Talk:Sungazing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

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)

Contents 1 Removed material 2 What? 3 humans produce carbon dioxide 4 Wikipedia editors are way too mild when handling quackery 5 Sun gazed 6 "Scientific Background" is botched 7 Biased viewpoint 8 Sungazing is done by many but they are all experimenting 9 Sungazing Article Rewrite

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] "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)

LOL LOL LOL I upset the troll, lets see if I can upset him some more ;) --Giles Bathgate

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 [1] 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 [2], which included text from an article, and a link [3]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)