals advise patients to avoid looking directly at the sun", which cited this HPA document as a source. While the Advisory Broup includes information that certainly discourages looking at the sun and other bright light sources, it doesn't include any survey information of what advice eye care professionals provide. To make that statement, another source is needed, or if this source is going to be used, the sentence should probably begin with "The Advisory Board of the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board states/recommends/advises...", and end with a statement or recommendation that accurately paraphrases statements or recommendations of the Board. The following paragraph includes some likely candidates:

"There is good evidence that prolonged gazing at very bright light sources, particularly those emitting shorter wavelength blue light, causes retinal damage resulting in transient or permanent loss of visual acuity. Staring at the sun can damage the retina permanently. Such an effect would normally be prevented by the natural aversion response invoked by looking at a bright light, but this response can be intentionally suppressed. Similar damage has also been induced in the non-human primate retina following acute exposure, particularly to blue light. It is not clear to what extent UVA is involved as its transmission through the lens is low in adults but is higher in children."

The "cite template" used for the reference, which included a dead link I'm correcting here, was:

--Agyle (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "opthalmologists do not regard the method as useful"
I'm removing the phrase about the Bates method, which included the statement "Ophthalmologists do not regard the method as useful", which cited an essay by Optometrist Brian Chou on what eye care providers could tell patients about various alternative medical practices. It did not provide any judgment about the method, it simply described it, and it said nothing about ophthalmologists or usefulness. While I think most opthalmologists would agree it's a dangerous, bullshit practice, statements like that in Wikipedia must be verifiable (see WP:V) through reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "at sunrise" from photo caption
The photo caption was "Man sungazing at sunrise", based on the photographer's description, but the sun seems to be several degrees over the horizon. Perhaps it's an optical illusion, and that's a reflection off something else in the sky, but if not, then the term "sunrise" seems misapplied. After the sun is off the horizon, it's past sunrise. I'm removing the "at sunrise" part of the caption; if you think I'm misinterpreting the term, or if that isn't the sun in the sky, feel free to revert and discuss. Agyle (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues related to recent revert
With reference to this revert, I've attempted to address those issues and have reformulated the article more clearly now. Please let me know what you think. Sebastian Garth (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

More macabre references to "sungazing"
I don't know if such references have any place here, but the damage that can be caused by looking directly at the sun has been put to use in wartime and also in literature. When the Germans captured the Greek city of Thessaloniki in 1941, local Jewish men were allegedly forced to stare at the midday sun for a long time - those who blinked or looked away were severely beaten, often to death. Several of the survivors suffered attacks of epilepsy and meningitis soon after this ordeal. And the same treatment is said to have been meted out by Tito's partisans to Yugoslav collaborators who had escaped to Austria with the retreating German army but were handed back by the British to the partisans under false pretences. Finally, the author J. G. Ballard wrote a short story about a man whose eyes had been bandaged after an operation and who, in his enforced darkness, experienced visions of an exceptionally beautiful woman that kept reaching out to him. When the bandages were eventually removed, he was so dismayed that he deliberately stared at the midday sun long enough to destroy his sight, in the hope that the lost visions would return.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's a good example for this article. You're talking about intentional torture; this article is about the medical quackery of sungazing as a healthy activity. I suppose it could possibly be mentioned as an illustration of dangers of sungazing, but it's not exactly a parallel example. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)