Training & Nutrition - Solar Gazing... Anyone try it?

Anyone try it?

This is the instructions.

http://www.solarhealing.com/sgprocess.htm

There are also Youtubes from the author HRM

Can you say sun related macular degeration (http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20040510/sun-eyes)?

Can you say sun related macular degeration (http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20040510/sun-eyes)?

Can you say "read the article before commenting".

It says in the article I posted, that you do it when the UV index is 2 or less which = within 1 hour of sunrise or sunset.

Maybe you should try becoming a Breatharian (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/breatharian.htm).

I read both articles.

I'm going to keep eating food and drinking water.

It seems so much easier and more natural than staring at the sun.

If I only live to be 100, so be it.

pseudo-science ≠ science

:roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:

Hello

I have not tried this thank you for turning us onto it I want to try it, have you heard of healing with sound by operating from the perfect circle of sound which is 528Hz frequency Here are some interesting you tube videos about research on the perfect circle of sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu9n5w9h69k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZltcnTVlgRw&feature=related

cheers
Johnny

pseudo-science ≠ science

Actually on this link;
http://www.solarhealing.com/about.htm
he discusses how he was observed by a team of doctors for 411 days. Here is an excerpt;

"Since June 18th, 1995, HRM has and continues to live only on sun energy and water. Occasionally, for hospitality and social purposes, he drinks tea, coffee and buttermilk. Until now, he had three strict fastings, during which he had just sun energy and only water and was under the control and observation of various science and medical teams.

The first of these fasting lasted for 211 days during 1995-96 in Calicut, India directed by Dr. C.K. Ramachandran, a medical expert on allopathy and ayurvedic medicine.

This was followed by a 411 day fast from 2000-2001 in Ahmedabad, India directed by an International team of 21 medical doctors and scientists led by Dr. Sudhir Shah (Dr. Shah's synopsis report) and Dr. K. K. Shah, the acting President of Indian Medical Association at that time. Dr. Maurie D. Pressman, MD also describes his experience with HRM in an article he wrote and later joined the team for the next observation on HRM.

After the excitement of the findings at Ahmadabad, HRM was invited to Thomas Jefferson University and University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia where he underwent a 130 day observation period. This Science/Medical Team wanted to observe and examine his retina, pineal gland and brain, therefore this observation team was led by Dr. Andrew B. Newberg, a leading authority on the brain and also featured in the recent movie "What the Bleep Do We Know", and by Dr. George C. Brenard, the leading authority on the pineal gland. Initial results found that the gray cells in HRM's brain are regenerating. 700 photographs have been taken where the neurons were reported to be active and not dying. Furthermore, the pineal gland was expanding and not shrinking which is typically what happens after mid fifties and its maximum average size is about 6 x 6 mm, however for HRM, it has been measured to be at 8 x 11 mm."

I love it when "Dr." Horowitz says we would be "using the 95% of our brains that the experts tell us we are not using" – only people who go for this gunk are not using 95% of their brains, the people that do know it is utter hokum.

Dr. Andrew Newburg appears to come from a viewpoint that pre-disposes him to accept this gunk: clicky (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/)

I'd like to know if the results of the "teams" findings have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

EDIT: Dr. Pressman also falls into the category of NON-objective observer: clicky (http://www.mauriepressman.com/)

Hehe, you gotta love what you find when you actually start looking for reliable sourcing on woo like this, at the website linked to above in post #9 (http://www.solarhealing.com/about.htm) there is a link to a .pdf listing a meeting agenda and the "medical team" (http://www.solarhealing.com/HRM%20Panel%20Discussion%20020929.pdf).

Here's Dr. Newberg's listing (look at the .pdf so you can see I did not change the wording):


6. Andrew Newberg (M.D. Brain Imaging Expert): Dr. Newberg is faculty member in the Department of
Radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and is expert in Brain Imaging particularly
with SPECT and PET analyses and a staff physician in Nuclear Medicine. He is also renowned
author of “Why God Won’t Go Away” and faulty member of University of Pennsylvania Medical
School.

Somehow, the person creating the .pdf felt compelled to tell the truth.

I love it when "Dr." Horowitz says we would be "using the 95% of our brains that the experts tell us we are not using" – only people who go for this gunk are not using 95% of their brains, the people that do know it is utter hokum.

The good "Doctor" is wrong-o about that "brain we aren't using" hokum too.


People do not use only ten percent of their brains. This myth is thought by some to have emerged after the discovery of glial cells in the brain, or it could have been the result of some other misunderstood or misinterpreted legitimate scientific findings, or even been the result of speculation by self-help gurus. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at one time, the inactive neurons are important too.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_misconceptions


more: http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

The good "Doctor" is wrong-o about that "brain we aren't using" hokum too.


:: cough :: That's pretty much what I said in my post. :: cough ::

Dr. Andrew Newburg appears to come from a viewpoint that pre-disposes him to accept this gunk: clicky (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/)

I'd like to know if the results of the "teams" findings have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

Rusto,
The post is on Solar Gazing, not your brilliant opinions on whether there is a God.

But since you raised the point,:lol: a friend of mine was involved with the repeat of a study done on meditators back in the 70's/80 and published in peer review journals. The study was very simple and repeatable and was done by the daughter of a MD friend of mine who managed to get her access to an EEG machine for her high school science/biology project.

They hooked up an EEG (electroencephalogram) to two people; a meditator and a non-meditator. The meditator simply meditated while the other person sat quietly with eyes closed and relaxed.

When you see the videotape it is very easy to see the difference. The meditator's brain hemispheres worked in perfect unison. The left side fires simultaneous with the right side, indicating coherent functioning. In other words when a message was sent to the brain say from the eyes, indicating that they are in need of the lids to move, the right side flicks and then the left side flicks (on the EEG) virtually simultaneously, ie coherently, whereas with the non-meditator there is a very perceptible lag in the transmission of the signal from the left hemisphere to the right indicating incoherent functioning.

:: cough :: That's pretty much what I said in my post. :: cough ::

Nuh uh! I posted it first, even though your post came up first!

You obviously have not been eating enough sunshine, you ten-percenter, you. You... you... food-eater!

Wow, that's neat! How did you quote my post BEFORE I posted it? I must know your secret!

I do not have an opinion about whether there is a God - it is unprovable. I do have an opinion about those that think that it is.

Oh, and anecdotal evidence is not evidence - your EEG story is anecdotal and not convincing.

The good "Doctor" is wrong-o about that "brain we aren't using" hokum too.

more: http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html

Spike the topic is Solar Gazing..... Since when is Wackipedia a reliable peer reviewed source of anything but opinions of the opinionated of which we are all to a certain degree. Who gives a darn if we use 10% of our brains. Anybody can log into Wackipedia and modify it to say whatever they like. Look at the rules of Wackipedia.

Rusto, your signature says it all;

"Don’t wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it". - Robert A. Heinlein

Wow, that's neat! How did you quote my post BEFORE I posted it? I must know your secret!

To know my secret, you must look deeply into the sun, my son.



Hey, it's breakfast time! I'm going to have some sunny side up sunrays, and wash it down with some sunny delight sunrays (because, you know, a day without sunshine is like a day without orange juice).

Rusto, your signature says it all;

"Don’t wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it". - Robert A. Heinlein

Took you a while.

Look, you started the thread with the question, "Anyone try it?" as if you yourself might be skeptical of what is claimed.

I am trying to convince you that it's not even worth trying - spend the time you might waste staring at the sun on your bike.

What would it take to convince you that this is baloney? Is there anything?

go ahead and stare at the sun... you are a freaking idiot. there is no such thing
as safe hours.


this is all 300% bunk. the world is full of morons and the internet allows morons to make
web sites to lure other morons in for a slap-happy-******-fest. this is one of those times.

Rusto,

:lol:Well I gotta say, you almost got me going... :lol:

Truth is, I had heard about this from someone I trusted, (long story) so I decided to try it with a friend. I subsequently heard about another person I knew who tried it. I haven't spoken to the third person but I personally am up to 3 minutes (18 days)

I have noticed a reduction in desire for food, so I eat less. Not a whole lot less, as I am a bit of a glutton anyways. :) I have also reduced my reading glasses from 1.25 to 1.0 . I do not need glasses, but on my last medical (two days ago) my distance vision (Snellen chart) is back to what it was a few years ago. I can read the bottom line.

My SO can use the glasses prescription that she used a few years ago again. This would have given her headaches before.

My other friend is up to 13 minutes, but I haven't spoken to him about results. He is a medical professional.

Just for the record I neither know nor care about this topic, but there are lots of books on people who have regular lives with large sections of their brains missing. I am not certain, but I think there are a lot of undiagnosed people like that running around.:lol:

In case anyone is considering doing this without following the instructions in the link, :eek:
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DO THIS IN THE TIME FRAME OTHER THAN IN THE INSTRUCTION, BECAUSE UV CAN DO SERIOUS DAMAGE TO YOUR EYES.
ALSO IT IS IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY TO GET THE PROPER RESULTS.

...
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DO THIS IN THE TIME FRAME OTHER THAN IN THE INSTRUCTION, BECAUSE UV CAN DO SERIOUS DAMAGE TO YOUR EYES.
...

That's all well and good for people who only eat sun for breakfast and dinner. What if you get hungry for a man-sized portion of sun at lunch?

solar gazing debunked by former chair of AMA: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI&NR=1&feature=fvwp)

Clancy98,

Link no good. unless the chair of the AMA is Rick Astley.

Irregardless must be a word because you used it...

That's all well and good for people who only eat sun for breakfast and dinner. What if you get hungry for a man-sized portion of sun at lunch?

Spike,

I'll turn a blind eye to that comment..... :D

I see where this is going...:innocent:

Clancy98,

Link no good. unless the chair of the AMA is Rick Astley.

Irregardless must be a word because you used it...

No, that is the link I provided.

And I don't see where I used irregardless, but maybe your vision is going from staring at the sun.

No, that is the link I provided.

And I don't see where I used irregardless, but maybe your vision is going from staring at the sun.

Your signature says;

"Irregardless is not a word, and you do not sound more intelligent using it."

Your signature says;

"Irregardless is not a word, and you do not sound more intelligent using it."

yes, and?